. ‘.,a
.

n'h'O‘V '

.

v.‘
.430...‘

Y".

0.!!-

§ ’ .
l1... OHM?!) Lléfifi
v a 1-. E

7:21.13...-
... V ‘

2.1- I... ‘
luv-5P-) n

5.133;.
. f .

..;H~\.

r,.I. «
53...).
id:

. .1 (‘1':‘4
:1]. .eo’.‘

,3} q

01' ll;nn

lvvvl...‘ 1.50". .

llivroizi‘ ‘3’ .15...
I)! 3.4.31-1.‘1‘ II

allv. u.' 'A

$30!! Bit
3::
I 3 A <

 

[i lESlS

lllllllllllllllllllllllIHIIIHHIHIUllllllllllll

293 00794 5169

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled .
Meeting Individual and Couple Needs in Marriage:

An Interactional Analysis of Social Support

presented by

Arlene Ruth Saitzyk

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Psychology

 

 

1%er (”Q

Major professor

Date July, 1992

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

! ‘
1.].le
Niel-inn lute

University ’

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

F———____—————_——_———__
DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

We o 9 1' 1|
_ fl

113.17 7——

v
_I_
—
l
A .~
I ‘ t
»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L__

l |

usu Ie An Affinnetive Action/Equal Opportunity Inuitutlon
smarts-e.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEETING INDIVIDUAL AND COUPLE NEEDS IN MARRIAGE:
AN INTERACTIONAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SUPPORT

BY
Arlene Ruth Saitzyk

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1992

ABSTRACT

MEETING INDIVIDUAL AND COUPLE NEEDS IN MARRIAGE: AN
INTERACTIONAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SUPPORT

BY
Arlene Ruth Saitzyk

Much theory suggests that autonomy and connection should be
balanced in intimate relationships. In order to integrate
the two, the dimensions independence-interdependence and
affiliation-disaffiliation were examined in couples' social
support interactions. Parents of school-age children who
are mildly to moderately mentally retarded (N=37 couples)
took turns confiding about personal problems and supporting
each other. The discussions were coded by observers using
an adaptation of Benjamin's Structural Analysis of Social
Behavior. Three processes were explored: social support,
assertiveness, and power dynamics. Marital satisfaction,
psychological distress, and self-esteem were assessed as
outcome variables. The wives' behaviors as confiders and
the husbands' behaviors as supporters were associated with
their self-reports. The affiliative-disaffiliative clusters
were associated with negative outcomes, and the independent-
interdependent clusters were associated with positive
outcomes. The latter cluster may represent healthy
toleration for disagreement and an acceptable form of

maintaining emotional intimacy during these discussions.

To those who have taught me what true autonomy and
connection are all about-- my family, my women friends
across the United States and Canada, and a very special pal
in Michigan. .Thank you, Arlene

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee,
Ann Baumgardner and Tom Reischl, for their guidance and
flexibility on this project. I am most grateful to my
thesis chair and advisor, Frank Floyd, for his always
constructive criticism and his enthusiasm.

I would also like to thank my loyal team of behavioral
coders for their patience and dedication.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables..........................................vii
List of Figures...... ....... ...........................viii
Introduction..............................................1
Structural Analysis of Social Behavior...............5
Problems with Previous Observational Research.......13
SASB and Social Support.... ...... ...................16
SASB and Assertiveness..............................21
Critique of Previous Studies on Assertiveness.......21
Operationalizing Assertiveness......................25
SASB and Power......................................26
Economic Bases of Power in Marriage.................33
Self-esteem................ ..... . ...... .............35
Marital Satisfaction................................38
Psychological Functioning and Social Support........40
Hypotheses...............................................41
Method...................................................46
Subjects............................................46
Procedure...........................................50
Social Support Interaction..........................51
Observational Measure...............................52

Questionnaire Measures.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.057

Results.0.0.0....I...O...00.0.00...00.000.000.0000000000060
Social Support and Marital Satisfaction.............65
Social Support and Psychological Distress...........77

Gender Related Differences in Social
Support Styles .................... ..................80

Assertive Behavior in Autonomy-enhancing Contexts...81
Confider Assertiveness and Marital Satisfaction.....82

Power Imbalance, Power Struggle, and Marital
satiSfactionOO0.0.0.0..00....O0.0.00.00000000000000087

Regressions Predicting the Wives' Marital Satisfaction
from Confider Behaviors.............................89

The Effects of Self-esteem Level on Confider and
supporter BehaViorOOOIOOOOO0.0.00.000.000.000000000091

Self-esteem, Socioeconomic Variables, and Power
ImbalanceIOOOO0.00.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ...... 92

Relationship Among Self-report Measures.............93
Discussion...............................................99
Appendix A: Coding Manual..............................122
Appendix B: Personal Problem Questionnaire.............130
Appendix C: Rosenberg (1965) Self-esteem Inventory.....131
Appendix D: Dyadic Adjustment Scale....................133
Appendix E: Symptom Checklist-QO-Revised...............135

List of References......................................136

vi

Table 1:
Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 11:

Table 12:

LIST OF TABLES

Family Demographics............................49
SASB Clusters and Constructs Operationalized...55

Means and Standard Deviations of SASB Relative
FrequenCieS...0.0.0....O0.0...00.00.00.0000000061

Correlations Between Husbands' Social support
and Husbands' Scores on the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (DAS).........................67

Means, Standard Deviations, ANOVAs, and Post-hoe
Analyses Contrasting SASB Social Support

Balance Groups on Husbands' and Wives'

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)..................70

Regressions Predicting Husbands' and Wives'
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) from SASB
Clusters of Supporter Behaviors................75

Correlations Between Wives' Assertive and Relying
Behaviors and Wives' Scores on the Dyadic
Adjustment scale (DAS)O0......0.0.0.0000000000083

ANOVAs and Post-hoe Analyses Contrasting SASB
Confider Balance Groups on Wives' Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (DAS).........................86

Regressions Predicting the Wives' DAS Scores From
SASB Clusters of the Wives' Confider Behavior..90

Correlations of Husbands' and Wives' Scores

on the DAS with Self-esteem (SE),

Psychological Distress (PD), and

Depression (Dep)..............................95

Correlations of Husbands' and Wives' Scores
on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale................96

Correlations of Husbands' and Wives Scores
on Self-esteem (SE), Psychological Distress
(PD), and Depression (Dep)....................97

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: SASB Circumplex model with two foci of attention,
Adapted from 1986 Cluster Version of SASB,
LOS. BenjaminOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO0.00.00.00.08

Figure 2: Social Support Interaction Model..............12

viii

INTRODUCTION

In a poem taken from The Erophet (Gibran, 1923),
Almitra offered the following message regarding marriage:

You were born together, and together you shall be

forevermore...

But let there be spaces in your togetherness,

And let the winds of the heavens dance between you...

Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one

of you be alone,

Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they

quiver with the same music . . .

And stand together yet not too near together: for the

pillars of the temple stand apart,

And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each

other's shadow. (p. 19-20)

These lines capture the essence of what most modern day
couples hope to realize in their marriages, that is, a union
where two people may attain happiness and satisfaction both
as a couple and as individuals (Brehm, 1985; Grossman,
Pollack, Golding & Fedele, 1987; Stapleton & Bright, 1976).
As Angyal (1965) explained, humans are guided by two forces
which govern the life processes, autonomy and homonomy.
Drawing on his theory regarding personality and neuroses,
the "trend toward autonomy" can be viewed as the need to be
a separate and self-governing individual, and the "trend

toward homonomy" is the need to join with others and be part

of a meaningful relationship.

2

Several researchers have attempted to reconcile the
role of autonomy and homonomy in close relationships, or as
these two concepts have also been called respectively,
separateness and connectedness (Kotler, 1985), and autonomy
and affiliation (Grossman, et a1., 1987). Bakan (1966)
referred to this same process when describing the
integration of agency, the existence of the organism as an
individual, and communion, the participation of the
individual in some larger organism, as being the most
desirable state. Whereas agency manifested itself in self-
protection, self-expansion, and the urge to master,
communion was revealed in cooperation and the sense of being
at one with other organisms.

However, attempts to incorporate the two processes have
met with difficulty. The questions proposed and the
methodologies utilized have resulted in reports which are
only useful in understanding one dimension to the exclusion
of the other. For example, Hyman & Woog (1987) called these
concepts independence and interdependence, and examined them
with respect to three areas of need in marriage: emotional,
stability, and everyday. Although the study was useful in
pointing out the importance of independence for older women,
because the methodology involved a forced choice Q sort, it
was not possible to describe the co-existence of
independence and interdependence in marital relationships.

Rather than being characterized as oppositional,

3
independence and interdependence might be better
conceptualized as orthogonal constructs.

Similarly, a series of studies by Rusbult, Johnson, &
Morrow (1986) examining responses to dissatisfaction in
close relationships, treated autonomy and affiliation as
opposite ends of one continuum. They examined communication
and behavior with a focus on relationship outcome variables,
and used the concepts of exit, neglect, loyalty, and voice,
located along the two dimensions of
destructiveness/constructiveness and activity/passivity.
Although some types of actions in the category "voice" could
serve individual needs, the model generally described
responses that pit meeting individual goals against working
for the benefit of the relationship. For example,
"constructive" reactions to periodic decline in
relationships included trying to change one's own or a
partner's behavior, seeking help from others (therapist,
clergy, friend), or waiting and hoping for improvement.

This conceptualization underscores the notion that in times
of conflict, either the individual or the dyad as a whole
must make a sacrifice. Thus, the research did not focus on
the extent to which both autonomy and affiliation might be
achieved simultaneously. Additionally, the framework
proposed by Rusbult and colleagues assumes that keeping the
peace is a necessary and fundamental aspect of

relationships, ignoring the possibility that conflict

4
engagement or disagreement can be healthy for marital
satisfaction over time (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989).

The importance of autonomy within relationships may be
considered in light of concepts taken from attachment theory
(Bowlby, 1979), in that in close relationships we find both
proximity-seeking and exploratory behaviors. Kotler (1985)
found that the four components of care, affection,
affirmation, access, and aid, provided the basis for
confident and satisfying exploration of the environment as
measured by the relational qualities of trust, openness, and
healthy self-reliance. In her study of 30 male and 30
female subjects from 60 different marriages at three
different stages of the family life cycle, she found that
interactions that contributed to sound attachment
relationships included sensitive and appropriate
responsiveness from spouse, a combination of empathic
understanding and encouragement of autonomy and self-
reliance, and the ability of spouse to seek and accept help
in a way that affirmed the intentions and capacities of the
other spouse.

As noted above, many studies have examined either
autonomy or affiliation, but there are few which attempt to
capture both of these phenomena concurrently, in part
because until recently there has not been available a
theoretical framework and a measurement methodology for

doing so. Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB:

5
Humphrey & Benjamin, 1989) provides such a methodology.
SASB is a Circumplex model of interpersonal relations and
their intrapsychic representations. The model proposes that
three foci of attention and two orthogonal dimensions of
independence/interdependence and affiliation/disaffiliation
are all that are needed to describe a full range of systemic
and interpersonal events (Benjamin, Foster, Giat-Roberto, &
Estroff, 1986). A brief discussion of the SASB model
follows, but for a more complete explanation of its

components, see Appendix A, Coding Manual.

Structural Analysis of Social Behavior
The SASB model proposes three foci of attention for

social behavior, two of which are relevant to the
interpersonal realm: focus on other and focus on self.
Focus on other captures transitive action directed toward
another person. Focus on self involves an intransitive
state or reaction to another person. The third focus of
attention identifies intrapsychic experiences and is
conceptualized as introjection, or internalizing of
interpersonal relationships with significant others, such as
a parent, spouse or therapist.

For each focus of attention, two axes comprise the
central structure of the SASB model. The vertical axis
reflects independence versus interdependence, and extends

from independent or differentiated behavior at the top, to

6
interdependent, undifferentiated, or enmeshed behavior at
the bottom. The horizontal axis describes
affiliation/disaffiliation, and ranges from friendly,
loving, and approaching, on the right-hand side, to moving
away, anger, and hatred, on the left-hand side.

These dimensions and foci permit organization of many
interactional behaviors. SASB methodology has been used in
several contexts: to study individual dynamics in
psychotherapy (Benjamin, 1979a, b), to validate findings of
double-binding, ambivalence and excessive submissiveness and
helplessness in various clinical samples (Benjamin, 1986;
Chiles, Stauss, & Benjamin, 1980), to operationalize and
examine processes of complementarity, similarity,
opposition, introjection, and antithesis (Benjamin, 1981),
and to differentiate clinical from normal families
(Humphrey, 1989; Humphrey, Apple, & Kirschenbaum, 1986).
Most relevant to the present concerns, Henry, Schacht, &
Strupp (1984) used SASB methodology to examine psychotherapy
process. They applied the model to evaluate dyadic
interaction between patients and therapists. Their version
of the model is closest to the form used in the present
study, which investigates social support among married
couples.

Judgments along each of the two axes can be made with
varying degrees of specificity. The full version of the

model has 36 points on each of three surfaces, for a total

7
of 108 individual points. The cluster version of the SASB
model is intermediate in complexity between the full model
and the simpler quadrant form, and groups behaviors into
eight clusters per surface or foci of attention, as

illustrated by Figure 1.

Focus on self:

 

 

 

 

Asserting &
Walling off & $8???)an Disclosing &
avoiding ’ , expressing
(2.3) i . (2.2)
Protesting & Approaching &
withdrawing < > enjoying
(0,4) (0,1)
Sulking & y Trusting &
appeasing Deferring & relying
(3 3) submitting (3'2)
(4.0)
Focus on other:
' Freeing &
Ignoring 8} i . “((916ng Affirming &
neglecting A understanding
(2.3) (2.2)
Attacking & Loving &
rejecting -< > approaching
(0.4) (0.1)
Belittling & y Nurturing &
blaming Watching & protecting
(3'3) managing . (3:2)

(4.0)

Figure 1. SASB Circumplex model with two foci of attention
Adapted from 1986 Cluster Version of SASB,
L. Benjamin

9

Berlin & Johnson (1989) used the SASB framework to
argue that in understanding women's roles in intimate
relationships, autonomy and affiliation are not necessarily
oppositional characteristics. They defined autonomy as a
respect for one's own needs, while respecting the rights of
others, and argued that women can find both autonomy and
connection in their lives. They stated:

"Autonomy is necessarily a part of mature

relatedness, that it is precisely the mix of

autonomy and warm bondedness that transforms

resentful self-sacrifice and submission into

generous, attuned, and mutual interaction." (p.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the SASB model proposes
that an essential feature of autonomous actions is the
degree of negative or positive affiliation that is combined
with it. For example, for the domain focus on other, the
category "Affirming and understanding" falls between the
autonomy-giving and affiliation-expressing clusters, thus
reflecting a balanced mixture of these two interpersonal
endeavors. For the domain focus on self, the category
"Disclosing and expressing" is in a complementary position.
The model further proposes that behaviors are likely to
occur in response to their complement. Thus, when spouses
are able to affirm and understand, the probable response

from their partner will be free expression of feelings and

opinions. The reciprocal or complementary style that allows

10
for open communication between spouses is thus captured
nicely by the SASB model.

Drawing on Berlin & Johnson's (1989) theoretical
analysis, the present study seeks to empirically examine how
autonomy and connection are balanced in one domain of
marital relationships, that is, conjugal support in times of
personal distress. Because the SASB model outlines ideal
self-in-relation behaviors and distinguishes them from
withdrawal, blaming, and submissive behavior, applying the
conceptual framework to understand interactions related to
conjugal social support allows for evaluation of several
realms of functioning in marital relationships not
adequately addressed in previous research. Three such
processes that are explored in the present study are social
support, assertiveness, and power dynamics. The study is
designed to test the hypothesis that marital interaction
patterns in a social support task will be structured and
supported by a process of reciprocity between partners.

That is, in autonomy-enhancing contexts, spouses will be
more likely to demonstrate autonomous and assertive
behaviors. In controlling contexts, spouses will be more
likely to submit. Also, as illustrated in Figure 2, the
study evaluates the hypothesis that self-esteem will explain
a part of the variance exhibited in the behaviors designated
to operationalize social support, assertiveness, and power

dynamics. Finally, marital satisfaction and psychological

11
distress will be assessed as outcome variables of these

interactions.

Self-esteem:

 

a. supporter

 

 

 

 

b.confider

 

 

 

12

 

 

Assertiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Psychological
+ well-being:
a. supporter
Social support
b.confider
Marital
Power imbalance satisfaction:
\\ \
.\ ‘-\
\ a. supporter
\
, 4
, ’ \ .
Power struggle? — _ _. .3. b. COl‘lfldCl'

 

 

 

 

Assertiveness &
"Trusting & relying"
(focus on self)

 

 

——>- positive correlation
- - >— negative correlation

Figure 2. Conjugal support interaction model.

 

 

 

 

Ezotlems with pzevigus obsezxatlggal zesgazgh

Weiss (1978) proposed that marriage consists of twelve
basic sectors of interaction: companionship, affection,
consideration, sex, communication process, coupling
activities, child care and parenting, household management,
financial and decision making, employment-education,
personal habits and appearance, and self and spouse
independence. However, recent research focuses on only a
limited number of life domains, including especially
problem-solving or conflict resolution (e.g. Burggraff &
Sillars, 1987: Floyd, 1988; Vincent, Weiss & Birchler,
1975). Conflict resolution studies may misrepresent the
probability for meeting individual and couple needs
concurrently. Many of the marital problem-solving studies
view most conflict producing behaviors as destructive.
However, there are cases in which these behaviors are not
necessarily detrimental, as there can be challenges and
complaints offered in a direct, nonpunitive manner
(Margolin, Fernandez, Talovic, & Onorato, 1983). Similarly,
problem solutions are typically evaluated as facilitative to
the discussion, which may not always be a valid conclusion.
Gottman & Krokoff (1989) propose that conflict avoidance
behaviors such as compliance may leave unresolved critical
areas of conflict, which over time might upset the
relationship. In terms of the SASB model, it seems that

such "keeping the peace" behaviors might be better

13

14
conceptualized as appeasing or submissive. Such behavior
may eventually become overly aversive to one or both
spouses, causing resentment within the couple. Similarly,
Minuchin (1974) argues that unexpressed differences may be
harmful to relationships. Instead, Gottman & Krokoff (1989)
noted that, although they found a negative relationship
between concurrent marital satisfaction and the expression
of disagreement with neutral affect in marital problem-
solving tasks, such disagreement was positively associated
with change in marital satisfaction over time. They
concluded that confrontation of disagreement is beneficial
for marriage in the long run.

A reconceptualization of "negative" interaction
behaviors is essential. Bach (1969) indicated that conflict
is healthy for a relationship because it represents the
presence of energy as opposed to apathy, given the issue and
not the partner is being criticized, and provided these
conflict behaviors are offered in a favorable context. In
contrast to the context of marital problem-solving
discussions, where assertions of individual needs would be
considered as undermining joint resolution of the problem,
in a conjugal support task, such behaviors are likely to
reflect legitimate individual needs. Therefore,
generalizing from findings of conflict resolution studies
may distort implications for other forms of marital

interaction, such as social support seeking and giving.

15
Utilizing the SASB model, these "conflictual" behaviors
could more accurately be represented by the upper half of
the independence dimension. Paired with affiliation, they
should not be seen as destructive to the relationship, but
rather are a form of open disclosure as a means of moving
together.

The present study includes an assessment of couples
involved in a conjugal social support task, as we believed
that autonomy paired with affiliation, while difficult to
observe in a conflict resolution task, should emerge in a
personal problem situation. The analysis examines spouses'
ability to behave assertively, as well as the extent to
which they are able to provide a supportive context for
their partner confiding a personal problem, while respecting
their separateness, and encouraging their autonomy. In
addition, SASB allows for an examination of specific power
dynamics, that is, power imbalance and struggle, that
interact with these two processes.

Research which relates social support to emotional or
psychological functioning typically fails to examine the
nature or type of support that is most helpful in different
situations (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Regarding the sample of
couples studied in the present research, parents of children
who are mildly to moderately mentally retarded, there has
been much debate in the literature as to the long-term

effect of having a child who is mentally retarded on the

16
marriage, as well as on the mothers and fathers individually
(Benson & Gross, 1989). Parents of children who are
mentally retarded report that they are less likely to seek
social support (Friedrich & Friedrich, 1981), have smaller
social support networks (Kazak & Marvin, 1984), and do not
utilize these sources to a degree consistent with their
level of need (Waisbren, 1980). Thus, it is important to
evaluate the quality of support that they are more likely to
receive, that is, from their spouse. Floyd & Zmich (1990)
found that parents of children who are mentally retarded
obtained significantly lower scores than parents of
typically developing children on an observational measure of
marital problem-solving skill, which suggests that these
families may be less effective in providing support for one
another in times of personal distress. Topics chosen and
discussed for the conjugal support task may be different for
this sample, given the unique stresses experienced (Byrne &
Cunningham, 1985). Thus, this is a particularly important
group of couples to study because of the salience of spouse

support for them.

8 n c o
The area of mutual support is a key domain in which the
balance of autonomy and connectedness should be enacted.
Support may be defined as behaviors between individuals or

groups that serve to improve adaptive competence in dealing

17
with short-term crises, life transitions, and long-term
challenges or stresses (Caplan & Killelea, 1976).

In evaluating close relationships, one may identify
facilitation versus interference processes for organization
or exploration of one's ideas or goals (Kelley, Berscheid,
Christensen, Harvey, Huston, Levinger, McClintock, Peplau, &
Peterson, 1983). In order to achieve the dynamic balance
between individual and couple needs, partners must be
willing and able to support one another in their diverse
roles. In Weingarten's (1978) analysis of 54 two-profession
couples, she found that they were able to achieve and
sustain a balance between autonomy and connection via a
particular mode of interaction that was "difficult to
describe, elusive, yet in the presence of these couples, it
was palpable" (p. 148). She called this behavioral
interaction "interdependence" and used adjectives such as
mutual respect and regard, help, co-operation, reliance,
letting go, and willpower to convey aspects of this quality.
Weingarten acknowledged that these characteristics might be
used to describe any dyad, but maintained that
interdependence only pertained to intimates. Her definition
of interdependence consisted of independence in the context
of an intimate relationship. Partners were able to balance
emotional needs in a complementary fashion, and the
relationship could also withstand both partners acting

dependently or independently concurrently. The

18
prerequisites for interdependence in marriage included
commitment and trust, broad definitions of appropriate
behavior, including a belief in androgynous roles, open
communication, and a balance of giving and taking.

A better understanding of supportive behaviors may be
derived from Boyd & Roach's (1977) questionnaire study of
satisfaction in marital relationships. They found that
three major clusters of items distinguished 111 satisfied
from dissatisfied married couples: (1) open communication
(e.g. "I say what I really think"), (2) active listening and
receiving messages ("I 'check out' or ask for clarification
so that I'll understand spouse's feelings and thoughts"),
and (3) articulate expressions of respect and esteem for
spouse ("I express appreciation and encouragement
verbally").

Clearly, there is a need for observational evaluation
of spouses' behavior to determine if Boyd & Roach's (1977)
findings generalize to actual communication behaviors
between spouses. Support for individual fulfillment has not
been explored in a systematic manner with respect to marital
adjustment (Sabbeth & Leventhal, 1984). Whereas we have
much information regarding how couples are able to help one
another for the benefit of the relationship (e.g. Rusbult,
et al., 1986), we know little about this process with

respect to individual needs.

19

Cohen & Wills' (1985) review of stress and social
support outlined four types of support resources:
informational support (help in defining, understanding, and
coping with problematic events), social companionship (time
spent with others to fulfill affiliation needs, help to
distract persons from worrying about problems, facilitation
of positive affect), instrumental support (provision of
financial aid, material resources and needed services), and
esteem support (information conveyed that a person is
admired and accepted). In terms of independence versus
interdependence, these may be reconceptualized as falling
within two broader domains of support: (1) a more directive
type, which would include informational, instrumental, and
perhaps even social companionship support, and (2) a more
freeing type, which would encompass esteem support.

The observational ratings used in the present research
capture the two types of social support cited above. Using
the SASB model, the quality of social support is assessed by
the "focus on other" dimension, as pertains to the actions
of the spouse toward the partner when the partner confides
about a personal problem. The top half of the model
represents behaviors promoting autonomy, while the bottom
half are relatively more directive and managing. Behaviors
must be considered with respect to the degree of
affiliation, as well as in their context to assess whether

they serve to promote or hinder autonomy. For example,

20
positive competence feedback may either support autonomy or
control, depending on whether it is delivered and
experienced as affirming (e.g. "You handled that really
well") or as a form of interpersonal control ("You handled
that really well, just like you should"). It is expected
that spouses will demonstrate competent behavior in
environments perceived as being both autonomy-supportive and
as providing assistance, rather than in contexts that are
controlling or neglecting.

Researchers have also investigated sex differences in
social support. Epstein (1987) found that the nature of
support for one another's work differed by gender, with
husbands protecting and mentoring their wives, whereas wives
tended to listen, reassure, and cater to their husbands.
Sullivan's (1989) study supported the hypotheses that
females would need, provide, receive, and perceive a greater
need for emotional support in others than would males.
Extrapolating from these data, it appears that husbands will
tend to provide answers and advice in a task of social
support. This type of behavior may be more controlling, in
that it hinders wives from discovering solutions on their
own. Thus, we predicted that among maritally satisfied
couples, wives would be more likely to demonstrate autonomy-
enhancing support, whereas husbands would be more likely to
utilize a form of support that was somewhat more

controlling, such as providing guidance and advice.

§A§B and Assertiveness

The construct assertiveness is useful in identifying
behaviors in which an individual's opinions may be sustained
without necessarily diminishing relationship values.
Assertiveness can be thought of as the outward expression of
the integration of the internal states of autonomy and
homonomy. Assertiveness relates autonomy- the inner
endorsement of one's actions and sense that they emanate
from oneself and are one's own (Deci & Ryan, 1987), to
features of homonomy- the legitimate and honest expression
of one's personal rights, feelings, beliefs, and interests,
without violating or denying the rights of others (Alberti &
Emmons, 1978). A succinct definition of assertiveness was
offered by Booraem & Flowers (1978): "Assertion basically
involves asking for what one wants, refusing what one
doesn't want, and expressing positive and negative messages
to others." (p. 17) However, this definition is somewhat
lacking. Scammell & Stead (1984) added that assertiveness
includes the "free expression of emotions without
experiencing anxiety and while considering others'

feelings." (p. 171)

t ' s st es ss ' e
Assertiveness has typically been viewed as a set of
social skills that are situationally governed (Vincent, et

al., 1975). However, lack of assertion has been judged an

21

22

individual flaw that may be remedied by specific teaching
methods (Rich & Schroeder, 1976; Riger & Galligan, 1980).
Conceptualizing assertiveness as a personality
characteristic has been a limitation. For example,
Bouchard, Lalonde, & Gagnon (1988) note a lack of
convergence in self-report and behavioral measures of
assertiveness (see also McNamara, Delamater, Sennhauser, &
Milano, 1988), and conclude that there is no clear
relationship between assertiveness and several personality
dimensions.

The abundance of literature on assertiveness training
is commonly directed to women (Glesen, 1988: Mays, 1987),
helping them to overcome personal deficiencies. Gervasio &
Crawford (1989) pointed out that there are less than a
handful of case studies and research reports of assertion
training for men that investigate regulating problems caused
by aggression, insensitivity to others' feelings, or
emotional inexpressiveness. This distribution of effort
thus reflects an implicit assumption regarding socially
acceptable behavior; that is, that it is legitimate to "take
care" of oneself, even if this involves violating the rights
of others in the process.

The reason for male-female differences in assertiveness
may be the social consequences of the action rather than an
intrapersonal characteristic that differs for men and women.

Expectations of positive and negative consequences affects

23
the performance of assertive behaviors (Eisler, Frederiksen,
& Peterson, 1978; McNamara, et al., 1988). Although women
are not any less likely than men to behave assertively
(Crawford, 1988), sex differences may be found in terms of
the consequences of women's assertive behaviors. For
example, assertive women were evaluated as less competent,
likeable, and attractive than assertive men in a situation
involving unreasonable requests from strangers in public
situations (Kelly, Kern, Kirkley, Patterson, & Keane, 1980).
Thus, recognizing opportunities and ways to behave
assertively, and evaluating the advisability of doing so may
be independent processes (Schroeder, Rakos, & Moe, 1983).
Women may be quite insightful as to the price they pay for
assertion, and thus choose to avoid the associated risks.
For example, husbands or lovers may become violent when
women act assertively (Roy, 1977) and assertiveness training
may not make a positive contribution to women employees'
work settings (Scammell & Stead, 1984).

Studies treating assertiveness as an intrapersonal
issue fail to take into account how a person's ability to
assert themselves is mediated by their circumstances, and
more specifically, by the person with whom they are
interacting. Conflict styles in communication tend to be
highly reciprocal, rather than sharply differentiated
according to sex (Burggraf & Sillars, 1987). In other

words, one spouse's antecedent acts strongly influences the

24

other spouse's consequent acts (White, 1989). Thus, the
interactional context may either function to support or
extinguish one's attempts at assertiveness. The importance
of the interactional environment is suggested in a study by
Deci & Ryan (1987), who distinguished between autonomy-
supportive and controlling behavior in work organizations
and among children. They argued that contexts may be either
autonomy-supportive or controlling, that is, either someone
in the environment attempts to support their autonomy (or
control them) or the person orients toward others who are
autonomy-supportive (or controlling). If one construes the
context as autonomy-supportive, they will be more likely to
behave assertively, whereas if they perceive the environment
as controlling, they would be more likely to defer. Thus,
in examining interpersonal transactions, a study of
"listener" behavior is as important as an examination of the
assertive versus unassertive speaker, and will bring to the
surface the complementary nature of dyadic interaction.

Gervasio & Crawford (1989) recommended using the method
of speech act analysis in order to correct for the previous
failures of research on the evaluation of assertiveness.
This methodology encompasses an examination of the grammar,
semantics, and social roles associated with assertion, and
advocates integrating linguistics, social psychology and
behavior technology in order to guard against biased

research.

25

As Fine (1985) indicated, research should address
diverse groups or samples of women, focus on experiences in
their social context, document interpersonal dynamics as
well as individual characteristics, and critically analyze
social, political and economic conditions as they influence
and interact with women's individual and group psychologies.
Neisser (1976) outlined the criteria for ecological
validity, that is, studies should have something to say
about what people do in real, culturally significant
situations. Because it is essential to consider the
cultural, ecological, and interactional context, the present
study goes beyond systems theory to include societal and
economic determinants, along with individual characteristics
and social roles, in a feminist analysis of marital
interaction. The present study proposes that the social
context (i.e. spouses' behavior) is more strongly predictive
of assertiveness than gender. That is, although women may
display less assertiveness than men, this will be related to
less autonomy providing behavior by men. Across couples,
women's assertiveness and men's autonomy promotion will be

positively correlated.

0 ss v 3
Using the SASB model, assertiveness will be defined in
the present study by the confider's behaviors; that is,

maximally independent behavior and behavior that is both

26
independent and affiliative ("Asserting and separating" and
"Disclosing and expressing" for focus on self) will be
summed to represent assertiveness. As explained previously,
one may be oppositional without necessarily being coercive

or dominant (Chiles, et al., 1980).

SASB and Power

Whereas social support is represented in the present
study as specific behaviors of the "supporter," and
assertiveness as behaviors demonstrated by the "confider,"
power dynamics relates to the interplay of these two
processes. Power refers to the ability to achieve ends
through influence (Huston, 1983). In close relationships,
symmetry between meeting individual and couple needs can
only be attained if the two individuals enter the
relationship at comparable levels of power. If one partner
is responsible for all autonomous behaviors and the other
for all "homonomous" behaviors, the relationship as a whole
may appear balanced, but for the individuals comprising the
relationship, the balance is absent. Relationships such as
these are more accurately described as complementary rather
than egalitarian (Hare-Mustin, 1986). Complementarity
assumes that partners in an interaction play roles that fit
together in a yin/yang way. Typically, as Gilligan (1982)
has documented, women maintain communication and

connections, whereas men are more likely to create clear

27
hierarchical boundaries and seek distance in conflictual
situations. While neither trend should necessarily be
devalued, it is clear that the balance of autonomy and
affiliation in such relationships is not evenly distributed.

Family power studies suffer from several weaknesses,
including the predominant use of self-report methodologies
and emphasis on outcomes to the exclusion of processes (e.g.
McDonald, 1980, cited in Godwin & Scanzoni, 1989; Safilios-
Rothschild, 1970). In addition, studies of family power
which have examined gender-related issues generally have not
tried to explain the cause of gender-related power
differentials. Much research merely acknowledges that being
female may also mean being in a low power position, thus
using gender as an explanatory rather than a descriptive
variable (Fine, 1985). It is not gender per se, but other
gender-linked factors that are causal.

One important probable cause of gender-linked power
differences is the relatively lower status of women in our
society. For example, studies of speech as an interactive
process have reconceptualized gender differences in power as
differences resulting from status (Gervasio & Crawford,
1989: Henley, 1977). Lockheed & Hall (1976) argued that sex
is a diffuse status characteristic associated with a value,
a set of specific evaluated competencies, and a general
expectation state. As such, relative power and prestige are

determined by male or female status. They pointed to the

28

fact that low-status persons make fewer contributions to
groups and that the contributions they do make are less
likely to be accepted. Thus, Lockheed & Hall (1976) direct
attention to the dysfunctions of status-ordered behavior,
and call for the re-evaluation of men and women in society
to eliminate the source of status differentiation.

Similarly, Thompson & Walker's (1989) review of the
impact of gender in marriage, work, and parenthood cited
evidence to support the idea that many of the qualities
women display in marital conversation and conflict may be
traced to their subordinate position. Women's subordination
is most evident in instances of marital violence. As
subordinates, they must be more sensitive to those in power,
and are therefore responsible for monitoring relationships,
confronting disagreeable issues, and resolving them when
conflict is high. In the case of wife battering, it is a
precarious chore for many married women to be as independent
as they can without threatening the status of their
husbands. Thus the task of acting on their autonomy values
without renouncing homonomy is a difficult one. Even when
there is some tolerance for assertive behavior, that is, in
cases where such behavior does not necessarily imply
threatening conflict, because women start from a subordinate
position, their assertions are often tentative and may be
perceived as nagging or even hysterical (Thompson & Walker,

1989). Also, in SASB terminology, when women consistently

29
receive controlling and belittling messages, submissiveness
and resentful compliance are the predictable responses.

In addition to being berated, when a person is "one-
down" they are also more likely to be susceptible to
influence (Berlin & Johnson, 1989). This is where SASB is
useful, as it acknowledges the coexistence of both
dimensions of independence and affiliation. For example,
although many believe that if they are not one-up they must
be one-down, the autonomy alternatives go beyond either
dominating the other or submitting to them. One can operate
in a range that includes acknowledging someone's autonomy to
trying to control them, as well as experiencing one's own
autonomy in relation to another to submitting to that person
(Berlin & Johnson, 1989).

To date, studies of family power have focused on
conflict situations. Sexton & Perlman (1989) question
whether power dynamics that are salient in conflict
situations such as decision-making, would also emerge in
other scenarios, such as crisis management. In a conflict
task, power is understood in terms of clear attempts to win
the conflict, and in fact, we commonly view the most
powerful partner as the one who wins. However, in non-
conflict situations, winning isn't a salient issue. Thus,
power must be conceptualized on different terms. Here,
French & Raven's (1959) typology of four bases of power is

useful. Specifically, they defined legitimate power as

30
power stemming from values that dictate one has the right to
influence the other and that that person has an obligation
to accept this influence. This may be manifested in
conjugal support interactions as a spouse deferring to their
partner after being reminded about their "proper" role.
Referent power, that is power stemming from an assumed and
unspoken basis of identification between two participants,
might be a preferred basis of influence in some
relationships. An example of referent power in marital
interaction could include quietly succumbing, as this basis
of power reduces the frequency of open power struggles.
Expert power, represented by one's attribution of superior
knowledge to the other, may be seen in the marriage as each
spouse having spheres of expertise, and thus noting
particular areas where each other is more powerful.
Finally, informational power is defined as the ability of
one partner to point out contingencies of which the other
has been unaware. In a support task, discussions might look
like rational debates, with partners trying to influence the
other by explaining their views.

A less direct form of influence, which may be equally
controlling, includes communication behavior that is
ignoring or neglecting. As Emerson (1972) suggested, when
one party in a dyad feels they are not receiving an
equitable rate of exchange, one option is to withdraw from

the relationship. Henley (1977) reported that those who are

31
able to refuse attempts to take up their time are dominant
in the situation. She based her conclusions on a review of
studies which revealed that expressions of dominance and
subordination between non-equals (e.g. between bosses and
workers, among different racial groups) paralleled those
used by males and females in the unequal relation of the
sexes. The superior position is communicated by visually
ignoring the other person, interrupting them, or remaining
silent. Responses that are ignoring or neglecting also
nullify attempts at assertiveness by a speaker and
negatively reinforce future assertive behavior.

Thus, the above considerations suggest that marital
power can be investigated in a useful way using the SASB
framework to examine marital interactions focused on seeking
and providing support. Power dynamics may be examined in
several ways for both the confider and the listener using
the SASB model. Power involves attempts to control another
via advice, directives and belittling comments by the
listener (reflected in the categories "Nurturing and
protecting," "Watching and managing," and "Belittling and
blaming" for focus on other), as opposed to attempts to
liberate the confider, by encouraging the partner to explore
and satisfy his/her autonomy needs ("Freeing and forgetting"
and "Affirming and understanding" for focus on other). In
the former, more controlling context, the confider is more

likely to behave in an interdependent manner, either

32
accepting the advice, deferring, or behaving defensively
(reflected in the categories "Trusting and relying,"
"Deferring and submitting," and "Sulking and appeasing" for
focus on self). In contrast, the latter context is likely
to promote autonomous and assertive behavior ("Asserting and
separating" and "Disclosing and expressing" for focus on
self).

In addition to influence attempts, power is also
revealed by the success of the attempts, where change in the
partner is actually brought about. For example, Godwin &
Scanzoni (1989) operationalized control by coding the
results of influence attempts of each spouse. An influence
attempt was defined as a directive, suggestion, or request
by one spouse intended to modify the beliefs or behaviors of
the other spouse. These influence attempts then translated
into control for the initiating spouse only if the recipient
complied with or responded positively to the attempt.
Interestingly, Godwin & Scanzoni (1989) found that couples
in which one spouse was more controlling reported lower
levels of consensus with decision outcomes. Thus, increased
control for one spouse may be associated with decreased
satisfaction among partners, illustrating the negative
consequences of a power imbalance. The study thus validates
the importance of focusing on dyadic exchanges to reveal

power.

33

Here is where ignoring and neglecting can be examined
as power tactics used by a listener (focus on other). Power
can be accounted for by noting when such behaviors evoke
submission by the speaker. In this case, one spouse
controls the conversation by ignoring their spouse's
immediate needs and concerns, which may lead them to another
topic. By following, rather than further exploring their
identified issue, they disregard their own needs, and
essentially defer to their spouse.

Finally, in contrast to successful power assertions,
unsuccessful attempts can be viewed as evidence of a
struggle for power. This would be characterized by
sequences in which the supporter demonstrated maximally
controlling (focus on other), followed by the confider's
maximally autonomous behaviors (focus on self). Such a
couple does not communicate with each other, but rather

talks at one another.

Ecgnomic Bases of Power in Martiage

Gillespie (1971) contends that the economic power base
is most significant for predicting influence within
marriage, with a positive relationship between economic
resources and decision-making in the family. Similarly,
Godwin & Scanzoni (1989) found a significant effect of
couples' income inequality on wives' level of control, and

posited that among couples where the husband's income was

34
greater than the wife's, the wife had less control or power
during decision-making.

The problem with the aforementioned studies is that
they merely assess outcome, such as consensus with
decisions. We are therefore left without a clear sense of
the processes involved in these marital discussions. Rather
than concluding that income disparity per se causes a power
imbalance among couples, the crucial intervening step worthy
of study is the interaction in which spouses derive their
decisions. Economic resources do not necessarily enhance
influence levels. Instead it is assertiveness related to
self-esteem which may underlie and explain the link between
economics and power. For example, Steil & Turetsky (1987)
found that the extent to which wives asserted the importance
of their own careers relative to their spouses' was the best
predictor of equality levels rather than their income per
se.

Self-esteem is probably particularly important for the
present sample. Relative occupational status may not be a
relevant determinant of power differential for the sample of
couples in this study, due to the large number of "stay-at-
home" mothers. As such, staying at home and caring for the
children, including a child who is mentally retarded, rather
than pursuing a career, may not necessarily be an indicator

of reduced power.

Selteeteem

Rosenberg (1965) presents a definition of self-esteem
which is close to the concepts of self-regard or self-
acceptance. His definition is relevant to the issue of
self-assertion, which is a focus of the present study.
Basically, he described self-esteem as an attitude toward an
object, in this case the object is the self. The object is
evaluated along the following dimensions: content (e.g.
intelligent, kind, considerate), direction
(positive/negative, favorable/unfavorable, worthy/unworthy),
intensity (how likeable), importance (value of having
particular sense of self), salience (degree to which self is
at forefront of consciousness), consistency (presence of
contradictory self-attitudes), stability (presence of
shifting self-attitudes), and clarity (degree of ambiguity
in image of self).

Rosenberg's definition is also useful for understanding
interpersonal relationships. He reported that those low in
self-esteem, who he called egophobes, lack respect for the
self they observe and maintain a self-picture that is
disagreeable. They feel that others lack respect for them,
and therefore in interpersonal situations, usually fail to
take initiative in establishing contacts with others or
avoid others altogether. Regarding assertive behavior
specifically, they are easily influenced and usually give

in. In contrast, those high in self-esteem, or egophiles,

35

36
enjoy competing with others and can be assertive or
dominant.

Interpersonal behavior seems to be an important coping
mechanism to boost a fragile self-concept in those with low
self-esteem, whereas people high in self—esteem are able to
maintain a positive self-concept privately. Baumgardner,
Kaufman & Levy (1989) found that those with low self-esteem
tended to compliment positive sources and derogate negative
sources of feedback more often than those with higher levels
of self-esteem. Extrapolating from these data, perhaps
those with low self-esteem would be more likely to depend on
their relationships such as marriage for their own sense of
self-regard and would therefore be more vulnerable to
marital highs and lows. Research that relates self-
disclosure to self-esteem within the family context has
revealed that people sometimes refrain from expressing their
true feelings because they are insecure about their marriage
(Gilbert, 1976). Because self-disclosure entails a certain
degree of risk-taking, spouses may hesitate to express
dissatisfaction for fear of being rejected (Lantz & Snyder,
1969). Although Rusbult, Morrow, & Johnson (1987) reported
that low self-esteem was not predictive of the tendency to
accommodate in the face of relationship strife (that is,
utilize "loyalty" behaviors), they reported that persons
with lower self-esteem showed stronger tendencies towards

"neglect." Thus, low self-esteem might at least lead to a

37

diminished propensity to behave assertively, and thus create
strife in the first place. From the social exchange
framework (e.g. Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), people with low
self-esteem should behave nonassertively in close
relationships because of a fear of the relationship
terminating, and a perceived lack of alternatives for
themselves. These considerations suggest that level of
self-esteem is likely to have direct implications for the
willingness to be assertive when in the support seeker role.

Self-esteem may also be related to the spouse's
behavior in the supporter role, as research shows that self-
esteem is associated with both the level at which one
discloses and is disclosed to (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983:
Miller & Kenny, 1986). These studies demonstrated that the
frequency by which one was disclosed to was correlated with
their empathy skills. Empathy calls for the ability to
spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of
others, and necessitates an attempt to balance
considerations of self and other (Berlin & Johnson, 1989).
Because of their greater empathic abilities, individuals
with high self-esteem may not feel the need to derogate,
attack, or control even negative sources of feedback. Thus,
autonomy-supportive environments are more likely to be
provided by people with high self-esteem (Deci & Ryan,

1987).

38
Taken together, theory and previous research suggest
several hypotheses regarding the role of self-esteem in
spouses' exchanges regarding personal problems. Self-esteem
seems to be an essential characteristic in predicting one's
tendency for assertive behavior, as well as the ability to
provide positive social support and foster the autonomy of

one's partner.

Matital satisfaction

The descriptive richness of the SASB model in capturing
self-disclosure among couples permits several predictions
regarding marital satisfaction as an outcome variable.
Navran (1967) found that satisfied couples, as opposed to
unhappy couples, reported that they talked more to each
other, conveyed the feeling that they understood what was
being said to them, and had a wide range of subjects
available to them, as well as many other characteristics
that resulted in "open, rewarding communication." Waring
(1981) found that cognitive self-disclosure is a major
determinant of a couple's level of intimacy. Others (e.g.
Gilbert, 1976: Levinger & Senn, 1967) have found a
curvilinear relationship between marital satisfaction and
self-disclosure as assessed by the three dimensions of
content (what is said about a topic), valence (positiveness
or negativeness of what is said) and intimacy level (degree

of intimacy of statement). They proposed that selective

39
disclosure of feelings is more beneficial to marital harmony
than either nondisclosure or total disclosure.

Thus, the type of disclosures with respect to the three
process issues of social support, assertiveness, and power,
should be predictive of marital satisfaction. Regarding
social support, marital satisfaction for the couple should
be positively correlated with the ability of a spouse to be
autonomy-supportive and also able to offer advice or
guidance in a sensitive manner when in the role of
supporter. With respect to assertive behavior, spouses who
demonstrate a balance between affiliative self-disclosures
and reliance on their partners will be more likely to be
satisfied with their marriage than spouses who are unable to
openly confide in their partners or to rely on their
partners' help in meeting their own needs. Regarding power,
studies of decision-making suggest that the more that
persons participate in "give-and-take" dynamics, the more
they are likely to agree on the behavioral arrangements that
emerge, and the more stable those arrangements will be. In
marital relationships, a power imbalance in decision-making
is usually associated with dissatisfaction (Godwin &
Scanzoni, 1989). Thus, autonomy-enhancing versus autonomy-
prohibiting interactions should predict marital
satisfaction. High levels of control for the supporter will
be associated with relatively low marital satisfaction for

both partners, reflecting the negative consequences of a

40
power imbalance. Furthermore, power struggles will predict

low levels of marital satisfaction for the couple.

0 o ica unct onin and o i o

The relationship between psychological distress and
social support has been examined extensively in the
literature (Cohen & Wills, 1985). For couple members,
psychological distress is negatively correlated with both
the frequency that a spouse is named as a provider of
support, and the level of satisfaction with this form of
support (Kurdek, 1989).

Emotional support of significant others is one factor
that contributes to the successful combination of multiple
roles such as work and family (Epstein, 1987). However, it
seems that the issue of attaining personal and marital
satisfaction when facing multiple roles is more complex than
simply dividing one's time between work and family (Bailyn,
1970). Stewart & Malley (1987) found that the effectiveness
of balanced employment and family roles was related to the
balance of agency-communion patterns within each role. That
is, within each role, there were aspects of agency (e.g.
individual initiative, separate tasks or activities,
independent spheres of action) and communion (e.g.
collective actions, mutual dependence, relationships). The
balanced presence of agency and communion predicted

emotional and physical health, whereas combination of

41
employment and family roles per se did not. Overemphasis on
communion values without any opportunity for independent
action may undermine an individual's sense of competence and
result in a sense of helplessness and negative feelings,
just as complete agency without any connectedness may be
equally stressful (Stewart & Malley, 1987). Thus, spouses
who receive support that combines agency and communion
values should report experiencing less personal or emotional

distress.

Hypotheses
The SASB model will be used to investigate three

processes operating among spouses involved in a social
support task. The first, social support, is represented by
behaviors exhibited by the spouse currently in the
"supporter" role. The second, assertiveness, is
operationalized by the behaviors of the spouse in the
"confider" role. Power dynamics, which represent the
interplay of the two processes, are also explored. Several
hypotheses follow, in which self-esteem and economic
indicators are evaluated for both spouses as predictors of
the aforementioned three processes. Finally, social
support, assertiveness, and power are used as predictors of
marital satisfaction and psychological distress among

couples (see Figure 2).

W
1. Social support will be positively correlated with

marital satisfaction for both spouses. That is, when the
"supporter" behaves in a manner that fosters autonomy in
their partner and offers advice or guidance in a sensitive
manner, higher scores on marital satisfaction will be found
among both spouses. Thus, the relative frequency of
"Freeing and forgetting," "Affirming and understanding," and
"Nurturing and protecting" (focus on other) will be
positively correlated with marital satisfaction for both

spouses.

2. Social support will be correlated with the confiders'
reports of experiencing less personal or emotional distress.
The rate of "Freeing and forgetting," "Affirming and
understanding," and "Nurturing and protecting" by the
supporter (focus on other) will be negatively correlated

with psychological distress for the "confider."

3. Based on previous research on gender differences in
social support, when in the role of supporter, wives will be
more likely to demonstrate autonomy-enhancing support
("Freeing and forgetting" and "Affirming and understanding"
for focus on other), whereas husbands will be more likely to
utilize a more controlling form of support, such as

providing guidance and advice ("Nurturing and protecting"

42

43
for focus on other) among a subsample of maritally satisfied
couples, selected out from the whole sample. Thus,
significant group differences between husbands and wives are
predicted for focus on other behaviors among this group of

couples.

Assertlveness

4. Environments that support autonomy and provide
assistance in an affiliative manner will be associated with
spouses' assertive behavior. Thus, the rate of autonomy-
supportive behavior of one spouse ("Freeing and forgetting,"
"Affirming and understanding," and "Nurturing and
protecting" for focus on other) should be positively
correlated with assertive behavior ("Asserting and
separating" and "Disclosing and expressing" for focus on
self) of their partner during the social support

interaction.

5. Assertive behavior ("Asserting and separating" and
"Disclosing and expressing," for focus on self), coupled
with the ability to rely on one's spouse for advice and
guidance ("Trusting and relying" for focus on self) will be
positively correlated with marital satisfaction for the

confider.

44
6. Self-esteem will predict assertive behavior for the
confider as well as the ability to provide a context for

fostering and supporting assertiveness in one's spouse.

a. Self-esteem for the confider will be positively
correlated with the ability to utilize autonomous
("Asserting and separating" and "Disclosing and expressing"
for focus on self) and reliant behaviors ("Trusting and
relying" for focus on self) in seeking support from their

spouses.

b. Self-esteem for the supporter will be positively
correlated with the ability to provide a context for self-
exploration and advise or guide in an affiliative manner
("Freeing and forgetting," "Affirming and understanding" and

"Nurturing and protecting" for focus on other).

Bgyet Imbalance and Struggle

7. Marital satisfaction scores should be negatively
correlated with power imbalance and struggle exhibited in a

social support task.

a. High levels of control for the supporter ("Ignoring
and neglecting" or "Watching and managing" for focus on
other) followed by submission by the confider ("Deferring

and submitting" or "Sulking and appeasing" for focus on

45
self) will be associated with decreased marital satisfaction
for both partners, reflecting the negative consequences of a

power imbalance.

b. Power struggles in a task of conjugal support will
predict low levels of marital satisfaction. The rate of
controlling behavior by the supporter ("Watching and
managing" for focus on other) followed by autonomous
behavior by the confider ("Asserting and separating" for
focus on self) will be negatively correlated with marital

satisfaction for both spouses.

8. Self-esteem of the confider is a more important
predictor of power imbalance than socioeconomic factors per
se. Self-esteem will account for most of the variance in
the relationship between socioeconomic factors between
spouses and a power imbalance. Therefore, lower levels of
self-esteem will predict higher rates of control for the
supporter ("Ignoring and neglecting" or "Watching and
managing" for focus on other) followed by submission by the
confider ("Deferring and submitting" or "Sulking and
appeasing" for focus on self). However, difference between
spouses regarding education level may also account for a

small part of the variance.

149211291

Meets

The subjects were participants in the second phase of a
larger longitudinal study of family functioning and
interaction in families with mildly to moderately mentally
retarded children. This study focuses on approximately 37
married couples selected from the larger sample of single
and two-parent families.

In the first phase of the study, 180 families with
mentally retarded children were recruited. These families
were initially recruited by mailing letters to the homes of
all parents with children between the ages of 6-18 enrolled
in classes for Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) and
Trainable Mentally Impaired (TMI) children in several public
school districts. Although the response rate was less than
10% to the bulk mailing, 75% of the respondents completed
the investigation. A comparison group of 53 families was
also recruited through newspaper advertisements for families
of typically developing school-age children enrolled in
public schools, although data from these subjects are not
included in the present report. Respondents were accepted
into the study on a first-come basis, with some selection
based on family composition and demographic variables in the
comparison families to ensure comparability with families
with mentally retarded children. Names, addresses, and

phone numbers of all the families, as well as records of

46

47
people who would be able to reach them if they were to
relocate, were kept in a separate folder, so that families
could be recontacted 1 1/2 to 2 years later for follow-up
data. Each family was paid $50 for their participation.

A follow-up evaluation was initiated eighteen months
after the study began (and is currently underway) so that we
could assess the ways in which families had changed since
the last visit. The families were recontacted by phone or
by mail. Of the original 180 families, 127 (71%) completed
the investigation. Again, each family was paid $50 for
participating in the larger study.

From the entire sample of 127 families who participated
in the follow-up, 78 of the families (61%) with a mentally
retarded child include two parents, legally married or
cohabitating. Table 1 contains demographic information for
subjects in the present study. These couples have been
married an average of 12.77 years (SD= 7.4 years). The
average age of the mothers is 39.16 years (SD= 5.73 years)
and the average age of the fathers is 41.67 years (SD= 6.72
years). The fathers were significantly older than the
mothers, t(35)=2.23, p<.03. 94% of these couples are
Caucasian, and 3% are Hispanic. The average amount of
formal education is 14.19 years (SD= 2.54 years) for the
mothers; 23 (61%) of the mothers completed high school and
13 (34%) obtained a college degree or above. The fathers

attained an average of 14.06 years (SD= 2.74 years) of

48
formal education, with 24 (63%) completing high school, and
9 (24%) obtaining a college degree or above. There was no
significant difference between the mothers and the fathers
for years of formal education. Families reported an average
yearly income of $26,530 (SD=19,620; Median: 20,500; Range:
$4,000-$132,000). The average on the Hollingshead four
factor index of social status is 42.54 (SD=13.37;

Range: 14-66).

Table 1

Eamily Demographics

49

 

 

Variable Mean (SD) Range
Age of target child (years) 12.5 (3.52) 7-21
Gender of target child:

Boys 65

Girls 62

Child primary educational placement:

EMI (1 child was mainstreamed) 80

TMI
Number of siblings
Yearly family income
Hollingshead index
Length of marriage (years)
Age of parent (years)
Mothers
Fathers
Education (years)
Mothers

Fathers

46
1.54 (1.17) 0-5

26,530 (19,620) 4,000-132,000

42.54 (13.37) 14-66
12.77 (7.40) .5-34.oa
39.16 (5.73) 28-55
41.67 (6.72) 28-62
14.19 (2.54) 10-19

14.06 (2.74) 7-20

W

Apart from some demographics, all data for the present
study were gathered at Time 2. Similar to the Time 1
procedures, families participated in two assessment sessions
in their home, each of which lasted approximately two hours,
and were usually scheduled one week apart. All family
members currently living in the home were requested to be
present for both of these sessions. The purposes and
procedures of the study were explained to the family and
they were informed of their rights as volunteers. A
statement of informed consent was signed by both parents and
a release of information form to obtain records from the
child's school was obtained. The parents completed a
battery of questionnaires measuring personal, social and
familial sources of stress and support, as well as marital
and family functioning and child adjustment. Most of the
questionnaires were the same ones administered in the first
phase of the study, although some new ones were added that
asked about changes since Time 1. Subjects were reminded
not to try to recall their previous answers, but rather to
report on their current situation. Children of appropriate
age also completed several of the measures on family
functioning and relationships. At the close of the session,
the parents completed a videotaped marital discussion in a
room of the house isolated from the children, as explained

below. The second research session consisted of collecting

50

51
the remaining questionnaires, administering one additional
measure to one of the parents, and videotaping a fifty
minute free interaction segment and a ten minute family

problem-solving discussion.

Social Support Interaction

Near the end of the first session each parent completed
a short questionnaire (See Appendix B: Personal Problem
Questionnaire) which asked him/her to recall and list areas
in which he/she had experienced disappointment, personal
problems, or stress not specifically related to the marital
relationship (e.g. work, relationship with own family or
friends, personal leisure activities, health). They were
also asked to rate the severity of the problem on a scale of
1-4 (not a problem to major problem). With the assistance
of the interviewers, each spouse identified a topic to
discuss with the spouse for approximately ten minutes.
These discussions took place in a room isolated from the
children and were videotaped. The interviewers read a set
of standardized instructions to the couple which informed
them that they would be taking turns in confiding a personal
problem to their spouse. One spouse was randomly selected
to go first, and was instructed to confide in the partner,
like he/she "usually would do when distressed or bothered by
a personal problem." The other spouse was told to listen

and respond to the partner in the manner as he/she "usually

52
would when sharing these moments." Listeners were not given
explicit instructions to provide support, in order to avoid
building a set that the spouse should "help." Couples were
told that they would have ten minutes in each role. The
interviewers started the camera and left the room for the
discussion, returning in 8 minutes to ask the couple to

switch roles.

stetyetional Measure

Coging maritel interaetions. Videotapes of the
spouses' discussions were evaluated by experienced
behavioral coders, utilizing a modified cluster version of
the Observational Coding System for use with Structural
Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB; Humphrey & Benjamin,
1989).

In a social support situation, the support seeker or
confider performs self-directed behaviors, and the support
giver is focusing on the other. Thus, all behaviors
performed by the spouse in the role of "confider" were coded
according to the focus on self domain, and all behaviors of
the spouse whose task was to listen as their partner
confided (the "supporter"), were coded according to the
focus on other domain. This consistent assignment of focus
was the major modification in the original SASB coding

scheme. As Humphrey & Benjamin (1986) stated:

53
"In an ideal adult relationship, interpersonal
focus is well balanced between equal amounts of
focus on others and focus on the self . . . There
are, though, some situations in which an imbalance
of focus is quite appropriate because it is
defined by the role relationship. A common
example of this role defined inequality of focus
is in psychotherapy where the therapist focuses
almost exclusively on the patient. Similarly, the
patient would be focusing primarily on him or
herself, in relation to the therapist." (p. 2)

The floor switch (i.e. all behaviors between changes of
listener and speaker) was the basic unit of coding, so that
there was at least one code for each spouse's speaking turn.
When a speaker emitted more than one type of codable
behavior before a switch occurred, a code was given for each
independent and different behavior. However, a particular
code was only assigned one time within a floor switch.

Thus, multiple codes were used if the speaker conveyed two
or more distinct interpersonal actions within one floor
switch.

The SASB coding system has a Circumplex structure which
classifies dyadic and group interactions along two
dimensions. Each statement is rated on two four-point
scales, first indicating the degree of independence versus
interdependence, followed by the degree of affiliation
versus disaffiliation. Thus, each code consisted of two
numbers, written in the form of a coordinate pair. The
meaning of these ratings varies depending on the role of the

speaker. On the independent/interdependent dimension, a

54
rating of maximally independent (1) represents the ability
to maintain an autonomous focus on oneself when in the role
of the "confider." When in the role of "supporter," maximal
independence represents the ability to relate to one's
spouse by supporting or fostering their autonomy. At the
opposite end of the scale, a rating of maximally
interdependent (4) for the "confider" is given in a
situation in which the speaker exhibits submissive behavior:
in the role of the "supporter," a maximally interdependent
rating is given when the spouse provides a managing or
controlling directive. Maximally affiliative behavior (1)
represents friendly, joyful connection, whereas maximally
disaffiliative behavior (4) represents hostility, anger and
moving away. Eight clusters of behavior for each focus are
identified in the SASB model from ratings along these two

dimensions, as shown in Table 2.

55

 

 

 

Table 2
AS usters and Constructs O at o a
Cluster Rating (0-4)
Independence Affiliation
Fo us 0 se
Asserting & separating 1 0
Disclosing & expressing 2 2
Approaching & enjoying 0 1
Trusting & relying 3 2
Deferring & submitting 4 0
Sulking & appeasing 3 3
Protesting & withdrawing 0 4
Walling off & avoiding 2 3
Focus on other
Freeing & forgetting 1 0
Affirming & understanding 2 2
Loving & approaching 0 1
Nurturing & protecting 3 2
Watching & managing 4 0
Belittling & blaming 3 3
Attacking & rejecting 0 4
Ignoring & neglecting 2 3
Social support
Focuefion othet
Freeing & forgetting 1 0
Affirming & understanding 2 2
Nurturing & protecting 3 2
Assertiveness
Bonus on selt
Asserting & separating 1 0
Disclosing & expressing 2 2

Power imbalance
Focus on other: followed by Focus on self:
Watching & managing (4,0) Deferring & submitting (4,0)
or Sulking & appeasing (3,3)
Ignoring & neglecting (2,3) Deferring & submitting (4,0)
or Sulking & appeasing (3,3)
Power struggle
Watching & managing (4,0) Asserting & separating (1,0)

56
Coding was initially done in pairs for training
purposes, but later was completed individually the coders.
Twenty percent of the videotaped interactions in this study
were evaluated independently by two coders in order to
assess interobserver agreement. Mean kappa, computed on

each of the seven coders total was .74 (Range = .54 - .90)

for focus on other, and .73 (Range = .37 - .96) for focus on
self.

0 erationalizin rocesses of su ort ass s
and power. As seen in Table 2, social support was

operationalized by summing relative frequency scores for
focus on other for the categories "Freeing and forgetting,"
"Affirming and understanding" and "Nurturing and
protecting." Assertiveness was operationalized by summing
relative frequency scores for focus on self for the two
categories of "Asserting and separating" and "Disclosing and
expressing." Both lag sequential z-scores and conditional
probability statistics were used to operationalize power
dynamics examined in this study. "Watching and managing" or
"Ignoring and neglecting" (focus on other) followed by
"Deferring and submitting" or "Sulking and appeasing" (focus
on self) represents an exertion of power or control.
"Watching and managing" (focus on other) followed by
"Asserting and separating" (focus on self) represents a

struggle for power.

s ' ' s e

Selfi;e§teen. During the first research session of Time
2 data collection, each spouse completed the Rosenberg
(1965) Self-Esteem Inventory (see Appendix C), a
unidimensional scale with ten Likert-type items that
measures self-regard in a brief format. Rosenberg (1965)
presented evidence for the internal reliability and face
validity of the scale, as well as construct validity, citing
positive correlations with social and interpersonal
variables such as assertiveness. The scale has also been
praised as a reasonable compromise between a weighted, facet
model and a more global approach to assessing self-esteem

(Fleming & Courtney, 1984).

Metitel_§etleteetipn. General marital satisfaction was
measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier,
1976), a 32-item scale designed for use with both married
and unmarried cohabitating couples (see Appendix D). This
questionnaire, which assesses the quality of the marriage
with respect to four components (dyadic satisfaction,
consensus, cohesion, and affectional expression), was
administered at both Time 1 and Time 2 of the study. The
measure conceptualizes dyadic adjustment as an "ever-
changing process, with a qualitative dimension which can be
evaluated at any point in time on a dimension from well

adjusted to maladjusted" (Spanier, 1976, p. 17). Total

57

58
scores on the DA8 as well as subscale scores have shown high
levels of validity and reliability for distinguishing
happily married couples from couples experiencing distress
in their marriage (e.g. Margolin, Michelli, 8 Jacobson,

1988).

Emotional Distress. Psychological or emotional
distress as experienced by both spouses was assessed by the
Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1983), a
90-item self-report symptom rating scale (see Appendix E).
This questionnaire requires that subjects first endorse the
occurrence of symptoms experienced within the past seven
days, and then rate the severity of each symptom on a 4-
point scale. The checklist has excellent reliability and
validity (Derogatis, Abeloff, 8 Melisaratos, 1979;
Derogatis, Rickels, 8 Rock, 1976), and provides information
on nine factor analytically derived scales
(e.g. somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal
sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety,
paranoid ideation, and psychoticism), as well as a single
summary distress score, the Global Severity Index (GSI),
which is the total sum of the severity ratings for all of
the items endorsed by a subject, divided by 90. The GSI is
the best indicator of the current level or depth of disorder

in general.

o a 5. Information regarding highest level of
education completed in years was collected for each spouse
during the first session interviews at Time 2 data

collection.

59

Results

The relative frequencies of behaviors in each SASB
cluster for both focus on other and focus on self were
calculated for the husbands and the wives separately. Also,
as outlined in Table 2, total summary scores for the
categories of Social support and Assertiveness were
calculated for each subject. Table 3 provides the means and
standard deviations of the relative frequencies for each

SASB cluster for the husbands and the wives in each role.

60

61

Table 3
Means and Standand Deviations ot SASQ Relative Frequeneiee

Variable Husbands (n=37) Wives (n23?)
Focus on other (supporter role) M (SD) M (SD)
Freeing 8 forgetting .06 (.07) .09 (.09)
Affirming 8 understanding .24 (.19) .23 (.18)
Loving 8 approaching .03 (.05) .01 (.04)
Nurturing 8 protecting .38 (.18) .40 (.20)
Watching 8 managing .06 (.09) .06 (.08)
Belittling 8 blaming .01 (.05) .01 (.04)
Attacking 8 rejecting .00 (.01) .00 (.01)
Ignoring 8 neglecting .22 (.22) .20 (.24)

Focus on self (confider role)

Asserting 8 separating .09 (.09) .14 (.09)
Disclosing 8 expressing .47 (.24) .45 (.18)
Approaching 8 enjoying .01 (.04) .03 (.04)
Trusting 8 relying .18 (.15) .19 (.13)
Deferring 8 submitting .10 (.15) .09 (.14)
Sulking 8 appeasing .01 (.02) .01 (.01)
Protesting 8 withdrawing .00 (.00) .00 (.02)
Walling off 8 avoiding .15 (.18) .11 (.18)

Fwiired t-tests contrasting husbands and wives on each

Valriable ns.

62

Scores for Power imbalance and Power struggle were
determined for each couple by using a lag sequential z-score
for one lag. Sequences were measured with Bakeman's (1986)
E-LAG procedure, which calculates the conditional
probability for a consequent event given an antecedent
event, compares the conditional probability to the base rate
for the consequent, and produces a z-score statistic
indicating the strength of the association between the
antecedent and the consequent. The use of one-step
antecedent-consequent sequences for husband-wife or wife-
husband involved examining the antecedent at lag 0 and the
consequent at lag 1. These one-step sequences were entered
into subsequent analyses. The one-step sequences adequately
captured husband and wife exchanges because the majority of
coded actions involved an exchange of the floor with each
new code.

In addition to the SASB relative frequency scores,
balance scores for Social support and for
Assertiveness/Trusting and relying were calculated. For
Social support, scores reflected the balanced use of various
types of social support (i.e., Freeing and forgetting,
Affirming and understanding, Nurturing and protecting), as
opposed to the reliance on one form of supportiveness by the
listener. Balanced Assertiveness/Trusting and relying meant
that Assertiveness (Asserting and separating, and Disclosing

and expressing) was coupled with the ability to rely on

63

one's spouse for advice and guidance (Trusting and relying).
To compute these scores, the subjects were placed into
groups based on the following decision rules. First, if the
difference between the rates of any two of their scores for
these SASB clusters was greater than or equal to 50 percent
they were placed in the "unbalanced" group. Some subjects
showed relatively balanced use of behaviors because they
displayed low rates of all three behaviors. These people
were placed in a separate group from the other balanced
subjects; that is, these subjects were placed in the ”low"
group if the total percentage of Social support (or
Assertiveness/Trusting and relying, in separate analyses)
was less than or equal to the median. The remaining
subjects were placed in the "balanced" group. For the
husbands as supporters, the median for Social support was
45%, for the wives it was 65%: for the husbands as
confiders, the median for Assertiveness/Trusting and relying
was 63%: for the wives it was 75%. The third group was
comprised of those subjects for whom the difference between
the rates of any two of their scores for the SASB clusters
was less than 50 percent and for whom the sum of all three
components of the composite was greater than the median of
the total behaviors emitted.

Because most of the relative frequencies were fairly
normally distributed, analyses mainly consisted of Pearson

product-moment correlations and ANOVAs, in order to test

64
whether each or both types of scores (i.e., relative
frequency or balance scores) were associated with the
outcomes as hypothesized (i.e., marital satisfaction,
psychological distress, and self-esteem). However, several
of the SASB clusters with low base rates were not normally
distributed. Instead, the modal score was zero, but some
couples did demonstrate relatively high rates of these
behaviors. Thus, the relative frequencies were bimodally
distributed. Therefore, these variables were dichotomized
and treated as categorical measures. Specifically, the
relative frequencies for the clusters Loving and
approaching, Belittling and blaming, Attacking and
rejecting, Ignoring and neglecting (focus on other), and
Approaching and enjoying, Deferring and submitting, Sulking
and appeasing, Protesting and withdrawing, and Walling Off
and avoiding (focus on self) were divided into two
categories of "none-low" and "some-high" displays of the
behavior. Subjects were placed into one of these two groups
based on a median split for each SASB cluster. The
hypotheses were addressed by conducting separate t-tests
contrasting the groups on each of the outcome measures.
Additionally, relative frequencies for the category Watching
and managing were divided into three groups of "none"
"medium," and "high," where one standard deviation above the

modal score of zero served as the cut-off between the medium

65
and high groups. ANOVAs were calculated to contrast these

three groups on the outcome measures.

Speial Support end Marital Satistaction
The first set of analyses tested the hypothesis that

higher levels of Social support exhibited by the spouses in
the supporter role would be associated with marital
satisfaction for both spouses. That is, when the supporter
fosters autonomy in their partner by exhibiting higher rates
of Freeing and forgetting, Affirming and understanding, and
offers advice or guidance in a sensitive manner via higher
rates of Nurturing and protecting, both spouses will report
higher levels of marital satisfaction. This hypothesis was
tested using relative frequency scores for each of these
three SASB clusters, the sum total of the three clusters
(Social support), and the balance scores for Social support.
Separate correlation matrices were computed for the husbands
and the wives between the behavioral interaction measures
and the total scores and subscale scores of the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale.

The correlations revealed significant relationships for
the subscales Dyadic Satisfaction, Consensus, Affection, and
the total adjustment score, only when the husbands assumed
supporter roles. All correlations were nonsignificant for
the wives' behaviors in the supporter role (Range 1's (35)

.00 to -.32). Further, in general, contrary to the

66
hypotheses, Social support as provided by the husbands was
negatively correlated with marital satisfaction for both the
husbands (Dyadic Consensus, z(35)=-.40, p<.05: Dyadic
Affection, £(35)=--37. p<.05) and the wives (Dyadic
Affection, n(35)=-.35, p<.05). The correlations between
each of the SASB clusters for the husbands and the husbands'
and the wives' scores on the marital satisfaction scales are

given in Table 4.

67

Table 4
Correlations Between Husbands' Social suppott eng finspends'

 

and Wives' Scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scele (DAS)

DAS Subscale SASB Component: Husbands as Supporters

Social Freeing 8 Affirming 8 Nurturing 8

Support Forgetting Understanding Protecting

Husbands' scores

Satisfaction -.22 .10 -.41* -.06
Consensus -.40* .02 -.33* -.35*
Cohesion -.10 .04 -.27 .06
Affection -.37* .11 -.49** -.22
Adjustment -.32 .08 -.43* -.18

Wives' scores

Satisfaction -.05 .17 -.32 .07
Consensus -.31 -.08 -.20 -.23
Cohesion .06 .10 -.04 .03
Affection -.35* .01 -.34* -.24
Adjustment -.18 .06 -.27 -.10

*p<.05 **p<.01

68

As shown in the table, the husbands' Affirming and
understanding scores showed significant correlations with
four of the five marital satisfaction variables as reported
by themselves, and with Dyadic Affection as reported by
their wives. The husbands who displayed relatively high
rates of Affirming and understanding reported relatively low
marital satisfaction in general and had wives who reported
relatively low Dyadic Affection. The scores for Freeing and
forgetting did not show significant correlations with any of
the marital satisfaction scales, and the category Nurturing
and protecting was significantly negatively correlated with
only one of the five scales, Dyadic Consensus, for the
husbands only.

In order to determine whether relatively balanced use
of different forms of SASB Social support clusters would be
associated with marital satisfaction, the three balance
groups were contrasted on the marital satisfaction scores.
When the wives assumed the supporter roles, significant
relationships emerged for their own reports of Dyadic
Consensus, 3(2, 34) = 6.31, p<.01, Dyadic Affection, £(2,
34) = 4.18, p<.05, and Dyadic Adjustment, F(2,34) = 5.24,
p<.01. The ANOVAs for the other two marital satisfaction
scales were nonsignificant for the wives' behaviors in the
supporter role (Range ['s .75 to 2.29). Post-hoc Duncan
analyses revealed that consistent with the hypothesis, the

wives in the balanced Social support group had significantly

69
higher scores on both Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Affection,
and Dyadic Adjustment than the wives in the unbalanced
support group. However, contrary to the hypothesis, the
group of wives demonstrating an overall low percentage of
Social support had significantly higher scores on Dyadic
Affection than the wives in the unbalanced support group.
In addition, when the wives were in the supporter role,
significant relationships emerged for their husbands'
reports of Dyadic Satisfaction, F(2, 34) = 4.37, p<.05, and
Dyadic Adjustment, 3(2, 34) = 3.67, p<.05. Post-hoc Duncan
analyses revealed that consistent with the hypothesis, the
husbands of wives in the balanced Social support group had
significantly higher scores on both Dyadic Satisfaction and
Dyadic Adjustment than the wives in the unbalanced support
group. See Table 5 for specific findings when the wives

were in the supporter role.

Amoscaucoo mannav

pAm 4«e~.m Aeo.oav mm.H~H Ama.mv eo.maa “em.eav m~.soa mo>ez
sAm «se.n AHH.HHV ss.maa Amn.eav oo.>aa Amo.nav ms.moa mecmnmsm
unoaumsnpc
aAm "9AA .ma.e Anm.av ss.m Ans.ac oo.oa Amm.av oo.m mo>fiz
m: Asm.mv mo.m AHe.~v oo.m Rem.~c mm.» mccmnmsm
cofluoomu<
m: Amm.nv ~m.mH Amm.mv s~.ma Amn.nv AH.6H mo>fis
me .mo.mv m~.sa Aom.~v oo.sa Ava.ev ~m.ma mecmnmsm
cowmozou
DAm 44Hn.o 106.41 mo.~m Aee.mv em.am Am¢.mv oo.ee mo>fis
m: Asm.ev me.om Ame.sv mm.om Anm.ev mm.ov mccmnmsm
mfimcmmcou
ma Amm.mv mm.ae Ros.mc ~>.sm Ao~.mv mo.sm mm>fis
DAm «sm.e 150.41 ss.ae Amo.mv ma.o¢ Amo.ev mm.en mesmnmsm
coauomumnuam
Houuommsm mm omwz
mwmmmflmm mum vmummflmmmm

 

 

m manna

on

Ho.vm«« mo.va4

.Amatmv eoocaflmmum .Amumv sauna .xmumv emoceamncoup
.uouuonmau no ccunmsm

.Anaumv noocaaemum .xaaume gonna .Amaumv appendages":
"Houuommsm no ouwz

.uwou amoeba on» no comes one mummuucoo oonluuom unmoauwcmflm uwmma

m: Aso.nav mm.naa Amm.HHV nH.H~H Ame.oav mm.~aa mm>fiz
mAA 446m.e Ama.mav sm.moa Aos.eae ms.m~a Amm.sv mm.~aa nonsense
usuaumsnc<
m: Amm.av mo.m Rom.av mo.oa Ama.mv ee.m mo>es
mAq xaAq «mm.m A>~.~V sm.m Amm.av mo.oa Aso.mv we.» mecmnmsm
:ofluoouu<
m: Amm.mv em.ea Amm.ev mm.ma Amm.mv HH.>H mm>ws
m: Aws.mv ~4.ma Ao~.mc ms.ea Aem.mv ms.oa mecmnwsm
cowmonoo
A>~.~v sm.m Roe.mv mm.em A¢~.mv sm.me mm>flz
mAq “5AA 44>~.s Asm.ev mm.me Asm.sv mm.mm Ama.mv Ha.me mecmnmsm
m5mcmm200
m: Amm.mv oo.mm “Hm.mv oo.oe Amm.ev sm.mm mo>ws
mAq 4ma.e Ans.ev oo.mm Amm.mv oo.me Ame.mv -.oe mecmnmsm
cofiuomumeumm
Mmuuommzm mm panama:
coocmaom mad poocmHmncn
mumwuumcoo oozlumom oaao>lm Anmv mmmwfllmwouw manomnsm man

16.»:oov m manna

72

The findings for Social support balance with the
husbands as supporters were more complex. When the husbands
assumed the supporter roles, several significant group
differences in marital satisfaction emerged for both the
husbands only. Post-hoc Duncan analyses revealed that
similar to the finding with the wives as supporters, the
husbands who displayed an overall low rate of Social support
had significantly higher marital satisfaction scores than
those in the unbalanced support group. However, unlike
findings for the wives as supporters and contrary to the
hypothesis, the balanced group had significantly lower
scores on Dyadic Consensus and Dyadic Affection, and overall
Dyadic Adjustment for the husbands as compared with the
"low" support group. See Table 5 for specific findings when

the husbands were supporters.

Explonetoty Anelyses of Support Behaviors and Maritel
Satisfiaction

Because all significant correlations found were counter
to the hypotheses, a series of t-tests and ANOVAs were
conducted to examine the relationship between the marital
satisfaction scores and all other SASB clusters for spouses
in the supporter role. These analyses used the groups
divided into "none-low" and "some-high" or "none," "medium,"
and "high" on the SASB rate scores. Of the nine t-tests,

only Ignoring and neglecting for the husbands as supporters

73

showed significant effects for one marital satisfaction
scale: higher rates of Ignoring and neglecting were
associated with higher scores on Dyadic Affection for
husbands t(35) = -2.16, p<.04. This result may be linked to
the finding discussed above, that is, that husband Affirming
and understanding was negatively correlated with marital
satisfaction scores. The counterintuitive positive
correlation between Ignoring and neglecting and Dyadic
Affection can be understood in terms of the fact that
husbands who exhibited relatively lower rates of Affirming
and understanding demonstrated relatively higher rates of
Ignoring and Neglecting; these two SASB clusters are
negatively correlated, n(35)= -.51, p<.01. The ANOVAs for
the Watching and managing groups revealed significant
effects on marital satisfaction when the husbands were in
the supporter role. High rates of husbands' Watching and
managing were associated with higher scores on Dyadic
Affection for both the husbands, 3(2, 34) = 3.61, p<.04, and
the wives, t(z, 34) = 3.81, p<.03. Post-hoc Duncan analyses
revealed that the "high" group had significantly higher
husbands' reports on Dyadic Affection than the "none" group;
the "medium" group had significantly higher wives' reports
on Dyadic Affection than the "none" group.

In order to better understand the relative significance
of the aforementioned variables in predicting marital

satisfaction, stepwise multiple regression analyses were

74

computed. The criteria for the regressions were the
husbands' and the wives' scores on each of the marital
satisfaction subscales and the total summary scale. In all
analyses the supporter behaviors found to be statistically
significant from the correlational, t-test, and ANOVA
analyses were entered stepwise in order to examine the
relative importance of each variable. The regression

results are presented in Table 6.

Ho.vm.. mo.vm.

$0.0
mb.OH

Hb.w

om.w

mm.m

m¢.OH

00.x

mm.
vN.

0H.

hm.

ON.

mm.

0H.

cede.
«ewe.l
«eme.l

4:04.!
eNm.I
«em¢.I

«sew.
«eemm.
eeemm.

same.

Aem
2mm

1mm

«em

2mm
Aem

1mm

.Hv
.mv

.HV

:oocmHmn: Houuommsm mugs
onwccmumuoccs a onwahamu< cconmdm
mcficcmumuopcs e mafiaufimmm cconuam

m:

uuommsm Hoaoom campus:

:mocoaons umpuommsm oceans:
mcwpcmumumccs a onwauwuué ccmnmsm

:oocmHon: Hovuommdm ouflz
:oocoamne umuuomnsm oufiz
@cflvmcos w vcflnoum3 panama:
m:

=oocoaon= Houuommzm oufi3

we

unmeumzwec
eonuomeua
cowmonoo
m3mcmmGOU

coeuommmwuam

museums:

ucmeumenem

cofiuommua
commmnou
W5mgwaOU
:oeuomumflumm

 

mm

m OHQGB

e:

DI

pr
ma]

Thi

76

With just a few exceptions, the regressions revealed
that marital satisfaction scores were best predicted by the
spouses' own behaviors in the supporter role. For the
wives', their balance scores was predictive of their own
levels of Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Affection, and Dyadic
.Adjustment. Also, the husbands' Watching and managing
behaviors was predictive of the wives' reports of Dyadic
Affection. For the husbands', their own Social support
balance scores predicted their reports of Dyadic
Satisfaction, the husbands' total Social support behaviors
predicted Dyadic Consensus, and their Affirming and
understanding behaviors predicted Dyadic Satisfaction,
Dyadic Affection, and overall Dyadic Adjustment. The one
exception was that the wives' support balance scores also
predicted the husbands' Dyadic Adjustment scores.

In sum, contrary to the hypotheses, Social support as
provided by the husbands was negatively correlated with
marital satisfaction for both the husbands and the wives.
This was especially true for the husbands' Affirming and
understanding behaviors. Regarding balance scores, when
both the husbands and the wives were supporters, the spouses
in the low group had significantly higher marital
satisfaction scores than the unbalanced group. When the
‘wives were in the supporter roles, the wives from the
balanced group had significantly higher scores than the

‘wives from the unbalanced group on two marital satisfaction

77
scales and the summary scale, which is consistent with the
hypothesis that there is a benefit to using a variety of
behaviors as a supporter. However, when the husbands were
in the supporter roles, the spouses from the balanced group
reported significantly lower marital satisfaction than the
low group. The regression analyses revealed that spouses'
behaviors as supporters was mainly predictive of their own
reports of marital satisfaction, with wife balance scores
more often predictive for the wives' self-reports, and
husband Affirming and understanding more often predictive of

the husbands' reports.

Social Support and Psychological Dietreee
The second set of analyses tested the hypothesis that

 

spouses who receive relatively higher rates of Social
support will report lower levels of psychological distress.
That is, higher rates of Freeing and forgetting, Affirming
and understanding, and Nurturing and protecting by the
supporter will be associated with lower levels of
psychological distress for the confider. Spouses' scores on
the summary scale of psychological distress (i.e., Global
Severity Index) and the subscale Depression of the SCL-90-R
were correlated with their partners' scores on each of the
SASB clusters associated with Social support. None of these
correlations showed significant effects; thus the hypothesis

was not supported for these SASB clusters. Although no

78
correlations were significant for psychological distress or
depression in relation to spouse behavior, one correlation
was significant in relation to one's own behavior. A high
rate of husband Affirming and understanding in the supporter
role was positively correlated with husbands' own scores on
the Depression subscale, n(35)=.41, p<.05.

In order to determine whether relatively balanced use
of different forms of SASB Social support clusters would be
associated with psychological distress, the three balance
groups were contrasted on the global distress and depression
scales. There were no significant relationships for either
the husbands or the wives with respect to either spouses'

balance scores as supporters.

Exploratory Analyses of Support Behaviors and Psygnplogigel

Distress

 

Similar to the analyses examining marital satisfaction,
t-tests were conducted to contrast psychological distress
and depression for the groups based on the SASB clusters
Loving and approaching, Attacking and rejecting, Belittling
and blaming, and Ignoring and neglecting. None of these t-
tests, nor the ANOVA for Watching and managing, was

statistically significant.

_no,- 1 . 4 al ses of ,o; -1‘_ ;e;. -_s 1;: '~ 1' ~-
Distress

Although no specific hypotheses were generated
regarding the relationship between confider behaviors and
psychological distress, these analyses were conducted
because in general confider and supporter behaviors were
related. Thus, despite the fact that significant
relationships were not found for supporter behaviors and
psychological distress, significant effects might emerge for
the confiders' behaviors. Pearson product moment
correlations revealed that the wives' scores on
psychological distress and depression were related to their
own behaviors as confiders. High rates of Disclosing and
expressing for the wives were related to their reporting
higher general distress, £(35)=-45. p<.01, and depression,
;(35)=.42, p<.05.

In order to determine whether relatively balanced use
of the SASB confider cluster Assertiveness/Trusting (i.e.,
Asserting and separating, Disclosing and expressing, and
Trusting and relying) would be associated with psychological
distress, three balance groups similar to the ones created
for Social support were formed and were contrasted on the
global distress and depression scales. When the wives
assumed the confider roles, one significant relationship
emerged for the wives' global distress, £(2, 33) = 3.22,

p<.05. Post-hoc Duncan analyses revealed that the

79

80
unbalanced group had significantly higher scores than both
the low group and the balanced group on global distress. An
evaluation of the composition of the wives' confider
behaviors in the unbalanced group revealed that the wives
typically demonstrated an abundance of Disclosing and
expressing, and exhibited relatively lower rates of
Asserting and separating and Trusting and relying. Although
the number of subjects in each group is somewhat problematic
(unbalanced group: N=7; low group: N=13; balanced group:
N=16), the result is consistent with the hypothesis that
there would be a benefit to using a variety of behaviors as

a confider.

Gengen Belated Differences in Social Support Styles
Hypothesis three predicted gender differences in styles

of providing support. Paired t-tests were used to contrast
the men and the women from a subsample of maritally
satisfied couples, and test the prediction that the women
would display more Freeing and forgetting and Affirming and
understanding, and less Nurturing and protecting than the
men. Only couples in which both spouses reported scores
greater than 100 on the total adjustment scale of the DAS
(100 is considered the cut-off for couples who are generally
satisfied with their marriages) were included in this
analysis (N=30 couples). This subsample was chosen based on

initial hypotheses that the maritally satisfied couples

81

would be more likely to demonstrate behaviors from these
three SASB clusters. No significant findings emerged from
the paired t-tests. However, when the entire sample was
used for the analysis, the results showed a trend in the
expected direction for rates of Freeing and forgetting.
That is, the rate at which the wives provided this form of
support showed a tendency to be greater than the husbands,

t(36) = 1.71, p<.10.

Asseptive Behavipr in Autonomy-enhancing Qontezts
Hypothesis four predicted that the spouses would be

more likely to behave assertively in contexts that support
autonomy and provide assistance in an affiliative manner.
That is, the confiders would exhibit relatively higher rates
of Asserting and separating and Disclosing and expressing
when their partners demonstrated Freeing and forgetting,
Affirming and understanding, and Nurturing and protecting
behaviors as supporters. In order to test this hypothesis,
discloser behaviors were correlated with supporter
behaviors; that is, the husbands' sum total SASB scores for
Social support were correlated with the wives' sum total
SASB scores for Assertiveness, and vice versa. The effect
was stronger when the wives were in the supporter roles,
t(35)=.58, p<.01, but was also statistically significant
when the husbands were in the supporter roles, t(35)=.32,

p<.05. Thus, as expected, contexts which fostered autonomy

82
but also provided guidance in an affiliative manner were

associated with the highest rates of assertive behaviors.

Contide; Assertiveness and Marital Satisfagtipn

The next set of analyses tested the hypothesis that the
confiders' assertive and relying behaviors (comprised of
Asserting and separating, Disclosing and expressing, and
Trusting and relying) would be positively associated with
their own reports of marital satisfaction. Similar to the
analyses with supporter behaviors, each of the individual
confider behaviors as well as a summary behavior score was
correlated with each of the marital satisfaction subscales
and the total adjustment scale.

None of the correlations with the marital satisfaction
measures showed significant effects when the husbands were
confiders. Rather, the hypothesis was only supported when
the wives were confiders. Several significant effects

emerged and are given in Table 7.

83

Table 7

Correlations Between Wivee' Assertive and Relying Beneyipre
and Wives' Scoree on the Dyadie Adjustment Scele (DAS)

 

 

Summary Asserting 8 Disclosing 8 Trusting 8

Scale Separating Expressing Relying

Wives' scores

Satisfaction .24 .35* -.22 .23
Consensus -.04 .36* -.49** .07
Cohesion .32 .42** .05 .02
Affection -.02 .44** -.38* -.09
Adjustment .16 .47** -.34* .11

*p<.05 **p<.01

84

Partial support was obtained for the hypothesis. As
shown in Table 7, the wives' Asserting and separating
behaviors were significantly correlated in a positive
direction with their scores on Dyadic Satisfaction,
Consensus, Cohesion, Affection, and overall Adjustment.
However, contrary to the hypothesis, the wives' Disclosing
and expressing was negatively correlated with Dyadic
Consensus, Affection, and overall Adjustment. Neither the
SASB cluster Trusting and relying nor the sum total score
showed any significant correlations with the marital
satisfaction measures.

In order to determine whether balanced use of different
forms of Assertiveness/Trusting SASB clusters would be
associated with marital satisfaction, balance scores were
computed in the same manner as balance for Social support
described above. That is, three groups were formed (i.e.,
unbalanced, low, and balanced), and were contrasted on the
four marital satisfaction subscales and the total adjustment
score. When the husbands assumed confider roles, no
statistically significant effects emerged from the ANOVAs.
However, when the wives assumed confider roles, several
significant effects were found (see Table 8). Post-hoe
Duncan analyses revealed that consistent with the
hypothesis, for the wives, the balanced group had
significantly higher scores than the unbalanced group on

Dyadic Satisfaction, Consensus, and overall Adjustment. The

85
low group had significantly higher scores than the
unbalanced group on all of the marital satisfaction scales,
with the exception of Dyadic Cohesion and Dyadic Affection.
An evaluation of the composition of the wives' confider
behaviors in the unbalanced group revealed that the wives
typically demonstrated an abundance of Disclosing and
expressing behaviors, and exhibited relatively lower rates
of Asserting and separating behaviors, and Trusting and

relying behaviors.

.* .emvfiolfl-lv.§.
I. .5

Ho.vm4« mo.vm«
Icarus emocmaamum .Anaumv segue .Asnas appendages»:
umou cocoon on» so compo mumouucoo oonlumom unmowmacmwm Amman

sAm .aAq .mo.e AHA.HHV mm.mHH “ma.me em.maa AmH.mHV mv.eoa

unmaumsflea

m: Amm.av om.m Awa.mv mv.m Aoo.~v ea.m
cofluoouu<

m: Amm.mv Hm.sa Ame.mv ~m.mH Ams.mv oo.wa
:ofimonoo

aAm .DAq .4mm.e Ame.mv oo.am Ame.mv ~e.am Ams.vv m~.ve
mfimcmmcov

:Am .ov.m Am~.nv eo.ae Ams.ev me.wn AHA.mv oo.mn
:ofluomumfiuem

ouocmHmm 30a ooocmHoncD
mummuucoo occlumom mcam>lm Aomv mmmMfllmmmmw manomnsu m<a

 

m OHQMB

mm

or A a1 ses of onfi r Be

Satisfaction

Similar to the analyses utilizing supporter behaviors
to group spouses and examine marital satisfaction, t-tests
were calculated dichotomizing and contrasting marital
satisfaction between the groups determined by scores for the
following confider behaviors: Approaching and enjoying,
Deferring and submitting, Sulking and appeasing, Protesting
and withdrawing, and Walling off and avoiding. Regarding
these categorical variables, only the wives' in high versus
low Approaching and enjoying groups showed differences on
two satisfaction scales, with high Approaching and enjoying
associated with relatively lower levels of Dyadic Consensus,

t(35)=3.05, p<.01, and Adjustment, t(35)=2.19, p<.04.

f-.- 1': .n - 'ow- ru-o e are 4. r 4 . ~ 4 0!

The next hypotheses proposed that marital satisfaction
scores would be negatively correlated with Power imbalance
and Power struggle. First, in order to operationalize Power
imbalance, lag sequential z-scores for controlling behaviors
for the supporter (i.e., Ignoring and neglecting, Watching
and managing) followed by submission by the confider (i.e.,
Deferring and submitting, Sulking and appeasing) were
calculated. The lag sequential z-score statistic indicates
the strength of the association between the antecedent,

supporter control, and the consequent, confider submission.

87

88
The four possible one-step sequences for each spouse as
confiders were calculated and entered into subsequent
correlational analyses with the marital satisfaction scales.

Only one pattern of Power imbalance was significantly
correlated with marital satisfaction scores. However,
contrary to the hypothesis, husband Watching and managing
followed by wife Deferring and submitting was positively
correlated with the wives' reports on Dyadic Consensus,
r(35)=.33, p<.05, and Affection, r(35)=.32, p<.05.

Power struggle was operationalized for each spouse in
the confider role by lag sequential z-scores for supporter
Watching and managing, followed by confider Asserting and
separating. Contrary to the hypothesis, Power struggle was
positively associated with marital satisfaction. Wife
Watching and managing followed by husband Asserting and
separating was positively correlated with the husbands'
scores on Dyadic Consensus, r(35)=.33, p<.05. And, husband
Watching and managing followed by wife Asserting and
separating was positively correlated with the wives' scores
on Dyadic Adjustment, r(35)=.33, p<.05.

Thus, findings from both sets of analyses correlating
Power imbalance and Power struggle with the marital
satisfaction scales were counter to the hypotheses.
Interestingly, significant relationships emerged only when
Watching and managing was the antecedent behavior involved

in the analysis.

In order to better understand the relative significance
of each of the confider behaviors in predicting marital
satisfaction, stepwise multiple regression analyses were
conducted. The criteria for the regressions were the
husbands' and the wives' scores on each of the marital
satisfaction subscales and the summary scale. In all
analyses the confider behaviors found to be statistically
significant from the correlational, t-test, and ANOVA
analyses were entered to examine the relative importance of
each variable. The regression results are presented in

Table 9.

89

Hoo.vmeee

.Ho.vme« .mo.vfle

¢¢.w

mm.m

hw.b

mH.NH

MH.OH

mm.

#m.

ma.

mm.

mm.

«ewe.

«mm.
«sem¢.I
«emm.l

“she.

ken
ken

Rem

Amm

.mv
.mv

.mv

.HV

.mv

mcwuouemom a ocwuuumma
mucoamo mmoso>fluhowm<

mcfimmoHon w mcfimoaomflo
mcfiumumaom a onwuhmmmd

msflumuwmom a ocfluuomma

mocoaon mmocm>wuuomm<
msfl>0ncm w mcfinomoummd
mammmmumxm w mcwmoHomwo

mocmHmn mmoco>fluummw4

unusumanea
coeuoomua

cosmmnoo

mflmcmmCOU

aofiuomumeuem

mmmflwmmwflIMMUHHmmw

 

om

m OHQOB

91

As shown in Table 9, the wives' Asserting and
separating positively predicted their own levels of Dyadic
Cohesion, Affection, and overall Adjustment. The wives'
Disclosing and expressing behaviors as confiders negatively
predicted Dyadic Consensus and Dyadic Affection. Confider
balance scores positively predicted Dyadic Satisfaction,
Consensus, and overall Adjustment. Regarding the
categorical variables (i.e., "none-low" vs. "some-high"
groups), the wives' Approaching 8 enjoying negatively

predicted Dyadic Consensus.

Ine Effects of Self-esteem Level on gonfider end Supporter
rehavior

The next set of analyses examined the hypothesis that
high self-esteem would be associated with the tendency to:
(a) as a confider, behave assertively and rely in an
interdependent-affiliative manner on the partner for
support, and (b) as a supporter, foster autonomy and provide
guidance in an affiliative manner. The first relationship
was examined using the relative frequencies of each of the
SASB cluster scores for the assertive confider behaviors
(i.e., Asserting and separating, Disclosing and expressing),
and the trusting confider behaviors (i.e., Trusting and
relying), as well as the sum total of these three behaviors.
The relationship between self-esteem and supporter behaviors

was evaluated using the relative frequencies for each of the

92

SASB cluster scores for Social support (i.e., Freeing and
forgetting, Affirming and understanding, Nurturing and
protecting), as well as the sum total Social support score.

Pearson product moment correlations revealed
significant findings only for the relationship between the
wives' level of self-esteem and their own behaviors as
confiders. Only one significant correlation emerged, and
this was in the opposite direction than predicted. The
wives' Disclosing and expressing was negatively associated

with their level of self-esteem, r(35)=-.39, p<.05.

Self-esteem. Socioeconomic variables. and Power Inpelenee

Stepwise multiple regression was used to test the
hypothesis that the variance in Power imbalance could be
accounted for by self-esteem alone, with little additional
variance accounted for by education level differences
between the husbands and the wives. Education level was
computed for the husbands and the wives separately in terms
of the highest level completed in years (e.g., high school
graduate= 12 years, college graduate= 16 years). Three
groups of couples were formed based on the differences
between the husbands' and wives' education levels (i.e.,
husbands' education level greater than, equal to, or less
than wives' education level). Education level was used for
the analyses, rather than occupation because in this sample

many mothers remained in the home. The predictors for the

93
regressions were education level, and the husbands' and the
wives' self-esteem scores. These variables were entered
into separate stepwise multiple regression analyses to
predict each of the four Power imbalance patterns and a sum
total composite pattern of Power imbalance. None of the
variables entered into the equations. Therefore, neither
self-esteem nor education level of the husbands and the
wives significantly accounted for the variance in Power

imbalance scores.

Reletionship Among Self-report Measures

The relationship between the husbands' and the wives'
reports of marital satisfaction, self-esteem, and
psychological distress and depression were computed in order
to validate expected relationships as documented in the
literature. The statistically significant relationships
that emerged were generally consistent with past research.
As shown in Table 10, the husbands' reports of psychological
distress were negatively correlated with both their own and
their wives' scores on Dyadic Satisfaction. The wives'
reports of psychological distress were negatively correlated
with their own reports of Dyadic Consensus. Further, the
husbands' level of self-esteem was positively related to
their own reports on Dyadic Consensus. The wives' level of
self-esteem was positively associated with their own reports

on Dyadic Affection. Additionally, many significant

94
correlations emerged between the husbands' and the wives'
reports on the marital satisfaction subscales and the total

summary scale (see Table 11).

95
Table 10

e ion f Husbands' an Wives' es

Self-esteem (SE), Psychologicel Qistrese (ED). end
Depression (Dep)

 

DAS Scale nusbands' reporte Wivee' repert§___
SE PD Dep SE PD Dep

Husbands' scores

Satisfaction ns -.63** ns ns ns ns
Consensus .40* ns ns ns ns ns
Cohesion ns ns ns ns ns ns
Affection ns ns ns ns ns ns
Adjustment ns ns ns ns ns ns

Wives' scores

Satisfaction ns -.40* ns ns ns ns
Consensus ns ns ns ns -.40* ns
Cohesion ns ns ns ns ns ns
Affection ns ns ns .33* ns ns
Adjustment ns -.45* ns ns ns ns

*p<.05 **p<.01

89m: 369.

.Hocomowo on» mcoam

mum msofiumamuuoo ocmnmznlmuw3 on» can .mHmGMwuu Hmsoa on» :w cm>wm who mcowumamuuoo

 

.wvcmnmsn map twamcmwuu momma mnu cw cm>fio who macaumHmuhoo .mm>fl3 may “muoz

*«Hb. «ewe. seam. «saw. «*Hm. ucwfium5n64
scab. «*mh. cow. «*mm. «*Hm. cowuommu<
«efih. «com. *«mm. «*wm. «enh. cofimmnou
echw. *«mm. *mv. *«N¢. ««mm. mflmcmmcou
««¢m. «can. ««¢¢. «*om. «£00. coauomumfiumm

 

 

HH manna

mm

Ho.vm«« mo.vmc
.Hmcooofio
mnu mcon who mcofiumHmuuoo ocmnmsnlmuws map can .mamcmauu

umsoa map :fl cm>wo mum mcoflumamuuoo .moconmsn may .oawcmwuu

 

Momma man :a cw>flm mum mcowumamuuoo .mm>fl3 one ”muoz

mm. «*om. «an.1 own
«*mm. mo. m~.u om
«mm.u *¢¢.: mm. mm
moo om mm

 

 

NH wHSME

hm

98
Finally, as shown in Table 12, the husbands' reported
level of self-esteem was negatively correlated with the
Depression subscale but not overall distress, whereas the
wives' reported level of self-esteem was negatively
correlated with both overall psychological distress, and the

Depression subscale.

Discussion

The present study applied the conceptual framework of
the SASB model to understand interactions related to
conjugal social support. By attending to both the
independence and affiliation dimensions, the study evaluated
several realms of functioning in marital relationships not
adequately addressed in previous research. The three
processes explored were related to social support,
assertiveness, and power dynamics.

The results showed partial support for the hypotheses
relating social support and assertiveness to marital
satisfaction and psychological distress. First, as
expected, the context of spouse supporter behaviors that
included fostering autonomy and also providing guidance in
an affiliative manner (i.e., Freeing and forgetting,
Affirming and understanding, and Nurturing and protecting)
was associated with the greatest amount of assertive
behaviors (Asserting and separating, Disclosing and
expressing) for both husbands and wives as confiders. This
finding is in accord with the complementary framework of the
SASB model. That is, husbands and wives tended to show
similar amounts of affiliation and interdependence when one
spouse was focusing on the other (supporter) and their

partner was focusing on self (confider). According to the

99

100
SASB model, each partner is complementing the posture
adopted by their spouse (Benjamin, et al., 1986).

The correlations relating Social support and marital
satisfaction revealed significant relationships for the
marital subscales and the total summary scale only when the
husbands assumed supporter roles. There were no significant
correlations between Social support and marital satisfaction
when the wives were in the supporter roles. Contrary to the
hypothesis, the significant correlations were found in the
opposite direction than expected; that is, the husbands'
ability to foster autonomy and provide guidance in an
affiliative manner (i.e., Social support clusters Freeing
and forgetting, Affirming and understanding, and Nurturing
and protecting) was associated with relatively lower scores
on marital satisfaction for both partners, and especially
for the husbands themselves. The Social support construct
represented a total summary score, and it was revealed that
one behavior in particular, husband Affirming and
understanding, seemed to account for the negative
correlation with marital satisfaction. The results from the
balance score analyses demonstrated that in cases where the
husbands' behavior as supporters was "unbalanced" their
‘marital satisfaction scores were lower than in those cases
where a low rate of social support behaviors was provided.
In cases where the husbands' behavior as supporters was

"balanced" their marital satisfaction scores were also lower

101

than in those where a low rate of social support behaviors
was provided. In contrast, when the wives' behavior as
suppporters was "balanced" their marital satisfaction scores
were higher than in those cases where "unbalanced" support
was provided. Additionally, Affirming and understanding was
negatively correlated with Ignoring and neglecting
behaviors, and thus the counterintuitive positive
correlation between Ignoring and neglecting and marital
satisfaction can also be understood as the result of lower
rates of Affirming and understanding for husbands who
exhibited relatively high rates of Ignoring and neglecting.

Thus, the present findings radically diverged from
theory proposing positive effects of behaviors falling
within the Affirming and understanding category (e.g.,
active listening, empathic statements, clarification
requests). This raises the question as to whether an
abundance of these behaviors may indeed be considered
"positive" social support in the context of marriage. In
other situations, such as in self-help groups or
psychotherapy, and along with a variety of other supporter
behaviors, Affirming and understanding may be considered a
way of remaining connected (Kandaras, 1985). However, in
the context for this study, i.e., marital discussions, these
behaviors may have functioned as a way of staying distanced
or removed. That is, they represented a more cautious way

of behaving at a highly sensitive time, rather than engaging

102
in more intimate behaviors, or directive forms of support,
such as informational and instrumental support (Cohen &
Wills, 1985).

The hypothesis that the confiders' assertive and
relying behaviors (Asserting and separating, Disclosing and
expressing, and Trusting and relying) would be positively
associated with their own reports of marital satisfaction
was also partially supported by the data. That is, contrary
to hypotheses, the wives' reports of marital satisfaction
were negatively associated with Disclosing and expressing,
but consistent with hypotheses, marital satisfaction was
positively associated with Asserting and separating. Both
the balanced group and the low group were higher than the
unbalanced group on marital satisfaction. The unbalanced
group in this case was mainly comprised of elevated levels
of Disclosing and expressing. These relationships may be
explained by a tendency for spouses to express and discuss
troubles rather than performing other types of behaviors and
to also show greater likelihood of endorsing items on
questionnaires indicating areas of dissatisfaction. That
is, both measures may indicate a tendency to complain.

Alternatively, similar to the interpretation about
supporter involvement, perhaps the confider's Disclosing and
expressing in the absence of other important confider
behaviors may represent an inability to engage their partner

in more active dyadic problem-solving. As Kotler (1985)

103
found in a study of marriages at three different stages of
the family life cycle, spouses who were able to seek and
accept help in a way that affirmed the intentions and
capacities of the other spouse expressed greater
satisfaction with their marriages than spouses who were not
able to do this. Thus, merely sharing information about the
problem and thoughts and feelings about the situation,
rather than probing for the spouse's opinion or using the
spouse as a sounding board for possible courses of action,
may maintain the interaction on a superficial level. In
other words, Disclosing and expressing is the easiest
behavior to display in this situation, and similar to
elevated rates of Affirming and understanding for the
supporter, may indicate a failure by the couple to become
actively engaged in the task at hand. Supporter Affirming
and understanding was not highly correlated with confider
Disclosing and expressing for these couples. Instead, each
occurred somewhat independently; that is, high rates of
Disclosing and expressing emitted by the wives and high
rates of Affirming and understanding emitted by the husbands
were associated with dissatisfaction.

Feldman (1979) links intrapsychic and interpersonal
domains regarding fear of intimacy and interspousal exchange
which provides a partial explanation as to why spouses'
expressions of feelings and empathy were not associated with

concurrent reports of marital satisfaction in the present

104

study. Couples who mainly disclose their thoughts and
feelings in a superficial manner regarding areas of personal
distress or provide support in the form of active listening
may engage in such "low risk behaviors" in order to distance
themselves from distress. Such tactics may temporarily
serve to allay anxiety associated with intimate, complex
discussion topics. Feldman stated that the fears of
exposure, merger, attack, and abandonment, as well as fears
of one's own destructive behavior represent forces that
activate and sustain conflictual behavior in marital
relationships. The fear of exposure may be particularly
relevant to confider behavior, in that highly disclosive
behavior in times of personal distress is threatening.
Because spouses may be afraid of being seen as weak or
inadequate, and of experiencing a sense of inferiority and
shame accompanying the exposure, they may restrict the
intimacy level of their disclosures. These feelings and
their consequent censorship may stem from, as well as
perpetuate, discontentment within the marriage. Indeed,
Gilbert (1976) found a curvilinear relationship between
intimacy of self-disclosure and marital satisfaction, noting
that both total disclosure and non-disclosure were
associated with reports from the least satisfied couples.

The fear of merger is a type of intimacy anxiety that
is relevant to supporter behavior, in that disclosure may

stimulate a relative weakening of the boundaries between the

105
spouses, which then may arouse anxiety in the supporter.
Consequently, the supporter may engage in more superficial
behavior such as Affirming and understanding in order to
deflect the anxiety. The finding that the wives' maximally
affiliative behaviors as confiders (i.e., Approaching and
enjoying) was associated with lower levels of marital
satisfaction may also be understood in this context as an
unsatisfactory method of "lightening the air" of more solemn
disclosures.

In contrast, more overtly controlling, involved, and
interdependent interactional behaviors may have functioned
as an acceptable method of maintaining emotional intimacy.
For example, the husbands' Watching and managing supporter
behaviors were positively associated with both spouses'
reports of dyadic affection. In the SASB system, Watching
and managing falls at the extreme end of the scale dimension
for supporter interdependent (i.e., controlling) behavior
and midway with respect to affiliation versus
disaffiliation. When spouses engage in these behaviors,
they explicitly attempt to influence and take control in the
exchange by telling their spouses what to do. The
"commands" are issued in a neutral tone of voice, not a
blaming, mocking, or amiable manner. As such, these
'behaviors by the husbands in the supporter role may have
been perceived by the wives as clear, rational concern, and

also may have been less subject to negative interpretations

106
due to the lack of negative affective undertones. The
amount of involvement of the husband in decision-making,
family life, and child-rearing has been found to be an
important predictor of marital satisfaction among other
families with children with a chronic illness (e.g., Allan,
Townley, & Phelan, 1974). Because many of the social
support discussions centered on topics related to the unique
stressors of raising a child with mental retardation, a
highly sensitive topic, perhaps the husbands' directive and
"logical" support was seen as involved, helpful, caring, and
encouraging by these women.

Although spouses differed somewhat in the pattern of
associations between marital satisfaction and balanced
versus unbalanced social support, both spouses reported
higher marital satisfaction when the supporters demonstrated
an overall low percentage of all of the categories
comprising Social support than when the support was
"unbalanced." Thus, it may be that other SASB categories
not included in the Social support cluster are important in
maintaining satisfaction within the marriage. For example,
positive outcomes for supporter behaviors tended to relate
to interdependent activities such as Watching and managing,
as described above, and also indirectly to Nurturing and
protecting, via the balance scores. Further, relationships
that can endure a certain amount of complaining and

resisting (e.g., supporter Ignoring and neglecting, confider

107
Asserting and separating) may strengthen the marital
relationship in general. Especially in families coping with
the stresses associated with raising a child with mental
retardation, flexibility in problem-solving and support is
essential, and, greater tolerance for distress may be
required. Sabbeth and Leventhal's (1984) review of marital
relationships among parents of children who have a chronic
illness found that these couples experience greater marital
distress than control families, but that they also exhibit
relatively lower divorce rates. Thus, marital satisfaction
and adjustment may be related to tolerance for conflict and
strife.

Berlin & Johnson (1989) maintained that the SASB
clusters representing the "mix of autonomy and warm
bondedness" (i.e., Affirming and understanding, Disclosing
and expressing) were essential for favorable and harmonious
interaction, but for the couples in this study, the reliance
on these behaviors to the exclusion of others was
detrimental. In terms of predicting such outcomes as
marital satisfaction, autonomy paired with a neutral level
of affiliation versus disaffiliation (Asserting and
separating) was a better correlate of marital satisfaction
for the wives in this study than the type of autonomy Berlin
& Johnson (1989) conceptualized as "mature relatedness"
(Disclosing and expressing). Thus, although Disclosing and

expressing is considered autonomous in the SASB system in

108
general, the importance of autonomy for marital satisfaction
was only supported by Asserting and separating in this
study, perhaps due to the demands of the situation which
made Disclosing and expressing function as a form of
avoidance rather than assertion.

Berlin & Johnson (1989) discuss how relying on these
two behaviors (i.e., Affirming and understanding, Disclosing
and expressing) may represent one manner of coping with
difficulty, yet it is not necessarily a panacea. They
likened behaviors within these clusters to Gilligan's (1982)
third level of moral development, which represents a shift
in concern from "goodness" to "truth" in order to include
one's own needs in the scope of care and concern in
relationships. Nevertheless, Berlin & Johnson (1989) noted
that such resolutions do not necessarily leave one with a
clear sense of being right or feeling comfortable. Thus
partners who rely on these behaviors may report greater.
dissatisfaction for their relationship because of these
ambiguous feelings.

Another finding that ran counter to hypotheses
concerned Asserting and separating and Watching and
managing. In addition to being positively correlated with
marital satisfaction, the wives' Asserting and separating
was associated with the husbands' Watching and managing as
supporters. Although it was predicted that supporter

Watching and managing followed by confider Asserting and

109
separating would represent a struggle for power, and
consequently would be associated with lower levels of
marital satisfaction for both spouses, just the opposite was
found. PPower struggle" was positively associated with
marital satisfaction for both the husbands and the wives.
Thus, perhaps this sequence may be better described as an
acceptable form of assertiveness or active resistance rather
than a struggle for power. Henley (1977) observed that
controlling behaviors of the ignoring type nullify
assertiveness, because when one person feels that they are
not receiving an equitable rate of exchange they will also
show a tendency to withdraw; consequently, a cycle of
interpersonal avoidance is initiated. In contrast,
interactions including the Watching and managing type of
control may represent adaptability and a toleration for
disagreement within the marriage. Further, theory suggests
that the relative absence of criticism and disagreement is
not necessarily a marker of accord, but rather may represent
a decision to maintain a calmness in the interaction as a
way of avoiding potential disequilibrium and discord
(Minuchin, 1974). This is a pattern that is also associated
with a decline in relationship satisfaction over time
(Baucom, Notarius, Burnett, & Haefner, 1990). For example,
Gottman & Krokoff's (1989) longitudinal predictions of

satisfaction versus distress showed that confrontation and

110
disagreement are actually beneficial for marriage in the
long run.

One other finding in the domain of power dynamics ran
counter to hypotheses. That is, although it was predicted
that displays of power imbalance (controlling behavior by
the supporter followed by submissive behavior by the
confider), would be associated with relatively lower levels
of marital satisfaction for both spouses, the opposite was
found when the husbands were in the supporter role.
Relatively higher rates of husband Watching and managing
followed by wife Deferring and submitting were associated
with higher marital satisfaction scores for the wives. It
should be noted that it was the lag sequential z-score
rather than the base rate for wife Deferring and submitting
that was significantly associated with marital satisfaction.
In other words, it was not high rates of the wives' yielding
behavior per se, but rather the conditional probability of
this behavior, given the husbands' directing behavior, that
was positively associated with the wives' reports of marital
satisfaction. Similar to other unexpected findings, this
may reflect an increased involvement on the part of both
spouses during the task. This pattern may indicate trust
between the husband and wife as she reflects upon his
advice. It may also be her way of thanking him for his
attempts to help her with this personal issue. Work by

Guthrie and Snyder (1988) on spouses' self-evaluations

111
during emotional communications suggests that spouses differ
in their appraisals of emotional expressiveness. Relevant
to the present discussion, they find that wife's appraisals
of situations of diminished power (e.g., saying you're
sorry) were associated with self-evaluative descriptions of
acceptance by the partner. Thus, perhaps SASB sequences of
interdependent behavior also evoke feelings of acceptance
and trust for the wives, which is related to marital
satisfaction.

The hypothesis regarding the effect of Social support
on psychological distress and depression for the confiders
was not upheld. However, the husbands' level of depression
was positively associated with rates of Affirming and
understanding as supporters. This finding also provides a
partial explanation for the results regarding the
detrimental effect of husbands' Affirming and understanding
behaviors for marital satisfaction. That is, the husbands
who most frequently demonstrated this behavior were also
those who were relatively more depressed. Extant literature
has documented the detrimental effects of depression on the
quality of a marriage (e.g., Mirowsky & Ross, 1989).
Affirming and understanding is also the same behavior that
was associated with marital dissatisfaction, and thus may
provide an explanation for the link between depression and
marital distress. That is, husbands who are relatively more

depressed may engage in more subtly avoidant behaviors such

112

as Affirming and understanding because of fears and anxiety
related to intimacy. By refraining from more active
participation in the conversation or more actual assistance
with their wives' difficulties, the husbands' sense of
helplessness is maintained, and a cycle of interpersonal
avoidance is initiated. Thus the link between depression
and marital distress may be explained by a style of
interaction that is interpersonally superficial and evasive.

For the wives, their behaviors as confiders were the
most important predictors of their scores for psychological
distress. Higher rates of wife Disclosing and expressing
were associated with their reporting relatively higher
scores on psychological distress and depression. Further,
balance scores computed for wife confider behaviors revealed
that the unbalanced group was higher than both the low and
the balanced groups on global psychological distress. An
evaluation of the composition of behaviors in the unbalanced
group revealed an abundance of Disclosing and expressing.
This is consistent with the above interpretation that
spouses who primarily engage in Disclosing and expressing
behaviors may be more willing to discuss their troubles, and
as such, also more likely to endorse items on a self-report
measure of distress. Similar to the relationships between
husband Affirming and understanding and marital
satisfaction, confider Disclosing and expressing in the

absence of other important confider behaviors may represent

113
a dwelling on the difficulties and a superficial engagement
in more active dyadic problem-solving.

Interestingly, the results for self-esteem were
consistent with links between confider behaviors, marital
satisfaction, and psychological distress for the wives.
Hypotheses regarding the effect of self-esteem level on
confider and supporter behaviors were supported by only one
finding. The wives' behaviors as confiders, specifically,
their relatively higher rates of Disclosing and expressing,
was associated with lower levels of self—esteem. Rosenberg
(1965) noted that people with low self-esteem tend to be
less assertive, and this may play a part in the creation and
maintenance of strife in their relationships. Disclosing and
expressing is also the same behavior that was associated
with marital dissatisfaction and psychological distress, and
thus may provide an explanation for the link between low
self-esteem and on-going tension.

In spite of other gender-related findings, counter to
the hypothesis, there were no significant gender differences
in style of providing Social support among the subsample of
maritally satisfied couples. For the entire sample, there
was only one trend consistent with the hypothesis; that is,
the wives showed a tendency to provide higher rates than the
husbands for the maximally autonomy-enhancing form of
support, Freeing and forgetting. Gender differences in

confider behaviors were not found either. In particular,

114
the fact that the wives did not show expected lower rates of
assertiveness deserves note. The abundance of assertive
behavior by the wives may be accounted for in part by the
consequences or pay-offs of such behaviors (Eisler, et al.,
1978; McNamara, et al., 1988). As noted, in this study,
wife assertiveness was associated with relatively higher
levels of marital satisfaction, which may explain the
absence of significant gender differences. That is,
contrary to literature suggesting that assertiveness has
negative social consequences for women (e.g., Kelly, Kern,
Kirkley, Patterson, & Keane, 1980; Roy, 1977), the type of
assertiveness examined here seems to have had positive
consequences for the wives, thus they behaved as assertively
as the men. Perhaps the negative consequences of
assertiveness are not applicable to intimate marital
relationships.

Interestingly, popular notions that women are largely
other-focused might suggest that their behaviors in the
supporter as opposed to the confider role might have the
strongest implications for marital relationships and
personal adjustment. However, the present results suggested
that their behavior as confiders rather than supporters was
more often indicative of marital satisfaction, psychological
distress, and self-esteem. On the other hand, the husbands'
behavior as supporters was more often associated with their

outcome measures than their behaviors as confiders.

115

Perhaps the fact that certain types of emotional
expression may be perceived by males and females to be more
vulnerable than others may explain the independent patterns
of significant correlations with the outcomes. For example,
in mixed-sex dyads, more often men tend to reveal strengths
and women tend to disclose weaknesses, even though there may
be little difference in the total amount of self-disclosure
between males and females (Hacker, 1981). Thus, wives may
be relatively more at ease with disclosing personal problems
to their partners, whereas husbands may experience
relatively greater comfort in the position of supporting
their spouses.

Another explanation for these gender differences is
suggested by recent analyses of causal attributions, i.e.,
the ways in which individuals explain why certain events
occur. Research has indicated that sex-role identity is
correlated with the attributions spouses make for their
partners' behaviors, which in turn might also be related to
outcomes such as marital satisfaction. Specifically,
feminine persons are more likely to view themselves as the
cause of their partner's negative behavior, whereas
masculine individuals are more likely to see their partner
as the cause of the partner's negative behavior (Baucom &
Voirin, 1989, cited in Baucom, et al., 1990). Thus, a
feminine attributional style (internal cause of spouse

distress) may be associated with increased attention to the

116
focus on self (i.e., confider role) behaviors for evaluating
the domains of marital dissatisfaction and psychological
distress, whereas a masculine attributional style (external
cause of spouse distress) may be associated with increased
attention to the focus on other (supporter role) behaviors
for such evaluations. Although the authors emphasized that
it is not females or males per se that have a particular
attributional style, but rather feminine and masculine
persons, if we assume that sex-role orientation was
associated with gender for these couples, the explanation is
relevant. Future studies would benefit by incorporating
locus of control orientation with confider and supporter
behaviors, as well as sex-role identity to predict outcome
measures such as marital satisfaction, psychological
distress, etc. (Jorgensen & Johnson, 1990).

Finally, the hypothesis that self-esteem level would
account for patterns of control and submission in the
interaction, with little additional variance accounted for
by education level differences between the husbands and the
wives was not supported. No significant differences were
found, perhaps because control/submission displays were
relatively infrequent. Alternatively, other aspects of the
interpersonal context not assessed in the present study, for
example, expectations about the spouses' disclosures and
assertive and supportive behaviors may have been more

.powerful in predicting patterns of control and submission

117
than the personality variable of self-esteem. In other
words, cognitive and affective reactions to spouses'
behaviors may function as significant mediators of
reciprocal patterns of behavior (Weiss, 1984).

The present study provided information regarding how
couples support one another with respect to individual
needs. It elucidated both the effects on several outcome
measures as well as underlying theoretical issues such as
the orthogonal nature of the constructs autonomy and
affiliation. The working model was able to reconcile the
coexistence of these two constructs in one domain of close
relationships, conjugal social support. The findings
demonstrate the potential value of simultaneously examining
the two dimensions in understanding how behavioral exchanges
mediate outcomes such as marital satisfaction, psychological
distress, and self-esteem. The findings differed from
theory suggesting positive effects of several SASB
affiliative behaviors (Disclosing and expressing, Affirming
and understanding). However, behaviors comprising the SASB
independent-interdependent dimension (Asserting and
separating, Watching and managing) demonstrated certain
positive outcomes. It was proposed that the latter
behaviors may have functioned as more acceptable forms of
emotional intimacy. As spouses interact and evaluate their

relationship, they are incorporating the two processes of

118
autonomy and affiliation, thus research which examines
dyadic interaction must do so as well.

Although there has been much research comparing
clinically distressed versus nondistressed couples, there
has been little research documenting marital interaction and
adjustment for couples that are not necessarily identified
as maritally distressed, but are confronting other serious
stressors. Markman (1984) stated that there was a need for
studies with families struggling with certain external
changes, such as families with handicapped children. The
link between social support interaction, marital
satisfaction, and psychological well-being may be different
for couples raising a handicapped child than for other
couples. Consequences for the child when the parents stay
together despite increased marital distress has not been
examined in this population. It is important that we better
comprehend the variables that significantly contribute to
marital adjustment in order that our intervention and
prevention efforts for the family can become more effective.

Several limitations of the present study suggest
avenues for future research. First, our method of coding
interactions assumed that spouses would neatly fit into
confider versus supporter roles, and this assumption was
sometimes inaccurate. Thus, our adaptation of the SASB
coding system was not sensitive to all of the factors that

contributed to the behavioral exchanges. For example,

119
sometimes a discussion of an area of "personal" distress
became a mutual problem for the couple, and the distinctions
between focus on other versus focus on self were rather
artificial. Future studies should examine the effects of
maintaining versus violating "assigned" foci of attention on
the outcome measures.

Second, couples were also not always mindful of the
instructions which asked them to keep the discussion
centered on issues not pertaining to their marriage.
Possibly, this was a form of collusion in order to avoid
intimate discussion of personal issues. This possibility
should be addressed in future studies. That is, spouses who
relate personal issues to their marital relationship without
being able to maintain a separation here may represent a
unique population.

Third, although this study assumes the position that
the behavioral exchanges caused the outcomes, the reverse
may be true, or a third factor may have caused both. Thus,
another weakness is the fact that the correlations could not
reveal the direction of effects.

A more explicit test of the spouses' cognitions during
the exchanges, that is, their expectancies about the impact
of their disclosures, assertiveness, and supportive
behaviors, would provide a broader understanding of the
behavioral and emotional similarities and differences among

husbands and wives. For example, spouses who expect that

120
their assertions will be met with disapproval rather than
support may perceive such interactions as detrimental to the
relationship. Spouses who feel that their partners may
evaluate their more interdependent behavior as too intrusive
may also evaluate such interactions as obstacles to marital
satisfaction. In other words, spouses' interpersonal models
might not match SASB hypotheses. Guthrie & Snyder's (1988)
work on the dimensional structure of husbands' and wives'
self-appraisals during situations involving emotional
communication is particularly relevant here. They found
that the expression of personal vulnerabilities involved
different self-evaluations for husbands and wives. Thus,
hypotheses generated for the couple as a unit are
inappropriate.

Future studies might also benefit from examining how
behaviors and cognitions during the conjugal social support
situation differ from, and impact problem-solving
interactions, and how the two types of interactions relate
to the outcome measures. Preliminary work evaluating these
two domains suggests that they each offer unique information
about the marital relationship with respect to both
strengths and weaknesses. If distinct and significant
relationships are found on a larger scale, it would point to
the need for multiple assessment procedures to represent
more than one model of marital distress and adjustment.

Finally, implications for longitudinal outcomes should be

121
investigated. The hypotheses regarding the effect of
supporter and confider behavioral interactions which were
not found here may be positively associated with long-term,

rather than concurrent marital satisfaction.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

122

Appendix A

structural Analysis of Social Behavior

To code, you need to take into account several items:

I. The role of the speaker: This is a social support task
where each spouse has been given a duty: in the first eight

minutes either the wife or the husband is to confide in
their spouse about a personal problem (the instructions were
to avoid topics pertaining to their marital relationship).
For those eight minutes, the other spouse is to listen as
their spouse confides in them, and to support them as they
usually would in times such as these. Thus the "confider"
is always focusing on self, and the "supporter" is always
focusing on other during the first eight minutes. In the
second eight minutes, the roles are switched so that the
spouse who was confiding now becomes the supporter and the
supporter is now to confide about their personal problem.

 

Note: It may seem as if husband and wife reverse roles,
e.g., one spouse talks about their problem, although it is
not their turn to "confide." You must still keep the
assigned roles in mind as you code. Make a note on the top
of the scoring sheet if such a change in focus has occurred.

II. Floor switchee: The floor switch (i.e. all behaviors
between changes of listener and speaker) is the basic unit
of coding, so that there is AT LEAST one code for each
spouse's speaking turn. When the speaker emits more than
one type of codable behavior before a switch occurs, a code
is given for each independent and different behavior (number
these). A particular code is assigned ONE time within a
floor switch. Multiple codes are used if the speaker
conveys 2 or more distinct behaviors within 1 floor switch.

III. Coding decisions: There are two major steps to follow
in order to code a statement. Each statement is rated on
two four-point scales, first indicating the degree of
independence versus interdependence, followed by the degree
of affiliation versus disaffiliation. Thus, each code will
consist of two numbers, and will be written in the form of a
coordinate pair (X, Y).

A. The first step is coding the degree of independenee
vs. interdependence on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1
representing maximally independent and 4 representing
maximally interdependent. The meaning of these ratings
varies depending on the role of the speaker. See
explanations below:

123
(a) Focus on self:

1. Maximally independent: autonomous focus
on self; assertive behavior: stating what one needs to do
in order to remedy a problem which may or may not include
their spouse, planned suggestion or decision.

2. Somewhat independent: factual or
emotional disclosure; presenting thoughts and feelings

about the problem or tentative ideas about how to solve it:
somewhat assertive.

3. Somewhat interdependent: asking for or
accepting advice/feedback.

4. Maximally interdependent: deferring,
submitting, dependent behavior, asking to be controlled.

(b) Focus on other:

1. Maximally independent: encourage
spouse's freedom, foster independence, neutral/open opinion

and feeling probes/questions, asking "freeing" questions
that recognize the other's expertise on either the subject
matter or themselves.

2. Somewhat independent: statements that
affirm spouse's ability, active listening, empathic
statements, validations, clarification requests, non-biased
statements; statements that do not control the spouse but
may control the flow of conversation (i.e. by ignoring or
neglecting the spouse's immediate needs to confide).

3. Somewhat interdependent: providing
advice or suggestions, taking care of spouse, diagnosing,
statements or questions that bring in listener's bias (e.g.
by reformulating the problem or serving to help the
"supporter" understand the problem), putdowns, jokes.

4. Maximaliy interdependent: manage and

control spouse completely; moralize.

Keep in mind the number that you have chosen as the first
coordinate-- e.g. (l, _); (2, _); (3, _): (4, _) as
you decide on a code for the second coordinate.

B. The second step is coding the degree of effilidnien
ys, diseffiiiation, on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1

representing a maximally affiliative statement and 4
representing a maximally disaffiliative statement.

124

Affiliative statements are ones in which a spouse is
friendly or loving towards the other, and disaffiliative
statements are characterized by a moving away from the
spouse, anger, hostility, or hatred.

(a) Focus on self:

1. Maximally affiliative: loving, enjoying
spouse's company, touching, hugging.

2. Somewhat affiliative: pleasant, warm,
friendly, relaxed, hopeful, talking about a positive feeling
or state.

3. Somewhat disaffiliative: moving away
from spouse, verbally or nonverbally, by not including them
in their thoughts or disclosures, failing to draw on spouse
as a source of support.

4. Maximally disaffiliative: hostile,
hateful or angry interaction with spouse.

(b) Focus on other:

1. Maximally affiliative: loving,
initiation of warm affectionate bonding; touching, hugging.

2. Somewhat affiliative: expression of

respect, kindness, friendly, appreciating interaction.

3. Somewhat disaffiliative: moving away
from spouse's interests: criticizing, uncaring, berating,

scolding.

4. Maximally disaffiliative: anger,
hostility, vengeful, disgust, physical/psychological attack.

C. Usin the two so les to make 0 ' decis 5:

Due to the Circumplex structure of the coding
model, initial scores on both scales must be considered
together in order to capture both process and content of the
statement and determine a final code. For example,
statements that are either maximally affiliative or
maximally disaffiliative (i.e. received code of 1 or 4), AND
maximally independent or maximally interdependent (received
1 or 4 on the independent/interdependent scale), require a
multipie eoding.

Exenpie: Spouse states, "I'm going to quit my job
and I don't care what you say about it." This sentence gets

125

a l for independence, but because it is also quite hostile,
it gets a 4 on the affiliation/disaffiliation scale. Thus

the multiple coding would be (1, 0); (0, 4), and you would
check both of these boxes.

However, for statements that are not at the
extremes on both dimensions, it is helpful to refer to the
category names and descriptions for each foci to determine
which code most closely represents the behavior. These
categories must be considered as a final check to determine
whether the code chosen makes sense conceptually. Find the
code that you've decided upon on the following pages to
check whether the behavior corresponds to the description
given. If the two do not correspond, proceed through the
coding steps again. Here's a picture so that you get a
sense of the categories and codes:

Focue on self:

Asserting & separating

(1: 0)
Walling off & avoiding Disclosing & expressing
(2. 3) (2. 2)
Protesting & withdrawing Approaching & enjoying
(0. 4) (0. 1)
Sulking & appeasing Trusting & relying
(3. 3) (3: 2)

Deferring & submitting
(4. 0)

Focus on other:

Freeing & forgetting

(1. 0)
Ignoring & neglecting Affirming & understanding
(2: 3) (2: 2)
Attacking & rejecting Loving & approaching
(0. 4) (0. 1)
Belittling & blaming Nurturing & protecting
(3. 3) (3. 2)

Watching & managing
(4: 0)

126

IV. Category descriptions:

A. Focus on self:

(0, 1) Approaching and enjoying: joyfully connecting:
relaxing and feeling good about being with spouse, accepting
spouse's help and caregiving, compliments.

W:
- "I love you too." - Lovingly joking around with spouse

— "Thanks for listening; you always make me feel better."

(0, 4) Protesting and withdrawing: refusing to accept
spouse's offers of support; with rage or fear tries to

escape from spouse: tense, shaky, wary with spouse:
hatefully chooses to let spouse's needs and wants count more
than their own.

Em:
- "You can't help me with this." (if voice and body posture

connote a sense of annoyance and disapproval)
- "I don't care what you have to say about my decision."

(1, O) Asserting and separating: acting independently
and in accord with the person's own internal standards and
beliefs, concrete attempts.to remedy problem that may or may
not include spouse (including working out details of plan):
speak up clearly and firmly and state own separate position:
can include defying or disagreeing with rationale: telling
spouse what to do.

W:
— "What I need to do about my work is ask for a raise."

- "I am going to make my own decisions."

(2, 2) Disclosing and expressing: freely talk with
spouse about self in a warm and friendly way, speaking in a

straightforward manner, factual or feeling disclosures.

Examples:
- "I want to talk about..." - "I'm really angry about that."

- "I feel a little better now that we've talked about this."
- "I am glad that you have been able to open up more
lately."

- "It hurts when you say things like that."

Note: Non-evaluative, factual statements about events, 3rd
parties (e.g., their child), etc. may/may not fit into this
category, depending on the context. Decide whether the
spouse is "disclosing and expressing" or just talking on and
on (not truly exhibiting "independence") without including
their spouse (which is an indicator of "disaffiliation").

 

127

(2, 3) Walling off and avoiding: too busy and alone
with their "own thing" to be with or seek support from

spouse, shutting out others, preoccupied and non-reactive,
doesn't hear or react to spouse or reacts in a strange,
disconnected way, detaches from spouse: engages in
monologue about problem which may or may not be in a
complaining, whining manner, changes topics many times
without exploring any one of them or introduces irrelevant
topics: refuses requests, discounts spouse's advice:
denies responsibility; little or no non-verbal contact.

Examples:
- "Just leave me alone."

- talking without making eye contact

(3, 2) Trustinqiand relvinq: counting on spouse to
come through when needed, going along with spouse's
reasonable suggestions and ideas, learning from spouse,
asking for or taking advice or guidance, requests for
validation.

Examples:

- "Do you think what I'm doing is right?"

- "Yes, I do want you to help me with that."

- "I really appreciate your suggestions."

- "You're right; I can try being more patient with my boss."

(3, 3) Sulkinq,and appeaeinq: whining, unhappily
protesting, pout, defensive self-justification, going along
with spouse's views although doubtful, bottling up rage and
resentment to avoid spouse's disapproval, giving in to
spouse but sulking about it (scurrying to appease spouse),
disagreement without rationale.

W:
- "But, we always have to do things your way."

- mumbling under breath

(4, O) Deferring and submitting: checking with spouse
about everything because they care so much about what spouse
thinks, doing or thinking or feeling what they believe
spouse wants, giving in, yielding to spouse, mindlessly
obeying spouse's rules about how things should be done:
falling into a role: following spouse's off-beam
statements.

Examples:
- following new line of conversation if spouse introduces

irrelevant topic (i.e. not "utilizing" their time to
confide)

- "So I'm supposed to... "

- "I'll do whatever you tell me to."

128

B. Focus on other:

(0, l) Loving and approaching: soothing or calming
without asking for anything in return, initiating a warm and

affectionate approach toward spouse, inviting spouse to be
in close, gentle contact, compliments, positive non-verbal
behavior.

Examples:
- "I love you."

- "I really missed you, honey."

(0, 4) Attacking and rejecting: threatening or
endangering spouse either physically or mentally, refusing

to have anything to do with spouse, meanness, trying to hurt
spouse or take all they can from spouse.

W:
- "I really don't care how things turn out."

- "I hate you."

(1, 0) Freeing and forgetting: encourage separate
identity: uncaringly let go; acknowledging spouse's
expertise on the problem and/or the self (non-biased opinion
and feeling probes/questions), helping the spouse get self
back on topic.

Examples:
- "Do whatever you think is best."

- "You can do it fine."

- "And what do you want to get out of this?"

- "What do you think you could do or change about that?"
- "How have you coped with this before?"

(2, 2) Affirming and understanding: non-judgmental

validation, empathic understanding of other's experience,
hearing the other even if they disagree: active listening
in a fair and affirming manner, especially to a different
opinion; clarification requests of information previously
conveyed: supportive statements, assent, acceptance,
positive regard despite acknowledged conflict: positive
competence feedback if it functions to affirm, rather than
reveal contingencies.

W:
- "You handled that really well."

- "I understand how you must feel."

- repetition of spouse's statement to express paying
attention

- "I can see how that would make you feel badly."

- "Mmhmm." (if spouse also appears to be actively affirming
and listening empathetically)

129

(2, 3) Ignoring and neglecting: not paying attention,
non-responsiveness, impatient voice tone, neglecting

interests and needs of spouse, ignoring facts, abandonment
when spouse needs it the most, resisting requests, leading
spouse off-beam, controlling conversation (not the spouse),
self-focused comments, offering unbelievable nonsense,
joking that substitutes for serious discussion of issue.

W:
- "It doesn't matter to me what she does."

- "We can discuss that later."

- "Can't you think of anything better to do?"

- introducing topics unrelated to the present conversation.
- "Mmhmm." (if spouse appears disinterested/self-absorbed)

(3, 2) Nurturing and protecting: friendly influence,
teaching/guiding/problem-solving in a kind and friendly way
how to understand to do things, problem-solving statements
that initiate mutual consideration of solutions to
conflicts: reassuring; paying close attention so as to
figure out all of spouse's needs and take care of everything
and/or soliciting disclosure or information in order to do
this, leading questions; providing answers; positive
competence feedback that connotes contingencies: statements
that bring in the listener's bias.

W:
- "You did that really well, just as I told you to."

- "What do you think would happen if you tried X?"

- "What does so and so think about this?"

- "Things will turn out OK, don't worry about this."

- "What concerns me..." - "What usually works for me..."

(3, 3) Belittling and blaming: punish, mislead,
disguise to gain control, try to get spouse to believe

they're wrong, criticize, condemn or act condescending
toward spouse, accusations, arrogance, put-downs, making fun
of problem or feelings, sarcasm, hostile questions or jokes.

Exampies:

- "No, you idiot, that's the wrong way to handle it."
- "You always say it's my fault."

- "Oh, come on, you're exaggerating."

- "How can you possibly feel like I don't care?"

(4, 0) Watching and managing: remind spouse about
what they need to do, belief they know what's best, exert

control in matter-of-fact way, block, restrict spouse.

Exempies:

- "No, that's wrong: do it this way."
- "You better..." "What I would do is..." "You have to..."

APPENDIX B

130

Appendix B

Personal Problem Questionnaire

Instructions: Most people to through times when they
experience disappointment or problems not specifically
related to their marital relationship. The following are
some general areas in which a person may be experiencing
personal problems, stress or disappointment. For each item,
rate how much of a problem you feel that area currently is
in your personal life.

 

No Minor Moderate Major
Problem Problem Problem Problem
1. Work 1 2 3 4
2. Relation- 1 2 3 4
ship w/
own family
3. Relation- 1 2 3 4
ship w/
children
4. Health 1 2 3 4
5. Relation- 1 2 3 4
ship w/
friends
6. Personal 1 2 3 4
leisure
activities
7. Other 1 2 3 4
8. Other 1 2 3 4

 

Write the top problem or disappointment you are currently
(or have been recently) experiencing, outside your marital
relationship, in the space below: (Be as specific as
possible).

 

 

 

APPENDIX c

131

Appendix C

Rosenberg (1965) Self-esteem Inventory

Individual Reactions Inventony

Please complete the following items by circling the number

most clearly representing you personal reaction.
frank and honest.

Please be

1. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal
basis with others.

1.Strongly 2.Agree 3.Neither agree 4.Disagree 5.Strongly
agree nor disagree disagree

2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

1.Strongly 2.Agree 3.Neither agree 4.Disagree 5.Strongly
agree nor disagree disagree

3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.

1.Strongly 2.Agree 3.Neither agree 4.Disagree 5.Strongly
agree nor disagree disagree

4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.

1.Strongly
agree

2.Agree 3.Neither agree 4.Disagree

nor disagree
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.

1.Strongly
agree

2.Agree 3.Neither agree 4.Disagree

nor disagree
6. I take a positive attitude toward myself.

l.Strongly
agree

2.Agree 3.Neither agree 4.Disagree

nor disagree

5.Strongly
disagree

5.Strongly
disagree

5.Strongly
disagree

132

7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.

l.Strongly 2.Agree 3.Neither agree
agree nor disagree

4.Disagree

8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.

l.Strongly 2.Agree 3.Neither agree
agree nor disagree

9. I certainly feel useless at times.

l.Strongly 2.Agree 3.Neither agree
agree nor disagree

4.Disagree

4.Disagree

10. At time I think I am no good at all.

l.Strongly 2.Agree 3.Neither agree
agree nor disagree

4.Disagree

5.Strongly
disagree

5.Strongly
disagree

5.Strongly
disagree

5.Strongly
disagree

APPENDIX D

Code 3:

Most persons have disagreements in their relationships.

Appendix D

 

133

Date:

 

ITAL CUESTICNNAIRE

Sex: M F

Please indicate below the

tortximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for eaor

tea on the list.

A
.

N

 

Home.“
O. Q

e
0
e

.e—e“.
but...
.0.

.e
‘I
C

____17.

_‘8‘

Handling family finances
Matters of recreation
Religious matters
Demonstration of affection

Friends

Sex relations
Conventionality (correct
or proper :ehavior)
Philosophy of life

Ways of dealing with
parents or in—laus

Aims, goals. and things
believed important
Amount of time soent together
Making ma:or decisions
Household tasks

Leisure time interests and
a t: ities

Career decisions

How often do you discuss or
have you considered divorce,
separation. or terminating
your relationship?
How often do you or your

te leave the house after
a fight?
In general. now often do
you think that things
between you and your partner
are going vell?
Do you confide in your

mate?

Do you ever regret that
you got married? (or lived
together?

How often do you and your
partner quarrel?

How often do you and your
mate 'get on each other’s

nerves?‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Almost

 

 

 

 

 

Almost Dooe- Fre-
Alvays Always sionally ouently Always Always
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree
More
All Most of often Dose-
the time the time than not sionelly Rarely Never

__30.

134

Every lmost Occa-
Day Every Day sionally Rarely Never

 

 

 

 

 

23. Do you kiss your mate?
All of Host of Some of Very few None of
them then them of them them

24. Do you and your mate engage
in outside interests

together? - __ __

ENG EVENTS CC“ .JR 357112234 YCU AND YCUR HATE?

 

 

HOW OFTEN 'n‘CULJ YOU SAY THE ROLL-
Less than Once or Once or

 

 

 

 

 

once a twice a twice a Once a More
Never month month week day ofte‘
25. 'i-iave a stimulating exchange
of ideas __ __ __ _
25. Laugh together __ _ _ __
2“ Calmly discuss something __ __ __ _
Work together on a project _
THESE ARE SONS THINGS AECUT WHICH COUPLES SOME-.IHES AGREE. SOMETIMES DIEAGREE. INDICATE
IT==4 BEECH CAUSED EFFERENCES OF OP’ .hIONSOR OR'JERE PROBLEHS IN YOUR

In: :3 z .45?

RELATIONSHIP CURING THE PAST FER WEEKS. (Ci-EEK YES CR NO)

YO: NO

29. _

Eeingt so tired for sex.
Not s .cwing love.

 

 

'iun on of the fol low: ng s .atements best describes how you feel acout the future or

your relationship? (CHECK ONLY ONE)

—32‘

1 want desperately for my relationship to succeed. and would go to almost

any length to see that it does.
: went very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to

see that it does.
I went very much for my relationship to succeed. and will do my fair share

to see that it does.
I: would be nice if my relationship succeeded. but I can 't do much more t..a

I am doing now to help it succeed.
It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am

doing now to keep the relationship going.
My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to

keep the relationship going: -

 

 

The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your
relationship. The middle point. 'haopy'. represents the degree of happiness of
most relationships. PLEASE CIRCLE THE DOT ill-(ICH BEST DESCRIEES THE DEGREE OF
THINGS CONSIDERED. OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP.

 

“1923533. ALL
0 l 2 3 4 5 C
5313.31.17 Fdlf‘ly A thgl. HIDDY VQr‘, E‘:'-m;y PIf'fIC:
Happy Happy

lunacy Unhappy unhappy

APPENDIX E

135

Appendix E

 

 

 

SCL—SO—R: SlDEl
_
f ‘ sex 1
INSTRUCTIONS: ' ' NAME __._._ ‘
Below is a list of problems people sometimes have. ' I
Please read each one caraiully, and circle the number to "'1": WC “'0" -- ————--~—------ .-—-—— -- ...- --——-
the right that best describes HOW MUCH THAT PR 08- ~ -
LEM HAS DISTR ESSFD 0R BOTHERED YOU DUR- . abut-moat .__.--_ - _ -__.___._.__. -..._...__
lNG THE PAST 7 DAYS INCLUDING TODAY. Circle :91“: '
only one number for each problem and do not skip any - MARITAL STATUS man _ser _Dl\r ._wio _smc._

items. If you change your mind. erase your first marl:
carefully. Read the example below before beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and ii you have anv questions please ask about them. «T : ID. . 2 A687
M0 oav veep NUMBER l - .
K ' ~. ‘\ ‘
EXAMPLE \ —.. -, =5 - 1 y . \
' I; ’2 a. "a 3;“...
HOW MUCH WERE :7, ’9, ‘ '1; '6, a 3;.
you Disrnesseo av '\ r ‘ . \\ 2 21” \ a \ VISIT NUMBER
1. Bodyaches o 1 . 2 <3)! 4 .
\ ‘~. \ ‘
\ :3, '6‘ 1150‘. 95,“ \ “’1; ‘
HOW MUCH WERE you DISTRESSED av: ~. '3 3’ ‘5 \. ‘2 ‘3. 3.. “
~ ’( . 1. 3‘ $1. \\ .3 ‘\’s
\_ x
1. headaches i , O ‘- j 2 i 3 l 4 ;
2. Narvousness or shakinass inside 2 . 3 . ' g 2 i 3 E 4 i
3. Repeated unpleasant thoughts that won‘t leave your mind 3 O .1 l l 2 l 3 l *1 ;
4. Faintness or dizziness 4 0 ' l : 2 i 3 ' -' .
5. Loss of sexual interest or pleasure ‘ 5 ' ‘3 f ' 2 : 3 ' 4 t
6. Feeling critical of others 6 0 f l l 2 i 3 ; 4 z
7. The idea that someone else can control your thoughts 7 0 3 ' l 2 i 3 l 4 l
8. Feeling others are to blame for most of your troubles 8 C i . 2 3 3 4
9. Trouble remembering things 9 ' o i l 1 2 l 3 3 4
10. Worried about sloppiness or carelessness 10 . 3 ‘ 3 , 2 ; 3 ' 4
1 1. Feeling easily annoyed or irritated 1 1 . 0 l = 2 l 3 ; 4
12. Pains in heart or cnest 12 . 0 ' .' 2 g 3 g 4
13. Feeling afraid in open spaces or on the streets 13 i 0 l ' 2 l 3 ‘ 4 ,
14. Feeling low in energy or slowed down 14 ' O : l l 2 l 3 L 4 2
15. Thoughts of ending your life 15 , O l i 2 3 l 4
16. Hearing voices that other people do not hear 16 ; O l ‘ 2 I 3 - 4 f
17. Trembling 17 i o . l E 2 i 3 4 l
18. Feeling that most people cannot be trusted 18 9. 0 i ' i 2 , 3 l 4 g
19. Poor appetite 19 . o ; l i 2 5 3 ; 4 t
20. Crying easily 20 ; O , l | 2 l 3 I 4 3
21 . Feeling shy or uneasy with the opposite sex 21 0 g ‘ 2 l 3 l ‘
22. Feelings of being trapped or caught 22 l 0 f ‘ ‘ 2 ’ 3 3 4 f
. 23. Suddenly soared for no reason 23 5 ° ' ‘ l 3 E 3 ' ‘ f
r 24. Temper outbursts that you could not control 24 . 9 l ‘ g 3 f 3 - 4 -
25. Feeling afraid to go out of your house alone 25 l 0 l ‘ l 2 l 3 ; ‘ E
26. Blaming yourself for things 26 ; 0 l l l 2 z 3 ‘ ‘ l
27. Pains in lower back 27 i 0 l ‘ l 2 i 3 l ‘ 3
28. Feeling blocked in getting things done 28 ; 0 E l 3 2 I 3 . i' |
29. Feeling lonely , 29 i O i l i 2 i 3 § 4 ,
30. Feeling blue 30 j 0 z ‘ ; 2 i 3 i 4 i
31. Worrying too much about things 31 l 0 l ‘ ; 2 f 3 l ‘ '
32. Feeling no interest in things 32 0 ;‘ l 3 2 : 3 4
33. Feeling learful 33 0 ? ‘ f 2 2 3 4
34. Your feelings being easily hurt 34 J i l ' 3 4
35. Other people being aware of your private thoughts 35 0 . ‘ s 3 ' 3 i 4
Zopvnght < 1975 by Leonard R. Derogatis,, Ph_o Please continue on thelollowmg page }

135A

 

 

SCL—QO—R SIDE:
:: v ‘90 :2 ".4
riov. mucn wane YOU DISTRESSED 5v ’7, . s, '3, ‘1
\L
36. Feeling Others co net understand you or are unsympathetic 36 o 1 2 3 4
37. Feeling that people are unfriendly or dislike you 37 ' 3 ' 1 l 2 l 3 4 ;
38. Havmg to dothings very slowly tomsure correCtness 38 O 1 2 3 4 ;
39. Heart pounding 0r racmg 39 o ' 1 ' 2 3 4 '
40 Nausea or upset stomacn 4O 0 1 2 3 4 ;
41. Feelinginieriortoothers 41 o '. 2 l 3 4 f
42. Soreness of y0ur musc1es 42 O 1 2 3 4
43. Feelingthat you are watcned ortalkedabom by others 43 o 1 2 3 4
44 Trouble falling asleep 44 C 2 2 3 4
45. Having to check and douole~check what you do 45 o 1 2 3 4
46 DiffiCulty maxing demsions 46 o 1 2 3 4
4 . Feeling afraid to travel on buses. subways. or trains 47 3 1 2 3 4
48. Trouble getting vow breath 48 3 1 2 3 4
49 Hat or cold spells 49 c 1 2 3 .1
50 Havmg toav0id certaint‘hinospiaces. or ac1iv1ties because thevfrignten you 50 C 2 3 4
51. Your mind 90mg blank 51 3 1 2 3 4
52. Numbnessortingiingin aartsofvourbodv 52 : ' 2 3 4
53. Alump in your throat 53 3 l 2 2- 4
54 Feeling hopeless aboutthe future 54 J 2 3 4
55. Trauole concentrating 55 '3 2 2 4
56 Feeling weakin Dartso‘vo-urbodv 56 '3 2 3 4
57 Feeling tense or lieved up 57 3 °. 2 3 4
58 Heavyfeelingsinvourarmsorieos 58 G ‘ 2 3 4
58. Thoughts of death or dying 59 '3 2 3 4
60 Overeating 60 3 1 2 3 .-.
51. Feeling uneasy when people are watching or talking about v0u 61 o 1 2 3 4
32 Having thoughtsthatare not your own 62 a t 2 3 4
53. Having urges to beat. iniure. or harm someone 63 0 '. 2 i 3 4
64 Awakening in the eariy morning 64 0 1 2 3 4
65. Having to repeat the same aCtions such astouching. counting. or washing 65 3 '- 2 3 4
56 Sleep thatis restless or disturbed 66 3 ' 2 3 4
67. Havmg urges to break or smash things 67 2 z 2 3 4
68 Having ideas or belietstnatothers do notshare 68 : ' 2 3 4‘
69. Feeling very sell-consmous With others 69 3 '. 2 3 4
70. Feeling uneasy in crowos such as shopping or at a mowe 70 J 2 3 4
71. Feeling everything is an effort 71 3 i. 2 3
72. Spells of terror or panic 72 3 1 2 3 4
73. Feeling uncomfortable about eating or drinking in public 73 3 1 2 3 4
74. Getting into treouent arguments 74 3 t 2 2 4
75. Feeling nervous when you are left alone 75 3 1 2 2 4
7 . Others not gluing you proper credit fer v0ur achievements 76 : 2 3 4
77. Feeling lonely even when you are with people 77 o 1 2 3 4
78. Feeling so restless you couldn't sit Still 78 .3. : 2 3 4
79. Feelings of worthlessness 79 :- . 1 2 3 4
30. The feeling that something bad is going to happen to you 80 C 1 2 3 4
31. Shouting or throwing things 81 C 1 2 3 4
52. Feeling afraid you will faint in public 82 3 '. 2 4
E3. Feeling that people will take advantage of you if you let them 83 o ' 2 2 4
64 Having thoughts about sex that bother you a lot 84 Q 1 .‘ 3 =- .
85. The idea that you should be punished for your sins 85 o i 2 3 4 l
85. Thoughts and images ofafrightening nature 86 0 1 2 3 4 l
87. The idea that something serious is wrong with your body 87 c 2 3 4
88. Never feeling Close to another person 88 : ' 2 3 4
29 Feelings 0? guilt 89 c ‘. 2 3 4
Themes: that somethingis wrong with vourminc‘ 30 ; '- -'

I‘
“O
J

.—

 

t',')vrlgh'. 1.975 m- Leonarc F Derrzcati: 9"

-- _...-- -.______.

2 -..__..._.__- - .___...__——_

LIST 0? REFERENCES

136

List of References

Alberti, R.E., & Emmons, M.L. (1978). Your Perfiegr Right;

A Guide to Assertive Behavior, Third Edition. San Luis
Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers.

Allan, J.L., Townley, R.R.W., & Phelan, P.D. (1974).
Family response to cystic fibrosis. Australign

Pediatric Journal, lg, 1369146.

Angyal, A. (1965). Neurosis and Treatmen : 0
Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bach, G. (1969). The Intimate Enemy. New York: Morrow.

Bailyn, L. (1970). Career and family orientations of
husbands and wives in relation to marital happiness.
Human Relations, ;;(2), 97-113.

Bakan, D. (1966). The Duality of Human Existence. Chicago:
Rand McNally.

Bakeman, R. (1986). PC ELAG Version 4. University of
Georgia, Atlanta, GA.

Baucom, D.H., Notarius, C.I., Burnett, C.K., & Haefner, P.
(1990). Gender differences and sex-role identity in
marriage. In F.D. Fincham & T.N. Bradbury (Eds.), IDQ

Psychology of Marriage. NY: The Guilford Press.

Baucom, H.H., & Voirin, D. (1989). [Sex role identity
and couples' attributions for marital events.]
Unpublished raw data.

Baumgardner, A., Kaufman, C.M., & Levy, P. (1989).
Regulating affect interpersonally: when low self-
esteem leads to greater enhancement. gggrggl_gfi

Personality and Social Psychology, §g(6), 907-921.

Benjamin, L. (1979a). Use of structural analysis of social
behavior (SASB) and Markov chains to study dyadic

interactions. gournal of Abnormal Psyghology, §§(3),
303-319.

Benjamin, L. (1979b). Structural analysis of
differentiation failure. Psychiatry, g2, 1-23.

Benjamin, L. (1981). I te e sona i 03'
a e ° SA ro . New York: The Guilford
Press.

137

Benjamin, L. (1986). Using SASB to add social parameters
to Axis I of DSMIII. In T. Millon & G.L. Klerman
(Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Psychopathology. New

York: Guilford Press.

Benjamin, L., Foster, S.W., Giat-Roberto, L., & Estroff,
S.E. (1986). Breaking the family code: analysis of
videotapes of family interactions by Structural
Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB). In L.S. Greenberg
& W.M. Pinsoff (Eds.), Psychotherapeutlc Progess; A
Research Handbook (pp. 391-438). New York: Guilford
Press.

Benson, B.A. & Gross, A.M. _(1989). The effect of a
congenitally handicapped child upon the marital dyad:
a review of the literature. Clinical Psychology
Review, P, 747-758.

Berlin, S. & Johnson, C.G. (1989). Women and autonomy:
using structural analysis of social behavior to find
autonomy within connections. Psychiatry, 5;, 79-95.

Booraem, C.D. & Flowers, J.V. (1978). A procedural model
for training of assertive behavior. In J.M. Whiteley &

J.V. Flowers (Eds.), Approaches to assertion training
(pp. 15-46). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Bouchard, M. Lalonde, F., & Gagnon, M. (1988). The
construct validity of assertion: contributions of four
assessment procedures and Norman's personality factors.

Journal of Personality, §§(4), 763-783.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The Making and Breaking of Affecrional

Bonds. London: Tavistock.

Boyd, L.A. & Roach, A.J. (1977). Interpersonal
communication skills differentiating more satisfying
and less satisfying marital relationships. anrngl_pfi

qunseling Psychology, ;g(6), 540-542.
Brehm, 8.5. (1985). Intimate Relationships. New York:

Random House Inc.

Burggraff, C.S. & Sillars, A.L. (1987). A critical
examination of sex differences in marital

communication. Communlcspign Monggraphs, 55, 276-294.

Byrne, B.A., & Cunningham, C.C. (1985). The effects of
mentally handicapped children on families- a conceptual

review. Journal of Child Psychology sng Psyghlgtry,
z§(6), 847-864.

138

Caplan, G., & Killilea, M. (1976). Su 0 s 3
Mutual Help: Multidisciplinary Explorations. New

York: Grune & Stratton.

Chiles, J.A., Stauss, F.S., & Benjamin, L.S. (1980).
Marital conflict and sexual dysfunction in alcoholic

and non-alcoholic couples. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 137, 266-273

Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support,

and the buffering hypothesis. Psycholggiggl Enllsrin,
ss(2), 310-357.

Crawford, M. (1988). Gender, age and the social evaluation
of assertion. Behavior Modification, 1;, 549-564.

Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1987). The support of autonomy

and the control of behavior. Journgl of Personslipy
and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037.

Derogatis, L.R. (1983). SCL-90: AdministratignI §ggring

a d Procedures Manua II. Towson, MD: Clinical
Psychometric Research.

Derogatis, L.R., Abeloff, M.D., & Melisaratos, N.
(1979). Psychological coping mechanisms and survival
time in metastic breast cancer. JAMA, 242(14), 1504-
1508.

Derogatis, L.R., Rickels, K., & Rock, A. (1976). The SCL-
90 and the MMPI: a step in the validation of a new

self-report scale. British Journal of s c ' , 128,
280-289.

Dunst, C.J., Trivette, C.M., & Cross, A.H. (1986). Roles
and support networks of mothers of handicapped
children. In R. Fewell & P. Vadasy (Eds.), Pgniliss_pf

d'c ed il : Needs a d Su ts 5
Life Span (pp. 167-192). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Eisler, R.M., Frederiksen, L.W., & Peterson, G.L. (1978).
The relationship of cognitive variables to the
expression of assertion. Pehavior Therapy, 2, 419-427.

Emerson, R. (1972). Exchange theory, part I: a
psychological basis for social change. In J. Gerger,
M. Zelditch, Jr., & B. Anderson (Eds.), Spgiplggiggl

Theories in Progrsss (pp. 38-87). New York: Houghton-
Mifflin.

139

Epstein, C.F. (1987). Multiple demands and multiple roles:
the conditions of successful management. In F.J.

Crosby (Ed.), Spouse, ParentI Worker: On Genger ang
nultiple Roles (pp. 23-35), New Haven: Yale University

Press.

Feldman, L.B. (1979). Marital conflict and marital
intimacy: an integrative psychodynamic-behavioral-
systemic model. Family Process, lg, 69-78.

Fine, M. (1985). Reflections on a feminist psychology of
women: paradoxes and prospects. Ps cholo o W

Quarterly, 9, 167-183._

Fleming, J.S. & Courtney, B.E. (1984). The dimensionality
of self-esteem II: hierarchical facet model for
revised measurement scales. Jou na 0 P so a '

Social Psychology, g§(2), 404-421.

Floyd, F.J. (1988). Couples' cognitive/affective reactions

to communication behaviors. Journal of Marrigge and
the Family, 59, 523-532.

Floyd, F.J. & Zmich, D.E. (1990). Marriage and Eng
parenting partnership: managing stress by parents of

 

mentally retarded and typically developing ghildrsn.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.

French, J.R.P., Jr. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of
social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studiss in
Social Power, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for
Social Research.

Friedrich, W.N., & Friedrich, W.L. (1981). Comparison of
psychosocial asset of parents with a handicapped child
and their normal controls. Americsn Journal of hsnrgl
Qeficiency, as, 551-553.

Gervasio, A.H. & Crawford, M. (1989). Social evaluation
of assertiveness: a critique and speech act

reformulation. Psycholpgy pf ngsn Quartsrly, l;, 1-
25.

Gibran, K. (1923). The Prophet. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.

Gilbert, S. (1976). Self disclosure, intimacy and
communication in families. F ' C or a ,
25(3), 221-231.

140

Gillespie, D.L. (1971). Who has the power? The marital

struggle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 445-
458.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Glesen, C.B. (1988). Becoming and remaining assertive:
a longitudinal study. Psychological Reports, 55(2),
595-605.

Godwin, D.D., & Scanzoni, J. (1989). Couple consensus
during marital joint decision-making: a context,
process, outcome model. Journa a a
Family, 5;, 943-956.

Gottman, J.M. & Krokoff, L.J. (1989). Marital interaction
and satisfaction: a longitudinal view. Journgl of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(1), 47-52.

Grossman, F.K., Pollack, W.S., Golding, E.R., & Fedele, N.M.
(1987). Affiliation and autonomy in the transition to
parenthood. Family Relations, 55, 263-269.

Guthrie, D.M., & Snyder, C.W., Jr. (1988). Spouses' self-
evaluations for situations involving emotional
communication. In P. Noller & M.A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.),

Perspectives on Marital Interagtion (pp. 123-152),
Clevedon, Australia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Hacker, H.M. (1981). Blabbermouths and clams: sex
differences in self-disclosure in same-sex and cross-
sex friendship dyads. s cho o o Wome ua
5(3), 385-401.

Hare-Mustin, R.T. (1987). The problem of gender in
family therapy theory. Pamily Progess, 25, 15-27.

Henley, N.M. (1977). Pody Politics; Powerl sex. gng
Ngnverhsl Communicsrion. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

Inc.

Henry, W.P., Schacht, T.E., & Strupp, H.H. (1986).
Structural analysis of social behavior: application to
a study of interpersonal process in differential
psychotherapeutic outcome. Journa Co s t n

glinisal Psychology, 53(1), 27-31.

Humphrey, L.L. (1989). Observed family interactions among
subtypes of eating disorders using structural analysis
of social behavior. Jou a o o s

Psychology, 51(2), 206-214.

141

Humphrey, L.L., Apple, R.F., & Kirschenbaum, D.S. (1986).
Differentiating bulimic-anorexic from normal families
using interpersonal and behavioral observational

systems. Journgl of gonsulting and gliniggl
Psychology, 55(2), 190-195.

Humphrey, L.L. & Benjamin, L.S. (1986). Using structural
analysis of social behavior to assess critical but

elusive family processes. American Psychologisr,
52(9) , 979-988.

Humphrey, L.L. & Benjamin, L.S. (1989). An_thsrygrigngl

odin S stem For Use Wit t uctu a 5'5

Social Behavigr: The Training Manual. Chicago,

Illinois: Northwestern University Medical School.

Huston, T.L. (1983). Power. In H.H. Kelley, E. Berscheid,
A. Christensen, J.H. Harvey, T.L. Huston, G. Levinger,
E. McClintock, L.A. Peplau, & D.R. Peterson (Eds.),
Close Relationships (pp. 169-264). New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company.

Hyman, R.B. & Woog, P. (1987). The relationship of age and
marital status to women's needs for interdependence-
independence. Measu ement and Evaluatio ' o

gnd Development. Pp, 27-35.

Jorgensen, R.S., & Johnson, J.H. (1990). Contributors to
the appraisal of major life changes: gender, perceived
controllability, sensation seeking, strain, and social
support. ournal of A lied o i Ps cho o , 29(14),
1123-1138.

Kandaras, C.S. (1985). Stage IV: cohesion. In B.B.

Siepker & C.S. Kandaras (Eds.), Group Ihsrgpy with
Chilgren gng Agolsscents (pp. 137-156). New York:

Human Sciences Press, Inc.

Kazak, A.E. & Marvin, R.S. (1984). Differences,
difficulties and adaptation: stress and social
networks in families with a handicapped child. Pgnily

Belgtions, 55, 67-77.

Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.H.,
Huston, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau,
L.A., & Petersen, D.R. (1983). Analyzing close
relationships. In H.H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A.
Christensen, J.H. Harvey, T.L. Huston, G. Levinger, E.
McClintock, L.A. Peplau, & D.R. Petersen (Eds.), Clpss

legripnships (pp. 20-67), New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.

142

Kelley, H.H., & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). Inrsrpsrsgngl

relations: A theory of interdependencs. New York:
Wiley.

Kelly, J.A., Kern, J.M., Kirkley, B.G., Patterson, J.M., &
Keane, T.M. (1980). Reactions to assertive vs.

unassertive behavior: differential effects for males

and females and implications for assertive training.

Behavior Therapy, ll, 670-682.

Kotler, T. (1985). Security and autonomy within marriage.

Human Relations, 58(4), 299-321.

Kurdek, L.A. (1989). Social support and psychological
distress in first-married and remarried newlywed

husbands and wives. Journal of Marriage and ths
Family, 5;, 1047-1052.

Lantz, H.R. & Snyder, E.C. (1969). Marriage. New York:
Wiley.

Levinger, G. & Senn, D.J. (1967). Disclosure of feelings

in marriage. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Pehavigr gng

Develo ment, l5, 237-249.

Lockheed, M.E. & Hall, K.P. (1976). Conceptualizing sex as
a status characteristic: applications to leadership

training strategies. Journsl of Social Issues, 55(3),
111-124.

Margolin, G., Fernandez, V., Talovic, S., & Onorato, R.
(1983). Sex role considerations and behavioral marital
therapy: equal does not mean identical. Journgl 9:

Marital and Family Ihergpy, 5(2), 131-145.

Margolin, G., Michelli, J., & Jacobson, N. (1988).
Assessment of marital dysfunction. In A.S. Bellack &

M. Hersen (Eds.), Bshavigral Asssssmenr (pp. 441-489).

New York: Pergamon Press.

Markman, H.J. (1984). The longitudinal study of couples'
interactions: implications for understanding and
predicting the development of marital distress. In K.
Hahlweg & N.S. Jacobson (Eds.), Mgrirgl_lnrsrgg§ignr_
Analysis ang Modification (pp. 253-281). New York:

The Guilford Press.

Mays, J.H. (1987). Assertiveness training for occupational
therapists. m 'ca our t o a

Ibsrapx, 44(1). 51-53.

143

McDonald, G. (1980). Family power: the assessment of a

decade of theory and research. EQQIBQ1_21;HQIIIQQ§_QDQ
rhe Panilv, 5;, 841-854.

McNamara, J.R., Delamater, R., Sennhauser, S., & Milano,
M.J. (1988). Social effect of the naturalistic
display of assertiveness in a social conflict

situation. £sxsh212sisa1_8seert§..52. 99-103-

Miller, L.C., Berg, J.H., & Archer, R.L. (1983). Openers:
individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure.

ou na 0 Re on 't n c'a s , 55(6),
1234-1244.

Miller, L.C. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). Reciprocity of self-
disclosure at the individual and dyadic levels: a
social relations analysis. 0' '

Sogial Psychglogv, 55(4), 713-719.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Pamily Tharapy.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C.E. (1989). sggial_§agsas_gr
Psyghological Distress. NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Navran, L. (1967). Communication and adjustment in

marriage. Pamily Process, 5, 173-184.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco:

Freeman.

Raush, H.L. (1977). Orientations to the close
relationship. In G. Levinger & H.L. Raush (Eds.),
C se Relat' s ' s: s ct'v s n t e
Intimacy (pp. 163-188). Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.

Rich, A.R. & Schroeder, H.W. (1976). Research issues in

assertiveness training- Esxsnelegisal_zulletin. 81.

1081-1096.

Riger, S., & Galligan, P. (1980). Women in management: an
exploration of competing paradigms. Amsrigan
Esxshglegist, 15: 902-910-

Rosenberg. M. (1965). §92istx_end_the_Adglssssnt_§e1f
Inags. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.

Roy, M. (1977). t d Wo . New York: Van Nostrand,

Reinhold.

144

Rusbult, C.B., Johnson, D.J., & Morrow, G.D. (1986)..
Determinants and consequences of exit, voice,
loyalty, and neglect: responses to dissatisfaction in

adult romantic involvements. human Pelarions, 52(1),
45-63.

Rusbult, C.B., Morrow, G.D., & Johnson, D.J. (1987). Self-
esteem and problem-solving behaviour in close

relationships. Prirish Journal or Social Psygholggy,

15, 293-303.

Sabbeth, B.F. & Leventhal, J.M. (1984). Marital adjustment
to chronic childhood illness: a critique of the
literature. Pediatrigs, 11(6), 762-768.

Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1970). The study of family power
structure: a review 1960-1969. Jpgrnal_pr_Marriaga

and the Pamily,‘;g, 539-552.

Scammell, R.W. & Stead, B.A. (1984). An assessment of the
relationship between subordinate assertiveness and
perceived leader behavior and subordinate role stress.

Library Quarterly, 55(2), 170-188).

Schroeder, H.R., Rakos, R.F., & Moe, J. (1983). The social
perception of assertive behavior as a function of
response class and gender. Behavior Therapy, lg, 534-
544.

Sexton, C.S. & Perlman, D.S. (1989). Couples' career
orientation, gender role orientation, and perceived

equity as determinants of marital power. Journal a:
Marriage ang the Panily, 51, 933-941. H

Spanier, 6.8. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: new
scales for assessing the quality of marriage and
similar dyads. Journal of Marriage ang rhs Panily,
55(1), 15-27.

Stapleton, J. & Bright, R. (1976). Eggal_Marriags. New
York: Harper 8 Row.

Steil, J.M. & Turetsky, B.A. (1987). .Marital influence
levels and symptomatology among wives. In F.J. Crosby

(Ed-L Whigs

Pglas (pp. 74-90). New Haven: Yale University Press.

145

Stewart, A.J. & Malley, J.E. (1987). Role combination in
women: mitigating agency and communion. In F.J.
Crosby (Ed.), S ouse a ent Wo e : On G

Multiple Roles (pp. 44-62). New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Sullivan, L.A. (1989). o ia 'nt ctio : 5
di eren e 'n e exchan e o emotio a o .
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State

University, East Lansing.

Thompson, L. & Walker A.J. (1989). Gender in families:
women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood.

Jgurnal of Marriage and the Pamily, 51, 845-871.

Vincent, J.P., Weiss, R.L., & Birchler, G.R. (1975). A
behavioral analysis of problem solving in distressed
and nondistressed married and stranger dyads. Bshayigr

Therapy, 5, 475-487.

Waisbren, S. (1980). Parents' reactions after the birth of
a developmentally disabled child. m 'c u

Mental Qericiency, 53(4), 345-351.

Waring, E.M. (1981). Facilitating marital intimacy through
self-disclosure. T e mer'can Jou n a

IDEIQEZ: 2(4), 33-42.

Weingarten, K. (1978). Interdependence. In R. Rapoport &

R.N. Rapoport (Eds.), Working Couples (pp. 147-158).
New York: Harper & Row.

Weiss, R.L. (1978). The conceptualization of marriage from
a behavioral perspective. In T.J. Paolino & B.S.
McCrady (Eds.), i e a a 'ta e '

'c e v' a a
ct'v . New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Weiss, R. L. (1984). Cognitive and strategic interventions
in behavioral marital therapy. In K. Hahlweg & N. S.
Jacobson (Eds. ), a e a : s
Mggirigarign (pp. 337- 355). New York: Guilford Press.

White, B.B. (1989). Gender differences in marital
communication patterns. Panily Prosass, 15, 89-106.