b [I :1“. 5‘?" O ”(kn- :Ir-‘tIAI‘I‘Iz- . ' J.‘ 1' ‘ I" II . -. .. hart“! [fig-“Mlfifl‘. I -- ‘ 2. - 9 $1913???» - ... HI" V-‘j- do?“ “"4'1I2fifii IL '3 ‘ 1' (:35?! ~IIVI I IK'I if”; b .11::~ if}... Ii (‘11.:“J‘I {$3. J’Jl‘lg ‘MJ‘V'H " ' :b ’I‘v I 1M.%"5‘15‘* $37» II Fifi-:izsgzn’pmfis' ~. 5? I: . I I 11.44)?!" "I. ”'5!" 1" '11:: I I ' 'r :I’l ' ll 1'11!!!“ .‘rIIIf' "‘\ 0 I::‘.':I‘r A9353: ' .I . I. _ . ”:1"! Icufl 4'1." Wm IPIIIIH v-IIII’.‘ " I1”. ~1 ' . LEW \I . , 'I 'w II‘ ' ‘ 3‘5“" '-‘I\"$".'~ .' " .Hl. - 1‘('JI II-.." IL I ~. . II... '-,\f.I In t. .I' 1':;».’"‘-_-- ' ' I I . - , k3" ‘I'i'i- ”E'th‘III‘H‘fl" IIIIJ,',I'II‘ ; II I II I ‘VI‘I Sp'rrétt“ '7‘ mé'y ”KHI I up. “ ‘ I1T3,£I$ . -.:. . 1-.- ‘——-‘ -_ -.J n 5,." ' 7‘11" ' - "‘ ‘ \'.. I I . A?“ D “U. ' 0.- <. ' . . '. r'_ ‘ 7‘ 1‘ I 1"“1‘ I".\' u I . _ a. 1 4 ~11 . . a“ "I‘M“. .1131": 50 . - I IIII- 1 f} :1 II . ‘ ‘f'. III :A é I ”15‘ I I.‘)'3II1{.§ I? a L" - I I 4 L‘ . $1.43.. "a I . ' .9; .~ 1 IIIIL'E .I- Q - §IS.I..),f.G IV‘S I: I 1.. , , 135,535., W"‘§MI »- Erulhzl‘ UV!“ » - i ‘I "‘ I '. ’ ‘. ‘1'."gfizzilzfi . A '¥ “ . k-«v “" _II.I>I1I-l- ,' \ I, II *-'I , . lI-Ir'v':;I‘ ,\ I. 'I Iug‘Jn ”‘3‘ . “ ' ‘ In». ' " "'1'? 12'6""? W ‘ 1:31;. :1. i': .1."~\ Av. . 'V " U. ""‘""L‘2‘. '33sz ‘2’“??? ‘ _ ' . L VHL " "J ‘ o I ,' ‘ .\ “:11; I “611% ' ‘ .1. «I! “11¢, .f‘mxééfceffi - ‘misfi'i'i IL :1 '0 < . . ' ‘ V .- . 3:13.55!“ ‘RILIM Sggg‘ ‘3' ’ ~- W... H" ‘ V_ . \. h [‘0 313.: "mum p31? I'IH' x.‘ I ‘ ‘ . .‘ - I'I'1 -'v~ I' I 1' I '1 11 HI 30:1II~_.I -' . . OID‘II. If? I ' .k-I‘ISI - .u‘ .' ‘u Ir. mfg-I.- . . M? . a . .- II ' ' . ~ ' . " “‘3': .. ~ ~=;2'-. ~* I- roIIIII ”I‘m. :1'-‘ ' 1‘ ‘ >I‘ ‘a‘ I‘ J“; 'I‘ ' I I. ' ‘v 1"} “‘01. h." . I I» a "t' _ “OsiiiI 1‘; ‘11:“ ”CI‘IU ‘ .'II I”. sltIIIIIVI I.\'¢~I‘I\-I,\{FINJ‘I\ WILL S' I; ‘I TQM Juv ~III ‘I 'o "‘1 13 r' V- ‘\1"""‘l‘ 5:19 ‘11)};J6; - :1 ”$541.33"? ‘|."I" II?“ " - I ‘ ‘~.'- 1.30". n‘l ‘ '1'. (kl-3‘” V I -~£~.I'J."~;G?I'F\r‘~' I *1 n :11' ‘11" ~ I IR '~‘ .‘1 VA ‘ If? NF.“ (7/1432 -.Y' 4 . :T l‘ 9'.“ “3',sz ’ IV. ’ I"? ._. h,"‘l ’2‘? 3 . A'- I 1. 1-5;," , ,' I,'-"-§.‘I'.’II"‘IC, 2.2;. [II 31".(2'. 3" 1-"?I1'Ib‘ I I ‘kté '. :12: IYIQIII‘InI u." l ltd-‘3 '1'». WC . t.IJ ' . -'.I.‘1' Iv."1'o 2:3 I ‘I I‘..'IA'. ._I 5 VII I . ni'I‘I 5.25% (3.}: ‘I-H‘.‘ ' i‘v ”11“.“ "'1“ I \‘W ‘I. . .I». .I I - -‘- MRI. \vm'. 1.1L» 3"‘JM Ni Ht! VH3?" :"III-E: C "Ilium L“H¢.‘“¢:¢h-II ’5' "‘I{ 1%1". :" l‘ "H" Maggi}, .I‘I'u' IL. I“. ' . " . . I" )'I I ( 'I If ‘I‘l I . " , \‘II‘IIIII.;~ , If ‘I \~|'.,I" . . . I“ II . I! '11“ . 1-. 5. I. .I ‘\~"I§\ Ix?" I". I .~ I‘ - ' '1. '-" 13“ 3' ‘c‘l‘. I 1'. u I‘IIIII‘IIII‘ I “I“,- .‘ ."-.'I.IIII:III. 4nI ‘ ' I "‘Il1‘ . ‘I‘u'5-‘II" I”; ‘ ‘0'; :II' é\_' .. I. I . 'IIIR'?II/I 'n' H'W’ ‘ III‘H'I“ ,ffl IIIIIW ‘IN‘, [hi1 3H ‘1. ‘.I . " .. , ‘29-‘17 4,; “H 5552:1145 .. 'IW «1"th 11% - r at I It: LIBRARY W5" Blinds] III III III I III IIII IIII II III II III II III IIII III 3 1901 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTIONS IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: A NEW APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS presented by Glenn James Veenstra, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Psychology %%%4 Major professor Date August 7, 1978 0-7639 THE SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTIONS IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: A NEH APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS By Glenn James Veenstra. Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1978 ABSTRACT THE SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTIONS IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: A NEW APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS By Glenn James Veenstra. Jr. Called SAPIR (Systematic Analysis of Perceptions in Inter- personal Relationships), a new approach to the assessment of interpersonal relationships was developed and applied to married couples. It has a richer theoretical foundation than comparable contemporary approaches of Laing, Phillipson, and Lee (1966) and Alperson (1975), and it more comprehensively samples and analyzes couples' perceptions. SAPIR's principles were used to construct the Marital Perceptions Questionnaire (MPQ) which asked husband and wife to each rate actual self and actual spouse behaviors' and ideal self and ideal spouse expectations from their own and their spouse's point of view on 63 selected interpersonal issues. This resulted in 16 ratings for each issue which were analyzed at three levels: (1) viewpoints, ratings were summed yielding Loving and Dominance scale scores for each of the 16 viewpoints; (2) comparisons, direction and extent of differences between viewpoint scores yielded measures of role differentiation, dissatis- faction, disagreement, and misunderstanding; and (3) patterns, Glenn James Veenstra, Jr. pattern of differences between comparisons measured externalized dissatisfaction, rating favorability, and complementary need patterns. To evaluate SAPIR's validity, the MP0 and a widely used index of marital satisfaction, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (OAS), were admin- istered to 80 couples, 60 randomly sampled young couples and 20 couples who had sought marital counseling. Correlations were deter- mined between the couples' DAS scores and all MP0 measures. As hypothesized, the less adjusted the couple, the more hostile and dominating they rated their actual relationship and the less love and submissiveness they expected ideally. Role polarization increased with maladjustment. as each saw their spouse as less loving than her/himself. The more maladjusted, the greater was couples' dissatis- faction with their actual behavior. especially with the behavior of their spouses who were perceived as needing to change more than self. Both disagreement and misunderstanding correlated inversely with marital satisfaction. and more unhappy spouses expected their partners to rate them more unfavorably than they deserved. Beyond replicating (at the .0001 for most correlations) much prior marital perception research, the MP0 provided empirical support for the clinical observation that maladjusted marriages are characterized by a destructive pattern of depreciating spouse while enhancing self. Multiple regression equations showed that optimal combinations of MP0 measures accounted for over 75% of DAS variance for husbands and more than 85% for wives. The MPQ's measures and refinements predicted DAS better than previously used measures, supporting SAPIR's utility in assessing marital relationships. DEDICATION To the Lord who leads me on my journey. To Joyce and Christi who accompany me on my journey. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Dr. John Hurley for providing the freedom and encouragement to venture into new areas, for his patience with my progress, and fer his help and guidance in the project. I am also grateful for the support and assistance of the other members of my committee, Dr. Robert Zucker, Dr. Donald Melcer, and Dr. Richard Levine. I appreciated the cooperation of Dr. John Hurley, Dr. Donald Melcer, Mr. Wayne Parker, Ms. Marilyn Viera, Ms. Lee 0lson,and the Psycho- logical Clinic in providing couples to participate in the study. The computer resources and other assistance provided by the Department of Psychology through Mr. Roger Halley, Ms. Kris Burgess, and Ms. Carol Hoeke were also very much appreciated. The special typing done by Mrs. Jan Buis was a real bJessing on so many occasions. Finally, the understanding and support of my wife, Joyce, has meant so much to me, and I am very thankful for her companionship in this endeavor. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................ ix INTRODUCTION .......................... 1 EXPLANATION OF SAPIR APPROACH ................. 4 Theoretical Assumptions and Basic Definitions ....... 4 Components of a Perception .............. 6 Sampling of Perceptual Viewpoints ............. 16 Issues Sampled on the MP0 .............. 16 Rating Scale Used on the MPQ ............. 27 Sampling of Viewpoints ................ 30 Method of Analysis .................... 42 Viewpoint Analysis .................. 42 Comparison Analysis ................. 45 Pattern Analysis ................... 73 Summary of Approach .................... 92 EVALUATION OF THE SAPIR APPROACH ................ 95 Hypotheses ........................ 95 Viewpoint Hypotheses ................. 97 Comparison Hypotheses ................ 100 Pattern Hypotheses .................. 113 iv Table of Contents (Cont.) Page Method .......................... 120 Subjects ....................... 120 Materials ...................... 127 Procedures ...................... 128 Results .......................... 130 Viewpoint Hypotheses ................. 132 Comparison Hypotheses ................ 134 Pattern Hypotheses .................. 153 Discussion ........................ 162 Conclusion ........................ 187 APPENDICES A. General Instructions for the Marital Perceptions Study (For Community Couples) .............. 190 B. General Instructions for the Marital Perceptions Study (For Therapy Couples) ............... 193 C. Departmental Research Consent Form (For Community Couples) ..................... 196 0. Departmental Research Consent Form (For Therapy Couples) ..................... 197 E Participant Information Form ............. 198 F Dyadic Adjustment Scale ................ 199 G. Marital Perceptions Questionnaire Instructions . . . . 201 H Sample Page from MPQ Booklet ............. 203 I. Summary of Marital Perceptions Questionnaire Indices for Couple No. 118 ................ 204 J. Summary of Marital Perceptions Questionnaire Pattern Analyses for Couple No. 118 ............ 205 Table of Contents (Cont.) K. MPQ Ratings on Each Individual Issue for Dominance, Submission Clusters Couple No. 118 ....... LIST OF REFERENCES ....................... vi 207 _Table to 00 \J O! 01 «D 0) N o o o o o I o o H O 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. LIST OF TABLES Page Basic Characteristics of Questions on MPQ Loving Scale . . 22 Basic Characteristics of Questions on MPQ Dominance Scale 24 Basic Characteristics of Residual Questions on MPQ . . . . 25 Definition of Viewpoint Codes .............. 36 Calculation Formulas for Comparison Scores on MPQ . . . . 52 Definition of Perceived Role Differentiation Comparisons . 55 Definition of Perceived Dissatisfaction Comparisons . . . 61 Definition of Perceived Disagreement Comparisons ..... 64 Definition of Interpersonal Disagreement Comparisons . . . 64 Definition of Interpersonal Misunderstanding of Agreement Comparisons ..................... 67 Definition of Dissatisfaction Pattern Indices ...... 75 Definition of Consensus Pattern Indices ......... 83 Definition of Favorability Pattern Indices ........ 85 Definition of Complementary Need Pattern Indices ..... 89 Percentage of Community Couples Participating in the Study 122 Demographic Data for Groups ............... 124 Correlation of Demographic Variables with Dyadic Adjust- ment Scores ..................... 126 Dyadic Adjustment Statistics for Groups ......... 131 Correlations between Dyadic Adjustment Scale and MP0 Viewpoint Ratings .................. 133 Correlations between Extent of Perceived Role Differentia- tion and Dyadic Adjustment .............. 135 vii List of Tables (cont.) Table 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Page Correlations between Direction of Perceived Role Dif- ferentiation and Dyadic Adjustment .......... 137 Correlations between Extent of Perceived Dissatisfaction and Dyadic Adjustment ................ 140 Correlations between Direction of Perceived Dissatisfaction and Dyadic Adjustment ................ 141 Correlations between Extent of Interpersonal Disagreement and Dyadic Adjustment ................ 143 Correlations between Extent of Perceived Disagreement and Dyadic Adjustment ................ 145 Correlations between Direction of Interpersonal Disagreement and Dyadic Adjustment .......... 147 Correlations between Direction of Perceived Disagreement and Dyadic Adjustment ......... .. 148 Correlations between Extent of Interpersonal Misunderstanding and Dyadic Adjustment ........ 150 Correlations between Direction of Interpersonal Misunderstanding and Dyadic Adjustment ........ 151 Correlations between Dissatisfaction Internalized/Extern- alized Pattern Indices and Dyadic Adjustment ..... 154 Correlations between Consensus Pattern Indices and Dyadic Adjustment ................ 156 Correlations between Favorability Pattern Indices and Dyadic Adjustment ................ 158 Correlations between Complementary Need Pattern Indices and Dyadic Adjustment ................ 160 Comparison of Mean Number of Perceived and Interpersonal Disagreements .................... 167 Correlation Matrix of Husband's Basic MPQ Measures on Loving Scale .................... 176 Correlation Matrix of Wife's Basic Measures on Loving Scale .................... 177 Prediction of Dyadic Adjustment by Multiple Regression with MPQ Measures .................. 179 Figure 1. OmNOtU'I-DWN 0—4 0 LIST OF FIGURES Basic Elements of SAPIR Approach ............. Display of Elements in SAPIR Approach .......... Original Ordering Of MPQ Issues ............. Illustration of MPQ Viewpoints .............. Perceived Role Differentiation Comparisons ........ Perceived Dissatisfaction Comparisons .......... Perceived and Interpersonal Disagreement Comparisons . . . Interpersonal Misunderstanding Comparisons ........ All MPQ Comparisons ................... Dissatisfaction Patterns ................. ix Page 5 15 19 37 59 62 65 68 71 77 INTRODUCTION As McLeod and Chaffee (l973) have pointed out, psychology has tended to look within the individual for explanations of human behavior, and as a result most of the assessment instruments developed by psychologists have foCused on the personality of the individual. These tests were of some use to therapists who worked with clients individually. However, as the importance of interpersonal phenomena has been more clearly understood, therapists have become more con- cerned with changing the relationship between people instead of just changing the individual. Marital and family therapists who are in the forefront of this movement have found that the personality tests are of limited usefulness in their work because relationships are more than the sum of the personalities of each participant. What is crucial in understanding a relationship is the interaction between the personalities of each participant. While it has been difficult to conceptualize individual personalities themselves, the task of conceptualizing personalities in interaction is even more complex, for as Buber (l957) has pointed out each person is influenced by not only their own personality but also by their perception of the per- sonality of the other and by their perception of the other's percep- tions. According to Alperson (1975) research efforts to understand this field of interpersonal perceptions waned in the l960's following (Zronbach's (l958) rather devastating critique of earlier methodologies, 2 but he reports a recent resurgence of interest in this area which he partially attributes to more systematic methods of ordering and analy- zing the complex field of perceptions present in an interpersonal situ- ation. He cites Laing, Phillipson, and Lee's (l966) interpersonal perception method (1PM), Drewery's (l969) interpersonal perception tech- nique (IPT), and Scott, Ashworth, and Carson's (l970) family relation- ship test (FRT) as examples of new instruments designed to aid the marital and family therapist better understand the nature of the inter- personal relationships they work with. At first glance each of these tests seems very different in vocabulary and analytic procedures, but as Alperson shows, the same basic concepts are utilized in each. He develops a Boolean algebra to make these communalities clearer and to serve as a more logical basis upon which to expand and refine these approaches. The purpose of this dissertation is to develop and test a new approach which both synthesizes and elaborates on the work of these earlier researchers and as a result yields more information about dyadic relationships. For convenience it will be called the SAPIR approach which stands for the systematic analysis of perceptions in interpersonal relationships. The SAPIR approach differs from the approaches discussed by Alperson in several respects. First it expands the theoretical basis upon which the approach is founded to include the work of Newcomb (T953), Scheff (l967), and McLeod and Chaffee (l973). This is done to more clearly integrate the approach with its historical roots in social psy- chology which are summarized by McLeod and Chaffee in their review of the field. Secondly, it more comprehensively samples the perceptual field of the participants as Foa (l966) and Murstein and Beck (1972) lnave done. Thirdly, it uses a rating scale which is simpler to under- 3 stand and yields more information than Alperson's Boolean algebra. Finally, it more comprehensively analyzes the perceptions in a way which avoids more of CronbachIs criticisms and also yields more information. The validity of these claims will be evaluated by incorporating the SAPIR approach into an assessment instrument, the Marital Perceptions Questionnaire (MPQ). If the MPQ can provide a more comprehensive pic- ture of how a marital relationship changes as it becomes more or less adjusted, then the usefulness of the SAPIR approach will have been demon- strated. Before this can be done, it is necessary to understand the SAPIR approach, and this requires a careful and logical derivation and development from its theoretical premises. EXPLANATION OF THE SAPIR APPROACH Theoretical Assumptions and Basic Definitions To minimize complexity, the SAPIR approach begins with the simplest form of interpersonal interaction, the dyad. Though the SAPIR approach is applicable to any dyad, only the marital dyad of husband and wife will be discussed since it is the present study's focus. It is possible to expand the SAPIR approach to include three or more party interactions such as a family with a mother, father, and children, but this will not be attempted here. Whenever two people are placed together, their actions will begin to influence each other, and this interaction creates a relation- ship between them. Though a relationship encompases all the interaction, usually people define their relationship in terms of the behavior which they expect to occur in future interactions. Usually this involves an abstraction of certain characteristics of the behavior rather than the specification of the exact behavior. For example, a married couple does not specify in advance exactly how each will behave in every anticipated situation, rather they establish an expectation that they will act in a loving manner in all sorts of situations. The general relationship and the specific behaviors are mutually influencing. The relationship is established by how the couples perceive the specific interactions thetween them, and the way specific behaviors are interpreted depends ()n how the couple perceives their relationship. 4 5 To facilitate explication, the model will often be transformed into diagrams depicting the relationships between its elements. These elements will be denoted by coded abbreviations to save space both in the diagrams and in the tables of data. Because of the semantic com- plexities involved in the web of perceptions, every researcher in this field has found it necessary to develop some sort of coding system. While these codes are useful, they also often create an initial stumbling block to the reader who must spend time learning the codes before he can interpret the results. Realizing this, an effort has been made to keep the codes understandable by following three principles. First, common symbols will be used such as letters and numbers which are familiar to the reader and can be readily reproduced on typewriters and computer printers. Second, the codes will be made mnemonic if possible so that the meanings will be easier to remember. Finally coding rules will be established which give a consistency to the overall system and make it easier to decipher the codes. So by representing the husband and wife by their respective capitol letters, "H" and "W", and by representing the act of perceiving by an arrow; then the basic elements of the SAPIR approach can be diagramed as shown in Figure l. Figure 1 Basic Elements of the SAPIR Approach H———-> Relationship (————-W \\\\\\\‘iBehavior‘(/////// 6 Figure l is essentially a relabeled version of Newcomb's (l953) coorien- tation or A-B-X model which has been utilized in so many social psychology experiments. By deriving the SAPIR approach from this model it is possible to utilize many of these findings to predict what results can be expec- ted when couples perceptions are studied with the SAPIR approach. As Figure l shows, the model is studying the couples' perceptions of their behavior and relationship. Their real behavior may or may not be con- gruent with their perceptions. The model cannot determine the validity of the perceptions, but it does assume that how a person responds to a situation is determined more by their perception of it than by the objective reality of it. This assumption has long been the basic assump- tion of phenomenological approaches to human interaction (McLeod, l958). In the SAPIR approach the couples' perception of their behavior will be analyzed in order to infer the characteristics of the relationship between them. But in order to do this it is necessary to differentiate more completely what the components of the perception are. Components of a Perception Context. One of the components of all perceptions is the context in which they take place. Events perceived always take place in a particular setting, at a particular time, and against the background of a particular history; and changes in these aspects of the context can have a profound influence on how a person perceives a particular event. Since the context is like a picture frame which encloses the event, it will be represented by parentheses "()" which will enclose the other elements of the perceptual field, and different contexts \vill be represented byia numerical subscript. Thus if a "l" is used 'to code the first years of marriage, then the husband's perceptions of 7 his marriage during the first year is coded: Ha>( )1. If there is no subscript, it will be assumed in this paper that the context is the present situation. Issue;_ Theoretically any sort of event or object could be the focus of the couples' perceptions. In many social psychology experi- ments political or value judgments are the focus, but in this approach the desire is to understand the couples interaction so the focus will be on the feelings and behavior generated in the interaction itself. Following Laing's convention, the particular behavior or feeling being focused on will be called an issue_which is the second component of per- ceptions. The issue will be represented by a lower case letter in this study. Thus feelings of trust could be represented by "t", and He>(t) would mean the husband's perception of someone's trusting in a particular context. One of the difficult tasks for the researcher using the SAPIR approach is defining the specific issue being focused on. A vast number of behaviors occur simultaneously and rapidly in a human interaction, and an issue is always an abstraction of certain aspects of that behavior which are judged to be relevant to the interaction. The researcher endeavors to define the issues he is interested in clearly enough so that both he and the perceiver can be talking about the same thing. How- ever, the SAPIR approach recognizes that it is highly unlikely that two people's definitions of an issue are the same, and thus many of the dis- crepancies in perception which are inevitably found can be attributed to differences in definitions (Katz, l965). The second major task for the researcher is choosing issues \vhich are highly relevant to the relationship so that he will gain as rnuch information as possible about the relationship. Relevance is 8 defined as the amount of change in the perception of the relationship which results from differences in the perception of a particular issue. Relevance is determined to a large degree by the salience and importance of the issue. Salience is how easily perceived the issue is against the background of all the events taking place. If an issue has low salience, a person is unlikely to notice it and hence will not be influenced by it. So the researcher tries to choose salient issues to study. For these salient issues, the emotional importance or value that the per- ceiver attaches to the iSsue determines its relevance. If a wife, for example, values expressions of affection more than her husband, then a decline in these expressions will cause a greater deterioration of the relationship for the wife than for the husband. A final aspect of the issue which the researcher must be con- cerned about is the organization of the issues. Typically the researcher combines issues to create a scale, but this act implies a certain cog- nitive relationship between the issues and it is unlikely that a couple relates issues to other issues exactly as the researcher does. Thus the researcher must try to build an instrument which is sensitive to indivi- dual differences in how issues are organized. Person's perceived-~subect and object. The next component of the perception is the people who are performing the behaviors being ob- served by the couple. Theoretically, the person's being perceived could be anyone, e.g. the couple's children, parents, friends. However, in order to extract the most information about the couple, they will be perceiving themselves in this study. In keeping with English grammar, the person who is experiencing the feeling or performing the behavior which is the issue will be called the subject, and the other person upon whom the behavior is performed or toward whom the feeling is dir- ected will be called the object, Since subject precedes object in most English sentences, the same arrangement will be used to code these elements. Thus, for example, if in a particular context the husband trusts his wife this would be coded (H t W), and if the wife trusts her husband this would be coded (W t H). Because in this study the persons being perceived have been restricted to the interpersonal relationship between the husband and the wife, once the subject of an action is speci- fied, the object is by definition the other person. This means the coding only needs to specify the subject. If the husband's trusting behavior is the issue, it can be automatically assumed that he is trusting his wife. In other studies where the couple's perceptions of their intra- personal (Laing et al., 1966) relationships or their relationships with children (Scott et al., l970) are studied, it becomes necessary to specify and code the object also, so one can be clear whether the husband is trusting himself, his wife, or his child. Reference. When people perceive behaviors, they usually evaluate them by comparing them to some standard or reference which constitutes the next component in the SAPIR approach. A married couple could compare their agtg§1_behavior with a variety of different references--e.g. their parents' marriages, their friends' marriages, marriages in general-—but in this study their ideal_expectations of a marriage will be used as a reference since they have been shown to have an important influence on the couple's relationship (Sager, l976). In this study, the actual behavior being performed will be coded with an "A", while the ideal expectation against which it is compared will be coded with an "1". Thus how much the husband actually trusts his wife can be written as (A-H t W), while the ideal expectation is (I-H t W). Perspective. What really complicates interpersonal perception 10 is the next component--perspective. Couples not only have their own perceptions of a certain issue but they can also perceive and are in- fluenced by their partner's perceptions of the issue. The importance of perceptions of the other partner's perceptions was recognized by Cooley in l902 and made the basis of his famous concept of the "looking- glass self." Most of the recent models in this field (Laing et al., l966; Drewery, l969; Scott et al., l970; Alperson, l975) are designed to explore this element. Laing's system for conceptualizing it is one of the most systematic, and it is from his writings that the term perspective is borrowed since it seems to more clearly explain this component than other terms such as Foa's (l966) alias. The simplest or fir§t_order perspective on an issue is how the person himself/herself sees the issue. For example, how the hus- band sees his actual trusting of his wife which would be coded as: lL€>(A-H t W). Laing calls this the direct perspective, but in this study it will be called one's gwg_perspective since this term is easier to understand. In any dyad there are always two first order perspectives, (3.9., the husband's and the wife's or using the coding: H;>(A-H t W)W->(A-H t W). Similarly the wife perceives her husband's view of his trusting which is W>H->(A-H t W). It is possible to continue develOping higher order perspectives MH1ich Laing (l97l) seems to delight in doing, but in his research he Sinaps at the third order, his meta-meta perspective. An example of this would be the husband's perception of his wife's perception of his per- 11 ception of how trusting he is which can be coded as: Ha>We>H€>(A-H t W). In the SAPIR model this is called one's own reflection since this term seems to more aptly characterize it. Though this perspective has some useful psychological characteristics, it was not explored in this study for three reasons. First, it is hard for many people to grasp the meaning of this perspective well enough to use it in a questionnaire. Secondly, it makes a questionnaire extremely long and laborious if it is included. Thirdly, the author believes that little new information about the couple is gained from it. But it is an interesting perspective to consider in theoretical discussions such as Laing's work. The reader has probably noticed that each succeeding perspec- tive involved an additional arrow, so an easy way to code these per- spectiveS'B by the number of arrows involved. Thus, one's own perspec- tive is coded "l"; the other's perspective becomes "2", and one's own reflected perspective becomes "3". Since this study has restricted the perceiver's to a husband and wife, they will always be perceiving the other spouse, and the next person in the chain of coding arrows will always be other person's symbol. This makes it possible to further simplify the coding by only using the perceiver's letter code and the number representing the order of perspective instead of a long series of letters and arrows. For example, the husband's own reflection of his trusting can be reduced from H>W9H9(A-H t W) to H 3 (A-H t W). Level. Once a person realizes that other persons' behavior is influenced by their perceptions of his perceptions, then a person tries to influence others by influencing their perceptions of him. A person may try to appear a certain way even though he does not really feel that way if he believes this to be to his benefit. For example, a husband who suspects his wife of being unfaithful may act as if he 12 trusts her in order to give her a false sense of security which will make it easier to catch her being unfaithful. By publicly acting as if he trusts her, he hopes to confirm his private perception of dis- trust. Following Leary's (l957) convention this component of the SAPIR model will be called leyel. Psychoanalytic theory differentiated be- tween conscious and unconscious levels of feelings; Goffman (1959) talks about a person's front (what he wants other people to see and think) and back (what he really feels or thinks which is inconsistent with the front), and Leary differentiates five different levels. First, the public communication or how a person acts. Second, the conscious communication or what a person says. Third, the private perception or what a person thinks or feels. Fourth, the unexpressed or what a person represses or omits, and finally the values, or ideal expectations. Accor- ding to the SAPIR model, Leary's last level really belongs in a different category, the reference component, since it is possible to have different ideal expectations at each level. Clearly level is an important concept in psychological theory, one which the SAPIR model acknowledges and can explore. It will be coded in this dissertation as either "F" for front or public expression or "B" for back or private expression placed before the reference code. Thus, the husband's perception of how trusting he privately feels toward his wife is coded H€>(B-A-H t W). The SAPIR approach is based on a study of the following com- ponents of a perception: person perceiving (husband, wife), person perceived (subject,object), issue, context (first married, now), reference (actual, ideal), perspective (own, others), and level (public, private). The SAPIR approach assumes that these components vary and that it is important to specify what they are in any particular perception. In this model a particular perception will be called a viewpoint since it 13 is but a point in a larger perceptual field. To gain an idea of the scope of this perceptual field, consider an example in which the components are allowed to have only the two values specified in the parentheses above. For any single issue there are 26 possible combi- nations of the other components or 64 possible viewpoints. It would require a 64 item questionnaire just to sample this field of possible perceptions on a single issue. Since both researchers and people in general are interested in a large number of different issues, the obvious question becomes how do they handle the tremendous number of perceptual data points implied by the SAPIR approach? The SAPIR approach postulates a twofold answer. First, both researchers and people in general limit their viewpoints to those they feel are most relevant. Laing et al (l966), for example, are not interested in per- ceptions of ideal expectations and people in general may not be very concerned with the other's perspective. Secondly, people may remember the relationship between one set of viewpoints and another and use this knowledge to infer unknown viewpoints from a set of known view- points. This method is based on the fact that the differences between perceptions can have psychological meaning. For example, if a person perceives his wife differently at different levels, i.e. what she says publicly is not the same as the way she acts privately, then he is likely to attach the label of deceiver or nongenuine to her. This label reminds him of the relationship between his wife's levels and enables him to infer her viewpoint at the private level from her public level and vice versa. Thus by knowing the relationship between these levels, he only has to remember half as many viewpoints. The SAPIR approach assumes that people use both strategies-—limiting the view- points and interrelating the viewpoints--to reduce the task of infor- 14 mation processing and storage. At this point the SAPIR approach's basic assumptions have been outlined and its key concepts have been defined. Figure 2 is a sche- matic summary of the concepts presented in this section. As shown earlier in Figure l, the basic elements of the approach--the couple, their interactions, and their relationship--are represented more elaborately on the right side of Figure 2. On the left side are the components of the husband's perceptions. There should be a similar box on the right side for the wife, but it was left off to save space since it contains the same components as the husband's perceptions. 15 TINII Iomum¢ e \Mfi Romano W HMNHZOU Nammu Humnmbm I\I / N>Haummmmum W II... ASHflSIIIV whzmsmqm mo >wum .xuam I n how hHHauqanam .uaoum I m gmbmq anonuo I N one I a m>HHommmmmm ooauauouuom annuu< I < naowumuuunxm Hoovu I H uuzmmummm On“: I 3 vanguam I a Homnnam mafia ”canyon mehzou nowuauaamwuo ouaauuoaaH oucowaam in ooao>ofloa. nowuanwuua mammH monHhNommm m.nz> ill-H HOSTILE LOVING ectionate 6 us bei wt id 1 t as an 1’8 let mate make decis avoid u settin SUBMISSION BACKWARD FORWARD g s i f rf 1 thin ve seriousl F: hast e o f da ream abou romance 1 find realistic solut an or e vance la f 5 ensin with taneous G 1 lsive th ela ive s FIGURE 3. ORIGINAL ORDERING OF MPQ ISSUES 20 6. Capable of being behaviorally rated. 7. Suitable for visual displays. However, there was one major problem with the ICL-—it con- tained 128 items which is too many for the SAPIR approach. The essence of the SAPIR approach is to sample a person's perceptions of an issue from a number of different viewpoints and then use the differences between the perceptions to understand the person. As will be shown shortly, the MPQ asks each person to rate each issue from 8 different viewpoints. If the total 128 ICL items were used, this would mean that the MPQ would contain a total of 1,024 questions. This makes the questionnaire so long that couples would get fatigued taking it and might refuse to finish it. So it was necessary to reduce the number of items. The author did this by choosing items which seemed to: 1. Be most relevant to a marital relationship. 2. Summarize a number of other items. 3. Represent a different aspect of interaction than other items. 4. Have a moderate intensity. The last criterion was included because some of the adjectives on the ICL represent extreme traits which would not be expected to occur very often in most marriages. Using these criteria, the author chose 6 ICL related items for each of the 8 sections. He also attempted to include a third, "forward-backward" dimension which was found to be important in Bale's (1970) research on interpersonal behavior. The forward pole was represented by 6 issues representing conscientious, perfectionistic, conservative, task-oriented behaviors, while the backward pole was composed of 6 items concerned with easygoing, unstructured, spontaneous, pleasure-oriented behaviors. Three items representing sexual relation- 21 ships were also included since this seemed like such an important area in marriage. These 63 items were reviewed by a clinical psycho- logist with considerable experience in marital counseling whose sugges- tions and revisions were incorporated. These items were then given to 5 couples who participated in a pilot study and their feedback resul- ted in changes in 4 of the proposed items. The 63 items which resulted from this selection process are listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 and their original visual arrangement is shown in Figure 3. To test the actual factor structure of these questions, the actual self responses of 60 randomly sampled community couples (more fully described in the subjects section) were factor analyzed using the SPSS principal factoring with iteration (PA2) method. The results showed two major loving factors, one related mainly to trust, honesty, and respect and the second related mainly to an emotional expression of affection. The third factor was the traditional dominance-submission factor. The forward-backward dimension from Bales model emerged as a poorly defined and less important fourth factor. Based on this initial factoring, a series of cluster analyses were run to determine how to best combine these items into scales. There were clearly problems with some of the originally conceived clusters-~i.e. the hostile section had poor internal consistency indicated by a coefficient alpha of only .22. But it was possible to combine almost all the ICL based questions into two scales--a Loving scale defined by the items listed in Table l and a Dominance scale defined by the items listed in Table 2. Clearly the Loving factor was the most important in these marriages since 33 ‘items loaded highly on it while only 17 items loaded on the Dominance scale. As the correlations between the item and the scales shown in CCJlumns 2 and 3 of Tables 1 and 2 reveal, there were good items on both 22 me mm mm mm mm mm mo mN me mm mm me mm mm on Nm me we mm 05 ma 3

oa coaumaouuoo mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 0H mm MN mu me mm as an on «N mm Ne «m 9H Nunam Ianaaoo .afiumm ouma cows umoaon one Mcmum a< mums o>wwu0m mawumom mama unsua mama ma wouoommou a< mama zwmfiumm maamsxom Gums hp wouuoxo hadmsoom on Go oxfiq o>wuomuuum uaamaxmm mama team mamas aoum mama uomuoua on has mums mo oumu waaxmu moflam mama ou Hammad: E< mums owmuaooao can whammmom mums ou wawx use mumuovwmcoo a< mums vumzou wafi>oa can oumROfiuuowuw Hook mwcaaoom m.ouma womanhood: cam ou coumfia mums Sofia wagon umafi moham mums :« ovawaoo Hmavo on Guns umoue mama saga oumuoaooo mama muaav< as you moov mama owns ouowuouma< uaoaowmuaooao can uuonmam now mums do cannon Aoaoom cu >H0>Huamom vvOA am: no maowumoso mo mowumwuouomumnu owmmm .H manna 23 ouoom m¢n no: van :oaumosv do A38 mum maoanoua Mao Hoom mmawaoom m.ouma ou uaouomwfivaa a< mama Scum knew wow canoe H smfiz mama uvonm sandmaoo mums ha wouawoaammav no ans: a< ma mumouu mama >m3 on» uaowom moanaouu use momsoo mums doom mwaoua m.ouma o>awuom cu Beam a< mums vaaoum mumswovmaw Hook ma Sofia anode: wauon ma mama umcu unaon Aoaoum cu hflo>wumwoa vv¢v “mumaaoINuwafiumom Awoacfiuaoov .H GHAMH 24 ououm m¢a no: can aowumosv do A3¢H3v weauon «How m.owH3 cookqu macaumaouuou onom wafi>oq cu 5Ho>wufimoa mvvm omado A ouoom moq eofiuaamuuoo m< Amamom ou mao>fiumwma uvaw cu waflaafizcs w RHOAASAm a< has %8 mwcfiAu ow ou mama uoonxm muovuo mums o>Hu mama Au«3_auwm ad maowumowmam van mow>vm mama o>wu ow o3 mwnfiAu mo owuon oxma Anamom cu hao>fiuwwom vvHumHou no mGOHmHooA omMA ou Nun A oHAonHm cm NH NNI mN aH NHo>HmH=naH Adm NHmsoocmAaomm mmcHAu on Hm OH NH HN NH mums AuHs waHmmou Adm HammmHm m N I m N I N mommaou uaoAm amoqumA no odemaH mNI N I NHI mN mN mwcHAu ow GB noAB AHom waHNOHGG oNHmmAmam AHI N NN NHI q uH oxHH Hoom aoAB xuoz Adm Noam mwaHAu oxma me A I m I on Hm moHau no mAOHmHooA omMA cu Nun A uaoumeaoo MA AN AMI Nm AN ooam>wm AH mwnHAu oNHcmwuo Adm AMHm CA N I , CHI NN m maOHuaHom oHumHHmou Ach ou Nuu can oNNHma< NH o I mHI AH AH NHm=OHHom Nuo> mwaHAu oxmy AN. AHI N AH N 0A o3 mwaHAu AH sOHuoouuom How wcH>Huum oNHmmAmam mm A NHI AN A meow Amen HHuaa NHm50HucoHomaoo A AHmA 3H0: mH o mNI qu N ma ouHaAm cu mums uuoaxm N I «HI N HN NH ouma Aum3Ou woman mmouaxm A3

0A Issaaoo mmmwmmmmm AOHuMHouuoo Ada :oHuMHouuoo .aHumm GAE no mGOHumoao Hmsvaom mo moHumHumuomHMAo onmm .m oHAmH 26 poles of the Loving scale and on the dominance pole of the Dominance scale. The submissive items were not as strong. Overall both scales had satisfactory coefficient alphas (.94 and .83 for the Loving and Dominance scales, respectively). These scales were not orthogonal as they were supposed to be in theory, but in fact correlated with each other - .52. This means that loving was related to a more sub- missive, cooperative stance while hostility was related to a more dominating, coercive attitude. The mean ratings of items on a 5-point scale (-2 to +2) revealed that the items on the Loving scale seem to have high social desirability and as a result most people rate themselves close to the favorable end of the rating scale on these items. Despite this limited response range, husbands' and wives' self ratings on the Loving scale items correlated significantly with their Dyadic Adjustment Score (columns 6 and 7) which suggests that they do discriminate between adjusted and maladjusted couples. Couples tend to use the middle of the rating scale when answering the Dominance scale items, but their answers to these items with a few exceptions are less correlated with Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores suggesting again that dominance-submission issues are less relevant than loving issues in most marriages. The factor, cluster, and other statistical analyses reveal that the forward-backward scale was poorly conceived. These items have less internal consistency, low loadings on the other factors, and gen- erally low correlations with Dyadic Adjustment Scale. As a result these items along with two other weak items were placed in a residual cluster listed in Table 3 and were not used in the calculation of Loving and Dominance scores, but they were included in overall difference scores. Clearly the items sampled on the MPQ could use further psy- 27 chometric refinement. Some items are weak and should not be included in the questionnaire. Others are somewhat redundant. One of the author's future goals is to carry out this refinement. But the Loving and Dominance scales do seem to be measuring these desired factors with respectable internal consistency, and so they were used in the remainder of the study. RatinggScale Used on MPQ Having chosen the issues themselves, the next problem becomes how to rate them. The couple must express their perceptions of these issues to the researcher in a form which makes it easy to compare them. The adjectives on the ICL are checked true or false and a similar rating scheme has been used by Laing et al. (1966) and Alperson (1975b) who give their couples a seeming choice between very true or slightly untrue. It is only a seeming choice since in the data analysis the very true and slightly true categories are combined to create just a true category, and the untrue categories are similarly combined. This is done in order to perform logical analyses according to the Boolean algebra developed by Alperson (1975a). Despite Alperson's reservations, this author decided to use a five-point rating scale instead of the dichotomous true-false scale. The points on the scale were defined as follows: 1 = Rarely characteristic = usually does not describe the person (O-20%) 2 = Occasionally characteristic = often doesn't but sometimes does describe (20-40%) 3 = Moderately characteristic = sometimes does, sometimes doesn't describe (40-60%) 28 4 = Frequently characteristic - often does, but sometimes doesn't describe (60-80%) 5 = Very frequently characteristic = usually does describe the person (SO-100%) There are several advantages to this rating system. First it provides more information about the perception of the issue itself. Instead of just knowing whether an adjective does or doesn't describe a person, one knows the extent to which it describes them. Secondly, it provides more information about the differences between viewpoints which are central to both Laing's and Alperson's methods and the SAPIR approach. Take for example the husband's view of his own trusting (Ha>(A-H t W)) and his view of his wife's view of his trusting (H>W->(A-H t W)). By comparing his ratings on these viewpoints, a measure of the husband's perceived disagreement can be obtained, i.e. whether he thinks his wife rates him the same as he does. Using the true-false scale, Laing and Alperson can only determine whether the husband perceives them as agreeing or disagreeing. However, using the five-point scale, one can not only determine whether the husband perceives them as agreeing or disagreeing, but one can also determine the £5£2£E.0f the disagreement (l or 4 scale points) and the direction of the disagreement (whether the wife is seen as rating him more or less trusting than he rates himself). Thirdly, it provides more information about the differences or what Alperson calls the second order determi- nations. Whether, for example, the husband's perception of disagreement is accurate or not. Laing does not attempt this level of analysis, but Alperson does and can answer the question above. Because the SAPIR approach uses a numerical scale, it can not only answer the question above, but 29 can also determine the nature of the misunderstanding, i.e. whether the husband is minimizing or exaggerating differences. Besides providing more information, the five-point scale makes analysis procedures simpler and more understandable. To analyze his questionnaire, Alperson uses a series of logical choice circuits, while the basic MPQ analysis procedure is simply the subtraction of two numbers, i.e. the numeric ratings on each viewpoint. This makes the computer programming much easier. To understand Alperson's scoring system one must master the concepts of Boolean algebra, while the SAPIR method requires only an understanding of difference scores which are already familiar to most psychologists. For example, in his terminology the verdicality of perceived disagreement is defined logically by the following expression: VEhw = (Ehw = Ahw) = (“Ihzw’ +“i h2"I I “Ihéwi I “I “2'"1) while in the SAPIR approach it would be more simply: VEhw = Ehw ' Ahw In summary, a five-point numerical scale yields more information, is easier to use, and easier to understand than the dichotomous true-false scale previously used in this type of research. At the present time these advantages may not seem clear to the reader, but they will become much more apparent when the MPQ scoring procedures and results are discussed. There are two other ratings of the issues which the couples could be asked to make. One is a rating of how certain they were of their responses which might reveal areas of ambivalence or confusion. Laing allowed this choice on his IPM, but it was not included on the MPQ since the author felt that more information would be gained by forcing the respondents to commit themselves to a response. The other is a rating 30 of how important the person feels the issue is to marital relationships. This seemed like a more useful rating which would enable the respondents to communicate how relevant the issues appeared to them instead of just assuming equal relevance as the MP0 scoring procedure implicitly does. However, given the length of the questionnaire, the author decided not to obtain this rating on the MPQ. In this section the rationale behind and the procedures used in selecting issues for the MPQ have been explained. By emphasizing the importance of the factor structure of the issues, the SAPIR approach avoids some of Cronbach's criticisms while providing a more detailed picture of the relationship. The use of a five-point rating scale is another improvement incorporated into the SAPIR approach which enables it to provide more information than Laing's or Alperson's methods. One important point needs to be emphasized. The SAPIR approach can be used with any set of interpersonal issues. There is nothing sacred about the MPQ items; they can be completely revised and the same analy- sis procedures will still apply. What is basic to the SAPIR is the viewpoints which are sampled for each issue as the next section will explain. Sampling of Viewpoints Having defined the relevant issues, the next question becomes what perceptions of the couple should be sampled on these issues. Take as an example the issue of trust. Are the husband's perceptions or the wife's perceptions desired (varying the person perceiving component)? Are the perceptions of the husband's trusting or the wife's trusting deserved (varying the person perceived component)? Does one want perceptions of their actual trusting behavior or their ideal expecta- 31 tions of trusting (varying the reference component)? Is one interes- ted in each person's own perceptions or in their perceptions of their partner's perceptions (varying the perspective component)? Does one want their perceptions now or when they were first married (varying the context component)? Finally, is one interested in their percep- tions of what they publicly say or privately feel (varying the level component)? If a researcher were interested in each aspect of the previous six questions, then he would have to sample 26 or 64 view- points on each issue. As mentioned before, this would require a long and laborious questionnaire which couples would probably never finish. So the researcher must decide which viewpoints are most rele- vant to sample. In answering this question, the researcher is guided by two different considerations. First, he may be interested in cer- tain viewpoints because of the information they provide. For example, he may want to know the couple's expectations of an ideal marriage so he can understand what kind of relationship they desire. Secondly, he may be interested in the information derived from the difference between a set of viewpoints. He might, for example, want to know what both their ideal expectations and their actual behavior are so that he can compare these viewpoints and find out in what areas the couples actual performance is below ideal expectations since these are areas of dissatisfaction which could be worked on in therapy. So the SAPIR approach tries to gain information both from the viewpoints and from the differences between the viewpoints. In this way it yields more information per response than the usual ques- tionnaire. This is possible because differences in perceptions along each of the components have psychological meaning. Take context for an example. If a husband observes his wife behaving one way in one 32 situation and a different way in another situation, then his percep- tions of her change with variations in the context and he is likely to label her as inconsistent and unstable or adaptable and flexible. Because it is hard to define different situations which are appropriate to everyone, changes in context will not be explored on the MP0. Rather couples will be asked for their perceptions of their relationship in general, or, in other words, over all the different situations in which they find themselves. This does not mean that changes in context are not worth exploring. A therapist certainly finds it very useful to explore how behavior changes in different situations. But this explora- tion can more easily be on an individual basis where the therapist can choose to follow the most promising perceptions and to forget those which seem irrelevant. This kind of selectivity cannot be built into a standardized questionnaire. One must ask the couple to express their perceptions of ell_the desired situations which is a time-consuming and inefficient process. So the MPQ will not vary context per se, but it can be adapted to measure one very important aspect of context, time. The MPQ can be given before and after therapy, to obtain a measure of how perceptions changed as a result of the therapeutic process. Another perceptual component which will not be varied on the MPQ is level. Variations in this component are important to some psy- chologists who call people who publicly express what they privately feel as honest, congruent, genuine, sincere, unduplicitous people. These psychologists are sensitive to discrepancies between what a person says and how they act and spend a lot of time in therapy exploring and attempting to reduce these discrepancies. However, it is very diffi- Icult to capture these discrepancies on a questionnaire which only Ineasures what a person says verbally. Theoretically, it is possible to 33 ask people to express both what they would publicly say and what they would privately feel. But this presupposes that people can verbalize their feelings, can tolerate inconsistencies in themselves, and can trust the researcher enough to honestly express them. People who simultaneously meet all three of these criterion are probably rare. Psychologists have tried to circumvent this problem with "projective" tests, but they are not applicable to the SAPIR approach. However, there is one sense in which the MPQ measures level. Leary's (1957) levels differentiated between a person's rating of someone else (Level I: Level of public communication) and a person's ratings of themselves (Level II: Level of conscious communication). It seems reasonable that people are more aware of their verbalized thoughts and speech than they are of their nonverbal actions which they cannot observe. It also seems likely that they are more aware of other people's discrepancies than their own. Finally, it seems reasonable to expect people to give more credence to other's actions than their words. Thus, if a husband has a discrepancy between what he says and what he does, then it is likely that his ratings of himself on the MPQ will reflect his "front" or desired public image, while his wife's ratings of him will reflect his "back" or the part of himself he tries unsuccessfully to deny. This is only an indirect indication of differences in levels, and it is certainly not a very reliable one because both people can work together to preserve each other's fronts when presenting themselves on the questionnaire. So far variations in two of the perceptual components--context and level--have been eliminated on the MPQ which focuses on public ex— IDressions of perceptions of the generalized context of a marriage. This <:ollapses the perceptual field from 64 to 16 viewpoints. Though still 34 high this is a manageable number of viewpoints. Most research in the field has restricted the number of viewpoints sampled to 4 to 6, but Laing et al. (1966) sampled 12, and there have been two research teams-- Foa (1966) and Murstein and Beck (l972)--who have sampled the full set of 16 viewpoints discussed here. All of these viewpoints were included on the MPQ because the author felt that each could be appropriately tapped in a questionnaire format and each yielded important information. Certainly it makes little sense to obtain the perceptions of one part- ner and not the other if one is interested in understanding the inter- personal relationship. So variations in the components of persons perceiving and person perceived must be included in the MPQ. To obtain a measure of how dissatisfied the couple is with various aspects of their relationship it is necessary to sample not only their perceptions of actual marital behavior but also their perceptions of the ideal expectations by which this behavior is evaluated. Similarly to obtain a measure of how well the couple understands each other it is necessary to sample not only their own perspective on the marriage but their perception of the other's perspective on the marriage. Thus variations in reference and perspective are also included in the MPQ. Before going any farther, it is essential to clearly define and code these 16 viewpoints. Using the coding conventions established previously, the husbands perception of his actual trusting behavior toward his wife is written: H->(F-A-H t W). This expression can now be simplified by using a number to indicate the perspective involved, by eliminating the parentheses representing context and the "F" represent- ing level since they are not varied in the MPQ, and by eliminating the object code ("W" here) since it can be inferred from the subject. Thus this viewpoint of the issue of trust becomes simply HlAH-t. The 35 other 15 viewpoints on the MPQ are defined in Table 4 and follow the same general formula. The first character of the viewpoint always codes the person perceiving and in this study will be either H_for husband or W_for wife. The second character codes the perspective being used which will be either one's own represented by "l" or the other's repre- sented by "2". The third character codes the reference being used which will be either an "A" for actual performance of an "I" for ideal expectations. The fourth and final character codes the person being perceived which will be either the husband, "H", or the wife, "W". This coding arrangement has two advantages. First, its mneumonic codes translate into expressions which coincide with our usual ways of phrasing. For example, WlIW translates wife's own view of the ideal wife. Secondly, its components are arranged in the order'of perceptual differentiation postulated by Foa (1966). Beginning at the right, the actor or person perceived is the first facet of the perceptual field differentiated by the child as he learns that he and his mother are different. Next, the reference is differentiated when the child learns that what is done is not the same as what ought to be done. Finally, the difficult differentiation of perspective is completed when the child realizes that his point of view is not necessarily the same as other people's point of view. Because the viewpoint codes will be used frequently in subsequent tables and figures, they have been defined in a clear, consistent way which will hopefully make it easier to remember and interpret them. How these viewpoints are actually presented to the couple in the Marital Perceptions Questionnaire is illustrated in Figure 4. The sixteen boxes representing the sixteen viewpoints are spatially arranged in a pattern which will be useful in illustrating the inter- 36 Table 4. Definition of Viewpoint Codes Code Definition of Viewpoint HlAH Husband's own view of his ideal husband expectations HlAH Husband's own view of his actual husband performance HlIW Husband's own view of his ideal wife expectations HlAW Husband's own view of his actual wife performance HZIH Husband's view of wife's view of ideal husband expectations HZAH Husband's view of wife's view of actual husband performance HZIW Husband's view of wife's view of ideal wife expectations HZAW Husband's view of wife's view of actual wife performance WZIH Wife's view of husband's view of ideal husband expectations WZAH Wife's view of husband's view of actual husband performance WZIW Wife's view of husband's view of ideal wife expectations WZAW Wife's view of husband's view of actual wife performance WlIH Wife's own view of her ideal husband expectations WlAH Wife's own view of her actual husband performance WlIW Wife's own view of her ideal wife expectations WlAW Wife's own view of her actual wife performance 37 m...2_om>>m:> Um: no 29:593.: as nunauu a: ...hHHlsuu< .hwu H I<—3 uuA unnuu H hHHasuu< .aNoa oz IHHUmmmmmm ”ozH>Hmummm zommuu 38 relationships between them in the next section. Each box contains the viewpoint code, the phrase which establishes the viewpoint for the rater, and finally the issue being rated. Take for example the box labeled HlIW in Figure 4 which represents the husband's own view of the ideal wife. The phrase, "I say, Ideally..." reminds him that he is to rate the issue from his own ideal viewpoint. The statement, "She would trust me," is the particular issue he will be rating. The subject of the sentence, "she," defines the person he is to rate, i.e. his wife, and the verb is the issue, i.e. trusts. The adverb "would" is included as a further reminder that he is making an ideal rating, i.e. how he would like things to be ideally. All other issues are presented in essentially the same way. This method makes the questionnaire longer since each question must be rewritten with a different pronoun and identifying phrase for each viewpoint, but it considerably reduces the possibility of con- fusing viewpoints which is easily done in this type of test. Drewery (1969) for example just uses the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule as his questionnaire and asks the couples to take it with three different viewpoints. His method requires the couple to remember the viewpoint and to mentally change the item phrasing as they go through the test. It is much easier to forget and to slip into the wrong set in this procedure, and for that reason the MPQ was written with reminder phrases and pronoun changes. The final problem with regard to the sampling of viewpoints on the MPQ is what order to present the viewpoints in on the Marital Perceptions Questionnaire (MPQ). Laing et al. (1966) in the Inter- personal Perception Method chose to present all the viewpoints about a particular issue before presenting another issue. This author decided 39 to present all the issues from a particular viewpoint before presenting another viewpoint. This method has three advantages. First, it saves space since the repetition of viewpoint instructions are reduced. As Appendix H shows the viewpoint instructions are only presented at the top of each page of the MPQ which makes it possible to elaborate on them more in order to have them clearly in mind. Secondly, it mini- mizes the number of changes of set that the rater has to make. In Laing's procedure, one has to assume one set (own perspective), then switch to another set (other's perspective), and then finally switch to still another set (own reflected perspective) sixty different times in the course of the sixty-issue questionnaire. There are only four changes of set on the MPQ--own actual, own ideal, other's actual, other's ideal. Having assumed a set, the rater maintains it while rating both self and spouse on all 63 issues. Not only is this procedure less confusing, but it also minimizes the opportunity to compare answers which is its third advantage. In Laing's method, a person only has to look back two questions to find out how they rated the issue from a different perspective. Thus, it would be easy to be influenced by the earlier responses in deciding how to rate an issue. On the MPQ, a person would have to look back 3 to 6 pages to find his previous answer and would have trouble even then since the question order was changed for each viewpoint. This makes it less likely that a person is influenced by previous responses when rating a particular issue. Even though the method of presenting the issues on the MPQ has been designed to minimize confusion, the sheet length of this type of questionnaire can present problems. Sixty-three issues presen- ted eight times for each person creates a test consisting of 504 items. The easiest thing for the rater is to mark his answers in the test 4O booklet, but this creates a tremendous problem for the researcher who must transfer these responses to punched cards before analysis can begin. To eliminate this problem, the MPQ required the person to mark his/her answers on an answer sheet which could be optically scanned, and thus the data could be easily and accurately transferred into a form suitable for analysis by the computer instead of by the laborious and error-prone efforts of the researcher. While reducing the researcher's work, this method increases the respondent's effort since he/she must now read the question in the booklet and then find and mark the appro- priate answer space on the answer sheet. Besides making a long test more tedious, this procedure makes it more error prone since the res- pondent can mark the wrong answer sheet or the wrong space. To minimize these possibilities, a booklet incorporating two special procedures was designed for the MP0. First, to insure that the person was using the right answer, each answer sheet was both color coded (printed in 4 different colors) and marked with an identifying code (viewpoint code). The questions in the MPQ booklet were printed on different colored pages which matched the color of the answer sheet, and each page was labeled at the top with the code identifying its answer sheet. Secondly, each page was cut away to expose only that portion of the answer sheet which corresponded to the questions on that page. The column of answers and questions were arranged so that when the answer sheet was inserted behind the question booklet page and properly aligned, then questions and answers matched up with each other. This made marking the answer sheet as easy as marking in the booklet itself and reduced the chance of misplaced answers. Because of the MPQ's length, two other features were built into it to reduce fatigue effects. First, a page was inserted half way 41 through the test suggesting that the person take a short break at that point. This broke the test into two sections requiring about 45 minutes each to complete. Secondly, to eliminate any order effects, two coun- terbalanced forms of the test (A and B) were constructed containing the same items. This section began with the problem of which perceptual viewpoints to sample since a complete sampling would be excessively time consuming. General guidelines were presented and then the rationale behind the selection of the sixteen MPQ viewpoints was explained. These viewpoints were defined, coded, and illustrated. The manner in which these viewpoints were presented on the MPQ to minimize confusion and the way in which the MPQ was designed to minimize the administrative problems resulting from its length were then explained. Therefore, this section ends with the hope that the reader now understands how the MPQ was devised, how it is administered, and what items are on it. 42 Method of Analysis Sampling perceptions according to the SAPIR approach generates considerable data about a couple. The MPQ, for example, samples sixteen different viewpoints on each of 63 issues which re- sults in 1,008 bits of data. The question now becomes how to best analyze these data. In the SAPIR approach there are three different methods of extracting information from the questionnaire results. The first method is to analyze how the person rated the issues on each viewpoint. The focus is on the person's response itself. In the second method, comparisons of responses on different viewpoints are made, and the differences discovered are interpreted. Finally, infor- mation is gained from the pattern of comparisons or how the comparisons differ from each. Thus, the SAPIR approach attempts to extract more information from a response than the usual questionnaire. To show more clearly how this is done, each method of analysis will be explained more fully. Viewpoint Analysis A traditional questionnaire usually has only one viewpoint, the person's own view of the actual situation, and the questionnaire is usually interpreted by examining the person's responses to particular issues or by combining the responses to generate one or more scale scores. Even though the MP0 elicits sixteen different viewpoints, it can be analyzed in the same way by treating each viewpoint as a separate test and only examining the person's responses on that viewpoint. To illustrate this, consider the example of a husband who has rated his wife's actual behavior (HlAW) on the 63 MPQ items, and in particular he has rated her as rarely trusting (-2 on scale of -2 to +2), 43 rarely forgiving (-2), moderately cooperative (O), and very frequently dependent (+2). By examining these responses themselves one can gain a picture of how he views his wife. This item by item analysis is very informative for the therapist who is assessing a particular marriage, but it is a very inefficient method for the researcher who prefers to conbine responses to the issues into a few scale scores. The four prior issues all add positively to the Loving scale on the MPQ and yield a score of -2 (slightly hostile on scale from -8 to +8) for these four issues. Besides simplifying the results, scale scores make it easier to develop normative data which tells how the individual's score compares with the scores of others. In this example, the raw score of -2 appears to be only a slightly hostile rating, but compared to most husbands who rate their wife's as +4 it may indicate a very hostile rating (perhaps one or more standard deviations below the mean). The problem with scales is that they always organize or com- bine responses on the basis of how most people respond (as determined by factor analysis). But each individual may organize issues differently, and the way they do organize is valuable information about how they perceive the world. The hypothetical husband, for example, does not see trusting as correlated with cooperativeness as most people do. The MPQ does not mathematically analyze the organization of issues as does Ryle and Breen's (1972) double dyad grid technique, but it does print back the couples answers in a format which makes it easy to scan the issues for patterns of responding which differ from the expected ones. Having examined the husband's rating of his wife's actual behavior, one can next examine his ratings of the ideal wife (HlIW), 44 and might discover that he would like her to be very frequently trusting (+2), usually forgiving (+1), moderately cooperative (O), and moderately dependent (0). By examining these responses, one can gain a picture of the kind of wife he desires, and by combining scores into a Loving scale one can determine how loving his ideal wife is in comparison to most husbands. One could continue this process, viewpoint by viewpoint, interpreting both the individual issue ratings and the scale scores (both Loving and Dominance on the MPQ) for each. In the example given, the reader may have been tempted to compare how the husband actually rated his wife with his expectations for an ideal wife, but this would be jumping ahead to the next method of analysis, the comparison analysis. In the viewpoint analysis, only the ratings themselves (either individually or combined into scales) are examined. This method of analysis is neglected in Laing's IPM which focuses almost exclusively on the comparison analysis. It is somewhat tempting to skip over this method because it requires the psychometric refinement of the scales themselves (factor analysis, reliability coeffi- cients, etc.). But to do so is to create the same errors that Cronbach (l958) criticized in earlier studies. It requires little additional work to create the scales necessary for viewpoint analysis, and it yields two very important benefits. First one learns how the couple really perceives each viewpoint which may be very valuable information. How loving a couple rates each other is as important to the understanding of their relationship as is the difference between their ratings. Secondly, it enables one to obtain more and better information from the comparison analyses to be discussed next. So on the MPQ, the viewpoint analysis shows, viewpoint by viewpoint, how each of the 63 issues was rated and what the Loving and 45 Dominance scale scores were. Comparison Analysis As already alluded to, one of the most interesting aspects of the SAPIR approach is the comparison of differences between its sixteen viewpoints. In order to carry out this type of analysis, the researcher must answer two questions. First, how to measure the differences between any two viewpoints. Secondly, what view- points should be compared to each other. Since the first question is more basic, the discussion will begin with it. How Differences Are Measured. How to measure the difference between the viewpoints depends first of all on what rating scale was used. If a simple true-false scale was used, the two ratings can only be compared to see if they are the same or different. If a numeric scale such as the five-point scale on the MPQ is used, the two ratings can be subtracted to obtain a numerical difference. For example, if a hypothetical husband rated his wife's actual trusting as very low (-2) and the amount of trusting an ideal wife would have as very high (+2), then by subtracting the actual rating from the ideal rating, a difference of +4 is obtained. This difference score contains three types of information. First, it tells whether a difference occurs just as the true-false scale does. If the difference score is not zero, then the ratings are different as they are in the example. Secondly, the sign indicates the direction of the difference. Given the sub- traction formula, the plus in this example indicates that the ideal is higher than the actual. Thirdly, the number itself indicates the sextent of the difference. The four in this example indicates that the ‘two ratings are as far apart as possible, i.e. at opposite ends of the 46 scale. Because of these advantages, the MPQ used a five-point scale and subtracted the ratings of different viewpoints on each issue. As mentioned earlier, the differences on each particular issue are most valuable to the therapist working with an individual couple. The researcher who is interested in comparing manv couples prefers to have a limited number of scores to work with. There are two wavs to combine individual difference scores. bv scale and bv global index. Differences on individual issues can be combined to create a scale difference score only if the researcher has taken the time to build scales. If so, then three types of scale difference scores can be obtained. First the differences on individual issues can be summed over all the scale issues just as the ratings themselves were summed to create the scale itself. This yields a direction of dif- ference score (00) for the scale. This score indicates the direction and extent of the difference between the two viewpoints. For example, if a husband had rated his wife's actual Loving score as -10 and his ideal wife's Loving score as +40, then subtracting the actual from the ideal, a Loving scale direction of difference score of +50 is obtained. The plus sign indicates that the actual loving falls below the ideally desired loving, and the 50 indicates the extent of the difference (this would be a sizable difference on the MPQ loving scale for example). What is most unique about the scale direction of dif- ference score is that it indicates the direction of the difference, i.e. which rating is higher than the other. Neither of the other difference scores contain this information, and no global difference score can measure it. The extent of the difference between two ratings can also be 47 measured by the scale sguare root of the average squared difference eeppe (SRASD in this paper). It is obtained by squaring the differences on each individual scale issue to eliminate the sign and then adding up these numbers and dividing the sum by the number of issues to obtain the average squared difference score. As Cronbach and Gleser (1963) point out this score tends to exaggerate the extent of the difference, but that can be mitigated by taking its square root. According to Cronbach and Gleser, this difference score is generally the best statistical measure of similarity between two sets of ratings, in this case the similarity between two viewpoints. It measures the average extent of the difference per issue between viewpoints while the direction of difference score measures only the net extent of the overall difference. To illustrate this distinction consider the four difference scores +2, +2, -2, -2. Adding all of these together as the scale direction of difference score does, the result is "O" which suggests that there is no overall dif- ference on the Loving scale between the two viewpoints. This is because the differences in direction on the individual issues can- celled each other out. If the two viewpoints being compared were the husband's rating of his actual and ideal wife (HlAW and HlIW), then these scores would mean that on half the items the husband wanted his wife to be more loving, while on the other half he wanted her to be less loving, so overall he wanted her to remain the same in terms of the loving scale. If these same four differences were squared, summed and divided bv 4, and then the square root was taken, a score of 2 would be obtained which indicates that on the average there is a 2 point difference between the viewpoint ratings on each issue in 48 the scale. Thus, the square root of the average squared difference score shows that there is actually a considerable difference between the two viewpoints. Usually the extent of the direction of difference score correlates with the square root of the average squared difference score, i.e. if one is high, the other is high and vice versa. However, it is possible to have a low direction of difference score and a high square root of the average squared difference score (but not vice versa). As the example has shown this occurs when the differences between individual issues have opposite signs and thus cancel each other out. This is particularly likely when a person has conflicted or ambivalent feelings about a scale. For this reason it is useful to obtain both of these difference scores. The third possible difference score is the number of dif- ferences (NO) on the scale score. It is obtained by simply adding up the number of issues on the scale in which the two ratings were different. It is the difference score which is used in Laing's IPM and in Alperson's work (1975a). In the previous example, there was a difference on each of the four issues so the number of difference score would be "4" on this example scale. This difference score is easier to obtain than the square root of the average squared difference score and tends to correlate highly with it since it too is insensitive to the direction of the difference. Statistically it is not as useful a measure because it does not reflect the extent of the difference per issue. For example, if the example differences were +1, +1, -1, -l, the number of difference score would remain 4 while the square root of the average squared difference score would drop to 1. However this difference score does provide some useful of The 133 III-III IS I even diffs These Fictur iscah Met \" ,_ I. "'IUI" "5119 II 49 information and interpreted in conjunction with the square root of the average squared difference, it indicates whether the extent of the difference between two viewpoints is due to small differences over all the issues or very large differences on a few issues. The three scale difference scores provide the same type of information which is contained in the individual issue difference. The scale direction of difference score like the sign of an individual issue difference reflects the direction of the difference. The number of difference score on a scale is analogous to whether there is a difference on the issue, and the scale square root of the averaged squared difference score reflects the extent of the difference just as the magnitude of individual issue score does. These difference scores supplement each other and provide a clearer picture of the nature of the difference between two viewpoints on a scale. Besides the differences on individual issues and on scales, it is also possible to obtain overall or global difference scores. In fact this is the type of difference scoring which is done by Laing in his IPM. It is easier to obtain overall difference scores than scale difference scores because one does not have to statistically determine which issues can be added together. Instead one simply adds up the differences over all the issues without regard to the inter- relationship between the issues. This operation is justified by assunring that people are influenced mainly by the differences between VlewDoints and not as much by the nature of the issues creating the dfiferences. To illustrate this, consider the difference between the husband's own view of an issue and the husband's other view (his VIEW of his wife's view) of the same issue. As will be explained more y 50 fully shortly, this difference can be interpreted as the husband's estimate of the disagreement between himself and his wife. The assumption upon which the overall scoring is based means that any perceived disagreement is likely to be disconcerting irregardless of whether it is a disagreement over how to squeeze a tube of toothpaste or over how to make love. Clearly this assumption becomes less tenable as the issues involved become more disparate in terms of relevance to the relationship. It is likely to be somewhat tenable, if the researcher has chosen issues of high relevance as Laing did. However, it was just this practice of using global indices which Cronbach (1958) most strongly attacked in his critique of social perception research. He said it led to an unjustified overgeneralizing of results and to an overlooking of the possibility of different relationships on different dimensions (e.g. loving different than domi- nance). Another related disadvantage of overall difference scores is the fact that no measure can be obtained which reflects the direc- tion of the difference. One can count the number of differences over all issues and compute the square root of the average squared difference over all issues because both operations do not take into account the sign or direction of the individual difference. But one cannot cal- culate the overall direction of difference score unless one knows how to add in each issue. For example, it does not make much sense to add the difference in trusting in with the difference in dominating unless one knows how they both correlate with some other desired variable such as marital adjustment. Despite their shortcomings, overall difference scores will be calculated on the MPQ. They have been used by other researchers and so the results from the present study can be compared with these 51 earlier studies. More importantly, by comparing them to the related difference scores on the MPQ's Loving and Dominance scales, the validity of the criticisms leveled against them can be evaluated. So the MPQ will calculate the following types of difference scores, individual issue differences, Loving and Dominance scale difference scores (direction of difference, number of differences, and square root of average squared difference), and overall difference scores (number of differences, and square root of average squared difference). The scoring formulas for these difference scores are summarized in Table 5. The individual issue differences are of most interest to the therapist trying to understand the nature of a couple's relationship. Because they reduce the data to more manageable propor- tions, this study will only be evaluating the scale and overall difference scores. Still this is a major statistical undertaking since it means calculating eight difference scores for each comparison desired and the MPQ evaluates 36 different comparisons. What Differences To Measure. Now that the differences between viewpoints can be measured, the next question becomes what viewpoints should be compared to each other. Given sixteen different viewpoints, it is statistically possible to make 120 different comparisons between these viewpoints. This is clearly an excessive number of analyses to make since eight difference scores are to be obtained for each so the SAPIR user is once again faced with a sampling problem--which compari- sons to make. Fortunately there is a guideline which makes this pro- cess much easier. Since some comparisons have a clearer psychological meaning than others, it makes sense to only determine those comparisons which have the clearest psychological meaning since they would be the easiest ones to interpret. As will be shown shortly, the most clearly 52 Table 5. Calculation Fbrmulas for Comparison Scores on MPQ Individual issue difference, ID ID- Viewpoint 1 - Viewpoint 2 Direction of difference, DD DD- fig IDi where n a number issues on scale i=1 quere root of average squared difference,lSRASD n SSD= 2 ID 12 where n - number of issues on scale i=1 or in total test N Number of differences, ND n ND=- 51 (If ID1L 1‘ 0, then upi -- N1)1+1 + 1) where n = number of issues on scale or in total test 53 interpreted differences occur between two viewpoints which differ only on a single perceptual component. The more components which vary between the viewpoints, the more meaningless the comparison will be. For example, if the husband's own view of his actual wife (HlAW) is compared to his own view of his ideal wife (HlIW), the only variation occurs in the reference component, i.e. one viewpoint is actual, the other ideal. The difference between theSe viewpoints can easily be interpreted as a measure of the husband's dissatisfaction with his wife. However, the difference between his view of his actual wife (HlAW) and his view of his wife's view of her ideal husband (HZIH) has no clear psychological meaning because it involves a variation in three different components--perspective, reference, and person perceived. Thus, there are three basic groups of comparisons on the MPQ which are derived from the three basic components-~differentiation measures derived from differences in the person performing the behavior at issue, dissatisfaction measures derived from differences between references, and disagreement and misunderstanding measures derived from differences between perspectives. Each of these groups of comparisons will be defined and discussed in the order just listed which is Foa's (1966) order of perceptual differentiation. According to Foa the first perceptual component to be differentiated is the persons performing the behavior at issue. Since this study is investigating marital relationships, the persons involved are husband and wife. If the husband and wife both perform the same behavior (e.g. both trust each other), then they are similar and they have an equal, symmetrical, or undifferentiated relationship. If they do not act the same (e.g. one is more trusting than the other), then they are different on this issue and they have an unequal, asymme- 54 trical or differentiated relationship. Though differences in this component have previously been called dissimilarity (Byrne 8 Blaylock, 1963; Corsini, 1956; Dymond, 1954; Kotlor, 1965; Stuckert, 1963; Taylor, 1967), they will be called differences in differentiation in this paper since this term connotes better the psychological process which results from recognizing differences in this component. The large gpppp of differentiation comparisons can be sub- divided into general pypee_of differentiation comparisons which in turn can be further divided into specific comparisons. The group of dif- ferentiation comparisons includes all comparison involving a dif- ference in a rating of the husband and a rating of the wife. But there are several different ways of rating the husband and wife. The type of differentiation comparison which is studied on the MPQ is called the perceived role differentiation comparison because it is defined by the difference between a person's view from a particular reference of the husband's behavior and the person's view from the same reference of the wife's behavior. For example, by subtracting the husband's own view of his wife's actual behavior (HlAW) from his own view of his actual behavior (HlAH), a measure of the husband's own actual perceived role differentiation is obtained (PRD-HlA). As Table 6 shows there are eight different perceived role differentiation comparisons possible on the MPQ. Before going any farther, it is essential to explain the rationale behind the comparison codes on the MPQ since this will make it easier to understand and interpret them. First, every general type of comparison is coded by three letters, e.g. PRD stands for perceived role differentiation. Each of these letters codes a particular kind of Table 6. Code PRD-HlI PRD-HIA PRD-HZI PRD-HZA PRD-WZI PRD-WZA PRD-WlI PRD~W2A 55 Definition of Perceived Role Differentiation Comparisons Viewpoints Compared HlIH - HlIW HlAH - HlAW HZIH - HZIW HZAH - HZAW WZIH - WZIW WZAW - WZAW WlIH - WlIW WlAH - WlIW Definition Husband's own view of ideal role differentiation Husband's own view of actual role differentiation Husband's view of wife's view of ideal role differentiation Husband's view of wife's view of actual role differentiation Wife's view of husband's view of ideal role differentiation Wife's view of husband's view of actual role differentiation Wife's own view of ideal role differentiation Wife's own view of actual role differentiation 56 information. The first letter is always either a "P" for perceived or an "I" for interpersonal and indicates whether the comparison is between a single person's viewpoints (intrapersonal coded P) or between two different person's viewpoints (interpersonal coded I). Thus it codes the person perceiving component. The third letter always codes the component being varied in the viewpoints or the group name. In this case the "0" stands for differentiation. The second or middle letter always codes the general type of this comparison. The "R" here stands for role differentiation. It is also possible to have threeother general types of differentiation comparisons. A perceived self differentiation (P50) is defined as the difference between a person's own rating of themselves and their view of the partner's rating of themselves (e.g. HlAH-HZAW). Similarly the perceived other differentiation (P00) is defined as the difference between a person's own rating of the other partner and their view of the other partner's rating of the other person (e.g. H2AH-H1AW). An interpersonal self difference (ISD) is defined as the difference between each person's rating of themselves (e.g. HlAH-WlAW). These three types of dif- ferentiation comparisons were not actually calculated on the MPQ because they were expected to be similar to the perceived role dif- ferentiation which seems to be the psychologically most meaningful comparison. They were only included here to illustrate the comparison coding rules just discussed. Once the general type of comparison has been defined by the first three code letters, then the more specific comparisons which fall under that general type are coded by a second three letter group. Every comparison is defined by the two viewpoints it compares, and 57 every viewpoint is coded by four letters representing the four com- ponents which define it. If one component is varied in each compari- son, then the other three components remain constant, and therefore the letters coding these components become the second three letter code which defines the specific comparison involved. To illustrate this, consider the example of the husband's own view of the actual perceived role differentiation (PRD-HlA). This comparison is created by comparing his view of his wife's actual behavior (HlAW) with his view of his actual behavior (HlAH) on that issue. The first three letters in each viewpoint (HlA) are identical because the same person is perceiving both viewpoints (H) from the same perspective (1) and the same reference (A). The only component which varies is the person perceived component represented by the last viewpoint code letter which is H in one viewpoint and W in the other. Thus the coding sym- bols in the SAPIR approach are not arbitrarily created at each step of the way, but are, in part, logically derived from previous codes. This in addition to the built-in mneumonics makes the codes more easily remembered and understood. Besides defining the meaning and code for each comparison of two viewpoints, it is also important to define exactly how the view- points will be compared, i.e. which viewpoint is to be subtracted from the other. The husband's own actual perceived role differentiation (PRD-HlA) could be calculated by either subtracting his rating of his wife from his rating of himself (HlAH-HlAW) or vice versa (HlAW-HlAH). It does not matter which way it is obtained as long as the formula used is clearly understood and consistently used. In the MPQ, the wife rating will always be subtracted from the husband rating because this 58 formula follows the alphabetic order (H before W). Once this arbitrary decision has been made, it gives a meaning to the sign of the difference score. If it is plus, then it means that the husband is rated as showing more of the behavior at issue than the wife. If it is minus, then it means that the husband is rated as showing less of the behavior than the wife. Once this convention is learned, it becomes very easy to interpret the meaning of perceived role differentiation on the MPQ. Though the definitions in Table 6 are adequate to define the perceived role differentiation comparisons, the author has found it very useful to represent them spatially as shown in Figure 5. The circles represent the viewpoints as defined and arranged in Figure 4. The arrows represent the perceived role differentiation comparisons with the direction of the arrow representing the direction of the sub- traction (i.e. this viewpoint is subtracted from this one). All the comparison arrows are parallel to illustrate that they are all along the same axis, i.e. differences in the actor or person performing the behavior component. The basic coding schemas developed with regard to the dif- ferentiation comparisons can now be applied to the second group of comparisons, the dissatisfaction comparisons. The dissatisfaction com- parisons are defined as differences between viewpoints on the reference component, i.e. the difference between ideal expectation and actual performance. Only one type of dissatisfaction comparison will be inves- tigated on the MPQ, the perceived dissatisfaction comparison which will be coded as PDS. It is an intrapersonal comparison (hence the "P") of a person's perceptions of the differences between ideal expectations and actual performance from a given perspective and for a given person. Thus the specific type of perceived dissatisfaction will be indicated 59 .0 c: r0 .0 m D I PERCEIVED ROLE DIFFERENTIATION COMPARISONS FIGURE 5. 60 by a three letter group coding the person perceiving, the perspective, and the person perceived. For example, the husband's own dissatisfaction with himself (PDS-HlH) is defined as the difference between his ideal expectations for himself (HlIH) and his own view of his actual perfor- mance (HlAH). All eight perceived dissatisfaction comparisons are defined in Table 7 and graphically illustrated in Figure 6. Because the actual performance rating is always subtracted from the ideal ex- pectation, a plus sign on this comparison means that the person needs to actually perform more of this behavior in order to meet their ideal expectations. Similarly, a minus sign means that the person needs to actually perform less of this behavior in order to meet their ideal expectations. None of the recently developed instruments such as Laing, Phillipson, and Lee's IPM, Drewery's IPT, or Scott, Ashworth, and Casson's FRT measure this comparison because none of them ask the couple to rate their ideal expectations. As emphasized previously, the viewpoints chosen for sampling determine the types of comparisons possible. All of the instruments above have neglected the perceived dissatisfaction comparisons and concentrated instead on the next group of comparisons, the agreement comparisons. The group of agreement comparisons are defined by differences in the persons perceiving or persons perceived components. There are three general types of disagreement comparisons on the MPQ. The first is the perceived disagreement comparison (PDA) which is defined as the dif- ference between the person's own perspective and the person's view of the other's perspective. For example, the husband's perceived disagree- ment over the actual husband ratings (PDA-HAH) is obtained by subtracting his own rating of his actual performance (HlAH) from his view of his wife's Table 7 . Code PDS-HIH PDS-HIW PDS-HZH PDS-HZW PDS-WZH PDS-WZW PDS-WlH PDS-WIW 61 Definition of Perceived Dissatisfaction Comparisons Viewpoints Compared HIIH - HIAH HIIW - HIAW HZIH — HZAH HZIW - WZAW WZIH - WZAH WZIW - WZAN WlIW - WlAH WlIW - WIAW Definition Husband's own dissatisfaction with himself Husband's own dissatisfaction with wife Husband's view of wife's dissatisfaction with him Husband's view of wife's dissatisfaction with herself Wife's view of husband's dissatisfaction with himself Wife's view of husband's dissatisfaction with,her Wife's own dissatisfaction with husband Wife's own dissatisfaction with herself 62 wzow_mo0 mumuaMum “muoz 124 0.0n 0.00 0.m0 0.00 0.00 unopsum saga mvaonmmaom N 0.00 0.mw 0.05 0.00 0.05 uoxuos mafia Hasw saws mvaonomsom N m.~ m.~ m.~ 0.N m.~ nonmawno Sufi: moHHaamw ca convafizo mo “mass: moo: o.oe o.o~ o.om m.mm ~.o ammuaaouaa .amuaafiso no“: mmaaaoo H.0N 0.m~ m.- n.0H m.w~ ocoz m.o m.~ A.o m.m o.oa Hague .nmnsaa 0.0m m.~a m.- 0.mN 0.0m oflaoaumo 0.0m 0.mm 0.00 0.mm m.Hq uamumououm owmucouumm .ouaoummoum msowwfiaom A~.KV m.HH Ao.oav m.oa Am.mv n.0H As.nv m.NH Am.m0 ¢.A muafiaoa mo mpamwsonu .maoomH Hmsaq< Am.¢v 0.0 A0.nv ~.0 Am.mv N.e Ao.mv 0.n A0.¢v 0.N mofinuma mama» Ao.mV 0.0N Am.nv 0.0m Am.¢v 0.m~ A0.¢v w.m~ A0.¢v m.m~ mama omw3 Am.mv «.mm Ao.0v N.~m An.Humuomoou hufimuo>fina oHamHHm> owsmmuwoawn macaw maaouo now mama oasmmuwoaon .0H macaw 125 Dyadic Adjustment Scores (Spanier, 1976), although the scores of the Univ group are slightly higher which is consistent with their newly- wed status (Spanier et a1, 1975). Because of their similarities, these groups were combined to create the Community group of 60 couples used in the data analyses. In contrast to these Community groups, the Therapy group is much more diverse and harder to characterize. In terms of the demographic statistics (Table 16), they are older, have been married . Jun-ah—‘fl longer, make more money, and have more families with children. However, there is wider variation about these means with, for example, 5 couples who have been married over 14 years and 5 couples who are just contemplating marriage. The characteristic which most differentiates this group from the others is the mean Dyadic Adjustment Score (hus- band's 90.3, wives' 86.5) which is clearly in the maladjusted range. To determine whether the differences in demographic charac- teristics could be influencing the results, correlations between these characteristics and the DAS scores were calculated for the Community and Total groups, and the results are shown in Table 17. Within the Community group only one of 14 correlations attained statistical sig- nificance, but when the total sample is analyzed, significant correla- tions with DAS are found for age, length of marriage, income, and number of children. These results are consistent with the findings reviewed by Rollins and Feldman (1970), Burr (1970), Rollins and Cannon (1974), and Spanier, Lewis and Cole (1975) which show a decline in marital satisfaction as a couple moves from the honeymoon into the child rearing phases of marriage. To determine whether these demo- graphic variables were confounding the relationships between DAS 126 Table 17. Correlation of Demographic Variables with Dyadic Adjustment Scores Group Community Total Husband Wife Husband Wife Demographic Variable DAS DAS DAS DAS ** ** ** * Age of wife -.05 .00 -.29 -.30 Education of husband .05 .07 .17 .15 Education of wife -.01 .02 .06 .10 * * * Annual income -.22 -.19 -.28 -.23 * * Years married -.09 -.04 -.25 -.28 * Number children .01 .05 -.19 -.22 ** * Two-tailed level of significance p<.01 p<.05 127 and MPQ measures, correlations were first calculated between 17 basic MPQ measures and the person's DAS score and then these same correla- tions were recalculated with the effects of income, years married, and number of children partialled-out. The largest difference between the first order and partialled correlation was only -.05‘(-.5l to -.46) and most differences were only -.02, so the demographic variables had no appreciable effect on the correlations between MPQ measures and DAS , a n scores. .1“ Materials All participants in the study were given a large envelope containing the following materials: 1. General instructions for the marital perceptions study. A handout explaining the purpose of the study and the materials and procedures involved. (Appendix A for Community couples; Appendix B for Therapy couples). 2. Departmental research consent form. This form was used to explain to the participants their rights as a subject in the study (Appendix C for Community couples; Appendix D for Therapy couples). 3. Participant information form. This form was used to collect basic background information on the participants such as age, education, occupation, religion, income, length of marriage, number of children, etc. (Appendix E). 4. Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) is a refined and improved version of the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (Locke 8 Wallace, 1959). The DAS was chosen as the independent measure ‘31 128 in this study because it is a carefully constructed instrument of established reliability, validity, factor structure, and normative data. It can be filled out quickly and correlates highly (.86) with the most frequently used instrument in mari- tal research, the Locke-Wallace Scale. (Appendix F). 5. Marital Perceptions Questionnaire and answer sheets. This questionnaire is the dependent measure which has been more fully described in the previous section. 6. A soft lead pencil. A soft lead pencil was included so the person's marks on the answer sheets could be optically scanned. Procedures For the Community grppps, the researcher selected a dwelling unit according to the predetermined list of random numbers, rang the doorbell, and then introduced himself as a graduate student in psychology at Michigan State University who was doing research on marital percep- tions. He said that he would be willing to pay the couple $4.00 to fill out some questionnaires. At this point most couples asked him to more fully explain what was involved. He then showed them the packet of materials, explained the general instructions listed in the first handout, showed them how to fill out the questionnaires (especially the MPQ), and then asked for questions. If the couple was willing to participate, he left one packet and arranged a later time to pick it up and leave the second packet for the other partner. Although quite time consuming, this procedure helped insure that the partners did not compare answers when filling out the questionnaire. The packets were precoded and arranged so that the A and B forms alternated and 129 who filled out the packet first (husband or wife) was alternated. The address of every dwelling unit in the sampling was entered on a sampling record sheet along with the couples decision to participate or not, their reasons for refusal if they did not participate, and the code number of the packet and date it was given if they did parti- cipate. 0n the arranged date, the researcher returned, checked the first packet for completeness, left the second packet for the other spouse, and arranged a date for its pickup. Returning on this date, the researcher picked up and checked out the second packet. If it was complete, he would then pay the $4.00 fee and answer any questions they had about the study. Often the researcher had to return several extra times because the participants were not at home or had not completed the questionnaire by the predetermined time. The procedures used for the Therapy group were essentially the same except for three differences: 1. The couple's therapist did the explaining of the study and the collection of the data packets. 2. The couple was informed that their therapist would be getting a copy of the results which they could learn about through their therapist. 3. Both packets were given out at the same time with instruc- tions to work independently and seal their answers in the envelope provided when finished. 130 Results The MPQ was evaluated by correlating each one of its 443 variables against both the husband's and wife's Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores separately for the randomly sampled Community group (N_= 60) and the Total group (N_= 80). The Community group was a fairly well adjusted group according to the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) norms. Only 8 of the 60 Community couples had an average DAS score more than one standard deviation below the mean, as Table 18 shows. Because of the restricted DAS score range, this group's correlation coefficients were somewhat attenuated. Adding the 20 Therapy cases, which included a high proportion of maladjusted couples (13 out of 20 were one standard deviation below the DAS mean) to the Community group, produced a wider range of DAS scores which should give a better estimate of the general population correlation between the MPQ variables and DAS. The results for both the Community and the Total groups will be reported, since together they give an idea of how much each group contributed to the correlations. To simplify the tables, the correlation coefficients for both the husband and the wife will only be presented on the interpersonal MPQ measures such as the interpersonal disagreement comparisons. Most MPQ measures are intrapersonal since they are based solely on one person's perceptions, and so only the correlation with that person's DAS score will be presented in the tables. For example, only the correlation between the wife's perceived disagreement over the ideal wife (PDA-W1W) and the wife's DAS score will be presented. The corres- ponding correlations between husband's DAS and PDA-WIW and other wife MPQ measures were calculated but will not be presented because they 131 Table 18. Dyadic Adjustment Statistics for Groups Group Dyadic Adjustment Statistic Community Therapy 112321 Mean (Norm = 114.8)8 Husband 112.9 90.4 107.2 Wife 116.3 86.5 108.8 Couple Average 114.3 88.3 107.8 Standard Deviation (Norm = 17.8)8 Husband 13.8 22.8 19.1 Wife 14.1 30.3 23.2 Couple Average 12.8 24.5 19.9 Distribution of Scores Above 134 1 O l 133 - 116 34 3 37 115 - 98 17 4 21 97 - 80 8 6 14 Below 79 0 7 7 Correlation Coefficient Husband DAS with Wife DAS .680 .724 .784 aNote: Normative data from Spanier's study (1976). 132 are usually very similar to the wife's correlations. Viewpoint Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 that the couples actual loving ratings would be positively correlated with their DAS scores was strongly confirmed (p}<.OOOl) for all eight viewpoints and for both the Total and Community groups as Table 19 shows. Clearly maladjusted couples perceive them- selves as less loving than the well adjusted couples. These correla- tion coefficients are the highest of any in the study. For both husband and wife the best single predictor of their DAS scores is their prediction of how loving they are rated by their spouse (H2AH and W2AW), and the second best predictor is how loving they actually rate their spouse (HlAW and WlAH). How dominating the couple actually rate themselves is nega- tively correlated with their DAS scores as predicted by Hypothesis 3. However, the correlation coefficients are not as large, only 7 or 8 viewpoints are significant at greater than the .01 level for both groups as Table 19 shows. Loving scale correlation coefficients will be consistently higher than Dominance scale correlation coefficients throughout the rest of the results also which substantiates what has been reported previously that loving is more important than dominance in marital relationships (Luckey, 1964; Kotlar, 1965; Fineberg B Lowman, 1975). So the more dominating and coercive and the less submissive and cooperative the couples perceive themselves, the more maladjusted they rate their marriages. As Table 19 shows, the wife's dominance influences the relationship more than the husband's dominance. Hypothesis 2 that ideal loving expectations would not be correlated with marital adjustment is not supported as evidenced by the 8. v m 0 :5. v m 88. v m a 898323,... 83395 133 a .00H kn pofiamwuaaa muoofiofimmooo HH< “ouoz 0Hl 0Hl a 00 0 mm mafia Hmong «0 sofi> asp m.oww3 3HH3 HHI ma 0 mm u on mafia Hmoca mo 3oa> n.0conmas mo 3ow> m.owfi3 3H~3 mml mHl m He m He oua3.amova «0 sow> m.omw3 mo 3ow> n.0amnmam 3H~x N l n l ma NN mafia Hoop“ mo sou> n30 n.0amnmsm 3HH= nal o owl u on m we panama: Hmong mo sofl> use m.o0fi3 mmaa n Hel m Hml m on m on common: Hoop“ mo 3ow> n.0amnmo: mo sofi> m.oma3 mes n l «Nl 0H 0 mm moonmsn amouw «0 30H> m.owfi3 mo sow> n.0omnmsm mHNm Hal 0 owl 0H 0H vaunman Hmovu mo sow> can n.0cmpmam mHHm muafiomsow> HmovH n qu m mml m 00 m 00 owws ammuom mo sow> n30 m.oww3 adds m Hml 8 mol 8 H0 m Hm mafia amauom mo Bow> n.0omnmss mo soa> m.omfi3 3<~3 mml m mml m an o Nu mugs Hmsuoo mo sofi> m.oma3 mo sou> m.vamnm=m saws o mml m col m 00 m on mugs Hosuom mo sofi> :30 n.0omnwsm 3 :30 m.owa3 m¢a3 o wml le m 0s m mm compass Hmouom mo 3ofi> m.0:mnm=£ mo soap m.om«3 = w.owa3 «0 soa> n.0amnmam m¢~m u 0ml u nal m 00 m mu vaunmss Hmauoo mo sofi> :36 n.0oonmsm moa mwcfiumm uofionsofi> 00: 0am mamom uaoaumsn0< oapmha coosuon assaumaouuou .mH magma 134 fact that 6 of the 8 ideal viewpoint correlation coefficients in Table 19 are significant at better than the .01 level for the Total group. The correlation coefficients are only slightly less for the Community group so this effect is not due to the therapy cases. This means that well-adjusted and maladjusted couples differed ideal expectations for loving in marriage with the maladjusted couples expecting less loving. In particular, the maladjusted wives expected their husbands to ideally want to be less loving (WZIH) than the well adjusted wives did. For the husbands there was less variation in their ideal expectations than there was for the wives (i.e. HlIH and HlIW versus WlIH and WlIW). In contrast, there were few significant correlations between the ideal viewpoints and DAS on the Dominance scale. This supports Hypothesis 4. The only substantial correlation in Table 19 was WZIH, the wife's view of her husband's "ideal husband." The more the wife rated her marriage as troubled, the more likely she was to see her husband as ideally desiring to be less loving and submissive than the husbands in well adjusted marriages. Comparison Hypotheses Perceived Role Differentiation. Dyadic adjustment consis- tently correlated substantially and inversely with the extent of actual perceived role differentiation as shown by data in Table 20's upper left quadrant. Hypothesis 5 was strongly confirmed on the Loving scale for both the number of differences and square root of the average squared difference measures. All of these correlation coefficients are significant beyond the .0001 level for both the Total and Community groups. Though the comparable Dominance Scale 135 oudouommwn vow w>< uoomldm ucosumafio< owomhn 0cm cowumwuaouommwn oaom oo>woouom mo uaouxm amosuom aowumaouuoo mmocmummmwo mo poaasz H0. V N 0 H00. V N 0 H000. V N oocmowmaamwm mo Hog: oowwouloao .00H an oowwmwuwaa mucowowmmooo HH< “ouoz o l w l owl o Hml 0wl o wml aaoo cowumwuaouommwo Homo“ mo 0 owl o owl wwl m wol m mml o mol Houoa sow> asp m.omw3 Has 0 Hal owl 0 mol m oml m «ml o wnl 3300 aowuowuaouommwo Hmoow mo o Hml m mol o mol m mml o mml m 0ol Hooch 3ow> m.o:onm=n mo swab m.omw3 HwB le o o owl owl nal le aaoo cowumwuoouommwo Hooow no u mMI mwl o ool o oml mwl o w0l Hmuoa 3ww> m.omfis mo 3mw> m.oamnmam me a o l mal Hal w l «HI aaou aowuowuaouowmwv Hmoow mo 0Hl w l Hal Hal w l nal Hausa smw> :30 n.0conwsm Ham maomwummaou 0mm HoooH m wml mwl o 0ol m le o 0ml m mnl asoo coaumwuoouommwo Hmsuom mo m ool o owl o le o mwl o mol m owl Hooch 3ow> asp B.ow«3

n.0aonmon mo 3ow> m.omw3 m.oww3 mo 3ow> m.oomom=m :30 m.oamnm:m «Hm mama Ham a 3 Ham 3 gnaw 25:98 2 :3: .0w manna 136 and Overall correlations were somewhat smaller, the same relationship was observed. On these and all other comparisons reported the DAS correlations with Loving almost always exceeded those for Dominance and Overall suggesting that differences on the Loving scale are most relevant to dyadic adjustment and that the consideration of other issues adds little if anything to the prediction of dyadic adjust- ment. These results mean that well adjusted couples see them- selves as strikingly similar, i.e. almost equally loving and almost equally dominating. In contrast, maladjusted couples see themselves as very differentiated or polarized. One partner is seen as much more loving and submissive than the other. It was hypothesized that, regardless of how much their actual relationship was polarized, all couples would desire egalitarian relationships. As the correlation coefficients for the ideal perceived role differentiations on the bottom of Table 20 show, this hypothesis received only partial and selective confirmation. It was consistently supported only for the husband's (PRD-HlI); in both the adjusted and the maladjusted marriages the husbands said they wanted to be equal to their wives. This is not how they were_perceived by their wives. The more maladjusted the marriage became, the more the wives perceived their husbands as desiring (PRD-W21) unequal or differentiated rela- tionships, and the more the wives themselves (PRD-WlI) saw an ideal marriage in terms of differentiated roles. The question of which role spouses occupied was addressed by Table 21 data, which shows the direction of perceived role dif- ferentiation scores on Loving and Dominance scales. It had been hypothesized (Hypothesis 7) that there would be no significant 137 S. v m 0 So. v m a 88. v m a 883:8? mo :53 833.95 cos an eaHHaHuaaa «Dawsonmmmoo HH< "auoz o NH- m ma aomoafiuaauammna Haas“ mo sas> ago m.amfi3 Ha: o 0ml m Hml a mo o no mafiumwuoouommwo Hooow mo 3ow> w.oaonmsn mo 3mfi> m.omw3 sz as: Hal 0 mm- om- aofiuafiuaaummmna Hams“ mo 3mw> n.0ww3 mo smw> m.oamnm:= me AH: AH: H «H: aofiuafiuamummmsu same“ we wa> :so n.0nmnmsm Ham mcomfiuomaoo 0mm HmooH N «a m ow aofiuanuamummmfia Hasuua no saa> ago m.mmss

m.ocmnm=£ mo sow> m.omfi3 m.mww3 mo 3ww> m.0:mnm:m :30 n.0amnmam «a: Nuwasaaou Hmuoa auwcaaaoo HouOH mcomwuomaoo mam Hosuo< QHQU m QUfim—HHEOQ uaoaumsho< owommn vow uaoammuwmmwa 0m>woouom mo :owuoouwn coosumm maowumamuuoo oamomlwmfi>oq .Hw canny I38 correlations for these measures, and on 5 out of the 8 comparisons the null hypothesis was confirmed. The exceptions, however, were revealing. As DAS changed the wives did not perceive either partner as overall more loving or dominating than the other in terms of actual performance (PRD-WlA) or ideal expectations (PRD-W11). Though they perceived more differences as their relationships deteriorated, the wives viewed themselves as slightly but not significantly more loving than their husbands. In contrast, husband's DAS correlated substantially with self portrayals (PRD-HlA) as being the more loving and submissive spouse--a view which the wives correctly predicted (PRD-W2A). The sub- stantial differences between these correlations of the Community and Total groups for the husbands (PRD-HlA) suggests that this effect is largely attributable to husbands in the therapy group. Thus, these correlations suggest that as marital adjustment decreases, both husbands and wives see themselves as the more loving partner in accor- dance with the "depreciate spouse, enhance self" hypothesis. From the wives' viewpoint, however, the overall difference was small (i.e. both are hostile), while for the husbands, it was large (i.e. the wife was the Egally_hostile one). The bottom half of Table 21 showed little evidence for either husband (PRD-H11) or wife (PRD-W11) to say that ideally they want one or the other to be the more loving one as their adjustment changes. As maladjustment increases, however, there is a very significant tendency for the wives to report that their husbands ideally desire to be hostile and dominant while wanting their wives to be loving and submissive. A summary of these results on the perceived role differentia- tion measures is: (l) The more maladjusted the marriage, the more actual differences and role polarizations were perceived. (2) The 139 husbands said it is the wives who were becoming hostile and dominating, but the wives said that the reverse was true. Ideally, both said they wanted egalitarian relationships, like adjusted couples had, but the wives believed that their husbands desired to hostilely dominate a lovingly submissive wife. Perceived Dissatisfaction. In support of Hypothesis 8, the extent of perceived dissatisfaction correlated strongly with DAS as illustrated in Table 22. The more troubled the marriage, the more couples perceived their actual performance as falling below their ideals. The correlations were highly significant (p_<:.0001) on the Loving scale for all comparisons on all measures (number of differences and square root of averaged squared difference) for both the Total and Community groups. Again, the correlations were less on the Dominance scale, but 7 of 8 Total group comparisons achieved the .001 level. The exception was that maladjusted husband's did not see themselves (PDS-HlH) as needing to change more with respect to dominance than did well-adjusted husbands. They depicted themselves as already sufficiently submissive. To reach their "ideal," couples need to move in the directions shown in Table 23. Hypothesis 9 predicted that DAS would correlate negatively with the couples viewing themselves as needing to be more loving. It was strongly supported (p}<.OOOl) for Total group on all eight PDS comparisons. Wives' perceptions (PDS-W1W, PDS-WlH) of how much more loving they and their husbands need to become were the second highest set of correlations found on the MPQ. Clearly a lack of loving is a major characteristic of marital maladjustment. However, Hypothesis 10 was only partially supported. While dissatisfaction with the wife's dominance was confirmed as correlating significantly and positively 140 ousouomwwn nomlw>< uoomldw uaoaumsho< owommq vow :owuuommwummmwn oo>woouom mo ucouxm coosuom mcowumaouuoo moocmuommwa mo Honasz S. v m a so. v m 88. v m a 8833a»: mo Egon 833125 ooH go oofiaaaoaaa moaofiosmmooo HH< oooz a no: cm: a no: a so- u mm- a ma: aaoo maooaoo auag o owl a mm: a mm- a an- a mg- a aal Haney aoaooaaoaoaoofio ago o.oung gag a mo- a ogl a mo: a can a «mu a Na. aaoo no: aofig aofiuoamofiuaoofio l l l l l l oboe o oaaooaa mo gofig o was: gm: a no a Nu m om m on a an a as H . . a no- NH: a on- o so: owl a as- aaoo maooaoa aofig.aosooamoaaaooflo a ool a as: a Hal a on- a on: a no: fiance otomag mo gong o.oaaooam gm: a on- o ms- a on: a on- a am. a an- aaoo omag aufig a Na: a No- a an. a so: a can a no- Hosea aofiooommauaoaoo ago o.oaaomam saw omfig snag mom a om: mm: a no: a so- a on: a mo: aaoo oaaomaa anfig a No- a on- a own a ma- a so: a oal Hones aonooamofiuaomao ago o.omag mag a le an: a on- a no- a as- o Ho- aaoo mmooaaa song aoaooomofioaoaao a «an a co. m an- a go. o no- o no- Hones o.oaaooaa mo gomg o.omag mwg a so- om- a an- a mm- u on- a mm- aaoo as: aosg aonooamofioaaoao a aol a No- a on: o no- a Hg- a ool Haooe o.ooag mo gong o.oaaooa= saw a co: m a so. a Hml gal a col aaoo gamma“: snag a an: o o ma- a an- wan a col Hobos aouooomomoaaofio ago o.oaaoaam mam HHmHmer SHBOQ ngOA HHMHwS fiHaOQ wfiH>OA meamm UGwn—mflm #9.“? WOW .NN usage S. v u 0 :5. v m 88. v m a ooaaoflmamao mo Hot: 8:318 03 .3 833:3 Safloflmooo H2 "3oz u an a an o 3.. a. own 388: no? aowuomwwwuommwo ago m.omw3 3H3 o no o oo o owl m owl no: spas nowuuwmmwummmfio m.v:onm:: mo smw> m.oww3 3w3 o m on o oml m wml maomuon Saws aowuommmwummmwo m.omw3 mo swab m.0amnm=: me 0 mm o 0o m oml o owl omws mu: Saws GOfluummmHummmHU fig m-Ufiwnwfim 3H3 nu mmwB saws mam 1 on ww m wwl m owl tampon: um: nuwz cowuoommwummmwo dab m.omw3 ma3 a l o 2.. o 3- o no- ~3an aflg cowuommmHuMmmwo m.vamnm=£ mo 3mw> m.omH3 mwz wm on m mml m owl aw: nuwa cowuomwmwummmwo m.omw3 mo Bmw> m.vconm=m mwm 0H m m 0ol m mwl maowafln Suwa :0wuuMmmwummmwo cab m.v:mnm=m mam Nmmmmmmmm Houoy NuaGDEEoo HouOH vflmnmsm nu“: mam onom ouoocwaon wamom waw>oa udmfiumahod owoohn woo cowuommmwummmwn 0o>fioouom mo aowuoouwn aoo3uom aowumamuuoo .mw oHomH 142 with dyadic adjustment, the correlations of the dissatisfaction with the husband's dominance infrequently (one of eight) reached significance. This suggests that wives in the maladjusted marriages are consistently expected to become less dominating but there is no consistent trend for the husbands. Thus, as with the perceived role differentiation comparisons, most of the hypotheses about the perceived dissatisfaction comparisons have been significantly confirmed. The exceptions reveal a more intense struggle between spouses in the maladjusted marriages than had been expected. Disagreement Comparisons. Hypothesis 11 suggested that the extent of interpersonal disagreements over actual Loving ratings of husband and wife (IDA-AH and IDA-AW) would increase with decreasing marital adjustment. The relevant data in Table 24 supported this view, and the correlations were more significant for the number of differences measure than for the square root of averaged squared difference measure. This suggests that the number of issues disagreed upon related more to marital adjustment than the amount of disagreement on the issues. How- ever, the extent of actual interpersonal disagreements on the Dominance Scale infrequently correlated significantly with adjustment which means that the Dominance data did not strongly confirm this hypothesis although all correlation were in the expected direction. Interpersonally, only disagreements over Loving related strongly to dyadic adjustment. The same pattern was obtained in the perceived disagreement comparisons (PDA) which concerned estimated instead of real disagree- ment. Hypothesis 12, which predicted that the extent of actual per- ceived disagreements would increase as adjustment decreases was strongly confirmed (p_<:.OOOl for all 8 number of difference comparisons for both groups) for the Loving scale but only partially confirmed on the 143 uaoaumsfio< oHomhn 0am ucoaoouwomHQ HmaomuoououaH mo uaouxm moosuom nOHuoHouuoo Ho. v H o H8. v m o H85. v m a ooaaoHNHamHo Ho HogoH ooHHBloao 55H go ooHHaHuHaa moaoHoHHHooo HH< "ouoz H I oH oH 0wl o I 0 «ml oMHz mommauomuoo oMHB N l nH an NNl HHl U «ml Hog: HaooH pogo oaoaooomooHn 3H NH oN HHl «Nl o oml oNHg ooaaaaomaoa oaaooaa w mw oHl wwl o I wwl swam HoooH uo>o uaoaoouwmmHa mH macaw hUHmaanu now m:0HumHouuou N l N oNl o oNl mHl o mml oNHg ooaaaaomaoa oNHg mHl H o mml o Hml mHl o oml omam HoooH Hugo uaoaoouwaoHn 3H H l NH NHl NNl NHl o NNl oNHg ooaaaaomgoa oaaoaaa «HI wH o 0MI o owl NHI o wml noon HmooH uo>o uaoaoouwomHn mH macaw Hmuoa you maOHumHouuoo mcomHuomaou <0H Hoon HHI mHl wwl o owl MHI n m«l oMHz mommauomuoo oMHa le OHl o Nol o mml mHl o ool Hog: Haaouo pogo uaoaoouwaoHn g< mHI mHI u mml n m«l o I m m«l oMHS ouamauomuoa ozonmns mHl le U «ml o m«l MHI o o«l Haas Hmouom uo>o udoaoouwmmHn m< amouu huHosaaoo How mCOHuoHouuoo o 0ml le m ««I m w«l mHl m wml omHB mommahomuoo oMHa Hmouom o m«l u owl o 0ol o ««I oHl o Hml swam Hobo uaoaomuwmmHn 34 m oml «HI m ool o mol mHI m «ol oMHB mommauomuoo ocmnmsn Hosuuo a wml a l a ool o ool o oml o mol swam pogo uaoaoouwaoHn m< moouu Hmuoa How m=0HumHouuoo HHmuo>0 cHaoo me>0H HHmHo>0 oHaon wcH>0H m< uoom um mooaoquMHn mo umaasz m.oomuom .«w oHAmH 144 Dominance scale, as shown in Table 25. Clearly disagreements over issues of loving were related more strongly to dyadic adjustment than were disagreements over issues of dominance. Hypothesis 13 postulated that the extent of interpersonal disagreements over ideal expectations would not correlate with DAS. However, the findings showed a significant tendency (p}<.01) for dis- agreements over issues of ideal loving, especially the husband's loving, to increase as marital adjustment decreases. No correlations on the dominance scale even approached significance. So couples generally share common expectations of marriage. However, the couples themselves do not always perceive things that way, as revealed by the extent of perceived disagreement correlations at the bottom of Table 25. With one exception, none of the husband's ideal perceived disagreement measures are significantly correlated with their adjustment scores. In accordance with Hypothesis l3, husbands tend to expect their wives to agree with them on ideals regardless of DAS. Though happily married wives did agree, the unhappily married wives disagreed. They expected significant disagreement, especially with regard to ideal husband expectations, on both the Loving and Dominance scales. Inspection of the direction of ideal perceived disagreement results listed in Table 27 reveals that as the wives report decreased marital adjustment, they perceived their husbands wanting to be ideally less loving and more dominant than desired by the wives. The unhappy wives clearly saw conflict between their expectations and their hus- bands not only on these comparisons but also on the ideal perceived role differentiation comparisons discussed earlier. Otherwise Hypo- thesis 13, which basically states that all couples share similar ideal expectations, could not be significantly rejected as shown by data in ““31 mucouoHMHa 00m m>< uoomlmm uaoaumnn0< UHomha cam ucoawouwmmHn oo>Hoouom mo uaouxm amosuom :OHuoHouuoo moocouomeQ mo Honaoz ‘ [ll—Ia! - «111111111 8. v .m o H8. v H o 88. v m a 858333.. No HogoH ooHHSloao ooH so ooHHaHoHaa moaoHoHNHooo HH< "ouoz u 0ml wwl owl o m«l o oml o o«l 8500 maOHumuoonxo oMHa HmooH uo>o o aNl NHl o mml a aml oNl a Ngl Hauoa oaoaooamooHo oooooaxo o.oNHg gHg mwl 0 o mml owl wwl mwl aaoo m:0Huouoomxo owHa HoooH uo>o mHI w I le le oHl wwl Houoa uaoaooummmHo wouoomxo m.0amnm=m 3Hm o o«l m o«l n m«l o 0ol o mml m ool aaoo m50Humuoooxo ocmnman HoooH Ho>o a mml a ool a ool a mol a gal a ool Hauoe uaoaooawamHo oouooaxo o.omH3 mHg o I w I wwl owl le owl aaou mQOHuouoomxo oomnman HmooH Ho>o o l o «wl oHI « I le Houoa uaoaomumomHo wouoomxo m.oamnm:m mHm ”w maomHuomaoo «am HmooH 1 mml le o mml m 0ol o owl o ool aaou mommahowuon oMHa Hosuom uo>o m mml o H«I o wwl m ool m w«l m wwl Hmuoa uaoaoouwomHo wouommxo m.oMH3 3<3 mwl wwl o mml m m«l mwl m 0ol aaou mommaHOMHoa ost Hmsuoo uo>o u Hml 0wl n oml m H«I oHI o o«l Houoy ucosoouwmmHo oouoooxo m.oaonm=m 34m A w«l 0Hl o mml m mol 0wl m «wl aaou mommahomuoo ocoomss Honuoo uo>o a ool a mgl a oNl a NNl a ool a owl Haooa oaoaooawamHo oooooaxo o.oNHg mag wwl HHI n H«I o mml wwl A ««I aaoo mommauomuom campus: Hmauoo uo>o m oml mHl m Hol o wwl n wml m wwl Hmuoy unoaoouwomHo oouooaxo m.oconm=m mo uaoamouwmmHa 3H m m oHI 0HI oMHa mGOHuouoono cannon: w I w wHI owl own: HmooH Hobo ucoaoouwomHn mH maomHummaoo onH HmooH mH HHI wwl 0H oMHz mommauomuoo owfis « wwl w mH swam Honuuo uo>o uaoaoouwmmwn 3< ww a on a mml m Hol omHz mommauomuom weapon: o Hw le n wml own: Hmsuoo uo>o ucoaoouwomHn m< NuH¢35500 Houoe NuHasaaoo Hmuoa m<0 mnomHummaoo onH Hmouo< oHoom mocmcHaoo oHoom wdH>0H m.aomuom uaoaumono< oHomha 06m uooaoouwmmHn HmaomuoauouaH mo aOHHQouHo noosumm aOHuMHouuoo .ow oHan S. V N 0 H8. V .HH o 88. v H a. 3533:»? mo HogoH ooHHouloao ooH go ooHHoHoHaa ouaoHoHNNooo HH< "mooz 148 a MN m l oHl oaoHoaoooaxo omHg HaooH uo>o ucoaoouwmmHo wouoonxo m.omH3 3H3 o le o l 3 N oaoHumuooaxo out» 183 Ho>o ucoawouwomHo wouoomxo m.0aopm:m 3H: o oml oml o Hg on aaoHoouooago oaaoaaa HaooH n n Ho>o ucwaoouwmmHo wouuomxo m.owH3 mHS wH w w I ww maOHumuoomxo tampon: HmoVH uo>o uaoaoouwomHo vouoooxo n.0aonmam mHm mcomHuomaou <0m HoooH mwl wml «w m w« moooauowuom oMHz Hosuoo a um>o unmaoouwmmwo wouommxo m.oMH3 3<3 mH mw owl o mml mommahowuoq omHa Hanuoo uo>o uaoaooummmHo oouoooxo n.0cmnmom 3o ucoaoouwomHo wouoomxo m.oMH3 m<3 wHI u owl «H m w« ouamahomuoo oconmsc Hoauom uw>o ucoamouwmmHv omuomnxm n.0omnmdm m4: NuHcoaaoo Hmuow NuHcsaBou Hmuoa maomHuquoo <0m Hmsuo< onom mommaHaon onom waH>0H unoaum9no< UHom%0 woo ucmaoouwmmHo oo>HooHom mo GOHuomuHa noosuom GOHumHouuoo .ww oHan 149 behavior but somewhat less over ideal expectations. Each partner tended to rate self higher and spouse lower than did the spouse. Disagree- ment about the husband's behavior seem to be more significantly rela- ted to marital difficulties than did disagreements about the wife's behavior. Interpersonal Misunderstanding. Hypothesis 16 stated that the extent of interpersonal misunderstandings of actual ratings will increase as DAS decreases. It was confirmed on the Loving scale but not on the Dominance scale, as shown by Table 28. All actual misunderstanding comparisons were confirmed at the .001 level for the number of differen- ces in the Total group on the Loving scale, but none of the corresponding comparisons reaches significance at the .01 level on the Dominance scale. So there was more misunderstanding in maladjusted couples on the Loving issues, and, in support of Hypothesis 18, there was no consis- tent direction to the husband's misunderstanding as shown in Table 29. There was, however, a consistent direction to the wives' misunderstandings. The lower their DAS, the more wives underestimated their husband's loving ratings of himself and especially of herself. This suggests that wives consistently perceived more hostility in their husbands than the husbands report. Unfortunately, the MPQ measures cannot determine whose ratings are most valid, but these results suggest that wives fake bad and/or husbands fake good, at the lower end of the adjustment scale. Hypothesis 17 suggested that ideal expectations would not be correlated with DAS on either the extent or the direction of misunderstanding. This hypothesis was confirmed for the extent of difference scale on the Domi- nance scale where only 1 of 8 measures reached significance, but it was disconfirmed on the Loving scale where all number of difference measures were significant for the Total group. So the less adjusted the marriage, 150 mooonMMHn now w>< uoomiom uooaumsh0< UHomho 0cm waHoamumHooasmHz HooomuomuouaH mo acouxm awoauom GOHHmHouuoo mooconMMHn mo Honauz Ho. v m o H8. v m o H58. v .HH a 0883?me Ho HogoH ooHHBloao ooH go ooHHaHoHaa aoaoHoHHHooo HH< ”mooz H l NH HNl o ool NHl o oml aaoo oMHg HaooH mo waHoao o.oaaooao H l gH 5Nl o oNl NHl o gNl Haoog No waHoaaoooooaaaHa o.ong gHg m l NN o gml NNl H l o mml aaoo oHHg HoooH mo waHoau o.ong o gNl o l a gal omml NNl a mgl Haoog mo maHoaauoaooaaoHa m.oaoooao gHo «Hl NH o col 0 mml N l o NHl aaoo oaaoaao HaooH No NaHoao o.oaaooao NNl H l a ool o mml HNl o oml Hosea Ho waHoaaoouooaaoHa o.oNHg ng H oH HNl ng H l «Nl aaoo oaoooao HaooH No waHoau m.oMHg HNl N a col o ool mHl a col Hooog Ho NaHoaaooaooaaoHa o.oaoooao oHo maomHummEou 0 GHEOQ waH>0H HHohm>0 :Haon wcH>0H onEmm mcomfiuommoo 0H .mw oHAmH 152 the more the couple tended to misunderstand each other's loving ideals. Again the direction of this misunderstanding was significant only for the wive's misunderstanding of her husband's ideals. As marital adjust- ment decreased, the more wives underestimated their husband's ideal loving and the more they overestimated his ideal dominance. It has been previously shown that these wives expected their husbands to dis- agree over ideals by wanting to be more hostile and dominating. The results in this section reveal that this is the wife's projection and not an accurate understanding of their husbands real ratings. But since the MPQ does not determine which set of perceptions is valid, it could well be that the wives are correctly predicting their husband's true feelings at a private level, but their husbands are answering at a pub- lic level with what they think the socially desirable role of the hus- band would be. To summarize all comparisons, it is safe to say that the extent of all actual differences--dissatisfaction, role differentiation, disagreement, and misunderstanding--increase significantly on the Loving scale with decreasing adjustment. The same pattern holds on the Dominance scale, but is less significant. The number of differences measure generally correlated slightly more with adjustment than did the square root of the averaged squared difference measure. With notable excep- tions usually involving the wife's perception of the husband, ideal differences did not correlate substantially with adjustment, tending to confirm the assumption that people tend to share similar expectations about the ideal marriage regardless of their present DAS. The direc- tion of differences scores almost always correspond to the "depreciate spouse, enhance self" pattern. To more fully examine the relationships between comparisons, the pattern indices will be discussed next. 153 Pattern Hypotheses. Dissatisfaction Patterns. The dissatisfaction internalized/ externalized pattern index (DSIEP) was designed to measure another aspect of the "attack spouse, defend self" hypothesis, whether a person was more dissatisfied than their spouse over a certain behavior. Hypothe- sis 19 which stated that a person's dissatisfaction with themselves would be more internalized in more adjusted marriages was only confirmed for the husband's behavior as Table 30 shows. The more externalized dissatisfaction the husband perceives (DSIEP-HPH) on both his loving and dominance behaviors, the more likely he is to rate his marriage as maladjusted. The wife also is more likely to rate her marriage as maladjusted if her husband is perceived as more dissatisfied with her than she herself is (DSIEP-WPW). As Table 30 shows externalized pressure on oneself (DSIEP-HPH and DSIEP-WPH) is more correlated with poor adjustment than externalized pressure on the spouse (DSIEP-HPW and DSIEP-WPH). Also more externalized pressure on the husband (DSIEP- IPH) is more correlated with poor adjustment than externalized pressure on the wife (DSIEP-IPW) which fits with earlier findings on the impor- tance of the husband's role to marital adjustment. As usual the corre- lations are more significant for the Total than the Community group which suggests that the patterns are most pronounced in the therapy cases. What is unusual is that the correlations on these indices are more significant on the Dominance scale than on the Loving scale. The last three indices (DSIEP-HPR, -IPR, -WPR) measure who should change most in the relationship. In the husband's eyes (DSIEP- HPR), the more unhappy the marriage, the more he is dissatisfied with his wife than himself which provides support for Hypothesis 20. The wives see things just the reverse (DSIEP-WPR), but the correlations for 154 Ho. v m o H8. v m o 88. v H a 85338: No HogoH ooHHSloao ooH go ooHHaHoHaa moaoHoHHmooo HH< “mooz mm a as HN a as o mm o oo moo g .Hoogou . w o ow 0w n «m w wH man u .Houuoo mousom HocomuoououoH mmH u wm m m« ow o m« 0H 0 ww mousom mo nowunouuom n.0omnmmm mmm mHsmaOHuoHou 6H cOHuoommHuommHo umouommmlmo mousom NN o Hm oN o on g NN oogaoo Ho aoHoaougoa o.oNHg gag NHl ng HHl a l NNl NNl moo g .Hoogoo NH 5H 5H m o H moo .o .Hoauou oooaoo HaaooaoaoooaH ggH oH mH wH oH o 0H mousom mo aOHumoouom m.oamom== 3mm ost nuHa aOHuowmmHuommHo uwouoommlmo oouaom oH a OH NH HN 5H Hm oouaoo Ho aoHoaooaoa o.oNHg ogg u on a No a on a on o No a mo moo g .Hooaoo Hw m H« 0 mm m «m 0 o ow mo onom oucmcHEon mHmomlwdH>OH uaoaum=n0< uHomhn woo mooHoaH auouumm ooNHHmcuouxm\ooNHHoaHouaH :OHuoommHummmHn coosuom maOHuMHmuwoo .00 oHomH 155 them do not reach significance. Interpersonally (DSIEP-IPR), the less the husband wants to change relative to the wife, then the less adjusted the marriage which again emphasizes the importance of the husband's role. Overall, Hypotheses 19 and 20 are only partially supported which suggests that the externalization of dissatisfaction is not as important as expected in marital adjustment. Inspection of the scatter- plots suggests that one of the reasons the correlations were low for these pattern indices is because even normal couples engaged in substan- tial externalization. Consensus Patterns. Hypothesis 21 which states that as marital adjustment increases, couples will be less aware of disagreements as measured by the understanding of disagreements pattern index (UNDAP) is significantly confirmed only for the wife's understanding of dis- agreements about actual behavior on both scales and for her understanding of disagreements about ideal dominance expectations for the husband. Only 1 of the husband's 16 measures reaches significance (UNDAP-HAH on Dominance) as Table 31 shows. This suggests that husbands in poorly- adjusted marriages were no more aware of disagreements in their relation- ship than were their well-adjusted counterparts. In contrast, wives in poorly-adjusted marriages were much more sensitive to and accurate in predicting disagreements than the wives in well-adjusted marriages. However, the reverse of this is also true, i.e. wives in maladjusted marriages were worse in predicting agreement than their well-adjusted counterparts. I On the understanding of agreement pattern index (UNAGP), it was the better adjusted couples who were the more accurate predictors. However this was only true for the Loving scale so Hypothesis 22 is only partially supported, and the correlations were more significant 156 8. v H o H8. v .HH o 88. v m a 883353 no HogoH ooHHaoloao 00H so 0oHHoHuH=5 munoHonmooo HH< Houoz m wm ow 0 gm wwl owl g I 5500 00H3 HoooH n.05mnmsn n om mH 0 0m 0 owl mHI wHI Houoa mo oaHoomumHooo: m.oMHz 3H3 0w 0 mw oHI le m I 5500 owHa HmooH m.oMH3 0 0w oH o Hm w m I HH ku08 m0 ooHoaouwuooas n.05oomam 3H: 0 on «w o no m o«I o o«I wHI 5500 oaoomon HmooH m.0monm0: a oo o on o oo o sol a sol HNl Hooog mo waHoaaoooooa: o.omHg ng ww w 0H w mHI « I 5500 . oconmsn HoooH m.oMH3 o NN o o gN HH 5 m Hooog mo waHoaooooooaa o.oaaoooo oHo mGOHumuoomwm HmooH meoaouwuoooa m Hm 0w m on m o«I mHI m o«I .5500 no: mo mwaHuou Hoouoo m.0aonm:£ a No a gN a on a Hol o mml o Nol Haoog Ho waHoaaooaooaa o.oHHg goH ooHHoquao ooH go ooHHaHoHaa moaoHoHHHooo HH< "oooz mm oN oN a Ho o NH o no .aaoo goo moooa oaooogo gHoaoogaH a No a No a so a oo o No a Ho Hooog goo Ho gng o.oHHg gag m l oHl o o am oH a on .aaoo oHooooo mooao oHHg gHoooogaN N HHl 5H o mm H a HH Haoog goo mo gng o.oaaom=o goo m l N N l o no NH 0 om .aaoo HHoaaHo mooao .ooao gHoagogom ng g l HNl a Ho o on a so Haoog goo oo gng a.ong gog aN NH o go o go u on o no .aaoo aHo mooag oHHg gHoaaogoo o Ho o Hm a so a oo o no a om Haoog goo Ho gng o.oaoooao mg: #03 5on a HHHHN 5.55 «How. a 25 535 053225 auouuom oonmHummmHn thmuo>mh cuouumm oonmHumm thmuo>mm gmoag ogmog ucoaum=n0< 0H0mmn 05m mooHooH auouumm guHHHnouo>mm aoozuoo maoHuoHouH00 .Nm oHoog 159 and as a result the significance of the correlations were reduced. On the favorably satisfied (FASTP) pattern indices, adjusted couples--rather than maladjusted couples--tended to perceive their spouses rating themselves (-WPH, -HPW) more favorably which was con- trary to Hypothesis 23. A problem here was the author's failure to understand the meaning of his indices. The positive correlations for these measures (FASTP-WPH, -HPW) simply mean that in issues where the person is satisfied with their partner, the well-adjusted couples expected partners to agree, while the less-adjusted couples expected partners to disagree. This finding is consistent with the basic hypothesis of this study that the more adjusted couples will perceive their relationship more favorably. Perceiving agreement is more favorable than perceiving disagreement. So the problem here was grouping toget- her two pattern indices (FASTP and FADSP) which appeared similar but were not. Complementary Need Patterns. The last of the pattern indices, the complementary need pattern indices (COMNP), reveal that as marital adjustment increased, both the husbands (-HWM) and the wives (-WHM) were more likely to see their spouses as a model of the kind of person they would like to ideally be. This result was most significant as usual on the Loving scale and for the Total group as Table 33 shows. It confirms part of Hypothesis 24 and means that the complementary need hypothesis holds more for adjusted than maladjusted couples. For the maladjusted couples the opposite is true, i.e. they see their spouses as models of what they don't want to be, further confirming the "depreciate spouse" hypothesis. Just as with the favorability pattern (FADSP) indices, the "enhance self" part of the hypothesis was not significantly confirmed. 160 onom HHoHopo uaoaumah0< UHooha 05m mooHoaH auouuom vooz oHoom 005m5H500 mHmum w5H>0H Ho. v m o H8. v m o H8. v m a 8985553 .Ho HogoH ooHHooloao 2: go ooHHoHoHaa moaoHoHHoooo HH< "3oz ON a 3 o m o Nm o no oHooooo goo Hoooa no A oaaomao Ho 3ng 9“..ng 5g «HI 0 wwl m I 0 wml m m I mMHa pom H0005 mo mHomaHs mo BoH> m.05mnm=: 2mm g l HHl oHl oHl o gm 2 oaoomao .Hoo Hoooa ma NHooooo no 8? BoHHg zgg mm a 3 HH o N o 3 o on go goo Hoooa om oMHa m0 30H> m.0ampm=m 23m .flmmmm .wmwmw dammw Hmuofi .5500 mmmmm. omxwloooz Enou505mH5500 humucoamHoaoo comsuom mGOHHmHoHuoo .mm oHan 161 Though the signs of the correlations for the self indices (COMLP - WWM, -HHM) were mainly in the expected direction for Hypothesis 24, they failed to reach significance, and in one case correlated signi- ficantly in the wrong direction. Inspection of the scatterplots revealed little variation in these measures with dyadic adjustment. This meant that everyone, regardless of their marital adjustment, tended to think of themself as a good model for their spouse. So what changes with marital adjustment according to these indices was not a person's impres- sion of how good oneself was but rather how good one's spouse was. As has proven true throughout the results, the less adjusted the marriage, the more negatively one perceived their spouse. 162 Discussion The findings strongly support the MPQ's validity as an instrument for assessing marital relationships. All major hypotheses were strongly confirmed usually at greater than the .0001 level of significance. As expected marital adjustment correlated positively with how loving and submissive the couple actually rated themselves and correlated negatively with how polarized their actual role rela- tionship was, how dissatisfied they were with their actual performance in comparison to ideal expectations, and how much disagreement and misunderstanding there was between them. Marital adjustment also correlated negatively with patterns of perceiving the spouse as needing to change more than oneself, perceiving disagreements more accurately than agreements, perceiving the spouse rating oneself unfavorably, and perceiving the spouse as a poor model of one's own ideals. Three simple statements largely summarize these findings: (1) 0n the viewpoint level, maladjusted couples actually rated themselves less favorably than adjusted couples. (2) On the comparison level, the maladjusted couples perceived more differences of all types than did adjusted couples. (3) 0n the pattern level, the maladjusted couples expected more of a "depreciate spouse, enhance self" pattern of differences between comparisons than did adjusted couples. When the hypotheses were not supported it was usually because conflicts within maladjusted couples were more intense than expected or because there was more conflict than anticipated within normal couples. An example of the first possibility is found in the results based on ideal expectations. Due to little prior research in this area, it was assumed that maladjusted couples would have "ideal" expec- 163 tations for marriage quite similar to those of more adjusted couples. Sometimes this was true. There were, for example, no significant correlations between husband's expectations of the ideal loving hus- band (HlIH) or the ideal loving wife (HlIW) and his dyadic adjustment, suggesting that the husbands generally held similar expectations of marriage regardless of their marital adjustment. The same pattern characterizes the husband on other basic measures. Neither ideal role differentiation (PRD-H11), ideal perceived disagreements (PRD-HIH, PDA-HIW), the direction of ideal misunderstandings (IMA-HIH, IMA-HIW), nor ideal misunderstanding of disagreement patterns (UNDAP-HIH, UNDAP-HIW) were significantly correlated with husbands' dyadic adjustment score. Haladjusted wives expected both their ideal husband (WlIH) and ideal wife (WlIW) to be less loving than did adjusted wives. They also expected a greater amount of ideal role differentiation (PRD- WlI) and ideal disagreement (PDA-WIH, PDA-WIW) than did adjusted wives. So rather than having the same high hopes for a loving, equal, and dissent-free marriage that most wives had, the maladjusted wives were more disillusioned or pessimistic and expected less from their "ideal marriage." A closer inspection of the results shows that they were even more disillusioned about their husband's "ideal" expectations. The more maladjusted the wife, the more she perceived her husband (WZIH) desiring to be less loving and more dominating than other husbands, the more she perceived him as desiring a polarized relation- ship (PRD-WZI) in which he hostiley dominated her, and the more she perceived him disagreeing with her ideals (PDA-WIH) by wanting to be less loving and submissive than she desired. Clearly the maladjusted wives perceived considerable conflict with their husbands over ideal expectations, especially over ideal expectations for the husband, and 164 these conflicts were related to their dyadic adjustment. So the null hypothesis that there were no differences in ideals was signi- ficantly rejected on many MPQ ideal measures. This provides further evidence of the MPQ's validity since its measures detected conflict that was not hypothesized. The other major reason that the hypothesized relationships were not confirmed was because the adjusted and maladjusted couples J showed the same tendencies in some sectors. The favorably dissatis- fied pattern indices (FADSP) provide one example. It was found, as hypothesized, that the more maladjusted the couple, the more they perceived themselves to be rated unfavorably by their spouse (FADSP- HPH, FADSP-WPW). However, there was no significant relationship between the favorability of spouses' self ratings (FADSP-HPW, FADSP-WPH) and their adjustment. It had been hypothesized that couples would see their partner faking good more in more maladjusted relationships, and it was true that maladjusted couples viewed their mates as rating themselves more favorably than the person themselves did. But well adjusted couples perceived their mates doing the same thing and to about the same extent. A similar pattern is found in the com- pelmentary need pattern index where people in both the maladjusted and adjusted groups saw themselves (COMNP-WWM, COMNP-HHM) as good models for their mates. These findings suggest that the tendency for people to rate themselves somewhat more favorably than others is a rather characteristic human tendency. What changes with marital adjustment is not the tendency to enhance one's own self concept but mainly the tendency to depreciate the other person's self con- cept. So the unconfirmed hypotheses did not seriously challenge 165 the MPQ's validity. If anything they tended to strengthen it by revealing conflicts which were not anticipated. As expected, the hypotheses were more significantly confirmed when correlations were calculated for the Total group (N_= 80) than for the Community group (N_= 60). However, the differences between these correlation coeffi- cients were generally small, and almost all the results would remain essentially the same if the therapy group's data were excluded. Though the Therapy group could well be a biased and unrepresentative sample of married couples, it is unlikely that the Community group is because of the random sampling procedures used to obtain its couples. How much the results of this study will generalize to less educated couples who have been married longer remains an open question, but for the young, college educated couple the results appear valid. There are two other trends in the data which were not hypothe- sized but which are consistent with previous studies of this type, providing additional and indirect support for the MPQ's validity. The first trend is that the Loving factor was related to marital adjust- ment more strongly than the Dominance factor on almost every MPQ measure. Three previous studies (Luckey, 1964; Kotlar, 1965; Fine- berg and Lowman, 1975) have found the same pattern. This difference might be reduced if the construction of the MPQ Dominance scale were improved. It needs more items of higher reliability and better balance in terms of dominance and submission items. However, it is unlikely that deficits in the construction of the scale were solely responsible for this result since even the best items on the scale (take charge, give orders, expect way, unwilling to give in) correlate less signifi- cantly with Dyadic Adjustment than most Loving scale items, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 (pp. 22-24), Issues of loving just seem to be more 166 relevant to marital relationships than issues of dominance according to the findings of this and other studies. As in earlier studies by Kirkpatrick and Hobart (1954), Levinger and Breedlove (1966), and Murstein and Beck (1972), this study found that intrapersonal differences were less than interpersonal differences. Specifically, couples at all levels of adjustment tended to perceive less disagreement on issues than really existed. As Table 34 shows, the number of interpersonal disagreements (IDA) on the Loving scale tended to be from 30% to 100% more than the couples perceived them (PDA) to be. Murstein and Beck have speculated that this is due to couple's tendency to overestimate their knowledge of their partners and to increased error variance in interpersonal per- ceptions. Table 34 also reveals that the best adjusted couples made the greatest overestimates of agreement. These couples seem to be idealizing their relationship, seeing it more harmonious than it really is. Though they also overestimated the number of agreements, maladjusted couples did it less than did the adjusted couples. This finding has already been revealed by the consensus pattern indices (UNDAP, UNAGP) which showed that the maladjusted couples more accurately predicted disagreements than the adjusted couples. This explains in part why misunderstanding is less correlated with Dyadic Adjustment than expected. By overestimating agreement, well-adjusted couples increase their misunderstanding scores which decreases the extent of variation on these measures which in turn tends to attenuate the cor- relations. There are several other interesting trends in the data which have to do with the sex differences or the differences between husbands and wives. No hypotheses were generated about sex differences because. 167 Table 34. Comparison of Mean Number of Perceived to Interpersonal Disagreements 7150* Group 4% .High_ Comm. Total Therapy Low Number in group 28 6O 8O 20 28 Average DAS 125.4 114.3 108.3 88.3 85.4 Actual Disagreement IDAgAH Interpersonal 15 17 18 21 23 PDA-BAH Husband Perceived 9 13 13 l6 l7 PDA-WAR Wife Perceived 8 11 12 17 18 Ratio IDA: Average PDA 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 IDA-AW Interpersonal 15 18 19 20 22 no PDA-HAW Husband Perceived 8 12 12 14 15 PDA-WAW Wife Perceived 6 12 13 17 19 Ratio IDA: Average PDA 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 Ideal Disagreement IDA-1H Interpersonal 9 11 11 13 14 PDAgHIH Husband Perceived 5 7 7 8 9 PDA-WIH Wife Perceived 4 9 12 Ratio IDA: Average PDA 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 IDA-IW Interpersonal 9 11 12 14 16 PDA-HIW Husband Perceived 6 8 8 9 9 PDA—WIW’ Wife Perceived 4 6 6 8 10 Ratio IDA: Average PDA 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 Note: All differences between IDA mean and PDA mean significant at greater than 0.10 level a High group is upper 1/3 of total sample in terms of DAS b Low group is lower 1/3 of total sample in terms of DAS 168 the results from previous studies tended to be contradictory suggesting that sample biases might account for much of these variations. One very clear trend throughout the data is the finding that on almost all MPQ measures wives' perceptions correlated more highly with their dyadic adjustment scores than did husbands' perceptions. For example, in Table 18 (p. 131) the husbands' actual loving ratings only correlated on the average about .76 with their dyadic adjustment ”41-; scores, while the wives' actual loving ratings correlated on the .‘in; average .87 with their dyadic adjustment scores. Similarly, the hus- up... 5 bands' ideal correlations averaged .27 while the wives' averaged .42 for the Total group. Though the amount of the difference varies, the direction of the difference (wife greater than husband) remains the same throughout all the MPQ measures. There are two possible explana- tions for this finding. The first is that the issues sampled by the MPQ were more relevant to marriage for the wives than the husbands. Since the MPQ is mainly measuring perceptions of loving, this line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that love is probably more important to wives than to husbands which seems plausible. Women have traditionally been more dependent on the marriage as a source of reward and fulfill- ment than men, who tended to depend on their jobs more for these needs. Since love is one of the major rewards of marriage, it is pro- bably valued more by wives than husbands and as a result becomes more relevant for the wives. Other more impersonal factors such as finances and social standing which were not measured by the MPQ may share impor- tance with love in the eyes of the husbands. A second explanation is that wives are more sensitive to changes in the marital relationship, and as a result their ratings vary more which tends to increase the correlations for their perceptions. 169 Foa (1966) found that the wives had more differentiated pictures of their marriages than the husbands. The present findings also yield some support for this assumption. Inspection of the Dyadic Adjustment scores for husbands and wives reveals that at the well-adjusted end of the scale, wives tended to rate their marriages better than did their husbands. However, the reverse holds at the poorly-adjusted end, where wives rated their marriages worse than did their husbands. Furthermore differences between DAS scores of husbands and wives correlated -.3l (p_<:.003) with their average adjustment score. So wives are differentiating more on the Dyadic Adjustment scale than their husband's are. If marital issues such as loving are more important to wives than husbands, then it is likely that the wives will be more sensitive to changes in these issues, making both explanations plausible and related. A corollary of this line of reasoning developed by Murstein (1970) is that the husband's role is likely to be more important in determining the development of a couple's relationship than is the wife's. His study with Beck (1972) provided support for this view since correlations with marital adjustment were higher when the husband was the person perceived. The same result has been found by Kelly (1941), Luckey (1960a), Kotlar (1965), Taylor (1967), and Rae and Drewery (1972). It is replicated on the actual disagreement compari- sons in this study. As Tables 24-27 (pp. 143-148) show, correla- tions between Dyadic Adjustment and both the direction and extent of both the perceived (PDA) and interpersonal (IDA) disagreement compari- sons were greater for the husband's role than for the wife's role on both loving and dominance scales. This suggests that disagreements over how the husband behaves contribute more to marital maladjustment 170 than do disagreements over how the wife behaves. Correlations between dyadic adjustment and the dissatisfaction internalized/externalized pattern indices (DSIEP) were also highest when the husband was the tar- get of the perception, as shown in Table 30. These indices show that the husband was the one being pressured to change in less adjusted marriages and that the less he wanted to change himself (i.e. the more the external pressure from his wife), the less adjusted the marriage was. Thus, this study replicated most of the major findings of previous research in the field of marital perceptions. The purpose of this dissertation was not to replicate previous studies but rather to evaluate a new approach to the assessment of marital relationships. The replication only provides evidence of the validity of the SAPIR approach. The real aim of the research was to see if this approach could provide more information about a couples relationship than pre- vious methods. The answer clearly seems to be that it does. The major characteristic distinguishing the SAPIR approach from other methods such as Laing et a1. (1966) and Alperson's (l975a) is comprehensiveness. Because of comprehensiveness, the results from this study can be used to discover which perceptual variables seem most promising as predictors of marital adjustment. The best predictors in this study were actual viewpoint ra- tings on the loving scale, and the best single predictor for both husbands and wives was the person's estimate of how loving their spouse actually rated them (H2AH and W2AW). However, this method of analysis has been completely neglected in the research of Laing et al. (1966), Alperson (l975a), and Murstein and Beck (1972) who focus exclusively on the comparison method of analysis. Cronbach (1958) warned that 171 before analyzing the differences between ratings it was best to analyze the ratings themselves to see if they did not yield the same results much more simply. The MPQ results substantiate his contention that simpler measures predict better. The average viewpoint correlation for actual loving ratings is about .82, while similar correlations for the comparisons range from .74 to .48, and from .51 to .25 for the pattern indices. So by neglecting to analyze their data at the viewpoint level, researchers may ignore the most relevant information about a couple's relationship. One of the possible reasons why Laing and other researchers neglect viewpoint analysis is that it requires more psychometric effort. Ratings of issues must be factor analyzed and reliable scales constructed. It is much easier to just select a series of interesting issues and add up the extent of difference scores for each to obtain an overall or global difference score. However, this practice was also criticized by Cronbach for overlooking the possibility that different factors might behave differently on comparisons. The MPQ results again support Cronbach and call into question Laing's methodo- logy. The MPQ calculated the extent of differences for all compari- sons on both the Loving and Dominance scales separately and then on an overall scale which added up differences on all 63 issues. A comparison of these three measures in Tables 20, 22, 24, 25, and 28 reveals that the correlations are almost always higher on Loving than on Dominance and that the Loving correlations tended to equal or exceed those for the overall or global scale (these measures correlated,on the average, about .9). This suggests, first of all, that Loving differences do not have the same significance as Dominance differences as suggested by Cronbach. Secondly, it suggests that the 172 difference score on a modest number of related issues (33 on Loving scale) of high relevance predicts better than the difference scores derived from more unrelated issues (63 for overall index) of varying relevance. This finding and the previous one strongly suggest the worthiness of devising scales composed of relevant issues. Another apparent shortcoming of Laing's and Alperson's approaches is their focus on only agreement comparisons as the key to understanding marital relationships. While the MPQ results show that disagreements (PDA and IDA) and misunderstandings (IMA) are signi- ficantly related to marital adjustment, they also show that dissatis- faction (PSD) and role differentiation (PRD) are even more strongly related to marital adjustment. These comparisons correlated on the average about .69 with dyadic adjustment while the interpersonal dis- agreement and misunderstanding comparisons correlated on the average only about .57 and .48 respectively. This means that Laing is neglec- ting to investigate some highly relevant comparisons, one of which (the perceived role differentiation) is easily obtained from the data which he typically gathers. It also suggests that the effort expended in obtaining the reflected ("meta-meta") perspective in his instrument could be more productively expended in obtaining couple's expectations of their ideal marriage. Another difference between Laing's methodology and the pre- sent SAPIR approach is the difference between scales which are true- false versus five or more points. As mentioned in the theoretical development section, Alperson (l975b) has expressed a reluctance to abandon the true-false rating scale because of possible scoring dif- ficulties. No such problems were encountered in this study. If any- thing, the numerical rating scale simplified computer scoring pro— grams and yielded more information about the extent and direction 173 of differences. One of the criticisms Cronbach made of earlier methods of difference analysis was that the direction of the difference was lost in the scoring procedures, just as in Laing and Alperson's method- ologies. This can be a significant loss as the results of this study demonstrate. For example, the direction of perceived dissatisfaction links more significantly to dyadic adjustment than does the extent of dissatisfaction. In fact, these measures were the second best set of adjustment predictors on the MPQ. Furthermore, the important finding that pe0ple in maladjusted marriages expect their self-ratings to be depreciated by their spouse would not have been discovered without the numerical rating scale. Also, the pattern indices results would have been precluded. Clearly the five-point rating scale is a worth- while methodological improvement in this field of research. One way in which Laing and Alperson's procedures proved adequate as the refinement introduced in the SAPIR approach was in measuring the extent of differences. Laing and Alperson use a very simple procedure of counting the number of issues on which differences occured. Because differences have a numerical value in the SAPIR approach, the MPQ also calculated the square root of the average squared difference for every comparison, the procedure recommended most highly by Cronbach and Gleser (1953). However, as an inspection of the extent of difference results in Tables 20, 22, 24, 25, and 28 reveals that both measures consistently correlate almost the same with Dyadic Adjustment. In fact these measures correlate with each other on the average about .8. The only area in which there are noticeable disparities in the correlations for these two measures is on the perceived dissatisfaction comparisons (Table 2 ) where the number of difference correlations averaged .69 in comparison to an 174 average of .78 for the square root of the averaged squared difference. Since the perceived dissatisfaction comparisons had larger differences than any other comparison, it is possible that the squared difference procedure may be more discriminating than the number of difference procedure when the extent of the difference per issue becomes large. The comparison of the SAPIR approach procedures with those used by Laing and Alperson was only possible becauserof the MPQ's compre- hensive scoring procedures. Overall, the claims made about the SAPIR approach have been substantiated. It provides more information about the couple than the approaches used by Laing and Alperson. The infor- mation it obtains is more relevant to the couple's marital adjustment, and its scoring procedures avoid more of the pitfalls of which Cronbach warned. Another major advantage of the MPQ's comprehensiveness is that it makes it possible to investigate relationships among various per- ceptual measures. Previous studies have only explored a couple of rela- tionships at a time. Hawkins and Johnsen (1969), for example, explored the relationship between perceived dissatisfaction and perceived dis- agreement, and Corsini (1956) investigated the relationship between mis- understanding and similarity. 0n the MPQ it is possible to explore both of these interrelationships plus many more all at once. It has been clear from the outset that all the MPQ's myriad measures are highly interdependent since they are all derived from the same 16 viewpoint ratings. A change in one measure will cause corresponding changes in other measures, producing what Cronbach calls "artificial linkages" between variables. In the SAPIR approach these linkages are not viewed as statistical problems which must be 175 controlled for, as researchers were trying to do when Cronbach wrote his critique. Then, researchers were trying to partial the effect of similarity out of misunderstanding measures to obtain "true" measures of misunderstanding. As Cronbach pointed out, the resulting statistics tended to be meaningless. The SAPIR approach begins with the tenet that these linkages should be explored rather than eliminated. It is attempting to understand how all these perceptual measures function together to create the perceptual gestalt symbolized in Figure 9 (p. 65). One way of exploring these relationships is to intercorrelate the resulting scores. The matrix generated by the husband's 20 basic perceptual measures--actual viewpoint ratings, role differentiation, dissatisfaction, disagreement, and misunderstanding comparisons-~on the Loving scale is shown in Table 35. Table 36 is the corresponding correlation matrix of the wives' basic perceptual measures. Table 35 shows that the more loving a husband rated his wife (HlAW), the more loving he rated himself (HlAH), the more satisfied he was with both himself (PDS-HlH) and his wife (PDS-HlW), the more he perceived himself to be similar to his wife (PRD-HlA), and the more he expected his wife to actually agree with him (PDA-HAH and PDA-HAW). This illustra- tes how all the basic measures tend to change together. An improvement on one tends to bring an improvement on all. An even better way to illustrate how all the measures tend to change together is with multiple regression techniques. The SPSS stepwise-multiple regression program was used to analyze 20 different combinations of MPQ variables to determine which ones best predicted the person's Dyadic Adjustment Score. The variables listed in Tables 35 and 36 were the best overall predictors. As the summary statistics 1716 oHoum 0=H>0H 50 «mason»: an: uHoun n.0aoAusm mo xHuuoz aoHuoHouuou HoaHooo auocHaHHo ou 00H an ooHHoHqua HHo mucoHoHumooo coHuoHouuoo «ouoz N gHNlNzH N l NN gaolNzH NN NN NHl gHNlaoN NNl N l NN NNl goolooa HHl NN NN g l N NHolazH N l NN - No NHl NH NN oaolazH NN NN HNl NN NNl NH N l nglaog No H l NH HHl g H NN NH maolaog NNl NN NNl N N l NN NHl NH NNl gNNlNoa NNl NH N l ool No NN o NHl NNl 5N gHglNog NNl NH HHl g l NH NN NNl NH NNl .NN NN NNolNog NNl N N HNl NN NN N l NNl NNl HN NN NN NHolNog NNl NHl g.l HNl N NN N NN NH HH 5N NN NN HNoloNN HHl NNl N NN o NNl HHl NHl NHl N l NHl N NH N l HHgloNg . NN N HNl NHl ool NH NN NH NN NN N NNl NHl NN NHl «Nologg NNl H N l HNl NN HH N NNl NNl NN NN HN so NH g NN «HNloNo NN NH NN NH N l N NH 5 NN NNl NNl NNl NNl NNl N l NHl NNl glself dissatisfaction) and felt like they are having to force their spouse to change (self:> spouse dissatisfaction). So the "depreciate spouse, enhance self" hypothesis was consistently supported throughout the MP0. Now that the MPQ procedures have shown how to measure patterns of perceptual dif- ferences, the way has been marked out for future replication of this important finding. Before any replications are attempted it is obvious that the MPQ needs some psychometric refinements. Since the validity and use- fulness of the SAPIR approach have been established in this study, the effort expended in improving the MPQ should be profitable. The revised MPQ should have fewer issues so that the administration time will not be as long. Some of the participants in this study complained about the tests length and some therapists were reluctant to use it for the same 184 reason. A second needed revision is issues with a more balanced fac- tor structure. The Dominance scale needs to be made more equivalent in length to the Loving scale. In particular it needs some better sub- missive issues as Table 2 makes clear. It should also be more ortho- gonal to the Loving scale. One possible way to proceed is to basis the next revision on Benjamin's (1974) model of social behavior which has been designed to elicit interpersonal perceptions on issues which are relevant to marital and family interaction. Because of the effort she has already expended in refining her items they seem to have the type of circumplex structure which was originally envisioned for the MPQ. Another advantage of Benjamin's model is that it contains a third dimension, interdependence, which this author tried unsuccess- fully to measure using the residual items of the MPQ. Benjamin has conceptualized this third dimension in a way that is more relevant to marital and family interaction than this author's conceptualization which was based on Bales (1970) group interaction model. Addition of this third dimension should make it possible to explore conflicts in individuation which are important in marital dynamics according to Benjamin, Bowen (1960), and Satir (1967). The scoring procedures used on the MPQ presented no major problems. In retrospect, the author would like to include a few more comparisons such as the interpersonal self differentiation (ISD) compari- sons which have been studied in a number of other studies (Pickford, Signori, and Rempel, l966a; Preston, Peltz, Mudd, and Froscher, 1952; Byrne and Blaylock, 1963; Corsini, 1956; Dymond, 1954; Hurley and Sil- vert, 1966; and Stuckert, 1963). Once a better set of issues has been developed for the MPQ, 185 then normative data needs to be collected on it. At the present time the Community group results are used to provide a norm of comparison when interpreting the printout of a therapy case for the counselor, but this is clearly an inadequate reference group. Data on the MPQ measures needs to be collected over the whole family life cycle rather than just in its first phases, and the normative couples need to re- present a wider socioeconomic range than the college educated sample which was studied here. The validity of this SAPIR approach should also be checked against more behavioral criterion. By choosing issues which can be coded by observers, it should be possible and interesting to compare the couple's perceptions of each other with therapist ratings of their interaction or with observers' ratings of their behavior in experimen- tal situations. The author was originally trying to do this in the present study but found it to be too large a task. Now that the MPQ .scoring procedures have been worked out and once the items on the MPQ Eire refined, this type of study would be more feasible. If future studies show the same kind of highly significant r~esults found in this study, then there are a large number of potential aapplications for this type of questionnaire. The most obvious one aand the one that this instrument was designed for is to assess the ruature of a couple's relationship. It could be used by therapists erither as a screening or an outcome instrument. Since its measures FHDint out issues where there is interpersonal conflict, the couple's responses on these issues could be presented to them and used as a base from which to begin exploring in therapy how they perceive and UrIderstand their relationship. Much of the present research on couple Communication and interaction uses a revealed difference procedure to 186 trigger discussions. The MPQ data could easily be used in this way to introduce more personally relevant topics than those which are usually used such as differences in color matchings, etc. Besides clinical applications, the SAPIR approach could be used to experimentally study the perceptions of different types of married couples. Because its measures provide a more differentiated and comprehensive picture of how the couples perceive each other, it J should be able to detect more subtle patterns than other instruments presently being used. It would be interesting, for example, to find I: I‘ ' ' out how the pattern of sex differences in a group of older and more traditional couples compared to the pattern in a group of young couples advocating a more egolitarian relationship. A final application of the SAPIR approach would be in study- ing the processes of perception themselves. Since it so comprehensi- vely measures a person's perceptual field it might be used to study how that field changes as new and discrepant information is introduced. For example, what would be the effect on perceptions of similarity and dissatisfaction if a person was told that their partner disagreed vvith them on an issue where agreement had been presumed. ’1 187 Conclusion The results of this study lead to six major conclusions about the Marital Perceptions Questionnaire and its SAPIR foundation. First, the SAPIR approach appears valid, for almost all of the MPQ measures derived from it behave just as expected. As marital adjustment decreased, the couple perceived themselves as more hostile and dominating and expected less love in their ideal marriage than did adjusted couples. They saw each other as more different or dissimilar, and each tended to think that it was their spouse who was the less loving partner. Their dissatisfaction grew as they fell farther and farther below their ideal expectations, especially their dissatis- faction with their spouse. They became more sensitive to and perceived more disagreements arising between them and expected that the partner would rate them more unfavorably than they deserved. Finally, they misunderstood each other more than did adjusted couples. Most of these findings are not new, but what is new is having them all so significantly confirmed in a single study. Thus, the second conclusion about the MPQ is that it provides a more comprehensive and detailed picture of marital relationships 'than previous instruments. It not only replicated most of the previous Icesearch findings in the field of marital perceptions but went on to rneasure aspects of the marital relationship which had not been researched 13ef0re such as the externalization of dissatisfaction and the type of Consensus. Because of its comprehensiveness, the MPQ is able to more sensitively detect and more clearly illuminate relationship patterns. 1'1 particular it provided some of the first empirical evidence to Stubport the observation of marital therapists that less adjusted ’1 188 marriages are characterized by destructive patterns of feeling that one's self concept is being unfairly depreciated by the spouse which leads to a defending of one's self concept and a depreciating of the spouse's. This pattern was significantly revealed on several of the MPQ's indices. A pattern of sex differences was also detected which suggested that the sample being studied contained a dispropor- tionately large number of submissive husbands in the maladjusted group who were trying to both appease and blunt the criticisms of their hostile, dominating wives who were dissatisfied with the lack of love in their marriages. The fourth conclusion is that the MPQ is methodologically more sophisticated than the instruments used by Laing and Alperson which inspired the SAPIR approach. The viewpoint ratings,not mea- sured in Laing's IPM, proved to be some of the best predictors of Dyadic Adjustment which confirms the wisdom of Cronbach's advice to group issues into factor analytically determined scales and then to analyze the ratings on these scales before proceeding to an analysis of difference scores. As Cronbach predicted, the MPQ's scale scores were more revealing than the global indices used by Laing. By using a 5-point rating scale instead of the true-false scale, the MPQ was able to determine not only the extent but also the direction of differences, and the direction of difference on the perceived dissatisfaction comparisons proved to be more significant [Dredictors of adjustment than the extent of difference scores used 12y Laing. Finally, the perceived dissatisfaction and perceived rxale differentiation comparisons calculated on the MPQ proved to be better predictors than the disagreement and misunderstanding compari- SOns emphasized in Laing's work. ’1 189 The results just mentioned plus the results of multiple regressions show that the MPQ seems to be a good predictor of marital adjustment since its measures account for over 75% of the variance on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. This leads to the final conclusion that the MPQ does have promise as an instrument for assessing marital relationships and is worth the effort which would be required to psychometrically refine it. APPENDICES 190 APPENDIX A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE MARITAL PERCEPTIONS STUDY (For Community Couples) PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Previous research has shown that certain types of behavior seem important in determining how married couples feel about each other and their marriage. In this study we are interested in deter- mining how a wider variety of American couples view these ways of relating. By participating in this study you are helping us better understand what patterns of behavior characterize present day marriages. PROCEDURES In this study you will be filling out four forms. The first is a Research Consent Form which explains to you your rights as a participant in this scientific study. Secondly, there is a Participant Information Form which asks you for some basic background information needed to determine what kind of couples participated in the study. For example, whether the group of couples is younger or older than the national average. Next is the Dyadic Adjustment Scale which helps us understand in a general sort of way how y0u view and feel about your marriage. These forms are short and most people can fill them out in about 15 minutes. The final form is the Marital Perceptions Ques- tionnaire which asks you more specifically how you view certain aspects of your marriage. This is a longer form which requires about two 45 minute sessions to complete. It looks longer than it is because it is spread out over a number of pages to make marking the answer sheet easier. We ask that you fill it out during a time when you will not 191 be interrupted and will be able to complete a full half of the test. Since the test is long we suggest you take a short break before you complete the last half of the test. In this study it is important that each partner gives an honest and independent opinion. Therefore we will only be giving this packet to one of you at a time. After one partner has completed and returned the forms, the other partner will be given a similar packet. Until both of you have finished and returned the packets we ask that you not discuss either the materials or your answers with each other. If you have questions about the instructions, please call Glenn Veenstra. At the end of your participation in the study you are free to not only discuss the materials with each other but also to receive additional explanations of the study from the experimenter. To keep your answers independent and confidential, we ask you to seal the materials in the envelope when finished. To preserve confiden- tiality all materials will be analyzed only by code number. Neither you or your spouse will be able to learn of each other's answers. PARTICIPATION PAYMENT: Because participation in this study will require some time and effort, we feel it is only fair to compensate you. All couples participating in the study will be paid $4.00. This $4.00 will be paid at the end of the study if the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. Both partners have completely filled out and returned all their forms. 2. Both partners have answered independently and sincerely. By comparison with previous computer analyses of the response patterns we can determine whether one person has answered both sets of ques- 192 tionnaires or whether a person has just randomly filled in the blanks on the answer sheets. If any of these things occur it destroys the value of your results and so the participant payment will not be made. EXPERIMENTER INFORMATION: If you have any questions concerning the study call: Glenn Veenstra--Project Coordinator Office phone: 355-9564 (MSU Psychological Clinic) Home phone: 393:5977 If you have any question concerning his actions, call the project's faculty supervisor: Dr. John Hurley Office phone: 355-4615 (MSU Psychological Department) L. 193 APPENDIX 8 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE MARITAL PERCEPTIONS STUDY (For Therapy Couples) PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Previous research has shown that certain types of behavior seem important in determining how married couples feel about each other and their marriage. In this study we are interested in determining how a wider variety of American couples view these ways of relating. By participating in this study you are helping us better understand what patterns of behavior characterize present day marriages. PROCEDURES: In this study you will be filling out four forms. The first is a Research Consent Form which explains to you your rights as a parti- cipant in this scientific study. Secondly there is a Participant Infor— mation Form which asks you for some basic background information needed to determine what kind of couples participated in the study. For example, whether the group of couples is younger or older than the national average. Next is the Dyadic Adjustment Scale which helps us understand in a general sort of way how you view and feel about your marriage. These forms are short and most people can fill them out in about 15 minutes. The final form is the Marital Perceptions Question— .Qajpg_which asks you more specifically how you view certain aspects (If your marriage. This is a longer form which requires about two 45 nninute sessions to complete. It looks longer than it is because it is sPread out over a number of pages to make marking the answer sheet 194 easier. We ask that you fill it out during a time when you will not be interrupted and will be able to complete a full half of the test. Since the test is long we suggest you take a short break before you complete the last half of the test. In this study it is important that each partner gives us an honest and independent opinion. Therefore we ask that you fill out your questionnaires by yourself and not discuss your answers until you have both finished and returned your packets to Glenn Veenstra. If you have questions about the instructions, please call Glenn Veenstra. At the end of your participation in the study you are free to not only discuss the materials with each other and your therapist, but also to receive additional explanations of the study in general from the experimenter. To preserve your confidentiality all materials will be analy- zed only by code number. To further maintain your confidentiality we ask you to sign a code name agreed upon by you and your therapist instead of your real name on the Research Consent Form. Once you have finished your questionnaires, seal all the forms in the envelope and return to your therapist. The sooner the questionnaires are received, the sooner a summary of the results will be available to your counselor who will be able to answer some of the general questions you may have about your answers. ' If you decide not to fill out the questionnaires, please r~eturn them to your therapist. EQARTICIPATION PAYMENT: Because participation in this study will require some time and effort, we feel it is only fair to compensate you. All couples participating in the study will be paid $4.00. This $4.00 will be paid 195 at the end of the study if the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. Both partners have completely filled out and returned all their forms. 2. Both partners have answered independently and sincerely. By comparison with previous computer analyses of the response patterns we can determine whether one person has answered both sets of question- naires or whether one person has just randomly filled in the blanks on the answer sheets. If any of these things occur it destroys the value of your results and so the participant payment will not be made. The payment will be sent to your counselor to preserve your confiden- tiality. EXPERIMENTER INFORMATION: If you have any questions concerning the study call: Mr. Glenn Veenstra--Project Coordinator Office Phone: 355-9564 (MSU Psychological Clinic) Home Phone: 393-5977 If you have any question concerning his actions, call the project's faculty supervisor: Dr. John Hurley Office Phone: 355-4615 (MSU Psychological Department) 196 APPENDIX C Michigan State University Department of Psychology DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM (For Community Couples) I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being conducted by: Mr. Glenn Veenstra, M.A. under the supervision of: Dr. John Hurley, Ph.D. Academic Title: Study of Marital Perceptions The study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation that has been given and what my participation will involve. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. However I understand that the participants fee will only be paid if both me and my spouse complete the study as instructed. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restric- tions, results of the study will be made avaiIable to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explana- tion of the study after my participation is completed. Signed Date 197 APPENDIX D Michigan State University Department of Psychology DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM (For Therapy Couples) I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being conducted by: Mr. Glenn Veenstra, M.A. under the supervision of: Dr. John Hurley, Ph.D. Academic Title: Study of Marital Perceptions The study has been explained to me and I understand the explana- tion that has been given and what my participation will involve. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. However I understand that the participants fee will only be paid if both me and my spouse complete the study as instructed. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous to those conducting the experiment. However, I understand that a summary of my question- naire answers will be made available to my therapist and that I may learn about this summary from my therapist if I request it. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explana- tion of the study in general after my participation is completed by contacting Mr. Veenstra. Signed Date 1998 APPENDIX E Code No. PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM PRESENT INFORMATION Birthdate ' Age Highest Level of Education Completed Present Occupational Status (Check status, then fill in corresponding blank) Work full time ) ( Job title or type of work Work part time Unemployed or work Previous type of work at home Part time student ( ( ( Major course of study Full time student ( Religious Preference Approximate Annual Family Income Date of Marriage Length of Marriage Have you been married before? No Yes More than once before Number of children or dependents (other than spouse) living with you List the children's or dependent's ages FAMILY BACKGROUND INFORMATION Fill in the following information about your prents or the persons who raised you during most of your childhood. . Father Mother Education completed Occupation Religious preference While you were growing up did your parents separate or divorce? No___. Yes___ While you were growing up did either one of your parents die? No___ 'Yes___ If yes, which parent Number of older brothers in your family Number of younger brothers Number of older sisters in your family Number of younger sisters 199 APPENDIX F DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the following list. Almost Occa- Pre- Almost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1. Handling family finances 2. Matters of recreation 3. Religious matters 4. Demonstrations of affection 5. Friends 6. Sex relations 7. Conventionality (correct or proper behavior) 8. Philosophy of life 9. Ways of dealing with parents or in-laws 10.Aims, goals, and things believed important 11.Amount of time spent together 12.Making major decisions 13.Household tasks 14.Leisure time interests and activities 15.Career decisions 'II III I I ll llllll ll [HI I ll llllll II III | I ll llllll II III I I ll llllll II III I | || llllll II III | I ll llllll more All Most of often Occa- the time the time than not sionally Rarely Never 16.How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce,separation or ter- minating your relationship? 17.How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight? 18.In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well? 19.00 you confide in your mate? 20.00 you ever regret that you married?(or lived together) 21.How often do you and your partner quarrel? 22.How often do you and your mate "get on each other's nerves?" 200 Almost Occa- Every Day Every_Day sionally Rarely Never 23.Do you kiss your mate? All of Most of Some of Very few None of them them them of them them 24.Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate? Less than Once or Once or once a twice a twice a Once a More Never month month week . day 25.Have a stimulating exchange of ideas 26.Laugh together 27.Calm1y discuss something 28.Work together on a project 0 H. n m :1 These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationship during the past few weeks. (Check yes or no) Yes No 29. Being too tired for sex. 30. Not showing love. - 31. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point, "happy," represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship. Then place a checkmark ( ) beside the dot you feel your partner would circle. ‘ 0 l 2 3 4 ' 5 6 Extremely Fairly A Little Happy Very Extremely Perfect Eghappy yghappy Enhappy . Happy Happy 32.Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship? Place an "O" beside your own answer. I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that it does. I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to see that it does. I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does. It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can't do much. more than I_am doing now to help it succeed. It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am doing now to keep the relationship going. . My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going. Now place a "P" beside the answer you feel your partner would check. 201 APPENDIX C MARITAL PERCEPTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire was designed to explore how you and your spouse see the importance of certain behaviors and attitudes in your marital relationship. By systematic analysis of how you and other married couples perceive these issues, we hope to gain a clearer understanding of the patterns of behavior which char- acterize and are important in present day marriages. QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS This questionnaire consists of a series of 63 statements describing possible ways you and your partner might behave or feel toward each other. For example: "I am friendly to my spouse." "My spouse is friendly to me." You are to rate how characteristic each statement is in your marital relationship on the following S-point scale: I 5 - Very frequently characteristic - You can say that it usually describes you or mate (80 - 1002 of time)- 4 - Preguently characteristic - You can say that it often describes you or mate but there are sometimes when it doesn't (60 - 80% of time) 3 - Moderately characteristic - You can say sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't describe you or mate (40 - 602 of time) 2 - Occasionally characteristic - You can say that it often does not describe you or mate but there are sometimes when it does (20 - 40% of time) l - Rarely characteristic - You can say that it usually does not describe you or mate (0 - 201 of time) It is important that you give one rating for each item even if you are somewhat unsure of your choice. Sometimes you or your spouse may not be mentioned directly in the question, but always answer on the basis of how you relate to each other and not on the basis of how you act with your children, relatives or other people. You will be asked to rate the statements from four different viewpoints. Sometimes you will answer directly how you see or feel about the item. Other times you will be asked to answer how you predict your spouse sees or feels about the item. Sometimes you will rate the statements on the basis of your actual relationshi , that is how it is presently. Other times you will rate the statements on the basis of your ideal relationship, that is how it would be if everything were as you wished it to be. The viewpoint you are to take is stated at the top of each page, so read the instructions carefully before beginning to answer the questions. 202 ANSWER SHEET INSTRUCTIONS Your answers will be marked on separate answer sheets designed for compu- terized scoring. There is a separate answer sheet for each of the four view- points. There are three checks built into the test to help you know which answer sheet to use. First, the answer sheets have been given to you in the order you will use them. Secondly, each viewpoint has been printed on a different color of paper. The color of paper will match the color of the writing in the section blank of the answer sheet (lower left corner). Thirdly, the numbers in the upper right hand corner of the questionnaire booklet will match the numbers in the sec- tion blank of the answer sheet. You will not be using all the spaces on the answer sheets. Every time you come to a different viewpoint (which will be indicated by different instructions and color or paper) you must change answer sheets.‘ Make the three checks above to be sure you have the correct answer sheet for the next section before beginning to answer. i To simplify your marking, a portion of the questionnaire booklet has been cut out to expose the proper column of answers on the answer sheet. 80 simply insert your answer sheet behind the page you are on and line up the numbers of the questions and answers. Then begin answering. Mark your answers firmly and clearly with the pencil provided and be sure to completely erase any mistakes You make. Do not make any stray marks on the answer sheet or questionnaire booklet. Completely finish each page before going on to the next. Do not go back to change answers on earlier pages. It is best to answer the questions quickly, because your first thoughts will be more useful, and because there are four sets of 126 items. An oppor- tunity to take a break has been provided in the middle of this questionnaire. Use it to rest yourself for awhile. If you have questions at any time ask the researcher about them. 203 APPENDIX H SAMPLE PACE FROM MPQ BOOKLET Section Code: H-A—l Rate from your own point of view how characteristic these statements are of the way your wife relates to you; that is, how you yourself actually feel about these statements at this time in your married life. Rating scale: 1 - Rarely characteristic - usually does not describe (0 - 20%) 2 - Occasionally characteristic - often doesn't, but sometimes does (20 ~ 40%) 3 - Moderately characteristic - sometimes does, sometimes doesn't (40 - 60%) 4 - Frequently characteristic 8 often does, but sometimes doesn't (60 - 802) 5 - Very frequently characteristic - usually does describe (80 - 100%) I say, "Actually..." 5. She feels affectionate and loving toward me 13. She is slow to forgive my wrongs Cut out 21. She does things with me spontaneously to and impulsively 29. She asserts Opinions forcefully with me expose 37. She sexually satisfies me proper 65. She trusts me column 53. She expresses anger toward me of 61. She plans and organizes things in answer advance with me 69. She is helpful to me sheet 77. She avoids upsetting me under- 85. She expects me to do things her way neath 93. She imagines or daydreams about romance in our marriage 101. She takes things very seriously with me 109. She reassures and encourages me 117. She is sarcastic with me 125. She appreciates what I do for her 133. She gives me advice and suggestions 141. She complains about me 149. She treats me as an equal 157. She feels self-confident around me 165. She feels our problems are her fault 2(l4 .0: nun .m- .mw o~a .4" .0 o .0! a: .m- c ~ 0 awzo~uuama . mas .o- ~.m .n- 9.0 .n- w.m .. ..¢ .~a «.~a .ca c.4w .¢~ «.ma tuna can can boos «an .i .m~ .o- .na .a- .aa .u .k» .ow .na .ma ..¢ .0“ .am .no. 4amomma u can wwmmwmwmmm.zowwaqumm .a~ .oa .eo .o- .aa .a .9» .n. mozasqa azaoaoa: .am .- .5. .~ .N. .o .9,“ .c-a. mozaaaa uaaawoo: .aea ..- .mt .a .Nma .e- .ae .m.a. mezapaz wzwaewu .saa ~ua : a Ana man No“ ice "a"; 4.3»ua at a «can ozaemzx Sasha. czamvs: muuaozn suzuozu» umzoamua .- .n- .«a .k. .~ .an .k- .~a- .ks- .4- .na .m .as .0 sun usammazoa azazazoo .aa- .ua- .a- .a .o- .ka .oa- .a- .n- .w.- .m .a- .a .u aaa ...o¢azz:o -...oa.zas.o-: .a .. .4“- .:- .uu- .an- .~ .w .n .o .aa- ..«- .c- .:n- as“ use; w>o4 .ow .~o ..a .c- .~ ..- .ow .cm .em .po .a~ .m~ ..- .o- :43 .-.>a».wuz-.._saaamoawz-a 3-1 gas: 3‘“: za~x :.~: 3."; 2"“: :aa: x-x sad: 2.“: za~x z¢~z :aaz mmaaum «on «unawapapm azaoaam~> o«a .oz maaaoo so; nuuaczu wenczzonhmuao mzoaramomwa.saracaa to saazzsm H NH92mmm< 2(l5 o- a- a- o- o- o- o- n- u- a- o- a- a a- ~. .99.» a- v~ o- .a. .m~ we“: o- e- u- o- a a o- as as 9- ca o. a n- u. ..osm e- o- u- * ..« .mu my:: .> .z 4 . am a a so- as sou new a; :o. a. an . emuuew~m mowzpmu ummzuoaw u mewzwox u 43m... 1:... 310 1:: M...» urea..." 42.. banana a new wee ouzn 02.65.63 0 ~ . :« o~ o: a a- a- ~ a : a ~ n n n a ~ . ~ 4 s : s a n - . n a ~ . 4 m n h... .m- a" m «. u~ a; e o a a- a . ~ m m a m ~ n ~ n a m m N u ~ m m n n a n 4 u n n N . m n 4 J m «u.: 0.. cm... «Mean «in «on nan «as a n ~ a a a a m a n u a a a o m m s m w a a o a a o m a n m a Em mmzc zmzo .2: >3... nnnnn-mw---au W.“ «a ..xa-fi . "macaw aw.uma=m mam Mmocmw wuawmmaaao memxmz. z ”amuse usaum azuzrmasoa e.g.»o oc>qu¢z unaqu nan."- ooNI oswo .ow cow .40 aunt 0: .0! N. oosuu urban uk-au. .~:- .c- .ns .ns .en .m .n: .a a whua~aa¢o>¢u mmuouuwus use: h-uu- .0- .aa- .ca- .a«- .o«- .~.- .o .a.- ~. u ..sq .-.. . ..- u a .oc- .no- .o«- ..n ..n- .nn .nn- . spun.» ao>au wuecm sm>¢e an: an: an: :11 1a: zus 7H1 :ax m5 ”rhea >p~aamaco>¢a .~. .: .. .o~ N ”we" mym“ mm.. .mu- - ' ' I q III/P g‘l . .a. .e: .«c .-- u . zuaoxox mu» mmaom mono: .~ ... .o .-- N szwuwmu.m m.mn u... . .9” .n3- .c- .nc- a wzmwmxoz mapamupmxo: xxx xx: :3: :1: >-a»nmmuoxoz . mauve munxu;.uc .4 .n- .o.- .~.- .m .4 .o- .aN- ~. ...ea ....-«. .oo .ms .ma .m. .so .~o .am .m~ o -umweeq armamozauaoaza Minoan: . .-.-.....n .. no .0 .~ .- .n~ ..- .o ..- .«- .. m..c.m.. .. a". .0. .~a .nm .ne .o~ .am .mw .mn o uuamamao newsworaumaoz: 1.: :a: ya: sax 1.: z”: :4: :«1 mrmmppaa ezHozaemam023 5.3342... 227.0,... un- ..« .- .a- .u.- ~ o:......:: -.a-.- an. .s. .oa- .o- .cn- x a.»mnmpmamo=: rammwouozama Iv. - .... . HQ:....H. .s- .o .k- .c ~.ma»a-c -.M. ... ...... .sa- ..~ .nn- .on a zoapouano Namm.o"¢~omo an: 1:: 1:: 1:1 - hzwrunnwd .nnu 2...”. "a .. .a- .m .~ .o- .n .m .: ... N .2 . .c :. :-. .¢ .o- .m« .a~ .na- .am ..n ..u .n: a wzurumuoa. m. :mm.o «mama .4..\1. r . .4...~ ...», .o- .. .o .n.- .-- .c.- .-- .m .0. .- .... \2. ...: .~ .:~ .~n- .«o- .o»- .au- .- ..n .ea- ~e «use uxuxpzu wammaouamamo an; on. «a: an: saw an: 2.: 2a» 1a: azawaeaa zoaruaumnr4m2< EUFPCE wantzonPnuaa «Zeuhtuucwe udbux