134... .... L . v .. ff! ZiI-nr .J . . L I B R A R Y Michigan State University 111111111m11111I11nuIn1111111111111 j 3 1293 10052 6163 7 This is to certifg that the thesis entitled A Pilot Study of Prediction of Marriage For Engaged Couples presented by Leighton E. Harrell, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. Counseling & Guidance degree in 0-169 a. w“; ABSTRACT A PILOT STUDY OF PREDICTION OF MARRIAGE FOR ENGAGED COUPLES by Leighton E. Harrell, Jr. The purpose of this study was to attempt to determine if at the time of engagement it could be predicted that a couple would actually become married. A total of 346 couples agreed to participate in the study and they were mailed the test instruments. One hundred and eighty—six couples returned the test instruments. Of this total, ll couples were dropped from the study which made the final sample total 175 couples. A follow—up was done on the couples who did not return the instruments to determine if any had broken their engagements. Sixty—six couples responded to the follow—up with only 3 couples reporting broken engage- ments. The other couples reported that they had married as they had originally planned. The Burgess and Wallin Engagement Success Inventory and Carson‘s Issue Scale of Marital Adjustment were the instruments used in this study. The instruments Were mailed to the couples and they returned the instruments by mail. The couples were instructed to take the tests independently of each other. r“ Leighton E. Harrell, Jr. A 2 X A cell was constructed for the comparison of the high and low scores on both instruments. The chi—square statistic was used to make these comparisons. Secondly, the scores of each instrument were grouped according to whether the couples married or broke their engagement. The differences were studied through the use of the tftest. The Burgess and Wallin Engagement Success Inventory did not prove to be a predictor of marriage. It was con— structed on an expectancy table basis and apparently does not adequately deal with the problem of interpersonal relationships. Carson's Issue Scale of Marital Adjustment did indicate that it has a possibility for prediction purposes. The items in this scale are based on inter— personal relationships and provide a better measure of the dynamics that exist in interpersonal relations. A second finding indicated that the relationships between couples who are students and couples who are separated by military service are apt to be unstable. The highest rate of broken engagements were in these two groups. A PILOT STUDY OF PREDICTION OF MARRIAGE FOR ENGAGED COUPLES By y Leighton E; Harrell, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology College of Education 1965 Q ;%Q€; \éé To; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. John E. Jordan, my committee chairman, for his interest and patient work with me through my entire doctoral program. Dr. Opal'T.Rhodes, chairman of the Home Economics Department, Indiana State College, Pennsylvania who helped in gathering the data. Dr. George Uhlig of Eastern Kentucky State College who provided valuable assistance in the analysis of the data. My wife for her unceasing encouragement and help through all my years of graduate study. My Doctoral Committee, Dr. Harry A. Grater, Dr. William W. Farquhar, and Dr. Bill L. Kell for their help. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES . . LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter IO II. III. THE PROBLEM. Background of Engagement Assumption of Romatic Love. . . Marriage in Non—American Cultures Definition of Engagement Going Steady . Church Views on Engagement. Length of Engagement. Class and Engagement. Functions of Engagement. Problems of Engagement Broken Engagements Prediction of Marriage Definitions of Terms. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. Problems of Prediction Problems of Adjustment . Problems of Success or Failure Studies of Marital Prediction. Burgess and Cottrell s Study Terman' 8 Studies Terman and Oden 3 Study. Locke' 8 Study Karlssen s Study Burgess and Wallin Study Summary DESIGN OF THE STUDY Purpose of the Study. Variables . . iii Page ii Chapter Page Limitation of the Study. . . 5O Selection of the Original Sample. . 5O Selection of the Final Sample. . . 52 Follow-up of the Non-returned Inventories 52 Determination of Marital Status . . . 52 The Hypotheses. . . . . . . . 53 Statistical Analysis. . . . . . . 55 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 55 IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . 57 Instrumentation . . . . 57 Description of the Final Sample . . . 60 Original Sample . . . . . . . 60 Final Sample . . . . . 62 Source for the Final Sample . . . 63 Occupations of the Sample . . . . 64 Follow— up . 6 . 64 Administration of the Instruments . . 67 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 67 V. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS . . . . . . . 69 Analysis of Primary Null Hypothesis. . 69 Hypothesis I . . . . . 7O Hypothesis II . . . . . . . . 7l Hypothesis III. . . . . . . . 72 Courtship Patterns . . . . . . . 72 Additional Analysis . . . . . . . 74 Age Distribution . . . . . . , 77 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 77 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 79 Summary . , . . . . . . . 79 The Problem.. . . . . . . . . 79 The Design . , . . . . . SO Methods and Procedures . . . . . 81 Limitations of the Study . . . . . 82 Conclusions . . . . . 82 Recommendations for Future Research. . 84 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 iv Table (103-4001: 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Relationship Between the Prediction Scores and Marriage Adjustment Scores . . . Geographical Composition of the Original Sample Geographical Composition of the Final Sample Sources of Sample 0 Occupations of Couples in Broken Engagements Occupations of Couples Who Married Reasons Tests Were Returned. Analysis of Primary Null Hypothesis Courtship Patterns. Comparison of Engagement Success Scores. Total Agreement Scores Configural Score Scores Significant Total Agreement Scores Significant Configural Scoring Scores Page 29 53 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page l. Design for Analysis of Data. . . . . . 46 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix At! Formula and Statistics for Courtship Patterns, Null Hypothesis ard Selection of Data for Null Hypothesis . . . . . Statistical Summary of Comparison of Engagement Success Inventory Scales . . Statistical Summary of Comparison of Issue Scale of Marital Adjustment Scores. Distribution of Ages . . . . . . . Instruction Sheet for Instruments, Copies of Instruments, Copies of Letters Sent to Sample . . . . . . , , , . , . vii Page 86 89 91 95 96 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Marriage is a major concern of every engaged couple. Yet when an engaged couple attempts to find a test for the prediction of marriage actually occurring, they only find tests which predict marital happiness. There are none for marriage prediction. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to determine if the Burgess and Wallin Engage- ment Success Inventory (Burgess and Wallin, 1954) can be used at the time of engagement or shortly thereafter to predict accurately whether or not marriage will take place. This is a new approach, as the past work done with engaged czouples has focused on predicting marital happiness. Eflrevious approaches have been channeled in two directions. TTie first approach attempted to predict marital happiness freom the time of engagement. The second approach started Wi_th married couples and looked backward from the marriage irito the prior engagement period. These approaches, which lxegan with the engagement and attempted to predict marital luappiness, made it possible to rule out many of the extraneous factors that may have affected prior studies. Sane of the factors that could have influenced the studies. are age, education, location of samples, financial status, parental roles and parental expectations, and the person- ality interaction during the engagement. In the present study it is proposed that a prediction of the occurence of marriage can be made at the time of the engagement by the use of the Burgess and Wallin Engagement Success Inventory. The only factor used will be the score of the Inventory. A second purpose of this study is to determine if Carson's Issues of Marital Adjustment (Carson, 1961) can be used also at the time of engagement as a predictor of the occurence of marriage. Since this scale focuses on the various areas of interaction within a marriage, another portion will be concerned with determining if potential trouble spots in the couple‘s relationship can be located prior to the marriage. If this can be achieved, pre-marital counseling can be made more effective. Background of Engagement To understand engagement, it is necessary to under- stand its background as-it applies to the American cul— ture. In order to facilitate this understanding, con— trasting views of engagement and its purposes will be EDresented from other cultures. The term engagement which Sis used throughout the study will be defined. The length <3f an engagement period and its functions will be discussed. IPhe relationship of social class to engagement will be explored .Assumption of Romantic Love It is assumed that the engagements to be studied are based upon romantic love and individual choice. The .American middle-class view of engagement often overlooks the fact that this assumption does not hold true in other cultures. Truxal and Merrill maintain this viewpoint as stated in the following quotation: Americans are notwthe first people in history facedvu with the necessity of getting along with each otherin marriage. But Americans are unique in the excessive attention which they give to the hedonistic satis- faction deriving from courtship and marriage...Romance is also an inescapable element in courtship and the search for a mate is conducted in an atmosphere heavily impregnated with romantic expectations. The search for happiness, which is the principal motive for courtship and marriage, it itself defined in terms of criteria that are essentially romantic. Courtship that is not based upon romance is considered undesirable and even faintly immoral, as if the prospective spouses were motivated by sordid considerations (Truxal and Merrill, 1953, pp. 129-134). Marriage in Non—American Cultures The attitude of worship—like awe of romantic love is absent from most of the other cultureszaround the world (Winch, 1958, Chs. 2 and 14). For example, the traditional «Japanese culture does not allow the couple to voice any <3pinion in the entire matter of the marriage arrangement. Uflne following quotations illustrate this. The first quota- txion presents a view of the marriage from the standpoint of“ the young bride. I had no thought of asking, 'Who is it?’ I did not think of my engagement as a personal matter at all. It was a family affair. Like every Jap- anese girl I had known from babyhood that sometime, as a matter of course, I should marry, but that was a far necessity to be considered when the time came. I did not look forward to it. I did not dread it. I did not think of it at all. The fact that I was thir- teen had nothing to do with it. That was the attitude of all girls (Winch and McGinnis, 1954, pp. 45-46). The second quotation presents an overview of the way the Japanese marriage viewed and how the engagements begins. Marriage in Japan, as in France, is primarily a family matter and marriages are made on earth to insure the family in its proper social class. . . . In accordance with this situation whereby the social and economic functions of marriage so far outweigh matters of mere personal fancy, the individual does not take the initiative but rather waits his family's decision as to a proper spouse. Since the joining of two families in marriage in- volves many delicate status, great reliance is placed on a go—between or nakado (Winch and McGinnis, 1954. p. 55). A result of this system is to prohibit those engaged in clandestine affairs from marrying, since it is difficult to obtain a nakadol to function for the couple. This difficulty occurs because the role of the nakado has been :superceded to a larger extent by the affair. Thus it is :found that love is inconsistent with the Japanese form of rnarriage. Since World War II this attitude has begun to <1hange, and now there exists more opportunity for freedom clf expression in mate selection. The marriage that took Pliace between the Crown Prince and a commoner is an ex- ample of this change. lA go-between for families in selection of mates for Children. \fl Queen and Adams (1952) studied families in eleven cultural and historical settings and found that romantic love as a basis for marriage was found only in the United States and Canada. They further pointed out that the marriages of the early New England culture and the old traditional Southern culture followed the old patterns of England, in which the family selected the mate. They also found that the idea of romantic love is still not a clearcut basis for marriage in much of the present—day American culture. Their work would indicate that what is generally considered to be a traditional part of the American culture is not so in reality. As it has been pointed out earlier, engagement has not always been as meaningful as in present day American culture. In the early Roman culture formal betrothal was not required but was considered good form. This betrothal was an agreement between the fathers of the couple but not .an agreement between the bride and groom. The early Hebrew scmiety'considered betrothal to be the time that the nrarriage actually began. A ceremony of betrothal was held, aadd the wedding ceremony that followed at a later time Mmas either omitted or considered to be anti-climatic. As tithe passed, this custom changed, and the betrothal was Ikbllowed immediately by the nupital ceremony. Later the importance of the betrothal declined and the wedding gained importance. The concept of a specific time limit set up by law originated in early New England when the Connecticut law of 1640 declared there must be an eight-day waiting period between engagement and marriage. Another law stated that there must be publication of intentions to marry (Queen and Adams, 1952). The plymouth colony required that "banns" be read three times in meetings or posted at least fifteen days in a public place. Definition of Engagement . With romantic love seemingly so well integrated into the American way of life and almost becoming its symbol, it should be a fairly easy task to define engagement, its limits, and its functions. However, the literature on engagement provides confusing definitions as well as confusing attitudes. For example, West (1956) in his study of Plainville, U.S.A., discovered that the (engagement period was kept secret until the marriage. The Ireasons for the secrecy are obscure and no one seems to be Eible to give its origin. One possible explanation lies in iihe almost total isolation of the town from the rest of tune country} In present day America it is rather suprising 'to find this attitude. Confusion arises when definitions of courtship and engagement are attempted. Courtship seems to lead into engagement, but there is no prescribed time interval for either period. Also the functions of each period are not clearly defined. Lowrie (1951) attempted to bring order out of chaos as far as terms and concepts were concerned. He discussed the then—current theories of dating and their relationship to the whole pattern of courtship as it was acutally practiced. He pointed out that confusion existed because of the use of ambiguous terms. He showed further that confusion arose because the periods of time for a specific phase of courtship and engagement vary from couple to couple. Lowrie suggested that new defini— tions for courtship, engagement, and time intervals were necessary. Going Steady Today it is generally accepted that in courtship development the couple has a period of going steady before the engagement is announced, Recently it seems that the EDeriod of going steady has to some extent taken over Esome of the engagement functions. The result has caused enqgagement, a separate entity, to lose some of its import— axice. Kohn, as quoted in Becker and Hill, states the (lilemma caused by such ambiguity. From the,foregping,it is obvious.tnat a great deal of ambiguity and haziness surrounds not only the act of becoming engaged, but the very state of becoming engaged: what does it mean to be engaged? Perhaps no situation in any society is ever completely defined by the symbols which related to it, but the engagement situation in our society is one which is left almost completely undefined by its symbols. The symbols are commonly the wearing of a ring, or a fraternity pin, the announcement of engagement at a party, and in the newspaper, exclusive courtship over a long period of time, the words I love you. Will you marry me? and so on. The significance or meaning of engagement however, is not at all standardized or universal (Becker and Hill, 1955, p. 276). A young man in a college town diner had this to say about engagement: All an engagement ring dees is to let you qualify, for the finals. It's like a learner‘s permit...They ought to be standardized and be all alike. They all mean the same thing. An engagement is just the first round. Or maybe the second (Bossard, 1958). A study of two thousand Catholic couples in the Chicago area indicated this general problem. Thirty-six percent of the couples stated that they had no engagement at all. The author of the study also stated that he had trouble with the definition of engagement (Thomas, 1956, Ch. 7). This confusion has been further compounded by the Iiew emphasis placed on going steady at the high school liavel and even, as recent surveys show, at the lower scflqool levels. One of the results of this going steady at 3J1 earlier age has been to bring about earlier marriages. This is undoubtedly partially due to pre-marital pregnancy. These early marriages eliminate the engagement period entirely. The new shift in behavior has caused such con— cern that some schools, mainly Roman Catholic, have issued bans against going steady in high school. A new trend on the college campus has been added to that of going steady. This new trend is the growing practice of replacing the engagement ring with the frat- ernity pin. Without a doubt, this practice has underlying economic factors, because it is easier to return a frat— ernity pin and terminate this kind of relationship. Returning a fraternity pin does not cause the emotional impact that is caused by returning the engagement ring. Two separate surveys were conducted by this author to verify the use of the fraternity pin as a substitute for the engage— ment ring. The first survey, conducted at the Merrill- IPalmer Institute in Detroit, Michigan, was made of girls :from about sixty colleges and universities in the United EStates. The second survey of about two hundred girls was Clonducted on the campus of Indiana State College, Penn- szlvania. Both surveys indicated that the trend of sub- Sintuting a fraternity pin for an engagement ring was tmxzoming a collegiate trend. 10 Church Views on Engagement Both the Protestant and the Roman Catholic Churches have taken the stand that engagement is usually morally binding on the couple. Several denominations have gone further than this. In the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the Lutheran Church made it clear that rightful engagement was tantamount to a conummated marriage. This view was carried to such an extent that it was not uncommon to dismiss from Lutheran seminaries ministerial candidates who had broken an engagement. Breaking of the engagement was considered to be the same as getting a divorce. The Roman Catholic Church has not gone to such an extreme ale though it treats engagement seriously. It feels that an engagement should be broken only for grave reasons, such as unfaithfulness and physical cruelty. The views of other churches lie between the idea of total commitment and the idea that engagement is a testing period of adjustment (Martinson, 1950, p. 192). Length of Engagement Where formal engagement is still observed, the length of the engagement period is by no means standard. It varies from two weeks or less to two years or more. Even those who have written in the field of courtship and marriage cannot agree on a desirable standard length of the engage- ment period. One author (Martinson, 1960, p. 184) suggests that the engagement period should be very brief. He would 11 not have any engagement over a year in duration because he feels that long engagements will probably be broken owing to strain and stress. In contrast to his view, Burgess and Wallin (1954) state that they favor a longer period of time because it is necessary for the process of becoming acquainted. Their study shows that those who had longer periods of acquaintanceship during the engagement had more successful marriages. Class and Engagement Engagement seems to be a practice of the middle and upper classes. Sociologist Earl Koos has found that marked differences in the accepted meaning of the engage- ment period exist from one social class to another. Gathering his facts from 200 newlywed couples, 100 of whom were middle—class and 100 of working—class status, he found that, in two out of every three cases among his middle class couples, both understood that the engagement could be broken if the relationship proved unsatisfactory, while one out of every seven of the working class couples did so (Bossard, 1958). The lower class of the American culture does not seem to become engaged. Through a social agency in Detroit, a limited survey was conducted in a lower-economic Negro area to test this statement. 12 The general conclusion appears to verify a trend of non— engagement atleast in the lower class Negro segment of odr society. More confusion appears when engagement before re— marriage is studied because patterns here are even less consistent. Then it can be asked, "Is romantic love with its accompanying engagement a valid symbol of the total American culture?” 0n the basis of the evidence presented, the answer would be, ”No.” If one class does not consistently use engagement and other classes are confused as to its purpose, then the phenomena of the engagement period is not typical of the total American culture. This would indicate that the American culture has taken a false position concerning the assumption that the engagement period is a requisite part of the romantic pattern. This is not to deny the assumed need for engagement and the function that is serves, but rather to say that it should be viewed in its proper perspective. Functions of Engagement If engagement is so vague in meaning the question arises, ”Why get engaged?” The answer is that those who become engaged find that it has very definite func— tions, as the following quotation suggests. 13 Not that its importance is any less today, for nearly all authorities in the field of marriage agree that the personal and matrimonial significance of the engagement period has increased in recent years and may increase even further. But its purpose has changed. Instead of being a formal waiting period to permit the completion of certain final necessary arrangements before the perfor— mance of the marriage ceremony, the present engagement is more a trying-out or preparatory period for the realities and responsibilties of life (Bossard, 1958). Following this statement Bossard lists a number of problems that may be met within this preparatory period. Becker and Hill (1955, pp. 280-281) suggest that the purpose of engagement is to meet several basic human needs which they have traced through a group of societies ranging from the Manu of New Guinea to groups in China, Germany and the United States. These needs are the following: group sanction and approval in the process of moving from youth to adulthood and helping the individual to move from single irresponsibility to married responsi- bility. In America, most books on marriage and the family tend to look at the functions of engagement and its rela— ‘tionship to marriage from the middle—class point of view. EEanagement is viewed as the final stepping-stone to fimafriage as it signifies a mutual understanding of intent .tc;marry. Its general functions are to pair 14 the couple off in the eyes of the public, to provide addi— tional time for the deepening of understanding each other, to provide an opportunity to learn to share all phases of life, to further establish patterns of giving and taking and to provide more time for the more serious planning of the future. In general it can be stated that the engage~ ment period provides both partners the opportunity to ex- plore, in a deeper sense, the meaning of marriage. Problems of Engagement Engagement, a period of compromise and adjustment can have many problems. One of the main problems is caused by the increased closeness of the couple. This problem brings about the question of how much itimacy should be allowed at this time in the relationship. Kinsey (1953, Ch. 8) reports that 46 per cent of the women in his sample had pre-marital coitus only with their intended husband. It usually took place with a relatively short period (a year or less) before marriage. He further stated that about 92 per cent of the male sample had experienced promiscuous pre—marital coitus. He makes the ;following generalizations. If for no other reason, it is worth holding the sexual interest in partial abeyance until they are sure that they have explored together the many other important areas of life, coming to under- stand how each other feels and some of the whys, as well as developing techniques of problem solving which come to their rescue in later marital conflicts. (Rutledge, 1959). 15 Sexual maturity depends not only on freedom to respond but on the ability to interact with another person on an adult level. The process of facing up to the challenge which this complex area presents can do much to strengthen the total partnership. So crux of the matter is the couple‘s willingness to share their thoughts and to arrive at a mutual agreement about the physical expression of their love (Blood, 1955, p. 146). Other problems which seem to vary in intensity from couple to couple include the following; methods of dealing with in-laws; feelings of doubt about the choice of the mate selected; questions about conventionality; economic planning; personal friendships; plans for the wedding; and the final Confessions of the past life (Blood, 1955, pp. 179-182), Additional problems that may beset the couple are recreational matters. philosophies of life, plans for marriage, the length of the engagement, inability 1:0 compromise, and problems arising from previous engage— Inents (Burgess and Wallin, l954, pp. 150-153). lBrnoken Engagements Not all engagements lead to marriage. Some are broken :fOI° a number of reasons. Various studies indicate that frcnn one-third to one—half of all engagements are broken in the lJnited States, (hie inevitable result of this, of course, is a gnbodly number of broken engagements, a fact that rwecent investigations have clearly shown. In ruesearbh covering l,OOO engaged couples, Ernest Efllrgess and Paul Wallin found, that at the time Of‘ their participation in their study, 24% of the 16 men and 36% of the women reported earlier engage- ments that had been broken. In addition, 15% of the couples subsequently broke their engagements, so that by the close of the study, almost 2/5 of the men and more than 1/2 of the women reported broken engagements (Bossard, 1958). Reasons for broken engagements are many; long separa— tions of the couple, slight emotional attachments, parental oppostion, differences in background and viewpoints, personality factors and interests in careers. It is generally concluded that broken engagements can serve a useful function in spite of the stress and strain that usually accompany the breaking- 01% Our general conclusion was that broken engagements, which drew strong disapproval in the past, perform a useful function in this modern day... The freedom of young people to end unsatisfactory betrothal prevents marriages which almost certainly end in divorce. Further increase in broken engagements might well result in a decrease in the divorce rate {Burgess and Wallin, 1954, p. 224). It. should be noted that no systematic studies of factors or“vaxiables involved in broken engagements were found (hirjdfig a search of the literature. Prediction of Marriage In Studying the relationship of the engagement period to madiriage, the question arises, ”Can the event of marriage, maritafil adjustment, or marital success be predicted at the time (Df‘ engagement?” Many studies can be found that deal With Prfiedictions of marital success and marital adjustment, but ncndea deal with the prediction of the occurence of 1? Inarriage. Studies by Burgess and Cottrell and Terman show ‘that the best adjusted couples were those who had been eengaged two years or more (Becker and Hill, 1955, p. 294). ft later study by Burgess and Wallin (1954, pp. 244-249) ]_owered this period to nine months. They also stated iihat the score on their Engagement Success Inventory rmad‘the highest correlation with the actual success of tflie marriage than any of the other pre-marital factors ‘that were studied. They state that this instrument is the 'best single instrument for the prediction of success in marriage . Ellis (1948, pp. 710-718) stated that there were no amiequate tests available for this purpose. He analyzed trie early Terman Scale, the Burgess and Cottrell work, aaid.the Adamls work showing their weakness and unsuitability £231 predicting marital happiness. Winch used a portion of the Terman study and a part (of‘ the Burgess and Wallin study to see if any relationship e)Cisted between adjustment in marriages and responses of a 'qutrpotio order” (Landis and Landis, 1952, pp. 121-127). Hits general conclusion was that personality factors play an ianortant part in marital happiness and success. Further— more, Ihe stated that this factor can be determined in the engagement period. 18 .All authors agree that the prediction of marital success eat the time of engagement is possible although the precise Inethod to be used is not certain. T ese predictions are loased upon the assumption that marriage will take place. CDhis is not a valid assumption. It cannot be assumed that Inammiage will occur until it actually takes place. There— i?ore, any prediction must begin by first determining the {Drobability of the marriage occuring. It is for this :reason that this study has been undertaken. Some type of”test must be developed that will aid in predicting ‘the probability of the marriage actually occuring. Also, a. test must be developed that can help locate potential txrouble areas that could eventually lead to divorce once the nmarriage has occurred. The purpose of this research is to iravestigate both areas. Definition of Terms Endgagement period The period between the official announce- ment of the engagement by'a newspaper or parties and the wearing of a ring and the actual occurrence of the marriage. Madfiriage The period of time following the actual marriage ceremony. NakaChs A go~between for Japanese families in selection of proper mates for children. 19 Romantic love Idealistic concept of the relationship between man and woman based on the glorification of strengths and the denial of the weakness of the loved object. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Problems of Prediction The question of prediction and inference about marital adjustment and marital success from the time of engagement has been one of much study. Brugess and Locke (1945) listed ten studies that have been done in this area prior to 1945. Luckey (1964) in the Journal of Home Economics listed a bibliography of thirty references dealing with various studies about the measurement of marital satisfaction. As these above references are examined, no study pertaining to the prediction of marriage can be found. A further search of the literature did not reveal any studies in the aJrea of prediction of marriage. Kirkpatrick (l963, pp. 394—398) raised a pertinent cyaestion in regard to an evaluation of these studies. He Sinated that a distinction must be made between prediction, ijrference, and forecasting. ,QInferende and forecasting are often confused when tile term ”prediction” is employed. Some ”prediction” Ixesearch in the marriage field tends to ignore goals arid applications. A coefficient of correlation is nc>t an end in itself, but rather a means to under— Stxanding, to precise inference, to forecasting, and 20 21 perhaps to control of human behavior to some useful end (Kirkpatrick, 1963, p. 397). It is not easy to be judicious in regard to the present reality and the future prospect. Couples should not be counseled in terms of present fore— casting scores unless they are able to take the evidence with full awareness of the limitations of the scores, especially in the middle of the score range. If marriage is recognized as still a gamble, it is proper to peek at the cards dimily lightened by present scientific knowledge (Kirkpatrick, 1963, pp. 404—405). He states further that some needed distinctions should be made if future studies of marital success are to have meaning in terms of scientific maturity. 3. There is a difference between a success and a profile of success. 7. Above all, there should be a distinction between the adjustment of the individual in marriages and the adjustment inherent in a relationship involving two particular persons in a process of dynamic interaction (Kirkpatrick, 1963, p. 403). Charles Bowerman in his introduction of the prediction studies as quoted in the Handbook of Marriage and the Family (Christensen, 1964, pp. 215—217) discusses the entire nature and the problem of prediction in the studies of marital adjustment. It is assumed that if relationships can be found such (independent) variable and later success in marriage, the variables can be used to predict success. Ideally, the investigator would like to find predictive variables that helped him explain why some marriages turned out more successfully 22 than others. It has been much easier, however, to find relationships than to be able to explain why they occur (Christensen, 1964, p. 216). Simpson (1960, pp. 213—228) criticized the total approach used in attempting to predict marital success or marital adjustment. He stated that ”such tests as have been given are being given, with their lack of probing in depth and their avoidance of or inability to include unconscious factors, offer no hope that this is a promising field of investigation.” He further stated that correlation scores or expectancy tables such as those used by Burgess and Wallin failed to consider the dynamic relationship between individuals. Therefore they were of no value in the prediction of marital success or marital adjustment. Therefore estimates of marital success based on premarital scores are so broad as to be practically worthless on their own terms. (Simpson, 1960, p. 220). Problems of Adjustment A second problem is the determination of marital adjustment. Burgess and Locke (1945, p. 451) stated that the attempt to predict success or failure in marital adjustment followed the attempt to predict personal adjustment in other areas of human behavior. The emphasis was placed on individual predictive items which are based upon certain factors present in the individual prior to his marriage. 23 The basic assumption in predicting human adjustment is that the personaltiy characteristics and past behavior of the person control his future conduct. The unique feature of the prediction is, therefore, the organization and analysis of past experiences of persons in a particular field and the use of this organized information to predict the probable future behavior of others.» The outstanding conclusion of marital adjustment studies already completed or now in progress is that success or failure in marriage may be predicted before marriage with some degree of probability (Burgess and Locke, 1945, p. 451). Waller (1951, p. 362) suggested that the concept of adjustment used today is a normative concept. This concept of adjustment implies that the individual has a working relationship with reality, adulthood, and the expectations of others as well as fulfilling the pre— vailing moral concepts of the culture. Current studies of this concept of adjustment are varied and one can make his choice of variables according to the particular study that he may have at hand. Waller further suggested that a theory of developmental adjustment might have more meaning. By this he meant that the individual grows both within the marriage and within his relationship to the partner of the marriage. When the approach based upon the dynamic interaction of the marriage partners with individual growth being an active factor is used, adjustment as a concept has a real meaning when it is discussed. Certainly it offers more than a concept of adjustment based on expectancy tables or the effects of environmental factors upon either the individual or the couple. 2L1 Luckey (1964) also pointed out the same problemo She stated that permanence was only criterion with a clear, operational definitions In contrast to this, the term ad- justment is broad and is used as a vague classificationo Most studies choosing the term adjustment have not used a single, undefined standard but have combined a variety of factors which when taken together make for ’adjustment‘a (Luckey, 1964, pg 593), x In an attempt to overcome this vagueness, the term satisfaction has been introduced. Hamilton in 1929 was the first to use this term; others who have used the term satisfaction in their work in prediction of marital satisfaction have been Jesse Barnard, Burgess and Cottrell, Terman, and later Burgess and Wallin. Problems of Success or Failure A third problem in the prediction of marital success is the determination of what is a successful marriage” 1 al nappine U) U) This is generally Studied under the term ”mati A large number of variables pertaining to marital happiness have been sutdiesn Still present is the previously raised problem of how one can predict the success of a venture involving interaction between two persons when the predic- tion is based upon predictive items of individual behavior, Eastmen (1958) in a study on the relationship between marital happiness and self—acceptance based his concept on the theory that affective and behavioral con- sequences are a functio: of one:s perceptionso His main ti dings W was self—acceptance OI husbands. wives, and both mates was 25 significantly correlated (p, ,01) with marital happiness. Secondly, he found that wives influence their husband‘s marital happiness regardless of their own marital happiness. This second finding raises the question, ”Is self—acceptance the only variable working in this study?” The study suggests that the interaction between husband and wife is at work, Self-acceptance prior to marriage cannot determine the result of marital interaction between husband and wife, Corsini (1956, pp. 327-332) theorized that marriage is a function of behavioral interaction of couples which in turn is determined by social perceptions, If the per- ception can be understood, then behavioral and affective consequences may be predicted, He postulated the following three hypotheses: Hypothesis I: Happiness in marriage is a function of the understanding of the mate‘s self and other: It is tested by the correlation between self and mate s self; self and mate‘s other, mate3s self and mate°s other, Hypothesis II; Understanding between husband and wife is a function of the degree of similarity between the selves: It is tested by the determina— tion of whether understanding of mate’s self and understanding of mate‘s other are functions of Similarity of self perception, 26 Hypothesis Ill: Happiness in marriage is related to the similarity of the selves of the partners: It is tested by the difference in the correlation of husband‘s self perception and wife's self perception. In the study based upon these hypotheses, Corsini found that hypothesis I and ll were not supported, Hypothesis III was found to be significant at the 001 level. He, therefore, made the following interpretations: (1) people who are similar are more likely to be happier in marriage than people who are dissimilar and (2) people who are happily married tend to become similar with respect to self—perception° Corsini‘s study was conducted with a sample of twenty married students at the University of Chicago, Questions that arose concerning this study were (1) Since this study was conducted after the couple was married, was there any halo effect present? {2) How can predictive objective items and theory be formulated from a sub— jective answer type of study? (3) What was done to rule out socially acceptable answers? (4) How much do one s OWN needs influence the perception of one’s mate, thereby introducing an uncontrolled variable into the study? 27 Waller (1951) pointed out five distinct limitations that can be found in most of the studies that have been ‘done: (1) Because of the criteria used, the studies "stack the cards" in favor of conventionality and conservatism. (2) The factors asserted to be the most highly associated with success in marriage are unconfirmed for the most by more than two or three studies and are questioned by other studies. (3) The factors, if valid, are probably valid only for the early years of marriage. (4) The findings are limited in application to the white, urban, middle class from which they are drawn. (5) Roughly 75 per cent of the factors that count for marital success are left unaccounted for (p- 369). He further states: A remediable limitation of the marriage studies to date is that they have been actuarially focused, reaching permaturdy into the realm of prediction, to the net detriment of understanding how actual marriage pairs, who succeed in marriage, achieve success. They fail to translate traits and factors into mechanisms and processes of marriage adjustment to show how these operate in a given marriage sit- uation (Waller and Hill, 1951, p, 369)e Kirkpatrick (1963, pp, 398—40l) discussed marital Success at great length and pointed out many ways in Which it may be determined. Kirkpatrick and Waller both pointed out that a criteria which might be successful in prediction of early marital success does not necessarily hold true after a marriage has been developed over a period 28 of time. The interaction between marriage partners changes the accuracy of the prediction as it is impossible to predict the status of the marriage after a period of compromise and adjustment has taken place, Studies of Marital Prediction Burgess and Locke (1945, pp, 451-480) listed ten studies which have investigated predictions of marital happiness or marital success from engagement, They are as follows: 10 Hornell Hart and Wilmer Shields (1926, ppa 403—407) investigated the relationship of age at marriage to happiness in marriagea On the basis of comparing records in the Marriage License Bureau with those of cases in Domestic Relations Court in Philadelphia, they concluded that a high proportion of marriages in which the men were under twenty-four and the women were under twenty-one turned out to be unhappy, The optimum age for marriage was twenty—nine for men and twenty~four for womeno These conclusions were attacked by Paul Popenoe on a number of grounds, the most important one being the question of whether or not a fair comparison could be made between a sample of all marriages as represented by the marriage license group and a highly selected group from the Domestic Relations Court (Burgess and Locke, 195M, p, 456), 2. Katharine Davis (l929) studied one thousand married women. She found the marriages to be happier where the wife had more than a high school education, was healthy 29 at the time of marriage, and had no sexual relations or petting before marriage. 3. Gilbert Hamilton (1929) found the following four items to be significant for martial satisfaction: (a) the wife has a brother or brothers, (b) the spouses have equal education, (c) the wife physically resembles the husband s mother, (d) there have been no pre—marital relations, 4. Jesse Bernard (l93u, p, 58) found that marriages are more satisfactory to husbands when they are older than the wife by zero to ten years and to the wife when she is younger than the husband by zero to five years. The above finding has been duplicated in recent studies on age at the time of marriage, The Bureau of Census and the National Life Institute of insurance found that in the United States husbands on the average are three years older than their wives at the time of marriage. 5- Kirkpatrick (1937) found in his study that the wife is better adjusted in marriage if she has had no greater intimacy with one parent than the other. The husband is happier if before the marriage he has had neither excess nor deficiency of women friends, 6- Paul Popenoe (1938) discovered that couples who do not elope are happier than the couples who do elope. 7- Paul Popenoe (1937) found that couples who rate their parents’ rnarriages as happy are happier than those who rate thelr parentsl marriages as unhappy, 3O 8. Clarence Schroeder (1963) found seven items that had positive statistical correlation with marital success. These are as follows: (a) parent’s marriage reported happier than the average, (b) parents not divorced or separated, (0) sex instructions from mother or from books, (d) education beyond high school, (e) attendance at church three or more times a month, (f) attendance at Sunday School beyond eighteen years of age, (g) reared in country or small town. 9. Lewis Symthe (1936) located twenty background items indicative of marital adjustment. lO. Edith Williams (1938) in an unpublished doctoral thesis at Cornell University found that such items as similar cultural background, happiness of parent‘s marriage, and approval of marriage by the parents were important factors in the marital success. Her findings are similar to those of Burgess and Cottrell (1939) which will be discussed later. The above studies represent pioneer efforts in the field of marital success prediction. Most were concerned with one or two variables which might provide some insight into marital adjustment. The results provided a few guide lines for prediction, but these studies did not provide a large range of variables from which to predict marital adjustment or success. 31 The six major studies which have contributed to the prediction of marital adjustment and success will now be reviewed. These are summarized quite extensively in the Handbook of Marriage and the Family, (Christensen, 1964) and this will be used as the basis for this section of the review. Burgess and Cottrell‘s Study The first study was conducted by Burgess and Cottrell (1939). They stated that the idea for this study came from an earlier prediction study, An attempt had been made in 1929 to determine whether or not a man released from prison would succeed or fail when placed on parole. Burgess and Cottrell conceived the idea of applying similar methods to other fields of human conduct. Thus the idea of predicting success or failure in marriage was begun. It was L‘ a realized that this test would be more diificult since (I) the study involved not only or person but rather the inter— action of two persons. AnOther problem that was realized was that there was no methoo to set the pattern for the research. The method had to be dexiSeJ before the invest— igation could be begun. The sample used in this study was narrowed to 526 persons. They were deScribed as ”a roughly homogeneous, 32 young, preponderantly non—neurotic, middle—class, native white American, urban group” (Burgess and Cottrell, 1939, p. 29). The criterion of success in marriage for this study was the Index of Marital Adjustment. This Index was constructed by the investigators with this basic assumption: a Common—sense estimates of how well or how poorly people are adjusted are made on the basis of cer— tain symptoms or indications of their feelings and attitudes towards their mates and their marriages (Burgess and Cottrell, 1939, p. A7). The researchers developed 27 individual items classified . under five headings, Hagreements and disagreements,” ”common interests and activities," ”demonstration of affection and mutual confiding,“ (dissatiSfaction with marriage,H and ”feelings of isolation and unhappiness” (Burgess and Cottrell, 1939, p. 57). The items were scored on the basis of every possible response. From a contingency table scores of each item were then weighed in regard to their relationship to a question which asked for an appraisal of the marriage as happy or unhappy. At this point some question could be raised about the validity of using happiness as a criterion scale. The authors stated that this question had been recognized and that they had checked its reliability and found that happiness could be used reliably as a criterion. 33 The mean adjustment score of the 526 couples was lMO.8 and the standard deviation was 38.8o The curve was skewed in the direction of unhappiness. The tetrachoric correlation between adjustment scores and happiness was .92. It was tested on a new sample of 68 cases and this correlation was .95. Kirkpatrick (1963, p. 379) states that this relation— ship is not surprising in that the total scores of the subjects correlated highly with self-ratings of marital happiness and the item weights were assigned on the basis of such correlation. In checking validity, it was found that the mean of the scores of the 61 couples who were divorced plus 65 separated couples was 91 as contrasted to the mean of 116 for 60 couples who had only comtemplated divorce and 151 for the remainder of the sample who had contemp— lated neither divorce nor reparation. \D After the above part of the study had been completed, an attempt was made to find items or areas which could be used for prediction of marital adjustment. Five factors were accounted for: Impress of cultural background Psychogenic background Social type Economic Role Response patterns 04>me 311 The prediction score was derived from weighted items under each of these areas. It was then correlated with marital adjustment scores and a product—moment correlation of .51 was obtained. This is significant at the .01 level. This relationship is shown in Table 1. TABLE l.——Relation between the prediction scores and marriage adjustment scores (percentage distribution) (Burgess and Cottrell, 1939, p. 289). Marital Adjustment Score Premarital Prediction Number Score Low Low High High of Cases 700—799 0.0 10.0 10.0 80.0 10 - 620—699 1.5 12,1 5.8 60.0 66 540-619 5.8 21.9 29.2 A3 1 137 460—539 27.6 29.4 25.9 17.1 170 380—u59 39.8 31.1 15.1 1u.0 93 300-379 E .2 25.7 11.u 5 7 35 220—299 5.0 5.0 0.0 0 0 c Total 519* *Seven cases were thrown out because subjects failed to answer a sufficient number of background questions for computation of their scores. Mean prediction score — 516.0 Standard Deviation — 98.8 In analyzing their research, Burgess and Cottrell (1939, pp, 313—350) pointed out several needed corrections. They stated that the items that were used were simple and at times crudely constructed. The items measured some basic factors but left out some important ones, such as the patterns of relationships and personality shiftswitrid the patterns. Their own factor analysis also pointed out this weakness. They further found that the cultural back— ground and the economic role did not have as an important effect as had been assumed. Problems that arose from the case-study type of approacn were presented. The main problem was that the study became subjective and the re— liabiltiy and validity of this type of study can be questioned at times, it was suggested tiat a better method of relating statistical inferences and data with tne case— study should be found. A Groves and Groves (1947, pn 37) also pointed out the weakness of the case—study approac.. The possible bias of the study is seen waer it is recognized tgat the findings are based on the subjective self—appraisal of those who were willing to participate with researchers. Burgess and Cottiell (135/, on. 34l—3#9) did make 3 . t overies lech were to provide a several important dis: new understanding of tmd relationship in marriage and wxicn must be considered in predictior: 1. Wives make the major adjustment in marriage. 2. The affectio'al relationships of childhood condition the love life of the adult, 3- Socialization of the person is significant for adjustment in marriagei 4. The economic factor, in itself, is not significant 101 adjustmert in marriage 5- Sexual adjustment in mariiage is not the result of a biological factor or the result of psychogenic deVelopment but of cultural conditioning of attitudes toward sex. 6. It is possible to prediCt marital adjustment before marriage. 36‘ Terman‘s Studies At about the same time that Burgess and Cottell were involved in their investigations, Louis M. Terman and his associates (1938) were doing a similar type of investigation. Terman used the term ”happiness in marriage” rather than ”marital adjustment”. A major difference in Terman‘s study was that he dealt only with the psychological factors that contribute to marital happiness. He did an early exploratory study of 341 married couples and 109 divorced couples. He used mainly items from the Bernreuter Personality Iventory and the Strong Interest Test (Christ— ensen, 1964, p. 221). Winch and McGinnis (1954, p. 456) point out that the major contribution of the first study by Terman was that “personality traits” as measured by the Bernreuter and Strong Inventories show little correlation with marital happiness but that particular attitudes ex- pressed by the person responding to the items are sign— ificantly related to happiness scores. In his second study, Terman included these items with iitems from the Burgess and Cottrell tests to construct (the Index of Marital Happiness. A second study was accordingly planned which would investigate for a larger number of subjects the relationship between hapiness scores and a great variety of possible factors, including not only personality factors, but also background factors and factors having to do with sexual adjustments in marriage. By the use of an improved technique for 37 assuring anonymity of response, data were secured on these three sets of variables from 792 married couples who filled out the information schedules in the presence of a field assistant. The group studied represents a reasonably good sampling of the urban and semi—urban married population of California at the middle and upper—middle cul— tural levels, though the sampling appears to be somewhat biased in the direction of superior marital happiness (Winch and McGinnis, 1954, p. 456). The Index of Marital Happiness in the second study had similar items to those used in the Burgess and Cottrell Index of Marital Adjustment. Scores ranged from 2 to the maximum of 87, with mean of 68.40 for the husbands and 69.25 for the wives. The standard deviation for the husbands was 17.35 and for the wives was 18.75. A skewed result was obtained similar to that of Burgess and Cottrell. The correlation between the happiness score of the husband and wife was .59. This was between the happiness score of the husband and wife was .59. This was about as Terman had expected since there must be a correlation between two scores if the test is to be reliable. Winch (1954, p. 457) pointed out the significance of this finding. It was the first time that any data had suggested that the degree of satisfaction that one finds in a marriage depends partly on one’s own characteristic attitudes and temperament and does not necessarily parallel the happiness of one‘s marital partner. 38 In the second part of his study, which searched for gpersonality items to be used for prediction, Terman drew ’71 items from the Bernreuter Personality Iventory, 128 items ffirom the Strong Interest Test and added 34 items of opinion afloout the ideal marriage, which resulted in a total of 233 pnersonality items. It was found that 101 items from the lqtisbandls schedule and 97 from the wife‘s schedule were saidgnificant enough to be retained for the prediction scale. (Fvventy-six background items were found to have a high eariough relationship with marital happiness to be included ird the scale. A subsample of 200 couples was chosen for the correla— ti_cni of the marital happiness scores with the personality anti the background items. This was done to give a better corrtrol over the sample so that the skewness of the sample coulxi be eliminated as well as to provide control for other factxdrs. The correlation of the personality items with the lJidex of Marital Happiness was .47 for the husbands and .46 ffldr the wives. The correlation between the background items sand the Index was .35 for the husbands and .29 for the "wives. This last correlation was considerably lower than that of tflde Burgess and Cottrell study. The multiple COPP€l&tiJmfi of the background and the personality items 'with mardqtal happiness was .54 for the husbands and .47 for the wives. This suggests that the attitude and emotional 39 responses that were touched by the personality items cannot be over—looked when it is sought to determine marital hap— piness. By noting and classifying the individual items that differentiate between subjects of low and high happiness, it has been possible to piece together descriptive composite pictures of the happy and un- happy temperaments. For example, it is especially characteristic of unhappy subjects to be touchy and grouchy; to lose their tempers easily; to fight to get their own way; to be critical of other; to be careless of others feelings; to chafe under discipline or to rebel against orders; to show any dislike that they may happen to feel; to be easily affected by praise or blame; to lack self-confidence; to be domin- ating in their relations with the opposite sex; to be little interested in older people, children, teaching, charity, or up-lift activities; to be unconventional in their attitudes toward religion, drinking, and sexual ethics; to be bothered by useless thought; to be often in a state of excitement; and to alternate between happiness and sadness without apparent cause (Winch and McGinnis, 1954, pp. 457-458). Terman found that the following ten items of back- ground circumstances are most predictive of marital hap- piness: Superior happiness of parents Childhood happiness Lack of conflict with mother Home discipline that was firm, not harsh Strong attachment to mother Strong attachment to father Lack of conflict with father Parental frankness about sex Infrequency and mildness of childhood punishment Premarital attitude towards sex that was free from disgust or aversion. o u OKOOONONUW JELAHDH H The criticisms of the Terman study are fairly similar to those of the Burgess and Cottrell study. It was not a 40 representative sample, geographically or economically; it was not representative of all marriages as the mean time of marriage of the couple studied was 11.4 with 11 per cent of the sample having been married over 20 years. Anastasi (1959) discussed some weaknesses of the Bernreuter and pointed out that one of its major weaknesses was that it is subject to faking responses so that the subject would appear in a better light. Terman did not seem to have controlled for this possibility. Terman and Odenis Study In 1940 Terman and Oden (1947) did a study of gifted children and used this opportunity to do a longitudinal study to determine marital adjustment. Using a number of gifted husbands and their wives and gifted wives and their husbands, Terman conducted testing with the marital happiness index. The correlations that were obtained were very similar in nature to those obtained in his earlier study. In 1946 he did a follow—up study of these same people and found that 41 men and 45 women who had taken this test were either separated or divorced. It was found that those marriages which were still intact in 1946 had a significantly higher mean score in 1940 than those whose marriages were broken in 1946. The mean score of husbands of the intact marriages was 4.10 as compared to 41 3.04 for the husbands of the broken marriages. The mean score for the wives of the intact marriages was 5.39 as compared to 5.03 for the wives of the broken marriages. Terman and Oden interpreted these findings to mean that the marital aptitude test revealed a ”general tendency” existing before and after marriage and that this affected the probability of adaption to the necessities of marriage. He also offered further evidence of data collected in 1928 IIsome” showing that women who had been identified as having or ”marked” nervous symptoms had a significantly lower marital aptitude score 12 years later (Christensen, 1964, p. 224). Winch pointed out that some 200 unmarried persons in Terman and Oden’s group were given this marital adjustment prediction test under another name and that eleven of these had been divorced by 1948. All but one of these eleven had lower scores than the mean of the subjects who took the tests. The seven men averaged .93 standard deviations and the four women averaged 1.5 standard deviations below the men. It is true that this is a small sample, but it could be suggestive of possible predictive value (Winch and McGinnis, 1954, p. 514). It would seem that perhaps this study might be repeated to locate the tendency that Terman and Oden found. 42 To date, so far as this researcher is able to determine, this study has not been replicated. Locke’s Study This study (1951) differed from the previous studies in two ways. It was based on a divorce group and a group identified as happily married. Secondly, an attempt was made to draw a truly representative random sample of these two groups from an entire.county. This method produced a sample that was fairly representative of the area from which it was drawn. Locke constructed a martial adjustment test which included items from Burgess and Cottrell, Terman, and eight new items that he felt would be predictive. His pre-marital background items included courtship and engagement, parental influences, sexual behavior, and occupational status. He attempted to determine the effect of the following personality traits and patterns in the individual: direct— ional ability, adaptability, affectionateness, sociability, and conventionality. He included a final group of items that dealt with the marital interaction expected in the companionship type of family. These were to be modified later for pre—marital prediction. The correlations that Locke found were very low. For instance, the correlation score of marital adjustment between 43 husband and wives still married was .36 and for the divorced was .04. Several criticisms could be made of Locke‘s study. There is some possibility of a negative halo existing on the part of'mnedivorced people as they answer the questions about their marriage. Another criticism was that part of his divorced samplc- had remarried and this development was not adequately covered in the research design. It was felt that this made some of the correlation scores of the divorced people unreliable. Locke discussed prediction scores in detail but did not follow this up with a statistical analysis of relationships. He did not develop any prediction scores between his items and the marital adjustment scores and he did not develop the difference in prediction scores between the happily married and divorced people. In addition to this, he did riot modify his items so that they might be used for pre- marital prediction although he had stated that this was (XNE of his purposes (Christensen, 1964, p. 226). This was 61 research project that had a good beginning, but tailed off as it was completed and fell far short of its intended goals Its unique beginning promised far more than it produced. MI Karlssen’s Study In a unique cross-cultural study done in Sweden George Karlssen (Christensen, 1964) did a companion study to the work that Locke was doing in this country. The method of selection of the sample and the Index of Marital Satisfact— ion were almost identical to those used by Locke. Karlssen determined that his groups had a husband and wife correla: tion of .70 for the husbands and .73 for the wives. The correlation of the scores between husband and wife was .72. This cannot be compared with the low scores of Locke’s sample as Locke's correlations were worked out for each group, divorced and married, where Karlssen s were done on a total group basis. Karlssen also hoped to be able to do pre—marital prediction from his results and therefore included items which would apply to both pre-marital post—marital situ— ations. He saw prediction in terms of a relationship with satisfaction, rather than using it to predict from one pe~ 'riod of time to another of the seventy—seven times that had been significant in Iocke s study, Karlssen found fifty to be significant for the husbands and forty—seven to be signigicant for the wives. For the purpose of analysis of the relationship of the predictive items adJustment, he grouped the former under the following headings: 45 General Background Adaptability I—items of adjustment plus items from Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. 3. Adaptability II-self and mate ratings on personality. 4. Communication I—amount of the husband—wife communication. 5. Communication II-index of how much was known about spouses‘s wishes. NH The multiple correlation of all six prediction scores with the marital scores and with the marital satisfaction scale was .84 for husbands and .91 for wives. These correlations are high, and Karlssen explained them by stating that a number of his items dealt with the marital process and some of these items may be another way of measuring satisfaction. Bowerman (Christensen, 1964, p. 228) pointed out that the contribution of this research lies not only in its cross—cultural uniqueness, but also in the work on adapt— abiltiy and communication. It is certainly possible that this work may be modified for premarital prediction. Burgess and Wallin Study In 1953 Burgress and Wallin started with data from 1,000 engaged couples and followed them up for at least three years after marriage. Their sample, restricted to the Chicago area, was predominantly middle class, with higher” than average education, income, and occupational status. 46 0f the original l,000 couples, approximately 150 broke their engagement, 33 were divorced or separated, 10 had their marriage broken by death, 42 refused to participate in the follow—up, and others were lost, so that the final sample was composed of 666 couples. In the construction of the criteria of marital success, Burgess and Wallin used several criteria rather than a single composite index. They developed nine different components for their multiple criteria of marital success. Three were of a general nature: permanence, happiness of the marriage, and general satisfaction with the marriage. The other six components were specific in nature: specific satisfactions and dissatisfactions with a number of aspects about marriage and spouse; consensus, or degree of agree- ment about family matters; love for mate and preception of reciprocation; sexual satisfaction; companionship; and compatibility of personaltiy and temperament. A scoring key was devised for each index. In their treatment of predictive items Burgess and Wallin distinguished between pre-marital and post—marital items. An index of Engagement Success was constructed. In the follow-up they found that those who had broken their engagements had lower scores on this engagement success index than those who had married. The test-retest 47 reliability was .75 for 81 men and .71 for 81 women. The retest was done after a six-month interval. Prediction scores for engagement items were correlated with the marital success scores from the questionnaire, and they were found to be .39 for men and .36 for women. Although this research presents a new wealth of data and is very comprehensive in nature, it has a number of defects which must be corrected before the work can attain its promise. There is no report of the prediction scores for the couples who broke their engagements. At the time this study was begun, this researcher wrote to Burgess and asked for additional information about the couples who had broken their engagement but did not receive an answer. Another weakness is that the authors did not make clear what measure of marital success was being used when correlations indicated some bias about the pre-marital period or at least some halo effect about the relationship during that time. This apparently was not controlled during the investigation. No multiple correlation is given for women between the five groups of prediction scores and the multiple criteria of success. It would be difficult at the present time to replicate this fine research because of the limitations of data analysis and the lack of reporting at crucial points in the measurement and prediction. as Summary A search of the literature did not reveal any studies in the prediction of marriage from engagement. Therefore, a study was made of the literature on the prediction of marital adjustment and marital success. The problems of prediction, the problem of marital adjustment and the problem of prediction of marital success or marital failure were discussed. The major part of the chapter was devoted to a re— view and critique of various studies of marital prediction. Ten early studies were reviewed in terms of the particular variable studied. Since all of these efforts were unique in the field, they provided only a few guidelines for prediction purposes. Six major studies in the area of marital adjustment and success were reviewed and critiqued. In several ways these later studies were imporved over the pioneer efforts. First, a larger number of variables were included in the ex— perimental designs. Secondly, for the first time, back— ground items became a part of the research. Another import— ant difference found in the later studies was the comparison of divorced couples with happily married couples. The final major improvement was a longitudinal study which began with engagement and continued into the marriage of the couples studied. The last study was examined in detail. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Purpose of the Study This study was designed to analyze the interpersonal :relationship which existed between the potential husband eand wife at the time of the announcement of their engage— rnent. An inherent assumption was that the period of czourtship preceding the engagement had been sufficient tzo allow for an objective evaluation of the relationship try each partner. Specifically, this investigation was deesigned to test the effectiveness of the Burgess and Watllin Engagement Success Inventory as a predictor of Imagrriage at the time of the formal engagement. It was £11530 designed to determine if the Carson Issue Of Marital Afiingstment could be related to the problem of prediction of Inarriage. Variables When formal engagement occurs, it is assumed that an.V'Esignificant factors which would preclude actual marrfiiage have been resolved in one manner or another. For exaHKDlee, if religious differences existed, it is assumed that;‘ttiey have been resolved in some manner or the 49 SO engagement would not have taken place. Therefore, it was assumed that all significant intervening variables except these measured by the Burgess ans Wallin Engagement Success Inventory had been resolved by the time that the engagement was formally announced. Potential factors such as differ— ence in age, difference in education, difference is socio- economic status, difference arising from prior engagements, differences arising from family relationships either were lion-existant, had been eliminated, or at least had been reduced below significance by the process of compromise sand adjustment prior to the formal announcement of the eengagement. It was assumed that had such a compromise amid adjustment not taken place, the engagement would not have oczcurred. Perhaps other intervening variables may have beeen significant, but because of the prior study by Burgess earid Wallin, it was decided not to use them. The problem of the length of the engagement was con— :sixflered, and those couples who indicated an engagement ex- ceeeding eighteen months were eliminated. This was done in orxien? that the specific and possibly different problems of iflie long engagement would not affect the research. Limitation of the Study §§Q£i¢fxlon of the Original Sample (The sample consisted of couples who had formally amuumin<3ed their engagements in one of the methods evident 51 in middle and upper class American culture. This included announcement in the local newspaper, announcement at a party, or by some other similar method. The main source of information in collecting the sample was newspapers. Some newspapers that were consulted could not be used as they gave only names of the engaged couples. The main newspapers consulted were Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Lansing (Michigan) State Journal, the Indiana (Pennsylvania) Gagette, and the Detroit Free Press. .About 13% of the sample came from the Cumberland, Mary— land, area where the names were furnished by the brother <3f the researcher, and who, incidentally, is a minister. albout 10% of the sample came from individual contacts, aJid some names were furnished by friends. Initially, one tliousand and ninety—three (1,093) Couples were identified aruj contacted to determine if they were willing to part— icj;pate in this investigation. The geographical distri— lxitxion of this sample is included in Chapter IV. Eaci couple was contacted by a letter wiich stated lfiue purpose of the study and solicited their participation in “tile study. A postcard was enclosed for them to return whiczri indicated their willingness to participate in the Pesexarwflm A copy of this letter is found in Appendix E. 52 Selection of the Final Sample When the postcards were returned, they were studied to see if the couple fitted into the design of the study. The following were ruled out; (a) couples who indicated the probability of an engagement period exceeding eighteen months, (b) couples that had been engaged longer than two months as it was felt that they might have increased the probability of marriage, (c) couples where the lapse of time between the time of engagement and time of marriage 'was so short that testing could not be done. After the postcards were studied the instruments used iJi the research were mailed to the couples who met the curiteria for the study. .ERDllow—up the non—returned inventories A follow—up was made of those couples who did not re- ttiinn the instruments after they had agreed to participate iri the research. They were asked to indicate if they had ‘beeean married as they had originally planned and to state ttiea reason for not returning the tests. This was done to dtetzermdne how many of this group had broken their engage- Ineriiss, Determination of Marital Status The data obtained had no meaning until it was known Whertkuer or not the couple had been married. This information 53 was obtained in several ways: (a) following instructions, couples notified the researcher that marriage had taken place, (b) newspapers were watched for announcements of weddings, (0) friends were contacted to determine if marriage had occurred. If none of these methods proved successful, the couple was contacted by letter and asked if the marriage had taken place. By use of these various methods, all of the data in the study have been varified as to the correct marital status. The Hypotheses The primary null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference between the couples who obtain high scores on the Issue Scale of Marital Adjustment and the couples who obtained low scores on the Issue Scale of Marital Adjustment. This is correlated with their scores on the Engagement Success Inventory. This hypothesis will be tested in the 2 x 4 design shown in Figure 1. HIGH LON TOTAL High Engagement Success Inventory and Marry High Engagement Success Inventory and Break Engagement Low Engagement Success Inventory and Marry Low Engagement Success Inventory and Break Engagement Total Figure l.-—Design for analysis of data. 54 Three additional null hypotheses and their respective alternates are stated. Null Hypothesis I is stated in reference to the relationship between the score on the Engagement Success Inventory and the breaking of engage— ment. Null Hypothesis II is stated in reference to the scoring on the Issue of Marital Adjustment Scale. Null Hypothesis III is stated in reference to age and marriage. Null Hypothesis I.-—Engagement Success Inventory There is no significant difference between the group who score high on the Engagement Success Inventory and the group who score low on the Engagement Success Inventory and break their engagement. Alternate I: The high scores on the Engagement Success Inventory for the couples who marry show a significant difference over those who score low on the Engagement Success Inventory and do not marry. Null Hypothesis II.--Issues of Marital Adjustment Scale There is no significant difference between the group who score high on the Issue Scale and the group who score low on the Issue Scale. Alternate II: Couples who score high on the Issue Scale will score more significantly than the couples who score low on the Issue Scale. Null Hypothesis III.——Age and Marriage Age of the couples who score high on the Engage- ment Success Inventory and marry will show no significant difference from the age of those who score low on the Engagement Success Inventory and do not marry. filternate III: There is a significant difference tsetween those who score high and marry and those tvho score low on the Engagement Success and do riot marry. 55 Statistical Analysis The basic inferential statistical techniques utilized in this study were derived from Edwards (1958) and Seigel (1956). Basic techniques involved the non—parametic chi— square test and the parametric t-test. Formulas for these techniques as well as for determination of descriptive statistics utilized herein will be found in the Appendix. Summary The purpose of this study is to determine if the I3urgess and Wallin Engagement Success Inventory and (Zarson's Issue of Marital Adjustment could be used to paredict the occurrence of marriage from the time of fkormal engagement. Possible variables were discussed and it: was pointed out that only those variables found in the BLLrgess and Wallin Engagement Success Inventory were con- sixiered. The original sample was collected from news- pa$>ers, friends, and individual contacts. The final sample ‘was selected after a study was made of the couples who hadl agreed to participate in the research. This study was made? to determine if the couples fitted into the design of the s tudy . A follow—up was made of non—returned inventories to deterunine how many couples had broken their engagements. TWMB data was verified by checking newspapers for ‘Wedding euinouncements, contacting friends, being notified 56 by the couple that marriage had occurred, and correspond- ing with the couples. The various hypotheses were listed. The primary null hypothesis states that there is no significant dif— ference between the couples who score high on the Issue Scale of Marital Adjustment and the couples who score low on the Issue Scale of Marital Adjustment. Three addi- tional hypotheses were stated: Null Hypothesis I is stated in reference to the relationship between the score on the Engagement Success Inventory and the breaking of the engagement. Null Hypothesis II is stated in reference ‘to the scoring on the Issue of Marital Adjustment Scale. PJull Hypothesis III is stated in reference to age and marriage. Basic statistical techniques to be used involved trie chi-square test and the E—test. CHAPTER IV METHODS AND PROCEDURES In Chapter III the design for the study was detailed. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methods and procedures used in the research. Instrumentation Two instruments were used. The first instrument used was the Burgess ans Wallin Engagement Success Inventory (1953; 1954). This instrument is composed of twenty~four items which questioned the areas of relationships between the couples. The scales were similar to the Burgess and Cottrell Marriage Adjustment Scale. These questions and the scores given the possible responses are roughly similar to those of the Burgess- Cottrell marriage adjustment scale from which they were adapted. The questions making up the latter were used because they appear equally revelant for measuring adjustment in engagement. The corresponding scores were employed as a matter of convenience, since arbitrary or more rigorously derived weights would in all likelihood have yielded similar results (Burgess and Wallin, 1944, p. 327). Burgess and Wallin’s sample for the testing was 505 cxouples. These couples had known each other for an average of forty—five months, kept company for an average of thirty— one and five~tenths months, and had been engaged for an aver— age of three and two-tenths months. 57 58 The reliability of this instrument was established by having 81 couples fill out an abbreviated schedule containing adjustment questions some time after they had answered the original schedule. These scores were then correlated with the original scores, and a coefficient of 075i.°05 was found for the men and a correlation of .7li .06 was found for the women. The validity of the testing was investigated by comparing the scores of 100 couples who broke their engagements to the scores of 887 couples who were married. It was anticipated and found that the couples who broke their engagements had a lower adjustment score than those who continued their engagement and were married. The second instrument used is the Issues of Marital Scale constructed by Carson (1961) in his doctoral (dissertation. This scale is composed of 140 items selected firom seven spousal agreement areas which according to Ckarson (1961) were known to be correlated with marital amijustment. These areas are (a) dealing with in—laws, (k1) intimate relations, (c) friends, (d) recreation, (e) Efliillosophy of life, (f) handling finances, and (g) demon— Str’Eitions of affection. Two scoring systems were constructed for the scale: th€3 :First measured ”mates agreement” on the items and was latN33Led straight agreement scoring; the second scoring JOA \z E . . . ; H DYSTZGHn was configural and measured the ”mate's consensus 59 on the preceived importance of the items as well as their agreement of these items. For the latter, six differing combinations of agreement in perceptions of items and agreements on items were tallied. These tallies were "condensed into "1”—”0” dichotomies which were inferred from the personal construct and straight agreement formu— lations” (Carson, 1961). Carson‘s sample was composed of two sets of married couples. Fifty-eight couples were persuaded by their clergyman to participate, and 47 of these scored high enough on the Locke—Wallace Marital Scale to be used. These couples were contrasted with a sample of 47 Inaritally maladjusted couples. Thirty-one of these nualadjusted couples comprised the entire group of mates ffiiling for divorce or on probation pending divorce at the Iketroit Recorder Court over a designated period of time. Iflie 8 remaining maritally maladjusted couples were in the ‘beaginning stages of marital counseling at the Catholic Scbciafl Service Agency in Lansing, Michigan. Utilizing chi—square it was found that 34 of the items .10 in 'the personal construct area were significant at the letwel Cd‘significance and 46 items of straight agreement werae :significant at .10 level of significance. 60 The reliability was estimated to be .559 for the maritally adjusted couples and .551 for the maritally maladjusted couples. Cross—validation showed a result of .447 for the maritally adjusted couples and .779 for the maladjusted couples. Description of Final Sample Original Sample The original sample that was contacted totaled 1,093 couples. This sample represents a rather diverse geographic parameter the dispersion of which is indicated in Table 2. Forty letters mailed to the original sample were .returned due to incorrect addresses. No further attempt vmas then made to contact these individuals, because the leapse of time between the announcement of the engagement 831d the return of letters was too long. These returned lxetters reduced the total of the original sample to 1,053 (acnitacts. Three hundred and seventy-nine couples of the orfiiginal sample agreed to participate in the research. This iregdresented a 36 per cent return of the original population. ’Thiarty—three couples of the agreeing sample were unusable, due ‘to immediate marriage or an indefinite engagement period, Theses two factors narrowed the final sample down to 346 COUEIleeS. The testing instruments were then mailed to the finafil saample. 61 TABLE 2.-—Geographical composition of the original sample. State Number Percentage Alabama 1 .0940 California 2 .18 Connecticut 3 .27 District of Columbia 5 .46 Flordia 3 .27 Illinois 4 .3740 Indiana 22 .1870 Iowa 1 .0970 Kansas 1 .094 Louisana 1 .0970 Maine 146** .0970 Maryland 8 13.3 Massachusetts 118* .1870 Michigan 16 10.8 Missouri 1 1.5 Nebraska 5 .09 New Jersey 15 .46 New York 6 1.4 . North Carolina 1 .55 Nova Scotia 27 .09 Ohio 1 2.5 Oklahoma 687H .09 Pennsylvania 6 62.8 Tennessee 1 .55 VErmont 4 .09 Virginia 22 .37 West Virginia A .02 Wisconsin 1 .38 New Mexico 1 :09 Total 1093 100.0 *Majority came from **Majority came from Detroit and Lansing Area Cumberland, Maryland Area ***Majority came from Pittsburgh Area and from about 100 mile radius around the city. 62 Soon after the instruments were mailed, a letter was received from one couple stating that they could not part~ icipate in the research. Their objection was based upon the fact that the tests were numbered and that the numbers would destroy their privacy. This reduced the sample to 345 couples. Final Sample A total of 186 tests were returned for use in the final analysis. This was a fifty-four per cent return. Two couples were eliminated because they had not correctly answered the items in the instruments used; eight couples 'were eliminated because their marital status could not be determined; and one couple was eliminated from the sample ldecause the fiance was killed in an automobile accident. iflae final sample for analysis totaled 175 couples. The final geographical composition for the couples iss shown in Table 3. gicnirce for Final Sample An analysis of the sources for the final sample is shrywn Table 4. TABLE 3.-—Geographical composition of the final sample. 63 State Number Percentage California 1 .5 Indiana 1 .5 Maine 1 .5 Maryland 10 65.0 Michigan 17 9.7 Minnesota 1 .5 Missouri 2 11.1 New Jersey 1 .5 New Mexico 1 .5 New York 4 2.3 North Carolina 2 1.0 Ohio 5 2.8 Pennsylvania 115 65.0 Tennessee 2 1.1 v1 rgin ia )3 2 . 8 West Virginia 3 1.0 Wisconsin 4 2.3 Total 175 100.0 TLABLE 4.--Sources of sampl E‘- O -_-_ ..-__—— Source Number Percentage IEIfiiends 25 14.3 Pearsonal Contact 45 25~O Pi ttsburgh Post Gazette 68 38~9 IMiIiister (Maryland Area} 14 .8 lgmiiana Gazette l3 7.4 Detxroit Free Press 3 1»? St:. Louis Newspaper 6 3.4 Totxa]_ 175 100.0 64 Occupations of Sample An analysis of the occupations of the sample showed that most of the female partners of the broken engagements were students. Most of the male partners of the broken engagements were either in the military service or were students. Table 5 indicates the occupations of the males and of the females who broke their engagements. TABLE 5.-_0ccupations of couples in broken engagements. Female Number Percentage Student 14 87.5 Teacher 1 6.25 Receptionist l 6.25 Total 16 l00.0 Male Number Percentage Student 7 43.8 Military service 4 25.0 Teacher 2 12.5 Clerk 1 6«25 Mechanic 1 6.25 Machinist l 6.25 Total 16 100.0 In contrast to the couples who had broken engage— menits, those couples who married had a wide and varied PaJige of occupations. These are summarized in Table 6. Follow—up One hundred and fifty-nine couples who had previously Stai:ed their willingness to participate in the research faifilexi to return the test instruments. A letter was sent 65 TABLE 6.—-0ccupations of couples who married. Female Number' Percentage StnlderM: 5 Jl/.2 Teacher 22 13.9 Secretary 27 17.0 None 6 3.8 Beautician 3 1.9 Clerk 11 2.5 Investigator—Reynolds Aluminum 1 6.0 Nurse 6 3.8 Receptionist 6 3.8 Travel Agent 1 6.0 Bank Teller 1 - 6.0 Bookkeeper 1 6.0 Chemist 1 6.0 Airline Hostess 1. 6.0 Social Worker 1 6.0 Medical Technician 1 5.0 Statistician l 6.0 Telephone Service Representative 1 6.0 TOTAL 15C 100.0 Male Number Percentage Student 6/ 42.1 Teacher' 19 11.? Military 14 8.8 Laborer 5 5.1 Bank Teller 2 1.3 Draftsman . Li 2.5 angdrieeJ“ 8 [.(1 Surveyor 1 .6 rlectrlc -echhlcian 2 l.” Metfiuuiic 2 1.3 Lab Technician 2 1.3 Iruhlraruxa Agerfl: 1 .6 Minister 2 1.; Field Manager 1 .6 Jeweler 1 .6 lairmei' l .6 Vice—President 1 .6 Doctor 1 .L Pti:nigtei' 1 Molder Apprentice l .5 Psychologist l . Salesman .( ,. Foreign Ber ice -ffieer 1 .; Banker 1 ,i Electrician 1 .3 Clerk 1 ., 'Qire Dealer 1 .5 Repairman 1 . Golf Professional 1 Builxier l . lawyer g ,7 Postal Clerk 1 a Telvlsion Director 1 .h lNiysicis3: 1 .m None 1 .b Chemist l .6 licmm Lows: mocfla map Cmmzpop ghmE 6 egg or - om oSLp we QCmEmpmpm esp mxcwrp so>mm : c t. : Cowpmde menu pmgmsmcm orz coward mEFW Lo>oz aaommm haassmb mhmza< l. :.Udp cog; ooxcsdm on casogm coheaflzo: Adv proEmpmpm one we osnp 30m ”mademxm .cEsfiOo :02: one goes: mogfla onp coozpop XLmE Xosap a>mm£ s pSQ .poc on 30% %H .CEsHoo :mflw: mhp Longs mocfla one CmmZQmQ aflocmd Lack spas deE >>mo£ m psg “on so» pH .pcmEmpspm one psops mflmcogpm atom 50% me moflomc some dmv .mocHH exp coozpmp aflocod 930% Lee: xsse h>sm£ 6 95¢ Hesse Lo>oc_go mssp Hflflmmm “wasp .Nwwmsms «menu mmeHm pH mH .me we ossp 3o; ooflomo one pcmEtpspm most seem AHV MQHBB ammm3m2< mm Bab: BzmzmeMo>o mQOHpmom> camp oasogm moadsoo .oa .mcdfld m.oaasoo esp CH hem mEom o>d£ UHSOQm meme aogoe oaasoo s o>flw mzsalcfl cos: .0 .pogmop d on Geo omssootopCH Hmsxom wsfl>mm .w 103 .06 mesmflmw Hams son psons mxflmp :oafiz so wcmnmsg 5 Cor; mConscs m_pH .N .pogpomOP mhdpm mmgpmmOp mated pdzp hfiflemm one .w : = = = : : .oemm m_:oEoz d we msfimmfim .m .CmEoz : = : = = : gmsp Hmoflpomgd opoE was So: .: .oEHp 600% m o>m£ 0p was: pwmp esp a0 ego we coemfl>maop mcfigopdz .m .ows one ado weep CH pcmmeQEH 00p come we sow .m : : : : : : DSWHUHHSO mum WSdHIQfl SQHZ wgflswhd .H oz mow po>oz haopsm aaadSmD mhdza< wmfimcoppw Hmom mpcmepnpm wgp ma oSLp 30m iou- : \.m = = = = .co ocoamv use 30% on; mcooEom we ccoanm < .sm .xpoz was: : = = = = : an omcnwm mam mmHH 2H mmcfinp coow one .mm .pmcpo comm m>oa mmfiz 0cm : = : = = = ocmnmsn can con: magma we mwmwppme < .mm .posvfia co hmcoe mafiemm : : = = = : camam on team Hmmm vazocm mocwnmsm .zm .mmpme anon mmHMmHuMm pH con: : : = = = : maco mcflmmmaa we ommsoopmpcfi Hmsxmm .mm .mmm use op 50% pan: zoom: on = z z = = = we mzwancfl cues mafiammv no umpomm one .mm .mvumflpm :30 Leona : = = = = : o>mn comm Uazocm mmflz was smegma: < .Hm .mmmCGMm = = = = : : so mmocflaamz :30 awonu oxme maaoom .om .mwmflmnme CH : = = : = : mmmsoopmpcfl Hmsxom on momma coauomam< .ma .Nafiemm one = = = z : : GH memos map waves: wasocm mocmnmsm .mH .quemohcm :30 Laos» = = = = = z pom afico me asap madam xsflcp mccmnmsm .NH .Hmsao: ma mwazooampsfl = : = = z = Hmzxmm psocufiz mooanma wcoa pom weaoc .ma = = = = z : smalcfllnmspoa m oxfldmflc on Handpmc mH .mH 02 wow mammogpm doom pm>mz mampmm mHHmSwD mmmza< mpcmampmpm on» ma one» 30m 105 UQdess one ow used 696 mmflz one op : a = = = : mwcoaon xQogohmd haflema esp a0 puma .wm .phddd HHmm ow Usson = : : : = : we mwmflmpme m 95% mcfl>d£ pzospflz .Nm .Uoflpsse one home moped m>flpodppps : = = : = : haadsxom mCflop psopm mmoa memo coEo3 .om .mpconsd 230 was gasp mzsalcfl : : : : = : no: so we: 0p nomoflo Hoom cmo conned < .mm .mmoCHmsn : : : : : : C30 .Hflmflp USHE mfiflmflcfiw pwmfl QSB .Jm .:Loaomx misozpoan as Ed H: .mm __ __ __ __ __ __ .ompsoogopcfl Hesxom mcfl>m£ pso : : : : : : nape: omeOHpooawd Hoom :do somgmd < .mm owes one ocmnmss esp = = = = e = neon mo row was we emcee meanesem .Hm .oEHp uoow m hoe mcmad m.owH3 use mpcmnmss : = : : = : s CH UoUSHocfl on Uflsogm Gmpoaflno .om .xmm psopm Homm thp 305 = : : : : : mUQflQmSS Lflmflp Hflwo. UHSOSW COEOS .mm ooe>©d m>Hw p.:oo menu son: pmooec ogp out deHIQH .wm w. —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ 02 wow 9m>oz mamndm aaamSmD mhdzfl< whamqoppm Homm apcoEmpspm mzp we camp :03 lO6 oEo: m_oHdsoo m CH mEoo : z : : : : nae: Hoom ow come on oasogw mzmfich .m: oaflz so Ugmnmjz msoa emcflmwm cm>o oUHm Lsox : = : : : : oxen Haas oz: oco we ecoflma amen < .m: .wgopz Eopw pgmflm zocx nos : : : : : : Uflo home as mflmeflcm on oasoz mCsEsm .m: .mULos ogsmsogp m Edge : z : e : : opoE meme mpwflw ofipbfla owmflgtme CH .m: .oadsoo m Comzpop : : : : : : m>OH hogpmme :mo amcoe mo xomfl < .m: pompom0p oeflp some Leone : = : : : ; Ugodm oflsozw mo>fi3 new mogspmsm .3: owmflhpde adder s moa pcspgerH we : : : : : : hflfimsxmm mcoflm pow Op mane wcflmm .m: : : : e ; : .o%HH m_oHQsoo m QSL ow asp msmHlCH .m: mo>fl3 cmgp meowmom : : : : r : psomoegflo pow mommfige Xefld mocmpmsm .H: psmson on : : = z z : QOCCdo mafia CH mwgflsp pcmeOQEfl one .0: I Z I Z Z Z 02 wow Lw>oz hammmm %HHMSmD mhdza< ahHwQOme Hoom mpCoEopspm one we wasp 30m .GoEos Step Ste ow pchLOQEfl shoe we ommflgpme CH cospooam< .mm .ea mesa Heme piece sea set; = = e e e = metgoaeoeeae we on sense we pH .om .coE cmsp moSpOHo so mpoE Ugodw UHsogm Gogoz .®m .mEoHQon Lozom o>mz eHsoz hemp agogpmmop moEHp boom o>m£ oHsoz oHdsoo m mH .wm .psone oomep on non UHsogm oaHH xom m_comsoa 4 .wm .mpgmgdd 530 L50% mm pooamog meow map on UoHpHuco mam mpcommd m_omH3 no m_oCMQm5Q Ljow .mm .UQoHLe Hemp m Op wCngzgs hem see 50% .mm 07 .UobHooU aommgHs mH chem Lsow .mm 1 .mmeLLME CH CoHpoomem gmsocm nos mH ogoge .mm .mocoe gosson UHsogm hemp .oxosp mH oHdsoo s Co£3 .mm .:68 m pom csm poc mH csa mmopHmcoo CmEos m pmflz .Hm .ommsoonopCH HmSXom o>ms op as: pang oco cho wH whose .0m 2 I : : Z I 02 wow po>oz hHossm zHHtSmD mad3H< aaHmcogpm Hoom proEopmpm esp mH ozpp 30m .MOSOHH mo xcHLO s oxmp OHsoz mosp pH Oomeop opoE op OHsoz OHaoom .ms .hmOOp OOOHpodpQ mH xmm as: opp ngz hadmscs ops coeoz .Hs .mpgopmd pop no mHs Op meHo apo> mH OMHS so Ogspmsg m pH OHpsopp pom CH mH Owdepse < .0» .mOQOHpm acme gasp pcsppOQEH mpoe Ohm mOQOHLp Ooom 03p to OCO .mm .zOOOm: Cpop ops OHgoom .ww .Opse mcH>OH s moEOOOQ opsO wCH>OH < .ww 108 : __ : 2 I : .oxme SOC 30% step hocoe mmOH : r : : : : so O>HH Op app Op mmoHoms mH pH .mw .mCOHpmod> Opmpsdom : = : : : ; oxsp OHsogm mo>H3 one mpcmpmzm .mw .mOHmjoo : e = = : : OOHmeE pop hHHHm mH std sow .:© .mOHdsoo OOHpng hHHdddg : : : = : : [Cs op EOHQOLQ d was wzmchH .mw .QoEoz Qst gee Op pamppOQEH : : z : : : opoe mH mOQOHpm mmoHo mcH>mm .mw : : = : : : .HmSOo Oopmopo ops QmE HH< .H© Oz mow po>mz hHopdm aHHOSmD m>®3H< ahHmQOme Homm proEOpmpm ng mH Osgp 30m C5O> Csz mEOHCOCO meHCCma Meow CO>O stp op OHCm on OHSOCm :OH .m .COCOsOp pmop OCO mH OoCOHCOme .mw .epaeg s seeps page: s moEOOOC OMHB CO OCstSC m wCHmme .Hm .%HHEOC OCp CH COCCHS IOOOLO OCp OO OHSOCm OCtQij OCR .Om .OwsHCCOE CmpCt mEHp Ooow t m>mC Op COUCOC mipH .QN OmsHCCdE wo OOHmpzo OOOHpOmCQ O9 pOC OHson mmCSOOCOpCH HmsxOm .ww 109 .mO>HOmEOCO mlpdsoo me Cme Q5 meCC Op momeCCme OCOE Omsmo mzmH-CH .ss moms-m OoCO shop OCp CpH3 p50 Ow OHSOCm OCmszC cce .ws .eeot messes mes meets tape seem tee .ms .mpsz OC pdCz COmCOd COCpo OCp O>Hm Op OHQOOO 03p Coozpop pCoEOOCmm Cm mH OmmHCsz .jw .OmmHCCmE CH omCOOxo : : : : : : HmeCommO Cd mH moCmCSmCH HOOHOOz .ms 02 wow CO>OZ xHOCdm hHHmst mam3H< thmCOCpm Hoom prOeopMpm OCp mH Ospp 30m 110 lll|II||||||||||||||||||||||||||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJHHM'II .O>OH Cjoh SOCm Op as: Ooow m mH : : : : : : osz CO OCmCmsC p302 Op mpmHm wCH>Ho .mo .pCms 30% mmCHCp OCp asp Op hOCoE CmSOCO O>sC Op mH : : : = : : MCHom mmeCCme m Ooox Op as: meC OCH .1@ .Csp mH mOpmo mCHasHm .mo 2 : Z : : : .Coeoz Cst Copeopp : : = : : : Hmsxmm opoE Co>Hm op OHCOCm Co: .mm .mzmHlCH Csoz CsOC O>HH op mpCmC mH pH .Hm : I I I 2 I .OCmCmSC on CwsopCp : : : : : : meme ops mOCOHCC ZOC meHCCsE Cepp< .00 .mxmz meow CH m3 po HHm whoppmop ApOHoom .mw : E I : : I .pCms hOCp mez pow : : = = : : op Cog Cth OCoe COHpoopmm Om: CoEoz .ww .mOCdpmSC Cme heCoa OCoe OCOOm mO>H3 .sw : I I I 1C : .OEOC Eopp kmzm : : z : : : pom Op wCHpCCC CO wCHCme om CO: .mw .OmpsoopopCH Hmsxom op mCHO®OH : = : : z : mommma oxse OHCOCm OCdpmsC m hHCO .mw .OO Op pCms 50% mez 06 = : : = : : Con OCm EOCp Csz oopwm Op mH msmHiCH OHOCMC Op as: pmop OCH .jw 02 wow po>oz hHopmm aHHsCmb mam3H< ahHwCospm Hmwm mpCoEOpmpm OCp wH OSCp 30m 111 .OH up seep see Opoe Op OH5OCO OOp500COpCH HO5xOm .QOH : : : : : : .EOCp OCOCmH COO 50% qOSOHlCH CpHs COOOOC piCOO 50% COCZ .moH : : : : .: : .:OCHE p0 wCOm OHO: pOCp OXHH OOCOHCC = = = e e : eefle 0e seer we ea tweettes teeee .eep .OEOHCOCQ OHOCOC = e e = e : oe mess sOs seep Op seem OH pH .moH OwOHCCOE Com OxOHt OOO : = : : : : OCO OOHp HHOCOOCOO OHOO Csz OHQOOO .moH .sseep : : : : : ; mCH>HH Ooow O CCOO Op OCOC OH pH .HOH .COCOHHCO OCp : : = : : : Eopp %O3O mCprOw OCOOE OEHp 000m < .QOH : : : : : : .%OOop xOO CO>O OO5H C055 OOp O_OCOCB .mm .OZOHlCH : : : : z : %p OpHOH> OmOp500CO Op pOC OOH; OH pH .wo .COHOQOC Op 0H503 %OCp OCO OOCOpr CHOCp ppo COppOC C05E 30C : : : : : : p5OQO WCHspCOB OOpO OH503 OHOOOQ pH .%0 . H 00w O %COOOO0OC OH : = = : z : COC5CO OW. WOOCOCEOEp OproO CO OCHOm .wm 02 OO% CO>OZ %WOCOm %HHO5OD O%O3 H< w%HwCoppm HOOm apCOEOpOpO OCp OH O5Cp 30m 112 : = = = = :pgeptoasp OH OCHH Oo ptea HeepHCHCO wee .sHH .COE COCp COEOZ Op : : : : : :pCOpCOOEH OCoe OH OmOprOE CH COHpOOHp< .wHH .pOOE OOCO OxOE p_CO0 OC COC3 : : : : : : OCOW 03p CBOO OHOC OH5OCO OCOCO5C < .mHH .OEHp OOCp CHOCp OCHC5O OwCHCp p5OCO CHOp : : : : : : 0p OCOC pH OCHp OO>H3 OCO OOCOCO5m .qHH .M.O OH poO xOO p0 : : : : : : OCHx %CO .OOHCCOE OCO OHQOOO COC3 .mHH .COC Co EHC %CCOE 0p COCpOCs wCHOHOOO CH O5OOH CO : : : : : : Op pOC OHOOCO %HHEOC OCCOOCOO O .mHH .COHOHHCO wCHOC OCO 50% z : : : : : COCS 50% HHOp HHHs OCOHCC aOOC < .HHH .OHHH CH OC50CO OOCO5Q pOm OHOOOm .OHH : : : : : : .COCpOwop OwOHCCOE : : : : z : O OHOC 0p O>OH COCp Opoe OOxOp pH .moH .%OC0E OCp OHOCOC = = : : : : 0H5OCO OOH: OCO OCOCO5C OCp Cpom .on .C5p pop OEHp OprHH OH OCOCp OCOCZ pCHOO : : : = : : OCp Op OHQ5OO O OpOHCpOOC OwOHCCOE .NOH 02 OO% CO>OZ %HOCOm %HHO5OD OhOzHO m%HwCoppm HOOm apCOEOpOpO OCp OH O5Cp 30m .%OC0E wCHzo COCp : : : = : : OOCOS OH pOwO5C pOHCpO O CO OCH>HH .mmH : : : : : : .CSM OH wCfloCdQ .me .COE03 COCp : = : : : : COE %%OHpOO 0p KOO OC0E OOXOp pH .NmH .pCOOC pO : : : : : : pOOCOpCH pOOC OCOHO500 O O>OC OSOHICH .me .OOwOHCCOE Cop : : : = : : OCOxOE OpC5OCp Op COO OOCOHCm .mmH .eepp oe Ops: OH e>0p Osep .ema .COEO: COCp OCoE COE OCOCpop __ : : : : __ Qw‘mflghsflg CH COHPOQFWWd pHO XOdH < ammfl 113 .mCHCpOEOO : : = : : : CO %Oc0E C0 OpOH mCHOCOOO p5OCO OOpr OH5OCO OO>H3 OCO OOCOOO5m .mmH .xOHOC : : = : : : 0p OEOC EOCH %O3O pOm 0H5OCO OCo .HmH .spppe OH xOO .omH .. , .:O3OH1CH p50% %CCOE : : : : : : 50%: wCH%OO OCp CH Cp5pp.OH OCOCB .mHH .OHOOOQ pCmHC OCp pOOE 50% QHOC COO : : = = : : %OCp OO5O0OC COOOCO OCO OOCOHCm .wHH 02 OO% CO>Oz %HOCOm %HHO5OD O%O3H< m%HwCoppm HOOO apCOEOpOpO OCp OH O5pp 30m 11A .OOCOHCC OOHCCOEC5 wCH>OC : : : : : : UHO>® UHSOCO WMHS (HO USOQmSQ < .QMH : : : : : : .%OC0E p5vCpH3 %OOOC Op Op OCOC OH pH .wMH .%OOOC OH OmOHCCOE : : : z : : OCp .wCH>OH OH OCH: C0 OCOCO5C O COC3 .NMH .%OC0E %HHEOH OCp CO>O COCOp OOC OCH: : e e e e : seeHCOe< Oep ad: Oep Oepeeemas O_pH .Omp .COCpO CoOO EOCC %O3O OEHp OCOOO CHOCp OCOOO OH5OO %OCp CH : : : : : : CH0 COppOC Op OH502 OCH: Co OCOCO5C < .mmH : z : : : :.COCOHHC0 O>OC Op OH xOO Cop COOOOC OCH .OMH .OOHOOCIOO5O wCHOC OCO %OCp COCs : : : : = : Hpo OHOp OC OH50CO OEOHuCHaCOCpOz .MMH OEOHCOCQ C50% pOmCOC 50% OHOC CO0 : : : : : : %OCp OO5OOOC COOOCO OCO OOCOHCO .NMH : : : : : : .5O% CH5C CO0 pCOz 50% HHO wCH>Om .HmH .0HHC5O CH COOC : = : : : : OOHO5OO COC3 mCH%0CCO O_pH .OMH 02 OO% CO>OZ %HOCOm %HHO5OD O%O3H< a%HmCOCpO HOOm prOEOpOpO OCp OH O5Cp 30m 115 March 16, 1964 Miss Kathryn Blose, R. D. Dayton, Ohio. Dear Miss Blose: This is a request for assistance from you and your fiancee to participate in some special research on engaged couples. This is being done in coordination with my work in Family Relations at Indiana State College. In trying to understand the relationships that exist between man and woman, considerable research has been done with married couples. From this has come a better under— standing Of the whole process Of marriage. However, relatively little work has been done with engaged couples. In an effort to gain more knowledge in this area, a special project has been set up to study couples from engagement to marriage so that a new under— standing Of the entire process Of engagement may be Obtained. Since you have just recently become engaged, we are writing to ask if you will participate in this research. You will be asked to fill out two questionnaires which contain general questions about you and your fiancee. Your fiancee would also be expected to fill out a similar questionnaire. You will be asked to let us know when you marry as a final phase Of this research. This will take about an hour of your time. It may be of interest to you to know that some who have already participated in this research have reported that these tests were quite beneficial to them. The various questions provided many areas for additional discussion which helped to provide a deeper insight into each other. If you are willing to participate in this research, please sign the enclosed card and return it to me. The tests will be mailed to you and they can be returned the same way. Your thoughtfulness and help in this research will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, Leighton E.Harrell, Jr. Associate Professor, Family Relations Indiana State College 116 Dear Within the past two years you were contacted in connection with a research project on engaged couples. At that time you signed and returned an agreement' stating that you would participate in this research. After this agreement was received, you were sent the test material that is being used in this research. This material has not been returned by you. In order to complete this research we are asking those persons who did not return the material to us to fill out the enclosed card and return it. I am certain that each person had his own reasons, which are valid, for not returning the tests. In order to help the research staff make an accurate study of all sides of this project, some indication of your reason is needed. Your help and time in filling out this card is appreciated. Sincerely yours, Leighton E. Harrell, Jr. Professor of Psychology and Family Life Education Eastern Kentucky, State College REFERENCES Anastasi, Anne. Psychological Testing. New York: Mac— millian 00., I959. Becker, H., and Hill, R. Marriage and Parenthood. Boston: D.C. Health and Company, 1955. Bell, N., and Jogel, E. A Modern Introduction to the Family. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. Bernard, J. ”Factors in Distribution of Success in Marriage,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 40 (193A). pa 58. Blood, R.O., Jr. Anticipating Your Marriage. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955. l1 Bossard, J. ”The Engagement Ring——A Changing Symbol, New York Times Magazine, September 14, 1958. Burgess, E.W., and Cottrell, L.S., Jr. Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage. New York; Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1939. Burgess, E.W. and Locke, H.J. The Family From Institution To Com anionshi . Third Edition, New York: American Book 00., 1963. Burgess, E.W., and Wallin, P. Courtship, Engagement and Marriage, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott and CO. 1953. Burgess, E.W., and Wallin, P. ”Predicting Adjustment in Marriage from Adjustment in Engagement,‘ American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 49 (1944), pp. 32E—330. Burgess, E.W., and Wallin, P. Engagement and Marriage. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott and C0,, 1954. Carson, A. A Pilot Study of Agreement of Issues and Their Perceived Importance Among Maritally Adjusted and Maladjusted Couples. Unpublished thesis at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1962. 118 Christensen, H. Ed.). Handbook of Marriage and The Family. Chicago: Rand McNally and C0,, 1964. Corsini, R.J. ”Understanding and Similarity in Marriage,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, III (1956). pp. 327—332. Davis, Katharine B. Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty—Two Hundred Women. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1929. Eastman, D. ”Self—Acceptance and Marital Happiness,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXLL (1958) 99—95. Ellis, A. ”The Value of Marriage Prediction Tests,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 13, NO. 6. December, 1948. Edwards, A. Statistical Methods for The Behavorial Sciences. New York: Rinehart and Co., Inc., 1958. Groves, E.R., and Brooks, L.M. Readings in The Family. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott CO., 193A. Groves, E.R., and Groves, Gladys. The Contemporary American Family. New York: Ronald Press, 1963. Hart, H., and Shields, w. ”Ha piness in Relation to Age at the Time Of Marriage,1 Journal of Social Hygiene, Vol. 12 (1926), pp. AO3—AO7. Hamilton, G. A Research in Marriage. New York; A.C. Boni, 1929. Kirkpatrick, C. ”Factors in Marital Adjustment,” American Journal Of Sociology, V01. 40 (1934), p. 58. Kinsey, A., et_all. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia; W.B. Saunders Co., 1953. Kinsey, A., et all. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders CO., 1948. Landis, J., and Landis, Mary. Readings in Marriage and the Family. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1952. Landis, J., and Landis, Mary. Readings in Marriage and the Family. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice— Hall. Inc., 1959. 119 Locke, H.J. Predicting Adjustment in Marriage. New York: Holt, 1951. Lowrie, S.H. "Dating Theories and Student Response," American Sociological Review, Vol. 12 N0. 3 (June, 1951). Lackey. Eleanore B. "Measures of Marital Satisfaction,” Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 56, NO. 8 (October, 1964). Martinson, F.M. Marriage and The Family Ideal. New York: Dodd, Meade and Company, 1960. Popenoe, P. ”A Study of 738 Elopements,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 3 (1938), pp. H7, 53. Popenoe, P., and Wicks, Donna. ”Marital Happiness in Two Generations,” Mental Hygiene, V01. 21 (1937). pp. 218—223. lllllllllllllll Queen, S. and Adams, J. The Family in Various Cultures. New York: J.B. Lippincott and Company, 1952. Rutledge, A-LL. HSexual Containment for the Unmarried,” Pastoral Psychology, April, 1959. Schroeder, C.W. Divorce in a City of 100,000 Population. Peoria, Illinois: Bradely Polytechnic Institute Library, 1963. Siegel, S. Non Parametric Statistics for The Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1956. Smythe, L.S.C. Marriage Study, HA Preliminary Report of a Study by a Seminar on the Chinese Family at the University of Nanking,” 1936. Mimeographed. Simpson, G. People in Families. New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell, 1960. Terman, L.M. _t_a11. Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1938. Terman. IHM., and Oden, Melita. The Gifted Child Grows £9, Stanford California: Stanford University Press, 1947. Thomas, J.L. The American Catholic Family. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1956. 120 Truxal, A., and Merrill, Francis. Marriage and The Family in American Culture. New York: Prentice— Hall, Inc., 1953. Waller, W., and Hill R. The Family. Rev. Ed.; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1951. Q West, J. Plainville, U.S.A. New York: Columbia Press, 1956. Williams, Edith w. ”Factors in Adjustment in Rural Marriage." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York, 1938. Winch, R. Mate Selection. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. Winch, R., and McGinnis, R. Selected Studies in Marriage and The Family. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1954. 111311111113111111111111131113111111113111111111111131111