"13A rune Millilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjllllll 06 gum/1R Y 1293 10 :fM‘IChlfin State ‘ University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Perceived and Revealed Decision Dominance And The Degree of Decision Rationality In Selected Husbands and Wives presented by Stanley M. Parker has been accepted towards fulfillment . of the requirements for Doctoral degreein Family Ecology /7 4 \_ {77/ uy/C/V/kkl’z/ Majorprofessor // . r. 411/: /Z-, /’L/ 7C7 Date 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to Book drop to remove this checkout from your record. PERCEIVED AND REVEALED DECISION DOMINANCE AND THE DEGREE OF DECISION RATIONALITY IN SELECTED HUSBANDS AND WIVES By Stanley M. Parker A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1979 ABSTRACT PERCEIVED AND REVEALED DECISION DOMINANCE AND THE DEGREE OF DECISION RATIONALITY IN SELECTED HUSBANDS AND WIVES By Stanley M. Parker The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the person the spouse perceives as dominant in family decision-making; who is dominant in an artificially created decision situation; and, the degree of rationality used in the decision process by each spouse. A purposive sample of 114 subjects, or 57 couples, in the second, third, or fourth stages of the family life cycle and living in married student housing at Michigan State University was chosen for the study. Three instruments were used to collect data. A questionnaire survey instrument was used to measure sub- jects' perceptions of marital decision dominance. A content analysis of written reactions to hypothetical situations was used to measure subjects' degree of decision rationality. Actual decision dominance was measured by observation of a behavioral task involving individual and joint or couple decisions. Stanley M. Parker Research Hypotheses Subject's perceptions of decision-making dominance are not the same as that revealed by the decision- making task. Husbands overestimate their own decision-making dominance in the marital relationship. Perceived dominance is greater than revealed dominance for husbands. Wives underestimate their own decisionimaking dominance in the marital relationship. Perceived dominance is less than revealed dominance for wives. Husbands perceive, more often than their wives, that the wife is the dominant decision-maker. Wives perceive, more often than their husbands, that decision-making is equally husband and wife dominant. Couples reveal equal dominance of husband and wife in the decision-making task. Husbands demonstrate more decision-making rationality than respective wives in the economic decision situation. Wives demonstrate more decision-making rationality than respective husbands in the unplanned pregnancy decision situation. In couples with a high discrepancy in degree of decision rationality, the more rational spouse: Stanley M. Parker a. demonstrates higher dominance in the decision- making task; b. is perceived by the husband as more dominant; c. is perceived by the wife as more dominant. H10: In couples with a low discrepancy in the degree of decision rationality: a. there is no difference between dominance among husband and wife in the decision task; b. the wife's perception of who dominates is that both spouses are equal; c. the husband's perception of who dominates is that both spouses are equal. The Chi Square and matched pairs t-test were used to test hypotheses. All hypotheses were rejected with the exception of number six. The sample demonstrated a high degree of equalitarian decision-making and no significant difference between husbands and their wives on any measure. The greatest limitation of the study is its purposive sample which limits generalizations to a larger population. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation for the help and guidance I received from.my Committee Chairperson, Dr. Donald Melcer and to my committee members, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci and Dr. Eileen Earhart. Special appreciation is given to Angele Parker for her personal and professional support. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter LIST OF TABLES. LIST OF FIGURES I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK . Necessity for Decision- -Making Research. Marital Dominance in Decision- -Making. Objective Limitations Definitions Conceptual Framework. Research Hypotheses LITERATURE REVIEW . Decision Dominance as a Dimension of Power. Perceived Decision Dominance. Revealed Decision Dominance Degree of Decision Rationality. Information Processing. Summary . METHODS Design . Sample Selection. . The Use of Interviewers Data Collection Procedure . Family Problem Instrument . Percept1on of—Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Decision Task Instrument. Statistical Analysis. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION. RESULTS . Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Decision Task Instrument. Family Problem Instrument iii Page <1 H. OVO‘O‘U‘IWH H VI. Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Summary. - HOQVOMJ-‘WNH DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . Decision Dominance . Decision Rationality . Conclusions. BIBLIOGRAPHY . APPENDICES Appendix A. B C. D LETTER OF INTRODUCTION. QUESTIONNAIRE . INTERVIEWER DIRECTIONS. SCORING PROCEDURE FOR FAMILY PROBLEM INSTRUMENT. . . . . . . . . SCORING SHEET FOR DECISION TASK INSTRUMENT. iv Page 86 89 89 90 91 92 94 94 95 97 101 102 102 109 112 114 123 125 143 146 150 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Age of Husbands and Wives. Level of Education of Husbands and Wives Age of Husbands and Wives When Married to Present Spouse Number of Children Reported by Husbands and Wives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Children Planned Including Present Children by Husbands and Wives Number of Married Couples in Each Stage of the Family Life Cycle. . . . Religious Orientation of Couples as Reported by Husbands and Wives. Income Reported by Husbands and Wives. Range, Mean and Mode of Total Scores on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure Frequency Results for the Degree of Dominance on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. . . Mean Scores for the Sixteen Items on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure Reported Differences in Decision-making by Matched Husbands and Wives . Frequency Results for the Degree of Dominance on the Decision Task Instrument. Frequency Results for the Family Problem Instruments for Husbands and Wives Combined Scores for Each Category of the Family Problem Instrument. V Page 63 64 64 66 66 67 67 68 73 74 75 76 81 83 84 Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Frequency of Total Combined Scores on the Family Problem Instrument by Subject. Significance Test for Each Decision Category on the Family Problem Instrument for Comparison of Spouses Comparison of Adjusted Scores for the Decision Task Instrument and the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Comparison of Adjusted Husbands Scores for the Decision Task Instrument and the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure Comparison of Adjusted Wives' Scores for the Decision Task Instrument and the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure Comparison of Wife, Husband, and Equalitarian Dominance as Reported by Husbands and Wives on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure . . Comparison of the Perception of Equalitarian Decision-making as Reported by Husbands and Wives on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Comparison of Couples with High Discrepancy on the Family Problem Instrument and These Couplesr Performance on the Decision Task Instrument. Comparison of Couples With High Discrepancy on the Family Problem Instrument and These CoupleerIndivIdu I Perception of Decision Dominance vi Page 84 87 89 9O 91 92 93 96 98 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of Decision-making. 2. Methods Used for Data Analysis 3. Distribution of Total Scores on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. 4. Comparison of the Distribution of Scores of Husbands and Wives on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure 5. Distribution of Couples' Scores on the Decision Task Instrument. 6. Comparison of Combined Raw Scores of Husbands and Wives. vii Page 11 61 71 72 80 85 I. INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Necessity for Decision- making Research /Rapid social and economic changes often make it difficult for families to learn by observing how others have coped with the developmental aging process. As the family moves through the life cycle, it must adapt to the changing internal environmentfi How parents in the past have adjusted to changes in this cycle may not apply to present families because the cultural environment is different today. Likewise, future families will face novel decision situations where present behavior at any stage in the life cycle may be inappropriate and even destructive. bur- 1n i 3 Because/ cultural environment has great diversity across subcultural groups and across age groups, the range of values and life goals varies. The realization of life goals, if not left to chance, depends on effective resource management. Management includes planning for resource use and the implementation of these plans (Deacon & Firebaugh, 1975). An important aspect of management is decision- making. In decision-making first one needs to recognize that an opportunity for choice exists. Secondly, designation 2 of appropriate alternatives and evaluation of the probable results of each is required. Finally, a specific alternative must be chosen from among the competing choices. Neither habitual actions nor repetition of past behaviors for meeting goals constitutes decision-making. The implementa- tion of a course of action and the evaluation of that action are both aspects of management and the decision- making process. Understanding the process of decision-making in families is essential for understanding how families reach goals. The question becomes not what decision should be made, but how are decisions made that result in the effective realization of goals/ The effective realization of family goals is further complicated because individuals today often have more alternatives to choose from than did people in the past. Therefore, the family now has a better chance to maximize a more pluralistic set of goals! This author believes that much of this pluralism and increased choice has come about in recent years due to major attitudinal and behavioral changes in the role of women. This change is due to women working more out- side the home and the equal rights movement. The use of resources of families is changing. For this reason, the role of decision-making in its relationship to the 3 effective realization of family goals and control of resources needs to be reexamined/’ Families can control family life to a greater degree, but not without cost. This author believes that this cost is revealed in the form of greater expenditures of time and energy spent in the decision-making process. As individuals are confronted with increasing numbers of choices and power over their own and other's lives, substantially more time and energy will be required in seeking, evaluating, choosing and implementing alternatives. Information available from books, television and experts requires expertise to make meaningful and rational choices among complex and evolving family and personal goals. The complexity of any decision relative to other aspects of family living is difficult to understand scientifically. Most families are unaware of their decision-making behavior. They do not make conscious, thoughtful and rational decisions about how, why and when they apply decision-making skills. we need to understand this meta- level of decisions about decisions to comprehend the family decision-making event. Marital Dominance in Decision-making It is important to understand marital decision dominance because it affects individual and family :4 happiness and well-being. /Research shows decision dominance is related to marital satisfaction (Blood and Wolfe, 1960). High marital satisfaction occurs more frequently among couples with equal decision dominance. Center, Raven and Rodriques found that couples with either husband dominance, or equalitarian decision-making demon- strated higher levels of marital satisfaction (1971). Wife dominance resulted in lower levels of marital satis- factionyf The dominant decision-maker is the spouse who makes the final choice from among the perceived alternatives. Decision dominance specifies whose opinion pre- vails in decision events, while family power is a generic concept relating to a broad spectrum of behaviors and events. Researchers have not used the concept of power sparingly, and Olson and others have commented that different aspects of behavior have been labeled as power. A more detailed discussion of family power as a generic concept is in chapter two. Decision dominance affects family resource decisions. As the family experiences changing economic resources, spouses must learn to adapt their goals, demands and priorities to new situations. Decision dominance between spouses is a crucial issue for family economic well-being/’ Whose opinion prevails in the marital dyad affects career decisions for both spouses, consumer pur- chases of goods and services and the physical environment 5 surrounding the family. For example, current inflation is lowering families' purchasing power. Yankelovich reports that only 14 percent of the families had higher incomes in 1975 than they did in 1974 (1976). Approxi- mately 37 percent of these families reported lower incomes for that year. More families will need to redirect their consumption patterns to conserve dwindling resources, and simultaneously adjust to a very different standard of living. This redirection may influence decision dominance between spouses due to-fewer material resources in the family. Decision dominance influences a variety of other variables in the family. Decision dominance can affect extended family relationships and use of credit, both of which families use to meet economic crises. Decision- making dominance also influences family size and child rearing. Decision dominance further influences the alter- natives considered in the decision event. Dominance will determine which criteria are used to evaluate, compare and rank alternatives. Decision dominance in the recognition of and criteria for making decisions, affects marital happiness and economic well-being in the family. Objective The purpose of this study was to examine three relationships: between husbands and wives, 1) who per— ceives whom as the dominant decision-maker, 2) who is 6 revealed as the dominant decision-maker, and 3) how does the degree of decision rationality relate to perceived and revealed dominance of the spouses. Limitations No generalizations were made about the population beyond the stated parameters, about the independence of husband and wife responses, or about the effect of inter- viewer bias on subjects. This investigation utilized nonstandardized instruments and noncausal tests of relationships among variables. Definitions Perceived Decision-maker Dominance: is the subject's conception of which spouse's opinion prevails in the decision event. The subject may see the prevailing opinion as that of the spouse, self or a combination of both. Revealed Decision-maker Dominance: is the couple's demonstrated decision behavior in terms of whose opinion actually prevails in a decision situation. The prevailing decision-maker may be the husband, wife or both. Degree of Decision Rationality: is the process or way of approaching the decision situation. This process may be high or low in rationality or lie somewhere in between. Decision rationality is the process by which the decision event is analyzed and evaluated. The analysis 7 and evaluation of the decision event take into account the causes of the decision event, the enumeration and comparison of alternative courses of action, the search and utiliza- tion of information, and the consideration of the generalizability of the decision event. Conceptual Framework The framework for this study was based on the conceptualization of the decision-making event. This consists of three elements: the decision-maker(s), the decision process, and the decision situation. The decision-maker in a marital decision event may be the husband, the wife or both. Any specific decision event may be dominated by one spouse, or shared equally by both. The dominant decision-maker is the spouse who makes the final choice from among the perceived alter- natives. Decisions may either be wife or husband dominated, or equalitarian (neither husband or wife dominated). Decision-maker dominance is further categorized into perceived and revealed dominance. Perceived dominance is the husband's or wife's perception of decision dominance; their stated opinion of who is the dominant decision-maker. Revealed dominance is the decision-maker dominance observed in a controlled situation by an impartial individual. The decision process is the method in which the individual or couple seeks out and evaluates the relevant 8 content of the decision event. This process is conceptua- lized as the degree of decision rationality. The degree of decision rationality includes a number of dimensions developed by Baker as follows (l974:3): 1. Diagnostic Orientation The decision-maker(s) states causes of the decision event including the root, source, motive and/or reason for the problem. 2. Number of Alternatives The decision-maker(s) enumerates various resources and goals (means-ends combinations) or courses of action that will provide relevant alternatives for the decision. 3. Process of Comparipg or Ranking Alternatives The advantage or disadvantages of various alternatives or courses of action are examined by the decision-maker(s). Alternatives may be compared, evaluated or ranked. 4. Process of Inquiry For and Use of Information The decision-maker(s) makes reference to sources of information, indicating possible use of such knowledge to resolve the decision. 5. Total Response The decision-maker(s) considers the problem in total as it is presented and indicates that the problem can be generalized (Baker, 1974: 18-20). 9 The degree to which the above are used during the decision event are defined as the degree of decision rationality. The decision situation is the specific content of the decision event. The decision situation is concep- tualized as characteristics of the decision event that contribute the relevant information and alternatives. For purposes of this study the decision situation is not treated as a variable and is held constant. Two examples that are used in this study are economic and social decision situations. An economic decision situation is one in which the relevant content of the decision event deals with such areas as income, cost of goods and services and credit. A social decision situation may have as relevant content such areas as family planning and child rearing. Decision dominance effects decision rationality because the individual who is more dominant will contri- bute a greater share of his or her method of searching for and evaluating information. For example, the wife may defer judgement to her husband on the purchase of an automobile because she values his skill to find a 'good deal'. .The husband's method is to go to only new car agencies that are very large because he thinks they sell cars cheaper. This method of the husband's effects his performance as a car buyer and, in turn, his decision dominance. 10 Decision dominance effects the decision situation because one decision-maker may be more familiar with, or have more opportunity to be concerned with the specific content of the decision event. For example, a wife decision-maker may be more aware of the alternatives available to discriminating food shopping than her husband. The content, quality and cost of peanut butter is know- ledge the wife has, and therefore, the husband may defer to her judgement and opinion. Decision rationality and the decision situation are related because the method by which information or alternatives are sought out and evaluated is influenced directly by the specific content of the decision event. For example, the information and alternatives about buying a new car are more numerous and available for evaluation than information and alternatives in a decision situation concerning when to pay your taxes. The three elements of the decision event, as described above, are presented in Figure One. The three variables, degree of perceived dominance, degree of revealed dominance and the degree of decision rationality, were used to form the research hypotheses. Research Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tests: H1: Subjects' perceptions of decision-making dominance are not the same as that dominance revealed by 11 mcmeZIGOHmfiomo mo xuo3m8mum Hanuawocoo mmmaoammm HmOOH cowumauomcH mo mm: mm>wumcumua< wcfixcmm mm>fiumcumua< mo Honenz aoflumunmwuo oaumocwmwa HNMd'I-n xuwamcoflumm mo meowwaoawn muwamcowumm mo common mmmooum aowmfioon HNHUOW OHEOGOUM / coHuNSuHm cowmwomo Hzm>m ZOHmHUmn .H musmfim moamcflaon mocmcflfioa mo~mm>mm pm>wmoumm mo common mo common mommawaoa cowmfloma mo mmumon Amvhmxmzncowmfioma 12 the decision-making task. Husbands overestimate their own decision-making dominance in the marital relationship. Perceived dominance is greater than revealed dominance for husbands. Wives underestimate their own decision-making dominance in the marital relationship. Perceived dominance is less than revealed dominance for wives. Husbands perceive, more often than their wives, that the wife is the dominant decision-maker. Wives perceive, more often than their husbands, that decision-making is equally husband and wife dominant. Couples reveal equal dominance of husband and wife in the decision-making task. Husbands demonstrate a greater degree of decision- making rationality than respective wives in the economic decision situation. Wives demonstrate a greater degree of decision- making rationality than respective husbands in the unplanned pregnancy decision situation. In couples with a high discrepancy in degree of decision rationality, the more rational spouse: a. demonstrates greater dominance in the decision-making task; 13 b.. is perceived by the husband as more dominant; c. is perceived by the wife as more dominant. H10: In couples with low discrepancy in degree of decision rationality: a. there is no difference between dominance among husband and wife in the decision task; b. the wife's perception of who dominates is that both spouses are equal; c. the husband's perception of who dominates is that both spouses are equal. II. LITERATURE REVIEW In the five sections in this chapter specific research concerning decision-making dominance and decision rationality in marital dyads is examined. Decision dominance and its relevance to the power concepts is discussed in the first section. The second section deals with husbands' and wives' perceptions about who has decision dominance. Research concerned with the observed or revealed decision dominance of marital dyads is examined in the third section. This section further relates revealed decision dominance to spouses' percep- tions of decision dominance. Section four covers research relevant to husbands' and wives' degree of decision rationality in specific decision situations. The degree of decision rationality relative to both perceived and revealed decision dominance is also discussed. Information processing theory and its relevance to decision rationality is examined in section five. Decision Dominance as a Dimension of Power The concept of decision dominance was selected to determine dominance in this study because it is more specific and concrete than the concept of power. Theorists use different terminology to define the concept of power. 14 15 Power is a generic term covering numerous, different, and sometimes unrelated dimensions. Power is the ability of one or more individuals to change the behavior of other members of a social system (Olson and Cromwell, l975z5). Power in the family is the ability of one family member to change the behavior of other family members. In attempting to conceptually clarify the concept of power, Olson and Cromwell suggest that there are three aspects of family power (l975:5). These three aspects are: bases of family power, family power processes and family power outcomes. The bases of family power consist primarily of the resources available to an individual that increases their ability to control family behavior. Family power processes, according to Olson and Cromwell, focus on the interaction of family members during such events as family discussions, decision-making situations, problem- solving, conflict resolution, and crisis management. Family power outcomes involve who makes decisions and who wins (Olson and Cromwell, l975:6). Family power bases and family power processes have had less attention in the literature than family power outcomes. Criticism of the literature has indicated a lack of theoretical development of these first two aspects of family power. According to Olson and Cromwell, "More research has focused on this domain (family power outcomes) 16 than on the other two domains combined, while very little systematic work has been done on family power processes (Olson, l975:6)." For Olson and Cromwell power outcomes include the actual influences of one individual on another, and also the potential for changing behavior in the future (Olson, l975:6). Potential power outcomes are based on the per- ceptions of individuals' abilities to change behavior in others. Olson and Cromwell state "potential power relates more clearly to the bases of power domain whereas actual power is more conceptually appropriate for the power processes and power outcomes"(Olson, 1975z7). While retaining some of the dimensions of potential power, decision dominance was selected for investigation in this study instead of the more generic and broad concept of power. Decision dominance is conceptualized as consisting of two aspects: perceived dominance and revealed dominance. Perceived decision dominance is similar to Olson and Cromwell's potential power except that perceived decision dominance is defined as only the perception of whose opinion prevails and does not include power bases or power processes. Revealed decision dominance is similar to Olson and Cromwell's actual power. Revealed decision dominance differs from actual power because 17 revealed dominance is limited to whose opinion prevails in a specific observable testing situation. The concept of decision dominance, as used in this study, is equivalent to power outcomes as defined by Olson and Cromwell. The term of family power outcome was not chosen for use in this study because decision dominance is a more concise concept. Decision dominance does not have the conceptual ambiguity of the generic term power as indicated in this section. Perceived Decision Dominance The understanding or perception of a spouse about whose opinion prevails in the marital dyad during a decision event is defined in this study as perceived decision dominance. Spouses do not necessarily have the same perception of decision dominance in the marital dyad. The decision event also encompasses the "who" element of decision-making. The decision-maker is defined as the person(s) who participated in the marital decision event. It may be the husband, the wife or both. When the husband and wife make decisions together they are referred to as joint or equalitarian decision-makers. According to research data, a prevailing value in American middle-class families is that husbands and wives should decide most things together (Udry, 1974; Dunn, 1960; Dyer and Urban, 1958; Blood and Wolfe, 1960; 18 Middleton and Putney, 1960). These researchers report that equalitarian values are strong in areas of child rearing, social participation and recreation, and not as strong in financial and household tasks. Much of the research has used only Wives' reports of who dominates in certain decision-making areas. Blood and Wolfe state, "many previous studies have shown a close correlation between what husbands and wives say about their marriages" (1960:6). But a study by Wilkening and Morrison using a retrospective questionnaire indicated husbands and wives give mutually inconsistent responses to almost half the items (1963:350). The percentage of agreement ranged from 36 to 77 percent for different decisions. Scanzoni found that items concerning "task performance" and "family authority" reveal a high degree of husband and wife disagreement using the self- report technique (1965:109-115). Herr also found that 15 to 30 percent of Irish couples disagree as to who should make specific decisions (1962:66). Scanzoni found lower percentages of disagreement. He states: The issue of sufficiency of wife resources in family research is still very much open. Data reported in this paper, for example, indicate that we cannot dismiss this procedure (collect- ing only wife data) as totally invalid. When identical responses are compared, couples are found to agree on 50 percent of the items. When general direction of response is compared, they agree on 75 percent of the items. The question of whether to interrogate only the l9 wife or to test both spouses, is related to whether the investigator considers 25 and/or 50 percent variation between spouses as too great to be tolerated without knowledge of exactly where the variation lies. It is suggested that the advantages which accrue from a larger sample by testing only one spouse, outweigh the disadvantages posed by 'these amounts of error, particularly since inclusion of husbands does not in itself reduce this variation (1965:115). This author takes issue with Scanzoni. A 25 percent error is too high a cost to outweigh the cost of obtaining a larger sample. This opinion is based on the assumption that the data will be used to make inference and generali- zations that concerns husbands as well as wives. A 25 percent error would create large inaccuracies. Safilios-Rothschild reports data collected from husbands and wives in Greek and American samples. She used 14 areas of decision-making and asked each spouse separately "whose opinion prevails." Serious disagree- ment between American (Detroit) husbands and wives exists in 55.1 percent of the cases. Husbands report signifi- cantly more often than wives that decisions are made by their wives. Wives tend to see decision-making as more equalitarian than husbands. (Safilios-Rothschild, 1969: 293). In the Greek (Athens) data, Athenian wives report significantly more often than husbands an overall wife dominant decision—making system. Husbands tend to perceive decision-making to be husband as often as wife do: in WOL dec coI to th hu D0 Wi ta cC 20 dominant. In both studies, if only wives had been used in the sample, generalization to husbands from the data would be erroneous. I The high disagreement about who actually makes decisions among spouses is sufficient to warrant data collection from both husbands and wives. Based on Safilios-Rothschild'sfindings,it is hypothesized that husbands, more often than their wives, perceive that the wife is the dominant decision-maker. Wives' perceptions of decision dominance are hypothesized to differ from their spouses. Wives perceive more often than their husbands, that decision-making is equally husband and wife dominant. However, this literature does not account for actual decision dominance. Revealed Decision Dominance Whose opinion actually prevails during an observed decision event, including both spouses, is defined as revealed decision dominance. Research is reviewed in this section which indicates that middle class husbands and wives demonstrate equal dominance in observed decision tasks. But spouses' perceptions about dominance are not consistent with that observed in contrived decision situations. Husbands tend to overestimate decision dominance. Wives tend to underestimate their dominance in marital decisions. 21 Although it is important to avoid generalizing about marital decision-making from only wives' responses, a second misrepresentation of the data may occur in assuming that respondent's perceptions, husbands and/or wives, are consistent with decision behavior. What individuals perceive as reality is meaningful in under- standing human behavior, but it is dangerous to assume that these perceptions are accurate. The studies cited in the previous section used questionnaires for collecting data. But there are numerous problems connected with this technique. People forget what happens and also perceive events according to their own set of values and experiences. And, respon- dents on a retrospective questionnaire may consciously or unconsciously answer questions as they think they "should," or as they think the experimenter "wants." These problems are especially acute in questionnaires con- cerning marital decision-making because this area has strong value overtones. One way to counteract these issues is to observe contrived decision situations. The contrived situation and retrospective questionnaires comprise the bulk of the decision-making literature (Udry, 1975:266). Family sociology researchers, in particular, have relied predominantly on self-report measures and used behavioral 22 measures less often (Nye and Bayer, 1963:290-301; Schlesinger, 1962:8-14). In an observed decision situation involving 390 couples, Corralles found that equalitarian decision- making was more prevalent among couples than either husband or wife decision dominance. Corralles used a procedure where individuals rank-ordered words selected from a prepared list. Subjects were asked to "pick the five most important words and rank order them in impor- tance to you in the last year" (1975:204). Subjects were then asked to repeat the selecting and rank-ordering in the marital dyad. Dominance was measured by how closely a subject's individual list matched the list prepared jointly. Cromwell, Klein and Wieting used a decision-making method developed by Kenkel. They asked 240 families to decide in 5 minutes how to spend a hypothetical cash gift of $800. Verbal interchanges during this time were recorded and later coded. They found that these families demonstrated equalitarian decision-making between husbands and wives (Cromwell et al., 1975:153). Therefore it is hypothesized that husbands and wives reveal equal decision dominance in the decision task. Bott reports that a study of perceptions among subjects indicated that joint decision-making is posi- tively correlated with the couples "connectedness." 23 This refers to the extent that husbands and wives had the same friends and interests. Connectedness and joint decision-making are more prevalent when couples have low mobility, live in a homogeneous neighborhood and the husband belongs to the working class (Bott, 1955:380). Barton dealt with the age variable and its effect on the decision-maker. In older, established families, housewives reported less need for consultation with spouses about purchasing decisions (Barton, 1955:57). Another study indicated that joint decision-making and shopping were perceived by spouses less often among lower income families (Converse and Crawford, 1949:38- 50). The study also showed that men purchased most of their own clothes, automobiles and gasoline. Women pur- chased their own and children's clothing and home furnishings. Hill and Klein reported that joint financial decision-making was characteristic of young, middle-class families, costly expenditures, and satisfactory marriages. Hill and Klein also found that wife-dominated financial decisions are characteristic of lower income families and older families. Husband-dominated financial decisions are characteristic of higher income families (Hill and Klein, 1973:27). The relative influence of husbands and wives in the decision-making event is affected by numerous 24 relevant factors. They include: 1. A working wife has more influence in family decision-making than one who does not (Safilios-Rothschild, 1970: Kandel and Lesser, 1972). The higher the family social status the more the husband dominates the decision-making process (Blood and Wolfe, 1960). An exception is Safilios-Rothschild's study of Greek house- wives. "Data based on interviews with a random sample of 133 Athenian wives indicate that, in contrast to highly industrialized countries, the Greek husband's possession of a high education, skilled or prestigious occupation, and high salary tends to diminish rather than increase his authority in the family" (1967:345). The more children there are in the family the more influence the husband has (Herr, 1958, 1963). The amount of resources an individual has, the amount of influence prescribed by norms for a given role, and the amount of education, all increase an individual's decision-making influence (Blood and Wolfe, 1960:12; Rodman, 1967; Burr, 1973:196). fix col Cas. Woui that eXevC & 25 Olson, in a study of 35 couples expecting their first child, compared the results of self-report data collected on ea retrospective questionnaire and behavioral data collected from observing a contrived situation where couples discussed differences resulting from the question- naire (1969:545). Olson hypothesizes, "there is no relationship between the self-report measure of power and the behavioral measure of actual power" (1969:549). This hypothesis was supported by the data. Olson found that the spouse can predict who would actually exercise power regarding a particular decision in only 14 percent of the cases. This level of prediction is not greater than what would be predicted by chance. Olson also found strong support for the hypothesis that when incongruence exists between the two measurement instruments, husbands' predictions overestimate their own actual power, while wives' predictions minimize their own actual power (1969:549). These results indicate that self-report measures may result in an overestimation of husbands' perception of their own influence, and an underestimation of wives' perception of their own influence. Olson also found no difference in husbands' and wives' ability to predict who would actually exercise decision- making influence. Both are poor at making such predictions. Usually, both spouses predict that neither would exercise more influence on a particular decision; but, 26 the behavioral measure results show that one spouse generally dominates (1969:449). Olson's study showed substantial differences between what husbands and wives report and what trained observers report in decision- making areas. A study by Kenkel supports Olson's findings. He studied married couples by using a self-report measure of expected decision influence and a behavioral measure of actual influence. A significant difference between expected decision influence on the self-report measure and actual decision influence on the observation measure was found. He also considered husband and wife awareness of the roles they played during the observed behavioral situation. He found that considerable differences exist between spouses' perceived roles and those that observers identify when using the Bale's Interaction Process Analysis Measure. Based on these findings, Kenkel questioned the validity of self-report data as indicative of real behavior (1963:144-156). Kenkel has also investigated joint family decision- making using a self-report measure of decision-maker's perceptions and an observational measure of joint decision performance as viewed by an experimenter (1963: 144). The decision-maker's perceptions differed con- siderably from actual performance. Kenkel further studied how husbands and wives perceived their decision-making 27 roles in terms of predicting specfic behaviors. Neither could predict with much accuracy how long a spouse would talk, or how many ideas or suggestions (s)he or the spouse would contribute. Moreover, husbands and wives could not accurately describe what had occurred during the observed decision-making experience. Therefore, it is essential to proceed with caution when using information based on recall or prediction data of husbands, wives or both. Recall and prediction data are not consistent with observational data. Hill used a questionnaire and joint interviews to examine decision dominance patterns in three generations of families. The self-report data (questionnaire) indicated equalitarianism.more often and wife dominance less often than the observers identify in the interviews (Hill, 1965:113-139). Levinger used two behavioral measures and one self-report measure and found high agreement between the two behavioral measures and low agreement between the behavioral and self-report measure (1963:357-366). Using four behavioral and one self-report measure, Bachove and Zubaly studied 19 families, and found that families' perceptions of dominance and who was observed to dominate often differ substantially (Olson, 1969:546; Bachove and Zubaly, 1959). 28 The behavioral measure techniques do not require recall and provide behavioral data for direct interpreta- tion by the researcher eliminating respondent filtering. But this data collection method also poses serious problems (Udry, 1974:265). It is often difficult to determine whether or not the respondents really care about the decision task in the contrived situation. Since the lasting consequences will probably be minimal, the incentive to act may be lower than in real life situations. Second, the observation measurement technique requires an observer--human, mechanical, or both. The effect this "audience" may have on subjects is difficult to measure. Even the sex of the observer influences subject performance substantially (Kenkel, 1961:185). Turk and Bell compared husband's, wive's and children's self-report measures with observational measures and found that all family members perceived parental influences to be greater than that observed. Also, the self-report method resulted in greater husband dominance while observational methods indicated equali- tarianism (Olson, 1972:134). Johnson studied 104 Japanese-American marriages in Honolulu and found that decision-making between spouses is highly equalitarian. She suggests a departure of reliance on self-report measures and a move toward a 29 combination of self-report and observation measures for a multiple measure approach (1975:195). Olson states that we need to use a variety of approaches when studying family behavior. The insider's perspective can be assessed by self- report methods and the outsider's point of view can be measured by observational methods. Both perspectives are important and should be seriously considered for inclusion in future studies when they are theoretically and methodologically appropriate (Olson, 1975:238). Both the self-report measures and the behavioral measures have limitations. It is, therefore, advisable to use both methods and to consider the influence of these limitations on results. Therefore, the hypothesis for this study is that spouses' perceptions of decision-making dominance will not be the same as the actual decision dominance revealed by the decision-making task. When spousal perceptions and revealed behavior on the decision task are compared, husbands will tend to overestimate and wives will tend to underestimate their decision dominance. Previous studies have not defined the relationship between decision dominance and decision rationality. Degree of Decision Rationalipy Back describes the decision-maker as operating in three ways. The three ways are: one, that the decision-maker operates from the cause-effect relation- ships in the situation, two, the decision-maker operates 30 from intuition in the individual's total experience, and three, the decision-maker makes decisions based on individual tastes, preferences or desires (Back, 1961: 15-18). This model assumes that all three types of decision-making may result in "good” or successful decisions, but that decisions based only on tastes and preferences result in success only by chance. Real decisions are a mixture of all three, but in this study the primary interest is in rational decision-making based on cause-effect relationships. Rieck and Pulver attempted to study rational decision-making using an empirical instrument (1962) . Their study was designed to evaluate the effects of farm and home development in Wisconsin in teaching better decision-making. Rieck and Pulver define rational decision-making as, "a conscious process of setting goals, recognizing problems, getting information and analyzing alternatives which will maximize family satisfactions” (Rieck and Pulver, 1962:1). Rieck and Pulver usea forced choice instrument to obtain a rationality score for subjects. Bustrillos has devised a conceptual framework for understanding the decision process (1963). Designated decision style, the decision process is divided into three elements: mode; time reference, and; decision-making 31 rule or method by which alternative courses of action are evaluated (1963:6). Each of these elements (mode, time, reference and rule), has three aspects. The first element, mode, deals with the way in which the decision-maker develops ideas. The three aspects of mode are hypothetical, factual and action-suggestive. The hypothetical mode asks or fanta- sizes "what if" this or that event occurs. The factual mode utilizes relevant evidence available concerning the decision event. The action-suggestive mode develops ideas by trying different alternative courses of action; a trial and error approach. The second element, time reference, defines the relationship of the decision-maker to the decision event. The three time aspects are past, present, and future aspects. The last element is rule. According to Bustrillos' conceptualization, alternative courses of action are evaluated based on preferences, objective elimination, and immediate closure. Preference ranking is the ordinal ranking of perceived alternatives. Objective elimination is the resolution of choice through acceptance of the first acceptable alternative. Immediate closure refers to usage of the first alternative suggested regardless of its acceptability. After Bustrillos developed this framework she tested it with three hypothetical problems used to obtain reactions from subjects. The responses were subjected to 32 content analysis for decision-making styles. The 16 Mexican-American homemakers studied tended to use the factual mode, present time reference and preference ranking decision rule (Bustrillos, 1963:5). Due to the small sample and conceptual exploratory orientation of the study the results were tentative and further research using this conceptual framework was done by Hogan. Using the Bustrillos framework, Hogan studied 42 homemakers in two socioeconomic groups (1965). Hogan's findings differ from those found by Bustrillos, possibly a result of the different ethnic orientations of the samples (1965:70). Hogan finds that The responses to decision problems in the lower socioeconomic group were most frequently action- suggestive in mode, past in time reference, and either preference ranking or immediate closure in decision-making rule. . . . The decision- making responses in the upper socioeconomic group were most frequently factual in mode, past in time reference and objective elimination in rule (1965:67-68). Rivenes conducted a similar study of 36 college students and found they favor a factual mode and present time reference. This corresponds to findings by Bustrillos. However, data were insufficient to determine the decision rule element. This conceptualization of decision style by Bustrillos and others is significant because it is an attempt to study decision-making using a means other than the normative model. 33 Halliday abandoned the forced choice instrument approach because it lacked validity. ‘This method of assessing extent of reasoning in decision-making was abandoned for the following reasons. . . . Constructing suitable items to accompany the questions had proved very difficult. Items devised as "most rational" appeared too obviously the "right" responses; conversely, the "least rational” items were unlikely to be chosen, being too obviously "wrong" answers. In addition, developing short items that were unambiguous and that needed no further qualifi- cation was difficult. . . . Because of faulty item construction, the instrument was invalid, that is, it did not test the respondents' extent of reasonipg used in making decisions; it merely tested their ability to select reasonable alter- natives when these were laid before them (Halliday, 1964:36). Therefore, the open-ended questions method was adopted for use in the study. In Halliday's research three open-ended questions were presented to 60 student wives to elicit responses which were then written down by the interviewer and submitted for content analysis. The four analysis cate- gories were: (1) whole response; (2) reasoning; (3) weighing; and, (4) inquiry for and use of information. These categories resemble those used in the instrument for this study. Halliday found that homemakers were consistent in approaching decisions. Those less rational or more rational in one decision area tended to be less or more rational, respectively, in the other two decision tasks (Halliday, 1964:70). Information processing, as 34 part of rationality in decision-making was not considered in these studies. Information Processing According to information theory, information reduces uncertainty for the individual. Information processing is the categorization of perceptions that the individual receives from the environment. In the adapta- tion of an individual to the environment, the use of information is based on "the identification and acquisi- tion of potentially useful stimuli, the translation and transformation of the information received into meaningful patterns, and the use of these patterns in choosing an optimal response (Schroder, l97l:3). Paolucci offers a parallel definition of information processing as the perception, selection, exchange and attachment of meaning to stimuli in the environment (1977:113). The perception selection, and identification and acquisition of information are oriented to the source of information. Schroder refers to the categorization of information from different perceived sources as differ- entiation (1977:242). Differentiation is the labeling of the number of different kinds of information perceived. In addition to differentiation, information processing also includes the transformation and transla- tion of information into meaningful patterns, or the exchange and attachment of meaning to stimuli in the 35 environment which Schroder calls the individual measurement or evaluation of information (1977:244). In this section the source of information is examined, followed by the evaluation of information and decision rationality. The source of information in the marital decision- making process was studied by Beal and Rogers (1957:630- 634) and Mason (1964:40-52). Beal and Rogers examined information sources called upon to aid in purchase decisions of new fabrics; Mason studied those used in decisions to adopt children. Information played a key part in the decision event for both studies. This indicates that mass media is an important source for bringing information to the decision-maker's awareness. Both studies report that personal reference groups also provide information that influences the decision process. Those people most likely to seek extensive information are younger, better educated and have higher incomes (Roberts, 1963:85). Schomaker reports that her sample makes extensive use of consultative sources for information on financial matters (1961). Again, younger and better educated families are more extensive in their sources of informa- tion. The source of information for decision-making is reported by Udell. People tend to be strongly influenced by information gained from friends, neighbors and 36 relatives when purchasing small appliances (1970:464). When choosing a physician and related medical services, newcomers to a community depend most heavily on neighbors and recent acquaintances of the same socioeconomic group (Feldman and Spencer, 1958:247). The source of informa- tion is positively associated with the subjects' expected gain relative to the cost of gathering the information (Hill & Klein, 1973:28). The evaluation of information is also part of information processing. The evaluation of information is a comparison of the differentiations of information that an individual has made. These differentiations are categories of information and are seen as alternative choices for the decision-maker. People vary considerably in their use of informa- tion (Bruner et al., 1964; 1966). Also, individuals can learn to use a greater amount of and more complex informa- tion in the decision process (Miller et al., 1960). Harries' study of 150 undergraduates is based on how individuals process information and make decisions. Using a pre- and post-test design, she examined whether or not information processing and decision rule complexity increase after students are presented a programmed sequence of textile instruction. She found that cate- gorical organization of information contributes to increased information processing complexity (1972:117). 37 If the ability of persons to categorize information enables them to deal better with higher environmental complexity then they should also be able to cope with a greater number of alternatives during the decision process. Apparently, no linear relationship exists in the real world where consideration of more alternatives will lead to greater decision-making success. Information processing for most people reaches a maximum level of complexity at some optimal level of environmental com- plexity (Schroder et al., 1967; 1971:267). That is, the individual reaches a point where the amount of information considered in the decision process begins to diminish decision-making success. Thus, a curvilinear relationship exists between decision-making and the amount of informa- tion considered. Both the evaluation of and search for information are aspects of decision rationality. Janis and Mann stress the need for careful researching and weighing of alternatives in effective decision-making (1977:11). Decision-makers must research and evaluate information about possible alternatives. Each one must be examined closely. They state, ". the highest degree of post decisional regret, is expected when the person makes the preliminary judgment tacitly, 38 with little forethought about the need for search and appraisal" (1977:14). The utilization of information is one aspect of rationality. In Halliday's content analysis, rationality is operationally defined by a category (one of four) called, "Inquiry for and Use of Information" (1964:100). A subject is considered more rational with the greater use of variety of information sources. The Family Problem Instrument, adapted for use in this study, is a measure of decision-maker rationality which posits the following three decision phases: (1) definition of problem by searching for causes and examining all elements of the situation; (2) searching for and evaluating alternatives; (3) using information to support other phases of the decision process (Baker, 1974; Baker et al., 1973). This measure developed by Baker was used in a study of decision-making in American families of Mexican descent. A basic assumption of Baker's research, and of this study, is that decision behavior elicited by the instrument corresponds to behavior which would be exhibited by decision-makers in similar but real situations (Baker, l974a:2). Baker's decision rationality concept is based on the decision dimensions as they appear in normative decision-making models (Baker, l974:4; Halliday, 1964; Miller and Starr, 1967). 39 Baker presented six hypothetical problem situa- tions and tape-recorded subjects' responses. The recordings were then submitted to content analysis by the set of rules identical to those used in this study (see Appendix C). The instrument was administered to 36 persons; 17 couples and 2 wives whose husbands did not participate. Baker's investigation was a pilot study; therefore, only tentative results are reported (Baker, 1974:12, l972a:6). For Baker, the more alternatives a couple generates the higher their rationality scores. No real differences were found on total mean rationality scores for the six situations combined for husbands when compared to wives. When each problem situation was considered separately, however, a higher degree of rationality in routine house- hold responsibilities was exhibited in the wife/mother role. The husband/father role assumed a higher degree of responsibility for family decisions linked to external societal systems (Baker, 1974:10). Husbands and wives had similar overall rationality scores, but spouses had different scores in different decision situations. Another version of the Family Problem Instrument was used to study Guatemalen families. In this study Baker indicated that husbands and wives exhibit different rationality scores. Husbands score higher in three out 40 of four decision situations (Baker et al., 1973). In comparing these groups, Baker concludes, Wives in the Arizona families of Mexican descent seem to be reflecting a more active participation (than the Guatemalan wives) in decision-making, at least in the sense that they score as well as or higher than their husbands on some problems (1974:10). She concludes that the increasing complexity of urban society calls upon wives to fill certain managerial family roles not required of Guatemalan wives. Baker also found in the Arizona and the Guatemalan research: that significantly higher decision scores were obtained for problems in which families had long experience, easily accessible information and certainty of outcome, and lower scores obtained for problems in which information was not available or forces outside the family were in control of the situation. H the "where" and "what" of the decision event are theorized to be part of the decision situation. Any area of family decision-making is believed to consist of tangible and intangible surrounding of the decision- maker(s). No decision event is assumed to be independent of the environmental situation. Deising outlines five decision types: economic, technical, social, political and legal. In home manage- ment literature, emphasis has been on the economic, technical and social areas of decisionemaking. Economic decisions focus on how resources are allocated. Tech- nical decisions center on the effective use of resources to achieve goals. Social decisions emphasize social role 41 decisions; that is, the specific content of social roles and the integration of this content into an acceptable self (Deising, 1962:44-45). A major difference in economic and social decisions is the degree of specificity with which goals or aspiration levels are described. In a social decision, action is guided by a generalized level of aspiration which may change upward or downward rapidly, according to how successful the decision-makers are in each step of the process (Gross et al., 1973: 248). Wilson and Alexis elaborate the decision-making description by introducing "open" and "closed" model concepts (1964:182). The closed model applies to decision- making when specific goals exist and alternatives are relatively clearcut. The closed model is used primarily with technical and economic decision types. Emphasis is on consideration and selection of alternatives and not on problem definition (Gross et al., 1973:239). The open decision model is more suitable to social, political and legal decision categories when goals are relatively general (Gross et al., 1973:239). Emphasis is in defining the problem. Plonk employs a central-satellite decision model to study decision-making (1968:790). While decision chains or trees map multiple decision through time, the orientation of the central and satellite decision model provides a way of linking decisions across time and space. This model does not (as does the decision tree) provide 42 for alternative decision mapping or probable outcomes. Instead, the central satellite model deals with recognized decisions as a result of alternatives chosen. The model contains a central decision core; the resultant satellite decision then forms an outer ring while resultant decisions to these satellites form.more rings of satellite decisions, and so on. Plonk used this model to study resource alloca- tion (economic decisions) in families. She found that these decisions, which include choice of major goals (strategic), are surrounded by satellite decisions that are primarily planning decisions (tactical) rather than policy, programming, habitual routines or control (regulating) decision types (1968:790). Bean used this model to study central decision situations involving summer jobs for students and wife's decision to work. Her results were similar to Plonk's findings (Bean, 1968). Halliday reports that in technical and affective decision situations homemakers showed no difference in the degree of rationality used (1964:58). Technical decision contexts include decision-making areas, such as food buying, where information is based primarily on empirical evidence, not on emotion. Affective contexts involve decision events for which little information is available, and for which 43 family interaction and emotion are inherent, for example, child discipline (Halliday, 1964:9). Halliday also used a middle-ground decision situation to examine problems associated with time-consuming housework and boredom. This situation encompasses both technical and affective decision contexts. She reports that homemakers who make rational technical decisions are also more inclined to make rational affective decisions (1964:52). Based on the above research reviewed, it is hypothesized that husbands demonstrate more decision rationality than their wives in economic decision situa- tions. Wives, however, demonstrate more decision rationality than their husbands in socially-oriented situations. An important consideration is the relationship between husbands and wives who differ greatly in their analysis and evaluation of information and on their ability to weigh alternative decision choices. Another hypothesis is that for couples with high discrepancy in decision rationality, the spouse with the higher degree of rationality will exhibit greater revealed decision- dominance. Also, both spouses will perceive this spouse as having greater decision dominance. In couples with low discrepancy in decision rationality it is hypothe- sized that there will be no difference in the demonstration 44 of revealed decision dominance. Also, in these couples, spouses will perceive decision dominance as equalitarian. Summary On the basis of the literature reviewed, hypotheses dealing with two aspects of the decision- maker were developed: 1) perceived decision dominance, and 2) revealed decision dominance. Perceived decision dominance varies for wives and husbands. Wives tend to perceive decision dominance as more equalitarian than their husbands. Husbands tend to believe the wife is more dominant in the decision event than she acknowledges. The actual dominance revealed by the decision- maker during the event indicates that decision dominance is equalitarian. The research reviewed indicates that spouses tend to share decision-making tasks with the husband dominating in some areas and the wife in other situations. Comparisons of actual decision dominance and the spouse's perception of decison dominance reveal a mis- conception of dominance among spouses in the decision event. Husbands view themselves as more dominant than is indicated in actual test situations. Wives underestimate their decision dominance or believe they have less influence in the decision event than is actually revealed. 45 The decision event also includes the decision process and decision situation. The degree of decision- making rationality used varies with each spouse and the decision situation. Husbands demonstrate more rationality in economic and technical decision situations. Wives demonstrate greater rationality than their husbands in social and affective decision situations. The decision process is affected by the acquisi— tion and use of information. The amount of information affects the degree of rationality displayed in the decision process by the decision-maker. There is an optimal amount of search and use of information which leads to greater decision rationality and therefore more success in the decision event. But, much information can result in poor performance. The decision event is a combination of the decision-maker's perception and revealed decision dominance, the decision process, and, the degree of rationality used by the decision-maker within the situa- tional aspects of the decision. III. METHODS This comparative and descriptive study was under- taken to explore three relationships. The relationships are: first, who (husbands, wives, or both) perceives whom as the dominant decision-maker; second, who is revealed as the dominant decision-maker; and third, what is the degree of rationality of each spouse during given decision situations and how does it relate to perceived and revealed decision dominance. Design The research design was a field investigation} combining a survey questionnaire and a behavioral testing situation (Kerlinger, 1964). The natural field investigation offers a more relaxed situation for subjects than the laboratory situation. Therefore, the subjects would be more likely to approach the instruments with less appre- hension and reservation. Because the instruments contained many questions directly pertaining to the house- hold environment, it was expected that through association ‘with familiar surroundings, subjects would give more accurate responses. The natural setting the household also was believed to have increased substantially the percentage 46 47 of people willing to take part in the study, as opposed to asking volunteers to come to a laboratory. This approach should have reduced possible skewing since the volunteer sample was not dependent on those willing to come to a laboratory. A questionnaire measure, an experimental test situation instrument, and an open-ended written completion instrument were used to test hypotheses. The questionnaire measure was designed to quantify subjects' perception of decision-making dominance in selected areas. The experi— mental testing situation instrument was designed to quantify a couple's revealed decision dominance in a controlled situation. The open-ended written completion instrument was designed to quantify the subject's use of the decision process in selected situations. Measurement validity and reliability could not be satisfied for the three instruments employed in this study. Because of the early and tentative development of these concepts and the lack of comparative instruments for reliability testing, standardized statistical relia- bility was not established. Earlier studies, as cited in the literature review, did not develop reliable and ‘valid instruments. The Decision Task Instrument used an unobtrusive data collection method that indirectly assesses revealed decision dominance (Corralles, 1975). The Family_Problem 48 Instrument, using a content analysis approach, had an inter-rater scoring reliability of 78 percent, established by pre-data collection training and practice. It compares favorably to Baker's inter-rater scoring reliability of 70 percent (l974:l,6). The Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Questionnaire, based on the instrument developed by Safilios-Rothschild, does not have established reliability or validity. As she states: The decisions asked and used for computing this score have not been tested for reliability or validity; and the decisions have never been factor analyzed so that we do not know whether one or two factors are being given a greater importance than given to the others. . . . Of course, it is extremely difficult to test the construct validity of the decision-making instrument, since even observation of spousal behavior under contrived experimental situa- tions cannot be considered a totally acceptable alternative method (Safilios-Rothschild, 1969: 298). The validity of concepts of decison making are better tested when multiple research methods for data collection are used. By refined description, clarification and definition of concepts of decision making, validity is addressed. For validity to be established, however, further measurement refinement and testing would be necessary beyond the present study. §ample Selection A purposive sample of 57 married couples having at least one child 13 years or younger was chosen. The CKJuples were interviewed in the three married housing 49 units at Michigan State University. They were available for interview, agreed to participate in the study, and, were United States citizens. Six female interviewers were given maps of Spartan Village, University Village and Cherry Lane, the three married housing units at Michigan State University, with separate designated buildings to contact. Only two bedroom apartment buildings were used in the study, as children were limited to these areas. One section of Spartan Village was not included in the study because two bedroom apartments in this area were not occupied by families with children. According to an interview with an assistant manager of Michigan State University Married Housing, the following assumptions were warranted given the exempted area: (1) assignment to the three villages is random and not by choice of family; (2) assignment to apartments is made on a "first come, first serve" basis with two bedroom apartments reserved for families with children, (3) the married housing population is limited to families with one or more members who are full-time students at Michigan State University three out of four quarters each year. Several factors in the sampling procedure affect the generalizability of results. Summer residents may differ from year around residents. (Out of 1,184 two 50 bedroom apartments in the three complexes, 118 couples (10%) were contacted and 57 (4.8%) were interviewed.) About 50 percent of those contacted and eligible chose not to participate in the study. Reasons ranged from lack of time and availability (70%), to one spouse not willing to participate (20%), or no reason given to the interviewer (10%). The sample was not a random selection, but was voluntary participation. The Use of Interviewers Six interviewers were trained by the investigator-- four graduate students and two upper class under-graduates majoring in family studies and related interdisciplinary fields at Michigan State University. Each interviewer was 20 to 26 years old, female, and trained by the investigator in a 3-hour session which involved answering the questionnaire and discussion of individual items. No problem items were identified. Interviewers had no knowledge of the research hypotheses and were instructed and rehearsed in the prOper procedure for administering the research instruments uniformly. During each training session considerable time was spent discussing how to contact and involve volunteers in the study. The interviewers were given the following instruc- tions for the initial contact: 1. to introduce themselves and the purpose of the study. 51 2. to find out if the individuals were U.S. citizens having at least one child and no children older than 13. 3. to ask for 1% hours of time with both spouses present. 4. to assure full confidentiality of the couples' responses in the study. 5. to set up either a meeting time and/or to call back for a confirmation of a day and time for the interview. 6. to leave a letter of introduction with the subjects. The letter of introduction reviewed the content of the study and the specific statement the interviewer was to give at the contact point. The letter of introduction is included in Appendix A. Data were collected by the six trained college students over a 6-day period. Interviewers made no subjective evaluations of subjects, but helped them follow directions and use appropriate answer sheets. They also administered the decision task card sort. Data Collection Procedure Subjects were not selected on a random basis. Each interviewer went from door-to-door to find volunteer Contacts and set up an interview date. The interviewers 52 reported a vacant apartment, not home rate ranging from 25 to 95 percent per building, and, therefore, had to return to contact more subjects. Five interviewers collected data from 10 couples each and one interviewer completed seven interviews, for a total of 57 couples. The researcher had set a goal of 55 to 60 couples due to limited funds. All subjects were interviewed in their homes at times previously arranged by the interviewer. Each interview took between 60 and 90 minutes with the average interview lasting 70 minutes. For about half the interviews, 28 couples completed the questionnaire in the following order: individual card sort; biographic data items; Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure; Family Problem Instruments #1 and #2; and, the joint card sort Decision Task Instrument. Appendix B includes the interview instruments in this order. The other half of the subjects (29 couples) received the questionnaires with the Family Problem Instruments after the initial card sort experiment, but before the questionnaire and joint card sort. This was done to check for any fatigue factor which could effect the results on the Family Problem Instrument. No differences were found on the latter instrument between the two groups. 53 Interviewers were instructed to reiterate the purpose as stated in the letter of introduction (Appendix A) upon entry to the household. Then, the husband and wife were seated at a table or desk away from the other spouse. Subjects were instructed not to discuss questions until both had completed the questionnaire. Interviewers could clarify objective questions, but told subjects to define their own terms when subjective questions were asked. Only three subjective questions from subjects were reported. Each subject was first asked to complete the card sort. When finished the cards were handed to the inter- viewer and the questionnaire was continued. The interviewer then coded the subjects' responses to the card sort. Subjects used computerized answer sheets. All answer sheets were given a subject number and letter code as described in the section on sample descrip- tion. Interviewers were directed to observe for errors in filling out answer sheets. All multiple choice items were completed on computer scoring answer sheets. At the end of the questionnaire, the Family Problem Instruments were completed. This involved two hypotheti- cal situation descriptions presented on separate sheets of paper one at a time. Subjects were asked to give written reactions on separate sheets of paper provided by the interviewer. 54 When the subjects had completed responses to both stories, the joint card sort was carried out. This involved repeating the original card sort, but called for joint rather than individual decisions on choices. Interviewers coded card choices made by the couple and asked them to sign a mailing list if they wanted a summary of the study sent to them. Interviewers were free to answer any questions and to discuss items only when all interview items were completed by both subjects. Interviewer direction sheets are included in Appendix C. Family Problem Instrument The Family Problem Instrument was derived from an instrument developed by Baker (1974). The instrument was designed to measure relative degrees of decision rationality. Rationality was defined as having five components: diagnostic orientation; number of alterna- tives; process of comparing and ranking alternatives; process of searching for and using information; and, the total response (Baker, 1974:18). Each category was scored by content analysis according to rules developed by Baker (Baker, 1974:18-20). The scoring procedure is included in Appendix D. Each respondent was given a written statement of each of two hypothetical problem situations. The subjects responded first to one in writing before being 55 presented with the second. The first hypothetical situation dealt with the problem of unwanted pregnancy. This problem.was seen as having broad emotional and resource management effects, and is primarily an intra- family situation. The second hypothetical situation dealt with shrinking buying power and, therefore, primarily focused on economic management. Total scores for each subject in each hypothetical situation, as well as a combined total score for each subject were calculated. The total scoring procedure was carried out separately by this researcher and a trained graduate student. Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure The Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure measured each spouse's perception of who was the dominant decision-maker in 16 decision-making areas. The decision- making areas in this research were identical to those reported by Safilios-Rothschild, except that two addi- tional areas, "use of credit cards," and ”job wife should take" were added (1969:294). The "use of credit cards" was added to gain information in this important marital decision area. "Job wife should take" was added to achieve balance with the decision area "job husband should take." The question of whose opinion prevails was asked of each spouse separately for each of the following decision topics: W. in: 56 Rearing of children Use of available money Relations with in-laws What doctor to consult Use of leisure time Purchase of life insurance Family size Choice of friends Purchase of clothes Purchase of car Purchase of furniture and household items Job husband should take Purchase of food What house or apartment to rent Use of credit cards Job wife should take In keeping with Safilios-Rothschild, the perception of whose opinion prevails was equated with decision dominance (1969:295). The 16 decision-making areas were presented to each spouse individually in a questionnaire. The subject was then asked to complete the questionnaire by answering the question, "Whose opinion prevails in the following areas of decision-making? Please answer according to how you perceive reality in your family, not how you would like it or feel it should be." The subjects were instructed to mark their answer sheet according to the following key: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) husband prevails husband both wife wife-prevails 80-100% 60-80% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 57 For each couple, there was a husband's and a wife's perception score for each of the 16 decision-making areas. There was also a total mean score for each area. For example, a mean score of 3.5 for the wife and 1.5 for a respective husband would indicate that she perceived decision dominance to be more toward wife prevails than husband prevails, while he perceived the reverse. Decision Task Instrument The purpose of this instrument was to measure revealed decision dominance in a controlled situation. The Decision Task Instrument measured differences between spouses individually making a forced choice decision and the couple then jointly repeating the same forced choice decision. A hypothetical situation was used in which all the subjects' possessions have been destroyed and (s)he is given a finite amount of money ($3,000) to replace them. The subjects must choose from any of eight item categories, with three fixed dollar amounts in each category. The 24 cards from which the subject(s) chose were: Dollar value as Category shown on cards stereo, records and television: $200/400/600 furniture: $200/400/600 books: $100/200/300 kitchen equipment, food, china: $200/400/600 58 clothes & toys for child(ren): clothes-husband: clothes-wife: savings: This instrument was scored by the following interviewee instructions: $200/400/600 $300/600/900 $300/600/900 $100/200/300 Subjects choose from each category by picking up cards with the item category and dollar amounts written on them. When the subject has $3,000 worth (s)he turns them into the interviewer who codes them by assigning each category a number based on the dollar amount. The number is determined according to its ratio to the lowest price. For example, in the category of stereo, the lowest price is $200. This category, if only the $200 card is chosen, would receive a code of (1). $400 is 2 multiplied by $200, so it would receive a code of (2). The lowest value for the category of clothes-husband is $300, and would be coded as (1). If the $900 card is chosen, the category is coded as (3) (three multiplied by $300). If more than one card is chosen for a category, the category is coded according to the total value. For example, if in the category of furniture all three cards, $200, $400, and $600 are chosen, the total of $1,200 is coded as (6) because 6 times 200 equals 1200. If no card is chosen in a category, it is coded as (0). The husband and the wife first did the forced choice exercise separately without communication. repeated the same exercise about 45 minutes later as a couple. The following chart was filled out for each couple. They then 59 Husband's Difference Joint Difference Wife's Categpry, score husejoint score wifefijoint score stereo x x-y y z-y 2 furniture x x-y y z-y 2 books x x-y y z- 2 kitchen x x-y y z-y z clothes—child x x-y y z-y z clothes-hus. x x-y y z-y z clothes-wife x x-y y z-y 2 savings x x-y y z-y z Total Total Difference scores for both husband and wife were calculated by taking the absolute value of the difference between the husband's score and joint score, and wife's score and the joint score. The lower the score for either spouse the closer that spouse was to the joint decisions made. In each couple the spouse having the lower score prevailed more often in dyadic decision-making and revealed therefore, more dominance in this task. After all the scores had been calculated for each couple, three distinct divisions were made based on the relative differences in husband and wife totals. The three divisions were: "husband dominates," " wife dominates" and "equal" (shared). Thus, an observed behavioral score of who decides was determined. Directions for this procedure for subjects are included in Appendix B. 60 Statistical Analysis Data for questionnaire Perceptions of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure were put directly on computer scoring sheets by subjects. Data for the Decision Task Instrument and the Family Problem Instrument were coded by the researchers and also put on the scoring sheets. The statistics used to test the hypotheses and the instruments associated with them are shown in Figure 2. To test Hypotheses 1 through 6, a Chi Square test was used. This nonparametric statistic was used to test dependence because the distribution of the population is unknown and because of the nominal nature of the variables (Kerlinger, 1964:261). These hypotheses would be accepted or rejected at p g .05. To test Hypotheses 7 and 8 a two sample matched pairs t-test was used. Matched pairs were husband and wife teams. These hypotheses were accepted or rejected at p i .05. Hypotheses 9 and 10 were not tested statistically because of the low number of frequencies of cases. The hypotheses were evaluated on a counting basis (Kerlinger, 1964:154). 61 Purpose of Analysis Sources of Data Test Statistic Description of Data Test H H 1‘ Hz‘ 3‘ Test H4; H5: Test H Test H : Test H : Test H93; H9b' ch; H H 10a; HIOb‘ 10c Demographic POP, DTI POP DTI FPI (situation #2) FPI (situation #1) Sample Frequency Chi Square Chi Square Chi Square 2 sample matched pairs t-test 2 sample matched pairs t-test FPI (descrepancy scores) POP = Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Questionnaire DTI = Decision Task Instrument FPI = Family Problem Instrument Figure 2. Methods Used for Data Analysis IV. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION The sample is a nonprobability, purposive one, selected to conform to established criteria. All families were in the second, third or fourth stage of the family life cycle. All lived in married student housing at Michigan State University during the summer of 1975. Information about the selected sample was based on two sources: questionnaire items 1 through 19, titled, "Biographic Information," and a subject answer sheet coding system carried out by the six interviewers. The subjects' answer sheet coding system included assigning a number and letter to each subject on the top right hand corner of the answer sheets. Subjects were coded according to demographic variables. Each inter- viewer was given a sequential set of 20 numbers for assignment to subjects. Husbands were designated odd numbers, wives even numbers; and, each husband was designated to precede his spouse's number. Table 1 shows that the mean age for the total sample lies between 23 and 25. The sample distribution is (64%) toward the 23 to 30-year-olds. Women are slightly younger on the average than the men. 62 63 Table 1. Age of Husbands and Wives. Age in Years Sample Frequency Husbands Wives Total Percent 18-20 3 5 8 7.0 21-25 18 23 41 35.9 26-30 21 18 39 34.2 31-35 10 8 18 15.8 36+ 5 3 8 7.0 The level of education for the sample is presented in Table 2. All have finished high school and 55 percent of the sample have college degrees. The men have achieved a higher level of education than the women. Ages at which subjects were married to their present spouse are given in Table 3. Over 77 percent of the sample married between 21 and 26 years of age. Men tended to marry at a slightly older age than women. Eight, or 14 percent, of the men had experienced divorce while 3, or 5.3 percent, of the women had been divorced. Of the total sample, 9.6 percent have been divorced. The brief marital career of the sample may account for the low frequency of divorce. 64 Table 2. Level of Education of Husbands and Wives. Education Completed Sample Frequency Husbands Wives Total Percent High School or Equivalent 1 19 20 17.5 Technical Training 0 5 5 4.4 Two Years College 12 14 26 22.8 Four Years College 18 12 30 26.3 Master's Degree 6 4 10 8.8 Doctorate or in Progress 20 3 23 20.2 Table 3. Age of Husbands and Wives When Married to Present Spouse. Age in Years Sample Frequeney Husbands Wives Total Percent 0-16 0 l 1 0.9 17-20 18 26 44 38.6 21-23 22 22 44 38.6 24-26 10 4 14 12.3 27-30 5 4 9 7.9 31-35 1 O 1 .9 36+ 1 0 1 .9 65 The majority (81.5%) of the subjects have one or two children. From Table 4, it appears that one subject (female) has no children. This respondent is a step- parent. Although the families in the sample are small, there is indicated a planned shift upwards with 63 percent of the subjects planning to have two to three children and another 13 percent planning on four. This is depicted in Table 5. The breakdown for stages in the family life cycle based on the age of the oldest child is fairly even (Table 6). Religious orientation is presented in Table 7. The percent of the sample where both spouses have a non- Judeo-Christian persuasion is 21.9 percent. A mixture of persuasions within couples was found among 26.3 percent. There were no reported members of the Jewish faith. Concerning total combined income in the family (Table 8), the modal income bracket is $5,100-$8,000 per year (gross). Thirty-one percent of the families earned under $5,000. Thirty-six percent earned over $8,000. 66 Table 4. Number of Children Reported by Husbands and Wives. Number of Children Sample Frequency Husbands Wives Total Percent O O l l 0 9 l 26 25 51 44.7 2 22 20 42 36.8 3 5 4 9 7 9 4 3 5 8 7 O 5 l 2 3 2 6 Table 5. Number of Children Planned Including Present Children by Husbands and Wives. Number of Children ' Sample Frequency Planned Husbands Wives Total Percent 0 2 6 8 7.0 1 5 3 8 7.0 2 22 18 40 35.1 3 15 17 32 28.1 4 6 9 15 13.2 5 4 l 5 4.4 6+ 3 3 6 5.3 67 Table 6. Number of Married Couples the Family Life Cycle. in Each Stage of Stage of the Family Life Cycle Sample Frequency Number Percent Stage Two 21 36.8 Stage Three 19 33.3 Stage Four 17 29.8 Table 7. Religious Orientation of Couples as Reported by Husbands and Wives. Couple's Religion Sample Frequency Husbands Wives Total Percent Both Protestant 18 19 37 32.5 Both Catholic 11 ll 22 19.3 Both Other Persuasion 14 11 25 21.9 Mixture of Two Persuasions 14 16 30 26.3 68 Table 8. Income Reported by Husbands and Wives. Present Yearly Income Sample Frequency Husbands Wives Total Percent $ O-3,000 9 5 14 12.3 $ 3,100-5,000 5 16 21 18.4 $ 5,100-8,000 23 15 38 33.3 $ 8,100-12,000 ll 13 24 21.1 $12,100-16,000 5 5 10 8.8 $16,100-20,000 3 2 5 4.4 $20,000+ l l 2 1.8 While these families may not have high incomes, their potential and/or expected potential incomes after school- ing is completed, is high. V. RESULTS Results of each variable and hypothesis are pre- sented in this chapter. Correlational relationships between variables were examined. Significance levels were predetermined as p i .05 or > 95 percent probability of occurrence. Statistical analysis included use of matched pairs t-tests and the Chi Square. Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure The Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails instru- ment dealt with the subject's perception of whose opinion prevails within the marital relationship in 16 selected decision-making areas. Results indicated a strong tendency toward equalitarian decision-making for this sample. Subjects were asked to respond on a scale of (0) to (4), with (0) indicating that husband's opinion prevails 80 to 100 percent of the time. The midpoint was (2), or 40 to 60 percent, and represented equality in the subject's perception of whose opinion prevails. Dominance of the wife 80 to 100 percent of the time was represented by (4). A score of 32 when all 16 scores were combined represented equalitarian decision-making. The absolute 69 70 score range is from husband dominant (0) to wife dominant (64). Figure 3 indicates actual scores for this sample. The range for the reported scores was 22 with a maximum of 40 (possible 64) and a minimum of 18 (possible 0). With five possible answers, an average of 4.0 answered for each question would have resulted in a combined score of 48. An average of 1.0 would have had a combined score of 16. There were no scores lower than 18 or higher than 40, i.e., no one reported overall decision-making as totally husband or wife dominant. The mean for the total sample on this measure was 30.80, indicating a slight tendency toward male dominance. Interestingly, when means were taken for husbands and wives there were slight tendencies to over-estimate the spouse's decision dominance relative to one's own. Figure 4 shows husbands curve to the right (toward greater wife dominance) and wives curve to the left (toward greater husband dominance). The husbands' mean for the 16 decisions was 31.05, and wives' was 30.56. On a matched pairs repeated measure t-test comparing husbands' and wives' scores, a t-value of -.84 on a two-tailed test indicated there was no significant difference between spouses (Table 9). 71 .mhsmmmz mafim>mnm coacfimo mmo£3 mo coauQOOHmm mnu no monoom HouoH mo aoflusnfluumwa .m ouswwm mHoom HauoH + unmcHEoQ OMHB + + usmcflaom wcmnmsm + ¢o+mq we as oq mm mm mm mm mm cm mm mm am on mm mm mm mm mm «m mm mm Hm om ma wH+o “ K H N k m “ . m . \ a N K m . m. \ m n K a m. 3 mu :m 3 Sn. L mas 1: L 3 .kl ma 2 3 0‘ H 72 .musmmmz mafim>mnm cofinfimo mmonB mo cowummoumm man no mm>H3 mam mwnmnmsm mo monoom mo Gowusnwuumfln mum mo aomflummfioo .¢ mummflm muoom HmOOH + ucmcfiEon OMHB + + unmcwaon pcmnmnm + ¢o+m¢ we He oa mm mm mm mm mm «m mm mm Hm om mm mm mm mm mm em mm «N am omlmw wH+o l - H N m a mmsmnmsm m m... o m. 1 m o w T: S a m. CH 4% S m. mm>fl3 8 NH ma ea ma 73 Table 9. Range, Mean and Mode of Total Scores on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Sample Frequency Husbands Wives Total Range (18-40) 21.0 21.0 - 22.0 Mean 31.1 30.6 31.0 Mode 32.0 31.0 31.0 Maximum Score 40.0 39.0 40.0 Minimum Score 19.0 18.0 18.0 If the continuum of 0 to 64 is divided into five cells, the end cells (husband and wife each prevail 80 to 100% of the time) are empty. Husband dominates 60 to 80 percent of the time for 9 couples. The wife is dominant 60 to 80 percent of the time for l couple. And, decision-making was equal in the remainder of the sample, 94 or 82.5 percent. These results are presented in Table 10. In Table 11, mean scores are shown for the 16 items for this measure for wives, husbands and total combined scores. The most male-dominated decision area (indicated by low mean score), according to the percep- tions of wives and/or husbands, was the "job husband should take." The "purchase of life insurance" and "purchase of car" were also seen by wives and/or husbands as relatively male-dominated decision areas. 74 Table 10. Frequency Results for the Degree of Dominance on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Degree of Dominance Sample Frequency Husband Wife Total Percent Husband Dominant 80-100% 0 O 0 0.0 60-80% 9 9 18 15.8 Equalitarian 40-60% 47 47 94 82.5 Wife Dominant 60-80% 1 l 2 1.8 80-100% 0 0 0 0.0 Two areas, "job wife should take" and "purchase of food" (indicated by high mean scores), were relatively wife-dominated decision areas. Wives and husbands agreed "job husband should take" was relatively more husband- dominated than "job wife should take" was wife-dominated. Table 12 presents couple agreement for each decision area. Following the analytical method employed by Safilios-Rothschild (1969:294), agreement was defined as the absolute value of the difference between spouse scores. Perfect agreement was reported in 54.7 percent of the couples in all 16 decision areas (499 out of a 75 Table 11. Mean Scores for the Sixteen Items on the Per- ception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Questionnaire Item Mean Score Husbands Wives Total Rearing of Children 2.09 1.98 2.04 Use of Available Money 1.70 1.67 1.68 Relations with Inlaws 1.95 1.98 1.96 What Doctor to Consult 2.37 2.26 2.32 Use of Leisure Time 1.74 1.75 1.75 Purchase of Life Insurance 1.16 1.00 1.08 Family Size 2.25 2.09 2.17 Choice of Friends 1.84 2.07 1.96 Purchase of Clothes 2.44 2.49 2.46 Purchase of Car 1.23 1.19 1.21 Purchase of Furniture and Household Items 2.21 2.44 2.32 Job Husband Should Take 0.78 0.63 0.67 Purchase of Food 2.96 2.70 2.83 What House or Apartment to Rent 2.08 1.95 1.98 Use of Credit Cards 1.74 1.65 1.69 Job Wife Should Take 2.84 2.70 2.76 76 mm. o o m mm mm pooh mo mmmnonsm oo. o o a om RN ammo: maanHm>< mo mm: oo. o o m ON om padmcoo ou nouoon ones Ho. 0 o a mm mm ome masonm pamnmsm now me. o o 0 mm mm mofimuSmaH owed mo mmmsoudm no. 0 o N am om umo mo mmmnonsm on. o o 0 mm mm mamuH pHOSOmsom can chew lacunm mo mmmnousm mm. o o «H mm om monuoao mo cameoudm mm. H N Ha Hm mm mxmh padonm mmaz now akoocmvuoomfla moamummmwn monoummmwn mononmmmwo smoamuomman mmum< wawxma mo xmmcH mommIHDOh emumumoufiH emumuoze emumnmao uaowmwomn mo mmmum .mm>w3 mam mvcmnmdm monoumz he wcwxmsucowmwoon cw mmocmummmwn pmuuommm .NH OHQMH 77 cmmfi one wcwuswfim menu was ..ouo .monummmam mmumuozu m ou ANV on AHV .GOHmwomw some now mocmpuoomwp .mocoumwwww emumrmco m .mmuwm ou AoV mo meam> m wchmemm he mmumasoamo ma xmmcfl mfifiHRN .mmuoom m.mmsomm mounoemu map cmmzumn ooCmnmwmao mnu mo msam> muDHomnm mam wcflxmu kn pmudeoamo mum mmuoom moamummmwas mN. o o N CH me quM on uflmfiuumm< Ho mmsom umsz mm. o o m NH He mpumo uaomnu mo mm: mm. H H H mH He cmHaHHau Ho waHummm ea. 0 o 0 Ha oq m3mHaH suHB meowumHmm ea. 0 o N ma om moawwnm mo mowono ea. 0 o m RH km muHm HHHamm on. o H m mN om mafia muzmwmq mo mm: «smocmpuoomfln mocmummmwo moamummmwn moamummmwa «mocmHOMMHQ mouw¢ wcflxme mo xmmcH moumuusom emumuomHQH emumuo3a amumumao acoflmwoma mo mmmu< HeosaHuaoov NH mHHmH 78 possible 912). Another 35.4 percent reported a difference of only one. If we assume that differences of two, three and four are meaningful, then only 10 percent of the possible 912 decision areas exhibited meaningful disagreements among couples about whose opinion prevailed. Was this disagreement characteristic of all decision areas or were a few areas showing extreme disagreements and the remainder minimal disagreement? To answer this question an index of discordance was developed. This index for each decision area added together a value of (0) for complete agreement, a value of (1) for eagh.one-step difference, a value of (2) for eagh’two-step difference, etc. The final total was divided by the number of couples (57). In this way, a relative value for each decision area was computed as shown in Table 12. Results indicated the decision area with the greatest discordance was "job wife should take," and the area of least discordance "what house or apartment to rent." However, couples' perceptions of whose opinion prevails were overall in close agreement with "job wife should take." (Only 25 percent of the couples reported significant disagreement.) 79 Decision Task Instrument The Decision Task Instrument measured spousal dominance within couples through using individual and joint card sorts. The results of this instrument are presented in Figure 5. Overall, decision dominance for the decision task was strongly equalitarian. The scores for this instrument are relative to each other. The scale is ordinal, but not ratio or interval. The mean for all couples of -.23 was essentially equalitarian. Twenty- eight couples demonstrated varying degrees of husband dominance; 25 couples demonstrated varying degrees of wife dominance. Four couples demonstrated perfect equality on the instrument. The graph in Figure 5 is divided in three parts: husband dominant, -4 to -10; equalitarian, -3 to +3 and wife dominant 4 to 10. Equalitarian couples comprised 59.6 percent of the sample; husband dominant and wife dominant made up 24.6 percent and 15.8 percent, respec- tively. This information and the appropriate couple frequencies are shown in Table 13. The Decision Task Instrument revealed no discerni- ble pattern of the subject's choices regarding the eight categories. Furniture and kitchen equipment tended to account for a third to half of the $3,000 spent. Most of the subjects also left money in savings. The categories of clothes for child, husband and wife were often low with many couples spending only $300 on their own clothes 80 \ \ \\ \\\ \\‘ \\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\\\\\l \\\\ \\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \\ \\\\ \\\ \ \\ R\ SGQNOWdMNv-l saIdnog go Jaqmnn o -10 -9 -8 47 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wife Dominant Husband Dominant + Distribution of Couples' Scores on the Decision Task Instrument. Figure 5. 81 Table 13. Frequency Results for the Degree of Dominance on the Decision Task Instrument. Degree of Dominance Sample Frequency Couples Percent Husband Dominant -4 to -10 14 24.6 Eqpalitarian -3 to +3 34 59.6 Wife Dominant 4 to 10 9 15.8 and twice that amount or more on their children. There was no pattern that differentiated husbands from.wives. Many subjects became aware of how much it would cost to replace their possessions during this exercise, and how insurance was necessary to "cushion" a major financial setback. The interviewers all remarked that many subjects had no renter's insurance and were, conse- quently, considering obtaining it. Family Problem Instrument The Family Problem Instrument deals with the subject's degree of rationality in a written reaction to two hypothetical situations as rated by fiVe categories for content analysis. 82 Results of each hypothetical situation within the five categories are presented in Table 14. The category designated "diagnostic orientation" was a count of frequencies for causes of problems presented. Few subjects (15 out of a possible.228)exhibited any considera- tion of causes and those who did dealt only with one cause. Not one subject in either situation dealt with two or more possible causes of the presented problems. The second category, "alternatives considered," had the greatest number of high scores for both hypo- thetical situations. The combined results of both hypothetical situations are given in Table 15. Examination of the means for each category indicated "number of alternatives" accounted for the greatest weight in determining a subject's total rationality score. The combined raw scores of each category for each hypothetical situation appear in Table 16. Examination of the distribution of scores demonstrated slightly higher rationality scores in the economic hypothetical situation (5.75 mean) compared to the unwanted pregnancy situation (5.38 mean). The combined raw scores of husbands, wives and total subjects by frequency of response are indicated in Figure 6. 83 Table 14. Frequency Results for the Family Problem Instruments for Husbands and Wives. Decision Categories Sample Frequency Score* 0 l 2 3 Mean(R) Family Problem Instrument #1 Diagnostic Orientation 103 ll 0 0 0.096 Number of Alternatives 2 40 26 46 2.018 Process of Comparing and Ranking Alternatives 23 49 26 16 1.307 Process of Searching for and Using Information 25 67 18 4 1.009 Generalization of Problem 41 43 25 5 0.947 Family Problem Instrument #2 Diagnostic Orientation 110 4 0 0 0.035 Number of Alternatives 1 7 13 93 2.737 Process of Comparing and Ranking Alternatives 55 35 14 10 0.816 Process of Searching for and Using Information 38 58 17 1 0.833 Generalization of Problem 3 76 30 5 1.325 *See Appendix D for scoring rules. 84 Table 15. Combined Scores for Each Category of the Family Problem Instrument. Sample Frequency Decision Category Score* 0 l 2 3 Mean Family Problem Instrument #1 and #2 Diagnostic Orientation 213 15 0 0 .07 Number of Alternatives 3 47 39 133 2.30 Process of Comparing and Ranking Alternatives 78 84 40 26 1.06 Process of Searching for and Using Information 63 125 35 5 0.92 Generalization of Problem 44 119 55 10 1.14 *See Appendix D for scoring rules. Table 16. Frequency of Total Combined Scores on the Family Problem Instrument by Subject. Sample Frequency Combined Score for Five Categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mean Family Problem Instrument #1 Unplanned Pregnancy 2 9 18 18 21 13 5 12 8 7 l 5.38 Family Problem Instrument #2 Economic Situation 2 2 2 25 27 24 ll 7 10 3 1 5.75 85 .mm>H3 mam mvcmnmdm mo mmuoom 3mm wmaHHEoo mo aomHHmmBoo mmuoom vocHnsoo mo mocmnvmum .o mueme_ HN 0N mH mH NH 0H mH «H NH NH HH OH a m N o n a m N H o / //..l \.// . .. \f\' H , N m H a mpnmnmsm m /\\ o n w m CH HH mHmamm HmuoHIIlt NH mH «H mH 0H snoafqns go JaqmnN 86 Chi Square tests showed no significant difference between husbands and wives (p = .6). There were no significant differences on any of the five discussion categories between husbands and wives in either hypothetical decision situation. The signifi- cance, as tested by the Chi Square, is shown for each decision category in Table 17. The Family Problem Instrument revealed that in both the ”unplanned pregnancy" and the "fixed income" hypothetical situations, over half of the subjects subscribe to an ideology of "what ever happens-happens" or "I live one day at a time" or "God will provide." There was a fatalistic approach to both problems by most subjects. But, this fatalism was usually that things would be good not bad. A typical response is, "You squeeze a little here and a little there, and things have a way of working out by themselves." A large minority of the subjects believed they would talk things out with their spouse and rationally plan adjustments. Few people generalized the problems or tried to avoid them in the future. For example, only a small number of subjects mentioned improving birth control in the unplanned pregnancy situation. Hypothesis 1 Subjects' perceptions of decision-making dominance 87 Table 17. Significance Test for Each Decision Category on the Family Problem Instrument for Comparison of Spouses. Decision Categories Level of Significance Chi Square p Familnyroblem Instrument #1 9.38 .50 Diagnostic Orientation 0.0 i 1.00 Number of Alternatives 1.87 .60 Process of Comparing and Ranking Alternatives .84 .84 Process of Searching for and Using Information 1.72 .63 Total Response Generalization of Problem .67 .88 Family Problem Instrument #2 8.88 .54 Diagnostic Orientation 2.33 .12 Number of Alternatives 1.23 .75 Process of Comparing and Ranking Alternatives 4.47 .21 Process of Searching for and Using Information 1.05 .79 Total Response Generalization of Problem 1.28 .73 Combined Total 14.93 .60 88 are not the same as that revealed by the decision-making task. The hypothesis was tested by designating values for husband dominant, equalitarian or wife dominant on the Decision Task Instrument. Individuals with couple scores reported in Table 13 between -3 and 3 inclusive, were categorized as equalitarian and scores greater than 3 or less than -3 were considered either wife or husband dominant. 0n the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure, total raw scores over the combined 16 decision areas were used. A score of 0 to 26 inclusive was defined as husband-dominated. A score from 27-38 inclusive was defined as equalitarian; a score of 39-64 inclusive was defined as wife-dominated. The results of comparing the defined dominance scores on the Decision Task Instrument and on the Percep- tion of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure are presented in Table 18. Of the sample 50.9 percent (58 out of 114 cases) showed agreement between the Decision Task Instrument and the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. The Chi Square test for significance resulted in a probability of less than .5. Agreement between the two measures was not significantly greater than chance. This hypothesis was rejected. 89 Table 18. Comparison of Adjusted Scores for the Decision Task Instrument and the Perception olehose Opinion Prevails Measure. Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure Decision Task Husband . . Wife Instrument Dominant Equalitarian Dominant Husband Dominant 4 26 0 Equalitarian 12 53 1 Wife Dominant 2 15 l Hypothesis 2 Husbands overestimate their own decision-making dominance in the marital relationship. Perceived dominance is greater than revealed dominance for husbands. The results for husbands when the adjusted scores for the Decision Task Instrument and Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure are compared in Table 19. The Chi Square test resulted in no significant difference in husband's estimation of their decision dominance and their actual performance (p = .44). This hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis 3 Wives underestimate their own decision-makipg dominance in the marital relationship. Perceived dominance is less than revealed dominance for wives. 90 Table 19. Comparison of Adjusted Husbands' Scores for the Decision Task Instrument and the Per- ception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure Decision Task Husband . . Wife Instrument Dominant Equalitarian Dominant Husband Dominant 13 10 0 Equalitarian 6 28 1 Wife Dominant 0 9 0 Table 20 shows the results for wives when the adjusted scores for the Decision Task Instrument and Peg: peption of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure are compared. The Chi Square test resulted in no significant difference in wives' estimation of their decision dominance and their actual performance (p = .46). This hypothesis was, therefore, rejected. Hypothesis 4 Husbands perceive, more often than their wives, that the wife is the dominant decision-maker. The examination of the perception of the overall decision-making by spouses showed that only one husband perceived his wife as clearly dominant (see Table 10). Also, one wife, perceived herself as dominant. (This wife and husband were not spouses.) The hypothesis was rejected. 91 Table 20. Comparison of Adjusted Wives' Scores for the Decision Task Instrument and the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure Decision Task Husband . . Wife Instrument Dominant Equalitarian Dominant Husband Dominant 2 12 0 Equalitarian 6 28 0 Wife Dominant 2 6 l The rule for determining perceived decision dominance was relaxed to include all indications of dominance (all values on the perception of whose opinion prevails which do reflect perfect equalitarian decision- making). The hypothesis was rejected. The Chi Square test showed no significant relation between husbands' and wives' perception of who is the dominant decision-maker (p < .2). Hypothesis 5 Wives perceive, more often than their husbands, that decision-making is equally husband and wife dominant. The examination of the perception of overall decision-making by spouses demonstrated that wives did not perceive more often than their husbands that decision- making was equalitarian. According to Table 10 equal 92 numbers of wives and husbands viewed decision-making as equalitarian (N = 47). This constituted 82.45 percent of both husbands and wives and of the total sample. This hypothesis was, therefore, rejected. Table 21. Comparison of Wife, Husband, and Equalitarian Dominance as Reported by Husbands and Wives on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Dominance Reported by Husband Wife Wife 22 16 Husband or Equalitarian 35 41 If the established rule for determining perceived equalitarian decision-making was relaxed and equalitarian decision-making was defined as a score of 32, then the hypothesis was still rejected. Nine husbands, and only six wives, reported perfect equalitarian decision-making. The Chi Square test resulted in no significance between husbands' and wives' perception of equalitarian decision- making (p = .10). Hypothesis 6 Couples reveal equal dominance of husband and wife in the decision-making task. 93 The overall mean for all couples in the sample was -.23, slightly husband dominant on the Decision Task Instrument (see Figure 5). This demonstrates that the average over the entire sample was equalitarian decision power. Table 22. Comparison of the Perception of Equalitarian Decision-making as Reported by Husbands and Wives on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Reported by Dominance Husband Wife Wife or Husband 10 10 Equalitarian 47 47 Table 22 shows the breakdown according to the number of couples who are wife or husband dominant and equalitarian according to the adjusted rule presented in Table 13. Only 59.6 percent of the couples were demon- strated to be equalitarian, and 24.6 and 15.8 percent husband wife dominant, respectively. The Chi Square test was used to compare the raw scores of husbands and wives on the Decision Task Instru- ment. The hypothesis was not rejected because the statistical test found no significant difference between husbands' and wives' scores p = .94). There was a 94 tendency for husbands and wives to demonstrate equali- tarian decision-making on the Decision Task Instrument. Hypothesis 7 Husbands demonstrate a greater degree of decision- making rationality than respective wives in the economic hypothetical situation. To test for this relationship the matched pairs t-test was used. Comparison of husbands and wives, as matched pairs, yielded no significant relationship between the variable of spouse and degree of rationality. Rationality scores were evident in the hypothetical economic decision situation. A t value of -0.23 yielded a probability which rejected this hypothesis (p = .82). Hypothesis 8 Wives demonstrate more decision-making rationality than respective husbands in the unplanned pregnanpy hypothetical situation. To test for this relationship the matched pairs t—test was used. Comparison of husbands and wives, as matched pairs, yielded no significant difference between the variable of sex and decision rationality scores in the hypothetical unplanned pregnancy situation. A t-test value of 1.17, indicating slightly higher rationality 95 for husbands, produced a probability of 0.25. The hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis 9 In couples with high discrepancy in the degree of decision rationality, the more rational spouse: a. demonstrates greater dominance in the decision- making task. b. is perceived by the husband as more dominant. c. is perceived by the wife as more dominant. Couples were defined as having relatively high discrepancy scores in decision rationality if the differ- ences between husband's and wife's score were in the highest quartile in the sample. Out of 57 couples, 14 were designated to this category. 9a. In couples with high discrepancy in the degree of decision rationality, the more rational spouse demonstrates greater dominance in the decision-making task. The decision task instrument scores were desig- nated as husband dominant, wife dominant or equalitarian, depending on the distribution of the scores. The range was divided into thirds and scores higher than 3 are considered either husband or wife dominant. Scores of 3 and below are considered equalitarian (see Table 13). Table 23 indicates the results of the high discrepancy couples and couple scores on the Decision 96 Task Instrument. Only 28.5 percent of the sample (4 out of 14 couples) supported the hypothesis. No statistical tests were done due to the low frequencies found. Data do not support that the more rational spouse demonstrates higher power in the decision task. This hypothesis was rejected. Table 23. Comparison of Couples with High Discrepancy on the Family Problem Instrument and These Couples' PerfOrmance on the Decision Task Instrument. High Discrepancy Couples Familnyroblem Instrument Decision Task Instrument Husband Dominant Wife Dominant Husband Dominant 0 3 Equalitarian 4 3 Wife Dominant 0 4 9b. In couples with high discrepancy in the degree of decision rationality, the more rational spouse is_per- ceived by the husband as more dominant. The data are presented in Table 24. Only 1 out of 14 individuals demonstrated the proposed relationship. No statistical test was performed due to the low frequencies found. It was clear from the percentage (7.1%) supporting 97 the hypothesis that data do not support the husband's perception that the more rational spouse is more dominant. This hypothesis was rejected. 9c. In couples with high discrepancy in the degree of decision rationality, the more rational spouse is perceived by the wife as more dominant. The data are presented in Table 24. Three out of fourteen or 21.4 percent of the high discrepancy couples supported the hypothesis. No statistical test was performed due to the low frequencies. The percentage of agreement with the hypothesis did not support the wife's perception that the more rational spouse was more dominant. The hypothesis was, therefore, rejected. Hypothesis 10 In couples with low discrepancy in the degree of decision rationality: a. There is no difference between dominance among husband and wife in the decision task. b. The wife'sperception of who dominates is that both spouses are equal. c. The husband's perception of who dominates is that both are equal. Couples were defined as having relatively low discrepancy in decision rationality if differences between 98 Table 24. Comparison of Couples With High Discrepancy on the Family Problem Instrument and These Couples' Individual Perception of Decision Dominance. High Discrepancy Couples Perception of Family Problem Instrument Whose Opinion Prevails Measure Husband Wife High High Rationality Rationality Husband's Perception Husband Dominant 0 1 Equalitarian 4 8 Wife Dominant 0 1 Wife's Perception Husband Dominant 2 1 Equalitarian 2 8 Wife Dominant 0 1 99 husband's and wife's scores were in the lowest quartile of the sample. Out of 57 couples, 14 were in this category. 10a. In couples with low discrepancy in the degree of decision rationality there is no difference between dominance among husband and wife in the decision task. For the 14 couples demonstrating low discrepancy in the degree of difference in decision rationality, only eight, or 57.1 percent, supported the hypothesis. Six, or 42.9 percent, couples showed husband or wife dominance. On the Decision Task Instrument, 59.6 percent of the entire sample had equalitarian scores. The percentage of those couples with low discre- pancy in decision rationality was actually lower than that found in the overall sample. The data rejected low discrepancy decision rationality couples as having a meaningful probability of equalitarian decision-making on the Decision Task Instrument. No statistical test was done due to the low frequencies found. This hypothesis was rejected. 10b. In couples with low discrepancy in the degree of decision rationality the wife's perception of who dominates is that both spouses are equal. 100 Of low discrepancy couples (12 of 14), 85.7 percent supported the hypothesis. Due to the low frequencies found, no statistical test was done. Although 85.7 percent was high, 82.5 percent of the overall sample was equalitarian on the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. The low discrepancy couples scored higher than the overall sample, but not enough to support the hypo- thesis. Data do not suggest that wives of couples with low discrepancy decision rationality scores perceived equalitarian decision-making to any greater degree than couples in the general sample. Therefore, this hypothesis was rejected. 10c. In couples with low discrepancy in the degree of decision rationality the husband's perception of who dominates is that both spouses are equal. Of the total sample, 78.6 percent (11 of 14) supported the hypothesis. But 82.5 percent of the couples demonstrated equalitarianism and because this was the sample from which the sub—sample was drawn, the hypothesis was not supported. Husbands in couples with low discre- pancy decision rationality scores did not demonstrate that they perceived equalitarian decision-making to any greater degree than couples in the general sample. No statistical test was done due to the small frequencies found. The hypothesis was rejected. 101 Summary Only Hypothesis 6 "couples demonstrate equal dominance of husband and wife in the decision-making task" was not rejected. Of the remaining hypotheses, H H 9a’ H9b’ 9c’ by statistical test, since firm indication for rejection and H10a' HIOb’ H10c were not examined was already evident. The remainder of the hypotheses, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H7, and H8 were rejected by data analysis at a p < .05 level if significance. VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Decision Dominance All hypotheses except one were rejected due to the strong equalitarian decision-making found for this sample. Only Hypothesis 6, "Couples demonstrate equal dominance of husband and wife in the decision-making task," was not rejected. Revealed decision-maker dominance is the demon- stration of which spouse's opinion actually prevails in a decision situation. Revealed decision-maker dominance was measured by the Decision Task Instrument. Results of the card sort of the Decision Task Instrument reflect the American cultural mores of equalitarianism. As our culture has shifted from an extended family orientation to nuclear family households, there has also been a shift in ideology toward marital equalitarianism and the companionship marriage (Goode, 1970:9). The predominance of the nuclear family in our culture emphasizes the dyadic companionship marital relationship involving shared decision dominance. Individual card sort results indicate husbands and wives would not agree on what to spend their money. But in 102 103 the dyadic decision situation, most couples (59.6%) were equalitarian (see Table 13). There was a strong orienta- tion toward compromise. The Decision Task Instrument was developed for this research as a behavioral task exercise designed to study the revealed decision dominance of one spouse over another. The data collectors reported that couples were able to ”get into" and "enjoy" this exercise. This is important because the overall questionnaire for the study was about one hour long and this instrument was a "break" from the multiple choice routine question answering. This instrument was also the only part of the data collection where spouses interacted. This decision task exercise measured an actual decision situation. Perceived decision-maker dominance is the percep- tion of which spouse's opinion prevails in the decision event as measured by the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Hypotheses 4 and 5 are tests of this concept. Hypothesis 4 is "Husbands perceive, more often than their wives, that the wife is the dominant decision maker." Hypothesis 5 states "wives perceive, more often than their husbands, that decision—making is equally husband and wife dominant." Hypotheses 4 and 5 were rejected. This sample was so strongly equalitarian in its perception of decision 104 dominance that differences between husbands' and wives' perceptions were not significant, although there was a slight indication of each spouse to give dominance to the other. This finding is meaningful, especially when com- pared to other purposive sample studies. For example, Safilios-Rothschild chose a purposive sample of Detroit inner city Head Start parents. With this population she found a lower degree of equalitarian perception of decision dominance than was found for the sample in the present study (1969:293). The differences in the results of these two purposive samples are important to those doing family intervention, because recognition of diversity is important in social action programs. The index of discordance (Table 12) showed the highest decision area of disagreement between husbands and wives is ”job wife should take." As more women move into the work force the issue of wife employment becomes more important in family decision making. More research in spouses' perception of decision dominance and its .relationship to wife-mother employment is needed. The decision areas of the ”purchase of clothes" and "purchase of furniture and household items" also showed high discordance. For these areas, husbands and wives for this sample had the most divergent perception of who held decision dominance. These areas of decision- 105 making are important in day-to-day living and discordance of the perception of decision dominance may be indicative of potential familial conflicts. The decision areas lowest in spousal discordance are the ”use of credit cards," "what house or apartment to rent, and "rearing of children.” These are three significant areas of decision-making in family living. Their relatively low disagreement on the locus of perceived decision dominance is meaningful for family interventionists. Since the index of discordance is a rating of the decision areas according to the agreement of the perception of decision dominance, it is likely that in these areas of decision-making, spouses agree on who is dominant. This means that in programs for this population, "child rearing" interventionists for example, can identify relatively safely the perception of whose opinion prevails and structure programs accordingly. But for areas such as "job wife should take," identification of which spouse has perceived decision dominance is difficult. The question of whether or not this sample of husbands and wives will change their perception of decision dominance as they advance through the family life cycle, or after leaving school, is important. The effect of the university atmosphere on creating a tendency toward equalitarianism in marriage is unknown. Although, 106 this question cannot be answered within the design of this research study, comparing these results with those of other studies, it is clear that college and middle class populations indicate stronger equalitarian approaches than working class and lower educated populations (Udry, 1974: Safilios-Rothschild, 1969). The concept reflected in the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure needs to be further developed. First, overall decision scores give equal weight to all categories when some may be more important than others to subjects. This degree of importance may affect the perception of the decision area. Second, the specificity of the decision area may be important in the subject's perception of decision dominance. For example, "rearing of children" and "use of leisure time" are relatively general compared to "job wife should take" and "purchase of car." Two important variables are involved in who makes a decision where husband and wife are involved: perceived dominance and revealed dominance. Hypothesis 1, "subject's perceptions of decision-making dominance are not the same as that demonstrated by the decision-making task" was rejected. Hypotheses 2 and 3, dealing with spouse's perception of decision dominance and revealed decision dominance demonstrated by the task, also were rejected. Strong equalitarian scores on both measures and the very 107 small differences between spouses were responsible for their rejection. Both measures being in agreement gives a stronger indication of the reality of equalitarian decision-making than if both instruments had not been in agreement. Possible influences toward equalitarianism between husbands and wives in our culture are the feminist movement, the Equal Rights Amendment and Affirmative Action. The comparison of the results of the perceived decision dominance (Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure) and the behavioral decision task (Decision Task Instrument) show similarities that Suggest equalitarian decision-making is strongly indicated for this sample. It is difficult to say which of the two instru- ments more closely approaches reality in decision-making. The Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure is a realistic measurement of a subjects' perception of every- day decision-making. The Decision Task Instrument is a realistic measurement of decision-making in an observed experimentally contrived decision situation. The relationship between perception and observed behavioral measurements needs further exploration. Olson compared data from perception and observed behavioral measurements (Olson, 1969:549). He concluded that these two types of measures are not significantly related. However, he assumed that the observed behavioral measures 108 were a better approximation of actual family decision power (Olson, 1969:550). Olson's study has differing conclusions from the present study. It is possible that the actual decisions investigated in each study may intervene in whether perception and observed behavior coincide. In other words, this study may not have investigated marital decisions that were as immediately critical or threatening as in Olson's study. Whether the couple was actually struggling with problems associated with a given decision may be an intervening variable in perception. If this is the case, either the decisions in the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure or the Decision Task Instrument may not have been associated with current problems with which the couples were struggling. While Olson's methodological findings are not supported by the present study, the concept of decision dominance is similar to Olson's definition of family power. As reviewed in the literature in Chapter Two, Olson defined decision power outcomes as actual power (Olson, l975:6). This approximates the present study's concept of revealed decision dominance. The hypotheses are descriptive and test relation- ships between concepts. The findings of equalitarian decision dominance, both perceived and revealed, are more in keeping with some of the most recent research, other 109 than Olson, as reviewed in Chapter Two. Studies by Corralles, Cromwell, et al., and Hill and Klein, indicated strong equalitarian decision-making in financial and social areas, especially by young middle class couples. (Corralles, 1975: Cromwell, Klein and Wieting, 1975; Hill and Klein, 1973). Perception and revealed decision dominance are associated in this purposive sample. Further research continues to be needed on both theoretical and methodological issues in family decision- making. Methodological issues need to address the validity of measurement methods and reliability for weighing of items such as on the Decision Task Instrument and the Perception of Whose Opinion Prevails Measure. Theoretical issues need to further identify and describe degrees of perceived and revealed decision dominance on family decisions that are social and economic, as well as the relationships between them. Further exploration needs to be conducted on the relationship between perceived dominance and dominance revealed in decision situations. Decision Rationality The process by which a decision event is analyzed and evaluated is the degree of decision rationality. The Family Problem Instrument used a content analysis of written reactions to hypothetical situations to measure subjects' degree of decision rationality. 110 Hypothesis 7 "Each husband demonstrates more decision-making rationality than his wife in the economic decision situation" was not supported. Also not supported by the findings was hypothesis 8, "Each wife demonstrates more decision rationality than her husband in the unplanned pregnancy decision situation." These results, that husbands and wives did not differ in their degree of decision rationality, varies from the tendencies Baker found in her purposive sample of Mexican-Americans indicating husbands and wives differ in decision rationality according to the decision situation (Baker, 74:11). Spouses appeared to do about equally well on each hypothetical situation. The results in Baker's study also indicated that of the five decision categories, the "diagnostic orienta- tion," or looking for cause, scored the lowest degree of rationality; the category of "number of alternatives" received the highest score. Similarities are, therefore, apparent in both Baker's sample and the present sample. Baker's study included only eight couples, but tested six different decision areas (l974:6). Of the five categories of rationality measured for both samples, the lack of concern for causation in decision-making was clear. The most obvious and, perhaps, important conclu- sion from the data on the Family Problem Instrument is the subjects' lack of significant diagnostic orientation lll toward the causes of the problems presented them. Problem situations were generally accepted and treated as crises. Indeed, the situations were presented by the researcher as crises, but subjects usually dealt only with the effects and not the causes of the ”economic problem" and "unplanned pregnancy." Plans to avoid such problems in the future were rare. Most subjects reacted to the problem situation with little planned action to deal with root causes. Generally, there was no effort toward prevention. The educational implication is the need for programs to improve planning skills that prevent crisis situations. The comparison of alternative courses of action was the aspect of decision rationality which was used most by subjects. The evaluation of alternatives appeared to be the most important way for most subjects to deal with problems. Most subjects wrote between 10 and 20 lines on each hypothetical situation with some writing more than a page. Data collection methods enabled researchers to achieve 78% intercoder reliability. The hand written reactions could be coded in a minimal amount of time compared to taped interviews. In Baker's study on Mexican American Families, similar results were found using tape recording interviews and coding techniques. 112 The Family Problem Instrument does not measure the variable of planning. Decision rationality as measured by this instrument is affected by the individual's preplanning. This preplanning may be formalized and discussed between the couple in terms of budgets or specific intentions. Hypotheses 9 and 10 were rejected. No relation- ship existed between the couple's degree of discrepancy in decision rationality and couple's performance on the decision task or their perceptions of decision dominance. There may be three reasons for the discordance. The ability to discriminate differences between subjects should be improved by reworking the decision category of "looking for causation." Second, reactions to the hypothetical situations as compared to real situations may change in some subjects, and not in others. Third, the degree of rationality may not be related to perceived or revealed decision dominance. Sex, age, class and cultural prescriptions of the decision-maker may have more to do with decision dominance than the decision process. Conclusions Married subjects in this sample demonstrated a strong tendency toward equalitarian decision dominance. 113 The degree of decision rationality was not different in husbands when compared to their wives. When the discre- pancy of the degree of decision rationality was compared to couples' observed decision task behavior, no signifi- cant relationship was indicated. Also, no relationship between subjects perception of decision dominance and a couple's discrepancy in the degree of decision ration- ality was indicated. The present study supports the proposition that young American middle class married couples are largely equalitarian in their perception and performance of making specific decisions. The findings also suggest a positive relationship between the subjects' perception of decision dominance and decision dominance as revealed in a behavioral experimental situation. This study has proposed the concept of decision dominance to more specifically define family power outcomes as described by Olson and investigated by a number of researchers. B IBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Alderson, W. "Perspectives on the Planning Process." The Journal of the Academy of Management, 1959, 181-96. Bachove, C., and Zubaly, B. "An Exploratory Study on Family Interrelationships in a Small Sample of Non-Clinic Families." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Bryn Mawr College, 1959. Back, K. ”Decisions Under Uncertainty-Rational, Irra- tional, and Non-Rational." The Behavioral Scientist, 1961, 14-19. Baker, G. "Decision-Making in Families of Mexican Descent." Final report project No. 74-AMG-l307, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1974. Baker, G. "Decision Profiles of Mexican—Descent Families." Paper presented at the annual meetings of N.C.F.R., St. Louis, 1974a. ' Barton, S. G. "The Life Cycle and Buying Patterns." In L. H. Clark (ed.), The Life Cycle and Consumer Behavior. New York: New York University Press, I955, 53-57. Bauman, G., and Roman, M. "Interaction Testing in the Study of Marital Dominance." Fam. Proc., 5, 1966, 230-42. Beal, G. M., and Rogers, E. M. ”Information Sources in the Adoption Process of New Fabrics.” Journal of Home Economics, 49, October, 1957, 630-34. Bean, N. "Decision Class, Linkage and Sequence in One Central-Satellite Decision Complex." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. Blalock, H. M., and Blalock, A. B. Methodology in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Blood, R., and Wolfe, D. Husbands and Wives. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960. 115 116 Bott, E. "Urban Families: Conjugal Roles and Social Networks." Human Relations, 1955, 345-84. Boulding, K. The Economy of Love and Fear. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973. Brim, 0.; Glass, D.; Lavin, D.; and Goodman, N. Person- ality and Decision Processes. Stanford University Press, 1962. Bruner, J. S. "The Course of Cognitive Growth." American Psychologist XIX, 1964, 1-15. Bruner, J. S. et a1. Studies in Coguitive Growth. New York: John Wiléy and Sons, 1966. Bustrillos, N. "Decision-Making Styles of Selected Mexican Homemakers." Unpublished Ph.D. Disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1963. Centers, R., Raven, B. H., and Rodriques, A. "Conjugal Power Structure: A Reexamination." American Sociological Review 36:264-278, 171. Converse, P. D., and Crawford, C. M. "Family Buying: Who Does It? Who Influence It?" Current Economic Comment 11, November 1949, 38-50. Corrales, R. "Power and Satisfaction in Early Marriage." Power in Families. Cromwell, R. and Olson, D. (Ed.). New York: Halsted Press, 1975, 197-216. Cromwell, R., Kline, D. and Wieting, S. "Family Power: A Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis." In Cromwell, R. and Olson, D. (Ed.). Power in Families. New York: Halsted Press, 1975, 192-197. Cromwell, R. and Olson, D., (Ed.). Power in Families. New York: Halsted Press, 1975. ' Deacon, R., and Firebaugh, F. M. Home Management Context and Concepts. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1975. Diesing, P. Reason in Society. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962} Drucker, P. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper, 1954. Dunn, M. "Marriage Role Expectations of Adolescents." Marriage and Family Living 22, 1960, 99-111. 117 Dyer, W., and Urban, D. "The Institutionalization of Equalitarian Norms." Marriage and Family Living 20, 1959, 53-58. Etzioni, A. The Active Society, New York: Free Press, 1968. ' Feldman, S. P., and Spencer, M. C. "The Effect of Personal Influence in the Selection of Consumer Services." In Holloway, Mittelstaedt, Vanktesen (Ed.), Male vs. Female Influence in the Purchase of Selected Products. New York: Fawcett Publications, 1958, 247-57. Ferreira, A. J., and Winter, W. D. "Family Interaction and Decision-Making." Archives of General Psychiatry 13, 1965, 214-23. Ferreira, A. J., and Winter, W. D. "Stability of Inter- action Variables in Family Decision-Making." Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 14, 1966, 352-55. Ferreira, A. J., and Winter, W. D. "Decision-Making in Normal and Abnormal Two-Child Families." Family Process 7, 1968, 17-36. Ferreira, A. J., and Winter, W. D. "Information Exchange and Silence in Normal and Abnormal Families." Fam. Proc. 7, 1968a, 251-76. Goode, W. J. World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: Macmillan, 1970. Gross, 1., Crandall, E, and Knoll, M. Management for Modern Families. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1973. Halliday, J. R. "Relationships Among Certain Character- istics of a Decision Event: Decision Procedure, Decision Context, and Decision-Maker." Unpub- lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964. Harbison, F. Human Resources as the Wealth of Nations. London: Oxford University Press, 1973. Harries, N. G. "The Effect of a Programmed Course of Instruction on the Development of Information- Processing and Decision-Making Style." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. 118 Heer, D. "Dominance and the Working Wife." Social Forces 36, 1958, 341-47. Heer, D. "Husband and Wife Perceptions of Family Power Structure." Marriage and Family Living 24, 1962, 65-67. Heer, D. "The Measurement and Basis of Family Power: An Overview." Marriage and Family Living l2, 2, 1963, 133-39. Henell, O. MarketinglAspects of Housewives' Knowledge of Goods. Goteborg, Sweden: Institute fbr Market- ing and Management Research, 1953. Hill, R. "Decision-Making and the Family Life Cycle." In Shanas and Streib (Ed.), Social Structure and the Family. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice- Hall, 1965. Hill, R. Foote, N., Aldous, J., Carlson, R., and MacDonald R. Familleevelopment in Three Generations. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing CO., 1970. Hill, R. and Klein, D. Introduction in Sheldon (Ed.) Family Economic Behavior. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1973. Hogan, J. A. "Decision-Making Styles of Two Socioeconomic Groups of Home Makers." Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. Janis, I. and Mann, L. Decision-Making, New York: Free Press, 1977. Johnson, C. "Authority and Power in Japanese-American Marriage." In Olson, D. and Cromwell, R. (Ed.) Power in Families, 1975, 182-196. Kandel, D. B., and Lesser, G. S. "Marital Decision-Making in American and Danish Urban Families." Journal of Marriage and the Family 33, 1972, 134-38. Kantor, D., and Lehr, W. Inside the Family. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. Kenkel, W. "Sex of Observer and Spousal Roles in Decision- Making." Marriage and Family Living 23, 1961, 185-86. 119 Kenkel, W. "Observational Studies of Husband-Wife Inter- action in Family Decision-Making." In Susman (Ed.), Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1963. Kerlinger, F. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: HOlt, Rinehart and Winston,71964. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Bereleson, B., and Gaudet, H. The People's Choice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948. Levinger, G. "Supplementary Methods in Family Research." Fam. Proc. 2, 1963, 357-66. Likert, R. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Mason, R. G. "The Use of Information Sources in the Process of Adoption." Rural Sociology 29, March, 1964, 40-52. Middleton, R., and Putney, S. "Dominance in Decisions in the Family: Race and Class Differences." American Journal of Sociology 65, 1960, 605-09. Nye, I., and Bayer, A. E. "Some Recent Trends in Family Research." Social Forces 41, 290-301. Olson, D. "The Measurement of Family Power by Self-Report and Behavior Methods." Journal of Marriege and the Family 3, 1969, 545-50. Olson, D. and Rabrinsky, C. "Validity of Four Measures of Family Power." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1972, 225-232. Paolucci, B., Hall, 0., and Axim, N. Family Decision- Making; An Ecosystems Approach. New York: Wiley andlSons, l977l_ Plonk, M. A. "Exploring Interrelationships in a Central- Satellite Decision Complex." Journal of Home Economics 60, 1968, 790. Rieck, R. B., and Pulver, C. "An Empirical Measure of Decision-Making in Evaluating Farm and Home Development in Wisconsin." Research Bulletin 238, Univ. of Wis. Agr. Exp. Stat. and Coop. Ext. Ser., 1962, as shown in Halliday, 1964. 120 Roberts, J. B. ‘"Sources of Information in Food Buying Decisions." Southern Cooperative Series, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 85, 1963. Rodman, H. "Marital Power in France, Greece, Yugoslavia and the United States: A Cross National Discussion." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29, 1967, 320- 24. Safilios-Rothschild, C. "A Comparison of Power Structure and Marital Satisfaction in Urban Greek and French Families." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29, 1961, 345-352. Safilios-Rothschild, C. "Family Sociology or Wives' Family Sociology? A Cross-Cultural Examination of Decision-Making." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, 290-301. Samuelson, P. Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Scanzoni, J. "A Note on the Sufficiency of Wife Responses in Family Research." Pacific Sociological Review 1965, 109-15. Schlesinger, B. "A Survey of Methods Used to Study Decision-Making in the Family." Family Life Coordinator 11, 1962, 8-14. Schomaker, P. G. ”Financial Decision-Making as Reported by 100 Farm Families in Michigan.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., and Streufert, S. Human Information Processing, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Schroder, H. M. "Conceptual Complexity and Personality Organization." In Schroder and Suefeld (Ed.), Personality Theory and Information Processing. New York: Ronald Press, l97l. Sheldon, E. B. (Ed.) Family Economic Behavior. Philadel- phia: Lippincott, 1973. Simon, H. A. "Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science." The American Economic Review 49, 1959. Simon, H. A. Models of Man. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1957. 121 Sisk, H. L. Manegement and Organization. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co., 1973. Thierauf, R. J., and Grosse, R. A. Decision-Making Through Operations Research. New York? Wiley and—Sons, 1970. Thompson, E. M. "An Adaptation of the In-Basket Technique for Use in a Simulated Managerial Situation." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1967. Udell, J. G. Prepurchase Behavior of Buyers of Small Electrical Appliances." In S. H. Britt (Ed.) Consumer Behavior and Theory in Action. New York: John Wiley and—Sons, 1970, 461-64. Udry, R. The Social Context of Marriage. New York: Lippincott Co., 1974. Vidich, A. ”Methodological Problems in the Observation of Husband-Wife Interaction." Marriage and Family Living 18, 1956, 234-39. Wilkening, E. A., and Morrison, D. E. "A Comparison of Husband and Wife Responses Concerning Who Makes Farm and Home Decisions." Marriage and Family Living 25, 3, 1963, 349-51. Wilson, C., and Alexis, M. "Basic Frameworks for Decision." In William J. Gore and J. W. Dyson (Eds.), The Making of Decisions. Glencoe, 111.: The Glencoe Free Press, 1964. APPENDIX A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION APPENDIX A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION June 19, 1975 VOLUNTEERS: We are asking for your time and help in this study. We are Lee and Gigi Parker, both doctoral candidates in the Department of Family Ecology at Michigan State University and we are doing dissertations on married life. The purpose of our investigation is not to predict problems with marriage or mental health, but to describe values and family activity typical of married couples today. We are asking you to fill out a questionnaire to describe yourselves and your values about family roles, sex roles, economic concerns, decision-making, satisfac- tion and behavior. This will take about 1 to 1 1/2 hours and requires that both husband and wife complete it. We hope to find that people today have many different values and not just the "right" ones from any- one's perspective. Therefore, our study will not attempt to make judgments about your value choices and behavior to show that one is right or wrong. 123 124 We assure full confidentiality and will not identify your responses by name, address or student number. We shall ask you to sign a mailing list only if you want us to send you a summary of our results in August. The person contacting you is a graduate student who is working with us. He (she) will administer the questionnaire. Please feel free to contact us at any time if you have questions or are just interested in what we are doing. We hope you enjoy answering the questions. Thanks for participating in this study! Lee and Gigi Parker 16466 Spartan Village Phone: 353-7940 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE ON MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIFE EXPERIENCES Stanley Parker Angele Parker DIRECTIONS: These questions are about you and your spouse (marriage partner). Respond to questions as quickly as possible, and do not worry about the accuracy of one question in relation to another. Once you have finished one section, do Egg refer to it again, but go on to the following parts. Change answers only when on the same page of the question- naire and when absolutely necessary to be accurate. Use a No. 2 pencil. The answer sheet scores from left to right horizontally (+). Many of the questions are based on a seven point comparison between husband and wife, etc. Make sure that you read each question carefully as the comparisons reverse direc- tion frequently. Remember that your answers do not have to be logical or what society thinks, just true for you personally and your family. If you have any questions, the interviewer will be happy to answer them. Husband and wife are to do all questions separately and without communication until the interview is completed. Thank you for your willingness to share in this project. Be assured that information is confidential and that your answers will not be recorded with any identifying name or address. The purpose of this project is not to look at any one individual, but to look at the underlying values most people have today about themselves and the family. If you would like a summary of our dissertations, be sure to sign the mailing list the interviewer has with him (her). If you have any questions you would like to ask us, either before, during, or after the interview, feel free to call or write: 353-7940, 1646C Spartan Village, East Lansing, Michigan. Thanks so much again, and have a good summer! Lee and Gigi Parker (Stanley and Angele) Ph.D. Candidates Department of Family Ecology 126 127 Card Sort (DTI) In front of you there are twenty-four cards arranged by rows according to eight item categories. Each category has three cards each with a different dollar value. For example, the third category from the left is Stereo, Records and Television with three cards with the values of $299, $5QQ, and $§QQ. Imagine that you are in the following situation: "An explosion has destroyed all that you own in your apartment. You have only your car and what you and your spouse and children are now wearing. You have no money in the bank, no credit, no debts, and have been placed in an identical apartment which has a refrigerator, stove, and no other furniture or a pliances. The insurance company has just given you $3,000 to compensate your loss. Given the above situation our task is to replace your possessions by "purchasing‘ the items designated on the cards. You must decide how much of the $3,000 you are going to spend in each item category. You must spend all $3,000 and no more. Take as many cards from each category as you wish--one, two, three, or none. Take the cards in any order you wish. If you take two or three cards from one category, then add the amounts together. When you have "spent" $3,000 check your addition to make sure you have not "over spent." Then, give your chosen cards to the interviewer. If you have any questions please ask. After you have given your selected cards to the interviewer, go on to the next page. 128 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION (The following questions are about you.) 1. Your gender (0) Male; (1) Female. Your age in years (0) under 17; (1) 18-20; (2) 21-22; (3) 23-25; (4) 26—30; (5) 31-55; (6) 36 or older. Education completed (0) Elementary or less; (1) Junior high school; (2) High school or equivalent; (3) Technical training; (4) Two years college; (5) Four years college degree; (6) Masters degree; (7) Doctorate in process or achieved. Are you in school? If so, answer the first part. Otherwise, answer the second part. In school and working on: (0) Undergraduate degree; (1) Masters degree; (2) Doctoral degree. 9£_ Not in school and: (0) At home; (1) Work part-time (30 hours or less a week); (2) WOrk more than 30 hours a week. How old were you when you married your present spouse? (0) 16 or under; (1) 17-20; (2) 21-23; (3) 24-26; (4) 27-30; (5) 31-35; (6) 36 or older. Have you been divorced? (0) Yes; (1) No. (The following questions are about your family.) 7. How many children do you have? (0) 6 01' mom; (1) 5; (2) 4; (3) 3; (4) 2; (5) l; (6) None. How many children do you plan on having (including adoption and present children)? (0) 6 or more: (1) 5; (2) 4; (3) 3: (4) 2: (5) 1; (6) None. What religion are you and your spouse? (0) Mixture of two religions or one spouse is not religious; (1) Both Protestant; (2) Other; (3) Catholic; (4) Jewish. 129 DO NOT TURN BACK 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. How old is your spouse? (0) Under 17; (1) 18-20; (2) 21-22; (3) 23-25; (4) 26-30; (5) 31-35; (6) 36 or older. What education has your spouse completed? (0) Elementary or less; (1) Junior high school; (2) High school or equivalent; (3) Technical training; (4) Two ears college; (5) Four years college degree; (6 Masters degree; (7) Doctorate in process or achieved. Is your spouse in school? If so, answer the first part. Otherwise, answer the second part. In school and working on: (0) Undergraduate degree; (1) Masters degree; (2) Doctoral degree. or Not in school and: (0) Atvhome; (1) Work part-time (30 hours or less a week); (2) work more than 30 hours a week. How old was your spouse when you married? (0) 16 or under; (1) 17-20; (2) 21-23; (3) 24-26; (4) 27-30; (5) 31-35; (6) 36 or older. Has your spouse been divored? (0) Yes; (1) NO. Are you an interracial marriage? (0) N0; (1) Yes. What combined (total) income are you and your spouse earning this tax year before taxes are taken out? (0) $3,000 or less; (1) $3,100-$5,000; (2) $5,100- $8,000; (3) $8,100-$12,000; (4) $12,100-$l6,000; (5) $16,000-$20,000; (6) $20,000 or above. Have you or your spouse's parents separated or divorced? E0; Yes, both; (1) Yes, one set of parents only; 2 No. - How does the husband (you or your spouse) view his parent's marriage? (0) Extremely unhappy; (l) Moderately happy; (2) Extremely happy. How does the wife (you or your spouse (view her parent's marriage? (0) Moderately happy; (1) Very unhappy or very happy [both answers are (b)]. 130 DO NOT TURN BACK 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Realistic (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more fre- quently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Sympathetic (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Tactful (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Logical (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Religious (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Independent (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Warm (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Sensitive (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Aggressive (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. 131 DO NOT TURN BACK 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Competitive (O) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more fre- quently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Ambitious (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more fre- quently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Gentle (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Dynamic (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more fre- quently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Affectionate (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Polite (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Self-Confident (O) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Rate the following tasks and responsibilities according to which spouse does them more frequently than the other spouse in your family. Be as realistic as possible as there is no correct or best answer to these questions. Who does the following jobs in your family on a regular basis? 40. When both of you are in the car who drives? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. 132 DO NOT TURN BACK 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Who dusts, washes the floors and cleans the bathroom? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who dresses, feeds and entertains the children (child)? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Whose education or job determines where you live geographically? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who sends birthday, wedding, birth, bereavement and holiday cards or notes to relatives? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who is concerned with locking doors at night and when the family goes away on a trip? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who tends to give family members affection and reassurance when problems arise? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who makes medical and dental appointments for family members? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who helps the children (child) find playmates? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. 133 DO NOT TURN BACK 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. Who rough-houses (is physically playful) with the children (child)? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more fre- uently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; 4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who purchases the children (child's) clothing? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who participates in sports activities? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more fre- quently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who chooses insurance policies for the family? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more fre- quently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who decorates the house with plants, knick-knacks, curtains, pictures, etc.? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who initiates sexual activity between you on a regular basis? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who plans to be the major provider for the family economically? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more fre- quently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who makes the daily family meals? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. 134 DO NOT TURN BACK 57. 58. 59. Who takes care of repairs and services for the car(s)? (0) Husband almost always; 1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who prepares dinner When friends are invited over to eat? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who takes over in family crises such as a death? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Rate the following personality traits according to your personal values of the ideal woman and the ideal man. There is no correct or Best answer since everyone has their own ideals in life. In your own life you would personally like the following to be characteristic of which sex more than the other? 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. Sentimental (0) Female almost always; (1) Female more frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. Adventurous (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost always. Dominant (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost always. Neat (0) Female almost always; (1) Femalemore frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. Realistic (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost always. 135 DO NOT TURN BACK 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. Sympathetic (0) Female almost always; (1) Female more frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. Tactful (0) Female almost always; (1) Female more frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. Logical (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost always. Religous (0) Female almost always; (1) Female more frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. Independent (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost always. Warm (0) Female almost always; (1) Female more frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. Sensitive (0) Female almost always; (1) Female more frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. Aggressive (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost always. Competitive (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost alwaysf 136 DO NOT TURN BACK 74. Ambitious (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost always. 75. Gentle (0) Female almost always; (1) Female more frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. 76. Dynamic (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost always. 77. Affectionate (0) Female almost always; (1) Female more frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. 78. Polite (0) Female almost always; (1) Female more frequently; (2) Female slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Male slightly more; (5) Male more frequently; (6) Male almost always. 79. Self-Confident (0) Male almost always; (1) Male more frequently; (2) Male slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Female slightly more; (5) Female more frequently; (6) Female almost always. Rate the following family jobs and responsibilities accord- ing to your personal beliefs about the ideal husband/father and the ideal wife/mother. We all have ideals we don't live. Therefore, there is no correct answer since everyone has their own values in life. Ideally, the following tasks should be performed by which spouse more than the other? 80. When both of you are in the car who should drive? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. 81. Who should do the dusting, wash the floors and clean the bathroom? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (Husband almost always. 137 DO NOT TURN BACK 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. Who should dress, feed and entertain the children (child)? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Whose education or job should determine where you live geographically? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who should send birthday, wedding, birth, bereavement and holiday cards or notes to relatives? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who should be concerned with locking doors at night and when the family goes away on a trip? (0) Husband almost always; (I) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. Who should give family members affection and reassurance when problems arise? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who should make medical and dental appointments for family members? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who should help the children (child) find playmates? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. Who should rough-house (be physically playful) with the children (child)? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. 138 DO NOT TURN BACK 90. Who should purchase the children's (child's) clothing? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. 91. Who should participate in sports activities? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. 92. Who should chose insurance policies for the family? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. 93. Who should decorate the house with plants, knick-knacks, curtains, pictures, etc.? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. 94. Who should initiate sexual activity between you on a regular basis? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. 95. Who should plan to be the major provider for the family economically? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. 96. Who should make the family daily meals? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. 97. Who should take care of repairs and services for the car(s)? (O) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. 139 DO NOT TURN BACK 98. Who should prepare dinner when friends are invited over to eat? (0) Wife almost always; (1) Wife more frequently; (2) Wife slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Husband slightly more; (5) Husband more frequently; (6) Husband almost always. 99. Who should take over in family crises such as a death? (0) Husband almost always; (1) Husband more frequently; (2) Husband slightly more; (3) Both; (4) Wife slightly more; (5) Wife more frequently; (6) Wife almost always. The next questions ask about your dissatisfaction in married life. 100. When disagreements arise they generally result in: (0) Husband giving in; (1) Wife giving in; (2) Neither giving in; (3) Agreement by mutual give-and-take. 101. Do you and your mate agree on right, good, and proper behavior? (0) Always agree; (1) Almost always agree; (2) Occasionally disagree; (3) Frequently disagree; (4) Almost always disagree; (5) Always disagree. 102. Do husband and wife engage in outside activities together? (0) All of them; (1) Some of them; (2) Few of them; (3) None of them. 103. In leisure time, which do you and your mate prefer? (0) Both husband and wife to stay at home; (1) Both to be on the go; (2) ONe to be on the go and the other to stay home. 104. Do you and your mate agree on aims, goals, and things believed important in life? (0) Always agree; (1) Almost always agree; (2) Occasionally disagree; (3) Frequently disagree; (4) Almost always disagree; (5) Always disagree. 105. Do you and your mate agree on friends? (0) Always agree; (1) Almost always agree; (2) Occasionally disagree; (3) Frequently disagree; (4) Almost always disagree; (5) Always disagree. 106. Do you and your mate agree on ways of dealing with in-law? (0) Always agree; (1) Almost always agree; (2) Occasionally disagree; (3) Frequently disagree; (4) Almost always disagree; (5) Always disagree. 140 DO NOT TURN BACK 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. Do you and your mate agree on handling family finances? (0) Always agree; (1) Almost always agree; (2) Occasionally disagree; (3) Frequently disagree; (4) Almost always disagree; (5) Always disagree. Do you and your mate agree on amount of time spent together? (0) Always agree; (1) Almost always agree; (2) Occasionally disagree; (3) Frequently disagree; (4) Almost always disagree; (5) Always disagree. How often do you kiss your mate? (0) Every day; (1) Now and then; (2) Almost never. How frequently do you and your mate get on each other's nerves around the house? (0) Never; (1) Almost never; (2) Occasionally; (3) Frequently; (4) Almost always; (5) Always. Do you and your mate agree on demonstration of affection? (0) Always agree; (1) Almost always agree; (2) Occasionally disagree; (3) Frequently disagree; (4) Almost always disagree; (5) Always disagree. Have any of the following items caused serious difficulties in your marriage? Difficulties over money Lack of mutual friends Constant bickering Interference of in-laws Lack of mutual affection (no longer in love) Unsatisfying sex relations Selfishness and lack of cooperation Adultery Mate paid attention to (became familiar with) another person Drunkenness or alcoholism Other reasons (0) None of the above; (1) One of the above; (2) Two of the above; (3) Three of the above; (4) Four or five of the above; (5) Six or more of the above. Have you ever wished you had not married? (0) Frequently; (l) Occasionally; (2) Rarely; (3) Never. Do you and your mate generally talk things over together? (0) Never; (1) Now and then; (2) Almost always; (3) Always. 141 DO NOT TURN BACK 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. How happy would you rate your marriage? (0) Very happy; (1) Happy; (2) Average; (3) Unhappy; (4) Very unhappy. If you had your life to live again would you: (O) Marry the same person; (1) Marry a different person; (2) Not marry at all. What is the total number of times you left mate or mate left you because of conflict? (0) No times; (1) One time, (2) Two or more times. What are your feelings on sex relations with your mate? (0) Very enjoyable; (l) Enjoyable; (2) Tolerable; (3) A little enjoyable; (4) Not at all enjoyable. Do you and your mate agree on sex relations? (0) Always agree; (1) Almost always agree; (2) Occasionally disagree; (3) Frequently disagree; (4) Almost always disagree; (5) Always disagree. During sexual intercourse are your physical reactions satisfactory? (0) Very; (1) Somewhat; (2) A little; (3) Not at all. Is sexual intercourse between you and your mate an expression of love and affection? (0) Always; (1) Almost always; (2) Sometimes; (3) Almost never; (4) Never. 142 Whose Opinion Prevails (POP) Below are sixteen marital decision-making areas. On the answer sheet indicate for each of the sixteen decision areas the answer to the question: ”Whose opinion prevails in ?” Mark (0) if the husband's opinion prevails 80-100% of the time. Mark (1) if the husband's opinion prevails 60-80% of the time. Mark (2) if husband's and wife's opinions prevail an equal percentage of the time. Mark (3) if the wife's opinion prevails 60-80% of the time. Mark EEK if the wife's opinion prevails 80-100% of the time. (0) (l) (2) (3) (4) husband prevails husband both wife wife prevails 80-100% 60-80% equally 60-80% 80-100% 40-60% ”Whose opinion prevails in 122. Rearing of children 123. Use of available money 124. Relations with in-laws 125. What doctor to consult 126. Use of leisure time 127. Purchase of life insurance 128. Family size 129. Choice of friends 130. Purchase of clothes 131. Purchase of car 132. Purchase of furniture and household items 133. Job husband should take 134. Purchase of food 135. What house or apartment to rent 136. Use of credit cards 137. Job wife should take APPENDIX C INTERVIEWER DIRECTIONS 144 Familngroblem Instrument (FPI) #1 Below is a hypothetical situation. React to the situation in writing on the paper provided by the interviewer. If you need to, use both sides. "Suppose, you are expecting another child in approximately seven months. This birth was not planned and having another child at this time will add additional burdens on you and your spouse. What can or should you do to cope with this situation? Be as specific as you can as to how you would handle this problem." When you have finished turn your written statement into the interviewer and go on to the next page. 145 Family Problem Instrument (FPI) #2 Below is a second hypothetical situation. React in writing on the second sheet provided by the interviewer. "Suppose, that inflation is rising at 10 percent a year for all consumer goods and your present income will remain fixed. You will remain in your present housing at the same rent for the next three years. During this time, three years, what can or should you do to cope with your shrinking buying power? Be as specific as you can about the ways you would cope with this problem.‘ When you have finished turn your written statement into the interviewer. Also, turn in this booklet and the interviewer will conduct one more exercise to complete the session. APPENDIX D SCORING PROCEDURE FOR FAMILY PROBLEM INSTRUMENT APPENDIX D SCORING PROCEDURE FOR FAMILY PROBLEM INSTRUMENT FAMILY PROBLEM INSTRUMENT: DIRECTIONS FOR SCORING DECISION DIMENSIONS (Baker 74:18-20) Score one situation of the FPI at a time. Score at least ten cases at a time; randomly ordering the cases. It is permissible to compare one case with others in the same category that is being scored. Be sure couple number and sex role are masked before starting to score. There are five (5) decision categories to score. Theoretically, you can score them in any order. In prac- tice, we have found the following order facilitiates rapid, accurate scoring: diagnostic orientation number of alternatives process of comparing and ranking alternatives process of searching for and.using information total response UDWNH For each of these categories there are five possible scores: 3, 2, l, O, 9. Category 1: Diagnostic Orientation Causes of the problem are looked for (that is, the root, source, motive, and/or reason for the problem: the "why") and not only outcomes. Score Description Three or more causes of problem are explored. Two or more causes of problem are explored. One cause of problem is mentioned. No diagnosis is made: no causes are explored. Response cannot be scored. There is a response but no interpretation can be made: response is not clearly O, l, 2, or 3. \DOl—‘Nw 147 Category 2: 148 Number of Alternatives Various resources and goals (means-end combinations) or courses of action that will help to solve the problem are enumerated. Score 3 \OOl-‘N Category 3: Description Four or more alternatives or ways to confront problem (courses of action) are considered and elaborated upon. Three or more alternatives are considered and elaborated upon. One or two alternatives are mentioned. No alternatives are enumerated. (May be no response or subject may say, "I don't know.") Response cannot be scored. There is a response but no interpretation can be made: response is not clearly O, l, 2, or 3. Process of Comparing or Ranking Alternatives. The advantages or disadvantages of various alternatives or courses of action that would help to solve the problem are stated. or ranked. The alternatives may be compared, evaluated, Advantages or disadvantages are stated in terms of the likelihood of the outcomes and the consequences of the alternatives. Score 3 Category 4: Description Individual advantages and/or disadvantages of at least 3 alternatives are stated. Comparison or rank order of alternatives, one against another, is stated. Individual advantages and/or disadvantages of at least 2 alternatives are stated, with or without comparison of alternatives. Advantages and/or disadvantages of at least one alternative are stated. No evidence of evaluting alternatives by comparing them or by stating advantages and/or disadvantages. Response cannot be scored. There is a response but no interpretation can be made: response is not clearly 0, l, 2, or 3. Process of Inquiry For and Use of Information Reference is made to sources of information, indicating possible use of such knowledge in the solution of the problem (i.e., setting up alternatives or courses of action). 149 There is reference to 3 or more sources of a) experimental proof (trial and error) b) act of observing, examining or noting c) personal experience or experience of d) authoritative and known (acknowledged) sources (such as magazines, institu- tions, specialists, competent relatives) e) cultural self—knowledge/experience, belief, or facts derived from generalized cultural background (no specific informa- tion source noted) There is reference to two sources of infor- There is reference to one source of infor- There is no reference to sources of infor- Response cannot be scored. There is a response but no interpretation can be made: response is not clearly 0, l, 2, or 3. Score Description 3 information: with attention others 2 mation (a-e). l mation (a-e). O mation (a-e). 9 Category 5: Total Response The problem is considered in total as it is presented, and it is indicated that the problem can begeneralized (i.e., applied outside of the subjecth personal experience and this particular study family). Score 3 Description All problem aspects as presented are considered and the problem is generalized beyond the immediate situation (outside of both the Martinez family's experience and the subject's personal experience). Both elements (problem aspects and generali- zation are evident but incompletely or partially considered. One of the two elements is not considered; the other is wholly or partially stated. Neither of the total response elements are evident. Response cannot be scored. There is a response but no interpretation can be made: response is not clearly O, l, 2, or 3. APPENDIX E SCORING SHEET FOR DECISION TASK INSTRUMENT APPENDIX E SCORING SHEET FOR DECISION TASK INSTRUMENT Card Sort (DTI): Code Sheet Couple # Interviewer Category Husband Joint Wife Books Savings Stereo Furniture Kitchen Clothes--Child Clothes--Husband Clothes--Wife 151 ‘llVHHHIHHIIIHIWHIHHIWHHIIWIIWHIIWIHHI