I i _ H -_ y“. 5““ 700 ,A .. - 3' "fl 5, E. w IN: N - r 1 9| 1 i 5 + 2. 2 1 ABSTRACT A PILOT STUDY OF CONGRUENCE OF MATES' ROLE PERCEPTIONS AMONG TRADITIONALLY AND EMERGENTLY MARRIED JAPANESE COUPLES BY Yasutaka Kokubu Since World War II, the marriages based on free mate selection or love-matches emerged in Japan which was a de— parture from traditional marriages based on a third party's arrangement of mate selection. Many statements exist in the literature about the modern trend but little empirical data back the conjecturing. The Problem The purpose of the present study was to compare the perceptions of marital roles of traditionally married Jap- anese couples with those of emergently married couples. The theoretical model based on role theory was a comparison of similarity between a husband's or wife's concept of his or her own role and the other partner's concept or expectation of that role. It was assumed that the traditionally married couples would have relatively high perceptual congruence on marital role because of a third party‘s careful matching of social and family background. Yasutaka Kokubu From the above assumption, one major hypothesis was formulated: Traditionally married Japanese couples have more perceptual congruence on marital role than emergently married Japanese couples. Design and Procedure Thirty—eight traditionally and forty emergently mar—O ried couples were selected from married residents within Tokyo area. The couples had no children, no more than high school education, and no divorce experiences. The couples whose scores were lower than two standard deviations from the mean on a Lie Scale in the fake-positive direction were eliminated from the study. The final samples consisted of 35 tradition- ally and 36 emergently married couples. The Inventory prepared to measure the degree of per- ceptual congruence about marital roles consisted of 70 items describing husband's and wife's expected role—behavior. Seven role sectors were defined by the 70 items: social life (13 items), decision-making (12 items), companionship (11 items), child rearing (11 items), housekeeping (9 items), financing (7 items) and sex activities (7 items). Content validity was examined by three scholars. Face validity was examined by administering the Inventory to fifteen males and females selected to represent a cross-section of Japanese people. Reliabilities of the Inventory were estimated by the Hoyt's analysis of variance method with the sample of 155 Yasutaka Kokubu married male and female residents in Tokyo area. The relia— bilities of the Husband's Inventory were .828 and .894 for husband's and wife's roles. For the Wife's Inventory, esti- mated reliabilities were .777 and .832 for husband's and wife's roles. The role congruence score was determined by the abso- lute difference of ratings selected by mates on a four—point scale: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly dis— agree. A one—tailed t-test was employed to compare the de- gree of role congruence on each role sector between tradi- tionally and emergently married couples, after homogeneity of variance was examined by the F—test. The null hypothesis of homogeneity was not rejected. Alpha level was set at .05. Results No evidence was found to support the prediction that the traditionally married couples exceeded the emergently married couples on the degree of spouses' perceptual congru— ence about both husband's and wife's seven marital role sec- tors. However, unexpected evidence was found that the emer- gently married couples exceeded the traditionally married couples on spousal perceptual congruence on husband's roles as companion, child rearer, and wife's role as companion. Subsidiary Findings The raw data of ratings by all the 142 respondents were examined both by sectors and items. It was found that Yasutaka Kokubu the current Japanese married couples have had similar per— ceptions of marital roles irregardless of their marital pat- terns. They had dominantly traditional perceptions about social life, housekeeping, financing, and child rearing. Equalitarian perceptions were slightly evidenced about de- cision-making, companionship, and sex activities. A PILOT STUDY OF CONGRUENCE OF MATES' ROLE PERCEPTIONS AMONG TRADITIONALLY AND EMERGENTLY MARRIED JAPANESE COUPLES BY Yasutaka Kokubu A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1974 To my father, Ichiro Kokubu, who has devoted himself to his six children. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My gratitude to Dr. William W. Farquhar, my major professor and chairman of Guidance Committee, is beyond words. Without his humane consideration, the project could not have survived the unfavorable circumstances in my last several years. Through a countless number of super» Visory sessions including correspondence, I have developed a positive self-concept about research which was once for- eign to me. I am also indebted to Dr. Wilbur W. Brookover for his comments on my early research design, particularly with regard to role theory, and also for his reading of part of the manuscript. Grateful acknowledgments are due to Dr. Norman Kagan and Dr. Gwendlyn Norrell for their cooperation as members of my Guidance Committee. Dr. Kagan's trust in me at the admission interview has always been my moral support through- out all the phases of the program. Courage for authenticity as scientist was learned from the coursework by Dr. Norrell. A special appreciation is extended also to Dr. Walter F. Johnson for his constant encouragement for completion of the program. iii Sincere acknowledgements are made to Dr. Takashi Koyama, Professor Kenji Tamura, and late Professor Seishi Shimoda for their generous grant of time of reading the draft of the questionnaire. Many thanks go to Dr. Chiharu Yamazaki, my colleague and former administrator at Tokyo Public Health Bureau, for her arrangements of the opportunities for collecting the data. Cooperation of the Bureau staff members and the re- Spondents will remain in my memory. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . 1 Need . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Family Structure . . . . . . . . 3 Extended Family . . . . . . . 3 Nuclear Family . . . . . . . . 5 Assumption . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . 6 Theory . . . . . . . . . . 6 Role Theory . . . . . . . . . ll Key Concepts . . . . . . . . 12 Theoretical Model . . . . . . . 15 Overview . . . . . . . . . . 16 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . l7 Literatures Indirectly Related to the Present Study . . . . l7 Literatures Directly Related to the Present Study . . . . . 37 Need for Improvement of Future Studies 40 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 41 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . 43 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Procedure . . . . . . . . 44 Age and Schooling . . . . . . . 46 Occupation and Income . . . . . 48 Type of Introduction . . . . . . 50 Other Characteristics . . . . . 50 Measure of Role Expectation . . . . 53 Principles of the Questionnaire Construction . . . . . . . . 53 V Chapter Page Reliability Estimate . . . . . . 56 Reliability . . . . . . . . . 58 Design . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . 59 Alpha Level . . . . . . . . . . 59 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 60 IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . 62 Husband' 5 Role Sector . . . . . . 62 Wife's Role Sector . . 64 Difference in Marital Role Perception: Traditional vs. Emergent . . . . . 65 Analysis of Seven Role Sectors of Marriage . . . . . . 66 Analysis of Responses to Each Marital Role Item . . . . . . . . . . 69 Social Life . . . . . . . . . 71 Decision Making . . . . . . . . 73 Companionship . . . . . . . . 76 Child Rearing . . . . . . . . 78 Housekeeping . . . . . . . . . 80 Financing . . . . . . . . . 81 Sex Activities . . . . . . . . 85 Summary . i. . . . . . . . . . 88 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 89 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . 9O Assumption . . . . . . . . . 9O Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . 90 Design . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Measure . . . . . . . . . . 91 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 92 Results . . . . . . 93 Subsidiary Analysis of Raw Data . . 93 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 93 Discussion . . . . . . . . 94 Implications for Future Studies . . . 99 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 vi Table LIST OF TABLES Page Comparison of Discrepancy of Expectation and Performance: Ordinary Families and Problem Families in Japan . . . . . . 36 Procedure of Sampling for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples . . . 45 Distribution of Lie Scores for Traditional and Emergent Japanese Couples on a Ques— tionnaire about Marital Roles . . . . . 46 Comparison of Age for Traditional and Emer- gent Japanese Couples . . . . . . . . 47 Comparison of Schooling for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples . . 48 Comparison of Occupational Distribution for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japan- ese Husbands . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Comparison of Husband's Income for Tradi- tional and Emergent Japanese Marriage . . 49 Types of First Contacts among Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples . . 51 Comparison of Duration of Marriage and Courtship for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples . . . . . . . 51 Comparison of Numbers of Working Wives, Same Prefecture as Premarital Location, and Prox— imity with Husband's Parents for Tradition- ally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Distribution of Lie Scores for Reliability Group: Male and Female . . . . . . . 57 vii Table i Page 3.11 Reliabilities of Questionnaire . . . . . 58 3.12 Test of Homogeneity of Two Variances: Tra- ditional and Emergent Marriages . . . . 60 4.1 Comparison of Perceptual Congruence on Hus- band's Role: Traditional Marriage and Emergent Marriage . . . . . . . . . 63 4.2 Comparison of Perceptual Congruence on Wife's Role: Traditional Marriage and Emer- gent Marriage . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.3 Comparison of Perceptions on Husband's Role Sector for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples . . . . . . . 67 4.4 Comparison of Perceptions on Wife's Role Sector for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples . . . . . . . 69 4.5 Husband and Wife Rating of Marital Roles for Each Questionnaire Item: Social Life . . 72 4.6 Husband and Wife Rating of Marital Roles for Each Questionnaire Item: .Decision Making . 75 4.7 Husband and Wife Rating of Marital Roles for Each Questionnaire Item: Companionship . . 77 4.8 Husband and Wife Rating of Marital Roles for Each Questionnaire Item: Child Rearing . . 79 4.9 Husband and Wife Rating of Marital Roles for Each Questionniare Item: Housekeeping . . 81 4.10 Husband and Wife Rating of Marital Roles for Each Questionnaire Item: Financing . . . 84 4.11 Husband and Wife Rating of Marital Roles for Each Questionniare Item: Sex Activities . 87 viii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Lie Scale . . . . . . . . . . . 103 B. Marital Role Expectation Inventory (Japanese) . . . . . . . . . . . 105 C. Marital Role Expectation Inventory (English) . . . . . . . . . . . 176 D. Characteristics of Reliability Estimate Sample . . . . . . . . . 204 ix CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Japanese customs are in the process of change. Free mate selection is becoming more popular than in the past. In Blood's sample1 of 444 Japanese couples in 1958-59, about two thirds were "love-match" or "free-mate" selection, while only two per cent of the pre-war couples were so selected according to Ushizima's sample.2 Freedom of mate selection implies that marriages with heterogeneous social backgrounds are becoming dominant in current Japanese culture. However, the effect of the social upheaval has not been adequately assessed. In their own way the Japanese peOple are arriving at a working solu- tion to the upheaval. However, without understanding of the dynamics involved the emotional price may be considera- bly higher than necessary. 1Robert 0. Blood, Jr., Love Match and Arranged Marriage: A Tokyo-Detroit Comparison (New York: The Free Press, 1967), p. 36. 2Yoshitomo Ushizima, Kazokukankei no Shinri (Psy- chology of Human Relations in Family) (Tokyo: Kaneko Shobo Co., 1973), p. 280. Need Most studies on Japanese marriage and family have been of an institutional and descriptive nature. The quan- titative and microscopic exploration into marital relation- ship seems to be demanded in today's Japan. In the group- oriented pre-war Japanese culture, studies with a focus on individuals or relations among individuals were discouraged.l This study attempts to respond to the potential prob- lems inherent in "emergent" marriages in comparison with "traditional" marriages. The "traditional" marriages were defined as those for which mate-selection was arranged by a third party. The "emergent" marriages were defined as those for which mate-selection was made by themselves through mu- tual love. If counselors are primarily concerned with normal people's problems, marriage is one of the areas in which normal people face problems some time in their life. One of the major benefits of a study of this nature is to help the Japanese counselor understand marital problems. Mar- riage counseling in Japan is still treated as a marginal domain of the counselor's activities, compared to the voca- tional and educational areas which are considered legitmate endeavor for counselors. lKiyomi Morioka, "Kazoku Shakaigaku no Hattatsu to Genjo" ("Development of Family Sociology in Japan") in Family Sociology ed. by K. Morioka (Tokyo: Yuhikaku Co., 1972), p. 201. Knowledge from the study about the discrepancy or congruence of spouses' perception for mutual roles could help the Japanese counselor better understand (1) the mate selection process, and (2) the elements which may or may not relate to marital satisfaction. Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare the percep- tions of marital roles of couples who followed traditional marriage patterns with those of couples whose relationship was established on the recent emergent patterns. Family Structure Two types of family are assumed to co-exist in cur- rent Japanese culture. One type is the extended family, and the other is the independent nuclear family.1 However, the significance of the difference of the two types of family is not their morphology, but in their ideologies underlying the patterns. As an observable phenomena, the extended families are declining, but the ideology inherent in that family pattern is still practiced in the nuclear family as a branch of the extended family. Extended Family The basic values of the extended family system are (l) continuities of the family as a reference group, lYoshiro Tomita, Kaku Kazoku (The Nuclear Family) (Tokyo: Minelva Shobo, 1970), pp. 1-2. (2) observing of values and customs unique to a family, and (3) to secure one and two above, respect and obedience to parents and elders.1 The married children are expected to live up to their parents' expectation even when living inde- pendently away from the parents. The identification with the parental family culture inhibits the growth of the indi— viduality. The fundamental idea of the extended family is "ie"2 which is an untranslatable Japanese concept. The connotation is that the family is an independent being beyond the indi- viduals. The concept of "ie" makes the individuals feel guilty in falling in love pursuing their own welfare rather than the family's. As commented by Wagatsuma and DeVos,3 feudal Japan "considered a love marriage as something im- prOper, indecent, 'egoistic', or something similar to an extramarital affair in Western Christian moral codes." In such a group-oriented family pattern as stated above, the method of mate selection is theoretically associa- ted with arranged mate selection and marriage.4 lTetsuto Tsukamoto, "Kazoku no Ideology" ("The Ide- ology of the'Japanese Family") in Koza Shakaigaku: Kazoku, Sonraku & Toshi (Sociology: Family, Village and Metropolis) ed. by Tadashi Fukutake (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1957), Pp. 73-77. 21bid, p. 72. 3Hiroshi Wagatsuma and George DeVos, "Attitudes Toward Arranged Marriage in Rural Japan," Human Organiza- tion, XXI, (1962), as quoted in Robert 0. Blood, Jr., Love Match and Arranged Marriage: A Tokyo-Detroit Comparison (New York: The Free Press, 1967), p. 17. 4Yoshiro Tomita, op. cit., p. 7. Nuclear Family The nuclear family is basically for the individual welfare rather than maintaining a group cohesion or soli- darity. In the emerging family pattern, the family human relations are horizontal in contrast to the traditional lineal ones practiced in the extended family circle. The essence of the nuclear family pattern is liberalism or human- ism challenging the traditional authoritarian, feudalistic familism. The family pattern is formed with a love match as modern history of Japanese thoughts and literature reveals. To summarize, the extended family can be categorized as traditional for their common sharing of the concept "ie," indicating Japanese traditional feudalism and familism. The nuclear family is a consequence of the emerging democratic society. The traditional marriage is symbolized by an ar— ranged marriage, the emergent pattern of marriage by a love- match or free-mate selection. Assumption It is assumed that in the traditional Japanese mar— riages a couple will have relatively high perceptual congru- ence on marital role, because (1) their mating was arranged through a mediator and (2) the parents attempted careful matching of background. Since perceptions are culturally lShigeo Okamoto, Katei Shinrigaku (Family Psychology) (Tokyo: Asakura Shoten, 1965), pp. 9-15. influenced, it can be postulated that mates with similar family background will have similar perception of the marital role. In the emergent marriage, spousal perceptual congru- ence on marital roles should be lower, because the mate se- lection is not necessarily related to overt parental ap- proval. This is not to say that similarities of cultural and family background are completely absent as influencing factors. But the momogeneity of the family background in the emergent marriage is likely to be lower than in the tra- ditional marriage. Hypothesis From the above assumption, the hypothesis was formu- lated. Hypothesis: Traditionally married Japanese couples have more perceptual congruence on marital role than emergently married Japanese couples. In addition to testing the major research hypothesis, all role sectors and items were examined to determine the directionality of Japanese couples' responses. In this way, a composite picture of Japanese couples' role perceptions could be built. Theory This study was designed and developed on role theory. The reasoning which lead to the selection of role theory is explained in the following section. Reviewing the current researches in the field of marriage and family, Hill and Hansenl have found five differ- ent approaches applicable to the analysis of marital rela- tionships: (l) interactional, (2) structural, (3) situa- tional, and (5) developmental. The Structure-functional approach treats the family as being static and maintaining boundaries to which individu- als contribute. The family is composed of roles, but they are considered as passive and reactive. The emphasis is on the family as a social system rather than individual person- alities. I The Situational approach places its focus of study on family problems such as departure of husband-father for military service, assuming that all human behaviors are pur- posive in relation to each different situation. Individuals are considered basically autonomous, but their social conduct is a function of the milieu. The Institutional approach takes a descriptive study of the family as an organized system of practices and roles in a macroscopic manner in relation to the society as a whole. The interest in individuals is remote. Instead, cultural lReuban Hill and Donald A. Hansen, "The Identifica- tion of Conceptual Frameworks in the Family Study," in Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family, ed. by Marvin B. Sussman (2nd ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963), pp. 494—507. transaction is focused upon, assuming that institutions are generally responses to human values and needs. The Developmental approach puts its stress on the process of changes of the family role pattern. Human devel- opment stimulated by social milieu and inherent capacities change the mutual role-expectations throughout the whole period of family history. Roles are not static, but develop in accordance with the individuals' development. Finally, the Interactional approach views the family as a unit of interacting personalities with differing posi- tions. The dynamics of role-expectation, role performance and communication among the family members is the object of the study. According to Schvaneveldt,l this approach has been one of the most widely used in family studies. Schvane- veldt states that at least three-forths of the researchers within the family field have employed the Interactional ap- proach at some time in their scholarly works. For determining the approach for the present study, the evaluation of the different approaches is necessary. Some approaches may be useful for a certain purpose of the study, but may not for another. The Institutional approach is useful for cross- cultural studies and also for the study of the effect of 1Jay D. Schvaneveldt, "Interactional Framework in the Study of the Family, in Emergent Conceptual Frameworks in Family Analysis, ed. by F. I. Nye and F. M. Berando (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966), p. 114. social change upon the family. However, its macroscopic point of view deprives of the microscopic approach to the intrafamily interactions. In most cases, quantitative an- alysis is absent in this Institutional approach. The Structure-functional approach is useful for the study of the relation of family to other social institutions such as school. Also, the effect of the family as a group upon the individuals could be explored by this approach. But the limit of the Structure-functional approach is that the main focus of the study is on the family as a group, not on the individuals or their interactions. Both the Institutional and Structural-functional ap- proaches have the common trait that the individuals or the individuals' interactions are not first concern. In contrast to the Institutional and Structure- functional approaches, the Situational and Developmental ap- proaches consider the individuals or their interactions as the focus of study. The Situational approach could be em- ployed by Social Casework as Rallings1 suggested. However, the individuals are assumed to be the passive and reactive beings to the family as a milieu. The view of the individu- als as conditioned-reflexes assumes that the manipulation of the family as a behavioral field results in an individual change. 1E. M. Rallings, ”A Conceptual Framework for Study- ing the Family: The Situational Approach," in Emerging Con ceptual Frameworks in Family Analysis, ed. by F. Ivan Nye and Felix M. Berardo (New York: The Macmillar Co., 1966), p. 143. 10 However, the individual change does not depend solely upon environmental change. The individuals can change them- selves by changing the perceptions through identifying un— realistic aspects, if any, of their perceptions. Counseling tends to deal with intrapersonal or perceptual problems. Be- cause evaluation of perceptual problems are limited in the Situational approach, the Situational approach was not em- ployed in this study. The DevelOpmental approach can contribute to counsel- ing practice because the time perspective point of View may minimize the possible definitive conclusions on the data ob- tained from a certain stage of marital relationship. Knowl— edge from the Developmental studies is necessary for clinical work in marriage counseling. However, the disadvantage of time consuming aspect of Developmental study of the family cycle prevented the present study from using the Developmental approach at this time. Finally, the Interactional approach is useful for ex- ploring the intra-family dynamics with the quantitative method. But the Interactional approach lacks time perspec- tive. Also because of its microscopic point of View, the family is likely to be studied as a closed human interaction with little ties to outer social change or cultural pattern; In the present study the Interactional approach was used. The reason was that marriage counseling primarily deals with the relationship between spouses rather than their 11 separate personalities. The Interactional approach aiming to explore interpersonal problems should be most useful for building theory and techniques of marriage counseling. Role Theory In the Interactional approach, role is one of the important concepts as a tool of analyzing the interactions.1 The present study was developed on the concept of role con- gruence. Leary2 states that the theory of congruence or discrepancy will become, in the near future, the major task and contribution of behavioral scientists. If the theory of congruence or discongruence is applied in this study, the question "congruence or discrepancy of what?" is raised. Within the framework of congruence, much research has been done. However, the studies are mostly on congruence other than role. For example, there are the studies of dissimilar- ities of spousal personality,3 mutual consensus of needs 1Jay D. Schvaneveldt, op. cit., p. 109. 2T. Leary, "Comments on Articles by Luckey and Ro- mano," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Spring, 1962, p. 19. 3Robert T. Winch, "Personality and Marriage Adjust- ment," in Readings in Marriage and Family, ed. by J. T. Landis and M. G. Landis (New York: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1953), pp. 121-127. 12 " similarity of ideal self and mate's actual structures, self,3 similarity of self-concept and the male's concept of father,4 and agreement of perception of marital crucial is- sues.5 The studies of congruence of marital role expectation are relatively few. For this reason the present research was based upon role congruence theory in the interactional perspective. Key Concepts According to Gross and et a1,6 role has three defi- nitions: (1) the normative standard of behavior, (2) the individual's definition of his situation with reference to his and other's social position, and (3) the actual behavior 'l . "Irw1n Katz, Sam Glucksberg, and Robert Krauss, "Need Satisfaction and Edwards EPS Scores in Married Couples," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. XXIV, 3 (1960), 205- 208. 2Marvin Goodman, "A Pilot Study of the Relationship between Degree of Expressed Self-Acceptance and Interspousal Need Structure in the Mate Selection Process" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962). 3Eleanore B. Luckey, "Implications for Marriage Counseling of Self—Perception and Spouse-Perception," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Spring, 1960, pp. 3-9. 4Eleanore B. Luckey, "Marital Satisfaction and Paren- tal Concepts," Journal of Counsulting Psychology, Vol. XXIV, 3 (1960) 1957204. 5Arnold Carson, "A Pilot Study of Agreement on Issues and their Perceived Importance among Maritally Adjusted and Maladjusted Couples" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michi- gan State University, 1962). 6Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. Mc- Eachern, Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), pp. 11-13. 13 of an incumbent of the social position. The three defini— tions share the common characteristic that role is a set of expectations.1 The last two types of definition, namely, individual and behavioral definitions, contain predictive or anticipative expectations, while the first one, norma— tive standard of behavior, is normative expectations. Gross2 defined role as "a set of expectations or evaluative stand- ards applied to an incumbent of a particular position." Position is simply a location in a social system. Position is synonimous to status, but Gross avoids using the latter because of its hierarchical connotation. A role may have many expectations.3 For example, Snyder4 identified 166 expectations for teacher's role. Geiken5 established 45 items for a limited aspect of marital role. For the convenience of analysis, those expectations were categorized according to their homogeneity. Thus, the concept of role sector was employed to refer to subsets of lIbid., p. 18. 21bid., p. 60. 3Wilbur Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sociology of Education (2nd ed.; New York: American Book Co., 1964), p. 329. 4Clinton Snyder, "General and Specific Role Expecta- tions for Teachers," as quoted in Brookover and Gottlieb, A Sociology of Education, p. 329. 5Karen F. Geiken, "Expectations Concerning Husband- Wife Responsibilities in the Home," Journal of Marriage and Family Living, August, 1964, pp. 349-352. 14 a role which were classified on the basis of their impor- tance, salience or uniqueness in the totality of the role.1 Because role presupposes the existence of the focul position incumbent and counter position incumbent, an obli- gation of the focal position incumbent is the right of the counter position incumbent, and vice versa. The focul posi- tion is the one to which the expectation is directed. The counter-position is the one from which the expectation is directed. Role expectations are, thus, inevitably accompa- nied by right and obligation, privilege and responsibility. Expectations are directed to two aspects of an actor in the position; his behavior and his attribute. Expecta- tion for behavior is expressed as "he should do." Expecta— tion for an attribute could be phrased as "he should be." For the present study, the focus was specified only to be- havior expectations. Expectations are held at the two different levels. One is an abstract level. This is, expectation is directed to all the incumbents of a single position irregardless of their personality and locality. Expectation of this kind is abstract and generalized. The other level is at a more con- crete level than the first level. This is, expectation is 1Bruce J. Biddle, The Present Status of Role Theory (Columbia: The University of Missouri Social Psychology Laboratory, 1961), pp. 28-29. 15 directed to a particular incumbent of a single position with consideration of his personality, locality and other varia- bles. This is a specific expectation. One empirical study1 indicates that generalized and specific expectations of teach- ers may not be significantly different. However, great cau- tion should be taken in assuming the same conditions exist in the marital role. For this study attentions were directed to the specific role expectation held by husbands and wives. Bentley2 defined marital role perception as expecta- tion an individual spouse holds for himself (herself) and his (her) partner about duties or obligations and rights or privileges. Role perception and role expectation are inter- changeably used in this present study. Theoretical Model Role congruence is defined, according to Gross et a1. as a situation in which an incumbent of a focal position per- ceives that the same or highly similar expectations are held for him as he, himself, holds for his role. The concept of role congruence can be developed into the following five in- teractional models for the study of the marriage relationship: lClinton A. Snyder, "Variations in Expectations for the Teacher Role: As Related to General and Specific Roles, Expectation Categories, and Social Distance" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963). 2Joseph C. Bentley, "Role Theory in Counseling: A Problem in Definition," Personnel and Guidance Journal, September, 1965, pp. 11-17. 3 Neal Gross, et a1., op. cit., p. 248. 16 l. Similarity between a husband's (wife's) concept of his (her) own role and the other partner's concept or expectation to that role, 2. Similarity between the way a husband (wife) per- ceives the role expectation of his (her) partner and the partner's actual role expectation, 3. Similarity between a husband's (wife's) concept or expectations of marital role in general and his (her) concept or expectations of marital role in their particular interaction. 4. Similarity between a husband's (wife's) concept of his (her) own role and his (her) actual role performance, 5. Similarity between a husband's (wife's) expecta- tions to his (her) partner's role and that part- ner's role performance perceived by him (her). Within this study the first model was used. That is, similarity between a mate's self-definition of his (her) role or self-expectation and the partner's expectation for that role was the main theme of the study. Overview To improve the research design, the previous studies pertinent to the current study are reviewed in Chapter II. The suggestions from the literature review are incorporated into the research design stated in Chapter III. The des- cription of the sampling procedure and the sample character- istics are followed by the explanation of the measuring in- strument including examination of its reliability. In the latter part of Chapter III, the statistical hypotheses and method of analysis are presented. Analyses of the results are reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The past studies relevant to marital role congruence are reviewed in this chapter with an intent to improve the research design of the present study. Particular attention is paid to the measuirng instruments and the theoretical models employed in the researches. About one—third of the literatures reviewed were more or less concerned with the issues of marital adjustment. The emphasis of the review was, however, intended to be on marital role congruence, although marital adjustment issues were not completely avoided. Literatures Indirectly Related to the Present Study Kammeyerl tested a hypothesis that girls' perception of female role is related to their perception of female per- sonality traits in general, applying Komarovsky's theory2 that two types of female role exist in current American cul- ture: traditional and modern roles. lKenneth Kammeyer, "Feminine Role: An Analysis of Attitude Consistency," Marriage and Family Living, August, 1964, pp. 295-305. 2Mirra Komarovsky, "Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles," American Journal of Sociology, November, 1946, pp. 174-189. l7 18 Kammeyer prepared five female role items to which 209 unmarried college girls responded on a four point scale: agree, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, and disagree. The first and second two responses were respectively combined into favorable and unfavorable responses. The item which re- ceived the most favorable response, namely, the item classified as most traditional was that the wife's major responsibility is to keep her husband and children happy. The second most traditional response was that of the mother's duty of pre- paring her daughter to be a wife, which was followed, in descending order, by the husband's duty of making a major decision, the greater importance of social life than academic achievement for college girls, and the greater adequacy (for, girls) of majoring in English than in economics. The major finding was that girls whose perception of the female role was traditional had traditional perceptions of female personality in general. That is, they perceived that women were more emotional, more sympathetic, more moral, more artistic, less inclined to be leaders, less aggressive, less logical, and less intelligent. One-third of the re- spondents, however, showed the inconsistency or discrepancy between their perceptions of female role and female person- ality. Individual items in Kammeyer's study represented five different significant areas of female activities such as com— panionship, child care, decision making, social life, and 19 career. The limitation of the questionnaire seems to be that other areas such as sex activities and housekeeping were not covered in the items, and the number of the items was only five. The three item statements out of five were too general. Hurvitz1 believes that incompatibility between role expectation and role performance produces a strain of mari- tal life. The difference in the rank order of actual role performance and expected role performance is an index of marital strain of each spouse. Hurvitz used the Locke- Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale to identify successful and unsuccessful couples. The sample consisted of 104 middle class couples with a mean age of 40 for husband and 35 for wife. The correlation of the role Inventory score with marital adjustment score was -.22 for husband and .23 for wife. In another research, Hurvitz2 tested a hypothesis that marital adjustment results from the compatibility of role performances and role expectations. Hurvitz prepared eleven marital role items representing such areas as house- keeping, companionship, child rearing, finance, sex, re- ligion, and decision making. Of the eleven items, four items lNathan Hurvitz, "The Marital Roles Inventory and the Measurement of Marital Adjustment," Journal of Clinical Psychology, October, 1960, pp. 377-380. 2Nathan Hurvitz, "Marital Roles Inventory as a Counseling Instrument," Marriage and Family Living, November, 1965, pp. 492-501. 20 were uniquely related to each sex, and the rest of the items were common to both sexes. The subjects were asked to rank the marital role items according to their perceived importance and actual perform- ances. The difference of rank order between his (her) ex- pected performances of his (her) spouse and the spouse's actual performance was considered as an Index of strain. Based on his clinical observation, Hurvitz classified three categories of incompatibility: limited incompatibility (In- dex; 0-11), general incompatibility (Index; 12-21), and serious problems (Index; 22 or over). The Marital Roles Inventory comprehensively covered the major significant aspects of marital relationship. Dif- ferent items were prepared for each sex and scoring was easy. The test score was validated from the test maker's clinical observation, but the numerical correlation was not reported. A question that could be raised of Hurvitz's study is whether congruence of role performance and role perception can be a basis of marital satisfaction. If a spouse sup- presses his needs to perform in such a way as to meet his spousal expectation, he may be inwardly frustrated and un- happy, in spite of the high congruence of role performance and role expectation. To the contrary, the couple may not be so unhappy even when one partner fails in the expected performance, if they perceive the roles similarly. 21 Lil studied the congruence between (1) male Chinese students' perception of traits which Chinese girls might de— sire in their future mate and (2) Chinese girl students' actual perception of their future husband. One hundred male and thirty female Chinese students in New York City were asked to respond to an Open-ended question. The question asked of male students was what characteristics they thought Chinese college girls in the United States would consider important in their mate. The female students were asked what characteristics they considered important in their mate. The contents of their responses were classified to fourteen characteristics. The trait in which the largest perceptual discrepancy between male and female students ex- isted was "high moral standard" followed by "share some in- terest,‘ and "ample financial means." On the first two traits, girls exceeded boys in the perceived importance, while the last trait was considered less important by the girls. The traits with relatively high congruence between male students' guess of the female students' perception of husband and the girls' actual perception of husband were "attractive disposition and personality," "older than wife," and "speak same dialect as wife does." lPei-Chao Li, "Accuracy of Male Chinese Students' Perceptions of Traits Women Desire in a Husband," Marriage and Family Living, August, 1962, pp. 285-286. 22 Because the open-end question allowed various re- sponses about preferable traits of a mate, this comprehen- sive data might be suggestive for further more specific in- vestigations. A great caution, however, should be taken for interpreting the findings. The sampled students were all un- married. They might change their perception of marital role, mate's preferable personality traits, and necessary social background factors, after actually entering marriage. As Morenol believes, a discrepancy often takes place between verbal behavior and behavior in life situations. Geiken2 made a Family Responsibility Inventory based 3 as a means of on Dunn's Marriage Role Expectation Inventory letting the 7th graders be aware of the roles of wife and husband. The forty—five responsibilities in marital life were itemized and were grouped in three areas: decision making, child care, and housekeeping. Each item was re- sponded to by either of the following three possible choices of answers: husband's duty, wife's duty, and shared duty. lJacob L. Moreno, "The Prediction and Planning of Success in Marriage," Marriage and Family Living, Fall, 1941, pp. 83-84. 2Karen F. Geiken, "Expectations Concerning Husband- Wife Responsibilities in the Home," Marriage and Family Living, August, 1964, pp. 349-352. 3Murie S. Dunn, Marriage Role Expectation Inventory (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1959), as quoted in Geiken, op. cit., p. 350. 23 Geiken's major findings were that married couples shared most in decision-making, particularly in spending money. Child care was shared in older marriage and for older children. Housekeeping was least shared unless a wife is employed or a couple has no children. The general trend of the 7th graders' reaction to the Inventory was that the boys like the division of labor, while the girls preferred the sharing of responsibilities. The items of Geiken's Inventory were most specific and concrete as far as the present review of literature is concerned. The concreteness of the item might increase the preciseness of the respondents' perception of marital role and their realistic anticipation for married life. The marital role items were, however, limited only to the three areas of activities in marriage with little at- tention to such areas as social life participation including in-law relations, sex activities, earning, and spousal com- panionship. The Inventory items were dominantly based on the responsibilities or the obligations of marital role expecta— tion. The other aspect of role, namely, privileges or rights, was little considered. Any position in the social structure might consist of right and obligation, or privi- lege and responsibility.1 1Joseph C. Bentley, "Role Theory in Counseling: A Problem in Definition," Personnel and Guidance Journal, September, 1965, p. 13. 24 Stuckertl tested a hypothesis that spousal congru- ence of marital role perception was related to marital ad- justment, on the assumption that if role perception were ac- curate, one could anticipate the other's feeling and gear his own responses to the expectation of the other. Stucker selected 50 couples from 100 couples who were identified through newspaper wedding announcements. The sample was 19 to 26 in the range of age, childless, white native born American with less than 9 months of married life. The subjects were asked to rank the ten ex- pectation items of marital role, according to their per— ceived importance. The ranking was repeated three times from three different standpoints; importance in marriage in general, importance in his (her) own marriage, and impor- tance in his (her) spouse's point of View. Congruence or discrepancy between both spouses' perceptions of marital role was obtained by rank order correlation. Marital satisfaction was measured by the Burgess- Wallin Marital Adjustment Inventory. The mode was used as a cutting point to identify maritally satisfied and dissatis- fied groups. Both groups were compared for degree of con- gruence of perception on the ten marital roles. 1Robert P. Stuckert, "Role Perception and Marital Satisfaction: Configurational Approach," Marriage and Family Living, November, 1963, pp. 415—19. 25 The major findings in Stucker's study were that con- gruence between (1) wife's perception of husband's percep- tion of his own role and (2) husband's actual perception of his own role was positively related to wife's marital happi- ness, and congruence between (1) wife's role perception of husband's role and (2) husband's self-perception as husband was related to husband's marital happiness. The Role Inventory needs some improvement. The ten role-expectation items were dominantly related to companion- ship needs such as love, affection, respect, confidence, ap- preciation, understanding, helping, and stimulating the other's ambition. Thus, congruence of role perception in this study was limited only to a particular area of marital relationship. In marital relationship, there are some other equally important needs such as decision making, housekeeping, child rearing, sex activities, financing, and social life. Also only those items common to both sexes were selected. There should be some role items which are significant only for either sex. Hawkins and Johnsenl found a correlation of Per- ceived Role Discrepancy with marital satisfaction at -.8446, 1James L. Hawkins and Kathryn Johnsen, "Perception of Behavioral Conformity, Imputation of Consensus, and Marital Satisfaction," Journal of Marriage and the Family. August, 1969, pp. 507-511. 26 which was almost identical with Ort'sl on which their re- search developed. Perceived Role Discrepancy was measured by the de- gree of deviation of subject's marital role performance from his own role expectation. The uniqueness of Hawkins' and Johnsen's study was that they did not measure both mates' roles separately, but the role of a couple as one unit. Thus the question was, for example, "How often should the husband and wife take a little time during the day or even- ing to caress and kiss each other?". Each of the totally thirty-seven questions was supplied with six answers for one choice such as "more than once a day," "once or twice a week," and "less often." The sample was 15 couples selected from applicants at an adult psychiatric clinic, though Ort's sample was the normal 100 subjects. Hawkins and Johnsen interviewed with the wife andhusband separately at their home to complete an interview schedule. They asked what the subject expects about all the 48 role behaviors described in the schedule, and then proceeded to the next two questions on each item; what the subject does and what the subject guesses his (her) spouse expects. 1Robert S. Ort, "A Study of Role-Conflicts as Related to Happiness in Marriage," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 1950, pp. 691-699. 27 Imputed Role Consensus (IPC) was also correlated to marital satisfaction at .7231. IPC is the degree of the de- viation of the role expectation which a subject imputes to his spouse from his own expectation. The above two Discrepancy and Consensus scores are both on each spouse's intra-perception. To this contrast, the Actual Role Expectation Similarity was computed by sub- tracting the items which both spouses' expectation was not congruent from the total 37 items. ARES was, however, corre~ lated to marital satisfaction by -.05 indicating no relation- ship. The significance of Hawkins' and Johnsen's study may be in the finding that the Perceived Role Discrepancy is the most reliable precursor of marital satisfaction against a common belief that opinion agreement leads to happy marriage. Reexamination might be needed about content validity of the measuring instrument. It covered the four types of eXpressions such as (1) affection and hostility, (2) sexual relation, (3) companionship, and (4) communication. But the rationale for selecting those four segments was not clear. There seems to be the absence of conceptual consistency. Affection and hostility could have been included in compan- ionship. With the purpose of finding if perceived importance of marital role behavior could be accounted for the degree of correlation between Role Discrepancy and marital 28 satisfaction, Burrl obtained 116 couples with a mean age 47.5 for husbands and 45.6 for wives, eliminating lower economic strata. To measure the degree of discrepancy between the role expectation to his spouse and perceived role perform— ance of his spouse, Burr prepared 65 behavioral statements. The subject was asked to be either "bothered" or "pleased" if the spouse behaves in the way of the statement. After that he was asked how he perceived his spouse's behavior. Role discrepancy score was calculated by counting the number of items where the perceived behavior of the spouse had been identified as behavior that would "bother" the subject. The importance of each role behavioral statement was measured by the subject's response to a four—point scale ranged from "bother or pleased a little" to "bothered or pleased extremelyfl' Importance of each item was transformed to a weighted score. For the logic that if importance of any segment of marital interaction effects on marital success, the correla— tion between weighted role discrepancy score and marital sat- isfaction is greater than the one between the unweighted role discrepancy and marital satisfaction, Butt compared two cor— relations about men's, women's and the total scores. The lWesley R. Burr, "An Expansion and Test of a Role Theory of Marital Satisfaction," Journal of Marriage and the Family, May, 1971, pp. 368—372. 29 difference between those two scores was .02 for men, .02 for women. Then no evidence supports the hypothesis that taking the importance variable into account is useful. Burr, however, found a positive result by employ— ing another testing method. The discrepancies on the items rated higher in importance should be more positively corre— lated to marital satisfaction than those rated lower in im— portance. The result was that the discrepancies on the items rated highest had correlation to marital satisfac- tion at -.46 for men and —.50 for women, while those rated lowest -.08 for men and -.21 for women. Burr concluded that it is meaningful to take the importance variable into account in understanding the rela- tionship between role discrepancy and marital satisfaction. The correlational study of role discrepancy and marital satisfaction is not a few, but Burr's study should be deserved as it found the meaningfulness of weighting the items of role congruence inventories. The finding also might arouse some caution for interpreting the data on mari— tal interaction. Since importance is assumed to be in- fluenced by values which might variate in a given culture, the identical findings on role discrepancy should be differ- ently interpreted in some cases. The tactfulness of the interview with the subjects should be accounted as one of the merits of Burr's study. 30 The probable resistance when asked of private matter seemed to be minimized by asking if the subject is "pleased" or "bothered" by the partner's certain way of behavior. If asked of the subject's expectation of the partner's "should" or "ought," more sophisticated or more defensive responses would be returned due to guilt feeling toward that partner. Taylorl measured the difference between maritally adjusted and unadjusted couples regarding the role discrep- ancy. The role discrepancy was Operationally defined as follows: 1. difference between the mate's self—perception and the spouse's perception of that self, 2. difference between the mate's predicted percep- tion of the self by the spouse and the spouse's actual perception, 3. difference between a spouse's self—perception and the same spouse's prediction of the mate's perception of that self. The adjusted couples were drawn from the club mem- bers whom the researcher gave lectures, the unadjusted ones from clients for marriage counseling. Both groups were homogenized on age of their children. By Wallace Marital Success Test, only those who showed extremely high or low scores were remained as the final groups, namely fifty coup- les for each group. 1Alexander B. Taylor, "Role Perception, Empathy and Marriage Adjustment," Sociology and Social Research, October, 1967, pp. 22-34. 31 Role Discrepancy was measured by Interpersonal Check List with a set of four instructions. They were: 1. check those items which describe themselves, 2. check those items which describe their mates, 3. check those items predicting how their mates would describe them, 4. check those items which describe how their mates would describe themselves. The score used for comparison was the number of items checked unidentically by both mates. There was found that the maritally adjusted group was significantly differ- ent from the unadjusted group on the three types of role discrepancy stated previously. That is, maritally adjusted couples had more similarity between (1) self-perception and mate perception, (2) predicted self-perception by the part- ner and actual self-perception, and (3) actual self- perception of that self. According to Taylor's study, discrepancy score be— tween actual self—perception and the same spouse's predic— tion of the mate's perception of that self had the differ— ence of 6.19 between the maritally adjusted and unadjusted groups, while discrepancy score between self-perception and mate—perception 4.07. This finding seems implying that fur- ther research is needed to identify the degree of validity of role congruence models. 32 Mursteinl used ninety-nine volunteered couples who were going steady or who were engaged for the purpose of testing the hypothesis that they are more likely to show a smaller discrepancy between the mate's self-concept and the ideal spouse desired by the other than are randomly paired men and women. "Self concept" used here seems equivalent to self—expectation to the mate's own role-attributes, while "ideal spouse" has expectation to his spouse's role attributes. As a measurement was used a modified version of Ed- wards Personal Preference Schedule, tapping fifteen needs of nine items each. Each item was assigned a five-points scale ranging from "very frequently" through "very important to me" to "almost no importance." For a given subject, therefore, each need score might be from 9 to 45. Three scores were obtained. The two were the absolute difference (1) between man's self-concept and Ideal Spouse desired by woman, and (2) between woman's self-concept and Ideal Spouse desired by man. The third score was the sum of the above two scores. The obtained three scores were compared with that of a control group. The control group was artificially matched pair group drawn from the ninety—nine couples. The lBernard I. Murstein, "Empirical Tests of Role, Complementary Needs, and Homogamy Theories of Marital Choice," Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. XXIX, 4 (1967), 689-696. 33 comparison was practiced in such a manner that the number of the "artificial" couples exceeding the median discrep- ancy score of the actual group was counted, and the proba- bility to exceed the median was obtained by a formula of binomial expansion. The result was that 24 items out of 48 items were significant in the predicted direction. Murstein furthered the study to compare Role theory, Complimentary needs theory, and Homogamy theory. For the same ninety—nine couples the correlations were computed (1) between woman's perception of her spouse and Ideal Spouse desired by the same woman, (2) between man's perception of his spouse and Ideal Spouse desired by the same man, (3) between man's self concept and his perception of his spouse, and (4) between woman's self-concept and her perception of her spouse. The first two correlations indicate role com— patibility, the other two perceived similarity. Each corre- lation was computed on fifteen needs separately, followed by the total average correlation. The findings were that the mean role-compatibility correlation was greater than the mean of either of the per- ceived similarity correlations. However, the fact that the perceived similarity correlations were positive and signifi— cantly greater than zero indicates some support for homegamy theory. Since no negative correlations were found in those perceived similarity correlations, it is reasonable to as- sume that the complimentarity theory failed to find the support. CA) w'l‘h The value of Murstein's study seems to be in his purpose to pursue a justifiable theory in mate selection. The method of sampling a control group and the statistical comparison of three theories by the same group were seem- ingly suggestive for future research design with similar purposes. Some questions, however, could be raised. The rationales for, the manner of modification of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule were not explained. Also measuring was limited only to personal needs or role-at- tributes. Replication of the study on role-behavior might be wanted for further test of the hypothesis. Koyamal constructed the Role Discrepancy Inventory for the clinical purpose to discriminate the Japanese ordi- nary families from Japanese problem ones. The procedure of its construction was in the following manner. Koyama prepared 28 items covering seven areas such as care of child, household duties, economic activities, recreation, social activities, religion, and marital har- mony. Then, twenty-five family court officials were asked to point out the most crucial items for the union and dis- union of husband and wife. The items advocated by those lTakashi Koyama, "On the Discrepancy between Expec- tation and Performance of Conjugal Roles: An Approach to the Cross-national Study on Family Disorganization," Un— published mimeo (Tokyo: Toyo University, 1966). 35 officers were remained to be twenty-four for husband and wife respectively. The 24 items were classified to eight areas including "household mangement" area added to the above mentioned seven areas. As an ordinary family sample, 101 families were selected randomly from 1200 families which were used by the previous researches. As for the problem families, 100 fam- ilies were drawn from those in the process of mediation of the family court. The subject was asked to check what he (she) expects the partner to do on a five-point scale. Then, the subject was again asked to check what the partner was actually per- forming on the same scale of the same items. The illustra— tions were as follows. A husband was asked of the degree of his expectation to "wife is obedient to husband" (item 3), and then of the degree of his wife's actual performance on the same item. For the wife, for example, "do not exercise physical force" (item 7) was responded to in the same pro- cedure. The score was computed according to the following formula: total points given to performance per item Index of Discrepancy = x 100 total points given to expectation per item In the Table 2.1 are shown the indices obtained by Koyama. 36 Table 2.1.--Comparison of Discrepancy of Expectation and Performance: Ordinary Families and Problem Families in Japan. Index of Discrepancy ordinary family problem family Husband's expectation not complied with by wife 6.1 38.9 Wife's expectation not complied with by husband 6.9 42.1 The tentative conclusion reached by Kayama was that an index of less than 30 indicated least probability of div- orce and an index of 30 through 90 signaled the possibility of divorce. Though the item statement was general and describ— ing no specified conditions, the areas of marital interac- tion were comprehensively covered. The present research gained some assurance on its content validity from the Ko- yama's questionnaire. Was the discrepancy in sexual activi— ties considered the outcome of the discrepancy in other eight areas? The present research included sexual activi- ties in its questionnaire. Reliability of the Inventory also should have been disclosed if it has been examined by any means. Finally, wording of the five-point scale was to be illustrated as a suggestive sample for the future similar researches. 37 Literatures Directly Related to the Present Study Blood's study1 was the only one among the reviewed literatures which dealt with comparison of love-match and arranged marriage in Japan. Since the topic was almost identical with the present researchers, the review was at- tempted to be intensive, although Blood's approach was eclectic rather than based on any particular theoretical model. Blood tried to identify the differential conse- quences after marriage of the new and old systems of mate- selection in Japan. He obtained 444 married couples from white collar residents at the three government apartments. Only those who did not live with their relatives were sam— pled. No other variables were controlled. Wives were interviewed to complete the questionnaire by instructed interviewers. But husbands were asked to fill out the questionnaire by themselves independently. The re- searcher's impression was that the husbands were generally not cooperative for the research and in most cases wives en~ couraged their husbands to fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire for wives consisted of 87 questions, out of which 40 were asked of both partners. For husbands, in addition to the 40 common items, six questions were 1Robert 0. Blood, Jr., Love Match and Arranged Mar— riage: A Tokyo—Detroit Comparison (New York: The Free Press, 1967), pp. 1-112. 38 specially prepared differently from wives'. Many questions were supplied with five alternative responses for a choice, while others with 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 or 10 alternative responses. A few questions were Open ended. The areas of comparison were power structure, the division of labor, terms of address, deference to the hus- band's friends, companionship, emotional sharing, affectional expression, sexual behavior, premarital activities (dating, contacts with partner's social networks, and discussion), parental approval, and finally, marital satisfaction. Pre- marital sex activities were not studied. The data were presented in raw scores or in percent- ages. No computations for statistical significance were performed with a few exceptions. Because the intent of the study was to find the general direction the sampling was not elaborated. The major findings from Blood's study were as fol- lows. A purely arranged marriage is decreasing today. The young partners have more initiative in mate-selection, freed from the pressure from parents or matchmakers. Some gener- alization, however, seems feasible that arranged marriage wives were the most unsatisfied and they expressed the least affection toward husbands. Arranged marriage husbands were the most satisfied with their marriage because they were pampered by servant wives, but the same husbands' needs for 39 companionship were frustrated. The second most satisfied were the love-matched wives who could share feeling and activities with their husbands on an equalitarian basis. To the contrary, the love-matched husbands were longing for old days when women were submissive, because they felt emancipated women do not respect or take care of them. The analysis further showed that even arranged mar— riage couples were satisfied in those cases in which (1) the parents' approval was present, and (2) frequent dating was practiced before marriage. Blood concluded that parental approval and love be— tween mates were important factors for satisfied Japanese marriages. The extreme types-—pure1y arranged marriage and pure love-marriage--may lead to mutual dissatisfaction sooner or later. Thus, Blood suggested that love-plus—parental ap- proval or combination of love—match and arranged marriage would be the best marriage in today's Japan. Blood's study presented a microscopic view of the traditional and modern marriage patterns on which the present study focuses. The description of the procedure of arranged mate-selection was of value. The way of arranging the data was persuasive and challenging, because of proper use of figures and tables, and vivid Summaries. The spirit of writing a research paper seemed to be not very much dissimi- lar to that of writing a novel with a plot. Blood's re- search was not entirely impersonal. 40 To minimize his skewed interpretation on the data, Blood never failed to insert the responses, comments or re- search findings by Japanese anthrOpologists, family sociolo- gists, marriage counselors, and ordinary people. Blood's findings would give the present research in- sights when interpreting the data at the final chapter. But some part of the research procedure seemed to need further elaboration. The samples were not matched except on the "No relatives living together" variable. The number of children and educational level which may effect marital in— teraction were not considered. Also, some questions may have arroused the Japanese respondents' resistance. The reliability of Blood's questionnaire was not re— ported. Since many items require the respondents' reflect- ion on the past state of affairs, some distortion of memory might be possible to occur. Therefore, it seemed desirable to have test-retest reliability, even though the question- naire was a direction-finding rather than of the significant- difference type. Need for Improvement of Future Studies The present review of literature leads to some guide- lines or suggestions for improving future studies on marital role congruence. The major points which could be improved in future studies, including the present study, are as fol- lows: 41 1. Though most studies dealt with role behavior, role attribute also should be studied as an object of role congruence. 2. Both aspects of role expectation, duty or obli- gation and right or privilege, should be highlighted. Most studies were leaning towards the "duty" aspect of role— expectation. 3. Role sector should be as comprehensive as possi— ble. In case the number of role sectors was limited, the generalization of the obtained results should be attempted with a great caution. Hurvitz's and Koyama's studies were suggestive for determining the role sectors in the future studies. 4. It seems preferable to prepare many role items to increase reliability and content validity. The items should be selected from the previous studies, and modified to fit to the cultural setting where studies are to be con- ducted. 5. Even numbered points on the rating scale seems desirable to discourage the respondents' tendency toward a central or neutral point. Summary The literature relevant to the present study was reviewed back to the past thirteen years. The intention was to improve the research design, particularly on the measuring instruments and the theoretical models. 42 The size of the samples reviewed ranged from 15 couples to 444. About half of the studies used non-couples as the subjects. Three studies enployed the pre-existing inventories, but the rest prepared measuring items for their own purposes. The number of the originally prepared items ranged from one to sixty-five. The variables reviewed and found as relevant to role congruence were: (1) congruence between role expectation and perceived role performance, (2) congruence between perceived role expectation and actual role expectation, (3) congruence between role expectation and role expectation, (4) congruence on perceived importance of role sector, and (5) congruence between self—concept and ideal mate desired by partner. Most studies dealt with role behavior except one study on role attribute. From the review of literature, the following gener— alizations are made. 1. The studies concerning both aspects of role-— duty and right, or responsibility and privilege were m1n1mum. 2. The role sectors were relatively restricted ex— cept for two studies. 3. Comparative studies on traditional and emergent marital patterns were rare. 4. Specification of statements of role behavior was not widely practiced. 5. The models of role congruence theory had di- versity. Thus, congruence of role—expectations held by both mates was not a dominantly used variable. 6. Role congruence was not necessarily positively correlated to marital satisfaction. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The present research was designed incorporating the suggestions from the previous studies. In this chapter, the description of the samples is followed by the statements of the principles and procedure of the questionnaire construc- tion, including an examination of the reliabilities esti- mates. Prior to the statements of the hypotheses in test- able form, the type of the research design used in this study is made explicit. In the last part of the chapter, the issue of the homogeneity of the variances of the two samples is examined. Sample Two samples were compared in the study: tradition- ally married Japanese couples and emergently married Jap- anese couples. The traditionally married couples were op- erationally defined as those whose mate-selection was ar- ranged through a third party, while the emergently married couples were those whose mate-selection was made by them- selves. Couples were selected who had no children, no more than high school education, and no divorce experiences. 43 44 Samples of 38 traditional couples and 40 emergent couples were selected from the population of married residents within Tokyo prefecture. Procedure Seven Public Health Centers within Tokyo prefecture were selected from commercial areas (2 centers), residential areas (3 centers), and suburbus of Tokyo (2 centers). Of the participants to the Centers' program of family living, only the couple-attendants were asked at the hall entrance to complete a card. The card was brief enough to identify those couples with no children, no more high school educa— tion, and no divorce experiences. The identified couples (41 for traditional and 52 for emergent) were asked to remain in the room after the lecture was over to complete the questionnaire. The couples were asked not to consult with each other. The researcher monitored while the respondents were working on the question- naire. Because some couples left the room before completing the questionnaire or returned the incomplete questionnaire (See Table 3.1), actually thirty—eight sets of questionnaires were obtained from the traditional group, which were about 93 per cent of the originally identified couples. From the emergent group, forty sets of questionnaires were returned, which were about 86 per cent of the originally identified couples. 45 Table 3.1.--Procedure of Sampling for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples. Traditional Emergent number number Originally Identified Couples 41 52 Leaving Couples or Incompleting Couples 3 12 Assumed Faking Couples 3 4 Usable Couples 35 36 To determine the possibility of faking responses, the score on a Lie Scale (See Appendix A) was condidered. These items consisted of statements which were basic to human nature—-denial indicated that the respondent was probably not answering the questionnaire honestly. In case the score of either or both of the mates was below the group mean score by 2 units of standard deviation, the couples' responses were disregarded from the sample. Thus, the usa- ble samples were thirty—five couples of traditional marriage and thirty-six of emergent marriage. (See Table 3.2). 46 TABLE 3.2.--Distribution of Lie Scores for Traditional and Emergent Japanese Couples on a Questionnaire about Marital Roles. Score Traditional Emergent. husband w1fe husband W1fe 6 15 15 26 22 5 10 ll 4 10 4 6 7 4 3 3 3 l 4 2 2 3 2 1* 2* l 1* 2* 1* 1* Mean 4.7 4.8 5.2 5.1 SD 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 TOTAL N 38 38 40 4O *Disregarded from the sample due to more than 2 units of SD below the mean. NOTE: The higher the score, the more honest in response. Age and Schooling The mean age of the traditionally married Japanese couples was 30 for the husbands with a range from 26 to 39, and 25 for the wives ranging from 22 to 34. The mean age of the emergently married Japanese couples was 26 for hus- bands ranging from 22 to 33, and 25 for wives ranging from 21 to 33. (See Table 3.3). On the average, the traditionally married 35 bus- bands received 11.62 years of schooling, and their wives 11.40 years of schooling. The average schooling of the 47 emergently married thirty-six husbands was .26 year lower than that of the traditionally married husbands. The emer— gently married wives were also lower than the traditionally married wives on the average schooling by .4 years. (See Table 3.4). TABLE 3.3.—-Comparison of Age for Traditional and Emergent Japanese Couples. Range Traditional Emergent. husband w1fe husband w1fe 213-23 0 9 l 9 24-26 2 l6 16 18 27—29 19 7 l4 6 30-32 8 1 3 2 33—35 3 2 2 1 36-38 2 0 0 0 39—41 1 0 O 0 Mean 29.94 25.46 26.08 25.33 SD 5.98 2.99 5.05 2.78 TOTAL N 35 35 36 36 48 TABLE 3.4.--Comparison of Schooling for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples. Schooling Traditional Emergent. husband w1fe husband w1fe 9 4 7 6 ll 10 O 0 2 1 11 1 O 1 l 12 3O 28 27 23 Mean 11.62 11.40 11.36 11.00 SD .97 1.21 1.17 1.39 TOTAL N 35 35 36 36 Occupation and Income For both the traditionally and emergently married husbands, the first two dominant occupations were clerical and mechanical, and the least engaged two occupations were managerial and professional. (See Table 3.5). The pattern of the occupational distribution was similar both for the traditionally and emergently married husbands. The median income of the traditional marriage hus— bands fell within the range from 60,000 yen to 80,000 yen, while the income of the emergent marriage husbands fell within the range from 40,000 yen to 60,000 yen. (See Table 3.6). 49 TABLE 3.5.--Comparison of Occupational Distribution for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Husbands. Traditional Emergent husbands husbands number % number % Clerical 13 37 12 33 Mechanical 11 31 10 28 Private enterprise 5 14 6 17 Labor 3 9 7 19 Professional 2 6 O 0 Managerial 1 3 1 3 Total 35 100 36 100 TABLE 3.6.--Comparison of Husband's Income for Traditional and Emergent Japanese Marriage Range of Income Traditional Emergent " (yen) husbands o husbandso number 6 number 6 less than 20,000 0 O O 0 20,000 — 40,000 3 9 1 3 40,000 — 60,000 12 34 16 44 60,000 - 80,000 15 43 10 28 80,000 - 10,000 3 9 4 11 10,000 - 12,000 2 5 3 8 12,000 - 14,000 0 O 1 3 more than 14,000 0 O 1 3 TOTAL 35 100 36 100 50 Type of Introduction For the traditionally married Japanese couples, the most popular form of the introduction to each other was "miai" or the arranged formal interview closely followed by introduction by parents or relatives. (See Table 3.7). For the emergently married Japanese couples, the most pOpular form of first contact was meeting at the working place fol- lowed by knowing by happening. (See Table 3.7). The least practiced form of first contact for the traditional couples was introduction by employers or school teachers. No case was found in which a couple first met at the wedding cere- mony. Such a case was not rare a generation ago. Among the emergently married Japanese couples, no case was found in which childhood friendships grew into a marital relation- ship. Other Characteristics On the average, 35 couples of traditional marriage had married one year and two months after nearly ten months dating and courtship. The average duration of emergent marriages of 36 Japanese couples was one year and two months with the preceding three years and three months spent dat- ing and courtship. (See Table 3.8). 51 TABLE 3.7.--Types of First Contacts among Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples. Traditional Emer 2 t Type of Type of g 26.51 27.75 0.54 -2.214* hild rxaaring' 26.89 27.97 0.55 -l.964* >LJSekeeping 22.80 22.53 0.59 +0-458 menaciJig 17.20 17.81 0.47 —l.298 X au3tixfiitjxes 16.83 17.33 0.48 -1.042 ;al. 172.49 176.19 2.35 -l.574 I 35 36 *Significam:at.m3 ,‘he higher the score, level. the greater the congruence in response, 64 Wife's Role Sector 'Nm statistical hypothesis tested for the two mari- tal patterns was: Null Hypothesis B: The traditionally married Japanese couples' group mean score of perceptual congruence on wife's role is equal to or less than that of the emergently nerried Japanese couples. Alternate B: The traditionally married Japanese couples' group mean score of perceptual congruence on wife's role will exceed that of the emergently married Japan— ese couples. To test the null hypothesis, the mean scores of both the traditionally and emergently married groups were com- pared by a one-tailed t—test on the following seven sectors of the wife's role: (1) social participant, (2) decision maker, (3) companion, (4) child rearer, (5) housekeeper, (6) wage earner, and (7) sex partner. Evidence was found to reject the null hypotheses for fole sxaetor (3) companion (See Table 4.2). As with the usbmuui's role sectors, the means were in the opposite direc- itni tfmni predicted by the theory of the study. 65 IAMEI42.~{bmparison of Perceptual Congruence on Wife's Role: Traditional Marriage and Emergent Marriage. Standard Mean of Mean of Error of . . , t Value RokaSafibr Trad1t1onal Emergent D1fference Obtained Group Group of the Two Means l. Sociallife 33.20 34.06 0.59 -l.458 2. [hoisflnlmaking 31.20 31.08 0.56 +0.214 3. Companionship 26.03 27.17 0.64 -l.781* 4. Child rearing 28.57 28.47 0.54 +0.185 I 5. Housekeeping 23.94 23.97 0.46 -0.065 5 6. Financing 17.40 17.64 0.44 -0.545 7. Sex activities 17.29 17.78 0.44 -1.114 8. Total 177.63 180.17 2.17 -l.170 N 35 36 *Significant at .05 level. WTPE: The higher the score, the greater the congruence in response. IDifference in Marital Role Perception -- Traditional vs. Emergent ITMe raw data from which the scores of perceptual ngINJernze (In marital role were obtained were analyzed to Ki tIue gtnaeral perception of marital roles by Japanese .plxes. Tflie 142 male and female subjects' responses to 1 item were examined by Chi-square test. Marriage pat- : (Insatiitiional or Emergent) was significantly associated "agyrexe" or "disagree" responses in only three husband's 66 releiiemsand four wife's role items out of a total of 140 immm. Ikmause such results can be expected by chance alone, notnmchcnedence can be put in interpreting data about tra- ditkmalamd emergent marriage patterns as determiners of Japamaxacouples' perception of specific items. Therefore, it.seamaireasonable to assume that the married Japanese have shMJar perceptions of marital roles irregardless of their marital patterns. However, before accepting the above conclusion, the role perception reflected in the mean ratings for each sector were analyzed. Analysis of Seven Role Sectors of Marriage The role sectors were built into the instrument as theoretical constructs to explain marriage role perception. Seven to thirteen items were written to define each sector. Mean ranking scores of each role sector were com- mared tux the analysis of variance model among the four traditional wives, emergent rrtnqxs; traditional husbands, Analysis of variance was em- usbands, and emergent wives. thyed txa examine if significant differences at .05 level Listffli anuyng the groups. Regarding husband's role sectors, J scxiial_.life, (2) financing, and (3) sex activities were e areas where significant difference was identified among an ginoupma. As for wife's role sectors, (1) companionship v 67 and (2) financing were the areas where significant differ- ence was found among the groups. To identify any particular pair of groups in which differences were significant, the t-method of multiple com- parison procedures was applied. The mean ratings of hus- band's role for all seven sectors are summarized in Table 4.3. TABLE 4.3nufbmparison of Perceptions on Husband's Role Sector for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples. Traditional Emergent A pair with Role Sector Husband Wife Husband Wife significant - —- —- —- difference X1 X2 X3 X4 1. Social life 1.79 1.90 1.81 1.96* (§i<§;) Decision making 1.83 1.97 1.96 1.96 Companionship 1.88 1.95 1.84 1.93 Child rearing 1.95 1.89 1.85 1.90 Housekeeping 2.81 2.84 2.65 2.77 Financing 1.82 1.95 1.83 1.98* (if-52’ 351654) Sex activities 2.27 2.49 2.28 2.45* (331652 §l>§4, 35 >— , 3(- <3? 2 X3 ) 35 35 36 36 *Sirpnificant at .05 level by Analysis of Variance. 68 1. Traditional husbands and emergent wives had dif- finentpenmption of the husband's role as social participant. Trmfitimufl.husbands generally tended to want an extended Emergent wives tended sochfl.lifiaseparate from their wives. toxuewrmuriage as a joint social venture, with resultant resuflcthxm placed on the traditional Japanese husbands outside of home activities. 2. 0n the financial sector, the emergent wife ap- However, on closer inspec- pears to stand off by herself. it can be seen that the traditional wife also tion of data, tended to disagree with her husband's perception of his fi- nancial role, even though the differences were not signifi- It appears that the Japanese husband viewed himself cant. The wives were as a provider and controller of finances. not so sure that this perception was accurate, particularly for the emergent marriages. Both traditional and emergent husbands had dif- 3. ferent;;xarception of the role of a husband as a sex partner The tharlcdid eaither their traditional and emergent wives. husbands generally tended to feel they deserve more freedom 1r) tlueirr sen< activities than their wives could accept. TTue wife's role sector mean ratings are summarized All differences were determined by an analy- in Table 4.4. sis of variance test followed by a t—test of multiple com- parisons. 69 TMME¢L4.~{bmparison of Perceptions on Wife's Role Sector for Traditionally and Emergently Married Japanese Couples. Traditional Emergent A pair with Afle thor Husband Wife Husband Wife significant X . 1 X2 X3 X4 d1fference 1. Social life 1.89 1.84 1.92 1.86 2. Decision making' 1.75 1.69 1.69 1.72 3. Companionship 1.95 1.81 1.88 1.77* (§l>§4) 4. Child rearing 1.63 1.57 1.62 1.59 5. Housekeeping 1.35 l 32 1.40 1.35 6. Financing 2.05 1.84 2.02 1.89* (§i>§é) 7. Sex activities 2.64 2.57 2.52 2.63 N 35 35 36 36 *Significant at .05 level by Analysis of Variance. 70 1. Traditional husbands and emergent wives had dif- ferent perception of wife's role as companion. Emergent wives wanted jointness, shareness, and closeness with their husbands more than traditional husbands expected the same from their wives. 2. Of wife's role as wage earner, traditional hus- bands had a different perception form their traditional wives. The traditional wives wanted to contribute to family finance more than husbands expected or would permit. It is of interest to note that no differences were found between traditional husbands and emergent husbands, or between traditional wives and emergent wives in percep- tions of role sectors. It was likely that the Japanese hus- bands and wives were homogeneous about their marital per- ception, regardless of their marital patterns. Analysis of Responses to Each Marital Role Item The data from this study had the added potential of revealing information about current Japanese couples' per- ception of marital roles irregardless of type of marriage. Therefore, in this section, role sector items are examined to determine the direction of Japanese couples' rating. (The mean ratings for both husband's and wife's sector items are summarized in Table 4.5 through 4.11). 71 Social Life In spite of the common belief in Japan that today's younger generation are too individualistic or egoistical, about two thirds of the respondents irregardless of sex and marriage pattern perceived that a husband should not con- centrate on making his own family happy while ignoring so- cial contacts with other people (See Table 4.5, item 27). However, more than half of the respondents agreed that a wife should limit her social life to a great degree in order to build a happy home (item 27). Of particular interest was the tendency of the emer- gent wife to rate significantly more in the traditional di— rection her perception of the wife's role as being family centered than did either the traditional couples or her emergent husband (item 27). The emergent wife's motive for the "traditional" direction is likely different from that of the traditional wife. It may be that the latter stays in a closed family because of her loyalty to the family as a social institution, while the former does so because of her personal preference to build a family as a companion- ship unit. The respondents' expectation for a husband's social contacts beyond the family boundary was directed toward relatives rather than colleagues and friends (items 21 & 54). As far as the casual contact is concerned, the husband was expected to relate to his wife's relatives and his own in .MSOm Ow 2:0 Echo voccu mouoom 0L9 .usofioougm QCu ouOE ogu .QEOUm ecu pz3ca uca ”awn: .Hu>oH mo. an ucmuawacmim amen oumzwnufico. 72 om.H m$.~ hw.H Hr.H ©m.~ bm.~ vm.H vm.H .>ummmoooc c053 .mmcaflbam pan mu:oumm wE uuoaanm >HH1Ho:oCAM H .mw oc.m cm.m v~.N Ow.m mm.m co.N ON.N Om.m .mcoHucNacomno adzoaunuuoou no Hmcoeumosnu .ofl>ao Ou ocoHofl H .Om mo.m ow.a do.a cm.a mo.m Hw.~ ~®.H am.a .oEO: >5 On ”moo:du:aczwom Ucw mpcofiuwv mononofiaoo >6 oun>cfl H .vm s¢.a mm.H ma.~ sm.s mn.a ms.~ An.fi 00.3 .nnonnaan: >5 On sincninu an H ..n cm.a om.a mc.H wm.a Om.a vv.~ ov.~ cv.fl .:0Huw:nmnw Uzn :unso .mcuppo3 .Houvccw mm mcoamcwuc :usm :a mcsvinw mmoflo no mv>aunaun >2 Cast mpuabcg no mLH:3ELLom :H aucgflubonjg >H©:EHH23 H .mw mm.m Hm.m mc.m gm.m cm.m mm.H mm.w mm.E .Aczcnmzcv sus3 >5 :mcu mccuflbw AcoEV c3EO3 nzguo o>mz H .mm nc.~ mo.~ cw.fi vn.a mo.m mm.~ mo.m om.~ .>nmmmoooc :053 mw:aabum 0:1 mucouc; Am.p:nnm5;v n.6wH3 >5 quLL5m >Hannocc:am H .Om .mc.m mm.m na.~ mo.m Hc.m No.m an.m ox.m .950: >;;n; n mcnwsngn 2:3 cb.,5co.o pca Siva: using a. an 953635 yalfiwtnwoluso zua3 omna HGEUOm we usaba H .mm Om.a mm.H vm.~ ©v.~ mm.~ cm.~ ov.fi tv.H .mo>ausaau :30 >6 Loa3 oomucoo Haaqu amsmao u>nz H .Hn vv.~ 0m.H Hm.H cv.a mm.a om.H cv.~ hm.H .wo>aumfimn Am.pcmnnszv m.owak 3E nua3 uoou:Oo HGHcOm Hasnco o>1L H .HH mo.m wH.m mp.m ao.m nw.w mo.m Hm.m m3.m .Awflomme Any mp:pnnu AE we %;@;Eau ocu CH Ao:vu3fismvu n no iricw .:.mmfixa no nfinauitufl: gnu ucpb o nob «:6 H .n mm.# mm.# dw.~ cw.” «v.a nH.~ :v.~ Hm.~ .ms Lodz ufima> ..,....U:.,..H.~.u. AN...UCWQmDLV m..-.w._n3 >5 ZEDQaLN... H .W. cc.m no.~ ¢E.m vr.H ofi.m hfi.m v_.m 3:.m .2;>Abcfi:n ”;e::n.c;u Cu 2H3; Aniucczab a o>lo H .m X x x x x x x x - , - : .;- w - : ! w uE:bH Luau Hnuuom ;u~3 Uzmbusz cwfi3 U:c2m:: cwHZ pctbmsr cwuz pcv;m:: - ucmwnvem Ho:cHuHU1nE ucoouLEm ~3:Cflufln1»e oMCm m.;wi3 odcm m.C:cQ::: iwflq ”slush "EzuH zbwocccduct:0 £26m nCm ILACm ”couném w: ocflucm cmi3 b:1 Urchczll.m.w mumdh (\ 73 similar strength (items 11 & 21). But once financial help became the topic, the husband was expected to be more com— mitted to his own relatives than his wife's (items 30 & 66). There was almost 100 per cent of agreement between husbands and wives that they should attend ceremonies or parties in such occasions as funeral, wedding, child birth and graduation. But the couples were not so enthusiastic about inviting their colleagues or friends to their home (items 54 & 43). A wife's going to a coffee house or a restaurant by herself was more negatively perceived by both husbands and wives than her having men friends other than her husband, and a husband's going to a bar or a nightclub (item 7 & 32). In summary, social life of the married Japanese was expected to be relative—oriented with ceremonial or obliga— tional contacts with non—family members. A wife was ex- pected to stay at home to build a happy home, while a hus~ band was permitted to have an extended social life. Thus, the current consensus of both spouses' role as social par- ticipant seemed to be tradition—oriented. Decision Making The Japanese husbands and wives in this study tended to prefer joint decision-making in nine occasions out of twelve described in the questionnaire. They perceived that they should consult with their mate before deciding (1) if 74 a wife works, (2) which TV programs to watch, (3) a place for the family vacation, (4) choice of family doctor, (5) to which school their child attends, (6) to move, build or re-model the house, (7) to engage in expensive shopping, (8) to accept social dates with other peOple, and (9) number of children to have (See Table 4.6, items 9, 19, 29, 38, 44, 50, 65 & 67). Particularly, about important decision such as moving, building or re-modeling the house, expensive shOpping such as buying a car and furnitures, and the number of children to have, neither husbands nor wives agreed to decide alone disregarding the mate's reaction. No evidence was found that the traditional husbands were perceived as dominant decision—maker over their wives comparing to the emergent husbands. The only occasions which more than 60 per cent of the married respondents agreed as a husband's domain for autonomous decision were (1) when the husband decides if to change or quit a job and (2) when the husband decides the cost of a gift to other people (items 40 & 69). As for a wife's decision making, the amount of the children's pocket money was perceived by more than 65 per cent of the respondents as her only domain for autonomous decision-making (item 33). To summarize, it would be rare that Japanese hus- bands and wives decide their family affairs alone without consulting their mates. 75 .uSCH Ou 9:0 EOuH omcmp mouoom och .n2o800umo mzu shoe ecu .ouoom on» uc3oH 629 ”@902 _~._ vw.H cm.H mv.H .Lofl >E uHSU MO mwcmco H cws3 panama: >E :uHB uHsmcoo H .ov .~._ “w.H wm.H ov.H .uoc no xuo3 H HH proop H 2053 panama: >E cuH3 uHsmcoo H .m wHom m.oHH3 mm.m oo.m sm.m mo.m .noh >5 uHDU no mwcmco H HH wme>E >n prowU H .ov no.m mm.m ov.m hm.m .uOc no mxuoz owH3 >E HH mpHooc H .m oHom m.©cmnm:: mm.m sa.m as.m on.m 8H.m em.m Hm.m wH.m .vsmooa Moguo ou uHHm ecu HO umou who ocHooU H .mc HH.H cm.H ©O.H Om.H mm.H mm.H mo.H hH.H .o>©£ pHsozm w3 couUHHco >cmE 30: ochHo :00 20:3 Abcmnmszv mHH3 >E cqu uHsmcoo H .50 om.H wv.H Hm.H wo.H mc.H mn.H H>.H vm.H .oHacoQ Hocuo LuH3 moumb HmHQOm umm H coc3 “pcmnmznv mHH3 >E LuH3 uHDmcoo H .mb mo.H 0H.H mo.H HH.H om.H vv.H om.H Hm.H .mousuchsw ccn Moo 6 mcH>5n mm £03m @cHQmonm ®>Hm:omxo on H coc3 Abcmnmscv cwH3 >6 nuHB uHsmcoo H .nm mo.H HH.H mo.H hH.H mm.H vv.H nH.H om.H .mmscn mbu OCHH0606mn no mCHUHHDQ .m:H>OE mm Loam mconHooU >HHEmH ucmuuomEH OCHxME cmL3 Apcmnmszv mHHS >E LuH3 uHsmcoo H .cm ¢M.H Hm.H 5H.H ov.H mv.H H©.H Hm.H cm.H .mccouum pHHLo >E HOOLom LoHL3 Ou vUHoop H coc3 ”Uzmnmszv oHHB >E zuH3 uHscho H .wv cm.H mm.H ov.H 0¢.H n©.H cm.H m¢.H hm.H .nOuUOU >HHEnH m mcHuooHom c023 Abcnnmszv oHH3 >E :uH3 uHsm:oo H .wm mo.m mm.H oo.m mc.m Hc.m cm.m cm.m mw.w .coanch >E mo >QCOE noxoom ecu Ho uCDOEm ozu ocHoom H .mM vw.m nv.m H>.m mc.m Hm.m vv.m oc.m rN.m .oHcon 6:6 :oHumcm> >HHEUH OLu noH oomHm ozu opauop H .om oo.m mm.m oo.m mm.m mm.m H©.m mm.m mm.m .coumz On >HHEMH >E Mow meumOum >9 omoocu H .mH m a m a .1. m x x QHHS Usnmmsz OHHB pcmnmjz OHHB Ucnnmsm owmz pcmMmSI uczwnsEu HucoHqumue accoumem HmcoHuHcmuB mEouH mcmeE conHouo mHom .mez mcmefi cchHocQ "EouH ouHmccoHumczo comm uoH moHcm Hmanmz mo mcHumm me3 new U:m&m::nn.©.v mqm5 3b DHHH EGHLCT cHHH+i .wzH,sj.x;nazxi .xu.»x >E HHKXd; stu H .mH :n ocifi Harman an: (in . . 1,... .1” ._. M. M.“ ,L ”.77 «on H mm.H ce.~ mn.n mn.2 we.H nm.H is.H .nn;n;i;2 i<_v:n IIHZC .1, ..HH.._._ 3E W.w..«;4HH-T\vw/M..,. 7...“; 67.13.42,:4. ”Urn H .2... . . 1 r F m~..a gm.H CQ.N weH TUH «.34 ”~38. Hw.H . Igifny HO huagzcfi .fios;i; inn:l u;: m;+;vcn we; «5H m in; HE; ECH mt; r\ H V. .chn HT mnfiwjouli. 74:: ..._.;;.. :3. r .. is (ii: 51...»; H3 1TH“... .53..ch H .,.I Om . H 3 . H in .H .... m. .H m. p .H :1 H in . ._ 3, .H . :.:.,:..;....._.;.; quss.fle chynwgeau Spam T.H >E hv. H. ha. . H CH. .H 3.1 . H T... H m»... .H ._ ,._.H we; . 3. 4.3.2.4.“ n L. 2‘3. mild; plains; Zing... CL>L mrxflgo Hi .,lx m1CH:E:: .w. .Jr H .wv Cm.m qc.m mm.w H:.m Hr.w cr.m >r.w hm.m .sztc.::v cw J us Sign >.a>stm ‘ . : anLH H .u« wr.m T¢.m £v.n :0.M v¢.m Hé.x :¢.m wH.m 3:: ruiniaiili Ami:;nm1 C ,yuik .w H 1.:3 .bJH .3 :2 ma r..b;x. p... C L .J. 1.71.25.27.12 me... a... H_ g... n... H m VT.H m>.H m¢.H HT.H TH.H mu.“ . w.H #H.H ._4.,,u qufis,np3M .. a. a” A all .5; : ... .fi . a. a ,1:1;v::i ZWMR ma ;H.: H .HH x x x x x x x x uc_z cannnz: aoflz 6:8: 2: gin; thmnzz . , . . SEZVH Hm :. :2 9.: L UCLTHUEQ HflCUHpHUTLF (W Tgwwplci OHCZ «LOWE?» 17,1 . I.... .. _.~. 2 .1. 4 A; i. ,1 4 .¢ blsznii: $5.; .F... Lnfifc:i..x;:x 2.71 bi; r;.,l H712 78 their work at home, while only eight per cent of the emergent marriage husbands so described themselves. The difference was significant. (Chi-square test exceeded at the 5 per cent level, item 13). In summary, the married couples tended to show an emergent pattern in recreational activities, but in other areas they were traditionally oriented, expecting a wife to display more self-control or self—reservation than her hus- band. Child Rearing The respondents perceived both husband's and wife's roles similarly in (1) giving children as a high level of education as possible, (2) caring for children when sick, (3) spending time with children, and (4) considering child- ren's opinion when deciding something related to their life (See Table 4.8, items 8, 41, 52 & 55). The emergent couples perceived the husband's role as (l) a supporter of the child who was in trouble with people and (2) not necessarily the one to take responsibil- ity for discipline (Chi—square significant at .05 level, item 1 & 64). However, in all ratings, both parents were viewed as disciplinarians (item 64). Support for the child when he got in trouble reflected a less consistent rating of either partner's role, with the husband receiving slightly higher rates than the wife (item 1). .MSOM Cu 0C0 EOHW mmcau monoum one .uCQEQOumm mzu 0505 UL» .vpoUm ecu nn3OH 9:5 ”mHOz .Hw>mH mo. um ucmoHHHchm umou ohmsvmnHLU« 79 hm.H om.H ON.N oo.m .cvucHazo >5 05 x533 >5 no @cHxOOo .mzaacoxomzon assoc mea H .m mm.m Hm.m oc.m .concHHLc >5 Cu x503 >5 usabc chu H .m ... H Om m. . Tcmfiwtflm Hm.H 0m.H HH.H 0N.H mm.H vm.H C¢.H .coscHHco >5 new >uHHHnHm:C;mou >HacHHmvaHc oxcb H .vc mm.m mm.m mc.m ow.m om.m mo.m om.m .xnoz Hoocom Lu~3 :oHUHHco >5 3H0: H .mo mH.H om.H vH.H oq.H mm.H Hm.H ©V.H .QHHH “Hosp Ou UqumHew chcocEOm abacus H cw£3 coHcHAc m.ccupHH;o >5 Hopamcco H .mm 0H.H Hm.H mm.H >M.H mm.H mv.H mv.H .cmuUHHLo >5 nuaz 5555 ecu Ccogn H .mm OO.H mo.H cc.H Qo.H 0m.H gm.H ww.H .qum mum >o£u socz cauUHHLo any new ance H .Hv mm.H mm.H Wm.H ov.H om.m Om.m Hm.m .mmcaucQE 45m pcouum H .Hm Hm.H mm.H Om.H vm.H om.H ov.H C@.H .:mana:c >5 uoH weabszsn Ho HJpCE n ma L>nam H .mm rm.H Hm.H Om.H Hm.H HH.m 0m.m mm.» .cvncHHLo ocso> >5 umLHU ccm Luca .UQLH H .cm mn.H oo.m Qc.H mo.H mw.H Hn.H nn.H .beHumom mm coHuccsac Ho Ha>¢H s 23H: ma cmuoHazo >5 o>av H .m mm.m HH.~ cm.m mm.m mh.H no.H rc.m .QHQCQH zuH3 oHnsowp CH mH 0L cabz cHHzo >5 Ho 1562 pcdum H .H M x x m m x x oHHz cambmsz mwaz ccmnmsz panama: mHHE pznbnsz mEuuH UcHucmm UHHLU ucumuoEm HmonuHUmHH uchntEm Hmonqucufi chm m.Uccnm3: Uzaumom UHHLC cufimccoHumozo zoom HCH mcHzm Hauaumz HO Ocaucm QHHB pen Ccnflmszll.m.v mumde 80 About half of the respondents replied that the hus~ bands should not talk about their work to their children. To the contrary, the Japanese wives were more positively disposed to talk to their children about housekeeping, cook- ing, and working (item 5). Both Japanese husbands and wives were negative to- wards helping their children with school work (item 63). But both husbands and wives strongly agree to give as a high level of education as possible (item 8). The overall conclusions which can be drawn from the data on child rearing was that a husband tended to yield to his wife about child discipline, and shy away from disclosing his occupational experiences to his children. A wife was expected to be an active disciplinarian, but at the same time talk to her children about her daily life experiences. Be- cause in the main, father—child relationships were distant and mother-child relationships were close, spouses' mutual expectation as child rearer could be categorized as tradi— tional. Housekeeping Ninety—nine per cent of the respondents Opposed the notion that a husband manage the home economics and pay every single bill by himself (See Table 4.9, item 15). More than 80 per cent of the same respondents disagreed with the idea of a husband's (1) going to the grocery for his wife, (2) setting a table for meals, (3) perparing meals, and 81 .HDOH 0» 0:0 505w macaw mohoom och .HCQEoouvm exp 0505 0:» .ouoom mnu ue3oH one ”wee: oo.H mo.H sH.H pH.H .ocflconfl on H .mw vH.H mm.H mo.H «H.H .QOLm cu >umoobm 0:5 Cu om H .mH sq.H om.H cm.H mv.H .nnnnsm mm; >Ha56H ozu co£3 >HHUUHO mmsoc ecu Qwex H .m mHCm m.awH3 mo.m mm.m «H.m HH.m .mmnnoHo mcflznnx on H .mv vm.m m>.m mo.m om.m .wma3 >5 uoH dorm o» >ueoo»m ecu Cu om H .NH om.m mm.m em.m Hs.m .uemH m>ns mumoso “when a: :ano H .m mHOm m.ccnbm:m oo.H mo.H mo.H mo.H oo.m sm.m vH.m mo.m .mHmos wnmmcnm H .cn oo.H «H.H co.H mo.H mm.m no.m 5H.m mo.m .nHaos now oHnmu ecu non H .vm mH.m mm.~ o~.m om.m mw.H sq.H cm.H nm.H .eHan m ocflpnsm ncn noon carers m mcaxflu mm Loam ocauamaou oHumOEOU UHAEHm on H .mw oH.N mm.H mo.H 5H.H vo.~ om.m mm.m Hn.m .mfiun» urn conuno new onso; ecu anoHu H .mm ms.H so.H ov.H Hm.H Hm.~ Hm.m Hm.m sm.m .ocwcnos shone madnnon ecu smzn n25 H .mm mm.H mm.H om.H oq.H mn.m mn.m mm.m sm.m .nHinsE >2 Haas nHmcnn snn>i >mm one moHECcoou 350: are HHm mvmcmE H .mH m m m H m m m H mm“; wannmsz mmfiz oceans: mega nannmsm iuflz nannns: main“ wcnsnoxanzo: uceoumEm Hmcoaqucue ucmmmem Hmcoaqumuh chm n.mHH3 mHom n.6cmnnsm ocHaoameSCm ”EcuH muHoccoHumcso beam sew mLHLm HsuHHUE mo ochcm CHHZ Cum p:m2m3:un.m.v mama; 82 (4) washing clothes (items 12, 34, 36 & 45). More than half of the respondents were negative about the husband's (5) cleaning up after guests' leaving, (5) making beds, and (6) cleaning the inside and outside of the house (items 2, 22, & 23). The only housekeeping responsibility which was per- ceived by 99 per cent of the respondents as the husband's domain was simple domestic repairing such as fixing a bro- ken door and putting up a shelf (item 25). In contrast to the husband, the Japanese wife was expected to be responsible for all the housekeeping works except for domestic repairing. The degree of agreement about each housekeeping item as a wife's duty was high ranging 88 per cent to 100 per cent. In summary, housekeeping was the role sector where the least interaction or sharing or jointness was found be- tween a husband and a wife. Clear role allocation was iden- tified by all respondents. Financing What was most strongly expected of husbands by wives was that a husband should (1) give all of his salary to his wife, and (2) be responsible for financial security of their family (items 14 & 58). A wife was expected by her husband and herself to take the managerial responsibilities of home finances, though traditional husbands showed some reluctance 83 to leave all the responsibilities to their wives (item 10). Compared to the emergent husbands, the traditional husbands tended to perceive it approvable to take their pocket money from their salary before leaving it to the wives' hands (Chi-square significant at .05 level, item 14). More than two thirds of the husbands were feeling that they should earn more than they were making, but less than a half of the wives expected their husbands to strive for more income from extra-work (item 61). Significant dif— ference was found in the proportion of husbnads and wives who expected the husbands to earn more money (item 61). The Japanese wives did not seem pushing their husbands to make more money. The husbands did not expect their wives to have a job, part—time or full-time, for additional family income (items 58 & 61). However, if the wives did work for their personal growth, not for monetary reward, then the husbands reSponded positively (item 14). The Japanese wives had simi- lar perceptions about wives' employment (item 14). Husbands' strongest expectations for wives in hand- ling economic matters were to: (1) accept the husband's late coming home due to his work, (2) save for a rainy day, and (3) avoid the useless spending of the money (items 10, 20 & 37). The general perception by all the respondents towards a wife's advice on her husband's work was negative, particularly by the traditional couples (item 46). The .MSCH Cu oco EOHH mmcnu mouoom 0:5 .uccecmpud ozu @505 ecu .euoom map uQROH ecu “@502 .Ho>mH ms. nu ucmoHHH:va umuu ouc:WmnHLU« vv.m om.m mm.m v>.m .0505:H >Ha5mw 0505 50w xu03 QEHunume u>mL H .H@ H©.v vc.m Hm.m om.m .mEOqu >Ha51e Hs:0HquCc new x503 QEHUIHsz e>1c H .mm «vv.m Hr.~ mo.m «n.m .xuo3 ch 5:035 ozcnmsz >5 $mH>Ud H .05 0x.H Hi_m mc.H oo.m .553050 ancmuv; >5 pom 00m 6 2>sz H .vH 0m.H i..H 91.H Hm.H .anR m5; 05 0:6 550: @CHEOQ Luna m.p:cbmsc >5 n;:uxd H .cH wow? m. .62.» em.w HH.M or.m mo.m .xnox dpuxm 505m c503:H 0505 new 0>bsum H .mm HH.H oc.H HH.H oc.H .>H556H >5 H0 >Eiczp;m ‘11 J . . .. o. . mu HdHu:G:He pee >EHHH£Hmzosmap c i»:: H mm HH.H H®.H nn.H Hm.H .vsusun HzHUOm 5;;6HL new absnhm H .rv ..o.m mm.m o:.~ Ho.m .0523 me On pi Ho un.n cgn exam H .;con:n >5 50pm 52:05 51x03; >5 mr.xnu n1um< .vH mn.H Av.H Hn.H 3m.H .owfi3 >5 Ou mouccciw 350; m0 wssu iHHHQHmcc;mmp Hthvos:nE ecu HHs 0>15H H .oH oHom-MWO:smflmm 5H.H MM.“ .m.H cs.H Hr.H mm._ so.H e©.H .sccte in“ no mniwcn;n nngiyn: nzn nic>c H .sm HH.H n...H HH.H ®N.H vv.H mm.H av.H ow.H .>1C >:Hsp a new ovum H .Qw x ”a v” x x x x x .U H u. I .2 0 H... Cab V3 L.H 4:? LS 1‘ 2... 5:. M: H5.» H r w H. U L z 3 w L I w_ T L : 5;: w:..,:.:ui:m acco» L HmccHqucpH uCCUHQEm H~LCHuHcmHB , .Ho- <.;MH3 0Hcm m.0:ch:: Ucf _;c:HL "EluH Q.» H QCCCH u niso 50mm new miHOm HnancE H0 Usanx cmHz C26 ficcnmS:II.CH.v figmde 85 emergent couples showed a tendency for the acceptance of a wife's involvement in her husband's work. Only 34 per cent of the traditional husbands welcomed their wives' advice, while 58 per cent of the emergent husbands did (Chi—square test exceeded at .05 level, item 46). In summary, Japanese couples perceived that a hus- band's economic role was one of provider and a wife's of manager. Sex Activities Both husbands and wives strongly Opposed to their mates' having pre-marital and extra-marital relationships (See Table 4.11, items 47 & 56). But husbands were gener- ally less opposed to their own pre— and extra-marital re- lationship than were their wives (items 47 & 56). Wives were more negative about their husbands' extra-marital relationship than the latter's premarital re- lationship (items 47 & 56). Interestingly, husbands were more disapproving of their own premarital rather than their extra—marital relationships (items 47 & 56). In the sexual relationship between spouses, husbands eXpected themselves and also were expected by wives to take an active role (item 51). However, 74 per cent of husbands and 65 per cent of wives agreed that a wife should have sex— ual intercourse with her husband whenever she desired (item 68). Also 89 per cent of husbands and 77 per cent of wives 86 perceived that a wife should accept any form of sexual play with her husband (item 39). It seemed that a wife was ex- pected to be a liberal or equalitarian sex partner with her husband. Analysis of the responses to the item of feminine passivity in sexual act (item 51) showed that about 48 per cent of the total respondents or 42 per cent of the wives were negative towards a wife's taking a passive role in sexual contact with her husband. No difference was found between the traditional and emergent wives about their per- ception on a married woman's sexual passivity. Something to be noticed was that the same percentage of the respondents reacted affirmatively to the two contra- dictory items (items 17 & 68). About 80 per cent of all the respondents agreed that a husband should not make sexual ad— vances if his wife were not ready to accept them (item 17). However, exactly the same number of the respondents approved of the husband having sexual intercourse with his wife when- ever he desired (item 68). This finding might be indicative of ambivalence towards male roles in the transitional era in Japan. In summary, both husbands and wives viewed negative of their mates' and their own pre— and extra—marital rela- tionships. Husbands were expected to take an active role in sexual interaction in marriage, but at the same time hus- bands and wives tended to accept sexual activeness on the part of wives. 87 .uon Cu 0:0 505w mm:mu mouoom och .u:05oeumm ecu euOE ecu .ouoom ecu HO30H ace “HHOZ .Hw>oH me. an u:muHcH:mHm page ecosemuflcoi Hv.m Om.m mm.m ov.m .pcmcmsc >5 cHHB HOG Hmsxon :H O OH O>Hmmtg 6 view H .Hm 3:5 minim v¢.H cm.H m@.H mm.H .ewaz >5 cka meow Hssxem :H OHOH J>Huzs :3 ixmu H .H@ .mHom m.Hx:fcmmm abo.H oo.m vH.N 5H.m oo.m 5H.m mc.m vH.m .>Up m eccO ummoH um Hp:mnm:ce mHH3 >5 03c co mme H .o> Hm.m vH.N mv.m 5H.m vH.m ¢O.N mm.m om.H .mHHnJU H ue>ccrc3 Accscmscv 9HH3 >5 cuHB emnsoeuoucH Hssxem e>cc H .mc om.m wh.m >>.m mm.m m©.m mc.m oc.m hm.m .mcoHHaHmH chHHnEncnuxu e>cc H .@m >©.m cm.m m@.m m®.m mm.m mm.m vm.m ©Q.m .Hccmcmscv owaz >5 :ccu Hecuo A:LEV :2503 cuH3 QHcmcchdHeH Hdzxum chHHnELHm 06c H .m? vH.N wn.H oo.m v@.H 0H.m 0H.m mv.m Q©.m .Ap:ccnscv uHax >5 cuaz >3Hm Hssxum Ha 550w >:c :H omnc:0 H .mm vm.H mm.H wc.H HH.N HH.N oo.m cc.m cm.m .50cu “Arson Ou >pnop 50: m4 cpcccmsrv ewaz >5 HA mcecc>ce Hmzxam 3x15 u.:0w H .nH m m m m H m H .x, QHHB pcmcmsz eHHz ccmcmzz QHHZ peacmcm 0HH3 c:ncm:: mEQHH meau5>auud xum ucwoue5m HmccHuapmHH ucemni5m HuccHuHUmHH . eHom m.owa3 chm m.©:ecmsm meHuH>HuOm x;m "EQUH OHHm::OHqu:& ccmm New thom chHHmE H0 0caunm oHHB w:m cuccmsznn.HH.v mdmcfi 88 Summary The two group mean scores of perceptual congruence on husband's and wife's roles were compared between the tra— ditionally and emergently married Japanese couples. The hypothesis that the former group will exceed the latter on the congruence score was tested by a one tailed t-test on each role sector. The tests rejected the null hypotheses on husband's roles as (1) companion, (2) child rearer, and on wife's role as (3) companion. However, the means were in the opposite direction than the prediction. That is, the emergent couples responded more in the direction of the hypothesized traditional marital match than did the tradi- tional group. For the purpose of a general description of the current Japanese couples' perception of marital role, the raw data were examined, first, by the seven role sectors and second, by each item. The same sex had homogeneous perception irregardless of the marriage patterns. The Jap- anese couples had dominantly traditional perception about social life, housekeeping, financing, and child rearing. Equalitarian perceptions were slightly evidenced about decision-making, companionship, and sex activities. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The first part of Chapter V consists of a summary of the problem, the theoretical foundation of the study, the nature of the design, methods and procedures used in sampling and measuring, and the method of analysis. The conclusions of this pilot study are then stated including the results of the examination of the current Japanese couples' marital role perception. The final two sections are devoted to discussions of the underlying dynamics of the obtained results of the study and the issues for future similar researches. Summary Since World War II, marriages based on free mate- selection or love—matches are emerging in Japan in contrast to the traditional marriages based upon a third party's ar- rangement of mate-matching. Examining the marital relation- ship of the traditionally and emergently married Japanese couples could help better understand (1) the mate selection process, and (2) the elements which may or may not relate to marital satisfaction. 89 90 The purpose of the present study was to compare the perceptions of marital roles of couples who followed tradi- tional marriage pattern with those of couples whose relation- ship was established on the recent emergent patterns. Theory The design of the study was based upon role theory as delineated in Interactional analysis of human relation- ships. The theoretical model was a comparison of similarity between a husband's (wife's) concept of his (her) own role and the other partner's concept or expectation of that role. Assumption It was assumed that in the traditional Japanese mar- riages a couple would have relatively high perceptual con- gruence on marital role, because their marriage was arranged through a third party's careful matching of social and family background. Because perceptions are culturally influenced, it was postulated that mates with similar background would have similar perception of marital roles. Hypothesis From the above assumptions, one major research hy- pothesis was formulated: Traditionally married Japanese couples have more perceptual congruence on marital role than emergently married Japanese couples. 91 Design The present investigation was a descriptive study. The main concern was to describe the difference between tra- ditional and emergent marriages on one variable, role con- gruence. No attempt was made to determine causal relation- ships. Sample Thirty-eight traditionally and forty emergently married Japanese couples were selected from the population of married Japanese residents within Tokyo prefecture. The couples were those who had no children, no more than high school education, and no divorce experiences. Primarily the intent of the study was to identify young couples who had a relatively short period of marital experience and would thus reflect current Japanese mating trends. Couples whose Lie Scores on a measure of socially desirable responses were more than two standard deviations from the mean (in the fake-positive direction) were eliminated from the samples. The final samples consisted of thirty- five couples for traditional marriages and thirty-six couples for emergent marriages. Measure To measure the degree of perceptual congruence about marital roles, the Marital Role Expectation Inventory was prepared in Japanese especially for this study. The Inventory 92 consisted of 70 items describing husband's and wife's ex- pected role-behavior. Seven role sectors were covered in the Inventory: social life, decision making, companionship, child rearing, housekeeping, financing, and sex activities. Content validity was examined by three scholars. Face va- lidity was examined by administering the Inventory to fifteen males and females selected to represent a cross—section of Japanese people. Reliabilities for the Inventory were estimated by the Hoyt's analysis of variance method. The sample for the re- liabilities consisted of 78 male and 77 female married resi- dents within Tokyo prefecture. The reliabilities estimates were .828 and .894 for the husband's Inventory on husband's role and wife's role. For the wife's Inventory, values of .777 and .832 were obtained respectively for husband's role and wife's role. Analysis The Role Congruence Score was determined by the abso- lute difference of ratings selected by both mates on the Inventory. The scales were converted so that high scores could be interpreted as high congruence. Prior to employing a one-tailed t-test to compare the degree of role congruence between the traditionally and emergently married Japanese couples, homogeneity of variance was examined by the F-test. The null hypothesis of homogeneity was not rejected. 93 Results The one-tailed t-test rejected the null hypotheses for husband's roles as companion and child rearer, and wife's role as companion. However, the means were in the Opposite direction than predicted by the theory of the study. Subsidiary Analysis of Raw Data For the purpose of exploration in the underlying dy- namics of theciifferencesamni similarities of both traditional and emergent couples about spousal perceptual congruence of marital roles, the mean ratings of all the seven role sectors and the responses to each item were examined respectively by the analysis of variance method followed by the t-test of multiple comparison procedures and Chi—square test. Conclusions The conclusions of the study are: 1. There was no evidence to support the prediction that the traditionally married Japanese couples will exceed the emergently married Japanese couples on the degree of spouses' perceptual congruence on husband's roles as social participant, decision maker, companion, child rearer, house- keeper, wage earner, and sex partner. 2. There was no evidence to support the prediction that the traditionally married Japanese couples will exceed the emergently married Japanese couples on the degree of spouses' perceptual congruence on wife's roles as social 94 participant, decision maker, companion, child rearer, house- keeper, wage earner, and sex partner. 3. There was evidence to support the unexpected ob— servation that the emergently married Japanese couples will exceed the traditionally married Japanese couples on the degree of spouses' perceptual congruence on a husband's role as companion and child-rearer, and on a wife's role as com- panion. 4. The married Japanese have similar perceptions of marital roles regardless of their marital patterns. That is, the Japanese couples have dominantly traditional percep- tion about social life, housekeeping, financing, and child rearing. Equalitarian perceptions were slightly evidenced about decision-making, companionship, and sex activities. Discussion The analysis of the results not only failed to sup- port the prediction that traditionally married couples will exceed emergently married couples in the degree of spouses' perceptual congruence on marital role, but also revealed the opposite fact that emergently married couples exceeded tra- ditionally married couples in the congruence scores in such sectors as companionship and child rearing. To explore the underlying dynamics, if any, of the unexpected results, two questions must be considered: 95 1. Why was the degree of spouses' perceptual con- gruence on marital role not different between the two patterns of marriage, except for one or two role sectors? 2. Why did emergently married couples exceed tra- ditionally married couples on the degree of perceptual congruence about mutual role as companion and husband's role as child rearer? To respond to the first question, the original as- sumption should be re—evaluated for its validity. The present research was developed basically on the assumption that traditional couples have similar background or culture which consequently differed from that of emergent couples. However, analysis of marital role perception held by all the respondents pooled irregardless of their marriage pattern showed that the current Japanese couples were sharing common perception irregardless of their marriage pattern. It seemed that differences of marital role perception exist only be— tween male and female, not traditional and emergent patterns of marriage. Perceptual similarity of traditional and emergent marriage couples can be accounted for by the expanding new middle class in Japan. According to Vogel's study1 as par— ticipant-observer in Japan, the way of life of middle class which has rapidly expanded since World War II is aspired to by both upper and lower class peOple for the ideal model of life. Therefore, it seems that traditional and emergent lErza F. Vogel, Japan's New Middle Class (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968), pp. 266-268. 96 couples are equally under the influence of value of the mid- dle class, which minimized the differences due to traditional social class and locality. For example, the arranged—match partners today can cancel their relationship during their dating and courtship periods. They are seldom forced to marry the assigned part- ner. Though their first contact with each other was arranged by a third party, mate selection is determined by themselves. As Blood1 reported, the cases in which four parents plus a matchmaker attend an arranged interview for mate-selection are decreasing, increasing the young couples' independency from pressure of elders. The second question was directed to asking why emer- gent couples exceeded traditional couples on the degree Of perceptual congruence in mutual role as companion, and also husband's role as child rearer. The emergent couples' higher perceptual congruence in their mutual role as companion is likely related to their role perception as social participants. As shown in respon- ses to the item 27 of wife's social life sector, the emergent couples tended to advocate more than the traditional couple that a wife should restrict her social life in order to build a happy home. In addition, an emergent wife reported a ten- dency to restrict her husband's social life. That is, 1Robert O. Blood, Jr., op. cit., p. 44. 97 compared to a traditional wife, an emergent wife is conserva- tive or reluctant about (1) inviting her husband's colleagues to their home, (2) allowing his financial help to his rela- tives, (3) accepting his having women friends, (4) encourag- ing his friendliness to the neighbors, and (5) his belonging to any social organization, though the differences are not significant. It can be assumed that an emergent wife's tendency to restrict her husband's and her own social life with other people promotes the emergent couple's solidarity. The soli- darity consequently accelerates the degree of their sharing- ness, jointness or closeness, resulting in the higher con- gruence on mutual role expectation as companion. The second reason for the emergent couples' higher perceptual congruence on their mutual role as companion could be due to the fact that they have a longer period of dating and courtship than the traditional couples. The emergent couples reported nearly four times as long a dating and court- ship period as the traditional couples (See Table 3.8). Pre- marital exposures to companionship experiences might influ- ence post—marital perceptions of mutual role as companions. As for the emergent couples' higher perceptual con- gruence on husband's role as child rearer than that of the traditional couples, the emergent husband may be playing an important part in raising children. As previously mentioned, 98 Japanese husbands are reluctant to talk about their work ex— periences to their children (item 5). The husbands like to keep some distance from children. According to Vogel,l in the Japanese family a mother-child team encounters a father who is isolated. Vogel reasons that a Japanese father dis- likes having others known that he does not have great power in his work. He is afraid of loosing respect from his child- ren by disclosing himself. Here is a common Japanese phrase "women and children," meaning that women and children are in- ferior to the male adult. Thus, the Japanese husbands might feel it masculine not to be involved in women's job, child rearing, or in closer relations with children. However, compared to a traditional husband, an emer- gent husband feels more than the former that he should share his work experiences with his children. The difference of their mean score of item five was significant at .05 level. A father's talking to his children about his work experiences may indicate that he is as involved in relationship with children at personal and verbal level as his wife is. It can be assumed that the emergent husband—father's commitment to the relationships with children provides more chances for the emergent couple to share or convey their perceptions about a father's role as child-rearer than is provided for the traditional couple. lErza F. Vogel, Op. cit., pp. 241-251. 99 Implications for Future Studies For the future replications or similar studies, the following problems were identified in doing the present re- search. 1. The most difficult task for a study of this na-- ture seemed to be obtaining a reasonable number of married couples. The Japanese feel it "a family shame" to disclose their family affairs to a stranger. Even when both mates are willing to meet the research-interviewer, it is hard to set up an appointment for simultaneous administration of the questionnaire, because many Japanese husbands often come home late at night from overtime work. The invitation of the couples to the meeting which directly rewards them seems to be one of the psychologically economical ways to secure a sample of married couples. Hope- fully, the meeting should be sponsored by a government or- ganization which the Japanese may trust. 2. The time perspective should be considered. The present research dealt with relatively young couples with no children. But the future studies at the different stages of marriage cycle may or may not result in different findings. The generalization of the result of the study should be limited to the early stage of the marriage cycle. 3. The questionnaire might be shortened with the con- tent validity remained as it is. Some respondents stopped completing the questionnaire due to the repetitious type of 100 the items. Factor analysis seems to be needed for integrat- ing or eliminating similar items. 4. Weighting the items might increase the discrimin— ating power of the questionnaire. A criterion for weighting could be marital satisfaction. 5. Considering the future pattern of marriages which emphasizes freedom of each mate rather than obligation to the partner as exemplified in O'Neill's and O'Neill's Open Mar- riage,l the items concerning right or privilege aspect of marital role behavior might be increased. 6. Rapport should be established between the re— searcher and the respondents before administration Of the questionnaire. As Jourard2 pointed out, rapport between the researcher and the respondents seems to be an influencing factor upon the degree of authenticity of the responses. In this study, the respondents were not familiar with the re- searcher and vice versa. To the contrary, the respondents for estimation of the questionniare reliabilities were familiar with the researcher through instructor-audience relationships. Therefore, the comparison of the "reliability group" and "study group" about their Lie Scale scores by the t—test showed that both groups were significantly different at .05 level about the degree of authenticity or defenselessness. lNana O'Neill and George O'Neill, Open Marriage (New York: M. Evans and Co., 1972). 2Sidney M. Jourard, Disclosing Man to Himself (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1968), pp. 18-34. 101 In other words, the result of the comparison implied that the respondents for the present study could have been more honest if there had been more rapport between them and the researcher. It is likely that relatively low honesty in responding of both traditional and emergent couples ob- scured the uniqueness of their responses to the items. Change in Japan has been rapid in recent years. The six cautions cited above, if rigorously applied, might un— cover more about the Japanes transitional state. Now may be a time of consolidation, return to older values, or movement to as yet not made explicit new values. Many studies such as this are necessary if even a part of this rapid change is to be understood. APPENDICES 102 APPENDIX A LIE SCALE (PART IV, MARITAL ROLE EXPECTATION INVENTORY) 103 MARITAL ROLE EXPECTATION INVENTORY PART IV: LIE SCALE Please circle your answer to each of the following questions. 1. Did you ever get angry? 2. Did you ever tell a lie? 3. Did you ever have an interest in Opposite sex other than your mate? 4. Did you ever speak ill of other people? 5. Do you or did you ever hate or dislike other peOple? 6. Did you ever envy other people? 104 YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO APPENDIX B MARITAL ROLE EXPECTATION INVENTORY (JAPANESE) NOTE: A green cover Inventory is for a husband's, and a pink cover for a wife's. 105 um <65m69> emtmtcae.flfieFaxeekenéfifimfilkfl5MTem atrebfitficemifo c mafia Fijiwaii‘n'zflee & H a 5 v» 6 :5 end oafifea’aafia’fififlk assert. agatrm.Katmaetroaa505525flmt<.emtm tcaes$&7%fl&%hbk 1 coMfifiH.4%asmbiorma¢o 2 QHCEAmtfiKaMHfi4SBmaaatEbhaaa 3. cefifgjifi’xozsttflht riEtw an) r: saiormsj 2am: fifimiwffiebxeAn 4 cefimflmeebhtmbOHH—flfimfifi¢5CtHebEek. 5 iLC®R%%%®§%®%HEC%$&55%QMTEKCEAT5 Mo 55% 55% 107 <35E§$131> 811316 511.5115 it}: 413 F! Mfl $41111 11:1, 1,-2 # ERR-1F)? £13815: FfilZEB L eak©mE©C%fimK®EhKfi%taT#oOEEQHTTéMo 11.31 1% ANN 1111511155) - ii 611 awn. 11511172: - 116815525) . 91131 711(51331152131‘1-15155-155-‘714 11x25) . ‘5 B1. 111M111. 551-5311515453?) .1a/va1:e<11.1111:1:1111111—uzre) aasamawu. sweat-1151131155) .411 3831 .% o it“ ) IQ'IJGJUOCD 2 aakoxoCWMHMT+ao(xwfrxeshamfieh.emm fifiTKOMTfiALTTéM) A. :11 11: E1? ( 1111. 111119 - '12‘51” - 11115135) . 132 111 14141111. 1111111: - {11111531511 . 911 1‘1: 112(1111. 3111111111; 151E111}??- 1 1.11.5 - 7 I 4 1V 13%) . 1?“- 111 1,11 ( 1111. 1%}? .131 ~ $11111 - 11:15:11,132 £11) 11. {1112\111: ( 1211. 1:1-11‘13-1-111-1112-11— 523113;) 131 :11 1;-111"‘11<11IJ. 151111-11-3111-115- 7111111) o.% M H. 31: 6f). (HM ) CC: C 1% EEECEEH‘MET111EET1EO(EEEEKOE) m E B.E E c.1nmi E EEmECifi;1E)&MbE ofi®HMOTTfl EE? E H EH: E E EEU E H EE®%(EWIE)&CEWE€CE®HM9TT#0 E13 E 5 EH: E H Efl1 E H 31110111111115: 1121 o 71. & 3 1 2.511 711711111211 Lfcybso E E 7E EfikQfi EEM 1H1>115M9E KflbEMfiLRE (wzfifiEOtofiWKEATOméoHTTém) A.Eflfi®tfich1wont R.E%Emmm (L &3&.11E111@flm1 D.EEBLM(LE)1EE®EEE0EE E . 111*‘”‘1E11 \ 161131 7n/\ Zz/Kf§-¢>rH7T F.Em~X1~\x&—11Efi1K—14‘EE1E E‘%©% 1EE©71~7fiwwaEEmonk 0.11 EE1WE1E4<MU ofi H.WA\EE\EA®fl¥~m-H11&5_baflcmont I.'11w1mv%1ma E:1n WH&&I,1E1bEwat 1.4%WWT§1&151111104'C7, 0ft Eflww.E n :.- 71 ‘:i ’ \ "I," “ ‘ M,Q 0A 1A 2A 3A 4A SAui %h%hW¥TTWO (cm99%%-%k©%5%___A‘W¥-$¥__A) 9 étkmmW WMKOWEOWTTémO a M. W I a MIL/3x 23+. 30;: mm a; {523 j: c: 37: 2;: 3% ‘ " -~. "““ “‘7‘“ ””T‘s r j I W$132 334 35:6 W39m11mufikmlsnnmmm21 4.3-x) 3533-3. /J\ 2:: 34:2 war—{332% 3;! j: 3;: 7:333:32 1o éfikotmflflfcmfiflfkghfiTmo(3%$EKOW) A.WUWWKWWL1M5 B.WLW mmmz JWKEATM60 0.flW(WDmmH)mfiarmao D.WLmWWm@Afmgo E\WQWWWKWATwéo F.7fifl};% at» 11. iofzfcflidfiffi 35’37T1529’E’C'lfi’. isoé 4373((Tt/V’C’ia‘bfl7’ :WL?C°FI& CT“? 75‘0 12 attmflfl(imb)m\hfl WWWW‘fi—Wx‘mfifi‘fififl‘ _Hhm WWNA\W®‘%@%Wb@aWA&WWLTE® KbfiffiifATTfimo%LTWZHL§®W%Wm@fi mmw¢HbFfiAfifi#IMJ&Ebfl%fiaflLtfizm O ’37:)” “CT. ’3 mo LLH‘¥E%#A&LOz)o h5N<%9¢Nzrébo LfimffiIVm 7s3’éfiit ’9“ ’\' 55 TH 7? {no WA®§WH¢Nffimfim€%o ibfi%5¢«fif5%o szJN ~+~ I» l/ V31? 7‘.“ t {/30 5:21] é-‘C '3‘ ’\‘ T‘ ’C ("I 2}. Mn [\2 N 17. 18. 19. flfl\ 99°93 flfi‘ 990w MH\ (0 flfi\ 90 MA Efifii't~y9x’ic?*kl/'C%?£fl§fll37zht Etifli'iA/‘I‘bo %#%9¢&3T&50 t54<%5+N3T®%o Ltmfifixmo fifimfNéTHtmo XE®%éfvem%m2&bao %%%5¢N%Té%n &54<%5*N§Tébo Lfimfifixmo fifim+N3Tmfimo flfimfiflf&%m$orma%%mhmfio1$go %%%5¢N§T®%o 7&5/\'<%6'f’\'31’39230 Ltmfifixmo fiWK+NfiTM&Mo mgtbfififimtbm\fiaflfig%$&¢go 7:11.}; .3}; 5 ,3- «x‘ fg “C“ (’3; 50 f: 70/{< 2C- ‘j';§"<§'cifiz)o L, f; \flf} 7J3 I We fifimfNQTHfiho {afiwiflfi&&wmcfifi%rao fl$%5fN§féao &54<%9¢N$T®éo L 7’? MIT/{3 .1: Mn 44 ‘_ 1 $7?le 5’: '3 ’\' ’3 T {Ft 71‘ V3 0 22. 23. N m fL’J‘i \ 1. AWN %m\ \ §\3 Jx'it '0 H5 fifl$ékkéfibo 7%3E% 5 'TN ‘é‘z'C‘afD Zao &5&<%5+&§Tééo Lfifififixmo fiééi‘fVCTNé “thfrino i®WW®%%E¢6° +FJVZJF’E‘5'T43T35’730 725N(% 5T‘3’Cfiblm szMfflixho fiéfTVC'TNQ’CMfiK/m flVCW'l‘r‘Hfigé #1 fciflfim RE! fi'fiZ‘C ft C é: ’{r C c‘: £’i"¢’i¥é€?wtfi+o %%%51~<§Tééo fi54<%5¢N31@Ao Lfimfifixmo £922? (1’: “a? ’\’ *5 't‘ H 7‘; V30 Jaw) g; boiéf**°fii§-?h&1i§f‘}f< I‘m h H? Ac E%%6¢&§T%%n frZ»’<<%§'3"\’§’C39zfio Lizmfifiii‘bo fififlmav<3THfiVM Ed} [1‘1T (D 11"” \ /\ ’1?!“ \ f?! {3: j}; 11‘ g 7f T I” 5 0 E133 '77: ‘3 ’3‘" ’\’ *’ “’3 35> 21.» o 2‘5: 2» ’\' < “'5“ 5 "'3” ’\' f; 'C‘ 15 7; o l/ 73’ 'x/W 17%]; ,‘1: VS 0 73!} (j {7: '3- /\ 2:; It [fit f: V\ O 27. 28. 30. 31- flm‘fi6N<fifidéfih20#£?4$—A$fiK$fiT60 1. %3F%9'§*’\'§Tébo t$N’\<%) '3’\3’C357ao 3 L&MEfilmo 4. ir’éflrch 2.1: “Edict/so 39 flfl‘imfibffl‘£flfififififlf§fififi<fififio L %%%9¢N§Ta$o tzza’\'<1c5’\'(/"C5'3"\'BTEFDZ»O 3. Ltmfibixtno 4 fiflmngfmamo 49 flfl‘fl%©AtB&fiWK§WTAo l. 7?:4E%5'TN?§T5)2>0 it7o’\'<%5'3”\°§'C’ZD/$o Lfrmjfifiil‘no #SNVH‘Né'CMz‘u/ao P90!“ 50. 1:41‘ @1322 l“ iifi-‘frfis Bfizéfi‘ét £§f£§®i§ikfifif¥mt§§Hflfimimfif2m 1. fifib%5'rN§'Cézm w 3. Lfizb’zj’j'b; 323/30 :1. ”8156:1113 ’\’ .‘3 'C (it 7E: Mo — - . z '1'»"~‘ -'.-‘;« ,_. ‘1~ - nL fim‘fl&®fi&$K%WW°%%Mfifiékéo L fi¢%§¢N%T®%o 2. fi:.7:>’\‘<-‘7’:‘53’\°§’530 Km 3. L {I Vii/5-153 .3; V50 4- fififflli’. 3"\ f5 “Ci/TI f: we 52. M. 55. %M\ &fl\ flfl\ c“. V go 355-00 “9°” OJNH i—‘r a LN "32‘ E is tho LI ("CZEXO JEEW’E‘ 534373560 fi5N<%5TN$T®%o Lfihjfifi‘l \Ao fifiKngTHfimo E©fi%8¢%0m@%%mflmfv€yri+éo m#%5?Nérbéo &%N<%5343Té5o Lfimfiflxmo @WKTNETflfimo 590mmv%?¢%Aza%mm’\'<%5f’\‘§'cabzao Lfimfiwixmo fifiKfNéfflfimo w N t“ 59. REKZTT,‘ ill-emu ftfifi‘m km v 71):: —- “/ a VB‘JBJWKF‘EET 7.70 ( 4§|J€Tf\ [134T]\ 15L: 33$ ,:(’r\ 17./1" 7 \ :7L '1: X \ D _ fl 1) If ’ y a 7‘\ fikA$H\ £31 {5% ii E‘ 71 E ) l O a» E 2 /\ fix 0 “3, 2. :1?“ A ‘3‘ )4 o 3. L~ 7“, L’Xfi/fj'j‘ (t V30 ’ ’L .- 3 '\ 4‘ #:{fifflt 4“, fr 7'. (12’: mo 60ffim‘fiefiwa#fmh¢\mfifiafidmib1finég 84 o «H.iflfi\Ewdwflfl%ifiwwflkfiflv%tGKLWWTEo ] fhgfl"? 5 '3‘“ :1 L. 3;) Q0 “ 35‘<%5+«fifaao \ lJA“ O 62 M. M. $L(’1\ $®9£%\ ILI‘S’LH filéaE’L‘i’E-fi'égb7m/fibféo WW!“ 14:1. Atom flfi‘ E#%§TN3T%5O téN<%9?43T®&o Lfimfifixmo @fim¢&§fdfimo ¥£é®mflk$fiéo EHPE?TN§T550 &&N<%5¢N%Téao Ltmfifixmo fiWKTNéTfifimo $5§©L9fiKfiEE§9° 52353“. 5 “'~*’\" 13% ’C’ in?” ft )5’V<“E‘5'3”’\’?§ ’C’inan LfiMfifilMo fiwwafifflfim° «b Agmmtb\Amflflhkbtfikfinflww&fi%o gwfi%532<firaao fi54<%5TN§T%%n L f: VX—fr‘ifi mm) fiflm¢N§kamo %fifi%flfl%mmfl‘flmmmm%figo EW%5T&§T5AO fi%“<%6¢N§T%go L 7,: in )j :5? I. ho fg‘f'i 1” V. y: '3 ’3‘ ”\c 73 T ‘37: fi‘ V3 o 67. 68. 69. 124 \ 3‘37)"§¥E$®fiflfgéiffllfibfflbéo 1. 7’£—';3E’7C5'T"\'?§’C?’97oo 7279’\'<7C57§"’\’3'C55£)o 3. szmfmsxmfi $14 ('- r+ m 4. fififflfifi‘N’ 1’? “Hit 7:: \Ao Md\aflmfi¢5&§mm91%%&fi§$é%9o 1‘ 533:3”? fid‘K' 73‘ T 537-00 2, fiZQN<%5'3"\'3T35/Zwo 3. szmjiflilmo 4. «’3 iii: '1‘”’\' ’3, 1‘51 2‘: mo flANDfiflbfifiw(C5?A)@fim¢#&bao 1.;é$%firfxg«gé%o fi5N<%5¢«gfggo w N L, 7c M735 3; mo :2. 5;- 'R‘If It": 'i‘ ’\’ if; “C {if 7T: V3 o l .J 4 I fifilBM¢fi mmfl£bkfifinmfh§£tL1©fifiéfibLt%@rffi‘%n% hMomfétkwgfifiwfimgfi$01RLWt¥&TM%oL@%#~ &KWT5®&£©MfifiéwfimfiTémo%h%h4o©%zfi#m&1 k9i¢@%‘%®Wfl%éfik©mfim~fifimé©filofikamzo L7 (:7: ‘5 [/30 m! fi@%m\fl@§&¢5o 1. {gem/”E fifi‘Nés Tiozyo 2 &%N<%5T&3Téfio @3Lamfifixmo 4 mmmf&§ffifimo aw:m$WKd$fifimlmkén1mbw%LnfiaAfl.§L® kkwmmfiwmw%#%$btfifififix<flzéo 1. F53E%5'fN§Ta‘oZuo 3 A&<%5¢N3T®%o Ltmfiflxmo 4' F’EYjCC'T/(g 'C'Hlfi'v‘o 5 fl0§d\%$~flfi\fi$©%&5&¥5%mf5o 1. féfifi’céTNifi'Ta’ozao 2. t5’\'<’c57"\'éfééo 3 Lfimffixwo 4 @WKTNérwfimo 6 flwfin~Afiflmerfiwwttémm.$fi©flfl2fibffl®fi fimééo L %#%5+N%T%%o 2. fiZaNfN§T$pZm 3 Ltmfiflxmo 4. fimzirrx'gmrmm 7 flmfln.Utbfvxray(fii)¢@%mmxao 1.;%#%~VTN§'3&%O 2. 7i7vN<3T§TTN§TXvQSo 3. L, 2': LA if 7?; .11 [A o 4 fififlfNfiffifimo 10. 11. 12. Kofim‘%5%KT$5fiW&mflfi&5£&o 1. 2. 3. 4. fl®§d\Efiflfifi???éfl£9flflfl&fi&bf&bbo 1. 9 H. 3.. 4. %W%9¢N31&&o 35N<%9TNET&AO Ltmfi#IMo @WKTNETmfimO %#%9TN3T$AO 7225’\'<%5T’\'3'C’832m Ltzmjtjfiixmo @WKT&§TH&MO flofim.fiafi§fifi$imo§émrfi<ébckafiwao 1. 2.. 3. 4. E#%§f&%fé%o fi5N<%5TNQT®5o bfzvxjiflxmo fiflK7N31M&mo flflfim.fl®flflkfifiwfiflfbo 1. I) H! 3. 4. %£%6¢N3T%6o &5&<%5¢&3T%50 Lfimfifilmo 33;.j(,(«;-r\' é: “Citifszo L©£K.W%(v~#vr)figmfiwKfiZ>o L 77: kmjfiyfi; Jil/xo flflKT&§Tmfimo MW 13 fl©¥fls‘%¢i$?§%?fifitEfiEWflO&%$EflK%éo L %#%5?&§1&50 2 t5&<%9TN3T®5o & Ltmfifixmo 4 @WKTNQTfltmo 14 flwfim.AW:L10WE0R¢%M%#©&$&%OO L %%%5TN3Tébo 2 t5N<%9TN&Té%o 3 Lkmfimxmo 4 flflvrrNQTHtmo 15. #1733313: . #4 7m: is'bfifrfifift. 11.51sz Efihmétbfikafi‘Cia‘Abo L &%%5¢Néréao 2 fiAN<%5¢N2T$50 3 mefifixm. fififiKTNfifflfimo A 16. fiflD—ffiééi. f: kZW/v‘fi‘VCfi‘ 23C &fi?$éofiu?15}®$§5@§ifiéflmffi 2E” 1.;3fl%5%~<§1&%0 3 R5N<%9¢N§T%%o 3.1,fimfiflva 1. meKTAUETkfifimn 17. if. a“; :1; (it \ F1 5} 7.7: t v .7 7\ ’37 I11; I... ’L’ '1. 7‘3. #1.}: {L if M (E 73? H ~ fi‘ fi A ’1‘ 230 L ££W%751A<%YH&%O 2. f: 25 A; < 27:- f’) "41‘ ’\’ 1% ’C“ 5?") 2‘3 o 3. 1,, 7.: ‘fl ff '9; .1: 'v’} c 4. 33%”:1‘A1fi“‘rfttno N {\3 fi©¥u\%fiofiéfvew§mfimbéo L &#%5f&éféao t6N<%9TN§T&éo Ltmfifixmo fifiKTNéfmtmo 99°93 fl©fifixflflm$#T&EK%OTM6%%‘fl®WK&5O L &#%5¢«é1é50 2 &a&<%5¢Né1@ao 3. L 2’: LA 75 7’)? J: Mn 4 @flmv&3fm&mo flmfim‘mfikmfifi€©kmmfifififlefifififao L %%%§¢N3T®ao 2 &A&<%5¢N§Ta%o 3. Lichfi>§§lmo 4. $431?! 6’5"?“ ’\‘ " “C H f: \no gmfin‘flflmmfikfifimfiw¢éo L fiW%5+N%Taao /\ (\3 fzz)’\°o L/fimjjfiEII/‘o @Yfl’C "f’\' 3 ’C’lft til/so It'i \ *1: LC W??- ’53? ‘5 h f: iiivf‘flrt 3'22 ’5" fa “C ft C & 5: C t (if {”ié'f‘i’i‘iliffé flip}: 53"’\°<7C5'J’\’§TZ‘OZWo Lhmfifixmo :fiWK?WVQTH&vM 993532" 41- flflfif-{Cta 31" E ’13 #313,???” t ’5 Titfi‘fi'é‘éo 7333?“? 5+’\°1‘3 ’C’ZsZ-m —J 2 &54<%5¢N§T®60 3 Lfimfifixmo 41. 24“} JCT 0’: '3’" ’\’ :JS ’C H J: V\ 0 42 flfihfi.flwm%5&sr5n~¥7afi¢o L M%%9TN§T%50 3 J "a ’\' < 7r: J) "3‘ ’\' {'5 ’C‘ {.5 Z5 0 3. L J V» 73% .1: LAD T.§fimmrw<£7wrfivM <1 3. 4 6. _’~‘ . \ 1 51",» “Ft“ '7) iii? pom £544ch 5'3“ [\o'é'SVCE’Dzoo 134 fl%’\'<%lj'§—’\O:§’Cé%o L Jr. W 71' 1:61 1‘ l1”. *1“ A ’ /"\ 'fi'l ' 4—\ "' ) ’1';(. (”t‘ ti -' {‘- r‘ ,. ’3'- TE ;r~ 2: ‘9 7': /3’\' < ’7’, L 73 V“ WW5 riff "('1 ("1' "j- /\ " r '. 'I -' I 1'3; {7L \ TALK/1h 1'1")" "7’ “j "5‘ a: 2:3 4 < r 'IKAO 3'5 Ti‘r fzmo 1-’ 1 - 'y 6 flat (.0 en t: -JL. '1 5TN§T33230 lv‘o ‘55 'C'H-itl/So 775375307790 “"3??me 53"\"§’C'2?> at ‘14 0 7" T("tf7‘~"o 2:, - fifl¢%A©fifififimmng5o sir/\sfigt‘efi 7‘ 7:) Ni 5&4 J: 1%”: L182 15 Zoo g1 . _ 1 ‘ 4:3. , $- '1': fili’rfl if: 9 'f‘ T 1"] Vi ' ,3} 121' '{f ,3— 7‘) o IMO )3 Tkt'rfi’ V‘o , I! ,u - 9X; 44' N -- 3" ’1. ‘ H.» J 10 'f'] iii; ('2 "‘11 H” 11,13, (’3' f '4‘}! ’(f' 7%) L. ' 4" .;- )3 1% 43:gafim‘@%%fltwfimfibno(MK‘&@\TV‘E%1X£* y‘ Ki“??? (E) 1.fiUF%9fN§T®%o 2 &5N<%5¢N§Té%o 3 flhfifiIVw 4 wfim¢<firwfimo 49 flmfim‘fi%®AkB&fifié¥ ZQW?%O 1. E4P%§:1N§'Cézm 2 &5&<%9¢&3Taag 3 Lat/37575111130 4 @flKTNéfflfimo 50. foZDJfl't‘ Eififib‘ fiffifl $73.“ fr {$114077 ktn‘imfi'ii’ h-E'L‘QVJLRSET L %#%5¢Néraan 2 J:33’\'<%5'3"\'§ “6&2”; 3 Lfimfiflxmo 4 fiflKTNETHfim :3: 0 m.fi0#H Péw i 4ww “mm? 1. %4E%5T’\‘§T&>Z}o 2 fiAN<%§¢&§T&AO 3. Lern/ju 11m, 4. fiifliffi<fifkbimo 52 fika‘%E§&moLxK&5o 1. 7'13}? '7C 5 TN (3 “C i") 7:10 2 fi23’\'<'?"5'3k’\;§fx92)o 3. L72 M}j7§3 .1”. {no V/- J- , V)» ' 1’ " ’ ‘1. E'TBXW'C'C '2 ’\ 5.1% 7: V“) U: 01 f) 1% %@%m\%@%$B@%©M©%§K&K7V£Vrféo 1. Efijc‘j'fNéJfr-Jbéo 2 &%N<%5¢N§Té a}: ’3 3. [/Jzkn'fi‘xfiilivxo 4 fifirf&§ffifimo I / gwflfi\afi©%A¢EA&E%Kfl730 3. Lfik":7j7.5;l V30 4 fifim¢&§ffiamo fimflm‘#n&§%£%©fimflkmfibfmmao L %#%6?N§Té&o 2 agN<%5%43f%%o 3. L, 7.2 W717} (.1: mo ‘1. fiififiif 1“ ’\' T35 ’5 {it 7?: V‘o 68 fl©fim.afi©fi?5&QMmof%fl&fififli%oo 1.£9PEW+N3Téan 2 fi5N<%9?N§T&%O 3. Lfi'fl'fjfiimo 4 @WKTNQTM&MC 69 fifi¢fimn4nfimwv§M(afifAflammfia©flflmbbo L E#%5+N§T&ao fiAN<%9TN%T&£o Ltmfifixmo @flKfNETHEmO 99°19 70 fl®¥H\18K?&<&%1@flfl&m%‘fifimfimzféo L %$%5¢N§1550 sz>’\' b 1! "ffl‘o 24' I a?) Z) 2': [A @fiftm/K’DI‘FEDEITOKC (Effigbt'rfl‘o 4"} I .373 .71) 7"? lA mtkHWQTM$A®mmMéWthhmAfimflfflo WI$A 71M fififilfitAfiffx'iLK/‘kfii’afiickfi‘ébfi'ffl‘n 2.2: I 255 a) fr. In Ml bmbm&C6&‘fl%®FB$fiéK3H5%%W%JKW§MTém 3LT$Dfik5C§MtTo ceziffific-‘i F$€t$§fl§$fééz (ii 23 5 v: 9 1:) 07M oilihfia’aflfifififlflvc f1 5 ¢>®T+o 933L1m\fitfi£tb1®étt©b£itflmk<\bmbm &C6&b%fitfl%5%fi&%bbk L cwmfi$fl\4flmafibEOTM§%o 2 @%CflAmtfi<®K%45fi##5wkflbntfo & cmfiflfl«®%flfimwffiflwu(bmftbfiofm5jtmm9 fifi®$®rm$bfiéhh 4 cmfimflmaabnkm~®$m—WMK£fi+actmbb&¢&n 5 5Ltaflfififlwfifiwifikcfimté5%QHT%KC%AT3 me C&% him .5 (fififi LR I> W% 44: 513.f3 3*: 113 413 i3 L“. WM x % fifi 7 E} w -Q 31 ff: f‘Tr m If? 9?: "(Ti [Z 38 L @nkmmE@C%%m&©Ehmfi%Lfi+#oOfltoerémo A . 2. 3'9 Q7 A. B . {V x/ . D . w % %—wmm tonCWQHmr Qfiflmomfmkuzrém) 1 P am /-.\ ~. H‘ , fl W %GDM( $1§%CW. fififi%(fl. fiffi%(fl. QFE%(W. @A§¥ u.fiw.#&i-flfi-fifi&%) _.u 5J M3 flfiwdfififl~MWTT#\WmTTflo(afififlmom) A. Q0 Q B. :1} 11?} o. Hug-t IE Mfiwk(ifidJM 'flhfing-HMOTffi* {1}} m ’3?- H iii Q E Q} Q H Wfiflfifi(ifi¢h1)QCQQEW&éofi%Wflw9TQQw WQ: Q B in: Q a Qfll K g @1937) HQ“ Fr 7’7: 1X «3 i: 9: °" \ 3'9 7?: fifimj ’C sz: filo 5} 4 ‘7‘; , 513-7 "T - 7 H k 1 I FIT "“\ Qtfflfflfi¢* ~QtHQW3:56m5QfifltflbfflwiLkwm (fl%$m%U&OfiHQHAfflWQO"Fém3 A.QQK®QQHCWTWQQQQ B.Qfiémmm F.5WQ QQ*QQNVQ D. fiQinD_h‘fl (-k€Q 3‘ QQQQ1 Qfi L, “C QQ QQ Qn i) f? «> Q: H.QwQDQQAQHQQQQQQLTQHm§OQ L:- r-‘. ,- .-I *v j A; b . - l . r H . 37:". /\\ IE "1’! .\ 11 /‘\ 03L" ' ffi: ' 5'33, (31' T ”7."? 6 {C 77) U .41“ (Ix. ’7’] DA" .‘j "’3 /C m- l_- ~ 14- ’: Q lfifiLj x 3} \ 73x IV} 5; f3 ".1 (.1. ) j“ b H ’3 ’7: Q» . :1: :4. _ . _. ._ L . 327] E 131,115+: ( [I L ~~ ) ’C 3.9 ,3 77: y: mu 9 {m 2*: \1 <4?!” DRY x.%@Q(QQMMmAL1FémJ M4 8 QEQQQQKWAQQnQQQO(XQ@HQQQ\QQ 05 £¥\ 3‘5 bi?) (QQ5QBNJWW) 0A 1A 2A 3A 4A 5AM: QQQQQQQQTQQM (Cfi56%%-%XDQEQ”W_AQfi?‘fl¥__A) “7L": K‘JV .. -”_5“ 9. Qfifu0HQQQQMU3m5~9n3_QQVM " - I r ml. - j u! -, - -fi' u I __- A '1'“. ‘— WM; Q Q Q gm'MJM &3 x Q 3i Q Q 5 . f _ WHTWT—‘r '-'*"HT“7*‘ “”‘45-‘T-"m‘ r":— T”" “'"T' T‘ ' QQH 23pfl5m.rx(>mulzn lammlbmAwn ...--i.~...,._--gi m,- -_.L_. "m: -. _ ___~_‘_M--T;_“ W_ :tAHHLm _:.;_‘[L- ._.-.. ...~~.. , {33:33: 33 5}- :52 Q2555 515:9: 3 :5 p: :1: 1 35:55 Q :5: 10 QfifimcmfiflgcmmArgahifmo(QWQmVHH) A.MU%QMWELTmQO B.33Ltflmwflwa3fih23Vfimxtmzm C.flW(WUWWH>Kfl&TM%o D.WUQHQKQATmQO C\M®Wflflmfikfméo F.WQ&QWEO 11. Qatfifi:cfimfifizgazzf::1«>&5wQ {XVCWGELQEEE‘UQ‘ stiLix-kmfiffihfirféb bf: Qo'fid’fm Jcnjc'hvc omiéfikficaflwQK55QQTHLmQQAngoLQQQ.QM WWW QTQQQQ®MQQQQ3Q€TQMOQth4o®QQfiflmeQb QQQQ‘QQQQBQfikwfifim~QEQQDQUQOEATOWEOQ (Témo @JJ flakmflwfiQkfimfgo 3 QQQfingfééo 2 QQN’\’<%§T’\'§'CE§DZM fil/‘ffi‘l‘f‘c 7312(6'1‘ 357545.150 7:535 (L: ”55105375: 53:30 .1. .1; 3:; 175 5 5.3—N ?3 ’C 2:) 730 2. ZcE)’\'<%.’)’3”’\'?—'§’Ccfo£>o ’3 Q QWKQNQTQQMO kam1QQQQQWKWQTMQQQKHQMLTQQO 1- fifiF’Cé'fi‘Nfié’CaB/Bo 2 Q5«/3n ZJAt< “25%“?3’85250 AV m: 2 3 Lfimfimxmo 4. fiéfihc—:A<3'C::QLAO '73}: "11‘ fiqwfifli 3733:11’3 3:.” 015 $00 ]. 3123M: fi'fofifibF’oo 0. 7' AW < '%' 3 75"“; 3'3 7': Z.) 2’30 Lfivdfifixmo Q QflflcQNQTHQQmO 9" 147 a flokn‘AflfififiLffiflWfik§Km‘$fi©flflébefl®W fiKfiOT<fl5o 1.—%Jb%5*fAN%T35%o 2. 7: 5Nf‘ 1. t ‘ I?~\ [J ‘ ,' t; :1": ff f? -u.‘ .y k ! BY ()3 Z: r— , '5 J. w‘ {i/iL-b ’30 1. §£JE%‘§5?"<3’C3580 2- 2’z5’\1<%51f~\'§§133;m 3. L, 7“; [A j‘jfll J: V30 4_ x; )1} K “3‘ rx‘ if; ’C’ {.1 7’: V30 10 flwiwh%wkwfifi%kf<1¢W§fiwiaa 6v ()3 o I £#%5¢N§TC « ,Qr A & \ J '7 fl). 23A1< ~13 9%«7- u - 3 Lfihfifilmn 4 ffiwv#Néimvfimo ) . 11. 12. 13. 1 4. 15, 148 fl@%H‘fl@fl%t§fiK§%Téo 1. fE-JE% 5643119230 2 &é&<%5¢N§T 3. L f: La'fi‘ffi J; V30 (L fifimdv<éfmfimo flwfifi‘flmflhbwfi%(7—6vb)&EKEWKfi’\'<%‘§“f’\' “8.39250 1153' a L.&un}jflsxuno "/,’ 3‘4 ,1 _JM ’ ) L 4. Ew/‘J (: 9 ’\ {k T ’17:. 7}. V50 '- ‘ ‘11.”: ‘ .““: ' H7 ,4;- m (13:7 . . r ' 7%!fo flirt ‘ 3+3: I- “ ‘3 4A 7?: 3: 7) 6- L': 4.1 ’f.’ (7) 5’1 gel? ’5: [fix VC pf} Z» a / 1. ~1733—iN-13: ‘3 ’5‘“. 2; T" 95550 2. f5;3’\<%§'f’\.§vcézoo 3. L fivxjjfiil Ma :1. 2'? if} {"i’: ’\° ”I ’C "5t 7?; V» r) iflfiffinJKKWWfiJHTQwCn 3. L, ft V» 71' 7% ,1: Mo =1. 743; f (“C '3‘ N 5: ’C {If T’: LAO iii-«7) f: {it \ if 4. 7 ’5: ".‘i’‘ (I 79» 4:? "1k '9‘“; fi: \ ”ali’fifit 7’: 9? H ’2 053-913}? 5: Fr} Fr ’5 1 ,‘Cfit/ijfiwj‘mfi'czg/m 2 7’: /’~)’\< ‘Tr‘f)'§"\§'ca’94m ’3 6! :rs' t - I). l/ k A )1, ‘7‘ ,1: \/\‘.’ 1 nflvt+6~fwfiVM 16 %@%m\t&2H&#M&5c&#éOT%‘afi@$%@fifiéflm £250 1. Egg/E 57AM? “€357.00 3 2 t%&<%5?4 Téfio 3- LZCV‘fi’IjSI'flo 4. i‘fQflL’C‘T" 3 ’C'ifi 1’: {no 11 flmkn\fiflfit776Cm)éfiobf§fiflmtfimkzmfiik #50 L %#%5TN§T%$O 2 &5N<%5¢N%Té5o 3y Lfimfimwi 4 @WKTNéfmtmn 18 flwfiz‘%fiflfiéivgmfifl%&b5o l. 7(333F%5’?N3TZ§>60 2 fiéN<%6¢AWflme 3 Lamfifixmo 4. fifll’i?‘ 1”: TH. f: Mo 19 flwfifi‘H6Mfiflfmfim%ofm%fiéflflmfioféo 2. fi5N<3’5'T’\°§’C’Z§>an 3. L 2‘7: Vsjjfli 3: L130 1 @fimfNfiTfifimo “725 <73 '75: {Ci 3 '5": <0 (”*3 4‘1 ’8') it??? ’5: '3" 7s 0 16}3W%fifNfiT%éo 3 65N<%5%&&razn 3. L it: Vsj’jfli 3; {no r... ‘<.~ ‘} wHM6«srnam. 6 x 1- xiii/15%5'ffl’3—(5’JZJO 2. &%N<%‘5‘3"\'§T§?Z>o 3. L 751 V37} f]; 32 Mo 4 fifififltffiiéffitfivw ’mfidsW0kbfifi?fi%&WW21} 67: '32“ A1 3% "f [fit ’3’. Ln 0 H U1 N 1.20 3‘;- {it . am ’71 'f) 501% t is 2% 1t 5311‘ ’5} 5 o ;&#%61~<3T650 szs’V<7t5“3"\'3T‘33/3n 1. 2. 3. 4. L f: Vs 77‘ 7'); .1: M q fiféfi 1C ’3‘" 2‘ Tiff. f: Vso 4¥£%¢M%fl&(wc?%wa)@fifififlfikfimbzm 1. 2. 3. 4, E%%§¢N§T%%o fIZDN<%§'3-N§T®Z)o Lfimfiflxmo flmmthTufimo flmxmsfifi®&%fif5o 1. r) 6.- 3. 4. %$%96N3T%50 ) fiZs"<"C L 71‘1A737’fic1: Mo " ‘11 r .- _ ‘ 7.551119?“ 5' TH f; we ,’)*1’\*§§Tzfa%o fiwfifl‘fitflflfi§®51m50754fi7*&floo fik%566§f@ao 56631650 1. 9 Qt 3. 4 . '3‘: 23 "1< ’1’”. -4... , L, 7’: M x) * {‘7‘ t. r _,L. , 173;, X15 1 t ) f\ (: kl“; r) $ IV; 1'. r-{ L. 1‘ )— k f: Kn fl 38. 3 9. 4 0. 153 $037611 $31159 < Zoo %#%96N§Tééo fiZaN< Jcfif’iigTéfio Lfimfiflxma fifiYfl‘l’C'fN ’35 “6517;: mo 1. I) Q. 3. 4. fiakfl.fl%&imkéflgo 11341151? 5 "1‘4 $5 “C 3}) 2m 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 4, chs’\°(%5'T’\'§’C®Zso Ltmfiflxmo @mw6651wtmo {3:31:15 611‘" f T 17;” &2~’\'<%6T’\'?§’C%Zwo Lfcl/sf/‘jfiili on fiflmfivVfiTfifim° fl@*fi~flmw 1. 2. 3. 4. 1322.15”? 5’1“" 21% T35 ZOO aaN<65¢Ns1®ao L 7:? {/11}. 76; J: V30 fiflK66 1.12 1"? 6 1:11 7‘: Es ’\' < ’?,' Ltmfifl .416? 1' j z: '1' “x' Jr ) ’\' 22 "C Ft 7: V3 o §T£%Zso 1 ’11—" 3 ’C a?) 730 J: :3 1A 4: (C 1'1: 77: V1 o J 7%,, fiwfifiumcung;géfcawfififi(fiwfi)vzw {2 . “C 1'71 5 A f: 141111332 1.1.1.12 ’6 i) #1141; 3:153:15. L T719117) 3.30 ‘.f‘. . .. /~.- 11:11" 7E < 11’ ’2 f1 o :H.Hfim%%¢flfiflflfi1%m5o 41. fl®KH1¥EthQ®kéHfifiT5o 1.1%W%5+N§Té%o 2 t5N<%5¢Néffi%o 3 Lkmfifixmo 4. #:39311914 :3: “CH 7?: V10 fluwn.%mmaé&ar¢- )1 1 11* g} I)? 1‘ 1 m1? 0 1. 1.344113% 6 3"“ :11. 1“ 352m 1&w ,1}; 3 2. f52§’\"< 3(5’3‘48 “C 3. L. ‘2': in 111:1)? .1; Mo 1. ”11:21 N t: T" art a mo flmidi\fiWfi©mAflfiifiififlzmfiwa5o 1. 1‘3; 711-1 i’: 6 “a“ N ‘3 ’C‘ .45 Z.) 0 2. fiZpN<—%§'3‘AI§TP~’DE>O 3. L, 71‘. 1n 71:39? I in o {3, . 'rf ' . .. 4. #:1117121»? ’\ i 'C‘ {:15 f: M 0 mefi.fi%?5&#£:®#W«#%+A¢HM&M%LT&b50 1.,&%M%6fiw .1 \ @FMM¢$m(C 75 53 ”\‘< 2r 6 ~3‘/\' if; Ltmfifixmo 41 /+ 57: *3" /\‘~ 3 ’C' H 7:: fi‘lum&m<& fiJV%6“fNfi'C$ L, f? V‘ j) 7}}; r: {/5 o ‘32:? ll: ~r xx' :3 f H 2*: T3350 mo @5flffié#mfibifikb%o {)3 O ’63,) (:30 V» .3 Emboféfléfi§%&%90 km a 5T&)@fifll®%fl%b&o Ac 1133230 V30 $1MHfime‘ifiHWWEféo 71 o \ “: T19730 V‘o $149 {mg-275%): JE/V'C’ to b at 1‘7» 1‘91 L um < 5'33 1‘? ‘71}: HI > -1" "r 7 1?: J31". in.mfn1%&L1©fifiéfibLk1mffo%h% CiDLTJfist'JOT'TI ;"79i{321& LTC 9359 .‘ 7‘cln k?!) “C if P) h Z.»I‘P.f{‘.f§élfi*3§¥ifim 4) 7) '55 0 ti) iifiA/TOEU 73:967‘1T 31m, (221 go p. "EV / K A 1 \\ 1. 2. J {1. ::_¢ UH : 2“ %X1flmUWBflTWnTW% 3:1de ‘7?- ,1}? 3 f 23 ° %#%5TN$T$50 fr$N<%§i”N§T39%o Lfimfiflxmo €31,259 1+#%%mem#M#mewoo L23: V3732§§Jllno mflm¢Ng1wamo AfiWWCNLTKWWUtkfiwwVfiWQmmwambfxi &¢%5+'§T55° <% 0&vaxbz/(fi )¢M%mmkao ‘&W%§?N%T%go f? 234(37 ‘3'?”{3 ”(”3550 --__. ,,*’;7Vn W I‘Wo 5133 LN L". ’3‘ ’\' 33 T if 7i ‘2“ 0 «whfimfi 8 9. 10. ll. fln‘ L 2. 3 1 flfi‘ 905V EH1 go flH\ m 4300 *4 111/4 (’1 f- I p—l N Q w HQ $51Krfiéfiwamfifiggzgo &#%5¢N§T®50 fiéN<%5¢Néré&o Lfimfifitmo fifiM¢N§rmgmo Bfifififi???éfl£éflflktflfitfflbéo %#%5¢<3T&50 fi6N<%5T4§T®%o l,&vvfiflxtmo 1'11??fo "i“ ’\' if 7’ if: 7?: Vx o k©fi€flfifif®ofififfi<fiéC&&mbbo %#%9¢N¢r&go' &%«<%5+«graao Ltmfiwxmo fiflm+&fifntmo fi®fl%&fifiwfimféo Jfifig%5'fN?§T35%o 7&64<%5'3"\’3’Ca’97\>o Lfimfifllmo $1.11th TN 3‘3 “GHQ/"z mo fim5(v—#7l\)fiEfi?flm6fi11 (“1 fa J~ .1 ' a I up? ‘3“ \7' ,. 3? H- I “W 1’1- ‘1 ‘3' {‘V V. [QT {‘11 1’ \‘ T ~r‘ ’1‘ d ‘1” 1 h—d {4: (*3 \3‘ ‘1‘? w ). “‘17 , . r1 Mr 3* 3 (O N1 931 2. r1“ 1 #hm1Nfiffifimo .111 14. 143' -7\ I 1' ,‘J- 3.7 «:5; H! [Hr rn I * 1 . 'v )- 4:1.1 \ 3’ ,) C ,0 {D’- ',"1} [TL/1:7 11:? 271317. \ I“) {1’31th 2’7. 4130 ( . 11 14 -x- «r ~ 1' 1 mfi%51“*‘fiéo 2. 'fi z)»< < ’7 a 1~/\.: 1: 1,111 311 :11 ‘ 531151 ' 1‘? {H 17;?74‘ 7?;- 1.11,: 2': «E‘ ’1 T {52 1’) 0 1 1 1} T» “1 ffx“ 3 'C’ 1‘1 An 2 15x<15+«3€%a0 3 I f: 11:53,” 1 km; 1 ’gkffiii‘Ni’kTitfyk/M 3 7‘ 51 if \ 7’: 7:1 "4' < 5'3, 557} '73 '7? ‘73“ ‘n ’3’ 036-1 5'- ’1’ 'f 7F “ 11 ”£515; [7. 171’? A ”3‘ 750 I 7:7??? IT’K33TT’275'1 2 15a<15+NETHKQ 2 9. 3 O. Q 'M‘ 10 ’T!\ (T: \ ¥‘ &' 1. 7%.‘7f3 131 0 iv'.’ 7"; .5”? b 1,1; ,1: 11 1 1. £1213 ‘3. 71/3 3. 1,7: 7 4. 517112} 1 h‘; 41: 2 f: n 166 111:7); 332‘7111/(71 Zoo icéifN‘é'cabzoo “<<%5'f’\'§1‘&350 11.7111: 1: 1x10 11 :‘7 937 9 "4< .7 09 fi 1"; $111.11 7112711111 A O ’\' :51 ’C’ :5) .230 5 “7‘“ 73 ’C’ ('79 750 1121/30 V1 71753 “j. fiif‘iifimo "7? @1151??? 1 513 (77357) 11511117”? 7+ 2:3 o 9‘? . j" H NH'CiDZM A 0" r1“ 5'77NQTC35270 MILK/‘10 >1 Q3- 1.-» +. ",1, wk NWT 1 W1 *- 2.) o 7) ”‘1 9% ’1’“ 1’9 210 ('1'; 5"17‘Aii‘ “C3550 7C 5‘77"???”9750 ’\'< ’65'3‘N )7ch9700 M 71:75? {V10 'Li’1"\" 3 ”CH ’( V10 34. 51 $£ 41 0:.1/1111_':;;'r:12 ( c'mxv» ) @éficifimimbao I! 1’-L / .r- l’rL \ 10 %1%§1«§raao fia«<%97«1réao fi‘i‘fié‘i’f’V 33 T6717? Mo “C ’0 g 0 “123139230 14- {1311/30 kaWK$$5TME©794AV“Efi90 51313.5”? ’9'J"\'?§Tib7oo &5N<%§%"\ Lfi'njifiixvxo 'fi'C‘fiZm 2171.12: 13* ’1‘ 81 77.12 m /.fi'\\ ‘4‘; -9 7,, 1:11'5’3 < 2.10 .11 /\ Q1 7.. \ ,f' S 5, J1“; 5/‘0 wur+N§Tflfim° 38. <1 1. i\ 331' '3 ()1 o 5?: H c g 493 % r11: If 1; /-.T \Jr.‘ rm l .3 1h. .1 /\ \5, 211?: JP? 5TNET<§ZM ZD’\'(%F)T’\'§'C&)7DO .ZV17ifi§l\no Y‘H’C *3"\' ‘33 “C“ {71‘ 7E: ‘K 11371 Jé‘ f; V1 [11. ' f1) <31 1’» :55 /;' V. /w ’\ < 511m H111 1113 {/1 o Z3 0 168 flflfi%@&§£cwfifi(itnfifi)mmbmmfi&mfib _- f:’f’111".1‘1,1,1§‘1;133«31‘ {1 i1 0‘5 A in. 21 o «’u "7 L z? a) f) ' ‘v/f‘ .1 {A 1.1 \ 1;: "L4..\ \ TI 1-)- ‘1‘ 1": "11'4‘ 1* I": I 1‘ ’-. “‘11 : / -‘.-7 k. 1 «1 '11. 0'4. \ ‘ a / ~’ / I'L:. ‘1 l . 1- j t; r11 r.) r. \ 1.5 4' It A 7"”: i ‘ ’1’1’ In; J . ‘— -.,_ ’1 .1 we we 1—1 1.: :3 ‘ v 1 J |\- ~ - . _I'J 7,5; 5’) 1 \‘ 7 /\ 76 -J‘ u’ 5 at; J [1) 5 \/’3 0 (fl 1 ‘1}. 1' 1 . ' A ‘ L’Ai O / 1,}- (\ 1 1‘ \. I‘d~ . a" . I‘L- 7. 5.3 0 m ‘1 1’ .791 A Ln 0 ’1'" 1121 [A '3 169 .. if: r”?- “1 71 :1- 11 )6: a; 1.11 L, 131: 2% 2t. 0 170 '. ‘3» ’_ '11. "11 1'1‘ ,"" ,3: ,,“ " ‘U'J {fl 1‘", .1 __ "1 8- {A '1 5.551471 1‘ SE 3: ‘53?! ((111,: L, 75‘ < 3‘5} :11 \ 53:72:35111 T V \ 511/371 111K 9‘» \ X 75“ Q L o H“ ,1.»1--,¢->.. 1. ,r;/—’"‘i‘1’\f§Lu:>/Qo 3 t x1’\<-z—§i1“’\ ’XTZM‘M y.— 22“.. '1‘ "v 1 .1." r3 517 Z7 0 \J 1"“. f \ -.* j» /.. ./\ 1 1 “1‘ 2 .' gs: A L \ 1 J O /\ 5 3. L 7': '1-‘1 71;"); I ’3 C't ii Mo 1 \ . 1’ ~ 7 ‘ 1‘ 31.: l. 1 V - v ,4: 1‘ - / - ‘_ A _ 7 ‘1; y A» _. >11 “A: ’, ‘ ,‘: [‘1 _ ‘~ ,1 50 11.51:. 511115;. 3’1ng 1 11?. 11“: 77: :5. :31}sz D 11.1, i. ?: {331.1111 f ; & 111.11”) .Ldf 11; 9 *1 .1 l l - I .-‘- ' “I 1 [3‘ 1: ’E‘ j ‘j /\ 3 t (u) 710 3. 72 XQAL<%T.’)’JL’\"E’F $210 in H 3.1 \ r-fi‘ a \‘p l l \1‘ Q r: \\1 1 “- I if .‘ T 1 C} 7 '3‘ “L; g; I 1 .‘a M c:- :5 ‘ \ kg :3 “T.— 2' f 1— O 1 511‘“ "1‘ ‘3 3‘ ’\' *1 1’ 1'1 2 "7 ’3 ”\‘1’ 1'. ‘5 “1‘“ *1 “C X1 2‘10 52. 5131 if. '1? .E {1 k V1 o L ; 1'113211150 l 2 Ar' . “k- 5 "h '1‘ H 1 I13 5 W 3 A. .3} ( 5 7.) O 2 a21<13111T®30 air" ‘44 C" H | ‘92.: L3? 171 .7 .7) 51.3: B «‘3 if :93 (it: '7) {fife}? (x: 1’29: 7‘ v +5 y r vj‘ ,30 3'??? 5'9"“ ’3. “659/an 75C M 7173; J. [’30 '4} 6’) ”in A ’1?” TE A iv: H Ti (”C f5? x o 1 n7. r45 ‘1 a» S O “r: 0%.. FL: —\ -‘<\ J 5* 0“ (Y (‘r’ h’ "J N U (‘1‘ i LU" ~ Jr I HI. fr: 3}- -1, Jn’ jf’fifiijifY-ii‘yjo ;4. (- .> \ v- .3. H 0' S O A '7 .23, 2. I A9 FR 7: h} 3 O _\ ’71 [T if. V‘ o w... A. J .. n, .. n "VHF \_. 1. . I - [1‘ . .9 ‘ 7 ' y , .f .l A _ {:71 WI 7T: 1711"?) *5? T A) % 3‘ H X K” Wu? 5 x 4:1 f) 3;» ’\" 5. “(3 Z.“ 73 o . 2') m; < J: 6 ‘1‘"’\' f: ’C‘ 3’3 93? o H 5:: <1 A; 13% T." {it i: V“ o :38. 59. H 0. 61. 62. fi ‘11: \ l . 2 . 3L {it . {'7‘ f! If? \ go .L. "L % TV" a 31 I»)- ;J/ "I _..3- ‘3 5 < fifi ,\- }\" CO 3'? 1:15,: \ 1'13”??? ‘3 "I. .7,» ‘~ . .‘ 1’3‘ 1‘1.- }\. ”D f " “1 \ r1 H -~ - ”L It: ’1 t J 9 172 Z» 7": 5:) (”C .13; 1433i ’3: 39 a “CM A 17:71:31? 1 < 79 o NQ’CB‘) mafihffig f5 ”:5"\' :33 1'35 lino fif-ttfc 1H. {5; 1’13 :23;- «‘fi'f‘fih, arm ' 1’le 3'; C -"‘t fr ba’f Its A; ‘k T J); t’) '3" ”x” 9f; - 31 V30 1" ”C {4T 7:: m' 1+ 2 f3 “'3“ N 1’5 .34 o If? I/ f’ I) ‘1 — ‘7 r; 7 {11111 {f1 ( "7'fg/\I¥%‘&\ ) 6’: 1H]: K’J' j» Z”) 0 .7 ’00 V30 '7') Hi 2» o “C 3’) k’\ 0 11': [m \ J ; .11. IL; 3: .F l 1.2 O (F *2: 13 "‘3 :2?! 5:7) ":5“ 2‘3 o —.L ,1 UV 0 53. {Nth :flfiich'ffiififi 7537’" 1. 7'11}??? '5 "i‘«\' 3"; 1‘ i. {3* ()5 0 o.) C“ R“ a“ S tr} bf 91' ’5 4:. - ‘v CB? Ar H ‘4' ). bk r X g ‘a‘ S 0 RL K&&%190 17“ A U 4“ PF: r (9“ C) V" 2. 0 :1 ._. 1‘; ¥ UV ‘3? 2 7’: 73’\'( 2:“ "TN 73 7:145),an 60. "rixéfi‘ A t’yfii M :’-i* 0 A5"? 3'3:fis;*7. 7’" if) L, f: & "3 iii" :11 3 I ~ _ .. ¢ ,4 s 1 1 I}: ‘K " ) ‘t ’\ 1' L W /"\ q r) )‘ a : -9 _ .. _ . “'7 E 5 u; p /—) /\ < r”- (,7 . A‘ I? L 7 ’\ j ‘‘‘‘‘ g) . 1 ~ 0 :3? J 7": r" J U ‘ _ 1-4. ’1 if" ‘, ‘ -‘r‘ .7 . ’3', 1" 'j ‘ 7‘ (3‘). 1(1\’_ L ‘ II/‘ {,5 f; L') f»; {:1 If} D [L] 1%“ '1 3%; v .7) I‘ll f7” 73' 3" Q o \ \I" F‘ L 1 1 'i‘ 3’ t k r“ )9 A f; '1'. 11* "i“ L j ‘ ‘ k ') ’3 ‘3 J -v r }_ A )r ’7‘ 3 3 A /\ < .4: j ‘ \ s L 1* r. » ‘ «r. . r J ) L/ / L'fi I I; L I 0 J; 2W :35 L “C ELL h") 25 0 CD A)‘ H- 4 x-XL. 4 ‘0‘ K—Q‘ 717:” _ § - W Dr :L \J y FL \L l l H - x 1 311’" fi '1 ’\ T': C 33 60 2 &2«<*6TA3<%AO q) I- 21‘“ t j“ (Ll/1:.) IM 63 flfi\§fi0m0?%&émwofgfit&fiwk%oo L E¥19¢N31550 2. 7;:6"<%’9T":$’Cé>7oo & L&wfifixmo 4. affifii'C'TN' QT’J‘Iicl/‘o 69 fiWP%A«®bfim@fifi(C5T&)©fiflflfiflbéo L %#%5TN§T®$O 2 &&N<%5¢&gréao 3 Lfimfimxmo 4 fiWKTNETdfiho 70 MM.18K¢fi1” N> ¢2T$Mo<%&OTWATT5b) HmfififfiC&#@biffln :3?) .n f) fr. [A {it ’3 ’C'fi'OK/rf'. C (Effi 2:» b 715 if 7&0 fr ,2: in mi" >1 3”) .I, {Q _, ’3 .uflifimuw;%s«méc&zn%bfifiww -kafimfifiokckfigb§¢yo 7.2m -HfloTMAAwwwfifiMfiflfimkflméfflo fr, LA "if L V1 km“) f: C & 7); 3’9 b "E '3‘ 75m 7;er .L.‘ _,‘.."~ A .- -- ..’ NOTE: APPENDIX C MARITAL ROLE EXPECTATION INVENTORY (English) l. The English edition was prepared only of Hus- band's Inventory. Wife's Inventory is the same as the Husband's, except for the change of the subject in Part II and III. That is, "I" and "my wife" in Husband's Inventory are changed to "my husband" and "I" in Wife's Inventory. 2. Seventy items in Part II and III are categorized to the following seven sectors. Role Sector Item Number Social Life 3, 4, 7, ll, 21, 27, 30, 32, 43, 49, 54, 59, 66 Decision Making 9, 18, 29, 33, 38, 40, 44, 50, 57, 65, 67, 69 Companionship 6, 13, l6, 19, 24, 35, 42, 48, 53, 60, 62 Child Care '1, 5, 8, 26, 28, 31, 41, 52, 55, 63, 64 Housekeeping 2, 12, 15, 22, 23, 25, 34, 36, 45 Financing 10, 14, 20, 37, 46, 58, 61 Sex Activities 17, 39, 47, 51, 56, 68, 70. 176 LETTER TO RESPONDENTS Dear Mr. and Mrs. I would appreciate your participation in our study of Japanese marriages. This study will be the basis of our further work on what constitutes a happy marriage. The disclosure of your frank expectation of your mate and yourself will be most welcome. Attentions: 1. This questionnaire consists of four parts. 2. It may be completed in about 45 minutes. 3. There are no right nor wrong answers to this Questionnaire. 4. All answers are kept confidential. No individual answers will be revealed to any one. 5. If you would like a summary of the result of this study, please check here. Name and Mailing Address: Sincerely yours, Yasutaka Kokubu Associate Professor Tama University of Art 177 PART I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE Birth Date: year month Age: Sex: Male Female Present. Address’ Prefecture, City or County Please circle the category of your present occupation. Clerical Technical or mechanical Labor Managerial Private enterprise Professional Retired or no vocational engagement Others ( ) :EO'UL'UUOCUU’ Please circle the category of your father's occupation. In case your father is deceased, please indicate his last occupation. Clerical Technical or mechanical Labor Managerial Private enterprise Professional Retired or no vocational engagement Others ( ) :ZIZIC‘J'TIIL'IIDOW:3>l 178 179 Is this your first marriage or second marriage? A. First Marriage B. Second Marriage C. Others When did you happen to meet your present mate for the first time? Year Month When did you marry your present mate? Year Month How old were you when you married your present mate? Year Month Under which circumstances did you meet your present mate for the first time? Please circle only one answer. At the wedding ceremony At the arranged interview Introduced by parents or relatives Introduced by employer or school teachers MUOCDID‘ Introduced by seniors, colleagues, acquaintances and friends. '13 Happened to know through recreational activities Happened to know as senior, colleague or junior in the job H. Naturally came to know as the child or sibling of my seniors, acquaintances or friends Know as senior, junior or classmate in school days Know by chance Know through commercial contacts ENC-1H Know as childhood friend M. Others (please specify: ) 10. ll. 12. 180 How many children do you have? Any of them by a former mate? If so, how many? Are any foster children or adopted children? If so, how many? Please circle the last year of your formal education. New system ele. sch. j.h. s.h. univ. grad. sch. School grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 Old system ele. sch. middle sch. high 5. univ. grad. sch. Where are your parents living? . Living with me In a separate house in the same location as mine In the same city, town or village as mine In the same prefecture as mine In a different prefecture from mine *TJUIUOWZ’ Both parents are deceased In which prefecture did you live longest before marriage? What is your net income on a monthly basis? Please circle one. Less than 20,000 yen Between 20,000 yen and 40,000 yen Between 40,000 yen and 60,000 yen Between 60,000 yen and 80,000 yen Between 80,000 yen and 100,000 yen Between 100,000 yen and 120,000 yen Between 120,000 yen and 140,000 yen more than 140,000 yen \DCDQONU‘IAWNH no income 181 MARITAL ROLE EXPECTATION INVENTORY PART II: QUESTIONNAIRE ON HUSBAND'S ROLE The following short statements are descriptive of a . .. ....._.—._.._.._ —. k - - husband's behavior. From among the listed four responses to each statement, please circle one which is the nearest to 3 your ideal of yourself as a husband. Example I. I help my wife with housekeeping. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree Comments: Suppose your wife is sick and you think you should help her with housekeeping. Then, please circle l or 2 even if you are actually not helping her. Example II. I have a drink. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree Comments: Any of the above four responses may not fit your case if you think drinking is not a matter of "agree" or "disagree." Then, please try to think if drinking is good or bad for you. If you conclude that drinking generally works good for relaxing yourself, you may circle 1 or 2. l. 182 I stand back of my child when he is in trouble with peOple. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I clean up after guests have left. . Strongly Agree Agree . Disagree Strongly Disagree buNf—J I give a financial help to the needy relatives. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I welcome my wife's friends' (female) visit with us. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I talk about my work to my children. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I support my wife when peOple are blaming her, under any circumstances. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I go to a bar or nightclub in the company of my friends. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 8. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 183 I give my children as high a level of education as possi- ble. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4 . Strongly Disagree I decide if my wife works or not. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I leave all the managerial responsibilities of home fi— nances to my wife. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4 . Strongly Disagree I have casual social contact with my wife's relatives. Strongly Agree Agree . Disagree Strongly Disagree ~5me I go to the grocery to shop for my wife. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I talk about my work and social life to my wife. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree After taking my pocket money from my income, I give the rest of it to my wife. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 184 I manage all the home economics and pay every single bill by myself. .5me Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I speak out to my wife what I really feel even if a quarrell deveIOps. l. 2. 3. 4 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I don't make sexual advances if my wife is not ready to accept them. bWMl—d Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I choose TV programs for my family to watch. bWNP—d Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I help my wife make a decision when she is at a loss what to do. H ubLUNl-J H bWNl—J .0 O. bWNH Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree save for rainy day. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree have casual social contact with my own relatives. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 185 I put away the bedding every morning. . Strongly . Agree . Disagree 1 2 3 4 Strongly Agree Disagree I clean the house and garden the yards. 1. Strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly I verbalize my uncomfortable feeling or express it in gesture when l. Strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Agree Disagree 1 I feel my wife insultingwme. Agree Disagree I_do simple domestic repairing such as fixing a broken door or a shelf. 1. Strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly I feed, bath 1. Strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Agree Disagree and dress my young children. Agree Disagree I limit my social life with out-of-family members to a great degree 1. Strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly I serve as a l. Strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly and concern with building a happy home. Agree Disagree model of behavior for my children. Agree Disagree 186 29. I decide the place for the family vacation and picnic. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 30. I financially support my wife's parents and siblings, when necessary. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree sD-UJNH 31. H attend PTA meetings. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree QWNH 32. H have other women friends than my wife. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree ubL/JNH 33. H decide the amount of the pocket money of my children. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree .h-LAJNH 34. H set the table for meals. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree ubOJNH 35. H reserve some privacy from my wife. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree waH 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. H QWNH H H bLUNH H h-LUNH ~5me H AWNH H nib-LUMP“ I 187 prepare meals. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree avoid the useless spending of the money. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree consult with my wife when selecting a family doctor. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree ~engage in any form of sexual play with my wife. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree decide by myself if I change or quit my job. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree care for the children when they are sick. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree see the humorous side of things even when conditions are difficult. AWNH Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 188 I willingly participate in ceremonies or parties held by relatives or close friends in such occasions as funeral, wedding, birth and graduation. ABUJNH Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I consult with my wife when I decide to which school my child attends. H DWNH O... QWNH 0.00 H IbWNi—J O... Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly do washing Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly strive for Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree clothes. Agree disagree higher social status. Agree Disagree I had premarital sexual relationship with women other than my wife. QWNH H waH 0.00 H @0de Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree spend my leisure time with my wife. Agree Disagree am friendly to my neighbors. Agree Disagree 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 189 I consult with my wife when making important family de- cisions such as moving, building or remodeling the house. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I take an active role in sexual act with my wife. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I spend the time with my children. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly_Disagree QWNH I give cards or presents to my wife on her birthday or some other special occasions. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree bWNH H invite my colleagues to my home. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree ALONH I consider my children's Opinion when I decide something related to their life. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I have extra—marital sexual relations. . Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree bWNH 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 190 I consult with my wife when I do expensive shOpping such as buying a car and furnitures. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree I have a responsibility for the financial security of my family. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree ~50.)th I belong to civic, educational or recreational organiza- tion. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree >5me I suggest to my wife that she changes her habits, manners or clothing, when necessary. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 4)me H strive for more income from extra—work. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree ~5me H stimulate and encourage my wife's interest. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree bkuNl—J H help my children with school work. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree staOJNH 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 191 I take disciplinary responsibility for my children. thNH .0. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I consult with my wife when I set social dates with other people. stJNH Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I financially support my parents and siblings, when necessary. AWNH Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I consult with my wife when deciding how many children we should have. AWNH H “>me H .5me H bWNH Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree have sexual intercourse with my wife whenever I desire. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree decide the cost of the gift to other people. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree kiss or hug my wife at least once a day. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree MARITAL ROLE EXPECTATION INVENTORY PART III: QUESTIONNAIRE ON WIFE'S ROLE The following short statements are descriptions of a wife's behavior. From among the listed four responses to each statement, please circle 923 which is the nearest to your ideal image of your wife. In other words, please tell us what you want your mate to do. Example I. My wife gets up early in the morning. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4 . Strongly Disagree Comments: Suppose your wife works till late at night and you think she should sleep enough till noon for her health. Then, please circle 3 or 4 even if she is actually an early riser. 192 193 My wife stands back of her child when he is in trouble with people. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife keeps the house orderly when the family has guests. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife gives a financial help to the needy relatives. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree QWNH My wife welcomes my friends' (male) visit with us. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree ~5me My wife talks about housekeeping, cooking or her work to her children. I. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife supports me when peOple are blaming me, under any circumstances. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife goes to a coffee shop or a restaurant by herself. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 194 My wife gives as high a level of education as possible. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife consults with me when she decides if she works or not. 1 Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife accepts my late coming home due to my work. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife has casual social contact with my relatives. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife goes to the grocery to shop. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My wife talks about her work, housekeeping, child care and social life to me. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree bLONF—J My wife has a job for her personal growth. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree waH 15. 16. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 195 My wife manages all the home economics and pays every single bill by herself. . Strongly Agree Agree . Disagree Strongly Disagree bWNH 0 0 My wife speaks out to me what she really feels even if a quarrell develops. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4 . Strongly Disagree My wife does not make sexual advances if I am not ready to accept them. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree ~5me My wife chooses TV programs for my family to watch. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife helps me make a decision when I am at a loss what to do. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree ubLAJNH My wife saves for rainy day. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree DWNH My wife has casual social contact with her own relatives. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 22. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 196 My wife puts away the bedding every morning. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife cleans the house and gardens the yards. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree . 3 Disagree & 4 Strongly Disagree 'Q --‘.~ _ My wife verbalizes her uncomfortable feeling or express it in gesture when she feels me insulting her. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife does simple domestic repairing such as fixing a broken door or a shelf. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife feeds, bathes and dresses her young children. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife limits her social life with out-of—family members to a great degree and concerns with building a happy home. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree .13me My wife serves as a model of behavior for her children. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree QWMH 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. La) tn 0 197 My wife decides the place for the family vacation and picnic. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife financially supports my parents and siblings when necessary. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife attends PTA meetings. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife has other men friends than myself. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife decides the amount of the pocket money of her children. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife sets the table for meals. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree >5me My wife reserves some privacy from me. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 198 My wife prepares meals. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife avoids the useless spending of the money. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife consults with me when selecting a family doctor. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife accepts any form of sexual play from me. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife consuts with me when she changes or quits her job. 1 Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree My wife cares for the children when they are sick. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife sees the humorous side of things even when conditions are difficult. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree .5me 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 199 My wife willingly participates in ceremonies or parties he 1d by relatives or close friends in such occasions as funeral, wedding, birth and graduation. QWNH MY Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree wife consults with me when she decides to which school r child attends. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree wife does ironing. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree wife advises me about my work. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree wife had premarital sexual relationship with men other than myself. ~5me MY bWNP—J MY ubUJNH Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree wife spends her leisure time with me. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree wife is friendly to her neighbors. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 200 My wife consults with me when making important family decisions such as moving, building or remodeling the house. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4 . Strongly Disagree My wife takes a passive role in sexual acts with me. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife spends the time with her children. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife gives cards or presents to me on her birthday or some other special occasions. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife invites her friends and acquaintances to our home. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife considers her children's Opinion when she decides something related to their life. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 56. 57. S8. 59. 60. 61. 62. 201 My wife has extra-marital sexual relations. 4:.me Strongly Agree Agree Disagree trongly Disagree My wife consults with me when she does expensive shopping such as buying a car and furnitures. .5me Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My wife has full-time work for additional family income. wat—J Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My wife belongs to civic, educational or recreational organization. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree wife suggests to me that I change my habits, manners clothing, when necessary. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree wife has part—time work for more family income. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree wife stimulates and encourages my interest. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 202 My wife helps her children with school work. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife takes disciplinary responsibility for her child- ren. Strongly Agree Agree . Disagree Strongly Disagree vbWNl-J My wife consults with me when she sets social dates with other people. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife financially supports her parents and siblings when necessary. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife consults with me when deciding how many children we should have. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife has sexual intercourse with me whenever she desires. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree @LQNH 69. 70. 203 My wife decides the cost of the gift to other peOple. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree My wife kisses or hugs me at least once a day. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree APPENDIX D CHARACTERISTICS OF RELIABILITY ESTIMATE SAMPLE 204 205 TABLE D.l.--Distribution of Age in Reliability Estimate Sample. Range of Age Male Female 23-26 4 9 27-30 10 16 31-34 14 18 35-38 11 6 39-42 13 6 43-46 11 7 47-50 6 6 51-54 3 3 55-58 4 5 59- 2 1 Mean 39.21 36.60 SD 5.51 10.52 TOTAL N 78 77 TABLE D.2.—-Distribution of Schooling in Reliability Estimate Sample. Range of Schooling Male Female 6- 8 4 3 9-11 9 29 12-14 22 32 15-17 42 13 18- 1 0 Mean 12.68 12.05 SD 6.69 2.26 TOTAL N 78 77 206 TABLE D.3.--Occupationa1 Distribution in Reliability Estimate Sample. Type Of Work numbgile % numgzgale % Clerical 58 74 23 30 Managerial 9 12 0 0 Mechanical 8 10 6 8 Professional 3 4 6 8 Labor 0 0 3 4 Private Enterprise 0 0 2 O No occupation 0 0 37 48 TOTAL N 78 100 77 100 TABLE D.4.——Range of Income in Reliability Estimate Sample. Range of Income Male ___—____.._~- _..v- . ~_—__._ .__ __._. Female (yen) number % number % No income 0 O 37 48 Less than 20,000 0 0 2 3 20,000—40,000 1 1 ll 14 40,000-60,000 15 19 10 13 60,000—80,000 17 22 13 17 80,000-10,000 19 24 4 5 10,000-12,000 13 17 O O 12,000—14,000 8 10 0 0 more than 14,000 5 7 0 0 TOTAL N 78 100 77 100 207 TABLE D.5.--Patterns of Marriage and Type of First Contact in Reliability Estimate Sample. Traditional Emergent Male Female Male Female No. % No. % No. % No. % At "miai" or ar- ranged interview 12 43 9 28 In a job 23 46 21 47 Intro. by parents or relatives 10 36 18 56 By happening ll 22 16 Intro. by seniors, Through rec- colleagues or reational friends 6 21 4 13 activities 4 8 16 Intro. by employ— ers or school As family teachers 0 l 3 friends 3 6 4 As school mates 3 6 4 At the wedding Commercial ceremony 0 O O 0 contacts 3 6 9 As childhood friends 3 6 4 TOTAL 28 100 32 100 50 100 45 100 TABLE D.6.——Mean Duration of Marriage of Reliability Estimate Sample Mean Male Female Duration of Marriage 10 yr. 8 mo. 11 yr. 8 mo. 208 TABLE D.7.-—Number and Percentage of the Remarried and Childless Subjects in Reliability Estimate Sample. Male Female Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Remarriage 2 2.6 1 1.3 Childless 11 14.1 16 20.8 78 77 TOTAL N BIBLIOGRAPHY 209 BIBLIOGRAPHY Befu, Harumi. Japan, An AnthrOpological Introduction. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1971. Bentley, Jospeh C. "Role Theory in Counseling: A Problem in Definition.” Personnel and Guidance Journal, September, 1965, pp. 11-17. Biddle, Bruce J. The Present Status of Role Theory. Colum- bia: The University of Missouri, 1961. Biddle, Bruce J. and Thomas, Edwin J., eds. Role Theory: Concepts and Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Blood, Robert O. Love Match and Arranged Marriage: A Tokyo—Detroit Comparison. New York: The Free Press, 1967. Brookover, Wilbur and Gottlieb, D. A Sociology of Educa- tion. 2nd Ed. New York: American Book Co., 1964. Burr, Wesley R. "An Expansion and Test of a Role Theory of Marital Satisfaction." Journal of Marriage and the Family, May, 1971, pp. 368-372. Carson, Arnold. "A Pilot Study of Agreement on Issues and their Perceived Importance among Maritally Adjusted and Maladjusted Couples." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1962. Dunn, Murie S. "Marriage Role Expectation Inventory." Un- published Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State Univer- sity, 1959. Farson, R.; Hauser, P. M.; Stroup, H.; and Wiener, A. J. The Future of the Family. Family Service Associa- tion of America, 1969. Geiken, Karen F. "Expectations Concerning Husband-Wife Responsibilities in the Home." Journal of Marriage and Family Living, August, 1964, pp. 349-352. 210 211 Goodman, Marvin. "A Pilot Study of the Relationship Between Degree of Expressed Self-Acceptance and Interspousal Need Structure in the Mate Selection Process." Un— published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer— sity, 1962. Gross, N.; Mason, W. S.; and McEachern, A. W. Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintend— ency Role. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. Hawkins, James and Johnsen, Kathryn. "Perception of Behav— ioral Conformity, Imputation of Consensus, and Mari~ tal Satisfaction." Journal of Marriage and the Family, August, 1969, pp. 507-511. Heiss, Gerold, ed. Family Roles and Interaction: An Anthol- ogy. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1968. Hill, Reuban and Hansen, Donald A. "The Identification of Conceptual Frameworks in the Family Study." Source— book in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman. 2ndwed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963. Hurvitz, Nathan. "The Marital Roles Inventory and the Measurement of Marital Adjustment." Journal of Clinical Psychology, October, 1960, pp. 377-380. Hurvitz, Nathan. "Marital Roles Inventory as a Counseling Instrument." Marriage and Family Living, Novem— ber, 1965, pp. 492—501. Jourard, Sidney M. Disclosing Man to Himself. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1968. Kamarovsky, Mirra. "Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles." American Journal of Sociology, November, 1946, pp. 174—189. Kammeyer, Kenneth. "Feminine Role: An Analysis of Attitude Consistency." Marriage and Family Living, August, 1964, pp. 295-305. Katz, 1.; Glucksberg, S.; and Krauss, R. "Need Satisfaction and Edwards EPS Scores in Married Couples." Journal of Counseling Psychology, XXIV, 3 (1960), 205—208. Koyama, Takashi, ed. Gendai-Kazoku no Yakuwari—Kozo (Role Structures in Modern Family). Tokyo: Baifukan, 1967. 212 Koyama, Takashi. "Changing Family Structure in Japan." Japanese Culture: Its DevelOpment and Character— istics. Edited by R. J. Smith and R. K. Beardsley. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1962. Koyama, Takashi, ed. Gendaikazoku no Kenkyu (An Inventiga- tion of the Contemporary Family). Tokyo: Kobundo, 1965. Koyama, Takashi. "On the Discrepancy between Expectation and Performance of Conjugal Roles: An Approach to the Cross-national Study on Family Disorganization." Unpublished Mimeo, Toyo University, 1966. Leary, T. "Comments on Articles by Luckey and Romano." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Spring, 1962, p. 19. Li, Pei-Chao, "Accuracy of Male Chinese Students' Percep- tions of Traits Women Desire in a Husband." Mar- riage and Family Living, August, 1962, pp. 285-286. Luckey, Eleanore B. "Implications for Marriage Counseling of Self—Perception and Spouse-perception." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Spring, 1960, pp. 3-9. Luckey, Eleanore B. "Marital Satisfaction and Parental Con- cepts." Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXIV, 3 (1960), pp. 195—204. Moreno, Jacob L. "The Prediction and Planning of Success in Marriage." Marriage and Family Living, Fall, 1941, pp. 83—84. Morioka, Kiyomi, ed. Kazoku Shakaigaku (Family Sociology}. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1972. Morioka, Kiyomi. "Kazoku Shakaigaku no Hattatsu to Genjo" ("DeveIOpment of Family Sociology in Japan"). Kazoku Shakaigaku (Family Sociology). Edited by K. Morioka. Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 1972. Murstein, Bernard I. "Empirical Tests of Role, Complementary Needs, and Homogamy Theories of Marital Choice." Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXIX (4), 1967, 689—696. Nye, F. I. and Merando, F. M., eds. Emerging Conceptual Frameworks in Family Analysis. Revised edition. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966. 213 Ohashi, Kaoru and Masuda, Koichi. Kazoku Shakaigaku (Family SociologY). Tokoy: Kawashima Shoten, 1966. Okamoto, Shigeo. Katei Shinrigaku (Family Psychology). Tokyo: Asakura Shoten, 1965. O'Neill, Nena and O'Neill, George. Open Marriage. New York: M. Evans and Co., 1972. Ort, Robert S. "A Study of Role—Conflicts as Related to Happiness in Marriage." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXXV (1950), pp. 691-699. Rallings, E. M. "A Conceptual Framework for Studying the Family: The Situational Approach." Emergent Con- ceptual Frameworks in Family Analysis. Edited by F. Ivan Nye and M. Berando. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966. Schvaneveldt, Jay D. "Interactional Framework in the Study of the Family." Emergent Conceptual Frameworks in Family Analysis. Edited by F. Ivan Nye and M. Berando. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966. Snyder, Clinton A. "Variations in Expectations for the Teacher Role: As Related to General and Specific Roles, Expectation Categories, and Social Distance." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Stuckert, Robert P. "Pole Perception and Marital Satisfaction: Configurational Approach." Marriage and Family Living, November, 1963, pp. 415-419. Taylor, Alexander B. "Role Percetpion, Empathy and Marriage Adjustment." Sociology and Social Research, October, 1967, pp. 22-34. Tomita, Yoshiro. Kaku Kazoku (The Nuclear Family). Tokyo: Minelva Shobo, 1970. Tsukamoto, Tetsuo. "Kazoku no Ideology" ("The Ideology of the Japanese Family"). Koza Shakaigaku: Kazoku, Sonraku and Toshi (Sociology: Family, Village and Nwtropolis). Edited by Tadashi Fukutake. Tokyo: Takyo University Press, 1957. Udry, J. Richard. The Social Contest of Marriage. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1971. Ushiiima, Yoshitomo. Kazokukankei no Shinri (Psychology of Human Relations in Family). Tokyo: Kaneko Shobo, 1973. 214 Vogel, Erza F. Japan's New Middle Class. Berkeley: Uni— versity of California Press, 1968. Winch, Robert T. "Personality and Marriage Adjustment." Readings in Marriage and Family. Edited by J. T. Landis and M. G. Landis. New York: Prentice Hall Inc., 1953. Winch, Robert F. The Modern Family. Revised ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Winch, Robert F.; McGinnis, R.; and Barringer, H. R., eds. Selected Studies in Marriage and the Family. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Yamamuro, Shuhei and Himeoka, Tsutomu, eds. Gendai—Kazoku no Shakaigaku (Sociology of Modern Family). Tokyo: Baifukan, 1972. "Illll'llllllllllll