MARRIAGE ADJUSTMENT 0F COUPLES:

A FEE-MARITAL ASSESSMENT,
AND FOLLOW-UP 1N MARRIAGE

A Disscrfohon
for the Degree of D11. D.

MICHIGAN STATE UNiVERSETY
David John Rolfe
1975

LIBR A RY
Midi-fin 3:2. tc

University J]

 
    

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

MARRIAGE ADJUSTMENT OF COUPLES:
A PRES-MARITAL ASSESSMENT,
AND FOLLOW-UP IN MARRIAGE.

presented by

DAVID JOHN ROLFE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Family Ecology

 

122772102111 r/éZCKCl/l/

Major professor

Date April 25th. 1975

0-7639

      

w"-.....-g.4p .an. vv-ao - u .o

_ I.-.” ..... .-‘

 

a" —_ -

-. .1.—

 

 

 

V‘:'."_

n
h.......

\
n
‘l
‘
~
I.
-.
' A ~
A...: :‘u’VQV .
~5“' '
.A
.. ‘."A.
Vb. '. Hy
Us:
.
I.
u u “s
v
r 3.....‘9 h
h\

 

1;, AN ABSTRACT

MARRIAGE ADJUSTMENT OF COUPLES:
A PRE-MARITAL ASSESSMENT,
AND FOLLOW-UP IN MARRIAGE

BY

David John Rolfe

This study was designed with a twofold purpose. First
to construct a practical marriage readiness inventory which
would be simple to score, yet provide an estimation of the

couple's preparedness for marriage. Second, to test out the

 

inventory on a group of engaged couples. The couples were
to be followed up and tested after one year of marriage to
ascertain the relationship between pre-marriage and early
marriage adjustment.

A pilot sample of 144 engaged Catholic couples attend-
ing a marriage preparation program in Lansing, Michigan were
tested with Hurvitz's Marital Roles Inventory. The main
samples consisted of: 166 couples attending a subsequent
program in Lansing; 101 mostly Protestant volunteer couples
in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Pre-marriage adjustment was measured by an adapted
version of the Marital Roles Inventory. Consensus on

financial matters was measured by Rolfe's Financial

=~---"-‘.s Imam

masoooov

3.... “In ‘ ‘,.
n.:'.a.ue CL 5‘

~31 ‘..'1 then:

 

 

David John Rolfe
Priorities Inventory. The Luscher Color Test, a projective
test, gauged personality stress, and the Color Prediction
Test measured empathy in the relationship.

The follow-up test battery, administered by mail,
consisted of the Marital Roles Inventory, Locke-Wallace
Adjustment Test (used here to measure subjective satisfac-
tion), and Edmonds Marital Conventionalization Test.
Forty-nine of the Lansing area couples were personally
tested in their homes. They were also retested with the
LCT and CPT.

I’On each test, a couple's\index score was calculated,
being the product of each person's score, plus the dif-
ference between them. Pearson Product Moment Correlations
‘were calculated between independent demographic variables,
and couple's pre-marriage index scores. These index scores
were correlated with follow-up index scores. Fifty-eight
hypotheses were tested.

For the American couples, pre-marriage adjustment was
related to age, education and length of engagement, and the
approval of the parents. Likewise, the pre-marital adjust-
ment of the New Zealand couples was associated with parental
approval, increased education and absence of religious
difference.

Consensus for the American couples on financial

priorities was related to increased age, education, the

 

n‘

a: has; u-

3
(D
t)
‘f
T

.
I

~ Q
v0llfl~:.-‘ par
=,vvodv:U at
.
DAV '9
anti. .3

"-= 598' Zea

'1'“ A:

~. "" . ‘
. v. N‘e 1::

r1
‘1

The fOll!

"‘2‘

i =‘Q‘ ' t .
a ‘ ,
'.""‘¢Ca1‘
4

 

. David John Rolfe
woman being of higher socioeconomic status than the man,
and subjects having had happily married parents. For the
New Zealanders, having a happy childhood was the only
associated variable.

There was no relationship between the independent vari-
ables and LCT index scores for the Americans, but for the New
Zealanders, stress was related to lengthy acquaintanceships.

Empathy for the Americans was stronger in short engage-
'ments among the less educated who lacked parental approval.
In the New Zealand sample, empathy was not associated with
any of the independent variables.

The follow-up showed that pre-marriage adjustment
was significantly related to early marriage adjustment
(p > .026 for Americans; p > .001 for New Zealanders). Ad-
justment was lower if couples had a child within the first
year of marriage.

For those American couples visited in the follow-up,
the LCT'index correlated (p > .001) with the pre-marriage
scores, showing stress levels to remain relatively constant
over time. The modal color choice pattern moved closer to
Luscher's Ideal norm (Spearman Rho Coefficient: pretest
+.810: follow-up +.952). Pre-marriage empathy was unrelated
to empathy measured on the follow-up.

No relationship was found between pre-marriage consen-
sus on financial priorities and later adjustment or

satisfaction for either group.

tum-

 

115:5'lm3t1
in Iealand co
52:21: corral
.5545 for the
grip > .03
Effeztzanaliz
5m: can be
.13! :cn'v-‘entio
{13:33.5 abc;

Other le
33:1 the pr
35 fSllOV-up,
Clix-up by m
he fatter of

‘39 mural“ e

 

 

 

David John Rolfe

‘ Subjective satisfaction in early marriage was related
to adjustment, low role strain, (American couples, p > .046;
New Zealand couples, p > .001). However, subjective satis-
faction correlated at +.4598 for the American couples, and
+.6845 for the New Zealand couples (both significant
beyond p > .001), with scores on the Edmonds Marital
Conventionalization Test. Thus much of the recorded satis-
faction can be seen as an outcome of persons' tendencies to
.give conventionally polite rather than frank answers to
questions about their satisfaction in marriage.

Other lesser findings were that there was no difference
between the pre-marriage adjustment of couples who completed
the follow-up, and those who dropped out after the pretest.
Fellow-up by mail was no less valid than in-person testing.
The factor of who decided who would be tested first was found
to~be unrelated to early marriage adjustment, satisfaction,
strain or empathy.

Pre-marriage empathy was found to be more balanced in
the New Zealand couples, despite the higher level of stress
experienced by the men. American couples were found to have
difficulty in the reciprocal communication of the man's
feelings.

New Zealand couples were found to be less traditionally
oriented than the American couples in terms of the rigid

assignment of 'man's work' and ’woman's work.'v

 

he role

c: i any f r:

 

 

David John Rolfe
’ The role priorities of American couples with children
turned away from a pre-marriage companionate orientation,
toward the instrumental role orientation found by Hurvitz
to be typical of established middle class American couples

in the late 19508.

 

r4.

\
\J.‘
a-.-

 

MARRIAGE ADJUSTMENT OF COUPLES:
A PRE-MARITAL ASSESSMENT,

AND FOLLOW-UP IN MARRIAGE

BY

David John Rolfe

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family Ecology

1975

\

® Copyright by ~
DAVID JOHN ROLFE

1975

 

First and
and assis:
F332” Her' i
:39 9er Ct

The New 2
23;?! ”Bella:
“3335158 her
””1“th in 5

“ant t
filCe and thO‘.
lame! C035;
2.53:, and DI. .

g.

I’. .
n » :a
'31.:

‘ions in-

 

More the

<15 cf this

a“
“d

1ives.

 

 

AC WOWLEDGMEN TS

First and foremost, I greatly appreciate the encourage-
ment and assistance of my wife Peggy in all phases of this
project. Her involvement has greatly added to the meaning
of the project for me.

The New Zealand data was collected by my cousin,
'Shirley Freeman of Christchurch, New Zealand. I much
appreciate her cooperation which enabled this study to be
bicultural in scope. ‘

I want to thank Dr. Donald Melcer for his continuing
advice and thoughtful critiques of the project as it evolved.
The other committee members, Dr. Gordon Aldridge, Dr. Jane
Oyer, and Dr. Carol Shaffer, have also made many helpful
suggestions in the structuring of the project.

More than five hundred couples were involved in various
parts of this project. I thank them for allowing me into
their lives. I also appreciate the efficient data processing
managed by the staff of the Computer Institute for Social
Science Research at Michigan State University.

The satisfaction I have gained from this project has

been greatly increased by the enthusiasm of those associated

with me in its inception and completion.

ii

 

O L) (1)
'1 I" I.
u.) ‘ i no
I” (D r9

O (D
v .. m

:I 2* v:-

rg L)
E.

{u in

I .j c"
b ‘LKI If)
l‘;]

f—‘WW
\n

'v: n1
0 '
Q

'1 s
£01.:-
FAR t,

“V“
Def:ni*
Cjus
Dire:
Empa?
Enga:
Pam;i
Hap;
Ind:'
6!:
Pre:

 

’2

Satil
1

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I.

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem . .
Objectives of the Study . . .
Organization of the Thesis .

Instruments Used . . . . .
Engaged Couples Group One
Engaged Couples Group Two, Three andF
Follow-up Group One (by mail) . . . .
Follow-up Group Two and Three . . . .
Control Groups Five, Six, and Seven .

Definitions . . .
Adjustment . . .
Direct Test . . .
Empathy . . . . .
Engaged Couple .
Family . . . . .
Happiness in Marri iag

@000...

Indirect Test . .

Married Couple .

Predictive Ability
Role . . . . . . .
Role Expectations
Role Priorities .
Role Strain . . . .
Satisfaction . . .
Stability‘. . . . .
Status Position . . .
Success (in marriage) .

Operational Definitions
Adjustment . . . . .
Adjustment Index . .
Color Prediction Index
Conventionalization Inde
Empathy . . . . . . . .
Marital Roles Inventory Index
Pre-Marital Adjustment Index
Role Expectations . . . . . .
Role Priorities . . . . . . .
Role Strain . . . . . . . . .

X

iii

0.0000000000000000

0 o o o 0 0 o o o o O o o o c o o

O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . g . O O O O

Page

\omxoxomkooooooooomooqqqqqmmmmmmbe

HE‘F‘
COO

HHHHH
HHHOO

HHHHH
NNHHH

 

[7

r)

O

m (1)
L11 8’ U) ()
'1 L; U) () 0—4
(O

'11 m :12 ’6
III DI DI
'1 'l 7 '(J

01,

ff (1) ’l J

(11
*1
"

 

 

iv

Satisfaction Index .
Soc io-Economic Status
Success . . . . . . .
The Variables . . . . .
Theory . . . . . . . .

II. REVIEW or LITERATURE . .

Class A Predictors . .
Age at Marriage . . .
Length of Aquaintances
Engagement . . . . .
Premarital Pregnancy
Religion . . . . . .
Socioeconomic Factors

Class B.Predictors . .
Education . . . . . .
Parental Divorce . .
Happiness of Parent's
Happiness in Childhood
Parental Attitude . .
Birth Order . . . . .
Family Size . . . . 3
Mental Health . . . .
Sexual Experience . .

Summary of Hypotheses in

III. MARITAL ASSESSMENT . . .
IV. MARITAL ROLES . . . . . .

V. COLOR PSYCHOLOGY . . . 2

Index

hip

Ma

2.
‘1!

9.00.00.90.00

arr

I

Cha

'0 0

VI. EMPATHY AND PREDICTIVE ABILITY

VII. FINANCIAL PRIORITIES . .
VIII. DECISION MAKING . . . . .

IX. CULTURAL FACTORS . . . .

t

(be...

X. METHODOLOGY I: PROBLEMS AND DATA

XI. METHODOLOGY II: PROCEDURE

(D

II

GATHERING

Selection of Samples and Data Collection

United States Samples
New Zealand Sample .

Description of Instruments Used

Group 1 I O O O O O 0
Groups 2 and 4 . . .
Group 3 . . . . . . .

12
12
13
13
14

28

33
33
35
36
36
38
44
48
48
50
SO
52
52
53
57
58
61
62

65
79
86
92
98
107
114
116
128
128
128
132
133
133

133
133

XII.

XIII.
XIV.

Groups 5, 6, and 7 . . . . . . . .
Follow-up on Groups I, 2, and 3 . .
Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . .
Score Calculations on Instruments .
Engagement Success Inventory . .
Marital Roles Inventory . . . . .
Luscher Color Test . . . . . . .
Financial Priorities Inventory .
Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test
Problem Check List . . . . . . . . .
Marital Conventionalization (Retitled
Satisfaction in Marriage Test for
this study.) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary Communication Inventory . . . . .
Socioeconomic Status . . . . . . . . .

THE POPULATION . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . .

Discussion of Data Gathered in the Pre-
Marriage Part of this Study . . . . . . .

Discussion of Data Gathered in the Follow-
up Part of this Study . . . . . . . . .

Data Gathered But Not Used in This Study
Group I . . . . . . . .
Groups I, II, III .
Group IV . . . . .
Groups v, VI, VII .

h

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS . . .
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . .

Limitations Of the Present Study . . . . . .
Suggestions fOr Further Research . . . . . .

smacm BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O

\

APPENDICES O O O I I C I O O O O O O O O I O O O O O

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
P.
G.
'B.

I.

J.

COVER PAGES AND LETTERS . . .
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEETS . . .
ENGAGEMENT SUCCESS INVENTORY
LUSCHER.COLOR TEST . . . . .
MARITAL ROLES INVENTORY . . .
FINANCIAL PRIORITIES INVENTORY
PRIMARY COMMUNICATION INVENTORY
LOCKE-WALLACE MARITAL ADJUSTMENT TEST; AND
PROBLEMCHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . ..
EDMOND'S SCALE OF MARITAL CONVENTIONALIZATION
(RETITLED FOR THIS STUDY: SATISFACTION IN
MARRIAGE TEST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES USED IN DATA ANALYSIS.

, 134

134
134
135
135
135
136
136
137
137

137
137
138

140

140

169
185
185
185
186
186

187
235

242
243

245
276

276
282
287
290
292
301
305

308

311
313

 

. - '
“Axma

"' Age 0f 9

st-

N.‘

H I
' Lstlmte

7
‘ ~6n~th r

and p;

‘ ‘FVI
may»

. Pelaticn

and st.

Relatxcn
590359:

Acczpar.
Experi:

tter:

. Classifiz

decisr

'Age Of e

testin

tEstin

couple
PIE-IE

’
time ,

 

 

 

Table

1.

10O

11.
12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

A comparison between probability of divorce
and probability of success in marriage, by
religious affiliation . . . . . . . . . . .

Relationship between education achievement
and stability of marriage . . . . . . . .

Relationship between age difference of
spouses and marital stability . .

A comparison of Schaie and Heiss'
experimentally established color preference
pattern with Luscher's theoretical norm .

Classification of family by percentage of
decisions made by each parent . . . . . . .

Age of engaged men at time of initial
test ing O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Age of engaged women at time of initial
testing O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O

Estimated length of time (acquaintanceship)
couples had known each other at time of
pre-marriage testing . . . . . . . . . . .

Length of engagement as reported by men at
time of pre-marriage testing . . . . . . .

Length of engagement as reported by women
at time of pre-marriage testing . . . . .

Years of education completed by engaged men .

Years of education completed by engaged
"one n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Socioeconomic status of respondent's
fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page
. 42
. 49
53
90
112
. 141
. 142
143
. 144
. 145
147
. 148
. 149

 

1‘

9 I

 

 

 

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26O

27.

28.

vii

Socioeconomic Status Indexes of couples,
based on the Socioeconomic Status of
respondent's fathers . . . . . . . . .

Religious preferences of engaged subjects . .

Frequency of item selection on the Financial
Priorities Inventory by men and women . . .

Financial Priorities Inventory Index scores
of couples tested before marriage . . . . . .

Modal ranking of roles on 'Husband's Roles,’
as anticipated by engaged men . . . . . ...

Modal ranking of roles on 'Wife's Roles,’

as anticipated by engaged women . . . . . . .

Modal ranking of roles on 'Husband's
Expectations of His Wife's Roles,’
as ranked by engaged men . . . . . . . . . .

Modal ranking of roles on 'Wife's
Expectations of Her Husbandfis Roles,‘
as ranked by engaged women . . . . . . . .

Marital Roles Inventory Index scores of
couples tested before marriage . . .

Modal response pattern on the Luscher Color
Test compared with Luscher's Ideal Norm.
Couples tested before marriage . . . . . .

Luscher Color Test Index scores of couples
tested before marriage . . . . . . . . . . .

Color Prediction Index scores of couples
tested before marriage . . . . . . . . . . .

Modal ranking of roles on 'Husband's Roles,‘
by married men responding to the follow—up
questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modal ranking of roles on 'Wife's Roles,' by
married women responding to the follow-up
questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modal ranking of roles on 'Husband's
Preference for His Wife's Roles,‘ by
married men responding to the follow-up
questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151
153

155

157

160

161

162

163

164

166

167

168

172

173

174

-L\

 

al'

:21

 

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36O

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

viii

Modal ranking of roles on 'Wife's
Preference for Her Husband's Roles,’ by
married women responding to the follow-up
questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marital Roles Inventory Index scores of
couples without children tested one year
after their weddings . . . . . . . . . .

Marital Roles-Inventory Index scores of
couples with children tested one year
after their weddings . . . . . . . . . .

Modal response pattern on the Luscher Color
Test by Group II couples tested one year
after their weddings, responses compared
with Luscher's Ideal Norm . . . . . . . .

Luscher Color Test Index scores of couples
in Group II tested one year after their
weddi ngs O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Color Prediction Index Scores of couples in
Group II tested one year after their
weddings 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Locke-Wallace Index scores of couples
responding to the follow-up questionnaire

Satisfaction in Marriage Test Index scores
of couples responding to the follow-up
questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Group I Correlation Matrix for independent

variables, Pre-marital Index and Follow-up

Index scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Group II Correlation Matrix for independent
variables and Pre-marital Index scores .

Group III Correlation Matrix for independent

variables and Pre-marital Index scores .

Group II Correlation Matrix for Follow-up
Index scores, and their relationship to
selected Pre-marital Index scores and
independent variables . . . . . . . . . .

Group III Correlation Matrix for Follow-up
Index scores, and their relationship to
selected Pre-marital Index scores and
independent variables . . . . . . . . . .

175

176

177

179

180

181

183

184

188

189

190

191

 

[E

O"

0
.1

d"

 

53-11
4"":
agar
~O\v-

‘ be.

The sa
- b

.'9'
Olc:

()

‘)
a F‘

(

'

I}
w )
On 1
Oh

(I)
9‘
9
ha

m :‘f In 91

'1

E32
by
o 3

42.

43.

44O

45.

46.

47.

48O

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

ix

Summary of findings contrasting the
adjustment of couples with children
against the adjustment of couples
without children . . . . . . . . . . .

The satisfaction of couples with their
marriages. A comparison between couples
with a child, and childless couples . . . .

Color choice scores of subjects as
differentiated by sex of subject . . . . .

Summary of findings contrasting the
personality stress of couples, as measured
by the Luscher Color Test, with the presence
of a child in the first year of marriage .

Empathy scores on the Luscher Color Test as
differentiated by sex of subject . . . . . .

The follow-up Luscher Color Test Indexes
of couples compared on the basis of which
partner volunteered toxbe first tested . . .

The follow-up Color Prediction Indexes of
couples compared on the basis of which
partner volunteered to be first tested . . .

The follow-up Marital Roles Inventory Indexes
of couples compared on the basis of which
partner volunteered to be first tested . . .

The follow-up Locke-Wallace Test Indexes of
couples compared on the basis of which
partner volunteered to be first tested . .

A comparison of the pre-marriage adjustment

of couples who responded to the follow-up,
with the pre-marriage adjustment of the
couples who dropped out of the study after
the initial testing . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A comparison of the Follow-up Marital Roles

Inventory Index scores of couples responding
by mail, with couples tested:h1person . . . .

A comparison of the Locke-Wallace Test

Indexes of couples responding by mail, with
couples tested in person . . . . . . . . . .

195

196

209

212

216

225

226

227

228

231

232

234

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

The good marriage is somewhat like a trapeze act.
To begin with, it requires a certain aptitude,

a basic wish to work with one other person in
some death-defying venture. Then it takes a good
lot of practice before the real soaring begins.
Success requires each partner to be independent,
to be strong in a critical way, to be responsible
for the unit. Through trust and timing and a
certain tension, each can help the other reach
new heights. Or just enjoy the flying.

‘Shirley Streshinsky 1974

\.

Marriage has been a tOpic of no small interest
throughout recorded history. Elaborate religious ceremonies
have announced the inception of a marriage, together with
the multitude of laws and customs prescribing its nature
and direction. At the same time that someone more or less
objectively evaluates the potential of each union; someone
else has a subjective response to the union itself.

In many cultures, such as the Indian and Chinese,
it was the heads of the families who chose Spouses for their
children. The prime questions were objective; is this a
financially sound match for the (extended) family? Is this
socially to our family's credit? Any subjective element
that entered into the decision was between the family heads.

The couple might never meet prior to the wedding.

 

I: D851

A .
£3529 1:83 ~—

‘5.

P; o'- -5.
‘ ...: O

.65

In :55:

..".:‘:‘ at
an: a p
Spouse,
.3 ‘
3.1. not
b . .
~ 32:1;
.3.

OA‘E :ra

1.3—” 9-“.

"" hue n!

S
.

"mes mar]

 

In medieval EurOpe, marriages were also used to seal
a peace treaty, join together political entities, and
legitimize claims to power. In a sense marriage was
for the sOcial system which operated on primogeniture,
legitimacy and complicated rules of precedence. Marriage
was an integral part of the societal network of a society,
ruled and directed on the basis of inherited customs
and chattels.

In most societies . . . the young were taught

that at best they could count on respect

and a proper discharge of duties from their

spouse, but they could not expect happiness

and naturally could not divorce if they failed

to achieve happiness [Goode, 1964; 93].

The gradual shift away from an agrarian society has
changed the nature of marriage. In the 18th and 19th
centuries marriage was an institution at least partially
designed for the comfort and well being of its participants.
Men at least could choose their brides, paying heed to
parental pressures to choose from the "right” social strata.
Women were still legally the property of their fathers or
husbands, although they could refuse to marry.

By about 1900, it was the parties to the marriage who
had the chance to subjectively choose a mate. However the
subjective, or companionship aspect still had to take into
account the objective factor. Social and economic consi-
derations were still important in the objective sense. If

a couple did not have the credentials for the institution

of marriage; proof of employment or house keeping skills,

 

zine subjec
251m.

today we
afrtar in ma:
Thefc: , pe
2::5. Fee a

'11:}?e' d'xi

: "\n
uovl.s. ec:
in.
mineral. ,
2

 

 

 

then the subjective factors of relationship were called into
question.

Today we are in a new era. Inherited wealth is seldom
a factor in marriage. Within much broader boundaries than
ever before, persons choose mates on the basis of subjective
factors. Few are the persons who mingle only with their
“own type” during the main marrying years of 15-35. Thus
it is much harder for a person to locate a potential mate
who can appreciate and accommodate the former's concept of
marriage. Objective factors are, for the first time in
history, subordinated to subjective factors. This is
in part due to a loss of function. The family has certain
functions: economic, status giving, educational, religious,
recreational, protective, and affectional. All of these
except the affectional function have become markedly less
prominent in recent years [Ogburn, 1962]. Hence there is
a huge resultant stress on the affectional function. If
this fails, then the main fiber of modern marriage is
shattered. Unfortunately this one sided emphasis is com-
pounded because of a cultural myth.

In western societies the young person is

given a rather romantic View of marriage and

love, and is disappointed to find that

marriage is at best contented and dull,

and at worst a perceptual ache [Goode, 1964: 93].

This observation is being echoed by pundits, both

popular, academic and ecclesiastical, with increasing

aggitation in recent years. Marriage is still very popular,

 

Ili—

... 1.3"?“
0.0- no'V. "'

the I

—o.

0'"

3

lo.

these f.
3.1:; the s
------ att‘

4:;1‘o0

:---- nav-~a
InouO
I UOéVUjhs

h..’. .

3.. ..:g to (

.
-:...V‘p-.
~~*.‘:a ‘

 

 

but, divorce is reaching incidences almost as high in some
parts of the United States.

These facts may be theoretically interesting, but
knowing the situation is of little help to the counselor or
clergyman attempting to help couples decide if they have a
strong enough relationship to build a viable marriage. As
will be demonstrated in the body of this dissertation,
resorting to currently available "marriage readiness

inventories” will be of little help.

Statement of the Problem

 

This study will describe the design of a practical
marriage readiness inventory. \The inventory will be used
with engaged couples. The couples will be followed up and
tested one year after marriage to assess the relationship

between pre-marriage, and later marital adjustment.

Objectives of the Study

 

1. Design an instrument for indirectly measuring a
couples readiness for marriage. To meet the requirements
of an indirect measure. ”(a) Examinee Shall be neither
self conscious nor aware of the intent of the study and
(b) that the form of the attitude being measured shall not
be destroyed in the process of describing it" [Frumkin,
1952: 216).

2. The instrument will be easily interpretable by

the non-research oriented cOunselor or clergyman.

 

.zoo' F11
,—...b“

4. "’

2:;;:ies, c

: Our”
JO Act
0... o. ‘
.-
0
IA. .595 u
m. .‘O 'f'“
no-.I:' lVé
P --
C. 135
q
3:.
. “»b
1‘ ‘
é".:‘ O-ua
-.‘ 500‘

Tie {‘95
‘5: 1.18:9 'ui

I
‘5.
I' D.‘ O;
“ A .
““~‘Un CO
‘

"o
1:“-
7“
~.-;
‘_-‘~
"933 an;
‘0
=Ctfié’
s
a:
O‘-
O .-

.‘J
(1
’0

1"

 

 

3. The data obtained will be in a form which provides
practical information on the couples relationship.
4. The instrument will require minimal equipment,
facilities, cost and time to administer.
5. ”The procedure shall be such that the subjects
do not feel that they are tricked or purposefully
deceived” [Olson and Ryder, 1970: 443].
6.’ Test the instrument on an experimental population.
7. Retest population one year after marriage to

.ascertain the predictive value of the instrument.

Organization of the Thesis

Q‘

The rest of this study will be organized as follows.

 

First there will be a listing of the instruments used and
definition of pertinent terms. Following this will be a
discussion of the theoretical aspects of marriage prediction
and success. A review of the literature relevant to this
study will be used to generate working hypotheses. A
section on methodology will discuss current marriage
readiness and prediction instruments used by other re-
searchers, and the problems encountered in using volunteers.
The second section on methodology will discuss the selection
of samples and data collection. The particular instruments
used will be described, as well as the procedures and
techniques of data analysis. This will be followed by a
full description of the sample, analysis of findings, and

the ways the hypotheses were substantiated or rejected by

u.

.'\

 

as i,

'22:: sec::

—,I.-TAO ‘1
ma .Ouv V‘

1:32:25 c

.

.‘~~~.,.

‘I H l

.ui‘n-...
c v

hv-"b '

”A... .

h V-
,v 4....
.‘ ‘O'55.

Fawn.

 

the data secured in this study. A final chapter will present
conclusions of the study together with limitations and

implications of the findings.

Instruments Used

 

Engaged Couples Group One
Engagement Success Inventory
Marital Roles Inventory
Prediction of Partner's Response on Marital Roles

Inventory

Engaged Couples Group Two, Three and Four
Marital Roles Inventory .
Luscher Color Test
Predicting Partner's Response on Luscher Color Test

Financial Priorities Inventory

Follow-up Group One (by mail)
Marital Roles Inventory
Primary Communication Inventory
Marital Adjustment Test

Problem Check List

Follow-up Group Two and Three
Marital Roles Inventory
Primary Communication Inventory
Locke-wallace Marital Adjustment Test

Problem Check List

‘ 1
P
Pan. . (

Luscher u”

x. aA‘A tel

a. oboi

3'32 11‘. L16;

 

Viv§._
”Q‘ e-Cl

.ne text

5,
Q3"! ‘
“,9?“ b

y.

.‘\. I
baa .
‘ué‘f‘

 

.‘5' n:

 

 

Marital Conventionalization Test
Luscher Color Test
Predicting Partner's Response on Luscher Color

Test (color test only administered to 49 couples in group two

tested in their homes)

Control Groups Five, Six, and Seven
Marital Roles Inventory
Luscher Color Test
Predicting Partner's Response on Luscher Color Test
Primary Communication Inventory
Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test

\

Problem Check List

5

Marital Conventionalization Test (on group five only)

Definitions
Adjustment
The term which describes the couple's relationship as
observed by an outsider and evaluated in terms of his

standards, not the couples.

Direct Test
The type of test that is obvious in its intent, and
responses to which can be easily manipulated to express any

impressions the subject wishes to convey.

Empathy
The ability to sense another persons feelings, and

put oneself in "their shoes."

 

' H u rvi
-v‘:u' :83. a .9
- a
" “-" A? -P
3) "a: U; '

I. "‘

I
.‘I 5' I
"- v-A0.ern,

 

 

 

Engaged Couple
A male-female pair who have formally announced their

plans to have a legal marriage ceremony.

Family
A group of persons including a mother and father,
legally married, and one or more children. A small family
has one or two children; a medium size family has three or

four children; and a large family five or more children.

Happiness in Marriage
A term used by many researchers to imply pleasant
feelings about being married. ~A vague term that variously
implies adjustment, satisfaction or stability. It will not
be used in this study except in reporting other observers'

research.

Indirect Test
A type of test that is disguised in its purpose. The
person taking the test is not fully aware of the structure

of the test, and is thus less able to manipulate responses.

Married Couple
A male-female pair who report they are legally husband

and wife.

Predictive Ability
The application by a subject of the skill of empathy
(see above) in accurately foretelling his or her partner's

responses to a set of items.

 

 

.—

u.)
I;
’1)

.. 1.435! w:

"O IOOO‘

.1 I I

De 7“!"
u H
“1 ~~.4H

V's-y

eaves as ‘:

..
I "F"
‘45“.‘

'- .“q’ ,
....“‘N‘ One V
‘ 5d .

”\r

f .
(h

The din

51

i" DA.

‘3 .
«uses, a“,

H

.,
II! 1 l
V. "A" ‘
‘ h‘.‘r \ .
is.
1“”
‘\

 

 

 

Role
A group of feelings, behaviors, expectations, rights
and duties, which delineate the character ascribed to a

status poSition.

Role Expectations
The behaviors and feelings which an individual

perceives as being an integral part of a status position.

Role Priorities
An individually or communually established way of
defining the relative importance of particular rights and

duties incumbent to a particular role.

Role Strain
The difference between the person's priorities for

his roles, and his partner's expectations of the same roles.

Satisfaction
That condition in marriage where the relationship is
pleasing to both couple members, and they see it approxima-
ting their internal standards of what marriage ideally

should be like.

Stability
A term used by other researchers to suggest variously
the conditions of being well adjusted, satisfied, not in
a state of disorganization, and not divorced. The term
will only be used in this study in the process of reporting

other researcher's findings.

 

Aplace i:
zier's social
23:5ch can he
firmle. f3.

.15. duties. 1

I’m ta :1
fies who a:

2:55 ”"5 a:

'bsui

ӣ4536
{‘95 Inventc
Li have ”Pi-

:.:se to Doc“:

kl... be £108.:

in they 'n‘.

 

 

10

Status Position
A place in the social order which defines the status
holder's social value relative to persons in other statuses.
A person Can hold several different positions in society
for example, father, policeman, neighbor, each with its own

role, duties, and rights which may or may not be consonant.

Success (in marriage)
This term is used exclusively to describe married
couples who are both adjusted and satisfied in the way

'these terms are herein defined.

Operational‘Definitions

 

Adjustment
Measured by calculating a couple's score on the Marital
Roles Inventory. An adjusted couple will rank their roles,
and have expectations of their partner's roles, which are
close to modal. In addition, the partner's role priorities
will be close to the other's role expectations of spouse.

Hence they will be overall low in strain.

Adjustment Index
Calculated by summing each person's role expectation,
role priority and role strain scores to form a cumulative
individual strain score. The partner's sum scores are added
tOgether, and the difference between them added to this to

form the Index.

 

I Q
Van 9 H"
“a 5““

-;a.'2 sxres

!
1

£35.52 1581!

ms in

5Ynono

 

 

the Ear; I

“‘53:.

Role

.

“a

I‘ W
win]

I .

 

11

Color Prediction Index

This index is arrived at by summing the couple's

empathy scores (see below), and adding in the difference

between their scores.

Conventionalization Index

This index is calculated the same way as the above

mentioned indexes, and uses each couple member's score

on the Edmond's Marital Conventionalization Scale (retitled

for this study as: Satisfaction in Marriage Test) as its

'basis.

An individual's
rank order difference
will choose the color

and B's actual choice

Marital

Synonomous with

Empathy
empathy score is the product of the
between A's prediction of how B
plates on the Luscher Color Test,

pattern.

Roles Inventory Index

the Adjustment Index.

Pre-Marital Adjustment Index

The Adjustment Index derived from a couple's scores

culthe Marital Roles Inventory administered prior to

marriage .

Role Expectations

Role expectations will be measured by comparing a

Person's ranking of their role expectations of Spouse

[.41

 

O O
a: 1‘19 1393:
'25.! 9:011;

sequent ite

feted with

is by sane

32:65. vi t}:
i235 be ran

" Stain,

 

 

12

with the modal ranking of these roles by same sex persons
in their group. The instrument used for this and the two

subsequent items will be the Marital Roles Inventory.

Role Priorities
The individual's priorities for their roles are
compared with group modal role rankings of those same

roles by same sex persons.

Role Strain
The individual's priorities for their roles are
compared with the partner's preferences for how the roles
should be ranked. The greaterxthe discrepancy, the greater

5

the strain.

Satisfaction Index
A couple's satisfaction index will be calculated by
summing their response scores on the Locke-Wallace Marital
.Adjustment Test, and adding in the difference between the

partner ' s scores .

Socio-Economic Status Index
The socio-economic status score of the woman's father
is subtracted from the status score of the man's father. A
negative value indicates a couple in which the wife is
”marrying down:' a positive score a union in which the

husband is ”marrying down.”

 

T. .Lu
.u‘ and
,.

3' :-

‘ouoes “hi

 

 

13

Success
A couple will be designated as successful when both
their Satisfaction and Adjustment Indexes are in the tOp

quartile for their group.

The Variables

 

In this study, there are multiple independent
variables which have to be taken into consideration. In
Chapter II: Review of Literature, the relevance of all these
variables will be discussed. The variables to be considered
“are as follows:

age

age difference

birth order

.length of time couple have known each other

length of engagement

education

religion

socioeconomic status of families of origin

size of families of origin

birth of child in first year of marriage

happiness of subjects' childhoods

happiness of parents' marriages

parental approval of the couple's marriage
The relationship between these variables and scores on the

test batteries will be calculated.

_.-v e I.“

”Va—yrs.

'7

;"U

 

 

(1.
(D
'U

The

~ '1

55.3.: am.
2:32.233 5
(.‘1 3e expre
Ejzses t0

9‘... :2 303.; a

:3. '
"‘ ‘O vet tn
nee: tne 1

I“ . Q
n‘UAG,‘ '.V.

WW...“ 'ue:

 

 

14

The dependent variables are the pre-marital adjustment,
empathic ability, consensus in financial priorities and
personality strain of the engaged couples. The variables
will be expressed in terms of index scores calculated on
responses to the pre-marital questionnaires. These indexes
will be compared with scores received on the follow—up tests
of marital adjustment and satisfaction administered one
year after the couple's wedding. A significant relationship
between the independent and dependent variables will be
'recorded when findings are found to be at, or better than,

the .05 level of confidence.

\

Theory .

This study uses the role interactional framework to
focus on the relationship between engaged (later married)
couples. The framework looks at the family in terms of the
interaction of its members. This pattern of interaction is
subdivided into roles assumed by, or assigned to, individuals.
A key process is that of role-taking, whereby individuals
take on the characteristic duties and privileges of a
particular role set.

Role Interactional theory is most often focused on the
dynamic relationship between husbands and wives. Patterns
of behavior, aspirations and personality characteristics,
are all considered components of roles. Roles are defined
in different ways depending on the context of situations

and the frame of reference of the observer. Roles are

“-315“

 

grad fro: :
:._, As ind:
.arzei a la:

s-n "PK ‘5
L... may},

l.;,.' O
5 :.h. O
~:-vv .: 5
~3-3..'3'- LO a

agave to (3

"ob '
L..- a Part;

 

 

15

learned from important persons in the life of each indivi—
dual. As individuals approach marriageable age they have
learned a large variety of roles, some situation specific
such as “baby sitter," Others of global application such
as ”adult." Each role is seen to be in a context usually
referred to as status. The status delineates the place
relative to other positions in the social framework in
which a particular role is lived. Status, like role, is
partially a global concept which permeates all arenas of
thought and activities, for example, caucasian, and partly
.situation specific, for example, father. The more global
the frame of reference of status, the more it has to do with
the individual's social standing in his community. Personal
status is situation specific and involved with more intimate
interactions [Nye and Berado, 1966].

An individual builds his identity on the basis of
the status he holds, and within this context acts the role
he feels is appropriate to his status in both global and
particular terms. he learns how to act in situations based
on his previous experience in interacting with other mem—
bers of his family. A common repertoire of understandings
is amassed, and it is through these that a family is able
to function. Through the process of role taking, of modeling
behaviors, acquiring ideas, motives and feelings, each
person learns how to relate to others in the framework of a

family group. Part of role taking is acquiring expectations

 

 

 

:32. :thers

.

.: :naf‘flf‘

,n “UOUVO O
no 0

:.ag.‘i go
Jessi!

(3]

((2H,

  
 

.. ’j 0’

.9 ran) 1’

(7)

 

 

16

of how others in the family will act and feel. Such

knowledge is needed for a person to be able to perform his

role appropriately [Nye and Berado, 1966].

Exactly how role taking is accomplished, and what role

signifies in part depends on the theoretical bias of the

investigator. Hurvitz, in his survey on the concept of

role in theory found three main uses:

(1)

(2)

(3)

From sociological theory comes a concept
of role as the behavioral aSpect of the

status of husband and wife, the role set
which link the individual as an actor

to the social structure;

From the sociological study of the
family comes the concept of role as the
expression of an attitude associated
with the source and kind of control
exercised in the family, indicating
whether it is authoritarian and tradi-
tional or democratic and companionship;

From the psychotherapists comes the
concept of roles which have developed

as a result of interaction with persons
who have played an important part in

the early development of the husband

and wife, and which now have meaning

for them in terms of the symbolic meaning
the husband and wife have for each

other [Hurvitz, 1958: 55].

Cottrell made a clear statement about roles in terms

cw marital adjustment from the psychodynamic viewpoint;

First, marriage adjustment may be regarded
as a process in which marriage partners
attempt to re-enact certain relational
systems of situations which obtained in
their own earlier family group.

Second, the kinds of roles that marriage

partners bring to the marriage will deter-
mine the nature of their marriage relation-
ship and the degree of adjustment that they

will

achieve.

 

Third. we
as a tee:
situaticr
slugs ca‘.
marriage
itsttrell

Bessari ;

”Ihm-g’; 1»
”nun-é». $8€d

c’.:o I

...... “arrowg

”“0”! ‘ o

O. I. ‘H

t... “V9.33. VS
O

o-‘zflu '
arr-o:.zes tn;

r.

9 'e' 2
-~.e of ti

 

: "n
-1. 395$
:‘ .9 Vlev‘oe"

‘7‘
“L ha
5
a.
‘v
.,. ‘
a iesea‘
4
2:5. ‘
H
CS fi‘?
”\
‘1';t
\
2 an
‘le‘fi

17

Third, maladjusted marriages may be regarded

as a result of the failure of the marriage

situation to provide a system of relation-

ships called for by the roles that the

marriage partners bring to the marriage

[Cottrell, 1933: 107-115].

Bossard and Boll, used a more static approach which
circumscribed the types of roles [Bossard and Boll, 1955].
Herbst narrowed the field even further to consider behavioral
relationships [Herbst, 1952]. Mead, on the other hand,
emphasizes the reciprocal nature of role taking, "taking
the role of the other" [1934: 254].

Burgess is credited with suggesting that the family
can be viewed as a unity of interacting personalities,
to which Dollard added ”each with a history in a given
cultural milieu” [Ney and Berado, 1966: 101]. Hill added
the concept of considering families to be an "arena of
interacting personalities" to allow for a more flexible
conceptualizing incorporating change, conflict and uneven
growth of constituent parts of the family [Nye and Berado,
1966: 100].

In passing, this writer feels that the role interac-
tional framework is not fully adequate to cope with conflict.
As will be seen in the section on reveiwing the literature,
many researchers, including those prominent in the field
such as Burgess, Wallin, Cottrell, Locke, more recently

Hurvitz and others, conceptualize no conflict as being

healthy and part of a good marital adjustment.

 

he role

2:". .13 :e SCI‘.
LIZEIEIES .

. . .

“ "O‘flfi o
O

-.....U.: C.

‘Cuolo
Jr:

“N 40‘

“on: “-v

. . .,
5.": 2"‘ v
“New... I

:‘I:o“.
8.“.

I I
HCaEgE

”I. P
‘1. :‘AE H v- o
Ova-y U 41‘

I
‘v
“O 065.3 1.:
M. u
M
-= .

'I-- t
.
.::£..‘_'; g .,.
o u g“
'19:“...
"n h‘
.1 “D“‘2:
a
VI i
I“
w “a

 

 

 

18

The role interactional model can be strengthened by
borrowing conceptually from the systems theory which posits
that an open (live) system like the family or a marriage
must have. some tension, a way to respond to new events and
differences. In this respect absence of conflict is an
indication of incomplete interaction, and a symptom of
impending decay in the relationship (Buckley, 1967; von
Bertalanffy, 1968]. Not only is conflict necessary but it
is inevitable. It is inevitable because all persons ex—
perience conflict as they grow up in their family of origin,
and learn a way to COpe with it. They learn how to take
the role of a person expressing conflict, and of the person
responding to conflict. Since this occurs in intimate
relationships people learn to expect conflict in intimacy.
As Kassorla has noted, intimacy reawakens both the comfor-
table and conflicting feelings and expectations from pre-
vious close relationships [Kassorla, 1973].

Laing's postulations about family themes carries
this concept further. Laing has written that each family
has its own themes and prescribed roles. The players change
from generation to generation but the theme (script) remain
the same [Laing, 1969b]. This is so, irrespective of the
externally viewed functional viability of the theme or role.
Each role is needed to reinact a theme even if it means that
one player has to become psychotic for the theme to continue.

The role interactional framework has not clearly understood

:e f'Ictional
:2“: are part
:: rcessary

azzzions.

Flu: ‘
“3.5 the

 

 

 

 

 

19

the functional nature of self or other directed expectations
which are partially or fully destructive to the individual,
but necessary for a family interaction network in particular
situations.

This thesis describes an attempt to measure and assess
adjustments in marriage and to provide a simple, practical
way of replication for persons involved in preparing couples
for marriage. To reach this goal it is necessary to borrow
conceptually from other frameworks. Newcomb's little known
.theory of balance proves helpful in part. Newcomb appears
to have borrowed from both systems theory and the role
interactional framework. He indicates that individuals
have the tendency to maintain a balance in relationship
”between perceived similarity of attitudes and sentiments"
[Newcomb, 1961: 12]. Sentiments here signifying the extent
of liking or disliking for the other person. Changes in
perceived similarity lead to imbalance in the relationship,
causing strain or discomfort which in turn lead to efforts
to reduce the strain and reachieve balance. Balance is a
condition in which the amount of liking of another person is
in keeping with the degree of Similarity of the two person's
attitudes [Newcomb, 1961].

Taking this concept back into the role interactional
framework we suggest that a couple needs to achieve a
balance of role taking and role expectations before they

have the basis for a workable marriage. In this context we

-' m -M.=m|

 

tLiexpect U
Ii: which (5
“#13:, gcal
522;: cancer.

u
31.-a 'f'v-
O‘O" 0 .‘

:.s 12.321339

OI... .-
u

. ' 1 '
*~.-.: ‘5 ”1“

‘DCF

I n .
an. J”

‘
“an

I. ".3: 9531C

-
1‘: ‘VAI-A

‘P!
In :ova $.‘
a

2m:

--= A515

.1.” ~ 3.,

3
N..~“ar C(
334 1.1101131».
;.. 1. .

"’PT' 133::

.. ,
-n ,
i. :‘H‘

awo‘.y C:-

3010:
C91m):

 

 

20

would expect to find a balanced workable marriage to be
one in which there is a high and equal concensus about role
behavior, goals and aspirations. A relationship where there
is high concensus about only one partner's role would be in
imbalance. This concept of a couple's potential for a work-
able marriage being assessed in terms of high and equal
concensus will permeate the research design of this thesis.

The concept of balance is also used with the theory
of color psychology. The psychology of color is based on
the proposition that individuals choose or reject colors
on the basis of their personality makeup. In addition,
particular colors have gained definite psychological values,
some through cultural processes others through more
deeply ingrained forces. Luscher, the foremost world
authority on color has written:

Color is an inate, spontaneous language

common not only to all mankind but also to

all living creatures with color Vision. It

is the language spoken thousands of times a

day in the life of every human being, but

only on rare occasions does it cross the

frontiers of the unconscious, where it

serves as a mother tongue. The only time

that individual colors take on a conscious

significance are when they are used as

signals or signs (red traffic lights, for

example, yellow for danger) and in these

contexts they lose almost all their content,

tending as they do to become lifeless symbols

[Luscher, n.d.].

Colors are also used to describe moods.

A man sees red, feels blue, is green with

envy or purple with rage. He talks of yellow

cowards, white hope, black despair, pink tea
parties, and brown tastes. In his flags and

 

.. .., n. .
O
.. ...E,___a_

is
that t
35 395
c

 

 

21

emblems, religious rituals, customs,

superstitions, he uses color as a reflection

of his feelings, for these colors vividly

portray the emotions within him [Birren, 1962: 9].

Colors also have a significance in more mundane terms.
The sugar manufacturer knows "that he must package it (sugar)
in a blue container or at least have blue prominently on the
package somewhere, that he must avoid green at all costs. .."
[Luscher, 1970: 10].

Colors are often deliberately used to create a mood
or accentuate a desired feeling state. In religious
'Observances color has specific meaning.

Red is used on the feast of martyrs, typifying

that they shed their blood for the testimony

of Jesus; also on the feast of the Holy Cross--

that cross which was anointed with the Blood of

the Lamb: and at Whitsuntide, when the Holy

Ghost descended in the likeness of tongues of

fire [Walker, 1916: 46].

In short, colors are symbols with deep meaning,
meaning that transcends most factors of race, sex, or social
origin. Preference for one color and dislike of another is
a reflection Of a person's current state of mind, glandular
balance, or both [LUscher, 1970].

The significance of color, however, is frequently
. relegated to the level of "quaint." Because few persons
recognize the real significance of color, a test of color
preference becomes an almost ideal assessment of personality.

Persons do not feel defensive taking a quick test which

they believe will tell the examiner absolutely nothing!

—--;-fl

 

 

v ' I
II Oll‘
Hi '4‘.

522:: cf 5:

w.’--‘ fifl‘Fal

:‘HVOJ-‘Ov
)I '

.« onn )- :
“use tines:
213.1 .ltV S
‘ A

.:".. .,. 1 ;_,
Ibo: :teAKAH

.2 ..”. V -

:;ei;er2t of

At this
L: the of :
22?.Qrk thf
iicore “3,:

';.':N1

.MI.Dr Of 1
3 mater

.‘E'ué.
«Owns ’ v-
hi:

 

H
(he-
{“p I
Its acti"
\.

22

In this respect, the researcher quickly obtains an
estimate of significant aspects of each person's areas of
psychological stress. Using our modification of Newcomb's
balance theory, we would look for couples having similar
personality scores on the color preference test. Theoreti-
cally speaking, such couples would have a good fit in terms
of personality, and we would expect them to have one
ingredient of a successful marriage.

At this juncture we return to Mead’s concept of "taking
the role of the other” [92, 213.]. In the interactional
’framework the ability to take the role of other people
is a core ingredient. A perSon cannot respond to the role
behavior of others without a particular ability: empathy.
The greater the skill in empathy, the more closely two
persons can interact and coordinate the direction of their
relationship. Empathy implies the ability to anticipate
the behavior of the other, to exercise predictive ability.
A person in empathy with his partner can predict the
partner's choice pattern whether the choices are over
personality inventory responses, or predicting the partner's
role expectations or color choices from finite lists.

This ability will be tested in the thesis. The color test
has the practical advantage of being quick to administer,
suitable even for non-literate subjects, and sufficiently
indirect to minimize a subject's effort at manipulation.

Theoretical problems, although not part of the

interactional framework, impinge on the context of this

 

full" I:

. v
.4» ”A"
..I. bo-V.

a

image v.1:

' Q
“up... “I. .‘
-‘:~-:~‘3uue..

t

' In,
"-I- q

"*:--o $395 5
2.3.): an:

 

 

 

23

study. Increasingly there are pressures external to
marriage which work against success in marriage. Fromm-
Reichman feels that western culture is producing the kinds
of life experience which worsens the human condition, and
make marriage'more stressful. She cites the increasing
overdependent behavior of adults, the lessening of personal
friendliness and its open expression, and the magical
thinking and ideas of grandeur which western cultures
actively promote [Fromm-Reichman, 1950]. Parsons and Bales
[1955] note that the family has transferred some of its
functions to other units of society and has become more
specialized. Foote [1954] sees women as having increasingly
less economic dependence on their families, plus more
financial responsibility, shared authority, and more com-
panionship with their husbands. The suddenness and breadth
of change leaves many people confused about the precise
nature of marital roles. They probably saw their parents
living a parallel pattern in marriage. For example,

If a man is a good provider, not excessive

in his sexual demands, sober most of the

time, and good to the children, this is

about all a woman can reasonably ask.

Similarly if a woman is a good housekeeper

and cook, not too nagging, a willing sex

partner, and a good mother, this is all

a man can really expect [Bernard, 1964: 687].

Yet, even as they learn the apprOpriate roles, they
feel the pressure toward an interactional pattern in

marriage. The contrast is multidimensional. They are not

prepared for the scope of change. The interactional pattern

 

Miner 011.5» M. '. ~. .

Q.

Lia re
3 V5;n\.

. u‘V‘
-

persona

caticns
are ta}:

:2 A

aie. t
A ‘-
3.35.1:
i. ,2
inc: TIME
.:ve, z
O~n~n

G
s

i
5.40 w, u‘

 

 

5.5“ | ,
c “‘D11
5'55.
‘Q .
to ‘
'L
i.
.‘vi‘

1“
N‘
.‘y 3f :
§
\
3.“.
0“:

24

. . . demands a great deal more involvement
in a relationship on the part of the
participants . . . Emphasis is placed on
personality interaction. The role qualifi-
cations specified in the paralled pattern
are taken for granted; they may even be
added to. But whatever they are, they
constitute only a minimum; far more is
demanded. Companionship, expression of
love, recognition of personality (as dis-
tinguished from mere role performance) are
among the other characterizing specifications
of this pattern [Bernard, 1964: 688].

As Burgess and Wallin clearly saw it, "the central
shift in the nature of marriage is from a conception of
marriage as a status to that of marriage as a companionship

relation" [Burgess and Wallin, 1953: 25].

 

This clash of previous experience with current expec-
tations leads to stress and doubt. ‘bne way to assuage
doubt and escape from stress is to fantacize. The romantic
myth of marriage is as harmful to successful marriages as
the stresses which the myths seek to neutralize. Some of
these myths include the idea that relationships spontaneously
improve over time, the more time a couple spend together
the better because their partner is capable of satisfying
all needs: negative feelings are best never expressed;
marriage is easy but it is hard to find the right partner
[Olson, 1972]. Ryder has also suggested ". . . the ideal of
compatibility or better, the general value orientation which
seems to include compatibility as an ideal, may paradoxically
go along with the avoidance of the non-rational and essen-
tially affective aspects of human relationships"‘

[Ryder, 1967: 812].

 

“F" '

“:1 5 Lu:
5,- -m‘]
.3 u.» 0-" 6‘

. p
»~---o‘ 0‘
.u...3n L:

..
'.‘V- t-‘Fp;
.fifOQ3dayu

"I‘I A...
” 7
-.. . he.

:'I-.- ‘
u " v. f' i
. l‘ en

' i..l

a;
~.:‘;'-Cn fi.

:35 a hea

‘ndl. . .
tn
ma.ba 5‘

“s
K

.:--'I
NOE a], a”
\vu J“
4

 

a
5
z». _ l
‘ I“ F‘
\n
l
t .Ia.‘

 

25

The combined forces of change in marital role expecta-
tions, cultural strain inimicable to success, and the
romantic myth, make it harder for couples to cope with the
transition from being unattached individuals to engaged
couples, and finally marriage partners.

Harrower [1956] feels that this transition can be
accomplished better if both partners know their own and
each others goals in life. As she aptly puts it "to be
forewarned is to be forearmed" [p. 190]. Making the initial
adaptation to marriage in an open non-traditional structure,
places a heavy burden on the effectiveness of interpersonal
communication. However an Open structure is better able to
handle change and utilize a wider scope of experiences
[Rausch, Goodrich and Campbell, 1963]. Nonetheless,
the engagement period and the first few months of marriage
are critical periods.

Between single status and marriage is the status of
engagement. Rapoport [1963] outlines the interpersonal
tasks of this status as follows: make oneself ready to
take over the role of husband or wife; disengage oneself
from very close relationships that would compete or inter-
fere with commitment to the marriage; readjust gratification
patterns to fit the newly formed marital relationship. If
a couple is able to accomplish these tasks, they are more
ready for marriage. However, to accomplish these transi-
tions, each person will need skills of role taking, empathy,

and the ability to specify role expectations.

l

A

K.“ '

"3&1"

I'm-ran- '-

 

 

26

The final theoretical problem is the definition of
terms. At first glance it would appear that marital
adjustment, success, satisfaction, and happiness are inter-
changeable terms.

There are many overlapping definitions of marriage
success, adjustment and satisfaction even though these
terms are not really synonomous. An understanding of
Vickers' term ”appreciating" will help clarify the difference.
Vickers noted that ”. . . the observation of the 'actual'
and its comparison with the 'norm'--are indisoluably im-
portant in their own right. This combination process I call
appreciation" [Vickers, 1968: 149].

the categories by which we discriminate,

the standards by which we value the repertory

of responses from which we select, and our

rules for selection are all mental artifacts,

evolved, learned, and taught by the cultural

process and more or less peculiar to the

culture which produces them. This process is

a circular process, in which all these settings

of the appreciative system are constantly

being modified by their own exercise

[Vickers, 1968: 178-179].

Appreciation is a personalized set of culturally
influenced normative yard sticks. Using this framework,
marital satisfaction is the subjective appreciation of the
marriage by the person in the marriage.

In contrast, marital adjustment is the state observed
by an onlooker. The onlooker applies his own appreciative

system to someone's marriage. The norms of one subculture

are used to evaluate the life style of another subculture.

 

3:):er
:5 the 51:3
22:15 of
.- 3 .F""1
C.‘ u ..v arse
r I: pn-uu‘ b
no. 35.-5U. we
‘1. ...-'A n
..g: vdod‘ eC
;-:: :.ass .'
72:33.
I

h .

:EIS'le
“-539 5‘43:

5“

I-
V . 4‘
No ‘A
I .
»e

In"

 

It."
—

III
C- l

E<~Y
:.e
5d
a ‘5.

27

The onlooker describes the marriage as 'well adjusted'

when the subject's marriage satisfies the normative
standards of the farmer's appreciative system. In this

way a couple can be well satisfied with their marriage

while simultaneously judged by others as maladjusted.

This could easily be the predicament, for example, of an
upper class Jewish couple living in a lower class Protestant
community.

Persuing this further, we arrive at the concept of
marriage success. No matter how satisfied a couple is with
.their relationship or how adjusted others may view them,
the net result needs to be such that the couple can function
adequately in their community, in the social and economic
spheres, and prepare their children for satisfying and
functional lives, also in the context of their community.
Success then is a melding of satisfaction and adjustment
to produce a functioning community integrated life style.

To summarize, we have discussed the centrality Of role
taking and role expectations in preparing for marriage, and
have shown that roles are defined in many different ways.
The part played by empathy in this process has been discussed.
The utility of procedures taken from the psychology of color
has been recommended. Balance theory has been augmented to
suggest a basis fer measuring marital relations. The theo-
retical considerations of the process of role change from
single adulthood to marriage status have been explored. Some
. of the methodological problems in defining terms have been

clarified.

 

0C
1!

'9‘
On

:32 t:
EXLSt.

‘ 1
‘ 4 6
Gnu “.1,

L'f‘ Q
uwfien

 

 

have I

 

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In fifty years, unless there is some change,

the tribal custom of marriage will no longer
exist. . . . The mystery and beauty of marriage
and the rearing of children has pretty well
broken down.

John Watson 1927

Only ten years ago, all the prevailing criticisms
were to the effect that the family was in decline:
that it was diminished and weakened as a social
institution, performing fewer social functions,

a prey to moral deterioration; in short - on its
way out. This kind of position — for which there
is not a shred of evidence - was attacked. The
family - by a few of us who took issue with the
question then - was, on the contrary, upheld as

a much improved social institution. . . .

Only ten years after, however, a new bombard-
ment of criticisms has arisen which is almost
exactly the reverse . .. these new critics see

it (the family) as the greatest and most tenacious
obstacle to human improvement. . . .

I cannot believe that the family has changed so
radically in so short a time: from a decadent
weakling to a tower of strength. Indeed, the
family in society sometimes seems to me to

have the continuing stability and firmness of a
rock, when compared with the critics who dash
themselves into a frenzied foam of ever-changing
consternation about it. And sure enough, when
each tide changes, the rock remains.

Ronald Fletcher 1972

28

 

 

 

~ 1

any I

1": .e 1
izazkgrcm 3
' .An in
£‘yoioa' t‘lh—

"sass: ha

"‘Aah- a.

.J. -5595 3’}

. O
a Q.‘

a n.
.. I.._e:‘5 “c

?: a.

- «Be-spur

"o..] 9 I.-

Lbefise: T..e
\

J37.7.5 with ‘

.
-i:'='\

~~~-.s, I

3“- ! .
.«4 3:39:
I_’

u: 5‘

 

 

29

There is a vast body of publications on the impact
of background factors in later marital success. In
addition, the areas of marital roles, empathy, and financial
management have received attention.

For clarity, each topic will be presented individually,
followed by this author's hypotheses. A summary of all
hypotheses will conclude the chapter. Unnumbered hoards
of writers have built on a combination of research findings
and home-spun wisdom. Groves and Groves, for example,
include a section on ”Courtship" in their 1947 volume
.entitled The Contemporary American Family. The section
begins with a survey of animal.behavior, the behavior of
primitive tribesmen, and finally gets to U.S. courtship
patterns. In reading this, one can only assume that Ernest
and Gladys Groves had an arranged marriage. Other writers,
such Robert 0. Blood [1955] provide a factual, narrative
of steps which lead up to wedding planning. He mentions
the need for training in the skills of relationship, and
evaluating the relationship objectively. The area of skill
training has advanced greatly since Blood's suggestion.

Other writers have approached the area of planning
and support for marriage from a different angle. Although
they have not called it such their thinking shows apprecia-
tion of network theory, and the interrelatedness of com-
ponents of married living. Christensen, basing his

discussion on the works of Burgess, Wallin and Cottrell,

I
' “LA ~15 c

 

 

S;::;re 5 Ex) 1‘

h‘ r
a 3“
‘I -.‘ g r‘
6': 3.- e ‘0‘”
re“: ‘ HA
“fun“ Jr‘n
L I
‘. §
~

30

summarizes factors affecting the outcome of marriage, and
identifies four areas for consideration. His four areas
are: a compatible society; emotional maturity; pair unity;
and marital adaptability [1958].

de Lissovoy, found that a kin network of economic and
psychological support, coupled with involvement in church
activities helped sustain the marriages of teenagers [1973].
Rapoport and Rapoport noted that mate selection is based
on meshing the family and work related styles of both pro-
spective spouses. ”The bread winner's pattern of relations
'in both regions (work and family) is likely to have much
the same form because in both cases his behavior will
depend upon his beliefs and expectations about his 'self'
and others” [1965: 238]. Murstein, arrived at a similar
conclusion in finding that ". . . what is important is the
compatibility of roles with goals, not whether the roles
are homogamous or complimentary" [1970: 470].

In general researchers have been less interested in
how to make a good marriage. Instead they have been
fascinated with measuring aspects of relationship. Two
main foci have emerged from their work: the couple's
adjustment, and background data. Strenuous efforts have
been made to link the two, with varied success. Many
writers have cataloged these attempts. Albert quoted a
number of peOple on the importance of disseminating know-
ledge about marriage prediction and marriage success in

general [A1bert,l967]. It is amusing that Albert rises to

:2 :L'allenge

 

 

’_r_1

 

31

the challenge by publishing the information in an almost
unobtainable provincial journal.

Stephens also cataloged the predictive information,
and ranked factors in order of strength of predictive value.
(1) those in which couples are ranked by a researcher
observing them, (2) those in which the criteria of marital
success is measured by comparing divorced with not-divorced
couples, (3) questionnaires which ask, in a number of ways,
“how do you get along?" Stephens feels that all of these
methods allow certain cautious conclusions to be made.

In his strongest Class A predictors he includes:

1. age at marriage ' .

2. length of acquaintanceship~

3. premarital pregnancy

4. religiosity

5. similarity of faith

6. social class rank of couple

7. social class difference

The second group, Class B predictors:

1. education

2. previous divorce

3. divorced parents (of man)

4. happiness of parents' marriage

5. where to live (not in the city)

6 . parental approval

7. social activity

L con;
5. new
Stephen

2% st der 1

‘l
“Sharing
BC“'ev.
12v

 

Ix.

‘Q

": ‘ t
3.
-\":L‘ I

“k“ ‘

Aa‘ E

u_‘§‘ I

32

Third and.weakest group, Class C:

1. large age difference

2. sibling status (may be only child)

3. .poor relationship with parents

4. couple's (poor) relationship before marriage

5. mental health of individuals [Stephens, 1970].

Stephen's approach, however, is contested. Udry is
the most derisive of this approach stating that "no one
has produced systematic, convincing evidence that personality
:matching in courtship is important in any way for marital
‘success' [Udry, 1966: 291]. He concludes that of 26 pre-
marital factors associated with later marital adjustment,
only two, equal mental ability and parental approval of mate,
have anything to do with the relationship in question. All
the other 24 background factors can be fully explained by
considering them aspects of social homogamy [Udry, 1966].

BOwever, Bollingshead [1950] concluded that race,,
color, religion, ethnic origin, class position and education
were all found to be stratifying factors determining the
type of person an individual would marry. He found that
people tend to marry persons who are culturally very similar
thus lending support to the theory of homogamy of choice.
Burchinal surveyed the trends in marriage patterns and
concluded that marriage was a poor risk for those from low
status backgrounds with limited education, premarital
pregnancy, or requiring the continued financial support of

parents. These factors all correlate with age [Burchinal, 1965].

 

 

Eificrt. 35

.

" :5

0’0. 0
.

:atzl’. fol
-"3. 99-h“

“use 5.9;;

a-.- .

V A
”"r‘ vdvn '

. .
" '--A.. -

.' 1 .7
’°‘:OU"S h-

Mh‘onal
.
‘4":-

 

 

33

In short, marriage is a poor investment for very young,
couples.

Contrary to some researchers, Terman [1938] found
that the following background factors had little or no
correlation with marital happiness scores: family income,
occupation, presence or absence of children, amount of
religious training, birth order, number of opposite sex
siblings, spouses of different age, or having different
levels of education.

Oaklander [1971] tested 29 engaged college couples
and found that similarity in background and similarity in
self esteem, both correlate with the presence of dis-
functional communication. His findihg appears to question
the generally held theory that homogamy of choice is
functional. Oaklander's findings need careful replication,
expansion and follow-up over time, before they can be taken

as a serious challenge to the general body of research.

Class A Predictors
‘ Age at Marriage
In a pioneering study by Hart and Shields [1926] it

was found that the best age to marry (and to stay married)
was 26 for men and 24 for women. The risk for divorce was
ten to one-hundred times as great for couples where one
or both of them were less than 19 years old. Glick also
reported that marriages of younger persons were less

stable [1967, 1962]. Burchinal [1965] found that the younger

 

 

._ HA' '—-"‘

a
t.-

D

Q

, ’-
n "’
4 .-.‘-

u
‘

I653».

. .

:.‘ar

§.--.
.

 

 

 

1" <
kil

Q
'
EQ‘V
up;-
‘a..‘:e.
“Id. 1
D
Ҥba. s

:I,‘ A}.
‘* J V

.-

34

the bride the lower the status of the groom. Duval
examined some of the reasons why teenage marriages have a
high failure rate, and concluded that "few teenagers get
as adequate preparation for marriage as they do for the
other careers they enter, and so are unprepared for their
jobs as husbands and wives" [Duval, 1960: 77]. Herrmann
[1965] noted that teenage married couples suffer from:
meager resources, rapid onset of parental responsibilities,
and overly optimistic expectations about the nature of
'marriage. They quickly get into debt, and unexpected
expenses precipitate a crisis. With a low level of
marital skill such couples are‘candidates for marital
dissolution. Burchinal and Chancellhr [1963] compiled the
then available knowledge on young marriages and found that
only 10 percent of high school brides marry high school
grooms. One-third to one-half of the brides are pregnant,
and three-quarters of the grooms are involved in premarital
pregnancies. Younger marriages involve more crossing of
religious lines than is found with older couples. Landis
and Landis [1963] reported on 1,425 high school age
marriages. Within three years, 20 percent of the couples
had separated, divorced or annulled the marriage. (This
was almost three times the rate of breakdown over the
same length of relationship as found for the general
population.) Similar findings have been published by Moss
and Gingles [1965].

If. S‘-

- V
up i;-
,:_l:'.. ..a .

'_§.-A- n
. _‘
.Iu...~v-

d”.
baa&s
\ ‘ ‘
~C' .."” ‘s-
. ."" bl.
d

,
£;.. ‘5-“
"' “Um-v.
. a

.
. .

.. ‘. o
h
“*.':-e tn:

.
:‘g Q“ ’0‘
I UV~.‘~

:.‘9 lf‘aq
...., :3, I]

 

35

In summary, there is a strong inverse relationship

between marital instability and age.

Hypothesis

 

Hypothesis 1. There will be a positive relationship

between age and pre-marital adjustment.

Length of Aquaintanceship

This topic is variously arrived at by asking couples
how long they have known each other or how long they have
'”kept company.” Favorable responses to this question
indicate that a long acquaintanceship is preferable [Burgess
and Cottrell, 1939; Locke, 1951; Terman, 1938; Terman and
Oden, 1947]. "

Burgess and Wallin [1953] reported in their study of
1,000 couples that short acquaintanceship and high score
on their Engagement Success Inventory were related. However,
the scores went down when couples cameto»know each other
better and infatuation was replaced by information. Thomas
[1967] found that a‘six month acquaintanceship was vital.
Couples who knew each other less than six months prior to
marriage had a twenty percent chance of break up in the
first year of marriage. Once the six month period was past,
Thomas found that more time made very little difference.
Bayer studied 73,000 12th grade students in 1960, and
followed-up 39,000 of them in 1965. He concluded that
although early dating was related to early marriage, it

was the length of dating (in months) that was of importance.

553:: that

 

 

 

36

He found that persons of lower socioeconomic status started
dating later which was followed by early marriage, whereas
those of higher socioeconomic status started dating earlier

in life yet delayed their marriages [Bayer, 1968].

Hypothesis
Hypothesis 2. Length of acquaintanceship before
marriage will be positively associated with pre-marriage

adjustment.

Engagement

There is a general agreement that longer engagements
are good omens for a positive relationship. Terman [1938]
found that six month engagement or longer was ideal for men,
and women needed at least three months. Burgess and Cottrell
recommended at least nine months for both sexes; Locke
recommends a year or more [Burgess and Cottrell, 1939;
Locke, 1951]. Only Terman and Oden [1947] found no relation-
ship between length of engagement and subsequent marital

adjustment.

Hypothesis
Hypothesis 3. Length of engagement will be positively

associated with pre-marriage adjustment.

Premarital Pregnancy
The literature is full of studies on this aspect of
marriage. Premarital pregnancy is often seen as the best

predictor of marital collapse. However, the author has

I
'H‘“ a

 

2::‘ in ch:
1:: after. t".
5‘35. Rat
:2;- :.cy is

£219.! to 'l

 

2:32 :5 5C

.he i
i:;‘:ted a
234333
.335

\‘Q ~
“.‘3!

is; ‘

\V‘

“&*SS:

\

H

37

found in clinical practice that premarital pregnancy is

more often than not associated with a constellation of
factors. Rather than initiating a crisis, premarital
pregnancy is merely the signal light which alerts the
observer to the crossroads of crisis. The crossroads were
evident long before the signal was in evidence. The author's
findings in this area will be documented in a subsequent
report.

Mazer completed a careful 5 year epidemiological study
.on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. He found that multi-
problem households were characterized by psychiatric,
educational, marital and socioelegal difficulties. Pre-
maritally pregnant teenage girls were but one evidence of
family predicament. Such families were not over represented
on the welfare roles, but were evenly distributed across the
range of social classes [Mazer, 1972].

The incidence of premarital pregnancy is variously
estimated as occurring in 25-83 percent of high school age
marriages [Anderson\and Latts, 1965; Branham, 1965; Burchinal,
1959, 1960; Christenson and Rubenstein, 1956; Dooghe, 1968;
Inselberg, 1962; Reiner and Edwards, 1973]. Christenson
and Meissner [1953] followed-up 137 Indiana couples involved
in premarital pregnancy between 1919 and 1952. They con-
cluded that premarital pregnancy was a significant factor
'in divorce. The relationship was even stronger for couples
who delayed their marriage until just before the expected

birth. In addition, they found that couples who conceived

 

 

f"

‘CISE t‘

:3, k ..

.¢.SL k

"TA“ wn‘
S.L'.‘:J

'
o.

- Q

n 4.:
.

n .
I I
‘~¢~QU.4

n.‘
I
a

mint. 1 u D
e ”we . S

C» : c Pt . NV.
‘3‘ M “‘1“ .ul\ I 4‘ SM. ‘1 \ c
t 'l E t 1 1 at .. .1. . S
4 . I a t a m «M 3 a.
.s A .5 . 3‘ 3 a 4‘ \~ s
(a v a a .. u u is Pa .5 h. u
N: ‘R 1. .Ausfi o» n no. \ \h 5:“ uh. K x \ h.“\
Q! ‘i‘ h‘ 1‘ .‘. O ‘C" l \ i c . u ..

38

their first child soon after the wedding have a higher rate
of divorse than those who wait for several months or years
to start their families. Quite obviously there is a strong
relationship around the relative timing of conception in

marriage, and subsequent divorce.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 4. There will be an inverse relationship
between having a child in the first year of marriage, and
adjustment in marriage.

Hypothesis 5. There will be an inverse relationship
between having a child in the first year of marriage, and

satisfaction in marriage.

Religion

It is evident that religion functions as a culture.
Lenski [1961] quotes Weber to the effect that ". . . every
major religious group develops its own distinctive religious
orientation toward all aspects of life . . ." [Lenski,
1961: 7]. Bossard and Boll [ ] detail the aspects of life
permeated by the culture of a religion, and conclude that
interfaith marriages are unions of two different cultures.

The Catholic religion shapes the lives of its followers.
For example, in general Catholics, more so than Protestants,
stress obedience over intellectual autonomy [Lenski, 1961]
are less prone to anomie [Dean, 1962] but also are more
likely to be in lower level jobs than educated non*Catholics

[Rapoport and Rapoport, 1965]. Social mobility is even

fasted b;

. it a;
re: act ha'.
3::estant c
:rbzlity.
Lass; also

a: 232-Cat?

- I
. ".

 

 

effected by church involvement. As Lenski has concluded
'. . . it appears that involvement in the Catholic church
does not have the same consequences as in the white
Protestant churches. At best, it seems to be irrelevant
to mobility, and at worst, something of a hindrance" [p. urn.
Lenski also found that the differences between Catholics
and non-Catholics are still apparent even after adjustments
are made for social class position [Lenski, 1961].

The relationship between religion and social culture
is not a one way street. Burchinal and Chancellor [1963]
found a correlation of plus .24 between urbanism and mixed
marriage suggesting that urbanism may be more influential
than religion in some situations.

The reason why mixed marriages occur is a topic for
speculation. A common explanation is that such marriages
occur according to the ratio of Catholics to non-Catholics
in an area, with additional consideration given to ethnic
and socioeconomic status factors [Bouma, 1963; Burchinal
and Chancellor, 1962; Thomas, 1956; Vincent, 1959].

Heiss [1960] studied 1,167 persons in New York,
ranging in age from 20 through 59. His findings were
especially relevant in explaining Catholic intermarriage,
with less application to Protestants and Jews. His conclu-
sions suggest that there is a particular family pattern
permeating beyond religious boundaries which predisposes
persons to intermarry. Religiously intermarried persons

are characterized by:

4O

1. Non-religious parents
2. Greater dissatisfaction with parents during
the early years
3.. More strife in the early years of the family
4. Less integration in the early years of the family
5. A greater degree of emancipation from the parents
at the time marriage occurred
Thomas [1951] and Vincent [1971] both suggest that
mixed marriages are on the increase. Vincent suggests
.that 33% of Catholics are involved in interfaith marriages.
Thomas also quotes the Catholic Directory for 1950 which
indicates that 26.2% of marriages were interfaith marriages.
He feels that the rate is closer to 30%, and at least 50%
if all the marriages not sanctioned by the church are also -
included. Heiss [1961] reports that the mid-town Manhattan
study of 1,660 persons found 35.2% of those married were in
an interfaith marriage. Figures are often inaccurate because
of conversion. Crockett, Babchuk and Ballweg [1969] samples
233 mid-western families. Of those couples where one was
raised in a different faith 83% changed to a common
affiliation. Of these, 68% changed close to the time of
the wedding. The change is in the direction of the spouse
with the most education.
Besancency [1970] digested the findings of a number of
studies on interfaith marriage researched on 0.5. and
Canadian populations between 1943 and 1962. He concluded

". . . there is no important trend in intermarriage for

‘2' ‘1ch 1n

 

:2.-5: betas-t“
25:: is no J
7e than it.

, . . '
.,. . 'F‘Ru‘
'5‘ 3“ “|fi\uan

 

 

"no 0:

a a‘.
'-==- 69:5 5:

- n . ‘
“3311's;
'2:;‘ .
alcv‘l . ae“
9.- u
‘5 litters
Y §
0‘...

teaSOH‘

41

Catholics in this country . . ." [p. 66]. The ratio remains
steady between 26.1 and 29%. Besancency felt also that
there is no logical reason to suppose that more Catholic
women than men marry non-Catholics. However the inaccurate
way in which data is collected, and the habit of confusing
prewedding converts with life-long Catholics, leads to the
possible conclusion that more Catholic women than men
actually marry non-Catholics [Besancency, 1970].

The other aspect of interfaith marriages of interest
in this study is the relative rate of divorce. Several
observers have linked interfaith marriage, premarital
pregnancy and low socioeconomic status with divorce
[Burchinal and Chancellor, 1963; Christensen and Rubenstein,
1956]. Hence it appears to be a cluster of facts rather than
the interfaith combination pg£_§g which leads to divorce.

Landis [1949] reported on over 4,000 cases. He found
where divorce occurred involving a Catholic and a Protestant,
it was the combination of a Catholic husband and a Protestant
wife that was more likely to end in divorce or separation.
He reasoned the difference was due to the fact that 75% of
divorce are initiated by wives. Catholic women would find
it hard to do this against their church's ruling. Also
the Catholic church's requirement that children must be
raised Catholic puts a heavier burden on a Protestant
wife since she would be faced with raising children in a

faith to which she could not subscribe. Burchinal and

 

o 1‘
scene: [
we... . 5‘. ‘
-.sen..a-
7
Vernon

2.7339 rate

C" ' ‘
~53 & 0

0’1)»

DO. 9‘

x
\—

5559102.:
ex;liatic
\
:32 Cathol;

 

 

42

Chanceller [1963] could not replicate Landis' finding of
differential rates.

Vernon felt that there is much distortion in reporting
divorce rates [1960].

Table l. A comparison between probability of divorce and
probability of success in marriage, by religious

 

 

 

affiliation.
Religious Percentage Percentage
affiliation divorcing enduring
Both Catholic 4.4 95.6
'Both Jewish 5.2 94.8
Both Protestant 6.0 94 .0
Mixed Catholic-
Protestant 14.1 85.9
Both no faith 17.9 82.1

 

 

 

Source: 'Vernon, 1970: 295-298.

As Vernon indicated, in the first column the probability
of divorce increases 200-300 percent for mixed marriages.
In the second table the difference in success is only about
10 percent.

The final area to be considered is that of frequency
of attendance of religious services. Burgess and Cottrell
found in the 1930s that a high level of religious activity
was positively associated with good marital adjustment
[Burgess and Cottrell, 1939]. Dyer and Luckey [1961] did

not find this association.

Gordon

 

:5: Catholic
sale rate
interfait
:5: 35 both
'trgs may i
311:;er 3

l

axial- dist;

]
I

.253 sea-cut

 

'45 is not‘

 

 

 

 

43

Gordon [1971] found that of persons whose parents are
both Catholic 92 percent have some type of faith. The com-
parable rate for Protestants is 68% and for those born into
an interfaith union 34%. It sounds like Catholics have the
best of both worlds. LeMasters writes, however, that
“things may seem simple for the Roman Catholics, but this
is largely an illusion. The fact is that considerable
social distance separates a really devout Catholic from a
less devout member of that faith. . . . Theoretically,
.this is not a mixed religious marriage, but in actuality
it is” [LeMasters, 1957: 328-329]. In summary, religious
belonging is a complex and significant factor affecting

the outcome of marriages.

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 6. Entering an interfaith marriage will
be negatively related to pre-marriage adjustment.
Hypothesis 7. Interfaith marriages will not be
different in level of adjustment from same faith marriages.
Hypothesis 8.‘ Interfaith marriages will not be
different in level of satisfaction from same faith marriages.
Hypothesis 9. Frequent church attendance by both
partners will be positively related to marriage adjustment.
Hypothesis 10. Frequent church attendance by both

partners will be positively related to marital satisfaction.

’ b
.n .5.

:: miaoe

..::., ,. .
4.5.93.8

.8313
~lo‘. . k
:4": 13 u

9
."Q

......3t;cn

V

‘f I; 3““),
. ‘.“'OU..
. I
A. ‘

’:‘~ :‘ n
. .1. “1’ a

‘-

“v
Mab.e“.

2"" n

‘

H" ‘
"5118.1

 

 

 

44

Socioeconomic Factors

In this section, Stephen's final to "Class A" predictor

of marriage success, socioeconomic rank and socioeconomic
difference will be considered together.

Terman [1938] did not exactly measure socioeconomic
status in his 1930 study, but he did find little or no
correlation between family income and occupation, and
happiness in marriage. Moss [1964] and Mazer [1972] found
no relationship between socioeconomic status and the type
of family system which produced unstable or acting out
‘children. Other observers, working individually, found
a positive relationship between low socioeconomic status,
early marriage and premarital pregnancy [Burchne11, 1958;
Burchnell and Chancellor, 1963; Dooghe, 1968; Moss and
Gingles, 1959]. Blood commented on the theme of homogamy
and socioeconomic status. "The social pressures and

personal preference that cause homogamy in the first

place help to cement homogomous marriages" [Blood, 1969: 71].

Winch has observed that most people do not experience great
shifts in status, although there is more mobility in
distinctively urban occupations [Winch, 1963].

If a woman marries up socially it is more acceptable
socially, and leads to less marital strife than if she
marries down [Besancency, 1970; Brown, 1951]. Glass,
studying an English group of 4,858 marriages, found that the
majority were homogomous, with only 315 where the woman

married up, and 134 where she married down [Glass, 1954].

(-
V

 

 

&

1

 

 

 

er}
t,
L.
l

of
..11

‘on to 1

no".
‘ .
“-0

p

d

. .
r" =
Ad M
.
-: :'
no.
I
lesion.
.
:“ '
“I

e. 2. a. 0

De ‘I . “n “U
o

.a . . s.

~nu I u a s. R.

-nm .6... ..u. .5.

.rs .. ._. a n. a

vact‘
‘ta

w

s an‘

vs 1

'n
.:H s
‘0. .
on. :
-
‘w “.n
s
I“...
‘-
.5
'32"
.‘Q.

q...

4S

Roth and Peck assessed the marital adjustment of couples in
relation to their social class status. They found that 53
apercent of homogonous marriages had good adjustment.

However if the man married down this dropped to 35 percent,
and still lower to 28 percent when the woman married down.
Roth and Peck also suggest that downwardly mobile people

in general produce unstable marriages. Disruption occurs
if only one spouse is upwardly mobile [Roch and Peck, 1951].
This was confirmed by Westley and Epstein [1969] in their
intensive longitudinal study of Canadian families.

LeMasters reports that much of the information about
the impact of social class on marital adjustment had not
been recognized at the time Burgess and Cottrell, Locke,
Burgess and Wallin, and Terman completed their major studies
on marital adjustment. This may explain why Terman found
no relationship between occupation, level of income, and
marital adjustment. He had not fully allowed for a major
variable [LeMasters, 1957]. In short the major researchers
missed the fact that social class is a cultural designation
in the same way as is religion. Hence it is pertinent to
review the more outstanding differences between the working
class and middle class cultures.

For all Americans rationality is an active

element in the norms of action, but we recog-

nize a lower class cultural complex by the

fact that rationality is subordinated to the

dominant value of security, and its traditiona—

listic, particularistic, concomitants. We thus

expect to find, in the lower class as in the

upper class, rationality harnessed to the
services of traditionalistic, particularistic

355 a:
epposi
culari
servic
applic
are ma
each C
With t
:ne er
relat:
eases
:52hng

In a |

 

 

?' .
‘5‘!
t1-
., ‘.‘
4
.;: I
'35 {1“
v
a». '
‘4‘n 6.
L
s |
I EVE

46

ends and means. In the middle class the

Opposite obtains, with traditionalistic, parti-

cularistic elements being harnessed in the

service of rationality, permitting its free

application to limited areas while other areass

are maintained in a given position. But in

each case one set of values is held primary,

with the other in a secondary position; the

one encompasses the other, and it is this

relationship that yields the striking differ-

ences in cultural orientation among classes

[Schneider and Smith, 1973: 26].

In a similar way, authority is conceived of in
different conceptual terms. Kohn suggests that in middle
class families, authority is used to teach the acceptable-
'motives and feelings. By contrast, Kohn indicates that
working class authority is aimed at controlling overt acts

\

[Kohn, 1959]. ~

Probably a degree of cultural fusion has taken place
due to the spread of urbanization, itself having a specific
cultural form, although like class, urbanization also
reflects the impact of wider, national cultural influences
[Nottridge, 1972].

Rainwater and Handel [1964], suggest that the tradi-
tional working class patterns of role segregation in
marriage are breaking down. Working class marriages are
showing signs of becoming more like middle class nuclear
families. However this view is not everywhere evident.
Klein, writing about English cultural themes in the mid
1950s notes that working class patterns are enforced from

within to the extent that ". . . if a wife continues to

look even reasonably attractive after marriage, she is

V

27359.): cc
£55: 139].
235 that 1
tin; cla:
:fteselv
:2 21a: th
égaeral p

skenzie [

F"

1* earlv

21;: .t
60“;

u"
i

' sea: Her.
I
.n:

 

 

 

 

47

adversely commented upon, by women as well as men" [Klein,
1965: 109]. Hoggart [1959] writing on the same theme,
noted that publications, sold for, and preferred by the
working class, reinforce and continue their cultural view
of themselves and others. Bossard and Boll [1950] point
out that the milieu of life shapes the ritual of living.
A general pervasive theme runs through each cultural group.
Mackenzie [1973] studied skilled craftsmen in America in
the early 19708 and again confirmed the self perpetuating
‘nature of patterns and relationships. "Overwhelmingly blue
collar workers choose other blue collar employees as friends,
while clerks and managers remained similarly isolated"
[p. 153]. In addition to this, companions are chosen better
than two to one only from the same group of skilled workers.
It is not extreme to conclude that cross-class
marriages are subject to strains not unlike those experienced
in cross (national) cultural marriages. Kingsley Davis
described the predicament in terms of the difficulties
experienced by children in such marriages, but the same is
true for the spouses.
Since marriage is an institutional mechanism
for procreating and rearing children, the
requirements of the status ascription in a
caste order practically require the marriage
of equals. The wife reared in a social stratum
widely different from her husband's is apt to
inculcate ideas and behavior incompatible
with the position the children will inherit from

their father, thus creating hiatus between their
status and their role [Davis, 1949: 378].

 

E‘gpoti
r47. be yes
Frtpo

'-

C‘a“
"bH.
a

42:35 4 at

5“

C...
I U
“.5 a]

5..» s m:

Ԥ
I .’A_a‘ V

'r:.v'a‘ C

 

 

 

‘é C“
‘&:85
e
.. I
‘1‘“
S‘a:
‘
‘.
53:4
-: 4-
1“e¥
‘
Q“
\im.
~‘e‘
‘
I" .
“UR

 

48

Hypotheses
Hypothesis ll. Homogamy of socioeconomic background
will be positively associated with pre-marriage adjustment.
Hypothesis 12. Homogamy of socioeconomic background
will be positively associated with marital adjustment.
Hypothesis 13. Homogamy of socioeconomic background

will be positively associated with marital satisfaction.

Class B Predictors

 

Stephens suggested five class B factors having
'intermediate value in predicting marital success. These
factors are: education, divorce of parents, happiness of

parent's marriage, happiness of childhood, and parent's

approval of the marriage.

Education

Education is noteworthy for three reasons: its acts
to level social class and religious differences, in less than
average amounts it is associated with low socioeconomic
status and premarital pregnancy, and in liberal amounts
associated with marital adjustment. Koos [1963] sums up
the first point "college friends, for example, become
marriage partners without the strict regard for family
characteristic of the upper class or for ethnic qualities
characteristic of the lower class” [p. 53]. The relationship
between low status, pregnancy and interrupted education has

already been noted in this thesis. Emotional instability

1.-.: y”,

I:)J:‘at :

0. -
~£ .3233”

‘D-.

4:. R-

u.' I r‘
' ‘ 0V

'-

_ .

‘-

n. x,‘ .

. I. .

I“.‘ ‘7-
V..~u

!.' u
"“5 2
O

 

L
\
SK
‘\ I
u 2
d
5., .

,
I
it)
A}
p, '

 

49

is associated, in women, with dropping out of high school,
which is often coupled with pregnancy [Bauman, 1967].
Cervantes [1965] did a very careful study of 25 matched
pairs of lower class students in each of six cities. He
found that school dropouts reported their homes as signifi-
cantly less happy (P less than .001) than did the graduates.
Bernard noticed the ”Glick Effect" in her research,
i.e., income, education, and occupation are three closely
associated status variables. As the variables increase,
.the proportion of stable marriages also increases [Bernard,
1966]. The table below summarizes the findings on the

relationship between stable marriages and education.

5

Table 2. Relationship between education achievement and
stability of marriage.

 

 

 

Educational level associated
Researcher with stability

Burgess and Cottrell [1939] H: BA or BA+
W: BA or BA+

Davis [1929] . W: Beyond HS

Hamilton [1926] equal level: preferably some
college beyond HS

King [1951] H: BA or BA+

Locke [1951] w: HS or HS+

Terman [1938] B: HS+

Terman and Oden [1947] W: more than H if
difference not large

 

 

H-husband, Wswife, B=both, HS=high school, BA=college degree

Weses
3290:!

3 9
wk , go-
dcao Lei:

'12ka

.

..”
Ass.‘
0. .
I (a I
"”35: .1
8"
" ‘I‘A
I O
“. '- 4.1:

2:64... .
astute

r
:1
n:

 

 

SO

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 14. Where the averaged intra-couple educa-
tional level is more than 12 years this level of achievement

will be positively associated with pre—marriage adjustment.

Parental Divorce

This factor was not included in all of the major
studies, and is also not included in this thesis. The
only major researcher to look into this area was Locke [1951]
and he found no relationship between the marital status of
'parents and the marital stability of their children's
marriages. The death of a parent has a similar effect on
children as does divorce, yet the factor is not even

mentioned by the major researchers.

Happiness of Parent's Marriage

In a sense, this is the positive compliment of the
previous section. The literature overwhelmingly supports
the proposition that if a person's parents are happily
married, then he has a high probability of following in
their footsteps [Cottrell, 1933; Locke, 1951; Schroeder,
1939; Terman, 1938; Terman and Oden, 1947]. Other obser-
vers, notably Burgess and Wallin [1953], Burgess and
Cottre11[l939], Curtis and Mahan [1956] and Wallin [1954],
found that it is especially important for the man to have
had parents who were happily married. Westley and Epstein

[1969] suggest the reason for this relationship between

‘
2152131 Ed!
2.3511.

If his
tionsf
the
labor
the c
healt
A ha;
Hazy chi
.. :.1~

" qu'd.

:.236 a: s t i

v E . '

w {113
‘;c- l
\\‘S‘\

1

D

:1
_ —

 

 

 

51

parental marriage and subsequent marital stability of

children.

If his parents have a positive status rela-

tionship (the father being Of higher status

than the mother), a balanced division of

labor, and a father-lead pattern of authority,

the child is almost certain to be emotionally

healthy [p. 166].

A happy, stable marriage not only produces emotionally
healthy children, but also gives the children a role model
to follow. They ”know" what marital happiness can be like.
Since most persons use their parent's marriage as a norm ’
'against which to evaluate their own marriages, it is not
surprising that they would try to emulate a good thing
[Mayer, 1967]. People whose parents did not have a good
marriage will be at a disadvantage: they will have to model
against an example, not knowing at a deep level specifically
how a happy marriage Operates. Ryder found two interesting
points in this respect. If a husband is able to fit in well
with the cultural stereotype of his role, he is happier.

So is his wife if he is able to demonstrate his interest,
understanding and support for her. On the other hand
”. . . wives who report negative things about the families

in which they grew up are found in marriages where both

spouses complain about the marriage" [Ryder, 1970: 62].

Hypothesis
Hypothesis 15. Reported happiness of parents'
marriages will be positively related to the pre-marriage

adjustment of the couple.

at
\l I
w
..o.

2:;2ess
232:3;85
1..

on“,

" ”‘U";V1 f
'3: a"-‘\

 

 

52

Happiness in Childhood

Again findings substantiate the suggestion that
happiness in childhood predisposes people to have happy
marriages [Burgess and Wallin, 1953; Locke, 1951; Terman,
1938; Terman and Oden, 1947]. This general finding is
also substantiated in intensive small sample studies
by Goodrich, Ryder and Rausch [1968] and also by Curtis
and Mahan [1956].

Hypothesis
Hypothesis 16. Reporting happiness in childhood will

be positively related to prefimarriage adjustment.

\

Parental Attitude
All of the studies mentioned previously (see above)
which assessed this item found that happiness in marriage
was associated with parent's approval Of the marriage.
Udry decided that this was one Of the two premarital factors
associated with marital happinesss which could not be fully

explained by social homogamy [Udry, 1966].

Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1?. Parental approval prior to marriage
will be positively associated with pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 18. Reporting difficulty with the in-laws
'will be positively related to parental disapproval of the
:marriage prior to the marriage.

Hypothesis 19. Reporting difficulty with the in-laws

will be inversely related to marital adjustment.

 

.
I v “‘
.21. :e 1“.

M
‘—
Re
‘nfi
.l'llvfl‘ 7‘
host.“ 1|.
I-—....

"-:'-'35 a:

“a
'O“: an

r).

h'. .

I. if!”

‘\ A
:- ‘vn:

.

'-

 

 

 

53

Hypothesis 20. Reporting difficulty with the inflaws

will be inversely related to marital satisfaction.

Table 3. ~Relationship between age difference of spouses and
marital stability.

 

 

 

 

 

Findings favoring
Researcher marital stability"
Bernard [1934] H: 0-10 years older
w: 0-5 years younger
Burgess and Cottrell [1939] H: 1-3 years older, or same
age as wife
Locke [1951] About same age
King [1951] ' sH: 4-7 years Older
Haw: same age
Terman and Oden [1947] All differences favorable,
except when husband is
1-3 years younger
H = husband W = wife

Burr Suggested that no difference in age is the most
satisfactory, and that age difference has a curvi-linear

relationship with marital stability [Burr, 1973].

Hypothesis

 

Hypothesis 21. There will be a curvilinear relation-

ship between age difference and pre-marriage adjustment.

Birth Order
The value of this factor is hotly contested. There
are basically four responses to it: Thurstone and Thurstone

[1930], and Stroup and Hunter [1965] find no relationship

Gav. k.

u
'3“; o
~u~ .
a

. . ‘ ‘
\ ‘I A N
--:“c‘1d'
:‘o::.““"
In. '09..
4
”“v-:
-
‘m.=b a
u}... ~
h‘... Q

-~ 5:30
:.“0'73 ’
«.." l

 

 

 

54

between personality characteristics and ordinal position of
birth.

The second category of response is that of Koch [1960],
Forer [1969] and others. Their view is that ordinal position
is a factor in determining personality. The bulk Of
research supports them. First born children are more
ready to participate as volunteers [Capra and Dittes, 1962;
Suedfeld, 1964]; react with more anxiety to experimental
situations and drop out more readily [Schachter, 1959];
‘endorse an earlier assumption of responsibility by children
[Harris and Howard, 1968]; are more Often more dependent
than second children (Sears, 1950]; are more likely to enter
college [Smelser and Steward, 1968]; are disprOportionally
represented among lists of eminent peOple [Galton, 1874];
and are seen as being more jealous and selfish [Davis
and Havighurst, 1947]. Oldest males tend to marry to an
earlier age than later born males [Murdoch, 1966; MacDonald,
1967]. However age of marriage for females is not signi-
ficantly associated with their birth order [MacDonald, 1967],
but Oldest females have a harder time in marriage than
oldest males [Hall, 1965].

Other studies suggest that a child's sex and ordinal
position in the family do influence, not only the way
parents and siblings treat the child, but also shape career
choices, social relationships and educational attainment

[Altus, 1959; Forer, 1969; Koch, 1960; Sutton-Smith, 1964].

'..- ‘ "IL.
4.33 .Ceu
. '. 1.
_TE.‘V’ :e‘a
--'--- nu...
I. .53: ab“

"‘ .0 :9}! v
'-::..u“‘.) a

A.
u:
I,
.73» .7 A
4 ‘Vnfi
O I
'A
“‘11: r“ ‘
u.
' v
I
|‘-

in
\" z
‘ SH
I \c
H“
w
1-
'v ’~ .
t

 

 

l
33.
- L
.
t
:"‘
x‘ .

55

Heiss found intermarriage across religious lines is posi-
tively related to being a youngest or only child, negatively
related to being the oldest child [Heiss, 1960]. A group

of researchers found that couples who had a premarital
pregnancy as one of their problems in marriage, also had

a greater than chance probability of one or both of them
having come from mono-sex sibling constilations [Dame,
22.2l-r 1966].

Forer [1969] describes in general terms the different
traits of persons inthe four birth positions.

The oldest tends to expect other people to

be relatively less capable. The middle

child has less specific expectations about

the capabilities of other people. The young-

est may see others as more adequate while the

only child tends to think, 'I am most secure

when there are parents around to take care of

me, but when they are not there, I have no one

to turn to for help, so I'd better learn to

take care of myself as much as possible [p. 6].

The third approach is based on Adler's theories and
championed strongly by Walter Toman. For Toman, "birth
order rules all" [Toman, 1970]. It is the factor which
explains much of marriage. Toman has a complicated formula
for assessing a person's birth status which takes into
account details about the individual and his parents. Toman
has found that disturbed couples have less rank compli-
mentarity. Divorced couples evidenced fewer opposite sex
siblings and more early losses of family members. At the

same time, happily married couples had more Opposite sex

siblings, and complimentary rank relationship.

Fu-

Ln‘t
"I v 3‘.
. I do.‘

-. . ‘
.l' "l?-
'005. 5.:

25211011

.. 1H». Of.“ 1 .hh a“ RV t 1H! r c e
w . . and b vs .1 0 Lin «r1: o
3. J 5 m1 3 £1 at u. .7. C m #5» +5
.. .. .5 q. a.

.5 . o a 3.“ n\.-

v ..“- F‘. O
c. a." ..c. ..... We.

 

 

 

 

 

"4; 81a
"Vt

56

The key concepts in TOman's work are rank or ordinal
position, and sex. For example, considering a man who is
the oldest child in a two sibling family with one younger
sister. He will find that his best marriage match is a
woman who is also from a two child family and who has one
older brother. Both Of them had experience with Opposite
sex siblings, and experiences in ordinal positions that
compliment the other. It is beyond the scope of this
thesis to catalog all the fine points of Toman's position,
but his basic prOposition will be tested.

The fourth position on birth order is that Of KOnig
who states that

from early infancy we are modelled by being

either male or female. We are equally

modelled and destined by our rank at birth. . .

for everyone of us the rank of birth was

chosen according to the plan of life assigned

to him by destiny. . . . the inner nature of

the individual is wisely prepared to conform

to these assignments of destiny [K6nig, 1963: 55].
KOnig elaborates further that each person in their particu-
lar rank order of birth has a special relationship with and
to the world. He does step back from this whole approach a
little, and indicates ". . . only the social habits and no
others are determined by the place the child holds in his
family circle” [K6nig, 1963: 55]. Unfortunately, KOnig
did not see fit to research destiny, and supports his

assertions with personal anecdotes, biblical parables

and the sayings of historic personages.

 

« v .
."73 ’2'"
:' outd‘
95‘ 4.
" s 5121

2".

 

C
I
h:
‘ a,
in.
\' n
‘fitr-
‘t
in i
‘38 L
‘41
av.
‘6; ;
0.

S7

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 22. Complimentary rank order and sex
position will be positively related to pre—marriage

adjustment.

Family Size

Much has been said in folk lore about the glories of a
large family. Today, Zero Population Growth fans laud the
small family. Both types of families have their strengths
and their weaknesses. The major studies mentioned earlier
'in this thesis do not address themselves to the relative size
of families of origin of the subjects. Rosen [1964] found
a curvi-linear relationship between value transmission and
family size. Thayer [1971] found that persons coming from
large families are less accurate than persons coming from
small families, in reporting certain private emotional ex-
periences. Thayer's and Rosen's studies raise the possibi-
lity of family size Operating as a facet of micro-culture.
.Although Bossard and Boll did not empirically support their
findings they report distinctly different family patterns
in large as opposed to small families.

Some of these qualities are as follows. In large
families parenthood is extensive, cooperation with the
leader, discipline, and specialization of role and function
are stressed. The group is emphasized over the individual.
Large families are vulnerable to major crises such as the

death of a parent. Small families are characterized by an

1

:a:a.l tL‘.

35!? 15 a
L’EILC'CC

he ‘
“343:9.

ror
. O

N

Q- ‘c

4%

\‘.‘ I

“Q

a f:

‘
‘\ .
‘5‘,
\\

 

 

5'".
9:
K
i
\ a‘o: .
s, a
“‘

 

 

58

overall theme of planning. Parenthood is intensive, and
there is an interactional pattern which tends to be demo-
cratic-cooperative. Activity is individualized, and there
is strong pressure to succeed [Bossard, 1963; Bossard and
Boll, 1966]. The summaries of these authors appear to
favor the large family, however, their studies do indicate

the difference in modus Operendi between the two types of

 

family systems. The nature of this difference makes it
reasonable to view a marriage between a "small family" per-
son and a "large family” person as a type of cross-cultural
marriage.
For convenience, we are using Rosen's categorizations

with regard to family size: \

Small family: one to two children

Medium family: three to four children

Large family: five or more children [Rosen, 1964].

Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis 23. There will be a positive relationship
between similarity in size of family of origin, and a
couple's pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 24. There will be no difference in pre-
marriage adjustment between couples in which both are from
small families, and couples where both are from large

families.

Mental Health
This is one of Stephen's final Class C indicators.

The evidence is conflicting. If we start with Opler's

I'm‘: "".’

1

”:_‘,

 

;A.A;l a, ‘
..“..‘j ‘1

 

 

 

 

S9

findings from a 1956 Midtown Manhattan Community Mental
Health Research Study, prospects are grim indeed. Opler
and his colleagues found over 80 percent of people studied,
had some evidence of emotional disability. 36.3 percent
had mild symptom formation, 21.8 percent moderate symptom
fOrmation, and 23.4 percent had marked, severe or incapaci-
tating impairments [Opler, 1967]. However, these findings
were not used in reference to predicting marital stability.

Generally speaking, psychodynamic observers and
researchers suggest that people marry mates with compatible
ineuroses. As Kassorla has written, "we all look for the
person who, like ourselves, has the same happiness limits,
as well as the same style for dealing with guilt, anxiety,
fear and other emotional pain" [Kassorla, 1973: 14].

Other writers focus more on the pathology of this process,
seeing it in part as a reliving of earlier experiences. "In
many cases it will be found that lying behind the actual
problem is the conflict concerned with the relationship to
the parents, and that this has been, or is still being,
projected onto the partner as resentment and hatred"
[Griffith, 1957: 124].

The research in this area of early marriage adjustment
suggests several possibilities. Murstein [1970] followed
two groups of 99 and 98 couples respectively through their
courtship and early marriage. He found that people chose
partners with similar levels of self acceptance, and that

progress in courtship is aided by this quality, plus

..
:jxrazge
:ges v1“.
22:12: at
2;:2: he
"= " "es

'0. 'b JV
t

2:31:01

:3... neg

*' Dbl.

‘ \
"M. i
4...?“ f“

:h"‘ P‘ V g
-"r". b.
.

 

I“
' ha
..““. P
U
9
r ..‘
.*.1~
. .

 

60

comparable degrees of neutroticism. He also found that
couples who have deeper levels of self disclosure are

better at predicting each others responses. In addition, the
higher the individual's self esteem, the more selective is
his process of mate selection. Progress in courtship was
found to be significantly associated [E’ less that .01] with
mental health of the man [Murstein, 1967]. Barry also found
that the mental health of the husband is crucial in assuring
marital happiness. If a husband is able to be emotionally
’supportive, the possibility of severe, destructive conflict
is greatly reduced (Barry, 1970].

Murstein, with another group of 60 volunteer couples
married just over one year, found that the wife's self
acceptance, plus her ability to accurately predict her
husband, were positively related to marital happiness
[Murstein, 1972]. This does sound like a situation of
women accommodating the quirks of their husbands! Eshleman
[1965] surveying 82 young couples married six months, found
that personality adjustment is related to marital integra-
tion. Barry [1970] and Trost [1967] both suggest that
homogamy is helpful in social background characteristics.

Trost suggests that it is perceived rather than actual

 

homogamy in personality characteristics which is important

and operative (Trost, 1967].
Rapoport and Rapoport [1965] found that students who

married while in college were academically better, and had

faer re.

.

-

“hoe... D
-

:‘aa. C.

‘O-t‘. .
4

: cg
.Vk “l0:
:s- ..

 

 

 

 

61

fewer marital problems than students who married after.
graduation. 0n the other hand, Martinson [1955] studied
well matched control and experimental samples of 59 high
school girls, and concluded that ". . . persons who
marry (in high school or soon after) demonstrate greater
feelings of ego deficiency than do persons who remain
single" [p. 162].

Udry [1967] has remained unimpressed by all this
research. He hypothesized that personality match would not
predict who would marry who. He followed 150 volunteer
engaged couples and conlcuded that there was no evidence
that would indicate ". . . that those engaged couples who
break their engagements have different personality match
from those who marry" [p. 723]. He concluded that mate
perception was a more important factor.

Since this thesis is not intended as a study of
personalities, no attempt will be made to measure individuals
in this way. However, mate perception is an important
factor, and will be fully covered in the section dealing

with prediction and empathy.

Sexual Experience
Most researchers have asked in retrospect "did you
have sexual relations prior to marriage?" Since folk lore
says that no one has sex before marriage--except prostitutes
and men of questionable character--the results are a fore-

gone conclusion. All of the major studies mentioned earlier

35:21: pe
2:: ll,
2:qu vi
fitment
zzis who
may. vi:
23:31 a
fallacy 0
2:3, Re
21:51 p
Thi
Ifiiiness

XL:

w
fill
a
‘6' -.
‘-
' h
.."~ii
n
nu
‘AI
0
\a
a

 

62

by such people as Hamilton, Davis, Turman, Burgess and.
Cottrell, Burgess and Wallin, and Locke, find that pre-
marital virginity in wives is associated with good marital
adjustment. Curiously, Terman [1938] also found that hus-
bands who refrained from having premarital intercourse,
except with their "virgin" wives-to-be, also had good
marital adjustment. This contradiction points to the
fallacy of asking people to admit to socially unacceptable
acts. Reference can also be made to the estimate of pre-
marital pregnancy presented earlier in this thesis.

This writer felt that using this question in a marital
readiness test would only provoke resistance and dissimula-

tion among couples, and make the Counselor's work harder.

Summary of Hypotheses in Chapter II

 

Hypothesis 1. There will be a positive relationship
between age and pre-marital adjustment.

Hypothesis 2. Length of acquaintanceship before
marriage will be positively associated with pre-marriage
adjustment.

Hypothesis 3. Length of engagement will be positively
associated with pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 4. There will be an inverse relationship
between having a child in the first year of marriage, and
adjustment in marriage.

Hypothesis 5. There will be an inverse relationship
between having a child in the first year of marriage, and

satisfaction in marriage.

 

lh.:’ !"

p

w'ivo'
o

n
-
u
.
-.'..5
D C
Hoe”.
'.
H
Al
. ,,
I- to.
In";
....v. v
n
P
'u
I.

9-

AA
1

..‘.. A
Q. _'
o~-_.l

 

9‘

M

as; "O

U

 

 

‘.
h"
I ‘Q
‘ .\‘~
~.‘ ,
‘.
_.
\
«5.;
“4‘: .
‘i
.
h
4. 5:
'§

 

 

63

Hypothesis 6. Entering an interfaith marriage will be
negatively related to pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 7. Interfaith marriages will not be dif-
ferent in level of adjustment from same faith marriages.

Hypothesis 8. Interfaith marriages will not be
different in level of satisfaction from same faith marriages.

Hypothesis 9. Frequent church attendance by both
partners will be positively related to marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 10. Frequent church attendance by both
partners will be positively related to marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis ll. Homogamy of socioeconomic background
will be positively associated with pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 12. Homogamy of socioeconomic background
will be positively associated with marital adjustment.

Hypothesis l3. Homogamy of socioeconomic background
will be positively associated with marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis 14. Where the averaged intra-couple educa—
tional level is more than twelve years this level of
achievement will be positively associated with pre-marriage
adjustment.

Hypothesis 15. Reported happiness of parent's
marriages will be positively related to pre—marriage adjust-
ment of the subjects.

Hypothesis 16. Reporting happiness in childhood will
be positively related to pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 17. Parental approval prior to marriage

will be positively associated with pre-marriage adjustment.

64

Hypothesis 18. Reporting difficulty with the inflaws
will be positively related to parental disapproval of the
marriage prior to the marriage. ,

Hypothesis 19. Reporting difficulty with the in-laws
will be inversely related to marital adjustment.

Hypothesis 20. Reporting difficulty with the in-laws
will be inversely related to marital adjustment.

Hypothesis 21. There will be a curvilinear relation-
ship between age difference and pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 22. Complimentary rank order and sex
'position will be positively related to pre-marriage
adjustment.

Hypothesis 23. There will be‘a positive relationship
between similarity in size of family or origin, and a
couple's pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 24. There will be no difference in pre-
marriage adjustment between couples in which both are from
small families, and couples where both are from large

families.

CHAPTER I II
MARITAL ASSESSMENT

If you see a gentleman that is courteous,
obliging, and good-natured to everybody,
except a certain female that lives under the
same roof with him, to whom he is unreason—
ably cross and ill-natured, it is his wife.
If you see a male and female continually
jarring, checking, and thwarting each other,
yet under the kindest terms and appelations
immaginable, as my dear, etc., they are man
and wife.

The present state of Matrimony in South
Britain:

\

Wives eloped from husbands 2,361
Husbands ran away from wives 1,362
Married pairs in a state if sepa-

ration from each other 4,120
Married pairs living in a state of

open war, under the same roof 191,023

Married pairs living in a state of

inward hatred for each other

though concealed from the world 162,320
Married pairs living in a state of

coldness and indifference for

 

each other\ 510,123
Married reputed happily in the

esteem of the world 1,102
Married pairs comparatively happy 135
Married pairs absolutely and

entirely happy 9
Married pairs in South Britain 872,564

Anonymous 1785

65

l a? ‘I
.2 ...e'.'.:

33323280 .

:12 "'“at

‘1:
g ‘

n

 

 

 

66

The previous chapter dealt with background factors and.
reported how they have been assessed in the literature.
This chapter focuses on the assessment of current function-
ing in marriage, with emphasis on the relationship rather
than what went before.

Assessing adjustment is a precarious business both
socially and professionally. The above quotation written
in 1785 aptly sums up the typical feelings about adjustment,
but does very little to help us understand what adjustment
is. This author has already defined how the term will be
used in this thesis, but, everyone else has their own idea.

Burgess and Cottrell wrote in 1939 that

A well adjusted marriage. . . may be defined

as a marriage in which the attitudes and

acts of each of the partners produce an

environment which is favorable to the

functioning of the personality of each,

particularly in the sphere of primary

relationships [p. 10].

By 1953 Burgess had teamed up with Locke and defined
a well adjusted marriage as

. . . a union where the attitudes and the

acts of husband and wife are in agreement

on the chief issues of marriage such as

handling finances and dealing with inlaws,

where they have come to an adjustment upon

interests, objectives and values: where they

are in harmony on demonstrations of affec-

tion and the sharing of confidences; and

where they have few or no complaints

about their marriage [p. 383].

In the 14 year time span, the definition has shifted
emphasis from individual needs to couple needs. Locke

wrote in 1951 that:

 

sf

at"
'b

67

. adjustment (is) associated with

adaptability, as measured by 'giving in'
in arguments, not being domineering, slow-
ness in getting angry, and quickness in
getting over anger [p. 205].

This shows a keener understanding that conflict is

part of marriage.

Burgess and Wallin used the following criteria to

measure marital success or adjustment:

1.
2.
3.

permanence of union

marital happiness measured by self report
satisfaction in the marriage measure by
statements about each other and about the
union

The type of consensus which is measured
by an absence of disagreements and the
presence of agreement

Love and affection ‘

Sexual satisfaction .

companionship, confiding in each other
and having common interests

compatibility of personality and
temperament [Burgess and Wallin, 1953].

Many subsequent researchers used their work as a norm,

and many replications and variations on their work have

followed.

Hicks and Platt [1970] did an extensive review of the

literature on marital happiness and stability and arrived

at the following broad conclusions:

Q 0

03 £1105 (A) N H
0

marriage and divorce decisions are influenced
by the macro-social system

stability is a function of many factors
only one of which is marital happiness
the instrumental role of the husband is
crucial to marital happiness

children detract from marital happiness
low happiness may be associated with
marital stability

researcher should not rely on self report
to test marital happiness.

"' :‘Fec‘

no .5. 1

23.367.57.15 |

,.
. Q
:2: ..s{
n‘
I“
" e: l

 

t
:N‘V:A k“.
"wuss. u

7‘:V:w :
,".vc _.

.

IAA"!

k.‘".v “
‘

.‘I:~ . 5‘
IVH.“V‘

 

1h:
n I h
tk “I
i-fi; .
N“.
vv“e:e
a

".

p

J:
6“,
u" 'r ~
{M C

 

68

Kieren and Tallman, in assessing marital competence
suggested that "consensus in regard to role is critical
for effective problem solving" [1972: 248]. To achieve this
consensus requires resolving interpersonal problems. In
turn this pivots on acknowledging problems in the first
place. Traditionally, however, acknowledging problems is
scored by researchers as proof positive of poor adjustment
[Kieren and Tallman, 1972]. This of course is due to the
underlying value, not questioned by early researchers, that
conflict and discensus are automatically bad, inimicable
to adjustment. Fortunately this attitude is changing as
researchers realize that conflict is normal and even
necessary in a relationship. ‘

Landis suggests that adjusting early on in marriage
is important and can capitalize on a couple's eagerness,
and lack of repertoire of engrained disfunctional patterns.
Landis also feels that marriagewhile both partners are in
college is a good way to begin the relationship [Landis,
1955]. Marchand and Langford basically agree with him in
their study of married students [1952].

A considerable portion of research has focused on the
communication pattern in marriage. Koller, for example,
documented in 1951 that wives discuss more topics of impor-
tance before entering marriage than did their grand-
mothers [19Sl]. Presumably this signals a better start in
using communication in marriage. Bienvenu found that

good communication, as might be expected from his middle

la.
III
In
t;

1
:9: and

ya
" “If a. o
:.i.u..lj(

l:"t~‘

Anou‘l A
'I u
u .. '
~€zq|§3-‘i’
‘

'

‘1‘3‘Ofly‘

““v-...J‘ v
‘

 

69

class subjects, was described as consisting of: handling
anger and differences: good voice tone and good under-
standing; listening; and self disclosure [Bienvenue, 1970].

Many researchers have used either Locke and Wallace's
Marital Adjustment Scale or Locke's Marital Relationship
Inventory in conjunction with the Primary Communications
Inventory. These are all self report inventories. As
might be expected results on the two tests correlate
significantly to suggest that satisfied people communicate
‘better. Kahn [1970] in addition found that non-verbal
communications in particular, are correlated with marital
satisfaction. Navran [1967] found that the stronger
relationship was between marital satisfaction and verbal
communication rather than non-verbal communication. Locke,
Sabagh, and Thomas [1956] also tested for the relationship
of communication and satisfaction with empathy. Their
results were inconsistent.

The other main approach is to identify areas in the
marriage, measure consensus over these areas and then
measure adjustment. Unfortunately lack of agreement among
researchers about what constitutes the areas, and how
adjustment should be measured, makes studies narrow in
their generalizability.

Bowerman suggests nine areas over which to measure
adjustment: family expenditure; recreation; relationships
with in-laws: relationships with friends; religious

beliefs and practices; sexual relationship; homemaking

tzzes an

I.|I.l‘ H"
II“IE.O‘E

3:95 11'.
1' :s m

u
an

..v‘e area

1:15 bej

‘I
." "‘ I 1
Jan-..": [

-. "‘“r‘yo
a: ..‘HU‘
.

,.
-.

J-l‘ ' >1!
Ia‘.‘y
' 4

'Mi
6'3““ 3C

a .'
:-‘ 4".“
Q

 

 

70

duties and responsibilities; philosophy of life; and
bringing up children (Bowerman, 1957]. Keeley [1955] also
listed nine areas which included companionship; Burr [1970]
_lists six items: Murstein and Beck [1972] are satisfied with
five areas. Bowerman, for example, found multiple correla-
tions between his nine areas and marital adjustment
[Bowerman, 1957]. The conclusion is that consensus itself
is important irrespective of how the researcher wants the
quality to be focused.

Some items are less important than others. Locke
found no significant difference between happily married
and divorced couples on such'factors as religious differ-
ences, and the presence or absence cf children [Locke,
1951]. Wallin [1957] found that the absence or presence of
religious activity made no difference:h1the level of satis-
faction--provided the marriage was sexually gratifying.
Again the findings suggest that consensus itself is the
vital ingredient. Apparently time is an irrelevant
factor. Burr [1970] found that satisfaction increased
with time; Luckey [1966] found the Opposite; and Kirkpatrick
and Hobart [1954] found no rate relationship between time in
a status and ability to take roles or empathize. Evidentally
a couple either can or cannot reach pervasive consensus.

Researchers have a lot to tell us about the difference
between well adjusted and badly adjusted marriages. Spiegel

points out that the early months of marriage are marked by

an e .
Us. 1 n ,
”IOC‘U .

"'05 ~ 6
will ..
.

I;h:9v: A rs

ku'iv‘.

u ..“
" .333:
II. t‘

. .
‘P.‘D A -
‘u-...., g“
" 9..

V‘ ,
'h.‘.e \
"*7 4...
NJ.“ ‘.=
y
-

 

,-
l b
J.

I

3%

nug‘. ar;

0. a

‘h. S“:
r‘

 

i“
'h ‘A
u‘é‘:
\
H
I
‘:"‘
F
4: 1
8‘:
'\3
K. ‘.
Q— g
.
‘1:
\‘S? ‘
.
:I
I‘-
‘1‘1‘
U‘ _

 

 

71

conflict since one or both partners are involved in a role
system without sufficient knowledge of the requisite role
behaviors [Spiegel, 1957]. Dominion takes us a step

further and suggests that if couples are unable to establish
the necessary minimum physical and emotional relationship,
at least by the fifth year of marriage, then they are in

the first stage of marital breakdown [Dominian, 1968].

Renne adds that persons who are discriminated against by the
culture suffer financially, physically and emotionally

from discrimination, and hence their marriages fragment
‘more easily [Renne, 1970].

Once people get into marriage the areas of disagree-
ment are largely over decision making, about friends, money,
time spent together, goals in life, in laws and companionate
interaction. As Landis indicated, husbands and wives basi-
cally list the same areas of contention, in the same order,
commenting that some couples live with areas unresolved
even after 20 years of marriage [Landis, 1958]. It is
customary in some circles to argue over whether or not
wives who work outside the home lower marital adjustment.
Cover [1968] finds that the working class wife is better
adjusted in her marriage if she doesn't work. Blood and
Hey [1963] find the Opposite for working class wives,
unless they have a higher status job than their husbands.
Axelson [1963] found that husbands or working wives were in

favor of their wives working, more so than husbands who had

'
w-p !
tied. up ‘
A
. . .
:u v. ,- a

I:- “. ya

'i“;!‘ h '-
AIu-«g‘ b.

”a,“ ,“ u
“A“. ‘o

u. l
' v
..a ”I \
I\. ‘
.3. 5’ ‘
I». .
h
A
5V

 

a
ulv

III
(In
ll!

 

72

non-working wives. However, the marital adjustment of,
couples in which the wife worked, was lower. Gianopulus

and Mitchell [1957] concluded that it is the individuals
rather than the situation which determine whether or not
there will be conflict over the issue. This all suggests
that consensus is the basic ingredient. Either a couple

has it, or dissatisfaction spreads to most areas of marriage
rather like a progressive disease.

Couples in the throes of unadjustment are really not
experiencing different events, but, they perceive those
(events differently than would adjusted couples.

". . . people with happy marriages argue about the same
things as people with unhappy marriages. The difference
lies in how the couples handle their disagreements"
[Ferguson, 1974: 14]. Clements, to his surprise, found
that spouses in stable marriages were no better than those
in unstable marriages in having awareness of how their be—
havior affected their spouses [C1ements, 1967]. Frumkin,
however, found that] unadjusted spouses exaggerate the mutua-
lity of all interests irrespective of their significance to
marital adjustment [Frumkin, 1953]. Kotlar found that
spouses in unadjusted marriages see their spouses as being
less affectionate and less dominant. Adjusted spouses saw
themselves and each other as being affectionate and equal
in dominance [Kotlar, 1965]. Whitehurst [1968] found that
pe0p1e who are more peer oriented than family oriented have

lower marital adjustment.

"I may.

.
3‘“ A.‘
'“Vfi:v ,

u
v
0“

 

 

 

73

Preston, g£_gl. [1968] tested 116 married and 55,
engaged couples. Their conclusions supports the theme
of other studies. People on opposite sides of a conflict
take note of differences in their partner, where persons
with much affection see their partners as similar to
themselves. Luckey also found that marital satisfaction is
related to a closeness between A's self concept, and the
spouse's conception of A; and to a closeness between A's
ideal self concept and conception of his spouse
_[Luckey, 1960].

Marital adjustment is also affected by the persona-
lity of the couple members. 'Udry suggested that the search
for personality "matches" is futile [Udry,l967]. On the
other hand, studies by Gill [1955]; Jacobson [1952]; and
Pickford, 35 al. [1966a and 1966b] suggests that satisfied
married couples have similar traits or attitudes. Katz
2E.2£- [1963] suggests ". . . the degree to which persona-
lity needs are satisfied in marriage is reflected in ones
evaluation of, and ability to interact effectively with,

a spouse” [p. 213]. In two studies by Murstein and Glaudin,
they used both the interpersonal check list and the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. With the
former test they found little connection between personality
and marital adjustment. Using the later test, they found
that marital adjustment for women was correlated with the

absence of high "lie” or "masculine" scores. For men, a

 

Sign“
£25231 j:
355 and

Mr.
1. ’

.iv .v.s a
55:92:31]
231:]?

..-.
1‘ l

u, I Ry

74

lack of psychiatric character disorder and lack of insensi-
tivity-rigidity pattern was positive. In short, marital
adjustment is evident when couples have similar personali-
ties and an absense of psychiatric disorder.

The final consideration concerns inter-generational
factors affecting marital adjustment. The birth of children,
especially the birth of the first child, is a crisis parti—
cularly if the pregnancy is unplanned [Dyer, 1963; LeMasters,
1957; Ryder, 1973]. Imig studied 181 college-age couples,
and found that the birth of a child activates the husband-
'wife marital role expectations. Previously satisfied
equalitarian couples experience serious strain when children
enter the family. Children can be detrimental to marital
satisfaction [Imig, 1971]. However, Udry, after reviewing
a welter of studies, concludes that there is no reliable
relationship between the presence or absence of children,
and marital adjustment [Udry, 1966]. Lang in his 1932
study of 22,000 couples concluded that the timing of
children is important: in the first two years of marriage
couples without children are happier [Lang, 1932].
Christensen and Philbrick [1972] suggest that the key
factor is the value that parents place on having children.

The situation is a little different with parents and
in-laws. They exist before the marriage and relationships
with them do not disapper. Griffith notes that marriage

requires a reorientation of responsibilities. The first

ii

3
Em
w

:2 9:13.14
alize {‘
21'- bad f
I {aim
21:521' 1
Extial.

l the 51

fiprgb

\
I"!q

~«3ESS

i'ea of

71!

 

75

duty of a child is now no longer to his parents, but to
its partner which both parents and the couple need to
realize [Griffith, 1957]. This task is seldom completed
and bad feelings continue on for many years. The success
or failure in completing the necessary reorientation, is
closely linked to the emotional health of the couple and
especially of their children [Westley and Epstein, 1969].
In the studies by Landis and Landis [1958], women said in-
law problems were the second worst,men said third worst.
Burgess and wallin found in-law problems to be the greatest
’area of difficulty for both men and women [1953].

This is not to suggest that contact with parents and
in-laws is destructive. Irving completed two studies of
working class families in Toronto, and found that contact
with parents occurred more often than some observers
realized and these contacts are "the most emotion-laden
segment of the kinship system,"'and help sustain couples
in their new marriages [Irving, 1972: 6].

Relating with parents, and the event of children, are
the two areas which need approaching with skill, a skill
a couple brings to all relationships, or have not yet
developed. In reviewing this whole area of adjustment,
the writer is aware of a particular ability--consensus
ability-ewhich begins to form and grow during courtship.
If, as Murstein says, a couple makes good courtship progress,
this consensus ability builds to where a couple are in tune

with themselves and each other, Values and goals are shared,

 

1“

 

 

1
EC

1J2" »

 

9|

a

.Lu]|

I“.
k‘;n a

u
,1...
‘s

i

-\
o\U

.5.

 

“b
Ire 3.
"A;

 

,4:
in.
A
'n‘
~~és
2

 

2

q
0' VVHH-

..nn
.3 wit.
'§ Mur‘

Fl .

1536

I"

76

and the patterns of behavior are functionable. By the time
the wedding occurs, a foundation for marriage is mapped out.
The couple has established a system in which they view
themselves as being "two of a kind,“ and are able to live
this way. Diversity augments rather than threatens their
bond. If a couple marry before the engagement status work
is complete, they may not have reached the Optimum, or
necessary level of consensus ability to function effectively
as a couple in marriage. If this is the case either they
separate, or settle into a stable unsatisfactory pattern.
This may eventually get worse as the system functions in-
creasingly painfully, and leadxto divorce and/or serious
mental and physical impairment of one or both partners. The
gradual break-down is sign-posted by couples pointing to
more and more areas of dissatisfaction, by them stressing
their differences rather than their similar or coordinating
qualities, and through increasing emotional disturbance in
the children.

Breakdown is hastened by the overall cultural flow
which stresses excitement, the badness of aging, and
gratuitous consumption. The depersonalization of sex--
sex seen as an encounter of the moment rather than as a
relationship through time—-abets marital decay. The role
of the man in family and society depicts maleness as a
conglomorate of strong-silent-hunting-shooting-fishing-
loves-football-holds-his-booze-never-shows-feelings-

because-that-would-be-effeminate. As many studies show,

--:‘
:0: tinL‘E
“.55.: '
I:al.odats

W use...

cw" \ n
‘2
1......“

.233 :0

‘ ,.
‘R-

.4": ‘Ja

'VA' to

vu.‘~."
‘

t

v:.

.
'|‘~ t

“a ..Z
..
‘l I
~,'- g '
s. .
I
i“
H: .
. ..
:I- ‘
N: :k
'2
I
t‘ ‘
v“5
A,‘
o . ‘
\ A
\‘f
-

 

 

77

the inflexible, non—feeling person is not only a good
candidate for the psychiatrist's couch but also a poor risk
in marriage. Somehow, a couple who avoid these cultural
traps, who are able to build consensus ability, must continue
to build their relationship to avoid stagnation or decay.
Maintaining the relationship requires a quality of adaptive-
ness to events while maintaining a deeper shared conviction
about values and goals. A couple who are in empathy with
each other, who continue to share goals and role expecta-
'tions while external factors are in flux, have thus the
capacity to maintain a workable consensus transferring and
transposing a basic reportoirexof skills from situation to
event to situation. It is this kind of couple who will
score in the satisfied-adjusted range of the test battery
used in this study. Others, oblivious to, or basically
repressing signs of system breakdown, will score in the
satisfied-unadjusted category. Those couples, aware of
escalating breakdown but doing nothing to remedy it,

will fall into the dissatisfied-unadjusted category. Then
there will also be a few who are dissatisfied-adjusted, who
have a basic consensus but are reaching for the stars and
are aware of not reaching them. The operational descrip-
tions of these categories are outlined in Chapter XI:

MethodolOgy II: Procedure.

912-41255
J'—.—

I...

 

 

78

Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis 25. There will be a positive relationship
between Engagement Success Inventory scores, and satisfaction
scores as measured by the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment
Test in the follow-up study.

Hypothesis 26. There will be a positive relationship
between adjustment scores gained on the pre-marriage testing,

and adjustment scores gained on the follow-up.

.-O

' l
’4.._ .
‘Vui‘y 5.

7
.I:" C
u..‘.

2 . -
: ”1‘” A.
c.4'.‘ ‘
F. ‘

~- -
‘ x

a“...

o
C“.

%FI§A‘
it. w”

1‘a~ ‘

"'«3‘

 

 

CHAPTER IV'
MARITAL ROLES

In reviewing this particular area, the writer soon
found that everyone knows what a role is, everyone has
their own ideas about the roles which are really significant.
Blood defines roles as follows: "A role is a collection of
'rights and duties expected of an incumbent of a particular
position in a system of relationships" [Blood, 1969: 43].
Merton adds to Blood's statement the~fact that ". . . each
social status involved not a single associated role, but
an aray of roles" [Merton, 1957: 110]. This aray often
gets out of hand as Good [1960] and Rose [1951] have
separately noted; it is impossible for a person to meet
all their role obligations. This quite naturally leads
to the necessity of ordering priorities, and conflict over
what cannot be humanly accomplished. Roles are learned
from birth onward, and the sanctions and rights which
accompany each role are deeply imbedded in the unconscious
mind. Parsons and Bales suggest that the role divisions
which lead a wife to take over the internal-expressive role
in the family, and the husband to handle the external-
instumental role are so deeply rooted in the structure of

society as to be unchangeable [Parsons and Bales, 1955].

79

-::’~ '1
«.1.

II' F ‘
~qu84

2.215
2:: 's
it {‘1‘

.
I" On...
N sunk:

SEX 13v

E

 

 

 

80

Dahlstrom cites Brun-Gulbrandsen to the effect that the
basic ”traditional“ pattern of sex roles are taught
children very early in life despite professed divergent
beliefs of the parents [Dalhlstrom, 1967]. Opler concludes
that "studies of hermaphrodites have indicated that social
and familial expectations can shape the outcome toward male
or female gender roles, regardless of the actual genetic
sex involved" [Opler, 1967: 257-258].

Evidentally changes in role behaviors and expecta-
tions are difficult to accomplish. When two persons marry,
each with their own set of ”truths” about sex roles, con-'
flict is ensured. Blood suggests that:

Role conflicts are difficult to COpe with

because they are laden with value judgments.

Role expectations are 'evaluative standards,’

so any husband who violates his wife's ex-

pectations is shirking his duty or infringing

on her rights. . . the unconscious acquisi-

tion of role expectations in childhood lends

them an appearance of absolutism [Blood, 1969: 205].

For a couple to handle this significant area of
marriage there needs to be a clear idea of what the roles
are and what is expected in the roles: the ability to
perform expected behaviors: and some flexibility in ex-
pectations and performance. This all adds up to a
functionable consensus.

The literature is not too helpful in delineating
roles in marriage. Hurvitz divides roles into three main

areas: functionsl, control, and symbolic, and subdivides

the first two categories [Hurvitz, 1958]. Dunn ’[1960]

“.<AP.

3.3:t35

00";

on...“

p

A“.

0.
n)
't

C
1.4.

....;.:
u'od

0" .9:
U5] . I

I

l
l 4
" F
“a. I
“"A

6
“‘1‘ 5|
i.
-= a re
o._

‘21? r:

I.)
’K
I
(
(7
rt

 

 

B

4'.
I

. : $.'
1‘;
r

 

81

suggests certain areas of roles: authority; homemaking;
child care; personal characteristics; social participation;
education; employment and support. Other observers sub-
divide marital roles in their own ways [Fengler, 1973;

Lu, 1952; Motz, 1952; Tharp, 1963].

The conclusions we can draw from this are very help-
ful. The repeated discussion of this area in the litera-
ture attests to its importance. The divergence of opinion
is a reflection of what couples go through: there are too
many right ways to perceive marital roles.

‘ Role expectations stem from deciding the nature of
roles. Several researchers have found that divergent
expectations cause strain or dissatisfaction in marriage.
Stuckert [1963] had couples rank order statements of need,
and found that wives who could accurately perceive their
husbands expectations were happier in marriage. Anderson
tested for significant differences between role expectations
of married couples not in counseling, and those in counseling.
He found no difference in patterns of expectations between
the two groups [Anderson, 1973]. Crago and Tharp [1968]
found the opposite; their clinical group had more role
discrepancies than their so-called healthy control group.
Hawkins and Johnsen found that people refer to behavior
(what they observe) as proof of motives (role expectations).
Conforming to role expectations leads to satisfaction in
marriage. In fact, perceived role discrepancy was strongly

negatively related (r - -.8446) to marital satisfaction [1969].

.-
’vv: : ~
Qt. .

twig.
' 5‘5]
.

 

'm" .

 

.C,e5

.
\
‘\
In
.
"a
In
‘I
I
Q
's.‘

 

 

82

Robb suggests that at least one cause of marital failure
is that one spouse's performance can never measure up to
the other's unrecognized or fantasied expectation of
marriage [Robb, 1953].

Closely related to role expectations is role taking.
Westley and Epstein found that for marital satisfaction,
spouses need distinct responsibilities so they can become
skilled, and gain pleasure from a task well done. Families
who follow the culturally approved types of organization of
.roles get cultural approval. They avoid the internal and
external feeling of "wrong" or ”peculiar" to which an
a-typical family may be subjected [Westley and Epstein
1969]. Hurvitz found that the greater the deviation from
normative performance, the more strain experienced by the
married partners [Hurvitz, 1958]. Powell and LaFave
suggest that role taking accuracy is a result of four
factors:

1. type and circumstance of interaction

2. motivational relevance which a situation holds

for a subject

3. acting ability of other persons in the

situation
4. attitudinal consistency of these other
people [Powell and LaFave 1958].
This clearly points out the reciprocal nature of role
relationships. Calonico and Thomas [1973] place more stress

on the factor of values: ". . . accuracy of role taking

83

is a function of affect in interpersonal relationships.
together with a degree of similarity of value
systems” [p. 655].

Research has confirmed that flexibility in role per-
formance aids marital adjustment. Hurvitz found that conser-
vatism causes strain [1958]. Bott [1968] found that segre-
gated, traditional role relationships are more likely in
tightly enmeshed kin networks. This will be especially
true in working class families, where Hurvitz also found
.emphasis on the instrumental wage-earner-housekeeper
functions as opposed to a primary focus on companionship
[Hurvitz, 1958]. Slater pointed out, however, that
”reducing the area of joint activity will reduce solidarity
as well as conflict” [Slater, 1968: 368]. This would seem
to reduce satisfaction also.

Again, observers in this area point to the need of
consensus. Scanzoni calls this reciprocity, but his meaning
is the same: agreement over rights and duties [1972].
Murstein found a couple choose each other on the basis of
role compatibility [Murstein, 1967]. Reporting from
different viewpoints, considering the needs of the marital
couple, of the children's emotional health and of the
family as a whole, there is a clear agreement on the value
of consenses [Farber and Jenne, 1963; Landis, 1955; Mangus
1957; Rainwater, 1955; Westley and Epstein, 1959].

The opposite of role consensus-~role discrepancy--

has been well documented. Again the way roles have been

I"

 

 

‘ I Q

o.“ cfifi
.t‘

otgonbsh

“:69nt

I
to- b-u

" 0'! F:
'0.“ .21...

23'
I
(D
R

Cl!“

.1.
h‘o

‘1‘;
-

sawd‘.‘
u

o-.:‘

 

7‘!
o

3“»;
'J‘VV~

'
(f

'4.
(I)

I ‘

. I

“‘9 ‘ v-
\

 

 

 

84

defined and written up varies, but the findings are con-
sistent. Role discrepancy has a high negative correlation
with marital satisfaction [Burr, 1971 and 1973; Ort, 1950].
Role conflict is seen to arise when persons do not know
what is expected, or when they lack the skills [Duvall,
1962]. Two studies suggest that family problems are speci-
fically related to role conflict although the areas of
conflict are discrete, having no common variance [Brim,
_£_g_., 1961; Petersen, 1969]. Jacobson found, as might be
.expected, that divorced couples have more difference in
their attitudes toward the roles of husband and wife in
marriage than do couples who are still married

[Jacobson, 1952].

In role conflict the husband is evidently the crucial
person. Jacobson's divorced husbands were described as
"partriarchal" [1952]. Deviant role performance by husbands
diminishes marital adjustment [Hurvitz, 1958; Tharp, 1963].
It is also helpful if wives can accurately perceive what
their husband's role expectations actually are (Couch, 1958;
Stuckert, 1963].

In summarizing our survey of the literature on roles
it is evident that similar values are the bases for
compatible role expectations and role performance. Without
consensus in this area, marital adjustment remains low.
WOrking class family patterns, role segregation, and rigid

authoritarian traits in husbands are also major factors

 

2's:
00"
91'
‘6
:I
l
.
’fl
.
f
4

 

sh,-

Hut.

 

 

85

in lower adjustment. Udry [1966], in his review of this
area of family study points out that none of the published
research relates extent of agreement on marital roles before
marriage to later marital adjustment. This study is

an attempt to remedy the situation.

Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis 27. Satisfaction in marriage will be
positively associated with the husband having a normative
role performance.

Hypothesis 28. Satisfaction in marriage will be
positively associated with the husband having normative role

\

expectations. \
Hypothesis 29. Satisfaction in marriage will be nega-
tively related to role strain.
Hypothesis 30. Satisfaction in marriage will be posi-
tively associated with both husband and wife having norma-

tive and mutually consistent role expectations and

performance.

 

 
 

- .
A... I A. 76 a» A w . a v :u . a I II
v c a A‘V Pt 2 a a: it 1» n it i» , 4
51. 1| 8 an .m- Ahh [I Si 6 a .1.“ As... I. - 1% 4|“
3 I I s . t ‘
.:.. anw . . .. .. .. .3 L... . . ..: . .

 

Fr

 

CHAPTER V
COLOR PSYCHOLOGY

Most researchers in the area of predicting marital
adjustment have assessed the personalities of couple members.
Some of the findings have been reported previously. As
stated earlier in this thesis, one of the goals is to produce
-a pre-marriage assessment inventory that among other things,
is an indirect test, yet simple to administer. The Luscher
Color Test is both indirect, simple.to administer and score.
There are two versions of the Luscher: the Full Luscher
employing over 70 color panels, and the 8-Color Test.

The later is used in this study.

The 8-Color Test consistsbf 8 panels of color: red,
blue, green, yellow, violet, brown, gray and black. Subjects
are asked to rank order the colors in order of preference.
After a short lapse of time they are asked to repeat the
procedure as if they are doing it for the first time, and
make no effort to duplicate or avoid the previously chosen
sequence. The colors red, blue, green, and yellow are con-
sidered primary chormatic colors. A normal person not under
stress will choose these four in the first four or five
positions. Upset persons will tend to reject the chromatic

colors in favor of achromatic black, brown, or gray. The

86

 

 

V
vr u
‘0 b.

nq'c.

'IU‘UL

 

,.
m
'1

‘5 I
“V o ‘

h. ,
. Dr
H,“

~u
0"“

in.”
u.“':

\a-
I.)

'2; _

a"
Iv 3w
‘ 5

 

 

 

87

more this happens, the greater the degree of disturbance.
Violet is an intermediate color, only significant if it

is in the first, second, or eighth position. A color is
significant both in terms of its position in rank order and
also in terms of the colors to which it is adjacent.

Max Luscher has established an ordering of the eight
colors which he refers to as an Ideal Norm. The Ideal Norm
is: red (no. 3), blue (no. 1), green (no. 2), yellow
(no. 4), violet (no. 5), gray (0), brown (6), and black
(7): 31245067. Luscher tested 4,756 adult Europeans.
'Their modal ranking of the colors was 12354607 (r. Luscher-
ideal = plus .88). Scott tested 800 English adults and
arrived at a modal ranking 31240567 kr. Scott-ideal = plus
.98). Hence for this thesis, we will consider 31245067 as
the ideal order of the 8 colors against which to compare
color choices of subjects.

Several studies demonstrate the validity of the Luscher
Color Test. For example, Klar using the full Luscher Color
Test found it differentiated between frigid and nonfrigid
‘women, also between overweight and nonadipose women [Klar,
1962 and 1966]. After treatment and weight loss, the color
choices of the previously overweight showed a profile closer
to ideal [Klar, 1961].

Astrom and Tobiason tested a group of 100 mental
patients with both the 8 color Luscher Color Test and the
Maudsley Personality Inventory (similar to the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory). Their results were

 

|_
__4

"‘1‘.-
1334,

 

88

decisive: patients with pathological MPI protocals made
pathological color choices more often (P greater than .001)
than those patients with non-pathological MPI protocals.
Preference for achromatic colors was sigficantly related at
the .02 level with mental disturbance [Astrom and

Tobiason, 1965].

Other researchers have attempted to measure the
association of color preference and personality. Warner
(1949] constructed a most precise study: hues, lightness,
.and saturation, size of color card, and illumination were all
exactly specified. He was able to conclude that color
preference was a highly reliable device for discriminating
between different psychiatric categories. He also found
a significant difference by sex of patient.

Walton studied color preferences of persons between
the years of 1910 and 1931. He used a panel of 18 colors.
Subjects chose between pairs of colors. His findings were
as follows:

1. Very reliable norms were established for the
affective value of the 18 colors under a variety
of conditions.

2. There are certain persistent color preferences
both among men and women, but differing by sex.

3. Certain colors showed a continuous shift in
affective value over the years for both sexes:

for example red decreased in value between 1910

 

’- .

bw.~

r.

I‘-
u

‘\

 

89

and 1918, then there was an uncertain period.
followed by an increased preference.
4. Women's preferences are more inclined to fluctuate,
but individual differences between men and women
from.year to year are about equal.
5. In addition to "social conditioning and other
environmental factors, there are undoubtedly
deep underlying biological factors that help to
determine color preferences" [Walton, 1933: 328].
Wexner presented eight color plates: yellow, orange,
red, purple, blue, black, green, and brown to 48 female
and 40 male students. Students were asked to associate
color with mood words. Definite associations were
identified [Wexner, 1954].

The other major color and personality test is the
Color Pyramid Test. Subjects are asked to choose freely
from an assortment of color chips and construct three
pretty pyramids, pasting the chips on paper. The subject.
then repeats the procedure, but this time constructs three
ugly pyramids. The counselor then diagnoses the subject
on the basis of color choice, use, positioning and combina-
tion. Schaie and Heiss, the originators of this test, have
put together a scoring manual, and liberally quote the
researcher findings of others to substantiate their claim
that color choice is a reliable indicator of personality

[Schaie and Heiss, 1964].

9O

Heiss and Schaie quoted a study by Heiss and Hiltman

where they experimented with slightly different hues, and

found only minor shift in color choice.

They concluded

that different sets of hues give basically similar results

so long as colors can be chosen from a representative

example of the entire color spectrum [Schaie and Heiss,

1964].

Schaie and Heiss, also reported a modal color choice

pattern which is very close to Luscher's, despite the fact

that the former uses 10 rather than 8 colors [Schaie and

Heiss, 1964].

‘\

Table 4. A comparison of Schaie andkHeiss' experimentally
established color preference pattern with Luscherfis

theoretical norm.

 

 

Schaie and.HeiSS'[l964]
(300 Geman adults)

Luscher [1970]

Schaie and Heiss [1964]
(90 German preschoolers)

 

green
blue
red
yellow
purple
orange
brown
white
gray
black

 

red
blue
green
yellow

violet

gray

brown

black

 

red
blue
green
yellow
orange
purple
brown
black

white

, gray

 

91

Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis 31. The modal color choice patterns of men,
and of women, will not differ from the ideal color choice
pattern..

Hypothesis 32. Deviant color choice scores before
marriage will be positively related with low pre-marriage
adjustment.

Hypothesis 33. Deviant color choice scores will be
positively associated with reporting an unhappy childhood.

Hypothesis 34. Deviant color choice scores will be
positively associated with reporting that the subject's
parents had an unhappy marriage.

Hypothesis 35. There will be a positive relationship
between deviation in color choice and the birth of a child
in the first year of marriage.

Hypothesis 36. There will be a positive relationship
between color test scores recorded on the pre-marriage test,
and those recorded on the follow-up.

Hypothesis 37, There will be a positive association
between color test scores recorded before marriage, and
satisfaction as measured on the follow-up.

Hypothesis 38. There will be a positive association
between color test scores recorded before marriage, and

adjustment measured on the follow—up.

CHAPTER VI
EMPATHY AND PREDICTIVE ABILITY

Empathy is a special ability, often more apparent in
its absence. Couples receiving counseling very often are
lacking in this quality and this deficiency makes communica-
tion harder. Empathy in Dymond's words is "the ability to
'take the role of another" [Dymond, 1949: 133]. This is very
close to the meaning of understanding as Udry defines it:
”the ability of one person to predict the response of
another to particular stimuli" [Udry, 1966: 278]. Empathy
involves the accurate appreciation of another person's
situation, viewpoint, or behavior.

Several researchers have studied this quality and
found initially that it relates to self understanding,
self acceptance, and accurate self insight [Dymond, 1949:
Stock, 1949]. Rogers also found in studying adolescents
that self insight was strongly correlated with adjustment
later in life.

. . in predicting the behavior of a problem
adolescent, the extent to which he faces and

accepts himself, and has a realistic view of

himself and reality, provides, of the factors

studied, the best estimate of his future

adjustment [Rogers, 1948: 181].

Dymond did an indepth study of 80 students and

showed a clear constellation of personality factors which

92

 

 

'0‘

1")
' 1

'

[0
1‘
I
\
i I
N ..
‘n.
I. _.
In...
MIA.
'.
O
o
‘1‘...
"Kn.
[6 .
3. '
n
\y‘ ‘
l“-

 

 

(I,

 

93

differentiated persons of high empathic ability from those
low in this quality [Dymond, 1950].

Taft studied 40 persons on their ability to accurately
judge other peOple. He concluded that good judges were
raised in an urban area, had some work experience, and were
only or oldest children in their family of origin. If they
did have siblings these were few in number. Youngest
childrenluwe the lowest judging ability (significant at
beyond the .01 level) (Taft, 1956].

Stewart and Vernon [1959] found that persons strongly
.anchored in culturally approved roles are not very skilled
at empathizing. Yet persons'poorly integrated into the
culture were also poor at empathizing. Hence an optimum
amount of aculturation is necessary for empathic ability.

, Empathy is a needed skill in building a successful
marriage. Learning the skill is apparently related
to the atmosphere in a person's family of origin. Exercising
this skill requres cultural integration, or a common pool of
values joining two persons attmpting to empathize with each
other.

Research in the area of marriage and empathy indicates
that marital happiness is related to accurate perception of
spouse, perceived similarity of spouses, and the ability to
accurately perceive the appropriate roles in situations
[Byrne and Blaycock, 1963; Coombs, 1966; Dymond, 1953;
Dymond, 1954; Hogan and Jackson, 1964].

 

 

9y.-

l.’

1.11

A A.
."u.
‘\vI

 

2
M»

o.‘

1..

2n

.n

a.
4I

 

 

94

Progress in relationship building is enhanced when a
couple perceive themselves as having similar values, however,
on the other hand, length of time in the relationship
does not appear to improve empathic skills [Kirkpatrick and
Hobart, 1954; Stryker, 1957]. Murstein, found that deeper
levels of self disclosure does improve predictability and
relationship growth in general [Murstein, 1970]. This
finding was also substantiated by Vernon and Steward [1957].

A study by Udry, indicated that predictive ability is
.higher in women than men [Udry, 1963]. Luckey, and Hobart
and Klausner found to facilitate marital satisfaction it
'was most important for women to accurately perceive their
husbands [Luckey, 1960; Hobart and Rlausner, 1959]. Taylor
on the other hand felt the husband's perceptive ability the
‘more important.[Taylor, 1967]. Dymond [1954] and Notcutt
and Silva [1951] found men and women equally perceptive.
Bender and Hastorf [1950] tested 46 students using a
variety of scales, and found that predictive ability is
most evident in specific situations. On the other hand,
some researchers are skeptical of empathy, considering it
little more than an off-shoot of projection. Hastorf and
Bender found that "projectors" were actually more similar
to their associates than were the "empathizers." Projectors
serendipitously arrived at correct outcomes [Hastorf and
Bender, 1952].

KOgan and Jackson [1964] found nothing to suggest

that women perceived their husbands as either similar to

.5

pl!

5"

 

-~
‘I'

I I_-

It»

 

 

 

. o
I‘i

.4

95

or complimentary to themselves. Brim and Wood [1956] found
no correlation between increasing empathy and relationship
progress. Both these studies, however, were on very small
samples using tests vulnerable to subjects responding in
socially approved ways.

Thus it can be concluded that empathy is a strong
component in effective relationships. Successful marriages
require empathy, and its application, accurately predicting
the response of the partner. The ability to have empathy
is evidently a function of events in a person's background.
‘However, this writer does not feel the connection is as
simple as good background leading to empathic skill and hence
happy marriage. Firstly the aspect‘of projection needs to
be dealt with. Pure empathic perception requires accurately
seeing the real differences, the uniqueness of the percep-

tual target. One way to calculate it is as follows:

 

 

 

F. —1

man's man's .1 i— woman's man's
choice - guess of MINUS choice - guess of
pattern woman L. pattern woman

 

If the result is a positive score then we have an indication
of the man's empathy. A negative score suggests that a
man is projecting himself onto the woman, and that he has
a distorted image of her.

This works very well if the man predicts the woman to
be much like him, and she is not (projection). The results

are also clear if he predicts the woman to be different from

 

 

 

0.

rs.

 

96

him, and she is (empathy). However, in instances where
they are both alike, and the prediction is very close, is
this empathy or projection?

The other aspect to be reckoned with is the "halo
effect." In this writer's experience couples very much in
love, eagerly anticipating marriage, often have an intuitive
understanding of each other's needs and moods. This does
not extend to being able to verbalize how the partner will
respond in a situation, and it does not presuppose an
accurate understanding of each other's role expectations.
This can be an infatuation syndrome: love feels good,
everything is rose-tinted, but realistic plans and concrete
priorities remain undecided. "We are in love; so of course
we will have total consensus." This pattern has been seen in
those involved in ”shot gun weddings."

The converse pattern of low empathy and high agreement
on priorities and expectations is the convenience syndrome.
In this type of relationship, empathy is unnecessary. The
couple can project all over each other and be correct much
of the time because they are carbon copies, not necessarily
of each other, but of what the cultural stereotypes say men
and women should be. These people are like Xerox cepies.
Each copy is a faithful reproduction of the original, an
inflexible shadow of a person. Such couples can jog along.
or rather float through life in a light gray fog. If they
have a child in the first year of marriage it will shake

them up temporarily and lower their satisfaction rating.

m;

 

.u

-
you

[a-

u.

LT

97

Their biggest problem will occur when one of them, usually
the wife, wakes up, brushes aside the gray fog, and demands
empathy and relationship. These are those nice happy

appearing people, who, if and when they divorce, shake the

entire neighborhood.

Hypotheses

 

Hypothehsis 39. There will be a positive relationship
between empathy and pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 40. There will be no difference in the
'empathic ability of men and women.

Hypothesis 41. There will be a positive relationship
between empathy and marital adjustment.

Hypothesis 42. There will be a positive relationship
between empathy and marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis 43. Pre-marriage empathy will be positive-
ly associated with marital adjustment.

Hypothesis 44. Pre-marriage empathy will be positive-
ly associated with marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis 45. Pr-marriage empathy will be positively

associated with empathy measured on the follow-up.

fl);

 

 

Q‘I

8n
i.

 

a‘
V

CHAPTER VI I
FINANCIAL PRIORITIE 8

Money has had a symbolic significance for a very long.
time. It is also been evident to researchers that money
problems are one of the major stumbling blocks in marriage.
Ironically very little research has been done on money and
'marriage when compared to how much has been researched in
other areas of marriage. Many studies have questioned
couples prior to marriage on their savings balance, source
of income and annual income level. However, what research
there is, is retrospective so far as planning, values, and
attitudes are concerned.

In considering management, there is plenty to draw
from. Texts such as Troelstrup cover every detail
[Troelstrup, 1970]; LeMasters [1957] focuses on the "how
and why” of money in marriage; and Watson [1972] provides
the most practical and down to earth working guide. In
addition, almost every marriage manual, and there are
hundreds of them, has a chapter on management. Hill [1963]
and Rodda and Nelson [1965] clearly outline planning pro-
cedures in a better way than is usually found. Cover [1964]
found however that most people are insufficiently informed

about money, saving, and purchasing skills. McClester [1974]

98

 

 

....'
A
hot

 

-
a“

an

I'm

n.

 

3

99

arrived at an interesting conclusion in her study of 91
recently married couples. She found "no significant
relationship between degree of experience in money manage-
ment couples had prior to marriage and the problems they
perceived” (McClester, 1974: II]. It appears that cogni-
tive information does not necessarily impinge upon emotional
patterns. In the area of planning, McClester's 91 couples
indicated a premarital class on money management was a good
way to obtain information. Assumably they were thinking
of the couple taking a class together. McCauley studied
'38 couples in retrospect, and found that their financial
practices early on in marriage did correspond closely with
premarital discussion. However, it‘was those couples
currently having financial problems who reported more
money management discussions prior to marriage. Their
earlier discussions had revolved around the mgney aspect
of money management. They failed to discuss, for example,
who would handle actual budget planning, writing checks,
how to handle debts, and extent of personal allowances
[McCauley, 1974].

Evidentally more people today than ever before
discuss financial management prior to marriage [Koller,
1951; Thorpe, 1951]. Yet Duncan reports on a nationwide
survey of court recorders to indicate that disagreement
over money is a factor in 90 percent of divorce

petitions [Duncan, 1973].

100

It is clear to this writer that what is missing from
the prenuptial conferences is a hard headed consideration
of values related to money.

Troelstrup [1970] suggests that peOple's attitudes
about spending money are as tangible as money itself.
Their expectations about how to use money are traceable
back to childhood, and the attitude toward money in their
family of origin. Writers are unanimous in concluding that
quantity of money present has little to do with the value.
lattached to it [Christensen, 1950; Gross and Crandall, 1954].

Price found a connection between self indulgence and
worrying about money. The two~go hand in hand [Price, 1968].
Taking Price's findings a step further, it is easy to see
why many people subconsciously equate money, and what it can
buy, with love. If an individual does not get money from
his spouse, then he feels unloved, and retaliates by a self
indulgent splurge. It is again not only the quantity of
money proffered which signifies the requisite emotion,
but also the way in\which it is presented to the recipient.
Most families, without consciously realizing it, have
established rituals around giving and receiving which include
cost of items, when and how to give, how to accept, how
to pretend to demure, and how to refuse. These ritualistic
patterns are idiosyncratic, highly valued by participants,
and feel ”right"--right even when the pattern is painful

or self defeating.

101

When persons from two separate idiosyncratic systems
marry there is a good chance that large parts of their
systems will not mesh on the non-rational level. If
they can accomodate each other's patterns, or better yet
structure a new pattern of their own, they will feel
deeply and truly loved. Unfortunately many people are not
able to be flexible about deep-seated emotional themes.
Intuitively they know that a reassessment of the themes
will be anxiety provoking, and will also unleash their
residual anger about past occasions when their family love-
.delivery system was perceived as failing them. Rather than
experience and cope with their\own anger, they cling
tenaciously to patterns that neither served their parents
in the past, nor serve themselves in the present. The
seed for money problems in marriage has been germinated.

Closely connected to the concept of money as symbolic
love is that of money as symbolic power. Graham has defined
money as ”stored power," a "symbolic expression of belonging.
achieving, and caring” which reaches way beyond its economic
utility [Graham, 1972: 2]. Graham also outlines eight
uses of money in the marital relationship:

1. the budget is worked out jointly and strengthens

the relationship

2. the budget is imposed by the dominant partner

which leads to isolation of partners

3. there is an avoidance of establishing a budget

which lends to fear, lack of clear-cut

102

boundaries, and blowups

4. to deprive the mate of pleasure

S. gracious compliance

6. ‘sibling type rivalry

7. to vent rage

8. to manipulate, control, punish, reward,

bribe, etc. [Graham, 1972].

Komarovsky [1962] measured the extent of joint
involvement in decision making over expenditure. She
found that middle income families are more ”together"
oriented. Low income families are structured to place most
of the responsibility on the wife, a pattern reversed in

high income families. In Blue-Collar Marriage [1962]

 

Komarovsky suggests that there are some compensations in
the low income pattern: at least the roles are clearly

defined.

The economic and occupational frustrations
were indeed more prevalent among our less
educated respondents as they are, no doubt,
in a comparable stratum in society at large.
But offsetting these and other difficulties
of these workers is their freedom from a
number of allegedly typical problems of the
higher and better educated classes. Am-
biguous definitions of mutual rights and
duties and the resulting ethical inconsis-
tencies, mental conflict produced by an
abundance of choices, conflicting loyalties
and standards, strain produced by the sheer
volume of stimuli-~all these are relatively
rare in Glenton [p. 345]. '

The more financial wrangles in marriage are examined,

the earlier we can place their inception. Palmer [1972]

‘V

 

I'.

.
'OI

103

suggests that "the origins of these problems are mostly
present at the time the marriage is contracted" [p. 152].
In McClester's sample of 91 couples married less than five
years, the problems were better than 59 percent related to
priorities, evidencing the emotional value of money.
Although housing costs were listed in the top problem
category, the other difficulties such as "inability to
save,” living for the present" indicate intrusion of non-
rational values [McClester, 1974]. In one sense, housing
costs as a money problem reflectsaivalue conflict. Housing
equal to a young couple's aspiration level can often over-
whelm their budget. ' \

Financial pressures descend quickly on the newly
married, and especially if a baby is born soon after the
wedding.[McClester, 1974]. Low income, unrealistic goals
for acquiring consumer goods, and parental responsibilities
all add to the pressure [Hermann, 1965].

In McCauley's group of 38 college couples it was
those with money problems who had had more pre-marriage
discussions over money management. The same group now
agreed on who should handle the bills, and on working
together to decide expenditures and the use of time pay-
ments. Ninety-five percent of them would still marry
before finishing their degrees. The no-problem group,
although married only four months longer than the others,

disagreed more on all the above factors, even as to who

 

‘W

104

actually paid the bills! However they were unanimous in
all having a joint checking account, something not true
of the problem couples [McCauley, 1974].

It seems possible that the reason McCauley's problem
couples couldn't work out a system of money management is
that they were too democratic. Westley and Epstein [1969]
noted that there needs to be clear allocation of tasks in
marriage so that individuals can specialize and get credit
for their skills. If everyone pitches in equally, no one.
gets the credit, and, no one is finally responsible.

Money problems are the most pervasive problems in
marriage.

Despite their highest incomes in the world,

Americans quarrel more over money than

anything else. . . . Whereas in-law

problems are concentrated at the beginning

of marriage and child rearing problems in

the middle, financial conflicts spread over

the whole life cycle, taking new forms as

circumstances change [Blood, 1969: 234].

Landis, found that the couples he surveyed, took more time

in sorting out difficulties around spending the family income
than any other area, except sex relations. Approximately

20% of the couples never satisfactorily agreed on finances
even after 20 years of married life [Landis, 1955].

Hill, 23 31. [1970] in his three generation study
of families, found that those couples who married young
and had a family soon after marriage, never caught up in

terms of acquiring the benefits that money can buy. Such

persons are good candidates for life-long financial

105

difficulties. Blood and Wblfe [1960] found disagreement

over money listed as a problem by 42% of wives, and as a

major problem by 24% of them. Palmer [1972] found family
service agency clients listing money management disagree-
ments as a major problem.

A recent survey of bankruptcy suggests that the
majority of such petitioners are typically young men in
their mid 30's, or younger, blue—collar workers a little
below median income for their area of residence, who have_
accumulated such a crushing load of installment debts, that
.they cannot pay for food and rent [Hermann, 1966].

In this writer's experience with such families a
curious compartmentalization of thought is observed. The
families either want to discuss their debts or their emo-
tional problems but are heroically resistent to examine
the links between the two areas.

As is suspected, marital happiness is positively
associated with agreement in handling the financial area
[Burgess and Cottrell, 1939; Cox, 1967; Locke, 1951].

The author was not able to locate a financial priori-
ties scale which examined relative values of areas of expen—
diture. Hence he designed a financial priorities inventory
(FPI) to ascertain the level of financial management and
consensus in couples prior to marriage. The financial
priorities inventory consists of a list of 36 budget cate-
gories. Separately, individuals choose and rank order their

preferences for the tOp 10 items. The couple members'

106

choices are compared and an index calculated as explained in

the chapter on methodology.

Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis 46. Pre-marriage consensus in the area of
financial priorities will be positively associated with
similarity in socioeconomic status of the families of origin
of couple members.

Hypothesis 47. Pre-marriage consensus on financial
priorities will be positively associated with pre-marriage
’adjustment.

Hypothesis 48. Pre-marriage consensus in the area of
financial priorities will be pOsitively associated with
length of engagement.

Hypothesis 49. Pre-marriage scores on the Financial
Priorities Inventory will have a positive relationship with
marital satisfaction as measured on the follow-up.

Hypothesis 50. Pre-marriage scores on the Financial

Priorities Inventory will have a positive relationship

with marital adjustment as measured on the follow-up.

CHAPTER VI I I
DECISION MAKING

A final area of inquiry is that of decision-making.
Originally the writer had not intended to include this in
the thesis. However, in testing the clinical sample, couple
by couple, the writer was impressed by some interesting
-behavior that occurred. After being told that I only had
enough color cards to test one person at a time, couples
were asked ”Who wants to be tested first?" Because I had
a live opportunity to observe decision making it was
decided to include this question in every follow-up inter-
view. The writer wanted to know if who decides who is tested
first, and, who actually is tested first, have any signifi-
cant association with the type of relationship established
by the couple. Approximate calculations on clinical control
couples suggested that they "put their best foot forward"
designating the least disturbed to be tested first.

Herbst completed one of the first studies on decision-
making in his work on family relationships. He postulated
that

It will be shown that all one needs to know to

determine the behavioral relationship between

two persons is--(l) who does various group

activities, (2) who is the source of authority

in each case, and (3) how much disagreement
exists about it. The first two variables

107

108

define the group structure or what has also

been called its 'social climate.’ The third

determines the amount of overt tension in the

group which can be regarded as a function of

the structure [Herbst, 1952: 4—5].

From asking adolescent children these three questions
about their parents, Herbst derived definitions of various
patterns of leadership. Herbst himself made no live
observations of the parents.

Ferreira and Winter [1966] tested 73 families and
retested them six months later to assess three main
variables: spontaneous agreement, decision time and
choice of fulfillment. They found no significant difference
on these variables, the finding applied to the normal
families in the sample, as well as to those "abnormal"
families in therapy during the six month time period. The
authors deduced that this was evidence of the pervasiveness
of family patterns. (They did mention that this was not a
denounciation of the efficiency of family therapy; the
therapists were interns, and six months is a short time to
expect major change from the impact of therapy.) Haley,
assessing the order and frequency of speech in families,
deduced that each family follows its own patterns, patterns
which differentiate between normal and disturbed families
[Haley, 1964].

Under experimentally induced conflict situations, it

was found that couples differ in ". . . achieving perspective

on the situation. . . . maintenance of esteem for self and

109

and for spouse throughout the discussion of each conflict"
[Goodrich and Boomer, 1963: 20]. Ryder and Goodrich [1966]
on the other hand found that couples tend to maintain harmony
and solidarity within themselves, often by making incorrect
statements to hide disagreement from outsiders. Westley

and Epstein [1969] found that the best system of authority
was one that allowed plenty of discussion, and also desig-
nated one person as having the final word in cases of a
deadlock.

Hill, et 31. [1970] studied three generations of
families, and concluded that decision-making is more
rational in smaller families and that there is more oppor—
tunity for discussion in this size family. Consensus is
easier because there are fewer persons to consider, hence
authoritarian stances are less necessary, and less evident
than in larger families. Strodbeck found that talking
counts: the most talkative spouse is more likely to win
decisions (Strodbeck, 1951].

Closely related to assessing patterns of decision-
making is the measurement of power. Olson and Rabunsky
[1972] surveyed four types of power: predicted power,
process power, retrospective power, and authority, against
the criteria of outcome power--who actually had the power
(got their way). They found that authority is related to
both retrospective power and process power. However, none

of the four measures of power were valid measures of outcome

110

power. PeOple could report what_was decided but couldn't
say with any degree of consistency whg_made the decision.
Komarovsky [l962]found in observing blue collar couples
that power is a complex process. She based power on an
assessment of the observed outcome of marital disagreements,
who defers to who, and roles and decision-making. She found
in her 58 couples studied that the husband dominated 45% of
the families, and wives 21%, 27% had an equalitarian balance
of power or a stalemate, and the remaining 7% were hard to
evaluate. Komarovsky did not, however, assess the relative
leffectiveness of these various types of family power systems.
Blood and Wolfe found that power and decision-making
acrued to the partner who had education, income, occupational
prestige, situation specific skills; and who participated
in the community [Blood and Wolfe, 1960]. The flaw in
this study was that only wives were interviewed. On
the other hand, Kenkel [1963] found that the more a husband
talks the more influence he has in decision-making. His
influence is diminished if he exaggerates his masculinity.
Wives do better if they moderate the amount of talking
they do. They also contribute to decision-making by
keeping discussions running smoothly. Hoffman's [1960]
study of 178 families, half where the mother was employed,
half where she was a full-time homemaker, basically
supported Blood and Wolfias findings. Working wives have
more say in household events and their husbands are

"more domesticated."

111

In a study of marital dominance, Bauman and Roman
[1966] studied 50 couples in each of which one couple member
was an in-hospital psychiatric patient. Couples themselves
choose who would record their responses in a decision-
making task. The researchers found that decisions were
dominated by husbands irrespective of competence to make
decisions, patient status, or who was the recorder.

Bauman and Roman concluded that non-rational dominance
was operating. This author has found similar results in
spontaneous surveys of engaged couples deciding who is

at fault in a marital situation. The couples were given
the Olson and Ryder Inventory of Marital Conflict [1970]
which is a series of 18 situational vignettes about problems
encountered early in marriage. Men tend to blame the
women for causing 75 percent of the problems, and women
blamed the men 60 percent of the time. Since the rational
outcome should have been a 50 percent allocation of blame
both ways, there is some casual evidence for the impact on
non-rational factors in decision-making.

Westley and Epstein have produced the only study
found by this author which concerns itself not only with
power, but also the mental health of families with various
power structures. Admittedly their sample was small, but
it was studied over a period of several years. They
described four patterns of power depending on the percen-

tage of decisions made by the father.

112

Table 5. Classification of family by percentage of
decisions made by each parent.

 

 

father-dominated 65 percent decided by father

father-led 56-64 percent decided by father

equalitarian 55—45 percent decided by father

mother-dominated less than 45 percent decided by
father

 

 

They concluded that in Western culture (specifically
.Canada) some degree of male dominance appears to be
functional.

There is enough differenCe in the authority of the

parents to differentiate sex roles, but enough

sharing to maintain a positive relationship be-
tween the parents. The father is not harsh, the
pattern is accepted in our society, and sufficient
authority is centered in the hands of one person

to keep the life of the family ordered and free

of conflict [Westley and Epstein, 1969: 110].

They also concluded that father-dominated families are
destructive, as are mother-dominated families. Although
equalitarian families produce some mentally healthy
children, there isiihigher level of confusion, irresponsi-
bility and inability to solve problems in such families.
The father-led families were the only type that produced
predominately healthy children [Westley and Epstein, 1969].

The conclusion this writer draws from these studies
is that the patterns of decision-making occuring in each

relationship are relatively consistent. That is, every

couple has their own ”style." Even though attempts to

113

assess decision-making and measure power are full of
disagreement, one thing is evident. Some couples have a
system which functions, an ability to work together for an
individual and relationship-enhancing outcome. Some
couples will follow one cultural pattern of "the husband
is the leader,” other couples will say "ladies first." In
a spontaneous decision-making situation where couples are
asked for an immediate choice on a trivial matter, it is
reasonable to expect that their response is automatic and

relatively uncensored.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 51. There will be.a positive relationship
between color test index scores, and the pattern of a
partner volunteering him cu: herself to be the first person
tested in the couple.

Hypothesis 52. There will be a positive relationship
between empathy, and the pattern of a partner volunteering
him or herself to be the first person tested in the couple.

Hypothesis 53. There will be a positive relationship
between adjustment, and the pattern of a partner volunteer—
ing him or herself to be the first person tested in the
couple.

Hypothesis 54. There will be a positive relationship
between satisfaction, and the pattern of a partner volunteer-
ing him or herself to be the first person tested in the

couple.

CHAPTER IX
CULTURAL FACTORS

Although this study uses a cross cultural sample, the
New Zealand sample will not be analyzed in depth. The
purpose in having both a New Zealand sample and a United
States sample is to help locate those test items most
~susceptible to cultural influences. If items are susceptible
to cultural influences they will probably also be affected
by social class and religious factors. The New Zealand
data will be analyzed in depth in a forth-coming paper.

There is some evidence to suggest, however, that in
responding to marital adjustment questionnaires, social
class may be a more influential factor than culture. King,
researching a sample of American black southern families in
1951, obtained essentially the same results as Smyth in
Mainland China [1936], Karlsson in Sweden [1951], Burgess
and Cottrell [1939] and Burgess and Wallin [1953], both
the latter studying white middle class Americans. All these
studies researched basically middle class families.
Karckoff found that in both the United States and United
Kingdom, middle class couples were more likely to have a

joint conjugal role relationship, where working class

114

115

couples tended to form segregated conjugal relationships
[Kerckoff, 1972]. These types of findings suggest that
we will find few major differences between the United

States and New Zealand samples.

Hypothesis
Hypothesis 55. No difference will be found between

the United States and New Zealand samples.

CHAPTER X
METHOIXJLOGY I: PROBLEMS AND DATA GATHERING

In designing any study there are three obstacles
to overcome: selection of instruments, selection of
p0pu1ation to measure, and the validation of responses to
test items.

The area of premarriage assessment is well supplied
with test instruments, but most are useless when considered
for the type of research that can bekpractically applied.
Examples of the ”research only" instruments are those
developed by Lewis [1972] and Knox [1973]. Both are exhaus-
tive and extensive, covering background, personality,
dating patterns, and couple relationships. These would be
helpful for a professor in teaching an intensive class on
premarriage relationships. The Knox Inventory is full of
assignments, including a walking bike. It would take hours
to complete and almost as long to score.

The second type of instrument is the attitude survey
represented by: a Love Attitude Inventory (Knox, 1971],

a Courtship Analysis [McHugh, 1966], Marriage Role Expecta-
tion Inventory [Dunn, 1963], the California Marriage Readi-
ness Evaluation [Manson, 1965], and the Taylor, Johnson

Temperament Analysis [1967]. The Taylor-Johnson test

116

117

requires individuals to predict partner's responses. The
other tests have the underlying themes of: if a couple
agrees in liking a range of items, then they have a good
relationship. Unfortunately all the tests except the
prediction aspect mentioned above, are very prone to
manipulation by the subject, so there is a strong likeli-
hood of obtaining culturally approved responses which are
of little value. None of these tests, the Taylor-Johnson
included, test an individual's knowledge of money manage-4
ment, or priorities for marriage. Priorities are covered
in general terms, but there is no way to adapt any of the
tests to get a reading of the individual's relative priori-
ties such as would be revealed in a forced order ranking
procedure.

The third variety of premarital instrument is what
may be called the conviviality test. Respondents are
asked how they get along in a variety of areas. The
assumption appears to be that an absence of overt conflict
is a good sign of readiness for marriage. Examples of this
variety are the Marriage Council of Philadelphia Schedule
E [1950] and Background Schedule [1950] and the Otto-Pre-
Marital Counseling Schedule (family finance section, sexual
adjustment section, and premarital survey section) [1951].
Again these are susceptible to subject manipulation, avoid
rank ordering of priorities, or prediction of partner

responses. In addition the Otto surveys are filled out

118

jointly by the couple allowing even more opportunity to
provide a ”fake perfect” front to the counselor. The

best known of this variety of test is the Burgess and wallin
Engagement Success Inventory [1953]. It suffers from all the
above deficiencies, but does have the advantage of being
well-known, widely used, and of some demonstrated value in
predicting later adjustment in marriage.

This author felt that none of the above instruments
were satisfactory, so a new test battery was designed
as described in the chapter on methodology: procedure.

The marriage adjustment tests in general suffer from
the inadequacies mentioned above. The Marriage Council of
Philadelphia Marriage Adjustment Schedules [1950] are
excellent for counseling, but unsuitable for research as
the questions are most personal and liable to arouse antago-
nism in the subjects tested. The Marriage Adjustment
Inventory [Manson and Lerner, 1962] is also a good survey
instrument for counseling. Its weakness lies in the fact
that it only covers attitudes, and makes no provision for
relative priorities or intensity of agreement levels.

The more well known instruments are those designed
by Terman [1933], Burgess and Cottrell [1939], Burgess
and wallin [1953] and Locke [1951]. These are all lengthy
research tools. For example, Terman's questionnaire
running to 11 closely printed pages includes 352 items.

While not doubting the value of these instruments, they are

119

nonetheless too complicated and time consuming for the average
counselor and client couple to utilize.

Shorter marital adjustment tests are those designed
by Locke-Wallace [1959] (a highly condensed version of the
above mentioned works), Nye and MacDougall [1959], and
Inselberg's Sentence Completion Technique [1964]. The
value of the Locke-Wallace over the other two is that it
is well known and has a solid research base. It was
decided to use this test in conjunction with others in the
'study.

Studies perporting to predict marriage adjustment
fall into the following categories:

1. evaluating single persons ~

2. evaluating married persons on the basis of

individual traits

3. predicting whether couples will stay together or

split up

4. retrospective studies

5. longitudinal studies.

The first group includes works by Sporakowski [1958]
and Keeler [1962]. Both are one time evaluations of high
school girls. They are of little value in assessing couples.

The second group is represented by the works of Adams
[1946 and 1951], and Adams and Packard [1946]. The Adams
instruments are very open to subject manipulation and

conventionalized responses.

120

The work in this third group is more relevant, and
includes studies by Lewis [1973], Murstein [1972] and
Snyder [1966]. All of these studies followed couples
through the pre-dating stage and eventual marriage or break-
ing up. These studies are valuable, but more appropriate
to working with couples before they are making wedding
plans. Again the questionnaires are lengthy, and heavily
weighted with attitudinal items.

The fourth category is represented by Locke [1951]
McCauley [1974] and McClester [1974]. Although the latter
'two are concerned with financial management almost exclusive-
ly, respondents are asked to recall past preferences. Locke
tested 201 divorced couples and 200 happily married indivi-
duals. They were asked to evaluate past attitudes and so
forth. The problem with this approach is that intervening
events such as the divorce itself distort recall of past
events.

The final category represents the only true predic-
tion studies. Kelley used Terman's background and
personality scales before marriage, following up the same
couples two years later testing them with Terman's index
on marital happiness. He found a correlation over time
of .50 for husbands, .56 for wives [Kelley, 1939]. Burgess
and Wallin [1944] followed a similar procedure using their
own test battery, and found correlations between premarriage
scores and marital scores three years later, of .43 for

husbands, .41 for wives. Pineo [1963] followed these same

121

couples up after almost 20 years. Terman and Oden followed
up and retested a group of gifted persons and their spouses
after twenty-five years of marriage [Terman and Oden, 1954].
Even these lengthy follow-ups were able to relate current
findings to premarital scores.

Although all these studies have predictive value,
they are heavily weighted in the direction of personality
and background factors and the marital items as such are
open unsubject manipulation. Additionally there is no
forced order ranking of priorities. However these studies
do suggest a need for a practical short-form prediction
test battery. Since most of'the above mentioned tests
measure the quality which meets our definition of satiSfac-
tion, the test used in this study must also measure
adjustment.

Finally, in selecting a population to survey one
has to consider the value of voluntary participation. Are
volunteers a representative sample of the population at
large? Generally speaking, no. Those refusing to partici-
pate in voluntary studies are found to be from lower socio—
economic levels, more often are men than women, tend to
be less educated, to have dated for shorter lengths of
time prior to marriage, and have fewer children [Farber,
1971; Kerby and Davis, 1962]. Westley and Epstein [1969]
found that persons refusing to volunteer were more likely
to be emotionally disturbed than would be true of the

volunteers.

122

Vblunteers are characterized as being of higher educa-
tional level, non-Catholic, younger, liberal or radical
politically, having had longer engagements, and coming from
higher socioeconomic backgrounds [Burgess and Wallin, 1953;
Kerby and Davis, 1972]. Crouse, Carlins, and Schroder [1968]
however, found no difference in marital adjustment between
volunteers in phase two of a two phase project, and those
who dropped out after phase one.

Babbie [1973] suggest that a 50% return on question-
naires is adequate. Various studies having achieved a.

50% [Schnepp and Johnson, 1952], 74.3% [Finck, 1967], and
85.4% [Ehrmann, 1952], return,~although response is highest
on a one-time testing schedule than on one which requires

a follow-up.

The validity of marriage adjustment tests is a
contested issue. Ellis, in addition to mentioning points
covered previously, criticizes sampling methods which rely
on small samples, on volunteers who are exclusively college
educated, and validation of instruments only on happily
married couples [Ellis, 1948]. Kirkpatrick reiterates these
points and adds that measuring grgup success is of dubious
value since one couple's high schore will cancel out
another's lower score [Kirkpatrick, 1963]. Bowerman [1964]
repeated these concerns, and points out that many of the
marriage adjustment prediction studies are either based

on work of Burgess, Wallin, Cottrell, Locke or Terman, or

123

use such criteria as divorce being the indicator of poor
adjustment. The question is raised: does all this actually
measure marital adjustment (Harper, 1951]? Evidently the
question is still not answered to everybody's satisfaction.

The validity of testing can be improved by the random
selection of samples, and using the same experimental
context for all persons tested [Irving, 1971]. Ferreira
25 El: (1966] note that ”abnormal” families know they are
being tested to assess their abnormality and this may skew
results. Edwards suggests that it is necessary to ensure
an equal number of true and false items on a true false
questionnaire to prevent fake high scores by persons who
tend to answer all items one way regardless of content
(Edwards, 1957].

The major complaint about the marital adjustment
tests, the Locke‘Wallace in particular, is their vulnera-
bility to being answered in a socially desirable way
irrespective of a couple's ”real” situation. Edwards has
found that socially‘desirable traits are endorsed more
often-~even in their absence (Edwards, 1957]. Separate
studies by Buerkle e£_al. [1961]; Gillies and Lastrucci
[1954]; and Vidich [1967] all noted that respondents do
skew responses in a socially desirable direction.

Edmonds studied the relationship between conservatism,
marital adjustment as measured by the Locke-Wallace Marital
Adjustment Test, and marital conventionalization. He

defined marital conventionalization as "the extent to which

124

subjects distort the appraisal of their marriage in the
direction of social desirability. . ." (Edmonds, et 31.,
1972: 97]. Edmonds found no significant correlation between
marital adjustment and the conservative indexes of tradi-
tional family morality, religious activity, etc. In fact
he found a substantial negative correlation of 4.46 between
marital adjustment and general conservative ideology.
Character traits of conservativism are highly associated,
in Edmonds' findings, with personality dimensions of hosti-
lity, paranoid tendencies, contempt for weakness, rigidity,
and intolerance of human frailty. Fifteen true-false items
were found to discriminate between high and low
conventionalizers [Edmonds, gt al.f 1972].

On the other hand Hawkins, using the Marlow-Crown
Social Desirability Test concluded that social desirability
was not a major factor in a Locke-Wallace Marital Adjust-
ment Test (Hawkins, 1966]. In their original 1953 study,
Burgess and wallin found what they thought was good evi-
dence "for the assumption that excessive idealization in
courtship or marriage is not widespread among persons in
the population from which the sample was obtained"

(Burgess and Wallin, 1953; 237]. However, Pineo in
following up this group, found that divorced men had
actually scored higher on the Engagement Adjustment Test
than men who were still married (Pineo, 1963]. This looks
like evidence that idealization, or answering in the

socially desirable direction, is detrimental, despite

125

Hawkin's findings. Other observers note that an honest
response to the Locke-wallace may result in a "fake poor"
score [Adams , 1950] .

People who do not fulfill traditional concepts of
marriage will also score poorly irrespective of their
actual adjustment [Price-Bonham, 1973]. Other people, such
as Laws, is generally skeptical of all self report tests
and feels that this whole approach to attempting the
measurement of marital adjustment is rather fruitless

(Laws, 1971].

1 Several researchers suggest ways to improve test
results, and cut down on ”fakexperfect" responses. Barton
£3 21, [1972] suggests guaranteeing‘the anonymmity of
participants, and paying them for their participation.
Buerkle and Badgley (1959] suggest structuring tests so
that persons can give a socially approved answer. This
procedure will weed out people prone to answering in the
socially approved direction.

Frumkin advocates indirect tests where the actual
intent is disguised [Frumkin, 1952, 1952, 1954]. Taves
[1948] reports that this dminishes manipulation and antago-
nism of subjects. If people do not realize a sensitive
area is being examined they feel less defensive.

Sheimbein (1974] evaluated couple's marital adjust-
ment in three ways: (a) by their own self rating: (b) by
observation of the couple; (c) by two judges evaluating

the couple's responses on Inselberg's sentence completion

126

blank (a projective test). Sheimbein found consistently
high correlation between these methods of evaluating
marriage, and concluded

Thus the data indicate that each of the

three test modalities, each with raters

depending only on their own internalized

notions of marital adjustment, rank the

sample similarly on the dimension of

marital adjustment, however it is defined

(Sheimbein, 1974: 52].

Evidentally what Sheimbein refers to as adjustment
is what we have defined as a combination of satisfaction,
and adjustment, measured by projective test.

In reviewing the works of various researchers, it
is evident that instrumentsIrmavulnerable to manipulation,
are preferable. Prediction is only really valid if scores
are recorded prior to marriage and subjects followed up
months or years later. Volunteers need to be randomly
selected and all tested under the same conditions.

Results will be better if volunteers are paid, remain anony-

mous and are not unduly antagonized. In this study, every

effort has been made to meet these requirements.

Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis 56. Couples who participated in the follow-
up study will have had higher pre-marital adjustment than
couples who failed to participate.

Hypothesis 57. There will be no difference in adjust-
ment between those couples responding to the follow-up by

mail, and those tested in person.

127

Hypothesis 58. There will be no difference in
satisfaction between those couples responding to the follow-

up by mail, and those tested in person.

1'?

 

.1
b:

82’ A!

b)

CHAPTER XI
METHODOLOGY II: PROCEDURE

In this study a battery of tests will be administered
to engaged couples in the United States (groups 1 and 2)
and New Zealand (group 3). The couples will be retested
in the month after their first wedding anniversary.
*For comparison purposes the following groups will also be
tested: (a) young engaged couples in difficulty (in the
United States only) (group 4); (b) volunteer married
couples (group S, New Zealand; group 6, United States);'

(c) married couples in counseling (group 7, United

States only).

Selection of Samples and Data Collection

 

United States Samples

The engaged couples who participated in this study
were all attending marriage preparation programs (Pre-Cana)
sponsored by the Roman Catholic church in Lansing, Michigan.
The church requires attendance at such programs prior to
marriage in the church. The author, although not a
Catholic, was responsible for coordinating the programs.
Couples were told that the test battery was part of an
effort to assess and upgrade the program, and to measure

its ability to help couples prepare for marriage. The test

128

129

battery was presented as part of the program. Since
attendance at the program was required, there was an
implication that taking the test battery was also required.

Group 1 was tested at programs in April and May of
1971. One-hundred and eighty sets of questionnaires were
passed out of which 160 sets were usable. Group 2 was
tested at programs in September, October, and November,
1971, and January and February, 1972. A total of 170 sets
of questionnaires were passed out, 166 of which were usable.
'Aids checked questionnaires as they were collected up from
group 2 and asked respondents to complete omitted items,
resulting in a greater quantity of usable questionnaires.
Although the aids asked people to complete questionnaires
they did not instruct people how to do this. At each
session of testing, couples were separated, thus eliminating
the possibility of combined efforts on the test.

The returned questionnaires were coded to facilitate
sending out follow-up inventories during the month follow-
ing a couple's first wedding anniversary. Group 1 couples
were followed-up exclusively by mailed questionnaires, as
were group 2 respondents who lived more than 15 miles out-
side the Lansing area. Many respondents lived in isolated
farming communities up to 35 miles outside of Lansing.
Others, attending Michigan State University at the time
their marriage was planned, had subsequently returned to

their home states. Forty-nine group 2 couples living in

130

the Greater Lansing area were personally visited by the
author for the follow-up testing.

Visiting the couples was a fascinating experience.
Some lived in dingy, small apartments or rented houses,
others in spacious, luxury apartments or their own homes.
Some couples offered me a good seat, and coffee, coke or
beer. I sat on the floor in one house where they had
nothing but a stereo in their living room. One couple,
assuming that I was a Catholic priest and relishing the
sight of an angry debate, had invited in a militant
atheist friend to challenge me on my beliefs. The friend
quickly left, disinterested to.find that I was not a
priest, and not willing to waste time arguing.

Another couple, in a rather dilapidated section of
Lansing, ushered me in professing to welcome me. After
completing the test they told me how the neighbors and
relatives were always butting in and disturbing their
free time together.

The most novel greeting was at a home where the couple
were raising Great Danes. A closet had been converted into
a two-tier bunk for the animals. As I administered the
test, I was literally under the baleful gaze of a large,
bored-looking dog leaning out of the top bunk.

The control group composed of young engaged couples
in difficulty (Group 4) were those couples referred to me

between December 1972 and December 1974 for pre-marital

 

 

-
F A

.1.

‘ t

N.

V-
‘:

131

evaluation either by the Ingham County Probate Judges or
by clergy. In all instances one or both couple members
were young enough (under 18) to require written parental
consent to the marriage. Almost all couples had a baby
either conceived, or actually born. The couples were told
the test battery was used to help me make a more objective
evaluation report for the judge or clergyman. The results
were discussed with them. There are no plans to make the
follow-up part of the study.

The control group of volunteer couples (group 6) were
solicited by advertising in local newspapers, laundromats,
and bulletin boards in Michigan State University married
housing areas. A few couples were also solicited through
recommendation of clergy and the author's colleagues.
Participant couples were paid $4, and their anonymity
guaranteed. Care was taken to ensure that no couples from
the experimental groups were also included in the control
groups. Before testing control couples they were asked
if, and when they had attended Pre-Cana. Only one couple
from the experimental group showed up at a test site for
control couples. They were paid $4 and not tested. All
the control couples were tested in May of 1972.

The control group of couples seeking marriage
counseling (group 7) was composed of couples counseled at
the Catholic Social Services of Lansing between May 1972

and December 1973. Couples were tested as part of the

I".

 

f‘.

'11

L)

132

intake assessment process, and were told that the test_

was to help their therapist more quickly and completely
understand their situations. Findings were discussed with
them and found helpful to both the couple and the therapist.

No follow-up is contemplated.

New Zealand Sample.

The New Zealand engaged couples (group 3) were con-
tacted either through word of mouth, advertisements in
university papers, through the Marriage Guidance Counsel
”programs for engaged couples, or individual clergymen. The
project was administered in the vicinity of Canterbury
University, Christchurch, New Eealand. The sponsors of the
Catholic marriage preparation programs were suspicious
of the intent of such an endeavor and refused to cooperate.
Hence only a small proportion of the sample are Catholic.

The control group of married couples (group 5) were
contacted by similar means. None of the volunteers were
paid. In New Zealand it is not customary to pay volunteers.

The New Zealand part of this study was coordinated by
Shirley Freeman, Department of Education, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch. Miss Freeman supervised a group
of psychology and sociology graduate students, following
this author's instructions. Couples were tested in their
homes, on campus, or at marriage guidance meetings. In
all instances, care was taken to see that couples were

separated before they were tested. All subjects lived in

133

the Christchurch area, or were students at the University
of Canterbury. Follow-up questionnaires were mailed to

couples living out of town.

Description of Instruments Used
Group 1
The instrument consisted of a data sheet, the
Engagement Success Inventory, Marital Roles Inventory,
and Predicting Partner's Response on the Marital Roles
Inventory. The Engagement Success Inventory (ESI) was
'deliberately used, not as a measure of success, but as a
measure of subjective satisfaction. See Appendices for

samples of instruments used, with this and other groups.

Groups 2 and 4
These groups used a slightly more extensive data
sheet than group 1. Additional test instruments were as
follows: Marital Roles Inventory, Luscher Color Test,
Predicting Partner's Response on the Luscher Color Test,
and the Financial Priorities Inventory. The ESI was not

used.

Group 3
The New Zealand couples were tested with the same
instruments as Groups 2 and 4, in addition, questions were
asked about the subjects place of birth and national origin

of parents.

134

Groups 5, 6, and 7
The test battery consisted of a data sheet, Luscher
Color Test, Prediction on the Luscher Color Test, Marital
Roles Inventory, Primary Communication Inventory, Marital
Adjustment Test, and Problem Check List. Group 5 was

also tested with the Satisfaction in Marriage Test.

Follow-up on Groups 1, 2, and 3
The same test battery was used as had been administered
to the control groups. Group 1, however, was not given the
'Satisfaction in Marriage Test or the two tests using the
Luscher Color Test. Groups 2 and 3 were given the Satis-
faction in Marriage Test. Those 49‘couples who were visited
by the researcher were also given the Luscher Color Test and

Prediction on the Luscher Color Test.

Analysis of Data

On each subtest a couple's Index score will be calcu—
lated being the product of the sum of the couple members'
scores plus the difference between the scores. The testing
of variables will be by use of the Pearson Product Moment
Correlation. Correlations which are at, or better than the
.05 level of significance will be considered significant
for the purposes of this study. Initially, the relationship
between the independent variables and pre-marriage index
scores will be tested. Secondly, the relationship between
pro-marriage and follow-up index scores will be examined.

Hypotheses will be tested in order, and results reported.

135

Score Calculations on Instruments

Engagement Success Inventory

 

This test will be scored following the method outlined

by Burgess and Wallin [1953].

Marital Roles Inventory

 

The modal rank order of statements on "Husband's Roles"
is calculated separately for each Group. The man's actual
ordering of the 11 statements is compared with this by
calculating the absolute rank order difference along rows.
-The resultant score is the man's Index of Deviation of Role
Performance. The procedure continues to follow closely
that outlined by Hurvitz [1961]. The man's Index of Marital
Strain is calculated from.comparing his ranking on "Husband's
Roles” with his wife's rankings on "Wife's Expectations of
Husband's Roles.” A third Index is calculated by comparing
the man's ranking of ”Husband's Expectations of His Wife's
Roles” with the modal rank ordering of these statements
by men. This gives the Index of Deviation of Role
Expectation. Summing all three indexes produces the indivi-
dual's Cumulative Index of Marital Strain. A parallel pro-
cedure is followed to calculate the woman's scores.

The Marital Roles Inventory Index for the couple is
arrived at by summing their Cumulative Indexes of Marital
Strain, and adding the difference between them to this sum.

The same procedure is followed for deriving the pre-marital

136

and the follow-up Indexes. For married persons who do not

have children, the items on children are not answered.

Luscher Color Test

There are two scores derived from each individual's
performance on this-test. Firstly, there is a comparison
of the person's second pattern of color choosing with the
ideal ranking of colors: red, blue, green, yellow, violet,
gray, brown and black. Absolute rank order differences
are calculated and summed. The couple's Luscher Color
'Test Index is the product of their individual scores,
plus the difference between them.

The second use of the Luscher Color Test is in the
calculation of the Color Prediction Index. To obtain this
score, a person's prediction of his partner's color choice
pattern is compared with that person's actual second
choice pattern. Again, the absolute rank order difference
score is calculated, and the score credited to the person
doing the predicting. This is done for both partners, and
their Color Prediction Index calculated in the same way as

the Luscher Color Test Index.

Financial Priorities Inventory

 

The man's 10 ranked items are compared with the
woman's. For each item in common they receive the score
of 10, but the rank order difference is subtracted unless

chosen items are ranked in identical positions in both

137

person's rankings. Couple index scores range from 0 to a

maximum of 100.

Locke-wallace Marital Adjustment Test

 

This test is used as a measure of satisfaction in this
study. It is scored following Locke and Wallace's method

[1959]. Scores range from a low of 2 to a high of 158.

Problem Check List

No score values are assigned to any items. The
list is designed to be a reflection of subjective satisfac-
tion. The more items checked, the greater the subjective

experience of tension and discord.

\

Marital Conventionalization (Retitled
Satisfaction in Marriage Test for this study.)

The test was retitled so as not to give away its
purpose. Thirty items are not scored, the 15 discriminating
items are scored using weightings experimentally calculated
by Edmonds [1967]. All 45 items were written on pieces of
paper and drawn at random. The order drawn determines the
order in which they were finally listed on the test instru-
ment used in this study. Scores range from 0 to 97

(high conventionalization).

PrimaryCommunication Inventory
This is a subjective measure of verbal and non—verbal
communication. All 25 items are scored on a 5 point scale.

This scoring method is that suggested by Navran [1967].

138

Socioeconomic status

All data sheet items are self explanatory except the
one on occupation. Initially the writer had intended to
use Warner's Index Of Social Charactersitics. However since
this is based on occupation, source of income, type Of
house and dwelling area, the later three factors being
unavailable in this study, Warner's Index was not used
(Warner, Meeker and Eels, 1949]. Miller suggests using
the Hatt—North Occupational Prestige Rating (HNOPR) where
_a greater range of ratings is desired in the research
design. In this study I will use the Duncan Occupational
Status Scores which are based On the HNOPR. The Duncan
088 are based on a measure Of socioeconomic status which
takes into account the income, occupation, and educational
level of persons, data derived from census bureau materials
(Miller, 1964; Reiss et 31., 1961].

In this study socioeconomic status will be calculated
using the following ranges taken from Reiss et al., (1961].

Low socioeconomic status 0 - 33

Middle socioeconomic status 34 - 66

High socioeconomic status 67 - 99

The exceptions are:

0 8 unknown

1 == student

2 = housewife

3 a military personnel

22 a farmer

139

Because we were not able to differentiate between
large and small scale farmers, they will be assessed as

a separate group.

(A couple's socioeconomic status index (SES Index) will
be calculated by subtracting the Index value assigned to
the woman's family Of origin from that assigned to the man's
family of origin. A positive value indicates a couple in
which the husband is of higher status: a negative value
where the wife is Of higher status. Possible range of
scores for the SES Index will be -94 to +94, with the

‘majority falling close to zero.

\

CHAPTER XII

THE POPULATION

Discussion of Data Gathered in the Pre~
Marriage Part of this Study

 

 

The population consists of three experimental groups.
The demographic characteristics of the three groups are
comparable for the most part. Examining tables 6 and 7
.shows that in all three groups the men are on the average
just over 22 years old, the women close to 20 1/2.

Table 8 indicates that couples‘had known each other
for an average of two-and-one-half years, the range being
greatly extended by some American respondents who claimed
to have known each other all their lives.

It is interesting that many of the couples did not
exactly agree on the length Of their engagement. This
might in part be due to a difference in rounding off days
and weeks to the closest month. Nonetheless, tables 9 and
10 show that on the average, men in all of the groups felt
their engagement was longer than their future wives suggested.
Possibly this means that men and women have a different per-
ception of the passage of time when significant events are
involved. Alternatively, since western culture portrays
marriage as a loss of freedom for men, as the entry into a

state of female-dominated servitude, perhaps the agony of

140

141

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>~uha mmnma ovuma mocha

hH.~ mm.~ em.m cOHumw>oo
ousosmuw
ho.- Hm.- mo.- coo:
mm.mm mm.mm em.ma Hod ooa owe Adaoa
mm. om.~ mm.a H m m on Ho>o
o~.H No. N. H On I aw
pa.~ Ho.n ma.m . m o o on u as
mm.o mm.ma v~.o h mN ca mu 0 mm
an.m~ mv.c~ ~o.o~ an en mm on I m~
vo.mm Hm.o~ oo.ov on we on «N 1 AN
hh.- um.m~ mh.m~ mu aw mm oN I ma
mm.a Ho.m ma.n N m n ma I ha
ha Moos:

HHH an H HHH HH. H
msowc osono moose ozone ozone msouu
anomoumu mod
omsucoouom :Oausawuunwo

 

 

 

.mcwunou stuwsw MO dawn us :06 commons

Mo 0mm

.9 manna

142

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hNIhH HmuoH mmnoH modem

Ho.~ Hm.~ vo.m coHuMH>oo
ousocmum
~m.o~ om.o~ mm.om sows
mm.mm mm.mm om.ma HoH mmH ooH Hosea
om. v~.H H m on Hobo
co. mm. H H on u mm
mm. om.H v~.H H m N am u hm
om.m Ho.m no. v .o H um I mm
Hm.m oO.mH hm.HH m mm mH vN I mm
mo.Hm OH.v~ Om.hm mm co co Nu I HN
om.mv oH.am NH.mm we mo Ho cm I mH
mm.OH mw.MH MH.m HH MN MH mH : hH
O~.H «o. N H hH noose

HHH HH H HHH HH H
@5090 osono osouo osouo moose macho
muomoumo 00¢
omnucoouom sOHuanuunHO

 

 

 

 

.mswumou HsHuHsH mo 02H» um sues: caboose mo mod .5 oHnt

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«mum osmum oamuv carom
mm.mH mm.nm mo.m~ coHumH>oo
oumocmum
mm.Hm Ho.om ov.om sow:
om.00H om.mm om.mm HOH omH omH Asses
oo.mH 0H.eH ow.HH om he mm em no>o
om.H o~.H om.H m v e um I ma
ov.m om.o oo.o mH mm Hm we I no
om.m OH.N om.m . h h pH me I mm
om.aH 0H.HH oo.m mm Hm mm on I Hm
oo.m om.m ov.m oH HH on on I mm
om.mH oo.~H OH.~H mm Ne mm «N I mH
om.mH om.mH ov.vH mm no we mH I mH
oo.OH ov.m~ om.o~ cm as mm «H I h
o.v o.» om.v m OH «H mmoH no u
HHH HH H HHH HH H
@5090 osouo osouo moose msouu moonu mHnmmosoucHssom
HO mouse:
mommucoouom :OHusoHuumHO

 

 

 

 

.mcHummu omsHuHoBIonm mo oEHu um
nonuo zoom szocx on: mOHmsoo HoHcmoocmuchsoosv 08H» mo :MoCOH omuoEHumm .w OHQMB

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mAIHv «NIH m¢I~ momma
mm.¢ vm.¢ mm.m cowumw>m©
numccmum
hm.m mm.m ow.h cum:
mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm Hoa mma nma Adaoe
Hm.a m vm uw>o
Hm.a mm.~ n v em I mm
mm. on. vo. a a a AN I ma
mm.v om. wv.v m H h mu I ma
mm.m om.a w~.H c m m ma I ma
mm.ma vo.m m~.ma «A ma «m «H I as
mm.ma vm.oa ao.¢a ma ma mm o I h
no.~m mm.am mm.vm mm mm vm w I v
mp.m~ sm.mq mv.m~ - «p oq ¢ can» mama
HHH HH H HHH HH H
macaw macaw macho msouu macho macaw unmfimmmmcm
mouuccouwm cowusnfluumwo mo manna:

 

 

 

 

.mcaumwu «mowuumEIwum mo 08w» um :05 an wmuhommu mm unmEQmmmam mo camcoq .m magma

 

145

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHIHv «NIH mqum mmcmm
mo.v mp.q mo.m cofluMfl>mo
nnmccmum
Hm.m mH.m HH.h cam:
mm.mm mm.mm h¢.mm HOH moa omH A¢BOE
vN.H N vm HQ>O
Ho.m om.N I m v vm I «N
mm. mN.H H N am I ma
mm.H NH.m I N m ma I mm
om.m Ho.m mv.~ - v m v ma I ma
«m.mH mo.m om.NH ma mH om NH I OH
mw.oH ¢¢.HH om.NH ha ma ON a I h
mm.mm mw.HN mm.ov cm mm mm m I v
mh.m~ Hm.am ¢>.m~ hm mm I am e can” mmma
HHH HH H HHH HH H
macho macho macho mzouw msouu QDOHU unmawmmmcm
mmmucmoumm Godusnauumwo mo mango:

 

 

 

 

.mcwummu mmmwuHmEImum mo wEwu um :mEo3 xn wwuuomou mm ucwEmmmmcm mo numcmq .OH magma

146

waiting for the final end to freedom makes waiting for the
wedding seem the more interminable.

In the area of educational achievement, the American
groups of men had completed one third of a year more than
their future wives. Table 11 and 12 show that both men and
women in Group I have a little more education than subjects
in Groups II and III. In Group III the educational achieve-
ment of men and women is essentially the same.

The socioeconomic status of respondents was assessed
by assigning to them the socioeconomic status index of their
fathers, using the classification system of Reiss, 35 El.
[1961]. '.

Data for this part of the study is less extensive than
elsewhere due to difficulties in data collection. The item
on father's occupation was accidentally omitted from the
demographic data sheet of Group I. Thus the 55 couples
reported on are those who responded to the follow-up ques-
tionnaire (which also asked for a description of the
father's occupation).

Group II respondents were asked to list their father's
occupation on the pre-marriage questionnaire. However,
the data was of too poor a quality to use. Many persons
reponded to the question by writing that their father, for
example, worked for Oldsmobile, or was a "salesman." These
replies were too vague to code. Once again, the data on
Table 13 is taken from the follow-up, questionnaires of the

94 couples who responded.

 

147

 

 

 

 

 

 

omIm omIoa mHIoa omcmm
mm.m mo.~ om.~ cOwumw>oc
pumonmum
av.ma m>.ma mm.¢a coo:
mm.mm oo.ooa mm.mm Hoa med oma Agaoa
mm.aa -.n ma.m . NH NH ma ma can» once
mm.oa ev.aa ma.m~ Ha em ma r Ammumme
.uoamnommv ma
H5.a~ ma.vm aa.qm -. am mm mm ma I ma
Hm.ma ha.~v oo.m~ mg on ov Acmum may ma
v>.m~ om.a vn.m on N w AH I ca
um.m v oH cusp mama
HHH HH H HHH HH H
msouu . macho msouu macaw moouu macaw cowumospw
no nude»
wmmucmoumm GOwusnwuumaa

 

 

 

 

.cwE pmmmmoo an woumamfioo cowumoopm mo whom» .HH manna

148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHIm HNIHH mHIm mmcmm

mm.m Hm.H mm.H GOHumw>wp
pumpsmum
mm.MH mm.mH Hm.MH new:
mm.mm Ho.ooH mm.mm HOH mmH omH Ageoa
mm.m He.m oc.m . a a a we can» muos

Ra ma .3 8.3 a mm mm W 33mg
. .uonnommv wH
hm.~m mn.om om.hm mm Hm om mH I mH
mh.o~ ov.mv oo.om Hm mm we Apmum may NH
on.m~ Hv.~ hm.v on v 5 HA I oH
mm. mm. H H oH can» mmmH
HHH HH H HHH HH H
muons daouo muons dsouo macho macho coaumoscm
mmousmouom coHuonHHumHo «0 mumma
.cmEOS pmmmmco an pmumHQEoo coHumooUm Ho whom» .NH oHnma

 

0,- ~ I. I‘..-

149

.HthImoN "meHH .mm MM .mmHmm anm cwxau maoHuMUHHHmmMHU maumam UHanoomoHoom

 

Ahoy cmEmammaw “HNnv 0mm: maoum unmanammmw “Ammv aoxcmn “HNNV amnommu “Hva

amaoammnm “Hmmv amm3MH “vav aouoaaumaw muamam>aaa "mpaHoaH mcoHummaooo mum anm
“mow aoumaumacaewm madam “Homv ammeHoou «HHmv adammHmm mHMmmHon3

«Away amasmmo "Home ammMGME coHuoaaumcoo pmaamHmm "mwaHoca maoaammaooo mmw 0H2
AMHV amaonoH mcHHaHnEmmmm oHoHnm> aouoE pmHHmeca

“HmHV am>aaw xoaau “HNmV aofiham>Hwa “HmNV oaamnome umwaHoaH maoHummaooo mum 30A

.maHmccoHummam maIonHOM on» 0» popcomma 0&3 mmHmaoo mmonu :0 cho comma mmaamamg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.ooH oo.ooa oo.ooH . aoa «a mm gases

mn.HN mm.mH mH.wH NN mH oH mum cmH: mthm

mm.hv mm.Ne eo.m¢ . av ov vN mum was moIvm

Nm.>H Nb.mN mv.mN - mH NN «H mum 30H mmIm

mm.0H vm.oH Hm.oH - HH 0H m amEamm

mm.H . . mH.N Nm.H N N H a3oaxca
IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIzmzozlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

oo.oOH oo.oOH oo.ooH HoH vm mm H<aoa

mm.ma v~.o~ ms.~a ma aa a mum sea: manna

mm.Nv mc.vm mv.mv mv Nm mN mum was mevm

vN.mN mN.mm mo.mN mN om mH mum 30H mmIm

vm.mH N¢.> Hm.OH wH. N o aoeama

ma.H Nm.H N H azoaxaa
I'll-I"lu'III-I.'Il.l.I--""'Illu"lllvlvlulu"-'-lu'-zg'Il'lv'"""ll'll"-|llu"'".l

HHH HH H HHH «HH «H
maoaw macaw macaw macaw maoaw macaw maumum
ammuaooaonu GOHuammmumHnl. Udaoaooooaoom

 

.uaonumm n.ucopcommma mo maumum oaaoaooooaoom .MH oHnda

150

Group III couples responded with sufficient clarity
that the data gathered on the pre-marriage questionnaire was
usable.

For all three groups, the category of farmer was kept
separate. There was no way to distinguish the tennant of a
ten acre plot from the gentleman farmer, owner of several
thousand acres. .

Table 14 shows the distribution of Socioeconomic Status
Indexes (SES Indexes) for couples in the three groups.
Groups I and III appear to be skewed toward women coming
.from higher status backgrounds, whereas in Group II,
the trend is the opposite. Because the data is not more
complete, it is not reasonable to analyze the meaning of
these findings.

It is only in the area of religious preference that
we find a noticable difference between the United States
and New Zealand groups. As mentioned earlier, the New
Zealand Catholic Marriage Guidance Council was unwilling
to allow their couples to participate in this study.. Con-
versely the author's main access to couples in the United

States was through the Catholic Pre-Cana programs.

151

.Haaacamxcmn maumam acan: a scam mgoc cm: can umfi meEH gHuHmom d 658963 maampm amamaa
.amfixfi mama ficakfiacmafimflw
cafiEQHXHQwafiucchwuwgfifl”mzhaosmfivaktacmflfimxwuafiadgkficawmfififimHfiamrfi_nmfifiacdfivxflBnr

M_EHG_QQRH.:NE¥VQRH.mdfificimannHfiaamfiammfifladcaumfinngéa&W#_¢

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3+ 8 3.. 2+ 3 3- me... 8 Han mmcmm
mm.mm om.mm v0.00H HoH mmH omH gases
... oe.vv mo.mw .. an moH mama ca
HN.mN om.NH mH.m mN HN MH amsamm ac
czoaxca mm copaoc
Ica sacs ac mac
ccac3 cH monacw
mm.m om.m om.N v o v o¢+ am>o
om.m ow. mm. v H H o¢+ cu Hm+
mm.m co.m mm. v m H om+ cu HN+
mm.m oo.m mm.H N mH m 0N+ cu HH+
mm.0H oo.w om.N HH oH v OH+ cu H+
mm.v N.H oc.m m N m o
mm.m oo.m mH.m v 0H m HI cu OHI
mm.oH ov.m om.N HH m v HHI ca ONI
om.m oN.H mm.H oH N m HNI cu QNI
om.m oo.m mN.H v m N HNI cu owI
Nm.h om.m hm.v m w h HVI ac>o
HHH HH H HHH HH H
III macaw macaw macaw macaw macaw macaw maHm> xmwaH
cmmucmcaom :cHuanHaumHo

 

 

a.macnumu m.ucopccmmca mo maamum
cHEoccomchom mcu cc comma .mchacc mo mmxcccH maumum cHEococcchom

.vH mHQMB

152

Reviewing table 15 indicates that the women are a little
little more likely than the men to state a religious pre-
ference. It is also of interest that the United States
data, gathered from participants at a Catholic-sponsored
program shows a strong tendency for persons to state a
religious "preference.” This is deceptive. Persons
attending other Catholic-sponsored programs and inter-
viewed informally by the author turned out to be Catholic
in name only. Likewise, a number of those describing them-
selves as "Protestant" were in fact of no faith. Several
"Protestants” did not know the meaning of the word
Protestant. '\

The profile of religious preference in the New
Zealand sample is closer to probable religious behavior,
showing about one fifth to have no religious affiliation.
The actual prOportion of unaffiliated, non-practicing
church members, and generally agnostic persons is probably
even higher than these figures indicate.

The Financial Priorities Inventory was administered
to Groups II and III as part of the pre-marriage test
battery. Some translation was needed before the test
could be used with the New Zealand sample. "Gasoline"
became "Petrol." "Utilities" posed a problem momentarily.
To an Englishman or New Zealander the word sounds like an
oblique reference to the bathroom. The category ended up

as ”Gas, electricity, coal for heating, light, cooking, etc."

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.mm oo.ocH oo.QOH HOH moH cmH mnaaoa
om.mH Hw.m om.N oN o q cacz
mN.mN mw.HN om.NN NN mm mm uamamcucam
mm.n oN.vN oo.mN v «NH cNH OHchucU
IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZMZO3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
mm.ma mm.mm mm.ma HOH mmH ooH mqsaoa
NN.- mv.a mN.m -. «N «a e unoz
NN.oN Hm.mN Nm.Hm HN Nv Hm usmumcuoam
na.w mN.mm Nm.vm N moH MQH UHHoauaU
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIII zszIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII II
unaHacu 302 ch2 mo HOHHm m: ccdHowfl 302 GHQ: ma UOHHm mo
HHH macaw HH macaw H macaw HHH macaw HH macaw H macaw
ummoucocacm aoHuanHaumHa
.nu00nnau woodmao Ho mmoccacuoam wacamHHum .mH «Hana

154

Looking across the rows in Table 16, there is a
commonality between the men and the women of both groups. It
is interesting that in both groups it was the men who placed
a higher emphasis on "Supplies and etc. for anticipated
baby." New Zealand men placed comparatively the highest
premium on "Vacation." The only group to place a low
priority on "Clothes-hers" was the American women. This
appears contradictory, since women usually feel committed to
decent self care. Does the rating on this item reflect a.
.low priority on appearance in the mostly Catholic American
sample? Or is the need for good clothing taken for granted?
The data provides no obvious answer.

The New Zealanders, living in a country which has both
adequate public transportation, and an absense of trans-
continental distances, placed a low emphasis on "Car pay-
ments.” “Church contributions" are also low on the list when
compared with the American sample.

In summary, it appears that generally, financial
priorities are not sex determined, but culturally oriented.

The FPI Indexes were calculated as explained pre-
viously. As is evident from reviewing Table 17, the FPI
'Index scores of the two groups are similarly distributed,

with Group III couples scoring, on the average, slightly

higher.

155

 

 

 

mass 3 2958.3an N and you 823a an .9."ch 6.56 R . 3.
gram a 89.8 a8 a «$36 383m an .98 H8389?“ 8 . .2
was??? ”308 am madam 36: Na mfiuafiam mm 8893 gm He .3
3188 ”.968 ma 33 now 839% «a aficfiao as mm mfiaommv ma .2
mfiaommo an 9033s, a .98 $53 an 89.3 a8 8 .3
gamma 28m mm 3?ng “.908 no. .flficoo 636 8 mama I 8:88 am .3
mums I 8508 mm £9182 umfioa R 33 bummed 3 8323 mm .2
$93 and am .mfi Havana: 2 $95: 58 3 38 a8 mango 3 .3
m2 I 9238 on man I 3508 me I in fig .2 mafia. 3588 am .3
833 3 Eu: I 8508 8 «.388 z. .3 spammed an .m
85a. raucous 3 mafiafisa 3 I 6.5 mad we mg .30 N» .m
.mfi H38: 3 8.39 Ended 9 8333: 3a .3 a8 8 .N
6.5 83 8 .uaa 83 em 3% 56 8H «933a 8 .m
.maa gm HN .3 3% Ne 355m ad in and mm .m
Sagan E gum a... .3 a8 Ra _ 3:38 8a .v
«0333: 3 833.39 8 .3 Hg a2 .3 Huoaauz an .n
and am sum 8 . sum 3H 88 SH .N
88 8 BB 3 88 9.4 have a: .H
ago: fix 59. 8: “.88
33 .8: an awed x8498 8: a mad xfim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.5803 can 58 3 Wang .mQHuHaoaam 39.3qu «5 so 830ng EH Ho gum .3 0.33.

156

.amumo amoE ccmcnc mamumlfiaz magmas 6ng mo gvoam mo ampac ca .cmumHH mm swam Em

.oaHsEoHammza EmHmmu 52 may so 3:29 an 8 e2 823 .mfiHOmmc.
mm méfi 6% a8 .ficmHgHsE amHHmfi fiHuHam Em .mfiaa mo mass: HHsu How savanna 8mm
. .aofism «5 mo Baas 3 H326 ms. 8989a 38333 353a? Emma 62
nomad 8 ma $2... mm @336 mm: ummfi Nana—Eco "scam 8020 8 ”EH 888a m an: HHH 989:.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bauman: o Ham: H .mm
.... . . ”.85 NuaEsEB a page fiHfiaebo N .9.
madame o 8% Hmaoammmaoaa N Ham: H 8328 a .3
Ham: H Ham: N 80388 N flBaasr m .8
@5520 be N 3:83: m mSe Habammwmoua m 8% HSoammmmoE a .2
8% gauged m 90338 m magma . 968 a mamaaa .mxoom N . Hm
flaw a and a mama I manHo N macaw HH .8
maxim 6.8m a 9288 as a mafia a mamaIccg “.368 mH .8
.qu baHafimHa m .mfi 32388 a . I mafia: umxoom oH 88amHHmumHz mH .aN
35.5mm 58 HH 895 a man I 3308 S gamma 853a? mH .R
80388 HH mug a8 2 madam 8828a HH mHaINmSa c.1968 GH .8
88538.42 «H madam .38m 3 838s, 3 833$ HN .mN
.nHHEoo sound 3 whammy 333% S 3;..."ch ”.968 «H gamma 3:8 a ..a
whammy wBMaHmaa «H 88cmHHw8Hz HH .3 FHHHammHo 8 805 mm .mm
8mg 835 mH :05 a8 HH ugflamufi mm mfiammHo N8 NN .8
838g 3 .flaucoo 585 NH 809333: GN ....EH Nuadhmmao ma .HN
33 a8 838% NH 8288 3 madam 38: ma gags H». .8
.EH 58 NH $820 wBEHa 3 88a E was I 8:38 an .mH
5.53 cm: 5803 so: aocao
{@998 Ho: HHH macaw @398 mac HH 980 scum
GLEBV .GH 3nt

 

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«NINH «NImH magma
«o.mH «m.NH coHUMH>mc camccmum
m«.m« NN.H« com:
mm.mm om.mm HOH me Adsoe
am.H cm. H H mama muoneouaa
mm.H ow. N H mN I 0N
mm.m o«.m N «H mm I om
mN.mN oo.mH «N on am I om
mo.«m o«.mN I mm «« m« I o«
mN.0N om.mN HN m« an I on
Nm.N ON.mH m NN mN I 0N
mm.H om.m N w mH I oH
.. .. .. .. a I H
HHH macaw HH macaw HHH macaw HH macaw
cmcma caocm
mommaaccaom acquanaaumHa

 

 

.omcHaaaE

caomoa acumen anmaoo Ho mmaccm xcwcH macnccbaH mcHuHacHam Hcaoaccam

.NH oHnma

158

In examining the tables (18 - 22) related to this in-
ventory, at the pre-marriage level, we will observe Hurvitz's
[1961] suggestion that a rank order difference of three
or more on an item has significance, and indicates strain
in that particular area.

Groups I and II are so similar as to be, for all
practical purposes, identical. In comparing this United
States data with the Group III data from New Zealand few
differences are observed. The New Zealand men plan on being
less involved inreligicn, than their US counterparts. The
New Zealand men are also more willing to assist their wives
with household chores. In this latter respect the New
Zealand men are less traditionalistic in the way they
differentiate between men and women's work.

American and New Zealand wive's expectations for
themselves are essentially the same. This suggests that
ethnicity and religious affiliation are not differentiating
factors in this area.

In the area of 'Husband's Expectations of His Wife's
Roles' the only difference between the American and New
Zealand men is that the latter expect their wives to share
their relative disinterest in religion.

The above-mentioned themes continue in Table 21.
Again, the New Zealanders, this time the women, de-emphasize
the need for their men to be religious, and accentuate their
expectation that the men will help them with household

chores.

159

In short the differing religious emphasis could easily
be a reflection of Catholics stressing religious activity
more than Protestants. On the other hand, that New Zealand
men plan, and New Zealand women expect men to be more
involved in domestic chores is probably a cultural
difference.

Turning to Table 22, the reader will notice that
the MRI Index scores are distributed in a comparable

fashion in each of the groups.

160

.Nwaum was» cH coma mm maoucm>aH mmHom HMUHamz can cu
mcHumHoa mcHnmu acmavmmnam was many so mmHoa Ho uamamuoum oumHmEoc aom xHoammma mmm««

.Noaum may no ccHaocm mHnu ca ooamonaoc
cac3 maouco>cH mwnu aao ocHHHm mHuccaaco mamauamm anon £UHS3 CH mmHmaoc >Ha04

 

 

 

HOH me ««H «macaw ca acnaaz
N m N mmoacaHu woman:
a HH 0H o>Hucaacmcamca NuHaaEEow
0H 0H . HH acxma conHcmo
m N m amaoHan aom ace Ho Hmoo:
m m I m cmaa cu amauamm Hoaxcm
HH m w QOHmHHma thBmm ccHuomam
m m m moacnc am: saws 0HH3.chm
N N N mcH>HH can :amm
« « « 30am aoawHan mHmm
H H H mmaz cu cowammaow
m m m mach chnomac: mam
QGUHQON 3&2 awn! mD UOHHm mD
HHH macaw HH macaw H macaw acmcha Ho mucoacamum

 

 

 

 

 

.coa commune an ocuachHucc mm ..mchm n.6amnmax. ac mmHoa mo mcaxaca Howe: .mH OHAMB

161

.mvaum man» ca 00m: mm hacucm>cH mmacm Hmuaamz can cu unaumama
moanma uccswchSm can maau cc mcha mc ucchumum mamamecc acm chcmmmm mmmua

. .mcsam can no coauccm was» cw cmamcamccc
cacz Nacucm>ca was» ucc cmaaam advocaacc maccuamm anon scan: Ca mwamscc cho«

 

HOH
HA
m

v
0H

I‘MHMNQ

w

mmH
AH
m

m
CH

WFVHMNG

va
AH
m

m
0H

IOV'HMNQ

N

amscam cw amnEbz
acxME :camacoo
mcccmcwu woman:
30am cmacaasc mama
m>aamuccmcamca hua::EEcw
acacaanc acu c0503 mo Hmccz
caucus: ca accuamm Hmcxom
acxmececm
ccmnmcg ca :cwcmmacw
coacaazc acm mmamw
:cwmaama mawaam mcwacmam
hoses :ano mmaom

 

ocuaucn 302
HHH macaw

 

can: ma
HH macaw

 

uoaam m:
a usage

 

««mcaca Mc muccamumum

 

 

.cmac3 ccmnmco an vcummacaucm mm ..mcacm n.0mwz. cc

mmaca mo mcaxcma chcz

.ma manna

 

162

 

 

 

 

HOH mOH va macaw :H amnEaz
HH HH HH amxme achHcco
O O OH mmcawaam mcmmcmz
m m m 30am amaUHHSO chm
OH OH O m>Humuammmamma maaaaasco
N N x m acacHan acw amecs mo Hmccz
N m N camnman cu amaaamm Hmaxmm
v N a m acxmemacm
H H H camnmaa ca acaammecw
N v v amacHan acm mcamo
a O N achHHca NHHEMM ocHucmam
O O O hmaca :amc mecm
”Hafiz Ea flaw g 35::

 

 

. .ccfi ccmmmac Mn cwxama mm
..mchm m.muH3 mHm no macaumucmmxm m.camnmam. ac mcha mo mawxama Have: .ON mHnt

163

 

«3.4 w 01I~ 0““ m

mmH

HH

«1

QHVN

va

HH

m

QHQN

macaw aH acnaaz
mmcamawm wwmamz
m>Humuacmwamoa NuHaaEEcU
amxmfi achHcca
acacHan acm cog uc Hmacz
acauamm Hmaxcm
acHwHHma NHHEMM «caucwam
mcacnc ac: :qu cmaz chm
waH>HH may aamm
30aw acacHan chm
«NH: cu acHaumEcU
anon uaonmmaon mam

 

canHch 3cz
HHH macaw

 

can: ma
Ha macaw

 

acHHm ma
H macaw

 

mcha mo pamaouaum

 

 

..mchm m.c:anuam acm mc macHunuccmxm n.0uH3

.acacb cmwawac an ccxama mm

. ac moHca «c waaxama Hmccz

.HN mHQMB

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ONNIOO OONION OvNIOO mwamm
O¢.Om OO.mm ON.vm acHuma>ma
aamaamum
m~.mma aa.m¢a m~.vma ammz.
O0.00 m0.00H Om.OO HOH OOH OOH AOHQB
.. NN.H .. .. N .. ONN I OON
.. NN.H Om.H .. N N OON I OON
OO. OO.H Om.H V H m N OmN I ONN
OO.H OO.m ON.N N m w OHN I OON
O0.0 O0.0H Ov.m O OH O OOH I OOH
O0.0H N0.0H vO.HH HH NH OH ONH I OOH
ON.HN OO.HN OO.NH NN Om ON OOH I OOH
ON.ON OH.ON H0.0N vN On On OOH I ONH
mN.¢N OH.ON OO.NN ON mm Nm OHH I OOH
v0.0 OH.O O0.0 O OH OH OO I OO
OO.m HO. ON.N v H e ON I OO
HHH Ha H HHH HH H
macaw macaw macaw macaw macaw macaw cwawa maccm
mcwmuaccacm acHuanHaumHo

 

 

 

 

.mwuHaamE macmmn amamcu mchaco ac «cacao xcaaa Nacuac>aa mchm Hwaaamz .NN cHnma

165

The rank ordering of colors by group and by sex
are outlined in Table 23. For a full discussion of the
significance of the particular combinations of colors,
the reader is referred to Luscher [1970]. From the writer's
clinical experience, when green appears toward the end of
the rank, the individual is working hard to avoid conflict
or confrontations. Brown near the beginning of the rank
suggests a need for care and attention. Both groups of men
appear to be trying to avoid conflict, and those in Group
1111 have a strong need for personal care. It is the added
stress in the men which causes Group III to be significantly
different from the Luscher Ideal norm.

Nonetheless, the Index scores of the two groups are
comparably distributed, suggesting that, despite the
greater stress experienced by Group III men, couples are
balanced in their intra-couple level of stress.

The same distribution of scores is noted on the Color
Prediction Index (See Table 25).

Thus, it appears that even though the sex factor
affects the outcome of color ranking, the couples' scores
are evenly distributed, and couple members in general have

an equal, or compatible level of stress.~

 

 

II

3mm 68: amacflm can. mmmawt
SH 68: 389.

 

166

 

mo. OE. 58: HHH macaw I cmsfia 98o
8. SO. 5:03 Ha macaw I cg aa 955
mo. NON. 58: HHH macaw I Hosanna
......c OS. 5.2 HHH macaw I 6:83
NO. MOO. 5on HH macaw I amfimaq
.8. m8. . 52 Ha macaw I amfimaa
Tmé 3. EN. HHH macaw I 85mg
mo. OHO. . HH macaw I aoncmaq
mucmudéma 833880 dam

 

 

 

«Iflfiaoflaweo Saunamaaoo aqua whgnmwmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmaw #83 2305 83 50am uoHcH> 30.2mm cma 8.53 I HHH macaw
woman OBO 58m 33 30:0» :55 awaofi. Ba 55 I HHH 986
x83 awe Egan ago? :83 83 Ba 303% g I aa 965
Omaw VBMHQ 555 cmoaw uoHcH> 553m» coa 33 am: I HH macaw
ago ocean scan 83 58am ”.03.; 83% Ba .8380 HHH 996
x83 I afim ann 89.5 33.9 Ba .63...» 83 8328 a 98m
Vega 553 aflm ago? 32? 58m 33 B... .983 93:83
lam“ fig geisha Gama summon 3E. Sic-Wow pan commune
8338 530 E

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .mwaaaao: madman Bag monaoo
Eabz Huoca Facaomaq £33 359.00 um? acHoo aofimfi m5 :0 :amflam omaommwa H394 .ON oHan.

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOION OOION cwccm

O0.0 O0.0 aoHacH>mc caccacaw

ON.Nm ON.OO ammz
O0.00 O0.00 HOH OOH AOHOB
OO.H ON.H N N vO I OO
NO.N ON.H m N OO I OO
NO.N ON.v O N am I OO
3.... om; ..q ma 3 I 3
HN.ON ON.ON ON NO we I Ow
OO.¢H O0.0H OH HO On I Om
ON.HN O0.0H NN Hm an I on
O0.0 ON.OH OH NH ON I ON
NO.N OO.NH O HN ON I ON

aaa cacao aa cacao HHH cacao Ha cacao
cwaaa cacom
mcwauaccacm aoHaanHaamHo

 

 

.conaamE cacmcn ccumcu mmHmaco uc mcaccm xccaH umca acHoo acncmaq .vN cHnMB

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«OIOH «OINH cmcmm

N0.0H O¢.OH acHaMH>mc camcamam

HN.Ov O0.0m sac:

O0.00 O0.00 HOH OOH 94909
O0.0 OO.m O O «O I OO
OO.H OO.m N O OO I OO
OO.HH O0.0 NH OH «O I OO
OO.vH O0.0 .OH OH me I ma
NN.NN O0.0N ON mv aw I ov
H0.0 O¢.vH . O ON ON I On
O0.0 ON.OH OH NN vm I On
H0.0 ON.OH O NH ON I ON
NO.N OO.N O OH ON I ON
OO.H ON.H N N OH I OH
.. OO. .. H OH I OH

HHH macaw HH macaw HHH macaw HH macaw
cwama macaw
ncwouacoacm ccHuanHaumHo

 

 

.oonaaME cacucn acumcu mchaco mo mcacon xooaH acHuUHamam achU

.ON mHQMB

169

Discussion of Data Gathered in the
Follow-up Part of this Study

 

 

To more fully appreciate the modal responses on the
Marital Roles Inventory of couples tested one year after
their weddings, Hurvitz's original study data is included
on the tables. Hurvitz based his findings on a group of
104 couples, residents of California, tested in 1957-1958.
The mean age of the men was approximately 40, of the women
approximately 35. The modal couple had been married 8 to
14 years, and had two children. Fifty percent were Jewish,
'thirty-five percent Protestant, ten percent Catholic and
five percent of no religion.. Forty percent of the men
and thirty percent of the women were.ccllege graduates.

The majority of the men were in business or the professions
[Hurvitz, 1961]. Such a group could hardly be more differ-
ent from the samples surveyed in this study.

When Hurvitz's findings are compared with those
obtained from the couples with children in this study, the
rankings are remarkable mainly for their similarity.

The area of 'Husband's Roles' indicates only one
difference: Hurvitz's men saw themselves as having a greater
say in decision making. There is a difference between
Groups I and II in the emphasis on the husband as the
manager of money, but the divergence from Hurvitz is not

substantial.

170

In reviewing 'Wife's Roles' the groups are similar
in all respects, except that Group II women are comparatively
less interested in being the decision maker.

What husbands expect of their wives is reviewed in
Table 28. Hurvitz's men emphasized their wives' role as
decision maker, but downrated her role as model of women
for the children. The two American Groups in this study
basically reversed the emphasis of Hurvitz's men on these
two items.

The final area, that of the wives' expectations of
their husbands, continues the picture of similarity. In
only one area, management of finances, do Hurvitz's
group place a differing priority than that seen on the
modes realized in this study.

It is interesting that role performance and preference
is so uniform between disparate groups over a fifteen
year time period. In all groups the men see themselves
as primarily the bread winners, and their wives as custo»
dians of the children. The wives see themselves as compa-
nions first and custodians second. The women in this study
still want their husbands to be companions first, before
being bread winners. Hurvitz's women had resigned them—
selves to second place at the time they were studied.

'For the two American groups studies in this thesis,
the above pattern represents a dramatic upending of the

husband's roles from their preferences prior to marriage.

171

At that time they too valued companionship above all else.
This reversal is possibly the source of heightened tension
in those couples with children.

The couples without children in Groups I, II and III
all place companionship, the husband-wife relationship,
first in priority. These wives, unlike those with children,
place the sexual relationship second for themselves and
their husbands. With children on the scene, sex, as it
were, gets side-tracked.

A perusal of Table 30 shows the New Zealand couples
'tc be the most comfortably adjusted of those couples without
children. A plausible explanation of this is the religious
composition of the particular groups: The mostly Catholic
couples in the American groups may feel they "should be"
having children, and "should not be" using birth control
methods such as contraceptive pills. They may also be
openly bombarded by relatives and clergy to start their
families right away. The New Zealand couples are not
as likely to suffer this type of harrassment, hence ex-
perience less marital strain, and higher levels of

adjustment.

172

wasp comma

.HmI ON acHoo» CH oouacmma on aoa HHH3 Naowcumo
.maIchHcH Ho cEHa an acaoHan can HHH macaw aH mHmaco mac NHaOOO

HHOOHH NuH>aam Ecamm

.mcaum mHsa :H coma mm macaao>aH moHcm HmuHaoz can cu waHucHoa

moHomu aacawmmnam can mHnu ac mcha «0 muccacuoum cuonEco acm xHoacmmd comaa

.Noaum on» Ho acHucom mHnu aH ccaccHn
Iacc cac3 Nacuam>aH mHaa vac onHHm mHuocaacc macauamm anon acHn3 aH monaco mHao«

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an «N as «ea ma aa «cacao ca accesz
O O O O O O mccacaHH owmamz
N O O HH OH OH o>Hamuaomcamoa muHcaEEcw
O O O O HH HH aoxafi achHooo
.. .. .. O O O acaoHan acm ace Ho Homo:
N m m e m m mHHB cu aoauaom Hoaxom
O N N O N .O acHwHHoa NHHEMH coHuomam
a O m ca- m a mcaoac am; spa: caaz cams
m m N a a a aca>aa can came
.. .. .. m v w 30aw aoaoHHac mHom
H H H N N N oHHa cu acHammEcw
m w v N O N mncn oHcsomaoa mHm
HHH HH H _ HH H
macaw macaw macaw *NHQEBO macaw macaw mo
. wwcmavHHno «a HOH m0 mufimfiwumum

coacHan aacnuH3 monaco

 

 

:uHs mchacw

 

 

 

cu waHoacmmoa ace ooHaacE an ..moHom

.cchcaoHumoaw maIsoHHoO can
m.ccaomam. so moHca Ho Occhaa Hacoz

.ON oHnma

173

HHOOHH NUH>aa= scam“

.Ncaam mHnu sH coma mm >aouao>aH mchm HouHamz on» cu waHuMHca

moHnmu uaoawomnam can mHnu ac mcha «0 uacacaoum cuchEco acm xHoammmm coma;

.Noaum can no acHuocm mHsu aH ooaochacc

mac: Nacuao>aH mHsa uac ccHHHw NHuooaaco maoauamm nucn acHaz aH monaco NHaoa

 

vv
N

Vin

OOH
N

OH
HH

tn

O cIIH q-rn N

O

H
,_|

....

MNHMV'I‘O‘DQQ

I-l
....

«macaw :H aanaz
amass achHcco
mocamaHu cwmamz
30aw acacHan mecm
m>Humaacmoamoa muHaaEEcw
acacHHao aou aoficz mo Homo:
panama: cu acaaacm Hmaxcm
acxmsmeom
camnmaa ca acHaomEcw
acaoHHao acm mcacw
.ccHwHHoa NHHEsH chHacoam
mecca came mchm

 

HHH
macaw

 

HH
macaw

 

H
macaw

 

acaoHHsc.uac£uH3 mchacU

 

HH
macaw

H
macaw

 

auua>asm

 

 

acacHan
:uH3 nchaco

 

«amcHoa mo muaoacaoum

 

 

.oaHaaacHumoaw maIonHou on»
on waHoacmmoa ach3 ooHaaaE No ..moHom m.oHH3. ac mcha mo waHxasa Homo: .NN cHnoa

'174

 

HMN

O
v

HO!”

O
v

ur-IMN
a

VI!)

OOH

Hmr-IMNLDOQQ‘O‘I‘
H

H

HO‘
HH

OWHNMV‘I‘O‘IIDCD

H

Fir-l
HH

OhHNthfiflv¢

H

macaw aH acneaz
awxmfi achHooo
mooacaHm owmamz
Bcaw acaoHHsc chm
c>Humuacmcamoa NuHaaEEow
acaOHHso acu aoEOB mo Homo:
accnmaz cu aoaaamm Hmaxcm
amxmaoacm
panama: cu acHaomEco
soacHan acm mcamw
acHwHHca NHHEMH coHuomam
. NccoE came mchm

 

HHH
macaw

HH
macaw

 

 

H
macaw

 

coacHHao uacnuHs monaow

 

NuH>aam

HH
macaw

 

H
macaw

 

 

acaoHHnu
nqu mchacU

 

mcha Ho muncfioumum

 

 

..mcHom n.cmH3 mHm acm ooacacwoam n.6amnmam. so mcHoa mo waHxaoa Homo:

.caHaaccHumoaw maI3cHHom on» cu wcHoacmmca cmE wcHaaME an

.ON oHnma

175

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Om ON as «OH OH HH cacao ca accesz
O O O s O N mcccmcaa caucus
O O O O OH OH o>Huoaacmoamma NuHaaEEcw
O O O OH HH HH acxcfi achHooo
.. .. .. O O O amaoHHno aou cos Ho Homo:
N m N O m v cHHz ca acauamm Hoaxcm
N v v N O O acHwHHoa NHHEMH cOHaomam
v N N aa a m mmaosc aha: caaz mama
m N m H . N N waH>HH can aamm
.. .. .. m v m 3caw acaOHan chm
H H H N H H cHH3 cu acHaomEcw
O O O O N O mncn ochcmacn mHm
HHH HH H HH H
macaw macaw macaw NUH>aam macaw macaw
soaoHan uacnaHs mchacw acaoHan mcha Ho muacecamam

 

 

:uH3 mchacw

 

 

 

..mchm m.caaomam acm acH coacacucam n.0HH3. ac moHca Ho waHxaoa Hoocz

.ochaaoHamoaw manchch on» on wcHoacmmoa

ac503 ccHaaaE an
.ON cHnma

176

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOHIOO ONHIOO ONHIvv cwamm
.u N0.0H NH.HN O0.0H .>co camcamum
O0.00 O0.00 H0.00 sac:
O0.00 ON.OO v0.00 OO ON vv Hmaoa.
OO.N OO.H NN.N O H H cHnmaccm ac:
.. .. .. .. .. .. OOH I OOH
.. OO.H .. .. H .. ONH I ONH
I. O. 00 a 00 0. DO mwfl|omfl
.. OO.H .. .. H .. OOH I OOH
.. OO.N .. .. N .. OvH I OOH
.. OO.v .. .. O .. OOH I OOH
.. OO.H OO.¢ .. H N. ONH I ONH
.. O0.0H OO.v .. OH N OHH I OHH
OH.O O0.0N OO.v N ON N OOH I OOH
vN.OH O0.0H ON.NN O OH OH OO I OO
ON.OH O0.0H OO.HH O NH O OO I OO
V0.0N N0.0 OO.HH O O O ON I ON
vN.OH OO.v H0.0N a O OH OO I OO
NO.NH OO.H N0.0 O H O OO I OO
Ov.ON .. NN.N O .. H Ov I Ow
HHH HH H HHH HH H
macaw macaw macaw macaw macaw macaw cwama caccm
mcwouacoacm acHaanHaumHo

 

 

.mwanoca aHoau acaum amok mac
acumen aoaoHHno uacnuHa nchacc Ho moaccm xccaH >aouaw>aH meom HmuHamz

.OO cHnsB

177

.canu mHaa ac.accmmc aca coco HHH macaw can» «manc3cHHcH cac3 Nona
cEHu can as OHan c waH>cn ccuacmca acHg3 HHH macaw aH chacc mac NHac mc3 causes

 

 

 

 

 

vONIvO OOHIOOH owacm

NN.OO OO.HN acHucH>oO camcscam

Nv.va H0.0NH ace:

H0.00H O0.00 OH HH HOHOB
ON.O .. H .. OHN I OON

ON.OH .. .O .. OOH I OOH

ON.OH .. . O .. ONH I OOH
OO.HN O¢.Ov O O OOH I OOH
O0.0H O0.0 N H OOH I ONH

N0.0N Ov.Ov O O OHH I OOH
ON.O .. H .. OO I OO
HH macaw H macaw HH macaw H macaw cwaca oacom

mowcuacoacm «acHuanHaamHo

 

 

 

 

coo acumen acaoHHno aqu mchaco mo moacom xocaH Naouac>aH OcHom HOuHaOz

.mwaHooc3 chaa acuwo ace»

. HO «Home

178

The use of the Luscher Color Test and Color Prediction
Test on the follow-up was limited to the 49 couples in Group
II who were visited in their homes by the experimenter.

An examination of Table 32 shows clearly that there
Ins been a slight shift in color preference during the year
sflnce the pre-test. The shift is toward Luscher's Ideal
hbrm. The mean Index score and standard deviation are very
cflcse to those of the pre-test statistics (see Table 24).

The Color Prediction test statistics show a similar
imend. The parallels between the pre-test and follow-up
suggest a consistency of this quality (predictive ability)

over the time interval. \

8mm 58: acacflm Em macaw:
.3 .23. £89.

 

 

 

 

179

8.x mom. Ha macaw I Saw S no
3.x mom. 583 Ha cacao I am: Ha cc
8.x mom. I g H cacao I HERE
8. HOO. as H cacao I 3695
mo. OHO. AcanO H 98o I acscmaa
8.x NOO. Ha cacao I .3283
@98ch Hame GOHamHmaaB chm
tmaccacamacco moflcacaaoc cams Pamficcam
xcmHn Nmaw GBOan achH> aooaw maHn BOHHoN cca amEcS HH maDHw
VHUOHQ Nmaw aoHcH> S55 . accaw scHHoN coa caHn cm: HH macaw
x83 scam €ch 88m 83? c8 333a 83 SN manna. scam
"omeaamZImamv
83:8 aa 968
£83 Nmaw a30an uchH> accaw 30HHoN oaHn Hoca monaB HH macaw
song 553 Omam $33 soda» :85 83 Ba «H83 m . 358a

 

583 5:98 5an far. 558 Baa 28cm swam

 

833nm amccc acme

 

 

.Eacz HcccH w.§H5H3cwam9§ ammccmmma quwocmsaHmfi
aouHm aces mac powwow monacc HH 98w 3 puma. acHoo amncmaq 05 ac aaoaumm omacmuoa Hg .NO 3an

 

180

 

 

NmImH mmcmm_

O0.0 acHHMHme oamwamum

O0.00 ammz
Om.mm we H<HOB
mo.v I N mm I on
NN.mm mH mv I ow
mm.mN I MH mm I on
om.om mH mm I ON
vo.N H OH I OH

mmwmaamoamm acHaaoHaumHo mwama maccm

 

 

 

 

.mwchcm3 aHmnu amam

M

ammm mac cmummu HH macaw aH mmHmaco Ho mmaoom xmwaH acme achU amncmaH .OO mHnt

 

181

 

OOINH mwamm.

Nv.HH acHUMH>mc caccamam

O0.00 ammz
O0.00 Ov Hayes
OO.¢ N OO I OO
ON.OH .O OO I OO
NN.OO OH Ov I Ov
O0.00 . OH OO I OO
ON.NH O ON I ON
NH.O O . OH I OH

mmwmuamoamm acHuanHaumHo . mwama macom

 

 

 

. manage: aacfi
amums ammm mac omumma HH macaw aH mmHmacc Ho nmaocn xmcaH acHaoHpmam acHoo .vO mHnms

182

The Locke-Wallace Test was administered to all groups
on the follow-up. It is very much a subjective assessment
of how the marriage is functioning. It was remarkable just
how many persons indicated they were "perfectly happy" on
item 1, of the test.

Groups II and III are very close in the distribution
of scores as outlined on Table 35. Group I evidently
contained a number of supremely optimistic couples which
pushed up the group mean. For some reason, a number of
'pecple evidently felt that they had to express having reached
perfection. This is partly due to a fear of expressing
negatives, which some persons view as loveless attacks
upon the spouse. No doubt others had the wish to keep
their marriage completely private from outsiders.

The Satisfaction in Marriage Test was added to the
follow-up battery for Groups II and III when it was observed
that the follow-up questionnaires received from Group I
couples were overly glowing: they were just too good to be
true! ,

The Satisfaction in Marriage Test is actually Edmonds'
Marital Conventionalization Test under a disguised name
[Edmonds, gt al., 1967]. The distribution of scores depicted
on Table 36 show that Group III couples tended to give even
more conventional responses than did couples in Group II.
The banality of some of the test items elicited grafiti

from several subjects.

183

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NHOIOOH OHOIOOH OHOINNH mwamm

O0.00 O0.0N OH.Ov acHamH>mo

oamoamam

OO.NON OO.vON O0.00N ammz

O0.00H N0.00H O0.00 OO «O OO Hmaoa
OO.N OH.O NO.HN O O NH OHO I OOO
OO.NH OO.vH H0.0H N «H O OON I OON
O0.0N O0.0N O0.0H O «N HH ONN I OON
OO.NN O0.00 O0.0N IHH ON OH OON I OON
O0.0H OO.vH O0.0H O OH O OON I ONN
O0.0H O0.0 ON.N . v O a OHN I OON
.. OO.H NO.H .. H H OOH I OOH
OO.N OH.N NO.H H N H ONH I OOH
.. OO.H .. .. H .. OOH I OOH
.. .. NO.H .. .. H OOH I ONH

HHH HH H HHH HH H
macaw macaw macaw macaw macaw macaw mwcma maoom
mmwmuamcamm acHaanHaamHo
.maHmascHummaw

maIchHcm ms» ca waHoacmmma mmHmaco Ho

mmacom xmoaH acme mcaHHa3ImxocH

.mm mHnma

184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«OHIOH ONHIOH mwamm
O0.00 NO.NO soHumH>mc camoamam
O¢.OHH OO.NHH ammz
O0.00H N0.00H OO OO H4908
OH.O .. N .. OOH I OOH
OO.NH O0.0 N O ONH I OOH
H0.0N HH.OO IO ON OOH I OOH
NO.NH HN.NH O OH OOH I ONH
ON.OH ON.OH O OH OHH I OOH
OO.N O0.0H O OH OO I OO
OO.N Oe.O O O ON I OO
ON.OH O0.0 O O OO I ov
OH.O O0.0 N O OO I ON
OO.N OO.H H H OH I O
HH macaw H macaw HH macaw H macaw
mmaocm
mmwcuamcamm acHuanHaamHo
.maHmaacHuwmaw maIsoHHcH
map cu waHoaommma mmHmacc mo mmaoom xmosH umma mwsHaamz aH acHuomOmHamm .OO mHnma

185

Data Gathered But Not Used in This Study
Group I

Individuals were asked to predict how their finace
would fill out both parts of the Marital Roles Inventory.
When couples were tested it was found that many people did
not know what to do, or if they did, found the test very
provoking. Some persons were observed to be c0pying their
own responses on the Marital Roles Inventory, and using
their scores as a verbatum estimate of their partner's.
These factors suggest that the test results would be of
guesticnable value, hence, they will not be reported on
in this thesis. .

Data gathered on the Engagement Success Inventory was
also not used for different reasons. The ESI has been used
by many researchers, and its value well documented. In
light of the need to curtail the cost of this project, the

body of data was set aside for future study.

Groups I, II, III
The responses on the Primary Communication Inventory
used in the follow-up section of this project were set
aside for later use. Although the PCI appeared to be a
useful measure of certain aspects of communication, the
data was set aside to help in cost economy.
The-testing of several of the hypotheses has also been

reserved for later study for the same reason.

 

186

Group IV
Analysis of the underage, clinical group was also set
aside for reasons of project expense. It is hoped that
the data already gathered will be usable as the basis for

a future longitudinal study of couples in this age category.

Groups V, VI, VII

In examining the findings from Groups I, II, and III,
it was decided that they were sufficient for the purposes
of this project. Thus the control group data was also set
'aside for use at a later date. The control group data
could have provided an interesting comparison with the ex-
perimental groups. However, the control groups had not been
tested prior to marriage so the comparison could not be
complete. Using control group data would have markedly
increased the complexity and expense of the research, thus

practical considerations also suggested cutthugback the

scope of this project.

CHAPTER XIII
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The hypotheses will be presented in numbered order,

each followed, where appropriate, by interpretative comments.

 

The reader is directed to the correlation matrixes (Tables
37 - 41) for summaries of the statistical findings. Table
'37 covers both the pre-marriage and follow-up data for Group

I Tables 38 and 40 refer to Group II; and Tables 38 and

‘0

4leresent the data for Group III, the New Zealand sample.

Readers can bear in mind that the research project
was designed to measure the marriage adjustment of couples
not individuals, so for example, when discussing the rela-
tionship of the age factor to pre-marriage adjustment, it
will be the couple's averaged age that will be the factor
under observation.

The scope of this project was again limited by the
cost factor. Thus some hypotheses have been set aside for
later examination. These are listed in order, and desig-
nated as being reserved for later analysis.

The results of the New Zealand sample are restricted
in the follow-up phase by a time factor. It was only
possible to follow-up the first 45 couples originally

tested. There was however, a very high rate of return.

187

Table 37.

188

Index scores.

Group I Correlation Matrix for independent
variables, Pre-marital Index and Follow-up

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-marital Follow-up Locke-
Marital Roles Marital Roles Wallace
Inventory Inventory Test
Index Index Index
Average age -.1327*
.056
Age difference -.l442
.042
Length of -.0115
-engagement ns
Length of +.0084
acquantanceship ns .
Religious —.0344 -.1228 -.3770
difference ns ns .002
Average -.l7l4
education .020
Happiness of +.1542
parent's marriage .033
Happiness of +.ll40
childhodd ns
Parental approval -.l405
.047
Socioeconomic ~.0522 -.ll77 +.0905
Status Index ns ns ns
Pre-marital MRI -.0074
ns
Follow-up MRI -.0074 +.0993
ns ns

 

*In Tables 37 - 41,

the correlation value between two

items is listed, with the level of significance listed

below.

Where the level of significance is below .05,

ns indicates that the correlation is not significant.

Table 38.

189

Group II Correlation Matrix for independent variables and
Pre-uarital Index scores.

 

 

 

 

DB

 

 

 

Marital Pirancial LIBcher (blor
Ibles Priorities Color - Pre—
Inventory Inventory Test diction
Index Index Index Index
Average age -.l485 +.1622 -.0096 +.0605
.028 .019 ns ns
Age difference -.0906 -.0321 +.060l +.0889
ns ns ns ns
Length of -.l436 -.0104 -.0699 -.1638
engagalent .033 ns us .017
Length of --.0144 -.O934 -.0063 -.1057
acquaintanceship ns ns ns ns
mligious +.1137 \ +.l3‘75 +.0590 -.0632
difference ns .039 ns ns
Average -.1279 +.l988 -.0832 -.1210
edmation . 051 . 005 ns . 060
Happiness of +.0702 -.2088 -.0118 -.0432
parent's narriage ns .004 ns ns
Ihppiness of -.O447 -.1054 +. 1120 +.1138
childhood ns ns ns ns
Parental — . 0816 -. 0877 - . 1200 - . 1477
approval ns ns .062 .029
Socioeconomic -.0001 -.1562 . -.
Status Index ns .031
Erica]. Roles . -.1166 -.0495 +.085‘7
Inventcry Index ns ns ns
Financial Priorities -.1166 . -.1054 -.1008
Inventory Index ns ns ns
Test Index ns ns .001
Color Prediction +.0857 —.1008 +. 3683 . .
Index ns .001

 

 

190

We 39. Group III Correlation Matrix for independent variablesand

Pre-marital Index scores .

 

 

 

Marital Financial Luscher Color
Rules Priorities Color Pre-
Inventory Inventory Test diction
Index Index Index Index
Average age +.0348 -.0096 -.1435 -.0133
ns ns ns ns
Age difference -.0244 -.0892 -.1070 +.0648
ns ns ns ns
Length of -.0243 -.1659 +.0224 +.0863
engagement ns .050 ns ns
Length of -.0001 +.0645 +.1708 -.0627
acquaintanceship ns ns .044 ns
Religious +. 1727 +. 0458 +. 1215 -. 0897
difference .042 ns \ ns ns
Average -.1915 +.1181 +.0851 +.0239
education .028 ns ns ns
Happiness of +.0954 +.0095 -.0937 -.0277
parent's narriage ns ns ns ns
Happiness of -.0921 +. 2556 -.1698 +.0473
chilcmood ns .005 .045 ns
Parental -.l675 +.0263 +.0205 -.1482
approval .047 ns ns ns
Socioeoommlc -.1380 -.0587 .
Statm Index ns ns
MRI Index . -.2598 +.0565 +.1859
.005 ns .031
FPI Index -.2598 . +.0480 +.1684
.005 ns .048
121‘ Index +.0565 +.0480 +.1417
ns ns ns
CP Index +.1859 +.1684 +.l417 .
.048 ns

 

.031

 

 

 

 

Table 40.

191

Group II Correlation Matrix for Follow-up Index scores, and
their relationship to selected Premarital Index scares and

independent variables.

 

 

Follow-up Testing Indexes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ltscher Color Marital locke- Satisfaction
Color Pre- Ibles Wallace in Marriage
Test diction Inventory Test Test
Index - Index Index Index Index
Pre-marriage Indexes
101' Index +.4453 . . +.2047 -.1072 -.1316
.001 .024 ns ns
CP Index . . +.1639 +.2107 -.2288 +.0177
ns .021 .013 ns
'F'PI' Index . . . . -.1616 +.1052 -.1256
ns ns ns
MRI Index . . . . .+.2015 . . .
.026~
Independent variables
meioeconomic . . . . +.0559 -.0757 +.0948
Stains Index ns ns ns
mligious . . . +.O468 -.0133 -.2565
difference ns ns .007
Follow-up Indexes
F—MRI Index +.1816 +.2060 . . -.l758 -.0064
ns ‘ us .046 ns
L-W Index -.3415 -.2330 -.l758 . . +.4598
.008 .054 .046 >.001
SIM Index -.2743 -.0685 -.0064 +.4598
.030 ns ns >.001
121‘ Index . . +.3909 +.1816 -.3415 -.2743
.003 ns .008 .030
GP Index +.3909 . . +.2060 +.2060 -.0685
.003 ns ns ns

 

Table 41.

Group III Correlation Matrix for Follow-up Index

scores, and their relationship to selected Pre-
marital Index scores and independent variables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow-up Testing Indexes
Marital Locke- Satisfaction
Roles Wallace in Marriage
Inventory Test Test
Index Index Index
Pre-marriage Indexes
LCT Index +.0254 -.1132 -.1236
ns ns ns
CP Index -.0032 +.0217 +.2068
- ns ns ns
Financial
Priorities -.2398 +.1645 -.0470
Inventory Index ns \ns ns
MRI Index +.5112
.001
Independent variables
Socioeconomic -.2483 +.2058 -.0022
Status Index ns ns ns
ZReligious +.1974 -.1027 -.1667
difference ns ns ns
Follow-up Indexes
F-MRI Index . . -.4952 -.3810
.001 .012
ZL-W Index -.4952 . +.6845
.001 >.001
SIM Index -.3810 +.6845 . .
.012 >.001

 

193

Findings on the whole group follow-up will be reported in a
forth-coming paper. Despite the reduced group size, the
findings are still significant, and make a substantial

contribution to this thesis.

The Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis 1

There will be a positive relationship between age and
pre-marital adjustment.

This hypothesis was tested by correlating the couple's
'mean age (simple average of the man's and the woman's ages)
with their Marital Roles Inventory Index (MRI Index). The
findings are contradictory. For the‘United States groups
it appears that chronological maturity is an asset in pre-
marriage adjustment. The New Zealand group shows the
reverse, although the results are below the level of

significance.

Hypothesis 2

Length of acquaintanceship before marriage will be
positively associated with pre-marriage adjustment.

The couple's length of acquaintanceship was determined
by averaging the time estimate given by the two partners.
This figure was in turn correlated with their MRI Index.

In all three groups this factor was found to be non-signi-
ficant in pre-marriage adjustment. A suggestion that time

in a relationship has little bearing on relationship growth.

194

This is in keeping with Kirkpatrick and Hobart's earlier

findings [1954].

Hypothesis 3

Length of engagement will be positively associated
with pre-marriage adjustment.

The averaged length of engagement was correlated with
the couple's MRI Index. Only in Group II was the length
of engagement found to be a significant element in pre-
marriage adjustment, and then only at the .033 level of
'significance. This adds continuing emphasis to the validity

of Kirkpatrick and Hobart's research mentioned above.

\

Hypothesis 4

There will be an inverse relationship between having
a child in the first year of marriage, and adjustment in
marriage.

This hypothesis was only examined for Group II as
‘this group had a high level of return, and the greatest
number of couples with children. The Follow-up MRI Index
(F-MRI Index) scores of couples with children were compared
vtith the Indexes of childless couples. A one-way ANOVA was
‘calculated and a significant difference found between the
groups. The presence of children in early marriage is
associated with lower adjustment. This is in line with
Bernard's [1973] conclusions from surveying research
:findings of other investigators. LeMasters [1957] and

<rthers have noted that the birth of the first child is a

 

195

crisis. Lang [1932] pointed out that this is especially
so if the child is born in the first two years of the
marriagei

Specifically, in this test, the Indexes on the child-
less couples were calculated on a form of the Marital Roles
Inventory using only nine items for the men, and eight
for the women. Hence the index scores of the couples
with children were interpolated before calculations were
made to ensure comparability of data.
'Table 42. Summary of findings contrasting the adjustment

of couples with children against the adjustment
of couples without children.

\

 

 

 

 

Sum of Sum of

Mean Sum of scores squared
Category Number score scores squared scores
No children 74 99.68 7376 54405376 767750
Children 19 113.05 . 2148 4613904 255878
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
variation squares freedom square F
Between 2702.49 1 2702.49
Within 45582.94 91 500.91 5.395

.97531.91-5.22

 

196

Hypothesis 5

There will be an inverse relationship between having
a child in the first year of marriage, and satisfaction in
marriage..

The Group II couples who responded to the follow-up
were divided into those with a child, and those without.
The Locke-Wallace Index (L-W Index) scores of the two groups
were compared on a one-way ANOVA. The results were un-
remarkable: an F test score of .03. This suggests that
the subjective satisfaction of couples, with or without
‘children, is similar; Provided one realizes that the L-w
Index scores are heavily influenced by a person's proclivity
to respond to such test items in a highly conventionalized
way.
Table 43. The satisfaction of couples with their marriages.

A comparison between couples with a child, and
childless couples.

 

 

Sum of Sum of
Mean Sum of scores squared
Category Number‘ score scores squared scores

 

No children 74 254.38 18824 354342970 4809000

 

 

Children 19 253.58 4818 23213124 1248284
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean

variation squares freedom square F
Between 9.677 1 9.677 .031

Within 28598.802 91 314.273

 

 

197

Hypothesis 6

Entering an interfaith marriage will be negatively
related to pre-marriage adjustment.

The groups were divided into couples marrying within
their faith, versus those involved in an interfaith marriage,
and the MRI Index scores of the two sub-groups compared.

The results suggest that religious difference is not a
factor to be reckoned with in the pre-marriage adjustment

of the two United States groups. However, the New Zealand
couples show the opposite: a religious difference in New
Zealand (a more traditional-oriented culture than the United

States) is detrimental before marriage.

5

Hypothesis 7.

Interfaith marriages will not be different in level
of adjustment from same faith marriages.

To assess the significance of the interfaith factor
on marital adjustment, the couples were divided into two
groups: those who entered an interfaith union, and those
*who were of the same faith. The F-MRI Index scores of the
two groups were compared. The results are uniform:
religious difference is not a significant factor in adjust-

:ment.one year after the wedding. The hypothesis is rejected.

Hypothesis 8
Interfaith marriages will not be different in level

of satisfaction from same faith marriages.

 

198

A similar procedure to that used in testing hypothesis
7 was followed, except that the Locke-Wallace Index (L-W
Index) scores were used:h1place of the F-MRI Index scores.
As an additional test, the religious factor was also
correlated with the Satisfaction in Marriage Index (SIM
Index) for Groups II and III.

The results are confusing at first glance. The L-W
Index scores for Groups II and III are not significantly
related to absense of religious difference. However, for
Group I there is a high level of significance (.002),
suggesting that sameness of religion adds to the marital
satisfaction of one group. .

The SIM Index used with Group II links similarity
of religious background with the tendency to give Conven-
tional answers. The level of significance is .007. This
appears to substantiate Edmonds [1967] findings that
religiosity is connected to conventionalization, and, in
tour findings, to Midwest American Catholicism.

In New Zealand, where the sample had a very low
proportion of Catholics, religious difference was not found
to be related to satisfaction as measured by either

indicator.

Hypothesis 9
Frequent church attendance by both partners will be
jpositively related to marriage adjustment.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

199

Hypothesis 10
Frequent church attendance by both partners will be
positively related to marital satisfaction.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

Hypothesis ll

Homogamy of socioeconomic background will be positively
associated with pre-marriage adjustment.

To approach this hypothesis, the couple's Socioeconomic
Status Index (SES Index) was correlated with their MRI
S‘Index. The question implicit in this is, "Does socioeconomic
background play a part in pre—marriage adjustment?" An
examination of the matrixes answers the question in the
negative. Since, as Glass [1954] has noted, the majority
of persons do not marry outside their social status group,
this result is not surprising. However, there was a range

of index scores on this factor, but they appear to be of

no influence prior to marriage.

Hypothesis 12
Homogamy of socioeconomic background will be positvely
associated with marital adjustment.
The testing procedure follows that employed for
Hypothesis 11, except that the F-MRI Indexes were used.
As anticipated, no significant correlation was found between
the two variables. Possibly, the factor of socioeconomic

status difference does not exert disruptive pressure on a

200

marriage until the marriage has endured for several years,
or there are school-age children to discipline and prepare

for life outside the home.

Hypothesis 13
Homogamy of socioeconomic background will be
positively associated with marital satisfaction.
The L-W Index scores were correlated with the SES
Index scores to test the validity of this hypothesis. As
an additional approach, the SES Indexes were also tested
.against the SIM Indexes. All correlations produced were

not significant hence the hypothesis was rejected.

\

Hypothesis l4 ‘

Where the averaged intra-couple educational level
is more than twelve years this level of achievement will
be positively associated with pre-marriage adjustment.

The simple average of the couple's years of education
was plotted against their MRI Index scores. The hypothesis
was sustained for Groups I and II, more education being
associated with lower, and hence better MRI Indexes.
However, the hypothesis was rejected for the New Zealand
group. This could be a reflection of the fact that there
was, in general, less difference in level of education
between the spouses. The similarity in educational level
could have functioned to reduce its importance as a deter-

mining factor in pre-marriage adjustment.

201

Hypothesis 15

Reported happiness of parent's marriages will be.
positively related to pre—marriage adjustment of the
subjects.

Within each group, couples were divided into two
sub-groups. The first group contained only couples in
which both partners said their parents' marriages were
"very happy" or "happy." The second sub-group contained
couples in which one or both partners said their parents'-
.marriages were "average," "unhappy" or "very unhappy.”

The MRI Indexes of the two sub-groups were correlated
for each of the three groups.

I The findings were significant only for Group I, and
at the .033 level. For those couples the adjustment of
their parents was associated with their pre-marriage adjust-
"ment. The fact that this was not found for Groups II and
III raises into question the general expectation that the
happiness of parent's marriages is associated with the
mariatal adjustment. of young couples. If this were so, it
would be reasonable to expect a consistent positive effect
on pre-marriage adjustment. Perhaps the findings of other
researchers reflect the tendency of couples to describe their
parent's marriages as “happy" out of respect--and a life-
time of being punished if caught criticizing parents.

The few who are Openly ciritical of their parent's marriages
may also be the same persons who have difficulties of their

own, hence the often-found relationship between the two.

 

202

However, the converse is not valid: absense of observed
unhappiness is not evidence of happiness, and reporting
the absense by labelling it happiness could easily be an
aspect of conventional behavior rather than clarity of
reporting.' With so many divorces occuring, it is hard to
believe that most, if not almost all young people, come

from homes where their parents are truly happily married.

Hypothesis 16

Reporting happiness in childhood will be positively

'related to pre-marriage adjustment.

The population was divided into sub-groups, the
first of which contained couples in which both partners
described their childhoods as "very happy" or "happy."
The second sub-group was composed of couples in which one
or both partners said they had had "about average,"
"unhappy" or "very unhappy" childhoods. The MRI Indexes

of the two groups were compared. This hypothesis was

rejected for all three groups. The criticisms of previous

researcher's conclusions mentioned in the discussion of

Hypothesis 15 are again pertinent.

Hypothesis 17

Parental approval prior to marriage will be positively

associated with pre-marriage adjustment.
The procedure used in testing Hypotheses 15 and 16

was again employed. The population was divided into

203

sub-groups, one for couples:h1which both sets of parents
approved of the marriage, and the other for unions dis-
approved of by one or more parents. This dichotomous
variable was correlated with the couple's MRI Indexes.

This factor was found to be significant for Group
I (.047 level of significance) and Group III (also .047
level of significance),- thus sustaining the hypothesis.
Group II's correlation was not significant. As the level
of significance was not very high for Groups I and III, it
is reasonable to question Udry's [1966] earlier findings
that this factor is one of the two pre-marriage factors
associated with marital happiness. If the factor does not
make a big difference before the marriage, is it necessary
to assume a reversal after the wedding? It is conceivable
that well educated couples in the 19705 are less worried

by adverse parental opinions than were former generations.

Hypothesis 18
Reporting difficulty with the in-laws will be positive-
ly related to parental disapproval of the marriage prior
to the marriage.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

Hypothesis 19
Reporting difficulty with the in-laws will be inversely
related to marital adjustment.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

204

Hypothesis 20
Reporting difficulty with the in-laws will be

inversely related to marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis 21

There will be a curvilinear relationship between age
difference and pre-marriage adjustment.

To test this hypothesis, the woman's age in each
couple was subtracted from the man's age. The resultant ’
figure was correlated with the couple's MRI Index. Only
'for Group I were the findings significant enough to warrant
comment. The hypothesis was sustained at the .042 level,
and lends credence to Burr's [1973] theorized positive rela-
tionship between low age difference and marital satisfaction.
In this study, although age difference is tested against a
different aspect of marital adjustment, in this case, the
pre-marriage adjustment of couples, the findings are in the
same direction as Burr suggested. Confirmation of the
hypothesis would have been more forthright had the degree
of significance of the findings been much more resounding,

and evident in all three groups.

Hypothesis 22
Complimentary rank order and sex position will be
positively related to pre-marriage adjustment.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

205

Hypothesis 23
There will be a positive relationship between
similarity in size of family of origin, and a couple's
pre-marriage adjustment:

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

Hypothesis 24
'There will be no difference in pre-marriage adjust-
ment between couples in which both are from small families,
and couples where both are from large families.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

Hypothesis 25
There will be a positive relationship between
Engagement Success Inventory scores, and satisfaction scores
as measured by the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test
in the follow-up study.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

Hypothesis 26.

There will beaapositive relationship between adjust-
ment scores gained on the pre-marriage testing, and adjust-
ment scores gained on the follow-up.

A straight comparison of MRI and F-MRI Indexes was
employed in putting this hypothesis to the test. The
findings were puzzling. The hypothesis was rejected for
Group I, sustained for Group II at the .026 level and at‘

the .001 level of confidence for Group III. This

 

 

 

206

discrepency is less puzzling when the factor of children in
marriage is considered. Only one of the 39 New Zealand
couples follow-up in Group III had a child. Nineteen of
the 93 couples in Group II and 11 of the 55 in Group I
responding to the follow-up had children. The ratio of
couples with children is eight times greater for the
American couples. Referring back to Hypothesis 4, where

the presence of children was found to lower marital adjust-
ment, partially explains the discrepency between the results
of the various groups. .No reasonable explanation has been

found for the wide discrepency between Groups I and II.

Hypothesis 27~
Satisfaction in marriage will be positively associated
with the husband having a normative role performance.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

Hypothesis 28
Satisfation in marriage will be positively associated
with the husband having normative role expectations.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

Hypothesis 29
Satisfaction in marriage will be negatively related to
role strain.

This hypothesis was set aside for later examination.

207

Hypothesis 30

Satisfaction in marriage will be positively associated
with both husband and wife having normative and mutually
consistent role expectations and performances.

The reader will note that this hypothesis is a
global hypothesis encompassing Hypotheses 27, 28 and 29.

In this particular hypothesis, the question under
test is "Do subjective satisfaction and objectively assessed
adjustment go together?" The process used in testing wa3~
‘twofold: first the F-MRI Index scores were correlated with
the L-W Index scores. Additionally for Groups II and III
the F-MRI Indexes were compared with the SIM Indexes.

The hypothesis was rejected for Group I: apparently
satisfaction in marriage was not related to marital role
adjustment. For Group II, the hypothesis was sustained at
the .046 level; for Group III the validation was much
stronger, at the .001 level. However, for both groups,
the L-W Indexes and the SIM Indexes correlated at better
than .001, the strongest relationships found in this entire
study. The research of Edmonds [1967] suggested that highly
conventionalized modes of responding on marital satisfaction
questionnaires actually masked poor adjustment. This is
supported by the findings in this study. For Group II,
the F-MRI Index and L-W Index correlation drops in signifi-
cance from .046 to non-significant for the F-MRI and SIM
Indexes. It is reasonable to suggest that conventionalized

responding, and the myth that children always add happiness

 

208

to a marriage, account for the initial hypothesis-sustaining
results found for Group II. The contrast between "no
children” (Group III) and "some children" (Group II) is
evident. .For Group III the comparable drop in significance
is from .001-to .012.

The actual satisfaction erodes when conventionaliza-
tion is taken into account. The trend in Group III is

similar to that found in Group II, but because children have

 

not intervened to shatter illusions, the relationship
between the conventional response of "satisfied," and
actual adjustment remains. In all probability, the child-
less couples are satisfied with marriage whereas the
couples with children are dissatisfied with the stress of
family life. A re-examination of Tables 26 - 29 points to
the fact that the presence of children has the effect of
turning husbands away from the companionship of marriage
to the instrumental role of wage earner. This change

of focus coming as it does at the time when the family
unit undergoes a fifty percent increase in size cannot

but have an adverse effect.

Hypothesis 31
The modal color choice patterns of men, and of women,
will not differ from the ideal color choice pattern.
As a prelude to testing this hypothesis, each subject's
color choices were compared with Luscher's Ideal order. In

no instance did a person choose colors in the ideal order,

209

thus substantially rejecting the hypothesis. However, when
the men's and women's deviations from ideal (modal
difference) scores were calculated, the results decidedly
confirmed Warner's [1949] and Walton's [1933] earlier find-
ings that sex of respondent is a significant factor in
color choice.

Table 44. Color choice scores of subjects as differentiated
by sex of subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group II Group III

Men Women Men Women
Number 166 166 . 101 101
Mean
deviation
score 16.71 14.29 17.64 15.11
Standard
deviation 4.83 4.25 4.86 4.37
Range 8-32 2-26 6-28 6-30
Degrees of
freedom* \ 16 14
Chi Square
value 34.56630 30.40688
Significance .0046 .0067

 

 

 

*Some of the cells remained empty when scores were
distributed, hence the difference in degrees of free-
dom for the two groups.

Following Luscher and others, the difference in the color

choice patterns is seen as reflecting a difference in

 

210

disposition between men and women, and also, the suggestion
that men either habitually experience more stress internally
than do women, or the men are more stressed than women as
marriage is approached. If the latter is true their stress
is unwarranted: men who marry are in better health not only
than men who do not marry, but also in better health than
the women they marry. Marriage is a good bargain for men:

not so for women [Bernard, 1973].

Hypothesis 32
Deviant color choice scores before marriage
will be positively related with low pre-marriage adjustment.
To test this hypothesis, the LCT and MRI Indexes of
couples in Groups II and III were correlated. The results
*were non-significant for both groups, suggesting that
pre-marital personality stress as measured by the LCT is

not related to pre-marriage adjustment. The' hypothesis

was rejected .

Hypothesis 33

Deviant color choice scores will be positively
associated with reporting an unhappy childhood.

The designation of "unhappy childhood" included all
couples in which one or both partners said their childhood
*was "very unhappy,” "unhappy" or "about average." When the
LCT Index scores of those couples were compared with those
of’the ”happy childhood" couples the results for Group II

couples were not significant. For Group III, however, there

211

was a negative correlation, significant at the .045 level,
sustaining the hypothesis for the New Zealand couples. For
the latter, unhappiness early in life is detrimentally

associated with pre-marriage adjustment.

Hypothesis 34

Deviant color choice scores will be positively asso-
ciated with reporting that the subject's parents had an
unhappy marriage.

”Unhappy marriage" was defined as it was fOr Hypothesis
'15. Since the correlation for both groups was non-signifi-
cant, the hypothesis is rejected. As has been commented
upon previously, it is difficult to get people to evaluate
their parents' marriages: reSponses are almost all the
uniform statement that ”everything was beautiful." This
factor, the condition of the parent's marriage, is not
likely to show a clear relationship with subject's marriage
until a better way of assessing a person's recollection of

the past has been established.

Hypothesis 35
There will be a positive relationship between devia-
tion in color choice and the birth of a child in the first
year of marriage.
This hypothesis was only tested on the Group II
couples who were personally visited for the follow-up. The

LCT Indexes of those couples with children were compared,

212

using a one-way ANOVA, with the Indexes of couples without

children.

Table 45.‘ Summary of findings contrasting the personality
stress of couples, as measured by the Luscher
Color Test, with the presence of a child in the
first year of marriage.

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of sum of
Mean Sum of scores squared

Category Number score scores squared scores
No children 36 34.67 1248 1557504 45664
-Children 12 35.33 424 179776 16160
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
variation squares freedom square F
Between 3.92 1 3.920 .050
Within 3578.60 46 77.795

 

The F test result is of no significance, hence the hypothesis
is rejected. This result may appear to contradict Hypothesis
4 in which it was established that the birth of a child in
the first year of marriage did decrease marital adjustment.
However, the MRI is, to exaggerate a contrast, the measure

of instrumental adjustment, whereas the LCT gauges affective
adjustment to stress. Since in Hypothesis 36 we will find
that LCT Indexes are relatively stable between the initial
and follow-up testings, it can be deduced that a child

disrupts mostly the instrumental adjustment of its parents.

213

This type of impact of a child on marriage has been docu-

mented by Imig [1971].

Hypothesis 36

There will be a positive relationship between color
test scores recorded on the pre-marriage test, and those
recorded on the follow—up.

Once again, it was only possible to evaluate this
hypothesis for those Group II couples who were personally
visited for the follow-up. A positive correlation of .4453
'was recorded between the LCT Index and the Follow-up LCT
Index (F-LCT Index), significant at the .001 level of

\

confidence. .

That this hypothesis was sustained at such a high
level of confidence suggests that intra- and interpersonal
stress is consistent over time, even when such a stressful
event as a wedding intervenes between the two testing
sessions.

It is also possible to deduce that couples establish
a relationship theme for intra- and interpersonal stress
managementwhich is consistent over time. Additionally,
the results point to corroborating the folk-lore tale to

the effect that marriage doesn't change a person, but

brings him or her into clearer focus.

214

Hypothesis 37

There will be a positive association between color
test scores before marriage, and satisfaction as measured
on the follow-up.

For both Groups II and III the couples' pre-marriage
LCT Indexes were compared with both their Locke-Wallace and
Satisfaction in Marriage Indexes. In all instances the
correlations were not significant. The hypothesis was
rejected.

This suggests that pre-marriage personality stress,
as measured by the Luscher Color Test has little to do

with subjective satisfaction one year after the wedding.

\

Hypothesis 38

There will be a positive association between color
test scores recorded before marriage, and adjustment
measured on the follow-up.

The testing of this hypothesis was carried out by
correlating the LCT Indexes against the F-MRI Indexes.
:For Group II the correlation of +.2047 was significant at
the .024 level, and sustained the hypothesis. The inter-
pretation is clear: early marriage adjustment is associated
‘with low personality stress prior to marriage.

For the New Zealand group the findings were different.
The correlation was not significant, suggesting that early
:marriage adjustment is less related to stress prior to the

wedding .

215

The difference between the two groups again appears

to be culturally, and/Or religiously influenced.

Hypothesis 39

There will be a positive relationship between empathy
and pre-marriage adjustment.

The Color Prediction Index (CP Index) and MRI Index
scores of each couple in Groups II and III were correlated
to test this hypothesis. Since the relationship was non-
significant for Group II, the hypothesis was rejected.
'However, there was a significant correlation (.031 level)
for Group III, suggesting that empathy and pre-marriage
adjustment are related. \ p

As will be expounded in the discussion of Hypothesis
40, there is a key difference hithe apparent empathic
ability of the American and the New Zealand women surveyed
in this study. Taking the results at face value only,
.American women are relatively lacking in empathy--the
ability to stand in the shoes of another--which would dis-
rupt the process of adjustment, hence, the results for
Group II couples. The New Zealand sample, in this instance
relying on the combined empathic ability of men and women
shows the expected relationship of empathy and adjustment.
Can.it be said that many an American marriage ends in di-
'vorce, at least in part, because lacking empathic balance,

‘the marriage never gathers enough relationship momentum to

succeed?

216

Hypothesis 40

There will be no difference in the empathic ability
of men and women.

In this study, empathy was measured by comparing
Subject A's guess of Subject B's color choice pattern. Pre-
vious studies, discussed in Chapter VI of this thesis, were
in aggregate inconclusive as to whether men and women were
equal in the ability of exercising empathy. Thefindings
on the individual empathy scores for Group II and Group III
participants are summarized in Table 46.

Table 46. Empathy scores on the Luscher Color Test as
differentiated by sex of subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group II Group III

Men A Women Men Women
Number 166 166 101 101
Mean
deviation
score 15.52 17.38 16.86 I 17.90
Standard
deviation 5.74 5.82 5.67 6.53
Range 2-32 4-32 6-30 2-32
Degrees of
freedom* 20 18
Chi Square
value 32.81946 18.80362
Significance .0353 .4040

3Some ofthe cells remained empty when scores were

distributed, hence the difference in degrees of free-
dom for the two groups.

217

This finding is interesting. It appears that the empathic
ability of New Zealand men and women are equivalent.

For the American sample, however, the men are apparently
much more perceptive than the women (low mean deviation
score indicates high ability). This accounts for the
finding of significant difference in the abilities of the
men and women in Group II. This result has to be examined
carefully. Empathy is a two-way street: one person gives
out signals which the other receives. In this context,
the results depicted above indicate that women give out
clear signals which the men can tune into, but, the men's
signals about themselves are less clear, harder for the
‘women to perceive. Hence, the empathic system is out of

balance.

Hypothesis 41

There will be a positive relationship between empathy
and marital adjustment.

The data to test this hypothesis was gathered only
on the 48 couples tested personally in the follow-up study.
A non-significant correlation of +.2060 was recorded and
the hypothesis rejected. This replicates the findings of
the pre-marriage situation for the American couples. It is
interesting to also note that the mean adjustment of
American couples is considerably lower than the New Zealand
couples--couples who possibly profited from their balance
of empathic skills prior to marriage (See also Table 30,

p. 176).

218

Hypothesis 42

There will be a positive relationship between empathy
and marital satisfaction.

There are two parts to the testing of this hypothesis.
Firstly, the F-CP Index scores of the 48 couples of Group
II personally follow-up were correlated with their L-W
Index scores. A correlation of .2330, significant at the
.054 level was recorded. Although below the acceptable
level of .05, it is worthy of comment.

Secondly, the F-CP Index scores were compared with
.the Satisfaction in Marriage Index (SIM Index) scores.

The correlation dropped to .0685. It has already been
reported (Hypothesis 30, p. 207) that the L-W and SIM
Indexes are very closely related. The fall off in relation-
ship shows that the empathy of this group--already of ques-
tionable strength-~may induce a pseudo-satisfaction which
itself disintegrates when conventionality is stripped away.
This type of finding recalls the writer's suggestion that
conventional patterns, productive of a convenience syndrome
marriage (Chapter VI, p. 96), are those lacking in the uti-

lization of empathy.

Hypothesis 43
Pre-marriage empathy will be positively associated
with marital adjustment.
This hypothesis was evaluated by correlating the pre-

marriage CP Index scores with the F-MRI Index scores.

219

In the instance of Group II, the hypothesis was
sustained at the .021 level. Evidently empathy before
marriage is associated with later adjustment.

By contrast, the results for Group III were below
the accepted level of significance. It appears that for
the New Zealand couples, empathy is of less importance.
This follows the parallel finding (Hypothesis 38) that pre-
marriage personality stress has less impact on the early
marital adjustment of New Zealand couples than has been
.found for the American couples. On the other hand, the
factor of pre-marriage adjustment, consensus on role priori-
ties, is more strongly associated with the later adjustment

of the New Zealand couples (Hypothesis 26).

Hypothesis 44

Pre-marriage empathy will be positively associated
with marital satisfaction.

Pre-marriage CP Indexes were compared with the two
measures of satisfaction: the Locke-WallaCe and Satisfaction
in Marriage Indexes. The only significant relationship
found was between the L-W and CP Indexes for Group II,
at the .013 level. This disappeared when compared with the
SIM Index, the measure of conventional responding to
marriage satisfaction items.

Despite the one significant correlation, the hypothesis
is rejected for both Groups II and III. The impression is

that empathy before marriage has little to do with later

220

satisfaction. This substantiates the writer's suggestion
that the infatuation syndrome (p. 96) is an impediment to

realistic marriage preparations.

Hypothesis 45

Dre-marriage empathy will be positively associated
with empathy measured on the follow-up.

Once again, our data is confined to that portion of
Group II tested in person for the follow-up. Couples'
CP and F-CP Indexes were compared. The correlation of
'.1639, below the acceptable level of significance leads to
rejection of this hypothesis. The above mentioned comments

regarding the quality of empathy, and its diminished value

for Group II couples, are applicable here also.

Hypothesis 46

Pre-marriage consensus in the area of financial
priorities will be positively associated with similarity
in socioeconomic status of the families of origin of
couple members.

The Financial Priorities Inventory was used in testing
both Groups II and III. The FPI Index is a "high score is
good" type of index, whereas the Socioeconomic Status Index
(SES Index) is bi-polar. A high positive SES Index indicates
that the man has a higher status background: a high negative
SE8 Index is found when the woman has the higher status

background.

221

A correlation of -.1562, significant at the .031 level
was recorded for Group II. The implication is that a pre-
marital relationship in which the wife is of higher status
is more productive than the opposite status relationship.

It is possible that a woman of higher status origin has

more bargaining influence, her needs are more valued because
of her pedigree, hence financial matters are handled more
Openly, allowing quicker achievement of consensus. Addition-
ally, a man who ”marries up" in a money-oriented society
.will be careful to establish his financial priorities and
status vis a vis his wife, lest she be seen as his patroness.

For Group III a non-significant correlation of
-.0587 was recorded. This is cause for rejection of the
hypothesis, and suggests that socioeconomic status was
less of a stumbling block in establishing financial priori-

ties consensus for the New Zealand couples.

Hypothesis 47

Pre-marriage consensus on financial priorities will
be positively associated with pre-marriage adjustment..

For the examination of this hypothesis, the FPI and
MRI Indexes were compared. The results for Group II were
a non-significant +.ll66, suggesting that consensus over
financial priorities may be separate from consensus over
marriage priorities at the pre-marriage stage of relationship.

Although the hypothesis is rejected for Group II, it

is strongly confirmed for Group III at the .005 level. The

222

correlation of -.2598 shows that financial priorities are
an integral part of pre-marriage adjustment for the New

Zealand couples.

Hypothesis 48

Pre-marriage consensus in the area of financial
priorities will be positively associated with length of
engagement.

Averaged length of engagement was correlated with
the couple's FPI Index to test the hypothesis. The results
'are not significant for Group II, thus rejecting the hypo-
thesis. The findings for Group III, in addition to reject-
ing the hypothesis, have an additional aspect. The correla-
tion of -.1659 is significant at the .050 level. This
suggests that, for the New Zealand sample, remaining too
long at the intermediate relationship stage of engagement
can be detrimental. Either the resultant tension is felt
in the area of financial planning-~or--those couples with
these apparent difficulties stay engaged longer in an effort

to resolve their differences.

Hypothesis 49
Pre-marriage scores on the Financial Priorities Inven-
tory will have a positive relationship with marital satis-
faction as measured on the follow-up.
Does pre-marriage agreement on financial priorities
have anything to do with early marital satisfaction, is the

question posed by this hypothesis. The answer here is no,

223

for both Groups II and III. This suggests that planning
finances prior to marriage may have little to do with the
satisfaction experienced during the first year of marriage.
In this respect the findings are in line with McCauley's
[1974]. She found that those who had problems in this area
in marriage had had them prior to the wedding. The pre-
marriage discussions did not improve later events. This

is a sobering finding.

Hypothesis 50

Pre-marriage scores on the Financial Priorities
Inventory will have a positive relationship with marital
adjustment as measured on the followrup.

For both Groups II and III, the hypothesis was reject-
ed. Pre-marriage consensus on financial priorities is
apparently unrelated to early marriage adjustment. Once
again the interpretation of this finding is that couples'
:money discussions prior to marriage have little effect on
the actual satisfaction or adjustment after the wedding.

Since money management is such a crucial factor in
:marriage adjustment and satisfaction, it would appear that
the couples in this study only discussed financial matters
superficially before marriage. Alternatively, an incredible
naiveness exists about the financial intricacies of marriage.
This means that what planning there was before marriage,
could not accomplish anticipatory planning that had any later

relevance.

224

The data for evaluating the validity of Hypotheses
51, 52, 53 and 54 was gathered from the 48 couples in Group
II visited in their homes for the follow-up testing. To
reduce the effect of intervening variables, only data on
the 36 couples who did not have children was considered
for this section of the study.

Prior to being given the questionnaires, couples were
asked who wanted to be the first one to be tested. Their
responses were recorded and later sub-divided into four
.groups depending upon who nominated who.

The groups are:
A. Husband nominated himself and was tested first.
8. Wife nominated herself and was tested first.

C. Husband nominated his wife and she was tested first.

D. Wife nominated her husband and he was tested first.

Hypothesis 51
There will be a positive relationship between color
test index scores, and the pattern of a partner volunteering
himself or herself to be the first person tested in the
couple.
A one-way ANOVA was calculated on the four groups of
F-LCT Indexes. The F value was not significant so the

hypothesis was rejected.

2

25

 

 

 

 

 

Table 47. The follow-up Luscher Color Test Indexes of
couples compared on the basis of which partner
volunteered to be first tested.

Sum of Sum of

Mean Sum of scores squared
Category Number score scores squared scores
Group A 10 37.20 372 138384 14480
Group B 5 31.20 156 24336 5168
Group C 7 34.86 244 59536 8752
Group D 14 34.00 476 226576 17264
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
variation squares freedom square F
Between 105.23 3 35.08
.495

Within 2269.29 32 70.92

 

Hypothesis 52

There will be a positive relationship between empathy,

and the pattern of a partner volunteering himself or herself

to be the first person tested in the couple.

A one-way ANOVA test was run on the F-CP Index scores,

comparing the four groups.

The F scores of 1.054 indicates

that relationship empathy and volunteering for testing are

not significantly connected.

226

Table 48. The follow—up Color Prediction Indexes of couples
compared on the basis of which partner volun-
teered to be first tested.

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Sum of
Mean Sum of scores squared

Category Number score scores squared scores
Group A 10 37.40 374 139876 14484
Group B 5 32.00 160 25600 5664
Group C 7 34.29 240 57600 10144
Group D 14 41.43 580 336400 25520
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
variation squares freedom squares F
Between 439.25 3 . 146.42

' 1.054
Within 4447.37 32 138.98

 

Hypothesis 53
There will be a positive relationship between
adjustment, and the pattern of a partner volunteering
himself or herself to be the first person tested in the
couple.
The F-MRI Index scores of the four groups were tested
with a one-way ANOVA test. The F test result of 1.96

resulted in rejection of the hypothesis.

227

Table 49. The follow-up Marital Roles Inventory Indexes
of couples compared on the basis of which partner
volunteered to be first tested.

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Sum of
Mean Sum of scores squared
Category Number score scores squares scores
Category A 10 107.40 1074 1153476 121556
Category B 5 84.40 422 178084 36436
Category C 7 96.57 676 456976 71112
Category D 14 103.71 1452 2108304 155824
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
variation. squares freedom square F
Between 2023.48 3‘ 676.49
1.96
Within 11060.53 32 345.64

 

Hypothesis 54

There will be a positive relationship between satis-
faction, and the pattern of a partner volunteering him-
self or herself to be the first person tested in the couple.

Two tests were calculated to assess the validity of
this hypothesis. The Locke-Wallace Indexes of the four
groups were compared by the one-way ANOVA test, with a F
test result of 2.49. The same procedure was followed for
the Satisfaction in Marriage Index. The results were
even clearer: F = .767. In short, the hypothesis
was rejected, as the F test scores for .95F3'22 would have

had.to have exceeded 2.90 to conclude otherwise.

228

Table 50. The follow-up Locke-Wallace Test Indexes of.
couples compared on the basis of which partner
volunteered to be first tested.

 

 

 

 

Sum Of Sum Of
Mean Sum Of scores squared
Category Number score scores squared scores
Group A 10 226.00 2460 6051600 625912
Group B 5 262.80 1314 1726596 347932
Group C 7 240.86 1686 2842596 406972
Group D 14 246.44 3612 13046544 940224‘
Source Of Sum of Degrees of Mean
variation squares freedom square F
Between 7605.02 3‘ 2535.01
2.49
Within 32579.74 32 1018.12

 

From examining the respective index score group means
of the data assembled to test Hypotheses 51 through 54,
there is an apparent trend. The mean Of Group B (women
self-nominated) is the best; and group C (women nominated
husbands) is also better than average. (N.B. the data for
this part Of the study is of the type where low index scores
are Optimum.) Hence it was surprising that the F test
results were not significant. To re-examine the validity
Of the findings, the data in Table 47 was recombined: the
two wife-nominated groups were tested against the two
husband-nominated groups. The resultant F test score was

.459, and not significant.

229

As an additional check the index scores in Table.49
were subjected to the Kruskel-Wallis Test. The resultant.
Chi Square value of 3.92 was not significant. This again
confirmed that if there is any meaning to why some couples
are lead in trivial decisions by one spouse rather than the
other, this meaning is not connected to early marriage
adjustment, satisfaction, empathy or interpersonal stress

as measured with the Luscher Color Test.

Hypothesis 55

No difference will be found between the United States
and New Zealand samples.

This in itself is a general hypothesis, covering the
entire study. Because of the cost involved it was not
possible to do a two-way ANOVA analysis comparing the two
groups on every item. However, the hypothesis is tentatively
rejected on the basis that although the groups are demo-
graphically comparable, except for the factor of religion,
the empathic balance, modal color choice patterns, modal
marital roles priorities and adjustment levels were found
to be distinctly different as explored elsewhere in this

thesis.

Hypothesis 56
Couples who participated in the follow-up study will
have had higher pre-marital adjustment than couples who

failed to participate.

230

This hypothesis was tested only on Group II where the
follow-up participation Of couples was most equal to the
loss rate: 93 to 72, from an original total of 165
questionnaires usable for this part of the analysis.

This is a rate of return of 56.36 percent versus a return
Of 38.19 percent for Group I. Since the most recently
married Group III couples have not yet been re-contacted
for follow-up, a comparison is not currently available.

The Pre-marital Adjustment Index scores (MRI Index)
.Of the two halves of Group II were compared by a one-way
ANOVA test. As shown in Table 51 the F test score was .607
thus rejecting the hypothesis of higher pre-marriage adjust-
ment among couples who participated in the follow—up. The
couples who reSponded to the follow-up can be considered
representative, in terms of adjustment, of the entire Group
II. The anticipated drop-out of less adjusted couples did

not occur.

231

Table 51. A comparison of the pre-marriage adjustment.of
couples who responded to the follow-up, with the
pre-marriage adjustment of the couples who drop-
ped out of the study after the initial testing.

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Sum of

Mean Sum of scores squared
Category Number score scores squared scores
Responded to
follow-up 93 141.462 13156 173080336 1964512
Dropped out 72 146.806 10570 111724900 1759688
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
variation squares freedom square F
Between 1158.92 1 1158.92

* .607

Within 311386.16 163 ., 1910.34

 

Hypothesis 57

There will be no difference in adjustment between
those couples responding to the follow-up by mail, and
those tested in person.

The comparison was calculated on the F-MRI Indexes
of those Group II respondents who were without children when
contacted for the follow-up. These 74 couples were evenly
divided between those contacted in person and those contacted
by mail. The F test value of .0013 confirms the hypothesis.
However the variances (Mail = 334.09; Visited = 1185.63)
shows a far greater range of scores among those couples
visited by the experimenter. This suggests a possible degree

of collusion among couples who responded by mail. However,

232

this is not the whole story. All of the 39 childless New
Zealand couples who completed the F-MRI Index, did so by
mail. The Group III mean on this test is 68.83, as Opposed
to 99.68 for Group II (See Table 30, p. 176). The differ-
ence between the groups was also present on the pre-
marriage test where collusion was prevented by the experi-
menter. A realistic conclusion is to attribute the higher
pre-marital and marital adjustment of the New Zealand
couples to cultural and religious factors.

'Table 52. A comparison of the Follow—up Marital Roles

Inventory Index scores of couples responding by
mail, with couples tested in person.

 

 

 

 

 

Sum.of Sum Of
Mean Sum of scores squared
Category Number score scores squared scores
Visited 36 100.67 3624 13133376 384928
Mail 38 98.74 3752 14077504 382822
Source of Sum of Degrees of Sum of
variation squares freedom squares F
Between 68.86 1 68.86
.0013
Within 53858.38 72 748.03

 

Hypothesis 58
There will be no difference in satisfaction between
those couples responding to the follow-up by mail, and those

tested in person.

233

The procedure for assessing the validity of HypOthesis
57 was replicated, but this time it was the Locke-Wallace
and Satisfaction in Marriage Indexes upon which calcula-
tions were made.

The F test scores of 1.154 on the L-W Index calcula-
tions confirms the hypothesis. The results were the same
using the SIM Index, realizing an F test product of .395.
Evidentally, collecting data by mail, or in person, is
equally valid.

As in the case Of Hypothesis 57, the variance of the
group visited (2816.71) was much greater than that for the
group tested by mail ($73.37).“ This again suggests collu-
sion among couple members, but not enough to destroy the
general pattern of results. The SIM Index variances were
much closer: 2124.23 (visited) and 1926.46 (mail). In
this respect the Satisfaction in Marriage Test, designed
to measure conventional reSponses, is a more accurate
measure, less influenced by the conscious distortions Of
respondents. Since the SIM is easier for an experimenter
to score, it is the instrument of choice for research pur-
poses. On the other hand it would be less helpful than the

Locke-Wallace in a clinical setting.

234

 

 

 

 

 

Table 53. A comparison of the Locke-Wallace Test Indexes
of couples responding by mail, with couples
tested in person.

Sum of Sum of Sum of
Mean Sum of scores squared

Category Number score scores squared scores

Visited 36 246.44 8872 78712384 2285040

Mail 38 256.63 9752 95101504 2523960

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean

variation squares freedom square F

Between 1919.57 1 1919.57

1.154

Within 119799.54 R 72 1663.88

 

CHAPTER XIV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this research project was twofold: to
design and test a pre-marriage assessment inventory; to
gauge the relationship Of scores on the pre-marriage inven-
tory to adjustment early in marriage.

The self-report inventory was composed of four parts:
Hurvitz's Marital Roles Inventory, the Financial Priorities
Inventory, the Luscher Color Test and the Color Prediction
Test. The MRI assesses hoped for role priorities in
marriage; the FPI consensus over allocation of money re-
sources; the LCT intrapersonal and interpersonal stress;
the CPT the empathy of couple members. With all these
instruments, an index score was calculated for each couple
which was a product of the magnitude of their scores, and
the difference between the scores.

One year after each couple's wedding, a follow-up
battery of tests was administered. A group of couples,
‘those living in the vicinity Of Lansing, Michigan, were
tested in their homes. All others were followed-up by mail.
The follow-up test battery consisted of the MRI, Locke-
Wallace Test, and Satisfaction in Marriage Test. The latter

test was used only with Groups II and III. In addition, the

235

236

group personally visited and tested by the researcher were
also administered the LCT and CPT. On the follow-up, the
MRI was used to assess actual role behavior as reported by
the couples; the L-W Test recorded subjective satisfaction
as did the SIM Test. The latter was also a measure of
respondent's tendencies to give conventional responses.

The couples who participated in this study were in
three groups: 144 couples (Group I); 166 couples (Group
II) and 101 couples (Group III). The first two groups were
of engaged couples attending a compulsory—for-Catholics
pre-marriage class in the Lansing Michigan area. The third
group was of engaged couples living in Christchurch, or
attending the University Of Canterbury, Christchurch,

New Zealand.

During test administration, partners were separated
before taking the test, to prevent collusion. The writer
conducted the pre-marriage tests in Michigan, testing groups
of couples. Groups ranged in size from 19 to 55 couples.
Miss Shirley Freeman supervised the testing in Christchurch,
testing smaller groups or individual couples.

The follow-up phase was on a couple-by-couple basis,
contacting each couple in the month after their first
wedding anniversary. Those responding by mail were asked not
to collaborate on their questionnaires. The Lansing couples
tested personally were asked to sit in separate rooms in

their homes for the test session.

237

A summarization of the demographic data of the couples
shows a remarkable cross group similarity in all respects
of age, age difference, length of engagement, acquaintance-
ship, education, and socioeconomic status. The exception
is religion: more than two thirds of the American couples
were Catholic; almost three quarters of the New Zealanders
were Protestant.

The modal group responses on test instruments were,
with a few exceptions, comparable. The American Catholic
.response showed up in emphasizing "Church Contributions" on
the Financial Priorities Inventory; on "Practicing the Family
Religion" on the Marital Roles‘Inventory. New Zealanders,
more than Americans, anticipate a less traditional role
delineation between men and women.

Although men in general, and the New Zealand men in
particular, evidenced more stress, as measured by the
Luscher Color Test, the couples showed balanced intra-couple
stress: evidently the women were able to accomodate their
men's anxieties. Color preference was strongly affected
by the sex of the subject tested.

The follow-up found that couples without children
were closer to their priorities for role behavior established
prior to marriage. Those couples with children showed more
sign of stress, and had already shifted into the role
profile typical of older couples, observed by Hurvitz in

the late 19503 [Hurvitz, 1961].

238

Except for a few couples in Group I who were reporting
themselves as super-happy, the Locke-Wallace test results
were uniformally distributed in all groups. The Satisfaction
in Marriage showed a similar pattern for Groups II and III,
with a tendency for_Group III couples to be a little more
exaggerated in their conventionality.

A large number of hypotheses were tested, focussing
on two main areas: the relevance of demographic data (inde-
pendent variables) to pre-marriage test scores; the associa-
,tion between these test scores and the follow-up test

battery scores.

The demographic data was of intermittent help. For
the American couples, age and education were the two
factors most associated with pre—marriage adjustment. Hap-
piness of parent's marriage, parental approval and length
of time engaged were significant for one group and not the
other. The New Zealand couples' adjustment was signifi-
cantly affected by religious difference, education and
parental approval. ‘It was better to avoid the first, and
liave the latter two.

The Financial Priorities Inventory consensus of Group
II couples was associated with age, education, happiness of
jparent's marriage, religion, and socioeconomic status.
Surprisingly, the consensus was associated with difference
in religious background, viewing one's parents as having

been less than happily married, and situations in which the

*woman was from a higher status background than the man.

239

Possibly,_awareness of these factors may have produced.
enough anxiety to motivate couples to sort out their priori-
ties in the financial area.

The situation for the New Zealand group was a
contrast. Only length Of engagement, and happiness of
childhood related significantly to FPI scores. Having a
happy childhood and a short engagement were preferable.

The Luscher Color Test was not sensitive to any of
the demographic variables for either Groups II or III.

The higher empathy of some couples in Group II, as
measured by the Color Prediction Test, was associated with
shorter engagements, a low level of education, and lack of
parental approval. This sounds like a good recipe for
getting a bad start in marriage. The CPT results for
Group III were not significant.

Still at the pre-marriage stage, scores on the MRI
were significantly related to FPI and CPT scores for Group
III. The FPI was also positively associated with the CPT.
No other combinations Of instruments were significant. The
only meaningful relationship between instruments for Group
II was that of the CPT and LCT, positively related at
better than the .001 level.

The follow-up test showed that for Group I, the only
pre-marriage factor related to the later situation was the
association between religious difference and satisfaction.
Difference in this area was strongly associated with

decreased satisfaction.

240

Group II showed more positive correlation between
pre-marriage and follow-up. Relationships existed in the
area of marital roles, and LCT (stress level). Religious

sameness i.e., in this context, Catholicism, was associated

 

with a high level of giving conventional responses to
questions about the marriage.

Pre-marriage LCT scores were associated negatively
with marital satisfaction, although the relationship was not
significant. Satisfaction was, however, strongly associated
“with follow-up LCT scores. Satisfaction was also correlated
at well beyond the .001 level of significance with the
tendency to give conventional responses. This suggests
that when couples in this group experience lower stress,
they have a very satisfied view of their relationships,
which is expressed in conventional ways. Satisfaction was
also, however, modestly related to role priority agreement
(adjustment) as measured by the MRI.

. In sum, it appears that for the Group II couples who
(experience less stress, this condition is associated with
.role agreement and satisfaction. Also, there is a positive
.association between low pre-marriage stress, the presence of
empathy and role consensus, and subsequent marital adjust-
ment. Finally, there is a positive association between
pre-marriage relationships, and early marriage adjustment.

The picture for Group III is a little different.

Religious difference is not of significance in their early

241

marriage adjustment. Role priorities before marriage do
relate strongly (p >.001) to the role behavior in marriage
of these childless couples. Satisfaction is closely
related to agreement on role behavior, and to the tendency
to give conventional responses. Pre-marriage stress and
empathy did not show up as being important in terms of
adjustment or satisfaction at the time couples were follow-
up.

The findings on those couples in Group II tested per-
'sonally, were contrary to expectations. Which couple
member volunteered to be tested first was not an indicator
of any particular degree of adjustment, satisfaction, stress
or empathy. \

Similarly, mailed responses were not significantly
different from responses gathered by a personal visit to
the couple's home. Those who dropped out of the study
before the follow-up, had not scored differently in terms
of pre-marriage adjustment than those who stayed in the
complete study.

In comparing the findings of the American groups
with those of the New Zealand group, some general comments
are in order. Socio-cultural factors do influence Financial
Priorities. Midwest American Catholicism is a factor,
which by comparison, militates for traditionalism in roles,
the division of tasks into 'man's work' and 'woman's work,‘
and lop-sided husband-wife empathy. New Zealand men, more

so than American men, exhibit high stress on entering

242

marriage. The women in both national groups show less.
stress. However, the pre-marital anxiety of the men in
Group II abated somewhat by the time they were followed-up.

The major finding of the study is that pre-marriage
adjustment and role priorities are indicators of role adjust—
ment in early marriage. Although the Financial Priorities
Inventory does not correlate significantly with early
marriage satisfaction or adjustment, at the pre-marriage
stage, it is sensitive to some of the couple's differences
in background which disturb the process<mfreaching consensus
in the area of finances.

As assessment of a couple's pre-marriage relationship

 

does provide valuable information for a counselor preparing

couples for marriage.

Limitations of the Present Study

 

The application of the findings are limited, in the
United States, by virtue of the fact that the sample was
largely Catholic. However, the Catholic Church is most
active in preparing couples for marriage so there is ample
scope for using the factors outlined in this study.

The New Zealand results although c1ear,are limited
because the sample was relatively homogeneous, concentrating
as it did on the better educated residents of a university
city.

Both parts of the study also say little about those

of lower socioeconomic status who are married in Fundamental

243

Protestant churches, following shorter engagements. Such
couples are less educated for the most part, and have less-
favored niches in the job market than the subjects of this
study. In short, the study does not tell us much about

those greatest at risk for marital failure.

Suggestions for Further Research

Initially, this study was intended to include a
group of very young, poorly educated couples for compari-
son purposes. Research on this group would provide a more
balanced picture of pre-marriage adjustment of the popula-
tion at large. Since some of the data has already been
collected, its analysis, given additional funding for such
a project,_will make a worthwhile contribution to this
area of research.

Secondly, a study of mostly Protestant couples in the'
United States would provide a clear understanding of the
impact of the religious factor.

It would be desirable to replicate this study on a
group of New Zealanders at the lower end of the social
scale and administer a personal follow-up.

Ideally, all the couples tested in this study, as
well as those proposed to be tested, could be re-tested
after five or more years of marriage.

Finally, a methodological innovation would be helpful.

The material gathered to date, together with the additional

244

matter recommended above, could be subjected to multiple
regression analysis. This would provide an element of
predictability in the study. Although the initial purpose
of this work was to design and test a tool for the counse-
lor's office, the possibility of extending the findings to
provide a broader base of researched knowledge would be

rewarding.

\

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Clifford R. 1946. "The Prediction of Adjustment in

Marriage.” Educational and Psychological Measurement
6: 185-193. -

. 1950. "Evaluating Marriage Prediction Tests."
Marriage and Family Living 12 (Spring): 55-58.

 

. 1951. Preparing for Marriage. New York: E. P.
Dutton Co.

 

 

Adams, Clifford R., and Packard, Vance O. 1946. How to
Pick a Mate. New York: E. P. Dutton Co.

 

Albert, Gerald. 1967. "Marriage Prediction Revisited."
Long Island Consultation Center Journal 5: 38-47.

 

.Altus, William. 1959. "Birth Order, Intelligence, and
Adjustment.” Psychological Reports 5: 502.

 

Anderson, Eugene. 1973. ”Role Incongruency in Marriage
and Family Counseling." Journal of Family Counseling
1: 19-20.

Anderson, W. J., and Latts, S. M. 1965. "High School
Marriages and High School Policies in Minnesota.“
Journal of Marriage and the Family 27: 266-270.

 

.Anonymous. 1956. "On the State of Marriage in South
Britain." New York Daily Advertiser, September 1,
1785; reprinted in Marriage and Family Living 18: 113.

 

.Astrom, J., and Tobiason, E. 1965. "A Clinical Trial of
the Luscher Colour Test." Medico, no. 2, pp. 53-56.

.Axelson, L. 1963. "The Marital Adjustment and Marital Role
Definitions of WOrking and Non-working Wives."
Marriage and Family Living 25: 189-195.

Babbie, Earl R. 1973. Survey Research Methods. Belmont:
wadsworth Publishing CO.

 

Barnett, L. D.' 1962. "Research in Interreligious Dating
and Marriage." Marriage and Family Living 24: 191-194.

 

245

246

Barry, William. 1970. "Marriage Research and Conflict: An
Integrative View." Psychological Bulletin 73: 41-54.

Barton,'K.; Kawash, G.; and Cattell, R. B. 1972. "Persona-
lity Motivation and Marital Role Factors as Predictors
of Life Data in Married Couples." Journal of Marriage

and the Family 34: 474-480.

Bauman, G. and Roman, M. 1966. "Interaction Testing in the
Study of Marital Dominance." Family Process 5: 230-242.

Bauman, K. E. 1967. "The Relationship Between Age at
First Marriage, School Dropout, and Marital Instabi-
lity: An Analysis Of the Glick Effect." Journal Of

Marriage and the Family 29: 672-680.

Bayer, A. E. 1968. "Early Dating and Early Marriage."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 30: 628-632.

'Bender, I. E. and Hastorf, A. H. 1950. ”The Perception of
Persons: Forecasting Another Person's Responses on
Three Personality Scales." Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology 45: 556-561.

Bernard, Jessie. 1934. "Factors in the Distribution of
Success in Marriage." American Journal of Sociology .

40: 56-59.

. 1964. "The Adjustment of Married Mates.” In
Handbook of Marriage and the Family, pp. 675-739.
Edited by Harold T. Christensen. Chicago: Rand

McNally.

 

. 1966. "Marital Stability and Patterns of Status
Variables." Journal of Marriage and the Family 28:

 

. 1973. The Future of Marriage. New York: Bantam
Books.

Bescancency, Paul H. 1970. Interfaith Marriages: Who and
y. New York: College and University Press.

 

Bienvenu, Millard J. 1970. "Measurement of Marital
Communication." The Family_Coordinator 19: 26-31.

Blood, Robert O. 1955. Anticipating Marriage. Glencoe:
The Free Press. ' ‘

. 1969. Marriage. 2nd ed. Glencoe: The Free
Press.

 

 

247

Blood, Robert 0., and Nye, F. I. 1963. "Socioeconomic
Differential in the Relationship Between Marital
Adjustment and Wife' 5 Employment Status: Discussion
and Comment." Marriage and Family Living 25: 456-458.

 

Blood, Robert O., and Wolfe, D. M. 1960. Husbands and
Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living. G1encoE?
The Free Press.

 

Bossard, James. 1953. Parent and Child: Studies in Family
Behavior. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia
Press.

 

 

Bossard, James, and Boll, Eleanor. 1950. Ritual in Family
Living. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia
Press.

 

Bossard, James, and Boll, Eleanor. 1956. The Large Family
System: An Original Study in the SociOlogy of
Family Behavior. Philadelphia: University of
Philadelphia Press.

 

 

Bossard, James, and Boll, Eleanor. 1957. One Marriage,
Two Faiths: Guidance in Interfaith Marriage. New
York: Ronald Press.

 

Bott, Elizabeth. 1957. Family and Social Network. London:
Tavistock Press.

 

. 1964. "Conjugal Roles and Social Networks.”
In The Family: Its Structure and Functions, pp. 331-
350. Edited by Rose L. Coser. New York: St. Martin's
Press. '

 

 

Bouma, Donald. 1963. "Religiously Mixed Marriages:
Denominational Consequences in the Christian Reformed
Church." Marriage and Family Living 25: 428-432.

 

Bowerman, Charles E: 1957. "Adjustment in Marriage'Over-
all and in Specific Areas." Sociology and Social‘
Research 41: 257-263.

 

 

. 1964. "Prediction Studies." In Handbook of
Marriage and the Family, pp. 215-246. Edited by
Harold T. Christensen. Chicago: Rand McNally.

 

 

 

Branham, Ethyl. 1969. "COping with Change: More Children
than Adoptive Homes," paper presented at the Northwest
Regional Conference of the Child Welfare League of
America, Seattle, Washington, 1966, cited by Roger
R. Miller, ed., Race, Research and Reason: Social
WOrk Perspectives, p. 58. New York: National Associa-
tion of Social Workers.

 

 

248

Brim, Orville G.; Fairchild, Roy W.; and Bogatta, Edgar F.
1961. "Relations Between Family Problems." Marriage
' angFamily Living 23: 219-226.

 

 

Brim, Orville G. and WOod, Nancy. 1956. "Self and Other
Conceptions in Courtship and Marriage Pairs." Marriage
and Family Living 18: 243-248.

 

 

BrOwn, James S. 1951. "Social Class, Intermarriage, and
Church Membership in a Kentucky Community." American
Journal of Sociology 57: 232-242.

 

 

Buckley, Walter. 1967. Sociology and Modern Systems
Theogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Buerkle, J. V.; Anderson, T. R.; and Badgley, R. F. 1961.
"Altruism, Role Conflict and Marital Adjustment: A
Factor Analysis of Marital Interaction." Marriage and
Family Living 23: 20-26.

 

 

Buerkle, J. V., and Badgley, R. F. 1959. "Couple Role-
taking: The Yale Marital Interaction Battery."
Marriage and Family Living 21: 53-58.

 

Burchinal, L. G. 1959. ”Adolescent Role Deprivation and
High School Age Marriage." Marriage and Family Living
21: 378-384.

 

. 1960. "School Policies and School Age Marriages."
The Family Life Coordinator 8: 45.

 

 

.‘ 1961. "Young Marriages - What We Know About Them."
In Sex Ways - in Fact and Faith, pp. 69-83. Edited
by E. M. Duvall and S. M. Duvall, New York: Associa-
tion Press.

 

 

. 1965. "Trends and Prospects for Young Marriages
in the United States.” Journal of Marriage and the
Family 27: 243-254.

 

 

Burchinal, L. G., and Chancellor, L. E. 1962a. ”Ages at
Marriage, Occupations of Grooms and Interreligious
Marriage Rates." Social Forces 40: 348-354.

 

Burchinal, L. G., and Chancellor, L. E. 1962b. "Proportions'
of Catholics, Urbanism, and Mixed-Catholic Marriage
Rates Among Iowa Counties." Social Problems 9:
363-365.

 

Burchinal, L. G., and Chancellor, L. E. 1963a. ”Social
Status, Religious Affiliation, and Ages at Marriage."
Marrigge and Family Living 25: 219-221.

249

Burchinal, L. G. and Chancellor, L. E.- 1963b. "Survival
Rate Among Religiously Homogomous and Interreligious
Marriages." Social Forces 41: 353-362.

 

Burgess, Ernest W., and Cottrell, Leonard 8., Jr. 1939.
Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage. New York:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Burgess, Ernest W., and Locke, Harvey J. 1945. The Family:
From Institution to Companionship. New York: American
Book Co.

 

Burgess, Ernest W., and Locke, Harvey J. 1953. The Family:
From Institution to Companionship. 2nd ed. New
York: American Book CO.

 

Burgess, Ernest W., and Wallin, Paul. 1944. "Predicting
Adjustment in Marriage from Adjustment in Engagement."
American Journal of Sociology 49: 324-330.

 

Burgess, Ernest W.,-and Wallin, Paul. 1953. Engagement
and Marriage. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott CO.

 

Burr, Wesley. 1970. "Satisfaction with Various Aspects of
Marriage Over the Life Cycle: ‘A Random Middle Class
Sample.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 32: 29-37.

. 1971. "An Expansion and Test of a Role Theory
of Marital Satisfaction.” Journal of Marriage and
the Family 33: 368-372.

 

 

 

.' 1973. Theory Construction and the Sociology of
the Family. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

 

 

Byrne, Donna, and Blaycock, Barbara. 1963. "Similarity
and Assumed Similarity in Marriage." Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology_67: 636-640.

 

 

Calonico, James M., and Thomas, Darwin L. 1973. "Role-
taking as a Function of Value Similarity and Affect
in the Nuclear Family." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 35: 655-665.

 

Campbell, D. T. 1950. "The Indirect Assessment of Social
Attitudes." The Psychological Bulletin 47: 15-38.

 

Capra, P. C., and Dittes, J. E. 1962. "Birth Order as a
Selective Factor Among Volunteer Subjects." Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64: 302.

Cervantes, L. F. 1965. "Family Background, Primary Relation-
ships, and the High School DrOpout." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 27: 218-223.

 

 

250

Christensen, Harold T. 1950. Marriage Analysis: Foundation
for Successful Family Life. New York: The Ronald
Press. '

 

. 1958. Marriage Analysis: Foundation for Success-
ful Family Life. 2nd ed. New York: The Ronald Press.

 

Christensen, Harold T., and Barber, K. E. 1967. "Inter-
faith Versus Intrafaith Marriage in Indiana." Journal
of Marriage and the Family 29: 461-469.

 

Christensen, Harold T., and Meissner, Hanna H. 1953.
”Studies in Child Spacing, III Premarital Pregnancy as
a Factor in Divorce." American Sociological Review
18: 641-644.

 

Christensen, Harold T., and Philbrick, Robert E. 1952.
"Family Size as a Factor in the Marital Adjustment

of College Couples.” American Sociological Review 17:
306-312.

Christensen, Harold T., and Rubenstein, B. B. 1956.
”Premarital Pregnancy and Divorce: A Follow-up
Study by the Interview Method." Marriage and
Family Living 18: 114-123. ‘

 

 

Clements, W. H. 1967. "Marital Interaction and Marital
Stability: A Point of View and a Descriptive Com-
parison of Stable and Unstable Marriages." Journal
of Marriage and the Family 29: 697-702.

 

Coombs, Robert H. 1966. "Value Consensus and Partner
. Satisfaction Among Dating Couples." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 28: 166-173.

 

 

Coser, Rose L., ed. 1964. The Family: Its Structure
and Functions. New York: St. Martin's Press.

 

 

Cottrell, Leonard S. 1933. "Roles and Marital Adjustment."
Sociological Problems and Methods, Publigations of
the American Sociological Society 27: 107-115.

 

 

. 1939. "The Reliability and Validity of a Marriage
Study Schedule." Ph.D. dissertation, University Of
Chicago, 1933, cited by Ernest W. Burgess and Leonard
S. Cottrell, PredictingSuccess or Failure in Marriage,
p. 70. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

 

Couch, Carl J. 1958. "The Use of the Concept 'Role' and
Its Derivatives in the Study of Marriage." Marrigge
and Easily Living 20: 353-357.

 

251

Cox, Frank D. 1970. "Economic Entrapment: The Modern
Slavery System." In A Marriage Reader, pp. 221-236.
’ Edited by Lloyd Saxton. Belmont: Wadsworth Publish-
ing Co.

 

Crago, M., and Tharp, R. G. 1968. "Psychopathology and
Marital Role Disturbance: A Test of the Tharp-
Otis Descriptive Hypothesis." Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology 32: 338-341.

 

 

Crockett, H. J.; Babchuk, N.; and Ballweg, J. A. 1969.
”Change in Religious Affiliation and Family Stability:
A Second Study." Journal of Marriage and the Familyi
31: 464-468.

 

Crouse, B.; Karlins, M.; and Schroder, H. 1968. "Conceptual
Complexity, and Marital Happiness." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 30: 643-646.

 

 

'Cuber, John F., and Harroff, Peggy. 1965. The Significant
Americans. New York: Appleton-Century.

 

 

Curtis, Jack, and Mahan, Mary: 1956. "A Pilot Study in
the Prediction of Success in Catholic Marriages."
Marriage and Family Living 18: 145-150.

 

Cutler, Beverly R., and Dyer, William G. 1965. "Initial
Adjustment Processes in Young Married Couples."
Social Forces 44: 195-201.

 

Dahlstrom, Edmund. 1967. The Changing Roles of Men and
Women. Boston: Beacon Press.

 

Dame N.; Finck, G.; Mayos, R.; Reiner, B.; and Smith, B.
1966. "Conflict in Marriage Following Premarital
Pregnancy.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatpy 36:
468-475. '

 

Davis, Katherine. 1939. Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-
two Hundred Women. New York: Harper and Brothers,
1929, cited by Ernest W. Burgess and Leonard S.
Cottrell, Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage,
p. 351. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

 

 

Davis, Kingsley. 1949. Human Society. New York: Macmillan.

 

Davis, W. A., and Havighurst, R. J. 1947. Father of the
Man. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

 

Dean, Dwight, and Reeves, Jon A. 1962. "Anomie: A Com-
parison of a Catholic and a Protestant Sample."
Sociometry 25: 209-212.

 

252

de LissOvoy, Vladimir. 1973. "High School Marriages: A
Longitudinal Study." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 35: 245-255.

Denning, Lord Justice, A. T. 1957. Final Report of the
Committee on Procedure in Matrimonial Causes. London:
His Majesty's Stationary Office, 1947, cited by
Edward F. Griffith, Marriage and the Unconscious,
p. 169. London: Secker and Warburg.

 

 

Dominian, Jack. 1968. Marital Breakdown. London:
Penguin Books.

 

Dooghe, G. 1968. "Premarital Conceptions with Married
Couples According to Socio-professional Status."
Journal Of Marriage and the Family 30: 324-328.

Dunn, Marie 5. 1960. "Marriage Role Expectations of
Adolescents." Marriage and Family Living 22: 99-111.

 

Duvall, Evelyn. 1960. ”Student Marriages." Marriage and
Family Living 22: 76-77.

. 1962. Family DevelOpment. New York: J.
Lippincott Co. ‘

 

Dyer, Dorothy T., and Luckey, Eleanore B. 1961. "Religious
Affiliation and Selected Personality Scores as They
Relate to Marital Happiness of a Minnesota College
Sample.“ Marriage and Family Livipg 23: 46-47.

 

Dyer, Everett D. 1963. ”Parenthood as a Crisis: A Restudy."
Marriage and Family Living 25: 190-201. .

 

Dymond, Rosalind F. 1948. "A Preliminary Investigation of
the Relation of Insight and Empathy." Journal of
Consulting Psychology 12: 228-233.

 

 

. 1949. "A Scale for Measurement of Empathic
Ability.” Journal of Consulting Psychology 13: 127-133.

 

 

. 1950. "Personality and Empathy." Journal of
Consulting Psychology 14: 343-350.

 

 

 

. 1953. ”The Relation of Accuracy of Perception of‘
the Spouse and Marital Happiness." American Psycholo-
gist 8: 355.

 

 

. 1954. "Interpersonal Perception and Marital
Happiness." Canadian Journal of Psychology 8: 164-171.

 

 

253

Edwards, Allen L. 1957. The Social Desirability Variable
in Personality Assessment and Research. New York:
Dryden Press.

 

. 1970. The Measurement of PersonalitygTraits
by Scales and Inventories. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc.

 

 

Edmonds, Vernon H. 1967. "Marital Conventionalization:
Definition and Measurement.” Journal of Marriage and
the Family 29: 681-688.

 

Edmonds, Vernon H.; Withers, Glenne; and Diabatista, Beverly.
1972. "Adjustment, Conservatism and Marital Conven-
tionalization." Journal of Marriage and the Family
34: 96-103.

 

Ehrmann, Winston W. 1952. "Student Cooperation in a Study
of Dating Behavior.“ Marriage and Family Living 14:
322-326.

 

Eisenstein, Victor W., ed. 1956. Neurotic Interaction in
Marriage._ New York: Basic Books.

Ellis, Albert. 1948. "The Value of Marriage Prediction
Tests." American Sociological Review 13: 710-718.

 

Eshleman, J. R. 1965. "Mental Health and Marital Integra-
tion in Young Marriages.“ Journal of Marriage and the
Family 27: 255-265.

Farber, Bernard. 1957. "An Index of Marital Integration.”
.; Sociometry 20: 117-134. '

. 1971. Kinship and Class: A Midwestern Study.
New York: Basic Books.

 

Farber, Bernard, and Jenne, W. D. 1963. "Family Organiza-
tion and Parent-Child Communication: Parents and
Siblings of a Retarded Child." Monographs in Social
Research and Child Development 28: 7.

 

Fengler, Alfred P. 1973. "The Effect of Age and Education
on Marital Ideology." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 35: 264-271.

Ferguson, Henry N. 1974. "Family Fighting: The Intimate
Enemy.” Marriage 56: 13-15.

 

Ferreira, A. J., and Winter, W. D. 1966. "Stability of
Interaction Variables in Family Decision Making."
Archives of General Psychiatry 14: 352-355.

 

254

Ferreira, A. J.; Winter, W. D.; and Poindexter, E. J. 1966.
”Some Interaction Variables in Normal and Abnormal
' Families." Family Process 5: 60-75.

 

Finck, G. H. 1956. ”A Comparative Analysis of the
Marriages and Families of Participants and Non-parti-
cipants in Marriage Education." Marriage and Family
Living 18: 61-66.

 

Fishbein, Merris, and Kennedy, Ruby Jo., eds. 1957. Modern
Marriage and Family Living. New York:* Oxford Univer-
sity Press.

 

Fletcher, Ronald. 1972. "The Marriage of Good Friends."
Marriage Guidance 14: 167-184.

Foote, Nelson N. 1954.' "Changes in American Marriage
Patterns and the Role of Women." Eugenics Quarterly
1: 254-260.

Forer, Lucile K. 1969. Birth Order and Life Roles.
Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Fromm-Reichman, Frieda. 1950. Principles of Intensive
Psychotherapy. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

 

Frumkin, Robert M. 1952. ”The Indirect Assessment Of
Marital Adjustment." Marriage and Family Living
14: 215-218.

.’ 1953a. "A Use of Imaginative Reconstruction in
the Indirect Assessment of Marital Adjustment."
Sociology and Social Research 38: 84-88.

 

 

. 1953b. "The Kirkpatrick Scale of Family
Interests as an Instrument for the Indirect Assessment
of Marital Adjustment." Marriage and Family Living
15: 35-37.

 

. 1954. The Measurement of Marriage Adjustment.
Washington: Public Affairs Press and Annals of
American Research.

 

Galton, Sir Francis. 1969. English Men of Science.
London: MacMillan, 1874, cited by Lucile K. Forer,
Birth Order and Life Roles, p. 25. Springfield:
Charles C. Thomas.

Gianopulus, Arite, and Mitchell, Howard E. 1957. "Marital
Disagreement in WOrking Wife Marriages as a Function
of Husband's Attitude TOward Wife's Employment.”
Marriage and Familnyiving 19: 373-378.

255

'Gillies{ D. V., and Lastrucci, C. L. 1954. "ValidatiOn of
the Effectiveness of a College Marriage Course."
~ Marriage and FamilyLiving 16: 55-60.

Glass, D. V., ed. 1954. Social Mobilityin Britain.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

 

Glass, Gene V., and Stanley, Julian C. 1970. Statistical
Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Glick, P. C. 1957. American Families. New York: John
Wiley.

 

. 1962. "Stability of Marriage in Relation to Age
at Marriage." In Selected Studies in Marriege and the
Family, PP. 622-626. Edited by R. F. Winch, R.
McGinnis, and H. R. Barringer. New York: Holt.

 

Goode, W. J. 1960. "A Theory of Role Strain." American _
Sociological Review 25: 483-496.

 

 

. 1964. The Family. \New York: Prentice-Hall.

 

 

Goodrich, W.; Ryder, R. G.; and Raush, H. L. 1968.
”Patterns of Newlywed Marriage." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 30: 383-391.

 

 

Goodrich, W.; Wells, D.; and Bloomer, D. S. 1963. "Experi-
mental Assessment Of Modes of Conflict Resolution."
Family Process 2: 15-24.

 

Gordon, Albert I. 1970. "Interfaith Marriages." In A,
Marriege Reader, pp. 279-287. Edited by Lloyd Saxton.
Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing CO.

 

Gortz, Rene, and Klar, Helmut. 1963. "The Emotional and
Psychological Differences Between Pregnant and Non-
pregnant Women.” Medico no. 2, pp. 9-16.

Gover, D. A. 1963. "Socioeconomic Differential in the
Relationship Between Marital Adjustment and Wife's
Employment Status." Marriege and Family Living 25:
452-458.

 

. 1964. ”Money Management: Some Implications for
Teaching." Journal of Marriage and the Family 26:
231-233.

 

Graham, K. Edwin. 1972. "Money Power in Marriage." Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National
Council on Family Relations. Seattle, October.

256

Granbois, Donald H., and Willett, Ronald p. 1970. .
”Equivalence of Family Role Measures Based on Husband
‘ and Wife Data." Journal of Marriege and the Family
32% 68-72.

 

Griffith, Edward F. 1955. Modern Marriege. London:
Methuen.

 

. 1957. Marriage and the Unconscious. London:
Secker and Warburg.

 

 

Groves, Ernest, and Groves, Gladys. 1947. The Contemporapy
American Family. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott.

 

 

Gross, Irma, and Crandall, Elizabeth. 1954. Management
for Modern Families. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.

 

Haley, Jay. 1964. "Research on Family Patterns: An
' Instrument Measurement." Family Process 3: 41-65.

 

Hall, Everette. 1965. "Ordinal Position and Success in
Engagement and Marriage.“ Journal of Individual
Psyehology 21: 154-158. .

 

 

Hamilton, Gilbert V. 1939. A Research in Marriage. New
York: A. and C. Boni, 1929, cited by Ernest W.
Burgess and Leonard S. Cottrell, Predicting Success
or Failure in Marriage, p. 351. New York: Prentiee-
Hall, Inc.

 

Harper, R. A. 1951. "Comment on Comparative Use of the
California Test of Personality and the Burgess-
Cottrell-Wallin Schedule in Predicting Marital
Adjustment.“ Marriage and Family Living 13: 124-126.

Harris, I. D., and Howard, K. I. 1968. "Birth Order and
Responsibility." Journal of Marriege and the Family
30: 427-432.

Harrower, Molly. 1956. "The Measurement of Psychological
Factors in Marital Maladjustment." In Neurotic .
Interaction in Marriage, pp. 169-191. Edited by
Victor W. Eisenstein. New York: Basic Books.

 

Hart, Hornell, and Shields, Wilmer. 1926. "Early Marriage
and Happiness." Journal of Social Hygiene 12: 544-549.

Hastorf, A. H., and Bender, J. E. 1952. "A Caution
Restricting the Measurement of Empathic Ability.”
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47: 574-576.

257

Hawkins, J. 1966. ”The Locke Marital Adjustment Test:
and Social Desirability." Journal of Marriage and
the Family 28: 193-195.

 

 

Hawkins, James L., and Johnsen, Kathryn. 1969. ”Perception
of Behavior Conformity, Imputation of Consensus, and
Marital Satisfaction." Journal Of Marriage and the
Family 31: 507-511.

 

Heiss, J. S. 1960. "Premarital Characteristics of the -°
Religiously Intermarried in an Urban Area." American
Sociological Review 25: 47-55.

 

 

. 1961. ”Interfaith Marriage and Marital Outcome."
Marriage and Family Living 23: 228-233.

 

 

Hemming, James. 1973. "Marriage--The Undiscussed Problems."
Marriage Guidance 14: 281-286.

 

'Herbst, P. G. 1952. "The Measurement of Family Relation-
ships." Human Relations 5: 3-35.

 

Hermann, R. O. 1965. "Expectations and Attitudes as a
Source of Financial Problems in Teen-age Marriages."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 27: 89-91.

 

. 1966. ”Families in Bankruptcy: A Survey of
Recent Studies.” Journal of Marriage and the
Family 28: 324-330.

 

Hicks, Mary W., and Platt, Marilyn. 1970. "Marital
Happiness and Stability: A Review of the Research in
’ the Sixties.” Journal of Marriage and the Family‘
32: 553-574.

 

Hill, Reuben. 1955. "A Critique of Contemporary Marriage
and Family Research.” Social Forces 33: 268-276.

 

. 1970. Family Development in Three Generations.
With Chapters in Collaboration with Nelson Foote,
Joan Aldous, Robert Carlson and Robert Macdonald.
Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing CO., Inc.

 

. 1973. Judgment and Consumership in the Manage-
ment of Family Resources.” Sociology'and Social
Research 47: 446-460.

 

 

.Hobart, Charles W. 1958. "Disillusionment in Marriage
and Romanticism." Marriege and Family Living 20:
156-162.

258

Hobart, Charles W., and Klausner, W. J. 1959. "Some Social
Interactional Correlates of Marital Role Disagreement
and Marital Adjustment." Marriege and Family Living
21: 256-263.

 

Hoffman, Lois W. 1960. "Effects of the Employment of
Mothers on Parental Power Relations and the Division
of Household Tasks.” Marriage and Family Living
22: 27-35.

 

Hoggart, Richard. 1959. The Uses of Literacy. London:
Chatto and Windus.

 

Hollingshead, A. B. 1950. "Cultural Factors in the Selection
of Marriage Mates.” American Sociological Review
15: 619-627.

 

Hurvitz, Nathan. 1958. "Marital Roles and Adjustment in
Marriage in a Middle-Class Group.” Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Southern California.

. 1960a. "The Marital Roles Inventory and the
Measurement of Marital Adjustment." Journal of
Clinical Psychology 16: 377-380.

 

 

 

.' 1960b. ”The Measurement of Marital Strain."
American Journal of Sociology 65: 610-615.

 

 

. 1961. Marital Roles Inventory Manual. Beverly
Hylls: Western PsychologicalServices.

 

 

.' 1964. "Marital Strain in the Blue-Collar Family."
In Blue Collar WOrld, pp. 92-109. Edited by Arthur B.
Shostak and William Gomberg. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.

 

 

. 1965a. "Control Roles, Marital Strain, Role
Deviation and Marital Adjustment." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 27: 29-31.

 

 

. 1965b. "Marital Roles Strain as a Sociological
Variable." Family Life Coordinator 14: 39-42.

 

 

. 1965c; "The Marital Roles Inventory as a
Counseling Instrument." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 27: 492-501.

 

Imig, David. 1971. "Masculinity-Feminity as Related to
Family-MaritalAdjustment.” Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University.

259

Inselberg, R. M. 1962. "Marital Problems and Satisfaction
in High-school Marriages." Marriage and Family '
Living 24: 74-77.

. 1964. "The Sentence Completion Technique in the
Measurement of Marital Satisfaction." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 26: 339-341.

 

 

Irving, Howard H. 1971. "Family Therapy: A Research Pers-
pective." The Social WOrker 39: 88-93.

 

. 1972a. ”Married Couples and Their Parents:
Patterns of Conflict." The Social Worker 40: 139-144.

 

. 1972b. The Family Myth. Toronto: COpp Clark Co.

 

 

Jacobson, Alver H. 1952. "Conflict of Attitudes Toward
the Roles of Husband and Wife in Marriage.” American
Sociological Review 17: 146-150.

 

Johnson, Roswell, and Taylor, Robert. 1967. Taylor-
Johnson Temperament Analysis. Los Angeles: Psycho-
IOgical Publications. .

 

Kahn, Malcolm. 1970. "Non-Verbal COmmunication and Marital
Satisfaction.” Family Process 9: 449-456.

Kaplan, Howard B., and Pokorny, Alex D. 1971. ”Self-'
Derogation and Childhood Broken Home." JOurnal of
Marriage and the Family 33: 328-337.

 

Karlsson, Georg. 1953. Adaptability and Communication
. ln Marriage: A Swedish Predictive Study OI—Marital
Satisfaction. Uppsala, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksells,
Boktrycheri’AB, 1951, cited by Ernest W. Burgess and
Harvey J. Locke. The Family: From Institution to
Compenionshlp, 2nd ed., p. 441. New York: American
Book CO.

 

 

Kassorla, Irene. 1973. Putting It All Together. 'New York:
Brut Publications.

 

Katz, J.; Goldston, J.; Cohen, M.; and Stucker, S. 1963.
"Need Satisfaction, Perception, and Cooperative ,
Interaction in Married Couples." Marriage and Family
Living 25: 209-213.

Keeler, Rhea. 1962. "A Marriage Readiness Rating Scale."
Journal of Home Economics 54: 217-218.

 

Keeley, Benjamin J. 1955. "Value Convergence and Marital
Relations.” Marriage and Family Living 17: 342-345.

260

Kelley,'E; Lowell. 1939. "Concerning the Validity of
Terman's Weights for Predicting Marital Happincess."
Psychological Bulletin 36: 202-203.

Kenkel, William F. 1963. "Observational Studies of
Husband-Wife Interaction in Family Decision Making.”
In Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family, pp. 144-156.
Edited by Marvin Sussman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kerckoff, Alan C. 1972. ”The Structure of the Conjugal
Relationships in Industrial Societies." In Cross-
National Family Research, pp. 53-69. Edited by
Marvin B. Sussman and Betty E. Cogswell. Volume XII
of International Studies in Sociology and Social
Anthropology, I. Ishwaran, general editor. Leiden,
Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Kessler, Albert. 1968. "Experiences d'Administration
Collective des Tests de Koch (Test de l'Arbre) et
de Luscher (Test de Couleur).” Orientamenti
Pedagogici 15 42.86: 333-348.

 

Kieren, Dianne, and Tollman, Irving. 1972. "Spousal
Adaptability: An Assessment of Marital Competence."
Journal Of Marriage and the Family 34: 247-256.

King, Charles E. 1952. "The Burgess-Cottrell Method of
Measuring Marital Adjustment Applied to a Non-White
Southern Urban Population." Marriage and Family
Living 14: 280-285.

.’ 1953. "Factors Making for Success or Failure in
Marital Adjustment Among 466 Negro Couples in Southern
City." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago
Libraries, 1951, cited by Ernest w. Burgess and Harvey
J. Locke, The Family: From Institution to Companion-
ship, 2nd ed., p. 441. New York: American Book Co.

 

Kirby, Michael W., and Davis, Keith E. 1972. ”Who Volun-
teers for Research on Marital Counseling?” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 34 (1972): 469-473.

Kirkpatrick, Clifford. 1963. The Family as Process and
Institution. New York: Ronald Press.

 

Kirkpatrick, Clifford and Hobart, Charles. 1954. "Dis-
agreement, Disagreement Estimate, and Non-empathic
Imputations for Intimacy Groups Varying from Favorite

Date to Married." American Sociological Review 19:
10-19.

261

Klar, Helmut. 1961a. "Colour Psychology and Medicine:
I Colours Do Not Lie." Medico no. 1, pp. 26-28.'

2 1961b. "Colour Psychology and Medicine: II
Obesity in the Light of the Colour Test." Medico
no. 3, pp. 28-32.

. 1962. "An Aid in Diagnosing Frigidity: The
Luscher Colour Test.” Medico no 2, pp. 13-18.

 

. 1963. "Colour Psychology and Medicine." Medico
no. 3, pp. 9-16.

 

. 1965. "Colour Psychological Test on Examination
Anxiety.” Medico no. 4, pp. 125-129.

 

. 1966. "The Prophylactic Treatment of Psychogenic
Adiposity: The Chi-Square Method in the Luscher
Colour Test." Medico no. 1, pp. 13-20.

 

Klein, Josephine. 1965. Samples from English Cultures.
2 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.‘

 

Knox, David. 1971. A Love Attitude Inventopy. Saluda,
North Carolina: Family Life Publications.

 

. 1973. "Project for Involved." East Carolina
University, Greenville, N.C., (Mimeographed.)

 

Koch, H. L. 1967. "The Relation of Certain Formal Attitudes
of Siblings to Attitudes Held Toward Each Other and:
Toward Their Parents." Monographs in Sociological
Research in Child Devslepment 25: 4, cited by Mollie
S. Smart and Russell C. Smart, Children: Development
and Relationships, p. 274. New York: The Macmillan
Co.

 

 

 

 

Kogan, K. L., and Jackson, J. K. 1964. "Perceptions of
Self and Spouse: Some Contaminating Factors."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 26: 60-64.

 

Kohn, Melvin L. 1959. "Social Class and Parental Values."
American Journal of Sociology 64: 337-351.

 

Kolb, William L. 1950. "Family Sociology. Marriage Educa-
tion, and the Romantic Complex: A Critique." Social
Forces 29: 65-72.

Koller, Marvin R. 1951. "Some Changes in Courtship Behavior
in Three Generations of Ohio Women." American
Sociological Review 16: 366-370

 

 

262

Komarovsky, Mirra. 1961. "Class Differences in Family
, Decision-Making on Expenditures." In Household
Decision-Making, pp. 255-265. Edited by Nelson N.
Foote. New York: New York University Press.

.‘ 1962. Blue-Collar Marriage. New York: Random
House.

 

KOnig, Karl. 1963. Brothers and Sisters. Blauvelt, New
YOrk: St. George Books.

Kotlar, Sally. 1965. "Middle-Class Marital Role Percep-
tions and Marital Adjustment." Sociology and Social
Research 49: 283-293.

Laing, Ronald D. 1969a. Intervention in Social Situations.
London: Philadelphia Association.

. 1969b. The Politics of the Family. Toronto:
CBC Publications.

 

Landis, Judson T. 1947. "Adjustments After Marriage."
Marriage and Family Living 9: 32-34.

. 1959. "Marriages of Mixed and Non-Mixed Religious
Faith.” American Sociological Review 14: 401-407.

 

Landisr Judson T., and Landis, Mary G. 1958. Buildin a
Successful Marriage. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Pféntice-Hall.

 

Landis, Judson T., and Landis, Mary G. 1963. Building a
Successful Marriage. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.

 

Landis, Paul H. 1955. Making the Most of Marriage. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.

Lang, Richard. 1953. "The Rating of Happiness in Marriage."
M.A. Thesis, University of Chicago, 1932, cited by
Ernest W. Burgess and Paul Wallin, Engagement and
Marriage, p. 715. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co.

 

Laws, Judith L. 1971. "A Feminist Review of Marital
Adjustment Literature: The Rape of the Locke."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 33: 483-516.

LeMasters, E. E. 1957a. Modern Courtshipland Marriage.
New York: Macmillan Co.

. 1957b. "Parenthood as Crisis." Marriage and
Family Living 19: 352-355.

263

Lenski,’Gerhard. 1961. The Religious Factor. New York:

Doubleday. '
0

Lesgoldf'A.; Zerby, B.; and Foster, G. 1969. Analysis of
Contingency Tables (ACTII). East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University Computer Institute for
Social Science Research, Technical Report No. 14.1,
Revised.

 

 

Lewis, Robert A. 1972a. "Measurement of Premarital Dyadic
Formation.” paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Council on Family Relations, Portland,
Oregon, 2 November.

. 1972b. "Premarital Dyadic Formation Inventory."
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, (Mimeo-
graphed.) .

 

. 1973. "A Longitudinal Test of a Developmental
Framework for Premarital Dyadic Formation." Journal
of Marriage and the Family 35: 16-25.

 

Locke, Harvey J. 1951. Predicting Adjustment in Marriage:
A Comperison of a DIVOrced and a Heppily Married
Group. New York: Greenwood Press.

 

 

Locke, Harvey, and Karlsson, Georg. 1952. "Marital
Adjustment and Prediction in Sweden and the United
States." American Sociological Review 1: 10-17.

 

Locke, Harvey J.; Sabagh, Georges; Thomas, Mary M. 1956.
Correlates of Primary Communication and Empathy."
Research Studies of washington State University
(Pullman7—24: 116-124.

 

Lowrie, S. H. 1965. "Early Marriage: Premarital Pregnancy
and Associated Factors." Journal of Marriage and
the Family 27: 48-56.

 

 

Lu, Yi-Chang. 1952a. ”Marital Roles and Marriage Adjust-
ment.” Sociologyland Social Research 36: 364-368.

 

. 1952b. "Predicting Roles in Marriage." American
Journal of Sociology 58: 51-55.

 

 

Luckey, Eleanor Braun. 1960a. "Marital Satisfaction and
Congruent Self-Spouse Concepts." Social Forces 39:
153-157.

 

. 1960b. "Marital Satisfaction and Its Association
with Congruence of Perception." Marriage and Family
Living 22: 49-54.

 

 

264

'.' 1966. "Number of Years Married as Related to
Personality Perception and Marital Satisfaction."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 28: 44-48.

 

Luscher, Max. 1970. The Luscher Color Test.’ Translated
and edited by Ian A. Scott. London: Jonathan Cape.

 

. n.d. Color - The Mother Tongue of the Unconscious.
Basel, Switzerland: Parke-Davis.

 

McCauley, Theresa. 1971. "The Financial Priorities and
Adjustmentof Young Married College Students."
M.S. Thesis, California State Polytechnic College at
San Luis Obispo.

McClester, Jean. "Money Management Problems and Effective
Educational Methods as Perceived by Young Married
Couples." M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University.

'MacDonald, A. P., Jr. 1967. "Birth-Order Effects in
Marriage and Parenthood: Affiliation and Socializa-
tion." Journal Of Marriage and the Family 29: 656-661.

.McHugh, Gelolo. 1966. A Courtship Analysis. Saluda, North
Carolina: Family Life Publicatibns.

Mackenzie, Gavin. 1973. The Aristocracy of Labor: The
Position of Skilled Craftsmen in the American Class
Structure. London: Cambridge University Press.

 

Marchand, Jean, and Langford, Louise. 1952. "Adjustments
of Married Students." Journal of Home Economics 44:
113-114. .

.Marcson, Simon. 1953. "Predicting Intermarriage." Socio-
logy and Social Research 37: 151-156.

.Manson, Morse. 1965. California Marriage Readiness Evalua-
tion. Beverly Hills, California: Western Psychologi-
cal Services.

.Manson, Morse, and Lerner, Arthur. 1962. Tne Megriage
Adjpstment Inventory. Beverly Hills, California:
Western Psychological Services.

.Mangus, A. R. 1957. "Family Impacts on Mental Health."
Marriage and Family Living 19: 256-262.

Marriage Council of Philadelphia. 1950a. gaokground Sche-
dule. Philadelphia: By the Author, 4025 Chestnut St.

 

265

.' 1950b. Marriage Adjustment Schedules 1A and
‘lgfi Philadelphia: By the Author, 4025 Chestnut St.

I 1950c. Schedule E. Philadelphia: By the Author,
4025 Chestnut St.

 

Martinson, Floyd M. 1955. ”Ego Deficiency as a Factor in
Marriage." American Sociolggical Review 20: 161-164.

 

Mathews, V. D., and Mihanovich, C. S. 1963. "New Orienta-
tions on Marital Maladjustment." Marriage and Family
Living 25: 300-304.

Mayer, John E. 1967. "PeOple's Imagery of Other Families."
Family Process 6: 27-36.

 

Mazer, Milton. 1972. "Characteristics of Multi-Problem
Households: A Study in Psychosocial Epidemiology."
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 42: 792-780.

 

Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society From the
Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.

 

 

Merton, Robert K. 1957a. "The Role Set: Problems in
Sociological Theory." British Journal of Sociology
2: 106-117.

. 1957b. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Revised and enlarged edition. Glencoe, Illinois:
The Free Press.

 

.Miller, Kelbert C. 1964. Handbook of Research Design and
Social Measurement. New York: McKay Co.

 

 

.Montagu, M. F. Ashley. 1956. ”Marriage: A Cultural
Perspective." In Neurotic Interaction in Marriage,
pp. 3-9. Edited by Victor W. Eisenstein. New York:
Basic Books.

.Moss, J. J. 1965. "Teen-Age Marriage. Cross-National
Trends and Sociological Factors in the Decision of
When to Marry." Journal of Marriage and the Family
27: 23-242. ,

.Moss, J. J., and Gingles, R. 1959. "The Relationship of
Personality to the Incidence of Early Marriage."
Marriage and Family Living 21: 373-377.

 

Baatz, Annabelle. 1952. "The Role Conception Inventory:
A Tool for Research in Social Psychology." American
Sociological Review 17: 465-471.

 

266

 

Murdoch,'Peter H. 1966. "Birth Order and Age at Marriage."
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
5:’24- 29.

Murstein, Bernard I. 1967a. "Empirical Tests of Role,
Complementary Needs, and Homogamy Theories of Marital
Choice.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 29:
689-696.

. 1967b. "The Relationship of Mental Health to
Marital Choice and Courtship Progress." Journal
of Marriage and the Family 29: 447-451

 

. 1970. "Stimulus-Value-Role: A Theory of Marital
Choice.” Journal of Marriage and the Famdly
32: 465-481.

 

. 1972a. Marital Expectation Test. Connecticut
College, (Mimeographed.)

 

. 1972b. "Person Perception and Courtship Progress
Among Premarital Couples." Journal of Marriage and
the Family 34: 621-626. \

 

 

 

Murstein, B. I., and Beck, G. D. 1972. "Person Perception,
Marriage Adjustment, and Social Desirability." Journal
of Consulting Clinical Psychology 39: 396-403.

Murstein, B. I., and Glaudin, Vincent. 1966. "The Rela-
tionship of Marital Adjustment to Personality: A
Factor Analysis of the Interpersonal Check List.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 28: 37-43.

Murstein, B. I., and Glaudin, Vincent. 1968. "The Use
of the MMPI in the Determination of Marital Maladjust-
ment.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 30: 651-655.

Navran, Leslie. 1967. "Communication and Adjustment in
Marriage.” Family Process 6: 173-184.

 

Newcomb, Theodore M. 1961. The Acguaintance Process. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

Notcutt, B., and Silva, A. L. 1951. "Knowledge of Other
People." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
46: 30-37.

 

Nottridge, Harold E. 1972. The Sociology of Urban Living.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

 

Nye, T. Ivan, and MacDougall, Evelyn. 1959. "The Dependent
Variable in Marital Research." Pacific Sociological
Review 2: 67-70.

 

267

Oaklander, Harvey. 1971. ”Self-Esteem, Diversity of
Backgrounds, and Clarity of Communication in Engaged
Couples.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer-
sity.

Ogburn, William F. 1962. ”The Changing Functions of the
Family." In Selected Stgdies in Marriage and the
Family. 2nd ed., PP. 157-163. Edited by R. F. Winch
and H. R. Barringer. New York: Holt. -

Olson, David H. 1969. ”The Measurement of Family Power
by Self-Report and Behavioral Methods." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 31: 545-550.

 

 

. 1972. "Marriage of the Future: Revolutionary
or Evolutionary Change?” The Family Coordinator 21:
383-393.

 

 

Olson, David H., and Rabunsky, Carolyn. 1972. "Validity
' of Four Measures of Family Power." Journal of
Marriage and the Family_34: 224-234.

 

 

Olson, David H., and Ryder, Robert. 1970. ”Inventory of
Marital Conflicts: An Experimental Interaction
Procedure.“ Journal of Marriage and the
Family 32: 443-448.

 

Opler, Marvin K. 1967. Culture and Social Psychiatry.
New York: Atherton Press.

 

Orden, Susan R., and Bradburn, Norman M. 1968. "Dimensions
of Marriage Happiness." American Journal of Sociology
73: 715-731. -

Ort, Robert S. 1950. ”A Study of Role Conflicts as Related
to Happiness in Marriage." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 45: 691-599.

 

Otto, Herbert. 1951. Pre-Marital Counseling Schedules.
Palo, Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists
Press.

Parsons, T., and Bales, R. F. 1955. Family, Socialization
and Interaction Process. New York: Free Press.

 

 

Petersen, David M. 1969. "Husband-Wife Communication and
Family Problems.” Sociology and Social Research 53:
375-384.

 

Pickford, J. H.; Signori, E. 1.: and Rempel, H. 1966a.
"The Intensity of Personality Traits in Relation to
Marital Happiness.” Journal of Marriage'and the
Family 28: 458-459.

268

Pickford, J. H.; Signori, E. I.: and Rempel, H. 1966b.
”Similar or Related Presonality Traits as a Factor
in Marital Happiness." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 28: 190-192.

 

Pineo, Peter C. 1961. 'Disenchantment in the Later Years
of Marriage.” Marriage and FamilyLiving 23: 3-11.

Powell, Reed M., and LaFave, Lawrence. 1958. ”Some
Determinants of Role-taking Accuracy." Sociology
and Social Research 42: 319-326. »

 

 

Preston, Malcom G.; Peltz, William L.; Mudd, Emily H.;
and Froscher, Hazel B. 1952. ”Impressions of
Personality as a Function of Marital Conflict."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47:326-336.

Price, Dorothy z. 1968. "A Technique for Analyzing the
Economic Value System." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 30: 467-472.

Price-Bonham, Sharon. 1973a. ”Marital Adjustment: An
Analysis." A working paper. University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia, (Mimeoqraphed,)

. 1973b. ”Student Husbands Versus Student Couples."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 35: 33-37.

 

Rainwater, Lee. 1965. Family Design: Marital Sexuality,
Family Size, and Contraception. Chicago: Aldine
Co.,

 

Rainwater, Lee, and Handel, Gerald. 1964. "Changing
Family Roles in the WOrking Class." In Blue-Collar
World, pp. 70-76. Edited by Arthur B. Shostak and
William Gomberg. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.

Rapoport, Rhona. 1963. "Normal Crises, Family Structure
and Mental Health." Family Process 2: 68-80.

 

. 1964. ”The Transition from Engagement to
Marriage." Acta Sociologica 8: 36-55.

 

Rapoport, Robert and Rapoport, Rhona. 1965. ”work and
Family in Contemporary Society." American Sociologi-
cal Review 30: 381-394.

Rausch, H. L.: Goodrich, W.; and Campbell, J. D. 1963.
"Adaptation to the First Years of Marriage." Psychia-
t£y_26: 368-380.

269

Reiner, Beatrice, and Edwards, Raymond. 1973. ”Adolescent
Marriage - Social or Therapeutic Problem?" paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National
Council on Family Relations, Toronto, Canada, October.

Reiss, A. J.; Duncan, 0. D.; Hatt, P. R.; and North C. C.
1961. Occupations and Social Status. New York:
The Free Press.

Renne, Karen S. 1970. ”Correlations of Dissatisfaction in
Marriage.” Journal of Marrigge and the Family 32: 54-
67.

Robb, J. H. 1953. ”Clinical Studies of Marriage and the
Family: A Symposium on Methods." British Journal
of Medical Psychology 26: 215-221.

 

Rodda, William, and Nelson, Edward A. 1965. Managing
Personal Finances. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.

 

Rogers, C. R.: Kell, W. L.; and McNeil, Helen. 1948.
”Role of Self-Understanding in the Prediction of
Behavior.” Journal of Consulting Psychology_12:
174-186. ,

Rolfe, David J. 1974. "The Financial Priorities Inventory."
The Family Coordinator 23: 139-144.

Rose, Arnold M. 1951. ”The Adequacy of Wbman's Expecta-
tions for Adult Roles.” Social Forces 30: 69-77.

Rosen, Bernard C. 1964. ”Family Structure and Value Trans-
mission.” Merrill-Palmer_anrter1y_10: 54-76.

Roth, Julius, and Peck, Robert. 1951. ”Social Class and
Social Mobility Factors Related to Marital Adjustment."
American Sociological Review 16: 478-487.

Ryder, Robert G. 1966. ”Two Replications of Color Matching
Factors." Family Process 5: 43-48.

. 1967. "Compatibility in Marriage." Psychological
Repgrts 20: 807-813.

. 1970. ”Dimensions of Early Marriage." Family
Process 9: 51-69.

. 1973. ”Longitudinal Data Relating Marriage
Satisfaction and Having a Child." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 35: 604-606.

270

Ryder, Robert G. and Goodrich, D. W. 1966. "Married
Couples Response to Disagreement." Family Process
5:‘30-42.

 

Samenfink, J. A. 1958. “A Study of Some Aspects of Marital
Behavior as Related to Religious Control." Marriage
and Family Living 20: 163-169.

 

Sexton, Lloyd., ed. 1970. A Marriage Reader. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth.

 

Scanzoni, John. 1972. Sexual Bargaining, Power Politics
in the American Marriage. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

 

 

Schachter, Stanley. 1959. The Psychology of Affiliation.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.

 

Schaie, K. W., and Heiss, R. 1964. Color and Personaligy,
A Manual for the Color Pyramid Test. ,New York: Grune
and Stratton.

 

 

Schneider, David M., and Smith, Raymond T. 1973. Class
Differences and Sex Roles inAmerican Kinship and
Family Structure. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.

 

SchnePp, Gerald J., and Johnson, Mary M. 1952. "Do
Religious Background Factors Have Predictive Value?"
Marriage and Family Living 14: 301-304.

 

Schroeder, C. W. 1939a. ”Background Factors in Divorce."
Marriage and Family Living 1: 71-74.

. 1939b. Divorce in a Cityyof One Hundred Thousand
Po*ulation. Peoria, Illinois: Bradley Polytechnic;
Library, 1939, cited by Ernest W. Burgess and Leonard
S. Cottrell, Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage,
p. 357. New York: Prentice-Hall.

 

 

 

Scott, Ian A. 1970. ”The Luscher Colour Peronslity Test -
A Statistical Evaluation." Hindhead, Surrey,
England, (Mimeographed.)

Sears, Robert R. 1950. "Ordinal Position in the Family as
a Psychological Variable." American Sociolggical
Review 15: 397-401.

 

Sheimbein, Marc L. 1974. "Multiplicity of Marital Adjust-
ment Ratings: A Suggestion." Journal of Family
Counseling 1: 49-52.

 

271

Slater, Philip. 1964. “Parental Role Differentiation.”'
In The Family; Its Structure and Functions, pp. 350-
- 369. Edited by Rose Coser. New York: St. Martin's
Press.

Smelser, William T., and Stewart, Louis H. 1968. "Where
Are the Siblings: A Re-evaluation of the Relationship
Between Birth Order and College Attendance." Socio-
metgy 31: 294-303.

Snyder, E. C. 1966. "Marital Selectivity in Self-Adjust-
ment, Social Adjustment and IQ." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 28: 188-189.

 

Spiegel, John. 1957. "The Resolution of Role Conflict
Within the Family." In The Patient and the Mental
Hospita , pp. $45-$64. Edited by Milton Greenblatt,
David Levinson and Ricahrd Williams. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press.

 

Sporakowski, Michael J. 1968. "Marital Preparedness, Pre-
diction and Adjustment." The Family Coordinator 17:
155-161. \

 

Stephens, William N. 1970. ”Predictors of Marital Adjust-
ment." In A Marriage Reader, pp. 189-199. Edited
by Lloyd Saxton, Belmont, California: wadsworth.

 

Stewart, Robert L., and Vernon, Glenn. 1959. "Four
Correlates of Empathy in the Dating Situation."
Sociology and Social Research 43: 279-285.

 

Stock, Dorothy. 1949. ”An Investigation Into the Inter-
relation Between the Self Concept and Feelings
Directed Toward Other Persons and Groups.“ Journal
of Consulting Psychology 13: 176-180.

Streshinsky, Shirley. 1974. "Beyond Love: The Special
Rewards of Marriage.” Redbook 143: 95 passim.

Strodbeck, F. L. 1951. "Husband-Wife Interaction Over
Revealed Difference." American Sociological
Review 16: 468-473.

Stroup, A. L., and Hunter, X. J. 1965. "Sibling Position
in the Family and Personality of Offspring." Journal
of Marriage and the Family 27: 65-58.

Stryker, Sheldon. 1957. "Role-Taking Accuracy and Adjust-
ment." Sociometry 20: 286-296.

 

272

Stuckert,'Robert P. 1963. "Role Perception and Marital
Satisfaction - A Configurational Approach.” Marriage
and Family Living 25: 415-419.

Suedfeld, Peter. 1964. "Birth Order of Volunteers for
Sensory Deprivation.” Jgurnal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 56: 195-196.

 

Sutton-Smith, B.; Roberts, J. M.; and Rosenberg, B. G.
1964. "Sibling Associations and Role Involvement."
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 10: 25-38.

 

Taft, Ronald. 1956. ”Some Characteristics of Good Judges
of Others.” British Journal of Psycholggy 47: 19-29.

Tarwater, Jesse W. 1953. ”Self-Understanding and the
Ability to Predict Another's Response.” Marriage
and Family_Livingle: 126-128.

'Taves, Marvin J. 1948. "A Direct Versus an Indirect
Approach haMeasuring Marital Adjustment.” American
Sociological Review 13: 538-541.

Taylor, A. B. 1967. "Role Perception, Empathy, and Marriage
Adjustment.” Sociology and Social Research 52: 32-34.

Terman, Lewis M. 1938. Psychological Factors in Marital
Happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Terman, Lewis M., and Oden, Melita M. 1947. The Gifted
Child Grows Up: Twenty-Five Years Follow-Up of a
Superior Group. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Tharp, R. G. 1963a. ”Dimensions of Marriage Roles.”
Marriage and Family Living 25: 389-404.

. 1963b. ”Psychological Patterning in Marriage."
Psychological Bulletin 60: 97-ll7.

Thayer, Robert E. 1971. "Personality and Discrepencies
Between Verbal Reports and Physiological Measures
of Private Emotional Experiences.” Journal of
Personality 39: 57-69.

'Thomas, John L. 1951. ”The Factor of Religion in the
Selection of Marriage Mates." American Sociolggical
Review 16: 487-492.

. 1956. The American Catholic Family. Englewood
CIiffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Half, Inc.

'Thrope, Alice C. 1951. "How Married Students Manage."
Marriage and Family Living 13: 104-105.

273

Thurstone, L. L., and Thurstone, T. G. 1930. ”A Neurotic
Inventory." Journal of Social Psychology 1: 3-30.

Toman, welter. 1961a. Family Constellation: Theory and
Practice of a Psychological Game. New York: Springer
Co.

 

. 1961b. ”Family Constellations of 'Normal' and
'Disturbed' Marriages: An Empirical Study." Journal
of Individual Psychology 17: 93-95.

 

. 1962. ”Family Constellation of Divorced and
Married Couples.” Journal of Individual
Psychology 18: 48-51.

 

. 1969. Family Constellation: ,IPS Effects on
Personality and Social Behavior. 2nd ed. New York:
Springer Co.

 

 

. 1970. ”Birth Order Rules All.” Psychology
deay. December, p. 45 passim.

 

Troelstrup, Arch W. 1970. The Consumer in American Society:
Personal and Family Finance. I4th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hiil.

 

 

Trost, J. 1967. ”Some Data on Mate-Selection: Homogamy
and Perceived Homogamy." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 29: 739-755.

 

Turabian, Kate L. 1973. A Manual for Writers of Term
Papers! Thesesy and Dissertations. 4th ed. ChiCago:
. University of Chicago Press. .

 

 

Udry, J. Richard. 1963. ”Complementarity in Mate-Selection:
A Perceptual Approach.” Marriage and Family Living
25: 281-289.

. 1966. The Social Context of Marriage. Philadel-
phia: J. B. Lippincott.

 

. 1967. "Personality Match and Interpersonal
Perception as Predictors of Marriage." Journal _
of Marriage and the Family 29: 722-725.

 

Vernon, Glenn M. 1970. ”Interfaith Marriages.” In A
Marriage Reader, pp. 295-298. Edited by Lloyd
Saxton. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

 

Vernon, Glenn M., and Stewart, Robert L. 1957. "Empathy as
a Process in the Dating Situation." American
Sociological Review 22: 48-52. *

 

274

Vickersf Sir Geoffrey. 1970. Value Systems and Social
Process. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

 

Vidich, Arthur J. 1956. "Methodological Problems in the
Observation of Husband-Wife Interaction.” Marriage and
Family Living 18: 234-239.

 

 

Vincent, Clark E. 1970. ”Interfaith Marriages: Problem
or Symptom.” In A Marriage Reader, pp. 299-315,
Edited by Lloyd Saxton. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth.

 

von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. 1968. General System Theory.'
New York: George Braziller.

wallin, Paul. 1954. "Marital Happiness of Parents and
Their Children's Attitude to Marriage.” American
Sociological Review 19: 20-23.

. 1957. ”Religiosity, Sexual Gratification and
Marital Satisfaction." American Sociolggical Review
22: 300-305.

 

 

Walton, W. E.: Guilford, R. B.; and Guilford, J. P. 1933.
"Color Preferences of 1279 University Students.”
American Journal of Psychology 45: 322-328.

 

warner, Samuel J. 1949. ”The Color Preferences of Psychia-
tric Groups.', ggychological Monographs: General and
Applied 63, no. 301.

Warner, W. Lloyd; Meeker, Marchia: and Eells, Kenneth.
~ 1949. Social Class in America. Chicago: Science-
Research Associates, Inc.

 

Watson, Art. 1973. Complete Guide to Family Money Manage-
ment. New York: The Family Circle.

watson, John. 1953. Chicago Tribune, 6 March 1927, p. l.
Cited by Ernest W. Burgess and Paul Wallin,
Engagement and Marriage, p. 19. Chicago: J. B.
Lippincott Co.

 

 

‘Westley, WilliamwA., and Epstein, Nathan B. 1969. Silent
Majority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

 

Wexner, Lois B. 1954. ”The Degree to Which Colors (Hues)
Are Associated with Mood-Tones." Journal of Applied
Psychology 38: 432-435.

 

Whitehurst, R. N. 1968. ”Premarital Reference-Group Orien-
tations and Marriage Adjustment." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 30: 397-401.

 

275

Willitsf Fern R.: Bealer, Robert C.: and Bender, Gerald W.
1963. ”Inter-religious Marriage Among Pennsylvania
Rural Youth." Marriage and Family Living 25: 433-438.

 

 

Winch, R. F. 1963. The Modern Family. revised ed. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

Zajonc, Robert B. 1975. ”Dumber by the Dozen.” Psychology

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

-COVER PAGES AND LETTERS

MARRIAGE READINESS INVENTORY
Please Read Carefully Before and After filling Out Schedule

This inventory is prepared for persons who are con-
sidering marriage. Although designed for couples who are
engaged or who have a private understanding to be married,
it can also be filled out by other persons who would like
to know the probability of success in marriage.

The value of the findings of the inventory depends
upon your frankness in answering the questions.

The following points should be kept in mind in filling
out the inventory:

1) Be sure to answer every question.
2) Do not leave a blank to mean a gg_answer.

3) The word "finace(e)" will be used to refer to
the person to whom you are engaged.

4) Do not confer with your fiance(e) on any of
'these questions.

When you have completed this inventory, hand it in to
the person collecting these inventories, and rejoin your
finace(e).

(SEE FOLLOWING PAGES)

276

 

277

University of Canterbury
Christchurch lNew Zealand

 

MARRIAGE READINESS INVENTORY

 

Please Read Carefully Before and After Filling Out Schedule.

This inventory is prepared for persons who are consider-
ing marriage. Although designed for couples who are engaged
or who have a private understanding to be married, it can
also be filled out by other persons who would like to know
the porbability of success in marriage.

The value of the findings of the inventory depends upon
your frankness in answering the questions.

The following points should be kept in mind in filling
out the inventory:

1) Be sure to answer every question.
2) Do not leave a blank to mean a pg answer.

3) The word "fiance(e)" will be used to refer to
the person to whom you are engaged.

4) Do not confer with your finace(e) on any

'of these questions.

When you have completed this inventory, hand it in to
the person collecting these inventories, and rejoin your
finace(e).

(SEE FOLLOWING PAGES)

If you have any questions concerning this inventory
please telephone the University, 65-819, and ask for

Dr. J. H. Perry, Extension 847
or Miss S. Freeman, Extension 888.

278

COUNSELLING RESEARCH

Are you MARRIED?
or ENGAGED TO BE MARRIED?

If so, we hope you'll feel free to assist in the completion
of a worthwhile research project.

Mr. David Rolfe, a social worker and counsellor in Michigan,
is developing a 'Marriage Readiness Inventory' which is ex-
pected to be of value in pre-marital counselling. The idea
of the inventory is to assist couples to identify areas of
possible difficulty, so that these may be resolved before
marriage. At this stage, of course, the inventory cannot be
used to help individual couples - but YOUR help will enable
others to be assisted in the future. So far several hundred
Americans have taken part, and it is hoped that 150 Christ-
church couples will also join in.

 

 

'Who can take part? You can help if you are

 

i engaged to be married or
ii have been married for a period of one to three
years, and have one or no children.

We think you'll find the project both interesting and
informative.

What is involved? You will both be asked to take a short
colour test and fill in a STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL ques-
tionnaire. All questionnaires will be destroyed after
analysis. This analysis will not be carried out in
New Zealand.

 

How long does it take? 30 minutes for engaged couples - a
little longer for married couples. Married couples
are asked to remain anonymous; engaged couples may
remain anonymous if they wish, though their assistance
is of even greater value if, after a year has elapsed,
they are able to fill in one follow-up questionnaire
«rawhich only a code number appears).

 

How do we make contact?

 

1. Hand your completed form to the person who has
accepted responsibility for collecting them at
your next class/meeting.

OR 2. Post the completed form to Miss S. B. Freeman,
24 Maffeys Road,
Christchurch 8.

OR 3. Contact Mr. W. Stewart, Psychology Dept., Ilam
site, ('phone 71-649, Extension 674) during the day

279

OR 4: "Telephone Miss S. E. Freeman, 843-386 after
6.0. p.m.

We may then arrange a mutually convenient time to meet.
If you cannot take part yourself, would you be kind enough
to pass on this form to a friend who may be interested?
Thank you.

(delete My spouse and I are willing .
one) My fiance(e) and I are willing to take part In
the counselling research project. We understand that all
questionnaires will be treated as strictly confidential, and
will be destroyed after analysis.

 

Name 'Phone no.

 

Address

 

We would prefer to join a group filling in the questionnaire
etc. at the town/Ilam compus.

(Note: If neither site is convenient, we will make other
arrangements.)

All information in this inventory will be treated in
strictest confidence, and will only be used for group compa-
rison purposes.

’ We would like to contact you one year after you are
married for a brief follow-up study. We are trying to find
out if the information gathered in this inventory has any
relationship with happiness in the early years of marriage.
If you are willing to assist us in this important area of
research, please fill in your name, and address where you
can be contacted next year.

 

Name (Print)

 

Street Address

 

City, State, Zip

If you are not sure where you will be, write in your parentks
address.
T H A N K Y O U !

gun-it”

280

MARRIAGE PREPARATION OFFICE.
Suite 301
300 N. washington
Lansing, Michigan 48933

Dear Friends,

You may remember attending a Marriage Preparation
series or Pre-Cana Conference last year.. At that time, you
filled out a brief inventory indicating some of your expec-
tations for your marriage. Now that you have been married
for a year, we are asking about some of your experiences
as a married person. The purpose of this follow-up study is
to help us better understand the varieties of patterns which
peOple establish in marriage. The results of this survey.
will provide invaluable information which will help us
assist engaged couples as they prepare themselves for
'marriage.

We want to emphasize that we are anxious to have your
responses to the questions in this inventory. Since we are
following up only a limited number of couples, the value of
this study depends upon all these inventories being completed
and returned.

We will greatly appreciate your completing the inven-
tory and returning it to us in the enclosed envelope (no
return postage necessary). Your responses will be coded
and only used in comparisons for research. Your responses
will be kept entirely confidential.

The value of the findings in this follow-up study
depend very much on you and your spouse individually answer-
ing the inventory as frankly as possible. Please g9 Egg
discuss anything with your spouse before you have both
completed filling out the inventory.

 

Thank you for your cooperation in this important
effort.

Sincerely yours,

David J. Rolfe
Project Coordinator

 

281

'Phone: “843-386. 24 Maffeys Rd,
' Christchurch 8.

Dear

' Counselling Research

 

You may remember that last year you and your fiance(e)
were kind enough to assist with this project by taking a
short colour test and filling in a 'Marriage Readiness
Inventory' indicating some of your expectations for marriage.
It is hoped that the results of the survey will ultimately
help counsellors to give more assistance to engaged couples
as they prepare themselves for marriage.

Now that you have been married for a year, we are
jasking about some of your experiences as a married person.
We would be most grateful if you would complete the inventory
enclosed with this letter, and either hand it to the research
assistant who has called with it, or return it in the
attached stamped, addressed envelope. We would like to
stress that, since we are following up only a limited number
of couples, the value of the study depends upon all of these
inventories being completed and returned. You may rest
assured that your responses will be treated as entirely
CONFIDENTIAL, and that the forms will be destroyed after
analysis. You will note,also, that only a code number
appears on this inventory.

PleaseIiJnot discuss anything with your spouse before
you have both answered all the questions. We ask you to
be as frank and honest as possible: please complete the
inventory on your own, and return it to us as soon as you
can.

Thank you so much for your kind co-operation: this is
much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

(Miss) S. E. Freeman

for David J. Rolfe

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEETS

 

1. How long have you known your fiance?

 

2. How long have you been engaged?

 

3. Your age

 

 

4. Circle the highest year of schooling you have completed:
8 ‘9 10 11 12 University 1 2 3 4 5 6
-5. Your religion (circle one):
a. Catholic
b. Jewish
c. Orthodox
d. Protestant
e. None
Please fill in your name, and address where you can be
contacted 1 year from now:

Name:

 

Address:

 

street city state zip

Phone:

 

282

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

283

How'long have you known your finace(e)?

 

How long have you been engaged?

 

What-is the date of your wedding?

 

Your age

 

Circle the highest year of schooling you have completed:
8 9 10 ll 12 University 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Your religion (circle one): a) Catholic b) Jewish
c) Orthodox d) Protestant e) None

How confident are you that your marriage will be a happy
one (check one): a) very confident b) confident
c) a little uncertain d) extremely uncertain

Do your parents approve of your forthcoming marriage?
(check one): ‘

a) both parents approve b) father approves, mother does
not approve c) mother approves, father does ng§_approve
dT—both parents do not approve. If either or both dis-

approve, please state why

 

What is the attitude of your closest friend or friends
toward your fiance(e)? \

a) approve highly b) approve‘with qualifications
c) disapprove mildly d) disapprove seriously
e) are resigned to it

Rate the marital happiness of your parents:

a) very happy b) happy c) average d) unhappy
e) very unhappy

My childhood on the whole was:
a) extremely happy b) more happy than average

c) about average d) rather unhappy e) extremely unhappy

How many brothers and sisters do you have?
brothers, _ sisters

What position are you in the family? (check one)
a) only child b) oldest c) youngest d) a middle child

What was your father's occupation at the time you gra-
duated from high school, or what was it before his re-
tirement (please specify)?

 

In addition, please circle the answer category which
best describes his occupation:

1. Professional (architect, chemist etc.) or managerial

2. PrOprietor, except farm (i.e., owner of a business)
3. Clerical or sales position
4. Farmer (owner-operator or renter)

5. Skilled workman or foreman (machinist, carpenterefie.)
6. Semiskilled or unskilled workman (truck driver, etc.)

7. Homemaker, or not employed outside the home
8. Don't know.

 

EL

“4'
I

 

9.
10.
11.
12.

13.

284

Your-date of birth:

 

. day month year
Where were you born?

 

city country
If you were born outside New Zealand, how old were you
when you came to New Zealand?

 

years months
What is your religion? (circle one)
a. Catholic

 

 

b. Jewish

c. Orthodox

d. Protestant (indicate denomination)
e. Other.

f. None

 

Circle the highest year of schooling you have completed:
8 9 10 11 12 13+ University 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

What position are you in the family? (check one)
a. only child
b. oldest
c. youngest
d. middle child \

How many brothers and sisters do you have? brothers

sisters
My childhood on the whole was: (circle one)
a. extremely happy
b. more happy than average
c. average
d.‘ unhappy
e. very unhappy

How long have you known your fiance(e)?

 

How long have you been engaged?

 

What is the date of your wedding?

 

How confident are you that your marriage will be a happy
one? (check one):

a. very confident b. confident

c. a little uncertain d. extremely uncertain

What is the attitude of your closest friend or friends
toward your finace(e)?

a. approve highly

b. approve with qualifications

3. disapprove mildly

d. disapprove seriously

e. are resigned to it

285

14. Do‘your parents approve of your forthcoming marriage?
(check one): '
a. both parents approve
b. father approves, mother does ngt approve
c. mother approves, father does ngt approve
d. both parents do ngt approve

If either or both disapprove, please state why

 

15. Rate the marital happiness of your parents: (check one)
a. very happy

b. happy
0. average
d. unhappy

e. very unhappy

16. At the time you left high school, your parents were:
(check one)

a. both living together

b. divorced

c. separated

d. father was dead

e. mother was dead ‘

f. temporarily living apart, for reasons other than
marital problems (only if this situation had
existed for one year or longer: otherwise circle
a. above)

17. Where was your father born?

 

city country
18. Where was your mother born?

 

city country
19: What was your father's occupation at the time you left
high school, or what was it before his retirement?

 

In addition, please circle the answer category which
best describes his occupation:

1. Professional (architect, chemist, doctor, etc.) or
managerial position (department head, police chief,
etc.)

2. PrOprietor, except farm (i.e., owner of a business)

3. Clerical or sales position

4. Farmer (owner-operator or renter)

5. Skilled workman or foreman (machinist, carpenter,
etc.)

6. Semiskilled or unskilled workman (truck driver,
factory worker, etc.)

7. Homemaker, or not employed outside the home

8. Don't know

 

286

PLEASE -- Do not write your name on this inventory

10.

11.

‘-Do not leave any items unanswered.

What was the date of your wedding?

 

Please circle the number of years of schooling you have
completed at the time you fill out this inventory:

High school 9 10 ll 12 University 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

As a child, I was raised in the following religious
denomination: (circle on letter)

a. Catholic

b. Jewish

c. Orthodox

d. Protestant (state which denomination)

e. I was not raised in any religion.

f. Other (Please explain)

 

 

 

Before I was married, I attended religious services
(circle one letter):
a. less than one a month d. three times a vmonth

 

b. once a month e. four times a month
c. twice a month f. more than four times a
‘ month

I now attend services in the following religious denomi-
-fi'-" o

nation (circle one letter):

a. Catholic b. Jewish c. Orthodox

d. Protestant (state which denomination)

e. I do not attend any religious services

f. Other (please explain)

 

 

I now attend religious services (circle one letter):
a. less than once a month d. three times a month

b. once a month e. four times a month
c. twice a month f. more than four times a
month

Number of your children born into this marriage.
boy(8) girl(s)

 

 

How many children under 18 years old, either yours from
a previous marriage, related in some (e.g., cousin) or
of no relation, now live with you in your home or
apartment? ___boy(s) ___girl(s)

What is your present occupation?
(job title: e.g., student, housewife, salesman, clerk etc)

What is your PERSONAL, gross income (before deductions)
$ YEARLY income

What was your father's occupation at the time you
graduated from high school? If he retired, or died,
before you graduated, state what his work was before
death or retirement (specific title of job).

 

 

 

 

‘\

APPENDIX C

ENGAGEMENT SUCCESS INVENTORY

 

ENGAGEMENT SUCCESS INVENTORY

For each question indicate which one answer most accurately
describes your situation by circling a letter (a, b, c, etc)

1.

In leisure time do you prefer:

a. Stay at home all or most of the time

b. Fifty-fifty reply or equiValent

c. Emphasis on stay at home 7

d. To be "on the go” all or most of the time

e. We have difficulty making up our minds or agreeing

Do you and your finace(e) engage in interests and activi-
ties together?

a. All of them
b. Most of them
c. Some of them
d. Few or none

Do you confide in your fiance(e)?

a. About everything
b. About most things
c. About some things
d. Other

 

Does you fiance(e) confide in you?

a. About everything
b. About most things
c. About some things
d. Other

 

Frequency of demonstration of affection for fiance(e):

a. Practically all the time
b. Very frequent

c. Occasional

d. Seldom or never

Are you satisfied with the amount of demonstration of
affection?

a. Both satisfied

b. One satisfied, other desires more
c. One satisfied, other desires less
6. Both desire more

e. One desires less, other more

f. Both desire less

287

'P-

288

Questions 7-17 all relate to the extent of agreement or
disagreement between couple members in a number of areas in
their relationship. The answers to these questions are

all coded in the same manner. The code is shown below.
Record your answer to the questions by circling the appro-
priate code letter in each question.

a. Always agree

b. Almost always agree
c. Occasionally disagree
d. Frequently disagree
e. Almost always disagree 1.4
f. Always disagree

 

7. Money matters:
a b c d e f

 

8. Recreation:
a b c d e f

9. Religion:
a b c d e f

10. Demonstration of affection:
a b c d e f

11. Friends:
a b c d e f

12. Table manners
a b c d e f

13. .Matters of conventionality:
a b c d e f

14. Philosophy of life:
a b c d e‘ f

15. Ways of dealing with your
families
a b c d e f

16. Arrangements for marriage:
a b c d e f

17. Dates: a b c d e f

18. Do you ever wish you had
not become engaged?
a. Never
b. Once
c. Occasionally
d. Frequently

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

289

Have you ever contemplated breaking your engagement?
. Never '

.b. .Once

c..-Occasionally
d. Frequently

What things annoy you about your engagement?

a. None, perfectly satisfied, etc.

b. One thing

c. Two things

d. Three or more

e. Its length only

f. Being separated only

9. Length and one other annoyance

h. Separation & one other annoyance

i. One annoyance & length & separation

j. Two or more annoyances & length and/or separation

What things does your fiance(e) do that you do not like?

a. None

b. One thing

c. Two things

d. Three or more

Has your relationship ever been broken temporarily?

a. Never

b. Once

c. Twice

d. Three or more times

If you could, what things would you change in your .
fiance(e) ~

In physical appearance

In mental, temperamental or
personality characteristics

In ideas

In personal habits

In any other way

 

 

 

 

 

If you could, what things would you change in yourself?

In physical appearance

ninental, temperamental or
personality characteristics

In ideas

In personal habits

In any other way

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

APPENDIX D

LUSCHER COLOR TEST

LUSCHER COLOR TEST

The person administering this Marriage Readiness Inventory
will ask you to look at eight squares of color at the front
of the room. Follow his instructions carefully. Use the
number assigned to each color to record your preferences.)
Do not write in the names of colors.

FIRST SERIES

 

 

 

 

 

Make sure that you have used each number 1 through 8 only
once.

 

 

 

 

 

SECOND SERIES

Follow the instructions carefully. They are a little
different this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make sure that you have used each number 1 through 8 only
once.

PREDICTION SERIES
The instructions for this final series are VERY DIFFERENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make sure that you have used each number 1 through 8 only
once.

290

 

 

 

291

 

Examiner requested
beyond initial

result

Comments:

His lst.

Date LUSCHER COLOUR TEST
Tested by
HUSBAND .
Looked at wife
examiner
volunteered self
wife
'no pref'
accepted
refused
looked to A
examiner to B
decide C
'asked examiner A
to decide B

first

Her lst.

 

Couple #

WIFE

husband
examiner

 

self
husband
'no pref'
accepted
refused

(I)? no!»

first

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His 2nd.

He guessed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Her 2nd.

 

She guessed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To indicate sequence of events, write numbers in order that
events occur, numbers at left of event description. For
lettered events, circle event, and write number to left

of event. Give simultaneous events the same number.

 

APPENDIX E

MARITAL ROLES INVENTORY

 

HUSBAND'S ROLES

Below is a list of functions or roles of a husband and
father arranged in a random or haphazard order. Please read
all the statement.
we

After you have read all the statements, decide which
you EXPECT to carry out as your most important function or
role in your family situation ONCE YOU ARE MARRIED. Give it
number 1. Then decide which one you expect to carry out as -
your next most important function or role in your family
situation once you are married. Give it number 2. Then num-

-ber the other statements in the same way until you have a
different number from 1 to 11 for each statement.

 

There is no correct order for these statements. One
order may be as good or better than another order depending
upon circumstances. Remember: Number these statements
from 1 to 11 in the order of importance in which YOU EXPECT
TO CARRY OUT THESE ROLES IN YOUR FMILY SITUATION ONCE YOU
ARE MARRIED.

I do my jobs around the house.

I am a companion to my wife.

I help the children grow by being their friend, teacher
and guide.

I earn the living and support the family.

I do my wife's work around the house if my help is needed.
I practice the family religion or philosophy.

I am a sexual partner to my wife.

I serve as the model of men for my children.

I decide when the family is still divided after dis-
cussing something.

I represent and advance my family in the community.

I manage the family income and finances.

Check to see that you have a different number from 1
to 11 for each statement above. Each number should represent
the order in which you actually expect to carry out these
roles in your family situation once you are married. Number
1 is the most important and number 11 is the least important.

Reprinted by permission gf Western Psychological Services

 

 

 

Cgpyright c 1961, Nathan Hurvitz, Ph.D.

 

 

292

293

'HUSBAND'S EXPECTATIONS OF HIS WIFE'S ROLES

Below is a list of functions or roles of a wife and
mother arranged in a random or haphazard order. Please read
all the statements.

After you have read all the statements, decide which
one you want or EXPECT your future wife to carry out as her
most important function or role, so that your family situa-
tion will be as you want it to be ONCE YOU ARE MARRIED.
Give it number 1. Then decide which one you want or expect
your future wife to carry out as her next most important
function or role, so that your family situation will be as
you want it to be once you are married. Give it number 2.
Then number the other statements in the same way until you
have a different number from 1 to 11 for each statement.

There is no correct order for these statements. One
order may be as good or better than another depending upon
-circumstances. Remember: Number these statements from 1
to 11 in the order of importance in which you want or expect
your future wife to carry out these roles, so that your
fmily situation will be as youxwant it to be once you are
married. y
She helps earn the living when her husband needs her help
or when the family needs more money.

She practices the family religion or philosophy.
She cares for the children's everyday needs.

She is a companion to her husband.

She is the homemaker. ‘

She is a sexual partner to her husband.

She serves as the model of women for her children.
She represents and advances her family socially and in
the community.

She helps the children grow by being their friend,
teacher and guide.

She manages the family income and finances.

She decides when the family is still divided after
discussing something.

Check to see that you have a different number 1 to 11
for each statement above. Each number should represent the
order in which you want or expect your future wife to carry
out these roles, so that your family situation will be as you
want it to be once you are married. Number 1 is the most
important and number 11 is the least important

Reprinted gy permission g; Western Psychological Services
Copyright c 1961, Nathan Hurvitz, Ph.D.

 

 

 

 

 

294

WIFE'S ROLES
Below is a list of functions or roles of a wife and

mother arranged in a random or haphazard order. Please
read all the statements.

After you have read all the statements decide which you
EXPECT to carry out as your most important function or role
in your family situation ONCE YOU ARE MARRIED. Give it num-
ber 1. Then decide which one you expect to carry out as
your next most important function or role in your family
situation once you are married. Give it number 2. Then
number the other statements:h1the same way until you have
a different number 1 to 11 for each statement.

There is no correct order for these statements. One
order may be as good or better than another order depending
upon circumstances. Remember: Number these statements
from 1 to 11 in the order or importance in which YOU EXPECT
TO CARRY OUT THESE ROLES IN YOUR FAMILY SITUATION ONCE YOU
ARE MARRIED.

I help earn the living when my husband needs my help or
when the family needs more money.

practice the family religion or philosophy.

care for the children's everyday needs.

am a companion to my husband.

am the homemaker.

am a sexual partner to my husband.

serve as the model of women for my Children.
represent and advance my family socially and in the
community.

I help the children grow by being their friend, teacher
and guide.

I manage the family income and finances.

I decide when the family is still divided after discuss-
ing something.

HHHHHHH

Check to see that you have a different number from 1
to 11 for each statement above. Each number should represent
the order in which you actually expect to carry out these
roles in your fmaily situation once you are married. Number
1 is the most important and number 11 is the least important.

Reprinted gy permission gf_Western Psychological Services

 

 

 

COpyright c 1961, Nathan Hurvitz, Ph.D.

 

 

 

295

'WIPE'S EXPECTATIONS OF HER HUSBAND'S ROLES

Below is a list of functions or roles of a husband and
father arranged in a random or haphazard order. Please
read all the statements.

After you have read all the statements, decide which
one you want or EXPECT your future husband to carry out
as his most important function or role, so that your family
situation will be as you want it to be ONCE YOU ARE MARRIED.
Give it number 1. Then decide which one you want or expect
your future husband to carry out as his next most important A-
function or role, so that your family situation will be as
you want it to be once you are married. Give it number 2
Then number the other statements in the same way until you
have a different number from 1 to 11 for each statement.

 

There is no correct order for these statements. One
'order may be as good or better than another depending upon
circumstances. Remember: Number these statements from 1

to 11 in the order of importance in which you want or

expect your future husband to carry out these roles, so that
your family situation will be as you want it to be once you
are married.

He does his jobs around the house.

He is a companion to his wife.

He helps the children grow by being their friend, teacher
and guide.

He earns the living and supports the family.

He does his wife's work around the house if his help

is needed. -
He practices the family religion or philosOphy.

He is a sexual partner to his wife.

He serves as the model of men for his children.

He decides when the family is still divided after dis-
cussing something.

He represents and advances his family in the community.
He manages the family income and finances.

Check to see that you have a different number from 1
to 11 for each statement above. Each number should represent
the order in which you want or expect your future husband
to carry out these roles, so that your family situation will
be as you want it to be once you are married. Number 1
is the most important and number 11 is the least important.

Reprinted by permission gf Western Psycholggical Services

 

 

COpyright c 1961, Nathan Hurvitz, Ph.D.

 

 

296

HUSBAND'S ROLES

D

Below is a list of functions or roles or a husband
and father arranged in a random or haphazard order. Please
read all the statements.

 

After you have read all the statements decide which
one you carry out as your most important function or role
in your family situation as it really is at the present time.
Give it number 1. Then decide which one you carry out as
your next most important function or role in your family
situation as it really is at the present time. Give it ful
number 2. Then number the other statements in the same way
until you have a different number from 1 to 11 for each
statement. If you have no children, omit the satements
about children. Your numbers then will be from 1 to 9. . P

" .‘fl ’J' _

 

There is no correct order for these statements. One
Porder may be as good or better than another order depending
upon circumstances. Remember: Number these statements
from 1 to 11 in the order of importance in which you actually
carry out these roles in your family situation as it
really is at the present time. \
I do my jobs around the house.
I am a companion to my wife.
I help the children grow by being their friend, teacher
and guide.
earn the living and support the family.
do my wife's work around the house if my help is needed.
practice the family religion or philosophy.
am a sexual partner to my wife.
serve as the model of men for my children.
decide when the family is still divided after discuss-
ing something. -
I represent and advance my family in the community.
I manage the family income and finances.

HHHHHH

Check to see that you have a different number from 1
to 11 (l to 9 if you have no children) for each statement
above. Each number should represent the order in which you
actually carry out these roles in your family situation as
it really is at the present time. Number 1 is the most
important and number 11 is the least important.

Reprinted 2y permission g; Western Psychological Services

 

Copyright c 1961, Nathan Hurvitz, Ph.D.

 

 

297

' HUSBAND's PREFERNCE FOR HIS WIFE'S ROLES

-Berow is a list of functions or roles of a wife and
mother arranged in a random.or haphazard order. Please
read all statements.

After you have read all the statements decide which
one you want or prefer your wife to carry out as her most
important function or role in your family situation as you
would like it to be. Give it number 1. Then decide which
one you want or prefer your wife to carry out as her next
most important function or role in your family situation as l
you would like to to be. Give it number 2. Then decide the _4
other statements in the same way until you have a different I
number from 1 to 11 for each statement. If you have no '
children omit the statements about children. Your numbers r
then will be from 1 to 8. , ~

 

There is no correct order for these statements. One
'order may be as good or better than another depending upon
the circumstances. Remember: Number these statements
from 1 to 11 in the order of importance in which you want
or prefer your wife to carry out these roles in your family
situation as you would like it to be:

She helps earn the living when her husband needs her
help or when the family needs more money.

She practices the family religion or philosophy.

She cares for the children's everyday needs.

She is a companion to her husband.

She is the homemaker.

She is a sexual partner to her husband.

She serves as the model of women for her children.
She represents and advances her family socially and in
the community.

She helps the children grow by being their friend,
teacher and guide.

She manages the family income and finances.

She decides when the family is still divided after
discussing something.

Check to see that you have a different number 1 to 11
(l to 8 if you have no children) for each statement above.
Each number should represent the order in which you want or
prefer your wife to carry out these roles in your family
situation as you would like it to be. Number 1 is the most
important and number 11 is the least important.

Reprinted 2y permission g£_Western Psychological Services

 

Copyright c 1961, Nathan Hurvitz, Ph.D.

 

 

298

WIFE'S ROLES

0

Below is a list of functions or roles of a wife and
mother arranged in a random or haphazard order. Please
read all the statements.

After you have read all the statements decide which
one you carry out as your most important function or role
in your family situation as it really is at the present
time. Give it number 1. Then decide which one you carry
out as your next most important function or role in your
family situation as it really is at the present time. “I
Give it number 2. Then number the other statements in the i
same way until you have a different number from 1 to 11
for each statement. If you have no children, omit the 3
statements about children. Your numbers then will be from
1 to 8. ’

 

There is no correct order for these statements. One
order may be as good or better than another order depending
upon circumstances. Remember: Number these statements
from 1 to 11 in the order of importance in which you actually
carry out these roles in your family situation as it really
is at the present time.

I help earn the living when my husband needs my help
or when the family needs more money.

practice the family religion or philOSOphy.

care for the children's everyday needs.

am a companion to my husband.

am the homemaker.

am a sexual partner to my husband.

serve as the model of women for my children.
represent and advance my family socially and in the
community.

I help the children grow by being their friend, teacher
and guide.

I manage the family income and finances.

I decide when the family is still divided after dis-
cussing something.

HHHHHHH

Check to see that you have a different number from 1
to 11 (l to 8 if you have no children) for each statement
above. Each number should represent the order in which you
actually carry out these roles in your family situation as
it really is at the present time. Number 1 is the most
important and number 11 is the least important.

Reprinted 2y permission g£_Western Psychological Services

 

Copyright c 1961, Nathan Hurvitz, Ph.D.

 

 

299

'WIFE'S PREFERENCE FOR HER HUSBAND'S ROLES
Below is a list of functions or roles of a husband

and father arranged in a random or haphazard order. Please
read all the statements.

After you have read all the statements decide which
one you want or prefer your husband to carry out as his most
important functioncm'role in your family situation as
you would like it to be. Give it number 1. Then decide
which one you want or prefer your husband to carry out as
his next most important function or role in your family situa-
tion as you would like it to be. Give it number 2. Then
number the other statements in the same way until you have
a different number from 1 to 11 for each statement. If
you have no children omit the statements about children.
Your numbers then will be from 1 to 9.

- There is no correct order for these statements. One
order may be as good or better than another depending upon
the circumstances. Remember: Number these statements
from 1 to 11 in the order of importance in which you want
or prefer your husband to carry out these roles in your
family situation as you would like it to be.

He does his jobs around the house.

He is a companion to his wife.

He helps the children grow by being their friend,
teacher and guide.

He earns the living and supports the family.

He does his wife's work around the house if his help is
needed. .
He practices the family religion or philosophy.

He is a sexual partner to his wife.

He serves as the model of men for his children.

He decides when the family is still divided after
discussing something.

He represents and advances his family in the community.
He manages the family income and finances.

Check to see that you have a different number from
1 to 11 (l to 9 if you have no children) for each statement
above. Each number should represent the order in which you
want or prefer your husband to carry out these roles in your
family situation as you would like it to be. Number 1 is
the most important and number 11 is the least important.

Reprinted py_permission g£_Western Psychological Services

 

 

Cgpyright c 1961, Nathan Hurvitz, Ph.D.

 

 

 

300

On the previous page you numbered the statements in order of
importance from 1 to 11. You indicated your preference
about the relative importance of your roles and your spouse's
roles in your forthcoming marriage. Now, read the state-
ments below, but this time, READ THE STATEMENTS FROM YOUR
FINACE(E)' S POINT OF VIEW. ESTIMATE or PREDICT as closely

as you can how your finace will number these statements.

 

ESTIMATE or PREDICT how your fiance will number the husband's
roles from 1- 11.

He does his jobs around the house.

He is a companion to his wife.

He helps the children grow by being their friend,
teacher and guide.

He earns the living and supports the family

He does his wife's work around the house if his help
is needed.

He practices the family religion or philosophy.

He is a sexual partner to his wife.

He serves as the model of men for his children.

He decides when the family is still divided after dis-
cussing something. \

He represents and advances his family in the community.
He manages the family income finances.

Again, ESTIMATE or PREDICT how your finace will number these
statements from 1-11. This set refers to the wife's roles.

She helps earn the living when her husband needs her
help or when the family needs more money.

She practices the family religion or philosophy.

She cares for the children's everyday needs.

She is a companion to her husband.

She is the homemaker.

She is a sexual partner to her husband.

She serves as the model of women for her children.

She represents and advances her family socially in the
community.

She helps the children grow by being their friend,
teacher and guide.

She manages the family income and finances.

She decides when the family is still divided after dis-
cussing something.

Check to see that you have a different number from 1-11
for each statement above.

APPENDIX E

PINANC IAL PRIORITIES INVENTORY

 

 

FINANCIAL PRIORITIES SCALE

0

First --"imagine that you and your spouse will be living on a
very low income when you are first married.

Second -- examine the list of budget items below. Choose
the budget item you think is the most important. Write the
number of this item in box A below. Now chodse the budget
Emmnyou think is next most important. Write the number of
this item in box B. Then write the numbers of the 8 next
most important budget items, in order of importance, in

the remaining boxes.

1. Appliance repairs

2. Bank and finance charges

3. Books, magazines and papers

4. Car insurance

5. Car payments

6. Car upkeep

7. Church contributions

8. Clothes - his

9. Clothes - hers \

10. Community Chest

11. Disability insurance

12. Donations to other organizations

13. Dry cleaning and laundry

14. Entertainment - movies, alcohol, cigarettes
15. Food and household supplies

16. Furniture

17. Gasoline

18. Gifts - Christmas, birthdays and etc.
19: Haircuts and beauty shop

20. House repairs

21. Life insurance

22. Insurance on personal property (and house)
23. Mail .

24. Medical insurance and doctor bills

25. Miscellaneous

26. Phone

27. Pocket or incidentals money - his

28. Pocket or incidentals money - hers

29. Professional or union dues

30. Rent or Mortgage Payments

31. Savings

32. Taxes - property, home

33. Utilities

34. vacation

35. Supplies and etc. for anticipated baby
36. Educational costs, books, tuition, etc.

301

 

302

 

.-
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you have a number in each box A through R, check to
see that the number of the most important budget item is
in box A. Boxes B through R should contain the numbers of
the budget items second through tenth in importance. Do
not leave any boxes without a number.

INCOME
How much income will you and your future spouse need so
you can live comfortably once you are married?

$ month

 

Copyright c 1972, David g. Rolfe

 

 

303

F INANC IAL PRIORITIES SCALE

Firsb-imagine that you and your spouse will be living on a
very low income when you are first married.

Second--examine the list of budget items below. Choose the
budget item you think is the most important. Write the
number of this item in box A below. Now choose the budget
item you think is next most important. Write the number of
this item in box B.’ Then write the numbers of the 8 next
most important budget items, in order of importance, in the
remaining boxes.

1. Appliance repairs
2. Bank and finance charges
3. Books, magazines and papers
4. Car insurance
5. Car payments
6. Car upkeep
7. Church contributions
8. Clothes - his
9. Clothes - hers
11. Disability insurance \
12. Charitable donations
13. Dry cleaning and laundry
14. Entertainment - movies, alcohol, cigarettes
15. Food and household supplies
16. Furniture
17. Petrol
18. Gifts - Christmas, birthdays and etc.
19. Haircuts and beauty shop
-20. House repairs
2l.~Life insurance
22. Insurance on personal property (and house)
23. Mail
24. Medical insurance and doctor bills
25. Miscellaneous
26. Phone
27. Pocket or incidentals money - his
28. Pocket or incidentals money - hers
29. Professional or union dues
30. Rent or Mortgage payments
31. Savings
32. Rates - property and home

33. Gas, electricity, coal for heating, light, cooking, etc.

34. Holidays
35. Supplies and etc. for anticipated baby

 

w, Ins—...:-

 

304

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you have a number in each box A through K, check to see
that the number of the most important budget item is in box
A. Boxes B through R should contain the numbers of the
Budget items second through tenth in importance. Do not
leave any boxes without a number.

INCOME
How much income will you and your future spouse need so you
lean live comfortably once you are married?
$ ( ) Yearly

or $ (.) Monthly

Copyright c 1972, David E. Rolfe

 

APPENDIX G

PRIMARY COMMUNICATION INVENTORY

PRIMARY COMMUNICATION INVENTORY

Instructions: Below is a list of items on communication
between you and your spouse. In the columns on the right
are five possible answers. Opposite each item place a
check in the column which best represents the extent to
which you and your spouse behave in the specified way.

 

\kxy Enr- (kna-

Iten flmr- .
t1 snxail
quafliy (mnm.){ y

Sehkm11Namm

 

l. Iknrofuandijmiamdjfimm
spmrmetaUCONergfleaanu:
thump‘dmifihnxnncmning
theciqfl

 

’2. HavOEUaIdbjwnaaniyour
:mnuaetau<owertmpk5r
auu:thflxmrfiun:hqxnn
dhrfixythe<kqfl

 

3. Do:wx:aniyour£mnuae
'uuktmmr'dfingsyoucfis-
agn§:abam:ortuwe
(fiifhnflthilownfl

 

4. Ebjwniandjnnm'spmre:
mummdxminuungsin
whflflzyouaielmnh.flr-
hameuafl

 

S.'Ixeeijm'quseafifiust
whatIE:(dufl amnxand
howlr:(she)EEW8:flzto
thevnyflymnseantoikel
atthelnmmmt? ~

 

6. Vhen:¢w:shn1:u3aek
a<m£etflxn dxasyour
spmmx:knmvwhat:fl:is
befineuym:ask:fl9

 

7. DoyOu knowthefeel-
immsofjfimmqunse
frantis Own) fiufial
InfilbxfilygmeUmxe?

 

8. Ix>youautiyoursnxuee
awonicemuin1mxfiecu;
in<xmwenunicn?

 

 

 

 

 

 

305

306

 

Item

0

gently

sionally

Selmm+ Never

 

9.

10.

11.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Does your spouse explain or
express himself (herself)
to you through a glance or
gestures?

Canyourspousetellwhat

kingofdayyouhavehad
withoutasking?

Your Spouse wants to visit
sale close frimds or rela-
tives. You don't particu-

larly mjoy theirconpany.’

Vbuldymtellhimmer)
this?

Doesyomspousediscuss
nettersofsexwithyou?

Doyoumdyourspomeuse
wordswhichha‘eaque-
cialmeaningmtmder—
stoodbywtsiders?

rbwoftendoesyour
spomesulkorpout?

'mnyouandyom'spouse

discuss your nost sacred
beliefs without feelings
of restraint or albarrass-
malt?

Doyouavoid tellingyour
spousethingsmichput
youinabad light?

You andyour spouse are
visiting friads. Some—

thingissaidbythe
frimdswhichcausesyouto
glanoeateachother.
Vbuldyoumderstandeadl
other?

Hawoftencanywtellas
mnhfromthetnneofvoioe
ofyourspouseasfromwtat
he (she) actually says?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

307

 

‘oItEll

fre-

«partly

cantly

Occa-
sionally

Seldan‘

 

20.

21.

23.

24.

25.

mwoftendoyouandyom'
spousetalkwitheach
otheraboutpersonal
problem?

Doyoufeel tlatinuost
mattersyourspmse‘
kmwsvhatymaretiying
tosay?

Would you rather talk
about intinate natters
with your spouse than
with sate other person?

Do you maderstand the
neaning of your spmse's
facial expressims?

If you and your: spouse
are visiting friends or
relatives and one of you
starts in say sonething,
was the other take over
the oonversatim without
feeling of internpting?
During marriag, have you
and your spouse, in game-
ral, talked nost things
over together?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

APPENDIX H

LOCKE-WALLACE MARITAL ADJUSTMENT TEST;

AND PROBLEM CHECK LIST

MARI TAL-ADJUSTMENT TEST

 

1. Check the dot on the scale line below which best des-
cribes the degree of happiness, everything considered of
your present marriage. The middle point, "happy," repre-
sents the degree of happiness which most people get from
marriage, and the scale gradually ranges on one side to
those few who are very unhappy in marriage, and on the
other, to those few who experience extreme joy or feli-
city in marriage.

Very Happy PerfectIy
unhappy happy

State the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement be-
tween you and your mate on the following items.
question in terms of your relationship over the last month.
Please check each column. ‘

Answer each

 

Carrion

Fur-.Kmmet
Ahmet -aLhr qmailyaflwmwsAhmue
)Always always dis- dis- dis- Dis-
agnx27my£e agnx: amnee agnxemmpee

 

ZlumdlhrgmeUy'fnruces

 

3lhitensof1x£nanfion

 

4IXmomm:atnnmsof
afflxfiion

 

Slhienhs

 

(isexlxflaths

 

7 Conventionality (right,
gami,cm'pnxxm'amrmct)

 

Bimikxnfimyoflife

 

9Vhys<fi5daflingvdth
bmdaws

 

lozmnuntcnfthm38pefizto~

 

gear:

 

 

 

 

 

 

308

 

11.

12.

13.

14 e

15.

16.

17.

309

When disagreements arise, they usually result in:.

*a. ‘husband giving in.

b. 'wife giving in.

c. agreement by mutual give and take.

Do you and your mate engage in outside interests
together?

a. all of them.

b. some of them.

c. very few of them.

d. none of them.

In leisure time do you generally prefer:

a. to be "on the go."

b. to stay at home.

In leisure time does your mate generally prefer:
a. to be "on the go."

b. to stay at home. ~

Do you ever wish you had not married?

a. frequently

b. occasionally

c. rarely

d. never

If yOu had to live your life over, do you think you
would: -
a. marry the same person

b. marry a different person

0. not marry at all

Do you confide in your mate?

a. almost never

b. rarely

c. in most things

d. in everything

3..)

310

8. Below is a list of items which often cause difficulty

‘in marriage. Check (X) any of the following items

which you feel have caused difficulties in your marriage.
Double check (XX) the one item which you feel has caused
the greatestdifficulty in your marriage. Answer each
item in terms of your entire married life.

a.
b.
c.
d.

:1:
O
2
:3
t<
g...
rf
(‘0
B
U)
H
p
U)
("f
(D
0.:
9’
U‘
0
<
(D
:3”
D)
<
(D
‘<
O
C
O
:7
(D
0
x
(D
Q;
\J

disagreement over who will handle the money
difficulty in deciding how to spend money
mate's attempt to control my spending money
mate's spending habits have lead to financial
problems

disagreement about which church to attend
other religious differences

different amusement interests

constant bickering

selfishness and lack of COOperation

lack of companionship

completing household tasks

the way decisions are made when we have disagreed
the way we handle differences

disagreement about methods of birth control
lack of mutual affection (no longer in love)
unsatisfying sexual relations

lack of mutual friends

adultery

mate paid attention to (became familiar with) another
person

interference of in-laws

ill health

differing desire to have children

disagree over when to start a family
unplanned pregnancy

use of alcohol (drunkenness)

use of drugs

too much time spent working or studying
service in the military

spouse's career plans

my career plans

where to live

 

APPENDIX I

\

EDMOND'S SCALE OF MARITAL CONVENTIONALIZATION
(RETITLED FOR THIS STUDY: SATISFACTION

IN MARRIAGE TEST)

0

SATISFACTION IN-MARRIAGE

Read eaCh statement and decide whether it is true as applied
to you, your mate, or your marriage. If it is true as
applied to you, your mate, or your marriage circle the letter

T.

If it is false and it applies to you, your mate, or

your marriage circle the letter F.

T

D-J

ease

"'1

"1'9'11'11

11.

12.

13.

14.
15.
16.

17.

I confide in my mate about everything.

I don't think anyone could possibly be happier
than my mate and I when we are with one another.

If my mate has any faults I am not aware of them.
I have known very little happiness in my marriage.
No one but my mate holds any attraction for me.

My mate completely understands and sympathizes
with my every mood.\

There are some things about my mate that I would
change if I could.

Every new thing I have learned about my mate has
pleased me.

. My marriage is an unhappy one.

Once in a while I am not completely truthful with

I think my marriage is neither more nor less happy
than most marriages.

My mate and I understand each other completely.

If every person in the world of the opposite sex
had been available and willing to marry me I could
not have made a better choice.

My marriage is a very happy one.

I believe our marriage is reasonably happy.

I might have been happier had I married somebody
else.

My marriage could be happier than it is.

311

18.'

19‘:

20.

21.
22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.:

30.

312

We sometimes get on each other's nerves.
We get angry with each other sometimes.

I don't think any couple could live together
with greater harmony than my mate and I.

My marriage is not a perfect success.

There are times when I do not feel a great
deal of love and affection for my mate.

My mate has all of the qualities I've always
wanted in a mate.

I have some needs that are not being met by my

marriage.

There are times when my mate does things that
make me unhappy.

If we should encounter serious difficulties in
our marriage I havexno doubt that we would emerge
happier than before.

I have never regretted my marriage, not even
for a moment.

We are as well adjusted as any two persons in
this world can be.

Although I am usually happy with my mate, he (she)
occasionally makes me feel miserable. °

I'm quite happily married.

\

APPENDIX J .

DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES USED

IN DATA ANALYSIS

 

DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES USED IN DATA ANALYSIS

0

A. Independent Variables

1. Age: the averaged age of the couple being half the
product of man's age plus woman's age.

2. Length of Acqmfintanceship: mean of his and her
estimates regarding how long they have known each other.

3. Length of Engagement: mean of his and her estimates
regarding how long they have been engaged.

4. Education: mean of the number of years of education
completed by man and woman.

B. Dichotomous Independent Variables
1. Religion: If both persons are of the same faith,
scored as 0: if of different faiths, or one of them
of no faith, scored as 1.
2. Happiness of Childhood: If both partners describe
their childhoods as "very happy” or ”happy,” couple is
scored as 1. All other combinations are scored as 0.
3. Happiness of Parents' Marriages: when both persons
report that their parents marriage was "very happy" or
”happy,“ scored as 1. All other combinations scored 0.
4. Parental Approval of Couple's Marriage: when all

- four parents approve, scored as l; where there is any

disapproval scored as 0.

C. Value of Index Scores

1. Financial Priorities Inventory Index: High score
id desirable.

2. Marital Roles Inventory Index: Low score (low
strain) is preferable. A

3. Luscher Color Test Index: Low score desirable.
4. Color Prediction Index: Low score optimum.
S. Conventionalization Index: Low score preferred.

6. Conventionalization-Satisfaction Index. High
score good.

7. Satisfaction Index: High score desirable.

313