uov ' . . .-.._: _ 25;}, v _ - ' ." _ -‘_ ’aiéa'mfl'm- iii: I "In F“ A "I ‘.. ' ‘>"‘.' .. 4 ‘—.4 “‘ raga-1.... n.1'.£u.-‘h".x1.h‘r‘ ' ‘ Fall 1‘. ' I nl' O. 'r' WI . ' ' fil~r1w 4 r .--, U. '.\k '4‘ '3 .H-- ,. . J .,., 'A I ~ " o ‘ ‘ '4', . n. .' ‘1‘: ‘ I: 33-7“ 1| «1‘- r‘ ' -.. .‘ “i . N '-.‘ ‘. " “I . y J v , |' .. .I4 I,” O ,_. - . -. . “‘1'!" .“,n';:. .‘uvlv.fiq ‘|\' h .L .. ‘.“‘ ," :‘M u 1"~'.-’-"3n¢$ ~- ' u mag-:1 , I _ ‘. ‘ . - V56- -- Rug-‘1‘".Hfifiéax-fiz‘éé . . p I" H .' y V‘ ‘II . i Won‘t ‘ A.‘ ‘ "H; " N 13"?! J2"? ‘P MU _.; 3' ‘ MK ‘:I_ “|.‘L‘ l I '\l ' v I }:r‘ l“ --I ' ‘fiéy": It'n‘ f.‘ I ‘ “(III I‘ 'f 684 5808 T h E: if" 7:: "n-_ ~..IJLL_:- f " .. - _. ‘ 2‘ - ~ .1 ‘ b6 - w v ‘- r ' This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE RELATION BETWEEN POWER BASE PERCEPTIONS AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT AS A FUNCTION OF MARITAL SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION presented by Jason Ting Li has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhoDo degree in PSYChOIogy W/KW 7 Major professor Robert A. Caldwell Date 10/31/85 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 IV1£3l_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to uanmuas remove this checkout from 4—5—9. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. TEE RELATION BETWEEN POWER BASE PERCEPTIONS AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT AS A FUNCTION OF MARITAL SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION BY Jason Ting Li A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1985 ABSTRACT THE RELATION BETWEEN POWER BASE PERCEPTIONS AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT AS A FUNCTION OF MARITAL SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION BY Jason Ting Li In recent years it has been hypothesized that patterns of power use among couples are being impacted by changing attitudes toward sex roles and that this has important implications for marital adjustment (Raven, Centers & Rodrigues, 1975). The present study examines the relationship between individuals' perceptions of power bases (relational bases of power) used in their marriage and their marital adjustment as they vary in marital sex-role orientation from traditional to egalitarian positions. The study also examines the effect of incongruency in marital sex-role orientation between partners on marital adjustment; specifically, how magnitude of incongruency and direction of incongruency (whether husband is more egalitarian than wife or vice versa) are related to marital adjustment. Questionnaire data on husbands' and wives' power base perceptions, marital sex-role orientation, and a number of other variables were subjected to hierarchical regression analyses to examine the relationships between marital adjustment and the following predictor variables: power base perceptions, the interaction of power base perceptions and marital sex-role orientation, and marital sex-role incongruency. The outstanding finding of this study was that the directional nature of marital sex-role incongruency plays an important role in determining the impact of incongruence on the marital adjustment of husbands and wives. A highly significant positive relationship was found between the degree of a husband's egalitarianism and marital adjustment: the more egalitarian the husband is relative to his wife, the more likely he and his wife will have higher marital adjustment. Possible reasons for this trend are discussed. Very few power base perceptions were significantly related to marital adjustment, either by themselves or when interacting with marital sex-role orientation. A small number of significant findings, however, suggest that power base perceptions and their interaction with marital sex-role orientation may impact marital adjustment in a few specific areas of marital power interaction. These areas include perceptions of husbands or wives using concrete coercion or helpless legitimacy, wives using positional legitimacy or personal coercion, and husbands using individualistic or reciprocity legitimacy. Because the high number of significance tests performed in the study increases the probability of random significant findings occurring, replication of these power base results is recommended. “For God's secret plan, now at last made known, is Christ himself. In him lie hidden all the mighty, untapped treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Colossians 2:2,3 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This will be a long acknowledgement because there are so many people I want to thank for their part in helping me complete this dissertation. First, I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Robert Caldwell for his excellent guidance as my chairperson. From start to finish his encouragement, availability, and insightful comments were invaluable to the completion of this project. I respect and have profited greatly from his example as a dedicated researcher. I would also like to thank Dr. Gary Stollak, Dr. Norm Abeles, and Dr. Margaret Bubolz for their helpful input as members of my dissertation committee. They were very cooperative with the time schedule I was working under. My appreciation goes to Roger Halley and the Psychology Department for making supplies available to me for conducting this research. Bea Archambeault volunteered her help in preparation of the questionnaires. Dr. Raywin Huang offered input into the study's research design. Lin Chang helped orient me initially to running SPSS programs and Roy Heber provided expert SPSS consulting during the data analysis phase of this project. I am grateful to Dr. Rick Hallgren, not only for generously volunteering the use of his word processor iii (without which I might still be typing today!), but also for the help and concern he has given me over the years. He has been instrumental in helping me develop priorities that enabled me to ”buckle down“ and complete the dissertation without losing sight of the things I thought were most important. To my parents, Dr. Ting Y. Li and Mrs. Tsun Hwei Li, I would like to express my gratitude for their faithful support and commitment to me. They have given up much to enable me to pursue my education and reaching this milestone in my life is as much their accomplishment as mine. Finally, I would like to express my love and appreciation to my wife, Tzong-Huei, not only for the countless sleepless hours spent typing and retyping this dissertation (not to mention agonizing over lost computer files), but also for being with me each step of the way. Having her to share my life with makes all the effort worthwhile. My acknowledgement would not be complete without giving recognition to God for the very real help and guidance He has given me through the dissertation process. Many a time after wandering off on a tangent in my research because I didn't want to miss out on something important, He helped me to regain my focus and get back on track. I thank Him for using the dissertation to teach me a valuable lesson: that in order to accomplish the essential I must be willing to say "no” to many good things. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOViii LIST OF FIGURES...OOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOix LIST OF NOMENCLATURE...O...0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOX INTRODUCTION.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000000000I Marital Adjustment..............................3 Marital Sex-Role Orientation....................5 Marital Sex-Role Congruency and Marital Adjustment................................ ..8 Power and Marital Adjustment...................12 A Definition of Power.....................12 Earlier Studies: A Quantitative Approach to Power......................13 More Recent Studies: A Qualitative Approach to Power......................13 Power Bases....................................lS Determinants of Power Base Selection......15 Power Bases and Gender....................16 Power Bases and Marital Sex-Role Orientation............................l7 Reward and Coercion.......................l9 Expert Power..............................21 Referent Power............................21 Legitimate Power..........................22 Positional Legitimate Power...............23 Reciprocity Legitimate Power..............23 Helpless Legitimate Power.................25 Familistic Legitimate Power...............26 Individualistic Legitimate Power..........27 Informational Power.......................28 The Present Study..............................29 Hypotheses.....................................30 Power Bases and Interactions..............30 Marital Sex-Role Incongruency.............39 Page METHODOOOOOOOOOO0.000......IO...0.0.000000000000000049 Subjects.......................................49 Procedure......................................52 Measurement Instruments........................53 Marital Adjustment........................53 Marital Sex-Role 0rientation..............S7 Power Bases...............................64 Social Desirability Bias..................67 Demographic Information...................75 RESULTSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0...00.77 Power Bases and Interactions...................77 HPB and WPB Concrete Coercion.............82 H:WPB Personal Coercion...................89 W:WPB Positional Legitimacy...............90 H:HPB Reciprocity Legitimacy..............90 HPB and WPB Helpless Legitimacy...........9l HPB Individualistic Legitimacy............92 Marital Sex-Role Incongruency..................93 ABHEMI vs. HEMI...........................9S W-HEMI vs. H-HEMI.........................97 DISCUSSION.0.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00000000099 Power Base Main Effects........................99 Interaction of Power Bases with Marital Sex-Role Orientation.......................103 Evaluating the Prediction Scheme..............109 Implications of Power Base and Interaction Findings...................................llO Marital Sex-Role Incongruency.................115 Conclusions...................................ll9 APPENDICES.OOOOOOOOOCOOOOCOCOOOO0.0.0.0000000000000123 Appendix A: Unpublished Questionnaire Materials..................................123 Cover Letter to Subjects.................123 Participation Consent Form...............124 Sociodemographic Information.............125 Power Base Questionnaire-Wife Form.......126 Power Base Questionnaire-Husband Form....128 vi Page Appendix 3: original DataOOOOOOOOOOOOCD0.00000130 Key to DataOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.130 DataOOOOOOO0.0...I0....0.00.00.00.0000000132 REFERENCES.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000...00.0.0000000159 vii Table 1. 2. 3. 4. LIST OF TABLES Page Predicted Hypotheses regarding Husband Power Base Perceptions...........................34 Predicted Hypotheses regarding Wife Power Base Perceptions.................................3S Items Used to Assess Power Bases.................66 Multiple Regression Analyses of Husband and Wife Marital Adjustment on Covariates for Total Groups, Traditional (Trad.) Groups, and Egalitarian (Egal.) Groups...................79 Multiple Regression Analyses of Wife or Husband Marital Adjustment on Power Base and Power Base Interaction Variables.........................83-85 Comparison of Regression Lines of Husband or Wife Marital Adjustment on Power Base Variables for Traditional (Trad.) and Egalitarian (Egal.) Husband and Wife Groups.......................86-87 Multiple Regression Analyses of CMA, HMA, and WMA on Covariates and Incongruency Variables.....94 Significant Findings for Husbands and Wives (Traditional, Egalitarian, and General).........100 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Hypothetical ”Magnitude Only' Relationship between HEMI and MAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000.000.00000042 2. Hypothetical "Directional” Relationship between HEMI and MAOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.0000000000043 3. Hypothetical Regression of MA on ABHEMI (Magnitude onlY)OOOOOOOO...00.0.0000000000000000045 4. Hypothetical Regression of MA on ABHEMI (Directional)O....00...0.000000000000000...00.00.47 ix ABHEMI DAS HEMI H-HEMI H:HPB HMSRO HSD H:WPB MA M-C Scale MSRI MSRO SRES W-HEMI W:HPB WMSRO WSD W:WPB LIST OF NOMENCLATURE Absolute value of Husband Egalitarianism- Directed Marital Sex-Role Incongruency Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale Husband Egalitarianism-Directed Marital Sex-Role Incongruency HEMI score where husband more egalitarian than wife Husband's perception of self using power base Husband Marital Sex-Role Orientation Husband Social Desirability Bias (Marlowe-Crowne Score) Husband's perception of his wife using power base Marital Adjustment Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale Marital Sex-Role Incongruency Marital Sex-Role Orientation Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale HEMI score when wife more egalitarian than husband Wife's perception of husband using power base Wife Marital Sex-Role Orientation Wife Social Desirability Bias (Marlowe-Crowne Score) Wife's perception of self using power base X INTRODUCTION Marital adjustment and its determinants has been a perennial area of inquiry for marriage researchers. For many years they have focused on power as an important variable related to marital adjustment. In recent years the relationship of power to marital adjustment has taken on increased significance as more attention has been given to the effects of rapidly-changing sex-roles on marriage. Raven, Centers, and Rodrigues (1975) suggest not only that changing sex-roles are impacting patterns of power use among couples but that this has important implications for the adjustment of marriages: There is good reason to suspect that the bases of power in conjugal relationships may be changing dramatically with current changes in sex-roles. The problems in such changes would appear to be especially great for women, and we might well expect that changes in power choice in the family will be accompanied by increased personal threat for both parties and increasing tensions in the family. Family therapists might be well advised to focus more of their attention on the effects of changing patterns of power preference and utilization. (p.232) 2 The purpose of the present study is to examine the relationship between perceived power processes and marital adjustment of husbands and wives who vary in marital sex-role orientation from more traditional to more egalitarian positions. One of the basic hypotheses of this study is that the impact of different types of perceived power interactions on marital adjustment will be related to the types of marital sex-role attitudes held. For example, if a husband perceives that his wife influences him by trying to appear as an “expert", this may have a different impact on the marital adjustment of each of the partners depending on whether they are more traditional or egalitarian in orientation. The specific plan of the literature review is, first, to clarify the meaning of the concepts of marital adjustment, marital sex-role orientation, and marital sex-role attitudes as they are used in this study. Second, the relationship between marital sex-role congruency and marital adjustment is discussed. Third, the literature on power and marital adjustment is briefly reviewed to provide some context for the research on power bases. Fourth, the research on power bases is examined in greater depth. Finally, the present study is outlined as well as the specific hypotheses under investigation. 3 Marital Adjustment Perhaps no one area in the marriage research literature has generated more studies or consistent interest over the years than marital adjustment. When Terman's (1938) Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness, reporting results from a major research project on marital adjustment was published, the area of marital adjustment research was already well-established. Since then, studies on marital adjustment have continued to proliferate at an increasing rate. A broad range of factors have been studied in terms of their relationship to marital adjustment including instrumental vs. companionship aspects of marriage (Barnett & Nietzel, 1979: Hicks & Platt, 1970), sex-role behavior (Murstein & Williams, 1983), communication processes (Raush, Barry, Hertel, & Swain, 1974), self-spouse concepts (Luckey, 1968), role strain (Frank, Anderson, & Rubinstein, 1980), family problemrsolving behavior (Vincent, Weiss, 5 Birchler, 1975) and family life cycle (Olson & McCubbin, 1983), to name just a few. A number of broad reviews of the marital adjustment literature provide a more comprehensive look at which factors have been studied (Hicks 8 Platt, 1970; Spanier & Lewis, 1980). The enormous growth of research in this area is reflected in the many terms that have been used to refer to phenomena related to marital adjustment such as "marital happiness” (Hicks & Platt, 1970), “marital satisfaction" (Raven et al., 1975), "marital quality” (Spanier.& Lewis, 4 1980), and “marital distress vs. nondistress" (Margolin & Wampold, 1981). A number of researchers have raised as a problem the lack of clarity engendered by use of so many different terms (Lewis & Spanier, 1979: Spanier & Cole, 1976). Researchers have approached dealing with this problem in several different ways. Lively (1969) suggested that the disadvantages of semantic distortions resulting from indiscriminate use of terms such as marital happiness, success, and adjustment may be sufficient to warrant their elimination from the literature altogether. Burr (1973), bothered by the value-laden nature of many terms, favored the use of marital satisfaction (cited in Spanier & Lewis, 1980). Lewis and Spanier (1979) proposed a two-dimensional framework of conceptualization revolving around the concepts of marital quality and marital stability. Marital stability, as they defined it, refers simply to whether or not the marriage is intact. Marital quality is an omnibus term they chose to encompass the entire spectrum of terms used to refer to "marital adjustment-like“ phenomena (i.e., marital satisfaction, happiness, role strain and conflict, communication, adjustment, integration, etc.). Specifically, they defined marital quality as a subjective evaluation of a married couple's relationship. In the present study "marital adjustment" as defined by Spanier and Cole (1976) is the term chosen to refer to the phenomenon of interest. Spanier and Cole (1976) have defined 5 marital adjustment as “a process, the outcome of which is determined by the degree of (l) troublesome marital differences; (2) interspousal tensions and personal anxiety; (3) marital satisfaction; (4) dyadic cohesion; and (5) consensus on matters of importance to marital functioning“ (pp. 127-128). This conceptualization of marital adjustment was chosen for a number of reasons. First, to arrive at their definition of marital adjustment, Spanier and Cole carefully reviewed the literature with the goal of including in their definition all the major criterion thought to be relevant to the concept. Consequently, their definition of marital adjustment is sufficiently broad to be applicable to a wide range of marriage types which is especially important in the present study where couples are likely to differ along a range of values as a function of marital sex-role orientation. Second, by clearly delineating five criterion areas for marital adjustment, the definition is able to have breadth without being so abstract that it cannot be clearly conceptualized. Finally, this conceptualization of marital adjustment is readily operationalizable via the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) developed by Spanier (1976) within his conceptual model of marital adjustment. Marital Sex-Role Orientation Marital sex-role orientation is used in this study to refer to a person's basic orientation towards marital sex—role attitudes (i.e., traditional vs. egalitarian). The term ”orientation“ is used in this study to denote a person's general overall position in reference to a continuum ranging from traditional to egalitarian marital sex-role attitudes. “Attitude“, as employed in this study, refers to a more focused posture one has towards particular aspects of marital sex—roles. This posture may be expressed cognitively through one's beliefs or affectively through one's feelings. Finally, the term “marital sex-role“ is deliberately chosen over 'sex-role' in this study to more clearly delineate the sex-role phenomena of interest from other phenomena typically associated with "sex-role“ in the literature. “Sex-role“ as used in the literature commonly refers to personality trait aspects of sex-role as in the psychological androgyny research of Bem (1974). “Marital sex-role“ is used in the present study to refer to the marital role aspects of sex-roles; specifically, the roles of husband, wife, mother, and father. In summary, “marital sex-role attitudes” is used to refer to a person's emotional or cognitive posture towards particular aspects of the roles of husband, wife, father or mother. Marital sex—role orientation refers to the overall trend along an egalitarian-traditional continuum reflecting the many specific marital sex-role attitudes that a person has. While a number of marital role typologies have been proposed (Peplau, 1983; Scanzoni & Scanzoni, 1976), they consistently point to a continuum in sex-role attitudes ranging from traditional to egalitarian positions. Peplau 7 (1983) characterizes the stereotypic traditional marriage as follows: 1. The husband has greater authority than his wife. 2. The wife is deferential towards her husband on a symbolic and pragmatic level. 3. A high degree of gender role specialization is present with the husband's primary role being “provider“ and the wife's major roles being “homemaker“ and “mother“. 4. The wife is not paid for employment outside of the home. For the stereotypic egalitarian marriage she suggests a number of points which reflect a rejection of the basic tenets of traditional marriage: 1. There is an equal distribution of power between husband and wife. 2. There is an absence of gender role specialization. 3. If both partners are employed, their respective jobs are considered equally important. 4. An effort is made not to be limited by traditional sex-role differences in emotional expressiveness. Before proceeding further it should be stated that, in reality, most individuals probably do not fit neatly into a clear-cut traditional-egalitarian dichotomy. An individual's orientation towards marital sex-roles may reflect a mixture of egalitarian and traditional attitudes as well as different depths of conviction. Nonetheless, for the purpose of discussing and examining the relationship of marital sex-role orientation to power processes and marital 8 adjustment, the continuum of marital sex-role orientation will sometimes be treated as though it were a traditional versus egalitarian dichotomy. Marital Sex-Role Congruency and Marital Adjustment Attitude congruency has long been considered an important correlate of relationship satisfaction. Research has generally supported that this notion is a valid one when applied to friendships and dating couples (Bowen & Orthner, 1983). Coombs (1966), for instance, found that value consensus between dating partners had a significant positive relationship with satisfaction with partner and ease of communication between partners. Ease of communication, in turn, was found to be significantly positively related to partner satisfaction. This positive correlation between attitude congruency and relationship satisfaction has also been posited to be applicable to the marital dyad (Nordland, 1978). Research specifically addressing this hypothesis, however, has been scarce (Bowen 8 Orthner, 1983). While the results of studies in this area have generally supported the notion of attitude congruency as an important positive correlate of marital adjustment, the findings have been mixed. Luckey (1960) found that a couple's marital satisfaction had a significant positive relationship to congruence between a person's self perception and the spouse's perception of that person. A number of studies have 9 examined the relationship between attitude congruency and wife satisfaction with a particular aspect of the marital relationship, housework roles. Gross and Arvey (1977) studied couples where the wife was self-identified as the principal homemaker in the family. They did not find a significant interaction between husbands' and wives' general attitudes toward women and wives' satisfaction with the homemaker role. Krause (1983), on the other hand, reports somewhat contradictory results regarding attitude congruency and wives' satisfaction with homemaking. In his study, Krauss interviewed full-time housewives and obtained information regarding their own attitudes and their perceptions of their husbands' attitudes towards female sex-roles, resulting in an iggggpersonal measure of sex-role congruency. He found that sex-role congruency had a significant negative relationship with wives' dissatisfaction with the homemaking role and scores on a depressive symptoms scale. Bowen & Orthner (1983) specifically examined the relationship between marital sex-role congruency and marital adjustment in 331 military couples. With regard to the hypothesis that sex-role congruency would be positively related to a joint score reflecting couple's marital adjustment, they reported mixed results. As predicted, couples with a traditionally-oriented husband wife (TE) had significantly lower couple marital adjustment scores than homogeneous couples where spouses were either both 10 traditional (TT) or both egalitarian (EE). An unpredicted finding was that couples with an egalitarian husband and traditional wife (ET) did not differ significantly in marital adjustment from the homogeneous couples. An explanation that they offer for this discrepant finding is that, although ET couples have incongruent sex-role attitudes, the nature of this discrepancy might not be very distressing to either partner. They suggest that egalitarian husbands who, for example, believe that wives have the right to pursue their own independent interests may still find it reinforcing to know that their wives ggglg pursue their interests fully if they so decided. Conversely, traditional wives who may see their own interests as being subordinate to the interests of their families (and husbands) may find it reinforcing to know that their husbands 99219 pursue their careers fully and receive their help at home if they wanted it that way. An explanation for the discrepant finding that was not raised is that it may be an artifact of the research design. The procedure Bowen and Orthner used to classify their couples was to assign to husbands and wives a traditional or egalitarian status according to whether their sex-role attitude score (SRAS) was above or below the median SRAS score for each respective gender group. A number of research studies indicate that women's sex-role attitudes tend to be more egalitarian than men's (Beere, King, Beere, & King, 1984). If this trend was present in the Bowen and Orthner study, then the median cut-off score dichotomizing 11 traditional and egalitarian groups would be more towards the traditional end for husbands and more towards the egalitarian end for wives. Consequently, in terms of absolute sex-role scores, an egalitarian husband actually has more of a traditional score than his label indicates. Conversely, a traditional wife has more of an egalitarian score than her label suggests. The effect of this classification system would be that "so--called'I heterogeneous ET couples may not actually reflect a very large discrepancy in actual SRAS scores. Thus, the lack of significant marital adjustment differences between ET and homogeneous couples could be simply an artifact of the classification system used in the study. In summary, not much research has been done on the relationship between attitude congruency and marital adjustment and even less has been done focusing specifically on how marital sex-role congruency relates to marital adjustment. Furthermore, the results of available studies in this area, while providing some support of the positive relationship between marital sex-role congruency and marital adjustment, are mixed. Finally, Bowen & Orthner's (1983) study raises the question of directional effects of marital sex-role incongruency. Does the direction of value configuration between husband and wife in heterogeneous couples make a difference in terms of marital adjustment? Or is it simply a matter of the magnitude of incongruence or congruence? In conclusion, a review of the research in this 12 area suggests that it would be worthwhile to further examine the relationship between marital sex-role congruency and marital adjuStment using a consistent procedure for assessing the degree of sex-role egalitarianism for men and women 0 Power and Marital Adjustment One factor which has received a growing amount of attention in the marital adjustment literature is power within the context of the marital relationship. The literature concerning the relationship between power and marital adjustment has, itself, grown into a voluminous body of research over the past twenty years. A Definition of Power Before reviewing the literature on power and marital adjustment, it will be helpful to clarify what is meant by the term 'power' as it is used in the present study. Power has been used in the literature to refer to a number of different aspects of influence processes such as authority, influence, and control (Johnson, 1978). Power has also been used to conceptualize interactions ranging from those between governments to those between individuals. The focus of the present study, however, is on power as an interpersonal phenomenon. The definition adopted for this study is of power as “the ability to get another person to do or believe something he or she would not have necessarily done or believed spontaneously“ (Johnson, 1976, p.100). l3 Earlier Studies: A_Quantitative Approach to Power Most early investigations of power adopted a quantitative approach where couples were asked to assess who was responsible for decision-making outcome in a number of different areas. Couples were then classified into husband-dominant, wife-dominant or egalitarian categories depending on whether the husband or wife was responsible for more decision-making areas or there was a balance in decision-making between them. Research suggests that these categories, based on retrospective self-report data, may reflect more perceived authority patterns than actual control over decision-making outcomes (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983; Olson & Rabunsky, 1972). Studies consistently revealed that wife-dominant couples tended to have lowest marital satisfaction (Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Gray-Little, 1982). Results for egalitarian and husband-dominant couples were less consistent with both groups having highest marital satisfaction in different studies, though, for the majority of them, egalitarian couples had the highest marital satisfaction (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983). More Recent Studies: A Qualitative Approach to Power As studies of decision-making outcome proliferated, some investigators became increasingly aware of the need to focus on the intricacies of conjugal power processes to better understand the relationship between power and marital satisfaction (Olson & Rabunsky, 1972: Safilios-Rothschild, 1969). An increasing number of studies have examined l4 qualitative aspects of power processes, shifting focus from simply who 'wins' decision-making outcomes to “how“ these outcomes are arrived at. In terms of consequences of power use, studies have begun to examine its effectiveness not only in global terms of ”success/failure“ but also in terms of its impact on the user's self-esteem, other's evaluations of the user, and likelihood of future successful influence (Johnson, 1976). Some qualitative aspects of power that have been studied are the bases of power (Raven et a1. 1975), modes or styles of influence (Safilios-Rothschild, 1969) and bargaining strategies (Scanzoni, 1978). A few general trends have been found relating marital adjustment to power processes. Couples with higher marital adjustment have been found to report more frequently having an egalitarian decision-making process, with both partners participating in the process and able to exert mutual influence on the outcome (Corrales, 1975: Osmond & Martin, 1978). In the event of conflict, these couples reported often compromising (Osmond & Martin, 1978). Low maritally adjusted couples, on the other hand, tended to report more frequently having an autocratic decision-making process, where one spouse dominates while the other has little, if any, influence. Such couples, when faced with conflict, frequently deal with it in a disengaged way where there is little, if any, compromise and spouses tend to do things ”their own way“, disregarding spouse disagreement (Osmond & Martin, 1978). Use of coercive power is also more frequent 15 with these couples. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that qualitative aspects of power do play an important role in the process of marital adjustment. The literature on power bases, which focuses in more detail on some of the qualitative aspects of power, is reviewed in the following section. Power Bases French and Raven (1959) qualitatively differentiated between different types of power by introducing the concept of I'power base“. Power base is used to refer to the particular aspects of the relationship between an operator (0) and a perceiver (P) which serve as sources of power. Psychologically, power base is determined from P's perspective of a given situation. For example, P may comply with O's influence attempt because P perceives that O has the capacity to punish or reward P's behavior. Thus, in this case, 0 may operate from coercive or reward power bases. Six major types of power bases have been proposed: coercive, reward, expert, legitimate, referent, and informational (French & Raven, 1959: Raven et al., 1975). A number of other power bases have been formulated but most of these are actually variants of these six major types. Determinants of Power Base Selection What kinds of factors help determine a person's choice of power base? Three basic determinants of power choice have been posited (Johnson, 1978; Raven & Kruglanski, 1970). 16 First is the influencer's estimate of the cost-effectiveness of using a given power base which can be made at a conscious or subconscious level. Thus, an influencer will tend to use those power bases that are more cost-effective for a given situation and avoid those that are not. Second is the influencer's assessment of the likely reactions of others to the choice of power bases which is determined in part by the influencer's position and roles. Individuals will tend to choose those power bases that are consistent with their roles in order to maximize societal reinforcement or minimize societal ostracism by complying with role expectations. Third, individual personality style and needs may influence choice of power base. For example, an individual with a shy self-effacing personality may feel more comfortable using helplessness and dependency as a power base rather than expertise. Power Bases and Gender Johnson (1976, 1978) has conducted a number of studies suggesting that the first two types of determinants, cost-effectiveness and evaluation by others, play an important role in the selection of power bases by men and women. In her studies she has found that certain power bases are considered more ”masculine” or ”feminine“ than others and that there may be general expectations that certain power bases will more likely be used by men or by women. Furthermore, her research suggests that, if a person's selection and use .of power bases “violates“ these l7 gender-linked expectations of power, that this may result in some negative consequences for the user such as reduced effectiveness of influence or unfavorable evaluation by others. One of the major contributions of her work is that it highlights the important role of gender-linked expectations in determining for men and women the choice of and consequences associated with different power bases. More generally, her work suggests that a person's role or position is an important variable to consider when trying to understand how use of different power bases impacts a relationship. Power Bases and Marital Sex-Role Orientation Another variable that may have an important relation to power bases is marital sex-role orientation. Three reasons are offered as to why the relationship between power bases and marital sex-role orientation is considered important. First, it is hypothesized that the role of gender-linked expectations in the selection of different power bases and its associated consequences becomes even more important in married couples. Whereas in general male-female relationships a person is not likely to be as invested and, consequently, as affected by one's own or another's power base behavior, in marriage one would expect a higher degree of investment in the relationship by the partners resulting in power base behavior having a more pronounced impact on the relationship. Second, it is hypothesized that expectations or stereotypes of appropriate power base l8 behavior will vary not only with a person's gender but also with that person's marital sex-role orientation. Thus, a traditional husband and wife are hypothesized to have different expectations of what types of power base interactions are appropriate than an egalitarian husband and wife. More specifically, it is posited that traditional husbands and wives will generally have power base expectations more similar to the traditional sex-role stereotypes researched by Johnson (1978) than their egalitarian counterparts. Finally, it is hypothesized that these differences in power base expectations for traditional and egalitarian husbands and wives have important implications in terms of moderating the impact of power base behavior on their marital adjustment. A number of studies have begun to investigate the relationship between power and traditional versus egalitarian orientations. Scanzoni (1978) found that wives' marital sex-role preferences were related to the type of power strategies they adopted during marital conflict. Employed traditional wives tended to rely on familistic rationales (he should do it because it's best for the entire family) while egalitarian wives resorted more often to a fairness strategy (he should do it because it's only right and fair) and bargaining from a position of self-interest. Falbo and Peplau (1980) reported that individuals favoring egalitarian (equal power) relationships were more likely to use unilateral power strategies such as telling, asking, or l9 withdrawal while more traditional individuals tended to use bilateral (more interactive) strategies such as persuasion or bargaining. Raven et a1. (1975) found that individuals with general authoritarian attitudes tended to attribute referent power to their spouses more than those with egalitarian attitudes. Egalitarian individuals, on the other hand, tended to attribute legitimate power (e.g., he/she had the right to ask you) to their spouses more than authoritarian individuals. While these studies have by no means thoroughly investigated the relationship between power and traditional/egalitarian orientations, they do provide some preliminary evidence suggesting that it is an area worth investigating. In the remainder of this section research on different power bases will be reviewed in more detail in order to generate some hypotheses about how these power bases relate to the marital adjustment of traditional and egalitarian husbands and wives. Twelve types of power bases are examined, many of which are variants of the six major power bases already mentioned. Specifically, they are referent, expert, personal and concrete coercion, personal and concrete reward,information, and five types of legitimacy (positional, reciprocity, helpless, familistic, and individualistic). Reward and Coercion Someone using positive or negative sanctions to influence another person's ‘beliefs or behavior employs 20 reward or coercive power. Johnson (1976) distinguishes between personal and concrete types of reward and coercive power bases. Personal reward and coercive power bases revolve around the use of resources grounded in a personal relationship such as liking, affection, or sex. Concrete reward and coercive power bases derive from concrete resources such as money, knowledge, and physical strength. Johnson posits that men, in general, have greater opportunities to use concrete resources and that women, even when they have access to such resources, are discouraged from using them directly. She found that coercion and reward power bases were rated as more masculine when they were concrete than when they were personal. She also found that concrete coercion was significantly more expected of males than females while, for personal reward, the reverse was true. In terms of marital adjustment and marital satisfaction, coercion has consistently been found to be negatively related to both (Osmond & Martin, 1978; Raven et al., 1975). Raven et a1. (1975) found that reward and coercive power bases were more frequently reported by working-class couples than middle or upper class respondents. They also found that, in terms of education, those individuals who did not complete grammar school relied on reward and coercion as a primary power base significantly more often than those completing college. 21 Expert Power Expert power is based on the perceiver's belief that the operator has superior knowledge or ability to make a good decision. Raven et a1. (1975) found that wives perceived their husbands as using expert power much more frequently than husbands saw their wives using it. Johnson's (1976) study indicated that expert power was significantly more expected with males than females. She hypothesized that this was to be expected because males are stereotypically viewed as the experts in our society while females using expert power may be seen as acting out of role. Expert power has been found to decrease with age and increase with educational level (Raven et al., 1975). Referent Power Referent power occurs when a person allows him or herself to be influenced out of a desire to identify positively with the influencer. This usually happens in relationships where there are enough shared bonds such as similarities and positive feelings toward one another to establish a strong sense of common identity that can be appealed to in order to influence one another. The Raven et a1. (1975) study found that husbands attributed referent power to their wives significantly more than wives did to their husbands even though this power base was the most commonly reported form for both spouses. In Johnson's (1976) study no significant difference was found between the rated likelihood of males or females using referent power, though 22 referent power was seen as a more feminine power base than coercive, legitimate, expert, or informational power. In her 1974 study, however, Johnson (cited in Johnson, 1978) found that referent power was not seen as stereotypically masculine or feminine. Johnson (1978) suggests that, while referent power is an accepted and likely power base for males and females, it is probably even more likely to be used by females because it is one of the few power bases fully "open“ to females. Females who are similar or well-liked by an. aquaintance, friend, or spouse may employ referent power without appearing aggressive, which might be considered “out of role'. Raven and Kruglanski (1970) hypothesize that in general referent power, if used successfully, should have a positive impact on personal relationship by increasing perceptions of similarity and positive identification leading to strengthened relational bonds. They found in their study that referent power usage tended to increase with age. Legitimate Power Legitimate power relies a great deal on prior socialization into different norms which structure interaction within relationships. In its most general sense, legitimate power elicits compliance characterized by an ”ought to" quality (Raven & Kruglanski, 1970). For legitimate power to be successful, the influencer must believe he or she has the right to such influence while the person being influenced feels obligated to comply. Johnson 23 (1976) distinguishes between three types of legitimate power based on norms related to position, reciprocity, and helplessness. Scanzoni (1978) studied “bargaining strategies“ used by wives to influence their spouses. This concept differs from power bases only in that type of power is evaluated from the perspective of the influencer rather than the influencee. Two of his bargaining strategies, based on familistic and individualistic norms, may be translated into forms of legitimate power bases. Positional Legitimate Power Positional legitimate power is used when one attempts to influence others by claiming certain rights based on the position he or she holds. Johnson (1978) hypothesized that women use positional legitimate power far less frequently than men because, first, women have less access to such power than men and, second, even if they do have access to such power they are likely to avoid using it due to negative social pressure. In support of this hypothesis, Johnson (1976) found that men were considered significantly more likely than women to use legitimate power. In her 1974 study (cited in Johnson, 1978), Johnson found that women using positional legitimate power were rated as highly aggressive by college students. Reciprocity Legitimate Power Reciprocity legitimacy is based on the norm of reciprocity: “If I do something for you, you are obligated to do something for me“ (Johnson, 1978). Johnson found in 24 her 1974 study (cited in Johnson, 1978) that use of this power base is seen as highly masculine. Scanzoni (1978) studied two types of bargaining strategies based on the norm of reciprocity. One type focused on fairness in very specific and concrete exchanges such as a wife asserting that her husband should help her to get ahead in her occupation since she helped him in his occupation for so many years. Scanzoni (1978) found that employed wives most frequently used this power base when they reported having conflicts with their husbands over household chores and issues of wife autonomy. Wives with autonomy issues were characterized as having the most explicit expressions of egalitarian attitudes. The other type of bargaining strategy involved a more generalized orientation to a fair exchange in the relationship as a whole. Thus a husband might feel that since he has fulfilled his general responsibilities in the marriage that his wife ought to reciprocate by treating him rightly and fairly. Scanzoni found that among non—employed women, wives with traditional sex-role attitudes tended to not use this power base while those with egalitarian attitudes tended to employ them. Summarizing these findings on reciprocity legitimate power, this power base generally appears to be most frequently expected from men and may be viewed negatively when employed by women. More specifically, however, use of this power base among wives appears positively related to egalitarian sex-role attitudes. 25 Helpless Legitimate Power Helpless legitimate power is based on the norm of social responsibility of the powerful for those who are helpless. Raven and Kruglanski (1970) described a classic example of helpless legitimate power in action: a “helpless“ female standing by the side of the road with a flat tire “influencing“ someone to stop and help her. They hypothesized that, while helpless legitimacy may enable low power individuals to exert influence on others, some negative consequences of using this power base are decreased self-esteem and perpetuation of low power status (being less able to influence from a position of strength). Johnson (1978) suggests that because this power base is perceived as being passive and dependent, it fits in very well with the female stereotype. In her 1974 study (cited in Johnson, 1978) she found that, while helpless legitimacy was typically perceived as a feminine power base, it was still acceptable for males to use. Later studies produced findings consistent with these earlier results with helpless legitimacy being perceived as more feminine than concrete coercion, competent legitimate, expert, information, and concrete reward power bases, while differences in rated likelihood of use between males and females was insignificant (Johnson, 1976). In terms of effectiveness of helpless vs. positional legitimacy, however, Gruder and Cook (1971) found an interesting sex difference. In their study they set up a situation where a student would arrive for a 26 psychological experiment and find a note from the experimenter requesting the student to do a task. Sex of the absent experimenter was made apparent to the subjects by various articles present in the room while requests were based on either positional or helpless legitimacy. For women, helpless legitimacy was significantly more effective than positional legitimacy while, for men, both types of legitimacy were effective. Women were also slightly more effective than men when using helpless legitimate power. In summary, these findings suggest that, while helpless legitimacy may be perceived as a more feminine power base, in terms of actual use it is employed by both sexes and is viewed as an acceptable power base for men, as well. In terms of effectiveness, helpless legitimacy is effective for both sexes but may possibly play a more important role for women since positional legitimacy is not as effective for them. Familistic Legitimate Power Familistic legitimate power is based on the norm that one should do what is in the best interests of the entire family. Scanzoni (1978) studied the usage frequency of familistic bargaining strategies among employed and nonemployed wives and found that it was strongly negatively correlated with both groups when they had more egalitarian sex-role attitudes. Specifically, these egalitarian sex-role attitudes were related to, for employed wives, the mother role and, for nonemployed wives, autonomy issues. Some other 27 factors related to usage of this bargaining strategy complicate these findings somewhat. For example, among employed wives familistic strategies were found to be positively correlated to the number of children in the family. Having more children was also positively correlated with traditional sex-role attitudes among wives (Scanzoni, 1978). Thus, at least part of the negative relationship between wive's egalitarian sex-role attitudes and use of familistic bargaining strategies might be accounted for by the fact that egalitarian wives tend to have fewer children. At any rate, these findings suggest that, for wives, traditional sex-role attitudes are positively related to use of familistic legitimacy while egalitarian sex-role attitudes are negatively related. Individualistic Legitimate Power Individualistic legitimate power is based on the norm that one should do what is in the best interest of his or her spouse. Scanzoni (1978) suggests that an individualistic legitimate bargaining strategy is strongly associated with egalitarianism or individualistic rights. While his results indicated that a minority of wives in this study used this type of power base (11.3% used individualistic as opposed to 68% using familistic) , he hypothesized that the trend towards use of this power base by wives will continue to increase in the future. Findings from Scanzoni's (1978) study generally support this notion that individualistic legitimate bargaining 28 strategies are strongly associated with egalitarian attitudes among wives. With employed wives expressing egalitarian attitudes in the area of “religious legitimization of the mother role“, there was a tendency to use individualistic legitimacy more frequently. For nonemployed wives, egalitarian attitudes in the areas of autonomy, wife self-actualization, and institutionalized equality (home responsibilities), were positively associated with use of this power base. Egalitarian attitudes in the area of autonomy issues was a particularly important factor in terms of its relationship to use of power bases by nonemployed wives. For nonemployed wives, egalitarian attitudes regarding autonomy were positively correlated with use of individualistic strategies and negatively correlated with familistic strategies. One other area that had a significant positive relationship to use of this bargaining strategy among employed women was the presence of conflicts over expressive behavior between spouses. Informational Power Informational power is based on a person's ability to provide explanations for why someone else should act or believe differently. It differs from expert power in that the influencer does not claim he or she knows best but simply explains why. Furthermore, informational power does not rely on the influencer having direct control over the resources as with coercive or reward power. Johnson (1978) posits that women are less likely than men to use 29 informational power because they typically have less access to information and that, even when they do, they are more likely to express it indirectly in order to be not seen as acting out of role. A number of findings support these notions. Johnson (1976) found that informational power was viewed as more masculine and that males were seen as significantly more likely to use this power base than females. The Present Study The research reviewed suggests that gender-linked expectations have an important relationship with power base phenomena. Egalitarian and traditional marital sex-role orientations, which probably have a strong relationship with one's gender-linked expectations, are hypothesized to play a significant moderating role in the relationship between perceptions of power base usage and marital adjustment. While some studies have begun to investigate the relationship between power and egalitarian/traditional orientations, this research has a number of limitations with respect to studying the relationship between marital sex-role orientation, power bases, and marital adjustment. Of the research reviewed, no single study adequately assesses all three variables of interest: marital sex-role orientation, power bases, and marital adjustment. Some studies do not assess marital sex-role orientation, others do not examine power bases, while still others assess 30 marital adjustment with only a single question. The present study assessed and examined the relationships between power bases, marital sex-role orientation and marital adjustment of husbands and wives, using a questionnaire to gather data on these variables. With respect to power bases, husbands and wives were asked to estimate for themselves and their spouses the likelihood of using each of the twelve power bases reviewed in the previous section. The primary aim of the study was to investigate the nature of the relationships of power base-marital sex-role orientation interactions to marital adjustment. A second major aim was to investigate what type of relationship, if any, marital sex-role incongruency has with the marital adjustment of husbands, wives, and couples. Hypotheses Power Bases and Interactions Two global hypotheses about the nature of the relationships of power bases and power base-marital sex-role orientation interactions to marital adjustment are proposed. The first hypothesis is that one's own perceptions of the qualitative nature of marital power processes and the interaction of these perceptions with one's own marital sex—role orientation are significant factors related to one's own marital adjustment. The second hypothesis is that, in general, the type of relationships between these power 31 bases or interactions and marital adjustment can be predicted by taking into account the degree of congruence between certain types of power bases and husband-wife expectations associated with traditional and egalitarian marital sex-role orientations. Specific predictions of the type of relationships of power bases or their interactions with marital adjustment are derived using a number of basic assumptions. Incongruence between one's perceptions and expectations of power base usage by self or spouse is assumed to be negatively related to one's marital adjustment. Perceptions that a specific power base is being used is assumed to have differential impacts on the marital adjustment of traditional and egalitarian marital partners due to differences in traditional and egalitarian expectations of husband or wife power base usage. By taking into account stereotypic traditional and egalitarian views of marriage, one could predict the impact of a given power base on the marital adjustment of traditional or egalitarian marital partners. The basic tenets of traditional marriage used to formulate predictions were that in traditional marriage relationships one would expect: (a) more gender-role specialization (similar to what might be predicted from the research literature on power bases and gender), (b) more of a husband-dominant authority pattern, (c) more restriction of emotional expressiveness to traditional sex-role norms. Egalitarian marriage relationships were assumed to be 32 characterized by: (a) less gener-role specialization, (b) an anti-husband dominant authority pattern position reflecting more of an equal power authority pattern, (c) efforts to not be limited by traditional sex-role differences in emotional expressiveness. Multiple regression analyses were performed to examine relationships between the criterion variables, husband and wife marital adjustment, and the power base and interaction variables. Since twelve types of power bases were evaluated by husbands and wives from two perspectives (self and other), a total of 48 regression equations were constructed. The power base and interaction variables for each of these regression equations were then examined in terms of the significance of their 3 to enter statistic, 52 change, and correlation coefficient to determine whether a given power base or interaction was significantly related to marital adjustment and, if so, what the direction of the relationship was. Before discussing specific hypotheses, a notation for describing four types of power base perceptions is explained. In this study each power base is examined from four different perspectives: (a) husband perceiving his wife operating from a certain power base, denoted H:WPB; (b) husband perceiving himself operating from a certain power base, denoted H:HPB: (c) wife perceiving her husband operating from a certain power base, denoted W:HPB: and (d) wife perceiving herself operating from a certain power base, 33 denoted W:WPB. Thus, W:HPB Concrete Coercion refers to a wife's (W) perception of her husband operating from a power base (HPB) of Concrete Coercion. The W or H preceding the colon tells whether it is the husband or wife who is the perceiver. The WPB or HPB after the colon tells whether the perception is of the husband or wife using a given power base. In the remainder of this section, predictions of significant (.05 or higher) main effects and interactions associated with different power base perceptions are presented along with their underlying rationale. These hypotheses are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. l. W:HPB and H:WPB Concrete Coercion will produce negative main effects. It was posited that perceptions of one's spouse using concrete coercion would negatively impact the perceiver's marital adjustment regardless of whether they were traditional or egalitarian in marital sex-role orientation. 2. W:HPB and H:HPB Personal Coercion will produce negative main effects and positive interactions. It was assumed that for traditional husbands and wives, perceptions of husbands using personal coercion are incongruent with traditional expectations of husbands relying more on power bases that are concrete rather than personal; thus, augmenting the negative impact of personal coercion on MA. Egalitarian husband and wives' MA was assumed to be negatively impacted by coercive power bases but not as strongly as traditional partner's MA, since personal types of power bases are posited to be more congruent with egalitarian values. Thus, when analyzing husband and wife groups it was expected that this power base would have a strong negative main effect. When examining the interactions for husbands and wives, it was expected that traditional (or low egalitarian) groups would be 34 Table 1. Predicted Hypotheses regarding Husband Power Base Perceptions WIFE MA HUSBAND MA W:HPB H:HPB Power Base Main Effect*Interaction Main Effect Interaction Concrete ** Coercion - None None None Personal Coercion -** +** -** +** Concrete Reward None -** None -** Personal Reward +** +** None +** Positional None -** None -** Reciprocity None None None None Helpless None None None None Familistic None -** None -** Individual None None None None Referent +** None +** None Information None None None None Expert None None None None * Signs in main effect and interaction columns refer to signs of zero-order correlation coefficient. ** Predicted to be significant at .05 level or higher. 35 Table 2. Predicted Hypotheses regarding Wife Power Base Perceptions WIFE MA HUSBAND MA W:WPB H:WPB Power Base Main Effect*Interaction Main Effect Interaction Concrete Coercion None None -** None Personal Coercion None None None None Concrete Reward None +** None +** Personal Reward +** None +** None Positional -** None -** None Reciprocity -** None -** None Helpless None None None None Familistic None -** None -** ' ' it ** ** ** Indiv1dual - + - + Referent +** None +** None Information None None None None Expert None +** None +** * Signs in main effect and interaction columns refer to signs of zero-order correlation coefficient. ** Predicted to be significant at .05 level or higher. 36 strongly negatively impacted while egalitarian groups would be weakly negatively impacted, so that the interaction would be positive (as egalitarianism increases, impact becomes less negative or more positive.) 3. W:HPB and H:HPB Concrete Reward will produce negative interactions. Traditional husbands and wives are assumed to be positively impacted in their MA by perceptions of husbands using this power base because it is congruent with traditional gender-linked and authority-linked expectations of the husband being in a position to reward concretely. Egalitarian husbands and wives are hypothesized to be slightly negatively impacted by these power base perceptions because of their incongruence with expectations shaped by a smaller amount of gender role specialization and a greater valuing of emotional expressiveness rather than concrete instrumental modes of expression. Thus, the opposing trends for traditional and egalitarian partners were posited to “cancel each other out“ so that there would be no main effect. Conversely, when looking at the interactions for these two power base perceptions, the impact changes from positive to slightly negative as egalitarianism increases so that the interactions were predicted to be negative. 4. W:WPB and H:WPB Concrete Reward will produce positive interactions. Perceptions of the wife using concrete reward are posited to be very incongruent with the expectations of traditional husbands and wives because traditional gender-linked expectations are that women do not use such direct means of influence. Because egalitarian couples are not subject to such strong traditional gender—linked expectations, it was posited that these perceptions would have a positive impact on their MA. Thus, no main effect is predicted but the opposing trends were hypothesized to produce positive interactions. 5. W:HPB Personal Reward will produce a positive main effect and interaction; H:HPB Personal Reward will produce a positive interaction. Perceptions of the husband using personal reward are 37 hypothesized to have no effect on traditional husbands and a small positive impact on the MA of traditional wives. The small positive effect for traditional wives was predicted because it was thought that they would positively value their husbands being more emotionally expressive with them. The same perceptions were posited to have a greater positive impact on the MA of egalitarian husbands and wives due to a husband's use of personal reward being more congruent with egalitarian conceptions of gender roles and a greater valuing of emotional expressiveness. Thus, for both husbands and wives, positive interactions are predicted. Only wives, however, are predicted to have a positive main effect since both traditional and egalitarian wives are predicted to be positively impacted. W:WPB and H:WPB Personal Reward will produce positive main effects. Perceptions of the wife using personal reward are posited to have a positive impact on the MA of husbands and wives regardless of their marital sex-role orientation, producing positive main effects for husbands and wives. W:HPB and H:HPB Positional Legitimacy will produce negative interactions. Perceptions of the husband using positional legitimacy are predicted to have no effect on the MA of traditional husbands and wives due to congruence of husband's use of this power base with traditional gender role expectations. Egalitarian husbands and wives, on the other hand, are hypothesized to be negatively impacted because of the incongruence of positional power bases with egalitarian views of equal power relationships. This negative impact is posited to be too weak to produce an overall negative main effect for husbands and wives but large enough to produce negative interactions. 8. W:WPB and H:WPB Positional Legitimacy will produce negative main effects. Perceptions of the wife using positional legitimacy are posited to have a negative impact on both traditional and egalitarian husbands and wives. Traditional wives' use of this type of positional power base was thought to be incongruent with traditional 38 gender role expectations while, for egalitarian husbands and wives, use of this type of positional power base by either spouse is posited to violate egalitarian views of equal power relationships. Thus, no interaction is predicted. Looking at traditional and egalitarian groups as one group is predicted to produce negative main effects. 9. W:WPB and H:WPB Reciprocity Legitimacy will produce negative main effects. Reciprocity Legitimacy is posited to have a negative relation to MA in general because of the proclivity of individuals to resort to this power base if they feel they are unfairly treated. Perceptions of wives rather than husbands using this power base are posited to have an even greater negative impact on MA of husbands and wives due to this being a stereotypically masculine power base. Thus, a negative main effect is predicted. 10. W:HPB, H:HPB, W:WPB and H:WPB Familistic Legitimacy will produce negative interactions. Perceptions of husband or wives using familistic legitimacy‘are hypothesized to have a weak positive impact on traditional husbands and wives due to a posited tendency that traditional marital partners have a strong family orientation. The same perceptions are predicted to have a weak negative impact on egalitarian husbands and wives because they are posited to be less family-oriented, resulting in negative interactions. 11. W:WPB and H:WPB Individualistic Legitimacy will produce negative main effects and positive interactions. Individualistic Legitimacy in general is posited to be related to lower MA because it is likely to be associated with increased marital conflict. It is also considered somewhat of a masculine power base and more congruent with egalitarian expectations. Perceptions of the wife using this power base then are expected to have a negative impact on both traditional and egalitarian marital partners but a stronger negative impact on traditional spouses because of a stronger tendency for them to view this power base as masculine and value individualistic approaches to power negotiation less. Thus, negative main effects and positive interactions are predicted for husbands and wives because of the decreasing negative impact of these power base perceptions as egalitarianism 39 increases. 12. W:HPB, H:HPB, W:WPB and H:WPB Referent will produce positive main effects. Perceptions of either husband or wife using a referent power base is posited to have a positive impact on the MA of traditional or egalitarian husbands and wives due to the general positive impact on MA associated with referent power and its acceptability as a power base for either gender. 13. W:WPB and H:WPB Expert will produce positive interactions. Perceptions of the wife using an expert power base are predicted to have a negative impact on traditional husbands and wives because of a greater tendency for them to adhere to traditional stereotypes of expert power being masculine and not very appropriate for women. Egalitarian spouses, on the other hand, are not expected to feel strongly about using expert power so that perceptions of wives using this power base are predicted to have a neutral or slightly positive impact on MA. Thus, it is predicted that as egalitarianism increases the impact of these perceptions will change from negative to slightly positive, resulting in positive interactions for husbands and wives. Marital Sex-Role Incongruency The main aim of this part of the study is to assess whether only the magnitude of incongruency between husbands and wives was related to MA or whether the direction of the incongruency played an important role in determining its impact on MA. In other words, does it make a difference in terms of various types of marital adjustment whether the husband is more egalitarian than the wife or vice versa or does it simply depend on the absolute difference between a husband's and wife's marital sex—role orientation? Before discussing the strategy adopted to investigate O 40 this focal question, a couple of incongruency variables used in this study are defined. Marital Sex-Role Incongruency (MSRI) can be operationally defined as either the difference between a Husband's Marital Sex-Role Orientation score (HMSRO) and his wife's score (WMSRO) or the difference between a wife's score and her husband's score as shown below: MSRI = HMSRO - WMSRO or MSRI = WMSRO - HMSRO To obtain a consistent perspective from which to measure Marital Sex-Role Incongruency, the first definition, MSRI a HMSRO - WMSRO was arbitrarily chosen. This type of marital sex-role incongruency score contains information about the direction of incongruency; namely, when scores are positive, then the husband's marital sex-role orientation score is greater than his wife's. Since higher marital sex-role orientation scores reflect greater egalitarianism, positive incongruency scores indicate that the husband is more egalitarian than his wife while negative scores indicate that the wife is more egalitarian than her husband. Marital sex-role incongruency scores derived by subtracting WMSRO from HMSRO are referred to in this study as Husband Egalitarianism—Directed Marital Sex-Role Incongruency scores (HEMI). This is to distinguish it from marital sex-role incongruency scores derived by subtracting HMSRO from WMSRO. Another incongruency variable used in this study is ABHEMI 41 which refers to the absolute value of HEMI scores. Thus, ABHEMI only conveys information about the magnitude of incongruency between a husband's and wife's egalitarianism scores. The strategy for determining the relative importance of magnitude of incongruency by itself and the direction of incongruency in conjunction with magnitude can become clearer by examining a couple of hypothetical relationships between Marital Sex-Role Incongruency (in these cases, HEMI) and marital adjustment. Figure 1 depicts how the relationship between HEMI and MA might look if only the magnitude of incongruency was important in predicting MA. As can be seen from the graph, it makes no difference in terms of MA whether the incongruency is -5 units (wife is 5 units more egalitarian than husband) or +5 units (husband is 5 units more egalitarian than wife): only the absolute magnitude of the incongruency really matters. Figure 2 depicts an example of how the relationship between marital sex-role incongruency and MA might look if the direction of the incongruence was strongly related to predicting MA. In this graph it can be seen that an incongruency of -5 or +5 units will predict quite different MA scores, demonstrating that direction or sign of incongruency plays an important role in the prediction of MA. Keeping these two graphs in mind, if separate regressions of MA were performed on ABHEMI and HEMI, quite different results can be predicted based on whether the 42 '“HEMI Fi ure . H othetical “Ma nitude Onl " Relationshi between HENI ané MAyp 9 Y p Figured 2. Hypothetical I and 43 HEMI "Directional" Relationship between 44 actual relationship between HEMI and MA is more like the one depicted in Figure l or Figure 2. If the relationship more closely resembles the one depicted in Figure 1 when only magnitude is important, one would expect ABHEMI to be more significant and able to account for more MA variance than HEMI. This is because, if the regression is performed on HEMI, the graph of the relationship to the left and right of the vertical axis will essentially “cancel each other out“, reducing the significance of the relationship. On the other hand, if the regression is done on ABHEMI, the graph of the relationship to the left of the vertical axis (with negative incongruency values) becomes transposed to the right of the vertical axis. Pictorially, when only the absolute values of HEMI are used it is like folding the part of the graph to the left of the vertical axis onto the right side. If this is done, it can be seen that the resulting regression line will much better be able to account for the variance in MA and attain a higher level of significance. Thus, if the actual relationship between HEMI and MA resembles that in Figure l, ABHEMI will be more significant and account for a higher proportion of MA variance than HEMI. The more obvious is such a difference between ABHEMI and HEMI, the more one would expect the actual relationship to resemble a “magnitude only“ relationship. A pictorial representation of what happens when MA is regressed on ABHEMI for the relationship in Figure l is depicted in Figure 3. 45 regression line Figure 3. Hypothetical Regression of MA on ABHEMI (Magnitude only) 46 If the relationship is more similar to that shown in Figure 2, the reverse would be expected with HEMI being more significant and able to account for a larger proportion of MA variance than ABHEMI. With this type of relationship it may be seen that using only the absolute values of HEMI (ABHEMI) will result in a graph similar to that depicted in Figure 4. Here, performing a regression on ABHEMI will result in the upper and lower portions of the graph “cancelling each other out“ resulting in a regression line that is nonsignificant, predicting very little of the MA variance. If on the other hand, the regression is done on HEMI, a more accurate and predictive regression line results. Thus, the more direction of incongruence make a difference in the prediction of MA, the more one would expect HEMI to be more significant and able to account for MA variance in comparison to ABHEMI. After the general nature of the HEMI-MA relationship has been determined, more detailed information about the relationship was obtained by examining separate regressions of MA on HEMI when it was less than zero (W—HEMI, denoting that the wife is more egalitarian than the husband) and greater than zero (H-HEMI, denoting that the husband is more egalitarian than the wife). The slopes, R2 change, and significance of regressions on W-HEMI and H-HEMI help to elucidate the slope and strength of the HEMI regression to the left and right of the vertical axis, respectively. The central hypothesis for this part of the study was 47 regression line Figure 4. Hypothetical Regression of MA on ABHEMI (Directional) 48 that the relationship between marital sex-role incongruency and MA was determined primarily by the absolute magnitude of incongruency and not the direction of incongruency; namely, the greater the magnitude of incongruency, the lower would be the MA of the husband, wife, and couple. This general hypothesis led to the following specific predictions based on regression analyses of couple, husband, and wife's marital adjustment on ABHEMI, HEMI, W-HEMI and H-HEMI: l. ABHEMI will be more significant and able to account for MA variance (all three types). 2. ABHEMI will be significantly negatively related to husband, wife, and couple MA. 3. H-HEMI will be significantly negatively related to husband, wife, and couple MA. 4. W-HEMI will be significantly positively related to husband, wife, and couple MA. METHOD Subjects Couples were recruited from the greater Lansing area through direct invitation to participate in the study. Of the 103 couples who agreed to participate, 73 couples returned questionnaire packets. Eighteen of these couples were not included in the final data analysis because either the husband's or wife's questionnaire was incomplete. Of the remaining 55 couples included in the present study, 50.9% were randomly recruited through door-to-door solicitation. The remainder of the sample was drawn from couples attending a meeting of an evangelical Christian organization (20%), couples attending a church service of a local interdenominational evangelical Christian church (18.2%), and couples who were acquaintances of the researcher (10.9%). In terms of the final sample for husbands the mean marital adjustment score on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale was 116.3 with a standard deviation of 11.2 and a range from 78 .to 144. For wives, the mean marital adjustment score was 117.0 with a standard deviation of 15.9 and a range from S9 to 141. In terms of marital sex-role orientation, husbands' mean score on the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale was 143.1 with a standard deviation of 17.5 and a range from 109 to 49 50 188. Wives had a mean score of 145.6, standard deviation of 20.9 and a range from 102 to 189. In terms of marital sex-role incongruency scores, 52.7% of the couples had negative incongruency scores (wife more egalitarian than husband), 41.8% had positive scores (husband more egalitarian than wife), and 5.5% had incongruency scores of zero. The mean incongruency score was -2.4 with a standard deviation of 16.9 and scores ranging from -39 to 35. These statistics indicate that the final sample displayed more than adequate variability in terms of marital adjustment, marital sex-role orientation and marital sex-role incongruency. To check whether there might be significant sociodemographic differences between subgroups of the sample that might influence the results, the random, Christian organization, church, and acquaintance groups were compared statistically along a number of social demographic variables. Using the chi-square statistic, the four subgroups were not found to be significantly different for either husband or wife in terms of age, occupational level, education, religious orientation, student status, and length of present marriage. Differing at a significant level were husband's race (2 a .10, 6 pg). husband's U.S.A. citizenship status (2 = .05, 3 pg). and presence of children in the household (2 = .05, 3 gg). The lambda statistic (symmetric) suggests that the relationships of husband's race and citizenship status to the different subgroups are not very 51 important, with very small improvements in subgroup prediction accuracy of 3.2% for husband's race and 3.1% for citizenship status. Presence of children in household, on the other hand, appears to be a potentially important demographic variable related to subgroups, improving subgroup prediction accuracy by 11.8%. In terms of the entire sample, over 90% of husbands and wives included in the data analysis were Caucasian and U.S. citizens. The average age range for husbands was from 33 to 41 years old. For wives the average age range was 26 to 33 years old. The average range for duration of marriage for these couples was from 6 to 10 years. As a whole, both husbands and wives had a high level of education with 83.6% of the husbands and 70.9% of the wives having received college, graduate, or professional level training. The majority of these subjects, however, were no longer students. For husbands, 49.1% were involved in professional or technical work, 12.7% in managerial, administrative or business-related work, and 7.3% in skilled labor. For wives, 34.5% were involved in professional or technical work, 20% in service or domestic work, and 14.5% in clerical work. Finally, in terms of religious affiliation, about 60% of husbands and wives reported being Protestant. For wives, 14.5% were Catholic and 9.1% had no religious affiliation. For husbands, 12.7% had no religious affiliation and 9.1% were Catholic. 52 Procedure Each member of a marital dyad was asked to separately complete a questionnaire covering the following areas: (a) marital adjustment, (b) marital sex-role orientation, (c) power bases, (d) social desirability response set, (e) demographic information. Subjects were instructed not to discuss or show their spouses their responses to questionnaire items. To help insure spouse confidentiality separate envelopes were provided for spouses to enclose their questionnaires. A postage-paid envelope was provided for couples to return both questionnaires to the researcher. In this way, the researcher was able to keep track of husband-wife pairs without violating their anonymity. Missing data on questionnaires was handled in a number of ways. For the power base section of the questionnaire, if 9 or more of the twelve power base items were not answered, the section was considered incomplete. If 8 or fewer items were left blank, the unanswered power base items were each assigned a rank of “12“ based on the rationale that those items that remained unranked were perceived as occurring at a lower frequency than the ranked items. For the remainder of the questionnaire, with the exception of the demographic section, each section was considered incomplete if over 15% of the items in that section were unanswered. If 15% or less of the items were missing in a given section, these missing items were assigned the modal value of similarly scored items. In certain cases some items were marked ambiguously 53 between two keyed item responses. In these cases, item values were alternately assigned the higher or lower value. Questionnaires were considered incomplete if, after assigning values to missing items in appropriate cases, there remained any unanswered items (with the exception of missing demographic data). If with a given couple, either partner had an incomplete questionnaire, the entire couple was eliminated from the data analysis. Thus, the present study was based only on couples who provided complete husband-wife data sets after missing values had been assigned. Measurement Instruments Marital Adjustment As might be expected for a variable as widely-researched as marital adjustment, a large number of instruments have been used in its measurement. Some general criticisms of marital adjustment instruments were raised by Spanier and Cole (1976). First, a lack of consensus in defining marital adjustment has resulted in a diversity of marital adjustment instruments that often measure different phenomena. Second, most instruments have not undergone adequate testing for reliability and validity. The Locke-Wallace Short Marital Adjustment Scale (Locke & Wallace, 1959), the most widely-used measure of marital adjustment, is a noteable exception in that it was systematically prepared and tested for its psychometric 54 properties. It was found to be reliable having a split-half reliability coefficient of .90 and was able to clearly differentiate between couples who were known to be poorly adjusted and well-adjusted. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), developed by Spanier (1976) was selected as the measure of marital adjustment for this study because it offers improvements over its predecessors in terms of the shortcomings just discussed. Considerable effort has gone into developing a firm conceptual and methodological foundation for the DAS. Conceptually, the instrument is based on a model of marital adjustment that attempts to tap into all the criteria considered important to marital adjustment. Having an instrument based on a broad range of marital adjustment criteria is important in a study such as the present one where marital adjustment needs to be assessed in individuals falling along a range in terms of marital sex-role orientation. This is because as individuals vary in terms of their orientations toward marital sex-roles they might also be expected to vary in terms of the relative importance they assign to various criteria of marital adjustment. If this is true, an instrument relying on only a narrow range of marital adjustment criteria might be biased in terms of being better able to assess individuals falling on one end of the egalitarian-traditional sex-role continuum. Methodologically, a considerable amount of work has gone into developing the DAS and testing its validity and 55 reliability (Spanier, 1976). The 32 scale items evolved from an original pool of approximately 300 items encompassing all items ever used in any scale measuring marital adjustment. From this original pool items were eliminated on the basis of a number of criteria such as duplication, lack of content validity, and inability to discriminate between divorced and married samples at the .001 level of significance. Content validity was established by three judges who evaluated each item in terms of its indicativeness of marital adjustment as defined by Spanier and Cole (1976) and its relevance to relationships of the 1970's. If there was not consensus among the judges that an item met these criteria, the item was eliminated. Criterion-related validity was tested by administering the scale to a married sample of 218 persons and a divorced sample of 94 persons. Using a t-test to examine differences between sample means, for each item the divorced sample differed significantly from the married sample (p < .001). The mean total scale scores for these two groups were also significantly different at the .001 level, providing strong evidence that the scale correlated highly with the external criterion of marital status. Additional evidence for criterion-related validity is provided in another study where Margolin (1981) found that items common to the DAS and Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale were able to discriminate between distressed and non-distressed samples. Construct validity was tested by correlating DAS scores with the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale 56 (1959), the most commonly-used marital adjustment measure. The correlation between these two scales was .86 for the married group and .88 for the divorced group. Factor analysis of the DAS items resulted in the following factor scales: (a) Dyadic Cohesion (the degree to which the couple engages in activities together), (b) Dyadic Consensus (the degree to which the couple agrees on matters of importance to the relationship, (c) Dyadic Satisfaction (the degree to which the couple is satisfied with in it), and (d) Affectional Expression (the degree to which the couple is satisfied with the expression of sex and affection in the relationship). Additional support for the robustness of these four basic dimensions in the DAS was provided in a study by Spanier and Thompson (1982) using a maximum likelihood, confirmatory factor analysis procedure. Sharpley and Cross (1982), however, factor analyzed the DAS items and formed only one underlying “adjustment dimension. Much evidence supports the reliability of the DAS. Using Cronbach's coefficient alpha, the overall reliability of the scale was found to be .96 (Spanier, 1976). In the Spanier and Thomas (1982) study performed on a new sample, the total scale reliability was .91. Sharpley and Cross (1982) found the overall reliability to be .96. In terms of internal consistency reliability, Spanier (1976) reported the following coefficient alphas: Dyadic Satisfaction, .96; and Dyadic Consensus, .90; Dyadic Cohesion, .86; Dyadic Satisfaction, .94; and Affectional Expression, .73. 57 Filsinger and Wilson (cited in Spanier & Filsinger, 1983) reported similar coefficient alphas for husbands and wives, respectively: Dyadic Adjustment, .94, .93; Dyadic Consensus, .91, .88; Dyadic Cohesion, .85, .80; Dyadic Satisfaction, .82, .84; and Affectional Expression, .73, .73. In terms of the actual instrument, the DAS consists of 32 items which may be grouped into the four factor scales previously discussed. Scores may vary theoretically between 0 and 151 with higher scores reflecting higher marital adjustment and lower score reflecting lower marital adjustment. In summary, the DAS was selected in this study as the instrument to measure marital adjustment because of its broad conceptual base, sensitivity to a range of marital adjustment criteria, and its well-established, solid psychometric properties. Moreover, in its relatively short existence it has become one of the most widely-used marital adjustment instruments. Spanier reports having received over 500 requests for permission to use it (Spanier & Filsinger, 1983). Marital Sex-Role Orientation In an earlier section, marital sex-role attitude was defined as a person's beliefs or feelings towards particular aspects of the roles of wife, husband, mother or father while marital sex-role orientation was described as a composite trend along an egalitarian-traditional continuum that reflects a person's many specific marital sex-role 58 attitudes. With these general definitions in mind, an instrument was sought for the present study that would meet a number of requirements. First, the instrument should focus on the domain of conjugal and parental sex-roles rather than, for instance, personality traits. Specifically, it should have items that elicit attitude responses to the following three areas which are based on Peplau's (1983) marital typologies discussed earlier in this paper: (a) authority or decision-making patterns, (b) familial responsibilities '(e.g., housework, childcare, financial support), (c) priorities of husband and wife employment. Second, the instrument should clearly tap into the respondent's personal attitudes towards “what ought to be“ or “what is“ regarding conjugal and parental roles rather than other possible response sets such as “what could be“ or “what society thinks ought to be“. The prescriptive (“what ought to be“) and stereotypical (“what is“) types of marital sex-role attitudes described by Beere (1979), are the response sets of interest in this study because they are thought to tap into attitudes that are more strongly held and more likely to have a noticeable relationship with power bases and marital adjustment. Finally, the instrument should have some evidence supporting its reliability and validity. Though many instruments are available for measuring sex-role stereotypes, sex-role prescriptions and conjugal/parental roles (Beere, 1979), many are not considered appropriate for this study for any of the 59 following reasons: (a) inappropriate domain sampled, (e.g., focusing on personality traits or general male/female sex-roles rather than marital sex-roleS), (b) unbalanced sampling of domain of marital sex-role (e.g., focusing primarily or exclusively on the women's marital roles while neglecting those of men), (c) unbalanced proportion of egalitarian and traditionally-oriented items regarding marital sex-roles, (d) dated items reflecting a traditional bias such as with Dunn's (1960) Marriage Role Expectation Inventory which contains many egalitarian items with a traditional bias (e.g., “In my marriage I expect that it will be equally important that my wife is affectionate and understanding as that she is thrifty and skillful in housekeeping.“), (e) ignored testing for dimensionality assuming that the instrument measures variables that are unidimensional, (f) lacking in data supporting reliability and validity. In light of these considerations, the instrument chosen to measure marital sex-role orientation in this study was the Sex—Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES) developed by Beere, King, Beere, and King (1984). Specifically, two out of five 19-item subscales pertaining to marital roles and parental roles were used. This instrument was selected for a number of reasons. First, it meets the general requirements sought to providing a representative sampling of the domain of conjugal and parent roles along the content areas already discussed. Second, the items are well-balanced in terms of 60 dealing with male and female marital sex-roles and egalitarian and traditional positions. Third, the items are carefully worded so as not to reflect a traditional bias which is common in many instruments of this type. Fourth, items and directions clearly elicit prescriptive or stereotypical response sets from the respondent. Finally, much work has gone into establishing a firm conceptual and psychometric base for the instrument. Beere et at. (1984) provide detailed information concerning construction and testing of their scale. Prior to development of an item pool, they defined the construct to be measured, sex-role egalitarianism, as “an attitude that causes one to respond to another individual independently of the other individual's sex“ (p.564). Next, they carefully delineated the content domains they thought reflected “relevant aspects of an adult's life“ (p. 564) and wound up with five domains or role categories: marital, parental, employment, social-interpersonal, and educational. A pool of 524 items was developed and given to two female and three male psychology graduate students who independently sorted the items into the five content domains. Of these items, only those on which there was a consensus in domain classification between the five judges were retained. A preliminary instrument was formed from this item pool by selecting 40 to 42 of the remaining items for each of the domains. One consideration in selecting these preliminary items 61 was related to a hypothetical phenomenon Beere et a1. (1984) refer to as radical sex—role bias. Radical sex-role bias is defined as the tendency of a nonegalitarian individual to respond to items in a pro-masculine (radical masculine bias or RMB) or pro-feminine manner (radical feminine bias or RFB). The problem with this is that on many of the items, what might seem to be an egalitarian response might also reflect a nonegalitarian response reflecting radical sex-role bias. For example, for the item “male managers are more valuable to an organization than female managers“, “disagree“ might be considered an egalitarian response because an egalitarian individual would probably disagree with making discriminations based on gender. An individual with radical feminine bias, however, might also disagree with this item not on the basis of egalitarian convictions but on the basis of nonegalitarian convictions that female managers are more valuable than male managers. To minimize the effects of RMB and RFB, Beere et a1. decided to balance each of the subscales with equal numbers of RMB and RFB items. By doing this, egalitarian individuals should always have higher scores than RMB or RFB individuals while nonegalitarians with traditional attitudes should have the lowest scores. After subscales were balanced with respect to RMB and RFB items, a 204-item preliminary instrument was administered to 530 subjects comprised primarily of graduate and undergraduate students at Central Michigan University 62 along with some individuals from the local community. The sample consisted of 26% males and 74% females while 78% were never married, 18% were currently married, and 4% were previously married. The range of ages was 18 to 72 although the mean age of respondents was only 23.24 years. Alternate forms of the scale were constructed selecting two subsets of items from each domain. Using the Spearman-Brown formula, it was shown that reducing the total scale by half yielded a scale with an internal consistency of .97. When the Spearman-Brown formula was applied to individual domains the internal consistency estimates were still respectable with the lowest reliability being .85. Finally, items were eliminated that reduced the internal consistency of each domain resulting in 38-item scales. These remaining items were divided into alternate forms so that each alternate form subscale consisted of 19 items. The psychometric properties of the resulting SRES were tested on the following four new samples of respondents: 56 police officers, 59 senior citizens, lll undergraduate students enrolled in psychological classes at Central Michigan University and 141 undergraduate students at a private business college. The total group consisted of 56% males and 44% females, while 69% reported never being married, 17% were currently married, and 14% were previously married. Ages varied from 18 to 87, with a mean age of 30.85 years and standard deviation of 19.43. Reliability for the SRES was found to be acceptable. 63 Using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, internal consistency reliability for the total score was found to be .97 for both forms. For the 19-item subscales the mean reliability was .873 for all five domians on the two forms. Beere et a1. (1984) conclude that, considering the three-to-four week interval between testing periods, the coefficients of stability are acceptable, with total score values of .88 and .91 and an average subscale value of .847. Evidence for parallel forms was found in the .93 correlation between the two alternate forms. Equivalence coefficients averaging .860 for individual subscales suggest that individual domains are parallel as well. Beere et a1. (1984) provide preliminary evidence of the scales validity in a number of ways. They cite a number of studies indicating that women's sex-role attitudes tend to be more egalitarian than men's attitudes. Based on this assertion, they interpret their findings that women scored significantly higher than men on both forms in terms of total score as well as each individual subscale as supporting the validity of the total scale as well as the individual subscales. To further test validity of the SRES, scores for psychology students, business students, police officers and senior citizens were compared. It was hypothesized that psychology students would have higher egalitarian scores than business students and that both student groups would have higher egalitarian scores than the police and senior citizen groups. An overall §.test was 64 performed followed by orthogonal partitioning of the treatment sum of squares. This revealed that both hypotheses were consistently supported for total scores as well as individual domains. Discriminant validity was supported by relatively low correlation coefficients between the Edwards' Social Desirability Scale and the SRES total scores (.17, .09) and subscale scores (ranging from .19 to -.03). They conclude that the SRES is not measuring a general tendency to use a social desirability entirety and as a set of individual subscales has suggesting that marital adjustment scales might be heavily contaminated by respondents' tendencies to distort the assessment of their marriages in the direction of social desirability, a phenomenon they refer to as marital conventionalization. In res (done separately for each form) demonstrates that all five domains load on a single factor. In terms of scoring, each item is answered using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree“ to “strongly disagree“. These five options were assigned a point value ranging from 1 to 5 for each item with higher scores reflecting more egalitarian. The theoretical range for the two subscale instrument is from 38 (extreme traditional marital sex-role orientation) to 190 (extreme egalitarian marital sex-role orientation). Power Bases A 24 item questionnaire on power bases was derived partly from items used in other studies and partly from 65 definitions and examples of power bases provided by Johnson (1976, 1978). The items on personal coercion, expert and referent power were adapted from items in a questionnaire developed by Raven, Centers, and Rodrigues (1975). The items on familistic and individualistic legitimacy were adapted from items developed by Scanzoni (1978). The Questionnaire consists of two parts: The first part asks the respondent to rank order the twelve power base items in terms of likelihood of himself or herself responding to his or her spouse's use of each power base. The second part asks the respondent to rank the twelve power bases in terms of what the respondent thinks is the likelihood of his or her partner responding to him or herself using different power bases. The items used to assess power bases are listed in Table 3. The actual power base questionnaires administered to husbands and wives are included in appendix A. In their study Raven, Centers, and Rodrigues (1975) gathered data on power bases using a ranking procedure similar to the one in this study and a rating procedure where respondents rated the likelihood of responding to each power base. They found that the data gathered by the two procedures was closely parallel. In the power base questionnaires, respondents were instructed to rank power bases from “1“ to “12“ with “1“ representing the most likely power base and “12“ the least likely power base. To lessen confusion regarding the meaning of rank scores, however, the respondent's assigned rank 66 Table 3. Items Used to Assess Power Bases IN GENERAL, WHEN I GO ALONG WITH MY SPOUSE, I DO IT BECAUSE: 1. PERSONAL COERCION ...if I don't, my spouse will not like or admire me as much. 2. CONCRETE REWARD ...then, my spouse will do something that I like in return. 3. POSITIONAL LEGITIMACY ...I ought to comply with my spouse because of her or his position in our family. 4. EXPERT ...my spouse probably knows better than I what is best to do. 5. INFORMATION ...my spouse offers good explanation(s) why it is best to do it his or her way. 6. CONCRETE COERCION ...if I don't, my spouse will do something that I don't like in return. 7. REFERENT ...since we are part of the same family, we should see eye-to-eye on these matters. 8. RECIPROCITY LEGITIMACY ...my spouse does things for me so I ought to do things for my spouse. 9. PERSONAL REWARD ...then, my spouse will like or admire me more. 10. HELPLESS LEGITIMACY ...my spouse really needs my help and support. 11. FAMILISTIC LEGITIMACY ...I ought to do what is best for the entire family. 12. INDIVIDUALISTIC LEGITIMACY ...I ought to do what is in my spouse's own best interests. Note. These items reflect reasons why the respondent goes along with his or her spouse. There are similar power base items which reflect what respondent thinks are reasons the respondent's spouse goes along with him or her. 67 numbers were later transposed so that “12“ represented the most likely power base and “l“ the least likely power base. In this way, higher rank scores represent a higher perceived likelihood of use. Social Desirability Bias For many years the need to control for the effects of a social desirability response set for subjects completing personality inventories has been evident. Edmonds (1967) suggested that social desirability response sets played a similarly important role in biasing the results of marital adjustment instruments, a phenomenon he referred to as “marital conventionalization“. He supported this contention with his finding that the most widely used marital instrument, the Locke-Wallace short scale of marital adjustment had a .63 correlation with his social desirability measure, the Edmond's Marital Conventionalization Scale. Edmonds, Withers, and Dibatista (1972) examined several indicators of conservative orientation that have been reported to have positive associations with marital adjustment (Burgess & Cottrell, 1939), taking into account marital conventionalization. They found that all the conservative indexes which were positively associated with marital adjustment such as traditional family morality, religious activity, ascetic morality, and premarital sexual abstinence became nonsignificantly associated when marital conventionalization was controlled for via partial correlation. They concluded 68 from these results that a truer picture of marital adjustment could be found if marital conventionalization was held constant when studying the relationship between marital adjustment and other variables. A number of researchers have called Edmond's conclusions and even some of his results into question. Murstein and Beck (1972) point out that Edmond's notion of marital conventionalization as simply a contaminant of marital adjustment is based on the assumption that individuals who are happily married tend to perceive their spouses objectively rather than exaggerating their virtues. They raise the question, “What if happily married individuals actually tend to exaggerate their mates' qualities?“ Hansen (1981) extends this argument by suggesting that marital conventionalization might actually tap into something that is functional for and contributes to marital adjustment. Hansen rigorously examined Edmond's Marital Conventionalization Scale (MCS) and the marital conventionalization concept and raised some serious questions regarding the validity of the MCS being a measure of social desirability. First, he reports a relatively weak correlation between the MCS and an independent, well-established measure of social desirability the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). While the correlation of .306 between the two scales is significant, he concludes that it does not come close to 69 the magnitude expected if they were measuring the same concept. Second, he tested what he called the “reverse contamination hypothesis“, namely that marital conventionalization does not so much contaminate marital adjustment as marital adjustment contaminates marital conventionalization. Hansen compared the correlations of marital adjustment (MA) and marital conventionalization (MC) with a number of background variables such as church attendance, number of children, and influence of religion. He found that when MC was held constant, MA correlations with the background variables remained largely significant. When MA, on the other hand, was held constant, all significant correlations between MC and the background variables became nonsignificant. Hansen concluded that this pattern would not occur if MA were not contaminating the MC measure. More generally, he concluded that MC was not a valid measure in that it appeared to be contaminated by MA. Conversely, he also suggests that MC appears to contaminate MA while making a genuine contribution to it as well. What conclusions can be drawn from these mixed reports of marital conventionalization? First, it may be seen that precisely what phenomenon the Edmond's Marital Conventionalization Scale is actually measuring is unclear. Second, although it is unclear what the MCS is precisely measuring, enough evidence exists regarding the effect of marital conventionalization on marital adjustment scores to warrant the inclusion of an instrument measuring marital 70 conventionalization or social desirability to serve as a control for such effects. Given the findings of Edmonds et a1. (1972) regarding the effects of marital conventionalization on conservative indexes, this seems particularly important in the present study because one of its major focuses is on assessing marital adjustment across a broad spectrum of marital couples, some of who might have more traditional, conservative attitudes. Because the concept of marital conventionalization has been questioned so much, the more established construct of social desirability bias was measured in the present study. The instrument selected to measure social desirability was the Marlowe—Crowne Social Desirability Scale (M-C). This instrument was chosen because it is one of the most-used and psychometrically well-established measures of social desirability. The M—C Scale represents a major improvement over another popular measure of social desirability, the Edward's Social Desirability Scale (ESDS) in that it does not have items reflecting pathological content as the Edward's inventory does. Crowne and Marlowe (1964) point out that the problem of having items reflecting pathological content as the ESDS does is that rejection of such items by respondents may be due to a social desirability response set or simply because one is not very pathological. The M-C Scale, rather than being based largely on the MMPI clinical scales as the ESDS, is made up of a balance of culturally acceptable but 71 probably untrue statements and probably true but undesirable statements that have a minimum of pathological or abnormal implications. To test whether the M-C Scale was able to reduce the confounding effect of psychopathological content present in the ESDS, both measures were submitted to ten graduate or faculty level judges for ratings of degree of maladustment implied by socially undesirable responses to items. They found that M-C items mean rating score was near the midpoint of the adjustment scale while the Edward's items mean rating score was significant higher, reflecting a high degree of maladjustment. To construct the M—C Scale a number of personality inventories were consulted for the purpose of developing an item pool. A pool of 50 items was gathered that met the initial criteria of reflecting cultural approval, improbability of being true for almost all people, and having minimal pathological implications. These 50 items were submitted to ten graduate or faculty level judges who were instructed to score each item in the social desirability direction from the perspective of college students. Complete agreement was elicited by 36 items and 90% agreement on 11 items resulting in a 47-item preliminary scale. This preliminary scale was then administered to 76 introductory psychology class students. An item analysis of the results revealed that 33 items discriminated at the .05 level or better between low and high total scores. These 33 items were selected as the actual items for the final form 72 of the M—C scale. With these 33 items, 15 are keyed false and 18 are keyed true in order to minimize the likelihood of an acquiescende interpretation for M-C scores. Reliability of the scale has been established in a couple ways (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). Fifty-seven subjects were administered the scale on two occasions separated by a one-month interval which produced a test-retest correlation of .88. Employing the Kuder-Richardson formula 20, the internal consistency coefficient was found to be .88. Crino, and Svoboda (1983) report consistent findings regarding the M-C scales reliability reporting a test-retest reliability (one month interval) of .86 and internal consistency estimates based on three different administrations of the M-C scale of .70, .77, and .73. Crowne and Marlowe (1964) report on an extensive series of experiments which help to establish the validity of the M-C Scale as a measure of social desirability bias. They report that the M-C scale has been able to significantly differentiate in the predicted directions individuals exhibiting high and low levels of conforming behavior, responsiveness to verbal conditioning, dependence on social sanctions, revealingness and defensiveness on projective test protocols (with mental patients), and attitude changeability. In summary, a considerable amount of research supports the reliability and validity of the M-C scale. Perhaps, because of its well-established psychometric properties, the 73 M-C scale has become the most widely-used social desirability measure at present (Reynolds, 1982). The M-C scale has also been used to assess social desirability bias in a marital adjustment measure, the Locke-Wallace Scale of Marital Adjustment (Hawkins, 1966). Significant but small correlation (.31 for husbands, .37 for wives) between the two instruments were found, leading Hawkins to conclude that social desirability did not significantly contaminate the Locke-Wallace measure of marital adjustment. For all of these reasons--well-established psychometric properties, widespread usage, and prior application to controlling for social desirability in marital adjustment instruments--the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale was the instrument of choice for this study. Specifically, a short form of the original M-C Scale, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale Short Form C (Reynolds, 1982) was used in the present study. It was chosen over the original 33-item version because it is much shorter (13 items), has been found to have adequate reliability and validity, and has been used in a number of research studies since its development. An initial version of the M-C short form was developed by selecting only those items from the original M-C scale with factor loadings of .40 or more. Reynolds chose .40 as the criterion because it has been viewed as the minimum level for a variable to contribute meaningfully to a factor. Internal consistency reliability of this initial short form 74 was increased by adding homogeneous items from the original M-C Scale, chosen on the basis of their item with total scale correlation. Validity of the short form was assessed using product—moment correlation coefficients between different short forms developed and also the original M-C Scale and the Edwards Social Desirability Scale. Furthermore, coefficients of determination (r2) were also calculated. The original M-C Scale and short forms were all found to display relatively normal score distributions in contrast to the Edwards Social Desirability Scale which was quite skewed and restricted in range. The M-C short form C was found to have an acceptable level of reliability with an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .76 based on the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20. Validity of form C was demonstrated via a product-moment correlation coefficient of .93 with the original M-C Scale. Since its recent development Reynold's (1982) M-C short form has already been used to control for social desirability in two published studies. Olson, Camp, and Fuller (1984) report a small but significant correlation (.16) between the M-C short form and a Need for Cognition Scale. Olson and Camp (1984) later used the M—C short form to check for social desirability bias in light measures of curiosity. These studies suggest that Reynold's M-C short form is beginning to be adopted by a number of researchers as a viable, easy-to-administer social desirability measure 75 in place of the larger original M-C scale. In terms of the actual instrument the M-C short form consists of 13 items that are answered true or false. The socially desirable response has been keyed for each item so that the scale can be scored in terms of the number of socially desirable responses given. The higher the score, the stronger is the respondent's social desirability response set. The theoretical range of M-C scores is from 0 to 13. Demographic Information Prior research suggests a number of significant relationships between predictor variables of this study and some demographic variables. Sex-role attitudes have been found to be significantly related to education (Mason, Czajka, & Arber, 1976; Scott 5 Morgan, 1983) and race (Arkoff, Meredith, & Iwahara, 1964; Scanzoni, 1975). Power base usage has been found to have some significant relationships with education, social class, race, and age (Raven, Centers, & Rodrigues, 1975). Because of the potential influence of these sociodemographic variables on the results of the study, demographic information was collected in order to get a better idea of the characteristics of the sample studied. Specifically, information was obtained regarding subjects' sex, race, age, length of marriage, presence or absence of children in the household, educational level, occupational background, and religious affiliation. The questionnaire 76 used to collect this information is included in appendix A. RESULTS Power Bases and Interactions A series of hierarchical regression analyses were performed to analyze the data with husband marital adjustment and wife marital adjustment as the criterion variables. The appropriate predictor variables (husband or wife variables) were entered into the regression equations in the following order: Husband or Wife Social Desirability, Presence of Children in Household, Husband or Wife Marital Sex-Role Orientation (HMSRO or WMSRO), Husband Egalitarianism-Directed Marital Sex-Role Incongruency (HEMI), Power Base, and Power Base-Marital Sex-Role Orientation Interaction. The primary focus of these analyses was on the last two variables of the regression equations, the power base and interaction variables. The covariates preceding these two variables in the regression equations serve as controls to partial out the variance in marital adjustment accounted for by a number of potentially confounding factors such as Social Desirability Response Bias, Marital Sex-Role Incongruency, and Presence of Children in Household. The latter variable, Presence of Children, was entered into the regression equations in order to statistically control for the effect of children on marital adjustment since subgroups of the sample were shown 77 78 to vary significantly on this variable. HMSRO, WMSRO and the power base variables were entered into the regression equations before the interaction term in accordance with Cohen's (1978) assertion that the interaction of two variables is represented by their product after the variance linearly accounted for by each of the constituent terms is partialled out. Of these covariates, the only one with a significant relationship to either husband or wife MA was HEMI which was able to account for 9.1% of the variance in husbands' MA. In fact, these partialled out variables were only able to account for 12.1% of the variance in husbands' MA and 4.7% of the variance in wives' MA. The specific contributions of these variables to predicting husband and wife MA are reported in Table 4. Power base and interaction terms were examined in each of the equations in terms of their correlation coefficient, 32 Change, and the significance of their 3 to enter statistic in order to determine the degree and sign of correlation to MA, the proportion of variance in MA accounted for by the variable over and above the amount of variance explained by the covariates, and the significance of any changes in the amount of variance accounted for by these terms. If any interaction terms' F to enter statistic was at the .50 level of significance or higher they were further analyzed by dividing husbands and wives into traditional and egalitarian groups and performing identical regressions of husband or wife marital adjustment on the 79 Table 4. Multiple Regression Analyses of Husband and Wife Marital Adjustment on Covariates for Total Group, Traditional (Trad.) Groups, and Egalitarian (Egal.) Groups Covariates HUSBAND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT Husband Social Desirability Presence of Child HMSRO HEMI WIFE MARITAL ADJUSTMENT Wife Social Desirability Presence of Child WMSRO HEMI F FOR INCREASE R2 In R2 Change Total Trad. Egal. Total Trad. Egal. Group Group Group Group Group Group 1.61 .49 1.57 .029 .018 .053- .01 .09 .52 .000 .004 .018 .05 .80 .40 .001 .030 .014 5.17* 4.41* .77 .091 .147 .015 1.12 .48 .00 .021 .016 .000 .00 .55 .00 .000 .018 .000 1.23 2.50 .20 .023 .079 .007 .15 .01 2.71 .003 .000 .091 80 appropriate power base for both groups. Assignment of husbands and wives in the sample to traditional or egalitarian groups was done on the basis of whether their Marital Sex-Role Orientation scores fell above or below the mean HMSRO score (143.1) for husbands or mean WMSRO score (145.5) for wives. Prior to each of the power base variables, the same covariates used in the earlier regression equations were entered into the regressions. As with the earlier analyses, only the relationship between HEMI and husband marital adjustment for the traditional husband group was significant. The amounts of variance explained by these variables for traditional and egalitarian husband and wife groups are reported in Table 4. This type of analysis of interaction terms was used to provide more detailed information about statistically significant interactions such as data on the slopes of husband or wife MA regressed on a power base term for traditional and egalitarian groups. These results are summarized in Table 6. The overall picture of the findings does not provide much support for the global hypothesis that, at least generally, power base and power base-marital sex-role orientation phenomena are important enough factors to impact MA at a significant level. Out of 96 possible significant main effects and interactions in the study, only 9 actually reached the .05 level of significance which is not very impressive given that by pure chance one would expect almost 5 significant findings to occur. Support is especially 81 lacking for the significance of the interaction phenomenon to MA with only 3 significant interactions occurring out of 48 tested interactions. For this many significance tests one could expect over 2 significant interactions to occur simply by chance. There is slightly more support for the general importance of the relationship between power base phenomenon and MA, with 6 significant findings occurring out of 48 tested main effects. In summary, the overall findings suggest that, while power base perceptions may be a moderately important factor with the potential to impact MA, the interaction of these perceptions with marital sex-role orientation is, at least generally, not a significant factor related to MA. The overall findings provide very little support for the prediction scheme described earlier which was used to generate hypotheses about the relationship of power bases and their interaction terms to MA. Only two out of 32 predicted significant findings were supported; negative main effects for H:WPB and W:HPB Concrete Coercion. This rate of prediction accuracy is about the same as what one would expect from random probability. Furthermore, there were seven unpredicted significant findings. Thus, the scheme for prediction was not effective in predicting significant findings with regards to the relationships of power bases and interactions to MA. While the overall findings do not indicate that power bases or interactions are generally significant factors 82 related to MA, a few power bases and interactions were significantly related to MA. With respect to Concrete Coercion, perception of the wife using this power base had a significant negative impact on the MA of both husbands and wives. Perceptions of the husband using concrete coercion, on the other hand, only had a significant negative impact on the MA of wives. Helpless Legitimacy was significantly positively related to wives' MA for perceptions of either themselves or their husbands using this power base while husbands' MA was found unrelated to these perceptions. Wives' perceptions of themselves using Positional Legitimacy also had a significant positive impact on their MA. In terms of significant interactions, perceptions of their husbands using Individualistic Legitimacy was found to impact the MA of traditional wives very negatively and egalitarian wives very positively. For husbands, perceptions of their wives using Personal Coercion or themselves using Reciprocity Legitimacy were found to impact their MA negatively if they were more traditional and positively if they were more egalitarian. These significant findings are reported in greater detail in the remainder of this section. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 5. HPB and WPB Concrete Coercion W:HPB Concrete Coercion was negatively correlated with wife MA at the .05 level, accounting for 14% of the variance. The proportion of variance in wife MA accounted for by this variable is particularly noteworthy when 83 Table 5. Multiple Regression Analyses of Wife or Husband Marital Adjustment on Power Base and Power Base Interaction Variables Power Base F for Zero-order Variable Increase in R2 R2Change R CONCRETE COERCION W:HPB Power Base 8.46** .140 -.376 Interaction 2.56 .041 -.359 H:HPB Power Base .46 .008 -.205 Interaction .62 .011 -.209 W:WPB Power Base 12.74*** .197 -.456 Interaction 1.95 .030 -.433 H:WPB Power Base 5.97“ .095 -.391 Interaction 2.70 .042 -.364 PERSONAL COERCION W:HPB Power Base .85 .016 -.204 Interaction 1.35 .026 -.195 H:HPB Power Base .45 .008 -.l35 Interaction .47 .008 -.124 W:WPB Power Base .05 .001 -.089 Interaction .61 .012 -.096 H:WPB Power Base 1.09 .019 -.l65 Interaction 6.62* .104 -.l36 CONCRETE REWARD W:HPB Power Base 3.96 .071 -.285 Interaction 1.42 .025 -.270 H:HPB Power Base .71 .013 -.l71 Interaction .11 .002 -.157 W:WPB Power Base 1.00 .019 -.188 Interaction .03 .001 -.201 H:WPB Power Base .45 .008 -.l6l Interaction .79 .014 -.166 PERSONAL REWARD W:HPB Power Base 1.30 .025 -.216 Interaction 1.67 .031 -.211 H:HPB Power Base 1.41 .025 .221 Interaction .51 .009 .224 W:WPB Power Base .08 .001 -.043 Interaction .13 .003 -.074 H:WPB Power Base .09 .002 .079 Interaction .67 .012 .084 * 2‘5 .05 ** E g .01; MW 3 5 .001 Table 5 (cont'd.) Power Base Variable POSITIONAL W:HPB Power Base Interaction H:HPB Power Base Interaction W:WPB Power Base Interaction H:WPB Power Base Interaction RECIPROCITY W:HPB Power Base Interaction H:HPB Power Base Interaction W:WPB Power Base Interaction H:WPB Power Base Interaction HELPLESS W:HPB Power Base Interaction H:HPB Power Base Interaction W:WPB Power Base Interaction H:WPB Power Base Interaction FAMILISTIC W:HPB Power Base Interaction H:HPB Power Base Interaction W:WPB Power Base Interaction H:WPB Power Base Interaction 84 F for Increase in R2 2.89 .94 .07 1.53 6.01* .00 .44 .63 1.47 .05 1.10 5.40* 2.23 .08 .14 .09 4.56“ .95 1.62 .18 4.40* .70 .08 .02 .19 .04 1.20 .15 3.65 1.19 .43 .15 RZChange .053 .017 .001 .027 .104 .000 .008 .011 .028 .001 .019 .087 .042 .001 .002 .002 .081 .017 .028 .003 .079 .013 .001 .000 .004 .001 .021 .003 .066 .021 .008 .003 Zero-order R O 253 .234 O 062 .044 .345 .316 -0071 -.089 .057 -.002 -.214 -.166 -.256 -.272 -.O93 -.095 .284 .203 .171 .139 .294 .180 .139 .112 .105 .020 .002 .002 .304 .254 .037 .024 * p‘g .05 85 Table 5 (cont'd.) Power Base F for Zero-order Variable Increase in R2 R2Change R INDIVIDUALISTIC W:HPB Power Base .00 .000 .028 Interaction 6.12* .108 .018 H:HPB Power Base 3.20 .054 .314 Interaction 2.68 .044 .286 W:WPB Power Base .37 .007 .133 Interaction .01 .000 .083 H:WPB Power Base .19 .003 .099 Interaction .97 .017 .101 REFERENT W:HPB Power Base .44 .008 -.004 Interaction .60 .012 -.073 H:HPB Power Base .01 .000 .079 Interaction .88 .016 .067 W:WPB Power Base 2.10 .039 .260 Interaction .43 .008 .203 H:WPB Power Base .15 .003 .049 Interaction .01 .000 .051 INFORMATION W:HPB Power Base .45 .009 .018 Interaction .07 .001 -.045 H:HPB Power Base .52 .009 .086 Interaction .32 .006 .073 W:WPB Power Base 2.41 .045 .226 Interaction 1.42 .026 .132 H:WPB Power Base 2.98 .050 .193 Interaction .04 .001 .155 EXPERT W:HPB Power Base .21 .004 -.034 Interaction .02 .000 -.070 H:HPB Power Base .03 .000 -.004 Interaction 1.15 .021 -.025 W:WPB Power Base .09 .002 .019 Interaction 1.15 .022 .003 H:WPB Power Base 3.75 .062 .171 Interaction 2.70 .043 .146 * 2‘5 .05 Table 6. Comparison of Regression Lines of Husband or Marital Adjustment on Power 86 Base Variables Wife for Traditional (Trad.) and Egalitarian (Egal.) Husband and Wife Groups F For Power Base Slope For Increase in R2 32 Chénge Variable Trad. Egal. Trad. Egal. Trad: Egal. CONCRETE COERCION b b W:HPB -.578 -.639 13.66 10.62 .305 .262 H:HPB +.130 -.347 .37 3.14 .013 .104 W:WPB -.438 -.583 5.92: 8.53b .164 .223 H:WPB -.486 -.083 7.52 .15 .197 .006 PERSONAL COERCION a W:HPB -.014 -.441 .01 6.20 .000 .174 W:WPB -.l9l +.087 .74c .20 .025 .007 H:WPB -.621 +.l72 18.80 .77 .360 .028 CONCRETE REWARD W:HPB -.324 -.038 3.29 .04 .100 .001 H:WPB +.130 -.390 .40 4.44a .014 .141 PERSONAL REWARD W:HPB -.153 -.405 .67 4.09a .022 .123 H:HPB +.011 +.4ll .00 4.57 .000 .144 H:WPB -.086 +.344 .20 2.72 .007 .091 POSITIONAL W:HPB +.256 -.164 1.77 .70 .056 .024 H:HPB +.248 -.202 1.55 1.04 .050 .037 H:WPB +.095 -.328 .23 2.64 .008 .089 a 2‘5 .05; b p 5 .01; C p g .001 Table 6 (cont'd.) 87 E For Power Base Slope For Increase in R2 _R2 Change Variable Trad. Egal. Trad. Egal. Trad. Egal. RECIPROCITY H:HPB -.372 +.114 2.44 .26 .077 .010 W:WPB +.093 -.256 .23 1.77 .008 .058 HELPLESS W:HPB +.365 +.337 3.52 3.19 .106 .099 H:HPB +.049 +.168 .05 .58 .002 .021 W:WPB +.341 +.229 3.49 1.50 .105 .049 FAMILISTIC W: WPB +.117 +.195 .34 .99 .011 .033 INDIVIDUALISTIC a W:HPB -.417 +.550 5.83 12.05 .162 .286 H:HPB +.362 +.177 3.10 .71 .095 .026 H:WPB -.063 +.378 .11 4.14 .004 .132 REFERENT W:HPB -.022 +.080 .01 .13 .000 .004 H:HPB +.041 -.057 .04 .07 .001 .003 W:WPB +.272 +.087 1.72 .14 .055 .005 INFORMATION W:WPB +.343 -.178 3.86 .84 .114 .028 EXPERT H:HPB +.024 -.158 .01 .63 .000 .023 H:WPB +.263 -.023 1.76 .01 .057 .000 a 2‘5 .05; b 2 g .01; C E g .001 88 contrasted with HzflPB Concrete Coercion which only accounted for less than 1% of the variance in husband MA. These results which were consistent with the predicted negative main effect indicate that when wives perceive that their husbands frequently use concrete coercion ("I go along with my husband because, if I don't, he will do something I don't like in return.') there is a strong tendency for their MA to be lower. In contrast, when husbands perceive that they frequently operate from a concrete coercive power base ("My wife goes along with me because if she doesn't, she thinks I will do something she doesn't like in return.'), their MA is largely unaffected. Perceptions of the wife using a power base of concrete coercion were significantly negatively correlated with the MA of wives and husbands. W:WPB Concrete Coercion had a very significant (pg.001), negative relationship with wife MA which accounted for 19.7% of additional variance in the regression equation. There was a less strong but significant (p$.05) negative main effect for H:WPB Concrete Coercion which accounted for 9.5% of the variance in husband MA. These findings indicate that when wives perceive that they frequently use concrete coercion (“My husband goes along with me because he thinks if he doesn't, I will do something he doesn't like in return.'), there is a strong tendency for their MA to be lower, regardless of their marital sex-role orientation. This strong significant negative main effect for W:WPB Concrete Coercion was not .4— 89 predicted. When husbands perceive that their wives use concrete coercion (”I go along with my wife because if I don't, she will do something I don't like in return.'), their MA is likely to be lower as well, though the negative relationship is not as strong as with wives. The significant negative main effect for H:WPB Concrete Coercion was predicted. In summary, the analyses of concrete coercive power bases indicate that, for wives, perceiving that their husbands use concrete coercion has a strong negative impact on their MA while, for husbands, perceiving themselves as using this type of power base has little relationship with their MA. Perceptions of the wife using concrete coercion has a negative impact on both husbands and wives, though the negative relationship is stronger for wives. H:WPB Personal Coercion The interaction term for H:WPB Personal Coercion was negative (5 = -.136) and significant at the .05 level, accounting for over 10% of the variance in husband MA. The regression analyses of the traditional and egalitarian husband groups elucidated the nature of this interaction. For egalitarian husbands, perceiving their wives using personal coercion only had a slightly positive (slope = .172) nonsignificant relationship to their MA, accounting for only 2.8% of the variance. The MA of traditional husbands, however, had a very strong, significant (pg.001), negative (slope = -.621) relationship with these power base 90 perceptions, accounting for 36% of the MA variance in this group. Thus, traditional husbands are likely to be strongly negatively impacted in terms of their MA when they perceive that their wives frequently use personal coercion (“I go along with my wife because, if I don't, she will not like or admire me as much.'). Egalitarian husbands, in contrast, are relatively unaffected by such perceptions. W:WPB Positional Legitimacy A significant positive main effect occurred for W:WPB Positional Legitimacy (£?.345, p 5.05) which accounted for 10.4% of the wife MA variance. The significant positive main effect is particularly noteworthy because it is opposite the significant negative main effect predicted. Thus, when wives perceive that they frequently use positional legitimacy (”My husband goes along with me because he thinks he ought to comply because of my position in the family.'), their MA tends to be positively impacted regardless of their marital sex-role orientation. H:HPB Reciprocity Legitimacy The interaction term for H:HPB Reciprocity Legitimacy was significantly negatively correlated with husband MA at the .05 level, accounting for 8.7% of the variance. Regression analysis of the traditional and egalitarian husband groups revealed that, for traditional husbands, there was a moderate negative relationship (slopes-.372, % variance=7.7%) while, for egalitarian husbands, a moderate positive relationship existed (slope=.114, % variance=10%). 91 While neither of these relationships was significant on its own, when the trends of two groups are accounted for at the same time the interaction becomes significant. These results indicate that when husbands perceive that they frequently use reciprocity legitimacy ("My wife goes along with me because she thinks that I do things for her, so she ought to do things for me.”), their MA is likely to be lower if they are traditional and somewhat higher if they are egalitarian. This significant interaction was not predicted. HPB and WPB Helpless Legitimacy W:HPB Helpless Legitimacy was significantly positively correlated with wife MA (58.284, p 5.05), accounting for 8.1% of the variance; that is, wives' perceptions of their husbands using helpless legitimacy (“I go along with my husband because he needs my help and support.') are positively related to their MA. There was also a significant main effect for W:WPB Helpless Legitimacy (53.294, p 5.05) that accounted for 7.9% of the variance, indicating that wives' perceptions of themselves using helpless legitimacy ("My husband goes along with me because he thinks I really need his help and support.') are positively related to their MA as well. Both of these findings were unpredicted and noteworthy, given that husbands were relatively unaffected by their perceptions of their wives or themselves using helpless legitimacy, with neither power base perception able to account for more than 2.8% of the variance in husband MA. In summary, these results indicate that the wife's 92 perceptions of her husbands or herself using helpless legitimacy have a positive impact on her MA while the husbands's perceptions of himself or his wife using this power base has little impact on his MA. HPB Individualistic Legitimacy Regression analysis of W:HPB Individualistic Legitimacy did not yield any main effect with this power base accounting for 0% of- the variance in wife MA. The interaction, however, was positive (£=.018) and significant at the .05 level, accounting for 10.8% of the variance. Regression analysis of the traditional and egalitarian wife groups revealed that for these two' groups the relationships 3 between this power base perception and wife MA were significant in opposite directions. For traditional wives there was a significant negative relationship (slopes-.417, p 5.05), accounting for 16.2% of the variance in MA in this group. The egalitarian wife group, in contrast, had a significant positive relationship (slope = .550, 2,5 .01): accounting for 28.6% of the MA variance in this group. These findings were only partly supportive of the predictions for this power base. The predicted negative main effect was not found but the predicted significant positive interaction was strongly supported. In summary, when wives perceive that their husbands frequently operate from a power base of individualistic legitimacy ("I go along with my husband because I ought to do what is in his own best interests.”), their MA is very likely to be lower if they are more 93 traditional and higher if they are more egalitarian. Marital Sex-Role Incongruency Regression analyses were performed for three types of marital adjustment criterion variables: couple's average marital adjustment score (CMA), husband's marital adjustment score (HMA), and wife's marital adjustment score (WMA). A separate regression for each of these criterion variables was performed on the following measures of marital sex-role incongruency: (a)the absolute value of the difference between HMSRO and WMSRO scores (ABHEMI), (b)the difference between HMSRO and WMSRO scores (HEMI), (c)the difference between HMSRO and WMSRO scores when the wife is more egalitarian (W-HEMI), (d)the difference between HMSRO and WMSRO scores when the husband is more egalitarian (H-HEMI). Before entering these incongruency variables into the regression equations, a number of predictor variables were entered to control for possible confounding effects. These covariates, cumulatively, accounted for only a very small proportion of the MA variance for couples, husbands, and wives as is shown in Table 7. The overall findings from this part of the study provide strong evidence disconfirming the central hypothesis that the relationship between marital sex-role incongruency and MA is primarily a function of the absolute magnitude of incongruency. HEMI was significantly positively correlated to husband, wife, and couple MA in contrast to 94 Table 7. Multiple Regression Analyses of CMA, HMA, and WMA on Covariates and Incongruency Variables Predictor F for BETA Variable Increase in R2 Change (slope) 32 CMA HMA WMA CMA HMA WMA CMA HMA WMA COVARIATES HSD .67 .76 -- .011 .013 --- —-- --- --- WSD .12 -- 025 0022 --- 0004 --- --- --- CHILD .41 049 .23 .007 .008 .004 --- --- “- INCONGRUENCY ABHEMI .68 .10 1.52 .012 .002 .026 -.110 -.042 -.161 HEMI 8.04b 12.29°4.75a .123 .174 .076 .374 .441 .284 W-HEMI 1.86 1056 1036 .062 0052 0046 .259 0234 0215 H-HEMI .50 4.13 .03 .019 .121 .001 .151 .363 .040 Note: HSD a Husband Social Desirability; W30 8 Wife Social Desirability; CHILD = Presence of Child in Household a 2 < .05; b 2 < .01; c 2 5 .001 95 nonsignificant relationship for ABHEMI. These findings indicate that direction of incongruency plays a very important role in determining the impact of marital sex-role incongruency on MA; namely, the greater the incongruency is in the direction of the wife being relatively more egalitarian than the husband, the more negative is its impact on MA. Conversely, the greater the incongruency is in the direction of the husband being more egalitarian than the wife, the more positive is its impact on MA. Regression analyses on W-HEMI and H-HEMI did not reveal noteworthy differences in the regression lines; thus, whether the wife is more egalitarian than the husband or the husband is more egalitarian than the wife does not seem to significantly alter the positive relationship between HEMI and MA. These results are reported in greater detail in the remainder of this section. The findings are summarized in Table 7. ABHEMI VS. HEMI For all three of the marital adjustment criterion variables, HEMI was significantly positively correlated to MA while the correlation with ABHEMI was very nonsignificant. These results are exactly opposite of the predictions for HEMI and ABHEMI. The differences between HEMI and ABHEMI were most pronounced for the regression analysis of husband MA. For this analysis, HEMI was significant at the .001 level, accounting for 17.4% of the variance. In sharp contrast, ABHEMI was nonsignificant, accounting for only .2% of the variance. The wife MA 96 regression analysis produced similar results, though less pronounced. HEMI was significant at the .05 level, explaining 7.6% of the variance in wife MA, while ABHEMI was nonsignificant, accounting for 2.6% of the variance. As might be expected, the couple MA regression analysis, based on the average of husband and wife MA scores, yielded differences between HEMI and ABHEMI that were less pronounced than those for husband MA but greater than those for wife MA. HEMI was significant at the .01 level and accounted for 12.3% of the MA variance among couples. ABHEMI was nonsignificant and explained only 1.2% of the variance. Together, the significant differences between HEMI and ABHEMI for the three criterion variables provide strong evidence that HEMI is a better predictor of marital adjustment than ABHEMI and that the actual relationship between HEMI and the various MA criterion variables more closely resembles the hypothetical one depicted in Figure 2 rather than Figure 1. Furthermore, these results point out that the relationship between marital adjustment and marital sex-role incongruency cannot be explained as simply a function of the absolute magnitude of incongruency in marital sex-role orientation between husbands and wives. The direction of incongruence, whether the husband is more egalitarian than the wife or vice versa, is implicated as an important factor in determining the relationship between marital sex—role incongruency and marital adjustment. These findings provide strong disconfirmation of the hypothesis 97 that magnitude of incongruence without reference to direction is significantly related to marital adjustment. Looking at the results in greater detail, it may be seen that the importance of the direction of incongruence for predicting marital adjustment is greatest for husbands, then couples, and, finally, wives. The proportion of MA variance that HEMI accounts for husbands, couples, and wives is, respectively, 17.4%, 12.3%, and 7.6%. These results provide strong disconfirmation of the hypothesis that the direction of incongruency does not make much difference in predicting MA from incongruency. W-HEMI vs. H-HEMI For all these MA criterion variables, the slopes for HEMI, W-HEMI, and H-HEMI were positive, pointing out a general trend: the more the incongruency was oriented in the direction of the husband being more egalitarian relative to the wife, the greater is the marital adjustment of husbands, couples, and wives. Conversely, the more the incongruency was in the direction of the wife being more egalitarian relative to her husband, the lower the marital adjustment would be for husbands, wives, and couples. Thus, greater incongruency can be either positively or negatively related to marital adjustment depending on whether the husband or wife is more egalitarian in contrast to the prediction that incongruency would be significantly negatively related to MA regardless of its direction. Differences in the slopes of the W-HEMI and H-HEMI regression lines were not great for 98 any of the three MA criterion variables, with all of them being positive. Thus, regardless of whether the wife was more egalitarian than the husband or vice versa, the degree of egalitarianism of husbands' relative to their wives' was positively related husband, wife, and couple MA. DISCUSSION Because of the volume of findings generated by this study the results will be discussed in six major sections. First, the significant main effects for power base perceptions will be the focus of interpretation. Second, the interaction of these perceptions with husband or wife marital sex—role orientation will be examined at a global and more specific level. Third, the accuracy of the prediction scheme will be discussed. Fourth, some of the research and clinical implications of these power base and interaction findings will be presented. Fifth, the results and implications of the marital sex-role incongruency analysis will be discussed. Finally, some concluding remarks will be made in terms of overall conclusions that can be drawn from the study, limitations in the study, and recommendations for future research. Significant main effects and interactions found in the study are summarized in Table 8. Power Base Main Effects The general findings offer some support for the hypothesis that power base perceptions are an important factor related to MA. While the majority of these perceptions were not significantly related to MA, a number 99 100 Table 8. Significant Findings for Husbands and Wives (Traditional, Egalitarian, and General) HUSBAND WIFE Traditional Egalitarian Traditional Egalitarian WPB Concrete* WPB Concrete ------- Coercion (-)**-------- ---------Coercion (-)-------- HPB Concrete -------- Coercion (-)--------- WPB Personal??? (-) Coercion (+) ----- WPB Positional (+)------ (-) HPB Individual (+) ------ WPB Helpless (+)------- ------ HPB Helpless (+)------- (-) HPB Reciprocity (+) * Dotted line denotes significant main effect applying to ' both traditional and egalitarian groups. ** Signs in parentheses denotes positive or negative relationship of power base perception with marital adjustment. *** Absence of dotted line denotes significant interaction. 101 of perceptions of which partner was using a particular type of power base had a significant impact on the MA of husbands or wives. Perceptions of one's spouse using concrete coercion had a significant negative impact on the MA of both husbands and wives. This finding is consistent with earlier research which indicated that coercion was negatively related with MA (Osmond & Martin, 1978). Of particular interest is the very strong negative impact (2‘5 .001) that wives' perceptions of themselves using concrete coercion had on their own MA. This power base perception had an even stronger negative impact on wife MA than wives' perceptions of their husbands using concrete coercion. Husbands, in contrast, were relatively unaffected in their MA by perceptions of themselves using concrete coercion. One possible reason why wives might be so negatively impacted by perceptions of themselves using concrete coercion is that it is a very masculine stereotyped power base and, therefore, very incongruent with predominant gender role expectations for women. This incongruence with gender role expectations could lead to a decrease in a wife's MA through her own experiencing of cognitive dissonance or through extra negative treatment by others, especially her husband, in response to her behavior which may be viewed as very inappropriate. Perceptions of positional legitimacy, in general, were negatively related to the MA of egalitarian husbands and wives and positively related to the MA of traditional 102 husbands and wives, with the exception of wives' perceptions of themselves using this power base. Wives' perceptions of themselves using positional legitimacy had a significant positive impact on their MA. In terms of the general trend, the negative relationship between positional legitimacy and the MA of egalitarian husbands and wives (with the exception already mentioned) might be due to this type of power base, which stresses position, roles, and authority in the family, being incongruent with egalitarian ideals which stress equal power relationships and deemphasize gender role specialization. The positive relation of perceived use of this power base and MA with traditional husbands and wives might be explained using similar logic. Traditional husbands and wives are more likely to subscribe to the idea that there are gender roles and positions in the family applicable to husbands or wives. Consequently, perceived use of this power base would be expected to be more congruent with traditional expections, thereby resulting in higher MA among traditional husbands and wives. The exception to this trend is the higher MA present in egalitarian wives, perceiving themselves frequently using a power base of positional legitimacy. It is hypothesized that egalitarian wives using this power base are positively rather than negatively impacted because of a strong anti-traditional stance against male dominance. It is posited that there may be a tendency among egalitarian wives 103 to react positively to being treated with deference because of their family position because it is an example of role reversal and an indication that the male dominance pattern is not strong in the marriage. Thus, it is hypothesized that the positive relationships between traditional and egalitarian wives' perceptions of themselves using positional legitimacy and their MA combine to yield a significant positive main effect. Perceptions of either husband or wife using helpless legitimacy had significant positive relationships with the MA of wives but not husbands. The positive impact of these perceptions on the MA of wives is hypothesized to be linked to gender-role stereotypes which limit many men in terms of the degree of emotional expressivity they feel comfortable with. Husbands that respond to their wives using helpless legitimacy might be more nurturant while those husbands using helpless legitimacy might be more vulnerable--qualities of emotional expressiveness that wives may especially value in their husbands because they may be relatively less common characteristics among men. Interaction of Power Bases with Marital Sex-Role Orientation The overall results of the regression analyses of interaction terms suggest that, as a general phenomenon, the interaction of power base perceptions with marital sex-role orientation was not important in terms of its relation to 104 MA. With regard to the general nonsignificant findings associated with the interactions, a possible explanation considered was that while this type of interaction phenomenon was not powerful enough to make a significant impact on MA at the .05 level, it might still exert an impact on MA at a less significant level. If this were true, one would expect that as the criterion for significance was lowered, the rate of significant findings would increase relative to the base rate expected from random probability. When the level of significance was lowered from .05 to .10 this was not found to be the case. In fact, reducing the criterion for significance to the .10 level yielded no additional significant interactions, reducing the rate of significant findings relative to the random possibility base rate even more. Thus, the results provide fairly strong evidence that, even if the interaction of power base perceptions with marital sex-role orientation does influence MA, it is not at a significant or broad enough level to be considered an important factor generally related to MA. Just because marital sex-role orientation does not play an important role in moderating the relationship between MA and most of the power base perception measured in this study does not mean it is not an important factor to investigate in relation to power bases and MA. In fact, the three significant interactions that did occur highlight a few key areas that shed some interesting light on the role marital sex—role orientation may play in the marital adjustment 105 process, particularly, what might be some of the important differences between the ways traditional and egalitarian husbands or wives are affected by certain key power base perceptions. The three types of power base perceptions that stood out as being key areas of investigation were husbands' perceptions of their wives using personal coercion, wives' perceptions of their husbands using individualistic legitimacy and husbands' perceptions of themselves using reciprocity legitimacy. Perceptions of the wife using personal coercion had a very negative impact on the MA of traditional husbands while having very little impact on the MA of egalitarian husbands. The very strong negative reaction of traditional husbands to their wives using personal coercion is even more noteworthy given that it exceeds their negative reaction to wives using cocrete coercion--a more overtly challenging power base which, at first glance, might appear to be more incongruent with traditional norms of husband-dominant authority patterns. One possible reason for this difference might be that for- the traditional husband, perceptions of himself “going along with his wife because of the threat of her not liking or admiring him as much" may be very incongruent with traditional expectations of what it means to be a male or a husband. With stereotypic traditional sex-role norms restricting the range of emotional expressiveness acceptable for males, it could be that traditional husbands feel that they are not supposed to be so emotionally sensitive or 106 dependent as to be strongly affected by their wives' liking or approval. Perceptions of such emotional dependence might be interpreted by some traditional husbands as a sign of weakness and a threat to their masculine identities. Furthermore, use of this power base by their wives might be perceived by them as even more aggressive and 'underhanded' than if their wives used concrete coercion since it exploits their “Achilles heel“. Thus, the incongruence of perceptions of their wives Iusing personal coercion to traditional husband's limited range of acceptable emotional expressivity and sensitivity is proposed to be the primary factor underlying their extremely negative reaction to this power base perception. On the other hand, egalitarian husbands, because of norms which run counter to traditional sex-role norms on emotional expressivity, would not be expected to be impacted very much by perceptions of their wives using personal coercion, as was the case. A very significant interaction was found for wives when they perceived that their husbands frequently relied on an individualistic power base. The relation of this perception to wife MA was very negative for traditional wives and very positive for egalitarian wives. One possible explanation for these significant opposing tendencies is that, generally, the reasons and motivations for doing what is “in the husband's own best interests” might be very different for traditional and egalitarian wives because of different expectations of the wife's role. For traditional wives, 107 being in a submissive, 'helpmate' role and doing what is in ”her husband's best interests" may be a central aspect of what their husbands expect of them and what they expect of themselves. With such powerful expectations associated with a stereotypical traditional outlook, low MA traditional wives may tend to do what is in the best interests of their husbands more out of guilt or obligation than a genuine desire to look after their husbands' welfare. It is also possible that there may be a tendency among traditional husbands that frequently use this power base to abuse the authority they derive from a shared traditional belief system so that the question of doing what is in one's partner's best interests becomes rather one-sided in favor of the husband. Interestingly, when traditional husbands perceive that they frequently use individualistic legitimacy, their MA is impacted in a positive direction at the .10 level of significance. These findings suggest that the exploitation of an individualistic power base in favor of the husband may explain why the same power base perceptions are significantly negatively related to traditional wives' MA and positively related to traditional husbands' MA. Egalitarian wives that report doing what is in their husbands' best interests, on the other hand, may tend to be motivated more out of a genuine desire to seek their husbands' welfare rather than guilt or obligation because there is no strong sense of obligation to be the husbands' 108 helpmate within a stereotypical egalitarian ideology. It is posited that marital partners that report frequently seeking what is in the best interests of their spouses are more likely to be the ones that are involved in a fulfilling, healthy relationship, with a high degree of marital adjustment. Thus, for egalitarian wives one might expect higher MA among those who report that their husbands use an individualistic power base. The moderately positive relationship (p < .10) between egalitarian husbands' MA and their perceptions of their wives using an individualistic power base suggests that a similar dynamic may be working with egalitarian husbands reporting this power base tending to be genuinely seeking their wives' welfare. A significant interaction occurred for husbands who perceived that they frequently operated from a base of reciprocity legitimacy. As might be expected, egalitarian husbands were positively impacted while traditional husbands were negatively impacted. This difference is posited to occur because a power base of reciprocity legitimacy, urging your wife to ”go along” because you have done things for her in the past, implies more of an equal-power relationship. Thus, a husband's wife does not comply because he is the authority but because he has "gone along" with her in the past. Perceptions of using such a power base would be expected to be less congruent with stereotypical traditional marital sex-roles leading to lowered MA and more congruent with egalitarian roles leading to increased MA which is 109 consistent with the results obtained. Evaluating the Prediction Scheme Predictions were made for significant main effects and interactions based on the global hypothesis that MA would be determined by the degree of congruency of power base perceptions with traditional and egalitarian norms. With traditional marital sex-role orientation norms were assumed to emphasize gender-role specialization, husband-dominant authority patterns, and restriction of emotional expressiveness by traditional sex-roles. With egalitarian marital sex-role orientation norms were assumed to have less gender-role specialization, more equal power authority patterns, and less limitations by traditional sex-role differences in emotional expressiveness. As was stated earlier, very few of the significant findings predicted from these assumptions were supported. This may be due to a number of factors. Quite likely, part of the overall lack of success in predicting significant relationships could be attributed to the low rate of significant findings for main effects and interactions. In other words, it is difficult to predict significant trends successfully when the phenomenon being predicted generally does not impact MA at a significant level. Beyond this overall low rate of significant findings, the prediction scheme appears to be too simplistic to make accurate predictions. In addition to the possibility that other 110 factors outside of this prediction scheme might be operating, there was not much of a basis to determine the relative importance of factors within the prediction scheme. In conclusion, the lack of success in accurately predicting significant findings indicates that the prediction scheme is not adequate. It does not, however, necessarily disconfirm the global hypothesis that incongruency of power base perceptions with egalitarian or traditional norms is an important factor determining the impact of such perceptions on MA. Implications of Power Base and Interaction Findings The findings from this analysis of power bases and their interactions suggest that, while both factors do not exert a broad, pervasive influence on MA, they are, nonetheless, related to MA in some specific and important ways. Thus, while many power base perceptions do not appear to have a significant relationship with MA, a few stand out as being significant related. Likewise, while in many ways traditional and egalitarian marital partners do not seem to appreciably differ in the way their MA is influenced by power base perceptions, this study demonstrates that they do differ significantly in a few interesting ways. This small group of significant power base perception and interaction effects provide some important clues into areas of important differences between the ways husbands and wives or traditional and egalitarian marital partners are affected by lll certain power base perceptions. The fact that the rate of significant findings for main effects and interactions was not much above what would be expected from purely random results does not disconfirm the potential importance of the significant findings. Since this was an exploratory study, a large number of power base perceptions were examined, not necessarily because all were thought to have a significant relationship to MA, but to achieve a greater breadth in the analysis of qualitative aspects of marital power interaction. Thus, it is not surprising that the majority of main effects and interactions were nonsignificant. On the other hand, given the large number of main effects and interactions tested, it is important to keep in mind that many of the significant findings of this study could simply be a product of random chance. For this reason, replication of these findings would be very helpful in ascertaining their true significance. The significant interactions that were revealed have some important implications for research involving marital sex-role orientation and MA. Previous efforts at investigating the relationship between marital sex—role orientation and MA have not revealed significant differences in the MA of traditional and egalitarian marital partners. (Scanzoni, 1975a, Snyder, 1979) The nonsignificant relationship of marital sex-role orientation to either husband or wife MA found in this study is consistent with these earlier findings. The significant interactions between 112 marital sex-role orientation and power base perceptions, however, demonstrate the value of examining the relationship of marital sex-role orientation to MA not only as an isolated factor but as a moderator of the impact of other variables with important relationships to MA, in this case, power base perceptions. An example of the importance of taking into account the moderating role of marital sex-role orientation is found in the analysis of wives' perceptions of their husbands using individualistic legitimacy. If only the main effect of this power base perception were examined, W:HPB Individualistic Legitimacy accounts for 0% of the variance in wife MA and one could conclude that such power base perceptions were totally unrelated to wife MA. By taking into account the moderating role of marital sex-role orientation, however, one can see that these power base perceptions play a very significant and different role in impacting the MA of traditional and egalitarian-traditional wives being very significantly negatively impacted while egalitarian wives were significantly positively impacted. In terms of clinical implications, at a general level, the significant power base and interaction findings suggest that norms or expectations associated with gender or marital sex-roles may be important factors to consider in trying to better understand why certain power base perceptions impact different people in different ways. While a post-hoc analysis using gender and marital sex-role norms to explain the results cannot be taken as evidence that these norms are 113 indeed important it does suggest that the moderating role of norms on the relationship between power base perceptions and MA warrants further investigation. If gender and marital sex-role norms are important in determining the impact of certain power base perceptions on MA and these norms are closely linked to marital sex-role orientation, this has important clinical implications for treatment approaches for traditional and egalitarian marital partners. Research of this nature could contribute to our understanding of constructive and destructive ways of managing the marital power relationship for husbands and wives, generally, as well as for those who are traditional or egalitarian in orientation. For example, wives, generally appear to be negatively impacted when their husbands or they use concrete coercion but positively impacted when they use positional or helpless legitimacy or their husbands use helpless legitimacy. Husbands, on the other hand, are generally negatively impacted when their wives use concrete coercion. Traditional husbands' MA is negatively impacted by their wives using personal coercion or themselves using reciprocity legitimacy while egalitarian husbands are relatively unaffected. This type of research could also help alert us to recurring problematic areas in the power interactions of traditional, egalitarian, and mixed couples. For instance, findings from this study suggest that an important treatment issue for husbands in general but, particularly, traditional husbands, is the difficulty they 114 have accepting their own emotionality which may be due to strong traditional gender role norms they hold. Traditional husbands' strong negative reactions to their wives' using personal coercion and wives' positive reaction to their husbands' using helpless legitimacy suggest a conflicting dynamic where traditional husbands may not be comfortable with being emotionally expressive while their wives may wish they were more emotionally expressive and vulnerable. Findings about the use of individualistic power in traditional couples suggest that another important treatment issue for traditional couples may be unhealthy attitudes that husbands and wives have toward the traditional male-dominant authority structure; husbands maybe exploitive of their power while their wives assume a helpmate role out of guilt or compulsion. Speculating about more complex dynamics, it would be interesting to see whether traditional couples with husbands that frequently used individualistic legitimacy were also the ones that tended to have wives frequently using reciprocity legitimacy. If this were the case, a recurrent conflictual dynamic might be posited to occur among low MA traditional couples where husbands typically express their aggression towards their wives through exploiting a shared belief system in husband-dominant authority and wives "fought back" by approaching their marriage as an equal-power relationship. While this particular dynamic might not be present among traditional couples, it makes sense that certain 115 characteristic patterns of negotiating power might emerge that were characteristic of traditional or egalitarian couples. This is based on the assumption that a couple's expectations of appropriate power base behavior for husband and wife would shape the type of power interaction that developed in the marriage. Marital Sex-Role Incongruency The results of this aspect of the study provide strong confirmation that the directional nature of marital sex-role incongruency plays an important role in determining the impact of incongruence on marital adjustment. Furthermore, three different regression analyses in HEMI for couples MA, husband MA, and wife MA yielded significant positive relationships; that is, the difference between the husband's and wife's marital sex-role orientation in a given couple was significantly positively related to each of the different measures of marital adjustment. Thus, the more egalitarian the husband was relative to his wife, the more likely his MA, his wife's MA and their average MA as a couple would be higher. These results are somewhat consistent with Bowen and Orthner's (1983) finding that couples with an egalitarian husband and traditional wife had higher MA than couples with a traditional husband and egalitarian wife. One of the questions raised in this study was whether this finding was simply an artifact of the way Bowen and Orthner classified their couples. Instead of using 116 respective median sex-role attitude scores to divide husbands and wives into traditional and egalitarian groups, no classification was necessary since the regression analyses evaluated the relationship of HEMI (HMSRO - WMSRO) to MA as a continuous phenomenon. Since the directional effect between relative husband egalitarianism and MA still was present in this study's regression analyses, it is likely that Bowen and Orthner's finding was not an artifact of their research design. In their study, Bowen and Orthner reported that there was no significant difference in the MA of the egalitarian husband-traditional wife couples and homogeneous couples (those with low or no marital sex-role incongruency). The results in this study indicate not only that egalitarian husband-traditional wife couple's MA can be equal to the MA of homogeneous couples but that, as the husband's degree of egalitarian continues to increase relative to the wife's, MA will continue to increase. Thus, couples with high marital sex-role incongruency may have higher MA than homogeneous couples if the incongruency is in the direction of greater relative husband egalitarianism. Why husbands being more egalitarian than their wives has such a strong positive relationship to marital adjustment is an intriguing question. Bowen and Orthner suggested that traditional husband-egalitarian wife couples might have lower marital adjustment than egalitarian husband-traditional wife couples because their differences are less compatible. For instance, in the area of work roles 117 the traditional husband may feel strongly that his wife should be a full-time homemaker while his egalitarian wife insists that her career is as important as his resulting in irreconciliable differences. An egalitarian husband might feel that his wife's career is as important as his but is more likely to take the position that his wife 233 have a career outside the home if she wants. Thus, even if his traditional wife insists on being a full—time homemaker these differences are probably more compatible and less likely to lead to overt conflict. Another possible reason for the positive impact of greater relative husband egalitarianism on marital adjustment is related to the notion that there may be an important discrepancy between consciously-held egalitarian values and subconsciously-rooted traditional attitudes and behaviors, especially for men. Araji (1977) found that a substantial number of men and women experienced a significant discrepancy between reported egalitarian sex-role attitudes and behavior which were more traditional. It has been found that, on the average, men's sex-role attitudes are less egalitarian than women's attitudes even though both men and women are markedly more egalitarian today than they were in the past (Beere et al., 1984). As a group it appears that men have lagged behind women in terms of a shift in sex-role attitudes towards greater egalitarianism. It is posited that one way this slower movement towards 118 egalitarianism among men might manifest itself is through greater incongruency between reported egalitarian sex-role attitudes and underlying traditional attitudes and behaviors for men. Furthermore, these underlying traditional attitudes and behaviors are hypothesized to be a factor impacting marital adjustment. For instance, a husband may identify himself as being very egalitarian but at a less conscious level may measure himself along a number of deeply engrained traditional 'yardsticks' such as "the husband should be...ta11er than...older than...make more money than...be more educated than...bis wife.” He may genuinely value his wife's career as much as his own but find himself struggling with feelings of inadequacy if his wife is more successful than he is. If this is the case, such a husband might actually be more comfortable and have higher marital adjustment if his wife is less egalitarian rather than just as egalitarian as he is. From this example it may be seen that, if there is a tendency for men to lag behind women in terms of internalizing egalitarian sex-role attitudes, the least stress around the area of marital sex—roles would occur when husbands were more egalitarian than their wives because the husband could maintain his identity as an egalitarian male without having to struggle with challenged underlying traditional attitudes that might be stirred up by a more egalitarian wife. Thus, couples with husbands and wife reporting a similar degree of egalitarianism would be 119 expected to report lower marital adjustment than those with more egalitarian husbands. Couples with wives more egalitarian than their husbands would be expected to have the lowest marital adjustment. Conclusions Since much data has been processed, analyzed, and discussed it will be helpful to summarize the main conclusions drawn from this study. The regression analyses of power bases and their interaction terms, when taken as a whole, do not provide much evidence that perceptions of the qualitative nature of power processes and the interaction of these perceptions with marital sex-role orientation have a broad and significant impact on MA. On the other hand, significant main effects and interactions indicate that power base perceptions and their interactions with marital sex-role orientation do significantly impact MA in some focused and important ways. These findings suggest a number of areas where husbands and wives in general or traditional and egalitarian husbands and wives may differ in terms of the way they are impacted by power base perceptions. Incongruency of power base perceptions with marital sex-role exectations appears to be one of the factors operating to determine the patterns of interaction between power bases and marital sex-role orientation but the phenomenon is too complex to be understood simply through this one factor. The second part of the study on marital sex-role 120 incongruency provided strong support for the importance of direction in determining the impact of incongruency on marital adjustment. In terms of direction, it was found that incongruency in the direction of greater relative husband egalitarianism was significantly positively correlated with marital adjustment. One of the major implications of these findings is that future research involving marital sex-role incongruency should pay more attention to directional aspects of incongruency. A number of limitations of the study should be mentioned. First, with regard to the power base and interaction discussion, it should be kept in mind that the phenomenon focused on was power base perceptions. These perceptions are subjective phenomena, reflecting the attributions of a husband or wife with regards to types of power bases used by self or spouse. These personal attributions do not necessarily correspond with the objective reality of what power bases are actually employed. Second, throughout the study power base perceptions were discussed as though they had an impact on MA. Another major possibility that was not considered is that MA has an impact on the type of power bases that are adopted and perceived. For instance, the negative relationship between wives' MA and their perceptions of using concrete coercion might be explained from the perspective of low MA leading to adoption of concrete coercive power bases--out of frustration or desperation. Third, the sample upon which this study is 121 based was predominantly Caucasian, well-educated, white-collar, and Protestant which limits the generalizability of these findings. Future research in these areas could be improved by gathering more in—depth data by interviewing select couples to see how they interpreted and ranked power base items. The power base instrument could be made shorter and be tested for its psychometric properties. Although it is perfectly appropriate to study subjective phenomena, future research might also focus on seeing how these subjective perceptions about power base might relate to observational measures of power processes. In terms of future directions for research, replication of these findings would be important given the broad-based exploratory nature of this study. Investigation of the causal direction of the MA-power base perception relationship is an area of major importance in interpreting these findings. The significant positive relationship between greater relative husband egalitarianism and marital adjustment merits more in-depth study. Perhaps most important from a clinical perspective, would be continued research aimed at further elucidating constructive and destructive patterns of marital power interactions in couples, generally, as well as those that are, traditional, egalitarian or mixed. The significant findings of the present study suggest that this is a potentially important and fruitful area of inquiry. Finally, it is hoped that 122 future research in this area would be used not to blindly support or condemn traditional or egalitarian value systems but to gain a better understanding of how in marriage these different value systems are expressed in healthy and pathological ways. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Unpublished Questionnaire Materials 123 Cover Letter to Subjects Dear Married Couple: I am a graduate student at Michigan State University conducting a research study examining husbands' and wives' views of the marital relationship. Specifically, it focuses on husbands' and wives' views of their own marriage, the roles of husband, wife, father, and mother, and how each marital partner influences the other. My method involves distributing questionnaires to married couples where both husband and wife agree to complete their questionnaires separately. In order to maintain unbiased results in the study, it is important that wives and husbands participating in the study both agree not to discuss with one another or show each other at any time the questionnaires they have separately filled out. To assist in this study, I would appreciate you and your spouse's cooperation in completing the enclosed questionnaires which should take you less than one hour. Your answers to the questionnaire will be totally anonymous and strictly confidential. After completing your questionnaire, seal it in the envelope it was enclosed in. When you and your spouse each complete your questionnaires, return both of them together in the enclosed prepaid envelope. It is my hope that the results of this questionnaire will contribute to the improvement of interventions aimed at facilitating better marital adjustment among couples. I know your time is very valuable, and I really appreciate you taking the time to complete the questionnaire. Sincerely, Jason T. Li, M.A. P.S. If you would like a summary of the results of this study, you may call me at 355-8045 or send (separately from the questionnaire packet) a short note with your address. 124 Participation Consent Form This research study is designed to examine husbands' and wives' views of the marital relationship. Specifically, it focuses on husbands' and wives' views of their own marriage; the roles of husband, wife, father, and mother; and how each marital partner influences the other. You and your spouse are each asked to separately complete one of the enclosed questionnaires which should take less than one hour. Your answers to the questionnaire will be totally anonymous and strictly confidential, please g9 £22 put your name on the questionnaire. 1. This study has been explained to me. I understand the explanation that has been given and what my participation will involve. 2. I understand that my participation is entirely voluntary and that I am free to stop participating in the testing session at any time without penalty. 3. I understand that the results of my participation will be strictly confidential and that my scores will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, group results of this study will be made available to me upon my request. 4. I am at least 18 years of age. 5. I understand that my participation in the experiment does not guarantee any direct benefits to me. 6. I understand that I can discuss my feelings about my participation in this study with Jason Li (9278 Cherry Lane, E. Lansing, 355-8045). 7. My completion of the following questionnaire is proof of my consent to participate in this research project. 125 Sociodemographic Information For each of the following questions, please check appropriate blank. 1. What is your racial background? Caucasian Oriental Black Hispanic Other (Please specify) 2. Were you born in the United States? Yes No the 3. Which of the following age categories do you fall in? 18 - 25 26 - 33 34 - 41 42 - 49 50 or older 4. How long have you and your present spouse been married? 16 or more years 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 — 15 years 5. Do you have any children of your own currently living in your household? Yes No 6. What is the highest level of education you have completed? Elementary Junior high High school Post high school studies College Graduate or professional 7. In terms of your current religious affiliation, which you identify with most strongly? Catholic Protestant Jewish None Other (please specify) Non-affiliated but consider myself religious 8. What type of work are you primarily involved with? student professional, technical, or similar worker sales worker clerical or similar worker (Skilled) (semiskilled) craftsman, foreman, or similar worker manager, administrator, or business owner machine or transport equipment operator laborer, including farm worker (unskilled) service worker (including domestic helper) 126 Power Base Questionnaire - Wife Form Each of us has our own spontaneous way of viewing or approaching a given situation. When a woman marries she may often find that her husband has his own spontaneous 33y of viewing or approaching a situation that is different from her way. Faced with this situation, she sometimes may choose to 'go along" with her husband, modifying her way of viewing or approaching the situation to be in greater agreement with him. In this section we would like you to examine some of the reasons why you 'go along” with your husband. Below are a list of twelve possible reasons why you might go along with him. After reading through all of the items below, decide which item is most likely to be a reason you would have for going along with your husband and write in a rank number '1' in the blank beside it. Next, decide which item is the second-most-likely reason and give it a rank number ”2'. Continue this process until all twelve items are ranked (i.e., third -most-likely reason = 3, fourth-most-likely reason = 4,...1east likely reason = 12). IN GENERAL, WHEN I GO ALONG WITH MY HUSBAND, I DO IT BECAUSE: ...if I don't, he will not like or admire me as much. ...then, he will do something that I like in return. ...I ought to comply with him because of his position in our family. ...he probably knows better than I what is best to do. ...he offers good explanation(s) why it's best to do it his way. ...if I don't, he will do something that I don't like in return. ...since we are part of the same family, we should see eye-to—eye on these matters. ...he does things for me so I ought to do things for him. ...then, he will like or admire me more. ...he really needs my help and support. ...I ought to do what is best for the entire family. ...I ought to do what is in his own best interests. Please feel free to add any comments about why you go along with your husband in the space below (optional). 127 Wife Form (Cont'd) In this section we would like you to examine some reasons you think your husband has for “going along” with you. Below are a list of twelve possible reasons why he might go along with you. After reading through all of the items below, decide which item is most likely to be a reason he would have for going along with you and write a rank number '1' in the blank beside it. Next, decide which item is the second-most-likely reason and give it a rank number '2'. Continue this process until all twelve items are ranked (i.e., third-most- likely reason a 3, fourth-most-likely reason a 4,...1east likely reason a 12). IN GENERAL, MY HUSBAND GOES ALONG WITH ME BECAUSE HE THINKS: ...if he doesn't, I won't like or admire him as much. ...if he does, I will do something that he likes in return. ...that he ought to comply with me because of my position in our family. ...I probably know better than he what is best to do. ...that I offer good explanation(s) why it's best to do it my way. ...if he doesn't, I will do something he doesn't like in return. ...since we are part of the same family, we should see eye-to-eye on these matters. ...I do things for him so he ought to do things for me. ...if he does, I will like or admire him more. ...I really need his help and support. ...he ought to do what is best for the entire family. ...he ought to do what is in my own best interests. Please feel free to add any comments about why you think your husband goes along with you in the space below (optional). 128 Power Base Questionnaire - Husband Form Each of us has our own spontaneous way of viewing or approaching a given situation. When a man marries he may often find that his wife has her own spontaneous ggy of viewing or approaching a situation that is different from his way. Faced with this situation, he sometimes may choose to 'go along” with his wife, modifying his way of viewing or approaching the situation to be in greater agreement with her. In this section we would like you to examine some of the reasons why you ”go along“ with your wife. Below are a list of twelve possible reasons why you might go along with her. After reading through all of the items below, decide which item is most likely to be a reason you would have for going along with your wife and write in a rank number '1“ in the blank beside it. Next, decide which item is the second-most-likely reason and give it a rank number '2'. Continue this process until all twelve items are ranked (i.e., third -most-likely reason = 3, fourth-most-likely reason = 4,...1east likely reason = 12). IN GENERAL, WHEN I GO ALONG WITH MY WIFE, I DO IT BECAUSE: ...if I don't, she will not like or admire me as much. ...then, she will do something that I like in return. ...I ought to comply with her because of her position in our family. ...she probably knows better than I what is best to do. ...she offers good explanation(s) why it's best to do it her way. ...if I don't, she will do something that I don't like in return. ...since we are part of the same family, we should see eye-to-eye on these matters. ...she does things for me so I ought to do things for her. ...then, she will like or admire me more. ...she really needs my help and support. ...I ought to do what is best for the entire family. ...I ought to do what is in her own best interests. Please feel free to add any comments about why you go along with your wife in the space below (optional). 129 Husband Form (Cont'd) In this section we would like you to examine some reasons you think your wife has for "going along“ with you. Below are a list of twelve possible reasons why she might go along with you. After reading through all of the items below, decide which item is most likely to be a reason she would have for going along with you and write a rank number "1” in the blank beside it. Next, decide which item is the second-most-likely reason and give it a rank number '2'. Continue this process until all twelve items are ranked (i.e., third-most- likely reason a 3, fourth-most-likely reason a 4,...1east likely reason = 12). IN GENERAL, MY WIFE GOES ALONG WITH ME BECAUSE SHE THINKS: ...if she doesn't, I won't like or admire her as much. ...if she does, I will do something that she likes in return. ...that she ought to comply with me because of my position in our family. ...I probably know better than she what is best to do. ...that I offer good explanation(s) why it's best to do it my way. ...if she doesn't, I will do something she doesn't like in return. ...since we are part of the same family, we should see eye-to-eye on these matters. ...if she does, I will like or admire her more. ...I really need her help and support. ...she ought to do what is best for the entire family. ...she ought to do what is in my own best interests. Please feel free to add any comments about why you think your wife goes along with you in the space below (optional). ...I do things for her so she ought to do things for me. APPENDIX B Original Data HRACE or WRACE 130 KEY TO DATA HUSA or WUSA HAGE or WFAGE (race) (U.S. Citizenship) (age) 1 Caucasian l U.S. citizen 1 18-25 years 2 Black 2 Not U.S. citizen 2 26-33 years 3 Oriental 3 34-41 years 4 Hispanic HCHILD or WCHILD 4 42-49 years 5 Other (children at home?) 5 50 or older 1 Yes 2 No HLENGTH or WLENGTH HSTUDENT or WSTUDENT (length of marriage) (student status) HEDUC or WEDUC (education level) 1 0- 2 years 0 Non-student 1 Elementary 2 3- 5 years 1 Current student 2 Junior high 3 6-10 years 3 High school 4 ll-lS years 4 Post high 5 16 or more years school studies 5 College 6 Graduate or professional HREL or WREL HWORK or WWORK (religious orientation)(occupational status) 1 Catholic 1 Professional, technical, or similar 2 Protestant worker 3 Jewish 2 Manager, administrator, or business 4 Non-affiliated but owner consider myself 3 Sales worker religious 4 Clerical or similar worker 5 None 5 Craftsman, foreman, or similar worker 6 Other (skilled) 7 Christian 6 Machine or transport equipment Operator (semiskilled) 7 Laborer, including farm worker (unskilled) HMA or WMA 8 Service worker (including domestic (marital adjustment helper) score) 9 Other HMSRO or WMSRO HSD or WSD (marital sex-role (Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability score) orientation score) MSRI (marital sex-role incongruency score) Note. “H” or 'W' at beginning of different variables denote whether variable applies to husband or wife, respectively. The value ”99' indicates variable not computed due to missing values. 131 KEY TO DATA - POWER BASE VARIABLES Personal Coercion Concrete Reward Positional Legitimacy Expert Information Concrete Coercion Referent Reciprocity Legitimacy Personal Reward Helpless Legitimacy Familistic Legitimacy Individualistic Legitimacy \ocoqmwbwwo—o FJPHH urea: Note. WPB denotes husband perceiving wife using power base;WWPB denotes wife perceiving herself using power base: HPB denotes wife perceiving husband using power base: HHPB denotes husband perceiving himself using power base. Numbers following these abbreviations refer to types of power bases. 132 CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER I HRACE -u— (an: ax—c-as—Nowuwu——owoaw-w-— HHPB waa HHPB I WWPBIZ MSRI d O O O O O HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD WSTUDENT WMA HHPBIO WWPBII HSD CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 2 HRA HUSA t 3 U) 21 o dd“ d I IE ‘01) mm W HHPB HHPB? HHPB I WWPBIZ MSRI mw—rmumN—m-~rmoaur—o~r— N—o—o HRACE HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HgTUDENT HHPBIO WWPBII HSD CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 3 HUSA HLENGTH HREL WRACE WLENGTH WREL HMA WMSRO WPBZ HPB WPBE _d Nd WWNGDWNr—‘de HPB HPB HP89 HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD SSTUDENT ..- N o—WMMN—mew ...— 0.000000 d d U OO‘MDL‘NO‘ dd 0 o o. o o. o d —n W mrfJ—momrN—‘NNOMN—O‘N d d r momNm—wm—oow—mmdw d 133 H9911 12. H9911 H9912 1o. HH991 HH992 h. HH992 1:11:35 8- 1:11:31 1111:. 9 11:11:32 HH999 92 HH991o HH9911 1 . HH9911 HH9912 1o. HSD MSRI 12. figHEENTs or CASEINUMBESSA 4 HLENGTH 23 HCHILD HREL 2. HSTUDENT WRACE 1. WUSA HLENGTH g. HCHILD WREL . WSTUDENT HMA 114. WMA 11910 126- 111:3; H99 1?: H994 H99 11. H99 358 " {$58 HPB? 2: H9910 H99 1 7. H9911 1:21: '1 1111131 HH99 BI HH994 HH99 1o. HH99 W33 ‘“ {3358 HHPB? TI HH9910 HH99 1 . HH9911 HH9912 1 . HSD MSRI - . figHEENTs or CASEINUMBfiBSA 5 HLENGTH 22 HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT WRACE 1. WUSA WLENGTH 4. HCHILD WREL é' WSTUDENT HMA 12 . HMA WMSRO 13;. H991 358’ ° 333% 112:; '1‘ 11:3; H99 112 H99 HPB? 3. H9910 H99 1 1 . H9911 H9912 . HH991 HH992 2. HH992 HH99; . HH994 HH99 10. HH99 111:9 2- 1111:: HHPB? I HH9910 HH99 1 . HH9911 HH9912 . HSD MSRI . fiSNEENTS or CASE‘NUMBESSA 6 HLENGTH 22 HCHILD HREL 2. HSTUDENT WRACE 1. WUSA HLEHGTH 2. WCHILD WREL 2. WSTUDENT HMA 121. WMA —--- o—‘WTNQPN— ~ d d—l rmmwwmuu— 00.00000. d d d d‘ — N wWOMNL—NWMNMo—n—o d d d d O C 0 O O O O O N—n 000°C. \o—mw— HAGE HMSRO dd \DOK‘W—O‘Nd— O O C O C C O O O . c—l N mrm—warnwomwww 000 d‘ d O O O O O O O I O 0 d r Na‘drM-d-KDOS‘Q—‘m-‘tm-‘N d z 3 m x O 0‘ 2:3: 1ro nun carom» I: v u: HPBIZ HHPBZ WWPB HHPBg .IJ HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPB I WWPBIZ MSRI CONTENTS OF CASE HRA d omr—wmrouoodwrm d O O O O O O C O C O O O O I: :3 u: 2: O :0 I I v D N d wmwdomMN—awmooqm—w— I! w W 0 CONTENTS OF CASE NRA WPMHOWWOOmW-‘Mfl-fl 134 HHPB HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD NUMBER 7 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA HHPBIO HHPB!) HSD NUMBER 8 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT d d d d WHM-NKOW—Im-WDN d d wm—awmunmNNOQo——~m—~—-a d N 0000000 wmm—me—omo -'—' O O ugd O dd 0 O O O O O O O C C O C O womranmomn-an: 0°00 ’- KDNOPrM-MWMPPNQ 3N E'N 00000000000 d d d d O O O O O O WO‘MNNHQPNm—‘N—d—OWNN dd dd 0 C O O O O C O O O 135 CONTENTS or CASE NUMBERS 9 HRACE 1. Hu A HLENGTH 2. HCHILD HREL 2. HSTUDENT WRACE 1. WUSA WLENGTH 2. HCHILD ggiL 2. uaIUDENT 199° 1323 19:1 HPB“ 62 H994 111:2; 2' 11:33 H99 32 H99 HPB? 4. H9910 H99 1 12. H9911 11:91; 2- 1111291 111233 4‘ 11:3“ HH99§ 12 HH99§ HH99 11. HH99 HH999 4. HH9910 HH9911 . HH9911 HH9912 . Hso MSRI - . fiR§ZENTS 09 CASEINUMBfiSSA 10 HLENGTH g2 HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT WRACE 1. HUSA WLENGTH g. HCHILD WREL . HSTUDENT HMA 118. 'HHA 3935“ ”° ' 11585 H99 22 H994 H99 12. HPB as: 1- 1:: H99 22 H9910 H99 1 1g. H9911 H9912 . HH991 {35332 ‘“ 1313812. HH99 1Z2 HH99 111:: 1- 1:11:22 HH99 $2 HH9910 HH99 1 1 . HH9911 HH9912 9. H50 MSRI CONTENTS OF CASE HRA I 3 > #0 I 'U a: O O O 0 81: $111! mum: WM JrNW-u—nNWNWOO‘dr-rr-u NUMBER ll . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA O ‘JOWONMO-MWNW N-I—fiN—I O O . 00000. d O O dd dd a w wow-mr~owaxomu--~ 0000000000 d dd d d o dd . C . o o o o O’ o O' o dd d dd m—a ON-‘m-i ”NOdew—WNr—d d ’ —-oaow--—ooa-oxow-woo-no\nr-o~r d d C C C O C C C C . O -l r —a WNW—'W—‘WO‘ WNNO‘N 00000000 HHP88 WWPB NNPB I WWPBIZ MSRI CONTENTS OF CASE NRA CONTENTS OF CASE NRA CONTENTS OF CASE NRA u“ C . O C O O O WNW—«umm—N—WNduN—a— .l ‘ O O O O O O I d dd — O O O O O O O O O O C O O C O O O C O O . mr—dmwo~r~mr~—~N—— dd -" #‘N MWNN—IdN—n—o . C . . . . NUMB 136 WWPBB NNPBIO NWPBII NSD NUMBER 12 . NUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA WPB] ER 13 NUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD NUMBER IA . HUSA NCNILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA MO 0 rmmdNN—maxdqpomax ~_._.~_. 0000000000 dd 0 WWflNN-‘NWd-flo N—I N-I 000.000.000.000 d d Nd-‘NN no. 00000000 r WWW—9* 0000000000 NO‘O-fl U‘IU‘OOU‘NNN womb—«oNNwm-a \n—- -a N NWWOM—WPONNNN—‘U‘lk’ 0.0 d O 0 d M NNNWWH d monouo-o—oawwm T: 1: ‘u ID on 3 m :0 I I 3 1» NO £3: '0‘ mm mm» and I '1, G! on ddd HHPB 1 HWPB12 MSRI CONTENTS OF CASE HRACE u u»— ': 3 r, .—oma d m:w—wrrm——m~om-m—— CONTENTS OF CASE HRA d-‘a‘roo-OMWOU'INth-Im—t—o—n—o—I dN—JNN—g O O I O O HHPBIO HWPB11 HSO CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 15 HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA NPBI O O I t ‘0 1 U D g HHPBIO HHPB11 HSD NUMBER 16 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA I '0 U ((3: '0“ WWW N I ‘U Q d g HHPBIO HWPB11 HSD NUMBER 17 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT .‘d O O O C O O dd r-nmrm—o \D mmmmm—i—‘No—‘N—a—ond O O O O C O O 00.00.. W-‘WNMOI‘U‘I-‘NNNOW [0—0 NH d O O O O 0 did dN—l N—a o o o o. o WHORK dd —'oo~w—o\n\1~—-o 3' ~¢nAo—Anuwwur—~»cmnah-axn-nqoau-uduh- dd PO‘O‘NNOd-‘MM-mr-‘N—OW WM I: 3 U) I 0 mo (I 1rv Gun omrun» HPB12 HHPBZ HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPB 1 HHPB12 MSRI CONTENTS OF CASE HRA d t ‘0 OJ \DNNW—o—wdeOO‘UIOW ‘1 :3 >» dd -u— x»:- :2 'v tn -«0 d-fl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I m I CONTENTS OF CASE HRA 1:: 33 In) I O “IN t V (D d I 'U W WON-‘WWWHWM—‘W-fl 3 m I L0 138 NUMBER 18 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPB1O HHPBII HSD NUMBER 19 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA O‘MNCWKDWONW w d \Dm-WNWO-‘(ht' r—oo-o-—-~ d —l I O O I O O O I O O O O O O 0 d dd dd 0 o. o N \n-a-AANWN—Wwwrrno 00°C dd dd —l O O O 0 O O O I O O O O dd 13’: PWN-‘NO—‘mr-‘dr O‘N U») ware-«omwmooo-Aoow—m—m d d CONTENTS OF CASE HRA I: 3 U! :1 0 av: 1:: '0'0 mm 03M» —1 MrowrNWONdWNON—r—Nrd 1(13: 111V (Dunn N I IE ‘0'!) W0) (DOW 3 In I I —0 CONTENTS OF CASE HRACE HLENGTH HR L 1:: 1‘ 1TB :3 mm m com I O —o m—; I v I dd mwommrwormmwuuaurunnmuum— 23E 1ru nun c: 3 (D I I N d CONTENTS OF CASE HRA I :3 > 05—:- 1:: 1ru nun amnnu. d l0hkuah4hhflvhkphflvomo—mflv—nu :1 'v a: :- .z 2: 'v c: 139 NUMBER 20 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA HPBI I .0 ID i HHPB1O HHPBI1 HSD NUMBER 21 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA I: I D II I'D II wc—o g HHPB1O HHPB11 HSD NUMBER 22 HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT H A :: :£::: :: -u1ru -n canny In ahan 2% \D 00000.. uwwmowdo~mmrmuuuam did dad O O O O O O I O O O O I O O 0 fl- dd wm-u—M—uommu— --- ooooooooooooooooooOooOoo NI 0000 d d \DdO‘NOWOW“ Nd coco. d d d O O O O O O O 0 U1 ' ~Aooavun»—«noxo~uvcx»nu»¢1n—aru»uax» . . . . . . C C C C . C . C d d —l d d” O O O mdnwwww-an—N—mn 00. d 0‘ -«uuL—om-:~4—ano-43-«n-u—avo —l O O O O HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPB I HWPBIZ MSR! CONTENTS OF CASE HRA Noam .dd I 3 > \O-‘O‘O o o o o o o o o o o o HHPBB T33 3353?: W: HHPBIZ . MSRI 9;. CONTENTS OF CASE HRACE HLENGTH HREL t 3 m :0 0 kn £3: '01! on: —-\D wmmwrmr—ao-u—mrd O O O 0 O 3 U! I \0 CONTENTS OF CASE HRA 2:: 31! >wn r are cum—amounntn-tun— O O O O O O (:1: '0‘ ma: WM» 140 HHPB HHPB HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD NUMBER 23 HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD NUMBER 2% . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO HHPBIT HSD NUMBER 25 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD uSTUDENT O‘d‘d r00 dun—l \D d d O C O C O . \DW‘D -«o —o _.I dN—l—fla—i o o. o o o 0 add 0 C O C O O O dd“ NONrOdw—Omo-‘Md 0.000. d —-l -o WNWW N-fi Md 0 HHPB] 4?me to... -‘\D\l mm \D \O NWNWOWN—‘t‘h’ mm \0 000.. d dNa‘mrm-‘Na‘dNde—‘KDWN “N cocoon-90.000 d d d d 0‘ m—dNt'N—O‘N—‘(V‘N 141 HPBB . WPBB HPB? . WPBIO WPB l . HPBII HPBIZ . HHPB] HHPBZ IO. WHPBZ HHPB I. HHPBh HHPB I]. HHPB HHPB g. HHPB HHP88 . HHPB WHPBS 5. HHPBIO HHPB]! 3. HWPBII HHPBIZ g. HSD MSRI '2 . CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 26 HRACE I. HUSA HLENGTH g. HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT WRACE h. WUSA WLENGTH g. HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT HMA 120. WMA HMSRO 123. HPB] WPBZ . HPBZ HPB IO. HPBh WPB 12. HPB HPB I. HPB HPB . HPB HPB? . WPBIO HPB 1 . HPB]! HPBIZ . HHPB] HHPBZ . HHPBZ HHPB . HHPBh HHPB 1 . HHPB HHPB I. HHPB HHPB . HHPB HHPB . HHPBIO HHPB I . HWPBII HHPBIZ 6. HSD MSRI 12. CONTENTS OF CASE N HRACE HLENGTH :: 3 >. - Uhd dd ONNhN—dwoowme—MW—Mn— I :E '01) mm com 3 m :u I CONTENTS OF CASE HRACE UMBER 27 HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD uSTUOENT HHPBIO WNPBII HSD NUMBER 28 HUSA I. HLENGTH h. HCHILD HREL 2. HSTUDENT WRACE I. WUSA HLENGTH h. HCHILD POW-‘WONO 000.00. .—a N dd 1‘ c—l—l twnoxnuv—nmamoaxncur-u—cxu—- 0°00 dm 0 o. wwm—owmdmw-_ a... _._. d O O O O O O Nu—I 0.0000000. N—a 00°00 HAGE WEDUC —l d \DO-ADGN-‘NNm—N d U WON—NONmO‘N-‘WWWW .d d dd d N and d—l n—rrwwdmwwww~or~\nmerr WWW d—l MN ooooooooo dd mmrdmo-MMO‘N#ON O N 142 HSTUDENT HMA CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 29 HRACE HUSA dd dd md deONNNrO-‘ONko PN-fi—tN-I—o dd d d d HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO HHPBII HSD CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 30 E HUSA dd —‘ N: WWNIMM o o o o o MNW—MDW-PW HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD uSTUOENT —o N r~w~wr-wm-~ O mommouommrmmo— dd cud—l d oooooooo d—fl ...OOOOOOCOOOOOO d d—l O “—0 ooooooooooooooOooOoo _o W —a\o~o-ws~a-~a~—«N-—ma- d WNWNW‘W N-- d r MN .0000. ave—0‘» 0°00... \Dd—‘mmer—‘NWO—‘NN un .40hHhCh-tflUNAO—Hrun»OM~hHD d dd d d O O C d dd 0 O O 0 fl 0 O O C C C O 143 HHPB? h. HHPBIO HH93 1 8. HH9311 Hw9312 3. H53 HSRI -1 . fi2§EE"TS 09 CASEINUHBESSA 33 HLENGTH 12 HCHILD HREL 2. HSTUDENT HRACE 1. HUSA HLENGTH 1. HCHILD HREL 2. HSTUDENT H 112. HHA HHSRo 11 . H931 H932 . H932 HPB . HPBh w93 . H93 1:: .3- 1:32 HPB? 21 H9310 H93 1 . H9311 H9312 . HH931 HH932 . HHP32 ww933 . 33931 §2§EENTS or CASEINUMBgfisA 31 HLENGTH g: HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT HRACE 1. HUSA HLENGTH . HCHILD HREL g. HSTUDENT HHA 12 . HHA 393'? ‘33; 11535 H93 122 HPBh 1:1 1:3; H93 A. w93 H9 3. H9310 H93 1 1 . H9311 H9312 . HH931 11:32 - 13:33 HH93 III HH93 HH93 1. HH93 33939 10' “3:310 HH9311 1 I ww9311 ww9312 g. HSD MSRI 2 . figHEENTs or CASE‘NunefifisA 32 HLENGTH g2 HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT HRACE 1. HUSA HLENGTH 5. HCHILD HREL g. HSTUDENT HHA 1g . HHA 1:330 '3 1:3: H93 122 H931 H93 12. H93 113 1- 1:3 HPB? é. HP31o H93 1 1 . H9311 H9312 . HH931 111332 - 13:33 31:3; '31 11:33 HH93 h: Hw93 O odNP-HNONS'OW'I N--' N—0 d d d —_a N —a —o d mo—«uwo-«omoum —'-‘o--‘ oo—«omwrc-oxooonowrm “-i -‘-J 0.0000 0°. 00. o. .00 0‘0 UNI O O O O N "NNN—MN 00000000000000. ‘- U1 0 o o o o o d d O O O —n N o o o o o o o o dd HHPB HHPB NHPBS HHPB]! HHPBIZ MSRI HHPBg d room—woo I d CONTENTS OF CASE NUMB I 3 I? dd 0 O O O O O O O dun—n Nm-M-i—KDWN—‘W-KDMO‘NN-NN— d I IE ‘D'U mm com» d CONTENTS OF CASE NUMB HRA I 3 > 3—3 “—0 rwummeONNmN—oa‘w—w— d E V In S |—3 CONTENTS OF CASE HRACE HLENGTH it: 1133 nun)- ~21 :3 ON Memorandum—- I 'U W 144 HHPB HHPB HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD “"2 ER 4 HUSA 3 HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HPB] HHPBIO HWPBII HSD ER HUSA 35 HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA NUMBER 36 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT MWN oooooo NONOO‘—WdNOOdNO°d—Io—c—t 000.000 mascuaxooomoo—mmmwoo —-—0 -i-- d dd d C O O O C O O O 0 000000.. \oo‘uw .rav—xxn- O O O O # \nom—:xn-uvc>—~4—uray-awn-u—omnnnnvuu dd d N \n—«oc~+~ouu—mao:~—uhqam-ouanhhauuu O O O O O O O O O O O C d 0000000000 HPB HPB HPB HPB I HPBIZ HHPBZ HHPB HHPB d HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPB ] WHPBIZ MSRI Id w~a--wwdnmr CONTENTS OF CASE N (1 ‘0‘0 mu: comm» O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 d HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPB I HHPBIZ MSRI CONTENTS OF CASE HRA HHPB we; | #1::- -l ro-MmN-‘HMONKNmrI‘N-‘NN-d . C C C C . dd 0 C d WOW—INM dedNNNo‘aw-ow—o 3: 1f: 13'!) will 03M» HHPB I WHPBIZ MSRI d 145 HPB WPB WPBIO HPBII HHPB] WWPBZ HHPBh HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD UMBER HUSA 37 HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO HHPB]! HSO NUMBER 38 . HUSA HCHILD , HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 39 HRACE I. HUSA HLENGTH g. WRACE I. HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA dwmmrmm .10 N W—Mwmmowrwo—N-o—awd d d d—l dd 9 o. 0 U ONO‘OW‘P'KADN-MWN 0000.0. d dd “—0 HPB WPB HPB O HHPB HHPB6 WFAGE .—l d \OOOmd-‘WOO‘N-d O o. o d ‘- WO‘WO‘ONO-Ma‘dma‘d-‘om-i U1— d d —a N mud-it'd” omPo-MmrmfN—‘U‘HQ d d d O O O O O O O O I O O VLENGTH HHPB I HHPBIZ MSRI CONTENTS OF CASE HRA £3: 1ru an: c«D—~»amnot~a—u4»\nuaurrmnonan I ‘3 p —0NN 00.... wmnu—rm——@-urm-oam-m~— HHPB I HHPBIZ MSRI d 146 HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA WPB] HPBZ HPBh HPB HPB HPB HPBIO HPBII HHPB] HHPBZ HHPBh WNPB HHPB HHPB HHPBIO HHPBII HSD NUMBER hO . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER h] HRA . HUSA l I i ‘43? 3 13g: 9?- HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA N 0°. w—‘ONNWNOOWNNNNN N dd dd dd ...I d-ud ...o—o d C rOWON-flfl—‘O—‘dm-‘N—ON—i—fiN-d O O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W wmm~mr~ma-m~o-a~ d N 000000. -«o—m—om—nrqa\q-u~ura~b-nh4 Un—nqzn- d d \n-fi \TI-d O‘ CONTENTS OF CASE HRA 147 NUMBER #2 . HUSA CE I HLENGTH g. HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT HRACE I. HUSA NLENGTH g. HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT HMA 107. HMA WMSRO 1h . HPB} 11:32 - 111:1: WPB ? . HPB 11:: - 1:: HPB . NPBIO WPB I . HPB]! HPBIZ 9 . HHPB] 1:11:32 - 1:11:21. HHPB ? . HHPB 1111:: 9- 1111:: HHPB ? . HHPBIO HHPB 1 . HHPBII HWPBIZ ??. HSD MSRI - . CONTENTS OF CASE HRACE NUMBER #3 2 HLENGTH g. HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT HRACE 1. HUSA HLENGTH g. HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT HMA 12%. HMA wnsno 13 . HPB] wPaz 2. HPB HPB 3. HPB “:3 ‘1' 5:33 HPB 12 HPB HPB? 1. HPBIO ups 1 ?. H9311 353313 ° 35535 1.11:: *3 11:13:“ 111123 3’3 1:11:23 HHPB? TI HHPBIO HHPB 1 1o. waa11 wae12 1. HSD MSRI o gagggurs or CASEINUMBSSSA nu HLENGTH 12 HCHILD HREL 1. HSTUDENT HRACE 1. HUSA HLENGTH 1. HCHILD HREL 1. HSTUDENT HMA 10?. HMA {393? ”2' 353% 111:: '1: 111:1 :13 33 11:33 HPB g: HPBIO HPB 1 12. HPBII HPBIZ 11. HHPB] HHPBZ 1. wwpaz _n N m———-m——~w-~r—~m ---—-—- 000000000000. dd Nd . O O C . O . . . O . _a W memO—‘N N—I 0000000000000 d d‘ —l—l u muerN—ww—m—mroa‘r d d O O O O O C C O O C D d dud u (”chaahfifltfidahJfl-dfihhukw» d O‘r-‘GLDNNN 3 U! :0 I U! CONTENTS OF CASE HRA d dd 0 C C C C C C O O O O O O O O O I :E '0? mm com d wo~r--»m—~—-—-~ow-~m—-m— 3 U3 :1 u CONTENTS OF CASE NUMB HRACE HLENGTH HREL I 3 b GIN £3: 1ru nun com I v D N I =§ 111! Will coo-um: d :3: 1ru nun -«o wo—‘ONNmmthNNN-HNN—l 3 (n I I U») 148 HHPBA HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD NUMBER #5 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD ER b6 HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HM HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 57 HRA HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA w m—nm—o—d—IN—‘N-‘mto-N-‘No d u—J d .l id WM~NW~MNO~NN dd d—o—a—o er-ANW 00000000 ooooooOooOoo 00000.. d... Nd 0 0000000000. du—IN—l 00000000.. WPB) —o w \DO‘OWN—I—ND-‘O‘OWN—I—ND—INdN—‘N d dd —0 3' HWONMDN-d-‘UICDrNWNW dd d MW-‘NNN mrcno-ooom 149 HPB 10. HPB as: '- as: HPB? g. WPBIO HPB I . HPB]! 3:32,: was; HHPB I]. HHPBH was ‘e- was; HHPB 12. HHPB HHPB? . HHPBIO HHPB I . HHPBII HHPBIZ . HSD HSRI -1. figNEENTS OF CASEINUMBEESA AB HLENGTH ?. HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT HRACE I. HUSA HLENGTH ?. HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT HMA ll . WMA WHSRO 1h . HPB] 3:32 - c232. r122; 3- 5:23 HPB é. WPB HPB h. HPBIO HPB 1 IO. HPBII HPBIZ 6. HHPB] HHPBZ . WHPBZ HHPB . HHPB“ HHPB I . HHPB miss 1- cuss HHPB? Z. HHPBIO HHPB 1 lg. HHPB]! HWPBIZ . HSD MSRI -l. _ fiBNEENTS OF CASE'NU HBEBSA “9 HLENGTH 2. HCHILD HREL . HSTUDENT WRACE 2. WUSA HLENGTH 3. HCHILD 3%? 1: WMSRO 122. WPB] HPBZ . HPBZ HPB IO. WPBh WPB 12. HPB as: ‘. as: HPB? NPBIO WPB I HPBII 252;: , was; HHPB I. HHPB“ HHPB 12. HHPB ms: - cuss HHPB? . HHPBIO HHPB I . HHPB]! HWPBIZ . HSD CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 50 HRACE I HUSA HLENGTH a: HREL - 1. HCHILD HSTUDENT \ON—ot'WGJ-‘WN —o d—l-l N ~4-«0auvuma\anh—aM—nnour4-«n -—-‘ -na 0000 d ooooooooooooooooooOooOoo \D wn—moom-~wNm—~amm~—-—— dd ‘ dd dd dd d — waxow—wa‘mo— d r \DrOmN—WWONWMO‘tut-NWN d d WM 0000 0‘ WU‘WWt’NNN-‘word 0000. d I O O O O O ‘0‘» t3: 1ro nun carom» d C O C C C O C O t3: '0'!) am —-\0 NODON—wm—Mu—ammmar— O 0 0 CONTENTS OF CASE HRA E I 3 JD 01-0 ummmN-Wdrdmumdyu—dpg— 13: 1ru nun omrun» d I :E ‘1! WW com 3 m :n I N CONTENTS OF CASE NUMB HRA (I 3 (D I O t: w W N --'—40 £0” 13: 1ru nun —«o \o ammwmrmwm—mmowmamoo-—m~— I I v (D N U) I :E ‘U'U'U WOW com \0 \O \D I: u» :1 s u: .150 WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO HWPBII HSD NUMBER 5] HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO HHPBII HSO ER 2 HUSA 5 HCHILD . HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD WSTUOENT HMA O O O O —‘ d d d “WWW-firm» 00000000. 0 O O O O O I O O MOON‘NWNOQ-‘WNO‘NOW G‘s—a 0000 d W‘U‘NNMWMNt‘WI‘S‘r—I d—d-‘d O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O o. O O O O 151 CONTENTS OF cuss NUMBER. 53 HRACE HLENGTH CONTENTS OF CASE HRACE HHPB I WWPBIZ MSRI CONTENTS OF CASE HRA HHPB NO 0°... WNMMHWWOWW I I'M- d dd d Cd d % 2 1 i W coco... O‘NNWNO-MONNmt'O‘N—i—dN-H—fi dd 0 O O 0 d NUMB NUMB HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA ER h HUSA 5 HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO HHPB]! HSO ER HUSA 55 HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WM U! 0000.. ~onN—om—oroouo-mm-Ao 00.0.0 0 O I O O O I O O O O 0 d d WM W0 N-v Nd ooooooooooooooooooOo-Ooo u—aa—o w dWMHMNM—Mrm—Nd—uN-u d O O C O O I d—I HHPBIZ r WON—i—‘WWI‘PNNN—‘Nw—‘NN d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O WOW—wmdas— oooooooooooooooooooooooo r 0000 #WWwNmM—de UI—i d .fl WWPBIZ 10. MSRI '17. CONTENTS OF CASE HRACE I HLENGTH I. HREL 2. WRACE I. WLENGTH 1. HREL . HMA 12$. 32:? '5 - as: 33 HPB ?I HPB 18. HPB HPB I 9 HPBIZ HHPBZ 9 m 9 3333 9? HHPB? 2. HHPB 1 92. HHPBIZ . MSRI 1“. CONTENTS OF CASE NUMB HRA \n—n no... NWNW‘WMP-‘NWNN—‘NN—I I: '0‘!) mm mow dd HHPB l HWPBIZ MSRI d '0 CONTENTS OF CASE N HRACE HLENGTH 3. HREL u. HRACE g. HLENGTH . HREL 1. HMA 11;. anao 13 . wpez . HPB . HPB . HPB 1. ”$39 6' HPBII 1%. 152 HSD NUMBER 56 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO NHPBII HSO ER HUSA 57 HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HHPBIO HHPB]! HSO UMBER 58 HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD SSTUOENT w WWW-«D ooooooooooocvoOooooo \O mommmmmummmmm—wmmm N---_ -40 dd 0 N ww-wumm~oomm~mm~— ‘— dd d d ooooooooooooooooOooOo dd 0 0.0000000... d USO \D d \J mo (I '01) (DID com I: :E 1ru nun amnnua :mw~m-—umo~—-«rumrudm—a MSRI I d 153 HWPBZ HHPBA HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPBIO HHPB]! HSD NUMBER . HUSA 59 HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA HHPBIO HWPBII HSD CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 60 HR HUSA HHPB I 9 HHPBIZ MSRI -13 HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 6] HRA HUSA (It: 33:! :nxun :1 r- c: \ovno mmm--- HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA HPB] HPBZ N—O \OOt‘a‘d-‘O‘J" 0°00 00000000 —u-am-«)~ud—u—emu-«3Uv——aq ru—a dd d 00000000000000000000 d -«o \o-Aauxo-Ao \ou: nmrm pmtmmou—ouu -‘\O\D om W U1 mann—«u-Ao—mww—awum-M-Anwrw d d“ \039 \D-JKD \O \0 \0-40 WNWNHdMN—MN \D umpwwmooo r \o—dn—«nnnnun— 154 HPB 2. HPB“ HPB 9 . HPB as: .- as: HPB g. WPBIO HPB I I . HPBII HPBIZ . HHPBI HHPBZ 9 . HHPBZ HHPB} . HHPBh HHPB 9?. HHPB 3353 9 ' 55:3 HHPB? g. HHPBIO HHPB I 9 . WHPBII WHPBIZ . HSD MSRI -I . ERNEENTS OF CASEINUHBMBSA 62 HLENGTH I. HCHILD HREL ?. HSTUDENT WRACE . HUSA WLENGTH I. HCHILD EL I. HSTUDENT HMA g . HMA WMSRO I . HPB] UPBZ . HPBZ HPB . HPB“ HPB I . HPB as: .. 3:: HPB? 3. WPBIO HPB I . HPBII HPBIZ . HHPBI HHPBZ . HHPBZ HHPB . HHPB“ HHPB I . HHPB ms: cuss HHPB é. HHPBIO HHPB I . HHPBII HHPBIZ . HSD MSRI . MSNEENTS OF CASE UUHBNUSA 63 HLENGTH I. HCHILD HREL 2. HSTUDENT WRACE I. WUSA HLENGTH I. HCHILD NMEL 2. NMIUDENT 323° .23. :33; HPB 2. HPBA WPB A. HPB use .3- as: HPB h. WPBIO WPB I 12. HPBII HPBIZ . HHPBI 33:22 - mssz HHPB h. HHPB miss '- was HHPB? Z. HHPBIO HHPB I IZ. NHPBII WWPBIZ g. HSD MSRI 2 . CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 6h HRACE . HUSA I HLENGTH I. HCHILD d d rowrNhNa‘OONwam -'--0 N—O dd“ d d 000000000000000000000 dd dd 0 C C ...I N dNOWNMWWN-I 000000000000000 ddd dd dd 0 C d 0‘ W-‘mr-fiwm-‘m—‘WO‘O-‘MW \D 0 O rim-fi-‘NW-‘m—I—‘NWOWN-‘O‘ I d d —O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 d WM 0nd HHPB I WHPBIZ MSRI d WNJP—‘Nm—i NNNM—‘w—I—‘S’ O O 155 HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 65 HRACE HUSA HLENGTH I: :I m :n 0 \IO d (I '01! mo: com r—o—maudr-~od-wmm~mdmm~ I '0 ID Efi 3'01! mam com» d O O O 3 w W I U) HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WMA HHPBIO WHPBII HSD CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 66 HRACE HUSA a: 3 u: :3 c: ~+r (I V'U mm W 000000000 t '0 W I :E '01! DID com ONNWONNNwmow—INW—fi HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA WHPBZ HHPBh HHPB HHPB HHPB HHPBIO --IN 00 KO rN-WOO-‘r NO-MON—Moo .d d C O O O O C O 0 ‘d O una\um—-An-40~An:woakuva~ —u~ O O O 0000000000000 .—0_.n _0 —0—0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 d U’t WWW MWNO‘FO‘m-‘O‘ —-0 3' OWNN-w-‘W-d-‘O—KD-Mimr-‘O‘L‘ add d d -J \D oaxm—dmowmr—momwm d d 156 0000 -‘ \D ‘13-“ \D U) WNmew-‘U’IN CNN \0 \o—w ammo HHPBII 3. waall 12. HHPBIZ HHPBIZ . HSD 99. wso MSRI 12. ESEEENTS OF CASEINUHBfiSSA 67 1 HAGE HLENGTH I. HCHILD 1. HEDUC HREL 2. HSTUDENT I HHORK HRACE 2. WUSA 2 WFAGE VLENGTH 1. HCHILD I wsnuc HREL 1. HSTUDENT wwoax HMA 92. HMA HMSRO wnsno 1 . HPB] HPB] upez . HPBZ HPB HPB . wPau HPB WPB 12. HPB HPB6 HPB 1. wPa HP37 HPBB 1%. HPB HPB? HPB? . wPalo HPB o WPB l 9 . HPBII HPBIZ HPBIZ . HHPB] HHPB! HHPBZ 9 . wwpaz HHPB waa . HHPBh HHPB HHPB 99. HHPB HHPB6 HHPB . HHPB wwpa HHPB 9 . HHPB HHPB wwpa9 . HHPBIO HHPB o HHPB I 9 . HHPBII HHPBIZ wwpalz . HSD wso MSRI 1 . figggguTs or CAsslnunsfifisA 68 H‘GE HLENGTH I. HCHILD . HEDUC HREL ?. HSTUDENT o HWORK WRACE . wusn I. WFAGE WLENGTH I. HCHILD I. WEDUC HREL . HSTUDENT o wwonx HMA II . HMA 119. HHSRO wusao lb . HPB] . HPB] wpaz . HPBZ 5. HPB HPB g. wpau u. HPB HPB . HPB II. wPaé HPB g. HPB g. HPB HPB . WPB I . HPB H939 a. HPBIO 3. HPB o WPB I I . HPBII I . wPalz HPBIZ h. HHPB] 2. HHPB] HHPBZ . HHPBZ . HHPB uwPB . HHPah . HHPB HHPB . uwPa I . HHPBG HHPB . HHPB II. wwpa7 HHPB . HHPB Z' HHPB? HHPB? . HHPBIO . HHPB o HHPB I 10. HHPB]! 6. HHPBIZ wwpalz g. HSD I. usn MSRI -I . fiSIEEm °‘ “5‘1"”“55351. 69 1 me HLENGTH 9. HCHILD I. HEDUC HREL . HSTUDENT o HNORK ACE 1. HUSA I. WFAGE HLENGTH 9. HCHILD I. WEDUC HREL . HSTUDENT o wwoax HMA 11 . wnA 121. HMSRO wnsao I; . HPBI 9 . HPBI wPaz . HPBZ . HPB HPB . wpau 9 . HPB wpa 93. HPB . wPaé HPB . HPB 9 HPB HPB II. wPa . WPB HPB h. WPBIO . HPB o HPB I 99. HPBII . wPalz U NW—W—Nflbm WO-‘NNr-NDNWNNN-HO‘NHO‘N d C 0 d dd —l O O O O O U”. \D m-w \D 3:263 93' waa I HHPB 9§' 3333; 9 ° HHPB? 2: HHPB 1 92. HwPalz . MSRI 0 CONTENTS OF CASE HRA I 3 > w t (I '0 ‘0'" a mm mm 0000000000000 1 :bE '01 mu: com mmmrr-ownmdnodor:mo—m—am- 3 U! :n \0 NUMBER 70 . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HHPBIO WHPBII HSD CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 71 HRA . HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA HCHILD uSTUDENT CONTENTS OF CASE NUMBER 72 HRA . HUSA i I. WLENGTH . HREL . '2 I HCHILD HSTUDENT WUSA WCHILD HSTUDENT WMA WPBI N 0000 NMNd-NdemmNd d did d 0000000000000000000 moumu~mo~mw~rm¢-mo-o—a # d d #d . . O . . . . . C . 00000000 3' WNW?” d d d WHO‘W .0 VI rnnmrrowowooN-arrmkaao‘w d C C . . O . O C C C . O O O O 0 d Nr—‘W—‘N 00000000. dMO-‘W-‘WN—Nw.‘ CONTENTS OF CASE HRACE 158 NUMBER . HUSA 73 U1- mmo-‘WWO‘N—‘WWN dN—iNN—l O O O O O O I I O O O O HCHILD HSTUDENT HUSA HCHILD HSTUDENT HMA HPBI HPBZ HPBA d d d m--mwm-~dm wo-O‘—-c-wo~ox—r_. ”—0 0000 r NO‘OWPG‘OMFr-MWN 00000 ...O...... mmmw-r-mmo-r~_p - d d REFERENCES REFERENCES Araji, S. K. (1977). Husbands' and wives' attitude-behavior congruence on family roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family ' _3_2_' 309-3200 Arkoff, A., Meredith, G., & Iwahara, S. (1964). Male-dominant and egalitarian attitudes in Japanese, Japanese-American and Caucasian-American Students. The Journal of Social Psychology, g5, 225-229. Barnett, L. R., 8 Nietzel, M. T. (1979). Relationship of instrumental and affectionate behavior and self-esteem to marital satisfaction in distressed and non-distressed couples. ggurnal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 11: 946-957. Beere, C. A. (1979). Women and Women's Issues: A handbook of tests and measures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Beere, C. A., King, D. W., Beere, D. B., 8 King, L. A. (1984). The sex—role egalitarian scale: A measure of attitudes toward equality between the sexes, Sex Roles, lg. 563-576. Blood, R. 0., Jr., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and gives: The Dynamics of Married Living. Glencoe, 111: Free Press. Bowen, G. L., & Orthner, D. K. (1983). Sex—role congruency and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Ag, 223-230. Burgess, E. W., & Cottrell, L. S. (1939). Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Cohen, J. (1978). Partialled products are interactions: partialled products are curve components. Psychological Bulletin, §§, 858-866. Coombs, R. H. (1966). Value consensus and partner satisfaction among dating couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, QB, 166-173. 159 160 Corrales, R. G. (1975). Power and satisfaction in early marriage. In R. E. Cromwell, 8 D. H. Olson (Eds.), Power in Families (pp. 197-216). New York: Sage Publications. Crino, M. D., 8 Svoboda, M. (1983). Data on the Marlowe-Crowne and Edwards Social Desirability Scales. Psychological Reports, 15, 963-968. Crowne, D. P., 8 Marlowe, D. (1964). The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. Dunn, M. S. (1960). Marriage role expectations of adolescents. Marriage and Family Living, 11, 99-111. Edmonds, V. B. (1967). Marital conventionalization: definition and measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 19, 681-688. Edmonds, V. H., Withers, C., 8 Dibatista, B. (1972). Adjustment, conservation, and marital conventionalization. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 11, 96-103. Falbo, T. 8 Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1§(4), 618-628. Frank, E., Anderson, C., 8 Rubinstein, D. (1980, January). Married role ideals and perception of marital role behavior in distressed and non distressed couples. Journal of Fami1y 8 Marital Therapy, 55-63. French, J. R. P. 8 Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan. Gray-Little, B. (1982). Marital quality and power processes among black couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 22! 633‘646. Gray-Little, B., 8 Burks, N. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: a review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 9;, Number 3, 513-538. Gross, R. H. 8 Arvey, R. D. (1977). Marital satisfaction, job satisfaction, and task distribution in the homemaker job. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 11(1), l-13. Gruder, C. L. 8 Cook, T. D. (1971). Sex, dependency and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 12(3), 290-294. 161 Hansen, G. L. (1981). Marital Adjustment and Conventionalization: A reexamination. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 855-863. Hawkins, J. L. (1966). Locke marital adjustment test and social desirability. Journal of Mariage and the Family, 29. 193-195. Hicks, M., 8 Platt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and stability: A review of the research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 553-574. Jacobson, A. H. (1952). Conflict of attitudes toward the roles of the husband and wife in marriage. American Sociological Reviews, 11, 146-150. Johnson, P. B. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 11(3), 99-109. Johnson, P. B. (1978). Women and interpersonal power. In I. H. Frieze, J. E. Parsons, P. B. Johnson, D. N. Ruble, 8 G. L. Zellman (Eds.), Women and sex roles: A social psychological perspective. New York: W. W. Norton. Krause, N. (1983). Conflicting sex-role expectations, housework, disatisfaction, and degressive symptoms among full-time housewives. Sex Roles, 9(11), 1115-1125. Komarovsky, M. (1967). Blue-collar Marriage. New York: Random House. Lewis, R. A., 8 Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In F. I. Nye and I. L. Reiss (Ed.), Contemporary Theories About the Family (Vol. 2) (pp. 268-294). New York: The Free Press. Lively, E. (1969). Theory Construction and the Sociology of the Family. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Locke, H. J., 8 Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Famileriving, g1, 251-255. Luckey, E. B. (1960). Marital satisfaction and its association with congruence on perception. Marriage and Family Living, 11, 49-54. Luckey, E. B. (1968). Marital satisfaction and congruent self-spouse concepts. In J. Heiss (Ed.), Family Roles and Interaction: An Anthology (pp. 281-291). Chicago: Rand McNally. 162 Margolin, G., 8 Wampold, B. E. (1981). Sequential analysis of conflict and accord in distressed and nondistressed marital partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 11, 554-567. Mason, K. 0., 8 Bumpass, L. L. (1975). U.S. women's sex-role ideology. 1970. American Journal of Sociology, 11, 1212-1219. Mason, K. 0., Czajka, J. L., 8 Arber, S. (1976). Change in U.S. women's sex-role attitudes, 1964-1974. American Sociological Review, 11, 573-596. Motz, A. B. (1952). The role conception inventory: A tool for research in social psychology. American Sociological Review, 11, 465-471. Murstein, B. I., 8 Beck, G. D. (1972). Person perception, marriage adjustment, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 11, 396-4057 Murstein, B. I., 8 Williams, P. D. (1983). Sex roles and marriage adjustment. Small Group Behavior, 11(1), 77-94. Nordlund, A. (1978). Attitudes, communication and marital satisfaction. International Journal of Sociology of the Olson, D. H., 8 McCubbin, H. (1983). Family: What Makes Them Work. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Olson, D. H., 8 Rabunsky, C. (1972). Validity of four measures of family power. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 11, 224-234. Olson, K. L., 8 Camp, C. (1984). Factor analysis and curiosity measures in adults. Psychological Reports, 11, 491-497. Olson, K. R., Camp, C., 8 Fuller, D. (1984). Curiosity and need for cognition. Psychological Reports, 11, 71-74. Osmond, M. W., 8 Martin, P. Y. (1978). A contingency model of rital organization in low income families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 315-329. Peplau, L. A. (1983). Roles and gender. In H. Kelley (Ed.), Close Relationships (pp. 220-264). New York: W. H. Freeman. Raush, H. L., Barry. W. A., Hertel, R. K., 8 Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication, Conflict, and Marriage. Washington: Jossey-Bass. 163 Raven, B. H., Centers, R., 8 Rodrigues, A. (1975). The bases of conjugal power. In R. E. Cromwell and D. H. Olson (Eds.), Power in Families (pp. 217-232). New York: Sage Publications. Raven, B. H. 8 Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Conflict and power. In P. Swingle (Ed.), The Structure of Conflict. New York: Academic Press. Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 11, 119-125. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1969). Patterns of familial power and influence. Sociological Focus, 1, 7-19. Scanzoni, J. (1975). Sex roles, economic factors, and marital solidarity in black and white marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 130-144. Scanzoni, J. H. (1975). Sex RolesL Life Styles, and Childbearing: Changing patterns in marriage and family. New York: The Free Press. Scanzoni, J. H. (1978). Sex Roles, Womegfs Work, and Marital Conflict: A study of family change. Toronto: Lexington Books. Scanzoni, L., 8 Scanzoni, J. (1976). Men, Womeny and Change: A Sociology of Marriage and Fami1y. New York: McGraw-Hill. Scott, W. J., 8 Morgan, C. S. (1983). An analysis of factors affecting traditional family expectations and perceptions of ideal fertility. Sex Roles, 1, 901-914. Sharpley, C. F., 8 Cross, D. G. (1982). A psychometric evaluation of the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 739-741. Snyder, D. K. (1979). Multidimensional assessment of marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 813-823. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 15-28. Spanier, G. B., 8 Cole, C. L. (1976). Toward clarification and investigation of marital adjustment. International Journal of Sociolpgy of the Family, 1, 121-146. 164 Spanier, G. B., 8 Filsinger, E. E. (1983). The Dyadic adjustment scale. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and Family Assessment: A sourcebook for family therapy. (pp. 155-168). Beverly Hills: Sage publications. Spanier, G. B., 8 Lewis, R. A. (1980). Marital quality: A review of the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 96-110. Spanier, G. 8 Thomas, L. (1982). A confirmatory analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 731-738. Terman, L. M. (1938). Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tharp, R. G. (1963). Dimensions of marriage roles. Marriage and Family Living, 11, 389-404. Tomeh, A. K. (1978). Sex-role orientation: An analysis of structural and attitudinal predictors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 341-354. Vincent, J. P., Weiss, R. L., 8 Birchler, G. R. (1975). A behavioral analysis of problem-solving in distressed and nondistressed married and stranger dyads. Behavior