THE EFFECTS or Homoemmv AND ‘ ' ‘ mmemgm or SELF-53m ON 1% manure PATTERNS or ENGAGED COUPLES Thesis for the Degreeof M. A. ‘ ' MtCHiGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CAROL ANN TRUFANT 1972 KHES" ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF HOMOGENEITY AND HETEROGENEITY OF SELF-ESTEEM ON THE INTERACTION PATTERNS OF ENGAGED COUPLES Carol Ann Trufant’ The present study was concerned with the difference between couples with homogeneous and heterogeneous self-esteem scores on their pattern of interaction. Competitiveness, dominance, egocen- 'tricity, and partnership were measured by (l) Interruptions, (2) Simultaneous speech, (3) Number of times spoken, (4) Length of time Spoken, (5) Number of 1's, and (6) Number of wE's. The hypoth- eseskwere: l) Couples with homogeneous esteem levels would exhibit more attempts at competing with and dominating each other than the heterogeneous groups. 2) Couples with heterogeneous esteem levels would show more inclinations towards egocentrism evidenced by the number of 1's spoken, whereas homogeneous groups will exhibit more partnership feelings shown by the number of HE'S spoken. 3) Men would be more dominating than women in their interactions regard- _less of individual or couple esteem levels. Carol Ann Trufant‘ A total of 22 engaged subjects between the ages of l9 and 23 were studied. All were Caucasian, middle class, and former or present college students. All individuals completed the Tennessee Self- Concept Scale, a self-descriptive measure. A difference score for each couple was derived and couples were designated as having either homogeneous or heterogeneous esteem levels. An experimental situation Iwas derived by Oaklander (1971) in which each couple was required to discuss a questionnaire and arrive at joint answers regarding the questions. These sessions were audio-taped and coded for the inter- action measures. An analysis of variance with repeated measures was conducted for all measures except simultaneous speech on which a one-way anal- ysis was performed. A correlational matrix was also obtained. Re- sults showed that neither the homogeneous or heterogeneous groups dominated more than the other indicating a similar pattern of inter- aCtion for both groups. However, the homogeneous group used a sig- nificantly higher number of NE's in their discussion than did the heterogeneous group suggesting that people with similar self-esteem levels exhibit more partnership feelings. Other findings suggested that couples generally tend to be concerned with the dominance factor more than any other. In addition, heterogeneous males interrupt most often, and males generally tended to dominate and exhibit more 2 Carol Ann Trufant’ egocentric behaviors which women did not readily accept. Women tended to attempt thwarting behaviors to offset male dominance and egocentrism. In fact, there is an indication that women resent egocentrism more than other male behaviors. Approved: Date: THE EFFECTS OF HOMOGENEITY AND HETEROGENEITY OF SELF-ESTEEM ON THE INTERACTION PATTERNS OF ENGAGED COUPLES 'By' Carol Ann Trufant A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1972 To Rufus who has endured and survived much more than most ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks to Lennard Leighton for his editing suggestions and his "listening ear" for this past year. To Dr. Crano I express my appreciation for his willingness to be on my committee at such a late date and for his timely assiS- tance and comments. I To Dr. Lawrence Messé I express my gratitude for his in- -valuable advice and suggestions throughout,-and especially for his willingness to help me through a harrowing situation. East but certainly nOt least to my chairman, and friend, Dr. Gary Stollak, I express my deepest gratitude for his scholarly criticism on a work which few thought would materialize, for his. often "bent out of shape" but enduring faith in my ability to perform, and for his everlasting patience. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ...... ‘ ................... vi INTRODUCTION .......................... l Review of Literature ........... . ........ 3 Self-Esteem ............ _ ......... . . 3 Conflict .......... . .............. 7 Self-Esteem and Conflict ....... ' . . . . ..... 9 Interaction Measures of Conflict ............ . l3 Hypotheses ........................ I. 17 METHOD ................ I ........... '. . 19 Instruments ......................... 19 Subjects .......................... 20 ~ Procedure ........................... 2l RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... I 24 Methods of Analysis ..................... 24 Findings .................... . ...... 26 Summary of Results . ~. ................... 28 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS.—-Cont. Page DISCUSSION ............ - ............ ‘. . . 30 Limitations of the Study .................. 36 Future Research ....................... 37 CONCLUSION ........... , ..... . ........... 39 REFERENCES .......... I ......... '. . . .‘. . . . 41 APPENDICES ‘ I A. TASKS ADMINISTERED TO SUBJECTS .......... ,. . . 44 B. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MAINEFFECTS ANALYSIS OF SIMPLE EFFECTS. CORRELATION MATRICES ................. ~. 56 'c. RAN DATA ON ENGAGED COUPLES ............... 60 LIST OF TABLES ‘Table Page l. Means for Couples and Males-Females; Summaries of Analysis of Variance for Main Effects and Simultaneous Speech .................. 25 2. Analysis of Variance = InterrUptions .......... 56 3. Analysis of Variance = Number of Time Spoken ...... 56 4. Analysis of Variance é Length of Time Spoken ...... 57 5. Analysis of Variance = Number Of I's spoken ....... 57 6. ,Analysis of Variance = Number of HE'S Spoken ...... 58 7.. Analysis of Simple Effects--Interruptions ........ 58 ‘ 8. Correlation Matrix--CoUples ............... . 59 9.. Correlation Matrix--Males-Females ............ 59 lo. Tennessee Self-Concept Scores and Difference Scores A for Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Couples. ...... 60 vi INTRODUCTION The purpose of this project was to study the effects of homo- geneity and heterogeneity of self-esteem on the interaction patterns ,of engaged couples. Most research has studied married couples usually after a few years of marriage. Much of this research concerns marital ' - adjustment, and is based on assumptions, such as "neuroticism" being negatively correlated or socioeconomic status being positively corre- lated with this adjustment (Barry, 1970). Little research has been conducted on a population of couples who have not yet married. The engagement period is, of course, one of finalization be- fore marriage and can be a difficult time. Burgess and Hallin (1954) have found that during the engagement period, an attempt to work out many aspects of the dyadic relationship is made. It takes time to find a person one can "get along with"; moreover, it also takes good jUdgment in choosing the most appropriate partner. Temperament, other personality variables, economic, and social factors are all related to this decision process. Perhaps the most important aspects however are temperamental and personality factors of individuals. Each adult has a way of acting and reacting towards others across 'situations. He also has learned to act and react in terms of his 1 prior interpersonal experiences, mainly from relations with the family, and later from those with his peers.) Of course, if basic relationships have been faulty, then a problem will ariSe in later ' relationships. However, it is these later relationShips that will be discussed here. Many young adults today have stereotypic views ‘regarding the desirability of a partner in relation to themselves. Partially due to the influence of mass media, there is an overe emphasis on surface aspeCts: dress, manner, facial characteristics, money, etc. According to Burgess and Nallin (1954), the courtship system in this day and age is not functional. Young people are made to suffer the reperCussions of erroneous judgments in choosing poten- ‘tial partners. The consequences are often overwhelming and can lead to avoidance of any further close interpersonal relationships with the opposite sex even to the extreme of remaining distant for long periOds of time. This behavior tends to isolate individuals and fosters a perpetual pattern of escape resulting in a never-ending inability to get along with others--especially those of the opposite sex. It seems here that people could use some guidance in being com- panions, first; that is, in acquiring knowledge of effective inter- personal relationships with others. I It was the purpose-of this research to view engaged rather ‘than married couples in order to discover a way to measure the factors during this period which might hinder a successful marriage. Differences in individual personality as well as couple differences were emphasized, especially self-esteem. It would be interesting to discover joint or individual differences apparent before marriage that relate to conflict and conflict resolution. These differences then could be useful predictors for couples contemplating long term inter- personal relationships. It would be especially helpful during the teenage period for these young adults to be exposed and given guidance . in determining which people are better associates for them relative to their own needs, traits, etc. Many individuals do not realize that effective conflict resolution is important, for it is not emphasized at an early enough age. For engaged couples, conflict is inevitable. How conflict is handled before marriage could be crucial in predicting future conflict and marital happiness. For during later periods, additional problems specific to marriage itself will arise and will be worked out accord- ing to the individual strengths brought to the dyad and ultimately to the strengths of the initial couple relationship. Review of Literature Self-Esteem There have been numerous studies conducted concerning the ef- fects of low self-esteem in general interpersonal interaction, but only few on the effects of similar or differing esteem levels of en- gaged couples. Coopersmith (1959) was one of the first to write about different types of self-esteem. Studies done up to that time con- cluded that self-esteem was a significant contributing variable in different areas--threat, recall ability, etc. He maintained that the term "self-esteem" can be interpreted in many ways, and is vague and difficult to evaluate. He stated: Underlying the variety of terminology-~pride (Baldwin ' and Lewin, 1957), ego (Freud, 1927; Gough, 1954), domi- nance (Gough, 1954), self-cathexis (Jourard, l957)--is a distinction between self-evaluation and the manner in which this self-evaluation is expressed in behavior. Various definitions emphasize short- and long-term, hierarchical, ego, behavioral, social and self states, all of which presumably have in common the ego needs postulated by Freud (1927) and extended and clarified by A. Freud (T938), Horney (l937) and other neo- Freudians, and Rogers (l942). Coopersmith (1959) believed that "a subjective evaluation of self- esteem is . . . in substantial agreement with its behavioral expres- sion,despite the stress involved in daily living and the resultant defensive and distorting factors present" (p. 87). Others espouse the view that self-esteem is,a crucial factor in determining the ease with which a dyadic relationship will flow relative to individual factors. According to Gergen (l97l), a ,person's social or interpersonal relationships are significantly determined by his self-concept. In fact, the amount of influence one exerts on others can be determined by his self—esteem level. In other words, self-esteem can determine whether a person will be a dominant or submissive member of a dyad and therefore more apt to influence or be influenced. For example, Murstein (l97l) studied self--idea1-self dis- crepancies and choice of marital partners. He evaluated the Edwards .— Personal Preference Schedule Score of 99 couples, engaged or going steady. The results indicated that people of Similar levels of self-- ideal-self acceptance tend to become engaged to each other and that the perception of a partner as Similar or different is a function of self-acceptance levels. He also found that persons who are low in self-acceptance were forced to settle for potential marriage partners who do not approximate their concept of an ideal spouse as closely as do potential partners for high self-acceptance peOple. If this last finding is true, then it seems that the basis of conflict for the low-esteem dyads is their dissatisfaction with their respective choices. There is still a struggle for power; however the low esteem pair struggle for non-existent power. Perceiving the absence of power oVer others, they attempt to gain it from an already defensive posi- tion. On the other hand, a couple with differing esteem levels might (have less conflict because their positions are more defined, i.e., dominant versus submissive. A Thomas and Burdick (1954) and Cohen (1956; 1959) found that high self-esteem peOple rated themselves high on attempting to influence . and that the higher the self-esteem level, the more a person will try to maintain his views and will guard against being influenced. Sex differences of individual partners may be important. Murstein (1971) found that the extent to which men perceive partners as different is a function of differences in their self-concepts. FOr women, however, the perceptionof partners as different depends ondifferences in self-concept and the extent of their perceptions of the fiance as ideal. Gergen (l97l) warns however that positive correlations between individual self-esteem ratings and ratings of others can not be taken completely as fact. Some psychological research show that people tend to rate extremely or moderately on self-esteem tests and in rating others; extreme scorers rate both themselves and others more posi— tively. Thus, individual styles of rating also contribute to these positive correlations rather than self-esteem alone. Self-esteem seen from an individual and dyadic point of view is useful for one affects or is affected by the other. In viewing interrelationships and self-esteem generally, similar and differing esteem levels might be more important phenomena than are high or low levels. Self-esteem is considered an ego-related need, and as such, (affects all human relationships. If a need is great enough and A remains unsatisfied, personal relationships will be permeated with struggles. A natural outcome-~conflict——shall be discussed now. Conflict Conflict occurs oftentimes as the result of differing values, beliefs, and attitudes. Barry (l970) has completed an extensive re- view of research on conflict in marriage. Deutsch (1969) and Coser (1956) distinguish between destructive and constructive conflicts. The former are characterized by mutual suspicion and lack of communi- cation and a reliance on power strategies and threats. Coser further classifies destructive conflicts as dysfunctional when conflict is over basic principles. Constructive conflicts, however, permit each partner to find creative solutions to conflict given that trust, and Open, honest communication are present and each person'sinterests are recognized. Coser adds that this situation is characterized by conflict over matters assuming similarity of basic principles and believes this conflict is integrative and a Sign of stability of the dyad. Only if the peOple are secure enough in the relationship can they feel free to express differences and hostile feelings. In any close relationship, hostility and differences emerge. Although these relationships foster positive aspects-~like intimacy, and love--they also present Opportunity for conflict and hoStile feelings which usually are not openly expressed. According to Boulding (1962) and Coser (1956) as relationships get closer, the whole person becomes involved thereby presenting Opportunities for potential conflict; if these are suppressed, the relationship becomes threatened. Haley (1963) believes that there are two kinds of conflict: disagreements, caused by deciSiOns as to which rules will be followed, and emotional struggles, caused by deciding who will make the deci- sions. The former is easier to solve by compromise than is the latter; any time there is a preoccupation with who is to define or enforce the rules, there will be trouble. Consequently, the strategies are similar to any power struggle in which helplessness, withdrawal, threats, and/or passive resistance are used. Some refer to conflict in terms of its causes. Horney (1967) refers to competition as the basis of conflict to the extent that it permeates all human relationships. In marriage, the couple may not be aware of its influence, manifested by a never-ending struggle for the dominant position, and a creation of jealousy towards the dominant and disdain for the submissive. Much of the work done on dyadic conflict studied married couples and included the importance of "self" in some way. However, there are a few reports which did not. For example, Thibaut and ’Coules (1952) found that people who were allowed to express anger and frustration toward the frustrating agent, retained less residual animosity. More recently, Tinker (1972) studied the effects of dominant behavior in married couples. He discovered that high dominance pro- duced more hostility in dyads no matter who initiated it. Moderate i dOminance however did not cause hostility and was associated with (positive affectionate interaction; indications were that equalitarian marrieds were happier than those with extreme dominance patterns. . If it is reasonable to assume that all lasting relationships have one dominant member, than a negative view need not be taken of them. Apparently such interactions can be positive because of a freer flow of feelings including eXpressions of anger. Couples who consider themselves as “equals" may be more able to achieve this state. I Power struggles are inevitable between two peOple. If the ' decision as to who will hold the dominant position is not solved, a continual round of battles will ensue. Perhaps a clearer understand- ing of the connection between self-esteem and conflict will be helpful as a preventive measure. Self-Esteem and Conflict The following is an account of some views that causes of dyadic conflict are due to some injury to the "self." Horney (1967) 10 likens competitiveness to a neurotic conflict which in many manifests itself as fear. By constantly comparing themselves with others and simultaneously measuring Up to an ego ideal, these people exhibit a never-ending need for attaching negative associations to competition. Attempting to live up to rigid demands made on the Self cause annoy- ance and deSpondence, the same factors often emerging from competi- tion with others. The ensuing hostility pervades all relationships and causes several unexplained behaviors of each individual in the pair. I Sanford (1968) refers to an individual as being weak due to forced submission to powers or agencies with which he is not in full agreement; yet, to admit this weakness would be a blow to his self- reSpect. Consequently, a "front" is developed--an overcompensation-- . representing power and toughness and an accent on the dominant-strong versus the submissive-weak relationship occurs. Boulding (1962) describes conflict in terms of inner symbolic images and equates them with values. Barry (1970) interprets images to mean that which is of central value to someone, and depending on the centrality of it, the personality is integrated around the image. One can equate the "core image" withself—identity and self—other images rather than with values; for, this core is related to who one is for others, rather than what one values for himself. ll Solomon (1960) viewed the effects of power relationships and game strategies on interpersonal trust. He found that "under condi- tions of non-communication . . . individualistic oriented subjects were unable to act rationally in the absence of mutual trust . . . . Each player was unable to subordinate immediate self interest for long range group gain and the relationshiptended to deteriorate into (self-defeating competition" (p. 22). Goodrich and BoOmer (1963) studied coping behavior of fifty husbands and wives in attempting to solve marital conflict. They found that most couples exhibited "a sense of helplessness and dis- couragement which is expressed in disparaging comments about the self or about the spouse . . . often when this happens, the discussion changes from rational exploration of alternatives to a power struggle; the aim is to defend the self and prove the other wrong" (p. 22). The authors felt that if the task was met with humor or a bitter attack, mutual esteem was indicative of that couple. Most relevant to the present research, Oaklander (1971) studied the effects of diversity of background, communication, and self-esteem on the interaction patterns of engaged couples. He found that the more homogeneous a couples' self-esteem, the more dysfunc- tional were the communication patterns; in fact, homogeneity of couple self-esteem produced significantly more different kinds of dysfunctional communications than heterogeneity of couple self-esteem. 12 He discussed the possibility that homogeneous versus heterogeneous levels of self-esteem were common factors influencing a couple's differing dysfunctional communication. These differences were equated with the concepts of symmetrical and complimentary relation- ships, respectively, discussed by Haley (1963). In the symmetrical relationships, two persons have equal levels of power, and tend to behave similarly and to struggle for control. Whereas in a compli- mentary relationship the individuals have unequal levels of power, the familiar "one up" and "one down" syndrome. These couples tend to behave differently, and do not struggle about who controls as the relationShip is clearly defined along definite lines. Oaklander noted: Couples whose levels of self-esteem are similar also perceive each other more as equals and are thus more likely to come into conflict over the definition of different areas of their relationship then couples whose level of self-esteem differ and thus perceive each other as unequals. These "unequal" couples would more readily work out a definition of their relationship when in the situation where the higher . self-esteem member [is on top and the lower is not]. Therefore, couples with similar self-esteem levels could be seen to have symmetrical relationships and those with different esteem levels have complimentary ones. If the above is true then homogeneous couples have established symmetrical relationships as evidenced by the various dysfunctional interaction patterns they supposedly exhibit. 13 Again, similar and differing esteem levels are as important as is individual esteem. Apparently, in situations where mutual trust is lacking, protection of self becomes of paramount importance. PeOple lose control at times and exhibit various behaviors from de- basement of self and other to preoccupation with self interests to the exclusion of the group. This type of behavior is clearly debila- ltory for any human relationship. Interaction Measures of Conflict The importance of measuring dyadic conflict through interac- tion measures has been expressed by Raush, Goodrich, and Campbell (1963) and Scanzoni (1965). Satir (1967) believes that whenever a person'comnunicates, he is not only making a statement, he is also asking something of the receiver and trying to influence the receiver to give him what he wants--usually control. The present author chose six variables which illustrate style rather than content of interaction. It is believed that viewing the style of couple interaction will indicate how they handle problems and thereby show whether they as a pair are effective, The variables are: l) Interruptions, 2) Simultaneous Speech, 3) Number of Times Spoken, 4) Length of Time Spoken (Farina and Dunham, 1963; Farina, 1960); 5) Number of 1's, and 6) HE'S spoken (Raush, Marshal and Featherman, 1970; Rausch, et al., 1963). The first four variables 14 could be seen to represent competitiveness and dominance. The number of 1's could represent an egocentric feeling and the number of HE'S a feeling of partnership. The rationale for both can be obtained from the above sources. The following are studies illustrating the use of these measures. A study completed by Leighton, Stollak and Ferguson (1971) found "normal" and clinic families significantly different in their = ways of communicating during completion of a series of family tasks. They found "normal" families showed fewer instances of Simultaneous speech suggesting a clearer style of communicating and less conflict. The "normal" fathers spoke more times, spoke longer, and interrupted more. The first two measures suggested that he was the dominant member of the family, and the last that in order to maintain his position, the father stifled any attempts by the other family members to violate or gain it. Clinic families showed more instances of simultaneOUSSpeech suggesting that there were less clear interaction patterns and more conflict. The clinic mothers spoke more times, _ Spoke longer, and were interrupted more. These results suggested that although she dominated family interaction her position was not readily accepted by the rest of the family. An individual interrupt- ing can be either the dominant one whose position is not being ”accepted or the other struggling to have his say or gain the power - position. 15 In a study done by Cross and Aron (1971) on relationships be- ' tween marital conflict and differences between parents, some similar variables which represented competitiveness and dominance were used. Forty married student couples were interviewed, and the sessions were taped. Interruptions, simultaneous Speech, percentage time spoken, and I-NE ratio were measures of conflict very indicative of the inter- .view behavior. As in the preceding study, various power plays were evident. ' In an earlier study, Raush et al. (1963) studied communica- tion in an open marital structure using two married couples. They interviewed them numerous times paying specific attention to their responses to various tasks and found that the couples who were most relaxed and spontaneous with each other used the‘words wg_and g§_ Often. However, the couple who was inhibited, defensive, and strained with each other used I_and mg_prominently. These variables seem to reflect different patterns of couple interaction. In a study by Yamanaka, Stollak and Messe (1970), the effects of personality differences on "free“ interaction'were examined during several acquaintance sessions. College students were paired accord- ing to mixed or matched views on dogmatism detennined by their scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. They used two variables relevant 'here, units of Speech and counter-check (interruptions). The results indicated that those pairs with matching views on dogmatism had lower l6 . counter-check scores than did those with mixed views. They found that low dogmatic subjects spoke and counter-checked more at the first session with high dogmatic partners. Although the same was true for counter-checking with low dogmatic partners, their speaking occur- rences were more frequent at later sessions. High dogmatic subjects cOunter-checked more often with law dogmatic partners during this time period. However, high dogmatic partners were found to accept inter- ruptions from each Other as it seemed easier than trying to out-talk the other. It appears that low dogmatic subjects felt threatened by high dogmatics and attempted to gain the power position or at least insure their own integrity. When theposition was not relinquished, the lows retreated—-a person could be forced to speak more in order to interrupt. As low dogmatic partners found each other willing to share the power, the frequency of interruptions decreased. Some interesting sex differences emerged from the interruption data. High dogmatic males counter-checked more often than high dog- matic females if the partners were low dogmatics; the low dogmatic females interrupted high dogmatic partners more often.than low dog- matic males; however, the low dogmatic males counter-checked low dogmatic partners more than low dogmatic females. These results ’suggest generally that males are initially more active in defining 'the seat of power than are women. Opinionated males need to maintain 17 their positions of influence, but have more difficulty doing this with a less Opinionated female than with a male. These data were presented here to illustrate the usefulness of specific interaction variables--interruptions, simultaneous speech, number and length of time spoken, number of 1's and We's spoken. Some of these findings suggest that dyads with similar (characteristics differ in behavior from those pairs with dissimilar characteristics. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested: I.' Couples with homogeneous esteem levels will exhibit more 'attempts at competing with and dominating each other than will couples with heterogeneous esteem levels as shown by number of interruptions and simultaneous speaking and the number and length of time spoken. II. Couples with heterogeneous esteem levels will show more inclinations toward egocentrism whereas those with homogen- eous esteem levels will exhibit more partnership feelings evidenced by the number of I's and WE's Spoken. 18 111. Men will be more dominating than women in their interactions regardless of individual or couple esteem levels. METHOD Instruments The subjects were required to complete a Revealed Differences Task. According to Oaklander (1971), "Ten RDT's were used . . . . These ten tasks deal with varying situations that could occur in a marriage or intimate relationship. Each task has a list of eight solutions. §fs were instructed to individually rank these solutions in order Of preference. After this had been done, st were in- structed to answer three of the same tasks jointly . . . . The discussion which ensued was tape recorded and typed" (pp. 108-9). ' The Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS) was used to measure . '-the self-esteem level of the subjects. The TSCS is a subjective mea- sure of self-esteem. The purpose of the scale is the measurement of individual self-concept in order to study and understand human be- haviors. It has been found that an individual's concept of himself is highly influential in a great deal of this behavior; i.e., those who see themselves as "bad," undesirable, etc. tend to act accord- 'ingly. Likewise, those who have unrealistic concepts of self tend to behave in unrealistic ways in their approach to life and to other people (Fitts, 1965). 19 20 The scale is self-administering and consists of 100 state- ments. Administration is about 13 minutes on the average. The validity of the TSCS has been supported by Fitts who has published. correlations with scales of the MMPI and EPPS. The total P score reflects the overall level of self-esteem. This is the most important score. It is broken down into the in- ternal and external frames of references. The former consists of - subject's description of his identity, self-satisfaction, and be- havior. The latter consists of physical, social, moral, personal, and family self. I Oaklander (1971) assigned couple self-esteem scores by aver- aging their total P scores. It was felt that little information would be lost in combining scores. Hofman (1969) showed that those with low self-esteem tend to marry others with low esteem and those with high self-esteem others With high self-esteem. A capy of ten RDT's and instructions for taking the TSCS are in Appendix (A). Subjects The data from twenty-six of the original 29 couples studied by Oaklander (1971) were used. He recruited the couples by placing an advertisement in the college newspaper. All couples were paid ten dollars for participating in the study. All the subjects were 21 either presently in college or graduate school or were recent college graduates. Ages ranged from nineteen to twenty-three years and all subjects were Caucasian. Subjects were separated into two groups—-homogeneous and heterogeneous based on the P scores of each individual in the pair. A procedure different than Oaklander's was followed. Those assigned .to the homogeneous group had a P score difference of 20 and below (R'= 10.9). Couples were considered heterogeneous when their dif- ferences scDres were 30 and above (R'= 42.9). Four couples whose scores fell between 20 and 30 were deleted from the research leaving 22 couples. It was felt that the groups would be better differen- tiated if such cut-off points were established; fUrthermore, the four couples deleted had scores showing that they fit into neither group comfortably. The difference between grOups was significant (t = 10.14, df = 20, p < .001). Procedure Oaklander (1971) stated, "All task completion took place in a room in the Psychology Building at Michigan State University. §s were seated in a small room across from each other. The room was 8' x 12' and furnished with two chairs situated across from each other and a table off to the side of the chairs with a tape recorder, 22 ‘ clearly visible on it. Ss, when seated, were presented with a booklet which included a general introduction and instructions . .‘. . Tasks . consisted of the 10 RDT's . . . and . . . the TSCS. §§ were instructed to complete the tasks separately from each other without consulting each other, suggesting or discussing the answers. They were informed that the visible tape recorder would be used later. The E asked each Spouse to turn in to him the . . . tasks upon their completion . . . . Upon receiving the first ten tasks from both members of a couple, the E chose the three tasks in which the couple's answers were the most discrepant. This was done in order to maximize disagreement in the ensuing discussion that fOllowed in the joint session. After §s finished all . . . tasks, they notified E who quickly checked their booklets to ensure that these had been completed prOperly. E then engaged the tape recorder and instructed §§ that they had disagreed considerably in their choices for three tasks and to again complete these three tasks, but to produce a ranking of Solutions for each of these tasks which would be satisfactory or . aCceptable to both . . . . Upon this joint completion of these three tasks, the §§ . . . notified E. This marked the end . . . ." (pp. 112-3). Audio-tapes of couple interaction were rated on 6 variables: 1) interruptions, 2) simultaneous speech, 3) number of times spoken, 4) length of time_spoken, 5) number of 1's and 6) HE'S spoken. Two 23 of four undergraduate coders* read typed manuscripts of each tape. The coders worked in pairs so that there would be a check and balance system for each variable. One pair of coders rated interruptions, and simultaneous Speech from tapes, and number of times Spoken and number of 1's and WE's from the transcripts. The other pair of coders rated the length of time spoken. Each had a time clock. They assigned . scores to males and females on each variable, except simultaneous '- Speech; one score for each couple was recorded here. All coders rated the same group of variables throughout the experiment. The author felt this was justifiable Since they would become more familiar with their tasks. Pearson r's were conducted and inter-rater reliabilities of at least .90, for each measure, were obtained. *The coders were: Richard Huber, Dora Rogers, Don Weston, and Larry Suggs. ' RESULTS Methods of Analysis A 2 (homogeneous-heterogeneous) X 2 (male-female) analysis of variance with repeated measures was conducted for each of the vari- ables. Means were obtained for each group, males and females sepa- rately and across groups (See Table l). The same analysis of variance was not cOnducted for simul- taneous speech because only a single score was obtained for couples on this variable. Rather a one-way analysis of variance was per- .formed (See Table 1). Finally, a multivariate correlational matrix was obtained. The purpose was to explore any important relationships between dependent variables and to discuss trends. The matrix was viewed here in two sections thought to be most interesting. One was couple interaction measures and the other was male-female correla- ' tional measures. Since the sample size was small, 22, it was decided to combine groups to possibly obtain more significant results. Only the most relevant research is presented here; the remainder of tables is in Appendix (B). 24 25 TABLE l.--Means for Couples and Male-Females; Summaries of Analysis of Variance for Main Effects and Simultaneous Speech. Means Variable . F p . Couple Males Females Interruptions . 22 2:22 2:22 2:22 m n Number of Times Spoken A :2 :2: :3: 1:: ~s Length of Time Spoken (Seconds) . 22 222222 222:2? 22222 1-44 a Number of Is :2 :3: :2: 23:: ~s Number of WES 23:: 22:22 :3: Simultaneous Speech {12 12:" :: :: -98 NS 58 26 Findings The first hypothesis stated that couples with homogeneous esteem levels would exhibit more attempts at competing with and dominating each other than the heterogeneous groups as shown by interruptions, simultanous speaking, number and length of time spoken. The means can be found in Table l. The couple means showed that the homogeneous group were more active than the heterogeneous group on all variables. This follows the direction of the hypoth- esis. However, the analysis of variance on these variables did not yield results substantiating this (see Table l and Appendix B). The second hypothesis stated that couples with heterogeneous esteem levels would Show more inclinations towards egocentrism and the homogeneous group towards partnership feelings as evidenced by the number of 1's and WE's spoken. There were no significant re- sults yielded by the analysis for the number of 1's. However, the results of the analysis of the number of WE'S spoken (See Table 1 and Appendix B) were significant for the main effect--groups (F = 5.62; df = l, 20; p < .05). Couples in the homogeneous group used the term "we" significantly more often than couples in the heterogeneous group. Thus, only part of the hypothesis was sub- stantiated. The last hypothesis stated that men would dominate more than women regardless of the individual or couple esteem levels. 27 There were no significant results of the analysis for the dominance measures, number and length of time spoken (See Appendix B). Con- sequently, this hypothesis was not substantiated. However, sig- nificant_results were obtained for the sex X group interaction (F = 6.57; df = l, 20; p < .05). An analysis of simple effects was done in order to clarify the findings (See Appendix 8). There was a significant difference between males and females only within the heterogeneous group (F = 6.02; df a l, 20; p < .05). No sig- nificant results were found for homogeneous pairs or groups within males and females (F = 1.25;df = l, 20, and, .71 and 2.24, respec- tively; df = l, 40). The results indicate that heterogeneous males interrupt more than their women. The means, however, for males and females (see Table 1) Show, interestingly enough that the heterogeneous males interrupt more (R'= 4.58) than homogeneous males (R'= 3.60) and homogeneous females (R-= 4.40). However, heterogeneous females (R'= 2.66) interrupt less than all the others. Other findings yielded Significant correlations (r = .70 or above) for couples between the length of time spoken ang_the number of times Spoken (.81) and the number of interruptions (.73). Also, highly correlated was the number of 1's spoken and the number of times Spoken (.82) and the length of time Spoken (.86). Some lesser findings (r = .60—.70) were: the number of interruptions was related to instances of Simultaneous Speaking (.60) and the 28 number of 1's spoken (.62). Simultaneous speech was related to number (.64) and length of times spoken (.64) and the number of 1's spoken (.65). The number of WE's spoken was somewhat corre- lated with the number of times spoken (.60) and the number of 1's spoken (.60). The male-female matrix (See Appendix B) yielded interest- ing correlations. Female-number of times spoken was highly corre- lated with the male—number of times spoken (.99) and the male- 1ength of time spoken (.73) and the male-number of 1's spoken (.85). Also, the length of times Spoken for females correlated highly with M-number of times spoken (.72). F-interrUptions was highly correlated with M—number of 1's Spoken (.75). Some lesser correla- tions were: F-interruptions with the number (.65) and length of time spoken for men (.64); M-length of times Spoken and F-length of times Spoken (.61); and M—number of WE'S Spoken and F-number of 1'5 (.65). Summary of Results In summary, these results suggest that homogeneous and heterogeneous groups interrupt, speak simultaneously, talk (amount and length), and say I_equally as much. However, the homogeneous 29 group exhibits more instances of saying WE_than does the heterogen- eous group indicating more of a partnership feeling in this situa— tion. Heterogeneous men generally interrupt more often than their women who tend to interrupt least of all. Women in the homogeneous. group tend to interrupt more than those in the heterogeneous group (indicating that homogeneous women may be allowed more freedom here by their men than heterogeneous women. I The last findings suggest that the more a couple struggle for power, the more it will be discovered that males tend to exhibit dominating behaviors which women seem forced to counter. DISCUSSION The lack of significant results concerning the first hypoth- esis is perhaps explained in light of Coser's (1956) destructive and constructive conflict, and, an idea of eXpenditure of energy. Rela— tive to the homogamy principle (Burgess and Wallin, 1954), it is assumed that homogeneous pairs possess the same basic principles and heterogeneoUs pairs differing ones. The difference suggests dissim- ilar kinds of power struggles, yet utilization of the same behaviors, i.e., interruptions, simultaneous speaking, talking more and longer. The homogeneous group has conflict which generally lends itself to better understandings, quicker solutions and a general working through emphasis. 0n the other hand, the heterogeneous group's actions tend to become confused, yield insoluble situations, and are generally self and couple defeating (Goodrich and Boomer, 1963; Raush et al., 1963; Solomon, 1965). The fact that the groups in I this study Showed no significant differences in dominating or com- peting is perhaps due to the similar amount of energy-expended in either Situation. It is not being suggested that these group be- haviors do not overlap. 0n the contrary, one may experience very rough interchanges in either Situation. At times, it not only takes 30 31 much energy to "work through" conflict, but also to employ defensive and therefore useless means for conflict resolution. Clearly both groups suffer from egocentric tendencies as indicated by the number of “1's" spoken. After all, it is difficult to adjust to another's ways and to an unfamiliar feeling of together- ness. Again, both groups exhibit conflict and utilize similar modes of interaction. Yet, homogeneous groups demonstrated a partnership feeling more readily than did the heterogeneous group. People alike in esteem, attitudes, etc. might achieve this state at a much faster pace than a group with differing esteem levels. Couples using the word W§_often show alignment and allow individualism in the dyad (Raush, 1963; 1970). These people are naturally more relaxed and more inclined towards spontaneity. The heterogeneous group has more difficulty here because their interactions are oriented individual- istically, which indicates an eventual Splitting of the dyad. The results of the last hypothesis indicate both men and women talked a great deal and a long time in this situation. Neither dominates. However, the fact that heterogeneous males are generally more competitive is apparent. These males interrupted to gain their position of power or, once established, to maintain it. What could be crucial is a male's perception Of differences between his partner and himself and the importance he attaches to the perceived differ- ences with regard to his self-concept. An assertive male, not 32 wishing to relinquish a strong position interrupts more often with less assertive partners (Yamanaka et al., 1970). In addition, a male who feels his self-esteem has been threatened becomes more competitive very unnecessarily (Horney, 1967). *Thus, one would eXpect to find these types as heterogeneous partners indeed more likely to interrupt than accepting males. The tendency for homogeneous women to interrupt more than heterogeneous ones can possibly be explained in two ways: Men in the homogeneous group are accepting and therefOre can allow women free ex- pression including that of competitiveness. In addition, a woman in this group initially considers herself "equal" to the male and conse- quently feels less restrained in her behaviors. 0n the other hand heterogenesou women clearly interrupt less often than all others which suggests that they are not given the Opportunity to compete Openly; coupled with the fact that they may themselves be defensive, they would be less inclined to compete. Women generally perceive the dif- ferences between themselves and their partners relative to the extent __ of their self-acceptance agg_their perception that a particular male fits the ideal husband role. The Tennessee Self~Concept Scores were examined and most of the heterogeneous women found to have much lower scores than the males. Appendix (C) includes TSCS and difference scores for each group. This coupled with the presence of a non- accepting type of male would cause them to be very threatened by and 33 therefore recoil from competitive acts. Yamanaka et a1. (1970) indi- cated that assertive women restrain their competitiveness if their partners are less assertive than they are. Thus, women possessing assertive characteristics would also restrain any behaviors tending to aggravate the situation. Additional findings yielded some interesting information about couples, and males and females regardless of group. Couples tend to use dominance more than any other variable.‘ In fact, talking more and longer seems to be crucial to their interactions as previously indi- cated. Egocentrism as measured by the number of 1's spoken is di- rectly related; that is, the more dominant couples are also more ego- centric. This is reasonable, for all this behavior is diametrically Opposed to that of moving toward partnership. Once the power force is established, that is, when each person discovers his own position, the couple seems to concentrate on competing and testing the meaning of their new relationship. Such behavior is indicated by lower but yet a Somewhat significant cluster of variablese-interruptions, Simultaneous Speaking, number of WE's. Couples seem to approach their problems in an interesting manner. The decision as to who will hold power is de- termined. If both individuals discover that workable solutions are possible or that neither is willing to compromise, competitiveness ‘ensues. Either dyadic togetherness or separatism results. The former is the ultimate goal of couple relationships and indicate smooth 34 ' functioning. The latter indicates the presence of a cyclical pattern of power fights which most likely remained the major issues throughout. Findings from the matrix suggest that males tend to dominate much more than women; however, women do not accept this position. In fact, the women's behavior patterns follow those of anyone forced into influencing another to his position by coercion. Not only do they utilize various means, but also Show their dislikes for certain male behaviors in a delineated fashion. When males try to dominate by talking a great deal, women match this by attempting to talk more themselves. In addition, women tend to talk a long time and exhibit more tendencies toward countering male dominance. Apparently, women also dislike egocentrism in partners for this is the next factor they attempt to handle. If males seem oriented towards this attitude, women attempt to sway them towards their own orientation. Women first interrupt and then proceed in attempting to talk more and longer thereby trying to emphasize the supposed "couple" aspect of the relationship. Probably somewhat discouraged by the male's con- tinued persistence in his own direction, women give up and revert to their own egocentric tendencies. Homogeneous and heterogeneous couples generally do not differ in their behavioral approach to interpersonal problem solving. Both have conflict, yet it differs for each group. Since homogeneous groups tend to be alike in attitude, desires, goals, etc. their 35 ‘ actions towards positive achievement of the same ends are inevitable. Homogeneous couples exhibit strong partnership behaviors in their re- lationships evidenced by frequent use of the word NE, These couples are more open, relaxed, and, very importantly, possess the ability to allow the other to express his own individualism without either per- ceiving a threat to his own self-concept. The heterogeneous couples however are more predisposed towards destructive kinds of conflict. The fact that heterogeneous meninterrupt more than their women strongly suggests that these couple interactions are overtly deter- mined by them. Heterogeneous males interrupt more than all other groups. On the other hand, heterogeneous females tend to interrupt much less than all. This information coupled with that on females generally suggest that women's reactions to male behaviors reflect frustration, intimidation, or a purposeful restraint related to role acceptance and to an idea that her partner is her ideal; heterogeneous women may fit this role more than others. Unfortunately for these women, heterogeneous males are very competitive and find it difficult to concede the "tOp position" in the relationship. Various theories suggest that the protection of their self-concept is the precipitator of this behavior. Homogeneous women tend to interrupt more than others. This is reasonable for homogeneous males are more accepting and allow their women more Opportunities for free expression. Interrelationships between variables shed more light on dyadic interactions and indicate that couples utilize dominance 36 measures more than other measures suggesting that working out prob— lems in this area is a continuous phenomenon and is given priority by engaged couples. What is more interesting and seems to substan- tiate the theory about women's actions are the interrelationships between male and female variables. Women do indeed seem to adjust their behavior to that of men, and actively counteract the man's iattempts to dominate and his tendencies to maintain his egocentrism. . Moreover, it is suggested that the homogeneous esteem level women reject this egocentrism the most. Some interesting studies were conducted by Barry (1968) and Swain (1969) who viewed newlywed male-female interactions and found that women make the greatest adjustment in new marriages. In this situation, a man's responsibilities change little. A woman's do for she accumulates additional and different responsibilities--taking care of a home, raising children, etc. The ease with which she ad- justs depends on the understanding of the male. In light of this andthe present study, engaged women would do well to prepare them- selves for a series of personal adjustments. Limitations of the Study The subjects were limited to middle class Caucasians ranging in age from 19 to 23 who at one time had attended or graduated from 37 college. Thus these results can not, of course, necessarily be gen- eralized to other races, social classes, or age groups. In addition, the sample size was very small and restricted the validity of the findings many of which could have been due to chance. The self- esteem scores were generally low for all couples having fallen below the mean in the lower third of Fitt's (1965) sample. Subjects with more varying scores should be used. Possibly more extreme groupings should be attempted; i.e., homogeneity would mean 5 points or less and heterogeneous 50 points or more. An ideal design would include couples whose members (1) both have very high individual self-esteem scores, (2) both have very low individual self-esteem scores, (3) include males with very high individual self-esteem scores and females with very low self-esteem scores, and (4) include females with very high self-esteem scores and males with very low self- esteem scores. Although the matrices were obtained by a multivariate procedure, a complete correlational analysis was not done. Finally, although subjects seemed to act in a real and relaxed manner on tapes, since the situations were experimentally induced, their cor- respondence with real life situations is somewhat questionable. ‘ Future Research Since women show tendencies toward inhibiting male domi- nance, more work is needed on determining which esteem level group 38 females are most active on which variables in countering these male behaviors. That heterogeneous men are more competitive and tend to be more dominant provide groundwork for new studies concerned with discdvering whether high or low heterogeneous esteem males exhibit these tendencies. More work on unmarried couple interactions should be studied. There are various adjustments necessary for the pair to work out before marriage. It would be interesting to discover if there is a progression of changes through which a couple must go during this period in preparation for a new situation. More compar- isons between male-female interactions, respective of high or low self-esteem levels, in and outside ofmarriage, should be done in order to provide more useful information regarding adjustments ne- cessary in marital and other dyadic relationships. CONCLUSION Findings of this study suggest that homogeneous and hetero- geneous groups do not differ in their patterns of interactions. However, the homogeneous group clearly exhibit more partnership Orientation than does the differing esteem group.‘ Apparently, this factor is crucial to smooth relationships in some situations (Solomon, l960; Goodrich and Boomer, 1963). If couples do indeed "fall apart" when a feeling of mutual trust is absent, then it seems reasonable, contrary to Oaklander's (197l) idea, that the heterogeneous group would show these tendencies. Mutual trust and partnership feelings seem to parallel each other. In line with this idea is one regarding different types of conflict for different kinds of esteem groups. Any dyad with an unequal power split is predisposed to constriction and defensiveness, thus, suggesting conflict will likely destroy that dyadic relationship. The point is that homogeneous group power ‘ struggles are handled in light of a partnership orientation as 0p- posed to an individualistic orientation characterizing the hetero- geneous group. As suggested by this study, males and females react in dif- ferent ways. Heterogeneous males interrupt a great deal, and, males 39 40 generally for whatever reasons seem to elicit various patterns of counteraction from the females. Generally, men tend to dominate and women were found to respond selectively to his domination. The way women_counteract this depends on their individual orientation and on the type of male with which she becomes engaged. As stated before, young people need guidance in choosing the right partners for themselves. What is needed is a predictive tool to aid the young in learning about and dealing with conflict resolution. The more research done in this area of dyadic relation- ships before and after marriage, the closer that goal will become. REFERENCES REFERENCES Barry, W. A. -Conf1ict in Marriage: A Study of the Interaction of Newlywed Couples in Experimentally Induced Conflicts. Doc- toral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968. Barry, W. A. Marriage research and conflict: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, zgll), 41-54. Boulding, D. E. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. New York: Harper, 1962. Burgess, E. W. and Wallin, P. Courtship, Engagement and Marriage. New York: J. B. Lippincott, 1954, 230-233. Cohen, A. R. Experimental effects of ego-defense preference on in- terpersonal relations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, g, 19-27. Cohen, A. R. Some implications of self-esteem for social influence. In C. I. Hovland, and I. L. Janis (Eds.) Personality and Persuasibility. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1959. Coopersmith, S. A method of determining types of self-esteem. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 87-93. Coser, L. A. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1956. Cross, H. J. and Aron, R. D. Relationship of Unobtrusive Measures of Marital Conflict to Remembered Differences Between Parents. Proceedings, 79th Annual Convention, APA, 1971, 365-366. Deutsch, M. Conflicts: productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 25, 7-41. Farina, A. Patterns of role dominance and conflict in parents of schi20phrenic patients. Journal of Abnonnal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 31-38. 41 42 Farina, A. and Dunham, R. N. Measurement of family relationships and their effects. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963, 2, 64-73. ‘ Fitts, W. H. Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: A Manual. Nashville, Tenn.: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1965. Gergen, K. Concept of Self. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971, 74-77. Goodrich, D. W. and Boomer, D. S. Experimental assessment of modes of conflict resolution. Family Process, 1963, 2, 15-24. Haley, J. Strategies of Psychotherapy. New York: Grune and Strat- ton, Inc., 1963, Chpt. 6. Hofman, K. C. Marital Adjustment and Interaction, Related to Indi- vidual Adjustment of Spouses in Clinic and Non-Clinic Fam- ilies. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. - Horney, K. Existential neurosis. In Theodore Millon (Ed.), Theories of PsychOpathology: Essays and Critiques. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1967. Leighton, L. A., Stollak, G. E. and Ferguson, L. R. Patterns of communication in normal and clinic families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, §§, 252-256. Murstein, B. I. Self--ideal-self discrepancy and the choice of mar- ital partner. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, §Zfll), 47-52. Oaklander, H. The relationship among Self-Esteem, Diversity of Back- ground, and Clarity of Communication in Engaged Couples. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Raush, H. L., Goodrich, W. and Campbell, J. D. Adaptation to the first years of marriage. Psychiatry, 1963, 26j4), 368-380. Raush, H. L., Marshal, K. A. and Featherman, J. M. Relations at three early stages of marriage as reflected by the use of personal pronouns. Family Process, 1970, 9, 69—82. 43 Sanford, N. The theory of the authoritarian personality. In Law- rence S. Wrightsman, Jr. (Ed.) Contemporarinssues in Social Psychology. Belmont: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1968, 135—136. Satir, V. Conjoint Family Therapy. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, Inc., 1967, 78. Scanzoni, J. A reinquiry into marital disorganization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1965, 2114), 483—491. Solomon, L. The influence of some types of power relationships and game strategies upon the development of interpersonal trust. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 51, 223-230. Swain, M. A. Husband-Wife Patterns of Interactions at Three Stages of Marriage. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969. Thomas, R. and Burdick, R.' Self-esteem and inter-personal influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1954, 51, 419- 426. Tinker, R. The Effects of Different Amounts of Dominant Behavior Upon Married Couples' Interaction. Doctoral Dissertation, ’ Michigan State University, 1972. Yamanaka, K., Stollak, G. E. and Messe, L. The Effects of Personal- ity Differences on Structural Aspects of the Acquaintance Process. Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Asso- ciation, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1970. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TASKS ADMINISTERED T0 SUBJECTS REVEALED DIFFERENCES TASKS This task consists of ten different situations. They most likely will never occur in your life, but they do happen to some peOple. Please imagine that the situations described actually are ’ happening to you. Your task is to try to imagine how you would feel in each situation and how you would most likely react or try to solve the problem. To make it somewhat easier, each situation in- cludes a list of possible solutions or preferences. Your task is to rank these preferences; i.e., put a number 1 by your first prefer- ence which you feel you.most likely would do, a number 2 by the next preference, etc. until g11_possible solutions have a number. Do these one at a time; do not read ahead in the directions before you have finished each task. Also please remember that the more seriously you do each of these tasks, the more value it will have. 44 45 'Imagine that you have been married five years and that one day you come home and find a letter in your mailbox which informs you that you have won ten thousand dollars cash in a sweepstakes. YOu are of course elated and very excited, especially since you had already forgotten that you had entered the contest. Below you will find a list of what people might do with ten thousand dollars. Your task is to put a number 1 by the item most attrac- tive to you, a number 2 by the next most attractive, etc., until all items have a number indicating your order of preference. Imagine that your general financial situation, living quarters, and bank account is similar to the standard of living that you have been accustomed to all your life. §g_sure that each item has §_number from 1_t g, where l is the most and 5 the least attractive item. Take a vacation Invest the money Pay overdue bills Buy sporting equipment Buy a boat Redecorate Build a den in your basement Use it for a downpayment on a new house 46 Imagine that you have been married for 15 years and have 2 _children, a boy and a girl aged 12 and 10 respectively. Bofiiof them have been receiving some information about human reproduction in the classroom as well as from other children. You accidentally overhear them discussing it and you realize that their information is quite incorrect and misleading. They are not aware that you overheard them. How would you handle this situation? Please answer this question by ranking the possible alternatives listed below. Place a number 1 by the alternative you feel would be the best way to handle it, a number 2 by the next best way, etc., until all §_items have §_number from one £2.eiqht. Do nothing; ignore it. Reprimand them,zand forbid them to talk about such subjects. Walk away, but tell your spouse and ask him/her to talk to ._them later. Walk in and tell them how they are incorrect and explain it to them. Attempt to find out which teacher gave them the incorrect information and report it to the principal. Walk away but later talk to your son/daughter and ask your husband/wife to talk to the other child. Ignore it but tell your spouse what you heard. Buy some books on the subject and leave them where the children could easily find them, so that they could get better information on their own. 47 Imagine that you have been married for 10 year: and have 3 children. There were some complications with the last birth and your doctor, after having taken a number of tests, advises you that if you have another child the chance is very high that it will be physically deformed or mentally retarded. He advises strongly that you not have anymore children. A list of methods of birth control and other possibilities is below. Please place a number 1 by the method.you would most likely pick, a 2 by the next most acceptable method, etc., until you have rated all eight choices in terms 9: how likely you would bg_tg.use it. An intra—uterine device, or "loop," or "coil" (an artificial device installed by your doctor in the female and must be removed by him. Birth control pills (to be taken almost every day by the female for the rest of her years—-or until past menopause). Surgery on the female (sterilization). 'Refure his advice and continue in a normal sexual relation— ship and take the chance of another pregnancy. Go to another doctor. Use contraceptive jelly or foam. Use prophylactics (also known as "rubbers" or "condoms"). Relatively minor surgery for the male (sterilization). 48 Imagine that you have a close friend whose wife is dying of cancer. A druggist has just discovered a new drug that, while it .doesn't Cure cancer, prolongs the life of the individual a few years. The druggist can only manufacture a limited supply and so, because he is out for a profit, he sells the drug to only very rich people who can afford to pay a lot for it. You overhear your friend saying to his wife that he is going to steal the drug for her. What would you do? A list of alternate possibilitiesis below. Please place a number 1 by the alternative you would most likely pick, a 2 by the next most acceptable alternative, etc., until you have rated all §_choices 5n_terms 2£_how likely_you would bg_tg_choose it. Warn the proper authorities of a possible burglary attempt. Sit down with your friend and discuss with him all the sides to the story to see if he has carefully thought out the: possible'consequencesfof'breaking théliawl Not say anything, but if he goes ahead with the robbery, inform the police of what you overheard. Offer your life savings to help buy the drug for your friaid' wife. Inform your friend that you overheard his plans and advise him against breaking the law. ' Warn your friend that you overheard his plans and will have to inform.the police if he goes ahead with the crime. Pretend you didn't hear anything and not get involved. Offer to help your friend steal the drug for his wife. 49 Imagine that you have been married 20 years and have a 19 year old son. You and your husband/wife have been out of town on vacation but have suddenly cut it short and returned home. Upon returning home you discover that your son is having a "pot" party. YOu are shocked as you had no idea that your son smokes marijuana.‘ Your son owns up to it and says he smokes marijuana all the time and loves it. What would you choose to do in such a situation? A list of alternate possibilities is below. Please place a number 1 by the alternative that you would most likely pick, a 2 by the next most acceptable alternative, etc., until you have rated all 5 choices in terms 2; how likely you would be £2_choose 13, Let him continue to do what he wants as he is old enough to decide for himself. ' Take away any special privileges, such as driving the car, till he stops. ‘Seek help by taking him to a school counselor or a psycho— logist. Cut off his allowance so he won't be able to afford it any— more. Turn him over to the police for his own sake before he starts to take the hard narcotics. Try to explain the possible ill—effects of taking drugs to him. . Try to understand his side of the story and try smoking marijuana yourself to see what it is like. Throw him out of the house. 50 Imagine that you have been married 20 years and have an 18 year old daughter who is going to an out of town college. By accident you come across a contraceptive (birth control) device in her drawer while visiting her at college. She has been dating this "hippie" college student a lot recently. What would you do in such a situation? A list of alternate possibilities is below. Please place a number 1 by the alternative you would most likely. pick, a 2 by the next most acceptable alternative, etc., until you have rated all g choices in termg g§_how likely you would be £9_ choose it, Take her home immediately. Admonish her for her promiscuousness. Sit down and listen to her side. Pretend you didn't find anything. Offer her your advice as to what you think is best, but leave the choice up to her. Talk to both the boy and her about what are their plans. Force your daughter into getting married to someone else right away. Try to bribe the boy into breaking off with your daughter. 51 Imagine that for your wedding present your parents give you $1000. What would you do with this money? A list of alternate possibilities is below. Please place a number 1 by the alternative you would most likely pick, a 2 by the next most acceptable alter- likely ypu would b§_£2 choose it, Put it in the bank and save it for a rainy day. Use it on a down payment on a car. Spend it on fixing up your apartment (house). Use it as a down payment on a house. Spend it on an exciting honeymoon. Use it to buy the major appliances, such as a television, washing machine, and refrigerator, for your home. invest the money in either stocks or bonds. Thank your parents for the thought but not take the money as you want to make it on your own. 52 Imagine that it's your first wedding anniversary. What would you choose to do on this day? A list of possible alternatives is below. Please place a number 1 by the alternative you would most likely pick, a 2 by the next most acceptable alternative, etc., until you have rated all §_Choices in terms of how likely you would be £2 choose 13. Go out to a fancy restaurant and than to a show. Buy your spouse something he/she has really wanted for a long time. Spend the evening home alone with your spouse. Go out with friends to celebrate the occasion. Throw a big party and invite all your friends andrelatives. Spend a quiet evening together with your immediate family. Treat your spouse extra nice the whole day. Ask your spouse what he/she would like to do and do what- ever he/she chooses. 53 Imagine that you have been married for 15 years and have 3 children, ages 14, 10, and 5. You and your spouse have been working very hard to save up some money to send the kids to college and haven't been able to take a vacation together in a number of ‘ years, but now you both have some time off together. What would you do? A list of alternate possibilities is below. Please place a number 1 by the one you would most likely pick, a 2 by the next most acceptable alternative, etc., until you have rated Just loaf around the house so as not to spend much money and to relax. Go for a vacation to the country with the kids. Go for a vacation but leave the kids with their grandparents. Take a part time job to earn a little extra money. Stay around the house but send the children off to their grandparents. Consult the children as to what they would like to do. Catch up on some odds and ends that you fell behind on while busy working. Stay around the house and spend much more time with the children than normally. 54 Imagine that you have just gotten married and have to decide where to live. Money is no problem as you have just received a large inheritance from a long lost uncle that will keep you com- fortable for a very long time. Where would you choose to live? A liSt of alternate possibilities is below. Please place a number 1 by the alternative you would most likely pick, a 2 by the next most acceptable alternative, etc., until you have rated all 5 choices gn_£g£m§_o§_how likely you would bg_go_choose it, In your hometown. As far away from your hometown as possible. Ih a penthouse in a big city like New York. ,) J Off in the country on a remote farm, in a quiet, peaceful setting. ‘ In the suburbs of a big city in a ranch house. ‘Cut west somewhere on a big ranch. In a small town where everyone knows everyone else. In a house, with a beach, near the sea. 55 This task is in the blue booklet with Tennessee Self-Concept Scale printed on the front page. Please do not write anything in this booklet. Other pe0p1e will have to use it also. Inside the booklet you will find a form which is to be used for your answers. Along the right hand side of the form you will find a space for your name, age, and education. Please fill in these Spaces. There is also a space for timing but you need gg1_time yourself on this task. The directions are on the inside of the front cover of the test booklet; please read these carefully. When you have completed this task, please wait until your fiancee is finished and then signal the assistant. APPENDIX B ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FCR NAIN EFFECTS ANALYSIS OF SIMPLE EFFECTS CORRELATION MATRICES TABLE 2.4-Ana1ysis of Variance = Interruptions. Source DF SS MS F p H0/HE 1 1.53 1.53 .132 NS Errorb 20 233.12 11.66 Male/Female l 5.11 5.11 1.67. NS M-F/HO-HE 1 20.13 20.13 6.57 .05 Errorw 20 61.26 3.06 Total 43 321.15 TABLE 3.--Ana1ysis of Variance = Number of Times Spoken. ,Source DF SS MS F p H0/HE 1 5,204.27 5204.27 2.03 NS Errorb 20 51,196.66 2559.83 M/F 1 3.84 3.84 .30 NS M-F/HO-HE 1 5.73 5.73 .44 NS Errorw 20 257.92 12.90 Total 43 56,668.42 a 56 57 1 TABLE 4.--Ana1ysis of Variance = Length of Time Spoken. Source DF SS MS F p HO/HE 1 34932.49 34932.49 1.44 NS Errorb 20 483957.08 24197.85 M/F 1 15300.46 15300.46 ‘2.23 NS M-F/HO-HE 1 412.05 412.05 .06 NS Errorw 20 137067.61 6853.38 Total 43 671669.69 TABLE 5.--Analysis of Variance = Number of 1's Spoken. .Source DF SS MS F p H0/HE 1 1617.06 1617.06 1.60 NS Errorb 20 20241.58 1012.09 M/F V 1 40 09 40.09 .14 NS M-F/HO-HE 1 556.40 556.40 1.98 NS Errorw 20 5633.51 281.68 Total 43 . 28088.64 TABLE 6.--Ana1ysis of Variance 58 = Number of WE's Spoken. Source DF SS MS H0/HE Errorb M/F M-F/HO-HE Error w Total 20 20 43 1579. 5616. 90. 14. 1900. 9200. 65 28 20 01 28 42 1579.65 280.81 90.20 14.01 95.01 5.62 < .05 .95 NS .15 NS TABLE 7.--Analysis of Simple Effects--Interruptions. DF MS Homogeneous 'Male-Female Error Heterogeneous Male-Female Error Males HO-HE Errorpooled Females HO-HE Errorp001ed 16.51 7.36 1.25 6.02 .71' 2.24 NS NS NS TABLE 8.-—Correlati0n Matrix-~Coup1es. 59 NTSP INTR SISP LTSP NO-I ND-WE INTR _ 1.00 SISP .60 1.00 NTSP .56 .64 1.00 LTSP .73 ..64 .81 1.00 NO-I .62 .65 .82 .86 1.00 NO-WE .01 .23 .60 .46 .60 1.00 TABLE 9.--Corre1ation Matrix--Ma1es-Fema1es. M-Intr M-NTSP M-LTSP M-I M-WE F-Intr .59 .65 .64 .75 .17 F-NTSP .37 .99 .73 .85 ,.56 F-LTSP .33 .72 .61 .56 .46 F-I .19 .58 .54 .56 .65 F-WE .10 .48 .10 .16 .49 APPENDIX C RAW DATA ON ENGAGED COUPLES TENNESSEE SELF-CONCEPT SCORES DIFFERENCE SCORES TABLE 10.--Tennessee Self-Concept Scores and Difference Scores for Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Couples. TSC Scores . Variable Digference , M F cores Homogeneous Couples Number 2 328 309 19 Number 8 309 313 4 ‘ ' 347 327 20 341 329 12 354 339 15 338 347 9 331 341 10 365 351 14 350 353 3 319 322 3' Heterogeneous Couples 352 296 56 272 332 60 385' 330 55 349 402 53 338 , 370 32 269 321 52 357 327 30 359 328 31 383 348 35 370 336 34 367 332 35 311 353 42 60