._v-. we er—PV— ‘rI‘vw-W v ~w—-—-r‘ 1 JJu-HJ i-JH-JJJYA ,.-..“T' '\ ’ 1 1-:2' . ,MJ_JV..'. , .- JJJJ::. ((deJ “11“ -‘-q ,1". ”is“. :3" J L.» "{~‘I.‘I‘II'.‘ _ "'r‘)"'\K1‘l|“ iii" ‘{.JJJJ"1"|,“H~“I J~\.1,’n8;: 3.1314,! 13% J .an Q: ‘ ‘9‘“. “34"}: 1.12"“ ".1 . ~. #111" '..... “NW, A;\:‘.." ' I” ‘j? J‘\ '4,on -, " \‘:IJ‘II‘:. I 1 ‘ ’ It.” :"I' JJJ KQ’W‘.J‘I. , .,. J. A! '~. ILI’ J.J.JJJJJ :{1JJ.:J.IJJ$‘.::JI :AI‘I'. "v"'(\‘ I l "” " " ,."V'q1quv'141\1t$u‘ ‘2; ' 3‘s! !. ‘1‘ "1'; '“ '1‘ "'53“ -. ‘wlf'ffi 1. :- 1.1.11“ <1 1:». .JI:|:I. ‘1 ”Y o 4 “£524 \ ~ D ‘\ {J " I . {ii-51‘ ‘NJ "' 'C VA 1.3;; ,\ Vl \ *8 K“. ‘ .§4%£‘V\:§sf} A-b . angina: m—«sggdv . . ' :1in - ,.\ I ’g . .J‘iJ‘leIIY‘A‘aL‘fl'fix'fiJ ..‘A u ‘- 1‘ E“ ‘er'u‘i "‘flé‘ .3, ~v$2§ 1“ ‘§ 4.- . v ' '6‘. . x 1,5 I - L n '.‘ 1,.) - J':‘J‘J|_a.‘“.‘ a: {iii-"J ' 1 .11?" J \‘Ju “r .- q . V'Lfr "1' IO.~‘.1?0" K11.” ‘ "'4 "' it; 1.1" L r3“?! .11.- \Jlfilfiél 04.”.u. . J J |R" 'itYJI-«sfxffigvfiéfgn _ uqu J-Hr-‘I.I “W“ I 4‘ 1’ 1.1}"121 5.0} ’ "' 2M"? ‘33:?“ . . , ‘13:: V‘Ii‘ .' _'r,~\ H ‘ " ' ...'.'..~‘r.-.. . v - w 11- It: we - {-R'IJJ‘L‘ O (FT. ' 1" I {:11 .1'121 .I'fhj'b Rag. L‘K‘J .1 J. 44.- .3231. If? *v*"1»,‘ "mi: it " o “' 'v‘. “"‘I‘:I: I I'I'LJ‘L“ . I'J"'.J't1IJJ1t'JH'.1 'v , “A 1"' Qt}. I , ru' mun-o " ' I ”Vazt “9.1 1411'- his, 'J~} :- 'I‘T- 7'41” .JJUIIJI'JIJ . I ' , .I .51).; 1;. Q». ‘. ' I JJ .. Q .1 .. , u, I,. , ' ‘14-.“ 31:. 1‘s. .v- ..4 1' 1 - ' ' I ' . 0“ .1; . . A ,l/¥I , I II“ \ L. l “'1" 11:24.“, J'II'I 'IV“: ”(25" 348‘; “a" *H "Kfismfl- ’v‘f! I; "’5.“ L\v.'.'::r. ,J-I'?J-'_;,'J1 Dr- fie." :r':'|': ' 1' ' I' , " ‘ 51 " -', , .1‘. . ..__.- ‘ ~ ~‘.'.' " J21 J1!" J‘é‘: 2' .:\ J“.- "1-1 {"191 .41;..K~ "L‘m‘ 'T‘V- \_ «51‘... ”"44, J ’ _,v..'("_'v " r- "‘33:" = I _ . "‘4", ‘I‘H'JJ ‘I :— J ”v3. I n ' '1..." 'I'f — ‘ ', I'JJJ ‘.' ..J.J_:,:'J}}'I-J «r J‘J JJ J .I , w‘ ' 'J‘dn‘t (Bi; J."4. "m 1"": 4": JJ'J'J-k‘.’ ""'I‘ .~ ?' ‘ CI"? 111:5"; . ‘_. (K’-‘="":'.z";11 [:13 " '91.: 'I" “Jig: 24:53] “5‘ T‘- '3. .7. . 1&1 . J J ‘ {11“ Kg; ‘70" g V a? t?“‘-‘1“"'~,'2." JJ..3, .11"? -‘~' . , .J J. 41:11- ‘3‘ tying)! gay "I” 1:“- 5"} J4 y‘Ll. ' £1.14," ij'g‘ '1)“ “($31, ‘ ' "*- " N KJ31J;>'" " .I‘ ’4 _ . . FIR 131"“.I' ' ." lllg l1Lfljllllllfllflllgllllllljlllsllll 223"”):3'2? ”1,??Zezzte , 5 2;” 'l Iéésiv ca'aiiiy J i. A ‘ ‘V-' This is to certify that the thesis entitled Conflict Resolution and Power Seeking Behavior of Androgynous and Traditional Married Couples presented by Mary Nowack has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree inmseling, Ed. Psycnl & Spec. Ed. (Major ' Area-Counseling Psyc.)( Major professor Vfillkmtw.rhnmflnr Date June 59 1984 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES w RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ,/ / ”a!" ‘..v”-' - FA, q a ‘,- 1 5 I ' 4' .' ‘-...a LWo-M“. :x-allzo 2:5 .4... CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND POWER SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF ANDROGYNOUS AND TRADITIONAL MARRIED COUPLES By Mary Nowack A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education ABSTRACT CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND POWER SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF ANDROGYNOUS AND TRADITIONAL MARRIED COUPLES By Mary Nowack The problem addressed in this study concerned the relationship of married couples' sex role identity to conflict resolution and power seeking behavior. Primary to the study was the concept that masculinity and femininity are separate elements that vary independently within each individual. Couples that volunteered for the study were given the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to select traditional and androgynous couples . These couple types were compared because theorists advocated that two sex role arrangements are most fmctional in marriage; 1) complimentary sex roles of traditional couples, and 2) integrated sex roles of androgynous couples. Fourteen traditional couples were randomly selected from a pool of #0 such couples. Fourteen androgynous couples were obtained by moving three Spouses one point on their BSRI scores to fit the androgynous sex role identity. Next, the couples were invited to the laboratory for a procedure which consisted of the spouses indivimally select ng three marital problems from the list provided. The couples combined their lists and indicated three mutually agreed upon marital problems. Then they selected two problems, discussed them, and tried to come closer to an agreement. These interactions were audiotaped and rated using the r‘oding Scheme for Interpersonal Conflict. Since instrumental and expressive behavior are the domains of behavior used to describe masculinity and femininity, they were examined in conflict Mary Nowack resolution. Instrumental behavior is concerned with cognition. Expressive behavior is concerned with affective expression. No significant differences were fomd on these two behaviors for the two couple types and for spOIses. There were no differences found in the phase of conflict resolution for the two couple types. Regarding power seeking behavior, no differences were fomd on percent of talking time and interruptions for the two husband types. Also, there was no interaction of sex by couple type on decisions won. However, differences were found in exploratory analyses of the marital problems selected. Androgynous couples selected not enough time together, free-time, and religion, while traditional couples selected communication, finances, and household chores. Traditional wives selected household chores more than androgynous wives and androgynous husbands selected free-time more than traditional husbands. To Max, whose faith and understanding helped make this possible, and to my parents. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To William Farquhar, my chairperson, whose enthusiasm about research ideas and dedication to helping people were inspirational. His help in the idea and writing stages of my project were most appreciated. To Judith Taylor, whose reasonableness and ability to simplify the statistical jungle and put this task in perspective were astounding. To Jan Vredevoogd, who spent hours helping me make sense of my data and the computer, in addition to encouraging me when the data reduction seemed impossible. To Ralph Kron and Linda Brundage who read my work, supported me and were dear friends through this seemingly endless project. To Linda Gold who listened, supported, and gave me faith that the project could be done. To Debbie Murray, Jean Oswald, Mike Talmo, and Shaun La Blanc who helped find subjects, run subjects, and rate the massive amounts of data. Also, to all the couples that willingly participated and gave me the hope that something useful was being accomplished. Finally, to Stuart Warner, whose encouragement, editing, and friendship were invaluable in the completion of this project. . My thanks and sincere gratitude. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TAB LES viii CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM IntmdUCfim ............................................ 1 Purpose of the Study .................................... 2 Need ‘0' the SW” ..................................... 2 Rationale for Studying Young Married Couples ......... 2 Sex Role Identity and Conflict Resolution Behavior ..... 3 Sex Role Identity and Power Seeking Behavior .......... 3 Research Hypotheses .................................... u Sex Role Identity and Conflict Resolution Behavior ..... 4 Sex Role Identity and Power Seeking Behavior .......... ti Theoretical Constructs and Empirical Bases for Study ........ 4 Sex Role T heory in Marriage ......................... 4 Implications from Theory for Present Study ............ 6 Definition of Terms ..................................... 7 Limitation of the Study .................................. 7 Outline of the Remaining Chapters ........................ 8 CHAPTER 11: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 53" R°1¢1dentity ...................................... .. 9 New Theory of Sex Role Identity .................... 10 Measurement of the New Theory of Sex Role Identities .13 Bern Sex Role Inventory ............................ ii Personal Attributes Questionnaire ................... 15 Revised Sex Role Identity Measures .................. 16 Conflict Resolution Conflict Theory .................................. Types of Conflict Resolution Behavior in Marriage ..... Sex Differences in Conflict Resolution Behavior Sex Role Identity and Conflict Resolution Behavior . . . . Power Seeking BehaViO" ................................. Power Theory .................................... Sex Differences in Marital Power ................... Sex Role Identity and Marital Power ................. Research Methods ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Power In Marital Interaction Research ............... Implications ........................................... Summary ............................................. CHAPTER III: DESIGN OF THE STUDY Instr um entati on Bem Sex Role Inventory Scale Reliability .................. Sample 0‘ Married CWPIS‘ .............................. Procedure for Data Collection EXPtiI’imtintal Pmcedure ................................ COding SYStem ........................................ Power Variables Defined List of Marital Problems Rfieai‘Ch 13618" ....................................... ”Wan-“’5 ............................................ Conflict Resolution Power Seeking .................................... Procedure for the Data Analysis .......................... t-T6t ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Chi Squats ....................................... Multivariate Repeated Measu'es .................... Summary ............................................. 16 16 l8 19 21 23 23 24 25 27 3O 31 33 37 38 38 no 2:2 44 45 as as as 46 #7 #7 47 47 #8 49 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS RCSUIISOITIIEADBIYSIS oooooooooooosoosooooosososo50 CODIIICT RBSOIUTIOD BEhBVIOI' Of 0 o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o o 50 Androgynous and Traditional Married Couples Conflict Resolution Behavior and Sex Role Identity . . o 53 Sex Role Identity and Power Seeking Behavior . . . . . . o 57 Supplementary Analyses............u.....uu60 CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SummaryoftheStudy sosooosoo00.000000000000000064 New MeasuresofSex RoleIdentitycoo-0000000000064 Conflict Resolution and Sex Role Identity on noon-65 Power Seeking Behavior and Sex Role Identity . u coo-65 Hypotheses sososooosoooosoossooossooo00000066 AnalysisoftheData oases-sousoc-00000000000066 Conclusions 0000000000000000000000000000.000000068 DISCUSSIODOIRSUIIS assess.seas-00000000000000.0068 Conflict Resolution Behavior and Sex Role Identity - s 068 Power Seeking Behavior and Sex Role Identity - ......73 Marital Problems and Sex Role Identity - e r o - r r o e o o 74 Literature Introduced Since the Development - s s r s r r s o s s o 77 Of the Current Study Sex RoleIdentity and Marriage ° ° ”HUN" "°°°'77 Power Seeking Behavior and Marriage 0 s ' s s s ° ° ° 0 s s '80 Suggestions for Future Research -- rose-rs roe-"rosessm APPENDICES A. BemSexROleInventory scocoonssooosoosooooooooooogq B. Letter Requesting Couple's Participation in the Study . . , .. .87 C. consentFormI 00......0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 13' Pa'sonalDataSheet 0000000o00.000000000000000000089 5- ConsentFormII .................................9O 13' InstructionsForCouples coo-cos...00000000000000.0091 G. Instructions For Experimenters...,,.,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,92 H. AreasofDisagreernent "94 1. Joint Areasof Disagreement...00000000000000.0000.095 J, DebriefingQuestionnaireoooosossoos0.0000000000000096 K. A Coding Scheme for Interpersonal Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . o o 97 L. Bern Sex Role Inventory Item Total Information - - . . . . . . o 122 M. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Value for Androgynous and Traditional Husbands for PercentofTalkingTime essence-00000000000000.124 N. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Value for Androgynous and Traditional Husbands for Percent of Interruptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 BIBLIOGRAPHYoooooooooooosooosooooooooosoooooosoolZG--132 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Summary of Results of Traditional and Androgynous . . . .51 Married Couples on Conflict Resolution and Power Seeking Behavior 4.2 Multivariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance . ~52 of the two conflict situations for Expressive and Instrumental Conflict Resolution Behavior for Androgynous and Traditional Couples 4.3 Multivariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance° ' '53 of the Expressive Conflict Resolution Behavior for Androgynous and Traditional Couples 4.4 Univariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance ° ° ° '54 for the Set of Instrumental Conflict Resolution Behavior for Androgynous and Traditional Couples 4.5 Multivariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance, , .55 of the Expressive Conflict Resolution Behavior for Androgynous and Traditional Couples 4.6 Univariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance , , , .56 for the Instrumental Conflict Resolution Behavior for Androgynous and Traditional Couples 4.7 Multivariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance ' '57 for Phase of Conflict Resolution Behavior for Androgynous and Traditional Couples 4.8 t-Test of the Percent Talking Time for. . . . . . . . . . , . , .58 Androgynous and Traditional Couples 4.9 t-Test of the of Percent of Interruptions . . . . . . . . . . . .59 for Androgynous and Traditional Husbands 4.10 The Univariate Repeated Measures Analysis of . . . . o . . 59 Variance for Decisions Won for Androgynous and Traditional Couples 4.11 Chi Square Values for Marital Problems Selected . . . . . . 60 for Androgynous and Traditional Husbands 4.12 Chi Square Values for Marital Problems Selected . . . . o .61-52 for Androgynous and Traditional Wives 4.13 Chi Square Values for Marital Problems Selected . . . . . 0 62-63 for Androgynous and Traditional Couples LIST OF TABLES Table Page 5.1 Summary of Hypotheses and Results of Analysis - r r e - 067 of Traditional and Androgynous Married Couples on Conflict Resolution and Power Seeking Behavior CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction A considerable problem of contemporary society is the high divorce rate, which causes profound effects on the married couple and the children of the marriage. In addition to other changes, these high divorce rates reflect the problems husbands and wives have relating to one another. By prescribing sex role norms, society has defined the ways husbands and wives should relate to one another. Initially, the sex role norms defined for husbands and wives were complimentary and were considered more adaptive than other sex role arrangements: husbands were to be instrumental and striving, and wives were to be warm and nurturant. With the advent of the Women's Liberation Movement, however, the advisability of complimentary sex roles in marriage is questioned and increasing agreement is found for the belief that complimentary sex roles limit the behavior of both sexes. For example, traditionally husbands were discouraged from being expressive (Balswick 6r Pecks, 1971; Sattel, 1976), and wives were discouraged from being assertive. Therefore, a new sex role paradigm was created which advocates the integration of both sex roles within each spouse. The newly created concept of integrated sex roles, namely, androgyny, may have an impact on the way husbands and wives interact and therefore needs further study. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the present study was to examine the way couples of different sex role identities relate to one another. Specifically, the focus of the study was on the way couples with different sex role identities resolve conflict and use power seeking behavior in conflict resolution. Need for the Study With the high divorce rate attesting to the problems husbands and wives have relating to one another, an examination of conflict resolution behavior of couples with complimentary sex role identities (husband-masculine and wife- feminine), and couples with integrated sex role identities (husband and wife - androgynous), is needed to see if the two couple types behave differently. Knowledge gained may possibly be used by couples and the professionals that work with them to help husbands and wives relate more effectively in the most difficult of all interpersonal issues - conflict. Rationale for Studying Young Married Couples Couples that were married at least one year without children were selected as subjects for the study. Being married at least one year was stipulated because a honeymoon period is thought to exist just after marriage where differences and conflicts are overlooked (Blood 6: Wolfe, 1960; and Rollins 6t Feldman, 1970). Since conflict resolution was the central focus of the study, it was important that couples were beyond the phase of overlooking conflict. Couples married at least one year were selected because they were presumed to be developmentally beyond the honeymoon phase. Couples without children were selected as subjects for the study since the birth of a child changes the marital relationship. These changes vary depending on the social class of the parents. For college educated couples, the birth of a child decr e355 parental companionship (Bernard, 1972). Also, the overall happiness of the couple is decreased with the birth of a child (Burgess 62 Wallin, 1953). The sample was generated primarily on a university campus, which limited the sample to mostly educated upper middle and middle class individuals. Because, according to Bernard (1972), the upper middle and middle class are socially ahead of the lower class, the sample was selected to adequately reflect these changes. Married couples were selected for the sample instead of cohabitating couples or dating couples. Being married insured a certain level of commitment in a relationship that the other types of relationships may not guarantee. Sex Role Identity and Conflict Resolution The relationship of sex role identity and conflict resolution behavior in marriage is just beginning to be studied. Other researchers have looked at reported conflict resolution behavior, but this study was the first to examine the relationship of sex role identity to actual conflict resolution behavior of married couples. Sex Role Identity and Power Seeking Behavior Previous studies asked couples with various sex role identities to report power preferences or types of behavior indicating power preferences. However, since spouses are often not aware of the roles they play in actual interaction, their responses were questionable. Therefore, this study looks at ‘ power differences in actual conflict resolution of traditional and androgynous married couples. Research Hypotheses The hypotheses formulated for the current study are presented in general form in the following section. The specific, testable hypotheses are presented in Chapter 111, "Design of the Study." Sex Role Identity and Conflict Resolution Conflict resolution behavior differs in married couples that integrate their masculinity and femininity in each spouse (androgynous couples) and in married couples that have complimentary sex role identities (masculine husbands and feminine wives). Sex Role Identity and Power Seeking Behavior Power used in conflict resolution differs in married couples that integrate their masculinity and femininity (androgynous couples) and in married couples that have complimentary sex role identities (masculine husbands and feminine wives). Theoretical Constructs and Empirical Bases for Study For the design of the present study, sex role theory, the theory of androgyny, conflict theory, and power theory were used as a base to formulate directions for inquiry. Aspects of sex role theory and the theory of androgyny are presented briefly in the section that follows. Additional elements of androgyny theory are expanded upon in the "Literature Review," Chapter II Power theory and conflict theory relevant for the present study may be found in their respective sections in Chapter II the "Literature Review." Sex Role Theory in Marriage Until recently, the dominant theory on the division of marital roles was the theory of Parsons and Bales (1955). They state that the instrumental and expressive fmctions of a marriage must be divided between spouses in order for the marital system to function successfully. The instrumental role, the primary role of the husband, is concerned with relations outside the marital system and has adaptive responsibility, according to Parsons and Bales. The wife's role, the expressive role, is concerned with maintaining relationships in the System and providing nurturance to the family. This dichotomy between marital roles reflects sex role differences in society: masculinity is viewed as instrumental, and femininity as expressive behavior. Parsons and Bales assume that a dichotomous relationship exists between instrumental and expressive behavior and between masculinity and femininity and these are consistent with gender. In addition, the complimentary nature of sex roles in marriage is considered healthier than other sex role arrangements. Recently, a new sex role paradigm was created that advocates the integration of both masculinity and femininity within each individual and each spouse. Androgyny advocates that the integration of masculinity and femininity within each individual will enhance relationships between the sexes. Carl ng's theory (1956) was instrumental in the development of the concept of androgyny. He states that each person regardless of gender has masculine and feminine qualifies. In other words, men have feminine aspects to their personality and women have masculine aspects. Part of the process of becoming whole for individlals is, according to Jung, to become conscious of the repressed other sexed parts of the self. If these repressed parts remain unconscious, they are projected into actual men and women and, thereby, interfere with relationships with men and women in the person's life. Furthermore, Jung theorizes about the integration of masculine and feminine aspects as a way for a person to achieve full potential. His emphasis on the union of Opposites, masculinity and femininity, can be seen as a way of achieving androgyny. In her recent book, June Singer (1977) resurrected and popularized Jung's work on androgyny. She states that our task is to become conscious of how we exist. As we gain awareness, we become conscious of dualities that have shaped our personality, particularly the male-female duality that seems to have generated all dualities. In healing or making the person whole, the loving of each part of the duality is essential. The active loving of each for the other is the state of androgyny. An established tendency of dualities is to make one side of the duality superior, according to Singer (1977). Due to this tendency to establish dominance of one side of the duality over the other sexism, racism, and ageism, are fostered. To overcome this tendency, Singer encourages each individual to examine his or her personality and heal the parts of the self that are warring by becoming androgynous. To expand the theory of androgyny to include the relationship of marital couples, Schwartz (1979) states that the highest level of personal integration is required for a truly fulfilling sexual loving relationship and this is an androgynous level. She draws on the work of Kernberg (1976) who states that the prerequisite of mature love is an "empathy with the complimentary sex role." Empathy is developed by identifying and accepting complimentary sex role behavior and experiences within the self. Therefore, individuals who can identify and accept those aspects of themselves that are like the complimentary sex (androgynous individuals), should have more mature love relationships than nonandrogynous individuals because they can empathize with their partner. Implications from Theory for the Present Study The two primary theories of sex roles, Parsons and Bale's theory and the theory of androgyny both postulate that their theory explains the sex roles essential for healthy marital functioning. By comparing couples with complimentary sex role identities (masculine husbands and feminine wives) of Parsons and Bales' theory with androgynous sex role identified couples (androgynous husbands and wives), these theories will be put to the test of research on this point. Initially, differences in the way the two couple types resolve conflict and use power in conflict resolution are looked at. Later, strengths and weaknesses of each sex role identity in marriage can be explored. It is hoped the study will help husbands and wives, and those working with them, learn better ways for men and women to relate to one another. Definition of Terms 'Sex Roles' refers to the behaviors and characteristics thought appropriate for each sex by members of a particular culture (Donelson 6r Gullahorn, 1977). 'Sex Role Identity' was defined as how masculine and feminine an individual regards him/herself, according to cultural sex roles (Kagan, 1964). 'Instrumental Behavior' was defined as behavior that focuses on cognitive aspects of getting the job done or the problem solved. 'Expressive Behavior' is used to mean behavior that focuses on an affective concern for the welfare of others and the harmony of the group. 'Traditional sex role identified couple' is used to mean a couple that fits the traditional sex role model. The wife has a feminine sex role identity and the husband has a masculine sex role identity. 'Androgynous sex role identified couple' is used to mean a couple in which both spouses have an androgynous sex role identity. Limitation of the Study The subjects in the study were young educated married couples without children. Because of this the generalizations are limited to this population. All subjects volunteered for the study and were paid, which limits the generalizations to paid volunteers. Another limitation to the generalization is that all subjects were from the Lansing, Michigan area. Outline of the Remaining Chapters The next chapter, Chapter II, the "Literature Review," contains the theory and research most relevant to the current study. It is organized in the same order the hypotheses are organized. In Chapter III, the design of the study is explained, including the sample, instruments, and hypotheses used. The statistics used and the plan for data analysis are also presented. Chapter IV, the Results Chapter, is also organized in the order hypotheses are tested. The last chapter, Chapter V, includes a discussion of the results of the analysis and instrumentation. Additional research done since the beginning of the study is included and suggestions are made for further research. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature is divided into four sections: 1) the new theory of sex roles; 2) conflict resolution; 3) power in marriage; and 4) research methods. The section on sex role identity begins with a theoretical overview of the subject and concludes with measurement. The section on conflict resolution starts with theory and proceeds to types of conflict resolution behavior, sex differences in conflict resolution behavior, and last sex role identity and conflict resolution behavior. Power Theory, sex differences in power, and sex role identity and power are discussed in the power section. Lastly, the research methods and power variables used in marital interaction research are detailed. Sex-Role Identity In this section, sex-role identity is defined and the related theory reviewed. Next, research on the expressive and instrumental domains of behavior that are equated with femininity and masculinity is presented. Lastly, measurement of the new theory of sex-role identity is reviewed. In most societies, different behavioral roles and personality characteristics are assigned to the two sexes. For example, men are supposed to support the family and be strong and assertive. On the other hand, women are supposed to be nurturing and to take care of the family. These behavioral and personality characteristics are the sex roles thought appropriate for each sex by society. Sex-role identity, according to Kagan (1964), is the degree to which a person 10 regarcb himself/herself as masculine or feminine as defined by the societal sex roles. According to Kohlberg (1966), the highly sex typed person is motivated to keep his behavior consistent with an internalized sex role standard, a goal that he presumably accomplishes by suppressing any behavior that might be considered undesirable or inappropriate for his sex. Because of this restriction of behavior of traditional sex roles a new theory of sex-role identity was created. New Theory of Sex-Role Identity The new theory of sex-role identity is called psychological androgyny, which entails the combined presence of masculine and feminine characteristics within the individual. If the individual is androgynous, then either type of behavior or personality characteristics may be used to reSpond appropriately for the situation. The word 'androgyny' is derived from two Greek words, 'andrd for male and 'gyn' for female, signifying the combining of the masculine and feminine characteristics within the individual. These two characteristics, masculinity and femininity, are defined by a majority of androgyny researchers within two major conceptual approaches (Bern, 1976; and Spence, Helmreich, 6r Stapp, 1975). One model was developed by Bakan (1966). He postulated that two modalities underly all of human existence: agency and commmion. Agency is typically masculine and is characterized as a concern for oneself. Behavior that is assertive and striving fits Inder this category. Commmion is characterized as concern for others and is more typically feminine. According to Bakan (1966), and basic to the theory of androgyny is that the primary task of the individual is to mitigate the two modalities. If one modality is not checked by the other, the outcome is ll destructive and through the integration of the two modalities each is enhanced. As agency and communion are to be integrated into the personality of each individual, so too are masculinity and femininity to be integrated which is central to the theory of androgyny. Parsons and Bales (1955) presented the second underlying approach to the theory of androgyny. For them, masculinity is thought of as instrumental behavior and femininity as expressive behavior. A cognitive orientation that is goal directed and stresses accomplishment is considered instrumental. Supportive behavior that is concerned with the well being of others is considered expressive. Parsons and Bales assume that a dichotomous relationship exists between expressive and instrumental behavior and between masculinity and femininity and these are consistent with gender. Initially 'androgyny' was defined as a balance between masculine and feminine characteristics in the individual (Bern, 1974), but that was Changed by Spence et a1. (1975) to be a high level of masculinity and femininity within the individual. The change distinguished between individuals who were low on both masculine and feminine characteristics from those who were high on both. However, the balanced concept of Bern's definition is lost with the new definition. The major theoretical components of psychological androgyny according to Kaplan and Bean (1976) included situational appropriateness, flexibility, effectiveness and integration. Bern (1975) added psychological health as a major aspect of androgyny. ‘ In their book, Kaplan and Sedney (1980) stated that the androgynous person should have a broader range of responses available to him or her than a person who is not androgynous. However, these components of androgyny are only 12 theoretical assumptions. Research needs to be done to determine if they have empirical value in explaining the androgyny phenomenon. Two main areas are researched in the sex role identity area. The first is behavioral correlates of androgyny and includes the instrumental and expressive domains of behavior often used to describe masculinity and femininity. Feminine nurturant behavior and concern for others of the expressive domain were studied by Bern (I975; Bern et al. 1976). In a reanalysis of the data (Bern, 1977) found that regardless of the stimuli, males responded as expected. The androgynous males were most responsive, feminine males were next and masculine males were the least responsive. However, females did not respond as expected on these tests of expressive behavior. In testing responsiveness to kittens, androgynous females responded most, while masculine women were next, and feminine women responded least. Bem explained this unexpected finding by saying that possibly feminine females responded less because they were expected to play with kittens. Therefore, she replicated her study using human babies and found that the low nurturance of the feminine females does not extend to her interaction with human babies. Bern (1975) also investigated independence of the masculine instrumental domain. She found androgynous subjects of both sexes were more independent when under pressure to conform. However, Falbo (1977) replicated Bern's study of the instrumental domain and found that feminine subjects were not less independent. As yet, the dominance part of the male sex role has not been investigated. Bem and Lenny (1976) found that sex typed individuals avoid cross sexed behavior more than androgynous or sex role reversed subjects. Sex typed subjects also feel more psychological discomfort and more negative feelings about themselves when performing crossed sexed behavior. Androgynous persons 13 are competent in behaviors in both the instrumental and expressive domain and experience less difficulty performing other sexed behaviors. The second area of research in the sex role identity field are personality constructs that relate to sex role identity. In particular, self-esteem scores were fomd to be high among androgynous sex role identified individuals of both sexes. Subjects that are either masculine, feminine, or undifferentiated were fomd to have lower self-esteem (Bem, 1977; Spence et al. 1975; Spence 6r Helmreich, 1978). Measurement of the New Theory of Sex Role Identity The traditional approach to measuring masculinity and femininity was questioned by researchers including Bem (1974), Block (1973), Carlson (1971), and Constantinople (1973). In a major review, Constantinople (1973) made a number of criticisms of tests that measure the traditional concept of masculinity and femininity. The first was that item selection was based on whether an item differentiated between the biological sexes or not. The second criticism was that the tests imply that the Opposite of masculine is feminine and vice versa. The last criticism was that a single M-F score was used to place a person on a single bipolar dimension. To correct for the criticisms made against the traditional measures of masculinity and femininity, new instruments were created that measure masculinity and femininity as separate dimensions that vary independently. The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bern, 1974) and the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) (Spence, Helmreich, 6r Stapp, 1975) are two new measures of the new theory of sex roles. Both tests classify individuals as high or low on masculinity and femininity. The (BSRI) and (PAQ) are reviewed in the following sections. l4 Bern Sex Role Inventory The desirability of 400 personality characteristics either for a man or for a women were rated by 50 male and 50 female college student judges. If an item were judged by both male and female judges to be significantly more desirable for a man then for a women, the item qualified for the masculine scale. Those characteristics judged more desirable for a women than for a man by both male and female judges qualified for the femininity scale. A characteristic qualified for the Social Desirability scale if it were judged by both male and female raters as no more desirable for one sex than the other, and there were not significant differences in overall desirability of the trait. The BSRI consists of a 60 item instrument with three scales: the positively valued masculinity scale, the positively valued femininity scale and the Social Desirability scale. On a scale from I ("Never or almost never true") to 7 (Always or almost always true") a person is asked to indicate how well each of 60 characteristics describe him or herself. On the basis of these responses a person initially received three scores: a masculinity score, a femininity score, and a social desirability score. If the subject endorsed significantly more masculine than feminine items, he/she was classified as masculine. If significantly more feminine items were endorsed, the subject was classified as feminine. When a subject endorsed a relatively equal number of masculine and feminine items, the subject was considered androgynous. The androgyny score was defined as a Student's t ratio for the difference between a person's masculine and feminine endorsement. Spence, Helmreich, dc Stapp (1975) questioned this way of classifying subjects because it emphasized a balance of masculine and feminine characteristics instead of a high degree of masculine and feminine items. Bem (1977) revised her method of scoring and adopted the median split technique of l5 Spence et al. (1975). With the scoring revision, subjects could be Classified into four categories: androgynous (high on both the masculine and feminine scale), undifferentiated (low on both the masculine and feminine scale), masculine (high on masculine and low on the feminine scale), and feminine (high on feminine and low on masculine). The new scoring system differentiates those high on both the masculinity and femininity scale from those low on both scales. These groups have been shown to differ particularly on self-esteem (Spence et al., 1975). However, the balance of masculinity and femininity that was included in the previous scoring system was sacrificed with the new scoring system. Personal Attributes Questionnaire The other new inventory that measures masculinity and femininity as separate dimensions is the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) developed by Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (I974). The PAQ was derived from a version of the Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire of Rosenkrantz et al. (1968). On a series of bipolar characteristics college students were to rate either the ideal male or female or the typical male or female. The items selected for the PAQ depended on judges' ratings of how ideal each was for members of both sexes and how typical each was for one sex or the other. Three scales were developed based on the ratings of the ideal female and male of the Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire. The masculinity scale contains items that were socially desirable for both sexes but on which males scored higher. The femininity scale contains those items where both the ideal male and female rated toward the feminine end of the scale, but females were rated as having those characteristics to a greater extent. Items that were desirable for one sex and not the other were placed on the sex specific scale on a continuum. Respondents rated themselves between two contradictory characteristics. The letters A, B, C, D, and E are used to 16 indicate the scale. A stands for not at all , and E stands for very . Respondents were asked to choose the letter which describes where they fall on the scale. Revised Sex Role Identity Measures Other measures of the new sex role were developed revising previously used tests. Heilbrun (1976) revised the Adjective Check List to include independent measures of masculinity and femininity. The original M-F scale of the Adjective Check List (Gough 6r Heilbrun, 1965) was created by identifying those adjectives that differentiated between college males that were identified with masculine fathers and college females that were identified with feminine mothers. Both socially desirable and socially undesirable items were included. The PRF Andro scale was devised on the basis of theoretical definitions from the Jackson's Personality Research Form (1967) by Berzin, Welling, and Wetter (1978). Items selected viewed masculinity as dominant and instrumental and femininity as nurturant and expressive. Conflict Resolution The section on conflict resolution begins with a discussion of interpersonal conflict theory and proceeds to examine different types of behavior used during conflict resolution. Next, sex differences in conflict resolution behavior are reviewed. Lastly, the theory and research related to conflict resolution and sex role identity is discussed. Conflict Theory 'Interpersonal conflict' is defined as a goal obstruction or goal incompatibility between those peOple involved (Apfelbaum, 1974; Fink, 1968; At Schmidt 6: Kochan, 1972) and until recently was thought to be dysfunctional (Coser, 1956). However, Coser (1956) states that under certain conditions l7 conflict can be positively functional. As long as the conflict is not over basic principles, it has positive social value and can be integrating. Fink (1968) assumes that any close relationship includes conflict even though it may not be evident and the people involved must be fairly secure in their relationship to express conflict. However, if conflict is suppressed it may be destructive for the relationship in the long run. In support of Fink‘s theory, less built up hostility was found in subjects after conflict was expressed than when conflict was suppressed (Thibuat 6t Coules, I952). Boulding (1962) also claims that when conflict is not expressed it is more dangerous for the relationship when it finally is expressed. In relation to marriage and the family, Sprey (1969) states that complete harmony is actually problematic. Rather than complete harmony, it is how differences are resolved that is most important. The resolution of conflict should make possible the continuation of differences instead of eliminating differences between marital partners. Therefore, it is not the presence of conflict that is important, but how conflict is resolved. Deutsch (1969a, 196%, 1973) developed a theory of constructive and destructive conflict management and analyzed the processes of each. Attempting to resolve the conflict in a destructive manner involves a tendency to expand and escalate the conflict in such a way that the real issue is not dealt with directly. Also, threat, coercion, and deception are parts of the destructive process and are thought to bring about similar types of behavior, lead to defensiveness, and eventually hurt the relationship. 0n the other hand, constructive conflict resolution deals directly with the issue. It uses such tactics as mutual problems solving, openness, and minimal threat. Creative conflict solutions come about through trusting and honest communication and include phases similar to the phases of the creative process. 18 Types of Conflict Resolution Behavior in Marriage Various types of conflict resolution behavior are found in couple conflict behavior. Raush et al. (1974) state that the two most important modes of conflict resolution are avoidance and engagement of the conflict issue. In avoiding the issue, partners collude with each other not to deal with the issue. Avoidance usually fails because the issue is not dealt with and no satisfactory resolution is achieved. However, avoidance can be constructive when it is used to defer an issue that might be dealt with better at a later time. Engagement of the issue entails exploration and possible resolution of the conflict. The practical aspects of the problem may be worked out and the feelings of each partner about the interaction may be worked through if the conflict is dealt with. Raush et al. (1974) developed a scoring system that includes 36 types of conflict resolution behaviors that can be collapsed into six main types of conflict resolution behaviors: cognition, resolution, reconciliation, appeal, rejection and coercion. In addition the cognitive behaviors fit the instrumental domain of behavior of Parsons dc Bales' theory. The other five categories, resolution, reconciliation, appeal, rejection and coercion fit the expressive domain of behavior of their theory. Another system of conflict resolution behavior was defined by Kilmann 6: Thomas (1975). Their five category scheme for classifying conflict resolution behavior includes competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating behaviors. Also, conflict resolution behaviors were divided into the content level and the relationship level of communication (Rossiter 6r Pearce, 1975; Watzlawick et al., 1967; a: Wilmot, 1975). These two levels of conflict resolution behaviors are similar to the domains of behavior of husband and wife in Parsons and Bales' (1955) division of marital roles. In Parsons and Bales' theory the husband has 19 priority in the instrumental domain of behavior which is similar to the content domain of conflict resolution communication. The expressive domain of behavior of the wife focuses on the social emotional aspects and she is concerned with relationship levels of conflict resolution. Sex Differences in Conflict Resolution Behavior Although Bach and Wyden (1969) state that males and females have largely interchangeable ways of handling conflict, Kelley et al. (1978) found that subjects had ideas that sex differences in conflict resolution behavior exist. Males are expected to be cognitive and unemotional in problem solving and females are expected to cry, sulk, and criticize the male for lack of consideration. However, in conflict resolution research of married couples, Raush et al. (1974) found only small sex differences in the way husbands and wives resolve conflict. They found that wives used coercive responses more then husbands, while husbands used conciliatory responses more than wives. Raush et al. (1974) explained this difference in conflict resolution behavior by saying husbands were in power and therefore could afford to be magnanimus toward their wives. Wives on the other hand were in a low power position and resorted to coercion to get what they wanted. Kelley et al. (1978) refutes Raush et al. (1974) explanation for sex differences in conflict resolution behavior. They believe the husbands in the Raush et al. (1974) study were forced by the study to deal with conflict instead of their usual denial or refusing to discuss the issue. Consequently, the husbands lessened the conflict and reduced the emotional level of the interaction by placating and humoring the wives. The wives, however, engaged in their usual behavior of trying to coerce the husband into dealing with the conflict issue. They coerced their husbands because they were more concerned with the social 20 emotional aspects of the relationship than husbands and wanted to resolve any conflicts to correct the social emotional climate of the relationship. Others agree that men and women tend to negotiate differently (Rubin at Brown, 1975). There is much inconsistency and ambiguity, however, in the . studies on sex differences in conflict resolution behavior. In a review of these studies, Terhune (1970) found that women are less COOperative than men in some experiments and more accommodative in others. However, from the confusing results, Scanzoni (I978) tentatively concludes that men are more goal directed than women and women are more reactive than men during bargaining. Also, it appears men tend to sort out the nonproductive input and respond only to the input that will lead to conflict resolution. However, women tend not to sort out the input that is not productive and respond as responded to even when this will not lead to conflict resolution. Raush et al. (1974) reports that when husbands resolve conflict in a conciliatory way, wives respond in the same way. If husbands shift conflict resolution styles, wives shift also. Hmbands rarely respond in this way. Raush et al. (1974) explains this shifting of styles of conflict resolution by saying husbands are more comfortable then wives with power and do not hesitate to use it in conflict resolution. However, the wives concern for the emotional aSpects of the relationship would explain their shifting styles when husbands shift styles. In a father analysis of their data, Raush et al. (1974) divided their couples into role sharing and role segregated couples and reanalyzed their data. They fomd that role sharing wives were more cognitive and made fewer emotional appeals and used coercive tactics less than wives of role segregated relationships. It appears role segregated wives are similar to the expressive emotional female stereotype and role sharing wives resolve conflict more similar to the way husbands resolve conflict than role segregated wives. 21 Sex Role Identity and Conflict Resolution Behavior The new theory of psychological sex roles, androgyny, states that the androgynous person is flexible, situationally appropriate, effective, and integrates the instrumental masculine and expressive feminine characteristics (K aplan 6: Bean, 1976). Three of these have received research support. According to laboratory findings the behavior of the androgynous person is flexible, effective, and situationally apprOpriate (Bem, 1975; Bem 6c Lenney, 1976; and Bern, Martyna, 6: Watson, 1976). Therefore, theoretically, in conflict resolution, the androgynous person is comfortable with both the emotional- expressive aspects and the cognitive-instrumental aspects of the interaction and integrates the two. In support of this, Bern, Martyna, 6: Watson (1976) fomd that androgynous individuals were more competent in behaviors of both the instrumental and expressive domains of behavior and reported less difficulty performing behaviors stereotypically prescribed to the other sex than indviduals with other sex role identities. Bern (1975) also fomd that sex typed individials have difficulty with cross- sexed behavior and avoid them as a result. Consequently, in conflict resolution it appears that the traditionally sex role identified individial would be limited to either the expressive or instrumental domain of behavior depending on their sex. Traditional males would be limited to the instrumental domain of behavior and traditional females to the expressive domain of behavior. Hypothetically, this division of domains of behavior would hold up in couples, also. In interaction, the traditional couple would divide the domains of behavior between themselves, the traditional sex role identified husband would focus on the instrwnental aspects of the interaction and the traditional sex role identified wife would focus on the 22 expressive aspects of the interaction. In contrast, the couple that includes an androgynous husband and wife would both focus on the instrumental and expressive aspects of the interaction. For example, when an emotional issue was at hand, both spouses would attempt to deal with it instead of only the wife and when instrumental skills were needed both spouses would try to solve the issue. A division of domains of behavior between the sexes was supposed to be most efficient according to Parsons and Bales' (1955) theory of marital roles. However, Chodorow (1976) states that as husbands focus on tasks and wives focus on emotional aspects of the relationship an asymmetry is created in marriage that makes it frustrating for husbands and wives to relate intimately. In fact, Barry (1968) found that the husbands ability to be emotional-expressive in marriage differentiated happy from unhappy marriages. Also, Kotlar (1965) found that both spouses were high on expressive characteristics in highly adjusted marriages compared to low adjusted marriages. The findings of a study by Ikes and Barnes (1978) support the idea that stereotypic sex role identities produce an asymmetry in marriage. They looked at interaction and attraction of subjects with different sex role identities and discovered that masculine and feminine sex role identified subjects interacted less than androgynous and other sex role identifies subjects. By way of explanation, they stated that androgynous subjects were able to adopt their behavior to others and consequently there was more interaction and attraction between androgynous subjects and other sex role identified subjects than between nonandrogynous and other sex role identified subjects. TherefOre, the belief that husbands and wives endorse complimentary sex roles to be compatible might not be correct and might in fact produce an incompatibility between the sexes. 23 In one study to date the relationship of sex role identity and conflict resolution behavior was examined (Baxter 6: Shepherd, I978). Masculine, feminine, and androgynous subjects of both sexes wrote about conflicts they had previously with liked and disliked and same and opposite sexed individuals. They discovered that masculine and androgynous individuals were less disapproving of competition in conflict resolution than feminine individuals. In addition, competition in conflict resolution was approved of more with disliked others than liked others in all three sex role identified groups. Also, masculine subjects varied their degree of approval of competition on the bases of liked or disliked others less than feminine or androgynous subjects. Lastly, all three sex role identity groups managed conflict with liked as opposed to disliked others with more accommodation, collaboration, and compromise and less competition. However, the primary limitation of this study is that it is based on self reports of conflicts and is not based on the observation of real conflict situations. Also, one limitation for the present study is that it is not based on conflict resolution of married couples. Power Seeking Behavior In the following section power theory is reviewed. Then the literature and research on sex differences in marital power and sex role identity and marital power is presented. Power in marriage is a much studied construct. In fact, Blood 6: Wolfe (1960) state that the most important element of marital structure is the power positions of the marital couple. Power Theory 'Power' is defined as the ability to get another person to do something he or she would not otherwise do. Also, French (1956), French 6: Raven (1959), and 24 Cartwright (1959, 1965) define 'power' as a relationship between people and not as an attribute or possession of a person. Six bases of power have been isolated by French 6: Raven (1959). The first type of power is reward power, which involves giving the other person something in return for doing what one wants. Coercive power, the second type, uses threats to punish or withdrawing of rewards. An appeal to the similarities of the two peOple to get the other person to do what is wanted is labeled referent power. Legitimate power is based on the right a person has to influence another, and expert power is based on knowledge. The last type of power is informational power and is based on having certain types of knowledge. Sex Differences in Marital Power Sex differences were found on types of power bases chosen and power strategies used. French 6: Raven (1959) predicted that men and women differed in their choice of power base. In a study on the bases of power chosen, Johnson (1974) found that men and women differ. Women tend to use referent, helpless and indirect power and males tend to use expert, legitimate and informational power. Also, if a women used feminine types of power, she was seen as becoming less aggressive, powerful, cold and competent. However, if she used male types of power, she was seen as powerful, aggressive, and cold. In another study on the bases of power chosen by married couples, Raven, Centers, 6: Radrigues (1975) found sex differences in types of power used by husbands and wives. They found the types of power base chosen by husbands and wives fit the expected stereotypes. For example, wives often attributed expert power to their husbands while this was seldom the case for husbands. Falbo (1980) reported gender differences in a study on types of power strategies reported in intimate relationships. She found that men were most likely to report direct and bilateral strategies of power and women were most 25 likely to report unilateral and indirect power strategies. Bilateral power strategies were interactive while unilateral power strategies included taking independent action by simply doing what was wanted. Also, Falbo (1980) stated that the types of power strategies used relate to the balance of power in the marital relationship. The partner who perceived himself or herself to have the most power used bilateral and direct power strategies. While the least powerful partner used unilateral and indirect power strategies. Sex Role Identity and Marital Power The research on marital power has started to expand into the sex role identity area. In a study on types of power strategies used in intimate relationships by persons with various sex role identities, Falbo (1982) found that androgynous individuals reported using bilateral power strategies such as persuasion to influence their partner. Feminine persons and women were likely to report using indirect and unilateral strategies such as silence and withdrawing to influence their partner, while masculine individuals used direct and bilateral strategies. Since the power strategy chosen was based on whether the individual perceived himself or herself to be in power, according to Falbo (1980), it was assumed that androgynous individuals and traditional males perceived they were in power. Also, according to Falbo (1980) traditional females supposedly chose indirect and unilateral strategies of power since they perceived they were not in power. Previous work done on the division of marital roles by Parsons and Bales (1955) sheds light on the division of power for couples with traditional and androgynous sex role identities. According to Parsons and Bales the wife should take the expressive role and the husband the instrumental role. However, when the wife limits herself to the expressive domain of behavior as traditional sex role identified wives theoretically would, the wife would be submissive and not 26 powerful in relation to her husband (Laws, 1971). Emphasizing the expressive role by wives limits them to focusing on the needs of others instead of their own development (Rossi, 1967; I972; Safilious Rothschild, 1972); without focusing on their own needs, it would be impossible for wives to gain resources and an education in order to equalize marital power. On the other hand, androgynous wives theoretically focus on both the instrumental and expressive domains of behavior which would encourage them to develop potential and, therefore, lead to equalizing marital power. Research on sex role identity and power support the belief that androgynous couples have an equalitarian power structure. Two studies looked directly at the relationship of marital power and sex role identity. The first, by Cardell, Finn, and Marecek (1981) compared sex role identity to stereotypic masculine and feminine behavior in a number of areas: initiation of sexual behavior, financial responsibility, perceived intelligence and reconciliation after conflicts. They found that if both spouse were androgynous the relationship was equalitarian. However, this relationship held only if both spouses were androgynous because the androgynous spouse could change his or her behavior to fit the sex typed spouse in mixed sex role identified couples (Marecek, 1979). Cardell, Finn, and Marecek (1981) also found that more satisfaction was expressed by individuals in less role differentiated couples. The study by Pursell, Banikiotes, 6: Sebastian (1981) on sex role identity and the perception of marital roles offered more support for the equal division of power in androgynous couples. They compared sex role identities of subjects and their ideal mates plus subjects' preferences for equalitarian or traditional marriages. Androgynous subjects preferred equalitarian relationships while traditional subjects did not prefer either a traditional or equalitarian power structure. 27 Research Methods In this section the research methods used in the study of marital conflict resolution and power in conflict resolution are reviewed. Conflict resolution and power in marriage are studied in two major ways. The first Of these methods is self-report research which obtains data about behavior from interviews and questionnaires. A number of problems are inherent in this method, however. First, self report research relies on subject's memory which may be faculty. In fact, Kenkel (1963) found that spouses often did not remember the roles they played in marital interaction. Also, self-report research is often influenced by social desirability, since subjects have a tendency to report what they deem desirable responses (Kenkel, 1963; and Olson, 1969). A final limitation Of self-report methods Of conflict resolution research is its limited ability to assess interaction processes (Click 6: Gross, 1975). In order to analyze an interaction between two or more participants it is mandatory that an accurate protocol be available which records the process. Because of limitations in individual's ability to recall such interactions, the self-report questionnaire cannot function as a means of analyzing the interaction in conflict resolution. To overcome the problems of self-report methods of marital interaction research, direct observations of marital interaction were used by several investigators (Strodbeck, I951; Goodrich 6c Boomer, I963; Raush et al., 1974; and Weiss et al., 1973). Strodbeck (1951) developed the first behavioral observation technique, the Revealed Difference Technique (RDT). He used actual decision making and conflict resolution of married couples to measure power. The RDT involved a three step process. (a) Each spouse filled out a questionnaire that assessed their Opinions or views on a set of topics. (b) Strodbeck identified differences which were given to the couple. (c) The couple attempted to resolve differences. 28 Marital power was determined by measuring which spouses' Opinion prevailed on each Of the topics. The spouse that won the most decisions was assumed to be in power. A second format for marital interaction research, the Color Matching Technique, was developed by Goodrich and Boomer (1963). They asked spouses to match a colored square given to them by the experimenter with a colored square on a color display. Conflict was created by leading the spouses to believe they had the same color when in fact they were different. The spouses resolved their supposedly conflicting color perceptions which was assumed to be indicative of the couple's way of resolving conflict about differing perceptions. The improvisational technique by Raush et al. (1974) gave spouses separate instructions to hypothetical situations in which the husband and wife had different preferences for activities. Then they were asked to role play the situations and attempted to resolve differences in as natural a way as possible. The fourth direct Observation technique Of marital interaction was developed by Weiss et al. (1973). They asked couples to list on an Open ended questionnaire those problems they had in their marriage which they considered of major or great significance and those they considered minor. Then the couples were asked to discuss problems with various levels of severity without necessarily coming to an agreement. There are a number of advantages to simulation methods Of marital conflict research. For one, patterns Of response styles can be determined. Also, the place previous interaction had in determining subsequent behavior-can be identified. In addition, simulation methods allow for the use of clearly defined scientific methods of gathering data so that the variables can be linked to a theoretical model and specifically defined in such a way that other researchers can replicate the process. 29 In an extensive analysis of marital interaction research, Click and Gross (1975) found three major shortcomings. They stated the area lacked: a theoretical base, sequential analysis, and the use of real marital problems the couple had for conflict resolution. In a study on couple conflict resolution, the first two shortcomings found by Click and Gross (1975) were overcome by Raush et al. (1974). Also, Raush et al. (1974) developed a scoring system specifically for couple conflict resolution. Previously, the two most Often used scoring systems were Bale's Interaction Process Analysis (1950) and Leary's Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality (1957) by La Forge and Suczak (I955). Raush et al. (1974) attempted to use those scoring systems for intimate dyads and found them not appropriate since they had been devised for groups. Raush's et al. (1974) scoring system was a step forward because it was based on theory and included sequential analysis Of couple conflict resolution. Other scoring systems were developed for the study of marital interaction. In their study of families of aggressive children, Patterson and Hops discovered that these families were characterized by marital conflict. Therefore, they began working with married couples and changed their family interaction coding system into a marital interaction coding system. Their system eventually developed into the Marital Interaction Coding System (MICS) by Hops, Wills, Patterson 6r Weiss (1972). Another scoring system was developed by Gottman et al. (1977) called the Couples Interaction Scoring System (CISS). It was used to code the content messages Of the couples interaction and included the following: (a) problem information or feelings about a problem, (b) mindreading, (c) proposing a solution, (d) communication talk, (e) agreement, (f) disagreement, (g) summarizing other, and (h) summarizing self. 30 To respond to the last limitation of marital interaction research mentioned by Glick and Gross (1975), Weiss (1973) and Gottman et al. (1977) required couples to select marital problems they had in their marriage. In this way a more real sample of the couple's conflict resolution behavior was elicited then if they matched colors or acted out roles to improvisational scenes. Also, the couples were expected to be more involved in the resolution of their own problems then in other conflict resolution simulation exercises. In another critique of marital interaction research, Riskin 6r Faunce (1972) stated that the situational context in marital interaction research was ignored. However, Gottman (1976) studied the situational context by comparing conflict resolution on high and low conflict tasks. High conflict tasks were tasks that elicited a great deal Of conflict and low conflict \tasks elicited little conflict. He found that high conflict tasks discriminated between distressed and nondistressed couples more effectively than low conflict tasks. Power In Marital Interaction Research Dominance in marital interaction research refers to an asymmetry in the frequency of a variable that presumably indicates power. The variables used to reflect power are numerous. According to Jacob (1975) measures of dominance can be divided into three types, (a) verbal frequency measures or quantitative measures, (b) rater judgements of dominance or qualitiative measures, (c) and outcome measures of dominance such as decisions won. In a list of power measures used as verbal frequency measures Jacob (1975) listed talking time, number of communications, successful interruptions, and acts directed toward a particular spouse. To support the use of talking time as a power variable Strodbeck (1951) found that the spouse that talked the most when he used the Revealed Difference Technique won most of the decisions. Also, Eakins and Eakins (I976) 31 analyzed power in a university faculty meeting and found that those in power talked and interrupted more than those not in power. In addition, support for interruptions used as a power variable was found by Zimmerman at West (1975). They discovered that males and females interrupt equally in same sex dyads, but men interrupt women 9696 Of the time in mixed sexed dyads. They explained this difference by saying men in American Society have more power and use it in interaction with women. Implications from the Literature The new theory of psychological sex roles that identifies masculinity and femininity as separate characteristics that may vary independently within each individual is used in the formulation of the research hypotheses. The underlying assumptions for the research hypotheses and the empirical support for the assumptions are presented in the section that follows. 1. The present study is based on the new theory of psychological sex roles that views masculinity and femininity as separate characteristics that are possessed in varying degrees by each individual. The theories of Jung, (1956), Bakan, (1966), and Parsons and Bales, (1955) are relevant to the design of the study. 2. On the basis of self-reports, persons can be assigned to four sex role identity groups: feminine (low masculine, high feminine); masculine (high masculine, low feminine); androgynous (high masculine, high feminine); and undifferentiated (low masculine, low feminine). Bem (1974) and Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1975) initially identified these four sex role identity types. 3. Two theories are primary in the study Of sex role identity in marriage. The first theory by Parsons and Bales (1955) advocates a complimentary division of sex roles in marriage (husbands-masculine- 32 instrumental and wives-feminine-expressive). The new theory Of psychological sex roles, androgyny, advocates the integration Of masculine-instrumental and feminine-expressive characteristics in every individual (Kaplan 6: Bean, 1976; Kaplan 6r Sedney, 1980). Also the theories of Schwartz (1979) and Kernberg (1976) state that an androgynous sex role is a prerequisite for a truly mature marital relationship. On the basis of self-reports, couples can also be classified according to their sex role identities. By determining each spouse's sex role identity type and then comparing spouses a couple sex role identity type can be developed. Two couple types were selected for the study to fit the two theories of sex roles in marriage. The traditional sex role identified couple (husband-masculine and wife—expressive) is consistent with the complimentary theory of sex roles in marriage Of Parsons and Bales (1955). In the androgynous couple both husband and wife report high levels of masculinity and feminity which is consistent with the integrated theory of sex roles in marriage. In theory and research, the androgynous individual is comfortable with both the masculine-instrumental and the feminine-expressive domains Of behavior, while traditional sex role identified individuals have difficulty with crossed sex behavior and avoid them as a result (Bem dc Lenney, 1976). Therefore, in expanding this research to couples, it is hypothesized that there is a difference in instrumental and expressive behavior in conflict resolution for the two couple types. 33 7. Parsons and Bales (1955) state that a complimentary division Of sex roles is best for marital functioning, while other theorists state that androgynous sex role identity is best for marital function (Kernberg, 1976). The hypothesis on phase behavior is consistent with these theories and begins to put them to the empirical test, . 8. Sex differences in conflict resolution behavior were found in a number of studies (Raush et al. 1974; Rubin 8: Brown, 1975; and Terhune, 1970). The research hypothesis is consistent with these findings. 9. Research has shown that sex role identity and marital power preferences are related. An androgynous sex role identity predicted an equalitarian power structure on stereotypic masculine feminine behaviors (Cardell, Finn, 6r Marecek, 1981). In selecting preferences of marital power structures, androgynous individuals preferred an equalitarian power structure, while traditional individuals preferred neither an equalitarian or traditional power structure (Pursell, Binikiotes, 6: Sebastian, I981). The research hypotheses on marital power and sex role identity are consistent with these findings. 10. Sex was shown to predict the type of power base and power strategy chosen (Johnson, 1974; Raven, Centers, & Rodrigues, 1975; and Falbo, 1980). In addition, the type of power strategy chosen was based on the perceived power of the person based on their sex and sex role identity (Falbo, 1980 G: 1982). The hypothesis on power, sex, and sex role identity is consistent with these findings. Summary In the first section Of the literature review, a new theory Of sex role identity, androgyny, was delineated which treats masculinity and femininity as 34 two separate dimensions that vary independently. The theories Of Bakan, Parsons and Bales are the conceptual frameworks which underline the concept Of androgyny. Initially, 'androgyny' was defined as a balance between masculine and feminine characteristics within the individual. Later the concept was changed to indicate high levels of masculine and feminine characteristics within the individual. Problems of the traditional approach to measuring masculinity and femininity led to the development of new measures. Four Operational measures are commonly used to measure androgyny. Two Of these measures, the Bern Sex Role Inventory and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire were especially constructed to measure the androgyny construct. Two others, the PRF Andro and the Adjective Check List are revisions Of Old and established instruments. In the second section, conflict theory was characterized as a goal incompatibility or goal Obstruction between two or more people. Within this theory the assumption is made that conflict is present in every relationship and _ that conflict can be resolved in either a constructive or destructive manner. Constructive conflict resolution involves directly dealing with the issue, mutual problem solving, openness, and minimal threat, while destructive conflict resolution includes threat, deception, and coercion. Conflict resolution behavior in marriage includes healthy engagement with the issue and unhealthy avoidance includes the use of one or more defense mechanisms. Next, sex differences in the resolution of conflict were Often inconsistent and confusing. However, results point to wives being more relationship oriented than husbands and husbands being more goal directed than wives. In relation to sex role identity, androgynous subjects were found to be effective, flexible, and situationally appropriate. Also, the androgynous 35 individial was fomd to be comfortable with both the instrumental and expressive domains of behavior, while the sex typed individual was found to have difficulty with behaviors of the other sex and avoided them as a result. In relating sex role identity to marital interaction, initially the complimentary division of marital roles was thought to be most efficient. However, two studies support the fact that both spouses are highly expressive in happy as compared to mhappy marriages. Also, it was found that there was more interaction and attraction between two subjects if one of them was androgynous. One study looked at conflict resolution behavior of individuals with various sex role identities, however, the study was reports of previous conflicts of mmarried individuals. In the section on power, 'power' was defined as the ability to get another person to do something he or she would not otherwise do. The six bases of power are: reward, coercive, referent, legitimate, and informational. Women tended to use referent, helpless, and indirect power; while men tended to use expert, legitimate, and informational power. These sex differences in power base chosen were found to be maintained in marital interaction. In an expansion of power research into the role identity area, different power strategies were found for individuals of various sex role identities. Feminine individuals and women were likely to use indirect and unilateral power strategies, while masculine and androgynous individuals were likely to use direct and bilateral power strategies. In two studies, the relationship of sex role identity and marital power was examined. The first found that an androgynous sex role identity was related to ecpality in the marital relationship. In the second study, androgynous married persons had a preference for equalitarian marriages, while traditional married partners did not prefer a traditional or equalitarian power structure. 36 Problems with self—report types of marital research include difficulties remembering what happened, presenting what happened in a socially desirable way, and the inability to assess interaction. To overcome these problems, direct Observations of marital interaction were done by a number of investigators. The Revealed Difference Technique, the Color Matching Technique, Improvisational Scenes, and direct Observations of actual marital conflict resolution are methods used to simulate conflict. Simulation research includes the following advantages: (a) the ability to link variables to theory and define them precisely; (b) the ability to determine response styles; and (c) the place of previous responses in determining subsequent responses. Shortcomings of marital interaction research include the lack of sequential analysis, a theoretical base, and the use of real marital problems for the couple to solve. Dominance in marital interaction research refers to an asymmetry in the frequency Of a variable assumed to indicate power. Static measures of power used in marital interaction research include interruptions, talking time, and decsions won. Based upon the review Of the literature, the design in the Design Chapter was developed. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The study was designed to investigate conflict resolution and power seeking behavior in traditional and androgynous married couples. In the following chapter, the methodology for the study is described. Included in this chapter is a description of the instruments used and of the sample of married couples, an explanation of the process of data collection, a description of the procedure, a statement Of the research hypotheses, and an explanation of the statistical procedures used in the data analysis. Instrumentation The Barn Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) was selected as a criterion measure because it assesses sex role identity as separate entities of masculinity and femininity which vary independently. In addition, the BSRI was used because it was shown to be a good predictor of sex-role behavior in heterosexual couples (Cardell et al., 1981). Also, sex typed subjects according to the BSRI are sex typed in their behavior (Bern, I975; Bern, Martyna, & Watson, 1976; and Bem 6r Lenny, 1976). The BSRI consists of three 20 item scales, the masculinity scale, the femininity scale, and the social desirability scale. Only the masculinity and femininity scales were used in the study. The masculinity scale contains items such as self-reliant, independent, and ambitious. Items such as yielding, cheerful, and sympathetic appear on the femininity scale. 37 38 Subjects were asked to rate how characteristic an item was of themselves on a scale from 1 (never or almost never true) to 7 (always or almost always true). A copy of the BSRI as it was presented to subjects in the study is found in appendix A. BEM Sex Role Inventory Scale Reliability For the sample under study, the alpha estimate Of reliability for the masculinity scale for husbands and wives was .85 and .87 respectively. The alpha estimates Of reliability of the masculinity scales reported by Bem (1974) was r = .86. Using the 2 test of differences between reliability estimates (Guilford, 1956), Z = .3344 for males and Z = .412 for females indicating no significant difference beyond the .05 level for the reliability for the sample under study and Bem's estimates of reliability for the masculinity scale. The alpha estimate of reliability for the femininity scale Of this sample was r = .78 for husbands and r = .71 for wives. Bem (1974) reported r = .80 for the reliability of the femininity scale using her Stanford sample. Again using the 2 test of differences between reliabilities, the Z for the masculinity scale was 2 = .560 and for the femininity scale, Z = 2.16, indicating no significant differences beyond the .05 level for the sample reliabilities under study and Bern's sample on the femininity scale. Sample Sample of Married Couples The sample of I76 married couples was recruited from an advertisement placed in the student newspaper and at married student housing at Michigan State University. 150 couples were recruited through their living situation and nine couples responded to the advertisement in the student newspaper. When it became apparent that there were few couples that were both androgynous in 39 their sex role identity in the collected sample, the recruitment was expanded to a mental health center, a crisis center, a National Organization of Women News Letter, and acquaintances that fit the population characteristics. Seventeen couples were recruited in the expanded search. All of the couples were from the Lansing, Michigan area. In the sample, 174 males were caucasian and two were black. Of the females, 173 were caucasian and three were black. The husbands' ages ranged from 20 to 36 years and wives' ages ranged from 19 to 35 years. The range of years married was one to sixteen years. Individuals were classified by sex role identities based upon their scores on the Bern Sex Role Inventory. A median split technique based upon responses of the sample under study was employed to identify high and low sex role identity. The goal was to identify a group Of marriage partners in which both of the members were androgynous and a similar group in which both members were traditional in their sex role identities. Unfortunately, the sample was not large enough to find a significant pool of pairs for the classification scheme. Therefore, individuals who were one point from the median were arbitrarily moved to increase the sample in order to gain statistical power. For the fourteen androgynous couples, three of the twenty eight individuals were so moved. None of the traditional couples was moved by this procedure because there were sufficient numbers of paired identical sex role identified persons in the sample. The two groups were compared on a number Of different demOgraphic characteristics to see if they differed. There was ony one significant difference at the (c) = .05 level and that was wife's religion (X4,2 = 9.73, p = .045). Androgynous wives reported being more religious than traditional wives. For the remainder of the variables examined there was no significant differences 40 between the two groups; these include age, years married, age at marriage, percent income earned, dad's education and employment, mom's education and employment, years of school completed, pregnant, and previous marriage. The husbands selected for the remainder of the study ranged in age from 21 to 36. Their median age was 25 and the mean age was 25.18. The age range for selected wives was 20 to 29. Their median age was 23 and the mean age was 23.29. Procedure for Data Collection An advertisement was placed in the Michigan State Univesity newspaper during Spring term, 1981 asking for volunteers who had been married at least one year, were United States citizens, and had no children. The advertisement stated that the couple was required to fill out a questionnaire, and then if the couple was selected for the remainder of the study they would be paid $10 for their participation. In addition, the advertisement stated that the research focused on couple interaction. The couples recruited from the advertisement came to the Michigan State University Counseling Center and read a letter requesting their participation (see appendix B), completed a copy Of the questionnaire, consent form I (see appendix C), and personal data sheet (see appendix D) under the supervision of the researcher . Then the researcher went to married student housing to select subjects. There the couples were given the personal data sheet, consent form, and questionnaire, and were asked to complete them independently. The responses were collected at a later date. Next, the responses to the Bern Sex Role Inventory were scored according to the median split technique of Spence et al. (1975) and subject's sex role identities were determined. If subjects scored above the median on both the masculinity and femininity scale, they were considered androgynous in their sex 41 role identity. If they scored below the median on both scales they were undifferentiated in their sex role identity. Their sex role identity was feminine if they scored above the median on the feminity scale and below the median on the masculinity scale. If they scored above the median on the masculinity scale and below the median on the femininity scale, they were masculine in their sex role identity. The median score for the masculine scale was 4.95 for this sample; for the feminine scale the median was 4.85. These scores compare to previous research done using the Bern Sex Role Inventory (masculine scale median 4.89, feminine scale median 4.79), (Bem, 1974). After the individual sex role identity scores were determined, both husbands and wives' sex role identity scores were used to select two groups. Couples that included two androgynous spouses were classified androgynous. Couples that included a wife with a feminine sex role identity and a husband with a masculine sex role were classified traditional. For a number of reasons that follow only androgynous and traditional couple types were used for the remainder of the study. First, the primary research interest was to determine how androgynous couples differ from traditional couples on conflict resolution and power seeking behavior, because these two sex role compliments fit the two main theories of sex roles in marriage. The traditional sex role identified couple fit the theory of complimentary sex roles thought most effective by Parsons and Bales. The androgynous couple fits the theory of integrated sex roles in marriage of the theory Of androgyny. Mixed sex role identified spouses were not used in order to simplify the study, since Marecek (1979) found that androgynous spouses adopt the sex role compliment of the traditional sex role identified spouse. Spouses that are cross sex role identified have also been eliminated because in previous 42 research there were few subjects that fit this category. Undifferentiated subjects have also been excluded from the remainder of the study became previous research has been so varied on this group. After the sex role identity scores were determined, fifteen couples who were both androgynous and forty-two couples who were traditional were identified. From the 42 traditional couples, 14 were randomly selected. Of the androgynous couples, three moved out of town and one couple was divorced by the time the research was ready to be completed. Therefore, the procedure of moving three subjects to become androgynom previomly described was done. The two goups of fourteen couples comprised the final sample on which the study was based. Experimental Procedure In a pilot study, the 1m provisational Scene role play procedure Of Ramh et al. (1974) was med to simulate conflict. However, the improvisational scenes elicited no conflict so the experiment was altered. Presumably when Ramh et al. (1974) used the Improvisational Scene Procedure, conflict was elicited because their couples had already been through extensive interviews and felt comfortable enough to express conflict in the experimental setting. Four additional pilot runs were done of the revised procedu'e. The changed procedure was modeled after Weiss (1973) and Gottman's work (1976). In both procedures, couples selected marital problems they had in their marriage and then attempted to resolve them. Couples were randomly assigned to a male and female eiqperimenter in such a way that the male experimenter ran half of the androgynom couples and half of the traditional couples and the same was true for the female experimenter. Both sexed experimenters were med because Bem and Lemy (1976) reported that when the experimenter was Of the other sex, subjects preferred sex 43 apprOpriate behavior more than when the experimenter was of the same sex. Also, Kenkel (1961) Observed that when the experimenter was a women, wives altered their behavior in marital interaction and took a more active role. Because of the restricted sample size, instead of studying the effect Of experimenter sex, it was decided to balance the experimenter sex effect. Then couples were invited to the laboratory for the experimental procedure. When they arrived for the experiment, the female researcher gave them another consent form to sign and instructions to read. (See appendix E and P.) Then the researcher took the couples into the experimental room that was set up with two chairs and an end table in between; a tape recorder was on the table. After introducing the experimenter to the couple, the researcher left the room. Then the experimenter handed each spouse a lap board, pen, and list of areas Of disagreements. (See appendix G and H). The instructions were given that each spouse individually select three areas of disagreement they have in their marriage and mark them on their sheet. Then they compared their lists and together came up with the three most important areas of disagreements they had in their marriage. (See appendix I). Next, two areas were selected to be discussed. The experimenter left the room while the couple made their selections and returned when they had finished. To clarify that the couple was going to discuss the same conflict issue, the experimenter asked the couple to state their positions to the conflict. Then the experimenter instructed the couple to come closer to an agreement on the conflict. When they were finished discussing the first issue, the experimenter entered the room and had the Couple clarify the second area of conflict to be discussed. Again the experimenter left the room and the couple tried to "come closer to an agreement" on conflict two. The entire interaction was audiotaped. When the couple was completed with 44 discussion of topic two, the researcher entered the room and debriefed the couple. (See appendix J). Then the couple was paid and excmed. Coding System To score the couple conflict interactions, the "Coding Scheme for Interpersonal Conflict" (CSIC) was selected. (See appendix K.) The CSIC was selected because it was devised to score actual marital conflict resolution. According to Raush et al. (1974) the CSIC included all types of marital conflict resolution behavior. Also, all types of marital conflict resolution behaviors rated in the coding scheme collapsed into instrumental and expressive behaviors, the two terms used to define masculine and feminine behavior. The Coding Scheme for Interpersonal Conflict rates each act which is defined as a statement or action of one person bounded by the statement of action of another. Each act received an action category and a phase category. There are thirty-six action categories that cover all interactions of two participants in conflict resolution. Also, each act is coded according to the phase of the conflict. Phase 1 includes all acts prior to the introduction of the conflict isue. Phase 2 includes all acts beginning with the first comment about the conflict issue and continuing until the beginning of the agreed on resolution. Acts starting with the achieved resolution and concluding discussion are phase 3. Again, a male and female were selected to rate the couples's interaction. They rated each interaction by listening to tapes of the couples on tape recorders. In a study to determine the reliability of coding affect from voice tone on tapes, Gottman (1979) found that affect codes based solely on voice had a considerable degree of reliability. To determine an estimate of rater reliability for the scoring system for the study the raters were compared at the level of the six category lumping system since all analyses were at that level. After the raters were trained for approximately 38 hours and were consistently 45 reaching a reliability Of .70 or better on training tapes, two of the tapes were scored and the ratings were compared. Reliability was determined by comparing the raters score on each act, and if they were consistent, a point was given for that act. Then the total score was divided by the total number of acts of that couple that were rated. The estimate of interrater reliability was .914 for the first tape and .72 for the second tape. Then one-fourth Of the tapes were given to each rater to be rated. When they were finished another reliability check was done. The estimate Of the reliability for the first tape was .93 and for the second it was .88. The reliabilities were consistent with those reported by Raush et al. (1974) who develOped the scoring system. They reported a number Of reliability scores, but for the six category lumping system they reported a .77 agreement between Old and new raters. Power Variables Defined The variables interruptions, speaking time, and decisions won were the power variables examined. An interrlption is defined as a break in the speaker's conversation brought on by the other spome beginning to speak. If the original speaker does not stop speaking, it is not comted as an interruption. If both spomes start speaking at the same time, it is not counted as an interruption. Speaking time is defined as the actual time Spoken for each of the spomes in seconds. If there is a silence of at least two seconds, the pause is not counted. Laughing is not counted in talking time mless it is part Of a statement. If hmband and wife are talking, times are counted for both. A decision was won by a spouse if he/she selected it individially and it appeared on either Of the couples joint list or was discussed in their interraction. List of Marital Problems From lists of marital problems med in previous research a fairly conclusive list of marital problems was devised (Olson, 1969; Peterson, 1969; or Gottman, 1977). (See appendix H). The list was med to stimulate the couples memory about the kinds of problems they had. Since the last problem on the list was "any problem you may have" couples were given the freedom to generate another problem if they wanted to. Research Design A natural setting post—test-only design was used in the study. The Bern Sex Role Inventory was given to all subjects in order to select couples who were both androgynous or traditional couples in which the hmband was masculine and the wife was feminine in sex role identity. Each group became a control on the other. Hypotheses Conflict Resolution 1. Marriages in which both spomes are androgynom and marriages in which both spomes are traditional in their sex role identity differ on the expressive set of conflict resolution behaviors. “as (AIECRB = (AH)1'T t = .92 Ho: (TH)1>(AH)1 = —.32 Sex X Couple Type on DW F = 2.53 NOTE: A = Androgynom Couples, T = Traditional Couples, ECRB -.- Expressive Conflict Resolution Behavior, ICRB = Instrumental Conflict Resolution Behavior, W = Wives, H = Hmbands, P = Phase Behavior, TH = Traditional Hmbands, AH = Androgynous Hmbands, TT = Talking Time, I = Interruptions, DW = Decisions Won. 52 resolution behavior to determine if there were a main effect for conflict one or two or an interaction of couple type by conflict one and two. For expressive behavior the F for the main effect conflict situation was 2.07 (p = .12), and for the interaction couple type by conflict situation the F was .35 (p = .84). The F for the main effect conflict situation was 1.13 (p = .30) and for the interaction between couple type and conflict situation the F was .20 (p = .66) for instrumental behavior. None of these were significant at the 0((.05 level indicating there was no main effect for conflict situation or interaction for couple type and conflict situation for expressive and instrumental conflict resolution behavior. (See Table 4.2). Therefore, the data for the two conflict situations were united for expressive and instrumental behavior. Table 4.2 Multivariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Of the Two Conflict Situations for Expressive and Instrumental Conflict Resolution Behavior for the Androgynom and Traditional Couples EXPRESSIVE INSTRUME NTAL F p F p Conflict Situation 2. 07 .12 1.13 .30 Couple type X Conflict Situation .35 .84 .20 .66 53 The following null hypotheses were tested. Conflict Resolution Behavior and Sex Role Identity H0: Marriages in which both spouses are androgynom (A) and marriages in which both spouses are traditional (T) in their sex role identity will not differ on the expressive (E) set Of conflict resolution behavior (CRB). Stated symbolically: Ho: ECRB(A) = ECRB (T) The multivariate repeated measu‘es analysis of variance did not allow for the rejection of the null hypothesis. The F was 1.07 which was not significant at the p = .40 level. See table 4.3. TABLE 4.3 Multivariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance of the Expressive Conflict Resolution Behavior for the Androgynom and Traditional Couples Multivariate Couple type l.07 .40 dc .05 54 H0: Marriages in which both Spomes are androgynom (A) and marriages in which both spomes are traditional (T) in their sex role idenity will not differ on the instrumental (I) set of conflict resolution behavior. Stated symbolically: Ho: ICRB“) = ICRB“) The univariate repeated measures analysis of variance did not allow for the rejection of the null hypotheses. The F value was 2.56 which was not significant at the p = .122 level. See table 4.4. TABLE 4.4 Univariate Repeated Measues Analysis of Variance for the Set of Instrumental Conflict Resolution Behavior for the Androgynom and Traditional Couples F p Couple type 2.56 .122 _6_(_§_ .05 Ho: There will be no significant difference between husbands (H) and wives (W) in the frequency with which they use the set of expressive conflict resolution behavior (ERCB). Stated symbolically: H0: ECRB(H) -.- ECRB(w) The multivariate repeated measu'es analysis Of variance did not allow for the rejection of the null hypothesis. The F for the sex main effect was .57 which was not significant at the p = .69 level. For the couple type by sex interaction the F was 1.88 which was not significant at the p = .15 level. See Table 4.5. 55 Table 4.5 Multivariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance of the Expressive Conflict Resolution Behavior for the Androgynom and Traditional Couples Multivariate F p Sex .57 .69 Couple Type 1.88 .15 XSex Q < .05 Ho: There will be no significant difference between husbands (H) and wives (W) in the frequency with which they use the set of instrumental conflict resolution behavior (ICRB). Stated symbolically: Ho: 1CRB(H) = ICRB(W) The univariate repeated measures analysis Of variance did not allow for the rejection Of the null hypothesis. The F for the sex main effect was .14 which was not significant at p = .71 level. For the interaction couple type by sex, the F was 1.32 which was not significant at the p = .26 level. See Table 4.6. 56 TABLE 4.6 Univariatfiepeated Measures Analysis of Variance for the Instrumental Conflict Resolution Behavior for the Androgynom and Traditional Couples F p Sex .14 .71 Couple Type 1.32 .26 d < .05 Ho: No difference will exist in phase behavior (P)1 in marriages in which both spomes are androgynom (A) and in marriages in which both spomes are traditional (T) in their sex role identity. Stated symbolically: Ho= PIA) = Pm The multivariate repeated measures analysis of variance produced values that did not allow for the rejection of the null hypothesis. The F for couple type was 1.00 which was not significant at the p = .38 level. See table 4.7. 1 Refer to page 98 for a complete description of phase behavior. 57 TABLE 4.7 Multivariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance for Phase of Conflict Resolution Behavior for the Androgynom and Traditional Couples Multivariate Couple type 1.00 .38 d< .05 Sex Role Identity and Power Seeking Behavior A number of hypotheses were tested about sex role identity of married couples and power used in conflict resolution. The results are presented after each null hypotheses. Ho: The percent of talking time (11') is greater for husbands (H) in a traditional sex role identified couple (T) and in hmbands (H) in an androgynous sex role identified couple (A). Stated symbolically: H0: TT(TH)>TT(AH) The t-test produced values that did not allow for the rejection of the null hypotheses. The t value was .92. The research hypothesis was one~tailed and therefore was not significant at the p = .185 level (See Table 4.8.) 58 TABLE 4.8 t-Test of the Percent Talking Time for Androgynous and Traditional Husbands Type N Mean S. D. t p Score A 14 .53 .12 .92 .185 T 14 .49 .10 d < .05 Ho: The percent Of interruptions (I) is greater for husbands (H) in a traditional sex role identified couple (T) and hmbands (H) in an androgynous sex role identified couple (A). Stated symboloc ally: Ho: l(TH)>1(AH) The t-test did not produce a value that would allow for the rejection of the null hypothesis. The t value was —.82. The research hypothesis was one-tailed and therefore was not significant at the p -.- .21 level. (See table 4.9). 59 TABLE 4.9 t-test of the Percent Of Interruptions for Androgynom and Traditional Hmbands Group Number Means S. D. t p Androg— ynous husbands I4 .4481 .196 --.82 .21 Tradi- tional husbands 14 .5020 .150 There will be no significant interaction of couple type by sex in decision won. The univariate repeated measu'eS analysis of variance produced an F value that would not allow for the rejection Of the null hypothesis. The F value was 2.53 which was not significant at the p =.124 level. See Table 4.10. TABLE 4.10 The Univariate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance for Decisions Won for the Androgynom and Traditional Couples F p Comle type .03 .87 Sex .28 .60 Sex by couple type 2.52 .124 d< .05 6O SUPPLEME NTA RY ANALYSES Although no formal hypotheses were formulated for the following data, additional analyses were performed on the types of marital problems chosen by sex of spome and for androgynous and traditional couples. The chi square statistical test was used (Siege1,l956). See tables 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13. TABLE 4.1 l Chi Square Values for Marital Problems Selected for Androgynom and Traditional Hmbands Marital Problems X2 Value Significance l. Finances .15 Not significant 2. Place of residence 0 Not significant 3. Type Of residence 0 Not significant 4. Friends 0 Not significant 5. In-laws .17 Not significant 6. Religion 1.57 Not significant 7. When or if to have chilcken 0 Not significant 8. Sex 0 Not significant 9. Vacations 0 Not significant 10. Free time 3.88 Significant 11. Time together 0 Not significant 12. Homehold chores .598 Not significant 13. Careers .0 Not significant 14. Communication .21 Not significant 15. Any other problem .97 Not significant 1 < .05 61 TABLE 4.12 Chi Square Values for Marital Problems Selected for Androgynous and Traditional Wives Marital Problems x2 Value Significance 1. Finances 0 Not significant 2. Place of residence 0 Not significant 3. Type of residence 0 Not significant 4. Friends 0 Not significant 5. In-laws 0 Not significant 6. Religion .17 Not significant 7. When or if to have children 0 Not significant 8. Sex 0 Not significant 9. Vacations 0 Not significant 10. Free time 0 Not significant 11. Time together 0 Not significant 12. Homehold chores 5.25 Significant 13. Careers .54 Not significant 14. Communication .59 Not significant 15. Any other problem 0 Not significant die .05 62 Traditional wives chose household chores as a problem significantly more often than androgynous wives. Androgynous hmbands chose free time as a problem significantly more often than traditional husbands. One out of 15 Chi square values was significant for hmbands and wives which is similar to the number expected by Chance. Therefore, these chi square values mmt be replicated to interpret them with confidence. TABLE 4.13 Chi Square Values for Marital Problems Selected for Androgynom and Traditional Couples Marital Problems X2 Value Significance 1. Finances 16.08 Significant 2. Place of residence .337 Not significant 3. Type of residence .50 Not significant 4. Friends .248 Not significant 5. In-laws .158 Not significant 6. Religion 108.88 Significant 7. When or if to .307 Not significant have children CENT I'Nu-zD 63 TABLE 4.13 (CONTINLED) Chi Square Values for Marital Problems Selected for Androgynous and Traditional Couples Marital Problems X2 Value Significance 8. Sex .404 Not significant 9. Vacations .388 Not significant 10. Free time 102.08 Significant If 11. Time together 55.55 Significant 12. Household chores 67.08 Significant @ 13. Careers .248 Not significant 14. Conn munication 16.08 Significant 15. Any other problem .153 Not significant at < .05 I} = Significant for husbands also @ = Significant for wives also Traditional couples chose communication, homehold chores, and finances as problems sigrnificantly more than androgynom couples. Androgynom couples chose not enough time together, free time, and religion as problems significantly more than traditional couples, Six out Of fifteen chi square values were significant which is much greater than chance. Therefore, the differences in marital problems selected by androgynom and traditional couples can be interpreted with more confidence than the different problems selected by hmbands and wives. However, replication is not ruled out. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In Chapter V, Summary and Conclusions, the following is included: a summary of the present study, a presentation of the results, a discussion of the conclusions, a literature review since the design of the present study was completed and implications for future research. Summary Of The Study In the present study the problem of comparing conflict resolution behavior and power seeking behavior in married couples with different sex role indentities is addressed. From a sample of 176 married couples, 14 couples that had both traditional sex role identities and 14 couples that had both androgynous sex role identities were selected from their responses on the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). In a laboratory situation, the 28 couples identified problems of their marriage and attempted to resolve two of them. Measures of Sex Role Identity The development of new measures of sex role identity was reported in Chapter II. The measures define 'masculinity' and 'femininity' as separate dimensions that may vary independently. The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) was selected for the present study and the revised scoring system of Spence, Helmreich, 8r Stapp (1975) was used as a criterion measure to identify traditional and androgynous sex roles. From self-report responses on the masculinity and femininity scales, subjects were categorized according to a median split of scores responses of this sample into androgynous (high masculine, high feminine), 64 65 feminine (low masculine, high feminine), masculine (high masculine, low femirnine) and undifferentiated (low masculine, low feminine). Spomes' sex role identity categories were compared to create a couple sex role identity category. Couples who both had an androgynous sex role identity and couples who both had traditional sex role identities were selected for the remainder Of the study. Conflict Resolution and Sex Role Identity Studies which investigated sex role identity and types of behavior med in various situations were reviewed. For individuals with androgynous sex role identities, the research indicates that they feel comfortable with both expressive-feminine and instrumental-masculine behavior and use the behavior appropriate for the situation. 'Expressive behavior' means the communication of feelings, personal concerns, and the ease with which such concerns are communicated. In contrast, an instrumental orientation is concerned with getting the job done, making decisions, and is not related to expressivity in interpersonal situations. Traditional sex role identified individuals limit their behavior to the behavioral domain thought appropriate for their sex. Feminine individuals limit themselves to expressive-feminine behavior and masculine individuals limit themselves to instrumental-masculine behavior. In the current study, whether these behavioral differences were stable in couple conflict resolution was explored. The conflict resolution variables chosen for the current study were expressive behavior, instrumental behavior, and phase of conflict resolution behavior. 1 Power Seeking Behavior and Sex Role Identity Research showing that sex was related to power strategies and power base Chosen was reviewed. In a study on the bases Of power chosen, Johnson (1974) 66 found that men and women do differ in their choice of power base. Falbo (1980) reported gender differences in a study on types of power strategies chosen in intimate relationships. In addition, the effect of sex role identity on power strategies chosen and marital power distribution was reviewed. Falbo (1982) found that androgynous and masculine individuals used bilateral and direct power strategies, while feminine individuals used indirect and unilateral strategies to influence their partner. A study by Cardell, Finn, and Marecek (1981) showed that androgyny in the married couple was related to an equalitarian power distribution in a number of sterotypic masculine and feminine behaviors. In a study on sex role identity and subjects fantasy of their ideal mates, Pursell, Banikiotes, and Sebastian (1981) found that androgynous individuals preferred equalitarian power relationships, while traditional subjects did not prefer either an equalitarian or traditional power structure. In the current study, whether power differences were found _i_n 3319. interaction was explored. The power variables chosen for the study were talking time, interruptions, and decisions won. Hypotheses A summary of the hypotheses in symbolic form and their results is presented in table 5.1. Analysis of the Data T 0 test the hypotheses, two statistical tests were used. Since Couples resolved two conflicts and there were two individuals (husband and wife) in the unit of analysis, a repeated measures design was used for conflict resolution behavior and decisions won. Depending on the number Of independent variables being examined, a univariate (one independent variable) or a multivariate (more 67 than one independent variable) was performed. The t-test was med for couple percent Of interruptions and for couple percent Of speaking time. For these two variables, data were collapsed for the two scenes. Jmt the husband's percentages were examined, became the reciprocal of the hmbands score was the wive's percent time spoken or interruptions. TABLE 5.1 Summary of Hypotheses and Results of Analysis of Androgynom and Traditional Married Couples on Conflict Resolution and Power Seeking Behavior Symbolic Hypotheses Results (nt<.05) H0: (”ECRB = (“ECRB Failed to reject Ho: (”ICRB = (1');ch Failed to reject H0: (WIECRB = (H)ECRB Failed to reject Sex X ECRB Ho: (WACRB = (HACRB Failed to reject Sex X ICRB Ho: (A)P = (‘1')p Failed to reject Ho: (TH)T1->(AH)1-1- Failed to reject Ho: (TH)1>(AH)1 Failed to reject Sex X COLpIe Type on DW Failed to reject NOTE: A = Androgynom Couples, T = Traditional Couples, ECRB = Expressive Conflict Resolution Behavior, ICRB = Instrumental Conflict Resolution Behavior, W = Wives, H = Hmbands, P = Phase Behavior, TH = Traditional Hmbands, AH = Androgynous Hmbands, TT = Talking Time, I = Interruptions, DW = Decisions Won. 68 Conclusions NO statistically significant differences were found for the research hypotheses. However, in exploratory analyses of types Of marital problems chosen by the two couple types and by sex of spouse, signigicant differences were found. The results of exploratory analyses are as follows: 1. Traditional couples chose finances, household chores and communication as a problem significantly more Often than androgynous couples. 2. Androgynous couples chose religion, free time, and not enough time together significantly more often than traditional couples. 3. Androgynous husbands chose free time as a problem significantly more than traditional husbands. 4. Traditional wives chose household chores significantly more often than androgynous wives. Discussion of Results In the following section, results Of the study are discussed in light of previous research. Conflict Resolution Behavior and Sex Role Identity In actual interaction, no significant differences were found in conflict resolution behavior for the two couple types. However, in the exploratory _ analysis, significant differences in marital problems encountered by the two couple types were found indicating some differences in interaction. A controversy in the literature may help reconcile the conflicting different findings. On one side of the controversy, Spence and Helmreich (1978) state that masculinity and femininity are personality constructs that are distinguished from sex role related behavior. Furthermore, Helmreich (1979) adds that there is 69 increasing evidence that the personality characteristics, masculinity and femininity, are only weak predictors of other sex role related attitudes and behavior. The other side of the controversy is represented by Bern who states that there are behavioral correlates of sex role identity (Locksley and Colton, 1979). To support her view, Bern (1975, 1976a, 1976b) found behavioral correlates of sex role identity in her research. However, in various ways Bern strengthened her studies to find behavioral correlates Of androgyny. In the first of these methods, Bem used sex typed dependent measures. For example, she used actual playing with a kitten and later a baby for her dependent measure for feminine types Of behavior, while she used maintaining an Opinion in light Of Opposing views for masculine behavior. In the current study, conflict resolution behavior was a non—sexed type dependent measure. In fact, both feminine-expressive behavior and masculine-instrumental behavior were required in the successful resolution of conflict. To date, sex role identity has not been shown to predict behavior in behavioral situations such as conflict resolution that requires both expressive and instrumental traits. In support, Deaux (1984) states that masculinity and femininity should allow for good behavioral prediction with behaviors that are heavily weighted in favor of instrumental or expressive traits but not to other domains of gender related behavior. In another way Bem's studies strengthened the sex role identity concept so that behaviors were predicted. In her studies, the individual was the unit of analysis, while in the present study the unit of analysis was the couple. In couples, any effects of individual sex role identity on behavior may not have been strong enough to produce couple differences. As Burger and Jacobson (1979) state, even if there were effects for androgyny for individuals in the sample, an 7O androgynous sex role identity had little relevance in couples. In fact, Allgier (1981) states that the notion that sex role identity eliminates the pressure to conform to sex role norms in heterosexual interaction has not received much support. Although Bem (1976) asserts that the androgynous person is more capable than the sex typed individual, in couples both androgynous and traditional, spouses may conform to sex role norms because the reasons for giving up those behaviors may not be as apparent in heterosexual couple interaction. In support, Megargee (1969) and Ruble and Higgins (1976) suggest that individuals readily change their behavior based on sex role expectations and easily adOpt them as norms. Particularly in heterosexual interaction, the sex role expectations are strong which may lessen the effects of sex role identity. Another possible reason that Bem found behavioral correlates Of sex role identity may have been the type of behavioral task used. Playing with a baby or interacting with a lonely student; or maintaining an opinion in light of Opposing views are simple straight forward traditional types of feminine and masculine behaviors. In contrast, the interaction Of married couples in the resolution of conflict may be extremely complex. According to Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978) the interaction of married couples is interactive, interdependent, and influenced by the situation. Therefore, many different elements could have influenced the interaction in such a way that any effect of sex role identity may not have been large enough to have an effect on conflict resolution behavior. Another reason that sex role identity may not have been able to predict behavior in the current study is that the couples used primarily instrumental types of conflict resoluton behavior. The androgynous couples Of this study tended to use cognitive instrumental responses 82% of the time, while traditional couples used cognitive instrumental responses 73% of the time. It appears that the couples of this study may have inhibited themselves from becoming 71 emotional expressive about their most important and current marital problems. In fact, in the debriefing, half of the couples under study stated that their interaction was less emotional, more subdued, more formal and reasonable than their typical conflict resolution interaction. A number of the couples stated that the study was beneficial for them because they seldom took the time to discuss marital problems except when they were emotionally upset. They reported discovering that discussing an issue when they were not emotionally upset was beneficial because their emotions did not impede their learning about the other person's thoughts, ideas, and feelings about a problem which made it easier to resolve conflict about the issue. Some of the couples resolved in the future to take more time to discuss their problems when they were not angry about the issue. The importance of the inhibition of emotional behavior for the finding Of a relationship between sex role identity and conflict resolution behavior becomes clear when Gottman (1976) states that the most significant difference between distressed and nondistressed couples is their emotional responses. To be exact, distressed couples are more negative to one another than nondistressed couples and to a lesser extent, distressed couples are less positive than nondistressed couples. Because the couples in the study remained in the instrumental realm of conflict resolution, the one element that could differentiate nondistressed and distressed couples was not present. This fact may account for the no significant differences appearing on conflict resolution behavior for the two couple types. The inhibition of expressive-emotional behavior was likely due 'tO the problems couples had revealing their intimate interaction in a laboratory setting. As Vidich (1956) states, the untrained individual is not accustomed to acting out their private lives in public. In a study to compare conflict resolution in a laboratory and home setting, Gottman (1979) found that in fact couples were 72 more negative and more negative reciprocally in the home than in the laboratory. Also, high and low marital satisfaction groups were discriminated more powerfully in the home as compared to the laboratory. Because the study was done in the laboratory, it is possible differences in conflict resolution for the two couple types and for each sex did not appear. Still another possible explanation for the preponderance Of instrumental responses is that a sample may have been irnadvertantly d‘awn which over represents role sharing couples. As Ramh et al. (1974) indicates, role sharing wives and, therefore, couples are more imtrumental-cognitive in their reSponses than couples that do not share roles. No sex differences were found on instrumental—cognitive responses or for that matter expressive-emotional responses which supports the fact that this sample is primarily role sharing couples. In addition, the couples were primarily upper middle or middle class subjects which may include more role sharing couples became the upper social classes respond to social changes ahead of the lower social classes (Bernard, 1972). If the subjects were from various social classes, differences in conflict resolution behavior may have shown up for the two couple types and both sexes. The scoring system and the way variables were Operationalized may have also contributed to the lack of significant differences in conflict resolution behavior for the two couple types. As Gottman (1979) states, the Ramh et a1. (1974) coding system has such broad categories that even though different behaviors are being displayed, the appropriate code may have been the same. For example, "cognitive codes" include such diverse subcodes as "giving information, withholding information, agreeing with the other's statement, and denying the validity Of the others' argument." Therefore, even though there were no significant differences on conflict resolution for the two couple types and both sexes, the actual interaction may have been different. In addition, 73 frequencies of behaviors were used instead of actual sequences of behaviors which could have given a different picture of the interaction. For example, although two couples may have the same number Of rejection responses, in one couple the wife may reject the husband after he tries to reconcile with his wife. In the other couple, the wife may reject the husband after he attacks her. Therefore, although no significant differences were picked up on conflict resolution behavior of the two couple types and both sexes, the scoring system may not have been specific enough and because sequential analysis was impractical actual differences in interaction may not have been found. Power Seeking Behavior and Sex Role Identigy Because power seeking behavior is a masculine typed dependent measure, the likelihood was increased that a relationship existed between sex role identity and power seeking behavior. However, no significant differences were found for the two couple types on power seeking behavior. One possible explanantion for this finding is the way power was Operationalized for the study. Frequencies of behaviors (speaking time, interruptions, and decisions won) were assumed to indicate power in the relationship. Gottman (1979) objected to this way of Operationalizing power. He stated that with behavioral power frequencies it is assumed that a direct relationship exists between an asymmetry in the frequencies of these behaviors and power. However, the dominant spouse may speak seldomly, interrupt infrequently, and decide who makes decisions instead of actually making decisions and still be dominant. Therefore, instead of frequency differences indicating power differences, Gottman (1979) states that the patterns of interaction would indicate power differences. In a study on marital dominance, Gottman (1979) found that nonclinic couples have a tendency to have equalitarian relationship, while clinic husbands have a tendency to dominante the wife's emotional expression more than the wife influences her 74 husband. Also, the husband tends to respond less to the wife's emotional responses than the wife tends to respond to his. Therefore, sequential analysis of the couples interaction may have produced differences in power distributions that the frequencies used to Operationalize power did not. Also, the impact of the laboratory on the couples interaction may have affected the results. An equalitarian marital relationship may be perceived to be positive and couples may have attempted to present themselves in the best possible light by appearing equalitarian in there interaction. Marital Problems and Sex Role Identity On a number of marital problems there was a relationship between sex role identity of the couple and sex of spouse. For example, traditional sex role identified couples chose communication, finances, and household chores, as problems signigicantly more than androgynous couples, while androgynous couples chose time together, free time, and religion significantly more than traditional couples. The various marital problems encountered by the two couple types reflect differences in their behavior not only in types Of problems they deal with, but also in their interaction. Androgynous husbands chose free time as a problem significantly more Often than traditional husbands, while traditional wives chose household chores significantly more often than androgynous wives. In a study on sex role identity and couples, Cardell, Finn, and Marecek (1981) discovered that an androgynous sex role identity was related to equality in the relationship on sex-role differentiated behavior which is supported by the study. If previous research is valid, the androgynous husband shares household chores with his wife which, consequently, leaves him more of a problem with free time than traditional husbands have. In addition, the traditional wife has more of a problem with household chores than androgynous wives because her husband is not helping her 75 with the household chores, which relieves him of the free time problem of the androgynous husband. At the couple level, the different problems chosen by the two couple types also reflect various couple interactions. The problems of the traditional couples are more related to their relationship than the problems of the androgynous couples. For instance, the problems of communication, finances, and household chores of the traditional couple more directly relate to the actual interaction of the couple, while not enough time together, free time, and religion are not as integral to the interaction of the androgynous couple. The androgynous couple wishes to have more time together and more free time, while the traditional couple is having various relationship problems which fit the findings of a previous study by Ikes and Barnes (1978). They found that in androgynous dyads there was a high level Of interaction and attraction, a high degree of satisfaction with the interaction, and greater liking for the other participant. However, in interaction of masculine males and feminine females, the level of satisfaction, liking, and interaction was relatively low. Ikes and Barnes (1978) explained their results by saying that a synthesis of instrumental and expressive capacities in each person is required for high levels of interaction. Also, a congruence of interactional styles is required for high levels of interaction. In relation to the present study, it is possible the androgynous couples fit both of the above conditions, while the traditional types of couples meet neither which explains the different problems in their marriages. According to Spence and Helmreich (1980) the degree of expressiveness and instrumentality possessed by each member of the couple could affect their interaction and what they could give to each other. The androgynous couple wants to have more time together because of their synthesis of instrumental and expressive capacities and their congruent interactional styles, while the 76 traditional couple is having problems with comminication, finances, and chores because of the lack Of synthesis of expressive and instrumental behavior and their divergent interactional styles. The findings of the study that androgynous couples want to spend more time together and have fewer relationship problems support the theory of Kernberg who states that an ability to accept aspects Of the self that are like the Opposite sex, which androgynous individuals do, are essential for a truly mature love relationship. In contrast, Parsons and Bales' theory of complimentary sex roles of the traditional couple being most functional in marriage is not supported by the finding that traditional couples have more Of a problem with communication, finances, and household chores than androgynous couples. One suprising finding of the current study was that androgynous couples have more of a problem with religion than traditional couples. Logically, it would seem that those who define themselves in stereotypic masculine and feminine ways would be more religious. To support this idea, in a number of studies androgynous females were shown to be less traditional in educational and occupational pursuits, in marital and childrearing preference, and in sexual behavior (Allgeier, 1975; Allgeier, 1981). For males, however, the results were less convincing. One possible clue to why the androgynous couples of this study had more of a problem with religion is that androgynous. wives in the sample were significantly more religious than traditional wives, even though for the traditional and androgynous husbands there were not significant differences on religion. Therefore, in this study in relation to the marital problems encountered by the two couples types, the theory of integrated sex role identities seems to have some empirical basis. Androgynous couples want to spend more time together 77 and have fewer relationship issues then traditional sex role identified couples with complimentary sex role identities. In summary, the findings of the study support Helmreich et al. (1979) who states that masculinity and femirnirnity are personality characteristics that are only weakly related to sex role related behavior. Sex role identity is not strong enough to predict behavior, particularly when the dependent measures are nonsexed typed, based on couples, and involve complex interactions like conflict resolution and power seeking behavior. However, the relationship found between sex role identity of the couple and sex of the spouse and marital problems encountered indicates sex role identity has importance for the marital interaction. Therefore, the concept of sex role identity remains important in couple interaction, but the problems Of measuring and Operationalizing variables encountered in the study contributed to non significant differences in conflict resolution and power seeking behavior for the two couple types - androgynous and traditional. LiteratLre Since the Development of the Current Study Research on the dualistic concept of sex role identity has proliferated since the develOpment of the current study. The studies which relate directly to the current research are reviewed in the section that follows. Sex Role Identity and Marriage Most Of the previous work on androgyny led to the conclusion that masculinity rather than androgyny contributed to mental health (Taylor and Hall, 1982). Jones et al. (1978)) found that a wide range of flexibility and adjustment measures were associated with masculinity instead of androgyny. However, two recent studies found that femininity in both husbands and wives is important for 78 the marital relationship. In a study of 108 married couples, Antill (1983) found that the happiest marriages are those in which both partners are the most feminine. He interviewed couples on their marital history, income, education, politics, leisure activities, and friends. Spomes' sex role orientation was measured on a reduced list of items exactly like the items on the Bem Sex Role Inventory. The results provide evidence for the importance of femirninity in the marital relationship: the happiness of the husband was positively related to the wife's femirninity and the happiness Of the wife was positively related to the husband's femininity. In another study on sex role orientation and couples, Burger and Jacobson (1979) looked at the relatiornship of sex role identity, satisfaction in the relationship, and problem solving skills. They found that femininity was positively related to hmbands and wives' satisfaction in the relationship, and to positive problem solving strategies. In addition, a negative relationship was found between femininity and adversive problem solving strategies such as negative remarks by the wife and commands by the husband. Androgyny was not found to relate to problem solving strategies or relationship satisfaction. The findings of the two studies mentioned point to a new importance of femininity as a healthy characteristic particularly in interactions with others. In a study by Fitzpatrick and Indvik (1982), instrumental and expressive domains Of marital communication were examined. On the basis of three irndividual level relational definitions, traditional, independent, and searatg, nine couple types were determined. Thereafter, the instrumental and expressive behavior Of the nine couple types were explored on measures of sex role norms and sex role identity. On the measure Of apprOpriate male and female behavior, most of the couple types assigned instrumental and expressive behavior in the conventional manner on the basis of the sex Of the spome. However, the 79 Independents Opposed the conventional allocation of roles and based roles on the personal preference of the marital partner instead of on sex Of the partner. Regardless of couple type, most husbands rated themselves as instrumental on their sex role identity. Wives based their self-perception of their instrumental and expressive behavior on the type of relationship they have with their husband. To explain how the wives based their self- perception of instrumental and expressive behavior on their relationship with their husbands, the variom couple types will be elucidated further. The traditional m subscribed to traditional norms and perceived themselves to exhibit those behaviors. The traditional husband reports he was primarily instrumental and task-oriented while the traditional wife was expressive and nurturant. The separate couples subscribed to traditional norms in male-female behavior, but neither spome reported any expressive behavior traits. Since the separate yifs does not fill the traditional role of expressive behavior for wives, she is under stress. The lack of expressivity by the wife which was not compensated for by the husband may contribute to the emotional divorce experienced by the separate couples. In the husband separate/ wife traditional couple type, both spomes supported traditional sex role norms and rated their behavior in the traditional way. However, one interesting finding was that traditional wives Of separate husbands rated themselves as more expressive than traditional wives of traditional hmbands. Independent couples were more willing to support flexible roles, but this attitude only affects how wives perceived their behavior. On self—reports Of their sex role, identity, independent wives saw themselves as more instrumental, while independent husbands do not compensate and become more expressive. Therefore, the conviction of independent couples to less restricted role norms was limited to the wives' perceived changes and not to her hmbands' perceived changes. 80 In relation to mixed couple types, it was important to understand which spouse had what couple type in order to explain the dyadic interaction. For instance, if the husband were sgparate and the wife were traditional in relational type, they were satisfied and could express their affection (Fitzpatrick and Best, 1979). However, if the wife were sQarate and the husband were traditional, the relationship suffered because there was little expressivity in the relationship. Tlnerefore, both traditional and separate couple types believed that it was the wife's responsibility to perform the expressive function in marriage. In other words, the burden of expressive behavior falls on the wife and if she fails to carry that responsibility the relationship suffers. The asymmetry in expressiveness possibly leads to the frustration married women report that is greater than the frustration married men report. In addition, the poor emotional health of married women as compared to married men and unmarried women (Bernard, 1972) could be attributed to the asymmetry in expressive behavior found in the study by Fitzpatrick and Indvik (1982). Power Seeking Behavior and Marriage In relation to power, the primary view was that healthy marriages were equalitarian rather than husband or wife dominant. Social learning theorists also view symmetrical interactions positively since they view dominance as an example of coercive control (Patterson 8: Reid, 1970). Also, the communication theorists, Watzlawick et a1. (1967), suggest that symmetrical relationships were less dysfunctional than complimentary relationships. To test the hypothesis that a clear dominance pattern was typical for couples seeking counseling, whereas an equalitarian power structure was characteristic of nonclinic couples, Gottman (1979) using the improvisational data of Rubin (1977) and found that nonclinic couples have equalitarian dominance patterns on high conflit tasks, while clinic husbands are dominant on 81 high conflict tasks. On low conflict tasks, both nonclinic and clinic couples had equalitarian dominance patterns. Since Gottman (1979) defined dominance as an asymmetry in predictability of behavior he found an asymmetry of emotional responsiveness in clinic couples. The asymmetry in clinic couples was described in two ways: a) the husband motiviates the wife's affective response more than she does his; and b) the husband responds less emotionally to his wife than she does to him. Future Research In the following section, ideas for future research are presented. In the present study, the Bern Sex Role Inventory was used as the measure to determine sex role identity. However, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, is based on stereotypic traits that are believed to differentiate between the sexes on the average. If the androgynous person is characterized as someone that transcends stereotypes, a new measure Of androgyny needs to be created that is not based on cultural stereotypes. Possibly one way to create a new measure of androgyny is to define the 'androgynous person', and create a measure based on that definition. For example, Kaplan (1979) states that the androgynous person is adaptable, flexible, and integrates the masculine and feminine characteristics. By using the definition Of an 'androgynous person', judges could nominate those individuals whom they believe are androgynous. Research could be done to see if they are androgynous, and how they differ from nonandrogynous individuals. Another way to pursue the impact of sex role identity on the individual, that has not received much attention, is based on the individuals own conception Of his or her masculinity and femininity. Initial studies are beginning to indicate that subjects seldom define their masculinity and femininity by using personality 82 characteristics such as those listed in the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) or the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). It appears that subjects define their masculinity and feminirnity using physical characteristies or biological sex differences such as the ability to have a child (Myers 6: Gonda, 1982). The differences in the way subjects typically define masculinity and feminirnity are different enough to Open a whole new area of sex role identity research based on the individuals conception of his or her masculinity or feminirnity. One way to study the individual's conception Of his or her sex role identity might be to compare the individuals present sex role identity to his or her ideal sex role identity and past sex role identity. There is much debate in the literature about what present sex role identity measures actually measure. More work needs to be done to clarify this issue if researchers are to continue using the Barn Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) or Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Since masculinity and femim’nity appear to be multicfimensional (Myers & Gonda, 1982; Tellegen 8r Lubirnski, 1983), efforts need to be made to identify various aspects of them and to determine the relationship of these aspects to each other and to other variables. Due to the problems in the study with the inhibition of affective behavior by the couples, futher efforts need to be made to obtain a realistic sample of couples behavior. Couples might be studied in their home. A study by Fishman (1978) had continom tape recordings of couples' interactions in their home. In this way the couples appeared to become accustomed to the tapes and presented a realistic sample of their behavior. Sequential analysis of couples' interaction needs to be done to understand the patterns of couples' interaction. Frequencies of behavior give a partial pictue Of the interaction, but sequential analysis gives much more information. 83 However, sequential analysis is complex, time consuming, and complicated. Much Of the current work on couple interaction employs a marital adjustment scale to gain an Objective measure of couples adjustment. In relation to marital interaction and sex role identity, 3 measure of couples dyadic adjustment in addition to actual behavioral interactions would be helpful. Also, new scoring systems Of marital interaction were developed that are less complex and more directly measure the variables that are being found to differenciate healthy and distu'bed couples should be used. The "Marital Interaction Coding System" (MICS) by Hops et a1. (1972) and the couples Interaction Scoring System (CISS) Gottman (1979) are scoring systems that could be used in marital interaction research. As in most areas Of psychological research, the sex role identity and marriage research needs to be expanded to other pOpulations. In conclusion, although the two couple types differed only on the marital problems encountered, differences in interactions are believed to exist. However, the problems of Operationalizing and measuring interaction differences led to no significant differences in interaction. As new ways are found to measure and Operationalize androgyny, differences in conflict resolution, and power seeking behavior Of androgynom and traditional couples may be found. APPENDICES APPENDIX A BEM SEX ROLE INVENTORY RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE Using the following scale, circle the number which best represents how well each of the following characteristics describes yourself: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never or Usually Sometimes Occasion- Often Usually Always almost not true but infre— ally true true or almost never quently true always true true true 1. Self-reliant ............................. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 2- Yielding ................................ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 3- HeleUl ................................. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 a. Defends own beliefs ,,,,,, V ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, l 2 3 4 5 5 7 5. Cheerful ................................ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 6- Moody .................................. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Independent ............................. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8- Shy ..................................... l 2 3 4 5 6 7 9- Conscientious ............................ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 10- Athletic ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “- Affootionato. ............................ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 12- Theatrical ............................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13- Assertive. ............................... l 2 3 4 5 6 7 14- Honorable .............................. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 15- Happy .................................. 1234567 16- Strong Personality ........................ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 17- Loyal ................................... 1234567 13- UnprediCtablo. ........................... l 2 3 4 5 6 7 19- Foroofiil ................................ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 20- Feminine ................................ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never or Usually Sometimes Occasion- Often Usually Always almost not true but infre- ally true true or almost never quently true always true true true 21. Reliable ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Analytical ............................... l 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Sympathetic ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Jealous .................................. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Has leadership abilities .................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Sensitive to needs of others. ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Truthful ................................. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Willing to take risks ....................... l 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Understanding ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. secretive ............. f ................... 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 31. Makes decisions easily ..................... l 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Compassionate ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33- Sincere ............ ............... '...l 2 3 4 5 6 7 34- Self—sufficient ........................... .l 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Eager to soothe hurt feelings .............. .l 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. Conceited ............. ‘ .................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. Dominant ............................... .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. Soft spoken ...................... . ....... .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. Likeable ................................ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. Masculine ............................... l 2 3 4 5 6 7 41- Warm ................................... 1234567 42- Solemn ................................. 1234567 43. Willing to takeastand .................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 86 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never or Usually Sometimes Occasion- Often Usually Always almost not true but infre- ally true true or almost never quently true always true true true #4. Tender .................................. 1234567 45. Friendly ................................ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. Aggressive .............................. .l 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. Gullible ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. Inefficient .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. Actsasaleader ......................... l 2 3 4 5 6 7 50, Childlike. ............................... 1 2 3 l1. 5 6 7 51, Adaptable .............................. 1 2 3 11 5 5 7 52, Individualistic ........................... 1 2 3 a 5 5 7 53. Does not use harsh language --------------- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 54, Unsystematic ............................ 1 2 3 a 5 5 7 55, Competitive ............................. 1 2 3 a 5 5 7 55, Loves children ........................... 1 2 3 a 5 5 57, Tactful ................................. 1 2 3 a 5 5 7 58, Ambitious ............................... l 2 3 l1 5 6 7 59, Gentle .................................. 1234567 50, Conventional ............................ 1 2 3 a 5 5 7 APPENDIX B LETTER REQUESTING COUPLE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY 87 Dear Possible Subject, I am doing a study on couple interaction and need subjects. If you have been married at least one year, have no children and are United States citizens you meet the criteria for this study. Let me explain what would be involved. Initially, a survey would be filled out by you and your spouse. It takes about fifteen minutes to fill out and it should be filled out independently. From your answers on the survey certain types of couples will be selectd to come to an office and interact together for about an hour. This will be set up at a mutually convenient time and couples will be paid $10 for their participation. If you would participate in this study, take two forms to be filled out by you and your spouse. Read the consent form and sign it. Completely fill out the personal data sheet to the best of your knowledge. To fill out the questionnaire, indicate how true of you the characteristics listed are. This is done on a 1-7 scale. Since there are no correct answers to the questionnaire, please respond as accurately as possible. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, Mary Nowack Graduate Student Counseling Psychology APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM I 88 PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM I I understand that the study being conducted by Mary Nowack under the supervision of Dr. William Farquhar is for the purpose of examining couple interaction. I understand that participating in this study will not result in direct benefits for me. I understand that I can discontinue my participation at anytime, however, if I can in good conscience, I will try to complete the part in which I have agreed to participate. I also understand that the information I provide by filling out these forms will be kept strictly confidential. Only the researcher will have access to the original forms. General results will be reported, but none of these will identify individual subject's results. I know that I will-~upon request-- receive a report of this study's general results, within the restrictions of confidentiality as outlines above. Date §gnature Date Wfitness APPENDIX D PERSONAL DATA SHEET 89 PERSONAL DATA SHEET NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: AGE: SEX: RACE: CITIZENSHIP: SPOUSES NAME: YEARS MARRIED: NUMBER OF CHILDREN: AGE AT MARRIAGE: HAVE YOU BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARRIED: WHAT WAS YOUR FATHER'S EDUCATION AND JOB AT THE TIME OF YOUR MARRIAGE: WHAT WAS YOUR MOTHER'S EDUCATION AND JOB AT THE TIME OF YOUR MARRIAGE: ARE YOU A STUDENT: YES NO IF YES: YEAR: MAJOR: HOW MANY YEARS OF SCHOOL HAVE YOU COMPLETED: GRAMMAR SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL COLLEGE GRADUATE SCHOOL ARE YOU EMPLOYED: YES NO WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT EMPLOYMENT: IF YOU ARE EMPLOYED, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR FAMILY INCOME no YOU MAKE: ARE YOU RELIGIOUS: YES NO IF 50, WHAT RELIGION: WILL YOU BE movmc IN THE NEAR FUTURE: YES no IF YES, IS THERE AN ADDRESS WHERE YOU CAN BE REACHED: APPENDIX E CONSENT FORM II 90 PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM II I understand that the study being conducted by Mary Nowack under the supervision of Dr. William Farquhar is for the purpose of examining couple interactions. I understand that participating in this study will not result in direct benefits for me. I understand that I can discontinue my participation at anytime. However, if I can in good conscience, I will try to complete the part in which I have agreed to participate. I also understand that the information I provide by performing the tasks will be kept strictly confidential. Only the researchers will have access to the original data. General results will be reported, but none of these will identify individual subjects' results. I know that I will upon request receive a report of this study's general results, within the restrictions of confidentiality outlined above. Date Signature Date Witness APPENDIX F INSTRUCTIONS FOR COUPLES 91 Dear Subject, In this study you and your spouse will separately select three areas of disagreement you have in your marriage, from a list of marital problems. Then from your separate lists you will jointly decide on three areas of disagreement. Of these three areas of disagreement, you will select together two areas to work on as you would at home. You will be asked to be yourself while working on the problems rather that taking on some role. When this is completed, I will talk with you and your spouse about your reactions to this study. On the next page there is another consent form. Pleae read it and sign it. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, Mary Nowack Graduate Student Counseling Psychology APPENDIX G INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXPERIMENTERS 2. 92 Instructions For Experimenters Give each spouse a lap board, pen and list of areas of disagreement. Sayz'Pvel'nndedywbothalistofpotentialareasofdisagreement. Select three important areas of disagreement you and your spouse haveinyourmarriage. Doitaloneandthenmarkthemonyom sheet. Are there any questions?" If they ask what you mean by disagreement say: 'A disagreement is an area in which you and your spouse want something different.” If the couple starts comparing notes say: “No, do it individually." When it appears they have completed #1, say: 'Have you finished?" If they answer yes, go on, if no, give them more time. Then say: “When I leave the room, compare your lists and together select the the most important areas of disagreement you two have. Mark them on your joint list on the table. ‘l'hendtoosetwooftheflreeareasofdisagreementtodisalss tonightandmarkthemonthejointlist. Youbothshouldbeable to state your positions to the disagreement. Are there any questions?“ If they ask whether they should work on the problem say: 'No, just select theareasandbeclearaboutyoupositionstothedsagreement. NowIwiII leave the room. Let me know you have finished by opening the door.” A. Get list from couple. Say: 'What are you two positions to the disagreement you have in the area of .‘(fill in with first area they picked to discuss here.) “Do not begin to discuss the problem, just tell me your two positions." I. If they don't tell you the disagreement say: 'Yes, but what is you disagreement?" 2. If you discover they aren't clear about their positions say: '60 overyoulistagain. Clarifyyotrtwopositionsontheareas 5. 93 "youselectedtodisulsshere. NowIwillleavetheroom. Letme know you have finished by opening the door.” Then start at the beginning of letter A again. B. If they correctly tell you the disagreement say: “Now after I leave the room I want you to discuss this area of disagreement and try to comeclosertoanagreement. Beyotrselfandworkontheproblem asyouwouldathome. Letmeknow you havefinishedbyopeningthe door. Do you have any questions?" I. If they ask when to stop say: 'Stop when you feel you have made some progress and are ready to stop." 2. If they ask about not being able to come to an agreement say: “Try to come closer to an agreement." 3.. If they ask how close to come say: 'That is up to you." 4. If they ask about a time limit say: 'That is up to you." Select the second area of disagreement the couple decided to discuss. Repeat #3. After the couple is finished with disagreement two, enter the room and turn off the tape. Say: 'Your part in the study is now over. The researduwillnowtalkwithyouaboutyoureactionstothestudy.” APPENDIX H AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT 94 AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT Finances Place of Residence Type of Residence Friends In-laws Religion When or if to have children Sex Vacations How to spend free time Not enough time spent together Household chores Career conflicts Communication styles Any other area of disagreement you may have APPENDIX I JOINT AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT 95 JOINT AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT Finances Place of Residence Type of Residence Friends In-laws Religion When or if to have children Sex Vacations How to spend free time Not enough time spent together Household chores Career conflicts Communication styles Any other area of disagreement you may have AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT TO DISCUSS HERE APPENDIX J DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE 96 DEBRIEFING Do you think and feel important real life issues were grappled with? . Do you think and feel the way you interacted was characteristic of you? . What was the experiment like for you? What were you thinking or feeling? . How did you think and feel about the way you interracted? APPENDIX K A CODING SCHEME FOR INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT 97 A Coding Scheme for Inta'personal Conflict General Introduction 555 I. An act is defined as the statement or action of one person bounded by the statement or action of another. Except for the last act in a series of interchanges, an act is initiated by the actor‘s statement or action and it terminates when the statement or action of another begins. Thus, an act may be a lengthy statement, a sentence, a phrase, or a word; it may end at a natural termination point or it may be interrupted by the act of another. In our present work we have coded primarily verbal acts, but acts may also be gestures, expressions, or other physical motions. 11. Each act receives two labels: a coding for action category and a coding for phase. Action Categories I. Category coding involves specific acts. The position taken by the coder is that of the generalized other. The question he must answer is: What would I feel was being done to me if I were the recipient of this particular act? The coder must judge this in two contexts: (l) the actor's knowledge of the setting, including any instructions he may have received about the conflict situation; and (2) what has gone on in the interchange up to the specific act now being coded. In other words, an action category coding may be influenced by preceding codings, but the coder must avoid special knowledge of or influence by subsequent events. He therefore avoids reading or listening ahead of the act he is coding. A particular danger is that coders may try to interpret an act too deeply. The judgment must be at a relatively, but not completely, naive level: how would the recipient judge what was being done to him? Thus, for example, a statement in the form of a question might represent a request for information, 98 an expression of personal concern, an attack, or some other response. The coder must differentiate among these, irrespective of the form of the statement, by taking the position of the recipient. II. There are thirty-six action categories. These presumably cover the potentialities for the interactions of two participants in a conflict situation. The categories may be roughly classified as either cognitive, affiliative, or coercive, and they are listed as such in the body of the manual as an aid to the coder. Within this rough classification the categories are ordered roughly according to their intensity (discussed below). Each act is coded by selection from the thirty- six action categories. Following coding, data may be lumped according to any of several schemes (discussed below). Phases I. Each act is also coded according to the phase of the conflict situation in which it occurs. The phase coding indicates the general position of the participants with respect to the flow of the conflict situation. There are three phases: (1) Introductory: acts prior to the introduction of the conflict issue; (2) Cmflict: acts beginning with the first statement of the conflict issue and continuing until the introduction of an agreed on resolution; (3) Resolutim and postresolutim: acts beginning with the achievement of a resolution and subsequent discussion.1 1The initial scheme for phase coding consisted of six phases; phases for tempering the conflict and for avoidance of conflict were eliminated, partly because of infrequency of occurrence and partly because these aspects were sufficiently reflected in the action category codings. A differentiation between resolution and postresolution was eliminated because the resolution phase usually consisted of no more than three acts. 99 II. The judgment of phase is taken from the vantage point of the coder. The coder must judge the position of the participants with respect to the conflict: is this act before, during, or after the conflict? In contrast to action category coding, the coder does not take the position of the generalized other. He is thus permitted to revise his coding of phase if additional information leads him to alter his judgment. Double Coding I. The general policy is to minimize double codes. Double codes may be used in the following cases: (I) when there is a change of phase within a Single act; for example, the act may follow an introductory remark with the statement of the conflict issue, or a conflict statement may be followed by a suggestion for resolution; (2) when the first part of an act is in response to the other's statement, while a later part initiates an event requiring another coding; (3) when there is too much information in the act to handle with a single coding; for example, tone may change from coercive to affiliative or from cognitive to coercive. II. Acts are n_o_t double coded in the following cases: (I) when they are ambiguous to the coder-a decision must be made as to the best single code; (2) when there is disagreement among coders--again the best single code must be selected (see the discussion of consensus coding below). Triple codes are m used. Ill. By convention (because of our date analysis requirements), there cannot be two succesive double codes; that is, at least one single—coded act must appear between any two acts that are double-coded. If the rules do not allow the 100 must judge which single aspect of an act is most important and code accordingly. Procedures 1. In coding, a column of the coding sheet is designated for each participant. Acts are numbered successively at the left hand margin, beginning with 1. The coder codes each act successively without listening or reading ahead. As noted above, phase codes may be modified by subsequent considerations, but not action category codes. II. We have used a procedure involving two steps: independent coding and consensus coding. A. Independent coding: Each coder codes the material independently. He proceeds successively through the series of acts, coding each act into one of the three phases and into one (or, if necessary, two) of the thirty-six action categories. In our own work we used tape recordings and typed transcripts simultaneously. Two or three independent coders coded each set of materials. B. Consensus coding: Consensus coders work conjointly. They repeat the procedures of the independent coders, but have available to them not only the raw materials (tapes and transcripts) but also the codings of the independent coders. Using the independent codings as a basis, the consensus coders together arrive at a judgment for coding of each act. This judgment becomes the standard code. Consensus requires at least two coders. In some of our work consensus and independent coders overlapped--that is, one of the independent coders also coded in the consensus procedures; later, consensus was done by coders 101 other than those who did the independent codings. The more experienced coders should be used for consensus. Coder Training. Initially new coders are familiarized with the coding categories. They need not memorize the scheme, since a list of the action categories and phases is always available. If experienced coders and previous standard judgements are available, as a new coder begins to code material, an experienced coder should work with him, helping him compare his judgments with the previous consensus. When a coder begins to feel comfortable with the procedures, he can undertake independent coding; he then meets with other new coders, and, under the guidance of an experienced coder (if available), they discuss consensus, comparing their final judgments with the previous standards (again, if available). The final training step is for new coders to work together establishing the standard codings without supervision. Their standard codings are then compared to the standard codings established by experienced coders (if available). We found that, after sixty to one hundred hours of training, spread over three to four weeks, standard action category codes of new coders agreed 67 percent with the standard codes of experienced coders. This compares reasonably well with the reliability of experienced coders (approximately 70 percent absolute agreement). Lumping. The action categories are comprised of thirty-six discrete units. These presumably cover all possible acts in a conflict situation. The number is, of course, arbitrary; in fact, the original scheme consisted of more than forty categories. The present thirty-six seem, however, reasonably discriminable. For some purposes this differentiation is too fine. Either theoretical considerations or practical limitations in frequencies may suggest a need for lumping. We have already noted that the categories may be roughly divided into 102 cognitive, affiliative, and coercive groupings. Such a division is, however, too crude. One compromise lumps the thirty-six categories into twelve. These are noted in the final section of the Manual together with the specific categories of which they are comprised. A second scheme, lumping the thirty-six categories into six, is also noted in the final section of the Manual. Other forms of lumping are, of course, possible. The lumping does not affect the coding procedure, since the data are grouped after coding. With lumping, reliability shifts from about 70 percent absolute agreement using thirty-six categories, to about 75 percent absolute agreement using twelve and about 77 percent absolute agreement using six. Action Category Coding Cognitive Acts 0. Conventional Remarks Used for: remarks that are ritualistic, cultural, or "social" in implication. Conventional remarks rarely convey information. Obvious conventional remarks are used in greeting and parting (see examples). Conventions and confusions: The coder must judge that the remark is purely conventional and not intended to convey or elicit information. For example, "how are you?" as a greeting is coded 0 rather than 2. Examples: "Hello, dear." "How are you?" "Happy anniversary." "Nice day isn't it?" "See you later." "So long." l. 103 Opening the issue or probe Used for: a move toward bringing an issue or problem into the open. This code represents a preliminary step before overtly facing an issue. It says, in a sense, "there is something to be talked about," or primes the other for a course of action, but the substantive issue is not stated. Conventions and confusions: At times a code I act may be mistaken for O, 2, or 3. It appears frequently as the first communication to break the conventionality barrier. It is very important for the coder to keep the set of the "generalized other." The coder may know the purpose of the speaker, but the one to whom the speaker speaks may not. Hence, code I should be used only when the listener without Special knowledge would know that the speaker is probing or opening the issue. Examples: "I have a surprise for you." "Honey?" (Said in tone of "I have something to say.") "Something on your mind?" "What's that smile for?" Seeking information Used for: attempts to find out factual information. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is solely to elicit factual information. Conventions and confusions: A question does not necessarily indiCate a 2, and not all 25 are in the form of a question. The function of the statement is the essential determinant. 3. 4. 104 Examples: "What time is it?" "What are you making?" "Tell me more." (Examples ordinarily not code 2: "How are you?" is usually 0; "What's the matter with you?" is usually 21.) Giving information Used for: presentation of factual information. Conventions and confusions: A 3 act does not necessarily have to be in answer to a question. Generally 35 are well differentiated from the other categories, though at times they are confused with 55, especially if a move toward action is implicit. If statement is for any purpose other than to give information, another coding should be used. Again the coder should take the position of the "generalized other" who is not privy to special information. Examples: "It's 10 o'clock." "I'm finished with the dishes." Withholding information Used for: an attempt to conceal or disguise plans or feelings that the other wishes to know about, but without implying rejection of the other. Conventions and confusions: The coder must find that the refusal to answer the other's questions is not rejection of other but merely an unwillingness to answer, without strong emotional impact. When, in response to "What's the matter?" the speaker replies "Nothing," the context and tone are important for making a judgment of code. The 45 should be discriminated from 455. 5. 105 Examples: (A: "I've got a surprise." = l) (B. "What's the surprise?" = 2) A: "I'm not telling." Other examples are not presented because they depend too much on context and tone. Suggesting a course of acton Used for: suggestions for action, whether in the form of a declaration or a question. Conventions and confusions: Code 5 acts can be differentiated from 475 by the tone of voice and the context. Examples: "Let's stay home." "How about going out to dinner?" "Why don't you go wash up?" "Come on over and sit down." Agreeing with the other's statement Used for: the verbal equivalent of a behavioral need. Conventions and confusions: This code represents a fairly cursory agreement, saying, in effect, "Go on; tell me more." It must be discriminated from 23, which is a real acceptance of what other has said; 6 is more cursory and conventional. "Yes, but . . ." is usually 11, not 6. Examples: "Okay." (cursory) "Uh huh." "Mm hm." 106 (A: "Let's go to the show." = 5) (B: "Okay." = 23) A: "Okay." 7. Giving cognitive reasons for a course of action Used for: statements of reasons most frequently in support of one's own intention but can also be those for following other person's course of action. The category reflects rational arguments. Conventions and confusions: When emotional elements enter, the coding is no longer 7. If the statement is made supporting one's own argument in denying the other's argument, it is coded II. If it is merely sustaining one's own position, then it is coded 7. A suggestion for a course of action (5) that is nested within arguments for such action tends to be coded as 7. Examples: "Let's go because I already have the tickets." "There are three reasons why we should see this." (Example not coded 7: "That's true, but I've already cooked the dinner" is 11) 8. Exploring the consequences of a course of action Used for: a cognitive exploration of "What will happen if . . ." Conventions and confusions: Code 8 tends to appear when people are close to agreeing on a course of action and are ready to explore the implications of their decision. It is the cognitive counterpart of 21 and 24. If elements of concern for the other's feelings (21) or the seeking of reassurance (24) appear, these take precedence. Compared to 29, which is concern with the general relationship and 107 has an affiliative component, 8 is oriented toward a specific course of action and is more cognitive. Examples: "Will the food keep if we go out to dinner." "What will happen if we do __ ?" (Examples often confused with 8: "Would you be upset if we do this?" = 21; "Are you angry at me for this?" = 24; "Well, how Shall we settle this?" = 29.) 10. Giving up or leaving the field Used for: statements received by the other as a genuine "I give up" rather than as a tactic to induce or force the other to give in to one's demands. Conventions and confusions: Code 10 acts should be distinguished from rejection (45) and guilt-induction (51). A 10 act signifies leaving the field of interaction. Examples: "1 give up." "I quit." "I'm going to bed." "I don't know what to do." 11. Dmying the validity of other's argument with or without the use of counterarguments Used for: cognitively oriented rational arguments. Conventions and confusions: If there is any element of negation of the other's argument, the act is coded 11 not 7. This code is distinguised from 45, which is stronger, more abrasive, and more emotionally 108 charged, and from 51, which is an assault of a more personal and emotional nature. Examples: "Yes, but . . ." "I see no reason for __ ." "Yes, I did __ ." "No, I didn't __ ." "I don't agree with that." 13. Changing the subject Used for: attempts to delay or effect a temporary pause in the conflict by shifting the topic of conversation. The recipient perceives this as a diversion from the topic under discussion, rather than as an attempt on the part of the sender to win the argument. Conventions and confusions: In contrast to a 13, a 26 would be received by the generalized other more as a manipulative technique by the sender to win his point. Examples: "Look at the cat." "Let's talk about something else." (In the midst of an argument). "Did you put the dog out?" Affiliative Acts 15. Using humor Used for: acts in a humorous tone whose function, as perceived by the other, is to temper the conflict. Conventions and confusions: The content may be diverse, but the generalized other would receive the statement (because of tone and phrasing) as an attempt to lower the tension level. I9. 109 Examples: "You're a stinker! That's a footnote by the way." "Well, I never knew him (Shakespeare), but I enjoy his plays." "I'm going to trade you in." Avoiding blame or responsibility Used for: acts casting blame onto someone or something else with the intent of making the other realize "it's not my fault," or "I've no control over it." Conventions and confusions: 19 is affiliative and conciliatory in tone, in contrast to 41, which would be received as coercive. Examples: "I didn't want to bring work home, but I can't help it." "My mind was on something else." "Well, there are circumstances that just don't allow me to make a phone call." "I didn't bring it up; he brought it up." (Example not coded 19: "I've got to get this work done tonight so leave me alone" is 41.) Accepting blame or responsibility Used for: a conciliatory or affiliative gesture, often an appeal for forgiveness. Conventions and confusions: ----- Examples: "1 don't mean to be rude." "I'm sorry." "I admit I'm wrong." 21. 23. 2“. 110 Showing concern for the other's feelings Used for: acts exploring the other's affect and/or emotional investment in relation to an issue or goal. Conventions and confusions: In contrast to 24, which emphasizes concern about oneself, 21 emphasizes concern for the other person. An expression of concern continuously repeated becomes a nagging or coaxing (40); the convention we have used is that after one repetition of a 21, subsequent repetitions are 405. Examples: "What's bothering you, honey?" "Do you really want to do that?" "I want you to be happy." "Are you really satisfied?" Accepting the other's plans, actions, ideas, motives, or feelings Used for: acts indicating real acceptance of what the other has said. Conventions and confusions: See category 6. Examples: "That's a good idea." "We will do just what you wanted to do." "You have a point there." "Okay. That would be fine with me." Seeking reassurance Used for: an attempt to evoke reassurance from the other either directly or indirectly (such as by self-deprecation, calling on the other to deny the remarks-~see examples). Conventions and confusions: At times it is very difficult to distinguish 24 from 21. A judgment must be made whether the statement shows 111 concern for oneself (24) or for the other (21). It may be confused with 2, because 24 is very often in the form of a question; however, the request is not for a factual but rather for an emotional response. Examples: "You're not mad at me, are you?" "You do love me, don't you?" "I've been pretty stupid, haven't I?" "Now I feel like a little baby." "Forgive me?" A: "I do love you." = 28 B: "Do you really mean it?" 25. Attempting to make up Used for: an attempt to soothe and smooth emotional differences, perceived as an attempt to restore good feelings in the relationship. Conventions and confusions: A 25 act would not be perceived by the other as seeking reassurance or forgiveness, but as restoring the relationship to a preconflict level. Examples: "Now give me a kiss, and let's forget it." "Maybe we're both wrong." "Shake?" 26. Diverting the other's attention as a maneuver to gain one's aim Used for: an act perceived by the recipient as a diversionary attempt on the part of the other to win his point. The emphasis is on the diversionary aspect and the manipulative aspect is often so obvious as to be ineffective. In the context of an argument, when the other 27. 28. 112 person is on the offensive with good arguments, the speaker suddenly changes the argument. Conventions and confusions: See category 13. Examples: "Where did you learn to argue so well?" (In the midst of deciding which television show to watch) "Why don't you go get me a coke?" (In the scene where the wife is maintaining distance) H: "Well, you are cute." H: "Did anyone ever tell you you're beautiful?" "You're cute even when angry." "You certainly express yourself well on that point." Introducing a compromise Used for: an attempt to include each person's aim in an overall solution. Conventions and confusions: The difference between 27 and 35 is that 35 is perceived as an attempt on the part of the other to get his own way by offering something else, whereas 27 is perceived as a genuine attempt to reconcile the difference between the two. Examples: "I'll make a deal with you." "I'll tell you what; we'll split it fifty-fifty." "Let's do it this way now; next time we'll do it your way." Offering help or reassurance Used for: an assurance through word or gesture of positive feeling. Conventions and confusions: ---- 29. 31. 113 Examples: "No, no, no. I'm completely happy." "So long as we can work it out, that's what counts." "Here--I'll help you with your coat." Offering to collaborate in plaming Used for: an offer to help in adopting a solution or to work together to plan a solution. Conventions and confusions: A 29 act may be a suggestion for a course of action (5), but it recognizes that a unilateral solution is not possible. Examples: "What do you think?" "Let's figure it out." "Well, what are we going to do?" "Well, let's look at it both ways." Appealing to fairness Used for: an attempt to obtain one's goal (aim) by appealing to the other's sense of fair play. Conventions and confusions: A 31 statement appeals to the positive sense of fairness and justice in the other. In a 51 act, the other is accused of "bad motives." Examples: "We always do what you want ot do." "But that's not fair." "Do you realize I've had a busy day too?" "What would you do if I behaved that way?" 33. 35. 37. 114 Appealing to other's motives Used for: an attempt to convince the other that one's plans will give him or both parties as much as or more than his plans will. The recipient perceives this as an appeal to the benefits he would achieve by accepting the sender's plans. Conventions and confusions: In contrast to 7, the emphasis is on the motives of the other rather than on the rationality of the argument. Examples: "You'll really like this, dear." "It would really make you feel much better." "Doing would be of benefit to both of us." Offering something else as a way of wiming one's goal Used for: an appeal to the other person by offering him something in return for his agreement. It is perceived by the other as having the quality of a bribe. Conventions and confusions: See category 27. Examples: "I'll give you a lollipop if you stop crying." "You won't get your present unless you do ___." Appealing to the love of the other Used for: a statement perceived as a direct personal appeal. It exerts pressure on the other by capitalizing on the affiliative relationship. Conventions and confusions: Although an appeal to the love of the other person may have guilt-inducing properties, the judgment must be whether the other receives it as accusatory (51) or affiliative (37). 115 Examples: (In the contest of a love relationship) "I would appreciate it very much if you would do this." "Do it for me." "If you love (respect, think well of) me, you will ____." 40. Pleading and coaxing Used for: an appeal to the other person either passively (pleading) or actively (coaxing and prodding) without making explicit the motivation to which the appeal is made (such as fairness or love). The key is either in the tone of expression or in the continued repetition of the same appeal without adding more to it (see category 21). Conventions and confusions: Often implicit in this type of statement is an appeal to the love of the other or to fairness, but if that is not made explicit it would be coded 40. Examples (all depend on tone): "Please." "Come on, honey." "Do it just this once." (A: What's the matter, honey?" = 21) (B: (statement)). (A: "What's the matter, honey?" = 21) (B: (statement)) A: "Tell me what's the matter, honey." 116 Coercive Acts ‘1. “3. Using an outside power or set of circumstances to induce or force the other to agree Used for: acts that the other perceives as describing external forces or a present set of circumstances that coerce him to yield. Conventions and confusions: See category 19. A 19 act is an excuse for something that has already occurred, whereas a 41 is used to force the other person to go along with a proposed course of action. Examples: "I've had a hell of a day at the office." (Implied: "so do what I want.") "We're obligated to do this." "The boss is expecting us." "I have a terrible headache." (Implied: "so do what I want" or "so leave me alone.") Recognizing the other's move as a strategy or calling the other's bluff Used for: acts indicating that what the other has just said has been recognized as a strategy and is being challenged or rendered ineffective. Conventions and confusions: Like 11, a 43 denies the validity of the other's argument, but 11 is directed toward the content, whereas 43 challenges the strategy. To be coded 43, a remark has to be perceived as a serious challenge, even if it is couched in somewhat humorous terms. If humor is predominant, it is coded 15. Examples: "You're not going to get away with that." "You can't win that way." 117 "You keep running away (from the issue)." "Oh, come off it." (A: "I'm going to leave you." :55) B: "So long." or B: "I'll see you when you get back." 45. Rejecting the other Used for: a rejection with a strong personal quality, even if it is ostensibly directed toward the ideas, plans, or desires to the other. This category is characterized by very low affiliation and high power. It is often used to maintain interpersonal distance. Refusal to answer a direct question by silence is a 45 act. Conventions and confusions: Both 11 and 4 are sometimes confused with 45. The recipient would perceive 45 as a personal rejection. Examples: "No, I would rather be alone." (A: "What's the matter?" :21) B: (Silence). "I don't want to talk with you." "Go to hell." 47. Commanding Used for: ordering or forcing the other to do one's wishes. Conventions and confusions: Tone of voice is important in the distinction between 5 and 47. A 47 act would be perceived from its tone and language as coercing, domineering, or dominating, whereas a 5 would be perceived as suggesting a course of action. 48. 51. 53, 118 Examples: "I don't care what you want; we're going to do ___." "Put the book down!" Demanding compensation Used for: an act in which one demands a price from the other for one's yielding. It is the inverse of 35. Conventions and confusions: A 48 act is coercive, while a 27 is conciliatory. Examples: "I'll let you do what you want, but by damn you'll have to ____." "I'll let you get away with this, but I'm going to ____." Inducing guilt or attacking the other's motives Used for: an act that puts the other on the defensive about his motives or behavior by attacking, uncovering, criticizing, or interpreting them as not matching up to a supposed ideal standard. Conventions and confusions: See categories 31 and 37. Tone can be misleading in category 51 acts; people can induce guilt in a very "nice" tone of voice. Examples: "You don't really want to do __ , you're just being spiteful (mean, stubborn)." "You're doing things to upset me. You know I don't like this, but you do it anyway." A "You know you have just ruined my whole day." Disparaging the other Used for: an attack perceived by the other as against his person, character or talents. 119 Conventions and confusions: ----- Examples: "That‘s a stupid thing to say." "Oh, now you're a doctor as well as a psychiatrist." "You're acting like a dumb jerk." 55. Tlreatming the other Used for: blunt uses of power. Conventions and confusions: ----- Examples: Just try and get away with it." "I'm liable to get mad-~really mad." "OK, but I'll remember this." "If you keep acting this way, I'll leave." Phase Coding Phase A: Introductory. Acts prior to introduction of the conflict issue. Generally, conventional introductory actions such as greetings and questions, are in phase A. But remarks directed toward bringing up the conflict issue may also be included. Phase B: Conflict. The conflict phase opens with the first statement of the conflict issue, and it continues until the introduction of an agreed-on resolution. By convention, all participants enter into phase B immediately following a statement of the conflict issue by any participant. There is one exception to this: if one participant brings up the conflict issue and the other never contests it, the first act is coded as phase B, but the rest of the acts are Coded as phase A or phase C depending on what goes on. Phase C: Resolution and postresolution. Resoltuion is accomplished when Participants agree on a solution to the conflict. The solution may or may not be 120 mutually satisfactory to all participants, but it must at least receive verbal agreement for it to be coded as phase C. If a participant rejects a proposed resolution, the acts of all participants, including the prOposal, continue to be coded as phase B. In other words, phase C cannot be reached unless all prticipants are in agreement; if only one is trying for a resolution, then the phase remains at B. Further discussion during phase C may lead to a revival of the conflict, with a return to phase B. Not all phases need to be used in a conflict situation. There may be no introductory phase if the participants enter immediately into the conflict; participants may never enter phase B; or they may fail to achive resolution and so not enter phase C. 121 Twelve-Category Lumping Scheme 1 = Introduction: 0 ,l, 2, 3, 4, 6 2 = Suggest: 5 3 = Reason: 7, 8, ll 4 = Resolve: 27, 29 5 = Cool: 13, 15, 26 6 = Self-concern: 19, 20, 24 7 = Concern for other: 21, 25, 28 8 = Accept: 23 9 = Appeals: 31, 33, 35, 37, 40 10 = Rejection: 10, 43, 45 11 = Power play: 41, 47, 48, 55 12 = Attack: 51, 53 Six-Category Lumping Scheme 1 = Neutral acts, suggestions, and rational arguments: 0, l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ll 2 = Resolution of conflict (reconciling conflict): 13, 15, 23, 26, 27, 29 3 = Interpersonal reconcilia- tion (reconciling socio- emotional status) 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28 a = Appeal: 31, 33, 35, 37, no 5 = Rejection: 10, 43, 45 6 = Coercion and attack: 41, 47, 48, 51, 53, 55 } Cognitive Affiliative Coercive APPENDIX L BEM SEX ROLE INVENTORY ITEM TOTAL INFORMATION 122 BEM SEX ROLE INVENTORY FEMININE SCALE ITEM TOTAL INFORMATION HUSBANDS WIVES ITEMS ITEM ALPHA ITEM ALPHA TOTAL IF ITEM TOTAL IF ITEM CORR. DELETED CORR. DELETED 2. Yielding .37518 .77030 .38108 .69282 6. Cheerful .24375 .77771 .28149 .70315 10. Shy .05400 .79762 .00232 .73209 14. Affectionate .51841 .76256 .45454 .68986 18. Flatterable .06729 .79207 -.07860 .73915 22. Loyal .33104 .77318 .34644 .70093 26. Feminine .06397 .78787 .37431 .69283 30. Sympathetic .50343 .76364 .49861 .68721 34. Sensitive to others needs .57822 .76098 .53436 .68333 38. Understanding .55150 .76312 .52887 .68781 42. Compassionate .60061 .75729 .42382 .69390 46. Eager to soothe .58384 .75552 .43649 .68896 others hurt feelings 50. Soft spoken .29485 .77672 .26405 .70435 54. Warm .61362 .75791 .45628 .69068 58. Tender .62599 .75484 .50654 .68275 62. Gullible .13741 .78526 .05377 .72609 66. Childlike .09205 .78832 --.05254 .73049 70. Does not use harsh lang. .19475 .78912 . 10789 .73293 74. Loves children .41252 .76729 .33381 .69672 78. Gentle .66526 .75381 .66489 .66827 L = .78115 __4_.__ =.71257 123 BEM SEX ROLE INVENTORY MASCULINE SCALE ITEM TOTAL INFORMATION HUSBANDS WIVES ITEMS ITEM ALPHA ITEM ALPHA TOTAL IF ITEM TOTAL IF ITEM CORR. DELETED CORR. DELETED 1. Self reliant .40024 .84778 .52705 .85814 5. Defends own beliefs .39210 .84790 .45964 .86008 9. Independent .43350 .84675 .62450 .85384 13. Athletic .15923 .85953 .36253 .86473 17. Assertive .58412 .83997 .64128 .85291 21. Strong personality .63956 .83720 .65146 .85169 25. Forceful .41243 .84742 .47192 .85895 29. Analytical .26910 .85269 .15886 .87192 33. Has leardership ability .68402 .83667 .55537 .85573 37. Willing to take risks .39705 .84855 .26735 .86676 41. Makes decisions easily .49624 .84355 .40334 .86161 45. Self sufficient .37970 .84833 .50249 .85833 49. Dominant .50030 .84334 .47875 .85868 53. Masculine .17133 .85473 .21544 .86696 57. Willing to take a stand .54127 .84244 .48546 .85866 61. Aggressive .48441 .84407 .52949 .85665 65. Acts as a leader .68438 .83545 .63777 .85265 69. lndividualistic .43044 .84646 .45738 .85949 73. Competitive .31952 .85085 .51023 .85745 77. Ambitious .42933 .84644 .38761 .86193 L = .85273 L = .86556 APPENDIX M MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND t VALUE FOR ANDROGYNOUS AND TRADITIONAL HUSBANDS FOR PERCENT OF TALKING TIME 124 MEANz STANDARD DEVIATION AND t VALUE FOR ANDROGYNOUS AND TRADITIONAL HUSBANDS FOR PERCENT TALKING TIME MEAN S. D. t-VALUE Androgynous husbands .5267 .120 .368 Traditional Husbands .4888 .098 APPENDIX N MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND t VALUE FOR ANDROGYNOUS AND TRADITIONAL HUSBANDS FOR PERCENT OF INTERRUPTIONS 125 MEANSz STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND t VALUE FOR ANDROGYNOUS AND TRADITIONAL HUSBANDS FOR PERCENT INTERRUPTIONS MEAN S. D. t-VALUE Androgynous Husbands .4481 .196 .423 Traditional Husbands .5020 .150 BIBLIOGRAPHY 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allgeier, E. R. (1975). Beyond sowing and growing: The relationship of sex—typing to socialization, family plans, and future orientation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(3), 217-226. Allgeier, E. R. (1981). The influence of androgynous identification on heterosexual relations. Sex Roles, 7(3). Antill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4_5(l), 145-155. Apfelbaum, E. (1974). On conflicts and bargaining. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, _7, 103-156. Bach, G. R., & Wyden, P. (1969). The intimate enemy. New York: William Morrow. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small grogp . Cambridge: Adison-Wesley. Balswick, J., & Peeks, C. (1971). The inexpressive male: A tragedy of american society. Family Coordinator, g), 363-368. Barry, W. A. (1968). Conflict in marriage: A study of the interactions of newlywed couples in experimentally induced conflicts. Done at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, .6_8, 68-13, 273. Baxter, L., & Shepherd, T. (1978). Sex role identify, sex of other, and affective relationship as determinants of inter-personal conflict management style. Sex Role, £6), 813-825. —— Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consultim and Clincial Psychology, 42, 155-162. Bern, S. L. (1975). Sex-role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, _3_l_, 634-643. Bern, S. L., Martyne, W., 6: Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and Social ngchologx: 23(5), 1016—1023. Bem, S. L., 6: Lenney, E. A. (1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, _3__3_, 46-54. Bern, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4_5_(2), 196-205. 127 Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New York: Bantam Books. Berzin, J. I., Welling, M. A., & Wetter, R. E. (1978). A new measure of psychological androgyny based on the personality resarch form. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Block, J. (1973). Conceptions of sex role: Some cross cultural and longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist, 3, 512-527. Blood, R. 0., Jr., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960) Husbands and wives. New York: The Free Press. Boulding, K. E. (1962). Conflict and defense: Ageneral theory. New York: Harper and Row. Burger, A. L., at Jacoboson, N. S. (1979). The relationship between sex role characteristics, couple satisfaction and couple problem solving skills. American Journal of Family Theraphy. 7, 52-60. Burgess, E. W., 6: Wallin, P. (1953). Engagement and marriage. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott. Cardell, M., Finn, S. E., at Marecek, J. (1981, Spring). Sex role identity, sex role differentiation and satisfaction in heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male couples. Psychology of Women Quartery, 5(3), 488-494. Carlson, R. (1971). Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory studies of agency and commmion. Journal of Consultimnd Clinical Psychology, 37, 267-277. Cartwright, D. (1959). A field theoretical conception of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: Institute for Group Dynamics, 183-220. Cartwright, D. (1965). Influence, leadership, and control. In J. March (Ed.) Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1-47. Chodorow, N. (1976). Oedipal assymmetries and heterosexual knots. Social problems, 235(4), 454-468. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum. Psychology Bulletin, g1, 389-407. Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. Deutsch, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 7-41. . Deutsch, M. (1969). Socially relevant science: Reflections on some studies of interpersonal conflict. American Psychologist, 24, 1076-1092. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolutign of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories analysis of a decade's research on gender. American Psychologist, 22(2), 105-116. 128 Donelson, E., 6: Gullahorn, J. E. (1977). Women: A psychological perspective. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Eakins, B., dc Eakins, G. (1976). Verbal turn taking exchanges in faculty dialogue. In Betty Lou Dubois and Isabel Crouch (Eds.), The Sociology of the language of American women. San Antonio, Texas: Trinity University, 53-62. Falbo, T. (Fall 1977). Relationship between sex, sex role, and social influence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2(1), 62-72. Falbo, T., 6: Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power Strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3_8_(4), 618-628. Falbo, T. (Summer 1982). PAQ types and power strategies used in intimate relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6(4), 399-405. Fink, C. (1968). Some conceptual difficulties in the theory of social conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 12, 412-460. Fishman, P. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, _2_5_, 397-406. Fitzpatrick, M. A., 6: Best, P. (August 1979). Dyadic Adjustment in relational types: Consensus, cohesion, affectional expression, and satisfaction in enduring relationships. Communication Monographs, 4_6_. Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Indvik, J. (Spring 1982). The instrumental and expressive domain of marital communication. Human Communication Research, 8(3), 195-213. French, J. R. P., Jr. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychology Review, 63, 181-194. French, J. R., 6: Ravens, B. H. (1959). The basis of social power. In Dowin Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. Glick, B. R., 6: Gross, S. J. (1975). Martial interaction and marital conflict: A critical evaluation of current research strategies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 505-515. Goodridw, D. W., at Boomer, D. S. (1963). Experimental assessment of modes of conflict resolution. Family Process, _2_, 15-24. Gough, H. G., 6: Heilbrun, A. B. (1965). Manual_ for the a_dj_ective check list and the need scale for the ACL. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 16. Gottman, J., Notarius, C., Markman, H., Bank, 5., & Yoppie, B. (1976). Behavior exchange theory and marital decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 14(1), 14-23. Gottman, J., Markman, H., 6: Notarius, C. (1977). The topography of marital conflict: A study of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Jou'nal of Marriage and the Family, 3_9_, 461-477. Gottman, J. (1979). Marital interaction, experimental investijation. New York: Academic Press. 129 Guilford. (1956). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw Hill. Heilbrun, A. (1976). Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role identities as independent dimensions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 183-190. Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., 6: Holahan, C. K. (1979). Psychological androgyny and sex role flexibility: A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 17, 1631-1644. Hops, H., Wills, T. A., Patterson, G. R., 6: Weiss, R. L. (1972). The marital interaction coding system (MICS). Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon. Ickes, W., 6: Barnes, R. D. (1978). Boys and girls together - and alienated: On enacting sterotyped sex roles in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, .3_6_, 669-683. Jacob, T. (1975). Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological and substantive review. Psychology Bulletin, 8_2_, 33-65. Johnson, P. (1974). Social power and sex role stereotyping. Dissertation Abstracts International, 74-24,592. Jones, W. H., Chernovetz, M. E., 6: Hanson, R. O. (1978). The enigma of androgony: Differential implications for males and females. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, fin), 298-313. ng, C. G. (1956). (originally published, 1943, 1945). 110 essays on analytical Eychology. (R. F.C.Hull, trans.) Cleveland,Ohio: World Publishing Company. Kagan, J. (1964). Acquisition and significance of sex typing and sex role identiy. In M. L. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (Eds.). _R_eview of Child Development Research,New York: Russell Sage Foundation,1, 137-167. Kaplan, A. G., 6: Bean, J. P. (1976). Beyond sex role st_e;reotypes: Readings toward a psychology of androgony. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.. Kaplan, A. G., 6: Sedney, M. A. (1980). Pchhology and sex roles: An androgynous perspective. Boston: Little, Brown &Co. Kelley, H., Cunningham, J., Grisham, J., Lefebvre, L. M., Sink, C., & Yablon, G. (1978). Sex differences in comments made during conflict within close heterosexual pairs. Sex Roles, 4(4), 473-492. Kenkel, W. F. (1961). Sex of the observer and spousal roles in decision-making. Marriage and Family Living, 2_3_, 185-186. Kenkel, W. F. (1963). Observational studies of husband and wife interaction in family decision-making. In M. B. Sussman (Ed.) Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 144-156. Kernberg, O. F. (1976). Object relations theory and clinical psychoanalysis. New York: Jason Aronson. 130 Kilmann, R. H., (St Thomas, K. W. (1975). Interpersonal conflict handling behavior as reflections of Jungian personality dimensions. Ifiychology Reports, 27, 971-980. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The devjelopment of sex differences. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 82-174. Kotlar, S. L. (1965). Middle class marital role perceptions and marital adjustment. Sociology and Social Research, 4_9(3), 283-293. La Forge, R. 6c Suczek, R. F. (1955). The interpersonal dimension of personality 111. An interpersonal check list. Journal of Personality, 25, 94-112. Laws, J. L. (1971). A feminist review of the marital adjustment literature. The rape of of the Locke. Journal of Marriage the Familj, 33, 483-518. Leary, T. (1957). The interpersonal diagnosis of personaltiy. New York: Ronald Press. Locksley, A., 6: Colten, M. E. (1979). Psychological androgyny: A case of mistaken identity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(6), 1017-1031. Marecek, J. (Spring 1979). Social change, positive mental health, and psychological androgyny. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3(3), 241-247. Megargee, E. I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, _5__3, 377-382. Myers, A., 6: Gonda, G. (1982). Utility of the masculinity-femininity construct: Comparison of traditional and androgyny approaches. Journal of PersonalitLand Social Psychology, 42(3), 514-522. Olson, D. H. (1969) The measurement of family power by self report and behavioral methods. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 3, 545-550. Parsons, T. 6: Bales, R. F. (1955). Family socialization and interaction process. Glencoe Illinois: Free Press. Patterson, G. R., 6: Reid, J. B. (1970). Reciprocity and coercion: Two facets of social systems. In J. Michaels 6: C. Neuringer (Eds.), Behavior modification for psychologists. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts. Peterson, D. M. (1969). Husband-wife communication and family problems. Sociology and Social Research, 53(3), 375-384. Pursell, S., Banikiotes, P., 6: Sebastian, R. (1981). Androgyny and the perception of marital roles. Sex Roles, 7(2), 201-215. Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., 6: Swain, M. (1974). Communication, conflict and marriage. San Fransico, California: Jossey Bass. Raven, B. H., Centers, R., 6c Rodrigues, A. (1975). The bases of conjugal power. In R. E. Cromwell and D. H. Olson, (Eds.), Power in families, New York: Wiley, 217-234. 131 Riskin, J., 6: Faunce, E. (1972). An evaluation review of family interaction research. Family Process, _l_1_, 365-455. Rollins, B., 6: Feldman, H. (February 1970). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 20-28. Rosenkrantz, R., Vogel, 5., Bee, H., Broverman, l., 6: Broverman, D. (1968). Sex role stereotypes and self-concept in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, _3__2_, 287-295. Rossi, A. S. (1967). Equality between the sexes: An immodest preposal. In R. J. Lifton (Ed.), The women in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 98-143. Rossi, A. (1972). Sex equality: The beginnings of ideology. In Sofilios-Rothschild, C. (Ed.), Twoard a sociology of women. Massachusetts: Xerox Publishing Corporation, 344-353. Rossiter, C. M., Jr., 6: Pearce, W. B. (1975). Communicatingpersonally: A theory of interpersonal communication and human relationships. Indianapolis: the Bobbs- Merrill Co. Rubin, J. 2., at Brown, B. R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York: Academic Press. Rubin, M. E. (1977). Differences between distressed and nondistressed couples in verbal and nonverbal communication codes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University at Bloomington. Ruble, D. N., Higgins, E. T. (1976). Effects of group sex composition on self-presentation and sex-typing. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 125-132. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1972). Instead of a discussion: Companionate marriages and sexual inequality: Are they compatible? In C. Safilios-Rothschild (Ed.), Toward a sociology of women. Lexington, Mass: Xerox. Sattel, J. M. (1976). The inexpressive male: Tragedy or sexual politics. Social Problems, 2_3_, 469-477. Scanzoni, J. (1978). Sex roles, women's work, and marital conflict. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. Schmidt, 5., 6c Kochan, T. (1972). Conflict: Toward conceptual clarity. Administrative Science Quarterly, _l_7_, 359-371. Schwartz, A. (Winter 1979). Androgyny and the art of loving. ngchotheraphy, Theory, Resarch and Practice, 16(4). Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw Hill. Singer, J. (1976). Androgyny: Toward a new theory of sexuali_ty. Garden City, New York: Anchor PressIDoubleday. 132 Spence, J., Helmreich, R., 6c Stapp, I. (1974). The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. Journal Supplements Abstract Service, MS #617. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., 6c Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 29-39. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity andifemininity. Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Sprey, J. (1969). The family as a system in conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 699-706. Srodtbeck, F. (1951). Husband-wife interaction over revealed differences. American Sociological Review, &, 468-473. Taylor, M. C., 6: Hall, J. (1982). Psycholgical androgyny, theories, methods, and conlusions. Psychological Bulletin, _9_2(2), 347-366. Terhune, K. W. (1970). The effects of personality in cooperation and conflict. In P. Swingle (Ed.), The structure of conflict. New York: Academic Press, 193-234. Thibaut, J. W., 6: Coules, J. (1952). The role of communication in the reduction of interpersonal hostility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 4_7_, 770-777. Tellegen, A., & Lubinski, D. (1983). Some methodological comments on labels, traits, interaction, and types in the study of Femininity and Masculinity: Reply to Spence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 447-455. Vidich, A. J. (August 1956). Methodological problems in the observation of husband-wife interaction. Marriage and FamilLLiving, 18, 234-239. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., at Jackson, D. Pmmatics of human communication. New York: Norton. Weiss, R. L., Hops, H., 6: Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework for conceptualzing marital conflict: A technology for altering it, some data for evaluating it. In F. W. Clark and L. A. Hammerlynk (Eds.), CritiJcal Issues in Reiearch and Practice: Proceedings of Lhe 4th Baiff International Conference on Behavior Modification. Cham paign, 111: Research Press. Wiggins, J. S., a Holzmuller, A. (1978). Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, _4_6_, 40-52. Wilmot, W. W. (1975). Dyglic communication: A transactional perspective. Reading. Addison-Wesley. Zimmerman, D., 6: West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Differences and dominance. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 105-129. MICHIGAN STAT 1|11411111131111jfljflwuflmjfle