I‘k‘m :. . .
53;; [it In [I n,
ail! 2 1% :"g' I I J I

  
    

.._ . - .1: “I :'
#3., ~ " - :. -r£§z ’- v—
‘ no J
. ,- mt, Ff. . a}
5‘ . (I.
10 ‘ _ .

. - _‘-H ‘: '
I .< ": ' -" r9
- (snub. .
It
. .
. . ' O - D
O_ ‘ .
, .
. .: '- . . .
v u

w

    
 
  

    
  

  

‘.‘,

 

 

       

    
    
  

H‘EI~'I ['IW'. ‘31:?!13‘5?
,Iffl' ”II I}: {If “WI";
'{3- ’1“! {IgIg ’ildl 2:1 I“)! I‘ 5’! "'~'

M E”

  

‘ v. .4
4 "a.“

   
  
  

M4,... .
-......—, , .
u u ._. . ,.
. _

h. . < . > ha
- .-.. . .

" n '.V
N 4 .. ..

.-. . _,

.

c
_5 u r.

- <Oh.‘- D O

o—.uA—J§$"‘

:4...

0.1 -....

10‘
. ,
n

    
     

   
 
  
 
  

         
  

        
 

      

#59:? . :[g £121. I11 .. ”5&an {MM 1' H I7.’
. I f};‘ n [1

gm IVA {no 511,8]: 35$: “Eff: ‘m‘
9-9;} [$331! ifi‘liIig‘

CE “W”- J
”MI"! .341 III all NJ,“ CL
15.! ”’3'” ti.

   

;; :1. . '.‘!" “1‘11? l‘w

n m nn. II In” 4 $3153"

'éjf III?“ 'IIII‘QI 3" A]??? IVIn‘J‘ E; W,
q {Hm-ll} HILL] 4} n «If n

I I t {5‘ v
‘3}, 1:”): ILWJJW a? “Jinnah: Vt;
'zW ”It” “I” 95113:!“ .

In
. -,

{3:
“:55:
~;‘ “o:'.
2‘}?
a
1:;

 

  

“HI A539? biw’h .va punt.)
l $14311 It IéIffigfit‘gfiggii‘l I?!“ ‘ I - u ' $611“ “ Lu. mm H!
Ianbnmn “iii? I!!,ff££§‘€nf[¥1’in",ifin‘IIIII'i " nah m; Q J; [I III
- '[IIIIIIIIISIIIIIILIIIIIII‘ I MIL: [IIIII . [fit W I: ['5 III} I I nnn‘

 

UBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Social Support in the
Marital Relationship
presented by

Wendy Frances Habelow

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

__ll.A__ degree in W

frW

Major professor
G. Anne Bogat, Ph.D.

Date March 5, 1987

0.7539 Msyru... Age—mu. ‘ - 1 -3r’ -J

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

L:- 7? a;

. w—
o

"I

SOCIAL SUPPORT IN THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP

BY

Wendy Frances Habelow

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1987

ABSTRACT
SOCIAL SUPPORT IN THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP
BY

Wendy Frances Habelow

Social support networks influence both the physical
and psychological adjustment of individuals.
Unfortunately, there is still confusion as to how social
support influences adjustment, as well as the specific
qualities of the marital relationship that provide men
and women with a unique supportive relationship. This
study addresses these issues by examining in-depth the
support networks of married couples. One hundred
seventy-four married adults,, eighty-seven men and
eighty-seven women, of varying races and socioeconomic
classes participated in the study. Major findings
indicate that men and women do not differ with regard to
the number and type of Supporters that comprise their
networks. Satisfaction with spousal support, spouses
who are considered supportive, and spouses who are
considered to be friends are all important factors which

influence marital and physical adjustment.

0‘.

To Mom,

Dad, Beth,

iii

and Rob.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank G. Anne Bogat for her consistent
dedication throughout this project, Robert Caldwell for
helping me to accept nothing less than the .best, and

Norman Abeles for his unfaltering support.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST or TABLES................................. vi
INTRODUCTION................................... 1

Social Support............................ 1
Social Support and Marriage............... 10
Rationale for Current Study............... 18
Hypotheses................................ 22

METHOD.OCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000......0.0.0.000... 25

Subjects.................................. 25

Procedure................................. 26

Tests and Measurements.................... 27
The Adult Social Support
Questionnaire........................ 27
The Life Experiences Survey.......... 28
The Health History Questionnaire..... 29

RESULTSOOOIOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3o
HYPOtheSiS 1 O O O O I O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 30
HYPOtheSis 2 O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 32
HYPOtheSiS 3 O O I O O O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 33

Post Hoc Analyses.................... 34
HYPOtheSiS 4 O O O O C O O I O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O I O O I O O O . 3S
HYPOtheSiS 5 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 38

DISCUSSION. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0.. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 41

CONCLUS I CNS 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 5 4

APPENDIX A. O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 56

APPENDIX B. O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . 57

APPENDIX C. O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 61

APPENDIX D. O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 O O O O O O 64

REFERENCESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI... 66

Table

4A

48

5A

SB

LIST OF.TABLES

Page

Mean Gender Differences and Standard
Deviations for Type of Support........... 31

Pearson Product Moment Corelation

Coefficients Between Satisfaction with

Spousal Support, Number of Reported

Stressful Marital Life Events, and

Number of Reported Illnesses............. 33

Pearson Product Moment Correlation

Coefficients Between Level of

Specialization of Spousal Support, Number

of Reported Stressful Marital Life Events,

and Number of Reported I11nesses......... 35

Analysis of Variance for Sex and Presence
of Spousal Support with Marital Life
EventSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 37

Analysis of Variance for Sex and Presence
of Spousal Support with Illnesses........ 37

Analysis of Variance for Sex, Spouse
Perceived as Friend, and Marital Life
Events.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOO0.0 39

Analysis of Variance for Sex, Spouse
Perceived as Friend, and Illnesses....... 40

vi

Introduction

Social Suppgrt

The term social support has come to refer to the
mechanisms by which interpersonal relationships
presumably protect people from the damaging effects of
stress (Kessler, Price & WOrtman, 1985). Widespread
interest in social support was initiated by a group of
review papers that demonstrated associations between
psychiatric disorder and such factors as marital status,
geographic mobility, and social disintegration (Caplan,
1974; Cassel, 1974, 1976; Cobb, 1976). Cobb stated that

”adequate social support can protect people in
crisis from a wide variety of pathological
states: from low birth weight to death, from
arthritis through tuberculosis to depression,
alcoholism and other psychiatric illness.
Furthermore, social support can reduce the
amount of medication required and accelerate
recovery and facilitate compliance with
prescribed medical regimens" (1976, p. 310).

Although largely comprised of inferential arguments and
unclear -conceptua1 definitions, these early reviews
generated substantial interest in the possibility that

social support can protect health.

1

Researchers have chosen several methodologies to
examine whether social relationships are associated with
vulnerability to disorder. Studies focusing on the
support networks of clinical populations have found that
there are clear differences among the networks of
neurotics, who tend to have more unconnected and sparse
networks, and psychotics, who are more likely to have
highly interconnected, kin-based networks (Mueller,
1980). There is also evidence that the lack of support
from family members is related to the probability of
relapse among schizophrenics (Brown, Mock, Carstairs, &
Wing, 1962). Family members in these interconnected
networks may not provide the amount or type of support
from which psychotic individuals could most benefit.

Additional investigators have focused on the impact
of social support on adjustment to specific life crises
such as widowhood (Vachon, Sheldon, Lancee, Lyall,
Rogers, & Freedman, 1982), unemployment (Gore, 1978),
and criminal victimization (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1979).
These studies allow researchers to investigate both
short-term and long-term reactions to life crises and to
monitor changes in the support system as individuals
attempt to cope with these crises. There is also the

opportunity to examine social support in relation to

other aspects of the stress process, including
cognitions, feelings about self, and coping strategies,
as well as to attempt to clarify the mechanism by which
social support protects individuals in stressful
situations (Kessler et a1. 1985). Most studies of
specific life crises have found support to be an
important predictor of subsequent adjustment. In
addition, these studies are starting to provide
information about the impact of certain social
relationships on specific problems (Hirsh, 1980;
Wellman, 1979).

The major difficulty in studying individuals
who have experienced major life crises is that one of
the major outcomes assessed, successful adjustment,
remains unclearly defined (Haan, 1982; Wortman, 1984).
Another difficulty in assessing effective adjustment is
that current methodologies cannot differentiate those
individuals who cope with stress in socially appropriate
ways from those individuals who reduce their distress at
the expense of others (Coyne, Kahn, & Gottlieb, 1984).
These conceptual confounds of predicted adjustment have
limited the potential understanding of fundamental
support processes (Kessler et a1. 1985).

Other investigations have focused on the

relationship between social support and health in the

normal population and in case-control studies. This
research has typically taken one of two forms. One line
of investigation proposes that social support has a
direct effect on physical and psychological adjustment.
In this case, the more support available to the
individual, the better his/her overall health. The
other line of inquiry postulates that social support
mediates or buffers the relationship between stress and
adjustment. Studies have lent support to both models.

Results from a study of working men (Pinneau, 1976)
and a study of suburban Australians (Andrews, Tennant,
Hewson, & Vaillant, 1978) demonstrate the direct effect
of social support (for additional examples, see
Henderson, 1980; Miller & Ingham, 1976; Nuckolls,
Cassel, & Caplan, 1972; Pearlin, Lieberman, Menaghan, &
Mullen, 1981). In contrast, Lin, Simeone, Ensel, and
Kuo's (1979) study of stress and support among Chinese-
Americans and LaRocco, House, and French's (1980) study
implicating low levels of social support in exacerbating
occupational stress favored the buffer hypothesis (for
additional examples, see Brown & Harris, 1978; House,
McMichael, Wells, Kaplan, & Landerman, 1979). Still
other investigators have found that both the direct

effect and the buffer model could be supported from

their results (Gore, 1978; Husaini, Neff, Newbrough, &
Moore, 1982). Methodological problems (Mueller, 1980)
such as the confounding of life events with measures of
social support make the above results even more
difficult to interpret. In response to these
methodological problems, several studies have since been
initiated that attempt to resolve this buffer/direct
effect controversy (Kessler & McLeod, 1984; Lin & Ensel,
1984; Turner & Noh, 1982). While evidence in favor of a
stress-buffering role of social support is far from
uniform, the data suggest that emotional support may
play a more important role in protecting individuals
from the harmful effects of stress than do structural
aspects of support, such as social involvement or
activity (Kessler & McLeod, 1984).

It has also been suggested that results in favor of
a buffering model or a direct effect model depend on
what is being measured. Cohen and Wills (1985) reviewed
the literature and concluded that the buffer hypothesis
is favored when social support measures the perceived
availability of interpersonal resources that can be
called upon during times of stress. They also concluded
that the direct effect hypothesis is favored when
support is measuring the degree to which a ‘person is

integrated in a large social network. Here, it is

assumed that support has a positive effect regardless of
whether an individual is under stress. This type of
support is likely to be important for long-term
relationships such as marriage, where there are both
stressful and stress-free periods.

The evidence above-suggests that lack of social
support may be an important factor in the development
and course of both physical and psychological disorder.
However, several aspects of social support must be
further clarified in order for researchers to have a
better understanding of how social support functions to
protect the health of individuals. One central problem
surrounds the definition and conceptualization of social
support. Many authors have attempted to define and
clarify social support. For example, support has been
described as an update of formerly used concepts such as
"community integration,” "social participation," and
”attachment" (Barrera & Ainlay, 1983). Many literature
reviews have concluded that most definitions of social
support are ambiguous, circular, or simply meaningless
(Barrera & Ainlay, 1983; Leavy, 1983; Jung, 1984).
Studies have been critibized for their use of poor
methodologies (Jung, 1984), ”elastic" conceptualizations

(Barrera & Ainlay, 1983) and inadequate instrumentation

(Leavy, 1983). Even in the face of such criticisms, new
studies possessing the same conceptual flaws appear
again and again (Ellstein, 1984).

Much of the research has described social support
quantitatively; the total number of people within an
individual's network (Salloway & Dillon, 1973; Weimer,
Hatcher, & Gould, 1983). These investigations have
shown some positive links between the amount of social
support and health. However, research into the
qualitative aspects of support, such as source and type
of support, are believed to be more important for
predicting physical and psychological well-being
(Broadhead et. al., 1983; Leavy, 1983; Thoits, 1982).

Research on the qualitative nature of social
support has focused on type, source, context, and
satisfaction. Of these four dimensions, type of support
has received the most attention and many typological
conceptualizations have been advanced (Caplan, 1981;
Gottlieb, 1981; Kahn & Antonucci, 1980; Tolsdorf, 1976).
House (1981) has developed a definition of social
support comprised of four components: 1) emotional
support; 2) instrumental support; 3) informational
support; and 4) appraisal support. Barrera & Ainlay
(1983) define support in terms of six categories:

material aid, behavioral assistance, intimate

interaction, guidance, feedback, and positive eccial
interaction. They subsequently grouped these six
variables into four factors: 1) directive guidance; 2)
non-directive support; 3) tangible assistance; and 4)
positive social interaction. Caldwell and Reinhart (in
press) factor analysed the Inventory of Socially
Supportive Behaviors which yielded three types of social
support: emotional support, guidance, and tangible aid.
Finally, Bogat and her colleagues have developed a
typology of social support that also consists of four
categories: 1) companionship; 2) practical assistance; 3)
guidance and information; and 4) emotional support,
(Bogat, Chin, Sabbath, & Schwartz, 1983). They have
also put forth a broader conceptualization of social
support that classifies supporters as either network
generalists or network specialists (Bogat, Caldwell,
Rogosch, & Kriegler, 1985). A network generalist is
someone who is a supporter in two or more of the
above four categories, while a network specialist is
someone who is a supporter in only one of the four
categories.

The three remaining factors - source, context, and
satisfaction - have been given less attention in the

literature. Studies of source of support typically have

investigated the similarities and differences between
kin and nonkin support. For example, Billings and Moos
(1982) examined how family members are supportive in
ways that are different fron other nonkin supporters.
In addition, some researchers have investigated the
quantitative differences in source of support by
comparing the numbers of family supporters to the
numbers of non-family supporters in an individual's
network (Cohen & Sokolovsky, 1978; Silberfeld, 1978).
Examination of the availability of social support in
contexts outside of the family has focused largely on
neighborhoods (Rosel, 1983; Unger & Wandersman, 1985)
and on the work environment (House,. 1981). Finally,
studies of individual satisfaction with support have
found evidence to suggest that low satisfaction with
support may play a role in the development of
psychological disorder (Leavy, 1983).

An important aspect of social support that has
received relatively little attention is the concept of
reciprocity and resulting satisfaction. Individuals can
be said to have a reciprocally supportive relationship
with anothér person if both receive relatively similar
support from each other. Reciprocity can be both
quantitative and qualitative. Individuals can give each

other the same amount but different types of support;

for example, one person gives emotional support while
the other gives companionship. Alternatively,
individuals can give each other the same amount and the
same type of support; for example, two people are
equally supportive of each other's emotional needs
(Cochran & Brassard, 1979; Leavy, 1983). A supportive
relationship need not be reciprocal. For example,
psychologically impaired individuals often receive more
support than they give (Leavy, 1983).
Social Suppgrt and Marriage

Reciprocity and satisfaction are important
components in a marital relationship.

"Each partner is a source of emotional support,
companionship, sexual gratification and economic
support or assistance for the other. Each spouse
also supports the other in his (or her) roles as
parent, friend, colleague, kinsman, and so on.

To the extent that either partner's performance

in any of these areas is inadequate, the other's

emotional and social life (may be) damaged"

(Renne, 1970; in Winch & Spanier, 1974, p. 426).
Husbands and wives look to each other for support many
times and under many different circumstances during the

course of a marriage. Because men and women may differ

10

with regard to how they perceive and value support,
husbands and wives may not always receive the support
they seek from their spouses (Burke & Weir, 1976). For
example, a husband may give his wife practical
assistance and information, while she is in fact seeking
emotional support from him. This discrepancy may leave
spouses feeling that their mates do not understand them
and do not know how to properly meet their needs.

Researchers have typically chosen to investigate
the support systems of married individuals in one of
three ways. The first method uses composite scores to
compare the support systems of married people to those
of single people (Dean, Lin, Tausig, & Ensel, 1980;
Eaton, 1978; Kasl & Cobb, 1979; Lynch, 1977). The use
of such a measure is problematic because low scores can
have entirely different meanings depending on the
marital status of the individual. For example, a low
score for an unmarried individual may demonstrate
isolation, effects of divorce or widowhood, or poor
social relationships. The same score for a married
individual probably demonstrates participation in an_
unsatisfactory relationship (Coyne & DeLongis, 1985).

A second method of examining the support systems of
married individuals has been to compare the physical and

psychological health of happily married people to the

11

health of unhappily married people. Evidence suggests
that unhappily married individuals are less physically
and psychologically healthy than happily married
individuals, (Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983; Kaplan &
DeLongis, 1983), and have more physical illness,
depression, heavy drinking, and isolation from people
outside their marriage. In addition, the stress of
being unhappily married can be exacerbated by stressors
in other areas, such as in the workplace (Moen, 1982;
Mott, Mann, McLoughlin, & warwick, 1965). Those who are
happily married are less vulnerable to physical illness,
have fewer psychosomatic symptoms, and have lower
mortality rates (Traupmann & Hatfield, 1981).

Problems exist with this second method of
investigation. First, marital happiness has not been
operationally defined. The individual factors that
comprise the overall score are weighted differently-
according to the beliefs of each researcher. Second, it
has not yet been established that being married, in
fact, causes individuals to be healthy. Other factors
may be responsible.- For example, findings indicate that
people who are physically healthy, psychologically well-
adjusted, and interpersonally skilled are more likely to

get married,_ stay married, and report marital

12

satisfaction (Renne, 1971; Rushing, 1979). Conversely,
an individual's propensity towards unhappiness or
illness may contribute in some way to a lack of intimate
relationships. Or it may be the case that lack of
social support is due to some third variable, such as a
general incOmpetence in coping with life's problems
(Kelley, 1983).

Another way that marital happiness has been
examined has been through the use of clinical assessment
measures, the best known of which is the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). It is a 32-item
instrument which is given to both members of a dyad to
examine the degree of congruence between both members
with regard to satisfaction with their relationship.
Presumably, the greater the congruence, the more
satisfied both members are with their relationship. The
questionnaire can be broken down into four subscales:
Dyadic Consensus Scale; Dyadic Satisfaction Scale;
Dyadic Cohesion Scale; and Affectional Expression Scale.
There also are specific instructions for scoring the
instrument, where scores below 75 usually indicate
marital distress, and scores above 125 usually
indicate an unrealistic, romanticized view of the

relationship.

13

Finally, researchers have examined gender
differences in social support and adjustment among
married adults. However, different investigations seem
to yield disparate results. For example, in a review of
the literature, Bloom, Asher and White (1978) found that
the relationship between psychopathology and marital
disruption is stronger for men than for women. This
finding is striking in light of the notion that marital
disruption is usually more problematic for women than
for men. However, women seem to have more disability
and illness, regardless of marital status, than men. On
the other hand, the differences in mortality rates
between married individuals and single, divorced, or
widowed individuals are larger among men than women
(Gove, 1973). Married men have superior mental health,
lower suicide rates, and live longer than do single men
(Bernard,. 1972). Conversely, married women have more
neurotic symptoms, are more depressed, are more fearful
and anxious, and have lower self esteem than do single
women (Bernard, 1972). Therefore, it still remains
unanswered whether married men or women, single men or
women, or maritally disrupted men or women are more
vulnerable to physical or psychological disorders.

It is unclear whether these gender differences in

support and health can be explained by gender

14

differences in the quantitative and qualitative nature
of social support. Research concerning the differences
between the social support systems of men and women
typically has examined the differential role that
friendship plays in adult life. There is mixed evidence
concerning which sex has a larger social support
network. Booth (1972) found that men reported more
friends than women; weiss and Lowenthal (1975) found the
opposite. However, these two studies differed with
respect to age, SES, and ethnicity of the respondents as
well as the overall research design. Booth's subjects
were all over the age of forty-five, proportionately
more blue-collar than white-collar workers, and were of
mixed racial backgrounds. Weiss and Lowenthal's
subjects were between the ages of sixteen and sixty,
more evenly distributed between blue- and white-collar
workers, and were predominantly Caucasian; however, the
sample was divided into young, middle-aged, and older
respondents. Here, the number of women's friendships
remained more stable across all three time periods,
whereas men had more friends during middle age as
compared to the other two time periods.

The evidence concerning sex differences in the
qualititative aspects of social support also seems to be

mixed. For example, in a study of couples' helping

15

relationships, Barker and Lemle (1984) found that there
were no sex differences in couples' informal helping.
However, they state that "the absence (of sex
differences) is suprising, and constrasts both with
common sex—role stereotypes and the findings of previous
analogue studies of friends and accquaintances” (p.
332).

Clearer gender differences emerge when the
qualitative aspects of friendship are assessed. Women
have "affectively richer" relationships; they are more
likely than men to confide in their friends, do things
spontaneously with their friends, and place more
importance on emotional sharing and talking in their
relationships (Dickens & Perlman, 1981). On the other
hand, men appear to emphasize shared activities in their
friendships (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982). Put in a
different way, men tend to have more associative friends
than women; relationships characterized by an absence of
loyalty or commitment to seeing that the friendship
endures_ beyond the situation that brings the parties
together. Women's relationships are more reciprocal
than are men's; they are distinguished by lasting
commitment between parties who regard each other as

equals (Reisman, 1981).

16

It appears, then, that women are more likely to
have friendships characterized by emotional sharing,
while men have friendships characterized by engaging in
common activities (Brehm, 1985). To use Wright's (1982)
terms, women have "face-to-face' friendships, and men
are friends "side-by-side." The emphasis that women
place on emotional sharing in their relationships means
that they can obtain emotional gratification from
friendships as well as from romantic relationships.
Men, in contrast, seem more dependent on romantic
relationships for emotional intimacy (Brehm, 1985).

The research on adult friendships has important
implications for the study of social support systems in
adulthood. It is possible that a large segment of a
woman's social support network is comprised of people
with whom she shares the intimate details of her life,
while a man's social support network is largely
comprised of individuals with whom he shares activities,
such as working in the same place, or belonging to the
same club. Although there is much information about
adult social support networks, there has been little
attempt to distinguish the networks of married adults
from those of unmarried adults. There has been no

elucidation of specific qualities of the marital support

17

relationship that are different, or even the same, for

men and women.

Rationale

Results from previous studies do little to clarify
many of the basic issues concerning social support
and physical and psychological adjustment in the marital
system. There is confusion as to how social support
influences adjustment, and whether certain types or
amounts of support lead to better adjustment. A large
part of the social support literature is flawed in part
due to the lack of consensus about how to conceptualize
social support. Each investigator uses his or her own
definition of the concept when developing studies to
examine social support, and the absence of a common
definition prevents generalization and comparability of
results. Only recently have there been attempts to
provide a clear, operational definition of social
support to enhance understanding of the concept as well
as the ability to compare and contrast research
findings.

In addition, the little definitive knowledge that
has been gathered in the areas of social support and
health has been applied to individuals in general

rather than to specific groups of individuals, such as

18

husbands and wives. The social support networks of men
and women have been examined mainly within the context
of friendships, and spouses are not typically considered
to be friends. It also remains unclear whether men and
women. differ with regard to the amount and types of
support they seek. In addition, there has been little
investigation of whether there are specific qualities of
the marital relationships that provide men and women
with a unique supportive relationship that serves to
foster positive marital adjustment.

The present study seeks to build upon the findings
of the previous studies and clarify the qualities of the
marital social support system which are unique to that
particular dyad and demonstrate whether these qualities
have an impact on the spouses' levels of marital and
physical adjustment. The first step will be to
determine whether the overall size of married men and
women's networks differ. Because researchers typically
have sampled from dissimilar or unrepresentative
populations, there is no consensus as to the size of men
and women's networks. This study recruited married
subjects who varied in age, social class, race, and
religion in order to more appropriately represent the

general population.

19

This study will also examine the composition of
married peoples' networks. Data from studies of men and
women's friendships will be placed in a different
framework and examined in terms of social support.
Because the literature seems to indicate that men's
friendships are largely characterized by common
activities, it is hypothesized that their social support
networks will be comprised of more companionship
supporters than other kinds of supporters. Conversely,
because research on friendships has found that women
seem to place greater importance on emotional sharing in
their friendships, it is hypothesized that their
networks will be comprised of more emotional supporters
than other types of supporters.

Once the composition of spouses' support networks
has been clarified, the relationships between social
support and adjustment can be examined. Initially, this
study will look at subjects' satisfaction with the
support they‘ are 'receiving from their spouses, and
whether this satisfaction influences their levels of
marital and physical adjustment. Then, different types
of spousal support will be examined in terms of their
effects on adjustment. The literature seems to indicate
that the more support an individual has, the less he or

she will .be vulnerable to physical or psychological

20

disorders. It may be that individuals who perceive their
spouses as supportive in several areas will report
better marital and physical adjustment than those who
view their spouses as supportive in only one area.

Not all men and women indicate that their spouses
are supportive in all, or even in more than one
category. It is possible, though, that even different
single categories of support are more likely to be
health protective than others. Because research seems to
show that women place more importance on emotional
sharing, perhaps those women who perceive their husbands
as emotionally supportive show fewer signs of marital
and physical adjustment than those women who perceive
their spouses as other types of supporters. For men,
because studies suggest that they place greater emphasis
on shared activities, they might be likely to report
higher levels of marital and physical adjustment if they
perceive their wives as companionship supporters.

Questions have been raised about whether the
marital dyad is a uniquely supportive relationship. The
(present study will attempt to answer this question in
‘two waySi First, it will examine reciprocity of support
:in the marital relationship. It may be that husbands and
Vvives who give support to their spouses but feel that

izhey do not receive support from them in return are more

21

likely to report lower levels of marital and physical
adjustment. Second, this study will look at the
differences between individuals whose spouses are simply
the person to whom they are married, and those who
consider their spouses to be their friends as well as
their partners. It is possible that having a spouse who
is also a friend allows an individual more support and
is therefore associated with higher levels of marital
and physical adjustment than having a spouse who is not

considered a friend.

Hypotheses

All of the following hypotheses involve married men
and women.

Hypothesis 1: The social support networks of women
and men are the same size.

1A: Men will have more companionship supporters in
their networks than women.

1B: Women will have more emotional supporters in
their networks than men.

1C: Men and women will have the same amount of
information and advice supporters in their networks.

1D: Men and women will have the same amount of

tangible aid supporters in their networks.

22

Hypothesis 2: Men and women who are more satisfied
with the support provided by their spouses will report
higher levels of marital adjustment, as measured by
number of stressful marital life events, and physical
adjustment, as measured by number of illnesses, than
those who are less satisfied.

Hypothesis 3: Men and women who perceive their
spouses as support generalists - supporters who are
mentioned in two or more or the four categories of
social support - will report fewer marital life events
and illnesses than those who perceive their spouses as
support specialists - supporters who are mentioned in
only one of the four categories.

Hypothesis 3A: Women who perceive their husbands as
emotional support specialists will report fewer marital
life events and fewer illnesses than if they perceive
their husbands as either companionship, information and
advice, or tangible aid support specialists.

Hypothesis 33: Men who perceive their wives as
companionship support specialists will report fewer
marital life events and fewer illnesses than if they
perceive their wives as either emotional, information
and advice, or tangible aid supporters.

Hypothesis 4: Husbands and wives who do not report

any instance of spousal support* will report more

23

marital life events and more illnesses than those who do
report their spouses in at least one of the categories
of support.

Hypothesis 5: Husbands and wives who report that
their spouses are also their friends will report fewer
marital life events and fewer illness than those who do

not report their spouses as friends.

24

Method

This study is part of a larger research project.
Only those measures and procedures which are relevant
for this particular study will be discussed.

Subjects .

One hundred seventy-four married adults, 87
husbands and 87 wives, living in a midwestern city,
ranging in age from 26 to 52, with at least one
child between the ages of seven and eleven, participated
in this study. The subjects were of racially mixed
backgrounds, consisting of 88.3% Caucasian, 7.2% Black,
1.1% Hispanic, and 3.4% other. The breakdown of
religious affiliation for the sample was 11.4% Catholic,
78% Protestant, and 11.5% had no preference. The mean
838 was 4 with a range of 0 to 9 (Hollingshead &
Redlich, 1958).

The subjects were recruited through' the
coordinators of Neighborhood Watch Groups (citizen
action groups mobilized to prevent crime) who were asked
to identify neighborhoods with high densities of
children. The coordinators' selections were confirmed
by. 1980 census data. Names and telephone numbers of

residents were obtained from Bresser's Guide (1982).

25

Once the names, addresses, and telephone numbers
were obtained, families in ten neighborhoods were sent a
one-page letter that explained the project and informed
them that it was being conducted under the auspices of
Michigan State University and the city police
department (Appendix A). This mailing was followed-
up with telephone calls to the families, based on a
standardized script. The telephone interview first
determined whether there was a child between the ages of
seven and eleven in the home. If there was, then the
family was told about the project in greater detail and
a request for participation was made. In addition, the
families were told that when all of the interviews had
been completed, four families would be chosen at random
to receive a fifty dollar check.

Procedure

 

After families had agreed to participate, an
appointment for data collection was scheduled. Data
collectors went to the subjects' homes in order for all
family members to complete questionnaires. These data
gathering sessions lasted from sixty to ninety minutes.
All family members were present during the session;
typically, the children were interviewed in the kitchen,
while the parents were interviewed in the livingroom.

There was at least one interviewer with the children and

26

one with the parents. After hearing more detailed
information about the project, all family members read
and signed consent forms.

The data were collected by graduate students and
upper-level undergraduate students. They received
extensive training in the administration of the
questionnaires.

Tests and Measurements

 

 

The Adult Social Suppgrt Questionnaire (ASSQ)

 

(Bogat, Chin, Sabbath, & Schwartz, 1983) measures
quantitative and qualititative aspects of adults' social
support networks. There are 16 questions which are
divided into four categories of social support -
emotional support (e.g., ”Who can you count on to
comfort you when you are upset?”) practical assistance
(e.g., ”Who can you count on to take you someplace you
need to 90?”) companionship (e.g., "In an average week,
who do you enjoy chatting with?") and guidance and
information (e.g., "Who can you rely on for information
and advice about spiritual/religious matters?") - with
four questions within each category. For.each question!
the subject may list as many as ten supporters. All the
unique names of supporters are then transferred to the
last page of the questionnaire. Here, the qualitative

aspects of social support, such as the relationships

27

between supporters (e.g., co-worker, friend), the
frequency of contact (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly), and
the satisfaction with each supporter (e.g., very
satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied,
very dissatisfied) were indicated (Appendix B).

The Life Experiences Survey (LES), adapted from
Sarason, Johnson, & Siegel, (1978), measures how many
and what types of Stressful events have occurred in an
individual's life. Subjects indicate whether a
particular event has occurred during the past six
months, or six to twelve months ago. For this study,
all events occurring during the last twelve months were
scored. One modification of this scale was made for
the purposes of the present study. In order to measure
marital adjustment, only the 10 items of this instrument
that dealt directly with marital issues (e.g.,
separation from spouse because of marital problems, an
unwanted pregnancy, separation from spouse because of
work demands) were used. The items numbers used were 1,
2, ll, 12, 13, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 30 (Appendix C).
Three items, 33, 36, and 41, were also included
initially, but were found to have a variance of zero,
and therefore were excluded from the analyses.
Cronbach's alpha was computed for these ten items and

yielded a coefficient of .94.

28

The Health History Questionnaire (HHQ) (Bogat &
Chin, 1983) is a fifty-three item inventory that
assesses what types of illnesses individuals typically
have during their lives. Subjects indicate whether they
have ever had a particular illness, and whether they
have had that illness during the past year. Only those
illnesses that had occurred during the past year were

scored (Appendix D).

29

Results

Hypothesis 1: It was predicted that the overall
size of men and women's social support networks would
not be significantly different. A t-test indicated that
the number of supporters in men's networks (M=l9.3)
and the number of supporters in women's networks
(M=l9.6) was not statistically significant (Es-.32).

Hypothesis ;A: It was hypothesized that the

 

networks of men would contain more companionship
supporters than the networks of women. A t—test between
sex and number of supporters that provided companionship
indicated that there was not a statistically significant
difference between the networks of men (M = 13.0) and
the networks of women (M = 12.9; t = .21).

Hypothesis lg: It was predicted that women's

 

networks would contain more emotional supporters than
the networks of men. A fittest between sex and number
of emotional supporters did not reveal a significantly
greater number of emotional supporters in women's
networks (M = 7.4) than in men's networks (M = 6.4; t =
-1.85).

Hypothesis 19: It was predicted that there would be

 

no difference between the number of information and

advice supporters in men's networks and in women's

30

networks. A t—test between sex and number of supporters

that provided information and advice indicated that
there was no significant difference between men's
networks (M = 7.6) and women's networks (M = 8.4;

t = -1.27).

Hypothesis 12: Finally, it was predicted that the
number of tangible aid supporters would be the same in
both men and women's networks. A E-test between sex and
number of supporters that provided tangible aid revealed
no significant difference between men's networks (M =
7.6) and women's networks (M = 8.5; t = -1.4l). Table 1

illustrates the above findings.

TABLE 1. Mean Gender Differences and Standard Deviations
for Type of Support

 

Men Women
n=87 n=87 t—score
Total Number of Supporters M 19.3 19.6 -.32
SD (7.2) (7.1)
Companionship Supporters M 13.0 12.9 .12
SD (5.4) (4.7)
Emotional Supporters M 6.4 7.4 -1.85*
SD (3.1) (3.6)
Information and Advice M 7.6 8.4 -1.27
Supporters SD (4.2) (3.9)
Tangible Aid Supporters M 7.6 8.5 -1.41
(4.0) (4.5)

 

* p < .10

31

Hypothesis 2: It was predicted that men and women
who were more satisfied with the support their spouses

provided would report fewer stressful marital events and

fewer illnesses than those persons who were less
satisfied with spousal support. A Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Coefficient between the levels of
satisfaction with spousal support (1 = very
dissatisfied, 2 = somewhat dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4
= somewhat satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied) and number
of stressful marital life events and illnesses reported
was calculated. There was no relationship between level
of satisfaction with spousal support and number of
illnesses reported (r = -.01). There was a significant
negative relationship between level of satisfaction with
spousal support and number of stressful marital events
reported (r = -.15,{p<.05). There was also a significant
negative relationship between number of stressful
marital events and number of illnesses (r = -.30,

p=.001). See Table 2.

32

TABLE 2. Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficients Between Satisfaction with Spousal
Support, Number of Reported Stresful Marital
Life Events, and Number of Reported Illnesses.

 

 

 

 

(N = 174)
Marital

Satisfaction Life Events Illnesses
Satisfaction -.15* -.01
Marital
Life Events -.30***
Illnesses

* 2.5 .05
*** p = .001

Hypotheses 3; 3A_ and 3B: It was first predicted

 

that men and women who perceived their spouses as
support generalists would report fewer marital life
events and fewer illnesses than those individuals who
perceived their spouses as support specialists. It was
thenfpredicted that, for women, those who perceive their
husbands as emotional support specialists would report
fewer marital life events and fewer illnesses that those

who perceived their husbands as either companionship,

33

information and advice, or tangible aid support
specialists. For men, it was predicted that those who
perceived their wives as companionship specialists would
report fewer marital life events and fewer illnesses
than those who perceived their wives as either
emotional, information and advice, or tangible aid
support specialists. However, due to the small number
of support specialists in the sample (companionship
support specialists = 7, information and advice support
specialists = 6, tangible aid support specialists = 0,
and emotional support specialists = 3) these analyses
could not be performed.

Post Hoc Analyses

 

 

It was hypothesized that spousal support may be
better understood if the entire range of specialist -
generalist possibilities was considered. A Pearson
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between level of

spousal support (1 - spouse reported in one category of

support, 2 spouse reported in two categories “of

support, 3 spouse reported in three categories of
support, and 4 = spouse reported in all four categories
of support) was computed. There was a nonsignificant
correlation between level of specialization of support

and number of illnesses reported (r = .06), as well as a

nonsignificant correlation between level of

34

specialization of support and number of stressful
marital events reported (r = -.05). Finally, there was
a significant negative relationship between number of
stressful marital events reported and number of

illnesses reported (r =-.27,‘p=.001). See Table 3.

TABLE 3. Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficients Between Specialization of Spousal
Support and Number of Reported Stressful
Marital Events, and Number of Reported
Illnesses. (N = 139)

Marital
Specialization Life Events Illnesses

Specialization -.06 .06
Marital

Life events -.27***
Illnesses

 

 

Hypothesis 4: It was predicted that men and women

 

who did not report any instance of spousal support would
report more stressful marital life events and more

illnesses than those who did report at least one

35

instance. An Analysis of Variance was first conducted
on the relationship between sex, presence or absence of
spousal support, and number of marital life events
endorsed. Seventeen husbands and 18 wives did not
report their spouses in any category of support, while
70 husbands and 69 wives reported their spouses in at
least one category of support. There was a significant
main effect for spousal support (F(1,170) = 4.22, p<.05,

M for absence of support = 4.47, M for presence of

support = 3.01). There was no main effect for sex
(F(1,170) = .01) and there was no interaction between
sex and presence of spousal support (F(1,170) = .61).

See Table 4A.

An Analysis of Variance was also conducted on the
relationship between sex, presence or absence of spousal
support and number of illnesses endorsed. There was a
significant main effect for sex (F(1,170) =7.92, p<.05,
M for men = 1.15, M for women = 1.86), There was no
main effectfor spousal support (F(l,170) = .05), and
there was no interaction between sex and presence of

spousal support (F(1,170) = .64). See Table 4B.

.

36

Table 4A.

Analysis of Variance for Sex and Presence

of Spousal Support with Marital Life Events

Variable

Sum of
Squares

Mean

DF Square

Main Effect
Spousal Support
Sex

2-Way Interactions

Explained

Residual

60.607
.172

8.726
69.425
2439.816

1 60.607
1 .172
1 8.726
3 23.142
170 14.504

4.223*
.012

.608
1.612

Table 4B.

of Spousal Support with Illnesses

Variable

Sum of
Squares

Mean

DF Square

Analysis of Variance for Sex and Presence

Main Effects

Sex

Spousal Support
2—Way Interactions
Explained

Residual

22.140
.151

1.767
24.031
475.463

1 22.104
1 .151
1
3

1.787

7.916**
.054

.639
2.864*

37

Hypothesis 5 It was predicted that men and women who
perceived their spouses as friends would report fewer
stressful marital life events and fewer illnesses than
those men and women who did not report that their
spouses were also their friends. An Analysis of
Variance was first calculated for the relationship
between sex, spouse perceived as friend, and number of
marital events reported. Fifty-two husbands and 41
wives did not report their spouses as their friends,
while 18 husbands and 28 wives did report that their
spouses were also their friends. There was no main
effect for sex (F(1,135) =.61). There was a main effect
for spouse perceived as friend (F(1,135) = 4.30, p<.05,
M for spouse perceived as friend = 2.63, M for spouse
not perceived as friend = 4.14), and there was an
interaction between sex and spouse perceived as friend
(F(1,135) = 4.20, .B<-°5)- Men reported mdre stressful
marital events when they reported their wives as friends
(M = 5.33) than when they did not report their wives as
friends (M = 2.40). Women reported virtually the same
number of stressful marital events when they reported

2.96) as when they did

their husbands as friends (M

not-report them as friends (M 2.81). See Table 5A.
Next, an Analysis of Variance was calculated on the

relationship between sex, spouse as friend, and number

38

of illnesses. There was no main effect for spouse
perceived as friend (F(1,135) = .01), but there was a
main effect for sex (F(1,135) = 4.77, p<.05, M for men =
1.21, M for women = 1.83). There was no interaction
between sex and spouse perceived as friend (F(1,135) =

.292). See Table SB.

Table 5A. Analysis of Variance for Sex, Spouse
Perceived as Friend, and Marital Life Events

Sum of Mean

Variable Squares DF Square F
Main Effects .

Sex 8.294 1 8.294 .612

Spouse/Friend 58.289 1 58.289 4.300*
2—Way Interaction 56.886 1 56.886 4.197*
Explained 118.049 3 39.350 2.903*
Residual 1829.923 135 13.555
* pg .05

39

Table 5B. Analysis of Variance for Sex, Spouse
Perceived as Friend, and Illnesses

Sum of Mean

Variable Squares DF Square F
Main Effect

Sex 12.885 1 12.885 4.767*

Spouse/Friend .033 1 .033 .012
2-Way Interaction .788 1 .788 .292
Explained 13.827 3 4.609 .590
Residual 364.878 135 2.703

40

Discussion

The results from this study indicate that men and
women's social support networks are not quantitatively
different. These results are contrary both to Booth's
(1972) report that men have more friends than women and
to Weiss and Lowenthal's (1975) study that found women
had more friends than men. One possible explanation for
this discrepancy in results is that the populations
sampled and the methodologies used were different. In
Booth's study, the respondents were 45 years of age or
older, while in the present study, the subjects ranged
in age from 26 to 52. Weiss and Lowenthal's sample was
similar in age to that of the present study, but their
sample was divided into young, middle, and older
respondents, and the results were reported for each of
the three groups separately. Perhaps the number of
supporters in one's networks changes as a function of
life stage. Longitudinal analyses documenting the
composition of adults' social support networks over time
should be attempted in order to answer this question.

There also appears to be little evidence to suggest
that men and women's social support networks are

qualitatively different. The results from the present

41

study indicate that men and women had similar
proportions of companionship, information and advice,
tangible aid, and emotional supporters in their
respective networks. Past studies on adult friendships
suggested that men and women differ in the kinds of
friendship relationships they prefer; women prefer
relationships where they can share their emotions, while
men prefer friendships that involve sharing activities,
such as sports (Brehm, 1985; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982;
Dickens & Perlman, 1981; Reisman, 1981; Wright, 1982).
One possible explanation for the differences in results
between past studies and the present study is that as
sex-roles have become more blurred, it has become more
acceptable for men to engage in emotional sharing
relationships, thought to be sought after mainly by
women, and for women to seek out companions A or
"buddies”, once thought to be relationships mainly
pursued by men.

Another possible explanation for the absence of sex
differences in the present study may be due to the way
social support has been measured in this study and in
‘past studies. For example, the instrument used in the
Caldwell and Peplau (1982) study asked subjects to

categorize their friends into intimate friends, good

42

friends, and casual friends. The ASSQ used in the
present study asked subjects to report up to 10 people
with whom they share different activities. In addition,
the Caldwell and Peplau instrument divided friendly
interactions into two types: talking (typically what
female friends are thought to do) and doing an activity
(typically what male friends are thought to do). The
ASSQ examined four types of interactions: companionship,
practical assistance, tangible aid, and emotional
support. Perhaps a narrow typological focus as well as
subjects categorizing their own friendships could
account in part for the sex differences found in
previous studies.

It seems, then, that men and women do not differ
with regard to the size and composition of their social
support networks. However, the number and type of
supporters in one's network may be less important than
satisfaction with the support provided. The mere
presence of supporters may not be sufficient in and of
itself to foster adjustment. In fact, it has been found
that supporters can be perceived as unhelpful and
unsatisfying to an individual (e.g., Fiore, Becker, &
Coppel, 1983; Rook, 1984; Wortman, 1984). The results.
of the present study indicate that men and women who

were more satisfied with the support they received from

43

their spouses were less likely to have experienced
stressful marital life events. This finding is
consistent with the observation that people who are
unhappily married are likely to be stressed by their
marital situation (Coyne & DeLongis, 1986).
Interestingly, no relationship was found between
satisfaction and number of illnesses experienced over
the last year, and a negative relationship was found
between number of events and number of illnesses
experienced. These findings are contrary to the results
of previous studies (Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983;
Kaplan & DeLongis, 1983; Renne, 1970) which suggest that
unhappily married persons are more likely to report
suffering from illnesses and depression.

Perhaps the nature of the present findings could be
explained by the cross-sectional design of the study.
While subjects were asked to indicate the number of
stressful marital events and illnesses that had occurred
over the past year, the temporal relation between the
onset of marital events and the onset of illness was
left unclear. It is possible that spouses respond to
each other when one of them is ill in such a way as to
minimize the amount of stressful marital interactions.

Therefore, illness may (bring about a decrease in the

44

number of stressful marital events experienced by
couples. However, it is unclear whether this
relationship between illness and stressful marital
events would remain stable or fluctuate over the course
of an illness.

This same temporal uncertainty could also account
for the inability to find a relationship between
satisfaction and illness. It is possible that some
spouses report more satisfaction when their mate is ill
because they experience fewer stressful marital events.

On the other hand, spouses may report more satisfaction
when their mate has recovered from an illness and their
lives can return to 'norma1.'. Clearly, a longitudinal
analysis of the relationships between marital
satisfaction and marital and physical adjustment is
necessary to resolve these issues.

In this study, an attempt was made to better
understand men and women's support networks and their
relationship to marital and physical adjustment by
conceptualizing networks in terms of support generalists
and support specialists. Initially, it was hypothesized
that men and women whose spouses were support
generalists would be likely to endorse fewer stressful

marital events and illnesses than those who viewed their

spouses as support specialists, because the more kinds

45

of support one has, the better one would be protected
from the effects of stress and illness. Further, based
on the results from studies of adult friendships
suggesting that women prefer friends with whom they can
share their feelings and men prefer friends with whom
they can share activities, it was hypothesized that
women whose husbands were emotional support specialists
and men whose wives were companionship specialists would
endorse fewer stressful marital life events and
illnesses than individuals whose spouses were perceived
as other types of support specialists. Interestingly,
there were not enough spouse support specialists to be
able to perform any of these analyses. It seems
plausible that, over time, spouses may come to serve
many functions for each other. Therefore, the support
they give to each other would be of a more general
nature.

The apparent lack of support specialists may
reflect the irrelevancy of the concept of support
specialist and generalist for spouses. A support
specialist was a supporter who appeared in only one of
the four categories of support. A support generalist
was a supporter who appeared in two or more of the four

categories. While this definition of support specialist

46

and generalist was used previously for unmarried college
students (Bogat, Caldwell, Rogosch, & Kriegler, 1985),
it may be the case that spouses cannot be separated into
generalists and specialists. '

As a post hoc procedure, it was thought that
examining the full range of the specialist - generalist
continuum would be a better way to understand the
supportive relationships between spouses. It was
hypothesized that a specialist was a supported who
appeared in one category of support, a dualist was a
supporter who appeared in two categories of support, a
sub-generalist was a supporter who appeared in three
categories of support, and a generalist was a supporter
who appeared in all four catetgories of support.
However, the results of the present study did not
support this this conceptualization of spousal
support.

The results of the present study seem to suggest
that the presence or absence of spousal support is a
more critical dimension than whether a spouse is a
specialist or generalist supporter. When. spousal
support is present, both men and women experience fewer
stressful marital life events. There have been
suggestions in the literature of a threshold effect,

where the critical distinction is between having no

47

supportive relationships and having at least one (Abbey,
Abramis, & Caplan, 1985; House & Kahn, 1985). Perhaps
the same effect can be applied to an understanding of
marital support, such that the critical difference is
between having or not having spousal support.

It was also hypothesized that the feeling of
friendship in the spousal relationship might be an
important component of the unique, supportive
characteristics of the marital relationship. As with the
previous hypothesis, both men and women reported fewer
stressful marital events when they reported their spouse
as their friend than when they did not report their
spouse as their friend.

The results of the relationships between presence
of spousal support, spouse perceived as friend, and
illness did not turn out as had been hypothesized. In
both cases, women reported more illnesses than men
regardless' of whether or not they reported presence of
spousal support or whether or not women reported their
spouse as their friend. While not predicted, these
results are congruent with those of Gove and Hughes
(1979) who concluded that a major source of the sex
differences in physical symptoms is that women are worn

down by their more nurturant role demands.

48

Another set of results that was not predicted was
that men reported more stressful marital events when
they reported their wives as their friends than when
they did not, while the number of marital events
reported by women did not differ as a function of
perceiving their husbands as their friends. These
findings may be understood in light of the literature on
the negative impact of relationships and their
differential impact on men and women. The literature on
family interactions and family therapy seems to suggest
that families function best at moderate levels of
involvement (Coyne & Holroyd, 1982). Data from diverse
populations, including adults suffering from
schizophrenia and depression (Vaughn & Leff, 1976),
chronic pain (Mohamed, Weisz, & Waring, 1978), and
children and adolescents suffering from diabetes or
asthma (Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978) suggest that
overinvolvement in close relationships can aggravate and
perpetuate other problems. Perhaps men and women react
differently when they become overinvolved in their
relationship with their mate. It is possible that men
react to overinvolvement with their wives by ."acting
out" in the marital relationship: instigating more
arguments, spending more time away from the spouse, or

beginning an affair. Women may react to. an

49

onverinvolved husband, not by "acting out," but rather
by internalizing their feelings, which becomes
manifested in an increased number of physical symptoms.
While this is clearly speculative, future research is
needed to examine the negative side of marital relations
and the differential impact these negative relationship
may have on men and women.

There are several methodological shortcomings of
the present study that may have influenced the obtained
results. First, while self-report seems to be the
accepted method of gathering information on social
support networks, it is virtually impossible to
ascertain the truthfulness of the subjects' responses.
Here, respondents may endeavor to 'look good” and show
their marriage in a falsely positive light; subjects
also may attempt to "fake bad," or . exaggerate the
problems they may be experiencing. The alternative
would be to use behavioral observation, whereby specific
spousal behavior would indicate presence or absence and
type of supportive relationship. However, the critical
dimension of subjects' perception of presence or absence
support would be lost.

A second shortcoming of this study concerns the

lack of operational definitions for some of the key

50

concepts under investigation. For example, there were
no a priori definitions for the concepts of satisfaction
with support, or the relational category of friendship.
It was instead left to each subject to determine what
each term meant. It is possible that the definition of
satisfaction differed greatly for different subjects.
If this is the case, then our ability to discover
general principles governing the relationship between
support satisfaction, marital life events and illness is
limited.

A third problem for this study is that the
instrument used to measure marital adjustment was
designed to measure life stress in adulthood. At the
outset, an attempt was made to construct a measure of
marital adjustment similar to the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale. While there were items on the LES that were
unique to the marital relationship and that were
potential marital stresses, the reliability of these
items taken together to constitute a measure of marital
adjustment is questionable and needs to be further
validated. - -

A fourth difficulty is that this study focused only
on those stressful events that had a direct impact on
the marital relationship (for -example, "frequent

arguments with spouse" was included, while ”frequent

51

arguments with co-workers' was not). Previous research
suggest that stressors outside the marital relationship,
such as work stress, can adversely affect spouse
functioning. For example, Billings and Moos (1982)
found that work stress was associated with lower family
support for both men and women. In addition, high
levels of job stress for wives were associated with
husbands' reports of increased symptoms and fewer
positive family relationships.

A final shortcoming is characteristic of almost all
of the social support research to date. There have yet
to be developed standardized measures of social support
whose reliability and validity have been ascertained and
proven acceptable. The present study is unfortunately
no exception. The social support measure used in this
,study (the ASSQ) has been tested only twice, and on
populations that were very different from the present
one (college students and children). Therefore,
it is difficult to compare the results from this, study
with the results of other studies because adequate
reliability has yet to be established. There is
somewhat more evidence concerning the validity of the
ASSQ. There is a general consensus in the literature

that social support typically consists of the same types

52

of aid that were examined in this study (Cobb, 1976;
House, 1981; Turner, 1983). In addition, Kriegler
(1985) demonstrated content validity for the CSSQ (the
children's version of the ASSQ). While this typological
conceptualization is becoming increasingly accepted and
utilized, further empirical research is warranted to
ascertain whether this definition remains stable across

populations and conditions.

53

Conclusions

The present study has sought to examine the role that
social support may play in helping to protect couples
from the deleterious effects of stressful life events
and illnesses. Several findings are noteworthy. First,
contrary to popular belief and much past research, men
and women's networks appear almost identical, both with
respect to network size as well as the proportion of the
various types of supporters in their networks. Second,
while it seems that satisfaction with the support
received from one's spouse is significantly related to
the number of marital life events, the temporal context
of marital satisfaction, marital adjustment and illness
needs to be explored further. Third, the perception
that one's spouse is indeed supportive, and is
considered a friend, is significantly related to the
number of marital life events experienced. However,
these relationships are different for physical
adjustment, and need to be examined in terms of the
negative impact of social relationships.

In addition, several problems in the area of social
support research have yet to be solved. The lack of

consensus among researchers in the field as to the best

54

guiding theoretical construct for how social support is
health protective remains one of the major stumbling
blocks impeding our understanding of social
relationships. Without this guiding theory, it is
difficult to determine which are the important concepts
we wish to examine. In addition, our inability to
develop a standardized instrument or set of instruments
to measure social support and its correlates makes
comparisons between studies difficult. Finally, there
must be further investigation of how married men and
women perceive their spousal relationships and how this
perception influences subsequent levels of stress and
illness. Once some of these issues have been addressed,
researchers may then proceed to develop ways to help
individuals who lack supportive relationships, or whose

relationships are not supportive.

55

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Letter of Explanation

MICHIGAN S'ETE UNIVERSITY NEH-31m PmJECI‘

Dear Neighborhood Resident:

VE'D LIKE TO m WHAT YOU THINK AK)UT
NEIQ'IEDRHCIDS AND FRIENIB

If you have at least one child between the ages of 7 and 11, Michigan
State University's Neighborhood Project would like to interview you and
your family as part of a research study involving neighborhoods. Your
neighborhood was chosen for this study because it has a large
concentration of young children and because it belongs to the Lansing
Police Department's Neighborhood Watch.

W-IATIXDYOUWAN'I‘TOMAHXJT?

 

The Neighborhood Project is interested in learning about how parents
and children feel about their neighborhoods and understanding the types
of friendships that they develop.

VHATIXDINEEDTOII)?

Within the next few weeks, someone from the Neighborhood Project will
be telephoning you to ask whether you have children between the ages of
7 and 11 and whether you vmld like to participate. At this time we
will explain the project to you in greater detail and answer any
questions you may have.

mmIGET?

 

We appreciate the help of all the families who participate in this
study; however, our funds are limited, and as nuch as we would like to,
we cannot pay all participants for their help. As a token of our
appreciation, the names of all the families who participate will be
entered into a drawing and four families will receive a cash award of
$50.00 each.

Families who have participated in this project so far have enjoyed
talking with us. We hope that you will consider helping. Thank you
for taking the time to read this letter. We look forward to speaking
with you further.

Sincerely,

G. Anne Bogat, Ph.D.

(Telephone Nunber: 353-8690)

P.S. The Neighborhood Project is working with the Lansing Police
Department, Conmunity Services Division. If you wuild like to verify

the authenticity of this project, please feel free to contact Officer
Linda Wittman (372-9400, extension 120).

56

APPEND IX B

Adults' Social Support Questionnaire

50cm swam murmur (4002-1 FOR“)

1m: lhe following ouestiohs est shout people who ere sort of your lite no Wide you
with help or so rt. lhere are is cautious. oh the lines uMernesth eech
question. list e l the people. excluding yourseli. who you run count on for u“tel:
or sensor: is the our..." oescrioed. 6m only the first uses of esehoers I
two pfiple lose the some first are. sleese sroviue the initials of their lost eeoes
es we

Is set list lore than ten sersohs ser question. List oely those persons who one
iii to eisd when you reed the nestles. if you hove no support or help tor e
r. question. write 'eo oee" is the spore previous.
Fleese enswer ell of the westioes es test you as. All of your responses will to
test ossiioeetiel.

iNI: WNWMIIKW.EWEIATIIIIBMQW'

 

 

 

 

Code No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

m: :susnmmeooomwoinumieuxm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' ST! ' '0 no M SD M WT“ (roe ME. in NVIES. M13. arm. ”'1‘.
M I!“ 9015. m. )7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we m m m: THAT mu socuuzt um Al‘ maxim ACTIVITIES roe mutt.
dust. mus taunts. mm mes. microns ms. at. r

 

 

 

 

Female.

 

 

 

 

mle

 

 

m: I!) U.” “1' mun III M ADVICE OR iani m ”HIM/“US!” I'm

 

 

 

 

Your ege
Your sex:

 

 

 

 

 

57

MIDI 10:

EST!“ 11:

on em mu mum on m mm an uncommon mm msom mmss (run mums,
soapssuigcvh’e cancers. Farms. or mass; :09qu A rusom snumou
. O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

out» no nu on mmcr on immune mammms (rot mm.
mm A m. mono arms. ETC.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uommmvoemmrctonmmumn%§zsmm(mm.
mmmmmm.wurmssms .“IIOVIESTOSEE.
"minimise.Immmsm.mmmrmmmumsmesmlt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“WMMCWBEDEMWWWHH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uomvwcomouromcvoummzmnemmm'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

flit WT. ETC.” .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

no
CUP soon. I um. I! 19"“. “C.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g1: You moos- cmsm mus lr vortt ll A mm (me am. A more. A

._m: mmmmumrmmmmmmmmemmmmr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m: womvwmummnmuummm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~m: WWW!MWMWMMQSMDINMW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3mm: “WMMIMW

2.
3.
Q.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omcnois: Circle she center for such of these tour Questions.

m7 mum m um
onsansnn DISSATISFIED m Militia ammo
l I 3 4 I
is geluerel. how sstisfiee ere you with the MM m on: you receive!
lo peerel. how setisiieo ere you with the mom. M5151” diet you receive?
is ml. how sstistieo ere you with the newness» thst you receive?
Is oeeersl. how setisiieo are you with the MIC! er lhiulmlm thst you receive?

59

‘ddd

.‘Oh

 

is 3
r a
St 3:
r. z:
£325~i§
tsEE§E£§
£‘E‘ééii
é séi‘sé“3
33:3“ c
g sg: it :
Sissa s;
. g g
g s
5
S-
g a r i
l§:§:s-
' stfigigi
:tzt't
§§:::§::
§sssdss¢
: S
s .t.
53 5’:
ES §Es
33 :§5
:3, .. 3.4-;
5:33 35%:
:Eli grates
asses:
:gzeeséfis:
Etssssss s

tour Age:

Your Sex:

Felule

his

nuclei
2

i

llele or

 

 

 

I.

 

 

 

 

 

5.
6.
'. 'o

60

 

 

 

9.
10.
Ii.

4:

 

 

32.

 

13.
i4.

 

 

15.
16.
i7.

 

 

 

10.

1!.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now setisiied ere you with your

reletionshio with this person?

How often do you hove contest

with this person?

5

53

3%

Q.

53

‘00
5%.!
LEE?
23:22
.cszz
:gzc:
gisss

3
’
fi.
H

3:

:3 3
335?-
€:'-:
Q-‘v-QUCI
U.- 2' .&
C” 6'0.
a v. c-
.“ “a“
'- —n 3
2. a:

. z e
. 5 .
’ t ’

1.
2
3.
4
5.

a
u
C
U
P
8
v
t 5 .
i 5 i
C - .
fig...
33555“
C .
c.s.:E
‘ ‘0‘“
éédddd
A
S
f
:35
5-:
5::
.35
c 0'
es:
332
‘
.3335
‘33.33
Beau I
£2.05
9’ find-02
“423-:
39; ca

4.
5.
6.
7.

"1'. or Fewele?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii.
12.
13.

 

 

U

‘

p

P

 

«mummies
.C'Q.‘
else-sauna

NNNNNN

o-e-u-e-o-o-

II-Ilslbiblblb

UUUUUU

UUUUUU

nuance:

‘(‘<(‘

Nhhhhh

'CC".

nae-inn»

NNNNNN

e-Pu-u-e-e-

NNCUNNN

pppppp

 

 

 

 

 

 

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

p

9

<

C

n

p

F

 

20o

21.

 

22.

23.

 

 

24.

 

APPENDIX C

Life Experiences Survey

 

Your ego: code No.
Tour eon: Hole renele
Life Event Scale for hdulte

 

The chechllet below conelete o! evente which ere eoeetleee leportent
expertencee. head down the liet until you find the evente thet heve
heppened to you pereonelly. Indlcete when thet event happened to you
end how you felt ebout the event. roe DEATHS 0831: It more then one
deeth occurred. nerk the eddltlonel epecee. when they occurred. end
how you felt. tor e to which continued for e long period of tine.
web an timer. 0 cl: the beginning dete end the ending dete. 1:
you can't reneeber the erect detee, juet be en eccurete ee you oen.

Ihen did the event occur? how did you feel ebout
the event?

Ilthln Within 1 - very negetlve
0 - 6 6 - 12 2 I Slightly negetlve
loathe Hontbe -3 - Slightly positive

4 - very poeltlve

Deeth of e child or
epouee ate-bend. wife
or note)? 1 2 3 4

Deeth of e child or
epouee (husband, wlte
or note)? 2nd 1 2 3 6

 

 

The deeth of e perent
brother or eleter? l 2 3 4

The deeth of e perent
brother or eleter? (2nd) 1 2 3 d

The deeth o! e parent
brother or eleter? (3rd)___ 1 2 3 4

The loee of e cloee
friend or importent
reletlonehlp by deeth? l 2 3 4

The loee of e clcee
friend or importent
reletlonebl by
deeth? (2nd?

Legel troublee
reuniting in being
held in jell?

rinenclel difficultlee? ___

being fired or leld
off?

A Idecerrlege or
ehortlooiyou. or
CPOuee)?

Divorce. or e breekup
with e lover?

 

Seperetlon tron epouee
beceuee of eerltel

problene?

Court eppeerence
for e eerloue
violetlon?

 

 

An unwented pregnancy
(you. spouse. or girlfriend)

 

lhon did the event occur? How did you feel about
the event?
Within flithin l I very negative
0 - 6 6 - l2 2 I Slightly negative
nontho Hontho 3 I Slightly pooitive
4 I very pooitive
hoopitalieation
of a tanily eenber
for oeriouo illneoe? l 2 3 4
Unemploynent lore
than one month (it .
regularly employed)? , l 2 3 4

Illneoo/injury kopt
in bed for week or
nore. hoop. or eearg.
roan?

An ertra-earital .
affair? l 2 3 4

The lone of a
peroonally valuable
object? 1 2 3 4

Involvenent in a
lawouit (other than

divorce)? ' 1 2 3 4
railing an important

examination? 1 2 3 4
breaking en

engegeent? l 2 3 4

hrgunento with epouoe
(huoband. wife or

 

late)? 1 2 3 4
Teking on a .

large loan? 1 2 3 4
Being drafted into

the military? 1 2 3 4
Troubleo with boeo

or other workero? l 2 3 4
Separation from a -

close friend? 1 2 3 4
Taking an important

exaeination? l 2 3 4
Separation iron opouao

becauoe of job denando? l 2 3 4
A big change in work .

or in ochool? l 2 3 - 4

A nove to another
town. city. otate or
country? 1 2 3 4

Getting narried

or returning to

epouoe after

oeparation ? l 2 3 4

63

Hinor violationo
of the low?

Moved hone within
eene town or city?

The birth or
adoption of a child?

Being confuoed for
over 3 dayo?

being angry for
over 3 dayo?

being nervouo for
over 3 deyo?

being oed for
over 3 deyo?

Spouoe unfaithful?
Attacked. raped or

involved in violent
acta?

“hen did the event occur?

within
0 - 4
nontho

“
~
_
_
—
_
*
_
*

lithin
0 I 12
soothe

64

low did you feel about
event?

very negative
Slightly negative
Slightly pooitive
very pooitive

.UNH?

 

APPENDIX D

Health History Questionnaire

O.-

O
2:

22222 2

O
2

mg

aux

aw»

ml»
war
Gnu

an»

«wee» awe.— ecu cm

on no any Pocono 9.30:0 ac eueoaoca See...— .cln.noo ocooee ecu cu

 

.o. .090

eucuo
nueec ecaeumuz .eu
III 3.3ch
uneducaooecao
no eueueOHA .na
III: once-«o
neooeuc no necoqu .em
Illl_ wouocuuoeec .mu
.IIII emcee: .vw
Ill e358...
neooeacuneo .na
IIII eunuch» ue>qd .uu
II. 83.3% and.» .3
ll: unoo . on
envenoo .ou
IIII neon:
deceoonO\cuelouu .un
ceauuccou
uueec uecuo .pu
null unann- uucen .eu
.5 323.:

222222

0
2

mar
any

any

«neon ueea ecu on

 

.uoe uoeu ecu ocuuoo oeuunouo concoua ecu uecuece

aIOEMHI Shana: EHDO¢

.ueen ecu cu oec enoc no eeec
xuuceuuno non eleacoun neouoee uo eeoeecu « ecu no ace .2. no can: cue- eeeean .cenuoo venue ecu cu .QIOuhoauuo

 

IIII unannouncedueuuc .nu
III! noueueouoco cow: .vu
II. 303»- uueo: .2
IIII euoeoeun ocean coda .uq
ll... 2.838.. 9.3 ~28 .2
IIII eweOAoouecna .ou
III! eecueo no eoaeueuuc .9
III: once-neon .e
......| 3.0:.an 4.
IIII eunucoooun .e
.llli eecoe ueu .n
..l.l.. once 53
no one won «one» no
Heduuen .eeocueeo .e
till eoeucoue cod-«o .n
IIII eeoooouo .u
IIII coauoeunn
can efie no era .u
as amend:
eqeaoe one: .wee use»
.eoe use»

65

 

 

08 mar

03 mm»

02 an»

08 nfl»

oz mm».
on an»

08 max

2
3

an»

on our.

 

 

02 max

«nee» uee~ ecu cu

ax.

.uecuo .nm
uncouue
cud: eeedcoum .«m
nonuo
cud: eaeucOum .am
couuewuueuuneoc
u0\oce ocean-none .om
.uue eeoeau.oexoco
.euceqec .ueuee no
neon ..u.e .eeucocm .mv
.e.ecoc
cornea .av
tecuueuo
\coauannuucoo .9.
been eeueucue .
\luoeocqc .ee
nau\eouoo .ue
eoencoue
cueea .vo
euceoecu .nv
.auuoeae eeooun
ecueocou .
cuueec «once: .nv
«unseen

 

03.

.“I

mucu_aecu ewe vac) .ora.uu

an» «annoucoou eecuoqoee ace oxen sea on

v
Adouxfl

 

n
coco

 

.eco odouao. mound use» no neon ceec cuaeoc woo» eec no:

ace

03

«noon 3

v
«deoxm

3..

n a
anon anon
N A
nae» noon

.eco odouao. «nee» been

ecu ocuuno ceec cuueec «ueue>o noon eec re:

mflh

Qua

new 03» 6H

 

ceeu case
\eoewue\euee«uoea .4v
. eqeoenoncoco: .ov
o-e858\eeneeel .nn
canon-nee ..n
eon-nano. .pn
auceoceu echoeoac .en
«also no ueoceo .nn
eeaauauue ..n
eeuowuee .eeouonoecoo .nn
excuse .«a
sunfish one: .nn.
nee-dune .on

eecueoeec uneueuewon
one cesarean .ou
amazed"

«a.

 

6(5

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

 

Abbey, A., Abramis, D.J., Caplan, R. D. (1985). Effects
of different sources of social support and social
conflict on emotional well-being. Basic and Applied
Psychology,§, 111-130.

 

 

Andrews, G., Tennant, C., Hewson, D. M., & Vaillant, G.
E. (1978). Life events stress, social support, coping
style, and risk of psychological impairment. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease. 166, 307-316.

 

Barker, C., & Lemle, R. (1984). The helping process in
couples. American Journal of Community Psychology!
$2: 321-336.

 

 

 

Barrera, M., & Ainlay, S. L. (1983). The structure of
social support: A conceptual and empirical analysis.
Journal of Community Psychology, ll, 133-143.

 

Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New York:
World.

 

Billings, A.G., & Moos, R. H. (1982). Work stress abd
the stress-buffering roles of work and family

resources. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 215-
232.

 

Bloom, B. L., Asher, S. J., & White, S. W. (1978).
Marital disruption as a stressor: A review and
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, §§, 867-894.

 

Bogat, G. A., Caldwell, R. A., Rogosch, F. A., &
Kriegler, J. A. (1985). Differentiating specialists
and generalists within college students' social
support networks. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
$3. 23-35.

 

Bogat, G. A., Chin, R., Sabbath, W., & Schwartz, C.
(1983). The adult social support Questionnaire
(Technical Report No. 1) East Lansing: Michigan State
University.

 

 

Bogat, G. A., 8 Chin, R. (1983). The figalth History
Questionnaire (Technical Report No. 2) East Lansing:
Michigan State University.

 

 

Booth, A. (1972). Sex and social participation. American
Sociological Review, 183-193.

 

67

Bresser's Cross-Index Directory For Lansigg 2 East
Lansing and Suburban Communities, 1981-1982 Edition.
Detroit: Bresser‘s Cross—Index Directory Company.

 

Brehm, S. S. (1985). Intimate relationships. New York:
Random House.

Broadhead, W. E., Kaplan, B. R., James, S. A., Wagner,
E. H., Schoenbach, V.J., Grimson, R., Heyden, S.,
Tibben, G., & Gelbach S. R. (1983). The epidemiologic
evidence for a relationship between social support
and health. American Journal pf Epidemiology, 111,
521-537.

 

Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. O. (1978). Social origins pf
depression: A study pf psychiatric disorder ip women.
New York: Free Press.

Brown, G. W., Mock, E. M., Carstairs, G. M., & Wing, J.
K. (1962). The influence of family life on the course
of schizophrenia illness. British Journal of
Preventive Social Medicine, lg, 55-68. _—

Burgess, R. L. (1981). Relationships in marriage and the
family. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (365.). Personal
relationships. 11 Studying personal relationships
(pp. 179-196). London: Academic Press.

Burgess, A. W., & Holstrom, L. L. (1979). Adaptive
strategies and recovery from rape. American Journal
pf ngchiatry, 136, 1278-1282.

 

Burke, R. J., & Weir, . T. (1976). Personality
characteristics of giving and receiving help.
Psychological Reports, gg, 343-353.

Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L.A. (1982). Sex differences
in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 8, 721-732.

 

Caldwell, R.A., & Reinhart, M.A. The relationship of
personality to individual differences in the use of
type and source of social support. Journal pf Social
and Clinical Psychology, in press.

Caplan, G. (1974). Su rt systems and community mental
health. New York: Behav1oral Publishing.

 

68

Caplan, G. (1981). Mastery of Stress: Psychosocial
aspects. American Journal of Psychiatgy, 138, 413-
420.

 

 

Cassel, J. (1974). Psychosocial processes and ”stress:"
Theoretical formulations. International Journal of
Health Services, A, 471-482.

 

 

Cassel, J. (1976). The contribution of the environment
to host resistance. American Journal of Epidemiology,
104, 107-123.

 

 

Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life
stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300-314.

 

Cochran, M. M., & Brassard, J. A. (1979). Child
development and child social support networks. Child
Development, g3, 601-616.

 

Cohen, C. 1., & Sokolovsky, J. (1978). Schizophrenia in
social networks: Expatients in the inner city.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 546-560.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support,
and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological

 

 

Coyne, J. C., & DeLongis, A. (1985). Going beyond social
support: The role of social relationships in
adaptation. University of Michigan: Unpublished
manuscript.

Coyne, J. C., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond social
support: The role of social relationships in
adaptation. Journal pf Consulting 32g Clinical
Psychology, 54(4), 454-460.

 

Coyne, J. C., and Holroyd, K. (1982). Stress, coping,
and illness: A transactional perspective. In T.
Millon, C. Green, & R. Meagher (Eds.), Handbook of
Health Care Psychology (pp. 103-128). New York:
Plenum Press.

 

Coyne, J. C., Kahn, J., & Gottlieb, I. H. (1984).
Depression. In T. Jacob (Ed.) Family interaction and
psychopathology (pp. 209-234). New York: Plenum.

 

69

Dean, A., Lin, N., Tausig, M., & Ensel, W. (1980).
Relating pypes pf support pp depression in the life
course. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Sociological Association, New York.

 

 

Dickens, W. J., & Perlman, D. (1981) Friendship over the
life cycle. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.) Personal
relationships. 2i Developing personal relationships
(pp. 91-122). London: Academic Press.

 

 

Eaton, W. W. (1978). Life events, social supports, and
psychiatric symptoms: A re-analysis of the New Haven
data. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 12, 230-
234.

 

Ellstein, C. (1984). Social support: A developmental
perspective. Michigan State University: Unpublished
manuscript.

Fiore, J., Becker, J., & Coppel, D. B. (1983). Social
network interactions: A buffer or a stress? American
Journal pf Community Psychology,11, 423-440.

 

Gore, S. (1978). The effect of social support in
moderating the health consequences of unemployment.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 12, 157-165.

 

Gottlieb, B. H. (1981). Social networks and social
support. Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

Gove, W. (1973). Sex, marital status, and mortality.
Americal Journal pf Sociology,12, 45-67.

 

Gove, W., & Hughes, M. (1979). Possible causes of the
apparent sex differences in mental health. American
Sociological Review, 21, 59-81.

 

Gove, W., Hughes, M., a Style, C. B. (1983). Does
marriage have positive effects on the psychological
well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 23, 122-131.

 

 

Haan, N. (1982). The assessment of coping, defense and
stress. In L. Goldberg & S. Breznitz (Eds.). Handbook
of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (PP. 254-
239). New York: Free:Press.

 

70

Henderson, 3. (1980). A development in social
psychiatry: The systematic study of social bonds.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168, 63-69.

Hirsch, B. J. (1980). Social networks and the coping
process. In B. Gottlieb (Ed.). Social networks and
social support. (pp. 149-170). Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

Hollingshead, A. B. & Redlich, F. C. (1958). Social

Class and Mental Illness: A Community Study. New
York: Wiley.

 

House, J. S. (1981). Work, stress, and social support.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

House, J. S. & Kahn, R. L. (1985). Measuring social
support. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme, (Eds.) Social

Support and Health (PP. 83-108). New York: Academic
Press.

House, J. S., McMichael, A. J., Wells, J. A., Kaplan, B.
H., & Landerman, L. R. (1979). Occupational stress
and health among factory workers. Journal pf Health
and Social Behavior, 29, 139-160.

Husaini, B. A., Neff, J. A., Newbrough, J. R., & Moore,
M. C. (1982). The stress-buffering role of social
support and personal competence among the rural
married. Journal pf Community Psychology, 12, 409-
426.

Jung, J. (1984). Social support and its relation to
health: A critical evaluation. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, p, 143-169.

 

Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the
life course: Attachment, roles, and social support.
In P. B. Baltes & 0. Brim (Eds.). Lifes an
development and behavior (Vol. 3). Boston: Lex1ngton.

Kaplan, R. L., & DeLongis, A. (1983). Psychosocial
factors influencing the course of arthritis: A
prospective study. PapE? presented at the meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.

 

 

71

Kasl, S. V., & Cobb, S. (1979). Some mental health
consequences of plant closing and job loss. In L. A.
Ferman & J. P. Gordus (Eds.). Mental health and the
economy (PP- 255-300). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn
Institute.

 

Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and committment. In H. H.
Kelley, E. Berscheid, A Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T.
L. Houston, G. Levinger, E McClintock, L. A. Peplau &
D. R. Peterson (Eds.). Close relationships (PP.265-
314). New York: Freeman.

 

Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. (1984). Social support and
psychological distress in community surveys. In S.
Cohen & L. Syme (Eds.). Social support and health
(pp. 156-182). New York: Academic.

Kessler, R. C., Price, R. H., & Wortman, C. B. (1985).
Social factors in psychopathology: Stress, social

support and coping processes. Annual Review of
Psychology, gg, 531-572.

 

Kriegler, J. A. (1985). The developmental aspects of
social support: A multidimensional analysis of
children's social networks. Michigan State
University: unpublished master's thesis.

LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French, J. R. P. Jr.
(1980). Social support, occupational .stress and
health. Journal pf Health and Social Behavior, ‘21,
202-218.

 

Leavy, R. L. (1983). Social support and psychological
disorder: A review. Journal of Community Psychology,
1_1_' 3'21.

 

Lin, N., & Ensel, W. M. (1984). Depression-mobility and
its social etiology: The role of life events and
social support. Journal pf Health and Social
Behavior, gé, 178-188.

 

Lin,N., Simeone, R. S., Ensel, W. M., & Kuo, W. (1979)
Social support, stressful life events, and illness: A
model and an empirical test. Journal pf Health 22g
Social Behavior, 22, 108-119.

 

Lynch, J. (1977). The broken heart. New York: Basic
Books. ‘

 

 

72

Miller, P., & Ingham, J. G. (1976). Friends, confidants,
and symptoms. Social Psychiatry, ll, 51-58.

Minuchin, S., Rosman, B. L., & Baker, L. (1978).
Psychosomatic Families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Moen, P. (1982). Preventing financial hardship: Coping
strategies of families of the unemployed. In H. I.
McCubbin, A. E. Cauble, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.).
Family stress, coping, and social support (99- 151-
168). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Mohamed, S. N., Weisz, G. M., & Waring, E. M. (1978).
The relationship of chronic pain to depression,
marital adjustment, and family dynamics. Pain,§, 285-
292. ""'

Mott, P. E., Mann, F. C.,McLoughlin, Q., & Warwick, D.
F. (1965). Shift work: The social, psychological, and
physical consequences. Ann Arbor, MI: Universiiy of
Michigan Press.

Mueller, D. P. (1980). Social networks: A promising
direction for research in the relationship of the
social environment to psychiatric disorder. Social
Science and Medicine, $25, 147-161.

 

Nuckolls, K. B., Cassel, J., & Kaplan, B. H. (1972).
Psychosocial assets, life crisis and the prognosis of
pregnancy. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2;, 431-
441.

 

Pearlin, L. 1., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., &
Mullen, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal pg
Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356.

Pinneau, S. R. (1976). Effects 2: social support pp
occupational stresses and strains. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, August, Washington D. C.

 

Reisman, J. M. (1981). Adult friendships. In S. Duck &
R. Gilmour (Eds.). Personal relationships. ..i
Developing ersonal relationships (PP- 205-230).
London: Academic Press.

 

 

73

Renne, K. S. (1970). Correlates of dissatisfaction in

marriage. Journal pg Marrigge and the Family, E3, 54-
67.

Renne, K. S. (1971). Health and marital experience in an
urban population. Journal pf Marrigge and the Family,
32, 338-350.

 

Rook, K. (1986). The negative side of social
interaction: Impact on psychological well-being.
Journal pg Personality and Social Psychology,g§,
1097-1108.

 

 

Rosel, N. (1983). The hub of a wheel: A neighborhood
support network. International Journal 2: Aging and
Human Development, lg, 193-200.

 

 

 

Rushing, W. (1979). Marital status and mental disorder:
Evidence in favor of a behavioral model. Social
Forces, EE, 540-546.

Salloway, J. C., & Dillon, P. B. (1973). A comparison of
family networks in health care utilization. Journal
pg Comparative Family Studies, ;, 131-142.

 

Sarason, I.G., Johnson, J. H., Seigel, J. M. (1978).
Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of
the Life Experiences Survey. Journal 9: Consulting
and Clinical Psychology,46(5), 932-946.

 

 

 

Silberfeld, M. (1978). Psychological symptoms and social
supports. Social Psychiatry, lg, 11-17.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment; New
scales for assessing the quality of marriage and
similar dyads. Journal 9: Marriage and the Family,
‘EE, 15-28.

 

Thoits, P. A. (1982). Conceptual, methodological and
theoretical problems in studying social support as a
buffer against life stress. Journal 2; Health and
Social Behavior, 23, 145-159.

 

Tolsdorf, C. C. (1976). Social networks, support, and
coping: An exploratory study. Family Process, lg,
404-417.

 

74

Traupmann, J. & Hatfield, E. (1981) Love and its effect
on physical and mental health. In R. W. Fogel, E.
Hatfield, S. B. Kiesler & E. Shanas (Eds.). Aging:
Stabilipy and change in the family (pp. 253-274).
New York: Academic Press.

 

Turner, R. J. (1983). Direct, indirect, and moderating
effects of social support on psychological distress
and associated conditions. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed. )
Psychosocial Stress: Trends In Theopy and Research
(pp. 105-155). New York: Academ1c.

 

 

 

 

Turner, R. J., & Noh, S. (1982). Social support, life
events and psychological distress: A three-wsy panel
analysis. Presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association, San Francisco.

 

 

Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of
neighbors: The social, cognitive, and affective
components of neighboring. American Journal pg
Community Psychology, 1;, 139-169.

 

Vachon, M. L. S., Sheldon, A. R., Lancee, W. J., Lyall,
W. A. L., Rogers, J., & Freedman, S. J. J. (1982).
Correlates of enduring distress patterns following
bereavement: Social network, life situation and
personality. Psychological Medicine, l2, 783-788.

Vaughn, C. E) & Leff, J. (1976). The influence of family
and social factors on the course of psychiatric
illness: A comparison of schizophrenic and depressed

.neurotic patients. British Journal 9; Psychiatry,129,
125-137.

 

Weimer, S. R., Hatcher, C., & Gould, E. (1983). Family
characteristics in high and low health care
utilization. General Hospital Psychiatpy, E, 55-61.

Weiss, L., & Lowenthal, M. F. (1975). Life-course
perspectives on friendship. In M. F. Lowenthal, M.
Thurnher, 5 Chiriboga,f D. (Eds. ) Stages 2: life: 5

 

comparative stud women and men facing
transitions (pp -61T—'San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: The intimate
networks of East Yorkers. American Journal ‘2:
Sociology, E5, 1201-1231. .

 

75

Winch, R. F., & Spanier, G. B. (Eds.) (1974). Selected
studies 12 marriage and the family (Fourth Ed.). New
York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Wortman, C. B. (1984). Social support and the cancer
patient: Conceptual and methodological issues.
Cancer, 2;, 2339-2360.

Wright, P. H. (1982). Men's friendships, women's
friendships and the alleged inferiority of the
latter. Sex Roles, E, 1-20.

 

76

I711111111111“