MARITAL ADTUSTMENT AND INT'ERPERSONAL, PERCEPTION m FEMALE VERSUS MALE TNTTIATORS 0F PSYCHOTHERAPY Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RTFFAT MOAZAM ZAMAN 1974 VAR-’40 M-w‘fltw’u ‘- g f“; n It "" .‘-'¢ !'~ x - .- .. a," "1i" "~l'¢?'\‘ f t ‘ - - . f“::lz;-f?*~azfie'23m-‘e E f - . as??? ~ ..‘.-’t-r.li‘y j v mv-v- .I‘. s“. . ,,- "'.“'fi“w This is to certify that the thesis entitled MARITAL ADJUSTMENT AND INTERFERSONAL PERCEPTION IN FEMALE VERSUS MALE INITIATORS 0P PSYCHOTHERAPY presented by R1! fat Houn- Zmn has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __£h‘D..__ degree in manning; LL‘C’Kl 8U“ CIT-«q km; W Major professor Dateg" ‘23.?) kl 0-7 639 ABSTRACT MARITAL ADJUSTMENT AND INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION IN FEMALE VERSUS MALE INITIATORS 0F PSYCHOTHERAPY 3? Riffat Moazam.Zaman There is ample research to indicate that in any type of relationship the person who is first to seek therapy is not necessarily the more dis- turbed member. In marriage, it is found that the wife more frequently initiates and is more willing to be involved in therapy than the husband. The reason obviously does not lie in the degree and type of pathology, but in a more complex and larger social system which approves and assigns particular roles and behaviors to the two sexes. It is felt that seeking help, especially for psychological problems, is a form of behavior not usually expected of a male. Thus males seldom initiate therapy, though with the present emphasis on "marital therapy," they may at a later stage get involved (quite often reluctantly) at the therapist's and/or wife's suggestion. The present research compared two comparative groups of married couples that differed on the basis of help seeking behavior. In one group, the wives initiated psychotherapy (FI group), and in the other group the husbands initiated psychological help (MI group). It was hypo- thesized that (1) the MI group would be more maladjusted than the FI group and (2) the MI group wOuld have greater perceptual incongruency than the FI group. Put simply, the underlying assumption was that as male initiators were indulging in atypical role behavior, compared to the FI group they would be more maladjusted. In addition, perceptual Riffat Moazam Zaman incongruency is frequently associated with maladjusted marriages, there- fore it would also follow that being more maladjusted, the MI group would also have more perceptual incongruency. The two groups of subjects were married couples who were outpatients at different mental health centers in the Lansing area. There were twenty-two couples in the FI group and twelve couples in the MI group. Each couple completed the following: 1) Biographical questionnaire. 2) Locke-Wallace Scale of Marital Adjustment. 3) Family Concept Inventory. 4) Leary Interpersonal Check List (checked twice, once for self and once for spouse). For the analysis of Interpersonal Check List, LaForge's (1973) method was used, which summarizes a subject's scores into two axes: Dominance- Submission (vertical axis), and Love-Hostility (horizontal axis). Two scores on DOM.and LOV (those for self and those for spouse) were calcu- lated for every individual. A 2 x 2 Analysis of variance was performed on each measure obtained from the three test instruments. Analyses of Variance and t tests were also carried out on relevant demographic vari- ables, and no significant differences were found between the two groups. Thus besides initiation (which was the independent variable) the two groups were comparable in other respects. Comparisons on marital adjustment (Hypothesis 1) did not yield any significant differences. However, the MI group was found to have a sig- nificantly greater amount of perceptual incongruency as compared to the FI group (Hypothesis 2). The incongruency score was a composite of the two DOM and LOV scores of each subject, i.e., scores on self perception and the way this "self" was perceived by the spouse. Riffat Moazam Zaman Further analysis was done by considering the DOM and LOV scores separately. Overall sex differences were found. Husbands saw themselves as more dominant and wives saw themselves as more submissive. The wives saw themselves as more loving than the husbands and this perception was shared by the husbands, i.e., husbands perceived wives to be more loving than they saw themselves. Mbst intriguing was the interaction effect with regards to the perception of the spouse on DOM. The M1 males per- ceived their wives to be significantly more dominant than the FI males' perception of their wives. In fact, the MI males attributed more domi- nance to their wives than the males (in MI and F1 groups) had attributed to themselves. The spouses in the FI group also perceived each other as being significantly different or disshmilar. This was not the case with the MI group where, both on LOV and DOM, the spouses perceived each other as being close, or more similar. Thus the overall picture of the FI group was one in which the males perceived themselves to be very dominant and less loving, while the females saw themselves as being very submis- sive and more loving, and spouses agreed closely in their mutual percep- tions (i.e., there was less incongruency of perception). The M1 group on the other hand saw themselves as being closer to each other on the DOM and LOV scales, but they were less accurate in predicting the spouse's "self" (i.e., there was more incongruency of perception). In this group, a large part of the incongruency had to do with the wife's score on DOM. The M1 husbands perceived their wives as a great deal more dominant than they perceived themselves. The outcome was discussed in terms of prevailing theories and pre- vious findings in the field of marital research. Directions and modifi- cations for further research in the area were suggested. MARITAL ADJUSTMENT AND INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION IN FEMALE VERSUS MALE INITIATORS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY BY Riffat Moazam.Zaman A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1974 To my parents and sister and to Arshad, who understands but disagrees ii ALCKNOWIEDGEMENTS It is difficult to acknowledge adequately the contribution of my dissertation committee towards the completion of this project. I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Lucy Rau Ferguson, chairperson of my dissertation committee, for her invaluable guidance and assistance. Her patience, thoughtfulness, cooperation and untiring assistance is something I will always be grateful for. I would like to thank Dr. John Hurley, for his perceptive comments and discerning criticisms, and most of all for his willingness to give generously of his time. I have learnt a great deal from him. To Dr. Ralph Levine who provided statistical consultation, I extend special thanks. With his help and understanding, analysis of data became a little less formidable. I sincerely appreciate and extend thanks to Dr. Arthur Seagull who has been sensitive and supportive to me, as a person and as a student. He was responsive to my anxiety at times of stress, and his humour, optimism, and constructive suggestiOns were always a source of stimula- tion and encouragement. I am.happy to have had the opportunity of knowing him. Thanks are also extended to Dorothy Jones, Casework Supervisor at Family and Child Services; Rom Kriauciunas, Coordinator Outpatient Service, and Christy Minning at Ingham Mental Health Center; and Rafael Frank, Outpatient Coordinator at St. Lawrence Community Mental Health iii Center. I also thank the staff of all these Mental Health Agencies and hope that in the future more cooperation and encouragement is given to a research student. I am deeply indepted to my friend Jane Bowles who spent considerable amounts of time and energy in obtaining subjects for this study. Almost one-fourth of the entire sample was provided by her. Most of all, I am grateful to my parents who made all this possible. Perhaps this project would never have been completed without their con- tinuing trust and faith in me. I do not know how to thank my husband, Arshad, who stands close to me, always, and gives what cannot be expressed in words. iv TABLE OF LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O CWTER I C O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . Review of Literature . . . . . Observations and Conclusions . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . CWTER II 0 O O O O O O O O O O I MethOd O O O O O O O O O O 0 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . Measurement Scales . . . . . . Scoring and Analysis . . . . . CMPTER III 0 O O O O O O O O O O O Resu1t8 O O I O O O O O O O 0 Summary of Results . . . . . . cw'mR IV 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . “FERENCES O O I O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX A O O O O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . CONTENTS Page 33 33 43 45 45 60 63 7O 76 9a. 10. LIST OF TABLES Means for Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . Statistics from Psychological Clinic: Ingham Center and Family & Child Services . . . . Cell Means of LW Scale . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of LW Scale . . . . . . Cell Means of FCI . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of FCI . . . . . . . Cell Means of Incongruency Scores . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Incongruency Scores Cell Means of Dominance-Submission Dimension self Perception O O O O O O C O O O O O 0 Analysis of Variance of Dominance-Submission (DOMI) for Self Perception . . . . . . . . Cell Means of Dominance-Submission Dimension Perception of Oneself by the Spouse . . . Analysis of Variance of Dominance-Submission (DOMI) for Dimension (DOM?) for Dimension (DOM?) for Perception of Oneself by the Spouse . . . . Cell Means of Love- -Hostility Dimension (LOVI) for Self Perception O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Analysis of Variance of Love- -Hostility Dimension (LOV1 ) for Self Perception . . . . . . . . . . . Cell Means of Love- -Hostility Dflmension (LOVZ ) for Percep- tion of Oneself by the Spouse . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Love- -Hostility Dimension (LOV2 ) for Perception of Oneself by the Spouse . Cell Means of Dominance-Submission Dimension with Regard to the Difference between Perception of Oneself and One's Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 22 26 34 34 34 36 36 36 37 37 37 39 39 39 40 40 40 Table Page lOa. Analysis of Variance of Dominance-Submission Dimension with Regard to the Difference between Perception of Oneself and One's Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 11. Cell Means of Love-Hostility Dimension with Regard to the Difference between Perception of Oneself and One's Spouse 0 O O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 42 11a. Analysis of Variance of Love-Hostility Dimension with Regard to the Difference between Perception of Oneself and One's Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 12. Marital Adjustment Scores in Some Comparative Studies . . 47 13. Marital Adjustment Scores in the Present Study . . . . . . 47 14. Mean Scores of 'Self' on the ICL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 15. ICL Mean 'Self' Scores in the Present Study . . . . . . . 59 16. Biographical Data for F1 Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 17. Biographical Data for M1 Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7g 18. Marital Adjustment Scores, Fl Group . . . . . . . . . . . 79 19. Marital Adjustment Scores, MI Group . . . . . . . . . . . 80 20. DOM Scores, FI Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2 1 0 mM score 8 , MI Group 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 82 22. LOV Scores, FI Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2 3 O LOV sco re 8 , m Group C O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 84 24. Correlation between LW and FCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 25. Correlation between All the Test Variables . . . . . . . . 86 LIST OF FIGURES Mean Scores on DOM, illustrating incongruency between self perception and of "self" by the spouse . . . . . . . . . Mean scores on LOV, illustrating incongruency between self perception and perception of "self" by the spouse . . . Mean scores on DOM, illustrating the difference between self perception and perception of the spouse's self . . Mean scores on LOV, illustrating the difference between self perception and perception of the spouse's self . . Mean DOM and LOV scores of F1 and MI groups . . . . . . . FI and MI mean self perception scores on DOM . . . . . . . FI and MI mean self perception scores on LOV . . . . . . . viii Page 50 50 52 52 53 57 57 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As psychotherapy increases in popularity, the concept of mental ill- ness is freely used in society. However, an intriguing phenomenon is that more females than males seek help for emotional problems. This is most true in cases of married couples where wives are mostly the ones to take the responsibility of initiating psychotherapy even though the problem may be defined as a "marital" one. In reviewing recent litera- ture on marriage one finds an increasing number of studies that deal with variables like marital adjustment, role perception, communication patterns, etc. It seems, however, that none so far have tried to relate these variables to sex differences in help-seeking behavior. The present research is an attempt to compare two groups of married couples that differ on the basis of help-seeking behavior. In one group the wives initiate psychiatric help, and in the other group the husbands are the initiators. The purpose of the study is to see if the two groups differ significantly on marital adjustment and interpersonal per- ception. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Marital status and mental disorders Several studies have investigated the relationship between marital status and mental disorders. Most of their results convincingly show 2 that in comparing to various marital status groups, the incidence of men- tal disorder in married couples is the lowest. However, when mental dis- order does occur in one of the spouses, the other is also very likely to manifest some degree of disturbance. A number of studies have dealt with the statistics of married couples that were hospitalized. From the records of Ontario Hospital in London, Penrose (1944) calculated the expected frequency of hospitalization of both members of a married couple that would take place over a period of a year. He found the actual incidence of husband and wife hospitalization to be nine times as high as the expected frequency. In a Canadian hospital, over a four year period, Gregory (1959) calculated the expected frequency of the hospitalization of married couples. He too, found the observed fre- quency of hospitalization of both members of a couple to far exceed the expected frequency. Kreitman (1962, 1964) and Neilson (1964) conducted studies similar to that of Gregory and obtained essentially the same results. In a later study, Kreitman (1968) had as his subjects seventy- four couples who were at one time or another hospitalized. He found that in the case of thirty-one couples the diagnosis was the same, and also, more than half the couples had their first hospitalization after marriage. Buck and Ladd (1965) divided their subjects into four groups: (1) both husband and wife neurotic, (2) only husband neurotic, (3) only wife neurotic, (4) neither of the pair neurotic. The authors found a significantly greater number of couples in.which both were alike. The recognition that mental disorder is very frequent in the spouses of mental patients led to research that specifically had as its subject the reaction of the "normal" spouse towards the illness and psychotherapy of the patient. Kohl (1962) found that often the patient's progress would precipitate a pathological reaction in the spouse. In all his 39 3 cases, the spouse's pathological reactions like anxieties, phobias, etc., were observed at a time when the patient was showing progress in psycho- therapy. Kohl expressed the opinion that it was the less sick partner who sought help first. Harrower (1956), after studying psychological tests of forty couples, concluded that the least disturbed partner comes in first for therapy. Whitaker (1958), in treating thirty couples, found that the degree of illness was approximately the same in both mem- bers of the couple - it was just the symptom representation that was dif- ferent. Laidlow (1960) reports that the one more desirous of preserving the marriage is the one who seeks help initially. Levitt and Baker (1969) tested the question as to who was more "sick" of the two, by having eleven psychologists judge the MMPI responses of twenty-five patients and their spouses. In about half the cases the identified patient was judged as sicker, while in the other cases the judges were either split in their ratings or judged the spouse to be "sicker." While it is difficult to judge the degree of sickness, these studies raised important and crucial questions regarding the dynamics of the patient as well as the spouse. Besides Kohl, there have been other studies too, that report pathological reactions of the patient's spouse. Lichtenberg and Pao (1960) interviewed ninety-one husbands of women who were hospitalized for schizophrenia. They divided the husbands into several categories, and found that the majority of husbands fell in the category of those who had chronic character defenses, and so maintained previous pathological relations with their wives. From his casework, Moran (1954) concluded that a wife's progress in therapy may often shake the husband's marginal adjustment to marriage, and consequently reveal his inadequacies. Fry's (1962) conclusion was similar to Moran's, for without exception he found that patients exhibiting anxieties and 4 phobias had spouses who had similar concerns, and that the patient's symptoms were protecting the partner's. Frequently, the studies in the area are based on small samples of cases. The data consists of clinical observations of a therapist who may, over a number of years, become aware of common behavioral patterns in patients and their spouses. These studies can provide valuable starting points for larger and more organized research. Woerner and Guze (1968) observed that their women patients diagnosed as "hysterical" had husbands who displayed alcoholism and sociopathy. Revitch (1954, 1955) wrote several articles on conjugal paranoia, found more frequently in women than men. He described it as a delusional system which involves accusations of sexual perversions and revolves around the hus- band's imagined infidelity. DuPont and Grunebaum (1968) gave the MMPI and CPI to couples where the wife was diagnosed as a paranoid. They found the husbands to be high on the Hysterical, Psychopathic and Depressed Scales of the MMPI. The passivity of the husbands of paranoid women was mentioned by Carter (1968) in his paper on the paranoid wife syndrome. Sampson, Sheldon, Messinger and Towne (1964) carried out an intensive and detailed study of seventeen families where the wife was diagnosed as schizophrenic and was hospitalized. Even though the focus in the study was on the schizophrenic wives, the similarities between the husbands were evident. In almost all the cases the husbands were emotionally distant and very ambivalent towards the wife's independence. The balance in the marriage was a precarious one. Martin and Bird (1959a, 1959b) reported fourteen cases of "hysterical" females who sought treatment because of the husband's cruelty and inconsiderate behavior. The authors found the husbands to be competent and warm 5 individuals who were healthier than their wives. The description given of the husbands' personalities, however, is very similar to Carter's (1968) description of "passive" husbands of paranoid wives. Pittman and Flamenhalf (1960) cautioned therapists not to push for too much change in "Doll House Marriages." In such marriages one spouse (usually the wife) presented the picture of a weak and helpless person (sometimes found to be a schizophrenic or retarded individual), while the other hid his suspicion and paranoia under a dominant and strong exterior. Harlan and Young (1958) described the wives of ten schizophrenic men as "nar- cissistic," with "Sadomasochistic" tendencies, while Murphy (1963) found the wives of schizophrenic men to be less expressive and assertive than wives of non-schizophrenic patients. A number of studies, though not specifically geared towards exploring differences in the two sexes, nevertheless revealed some inter- esting characteristics associated with the pathology of husbands and wives. Pond, Ryle and Hamilton (1963) had ninety-four couples rate their marriage, and also take the CMI (Cornell Medical Index). They did not find any significant relationship between marital adjustment and demographic variables like age, social class, etc. However, poor marital adjustment was significantly associated with male domination, and also, minimum neurosis correlated significantly with poor marital rating for women, but not men. Kreitman (1964) gave a group of normal controls and patients the CMI and the Maudsley Personality Inventory. Compared to the wives of controls, the wives of the patients were more introverted and neurotic, especially as the duration of marriage increased. The findings regarding the male subjects were not as clear-cut. Also, more agreement was found when wives were classified by health of husbands than vice versa. It was concluded that as wives are more dependent on 6 the husbands, so they are more likely to reflect the illness of the spouse. Ryle and Hamilton (1962) reported higher CMI scores in women than men. In general, CMI scores correlated positively with poor mari- tal adjustment. In a study with somewhat different subject matter, Ballard (1959) compared MMPI responses of two groups of couples. In one group the husband displayed alcoholic behavior, while the other group had no alcoholic member. The variable held constant was marital con- flict, which was present in both the groups. It was seen that both partners in alcoholic marriages showed maladjustment (i.e., elevated scales), though comparatively the wives were better adjusted. In the non-alcoholic marriage, however, the wives were less adjusted (scored higher on all scales). Thus, put together, the females had higher ele- vations. Malzberg (1964) found unmarried males to have a higher incidence of mental disease than unmarried females. Among the married, however, the females had a higher rate than the males, and were mostly given the diagnosis of "Dementia Praecox." ‘Miller and Barnhouse (1967) listed several differences that were found in the attitudes of "husband- patients" and "wife-patients" in a state hospital. Wives tended to have more rehospitalizations and spent nearly twice as long in state hospitals as husbands. Most wives agreed with their patient-husbands when the rehospitalization was seen to arise out of physical problems, rather than family conflict. In contrast, a large proportion of patient-wives gave psychiatric reasons for their rehospitalization, and there was a higher consensus among couples when patient-wives problems were des- cribed in psychiatric terms. Patient-husbands were preoccupied with matters of family control, as to who was the boss, and greatly resented their wives' taking over all the responsibilities and thus functioning as "head of the house." On the other hand, themes of disappointment with love and romance were the concerns of the wife-patients, whose hus- bands were reticent and puzzled men who felt trapped and could not under- stand the wife's "nervousness." On the whole there was a lower amount of reluctance on the part of the husbands to have the patient-wife return home and resume her role as a houewife. Wives of patient- husbands were reluctant to have the husband home. Brodsky (1968) found a housewife's role conducive to recovery. He compared the rehospitali- zation of mentally ill housewives to other groups of hospitalized women, and discovered a significantly lower rate of rehospitalizations in housewives as compared to single and married working women. Another related study, dealing with mentally disturbed housewives, was carried out by Lefton, g£_§l, (1966). The authors compared a group of former female mental patients and their "normal" neighbors on two indices, Role Performance and Psychological Performance. The results indicated that the role performance of both groups was very similar, and so were the expectations of both groups regarding role performance. The two groups differed only on psychological performance. These findings call into question Brodsky's (1968) notion of a housewife's role being conducive to recovery, for it seems that one cannot evaluate the success or failure of discharged mental patients on their instrumental performance alone. Considering the relative infrequency with which husbands seek help, it would be interesting to investigate the attitude of the wife when, for some reason or another, the husband himself initiates or is pres- sured into seeking psychiatric help. When and how the wife describes her husband's behavior as problematic, is an individual matter involving her level of tolerance, needs and value systems, but more often than not, his difficulties are not seen as manifestations of mental disturbance. 8 Yarrow, ££_gl.'s (1955) conclusions are similar to Miller and Barnhouse's (1967), in that very often the husband's symptoms are perceived to arise out of physical difficulties, and the wife's tendency is to explain and justify the symptoms, normalizing them as far as possible. The wife's denial and failure to recognize the nature of her husband's problems was further commented on by Schwartz (1957) and Clausen and Yarrow (1955). As long as the husband could fulfill his role as a wage earner, husband and father, the wife paid little attention to his "strange ideas and behavior" (Schwartz, 1957). Safilos-Rothschild (1968) interviewed spouses of hospitalized mental patients in Greece. Often, the husband's symptoms were excused on the basis of masculine assertiveness, and com— pared to the dissatisfied wives, the satisfied wives initially viewed their husbands as completely "normal." In contrast to this, normal hus- bands, irrespective of their satisfaction in marriage, never thought of their wives as being completely free of pathology. In spite of the study being conducted on Greek subjects, the sex differences are similar to the ones quoted in earlier studies, and therefore are applicable to the United States. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Some of the outstanding, repeated findings in the research on psycho- pathology in married couples can be summarized as follows: 1. When mental disorder occurs among the married, both partners are likely to manifest some degree of disturbance. 2. The one who initially seeks psychiatric help is not necessarily the more disturbed spouse. 3. Neurosis, hospitalization, and rehospitalization rates tend to be higher in wives than husbands. 9 4. Compared to husbands, wives are more likely to describe their own problems in psychiatric terms. 5. Wives tend to "normalize" and deny their husbands' sumptoms. It is evident that other factors besides the actual degree of dis- turbance are what bring a person in for psychotherapy. The reason that larger numbers of females seek help, then, lies not in intra-psychic phenomena, but interpersonal factors that involve the role of a female and a wife in marriage. Seeking psychiatric help can be viewed as a form of behavior that is in line and appropriate with the female's assigned cultural role. It is unusual for a male to indulge in this behavior, and when he does then one would expect his role enactment and family dynamics to be different from a family in which the female or wife initiates help. The present research is interested in two comparative groups of spouses that differ on the basis of help-seeking behavior, i.e., in one group the wife initiates psychiatric help, while in the other the hus- band is the initiator. The groups would be compared on the following variables: 1. marital adjustment. 2. interpersonal perception. Before hypothesizing the specific differences that are expected in the two groups, some relevant studies will be reviewed that bear on sex dif- ferences as they relate to marital adjustment and interpersonal percep- tion. Marital Adjustment and Role Performance Studies in the area provide overwhelming evidence that marital adjustment and happiness is more significantly related to male role 10 performance, than to female role performance (Hicks and Platt, 1969; Tharp, 1963). The cultural norms and standards define the male's role as instrumental, and the female's as expressive. Zelditch (1955) views the family as a special case of a small group. Groups assign roles to their participants, and over a period of time there is a tendency for a task leader and a sociometric star to evolve. The former gives sugges- tions and helps carry out a task, while the latter holds the emotional responsibility of supporting, pleasing, or even displeasing the members of the group. Similarly, in a family there is also a task differentia- tion which traditionally assigns the instrumental activities to the father who has to go out into the object-world to provide for the family. The mother, who stays and looks after the home, symbolizes emotional security and comfort, i.e., functions within an expressive role. The importance of the man's instrumental role to marital adjustment was seen in several studies that directly dealt with certain individual variables. Barry's (1970) review of factors associated with marital adjustment lists only those related to the husband. Some of these factors are: Happiness of the hquand's parents' marriage, Husband's close attachment to his father, Husband's age at marriage, Husband's educational background. In fact, logitudinal studies show that at the beginning of marriage it is the husband's personality traits, and not the wife's that are strongly related to later happiness in marriage. Murstein (1967) found that it was only the man's mental health that was related to courtship progress. His subjects were engaged or "going steady" couples, who were given the MMPI and a personal questionnaire twice, with a time lapse of six months. The object was to determine the relationship between mental health and progress in courtship. In Wolfe's (1962) research, the least maritally 11 satisfied wives were those who were more dominant than their husbands. Relationships in which authority was shared by the two were most con- ducive to the wife's satisfaction, for this way she had power and her role was still within the limits set by societal norms. Blood and Wolfe's (1960) extensive research on families in Detroit had similar conclusions. The maritally satisfied wives were those whose husbands had a high social status (which included income, education and occupa- tion) and who were not educationally inferior to them. Indirect support, to the crucial part the husband's instrumental role plays in marital satisfaction, can be obtained from studies that deal with families in which the wife works. The assumption is that a working wife shares her husband's instrumental role, and is therefore not exclusively functioning in her prescribed socio-emotional role. Nye (1959) found a significant association between employed mothers and low marital adjustment. In his later paper (Nye, 1961), he introduced variables like socio-economic status, number and age of children, length of employment, etc. He divided his sample into four groups according to the occupation of the husbands, and found that in all groups, marital adjustment was associated with non-employed wives. Compared to the low- status, the highrStfltDS working women were more maritally satisfied. An interesting discovery was the attitude of the husband towards the wife's employment. Marital adjustment was poor where the husband disapproved of his wife's employment, and also where the wife was not employed, but the husband wished her to be. Gover's (1963) sample was 361 wives who were divided into two socio-economic categories. Like Nye (1961), he too found that the average marital adjustment scores were higher in the non-employed group of women. However, his results did not confirm Nye's regarding the relationship between marital adjustment and the working 12 wife's socio-economic status. As most studies in the area concentrate on the female's report, so Axelson (1963) studied the male's point of view by mailing questionnaires to husbands in a small western town. He found a tendency on the part of the husband of the working wife to be more liberal regarding equal pay for wives, willingness to slacken con- trol on the sexual aspect of marriage, etc. However, both groups of husbands (i.e., of working and non-working wives) admitted that they would feel insecure if their wife earned more than they did. Sixty per cent of husbandsof non-working and part-time working wives indicated good marital adjustment, while only thirty-eight per cent of husbands of full-time working wives indicated good adjustment. Gianopulos and Michell (1957) emphasized the attitude of the husband towards the wife working as being the critical factor relating to the amount of the mari- tal conflict reported by the spouses. Aller (1962) used one hundred married couples at the University of Idaho as her subjects. All sub- jects were given Gough's CPI and Locke-Wallace's marital adjustment test. The results indicated that graduate students whose wives were also enrolled were the most adjusted group as compared to the non-student husbands and enrolled husbands of non-student wives. The most dominant were student wives whose husbands were not enrolled. The author con- cluded that too much aggression and independent thinking in the wives adversely affected marital interaction. That a wife's employment out- side the house increases her power in relationships at home is a concept that can intuitively be recognized. However, Blood and Hamblin (1958) found in their study that even though full-time employed wives felt entitled to more power, they did not make use of it, perhaps being aware that such a role would interfere with the solidarity of their marriages. 13 Thus, the association between marital adjustment and instrumental role performance of the male has repeatedly been found. It would seem that a man's initiation of psychiatric help is contrary to his expected role performance, and therefore indicative of maladjustment on his part and in his marriage. One may then hypothesize that there is poor mari- tal adjustment in families where the male seeks psychiatric help first, as compared to ones in which the female is the initiator. Marital Adjustment and Interpersonal Perception In his extensive review of marriage research, Tharp (1963) divides the research into four areas: (1) interpersonal perception, (2) identi- fication, (3) complementary needs, and (4) role theory. In the present study it is the area of interpersonal perception that is of interest, and therefore research relevant to this area alone will be mentioned. In general, it can be said that marital happiness and adjustment are positively correlated with the perceptual congruence of the two spouses. Eshleman (1965) gave young married couples several measures of marital integration, one of them being Leary's Interpersonal Checklist. On the ICL, the author compared the husband's rating of himself and the wife's rating of her husband. Similarly, comparisons were also made between the wife's rating of herself and the husband's rating of his wife. As hypothesized, the personality adjustment scores were inversely related 'to the sum perceptual discrepancy scores of husband and wife. Eshleman's study is one among the several done in the area arriving at similar con- clusions. Underlying these studies is the basic assumption that "the integrative quality of a marriage is reflected in degrees of concordance and discrepancies among the partner's qualitative role perceptions and expectations as reciprocally reported by them” (Mangus, 1957). 14 An interesting and somewhat expected difference not always explored by such studies was the self-spouse perceptual congruency as it related to the husband and wife separately. Some of Luckey's research will be considered to illustrate the point. On the basis of Locke's marital adjustment scale and Terman's seven point self-rating happiness scale, Luckey (1960a) divided her couples into maritally satisfied and less maritally satisfied groups. Each subject filled out Leary's check list as he or she perceived the self, spouse, ideal self, parent of the same sex and parent of the opposite sex. She found that those high on mari- tal satisfaction showed significantly higher agreement on the following: (1) self and perception of self by spouse, (2) self and perception of parent of the same sex, (3) perception of spouse and parent of the oppo- site sex, and (4) perception of ideal self and spouse. Luckey (1960b) expanded and added more dimensions to her research, by investigating the above results as they applied to the two sexes. As compared to the less satisfied group, women who were maritally satisfied perceived their hus- bands and fathers as more similar. This was not seen in the maritally satisfied husbands, who, however, perceived themselves and their fathers as being similar. In another study, using similar scales, Luckey (1960c) had each spouse, in both groups (maritally satisfied and dissatisfied), check on the ICL, his or her own self-concept and the concept he or she held of the spouse. The data revealed that satisfaction in marriage was related to the congruence of the husband's self-concept and that held of him by the wife. This did not apply to the wives, i.e., congruency in the wife's concept of herself and that held of her by her husband were not related to marital happiness. The author interpreted this as indi- cating the greater adjustment that a wife has to make in marriage, and therefore the greater importance that she see the husband as he sees 15 himself. Other researches using similar designs and measuring scales (Luckey, 1964a, 1964b, 1966) found the following: 1. Dissatisfied spouses attributed extreme qualities to their spouse, like aggressiveness, distrustful, etc. Satisfied spouses saw each other in more moderate terms (Luckey, 1964a). 2. Many personality characteristics that were significantly asso- ciated with marital satisfaction were perceived by the subject as being part of his self as well as part of his spouse. 3. Marital satisfaction was negatively correlated with the number of years married. Hoeg (1965) used Luckey's method of analysis and found signifi- cantly greater incongruency of perception (on certain categories) in a Clinic group versus a Non-Clinic group. Powell (1965), besides adminis- tering the Family Concept Q-Sort, had her group of married couples rate self and spouse on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. She found marital adjustment to correlate inversely with discrepancy in inter- spouse self-report. In addition, both Hoeg (1965) and Powell (1965) found that all personality variables relating significantly to marital adjustment involved descriptions made by the husband either of himself or his wife. Kotlar (1965) chose his satisfied and dissatisfied subjects on the Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale. In line with Luckey's findings, he too found congruence of perception to relate significantly to the hus- band's and couples (total score of the two) marital adjustment scores. This was irrelevant to the wives' adjustment scores. Stucker (1963) too found that the accuracy with which the wife perceived the husband is related to the couple's marital satisfaction. The husband's accuracy of l6 perception (regarding his wife) was unrelated to marital satisfaction. Westley and Epstein's (1960) intensive study of nine families once again indicated the importance of the wife's attitude towards her husband in determining marital satisfaction. The data showed that these women (all nine came from maritally satisfied families) perceived their husbands as they reportedly perceived their fathers, i.e., being kind, reliable, etc. Corsini's (1956a, 1956b) work is in agreement with the previously mentioned conclusions, except that unlike the others, his research included a control group. He used Burgess' measurement of marital happi- ness, and obtained the perception of self and other on a fifty item adjective Q-sort. Each subject was required to sort it four times, for: (1) self, (2) other (description of the husband or wife), (3) mate's self (as husband or wife perceives him or herself), (4) mate's other (the way husband or wife perceives the subject). The uniqueness of the study lay in the fact that every comparison made was then duplicated by random samples of non-couples (i.e., strangers). Corsini found a signi- ficant relationship between marital happiness and the husband being the subject of Q-sorts. This would suggest the husband's role to be crucial in marital happiness. However, when he obtained similar results by using random pairs of men and women, Corsini modified his conclusions. Thus, for marriage to be rated as happy, the husband's role had to be a "stereotype" and conforming one. Palonen (1966) too arrived at a simi- lar conclusion, except that she found the female fulfillment of her stereotype cultural role also to be important to marital adjustment. Palonen obtained the self report and mate image description on the ICL from a group of forty couples. In the analysis she broke down the ICL into its sixteen scales and found Aggression and Rebelliousness to cor- relate negatively with marital adjustment, where husband's perception of 17 the wife was concerned. In addition, Submission and Love were positively correlated with marital adjustment with regards to the wife's self des- cription and the way the husband described her. So a happy marriage is one in which the husband should not see the wife as aggressive and rebel- lious, but the wife should be seen by herself and husband as submissive and loving. In view of the research, and on the assumption that marital adjust- ment is less in families where the husband initiates psychiatric help, one may further hypothesize that in addition there will be greater incon- gruency of percepts in this group. HYPOTHESES The group in which the husband is the initiator will be referred to as the MI group, while FI will indicate the group in.which the wife ini- tially seeks help. 1. In general, couples in the FI group will be maritally better adjusted than the MI group. 1.3. The husbands in the MI group will be maritally less adjusted than wives in the FI group. 2. In general, there will be greater perceptual incongruency regarding self and spouse in MI group than FI group. 2.a. In the MI group, the wife's perception of her husband and the way he perceives himself will show greater incongruency than in the FI group where there will be more agreement between the wife's perception of her husband and the way he perceives him- self. CHAPTER II METHOD Sample There were two groups of subjects, each of which consisted of mar- ried couples. In one group the females had initiated psychotherapy, while in the other group the males had initiated therapy. As the research worker resided in Washington, D.C., the initial plan was to collect the data from one or more large Community Mental Health Centers in the greater Metropolitan Area. However, efforts at trying to get subjects from such agencies proved to be fruitless. In almost all the agencies that were contacted, the staff was unwilling to cooperate and the varied reasons given either reflected an apathy towards research or uneasiness at having an "outsider" make use of confidential material. An effort was then made to collect data from.an inpatient population in Bronx State Hospital, New York, where a large inpatient ward was being managed by a personal friend of the researcher. Here staff cooperation was not a problem but other realistic issues soon became evident. Apparently, the inpatient population of State Hospitals consists of chronic cases. Many of these individuals have never been married, and those who did enter marital relationships had long ago sepa- rated from their spouses or the spouses had left or divorced them after their repeated hospitalizations. The final decision after these extremely 18 l9 discouraging experiences was to seek subjects in Lansing where resources would be more available through the university staff. At the beginning, St. Lawrence and Ingham Medical Community Mental Health Centers were the only two agencies contacted. These are large agencies that deal with numerous cases each day, and with more or less similar types of popula- tion. It was expected that between these two Mental Health Centers there would be no difficulty in collecting a reasonable size sample. However, when only two cases were referred in a couple of months, the decision was taken to contact as many agencies as possible. Thus, the sample that was finally collected consisted of outpatients from the fol- lowing mental health centers: 1. Ingham Medical Mental Health Center. (Seven couples) 2. St. Lawrence Community Mental Health Center. (Three couples) 3. Family and Child Services of Michigan. (Eight couples) 4. ‘Michigan State University Psychological Clinic. (Seven couples) 5. Michigan State University Counseling Center. (Four couples) 6. Private cases from practicing therapists in Lansing (Five couples) St. Lawrence and Ingham Medical are large community mental health centers that serve "Catchment Areas" number one and two respectively in the greater Lansing area. The centers provide numerous types of out- patient services and each also contains an inpatient facility. The many cases that are handled by these agencies provide a great deal of varia- tion in the degree and types of pathology. The Family and Child Services is a private and smaller agency. Its services are limited to outpatient care alone, and a large number of cases seen there involve family and marital problems. The PsycholOgical Clinic, which is also an outpatient 20 community clinic, is operated as a part of the general program of the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University. The services of the clinic extend to both in and outside the university community. The Counseling Center, which is situated on campus, is an outpatient agency that is limited to Michigan State University students. Hence, the popu- lation here is quite homogeneous and somewhat different from the other centers. The private cases were referred by a friend who personally 'knew the therapist of these subjects. Criteria The criteria for the selection of the subjects were as follows: 1. The individual seeking help had to be married and currently living with the spouse. 2. Only one spouse in the couple was to be the initiator in seeking psychotherapy. The crucial issue of being able clearly to iden- tify the initiator was simple when only one spouse was currently in therapy, or when the other had started treatment only after his or her marital partner had been in therapy for some time. In a few cases identification was not clear as both had started therapy at the same time. However, brief questioning revealed the wife to be the initiator, for she had talked the husband into coming and had assumed the responsibility of calling the clinic and setting up an appointment. 3. If the couple had any previous experience with psychotherapy, then the identified initiator should be the one to have sought psychological help in the past, too (the past meaning only after marriage). This criterion further confirms the previous one, for "initiation" includes more than just the present help 21 seeking behavior. A couple who took turns in seeking help ‘would not qualify, for this would be a case where responsibil- ity for pathology was being equally shared. 4. A couple satisfying the above mentioned criteria would be eli- gible as subjects, irrespective of the nature of the presenting problem. Altogether there were thirty-four couples, twenty-two of which were in the Female Initiating group and twelve couples in the Male Initiating group. The groups were comparable, for demographically there were no sig- nificant differences between the two (see Table 1). The Female InitiatingTGroup (F1) The overall average age for this group was 29.00 years. The average length of marriage was six years and ten months, and average number of children being 1.41 (for details see Appendix B). The length of psycho- therapy for the wives in this group ranged approximately from one month to ten months. Twelve out of the twenty-two wives had at least one prior experience with outpatient psychotherapy, and one had been hospitalized once. Thirteen husbands were currently being seen with their wives. Eleven of these had started psychotherapy some time after the wife's involvement, and at the suggestion of the wife and/or therapist. The remaining two began therapy with their wives but these were the cases where the wives had initiated by making the appointments and pressuring the husbands into coming. Nine husbands were not involved in therapy at all. Among the wives, nine were presently working, and in the case of the husbands, sixteen were presently employed. All wives except one had worked some time or another in the past. The six husbands that were currently not involved in any kind of work cannot be considered as 22 TABLE 1. Means for Demographic Data M FI Group MI Group ___Var1ab1e* Eels. w 31212. lay-a1: Age 29.95 28.05 32.83 31.92 Years of Education 14.55 14.00 15.75 13.92 Years Married 6.85 6.85 8.31 8.31 Number of Children 1.41 1.41 1.42 1.42 * Note: On the above variables no significant differences were found between the FI and the MI groups. 23 genuine cases of unemployment, for all were students who a couple of months back were holding some type of part-time jobs. The data on two couples was excluded from this group. In one case, the couple had recently separated, and in the other case, even though the wife was currently in therapy, the decision to seek help was mutual. Both had applied to the Counseling Center, and the wife happened to get her appointment first. There were two instances of refusal, where the husbands of the wife initiators declined to take the questionnaires. The Male Initiating Groupg(MIl The overall average age for the MI group was 32.38 years. The average time of marriage was eight years and four months, and the average number of children was 1.42 (for details see Appendix B). As in the FI group, here too the length of therapy for the initiator (in this group the initiator being the husband), ranged approximately from one month to ten months. Out of a total of twelve men, three had had prior outpatient experience, and two had been hospitalized once. TWO males were involved in therapy at the time they got married and thus continued with the same group after marriage. Five wives were presently in therapy with their husbands, and in all cases their decision resulted from the therapist's and/or their spouse's suggestion. Seven wives were not seeking therapy along with their husbands. All the men in the MI group held some type of a job. All the wives, except one, had worked at one time or another, though presently only seven were employed. Interest- ingly, almost half the males (i.e., five in number) were in group therapy, as opposed to only two females who were in group therapy in the FI group. Three couples were excluded from this group. In all cases, the males had initiated psychotherapy this time but in the past the couple 24 had sought help together. In two other instances appointments were made which were later cancelled by the subjects, with no reasons being given for having done so. PROCEDURE It was not possible to make individual contact with all the thera- pists at each center, so staff meetings were attended by the experi- menter. At the meetings the research was concisely described to the staff and they were also handed a typed statement (Appendix A) that briefly described the research to the subjects. If a certain client fulfilled the criteria (as mentioned in an earlier section), then the therapist was requested to turn in the name and phone number to the experimenter, providing the client, after reading the statement (Appen- dix A), agreed to participate in the research. Contact was then made 'with each subject and a time was set when the couple could come in to take the tests. Both husband and wife (in F1 and MI groups) had to complete the following: 1. Biographical questionnaire. 2. Locke-Wallace Scale of Marital Adjustment (LW Scale) 3. Family Concept Inventory (FCI) 4. Leary Interpersonal Check List (ICL) The ICL was checked twice, once for "self" and once for "spouse." The order in which the tests were taken was randomly varied for each case. All couples were able to complete the questionnaires within an hour, and each couple was given $10.00 for participating. In cases where it was difficult to arrange a common time when both could come to the clinic, the experimenter administered the tests in the home of the subjects. 25 At this point, some comment should be made regarding the difficul- ties and impediments encountered in data collection. The total number of cases (which is a small sample of thirty-four couples) was collected from June 1973 through February 1974. The sample size is not due to the lack or infrequency of married individuals seeking help and fulfilling the necessary criteria. (A glance at Table 2 shows that there was no scarcity of married people in the agencies during the months of July 1973 through December 1973.) The problem actually lay in a procedure where the subjects were accessible only through the therapists, and hence the staff's cooperation and effort was indispensable in collecting the data. When there was no response for a few'weeks from a given agency, the staff was questioned and it became evident that, caught up in their busy schedule, the therapists were not asking their clients to volunteer for the study. The procedure that gradually evolved after this became evident, was to call up and remind each therapist at work every few days. This was not the most economical, successful or rewarding procedure, but in the existing situation it was adopted for a lack of a better one. The largest number of subjects was referred from Family and Child Services, and most of them were from one therapist who knew the experimenter personally. Thus, data collection did not follow a rigorous procedure, and neither was it possible to strictly select sub- jects on a random basis. The large difference between the two sample sizes (FI - 22 couples and MI - 12 couples) was compared with the male/female ratio of indivi- duals seeking help, as it actually appeared in some of the agencies (see Table 2). It seems that the percentage of females seeking therapy is about twice that of males seeking psychiatric help. This roughly 26 TABLE 2. Statistics from Psychological Clinic: Ingham Medical Center and Family & Child Services PC IMC PC A. Overall Male/Femgle Percentagg1 30/70 38/62 22/72 B. As % Male Married 58 54 71 Single and/or separated 32 32 22 Divorced 10 14 7 Widowed 0 O 0 C . As ‘2. Female Married 70 50 60 Single and/or separated 19 31 20 Divorced 8 18 18 Widowed 3 l 2 1 In the present study the Male/Female percentage is 35/65. 2 The information was collected in January 1974 of all current ongoing cases, that had initially sought help during the six month period of July 1973 through December 1973. 27 corresponds to the FI and MI ratio. Hence, it can be stated that the different numbers of subjects in the FI and MI groups is representative of the population from which they are derived. MEASUREMENT SCALES Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test The LW Scale is a short test of marital adjustment that consists of fifteen items which are rated on a six point scale, ranging from "always agree" to "always disagree." The highest possible score on the scale is 158, and the minimum is 2. The items in the LW Scale are selected from several other marital adjustment tests. After reviewing relevant studies in the area, Locke and wallace (1959) selected those items which 1) had the highest level of discrimination in the original studies, 2) did not duplicate other included items, and 3) would cover the important areas of marital adjust- ment and prediction. The authors administered this new, short, marital adjustment scale to groups of well-adjusted and maladjusted subjects. They found a significant difference between the means of the two, which was 135.9 for the former group and 71.7 for the latter group. The reli- ability coefficient, which was .90, was computed by the split-half technique. The validity of the test was given further support in Hofman's (1969) research, where his non-clinic group scored significantly higher than his clinic group. Katz (1965) chose his "untroubled" group from parent discussion groups and his "troubled" group from marriage coun- selling centers and private practitioners. The LW Scale was adminis- tered to both groups and once again significant differences were found 28 in the scores of the two groups. Hoeg (1965) in his study chose his well-adjusted and less well-adjusted group on the basis of the LW Scale. Hawkins (1966) investigated the possibility of the influence of social desirability response set on LW scores. He obtained SD scores on Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale, and correlated them with scores on the LW Scale, which he had administered to clinic and non-clinic sam- ples. The significant but low correlations led him to conclude the social desirability was not a major factor in the LW test scores. Some other studies that have used the LW or items from it were conducted by Murstein (1961), Navran (1967) and Locke (1968). Egmily Concept Inventory, The FCI consists of forty-eight items, each of which are evaluated on a five point scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly dis- agree." The highest possible score is 192, and the lowest is 0. The items describe various aspects of family living. The theory underlying this instrument is that "The effectiveness of the family in solving its problems, meeting its social obligations and satisfying the needs of its members depends largely on how the family members perceive the family unit in which they live" (van der Veen et a1, 1964, p. 46). The original Q-Sort, from which the PCT is derived, was made up of 80 items that the subject had to place in nine piles, ranging from "least like my family" to "most like my family." The degree of family adjustment is assessed by the degree of shmilarity of the subjects' family rating with that of the ideal family, as defined by its descrip- tion in terms of the same Q-Sort by a group of judges (Van der Veen g£_§1, 1964). Out of the 80, only 48 are crucial items that are scored. 29 In a pilot study (van der Veen and Ostrander, 1961, cited in van der Veen, g£_p;;, 1964, p. 48) using the Q-Sort, the authors reported a median test re-test correlations over a four week period, .7 for the real and .8 for the ideal Family Sorts. This indicated the real family concept to be sufficiently reliable over a short period of time, while the ideal family concept is somewhat more stable. van der Veen g£_gl. (1964) used two groups of families, one showing clear evidence of diffi- culty in family functioning and the other showing evidence of good family functioning. On the Q-Sort it was found that the former scored significantly lower (mean - 27.9) than the latter (mean = 35.2). A year later, van der Veen (1965) extended his previous study by adding a new group of non-clinic low adjustment subjects (families who had poorly adjusted children but who had not applied for professional help). Once again significant mean differences were found between the groups. Hofman (1966) administered both the Q-Sort and the critical 48 items in a true-false form to a sample of twenty-five couples. He found a .72 correlation between the two forms. Palonen (1966) found a split- half reliability of .85 with the FCI. Some other individuals that have used the Q-Sort and the FCI are Powell (1965) and Updyke (1968). Correlations between LW Scale and PCT. All studies that have used the Locke-Wallace Scale and any form of the Family Concept, report a positive correlation between the two scales. Palonen (1966) found .73 correlation between the PCT and LW Scale, while Hofman (1969) found a .55 correlation between the two. With regards to LW and FC-Q-Sort, correlations of .76 (Hofman, 1966) and .67 (van der Veen, 1964) were obtained. 30 Leary Interpersonal Check List The Interpersonal Check List consists of 128 descriptive, self- referent adjectives (Leary, 1956) that measure eight personality vari- ables. Each of the eight variables is related to the other in such a way that high scores on some would naturally result in lower scores on the others. The check list is based on a complex multi-level interpersonal system of personality that can be diagrammed as a circle composed of eight equal parts (see Appendix B). Dominance-submission is the vertical axis, and affection-hostility is the horizontal axis. All the other cate- gories represent a combination of these four poles and they are as follows: 1) Managerial-Autocratic (AP), 2) Narcissistic-Competitive (BC), 3) Sadistic-Aggressive (DE), 4) Rebellious-Distrustful (PG), 5) Self- effacing-Masochistic (HI), 6) Docile-Dependent (JR), 7) Cooperative- Over-conventional (LM), and 8) Hypernormal-Responsible (NO). Each cate- gory in the octant consists of sixteen items which range in four degrees of intensity. The intensity dimension was determined on the basis of the frequency with which each item.was checked, and appropriate weighted scores were assigned to the items. Thus, the items not only measure dif- ferent kinds of personality characteristics, but also yield quantitative measures of each personality variable. Historically, the earliest paper attempting to present this compre- hensive schema for the organization of personality was written by Freedman, Leary, Ossorio and Coffey (1951). The authors were interested in selecting and arranging variables in a system that could account for the "total personality," i.e., personality as it functioned at the public, conscious and private levels. Over a period of four years, the system was elaborated by Leary (1957) and LaForge and Suczek (1955). In the 31 latter paper, the authors obtained test-retest reliability correlations on a sample of seventy-seven subjects, who were retested after an inter- val of two weeks. The correlations averaged to .78 for octant reli- ability. Most important in the interpersonal system are the inter- variable correlations, for the variables are arranged in such a way on the circular continuum that the relationship between two variables decreases as the distance between them.increases. In view of this, LaForge and Suczek (1955) calculated the interoctant correlations for three separate groups of subjects. They found the correlations to decrease as the variables became more distant. This confirmed the circular arrangement to be an adequate one to represent the degree of relationship between the variables. Clinically, the ICL can be very useful in obtaining at one time a client's perception of several objects (depending upon the instructions, one can check for "self," "ideal self," "parents," etc.). Its objective and carefully constructed scoring system also makes it a valuable research instrument. SCORING AND ANALYSIS The Locke-Wallace Scale and Family Concept Inventory are simple instruments to score,with the highest score in the former being 158 and the latter 192. In general, it can be said of both that the higher the score, the more is the person maritally adjusted. For the first two hypotheses, the LW and FCI scores were analyzed by 2 x 2 Analysis of Variance, with the rows representing "Initiation," and columns repre- senting "Sex." The Leary Interpersonal Check List responses of each subject (checked for self and spouse) were scored by hand, with the use of 32 sixteen templates. The score for each itemrwas a weighted one. These scores were then used to compute summary scores for DOM and LOV, by.the following formulae (LaForge, 1973): LOV=M-E+.924 (N+L-D-F)+.707 (0+K-C-G) + .383 (P + J - B - H) DOM = A - I + .924 (B + P - H - J) + .707 (C + O - G - K) +.383 (D+N-F-L) Thus, each subject received four scores in all, LOVl and DOM1 for self (perception of self), and LOV and DOM: of spouse (perception of oneself 2 by the spouse). It should be mentioned that DOM and LOV adequately sum- marize the two bipolar dimensions underlying the ICL (Lange, 1970). The incongruence or discrepancy between self perception and the way the spouse perceived this self was calculated by the following formula (LaForge, 1973): R -\//(DOM1 - D0112)2 + (LOVI ' L0V2)2 Thus, each subject received one incongruency score. For hypothesis 2,. the incongruency scores were used in a simple 2 x 2 Analysis of variance design, and as before, the rows represented "Initiation" and the columns depicted "Sex." w RESULTS Hypotheses l and la. To recapitulate, hypotheses l and 1a which deal with marital adjust- ment are the following: 1. Couples in FI (female initiating) group will be maritally better adjusted than the MI (male initiating) group. 1a. The husbands in the MI group will be maritally less adjusted than wives in the FI group. The analyses regarding the above hypotheses on marital adjustment did not yield any significant effects on either LW or FCI scales (see Tables 3a and 4a). In the case of LW test there was a slight trend among means in the hypothesized direction (see Table 3). Overall, the MI group scored lower than the FI group, and the males in the MI group scored lower than the females in the FI group. In the case of the PCT, the trend was slightly in the opposite direction (see Table 4). .Hypotheses 2 and 2a. Hypotheses 2 and 2a which deal with interpersonal perception are the following: 2. There will be greater perceptual incongruency regarding self and spouse in the MI (male initiating) group than the FI (female ini- t iating) group . 33 34 TABLE 3. Cell Means of LW Scale Initiation Sex Male Female Female Initiator 89.23 85.36 Male Initiator 83.00 89.83 TABLE 3a. Analysis of Variance of LW Scale Source SS df MS F P Sex (A) .132 1 .132 .0002 NS Initiation (B) 11.992 1 11.992 .0153 NS A x B 444.238 1 444.238 .5649 NS Error 50326.656 94 786.354 Total 50783.018 67 TABLE 4. Cell Means of FCI Initiation Sex Male Female Female Initiator 119.55 116.23 Male Initiator 117.58 120.33 35 2a. In the MI group, the wife's perception of her husband and the way he perceives himself will show greater incongruency than in the FI group where there will be more agreement between the wife's percep- tion of her husband and the way he perceives himself. As hypothesized, there was a significant main initiation effect (p 53.05), with the MI group being significantly higher on incongruency scores as compared to the FI group (see Tables 5 and 5a). Regarding hypothesis 2a, no significant interaction effects were obtained; however, the observed cell means were distributed in the hypothesized direction (see Table 5). This meant that the males in the M1 group tended to have higher incongruency scores than the males in the FI group. In other words, males in the MI group had more discrepancy between their self per- ception and the way they were perceived by their wives. Additional analysis relevant to hypothesis 2. The incongruency scores which had yielded significant results were 1 signify self perception, while DOM: and LOV2 signify perception of one- self by the spouse. With Sex representing columns and Initiation repre- then broken down into their original LOV and DOM scores. DOM1 and LOV senting rows, four 2 x 2 Analyses of Variance were performed. Analysis of Variance for DOM1 yielded a significant (p 5;.01) main sex effect (see Table 6a). The combined cell means indicate that irre- spective of group (be it F1 or MI), males perceive themselves as being significantly more dominant than the females perceive themselves to be (see Table 6). As mentioned, the sex effect was significant at .01 level, but the actual variance covered by this variable was found to be about 8 percent. 36 TABLE 4a. Analysis of Variance of FCI Source SS df MS F P Sex (A) 23.529 1 23.529 .0267 NS Initiation (B) 17.845 1 17.845 .0203 NS A x B 142.959 1 142.959 .1625 NS Error 56301.056 93, 879.704 Total 56485.389 67 TABLE 5a. TABLE 5. Cell Means of Incongruency Scores Initiation Female Initiator Male Initiator Sex Male Female 10.11 12.30 14.74 14.73 Analysis of Variance of Incongruency Scores Source SS df MS F P Sex (A) 33.895 1 33.895 .7978 NS Initiation (B) 193.492 1 193.492 4.5541 lo..l-_ ea 8.53 :3: N manor. sea: 2: __u s zseefi 83 3 =3 23...: 82:. 53:839. 33% 2: :o 8:983 ego to» S caisson 2 .82 .o. 2a.». 22333 2: as; .23 as 233.. e at. .3. 25.1.. .238 2: Has: e55:... 995 E o+o+vrn+~+To _- N- T... 0.6- m.o+v. m.~+_+o .- N-n- Yn-o- - Era . Ta T1 I Ill 3 z o: .3 3 83a» 2: an is». 3.25 ceases. :8 =83? s§22§_ E33... 1|..on 8 8.8» so: _ wens... 8.33...an 51 FI group saw each other as being significantly (p f .01) different. The males perceived themselves to be significantly more dominant than their wives, and the wives perceived themselves to be significantly less domi- nant than their husbands (see Figure 3). In the MI group, however, this difference was neither significant nor in the same direction (see Figure 4). The husbands in this group saw their wives as being more dominant than themselves. The differences, however, were not significant. A simple way to get an overall picture of the two groups is to plot the different means on a two-dimensional graph (see Figure 5). Overall, husbands see themselves as more dominant (p g_.01) and less affectionate than wives see themselves (p 53.01). Within groups, the FI husbands see themselves as more dominant than MI husbands perceive themselves to be, and the wives in the FI see themselves as more submissive than the MI wives. With regards to the perception of the other, overall husbands see wives as more affectionate than wives see the husbands (p 3;.05). Within groups the MI and F1 husbands perceive their wives as almost equally loving, however the FI wives perceive their husbands as much less loving than MI wives. The most interesting difference between the two groups is seen on perception of spouse on DOM (pjg .05). Husbands in the MI group perceive their wives as extremely dominant, in fact this mean exceeds all other means on DOM. On the whole, the FI group is closer in their percep- tions of each other than the MI group, and this is most applicable on the DOM scale. It also appears that both self and spouse perceptions of the two marital partners are highly differentiated in this group, in the direction of traditional cultural stereotypes--perhaps an exaggeration of them. There is no simple exhaustive theory that can be offered to account for and make intelligible the differences and similarities between the two 0+ 0... 380 _ .2 maoH _m $n.~..+o 799T??? 3.13376 _- N- V...»- 3 52 «L . _ . . . . q . . . a _ a . a q a ._ . . . . EMU»... MM-MHMMH... o; 3 3 :3 a .333 2: 3 3:322. use 3:322. :3 3222. 333:3 2: 9.2232: . >0:— co ”0500» .302 .7 MKDGLF— 320 _ 2 32a . n. .--n- v-o-o-o.?v.m.~.._..o 79?...»- 0.. O F I V... n... N... _+ a q - ql l- ~ a q q q a a 1 q u u q . T I I..|l_lm_!¢.—ms>o oLllllllem-IJK) :3 «.333 2: :6 3:323 96 3:328 :3 303.2. 3.22:: 2: 3:252: .llzoo so «28» :32 n mesa 53 FIGURE 5 Mean DOM and LOV scores of FI and MI groups Note : The DOM M F I group is represented by "X", next to the symbols. 54 groups. However, there are some perceptual patterns in the present research that can be viewed in the light of some existing theories. Tharp (1963), after extensively reviewing literature on marriage, con- cluded that satisfaction in marriage is strongly related to the husband and wife operating within conventionally expected sex roles. This is especially true regarding the husband's instrumental role. With regards to the exact nature of these conventional roles, there is a considerable amount of consensus that happy marriages are those in which the husband views himself and is viewed by the wife as being the more dominant of the two, and the wife is viewed by self and spouse as being loving and sub- missive. The husband's domination seems to be a critical variable which is not only measured through paper and pencil tests, but is also observed in studies that involve interaction between the couple (Levinger 1963, Tinker 1972, Bauman and Roman 1966). There are ample studies that further add that aggression and dominance in the wife threatens the husband's self concept and consequently has adverse effect on the marriage (Aller 1962, Bauman and Roman 1966). Viewing the two groups in the present study, it seems that the FI group more closely approximates stereotype sex roles that are commonly associated with adjusted marriages. The husbands in this group clearly perceive themselves as domineering, and this perception is shared by their wives. The wives are perceived by themselves and their husbands as being submissive. In the MI group the husbands do not see themselves as being more dominant than their wives, and the wives do not see them as being very much more dominant than themselves. 0n LOV, the differences are less clear. Another characteristic that is associated with adjusted marriages (in fact, hypothesis 2 deals with just this factor), and is present in the FI group is congruency of perception. Put in other words, 55 perceptual congruency means the understanding of the mate's self. Under- standing is empathetic accuracy and sensitivity which is the product of greater involvement at the interpersonal level. It seems from all this that despite the lack of significant results on the marital adjustment tests, the FI group shows the type of interpersonal perceptions mostly found in better adjusted marriages. In other words, even though both groups have marital adjustment scores that are in the range of maladjust- ment, in the FI group the role perceptions between spouses are more stereo- typical and conventional - factors which are associated with adjusted mar- riages. The results on the ICL are dealt with extensively and given greater credibility because, unlike the marital adjustment instruments, the measures used in the analysis of the ICL were subtle ones that could not be faked or compounded by the subjects. The experimenter, however, is not oblivious to the importance of validating such results (which have been obtained from self reports alone) against external, objective criteria. As this investigation deals with correlates of happiness and adjust- ment in marriage, the discussion will not be complete unless some mention is made of the Complementarity-Similiarity issue that pervades this field. Winch and associates (1958) were the first to develop and test the theory. They arrived at the conclusion that, "In mate selection the need pattern I of each spouse will be complementary rather than similar to the need pat- terms of the other spouse." The authors made a qualitative analysis of data and came up with two main axes of needs relevant to mate selection. The two axes were labeled Dominance-Suhmission axis and Nurturant-Receptive. The contrary evidence that followed Winch's study can briefly be stated. Most of those who rejected his theory of complementary needs did so on the common basis that understanding is important for marital adjustment, and understanding itself follows from silimarity of couples rather than 56 differences (Schellenberg and Bee 1960, Dymonds 1954, Corsini 1955). Without going further into details about this controversial issue and all its facets, an attempt will be made to view the MI and F1 groups in this light. When self perceptions of each spouse are compared within the two groups, it is seen that couples in the MI group see each other as being closer or more similar than couples in the FI group (see Figures 6 and 7). It seems that the FI group is one more in line widh the complementary need hypothesis, while the MI group is one displaying homogamy or simi- larity of need patterns. The present writer is of the opinion that while understanding is related to marital adjustment, shmilarity of self and mate is not necessarily related to understanding. In fact, it would seem that in the FI group the basis of better understanding was the greater and clearer personality differences of the two mates. It is as if stereo- type roles aid in better predicting the spouses self. If Winch's two main axes are considered to be somewhat isomorphic with Leary's DOM and LOV, then the large "self" differences in the FI group can be seen to be neatly and precisely illustrating the complementary need principle. In other words, as the theory states, those with high needs of dominance tend to marry individuals with low needs of dominance, and those with high needs of nurturance tend to select mates with low needs on this scale. The ICL has frequently been used in research, but it is not always scored in one particular way. Its basic sixteen personality variables can be analyzed in several combinations, and therefore the type of scoring used for the ICL depends upon what the researcher is looking for in his data. It would add another dimension to the discussion if some compari- sons are made between the present data on the ICL, and those in other studies. Table 14 was constructed fran studies which were known to use a similar ICL analysis (i.e., weighted summary scores of DOM and LOV) as the A- Wh— ‘ l 57 .529 _m 2: «.5852 a: o5 a; 023.. .x: 2.... ”202 05.0.. 0+ n+ N+ r. 0 T N. n: v: on 0- T .\ . q .lV—~ . r... .1 _. w ill I 3x . x >0... 5 8.8» 5:923 =8 52.. :2 25 E mlmmaofl... .52.. 7.. 2: «.5852 a: 05 «3 372. .x. 2:. 352 o. 9. v. n. N. 7. o .- u- n- v. o. o. . . . m.fimW_I.TIIJWBIW 4 4 aL-wga xx x 200 5 350» 5:522. :3 com... .2 o5 .n. m wm8E 58 present study. First, it must be pointed out that not too many studies have used LaForge's system of arriving at two basic summary scores. Secondly, any comparisons made between the present data and other research should be viewed with caution as the groups under consideration may not be very comparable. For example, out of the four studies in Table 14, three of them had college students as their subjects. Except for Gerstenhaber's sample, comparisons between these three studies and the present one (see Tables 14 and 15) show an overall trend for the males to see themselves on the dominant side, i.e., all means are in the positive direction. The females in almost all the cases see themselves as less dominant, for the means are either in the negative direction or very close to zero. Inter- estingly, the only.females that somewhat deviate from this pattern are the MI females who have a mean score of 1.34 (see Table 15) on DOM. Regarding LOV, all males see themselves as less loving (their mean scores are either in the negative direction or close to zero), with the exception of MI males who see themselves as somewhat loving (mean - 1.73, Table 15). All females see themselves as loving, with the mean for the FI females being the highest. Thus, while there are overall similarities, some differences are found in the MI group. Compared to the others, the females in the MI group see themselves as more dominant and the husbands see themselves as more loving. In Table 14, Hoeg's (1965) sample was the only non-student sample, with the adjusted and less well adjusted distinction based on mari- tal adjustment scores on Locke's scale. But unlike the sample in the pre- sent research, his couples were not involved in psychotherapy. Neverthe- less, from the information available, his sample is probably the most comparable one to the present study. On the assumption that the FI group is more adjusted than the MI group, some interesting similarities on DOM are seen. In Hoeg's less well adjusted group males see themselves as waH 59 TABLE 14. Mean Scores of 'Self' on the ICL. Adjusted Group 22! 29! M F i M F 2.70 0.44 l 0.69 2.82 2.79 .19 -1.44 0.23 -0.416 - .004 .993 3.081 4.4 -1.5 -0.2 1.4 . Frost (1963). Males - 100 bWNH O Hoeg (1965). TABLE 15. PI Group (N - 22) DOM LOV F s .1: 7 -2040 50 l. 2.68 -4.91 La Forge (1973). Males - 117 Less Well - Adjusted Group DOM LOV 3.5 0.8 -6.9 6.9 Females = 92. Females - 100. Gerstenhaber (1974). Males - 75 Females - 96. 42 couples in both groups. ICL Mean 'Self' Scores in the Present Study. MI Group (fl_§ 12) DOM LOV !. .2 £1 .E 1.73 1.34 1.25 5.32 60 less dominating as compared to the self perceptions of males in the adjusted group. Similarly, the MI males are less dominating than the FI males. This likeness between the groups in the two studies extends to the females too. Hoeg's adjusted females see themselves as more submis- sive than the less well adjusted females see themselves. In the present study, the FI females are more submissive than the MI females. The shmi- larities end when comparisons are extended to include scores on LOV. In Hoeg's sample, the less well adjusted males are less loving, while their wives are more loving, as compared to the sexes in the adjusted group. In the present data, it is the MI group that has similar trends as Hoeg's adjusted group, while the FI group is closer to Hoeg's less well adjusted group. As mentioned earlier in the discussion, it is the Dominance- Submission factor that is most crucial in marital adjustment, or at least it is a more clearly identified dimension on the basis of which one can make some possible predictions regarding marital interaction. The role of Love-Hostility is less clear and often appears to be very ambi- ' guous. IMPLICATIONS In the present research the comparisons between the FI (female initiating) and MI (male initiating) groups would have become more mean- ingful if the design had included a comparative group of "normal" sub- jects, who would have served as the control group. The control group could have served as a reference point each time comparisons were made between the FI and MI groups. Corsini (1955) used an ideal method in his study of married couples. Each analysis on his experimental group was also carried out on a comparative but randomly selected group of couples. This was an ingenious way of checking if the results in the experimental 61 group were due to the independent variable under investigation or if there was a systematic error operating (the latter would be the case if both the experimental and the random group had identical results). This method is a little more complicated and requires an extra group of sub- jects, but the results yielded by such an analysis add greater credi- bility to the outcome. Perception, its consequences and resulting behavior, are the basic and essential aspects that are included in most theories of human beha- vior. The present study dealt only with the former two. To put it simply, married adjustment can be considered as the consequence arising 1 from perceptual congruency between the spouses. The emphasis, however, is more on the association between the two rather than any clear-cut causal relationships. Scores on the ICL are measures of personality, based on impressions of each other. The present study did not include any direct behavioral measures against which the perceptions of the spouses could be validated. For instance, in the case of the MI group, an interesting question is if in actual interaction the MI wives are as dominant as their husbands perceive them to be. "Dominance" (as measured by the ICL), which seems to be a salient feature in the present study, was explored in an interactional context by Tinker (1972). Tinker inves- tigated the effect of different amount of dominance, and found that in the high dominant group there was an increase in the number of negative- hostile responses between married couples. Thus, high dominance was found to have an adverse effect on interpersonal relationships. Though an ambitious plan, it would be worthwhile to actually observe the inter- action of the couples in the two groups (FI and MI groups). For example, it is an interesting question if the MI wives, who are seen as most dominant, actually indulge in more negative and hostile responses. 62 As students are easily available and more willing to participate in research, a large majority of studies use students exclusively. The applicability of the conclusions derived from such research are limited to the student population. One has to be extremely cautious if generali- zations are to be extended to other types of populations. In the present research the effort was to move away from.the student sample. It was hoped that an adequate-sized sample could be drawn from larger mental health agencies that deal with the population at large. Because of con- ditions mentioned earlier (in Chapter II), this was not entirely pos- sible. Due to the lack of subjects from.the mental health agencies, student couples from.campus had to be added to the sample. It would be desirable to do more research outside the student population, and to have an adequate sample size without having to mix subjects from somewhat heterogeneous populations (i.e., students and the general community). Knowing therapists personally in the agencies or being employed there one- self are resources that should be utilized to collect data. It is always 'more difficult to get help in research when one is outside the system from where one wishes to collect the data. Clinicians are frequently resistant to making their clients available as research subjects, and this problem was amply illustrated in the difficulties encountered in collecting this sample. Ultimately such research should be built into the basic intake and assessment procedures of mental health agencies, since it reveals differences in marital adjustment which may well be important in understanding and treating the problems which patients bring to the agency. REFERENCES REFERENCES Aller, F. A. Role of the self-concept in student marital adjustment. Family Life Coordinator, 1962, 11, 43-45. Axelson, L. Marital adjustment and marital role definitions of husbands of working and non-working wives. Marriage and Family Living, 1963, 25, 189-195. Bahr, S. J. and Rollins, B. C. Crisis and conjugal power. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 360-367. L Ballard, R. G. The interrelatedness of alcoholism and marital conflict. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1959, 29, 528-546. Barry, W. Marriage research and conflict: an integrative review. Psych - logical Bulletin, 1970, 73, 41-54. Baumen, G. and Roman, M. Interaction testing in the study of marital cominance. Family Process, 1966, 5, 230-242. Blood, R. O. and Hamblin, R. L. The effect of the wife's employment on the family power structure. Social Forces, 1958, 36, 347-352. Blood, R. O. and Wolfe, D. M. Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. Brodsky, C. M. The social recovery of mentally ill housewives. Family Process, 1968, 7, 170-183. Bruning, J. L. and Kintz, B. L. Computational Handbook of Statistics. Illinois: Scott Foresmaen and Company, 1968. Buck, C. W. and Ladd, K. L. Psychoneurosis in marital partners. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1965, 3, 587-590. Carter, D. C. Paranoid wife syndrome. Minnesota Medicine, 1968, 51, 307-3100 Clausen, J. A. and Yarrow, M. R. Paths to the mental hospital. Journal of Social Issues, 1955, 2, 25-32. Corsini, R. J. Multiple predictors of marital happiness. Marriage and Fgmily Living, 1956, 18, 240-242 (a). 63 64 Corsini, R. J. Understanding and similarity in marriage. Journal of Abnormgl and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 327-332 (b). Crago, M. A. Psychopathology in married couples. Psychological Bulletin, 1972, 2, 114-128. Cutler, B. R. and Dyer, W. G. Initial adjustment processes in young married couples. Social Forces, 1965, 44, 195-201. Dupont, R. L., Jr. and Grunebaum, H. Willing victims: The husbands of paranoid women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1968, 125, 151-159. Dyer, W. G. Analyzing marital adjustment using role theory. Marriage and Family Living, 1962, 371-375. Dymond, R. Interpersonal perception and marital happiness. Canadian Journal of ngchology, 1954, 8, 164-171. Edwards, A. L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1950. Eshleman, J. R. Mental health and marital integration in young marriages. Journal of Marriageiand the Family, 1965, 27, 255-265. Freedman, M. B. et al. The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of Personality, 1951, 20, 143-161. Fry, W. F. The marital context of an anxiety syndrome. Family Process, 1962, 1, 245-252. Gerstenhaker, L. M. Personality questionnaire data. Research in pro- gress for Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1974. Gianopulos, A. and Mitchell, H. E. Marital disagreement in working wife marriages as a function of husband's attitude towards wife's employ- ment. Marrigge and Family Living, 1957, 19, 373-378. Gover, D. A. Socio-economic differential in the relationship between marital adjustment and wife's employment status. Marriage and Family Living, 1963, 25, 452-456. Gregory, 1. Husbands and wives admitted to mental hospital. Journal of Mental Science, 1959, 105, 457-462. Harlan, E. and Young, J. The marital tie in chronic mental illness. Smith Collgge Studies in Socigl Work, 1958, 29, 1-19. Harrower, M. The measurements of psychological factors in marital malad- justment. In Eisenstein, V. W., Neurotic Interactions in Marriage, New York: Basic Books, 1956, 169-191. Hawkins, J. L. The Locke marital adjustment test and social desirabil- ity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966, 28, 193-195. 65 Beer, D. M. Husband and wife perceptions of family power structure. Marriage and Faudly Living, 1962, 24, 65-67. Beer, D. M. The measurement and basis of family power: An overview. Marriage and Family Living, 1963, 25, 133-139. Hicks, M. W. and Platt, M. Marital happiness and stability: A review of the research in the sixties. In Broderick, C. B. (ed.), A Decade of Family Research and Action, Hoeg, B. L. Marital adjustment and the comparison of personality des- cription of mates. Unpublished Masters thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1965. Hofman, K. C. Marital adjustment and interaction, related to individual adjustment of spouses in clinic and non-clinic families. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Jansen, L. T. Measuring family solidarity. American Sociological Review, 1952, 17, 727-733. Katz, M. Agreement on connotative meaning in marriage. Family Process, 1965 g 4, 64-740 Kerckhoff, A. C. and Bean, F. D. Social status and interpersonal patterns among married couples. Social Forces, 1970, 49, 264-271. Kohl, R. N. Pathologic reactions of marital partners to improvement of patients. American Journal of ngchiatry, 1962, 118, 1036-1041. Kottar, S. L. Middle-class marital role perceptions and marital adjust- ment. Sociological and Social Research, 1965, 49, 283-293. Kreitman, N. Mental disorder in married couples. Journal of Mental Science, 1962, 108, 438-446. Kreitman, N. The patient's spouse. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1964, 110, 159-173. Kreitman, N. Married couples admitted to mental hospital: Part I. Diag- nostic similarity and the relation of illness to marriage. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1968, 114, 699-709. LaForge, R. and Suczek, R. F. The interpersonal dimension of personality. III. An interpersonal check list. Journal of Personality, 1955, 24, 94-112. LaForge, R. Using the ICL. California: 1973. Laidlaw, R. W. Progress in Psychotherapy, vol. V. Masserman and Moreno (Eds.), New York: Grune and Stratton, 1960. Lange, D. E. Validation of the orthogonal dimensions underlying the ICL and the octant constellations assumed to be their measure. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assesgment, 1970, 34, 519-527. 66 Leary, T. Kaiser Foundation Psychology Research. Multi-levelimeasure- ment of interpersonal behavior (Manual). Berkeley, California: Psychological Consultation Service, 1956. Leary, T. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957. Lefton, M. et a1. Former mental patients and their neighbors. JOurnal of Health and Human Behavior, 1966, 7, 106-113. Levinger, G. Supplementary methods in family research. Family Process, 1963 g 2 , 357-366. Levinger, G. Note on need complementarity in marriage. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 61, 153-157. Levitt, H. and Baker, R. Relative psychopathology of marital partners. Family Process, 1969, 8, 33-42. Lichtenberg, J. D., and Pao, P. N. The prognostic and therapeutic signi- ficance of the husband-wife relationship for hospitalized schizo- phrenic women. Psychiatry, 1960, 23, 209-213. Lively, E. L. Toward concept clarification: The case of marital interac- tion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, 31, 108-114. Locke, H. J. and Williamson, R. C. Marital adjustment: A factor analysis study. American Sociological Review, 1958, 23, 562-569. Locke, H. J. and Wallace, K. M. Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 1959, 21, 251-2550 Luckey, E. B. Marital satisfaction and its association with congruence of perception. Marriage and Family Living, 1960, 22, 49-54 (a). Luckey, E. G. Marital satisfaction and parent concepts. Journal of Con- sulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 195-204, (b). Luckey, E. B. Marital satisfaction and congruent self-spouse concepts. Social Forces, 1960, 39, 153-157 (c). Luckey, E. B. Marital satisfaction and personality correlates of spouse. Journal of Marrigge and the Family, 1964, 26, 217-220. Luckey, E. G. Marital satisfaction and its concomitant perceptions of self and spouse. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1964, 2, 136-145. Luckey, E. B. Number of years married as related to personality percep- tion and marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966, 28, 44-48. Malzberg, B. Marital status and the incidence of mental disease. Inter- national Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1964, 10, 19-26. 67 Mangus, A. R. Family impacts on mental health. Marriage and Family Living, 1957, 19, 256-262. Martin, P. A. and Bird, H. W. A marriage pattern. The lovesick wife and the coldsick husband. Psychiatry, 1959, 22, 245-249. Martin, P. A. Further considerations on the coldsick husband. Psychia- Egy, 1959, 22, 250-254. Miller, D. and Barnhouse, R. C. Married mental patients in crisis: A research report. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1967, 124, 364-370. Moran, M. L. Some emotional responses of patients' husbands to the psychotherapeutic course as indicated in interviews with the psychia- tric caseworker. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1954, 24, 317- 325. Murphy, H. 8. Differences in the interview responses of wives of schizo- phrenic and non-schizophrenic in-patients. Psychiatry, 1963, 26, 381-390. Murstein, B. I. The relationship of mental health to marital choice and courtship progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1967, 29, 447-451. Neilson, J. Mental disorders in married couples. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1964, 110, 683-697. Nye, F. I. Employment status of mothers and marital conflict, perman- ence and happiness. Social Problems, 1959, 6, 260-267. Nye, F. I. Maternal employment and marital interaction: Some contingent conditions. Social Forces, 1961, 40, 113-119. Olson, D. H. The measurement of family power by self-report and behav- ioural methods. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, 31, 545- 550. Palonen, D. Interpersonal perceptions and marital adjustments. Unpub- lished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. Penrose, L. S. Mental illness in husband and wife: A contribution to the study of assortative mating in man. Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 1944, 18, 161-166. Pittman, F. and Flamenhaft, K. Treating the doll's house marriage. Family Process, 1970, 9, 143-155. Pond, D. A., Ryle, A. and Hamilton, M. Marriage and neurosis in a working- class population. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1963, 109, 592-598. Powell, D. M. A personality inventory approach to the study of marital adjustment. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. 68 Preston, M. G. et a1. Impressions of personality as a function of marital conflict. Journal of Abnormal 5nd Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 326- 336. Revitch, E. The problem of conjugal paranoia. Diseases of the Nervous Revitch, E. and Hayden, J. W. Paranoid marital partner: Counselor's client, psychiatrist's problem. Rutgers Law Review, 1955, 9, 512-521. Safilios-Rothschild, C. Deviance and mental illness in the Greek family. Family Process, 1968, 7, 100-117. Sampson, H., Messinger, S. L., and Towne, R. D. Schizophrenic Women: Studies in marital crisis. New York: Atherton Press, 1964. Schellenberg, J. A. and Bee, L. S. A re-examination of the theory of complementary needs in mate selection. MarriageLQnd Family Living, 1960, 22, 227-232. Schwartz, C. G. Perspectives on deviance: Wives' definitions of their husbands' mental illness. Psychiatry, 1957, 20, 275-291. Stuckert, R. P. Role perception and marital satisfaction--a configura- tional approach. Marriageland Family Living, 1963, 25, 415-419. Taylor, A. B. Role perception, empathy and marriage adjustment. Socio- logical and Social Research, 1967, 52, 22-34. Tharp, R. G. Psychological patterning in marriage. Psychological Bulletin, 1963, 60, 97-117. Tinker, R. H. Dominance in marital interaction. Unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Updyke, P. R. Family and role satisfaction among young married women. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. van der Veen, F. et a1. Relationship between the parents' concept of the family and family adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 34, 45-55. van der Veen, F. The parents' concept of the family unit and child adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 12, 196-200. Westley, W. A. and Epstein, N. B. Family structure and emotional health: A case study approach. Marriage and Family Living, 1960, 22, 25-27. Whitaker, C. Psychotherapy with couples. American Journal of Psycho- therapy, 1958, 12, 18-23. Winch, R. F. Mate-Selection: A Study of Complementary Needs. New York: Harper, 1958. 69 Woerner, P. I. and Guze, S. B. A family and marital study of hysteria. British Journal of Psychiarry, 1968, 114, 151-168. Wolfe, D. M. Power and authority in the family. In Winch, R. F., McGinnis, R. and Barringer, H. R. (eds). Selected Studies in Mar- riage and the Family, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Yarrow, M. R., et al. The psychological meaning of mental illness in the family. Journal of Social Issues, 1955, 11, 12-24. Zelditch, M., Jr. Role differentiation in the nuclear family: A compara- tive study. In Parson, T. and Bales, R. F. Family Socialization and Interaction Process, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955. APPENDICE S APPENDIX A TEST MATERIALS USED 70 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing ° Michigan 48824 Department of Psychology ° Olds Hall Studies of marriage indicate that feelings and perceptions of both husband and wife are related to marital happiness. The present study is intended to further clarify issues in the area, and it is hoped that the findings will be valuable to persons seeking or pro- viding counseling about marital problems. Your participation in the project will be very helpful and greatly appreciated. Spouses who participate in this project will be asked to give up to an hour of their time to take a few paper and pencil question- naires. Your therapist can take your phone number and a suitable time when I may call you to fix up an appointment time, most con- venient for you and your spouse. 1 will be administering these materials here, i.e., at the Center where you are currently being seen. Couples who volunteer will be given a sum of $10. All information yielded by this project will be strictly confi- dential and used exclusively for research purposes, unless each spouse authorizes the release of the findings to their therapist. If you are interested, a summary of the results or outcomes of this study can be provided to you after the research has been com- pleted. Thank you. Riffat M. Zaman Doctoral Student Dept. of Psychology 71 Questionnaire Please fill out all parts of this questionnaire. The information will be treated as strictly confidential. Sex Race Age Number of years married Number of children List the following information on all your children: Sex e Education: Last school grade attended: Other training and/or degree obtained Occupation: Are you presently employed? If yes: Where do you work? What kind of work do you do? If not: How long have you been unemployed? What type of work were you doing before you were unemployed? P _ 72 age 2 Have you in the past received treatment for personal adjustment or emotional problems? If yes: The number of times you were treated Type of care (In or out—patient) Before or after your marriage Presently, is it you or your spouse who has come for treatment? If it is yourself: Who recommended or suggested that you seek help? Do you feel that you need help? __1 If you desire information about the outcome of this study please provide the following: Name Address Phone A summary of the findings will be mailed to you, when the research is completed. If you wish your therapist to have information of these findings, please sign below: Signature 73 Locke - Wallace Scale Encircle the dot on the scale below which best describes the degree of happiness, everything considered, of your present marriage. The middle point, "happy," represents the degree of happiness which most people get from marriage, and the scale gradually ranges on one side to those few who are very unhappy in marriage, and on the other, to those few who experience extreme joy or felicity in marriage. 0 O O O O O 0 Very Happy Perfectly ‘ Unhappy Happy State the approximate extent of agreement between you and your mate on the following items Please encircle the apprOpriate dots. A lmos t Almost Occa- Fre- Always Always Always Always sionally quently Dis- Dis- Agree Agree Disagree Disagree agree agree Handling family finances: . . . . . . Matters of recreation: . . . . . . .Demonstrations of affection . . . . . . Friends . . . . Sex Relations . . . . . Conventionality (right, good or proper conduct) . . . . . . Philosophy of life . . . . . . Ways of dealing with in-laws . . . . . . When disagreements arise, they usually result in: husband's giving in , wife giving in , agreement by mutual give and take Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? All of then , some of them , very few of them , none of them 7 In leisure time do you generally prefer: to be "on the go" , to stay at home 1 - Does your mate generally prefer: to be "on the go" . to stay at home ? Do you ever wish you had not married? Frequently , occasionally , rarely , never . If you had your life to live over, do you think you would: marry the same person , marry a different person , not marry at all 7 Do you confide in your mate: almost never , rarely , in most things , in everything ? Locke, H. J. and Wallace, 1c. M. Journal of Marriagg and Family Living, 1959, 21:3, 251-255' mm #107 8/65mc 74 '112 FAMILY CONCEPT INVENTORY Instructions: Indicate the degree of your agreement or dis- agreement with each of the following items as it applies to your immediate family (husband or wife and children) and encircle the letter(s) representing the appropriate response. First impressions are satisfactory, and most people are able to complete this inventory in ten minutes. It is quite impor- tant that you give a response to each item, even though it sometimes be difficult to make a decision. We usually can depend on each other. We have a number of close friends. We feel secure when we are with each other. We do many things together. Each of us wants to tell the others what to do. There are serious differences in our standards and values. We feel free to express any thoughts or feelings to each other. Our home is the center of our activities. We are an affectionate family. It is not our fault that we are having difficulties. Little problems often become big ones for us. we do not understand each other. We get along very well in the community. We often praise or compliment each other. we do not talk about sex. we get along much better with persons outside the family than with each other. We are proud of our family We do not like each other's friends. There are many conflicts in our family. We are usually calm and relaxed when we are together. We respect each other's privacy. Accomplishing what we want to do seems to be difficult for us. We tend to worry about many things. We are continually getting to know each other better. We encourage each other to develop in his or her own individual way. we have warm, close relationships with each other. Together we can overcome almost any difficulty. We really do trust and confide in each other. The family has always been very important to us. we get more than our share of illness. we are considerate of each other. We can stand up for our rights if necessary. We have very good times together. We live largely by other people's standards and values. Usually each of us goes his own separate way. We resent each other's outside activities. we have respect for each other's feelings and opinions even when we differ strongly. we sometimes wish we could be an entirely different family. we are sociable and really enjoy being with people. we are a disorganized family. we are not really fond of one another. We are a strong, competent family. We just cannot tell each other our real feelings. We are not satisfied with anything short of perfection. we forgive each other easily. we usually reach decisions by discussion and compromise. We can adjust well to new situations. Our decisions are not our own, but are forced on us by circumstances. lg |m $2 IStrongly Agree on: o swoon-ammonia. lTend to Agree .Ufiflbibflflbbl IODODOENN I: or Disagree emergencies. mmammmammmeammm [Tend to Dosagree In. neither Agree N .12 zzzvzzzzzzzzzzzzl 22223.22 223222222222 222222222222 2". nannnnnaann amnnmnmmmmma O. I Strongly Disagreeig INSTRUCTIONS: 75 VI Please indicate whether you view each of the qualities listed below as being either mostly true (T) or mostly false (P) as they apply to It is very important that you indicate either T or P for each item, even if you. 819 somewhat uncertain of your choice. complete this information in less than 15 minutes. 1 Able to give orders 2 Appreciative 3.Apologetic 4 Able to take care of self 5 Accepts advice readily 6 Able to doubt others 7 Affectionate and under- standing 8 Acts important 9 Able to criticize self 10 Admires & imitates others 11 Agrees with everyone 12 Always ashamed of self 13 Very anxious to be ap- proved of Always giving advice Bitter Bighearted and unselfish Boastful Businesslike Bossy Can be frank and honest 2:333:33“: 7m" Considerate Cold and unfeeling Can complain if necessary Cooperative Complaining Can be indifferentt Critical of others Can be obedient Cruel and unkind Dependent Dictatorial Distrusts everybody Dominating Easily embarrassed Eager to get along with others Easily fooled Egotistical & conceited Easily led Encouraging others Enjoys taking care of others admire him Expects everyone to Faithful follower Frequently disappointed Firm but just Fond of everyone Forceful Friendly Porgives anything 87‘ Frequently angry Friendly all the time Generous to a fault Gives freely of self Good leader Grateful Hard-boiled when neSSSY/ Helpful Hard-hearted Hard to convince Hot-tempered Hard to impress Impatient with others' mistakes Independent Irritable Jealous Kind and reassuring Likes responsibility Lacks self-confidence Likes to compete with others Lets othersd§5232008 Likes everybody Likes to be taken care of Loves everyone Makes a good impression Manages others Meek Modest Hardly ever talks back Often admired Obeys too willingly Often gloomy Outspoken Overprotective of others Often unfriendly Oversympathetic Often helped by others Passive and unaggressive Proud and self-satisfied Always pleasant a agreeable Resentful Respected by others Rebels against everything Resents being bossed Self-reliant a assertive Sarcastic Self-punishing Self-confident Self-seeking Shrewd & calculating 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 Also, try to work quickly; most people can Self-respecting Shy Sincere a devoted to friends Selfish Skeptical Sociable and neigh- borly Slow to forgive a wrong Somewhat snobbish Spineless Stern but fair Spoils people with kindness Straightforward and direct Stubborn Suspicious Too easily influence by friends Thinks only of self Tender and soft hearted Timid Too lenient with others Touchy and easily hurt Too willing to give to others Tries to be too suc- cessful Trusting and eager to please Tries to comfort everyone Usually gives in VII-F“ Very respectful to authority Wants everyone 37 Well thought of Wants to be led Will confide in any one Warm Wants everyone to like him Will believe anyone Well-behaved JRH#10§ 12/67ceb APPENDIX B BIOGRAPHICAL DATA AND SCORES 0N QUESTIONNAIRES 0F INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS 76 TABLE 16. Biographical Data for F1 Group Couple Number Number Number Therapy Age** of years of of years Number Married Children Education** Center* 1 22 2 O 16 CC 23 16 2 26 2 l 10 INC 30 11 3 23 4 O 17 CC 26 17 g 4 38 19 7 11 FC 44 8 5 22 4 mos. 0 16 PC 22 16 6 44 22 2 17 PC 45 12 7 20 3 mos. O 13 seen 23 14 privately 8 32 8 2 12 SLH 33 14 9 21 3 l 12 FC 25 17 10 29 2 1 12 IMC 21 ll 11 24 5 l 14 PC 26 17 12 31 14 4 10 PC 33 12 13 26 7 l 12 SLH 26 15 14 22 6 mos. 0 13 CC 21 15 15 25 5 1 16 FC 27 17 16 27 7 1 17 CC 29 19 17 24 4 0 12 INC 25 12 18 28 7 1 17 PC 30 17 (Continued next page) 77 19 25 18 mos. l 12 FC 32 12 20 26 6 3 14 FC 25 15 21 34 13 2 19 PC 36 19 22 48 18 2 16 seen 57 14 privately Aver e 28.05 6.85 1.41 14.00 “g 29.95 14.55 Note: One male and one female in the group had been married previously. * St. Lawrence Hospital . . Ingham Medical Center . . . Family and Child Services . Psychological Clinic . Counselling Center . . ** Data on wife presented first . SLH . IMC . FC . PC . CC for all cases. - is” '0 '31.” 78 TABLE 17. Biographical Data for MI Group Couple Number Number Number Therapy Age** of years of of years Number Married Children Education** Center* 1 22 4 2 l7 IMC 25 16 2 31 7 2 12 FC 33 22 3 40 22 6 10 FC 40 8 4 26 4 l 12 IMC 27 14 5 49 13 O 17 seen 49 17 privately 6 20 2 mos. 0 12 IMC 25 12 7 28 6 mos. 0 17 IMC 23 15 8 25 54 mos. O 17 seen 26 16 privately 9 3O 6 0 17 seen 32 19 privately 10 33 8 2 12 PC 32 17 ll 55 26 3 12 SLH 55 19 12 24 54 mos. 1 12 FC 27 12 31.92 8.31 1.42 13.92 Average 32 .83 15.59 Note: One male in the group had been married previously. * St. Lawrence Hospital Ingham Medical Center Family and Child Services Psychological Clinic . . . .SLH .IMC . FC . PC Counselling Center . . . . . . . . CC ** Data on wife presented first for all cases. that. at) I: v ’5. 1 "'1“ 515131“ 1. Couple # sooouombwrop-n NNNHHD—‘HHHHHHH NHOOCDNO‘U‘J-‘ri-‘O 79 TABLE 18. Marital Adjustment Scores FI Group (N = 22) Females Males L W Scale .22; L W Scale 2Q; 87 » 128 95 114 40 95 23 92 74 146 103 ‘ 146 81 96 107 119 119 150 114 170 101 132 68 98 54 96 75 123 85 117 47 60 109 125 106 125 72 103 82 107 65 119 127 154 62 81 70 83 100 128 86 124 147 162 122 127 119 161 120 171 71 115 66 116 50 88 99 118 78 110 94 125 62 72 111 109 90 85 58 88 81 116 76 110 131 132 114 151 Couple # 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 80 TABLE 19. Marital Adjustment Scores MI Group (N B 12) Females Males L w Scale Egl_ L W Scale EC; 126 169 88 161 105 110 45 82 104 134 101 89 89 122 54 75 32 83 65 103 116 154 100 116 46 77 84 108 114 138 113 170 126 165 107 167 106 138 108 138 86 100 71 115 28 54 60 87 81 TABLE 20. DOM Scores FI Group (N 8 22) Females Males Couple # Self Percp. 'One's Percp. Self Percp. One's Percp. of Spouse of Spouse 1 4.66 6.66 6.34 7.57 2 -14.67 ~10.50 -6.42 7.02 3 3.30 -4.74 -2.88 -2.52 4 -1l.97 -O.10 0.56 -5.08 5 -1.50 6.37 -4.90 -6.82 6 4.54 -7.63 7.34 18.31 7 -2.64 13.90 18.08 -18.94 8 -6.52 -5.84 1.35 -7.47 9 -1.02 8.09 8.55 9.66 10 -13.51 18.76 11.04 -10.12 11 -0.42 7.90 12.99 -5.50 12 -15.41 -14.38 -l4.62 -7.81 13 -2.00 -9.89 3.53 -5.47 14 -2.19 6.61 -19.51 -14.82 15 -15.20 10.57 11.35 8.48 16 -11.93 11.58 0.66 -6.24 17 2.94 1.08 -5.63 2.57 18 -8.32 21.41 10.17 -2.66 19 -6.62 -lO.11 -5.11 -4.98 20 -5.60 14.23 6.48 -ll.14 21 4.25 15.70 11.87 -4.66 22 -8.25 6.57 7.67 1.90 82 TABLE 21 . DOM Scores MI Group (N = 12) Females Males Couple # Self Percp. One's Percp. Self Percp. One's Percp. of Spouse of Spouse I 23 5.57 7.31 4.65 0.16 g 24 -1.64 10.42 3.63 6.18 25 2.25 -1.14 -13.98 -3.87 26 3.86 9.54 8.88 6.93 27 4.85 -9.36 6.95 10.53 28 0.84 -10.94 3.77 6.15 29 1.90 14.80 10.23 0.47 30 -10.35 10.72 '5.26 -0.36 31 11.98 11.70 7.24 -4.25 32 8.55 -8.15 7.28 15.54 33 2.53 -18.00 -23.24 18.74 34 -14.30 4.82 0.01 9.21 83 TABLE 22. LOV Scores FI Group (N 8 22) Females Males Couple # Self Percp. One's Percp. Self Percp. One's Percp. of Spouse of Spouse 1 11.74 -12.54 -14.42 6.76 2 12.41 -6.49 -18.42 -12.03 3 ~3.70 -2.66 -0.14 -5.49 4 6.34 -1.01 10.38 4.05 5 11.69 12.27 11.34 -0.15 6 10.91 12.93 7.40 6.50 7 6.99 -l9.85 -19.77 13.36 8 6.68 -19.00 -26.52 -4.22 9 4.56 -2.82 -5.74 8.94 10 -9.87 1.00 1.39 -5.66 11 -10.07 22.99 12.92 -1.60 12 -7.50 9.27 3.04 -4.36 13 8.62 7.77 11.31 0.07 14 9.05 5.54 -4.16 20.18 15 17.27 0.85 -2.40 7.31 16 -10.57 4.58 0.14 5.38 17 16.30 -1.76 0.78 1.83 18 11.71 -22.04 -10.84 10.33 19 12.13 -7.65 3.57 11.12 20 15.07 -26.60 -4.21 29.03 21 3.62 -12.66 -12.86 1.14 22 3.03 0.97 4.36 10.52 84 TABLE 23 . LOV Scores MI Group (N = 12) Females Males Couple # Self Percp. One's Percp. Self Percp. One's Percp. of Spouse of Spouse 23 7.50 -2.34 -24.85 22.40 24 15.04 5.88 -6.19 -11.15 25 15.99 -8.00 -7.69 7.43 26 1.61 -0.89 8.62 -7.02 27 5.75 -4.66 -0.80 1.86 28 3.68 25.66 13.19 17.64 29 -9.24 -18.28 -O.28 2.79 30 12.72 13.37 9.42 10.75 31 18.02 5.14 11.81 27.86 32 14.16 19.31 13.26 5.94 33 -23.25 -5.72 2.84 -20.35 34 1.90 -25.70 -4.29 1.21 TABLE 24. Correlation between LW and FCI [Correlations for the MI group are above the diagonal, and correlations for the FI group are below the diagonal] FI group N - 22. MI group N - 12. I FLW FFCI MLW MFCI FLW .527 .545 FFCI . .627* MLW 484* .747" MFCI .419* F preceding each term stands for females and M preceding each term stands for males. {2 .1 .05 *fp, : .Ol 86 .%Hm>fiuommmmu mfima mam mamamm How venom .oHAmHHm> some no means weavuuoum z use m . oea. mHo.- emn.- mn~.- me~.- mam.- wm~.- aseue. can.- - eeH.- sashe. moH.- Hmme- ~¢H.- sown. mum. nae. «Nu. nae. men. cam. oNH.- cue. oHH. NHH. ems. See.- was. can. mno.- nee. sense. mam. NmH.- HmN.- wNN. HNH.- nNH.- she. eon. Hoo.- Ann. was. same. noH.- Noe. eHo. mom. «me. emu. sue. eno. SNN. ssooh.- emu.- nmu.- mNH.- as“. oHH. mAH.- eoH. «mu. oe~.- same“. omo. eeo. Nee. same. hmn.- same“. emo. Rho. nmo.- new. esz «>05: H>oqz Neon: H28: Hoax mHUUUS ”QUOZ so. w a as no. w a * NHH.- Nma. ems. emu. mmN.- sec.. «#0.- emu. esz ace. “No. mem.- ao¢.- me. mac. mnm. HNN. N>oaz amen. w-.- HNo.- emu.- oao. HHo. nae. on“. H>3: sum. eNo.- was. neo.- ae~.- euo. mes. mwa. «son: mac. Neo.- was. «no.- ems. nna. see. “so.. H:82 moo. moo. mac. mwo. ans. ashes. mas. Home eoo.- woo.- muw. sees. same. as: - can. mam. ~s~.- was. nmo. qum can. waH.- oeH. «No. sens. ~>oam one. gnaw. on. owe. oeo. mam. H>oam mam.- wHo. *Nee.- mum. hoe. «some Ham. mmN.- emu. ode. emo.- 5N. mNH. Hzone ammo. eNH.- sees. ems. eHe.- non. sass“. Home awn. who. was. nee. eem.- Hem. .soem. sea 3;: qum N>omm H>omm «some Hzone Home 3mm _Hmcowmfiv unu scams mum macaw Hm onu can moanmwum> uuoH usu .Hmaomufiv onu u>onm ohm msouw Hz onu newsman muowumfiouuooH HH< newsman nofiumamuuoo .mN mammH 87 INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST - ILLUSTRATING THE CLASSIFICATION OF INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIORS INTO I6 VARIABLE CATEGORIES IAIIOKS OTHER! WIIIA'I“ URI! summ- LI" .009 LIAM. 'OICCIUL ‘Ir Iv I; O "I 1"“?! 87,: *0 1"“. I.“ 0"!” ”UV-IIIDL' "IONIMU WHISYMOIIC '00“ 0' [VIIVM LI!!! IVKIVOOOV VIIIHIJ ALI. "I "U! . a o a a :3 >3 2 a? 3n 0. =3 u