: .4‘.
{3'4“ . 11‘s.“?
v -J ' “‘ E‘s-2‘;-

-€'v .01“: h 1.5““ .

.

1 .J. ,

A}. .. «‘7..:_.

1'3. 1.:sz1. 1.

- .

-v. .

' J . u‘. ulnlfi - —¢.-1

_.._J.‘.,..:‘.. J.-. .u.J.v‘::-.n
~wc_-. Jaw .- ,b‘sw

«1&6: :n...::~:§u-

huh-Mmi-‘Mh’t? . 3-

.

.
3-. .

.J. “Liar-f a?

u.
.‘
."Ii
3 I've?
.uw-
. m

"" ".3: .
. . '1 m. , 3'5"?“
. A :A '
1.14.1.1: #7.; Jig-I n
’5. ‘0' < 1k“:

.J.

if-W‘n
n‘v‘r
“.1'" :,
fiIV—gt. ‘ v in;
;—-.-nh~L-a~«.1-.‘-."’ ..L". .x..-.n.;:.‘.~
"1...; 44.14....2. . 44 1.1:
5.x”. - . is

. 3. 3’
Ju..'. .. me

-‘ ‘vq‘o 1.». ”hr-:" .. . . «\1-
_. .J. - :WJJ. . .. “1...“;
. I.” .. . v1. .4 ~ -. u»...
- .-. ”4. 3:; .v . . J‘. h . ”2 W «A .r39h4.» ' .m‘.‘«. .1
”u: "'-'."’"""“ .4. .. : u» '
‘1‘ . - «.1‘-:55

~
.0.
.1. -,..
J. Y.r.,.....y.
4:1. Lu
..~-L~.._.:.-I
J. r..- us.

yi-TL‘...“ .,

L .
.... .1.
,n , ._. “1‘“? .n:u..u.l.|
. . _ J. . .

:. .. .. . - 1‘ ..

.:-....._ .1... 4*. . ’

.. ..-.........-.

w ~55! v

‘ S .
5.. 1. u .34 . .‘,.'..m..
. .r-.. m.
1 .1 . “a-.. .
.- e . .13.. . 1.
J. ‘1 ... . 1“
fi . .x. . .... , .
4.. a - .. x
1.. .. “:1. 5:11.
_- ‘Fhr maths?

‘2".
V...“
- ‘.i.:.r‘;

..‘nu.'.3 .1‘." .J
.4 l. ..~.~~ -

—‘.-.. .Vch
14.,1. '
. uy.“ .
.... .L
1.53.".

if...
.44.. .
I

 

--.n .h-.: .4.
5 ~.. tr":

 

 

UNIVERSITYU

IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 12 293 00791 1138

 

I

LIBRARY
Michigan State

University I
K 1

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

OPERATIVE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
LONG TERM SATISFYING MARRIAGES "

presented by

Karen Marie Williams

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Psychology

 

 

flax/W

Majoprofes
Robert Caidweil

Date 3/12/91

 

MSU i5 an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

2C1 "c 7715’

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thin checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or bdoro dd. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

      
 
  

 

 
 

 

   

i

 

 

 

 

 

,1 J
[:I T”:

"I, L;
J’TIF?

MSU In An Mandi” Action/Equal Oppottunlty Intuition
cWM‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

‘ \

_. J ‘
9“}...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,__ ._ .,

 

OPERATIVE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
LONG TERM SATISPYING MARRIAGES

BY

Karen Marie Williams

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1991

é?“&£$@/

“a

/
9

ABSTRACT

OPERATIVE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
LONG TERM SATISFYING MARRIAGES

BY

Karen Marie Williams

The topic of long-term, satisfying marriages has just
recently begun being examined and discussed. Most of the
research, however, has focused only on single variables as
they relate to long-term, satisfying marriages. The present
research study examined the predictive power of a model of
several variables that.work together to achieve a "successful"
marriage. The subjects were ninety-nine couples, with a mean
age of fifty-eight, a mean number of years married thirty-
three, and a mean number of 2.6 children. Racial composition
was as follows: forty-four percent were White, fifty-three
percent were Black, one percent.were Native American, and one
percent were Asian.

Results indicated that the variable with the most
influence on a "successful" marriage and other ingredients of
marriage was the ability to problem solve. Problem solving
directly influenced effective communication (path coef. =
.26), low conflict (path coef. = -.45), humor and play (path
coef. = .43), intimacy (path coef. = .45), the sexual
relationship (path coef. = .26), and marital satisfaction
(path coef. = .24). No other variable came close to having
such an impact on other variables as did problem solving. In

fact, the only other variable in the model that influenced

marital satisfactituxwas commitment, however, the influence of
commitment on marital satisfaction was mediated by
commitment's effect on the amount of conflict present in the
marriage. The more commitment evidenced in marriage, the less
conflict there was (path coef. = -.28). These findings could
lead one to conclude that to the extent that couples are
committed and can adequately problem solve positively
influences many other aspects in the marital relationship.
These findings should guide future research in the
direction of evaluating the marital relationship from an
integrative perspective. These findings should also guide
clinicians who work with couples in the areas of premarital
counseling, marital counseling, and marital enrichment. By
knowing what variables significantly contribute to marital
satisfaction, better steps can be taken for better

intervention/prevention.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge Bob Caldwell for his support and
guidance in helping me pursue my interest as an area of study.
His patience was unending as was his concern for me and my
project.

I thank Anne Bogat for once again sticking by my side,
even in the most difficult of times. She has been my
professor, my mentor, and friend; I respect her a great deal.

I thank Dozier Thornton for many things. Not only did he
encourage me to pursue my interests, but he also helped me to
understand why I was there and the importance of what I was
doing. His support, encouragement and concern were always
evident and important to me.

Bob Zucker once again demanded the qualities that
scholars are made of. His unyielding but supportive
expectations show that he really cares, and I thank him.

To Michael Inman and Gene Maguin, thanks. You've been
the best of friends to me, and I couldn't have done it.without
you two.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge my family: Wrex, you are
the definition of patience and understanding; Mom, we finally
did it! Adrienne, you gave me the final "push" that I needed,

what a productive year!

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES. O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O Vii

LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Viii

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Reasons for Studying Enduring, Satisfying
Marriages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Ingredients of a Satisfying Marriage . . . . . . . 9
Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Problem Solving and Conflict. . . . . . . . . I3
Self-disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Congruency of Perception. . . . . . . . . . . 19
Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Intimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Sexual Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Religion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Criticisms of the Marriage Literature. . . . . . . 35
Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 4 1

subjects 0 O O O O O O O O O O . C O 41

Demographic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Dyadic Adjustment Scale . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Primary Communication Inventory . . . . . . . 44
Primary Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships 45
Marital Satisfaction Inventory. . . . . . . . 46
Self-Disclosure 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Informed Consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 52

Path Modeling of Long-term, Satisfying Marriages . 56
Other Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

DISCUSSION.

Major Findings . . . . . . . . . .
Summary and Conclusions. . . . . .

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B:

APPENDIX C:

APPENDIX D:

APPENDIX E:

APPENDIX F:

APPENDIX G:

REFERENCES

Dyadic Adjustment Scale. .

Primary Communication Inventory.

Personal Assessment of Intimacy in

Relationships Pair . . . .

Marital Satisfaction Inventory

Self-Disclosure 21 . . . .
Informed Consent . . . . .

Demographic Sheet. . . . .

vi

76

76
84

86
88

91
95
99
103
105

107

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Marital Statistics. . . . . . . . . . .
Status of the Hypotheses. . . . . . . .

Correlations Among Variables. . . . . .

Correlations Among Variables by Husbands.

Correlations Among Variables by Wives .

Correlations Among Variables between Couples.

vii

51
68
70
71
72

73

Figure

1 Bases for Hypotheses. . . . . . .
2 Intermediate Path Model . . . . .
3 Final Path Model. . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES

viii

INTRODUCTION

Most Americans get married, and nearly half of these
marriages end in divorce. Traditionally, marriage and the
family have been viewed as the foundation of society. Each
marriage marks the start of an emotional, intimate
interaction between two humans, as well as a civil contract
between two individuals, and in the majority of cases, a
religious rite. In trying to understand why some marriages
fail and others succeed, it is troublesome that so little
attention has been directed toward successful marriages.
Although recent research has begun to examine successful
marriages, most studies have focused on single variables as
they relate to marriage (e.g., sex, self-disclosure, etc.).
Few studies have examined marriage and the operative
variables that are necessary for a successful marriage from
an integrative approach.

If researchers/clinicians want to truly understand the
long-term, satisfying marital relationship, an integrative
approach is the logical next step. This type of marriage is
made up of more than just two people who communicate, or two
people who self-disclose, or two people who become intimate.
It seems more likely that there are direct as well as

indirect variables influencing this intricate relationship;

1

2
it is the sum of its parts working together that can best
explain successful marriage, and we must therefore begin to
examine it from this perspective. Thus, one might say that
communication, self-disclosure, and intimacy (to name a
few), are all important variables that together help add to
marital quality, but they do not function independently.
For example, a satisfying marriage is made up of two people
who self disclose to one another, who have good
communication (verbal and nonverbal), which in turn allows
them to attain intimacy. It is from this standpoint that
marriage will be examined, and that Figure 1 was developed,
to show the numerous variables that are thought to influence
marriage. Thus, the focus of this research study is: in the
face of difficulty and divorce, what is it that keeps some
couples together while others drift apart? What are the
variables that work together to achieve a "successful"
marriage?

Seeking closeness with others appears to be a basic
need of most people (Fromm, 1956; Maslow, 1971). To love
and to feel loved, to feel close to another, to experience
companionship, and to care and be cared about are all
feelings that most people wish and need to experience;
especially within the context of marriage and the family.
All of these feelings/experiences fall under the general
umbrella of intimacy. According to Cox (1985), the basic

goals of intimacy in a marriage are emotional gratification

momofig How 38m .H shaman

coflummouom
coupawnu no >ocmoumcou

 

moocmcam cowuumumwumm cofium~om mmmmxuoeom nonum>coz\amnuo> musmoaomwo
3 moweocoom lllv HmuwumzAllll Hmsxmm Allaomefiucm Tulane—sou m>wuoowmm Alli lummmAll unmEufieeoo

uofiumcoo
:OAmaamm mcw>aom Emanoum

4
of each partner, helping each partner deal with crises and
problems, and helping each grow in a fulfilling manner.

Marriage is also a civil contract, with governing laws
that vary from state to state. However, in the United
States, the marriage, like all contracts, must be entered
into by mutual consent: both individuals must be competent
and eligible to enter into the contract, and there is a
prescribed form to the contract. Another important feature
of marriage as a civil contract is that it involves three
parties: the man, the woman, and the state. The state
specifies duties and privileges, and restrictions of the
marriage, and if the marriage is to be ended, it must be
done by the state.

In most cases marriage is also a religious rite.
Approximately 75 percent of all marriages in the United
States take place in a church (Cox, 1985). The state gives
the clergy legal privileges to perform the marriage
ceremony. In the United States, most faiths consider
marriage as a sacrament. God is called on to witness and
bless the marriage, with most vows7stating: "Those whom God
hath joined together let noghaneJEut asunder."

There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that the
foundation of marriage is deteriorating. The following
statistics indicate a dramatic change in traditional trends:
between 1970 and 1983, the proportion of young women in the
20 to 24 age bracket who had never been married increased

from 36% to 56%; between 1970 and 1983, the number of

5
couples cohabitating more than tripled; if current divorce
rates continue, as many as half of all children will live in
a fatherless family for a period of time before they are
grown (Thornton & Freedman, 1984).

Throughout the century, the divorce rate has beenTWM
steadily increasing in this country. This trend is
summarized by Cherlin (1981). In 1900, there was
approximately one divorce for every 12 marriages, and by
1922, one divorce for every eight marriages. By the late
1940's, there was about one divorce for every three and a
half marriages. This peak is thought to have occurred due //
to dislocations stemming from World War II. Between 1950 {
and 1970, the divorce rate leveled off to approximately one \

per every four marriages. This stability in rate did not

last long, and by 1976 an all time high of one out of every

/,

two marriages ended in divorce. This trend, it seems has

\
persisted; currently there are more than a million couples a \
year now getting divorced (Lauer & Lauer, 1986). Some X

social scientists predict that by the end of this century,

half of all marriages will end in divorce (Cox, 1981; Lauer /

I
/

& Lauer, 1986). (9/
The reason the divorce rate has increased is because?
pressure on marriage has increased. According to Brehm (
(1985), this increased pressure on marriage comes from i
various sources. First of all, people today live longer,’
therefore the number of years that a married couple can

\
spend together has increased. Also, with people having )

,fl 6

fewer children, there is more focus on the marital
relationship. In previous years, marriage was more a
straightforward division of labor. With an increasing
number of women working, marriages today may suffer from

excessive demands placed on working wives and mothers. This

‘;can, in turn, lead to resentment between husbands and wives.

I

i.

5
u
I
r
i
l

E

’ Lastly, expectations of marriage have changed, people want

i_happiness as well as fulfillment.

In past years, a marriage was said to be successful if

the couple stayed together and produced children. This is

énot the case, however, today. Married couples are searching

Efor and expecting more out of marriage; they want happiness,

5 fulfillment, emotional support, companionship, and a host of

other ingredients that go into an enduring as well as a
personally satisfying relationship (Cox, 1985; Lauer &
Lauer, 1986). These "ingredients" will be discussed in
greater detail in a later section of this paper.
Reasons for Studying Enduring, Satisfying Marriages

Because of this shift in marital needs and wants,
enduring as well as satisfying marriages are very important
to study. Traditionally, marriage and the family have been
viewed as the foundation of society. In 1966, a group of
Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish organizations issued a
statement reflecting this traditional viewpoint. The group

declared:

7

We believe that the family is the cornerstone of

our society. It shapes the attitudes, the hopes,

the ambitions, the values of every citizen. The

child is usually damaged when family living

collapses. When this happens on a massive scale,

the community itself is crippled. (Lauer & Lauer,

p. 16)

According to this view, if the family starts to crumble,
then so does society. And it must be pointed out that
current trends do indicate that the foundation is, indeed,
crumbling.

Another reason "healthy” marriages need to be examined
is because of the effects of divorce. This area has been
thoroughly examined by many researchers. For the husband
and wife, there are economic costs, and greater yet,
emotional trauma. This "emotional trauma" includes several
stages divorcing couples usually go through. These stages
include a period of denial, followed by grief, mourning, and
a mixture of the following: self-pity, vengeance, despair,
wounded pride, anguish, guilt, loneliness, fear, distrust,
withdrawal, and relief (Cox, 1985, p. 463-464). Although
this emotional trauma is experienced by many couples, there
are exceptions. For some people, a divorce is a relief from
a terrible and destructive situation.

If children are involved in the divorce process, they
too are affected. Sometimes they become pawns in the

struggle between the parents. Additionally, the pain of

8
seeing their parents separate becomes invariably intense.
Initially, children are typically upset, then go through a
period of anger and resentment. They self blame, act out,
and a have a host of other behavioral and emotional
problems.

If we know what goes into, or is necessary for a
healthy marriage, several positive events could occur: many
children would have fewer psychological/emotional problems
that occur in unstable families or families of divorce, pre-
marital counseling would be more accurate and beneficial, as
would marital counseling and marital enrichment.

Another important reason for studying ”healthy"
marriages is because of their positive effects on
individuals. In a study by Verbrugge (1979), marital status
differences in health for the United States population were
examined. Results indicated that divorced and separated
people have the worst health status, with the highest rates
of acute conditions, of chronic conditions which limit
social activity, and of disability for health problems.
Widowed people rank second highest for health status,
followed by single people. Married people appear to be
healthiest. They have the lowest rates of chronic
limitation and disability. Although their rates of
restricted activity and medical care are intermediate,
hospital stays tend to be short, and they have the lowest
rate of residence in health facilities. These results are

perhaps due to be short, and they have the lowest rate of

9
residence in health facilities. These results are perhaps
due to marital roles and lifestyles which influence health,
by selectivity into a marital status because of health, and
by tendencies to take health actions when feeling ill.
Therefore, theoretically speaking, if the divorce rate
decreases, and more marriages endure and are healthy, then
more of the general population is healthier.

”Healthy" marriages are also important to study for
improvement of clinical applications, such as pre-marital
and marital counseling, as well as marital enrichment. If we
know and understand factors which are operative in "healthy"
marriages, there can be greater impact and success in all
three areas. It seems logical that to fully understand how
something operates, comes from examination of a fully

functioning specimen rather than a poorly functioning one.

Ingredients of a Satisfying Marriage

Research findings point to several ingredients of a
satisfying marriage. Included are: commitment, congruence
of perception of spouses, effective communication skills,
and intimacy. Other factors that affect marital
relationships (sometimes positively as well as negatively)
that need to be addressed include: the roles of sex,
religion, children, and economics. Each of these
ingredients plays a crucial part in the way marriage turns
out, therefore, each ingredient will be discussed in and of

itself for a more thorough understanding.

10

Commitment. It is frequently said that one must be

 

"committed" in order for marriage to work. According to
Kilpatrick (1975, pp. 232-233), "commitment is one of the
foremost requirements of an enduring marriage." When this
is stated, most people agree. But exactly what is meant by
the term "being committed?" Researchers have examined this
concept from various perspectives.

Sternberg (1986) explains commitment in terms of two
aspects: cognitive and developmental. From the cognitive
aspect, it is seen as a "decision/commitment” component,
which includes cognitive elements that are involved in
decision making regarding the existence of and potential
long-term commitment to a loving relationship. More
specifically, in the short-term, the decision to love
another person, and in the long-term, the commitment to
preserve that love.

As for its developmental course, commitment begins at
zero when individuals first meet, and increases as they get
to know each other. If the relationship is intended to be
long term, the commitment level will usually increase
gradually at first, and then speed up. As the relationship
continues, the level of commitment will generally level off.
If the relationship begins to experience problems,
commitment goes down, and if the relationship fails,
commitment level falls back down to zero. Sternberg's view

of commitment differs from others' view of commitment; it

11
implies that commitment is the result of the marriage and
not the cause of it.

Lauer and Lauer (1985), list three types of commitment
as it relates to marriage. First, there is the commitment
to a happy marriage. This type of commitment endures as long
as both partners are happy in the marriage. When happiness
wanes, so does the marriage.

Second is the commitment to the institution of
marriage. With this type of commitment, marital happiness
is unimportant; it is the belief in the binding nature of
the wedding vows, their view of the importance of family
stability to the children, and their unwillingness to offend
family members. With commitment such as this, an unhappy
union is endured.

In the third type of commitment, the commitment is to
the marriage as well as the spouse. The couple are
committed to that which is meaningful and satisfying to
them. An interaction exists between their feelings and
their commitment: the feelings reinforce the commitment
which helps maintain the feelings. However, it is not the
commitment that resolves marital problems, rather, it
provides the necessary atmosphere for resolution of problems
to take place. As stated by Lauer and Lauer (1986),
”commitment means a willingness to endure troubled times and
to work through the plexus of difficulties that inevitably
assault every married couple" (p. 54). With commitment, one

overcomes problems rather than being overcome by them.

12

According to Quinn (1982), the concept of commitment
has three subordinate senses. The first is that of a
promise (or pledge). For example, ”We were making a
commitment together, that we were going to work together."
The second is that of dedication (or devotion). An example
of this is, "We are deeply committed to our marriage and
family." Thirdly, is that of an attachment (bond or tie).
An example of this sense is, ”We were really committed to
each other.” These different aspects of experience go by
the same name, because they are fundamentally related.

Quinn (1982) argues that when used in the sense of a
promise, a "commitment“ can:hot be felt. However, when
"commitment" is used in the sense of dedication or
attachment, it appears to take on the attribute of being an
internal state. More specifically, in its dedication sense,
"commitment" means ”deep" or "deeply felt," as in "I felt a
deep commitment to my marriage and family." Commitment as
an attachment, on the other hand, draws on the metaphor of a
bond, as a physical connection between people.

As was previously stated, these three senses of
"commitment" are packaged into one word because they are
fundamentally related. In the context of marriage,
”commitment" is a promise to do something, something that
entails hard work and time. To make this type of "promise"
one must be dedicated to trying. The dedication to try and
fulfill this promise, by its very nature, requires a long-

term relationship with another person. Making this

l3
commitment to someone is also attaching oneself to the other
person for the duration of the commitment. As stated
before, commitment alone does not resolve marital problems,
but it sets the stage for resolution to occur. Open, honest
communication, which is vital to establishing and
maintaining the level of commitment necessary for positive
marital adjustment to occur is necessary. It is important
to note, however, that effective communication has necessary
precursors. This includes: problem solving skills, self-
disclosure, and congruency of perception, which all
influence each other.

Problem Solving and Conflict. Effective problem
solving, or, the ease with which differences of opinion are
resolved, is a vital, complex, and necessary skill. All
couples must deal with conflict. Satisfied couples are
those whose communication skills have been enlarged to deal
appropriately with the problems inherent in marriage, and
couples who make poor marital adjustment have developed
drastically different communication styles and techniques
which make for inadequate problem solving.

Lauer and Lauer (1986) examine this form of
communication, known as "conflict," as it relates to the
marital relationship. Findings indicated that although all
couples quarrel, happy couples quarrel much less, are less
likely to get on each other's nerves. and consider divorce
or separation much less than those that are mixed or unhappy

in their evaluations. However, no marriage is conflict

14
free, and no marriage should be. In fact, many people are
oblivious of the importance of conflict in a good marriage.
Because those in a "good" marriage have learned how to
engage in "good fighting," conflict is an important
dimension of their well-being.

To better understand conflict, Blood and Wolfe (1978)
surveyed over 700 couples and found that the most common
conflict was disagreement over money, followed by children,
recreation, and personality. Financial conflict was
generally about allocation of funds. Conflict over children
usually concerned the issue of discipline. Conflict over
recreation involved the type of activity each partner would
prefer and the amount of time spent together. Personality
disagreements referred to behavior of one of three partners
that the other found bothersome. Role problems, or
questions concerning who does what in the home, did not
affect a large number of families in this sample, but this
is rapidly changing due to the changing role of women.

Lauer and Lauer point out that the things couples argue
about are not the same at all stages of their relationship,
nor is the frequency of fighting likely to remain the same.
Depending on the developmental stage of the marriage,
different types of disagreements arise. In Blood and
Wolfe's sample, couples in the honeymoon phase had more
disagreements about the personality differences and how to
spend recreational time. Past the honeymoon period,

conflict over money was the most common problem. Couples in

 

15
later stages of their marriages tended to have less conflict
of any kind.

All of this, however, applies to long-term, happily
married couples, suggesting that people who have been
happily married for a long time, are not necessarily more
problem-free than others. They experience some of the same
problems as other couples, but they know the importance of
confronting the problems. This is evidenced by Lauer and
Lauer's research. Confronting the problems was seen in the
response to the question of how frequently one of the
spouses leaves the house after a fight. People in happy
marriages seldom use that tactic. Thus, people in long-
term, satisfying marriages have the same type of conflicts
as others, but they regard them as challenges to be dealt
with rather than as a signal of failure.

Conflict also has benefits; it can keep a relationship
from deteriorating of dry rot. It is a refusal to let the
relationship go sour. Bach and Wyden (1975), marriage
counselors who have written about the importance of
conflict, state that many of the couples they see do not
engage in conflict. These couples avoid fighting.
Ironically, however, the result is not peace, but an
emotional divorce. Therefore, the refusal to fight severs
rather than cements the bond.

This is not to suggest, though, that all fighting is
"good" fighting, and conflict can indeed end a marriage.

One must be able to engage in "good" fighting, which has

16
rules that set limits to what is acceptable in a conflict,
and aims at a win-win outcome. Even though there are no set
laws for engaging in conflict, certain standards of conduct
were mentioned several times in Lauer and Lauer's (1986)
study. These standards provide guidelines for fighting that
aim for a win-win situation. These include: (a) Maintain
Your Perspective. Maintaining one's perspective on a
disagreement means to remember that everything is not worth
fighting about. Every issue is not a win-lose situation.
Happy couples in this sample differentiate between trivial
issues and those that must be resolved through conflict; (b)
Development Tension Outlets. Those couples satisfied with
their relationship seem to require the need for tension
outlets so as not to take their frustrations out on their
spouse. Whether through physical exercise, solitude, or
maintaining a sense of humor, tension outlets help to put
the conflict into perspective and offset any damaging
effects. Each individual must figure out his or her tension
outlet, as opposed to arguing with one's spouse when the
real issue is some outside tension; (c) Avoid Festering
Resentment. Arguments should not become emotional divorces.
Issues are confronted, and openly and honestly dealt with.
A spouse should not have to mind-read and misinterpret, this
only leads to more conflict; (d) Be Sensitive to Timing.
There are times when it is appropriate to confront conflict,
and times when it should be dealt with at a later time.

Open confrontation does not necessarily mean immediate

17
response to an issue. Different people are receptive to
problem-solving at different times, and under different
conditions. A number of these "happily“ married people also
noted that it is not wise to try and solve a problem while
still angry. It is better to think while calm, rather than
in the heat of anger; (e) Communication Without Ceasing.
There are two things to remember about communication.
First, it is not a cure-all. Communication reveals good as
well as bad qualities about a person, as well as
irreconcilable differences of opinion. Thus, while
communication helps to resolve conflict, it can also promote
conflict. Second, the ”type" of communication is just as
important as the act of communicating. People in enduring
marriages noted two qualities of communication important for
problem solving; reciprocity and calmness. Reciprocity
refers to active listening as well as open expression of
one's own ideas and feelings, and calmness rather than
aggression; (f) Be Flexible and Willing to Compromise.
Accommodation and compromise as styles of conflict were very
important to the couples in this sample. Compromise is not
viewed as a surrender, but as the only realistic way to deal
with difference. One must be able to tolerate and respect
differences, for this leads to finding a suitable solution
for both partners involved; (9) Use Conflict to Attack
Problems, Not Your Spouse. Attacking problems instead of
your spouse is fundamental to good fighting. Respondents

suggested two ways to keep the conflict focused on the

18
problem. One is to define the conflict as a disagreement
concerning an issues rather than as a personal attack. The
other is to resist the temptation to hurt your mate. Don't
let the conflict turn into an "insult session." Good
fighting involves attacking the problem and not the person;
good fighting resolves problems and builds up people
simultaneously; (h) Keep Loving While You are Fighting.
Although this may sound contradictory, it is important to
let your spouse know that he or she is still loved even
though there is a disagreement. An active concern for the
well-being of the other should continue to characterize the
relationship.

Self-disclosure. Self-disclosure, or the verbal
disclosure of one's thoughts and feelings to another person,
is also a necessary precursor for effective communication.
Jourard (1981) writes: "the optimum in a marriage
relationship as in any relationship between persons is a
relationship between I and thou, where each partner
discloses himself without reserve." Research studies by
Komanovsky (1962) and Hendrick (1981) indicate that self-
disclosure is an important predictor of marital
satisfaction.

But what exactly is self-disclosure? Although there is
no one single theory of self-disclosure, several social
psychological theories have been used to explain it. Under
the general model of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Jourard,

1971), the findings show that self-disclosure produces self-

l9
disclosure. Research has shown reciprocal high disclosure
between subjects (e.g., Ehrlich & Graevan, 1971; Worthy,
Gary, & Kahn, 1969), although self-disclosure may be less
reciprocal between friends than between strangers (Derlega,
Wilson, & Chaikin, 1976).

Within an exchange theory framework (Hatfield, Utne, &
Traupmann, 1979; Homans, 1961), self-disclosure can be
viewed as a process with both pros and cons for the
disclosure as well as the listener. Cozby (1972) suggested
a possible curvilinear relationship between reciprocity and
self-disclosure. More specifically, the benefits of
reciprocal self-disclosure increase to a certain point, but
then increasingly intense intimacy causes self-disclosure to
become so threatening and costly that reciprocity no longer
occurs.

Congruency of perception. Congruency of perception is
the last precursor necessary for effective communication to
occur. Congruency of perception of spouses has been
examined by various researchers as it relates to marital
adjustment (e.g., Luckey, 1960; 1964; Sporakowski &
Hughston, 1978; Yelsma, 1984). From an empirical
perspective, findings have indicated mixed results.

Luckey (1960) found that spouses who indicated that
they were satisfied with their marriage were those whose
perceptions were in greater agreement with each other than
were the perceptions of couples who were unsatisfied.

Later, in 1964, Luckey examined the degree of correlation

20
existing between the subject's expressed marital
satisfaction and (a) one's perception of oneself and (b)
one's perception of one's spouse in terms of descriptive
personality variables. Results indicated that many
personality characteristics that are significantly
associated with marital satisfaction are perceived by the
subject as being part of themself as well as a part of their
spouse.

Studies by Hurvitz (1960; 1965) support Luckey's
finding. The studies concluded that discrepancies between a
husband's expectations of his wife's role and her
expectation of her role enactment correlated negatively with
both persons' satisfaction. However, the wife's measure of
role discrepancy was not a good indicator of either
partner's satisfaction.

Taylor (1967) noted a similar association existing
between the husband's self-concept and the husband's
prediction of his wife's perception of him. The wife's
self-concept and her prediction of her husband's perception
of her showed a similar trend in this research as well as
Struckert's (1963) research.

Research by Sporakowski and Hughston (1978) examined 66
couples who were married 50 years or more. They were
interviewed regarding what they felt were the most
significant factors in a happy marriage. Indices of their
marital adjustment and personality were assessed over the

stages of the family life cycle, using a self perceived

21
other comparison technique. Findings suggested that
congruence of perception of spouses appears to be of major
importance in relation to marital satisfaction of couples
who have exceeded their golden wedding anniversaries. This
not only applies to personality perceptions, but also to
rating of marital happiness and the multifaceted aspects of
marital adjustment.

More recently, Yelsma (1984) extended Navran's (1967)
work on marital communication. He identified nine items
from Navran's adapted version of the Primary Communication
Inventory as reliable and valid measures in distinguishing
differences between "happy" and ”counseling" married couples
and their communications. His study of twenty-three happily
married and 23 couples seeking counseling showed that happy
individuals have more congruency between their self
perceptions and their spouses perception of their
communication practices. Additionally, happy couples'
marital adjustment scores were more congruent than the
counseling couples'.

From a theoretical and clinical perspective, the
association between discrepant perceptions or incongruent
role expectation and marital adjustment appear to be more
pronounced. In a study by Laing (cited by Yelsma, 1984), a
model of interpersonal communication was developed which
postulated that various levels of perception impact upon
relationships. Furthermore, they propose that a

characteristic of distressed marriages is the inability of

22
the partners to establish common perceptions of several
specific behaviors and role expectations due to different
experiences and backgrounds. Frequently, persons
experiencing distress are affected by perceptual and
interpretive distortion.

Satir (1964) has proposed that a strong relationship
exists between accurate perceptions and effective
communication. She states that spouse's perception of their
own and each other's communication in the relationship are
vital to the establishment or degeneration of their
relationship. Put simply, the greater the perceived
differences between spouses' perception of their own and
each other's verbal and nonverbal communication practices,
the greater their chances of having an unsatisfactory
relationship.

Having discussed the stepping stones for effective
communication (problem solving skills, self-disclosure, and
congruency of perception), it now makes sense to look at the
larger construct of communication, what it is, and how it
impacts upon the marital relationship.

Communication. Communication is positively related to
good marital adjustment (e.g., Lauer & Lauer, 1986; Navran,
1967; O'Neill & O'Neill, 1972). This sounds simplistic at
first, however, after further examination it becomes much
more complex. From birth, we are taught that appearance
(what one portrays) is more important than reality. Many

children have witnessed their parents break off a vicious

23
argument to answer the phone and talk calmly to the friend
who has just called right in the midst of the argument.
This ”education" continues as we grow older, and we learn to
do the same thing ourselves. Therefore, when it comes time
to be open and honest, it is difficult to do. However, this
honest, free-flowing communication is vital to establishing
and maintaining a good marital relationship. The task at
hand becomes how to stop saying, "things are fine" and "I
feel great" (to put it simply) when in reality, things are a
mess and you really feel awful. To begin with, a thorough
understanding of communication between two individuals is
needed.

Communication comes in two forms: verbal and
nonverbal. Research has indicated that approximately 70% of
our communication with others is nonverbal (O'Neill &
O'Neill, 1972). Although sex is the most profound form of
nonverbal communication, other actions, such as the way
one's mate stands, holds his or her head, or smiles, can
tell one far more than words. Every action gives a sensory
cue that can be read by others. Yet, in close
relationships, we sometimes ignore these nonverbal cues.

One becomes habituated to them, thus, no longer consciously
affected by him or her. Other times, one purposely screens
them out, not wanting to acknowledge the message being sent
to them. Other times, they are accepted and acted on.

Whatever one may say, however, it is the nonverbal messages

that usually tells the truth. A verbal untruth is easy to

24
tell, it's the ability to sufficiently control one's body to
back up the lie that is the hard part. Thus, it appears
that becoming more aware of, and sensitive to nonverbal
communication (of self and partner) can help in attaining
and maintaining a positive marital relationship, as
evidenced in research by Kahn (1970).

Kahn (1970) examined nonverbal communication and
marital satisfaction. Twenty-one college couples were
identified as maritally satisfied and twenty-one couples as
maritally dissatisfied by the Locke-Wallace Marital
Adjustment Scale. The Marital Communication Scale and the
Primary Communication Inventory were administered to each
couple. Results indicated a positive relationship between
marital satisfaction and accuracy of nonverbal communication
as assessed by both measures. Thus, one might hypothesize
that couples who make good marital adjustment are those who
are aware of, sensitive to, and react appropriately to
nonverbal communication.

Although nonverbal communication is important to a
positive marital relationship, and comprises 70% of
communication, it is the remaining 30% that is spoken and
even more important than the unspoken, as shown by Navran
(1967).

In this study, twenty-four "happy" couples and twenty-
four "unhappy" couples were administered the Primary
Communication Inventory and the Locke Marital Relationship

Inventory. Results showed marital adjustment to be

25
positively correlated with ability to communicate. More
specifically, happily married couples had clearly better
communication in both verbal and nonverbal sectors, however,
good verbal communication was more strongly correlated with
good marital adjustment than was good nonverbal
communication, (=.91, and r=.66, respectively). Overall,
this study implies that verbal communication is a much
stronger factor associated with good marital adjustment than
is nonverbal communication, but the group reporting good
marital adjustment makes superior use of both types.

These research studies indicate strongly that
communication and marital adjustment are so intertwined,
that any factor influencing one, influences the other. This
positive association between the two has important clinical
implications for marriage counseling. It may be that an
important avenue for improving a marital relationship is to
focus on the communication pattern of the couple.

Intimacy. The next ”ingredient" to be discussed for a
healthy marriage is intimacy. This concept seems to follow
commitment, the "stepping stones," and communication, for
several reasons. First, a refusal to commit oneself to
someone is a refusal to love them. If one refuses to love,
one relinquishes intimacy. Also, one cannot become intimate
without sharing (communicating) thoughts, ideas, and
beliefs, which is built upon congruency of perceptions,

resolving conflict, and self-disclosing.

26

Sternberg (1986) described intimacy as the emotional
aspect of love. It includes closeness, sharing,
communication, and support. Intimacy is expressed by
communicating inner feelings; sharing one's possessions,
time, and self; and offering emotional support.
Developmentally, it increases steadily at first, then at a
slower rate until it levels off and goes beneath the
surface.

Betcher (1981) looked at intimate play and its
influence upon the marital relationship. According to
Betcher, little attention had been given to "intimate play"
and its effect on marital adjustment. He viewed it as being
involved in positive bonding communication, conflict
reduction, and more basically, as predisposed to stabilize a
marital relationship.

Intimate play usually occurs in a context of felt
security. It seems to supply many couples with an
assortment of ways of communicating loving, affectionate
messages and convincing each other that they are loved. Not
only does intimate play nurture conditions of interpersonal
trust and acceptance, it also confirms and increases the
margin for mutual risk in regression. To the extent that
intimate play is personalized, distinctive elaborations of
the marital dyad, contribution to the formation of a special
bond may take place.

The Sexual Relationship. Another factor that has been

examined in relation to marital adjustment is the sexual

27
relationship. A sexual relationship could be described as
satisfactory to the extent that sexual needs of both
partners are communicated and fulfilled. The sexual
relationship follows the concept of intimacy because sex is
a way in which couples may express a form of intimacy.

Few theorists would reject that a satisfactory sexual
relationship is an initially important component of a
satisfactory marriage. However, controversy exists
concerning the continuing role of the sexual component. As
Blood (1955) stated, "without care and companionship,
marriage would become repugnant, as the sexual impulse is
satisfied and ebbs with age" (p. 105). Grant (1957) agreed
with this viewpoint and surmised that some degree to
decrease in passionate feelings appears somewhat natural to
prolonged sexual association, as within marriage. Other
theorists (e.g., Beigle, 1952; Symonds, 1946) voiced similar
opinions.

There are however opposing views regarding the
continuing role of the sexual component. It holds that
sexual attraction would increase over the years, because
anticipation would probably become more guaranteed of
gratification as a result of the numerous experiences of
satisfaction with that partner.

Maslow (1954) reported contradictory findings from the
previous theorists. He stated that in "self-actualizing"

individuals, the love satisfactions and sexual satisfactions

28
both get better with duration of the relationship. He
stated that:

It is a very common report from these individuals

that "sex is better than it used to be" and "seems

to be improving all of the time." It seems quite

clear that familiarity with the partner, rather

than novelty, is more rewarding to "healthy"

people. (PP. 238-239)

More recent studies have also substantiated Maslow's
findings. Ard (1977) examined 161 couples who had been
married for approximately 20 years. They reported that they
were still experiencing significant pleasure from sexual
relations. Seventy percent of the husbands and 57% of the
wives stated that they had greater pleasure from their sex
relations in the previous years. An additional 25% of the
husbands and 33% of the wives reported "mild pleasure."

Only 5% of the husbands and 10% of the wives were apathetic
or averse to sex.

Even long married couples (50 years or more) may still
have meaningful sexual relations, as reported by Roberts
(1979-80). Over half of a group of fifty couples married an
average of 55.5 years were sexually active or had been in
the past years.

Lauer and Lauer (1986), who studied 351 couples married
a median of 25.5 years, concluded that sex is not the main
ingredient for fulfillment implied by stories and ads. And,

contrary to popular opinion, it is not one of those

29
treasured possessions enjoyed only by the young. The key
factor is that people agree on their sex lives. This may
involve anything from no sex at all to frequent and regular
sexual relations. It is the agreement rather than anything
else that is important.

Other Factors. The effects of children on marital
quality have been studied by numerous researchers, (e.g.,
Hicks & Platt, 1970; Ryder, 1973; Sporakowski & Hughston,
1978). More recently, Rankin and Maneker (1985) examined
factors that differentiate between marriages of short and
long duration with the impact of children as their central
focus. Their findings confirm the belief that longer
duration of marriage correlates with the presence of
children. Some couples stay together not only ”for the good
of the children,” but also due to the presence of children,
which makes the divorce process more costly financially and
emotionally. Furthermore, there is the possibility that
older children may actively dissuade their parents'
consideration of divorce, thereby helping to prolong the
marriage.

Lauer and Lauer (1986) discuss the influence of
children upon marriage as both a burden and a blessing.
According to the couples they examined, some of the burdens
of child-rearing are the time and energy they consume, and
the fact that children can be a source of stress and
conflict. In attending to the needs of the children, there

is a tendency for attention to be diverted away from the

30
marital relationship, and for the spouses to neglect each
other and their relationship. Lauer and Lauer cite research
by Anderson, Russell and Schumm (1983), which indicates that
women with children are less likely than those without
children to participate in outside activities with their
spouses, exchange stimulating ideas with their spouses, work
on a joint project, or calmly engage in any type of
discussion.

Respondents of Lauer and Lauer (1986) also noted that,
in addition to the drain of time and energy, the "trials and
tribulations of raising children.” Some couples reported
conflict with each other due to the strains over, and
sometimes the disagreement, about raising children. Even if
a couple agree and attempt to support one another, the
stress included in raising children can strain the marital
bonds. Occasionally, a problem may seem more oppressive at
the time than it does in retrospect. A seemingly
troublesome child may grow up to be a source of enormous
gratification to parents. Although stress present in child
raising does not mean terminal disillusionment,
simultaneously, that present stress influences every aspect
of a parent's life. Even though the problem may not be a
troublesome child, it may be a case of worrying about
problems the child has (e.g., academic problems, peer
relation problems, health problems, etc.). A handicapped
child may add significant stress to the marital

relationship.

31

Basically, happily-married couples believe that their
children are a cohesive force in their marriage. For a
great number of these couples, one of the reasons for
marriage. For a great number of these couples, one of the
reasons for marriage is to have a family. Their children
are one of the reasons they want their marriage to work.
Granted, there is evidence that suggests that marital
quality is low when children are very young, due to the
demands of the time and energy placed on the parents
(Sporakowski & Hughston, 1978). As children age, however,
the demands may lessen. The couples relationship may
improve as they begin a new era of companionship.

For numerous couples, then, children add a vital part
of the purposes and meaning of marriage, even though they
recognize the added stress and strains. Children provide
the couple with a focus outside of themselves. They become
a joint project in a shared achievement.

It appears then, that children can be a cohesive factor
in both a deteriorating marriage, in which they are the
primary reason for staying together, or they can further
solidify and enhance an already satisfying marriage. The
difference is based upon the degree to which a couple
perceives the importance of their relationship and the
necessity of ongoing work on their relationship. The parent
who looks to the child for fulfillment, who is happy with
the marriage mainly because of the children, is placing a

responsibility on the children which they cannot fulfill.

32

Children are not the solution to a troubled relationship,
however, they may enhance and enrich an already satisfying
relationship.

Religion. Taken as a single factor, religion does not
appear to be the critical factor in an enduring marriage.
In Lauer and Lauer's (1986) research, less than five percent
of the respondents identified religious faith as important.
However, those who did, believed that it is the foundation
of a happy marriage. For these people, then, religion is
viewed as a significant part of their marital relationship.
This does not mean, however, that religion is not important
to the rest, rather, they feel that other factors are more
crucial in explaining the stability and satisfaction with
their marriage.

In this same study, religious affiliation was broken
down by happy versus unhappy couples. Findings indicated a
much higher proportion (13.2%) of the unhappy couples had no
religious affiliation, as was shown in earlier research.

According to Landis and Landis (1968), in our culture,
the presence of a religious faith is associated with more
favorable chances for marital success. When the outcome
variable is marital permanence or marital break-up, studies
have shown that there were three times as many marital
failure among people with no religious affiliations as among
those within given religions. In marriages of persons with
different religions, religion may be a disruptive factor,

yet, the failure rate of mixed religion marriages is usually

33
lower than that of marriages where there is no religion (p.
348).

Economics. Past research has supported the notion that
socioeconomic rewards in marriage, such as income, education
and occupational prestige are positively related to
favorable marital outcomes. In studies cited by Jorgensen
(1979), family socioeconomic status, generally measured by
the husband's occupational prestige and income level was
shown to have a significant positive relationship with
marital cohesiveness, marital satisfaction, development of
interpersonal skills such as companionship, empathy, and
exchange of affection, and marital stability. These
findings led to the generalization that the greater the
socioeconomic rewards in a marital relationship, the greater
the chance that the marriage would survive a divorce.

Recent research however has not substantiated this
notion. Jorgensen's (1979) review of the literature
indicated inconsistent results. He examined studies by
Brinkerhoff and White, Galligan and Bahr, and Glenn and
Weaver. Results of these studies did not support the notion
of socioeconomic rewards and marital quality as positively
related. In fact, the literature review left uncertainty as
to whether the level of income and social status do in fact
promote more satisfying, fulfilling, and stable
relationships in marriage. Thus, Jorgensen set out to test
two alternative hypotheses which may contribute to better

understanding of the socioeconomic reward/marital quality

34
relationship. Level of socioeconomic reward contributions
in marriage was divided along three dimensions:
occupational prestige, income, and education. Findings were
unsupportive of the notion that higher levels of
socioeconomic rewards were found to be moderately related to
two variable measures for wives: (a) perceptions of their
husbands as competent providers and (b) reports of
satisfaction with spouse's income. Husband's perceptions of
marital quality were unaffected by varying socioeconomic
reward levels.

More recently, Schaniger and Buss (1986) examined
differences in consumption, decision making, and finance
handling behavior patterns between newly married couples who
went on to either a divorce or a happy marriage. Findings
indicated clear and consistent patterns. Happily married
couples were characterized by role specializations, with
less husband dominance and more influence of the wife in
handling different areas of family finance. This led the
authors to conclude that the establishment of equality and
equity in the beginning stages of marriage are important for
the maintenance of the marriage.

Happily married couples also spent more money for
recreational vehicles, appliances, and home purchases.
Divorced couples, on the other hand, spent more money for
stereos, color televisions, and living room furniture. The
authors interpreted this finding along the following lines:

the products purchased by the divorced couples all tended to

35
be worth as much after marital dissolution and tended to be
consistent with individual's leisure enjoyment rather than
family commitment.

Thus, it appears that couples who stay together make
different types of purchases in the early marital stages,
and the wife plays an active role in handling family
finances. However, the idea of socioeconomic rewards being

positively related to marital quality remains questionable.

Criticisms of the Marriage Literature

Many studies have been done on marriage and alternative
lifestyles. If cohabitation is not the key to success for
first marriages, and does not increase the chances for a
long-term, satisfying relationship, what is the answer for
those who desire such a relationship? What are the key
ingredients of not only an enduring marriage, but one rated
as happy by both spouses? In trying to understand why some
marriages fail and others succeed, it is troublesome that so
little attention has been paid to successful marriages
(e.g., Cox, 1981; Lauer & Lauer, 1986). Much information is
available on why people break up, but little has been done
on why peOple stay together.

The literature that is available on marriage and
marriage adjustment is abundant as one covers the courtship
and early marriage years, but decreases as length of
marriage increases. Not much has been written about the

post-parental years, and even less about marriages that have

36
existed 40, 50, or more years. It appears that the works
that tell couples how to construct an enduring and
meaningful marriage tend to be based upon the clinical
experiences of those who believe they've found the key to
success. Thus, it seems that the focus of better
understanding enduring, fulfilling relationships must start
by examining marriages that have lasted and asking what was
right in those marriages.

Another criticism of the marriage literature is the
problem of conceptualization. The early studies of marital
happiness and stability were generally atheoretical, with
few specific hypotheses to examine. When studies were
carried out, general theories were borrowed from disciplines
such as sociology, psychology, and social psychology.
Researchers examined sex as it related to marriage, or
children as they related to marriage, and on and on with
single variable studies. Only recently have endeavors been
made to examine marriage and the many variables that affect
it from an integrative approach.

As a result of the absence of any foundational theory
to give rise to a consistent set of concepts, definitional
problems in research on marital happiness are almost
unending. In many instances, words such as "happiness,"
"success," "adjustment," and "satisfaction" have been used
interchangeably and most frequently to depict the subjective
state of the marital relationship. These words have vast

distinctions in meaning, leaving scientists who have

37
examined the phenomena unable to form exact definitions for
any of them. As an alternative, investigators have begun to
let subjects provide their own definitions, thus, making
true comparisons impossible.

With time however, "marital quality" as a concept has
been gaining greater usage among social scientists, as it
includes the whole range of variables which have been the
usual dependent variables in marital research. In fact, one
of the significant conclusions from the seventies research
has been the unquestionable recognition that marital quality
involves multidimensional phenomena, as defined by Lewis and
Spanier (1979). According to their definition, marital
quality is the subjective evaluation of a married couple's
relationship on a number of dimensions and evaluations:

The range of evaluations constitutes a continuum

reflecting numerous characteristics of marital

interaction and marital functioning. High marital
quality therefore, is associated with good

adjustment, adequate communication, a high level

of marital happiness, integration, and a high

degree of satisfaction with the relationship. The

definition does not convey a fixed picture of

discrete categories, i.e., a high versus low

quality marriage, but rather, suggests the

existence of a continuum ranging from high to low.

38

Rationale

 

Little attention has been directed toward the study of
long-term, satisfying marriage. Recently, this has changed,
as evidenced by recent studies (e.g., Cox, 1981; Lauer &
Lauer, 1986; O'Neil & O'Neil, 1972; Roberts, 1980). The
research project here attempts to explore operative factors
in long term, satisfying marriages. It will also attempt to
delineate between long-term, satisfying marriages versus
only long-term marriages.

This particular research study defines satisfying
marriage according to the previously stated definition of
Lewis and Spanier (1979). This definition was chosen
because it does in fact indicate that a continuum of marital
quality exists, and that characteristics interact with each
other rather than function as separate categories.

The summary of the marriage literature presented
earlier suggests that psychologists must begin to focus
research efforts in areas of intervention/prevention:
marital therapy, marital enrichment, pre-marital counseling
and education. Social scientists must also begin examining
what is right, to better understand and help what is wrong.
This study attempts to do this by examining healthy
marriages; marriages that are both enduring and satisfying
to both spouses. It will also attempt to go a step further
by examining marriage from an integrative approach, rather
than a single variable approach, which in the past has been

the method of choice.

39

The literature presented in this paper leads to the

following
marriages:

H1:

H2:

H4:

H5:

H6:

hypotheses regarding long-term satisfying

Commitment will be positively related to marital
satisfaction because of its direct, as well as
indirect influence on all other variables.
Problem solving, self-disclosure, and congruency
of perception will be the best indicators of, and
will correlate positively with effective
communication, because of their effects on each
other and their direct effect on effective
communication.

Intimacy is directly affected by effective
communication, and directly affected by
commitment, problem solving, self-disclosure, and
congruency of perception.

Conflict is directly affected by effective
communication, and indirectly affected by
commitment, problem solving, self-disclosure and
congruency of perception.

Intimacy and conflict will be the best indicators
of a satisfactory sexual relationship because of
their direct effects on the sexual relationship.
Marital satisfaction is directly affected by
intimacy, conflict, the sexual relationship, and
commitment, and indirectly affected by the other

variables.

H7:

H8:

H9:

H10:

H11:

40
Commitment, effective communication, intimacy, and
the sexual relationship will be the best
indicators of marital satisfaction because of
their direct as well as indirect pathways which
influence marital satisfaction.
Children will be viewed as a significant part of a
satisfying marriage.
Agreement about finances will be positively
related to marital satisfaction.
Most couples in long-term marriage will have the
same religious preference.
Income level will not be related to positive

marital satisfaction.

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects of this research study were 99 couples
married 20 years or more. Twenty years was chosen because
it is over double the median number of years that those
Americans who break up are married before the divorce or
dissolution (Statistical Abstract of the United States,
1988). Thus, it seemed reasonable to say that 20 years is
an enduring marriage.

Subjects were selected in the following manner:

1. By use of census tract data, communities with couples
ages 40 and over were selected because this age range
had the greatest likelihood of having couples who have
been married 20 or more years. Recruitment took place
in the forms of:

a. Door to door solicitation of couples and;

b. Recruitment from people who participated in the
door to door recruitment. These people were asked
to supply me with names of people they know who
met the research criteria, and I asked these
people to participate in the study via phone call.
The couple who turned in the most names of

participants was given a prize.

41

42
Out of 134 couples, 99 completed and returned the
questionnaires. Reasons given for non-participation
included: questions too personal, questions too negative,
questions did not consider enough of the religious aspect of
marriage, or one partner would refuse to answer his/her

portion of the questionnaire.

Demographic Characteristics

The subjects of this study were 99 couples with a mean
age of 58 years. The mean number of years married was 33,
and the mean number of children was 2.6. Racial composition
was as follows: eighty-eight (44%) of the participants were
white, one hundred six (53%) were Black, two (1%) were
Native American, and two (1%) were Asian. Religious
composition was as follows: one hundred fifty-five (78%)
were Protestant, twenty-five (12%) were Catholic, five
(2.5%) were Jewish, seven (3.5%) were no religion, five
(2.5%) were other religion, and one (0.5%) did not answer
the question. Employment was as follows: one hundred
twenty-nine (65%) were employed, forty-nine (24.7%) were
retired, sixteen (8%) were homeworkers, and four (2%) did
not respond to the question. The mean educational level for
participants was 16 years, thus, most participants had

completed college.

43

Materials

 

Five assessment instruments as well as a set of
questions were administered to each couple participating in
this research project (see Table l).

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). This is a 32-
item questionnaire that assesses marital adjustment. Items
make up 4 factor scales: Dyadic consensus (e.g., indicate
extent or agreement of "handling family finances,"
"friends," "philosophy of life"), Dyadic Cohesion (e.g.,
indicate "how often do you and your partner quarrel," "do
you confide in your mate"), and Affectional Expression
(e.g., indicate whether this area is a problem: "being too
tired for sex,” ”not showing love"). Thus, it contains four
non-overlapping scales, one of which will be used to measure
marital satisfaction (question #‘s 16-23, 31, 32). Each
question is scored from zero to five, zero representing poor
marital adjustment, and five equivalent to high marital
adjustment. The summed total of the 4 subscales is the DAS
score. Reliabilities of the 4 subscales range from .73 to
.90. The total scale reliability is .96. Items involved in
the scale were evaluated for content validity. Items were
included if they met the following criteria: (1) They had
to be considered relevant measures of dyadic adjustment for
contemporary relationships in the 1970's; (2) They had to be
consistent with definitions previously suggested by Spanier
and Cole, (1974) for adjustment and the components of

satisfaction, cohesion, and consensus; (3) They had to be

44
carefully worded with appropriate responses. Among married
respondents, the DAS correlated with the Locke-Wallace
Marital Adjustment Test .86. (See Appendix A for a copy of
this scale)

Primary Communication Inventory (Navran, 1967). This
25-item measure assesses quality of verbal communication and
accuracy of nonverbal communication in marriage. It
contains self-report and spouse-report statements, that is,
how a husband or wife perceives his or her own
communication, and how a spouse perceives the other's
communication. It also assesses whether happily married
partners exhibit more congruency in their perceptions of
their communication practices than non-happily married
couples.

This instrument was originally supposed to be used to
measure effective communication as well as congruency of
perception. Congruency of perception was not measured in
this study, because it was an adapted version of the PCI
that was used to measure congruency of perception in other
research studies rather than the original version of the PCI
which was used in this study.

In recent research, Chronbach's coefficient alphas were
computed on each of the scales: verbal PCI and nonverbal
PCI. Internal reliabilities for these scales were computed
on 96 couples. The alphas for 18 verbal items was .85, and
the alpha for 7 nonverbal items was .56. Chronbach alphas

were also computed for each category of married couples.

45
The alpha for 46 happy individuals were: verbal PCI=.79,
and nonverbal PCI=.55. The alphas for 46 individuals
undergoing counseling were: verbal PCI=.80, and nonverbal
PCI=.42. (See Appendix B for a copy of this scale)

Primary Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR),

 

(Olson & Schaefer, undated). The PAIR Inventory is a 36-
item questionnaire that describes how each of the partners
sees the relationship as it is now and how each would like
it to be on five types of intimacy: emotional (e.g., My
partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to),
social (e.g., We enjoy spending time with other couples),
sexual (e.g., I am satisfied with our sex life),
intellectual (e.g., My partner helps me clarify my
thoughts), recreational (e.g., We enjoy the same
recreational activities). A sixth scale was added that
reveals the tendency to try and make an exaggerated good
impression from Edmonds Conventionality Scale (1967). The
PAIR has six items for each scale, and six scores are
reported. The internal consistency reliability of the PAIR
is .70 for intellectual or recreational intimacy to .77 for
sexual intimacy. No test-retest reliability is reported.

The correlation between PAIR scores and other test scores is
significant. The Social Intimacy subscale correlates .98
with couples' scores on the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment
Scale. The correlation between PAIR and another recently
developed intimacy scale, the Waring Intimacy Questionnaire,

is significant (R=.77; p>.01). The correlation between PAIR

46
and a test of self-disclosure was significant but low (.13
to .31). PAIR is correlated significantly with various
measures of family environment, especially Cohesion and
Expressiveness. The best scale for predicting other marital
questionnaire scores is the scale for Emotional Intimacy.
(See Appendix C for a copy of this scale)

Marital Satisfaction Inventory (Snyder, 1981). This

 

questionnaire is a 280-item, true-false questionnaire
developed to measure possible sources of marital
dissatisfaction. It has one scale to measure the tendency
to make a good impression about the marriage, one global
satisfaction scale, three scales that measure the general
quality of communication and time together, five scales that
measure specific sources of marital distress, and one scale
to measure the stress and ineffective role models found in
the client's original families. Thus, it contains 11 non-
overlapping scales, two of which will be used to measure:
problem-solving, and finance disagreement.

The internal consistency reliability estimates for all
scales were high: from .80 to .97. The average coefficient
was .88. Stability estimates of the scores over six weeks
were very high: from .84 to .94. The average correlation
was .89. (See Appendix D for a copy of this scale)

Self-Disclosure 21 (Jourard, 1960). This is a 21-item
questionnaire that assesses self-disclosure among couples.
The SD-21 is a modified version of an earlier self-report

instrument of self-disclosure, the 50-60 (Jourard & Lasakow,

47
1958). The statements in the 80-21 covers four of the six
topic areas in the 80-60, but is worded differently. The
four topic areas covered are: attitudes and opinions (e.g.,
your personal religious views and the nature of your
religious participation, if any); tastes and interests
(e.g., your hobbies and how you best like to spend your
spare time); work (e.g., the aspects of your daily work that
satisfy and bother you); and personality (e.g.,
characteristics of yourself that give you cause for pride
and satisfaction). Excluded are the topic areas of money
(e.g., whether or not I owe money; if so, how much), and
body image (e.g., problems and worries that I had with my
appearance in the past). The 80-21 contains self-report
statements which measures the amount of past self-disclosure
to ones spouse. Each question is scored from zero to five,
zero representing low self-disclosure. The summed total of
the 21 questions is the SD score. The general psychometric
quality of the SD-60 is considered quite good. Jourard and
Lasakow (1958) report overall odd-even split-half
reliability coefficients of .94, and Fitzgerald (1963)
reports split-half reliability coefficients between .78 and
.99 for the six SD-60 topic areas. On adapted versions of
the SD-60, such as the SD-21 and others, Jourard and Richman
(1963) report odd-even reliability coefficients for each of
the topic areas ranging from .75 to .90, and .85 for the
total score. Test-retest reliability coefficients after six

months were established from two samples and were .61 and

48

.62 for the total score. (See Appendix E for copy of this

scale.)

The following four questions were asked to assess
marital commitment:

Marriage is a long-term commitment.

l=strongly disagree 3=agree

2=disagree 4=strongly agree

If you had your life to live over again, would you:
1=marry another person

2=not marry at all

3=marry the same person

Have you ever considered separating from your spouse?
1=seriously 3=yes, but never seriously
2=somewhat seriously 4=not at all

How likely is it that in the future you may find a
person you would rather be married to instead of your
present spouse?

l=very likely 3=somewhat unlikely

2=somewhat likely 4=very unlikely

The following three questions were asked to assess
quantity of marital conflict:

Frequency of getting on each other's nerves.
1=never 4=more often than not
2=rarely 5=most of the time

3=occasionally 6=all of the time

49

Frequency of quarreling.

1=never 4=more often than not
2=rarely 5=most of the time
3=occasionally 6=all of the time

Frequency of discussing divorce, separation or

termination of the relationship.

1=never 4=more often than not
2=rarely 5=most of the time
3=occasionally 6=all of the time

The following question was asked to assess sexual
gratification.
Sex has become more enjoyable over the years.

1=yes 2=no

The following questions were asked to assess humor and

play.

Frequency of laughing together.

1=never 4=once to twice a week
2=less than once a month 5=once a day
3=once or twice a month 6=more than once a day

I enjoy being with my spouse and sharing fun times

together.
1=never 4=once to twice a week
2=less than once a month 5=once a day

3=once or twice a month 6=more than once a day

50

3. My spouse has a good sense of humor.
1=never 4=almost always
2=almost never 5=always

3=occasionally

4. My spouse and I engage in outside interests together.
1=never 4=almost always
2=almost never 5=always

3=occasionally

The following two questions were asked to assess the
significance of children to a successful marriage.

1. Children have been an important factor in the success
of our marriage.
1=true 2=false

2. Our children have provided a significant part of the
purpose and meaning of our marriage.

1=true 2=false

Procedure

 

Informed Consent. A letter describing the purpose and

 

procedures of the study was given to each subject. An
informed consent slip was attached to this description of
the study. Subjects who agreed to participate in the study
signed a statement of this fact. Only subjects who signed
the consent form were allowed to participate. (See Appendix

F for a copy of the informed consent form).

Table 1

Marital Statistics

 

 

Variable N Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Marsat 198 34.23 3.24 23 42
Selfdisc 198 45.28 13.81 0 84
Problem Solv 198 27.61 8.48 2 38
Sex 198 71.00 18.01 0 96
Intimacy 198 70.07 17.80 20 96
Effcomm 198 65.87 11.24 22 90
Commitment 198 13.66 1.45 9 15
Conflict 198 6.57 1.54 3 13
Humor/Play 198 15.01 1.57 7 23
Children 198 2.28 0.62 2 4

RESULTS

Based upon the foregoing literature reviews, variables
were selected for this causal model (see Figure 1). It is
from this model that the hypotheses were established, thus,
the model serves as a visual representation of the
hypotheses. This model also shows very distinct directions
of influence, or paths among variables that lead directly or
indirectly to marital satisfaction, and is the basis for
path analysis.

In Figure 2, all but two variables remained in the
model. Variables excluded were religion and congruency of
perception. Religion was excluded because it was not
actually hypothesized to have an influence on marital
satisfaction, but rather, it was hypothesized that most
couples would have the same religious preference, more of a
yes/no question. Congruency of perception was excluded due
to the reasons explained in the methods section.

To get from Figure 2 to the final Figure 3 actually
required two additional path models. This entailed using
the original correlations from the correlation matrix (see
Table 1), to calculate path coefficients. From the

coefficients, the correlation matrix was reproduced. From

52

53
the actual and reproduced correlations, the error analysis
was obtained.

The error analysis begins with the original correlation
matrix and the path coefficients. The path coefficients can
be combined according to the rules described by Duncan
(1975) to produce what may be termed 'the reproduced
correlation matrix.‘ If the path model fits the data
perfectly, then the reproduced correlation matrix would
match the original correlation matrix exactly. In most
cases, however, the path model does not fit perfectly, thus,
one must quantify the deviations from the original
correlation matrix, and decide if the deviations are
statistically meaningful, that is, greater than chance.

The procedure used to determine the degree of misfit
for the model as a whole is to substitute elements in the
reproduced correlation matrix from the corresponding
elements in the original. This gives the error matrix.
Inspection of the error matrix indicates where the
reproduced correlations deviate from the observed, thus,
where the model may need to be modified.

To quantify the fit of the model as a whole, the
procedure used is to square the terms in the error matrix
and sum them (either above or below the diagonal). To turn
this number into a meaningful statistic, a standard error
for the unconstrained correlations must be computed. The
unconstrained correlations correspond to those paths which

‘were not specified in the model. The standard error is

54
computed by averaging the unconstrained correlations and
entering that value into a formula; this formula is simply
the standard deviation for a correlation. The summary
measures of the fit of the model is: the sum of the squared
errors divided by the standard deviation of the average
unconstrained correlations. This statistic is termed 'Q'
(Hunter, 1983). 'Q' is equivalent to a chi square, thus,
its significance can be tested using a chi square table and
the degrees of freedom are equivalent to the number of
unconstrained correlations. If the 'Q' statistic is not
significant, then the model adequately fits the data.

If the 'Q' statistic is not significant, then the
analysis would be finished. As a last check, however, the
error terms can be examined by the method to be described
below to see if any are significant. When doing this,
however, one should keep in mind that a large error may
occur simply by chance, thus, a decision to change the model
should take into account substantive reasons. The path
coefficients are equal to beta coefficients in multiple
regression and their standard errors may be computed in like
manner.

If the 'Q' statistic is significant, then the model
needs to be modified. The basic procedure in modifying the
model is to add a path corresponding to the largest error,
and then rerun the model. If desired, a statistical test
may be constructed for each error as described by Hunter

(1983); this is the z-score.

55

It may happen that the final model has some
coefficients which are not significant, and what one does
with nonsignificant coefficients depends on the degree to
which the model is tied to a theory. If the theory makes
specific predictions about certain paths, then a
nonsignificant path coefficient is disconfirming evidence,
and should be kept. If, on the other hand, the desire is to
fit the model to the data without regard to theory, then
nonsignificant paths can be dropped and the model rerun, as
in this particular research project. In other words, if in
the error analysis the 2 value was > 1.96 (p < .05), certain
variables were excluded and new paths were needed, thus, two
additional path models were necessary to get from Figure 2
to the final Figure 3.

Figure 3 is better than Figures 1 and 2, and the best
solution for two major reasons. First of all, the path
coefficients obtained in Figure 3 are all strong
coefficients and show more interaction among variables than
the previous figures. Although it might have been possible
to obtain even stronger path coefficients by omitting more
variables, the purpose of this particular study was to
examine several variables that are thought to work together
to achieve a "successful" marriage. Figure 3 has strong
path coefficients and maintains the majority of variables
discussed in the literature review.

Figure 3 provides much information about the

hypotheses, even with the four variables of religion,

56
finances, children, and congruency of perception excluded.
It should be pointed out that the variables of children and
finances were excluded from the final path due to them
having 2 values > 1.96 in the path models necessary to get
from Figure 2 to the final Figure 3. The final set of
variables selected included: commitment, problem solving,
self-disclosure, conflict, effective communication,
intimacy, humor/play, the sexual relationship, and marital
satisfaction. It is believed that these variables or
characteristics influence each other directly and/or
indirectly, thereby effecting marriage rather than
functioning as separate entities. The hypotheses were
analyzed two different ways, correlational analysis and path

analysis, and are illustrated in Figure 3 and Table 2.

Path Modeling of Long-term, Satisfying Marriages

Hypothesis 1 stated that commitment was positively
related to marital satisfaction because of its direct, as
well as indirect, influences on all other variables (see
Figure 1). There was a significant positive correlation (5
= .26, P < .01) between commitment and marital satisfaction,
but the path analysis showed no direct path between the two
variables. Figure 3 shows that the influence of commitment
on marital satisfaction was mediated by commitment's effect
on the amount of conflict present in the marriage. The more
commitment evidenced in the marriage, the less conflict

there was (path coef. = -.28).

57

Hypothesis 2 stated that problem solving and self-
disclosure were the best indicators of, and will correlate
positively with, effective communication because of their
direct effect on effective communication (see Figure 1).
There was a significant positive correlation (r = .37, p <
.001) between problem solving and effective communication,
and the path analysis also showed a direct path between the
two variables (path coef. = .26). There was also a
significant positive correlation (r = .43, p < .001) between
self-disclosure and effective communication, and the path
analysis showed a direct path between the two variables
(path coef. = .40).

Hypotheses 3 stated that intimacy was directly affected
by effective communication, and indirectly affected by
commitment, problem solving, and self-disclosure (see Figure
1). There was a significant positive correlation (£.= .53,
p < .001) between intimacy and effective communication, and
the path analysis showed a direct path between the two
variables (path coef. =.32). There was a significant
positive correlation (r = .66, p < .001) between intimacy
and problem solving, and the path analysis showed a direct
path between the two variables (path coef. = .45). There
was a significant positive correlation (r = .17, p < .05)
between intimacy and self-disclosure, but the path analysis
showed no direct path between the two variables. Figure 3
shows that the influence of self-disclosure on intimacy was

mediated by self-disclosure's effect on effective

 

58
communication present in the marriage. The more self-
disclosure evidenced in the marriage, the more effective
communication (path coef. =.40). There was no significant
correlation between intimacy and commitment, but the path
analysis showed that the influence of commitment on intimacy
was mediated by commitment's effect on conflict present in
the marriage. The more commitment evidenced in the marriage
the less conflict there was (path coef. = -.28).

Hypothesis 4 stated that conflict was directly affected
by effective communication, and indirectly affected by
commitment, problem solving, and self-disclosure (see Figure
1). There was a significant negative correlation (r = -.28.
‘2 < .001) between conflict and effective communication, and
the path analysis showed a direct path between the two
variables (path coef. = -.15). There was a significant
negative correlation (r = -.33, p < .001) between conflict
and commitment, and the path analysis showed a direct path
between the two variables (path coef. = -.28). There was a
significant negative correlation (r = -.48, p < .001)
between conflict and problem solving, and the path analysis
showed a direct path between the two variables (path coef. =
-.45). There was no significant correlation between
conflict and self-disclosure, and the path analysis showed
no direct path between the two variables.

Hypothesis 5 stated that intimacy and conflict were the
best indicators of a satisfactory sexual relationship (see

Figure 1). There was a significant positive correlation (r

59

= .35, p < .001) between intimacy and sex, but the path
analysis showed no direct path between the two variables.
There was a significant negative correlation (r = -.18, p <
.01) between conflict and sex, but the path analysis showed
no direct path between the two variables. The path analysis
did, however, show a direct path between problem solving and
sex (path coef. = .26), and there was a significant positive
correlation (E = .37, p < .001) between the two variables,
and the path analysis also showed a direct path between
effective communication and sex (path coef. = .28), and
there was a significant positive correlation (r = .38, p <
.001) between these two variables. Correlational analysis
showed significant relationships between the variables that
were unsupported by the path analysis, as well as the new
ones discovered in the path analysis. This difference
between the two analyses implies then, that neither intimacy
nor conflict is a direct causation for a satisfactory sexual
relationship, and although intimacy and the sexual
relationship, as are conflict and the sexual relationship
are both related, this does not imply causation.
Interestingly, problem solving and effective communication
were also correlated with the.sexual relationship, thereby,
supporting results from the path analysis (see Figures 3 and
4).

Hypothesis 6 stated that intimacy, conflict, the
sexual relationship, and commitment directly affect marital

satisfaction (see Figure 1). There was a significant

60

positive correlation (E = .40, p < .001) between intimacy
and marital satisfaction, but the path analysis showed no
direct path between the two variables. There was a
significant negative correlation (r = -.S7, 2 < .001)
between conflict and marital satisfaction, and the path
analysis showed a direct path between the two variables
(path coef. -.45). There was a significant positive
correlation (5 = .23, p < .001) between sex and marital
satisfaction, but the path analysis showed no direct path
between the two variables. There was no significant
correlation between commitment and marital satisfaction.
Figure 3 shows that the influence of commitment on marital
satisfaction was mediated by commitment's effect on the
amount of conflict present in the marriage. The more
commitment evidenced in the marriage, the less conflict
there was (path coef. = -.28). Once again, correlational
analysis conflicted with the path analysis by showing
significant relationships of these variables with marital
satisfaction. Here too, relation does not imply causation.

Hypothesis 7 stated that commitment, effective
communication, intimacy, and the sexual relationship were
the best indicators of marital satisfaction due to their
direct and indirect influences on marital satisfaction (see
Figure 1). This hypothesis is the same as Hypothesis 6,
except it looks at effective communication and marital
satisfaction, which Hypothesis 6 does not do. There was a

significant positive correlation (r = .28, p < .001) between

61
effective communication and marital satisfaction, but the
path analysis showed no direct path between the two
variables (see Figure 3).

Hypothesis 8 stated that children would be viewed as a
significant part of a satisfying marriage (see Figure 1).
There was no significant correlation between children and
marital satisfaction, and, as stated earlier, the variable
of children was excluded from the path model due to its
nonsignificant path coefficient (see Figure 3).

Hypothesis 9 stated that agreement about finances was
positively related to marital satisfaction (see Figure 1).
There was a significant positive correlation (5 = .31, p <
.001) between finances and marital satisfaction, but this
variable was excluded from the path model due to its
nonsignificant path coefficient. This contradictory finding
between the correlational analysis and the path analysis
might be explained in that agreement about finances could
perhaps be a milder version of problem solving, and to the
extent that one can agree about finances, one also has good
problem solving skills (see Figure 3).

Hypothesis 10 stated that most couples in long-term
marriage would have the same religious preference. This
hypothesis was supported. Out of the 98 couples that
participated in the study, only nine had different religious
preferences.

The hypothesized model received only partial support.

It must be kept in mind, however, that in using path

62
analyses, the theoretical model and its linkages were
established apriori via theory and a literature review of
previous research studies. As a result of this limitation,
path analyses does not find causal directions, but instead,
is a way for testing directions of causation already
established by the researcher. None of the proposed direct
influences to marital satisfaction were evidenced. Four of
the intermediate variables were omitted, (three due to their
non-significance, the other unmeasurable) however, the
majority of them remained in the model and were supported
directly or indirectly. The focus of this particular
research study was to examine the variables that work
together to achieve a "successful" marriage, which the final
path model does in fact do. Variables with direct influence
on marital satisfaction were problem solving and conflict.
Also shown by this path model was how the other variables
either directly or indirectly influence or add to the

marital relationship (see Figure 3).

Other Findings

 

When variables were analyzed by gender, findings
similar to hypothesized results were obtained. Hypothesis 1
stated that commitment was positively related to marital
satisfaction. There was a significant positive correlation
between husband's commitment and husband's marital
satisfaction (see Table 4), and a significant positive

correlation between wife's commitment and wife's marital

63
satisfaction (see Table 5). When these same variables were
analyzed between couples, however, there was not a
significant correlation between husband's commitment and
wife's satisfaction or vice-versa (see Table 6). It seems
then that the more committed a person is to the marriage
and/or their spouse, the more satisfied the person is with
their marriage. Commitment by one person, however, does not
mean satisfaction by the other person.

Hypothesis 2 stated that problem solving and self-
disclosure were the best indicators of, and will correlate
positively with, effective communication. No significant
correlation was found between problem solving and self-
disclosure, or problem solving and effective communication
by gender. When examined between couples, however, there
was a significant positive correlation betwen husband's
problem solving and wife's effective communication, but no
significant correlation between wife's problem solving and
husband's effective communication (see Table 6).

There was a significant positive correlation between
husband's self-disclosure and effective communication, a
significant positive correlation between wife's self-
disclosure and effective communication, a significant
positive correlation between wife's self-disclosure and
husband's effective communication and a significant positive
correlation between husband's self-disclosure and wife's

effective communication (see Tables 4, 5, and 6).

64

Hypothesis 3 stated that intimacy was directly affected
by effective communication, and indirectly affected by
commitment, problem solving, and self-disclosure. There
were significant positive correlations between husband's
intimacy and effective communication, husband's intimacy and
problem solving (see Table 4). There were no significant
correlations between husband's intimacy and self-disclosure
and intimacy and commitment. There were significant
positive correlations between wife's intimacy and effective
communication, intimacy and problem solving (see Table 5).
No significant correlations were found between wife's
intimacy and self-disclosure and intimacy and commitment.
There were significant positive correlations between
husband's intimacy and wife's effective communication,
wife's intimacy and husband's effective communication,
husband's intimacy anmd wife's problem solving, wife's
intimacy and husband's problem solving, and husband's self-
disclosure and wife's intimacy (see Table 6). There were no
significant correlations between wife's self-disclosure and
husband's intimacy, husband's intimacy and wife's
commitment, or wife's intimacy and husband's commitment.

Hypothesis 4 stated that conflict was directly affected
by effective communication, and indirectly affected by
commitment, problem solving, and self-disclosure. For
husband's, there were significant negative correlations
between conflict and effective communication, conflict and

commitment, and conflict and problem solving (see Table 4).

65
There was no significant correlation between conflict and
effective communication, conflict and commitment, and
conflict and problem solving (see Table 5). There was no
significant correlation between conflict and self-
disclosure. Between couples, significant negative
correlations between husband's conflict and wife's effective
communication, wife's conflict and husband's effective
communication, husband's conflict and wife's commitment, and
wife's conflict and husband's commitment (see Table 6). No
significant correlation was found between husband's conflict
and wife's problem solving. There was a significant
negative correlation between wife's conflict and husband's
problem solving (see Table 6). There was a significant
positive correlation between husband's conflict and wife's
self-disclosure (see Table 6). There was no significant
correlation between wife's conflict and husband's self-
disclosure.

Hypothesis 5 stated that intimacy and conflict were the
best indicators of a satisfactory sexual relationship. For
husband's, there was a significant positive correlation
between intimacy and sex (see Table 4). There was no
significant correlation between conflict and sex. For
wife's there was a significant positive correlation between
intimacy and sex (see Table 5). There was no significant
correlation between conflict and sex. Between couples,
there was no significant correlation between husband's

intimacy and wife's sex. There was however, a significant

66

 

positive correlation between wife's intimacy and husband's
sex (see Table 6). There were no significant correlations
between husband's conflict and wife's sex, or vice-versa.

Hypothesis 6 stated that intimacy, conflict, the sexual
relationship, and commitment directly affect marital
satisfaction. For husband's there was significant positive
correlations between intimacy and marital satisfaction, sex
and marital satisfaction, and commitment and marital

satisfaction. There was a significant negative correlation

 

between conflict and marital satisfaction (see Table 4).
For wife's, there was significant positive correlations
between intimacy and marital satisfaction, sex and marital
satisfaction, and commitment and marital satisfaction.
There was a significant negative correlation between
conflict and marital satisfaction (see Table 5). Between
couples, there were significant positive correlations
between husband's intimacy and wife's marital satisfaction,
wife's intimacy and husband's marital satisfaction, and
husband's sex and wife's marital satisfaction (see Table 5).
There were no significant correlations between wife's sex
and husband's marital satisfaction, husband's commitment and
wife's marital satisfaction, or vice-versa. There were
significant negative correlations between husband's conflict
and wife's marital satisfaction, and wife's conflict and
husband's marital satisfaction (see Table 6).

Hypothesis 7 stated that commitment, effective

communication, intimacy, and the sexual relationship were

67
the best indicators of marital satisfaction. This
hypothesis is the same as Hypothesis 6, except it looks at
effective communication and marital satisfaction. There
were significant positive correlations between husband's
effective communication and marital satisfaction (see Table
4), between wife's effective communication and marital
satisfaction (see Table 5), between husband's effective
communication with wife's marital satisfaction, and between
wife's effective communication and husband's marital
satisfaction (see Table 6).

Hypothesis 8 stated that children would be viewed as a
significant part of a satisfying marriage. There were no
significant correlations by gender or between couples.

Hypothesis 9 stated that agreement about finances was
positively related to marital satisfaction. There was a
significant positive correlation between husband's agreement
about finances and marital satisfaction (see Table 4), but
not for wife's, and no significant correlation between

couples.

68
Table 2

Status of the Hypotheses

 

Hypotheses S R PS

 

H1: Commitment will be positively related

to marital satisfaction because of its

direct, as well as indirect influence on

all other variables. PS

H2: Problem solving and self-disclosure

will be the best indicators of, and will
correlate positively with effective
communication, because of their effects

on each other and their direct effect on
effective communication. S

H3: Intimacy is directly affected by
effective communication, and indirectly
affected by commitment, problem solving,

and self-disclosure. S

H4: Conflict is directly affected by

effective communication, and indirectly

affected by commitment, problem solving,

and self-disclosure. PS

H5: Intimacy and conflict will be the

best indicators of the satisfactory

sexual relationship, because of their

direct effects on the sexual relationship. R

H6: Marital satisfaction is directly

affected by intimacy, conflict, the

sexual relationship, and

commitment. PS

H7: Commitment, effective communication,

intimacy, and the sexual relationship will

be the best indicators of marital satisfaction
because of their direct as well as indirect
pathways which influence marital satisfaction. R

H8: Children will be viewed as a
significant part of a satisfying marriage. R

69

 

Hypotheses S R PS

 

H9: Agreement about finances will be
positively related to marital satisfaction. PS

H10: Most couples in long-term marriage
will have the same religious preference. S

 

S = Supported R = Refuted PS = Partially Supported

70

>m_m\u053=

 

oc.~
couumoncoesou
achv. oo.~ o>wu00uum
cccvv. «ccmm. oo.~ aooEwucu
ccchm. coamm. edema. oo.H 20m
«cemm. uccsm. cayoo. accnm. oo.~ mcfl>~om
Eo~n0um
cccu. accnv. «ha. ccog. ca. oo.u Homwouuuom
cacvn. datum. coccv. cchN. cccwv. no. oo.~ mfluwum
aouquox
cachN. cccwa. eccvm. ccamm. accvn. +Na. «aaam. oc.~ . mwocmcfim
cc. no. no. ~o.a no. vo.n He. no. co.H couc~finu
«com. vo. +-. no. ca. mo.r .uwm. 44m”. do.) oc.~ uueeou
aaahn.l caco~.l cannv.) «cou.l ccccv.l «0.! cachm.r «ccmm.l ao.l accmm.l oo.~ unwmucou
aomm coleou ocw>~om "Oman abacum
\uoezz uoouuu aooeaucm xom so~no~m nu~om "Madam: moocmcwm cmuc~fizo aweeou u0a~ucou

 

md~bm~um> wcoe< unawumnmuuoo

n wfinmh

71

 

co.~ womewucm
Hoo.ud

mm. co.~ xom
aoo.ua Doo.ud

mm. mm. co.“ czeeou uomwum

ca.ua oo.ud Hm.na

ma. cc. me. co.“ moocmcwm
Hoo.ua moo.ua mo..a Hoo.ua

me.. an. an. an. oo.u >~om em~n0um

NH.»a moo.ua Hoo.ua om.na mm.ua

ha. an. ac. co. co. co.“ nonwonuuom
doo.ud voo.ud moo.um vo.ud aoo.ud cv.ud

on. cm. on. am. we. ac. co.~ boom Houauoz
Hoc.na coc.ua Hoo.na na.um poo.ua ~o..a aoo.ua

av. an. we. no.1 hm. «N. am. oo.~ amamxuossz

om.ua mm.uo -.na o~.ua am.ua ms..d am.ud cm..a

~c.l we. vo. vH.I no. mo. no. mu. oo.~ cmuuafizu

~m.ua Ga..a as..a «a..a ~a.ua ow..a ~o..g so.ua as..a

«a. no. vo.| ~o.r o—. no.1 mm. am. co. oo.~ unusuweeou
aco.ud ho..a ~o..a ~o.»d Hoe..d he..o ace..d Soc..a om..a ~oo..m

mv.r ¢~.| mm.u v~.I ov.r co. ow.l mm.n No.) ~n.| oo.H DUAHucoo

czseou oca>~om onougo usumum am~m

>ooewucn xom vacuum moococnm 56—30um runom “Mound: \uoss= coucqflzu Dweeou Dowducoo

 

mustang: >n mo~nmwum> mcoe< wcoflumaouuou

v wmnmb

72

 

co.“ >omeflucn
aco.ua

on. oo.H xom
doo.um Hoo.um

mm. m'. oo.~ :DEEOU Duouum

mm.«a o4..a o~.ua

mo. ao.| NH.I oc.H moocmcwm
Sco.uo No.ua ao..d ao.ua

we. mm. m«. cm. oo.~ >~om EUHAOHQ

-.ud qv.ua Hoo.na ~m.ua so.ua

oa. me. an. we.) m~.| oc.~ ~omfioru~om
Hoo.na «o.ua Ha.ua o~.na ~o..d sm.ud

mm. Am. ow. Ha. om. cu. co.“ boom dmuwuox
doo.nm do.na floo.nm ma.um mo.ud v~.nm moo.nm

we. cm. mm. mH.I mm. mu. an. ac.“ >m~m\uoeaz

-.ua nv.ua m...a m~.ua ma.ua an..a am.ua mo..a

9“. mo.) no. no. ma. o~.| mo. do. oo.d cou0~wnu

ma.ua no..a oH.»a ~fl.ua ov..d H..ua so.ua mo.ua ms..a

ca. me. ha. o~.n 50.: mo.l mm. Hm. mo.l oo.~ acoEuMEEou
floo.ua oo.ua aco.ua om.na Ho.nd om.um Hoo.ud vo.ua om..a Hoo.ud

om.u o~.| mm.| #0.: m~.u o~.n mo.r -.r Hc.u om.r oo.~ ubu~ucou

coseou vcw>~om onommn maboum xmna

aooswucu xom abouum moocmcwm soHQODA rumom ~oaflumz \uoeoz cououwzu umeeou bowuucoo

 

mo>m3 >2 mo~anum> mcoec mcofium~muuou

m Dunne

‘73

 

Hoe..a AN..m ~oo.ua ~o.ua Has..a Hoo.ua an..a ma.nm Noo.ua
Hoe..m aoo.ua am. an. NM. cm. av. 44. AH. me. an.) someauca
as. an.
as..a an..a A...a an..m cu..a no..m no..m ~m..d om..a
Hmm.nm goo..a mN. as. ea. «c. 4H. -. m~.u ac.n ac.n xmm
. my.
goo..a mo.um woo..a goo..m «cc..a Hoe..m ou..d ov..d ao..d
”mm..a Hoe..a as. ea. «~. on. on. we. no. so. m~.- :sseoo powwow
. an.
so..m m~.um om..m on..m an..m on.ua ma.um ma..a -..a
"m.ua aa..d no. «a. no.- p~.- cu. oa.u Ho.u H~.u ~H.s mmucmcflm
o. ma.u
Ho..m mm..m “co..m mp..a doc..o Ho..a ao..d -..m ho..a
Hmw.ua ow..a on. a”. me. .o.. mm. mm. .o. ~a.u ma.u >Hom emfinoua
I ‘H.
. ~oo..d H...a He..a Hoe..a ma..m an..a am.um on..m Ac..m
mm..m mm.um an. ao.u as.. m.. ~o.u 4H. H°.- ao.u om. Homaouufiom
. No..m om..m ooo..d an..m aco..d me..a mm..a me..a Moo..m
an” no Ho..a an. no. ow. ma. ac. -. on. as. vn.- omum "manna:
. AN.
Hoe..a o~..d ”so..a co..m ace..a Hoe..m oo..d do..m Hoe..a
an“..a soc..a av. AH. mm. AN. .4. no. a”. ma. on.u amam\uos==
. on.
. ma..m ~w..d Hm..m o”.um n...m ou..d Hoe..m an..m ~n..d
“M «a «n..o no.. mo.. «9.- Ho.u ac. Ho.u an. no. vo.- cmuoflano
.. on.)
. ~...a mm..a ms..a no..m -..a on..a a...a Has..a no..a
m“ .a on..a oc.a o”. mu. -.u ~H. ma. mo.u o.. -.u ucmsuHeeoo
O NO.‘
aoo..d an..m ”so..m n4..m aoo..d Ho..m on..m ~c..¢ Hoe..m
~co..d as..o vm.u na.: 44.: oo.a 4..- >~.n no.u 4a.- am. uoafluaoo
Hm.u H~.u . m.maaz
coaeou mca>~om odomua mououm roam
auoEaucH xom uuomum ooucocam soanoum Inflow Havana: \uoesa coucuwnu Dwaaou uofiaucou
m.oz<nm=:

 

nonmoou coozuon moanoauo> mcoa< acowuoaouuou
m Danna

74

482 no. it 8 988th 83385 8855 4

n.

H89; Sam 688952: .N 833

>m~mxuossz
\ /
comuomdmfiumm mmcmzozmmom Hmnno>cozzmnum> whamonuma
amino: All Hosxomfilll SUMEEEAIUI case—co w>30ouum All“). numomAlllllnucmEuHEEoo
an“ cmm cmm cmv amOI

 

WQUCMEMM
conga—LO moweocoum bunzcouAullll mimic...“ Eounoum
aavl

75

492 no. 9t on ufioagm «Bauhaus. £8 3. i.
Ex: 58 ESE .m 95mm

«bu Hmnuo>coz\~mnno> «cc ousmoflomwn
mmam\HOE::APIIIIIIIIIIIII.czeeou o>wuumuumArlulllllllllll.ouomoaomfionwaom

               
       

   

:ofiuomwmwumm mflzmcofiumamm
Hmumnmz Hmoxom

  

uoflflmcoo acmEDLEEoo

«mg- com

mcw>gom EDHDOHm

DISCUSSION

The focus of this study was to examine the predictive
power of a model of several variables that work together to
achieve a "successful" marriage. Using causal modeling and
path analysis, its purpose was to add knowledge to the area
of marriage using an integrative approach. It is felt that
this particular research study was successful in this
endeavor in that it went a step further than most previous
single variable studies, and examined marriage from an
integrative perspective. The original model was an attempt
to examine a two-way flow of causal direction, however, path
analysis tests only one-way causal direction, thus, a model
to fit this type of analysis was developed. This does not
mean, however, that a two-way flow of causal direction does
not exist. The variables selected for the model were based
on an expanding set of theories. The variables included are
not exhaustive, however, they are those most researched in

previous studies.

Major Findings
The overall model provides moderate support for the
hypothesized model as formulated in the path diagram. The

model was based on several theories and studies regarding

76

77
marital satisfaction; some of which were fully supported,
some partially supported, and others refuted.

Several theories commitment as it relates to marriage
were discussed. Of these theorists, Kilpatrick's (1975)
theory is the most outspoken regarding the importance or
connection between commitment and an enduring marriage. He
states that "commitment is one of the foremost requirements
of an enduring marriage," (1975, pp. 232-233). Keeping in
mind Kilpatrick's view, along with other theorists' views
(e.g., Lauer & Lauer, 1986; Quinn, 1982; Sternberg, 1985),
commitment was hypothesized to directly effect marital
satisfaction. The paths revealed by the analyses show that
commitment is an important variable, however, its influence
on marital satisfaction is indirect rather than direct. As
shown in Figure 3, commitment directly affects conflict,
which directly affects marital satisfaction. In other
words, commitment's direct influence on conflict, which
directly affects marital satisfaction. Thus, Kilpatrick's
and others views were partially supported.

When this same variable is examined by gender, it was
shown that husband's commitment and marital satisfaction
were positively correlated with each other, as were wife's
commitment and marital satisfaction. This indicates that
one's marital satisfaction is related to one's level of
commitment. Between couples, however, this was not the
case; one cannot predict one spouse's marital satisfaction

by the other spouses level of commitment.

78

Several precursers were discussed as being necessary
for effective communication to occur. These included
problem solving, low conflict, and self-disclosure. Lauer
and Lauer's (1986) theory of conflict and problem solving as
it relates to effective communication was fully supported by
the results. Their theory suggests that people in satisfied
marital relationships are those whose communication skills
have been enlarged to deal appropriately with the problems
inherent in marriage. These two variables are the only two
in the entire path model that have direct effects on marital
satisfaction. It seems then, that while all the other
variables are important and add to marital satisfaction in
some way, it is the extent to which one can problem solve
and keep conflict to a minimum that has the most direct
influence on one having a satisfactory marital relationship.
Interestingly enough, when problem solving and effective
communication were looked at by gender, no significant
relationships were found. Significant relationships were
found, however, between couples in that husband's problem
solving was positively related to wife's effective
communication, or, the greater the husband's problem solving
skills, the more effective the wife's communication skills,
or vice-versa. When examining conflict with marital
satisfaction, both husbands and wives with low conflict are
more satisfied with their marriages, and one can predict a
spouses level of marital satisfaction by their level of

conflict. This same finding also holds true for effective

79
communication and marital satisfaction. These findings are
also supported by more recent research. Sabourin, Laporte,
and Wright (1990) investigated the relationship between
problem solving, specific coping efforts and marital
distress. Results indicated that when compared to
nondistressed spouses, distressed spouses showed less
ability to problem solve, a tendency to avoid problem
solving activities, and poor strategies to control their
behavior.

Regarding self-disclosure, theorists such as Komanovsky
(1962), Hendrick (1982), and Jourard (1982) discuss its
importance to effective communication and marital
satisfaction. Self-disclosure had no direct or indirect
influence on marital satisfaction. This same finding held
true when examined by gender as well as between couples. It
did, however, directly affect effective communication as
suggested, and affected several other variables indirectly
via effective communication. Once again, this was true via
gender and between couples. Husbands' and wives' ability to
self-disclose was related to their level of effective
communication, and one could predict one spouse's ability to
self-disclose based on the other spouse's level of effective
communication or vice versa. It seems, therefore, that what
Lauer and Lauer (1986) have to say about enlarged
commuincation skills is true, and that effective
communication does in fact result from adequate problem

solving skills, low conflict, and self-disclosure.

80

Several studies stated that communication is positively
related to good marital adjustment (e.g., Lauer & Lauer,
1986; Navran, 1967; O'Neill & O'Neill, 1972). This theory
was supported by the correlation matrix, and indirectly by
the path model. It should be pointed out, however, that
without problem solving, low conflict and self-disclosure,
effective communication could not take place. To take it a
step further, it seems that these three variables are what
make up effective communication, and it is in this way,
through these variables that effective communication impacts
on marital satisfaction.

Another "ingredient" included as a part of a
satisfactory marital relationship is intimacy. Sternberg
(1986), described intimacy as the emotional aspect of love.
He further stated that intimacy included closeness, sharing,
communication, emotional support, plus a host of other
things. For this reason, intimacy was thought to be
impacted by and impact on a number of things. Intimacy is
directly influenced by problem solving, low conflict, and
effective communication, and indirectly by commitment. This
was hypothesized and supported. Interestingly, intimacy was
thought to have direct influence on the sexual relationship,
and although the two variables correlated positively with
each other, as did both spouses intimacy with their sexual
relationship, and wife's intimacy with their husband's
sexual relationship, it did not directly influence the

sexual relationship, or any other variable in the path

81
model. Intimacy was, however, directly influenced by
problem solving, low conflict, and effective communication.
These findings also held true when exmained by gender as
well as between couples. It therefore seems safe to say
that intimacy is an added feature to a satisfactory marital
relationship, however, not a necessary one.

Humor and play was discussed by Betcher (1981) as
intimacy in the form of play. He viewed it as being
involved in positive bonding, communication, low conflict,
and as predisposed to stabilize a marital relationship.
Although little attention has been directed to this form of
intimacy, it appears that Betcher was correct in its
importance to many variables related to marital
satisfaction. Humor and play was positively correlated with
all variables in the path model. It was positively
correlated with most variables for each spouse and most
variables between couples. It had no direct influences on
variables, but was, however, directly influenced by
effective communication, and low conflict.

The sexual relationship and its importance or lack of
importance on the marital relationship has been examined by
many theorists. Results from this study show that a
satisfactory sexual relationship was related to numerous
variables in the path model, and it is directly affected by
problem solving and effective communication, however, not by
intimacy as was proposed. The sexual relationship does,

however, correlate positively with the above mentioned

82
variables for gender, as well as between couples. Results
also seem to substantiate previous findings (e.g., Ard,
1977; Lauer & Lauer, 1986; Maslow, 1954; Roberts, 1986).
That is to say that long married couples continue to
experience significant pleasure from sexual relations, but
sex is not the main ingredient for fulfillment in a
marriage.

Other factors that were thought to impact on marital
satisfaction were children, religion, and economic/finances.
The effect of children on marital quality has been studied
by numerous researchers (e.g., Hicks & Platt, 1970; Lauer &
Lauer, 1986; Rankin & Maneker, 1985; Ryder, 1973). These
researchers concluded that children can add a vital part of
the purpose and meaning to marriage, but they can also be
the source of stress and strains. Additionally, children
can be a cohesive force in a deteriorating marriage or they
can further enhance an already satisfying marriage. In this
study, children did not positively correlate with any
variable, and was excluded from the final path model.
Interestingly enough, while some participants responded
positively to the question, "our children have provided a
significant part to the purpose and meaning of our
marriage," many more participants responded negatively to
the question, "children have been an important factor in the
success of our marriage." One could perhaps conclude from
this that these participants felt that children are an

important part of their marriage, but they feel that their

83
marriage would have been successful in and of itself,
without the influence of children.

In this study, religion was thought to be an important
factor in that previous studies showed that most long-term
married couples have the same religious preference, or mixed
religious preference, and that marital failures were higher
among those with no religious preference. This study
substantiated previous findings; most couples had the same
religious preference, next was mixed religious preference.

Economics/finances as it relates to marital
satisfaction has been examined from numerous perspectives.
While it was once thought that high socioeconomic status was
positively related to favorable marital outcomes, more
recent research has not substantiated this notion.

Schaniger and Buss (1986) examined differences in
comsumption, decision making, and finance handling behavior
between couples who divorced or stayed happily married.
Their results led the authors to conclude that establishment
of equality and equity in the early stages of marriage are
important for marital stability. This study examined
decision making and finance handling behavior. Results from
the correlational analysis supported Schaniger and Buss's
theory. Agreement on how to handle finances was positively
related to marital satisfaction, low conflict, problem
solving, plus other variables. When this variable was
entered into the path model, however, its significance

dropped, and it was excluded from the model.

84
Summary and Conclusions

These were the major findings with regard to the
theories utilized in the present research. The variable
with the most influence on variables in the path model was
problem solving. It directly influenced effective
communication, low conflict, humor and play, intimacy, the
sexual relationship, and marital satisfaction. No other
variable came this close to having such an impact on other
variables. This finding could lead one to conclude that to
the extent that couples can adequately problem solve
positively influences many other aspects in the marital
relationship.

It should be kept in mind, however, that one should be
cautious in generalizing these results to all married
couples. It would seem that couples who participated in the
research were couples who viewed their marriage as a
satisfactory one, thus, adding bias to the results. Couples
who refused to participate were perhaps distressed, unhappy
couples, so data was unattainable on this particular sample.
If they had in fact participated, comparisons could have
been made, strengthening the results of what leads to
marital satisfaction versus marital disatisfaction.

This study does, however, do what it set out to do;
that is, examine long-term, satisfying marriages from an
integrative perspective. The findings indicate that a

number of variables influence the marital relationship

85
directly or indirectly, with problem solving being the most
influential variable within the path model.

These findings should guide future research in the
direction of evaluating the marital relationship from an
integrative perspective. These findings should also guide
clinicians who work with couples in the areas of premarital
counseling, marital counseling, and marital enrichment.
Knowing that the ability to problem solve is directly
related to marital satisfaction, as well as lack of
conflict, effective communication, intimacy, the sexual
relationship, and humor/play is very important clinical
knowledge. It lets clinicians know that to the extent that
problem solving can be taught, modified, and/or enriched in
a relationship, it can positively influence all of the above
mentioned variables, thus, leading to greater marital
satisfaction along couples seeking help. By knowing what
variables significantly contribute to marital satisfaction,
better steps can be taken for better intervention/

prevention.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE

86

 

 

 

m c n ~ a o L322. «.35... zoom
co Eu... 3:- .5...» pen 3» on auto to:
m c m N a a 22.3.... 35.3.. .50» one so» on auto to:
m v n ~ g a 2.5533
$2,: coy cotton so» as: «950.. .35 no» on
m c m N a o ~38 .8» 5 8:50 8» 8
m c n ~ ~ a ~22. 9:8
one coated .50» pea no» .3953 3ch
as: 355 :o» on auto :2 .7355 E
m c n ~ A o ~25; a cute 83..
«5 2.3— 3!- .5o» .8 so» on :oCo to:
m 4 A ~ a c 22.63.... .50» 9.3.523
.3 .3322?» .33)... 3.8223
.6» 32 .5 «use»; so» on auto to:
.96.. :8: 5.8388 o2 .5: I: .5 8:
cor—o no as: 05 :<
98:

 

33» .5232! 233

87

.ue.ou n.:nco.uopoc osu now; on on coo _ cog» «to: o: a. «corn pea .pouuoau .o>oe coo n.znco.uu—o. »:

.953 35.3339. «5 aces. 3 to: 9:3 .5 _ :2» 9.9.. »..o at 3 03.3.. _ «3 6333:» a. t 3:. on 2.6: «—
.uooooau a. o.»: on so: ue.oc so _ coca one: 50:: on u.eou _ nee .pocooooam a.zuco.uo—o. »E u. 00.: on u—aoz u—
.uooc a. uazu no» on o.u:a ..ou »l at pp.) pea caucus» ou n.:»co.uopo. »s .0. guns ».o> ace: _

.nooc a. uogu «on o» coo _ «gnu ppo on ——_3 cc. caucus» o» a.:aco.unpo. »e to» none ».o> ace: _

.aooc u. uosu on» ou acumeo— »co unospe on on c—ao: can pooooau o» n.5uco.uo—o. »I .o. »poua.on»oe new: _

mQMN—‘O

"n.5ueopuapo. .so» co ocaunu 0:» «scan .00» so» so: aon..umoc anon uueoauuoua u:.3o_pou ox» he so.::

«newton »aaa£ »noun »oao: »oaen:: »oao::: »nnun:=
»—osu.uxu ».o> open.» < »—._ou »—oeo.uxm

o o o o o o o

m m v n N — a

.n.gneo.u~_oc Lao» Co

.uococ.acoo nae.:u pp. .anoc.oaaz no octane 0:» a0a..ouuo anon «ecu uoo ecu opoc.o once—a .aa.gaeo.uapo. ano- uo anae.oaog no autumn
ecu uueouocouc :.»aau:: .u:_on ugh .o.zaeo_u~—o. Lao» e. nuoe.anog so noocuoc «co.ouu.u neonocuoc oe._ oe—xo—pou use co «not as»

c a N m c scan! .30» an.x 30» on

.o>oz »—o.n¢ »p—q:o.uoooo »oc ».o>o »ap ».u>u
uaosp<

.9.

APPENDIX B

PRIMARY COMMUNICATION INVENTORY

 

 

~eocnueou »—.uon pee —e_oem ..oz. u.:
not. oenonu .no» no euc..oom on« non: no» on

 

A». x». no» e.o.en .. .. neg: roan mason.
.no» noon .co.uuonu e see on u.eum no» nos:

 

sucoeos on» ue
poo. o» loom no» »en oz» ou a. e»em Aocmv o: no:
one e»e» aosa. o; uegn uennce oenon» .no» «on:

 

~eoumotunc. snag o.e ao» no.3:
n. eu:.:u «none xPeu oenone .no» one no» on

 

~.o>o no.u_no.uu.o o>eg so «none oocneu.u
no» euc.;u .o>o x_eu onnone .no» pee no» on

 

~»eu ecu oe_.np condo: «ecu aun.gu unemeo—nen
.o>o x—e» oenone .no» one no» on couuo no:

 

~»eu one u:..nc nudge: uegu eae.su ueeueopn
.o>o xpeu ounce» .no» one no» on condo no:

 

 

co>oa

 

.ae...

 

»——eeo.eeooo

...¢o=co..

 

 

»pueonno.m
»co>

 

Eu»—

 

.oenone ..no» one no» noon»! 8:82.338 no «so: go an: e e. :38

».oueo>e_ eo.ueo.ennnou ».ee..a

.»en no.5.oone on» n. onezon oenoae .no»
one no» no.3: o» unouxo ecu eucoeocnoc neon :o_:x nun—co one e. goose e one—n sou. goeo ou.eonnc .econuee ops—neon
on.» o.e «cu—c on» no econ—no one =—

n unm<h

"eco.uun.uen_

 

89

 

«tonne
goeo neeue.oocn no» o—no: ..o:uo :ueo ue ooeepu
o» no» eoeneu no.3: noeo... ecu »n u.ee a. no.5u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-oaom .aueo... ac.u.e.> one omnonn .no» one no» .m—
Sfi: e... e a. 8»
.2. 6...: 8...... 38a. .8» 8.23 Ba: 3» 8 .:
«unosmoe..easo .o
u:.e.u»o. mo euc.—oo. unogu.3 n.u..oo cocoen
«no: .no» manua.p oenono .no» one no» :eu .m—
punon .o x—nm ounce» .no» noon couuo no: .m—
~ncozuo »a oooue.ooen uo: u:.neo§ pe.uoo»
e o>ec 50.x: no.on oen oenone .no» pee no» on .e.
sno» no.3 xoe no e.ouueu eenoe.c oenonn cno» noon .m~
.35 to... e... :8 3» 33.. .288
..ogu »oneo »—.e—no.u.en u.eoo no» .eo>.ue—o.
.o mono... onopo once u.e.> ou auger oanoou .no» .~_
.223 2.2.... e...
o>eg no» »ec mo uc.x aesn ppou omnonn .no» eeu .n»
peo.e.uoo ueeucone. ee u:.xe| ocouoa
.oguoaou eae.gu eunue.o oenona .no» one no» on .o.
poonuoon .o once—o e gono.gu no» ou “upoecog.
m—ool.g eeocnxo .o e.e—nxo oanone .no» noon .m
.26.. 82o... 373.238 bacon—.8... 31.5.62.
»..o> no:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

 

~.o:uouou .ono non—go “nos poxpeu peooeom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:. .oanoao .no» one no» o>en .oue.c.es m:..nc .m~
woo—unnccouc. mo ue.—oom ecu
unosu.n no.ue».o>coo on» co>o oxeu .ocuo ozu noon
.o:.;uosoa »ee on eu.euu no» no one one eo>.uepo.
to mono... u:.u.a.> one ounce» one» one no» .. .eN
pono.eeo.nxo pe.oeu
u.oenooe .no» we a:.eeos osu oneuaoopen no» on .mN
~=oacoo .ozuo once gu.3 eenu ounce» ono»
cu.) ecouuee oues.ue. unooe xPeu conue. no» c—no: .-
~»ee ou on.».u o.e no» uezn
enoex ounce» .no» «cones: «nos n. were poo. no» on .—~
peso—noon peeoocon unoae cacao
goeo :u.3 x—eu oenooe cno» one no» on nouuo no: .¢~
~o»ee »——enuoe
Aug». on wen: soc. ee ounce» .no» mo oo.o»
Co onou on» no.. son: ee ppou no» see coupe no: .m»
.o>oz nap—om »——eeo.eeooo »—u=onno.u »pueonco.u
»go> sou—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

PERSONAL ASSESSMENT OF INTIMACY
IN RELATIONSHIPS PAIR

91

PAIR ITEM BOOKLET
By: David H. Olson, Ph.D. and Mark T. Schaefer, Ph.D.

INSTRUCTIONS: This Inventory is used to measure different kinds
of ”intimacy” in your relationship. You are to
indicate your response to each statement by using
the following five point scale.

 

0 1 2 3 4
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

 

There are two steps to the Inventory. In Part I you are to
respond in the way you feel about the item at present. Use Step One
of the ANSWER SHEET for this step. It is labeled ”How it is Now.”

In the second step you are to respond according to the way you
would like it to be, that is, if you could have your relationship be
any way that you may want it to be. Use Step Two for this step. It
is labeled "How I would like it to be.” There are no right or wrong
answers.

Respond to all_thg_1tgm§ in Step One before proceeding to Step

Two.

********************

 

92

 

0 l 2 3 4 '
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

 

0301-wa

N

10.

ll.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.
20.

My partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to.
We enjoy spending time with other couples.

I am satisfied with our sex life.

My partner helps me clarify my thoughts.

Ne enjoy the same recreational activities.

My partner has all of the qualities I’ve always wanted in a
mate.

I can state my feelings without him/her getting defensive.
He usually ”keep to ourselves.”
I feel our sexual activity is Just routine.

when it comes to having a serious discussion, it seems we have
little in common.

I share in few of my partner’s interests.

There are times when I do not feel a great deal of love and
affection for my partner.

I often feel distant from my partner.

We have few friends in common.

I am able to tell my partner when I want sexual intercourse.
I feel ”put-down” in a serious conversation with my partner.
We like playing together.

Every new things I have learned about my partner has pleased
me.

My partner can really understand my hurts and joys.

Having time together with friends is an important part of our
shared activities.

93

 

0 l 2 3 4
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

 

21.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.
29.
30.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.

I ”hold back” my sexual interest because my partner makes me
feel uncomfortable.

I feel it is useless to discuss some things with my partner.
We enjoy the out-of-doors together.

My partner and I understand each other completely.

I feel neglected at times by my partner.

Many of my partner’s closest friends are also my closest
friends.

Sexual expression is an essential part of our relationship.
My partner frequently tries to change my ideas.
He seldom find time to do fun things together.

I don't think anyone could possible be happier than my partner
and I when we are with one another.

I sometimes feel lonely when we’re together.

My partner disapproves of some of my friends.

My partner seems disinterested in sex.

Re have an endless number of things to talk about.
I feel we share some of the same interests.

I have some needs that are not being met by my relationship.

94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ _ _ _ _ INZDm+ J

 

 

m4<h0h meUmi

l-EDm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rzomuo WM Tina. O I:
o b w o
r1- 9 1!.
e e. a. 2 e e e. ~_ 2 N. I»
0.000 OOOOOO
L - -
.zom. _.::m. .4.
.. mu.—
.. cox 3. em om o0 8: E... em on 8m
oz... a...» tonne 5.3. no: on omen...
fifllfilfli .e 8 M Imel 'ale 8 8 1|” e
8 I 8. a. 8 8 8 Li i.....l.! 8 a a 1811
a a a S 8 on 811118! e I e.
e. e. e. e. e. 2 (2i 3 e
e mm o e e. e. e e
o a n a N o a n u - —
..
..eoo.swz_..!no3_3o:: 5521.38...
.83 no: .6 no. a... .e 28» .52. 2... e...
as... .5... to... o. 28...... 8.8... .....~ 8.8... 6.... 2....
Hconning. ”was. @555... e... no one o... 8: ._ tea a. ...... 8.3.. .32. e... .o 8..
-12--.. II no. 2.. .3 one 33...:- e... .2. .. c... 5 6295352.
13523 Jen...
”m9. No.22 So» 5.2.8 .. tea .2.- :86 .r 6.33...
.8. of harm 5.52..
min “$252 anoco .5952 3.58

 

 

APPENDIX D

MARITAL SATISFACTION INVENTORY

95

Instructions: Please read the following statements and circle
T - True or F - False as near as they apply.
Please do not skip any statements.

 

Problem Solving Communication (PSC)

T F 1. There are some things my spouse and I just can’t
talk about.
T F 2. My spouse is so touchy on some subjects that I
can’t even mention them. T
T F 3. I sometimes an reluctant to express disagreement a
with my spouse for fear that he (she) will get h
angry.
T F 4. I sometimes am reluctant to discuss certain things

with my spouse because I’m afraid I might hurt his
(her) feelings.

I F 5. My spouse’s feelings are too easily hurt.

I F 6. My spouse does not take criticism as a personal
attach.

T F 7. My spouse has no difficulty accepting criticism.

T F 8. My spouse readily admits an error when he (she)
has been wrong.

T F 9. My spouse often complains that I don’t understand
him (her).

T F 10. My spouse and I almost always discuss things
together before making an important decision.

I F 11. During our marriage, my spouse and I have always
talked things over.

T F 12. When my spouse and I have differences of opinion,
we sit down and discuss them.

T F 13. During an argument with my spouse, each of us airs
our feelings completely.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

96

My spouse and I often remain silent for long
periods when we are angry with one another.

My spouse and I seem able to go for days
somethings without settling our differences.

A lot of our arrangements seem to end in
depressing stalemates.

My spouse rarely nags me.

Frequently when we argue, my spouse and I seem to
go over and over the same old things.

A lot of arguments with my spouse seem to be about
trivia.

Minor disagreements with my spouse often end up in
big arguments.

We sometimes seem unable to settle calmly even our
minor differences.

My spouse seems committed to settling our
differences.

My spouse often insists on getting his (her) own
way regardless of what I may want.

When my spouse and I disagree, my spouse helps us
to find alternatives acceptable to both of us.

My spouse and I need to improve the way we settle
our differences.

Our arguments frequently end up with one of us
feeling hurt or crying.

My spouse and I seem to get carried away in an
argument and say things we don’t really mean.

Our arguments often end with an exchange of
insults.

When upset, my spouse sometimes does a lot of
little things just to annoy me.

 

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

97

When arguing, we manage quite well to restrict
ourfocus to the important issues.

My spouse and I are often unable to disagree with
one another without losing our tempers.

Even when angry with me, my spouse is able to
appreciate my viewpoints.

My spouse takes quite seriously my feelings and
thoughts about an issue.

My spouse frequently misinterprets the way I
really feel when we are arguing.

My spouse often fails to understand my point of
view of things.

In most matters, my spouse understands what I’m
trying to say.

I feel sometimes like my spouse is ”lecturing” at
me.

My spouse sometimes seems intent upon changing
some aspect of my personality.

Our marriage has never been in difficulty because
of financial concerns.

Serious financial concerns are not likely to
destroy our marriage.

My spouse and I rarely argue about money.

It is often hard for my spouse and me to discuss
on: finances without getting upset with each

at er.

Trying to work out a family budget makes more
trouble with my spouse than it is worth.

My spouse and I decide together the manner in
which the family income is to be spent.

He could have many fewer marital difficulties if
our family income were larger.

 

-i-i—i-l

'fl'fl'fl'fl

46.

47.
48.
49.
50.

51.

52.
53.

54.
55.

56.

57.
58.

59.

60.

98

Our income is sufficient to meet necessary
expenses.

I feel as though we outlive our financial means.
Our financial future seems quite secure.
My spouse is a very good manager of finances.

My spouse doesn’t always appreciate the importance
of keeping good financial records.

My spouse has much difficulty keeping our
checkbook balanced.

My spouse invests money wisely.

My spouse has no common sense when it comes to
money.

I trust my spouse with our money completely.

My spouse is pretty good when it comes to saving
money.

My spouse doesn’t seem to understand the
importance of putting money into savings.

My spouse sometimes buys too much on credit.

My spouse buys too many things without consulting
with me first.

My spouse is forever checking up on how I spend
our money.

My spouse if often too concerned with financial
matters.

APPENDIX E

SELF-DISCLOSURE 21

99

 

 

 

 

n _ N m e m ~»ne m. no.uen.o.ucen mno.m.Pon
nno» .o ennuec one one
ozo.> mno.u.po. penoonon one» .e
o . N m e m e»;3 one om.»
. .no» n. an.on neuuecmo.
none o>en no» ono.aoe on» .m
n L ~ m e m enomne one
»uo.x:e .no.mme.non no.3
an.peon co o»e3 penmn .no» .N
n L. w m e m ~ome...ee ..o;u
o>.— npnogm o..n one cannon;
e »e3 on» no one.> .no» .—
. . .unone oononm .no» no.3 xpeu no» on noumo :o:.
n . N m e m
spoon
ouno nee» e moe.u
neg» e mee.a penenom »P_en
mono econ no pecenom no amoepe co

ce>o= Sweep we »—nee» »~;anon »pxoo3 »p.en

. .ome_cnee
on» no>o menosoueam no.3oP—o. on» anone omnono one» =n.3 non—ea o>eg no» noumo
no: moo..umon amen neon swoon: one o—uc.u one ropes opeom on.ne. eon eon omeepn ”mno.aun.amn.

Huuaw

100

 

o H N m e m ~mn.ne§o>op penxom one »epn
u.uo.o .o mono. ou..o>e. one» .n.
o . N e o o 2.8. 3.8.8 on... no...
nononoooepo. nno» no. oue.nnen
nno» n. no.ooe.m.oemm.o
one nmenem mo mounnom one .m
o . e e o m 253....
«e no» nonnon no.n3 mono» no
«no.uueo. one mo.nen onn .m
o . N m e m ~»o._on o.omoeoo one nm.ono.
.»onoo.monn on» .mu.e.pon
no m3o.> Fenomnon .no» .»
o . e e o o .328. 33.—.3 .52. .o
o H ~ m e m Nonnuene. no
ooumnnoepes noon one no»
poo; no» no.n3 n. m»e3 on» .m
. . .onone omnono .no» no.3 npeo no» oo nonmo 3o:.
0 _ N m e m
nunon
ouno nee» e non.»
nenu e «on.» penonom »—.eo
ouno econ no peno>om no amonpe no
nonon Sweep we »pneo» »—nunon »pnoo3 »_.eo

101

 

nnoeo no.3 nonmnonoepon

nno» no mooneomEnonoo ono one3
oen» .ooeeoon. »P_enxom noon
onen no» son3 no.3 opooon ono

eonomon omos no» non3
o... nno» n. mnomnen eno

enooooenmooem one
eo.nn no. omneo no» o>.m noon
-nno» no munoonnoooeneno

eno» nonoon
one »um.oem oeno nno3
»o.eo nno» no mononme ono

nomeonnen
ono ono3 no» nonn3 n. on.—
nno» no mnoomeuuo ono

noeoo oneno
nno» onenm oo on.— omen
no» oo 3on .moonnon nno»

.9»

.mo

.oo

.m~

.No

.-

. . .onone omnonm nno» no.3 npeo no» oo noono 3oz.

 

sm>m=

oono
omen. oe

u

ouno
neno

onoe no

»_neo»

m

nee»
e mee.o
penenem
».n.oon

o
..oon

e mon.o
.enonom
no
»—noo3

»..eo
ooonoe no

n..eo

102

 

 

n o N m o m Noonnonon one mo.meonen
.enxom noenoo omon ono ._N
n o N m o m Nonnn one manoooon nno» non3
one oommonnoo onouon no» nonn3
noonn mooneomsnon.o ono .nN
o o N m e m Now no «neo» on oxon ono
no. ”Peon penomnon nno» .m.
o n N m o m Nuomne no
mono—moo one moononononn nno» .m.
n o N m o m . N»n3 .on.»
nno» n. mononon omonnnennn ono .No
. . .onone omnono nno» no.3 noeo no» oo noono 3oz.
o n N m e m
nonoe
oono neo» e monno
neno e mon.o penonom »—.eo
oono onos no penonom no omonoe no
nonon ooeo. oe »oneo» »—nonos »onoo3 »—.eo

APPENDIX F

INFORMED CONSENT

103

LONG-TERM MARRIAGE STUDY
Participation Consent Form
Michigan State University

Department of Psychology

This study is designed to investigate the factors that
contribute to long-term, satisfying marriages. Divorce has
dramatically increased in the past few years, resulting in
family instability. Therefore, marital success and
satisfaction have become important to study as a way of
obtaining information about marriage and hopefully being
able to restore some family stability. You will be given
questionnaires requiring approximately 45-60 minutes to
complete. If you find any questions objectionable, you are
free to skip those questions. There are no right or wrong
answers to any of the questions. No names will be required
and all information obtained will be anonymous and kept

strongly confidential.

l. The Long-Term Marriage Study has been explained to me.
I understand the explanation that has been given and

what my participation will involve.

104
I understand that I do not have to participate at all,
and/or that I am free to stop participating in the
testing session at any time without penalty.
I understand that the results of my scores in the
experiment 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.

‘I understand that if I refer other couples for

participation in this study, my name may be used as the
referral source only with my permission.

I understand that my participation in the experiment
does not guarantee any beneficial results to me.

I understand that in the unlikely event that should I
be made uncomfortable by my participation in this
study, Karen Williams, M.A., will be available to
discuss my discomfort at (517) 353-6766.

I understand that this study is under the direct
supervision of Robert Caldwell, Ph.D., and I may direct

any questions/concerns to him at (517) 353-4548.

 

 

Signature Date

 

 

APPENDIX G

DEMOGRAPHIC SHEET

 

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan State University Demo ID#:
Department of Psychology Given by:
East Lansing, MI 48824 Date: (y
Sex: M F
1. What is date of birth?
month day year
2. Length of time at current residence?
3a. How many time have you been married? CIRCLE ONE
1 2 3 4+
3b. Number of years married to present spouse?
3c. Date of marriage to present spouse.
month year
4. How would you describe your primary cultural/ethnic
heritage. CIRCLE ONE
1. White 4. Native American
2. Black 5. Asian
3. Hispanic 6. Other (describe)
5a. What religion, if any, do you practice? CIRCLE ONE
1. Protestant 4. No religion
2. Catholic 5. Other religion (please
3. Jewish explain)
5b. How often do you attend religious services?
1. Several times a week 4. Once a month
2. About once a week 5. Never
3. 2-3 times a month
6. How many children do you and your current spouse have?
7. What was the highest grade of school you completed?

CIRCLE THE HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED

None 0

Elementary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
High school 9 10 ll 12

College 1 2 3 4 Degree?

Grad/Prof

School 5 6 7 8+ Degree?

 

 

106
What kind of work (employment) do you do?

Employed as what?

 

Retired from what?

 

Homemaker

 

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ard, B. (1977). Sex in lasting marriages: A longitudinal
study. The Journal of Sex Research, 13, 274-285.

Bach, G. R., & Wyden, P. (1975). The art of family
fighting. In K. W. Kammeyer (Ed.), Confronting the
Issues (PP. 314-320). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 

Betcher, R. W. (1981). Intimate play and marital
adaptation. Psychiatry, 44, 13-33.

 

Beigel, H. G. (1952). Encyclopedia of sex education. New
York: William Penn.

Blood, R. 0., Jr. (1955). Anticipating your marriage.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

 

Blood, R. 0., Wolfe, D. M. (1978). Husbands and wives:
The dynamicsof married living (pp. 240-241).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

 

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

Broderick, C. (1979). Marriage and the family. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cherlin, A. (1981). Marriage, divorce, remarriage.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, F. (1981). Human intimacy: Marriage, the family and
its meaning. Los Angeles, CA: West Publishing Co.

Cozby, P. C. (1972). Self-disclosure, reciprocity and
liking. Sociometry, 35, 151-160.

Derlega, V., Wilson, M., & Chaikin, A. (1976). Friendship
and disclosure reciprocity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 34, 578-582.

 

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological

 

107

 

 

108

Duncan, 0. D. ( 1975). Introduction of structural equation
models. New York: Academic Press.

 

Ehrlich, H. J., & Graevan, D. (1971). Reciprocal self-
disclosure in a dyad. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1, 389-400.

Feldman, H. (1971). The effects of children on the family.
In A. Michael (Ed.), Family Issues of Employed Women in
Europe and America (PP. 1071125). Leiden: E. J.
Brill.

 

Figley, C. R. (1973). Child density and the marital
relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33,
272-282.

 

Fitzgerald, M. P. (1963). Self-disclosure and expressed
self-esteem, social distance and areas of self
revealed. Journal of Psychology, 33, 405-412.

 

Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving (p. 22). New York:
Bantom Books.

 

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A
preliminary statement. American Sociological Review,
33, 161-179.

 

Grant, V. W. (1957). The psychology of sexual emotion.
New York: Longmans, Green & Co., Inc.

 

Hatfield, E., Utne, M. K., & Traupmann, J. (1979). Equity
theory and intimate relationships. In R. L. Burgess &
T. L. Huston (Eds.). Social Exchange in Developing
Relationships. New York: Academic Press.

 

Hendrick, S. S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marital
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 33, 1150-1159.

Hicks, M., & Platt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and
stability: A review of the research in the sixties.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 553-573.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behgvior: Its elementary
forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

 

Hunter, J. (1983). Sampling error in path analysis.
Unpublished manuscript.

Hurvitz, N. (1960). The marital roles inventory and the
measurement of marital adjustment. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 33, 377-380.

 

109

Hurvitz, N. (1965). Marital role strain as a sociological
variable. The Family Life Coordinator, 33, 39-40.

 

Jorgensen, S. (1979). Socioeconomic rewards and perceived
marital quality: A re-examination. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 33, 825-835.

 

Jourard, S. M. (1964). The transparent self. Princeton,
NJ: Van Nostrand.

 

Jourard, S. M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental
analysis_of the transparent self. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Jourard, S. M., & Lasakaw, P. (1958). Some factors in
self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 33, 91-98.

Jourard, S. M., & Richman, P. (1963). Factors in the self-
disclosure inputs of college students. Merrill Palmer
Quarterly, 3, 141-148.

 

Kahn, M. (1970). Non-verbal communication and marital
satisfaction. Family Process, 3, 449-456.

 

Kilpatrick, W. (1975). Identity and intimacy (pp. 232-
233). New York: delta Books.

Komanovsky, M. (1962). Blue-collar marriage. New York:
Random House.

 

Landis, J., & Landis, M. (1968). Building a successful
marriage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Lauer, J., & Lauer, R. (1986). Till death do us part: A
study and guide to long-term marriage. New York:
Harrington Park Press.

Lewis, R., & Spanier, G. (1979). Theorizing about quality
and stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F.
I. Nye, & I. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary Theories about
the Family (pp. 268-294). New York: Free Press.

Luckey, E. (1960). Marital satisfaction and congruent
self-spouse conceptions. Social Forces, 33, 153-157.

 

Luckey, E. (1964). Marital satisfaction and its
concomitant perceptions of self and spouse. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 33, 136-145.

 

Luckey, E., & Bain, J. (1970). Children: A factor in
marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 33, 43-44.

 

 

110

Maslow, A. Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ:
Van Nostrand Co., Inc.

Navran, L. (1967). Communication and adjustment in
marriage. Family Process, 3, 173-184.

 

Quinn, N. (1982). "Commitment“ in American culture.
American Ethnologist, 3, 775-798.

 

O'Neill, G., & O'Neill, N. (1972). Open marriage. New
York: Avon.

 

Rankin, R., & Maneker, J. (1985). The duration of marriage
in a divorcing population: The impact of children.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43-52.

Reedy, M., Birren, J., & Schale, W. (1981). Age and sex
differences in satisfying love relationships across the
adult life span. Human Development, 33, 52-66.

 

Roberts, W. (1980). Significant elements in the
relationship of long-married couples. International
Journal of Aging and Human Development, 33, 265-271.

Russell, C. S. (1974). Transition to parenthood: Problems
and gratification. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
33, 294-302.

Ryder, R. G. (1973). Longitudinal data relating marriage
satisfaction and having a child. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 33, 604-606.

 

Sabourin, S., Laporte, L., & Wright, J. (1990). Problem
solving, self-appraisal and coping efforts in
distressed and nondistressed couples. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 89-97.

 

Satir, V. (1964). Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto:
Science and Behavior Books.

Schaniger, C., & Buss, C. (1986). A longitudinal
comparison of consumption and finance handling between
happily married and divorced couples. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 33, 129-136.

 

Sporawoski, M., & Hughston, G. (1978). Prescriptions for
happy marriage: Adjustments and satisfactions of
couples married for 50 or more years. The Family
Coordinator, 31, 321-327.

 

 

Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love.
Psychological Review, 33, 119-135.

 

111

Struckert, R. (1963). Role perception and marital
satisfaction: A configural approach. Marriage and
Family Living, 33, 415-419.

 

Symonds, P. N. (1946). The dynamics of human development.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

 

"I7'11iiiiiiiiiiiiiii