This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY or m TRANSITION 1'0 Pmmoom 30cm. “WORKS, STRESS, AND ADJUSTMENT presented by KATHLEEN WONG 83112 has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhJ) . Psychology (hym- in ‘. MAW M130: worm: W .. MSU LIBRARIES “ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. _FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 'Mv’25 in tr. A MINDY OF THE TRANSITION TO PARENTHOOD' STRESS, AND ADJUSTMENT C,,.I SOCIAL NETWORKS. . By Kathleen Wong Seitz A DISSERTATION . Submitted to Michigan State Univer51ty in partial fulfillment of the requirements 9 for the degree of ‘ 3%»‘1’ 'L‘M‘ idl—‘a‘. DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY {Of \2 4‘ .IJ. U153": - ‘ e 1"-2‘7‘“ Department of Psychology couples three .0 six months postpittcg .[fili ‘. ~ t. ~.~1r2..:-. 2,“. , 21128?» A; n, lodbyr‘uj 3. )namxlnng Q Qfloa f ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE TRANSITION TO PARENTHOOD: SOCIAL NETWORKS, STRESS, AND ADJUSTMENT BY Kathleen Wong Seitz This study explored the relationships among stressors, social network characteristics, and adjustment for couples during the transition to parenthood. This is a family life cycle stage which has been found to be experienced as stressful, often resulting in greater anxiety, depression, and lowered marital satisfaction. Stressors may include those specific to the pregnancy and postpartum period, role stress, as well as stress associated with general life event changes. Social support has been found to be a major mediating factor between high stress and adjustment. It was hypothesized that during this transition period, different stressors would affect males and females, and that specific network characteristics would be more facilitative of adjustment for postbirth couples experiencing high stress than for prebirth couples. Fifty couples were interviewed in this cross-sectional study, 25 in the last trimester of their first pregnancy, and 25 couples three to six months postpartum. Families were recruited primarily from a local health maintenance W" r“ v ' > 9“ :UCICETVIHPPQ CT 37' 3eril-{A'u'i‘ ZE’HT {"7 ‘r’illJ'l‘E 5. ”ESWTZVZJ 41' .E” y: _«h«wnlsa .A* h \s’ ‘ l a? THBVU _ , 35w )1 ..’.':“ ; fineasiiia .3“ , pfiiibequ- JrT' ? ism-.1 ._ do svrgpjg';:~ _ jfiggja'aplfl pa;5ngl‘r , . , t . — '(II'r'q‘I'. ‘ . " ‘wl . - 3 ~_' »' “.- 1:; n ‘ _; aid: 3‘ “SW-ivlfi’fl: st—w aleuoo $115? 3 1‘3”“ ‘0 ‘3139méli 325i say ur as .tbuaa ,éhfoq cannon x18 ee_a-01#.!C*‘99? as b"‘ Kathleen Wong Seitz organization. Most families were white, and middle class in socioeconomic status. Separate interviews of each spouse were conducted in their home. Measures included: the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977), the Rosenberg Self—Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967), the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). A social network questionnaire and interview schedule were also administered. In general, prebirth and postbirth groups did not differ on network characteristics. Sex differences were found, however, with females experiencing greater stress, anxiety, and depression than males. There were no differences between prebirth and postbirth females on these measures. Stress and maladjustment scores were more strongly related for postbirth females than for the other subgroups. Marital adjustment was significantly related to stress and other maladjustment measures for postbirth males and females. In general, the buffering hypotheses for the social network variables were not supported. However, social network size did demonstrate a pure buffering effect amongst postbirth females. , 71., v-‘;{m:‘ ‘Cv” .aorrssinspxo _ .:~: : 'WunCGDOLSOH . Elf“ , A “,7. :21 -~ .. / if,“ " ‘ IS’HU ; on hersln‘ ‘asism fijzrdjwug and :03 aaaunrweg~ \ ' i211?” ': Uli19'-{£‘.\"‘-l<‘:3" '* -4”; -A 1A.]..(I3 .2elsmei niltdseoq sepnoms , . " ' ‘10!th pecpi Firs:, -_ and feel if (5.x To Kevin Lucy ._ . _-_ . 1, ‘ Ph'n" i~ll;:"z“‘z""- 3“ ' . .. ; v':' f. <.,:_. (_rzl: WIT tucker , 921.1. To ly family - livin, Kain, ET, :“ V3312 ”‘1' Pro)“: 0?“ £110 m“ Lh‘ii'h' } ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to the following people who have made this study possible: First, to all of the families who shared their thoughts and feelings about this special life experience: To my Committee Chairman, Professor Robert Caldwell, who, from the beginning, shared my enthusiasm and interest in social networks, and whose sense of focus, perspective and humor guided me along each step of the process, I am deeply grateful; To my committee members, Professors William Davidson, Robin Redner, and Dozier Thornton, who contributed thoughtful comments and suggestions on this project, and who supported my desire to integrate a broader community perspective with a clinical concernr To those who have given encouragement and respect for my clinical interests throughout my graduate program - Lucy Ferguson, Ph.D., John McKinney, Ph.D., Robert Noll, Ph.D., Elizabeth Seagull, Ph.D., Cyril Worby, M.D., and Robert Zucker, Ph.D.; To my family - Kevin, Kalea, and Daniel, for having shared me with this project over the years, and to my parents, Irene and Andrew Wong, for their support; iii fl . l"! ) .9 D ‘9’ l‘ i; V." l? L: i ‘1," k'fi’il» " . i. -\.' I1 ‘ leinsd hilt} . ‘.' .32 . - ~ .. .. V - ;;n;, 7‘ 3': '30" Jj' " ' .33 1 ed 9:0 JJSLOIQ aid: uriw em bsxsna I03 rm,“ m, m end-1.. - ’I " quot! elaaoreq a}? . :1 to my special network of friend: who haven j» l caring and concern. Thank you all. Th‘lti. I‘ i . _ . } I Pin: AfIm mraanlz; ' 'Iflrnooucrzts Llrsnarrnl m'; T,- ,1 er- ; . l _.':“ .,.- If' . 1:: " P". ‘ 1:; ,. \. ,1 (5.) u ’4 TS; ,. Appgnd 1 X A ' I 1' r; .‘v ‘ . e ' '. Va: inter. _n: ;~‘;~~> . . . . . . . Appendix - lntoruad \:-r:s.- Esra. . . , . . . inter“; “w Soles-ale .- . . “Append ix ix General Life events , PregnancYIP¢Qt§4!Sh» .gwq ,V'19VBd odw abnoiri 30 xiowqen is. =02 vm o1 .vllsnt! bnA s .[[u wow anti? .Awuxnd- fine {113:2 lawn-VnmJ beblvoxq TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Transition to Parenthood Stage. . . . . . . . . . . 4 Stress. I O D O O O C I I O Q I O I I O 0 I O O I O 5 Social Support/Social Network . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Adjustment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Social Network Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES. . . . . . . . . . . 44 METHODS. O O I I l O I 0 I l O O O O O I 0 O I O O O O O 50 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Interviewers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 RESOLTS. O 0 Q j C O O I O O I O C I I O O C O I O C U i 61 DISCUSSION 0 O . Q 0 O O O O I O I l C D O I I Q C I O I 94 Stress. Maladjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Network Characteristics. . . . . . 99 . . . . . . . . . . 103 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 108 APPENDICES Appendix A - Transition to Parenthood Information Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . 113 Appendix B - Informed Consent Form. . . . . . . . . 114 Appendix C - Interview Schedule . . . . . . . . . . 115 Appendix D - Social Network Questionnaire . . . . . 121 Appendix E - General Life Events Questionnaire. . . 125 Appendix F — Pregnancy/Postbirth Questionnaire. . . 128 ] . n L f . . - r . . ' 4 . . . . . . o o _. b" .9.- k‘ '1‘ r -V .i V . O I I Q ‘rl')l:.lJL..)‘ - o o - .IT._'-t‘-‘ '. VI" :12 I .U‘unl " 1 g t . fisllf‘ru'fio'c“ ‘4'.»13'197111 OIJauuQ zucwzsu 151008 c asneva siIJ stsnsa ~0 djxi diaoq\tan§qvoli fin State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. . . . ' * Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale . . . . . . . . . . 132 - Rosenberg se1t~nuteem Scale. . . . . . 134 - Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. . . . 135 - Supplementary Tables . . . . . . . . .viao leans anv' Al: G“ ‘,._ ‘1 3 5.. " f 1 fl . 1’, if ..F‘ ~l£ {at ‘if A ‘7‘- 11-4 1.1 F.:',: _i - ”‘. .', \' 11 a 't‘ - ~ - - o h)... and 3,22». .‘ 3w» ‘ " -‘ - ;_ 3 ‘- ‘ 9‘ .15 Poatbzttn (31‘0qu .Jj ‘fr‘t‘e-aci-s: Tm Lliofierrs a: sum and Social Network V'rll‘lék‘lfi‘S or. mus; mmt...». .r‘rd'am' - . ’ ”—e‘rnl- ~ 2; x'bneqqfl i H U ‘ ;.-, 3% .rmeqqa I . A ‘ '1' -W9!,; ' _ V, _ . A faqqA i "$;Jfi 1.1 '5‘ . ¢ ,3 Correlaticge LIST OF TABLES 1 Mean Group Differences on Demographic Variables. 2‘ Means and Standard Deviations of Scores for All Groups . . . . . 3 Sex Differences in Means and Standard Deviations of Scores. . . . . 4 Group Differences in Role Demand Means . 5 Correlations of Stress with Maladjustment. . . . . 6 Multiple Regression Analysis: Relationship of Stress Variables to Maladjustment. . . . . . . . . 7 Intercorrelations Among Stress Scores and Maladjustment for All Groups . 8 Correlations of Marital Adjustment with Maladjustment. . . . 9 Correlations of Stress with Marital Adjustment . . 10 Group Differences in Social Network Variables' Means and Standard Deviations. . . . . . . . . . 11 Sex Differences in Social Network Variables' Means and Standard Deviations. 12 Multiple Regression Analysis: The Effects of Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment 13 Group Differences: The Effects of Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment . . . . . . . . 14 Prebirth Group Differences: The Effects of Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment. . . 15 Postbirth Group Differences: The Effects of Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment VJ . , _. , A. . . ‘1. ~.I., ‘ e >- .J. .v'"';,..z~ ‘Jf ou‘ \- ..i {K Stress nu" tsrw_xc I-- 51 62 64 67 67 69 70 72 72 74 75 78 79 80 116 .31 3 ‘31-! ‘a‘lf 5+. ' """".".".'1.‘IT~ : < - ‘-—« we»: .4 ‘ V"~ . LiIRAT '37 - ' 25 at . 2229138 :1 a - “ 27 8‘. 371‘...'Jy”.‘:.-' 7‘ L [8th firms €ld~3; ‘1‘ ‘ , ‘ 7 ,0 o n a o a . ‘ “7.1;: ‘ ‘ " - \ V “ > . . 2' ,,3}E"9dT icyiazmsuiira guru?) {Hummus El no £9;d51‘15V arrow-11901 151008 bns 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Marital Adjustment . . . . . . . . . Correlations of Relationship Stress with Correlations of Relationship Stress with Desire for Spouse Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple Regression Analysis: The Effects of Couple Stress and Joint Network Variables. . . . . Prebirth Group Differences: The Effects of Couple Stress and Joint Network Variables. . . Postbirth Group Differences: The Effects of Couple Stress and Joint Network Variables. . . . . Multiple Regression Analysis: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Postbirth Group Differences: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment. . . . . . . . . . Employment and School Status . . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelations Among Stress and Maladjustment scores I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Prebirth Group Differences: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelations Among Stress_Scores and Dependent Variables for All Groups . . . . . . . . Multiple Regression Analysis: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Network Variables on Network Dissatisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prebirth Group Differences: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Network Variables on Network Dissatisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Postbirth Group Differences: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Network Variables on Network Dissatisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . _ Maladjustment Scores at High and Low Levels of Stress and Network size. . . . . . . . . . s¢kf%?.u I I I I I I I Page 84 84 86 i E 87 88 91 92 139 142 143 .6 f 144 145 #}Lu as~:1? j: a~v-‘:!sl in ZHOI76191103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1v1'vnll‘2Ier‘zlelfilfiH W ‘_ ' LC..' .,.l 1". 2"- vr’n: ‘FWHI 1L3 ‘ :ng'. '1,‘ s1 a-UI A I l “H ' MN 7 ( HI : — V ‘. . cm I .l 1 i' . ‘3' '~ m i y kl ;" .1. E? um In $1095; in axon-5w: .4 . ,, j a '11 3‘10”:in no as.“ ‘ A 7’ 7‘ g I a I a - . . .i._‘[.. .4” , v 15353333 9"." 3:: ; - ‘1’. Hi 'r'rq"! ' ' ' no asi da:tsv 41 "' ,-. L J 'V'LU‘ H; _w19fi has aesrfia spusdT . . . . . .nolnosisilssato ;oa has nle 33 across asaeaautbsisu OE . an m an guns. INTRODUCTION be The transition to parenthood is that time in a family' s 111: course when the couple prepares for and adjusts to the addition of a child. While this process may occur through birth, adoption, or remarriage, this study has focussed on the birth of the first child as the critical event. The transition to parenthood involves a number of stressors. They may be stage specific stressors, related to the pregnancy and the newborn period. These stressors often include increased financial demands, housing/space problems, drains on emotional and physical resources, changes in interpersonal relationships (marital relationship, other social relationships), and changes in intrapersonal factors (mood, self-esteem). These Specific stressors may be compounded by other more general life stressors, such as the death or illness of other relatives or friends, job changes, residential moves. General survey research has shown that with the birth of the first child, families report high levels of experienced stress and drops in levels of happiness and life satisfaction. This has been shown to be BSPecially true for women. Gin»; .’f PFC/L 1. :: 7%.. rt _. .u. \- , vow“; f_.~, 44w: +£3.19“ «m- .‘ .‘.~i> a ‘ °“°»~ 93'wEQWS- 10., 3301;113:109 s ‘ V‘. 2 816‘. ’« . -;m%1vidua1. The resultant state will be referred to as IC:,:. . dzress. There does appear to be some overlap at times a? getween stressors and stress, or a contagion effect. WIN Role theory suggests that the husband and wife may be experiencing a number of role changes during this period. They may be relinquishing some roles while acquiring the parental role. They may vary in the extent to which they L have prepared for the new role of parent. Research on general life stress and adjustment factors has shown that persons experiencing high stress are prone to have greater physical and psychological distress than persons with lower levels of stress. Social support has been found to be a major mediating factor between high stress and adjustment. Specifically, in regards to new mothers making the transition to parenthood, low social support has been related to pregnancy complications, < «1'», «g w,r~‘; ' emotional distress, postpartum depression, and higher maternal rejection scores, especially under conditions of 3a a high stress. fl ‘1 While many studies point to the "buffering” role that social support may play for persons under high stress conditions, there are other studies that have found conflicting or contradictory results. A better e1 . r v u “ understanding of exactly what constitutes aoei ,. ""- 32.0.. .. own-3': _'r;"..f "onsusls ~.-.,~(r ._-.f::‘-/Lbnl ‘I "'1' .V E m; 3: :Hr ' “a: 9107 "131.5. -.. , , .r' A , ‘ suns spin , .sJIussz yiojolbs’izmoo is pniaoiiino: as at ;,i;,:—_n.z_ww m'h’f- " ' M 3 v-‘Fmgggyjand'sociology, and has recently gained ’1 tidesitdad application in other areas of the social SCIENCee. "In social network analysis, one's field of social dentists is analyzed structurally, interactionally, and chronologically. This study explored the relationships among stressors, social networks and adjustment for the individual as well as the marital dyad during the prebirth and postbirth phases of the transition to parenthood. Prior to discussing the specific hypotheses that were tested, literature relevant to the study will be reviewed. Six: new '. .* .- ' - ~ "1 ,»-d:~.'_. .' 2 v 3 L4) m‘ " . , -. . 5.. . -. ’1 ".5 51'. . .“"" nuigojcbodism em: a: azavlsas Jhovaon 151992“ ay; gl.uws':i:L:: w: fiflygfi "entiui beds {SI 2 :1 I ;: .g' . 7.1., p.341 .~. .‘I ..’30qq&f-‘3 15139.‘ yetiquiflJnD “22'qenbiw ‘z.v3138 LITERATURE REVIEW Ilolchwix Egansition to Parenthood Stage s'J;-:r The transition to parenthood is one of the primary f' V family life cycle stages that has been described by family theorists (Duvall, 1962; Glick, 1955; Hill, 1949; Rhodes, ,{j 1977; Rodgers 8 Hill, 1964). While the theoretical usefulness of the family life cycle concept has been accepted, some researchers have questioned its empirical utility to predict or explain variance in families' behaviors (Nock, 1979; Spanier, Sauer, & Larzelere, 1979). Others (Tamir & Antonucci, 1981) have found this variable to be useful in assessing developmental change in families. In large part, differences in findings may be due to differences in the specificity with which the stages are defined, as well as in the dependent variables selected. The transition to parenthood is that period when a couple prepares for and includes a first child in their family. This period may be experienced as a crisis by some, or merely as a stressful transition by others (Dyer, 1963; Hobbs, 1965; LeMasters, 1957: Meyerowitz & Feldman, 1966; Rapoport & Rapoport, 1968: Russell, 1974). A number.of changps occur, as the.dyadic family system reagjuets to, _s accommodate a third person. There are‘ changes the rw ltt‘fi transition. The laws; -9€. .t..., :aeez .1636; awn: 1&091..nsmb£sa A L1,; fibfigéggga a .li7tf \; _ a, ;,-. I _ -,)’.)C‘.I’.f§"§ .1 suaqoqei II:* a v A a? . vY .[-mc1 oJSsyb en: as .12330 sspnsdo Imosaoskm 0 names _“r . Ji'r'”'3 1. ‘sv'5“”’: .r‘ .4 r I} I I} 9111' ,4; ,1. aaxpeotations within the family unit, as well as with tiildale outside the family (relatives, friends, etc.). The fallowing sections will discuss the nature of the stressors, support and adjustment that families may experience during this transition period. Stress For couples entering parenthood, stress may be experienced in several areas: 1. Anticipatory Stress. There is some evidence suggesting that a period prior to the infant's birth may be experienced as more stressful in certain respects than the period following birth. Fein (1976) studied men experiencing the transition to parenthood and found significant decreases in general anxiety and infant-related anxiety from four weeks prebirth to six weeks postpartum. He speculated that lack of previous experience with young children, and uncertainty about parental role behaviors caused anxiety. Thus, following the infant's birth, as the men participated in the parental role, anxiety levels decreased. This notion of stress related to uncertainty regarding role expectations needs further investigation. This idea has relevance when considering interventions aimed at parenthood preparation. 2. Stress Specific to the Parenthood Transition. Stress also occurs that is directly related to the ‘ ‘99-]; L1,.“ 1'13. j _- ;;;~ “I"? M’.','., A: ’ ' transition. The level of this; 3.: ‘ r $442 up... .- .4 {In Ii ’ 1m 1737?": .3. ‘ , < - v a :1 f + 1.,r'm :uo 'L:55qxs 9101 w 2' ,,u ;~~ ,‘ .ruo anozzsq ‘ ~~: .’ 5-) sssssrliittl '5 1'“ ’oC;.' - m 2no£3sacsqat 2,- ;‘IT bO-thj ‘1. ‘j .3 3'":‘ -"iih;.°? a4lrasra ddlea .S ‘3 yiaosxib Bi 3.“: sausao unis 00.338 stress may vary depending on factors such as the mother's :health, and the meaning of the pregnancy for the couple. flith the birth, stress may increase, as basic functions of family life expand to meet the infant's needs and constant demands. Eating and sleeping routines may need altering. Space allocation in the home may change to meet the newborn's need for constant care and supervision. Spouses may feel deprived of time and attention as the infant's demands create a drain on their personal resources. The mother may feel less attractive, as her body undergoes physical changes following delivery and, for some, accompanying nursing. Health concerns of the mother or infant may also be present at this time. All of these changes/stress derive from the baby entering the family system (Hobbs, 1965; Miller, 1983). 3. General Life Stress. General life stressors as used in this paper refer to those events that may occur in one's life independent of the baby entering the family system which evoke coping or adaptive behavior. These stressors 4 include job changes, residential moves, deaths or illnesses in family or close friends, and major financial changes. In general populations, these events have been found to be associated with negative change in health, as well as changes in adaptive or coping behaviors (Holmes & Rahe, i967: Lin. anel, Simeons, & Kuo, 1939: see Dean-Innin§s_; $.33??? inseam“! mfmtudies and am: ‘ I " W! 45“" ' 7 --...o_ A r I 5‘ 3 ‘ .‘- ' r A .3 ._ fl. 7 l a l v w . . I i “. | u A .r: I. : 'ssgeeuila g: .. 2‘ ’Qa '35“? Li .1 1 'l I»;r.~ Ringo: at,“ g. a"; ‘tFSn d31w 39315130.‘ EL} Pat ' , ”m .. 3 . ,. ‘ .,>' ' <. :I.‘.-:g/-; Jioivsngd 0;. so tharThis area of research has not been without controversy subsome researchers have raised questions regarding the validity of these measures, and have theoretically questioned the exact nature of the association between these events and illness (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974). At the present time, however, the use of general life events inventories as a measure of stress continue to be used in research in this area. Gorsuch and Key (1974) found high life change events in the last two trimesters of pregnancy to be positively correlated with abnormalities of pregnancy, parturition, and infant status. Gordon, Kapostins, and Gordon (1965) report that in studies of pregnant women, a direct positive predictive relationship was found between past and present stressors and the degree of the mother's emotional reaction postpartum. 4. Role Changes and Role Conflicts. While role changes (e.g., job change) may also be defined as general life stressors, the major role change to parent, and concomitant changes in other roles affected by the parenthood transition, appear to constitute a major area of stress that occurs at this time. Thus, this particular area is being considered separately here. A number of researchers have used role theory tan 2;; understand and explain the changes that been: insinyuthj A vazwvvzrr': ruxnfzw . u = a :rfl J3155e91 io £€15 aid? ‘ ~ 4', I l I M d .g l‘ .‘ ‘0 fi' ‘5.’ ‘l I" ”L 71 .v t l' I. C ' anoint? ’ Hill - - '- aasrlaovno: bus ,7 . bOCnf‘L...":5/2w—.j 19'. 1 Hate: r , _ ‘ ‘L 1 fir." LC" 3:: .-.;J 34L: In euuooo .QIOd ylsseisqsa bsxsbrsnoo '. . g .7 V. :1- . . ‘J I g .4- V _ ‘ p -. £ . v ,.a., .. ’3'. y 9] 3"” {If 544:4504) ". ' 8 II 2' ffl daflik‘it may be the number of roles that an individual teacupies rather than the particular family life cycle stage "1 'itself which may account for changes in adjustment measures in family life cycle stage studies. Colletta (1981) found ‘that adolescent mothers who were able to break the day's routine (usually by working) were warmer and less rejecting of their infants. Colletta suggests that their participation in more than the parental role was experienced as helpful. Role conflict is one factor that has been addressed. Rossi (1968) noted that cultural values influence one's definition of the adult role, as well as one's definition of the parental role. Traditionally, for the woman, being a mother and raising children was synonymous with the adult woman's primary role, whereas for the man, his role as worker was his primary adult role, with his role as father secondary. As cultural definitions change, providing j alternative role definitions, the individual‘s role expectations for both the adult and parental role may conflict and problems may arise. 0n the dyadic level, V— spouses may have different expectations of the other's roles which may create additional conflict (Chadwick, Albrecht, & Kunz, 1976: Tharp, 1963). Pein (1976) studied couples four weeks before and six .flbsks after the birth of their first:cnild. He found ;;,-;;f‘, _Mon"‘f,_;um adjusted to postpartum if? we. ‘ . .. .v *.~‘_ u-‘ 3' h’ > i. 74 .,‘ ‘ .. .1 I 0‘ ‘I, .- _:. "V 'V‘" 'l‘.‘ I! .fiw 119831 ;;msfl n1 .._521 .qusdT (d¥Qi .SJUH sue: aslquoo baud“ (“2.1.1. his! _ . 5'. ~‘3.’ .. .wr .. .'¢ .. A 4 ‘j _1 1exwmn 11w: .‘.§tbldvinmer or the non-traditional father who shared more “greater difficulty in postpartum adjustment-7 gaggiiy in childcare and housework. Those who experienced greater difficulty in adjustment were unsure of the extent to-which they wanted to be involved with either the childcare or the breadwinner role. The wives of these men also shared this ambivalence or unsureness of role definition. Wandersman, Wandersman, and Kahn (1980) found that self-perceived comfort in one's parental role was more important than equality in division of labor at home in predicting postpartum adjustment. Similar findings were also found in a longitudinal study by Hock (as reported in Power & Parke, 1984). Role conflict/ambiguity thus appears to be associated with poorer adjustment. Komarovsky and Phillips (1967) looked at the influence of socioeconomic status on role models and role definition. They suggest that middle class mothers may turn to experts, other mothers, and friends as role models while lower class mothers may turn to their parents as a positive reference group. They also suggest that those who are upwardly mobile "‘ may reject parental models. Findings by Gordon, Kapostins, and Gordon (1965) support this latter idea. They found that couples whose occupation and education were higher than their parents' occupation and education, tended to have ‘N%_ 5' ,i" on: ' ‘Icntel healt.h. 59:14: Isupport has .g, {.33 : 4©5~23f'57u a; 7 [F"U""Z If. *‘_" ~L: - ::.u :u- 3. 7=f*;e benzubs bun 131001 .( ' L ‘-~—'2_-* ~-.; 32 tenniVDQOI , , . 7 :. ; {itsupe 1515319 3””.31'1‘ ‘ I ' f ' ' ‘7’ I r :5 V .19“ fit; ‘ ’ :7 .1. . . . finchwum 5““ “03160030 'uasuq nod: ~r~ . ‘V " . ‘ ' a 4 ’- ‘- x-~-..ng~,,, + , . : - ... .. -‘ "I: ”1“". OJ-Z' 10 ‘ '“0lli59rsone researchers suggest that the number of .Tvbtithattone'occupies is a major factor influencing. 'hfljnttlontv however, there is no consensus as to the Illeét10n~of the influence - whether more roles are helpful, liffewer roles. Role conflict is another variable addressed. It may arise in several areas: difficulties between expectations for various roles that one holds (e.g., adult male/female role vs. father/mother role), V differences between spouses in their expectations of the other's parental role, and differences in the parental role of one's own parent and the role that one adopts oneself. It appears that the presence of role conflict has been associated with greater difficulty in adjustment. 1h Stressors discussed have included anticipatory stress, ,; stage specific stress, general life stress, and stress related to the assumption of the parental role. The literature also points to social support as a factor that may help alleviate stress or that may protect or buffer an individual from stressors. This literature will be discussed below. Social Su ort/Social Network To date, most of the clinical research on social networks and individual functioning has looked at the -93..) .'...--. . ‘1“; .r“v;'.‘ ital area of social support and its effget.‘.‘ _12L Hacdersman, «aldez.as . xah liftinlgj 3,44 #‘fi Vninoiaonu! lsubsvrhni has axzovisa 01 Li aisaoessasx omoa .80 3 havoc sac and: " .1v.3WCd zinsmdlfl :w 10 notjoextb' ": rewea IO , V , .— - , .. «— u ‘- . x — . ’ ' A ‘ 7 .. .< _, ‘ : A it? Jaom ‘93”: Q1" . I -. I: ‘-. \. 0-,‘!"> 3’5", .I_ ‘a 11 IWflI"°I ' ~:*,:g»w i or instrumental assistance, or the helpful, bflltflbl fugitive aspects of a relationship. It has also been used -:n:w¢ gangster to the presence of helpful others. In general, in ‘av: i the literature, the definition of social support has 7 remained vague, with inferences made about the helpful ' impact of certain persons or acts. Hopefully, by using a social network perspective that describes the contacts per se, a better understanding of functionally helpful contacts will emerge. In the literature, social support has been found to be associated with fewer symptoms of physical and psychological distress for individuals experiencing stressful events (Beels, 1981; Caplan, 1964, 1974; Caplan, Mason, & Kaplan, 1965; Cassel, 1976; Cobb, 1976; LaRocco, House, a French, 1980: Lin, Ensel, Simeone, & Kuo, 1979; Moos & Mitchell, 1982: Turner, 1981). Specifically with regards to new parents, one's d3 involvement in a network of social relationships has been posited as a major factor mediating between the stressors 'fit and changes involved in the parenthood transition and adjustment (Colletta, 1981, 1983; Colletta & Lee, 1983; Gladieux, 1978: Gordon, Kapostins, & Gordon, 1965; Lipson, 1982; Minds, Shosenberg, Marton, Thompson, Ripley, &.Bu£ngm 1980; nonbeck a Tilden, 1983: Nuckolls, Causal, s.app§an, 'wa~t &" to ‘~.n;'3"nz Lbjnomuzitni 10 Isnolsoee ’mr — . 7 7 u.-:il-i e i; crie‘es 3V11160q r 7‘ v - $2.... y.. “i‘ 7‘: ‘52,)! G: ‘ » 1 12.44, i . i ( f . y ‘; Li?” A‘ ( PF. 73‘ - at ,5 l‘u \: :1 4 r -r :55; , need ted a:v 330639135 an; brie "C11”? .7 .‘ igfigi .93»! i. . 7‘ 1“ ... "£.' \flGL‘T.“ .. 1‘ 93):; "ff H‘ _ ' “ ~'— \ ( 051%” .piadnsaoda \gbnjn 13891 .. “gum use: .aobl ,. It 1" «flit. ,’\ ‘,.. 4 ', - . _ '|~ . "_ __ V ' .\l .‘ .4 ‘ it 3 issdzou (0821 .‘-~' I, .M J'JV )3.- . ‘3‘ jug“? . , “ 7 ’ hhydeharacteristic of the abusive family (Cochran & Brassard, 1979; Elmer, 1981; Garbarino & Gilliam, 1980: Shapiro, 1979). Gordon et al. (1965) found that for new mothers ”the lack of practical present-day assistance, emotional support, and encouragement appeared to be related to continuing emotional difficulty lasting at least 6 months" (p. 163). Lack of help and support from the husband due to his frequent absence from the home, and the unavailability of close relatives for baby-care help and advice were two significantly important items in predicting postpartum emotional difficulty in their study. Fein (1976) found that family/relatives' support and work support were important factors in men's postpartum adjustment. Colletta (1981) found adolescent mothers with high levels of support to be more affectionate with their children, while those with low levels tended to be more hostile, indifferent, and rejecting. Emotional assistance from members of one's own family was the most important factor, with emotional assistance from partner or spouse next in importance. Colletta notes: Without the capacity to develop supportive emotional relationships she is unable to share ambivalent feelings about motherhood, fails to receive reinforce- ment for her child-rearing practices, and lacks encouragement for her own flagging esteem (p.196)..v i-i-finossi (1968) proposes that social isolatiesreeggup t ”sternum mother“ meiomveims I 3911‘.“ - .— .'.'.'"“"‘7‘ z) , l y .'-“ ‘ I 0: 21 is‘ ~salcidoszq Q tIipDIli 7‘: j '1 4.17 ‘1 {1: 3311932535“: m o g-‘e. _biseasia mu m: (“:2533. s.uszu a; sea .qzfle. :c;.sie' .bcoassnzom anode apnllss) niasez- blido red :01 anon avo ten :01 sass-psauoons 4 “JV-He. .. I . ,~ £31”! V @fiflleumw1977) states that parents' capacity to give to young ~i3n5 I chlidren depends on a responsive caring environment to “refuel“ the adults. Thus, on both theoretical and empirical levels, social support has been positively related to well-being for a number of different sample pOpulations. Operational definitions of social support vary greatly, however, and there are major questions which remain unanswered regarding the definition of social support, and the nature of the relationship between stress, support, and adjustment (Andrews, Tennant, Hewson, & Vaillant, 1978; Schaefer, Coyne, & Lazarus, 1981; Thoits, 1982). Not all research findings posit "positive"‘results from the presence of "helpful” others. Literature investigating the relationship between social support and schizophrenia indicates that the presence of others may constitute stress for the individual. Some early family theorists studied families of schizophrenics and noted overinvolvement and 7 intrusiveness by certain family members that inhibited the 9%: schizophrenic patient from disengaging from the family and establishing a separate identity (Brown, Birley, & Wing, 1972; Wynne, Ryckoff, Day, & Hirsch, 1958). Vaughn and Leff (1981) more recently found the best single predictor of the schizophrenic's relapse within nine months after hospitek - dischargn.ro be the extent to which a key relattfiiflmil .‘ WW_m living up! . ' Vim?“ :‘3 ; :15. - - sz " > 0- S a .0 . .i. . wan‘ aeflrsfia (VIEW) 8.“ III"\ 4‘ ~‘ 7 , - ' ' “- .‘ V- V _?,19€‘-‘Jh P93511119 -u 9:: “Isuiei' 11' "‘qquz .‘4 ‘. M ii ; i i Q .‘ s1 " HT. ‘ .1 1" ’ Q ~ 2:! L>'T‘"-.. - ._ ‘ ‘~ -c-_:.:.v _ m.” H —-.. .. - .su; gimuzvfl? .ualj'ffi; :S'x'E'I V { Qiiflii 38rd ad: Lanai yliaeos: 910m (1891) r _r' Odin aIthw seq-tea e’sineiaqoxiaae , -‘ . ,4?.‘9fififiufv'pdiitiveradjustment. :2 ,. m Psi“; 3f! 14 Hafihttempts to establish contact and offer unsolicited 05 "‘Looking at another psychiatric population, Brown and murris (1978) studied the relationship between social support and depression in women. They found that social Support appeared to "protect" women against depression, however, these "supported" women also tended to experience symptoms of anxiety which the depressed, less supported women tended not to have. Thus, the impact of social support on adjustment may be multidimensional. The simplistic notion of social support as helpful, or that more support is better, is being reevaluated (McFarlane, Norman, Streiner, & Ray, 1984). The focus of research is shifting from the simple study of social support to the general study of one's social connectedness, one's social network (Hammer, 1981; Mitchell & Trickett, 1980; ‘55 Wellman, 1981). There has been an increased interest in :ti studying the constraints and stresses associated with network ties, that is, the dysfunctional influences. Horowitz and Wolock (1981) cite issues of obligation, guilt, and dependence as being possible costs involved in relationships. Social network analysis provides a means to operationalize and empirically investigate an individual's social-connections and the ways in which they ney~helfi*95.r . . 1.45:" '*’- #3. ' .1 I.‘ 1h «g ' . _.‘ \— . ‘ v V . individuals. .— p, fa f ‘-"‘7~“m‘ r.‘ r x .7 :_ » , - 'zlil . . .-. .Ju ." ‘ . ‘ J“ , '_‘-‘ - : A‘I. ., {—3 ' -"-'\- - - V-“ > . . f-QHQJ‘ 3““ 3'» ‘.,~T.l-“.‘ i-..g:‘§:~.- -.nv ciqmaéia bets.” .soivbl ::I':_n3.1 , V , _ ;. . .4, 21153 1L :que :4v2 .‘2‘ s, 0 . .L' *1. .rrgc. i. l .slius .nozibskific *» w ni bsvicval 5;: ( . 1 H : V 'J’u} ' ‘L ’ 1V0: ':°V'<' ~ . - ‘ m ‘3 d‘K-J" ‘ H. 3.1 . Need, .15; :3e;.1n;".".3!u"%‘1 aileoiziqms bar asilsncijsieqo ' ‘4' 9‘ Ittv on: has one "?-%"~est‘ 1 " ' y renounce islaoe '=4 15 “I "j netnolt‘becomes clear that adjustment may occur in a number of afleas, as well as at varying times. In general, most parents experience the transition to parenthood as stressful at times, but find new ways to adjust to the changes, and the family establishes a new equilibrium (Campbell, 1975; Barry, 1976). Power and Parke (1978) review a number of longitudinal studies investigating the transition to parenthood. They report that mothers' anxiety and depression increased in the first postpartum month until the seventh month at which time symptoms decreased. Husband's conciliatory behavior was also found to lessen at four months postpartum, a time when wives' dependency needs were increasing. Thus, maladjustment can be defined in a number of ways. On the individual level, it may be the presence of emotiOnal M“ upset (Gordon, Kapostins, & Gordon, 1965), or depression (Colletta, f981), or anxiety (Fein, 1976). On the HIII ( Ali ‘ interpersonal level, it can be defined as parental rejection (Colletta, 1981), marital maladjustment (Belsky, Spanier, & (H Rovine, 1983; Campbell, 1974; Nock, 1981; Waldron & Routh, 1981), poor parent-child relationship (Belsky, Gilstrap, & Rovine, 1984). Thus, in assessing maladjustment, it is important to consider the multidimensional nature of the » cf: date ‘8 - concept, and exactly which dimensions are being eeL ‘ 3‘ - ff. flxmine ’33:: ;|_\I‘9_' 1‘ '(S(" .‘J-x' am: ‘aj .‘.: n-J.Vidua$ GP. ‘3‘ .jg 3 whidh individuals. . .p¥--q, - . 01M? . s.- 81 asmcosd 311 ‘ '1‘7.‘ (‘5 ‘8591. I, ,.T’ h.~e cansaeq \ 2 I f) g-' £7 ‘1‘ 501::“1é7 lar“" J .1sitfiq% ~l‘ It}; . ,. i ‘ ' .1 L ' r ..; .ai‘d’l‘ .(ue; .suzlv-Jfi J'iytbbinm pu' ans-t1, 3. ‘:_ V*Q\:lfi a , . _E‘H:O£enenlbiaiun 9d: Iotiasoo.o:_ ‘ .7 16 f: “-9AB noted above, social network analysis may provide a a la iithbdological approach to investigate both the supportive ‘2: '*=3@ ‘ as well as the stress-inducing social influences on a couple as it moves through the transition to parenthood. A brief review of the social network literature will follow with a discussion of specific network variables that may be especially relevant. Social Network Theory Social network theory and research was initially carried on in the fields of anthropology and sociology (Barnes, 1954; Mitchell, 1969). Relatively recently, network theory has been used more extensively in social psychology, psychology, and psychiatry (Beels, 1981; Cohen & Sokolovsky, 1980; Gottlieb, 1981; Henderson, 1977; Llamas, Pattison, & Hurd, 1981). The definition of a social network ranges from the Th inclusion of all persons an individual may possibly contact/know of by name, to a more limited range of intimates or confidants. In this paper, a social network will refer to those persons with whom an individual reports 99;;— engaging in activities or exchanges. Social network research has been primarily descriptive, inveStigating network characteristics of different sample . r_:a 'A“]‘I,3 I:L' WELD z-c. i 19 I. ": "-L‘d.‘v '.‘, ,EL'K ;_ VA A 3‘ g f :1 sauna Jimmie»: pnijspijaeval ~ '5'gm’. “1"!”{3’1 C ' . '. '-/ 'l- ‘ ‘7 '15:; . . _ . . . ,< 'LA” ~ 'u‘a,‘ 'Jffiggfi@fi§,5aex), types of crises or problems, and network {taristics. .i(c°hem$9°i‘1 network theory describes network variables that m;q3;,. . ‘ SEFQ=§°th internal to and external to the system. Internal u“ ' i ‘ 'gpfinprk characteristics include: structural properties, interactional properties, linkage functions, and subjective ‘qualities. External characteristics include developmental changes in networks over time. These variables will be 3;: discussed below. .. Internal Network Characteristics A. Structural Properties Structural properties or characteristics provide information on the interaction potential within a network. at: - Five characteristics will be discussed: size, density, -0..-‘A <_ _sm. . '_. clusters, network composition, and geographic proximity. sweat - 1. Size. Network size, typically the number of a persons in contact with the individual, has been the primary focus of social network research. The operational . r s.“ : 1 . 1‘ ~. «a: ‘1 .Lfehfiev 7' definition of a network contact, as well as data collection methods vary a great deal. The type of contact may be face to face, by telephone, or by written message. The subject may be asked to specify only those persons of importance to him/her, or to list everyone known by name. 7 lute.“ ‘,.;>.-‘. .- ‘ 7 1» . 7‘ " >415.“ “9‘37 fiasearch in the fields of psychiatry and‘:x -‘-‘ C~ “n, LiS' f r fUInhétgd ’1 ,f netwo‘k site’s: a :., 75‘ I « ( ~ " ”.7 ".&39““' (‘WIV— i .1“;LJ;*F :; -a;;:x is awqjj .Ixal .338 .* 57211919 7',V‘)l ; H njod sag fizowjan ’ ‘1d‘fli ~49 _c _ ,, Y 1 R0 ax'!.§r_‘"‘3&3 :24.“ 7:. ”7,1:‘3; _ ‘ 19.1,; ... "UH ‘ ‘ ... .4 x' $3.".C yd “Hon! enemas ~ 9 18 vflmmfih'e Sokolovsky, 1978; Froland, Brodsky, Olson, & ssawatt, 1979; Hammer, 1980; Henderson, 1977; Mitchell & Trickett, 1980; Sokolovsky, Cohen, Berger, & Geiger, 1978). In a study comparing networks of normals (lacking psychiatric treatment involvement), neurotics, and schizophrenics, Pattison, DeFrancisco, Wood, Frazier, and Crowder (1975) found psychotics' intimate personal networks to average 4-5 persons, neurotics' networks 10-12 persons, and normals' networks 20-30 persons. Methodologically, many questions can be raised about the validity and reliability of these findings.‘ Paper and pencil tests were often used to determine the size of the network from self-report. Only on occasion have attempts been made to cross validate information by sampling network persons listed. In addition, many studies have only been interested in the mere existence of a relationship, ignoring its affective quality. Emotional impairment has usually been defined by an individual's participation in a treatment program, thus involving a process of selection. These are just a few of the methodological questions that arise. In addition, there are issues of instrumentation, and ‘ 5235 interviewer bias (see Abbey, Abramier 8' caplan, 1&3! ‘ .Wwww 198mm mass -- " .;. : [Aw-4" J nsta’ ‘, .‘ ‘gxbvtia '1z1311T 1 hr-.¢" . ~ ‘ :- ft: (7 JHSHMEI: I- it 5.1!. - i : \--_J ._ ‘l pas seed? .noz:~b _‘.‘x',.:.._' #1 ’9fl135 35d: anolrss : .»-.n~ *1: . lyr‘ ; 'l > .‘z .2!- IsfimwaIJOJHSNUIJan; 30 asuaai 915 axed: .nOLJibbb " ‘ { yak-such w ‘ :9", ‘ 1 .a'. r l a. .. 3“ " I I A»... a, 7- ‘ - .u .yedgf&e:a)‘asld.Iswpivaodui 19 .‘dbnsggnoity. Density refers to the degree to which esn‘aialllb'v ' ' fi'Wifl a network know each other. This variable implies ’ drawn I incalnnnication potential within the network. This .1um2 1 potential may have either a positive or negative impact. -H_t aenaity is calculated by the formula: # actual linkages (pairs of people in network Density a that know each other) i total possible linkages (maximum number of pairs in network) (see Boissevain, 1974; Cubitt, 1973; and Niemeijer, 1973, for more detailed discussions of the density variable). Other terms that have been used synonymously with density are: tightly vs. loosely knit, open vs. closed mesh (Barnes, 1972). Studies examining density have studied it both at the individual as well as at the dyadic level. On the _‘1 l( individual level, Craven and Wellman (1973) found that as density of an individual's network increased, the l‘A-u Eel-v' availability of support and affective, intangible resources from close friends and relatives also increased. This was an; ,2‘ .i ,5 -. true especially when trust was an important issue. They speculated that higher density led to increased communication about the concerns and problems of the subject; thus, aid and support were more readily available. .-‘3 Further studies suggest that the effects of density " £110 CUM: ( 3‘ ' ~;be multidimensional. Hirsch (1979) looked atvév;’ r . t. 5-, l . . . . quf’m- '1,‘ t'r't ‘ . .‘1 ('1‘ F_‘ I' '~' I 81-11“: {1 ,2 ~:_ ad: Jr '_ L . ‘ \WFVV-' 91 ;‘.";'-}_' \;:.’.enefl .Elanoa ' - h;”“ iiudjsn a at I :1 -. a n *;axnum6097 - ~ immosoq. 1 {liensfl . “(3 E; ‘ f : fi‘.ngwmu3 uni ~._«;Q‘J% L112. 121... \eu‘t: :333Cdua I. J“? 3.1992“ ‘Mugszun 20 ' I that'denser networks were associated with greater quantities of support, but with less satisfying emotional support than the emotional support associated with less dense networks. In subsequent studies, Hirsch (1980) found that high density networks might also be experienced as stressful, or unsupportive of change. He looked at two groups of women undergoing major life transitions - recent younger widows, and women over 30 resuming full-time undergraduate studies. 1 In both groups, he found higher density networks to be associated with lower self-esteem, less perceived support and less successful adaptation. He speculated that there was normative pressure to maintain existing roles in highly dense networks, thus making them less supportive in some situations demanding major role changes. Thus, the nature of the role changes and demands may influence the extent to which a dense network is experienced as supportive or stressful. When the crisis involves a major psychosocial transition in which the individual loses his capacity to fulfill... role obligations (as in long-term unemployment) or loses a crucial member of his support network (as in bereavement of a spouse), a small dense network may entrap the individual within a limited set of normative expectations, information, and social contacts, rather than fulfill his need to make a transition to new social roles (Walker, MacBride, & Vachon, 1977, p. 26). Bott (1957) was one of the first researchers to look at the combined social network of the marital couple and t0 use . .*. - > . . , :‘zttii i‘ 1193‘}, It - ‘ ‘ the network concept analytically. She examined the ~ {1}“‘»-' (2&1 16d 1" j; . ...n:'.-~4 .;'»:L::‘:L'.1\:'{e.; . ‘ — r' ' - '31 enameled '1’. . Y ; I . :\'-'F.dL" fl, -r,w30fl £51303 bx; .c~::- -511 I i I r :3 salsa». s: {1.99.1 ._ 1 ' ” . 1. 5” uififill—SW; “r‘{:>7 ' » ‘“ '7. w. ‘ " . L ‘ 1»; . .3 T." w‘mb . . . . Lf A" ‘ ‘ ' k I .1 3—4 A.‘ V . (3i .1 \7 \ It. can! 9113 is 9410 saw (YE?!) 3:108 p. " _v e. 1‘ e -. . V v 9... - _ . ’. .. .1 , _ - 0:3.- u.“' ‘H . ."- , w“ A-“ with highly connected, close knit social networks had a higher degree of separateness in married role patterns than those in networks that were loose knit and independent of each other. Results of this study have since been questioned (Kapferer, 1973; Turner, 1967). Kapferer (1973) examined the separate networks of spouses in two urban African families. Despite the fact that the size of the networks and joint densities were roughly comparable, the pattern of role relationships was different. This difference was explained by other network features: the degree of clustering, and the degree of cross-linkages (extent to which the spouses were directly linked to the same individuals in the other's networks, and the extent to which network members in one spouse's network were linked to those in the other‘s network). Several researchers have further differentiated density into measures that describe densities of different areas of the family's network. In Hirsch's study of women in role transition (1980), he examined a density factor termed the nuclear family-friendship (NFzF) boundary. This is the number of friends outside the family known by a spouse and/or child in the family as a proportion of the'tetal: number. of ,W!’§E¥3 relationships...: 1er z ‘ L». f": I " ’ ‘ .J‘ '\. 1 “ v‘ - w ’ ' ‘ >‘_ _ _z ‘ V . _f. 'v :‘,--" 1:... it 7‘? .7 . v. A- - V 1“‘.93’ g‘r ~ "1 -. g - 1 . , , . r ~_ "~»-..\' . vs ,1, _ i. ,1,. -1 2r :--1-. . 1 2‘ "waw‘sd quenolaabea V'vg a'?7 Ispntnoo '.VT H ”DIV . janold .7 1.10 ~~7V ,1 In? 1 .Q h is d. 1') 1 1% «U 1 'v‘. ll ~; . ~ . ) w’ a) ‘7 (1 2L i j YIItRH. 7,. _ 1%: RI 3: amaze 313113., , L . l-‘ , 910‘; CI "utvizuw on: lemme: 10:33: -- ; :L H q.., 3 q . , u : V 'W‘f.‘-’1m 'Y;: J‘ 'I‘V’i' - 7.5:; 1' .’ . '. ‘3 ‘- 4__. ; \v [anJV ‘.,3 y . "‘ ' ‘ ‘~ '2- ~::!:‘-A I j,$ég?-r f 3' nwonx ' :'~‘ ~** " * ’ ' ..'n~1-¢fifi «‘31 x1 “01 sh. eflaluo remain} in zedmun ._ -’fi~lv" ”I r~:;.. aioqoxq s as (ll-53 as: .h, vg -V, f A 5‘ w .501 ' -. .. ‘ I t . .- ; , - v wg‘g:,fiu_{i_ 1;, I “*3? ~ n1 bliss zo\bne a bfii. . }‘ E~ 8 8' 1‘ I I! B 8' 8 E .4. I 9' 3' 2 -8 3 'L‘ I . 22 :{grvwdlflnewith denser NFzF boundaries had greater 'Vfigflptelltology, poorer mood, and lower self esteem than ‘ (libee”with less dense NF:F boundaries. He explained this ‘16 relatiOnship by referring to the problems the women in his ”¥ samples were facing. They were looking to the establishment ‘ of new roles outside the family sphere, and thus, the lower » density boundary may have been more supportive, or less constraining, as they made that transition. For the individual making the transition to parenthood, the focus of the tasks is primarily within the family, thus, a denser NF:F boundary may be more beneficial. M005 and Mitchell (1982) suggest that support may be needed where the source of stress is; thus, familial stresses and strains may be most affected by sources of support in the family, or extended family. Hirsch (1981) comments that major life changes call for developing reinforcing social roles and activities that are '3 appropriate to the current life circumstances. For persons ;, experiencing the transition to parenthood, networks that are shared by family members may be more supportive of the new family-oriented task demands. This idea is supported in research by Pain (1976) where he found that.after the birth of children men became more family centered and saw théfi§31 “in“? as the primary source of happinegg, ..-- .: #7.: 5 ' Isa»; ; .15-3:)3famsrmaa-rxrammrevfl‘m .. 17 e;.'__' <,n?\.," ::1:»: .ypofnfsloquQU ~2ni 2:1w good, (i ' t1?!0155103 V"‘v-' E‘XQMQS w 10 f ._I E r‘.‘ V. M V V J. I l ; ‘1; ’ 3, —:. 1 #2 »., a ~— ' hr :" ' y I - 9»: F1. was 95H .‘3 '- - . . N . ~ . ' 4': A. V. ni 1933-04'3Lié. .;L ~:»‘-. I“ l n 3 We!” 193-15 325;. .-;-. I - 1 m ,,7 ' ‘-~“ 0‘11; 8193 {a dwznubaz ”a banana.) - ‘r “ . . (“moi 910m emsosd new nerbiido 10 film“, lo scenes heeded ed: as (Lt-e! t': ‘ :fizv ~ ‘Vv’l . <. ”are; 23 Irin one's network having a greater density of G's-om) connections with each other than any of them has with my ”mu Others (Hammer, 1980). Clusters are often found in (TQE »13J9: particular activity fields, for example, at work, or in ‘nft: voluntary associations. Hammer (1981) notes that a typical network has 5-6 clusters. In general, research findings point to a positive association between involvement in many clusters outside the 1* family and a high level of functioning in daily life. Hammer found schizophrenics' networks to have fewer clusters, fewer connections between members of different clusters (spans), and more members supported only by the subject when compared with normals' networks. ‘ Straus (1980) looked at persons from the general population experiencing high levels of stress and studied rate of child abuse. He found that those participating in a ‘1fi number of different activities had average or lower than WV average rates of abuse than those who did not. In a study of networks of the general population, 3% Phillips (1981) found the number of activities in which subjects were involved was the best predictor of well being (avowed happiness) for women. (Network size was the best predictor for men.) She also called this variable. “engage; of: social izing. "-. Save and. Geeken. (as .mtedzv mm a; V .' . ~31. " war?- . .f‘ 7 Weiv', _, ‘ '15,. ‘ “we WM. Spend , l. .\‘ .v'”, ~. . , > . .101. -_‘»,H‘ _~ ‘ '3: ‘I . i" . . ‘ . ( f7 \" ».73-.,v39n 8'91); at I! - '“5— m‘-i 2:0;3oonn zermsfll 3 ;:KUD!3 .s:nulov “:4)... »s¢: saw 2:13 in :‘;' H. . -, . - -C-:‘-\. fru'. LA~¢(’.".‘tl '7 ‘ 3. Q; 3 b9'{- . ., . y, f- d ‘ “3 0th 9dr. (.nem :53 Iojozbsxq :9 =7 s :‘ g‘;~-»'& <‘ i.i,‘ tfiqu-‘f'; .1637. 24 ‘yliflflalt(ydung children. They suggest that having more than 'w5.[ onevcdcial context in which an individual participates, such as work in addition to home, provides alternative sources for rewarding social interactions. . 4. Network Composition. Two structural variables that also merit attention concern the composition of the network: the kin:non-kin ratio, and the presence of peers in the same family life cycle stage. Kin:Non-Kin Ratio. The ratio of kin:non-kin has been examined in several social network analyses. Pattison, DeFrancisco, Wood, Frazier, and Crowder (1975) found schizophrenics' networks to be composed primarily of family members. Straus (1980) found that among persons experiencing a high level of stress, those whose networks were comprised primarily of kin had a high probability of severe domestic violence. a Often, network density and kin ratio are confounded, given the fact that family members are apt to know one another. Network size may also affect the ratio, in particular, as size decreases. It is important to keep in mind that these studies report associations between factors and do not imply causation. Given the obligatory nature of kinship ties, family may be the only network members who or! available to provide long-term assistance. Richardson and- .:' b .6 1:. laganltlsv9 323.9aper cited incaottliehtcafl14!!_fi:éig” . 7 a 5.. fr. - - »~__,_ ‘—.‘ ‘n ‘ . 9"“.1. ‘ ..__18~k~lngg Bglsky a‘ a Rpiiflqf-‘ut‘ ' ‘ Cm .K’, . 1'? -- "' 07‘ 7-. V—-;:')L . :1: {_a‘. ~¢f4‘ air. L i f l a!(‘:?":.;‘ 3975:”3‘“ Xifizth.‘ -~ A '9 {1'24} 5-,, ‘ i “an: w “303.39“ . fi.‘ ..§”“’ Ju yam vi.me) 123': oidenii 3§étes nz.3-9“9[ Oblvoaq 03 on“! ma. "2.". ,_-- ,- v’ _ ‘ I. ' . _-.' .: _ ’ ,_‘( ~< . MP '1" , - ‘vfi—Rflfihu . . 2‘4: 2" @flitne.t1984) found greater contact with families of origin 25 ~snuund~the onset of the parenting experience. geer Group/Same Family Life Cycle Stage. Network 4! members who are also experiencing the transition to parenthood, or who have preschool children, may provide important, supportive network functions for new parents. Litwak and Szelenyi (1969) comment that friendship is often based on similarities in sex, age, stage of the family life cycle, income, and education. They see the role of friends as helping persons to cope with changing life conditions. Theoretically, the literature on social support suggests that for persons undergoing transitions, social support may be limited by the extent to which others in their networks can identify with and empathize with their situation (White, 1974, as cited in Wandersman, Wandersman, I‘W d Kahn, 1980). New parents need a reference group to provide information, skills and appropriate norms. This is most easily found in one's own extended family or in a peer group ; of other parents. While other parents may be similarly . Jig stressed, the perception of one's own experiences as y, normative helps affirm one's self-esteem and identity,asbgr£ _,:§:m parent. , . . .,f‘a. ; v-~ -r In .theestudies resortedabensnaichufllgg ' It .‘ I n \— . saw-ohms l_/ 1:" ~,w 1.. . , ‘ . ‘ ,fu'v : .x. balsa} ()891” ' ‘-::no ed) i ) quaig gmug ,JI..' 4, '. 'Yllfiil’mfr ,'~_‘.' "3": K -_’_ g; “3 “9936: -9! . . . s ‘9 1W viz-1131's aqied summon 26 .n‘ _ "guuuymlition towards those persons with similar experiences ;and.£amilies with preschool children. - Gladieux (1978) reports that satisfaction with the pregnancy experience for mothers in their second trimester -was associated with networks comprised of other pregnant mothers. In the third trimester, of importance were persons who had already gone through the birth experience, other parents who could serve as role referents. For men, other parents were important network members throughout the three trimesters of pregnancy. Thus, it would be expected that presence of others in the same family life cycle stage would be experienced as supportive and would facilitate adjustment for new parents. 5. Geographic Proximity. Geographic proximity refers to the actual distance between residences of network members. This variable assumes importance in conjunction with a consideration of: (a) type of need (emergent, long or short term); (b) availability of resources to contact members (money, time, effort); and (c) availability of means of communication and transportation. For the new parent, a number of different demands may face him/her ranging from the concrete tasks of feeding, cleaning diapers, to intangible issues such as loss of one’s sense of freedom, independence, or feeling older»; ‘t' ignilhs referred to above,.Litwal snd-Sselenyitt%S£l \— V :=:4‘ ebzhwmg nojsj ‘ w‘ A'Ii'iill., ‘4‘; 1'3; LOIS .0 — --a y nsnpsiq ’-(:..: 3" 3:0m (id .f o k 1,. I M 1 9 é ‘ ? 3159M to ”;-..g; a 15m chassis: ';:’(9‘;--';;_> ? . . “1 ., . {to J; f! -L.‘,. ...\ ' . .. _ ‘ _‘m t‘. ”1 Rafa r,“ . .~{!._ v _‘:_.; IJ A; [L‘- Y $11” .‘ .21“! “7);” 9953 as done some: stdjpnsmz o: \a‘ISQisIb pninseio 141-5.“ ‘° ”9“.“ t Johan 30* I I ~.-_-,-, 1..) ‘- "o "a. ,e. {"4" _7 ' ii: .”‘::iféEncies with family being relied upon for long term .fiffiblgggi. Proximity of family and close friends may be ' . i?”— i:§3?££ht for new parents who are in need of respite child éiié; day to day emotional support, and opportunities to socialize that do not require much effort (time, energy), given the continual drain on the parents' resources by the infant. Neighbors and relatives in the area may be particularly important for the new parent who may be confined to the house to accomodate the infant's eating and sleeping schedule. This becomes especially true for families with minimal financial resources with which they can hire caretakers, or access other social and material resources that are available farther away. Belsky and Rovine (1984) looked at proximity of a new parent's family of origin in relation to the provision of in childcare services, material and emotional support, and ‘W quantity of contact. They found services and contact ‘4 affected by proximity, but not material and emotional 3% support. Their sample population was predominantly white, middle class with an average family income of $20,560. The provision of material or financial support may have enabled the young family to acquire child care services through $3 other means. Clearly, the socioeconomic statue o!“tfi‘ : giiily is an important factor influenciué wtvr .' ; ‘ ‘ . ~ . 7' ,; v.1nui n1iw aqz:nepael.' ,7. .. 7. . .- _-2 g If: ‘ ‘ “~’."7'5 >3M9Im ’T\ ‘, .- 1n; :Jsaaoqel V.‘ V 'v " Do I 93‘: I _ -“ H lfiDOB : ..‘ :9V!D . . . .4 . . ‘\ , V F (I f l :L V] A I’; I. ’11. _ ’rt M. ii, '2 _ J .7 ' L! .u'J)~:' ‘ .832.058 to omcwr_ u x. y V , v‘ ‘ ‘~‘ " ’ ."' 1 ‘ .nh;m l , . JXKIL "14“) .Efi"‘.'io"n,iJ "U‘, ‘ vr.‘ " - - I 3 7 a..ltf, Iv ngiajv01q Qflplvxee eras hLing exivpss c: vlzms? pnuov ed: , Manning was. «1.85013 «me. we .. ‘ («"3" :23!) ‘ . . ,‘ ",3. .7 V“... 28 "" inggrzctional Properties M5540" in him interactional characteristics will be discussed below - single vs. multi-stranded relationships, and ‘Tsjziqnx \ 1 ~ A .5‘ reciprocity/directional flow. These characteristics provide I .‘ information on the nature of the linkage itself. 1. giggle-stranded vs. Multi-stranded Linkage. This variable refers to the number of role relations an individual holds with another person (Boissevain, 1974). For example, an individual may relate as a co-worker, a friend, and cousin to the same person. This would be a multi-stranded linkage. Kapferer (1973) used the terms uniplex vs. multiplex relations. He focused on a slightly different aspect of the exchange, namely, the variety of exchange contents present in an interaction, for example, conversation, joking behavior, job, or cash assistance. While this variable differs slightly from the concept focusing on the role relations, functionally they may operate in similar ways. Often, the particular exchange reflects the role relationship assumed by the individuals. Hirsch (1980) used a definition of multidimensionality that referred to the number of different types of activities the subject engaged in with a particular person. He found. multidimensionality of friendships to be significantly. fifiegciated with better. mental health “ginfi '. »«&° ‘5"! ‘”"‘_.‘ “‘ ‘ uhs“ *2ifli OUT :1- » - ‘ .1 ‘L".a - woled (”w uriqiDOI frnicini . . , 1"" ‘7 WM J? W |;' V i‘ . n ‘ .3 i | \ H" 5 , y‘ V H. h _-_., .‘v.’ V i ‘ Y. YJILsAuIauea:b; .i ids—1437’s?“ 3° 39%: , ,_ . “ ‘ “ »~ ~' <‘ 1,‘;;131 15d: hr L-f 5..., .qpeseq :sluulj"so 4 rm,u a a y"' (r :.-.hm . f. - ‘ '* ”- ' “ Jus‘dua ed: ‘éfi in 93 aqldobnslii 3o yiilsnoianemlbiaium ' ' ~ V ‘. ‘ -%UL ”nfiéfl T? a F .1 e 31". 29 fignndeit to be an important source of network satisfaction iambic earlier study of college students taking finals Qi979). Thus, the concept of range of a relationship has yet to be consensually defined. Theoretically, researchers have speculated on other aspects of this variable: There is a tendency for single-stranded relations to become many-stranded if they persist over time, and for many-stranded relations to be stronger than single- stranded ones, in the sense that one strand-role- reinforces the others ... where a many-stranded relationship exists between two persons, there is greater accessibility, and thus response to pressure, than is the case in a single-stranded relation (Boissevain, 1974, pp. 30, 32). Kapferer suggests that multiplex relationships tend to be more friendly and confidential than uniplex relationships; however, he provides no supporting evidence. Relationships that involve a number of role relations or a variety of contents may exert pressures of a stressful nature in certain circumstances, as Boissevain (1974) suggests, and they may also be helpful or supportive in other circumstances, as Hirsch (1980) suggests. For the individual entering parenthood, a multi—stranded relationship may be experienced as supportive during the transition, due to the fact that the relationship is not based solely on one activity field, and thus it may support one's self-esteem in other roles. However, oncerthee _ msnnlnxsqls is assumed. the-nevdemnqqim 3Q; ‘ " " ' ‘ngi strewn use ‘3 9 ‘1 - ~""C‘a “ J 13939: ~75; a: ,_ Y . m o: 1* ‘ H ‘ ; .zlise aid 0‘ ‘ V ; . ~ ‘ - 5. AT .(Qfet’ ’) 9;} ()3 39! on: ' ‘736 ’4 fik i1 ...1 ‘ U? “1‘ h‘7 .5 Y 0 i l . .23 V. x .. ‘ '.l I. w‘ in ‘- - Q I 5113 E53112}? 5-" "_1': ..‘H a ‘ a '- ,. rs ‘ I J1 9‘ 'J (”xiii #613 ‘_n- ‘75{$§h oi gfidenolsriex Q4. w,v M». ,4 ‘_ c", vjxv:33n sno no visioa hosed .eelo: sense at ceases-Mes rust" . n . ' ‘ ‘ tiiqetuand.frustrations, the parent may not want to contact a . Q advice, help, and assistance may be availeb1e 30 .to beat the child, and would like to talk about the pflriend'who, for example, is also a member of the same church Genet the parent attends, for fear that such information vwnuld be passed on, and/or one's reputation in this other setting might be affected. A friend who has never parented a child may be perceived as less helpful than one who has shared similar experiences. Couples in the prebirth period and the postbirth period may experience different types of linkages as supportive. More research is needed on the impact of multidimensional relationships and the nature of the role strands involved. A particular linkage may have positive effects on adjustment if one role strand is congruent with the new primary role which is being adopted. 2. ggciprocity/Directional Flow of the Exchange. This variable has been used to refer both to the initiator of the exchange as well as to the flow of the exchange content. The directional flow may be reciprocal, of an even or complementary nature, or non-reciprocal/unidirected. This variable gives information on the equality of power or prestige, which might be assumed to be linked to the flow of the exchange. As individuals move into the new role of parent.) w‘".-'. Ln I-«it 3” itively associared uitn an :ndividual ‘e_il- ()7, .hizvu any 159d 03 .4 quow' Qflijifia TD 3 It I; ‘, VY r. E Q 1"»! (J "‘1‘: ‘2 I" 1’ I F} ‘J i elf. - :0 35‘9" - .-. _ km; 911.3 “55 baiflii 111‘ r: (any. .21.: .... ‘7 ‘ ,._' .’ ~ . I, ;.V,>. ‘1'” , “...". ‘ “Ill-.1? 7? ‘3‘; w" ~. . .spnsnoxs on: 31 At some point, however, it may be important for "-Wfiut- thermos parent to experience a sense of competence in parenting, and to share her own advice and skills. This demands greater reciprocity in relationships. It is here where peer groups may be most functional. (See literature on self-help groups, and literature on competence development, White (1979)). Theoretically, the growth of competence demands interactions of a reciprocal nature: One of the most consistent findings in this as yet small literature is that persons lacking reciprocal relationships are less likely to experience satisfaction and to function effectively. Not only do individuals need to have support available from their peers, they also need to feel as if they are important providers of social support to others within their networks (Mitchell & Trickett, 1980, p. 39). Tolsdorf (1976) found psychiatric subjects' network members to be in more controlling and dominant positions, whereas those in medical patients' networks tended to be on equal standing in the exchange of support, advice, and feedback. Froland, Brodsky, Olson, and Stewart (1979) also 9 found increasingly less mutuality in helping exchanges as psychiatric impairment increased. Cohen and Sokolovsky (1981) found reciprocity in relationships to be positively associated with feelings of life satisfaction among indigent ‘ 4 :‘I!\ elderly and ex-mental patients. u.‘_,.u;-;..(_ 92;.- The extent to which reciprocity in relationships .~;‘ 1_ « f_ .pn53n013q .5. ; abnsmob 29s} njsw bejsjaossb .83fl9135q-islfiomrxs has yiisbio .4 I "a .4 ' . A". aw. aims-2.7.»; <. .aaolq -‘:.q vac an: ' ff 3%: .[gvfijiafl - ‘ ‘w'I . - Iflfl4fidrsch-(1980) looked at tive diidlrenuhzv,:; 32 iflDqunent in the transition to parenthood needs to be thither-explored. CRY Linkage Function. Linkage function refers to the content exchange and the value of that content for a particular individual. The content may be material or non-material. The exchange may be positively or negatively valued. Often the definition of the content has been confounded with the value that the content may have for the individual. For example, a mother-in-law's advice on how to care for the infant may be considered helpful and supportive, or it may also be seen as critical and meddling. This introduces a strong subjective element into the definition of a particular function. Greater clarity of terms is needed in studies looking at functions with an acknowledgement of the values implied. Theorists have posited varying numbers of functions. Some positive functions include: support, advice, feedback (Tolsdorf, 1976); emotionally sustaining behaviors, problem solving, indirect personal influence, environmental action (Gottlieb, 1976); emotional, esteem, and instrumental support (Wandersman, Wandersman, & Kahn, 1980); social companionship, emotional support, cognitive guidance, material aid and services, social regulation, reaffirmntion of role obligations (Moos & Mitchell, 1982). If" (‘ ... ‘ ,‘. . i 7-794” , awe. '- .4 . a a. I L3 ; \I'YZJ _ sulsv «1903 , 4 3d | l “2; ”o" .gi \ g in ..f‘r 3% w‘ Ifi N 41‘- 1151'} ‘13:?" in ~'.‘ - . fi~ q H‘ 4 [1.1 “.IX' j“ 1" 1 fl ‘1 ¥ [J ‘ 4] \ L ll' 3% Vghdr ) HI‘l ' ~ Y .. Lp.1r‘.J'IvI,"3 .vzv ' » 4 {since ((3%?. n-.? r . r 1 V ' ’- ‘ §. 4 ' V}: :,geasbxup avizztpz; \ézwqaus fansr*wmv "J " 1 I: 7‘ -v...._ \k: .. u.l\..;' éqmos £01361 1“ - ' .‘ ups: .~:ooa ‘2931V798 has his lsilesem .11 . win 0 mm ouotupkldo no: 56 ~ ¢3+~ . 'k- “ " "J"? . -.Ir l.. *‘ _>"vx~f' IV-‘Q' '3‘ 33 k 3;“ 37“”"W {iflfifllnca (information, advice, explanation), social 1* Hana ridntorcement (praise or criticism), tangible assistance ; ~V J (provided or denied), socializing, and emotional support (wade one feel better or worse when already feeling upset or under pressure). Although these categories may imply positive functions, he attempted to include negative functions as well in the operational definitions employed. He found cognitive guidance to be the most significant function associated with better mental health for these women. Very little has been written on negative linkage functions per se, although some researchers have attempted to include negative aspects of exchanges in the functions, as described above. As noted above, family theorists studying schizophrenics and their families have identified negative interactions that are covert, subtle, and often idiosyncratic to particular families (Vaughn & Leff, 1981). Other more ostensible functions would include overt aggressive behaviors, either physically or emotionally, and exchanges that clearly devalue, undermine, and lower one's sense of self-esteem and level of competence. While it would appear unlikely that individuals would choose to maintain a relationship that functioned primarily» in a negative fashion, there may be other benefits not mun-1w; discernible .‘ Mtcntimefi. network m“ ‘ L 'I‘i' «r§9:,=v-uunaaulniudl4§unnd4np 3,: .WV_. . 15L. , K, '> ‘ . ‘ .6. 13 .-.'f I: A‘ u 0». - _.. ~ - - _ , ,. . -_ ' '_:~ 4 '. .»._ .- ' .....V$ . ‘ glamooaotnifli' .7 « n cabiv01q) .. wno sham) q isbnu .T’fi/Q i a'anc :0: L Lbs .;> '_ ,_ ‘ .. _ ‘3 . , an- .,7“_; .Z‘."~I"‘ 7- - ‘ ‘ - ; . .9 4-5375}; ,_ ”fi- _ ,v ..—— H, M, -.;:n:.3 Waisubivibni 36d? maxim» -:£.~:v;;-.,;(_~ g:.'.ur..‘~‘ t: e; 't'iw . ’4: : j,,Inui 35d: qrnanoiaolai d nlbfnibm o: saoodo adigag “pm;- _av.tupaa, n at _ ., ”,16‘: z ' , . ‘ v V " vI '.‘ v -- ',-_ p ... , . \ afigédidable. Family members are a prime example. They are :h {attitude about network Inpport .._u.15roruhl . p ‘3‘ ‘ v V i , I?“ ”1‘ A; . .. H 34 ‘rA‘ 3ftén persons upon whom one may be highly dependent in times of extreme need or stress. Although the interaction may function negatively during a particular period of time, it may be difficult to terminate due to the "positive" functions provided at other times (e.g., financial loans, sense of belonging to a family, avoidance of a situation that is perceived as more painful, such as loss of love). During the transition to parenthood, extended family members often become more involved in the couple's lives (Belsky & Rovine, 1984). While this may be experienced as supportive, there is also the potential for more negative interactions or stress at this time. In Pattison, DeFrancisco, Wood, Frazier, and Crowder's (1975) study comparing controls, neurotics, and schizophrenics, differences were found in affective ratings attributed to network relationships. The control group gave positive affective ratings to all network members; the neurotic group rated members lower in general, including several negative relationships in their networks; the psychotic group assessed their network relationships as uniformly ambivalent (both positive and negative). The extent to which relationships are experienced as positive of negative by the subject may be influenced by the .,.: ?§‘??.\Rs hflfi'hr“ \‘wfi individual's'present’staterot*ddjdstment and his! ‘ . L . v av ~' ‘ l' -“ . E7)“: ,maxsxe )6 ~cfyanu! ";:‘ 0:: Y!!- .sz'lul «LN-JP, t\ I l K H W t "‘1: j s ‘ f .r: ’ .r..- . 5.x! .' ‘2 935 aq:daL::stsl nolnw o: ansJXD ”Slat Od'tla :ootdoo ed: 2d:a~131§.la . a" 7... , , H,” .4- k (My. , 4' __ Mk "4"? , «EnEAVQoxs,v This will be discussed more fully in the next .‘ In ' )k- . a. . it.» -- “ 4'.‘-“" .3 -._. - Ek‘ 35 ”smu- rt; -ln studying the tasks facing couples becoming parents, it-would appear that tangible assistance in the form of childcare advice and respite childcare would be important, as well as emotional support for the parent in the new role. The relative importance of each type of support for new parents remains to be assessed. D. §g§jectivelAttitu§inal Factors This variable refers to the individual's attitude towards help seeking in general, as well as to the specific norms of behavior regarding social relationships at particular life cycle stages (Garrison, 1978). New parents may have general attitudes about help seeking - when and from whom they may seek help, and the obligations that inhere in that assistance. They may also have specific attitudes about help seeking during-the transition to parenthood, for example, the roles of grandparents and in-laws, how much help, advice, or visiting is expected and experienced as supportive and how much may be experienced as intrusive or overinvolved. Each individual may come into the parenting experience with a different set of values and ‘1'“ attitudes. Lack of congruence of such attitudes between the 36 Sex and socioeconomic status are two factors that may influence one's attutudes and expectations regarding social relationships. These variables will be discussed below under a separate section. One question that arises is whether an individual's attitudes about social relationships constitute a general perspective that remains constant over one's life course, or whether they are highly changeable, reactive to other variables, both intrapersonal as well as environmental. Of interest with this sample population is whether the parenthood transition affects one's general level of network needs, and feelings about different types of contacts. Tolsdorf (1976) described two basic network orientations in his study comparing networks of psychiatrically and medically hOSpitalized patients. He found the psychiatrically hospitalized sample to have a negative network orientation, that is, "a set of expectations or beliefs that it is inadvisable, impossible, useless or potentially dangerous to draw on network resources” (p. 413). On the other hand, the medically hospitalized patients had a positive orientation, ”a set of beliefs or expectations held by the subjects that it is safe, advisable, and in some cases necessary to confide in the social network and draw on it for advice, support, and feedback in a stress situation” (p. 413). 37 Tolsdorf noted that the negative orientation appeared to precede the onset of psychiatric symptoms, often to early childhood, and was thus a general orientation that was relatively stable. Maluccio (1979) studied clients in a family service agency and compared their perceptions of available network support and help at the beginning and at the end of treatment. He found that clients' evaluations changed from one of dissatisfaction with their networks to a more positive perception of them, as well as of the help that they had received from them previously. These results lend support to the notion that network orientations may fluctuate over time. In a national survey of families at seven different family life cycle stages (ranging from single or married adults to parents of children over age 17), Tamir and Antonucci (1981) found adults in the early stages of the family life cycle to use social supports more frequently than at other stages; however, they were less satisfied with their social support. Further research is needed on changes in attitudes towards networks as they relate to the match of needs with resources. The temporal factor will be the next social network variable to be addressed. This variable differs from the Previously discussed factors in that it is exogenous to the network system itself. 38 External Network Characteristics A. Temporal Factors In some of the studies reported above examining attitudinal factors, it appeared that perceptions of network support and attitudes about networks changed over time. Some researchers have studied network changes over time. Pattison, DeFrancisco, Wood, Frazier, and Crowder (1975) found the schizophrenic‘s network to shrink about the time of the first psychotic episode and to become increasingly smaller until it was very dense and heavily composed of family members. Lipton, Cohen, Fischer and Katz (1981) compared networks of schizophrenics at their first hospital admission with those who had had multiple admissions, and found the former to have larger more interconnected networks with a greater percentage of multiplex and nondependent links. They concluded that major network changes came after hospitalization and that small impoverished networks were not necessarily a stable network type for the schizophrenic. These studies support the notion that networks may change over time, depending on other variables, such as crises or transitions. The exact nature of those changes remains to be investigated. In studying the networks of couples experiencing the transition to parenthood at two points in time (prior to the infant's birth, and following birth), information on different network configurations may 39 be gained. Given the cross-sectional design of the present study, inferences about such changes are limited, but may point to areas for further longitudinal research. Intervening Variables Affecting Social Networks The following two variables to be discussed - sex and socioeconomic status - are independent variables that have been found to influence network needs and involvement. Socioeconomic Status (SES). There is evidence that different socioeconomic classes have different network structures and/or patterns of relating. Poole and Kochen (1978) compared blue collar workers, white collar workers, and professionals, and found blue collar workers to have small, compact networks with considerable stability, while professionals tended to have networks scattered over a large geographical area with a small core of persons with whom they were in frequent contact. White collar workers had network structures between those two models. These findings are similar to those of Litwak and Szelenyi (1969). Litwak and Szelenyi (1969) found that persons who were highly educated, managerial, or professional, were most likely to use neighbors for short term emergencies and family for long term problems. Other occupational groups used family and neighbors equally for short term problems and family more often for long term. 40 Thus, it may be expected that for those persons in high 885 groups, network support around the parenthood transition may be less available and/or of shorter duration than for persons in lower SES groups. It is also expected that upward mobility may be associated with conflicting values and attitudes regarding network utilization, resulting in greater stress and difficulty in adjustment. Sex. One's sex also appears to influence one's network style and needs. Phillips (1981) found network size to be the best predictor of well being for men while range of socializing/clusters was the best predictor for women. Tamir and Antonucci (1981) found sex differences in self-perception, motivation, and social support at different family life cycle stages. Ryder (1973), Waldron and Routh (1981), and Steffensmeier (1982) found that women experienced more difficulty in the transition to parenthood than men. Pain (1976) found that men experienced the prebirth period with greater anxiety and desire for emotional support than the newborn period, suggesting the possibility that degree of difficulty may vary for the sexes within the transition itself. Summary of Network Variables A brief summary of some of the findings on social network variables follows. Looking at network size, 41 researchers have generally found emotional dysfunction to be negatively correlated with network size - the greater the impairment, the smaller the network. Studies of network density have found conflicting results. In some studies, as individual network density increased, support and affective, intangible resources increased. In other studies, high density networks were associated with lower self-esteem, less perceived support, and less successful adaptation. Variables such as type of problem, type of role change, and sample population were hypothesized to be important factors influencing study results. A dense nuclear familyzfriendship boundary (one density measure) was proposed as being beneficial to supporting roles within the family. In research on network clusters, a positive association was found between number of clusters in one's network (involvement in different social contexts) and level of functioning. In regards to network composition, studies looking at kin:non-kin ratio point to a positive association between dysfunction and kin ratio, such that persons with a high level of dysfunction also tended to have networks with a high kin:non-kin ratio. However, in studies of families in the parenthood transition, increased contact with kin during the transition period was characteristic and was associated 42 with an increase in material and emotional support. There is also evidence suggesting a positive contribution to adjustment by the presence of peers/persons in the same family life cycle stage in one's social network. Geographic proximity of network members appears to be important when considering needs that may be emergent or immediate in nature, and/or limited financial resources and means of communication and transportation. Close proximity appears critical when means of contacting network members are limited. Multidimensionality of relationships has been positively associated with adjustment. However, age of the relationship and focus of role change appear to be intervening variables. Low levels of reciprocity in relationships have been associated with greater psychiatric impairment, while higher levels have been associated with feelings of life satisfaction in some studies. Linkage functions include material and non-material exchanges and may impact positively or negatively on the individual. Research on individuals' attitudes about help-seeking and network resources point to an association between emotional impairment and negative attitudes about network resources and utilization. There are conflicting views on 43 whether these attitudes are relatively stable over time, or fluctuate in response to other factors. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES The transition to parenthood was defined in this study as that period during which a couple prepares for the birth of their first child and adjusts to the addition of the new family member. The period was divided into two phases: the pregnancy phase which is preparatory, and the newborn/infant phase which involves active adjustment to the new family member. This is a period of time during which the couple experiences increased stress, demanding an increase in c0ping skills and resources. Inadequate coping during this transition might result in mood changes (postpartum depression, anxiety), lowered self-esteem, marital dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction with one's relationships with others. The purpose of this study was to examine the role that social network variables played in mediating between stress and adjustment during both phases of the transition to parenthood. Stress was measured in four areas: anticipatory stress, stress specific to the new demands and changes related to the addition of the baby, general life event stress, and role stress (those specific changes in role expectations and behaviors, both for one's self and one's spouse). 44 45 Adjustment was evaluated for the individual and the couple. On the individual level, self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and network satisfaction were the primary dependent variables. On the dyadic level, marital adjustment was the primary dependent variable. It was hypothesized that adjustment on both the individual and the dyadic level would be dependent on the number and types of stressors as well as on resources available to meet the specific needs. It was hypothesized that the role transition to new parent would require network support by role models and/or peers experiencing similar situations who would help the individual to both function in the new role as parent and to feel affirmed in that role. They would also assure the provision of material aid and emotional support. Other network needs would depend on other roles the subject held, and other conflicts or transitions that were being experienced. It was hypothesized that the phase following the infant's birth would require qualitatively different and quantitatively more network resources than those needed prior to the infant's birth. It was also hypothesized that women would experience the transition more intensely than men. It was expected that those individuals involved in more role changes would have greater difficulty adjusting. The specific hypotheses that were tested follow. 46 Hypotheses STRESS Anticipatory Stress 1. It was hypothesized that: the prebirth sample would experience greater anticipatory stress than the postbirth sample; a) males would experience greater anticipatory stress than females; b) prebirth males would experience greater anticipatory stress than prebirth females; c) postbirth males would experience greater anticipatory stress than postbirth females; d) prebirth males would experience greater anticipatory stress than postbirth males; e) prebirth females would experience greater anticipatory stress than postbirth females. Phase Specific Stress 2. It was hypothesized that: the postbirth sample would experience greater phase specific stress than the prebirth sample; a) females would experience greater phase specific stress than males; b) prebirth females would experience greater phase specific stress than prebirth males; c) postbirth females would experience greater phase specific stress than postbirth males; d) postbirth females would experience greater phase specific stress than prebirth females; e) postbirth males would experience greater phase specific stress than prebirth males. General Life Stress 3. It was hypothesized that: the postbirth sample would experience greater general life stress than the prebirth sample; 47 a) females would experience greater general life stress than males; b) postbirth females would experience greater general life stress than postbirth males; c) there would be no difference in general life stress between prebirth males and prebirth females; d) postbirth males would experience greater general life stress than prebirth males; e) postbirth females would experience greater general life stress than prebirth females. Role Stress 4. It was hypothesized that: the postbirth sample would experience greater role stress than the prebirth sample; a) females would experience greater role stress than males; b) postbirth females would experience greater role stress than postbirth males; c) there would be no differences in role stress between prebirth males and prebirth females; d) postbirth females would experience greater role stress than prebirth females; e) postbirth males would experience greater role stress than prebirth males. It was hypothesized that there would be a negative correlation betWeen the total amount of stress experienced (anticipatory, phase specific, general life, role) and individual adjustment for both prebirth and postbirth samples, males and females. a) The specific contribution of each type of stress to individual adjustment for prebirth males, prebirth females, postbirth males, and postbirth females was examined. It was hypothesized that individual adjustment would be positively correlated with marital adjustment. This would hold true for both prebirth and postbirth groups, male and female. 48 Social Networks 7. It was hypothesized that: social networks of the postbirth sample would be significantly different along the following dimensions from the prebirth sample. Structural properties: smaller size fewer clusters greater density Composition: higher proportion kin:non-kin higher proportion same family life cycle Geographic proximity: closer proximity Interactional: more child care functions lower degree of reciprocity fewer multidimensional relationships a) any differences between postbirth females' social networks and postbirth males' social networks on these variables were examined; b) postbirth males' social networks would be . significantly different from prebirth males' soc1al networks in the direction as stated above; c) postbirth females' social networks would be . significantly different from prebirth females' soc1al networks in the direction as stated above. It was hypothesized that: ‘ . general life stress and phase speCific stress would be positively correlated: a) among high stress individuals, the following network variables would be associated with better adjustment than high stress persons without these variables: larger size higher density denser NF:F boundary higher number of clusters same family life cycle high kin:non-kin ratio close geographic proximity . . . multidimensionality of relationship including new parent role _ high degree of reciproc1ty more positive network attitudes 10. ll. 49 b) This relationship (stated above) would be stronger for high stress postbirth individuals than for high stress prebirth individuals. c) This relationship (stated above) would be stronger for high stress postbirth females than for high stress postbirth males. It was hypothesized that for couples experiencing stress in their relationship (dissimilar perceptions of role performance, dissimilar expectations of parental role), scores would be lower on marital adjustment and satisfaction with spouse's help than for couples with similarities on these variables. It was hypothesized that for couples with high stress scores (anticipatory stress summed, general stress summed, phase specific stress summed, relationship stress summed), the presence of the following social network variables would be positively correlated with marital adjustment and satisfaction with network: Variables: high degree of shared connection (# linkages reported (how much have same network) in common total # linkages) presence of same family life cycle members in combined network high kin:non-kin ratio a) This relationship would be stronger for high stress postbirth couples than for high stress prebirth couples. It was hypothesized that for individuals experienCing a large number of role changes (high role change stress), the following social network variables would be positively associated with better adjustment and. higher network satisfaction than for those indiViduals with high role change stress without those network variables: many different clusters . multidimensional relationships cluster of same family life cycle low density large network METHODS Subjects Fifty couples comprised the study population, 25 couples in the prebirth sample (wife 6-9 months pregnant), and 25 couples in the postbirth sample (3-6 months following delivery of first-born child). In the prebirth sample, mean number of months pregnant was eight, and in the postbirth sample, mean age of the baby was 4 1/2 months. Forty one couples were recruited from Health Central (a local health maintenance organization), five couples came from Expectant Parent Organization, and four couples were from other sources. The use of alternative sources of volunteers beyond Health Central was necessitated by a diminished response rate after a few months of recruitment solely at Health Central. There were no significant differences between prebirth and postbirth groups with regards to source of participants. In general, the total sample was young, white, and middle class in status. Of 100 participants, 99 were white, and 1 was Hispanic. The groups differed significantly on age, income, and socioeconomic status score (see Table l). The postbirth group had a mean age that was slightly higher than that for the prebirth group, and males were generally two years older than females. The postbirth group also had 50 Table 1 Mean Group Differences on 51 Demographic Variables Group . . a . a b Variables Prebirth Postbirth E Age (years) 27.12 28.86 4.28 Living together (years) 3.52 3.92 .87 Socioeconomic status 35.08 27.48 6.12 (two factor score) Yearly income $24,920 $31,960 6.40 52 a significantly lower socioeconomic status score than the prebirth group indicating slightly higher social status (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958). However, both group's scores fell within the same social class (Class III). Couples had lived together, on the average, for 3 1/2 years, and there were no group differences on this factor. Nearly all families had at least one phone and one car, and lived in areas that they rated as urban or suburban. Interviewers Nine interviewers collected all of the data, four men, and five women (including the primary researcher). Aside from the primary researcher, all interviewers were undergraduate students electing this experience for psychology credits. There were no significant differences between groups in the assignment of interviewers. Procedure Prebirth couples were initially contacted at one of their birth preparation classes, or through information sheets that were distributed at Health Central. (See Appendix A.) They were informed of the study, its purpose, and invited to participate. For those who volunteered (either at that time or through subsequent phone calls), an appointment time was set up. Following that contact, a phone call was made to confirm the appointment, and to answer any questions the couple may have had. During the interview appointment at the participant's home, consent 53 forms were signed, and interview items and questionnaires were administered by an interviewer of the same sex. (Copies of the informed consent form and the interview schedule may be found in Appendices B and C.) Interviews of each spouse were conducted in separate rooms to assure privacy and confidentiality, and lasted approximately one to two hours. All couples were offered the book, Infants and Mothers (Brazelton, 1983) for their participation in this study. Postbirth couples were volunteers recruited from families at Health Central who were informed of the study through available information sheets, other families who were not Health Central members who obtained information on the study through word of mouth or through a newspaper advertisement, or they were families who had volunteered for the prebirth sample but had not been available at that time for the interview. After they contacted the researcher, they were informed of the study, its purpose, and were invited to participate. For those who volunteered, the procedure that followed was identical to that specified above for the prebirth sample population. Instruments (Instruments may be found in Appendices D through J.) The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) was used to measure trait anxiety over the previous three month period of time. The STAI-A 54 scale consists of 20 statements that ask respondents how they have generally felt over the previous period of time. Subjects rate each question on a four point scale. This scale has been found to correlate with other anxiety measures ranging from .75 to .80 for college students. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CBS-D) (Radloff, 1977). The CES-D Scale was used to measure symptoms characteristic of depression (sleep and eating disorders, feelings of powerlessness, sadness). There are 20 items which the individual rates on a four point scale reflecting frequency of these symptoms. These items were originally taken from previously developed depression scales. Pilot studies using several different sample groups found high construct validity, and concurrent validity with more lengthy self report scales and clinical ratings. High levels of internal consistency were found with split-half correlations about .77. Test-retest correlations were lower, ranging from .51-.59 with two to eight week intervals between interviews and self-administered retests. This lower correlation may be expected given the fact that the scale is designed to assess current depressive state. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to measure self-esteem, or self-acceptance. This is a 10 item Guttman scale to which the individual responds on a four point continuum of agreement. This scale has a 55 coefficient of reproducibility of 92% and a scalability coefficient of 72%. The scale has construct validity as measured by conformity of responses with depressive affect, anxiety, and peer group reputation (high self-esteem associated with high peer group reputation, low depression and low anxiety). Social Readjustment RatingAScale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). This scale was used to measure stress in response to general life events over the previous three month period. It consists of 43 events reflecting life changes that have been found to evoke coping or adaptive behavior. Scoring was based on the number of events that were checked by the respondent as having occurred. These items were empirically derived from clinical experience and have been found to be significantly associated with illness onset. They have also been found useful in predicting illness onset (Holmes & Masuda, 1974). As noted earlier, some researchers have questioned the validity of the measure, the undifferentiated nature of the items regarding positive or negative valences, the comprehensiveness of the scale, and the exact nature of the relationship between the events and symptomatology (Brown, 1974). However, life change events measures have previously been used in other studies investigating the stress associated with the transition to parenthood, and therefore this measure was included to provide comparative results (Gorsuch & Key, 1974; Gordon, Kapostins, and Gordon, 56 1965). Correlations of this measure with the other stress scales were analyzed and will be reported below. Pregnancy/Postbirth Questionnnaire. This questionnaire was used to measure the degree to which an individual was experiencing stress specifically related to the transition to parenthood. This is referred to as phase specific stress. This instrument was based on several items taken from Hobbs' Index of Difficulty in Adjusting to First Child (Hobbs, 1965) and consists of 16 items to which the individual responds on a five point scale reflecting degree to which he/she has been concerned about the area. Four additional items of concern related to the infant's behavior were asked of the postbirth sample. Analyses comparing groups on this particular stress were restricted to using scores only from the 16 item scale. Hobbs reported a split-half reliability coefficient of .62 for each sex on the original measure. Examining the ability of individual items to discriminate parents who had been independently rated as being in crisis or not, discrimination index values ranged from .25 to 1.00, with items differing greatly for the sexes. Index scores have also been positively correlated with interviewer ratings of parents' adjustment to their child, with correlations of .54 (p<.003) for men, and .64 (p<.006) for women. The Index has been used by several investigators who have reported findings consistent with those of Hobbs with regards to the 57 proportion of parents experiencing little, moderate, or severe difficulty in adjusting to their newborn (see Hobbs & Cole, 1976 for a review of studies.) The Anticipatory Stress Scale. The anticipatory stress measure was designed to obtain information on the extent to which individuals were concerned about changes in the following six month period. This measure consists of a list of six general areas of life to which the individual responds on a five point scale, ranging from no concern to very much concern. This scale was created for the purpose of this study and appears to have face validity as a measure of self reported concern (Appendix C, Question 12). The Role Stress Scale. This scale was designed to assess the extent to which the individual was experiencing strain due to the different roles occupied, as well as that experienced between self and spouse. The role stress measure was designed to be a composite score reflecting three subscale scores: the number of primary roles the individual occupied (houseperson, worker, student), and the extent of involvement in each (part or fulltime); the degree of role conflict that was reported between real and ideal concepts of self and spouse in these roles; and the difference between spouses on their ideal role concepts. This scale was not a previously researched and standardized instrument and its use was thus subject to preliminary 58 analyses regarding its validity (Appendix C, Questions 6, 13). Role Change Stress. This measure was comprised of 14 items from the Social Readjustment Rating Scale which specifically involved changes in family, school, job, community and other social roles (Appendix E, Items 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42). While it is subject to the same issues raised with regards to the general life events measures, it was hoped that this score would provide a more specific measure of the range of role changes experienced over the previous three month period. The Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. This scale was used to measure marital adjustment. There are 32 items, each of which has a six point response scale. The scale has been found to differentiate between married and divorced couples, and has been found to correlate positively with other marital adjustment scales (Spanier, 1976). The total scale has an internal consistency reliability of .96 as ascertained by Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Relationship Stress. For the purposes of this study, relationship stress was operationalized as difference scores between the spouses on perceptions of present role sharing relationships (child care, housekeeping, employment), and ideal role sharing relationships (Appendix C, Question 13). Composite Maladjustment and Composite Stress. The maladjustment measure was a composite score comprised of the 59 following scores: the STAI, the CES-D and the Rosenberg Self Esteem scale. The stress measure was a composite score comprised of the following scores: anticipatory stress, phase specific stress, and general life events stress. To standardize scores and to guard against greater weights granted to some subscales based on number of items, or range of possible responses, each stress and maladjustment subscale score reflected the proportion of score received over total possible score. The composite score was computed by then simply adding the proportions. Overall Stress Score. The overall stress score was a measure of both the individual's composite stress score and the relationship stress score. The Social Network_guestionaire. This questionnaire was designed to gather information on the social networks of the sample participants. The items were taken from a number of self-report, interview format questionnaires. Operational definitions of the social network variables that were assessed follow. Size: the number of network members listed by the respondant and for whom network data were gathered; Clusters: the number of groups within a network that were comprised of at least three members and within which members had at least 50% of their linkages with other members of the same group; (The Negopy network analysis program was used to assess this variable.) 60 Density: the proportion of all possible ties that network members were reported to have with each other; Kinznon-kin ratio: this was the proportion of relatives to non-relatives in the respondant's network; Proportion of members in the same family life cycle stage: the proportion of members in the same family life cycle stage as listed by the respondant based on the total network size; Proximity score: the mean score of the proximity ratings of the individual's network members; Degree of reciprocity: this measure reflected the prOportion of the network in which there was shared initiation of the exchanges; Multidimensionality of the network: this measure reflected the proportion of network members having two or more role relationships with the respondant. Antic: prebirth se than the pt variance, 1 the prebir' postbirth , §£=l, 96, l were Signi; Tables 2 a; SCOIES, an. Variance f, hYPOthesis femdlES' s, £25333 pOStbirth Stress the supported experience SUPPOIted. specific 8 RESULTS Hypothesis 1 Anticipatory stress. It was hypothesized that the prebirth sample would experience greater anticipatory stress than the postbirth sample. Using a two-way analysis of variance, results tended to support this hypothesis, with the prebirth anticipatory stress scores (fl=7.38) higher than postbirth anticipatory stress scores (g: 5.62), 2:3.88, g§=1, 96, p=.052. In particular, prebirth males' scores were significantly higher than postbirth males' scores. Tables 2 and 3 present stress and maladjustment scale mean scores, and significant findings using one-way analyses of variance for all four subgroups and for both sexes. The hypothesis stating that males' scores would be greater than females' scores was not supported. Hypothesis 2 Phase specific stress. It was hypothesized that the postbirth sample would experience greater phase specific stress than the prebirth sample. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. The hypothesis that females would experience greater phase specific stress than males was supported. There were no significant differences in phase specific stress scores between males and females by group. 61 62 om. ea. 0H. NH. mm «aav.m mumomlzumom Ne. mm. mm. am. 2 mmouum opfimomsoo Ha.H mv.a ~¢.H mm.a mm mm.m mh.a mm.H oo.a z mmouum omcmco waom Ha.q sa.m om.¢ mm.m mm mmmuuw «evo.m mumoanzumom mo.m m~.m om.m oo.o : mucm>m owes Hmuwcwo so.a mm.m mm.m oe.o mm ms.ms NH.~H ma.ms oa.~s z mmmuum oamsomam omega ms.v mm.v ma.e ~m.m mm .mm.v znmoauzmua om.o mm.v om.s cm.s z mmmnum muoumaaosncc Dm— COflUMHHw> mmHMEwh mmamz mOHMEmwrm mmmmz THOOm mmmuum no mousom codenamed nauseous macho mmmsouu Had How mouoom mo mcoHumH>mo Unmocmum com mono: N OHQMB ~.U.u:00c N menhh 63 0 0d. 0 l O C Hoe v «4. Ho vmaa mo Va. 0 s [I a IIi. we H moo mm n so «om.v monomnzumom mm. Hm. om. mH. mm ucoeumsmcMHMZ «aeo.oa moumnzoum mm. mm. em. mm. 2 ouHmOQEOU sm.os HH.NH mm.a mo.m mm_ imam. ma.maa ~m.maa mo.oaa oo.vHH z hamsumsflom Houses: om.H os.a m~.H ~m.a mm smmumm osmm mo.H Nb. mm.a mH.H z muoncmmom mm.s om.o mm.m ss.m mm ...oo.oa aoumuzmua om.~a oe.m ~s.ma ma.m z Aanmmov scammmudma ms.a oe.m ma.a mm.o mm «om.o moumlzoum mm.ma om.¢a oa.>a om.ma z .Hdamv auowxcd mamom ucoeumsflod om :ofiomflum> moflmaom moan: moflmeom moans ouoom mmmuum mo mousom roughened remanded msouw A.o.ucouv N manna Table 3 Sex Diffe ; Stre Anticipat Phase spe General 1 stress Role Chan Composite . Anxiety ( DePressio ROSEHberg SQlf este Marital a (DAs) COmPOSite Maladlust \ a2= so. i B‘ool. 64 Table 3 Sex Differences in Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Stress Score Malesa Femalesa Fb Anticipatory stress M 5.94 7.06 1.53 SQ 4.31 4.73 * Phase specific stress M 12.14 16.94 10.54 SQ 6.22 8.40 * General life events M 6.44 9.24 11.21 stress SE 3.49 4.77 Role change stress M 1.68 2.22 2.82 SQ 1.35 1.83 ** Composite stress M .30 .41 12.34 S2 .13 .18 Adjustment Scale * Anxiety (STAI) M 13.38 17.92 9.87 SQ 6.83 7.77 ** Depression (CBS-D) M 8.26 12.96 14.82 SQ 5.54 6.62 Rosenberg M .94 1.22 .94 Self esteem S2 1.50 1.37 Marital adjustment M 114.26 115.30 .25 (DAS) SQ 10.41 10.20 ** Composite M .38 .54 13.68 Maladjustment S2 .20 .23 a}; = so. bgg = 1, 98. * ** p<.01. 25.001. Evoothesis W Genera postbirth : stress tha: supported. greater ge Furthermcr were signi Hvoothesis M QIOUP woul group- It eXperience AS me from three different was SUbjec Validity E was made ‘ aSCertain of a Unit; 9I0ups Pr( Stl‘eSs it] the role I diffiCult 65 Hypothesis 3 General life stress. It was hypothesized that the postbirth sample would experience greater general life event stress than the prebirth sample. This hypothesis was not supported. The hypothesis that females would experience greater general life stress than males was supported. Furthermore, postbirth females' general life events scores were significantly higher than postbirth males' scores. Hypothesis 4 Role stress. It was hypothesized that the postbirth group would experience greater role stress than the prebirth group. It was also hypothesized that females would experience greater role stress than males. As mentioned earlier, this scale was comprised of data from three fairly different types of questions addressing different aspects of role status, and therefore, this scale was subjected to some preliminary analyses to assess its validity as a measure of role stress. An initial attempt was made to factor analyze this measure in order to ascertain if, indeed, it would provide a reasonable measure of a unitary concept of role stress. Using the multiple groups program and entering the predetermined nine role stress items with the other stress and adjustment scores, the role stress factor had a negative alpha and was difficult to interpret. When a blind multiple groups program was run, seven of the nine items formed a group; however, 0 for (.07). stress mea the antic; scale, and high load; o:rr~' number of in them (r variance. SIOUps on Table 23 1 school sta §M£§E hYPOthesi Phase spe individua for all 8 hYPOIhesi positivel This relaL prEbirth than for 66 however, only a small proportion of variance was accounted for (.07). Therefore, further analyses using this role I stress measure were not performed. Of note is the fact that the anticipatory stress scale, the phase specific stress scale, and the general life events scale, all had fairly high loadings on the stress factor. Differences between prebirth and postbirth groups on number of primary roles occupied and extent of involvement in them (role demand) were assessed using analysis of variance. There were no significant differences between groups on role demand (5:2.62, g£=1, 96). See Table 4. Table 23 in Appendix K presents data on employment and school status of sample participants. Hypothesis 5 Stress and maladjustment. A positive correlation was hypothesized between total stress (anticipatory stress, phase specific stress, general life event stress) and total individual maladjustment (anxiety, depression, self esteem) for all subjects. Table 5 displays the results for this hypothesis. Total stress and maladjustment scores were positively correlated for the entire group, £=.55 (p=.001). This relationship was stronger for the postbirth than the prebirth group, and, within each group, stronger for females than for males. There was a clear progression from a nonsignificant relationship of £=.20 for prebirth males to a significant correlation of 5:.74 for postbirth females. Table 4 £0 {:39 D1.: ——b—— Note. A 5( each of t) an: 25 f< Table 5 W 67 Table 4 Group Differences in Role Demand Means Groupa Prebirth Postbirth Totalb(sex) Males 2.48 2.84 2.66 Females 2.52 2.76 2.64 Totalb (Group) 2.50 2.80 Note. A score of 1 = part-time, 2 = full-time status for each of three primary roles. a2 = 25 for each subgroup. b3 = 50 for each group total. Table 5 a Correlations of Stress with Maladjustment b Prebirth Postbirth Total (Sex) * * Males .20 .39 . .30 'k ** ** Females .41 .74 .61 b * ** C** Total (Group) .39 .66 .55 a2 = 25 for each subgroup. b3 = 50 for each group total. C3 = 100 for total sample. * it p<.05. 25.001. illustrate stress sub naladjust subgroup. general 1' order in intercorr Table 24 all the 5 subgroups Look and phase the total Specific Stress c Exa females, by these 68 Variance of stress measures on maladjustment. Table 6 illustrates the proportion of variance contributed by each stress subscale to the dependent variable of individual maladjustment for the total sample as well as for each subgroup. Anticipatory stress, phase specific stress and general life stress were entered hierarchically in that order in multiple regression analyses. Table 7 displays the intercorrelations among the variables for each subgroup. Table 24 in Appendix K displays the intercorrelations among all the stress and maladjustment subscales for all four subgroups. Looking at the total group, both anticipatory stress and phase specific stress made significant contributions to the total variance on maladjustment (52:.40), with phase specific stress the largest contributor. General life event stress contributed the least. Examining the subgroups of prebirth males, prebirth females, and postbirth males, total variance accounted for by these three variables was about the same, at Rz=.28 or .29. This doubled for postbirth females, however, with total 32:.59. Among prebirth males, anticipatory stress appeared to contribute the most variance, however some of this may be shared by phase specific stress, given their relatively high intercorrelation, and comparable correlations with maladjustment. Among prebirth females and Variables # Group Total Gror Prebirth Males Females Postbirth Males Females \ t B<.05. 69 Table 6 Multiple Regression Analysis: Relationship of Stress Variables to Maladjustment Stress Measure Anticipatory Phase specific General life Total Group R2 change R2 change R2 change R2 *** *ti *** Total Group .16 .23 .00 .40 Prebirth * Males .18 .04 .06 .28 * Females .07 .20 .02 .29 Postbirth * Males .08 .19 .01 .28 *‘k ** Females .33 .24 .01 .59*** *** 'k ** p_<.os. p<.01. 25.001. Thfimmmz TQDOHU And HON ui$EumJfiUfi~flz UCT QQHOUW mmwhbm UCOE< mCOflUMHQHHOUHWUCH K. mfinufivpfi 7O .Hoo.wm .Ho.vm. .mo.vm «at «a « aaaom. mm. moameom mm. nH.I moan: mmouum owwa Homecow «aamh. aamm. «some. Hm. mOHMEmm «.am. «me. ...sm. we. moan: mmouum oflwfioodm ommcm asamm. 5N. «stab. «av. «umm. «go. mmamewh mm. «NV. om. mo. «hm. «same. mmamz mmouum muouodfioaucd nousnomoa nauseous sunfloumom cuuflooum cuuflnumom cuuHQon ucoeumsmomamz mmouum owfia Homecoo mmouum camaoodm ommnm ousmmoz mmsouo Ham MOM ucoEumshomHmz can mouoom mmouum mcoe< mcoHumHouuooumucH h THEME postbirth contribut Post: with the high corr well as a that for specific contribu. Hypothesi lie Individua hYPOthes. This hyp, H.001). Correlat not Sign for the Postbirt A simili Stress a IEVealir fEmales‘ 3% Sic Social 1 71 postbirth males, phase specific stress was the primary contributor. Postbirth females exhibited the most distinct pattern, with the largest proportion of variance accounted for, and high correlations between each measure and maladjustment as well as amongst the measures themselves. It would appear that for postbirth females, anticipatory stress, phase specific stress and general life event stress all contributed substantially to maladjustment. Hypothesis 6 Individual maladjustment and marital adjustment. Individual maladjustment and marital adjustment were hypothesized to be negatively correlated for all persons. This hypothesis was supported for the total group (£=-.31, 23.001). (See Table 8.) Broken down by group, the correlation between maladjustment and marital adjustment was not significant for the prebirth group but moderately strong for the postbirth group (£=-.41, p<.05). Within the postbirth group, this relationship was stronger for females. A similar pattern is found when the relationship between stress and marital adjustment is examined (Table 9), revealing a significant negative correlation for postbirth females. hypothesis 7 Social network variables. It was hypothesized that the social networks of the postbirth sample would be Table 8 l r4n Correfi-” #— Table 9 W \ Males Females Totalb (G 72 Table 8 Correlations of Marital Adjustment with Maladjustmenta b Prebirth Postbirth Total (Sex) * ** Males -.26 -.43 -.36 ** ** Females -.13 -.50 -.34 b ** C*** Total (Group) -.17 -.41 -.31 a2 = 25 for each subgroup. b2 = 50 for each group total. C3 = 100 for total sample. * it *** B<0050 E<0010 25.001. Table 9 a Correlations of Stress with Marital Adjustment Prebirth Postbirth Totalb (Sex) Males -.12 -.31 -.23 ** * Females -.04 -.55 . -.29 b ** (2* Total (Group) -.02 -.36 -.23 a2 = 25 for each subgroup. pg = 50 for each group total. Cn = 100 for total sample. * it 2(0050 2(001. character density, degree of relations Empl lO variat predicted networks the same Proximit) anOlVinr Care whe: Contrary tended t1 gIOUp's QIOUp's Dat Scores Table 11 QIOUp, 0 signific subQIOUp dIand F IEported 73 characterized by: smaller size, fewer clusters, greater density, higher proportion kin:non-kin, higher proportion same family life cycle, closer proximity of members, more informational and emotional child care functions, lower degree of reciprocity, and fewer multidimensional relationships, than networks of the prebirth sample. Employing two-way analyses of variance, only 3 of the 10 variables assessed differentiated the groups in the predicted direction (see Table 10). The postbirth group's networks were marked by a higher proportion of members in the same family life cycle stage, a greater degree of proximity to network members, and by more exchanges involving praise or criticism related to parenting or child care when compared with the prebirth group's networks. Contrary to prediction, comparisons on network density tended towards the opposite direction, with the prebirth group's mean reflecting greater density than the postbirth group's mean (§=3.90, d£=1, 96, p=.051). Data on sex differences in social network variable mean scores from two-way analyses of variance are displayed in Table 11. Of the three variables showing main effects by group, only the emotional exchange variable also showed significant differences by sex, with females in each subgroup involved in more praise and criticism exchanges around parent/child care functions than males. Females also reported significantly more informational exchanges on Table 10 roup Diffe n‘ar and Sta . f S3 Size Cluster Density KinzNor Ratio 8 Same Life c} Proxim, Parent Exchan Parent Exchan Recipr Multic Relatj i E<’OSO 74 Table 10 Group Differences in Social Network Variables' Means and Standard Deviations Group Variable Prebirth Postbirth Fa Size M 18.22 19.96 SQ 7.49 6.52 Clusters M 1.18 1.38 S2 .69 .70 Density M .57 .51 S2 .18 .15 Kin:Non-kin M 1.48 1.20 Ratio SQ 1.83 .98 8 Same family M .16 .26 18.23** Life cycle S2 .09 .14 Proximity M 2.65 2.82 5.88* §9 .37 .35 Parent emotional M .43 .54 5.93* Exchange S2 .24 .25 Parent informational M .54 .59 Exchange S2 .21 .21 Reciprocity M .57 .56 SM .23 .18 Multidimensional M .47 .45 Relationships S2 .30 .25 ad; = 1, 96. it * p<.05. 25.001. Table ll Sex Diffe and Stan: \ Size Cluste Dehsi KinzN Ratio % Sam Life Prox: Parer Excha Parer Exche Reci} Mult Rela \ d Sl=1 t B<.05. 75 Table 11 Sex Differences in Social Network Variables' Means and Standard Deviations Sex Variable Males Females Fa Size M 18.28 18.70 ‘SQ 5.54 6.29 Clusters M 1.42 1.14 4.16* SE .78 .57 Density M .52 .56 SM .17 .16 Kin:Non-kin M 1.34 1.34 Ratio SQ 1.78 1.08 % Same family M .22 .21 Life cycle S2 .13 .13 Proximity M 2.77 2.71 SE .43 .29 Parent emotional M .44 .68 19.08** Exchange SM .15 .20 Parent informational M .39 .59 46.54** Exchange SM .21 .25 Reciprocity M .56 .57 SM .18 .23 Multidimensional M .45 .46 Relationships S2 .29 .27 * p<.05. 96. ** 35.001. parent/ in netw higher vaothe ES hypothe stress was sup was sig postbir would ' in lowe REtwork greater C1u$ter family geograp relatic nEtwork regress Contrit appliCa GQteImi 76 parent/child concerns than males. The only other difference in network characteristics was that males had a slightly higher number of clusters than females. Hypothesis 8 General life stress and phase specific stress. The hypothesis that general life stress and phase Specific stress would be positively correlated for the entire sample was supported by the data, £=.51, p=.001. This relationship was significant for the postbirth group and stronger for postbirth females than postbirth males. Buffering network variables and individual maladjustment. It was hypothesized that among high stress persons, the presence of certain social network variables would "buffer" the effect of stress on adjustment, resulting in lower maladjustment, than for those persons without these network variables. These 10 variables were: larger size, greater density, greater shared network by couple, more clusters, higher proportion network members in the same family life cycle, higher kin:non-kin ratio, closer geographic proximity, greater multidimensionality of relationships, higher degree of reciprocity, and positive network attitudes. In examining this hypothesis, multiple regression analyses were used in order to ascertain the contribution of each network variable to adjustment. Where applicable, subsequent computations were performed to determine the direction of the interaction effects. Thirty analyses effects stress, In of spec: under cc at analy network signific Table 12 analyses using tr Variable dS dEPer density this Was It relatior Persons for thee demonsti direCti¢ Signifi, theory ( glows. 77 analyses were run on the total group, examining the direct effects of the network variables, their interactions with stress, and the effects of prebirth/postbirth group status. In general, the hypotheses of the ameliorative effects of specific social network variables on general adjustment under conditions of high stress were not supported. Looking at analyses on the entire group, only one variable, social network size, showed a pure interaction effect (no significant main effect) in the predicted direction. See Table 12. (These results remained unchanged when further analyses were run, breaking down the composite scales and using the phase specific stress scale as the independent variable, and the subscale scores of anxiety and depression as dependent variables.) Looking at direct effects, only density contributed significantly to the variance, however this was in a direction contrary to that predicted. It was also hypothesized that the above buffering relationships would be stronger for high stress postbirth persons than for high stress prebirth persons. See Table 13 for these results. Again, size was the only variable to demonstrate a pure interaction effect in the predicted direction, and this was only for the postbirth group. Significant main effects in directions consistent with theory were found for size and density in the prebirth group, and proximity for the postbirth group. Ne V; Size Density Shared Cluster Same fa Cl Kinznox Proxim; MUltid; Relat. Recipr. NECWQr Table 12 78 Multiple Regression Analysis: The Effects of Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment Total Groupa Effect Network Stress Direct Interaction Variable 2 2 2 R R change R change . *‘ki’ * Size .30 .02 .04 , *** ** DenSity .30 .05 .01 *‘k* Shared network .30 .01 .00 *** Clusters .30 .03 .01 *** Same family life .30 .00 .00 cycle . *** Kin:non-kin ratio .30 .01 .00 . . *** Prox1mity .30 .03 .01 *t-k Multidimensional .30 .00 .00 Relationships . . *** Rec1proc1ty .30 .00 .01 *** Network attitudes .30 .01 .01 ag = 100. i ** 2(0050 2(001. *** pg.001. Table 13 Group D: Socral b \ Network Variabll Size Density Shared Cluster Same f5 Kinzn01 Proxim Multid RGlati RECipr NEtWOI H: u E<.05 79 Table 13 Group Differences: The Effects of Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment Effect Stress Direct Interaction Network a 2 2 2 Variable Group R R change R change Size ** * Prebirth .15*** .07 .01, Postbirth .43 .00 .07 Density ** * Prebirth .15*** .09 .00, Postbirth .43 .02 .06 Shared network ** Prebirth .15*** .01 .00 Postbirth . .00 .00 Clusters ** Prebirth .15*** .06 .05 Postbirth . .01 .01 Same family life cycle ** Prebirth .15*** .01 .04 Postbirth .43 .01 .01 Kinznon-kin ratio ** Prebirth .15*** .04 .03 Postbirth . .00 .00 Proximity ** Prebirth .15*** .00* —- Postbirth . .07 .02 Multidimensional Relationships ** Prebirth .15*** .02 .02 Postbirth .43 .02 .00 Reciprocity ** Prebirth .15*** .00 .02 Postbirth . .00 .00 Network attitudes ** Prebirth .15*** .03 .00 Postbirth . .01 .02 ap = so. * ta *** p<.05. p<.01. 23.001. Table 14 Prebirth Social h \ Network Variabl. Size Density Shared Cluster Same fg Kin:nox Proxim Multid Relati RQClpr NQTWOI 80 Table 14 Prebirth Group Differences: The Effects of Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment Effect Stress Direct Interaction Network Prebirgh 2 2 2 Variable Group R R change R change Size Males .04* .00** .08 Females .16 .23 .04 Density Males .04* .03** .00 Females .16 .24 .01 Shared network Males .04* .02 .00 Females .16 .01 .02 Clusters Males .04* .03 .11 Females .16 .08 .00 Same family life cycle * Males .04, .03 .21 Females .16 .00 .00 Kin:non-kin ratio Males .04* .01** .02 Females .16 .24 .02 Proximity Males .04* .00 .00 Females .16 .02 -- Multidimensional Relationships Males .04* .03 .08 Females .16 .04 .01 Reci rocit P y Males .04, .02 .00 Females .16 .00 .00 Network attitudes Males .04, .15 .01 Females .16 .00 .00 35 = 25. t ** B—‘ (T r? H La H: m 0 s—r '44 0—- "1 m m l Joi Shared Same fa CY Xinznor 86 Table 18 Multiple Regression Analysis: The Effects of Couple Stress and Joint Network Variables Total Groupa Effect Joint Network Stress Direct Interaction Variable 2 2 2 R R change R change Dependent Variable: Maladjustment * Shared network .04 .00 .01 * Same family life .04 .00 .02 cycle * * Kin:non-kin ratio .04 .01 .05 Dependent Variable: Network Dissatisfaction Shared network .01 .01 .01 Same family life .00 .02 .02 cycle Kin:non-kin ratio .00 .00 .01 a3 = 100. * 2<.05. Table 19 Prebirth and Join \ Joint Network Variable Shared Same fa Kin:n0n Shared Same fa Kinznol (:1 u N 2<.05 87 Table 19 Prebirth Group Differences: The Effects of Couple Stress and Joint Network Variables Effect Joint Stress Direct Interaction Network Prebirgh 2 2 2 Variable Group R R change R change Dependent Variable: Maladjustment Shared network Males .00 .00 .01 Females .02 .00 .00 Same family life cycle * Males .00 .06 .22 Females .02 .00 .11 Kin:non-kin ratio Males .00 .00 .00 Females .02 .01 .05 Dependent Variable: Network Dissatisfaction Shared network Males .14 .03 .03 Females .00 .06 .07 Same family life cycle . _ Males .14 .01 .00 Females .00 .00 .01 Kin:non-kin ratio Males .14 .00 .00 Females .00 .05 .03 a2 = 25. * 2<.05 Table 2C Postbirt and J01: ( Joint Network Variabl Shared Same fa Kinznor Shared Same ft Kin:no Table 20 88 Postbirth Group Differences: The Effects of Coupje Stress and Joint Network Variables Joint Network Postbigth Variable Group Effect Stress Direct Interaction R2 R2 change R2 change Dependent Variable: Maladjustment Shared network 'k Males .17** .03 .00 Females .31 .04 .05 Same family life cycle * Males .17** .03 .04 Females .31 .00 .01 Kin:non-kin ratio * Males .17** .13 .07 Females .31 .02 .00 Dependent Variable: Network Dissatisfaction Shared network Males .01 .05 .01 Females .12 .02 .20* Same family life cycle Males .01 .04 .02 Females .12 .01 .03 Kin:non-kin ratio Males .01 .01 .12 Females .12 .04 .01 a2 = 25. 'k ** 2<.05 2<.01. 89 prebirth sample, thus precluding any further analyses for that sample. Analyses on the postbirth group revealed no significant effects for any of the network variables for postbirth males or females. Buffering_network variables and network dissatisfaction. It was hypothesized that among persons experiencing high levels of overall stress, those with networks characterized by a high proportion of members common to both spouses, a high proportion of members in the same family life cycle in the joint network, and a high kin:non-kin ratio in the joint network would report lower network dissatisfaction than those without these characteristics. There were no significant main effects demonstrated for stress with network dissatisfaction for either the total group, or the subgroups. Therefore, these buffering hypotheses could not be adequately tested. There were no significant direct effects for any of the network variables for any group. Hypothesis 11 Role change stress and individual maladjustment. It was hypothesized that among persons experiencing many role changes, those with networks characterized by more clusters, more multidimensional relationships, a greater proportion of persons in the same family life cycle, low density, and 90 larger in size, would have less individual maladjustment than those with networks without these characteristics. Examining regression analyses for the total group, there were no significant interaction effects demonstrated for any of the five network variables (see Table 21). Two direct effects were significant: fewer clusters contributing to the variance on maladjustment, and higher density contributing to maladjustment. Examining the analyses for the subgroups, significant main effects for role change stress with maladjustment were demonstrated only for postbirth females, thus permitting further examination of the buffering hypotheses. As shown in Table 22, network size demonstrated the only significant pure interaction effect for this group. This was in the hypothesized direction, such that under conditions of high stress, low network size was associated with high maladjustment. Table 25 in Appendix K presents the results of the regression analyses for the prebirth subgroups, and Table 26 displays the intercorrelations among the variables for these hypotheses. Role change stress and network dissatisfaction. It was hypothesized that among persons with high role change stress, the presence of the above stated five network variables would be associated with lower network dissatisfaction than those without these network variables. Regressin analyses revealed no significant main effects | Size Density Cluster Same f. Nultid Relati \ a l=1 s 2<.05 91 Table 21 Multiple Regression Analysis: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment Total Groupa Effect Network Stress Direct Interaction Variable 2 2 2 R R change R change Size .11** .01 .00 Density .11** .05* .00 Clusters .11** .04* .00 Same family life cycle .11** .00 .00 Multidimensional .11** .00 .00 Relationships a2 = 100. *‘k * 2<.05. 25.001. Table 2: Postbirt Stress a \ Network Variabl Size Densitj Cluste Same f Multio Relati 92 Table 22 Postbirth Group Differences: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Social Network Variables on Maladjustment Effect Stress Direct Interaction Network Postbigth 2 2 2 Variable Group R R change R change Size Males .12* .01 .00* Females .21 .00 .15 Density Males .12* .10 .01 Females .21 .01 .05 Clusters Males .12* .14 .00 Females .21 .00 .02 Same family life cycle Males .12, .02 .13 Females .21 .00 .09 Multidimensional Relationships Males .12* .00 .03 Females .21 .03 .03 a3 = 25. * 2<.05 demonst dissati therefc variabl networl for an} R presw for th 93 demonstrated for role change stress on network dissatisfaction for either the total group or the subgroups; therefore, the buffering hypotheses for the network variables could not be adequately tested. None of the network variables demonstrated significant direct effects for any of the subgroups. Tables 27, 28, and 29 in Appendix K present the results from the multiple regression analyses for these hypotheses. Tl a famil differe and fer betwee: betwee maladj were m did no of str rememh Which made a Stres; Partit Signi SUppO decre birth DISCUSSION The transition to parenthood appears to be a period in a family's life which is experienced as stressful at different points in time, and in different ways for males and females. In general, there were fewer differences between prebirth and postbirth groups, as hypothesized, than between males and females, across groups, on both stress and maladjustment scores. Social networks of the two groups were more similar than different and most network variables did not significantly alleviate stress or buffer the impact of stress for this sample population. It is important to remember that this research used a cross-sectional design, which limits the extent to which causal inferences may be made about the differences that were found between prebirth and postbirth groups. Stress The prebirth group tended to have higher anticipatory stress scores than the postbirth group. This was particularly true for males, with postbirth males' scores significantly lower than prebirth males' scores. This lends support to Fein's longitudinal study (1976) showing a decrease in infant-related anxiety following the infant's birth. 94 T. postbi event sexes, stress Furthe postbi scores consis this t T stress as wel Parti in so EXpec Willi AS ev adjus had f fUnct relat repor antic and m 95 There were no differences between prebirth and postbirth groups on phase specific stress or general life event stress. There were significant differences between the sexes, however, with females reporting significantly higher stress scores on both of these measures than males. Furthermore, although not statistically significant, postbirth females' scores were higher than prebirth females' scores on both these measures. This latter finding is consistent with much of the literature that has described this transition period as stressful, particularly for women. The lack of significant findings between groups on the stress measures may be explained by the recruitment process as well as sample characteristics related to self selection. Participant families were couples who were already engaged in some form of community health service (Health Central, Expectant Parent Organization), and who, as a couple, were willing to engage in the additional activity of this study. As evidenced in the demographic statistics, and marital adjustment scale scores, this was a sample population that had fairly high levels of stability and levels of functioning. It is thus noteworthy that within such a relatively high functioning sample, the findings that are reported did demonstrate some differences: lower anticipatory stress for males postpartum and greater stress and maladjustment for females postpartum. 96 While the general life events stress measure displayed moderate correlations with the other stress measures, its contribution to the variance on maladjustment was lower than that from the other measures. This leads one to question the exact nature of this stress and its impact on the individual. In the studies by Gorsuch and Key (1974), and Nuckolls, Cassel, and Kaplan (1972) where this type of stress measure was used with women experiencing the transition to parenthood, dependent variables were physiological variables (complications of pregnancy, infant health status). Part of the theoretical basis for this measure is that bodily resistance is lowered when coping demands are made by these life changes, thus resulting in greater vulnerability to illness. Conceivably, the fact that the maladjustment measures used in this study were psychological in nature and did not tap physiological changes directly may account for the different results obtained using this general life events measure. Furthermore, the population samples differed in terms of risk factors, with Gorsuch and Key studying low income clinic patients in comparison to the middle income, intact families of this study. While anticipatory stress. phase specific stress, and general life events stress appeared to be valid measures of stress as indicated by their factor loadings, the assessment of role stress was elusive, both in terms of operational defin11 adjust: stress as hum partic indivi dyadic reflec conce; 1 unrel: Most I the r< house Unfor throu to th indic Prehi t0 be othe] that natu. Prec this 97 definitions, as well as in its particular impact on adjustment. In this study, several different areas of role stress were included in this measure: role demand, defined as number of primary roles occupied and extent of participation in them; role conflict as reflected in one's individual perceptions of ideal vs. real role sharing in the dyadic relationship; and role conflict between spouses as reflected in differences between the couple in role concepts. The items used to assess role demand turned out to be unreliable, and highly susceptible to stereotypic responses. Most males who held full time jobs would typically exclude the role of houseperson, regardless of their involvement in house/child care, thus necessitating prompts to consider it. Unfortunately, this did not become evident until midway through the study. Ensuring interviewer consistency prior to that time was thus impossible. Results from these items indicated that there were no significant differences amongst prebirth and postbirth males and females in role demand. When role conflict was examined, there did not appear to be any meaningful relationship between this subscale and other stress or adjustment measures. Of note is the fact that the items measuring role conflict were very general in nature, and the available range of responses was small, precluding much variation. This was especially true for this sample which was not distinguished by severe dysfunc discorc differ< would confli parent that w especi measul l possil diffe Chang the f event this the c IEVe) large that indi ing both and the 98 dysfunction (e.g., families seeking treatment for marital discord). The fact that there were no significant differences between groups on the marital adjustment scale would support this notion. Other future efforts to assess conflict around the role changes experienced in becoming a parent might use items with greater specificity and items that would allow for a greater range of responses, especially when using a similar sample group. Using these measures, role conflict for this sample was low. Role change stress was assessed through a scale of 14 possible role changes. Again, there were no significant differences by group or sex. The average number of role changes over the previous three month period was two. Given the fact that this measure was taken from the general life events inventory, it is not surprising that analyses using this stress measure on maladjustment resembled those using the composite stress measure. However, its relatively low level of impact on maladjustment, similar to that of the larger scale from which it was taken, leads one to believe that using number of general role changes experienced as an indication of stress is not more powerful than life changes in general for this group. Given the available information, it would appear that both prebirth and postbirth families were relatively similar and stable, in terms of roles occupied, role changes, and the lack of much role conflict. The items used to assess l role 5 inadeq especi baby i transi invest were 1 marit corre SUppo did d littl elucj be tr EXpe] that Mai area adju POSt fOur sigr SCaj 99 role stress appeared to be too general in nature and thus inadequate to measure more specific conflicts or changes, especially as they related to the incorporation of a new baby in the family. The area of role stress around this transition period would merit a much more thorough investigation than has here been afforded. Differences between spouses in perceptions of actual role sharing and perceptions of ideal role sharing at home were examinined as a stressor affecting the relationship, or marital adjustment. Although the hypothesized negative correlation was not supported for the total group, it was supported for postbirth males. This was one measure which did distinguish this subgroup. Unfortunately, there is little other supplementary data from this study to help elucidate this area of stress. Speculating, however, it may be that following the birth of their infant, fathers may experience greater dyadic maladjustment if the role changes that occur are unexpected or conflicting with their spouses. Maladjustment Maladjustment for these couples was measured in four areas: anxiety, depression, self esteem, and marital adjustment. There were no differences between prebirth and postbirth groups on any of these measures. Differences were found, however, between sex groups. Females had significantly higher scores than males on two of the four scales: anxiety and depression. This is consistent with suppor high 5 than F specif differ and pi inter< speci Appen life malad eight score nonsj event eigh1 Post] Sign Preb Stre all 100 reports in the literature of greater experienced strain by women during this period. On a general level, results from this study provide support to research that shows that persons experiencing high stress are prone to have greater psychological distress than persons with lower levels of stress. On a more specific level, the results also point to the possibility of differential impacts of various stressors, depending on sex and phase of the transition. Examining the intercorrelations among the specific stressors and the specific maladjustment scales in Table 7 and in Table 24 of Appendix K reveals some interesting findings. The general life events scale appeared to have a differential impact on maladjustment for the two sexes. For all males, seven of eight correlations between the general life events stress score and the individual maladjustment measures proved nonsignificant. For females, however, the general life events stress score was a significant stressor in four of eight correlations examined, and this was primarily for the postbirth female group. Continuing this analysis, anticipatory stress was significantly correlated with anxiety and depression for prebirth males and postbirth females, while phase specific stress was significantly correlated with these variables for all groups. 101 Breaking down the composite measures in this way elucidates the fact that the Rosenberg self esteem scale as a measure of adjustment was not significantly related with any of the stressors for any of the subgroups. Global self esteem may, in fact, not be affected by the transition to parenthood, at least for comparable sample groups. More specific measures of self esteem in different roles previously as well as presently occupied (e.g., professional, sexual, parental), may measure the actual changes that take place in the course of this transition. When regression analyses were run using only phase specific stress as the measure of stress, and depression and anxiety scores as separate dependent variables, it became apparent that phase specific stress contributed significantly to variance on depression for both prebirth and postbirth males. This was in contrast to the nonsignificant effects when the composite stress and maladjustment scores were used. Thus, greater specificity of stressors and maladjustment measures help to elucidate the experience of this transition for males. The magnitude of the significant correlations amongst various subscales were moderate for all groups except postbirth females for whom correlations were much higher, ranging to a high of £?-7 between phase specific stress and depression. Thus, for this group, high stress scores and high maladjustment scores were closely related. 102 The relationship between these stressors and marital adjustment was not as strong. For all males, phase specific stress was significantly correlated with marital adjustment. For females, however, there were differential group effects. Marital adjustment was not significantly correlated with any of the stressors for the prebirth female group, but it was significantly correlated for all stressors for the postbirth female group. Marital adjustment appears to involve different factors for males and for females. Whether poor marital adjustment is the result of phase specific stress for men, or whether it merely covaries is unclear at this point; however this appears to be consistent across groups for men. Marital adjustment for women, on the other hand, appears to be relatively independent of these stressors prior to the infant's birth. Perhaps, the pregnancy status insulates women to a certain extent from stressors affecting the dyadic relationship, since the baby is the product or expression of the relationship. For postbirth husbands and wives, however, the marital relationship appears to be more vulnerable to stress. It is difficult to say with certainty that marital adjustment is more sensitive to stress in the postpartum period when compared with the prebirth period, given the cross sectional nature of this study. However, other research reports similar findings, that the transition to 103 parenthood is accompanied by drops in marital satisfaction (Power & Parke, 1984). Social Network Characteristics Social networks of prebirth and postbirth couples tended to be more similar than different. There were no differences between the groups on network size, number of clusters, density, proportion of kin members, degree of reciprocity, or multidimensionality of the linkages. However, there were differences on two structural and one interactional properties. Postbirth networks had a higher proportion of members in the same family life cycle stage, a higher prOportion of members who lived geographically closer, and they were characterized by more emotional exchanges around parenting or child care. The most distinctive difference between networks of males and females was the higher proportion of exchanges by women that were either informational or emotional in nature around parenting and child care issues. Networks of males had slightly more clusters than those of females. This could be accounted for by the fact that a greater proportion of men worked outside the home than the women, thus providing an additional source of contacts. Although the networks of the two groups were very similar, do the different individual network properties help to buffer adjustment under conditions of high stress, and, in particular, for the postbirth group? Network size did 104 indeed demonstrate a significant and pure buffering effect on maladjustment for postbirth females. This was the case even when specific stressors were used, such as the phase specific stress scale, or the role change stress measure. None of the other network variables, however, demonstrated similar effects in support of the hypotheses. The fact that only network size demonstrated a pure buffering effect is inconsistent with conclusions reached by Cohen and Wills (1985) based on a comprehensive literature review of researh on stress and social support. They found evidence for a main effect model when structural measures of social support were used (e.g., network size), and evidence for a buffering model when functional support measures were used that were well matched to the stressful events themselves. In this study, for postbirth females, not only did size demonstrate a buffering effect, but the other structural variables which were more specific and thus potentially more helpful or functional for this group, did not prove significant. An example of this latter premise would be that a higher proportion of network members in the same family life cycle stage would provide more peer support, and thus alleviate maladjustment. Amongst prebirth females, however, results were more consistent with Cohen and Wills theory, with significant main effects found for three network variables (larger size, 105 lower density, and lower kin:non-kin ratio) on maladjustment. In an effort to more fully understand these conflicting findings, an examination of the interaction effect was performed, comparing maladjustment scores for prebirth and postbirth females under conditions of high and low levels of stress and network size. (See Table 30 in Appendix K.) The most striking finding is the low maladjustment score associated with low levels of stress and network size for postbirth females. For the new mother who is experiencing low levels of stress, adjustment may be highly related to the few people in her nuclear family (her husband and newborn), or a few significant others. A broader range of socializing may be unimportant during this particular phase of the transition (three to six months postpartum) and may, for some persons, be experienced as relatively more stressful. On the other hand, under conditions of high stress, a larger network may be important, providing greater Oppportunities for supportive functions and resources. For prebirth females, on the other hand, the structural variable network size appears to be facilitative of adjustment, regardless of stress level (consistent with Cohen and Wills' theory). Thus, for postbirth females, under low stress conditions, needs from the extended network may be fewer than at other times, or under other stress conditions. 106 Of interest would be findings for time periods later in the postpartum period. Thus, while social support was operationalized along different structural dimensions in this study, most of these alternative measures exerted very little influence on adjustment under conditions of high stress. An attempt was made to examine the effects of stress ‘ and joint/couple network variables on the couple's relationship, or marital adjustment. For the total group, stress directly contributed a small, but statistically significant proportion of variance at 32:.04. On top of this, one of the three variables examined, kin ratio in the joint network, contributed an additional 52 change=.05. While these findings were statistically significant, their actual meaningfulness appears to be relatively minor given the low proportion of variance accounted for. This is further corroborated by the fact that these findings were not supported by analyses of the postbirth males and females for whom stress contributed a much larger proportion of variance on marital adjustment. The question remains as to whether the joint network variables are simply unrelated to a couple's dyadic adjustment, whether the dependent variable selected to measure marital adjustment was not sensitive enough to detect changes in this particular transition, or whether this sample was simply too homogeneous in its higher level 107 of functioning and level of network resources. Given these results, it can be stated that for couples who are not experiencing severe dysfunction in their marriage, joint network characteristics that are structural in nature exert little impact on marital adjustment. Network dissatisfaction was operationally defined as difference scores reflecting desire for more help from specific others. This measure did not significantly correlate with any of the stress or adjustment measures and thus hypotheses using this measure as an indication of strain remained untested. In considering the notion of the subjective experience of inadequacy in one's network, other factors need to be considered, factors that perhaps were not adequately assessed in this study. First, the individual's particular network attitude would need to be considered; that is, the extent to which involvement with others is considered important and helpful. Secondly, there is the methodological question of measurement, and whether direct self report is a reliable and valid measure of network dissatisfaction. People may not identify network needs as stressors in their lives, despite an experience of anxiety or depression that may be related to it. In this study, reported network needs were not related to stress. Some of the research examining significant/intimate relationships in networks conclude that the critical linkage is one with an 108 intimate other. In this sample, the most important network needs may have been met, since they were all married and had a spouse, and had a relationship whereby each was willing to be involved in a study of this type. Thus, any significant level of network need may have been precluded. Furthermore, there is some research indicating that network needs of men are different from that of women. Conclusions and Recommendations The sample population in this study was primarily white and middle class in socioeconomic status. The following conclusions and recommendations are thus limited in generalizability to other groups. Results from this study support findings in the literature that the transition to parenthood may be experienced as stressful, and may also be associated with greater anxiety and depression especially by females following the birth of the infant. Clearly, the relationship between stress and maladjustment was much stronger for the postbirth female group. These results also point to the specific areas of stress that may be ‘ experienced by males: in the prebirth period, the uncertainty of the impending birth and changes in roles and responsibilities that may ensue appears to be particularly related to anxiety and depression; and throughout the transition, marital adjustment is one area which is associated with stress. Marital adjustment is more 109 responsive to stress for postbirth females than their prebirth counterparts, and general life event stress appears to be a more significant stressor associated with depression for women, regardless of group, than for men. For this particular sample group, social network size acted as an important variable associated with lowered maladjustment for the females. For the prebirth group it acted directly, for the postbirth group, indirectly. This is not inconsistent with the idea that interpersonal relationships and the maintenance of those connections are especially important for women (Gilligan, 1982). There were no network variables that functioned similarly for males. Gilligan suggests that men may experience connectedness as anxiety provoking, or they may fear an experience of entrapment, loss of independence. The data did not support this theory, either. However, the possibility of different network needs for the different sexes warrants further exploration, both in terms of the particular variables that may be relevant as well as in the means to measure them. If, for men, the primary relationship with their wife fills most of their network needs, what are the consequences when she is no longer able to relate in the same manner as prior to the infant's birth? Power and Parke (1984) conclude from their research review that the decline in marital satisfaction is attributable to the lack of congruence between women's heightened dependency needs and men's drop 110 in levels of support. What appears to be needed is a greater understanding of the stressors on the men during the postbirth period which may result in these observed decreases in support. The marital relationship, thus, deserves greater attention. Given the findings relating higher role conflict scores with marital adjustment for postbirth males, and the significant relationship between individual maladjustment and marital adjustment in the postbirth group, it is clear that the infant's birth may negatively impact on the dyadic relationship for those under high stress. The extent to which this continues over time cannot be ascertained by this study. Longitudinal research efforts following families through the infancy period would provide answers to this question. These findings have implications in terms of adjustment by the couple to the transition to parenthood. The wife who is experiencing high stress may look beyond the nuclear family for support, while the husband may look to his wife. The husband may experience anticipatory stress prior to the birth, while the wife may be unaware of the intensity of his concerns and the degree to which they are affecting him. Difficulty in understanding these different experiences may create greater alienation in the dyadic relationship further compounding the stress at that time. Support groups for couples with new babies has very recently become a service 111 offered by some communities. However, differential attendance rates by males and females offers support to the idea that they may have different network needs. Power and Parke (1984) report on the effectiveness of a short videotape presentation in the early postpartum period in increasing the level of father caretaking involvement with sons (but not daughters). Perhaps opportunities to feed and diaper babies (of both sexes) prior to the infant's birth, (e.g., in birth preparation classes) would alleviate some of the anticipatory stress and increase later involvement by fathers. Following the infant's birth, mothers with small networks and high stress may benefit from supportive efforts to expand their boundaries. Husbands, however, may need other types of supportive services, options that are more supportive of their dyadic system. Options for “respite care” may be needed. Medical and mental health providers need to validate the importance of nurturing the marital relationship as well as of nurturing the infant. Providing information about the course of adjustment to this transition may help affirm families' experiences. In an effort to better understand the differential stressors and needs of couples experiencing the transition to parenthood, it appears important to consider the specifics of the marital/dyadic relationship as perhaps 112 equally important as the larger parameters of the individual's total social network. APPENDICES APPENDI X A 113 APPENDIX A Transition to Parenthood Study This is a study of the types of help that young families need during the transition to parenthood. This is a time when couples are preparing for their first child, and, following that, when they are adjusting to the newborn. It is hoped that this study will help us better understand the stresses that couples may experience during this period of change. Results of the study will help us to provide more appropriate services and support for new families. Your participation will involve an interview by a qualified interviewer about the kinds of help you have needed, the kinds of help you have received, and any needs that have not been met. There will also be questionnaires about general family life and your adjustment to this transition. You and your spouse will be interviewed separately. All responses will remain confidential. At the end of the study, general findings will be made available to you if you wish. Because this is a study of young families as a system, both partners in a couple must be interested in . participating for acceptance into the study. At any p01nt in the study, you are free to discontinue your . participation. Your medical care here at Health Central is not affected by your decision to participate. If you have any questions, you may ask me now, or call me at my home phone number (332-5612). If you are Willing to participate, please sign the attached consent form. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, Kathleen Wong Seitz, M.S.W. APPEND I X B 114 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being conducted by Kathleen Wong Seitz, M.S.W. under the supervision of Dr. Robert Caldwell, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Michigan State University. The study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation. I understand that my participation will involve one 2 hour interview. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participation is completed. Signature Date APPENDI X C 115 APPENDIX C Social Network, Stress and Adjustment Interview Schedule INTRODUCTION BY INTERVIEWER My name is and I am working with Kathy Seitz, a doctoral student in the Psychology Department at Michigan State University. We are interested in the experiences of couples as they become parents for the first time. We hope that the information you provide will help professionals design programs, classes and services that will better meet the needs of families making this transition to parenthood. We have learned that for some couples, this is a time filled with many changes. These changes affect people in different ways. We are interested in learning what your experiences have been, and what types of social contacts you have. We hope that you will enjoy answering these questions. Many couples find it interesting to think about themselves and the changes they are experiencing during this change to parenthood. I would also like to remind you that your name will not be attached to any of our answers. In addition, the services that you receive at Health Central are in no way affected by your participation in this study. Would you read over the permission form, stating that you understand what the study is about. The purpose of the form is merely to verify that you are willing to participate. (HAND INTERVIEWEE CONSENT FORM.) Do you have any questions? (MAKE SURE CONSENT FORM IS SIGNED.) This interview will take approximately 2 hours. Part of the time, I will ask you questions and I will write down your answers. At other times, I will ask you to fill out the answers. Let's begin. These initial questions pertain to background information. 1. Could you start by telling me ... the # of months into the pregnancy you/spouse are OR how many months old your baby is 116 2. (INTERVIEWER: CHECK SEX) 1 Female 2 Male (CHECK RACE) 1 White 2 Black 3 Hispanic 4 Other 3. How old are you? years 4. How many years have you and your spouse lived together? years 5. How many years of school have you completed? Graduate degree in professional training Four year college degree One to three years of college High school graduate 10th to less than 12th 7th to 9th grade Less than 7th grade \lO‘U‘IhWNH 6. Tell me what your occupation/s is(are) and whether it is full or part-time (INTERVIEWER: READ OFF OPTIONS) Full-time Part-time Houseperson _____ _____ Employment (describe) (describe) Student 7. Approximately how much is your family's total income for the year? $ 8. Do you have a telephone? 1 Yes 2 No Is your number listed or unlisted? 'l _____ Listed 2 _____ Unlisted 9. How many cars does your household have? 1 ~____ None 2 _____ One car 3 More than one car 117 10. Is your residential area primarily urban, suburban or rural? 1 Urban 2 Suburban 3 Rural 11. How easy do you think it is to obtain services for your family; for example - health care, education, shopping, recreation? (INTERVIEWER: READ RESPONSE CATEGORIES) 1 _____ Very easy 2 _____ Fairly easy 3 _____ Fairly difficulty 4 Very Difficult (INTERVIEWER: HAND INTERVIEWEE RESPONSE CARD A) 12. Do you expect that in the next 6 months there will be any major changes in any of the following areas? If so, please tell me how concerned you are about this future change - Slightly concerned, Moderately concerned, or Very concerned? Amount of Concern Change No Yes None Slight Moderate Very Living condition Financial status Health of close family/friends Social activities Work status Other (specify) (INTERVIEWER: TAKE RESPONSE CARD A BACK). 13. 118 Becoming parents introduces many new demands, tasks and expectations into a couple's life. Couples may divide these responsibilities in different ways. (INTERVIEWER: HAND THEM RESPONSE CARD B) I am going to ask you to tell me how you think certain responsibilities should ideally be divided between you and your spouse; and then I'm going to ask how you and your spouse presently split these responsibilities. Okay, first of all tell me IDEALLY, who you think should ... (READ OFF RESPONSIBILITY CATEGORIES.) Take care of the baby? (MARK 0) Do the cooking and housekeeping? (MARK O) Work a job to earn money, or financial support? (MARK 0) Now, tell me how these reSponsibilities are presently split ... (PREBIRTH) Who do you think will take care of the baby? (Mark X) (POSTBIRTH) Who takes care of the baby? (MARK X) Who does the cooking and housekeeping? (MARK X) Who works a job to earn money? (MARK X) Husband Wife Husband Husband More & Wife More Than Wife Entirely Than Wife the Same Husband Entirely Caring for baby Housekeeping/Cooking Jobs for Financial Support (INTERVIEWER: TAKE RESPONSE CARD B BACK.) 119 14. PeOple differ in how much help they want from others, as well as in how much help they are presently getting. For the different groups of people you know, please mark an "X" on the number that indicates how much help you are presently getting from that person/s. (MARK X) Not No Very Applicable Help Much Help Spouse/Mate NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other relatives NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Friends NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neighbors NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not No Very Applicable Help Much Help Co-workers NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Classmates NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Service/Professional workers NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Others (describe) NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next, using the same charts above, put an “0" over the number that best indicates how much help you would like to get from these people. (MARK O) 120 15. If you would like more help in certain areas, please tell me what kinds of help you would like, and the different people from whom you would like it. (Check as many as are applicable.) Profes- Type of Help Spouse Relatives Friends sionals Other Employment Oppor- tunities/help Medical help Financial help Child care/ babysitting ___ Someone to talk with about problems ___ Information/help with the pregnancy/ birth/parenting concerns Other (describe) Do you have any questions, thoughts or comments at this point? We appreciate your time, and the information you have provided. We'll be sending you a summary of findings when the study is completed. THANK YOU. APPENDIX D 121 APPENDIX D Social Network Questionnaire The following questions relate to people you know and with whom you have contact. They may be relatives, friends, teachers, doctors, etc. The relationships may not always feel good ... sometimes they may be stressful or troublesome as well. We are interested in who you contact, what you do with them, or what you talk about. First, you will make a list of your important, regular social contacts, and then I will ask a number of questions about these pe0ple. ”Important" means they affect your life in some way - it may be helpful or troublesome. "Regular" means at least once a month. Contact may be face to face, by phone or mail. Each question will be answered for every person. Take your time. Relationships are often hard to describe. If you have any questions as we go along, feel free to stop and ask me. Let's begin. I will read off several categories of people. A. First of all, on the left side of the answer sheet, I want you to list all the people who live in_your home. Use only first names and last initials. Now, list all relatives that you contact at least once a month and who are important to you. Now, list all neighbors that you contact at least once a month and who are important to you. Now list co-workers (if applicable) that you have a regular relationship with. This may be a member of a work team, or your direct supervisor, or a worker you take breaks with. Now, list classmates (if applicable) that you have a regular relationship with, and who are important to you. Now, list any other people that you have NOT included thus far, with whom you have a relationship of some importance that you are in contact with at least once a month. Again, let me remind you that this may be a helpful or a troublesome relationship. \ (arr rn;w01103 .fl'fi "¢:" ovhfi JOY IOflU'. “."'“ .aisdalti {Hop [89! ',- ‘v- . [:SW .‘ med? dfllv 2’37}? ‘1 '303 :uedé ‘1") :1 1'11 ‘HLJn ‘ v -: ”1 yd Qrwq igfuo 5'91} 5 exam on; In}, :;1~‘; 1. , . ,ui‘ ., 1 #:0w m 20 isdmsm 5 ed 225234 sis: uoy XHXIQT wfifi .1”. rsiupei z: . .- .' .1 'JTi'i .‘Y‘rffi‘l' :10 ((11591 31w 5! 1 1 s_am‘a up! 35d: (sldsoiigqr ii) as7emiosi 3811 won ; ‘fifil 313330311 9. s oaw bus (d1; w q;dsnoidslsi 1110911 'ng.’3¥ 35d:‘°:q09quxsdso gas 3:11 .10! - - 9v; not Iona an: :13 i 7‘? Mac: at 111 mg ”g ‘ 122 fiINTBRVIEWER: GO OVER THE LIST AND PROBE FOR ANY OMISSIONS. IITINTERVIEWEE HAS MORE THAN 26 PERSONS, OMIT LEAST IMPORTANT PERSONS UNTIL 26 ARE LEFT.) I will now ask you several questions about these people you have listed, and about your relationship with them. B. In Column B next to your list of names, indicate whether this person is a male or a female. Use the code number 1 for female, 2 for male. C. In Column C, indicate the person's age in years. If you are not sure, make a guess. D. In Column D, indicate the person's family status, using the following code numbers: (READ OFF) 1. (single, no children) 2. (married, no children) 3. (married, infants and/or children under 5 years) 4. (single, infants and/or children under 5 years) 5. (married, children 5 years or older) 6. (single, children 5 years or older) E. In Column E, indicate where this person lives, relative to you. (READ OFF) - same neighborhood - same city - same state - out of state AWN?“ F. In Column F, indicate who usually starts the contact first (for example, who calls whom): (READ OFF) 1 - you contact him/her first usually 2 - equal number of times you and this person initiate contact 3 - he/she contacts you first usually G. In Column G, indicate all the different ways that you and this person communicate. For example, if you write letters as well as talk by phone, put 2 and 3 (READ OFF) 1 - face to face 2 - telephone 3 - mail/letters , I'.’ '1 ' ”lac .: crit:cxsm About other az1§QLQQf= i h 1 t 1) H v 1 t...‘ .a-n' 1...: i - -._._- 4 1;. A < —,_—._._ 13:1 ': 1" SJfiiJinI PL- ‘{L15;2U I? 59"3533 atfiw :1fl535211D =9 :3 eeiqncxs ._? QR! S 111 1'? 55113 103 g senodq yd ifs: as {Isa as 1113313; ' :7 WHVO OD [:0H EAR T TV?) 73 V -‘< '1' n‘ - ‘ v )5, | J” Lia-f "LJJXOD '1 {is siszrbnr L. {I L. (a nmuioa nl :HSUI SHWSI _ 13331 $11 fies won I! .693311 -w 1‘1). 0‘) “l a 7:19q 11" 16! isms} v,,~6 n! .3 1.1% TILL". 915 :1 .3 {1; ad’ , L I ”"3 " to lZCC". ‘J‘ild .. f. .9 .sdsoinomtoo noaxaq clad-hi! 123 IU* In Column H, indicate how often you and this person contact each other. (READ OFF) 1 - daily 2 - weekly/at least once a week 3 - couple times a month 4 - monthly/at least once a month I. In Column 1, indicate all the different types of relationships that you have with this person. For example, a relative of yours might also be a co-worker, so you would put down 2 and 4. (READ OFF) - household member - relative - neighbor — co-worker classmate - friend - member of same club, church, sports league - other mflmU‘iwaH I J. In Column J, indicate how you feel about this relationship. (READ OFF) 1 - feels good most of the time 2 - good at times troublesome at times 3 - troublesome or problematic most of the time K. In Column K, indicate how intense or strong this relationship feels to you (both good and poor relationships can be very intense or very weak) (READ OFF) 1 - very intense 2 - fairly intense 3 - fairly weak 4 - very weak L. In Column L indicate all of the types of exchanges you make with this person. 1 - information or advice on babies, childcare, concerns of parents information or advice on other areas of concerns items such as food, clothes, tools, or money social activities, recreational activities work, school-related activities praise or criticism about being a parent, about one' 1 baby piano or criticism about othat “ £0 you aspnsdoxe a; 134v; ":zz“ * V" @341 ‘auidad no serves to no: amioini -.I~ "._gdo no ooivbs no 10331110112 - S ‘in won orutlbnl .H 0.32.3 (13H CASE) .xenao not.“ _ 1W vilsb - I ‘Atoi *e\YI¥99W ‘ S . ; HM‘Y ‘IIJUO'J " E 'rhvlninom - b tTciOD HI 1’ ° tgrdwnofdslci ' 173191 1 nwob auq ‘riiai _,‘_[.f': .(A . . ..1: !-.¢,..!:‘::f' .1 1"11'100 ."II ”I .“Qalsq CIGJ djiw 9111 cansxsq to someones r ;;;.31. 124 ' .‘ we are interested in finding out who knows whom. I will _+ 1p you fill this form out. We will put the initials of " {111 the people on your network list across the top and bottom of this chart. Now (START ASKING ABOUT WHO KNOWS WHOM). )1 a M E: ‘l L . I" I ‘ 1v .J‘ .{ a ‘1 3 ‘ u ‘ 0C: w «I ,1” gm p-ziini‘r :11 (1131919an 0” - 7 7 ' M .m-' mxo': 81d: un “ :{._.w99.: UMY no stqoaq . .. :rM .flbfi'.‘ am: to APPENDI.‘I E General .J“‘ During the prevxnra . A 1‘“; . r '. m.y . “I {OllOWlD/j av“. r the ‘ 11 Troublo’ '.. t ‘ , ~ ~ ‘ APPENDIX E ' 14. Major change In numa~x u: {at.i3 15. Major change in financial state -. , 4 16. (inning A mmumwmm m , fi-«hwwr- _ . . ~ ' - ..K, 125 APPENDIX E General Life Events Questionnaire During the previous 3 months, have you experienced any of the following events? Check yes or no. Yes N_o 1. Troubles with the boss 2. Detention in jail or other institution ‘3 3. Major change in sleeping habits (a lot more, a lot less, or change in part of day you sleep) 4. Death of a close family member 5. Major change in eating habits (a lot more or q a lot less food, different meal hours or surroundings) g 6. Foreclosure on a mortgage or loan 3 H 7. Revision of personal habits (dress, manners, #3 associations) . ___ 2% ll 8. Death of a close friend ___ , § 9. Minor violations of the law (traffic ticket, 1H jaywalking) ... ___. Lk 10. Outstanding personal achievement ___ _._ 5; f ‘ 11. Major change in the health or behavior of a 5% family member ___ .___ If 12. Sexual difficulties ___ ___ 13. In-law troubles ___. ___ 14. Major change in number of family get-togethers ___ 15. Major change in financial state ‘ 16. Gaining a new family/household member 17. Change in residence 59. ChIlStmaS wtul «mum M W ., ‘u f r . fl“, _, ." ’ Haddu'n 5:751:14; ' ‘ . ‘A‘. .b'.:’l‘.ou , ac ‘vexq 9n) pat y) ‘:w ; sngwollol ~ — ;x1UL)IT ,raleu .S ‘cl :[SM .11 u_. “w. s‘m‘. .:;mni ~_~ *W“ 2 :, "ii’b .euxsa .SI nub ... asidooxa wsl~nl .81 §g§d§§201~399 xgimsi io :sdmun n1 spnsdo acts! 135:: islonsnil mi 19056: IOtII Mijofgchange in Church/club/organizational actiVities (join, stopped attending) 4?. 20. Marital reconciliation with mate 21. being fired from work 22. Divorce 23. Death of a spouse 24. Marriage 25. Changing to a different line of work 26. Major change in the number of arguments with spouse 27 Major change in responsibilities at work 28. Spouse beginning or ceasing work outside the home 29. Major change in working hours or conditions 30. Major change in usual type and/or amount of recreation 31. Taking on a mortgage or loan greater than $10,000 32. Taking on a mortgage or loan less than $10,000 33. Major personal injury or illness 34. Major business readjustment 35. Major change in social activities 36. Major change in living conditions (building home, remodeling, neighborhood change) 37. Retirement from work .38. Vacation '.Christnas I o .pabbiiud} “a Ch. ”1.. ‘5 v‘. — an... . ...—... ...—..., .i-o—n [if‘;’:~'I.-.. ' v '1rc no: on- (Onnsno boodroddpzen ,‘, it at opnsdo pnrlsbomsi 11.-.) mi epnsda IOCC“ ' asijivijal4 151135! : '1 qumtff (r103) '009! : 'r‘. -e . u: N ' / 3 L10 _“ if ‘1’): ; apr‘rudo A v -:0va pnlsfl i'uf‘G ztfiH . 1otsM Tots! .emod .CS .CC .36 ;{uffi-¢‘ arrow 19:: ans." “5:3“ N? This}: :63»; “g; inglnning or ceasing formal schooling r 42. Loss of a household member 13. Problems with alcohol or drugs > (if -: pumseo 10 wlnulm', ‘Q '15" 3' Lone-gum! 5 30 I.“ APPENDlx F Pzegnawuy/Puntp..+~ Th1. next set cf :Hv:x“ti . '. : . .:. ’1‘ tvfle families have an“ ,-.~ .-:. .1: , . _.~: , :ae van follow alone. Over f’m 2;.33 . ' . 2»; G: the '7,,"‘.-_1',- . 5.0” f“‘.',‘ V . . ,. ‘ CUGCP‘H :1 APPENDIX F I ~. 3 v k u— 4“;’ . :- "1»: r :-.v:.' , 1:31 _—‘ ”Vi h A h , . CF_fiT;VQu N;- ancjyh time to; yearufifigl an enough that ;: ,4“. EJas:::¢:£ 3,-6; APPENDIX F Pregnancy/Postbirth Questionnaire This next set of questions pertains to concerns that some families have had as they became parents. Again, you can follow along. Over the last 3 months, have you been concerned about any of the following areas? If so, please tell me how concerned you have been: Not at all, slightly concerned, moderately concerned, or very concerned. Moder— 32 Yes Slight ate Very 3. 4. Money problems Space in home/apartment (for example: not enough, poor layout) Sexual relationship with mate Interference from in-laws Interference from your family (parents, brothers, sisters) Neatness of housekeeping Extra work Change in routines (eating, sleeping, socializing) Not enough contact with friends/relatives Not enough time for yourself Not enough time for you and your mate as a couple .W’ -_.v:-r; 291.11“! plain HOIIO! fit 1 a - -‘ y L, , ‘I I) 434.53% \ ~ I oder- I ate Very Whether you are a good parent 15. Physical tiredness and fatigue 16. Other physical problems related to pregnancy/delivery (if yes, please specify) Postbirth Sample Moder— ‘ haulingm , 17. Infant's general health : 18. Infant's temperament or need 19. Infant's feeding 20. Infant's sleeping t,j $97301 6 4. H o b 5 14 _ .‘H i t .\ MN ...HIT .nrHunnilg.fl APPENDIX C ‘ DIRECTIONS: A Mumhr"nf v‘a'.~»‘ has ; in r ~4ve :sed to describe 0: ‘* »J statement and {rut I generaIEy {~.' g ‘~ wrong (1.‘:S'.«'u».. . . " - .~ '. 4:, fasponyr - Almcw‘, I- ,’ _'.-,.~>. .(‘H . ..- " ‘ ' ‘ APPENDIX G "‘r:. v ' x'x ' . kr. _~ - . . _ .. ,,, F. , [AU . A an n-zpyl . ‘ l I ... - 11. 1 am inclined to take *nxngs hats. . . . ”I lackrself-contidence x r u ‘ y n H 1 *51Wflnm‘h‘h‘ldrn‘v‘ullh 130 APPENDIX G State-Trait Anxiety Inventory f DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given below. I'll read each J statement and then I want you to tell me how you have 1 generally felt OVer the last 3 months. There are no right or wrong answers. Use the following scale to indicate your responses: 1 2 3 Almost never Sometimes Often Almost always 1 2 3 4 1. I feel pleasant . .. . . . . . . . . . . .1. _ _ _ _ 2. I tire quickly 0 o o o o o o o o I o o .2. _ _ _ - , 30 I feel like CIYing o o I o o o o I I o o 30 _ _ - _ 2;“ J 4. I wish I could be as happy as others seem % to be 0 O C I O O I C O O O O I I I I O O 4 O - - _ - v.1”; .4. 5. I am losing out on things because I can't :- make up my mind soon enough. . . . . . . .5. _ _ _ _ U 1. 6. I feel rested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. _ _ _ _ ‘£ 7. I am "calm, cool, and collected" . . . . 7. _ _ _ _ fl . . v 8. I feel that difficulties are piling up so 3; that I cannot overcome them. . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ fl 9. I worry too much over something that ;i really doesn't matter. . . . . . . . . . .9. _ _ _ _ v I O O C O 10. _ - — - 10. I am happy . . . . . . . . . 11. I am inclined to take things hard. . . . 11. __ _ 12- I IaCR self’confidence o o o o o o o I 120 - a » I feel secure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 #5101168!!! 9d11388b 03 , -:- 119m93518 I ' ‘ .1 11:519n99 «u: f PfiOIU : Jim: :7 311291 mam-a - .V . .. o! P . W . . : ‘H V - v .3 - , . r g I 7r. l ‘ :99‘: I .3 _ m _ - ‘5' - -'7 ' =' . ' 15H) 1‘1" ' E ‘ ‘5.“7 ' '. «1 j, :1 ,.j, 5 '."'jow I .9 ; _ _ _ _ .0. . . . . . . .ujjsT "fi333b YI1533 r- r . UL v . . . _ . . . . . . yqqsd ms I .01 .II . . . .bzad spnidj 9x53 03 beniloni as I .13 .. . . . . ”Monaco-Moo mi ’ a 7‘ .7 Almost always 1 2 3 15. I feel blue 0 O C O O I O I O C I C O O 15. 16 O I a. content C C O I C U U O O I O C C O 1 6 D > 17. Some unimportant thought runs through my 18. 19. 20. mind and bothers me. . . . . . . . . . . 17. I take disappointments so keenly that I can't put them out of my mind. . . . . . 18. I am a steady person . . . . . . . . . 19. I get in a state of tension or turmoil as I think over my recent concerns and interests. 0 I O I O O O I I Q I I I C O 20. C . - W: ‘ ‘umna APPEND!X H \ Center for Epid w :1 5:: "» U =;‘:_{:_.z $1119 1 \ i law X'm gains 1” s- : .' - 4 . ., -' :tsn other ways tr - y" > ~ v , (,. -me how 0:"' :.u :r ‘ ZLOO. APPENDIX H &. My sluen was tcscluss. m”_ _.. *fir 1. I was happy. ...... .V w .1» talked 1.1! ;-;»-- 132 APPENDIX B 1. Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Now I'm going to read you some statements that describe other ways that you may have felt or behaved. Please tell me how often you felt this way during the previous 3 month period. Rarely Some Moderate All 0 1 2 3 a. I was bothered by things that usually don't bother me. b. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor. c. I felt that I could not shake P the blues even with help from “ family or friends. q “I d. I felt that I was just as good f as other people. e. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing. l'fi o I felt depressed. ___ ___ ___ ___ m.“ g. I felt that everything I did was an effort. .9.... {morn 3? J h. I felt hopeful about the future. i. I thought my life had been a failure. _ __ ___ — j. I felt fearful. ___ ___ ___ ___ k. My sleep was restless. ___ __. ___ .... 5, 1. I was happy. I talked less than usual. . I felt lonely._ . .1 , .__ \4fk n, 1:.«z'afl 103 Iainob .2: 3* pnlop I'I 3 :51; eysw redaiu ‘ u'1 19310 won I. ’ .bolzoq VAT 2:9— ,"; -' . . I ‘TQW c r ,, n s . a I" r - v i: -,.- , ' " '_ ::.w y d2 ‘4'“ ‘ .....- ...- _ ,7 ‘ ‘.’: M931 .d -' ~u‘ ..LL gr puod: I .l _e. am_ i-“ .9322153 5 ”I”. --—. ...-.... _____ .LL'ilsgi 31’, I at .asslsssr ssw gsoIs y! t. enjoyed life. had crying spells. felt sad. felt that people disliked me. could not get “going“. Rarely Some Moderate 0 1 2 r’ It .93“ beget“ ...1 legs rnl‘aa 5d 3' .bee 31.3 I» .wo' ._; '15", 3191 I ‘. APPENDIX I with the m followycv Ami; :. .~' Q ~ . -.y. u ' A‘s-‘lt ...‘ h 1 I ‘1 ; \ _ APPENDIX I 7 " APPENDIX I Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale low I want you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about yourself. Use the following code numbers: l-Strongly agree Z—Agree 3-Disagree 4-Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 1. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. { 2. I feel that I have a number of good if qualities. ___ __ __ __ J 3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. __ __ __ __ 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. __ __ __ __ . S. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. __ __ __ __ i 6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. __ __ __ __ 7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. __ __ __ __ ‘1 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. _ _ _ _ 9. I certainly feel useless at times. __ __ __ __ 7 j 10. At times I think I am no good at all. __ __ _. __ or zon 10! new I u 0) ad: un- -‘ . I A ' A APPBNDIX J Spanier DyaJLC A¢.~ “OBC PGIEOOS haVH d1=1n'~nu~r:' . - 3;.. HF. ‘ " ’ ' - ~ - ' - i » .- . ... .nt'r.t. r-r Please lhéiCutc uL.g. 7 , disagreement WH'kw r , < V the f01[JU r3 :< :éfi an APPENDIX J §‘~ . 34‘ —..;; um ' gh‘lc’ffi‘. '- 135 APPENDIX J Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate extent of agreement or U disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the following list. Almost Occa- Fre- Almost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1.Handling family finances 2.Matters of recreation 3.Re1igious matters u ___-— 4.Demonstrations of affection 5.Sex relations 6.Friends a 7.Conventionality (correct or proper behavior) ___ _— _ “"_fi 8.?hilosophy of life _E-» ——‘» -... -—--!' ...... ——-- ...,”- f__ .7 9.Ways of dealing with. Timed d3. . _ , , :3: '5' 7‘ '- ‘11. 4".- ‘ I L; A 6 5AA< m .. .1 l --1 E70819q » a".."!f'.l 9. ‘ 2 , ,nwxugzpb.u ‘ L 'wfifloi 9d! ', -r‘ g:;.anc;3asvn03.I .. ...... W a!“ lo ydgoeolmfi Almost Occa-' Fre- Almost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree- Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 10.Aims, goals, and things believed important II.Amount of time spent together A ___ _ —— — — -— { 12.Making major decisions 13.Household tasks ...I ___—___— l4.Leisure time interests and activities —_—_—a——— 15.Career decisions More All Most of often Occa- the time the time than not sionally Rarely Never 16. How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation, or terminating your relationship? 17. How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight? 18. In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well? 3 :73 mpg pitta-55 snrvran‘; 7.1;}. ' will: an: Mid! no" M; '19330 mad 7_ filsw pniop sxs 13‘31 _ ILA eyswlA ‘ '- :;:"‘, ~ 5512‘ 2; «9:23 won .Tl ..— __ v3. ‘1 .'t .01 - — ‘JViD Sndpil .Isienep ul .Oil§' ‘1 . 131 -_ More All Most of ~ often Ocoa - - tho~time -the time than-not aim mlly m’ely never IS; Do.you confide in your mate? 20. Do you ever regret that you married? 21. How often do you and your mate quarrel? 22. How often do you and your mate "get on each other's nerves?" Every Almost Occa- 3 day every day sionally Rarely Never Q 23. Do you kiss your mate? _ fi 24. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? *“ _ <‘ 2 . ~-.. . How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate? Less than Once or Once or ' F‘th'x'wtk once a twice a twice a Once a More i Never month month week day often ; 25. Have a stimulating exchange of ideas 26. Laugh together; ~ , ~ , u_" .— Calmly discuss something 5 - ‘ ' ‘ an“; '. ‘18 I9 ..."; :I_ 'e|)” ‘1‘ ‘ ._ . .. ," 1:01:11 9213 on: s,~~w ink 14 abllnoo 901' ,: rave uov 00°. "2 + £9 3'03 0“ M)“ A M— r L) 1 fl 5"; NW 913. 5 933% _ ‘ nfi33u vsé_ _::-7. A ”v A i m 39v:fl Al‘ is u: ;; apzutzxg 9:;Jsgumita 5 9753 ~35 138 Less than Once or Once or once a twice a twice a Once a More Never month month week day often 28. Work together on a project ___—— ___—___ These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationship in the past few weeks. (Check yes or no.) Yes No 29. ___ ___ Being too tired for sex. 30. ___ Not showing love. 31. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point, "happy", represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship. Extremely Fairly A little Happy Very Extremely Perfect Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy Happy Happy 32. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship? I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any lengths to see that it does. I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to see that it does. I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does. It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can‘t do much more than 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. dEi : :JJI lunj BBDJ 2' , , "it s sans , : ‘7iggnm asvsfl ‘l I‘ ' win-3" ‘ g . 'f -: ‘3“? M f , ‘ J =‘): . . , . ‘ r ‘ .Qi 4 . _, . _ d‘ ,1“.‘V ' A x ’ . - - v b b .4 .\ - - yr . -"' . I (I.( L1. .35 ‘ wSJOU; 51 s;w5pr.,g;,\ vm 1n? amum J15? 415% - '1 ‘;,:~‘ , .r- » -. > .asob 3", ~r. » 1. ca 3-ii : Cb I ‘ v I 1 rod .bsbeeaoua gxdauozgsiat 1m )1 93': ad c‘uow 1M. glen 0:: was 9310?: am i nest! 9mm damn oh 3' ¢,.r«.; .bssoouc Ant-W; 39¢ .bobseooua .n :2 sum ed Moon :1 - '~:£1m~5wwb --‘ “ e3 pniob .. I I I - 4" 4211.. g _“ "'- ‘ . A s "J’s-‘3’.» . —' . . a, ..._ Q, g 3" .-"'q ~ywnfi3 ‘. _, V‘r..k . u. t' ,‘, .‘u- 4".;"\'.,‘—v'51* "3' < j x .35, L! Unfit. ._ . ,uv.hv.uan..-.¢a.fi.uun ‘ ‘ , , t a _ ,. , V . . . . u. n J ... , . . , . . . . p . APPENDI X K 3 u t a c 3 1 m h C s m C L. I it ii; school Status é a on: -mong tress and unlad*ug; “ ' "" ”P ’ 131E ‘" ‘ 7 _ 7 Employment ..--..” "None Dartntime luslutilifir None 3 2 34 7 School Part-time 0 0 5 " Ful 1-time 2 3 1 Females Employment t None Part-time Full-time , J None 11 9 22 9 School Part-time 2 2 4 Full-time 0 O 0 1‘ g..— x __., 7;»? xi; {'1 I- 14C Stress ~nd Halad ustnent ScsIes Stress Anticipatory Phase Specific General Life -; Prebirth Males Maladjustment Anxiety .38* .35* -.14 Depression .45* .52** -.16 Self Esteem .26 .32 -.24 Marital Adjustment -.31 -.37* .19 Prebirth Females Maladjustment Anxiety ' .28 .59*** .18 3 Depression ’ .25 .38* .36* ’ A Self Esteem -.02 .19 -.23 Marital , l Adjustment -.17 .15 .07 g 5 ** a "a 2<.05. 2<.01. (.001. 001 fi ..7 >FH I . h r v H . lift .5, vs.— . A; l A E‘ ' ...LuLLf'IM fl a~ gaatqed wwsfiez ifs? \‘0 ,, [when ' ' x -' inemjautbfi 1‘2 {w7" 2‘ (cont'd.). . .birth 3.; fig-.0 fli‘ if: )2 .. . . ‘-, ‘.2. ' t < . Ifress gng ,,‘1 i a . C _‘ - 7 Stress “ $0., Anticipatory Phase Specific General Lifé‘ Postbirth Males 'r Maladjustment 1“ Anxiety .23 .53** .35* Depression .30 .40* .06 Self Esteem -.05 .30 .12 Marital Adjustment -.O4 -.34* -.3O Postbirth Females Maladjustment Anxiety .55** .67*** .61*** Depression .56** .70*** .64*** Self Esteem -.06 -.02 .04 Marital Adjustment -.40* -.44* -.56** *** *2<.os. ’*g<.01. <.001. IA ID 1|. .(.b'3noo) “Ibslbl d- .‘1L; ..SM xnufbA 'v . v ’2 Ibrf‘ m c I we - D for ces: The Effects of Ro1L cgwil' V. V g: . I Effect Stress Direct Interaction Network Prebirgh 2 2 2 Variable Group ' R R change R change ' Size Males .01 .00, .00 Females .04 .24 .05 Density Males .01 .03, .00 Females .04 .18 .01 ‘ .Clusters “ Males .01 .03 .02 ‘ Females .04 .09 .02 Same family life cycle Males .01 .03 .01 Females .04 .01 .01 Multidimensional Relationships Males .01 .04 .01 Females .04 .03 .04 ;5Lfi“391310 “can. sidstanv 9313 143 .Ho.vm .mo.vm ii ¥ amm. mo.| «amm.| vH. mofimsmm HH. «wm.l «Nv.| oo.| mmamz mmmuum mamsou mm. mo.n ««ov. om. mmfimewm mo. mm.| «vm. mo. moamz mmmuum wmcmno oaom nuufinumom :uufinwum cuufinumom nuuflnmum cuuanumom cuuflnwum cofluomwmfiummmfio ucmsumSnvc xuozumz Hmuflnmz ucwEDmsncmHmz wHQMfium> ucovcmmoo wusouo Ham now moanwflum> ucwucwmmo can monoum mmmuum mcoe< mCOHumHmuuouuwucH mm magma g; .... .;.._..f:m... ‘. n . ,.,~,mm.c .4“...,~_1aa.\...—503J laugh » M f f‘, '13'I1‘ 144 Table 27 Multiple Regression Analysis: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Network Variables on Network Dissatisfaction Total Groupa Effect Network Stress Direct Interaction Variable 2 2 2 R R change R change * Size .00 .00 .05 Density .00 .01 .00 Clusters .00 .00 .00 Same family life cycle .00 .02 .00 Multidimensional .00 .00 .00 Relationships a2 = 100. * 2<.05. 5.. {”31 145 Table 28 Prebirth Group Differences: The Effects of Role Change Stress and Network Variables on Network Dissatisfaction Effect Stress Direct Interaction Network Prebirsh 2 2 2 Variable Group R R change R change Size Males .09 .00 .00 Females .01 .07 .02 Density Males .09 .02 .00 Females .01 .03 .01 Clusters Males .09 .00 .00 Females .01 .16 .01 Same family life cycle Males .09 .00 .08 Females .01 .00 .00 Multidimensional Relationships Males .09 .00 .02 Females .01 .00 .00 a2 = 25. Effect Interaction Stress Direct Network Postbi th 2 2 2 Variable Group R R change R change Size Males .00 .01 .06 Females .10 .02 .08 Density * Males .00 .00 .19 Females .10 .01 .06 Clusters Males .00 .03 .03 Females .10 .01 .00 Same family life cycle Males .00 .03 .08 Females .10 .01 .00 Multidimensional Relationships Males .00 .09 .13 Females .10 .00 .01 a g s 25. * 2<.01. I 3410'”. r.» ‘ Vidal”, 9318 u v'. .dnga K,‘ a‘: J“ m. —. .-w W , , l . . v Sable 30 islad ustnent Scores at Hi h and Low Levels of Stress and Setuori Size ' Prebirth Females Stress Network Size Low High Low .60 .73 High .45 .58 Postbirth Females Stress _ , Network Size Low ngh 1 Low .14 .81 High .39 .35 ‘-‘ Panda. Abbey, A., Abrams, Ll», 4:123 Cy: ': E1. :9t1i‘i social Eggrozgt the cfzp:r« -- z—'u “, '"?s\b“\9 Q2 the relx‘znnwrf; :écweni ‘ "r. r 7‘ n a r».s. Paper {"“sw. r'; "3 ‘ V ' 3 I A "V 5'- Assn. ',f 34“", (uni-,5: 55 ,, Anazwus,“. ‘ *‘h.q ., 4 LIST or REFERENCES #2- 2'35.‘;£'kt ~, — l ‘11 ' ‘ «hf-tfi'fiim . D ' ‘ ~-"'r ;., 5. ;.V . , '~ My. r9'.'-‘;'zk €06:th ' -- ‘ r fauna-"i ‘1‘ .'-1. NIQREM‘ {Anily tho .. .4 v . 0 if , i K _ é .J‘L 1 er"‘- -‘ - ‘ .3353no; 213w1_.“ :L1W'. . :g .% ,egz .éoon32iszsa 13 Us”-ea. |1¢:>'3 c—o -..... ."irmsj 9A: ..- JJ.I . ‘ has .N .iiSQI) .381Vofi bus ..0 .L: ...L'J 1 5.. ..L dual“ .gggjra Yilflfii ggslixsfl wins-‘18 ut- W” 7;. ’33 It}; stores Iopsirm Ill 99m?” V —I4I-‘ ‘ Ll". ‘ ‘51 ‘1. ‘ "N 156 ‘ ';LE — :53 \ —\— x I g .. . .~ . r 2 '. I. 371 . .. M 0.”. H :wt 515 .' _v‘t93 1£ . v ,5q1fl3m ‘10 Isl-noon hoot”. 149 Boissevain, J., and Mitchell, J. (Eds.). (1973). Network analySis: Studies in human interaction. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Bott, E. (1957). Family and social network. London: Tavistock. Brazelton, T. B. (1983). Infants angymgghers. New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc. Brown, G. W. (1974). Meaning, measurement, and stress of life events. In B. S. Dohrenwend and B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects (pp. 45-72). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Brown, G., Birley, J., and Wing, J. (1972). Influence of family life on the course of schizophrenic disorders: A replication. British Journal of Psychiatr , 131, 241-258. Brown, G. W., and Harris, T. (1978). Social origins of depression: A study of psychiatric disorders on women. London: Tavistock Pub. Budson, R., and Bropley, I. (Eds.). (1980). The chronic psychiatric patient in the community. New York: Spectrum Pub. Campbell, A. (1975, May). The American way of mating; Marriage si, children only maybe. Psychology Today, 38-44. Campbell, A. (1974). Are women's lives more frustrating and less rewarding than men's? Mimeo. Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of preventative psychiatry. New York: Basic Books. Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health. New York:Behaviora1 Pub. Caplan, G., Mason, E., and Kaplan, D. (1965). Four studies of crisis in parents of prematures. Community Mental Health Journal, 1(2), 149-161. Cassel, J. (1976). The contribution of the social environment to host resistance. American Journal of Epidemiology, 104(2), 107-123. .1.u.11; has I .uwora .5'1 '1 I , .7.?1R L r .‘ .. a'na g4nz? _'/ .-.;fi;§fi._x;;r _; 1 , [7- g» ’9 ".w . .A»' .? .nslqso .if j ':.5 11:01 was 3"113LKN— . 9'21; .8 .nsiqfiO 'srnczx; 9V we” .djieod {*eéel) ca finial “45‘ b1,“ \IS .30.“ ‘19 ' . 4 .ff .13stqu 10 when»; cu “emit. 15.31,, ‘ «1.954.; W.3- .2-.- L49 : J1,“-_q- — ‘ .. 150 Chadwick, B., Albrecht, S., and Kunz, P. (1976). Marital and family role satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1g, 431—440. Christensen, H. (Ed.). (1964). Handbook of marriage and the family. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosoggtic Medicine, 1§(5), 300-314. Cochran, M., and Brassard, J. (1979). Child development and personal social networks. Child Development, 19, 601-616. Cohen, C., and Sokolovsky, J. (1978). Schizophrenia and social networks. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 546-560. Cohen, C., and Sokolovsky, J. (1980). Social engagement versus isolation: The case of the aged in SRO hotels. The Gerontologist, 19, 36-44. Cohen, S. and Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 28(2), 310-357. Colletta, N. D. (1983). At risk for depressiion: A study of young mothers. Journal of Genetic PsycholoQYu 142, 301—310. Colletta, N. D. (1981). Social support and the risk of maternal rejection by adolescent mothers. The Journal of Psychology, 109, 191-197. Colletta, N. D., and Gregg, C. H. (1981). Adolescent mothers' vulnerability to stress. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 169, 50-54. Colletta, N. D., and Lee, D. (1983). The impact of support for black adolescent mothers. Journal of Family Issues, 5, 127-143. Craven, P., and Wellman, B. (1973). The network city. Sociological Inquiry, 11(3-4), 57-88. Cubitt, T. (1973). Network density among urban families. In J. Boissevain and J. Mitchell (Eds.), Network analysis: Studies in human interaction. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Dean, A., and Lin, N. (1977). The stress buffering role of social support: Problems and prospects for systematic investigation. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 165, 403-417. " ’I runn- fl 1:19d39 ; |309 . V ‘ch :. (Jr-)7 V : .q . 59'.) y -. . ....2: 2:. l , . . _ , " .ur’sIIOD .:'7 .' 'r. v .. A .sauazl - .1323 anwjon adT .(FYQL) .5 .nawiiaw has ..qi.novsso, . ‘ .23-ta .(i-ilfi .yuup‘g‘ l i. ' "'IIF""'—_——___—_—_———_——_____—______________——______———___—_""""'-""‘ 151 Dohrenwend, B. S., and Dohrenwend, B. P. (Eds.). (1974).Stfessful life events: Their nature and effects. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Duvall, E. (1962). Family Development. (2nd. ed.) New York: J. B. Lippincott Co. Dyer, E. (1963). Parenthood as crisis: A re-study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 196-201. Elmer, G. (1981). Traumatized children, chronic illness, and poverty. In L. Pelton (Ed.), The social context of Child abuse and neglect. New York: Human Sciences Press. Fein, R. (1976). Men's entrance to parenthood. Family Coordinator, 1;, 341-348. Froland, C., Brodsky, G., Olson, M., and Stewart, C. (1979). Social support and social adjustment: Implications for mental health professionals. Community Mental Health Journal, 11, 82—93. Garbarino, J., and Gilliam, G. (1980). Understanding abusive families. Lexington: D.C. and Heath and Co. Garrison, V. (1978). Support systems of schizophrenic and nonschizophrenic Puerto Rican migrant women in New York City. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 5, 561-596. Gladieux, J. D. (1978). Pregnancy - the transition to parenthood: Satisfaction with the pregnancy experience as a function of sex role conceptions, marital relatinship, and social network. In W. B. Miller and L. F. Newman (Eds.), The first child and fggily formation (pp. 275—295). Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center. Glick, P. (1955). The life cycle of the family. Marriage and Family Livipg, 1g, 3-9. Gordon, R., Kapostins, E., and Gordon, K. (1965). Factors in postpartum emotional adjustment. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 3;, 158-166. Gorsuch, R., and Key, M. (1974). Abnormalities of pregnancy as a function of anxiety and life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 12(4), 352-362. Gottlieb, B. (1976). The development and application of a classification scheme of informal helping behaviors. Canadian Jourpgl of thavaioral Science, 10(2), 105-115. _ Ill ‘ . 7. 1‘ 'O-Liiot. ”‘19 ‘ ca 0‘ ' V - ‘ ‘5 ‘ .1.- [11830118. ‘. ' ‘-l;W KNOB 2170' ".f. ..‘.691) h ' ’ p . .... '.”€;' .8 g #:121115M 30 . . ' -. .D as." avoq .519 .w ‘ .. _“11 1 . v y :1 . L“ . 5; ‘1. .150 i. |.: Q . u , A'a0 . ’ :"...' 'A I n' l . r.!' ’w , In . v, . l.‘ 1 r 13': ‘, w a v r ‘3 ‘- . :. _"‘ ' 'w‘ .4. .4 r— 4' . V ‘ ‘ - I ‘ 1 .34} épéizngfi .1; w-. 3' ‘_ r-i.. - ~- a.; _'f.€;) .9 ‘BDtia _ ammuni- ...- 3IOSDS1 .(Can) .8 .361.02 fine ..3 .aniJaneH ..fi .nobxoa . W .7n9mtcufts lsnoi1ome nuaasqsam'“ ’= ' . «139861 .19. .W .men.a:- mm - ~ o .’. 152 Gottlieb, B. (1981). Preventive interventions involving social networks and social support. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support (pp. 201-232). Beverly Hills: Sage Pub. Co. Gottlieb, B. H. (Ed.). (1981). Social networks and social support. Beverly Hills: Sage Pub. Co. Gove, W., and Geeken, M. (1977). The effect of children and employment on the mental health of married men and women. Social Forces, gg, 66-76. Hammer, M. (1980). In R. Budson and I. Bropley (Eds.), The chronic psychiatric patient in the community. New York: Spectrum Pub. Hammer, M. (l963~64). Influences of small social networks as factors on mental hospital admission. Human Organization, g3, 243-251. Hammer, M. (1981). Social supports, social networks, and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 45-57. Harry, J. (1976). Evolving sources of happiness for men over the life cycle: A structural analysis. Joournal of Marriage and the Family, §§(2), 289-296. Henderson, S. (1977). The social network, support and neurosis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 185-191. Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. New York: Harper. Hirsch, B. (1981). Coping and adaptation in high—risk populations: Toward an integrative model. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 164—172. Hirsch, B. (1980). Natural support systems and coping with major life changes. American Journal of Community Psychology, g, 159-172. Hirsch, B. (1979). Psychological dimensions of social networks: A multimethod analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1, 263—277. Hobbs, D. (1965). Parenthood as crisis: A third study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 21, 367—372. Hobbs, D. F., and Cole, S. P. (1976). Transition to parenthood: A decade replication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, §§(4), 723-731. _ ‘— ‘..__- .3 a.;'&\‘ ‘ l r -‘= |3“.?:_;' A . ._:;5 "'"m . 3‘ gggaggb,§§alxssa .alatianu red SEX .; »;u’<4;~; evljnevaxq .(IBQL) .IVQ I ~:.- LBJCGS Dfih efisoussn ‘.t, 5"? :fl'w'*9n 161302 ‘(0‘ i". -.,... ————~-———— a;_;—:r;-j; 'r...ga .(scs-xo' .' V‘).Vn i-m l'. .. ~ ,:l 1d: ‘ ‘ flf ,Z‘TfibH fr. 1 mm «.5 -5.“: 1 “ ' ‘ A . 'J}? -n g . \ . 1111 r J. _ ‘B-flth . “‘40:; . , v...:.‘:lL'.:‘?.’W . . \ '5'7‘rvw; '1." g , - , r“. . , _ . . .. ' ‘ u -* ?“°=‘” - A, . A ;., a .g'- h .4 ,noaxzfl v'fvr an. 1 2 , ‘ 54» Mflgpfly; »;g. m; -.z 5?w"3h1 nzl lotbm 1 ., ,_ ,, L ah .223292132 qzq .(eTeI) .8 .daeztl omiiiua A :aX1ow39a' , ' 133502 10 snazznaxln 72*- “925$-.lllellég «55.47 . .. .-r . (M 153 Hollingshead, A. B., and Redlich, F. C. (1958). Social class and mental illness. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Holmes, T. H., and Masuda, M. (1974). Life change and illness susceptibility. In B. S. Dohrenwend and B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects (pp. 45-72). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Holmes, T. H., and Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, g, 213-218. Horowitz, B., and Wolock, I. (1981). Maternal deprivation, child maltreatment, and agency interventions among poor families. In L. Pelton (Ed.), The Social Context of Child Abuse and Neglect. New York: Human Sciences Press. Hurd, G. S., Lex, B. W., and Pattison, E M. Congruence of personal social networks and marital satisfaction. Mimeo. Kapferer, B. (1973). Social network and conjugal role in urban Zambia: Towards a reformulation of the Bott hypothesis. In J. Boissevain and J. Mitchell (Eds.), Network analysis: Studies in human interaction. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Kempe, C. H., and Helfer, R. E. (Eds.). (1980). The battered child. (3rd Ed.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kent, M. W., and Rolf, J. E. (Eds.). (1979). Primary prevention of psychopathology, Vol. III. Hanover: University Press of New England. Komarovsky, M., and Phillips, J. (1967). Blue collar marriage. New York: Vintage, 33-48. LaRocco, J., House, J., and French J. (1980). Social support, occupational stress, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 3;, 202—218. LeMasters, E. (1957). Parenthood as crisis. Marriage and Family Living, 2;, 352-355. Lin, N., Ensel, W., Simeone, R., and Kuo, C. (1979). Social support, stressful life events, and illness: A model and an empirical test. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 108-119. ~'.I_- ._l; 9 i l: 3’, ..‘"-‘; bill'- (.8 .A \b.. ' ..sanflfi ,:339 ban .3"! . 1 ._ v; "- (,hv 11.; 5 ‘1‘ 'Ak inswnotdofl". -': 7.; '=~ ..H .yflavoxsmox .-¢wit:? .n*v~ w=é ~2Efigllfi§ gm 5:. ans ..3 ,aauou ..L .oooolld .aasr z {anoizrqnoOO .Jxoqquc \£§ .1nrvsd98 [51008 has dag!!! : [L 5:: flgzv‘ u Mmzm«.«un Ha 154 Lipson, J. G. (1982). Effects of a support group on the emotional impact of cesarean childbirth. Prevention in Human Services, 1(3), 17-29. Lipton, F., Cohen, C., Fischer, E., and Katz, S. (1981). Schizophrenia: A network crisis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 144-151. Litwak, E. and Szelenyi, I. (1969). Primary group structures and their functions: Kin, neighbors and friends. American Sociological Review, 3£(4), 456-481. Llamas, R., Pattison, E. M., and Hurd, G. (1981). Social networks: A link between psychiatric epidemiology and community mental health. International Journal of Family Therapy, 3(3), 180-192. Maluccio, A. (1979). Learning from clients. New York: The Free Press. McFarlane, A. H., Norman, G. R., Streiner, D. L., and Roy, R. G. (1984). Characteristics and correlates of effective and ineffective social supports. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, g§(6), 501-510. Medalie, J. and Goldbourt, V. (1976). Angina pectoris among 10,000 men. II: Psychosocial and other risk factors as evidenced by a multivariate analysis of a five-year incidence study. American Journal of Medicine, g9, 910—921. Meyerowitz, J. H., and Feldman, H. (1966). Transition to parenthood. Psychiatric Research Report, g3, 78-84. Miller, S. (1983, October 9). Having a baby strains the marriage. Lansing State Journal, pp. 10, 110. Miller, W. B., and Newman, L. F. (Eds.). (1978). The first child and family formation. Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center. Minde, K., Shosenberg, N., Marton, P., Thompson, J., Ripley, J., and Burns, S. (1980). Self-help groups in a premature nursery - a controlled evaluation. Journal of Pediatrics, 26(5), 933-940. Mitchell, J. C. (Ed.). (1969). Social ngtworks in urban situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Mitchell, R., and Trickett, E. (1980). Task force report: Social networks as mediators of social support. Community Mental Health Journal, lg, 27-44. 1'. . '31:" 'f.‘ T: v: kept.“ ./ _ yflgggfifl-,,t .noeqmodT ..0 up" a n1 squats q.sdvllu3 .(usezs .a .enxua bub ‘.,§ ., ' afikstulnvs balletjnoo s -y:sazun ezufiaaaih ; (.1“e .(ssell . = jcsgm: 1 , “ . . .ienivuse a : -. 5.91:".(103 id” ggzellg! ..2‘ "1 r ’ .':II£-H ‘1 r. 15;”? “ ' ~.’. . ~. ..2 .w .xollifl ...," _- ~“' vJ_‘_‘fiiLdO .4‘ha“ d; 3:55uqoq n . :_H ..H pisdnoaoda .'.l ~Obflt‘j3 5 .mmse 1:19.. 155 Moos, R., and Mitchell, R. (1982). Social network resources and adaptation: A conceptual framework. In T. A. Willis (Ed.), Basic processes in helping relationships. New York: Academic Press. Niemeijer, R. (1973). Some applications of the notion of density to network analysis. In. J. Boissevain and J. Mitchell (Eds.), Network analysis: Studies in human interactions (pp. 45-64). The Hague: Mouton & Co. Nock, S. (1979). The family life cycle: Empirical or conceptual tool. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 3;: 15-26. Norbeck, J., and Tilden, V. P. (1983). Life stress, social support, and emotional disequilibrium in complications of pregnancy: A prospective, multivariate study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 30-46. Nuckolls, K., Cassel, J., and Kaplan, B. (1972). Psychosocial assets, life crisis and the prognosis of pregnancy. American Journal of Epidemiology, g§(5), 431-441. Oliveri, M., and Reiss, D. (1981). The structure of families' ties to their kin: The shaping role of social constructions. Journal of Mgrriage and the Family, 33(2), 391-407. Pattison, E. M., DeFrancisco, D., Wood, P., Frazier, H., and Crowder, J. (1975). A psychosocial kinship model for family therapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 13g(l2), 1246-1251. Pattison, E., and Pattison, M. (1981). Analysis of a schizophrenic psychosocial network. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 135-143. Pelton, L. (Ed.). (1981). The social context of child abuse and neglect. New York: Human Sciences Press. Phillips, S. (1981). Network characteristics related to the well-being of normals: A comparative study. Schizophrgpia Bulletin, 1(1), 117-124. Poole, I., and Kochen, M. (1978). Contacts and influence. Social Networks, 1, 5-51. Power, T. G., and Parke, R. D. (1984). Social network factors and the transition to parenthood. Sex Roles, -1_0' 949-972. 3.)]! Q .1.-. 5111016.: tilt": 1' ' 'etfia .(s321) .3 5. - » - Jusqml 15601_ .ggoxvxea a ‘1 ‘ . : .5010.) ‘I‘ I . ’ asidqosidOU .333911 9A) bus {13mg .5 (asmsIJ "' , , ‘v _ 1J5” ' -,, 3'93}; | ‘ 37111.1“ ‘ . -"" ..vl ‘17-”! an" .’?\s ' l.':31 ; .1 .u.u.-; c; ‘.U .W ‘ISIIIH . .3: 131,? .. ..'._._r-' DR”: {31.113 . _W— ~—~—o-—--o v- —- ..v.xn-5' no::: Tag 04 .gqudfl ..L .noaqaodT ..q .nasxaa ..H 5“; squetg glad-3133 .{0801) .é .enzua ba5.g;% .anflaiainvn boIloxinoo s - {Isaiah exudiuo. a~;.m°*1'££fiix4£i£&* '.,t}. C... .' 155 Moos, R., and Mitchell, R. (1982). Social network resources and adaptation: A conceptual framework. In T. . Willis (Ed.), Basic processes in helping relationships. New York: Academic Press. Niemeijer, R. (1973). Some applications of the notion of density to network analysis. In. J. Boissevain and J. Mitchell (Eds.), Network anggysis: Studies in human interactions (pp. 45-64). The Hague: Mouton & Co. Nock, S. (1979). The family life cycle: Empirical or conceptual tool. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 3;, 15-26. Norbeck, J., and Tilden, V. P. (1983). Life stress, social support, and emotional disequilibrium in complications of pregnancy: A prospective, multivariate study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 30-46. Nuckolls, K., Cassel, J., and Kaplan, B. (1972). Psychosocial assets, life crisis and the prognosis of pregnancy. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2§(5), 431-441. Oliveri, M., and Reiss, D. (1981). The structure of families' ties to their kin: The shaping role of social constructions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33(2), 391-407. Pattison, E. M., DeFrancisco, D., Wood, P., Frazier, H., and Crowder, J. (1975). A psychosocial kinship model for family therapy. nnerican Journnl of Psychiatry, 132(12), 1246-1251. Pattison, E., and Pattison, M. (1981). Analysis of a schizophrenic psychosocial network. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 135—143. Pelton, L. (Ed.). (1981). The social context of child abuse and neglect. New York: Human Sciences Press. Phillips, S. (1981). Network characteristics related to the well-being of normals: A comparative study. Sgnizophrenia Bulletin, 1(1), 117-124. Poole, 1., and Kochen, M. (1978). Contacts and influence. Social Networks, l, 5-51. Power, T. G., and Parke, R. D. (1984). Social network factors and the transition to parenthood. Sex Roles, l9! 949-972. . ' " .:1‘)11‘;1!H bfl‘ ! ‘ . 3. ~ q _1 ... 5.13.. ' ,1' P- ::?Oi.1b?q6h‘ H 4 L .~2 u-.1a :L,nu ...LS! alllkl . ‘7 ~ ‘ «his :XXOY M “"‘t' ‘- Cit-N11?” ; £04115” . ,‘,,I.“.' 1.7551 ?‘ . .. ? mm 5' n I). I‘ i Q: ;. i: J “13:12.3 6‘! ' s an”: ' * -....-..,.._-.A. " 3‘ - " . .. . . “ .. 1.1;138 ' , 95£5 0110:) 3Q .7333“..- (3:5, . "y . -‘--,v. .3851§ auona-;;" '” _ . WIS guano-3.x ,nfifisiFV}$ 115¥fi 156 President's Commission on Mental Health. (1978). Report to EEE President frgn the President's Commission on Mental Health, Volfil. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, 0.8. Government Printing Office. Quick, E. and Jacob, T. (1973). Marital disturbance in relation to role theory and relationship theory. Journal of Abnogngl Psychology, g3, 309—316. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self—report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. Rapoport, R., and Rapoport, R. (1968). Family transitions in contemporary society. Research, Journal of Psychosomatic $3, 29-38. Rhodes, S. (1977). A developmental approach to the life cycle of the family. Social Casework, §§, 301-311. Rodgers, R., and Hill, R. (1964). The developmental approach. In H. Christensen (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. (1974). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 23' 271-282. Rollins, B. C., and Cannon, K. Rollins, B. C., and Feldman, H. over the life cycle. (1970). Marital satisfaction Family, in, 20-28. Journal of ngrriage and the Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Rossi, A. S. (1968). Transition to parenthood. Marriage and the Family, an, 26—39. Russell, C. S. (1974). Transition to parenthood: Problems and gratifications. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 19(2), 294-301. Journal of Ryder, R. G. (1973). Longitudinal data relating marriage satisfaction and having a child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, gs, 604-607. Schaefer, C., Coyne, J. C., and Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The . - health-related functions of social support. Journal ggga 5 Behavioral Medicine, 1(4), 381-406. ’ .yi‘ ” S__\ - ~‘.Jl Ir:\:- 3"“.’ 2n.:La91q 9d) .‘ :1 l i .3 If? .. :‘i V f, ( — «a; k. :5 . ; ...:cfi ameld4>1yi~rznwwpzy . '_ ' 1.,1. .L'. .L‘ \CLS’aaufi 9d? b.1h 1' EFTLhrf” '.'“.‘1 ,gn"srt:3?;tip bflfi ”fist £51 535!) {salbuironod .(ctu) .a .1; .bliao s palvofl has mlimt‘lm "f ’ :A' 'L‘ " :- 3'15”?!" W- ‘ 1' ”v 157 Schram, R. (1979). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle: A critique and proposal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 7-12. Shapiro, D. (1979). Parents and protectors. New York: Child Welfare League of America. Sokolovsky, J., and Cohen, C. (1981). Toward a resolution of methodological dilemmas in network mapping. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 109-116. Sokolovsky, J., Cohen, C., Berger, D., and Geiger, J. (1978). Personal networks of ex-mental patients in a Manhattan SRO hotel. Human Organization, 31, 5-15. Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, gg, 15-28. Spanier, G., Sauer, W., and Larzelere, R. (1979). An empirical evaluation of the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 3;, 27-38. Steffensmeier, R. H. (1982). A role model of the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 23(2), 319-334. Straus, M. (1980). Stress and child abuse. In C. H. Kempe and R. E. Helfer (Eds.), The battered child (3rd Ed.) (pp. 86-103). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tamir, L., and Antonucci, T. (1981). Self perception, motivation, and social support through the family life course. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33(1), 151-160. Tharp, R. (1963). Dimensions of marriage roles. Marriage and Family Living, gg, 389-404. Thoits, P. (1982). Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical problems in studying social support as a buffer against life stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 23, 145-159. Tolsdorf, C. (1976). Social networks, support and coping: An exploratory study. Family Process, ié, 407-418. Turner, C. (1967). Conjugal roles and social networks: A reexamination of an hypothesis. Human Relations, 32(2), 121-130. ~;._,«->- A +9. 1.. . ‘.}1'Y'\ +3.". ) . . ,. V l _‘J 1.3.. )-37 6‘.“ \L U n _ i. ,i . ‘ _ , . ‘ a ?:t'»T a e;- nmwyn .3; .-.:-:. 912.3... - --1; . i ,;_».-;.;l,. ‘ t . v — * a ' - gins “1&2: :1”. ;:.f‘.!.;'.)\.- 4 u- . .a ... 5:31:43 ) _ p _....._..-....._..v,- --, ‘ ' __ _ V . _ '» - . n . ,. . ;. i , 1.51.906 ( . 4.": 110103 Awfli'xouson 15:90.2 .(aten 031050103» 133! «bus. 1:035:01.“ '. '_ 1 . ..-'.,:‘.~.,' 158 Turner, R. J. (1981). Social support as a contingency in psychological well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 357-367. Vaughn, C., and Leff, J. (1981). Patterns of emotional response in relatives of schizophrenic patients. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 43-44. Waldron, H., and Routh, D. (1981). The effect of the first child on the marital relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 22(4), 785-788. Walker, K., MacBride, A., and Vachon, M. (1977). Social support networks and the crisis of bereavement. Social Science and Medicine, ll, 35~42. Wandersman, L., Wandersman, A., and Kahn, S. (1980). Social support in the transition to parenthood. Journal of Community Psychology, g, 332-342. Wellman, B. (1981). Applying network analysis to the study of support. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support. Beverly Hills: Sage Pub. White, R. (1979). Competence as an aspect of personal growth. In M. W. Kent and J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology, Vol. III (pp. 5-22). Hanover: University Press of New England. Williams, A., Ware, J., and Donald, C. (1981). A model of mental health, life events, and social supports applicable to general populations. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 3g, 324-336. Willis, T. A. (Ed.). (1982). Basic processes in helping relationships. New York: Academic Press. Wynne, L., Ryckoff, I., Day, J., and Hirsch, S. (1958). Pseudo-mutuality in the family relations of schizophrenics. Psychiatry: Journal for tthStudy of Interpersonal Processes, 3l(2), 205-220. “.... saris“: : ‘L. < ?— ~19”: ”I(I(mmm E