MOTIVATION: A MEDIATOR 0F VALUE CONSENSUS, TRAIT COMPATIBILITY. AND ADJUSTMENT IN MARITAL DYADS Them Ior IIIo Degree oI M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Gregory Evans Price I976 THESIS IllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHlllllIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIHI 3 1293 10479 6978 r c A. ,‘E "-vm—._-_.“ ABSTRACT MOTIVATION: A MEDIATOR OF VALUE CONSENSUS, TRAIT COMPATIBILITY, AND ADJUSIMENT IN MARITAL DYADS By Gregory Evans Price ' The present study investigated the role played by level of motivation-- specifically, the level of concern.with self-esteem—-in the mate-selection process, as well as the effects of motivation upon marital adjustment. Additionally, the study attempted to explore the relationship between certain personality traits and the effects of motivation upon these relationships. Fifty-two married couples residing in the married student housing complex at Michigan State University served as subjects. Each couple met the following criteria: 1) Caucasian; 2) American; 3) Married two years or less; and 4) Childless. Subjects were assembled for a single testing session; they were closely monitored to guard against husband— wife collaboration, as both spouses were required to complete all forms. Four instruments were employed in the study: (1) to measure motivation level, the Aronoff Sentence Completion Test (1971) was used; (2) to measure values the Allport-Vernon-Lindsay‘§£ggyug§_!glggg_(1960) was employed; (3) three traits-~Dominance, Sociability, and Responsibility-- were studied. One hundred and ten relevant items were selected from the California Personality Inventory (Cough, 1957), and these were labeled the Price Opinion Questionnaire; (4) to measure marital adjustment the Locke- wallace Short Test For Marital Adjustment (1959) was used. Gregory Evans Price The following predictions were made: (1) Couples in which the husband was esteem-motivated would show less value consensus than couples in which the husband was safety—motivated, regardless of the wife's level of motivation; (2) High self-esteem couples would show negligible similarity on any of the traits investigated, while low self-esteem couples would show various degrees of relatedness on these traits. Three sub-hypotheses tested here were (2a) Low self-esteem couples would display a complementary relationship on the trait Dominance, (2b) on the trait Responsibility, and (2c), Low self-esteem couples will show greater similarity on the trait Sociability; (3) It also was predicted that more adjusted couples would tend to have higher esteem scores than the less adjusted couples, and (4) That less adjusted couples would tend to have higher safety scores than would more adjusted couples. The results revealed that the first hypothesis received marginal support; a one-tailed comparison, as suggested by Winer (1971), was conducted and reached significance (p.< .05). Hypotheses 2a-2c did not receive substantiation. Hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported (2_< .01). The results were discussed within the framework of the study as well as mate-selection literature. The investigation of the effects of motivation as a mediator of these processes were stressed, and some lines of future research in this area were suggested. Approved an] flimsy Date ELL. x77, 4?; , Thesis Committee: Joel Aronoff, Chairman Lawrence Messé Andrew Barclay MOTIVATION: A MEDIATOR OF VALUE CONSENSUS, TRAIT COMPATIBILITY, AND ADJUSTMENT IN MARITAL DYADS By Gregory Evans Price A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1976 To my Precious Black Pearl Julianne And Our Handsome Man-Child Gregory Antoine Lovingly ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express sincere appreciation to everyone who have contributed to the completion of this thesis, either through guidance and research expertise, or just as important,through much-needed moral support. There are several individuals I wish to acknowledge further. I wish to express appreciation to seven hard-working, diligent people, five of whom served as research assistants to this study: Keith Shaw, Melba walker, Maryjo Sekelsky, Dave Bryant, and Robert Corso. Also, I wish to thank Ken Celmer and Nancy cutterman for providing their time and skills at scoring the Sentence Completion Test; without their unselfish aide this project might still be incomplete. I want to express my gratitude to Dr. Joel Aronoff, not only for serving as my thesis chairman but for sharing his knowledge of personality as well. Thanks must be given to Dr. "Andy" Barclay, for providing initial support of this thesis when it was in its formative stage and for continuously expressing faith in my ability to complete the task. My deepest appreciation is given to Dr. Lawrence Messe' for his guidance, expertise, expressed faith in my ability, and most of all his friendship which I have come to cherish highly. Finally, I cannot state the depth of appreciation felt for that group of brothers, past and present, who have come to be known affection- ately as the Baker Hall "Experience." 111 A SPECIAL DEDICATION This thesis is especially dedicated to two Black Sisters: To Sis. Doris P. Mbsby (Ph.D.), whose insight, guidance, and most importantly friendship provided me the strength to overcome obstacles, imposed from without as well as from.within, and To Sis. Charlotte Elaine Price, whose love, patience, and under- standing rekindled the flame of self-motivation and perseverance at a moment when that flame had all but been extinguished. Thank you for having touched my life. iv A continuing interest in family reso=rch has been the attempt to define the factors which lead to a lasting relationship between a man and a woman. Two major concerns in this area have been, first, the process by which mates are chosen, and, secondly, the characteristics of these mates that are predictive of marital success. No definitive conclusions have yet been reached in either area. That such a state of affairs exists in the realm of mate—selection research is not due to a lack of research; to the contrary, such research is voluminous (e.g., Lewis, 1973; Karp, Jackson, & Lester, 1970; Inselberg, 1964; Levinger, 1965; Udry, 1965). The problem lies in the fact that there has been little inclination on the part of researchers to support any of the theories put forward, with the possible exception of the authors of the theories themselves. One theory of mate-selection, which, perhaps, has received the greatest attention over the past two decades, has been that of Robert Winch and his associates (Winch, 1954; Winch, Ktsanes & Ktsanes, 1954; Winch, 1957). The theory of motivation Winch used was a modification of H. A. Murray's need scheme. The theory states, in part, that in the American middle class: ...each individual seeks his or her field of eligibles (i.e., those persons sociometrically similar) for that person who gives the greatest promise of providing him or her with maximum need gratifi- cation (Ktsanes, 1955, p. 547). Maximum need gratification was defined as occurring between two persons whose need patterns are different rather than similar, and that the difference be of a complementary nature rather than random. Winch postulated that when two persons, A and B, are interacting, the resulting gratification of both can be viewed as complementary if either of the following conditions are satisfied: l) The need or needs in A.which are being gratified are different _i_n Lind from the need or needs in B, or 2) The need or needs in A which are being gratified are digfggggg_ ig_intensity from the same need being gratified in B (Winch, 1954). In this study Winch employed three sources of data concerning each spouse: (a) An interview structured to elicit evidence on his/her needs-- designated a "need interview." (b) A case history interview. (c) An eight card thematic apperception test (TAT). For these three sets of data the following five sets of ratings were derived for each subject on each need: (a) Content analysis of the need interview. Bach subject's response to each question in the interview was analyzed to determine which need or needs it related to. Then it was rated. This rating on a variable (need) was the mean of the ratings assigned to individual response. (b) Holistic analysis of the need interview. .A statement of the dynamics of the individual's personality was prepared on the basis of the inter- view considered as a whole. From this picture of the subject the analyst assigned ratings for each subject on each need. (c) Holistic analysis of the case history. The same procedure as outlined in (b) was applied to the case history interview. (d) Holistic analysis of the TAT. A similar procedure outlined in (b) was employed with the TAT, except that the statements of dynamics were criticized in a clinical conference and the ratings were produced by the clinical conference. (e) Holistic view of a final conference. A five—person conference deliberated on the three statements of dynamics referred to in (b), (c), and (d) above, and then produced consensual ratings (Winch, 1955, p. 552). With a correlation of .34 and .46 used to indicate significance at the .05 and .01 levels, respectively, Winch found of 388 correlations only 63 significant at the .05 level and 28 significant at the .01 level; however, 221 of the 388 correlations were found in the hypothesized direction. It was on the basis of these data that Winch concluded that people tend to select mates on the basis of complementarity of needs. These results are not very convincing to the present author, nor to other researchers in this field. One of the first serious critiques of the study by Winch was produced by Rosow (1957). In it, he pointed out several weaknesses of the theory: (1) Winch's statement of the theory did not make it clear at what level the needs were hypothesized to be operative; that is, whether at the overt or behavioral level, or at some covert or even the unconscious level; (2) Another problem concerns the locus of gratification. By locus of gratification Rosow was raising the question of what happens to the expression of a need within the marriage if the person is receiving gratification of this need outside the marriage, or (even more importantly) if gratification of that need is being frustrated outside the marriage. The most important criticism stated by Rosow is that the theory does not provide criteria for determining which needs are complementary. Winch has since concurred with these criticisms (Winch, 1967). Other researchers (Bowerman & Day, 1956; Goodman, 1964) have questioned Winch on methodology rather than results. Bowerman and Day (1956) attempted to test the theory of complementarity of needs. Their rationale was that if the influence of need patterns on mate-selection is the focus of study, a married sample presents the problem of determining whether the need patterns have changed as a result of marriage. A second problem seen was that of obtaining a demonstrably valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of needs. Winch did not report reliability data on the judges he employed. Bowerman and Day eliminated this problem by using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (BPPS). The variables on the BPPS, just as those used by Winch, were based in part on.Murray's definition and classification of needs. Their results did not support the theory of need complementarity. The authors concluded: When (these results are) viewed in the same manner, the evidence for complementariness reported by Winch and his associates is not as strong as might be wished. Although 82 percent of their significant correlations were in the hypothesized direction, only 22 percent of all their correlations were significant at the .05 level, and 34 percent of all their correlations were in the direction opposite to that hypothesized, in spite of the fact that they selected the 388 paired need correlations which they believed had the best chance of fitting the theory (Bowerman 5 Day, 1956, p. 605). While there have been numerous investigations producing results inconsistent with.Winch's theory, there have also been studies supportive of this theory. The most prominent of these had been a study by Kerckhoff and Davis" (1962). Actually, what these researchers did was to propose a "filter theory" of mate—selection. Briefly, the procedure called for the enlistment of women students at a large Southern university who were engaged, "pinned," or "seriously attached" to their dating partners. The women filled out an extended questionnaire and gave the names and addresses of their fiancee or boyfriends. This same questionnaire was sent to the men via mail. Pour factors were considered in the analysis. The dependent variable was the degree of movement toward a permanent union between October and May of the following year (i.e., a six~month period). The two inde- pendent measures were (a) the degree of consensus between man and woman on family values, measured by the Farber Index of Values (1957), and (b) the degree of need complementarity, determined by responses to the FIDO-B (Schultz, 1957). Their data suggested that in the initial stages of courtship value similarity was much more important than psychological compatibility. In the advanced stages of courtship, however, the reverse is true, presumably because most of the cases of value incompatibility had already been "filtered" out. Winch (1967) who had seen his earlier formulations of need complementarity sharply criticized, responded to the Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) study thusly: The idea of a sequence or selective process is present in the earlier formulation of the field of eligibles, and of homogamy with respect to the interests and attitudes. Kerckhoff and Davis have provided empirical support for the proposition that such a sequence exists, and have proposed the useful term "filtering" to denote the process (Winch, 1967). It should be noted that the Kerckhoff and Davis study represents the first time that the theory of complementary needs found support from a paper-and-pencil test. For nearly a decade this provocative study was unchallenged and unreplicated. Recently, however, a replication undertaken by Levinger, Sean, and Jorgensen (1970) has shattered the "tidiness" of the Kerckhoff and Davis findings. The instruments used in the earlier study (the Barber Index of Values and the FIDO-B) were found to be less appropriate for subjects in the more recent study, presumably because relationships between youths today develop more rapidly; also, the authors raised the question.whether a relationship leading to marriage, which is a pairing commitment, can be successfully predicted from the reaponses to individual- centered‘measures. Although some researchers continue to investigate simplistic models of mate-selection--the "opposites attract" or the "like marries like" type of theory--other more progressive theorists have faced up to the realities of the matter: that is, that mate-selection is a much more complex process than earlier theorists had envisioned. Goodman (1964) proposed a theory relating degree of self-acceptance and interspousal need structure. Goodman postulated that: 1) Those mates who composed high self-accepting couples are similar in their respective need structures, and 2) Those mates who compose low self-accepting couples are comple- mentary in their respective need structures. Results indicated that the low self-accepting person's need gratification appears to be heavily dependent upon external sources, and therefore sought mates who could provide this gratification and "self-completion" (Goodman, 1964). There was a tendency for high self-accepting couples to have similar needs but these couples indicated greater flexibility with respect to mate-choice than did low self-accepting couples. In addition, the nurturance-receptive dimension of needs was found to play a significant role in the marital relationship, e.g., with low self—accepting couples. In summary, these results appear to indicate not so much a strong relationr ship between degree of expressed self-acceptance and similarity of needs but more so that the degree of self-acceptance may be a determinant of an individual's response to the world (on a dimension of flexibility vs. rigidity). SVR Theory One of the more elaborated theories of mate-selection has been the §!§ theory (Muratein, 1970). Murstein postulated a three-stage theory of marital choice called Stimulus-Value-Role (S23) theory. The three stages refer to the chronological sequence of the development (and mains tenance) of the relationship. Within the three stages, the dynamics of interaction are explained in terms of social-exchange theory. ‘ggg theory holds that in a relatively "free-choice" situation as exists in the United States, most couples pass through three stages before deciding to marry. In a "free-choice" situation an individual may be drawn to another based on his perception of the other's physical, social, mental, or reputational attributes and his perception of his own qualities that might be attractive to the other person. Because initial movement (toward the other) is due primarily to noninteractional cues not dependent on interpersonal interaction, these are categorized as "stimulus" values (Murstein, 1970). In short, the perception of the other comprises the appreciation of all perceptions of the prospective partner, both sensate and nonsensate, which do not necessitate any kind of meaningful interaction. The physical attractiveness of a prospective partner, however, must be considered in the context of two other factors: the self- evaluation of the perceiver as to his attractiveness, and the conceptualization of marital choice as an exchange market phenomenon. Perception of Self As a function of previous experiences individuals build up an image of themselves in terms of their attractiveness to the opposite sex. If they see themselves as highly attractive, they are more likely to approach a highly attractive prospect than if they see themselves as unattractive. In actuality, it may be assumed that each individual's self—concept covers a series of different aspects, and that a person might think of himself or herself as adequate in some aspects and inadequate in others. Another factor postulated as influential in the area of self-perception (also pertinent to mate-selection) is the fear of failure; that is, some individuals will avoid approaching attractive persons because they fear rejection whereas others apparently shrug off repeated rejections by a single person or different individuals (Murstein, 1971). Pre-Harital Bargaining Social exchange theory maintains that each individual tries to make social interactions as profitable as possible; that is, the individual takes into account the assets (i.e., behaviours and qualities which are rewarding) and liabilities (i.e., behaviors and qualities which are non- rewarding and costly) of the prospective partner as well as evaluate the rewards and costs of establishing a relationship with this person. During the first moments of contact, the individual may attempt to supplement his visual impression of the other with information regarding the other's role in society, professional aspirations, and background. Assuming that mutual stimulus attraction has occurred, a young man and woman then enters into what Murstein calls the "value" stage. Unlike the stimulus stage, the value comparison stage involves the appraisal of value compatibility, through verbal interaction. The fact that the couple is now interacting permits closer scrutiny of personal appearance as well as other important things such as temperament, style of perceiving the world, and ability to relate to others. This Opportunity for closer scrutiny may bring about termination of the relationship, or it may enhance the relationship. If the couple find that they hold similar value orientations, they are apt to develop stronger positive feelings for each other than they did during the stimulus stage. The rationale for the above is quite apparent: when an individual encounters another who holds similar values, he gains support for the conclusion that his own values are correct; in short, his views are given consensual validation (Bersheid & Walster, 1969). Further, many values are so intensely personal and are so linked to the self-concept that rejection of one's values may be perceived as rejection of the self just as acceptance of these values are experienced as validation of the self. This point shall be elaborated more thoroughly as it is the main thrust of the present paper. But first, a completion of §!§_theory. Value similarity (as Murstein sees it) is vital to the maintenance of a relationship for two reasons: 1) perceived similarity of values may lead to the assumption that the other likes us; there's evidence to indicate that people tend to like those who like them (Bersheid 6 Walster, 1969); 2) persons who have similar values are more likely to engage in similar activities, thus validating our commitments to those activities (Murstein, 1970). 10 Although value similarity is considered vital to a relationship, it is only a necessary but not sufficient condition for marriage; there must be a sense of role compatibility. A role here is defined as the behavior characteristic and expected of the occupant of a defined pos- ition; in short, it is a norm for a particular relationship and for a particular situation. The role stage and its analysis is limited to three broad areas. These areas are perceived role "fit," personal adequacy, and sexual com— patibility. With the concept of mutually perceived role fit, Muratein takes into account the notion of complementarity. This complementarity, however, is not of personality qualities; it is a complementarity of roles-perceptions, and such a state of "role fitness" is presumed to result in mutual satisfaction and placement of the relationship on a more or less permanent basis. Murstein points out that compatibility of roles (in the quest for shared goals) is more significant to the maintenance of a relationship than whether these roles are homogamous or complementary. The concept of personal adequacy bears a striking resemblance to Goodman's (1964) degree of expressed self-acceptance. Murstein's concept, however, is much more elaborate than that of Goodman; incorporated here is also the concept of level of neuroticism as determined via MMPI profiles. Many of the hypotheses concerning level of self-acceptance proposed by Goodman are also postulated by Murstein. In addition, pos- tulated conditions leading to "good courtship progress" (g2) based on self-acceptance and compatibility of levels of neuroticism. With respect to sexual compatibility Murstein postulates that similarity in sex drive is vital to the maintenance of a relationship. He ll sees discrepancies in male and female sex drive as threatening to role compatibility, and hence, to continuation and growth of the relationship. This is postulated to be particularly true if the sex drive of the female partner is greater than the sex drive of the male partner. Nineteen hypotheses relating to SEE theory were tested empirically and all of the hypotheses received at least moderate support (Murstein, 1970). Some sequence effects were noted, and data indicated that such a sequence of stimulus-value-role does in fact occur, at least with the restricted sample that was used. Though §y§_theory is one of the more elaborated "theories" of mate- selection, close scrutiny reveals weaknesses and raises doubts about the efficacy of the theory to predict marital choice. The main thrust of concern here lies within the concept of the value comparison stage. There is no argument here with the initial stage of Murstein's theory, the stimulus stage: it seems both logical and necessary that Person A, in order to establish a relationship with Person B, must first be made aware that Person B exists. The mechanism "stimulus stage" seems most useful toward the end of permitting Person A into awareness of Person B's eXistence. Murstein postulated that if, during the value comparison stage, a couple finds that they hold similar value orientations, they are apt to develop stronger positive feelings for each other. After presenting a sound rationale for the above Murstein states: "Providing we all have a reasonable positive self-image" we tend to be attracted to those persons validating the "self" via value similarity, and hence, value consensus. A problem arises in that we all do not possess a "reasonable positive self-image." In essence, S23 theory addresses itself only to that portion of the population holding a positive self-image, and, as a theory of 12 mate-selection should be considered incomplete. It would appear that Hurstein, in developing §Z§ theory, failed to consider (or perhaps to incorporate) the differential effects of the "self-concept" on inter— personal attraction. The present author feels that genuine efforts toward developing a comprehensive theory of mate—selection must incor- porate the effects of self-concept. A brief overview of the notion of self-concept is in order. The Self-Concept There are probably as many definitions of self-concept as there are instruments purported to measure it. It is quite possible that Murstein avoided the issue of the self-concept and its effects on attraction because of its vague, elusive nature. Some theorists, however, have ventured to confront the problem initially, by defining self-concept. All definitions of self-concept refer to complex concepts or systems of concepts within a person. In most cases, self-concgpt is defined in terms of one or more of the following senses: l) A person as an entity separated from others is experienced; 2) A sense of being the same person continues over time (i.e., it is temporally stable); 3) Physical characteristics as experienced are included in the concept of self; 4) One's behavior as experienced or remembered are included (i.e., self-perceptions and others-perceptions); 5) A degree of organization or unity among items (personality, behavioral and perceptual characteristics inclusive) within one's conception of self; 6) The conception of self includes a person's evaluations as well as his cognitions; and qu SE IE ti. Xa: SU! 119. re; AC1 Sh 38: be 8e re me. to 13 7) The conception of self is described as involving degrees of consciousness or unconsciousness. For a historical review on the development of the self-concept, one is directed to Wylie (1968). Within this presentation Wylie raises questions regarding theoretical issues. As she points out, such terms as self-concept, self-esteem, self-acceptance, self—evaluation, and self- regard have often been used interchangeably. Certain conceptual subtle- ties, however, may be overlooked by such a classification (Gergen & Marlow, 1970). Despite this fact, researchers generally have ignored these subtleties and assumed (evidently) that the various terms connote the same meaning, i.e., these terms all refer to some type of self-evaluation, regardless of whether it is based on intrinsic or extrinsic cues. Trufant (1972) in a study of the relationship between levels of self- esteem and interaction patterns in engaged couples pointed out the importance of the level of self-esteem in interpersonal relationships. Self-esteem is viewed as a crucial factor in determining the ease with which a dyadic relationship will flow relative to individual factors. According to Gergen (1971), a person's social or interpersonal relation- ships are significantly determined by his self-concept. Trufant in the same paper stated that "similar and differing levels of self-esteem might be more important phenomena than are high and low levels of self-esteem" (1972). The present author agrees to the importance of the effects of homo— geneity and heterogeneity of self-esteem on attraction and interpersonal relationships. It is felt, however, that the effects of positive versus negative self-esteem (i.e., high vs. low levels of self-esteem) is crucial to responses to value similarity-dissimilarity, and must be thoroughly 14 investigated. There are several pieces of research which imply that there may be differential reaponding to value orientations attributable to different levels of self-esteem. One of the more elaborate attempts to relate self-regard to forms of social influence has been that of Cohen (1959). He reasoned that persons high and low in self-esteem characteristically use different forms of ego defenses. Whereas the highs tend to use avoidances defenses (e.g., reaction formation, repression, and denial), lows characteristically adopt more expressive defenses (e.g., projection and regression). Avoidance defenses give rise to behaviors which attempt to insulate the self-picture, and allow the person to operate more or less independently of his immediate social environment. The low self-esteemed person, on the other hand, does not seem to defend against unacceptable impulses and does not insulate himself against information impinging upon him from the enmiron- ment. He should thus be more sensitive to the opinions of others (Gergen & Marlowe, 1970). Rogers'(l959) reasoning is different from that of Cohen but reaches the same endpoint: that is, the person with high self- regard (i.e., self-esteem in Cohen's language) is less susceptible to the influence of others. He reasoned that the person of high self-regard has learned to accept his bad points as well as his good, and during this process develops internal standards of judgement which makes him less susceptible to the influence of others. If either theoretical viewpoint cited above is accepted in the context of the value-comparison stage as posited by Murstein, several implications instantly arise. First, it would appear that low self— esteemed persons, being more sensitive to their environment, would respond 15 more favorable to those persons holding similar value orientations than to persons with differing values, for two possible reasons: 1) When a person encounters another with similar values, he receives confirmation that his values are correct; his values in essence, receive social validation (Bersheid & Walster, 1969); 2) As many values are intensely personal, they become so linked to the self that rejection of these values are experienced as rejection of the self; likewise, acceptance of these values are perceived as acceptance of the self (Murstein, 1970). It is a conjecture here that rejection of the self is experienced as an aversive stimulus, and that the low self-esteemed person responds to an aversive stimulus just as most organisms would: i.e., he avoids the stimulus. Specifically, he would respond unfavorably to the person holding a value orientation contrary to his, as this disharmony is experienced as an aversive stimulus. Another implication derived from the above pertains to the high self-esteem person. According to Cohen (1959) the person with high self- esteem, when confronted by differing values, would "deny" the recognition that these differences do, in fact, exist. In short, persons with high self-esteem would not necessarily be less favorably inclined toward those persons with dissimilar values, as he is (as a result of ego defensive operations) impervious (to some extent) to environmental information which may question his values. Similarly, Rogers could explain the high self-esteemed person's response to dissimilar value orientations as the person's having the capacity to accept or at least tolerate views extraneous 16 to his own. From either viewpoint (Cohen or Rogers) it appears that value similarity-dissimilarity would be a less cogent factor in the development and maintenance of a relationship when high self-esteemed persons are involved. A recent investigation (Griffith, 1969) of the relationship between personality similarity and self-concept in determining interpersonal attraction intensifies doubts about the efficacy of the value comparison stage. The two hypotheses tested by Griffith were: 1) Attraction is a negative function of subject's self-ideal self discrepancy scores (8—1), and (more important to the present paper). 2) The similarity-attraction relationship is stronger for low S—I subjects (i.e., high self-esteem subjects) than for high S-I subjects (i.e., low self-esteem subjects). The data supported neither of these hypotheses. An elaboration of these hypotheses will magnify the inferential significance of the Griffith findings to the present study. The first hypothesis suggests that the smaller the discrepancy scores between two individuals, the greater will be the attraction between them. The second hypothesis suggests that the similarity-attraction relationship (i.e., the more similar to oneself that another pes¢on is perceived, the more is a person attracted to the other) is stronger for high self-esteem subjects than low self-esteem subjects. honnubstantiation of these hypotheses does not pggzg_the contrary: hat is, that the greater the 8-1 discrepancy, the greater the attraction nor that the similarity-attraction relationship is stronger for low self-esteem subjects. It does however, indicate, that such may be the case. 17 Two researchers (Goldstein & Rosenfeld, 1969) were interested in discovering the factors which could account for the occurrence of peeple being attracted to others who are dissimilar to themselves. They stated the following: Assuming that motives for security and safety are secondary to basic physiological needs (Maslow, 1954), it is likely that self-protection is a salient consideration in initial social contacts. More positive concerns may become more dominant only after the initial avoidance motives have been reduced. Thus, it is proposed that persons who initiate acquaintanceships with similar Os (persons) are less secure than persons who select dissimilar Os. These researchers conducted two experiments, the first with 16 female coeds and the second with 126 male and female coeds. The results supported their hypotheses: that is, that preference for similar Os is affected by security needs. Specifically, the hypotheses were: 1) persons who initiate acquaintanceships with similar Os are less secure than are those who select dissimilar Os, and 2) Os who are of intermediate dissimilarity should be most preferred by secure Os. The implications are obvious: those persons with high self-esteem are more likely to prefer those persons who are dissimilar to them to an extent while persons of low self—esteem are more apt to prefer persons who are most similar to them. Formulation of a Paradigm of Mate-Selection On the basis of the research mentioned above the following formula- tion of processes involved in mate-selection is proposed. This formulation views the total mate-selection process as an evolving of stages or phases within the dyadic relationship. The multi-stage paradigm as posited here is quite similar to that of Murstein's (1971) SVR theory. 18 The initial stage as outlined here may be labeled as the Initial Encounter stage. It is the stage in which person A_becomes cognizant of certain perceptual qualities (i.e., physical, mental, or reputational) of person 2, It is felt that the initial encounter stage is more similar to the "Stimulus Stage" of Murstein's.§!§_theory than the homogamy principle-- the "field of eligibles"-- as outlined in Winch's theory of complementary needs. The reason for this distinction is that Winch's conception of the "field of eligibles" implies, in the context of tremendous social movement and change in America today, too much sociometric similarity; this is particularly true for the population under study, American college students. On the other hand, the notion of a "stimulus" stage as con- ceived by Murstein is more parsimonious in that it requires only a person's (g) awareness of the other (9) via perceptual cues. The second phase is of the greatest importance to the present study. In.Murstein's elaboration of his §!§_theory he points out that the second stage of the mate-selection process involves value comparisons between the two prospective mates. According to the theory, if a couple find that they hold similar value orientations, they are apt to develop stronger positive feelings for each other. Unfortunately, Murstein based his premise on the basis that everyone has "reasonably positive self-images," which, realistically speaking, is not the case. There are individuals who hold positive self-images (i.e., high self-esteem) and there are individuals who hold negative self—images (i.e., low self-esteem). Because of this fact this author believes that the relationship between levels of self- esteem and value-orientations need to be clarified before a global statement such as '...va1ue similarity is a necessary (though not sufficient) 19 condition for marriage" (Hurstein, 1971) is accepted by either the professional or layman's communities. The second phase of the present formulation of the processes of mate-selection, therefore, involves a complex interaction between spouses' level of self-esteem and their value orientations. This phase might be termed the E-V Interaction stage. It should be emphasized that in the context of the present study concepts such as self-regard, self-image, self-acceptance, and self-esteem are being treated as synonymous and interchangeable; these will be subsumed under the concept of self-esteem, as all of the concepts listed connote some form of self-evaluation. There are two remaining phases to the present formulations. The first involves the compatibility of spouses's personality need structures. The concept of needs has been widely used in psychology but no other theorist has subjected the concept to so careful an analysis nor provided such a taxonomy of needs as Henry Murray (1938). By discriminating the various types of needs (i.e., overt vs. covert; focal vs. diffuse; proactive vs. reactive; and process activity, modal needs and effect needs) the interrelatedness of husband and wife need structures can be determined. This phase may be labeled the Personality_Compatibiligy stage. the to ‘ Tail pha: bee: of ' the bil: lea Hen ‘ihe ate The any P03 nut hav and Con D65 903 San QOU 20 the way in which he approaches the world. Role compatibility is vital to the effective functioning of any group, particularly a marital dyad. This importance has been well elucidated elsewhere (Murstein, 1971). This phase may be labeled the Style Compatibility stage. Up until this point this formulation of mate-selection processes has been identical to the formulation posited by Murstein, with the exception of the motivational element presented above. These final two phases of the formulation involve (1) personality need structure compatibility, (2) an interaction between spouse's trait structures and role compati- bility. Needs are more motivational than traits. For needs the equiva— lences of functioning produced are closely tied to the goal the person is trying to achieve, to what might be called the "why" of behavior. Hence, need motivated behavior shows waxing and waning corresponding to whether the need is aroused or satisfied. In contrast, a trait is a steady unvarying entity, exerting a continuous influence upon functioning. There is little waxing or waning because there is not, properly speaking, any goal to be striven for and reached (Maddi, 1968). In short, traits possess a sense of permanency. Murstein has noted the importance of mutual role "fit" or compatibility; yet, he, nor many other researchers, have given any attention to the effects of various traits upon the attitudes and beliefs that people adhere to. For example, there should be less conflict between a pair if one, characterized by a generalized submissive- ness, holds role expectations which places him in a conventionally submissive position within the relationship, while the other, characterized by a generalized dominance, holds role expectations which would put him in a conventionally dominant position within the relationship. Greater conflict 21 should be expected, however, if these expectations were reversed or even if the two persons held relatively the same expectations of role assign- ment. The reality of it all may be that trait constellations may pre- dispose us to adhere to certain beliefs and role expectations. That such a reality may be the case, however, can be discerned only through empirical investigations. It will be the goal of this final phase of mate-selection to determine this relationship between traits and role expectations. This completes the present formulation of processes of mate-selection. It should be understood that the formulation presented here is not intended to represent a comprehensive explication of the processes of mate-selection (i.e., those processes which enter into the mutual decision to marry by any two individuals) nor of factors leading to maintenance of the relation- ship and thus, marital adjustment. Rather, it represents what the present author, via an intuitive understanding of interpersonal dynamics and evidence provided by research on mate-selection, sees as vital variables which form a constellation leading either to mate-selection to dissolution of dyadic relationships. Limitations of the Study As cited above there are several phases leading to the culmination of mate-selection. It should be clear that some of the factors viewed as important in reaching the end~goal (i.e., marriage) occur outside of the marital relationship, while others become operative both outside and within the marital relationship. For instance, the initial exposure stage wherein potential partners are made aware of each other obviously occurs outside the marital unit; however, though it is both logical and reasonable to assume that such a stage has occurred between married 22 partners, there is no satisfactory means of assessing whether couples who are now married actually passed through such a stage of mate- selection. The best means of testing such a postulation would be via a longitudinal design rather than a cross sectional design employed in this study. The same limitation holds true for testing the postulation of personality need-structure compatibility because it is assumed that needs are dynamic forces, some rising to the forefront when they demand gratifi- cation while others recede to the background as they no longer require immediate gratification. Longitudinal analysis seems most appropriate in determining personality need structures and their interrelationships as such an analysis could take into account variations over time in need strength between married couples. In a similar vein the role compatibility cannot be accurately assessed because of the nature of the papulation under study. The population under study was married college couples, residing in the university's married student complexes. In addition to the stresses and strains of living in apartments with limited amount of space, most of these couples had both partners attending school at the same time. In short, because of external forces impinging upon these couples, they are living in an environment which, to say the least, is different relative to most marital environ- ments. Because of the difference in their environment, role compatibility is probably a less salient concern for these couples. In a more "normal" living environment role compatibility would be a more salient concern. With the above cited limitations in mind the following hypotheses were tested. 23 Hypotheses Research evidence suggests that persons low in self—esteem are insecure in their initial interactions with others (Shaban & Jecker, 1967), that they use defense mechanisms which do not insulate them from environ- mental cues and are therefore more sensitive to the influx of information from others-perceptions (Cohen, 1959), that they have a strong need for social acceptance, and thus are more reactive to wide-ranging cues of social approval (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). Additionally, low self-esteem persons show a preference (in choosing) similar others (Goldstein & Rosenfeld, 1969), and, in their attempts to diminish the probability of failure within interpersonal encounters, low self-esteem persons will respond "realistically" and select others most similar to themselves (Kiesler & Baral, 1970). On the other hand, persons with high self-esteem perceive the probabilities of success in interpersonal encounters as extremely high, and are therefore in a position to take risks with dissimilar others (Kiesler & Baral, 1970). Also, high self-esteem persons perceive dissimilar others not only as nonthreatening but also as more interesting than similar others (Goldstein & Rosenfeld, 1969). It should be clear that the present author has attached greater weight to the motivational state of the male partner within the dyad; the rationale lies in the fact that, despite numerous social changes with particular respect to the role positions of women in American society, it remains the predominant trend that relation- ships leading to marriage are initiated by men. It is believed reasonable to assume that the motivational level of men should play the greater part in determining with whom-he wishes to initiate a relationship. The test of the hypothesis was designed to assess the relative motivational state of 24 men and women, and their meaning in regards to value consensus. On the basis of the research studies cited, and, as a means to testing the value comparison stage of Murstein's SVR theory, the following hypothesis is proposed: 1) Couples wherein the husband has a high level of self-esteem will show lg§§_value consensus (i.e., value similarity) than couples wherein the husband has a low level of self-esteem, regardless of the level of self—esteem of the wife. Several studies (Winch, 1954; Levinger, 1964; Goodman, 1964) have found personality need structure (and by analogy the present author applies the rationale of these studies to an analysis of inter-trait relationships) to be significantly related to marital choice. Generally, the investigations have focused on the relationships between the various needs of one member of a romantic dyad and various needs of the other member of the same dyad. That is, these studies have been concerned with whether the structural relationships are of a homogeneous or hetero- geneous nature, e.g., complementary. Goodman (1964) linked the level of self-esteem (specifically, the degree of self-acceptance) to interspousal need structure. According to Goodman, low self-acceptance persons were attracted to those persons who presumably could provide "self-completion." As Mischel (1971) has defined them, traits are distinguishable, relatively enduring ways in.which individuals vary from one another. As this study is exploratory in nature, the followin, hypotheses, based largely on the Goodman findings and the Goldstein and Rosenfeld (1969) findings, along with views expressed in the self-concept literature (Wylie, 1968), are forwarded. 25 (2) High self—esteem (HSE) couples (i.e., those couples wherein both spouses scored as esteem-motivated) will show negligible similarity on the traits under study while low self-esteem (LSE)' couples (i.e., those couples wherein both spouses score as safety-motivated) will show various degrees of relatedness on the traits under study. The nature of these relationships shall be elucidated in the following sub-hypotheses: 2a: LSE couples will exhibit complementarity on the trait Dominance (29). 2b: LSE couples will show greater similarity on the trait Sociability (g1) than HSE couples. 2c: LSE couples will exhibit complementarity on the trait Responsibility (33). Basically, what the above hypotheses suggest is the relative unimportance of trait compatibility for §§§_couples. Finally when considering mate-selection processes it seems most appropriate to also give consideration to the end-goal of the processes: marriage. The question remains, however, as to what determines whether a marriage is an adjusted (or perhaps, happy) or a maladjusted (or unhappy) relationship. Looking over the literature reported earlier the following hypotheses were made: (3) Adjusted couples will tend to have higher self-esteem scores than will maladjusted couples, and its corollary, (4) Maladjusted couples will tend to have higher safety scores than will adjusted couples. 26 YETHOD Subjects Fifty-two married couples residing in a married housing complex on the campus of Michigan State University participated in the study. Each couple met the following criteria: (1) Caucasian (both);(2) American citizens; (3) at least one member was enrolled at the University; (4) the couple was married two years or less, and (5) the couple was childless. These couples were selected at random from a list of 300 couples that was provided by the University's Married Housing Office. Materials There were four measures collected from each individual (104) in this study. The instruments employed are described briefly. Allport- pggggggfLindsay Study gfwgglggg (1960). The Sgggy_gf_!§lge§_aims to measure the relative prominence of six basic interests or motives in personality. These six interest areas are the theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious. The scale is designed primarily for use with college students, or adults with some college education. The Sgggyngfnyglggs is self—administering and can be self-scored. However, because of the number of measurements used in this study, the tests were scored by research assistants to shorten the length of the testing session. Aronoff Sentence Completion Test (1971) This instrument (see Appendix A) was employed in the determination of §g_level of concern with self-esteem. This projective measure is composed of forty stems (the first few words of a sentence) or sentence fragments (a few‘words from the middle or end of a potential sentence) 27 that stimulate people to write sentences that are expressive of their motivational orientation. The instrument is theoretically-based on Maslow's (1970) need hierarchy. California Personality Inventory (CPI) (1957) The 9:; (Cough, 1957) was used to assess each subject's strength or several traits. Because of the length of the QEI_(it is composed of 480 items making up 18 scales) it was decided to look at a limited number of scales. The 921 is designed primarily for use with "normal" (non-v psychiatrically disturbed) subjects. Its scales are addressed principally to personality characteristics important for social living and social interactions. Three traits were chosen for study: Dominance (92), Sociability (Sy), and Responsibility (5g). These scales formed a 110- item scale which was labeled the Price Opinion Questionnaire (see Appendix B). Locke-Wallace Short Test for Marital Adjustment (1959) This test (see Appendix C) was developed in an attempt to provide a relatively brief means of assessing the accomodation of a husband and wife to each other at a given time. Adjustment items which had proved significant in other marital adjustment inventories were selected if they (1) had the highest level of discrimination in original studies, (2) did not duplicate other included items, and (3) would cover important areas of marital adjustment (Locke and Wallace, 1959). The Locke—Wallace Short Test for Marital Adjustment (LE) is composed ofalS-item Likert-type scale. Reli- ability of the instrument, utilizing the split-half technique and corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, was .90. The LE was validated via testing a random sample of married couples who were judged to be exceptionably 28 well-adjusted in marriage matched against a comparable group who were clients of the American Institute of Family Relations, the mean adjustment scores being 135.9 to 71.7, respectively. The L§_has been utilized in numerous studies (e.g., Hofman, 1969; Allen, 1962; Zaman, 1974). Procedure lgs‘were assembled in a classroom for a single testing session. Every individual was given an experimental packet containing the Aronoff SCT, Price .Qpigigg Questionnaire, Allport-Vernon—Lindsay Study 2E Values, and the Locke- Wallace Short Test 2£_Marital Adjustment (LE). -§s were instructed to complete the packets as they were presented. To guard against couples collaborating during the testing sessions, spouses were requested to separate. Egyment of Subjects Due to inflation and university and departmental budget restrictions, it was felt that §s could not be paid equitably with the limited funding of this study. §s would be required to sit through a 2-2 1/2 hour testing session which would mean, cumulatively, that each set of Se (i.e., each couple) would be participating between 4-5 hours. It was felt that under- payment of §s would have an adverse effect upon gs' response to the experiment. Therefore a procedure was devised which could satisfy both ends of this dilemma. It was decided that payment should be in the form of a two- step lottery system. The first step provided for each couple to receive a.State of Michigan Lottery ticket. The second step provided each couple the chance to win one of seven monetary awards via the experimenter's conducting lottery drawings. This second lottery had awards of $20 (the first four drawings), $40 (the next two drawings), and $100 (the seventh drawing). Each couple, therefore, had eight chances to win: th 29 first, there was the opportunity to win the State of Michigan Lottery (from $25 up to $1,000,000) and also the opportunity to win $20, $40, or $100 in the experiment's lottery. Each couple was informed of the payment system before they made the decision to participate. By this procedure §§_response to the experiment should not have been adverse as expectations of payments remain Open, and at the same time §§_have accepted the conditions of the study and the payment system; hence, there should not be any sense of not having been compensated. Treatment of Data §fs level of self-esteem was determined by computing difference scores between the safety score and the esteem score (S-E score) on the Aronoff §QI, "High" self-esteem (HSE) was defined as those scores that exceeded 0; conversely "low" self-esteem (LSE) was defined as negative scores. This treatment of §g1_scores produced four groups of couples: §§§.husbandf§§§fwife; §§§_husbandfig§§_wife; Egg husbandf§§§_wife, and ESE husbande§§_wife. The §§§:§§§_couples will be referred to in the remainder of this paper as "high self—esteem" couples while the L§§:L§§_couples will be referred to as "low self-esteem" couples. Similarity of values (i.e., scores on the six scales of the Stgdy 2: Values) between each husband-wife pair was computed by use of the Spearman's rank-order correlation, rho(r). The three traits (i.e., Qg,_§y, and 32) were dichotomized into high and low scores: scores above the mean were treated as indicating that the_§ was high on that particular trait while scores below the mean were treated as indicating that the §_was low on that particular trait. Marital adjustment and maladjustment were determined by computing the mean of the sum of the Lfl_scores of each husbanddwife pair. This 30 manipulation produced two groups, a group of maritally-adjusted couples (N . 30, Lfl.> 111) and a group of maritally—maladjusted couples (N - 22, LL: < 110). Before presenting the Results of the first hypothesis it would clarify matters by restating the hypothesis and elaborate the data employed. The hypothesis as stated above was: H1: Couples wherein the husband has a high level of self—esteem will show less value consensus (i.e., value similarity) than couples wherein the husband has a low level of self- esteem, regardless of the level of self-esteem of the wife. A view of the mean rho table may provide some indications as to the directionality of the data. These data are presented in Table l. Place Table 1 About Here Table 1 reveals that the greatest difference in value consensus occurred between those HSE husband-LSE wife couples and those LSE husband-ESE wife couples, although this difference did not attain significance. It was expected that the greatest difference would have occurred between high self-esteem couples and low self-esteem couples. To test Hypothesis 1 a 2 (Husband's Level of Self-Esteem) X 2 (Wife's Level of Self-Esteem) X 2 (Level of Marital Adjustment) factorial design was employed, with rho's of values between husbanddwife pairs serving as cell data. The results of the ANOVA performed are presented in Table 2. Place Table 2 About Here One factor, Husband's Level of Self-Esteem, attained marginal significance (2'< .10). A significant overall E test on a main effect indicates that 31 one or more of a multitude of possible comparisons can be made which are significant; in particular, a significant overall main effect implies that the normalized comparison among the relevant means is statistically significant (Winer, 1971). To determine whether the data in Table 2 was in the hypothesized direction to a significant degree, a t-comparison as suggested by Winer, 1971, was conducted. The comparison was significant (£_- 1.730, .2 < .05). This result indicates that the observed means probably did not occur by chance. Hypotheses 2 through 2c postulated relationships between high self— esteem couples and low self-esteem couples on the three traits (i.e., 29, §Zm and fig). Essentially, it was postulated that trait compatibility was not an important issue for high self-esteem couples (i.e., that the H6:.. "the computed rs for high self-esteem couples is not different from zero" cannot be rejected); also, that trait compatibility - complementarity in terms of dominance and responsibility, and homogamy in terms of sociability - is vital to the maintenance of intimate relationships for low self-esteem couples. Pearson product~moment correlations between husbanddwife pairs were computed for high—esteem couples and low-esteem couples. The results are presented in Table 3. Place Table 3 About Here The correlation between husband and wife ratings on the traits dominance and responsibility were not different from zero, and the correlation on sociability only reached marginal significance (p'< .10) for L§§_couples. The §y correlation for ESE couples was not significant from the §y_correlation of HSE couples; hence, none of the hypotheses received support. 32 The last two hypotheses were addressed to potential relationships between individual's motivational level and adjustment to marriage. It was hypothesized that adjusted couples would be more esteemdmotivated than less adjusted couples, and its corollary, that less adjusted couples would be more safety—motivated than adjusted couples. To test the first hypothesis 3 2 (High and Low Adjustment) X 2 (Respondent: husband or wife) repeated measures analysis of variance was performed on the raw esteem scores. The results appear in Table 4. Place Table 4 About Here As Table 4 indicates, there were a marginally significant main effect and a marginally significant interaction. The main effect indicated that adjusted couples tend to have higher esteem scores than less adjusted couples, thus supporting the hypothesis. To explore the interaction effect further, a t-comparison was made between the means of adjusted husbands and less adjusted husbands; this comparison was marginally significant (t = 1.620, p_< .06). This finding adds substantiation to the prediction that the level of motivation possessed by the husband plays the significant role in the total mate-selection process in that the level of motivation of the wife, adjusted and maladjusted, was about the same (X = 16.634 and 16.637). The final hypothesis also was tested via a 2 (High and Low Adjustment) X 2 (Respondent: husband or wife) repeated measures analysis of variance. The results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 5. Place Table 5 About Here 33 It was predicted that the less adjusted couples would score as more safety- motivated than the adjusted couples; the prediction was strongly supported by the significant main effect for adjustment, since the mean difference in safety scores was in the predicted direction (2 - 15.533, 19.682, for adjusted and less adjusted couples, respectively). 34 DISCUSSION There have appeared numerous attempts to discern the factors involved in the process of mate-selection. The goal of much of this research has been not only the determination of the antecedents to marriage but equally the determination of factors which further the maintenance of the relation- ship or for contributing to its disintegration. It appears clear that simplistic models for mate—selection--the "like marries like" and the "opposites attract" paradigms-~are woefully inadequate to explain why people marry whom they marry; to an even lesser degree, these classes of paradigms cannot begin to elaborate the reasons why, following apparent success in mate-selection, some relationships are maintained while others are dissolved. In order to gain a fuller understanding of these processes, a consideration of the motivational processes of each individual and the interactions of the processes within the dyadic relationship is imperative. An attempt at such a formulation has been made by Murstein (1971) in his exposition of the §!§_theory. After reviewing the theory (or "approach" as he prefers) it is clear that the efficacy of §y§_theory must be viewed as questionable because of the theory's failure to take into account the motivational levels of prospective partners when considering value compatibility, the second stage of §!§_theory. The present study was undertaken.with a two-fold purpose. First, it was an effort to test and elaborate upon the second stage of the §3§_ theory--value comparison stage--by taking into consideration the differences ‘in level of self-esteem within adjusted and less adjusted marital dyads. Secondly, the study was designed to assess the relationship between husband 35 and wife on three relatively enduring behavioral patterns or traits; the purpose here was to determine the viability of examining trait inter- relationships between spouses as an alternative to, or in conjunction with, the investigation of need interrelationships between spouses as they relate to mate-selection. As cited above, needs are of a more dynamic nature than traits and should be more prone to changes in their being manifested, depending on need arousal as well as need satisfaction. Traits, on the other hand, are more enduring; thus, they become more a part of the individual's way of relating to the world, his "style" so to speak. With the purpose of the study clarified, the hypotheses, and the results pertinent to these, shall be presented in the context of the goals of the study. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 stated that couples wherein the husband has a high level of self-esteem will show less value consensus than couples wherein the husband has a low level of self—esteem, regardless of the level of self- esteem of the wife. It should be clear that the present author has attached greater weight to the motivational state of the male partner within the dyad; the rationale lies in the fact that, despite numerous social changes with particular respect to the role positions of women in American society, it remains the predominant trend that relationships leading to marriage are initiated by men. It is believed reasonable to assume that the motivational level of men should play the greater part in determining with whom he wishes to initiate a relationship. The test of the hypothesis was designed to assess the relative motivational state of 36 men and women, and their meaning in regards to value consensus. If value consensus is vital to the formation and maintenance of an intimate relationship as postulated by Murstein (1971), then it stands to reason that the level of self-esteem should not have any bearing on value con- sensus in the present population as each couple has successfully passed through the process of mate-selection since it is a married population. The analysis of the data showed a marginally significant result for husband's level of self-esteem (p.< .10). It is extremely tempting to state that this finding provides unquestionable evidence that the level of self-esteem of the husband determines the necessity of value consensus for the maintenance of a relationship but there are several reasons why this finding should be received cautiously, and at best be considered tentative. These are (l) the size of the sample (N a 52) was too small to make any realistic extensive generalizations; (2) the result itself, although clearly in the hypothesized direction, nevertheless received only marginal support; and (3) the family is not only a demographic unit but more importantly, a functional unit; it may very well be that the values tapped by the §£gdy of yalgg§_may bear some importance to individuals, but they decline in saliency within the family context as they are most probably not related to the survival of the family unit. Such a conjecture may be more valid than most researchers may be willing to grant. If one reviews the literature, it becomes evident that "values" are just as amorphous as self—esteem. For instance, the Kerckhoff and Davis study (1962) cited earlier reported the finding that value consensus was vital to the maintenance of a relationship. Closer scrutiny will reveal that what these researchers consider as values are 37 extremely similar to what Murstein, in his SVR theory, considers as the proper domain of the role stage. If family values (as measured by the Farber Index gf_Family Values) are the prOper "values" to be considered when speaking of value consensus in mate-selection, then a problem arises with.§!§_theory; if not, a problem arises with the measurement of value consensus. Doubtlessly, more serious research in this area is needed. It was expected that the greatest difference in value consensus would have occurred between the high self-esteem couples and the low self- esteem couples; this clearly was not the case. One explanation as to why §§§3£§§_couples displayed no relationship between their value orientations, and £§§g§§§_couples exhibited the greatest degree of value consensus, may be found in the Goldstein and Rosenfeld (1969) study cited above, in conjunction with the premise provided to explain why the husband's esteem level was a more important consideration here than the wife's esteem level. If similarity of values is considered as the means of determining the extent to which others are similar or dissimilar to us, then as the Goldstein and Rosenfeld study indicates, high self-esteem persons prefer others dissimilar to themselves while low self-esteem persons prefer others most similar to themselves. Also, low self-esteem persons experience greater feelings of insecurity in approaching others. As the male generally is the initiator of relationships, the low self-esteem male will more probably seek someone who is most similar to him, in order to allay this sense of insecurity; in a contrasting view, the high self-esteem male will look for someone who appears different--but not extremely different- to initiate a relationship. A selection of a mate who was "too" different may be what is reflected in the correlation of values for the couples 38 composed of a high self-esteem husband in the maladjusted column. Hypotheses 2, 2a,,2b,72c It was strongly believed that the predictions with regard to the trait interrelationships would prove to be accurate, and if significance was not reached that a trend in the hypothesized direction would be present. As shown in Table 2, the relationships between traits of Egg partners did not differ from zero; unpredictably, with the exception of sociability (r :_0, p_< .10), the correlation among traits between Egg partners did not differ from zero neither. The reasons underlying these, findings are unclear. There exists two possible explanations: (1) It may be that confounding is present because the correlations represent the trait correlations of both maritally-adjusted and maritally-maladjusted couples. It is presumed by researchers in this area that certain con- stellations of personality variables lead to marital adjustment and that deviations from these may lead to maladjustment; (2) It may be that the facts are as indicated by the present data; that is, that there is no relationship between the traits Qg_and.§g_among married couples. Hence, the use of trait correlations among marital partners as indices as to how they "fit" may have to be viewed as dubious. It is possible to investigate the first explanation posited. However, because of the size of the Egg group (N = 12), splitting the group into adjusted and maladjusted couples (n = 5; n = 7,respective1y) would produce extremely spurious correlations; thus, the meaning of the obtained correlations would be vague at best. Until further research investigating the interrelationships of trait characteristics of married couples is conducted, the alternative explanation posited must be accepted. 39 Hypotheses 3 and 4 The remaining hypotheses investigated the issue of whether motivational states, specifically, esteem versus safety orientations, have any effect upon marital adjustment. Both predictions received some support. Hypothesis 3 had both a main effect (Adjustment) and an interaction effect (Adjustment X Respondent). The interaction revealed that the husband‘s motivation level was associated with adjustment within the relationship (p_< .06). Hypothesis 4, that maladjusted couples would tend to be more safety-oriented than adjusted couples, was strongly supported (p_< .01). Both of these findings are naturally welcomed but they are not surprising. Mischel (1971) has cited Coopersmith's (1967) study wherein children with lower self-esteem were appraised by their mothers as having marked, frequent problems rather than limited, infrequent ones. Stagner (1974), in dis- cussing the positive relationship between ego strength and the capacity . for successful adjustment to life's stresses, cites high self-esteem as indicative of the presence of ego strength. Erikson (1963), in his delineation of the Eight Ages of Man, suggests the importance of self— esteem to successful psychological growth. In short, persons possessing genuine positive self—esteem tend to be better adjusted as individuals, and should therefore be better adjusted in marriage; contrastingly, persons with less worthwhile perceptions of themselves tend to be less well- adjusted as individuals, and this lack of adjustment generally carries over into marriage. These findings raise some very serious questions. Is it as it would appear with the present data that only marriages wherein the husband possesses a high level of self-esteem are destined to be well-adjusted 40 marriages? Why is it that the wife's motivation level apparently has little effect upon the state of the relationship? Is it a question of the power positions within a relationship? These and many more questions beg for answers which only further research can provide. Conclusions and Further Research The goal of the present research was to investigate the role played by motivation both in the mate-selection process and in determining whether a couple will be maritally-adjusted or maladjusted. Additionally, the interrelationships between married partners on various personality traits as a function of motivation level was investigated. The second stage of Murstein's 0.971) Stimulus-Value-Role (gyg) theory-~the value comparison stage-ewes chosen as the starting point because the theory was viewed as the most compre- hensive (as well as the most cognitively satisfying) approach to the understanding of the processes involved in mate-selection. Hypotheses concerned with motivation and value orientations received marginal support, while those concerned with motivation and adjustment were substantially supported. The sub-hypotheses about the trait relationships were not supported. It seems evident from the obtained data that motivation must be granted its rightful place in the formulation of mate-selection. Even more importantly, the issue of mate-selection processes must be tied to that of marital adjustment; it does little good for social scientists to delineate the components of mate-selection if, after mates are "selected," they are unhappy or simply unadjusted to the marital situation. Although the first hypothesis only received marginal support, the finding is considered important to the mate-selection literature in that 41 it raises the issue of the importance of value consensus to mate-selection. Granted, these results must be viewed cautiously as the data are actually of a correlational nature and no statement of causality can.be forwarded. However, if mate-selection research is to progress, future investigations must give serious consideration to the effects of motivation. mass 42 Table 1 Mean Summary Table of Rhos (Rs) Computed Between Husband-Wife Pairs on Values Adjustment of Couples (C) Wife Level of . Self-Esteem (B) Adjusted ‘ Maladjusted “a ’3 High .472 .108 . 580 H V High ” 5 Low .087 -.121 -.034 E 3 Q '3 ”,3 High .212 .507 .719 .3:: Low 3 3 Low .510 .265 .715 1.281 .759 2.040 Summary of Analysis of Variance of 43 Table 2 Value Consensus Source g_f_ gig _I: Esteem of Husband (A) 1 .5261687 2.9833* Esteem of Wife (B) 1 .1822935 1.0335 Adjustment (C) 1 .1595302