.r i. (I :93...

2.5?

:r 1’...

 

$1.1
it?

..n.§v.

. .. I: x
an..." pvlrb, 4,: 3: .3

.1 . :1. I ,L‘l‘i;
.9. ) .yf‘za

I.
d}

 

z. 1.3. .v
:v...3ax.

LIEIBRAR

i I IlllmHllllllilll‘HlHlHlHllUlllmllllllllllll

3 1293 01410 2416

“WI

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Constellations of Life Satisfaction in Three
Cohorts of Women: The Influence
of Separate and Connected
Self Orientations

presented by

Rosanne du Bois Brouwer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D Psychology

degree in

 

 

5a“ é) flee“

Major professor

Date g‘-Aq- /¢?f[

 

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

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

. PLACE ll RETURN BOX to rumor-thin mum ya}: record.
TO AVOID FINES mum on or baron an. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
CONSTELLATIONS OF LIFE SATISFACTION IN
THREE COHORTS OF WOMEN:
THE INFLUENCE OF SEPARATE AND CONNECTED SELF ORIENTATIONS
By

Rosanne du Bois Brouwer

This study examined how combinations of a Separate or Connected self
orientation in three cohorts of women affected relationships between five variables and
a measure of life satisfaction. Ordinary least squares regression was used to examine
the relationship of self esteem, Emotional Reliance on Others, Assertion of Autonomy,
employment outside the home, and number of children to the reported life satisfaction
of 452 women. For the youngest age group, age 17-30, self esteem, low Emotional
Reliance on Others, and being in the High Connected/High Separate and High
Connected/Low Separate self orientation groups predicted higher life satisfaction. For
the middle age group, age 31-55, self esteem and low Emotional Reliance on Others
predicted higher life satisfaction; and being in the High Separate/Low Connected self
orientation group predicted lower life satisfaction. For the oldest age group, age 56-
78, self esteem was the only significant predictor of life satisfaction. Across all age
groups, self esteem was the strongest predictor of life satisfaction. Finally, in all three
age groups, self orientation group differences were found for Emotional Reliance on

Others and Assertion of Autonomy. In all three groups, High Connected self

orientation group status was associated with lower levels of Assertion of Autonomy. In
the middle and oldest age groups, women in the Low Connected/Low Separate self
orientation group reported lower levels of Emotional Reliance on others than women
in the High Connected/High Separate group. The self orientation groups did not differ
in self esteem. Results suggest that self orientation groups are a useful tool for
examining various other variables related to life satisfaction, and that constellations of

what is important to reported life satisfaction vary in different age groups.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the chairwoman of this dissertation, Dr. Ellen A.
Strommen, for having a conversation with me. She knows what I mean. Her support
and encouragement made this work possible. I also acknowledge Dr. Elaine Donelson
for allowing me access to the data, as well as for her helpful input during the process.
I would like to thank Dr. Michael Lambert for being my friend as I worked through
the final years of my graduate work, and for serving on my committee with
compassion and understanding. I would like to thank Dr. Hiram E. Fitzgerald for
admitting me to graduate school in developmental psychology six years ago, for
supporting my move to a dual major in clinical psychology, for fighting some of my
battles for me, and for never failing to give me straight and candid advice. Finally, I
would like to thank Dr. Ray Bingham whose patience, diligence, intelligence, and
ability to teach never cease to amaze me. I am deeply grateful for his help with the
data analysis.

I would also like to thank my family for all their support during the ten years I
have been in School. I would like to thank my oldest son, Joel II, for his inspiration
and for his never failing belief in me as a person. I would like to thank my son David

for his always positive attitude and his consistent support. I loved having him feel

iv

proud of me. I would like to thank my daughter Sharon for her support, particularly
during my developmental comprehensive examinations, when she kept me on task with
her gentle proddings. I wish her a wonderful life as she goes away to college as I
graduate. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Joel, for his constant love, for
his willingness to examine his own life and to change it, and for his constant

willingness to listen.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... vii
Review of Literature ............................................................................................ 1
The Concept of Life Satisfaction ............................................................ 5
Self Orientation and Its Relation to Other Variables ............................. 23
The Current Study ................................................................................... 26
Specific Hypotheses for the Current Study ............................................ 27
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 28
Subjects ..................................................................................................... 28
Measures ................................................................................................... 30
Analyses ................................................................................................... 34
Results .................................................................................................................. 38
Test of the Hypotheses ............................................................................ 46

Age Group 1 (17-30) ................................................................... 48

Age Group 2 (31-55) ........................................ '. .......................... 49

Age Group 3 (56-78) ................................................................... 50
Characteristics of Self Orientation Groups—-MANOVA Results ........... 51
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 55
Appendices ........................................................................................................... 68
Relationship Self Inventory .................................................................... 68

Item Total Correlations and Scale Reliabilities ..................................... 74
lntemal Consistencies of RRSI Scales ................................................... 80

RRSI Scale Alphas by Age Group ......................................................... 80
Means and Standard Deviations for RRSI ............................................. 81

vi

Means and Standard Deviations on RRSI Scales

for Younger and Older Women .................................................. 81

Interpersonal Dependency Scale ............................................................. 82

Life Satisfaction/Well-Being Scale ......................................................... 85
Rosenberg Self Esteem Inventory ........................................................... 86

List of References ................................................................................................ 87

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of Separate/Connected Self
Orientations by Age Group ....................................................................... 39

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for All Variables, All
Age Groups ................................................................................................ 41

Table 3. Age Group 1 (17-30) Bivariate Correlations, Means,
and Standard Deviations for All Variables in the
Analyses (n = 136) .................................................................................... 43

Table 4. Age Group 2 (31—55) Bivariate Correlations, Means,
and Standard Deviations for All Variables in the
Analyses (n = 201) .................................................................................... 44

Table 5. Age Group 3 (56-78) Bivariate Correlations, Means,
and Standard Deviations for All Variables in the
Analyses (n = 115) .................................................................................... 45

Table 6. Age Group 1 (17-30) Self-esteem, Autonomy/Assertiveness,
Emotional Reliance on Others, Separate/Connected Levels
Regressed on Life Satisfaction (n = 136)
Standardized Coefficients (BETAS) ......................................................... 48

Table 7. Age Group 2 (31-55) Self-esteem, Emotional Reliance on
Others, Assertion of Autonomy, Number of Children,
Employed vs. not, Separate/Connected Levels regressed on
Life Satisfaction (n = 201) Standardized Coefficients
(BETAS) .................................................................................................... 49

Table 8. Age Group 3 (56—78) Self-esteem, Emotional Reliance on
Others, Assertion of Autonomy, Number of Children,
Employed vs. not, Separate/Connected Levels regressed on
Life Satisfaction (n = 115) Standardized Coefficients

(BETAS) .................................................................................................... 50
Table 9. Age Group 1 (17-30) Means and Standard Deviations
of Variables used in MANOVA ............................................................... 52

viii

Table 10. Age Group 2 (31-55) Means and Standard Deviations
of Variables used in MAN OVA ............................................................... 53

Table 11. Age Group 3 (56-78) Means and Standard Deviations
of Variables used in MANOVA ............................................................... 54

ix

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Recent literature in the study of woylen’s develomnl

Beginning with Jean Baker Miller’s Toward a New Psychology of Women (1976),
as well as Carol Gilligan’s (1982) work on the development of women, recent theorists
have described women’s development as occurring through a process of connection and
identification in relationships rather than in what has been traditionally described as a
process of separation. Drawing from these theorists, one can differentiate two modes of
organizing the self in relation to others. The Separate Self is characterized by an
autonomous and objective perception of the self and emphasizes individual achievement
and reciprocity in relationships. This view of self organization is consistent with
traditional theories of development, such as those of Erikson (1950), Kohlberg (1981), and
Levinson (1978), in that it postulates a series of developmental stages which lead
implicitly to increasing independence and autonomy.

The second type of self orientation in relation to others emphasizes the self as
interdependent and connected with others, and acknowledges care as the mode of
nurturing those relationships. The Connected Self emphasizes the importance of
relationship and connection to others as primary. It is important to note that this mode

of development has traditionally been viewed as pathological, with references made to

2

excessive dependency, and to women’s inability to take care of themselves. In contrast
to this view, Gilligan (1982) proposes an alternative, healthy pattern which is rooted in
connection. She describes the "voice of care" as developing through a sequence of
increasing complexity. According to her theory, women first recognize that they must
care for the self because others do not, next they move to caring for others as more
important than caring for self, and finally come to realize that care of the self, as well as
of others, is legitimate. Gilligan’s work has come under some criticism for various
reasons. The methodology used to research the self-in-relation has been attacked as
unscientific because it has relied heavily on qualitative data, such as lengthy interviews.
In addition, Gilligan used an all female sample to collect her data, and then made
comments from that data concerning sex differences. While Gilligan emphasizes that both
of these orientations are important to both men and women, and she claims she never
intended to suggest that caring is unjust or that justice is uncaring, she seems to conduct
her subsequent discussions of the issues as though the care voice belongs to women and
the justice voice belongs to men. Although it is true that women are more likely to be
socialized into the care voice or the connected self, and men are more likely to be
socialized into the justice voice or the separate self, these dimensions are seen as
independent rather than as extreme positions on a continuum. Therefore, it is possible
for people, both men and women, to be both separate and connected in their self

orientations.
In addition, much of Gilligan’s research has been conducted with populations of

highly selected women adolescents and college students enrolled in selected private

3
schools. This makes generalizations difficult. In contrast, the study from which the

levels of care voice mentioned above were derived was conducted with a group of women
who were contemplating abortion. In her 1982 book, In a Drfi’erent Voice, Gilligan
reports this study, but gives no information about the socioeconomic status of her subjects
or about their education levels. She did not use a comparison evaluation of their "voice,"
namely Kohlberg’s model of moral development, which had prompted her research. In
addition, she did not compare women with men even though her intent was to Show a
different developmental path for women.

Two other criticisms of Gilligan’s work merit attention. First, she has been
criticized by feminists who suggest that identifying a "different voice" found
predominately in women serves to perpetuate continued subjugation of women because
the voice of care is not valued in a male dominated culture. Feminists argue that labeling
women as "care oriented" continues the tradition of viewing women as weak, unassertive,
and less competent than men. Note, however, that this position precludes redefining care
in terms of strength, for either men or women.

Despite these criticisms, Gilligan’s work has prompted some writers to explore the
voice of care as it pertains to the development of women because they disagree with the
asic premise that development through assertion of autonomy and independence and
separation is the only healthy mode of development. While other researchers, primarily
clinicians, have validated the concept of women’ s self orientation as care oriented (see

Kaplan, 1984 on depression; Stiver, 1984 on dependency) little replicable evidence has

4

been made available to the scientific community for the study of women’s development
in this area.

As an attempt to address this problem, a paper and pencil inventory was developed
to measure Separate and Connected self orientations (Pearson, Reinhart, Strommen,
Donelson, Barnes, Blank, Cebollero, Comwell, & Karnptner, under review). With the
development and validation of the Relationship Self Inventory (RSI; Pearson, et al., under
review) it becomes possible to examine the relation of a particular self orientation to other
variables. Several connections have already been observed. In a validation study of the
RSI (Pearson, et al., under review), subjects consisted of 50 high school students, 534
undergraduates, and 524 adults attending a 4 day on-campus workshop. Results revealed
men scoring higher on average than women on the Separate Self orientation scale.
Women scored higher than men on the Connected Self orientation scale. However, some
women and some men scored high on both scales. In addition, predicted associations
with measures of self-esteern, dependency, sociability, and other variables were
demonstrated.

As noted above, most research in this area has not been quantitative. The present
research seeks to move the study of women’s development forward by examining how
different combinations of the Separate and Connected Self orientations at different ages
might associate to other variables that have previously been shown to be related to
women’s evaluations of their life satisfaction. To date, no research has addressed this

topic.

5

Life satisfaction, as evaluated by women of three different developmental levels,
is the focus of the research reported here. Accordingly, life satisfaction, its

conceptualization, definition, and measurement must be discussed.

The Concept of Life Satisfaction

Though at first glance the concept of life satisfaction may appear simple and
straightforward, a more careful examination of the literature in this area suggests
otherwise. Numerous articles have attempted to put forth theories of what constitutes life
satisfaction, discussed measurement of life satisfaction, and linked life satisfaction
measures to many other constructs. It seems self evident that life satisfaction should be
viewed as an important variable in social science research. Many other, relationships,
while interesting in themselves, may be viewed, at least from a clinical point of view, as
secondary to the effect they produce on an individual’s subjective state of well-being.

In a broad review of the literature on subjective well-being, Diener (1984)
discusses several theories regarding life satisfaction. Diener reports that, according to
Wilson (1967), very little progress has been made in understanding the concept of
"happiness" since the time of the Greeks. Note that already we have equated the terms
"happiness," "life satisfaction," and "subjective well-being." Each assumes that the
measure of this construct comes from the individual in question and is not an objective
measure arrived at through empirical measurement. Measurement of the life satisfaction
of an individual is generally accepted as that person’s evaluation of his or her current life

circumstances and psychological well being (Andrews & Withey, 71976).

6

Following his review of historical conceptualizations of well-being, Diener (1984)
lists and describes at least 18 different studies and the accompanying 18 different ways
life satisfaction was measured in those studies. These range from Cantril’s (1965) Self
Anchoring Ladder, which asks the subject to mark a rung on a nine rung ladder, where
the top rung is described as "best life for you" and the bottom rung is described as "worst
possible for you," to various questionnaires asking about subjective well-being (Campbell,
Converse, & Rodgers 1976), to measures of affect intensity and affect balance (Bradbum,
1969).

Attempts at defining the nature of positive well-being or life satisfaction have
included self actualization (Maslow, 1968), the "fully functioning person" (Rogers, 1961),
individuation as formulated by Jung (1933), and maturity as defined by Allport (1961).
Life span developmental theories have also offered definitions of life satisfaction,
emphasizing different conceptualizations at different stages of the life cycle. These would
include Neugarten’s (1968, 1973) personality change descriptions in later life stages, as
well as Erikson’s (1959) psychosocial stages. Jahoda’s 1958 book entitled Current

Concepts of Positive Mental Health, which was an attempt to describe good psychological
health other than conceptualized as the absence of illness, also offers many characteristics
and descriptions of what it means to be in a state of healthy life satisfaction. It should
be noted, however, that these conceptualizations of an individual’s psychological well-
being do not necessarily equate with an individual’s life satisfaction at any given time.

Individuals who are mentally healthy according to these various definitions may find

7

themselves in difficult circumstances, leading them to report low life satisfaction despite
their internal state of mental health or well-being.

According to Diener’s 1984 review, the concept of life satisfaction as it has been
investigated in social science focuses on what leads people to evaluate their lives in
positive terms. The critical point here is that life satisfaction by this definition relies on
a person’s internal standards to determine what is a good life. Shin and Johnson (1978)
have described this concept of life satisfaction as "a global assessment of a person’s
quality of life according to his own chosen criteria" (p.478).

Other characteristics of the concept of life satisfaction as it is examined in the
literature are that it is subjective and that it includes positive features and is not only the
absence of negative features.

For this study, the concept of life satisfaction is conceptualized as women’s rating
of their overall well-being and current state of satisfaction with their lives. This is
consistent with the literature and allows examination of various factors that may be
contributing to these women’s evaluation of their life satisfaction.

Since the present study examines whether connections between life satisfaction and
several variables, (i.e., self esteem, emotional reliance on others, assertion of autonomy,
employment, and children), vary depending on separate and connected self orientations,
the next sections will review studies relating life satisfaction and the variables of interest.

Lite sat_t_s1' action and self esteem. In a study of satisfaction of various domains in
one’s life compared to overall life satisfaction, Campbell (1981) reported the highest

correlation (.55) was with satisfaction with self. This research suggests that self esteem

8

is an important component, if not the most important, for subjective reports of life
satisfaction. Correlations with standard of living and family life were also high, but
correlations with work satisfaction were only moderate.

The association of life satisfaction and self esteem has also been investigated
directly. Not surprisingly, most studies find that higher self esteem is related to reports
of higher life satisfaction. Hong, Bianca, Bianca, & Bollington (1993) investigated the
effects of life satisfaction, sex, and age on self esteem. They reported higher self esteem
in all subjects who also reported higher levels of life satisfaction, and no interactions were
found between age, self esteem, and life satisfaction.

Kleinplatz, McCarrey, & Kateb (1992), in a study of the impact of gender role
identity on women’s self esteem and lifestyle satisfaction, make an interesting distinction
regarding the relationship between self esteem and life satisfaction. While non-traditional
women report higher self esteem than more traditional women, non-traditional women
may have lower life satisfaction. Kleinplatz et al. attribute this to external social approval
and rewards which non-traditional women receive. At the same time, these women may
be ambivalent about the non-traditional roles they choose. These issues warrant attention
in the literature as women’s roles in society continue to change.

A hypothesis for the current study that comes from this literature is that higher
levels of self esteem will predict higher levels of life satisfaction.

Lite say action and intemersonal degendengy. Dependency has most often been
thought of as a negative quality, a characteristic of immaturity, and even as pathology.

The Psychiatric Glossary (1980) defines dependency needs as "vital needs for mothering,

9

love, affection, shelter, protection, security, food and warmth; may be manifestation of
regression when they appear openly in adults" (italics mine). Irene Stiver (1984) points
out that this definition implies that to need anything in adulthood is regressive. In fact,
this definition may serve as an example of how we tend not to focus on what may be the
strengths of what has been traditionally called dependency. One basic example might be
the interpersonal dependence that makes it possible for individuals to relate to one
another.

In addition, dependency has been viewed as a feminine characteristic. The fact that
dependency in women has been viewed as weakness and pathology puts women in a
difficult Stance when considering the Connected Self orientation that Gilligan and others
have argued is central to women’s development. Having a normal course of development
viewed as pathology may lead to other psychopathology, such as depression or
inappropriate or maladaptive suppression of anger (Kaplan, 1984; Bernardez, 1978; 1988).
Being cast as dependent with its accompanying negative attributions may lower women’s
self esteem (Stiver, 1984). Stiver further argues that women may be more likely to admit
to dependency needs in order to emphasize their need for connection to others. Lerner
(1983) argues that women may display dependency needs as a way of maintaining and
protecting the family system. Lerner believes that women emphasize their dependency
needs in order to enhance the ego of their partner. If women make changes that upset
this (im)balance of power and neediness in a relationship, they may be viewed as
aggressive, another characteristic that has been appraised negatively in women. Women

whose Connected Self orientation leads them to put the needs of others before their own

10
needs, and to look for reciprocal caring from others, may become confused when their

overtures are rejected and labeled as pathology. Note that Stiver and Lemer’s arguments
can be seen as showing women as needy, but they can equally well be seen as describing
women’s strengths in maintaining relationships and viewing that as a positive rather than
a weak characteristic.

Rather than portraying interpersonal dependency as weakness or pathology, Stiver
(1984) defines dependency as "a process of counting on other people to provide help in
coping physically and emotionally with the experiences and tasks encountered in the
world, when one has not sufficient skill, confidence, energy, and/or time" (p.10). She
emphasizes that this definition of dependency allows for "experiencing one’s self as
enhanced and empowered through the very process of counting on others for help" (p.
10). In this view, dependency is conceptualized as healthy and growth promoting
development, rather than negative, as in definitions usually associated with women and
dependency.

In contrast to the negative cast that has been given to interpersonal dependency,
separation has been seen primarily in positive terms. Western industrialized culture has
tended to emphasize separation and autonomy as valuable personal attributes which are
necessary for success. It may be helpful to point out that extremes of a Separate Self
orientation may also become pathological, leading to emotional isolation and lack of
satisfying relationships with others.

Gilligan’s formulation of women’s development is characterized by connection

with others as a healthy and normal developmental course. Based on this

ll

conceptualization, it could be argued that women who have a high connected self
orientation would report higher levels of life satisfaction than women who have a higher
separate self orientation. However, other variables may also play a part in this
relationship, as women may find other factors in their lives prevent them from functioning
based on their connected self orientation, or that they are not rewarded for doing so. For
example, our culture in the United States tends to value autonomy and the "self made"
person. Women who prefer to rely on a more collaborative model of functioning in the
world may find themselves frustrated and thus report lower levels of life satisfaction.

For purposes of this study, the Emotional Reliance on Others scale and the
Assertion of Autonomy scale will be used to measure dependency and autonomy
respectively. These two scales come from a larger measure called the Interpersonal
Dependency Inventory (Hirschfeld, Klennan, Gough, Barrett, Korchin, & Chodoff, 1977).
It is reasonable to expect that these scales will be linked to levels of life satisfaction in
women based on the literature reviewed above. Specific hypotheses related to Emotional
Reliance on Others and Assertion of Autonomy will be discussed below.

Employment, family statusI ageI and life satisfaction. In order to understand the
relationships between life satisfaction and employment, age and current life circumstances
must be part of the discussion. It is reasonable to expect that women might prioritize
factors contributing to their life satisfaction differently at various stages of development.
For example, women busy raising children might rate marriage and family as more
important to their life satisfaction than women who are in their 603. Or, young women

who have not begun families might rate building a career as more important to their

12

current life satisfaction. In addition, these relationships may be confounded by cohort
differences which reflect different values from different periods in history. These
considerations make the literature on women and their employment based life satisfaction
very complex.

Historically, research has tended to identify greater happiness and life satisfaction
with younger people than with old. More recently, studies have shown no effects for age,
and possibly increases in life satisfaction with age (Diener, 1984). A meta-analysis of
studies conducted prior to 1980 showed a near zero correlation between age and well-
being even when other variables were controlled (Stock, Okun, Haring, & Witter, 1983).
There were 34 effect sizes between .08 and .10. The second largest chunk consisted of
15 effect sizes between -.02 and .00. Approximately 41% of all the zero order effect
sizes, based on 49 studies, were below .01. This finding is significant for the purposes
of the current study. With no significant effects shown for either age or cohort with well-
being, analyses of the different contributions of various elements to life satisfaction for
the three age groups should be relatively unconfounded by cohort differences. This
allows for a clearer examination of the effects of a Separate and/or Connected Self
orientation as a contributor to life satisfaction constellations.

Probably the most prominent factors to be untangled in order to understand the life
satisfaction of women at various life stages are having a family, with its attendant
responsibilities and rewards, and whether or not the woman also holds an income
producing job outside the home. Much of the research along these lines has focused on

sex differences rather than the experience of women per se. Though this is

13

understandable given the close connection between men and women over these issues, it
may also be important to examine women’s life satisfaction regarding children and
employment on its own, particularly since this study takes these issues one step farther
by introducing the concept of the Separate and Connected Self orientation into the mix.
For example, it may be that young women who report higher levels of a Separate Self
orientation experience less tension over holding dual roles when they begin having
children. Women who report high levels of a Connected Self orientation may attribute
greater life satisfaction to having a family than to holding a job. Many questions remain,
however. What about women who are high on both Separate and Connected Self
orientations? What about women who have children and no career, or a career and no
children? Might these different combinations yield differing results at various life stages?
We will return to these questions in the next section.

Roberts and Newton (1987) analyzed four dissertations on various aspects of
women’s development viewed in terms of Levinson’s (1978) description of men’s
development. They found that none of the women interviewed in a middle aged sample
expressed satisfaction with both career and marriage. In a group of women observed for
one of the dissertations (Stewart, 1977), quality of the love relationship had more to do
with life satisfaction than did career success. Women who put their energies into a
"male" type career pursuit pattern in their 205 reported the need to come to terms with
the traditional issues for women of being wives and mothers as they moved toward their

305. The reverse was also true--women who had children early were likely to pursue out-

of-the-home careers once their children were a little older.

l4
Adelmann, Antonucci, Crohan, & Coleman (1989) investigated relationships

between empty nest, cohort, employment, and life satisfaction in midlife women. Results
showed that cohort and employment had independent associations with well being at
midlife for women, but whether the empty nest was experienced as positive or negative
by these women depended on these two factors. Adelmann et al. argued that contextual
cohort differences might be responsible for the conflicting data regarding the "empty nest
syndrome," i.e., does it exist or not? Adelmann et al. suggest that the expectations for
a woman’s work life, family role, and societal pressures might play a role in whether or
not women experience the time of children leaving home as negative or positive.

This study is important and relevant to the current work because it suggests the
importance of including complex factors, both internal and environmental, in examinations
of life satisfaction in women. It may be that self orientation may affect these previously
studied relationships.

Ryff (1989) reported that conceptualizations of life satisfaction for women
differed at different ages. Her study used two age groups. Ryff’s groups were males and
females aged 52.5 years (SD 8.7) as the middle aged group and 73.5 years (SD 6.1) as
the older group. Middle aged subjects, both men and women, identified self-confidence,
self-acceptance, and self-knowledge as important aspects of life satisfaction. Older
persons identified accepting change as an important quality of positive life satisfaction.
Most notable in regard to the present study is that both men and women in both age
groups emphasized an "others orientation," defined in the study as "being a caring,

compassionate person, and having good relationships," as an important aspect of being

15

satisfied with one’s life. This suggests that unless life circumstances mediate the
relationship, subjects with high Connected Self orientations may be more satisfied with
their lives than those with Separate Self orientations.

In a study using age groups similar to those studied by Ryff ( 1989), Bearon (1989)
reported that middle aged women and older women reported equal levels of life
satisfaction, but with different salient features. Middle aged women focused more on
potential and change, the direction their lives were going, while older women focused
more on the status quo. Older women, aged 65-75, cited sources of material well-being,
such as quality of housing, neighborhood, and financial security, as very important to their
current life satisfaction. Sixty-seven percent of the older women also mentioned receiving
satisfaction from relationships with their children and grandchildren. Eighty-one percent
reported their marriage as a satisfying factor. Another important factor to the older
women was health, even when it was not great. One woman commented, "I’m not happy
that I have physical problems but I am satisfied that they are not worse" (p. 774).
Finally, older subjects mentioned freedom to do as they pleased as a source of life
satisfaction.

Middle aged women, aged 40-50, also mentioned family life as a significant factor
in their life satisfaction, and 80% said they were happy with their marriages. A much
larger proportion of middle aged women than older women cited their work or career as
a source of satisfaction. In addition, unlike the older women, the middle aged women
reported that their own personal growth and development as well as accomplishments

were sources of satisfaction in their lives (Bearon, 1989).

16
Adelmann et. al (1989) found evidence of what has been called the cross-over

effect. The cross-over hypothesis refers to a sex-role shift in mid-life found in both men
and women, in which men become more "feminine," and women become more
"masculine." Adelmann et. al describe it in relation to the women in their study, saying,
"Women who focus on their nurturant needs early in adulthood through active
involvement in motherhood, by mider may be motivated to satisfy their as yet unmet
achievement needs, often through paid employment" (p. 174). This is consistent with the
findings of the Roberts and Newton (1987) paper noted above. There is also evidence
that women who are employed at mid-life have higher mental and physical well-being
than full-time homemakers (Coleman & Antonucci, 1983).

An interesting aspect of the Adelman et al. (1989) study is their use of two
cohorts. They found an overall effect of cohort membership on women’s well-being at
midlife. Women in cohort I, who were young adults around the beginning of WW II,
reported higher life satisfaction scores at midlife than women of cohort II, who were
young adults during the era of the feminine mystique-1945 through the early ’60’s. The
cohort I women were expected to work at paying jobs until marriage and to withdraw and
become full time mothers following marriage. However, the economic times forced many
of these women to continue working even after marriage. Women of cohort II, in
contrast, set records for maniage, early age at marriage, and birth rates (Borland, 1982).
Adelmann et al. (1989) suggest that this difference in life satisfaction at midlife may

reflect cultural changes. Greater social emphasis on introspection and individual well-

17

being may have contributed to cohort 11 respondents being more willing to report
psychological distress in their lives.

Adelmann et al. (1989), in a fascinating bit of speculation, also predicted what
might be typical for a cohort TIL-women whose young adulthood coincided with the
feminist movement of the late ’6OS and the ’708. They suggest that women of cohort III
may have more similarities to cohort I in that they are likely to experience more pressure
to hold multiple roles, both because of economic necessity and because of greater
opportunity for women. However, this cohort is not likely to experience the "ideological
backlash" against women’s employment that the cohort I women--their grandmothers--
experienced. Given that cohort I women reported less distress over the empty nest
syndrome than cohort II women, it is reasonable to predict that cohort HI women will also
be more comfortable with the time of life when children leave home. Another factor
that may influence reports of life satisfaction as related to employment and family status
in different age groups is the degree to which young women understand the tension.
Schroeder, Blood, & Maluso (1992) found frustration and ill-preparedness in young adults
for the tensions surrounding balancing a career and family responsibilities. Baber &
Monaghan (1988) note that young women in college, presumably preparing themselves
for more than marriage and motherhood, receive some preparation for what the demands
of a career might be, but virtually no information about the decisions that will have to be
made when combining a career and a family. Nor are these young women aware of the
new role definitions necessary for egalitarian relationships with husbands. Basically,

today’s college women are being told they can have it all, that they deserve it all, but

18
they are not being told about the real choices they will make in order to balance it all.

Machung (1989) reported that university women expect to have it allucareers, marriages,
and children-~but "spoken only between the lines is a desire to replicate their mother’s
lives--to place family before career and to spend large amounts of time at home with their
children" (p.3). Fifty-six percent of the young women surveyed in this study saw their
developmental path as "Graduation, full-time work, marriage, children, stop working at
least until youngest child is in school, then pursue a full-time job" (Schroeder, Blood, &
Maluso, 1992, p. 284).

Schroeder et. al ( 1992) summarize their observations about the perceptions of their
young subjects in the following paragraph:

Egalitarian attitudes toward marital roles exist side by side with

preferences for lifestyles that pose challenges for such egalitarian roles.

While this sample of young women’s beliefs about career and family roles

are realistic and liberal, their behavioral intentions are not. They are aware

of the large number of women, including mothers, who participate in the

labor force, and they ascribe to an egalitarian ideal for marital roles in

which men and women share household work and childcare. The same

young women apparently feel no strong motivations at present to adapt to

dual-income lifestyle or the role of "working mother of young children."

They may be more motivated to adapt only when they are actually in the

roles. Young women may experience some frustrations, adjustments, and

failures regarding their career and family roles as they grow older, since

19

the amount of time they are likely to spend in a full-time career appears

to be far more than they now realize (Archer, 1985; Leslie, 1986).

Without better preparation for the realities of combining career and family

roles, many college educated women may continue to feel like outsiders

in their professions and inadequate parents as they place their children in

the care of others (p. 287).

Finally, Helson & Wink (1992) reported on a longitudinal sample of women,
testing them at age 40 and then again at age 50. They found that these women decreased
significantly in dependence and in self criticism over this ten year span. The changes,
which Helson and Wink argue are evidence for normative personality change during
middle age, were not affected by menopausal status, empty nest status, or involvement
in care for parents. Their results did identify a time of turmoil around age 40 which is
consistent with stage theorists’ descriptions of middle age as a time of reflection on one’s
life so far, with the accompanying satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and changes that result
from that reflection, e.g., job or career changes, divorce, etc.

As a way to summarize this diverse and complicated literature, Catherine Faver
(1984) published a book called Women in Transition: Career, Family, and Life
Satisfaction in Three Cohorts. Her study included measures of achievement orientation,
career orientation, attainment values, employment status, and career and family values,
and their relationship to life satisfaction in each of three cohorts. The three age groups

were 22-34, 35-44, and 45-64. A summary of her results follows.

20

First, the younger cohort, aged 22-34, represented a range of individual and family
life situations. Women in this group ranged from pre-family to middle motherhood.
Virtually all of the women in this cohort, regardless of their current family or non-farnily
status, also had or planned to have a career. However, other evidence suggested that the
expression of these career achievement needs varied with the stage of family life. Faver
(1984) reports that family values peaked during early motherhood and were related to
marital and parental status. The value of career attainment remained relatively high
across this time but showed a dip in early motherhood. Married mothers valued both
career and family values. Whether or not a woman actually participated in the labor force
in this cohort of young women was strongly affected by marital status and parental status.
Married mothers of preschoolers had the highest level of nonemployment.

The social structural position of women in this cohort, i.e., whether or not they
were married, mothers, working, not working, etc., had direct effects on life satisfaction.
Highest life satisfaction in this cohort was reported by married, childless women who
were employed. However, career and family values also mediated the relationship
between work and family values and life satisfaction. So, for example, married women
of preschoolers were the least satisfied of those with high career values and or low family
values. The strongest relationship between employment and life satisfaction was among
married women with high career values. Faver concludes that it is the congruence
between individual values and role opportunities that plays a major role in ratings of life

satisfaction.

21 i

In the middle aged cohort, aged 35-44, achievement orientation remained stable
regardless of whether or not the women were by this time single mothers, childless
women, or married mothers of children. There is some indication in this group that high
achievement orientation was related to postponement of childbearing. The younger
women in this cohort were more likely to report high value to both career and family.
Again, single, childless women had the highest levels of full-time employment, and
married mothers of preschoolers had the lowest. However, mothers of preschoolers and
mothers of adolescents had similar levels of part-time employment.

Life satisfaction in this middle age cohort did not vary depending on different
family statuses. But nonetheless, married women in this cohort with high career values
related life satisfaction to full time employment.

Finally, in Faver’s oldest cohort of women, ages 45-64, marital status, rather than
parental status was the factor most affecting achievement attitudes and behavior. This
older cohort consisted of both single and married mothers of adolescent and adult
children. These women also generally held higher family values than career attainment
values, seemingly reflecting their cohort membership.

Rather than parental status, marital status was the greatest determinant of
employment in this oldest group, which makes sense since the children of women in this
cohort were more likely to be nearly, if not already, out of the house. Manied women in
this older group who had high family values and low career values reported higher life
satisfaction. N o evidence was found by Faver for a strong change in life satisfaction when

children left home. Instead, marital and employment status were the primary factors in

22

determining level of life satisfaction. Again in this cohort, the association between

satisfaction and employment was strongest for manied women with high career values.

Faver (1984) concludes generally that it is the congruence between individual
values and opportunities to match behavior to those values that is a strong determinant
of life satisfaction. This conclusion seems justified based on her research. However, in
the current study we are concerned with how a woman’s Separate or Connected or
combination self orientation might alter these results. It seems reasonable that if external
factors, such as the desire to work vs. the necessity to work when one has young children,
can be influential in perceptions of life satisfaction, it is also possible that internal factors

such as a Separate or Connected Self orientation might also influence these perceptions.

To sum up this complex area of research as it applies to the current study, both
employment and having children are important to life satisfaction for women, but the
weights of importance that women give to these factors may differ at different ages. The
current study adds yet another considerationuthe Separate and/or Connected Self
orientation of the women- which may also change the constellation of these factors as
they relate to reported life satisfaction.

Specific hypotheses regarding this literature are the following: Based on Faver’s
results that women in the middle age group who are married and have higher career
values report higher life satisfaction, it is predicted that both Emotional Reliance on

Others and Assertion of Autonomy will predict higher life satisfaction in the middle age

23

group. However, these relationships may look different based on both family status,
employment status, and self orientation status.

Because women who are middle age face developmental and cultural pressures to
have families and to make a contribution through work outside the home, it is predicted
that women who have both of these dimensions in their lives will report higher levels of
life satisfaction. Again these relationships may be different based on levels of Emotional
Reliance on Others and Assertion of Autonomy.

Women in the oldest age group, who relate their life satisfaction to both marital
status and employment status, will also report higher levels of life satisfaction when they
have both families and work in their lives. These relationships may also be affected by
level of Emotional Reliance on Others and Assertion of Autonomy, and by Separate and

Connected self orientation status.

Self Orientation and its relation to other vag'thg

Sorting through this literature to identify patterns of life circumstances and what
factors contribute to reported life satisfaction at different ages and life stages is complex
indeed. It is even more complicated by trying to inject the dimensions of Separate and
Connected selves into the mix. The fact is, the work has not been done. None of these
studies take into account how the results might differ if women were identified as more
Connected, more Separate, or high on both scales. This section will summarize what is
known about the relationship between Separate and Connected Self orientations and the

other variables under consideration in this study.

24

Self esteem may be related to Separate and Connected Self orientations. Pearson
et al. (under review) found mixed results regarding the various self orientations and self
esteem. In women, Separate Self orientations were associated with decreased self esteem.
The highest correlation for self esteem was a negative one with the dimension of the
Connected Self called Primacy of Other Care (POC). This manifestation of the
Connected Self orientation reflects a less developed stage of the Connected Self
orientation in which the person focuses on the care of others to the exclusion of self.
Therefore, this negative correlation between FCC and lower self esteem is congruent with
Gilligan’s (1982) argument.

Interpersonal dependency is also related to Separate and Connected Self
orientations. The RSI validity study (Pearson et. a1, under review) found that the
Emotional Reliance on Others scale (ERO) of the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory
(IDI, Hirschfeld, et al. 1977) was significantly correlated with a more Connected Self
orientation in women. Interestingly, for women in the sample, a Separate Self orientation
was also significantly conelated with the ERO scale. However, no attempt was made to
explore whether these results might differ for women who are high on Connected and low
on Separate, or vice versa, or whether being high on both self orientation scales might
affect the results.

For the women in the validity study sample (Pearson, et al., under review), the
Assertion of Autonomy scale (AA), was positively correlated with the Separate Self
orientation, and AA was negatively correlated with a Connected Self orientation. Again,

while these results were important to validate the RSI scales, further examination is

25

necessary to understand how various levels of Separate and Connected self orientations
in combination might be associated with other variables.

It is reasonable to predict that women’s scores on a scale designed to measure
Assertion of Autonomy (AA) and a scale of Emotional Reliance on Others (ERO) will
predict levels of life satisfaction. What is unclear is how these predictions might change
in the context of other variables, such as self esteem, having children, employment status,
and self orientation status. It is possible that women who score high on a Separate Self
orientation, for example, but find themselves in situations where life circumstances might
inhibit them from behaviors in accord with that orientation, might report lower levels of
life satisfaction. Or, possibly women who have high Connected Self orientations and are
in situations where assertive and hierarchical demands are made on them may also report
lower levels of life satisfaction. In other words, self orientation status and levels of
Assertion of Autonomy and Emotional Reliance on Others may be related as it pertains
to life satisfaction, but the direction of those effects may be complicated by
circumstances.

To the extent that Separate and Connected Self orientations also reflect values,
Faver’s arguments about value congruence suggest that for women high on Connected
Self orientation, having children will be especially salient for life satisfaction. Similarly,
for women high on Separate Self orientation, employment will be especially salient for
life satisfaction. Once again, however, these relationships may be affected by the

woman’s life situation and by the expectations of her cohort.

26
Finally, those individuals whose scores on the RSI put them in the High Separate

and High Connected group, may report higher levels of life satisfaction than women in
the other self orientation groups. This hypothesis is based on two premises. First, this
seems a reasonable prediction based on the idea that individuals who have most fully
integrated all aspects of human experience will report higher levels of life satisfaction
than those individuals who score more unequally in the Separate and Connected Self
orientations, the assumption being, of course, that being in the High Separate/High
Connected group does represent a more fully integrated person. Second, and following
from the first, being able to function effectively in either a Separate and/or a Connected
Self orientation allows an individual a greater range of experiences in which to gain life

satisfaction.

The Current Study

The current study seeks to examine the dimensions of Separate and Connected self
orientation discussed above; and measurable with the RSI, as they relate to the literature
on life satisfaction in women. More specifically, this study divides women into four
groups which are combinations of the Separate and Connected Self Orientations. The
four groups are High Separate/High Connected, High Separate/Low Connected, High
Connected/Low Separate, and Low Separate/Low Connected. The women who fall into
each of these categories, based on their Separate and Connected scores on the RSI, will
be examined in relation to the other variables in the analyses. The available research as

discussed above takes no account of the self orientation of women in its examination of

27

such constructs as self esteem, interpersonal dependency, whether or not the women are

working outside the home, and whether they have children.

Smific hmtheses for the current study are as follows:
1. In all three age groups, higher levels of self esteem will predict higher levels

of life satisfaction.

2. In all three age groups, Emotional Reliance on Others and Assertion of
Autonomy will predict life satisfaction, but in different ways. In the youngest age group,
high Assertion of Autonomy and low Emotional Reliance on Others will predict higher
life satisfaction. In the middle and oldest age groups, high Assertion of Autonomy and
high Emotional Reliance on Others will predict higher life satisfaction.

3. Women in both the middle and oldest age groups who are both employed and
have children will report higher levels of life satisfaction.

4. Based on Faver’s argument for congruence between individual values and role
opportunities as the most significant predictor of life satisfaction: in the youngest group,
self esteem, High Connected/High Separate group status, high Assertion of Autonomy,
and low Emotional Reliance on Others will predict higher life satisfaction.

In the middle and oldest age groups, self esteem, high Assertion of Autonomy, high
Emotional Reliance on Others, having both children and employment outside the home,

and being in the High Connected/High Separate group will predict higher life satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY

M

Subjects used in this study were drawn from a large data set collected between
April and June, 1985 by a research group interested in adult development and in the
development of women in particular. The research group developed an instrument
designed to measure Gilligan’s model of women’s development, reflecting the voice of
care, the Connected Self, and the voice of justice, the Separate Self. This instrument,
the Relationship Self Inventory (RSI), forms the basis for the current work.

The sub-sample used in the current study included all women for whom a life
satisfaction score was obtained (some subjects in the larger data set did not complete
all instruments). The data for the present study were collected from two different
groups of people: college undergraduates, and adult women who attended College
Week, an on-campus adult enrichment program sponsored by the Home Extension
Service of Michigan State University. These women were typically married and had
children. Some of these women had attended college.

The sub-sample from the data collection used in this study consisted of four
hundred and fifty two (452) women ranging in age from 17-78. For purposes of this

study, these women were divided into three groups: a young group consisting of

28

29
women aged 17-30 (n=136), a middle age group ranging from 31-55 (n=201), and an

older group consisting of women 56 and older (n=115). These age divisions were
chosen based on the fact that each of these age ranges, though not necessarily
reflective of similar life situations, do tend to include normative adult transition events
as proposed by such developmental theorists as Erikson (1959), Havinghurst (1968),
and Neugarten(1973). For example, between 17 and 30 young people tend to leave
home, either to go off to college or to move out on their own into the work world.
Many of them also marry and establish their own homes during this time, and many
begin families.

The transition inherent in the 31-55 group is the launching of young adult
children and the return to life without children at home. In the sample used here only
8 women in the middle age group and only 4 women in the older age group did not
have any children.

Finally, the older group includes the transition to retirement. Developmental
theory would suggest that at this time of life individuals begin to look back on their
lives rather than forward to future accomplishments. This is not to say that they are
no longer active, but rather that their focus tends to begin to be a retrospective
evaluation of their lives rather than a focus on future accomplishments.

It is impossible to establish exactly similar life situations for grouping subjects.
For example, some subjects may remain single over these transitions while others may

postpone having families until the middle years and continue to have children in the

30

home during the older age group years. Nonetheless, these divisions seem to reflect a

somewhat normative pattern of developmental events in the population.

Measures

MOM Self Inventory (RSI, Pegrsonket alI under review 2. The RSI was
created as an attempt to measure the Gilligan (1982) and Lyons (1983) constructs of
the Separate Self characterized by the justice voice, and the Connected Self
characterized by the care voice. The RSI was intended to provide an easily
administered paper and pencil inventory for the evaluation of these constructs. The
RSI consists of 60 items which subjects rate on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from "1
= Not like me at all" to "5 = Very much like me."

Confirmatory factor analyses yielded four internally consistent reliable scales:
Separate Self; Connected Self; Primacy of Other Care; and Self and Other Care
Chosen Freely. (Primacy of Other Care and Self and Other Care Chosen Freely are
considered to be two manifestations of the Connected Self scale, and they were not
used in the current study). The Relationship Self Inventory (RSI) consists of a random
presentation of the 60 items from these scales. The RSI itself, scale reliabilities, scale
intercorrelations, and item-scale total correlations are included in the Appendix.

Life Satis__faction destionnfl Both single item measures and multiple item
scales have been used in the measurement of life satisfaction. Critics of single item
assessments of life satisfaction argue that one item cannot possibly encompass all the

aspects of life satisfaction. While it is true that single item assessments do not

31
provide a very differentiated appraisal of life satisfaction, validity and reliability of

single item measures suggest they are adequate as an overall assessment of how a
person views her current life situation (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Diener, 1984).

Multiple item scales for measuring life satisfaction have methodological
problems as well. Diener (1984) reports that some of these scales have shown
promising initial results, but they have not been adequately tested. Issues related to
response interval sizes, sensitivity to change, and discriminant validity must be
examined as better methods of measuring life satisfaction are sought.

Another criticism of life satisfaction measures concerns the validity of self
report. As with any self report measure, the data are subject to individual
interpretations as well as purposeful distortions, though by definition, life satisfaction
is one’s own evaluation. Acquiescence to a one direction item has also been regarded
as a potential problem, but several studies have found good correlations between self
report measures and observer ratings of related behaviors, such as smiling and
laughing (Weinstein, 1982).

Measurement of life satisfaction for the current study will be a summation of 7
items. These include the global item of Andrews & Withey (1976; "In general, how
are you feeling about your life as a whole?"), as well as six other items. Three of
these items were generated at data collection to describe life satisfaction from a
Separate Self orientation perspective (e.g., "How are you feeling about your
independence and freedom--the chance to do what you want to do?"). Three other

items describe life satisfaction from a Connected Self orientation perspective (e.g.,

32

How are you feeling about how much you are really contributing to other people’s
lives?").

Based on face validity and preliminary analyses, it was decided that all 7 items
taken together would measure life satisfaction well in a study where interest was in
both separate and connected manifestations of life satisfaction. To confirm this, two
things were tested.

First, results of principal components factor analysis suggested only one factor
and it included all 7 items.

Second, reliability analysis resulted in an alpha of .82.

Both of these tests indicated that use of the summation of the 7 items was a
useful measure of life satisfaction that included items which could tap into both
separate and connected dimensions of life satisfaction.

Rosenberg SeffiEsteem Inventory. The 10—item version of the Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to measure self-esteem. The Rosenberg
inventory asks subjects to strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree with
both negative and positive items about the self. Rosenberg (1965) reports test-retest
reliability of .92 and internal consistency of .72.

Interpersongl Dependency Inventory (IDIl. The Interpersonal Dependency
Inventory (Hirschfeld, Klerman, Gough, Barrett, Korchin, & Chodoff, 1977) was
designed to measure interpersonal dependency, referred to by the authors as "a
complex of thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors revolving around needs to

associate closely with valued other people" (p. 610). Subjects responded to the entire

 

 

33
48 items of the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory. The Emotional Reliance On

Others subscale (ERO) and the Assertion of Autonomy (AA) subscale were used to
evaluate the level of interpersonal dependency of the subjects. A copy of the items
from the complete [DI and the items for each of the scales are included in the
Appendix.

Other megsures. Two other measures were used. Subjects were asked for
demographic information. For purposes of this study, two pieces of that information
were used.

Subjects were asked how many children they had on a scale of "0" to "4 or
more". N 0 data were available for the youngest group as to whether they had
children, though it is likely that most did not since they were almost completely
traditional age college students in introductory psychology classes. It is possible that a
few might be older, returning students, but not a significant number.

In addition, preliminary analyses of the data indicated that only 8 women in the
middle age group did not have any children and only 4 women in the oldest age group
had no children. Therefore, it was impossible to analyze the data with a dichotomous
variable of children/no children. Because we felt it was important to include this
variable in some form, we used a continuous variable which indicated the number of
children the women had. While this was not ideal, and the most significant comparison
might be between women who do and do not have children, it is also reasonable to

argue that as the number of children increases, women’s attitudes and behaviors

34

regarding their family responsibilities in relation to other factors in their lives might be
affected. This in turn would be reflected in their estimation of their life satisfaction.
In addition, women were asked whether or not they worked outside the home.
In the middle age group, 60% of women reported being employed. In the oldest age
group, 33% reported beingemployed. This included both full and part-time work.
The variable concerning employment is unavailable for the college age students.
Rather than whether they worked or not, the students were asked about their college
majors since this seemed to be an indicator of the type of career these young women
might pursue. However, this is not comparable information to the employment data
for the middle age and older groups, and therefore it was not considered in the

analyses.

Analyses

Data analysis proceeded through several steps. First, descriptive statistics were
calculated. Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all variables
were run for all age groups.

Next, to test the hypotheses of the study, ordinary least squares regression was
used to examine the association between life satisfaction and the independent
variables: Self Esteem, Emotional Reliance on Others, Assertion of Autonomy, number
of children, and whether or not the woman worked outside the home. The use of
successive regression models is appropriate when testing hypotheses because it allows

the effects of the various individual variables to be isolated. Life satisfaction was

35

regressed on combinations of the five independent variables (Self Esteem, Assertion of
Autonomy, Emotional Reliance on Others, Number of Children and Employment
Status). The regression models were run separately for each age group.

The next step consisted of regressing the combinations of separate and
connected self orientation scores onto the life satisfaction scores apart from the four
independent variables. This was necessary to isolate whatever possible unique effects
the separate/connected combinations might have on the life satisfaction scores,
independent of the other variables.

The regression models proceeded in the following order (with the exception
that employment status and number of children were not included for the youngest age
group). Model 1 included self esteem, Emotional Reliance on Others, and Assertion
of Autonomy. Model 2 included employment status and number of children. Model 3
included the Separate/Connected self orientation group status only. Model 4 included
self esteem and Separate/Connected self orientation status. Model 5 included
Emotional Reliance on Others and Separate/Connected self orientation group status.
Model 6 included Assertion of Autonomy and Separate/Connected self orientation
group status. Model 7 included self esteem, Emotional Reliance on Others, Assertion
of Autonomy, and Separate/Connected self orientation group status. Model 8 included
number of children and Separate/Connected self orientation group status. Model 9
included employment status and Separate/Connected self orientation group status.
Model 10 included number of children, employment status, and Separate/Connected

self orientation group status. Model 11 included all the variables: self esteem,

36

Emotional Reliance on Others, Assertion of Autonomy, employment status, number of
children, and Separate/Connected self orientation group status.

For these regression models, the Separate/Connected Self Orientation groups
were entered into the analyses as dummy variables. In other words, the analysis
compared each of the groups to the other three groups. This allowed us to maximize
cell sizes relative to an ANOVA design. Because subjects in the Low-Low group
represent the lowest levels of both Separate and Connected self orientation, it was
decided they were probably the group of least interest when making the comparisons
relevant to the hypotheses, and based on this they were used as the comparison group.
The question to be asked, then, was how does the separate-connected group status
relate to life satisfaction in comparison to the other three separate/connected
combinations. This is purely a methodological convenience that allows one to make
smaller divisions in the subject population and not lose their uniqueness in the
analyses. The dummy variables were D1 (High Separate/High Connected), D2 (High
Separate/Low Connected), and D3 (High Connected/Low Separate).

The final regression analysis (Model 11) entered the dummy variables into the
model along with the four other independent variables. Life satisfaction was regressed
onto the whole group at once. The question of interest was what variables dropped in
and out of significance between the models.

Finally, also of interest was what differences might exist in the various
predictor variables based on Separate/Connected Self orientation status. To examine

these relationships, MANOVAs were run by age group to determine what differences

37

might exist between the various combinations of Separate and Connected Self
Orientations on the independent variables of Self Esteem, Emotional Reliance on

Others, and Assertion of Autonomy.

RESULTS

Subjects were divided into groups based on their Separate and Connected
scores on the RSI. Using a median split, the women were divided into 4 groups: High
Separate/High Connected; High Separate/Low Connected; Low Separate/High
Connected; and Low Separate/Low Connected.

Medians used for these divisions in each age group are as follows:

Separate Median Connected Median

Age group 1 (17-30) 2.56 4.17
Age group 2 (31-55) 2.44 4.17
Age group 3 (55-78) 2.61 4.17

Distribution of the women’s scores into these groups is shown in Table 1.

38

39

Table 1. Distribution of Separate/Connected Self Orientations by Age Group.

 

Age group I-LCLS 2-HCLS 3-LCHS 4-HCHS

 

 

1 (17-30)
count 17 50 26 43
row pct 12.5 36.8 19.1 31.6
col pct 23.6 32.7 29.9 30.7
tot pct 3.8 11.1 5.8 9.5
Age group
2 (31-55) 37 50 33 61
18.4 34.8 16.4 30.3
51.4 45.8 37.9 43.6
8.2 15.5 7.3 13.5
Age group
3 (56-78) 18 33 28 36
15.7 28.7 24.3 31.3
25.0 21.6 32.2 25.7
4.0 7.3 19.2 8.0
Column
Total 72 153 87 140
15.9 33.8 19.2 31.0

 

Chi square analysis showed no differences between expected and observed
frequencies, suggesting distribution of individuals into Separate and Connected self
orientation groups was the same across all three age groups.

Note that the most subjects were in the High Connected groups (HCLS and

HCHS). More women were in the High Connected groups than in the Low Connected

 

40
groups and this is consistent with Gilligan’s (1982) theory that women are more likely

to have a Connected self orientation.

Two initial ANOVAs were run with life satisfaction as the dependent variable
and age group and self orientation group as the independent variables. Results showed
that people in the oldest age group were significantly more satisfied with their lives
than people in the youngest age group, but did not differ from people in the middle
age group (E (3, 448) = 3.97, p S .042).

With regard to self orientation group, people in the High Connected/Low
Separate group reported significantly greater life satisfaction than individuals in the
other three self orientation groups (B (3, 448) = 3.97, pg .008). These results
supported the design of this study in which self orientation group was included in
each set of the analyses, and these analyses were run separately for each age group.

Means and standard deviations for all of the variables for each of the age
groups are presented in Table 2. Though between age comparisons were not part of
this study because the focus was on patterns of relationships between the variables
within age groups, note that the numbers suggest a trend of higher scores. in the older
age groups on Life Satisfaction, Self Esteem, and Assertion of Autonomy. In
contrast, Emotional Reliance on Others showed an opposite pattern, with lowest levels
at the older ages. It is also noted that means and medians were very close in each
age group. In addition, subjects in the study tended to score higher on the Connected

Self orientation scale than on the Separate Self orientation scale. It is also noted that

41

means and medians were very close in each age group, suggesting relatively little

skewness of the distributions.

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for all variables, all age gr_oups.
Variables Youngest (17-30) Middle (31-55) Oldest {56-78)

M Sd M Sd M Sd
Life 25.85 4.11 26.5 3.64 27.03 3.28
Satisfaction
Self Esteem 3.17 .49 3.30 .45 3.37 .46
Emotional
Reliance on 2.38 .51 2.25 .52 2.12 .49
Others
Assertion of 1.78 .42 1.84 .40 1.93 .48
Autonomy
Number of N/A 3.84 1.13 4.01 1.09
Children
Connected 4.13 .44 4.06 .55 4.06 .58
Self Score
Separate 2.56 .52 2.50 .46 2.62 .56
Self Score

 

Other descriptive statistics for all variables used in the analyses are included in
Tables 3, 4, and 5 for the young, middle, and oldest age groups respectively. In each
age group, self esteem was positively correlated with life satisfaction, but the size of

the correlation was highest in the young group (.57), next in the middle group (.48),

42

and lowest in the older group (.30). In each age group, Emotional Reliance on Others
was negatively correlated with life satisfaction (-.37, -.34, -.24 respectively). Assertion
of Autonomy was not significantly conelated with life satisfaction in any age group.
In the oldest age group, however, Assertion of Autonomy was significantly and
positively correlated with Emotional Reliance on Others (.26). Employment was
correlated with self esteem in the oldest age group only (.23). Having children was
not correlated significantly with any of the other variables at any age.

In each age group, being in the High Separate/High Connected group was
significantly correlated with Emotional Reliance on Others (.17, .14, .30 respectively),
suggesting that women with elements of both self orientations value Emotional
Reliance on Others over Assertion of Autonomy.

In the oldest group only, being in the High Separate/High Connected group was
significantly negatively correlated with Life Satisfaction (-.19). In the middle age
group, being in the High Separate/Low Connected group was significantly negatively
correlated with Life Satisfaction (-.17).

In the young and middle groups, being in the High Separate/Low Connected
group was significantly correlated with Assertion of Autonomy (.37, .17 respectively).
This relationship was stronger in the youngest group than in the middle age group, and
was not significant in the older group. In all three age groups, being in the High
Connected/Low Separate group was significantly negatively correlated with Assertion

of Autonomy (-.22, -.25, -.28 respectively).

43

n 5 mowing 05 E 8353; 2d com meeuagon 33:55 ecu £532

#8. mm 8.1. .5. mm 3.. We. Wu *

 

we. 9.. 2.. S. E. 2.. 2... 8:38
eaefizm s
R. 2. mm. m: mom ts 2.8 so: .w
8._ ism.- :. AN.- 8- 2. 2. 6di d <-
84 rim.- .......R. 8.. mo- 9.- 0qu Na e
84 S. .E. S. S. 655 .o .m
8; 2 .- 2. 8. 5823. .6
sewage-e. .v
case
84 ***Nm.- Isl-m.- co 023:0”—
aaaeam .m
2: 3%. 883m row .N
o3 Seeefim
e5 4
s e n v m a _ ozafi>

 

.82
Essence Sufism .82: _ See ow< .m 0:3

:5. mm :a .8

. Wu 2.. .mo. mm c

 

 

9.. R. 8. m: on 9.. an. m... a; .5339
van—Ema .:
mm. 2. on s?- s. 3: “2 can 3m .52 .2
8._ iam- :._.w...- 8.- 8.- the- 8. 8. .2. $465 nc .m
8; tan.- 2. 8. E. 8.- 8. .2.- G-amv Ne .w
8; 8.- 8. a. .2. S.- 8- 65.5 .n s
2: 3. 3.- 8.- 8. 8.- 5.220
E a. e
8; 8. 8. 8. 8. 82 .2.
M 883.5 .n
84 co. 3. 2.- 38:23.
mo GOEOmé .v
nose
9: 53.. .......£.. .5 85%
38:25 .m
8; is. 883mm :3. .N
8.“ Swansea
05 ._
a w e e m a. m N _ .a>
.28 n 5 “3%.... as 5 83-5., =5 he «a e5 ass-soc 323 as: 232280 332m Ann-5 N 9.80 a? .4 05.;

 

 

 

80. WA 3.... .8. Wu 2.... .mo. mm a.
2.. 8. 2.. 22 2.. w... 2.. 2.. 8.8 to 25m .:
8. 8. 8. 82. 8. 82 2s 88 8.8 532 .2
82 :88.- .....m.... 8. 2.- :8.- 8. 8. .2. 6208 no .8
82 :58.- 8. 2.- 82 8.- 8.- 8.- 6.88 Na .8
82 8.- 8. 2. tom. 8.- .2.- 6228 .n s
82 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 5.2220
8 .oz .8
5 .82 8. 2. .8. 8. 82 .2
4 8885 .n
8.. _.....cm. 8. 2:.- 5:98.25.
.«0 coeam< 3?
550
82 :8.- ..8- .5 85:32
38222.2 .8
82 .8. 582mm :08 .N
82 888288
e: 2
8 w s c n 2. m a 2 282a>
.8: u 5 8222.. 22. a 8.2.25 a. 5.. .2 ea 288:5 28:3 2:32 28822.8 oer->2 .833 m 22.55 om< .n asap

46
Tests of the hyp_otheses

To test the hypotheses of the study, a series of statistical regression models were
tested for each age group. These models allow for examination of individual effects
of each of the variables, as well as the examination of each of the variables in relation
to the other variables.

Age Group 1 (17-30). Relevant data are presented in Table 6.

In the youngest age group, individuals with high self esteem, low Emotional
Reliance on Others, and who were in the High Connected/High Separate or the High
Connected/Low Separate group reported the highest levels of life satisfaction.
However, Model 3 indicates that self esteem accounted for some of the variance in life
satisfaction that was predicted by being in the High Separate/High Connected and
High Connected/Low Separate groups. Furthermore, High Separate/High Connected
and High Connected/Low Separate group status also made a unique contribution to life
satisfaction as manifest by their remaining significant when self esteem was in the
model.

Emotional Reliance on Others, on the other hand, uniquely predicted life
satisfaction and did not account for any of the variance in life satisfaction predicted by
self orientation group status. However, part of the variance in life satisfaction
predicted by low Emotional Reliance on Others was accounted for by the association

of self esteem and life satisfaction.

47
Age group 2 (31-55). Relevant data are presented in Tables 7.

Patterns of results in age group 2, the middle age group, were less strong than
in age group 1, the youngest group. Self esteem was again the strongest predictor of
life satisfaction. Low Emotional Reliance on Others also predicted higher life
satisfaction. High Separate/Low Connected self orientation group status predicted
lower life satisfaction for the middle age group.

Neither High Separate/High Connected nor High Connected/Low Separate self
orientation group predicted life satisfaction in this age group. Women in this age

group who have a high separate self orientation have lower life satisfaction.

Age Group 3 (56-78) Relevant data are presented in Table 8.

For the oldest age group, only self esteem was a significant predictor of life
satisfaction. Low Emotional Reliance on Others predicted life satisfaction when
entered in Model 5 with Separate/Connected group status, but it did not make a unique
contribution to the variance in life satisfaction when self esteem was in the model,
indicating that all of its variance was accounted for by self esteem.

High Connected/High Separate self orientation group showed a significant
negative prediction of life satisfaction in this oldest age group. However, this effect is
only seen when number of children was also in the model. Since number of children
was non-significant, it is not clear why High Connected/High Separate self orientation

groups was significant. Therefore it was considered to be a statistical fluke.

 

28.21.... 888...... 8.“?

 

we. as. mm. cm. no. on. «a

$9.8m m

INN. from. *EK-m. *mm. 1.0m. .850 9 30:

885803 2Q

2. N2. N2. N2. m2. 320% m .850 8

0.5: 885808 ”G

3mm. Elam. 3:32.. fawn. axiom. 395% m .550 9

Ummm 8.85808 .9

5..- mo. 8.. 80:25

Lo8<§80=3=<

SEEN.- ***~v.- .ILNE . 8050 co

828:3— Reeuoam

3.1.3.. 1.3m. Swim. 803mm :om
<< .Omm .mm << 0mm Mm <2

5.5.5 5.5.5 5.5.5 5.5.5 5.5.5 92 .mm 82882,
c Bee—2 n 2802 v .302 m .352 N 32862 2 Bee—2

 

8528 8288C 2.38858 Gene 88888 82 8 Bee? 2802

eS8§eU§§aom .8850 so 852:3. Heeweam .mmo:o>Eomm<\>Ee:oS< gouge-bow AOm-SV _ 5:80 ow<

.8 228

49

.8. w 8:. 8. v. a: 2.. w 8.

 

 

 

.8. no. no. 8. 8. 8. 2. an. 8. .o. 8. "a
35.5..» 025 .050
8. 2. o..- 8.. 8. 2. .2. 8. 8.. 2 30: 85.28. 5
3500..» n .550
.2.- 2.- 2.- 2.- .2.- 3- o..- :8- 2.- 2 052. 82528. 5
3500..» n .050
8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. o..- 8.- 2 0:2. 3.828. 5
8.- s.- .8.- 8.- 5.220 .0 .oz
8. 2. 2. 8. .2. .2. 88.8.0
58000.3.
3.- 8.- 8.- o..- .o 80.82
¢§§NNI E'GNNI 2:00- .92—N6 $35 :0
85...... .2825
ooqu. .5an. 3:»?- Iimv. 80300.2...“
25.20
2. .oz
.2. 2 5.220 8 .oz
3.3.0 .2. 2 .2. 2 822.6 <2 56......
020 .mm 3.22:0 32:0 8 .oz 020 .3 <2 020 mm .2. .2. <2
88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 2 88.3.0 020 .mm 0325
: .822 o. .322 o .25: a .822 h .282 o .252 n .252 v .252 n .252 N .252 . .25:
2.2.58

20085090 Eggum down... 505005223 053 00 008023.. £0.64 0080000908858 .000 .m> 0050.505
50-6—20 50 200802 $500023. «0 00982.. .2050 00 00.8205 Baotofim .8088 .20m Ann-.9 N 500.5 0m< .5. 0305.

50

8. w a: 8. w ..

 

 

2. 8 8. 8 2 2. 2. 2. 8 8. 2 .0
35.5.» m .050 0.
8. 8 8. 3 8 8. 2. 8. 8. 80.. 8.2.28. 5
8500..» m .050 0.
2.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 2.- 8.- 2.- 2.- 2.- 0.0.: 8228. .0
.800.» n 850 0.
2.- 8.- 8.- .8.- 2.- 8.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 002. 8.2.28. 5
8.- 8.- 8.. 3.- 86.20 8 .oz
8. 8. 8 8. .2. .2 3.2.2....
50.00022.
2.- 8.- :.- 2.- .o 8.282
2.. o..- .8.- 2.- 22.0 8
85...... .8880
0mm. .ymN. 055N- nnom. E880
:8
8.220... 62 82.20
.00 .2. 0050.55 ..0 .02
.<< .2. .2 .2. .2 5....6 <2 2.... .2.
000 .00 88.8.0 8.22.0 .o .2 00... 0... <.< 00-". mm .2. .2 <.<
88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 555 555 55.0 555 8.28.0 000 .mm H2.2223
.. .38.. 2 .25.). a .25: a .25.). h .252 0 .232 n .252 .- 25: n .23: N .28: . .232
.6558
200.0580 03.58.0005 Am. .NS 00.000.850m 0...... 00 0080-80.. m.0>0x. 0080000908853 200 .m> 0050.502“.
50.5.0.0 50 0000.07. $000030... 50 00.2084~ .8050 00 0002.05 5.005885 5.0080 5.0m .3..me M 50000 0m< .w 0.5....

51
Characteristiw of Self Orientation GroumuMANOVA results

The primary questions of this research focused on the different patterns of
certain variables in their relationship to life satisfaction in the context of four different
combinations of Separate and Connected Self orientations. However, also of interest
was what differences might exist in the various predictor variables based on
Separate/Connected Self orientation status. In keeping with the design of the study,
Separate/Connected Self orientation groups were examined for differences in Self
Esteem, Emotional Reliance on Others, and Assertion of Autonomy. MANOVAs were
run for each of the age groups individually. Results of these analyses are reported

below, separately by age group.

Age Group 1 (17-30)
Multivariate tests were significant in age group one LF(9, 307) = 3.87, pg .000).
Univariate tests results are as follows.
Women in the Low Connected/High Separate group reported significantly
higher levels of Assertion of Autonomy than did women in the other three
Separate/Connected groups (F(df 3, 128,) = 8.26, pg .000). The groups did not differ

in Self Esteem or Emotional Reliance on Others at this age.

52

Table 9. Age Group 1 (17-30). Means and Standard Deviations of variables used
in MANOVA.
Low Connected High Connected/ Low Connected! High/C
Low Separate Low Separate High Separate High/S
M Sd M Sd M Sd M Sd
Variables
Self .
Esteem 3.02 .59 3.24 .48 3.12 .53 3.18 .44
Emotional
Re— 2.33 .53 2.37 .55 2.21 .46 2.51 .46
liance on
Others
Asser- 1.62” .39 1.66b .41 2.11' .43 1.79” .33
tion of
Autonomy

 

Superscripts denote differences of one group from others.

Age Group Two (31-55).

Multivariate tests were significant in the middle age group also @(9, 453) =
3.53, p5 .000). Univariate test results are as follows.

Women in the High Connected/Low Separate group reported significantly lower
levels of Assertion of Autonomy than women in the Low Connected/High Separate
and the High Connected/High Separate groups (13 (3, 188) = 4.96, pg .002). Women
in the Low Connected/Low Separate group reported significantly lower levels of
Emotional Reliance on Others than did women in either the High Connected/Low
Separate group or the High Connected/High Separate group G (3, 188), = 3.27, pg

.022). The groups did not differ in Self Esteem.

53

Table 10. Age Group 2 (31-55). Means and Standard Deviations of
variables used in MAN OVA.

Low Connected] High Connected! Low Connected! High/C
Low Separate Low Separate High Separate High/S
M Sd M Sd M Sd M Sd
Variables
Self
Esteem 3.20 .43 3.35 .45 3.34 .54 3.30 .41
Emotional
Re— 203‘ .47 2.27" .51 2.21 .52 2.36" .52
liance on
Others
Asser- 1.83 .40 1.70‘ .38 1.99b .39 1.91" .38
tion of
Autonomy

 

Superscripts denote differences of one group from others.

Age Group Three (56-78).

Multivariate tests were significant in age group three (E (9, 241) = 3.06, p5
.002). Univariate tests results are as follows.

In this age group, women in the High Connected/Low Separate group reported
significantly lower levels of Assertion of Autonomy than did women in the High
Connected/High Separate group E (3,101) = 3.16, pg .028).

Women in the Low Separate/Low Connected group reported significantly lower
levels of Emotional Reliance on Others than did women in the High Separate/High
Connected group @(3, 101) = 5.38, pS .002).

The groups did not differ in self esteem.

54

Table 11. Age Group 3 (56-78). Means and Standard Deviations of
variables used in MANOVA.

Low Connected! High Connected/ Low Connected! High/C
Low Separate Low Separate High Separate High/S
M Sd M Sd M Sd M Sd
Variables
Self
Esteem 3.42 .38 3.41 .52 3.30 .34 3.34 .52
Emotional
Re- 1.81' .32 2.12 .40 2.06 .40 2.33b .57
liance on
Others
Asser-1.93 .30 1.73‘ .37 2.03 .40 2.04b .62
tion of
Autonomy

 

Superscripts denote differences of one group from others.

DISCUSSION

Some of the hypotheses of this study were confirmed, others were not. In
addition, much other information was gleaned through the examination of the
hypotheses in the three different age groups. Self esteem was the most consistently
significant predictor of life satisfaction when tested against all the other variables,
emerging as significant in every model in which it was tested. This is consistent with
previous research which has shown self esteem to be a very significant factor in
ratings of life satisfaction, even when evaluated against other variables such as
standard of living, family life and work (Campbell, 1981). Hong, et. a1 (1993) also
found clear relationships between self esteem and reports of life satisfaction. In their
study, all subjects who reported high levels of self esteem also reported higher life
satisfaction. Clearly women in the current study also base much of their evaluation of
how satisfied they are with their lives on how satisfied they are with themselves.

Tests of the second hypothesis turned up interesting patterns in the results.
Emotional Reliance on Others was consistently a negative predictor of life satisfaction
in all three age groups, contrary to the prediction the high Emotional Reliance on
Others would predict higher life satisfaction in the middle and older age groups.

However, Assertion of Autonomy did not predict life satisfaction for any age group,

55

56

by itself or in combination with any other variables. This variable, which was
expected to exemplify a more separate self characteristic, seemed not to figure
significantly into these women’s evaluation of their life satisfaction. This was true
even for women who scored high on the separate self orientation, for whom Assertion
of Autonomy might be expected to be salient on theoretical grounds.

Hypothesis 3 was not confirmed. Neither number of children nor employment
status predicted the life satisfaction of the women in this study, regardless of age
group or other variables. It is possible that the measurement of these two variables
was inadequate to test this hypothesis. As mentioned above, it was necessary to use
the continuous variable of number of children rather than the dichotomous variable of
children/no children in the analyses. This may account for the lack of significant
results showing possible relationships between family status and life satisfaction. It is
also noteworthy, however, that number of children was not associated with any of the
self orientation groups, though this might have been expected. For this sample, it is
clear that the number of children did not have a significant relationship to reported life
satisfaction nor to the degree to which a woman scored high on separate or connected
self orientation measures.

As for employment status, measurement of employment status in the sample
included both full and part time work. Women may vary in their evaluation of
employment as a contributor to their life satisfaction based on whether they work full
time, part time, in a career position, or in a more menial labor position. It may also

make a difference whether or not the woman is choosing to work or whether she must

57

work out of economic necessity. Whether a woman works may be less important for
life satisfaction than a woman’s satisfaction with her work, i.e., whether she likes it
and/or chooses to do it. Future studies could separate these possibilities and examine
these relationships in more exacting ways.

The final hypothesis predicted congruence between individual values, as
evidenced by the Separate/Connected self orientation groups, and other variables. In
the youngest age group, when identity issues, separation issues, and concerns for
individuation are pressing, being in the High Separate/High Connected group was
consistently a predictor of higher life satisfaction. It seems reasonable that for these
young women having the capacity to function successfully in many diverse situations
might allow them to better define their own identity and, in the broadest sense of the
term, take care of themselves.

Two of the self orientation groups were significant predictors of life
satisfaction in the youngest age group, though they were not particularly so in the
other two age groups. Along with High Separate/High Connected group status as a
significant predictor of life satisfaction in this youngest age group, being in the High
Connected/Low Separate group was the other significant predictor of life satisfaction.
This is consistent with what would be expected for an all-female sample based on
Gilligan’s theory which argues that women are more likely to develop in relation to
others.

Also in this youngest age group, there was a significant correlation between

High Separate/Low Connected group status and Assertion of Autonomy. However,

58

neither of these variables was a significant predictor of life satisfaction. Rather, young
women in this age group value connection, relationships, and collaboration as the
avenues to life satisfaction in their development as evidenced by the significant
prediction of life satisfaction by High Connected/Low Separate group status.

In the middle age group, High Separate/High Connected group status was not a
significant predictor of life satisfaction in any model. As if to reinforce this finding,
another result in this middle age group showed that group status in the High
Separate/Low Connected was a significant negative predictor of life satisfaction when
tested against self esteem alone, or against Emotional Reliance on Others, Assertion of
Autonomy and self esteem. In other words, being connected, or at least low separate,
is important for these women during middle age. For these middle aged women who
are at the time of life when the most balancing must be done considering the demands
of both family and work, or having made the choice to give up one or the other, not
having a strong connected self orientation leads to lesser satisfaction with one’s life.
In this age group, being in the High Separate/Low Connected group was also
significantly negatively correlated with self esteem, further supporting the notion that
the lack of connection at this age is a detriment to women’s well-being; or possibly
that having a self orientation which counters that expected for women makes it
difficult to also maintain high self esteem. Similar findings occur in identity research:
high identity achievement has uniformly positive correlates for men, but mixed
correlates for women (Matteson, 1975). These high separate women may be likely to

be out of sync with their cohort for whom developmental and cultural pressures and

59

expectations are focussed on family oriented activities. It may be that these results
were not confirmed by significant relationships between High Separate/High
Connected or High Connected/Low Separate group status because women in these self
orientation groups find themselves torn between social expectations and their own self
orientations.

This confusion may also be evidenced by a significant correlation between
High Separate/High Connected group status and Emotional Reliance on Others, as well
as a very significant negative correlation between High Connected/Low Separate group
status and Assertion of Autonomy.

For the oldest age group, only self esteem remained significant as a predictor
of life satisfaction when all variables were entered into the model. Separate and
Connected self status showed some expected correlations. High/High group
membership correlated positively with Emotional Reliance on Others, but negatively
with life satisfaction. There was also one unexpected correlation: it was membership in
the High Connected/Low Separate group that correlated positively with life satisfaction
in these older women.

The age group differences in the constellations that contribute to reported life
satisfaction found in this study could reflect either developmental processes or cohort
influences. On the developmental side, the differences are consistent with Erikson’s
(1959) theory of psychosocial theory of development. According to Erikson’s theory,
the psychosocial crisis to be resolved in young adulthood is between intimacy and

isolation. Results of the current study suggest that for women in the youngest age

60

group being high on both Separate and Connected self orientations was a significant
predictor of life satisfaction. The task of these young women is to establish both the
capacity to work towards a specific career objectives and to involve themselves in an
extended intimate relationship. This pattern of results in the younger group may mean
that the young women in the High/High group have more opportunities and avenues
by which to pursue life satisfaction, in the realms of both intimacy and career. It
would follow that being comfortable functioning in both a more connected and a more
separate arena would lead them to report higher life satisfaction.

Results for the middle age group also are consistent with Erikson’s conflict of
middle adulthood, that of generativity vs. stagnation. The healthy resolution of this
conflict involves the individual becoming concerned with others beyond the immediate
family and focusing on future generations and society. The only separate/connected
combination that predicted life satisfaction at this age was High Separate/Low
Connected, but it was a negative predictor. It seems that women at this time of life
are less satisfied with their lives when they are more oriented toward a separate self
which focuses attention on individual achievements rather on the well-being of others
and the contribution one makes to the larger society.

Self orientation showed no significant relationship to life satisfaction in the
older group. Erikson believes that the successful resolution of the old age crisis of
integrity vs. despair is characterized by the individual who acquires a sense of
satisfaction when looking back on her life. The individual must come to terms with

whatever she has done, taking disappointments and regrets into account. Consistent

61

with this conceptualization, women in the oldest age group of the current study
showed only self esteem as a predictor of life satisfaction, with no other variables
making a significant contribution. It may be that these women have resolved the crisis
of moving into their later years and now their opinion of themselves is at least one of
the most relevant criterion for evaluating their life satisfaction.

In addition to developmental considerations for thinking about the results of the
current study, cohort differences may also have a role. Each of these age groups of
women were at different stages of development during the evolution of the women’s
movement in this country. The youngest group, whose results show their life
satisfaction was predicted by their being in the High/High group, have experienced the
message of the women’s movement during their formative adolescent years when they
were newly forming their own identities. They have been told that they can have it
all, both the career and status usually associated with the separate self orientation and
the family and intimate relationships which might be more consistent with a connected
self orientation. In fact, for these young women being in the High/High group does
predict higher life satisfaction than does being in the other groups. This is consistent
with the notion that they believe they will be able to flourish in both domains. In
addition, in this youngest group, being in the High Connected/Low Separate group
also predicted higher life satisfaction. This result is not inconsistent with the above,
and may reflect only that the sample is all female--and/or that traditional orientations

for women are alive and well. In any case, for the youngest women in the study who

62

have been told by the women’s movement to expect to have it all, having a balanced
self orientation is consistent with higher life satisfaction.

Women in the middle age group are likely to have the most confusion about
their place in the world as it relates to the women’s movement. Many of these women
grew up with traditional stay-at-home mothers who were barely aware of the women’s
movement until their daughters and grandaughters began to choose life paths different
from their own. Many of these women had children before they were confronted with
the women’s movement which suggested that they might not be satisfied to stay at
home, presenting them with a dilemma at a time when they were less able to make
choices for themselves because of their existing responsibilities. The women in this
group in the current study show self esteem as the most consistent predictor of life
satisfaction, as did the other groups, but they also showed high Emotional Reliance on
Others and being in the High Separate/Low Connected group (predicted lower life
satisfaction. These results suggest a confusion for these women between their
connections to others and their status as individuals interested in more individual
achievements as evidenced by their High Separate/Low Connected status. One
possibility is that it is the quality of these women’s relationships that may be a factor
in their evaluation of Emotional Reliance on Others as a predictor of life satisfaction.
This would be an direction for future research.

In a sense the women’s movement is least relevant to the personal life
satisfaction of women in the oldest age group. For them life satisfaction is primarily

focused on the past, on how they have lived their lives and the choices they made or

63

perhaps did not have, though current conditions of their lives may also affect their
evaluation of their life satisfaction. Perhaps for these women what matters is only
how they view themselves and their lives. The data are consistent with this view in
that self esteem was the only predictor of life satisfaction in these women. Self
orientation group did not predict life satisfaction for these older women. They were
not confronted with the choices the women’s movement offers to the young women of
today, nor were they confused by the messages of the women’s movement once they
had started families or entered the work force.

Furthermore, women in this older age group may have included some who
were "empty-nesters" as well as some women who still had children at home, though
it is reasonable to expect most children of women 55 and older would be grown.
Future research could attempt to separate this group into older women who continue to
have child responsibilities and those who do not. Another possible distinction in this
older group might be between women who are married, widowed, divorced, or married
to a retired or not retired spouse. It is possible that employment and children would
show differing salience to life satisfaction if these distinctions could be made.

Elder’s (1979) work on cohort differences suggests historical change can
influence life patterns and personality. Other work cited above has shown no cohort
differences in life satisfaction. Future research must address these issues
longitudinally in order to separate what might be developmental factors in contribution
to life satisfaction and what might be the influence of historical context. Ravenna

Helson and her colleagues (Helson, Mitchell, & Moane, 1984) have suggested the use

64

of a " social clock" framework for understanding life span development. They argue
for a reciprocal influence between life events and personality: who we are affects life
choices and life events, but these in turn affect who we are. Individuals who engage in
on-time social clock projects, such as beginning families in their twenties or early
thirties, for example, may develop differently than individuals who complete these
tasks off-time, or perhaps not at all. Future research might also examine how separate
and connected self orientations might shape life experiences and how those in turn
might affect separate and connected self orientations over time. Separate and
connected self orientations have not been examined longitudinally for consistency over
time and this would also be relevant information.

A related idea, and one which may also be relevant to the results of this study,
is possible shifts in salience of variables with age. Particularly in regard to the
shifting pattern of separate/connected groups and life satisfaction, it is possible that
these personality characteristics may carry different priorities and meanings for women
of different ages. But in addition, other variables such as quality of relationships,
family and career concerns, and interpersonal dependency issues may mean different
things to women at different ages as well. This possibility is evident in the current
data based on results for hypothesis 2. For women in the oldest age group only, the
interpersonal dependency measure of Emotional Reliance on Others dropped out of
significance as a predictor of life satisfaction when all variables were entered into the
final model. This suggests that this association may be of decreasing relevance to life

satisfaction in later years.

65

Research using the RSI to examine self orientation and its relevance to
different outcome variables seems intriguing and appropriate. Ideally a longitudinal
study could follow the self orientations of individuals over time, and the possible
changing influences of those orientations in regard to life events and life choices.

Another more specific line of research could examine predictions of satisfaction
with different types of occupations and careers in relation to separate and connected
self orientations, both in the context of family considerations and without those
considerations.

The current study has shown that differences do exist in constellations of life
satisfaction for women in three different age groups. Consistent with previous
research, this work also identifies self esteem as the most consistent predictor of
women’s satisfaction with their lives. It is noteworthy that the proposed model here
was supported only in the youngest age group. Two considerations might be relevant
to this outcome.

First, developmental theory would suggest that for younger people, personality
traits, such as having 3 Separate or Connected Self orientation, might be more salient
to evaluations of one’s life than for older people for whom life experiences may shape
those evaluations to a greater degree. In effect, as we grow older we have more data
with which to evaluate our lives. Our priorities change and different considerations
take precedence. This added maturity in the older age groups may begin to explain
why the Separate and Connected self orientation groups were meaningful predictors of

life satisfaction in the youngest group only.

66

If we consider also that the vast majority of social science research has been
conducted with college student populations, it should not surprise us that our
predictions fit more easily with that group’s data. Perhaps we have only begun to
learn how we must ask our questions differently for individuals who have achieved
more advanced levels of maturity and have more complex lives. Future research
should also be open to these issues and consider giving more attention to the
experience of older populations. These older individuals, with their varied and shared
experiences, may provide us with rich information about constellations of life
satisfaction.

It should be noted that the data used in this study were collected several years
ago and do not contain some information that might be quite useful and interesting
now. No data on the race or ethnic group of the women were collected. At the time
of this data collection, questions of this sort were considered inappropriate because of
their use in the past to draw conclusions based on differences between racial and
ethnic groups. The prevailing climate dictated avoiding any separating of groups in
general. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from this study cannot address those
differences. Results of this study apply only to a particular group of women who
attended an on campus College Week, an adult enrichment program sponsored by the
Home Extension Service of Michigan State University and a group of undergraduates
at MSU. While specific information is not available on the diversity of the sample,
College Week attendees were mostly Caucasion, while the undergraduate population

from which the present sample was drawn includes about 9% non-caucasion students.

67

In conclusion, the study of Separate and Connected Self orientations and their
possible relevance to many aspects of women’s lives (and men’s lives as well) is a
new and open line of research. The RSI now offers the possibility of examining self
orientation in regard to many other variables and providing new information about

development of the self.

APPENDICES

68
RELATIONSHIP SELF INVENTORY (RSI)

Instructions: Read each statement below and decide how much it describes you. Using
the following rating scale, select the most appropriate response and blacken the
corresponding circle on the answer sheet.

Not like Very much
me at all like me
1 2 3 4 5

1. I believe I must care for myself because others are not concerned with my needs.
2. When I help someone I feel good because I’ve done my duty.
3. What is right is right.

4. It’s worse for me to be a failure in my chosen vocation than to have no one with
whom to share my life.

5. Activities of care that I perform expand both me and others.
6. Caring about other people is important to me.

7. True responsibility involves making sure my needs are cared for as well as the
needs of others.

8. I enjoy taking care of my own health.
9. Love is an activity, not something you have.

10. I believe that in order to survive I must concentrate more on taking care of myself
than on taking care of others.

11. I try not think about the feelings of others when there is a principle at stake.
12. It’s hard for me to tell others how much I care about them.
13. Doing things for others makes me happy.

_ 14. Sometimes I have to accept hurting someone else if I am to do the things that are
important in my own life.

69

15. If other people are going to sacrifice something they want for my sake I want
them to understand what they are doing.

16. I want to learn to stand on my own two feet.
17. All you really need to do to help someone is to love them.

18. I can feel confident in myself even when I do not have the approval of those who
are close to me.

19. If someone does something for me, I reciprocate by doing something for them.
20. I like to acquire many acquaintances and friends.

21. In choosing a vocation, helping others is more important to me than money,
prestige, or personal challenge.

22. I cannot always do what my loved ones want if it causes me to make a sacrifice.

23. When I am feeling "needy," I am comfortable asking others to help out rather than
doing it all myself.

24. In a close relationship you nearly always give up more than you get.

25. When I make a decision it’s important to use my own values to make the right
choice.

26. I expect others to treat me as I treat them.
27. I like competing with others.
28. Relationships are a central part of my identity.

29. If someone offers to do something for me, I should accept the offer even if I really
want something else.

30. Even though I am sensitive to others’ feelings, I make decisions based upon what I
feel is best for me.

31. I feel better when I choose to do a favor than when I think that I am expected to.

32. The feelings of others are not relevant when deciding what is right.

7O

33. I try to approach relationships with the same organization and efficiency as I
approach my work.

34. Those about whom I care deeply are part of who I am.
35. I cannot choose to help someone else if it will hinder my self-development.

36. The worst thing that could happen in a friendship would be to have my friend
reject me.

37. I do not want others to responsible for me.

38. I no longer think this way, but I used to believe that the greatest good is self-
sacrifice.

39. It is necessary for me to take responsibility for the effect my actions have on
others.

40. I cannot afford to give attention to the opinions of others when I am certain I am
correct.

41. Loving is like a contract: If its provisions aren’t met, you wouldn’t love the person
any more.

42. Being unselfish with others is a way I make myself happy.
43. I deserve the love of others as much as they deserve my love.

44. If someone asks me for a favor I have a responsibility to think about whether or
not I want to do the favor.

45. Sometime others do for me what I want to be able to do for myself.
46. I feel empty if I’m not closely involved with someone else.

47. When a friend traps me with demands and negotiation has not worked, I am likely
to end the friendship.

48. I find it hard to sympathize with people whose misfortunes I believe are due
mainly to their own shortcomings.

49. I like to see myself as interconnected with a network of friends.

71

50. I often try to act on the belief that self-interest is one of the worst problems facing
society.

51. Sometimes I think I do too much for others and not enough for myself.
52. Those who are strong and happy deserve my care as much as those who are needy.
53. I believe that I must care for myself because others are not responsible for me.

54. The people whom I admire are those who seem to be in close personal
relationships.

55. I make decisions based upon what I believe is best for me and mine.

56. In my everyday life I am guided by the notion of "an eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth."

57. I believe that one of the most important things that parents can teach their children
is how to cooperate and live in harmony with others.

58. Even though it’s difficult, I have learned to say no to others when I need to take
care of myself.

59. Sometimes a good way to support others is to tell them of your own faults and
problems.

60. In order to continue a relationship it has to let both of us grow.

61. The best way to help someone is to do what they ask even if you don’t really want
to do it.

62. I often tell people what to do when they are having trouble making a decision.
63. Being unselfish with others is more important than making myself happy.

64. HI am to help another person it is important to me to understand my own
motives.

65. I want to be responsible for myself.

66. I feel that my development has been shaped more by the persons I care about than
by what I do and accomplish.

67. I accept my obligations and expect others to do the same.

72
68. I try to curb my anger for fear of hurting others.

69. I no longer think this way, but I used to believe that true responsibility is the
same as caring for others, even if it means less care for myself.

70. If I knew I were to die within the year, I would be more concerned for my loved
ones than for my unfinished occupational goals.

71. Sometimes a good way to give to others is to tell them what you need for
yourself.

72. What it all boils down to is that the only person I can rely on is myself.
73. I would never compromise something I truly believe in.
74. To sustain a relationship I play many roles.

75. I don’t feel very pleased with myself if I help someone "automatically" without
thinking of what I’m doing.

76. Once I’ve worked out my position on some issue I stick to it.
77. In making decisions, I can neglect my own values in order to keep a relationship.

78. When I am feeling "needy," I think I have the right to ask others to help out rather
than doing it all myself.

79. You’ve got to look out for yourself or the demands of circumstances and other
people will eat you up.

80. When dealing with a tough situation, my first concern is to be fair.

81. To keep the relationships going, I often tell others I care more about them than I
really do.

82. When important changes are going on in my life, I like to retreat into myself for
awhile.

83. I believe that I have to look out for myself and mine, and let others shift for
themselves.

84. If what I want to do upsets other people, I try to think again to see if I really want
to do it.

73

85. Before I can be sure I really care for someone I have to know my true feelings
and reasons.

86. Being your own person is doing what ever you want, as long as you do not step
on other people’s rights or wants.

87. I will not let others help me unless I can do the same thing for them.

88. My own personal achievements are rarely important enough to justify causing hurt
and pain to others.

89. If I am really sure that what I want to do is right, I do it even if it upsets other
people.

90. To really help someone, it is as important to know them and their desires as it is
to love them.

91. I am guided by the principle of treating others as I want to be treated.

92. I often keep quiet rather than hurt someone’s feelings, even if it means giving a
false impression.

93. A close friend is someone who will help you whenever you need help and knows
you will help if they need it.

94. I don’t often do much for others unless they can do some good for me later on.

95. People who don’t work hard to accomplish respectable goals can’t expect me to
help when they’re in trouble.

74

ITEM-SCALE TOTAL CORRELATIONS AND SCALE RELIABILITIES OF
THE RELATIONSHIP SELF INVENTORY
BY SCALES
Inventory number Scale Item-Total
correlations*
Women Men
Separate-Objective Self

47. I believe that in order to survive I must .50 .49
concentrate more on taking care of myself than
on taking care of others.

13. I try not to think about the feelings of .36 .37
others when there is a principle at stake.

34. Even though I am sensitive to others’ .31 .41
feelings, I make decisions based upon what I
feel is best for me.

43. The feelings of others are not relevant .39 .47
when deciding what is right.

58. I try to approach relationships with .21 .36
the same organization and efficiency as I
approach my work.

3. I cannot choose to help someone else if .50 .58
it will hinder my selfldevelopment.

53. I cannot afford to give attention to .45 .59
the opinions of others when I am certain I

am correct.

9. Loving is like a contract: if its .41 .36

provisions aren’t met, you wouldn’t love
the person any more.

21. When a friend traps me with demands .32 .36
and negotiation has not worked, I am
likely to end the friendship.

6. I find it hard to sympathize with .43 .53
people whose misfortunes I believe are
cue mainly to their own shortcomings.

75

Inventory number Scale Item-Total
correlations“
Women Men

45. I make decisions based upon what I .32 .46
believe is best for me and mine.

10. In my everyday life I am guided by .43 .62
the notion of "an eye for an eye and
a tooth for a tooth."

33. What it all boils down to is that the .40 .48
only person I can rely on is myself.

52. You’ve got to look out for yourself .46 .54
or the demands of circumstances and other
people will eat you up.

19. I believe that I have to look out for .57 .71
myself and mine, and let others shift
for themselves.

14. I don’t often do much for others unless .41 .49
they can do some good for me later on.

26. People who don’t work hard to accomplish .47 .56
respectable goals can’t expect me to help
when they’re in trouble.

 

Connected/Relational Self Scale

15. Activities of care that I perform ‘ .50 .60
expand both me and others.

55. Caring about other people is .59 .67
important to me.

49. Doing things for others makes me happy. .51 .60
54. If someone does something for me, I .42 .52

reciprocate by doing something for them.

60. I like to acquire many acquaintances .43 .30
and friends.

76

Inventory number Scale Item-Total
correlations*
Women Men

27. Relationships are a central part of .48 .39
my identity.
37. Those about whom I care deeply are .51 .45

part of who I am.

41. It is necessary for me to take .40 .46
responsibility for the effect my actions
have on others.

20. Being unselfish with others is a way .38 .35
I make myself happy.

36. I like to see myself as interconnected .42 .30
with a network of friends.

12. I believe that one of the most important .41 .44
things that parents can teach their

children is how to cooperate and live in

harmony with others.

18. I am guided by the principle of treating .39 .45
others as I want to be treated.

 

Primacy of Other Care

50. All you really need to do to help .29 .35
someone is to love them.

29. If someone offers to domething for me, .41 .44
I should accept the offer even if I really
want something else.

30. The worst thing that could happen in .35 .47
a friendship would be to have my friend

reject me.

22. I feel empty if I’m not closely .32 .36

involved with Someone else.

77

Inventory number Scale

1. I often try to act on the belief that
self-interest is one of the worst problems
facing society.

40. The people whom I admire are those who
seem to be in close personal relationships.

48. The best way to help someone is to do
what they ask even if you don’t really want
to do it.

8. Being unselfish with others is more
important than making myself happy.

25. I feel that my development has been

shaped more by the persons I care about than by

what I do and accomplish.

7. I try to curb my anger for fear of
hurting others.

5. In making decisions, I can neglect my
own values in order to keep a relationship.

16. If what I want to do upsets other people,
I try to think again to see if I really want
to do it.

28. I often keep quiet rather than hurt
someone’s feelings, even if it means giving

a false impression.

2. A close friend is someone who will help

you whenever you need help and knows that you

will help if they need it.

Item-Total
correlations“
Women Men

.30

.43

.48

.37

.41

.26

.43

.34

.33

.26

.30

.52

.19

.46

.23

.30

.45

.27 ‘

 

Self and Other Care Chosen Freely

42. True responsibility involves making sure
my need are cared for as well as the needs of
others.

.40

78

Inventory number Scale Item-Total
correlations“
Women Men

23. Sometimes I have to accept hurting someone .30 .17
else.
56. If other people are going to sacrifice .40 .44

something they want for my sake I want them
to understand what they are doing.

11. I want to learn to stand on my own .53 .59
two feet.

17. I do not want others to be responsible .35 .46
for me.

51. I deserve the love of others as much as .31 ' .32

they deserve my love.

44. If someone asks me for a favor I have .43 .40
a responsibility to think about whether
or not I want to do the favor.

39. I believe that I must care for myself .45 .46
because others are not responsible for me.

35. Even though it’s difficult, I have .31 .42
learned to say no to others when I need
to take care of myself.

24. In order to continue a relationship, .52 .40
it has to let both of us grow.

59. HI am to help another person, it is .47 .38
important to me to understand my own motives.

4. I want to be responsible for myself. .63 .50
38. I accept my obligations and expect .47 .51

others to do the same.

32. Before I can be sure I really care for .37 .32
someone I have to know my true feelings.

79

Inventory number Scale Item-Total
' correlations*
Women Men

57. When I make a decision it’s important .43 .45
to use my own values to make the right
choice.

31. HI am really sure that what I want .42 .46
to do is right, I do it even if it upsets
others.

 

*Corrected for item overlap

80

Relationship Self Inventory
lntemal Consistencies (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Separate Connected Primacy of Self and

Self Self Other Care Other Care
Women .77 .76 .68 .78
(n=930)
Relationship Self Inventory
Scale Alphas by Age Groups
Separate/ Connected/ Primacy of Self and
Objective Relational Other Care Other Care
Self Self Chosen Freely
Age Groups
16-18 (n=146) .82 .80 V .67 .77
19-20 (n=277) .82 .76 .68 .77
21-29 (n=176) .83 .75 .72 .77
30-41 (n=167) .75 .75 .65 .79
42-55 (n=192) .72 .72 .67 .75

56-78 (n=l83) .80 .80 .67 .78

Means and Standard Deviations

81

SD

.51

.51

7.9

9.2

.57

 

 

Scale Total Sample Women
(n=604) (n=465)

Revised Relationship

Self Inventory Mean SD Mean

Connected Self' 4.1 .51 4.1

Separate Self' 2.6 .53 2.5

Psychological Adjustment

Scales

Assertion of Autonomyz 26.6 6.3 26.6

Emotional Reliance3 41.4 9.2 39.6

Rosenberg Self Esteem‘ 3.2 .51 3.2

1 = 5 point scale

2 = Total score 1 - 56

3 = Total score 1 - 72

4 = 4 point scale

Means & Standard Deviations on R_SI Scales for You_nger & Older Women

Scale All Women Women 16-29 Women 3078
(N: 465) (N: 144) (N: 320)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Connected Self 4.1 .51 4.1 .43 4.1 .56

Separate Self 2.5 .50 2.5 .51 2.5 .51

82
INTERPERSONAL DEPENDEN CY SCALE

Instructions: Look at each of the items below and decide the extent to which each is
characteristic of you. Blacken the number that best corresponds to how you see
yourself. Use the following scale to make your response.

Not Somewhat Quite Very
characteristic characteristic characteristic characteristic
of me of me of me of me

1 2 3 4

1. I prefer to be by myself.

2. When I have a decision to make, I always ask for advice.
3. I do my best work when I know it will be appreciated.

4. I can’t stand being fussed over when I am sick.

5. I would rather be a follower than a leader.

. I believe people could do a lot more for me if they wanted to.

ON

\I

. As a child, pleasing my parents was very important to me.
8. I don’t need other people to make me feel good.
9. Disapproval by someone I care about is very painful to me.

10. I feel confident of my ability to deal with most of the personal problems I am
likely to meet in life.

11. I’m the only person I want to please.

12. The idea of losing a close personal friend is terrifying to me.
13. I am quick to agree with opinions expressed by others. i

14. I rely only on myself.

15. I would be completely lost if I didn’t have someone special.

16. I get upset when someone discovers a mistake I’ve made.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

83

It is hard for me to ask someone for a favor.

I hate it when people offer me sympathy.

I easily get discouraged when I don’t get what I need from others.
In an argument, I give in easily.

I don’t need much from people.

I must have one person who is very special to me.

When I go to a party, I expect that other people will like me.

I feel better when I know someone else is in command.

When I am sick, I prefer that my friends leave me alone.

I’m never happier than when people say I’ve done a good job.

It rs hard for me to make up my mind about a TV show or movie until I know

what other people think.

28.

I am willing to disregard other people’s feelings in order to accomplish something

that’s important to me.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

I need to have one person who puts me above all others.
In social situations I tend to be very self—conscious.

I don’t need anyone.

I have a lot of trouble making decisions myself.

I tend to imagine the worst if a loved one doesn’t arrive when expected.

34. Even when things go wrong I can get along without asking for help from my
friends.

35.

I tend to expect too much from others.

36. I don’t like to buy clothes by myself.

37. I tend to be a loner.
38. I feel that I never really get all that I need from people.
39. When I meet new people, I’m afraid that I won’t do the right thing.

40. Even if most people turned against me, I could still go on if someone I love stood
by me.

41. I would rather stay free of involvements with others than to risk disappointments.
42. What people think of me doesn’t affect how I feel./

43. I think that most people don’t realize how easily they can hurt me;

44. I am very confident about my own judgment.

45. I have always had a terrible fear that I will lose the love and support of people I
desperately need.

46. I don’t have what it takes to be a good leader.
47. I would feel helpless if deserted by someone I love.
48. What other people say doesn’t bother me.

Emotional Reliance on Others scale includes items:
13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26,29, 32, 36, 39, 43, 45, 50, 53, 55, 57, 57.

Assertion of Autonomy scale includes items:
1, 4, 8, ll, 14, 18, 21, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 42, 48.

85

Life Satisfaction - Well-Being
Instructions: Below are some questions about how you feel about things. Answer each item
by deciding whether you are delighted with it, feel that it is terrible, or you feel somewhere in

between about it. Using the same small brown answer sheet, blacken the circle corresponding
to your responses. Use the following scale to make your responses.

1 2 3 4 5
Delighted Mostly Mixed Mostly Terrible
Satisfied About equally Dissatisfied

Satisfied and

Dissatisfied
How are you feeling about...
1. ...what you are accomplishing in your life?
2. ...your independence or freedom--the chance you have to do what you want?
3. ...how much you are admired or respected by other people?
4. ...how much you are accepted and included by others?

5. ...how much you are really contributing to other people’s lives?

6. ...the extent of care you give to people who are important
to you?

7. ...in general, how you feel about your life as a whole?

86
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory

Instructions: Read each statement below and decide how much it describes you. Using the
following rating scale, select the most appropriate response and blacken the corresponding
circle on the answer sheet.

1. I feel I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.

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

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

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

5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.

6. I take a positive attitude toward myself.

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

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

9. I certainly feel useless at times.

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

LIST OF REFERENCES

87

REFERENCES
A Pediatric Glossary. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1980.

Adelmann, Pam K., Antonucci, Toni C., Crohan, Susan E., & Coleman, Lerita M.
(1989). Empty nest, cohort, and employment in the well-being of midlife
women. Sex Roles, 20, No.3/4, p. 173-189.

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston.

Andrews, F.M., & Withey, SB. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’
perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.

Archer, S.L. (1985). Career and/or family: the identity process for adolescent girls.
Youth and Society, 16(3), 289-314.

Baber, K.M., & Monaghan, P. (1988). College women’s career and motherhood
expectations: New options, old dilemmas. Sex Roles, 19(3/4), 189-203.

Bearon, Lucille B. (1989). No great expectations: The underpinnings of life
satisfaction for older women. The Gerontologist, 29(6), 772-778.

Bernardez, T. (1978). Women and anger: Conflicts with aggression in contemporary
women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 33, 215-219.

Bernardez, T. (1988). Women and anger—Cultural prohibitions and the feminine ideal.
Work in progress. Stone Center, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.

Borland, DC. (1982). A cohort analysis approach to the empty-nest syndrome among
three ethnic groups of women: A theoretical position. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 44, 117-129.

Bradburn, NM. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.

Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: Recent patterns and trends.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., & Rodgers, W.L. (1976). The quality of American life.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

88

Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.

Coleman, L.M., & Antonucci, T.C. (1983). Impact of work on women at midlife.
Developmental Psychology, 19, 290-294.

Diener, Ed. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575.

Elder, G.H., Jr. (1979). Historical change in life patterns and personality. In P.B.
Baltes and 0.6. Brim, Jr. (Eds), Life-span development and behavior (Vol.).
New York: Academic Press. .

Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1, 18-164.

Faver, Catherine A. (1984). Women in transition: Life satisfaction in three cohorts.
New York: Praeger.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a dtfl'erent voice: Psychological theory and women’s
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Havinghurst, R., Neugarten, B., & Tobin, S. (1968). Disengagement
and patterns of aging. In B. Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age
and aging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Helson, Ravenna, Mitchell, Valerie, & Moane, Geraldine. (1984). Personality and
patterns of adherence and nonadherence to the social clock. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 1079-1096.

Helson, Ravenna, & Wink, Paul. (1992). Personality change in women from the early
408 to the early 50s. Psychology and Aging, 7(1), 46-55.

Hirschfeld, R.M.A., Klerman, G.L., Gough, H.G., Barrett, 1., Korchin, S.J., & Chodoff,
P. (1977). A measure of interpersonal dependency. Journal of Personality, 41,
610-618.

Hong, Sung-Mook, Bianca, Maria, Bianca, Marisa, & Bollington, Joanne, (1993). Self-
esteem: the effects of life satisfaction, sex, and age. Psychological Reports, 72,
95-101.

Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive. mental health. New York: Basic
Books.

89

Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul (W.S. Dell & C.F. Baynes,
Trans). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Kaplan, Alexandra G. (1984). The "Self-in-Relation": Implications for depression in
women. Work in progress. Stone Center, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.

Kleinplatz, P., McCarrey, M., & Kateb, C. (1992). The impact of gender-role identity
on women’s self-esteem, lifestyle satisfaction, and conflict. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science, 24(3), 333-347.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper &
Row.

Lerner, H. (1983). Female dependency in context: Some theoretical and technical
considerations. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53(4), 697-705.

Leslie, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper &
Row.

Levinson, D.J., Darrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978). The
seasons of a man’s life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Lyons, N. (1983). Two perspectives: on self, relationships, and morality. Harvard
Educational Review, 53, 125-245.

Machung, A. (1989). Talking career, thinking job: Gender differences in career and
family expectations of Berkeley seniors. Feminist Studies, 15(1), 35-58.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a new psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van
Nostrand.

Matteson, D. R. (1975). Adolescence Today: sex roles and the search for identity.
Homewood, Ill: Dorsey Press.

Miller, 1.8. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.

Neugarten, B. L. (1968). The awareness of middle age. In B.L. Neugarten (Ed.),
Middle age and aging (pp. 93-98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Neugarten, BL. (1973). Personality and adult development: A developmental
perspective. In C. Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult
development and aging (pp. 311-335). Washington D. C.: American
Psychological Association.

90

Pearson, J .L., Reinhart, M.A., Strommen, E.A., Donelson, E., Barnes, C., Blank, L.,
Cebollero, A.M., Comwell, K., & Kamptner, N.L. (Under review). Connected
and separate selves: Development of an inventory and initial validation.

Roberts, P. & Newton, P. M. (1987). Levinsonian studies of women’s adult
development. Psychology and Aging, 2 (2), 154-163.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self- -.tmage Princeton, NJ. Princeton
University Press. *

Ryff, C. (1989). In the eye of the beholder: Views of psychological well-being among
middle-aged and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4(2), 195-210.

Schroeder, K. A., Blood, L. L., & Maluso, D. (1992). An intergenerational analysis of
expectations for women’s career and family roles. Sex Roles, 26(7/8), 273-291.

Shin, D.C., & Johnson, D.M. ( 1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of
the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 5, 475-492.

Stewart, W. (1977). A psychosocial study of the formation of the early adult life
structure in women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University,
New York, NY.

Stiver, I. P. (1984). The meanings of "dependency" in female- male relationships. Work
in progress. Stone Center, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.

Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., Haring, M. J., & Witter, R. A. (1983). Age and subjective
well-being: A meta-analysis. In R]. Light (Ed), Evaluation studies: Review
Annual (Vol.8, pp. 279-302). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Weinstein, L. (1982). Positive contrast as due to happiness. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society, 19, 97-8.

Wilson, W.R. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67,
294-306.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
llIWImWINWllll"llWNW"WWW"HI
31293014102416