masm r \a
V 3?"? 't 9".- '-‘-. 17," a
‘}.J; ’ nib. d
.‘I
1- 1‘5"} P‘ “‘ r- 1:
"Q'é£;‘i;1;...f ' r t4
I v ‘A ”
pr, '4. - , -
v;
i ‘V md-fl. » A 4.. ~. 3 a. :5.“
v

 

9
as.4--¢'£LW;HW f.

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
NEED PATTERNS , GENDER DIFFERENCES AND
MARITAL SATISFACTION

presented by

CARL GERALD CHENKIN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in PSYCHOLOGY

 

 

 

xéég/y

0-7639

 

lllll \ \ \lllll \lllllllll Hill L

3 1293 01035 3053

 

 

 

 

 

 

PV1ESI_) RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
w your record. FINES will
be charged if book is

returned after the date
stamped below.

 

.. 5» PM?! SPRl384

MR :1 132005

 

 

NEED PATTERNS, GENDER DIFFERENCES
AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

BY

Carl Gerald Chenkin

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1981

ABSTRACT

NEED PATTERNS, GENDER DIFFERENCES
AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

BY
Carl Chenkin

This study investigated (a) homogeneity and
heterogeneity of couples' need patterns based upon both
Maslow-defined and Murray-defined needs, and (b) gender
differences in need patterns, considering both in terms
of their contributions to marital satisfaction. The
subjects were 17 married couples.

These couples completed demographic questionnaires,
Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Aronoff's Sentence
Completion Test, and Edwards's Personal Preference Sched-
ule.

The importance of complementarity and similarity
for engendering marital satisfaction was found to be
slight, as was the utility of Maslow-defined needs in
predicting marital satisfaction.

Wives' ASCT needs had, when correlated with
their couples' DAS scores at each need level, correla-
tions that were twice as large as their husbands'.

These findings were consistent with prior research

Carl Chenkin

suggesting that spouses' contributions to marital sat-
isfaction differ. Women may seek a greater proportion
of their personal satisfaction from the marital rela-
tionship.

The importance of gender differences and the need
for marital and personality measures that are factor
analyzed separately for men and women are highlighted.
The general lack of significant results and the need to
utilize interpersonal and intrapersonal data in research

into marital satisfaction also are discussed.

To all whose example, friendship or teachings
have contributed to me, in particular Alvin Chenkin and

Beatrice Glotzer Chenkin.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Unquestionably, I must first note my debt to
Professor Gary E. Stollak, chairperson of my thesis
committee. His friendship and guidance have assisted
me in a myriad of ways for lo these many years. His
humor, intelligence and sensitivity have helped me
through several off-seasons.

I acknowledge also my other committee members,
Professors Larry Messe and Joel Aronoff.

Several colleagues and friends deserve particular
notice. An especially heartfelt thank you is here ten-
dered to Kenny Bertram. His assistance on technical
matters, his willingness to share and discuss ideas, were
only a small portion of his abettal of me for significant
as they were, they have been outweighed by the consistent
support he has shown me.

The friendship, encouragement and support of
Bram Haver and Paul Jacobsen are also gratefully
acknowledged.

I stand as well in debt to Sara Woodhull who has
taught me much that has been invaluable to me in the com-
pletion of this thesis, as well as in other aspects of

my professional and personal evolution.

iii

"Se non e vero, e ben trovato."

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . .
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . .
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . .
Instruments . . . . . . . . .
Procedures . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . .
NOTES . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHEET . .
APPENDIX B: DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE . . .
APPENDIX C: ARONOFF SENTENCE COMPLETION TEST .
APPENDIX D: EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE

LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . .

vi

14
14
15
18
20
33
50
51
53
55
59
67

TABLE

COUPLES'

EPPS AND ASCT SCORES; COUPLES'
CORRELATED WITH COUPLES'

LIST OF TABLES

DAS SCORES CORRELATED WITH COUPLES'
DAS SCORES
SUMMED SQUARED DIFFER-

ENCE SCORES ON THE EPPS AND ASCT

HUSBANDS'

EPPS AND ASCT SCORES; WIVES'

DAS SCORES CORRELATED WITH HUSBANDS'

WITH WIVES' EPPS AND ASCT SCORES

COUPLES'
AND ASCT

HUSBANDS'
AND ASCT
HUSBANDS'

DAS SCORES CORRELATED

DAS SCORES CORRELATED WITH HUSBANDS' EPPS
SCORES; COUPLES' DAS SCORES CORRELATED
WITH WIVES' EPPS AND ASCT SCORES

DAS SCORES CORRELATED WITH WIVES'

SCORES; WIVES' DAS SCORES CORRELATED WITH

EPPS AND ASCT SCORES

WIVES' EPPS INTERCORRELATIONS .

HUSBANDS'

EPPS INTERCORRELATIONS

vi

EPPS

22

24

26

27

29

31

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Currently, one research area of great interest
for at least some psychologists and other social scien-
tists is that of marital "success" or "failure": its
components, progenitors, behavioral referents, and pre-
dictors. To investigate this area is to be confronted
at the outset with the need to make decisions of several
sorts on the basis of (all too often implicit) theoretical
considerations.

First we must decide what after all this strange
and elusive animal, "marital success," is; how to recog-
nize it and what to call it. Various researchers call
this pleasure in the marital relationship "marital happi-
ness" (Blazer, 1963), others call it "marital satisfac-'
tion" (Miller, 1976; Burr, 1970), to give just two of the
ways it has been yclept. The naming of the phenomenon by
researchers results in a strong pull (or vice versa) to
view it in some constricted fashion. Often the bulk of
the research reminds me of the story of the blind men and
the elephant. One thinks the elephant is best described
by the trunk, another by its leg, etc. As Burr (1970)
states, " . . . the nature of the successful marital

state is predefined by the criteria that are

selected by the researchers to measure it." Furthermore,
these preconditions are all too often not clearly set
forth buttressed by a theoretical argument. Problems

with many of the terms used are discussed by Lively

(1969) in which he argues that they ought to be eliminated.

Second, and a corollary of the above, most re-
search into marital functioning has failed to be based
upon a thorough theoretical framework for the individuals'
perceptions as well as the dyadic interactions, and has
only differentiated among happy and unhappy couples on
the basis of a few variables. These studies are more
classificatory than they are explicatory. Hobbs (1965)
states, "if meaningless collection of facts is to be
avoided, research must be formulated in terms of theoret-
ically cogent approaches rather than naive practical
issues."

One component of the theoretical approach of most
researchers is that of the needs of the individual. There
has been, in fact, much interest on the part of research-
ers in the role of needs in predicting level of marital
satisfaction.

A recurrent question in this research has centered
on the issue of the patterns of needs existing between
dyadic partners, in particular whether the pattern in-
volves complementary needs or similar needs. Winch and

Ktsanes (1954) published preliminary data and Winch (1955)

followed up with his final analysis of that same data, all
of which were reported as supporting the hypothesis that
people choose mates who have needs in a complementary re-
lationship to their own. According to Winch (1958), this
complementary relationship can be of two sorts. Type I
complementarity obtains when one need is gratified in

both parties in a relationship though at greatly differing
levels of intensity. Type II complementarity obtains

when "A's behavior in acting out A's need x is gratifying
to B's need y and B's behavior in acting out B's need y

is gratifying to A's need x."

Winch studied the Murray-defined needs levels for
each member of marital dyads. The determinations of needs
were made on the basis of judges' evaluations of three
"sources of evidence: an interview, a case history, and
responses to eight TAT cards. He predicted the direction
of 344 spousal correlations and found that about two-
thirds of his predictions were accurate. However, as
Bowerman and Day (1956) point out, "although 82% of their
(Winch et a1., 1954) significant correlations were in the
hypothesized direction, only 22% of all their correlations
~were significant at the .05 level, and 34% of all their
correlations were in the opposite direction to that hypo-
thesized, in spite of the fact that they selected the 344
paired need correlations which they believed had the best
chance of fitting their theory."

Winch's research is of dubious value even without

supporting or debunking the need-complementarity theory

because of another problem. There is the strong likeli-
hood of there being systematic sex-linked differences in
the general levels of needs on at least several of the
scales, which would serve to confound the marital corre-
lations that he found. Consider that, in 1954, if one
were to choose a number of Murrayan needs (dominance,
abasement, and deference, to choose but three) and asked
to predict solely upon the basis of expected differences
due to gender, what the spousal correlations would be,
we might very probably predict that we would have men
scoring high on dominance, with their wieves scoring high
on abasement. It comes as little surprise, then, that
Winch in fact found strong correlations in this direction
that were "in support of" his complementarity theory.
This consistent gender-linked difference certainly serves
to vitiate the generalizability of the results over dif-
fering times and Zeitgeists, not to mention Weltanschauun-
gen. Additionally, I suggest that the systematic differ-
ences indicate that, dependent as they were upon available
strategies for interactions, rather than upon what will
be later described as "deep" needs, the results are unin-
formative.

There is, then, less statistical support for the
complementarity theory than Winch indicates, and the logi-
cal grounding of even that support is quite muddied.

Bowerman and Day (1956) attempted to replicate

Winch's results using EPPS scores from 60 couples com-
prised of college students who either were just married
or were self-described as "regular dating partners."

They selected needs on the EPPS which were most clearly
related to those used by Winch. They found no support
for complementarity as a dominant trend in need patterns:
only 19 correlations out of 225 computed were significant
at the .05 level, and of these, only five were in the
direction which would support the complementarity theory,
the others supporting homogamy as contributing to marital
satisfaction.

In an attempt to reconcile the quite-different
results obtained by Winch on the one hand and Bowerman
and Day on the other, Schellenberg and Bee (1960) gave
the EPPS to both married and unmarried couples to account
for one possible source of the variation in the results
of the two studies discussed above. They also corrected
for systematic sex differences in the EPPS scores. Their
results corroborated Bowerman and Day's results, with
some slight support of the similarity (homogeneity) posi-
tion, as Opposed to that of complementarity.

Centers and Granville (1971) compared the predic-
tive ability of Winch's complementarity theory to that of
the theory of need gratification as pr0posed by Schutz.
Schutz (1958) suggests that there are three areas in

which needs Operate in dyads. These areas are inclusion--

 

"the need to establish and maintain a satisfactory

relation with people with respect to interaction and
association"; control--"the need to establish and main-
tain a satisfactory relation with people with respect to

control and power"; and affection--"the need to establish

 

and maintain a satisfactory relation with pe0p1e with
respect to love and affection."

Schutz considers compatibility to be isomorphic
with marital need-gratification and says that there are
three dimensions which underlie this mutual need-gratifi-
cation. The first underlying dimension is what Schutz
calls "interchange compatibility." He hypothesizes that
"desire to originate and the desire to receive the be-
havioral commodity involved are independent" (Centers and
Granville, 1971, p. 29). Thus, interchange compatibility
exists when both members of a dyad have a similar amount
of desire to interchange behaviors to gratify a need.

His second dimension is "originator compatibility."
Schutz predicts that for originator compatibility, dyadic
members exhibit complementary desires to be the origina-
tors or the receivers of need-gratifying behaviors.
Third, Schutz suggests that the actual behaviors shared
in a relationship would be isomorphic with regard to the
other's desired behaviors. This he calls "reciprocal
compatibility."

Centers and Granville found no support for Winch's
complementarity theory and support for only two of

Schutz's dimensions of need gratification. These were

interchange compatibility and reciprocal compatibility.
A discussion of possible causes of this only partial sup-
port for Schutz's hypotheses is presented later.

What we find then in the literature on need-
gratification in marriage is that there is virtually no
support for the complementarity theory, little more for
the obverse, namely the homogamy theory, and great con-
fusion about the role of needs in determining marital
satisfaction. More recently, research on marital satis-
faction and needs has investigated what appears to be
gender-oriented differences in patterns of needs, and
different demands upon the marriage for husbands than for
wives. This research is considered in the Discussion
section.

An approach to human needs different from that
proposed by Murray is presented by Abraham Maslow. It
may prove more illuminating when utilized in investiga-
tions into marital satisfaction.

Maslow (1954), in Motivation and Personality,

 

offered a theory of motivation based upon a theory in-
volving core needs. Briefly, Maslow posited a hierarchy
of needs beginning with physiological needs (hunger,
thirst, etc.); then safety needs (order, security, etc.);
love and belongingness needs (affection); esteem needs
(recognition, mastery, etc.); and self-actualization
needs. This hierarchy would be the normal and in our

culture necessary progression of needs which an individual

must seek to gratify for satisfactory living.

Maslow states that the more basic needs are pre-
potent vis-a-vis those that follow them. The higher
needs cannot dominate until the lower ones have become
gratified. As they are gratified, the need for further
gratification becomes diminished, until a complete gra-
tification results in total (if possibly temporary) ex-
tinguishing of the need.

These need categories (safety, esteem, etc.) were
called by Maslow meta-needs. They are types of needs,
which can be expressed in a variety of ways. These types
or categories of needs clustered together analogous needs,
and were represented by Maslow as being the "atoms" of
need theory. Some of them can be further broken down--
e.g., hunger can be seen as physiological needs for many
chemicals, salts, etc.--but it is at this level of meta-
need that the role of needs gratification is perhaps most
clear. These are the needs that we seek to gratify. We
can think of them as need-contents which can take many
need-forms. The need-forms, such as those described by
Murray, and subsequent interpersonal behaviors, can fur-
ther be conceptualized as different individuals' strate-
gies (often unconscious) developed to gratify the under-
lying meta-needs.

In reconsidering the earlier studies of the con—
tribution of need gratification to marital satisfaction

with this perspective, we understand that while they

purported to be analyzing needs, they could, in fact,
have been considering strategies for gratifying meta-
needs. Thus, e.g., behaviors which might have been in-
terpreted as expressing dominance needs might, in fact,
have been designed to satisfy any of a variety of meta-
needs. The implication is that similar-seeming behaviors
do not necessarily mean similar things. Winch predicts
that couples would show complementarity of needs. In
this perspective, this prediction becomes translated as
follows: a successful dyadic relationship will bring
complementary strategies to bear upon the problem of need-
gratification. Nowhere, however, in the studies, has
anyone pinpointed what the actual needs (meta-needs) are,
so it is difficult to understand how complementarity or
similarity can be sensibly assessed. The low correlations
found both for complementarity and for homogamy are not
surprising when viewed in this light.

There are many implications of this "new" approach
(namely using Maslow's need clusters instead of Murray's
need). One, peOple can have a variety of strategies for
gratifying a need of theirs (or a need of another person).
Two, behaviors can gratify different needs. Three, people
by defining behaviors that can gratify a need are defining
types of situations in which the need might be gratifiable.
For example, if a man feels that it is necessary to pro-
pose to someone with whom he wishes to have sexual rela—

tions, he is probably defining marriage as a situation in

10

which he expects to gratify sexual desires (note that this
example is perhaps an unfortunate choice in that sexual
desires themselves can be expressions of physiological
needs, esteem needs, etc.). Four, these situations need
not be the same for each partner; nor is it clear that it
is usual for the situations to be the same for each. That
is, while one partner is gratifying esteem needs, for ex-
ample, the other could well be gratifying safety needs.

To expect a clear pattern of complementary or homogamous
strategies for gratifying what might well be different
meta-needs might therefore not be fruitful.

Consider the hypotheses of Schutz using this per-
spective. Schutz states that there are three areas of
needs, which are similar in nature to Maslowian meta-
needs in that they are clusters of needs which can find
gratification through any number of strategies. To then
compare Schutz's need theory to Winch's as Centers and
Granville did is unelucidating.

Schutz further states that there are three under-
lying dimensions. Some of his statements about these
dimensions are summarized below:

1. Desires to originate and to receive behaviors
are independent of each other

2. Interchange compatibility is the result of
similar amounts of interchange desired

3. Reciprocal compatibility is the result of

behaviors being interchanged which respond to the other's

11

needs

4. Originator compatibility is the result of
complementary distribution of desire to receive and de-
sire to originate behaviors that will gratify needs.

Considering these ideas in the light of Maslow's
theory we would find that the first of these statements
would be disputed by meta-need theory. Since operant
meta-needs suffuse much of the individual's sensory appa-
ratus and behaviors (as an example, when we are hungry,
we are more likely to see or hear references to food),
we would expect some correlation. Schutz's own data sup-
port the Maslowian position on this statement.

The fourth statement, as a corollary of the first,
we would also expect not to be true. It, too, failed to
gain support in the Centers and Granville study.

The second statement can be translated to read
that couples whose partners are operating upon similar
meta-needs will be more compatible than other couples
will be. Since need level is hypothesized to be corre-
lated with accuracy of perception and cognitive complex-
ity, if only because by passing through various stages
we would expect to develop a facility with or exposure
to a wider range of behavioral strategies, we would ex-
pect this to be true. Someone who is very good at satis-
fying another's needs is not so likely to choose to re-
main with a spouse who is relatively unable to gratify

him or her.

12

The third statement is to some degree a restate-
ment of our definition of marital satisfaction. Thus we
would expect this to be borne out.

In fact, only these two of the four Schutz state-
ments were supported by the Centers and Granville study.
We are encouraged then to approach the role of needs in
marriages using Maslow's meta-need theory.

In keeping with the above, there is a basic issue
that has informed this study. This is the relative im-
portance of the homogeneity-heterogeneity axis, compared
to the "surface need"-"deep need" continuum. Accordingly,
research questions have been formed to consider several
issues. One compares the utility of the Aronoff Sentence
Completion Test (ASCT) or "deep needs" to that of the
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) or "surface
needs" in considering the development of marital satis-
faction. Another investigates the utility of examining
interdyadic responses on these measures for evidence of
homogeneity or heterogeneity. A third considers the
relative utility of looking at interpersonal versus
interdyadic factors.

Several types of couple patterns have been con-
sidered in investigating the importance of needs in de-
ve10ping marital satisfaction. One is the overall level
of the couple for any particular need. Since the meta-
need perspective is hypothesized to have more utility

than the older Murrayan approach, it was expected that

13

couples' composite (summed) scores on the ASCT ought to
be better predictors of marital satisfaction than the
couple composite (summed) scores on the various scales
of the EPPS .

Another type of couple pattern considered here
involved the size of the differences between the scores
of dyadic partners. A positive correlation between dif-
ference score and marital satisfaction would have been
supportive of the heteroqeneity theory, while the obverse
would have been supportive of the homogeneity theory.

It was expected, that as the deep-need perspective
was hypothesized to have greater utility in explicating
marital adjustment, that the couples' mental advancement
(summed scores) on the ASCT ought to be better predictors
of marital satisfaction than the couples' difference
scores (measured by their summed squared differences) on

either the ASCT or the EPPS.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects in this study were seventeen married
couples. Their participation was sought in one of two
ways. Letters were distributed to all couples living in
Michigan State University married student housing briefly
explaining the nature of the study and outlining the
investment of time being asked of volunteers. Those who
were interested in hearing more about the study returned
postcards that had been provided to them. The second
manner in which participants were sought was through
giving talks to several Lamaze childbirth classes and
parent groups in New Jersey. After these talks, couples'
participation was solicited. All sample couples were
volunteers.

Demographic data on the sample couples follow.
The mean age of husbands was 40.06 years, with an minimum
of 22 years and a maximum of 70. The mean age of wives
was 37.65 years with the youngest being 22 years old and
the oldest being 59. The average length of marriage for
the couples was 162.75 months. The couple married for
the shortest length of time had been married for 13
months. The marriage of greatest duration had at the

14

 

 

 

 

" .7.

' O n
w. '7 .www r...

15

time lasted for thirty-seven years and ten months.

The husbands' mean number of years of education
was 17.35 years (undergraduate degree plus some graduate
work). The wives' mean number of years of education was
15.35 years.

Approximately fifty percent of the men were pro-
fessionals. About one-third of the wives were secretaries
and one-third were professionals.

Men's own individual mean income was approximately
$20,000. The wives' incomes averaged approximately
$12,500.

The couples had an average of 1.53 children.

In general, this sample was well educated and
middle-class. The husbands tended to be older, better
educated, earn more and work in more prestigious occupa-

tions than their wives.

Instruments

 

Three measures were utilized in this study.

The first measure is the Spanier Dyadic Adjust-
ment Scale (DAS) which was used as the dependent measure.
The DAS was created by factor analyzing all of the then
developed and accepted measures of marital satisfaction
and happiness. It is a relatively short and simple
scale, and has been validated fairly thoroughly.

It may be taken independently by the members of a
couple, enabling examination of systematic differences

between sexes and the spouses, and allowing for

16
the possibility of examining the importance of marital
differences in self reports of marital satisfaction.

The Aronoff Sentence Completion Test is designed
to elicit material that will enable scorers to place the
subjects on the continuum of different need levels as
was proposed by Maslow. It is proposed that these under-
lying needs provide the motivation for the various strat-
egies that people devise for their interactions with each
other and with their environment. For this measure, inter-
rater reliability levels have been ascertained. It has
been measured between .68 and .89 for safety needs,
between .66 and .86 for love and belongingness needs, and
between .75 and .92 for esteem needs.

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) was
used as the measure for "surface" needs, primarily because
it has been the most common measure of this sort of marital
need, historically.

The reliability of the EPPS has been assessed ex-
tensively. The split-half reliability coefficients for the
fifteen personality variables range from a low of .60 to a
high of .87 as measured over 1509 subjects in the college
student age group. Test-retest reliability coefficients
range from .74 to .88 for a group of 89 students, each
of whom took the EPPS twice with a week separating the
test administration (EPPS manual). The intercorrelations
of the variables are generally low (with a high of -.36) .

The influence of social desirability upon the EPPS

17
results has been examined by correlating the EPPS scales
with both a measure of social desirability and the K scale
from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. For
the social desirability measure and the EPPS, the highest
correlation was -.33 and the low was -.01.

The validity of the EPPS has been investigated,
with rather spotty results. Bernardin and Jessor (1957)
considered the construct validity of the deference and
autonomy subscales, looking at them as aspects of the
dependency-independence continuum. They found that in-
dependent and dependent people, labeled as a result
of their scores on the autonomy and deference subscales,
did show significantly different results in the predicted
direction in experiments ascertaining their reliance on
others' approval and help. They did not, however, differ
in their display of group conformity.

Gisvold (1958) related the deference and autonomy
scales to a group conformity measure devised by Asch.

He found that the correlation between the conformity
scores and the autonomy scores was significant (at the
.02 level), while the corresponding correlation for the
deference scales and the conformity scores was not sig-
nificant.

Melikian (1958) compared McClelland's measure of
achievement motivation to the achievement subscale on the
EPPS, and found no relationship between the measures.

Zuckerman (1958) found that peer ratings of student

nurses for submissiveness, conformity, dependence and

18

rebelliousness differentiated high scorers on the
combination of autonomy, deference and abasement scales
from the others, as well as low scorers on the combination
of deference, succorance and abasement scales from high
scorers.

It is suggested that part of the difficulty in
validating the EPPS (note the Melikian results) stems
from a fact that such psychological constructs as achieve-
ment motivation may find quite varied forms of expression,
while the EPPS examines only a limited range of these.
As Melikian indicates, the EPPS questions on this sub-

scale refer only to one type of achievement, namely the

"hope for success” form.

Procedures

 

All of these measures were self-administered. Af-
ter return of a postcard indicated interest in participa-
tion in the study, or after choosing to participate during
a Lamaze or parent group meeting, packets were admin-
istered to the volunteers. The packets included the
following:

1. explanation of study

2. demographic information sheet (2) husband and
wife

3. consent form (2) husband and wife

4. Dyadic Adjustment Scale (2) husband and wife

5. Aronoff Sentence Completion Test (2) husband

and wife

l9

6. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (2)
husband and wife

7. all the appropriate answer sheets, clearly
defined.

The information sheet and the DAS, the ASCT and
the EPPS are reproduced in Appendices A-D, respectively.

The investigator remained present while members
of the couple read the explanation of the study and
responded to any questions. It was emphasized that dyad
members were to complete the measures individually and
without comparing responses. They were requested to
complete the forms in the order presented in the packet.
When couples had finished the forms they were returned

via mail in previously stamped and addressed envelopes.

RESULTS

In order to test the various hypotheses, several
types of comparisons were made between the capability of
the ASCT and of the EPPS to predict marital satisfaction.
Since,as will be seen,the magnitude of the correlations
was low and generally failed to reach statistical signif-
icance, a correlation of .3 (p < .12) was selected past
hgg_as being of sufficient strength to warrant further
consideration.

For purposes of clarity, hypothesis number one is
here restated:

H1: Couples' composite scores on the ASCT

are better predictors of marital satisfaction

than are couples' composite scores on the

various scales of the EPPS.

To test this hypothesis, comparisons were made
between correlations of couples' scores on each of the
two independent measures with Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment
Scale (DAS). For the purposes of these comparisons,
scores on the scales of the EPPS were each summed over
couples, as were the scores for the various Maslowian
stages as measured by the ASCT. Spouses' scores on the
DAS were similarly summed to provide a couple's measure of

marital satisfaction. The relevant data can be found in

20

21
Table 1.

As can be seen, couples' DAS scores were not
significantly correlated with couples' scores on the ASCT
or on the EPPS for any of the scales. The correlations
for the various Maslow stages were uniformly low. There
were several correlations among the EPPS scales that
exceeded .3, specifically the couples' Order needs and
Deference needs. However, they all failed to reach stat-
istical significance as well. There is, then, little to
support the hypothesis that a couple's score on the ASCT
is a better predictor of the couple's marital satisfaction
than is the couple's score on the EPPS (or that either is
particularly useful).

The second hypothesis was as follows:

H2: Couples' composite scores on the ASCT

are better predictors of marital satisfac-

tion than are the summed squared difference

scores of the couple for the EPPS scales.

These correlations are also presented in Table 1.
None of the composite scores on the ASCT reached statis-
tical significance when correlated with the couples' DAS
scores. Two of the summed squared difference scores on the
EPPS reached statistical significance, namely Deference and
Intraception (which latter was negatively correlated).
Another EPPS scale, Dominance, exceeded a .3 correlation.
There is thus no support for the hypothesis that total
advancement of the couple on the Maslow hierarchy is a

better predictor of marital satisfaction than considera-

tion of the couple's heterogeneity or homogeneity. There

22

ma. mm. vv.

mm. 5H.I «0.:

.Hm>oH ma. v a as» an unmouuacmam sHHmoaunuumuu.

“Ho “H. on. ‘no mm. mm. “no. no. ”N. “H. No. “no ”H. "a

v~.u 5N; 00. OH. mo. NO. on. awe; mu... hurt—Hm. NH.I 5N... "H mfln—U

 

ammouam seesaw E803

 

83 Exp San 28o maze <93 :8 .EH .5: in man 98 soc
.63 room .8.» .03 room noon 6% team unom room team .68 team

 

 

90mm D24 mmmm was

20 mNMOUm mozmmmhth ammdbom nmzzam .mmamaoo xBHt Dm9¢qmmmou mmmoum mda .mmquOU

 

me. on. an. on. on.

ha. om. me. am. he. um. um. an. .3. «.6. «N. an

«O. mo. «H. AH. «N... vw. aw... ma... mo. m~.I ca. ma... mo... Am. 2... ON. nu mdnu

 

ammo hhdu ahmu

 

Bomd

0640 ammo nzmu mazu (ado 2000 UDmU BZHU BDdU mxmo hmoo omou x040

 

 

mmmoum BOmd 02¢ mmmm .muquOU ZBHS Gmfifiqmmmou mmmoum mdd .mmqmbou

H mnmdfi

23

is little support, as well, for the position that exam-
ination of the similarity or complementarity of the
couple's responses will lead to understanding of the
couple's marital satisfaction.

The third hypothesis is stated as follows:

H3: Couple's composite scores on the ASCT

are better predictors of marital satisfac-

tion than are their summed squared differ-

ence scores on the ASCT. The relevant

data are again presented in Table 1.

None of these correlations approach statistical
significance and their magnitude generally was low.
Hence there is little evidence that either the comple-
mentary-similarity pattern of the couple, or the total
progress made on the Maslowian need hierarchy, is a useful
predictor of marital satisfaction.

The fourth hypothesis is that:

H4: Couples' summed squared difference scores

on the ASCT are better predictors of marital

satisfaction than are their summed squared

difference scores on the EPPS.

These correlations are also presented in Table 1.
Since none of the ASCT scores herein presented approached
statistical significance, this hypothesis is unsupported
by the data.

In order to consider the differences due to gender,
several comparisons were made. Husbands' and wives' DAS
scores were all correlated with their own ASCT and with

their own EPPS scores. These data are presented in Table

2.

24

.Ho>oH mo. v m ecu um unmowmwcmfim mHHmowumHumuma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

av. 0H. mo. Hm. om. Ho. mu. Ha. mm. we. ma. mo. an. mm. mm. mo. AH. NH. n a
so. mm. mm. 2... R... .8. fl... mo... 8... 8... mm... on... 2... E... mo. mm. 3. on. u u man:
emu: use: 9mm:
8a: Ems azms emu: maze ans. :8: 8m: 9:: E43 Sax Em: Box axes moms
some
mmmoom some ozm mmmm .mm>Hs :st omsmqmmmoo mmmoom man .mm>Hs
mm. me. mm. HH. AN. hm. m~. «H. mm. mm. on. ma. an. mm. ov. «v. mo. mm. u a
HH. Ho.- ma.- an. mH.- mo.u ma. m~.- oH.- mo. GH.- mm. mo.- NH.. 00.- «0.- mm. so. a u man:
swam use: sewn
coax 9mm: azmm omoz_mazm «mam zoom com: asz «max Baas exam swam axon seam
some

 

 

mmmoom Bum< 02¢ mmmm .mQdemDm mBHz Omacqmmmou mmmoum mda .mOZQmmDm

N mqmde

25

Husbands' DAS scores are correlated at or above the
.3 level with their Order and Aggression needs. Wives' DAS
scores are correlated at this criterion with their Achieve-
ment, Order, Deference, Endurance and (negatively) Intra-
ception and Safety needs.

To consider whether men and women contribute dif-
ferently to a couple's marital satisfaction, couple's DAS
scores were correlated with husbands' and with wives' ASCT
and EPPS scores. These correlations are presented in
Table 3.

As can be seen in Table 3, only two of the EPPS
‘ scales for the husbands had correlations over .3, i. e.,
Order and Intraception. Four of the wives' scores on the
various EPPS scales had correlations over .3: Achievement,
Deference, Endurance and Intraception (this last being
negatively correlated). On the ASCT, none of the husbands'
scores were correlated at the .3 criterion while one of the
wives' was, namely Safety needs.

Husbands' and wives' DAS scores were also cor-
related with their spouses' EPPS and ASCT scores. These
correlations are presented in Table 4.

Husbands' DAS scores are correlated at the .3
level with their wives' Achievement and Intraception
scores. Wives' DAS scores are correlated with their
husbands' needs for Order, Intraception, and (negatively
correlated) Exhibitionism, Succorance, and Heterosexuality.

While the correlations are small, husbands' DAS

26

Ho>oH mo. v a on» um ucmowmwcmflm maamoflumfiumume

 

 

 

 

 

Na. mH. mo. Ho. on. «0. AA. AA. Av. oe. mo. AN. mm. om. Hm. mo. mm. mo. - a
mo. «A. on. mo.- 1:.- .mv. oH.- 8.- No. moi .2..- mH.- NH: -.- H. mm. 2. an. n u mane
9mm: seas sums owes sums azmz.omoz maze Haas zoos 92H; com: use: some mxmz Amos amps mugs
mmmoom som< mam mmmm .mm>Hs mst amemHmmmoo mmmoum man.mmqmaoo
om. mm. GA. mH. mH. He. mm. AH. on. mH. OH. AH. av. 04. HA. me. mo. As. a m
Ho.- NH.- 6H.- «A. A~.- oo.- OH. v~.- Ao.- AH. mm. m~.- vo.- Ao.- H~.- no. ov. No.- a u mane

 

ammz urn-<3 Ema U04: Emma szm 2.52 ~52: and: 200m gm 03mm hang 954$ mxmm man: DMD: moms

 

 

mmmoom Homd 92¢ mmmm .mnzmmmam SBHB Omadqmmmoo mmmoum mmn .mmanOU

m wands

27

.Hm>mH mo. v a we» as acaoHanmHm AHHmuHumHumum.

 

vm. mm. NM. Hm. mo. mv. 0v. mm. mv. ha. «a. 00. av. mv. Ad. on. mo. mm. a m

HH.I ON.I NH.I ma. vm.l mo.l No. o~.u Ho. mm. 0m.| mm. a0. mo.l Hm.l mo. «A63 0H.I n H m¢D3

 

Emmm Em Ema

 

005* 8mm cam—m 06m move «3 200m 03mm BZHE madam Bag mxmm hmom amom mug

 

 

 

82
mmmoom Home az< mama .mnzammam maHz ameaqmmmoo mmmoum man .mm>Hz
.Hm>mH mo. v a an» an HamoHHHamHm AHHaOHumHumum.
we. mm. mH. ov. me. «a. Am. mm. mm. vm. Hv. mo. vm. ma. mm. ma. mv. mo. a m
we. on. ma. mo. mo.u mm. 0H.- HH.- NH. HH.| oo:-«~v:.HH.I mm.- AH. AN. no. on. n H mta:

 

8mg mud,» Em3

 

8&3 E 028» 9.53 may; «£3 :83 Usz EH3 E3 Bag 383 mun—3 €03 mus»
Bond

 

 

mmmoum BUmd Qz¢ mmmm .mm>H3 meHZ Dmemqmmmov mmmoum wdo .m024mm9m

v mnmflB

28
scores are more correlated with their wives' Safety and
Affiliation needs than with their own, while wives' DAS
scores are more correlated with their husbands' Esteem needs
than with their own.
The intercorrelations among the EPPS scales were
computed for husbands and for wives. These correlations

are presented in Tables 5 and 6.

29

«we. ma. ma. «mo. .- um
OO. ON.- ON. OO.-OOO.H n. emu:
.OO. OO. OH. AO. OO. - no
NO. OO.- ON.- NO.- OO. OOO.H n... .523
NO. NO. .OO. ON. AO. .OO. - nu
NH. NH. AO.- OH. OO.- OO. OOO.H n... «ma:
ON. ON. NH. OH. OH. AO. HH. - nO
OH. OH. HO. ON. OO.- NO. HO. OOO.H n... :82
OO. ON. HO. .OO. OO. ON. OH. .OO. - nm
OO.- OH.- OO. NO.- OH. OH. OO. NO.- OOO.H nu 083
ON. OH. OO. OH. O... OO. O. NH. OO. - nm
OH. NN. HO.- ON.- OO.- OO.- 2..- OO. HO.-OOO.H nu .3::
OO. OO. OH. .3. .HO. .HO. ON. HH. OH. ON. - nO
OO. OO.- ON. 21- NO. NO. OH. HO.- ON. AH.-OOO.H nu .923
NO. OO. OO. 3. OO. .HO. ON. ON. ON. ON. .OO. - nO
NH.- OO. OH.- O. HO.- OO.- NN.- NN.- HN.- OH. Nat-OOO.H nu .842
O... NO. OH. HO. ON. AN. NN. OH. OO. NO. NO. OO. - nu
HO.- NH.- OO. OH.- OH.- OH.- OH.- AN.- OO. OO. NH.- OO.-OOO.H nu mxmz
OO. OH. OO. .HO. .OO. OH. NO. OO. OO. .OO. .8. OO. O... - nm
OO.- ON.- AO.- OO. OO.- ON.- OO. OO. OO.- 21- NO.- HH. AO. OOO.H nu .383
.HO. OO. AO. .NO. .NO. .OO. OH. NN. OH. OH. .NO. OH. NH. .8. - nO
OO.- OO.- OO.- O... HO.- AO.- ON.- ON. ON.- ON.- HO.- ON. OO.- HO. OOO.H nu 983
OO. ON. HO. OO. .HO. .8. OH. OH. OO. ON. .8. OO. .3. O. OO. - nu
AO.- OH. OO. OO. OO.- OO.- ON.- ON. OO.- AH. NO.- OH.- OO. HH. HH. OOO.HnH mug

 

2003 09%» 9mg Dzmz UEUS sz3 49%,.» 2003 0995 BZHS hawk H.555 mung Hun—3 QMOZ mung.»

 

 

mZOHBSmmmOUMMBZH mmmm .mgH3

m mam/.3.

30

.Ho>ma mo. v e um unmowuficmwm aaHmowumOumum monwcmOme

 

I "Hm
OOO.H an
.N. - na
maroooé an
AV. mo. I. “Q
mof mmfoooé an
3. me. «.8. I an
ac..- mo. mmfooo...” n.»

2003

8&3

8mg

Q29;

 

2003 0043 9m; 9295 “:53 ”52.3 dmdz 283 me3 BZH3 mend?» EDS; 53E mmg QMOS mu<3

 

poacHucoo-nm wands

31

 

OO. OO. OH. OO. - n u

OO. NH.- ON. OH.-OOO.H n u 26:
OH. .HO. .HO. NN. OO. - nu

ON. NA.- OO.- ON. OO.-OOO.H nu maza
NO. AO. .NO. OO. AO. OO. - nu

NH.- OO. OO.- OO.- AO.- HH. OOO.H nu «mam
AH. OO. ON. OH. ON. NO. OO. - nu

ON. OO.- AH.- ON. OH.- NH. OO.-OOO.H nu 28a
AH. OH. HO. ON. OO. OO. NO. .NO. - nu

ON. NO.- OO.- OH.- OO. OO. OO. OO.-OOO.H nu uama
OH. OH. .HO. NO. ON. .OO. OO. OH. OO. - nu

AN. AN.- OA.- OO.- NN.- OO. OH. ON. HH. OOO.H nu uzua
NO. .HO. .OO. OO. ON. .HO. AO. ON. AH. HN. - nu

NH. OO.- HO.- AO. OH. AA. OO.- OH. ON. HN. OOO.H nu uuma
OO. OO. OO. .HO. NO. OH. HO. ON. NH. OH. OH. - nu

OO... OO. OO. OO.- OO.- OO.- OO. OH.- HO.- ON.- ON.-OOO.H nu .Haaa
ON. .OO. .NO. OO. HO. OO. ON. OO. OO. .8. AO. OO. - nu

OH.- OO. HO. HO. OO. OO.- OH.- AO. OO... OO.- OO.- HH. OOO.H nu axua
OO. OO. ON. OO. NO. HO. HN. ON. HN. .OO. OO. ON. ON. - nu

AO. OO.- AH.- AO.- NH.- OH.- HN. HN.- HN.- HO. OH.- OH.- NN.-OOO.H nu umum
AO. ON. NO. OO. OO. AO. OO. OH. OO. ON. ON. OH. HN. OO. - nu

AO.- AH.- OO. OO. HO.- HO.- HO.- ON.- OO. AH.- NN.- ON.- HN.- OO. OOO.H nu 28
OO. OO. AN. HO. OH. ON. .OO. AH. ON. AO. AO. OH. OO. OO. OO. - nu

OO.- OH. OH. OH. ON.- OH.- OO.- ON. OH.- NO.- NO.- ON.- AO... HH.- OO. OOO.Hnu 54:
zoom mama umaa azma uaoa uaza «mam zoua oaOa Ozua uuaa Baum axua uuua umoa auaa

 

 

mZOHadqmmmoommEZH mmmm

m mum-5H.

. mnfimmom

32

.Hm>oa mo. v a up ucMOOmOcmOm maamowumwpoum moHMOcmOma

 

OOO.H

me. I
mo.Iooo.H

.nm. «#0. I
MH.| mv. OOO.H

mm. «no. ma. I
«All h¢.I mu..- coo...”

200: wwdm Emma szm Omom abzm <3 SOD: 09mm 9.sz Arms.— Sdm 58mm man—m amoz :0:

“Q
“H

an
"H

um
“H

In
IH

200$

00%

Hum:

929.—

 

poacaucooIIO manta

DISCUSSION

Much attention has been paid, over the years, to
the roles that the needs of the members of a dyad might
play in determining marital satisfaction. Generally, the
research into this issue has centered on needs such as
those that have been delineated by Henry Murray. Another
approach to the nature of needs has been posited by
Abraham Maslow, who theorized that a hierarchy of needs
exists which includes physical and emotional safety needs,
affiliation needs, self-esteem and self-actualization needs.
This study was an attempt to compare the utility of these
two disparate approaches to need theory, in terms of pre-
dicting levels of marital satisfaction.

Research into marital satisfaction also has been
concerned with the types of patterns of needs that are
predictive of marital harmony, most notably whether a
complementary or a similar pattern increases dyadic happi-
ness (Winch, 1954; Schellenberg, J. A. and Bee, L. 8.,
1960; Murstein, 1967). A further concern was to understand
the different approaches of men and of women to marriage,
to consider how the genders differ in what is sought and
the means used to attain their goals. The results of

this study were examined in the light of these last two

33

34

concerns.

Prior to engaging in a discussion of the results,
a general caveat needs to be tendered. The results con-
sistently failed to support any of the hypotheses. Overall,
382 correlations were considered of which only 50 (13%) were
statistically significant; however, none of these were as
originally hypothesized. This failure needs to be consid-
ered with the following factors in mind. Foremost is the
fact that the sample size was too small to provide for stat-
istically significant results due to the magnitude of cor-
relations under investigation. For the purposes of specula-
tion about trends suggested by the data, a correlation level

of .3 (p < .12) was selected g§_post facto as being of pos-

 

sible interest. Second, the sample yielded a surprisingly
high intra-dyadic marital satisfaction correlation of .85 on
the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. This compared to findings of

.60 in a prior study (Bertram, 1981). This vitiates the abil-
ity to evaluate need differences that may have been gender de-
termined, by providing for less difference than might other-
wise have been expected, across dyads.

With the foregoing in mind, I shall briefly speculate
on the nature of some of the findings and some of their pos-
sible ramifications. The comparisons between the Aronoff
Sentence Completion Test and the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule are generally unilluminating. The correlations
mostly are low and the number of significant correlations
that were as hypothesized to occur does not equal 5% of the

correlations. There is little in these data to recommend

35
either measure as being a good predictor of marital satis-
faction. There are several correlations that were note-
worthy, however, and which do seem to offer possible insight
into what has made these marriages satisfying to the dyads
involved. These correlations tend to be most interesting in
the light of gender differences.

There are many differences suggested by the data that
exist between husbands and wives on each of the independent
measures. On the EPPS there are five scales that for wives
are correlated above the .3 level with their own marital
satisfaction score, though only one of these (Endurance)
reached Statistical significance. These five scales are
Achievement, Order, Deference, Endurance, and Intraception
(which last was negatively correlated). Thus, there is a
suggestion in these results that the wives in this sample
who were motivated to do difficult work well, to accomplish
things, to defer to the leadership of others, to be organ-
ized and systematic, to adhere to routine, to stick to prob-
lem resolution even when it appears as if no progress is
being made, and who are relatively uninterested in their
own feelings and motives as well as those of others, are
most likely to have reported being satisfied with their
marriages. For men, only two of the EPPS scales are
correlated at the .3 level with their own marital satisfac-
tion. These are Order and Aggression.

When considering which EPPS scales are correlated

with a spouse's marital satisfaction, a similar pattern

36
unfolds. Again, wives' satisfaction is correlated at or
beyond the .3 level with five of their husbands' EPPS
scale scores. These are Order, Intraception, and (neg-
atively correlated) Exhibitionism, Succorance and Hetero-
sexuality. Husbands' marital satisfaction is correlated
at the same level with but two of their wives' EPPS scores,
Achievement and Intraception (negatively correlated).
Again, there is a suggestion that the wives in our sample
tended to be dependent for their marital satisfaction upon
being deferent, well organized, persistent, determined and
relatively uninterested in feelings and motivations. There
is a tendency for women who characterized themselves as
being in satisfactory marriages to be married to men who

are orderly and systematic and relatively interested in

 

feelings and the underlying motivations that inspire be-
haviors. Their husbands also tend not to need to be the
center of attention, nor to be sympathetically looked
after, nor to be relatively interested in sex and sexuality
or general heterosexual activities.

Husbands' marital satisfaction is relatively
correlated with their own Order and Aggression needs.
Satisfied husbands tend to be married to wives who are
motivated to persist in doing something well, and who are
also relatively uninterested in feelings and motivations
and understanding others.

These findings are suggestive of a difference
between husbands and wives. One could speculate that

wives expect a greater range and variety of their personal

37

needs to be met through the marital relationship than do
husbands. Husbands might be relatively satisfied, for
example, simply if their wives are not preoccupied with
feelings and are motivated to be persistent in accomplish-
ing difficult work. Their spouses, however, tend to
demand of them that they conform to preferred behaviors in
more numerous ways. Further, husbands' marital satisfac-
tion might be dependent upon little in their own need
structure while these wives tend to fall into a more
particular pattern of needs as their marital satisfaction
increases.

Added to the above is the additional factor that
the wives' mean dyadic adjustment score is similar to and
indeed marginally greater than their husbands', and their
standard deviations are approximately 15% greater. Ord-
inarily we would expect that if women are more particular,

fi-fim... OM . A .NO.... “M u. -"-~—-‘

they would experience more difficulty in maintaining

hw—
_. ,OO.» Hi

satisfactory“relationships, yet this was not the case.

All of this suggests a greater involvement in marriages

for wives than for their husbands. It is their persistence
and determination to succeed that establishes the tone of
the relationship. Their husbands are generally less
interested in working to change or to improve the relation-
ship, probably because they gain greater satisfactions for
themselves outside their marriages, most likely through

their work, than their wives do. The wives average out to

be about as happy as their husbands but the variety is

38
greater, there are greater extremes, because, it is
theorized: @Etalselatignships -..have.-.9£eatet..eelieeee t0

the general emotional satisfaction ofwives than to that

”—— ma-‘ *

 

of their husbands, their gratifications and their dis—
appointsments are both greater. This is consonant with
the typical clinical pattern which finds that in the pre-
ponderance of couples seeking therapy the wife initiates
contact and the professional service is sought at her
behest.1
These findings, that men and women respond differ-
ently to marriage and have different expectations of the
marital relationship, are consonant with prior research.
Bernard (1972) stated, "There is now a very considerate
body of well-authenticated research to show that there
really are two marriages in every union and that they do
not always coincide.” It is, however, less clear pre-
cisely what has brought about those differences, and what
impact the changes in economic and political life in the
past two decades have had on these gender differences.
We find, for example, that wives in our sample who had
relatiyelyfihigh Achievement needs tended to rate their

marriages as more satisfying. In attempting to explicate

_‘_‘_-~-

 

such a finding, the difficulty of using such essentially
intrapersonally defined characteristics (Spanier and
Lewis, 1980) becomes clear. Achievement needs can be
met in and out of the marital relationship, in a myriad
of settings and within variegated forms, yet taken by

itself, Achievement needs as measured by the EPPS will

39

agglomerate all of these. It seems probable that men will
tend to have many of their Achievement needs met through
their role as worker or breadwinner. Women have tended not
to have this option, although recently this arena is
becoming more accessible to them. If, then, Achievement
needs can sensibly be merged into a monolithic concept, we
might expect that wives who work probably have greater
Achievement needs than wives who do not and that they will
report their marriages to be happier. Past research, how-
ever, suggests (Nye, 1961; Grover, 1963) that women who

are not working are likely to rate their marriages as
happier than working women do. Some possible reasons for
this discrepancy come to mind. One is that the wives
worked out of necessity and not out of preference (economic
demands). Two is that societal opprobrium for women

who work put additional strains on the marriage, or
caused guilty feelings (intrapersonal demands), or be-
havioral changes by either spouse that disturbed marital
harmony (interpersonal demands). The effect of women work-
ing cannot be simplified, however. In a study of lower-
class families, it was reported that when the wives worked,
marital satisfaction increased, despite the employment
arising out of economic necessity, and not by choice.
Probably, then, this is a result of decreasing tensions due
to financial insolvency concomitant with the increased
ability to establish pleasant and enjoyable recreational

activities. Here, too, however, research has indicated

40
that the picture is cloudy. Goode (1956) reported that
perceived adequacy of income is important to marital
adjustment, and Green (1960) extended this to demonstrate
that economic failure did not detract from marital
satisfaction, if economic success is not expected. The
inadequacy of marital satisfaction measures that rely
solely on intrapsychic, interpersonal, or demographic data
is then quite highlighted.

To repair then to the earlier point, in order to
prOperly assess the difference between husbands' and
wives' approaches to marriage and the theorized effect of
a greater availability of external sources of emotional
gratification to husbands, many factors must be taken
into account. To consider the different impact of work
upon men and women may clarify this. We find that
Achievement-oriented wives tend to report greater satis-
faction with their marriages than women with lower
Achievement scores. And, we find in the literature that
women who find extensive satisfactions in the working world
experience enhanced marital adjustment (Fogarty, RapOport,
and Rapoport, 1971; Orden and Bradburn, 1968; Safilios-
Rothschild, 1970). There is then tentative support for the
notion that as societal biases and discriminations atten-
uate, as opportunities for women increase, some of the
differences between men and women may dissipate. What
then of the findings that suggest that wives who work

experience less satisfaction with their marriages? One

41

notable issue as touched on above is the ability of the
wife to choose whether to work (Orden and Bradburn, 1968).
Enforced work activity tends to lead to dissatisfaction,
unless the husbands' economic success was not an expected
part of the relationship. Hence the match of role defin—
itions is important. Bird (1979) reports that as wives'
salaries increase, every thousand-dollar rise in income
raises the likelihood of her marriage ending in divorce,
by two percent. This finding appears to be at odds with
earlier findings. We would assume that as women's
salaries increase, they would be more likely to be
achieving satisfaction in the workplace, probably func-
tioning in more interesting jobs and with greater re-
sponsibility. We will address this point later. What, too,
of the findings that unemployed women rate their marriages
as happier than do employed women? (Stoltz, 1960; Axelson,
1963) These latter studies were performed almost two
decades ago, when mores, opportunities and expectations
may have been different in many ways. One difference is
that life expectations, which according to Max Weber
define in large part the Stand or social class, were such
that women were expected to remain in the home. Those
who did not risked social and often marital displeasure.
Two, the jobs that were available to women were even more
limited in number, interest, responsibility and financial
remuneration than is so today.

It may be, in considering Erik Erikson's model for

psychological development, that men and women, because of

42

different socialization, tend to progress along somewhat
different lines. It may be that women tend to confront
intimacy issues before identity issues as they learned
early that their "job" would be to become married and
raise children—-all relationship issues. Men learn early
to consider the forms of their labor (an alternative and
cogent construction of this is that women's identity
struggles center around relationships while men's identity
struggles tend to revolve around work issues).2 Specula-
tion then would be that women, as yet, still typically
derive less personal gratification from work than do men.
They might typically have more guilt and feelings of
being misplaced in their work environment--beyond the
harassment and discrimination with which they are not in-
frequently confronted. They may find that the work still
is not integrated as being as important to them, to their
own self-definitions as is so for men. An interesting
question for further research would be to consider whether
husbands and wives who work at equivalent occupational
levels experience equivalent emotional satisfactions at
work, and to consider how this affects the different
approaches to marital satisfaction taken by the spouses.

Our sample's couple's Dyadic Adjustment Scale
scores (CDAS) are correlated at or greater than .3 with
only two of the husbands' EPPS scales and with four of
the wives'. These CDAS scores are, not surprisingly,

correlated with husbands' Order and Intraception needs,

43
and with wives' Achievement, Deference, Endurance, and
(negatively correlated) Intraception needs. Since the
CDAS scores are simply the sum of the individual scores,
these findings are not unexpected.

While there were no significant correlations for
ASCT levels and marital satisfaction, there were some
patterns that may be of interest, particularly, again,
when compared across genders.

For both men and women there was distinct linearity
for the correlations of their marital satisfaction with
their own Safety, Affiliation, and Esteem needs. This
linearity of correlation size occurred in opposite direc-
tions for the genders. Wives' correlations decreased as
Maslow's hierarchy of needs was ascended, while husbands'
correlations increased. These correlations can be found
in Table 2. As can be seen, women whose needs are pre-
dominantly in the level of Safety needs are clearly
similar to the pattern of needs found earlier on the EPPS
to be correlated with wives' marital satisfaction. This
is characterized in large part by desire for stability,
routine and predictability. The correlations for husbands
with their own DAS scores were generally smaller than their
wives' scores were, and the order was different. Husbands'
DAS scores were negatively correlated with their own Safety
needs. Husbands, then, who had predominantly passed
through the Safety need stage tended to rate their marriages

as happier, though due to the small correlations involved

44
this conclusion is tenuous. Husbands' DAS scores are
also correlated in descending order with their wives'
Maslow (ASCT) scores. Though none of these three cor-
relations is .3 or greater, the directionality is clear,
that as women begin to function in ways that Maslow would
characterize as increasingly mature and healthy, both
they and their husbands become less satisfied with their
marriages.

The CDAS scores mirror these above-mentioned
trends, as can be seen in Table 3. An interesting finding,
quite in keeping with the results on the EPPS discussed
previously, is that the couples' DAS scores are correlated
much more with the wives' ASCT scores, the absolute value
of the correlation for each level of ASCT need being at
least double for wives that of their husbands. Again
we find, then, that marital satisfaction depends more
upon wives than upon husbands, further supporting our
earlier speculations that marital satisfaction comprises
a greater portion of wives' emotional resources than of
husbands', quite possibly, as theorized, because of the
greater availability to men of socially accepted satis-
factions external to the marital relationship. Why, though,
this result that as women get "healthier" their marriages
tend to be less satisfying? It would ordinarily be expect-
ed that as peOple progress along the Maslowian hierarchy
they begin to be able to gratify their needs in increasingly
flexible ways, thus increasing their satisfactions. In

order to consider this finding, it may be helpful to

45
raise questions about the difference between marital
quality and marital stability. Levinger (1965) and Spanier,
Lewis and Cole (1975) posit that while the stability of a.
marriage and its quality are correlated, they are by no
means a unitary concept. All four combinations exist (high
quality-high stability, high quality-low stability, low
quality-high stability, low quality-low stability). We
might, in retrospect, expect of our sample that as wives
(or husbands) express, on the ASCT, predominantly Safety
needs, that their marriages would be more stable. Fear
of change and loss of dependency would encourage this.
These women, however, rated their marriages as more
satisfying, not merely more stable. Consider again the pos-
sibly analOgous finding by Bird that as wives' incomes
increase the likelihood of marital dissolution does as
well. We cannot with confidence adjudicate whether this is
due to increased marital difficulty, increased awareness of
marital stress, or vitiated restraints against the dissolu-
tion of marriage. It may be that wives, such as those in
our sample, who score predominantly in the Safety need
stage on the ASCT, having resigned themselves to continuing
in the relationship, and being fearful of divorce and the
concomitant changes that would thus be fostered, ignore,
rationalize away, or deny displeasures and problems in the
marriage to which ”healthier" women might attend with
greater acuity. Future research might profitably consider
some of the following questions. Are wives who are more

advanced on the Maslow hierarchy more likely to become

46
divorced? Are they more likely to become divorced than
less-"healthy" women who report equivalent satisfaction
with their marriages? Do "healthier" women perceive the
difficulties of their relationships more accurately than
less-"healthy" women, judged by external criteria?

In order to consider the respective predictive
capacities of the similarity and complementarity theories,
summed squared differences between spouses were obtained.
Positive correlations of these with dyadic adjustment are
suggestive of complementarity while the obverse is true
for similarity. There is scanty evidence in the data to
suggest that complementarity or similarity is important
for well-adjusted marriages. There is one significant
correlation for each, and beyond these no clear trend is
evident.

In support of the complementarity position is the
finding for the Deference scale. Here the squared differ-
ences for husbands and wives were a predictor of marital
satisfaction. There was little difference due to sex
in the individual results, with husbands' mean Deference
score being 11.35 and wives' being 11.82. Interestingly,
husbands' DAS scores were relatively uncorrelated with
their wives' Deference scores, while wives' scores were
correlated with their own Deference scores (r = -.39,

p < .059). Neither husbands' nor wives' DAS scores were
correlated with husbands' Deference scores. One inter-

pretation of this, which dovetails with earlier

47
speculations is that husbands will not act much differ-
ently in their marriages regardless of their wives'
Deference needs. They will not respond differently nor
will the gratification of their personal needs be affected,
perhaps because they have sources of gratification outside
their marriages. Women, then, who are less deferent will
tend to be more frustrated and less gratified than will
women whose higher needs for Deference inclines them
toward demanding less equality in the decision-making
processes with their husbands.

In support of the similarity theory is the result
on Intraception for which the difference score is negatively
correlated with couples' DAS scores at an r==.46 level
(p < .05). Here, the mean scores for husbands and wives
were different by 1.6 points or three times the margin on
the Deference scale. Wives' scores were larger than their
husbands'. As similarity on this scale was predictive of
happier rated couples, wives who score lower in Intraception
needs rated their marriages as being happier. Husbands'
DAS scores also increase as their wives' scores diminish.
Wives' DAS scores are correlated at a level surpassing the
.3 criterion (r==.39) with their husbands' scores on
Intraception, however, the husbands' DAS scores were
relatively uncorrelated with their own Intraception scores.
DAS scores were relatively uncorrelated with the sum of a
couple's Intraception scores (ra=.10).

The patterns of interrelationships among EPPS scales

48
for husbands and wives differ extensively from each other,
as seen in Tables 5 and 6. Here ten of the scales have
no correlations in common, six have only one, and only two
of them have as many as half of their intercorrelations in
common across genders. To then compare husbands' scores with
wives' in an attempt to look at complementarity versus
similarity or to talk of the scores as representing
equivalent psychological constructs, is of dubious utility.
Indeed, since the scales appear to mean different things to
the two genders, it may be that measures that are to be
used in similar research ought to be factored separately
for men and women. A similar finding to this concerning
the Dyadic Adjustment Scale was presented in Bertram (1981)
in which a factor analysis performed separately for men
and women indicated that Spanier's scales,based as they
were upon pooled data, did not adequately reflect the
approach that women take to marriage. Interestingly, no
major marital-adjustment scale has been factor analyzed
using separated data pools for husbands and wives.

In summary, then, the findings highlight the
difficulties in attempting to assess marital satisfaction
using limited theoretical schema (need theory, role
theory, etc.) or examining limited forms of data (intra-
personal, interpersonal, or demographic). The importance
of examining cognitive attributions, expected role constructs,
demographics, interpersonal process and intrapersonal needs,

is stressed. The hypotheses failed to be supported by the

49
data and statistically significant results were few and
failed to occur at chance levels. Several patterns of
differences between the genders emerged, however, that are
provocative and engender suggestions for future research.
It is particularly thought that utilization of measures
that have been constructed allowing for gender differences

is imperative for continuing research into the field of

marital satisfaction.

NOTES

1Personal communication with Phyllis Lenard,

M. S. W., Children's Psychiatric Center, Freehold, New
Jersey, 1981.

Personal communication with Dr. Gary Stollak,

Ph. 0., Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
1981.

50

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHEET

52

 

mm 098 HO. ..
W Lu!

Your 808:

foot A”:

 

haul: a! nu. Hunted (Your. ad the”) :

 

Ida: a! Previous tbs-runs:

#

Ides of cum--

 

A... of ammo:

 

m of unsung Living With You:

 

Lu: Year of School You lava Cowl-cad:

 

Demands:

 

You: been. (Not Including That of Your Spouse) : Per Year

APPENDIX B

DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE

0mm: mus-mun scars “m ”‘—
Hoat persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the
approximate extent of agraanant or disagreement between you and your partner for
each iten a the following list.

Almost . Occa- Ira- Alsoat
Always Always -aionally quontly Always Always
Agree Ages Disagree Disagree Disagree Disgrea

1. Handling family
finances

2. Hatters of
recreation

I. Religious setters
4. Demonstrations of
affection

5. Sex relations

6. Friends

7. Cavantiaaliyy
(correct or proper
behavior)

8. Philosophy of life
9. Ways of dealing
with parents or
in-laws

10. Aims. goals. ad
things believed
isportant

ll. heat of ties
spent together

12. Making major decisions
13. Household tasks
16. Leisure tins
interests and
activities

15. Career decisions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More
All .Hoat of often Occa-
g. 51.. th‘e time than not sionally Rarely Never

to. how often do you
discuss or have you
considered divorce.
separation, or tar-
Iinnting your
relationship?

17. houoften doyou'oryour
nets leave the home

after a fight?

18. In general. how often
do you think that

things between you

ad your partner are

going uall‘l

19. Do you confide in your
nets?

10. Do you ever regret
that you married?

54

Hora
All Most of often Occa-

21. How often do you and
your sate quarrel?

22. How often do you ad
your sate ”get a each
other's nerves?"

 

 

Ivory Almost Occa-
lvagz Lay pionally Iarsly lever
23. Do you hiss your nets?

 

24. Do you and your
mate engage in
outside interests
together?

How ofta would you say the fella-ring events occur bauaa you ad your eats?
bass tha (hos or Once or

 

 

ace a twice a twice a (hes a
lever month nonth week _ day lbra often

 

25. Have a stimlating
exchange of ideas

26. Laugh together

27. Calnly discuss
scathing

28. Hort together on a
project

These are some things about which couples sosatinas agree ad sosstinsa disagree.
Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in
your relationship in the past few weeks. (Chad: yes or no)

Yes In
29. being too tired for sex.
30. lot showing love.

31. The dots on the following line rapt-seat different degrees of happiness in
your relationship. The aiddla point, 'happy", represents the degree of happiness
of seat relationships. Please circle the dot aich best describes the degree of
happiness. all things considered. of your ralatiaship.

 

 

 

 

Extra-1y 'fiirly a little iappy fiVery intranly Page“
£13m Elm Elihu»! an» Inn

32. Which of the following state-ate best describes how you feel about the future
of your relationship?
I want desperately for my rslatiaship to succeed. ad would go to almost
any lengths to see that it does.
lwat vary-sch foreyralationship tosucesad. adwilldoalllcantosaa
that it does.
lwatvary-Ichforayrelationshiptosuccaad. adwilldoayfairshara
to see that it does.
Itwouldbanics ifqy ralationshipsucosadad. but I ca'tdo-Ichnona tha
I In doing now to help it succeed.
ltwouldbanicaifit succeeded, butlnsfusstodoaynonsthanlasdoing
now to keep the relationship going.
Hy relationship ca never succeed. ad there is nothing more that 1 ca do to
heap the relatiaship going.

 

 

APPENDIX C

ARONOFF SENTENCE COMPLETION TEST

ARONOFF SENTENCE COMPLETION TEST

Date:
Nana:

below are forty incomplete sentences. Read and con-plate each one. If
the suggested word occurs in the siddle of the line, place it wherever

you wish.

1. I should like to

2. lbst isportant

3. Hy appearance

4. good used

5. "hen l as not treated right. I

d. if I could only

7. My head

8. The people who work for as

9. The safe driving force in sy life is

10. Other people are

55

11.

12.

13.

1‘.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

56

It I could change anything. I

for sure

1est

The core involved one gets

Tor as. the best

As a ch11d. 1

A friend

I will fight when

care

It's fun to daydrean about

valuable possession

A.stranger

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

33:

3‘.

57

Hhen told to keep my place. I

Dormitory living

Hhen an animal is wild.

If I were in charge

Being

People think I an

I don't like

what bothers me nost

continually

To me. people

11 l so put under pressure

I so happy when

36.

37.

38.

39.

60.

5E3

broke . then

1 want

Tho future

The people I like best

flhen I can't do sonething. l

Tests like this

APPENDIX D

EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
an... t. Edwards, University or Washington

DIRECTIONS

Thisacheduleconsistsofanundserofpaiuoffiatanentseboutthingsthatyoumayornuynot
lieubouwaysinwhichyounuyormaynotfeel.ldokattheesamplebelow.

Alliketotalkaboutmyselftoothers.
Illiketoworktowardsomegoalthatlharesetformyself.

Which of these two statements is more characteristic of what you like? If you like "talking about
yourself to others" more than you like "working toward some goal that you have set for yourself." then
you should choose A over B. if you like "working toward some goal that you have set for yourself" more
thanyoulike "talkingaboutyourselftootherfi' thenyoushouldchooseloverA.

You may like both A and B. In this case. you would havetochooscbetween the two and you should
choosctheomthatyoulikebetter.lfyoudislikebothAandB.thenyoushouldchoosetheonethatyou
dislikeless.

Some of the pairs of statements in the schedule have to do with your likes. such as A and 8 above.
Other pairs of statements have to do with how you feel. Look at the example below.

A I feel depressed when l fail at something.
I i feel nervous when giving a talk before a group.

Which of these two statements is more characteristic of how you feel? lf ”being depressed when you
fail at soaiething" is more characteristic of you than "being nervous when giving a talk before a group."
thenyoushouldchooserverB.lfBismorecharacteristicofyouthanA,thenyoushouldchooseB
over A.

lfbothstatementsdescrtbehowyouieel.thenyoushouldchoosetheonewhichyouthinkismore
characteristic. lfneitherstaternent accurately dacribeahowyoufedthenyoushouldchoosetheone
which youconsidertobelessinaccurate.

Yotuchoice,ineachinstance.shouldbeinternudwhatyoulikeandhowyoufeelatthepresent
time. and not in terms of what you think you should like or how you think you should feel. This is
not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. Your choices should be a description of your own per-
sonal likes and feelings. Make a choice for every pair of statements; do not skip any.

The pairs of statements on the following pages are similar to the examples given above. Read each
pair of statements and pick out the one statement that better describes what you like or how you feel.
Make no marks in the booklet. On the separate answer sheet are numbers corresponding to the numbers
ofthepairsofstatements.Checktobesureyouarenurkingforthesameitemnunberastheitem you
are reading in the booklet.

 

If your answer sheet is printed if your answer sheet is printed
is BLACK ink: ‘m BLUE ink:
For each numbered item draw a circle around For each numbered item fill in the space
therrBtoindicatethestatementyw endcerrBssshownintheDirections
have chosen. on the answer sheet.

Do not turn this page until the examiner tells you to start.

59

14

Ilihtobrlpreyfriendswheatheyarelntrouble.
lliketodemyeerybestiswhatererlundertake.

lliketohndentwbatgreatsnenbsve abom
various inwhichlaminttis

lweuldliketaaccamplishsemethingelgseatsignifir
canes.
Anywrktenwukthatldelliketehavepcist.“

asdwell
lwouldliketobeareeegniacdanthorityinssmeleb.

prolessioo.er6eldofspecialiaatien.
llikrtoteflsrnusiagstoriesandiokesatpaniss.
lwenldlikebwritcagteatnovelorfley.

lliketebrableteeameaadgoaslwamm.
lliketebrabls-ssythatlhmdsaesdiiult
isbwell.

I’U’

>

A
3

like sol ad sheaths
‘kaveb' «pix problems people

Ili‘ksteldb'mendtebwhethw
me.

llikcpeapen’eeseaevdlyandchsageinmydsly
mine.
llikctotcllmysupenert' thattbeyhavedsseageod
isbmnmahiapwbenlthinkthcyhave.
lliketoplaaandorgsniaethedrtailselanywerk
thllhavctouadrnakc.
lliketoiollewinnruniensandtodewbstisespsmd
alias.
llik letoeetiesandtooommeetepenmyap-
‘Mwhenlemotlinpublic.
lliketareadabouttheliseselgtcatmen.
[liketoavoidsituationswhcrelamespecudbde
thingsiaacons-entionalway.
lliketoreadabouttheli'uofgreatmen.
lwouldlikerobearerogniaedaothetilyissemejob.
professinahddolspeeialiaauon.
lhketohavemyworkerganiudandplanncdbefors
beginningit.
lliketohndomwhat‘mmenhave aboa
various h ' Iamrn
lllhavetotakeatriprllikctehavethiagsplaaaed

hedvanoe.
llikttohnishanyiobernskthatlbrgie.
lliketokerpmytbiogs'nutandetderlyasmyu

«workspace.
llikeseullathapropleabotsadvrnnlelaedm

thingsthathave bappmedteme.
llikstohavemymeshorgsniardeadsthaltetims
annihilated-g.

likawbc‘rdcpeedutelethmhdsddinwhatl

wansta

I lliketokcepmyshiagsntetanderderlyesmydesk
arwerkspsos.

A
B
A
B
A
3
A
3
A
B
A
I
A
I
A
I
A
3
A
D
A

lflewhfiudetflagtbrttctdunethwpmpk
lzh‘sowllanudagnsriuaadhkesatpsrtia-

A
D

60

17

21

22A

A lliketoconformtoetutomendtoaveiddoingthings
thatpeoplelrespeetmighteensidetunconventional.
B llikctotalkaboutmyachievemcn'ts.
A llikctohavemylilesoar thatitrunssmoothly
and without much change in my plan!-
lliketotell other It about adventurcsandrtrange
mantra-33%..“
lliketorcadbooksandplaysinwhichscsphysa
mayorpart.
lliketebethectntcrolettentioninagroup.
lh‘ketocriticiacpeoplewboareinapesitionefau-
lliketousewordswhichotherpeoplsefscndeau
knowthemeaningof.

lliketoaccomplishusksthatetbasrecogniacesre-
quiringskillandetlort.
llikesobeablctooomeendgeaslwamso.

llikstoptaisesomeeoeladmire.
3 lliketoieclfrcetodowhatlwanttedo.

B
A
B
A
B
A
I

23 A llfietokcr m lettcrs.bills.andotherpapersacatly

24

26

27

bdaccordingtesometystem.
B lliketobeindepcndentelethersiadecidingwhatl
wanttodo.

A llikesosskquestiooswhichlknowneeaewillbe
abletoanswcr.

B llikctocriticisepooplrwheareinapositionolau-
sherity.

A lgctsoangrythatliecllikethrowingandbreeking
W

D I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations.

A lliketobcseccessfuliathingsunderukcn.
B lliketoformnewlriendships.

A lzkuolollow instructionsandtedowhatiseapectcd
me.
3 lliketohasedrongattschmenuwithmyfriends.

A wr'ttenworkrhstldslliesehavcprecue' .ntat.
A“azstlst'vellorganiaed.
8 lliketomakcasmanylriendsaslselo

2! A llietotellarnusingstoriesandiokcsatparties.

B lliketewritelctterttemyfriends.

N A lliketobeabletoeuneandgeaslwantto.

3 lliketeshsrethingswithmylrimds.
A like sols salesasdpreblems ethtrpeeple
'hevezifieultrwith. .dtat
ud do '
Hilario} gemm’hzbythey musing—net

A Iliketeacctpttheleaderahipelpeopltladmirc.
B lliketonndentsndhowmylriendslerlaboutvarioes
problansthqhaveteiase.

A lliketohavemymcalsarganiardendadehitctisse
srtasidelotearing.
I liketostudyandtoanalysathebrhssierefathers.

61

A like that and
3G ’elever'by-yethgb‘. atsregsrdsdeswiuy

22

4!

43

d3

01

l llilresaptamyselfinsornosneelie'splaersadto
imaginehowlweuldioclinthessmssinsstion.

A lliltesoleeliroesodowhstlwaotude.

I lkkesoebservehowanotheriedividualfsslsiaa
fiveasitustios.

Alliketoaeoom' tasksthudhen In-
mme... .........

l llikensylriesdssasnoouragemewhsalmssswkh

AWhenplanasag' somethg.‘ llikeb w’
fromotherpooplewhossopinional'rrqsu.

llikemyiriendsutrestmtkinrly.

lfibbssemylihsesmngedthatltruuneahly

wuhotamtschchangeramyplans.
llikrmylriendsuieelsorrylormewhenlamsiek.

lliketobasheoenouolsnentiooiasgreup.
llikemyfrieodstomakeafussovermewbenla-
bertorn'ck.

lliketoavoidsituationswherelameapuwdmdo
thingsinaoonventionalway.
llikemyfriendstolmpathiaewithmeendmchmr
neupwbenlam pressed.
lwouldliketowriteagreatnovelerplay.
Whenservin uaununimlliketobeeppetmed'

’H’I>U’I’U

or
d whstthegroupisgotag
soda.

llikesesepemse’ androdirorstbsanisnselethsr
peoplewheeeverlean.

A llikesokoepm knembillgaoduherpapersnesdy
arrangedand aerordingtosomesystem.

lliketobeoneolrheleadersintbeorgaaiaatiensad
groupstowhiehlbolong.

lliketoaskquestinswhicblkaewueeewilbe
eblesoanswer.

lllesstelletherposplrbswsedeshsklsbs.

llikemavoidresponsfiiitiesendm‘“
llikesobeoslledu tankergumsnn
lwouldliketobea nlsedsuthorkyhssmeleb.
”(macaw
Itelgultywheneverlhandonsss-sthlaglkaew
wrong.

llikatsreadsbsutthelivssefgru-ra.
lloelthstlsbouldoonhssthethiogsthstlbavedsne
that regardaswrong.

like

I
to endorgansae' thsdrtalhd wk
lgmudersake. any

Whenlaminagrou lliketo thelcadershi
d“h:;.l. ““P‘ .'

I>U>U>I

I,

that
Whenthsags‘ wrong’ formullselshstlammere
mfinsha‘danyoneelse.

U’

51

A

>

.I’I’U’U’I>U’U’U’U’I’U>I>U’U>

lliketonsewordswhichotherpeopleofteadonot
knowtherneaniagof.
Hooltlutlaminferiorteothersinmostrespocts.

lliketocriticlsspeoplewheareiaapositionefau-

lliketodomyverybeniawhemerlunderuke.
[likemhelpotherpooplewhoarelessfortunasethaa
In.

lliketsfindeutwhat asenharethou about

snriesuproblemsie ' lass
liketobegenerouswkbmyfriends.

lliketomskra before ' issedessmeo
m". plsa rut-nag
lliketedosnullfavorsiormylriends.

llfietotellothorpeopleabouradventurssandmnge
thingsthstbavehappenedteme.
likemylriendstoconfideinmeandtowllmetheir

lliketoseywhatlthiskabouttbings.
llikeooforgive myfriendswhomsy sometimes
Mme.

lliketobeablesodothingsbenertluootherpeople
can.

Ilikesoeetlnnewandarange restaurants.
llikesoennformtncustomandtoavoiddoingthings
that people l respect might consider unconventional.
lliketopartieipatrisnewladsendiashions.
llike_to.hav‘e‘.myworkerganiaedandplanned before
lliketotravolandsessetheoeuntry.

llikepeoletonodecandtoeommentu a
pesrancepwhenlameutispublic. ponmy P.

lliketomeveeboottheeouatryandtolireisdilero
eotplaces.

llikctobelndependentefethersindoridingwhatl
waetsodo.

llikesodenewenddifieuatthhgs.

Itemsebeabletemythatlbavedoneadi‘euk’eb

llietowerkksrdatenyloblendertake.

l sell that ha
a: .m...':.~..m:;s-~
lmtpormsinglepbortaskataumebehre

Hahnmnkeaniallletehasethingsplanned

llikzzkipworkingatepuulcerproblemeetil

[sometimesliketodelhsngs' somwbne‘ert
kwillhsveonethers. h.

llikesostickatalobor evenwheokmsy
ssemasillameotgenmganywbcrewishit.

67

7l

73

7Q

73

62

Allikemdsthingsthatesherpeeplsregssdasus.
Illiketo ks hourselworkwithom
no be ‘wise

A lwouldlikemaooompl'nhsomethiogelgrutdgalfi-
canoe.

I lliketokissanrsnisepensnsolthespposisssm.

A lliketopraiseromemeledmhe.

I lliketaberegardedasphysicallyattratsivekyshose

' dtheoppesssests.

A lk'kesokoepmythingseostandertkrlyesmydssk
eswerkspace.

lliketobeinlosowithsomeoneeftkseppodwml.

lliketonhabotsmyschiermseats.
lliketolistessoersotolljokesiawhiekssaplays
amaiorpsrt.

llikesodo samown andwithsmugerd
sswhatosavmayth’ink. "1
lliketoresdbooksandplayslawhichseaplsysa
micron-
lwouldliketnwriteagrestaovelorplay.
llikesoattarkpoinueleiewdsataremntrsryto
mine.

>U>U>I>U

Whenlaminagrou

liketoaecepttheleadershi
slammnedseiegsdsngwhat thegroupisgoin:
m

liedlikecritieiaingsemeooepsdsliclyllhedeserresk.

lliketohavemylilesoarrangedthatltrunssmoothly
and much inmy

Imugqtkstllsellikethrowingsndhreakiag

lliketoaskquossiseswhirhlkaowaoeeewilbe
ableseanswer.

lliketamletherpsoplewhstlthinkdthem.
llikesoavoidre tiesaadehligzieas. the
llorllikemaklngfundpeoplewho shsegs' t
lregardas asnepsd.

IIIIID>N

lliketobeloyalmmyfrisnda
I llikesodomyserybestiawhaseverl-dertske.

Alliesoobsemhowanosherksdisidoslflshs

gieenssuaunn.
I lliketobesblesosaythatlhsvedonssslimlt
flowell.

A llikcmylrimdstomooursgemswksalmsetwkh
lsilure.

I lls‘kesebensooesdulhthiagsundertakm.

A llikesebenneolthelesderslatheergmlaatiomaad
towhith

belong.
n lliketobeablesodoshingsbrsttrthanetherpeofle

A WhenthingsgewronglormeJlselthllnmese
shssaayoneeln. sh other
Illikesosolse salesandproblenu at people
have dfleukrwith.

ll

Alliketodothingslormylriends.
Ithnplannin somethin.l.likete sugestions
hem other pgople whoa: opinions I Spec!
Alliketoput insomeoneelse's plsceandso

imaginehow wouldleelinshesamesituation.

I lliketotcllm superiorsshstthey have doncagood
{oboe onsunnhing.wh lthinktheyhas'e.
A llikemylriendstobesympatheticsndnnderstaading

I lliketoaooeptthelesdershlpofpeopleladmire.
A Whenmingonammmhmllikesobeappointed

Ithnlamlna llikesoaoorpttheleadership
daemon: “flaccid-use whssthegroupisgo-

legsodo.
A llldomthingthuhwmllorlthatlshould
bepunishedlor

I lliketoeonformtocunomandtoavoiddoingthings
that people l respect might consider unmnsentional.

Allikesosharethingtwithmylriends.

Illiketomakea beinrenartsng' intodosomeo
thingdificult. PM

A lliketounderstand howmy friendsleelabouteari-
oosproblemstheyhssetoiaoe.

I lflhatetosakeatrip.lliketohavethingsplsnned
inadvanoe.

A llikemyfriendstotreatmekindly.

I lliketohasemyworkorganiaedsndplannedbefore
beginnsngst.

A lliketoberegardcdbyelhersesaleader.

I lliketokeepm letters.bills.andotherpapersaeasly
arranged and sled according to some system.

A lleelthatthepeinandmiserythstlhavesuleredhas
dwansoregoodthanharm.

I lliketohare my lifcsoarranged thatitruns smoothly
.dwithoutmssthcksngesnmyplans.

A lliketohsvesuongattachmenuwithmyfriends.

Illiketosayshingsthstareregardedsswittyand

shrubs-the stool-

Alhkesethinkaboutthccrsonalsties elmylriends
eedsotrytoligureoutw tmakesthemastheyare.

I leometimeslikctndothingslusttesoewhaeeflocs
twill haveonmhets.

A llikemyfriendstomekeahsssorermewbcnlam
hertorsick.

I llikesotalksboutmysshiesemeeu.

A liketotellotherpeoplehowmdotheirlobs.
I llikesobesheemtcrolanentioninagroup.

A lleelsimidinshepresenoeefosherpeoplelregard
asmysuperinra.

I lliketousewordswhichosherpeopleolsendonot
knowthemeenlngol.

A llike’atpdothingswithmylriendsratherthaaby
m .
I llikesosaywhatlthinkeboutshings.

l07

“6

322

Ill

63

A llikesohesnooesshslhshingsuadestaken.
I lliketolormnewlsimdships.

A llikemanalynsmyownmotivesondhdiqa
I llikemmakemmsnyfriendsaolms

‘A llikemylrimdssohelpmewhmlamiewookle.

I liketodothingihrmyhiends.
Allikeso (or altiewwh'enklsos-
“mum-yin!

I lls'kemwriseksserssomyfriends
A lfclguilrywheneserlhavedonessmnhioglhnow
wrong.

I llikesohavenrongatuehmentswithmyhieads.

A llikesoshareshingswithmyirieods.

I llietoanslyaemyownmetivessndledings.

A lliketoocorpttheltadershipofpeopleladmire.

I liketounderwandhowmylriendslmlahoutvari-
ousproblemstheyhavesolace.

A llikemyfriendsmdomanynnallbmhrme
cheerfully.

I lliketoiudgevbywhl‘thcydosouthing—

Ahh'henwithe of.peoplellikebmskeme
weoregeingtohs

I lliteWsppreditthowmylrienskwflloselnvorioos
mnsuom.

A lleelhenuwhmlgiselsaadavoidafiktth-
lweuldilltrledtohavemyownway.

I lliketoanslyasthohslingsandmotivmdethers.

A lliketolormnewhiendships.
I llikamyfrienbsohdpmewheslamlewomle.

do
“creams.“ “-
I lls‘kem lriendstodowagreuddd‘stion
me.

Alliketohsvemy lilemarrangedshmhenm
nnoothly andwithoutmochchsogeiemyplns.

I lh'kemyfriendssoloelsorrylormewhenlamfik.

Allikesoheosled sosmlewgumeeuaedls-
pmeshetweesoth‘s:

I llikemylrienbtodomaoysmalllsvenbrme
cheerlully.

“7

A lfeelthaslshouldmnfessthethingsthulhove
donethatlregardaswrong.

I llikernyfrienditosympothieewithmeandtochsee
meupwhmlomdepressed.

A lliketodothingswithmyfriendsratherthanhy

Ilhkeso for olviewwhenkisao
w%””
A lliketothinkaboetthepersonalitiesofmyfriends

:mqmfigmuwm mikeithrsnss
I llikesobeabletopersuadeoedinluenerothersm
dowhatlwanttedo.

A lflemylriendstosympothieewkhmemdsorhosr
meopwhenlarn asndeprensd.
IVIhendtho peopleJlikesomskethe
Mumdnmgsiogsodo.

A llketoaiquenionswhithlkaowsoooewillbe
flotsamwer.

" I llikemtellotherpeoplehowmdotheirflrs.

221

123

120

A llrelrisnidinthepresenoeofosherpeoplequard
osmysss

I lliketosupcrviseondsoirmtshemsionsofmher
peoplewhcncverloen.

Alliketo porticipateln psinwhichthememhers
hoe warmandlr yleelingstowardoneanother.

I lzdguiltywheneverlhavedoneoometbinglknow
hwrong.
llikemanalyaetheleelingsandmotitesofothers.
lfeeldeprcssedbymyowninabilitytohandleoari-
ossssituations.
llikemyfriendssoloelsorryformewhenlamsick.

lleelbeneruhenlgiveinandavoidahghnthan
lwouldifltriodsohovemyownway.

lliketobeahlesoprriusdemdlnluenoeothmso
dowhatlwant.

lfeeldepressedbymyownlnshilitytohandlevari-
eassituations.

lliketocritiriaepooplewhoereleaposidonol

authority.

lleeltimidinthepresenoeofethespooplelregsed

“WW

llietn ici lnwhirhthemembers
port aMhstowardeneanother.

llieeohelpmylriendswhenthryareintrouble.

llikemanolynemyownmotieeseadleelings.
llikesosympathieewithmylrleadswhensheyare
horrorsiek.

llikemyfriendstohelpmewhenlnminnesdsle.
immutatmhetpeoplewithkindnessandsym-

I U? I’D? I> "I I? I?

lliketobeoneelshelesdersintheorganieations

ondgroopsso whirhl.belong

Illketo hiaewith lriendswhen are
ham“ " 'h"

137

332

Ml

I“

64

A lhrlthstthepslnoodmisn-ythstloesedered
hssdooememoregoodthsnhssm
I llikeooshowagrestdealofalsnim-nwdmy

arm-5' with friendsruhsrshm
than It fit

I incompetent-doorman“

Allikesoshiakshsuithapenooslitiosst himds
sndsonysoiguseoutwhas-ksnhsmos

lous-
Illieflsotrynewsoddflermt dun.
mud-ngthesameold

A lflem friendsmhesympotheticndnhwand-
hgwh’enlhoseproblems.

Alliesoorgoefor ' isiswwhmkhm»
tsckodbyothsrsqm

I likesoeapn-immnovdryaedehangehmymly

A lfedheuorwbenlgisehondavoidnhghuhml
wesddiflm'rdsohavemyswnwey.

I llikasomoveohouttheoeuauyandmkvehib
mtfloms.

Allikesodosh'sngsformybieam.
I Wheslhaveoomeowignmcntsodnlliemm
handkoepworkingoaitonu’litismmplsmd.

A llike0oeslyeethefoeliogssndmotlveidmh-a
I llikesosvoidkeinglnsersupsedwhilsstmywork.

A lflemyfrieadsmdomsaynnsllhvessbme
cheerfully.
I llikhe‘bloyepluw'hhhotdermgwefl

A likemheregsrdsdbyathsnasakodse.

I llflemputiskrnghoursofworkwithomkhg
diarmmd.

A llldosomsthing’ .dsstlswroogflkslshotlud
kepuaishedfor

wheah
' 'e-mekmz..." .....-'

Alldseioheloyslmniyhleods.
Illikesogoomwithanrarusepersoosdshsqi
pon'sssm.

A lliempsefisshowmyfriskoillosehseshes
I likemprddpuhmmuumd-
mlamvitiss.

A llike friesmmshowagrelud‘nh
me.
I lliketoheoomewaodlyuhd.
AWhenowith poepklflemdefi
“though-them“.
I [Euumhmuumommd

143

207

l“

a .
lggepsenedhymyewnhmflirymhondenrl-

I llikesoresdhooksnedflayshwhiohsmploysa
msiorport.

A llisssowriuletsersssniyhimdi.

Illikesoresd amounuofmormrseed
“tam

Allison how friendswilloethvuious
indie It
I llik-Lmutsckpoinuoftiewshstaremntnrym
A llikemyfrimdssomskeafnnelermawhml
omhurtordck.
I lfhetellikeblsmingothsiswhmthingsgowsoog
me.

A llikcsoseletherpooplshowmdothsirims.
lfosllikegettingrevengewhensomoooehub-

lfeelthatlemlnlerlortowhnoiamonrespesn.
lbdlikemllsngetherpoofledwheolisogne
wkhthem.
likesohelpmyfrlendswheadseyorelntreuble.
liketodomyveryben'mwhnverloodessske.
liesonnveloadsossetheosoorry.

like

I
A
I
A
I
A
I mmplirhtaaksthmothersreoogniseos
A
I

I lwouldlikesowriseapestaovslorplay.

A llilteoodownallfsvorsfirmyfriends.
IWhenplaneingsomethin llikeso suggem'oas
fromotherpooplewhos‘depinions respect.

Allike rienm and n
have unlit chart It“!

‘I llikezse "are superiorsthatsheyhovedoneagood

whenl thinktheyluve.
A limsaynplauworkinglnordersognahh

I llikesoprslsssommnelodmiro.

A llfietoboeomesmnallyencised.

I lfletosooeptdielesdershipofpssplslodmiro.
Alfssllikegrstingrevengewhensomoonehslesbd

I Walnmhamllikesoaompsthehduflp
doommneelsels whatthe

go'mgsoska
A llikesobegmerouswkhmyfrlmm.
Illiketomskea before ' insobsomo-
. . flan nesting

367

370

373

372

373

374

372

376

377

65

F

l somrrtorwpsople.
wkuwukshstldolikuohsssprreiss.

andwellorganised.

minishanylsbortsskthaelbegio.
mkeepmythiogsnemandordtrly-mydesk
workspace.
heregsrdedasphysieallyattramivehyshose
mange“ thedetailsd work
havetoundessake. ‘7
tellotherpeoplewhatlshinkofthem.
have my mealsorganiaed and a definite
fostering.

E? 55:79. '5'? 33

mshowegrestdeddaloetimmwardmy

thnueregardedeswinyond
disturb-
tony'newonddiderent

A
I
A
I
A
I
A
I
A
I
Al theta
'ucdoingthesamedd '
I
A
I
A
I
A
I
A
I
A
I

3;?

Est

lsometimeslikemdothiogsiontomewhmdett
'swillhaveonothers.

lhketortsckata orprohlcmevenwhenit
memmiflnnegettingonywhesewithlt.”

lliepeopletoeotioeendtoeomment
mwhmlomout'mpmlst. '7‘”?

lllemreodhooksandployslnwhichmsfloyss
Ini-

part
llikesobetheomtsrofsnmtionhogssops
Italhke flamingesherswbenthingsgewroeg
llikesoaskqurstiomwhichlknownoonowill
heahletoanswer.
lliketosympathiarwithmyfrimdswhmsheyare

llike:saywkstlthinkahootthsqa

lliketoestinnewsndstrangerrsraorsnts.
lkhetodothingsthstotherpeopleregatdmnno

llikesoeomplena ls orsasknatimebo-
foretak'mgonetherf‘ l‘
llikesolotlfrcesodowhstlwanttodn

A

I

A lfletoparticipste’mshsrusdonsahomuaedsen-
unloctivitiet.

I

lhk'esodothingsinmyown wkkuregnrd
_otherssowhst moythink. ‘3!

Al mangiythatlfsdliksthsowingondhemk-
thi-sl-

I likemosoidrespondilitiesmdmlgnhm.

a smoquumaqmns—sn.
n llietokekiyalmmyfrhm.

A lliandomwonddibremshhga
I llikesolormoewfrienflipa.

373

32l

337

A Whmlhasemmeorsignmemmdnlliketonart
lnendkeepworkingon'nnntilitisonmpleted.

Illiketopsrticipatein psmwhichthemembers
hsewarm Mild" feding.srowardoneonother

Aliketogoomwithonraaivepersonsoltheop-

positesen
I llikctomakemmsnyfriendsaslesn.
A lkmsnaekpo‘muofviewthataremntraryto

I lls'kstowritelssterstomyfriends.

A lliketobegenerouswithmyfrienda.

I lhketopbservehowanotherintlieidualfeelsina
gseensstustson..

A lliketoeetinnewondstrangerestaurants.

Illiketo myselfinsomeoneelses ondto
imaginenbowlwouldfcelinthemmeflfuauon.

A llfietostayeplateworkinginordertogesaiob
I liketounderstandhowmyfriendsfeelaboutearb
omproblemstlieyhaoemiaoe.

A lkketobecomerrnnallyeneited.
I lliketostudyandtoanalysethcbehaviorofothers.

A Ikecllikemakingfsmefpmplewhodothingsthot
«and um“-

I lliketppredicthowmyfrienAwillocsiovarious
n'toouons.

Alamiorgitemyfriendswhemaymmrtimes

me.

Illie friendsm mewhenlmeetwith
.my encourage

A lliketouperimentsndmtrynewdsings.

I llike friendstehesympthetieandondernand
hge-rlzenlhavcproblems.

A lliketokee who ate aleorproblemnntil
khsolvod? ‘ pus

I llikemyfriendstotreetmekindy.
A llictoberegathdosphysieallyattractisebythose
oftheopposisesea.

I llikemyfriendstoshowagreotdealofollertion
mwardme.

Alferllikecritieiaingsomeonepubliclyifhede-
terrain

I llikemyfriendsromskeafussotermewhenlam
hrtorn'ck.

Alfletomowa deslofaleraimmward
friends. 2'“. my

I lliesoheregardedbyothersasaleoder.

A [lists newanddilerentlobs—ratherthssto
mnunueuLingthesomeoldthings.

I thnsewin onaeomminer,lliketobea posoted'
oedencde‘hairma. P
A lliketohishanylmortmkthatlbegin.

I lactoheohlemprnsadeandmluenoemhersm
hwhstlwant.

397

66

A lliempartioiporemfisconionsebommsandam-
mlaotivities.

Ilflerobecallrd sorenleargomrnuandrhs-
"mull:-

A lgmmpythotlfeellikethrowingmdbodiq

I likentrllssherpeoplehowsodorheiriohs.

Alliketoihowo deslstsden'sonroward
N W

IWhmthings wronglorchbclthotlammore
mhlamerhsn geometric.

A lfletomoeeahosrtthecoentrymdmhveb‘ler-
empires.

I lfldosomcthmg' :athwngchstlshodd
heptm'nhodfor

A lllctonickatnioborproblemeveawhmitmay

oremasiflsmnorgerringanywhesewsth
I lfedtharthepninandmiserytharlhavemlered

hedonememoregoodthan
A lliketormdhooksondflayslnwhichseaflsys

pert.
I llodtharlshorddeonfcsstheshingsthaslhsse
donethatl l.regardoswrong
A lzlikehhmingmherswhmrhingsgowrong
me.
I lchatlominfcriormosherslemostresportn

A llikemdomyrcrybenlawhateverlondcstake.
I lfitphtlporherpeoplewhoarebsfomnstc
am.

A liketodonewanddidereotrhioga
I llike‘b’mtreoremerpcoplew'nhkindnenondoym-
F I

A Whenlhsvcsomeassignmenttodotllietonatt
handkeepworkingonitontilhisemnpleted.
I ll‘ke‘sohelpotherproplewhoarekssfornnssr

A lizemengageinmcislectivkieswlthpeemnsd

oppositesu
Illictoiorgivemyfrlmdsnhomsysometimrs
hustmt.

A lliketoonarkpointsofoiewthstorecommym
I lflenyh‘srnnsoomfideloneoodsosslne
thn'rtroohles.

A lllctotreosmherpooflewkhkhdnessondoym-

I Immmvdmososnshsosonuy.

A lflemeonformtoconomandmasoiddosog
mnpmplelrespectmightoonsiderm

I lliemporticipeteinaewfadsandlmhioos.

A llikesoworkhsrdarosyloblmdntaee.
I lliemcaperioomoovokyaodchngehmyfly

230

are
m
are

237

224

A llikcsokissattractivepersonsofrheopposiresea.

I lliketneaperimentandtotrynewshingn

Allocllik other elwhenl
mesm- v-r W

I llikeroparrieipsteinnewfsdsandfsshiona.

A lliketohelporherpmplcwhoorelessfortunate
thanlem.

I lliketoinishanyloborraskrhatlhegin.
A llikogumcpvesboutrhecouorryandroliveindider-

I llikoroputielonghoursofwerkwirhoutboing
A Iizhnmnkawigllikemhave'hingsplsnned
I llikcmworkingmspuulaorproblcmomi

A lliketobeinlovewithmmooneofrheopposiseses.
I llietooompletsasioglejobortaskbeforetaking
onothcrs.

likerotdlorherpeoplewharlrhinkofshem.
liketosvoidbeioglntcrruptedwhilcatmywork.

l

l

lliketodosmallfavorsformyfricnds.

lliketocngagelnmeialactisitieswirhpersonsof
theopposireres.

A llikesomeetnew

I lliketokissattracrivepcrsonsoftheopposirems.

Allikctn work' atapnsakor‘oblemuotil

irismlty: m‘ F
I lflcroheinlos-ewirhsomooneoftheepposiseoes.

A lliketotalksboutmyachicsements.
I llietolistentomtoteflflesinwhichmaplays
amaiorpart.

A lfeellikcmakingfunofpeoplowhodothingsthar
lregard asstopid.

I lhkctolissentoortotcliokesinwhichocsplays
smaiorpart.

Allikemyfricndsmoenfideinmeandmtelmc
thehtrouhles.

Illiketnreod peremountaofmorbsond
otherformsof'

A lliketopartitipotemnewfadsandfashions.

Ilfecllikccriticieingoomeonepuhliclyifhede-

servesh.
toevoidbeinglmerruptedwhilearmywork.
mhkctellingotherpooplehdwhenldisagree

A
I
A
I

lie
fed
lliketolinentoortotdliokcslnwhiehmaflays

”lull“-
lfeellikegettingrcvengewhenmmronehoeino
solsodme.
llietoa avoidrespombiliriesondohligations.
lfeellikemskin funofpooplewhodoshingsthat
lregotdessrssr‘sid.

A
I
A
I
A
I

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Axelson, B.J. 1963. The Marital Adjustment and
Marital Role Definition of Husbands of Working and Non-

Working Wives. Journal of Marriage and Family_Livigg
25:189-96.

 

Bernard, J. 1972. The Future of Marriage. New
York: World Publishing Co.

 

Bernardin, A.C. and R. Jessor. 1957. A Construct
Validation of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
with Respect to Dependency. Journal of Consulting Psy-

chology 21:63-67.

Bertram, K. 1981. "The Prediction of Dyadic
Adjustment on the Basis of an Order Factor Model."
(Master's Thesis).

 

Bird, C. 1979. The Two Pay-Check Family. New
York: Pocket Books.

 

Blazer, J.A. 1963. Complementary Needs and
Marital Happiness. Marriage and Family Living 25:89-95.

 

Bowerman, C.E. and B.R. Day. 1956. A Test of
the Theory of Complementary Needs as Applied to Couples
During Courtship. American Sociological Review 21:602-5.

 

Burr, W.R. 1970. Satisfaction with Various As-
pects of Marriage over the Life Cycle: A Random Middle ‘
Class Sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family 32:29-
37.

 

Centers, R. and A.C. Granville. 1971. Recipro-
cal Need Gratification in Intersexual Attraction: A Test
of the Hypotheses of Schutz and Winch. Journal of Per-

sonality 39:26-43.

Fogarty, M., R. Rapoport, and R. Rapoport. 1971.
Sex, Career, and Family. London: George Allen and Unwin.

 

 

Gisvold, D. 1958. A Validity Study of the Auto-
nomy and Deference Subscales of the EPPS. Journal of
Consulting Psychology 22:445-47.

 

 

67

68

Goode, W.J. 1956. After Divorce. New York:
Free Prews.

 

Green, A.W. 1960. The 'Cult of Personality' and
Sexual Relations. In N.W. Bell and E.F. Vogel, eds.,
Modern Introduction to the Family. New York: Free Press.

 

Grover, D. 1963. Socio-Economic Differentials
in Relationship Between Marital Adjustment and Wife's
Employment Status. Marriage and Family Living 25:452-58.

 

Hobbs, D. 1965. "Parenthood as Crisis: A Third
Study." Journal of Marriage and the Family 27:367-72.

 

Lewis, R.A. and G.B. Spanier. 1979. Theorizing
About the Quality and Stability of Marriage. In W.R.
Burr, R. Hill, F.I. Nye and I.L. Reiss, eds., Contempo-
rary Theories About the Family. Vol. 2. New York: Free
Press. Pp. 268-94.

 

Levinger, G. 1965. Marital COhesiveness and
Dissolution: An Integrative Review. Journal of Marriage
and the Family 31:108-14.

 

Lively, E. 1969. Toward Conceptual Clarification:
Case of Marital Interaction. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 31:108-14.

 

Melikian, L.H. 1958. The Relationship Between
Edwards' and McClelland's Measures of Achievement Motiva-
tion. Journal of Consulting Psychology 22:296-98.

 

Miller, B.C. 1976 (Nov.). A Multivariate Devel-
0pmental Model of Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family 38:643-57.

 

 

Murstein, 8.1. 1967. Empirical Tests of Role,
Complementary Needs, and Homogamy Theories of Marital
Choice. Journal of Marriage and the Family 29:689-896.

 

Nye, F.I. 1961. Maternal Employment and Marital
Interaction: Some Contingent Conditions. Social Forces
40:113-19.

Orden, S.R. and N. Bradburn. Dimensions of Mar-
riage Ha-piness. American Journal of Sociology 73:715-31.

 

Schellenberg, J.A. and L.S. Bee. 1960. A Reex-
amination of the Theory of Complementary Needs in Mate
Selection. Marriage and Family Living 22:227-32.

 

69

Schutz, W.C. 1958. FIRO: A Three-Dimensional
Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Rinehart.

 

Sofilios-Rothschild, C. 1970. The Study of Fam-
ily Power Structure: A Review, 1960-1969. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 32(4):539-49.

Spanier, G.B. and R.A. Lewis. 1980 (Nov.).
Marital Quality: A Review of the Seventies. Journal of
Marriage and the Family __:825-38.

 

Spanier, G.B., R.A. Lewis, and C.L. Cole. 1975.
Marital Adjustment Over the Family Life-Cycle: The Issue
of Curvilinearity. Journal of Marriage and the Family 37:
263-75.

Stoltz, L. 1960.‘ Effects of Maternal Employment
on Children. Child Development 31:749-82.

 

Winch, R.F. 1955. The Theory of Complementary
Needs in Mate Selection: A Test of One Kind of Comple-
mentariness. American Sociological Review 20:52-56.

 

Winch, R.F., T. Ktsanes, and V. Ktsanes. 1954.
The Theory of Complementary Needs in Mate Selection: An
Analytic and Descriptive Study. American Sociological
Review 19(3):241-49.

Zuckerman, M. 1958. The Validity of the Edwards
Personal Prefere-ce Schedule in the Measurement of Depen-
dency-Rebelliousness. Journal of Clinical Psychology 14:
379-82.

"MIMI1311111117113