 

1:1 .
t..\!._:.v.
:. .

at. 0 ‘
I‘ "13";

. L3...
2:.

x :0
tr..x¢ﬁ).

, "2.1.
Ah. {4-1 ,

u it n 2"“ iii...

. . i. .. I.
:31. 3 «.J . Sun . is” M1 1:51.»? l .w. 1..
III],
||||

ﬁg it:

 

'1- My

(-1

Q 1134

50?4Y?5?

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND ATTACHMENT TO
FINANCIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN COUPLES

presented by
DONNA M. MARION

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Family and Child Ecology

ZA/ 4/ a, an /

' ' Major Professor’s Signdture

7/25 (/04

Date

MSU is en Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

{WI .
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND ATTACHMENT TO
FINANCIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN COUPLES

By

Donna M. Marion

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2004

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND ATTACHMENT TO
FINANCIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN COUPLES

By
Donna M. Marion

This study explored the predicted parallel course between early relationship
development and financial resource sharing behaviors. Ten engaged and five couples-
in-therapy were interviewed individually and con jointly in a qualitative format. The
Dyadic Trust & Experiences in Close Relationships scales were given for
trustworthiness. The results reflected the couples’ experiences and perceptions
regarding the previously mentioned areas. Engaged couples demonstrated qualities of
high cohesion, good communication and trust. Couples-in-therapy reported lower
cohesion, difficulty in communication and significantly lower scores on the Dyadic
Trust Scale. Ecosystemic factors related to the family of origin, work and friends
were reported as having influence on the present relational quality and on financial
resource sharing. A parallel course was found between the developing relationship,
trust and ﬁnancial resource sharing. Recommendations are made for clinical
implications of the study. The small sampling size and the nature of the qualitative
inquiry itself make for recommendations of future studies to elaborate or reconfirm

these results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to thanks the members of my committee, Dr.
Robert Lee, Dr. Marsha Carolan, Dr. David Imig and Dr. Elaine Yakura. Without their
reassurance and support I would not have completed this final assignment. I would
especially like to add my sincere gratitude to my primary advisor Dr. Lee for his
precision and dedication to the numerous details which gave a quality substance to my

initial ideas.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................... viii

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1

CHAPTER ONE
Purpose of the Study ................................................................ 3
Theoretical Model ..................................................................... 5
Conceptual Mapping ............................................................... 6

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW: THEORY .................................................. 7
Integrating Trust from an Ecosystemic Perspective ............................ 7
Conceptual Framework and Research Related to Trust, Finances and
Relational Issues ..................................................................... 10
Research Related to Money Management and Trust ........................... 13
Research Related to Adult Attachment and Trust ............................... 15
Summary ............................................................................. 16

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 18
Qualitative Methodology .......................................................... 18
Contrasts with Positivism ......................................................... 20
Theoretical Definitions ............................................................ 21
Conceptual Definition of Terms .................................................. 22
Operational Definition of Terms ................................................. 23
Assumptions ........................................................................ 24
Research Questions ................................................................ 27
Sampling ............................................................................. 28
Site .................................................................................... 30
Data Collection ...................................................................... 31
Data Analysis Procedures .......................................................... 33
Researcher Role and Ethics ......................................................... 34
Trustworthiness ..................................................................... 36
Limitations of the Study ............................................................ 38
Confidentiality ....................................................................... 38

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS ................................................................................ 39
Overview .............................................................................. 39
Demographics ........................................................................ 40

Engaged Couples Demographics ......................................... 40
Couples-in-therapy Demographics ...................................... 41

Emerging Themes .................................................................. 42

Research Question Number One .................................................. 45
Dyadic Trust Patterns for Merging Resources in Young Couples... 45

Relationship Formation ........................................... 45

Differences with Couples-in-therapy ........................... 49

Trust as Judgment and the Ability to Share & CommunicateSl

Engaged Couples ......................................... 51

Couples—in-therapy ...................................... 54

Summary ........................................................... 56

Research Question Number Two .................................................. 57

Ecosystemic Family of Origin Pattern Inﬂuences ..................... 57

Parental Attitudes & Behavior (Single Parent Homes) ............... 59

Research Question Number Three ................................................ 60

The Ecosystemic Influence of Outside Contextual Factors .......... 60

The Influence of Family .......................................... 61

The Inﬂuence of Work ............................................ 64

The Influence of Friends ......................................... 65

Summary ............................................................ 66

Research Question Number Four .................................................. 67

Different Views on Handling Finances (Males versus Females)..... 67

Summary ..................................................................... 70

Measures for Triangulation & Trustworthiness .................................. 7O

Dyadic Trust Scale ......................................................... 7O

Engaged Couples .................................................. 70

Couples-in-therapy ................................................ 71

Experiences in Close Relationships Scale ............................... 72

Engaged Couples Attachment Scores ........................... 72

Couples-in-therapy Attachment Scores ......................... 74

Differences .......................................................... 75

The Relationship of the Qualitative Scores to the Qualitative Findings ...... 76

Engaged Couples ............................................................ 76

Couples-in-therapy ......................................................... 78

Summary ..................................................................... 80
CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 82

Overview .............................................................................. 82

Theoretical Discussion .............................................................. 83

Conceptual Discussion ............................................................. 86

Trust, Finances, Relational Issues & Equity ..................................... 86

Money Management, Trust & Equity... ........................................................ 89

Conceptual Research on Adult Attachment and Trust .......................... 90

Clinical Implications ............................................................... 91

Conclusions .......................................................................... 92

Further Research .................................................................... 94

Limitations ........................................................................... 95

APPENDICES ............................................................................ 99

APPENDIX A: Semi-Structured Interview Guide .............................. 100
APPENDIX B: Consent Form for Participation in the Research Project. 101
APPENDIX C: Demographic Information & Contact Summary Sheet ...... 104
APPENDIX D: Dyadic Trust Scale ............................................... 105
APPENDIX E: Experiences in Close Relationships Scale ..................... 106
APPENDIX F: Michigan State University Research Study (Flyer) .......... 107
APPENDIX G: Summary Sheet ................................................... 108
REFERENCES ........................................................................... 109

vi

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

LIST OF TABLES

Demographic Data of Engaged Couples ....................................... 40
Demographic Data of Couples-in-therapy ..................................... 42
Emerging Themes and Core Domains .......................................... 43
Engaged Couples’ Dyadic Trust Scores ........................................ 71
Couples-in-therapy Dyadic Trust Scores ....................................... 72
Engaged Couples’ Attachment Scores ......................................... 73
Couples-in-therapy Attachment Scores ........................................ 74

vii

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2

LIST OF FIGURES
Theoretical Model ............................................................. 5
Conceptual Mapping .......................................................... 6
The emerging and parallel themes of couple trust patterns in early
relational and resource sharing formations. ................................. 45
Unique theme responses related to couples-in-therapy in trust,
communication and the developing relational and resource

sharing patterns. ................................................................ 49

viii

INTRODUCTION

Conflict over finances is a major cause of relational discord. (See review in Poduska,
1995.) Family therapists must be equipped to recognize, understand, and deal effectively
with financial conflict. However, although family science focuses attention on many
inﬂuential factors involved in family financial decision making, there is not an integrative
model that includes the emotional issues involved in relationships. I propose to begin a
program of research which ultimately results in a more comprehensive understanding of
family ﬁnancial planning and decision making throughout families’ life courses.

My initial exploratory study is driven by my expectation that there is a parallel course
between early relationship development, in terms of trust, emotional reactivity,
attachment, and financial resource sharing behaviors. My exploration of that
hypothesized phenomenon is informed by ecosystemic theory. Ecosystemic theory
hypothesizes that trust, emotional reactivity, and attachment are reﬂective of proximal
significant social relationships in which an individual is and has been embedded.
However, although financial decision making in couples can be expected to be inﬂuenced
by these relationship factors, it also is thought to be multi-level, multi-variable, and
contextually historical.

Family ecosystems, including their beliefs, values, life stages, and structures, engage
in communication and decision making to transform matter and energy (Bubolz &
Sontag, 1993). This process is inﬂuenced by and has outcomes at micro and macro
environmental levels. Couples and their environments can be expected to mutually shape
each other (Bronfenbrenner 1994). The partners are expected to be inﬂuenced by their

developmental trajectories through significant social relatedness (e.g., Bowen, 1966;

Bowlby, 1988), on the one hand, and economic realities interpreted through culturally
prescribed gender roles and other belief and value systems including those of the family
of origin, on the other.

Due to the likelihood of multiple interactions, the questions of how to
conceptualize, organize, and investigate these inﬂuences requires some thought.
Ecosystemic theory focuses on “humans as both biological organisms and social beings
in interaction with their environment” (Buboltz & S0ntag,1993, pg. 419). Bronfenbrenner
( 1994) theorized four “levels” of embedded environmental systems incorporating the
contextual developmental aspects of each. Reﬂecting later on the merit of his model to
social science research, Bronfenbrenner (1992) criticized studies that focused solely on
the inﬂuence of settings (“social address models”) or the attributes of people (“person
attributes models”). Because people and their immediate environments mutually
accommodate to each other, there is a need, he said, not only to determine the specific
characteristics of the person and the environment that are to be regarded as the products
and producers of development, but also to specify the processes through which specific

changes occur. He terms this the “Person-Process-Context Model” (pg. 197).

CHAPTER ONE
Purpose of the Study

I propose to begin my exploration of the inﬂuence of the person-process-context
involved in family financial decision making by looking at the cusp between the first and
second stages of the family life cycle (Carter & McGoldrick, 1988). The birth of a new
family occurs as individuals become relatively emancipated from their families of origin
and begin to invest in each other with an eye to long-term committed relationships. By
looking at newly engaged couples we can see the early stages of new family development
and the emotional processes attendant upon that. As individuals become couples we are
given a unique opportunity to see how emotional variables relate to the sharing of
financial resources and the making of financial decisions.

This study will ask discerning questions concerning the concept of trust as a parallel
process to the personal sharing of financial resources and financial decision making.
Other questions will look into the inﬂuence of the larger systems in which the individuals
have been and are embedded. The latter are expected to reﬂect the sweeping changes in
US families over time (Davis, Smith & Marsden, 2001), for example, the number of
women employed outside the home. My research questions are as follows:

1. Is there a relationship between expressed attitudes of trust in early relational

development and mutual decision making and sharing of resources?

2. How do family of origin patterns inﬂuence attitudes of trust and the mutual

sharing of resources?

3. How do contextual ecosystemic inﬂuences affect the values and expectations of

current relational issues such as trust and mutual decision making?

4. Are there differences, if any, between the way males and females view the
relationship between financial trust, early relationship patterns and the financial
sharing of resources?

Outcomes from this research will include the clarification of the directional
relationships between attitudes of trust in couples, financial decisions and the affective
and cognitive dimensions related to attachment issues and overt behaviors. These results
in turn will set the stage for a new body of research work revolving around personal
resource management related to clinical theory to be utilized throughout the family life
cycle.

The responses of newly engaged individuals to these questions were transcribed
for qualitative analysis. The method utilized was an inductive comparative case analysis.
Trustworthiness was enhanced by triangulation. Interpretations of what these individuals
had to say about themselves were cross-referenced with scores on self report measures of

dyadic trust and adult attachment style.

 

Theoretical Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ecology Theory Attachment Theory Family of Origin
Contextual Developing Trust Theory
Developmental Underlying Securities
Societal Expectations Bolby Bowen
Bronfenbrenner Erickson Knudsen-Martin
Sontag & Buboltz Ainsworth (feminist
(Equity & Values) Bretherton & Waters perspective)
(Adult Attachment)
Johnson (Emotion Focused
Thergpy) T

 

 

 

Financial Resource Management Decisions ( Deacon & F irebawzh)

 

 

Figure 1.1 Theoretical Models

Figure 1.1 represents the three major theory areas related to financial resource
management in couples. The first is ecology theory, where the family ecosytemic
structure, which includes values for equity and fairness, transforms matter, energy and
information through management and decision making to produce outcomes. The second
theory area is related to the basic attachment theories, which deal with the internal
mechanisms of trust built from early infancy to the present adult attachment relationship.
The third area reﬂects a broader perspective that decision making will be inﬂuenced by
family of origin experiences in general. All of these lead to the ﬁnal decision making
function within the couple’s relationship. The theory of Deacon and Firebaugh (1988)
speciﬁcally addresses ecosystemic processes in family systems related to resource

management in couples and families.

 

Conceptual Mapping

 

 

 

 

understandings
about the values and
expectations shape
how the couple view
the appropriate way
to handle resources

 

 

 

 

will change the
communication,
commitment and
negotiated sharing
of mutual resources

 

 

 

 

\.

 

 

inﬂuence how
ﬁnances are
handled through a
transmission
process i.e. joint
traditional, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Context Trust F amilv of Origin Equity

t v v v
Contextual and Trust as an The family of The feminist
social underlying issue origin will perspective

deals with
changesin
society and
the inﬂuence
of equity in
decisions

 

/

 

 

The contextual , trust , family of origin and overall equity patterns will produce mutual
interacting inﬂuences on the negotiation of ﬁnancial resource decisions.

 

 

Figure 1.2 Conceptual Mapping

Figure 1.2 represents the conceptualization of research in the area of financial

resource decision making. Research points to four primary areas. The first involves a

contextual understanding of modern society and the larger forces inﬂuencing the couple.

Second are the underlying trust issues, present from earlier childhood experiences or

from the present state of trust in the adult relationship. The third, family of origin

experience, relates to the second but is broader in its context and includes decision

making, role norms and expectations from the family system. The last area, equity

research, has produced studies which combine societal expectations with basic fairness

issues in general. Outcomes often result in differing perspectives based on gender.

 

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW: THEORY
Integrating Trust from an Ecosystemic Perspective
The integrative model that shaped my inquiry and interpretation of the findings
included human ecology theory, attachment theory, and intergenerational family systems
theory. These are graphically presented in Figure 1.1.

An understanding of the concept of trust is the basis of this study. Ecosystemic and
human ecology theories such as Buboltz & Sontag (1993) and Bronfenbrenner (1994)
would examine trust within the levels of the dyad, and the family system. In addition,
these theorists would examine the macro-historical, demographic view, such as the
increase in single parent homes and the numerous women now employed full time in the
work force. These ecosystemic changes would be considered important contextual factors
inﬂuencing the dyad or the family and changing societal supports for dual career
parenting and signiﬁcant other relationships. Buboltz & Sontag (1993) emphasize the fact
that clearly viewing problems within the larger cultural context enables individuals and
families to create solutions not otherwise identifiable within the immediate definition of
the problem. Creative solutions within this larger framework can cause repercussions in
the greater societal pattern system. This is emphasized in the relational context of the
dyad, in which changes in one member produce reciprocal changes in the other partner.
In the dimension of trust specifically, Buboltz & Sontag (1993) assert that trust and
mutual decisions in such areas as ﬁnances are based on the basic family ecosystem,
including the values and life stage. This structure transforms matter and energy through

such processes as decision making and communication to reach outcomes at the micro

and macro environmental levels. Bronfenbrenner (1994) views this larger environment as
central to the understanding of the couple’s relationship with meso-sytemic inﬂuences
defining family roles and exo-systemic inﬂuences exerted in such areas as the religious,
community or family of origin roles. Thus, the areas of trust and relationship decision
making are seen as embedded within larger contextual domains including long term
historical and time dimensions. Deacon & Firebaugh (1988) utilized the framework of
general system theory with a specific addition of family management principles. In this
systemic theory, values are critical areas which guide decision and actions in
relationships. In addition, Deacon & Firebaugh (1988), relate to the present project in that
decision-making is seen to have both a subjective and objective evaluation, which takes
the form of an affective and a cognitive component within the values and goals of the
couple. Conﬂict in decision making in the family is viewed as related to discrepant
inﬂuences from within the family system and externally through the larger macro-
environments of the socio-cultural, political, economic and technological. In terms of
young couples with dual earner status, they contend the degree of the wife’s satisfaction
with the husband’s contribution to house work is more important than the actual division
of labor. Time shortages, income adequacy and employment tensions are considered to be
three of the major role strains by these couples.

Some theorists have studied specifically the early attachment and bonding periods of
the dyad and family of origin for an understanding of the development of trust in
relational functioning. Erickson (1968) was one of the earliest to conceptualize the first
stage of the maturing infant as that of trust and central to all developmental stages from

birth through later life. Other theorists include Bolby (1988), Ainsworth (1989),

Bretherton & Waters (1985) and Johnson (1996). These theories predict later life
attachment and bonding patterns as reﬂective of early childhood patterns. Theorists who
have studied the relationship between childhood trust patterns and adult attachment have
concluded there are categories of functioning such as security, avoidance or anxiousness
and these categorical styles relate to internal working models of the self and others and
contribute to interpersonal problem solving, communication and efficacy (Lopez,1995).
Lopez (1995) further concludes that affective bonds are interdependent across the
lifespan development and as such able to be reconstructed through cognitive and systemic
processes, even though powerfully inﬂuenced by early life experiences.

Johnson (1996) presented a clinical theory (Emotionally Focused Therapy) which
emphasized opening or resolving relational trust issues in couples through the sharing of
expressed emotion related to insecurities. This emphasis on the sharing of open feelings
in the relationship relates directly to my belief that positive emotions associated with the
relationship will be interpreted as trust and be associated with more discussions with
regard to ﬁnance and resource management and with more merged financial
arrangements. Early representations of these initial patterns are involved in these trust
issues and resolvable from this perspective.

Mistrust or clinical conﬂict patterns of couples have also been examined from the
perspective of Bowen (1978) and Knudsen-Martin’s (1994) Family of Origin theories.
These theories state that couples should resolve their conﬂict about any subject by relying
more on their own intrinsic recovery methods and less on blaming the other person.
Conﬂict is viewed as reﬂective of the couple being too enmeshed to each other or to their

family of origin and unable to express clearly their needs or listen to the needs of the

other. The earliest theorist attributable to this area was Bowen (1978). Modern
adaptations of this theory include Knudsen-Martin (1994), with an emphasis on the
feminine expressive element. These theories emphasize the clinical understanding that
negatively expressed power and control issues may relate to decreased trust, less
communication and poor mutual understanding.

In the solution focused theories, such as De Shazer (1988), Weiner-Davis (1992), and
Walter and Peller (1992), basic relational trust is built by focusing on the present and

building on times when connection and communication are mutually satisfying.

Conceptual Framework and Research Related to Trust, Finances and Relational Issues

Empirical clinical research concludes finances are interwoven in couples within
the context of positive emotional decision making relating to all areas of the relationship.
Financial management and resource decision making is supportive of an overall
relationship quality.

Haddock, Zimmerman, Ziemba and Current (2001), conducted a grounded-theory
study on 47 successful families with children. Their results indicated these families
structured their lives around ten major strategies including striving for partnership, taking
pride in dual earning, prioritizing family, and making mutual decisions proactively.
Inherent in many of these priorities is the ability to communicate and trust each other in
these decisions. The authors reﬂect that equality or shared power is implicit in these
relationships.

Schaninger and Buss (1986) found happily married couples showed greater inﬂuence

of the wife and less husband dominance in family resource handling with greater joint

10

and wife inﬂuence in decision making. Happily married couples spent more for
household appliances, home purchases and recreational vehicles. Divorced couples spent
more on stereos, TV’s, and living room furniture.

Equity research reinforces the fact that younger couples are more likely to have
aspirations and expectations for dual career marriages and for mutual problem solving.
The research relates this to the mutual sharing level in the relationship with a view that
includes the contextual changes in the larger societal roles for families. The particular
qualitative area of this study relates closely to equity research with questions such as
“How are financial decisions made? “, “Do you have an equal say?” and “How does this
relate to the emotional quality of your relationship?”(See Appendix A).

Sprecher (1992) examined the response to inequity in close relationships based on
gender. She found that women were more likely than men to become distressed at
inequity and try to restore balance. The authors suggested these results were the product
of the traditional male/female societal role situation.

Larson, Hammond and Harper (1998) found that maintaining equity or fairness is a
constant challenge for couples. When inequity occurs, the non benefited partner tries to
balance the ledger by self-disclosing and reassuring their partners less. The authors label
this behavior as dysfunctional. Functional ways involve creating respect, trust, and
reliability in partners. Inequity was associated with lower levels of overall intimacy,
compatibility, identity and expressiveness among wives. Among husbands, inequity was
not associated with type of intimacy.

Davidson, Balswick, and Halverson (1983) found discrepancy in self-disclosure was

related to feelings of inequity in relationships and marital adjustment. Similarities in self-

11

disclosure, either high or low, was predictive of better adjustment. Rogers (1999) found
that increases in wives’ income did not significantly relate to inequity nor significantly
affect either husbands’ or wives’ perceptions of marital discord.

Julia Brannen and Gail Wilson (1987) describe the overall quandary of modern
working families. They explored financial power in the family as something women
tended to ignore or to see as an inequity, which meant they needed to down play their
contributions. Their research supported financial patterns, which were less diverse for
lower and upper financial families

Pahl (1988) found that equality in couples was associated with being in their thirties,
having a house in joint names and with both partners having gone on to some form of
post-high school educational training. Steil (1997) reports that in the 1980’s surveys
showed that 50% of Americans believed working mothers were bad for children. In this
same study 70% of women and 85% of men felt maternal employment was partly
responsible for the breakdown of the family. By 1990 a random survey of Americans
revealed 57% felt the ideal marriage was one in which both the husband and wife had
jobs and shared in the lives of their children and the home and indeed, statistical data
from 1998 conﬁrmed 51% of American families were reporting a dual income status
(Lewin, 2000).

Brannen and Wilson (1987) found that, among middle and high income levels,
equality in ﬁnancial decision making was equated with work force participation by
women. Steil (1997) reports that older, less well educated, married males with
homemaker wives were less egalitarian in their views than younger, highly educated,

high-status men with wives employed full—time. She also reports that equal relationships

12

appeared often as more stressful, since the couple must negotiate and compromise more
frequently. Hiller and Philliber (1982) found that when one or both spouses have
traditional gender identities, pressure for change would result when the wife’s
occupational achievements exceeded those of the husband. When both have androgynous
gender-identities, the partners were more likely to be comfortable with this condition.
Research Related to Money Management and Trust

Empirical research related to money management in couples points to the
conceptual relationship between trust and positive emotional responsiveness. Couples
moving forward in a relationship with mutual cooperation tend to pool their resources
and discuss changes in the relationship and in their financial priorities and goals. Those
couples living together with less of a sense of security or commitment were viewed as
holding onto their assets and their independent priorities with less of an attitude of trust in
the relationship.

Vogler and Pahl (1994) in a research study conducted in Great Britain on money,
power and equality within marriage found that even when couples pool their money,
either the husband or wife is likely to control the total funds. Only one fifth of the couples
exhibited jointly controlled financial pools. These households were characterized by the
highest levels of equality between the husband and the wife in terms of decision—making
and access to personal spending money. Gender inequality was found to be least in
households with joint control of pooled money and greatest in low-income households
and in higher income households with male control of ﬁnance. Glezer and Mills (1991) in
an Australian family project found 75% of couple’s shared ﬁnancial control, regardless of

whether both partners were employed. When both partners were cohabitating they were

13

significantly more likely to keep their incomes totally separate than those who were
married. In these cases there was some degree (50%) of income sharing. It was found that
those partners living together, of whom 70% reported they expected to marry their
partner, appeared more individualistic and less couple-oriented. Giesen and Kalmijn
(1997) reported 61% of married couples owned bank accounts jointly. However, only
11% of cohabitating couple choose to do so. They concluded the degree to which couples
share formal ownership of money has to do with the amount of trust they have in the
other individual’s behavior.

Morris (1993) found that female financial inﬂuence was at its lowest when men
were the sole wage earners and at its highest when female employment supported joint
management. Morris (1993) found that couples often have conﬂicting interests in regard
to household financial resource management and that their behavior is related directly to
their experiences in the labor market. As such household ﬁnancial decision making is
reﬂective of the divergent values of all of the individuals involved and resource control
generally reﬂects the power ratio in the relationship. Davis, Smith & Marsden (2001)
found 78% of households reported the male as earning the majority of the income, 12%
reported the wife’s earnings as greater and 10% reported equal earnings.

Blau and Kahn (1997) reported that research from 1977 until 1988 saw a substantial
decline in the gap between women’s labor market discrimination and participation with
increases in educational levels and reduced pay gaps. These changes were most evident at
low and middle-skill levels, while men still dominated at high-skill levels. Ferber (1982)
found that the increased participation of females in the labor market have produced a

changing attitude in males. Males have become more positive toward females in the labor

l4

market as they experienced working wives. Males whose wives had not participated in
the labor market still had a negative attitude toward this.
Research Related to Adult Attachment and Trust

Adult attachment research has focused on the possible relationship between early
trust in childhood and adult patterns (Lopez, 1995). Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)
hypothesized four attachment styles in adulthood including secure, preoccupied,
dismissing and fearful. Hazan and Shaver (1987) proposed adult attachment styles as
either secure, anxious or avoidant.

Feeney and Noller (1990) reported securely attached subjects had positive perceptions
of their early family relationships. Avoidant subjects reported childhood separations and
expressed a mistrust of others. Anxious-ambivalent subjects reported less father support.
They also concluded attachment style was related to self esteem.

Kobak and Hazam (1991) found positive effects in marital couples with secure
workings models from childhood. These secure attachments related to better problem
solving, communication and attachment security in the adult relationship.

In a study of attachment styles in young adults, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)
reported two underlying dimensions including a working model for the self ( positive or
negative) and a model for the other (positive or negative). In the negative model the
subjects presented as preoccupied and fearful or dismissing with difﬁculty trusting others.
This grouped lack social security and assertiveness. Family of origin and peer patterns
were included in this study and a four fold model of self and other emerged including the

categories of secure, preoccupied, dismissing and fearful.

15

Summary

This dissertation project begins with the assumption that financial and family
management practices start with the establishment of trust within the couple. This trust is
embedded contextually within the ecosysterrric factors affecting the couple across time,
beginning in the early family of origin attachment relationships. Young couples at the
beginning stage of the relationship seem to struggle the most with setting up guidelines
they feel are fair and equitable. Marital finances are not only between the couple but
involve larger socio economic inﬂuences as the couple decided to marry or divorce. Once
the couple develops goals for more permanence they begin to assume debt and credit
based on joint responsibility. A legal partnership has begun. It is the supposition of this
dissertation that couples go through bonding experiences in finances in a parallel manner
to the way they establish a primary relational bond and with much of the same biases they
carry from past parental or long term relational attachment areas. This study will seek to
explore this relationship and examine the themes and patterns which are revealed by
individuals in their first stages of the relationship process and compare the contrasting

patterns and themes between a clinical and non-clinical population.

16

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Qualitative Methodology

The overall research question, namely, the interplay of ecosystemic, attachment,
and transgenerational family systems theories, will beneﬁt greatly from the use of
qualitative methodology. Basic questions of practicalities on couple management style
does not go to the heart of the matter in terms of how an individual alters the process of
financial decision making based on attitudes such as trust, feeling states, cognitions such
as fears, or the resulting actions. Most of the studies in this area were done within the
logical positivist assumption that concrete quantiﬁable answers could be found specific to
these areas. The key to understanding qualitative methodology is in the limitation of the
logical positivist approach. Researchers in this area view the need for a full appreciation
of the richness and depth of the research question. Comparative case analysis was the
inductive technique utilized to explore how people create and deﬁne reality. This is one
of the most used methodologies in the MFI qualitative research area (Gehart, Ratlife and
Lyle 2001).

The present study followed Gehart’s and his associates’ sampling procedures for
MFI‘ case analyses. The sample was purposive and criterion-based, that is, sites were
preselected as they related to engaged or problem be-set couples with age restraints (not
over 30) and no children. In these types of samples size is tentatively predetermined, but
remains ﬂexible to the changing course of the study. Saturation or ﬁnding the same
repeated theme in the responses is the ultimate criteria of a sufficient sample. Semi-

structured, open ended research questions with audio recordings and transcriptions were

17

made. However, the case study approach is characterized by multiple sources of
information designed to provide a thick understanding of the individual cases not always
available with many forms of qualitative inquiry. Richness of the individual case was
enhanced by several self reports: information about the respondent’s life, his or her
previous relationships, and the course of the relationship being observed; the Dyadic
Trust Scale (Larzelere and Huston, 1980); and Experiences in Close Relationships Scale
(Brennan et al., 1998), an assessment of adult attachment style.

Processing for coding, patterns and themes are essential to this type of research.
Thus, reviewing and transcribing the material after each interview was essential to
monitoring the developing pattern responses of each couple as the research progressed
(Gehart et al., 2001). Having several methods of data analysis, along with a reﬂective
journal assisted with validation. Triangulation was further conducted through the use of
an independent coder of the research results and the use of a computer program (Atlas-ti)
to assist with data analysis. This computer program was used in conjunction with the
researcher pattern analysis as the interviews progressed. The Statistical Program for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) was utilized to process the couples’ responses on the two scales.

Three additional forms of triangulation were used. The Dyadic Trust Scale and
the Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory were given during phase one. The
individuals were then given typed material in phase two for validation of the transcription
and a summary of the themes coded by the primary researcher. This researcher also
presented her personal biases before beginning the study and a section is included with

this information.

18

The areas of the first two stages of the development of a relationship were
explored for attitudes such as trust and the accompanying emotional states and actions
which relate to financial resource decision making in couples. A clinical and non-clinical
sample was utilized for comparison of themes.

Contrasts with Positivism

The three main approaches to qualitative research are found in the traditions of
phenomenology, grounded theory and ethnography. These approaches are based on the
idea that positive approaches limit the researcher’s ability to accurately understand the
phenomenon being studied. Thus, reality may be based upon perceptions that can change
over time or within a specific context. Clues to the true contextual reality may lie in the
observation of the gestalt, an understanding of the moment in time, or the context of the
situation. Qualitative research allows a gestalt picture of the situation, less limited than
the assumptions and expectations of a presupposed theory. This is a very different
approach to the historical logical-positivist approach seen in the majority of research
occurring in the quantitative domain. This particular study utilizes techniques similar to
the case study approach described by Edwards (1998). Some of the assumptions of case
based study include the bias that factor analysis bears only a limited relationship to real
psychological and interpersonal processes, that encountering participants in a respectful
manner invites collaboration and a better elaboration of the material being studied, that
data is always contextual and better understood in a meaningful manner and that this type
of research will result in better theory construction. Again, validity and reliability
(trustworthiness) in these types of research can be improved through the use of tape

recordings, independent judges, reviewing transcripts and theory development as it

19

progresses. All of these techniques proved critical to the interpretation of the interview
material in this study. Rafuls and Moon (1996) suggested a variety of data sources and
analysis is also helpful in triangulating the research data for trustworthiness. This was
seen in the addition of statistical quantification on two scales for trust and emotional
closeness as well as the ongoing joumaling. Janesick (1999) describes the usefulness of
journal writing as helping to reﬂect the researcher’s thoughts as the study progresses, and
being able to explore personal responses and feelings during the study process.
Theoretical Definitions

The purpose of this section is to identity the primary concepts, examine their
historical and cultural roots and terminologies and identify how this relates to the use
within this realm of study. As such, I identiﬁed couples, marriage, trust, adult attachment,
male/female societal roles, relational couples and dual earner status as key elements
which are repeatedly utilized and referred to in processing this material. With these terms
there are elements of primitive terminology, derived definitions, societal understandings
and implications, such as roles, and finally the conceptual and operational deﬁnitions to
be utilized.

Primitive terminology has to do with couples. The derived terminology by Webster’s
College Dictionary (1991) defines a couple as a grouping of two persons, as a married or
engaged pair, lovers, or dance partners. Inherent in this deﬁnition are societal
expectations for areas of emotion and attachment issues.

The primitive terminology of marriage has to do with legal vows taken by two
individuals, one male and one female, with open societal witnesses to the ceremony. The

derived definition by Webster’s College Dictionary (1991) states the social institution

20

under which a man and woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious
commitments.

The concept of marriage is not variable. An individual reports a legally sanctioned
union. However the concept of relational couple is variable. This is defined as a mutual
attitude of togetherness which can vary from close emotional attachment to two
individuals in agreement they are a couple but not emotionally close. In this research
there will be a self report by the individual that they are in fact in a relationship with an
opposite sex individual and either cohabitating or living independently. The couple will
also self-report they are sharing financial resources in a substantial manner related to the
overall relationship and describe this as related to a commitment to the relationship.

Conceptual Definition of Terms
Attitude of Trust: This is viewed within the realm of social psychology with an internal
affective orientation that would explain the actions of a person. The components of an
attitude are cognitions (consciously held beliefs or opinions), affection (emotion tone or
feelings), evaluations (positive or negative) and the disposition for action (Reber, 1985).
Attitudes of trust are viewed within the context of the cultural, familial, and personal
dimensions and evolve with experience and time (Chaplin, 1985).
Dyadic Trust: This is conceptualized as one or more of the following: as feeling the
partner values the relationship to the extent they are interested in their partner’s welfare,
can be trusted, appears truthful, honest and sincere, shows consideration, treats their

partner fairly and justly and can be counted on in times of need.

21

Adult Attachment: This term relates to the basic attachment styles formed in early
childhood and relating to areas of secure, anxious and avoidant styles in adult
interpersonal functioning.
Couple: Two individuals, male and female, who define themselves as involved in an
ongoing relationship. This does not have to meet a legal definition of marriage. The
individual should be in a present relationship. For purpose of inclusion in this sample,
they would be registered to be married as customers of local bridal salons, tuxedo shops
or involved in a clinical setting. In these instances they would report being in a
committed relationship. Causal dating would not be inclusive to this terminology,
Marital/Couple Roles: There is a societal expectation for male headed households in
couple’s relationships with the female viewed as fulﬁlling a supportive, caretaking role in
the relationship. This societal expectation tends to increase with the addition of children.
Working Couple: Two individuals, male and female, who work outside of the home, have
income and possibly a sense of ownership of such.

Operational Definitions
Trust in the relationship: This variable will be self defined, reported as part of the
qualitative interview and measured on the responses of the Dyadic Trust Scale.
This scale is 8 items which ask true or false questions related to the subject being able to
trust their partners. Although other scales have been developed to measure trust in
general this scale had the highest relationship to trust in the dyad of the partners
specifically. It is short, easily measurable and has high face validity. For example, one of

the statements is “There are times when my partner cannot be trusted.” (See Appendix D)

22

Adult Attachment: This will be defined as the 36 item scale, Experiences in Close
Relationships (ECL) developed by Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) which measures
this variable. It is set on a likert scale from one through seven. Half of the questions are
set to explore feelings of anxiousness in close relationships with the other half the trait of
avoidance. Individual scores low on either of these questions would then be considered
secure in their attachment relationships. A score low on avoidance would be reﬂective of
the statement, “I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.” An example of a
score on anxious would be the statement, “I worry about being abandoned.” (See
Appendix E)
Dual Earner Couple: A self report by the individual they are presently involved in a
relationship where they are both working and have a possible sense of ownership from
the income they earn.
Relational Couple: A self report by the individual they feel they are presently involved
in deﬁning a relationship or boundaries within a relationship.
Assumptions

Assumptions are important to frame the implicit and explicit views surrounding the
questions relevant to the qualitative inquiry (Rafuls and Moon, 1996). Although the
researcher attempts to approach the data from an unknown stance, there are questions,
concepts or general ideals which lead to the basis of the understanding of the study.
According to Marshall and Rossman (1995) the present theoretical frame must include
past knowledge in the area along with clear assumptions about the basis of this
knowledge and how it relates to the background and practice of the researcher. In the

present study it was important to illuminate the assumptions surrounding the knowledge

23

in the field, critical methodologies and the implicit values of the participants and the
researcher in the collecting, coding and processing of the material.

My assumptions about research with couples and ﬁnancial management issues:
Domain Assumptions:

Assumption #1.

One of the main assumptions being made in this study is there are changing financial
opportunities which are improving better pay and job enhancement for a significant
number of young American women.

The Family Economic and Nutrition Review, (1999) cites data revealing between 1970
and 1993, dual earner couples rose from 39% to 61% of all married couples. Women’s
participation increased from 36% in 1966 to 61% in 1994. During this same period, the
participation rate for married women with children less than 3 years of age rose from
21% to 60%. Davis, Smith and Marsden (2001) reported that 78% of families still
reported the husband’s income as the highest with 12% reporting the female as greater
and 10% equal incomes.

Assumption #2.

As the American society changes and broadens economic opportunities for women,
society as a whole will begin to change role expectations for this population.

Blau and Kahn (1997) report from 1977 to 1988 there was a substantial decline in the gap
between women’s labor market discrimination and participation with increases in

educational levels and reduced pay gaps.

24

Assumption #3.

This assumption follows from assumption #2 and states that with changes in the societal
role for females in terms of job expectations and careers, this will impact and produce
reportable changes in the male/female patterned role and the context of decision making
within the relationship.

Methodological Assumptions:

Assumption #4.

Taking a snap shot view of present day relational couples in this qualitative sample
population will lend an updated exploration to the rapidly changing social and cultural
role changes of the larger society.

Rafuls & Moon (1996) describe purposeful or theoretical sampling as criterion based to a
specific population such that attributes being studied will have a rich and relevant
relationship to that population.

Assumption #5.

The couples will report honestly their personal situation as it relates to their work, home
and relational issues.

As a review of the research literature suggests, financial allocation and decision making
in couples may be skewed by societal expectations for how these situations should be
handled and not actually how the family handles them. Women were reported to show
bias reporting in favor of decision making by their husband or significant other (Stamp
1985).

Implicit Value:

Assumption # 6.

25

If a couple is engaged in a married, cohabitating or reported relationship, it is because of
an emotional bond.
This is a culture stereotype represented by Western individualism. Many marriages
within the US and from other cultures are arraigned to assist with economic or culture
value systems (Wiseman 1995). In addition, the individual may choose to marry within a
social exchange value system, which may not include emotional connectedness.
Research Questions

According to Miles and Huberman (1994) there is a direct step from the
conceptual framework to the research questions. The purpose of the questions is to begin
to operationally define the conceptual framework. Rafuls and Moon (1996) reﬂect that
research questions should indeed guide the methodology. In this study research questions
are open-ended, ﬂexible and broad enough to allow for more refined analysis as the
research proceeds. Since the relationships are usually exploratory in nature, the questions
will be conceptually open-ended and process oriented. As such, the questions which
begin to evolve in this study include the following:
1. Is there a relationship between expressed attitudes of trust in early relational
development and the mutual decision making and sharing of resources?

This question is covered by several interview questions such as “When you trust each
other, what does that look like? How does this relate to the handling of money? Do you
make plans together and how does this relate to the sharing of ﬁnancial decisions?” One
question “Do you have an equal say in money decisions?” is potentially reﬂective of trust
and equity research. This question is also covered in one of the two joint interview

questions and includes attachment patterns developed from childhood.

2. How do present or early family of origin patterns inﬂuence attitudes of trust and the
mutual sharing of resources?

This question is asked in the area of how financial decision making is the same or
different from their parents. It is also possible one of the joint interview questions will
lend responses in this area.

3. How do contextual ecosystemic inﬂuences affect the values and expectations of
current relational issues such as trust and mutual decision making?

Questions #3 is not dealt with directly but the inﬂuence of ecosystemic factors in
defining trust and in trust’s inﬂuence on ﬁnancial decision making is expected to emerge
from the answers given to related questions with process answers reﬂecting the
expectations of society, family, work, friends, etc. It may also be reﬂective of the answer
to one of the joint interview questions.

4. Are there differences, if any, between the way males and females view the
relationship between financial trust and early relationship patterns?
This question is handled directly by asking if subjects feel males and females
handle their money differently.
Sampling

According to Miles and Huberman (1994), key features of qualitative sampling
should include a purposive sample with specific boundaries. In this study the sample was
purposive and criterion based with boundaries related to theory. Rafuls and Moon (1996),
relate sampling to the primary theory, assumptions and research questions, with an
emphasis on unique case selection. I selected the parameters for the present study based

on the following:

27

1) The inclusion of a young sample would result in a specific target of
individuals affected ecosystemically with rapid changes in roles, values for
participation in the work force and possible changes in couple assumption
patterns. Adding the criterion of no children from the present or previous
relationships reduces the complications of childrearing.

2) Having the individual interviews ﬁrst and then the conjoint interview will
assist with the increased personal sharing on the subject and allow for an
examination of relational changes as the interview proceeds to a conjoint
status.

3) Targeting ten engaged couples from a non-clinical committed relationship
and five couples from a clinical committed relationship will produce analysis
comparisons between trust and highlight the effects of discord on the sharing
of resources and decision making.

4) Including a self-report of significant sharing of resources will further test
the parameters of the interview questions in the study.

Sampling size was five clinical and ten engaged couples represented and related to
meeting saturation of the criterion questions (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). Speciﬁc
inclusion of the present sample represented:

0 Heterosexual individuals reporting they are presently participating in
a relationship with a significant other and under the age of 30 years.
There were no children within the relationship or from previous

relationships.

28

0 Male/ female respondents from the same significant relationship were
included with both individual and conjoint interviews. Each couple
received a total of three interviews.

0 Respondents were selected from local bridal salons or tuxedo shops
as they appeared for services and reported they were engaged to be
manied. The clinical half was referred by their therapist and selected
from ongoing clinical cases. They reported they were in a committed
relationship.

0 All couples self reported they had significantly blended their
resources in some manner at this point in their relationship.

Site

According to Marshall and Rossman (1995) one can not study intensively and in-
depth all instances, events or persons of the area in question. The choosing of a site
shapes the understanding of the results of the study. A second important element in the
qualitative site selection is the willingness of a gate keeper(s) to assist with the process.
At the bridal and tuxedo shops a personal interview was arranged with the owners to
explain the study and make sure they were willing to assist with the process. In the
clinical site the supervisor assisted the researcher by allowing a brief in-service and
written information concerning the requirements for appropriate participation in the study
to be disseminated to the staff.

As previously noted sample sites were inclusive of bridal registry shops and
tuxedo stores and represented the non—clinical, engaged case composition. Sites screened

for criterion based clinical clients included the MSU child and family clinic and clinics

29

affiliated with this researcher’s clinical case work. These locations are inclusive of a
Midwestern sample selection.
Data Collection

This study relies on in-depth interviewing as the primary method of data collection. A
standardized open-ended approach was used and listed as one of the main strategies in
this area (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). One of the most important aspects of this
approach is the attitude and acceptance of the interviewer, i.e. that the participant’s
information is valuable and useful as well as the ability to generalize and compare
responses across participants. Having multiple data sources is considered helpful to the
processing and understanding of the material (Gehart et al., 2000) and could be seen in
the use of the Dyadic Trust Scale (Larzelere and Huston, 1980) and the Experiences in
Close Relationships Scale (Brennan et a1, 1998).

Research participants were obtained from local bridal salons, tuxedo shops and from
clinical settings. The owners of the salons gave out ﬂyers about the project (Appendix F)
to recent customers. They then called the researcher and were screened for voluntary
participation and criterion factors. The researcher was also given names of possible
participants from the salon owner. These couples were called for possible inclusion and
interest in the study. The researcher was available to stop by the salons and answer
questions about the study for the owners or any applicable candidates. The clinical data
collection was obtained from the MSU family clinic with criterion specific information
given to fellow graduate students. The primary researcher recruited from a local clinical
population through ﬂyers and information generated to fellow clinicians. Couples were

not selected from the primary researcher’s caseload. Subjects were screened for inclusion

3O

and asked if they would like to voluntarily participate in the research study, with
expectations and incentives reviewed clearly. No form of coercion was utilized. Selected
subjects were asked to read the consent to participate form (Appendix B). They were then
given the Dyadic Trust Scale (Appendix D), the Experiences in Close Relationships
Inventory (Appendix E) and the semi-structured interview guide (Appendix A). Each
person was interviewed separately and then an additional two questions were conducted
in a joint interview. All interviews were taped for later transcription. A demographic
information and contact summary form (Appendix C) was filled out for each interview
format. Data was coded and analyzed for comparisons with theory and hypotheses after
each contact. Questions were dealt with ﬂexibly but no signiﬁcant modifications were
made. A journal was utilized to assist the researcher with the process.

In Marshall and Rossman’s (1995) description of the 20 essential criteria for a solid
qualitative research study one standard of care is that the people in the research setting
beneﬁt in some way from the study. In this study the subjects were asked to participate in
the research on a volunteer basis. Each couple was given $30.00 for the initial interview
(including both the two individual and one conjoint interview) and an additional $30.00
after they responded to a phase two questionnaire to help confirm the transcription and
the summary coding responses. One salon owner was given $60.00 for their referrals and
assistance with the project. It was also evident from many of the statements of the
participants they appreciated the way the interview allowed them to reﬂect on their
decision making in the relationship and process the numerous factors playing a role in

this. Some wrote or called saying they would be willing to participate again or just

31

thanked me for how I handled the interviews and the insights that had occurred to them
during the session.
Data Analysis Procedures

The constant comparative method of analysis involves a process of categorization,
sorting and resorting, and coding and recoding of data for emergent categories of
meaning (Hoshmand, 1989). This begins with the initial processing of the first case
transcription (Gehart et al., 2001). Marshall and Rossman (1995, p.113) describe this
process as involving ﬁve areas; generating categories, themes and patterns, testing the
emergent hypotheses against the data, searching for alternative explanations of the data
and writing the report. In terms of the use of cross-case analysis, Miles and Huberman
(1994) describe the benefit of looking for themes that cut across cases and give a
definitive pattern clarification.

Thus in this study, qualitative comparative case analysis began with the initial stages
of collection. After each interview, I fully transcribed the taped responses as soon as
possible for meaning and intent. I then typed a separate analysis of the summarizing
themes and my interpretation of their material. The typed material and the summary
material were then sent to each individual in the couple for their review. They reviewed
this material and ﬁlled out a summary sheet describing their thoughts around the
accuracy of my perspectives (Appendix G). I also utilized a journal to record important
thoughts as I processed the material or responded to their input. As soon as all the
material had been collected I sent the transcripts and the couple’s comments to an
independent coder. I compared her results with mine for similarities or differences. All

identifying information was removed so the material would be reviewed with anonymity.

32

Using a constant comparative methodology of the material resulted in reviewing and
transcribing the material in-depth after each couple’s responses such that coding and
recoding produced emergent categories and themes viewed as central to the
understanding of the material. This material was reviewed and added to after each
session. I further converted all the typed transcripts into the Atlas-ti computer program to
help code the material further. Material from the transcribed tapes was organized into
coded matrices with themes identified by codes and memos. It was again a lengthy
process to work with the computer to go through each transcript and memo code
emerging areas which seemed similar or unique to each transcript. This computer
program was used as an adjunct to the researcher’s coding and did not replace it, but
rather enhanced and clarified themes and patterns. The resulting deductions about the
results were based on the hypothesis and were theory driven related to an exploratory
nature. The process recording in the independent journal assisted me as well in the
analysis of the findings. The Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS) assisted
with evaluating the data from the two scales with an emphasis on whether a concurrence
was seen to the qualitative material.
Researcher’s Role & Ethics
Marshal and Rossman(1995), list standards for judging a qualitative study. Two are

important for this section. Thefirst is that biases need to be expressed and the researcher
must do a thorough self-analysis for both personal and framework theoretical areas. The
second is that the research guard against value judgments in data collection and analysis.

With this in mind it should be noted the author of this research project as well as the

independent coder are biased toward a family systems approach consistent with the

33

nature of the research studies at Michigan State University. Because of experience and
training in the Marital and Family Studies program the researchers will be biased toward
the inﬂuence of traditional male/ female societal roles with the expectation there may be
self reports of role patterns which may not be reﬂective of the actual relational behaviors
and patterns. This lens will also be monitoring for equity issues inherent in the dynamics
of the relational issues but not reported as such and reﬂected in the socio-cultural
expectations for appropriate role response.

Personally, I view healthy couples as more ﬂexible to life and as having a more
optimistic style in their relationships. In this research I looked for this quality and found it
in many but not all of the cases. Some of the couples had backgrounds which lead them
to be less than optimistic about their relationship or their future.

My personal background related to marriage at an early age and being a female,
single parent for many of the years of my one daughter’s life. My experiences in terms of
ecosystemic supports from both sides of my daughter’s parental ties were very helpful
and positive. My early childhood experiences include an upbringing in a conservative
religious community with many sUpports. My family of origin experiences related to a
mother and father who both worked. Father was the traditional supporter of the household
and mother’s income was considered secondary but inﬂuential for the family. Both were
independent in terms of decisions within the family. They viewed me as an eldest child
with capabilities to help with the family responsibilities and later in life to go on to an
independent career with the ability to go on to a higher education and earn a living. They
viewed my early marriage as following the traditional family pattern. By nature I would

assume they would see me as optimistic, ﬂexible and independent.

34

My experiences with dysfunctional couples are related to the many years of work
experience at the local community mental health in which I was a supervisor specializing
in setting up resources for severely mentally ill clients. Much of my responsibilities were
helping staff assist families and proVide supports for their relatives in the community or
deal with the overwhelming difficulties surrounding this. Again my attitude was that of
trying to be positive and creative to these families and creating supports to all members
of the family to assist in these difﬁcult cases. Overall my personal lens tends to be on the
optimistic side and this may well be reﬂected in the reporting of the results.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness was addressed by having this researcher report clearly my theoretical
perspective and bias. This is viewed by Rafuls and Moon (1996) as a positive step in this
direction. Trustworthiness is always a challenge when dealing with a small sample
population which has a limited ability to generalize. Explicit techniques as reported for
data collection, selection criteria, intervrew questions and methods of analysis further
assisted in this process. Triangulation by an independent coder and by the phase two
evaluation of summarized results by the couples increased trustworthiness as well.

Instrument reliability was found in Larzelere and Huston’s (1980) report on the
dyadic trust scale as .93. These researchers found that female trust was highly correlated
(p<.05) with the partner’s’ love but males love and trust was more independent and
correlated only to their own feelings, not necessarily that of their partner. Depth of self-
disclosure was also associated with dyadic trust (r=.25, p<.01). Dyadic trust varied by
relationship status. Divorced partners tended to have less dyadic trust than married

partners. Ex-dating partners had signiﬁcantly less dyadic trust than any other group

35

except for casual daters (p<.05). These findings support our theory that trust is positively
related to both the relationship commitment and quality.

Triangulation is considered an excellent resource to increase validity and develop
trustworthiness. In this study it is found in the independent rater coding, the use of
computer assisted data analysis and the request for respondent input and review of the
outcome summary. The Dyadic Trust and the Experiences in Close Relationships
Inventory was used to increase validity as well.

Larzelere and Huston (1980) report the Dyadic Trust Scale to have high
discriminate validity with positive correlations to love and depth of self-disclosure and
low correlations with generalized trust and social desirability. Another benefit to the use
of this scale is the high face validity of the questions (see Appendix D).

The Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory relates to attachment types of
secure, avoidant and anxious. Brennan et al.,(1998) indicated that a person with a secure
attachment style would be comfortable with closeness, able to depend on others and not
worried about being abandoned or unloved. An avoidant individual would be
uncomfortable with closeness and intimacy, not conﬁdent in others’ availability and not
particularly worried about being abandoned. An anxious person would be comfortable
with closeness, fairly conﬁdent in the availability of others, but very worried about being
abandoned and unloved.

Limitations of the Study

Limitations involved the use of an urban area in the north east section of the US. The

sampling population was reﬂective of individuals in the initial committed stages of their

relationships, without children and with reports of signiﬁcant financial resource sharing.

36

Sample size was small based on qualitative research methodology, and this limited
sampling may reduce the ability to generalize the results.
Confidentiality

All participants signed an informed consent which specified that confidentiality
would be maintained on their responses. Only the researcher, an independent rater and
the faculty advisers would have access to the original material. Individual responses and
information was recorded and analyzed with pseudonyms. Consent forms containing the
participants’ names, pseudonyms and contact information was stored in a locked facility
apart from the study data. The tapes were stored in a locked area at all times. An MSU
UCHRIS report was ﬁled prior to beginning the study which detailed the requirements for

maintaining confidentiality to the participants.

37

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Overview

This research project was an attempt to examine engaged couples and couples-in-
therapy as they explored how their personal feelings of trust in their relationship may
have inﬂuenced interpersonal financial decision making and outside inﬂuences in a
qualitative inquiry response format. The use of psychometric instruments added to the
trustworthiness of this presentation of the material. The four research areas explored
related to 1) whether there is a relationship between expressed attitudes of trust and
mutual decision making and the sharing of resources, 2) how family of origin patterns
inﬂuenced these attitudes and behaviors 3) how contextual ecosystemic inﬂuences
affected the current relational values and behaviors related to trust and mutual decision
making and resource exchange and 4) whether, if any, differences exist between the way
males and females view financial decision making. In terms of these areas the results will
show 1) a succinct and positive finding related to expressed attitudes of trust and mutual
decision making and the sharing of resources, 2) that family of origin patterns were seen
to highly inﬂuence the present sharing and joint decision making in the relationship and
in resources, 3) that ecosystemic factors were inﬂuencing present decision making within
the couples based on such qualitative factors as levels of trust and communication within
the couple in areas related to work, school, friends and family and 4) that males and
females described similar spending patterns as related to the inﬂuence of sexual roles,
family patterns, friends and work. All of these areas will be explored in depth in this

section as the results are examined more closely.

38

Demographics

The inclusion of 10 engaged couples and 5 couples-in-therapy was based on
reaching saturation in these areas (see Tables 1 and 2).
Engaged Couple Demographics

There were ten engaged couples. The average age was 25 years for males and 23

years for females. In all cases the female was the same age or younger than the male. All
couples were similar in ethnic backgrounds. Sixty percent were Caucasian, 10% African
American, and 10% US. mixed ethnicities (Hispanic/Irish/Scottish & Irish/African
American/Indian). Twenty percent were foreign students. In terms of educational level,
50% of the cases claimed at least a baccalaureate degree, 40% indicated some college and
10% reported a high school education. Couples were equal in educational level except for
two couples in which the male had completed more college than their fiance. Length of
time together ranged from 10 months to 2 V2 years (M = 2 years, 3 months; SD = 24
months). Half of the couples (50%) were living together at the time of the interview. All
reported they were significantly sharing their resources together.
Table 1

Demographic Data of Engaged Couples

 

Age Gender Ethnicity Education Employed Time Together

 

Couple 1 29 M Caucasian BA Yes One year
Couple 1 22 F Caucasian In college Yes One year
Couple 2 21 M Caucasian In college Yes 18 months
Couple 2 20 F Caucasian In college Yes 18 months

Couple 4 25 M Caucasian Skilled TrainingYes One yr. 2 mth.

39

Couple 4
Couple 5
Couple 5
Couple 6
Couple 6
Couple 7
Couple 7
Couple 8
Couple 8
Couple 9

Couple 9

25

24

26

26

25

26

23

23

27

22

23

Couple 12 24

Couple 12 21

Couple 15 20

Couple 15 18

23"”

‘11

33'“

‘1']

Table 1 (cont’d)

Caucasian Some college Yes

Near East Post Graduate Yes

Near East Post Graduate
African Amer BA Teaching
African Amer BS Social Wk
Near East Post Graduate
Near East Post Graduate
Caucasian Some College
Caucasian Some College
Caucasian B.A.
Caucasian Some College

Caucasian M.A.

Caucasian Finishing B.A.

Hispanic/Irish/ H.S.
Scottish
Irish/African H.S.
American/Scottish

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

One yr. 2 mth.
Two years
Two years

8 years

8 years

10 months

10 months

One year

One year

2 1/2 years

2 1/2 years

2 1/2 years

2 '/2 years
2 '/2 years

2 1/2 years

 

Couples-in-therapy Demographics

Saturation was reached with five couples-in-therapy (ten individuals). The average

age was 29 years for the males and 24 years for the females. All couples were close in

age with the female one year older in one couple. One hundred percent of the sample was

Caucasian. Two of the couples, 40% were married. All of the couples were at the same

40

educational level. Forty percent of the cases had at least a baccalaureate degree and the
remaining 60% had completed high school with no report of further education. Their time
together ranged from 2 years to 8 1/2 years (M = 3 years, 8 months; SD = 6 years). Three
of the couples (60%) were living together. The remaining two couples (40%) had been
living together but at the time of the interview they had moved apart due to problems in
the relationship. All reported they were significantly sharing their resources together.
Two of the couples (40%) were legally married.

Table 2

Demographic Data of Couples-in-therapy

 

Age Gender Ethnicity Education Employed Time Together Married

 

Couple 3 22 F Caucasian H.S. Yes 2 V2 years No
Couple 3 22 M Caucasian H.S. Yes 2 '/2 years No
Couple 10 25 F Caucasian H.S. Yes 6 years Yes
Couple 10 27 M Caucasian HS. Yes 6 years Yes
Couple 11 24 M Caucasian Post Graduate Yes 2 years No
Couple 11 25 F Caucasian Post Graduate Yes 2 years No
Couple 13 25 M Caucasian H.S. No 2 years No
Couple 13 20 F Caucasian H.S. Yes 2 years No
Couple 14 26 F Caucasian B.A. Yes 8 1/2 years Yes
Couple 14 26 M Caucasian B.A. Yes 8 ‘/2 years Yes

 

41

Emerging Themes
The core domains that emerged from the data were reﬂective of the direction of the
semi-structured interview. They are set out in Table 3.

Table 3

Emerging Themes and Core Domains

 

 

Domain Engaged Couples Couples-in-Therapy
Stages of Relationship Friendship Friendship
Formation Formal dating Formal Dating
Traditional patterns/ Traditional pattems/
break in pattern break in patterns

“Mutual mental resource sharing” “Mutual resource sharing”

Trust as good/bad judgment, Trust as judgment,
the ability to share and the ability to share and
communicate commuicate

Problems with
Communicating & resource
sharing

Getting stuck

 

Inﬂuence of male finances & Inﬂuence of male finances

equity issues & equity issues

Moving toward one account as One account as important

important but conﬂictual but conﬂictual

Trust Development Good communication Communication

Independent activities Commitment to relationship
Level of commitment Getting through tough times
Love Disturbances within

42

Table 3 (cont’d)

Financial resource sharing Family of origin influences

 

Monogamy Good judgment
Independent activities
Monogamy
Ecosysterrric Inﬂuences Farrrily of origin Family of origin

Parental attitudes & behavior Parental attitudes & behavior
Single parents patterns Single parent patterns
Work positive & negative Work positive & negative

Friends positive & negative Friends positive & negative

 

Relationship Definition

Conﬂict Conﬂict

Goodness Goodness

Seriousness Seriousness

Ability to resolve issues Ability to resolve issues

 

Important and emerging domains were stages of the relationship formation

including individual stages of friendship, formal dating, and traditional versus

nontraditional patterns. The development of “mutual mental resource sharing” and trust

defined as good judgment and the ability to share and communicate were also significant

emerging domains. Couples-in-therapy revealed additional areas of problems with

communication and getting stuck. Themes under this domain included equity issues with

male and female roles and the mental and concrete movement toward one account as a

reﬂection of the relationship coming together. These areas will be covered more fully in

the discussion on research question number one and figures 4.1 and 4.2. A second

domain related to trust development is also discussed thoroughly in the section related to

43

question number one (dyadic and ecosystemic trust patterns in resource sharing). The
third domain area, ecosystemic inﬂuences including the family of origin and parental
attitudes and behaviors, independent activities, work/school and friends are covered more
thoroughly in the discussion of research questions two and three. These questions dealt
with the family of origin inﬂuences from the past and present. There is a specific section
under the family of origin patterns which discusses the condition of single parent homes.
This was emphasized as important to the research question as well as the fact that is was
a clarifying theme in both groups. The last domain area was reﬂective of the definition of
the relationship itself as related to conﬂict, goodness, seriousness and ability to resolve
issues. This last area will not be elaborated on, since it did not add substance or additional
meaning to the understanding of the research questions.
Research Question Number One
Dyadic and Ecosystemic Trust Patterns for Merging Resources in Young Couples
Is there a relationship between expressed attitudes of trust in early relational

development and the mutual decrsion making and sharing of resources?

Couple Trust Patterns for Resource Sharing

 

 

 

Male f Female

 

 

 

 

 

Friendship = short
to long time frames

1

Traditional Male Formal Dating Stage A Traditional Female
Role Patterns Response Patterns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male accepts/ Female requests to Female mentally merges
declines/ set up rules Assist with money the ﬁnances together

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Mutual Mental
Resource Sharing”

 

 

l

v

 

 

Trust as Good
Judgment and the
Ability to Share &
Communicate

 

 

 

Figure4.1. The emerging and parallel themes of couple trust patterns in early relational
and resource sharing formations. 1
Relationship Formation

All couples, both engaged and couples-in-therapy, revealed similar patterns for
relationship formation (see figure 4.1). The pattern response stages revealed there was an
initial period of friendship or getting to know each other. This varied from several days to
several years. In one young couple the female had ﬁnished her BA and was working
while her engaged partner was completing the requirements for a BA in teaching. The

male stated, “We’ve actually known each other for twelve years. We were friends first.

45

Seeing how she was as a friend just drew me to her. I’ve been knowing her so long... we
can share our thoughts.”

At some point, the couples describe a relationship as beginning to blossom.
Traditional courtship ritual patterns are evidenced in this next step. These patterns
included the male paying for outings and activities. Almost every couple reported the
move to this traditional pattern. The two clear exceptions were both couples who had met
at the university while in graduate school. They had both started out at as friends with
little or no money and when they started dating they continued the pattern of helping each
other with the expenses. Both responded they never felt they had started a formal dating
stage. In terms of the more traditional pattern one female reported, “When we first started
dating neither of us had much money. I didn’t even have a job. We would loan small
amounts of money to each other and he would lend me his car. My girlfriend would say
‘that’s his car your driving!’ But it was hard for him to let me help him because I was a
female.” The male then stated “Yes, it’s just recently I am doing better at accepting her
help. Always before I couldn’t do that.”

This pattern continued for a period of time. It then changed to the male accepting
ﬁnancial and other support from the female. At this point the female often offers to start
paying for her half or she offers to take turns wrth purchases. In another young clinical
couple, both 22-year-old high school educated and working, the male stated, “I started
out paying for everything at first. We’d go out to dinner, or sit at home and rent a movie.
At one point we moved in together. . .but it wasn’t really our place because I lived with

someone. But maybe a month or two after we starting going out we starting sharing

46

money. . .Norrnally I’d spend my money first and then for backup use her money for
reserve.”

Sometimes traditional patterns are challenged by one member of the couple. An
interesting interview emerged with an engaged 23—year—old female and 25-year-old male,
both graduate students from the near east. In the original interview I had recorded the
male as saying “When we go out I usually pay but she pays sonretimes.” On the returned
transcripts he had carefully crossing this out and wrote, “When we go out we split the
amount.” He did not change the original statement, “If we decide to go to the movies or
to eat 'we prefer to take turns... And actually it’s pretty equal.” She stated, “Once in a
while I’ll let him pay but most of the time I prefer to be independent. . .or sometimes I
like to take him out for a treat”. She reported “Sometimes he wants to pay but I pretty
much want to be independent in terms of my finances. I don’t like to depend on anybody,
not my boyfriend, sister or other relatives.”

Another challenge to the traditional pattern was an in-therapy graduate law
student female who complained... “And now it comes to the point where when I want to
do stuff he refuses because he doesn’t want to spend the money and then when I insist he
says I can pay for it and I end up paying for it... ultimately it’s my choice. . .afterward I
feel why did I do that?”

The beginning of resource sharing boundaries and setting up the state of what I
term “mutual mental finances” seems to emerge after the female begins contributing on a
regular basis. She then starts making comments about the male’s spending patterns, since
he has given permission for her to share in resource pattern exchanges. These comments

from the female have the emotibnal tone of “common sense” budgeting styles which

47

would benefit each individual and the relationship. As an example couple number five
met while both were in graduate school. He describes himself as a 26-year-old Italian
who grew up in near east country. His father traveled a great deal in different countries so
he was raised mostly by his mother. His intended was a 24-year-old graduate student
from the same country. He states “Since I have been with her I handle it, (money), more
carefully. We both know she is the financially responsible one. . .. She would tend to say
‘do you really need this?’ She wouldn’t stop me but she would say ‘think about this!”’
She stated “One day in the sixth month after the relationship started, I accidentally found
out his bill was over due. .. he simply forgot. I was very disappointed and thought about
stopping the relationship... if I found out he’s a person irresponsible in managing his own
money. After communicating on this issue he promised to improve. Since then I always
try to make sure he pays bills on time and if he’s low on cash I’d aid him somehow.”

At this stage in relationship formation, couple one is still in courtship. There are
more frequent discussions about how the finances are working. Although the bank
accounts are described as independent, the partners now know how each person spends
money and have an opinion as to whether these patterns are acceptable or not for a future
mate. In most of these cases the female is the catalyst for what I call the “mutual mental
resource” discussions, with the beginning of projections about saving or spending money
for various activities. Both describe the fact that they make their own decisions but prefer
to talk to the other person before a final decision. Mutual trust seems to be connected
with this process and no responses indicated negativity. In fact, all of the engaged couples
reported mutual communication patterns which just “ﬂow” between them as they decide

daily on spending or activities. The engaged couples exhibited ﬂexibility to change and to

48

accommodating to the needs of the situation or the person. They were often confused as

to how to discuss the process since it did not seem to be very concrete. Open

communication in this area as well as most of the mutual areas of interest and concern

was evident.

Couples—in-Therapy Resource Sharing

 

Trust as Good Judgment & the

 

Ability to Share and Communicate

 

 

i

Mutual Mental
Resource Sharing

 

 

 

 

 

 

with communication.
Female takes over & male
feels not enough input on his

Renegotiation?

 

 

The clinical sample subjects
reported being stuck with patterns

Clinical cases show conﬂict / which were "0‘ working but one

or the other would refuse to
compromise or agree to change.

 

 

 

earnings. If male takes over,
the female feels not enough
input

 

 

 

 

\

 

 

Both clinical & non clinical report
movement to one joint account
and two independent ones.

Both populations voice the
opinion they should have one
mutual account but one joint and
two separate works out better.

 

 

Figure 4.2. Unique theme responses related to the couples-in-therapy in trust,

communication and the developing relational and resource sharing patterns.

Diﬂerences with couples-in-therapy

Figure 4.2 indicates that couples-in—therapy have some unique themes. These

might be reﬂective of communication problems, or being stuck with patterns which are

not working. Equity, role patterns and power issues begin to emerge in these couples-in-

therapy cases. In one couple, the male held a job at a local shop and made the primary

income. The wife worked part time and managed the house and the bills. The male

49

 

reported “I wanted some new shoes and she said no. I was discouraged because I felt I
work and-I wanted them.” The female in this couple stated “I have the checkbook and
write the bills. Sometimes he just spends and doesn’t tell me about it. He feels like it’s his
money and he should be able to spend it.” However, in- another couple-in-therapy case,
equity and role pattern shifts were evident as the male assumed the primary support
responsibility upon completing school. His wife was just completing her degree and had
recently entered the work force. After doing so she felt entitled to more of a say in the
financial money management. She responded, “He makes the majority of money and this
gives him the control and then I get upset with this and insecure. Well, because of
problems in the past we decided to try me on the allowance That ended up horrible.”
She stated, “I feel. . . .because he had the better degree and job and makes more money it’s
hard for me to complain... (he) kind of has the upper hand in this area.” He stated, “Now
that she has her own account it has been better.” She added, “Once I’m totally ﬁnished
with school and have more faith in myself and feel more of an equal contributor, this will
help a lot.” Thus, there is the report of couples-in—therapy feeling stuck with different
opinions and the inaccessibility for one or both members to reach compromises on issues.
A common theme from both the engaged and couples-in-therapy cases was the
feeling they should have one account, when the majority were actually using one joint
and two independent accounts. The female just mentioned who didn’t feel equal about
being put on an allowance had worked out a compromise where she kept her own
account. She stated “So now we have two accounts and we split up what bills each of us

needs to pay ...and I feel like an equal contributor and this has contributed to a better

50

relationship.” It was as if this compromise felt the best in terms of maintaining their
independence and yet was somehow against the rules.
Trust Development

Engaged Couples

Couple two reported they were both in college and working part time. They spent
lots of time in her mother’s apartment and were going to put the research money they
were paid into their “special wedding account”. The female stated, “I feel safe (in the
relationship) and I know I can put all my trust... my burdens in him and we share that
and that feels secure.” (In terms of finances) “He won‘t just go out and purchase
something that we don’t need... I trust him he won’t make bad decisions and he trusts
me.”

The male elaborated, “I think you would see trust in the way we communicate... If
she says she needs money for something I trust the fact she does. And she wouldn’t go
behind my back and get something or if she does she will come back and tell me what she
does. And I’m the same way.” He goes on to describe trust and resource sharing issues in
his extended family. like my brother and his wife. It’s a his and her type money,
more so than an ours. . .he ended up getting a separate savings account and not telling her
because she would just spend the money and he couldn’t trust her to save for the house.
They did get the house, but I think it affected their relationship. The fact he didn’t trust
her and then what he did just made the trust worse in the relationship.”

Engaged couple one were both working and living together and the female was
taking classes to further her education. They reﬂected they have a close, loving

relationship in which they felt mutual trust towards one another. The male described it

51

this way, “I mean it’s very trusting on everything, money, fooling around on the other
person and all the way down. And I think the fact we talk a lot about what we’ll do with
the money means neither of us would just go out and make a big purchase without
input”... and elaborated... “If one of us makes a decision about money without the other
one, you (just) trust that their not just blowing money on a piece of junk or a waste. It
goes back to the whole (agreement) that we make sure we pay the bills and we don’t
spend more than we have or what we can take care of.”

Engaged couple number nine’s profile was that of a male working as a mechanic
and his fiance finishing her college degree and starting a new job. They felt their
relationship was positive and trusting. The male discussed the changes in their ﬁnances in
this manner. “At the point we got engaged, we had some serious discussions about my
spending patterns and needing to save some money. At ﬁrst this was difﬁcult for me but
then I started to see the benefits. Now, with the wedding getting closer it’s making more
sense.” His ﬁance further elaborated on their relationship. “It’s been really hard for me to
trust him. . .. I was cheated on in past relationships. But I know how he treats me. I know
we spend all our time together. . .. (now) he understands we need to save our money at
present.”

Couple six was getting ready for their wedding the next week after the interview.
The couple reﬂected they had known each other for twelve years and the male felt he
could trust her. .. we can really share our thoughts. We tell each other everything. No
hiding things from each other. The sharing of money has been just natural and now if she
needs something, I give it to her and if I need something she gives it to me.” She

explained further, “ I know what he has been used to and how he has been raised and. . ..

he trusts me and he notices how I handle money and I see that he always pays his
bills.”

Another couple was discussing whether they should continue with plans for the
wedding. She was still working at a clothing store and her ﬁance had just been laid off
after graduating from a school/training program. She related, “He is a couple of years
older than me and I trust him to take care of a lot of the bills.” He related to the trust issue
in this manner, “She has never done anything to lose (my) trust and she has loaned me
money for bills (and)... when I was working more than I would pay more.” She reﬂected
further, “He is currently unemployed... so I am paying for extra stuff now and that’s
okay because when he was working he basically paid for everything because my funds
were more limited.”

A female graduate student from the near east replied to the question of trust by
saying, “Well, he knows everything about me. He has my social security number (and)
credit card number.” Her fiance replied that in terms of trust, “I really think it’s on my
instinct and so far I have no reason not to trust her. In my inside, I know that in most
cases she is right about ﬁnancial decisions.”

In the case of the male skilled trader worker and his fiance school teacher, she
related, “He’s very open and honest. He never goes back on his word. He does spend
money too easily”. He agreed to give her his pay check and she pays the bills after they
discuss which have priority. He explained, “Yes, I do trust her. She does little things.
Like today, she called me at work to ask if she could buy a CD. She’ll call me at work

and ask what do I need to have paid and I’ll say my car insurance is due and this relates

53

directly to trust in that when I give her my paycheck I know she’s not going to go out and
spend it.”

Couple 15 is engaged. They both have a high school education. She is not
working at present but he has just received employment at a new job and was excited
about his new income. This was meaningful to the couple because it meant they could
begin some plans to move out of his mom’s home and on their own. He described his
feelings about the relationship in this manner, “I didn’t let her pay for anything at first.
If she needed something I would help and then pretty soon if I needed something she
would help. We now see our resources as blended. Now we let the other person know if
we’re spending foolishly. We both do this. . .Trust is number one. If you basically can’t
trust a person, you can’t trust them with bank accounts.”

C ouples-in-therapy

In the couples—in-therapy, issues of distrust were more evident as a response
theme in the interviews along with relational disturbances. Couple three was composed of
a young male with a high school education, experiencing some problems on his job, but
still working. His ﬁance was working as well, full time, at a local factory. They had tried
to live together but decided to wait until things were going better for them. He stated, “I
do construction. She works at a factory job. (We) both work full time and most of the
time we combine our money and I hold the money. I trust her. She won’t go out and buy
anything expensive without asking me about it. If she’s at the store, she’ll call me and ask
if she can buy this for 50 dollars.‘ She has been through a lot with me so far.” His ﬁance’

agreed that ‘he’s never given me a reason not to trust him, but he doesn’t trust me 100%.

54

This is... because of his mom. .. He has a hard time trusting people. I can tell by the way
he acts.”

A couple-in—therapy graduate law couple had similar comments in the area of
trust. He reported, “Yes, I trust her. If I need her to do something for me, it would be in
my best interest. But sometimes she thinks I’m lying to her because I don’t tell her the
whole story... Last year, I needed rent and stuff and she gave it to me.” The female
reported, “I think in general we can trust each other, but there have been problems of
trust... like lies that came up. Normally I would organize the bills and ask him for his
half... He would complain a lot about having to pay half the bills, like this was absurd or
something. I really don’t know for sure if I give him money if I will get it back.”

Couple-in-therapy 13 revealed a young male out of work and his girlfriend
working at a stressful job but making “ok” money. He stated, “My trust for her is very
strong. (I know this because)... one day I was at work and a friend tried to advance on
her... and she asked him to leave and told me about it. She has money and she doesn’t
usually spend it until she has paid the bills.” Her story was a little less trusting than his.
She revealed, “Well, I guess I do trust him but I don’t trust him with money. I always
keep the money in my purse.”

In couple-in-therapy 14 both had BA degrees. The male was working full time.
He stated, “In terms of general trust or ﬁdelity issues, I feel I can trust her. Well, I really
don’t trust her with money. I spend too much, but she’ll just go crazy (with money) so we
stopped letting her carry credit cards.” She agreed with this statement and gave an
example of her trust saying, “he was an eagle scout... and the image of a good person

trying to do the right thing and I know I went out on him sometimes and that at times 1

55

have gone out and spent tons of money and all that upsets him. I guess (these are) therapy
issues we are working on. .
Couple-in-therapy ten was a high school educated factory worker whose wife was

not working at present. She reported, “He doesn’t trust me enough. He gets disturbed. I
go back and forth about trusting him.” (In terms of this relating to handling money), “He
needs to communicate more about what he is spending. He feels like it’s his money and
he should be able to spend it.” His interview included this statement. “I can trust her and I
hope she thinks she can trust me. There may have been times in the middle of the
relationship where we had problems in this area, but I can’t remember what it was about.
I’m always home. I never do anything.” (In terms of handling money), “She handles all
the money and pays the bills. I trust her to do this.”
Summary

All couples, both engaged and couples-in-therapy, reported similar relationship
formation patterns. Most of these patterns were very traditional with variations or breaks
reﬂective of higher educational levels or family of origin practices. Common domain
themes emerging for both groups included the stages of relationship formation, the
development of trust issues, ecosystemic inﬂuences, and trying to clarify and define the
relationship itself. Differences between the groups revealed the couples-in-therapy
reported more issues of discord and non-trust than did the engaged couples. There were
no overt differences found between the married versus the non married in—therapy
couples in this area. Overall, this section revealed a strong positive progression of
attitudes of trust in early relationship development and the mutual decision making and

sharing of resources. This pattern was more succinct in the engaged couples.

56

Communication and underlying trust issues interrupted this positive progression in the
couples-in-therapy.
Research Question Number Two
Ecosystemic Family of Origin Pattern Inﬂuences

How do family of origin patterns inﬂuence attitudes toward sharing and joint
decision making? This research question deals with the inﬂuence of family of origin
patterns on present decision making within the couple. Many of the couples reported they
were utilizing similar family of origin patterns in their relationship and this seemed very
normal and natural to them. There was little report of conﬂict in these cases especially
when both the male and female had similar family styles.

One case included male and female graduate students from India. Both said that
their mothers and fathers had worked outside the home for pay. The female was adamant
that she would be independent stating “I would never want to depend on someone else.
My sister just got married in December and her husband is extremely wealthy but she is
doing her doctorate and she doesn’t depend on her husband to give her an
allowance.” Her ﬁance’ agreed that in his family both his mother and father worked and
had recently purchased a home. He described this as “Recently they just bought a home
and my mom paid half and my dad paid half.” Not only did they experience family of
origin expectations in similar role behaviors, but this seemed to be translating in the
present to mutual understanding and low conﬂict in their relationship and decision
making process.

Differences in family of origin styles were reﬂected in the following couples. A

graduate student from another country was so adamant that her family management style

57

was the “right way” that she insisted he change his personal spending patterns relating
directly to his family of origin. She stated that she spent much time focusing on this
change, gave him her own resources to help pay off credit card debt (which was against
her family’s belief ) and went so far as to discuss the fact their relationship would not
continue if he did not change his habits. However at this point he decided he would
accommodate to her style of financial management. He stated he was reluctant at first to
change his habits except it suddenly occurred to him that her loan of money to him was a
sign of the serious intent of her long term commitment. He stated, “Wow this must be a
real relationship because even my closest friends don’t ask me about this. They would
just assume I am doing all right unless I would say I have a problem. It suddenly made
me realize that this was a real relationship. She cared enough to be concerned about this.
This was ...surprising to me.” He states he is happy with his change of heart and they
went on to meet her family and discuss permanent relationship goals.

A 22-year—old recently graduated female had just obtained her first job as an
administrator in a nursing home. She was engaged to a 23-year-old male who was
working as a mechanic. She had convinced him to go back to college to get a two year
degree in auto mechanics in order for him to be acceptable for marriage to her family.
She describes the differences between the two families this way. “My family is more
conservative about money. My dad (parents) paid for my school. My family does
everything with credit cards. His family pays for everything in cash. That’s been kind of
hard. He feels children should work and pay for their cars and education. I feel it is the
parent’s responsibility to take care of this for their children. He pays for his school and all

his vehicles. We do communicate better than my parents. His parents are very mellow

58

and loving. My family tends to be more sarcastic. I’ve never heard his parents argue ever.
And they have never fought and my parents will fight in front of him.”
Parental Attitudes & Behavior (Single Parent Homes)

Issues of being raised in a single parent home in early childhood produced
confusion for many subjects as they struggled to decide how they related their present
couple patterns to these memories. Some reﬂections were positive with attitudes of the
female as an independent person with equal decision making in the relationship. In
describing negative childhood memories of parent management style, one male graduate
student from the near east described himself as using the opposite model of parent
management style. He stated, “I have tried very consciously not to use that model,” citing
as relevant the fact his parents had divorced. “My parents argued a lot and it was just
better they weren’t together. And I don’t think I could use that as a model for anything.”
An engaged male skilled trade worker and his significant other, who worked part time as
a teacher, both described their family of origin experiences as poor role models. They
both revealed divorce in their childhood and being raised by single parents. Neither felt
their absent role models were helpful. The male stated he is still protecting her from her
father. “And when the subject is her dad I think she gets weak and I have to step in to
protect her.” He recalled, “My parents were divorced when I was in second grade, so my
mom raised me... and my grandmother helped out with money problems. . .I still call my
mom to help with how to handle our budget at times.” Overall, he was still angry and
embarrassed by the way his father had abandoned his responsibility for his family.

Several of the engaged couples described the next step after the wedding as the

final blending of resources. A 22-year-old male was completing the requirements for his

59

teaching degree. His ﬁance had her BA and was already working. Their wedding was
planned for the week following the interview. He stated “I think that even though she has
been making a lot of decisions up to now, when we actually have household decisions,
I’m going to be making those. And this will be similar to her family. Her father was the
head of the household and made a lot of decisions.”
Summary

This section revealed how strongly the internalized norms for family patterns,
both constructive and destructive, inﬂuence the newly emerging couple dyad. A theme of
loyalty to the family of origin was clearly evident in many cases or the extreme of
refusing to repeat a pattern because of bad memories from childhood. The subjects who
were upset with their family of origin patterns openly shared this in the interview and
discussed what they were doing to make sure they would not be repeating these patterns
in their future. If the family of origin system was different between them there was a
struggle to try out different approaches, attempting to find the best fit. The engaged
couples reported more ﬂexibility with these compromises than the problem couples. No

unique difference in themes was evident with the two married couples.

Research Question Number Three
The Ecosytemic Inﬂuence of Outside Contextual Factors
How do contextual ecosysterrric inﬂuences affect the values and expectations of
current relational issues such as trust and mutual decision making? This question differs
from the last which was reﬂective of internalized norms within each individual. This
relates to the present and to the direct external inﬂuences on the couple’s decisions. The

categories of inﬂuence were reported as family, work and friends.

60

The Inﬂuence of Family

The most reported inﬂuence was clearly from family for both the engaged and
couples-in—therapy. These stories were both positive and negative in context. Some of the
stories were directly related to wedding plans and compromises. Some were to request
assistance to or from the couple and others around inﬂuences for spending money or
going places they had decided not to indulge in as a couple.

Positive inﬂuences included loans, and living with relatives and family. A male
skilled trade worker relates, “My parents got divorced when I was in second grade. I was
raised by my mom. She gave me a loan for my skilled trade equipment. So I pay her back
$50.00 per month. ...So like we had a problem with our bills last week and I said let’s call
my mom to help us sort out our priorities. . . .And both her mom and my mom are very
supportive in general.”

Two graduate students from the near east related their relationship was much
improved after spending time with relatives. He stated, “In terms of the family we just
spent ten days with her sister on the west coast and that really strengthened the
relationship.” Couple number two (engaged) were both working on their college degrees.
I met them at her mom’s house and I met mom at the end of the interview. The female
was staying with mom and the male was there much of the time. She related how
supportive her mom had been to their relationship at it progressed. Couple number eight
(engaged) was similar in that both had completed some college, they were living
independently and she was still living with her family. The male reported, “We do get a
lot of input from both sides of the families. We love to go back to her house on a Sunday

afternoon and talk about plans for the wedding. Her mom has taken a very active role in

61

planning this. We couldn’t do it without her. I was very na‘r’ve about how much work it
would take.” Couple twelve was composed of the male who had just graduated from his
masters degree but was unemployed and his fiance’ who was working full time in a
clothing store. He stated, “My family has been really supportive. Her family has been
really supportive (as well).”

Some of the comments were more negative in nature. A 26-year-old near east
male graduate student related, “Well my father is very Open to the relationship as long as
she is ‘semi-decent’. He’s very relaxed. My mom on the other hand, is not. She has not
met my mother yet. The concern is not there yet, but it would be if she meets her.” The
female related, “I guess it’s not really financially but my family interferes. There are
times when I want to go and just stay (with him) and my family is not very happy about ‘
this. But this is not ﬁnancial. It is just their preference.”

In couple six the male was completing his teaching degree and his fiance was
working with her BA. They were expecting family to help out with the expenses of the
wedding. This is the way he described the situation, “I thought the bride’s family was
supposed to pay for the wedding. And I was responsible for the ring and the honeymoon.
Her mom thought I should have gone half. And I didn’t agree. And I just stayed with
paying for the honeymoon.” The female added, “And I understood and I tried to explain
to my mom why you thought the way you did.” The male replied, “And I just dealt with it
with my mom and What she felt. And it’s just been worked out now and everybody is
okay with it.”

Couple nine had a similar experience. In this couple the female had just obtained

her ﬁrst job and was still living with her parents. The ﬁance was living with his parents.

62

They described conﬂict with finances around the wedding plans with family members.
The male described it in this manner, “Like we went to all the reception halls and came
back with the information and my parents were all about whatever works for you and
makes you happy. Then we went to her house. No matter what we said her dad wanted to
have everything on spreadsheets and had disagreements. And this seems to be across
everything.”

Engaged couple number one were living together already and working together.
The female was also taking classes to advance her degree level. They had decided to
allow her niece to stay with them on the weekends in her parent’s home which they were
renting for a nominal amount. She related to this decision as follows, “My one niece is
there pretty much every other weekend. It’s more like we’re her parents. We just take it
all into consideration. We wanted to go up north this weekend but it would beneﬁt
her. . .if we stayed. We always have the ability to make the best of the situation no matter
what it is.”

Couple number 11 was two in-therapy graduate students. She reported, “His
family seems to be over involved with him. This is not positive. They want him to spend
time with them at the holidays and often he had to decide between spending time with me
and time with them. And they just want him around and remind him that they are paying
for his school and he should choose them. And I think others think this is overdone and
not the norm. It’s like they go overboard in this area.” Couple thirteen was also in-
therapy. Both were high school graduates with no reports of additional schooling. The
female was working, but the male was presently unemployed. In terms of family support,

they were living with his mother. The male reported, “Well her family is upset that I

63

haven’t worked for nine months. They think I’m a great guy but they want the best for
their daughter. . .And they are picking up a lot of slack because of this. ...Her parents are
more into money and mine is not really into that.”

Couple-in-therapy 14 was having a problem with the inﬂuence of the female’s
sister. The female described the phenomenon in this manner, “Normally I think my sister
has the greatest inﬂuence because she is always trying to put her opinion on whether we
are doing the right thing. And this is difficult because she makes three times more money
than we do and she thinks she knows best and she is a stay at home mom. And we will be
going on a family vacation and they will be spending a lot of money and we don’t have a
lot of money to spend.”

Couple 15 was engaged. The female was presently out of work and the male had
just found a job. Both reported high school levels of education. The female commented as
follows: “I would think there is a positive inﬂuence from (his) mom because we have
been staying with her and that has helped us a lot. On the negative, I was supporting my
mother and while I was doing that I wished we could do more stuff together. I’m all done
with that. This happened in the last year. I was working full time and took up the
responsibility after she lost her job.”

The Inﬂuence of Work

The second highest category of response was work factors. This ranged from
reports of positive versus negative. Positive factors included getting along on the job,
enjoying the job, or appreciating the life style from the pay level. Negative inﬂuences
included having a bad day and bringing this attitude home along with the financial

expenses for items such as cars, gas, lunches, etc.

In the case of couple two, an engaged pair who were living separately but spending
much of their time at her mom’s house, the male reported “If I have a hard day at
work. (the female inserted). . ._ (he’s) grumpy.” The male replied, “Yeah, if she says I’m
going to the store, I might be less likely to say here are 10 or 15 dollars if I worked a long
day.” The female replied, “It goes day to day. If... we’re having a tough day and we just
don’t want to talk about it, we let the other person know.” Couple ten reported the same
problem. The male described his job as tough factory work. The female related, “Well, if
he has a bad day at work this is difficult (for us).” He replied, “Yes I have a very difficult
job and often come home in a bad mood.” Another young couple-in-therapy male who
does a lot of physical work felt his work was not negatively influencing him. He stated, “I
don’t have a lot of extra work expenses. My boss takes care of (my) tools and stuff.” It
might be noted in this case however, the male had been, according to his fiance’ missing a
lot of work lately due to personal stress.

Yet another couple-in-therapy with a new house and lots of bills from the wedding
described work as both a negative and positive experience. They both enjoyed the dual
income but the female stated, ‘Well lunches cost and I could easily spend $25.00 per
week just on stuff or maybe closer to $40.00 when you think about getting there and
putting gas in your car.” The male nodded in agreement.

The Inﬂuence of Friends

Friends were not listed as a high inﬂuence in either a positive or negative manner.
Friends were often included as an aspect of mutual communication in general.
Engaged couple one reﬂected that friends are the least of their inﬂuences. Both of them

work together and live together. She stated, “His friends and my friends provide

65

entertainment for us to talk about at night. We say, ‘you’re not gong to believe what my
friends did!’ Our friends are totally different from us. The male stated, “Yeah”. The
female continued, “We’re more responsible, down to earth. They are the type to ﬂy by
the seat of their pants, act at a moments notice.” The male shook his head and agreed
wholeheartedly.

In couple-in-therapy 14 both were working but had lots of debt from the purchase of a
new home. The male related, “. ...if I go out with friends from work they tend to have
something cheap at home first so they’re watching their money as well. Our friends have
less money than us.” On the other hand the female countered, “I think my friends have a
tendency to spend more money (referring to this as a bad inﬂuence on her).”

Couple three included a 22 year old high school male currently working in a shop. He
was from the in-therapy sample. One of the issues was the fact that his significant other
liked to spend her money on frequent eating out and he did not like or prefer to do this.
His comments about the negative inﬂuence of friends included this statement, “Well the
only thing I can think of are friends that want to go out to eat all the time.” The female
replied, “I’m the one who really likes to do this (not him).” He then commented, “Really
the decisions we make between the two of us are pretty tight and we don’t get pulled off a
lot.” Engaged couple fifteen, previously reported as living with his family, the male
reported, “In terms of friends they really don’t inﬂuence us much either way.”

Summary I
In the couples-in-therapy interviews, outside inﬂuences were cited as causing
serious problems for the relationship with regard to the handling cf family finances.

Many of the couples did not have good communication or feelings of trust between them

66

and reports of work, school or family seemed more threatening to their security. One
male stated his .significant other’s family didn’t like him because he did not presently
hold a job, nor did his family “come from money”. Another couple with more resources
felt pressured to spend money in a similar style to her sister. This caused difﬁculties with
their joint financial agreement. Another female stated her signiﬁcant other’s family was
always forcing him to choose between time with her or with them, especially at the
holidays, with frequent reminders of how much they owed him for paying for his college
expenses. Thus, it appears that outside factors have more of a negative inﬂuence on the
in-therapy couples than the engaged ones. Basic communication skills and trust levels
continue to be disruptive in the in-therapy couples when they are attempting to deal with
these areas of concern. Again the two married couples did not reveal differences to the _
basic in-therapy pattern responses. The engaged couples were more likely to report
positive outcomes, better communication and less effects on the stability of the overall
relationship.
Research Question Number Four

Different Views on Handling Finances (Males versus Females)

Are there differences, if any, between the way males and females view financial
issues in general? This question relates to the differences, if any, on finances when
examined from the lens of the male Versus the female perspective. It is important to
understand this question was handled independently by the couples and not as a joint
response. In spite of this, the majority of the couples’ responses were more similar within
than between couples’. In other words, there were varied answers about how men and

women handle ﬁnances in general but within the couples’ relationship the majority of the

67

views were the same. All five of the couples-in-therapy gave similar responses to each
other in this area. Couple-in-therapy 11 both agreed with each other on spending patterns.
She explained, “Women seem to spend more money than men. I think I’m the norm for
women but he’s really pretty cheap and I’m not sure that’s the norm for men.” He stated
in his interview, “I think women tend to be more of a spender. I am probably not the
norm for men because I think in general men spend more than I do.” Eight of the ten
engaged couples agreed with each other. In terms of actual responses, three of the clinical
couples felt women like to spend more money than men and referred to their relationship
as similar to this pattern.

Eight of the individuals in the engaged couples and three of the clinical couples
revealed there was no difference in the amount of money being spent by males or
females; it was just spent in different areas such that females tended to spend on items
such as clothes and men in areas of electronics or cars. The female in couple-in-therapy
fourteen reported, “I think we are equally bad in our ways. Women spend it on different
things than men. I think we’re (both) pretty much the norm.” Her male counterpart
expressed the same sentiment in his interview. “I think they (women) buy different types
of things but handle it pretty much the same. I think I’m pretty typical for men and she is
pretty much the norm for women.” Three engaged couples related their spending or
saving patterns to their family of origin while two others referenced patterns similar to
their friends. A 22-year—old working in-therapy female reported, “My mom is a spender
too, she’d spend it all if she had it. So I guess I’m the same way. I guess men are better
with money.” Her pattern for sharing resources would be to give her paycheck to her

ﬁance and then get 'her spending money back as she needed it. She reported this was

68

similar to her family of origin. A 24-year-old engaged masters degree graduate student
described spending patterns in this manner, “I think it’s more of a personality thing. My
mother would be the norm for women but her mother is like the opposite so I’m not sure
what the norm is. I think she would just prefer I handle the finances (and spending)
because of how her family does it but I really want to get her involved.” A recently
graduated and engaged African American male teacher explained spending patterns in
this manner, “I think women save better than men. And she’s (fiance) pretty good at
saving and I think that’s the norm for women. And my mom, she’s the same way, good at
saving.” However, in her interview his ﬁance reﬂected on spending patterns as more
similar to friends. She stated, “Often he’ll spend money on unnecessary stuff just because
it’s in his paycheck. (And he’s the norm because) when I see my girlfriend’s husbands,
they just buy stuff if it’s electronic (like him). I think I’m about the norm (for women). '
My girlfriend is the same way as me.” A 23-year-old engaged skilled trade male reported
spending patterns as related to cohort issues. “I handle money different than women. Men
are more into the things like cars. And that’s kind of typical for my age. I think
women tend to save more money. Guys would spend more trying to impress others. I
don’t think women drive ﬂashy cars.” A 25-year-old engaged skilled trade male reported
both family and friends as inﬂuences to spending patterns. “I’m very bad with money.
Lots of my friends are bad with money. They just go crazy and buy stuff. . ...I never had
anyone show me how to do that stuff (family reference) but I think her mom showed her
how to do that.” Because he felt she knew how to manage money better than him, he was

turning over his paycheck to her.

69

Summary

In terms of the male versus female lens, most of the male and female responses
reported males as spending more money on cars, electrical or technical equipment, while
females spent more on items such as clothing or self-enhancement products. Both males
and females felt each sex could be equally responsible or irresponsible based on such
factors as family of origin, social norms or friends. There was more similarity of
responses within each couple than between the sexes. It should be remembered that on
this question each member of the couple was interviewed independently. Thus, there
were no overt differences between the male versus female groups in terms of responses to
this research question and the two married couples revealed no basic difference in pattern
response.

Measures for Triangulation & Trustworthiness

The triangulation of testing results will begin with the concrete presentation of the
data and end with the integration of these findings into the study in a qualitative manner.
Dyadic Trust Scale

The Dyadic Trust Scale is a short 8 item scale specifically designed to examine
relational trust between two‘ individuals committed to each other. A high score would be
an afﬁrmation on all eight items of the scale. An example of a statement on this scale
would be “There are times when my partner cannot be trusted.” This would of course be
answered no.
Engaged Couples

All of the engaged couples scored high on basic levels of trust. The mean score for

trust was 7.9 for this population, (SD=.31, n=20). There was little or no difference within

70

or between couples’ elevated scores. Eighteen of the individuals scored 8 and two

individuals scored 7.

Table 4

Engaged Couples’ Dyadic Trust Scores

 

Trust Score*

Sex Trust Score*

 

Couple 1 M 8 out of 8 Couple 7 7 out of 8
Couple 1 F 8 out of 8 Couple 7 8 out of 8
Couple 2 M 8 out of 8 Couple 8 8 out of 8
Couple 2 F 8 out of 8 Couple 8 8 out of 8
Couple 4 M 8 out of 8 Couple 9 8 out of 8
Couple 4 F 8 out of 8 Couple 9 8 out of 8
Couple 5 M 7 out of 8 Couple 12 8 out of 8
Couple 5 F 8 out of 8 Couple 12 8 out of 8
Couple 6 M 8 out of 8 Couple 15 M 8 out of 8
Couple 6 F 8 out of 8 Couple 15 F 8 out of 8

 

*Highest Trust Score = 8 out of 8
Couples—in-therapy

These couples showed a much different pattern response. At least one member of
each cbuple reported low trust scores. This varied equally between male versus female
reporters of low trust in the partner. The overall mean score was 5, (SD=2.91, n=10),
which was lower than the engaged couples. Three of the individuals scored 8, 3 scored 6,

and 4 scored 4, 3, 1 & 0 respectfully.

71

Table 5

Couples-in-therapy Dyadic Trust Scores

 

 

Sex Dyadic Trust* Sex Dyadic Trust*
Couple 3 F 8 out of 8 Couple 10 0 out of 8
Couple 3 M 6 out of 8 Couple 10 8 out of 8
Couple 11 F 1 out of 8 Couple 14 6 out of 8
Couple 11 M 8 out of 8 Couple l4 3 out of 8

Couple 13 F 4 out of 8

Couple 13 M 6 out of 8

 

*Highest Trust Score = 8 out of 8
The difference between the means of the two samples was significant (t = .42, p<.001).
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale

This inventory relates to attachment types of secure, avoidant and anxious. A secure
attachment style was comfortable with closeness, able to depend on others and not
worried about being abandoned or unloved. An avoidant individual was uncomfortable
with closeness and intimacy, not confident in others’ availability and not particularly
worried about being abandoned. An anxious person was comfortable with closeness,
fairly conﬁdent in the availability of others, but very worried about being abandoned and
unloved.
Engaged Couples’ Attachment Scores

In the engaged couples, possible scores on anxious and avoidant scales ranged from a

low of 0 to a high of 126 for both. The mean avoidant scores were 28.4 (SD = 7.46, n =

72

20, range =18-43). The frequency distribution was equally divided across the subjects.

Anxious mean scores were 54 (SD = 20, range = 26-95). Again frequency distributions

were represented equally through the range of responses. A Pearson 2-tailed t- test

revealed no significant correlations between avoidant and anxious in this sampling. Thus,

individuals tended to score either on anxious, avoidant or secure. Trust appeared visibly

to relate negatively to anxious or avoidant scores but did not reach a level of statistical

signiﬁcance. Thus, although some of the engaged couples had high scores on anxious and

avoidant, they had equally high levels of trust.

Table 6

Engaged Couples’ Attachment Scores*

 

 

Avoidant/Secure Anxious/Secure

Scores* Scores*
Couple 1 M 25/101 34/92
Couple 1 F 23/103 26/ 100
Couple 2 M 41/85 45/81
Couple 2 F 21/105 62/64
Couple 4 M 22/104 95/31
Couple 4 F 27/99 77/49
Couple 5 M 39/87 75/51
Couple 5 F 34/92 76/50
Couple 6 M 26/ 100 43/83
Couple 6 F 38/88 47/79
Couple 7 M 27/99 36/90
Couple 7 F 29/97 51/75

73

Table 6 (cont’d)

Couple 8 M 18/108 36/90
Couple 8 F 29/97 35/91
Couple 9 M 20/106 31/95
Couple 9 F 43/83 90/36
Couple 12 M 35/91 55/71
Couple 12 F 24/102 49/77
Couple 15 M 22/104 64/62
Couple 15 F 24/ 102 53/73

 

*Possible scoring on anxious and avoidant scales ranged from a low of 0 (high security)
to a high on anxious and avoidant of 126 (low security).
C ouples-in-therapy Attachment Scores

In the couples-in-therapy, anxious and avoidant scores ranged from a low of 0 to a
high of 126 for both scales. For this sample the mean avoidant score was 40 (SD=13.98,
n=10, range = 24-72). Frequencies included one person scoring 20, three scoring 30, 4
scoring 40, one at 50 and one at 70. The mean anxious scoring was 65.4 (SD=23.24,
range = 48-124). Frequencies included five at 50, two at 60 and one at 70, 80 and 120. A
Pearson 2-tailed t-test revealed a signiﬁcant negative correlation between Trust and
Avoidance (-.648, p <05) and a negative correlation between Trust and Anxious (-.635,
p<.05). As in the engaged sample, individuals tended to be either high on anxious,
avoidant or secure attachment styles. Thus high scores on trust related to low scores on

anxious and avoidant in this couples-in-therapy sample.

74

Table 7

Couples-in-therapy Attachment Scores*

 

 

Avoidant/Secure Anxious/Secure
Score* Score*
Couple 3 F 28/98 48/78
Couple 3 M 30/96 63/63
Couple 10 F 72/54 83/43
Couple 10 M 34/92 62/64
Couple 11 F 37/89 124/02
Couple 11 M 43/83 64/62
Couple 13 F 30/96 51/75
Couple 13 M 43/83 51/75
Couple 14 F 43/83 67/59
Couple 14 M 50/76 50/76

 

*Possible scoring on anxious and avoidant scales ranged from a low of 0 (high security)
to a high on anxious and avoidant of 126 (low security).

Diﬂerences

High scores on trust related to lower scores on anxious and avoidant scales at the .05
level in the couples-in-therapy sample only. The mean and standard deviation were
higher in this sample on both anxious and avoidant scales (n=10, M =40, SD =13.9 for in-
therapy couples’ avoidant scale; M = 65 & SD = 23.2 on in-therapy couples’ anxious
scale; n=20, M =20.6, SD = 7.6 on engaged avoidant scale; M = 54 & SD = 21 on
engaged anxious scale). An independent samples t—test between the means on the

clinical and engaged samples on the factors anxious and avoidant was not significant.

75

However, an independent (2 tailed) t-‘ test between the two groups revealed a significant
difference on the variable trust at the .001 level of significance (M=7.5, 5; t: .42, (If-:19,
9). Differences between males and females were not found in the engaged sample,
however, the couples-in-therapy female scores on anxious were twice that of the males
(total scores on anxiety for females = 473; total scores on anxiety for males: 290; M=60,
71; SD =7, 38, respectively. Levine’s t-test for equality of means was significant at the

.02 level).

The Relationship of the Triangulated Scores to the Qualitative Findings

The importance of this section is to explore the following questions:
0 How do the scores on the scales reﬂective of trust and attachment relate to the
qualitative responses of the two sample populations?
0 How do these findings relate to the original questions surrounding levels of trust,
attachment and the ability of the couple to development ﬁnancial decision making
patterns?
These are the areas which will be explored more fully in this section.
Engaged Couples

Triangulation in the areas of trust and attachment scales will now be examined in
light of the qualitative statement of the participants. All of the engaged couples indicated
high levels of trust in the relationship. Looking closer at the engaged graduate student
couple from the near east, revealed that both scored 8 out of 8 on high trust. They both
scored in the 90’s on the attachment scale, indicative of high levels of security. The male

described the situation this way, “Well, 10 months is not a lot of time in a relationship but

76

I don’t think the length of time really matters as much as the bonding and level of trust
that develops in that time. And in terms of finances, if you trust each other it doesn’t
really matter who is spending the money, you just feel trust in the other person doing
that.” Engaged couple’number one were both living together and working together. They
both also scored 8 out of 8 on the trust scale and their attachment scores were over 100
for both of them. The male explained the interaction between trust and finances in this
manner, “I mean it’s very trusting on everything, money, fooling around on the other
person, all the way down. And I think the fact we talk a lot about what we’ll do with the
money means neither of us would just go out and make a big purchase without input.”
Some of the engaged couples scored high on trust but not on attachment. A good
example was a couple consisting of the female just completing her BA and working in
her first job. Her fiance was working full time at a skilled trade. They both scored 8 out
of 8 on the trust score. His score was high for security on attachment: however she scored
high on the anxious dimension. Her interview revealed lots of difficulties with parental
issues related to ﬁnances and insecurities in this area. Her statement included the
following comments, “He often says I need this or that and I kind of ask him about that
and I’m waiting for the time when he starts to question me and he’ll say, you just bought
a new outfit, why are you buying another one? I question him more about his spending
than he questions me. Sometimes it irritates him, but I remind him about whether he
needs the stuff or. just wants it like a toy.” She goes on to describe a purchase he made
without her consent and how this caused distress in their relationship. Her fiance had a
much higher score on security and he explained the situation in his interview in this

manner, “At the point where we got engaged we had some serious discussions about my

77

spending patterns and needing to save some money. She started to get a little more on my
case and we reduced our going out a lot. It’s amazing how much money you can save
when you don’t eat out all the time or rent a movie instead of going out to see a movie.
At ﬁrst this was difficult for me, but then I started to see the benefits. Now with the
wedding getting closer it’s making more sense.”

Another engaged couple showed a strikingly similar scoring and profile to the last.
They were both graduate students from the near east. The female scored 8 out of 8 on the
trust score and the male scored 7 out of 8. Both the male and female scored high on the
anxiety attachment score. Their verbalization reveal a similar pattern to the last couple
mentioned, in that the female felt she needed to structure the male in his spending habits
and almost stopped the relationship because his patterns were different than hers. She
wrote on her return response, “The turning point in our relationship for me was that I
seriously considered whether or not to continue with a relationship, to put up with a
signiﬁcant other whose spending style I can’t agree with.” The male explained in his
interview that a major conﬂict in the relationship revolved around money issues. “Well,
we have an ongoing disagreement on one issue. It’s about credit card payments. She
would like me to pay the entire balance on the credit card each month. I’m the kind of
person who says, well I could pay it but I would rather pay 160 or 200 and leave a 100 in
my account to use in other ways.”

Couples-in—therapy

It should be remembered from the results section that most of these couples showed

greater variability on scores for trust and attachment. The scores for trust were

signiﬁcantly less than the engaged couples. An exploration of the dynamics of this

78

includes a 27-year-old male factory worker and his 25-year-old spouse who works part
time and manages their finances. He scored 8 out of 8 on the trust scale; she scored 0 out
of 8. He scored high on both avoidant and anxious scales; she scored high on just the
anxious score. In terms of the relational issues dealing with ﬁnancial management and
trust their comments were as follows: He stated, “She handles all the money and pays the
bills. I trust her to do this (but) I wanted new shoes and she said no. I was discouraged
because I felt I work and I wanted them. . . ..We’ve gotten into it before about why aren’t
the bills going down. We need to talk about it and it does seem logical sometimes the
decisions she makes.” She stated, “He doesn’t trust me enough.....He needs to
communicate more about what he is spending. He feels like it’s his money and he should
be able to spend it. Before he puts the money in the account he often spends or keeps too
much out. And my money just goes straight in.”

Another couple-in-therapy was very similar. These were both graduate law students.
He scored 8 out of 8 on the trust scale; she scored 1 out of 8. She scored 124 on anxious
out of a possible 126; he scored high on this scale as well. In terms of reports about
finances and the relational issues, he reported, “We often have opposite views on how
money is spent and then we each have to decide what we want to do. And we keep
separate accounts. I would usually like to go half and half ....And sometimes she wants to
go to dinner or something and I don’t and I say okay, you can pay for it.” She explained
in her interview, “I think in general We can trust each other ....but some times there are
things'like lies that come up and then you don’t know if you can trust the person. Well,

we both have our own money. . ..And normally I would organize the bills and ask him for

79

his half....He would complain a lot about having to pay half the bills, like this was absurd
or something.”

A 24—year-old female and her 26-year-old husband had known each other since high
school. He had graduated from college and was employed. She was working but still
awaiting her ﬁnal college degree. She scored 6 out of 8 on trust; he scored 3 out of 8. In
the area of attachment she scored 67 on anxious and he scored 50 (not highly secure). In
terms of trust and the relationship, he explained, “In terms of general trust or fidelity
issues I feel I can trust her. Before we were married however, I did have some problems
with her in this area. Well, I really don’t trust her with money. I spend to much but she’ll
just go crazy so we stopped letting her carry credit cards.” She discussed in her interview
the following, “He has always had the image of a good person trying to do the right thing.
And I know I went out on him sometimes and he was upset with this and that at times I
have gone out and spent tons of money and all that upset him. And I guess the therapy
issues we are working on revolve around infidelity, money issues and control in general.”
Summary

How do scores on the scales for trust and attachment reﬂect the qualitative responses
of the participants and how does this relate to their mutual financial decision making?
The results of reviewing the scores and qualitative statements revealed a striking
congruence betWeen the scores for trust and attachment and the couples’ ability to
communicate in terms of financial decision making in the relationship. The engaged
couples, with the higher scores on trust and attachment, reported being able to
communicate and remained ﬂexible to dealing with ﬁnancial decisions. Those engaged

couples with higher scores on anxiety or avoidance seemed to have a more difficult time

80

with decision making but were still confident of their progress because of their high
feelings of trust in each other and their future.the couples-in-therapy seem to have a
more difﬁcult time and this appeared to relate directly to lower scores on both the trust
and attachment dimensions. There was no change in identiﬁable response patterns with

the two married couples.

81

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
Overview

The macro-ecosystemic shift of record numbers of women of all ages entering the
work force was clearly reﬂected in the responses of these young couples. Mental attitudes
were found to be shifting toward the expectation of the norm of a dual earner status. Not
one of the 15 couples discussed the female as leaving the work force after the marriage,
except brieﬂy after the birth of a child. Along with this, family of origin values of the
young couples revealed role models for independent working women ranging from single
parent/ divorce situations to mothers going back to work later in life or reports of
professional mothers with a career.

Of importance was the finding that finances and trust do develop on a parallel course
from the earliest stage of friendship to a latter stage of a deeper commitment and that this
progress was evident irrespective of sub cultural membership. Equally important was the
finding that underlying attachment patterns for early and latter life relationships were less
important in the development of mental trust during the engaged period for the couple.
Therefore, the hope is elicited for clinical treatment that ecoystemic and intrinsic factors
or strengths may be found and utilized to reestablish trust in relationships regardless of
earlier states of distrust with resolutions for challenging situations for individuals and
couples.

This study was of course qualitative in nature with all results in an initial inquiry
stage, which would need to be expanded and replicated before overstating the results as

solid ﬁndings.

82

Theoretical Discussion

This section will review the three main theoretical areas of this study (ecology,
attachment and family of origin theories) with specific reﬂections on the four research
areas. The ﬁrst research question explored attitudes of trust and mutual decision making
in early couples. The three theoretical areas just cited would have been predictive of a
positive and parallel course in finances and trust with unique outcomes reﬂective of
cohesion (Olson, Russell & Sprenkle, 1983), underlying attachment and bonding patterns
(Bretherton and Waters, 1985) and family of origin patterns (Bowen, 1966; Knudsen-
Martin, 1994). I found that ecosystemic factors inﬂuenced the financial decision making
and trust in engaged couples more than family of origin variables and scores on adult
attachment inventories. In contrast, couples-in-therapy revealed scores on adult
attachment and family of origin variables to be more predictive of their levels of trust and
mutual decision making.

The second research question dealt with underlying family of origin patterns
producing inﬂuence in the present decision making and resource sharing areas of the
couple. These family patterns would have been predictive of the level of differentiation
within the couple (Bowen, 1966). Knudsen-Martin (1994) would have added the
expectation of fairness or gender equity would change the unique outcomes in this area.
Human ecology theory would also have predicted patterns over time to be inﬂuenced by
the recent changes in macro-environmental equity issues related to increases in dual-
earner households. In this area, I found strong internalized norms for family pattern
resources. These were both positive for the couples when similar or conﬂictual when

different. The engaged couples showed better conﬂict resolution skills in this area than

83

the problem couples. Level of differentiation was not measured in this study. However,
Knudsen-Martin’s (1994) update on Bowen’s differentiation theory with added
dimensions for fairness and gender equity was evidenced in the discussions related to
decisions of a dual earner couple. In the area of macro-systemic changes in females
entering the work force, I found changing relational patterns clearly reported by couples
with expectations and discussions relating to these dynamics. As in the previous research
question discussed, an area not predicted was the discovery that engaged couples showed
higher ﬂexibility levels and better communication than their attachment level scores or
their reports of family of origin problems would have predicted. They also show higher
scores on trust than the attachment scores or reports would have predicted.

The third research question dealt with contextual ecosystemic inﬂuences in the
present affecting current relational decisions in resources and mutual sharing. An
ecosystemic theory predictive of trust and mutual decision making in the present would
relate to the multi-layered, multi-variable and contextually based issues such that
Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) “Person-Process-Context Model” would expect couples to be
directed by multiple inﬂuences with decision making stemming from the values both
within the family system and externally through the larger macro-environments (Deacon
& Firebaugh 1988). Decision making and trust are theorized as contextually embedded
within the historical and ecosystemic perspective of each member of the newly formed
dyad based upon past developmental and family of origin patterns, values and
expectations (Bronfenbrenner, 1992; Buboltz and Sontag, 1993). Trust was measured by
the qualitative responses of each member of the couple and by the quantitative responses

on the Dyadic Trust Scale. The results of this study confirmed Lazarelle’s and Huston’s

84

(1980) report that dyadic trust was highest in engaged couples. Even though scores on the
anxious and avoidant scales were significant to trust in the problem sample, the optimism
of the engaged couples raised their scores on trust such that a general direction was seen
between trust and anxious and avoidant scales, which did not appear statistically
signiﬁcant in the final analysis. What is there about the time of engagement in couples,
that they are able to rise above their personal insecurities and embrace such qualities as
good communication, sound judgment and the open sharing of basic financial decisions?
Could it be predictive that elevated scores found in particular on anxiety in the engaged
sample might indicate potential problems in the future as the couples face the challenges
of work, family and other pressures? Overall, ecosystemic inﬂuences were highest from
family of origin with less significant inﬂuences from work or friends. The engaged
couples reported more cohesion in their relationship and family of origin inﬂuences. For
the couples-in-therapy, they reported more negative inﬂuences from family of origin,
work and friends and thus appeared to have less cohesion in the dynamics of their
relationship in general.

In terms of the fourth research question, whether males and females handled
financial decisions differently, ecosystemic theories such as Bronfenbrenner (1992,1994),
Deacon & Firebaugh (1988) and the Family of Origin theories of Bowen (1966) and
Knudsen-Martin ( 1994) would all point to responses which would be reﬂective of
societal patterns for handling money based on sexual roles and the changes in equity
patterns as producing unique responses to these role patterns. The results did indeed
reﬂect responses based on social roles with most individuals reporting males as tending

to spend on such items as electronics or cars and females more in the areas of clothing or

85

personal items. Inﬂuences from the family of origin or cohorts were reported as couples
related personal spending patterns similar to a family member or a friend. Macro-
ecosystemic inﬂuences were reﬂective of increased individual decision making on
purchases but not on sexual role types of behaviors. In other words, individuals would
report they each had some individual control over parts of their ﬁnances but these
spending patterns were often related to gender and role.

Overall, in this study, the engaged couples showed more cohesion. Therefore, even
though the same problems would arise in both groups of subjects, the couples-in-therapy
remained stuck, apparently because of poor communication and capacity to change. This,
of course, is classic Structural Family Therapy theory, developed by Minuchin and
Fishman (1981) and explicated more recently by Colapinto, Minuchin S., and Minuchin
P., (1989). It also is supported by an abundance of family research by Olson, Russell and
Sprenkle (1983), with regards to their Circumplex Model and from Froma Walsh’s
(1998) theorizing about “relational resiliency”.

Conceptual Discussion

This next section will be reﬂective of the conceptualization of this study with
particular emphasis on the results as they relate to the areas of equity research, adult
attachment, money management and trust issues.

Trust, Finances, Relational Issues & Equity

Conceptual clinical research would have predicted that finances are interwoven in

couples within the context of positive emotional decision making relating to all areas of

the relationship. The actual results of this study were positive in this regard.

86

Haddock, Zimmerman, Ziemba and Current’s (2001) study for successful families
revealed qualities of equality, shared power, and the ability to communicate and trust
each other in decision making. Shannigan and Buss (1986) showed happily married
couples with greater inﬂuence of the wife in decision making. In the present study the
engaged couples reported the qualities of equality, shared power and the ability to
communicate. The couples-in-therapy revealed the opposite qualities of poor
communication and difficulty trusting and sharing equally in decisions.

Sprecher (1992) examined inequity in close relationships and found that women were
more likely than men to become distressed at inequity and try to restore balance. Men in
under benefited equity situation were not affected similarly. In this study, the theme of
power imbalances was evident in both the engaged and problem couple populations. In
one problem be-set couple, the inequity was reﬂected in the male being out of work for
an extended period of time. The female made a point of explaining she was in control of
the money because she earned it but later in the interview she reﬂected she was actually
taking control as a punishment to force him to ﬁnd a job and restore balance in the
relationship. Further, she had refused to pay the rent and forced the couple to live with his
family when they received their eviction notice. His efforts at cooking and cleaning
annoyed her as he tried active role reversal based on her negativity. In an engaged couple
where the male was not employed, the female stated she was happy to pick up the slack
in the ﬁnances because she had conﬁdence in him and because he had helped her in the
past with difﬁcult financial times. This was more optimistic, less critical and more

trusting.

87

Larson, Hammon and Harper (1998) found inequity in the relationship produced less
self-disclosure, less reassurance and intimacy. In this study I found the couples-in-
therapy exhibited most of these qualities. The engaged couples however conﬁrmed the
results of this study by reporting just the opposite with higher equity, trust and disclosure
levels and better adjustment. Rogers (1999) found that increases in women’s income did
not significantly relate to inequity or marital discord. In this study I found all of the
couples interviewed expressed the opinion that both members of the couple would
contribute to the finances of the relationship and that the couple would be ﬂexible to
adjust to mutual bills depending on the income level of the spouse or the significant
other. Some of the engaged couples reported discussions around whether the wife would
take time off to raise children. None of the couples discussed the female as permanently
leaving the work force once married. However, two problem be-set cases produced
opposite results to Rogers (1999) in that differences in income were producing power
issues and conﬂict in the relationship.

Brannan and Wilson (1987) and Morris (1993) found work force participation
changed the quality in the relationship. In this research study I found one of the themes
was the difference in income between men and women. Most cases were reﬂective of the
male as having a higher income. In the engaged couples there was a careful balancing by
the male that he would consider her an equal partner even though her resources were less.
In two problem be-set cases the difference in income was producing power imbalances.
In one case previously mentioned the female was upset she was making the income and
used the issue to punish the male. In another case, the female was deﬁning herself

clinically as looking to her husband as a father ﬁgure and not being able to stand up for

88

her own decisions and needs. She felt this was changing recently as she finished school
and had entered the work force full time. She could envision her self conﬁdence
increasing as her career continued to unfold. This was expected to relate to more equal
decision making within the relationship.
Money Management, Trust and Equity

Conceptual research in this area pointed to a positive relationship between trust and
emotional responsiveness. Couples moving forward in a relationship with mutual
cooperation would be expected to begin to pool their resources and discuss changes in the
relationship and in their financial priorities and goals. Those couples living together with
less of a sense of security or commitment would be expected to hold onto their assets and
their independent priorities with less of an attitude of trust in the overall relationship.

Vogler and Pahl’s (1994) and Davis, Smith & Marsden’s (2001) research

concluded that either the male or female is usually identified as the gate keeper of the
funds. In this study it was found that at the point the couple committed to a formal
relationship a gate keeper was appointed. However, more couples were managing their
funds independently and communicating about the joint resource sharing. Most of the
engaged and problem couples reﬂected they had equal decision making into the funds. In
these cases they also reported they had independent accounts separate from the joint
account. A common theme was the underlying assumption they probably should have one
account but this did not seem to meet their needs. The couples with only one account had
reports of more conﬂict. Some of the couples were surprised to hear their parents had one
joint and two independent accounts. There was a common underlying theme this was not

acceptable in the larger ecosysterrric norms or societal relational values.

89

In engaged couples not living together funds were kept in separate accounts. Again
there was a theme that although this was functioning well, once they had moved in
together or were married they expected to merge their accounts into one. One couple
living together before marriage struggled with how to put their money together to pay
bills. They were both independent so instead of merging the money they split the bills in
a logical manner. They reﬂected they also paid each others bills in a ﬂexible way, outside
of the agreed upon plan and just let the other person know. This allowed them to keep
their sense of what I call mutual mental dependence and independence at the same time.

Ferber’s (1982) research reported that the male experiences his wife’s working as
positive based on previous exposure. I found this to be true of the present study in terms
of family of origin responses. Some males and females from divorced families reported a
feeling of seeing their mom as independent and related this to the feeling of equality with
their significant other.

Overall, results of this study confirmed previous research in this area.

Conceptual Research on Adult Attachment and Trust

Conceptual research on adult attachment is primarily related to the findings that early
trust in childhood produces internal models of the self related to significant others
(Lopez, 1995). The three adult attachment styles of secure, anxious or avoidant (Hazan &
Shaver, 1987) were utilized in this study. There has been no conceptual research
attempting to measure these attitudes within the relational quality of mutual decision
making. However, research from the previous sections would have predicted the overall
relational quality as positively related to the underlying attachment patterns. Empirical

results found in this study indicated that both the engaged and clinical samples revealed

90

underlying patterns for secure, anxious and avoidance with no difference between the two
groups. However, the results of this study did confirm Lazarelle & Huston’s (1980)
report that dyadic trust was highest in engaged couples. In the couples-in-therapy, a
positive relationship was evident between high scores on anxious or avoidant styles and
low levels of trust.
Clinical Implications

The early part of this paper began with the discussion that conﬂict over finances is a
major cause of relational discord (Poduska, 1993) and family therapists must be equipped
to recognize, understand and deal with it. As this study examined the early stages of the
family life cycle, at the cusp between the first and second stages where the couple is
setting up an understanding of their commitment and before the birth of children, a very
clear pattern began to emerge around the contextual relationship between early trust
issues from the family of origin, contextual transmitted values concerning the appropriate
handling of mutual resources, and the difference between the early trusting engaged
couples and those couples who have found themselves in problem counseling situations.
The attributes reported in engaged couples of high trust, good ability to communicate,
ﬂexible adaptation, good problem solving abilities and optimistic expressions of support
for each other were all qualities found in such theorists as Froma Walsh’s (1998)
description of relational resilience and David Olson’s concept of cohesion (Olson,
Russell & Sprenkle, 1983). These attributes seemed to be correlated with high trust. in
engaged couples regardless of the underlying attachment scores on anxious and avoidant.
Attachment theory would not predict this pattern in the engaged couples but would

predict the negative responses in therapy couples indicative of poor communication and

91

problem solving, distrust and high scores on anxiety and avoidance in attachment. Thus,
it would be important in clinical practice to encourage the growth of these attitudes, thus
viewing the underlying patterns and environmental obstacles as capable of change and
able to benefit from positive supports in the ecosystem (family of origin, gender, friends,
etc.) and developmentally (in the individual or the relationship stage).

This relates greatly to the work of John Gottman (1994). This theory and research
views the central concept of emotional intelligence in marriages as a key to the building
of a relational alliance. Gottman (1994) uses positive relational techniques such as the
love map, which is the emotional connection that allows couples to know the details of
what the spouse values most. It elicits give and take and reconnects the state of emotional
bonding and trust in the couple. In John Gottman’s (1999) book devoted to the principles
for making marriage work, he devotes a section to finances. He states couples often come
in with conﬂicting ﬁnancial priorities, which they have not clearly discussed. His solution
is to have each person clearly communicate what they consider absolutely essential for
their happiness and well being in an emotionally expressive atmosphere. This technique
is placed within a rediscovery and communication of mutual goals for the course ahead in
their marriage and clearly a tactic in increasing the trust response and positive
communication representative of the clinical emphasis of this study. His theory of the
four horsemen in a marriage relates directly to the level of trust and communication in the
couple with the presupposition that couples with poor trust and communication levels
will have a great deal of difﬁculty solving their differences or go on to a positive future

for their marriage.

92

As relating to both Gottman’s (1999) work and the findings of this study, financial
matters can be viewed as not a unique area in a relationship, but rather as embedded
within the emotional dynamics of the couple and as such resolvable through open
communication and clarification in the couple. Although financial challenges present
unique areas in clinical practice, the clinical expression of thoughts and emotion might be
similar to the discussions surrounding issues such as parenting, setting rules for the
family or the discussion of personal goals within the relationship.

For those therapist counseling engaged or premarital couples, it would be important
to understand from this study, that this population might be viewed differently depending
on the overt or covert commitment level of the couple. Those couples with a committed
relationship with clear goals for marriage or a long term partnership will likely be more
trusting in many or most areas of their relationships including financial decision making.
They will probably be easier to counsel and reach consensus on their independent and
mutual goals. Couples who are still courting or living together without a clear course for
their future together may show distressing relational issues, including ﬁnances, which
could clinically be treated by opening up communication boundaries to allow for a ﬂow
of positive, trusting disclosures about their underlying feelings for the relationship and
mutual compromises or behaviors to prove their intent to stay together and work thing
out. These couples might take more time to reach consensus on issues depending on what
the underlying disturbances in trust are related to. John Gottman’s (1999) emotional bank
account assignment would be a good example, where the couple comes up with positive
thoughts and actions which are then practiced on the partner to increase the positive

emotions and trust in the couple.

93

Another important area of this research relates to the cohort ﬁndings of this under 30
year old sample. The macro-systemic statistics clearly show the participation rate for
married women in the work force changing from 36% to 61% in 1994, including women
with children under the age of three. (Family Economic & Nutrition Review, 1999). In
this study, the response of these young couples revealed expectations for dual earner
status. The mental expectation that this is part of a healthy relationship and not a negative
inﬂuence on the family was also reported in these young couples. Clinicians would want
to watch for shifts of decision making and management as women re-enter the work force
later in the family life cycles as well. Some of these young couples reported shifts in
decision making with more input from mom as she went into the work force or dad
retired. The fact that young people have been raised in single parent homes also
inﬂuenced their basic perceptions and assumptions that women can have an equal say in
work opportunities and in the decision making in the home. These young cohorts viewed
this as more the norm.

Another important area related to clinical work and the results of this study was the
finding that all of the couples, regardless of subcultural membership, went through an
initial stage of mutual trust formation in the same manner. The stage of becoming a friend
and moving into a relationship did not seem to differ based on a speciﬁc subcultural
membership but seemed to be almost universal with intrusive factors affecting this
formation unique to the individual’s family of origin or early trust and attachment
experiences. This sets the stage for clinical insight into the pattern responses as
representative of the “normal or universal relational progression” in early couples. Thus a

clinician would want to explore the relationship formation dynamics in a couple with

94

emphasis on the levels of trust and commitment and the underlying differences in such
factors as the family of origin cohesion. Attachment patterns and specific sub cultural
membership might be secondary inﬂuences rather than first order factors in prescribing
positive growth options for the couple’s relationship. Financial decision making might be
viewed as interwoven within the relationship with these issues related to the family of
origin, basic patterns of trust and security, contextual ecosystemic inﬂuence from jobs
and opportunities for women. These patterns might then be seen as affecting the male and
female role responses in the micro environment of the dyad and the larger ecosystemic
macro system such as the work force.
Conclusion

Women’s participation in the work force increased from 36% in 1966 to 61% in 1994
(The Family Economic and Nutrition Review, 1999). Morris (1993) found that female
financial inﬂuence was at its lowest when men were the sole wage earners and at its
highest when female employment supported joint management. Although women’s work
force participation has increased rapidly, Davis, Smith and Marsden’s (2001) research
indicates 78% of families report males are still earning the major portion of the income.
In this study all of the couples expected both members would be in the labor market
during their time together. One young female was working on improving her personal
decision making in the relationship and explained it was getting much better as she
assumed her fulltime job and saw herself as an equal partner to her spouse. This inﬂuence
seems to be reﬂected as well in the parental generation as subjects reported being
astounded at the fact their parents had separate banking accounts when they had asked for

loans for the wedding. The fact that women are joining the work force in record numbers

95

does not seem to be having a negative inﬂuence on the relationship of the couples. The
males areaccepting of these changes and many of the males were children of divorce and
had seen their mothers act in an independent manner for most of their lives. The high
level of trust was indicative of ﬂexibility in the engaged relationship and in the ability of
the couple to decide on appropriate role definitions. The engaged couples also reported
less negative inﬂuence from outside sources and more positive. As predicted the problem
be-set couples had less trust, higher scores on anxiety and avoidance and reported that
outside factors were often disturbing to the relationship. One was mistrustful of his
significant other because of previous problems with his mother.

Overall, trust, ﬁnances and equity issues seem to be shifting in couples to reﬂect more
female work force participation. Although couples describe trust accompanying an
increase in “mutual mental financial resource sharing”, more young couples are using one
joint and two separate accounts to keep their sense of independence without damage to
the relationship. Increases in work force participation by women do seem to be reﬂected
in increased equity and decision making in the relationship and young males seem to be
more accepting of this.

On a different note, I would like to add how I not only found this exercise useful
but so did many of the participants. For example comments by many of the couples did
indeed inspire feelings of insight into the automatic assumptions and realities they have
created in the context of their present relational style. A 24-year-old male stated,
“Following the interview, we ....discussed our answers to your questions. Upon reading
the summary. . .I realized that regardless of the outside inﬂuences, I am still confident that

we’ll be able to progress (with) our financial decisions and situations once we both have

96

established incomes. I am glad we could be a part of your study. It was a good experience
and an opportunity to reﬂect on these issues more thoroughly.”

A 22-year—old female with her first job in administration for a long term care
facility responded to the transcript in this manner, “I found the interview was very nice.
We left and continued to reminisce about our past for the next day or two. It was helpful
because it brought up a few issues that needed further discussion. I enjoyed reading
this. . ..because it reﬂected us as a couple and reaffirmed my happiness with him. I really
realized how lucky I am to have (him) in my life. Well done! We both had a good time.”

Further Research

Research in this area might follow similar engaged couples through the marriage
process to examine the potential inﬂuence of the ECL scores on marital adjustment.
According to Lazarele & Huston (1980) the trust scores should begin to erode with time
and underlying patterns for avoidance and anxiety should begin to form with stress and
time in the relationship. Additional research might examine older couples when females
have entered the work force. This was reﬂected by several individuals who related their
mother had gone back to work after dad had retired and the family patterns for relational
decision making were changing to reﬂect the female’s work force entry.

Limitations

The present study, although containing some psychometric scales, was qualitative in
nature. Therefore, the sample size was small and any statistical computations severely
limited in kind and implications. These numerical data are intended only to underscore
implications from the qualitative analysis. Secondly, although the sample focused on an

urban area in the north east section of the US, the sample might be considered unusual

97

in that most participants were highly educated and 25% were from another country. Some
of the participants might be considered working class; others, middle class. In qualitative
research, external validity is established on a case—by-case, group-by—group basis. Clearly
this program of inquiry needs to be extended to other couples with other backgrounds.
Lastly, all individuals were reﬂective of the beginning stages of family life, under 30
years of age and before the advent of children. The unique area of engaged couples, with
a solid commitment and time frame for marriage, with optimistic feelings of hope for the
future, is itself a subcategory of couples which could only be reﬂective of this same
population. It should also be remembered that the in-therapy cases were added more so
for comparison and contrast than for speciﬁc identiﬁed qualities or scoring. In analysis
however, even the small sample of in-therapy couples revealed qualities found in the
research on couples in-therapy within this cohort dimension.

In another vein, the nature of qualitative inquiry is itself suspect because the
researcher spends in depth time with the participants and as such may inﬂuence the
gathering of the data (Miles & Huberman 1994). Of equal importance is the lens of this
qualitative researcher who is focused and trained upon a family ecosystemic orientation.
As such the research questions themselves are set up to explore predetermined areas.
However, it was hoped that by exploring these same areas for all subjects, unique patterns
could be distinguished. This was clearly seen in this study. It should also be recognized
that the differences between the engaged and problem couples could not be assumed to be
reﬂective of natural occurring changes with time. Further research might support the
engaged and problem couples as mirroring the differences in research between happy,

well adjusted families and those with difficulties and seeking clinical treatment.

98

APPENDICES

99

APPENDIX A
Semi-Structured Individual Interview Guide
1. Tell me about your relationship? (Watch for emotional state).
2. How do you handle money?
3. When you are trusting each other, what does that look like? What are you thinking,
feeling and doing?
4. How does this relate to handling your money?
5. Do you make plans together and how does this relate to the financial sharing of
decisions?
6. Do you have an equal say in how money is spent?
7. Tell me a story about major conﬂicts in your relationship. Did this affect how you
dealt with money or resource issues between you?
8. At what point in your relationship did this happen?
9. Tell me about how financial decision making is the same or different from your
parents?
10. Do you feel there are differences in the way males and females handle money? Tell
me about these differences, if any?
Semi-structured Couple Interview Guide
1. Tell me about times when outside forces, such as work, family or friends inﬂuence or
affect the decisions you make as a couple in terms of financial decision making?
2. Think back to the time when you both started dating? As you progressed in your
relationship what happened to the way you dealt with financial issues. This could be on

an individual or a joint basis.

100

APPENDIX B
Consent Form for Participation in the Research Project:
The Relationship of Trust and Attachment
to Financial Resource Management in Couples
Explanation of the Research
My name is Donna Marion and I am inviting you to be part of a research study
investigating the relational issues in financial decision making in couples. The research
will be composed of open-ended interview questions which examine your thoughts and
feelings. The goal is to learn more about how early relationships change as a result of
financial issues and feelings of trust and bonding in the developing couple.
Participants in this study will do three things:
0 Complete an initial questionnaire with demographic and general information on the
topic area.
0 Attend an interview with the researcher where you will be asked open-ended
questions and be allowed to discuss your thoughts and feelings on the material. The
answers will be taped recorded and transcribed so the researcher can better examine the
answers at a later date. This is the ﬁrst phase of the study and should take approximately
40 minutes for the individual interview and 30 rrrinutes for the couple interview.
0 In the validation phase of the study, the couples will be provided copies of their
transcriptions and asked to validate or amend the information. This is phase two of the
study which should take approximately 30 rrrinutes to complete.
Each couple will be paid $30.00 for the interviews and $30.00 for their subsequent

review.

101

Voluntary Status

Participation is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you are free to stop at any time.
There are no consequences for a decision not to continue. You will only be paid for those
phases of the study which you complete.

Beneﬁts

Benefits of this study may be of a reﬂective nature to yourself on how you handle
financial situations as they relate to relationships in your experience. This research is not
meant to be clinical or therapeutic in nature. No treatment or clinical process is inherent
in the asking of the questions. The financial reimbursement will also be a benefit to the
participant.

Risk

No risk is anticipated to the participant other than minor discomfort or anxiety from the
normal sharing of thoughts, feelings and ideas.

Conﬁdentiality

All information provided will be kept confidential. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. Individual responses and information will be recorded
and analyzed with pseudonyms. Consent forms containing your names and contact
information will be stored in a locked facility apart from the study data. They will be
shredded at the conclusion of this study. The only people who will have access to
questionnaire responses and other evidence of participation will be the research team
conducting the project. If any identifying information is evident through your situation,

changes will be made accordingly to protect your privacy and maintain conﬁdentiality.

102

Contacts and Questions

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study, please call the primary
investigator, Donna Marion at 810-694-2888 or Dr. Robert E. Lee, Ph.D., Department of
Family and Child Ecology, 13 Human Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,

Mi. 48824-1030, e-mail boblee@msu.edu or by phone 517-432-2269.

 

If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a study participant, or are

dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact-anonymously, if

you wish Dr. Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research

Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)-355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503,

e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, Mi. 48824.
Statement of Consent

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

Participants signature: Date:

 

Witness signature: Date:

 

103

APPENDIX C

Demographic Information and Contact Summary Form

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name: Age :

Address: Expected move from address?
Phone:

Contact Date:

 

Length of relationship?

 

Living together or separately? Time frames?

 

Previously married?

 

Previous children?

 

1. What were the main themes that struck you as you conducted the interview?

2. What thoughts or clarifications did you have on the questionnaire as you reviewed it

with the client?

3. Was there anything unusual or insightful about the interview?

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D
Dyadic Trust Scale

(True or False)
1. My partner is primarily interested in his (her) own welfare.
2. There are times when my partner cannot be trusted.
3. My partner is perfectly honest and truthful with me.
4. I feel that I can trust my partner completely.
5. My partner is truly sincere in his (her) promises.
6. I feel that my partner does not show me enough consideration.
7. My partner treats me fairly and justly.

8. I feel that my partner can be counted on to help me.

105

APPENDIX E

Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory (ECL)
Brennan, Clark & Shaver (1998)

 

The following statements concern how you feel in romantic relationships. We are interested in how you
generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in a current relationship. Respond to each
statement by indicating how much you agree or disagree with it. Write the number in the space provided.
using the following rating scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Neutral/ Agree
Strongly Mixed Strongly

1. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.
2. I worry about being abandoned.
3. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.
4. I worry a lot about my relationships.
5. Just when my partner starts to get close to me I ﬁnd myself pulling away.
6. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them.
7. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close.
8. I worry a fair amount about losing my partner.
9. I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.
10. I often wish that my partner’s feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for
him/her.
11. I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back.
12. I often want to merge completely with romantic partners, and this sometimes
scares them away.
13. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.
14. I worry about being alone.
15. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner.
16. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.
17. I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.
18. I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner.
19. I ﬁnd it relatively easy to get close to my partner.
20. Sometimes I feel that I force my partners to show more feeling, more commitment.
21. I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.
22. I do not often worry about being abandoned.
23. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.
24. If I can’t get my partner to show interest in me, I get upset or angry.
25. I tell my partner just about everything.
26. I ﬁnd that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close as I would like.
27. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.
28. When I’m not involved in a relationship, I feel somewhat anxious and insecure.
29. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.
30. I get frustrated when my partner is not around as much as I would like.
31. I don ‘t mind asking romantic partners for comfort, advice, or help.
32. I get frustrated if romantic partners are not available when I need them.
33. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.
34. When romantic partners disapprove of me, I feel really bad about myself.
35. I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance.
36. I resent it when my partner spends time away from me.

llllllllllllllllllllllll

106

APPENDIX F

MSU RESEARCH
STUDY !!

0 Would you like to participate in an interview
study on engaged couples?

0 Would you like to earn $60.00 for your efforts?
0 Are you available to schedule some time

within the next month or so? (Weekend
and evening hours are available).

If so, call Donna Marion @ 810-694-2888 (voice mail) to participate and
help out an MSU graduate student.

Thanks for your interest and assistance.

107

APPENDIX G

Summary Sheet

1. After you ﬁnished the interview did you have any thoughts about what you said? This
could include ideas you forgot to mention or ways you wish you would Irave stated

something.

2. After reading the synopsis of the material, did the transcription seem valid? Please

comment.

3. After reading the summary of the themes, what were you thoughts?

4. Additional information? Please feel free to include additional pages if needed.

 

 

Signature Date

108

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-
716.

Anonymous. (1999).Earnings of husbands and wives in dual-eamer families.
Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 12, 54-55.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test
of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-
244.

Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (1997). Swimming upstream: Trends in the gender wage differential
in the 1980’s. Journal of Labor Economics, 15,1-42.

Boss, P.G., Doherty, Doherty, W. J ., LaRossa, R., Schamm, Walter, R., & Steinmetz, S.
(1993). Sourcebook of family theories & methods: A contextual
approach. New York: Plenum Press.

Bowen, M. (1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 7, 345-374.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.

Brannen, J ., & Wilson, G. (1987). Give and take in families: Studies in resource
distribution. London: Allen & Unwin.

Brennen, K. A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, PR. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York:
Guilford Press.

Bretherton, I., & Waters, R. (1985). (Eds.) Growing points of attachment theory and
research. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 50, 3-34.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of
child development (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie (1994). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press.

Buboltz, M., & Sontag, S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In Boss,P., Doherty, W.J.,

LaRossa, R., Schamm & Steinmetz, S. (Eds.) Sourcebook of family theories &
methods: A contextual approach. (pp.419-448). New York: Plenum Press.

109

Carter, 8., & McGoldrick, M. (Eds). (1980). The changing family life cycle. New York:
Gardner Press.

Chaplin, J .P. (1985). Dictionary of psychology. New York: Dell Publishing.

Colapinto, Minuchin, S. & Minuchin, P. (1989). Home based family service:manual.
Delaware: Family Studies, Inc.

Constantine, L. (1986). Family paradigms: The practice of theory in family therapy. New
York: Guilford Press.

Davidson, B., Balswick, J ., & Halverson, C. (1983). Affective self-disclosure and marital

adjustment: A test of equity theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
93-102.

Davis, J .A., Smith, T.W., & Marsden, P.V. (2001). General social surveys, I972-
2000:cumulative codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

Deacon, R., & Firebaugh, F. (1988). Family resource management. New York.: Allyn
and Bacon, Inc.

De Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: Norton.

Edwards, D. (1998). Types of case study work: A conceptual framework for case-based
research. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 38, 36-70.

Erickson, E. (1968). Identity youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior
processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social
psychology (pp. 97-116). New York: Guilford.

Feeney, J. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.

Ferber, M. (1982). Labor market participation of young married women: Causes and
effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 457—467.

Gehart, D., Rarliff, D., & Lyle, R. (2001). Qualitative research in family therapy: A
substantive and methodological review. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy,27, 261-274.

Giesen, D., & Kalmijn, M. (1997). Joint or separate banking? Money management of
married and cohabiting couples. Mens en Maatschappij, 72, 21-39.

Glezer, H., & Mills, E. (1991). Controlling the purse strings. Family Matters, 29, 35-36.

110

Gottman, J. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 169-197.

Gottman, John M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy.
New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Ltd.

Gottman, J. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York:
Random House.

Haddock, S., Zimmerman, T., Ziemba, S., & Current, L., (2001). Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 27, 445-458.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Hiller, D., & Philliber, W. (1982). Predicting marital and career success among dual-
worker couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53-62.

Hoshmand, L. L. (1989). Alternative research paradigms: A review and teaching
proposal. The Counseling Psychologist, I 7, 3-101.

Janesick, V. (1999). A journal about journal writing as a qualitative research technique:
History, issues and reﬂections. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 505-524.

Johnson, S. (1996). The practice of emotionally focused marital therapy; Creating
connection. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Brunner/Mazel.

Kantor, D., & Lehr. W. (1975). Inside the family. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Inc.

Knudson-Martin, C. (1994). The female voice: Applications to Bowen’s family systems
theory. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 35-46.

Kobak, R. & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: Effects of security and accuracy
of working models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 861-869.

Larson, J ., Hammond, C., & Harper, J. (1998). Perceived equity and intimacy in
marriage. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 487-506.

Larzelere, R., & Huston, T. (1980). The Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward understanding

interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and The Family, 42,
595-604.

Lewin, T. (2000). Now a majority: Families with two parents who work. New York
Times.New York, N. Y.

111

Lopez, F. (1995). Contemporary attachment theory: An introduction with implications for
counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psychology, 23, 395-415.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Sage Publications:
CA.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. ( 1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications: CA.

Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. (1981). Family Therapy Techniques. Harvard University
Press: MA.

Morris, L. (1993). Household finance management and the labour market: A case study
in Hartlepool. The Sociological Review, 41, 506-536.

Olson, D., Russell,C., & Sprenkle, D. (1983). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family
SystemszVI: Theoretical update. Family Process, 22, 69-83.

Pahl, J. (1983). The allocation of money and the structuring of inequality within
marriage. Sociological Review,31, 237-262.

Pahl, J. (1988). On work: Historical, comparative & theoretical approaches. New York :
Basil Blackwell, Ltd.

Pahl, Jan. (1989). Money & Marriage. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Pahl, J. (1990). Household spending, personal spending and the control of money in
marriage. Sociology, 24, 119-138.

Poduska, B. (1995). For love & money. CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Rafuls, S.E., & Moon, SM. (1996). Grounded theory methodology in family therapy

research. In D. Sprenkle, & S. Moon, (Eds), Research methods in family therapy
(pp.64-80). New York: N .Y.

Rogers, S. (1999). Wives’ income and marital quality: Are there reciprocal effects?
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 123-132.

Schaninger, C., & Buss W. C. ( 1986). A longitudinal comparison of consumption and
financial handling between happily married and divorced couples. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 48,129-136.

Sprecher, S. (1992). How men and women expect to feel and behave in response to
inequity in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 57-69.

Sprenkle, D. & Moon, S.(Eds.) (1996). Research methods in family therapy. New York;

112

Guilford Press.

Stamp, P. (1985). Balance of ﬁnancial power in marriage: an exploratory study of
breadwinning wives. Sociological Review, 33, 546-66.

Steil, J. (1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to well-being of husbands and wives.
CA: Sage.

Vogler, C.,& Pahl, J. (1994). Money, power and inequality within marriage. The
Sociological Review,42, 263-286.

Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. Guilford Press: N.Y.

Walter, L, & Peller, J. (1992). Becoming solution-focused in brief therapy.
NewYork: Brunner/Mazel.

Webster's College Dictionary. (1999). New York: Random House.
Weiner-Davis, M. (1992). Divorce busting. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Wiseman, R.L. (1995). Intercultural communication theory. London: Sage Publications.

113

   

lIlllllljlljllljljjljlllllljljjlll