V‘- LATERAL EYE - MOVEMENT AS RELATED TO MARITAL SELECTION AND Amsmsm ' Thesés for the Degree of M. A. MECHEGAN STATE UNiVERSITY ' ‘ KENNETH L. FISCHER 1971' o -v-u-...~”a..--« K." '_1 i. a L.‘ f‘ ‘ '2! Inky. . ( 1- .. ,- a LIBRARY Michigan State m University r 9 ‘91.)“ "qu ' new WWASWN mmsmonmnmusmmr By Kenneth L. Fischer his experiment investigated the possibility that the lateral eye- novement reported by Day, Bakan, at. 9;” might be related to marital selection and adjustment. 30 married couples, whose identity had been carefully concealed from the experimenter, were tested individually. be subjects, whose visual attention was directed toward the experimenter's face, were asked to respond to a series of questions requiring reflection. Lat- eral eye-movements following the questions were observed and recorded. he subjects were classified as right- or left— movers on the basis of the direction of the naJority of movements. 1 general information card (GIG) , the Locke-Wallace Scale of mm AdJus'baent (133), and the Family Concept Inventory (POI) were also aministered. In view of Day's (196%) report that 71% of “2 couples, and Bakan's (personal commication) infomsl finding that #7 of 50 couples, were opposite movers, plus Vinch's (1954, 1958) theory of complementarity in marriage, it as hypothesized (1) that there would be more different (II-ml or RF-IK) than sane (RF-m or 13-13!) couples. his hypothesis, however, was not confirmed. more were more opposite movers, but 57% was not statistically significant. the remaining hypotheses (2-8) of this experiment had to do with comparing the two combinations of opposite movers (LP-RM and RP-LM) with respect to happiness and marital adjustment. LF-RM couples were dubbed "culturally congruent" because the person- ality variables which Bakan (1971) ascribed to right hemisphere or left-moving people (synthetic, emotional, subjective, passive, etc.) seemed more ”role-eppropriate" for the female of our society, and those personality variables ascribed to left hemisphere or right— moving people (analytic, rational, obJective, active, etc.) seemed more "role-appropriate“ for the male of our society. RF-Dl couples were dubbed "culturally incongruent" out of the same reasoning. It was predicted that LF-RM couples would consequently be happier, better adJusted in marriage, agree more, and share a family concept closer to the ideal than RF-Lll comles. The results, virtually on every count, substantiated this: (2) "Culturally congruent“ (CC) m-m couples were significantly happier and more in agreement about their happiness than were "cul- turally incongruent' (CI) RF-IN couples. (3) 5 of 7 CC couples had husbands and wives in perfect accord about how happy they were while the same could be said about none (0) of the 8 CI couples. (1}) CC couples had an overall significantly higher Level of “Just- nent (Lt) on the I33 than CI couples. (5) CC couples had more responses that came closer to the ideal family concept than CI couples on the ROI. (6) CC couples had significantly more positive family concept (PC) responses than CI couples, and CI couples had significantly more negative PC responses than CC couples. (7) CC couples were more in agreement about family concept than CI couples. (8) {more were more husbands and wives with the same PC responses among CC couples than CI couples. In conclusion, while this experiment showed no relatianship between lateral eye-movement and marital selection, it did show a very definite relationship betteen lateral eye-movement and marital adjushent, es- pecially where opposite movers were concerned. 7, Approved//( (21/ f1fl/Lét/H/vv\i ;‘ I a,” /////%_a;_t_a_ All of the subjects were white and the large majority were middle class. 75% of them were between 25 and #0 years old. 50% of them were living in the city of their birtmalace. 75% of them were In- therms. As couples they averaged 2.7 children. Only 3 of 60 had been married before. Ass. Left-moving males were on the average 2.6 years older than their mates; right-moving males were on the average only .5 years older than theirs. A _t-test comparison was made of these means, and it was con- cluded that Ills more than RMs preferred mate choice where the male is 16 older (t-1.80,<.05, 26 gr). Bi__£_thplace 9 of 10 Ms were living in the city of their birthplace as ou- pared to 8 of 17 Ibis (1 RH didn't note his birthplace). A 2 by 2 contingency analysis between living where born - not living where born and I)! - as yielded a chi square of 21.97.605, 1 _d_f_. Education his educational scale of Hollingshead's _T_I_tg_ 229.2937. _In_d_e__x_ 9_f_ m Position (1959) was used to compute the education score. m- scale is divided into 7 positions ranging from 1 (graduate professional training) to 7 (less than 7 years of school). The score is derived by multiplying the scale value for education by the factor weight for education, ‘1. Table 3 lists mean scores (the male's score is also the cowle's score). The lower the score, the more education. Table 3 loan Education scores (Individuals and Cowlcs) Hale's Female Femalo's Female Educ.: R L Educu R L R 13.8—*——10.7 12.3 R 12 9 13.3 Me Hale L 16. 16.0 16.11 L 16. 14.7 * p (.10, 1 tail _t—test " P (0051 w w W p (.025. " " As seen in Table 3, Rita had more education than His (tn-2.08, 26 9;). looking at male's education as a function of which kind of cowle 17 they're in, Ella married to 11's had more education than Ills married to RFs (t:2.19, 111 if). we had more education when married to Its than to RPs (ts1.39, 16 31;). For female's education, are had more education when married to Ms than to His (12.2.36, 11: 9;). And LP- married to We had more education than RPs married to His (tn-1.70, 111 gr). S9939; Position Hollingshead's Index of Social Position score is casputed as follows: ctor Scale Score Factor 11th Score 5 Height Occwation* 3 7 21 Education 3 4 12 Index of Social Position Score 33 ”he occwational scale is also divided into 7 positions ranging from 1 (executives and proprietors of large concerns and major professionals) to 7 (unskilled workers). The only finding of significance was that fills married to 11‘s had higher social positions than we married to RP- (e-2.38,<.025, 111 g). 9M2 Table '1 indicates mean number of years cowles went together before getting married. Table 4 lean Huber of Tears of Courtship Female R L R 2.77 3.06 2.92 Male o—*—— L 1.39 2.17 1 62 18 Ms had longer courtship time than 1MB (t=1.57, 26 if). Table 5 shows mean age of individuals when couples started going together. Table 5 Mean Age for Starting Courtship Male's Female's Age Female Age Female St. Ct.: R L St. Ct.: R L R 20.6 18.2 R 20.6 17.3 Male Male L 22.1 19.8 L 19.3 17.8 20o5—'**—17o6 We started courtship earlier than RFs (t=1.86, 26 9;). Table 5a smarizes remaining general information data. fig-tests were made of means, but there were no significant findings. Table 5a Summary of Means for Remaining General Information Data Ase Male ' s Female Female ' a Female Age : R L Age : R L R 32.3 33.4 R 32.3 32.5 Male Male L 38.1 111.3 L 35.3 39.3 19 Table 5a, eont'd: Female R L a 8.9 12.1 Male L 14.6 19.3 Hale L 2.7 3.7 Note the relationahip that exists between the 3: LP-LK couples were older, married longer, and had more children. Ea; weal.“ §_e_a_l_g 2; Marital Adjustment m IndiviMI Individual performance was locked at in term or Level of MJuataent (Li). High aeore equals High LL. Table 6 gives overall LI. mean scores for individuals (entire 138). m aeeres ranged from 51 to 151 with a mean of 108 and a atandard deviation of 21. mudweralmmrnmthemsmm (ta-1.51, agar). Bl'e movemmrummsmnmnedtommtom (t-2.17, 1kg). Bra-arriedtOMhadoverallhighernenmthanme 20 Table 6 Overall LA Mean Scores for Individuals on 13113 Male's Female's INS: Female LUS: Female R L R L R 105.6 112.2 111.6m1221r—fi-Ho88 Male ‘ L 9% 103.7 99.1 10 .0 married to Ms (t=1.82, 16 it). We married to RMs had overall higher La on INS than LFs married to 114s ($1.53. 10 311). Me married to LFs had overall higher La on me than LMs married to We (m1.75, 1h 31;). he items on the LHS scale were separated into 4 groups. no 7- point scale for Happiness (Group I) was looked at alone. Finances, Re- creation, Affection, Sex, Friends , Conventionality, Philosophy and In- laws (Group II) were considered together because each offered 6 options. Disagreements, Leisure Time and Harry Again seemd to reduce to an "either-or” proposition and became Group III. Confide, Outside In- terests and Wish Not Married, with It options each, were called Group IV. Table 7 presents IA mean scores for individuals on items from Group I (Happiness). Table 7 LA man Scores for Individuals on Happiness Hale's Female Female's Female Kappa R L Kappa R L a 17.7 18.6 a 2 .2 .7 Male Male L 13.2—a_.20.o L 1. 11.0 21 R243 married to We were happier than 1113 married to RFs (12:1.72, 14 gr). ms married to LFs were happier than 1243 married to RFs (tank), 8 gr). RFs married to 8143 were happier than LFs married to His (t=1.60, 14 if). LF‘s were happier when married to Ms than to His (t=1.ll9, 1O _df_). LFs married to Ride were happier than RFs mar- ried to His (t=1.llo, 111 9;). Table 8 lists La mean scores for individuals on items from Group II (Finances, Recreation, Affection, Friends, Sex, Conventionality, Philosophy, In-Laws) . Table 8 LA Mean Scores for Individuals on Finances, Recreation, Affection, Friends, Sex, Conventionality, Philosophy, In-Laws Male's Female Female's Female Fin. 1 R L Fin. 1 R L R 3.3 3.11 R 3.7 3.9 Male Male L 3.9 3.7 L 11.1 3.7 Hale's Female Female's Female Rec. 1 R L Rec. 1 R L R 3.9 3.4 R 3.9 3.7 llale Male L 3.6 3.7 L 3.6 3.3 Hale's Female Female's Female Aff. 1 R L Aff. 1 R L R 5.0 5.3 R 5.6 5.3 Male Male L 11.7 11.0 L 11.9 1.7 Table 8, cont'd: Male's Fri.1 Hale Hale's Sex: Male Hale's Con.1 Male Hale's Phi.1 Male Female R L 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7 Female R L 9.h 11.1 9.7 9.0 Female R L 3.6 3.2 3.3 3.7 Female R. L 3-3 3-1 2.7 3-3 22 Female's Fri.1 Rule Hale Female's Con.1 Hale Female's Phi” flhle - 10 .0 23 Table 8, cont' d: Hale's Female Female's Female Inl. 1 R L Inl. 1 R L R 3J1 3.8 R 11.3 11.1 an. // m. .J. .4. 1. 3.1 3-7 3o3r—"sL3\K-*—1°° 11.1 W p(.01,1ta11_'§-_test WP<00059 11 11 There were no significant findings for items: Finances, Recrea- tion, Affection, Friends and Conventionality. Concerning the item, Sex, it was found that LFs agreed more often about sexual matters when married to RMs than to His (tn-2.37, 10 if). Concerning the item, Philosophy, RFs agreed more often about their philosophy of life when married to Ms than to His (t=2.11, 111 d_f). Concerning In-Laws, We agreed more often about their in-laws than Ln- (t-2.78, 20 _d_f_). LFs married to we agreed more often about their in-laws than RFs married to His (12:3.09, 111 g). LFs married to m agreed more often about their in-laws than RFs married to Ills (tn-1.67, 8 31;). RFs more often agreed about their in-laws when married to M than to His (t=2.70, 14 9;). Elle married to LFs agreed more often about their in-laws than Ills married to RFs (t-1.60, 14 g). Table 9 presents IA means for individuals on items from Group III (Disagreements, leisure Tine, Marry Again). When disagreements arise, RFs come closer to the idea of mutual give- and-tske than Falls (ta=1.93, 3’1 _d_f_). LFs more often agree by mutual give-and-take when married to m than to Elle (15.1.74, 10 9;). RFs 24 Table 9 LA Mean Scores for Individuals on Disagreements, Leisure Time, Marry Again Hale's Female Female's Female Dis,: R L Dis.: R L R 6.7 6.0 6.2 a 10.W-5.1 rule Male i L 8.6 6.7 Hale's Female Female's Female LT.: R L 1113.: R L B 5-9 7-5 B 5-9 7.6 Male Male L 5 O 6.7 L 6 7 5.0 Hale's Female Fenale'a Female 111.: R L ML: R L R 13.3 15.0 111.2 R 1 .0 13.3 Male AL m. jle L 10.9 10.0 1C].6 L 10.7 15.0 married to His practice more give-and-take than LFs married to m (t-3.12, 16 g). RFs have more give-and-take when nrried to m than to m (t-1.77, 1h 9;). here were no significant findings regarding Leisure Time. ConcerningllarryAgain, moremlaweuldmarrythe aamepersonagain thannls (tn-1.80, 28 if). RPswouldbemore likelytomarrythe same 25 person again when married to Ride than to His (tr-1.78, 1h _d_f). Table 10 lists LL mean scores for individuals on items from Group Iv (Confide, Outside Interests, Hieh Not Married). Hale's Con. 1 Male Male's OIe8 Male Hale's “.1 Male Table 10 Li Mean Scores for Individuals on Confide, Outside Interests, Fish Net Married L Female R L 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Female R L 8.x 7.1 e1—_‘—'807 Female R L 8.1 8.h 6.9 8.7 Female's Female Con. 1 R L R 9.1 10.0 Male L 10.0 10.0 Female's Female 01.1 R L a 8.9 7.1 Male L 5.9 8.7 Female a Female 111111.: R L R 11.0 9.8 Male L 7.9 \6.3 There were no simificant findings regarding the item, Confide. RFs engaged in more Outside Interests together when married to Rbthantoms(t=2.51, 1kg). EdsmarriedtoRFsengagedinmere outside interests together than me married to an. (t-2.18, 14 _d_f_). 26 His had more outside interests in comon when married to LFs than to We (t.-.1.l10, 8 9;). RFs married to Me less frequently wished they were not married than LFs married to me (t=1.42, 10 _d_g). Couple performance was considered along 3 dimensions: Level of Ad- Justment (LA), Degree of Disagreement (DD), and Same-Different ratio (S-D). A LA score equals the couple's score on any or all items. A DD score equals the number of units apart in the couple's response on any or all items. A S-D score equals the ratio of same vs. different in couple's response on any or all items. In the section to follow, although the Tables will contain data on all the couple combinations, the significant findings will deal only with “culturally congruent” (CC) LF-RM couples versus ”culturally in- congruent" (CI) RF-LM couples. Hypothesis 2 predicted that CC couples would be happier and more in agreement about how happy they were than CI couples, i.e., there would be a significantly higher Level of Adjustment (LA) score and lower De- gree of Disagreement (DD) for IF-RM couples than for RF-IM couples. Table 11 indicates LA and DD mean scores for couples on item, Hap- piness. The LA scores for couples on Happiness ranged from 9 to 70 with a mean of 36 and a standard deviation of 13. The DD scores for couples on Happiness ranged from 0 to 4 with a mean of 1.2 and a standard deviation of 1.1 . _T-test comparison of LA and DD means yielded the following significant 27 Table 11 LL, DD Mean Scores for Couples on Happiness LL Female R L R 39.9 /9.3 Male pg Female R L R .89 113 m, 0000/ L 2. 17 1.67 findings relevant to 00 versus CI couple comparison: IP-Rll couples had higher LA. on item, Happiness, i.e., were happier, than RP-m couples (ta-2.32, 1h 9;). m-m couples had lower DD on item, Happiness, i.e., agreed more about how happy they were, than RF-Lll couples (cu-2.71, 1h 1;). Hypothesis 2 was, therefore, confirmed. Hypothesis 3 predicted that-CC couples would have more husbands and wives in perfect consensus about how happy they were than CI couples, i.e. , there would be significantly more LF-m couples with husbands and wives having the same happiness scores than BIG-III couples. Same-Different ratios (S—D) for couples on item, Happiness, are 28 noted in Table 12. Table 12 S-D Ratios for Couples on Happiness Co e Same Different LF-RM 5 2 RIF-RM 3 6 LF-m O 3 RF-LM 0 8 LF-IM (CC) couples had more husbands and wives with the same hap- piness scores than RIP-DI (CI) couples. A 2 by 2 contingency analysis between 8-D and LP-HM - BF-IH couples yielded a chi square of 8.57, < .005, 1 9;. Hypothesis 3 was, therefore, confined. Hypothesis 11 predicted that CC couples would have a higher level of adjustment (1a) on the Locke-Wallace Scale of Marital Adjustment (M) than CI couples. Table 13 lists LA mean scores for couples an the LIB. the scores ranged from 120 to 278, with a mean of 215 and a standard deviation of 35. Table 13 u lean Scores for Couples on LBS Female R L R 228.0 1.0 Male L 19 .9 208.7 29 IP—Rfl couples had overall higher LA on 138 than BFqLM couples (t=1.78, 14 51;). Hypothesis 11 was, therefore, confinned. Table 14 designates the LL, DD mean scores and S-D ratios for couples on all items in Group II (Finances, Recreation, Affection, Friends, Sex, Conventionality, Philosophy, In-Lawe). Table 111 La, DD Mean Scores, S-D Ratios for Comles on Group II Items Item Couples 1.; ED S—D Finances LF-RM 7.3 1.11 3‘6 ”'1“ 800 057 H RF-HM 7.0 .33 6-3 LF-Dl 7.3 .00 3—0 Recreation " 7.1 .67 ll—S " 7.1 .29 5—2 " 7.8 .44 5-4 "" 7.0 1.00 1-2 Affection " 10.7 .67 “-5 " 9.6 .h} 4-3 " 10.6 .78 3-6 I 80 7 e33 2‘1 Friends " 7.2 .33 7—2 ” 7.1 .86 3—# ~ 7.6 1.11 3-6 I 707 033 2.1 3e: " 23.1 .114 6.3 " 19.7 .86 1—6 " 20.1 .67 3-6 " 18.0 .00 3—0 0.. fi-Io Table 1h, cont' dz _ILtem Couples 9.. DD §_-2 Convention. LF-RM 6. 7 . 78 L5 ‘11" RF-ll! 6.9 .57 L3 LF-m 7 . 7 .33 2-1 Philosophy " 6. 7 .57 “-5 " 5. 6 1 . 29 0-7 " 7.3 .89 3—6 " 6.7 .67 1—2 111-1“! " 7 .9 .56 5—4 " 6.3 .86 3.11 " 7.8 .89 3—6 " 7 .7 .33 2-1 Relevant to CC versus CI cowle comparison, there were the follow- ing significant findings regarding the items from Group II: Concerning Sex, LIP-m couples disagreed less (agreed more) about sexual matters than mun couples (12.1.38, (.10, 14 gg). LF-HK couples disagreed less (agreed more) about the Philosophy of Life than RF-Dl couples (t-1.75, (.10, 8 gr). Concerning their treatment of In-Laws, LF-ml couples agreed more often than RF-IM couples (t-2.94, (.01, 111 if). Table 15 presents the La, DD mean scores and 8-D ratios for couples on Group III items. RIP-m couples handle Disagree-ants more by mutual give-and-take than LF-RM couples (t-1.38, (.10, 113 9;). ”414 couples agree more about how to handle disagreements than LF-HM couples (t-1.87, (.05, 1‘} _df_). 31 Table 15 u, DD than Scores, S-D Ratios for Couples on Group III Items Item Couples 2. DD S-D Disagree- LF-RM 11 . 1 .78 L5 ”n“ RF-DI 16.0 . 14 6—1 RF-RM 16.7 .67 6.3 LF—Lll 16.7 .67 2-1 Leisure Time " 15.1 .11 8-1 " 13.4 .29 5-2 " 11.8 .22 7-2 I 10.0 e33 2‘1 Marry Again " 28.3 .11 8-1 " 21.5 .71 3-4 " 28.3 . 11 8.1 " 25.0 .33 2-1 More LF-m couples would marry the same person again than RF-Ill couples (t-2.07, (.05, 111 3;). LF—RI couples agree more about this fact than RF-LK couples (tn-2.1% ( .05, 111 9;). Table 16 lists the La, DD mean scores and 8-D ratios for couples on Group IV items. Table 16 u, no Mean Scores, S-D Ratios for Couples on Group IV Items _Im 1291.: at 1a 8-2 Confide LF—M‘ 20.0 .00 9-0 RF-Ill 20.0 .00 7-0 lip-BK 19e1 e11 8.1 32 Table 16, cont' d: .ILtem Cogles Li DD S-D Confide m—m 20.0 .00 3-0 m”"°”" RP-IJI 12.0 .h} 11.3 RF-Rll 17. 3 .411 5.1: LF-LH 17.3 .00 3-0 wish Not Married " 18.2 .67 54 ' 14.7 .11 6-1 " 19.1 .67 3—6 - 15.0 1 .00 0-3 RF-m couples agree more about how often they wish they were not married than LF-RM couples (ta-1.53. (.10, 11; g). In the section to follow, the significant findings involving RR and LL couples have been sunarised. Overall 1!; Referring to Table 13, RF-fll couples had overall higher LA on 138 than nF-m couples (t-1.75, (.10, 1k 9;). 9.1m .1. £152 Referring to Table 11, RF-ml couples were happier than ”-111 couples (t-1.56, < .10, 111 _d_f). LIL-Ill couples disagreed more about how happy they were than LF-ml couples “-2.42, < .025, 10 9;). RF-m couples disagreed less about how happy they were than RF-Lll couples (t-2.20, ( .025, 14 _d_f_). RF-ml couples disagreed less about how happy they were than LF-IJI couples (ta1.71, (.10, 10 _d_f). 33 Referring to Table 12, LF—LM couples have fewer husbands and wives with the same happiness scores than LF-RM couples (A 2 by 2 contin- gency analysis bemen S-D and LF—RM - LF-m couples yielded a chi square of 11.29, (.05, 1 9.9' 22922 n. item-d Referring to Table 115 . . . Finances: RF-RM couples agreed less frequently about finances than RIF-Ill couples (tn-1.71}, (.10, 111 _d_f). LF-LH couples agreed more about financial matters than RIF-I! couples (ta-1.76, (.10, 10 11:). Iii-DI couples agreed more about financial matters than RF-Dl couples (tn-1.78, (.10, 8 9;). RF-ml couples apeed more about financial mat- tors than Lat-m couples (t-2.01, (.05, 16 _d_f_). Recreation: LF-m couples disagreed more about recreation than RF-m couples (in-1.57, (.10, 8 if). RF-RK couples disagreed less about recreation than LP-nl couples (t-2.25, ( .025, 10 gr). Affection: No significant findings. Friends: RIP-RI couples disagreed more about friends than LF—RH couples (t-1.61, < .10, 16 if). §_e_x_: LF-IK couples agreed less frequently about sexual matters than LF-m couples (t-1.78, < .10, 10 d_f_). L1H)! couples agreed more about sexual matters than ar-m couples (tn-3.80, ( .005, 8 if). 1.3-1)! couples agreed more about sexual matters than RF-RK couples («1.58, < .10, 10 gr). Conventionalitz: LIA-DI couples disagreed less about conventionality than RF-Rll couples (t-1.h0, < .10, 10 _d_f_). Philosophy: nr-m couples agreed more frequently about their 34 philosophy of life than ar-m couples (te1.75, (.10, 14 5;). LF-Ll couples disagreed less about their philosophy of life than RF-Lll couples (131.75, (.10, 8 9;). In-Laws : Concerning trea‘hnent of in-laws, RF-ml couples agree more frequently than RF-m couples (1:32.06, ( .05, 1': _d_f). LF—lll couples agree more frequently about in-laws than RF-LM couples (ts1.52, < .10, 8 _d_f). 9:922 .21; £22! Referring to Table 15 . . . Disgrgemente: RIP-RI couples handle disagreements more by mutual give-and-tshe than LF-m couples (12.2.05. (.05, 16 9;). Leisure _Tig: No significant findings. MAE: More RF-m couples would marry the same person again than RF-Lll couples (ts-2.07, ( .05, 111 5g). 9.1932 3!. $12! Referring to Table 16 . . . Confide: No significant findings. Outside Interests: RF-m couples engage in more outside interests together than mil-m couples (11.3.13, ( .005, 1t 51;). III-m couples engage in more outside interests together than RF-Dl couples (t-1.75, < .10, 8 93;). RF-RK couples engage in more outside interests toge- ther than 1.8-3! couples (tn-2.18, ( .025, 16 _d_f_). LF-Ll! couples dis- agreed less about the extent to which they engage in outside interests together than RF-Rl couples (t-1.78, (.10, 10 g). 13.11: couples disagreed less about the extent to which they engage in outside in- terests together than LF-Rll couples (tc1.78, (.10, 10 g). ”-111 35 couples disagreed less about the extent to which they engage in outside interests together than RF-LM couples (ta1.78, < .10, 8 df). 11393 395, Married: LF-m cowles disagreed more than 33-11: couples on how often they wished they were not married (tn-3.92, (.005, 8 gr). RF-RI couples disagreed more about how often they wish they were not married than RF-Hl couples (17:12.16, (.05, 14 _d_f). gs; 221—11 Concept Inventor! LEE!) Both individual and couple performance were considered from two different perspectives: Overall-wise, from the standpoint of close- ness to the ideal family concept (CIFC); High Score a High CIFC: and Unit-wise, looking at the relative intensity and positiveness or negativeness of the indivichial's or couple's response: 1 :- strongly negative, 2 - moderately negative, 3 a neutral, 4 a moderately posi- tive, 5 . strongly positive. The couples' scores were also looked at in terms of Degree of Disagreement (DD) about family concept, and Same vs. Different (S-D) in family concept (RC) responses. Overall-wise Individuals Table 17 presents male, female mean scores on the F01. The scores ranged from 132 to 257 with a mean of 189 and a standard deviation of 22. Table 17 Male, Female lean Scores on FCI Dale's Female Female's Female I'CI: R L FCI: R L a. 182.1 191.8 R 19#.8 196.7 Jule this L L 177.7 178.7 L 195.9 139.3 35 LFs had more closer to the idea family concept (CIFC) responses when married to Ms than to we (12.1.110, 1o 9;). Unit-wise Individuals Table 18 gives the average times a unit on the scale was used, and compares males and females. Table 18 Moan Times Unit on Scale Was Used Male, Female Compared Hale's Female Female's Female 58 R L 5: R L R 12.04:; R 21.8 8.5 \K Male Male L 16.4 10.7 L 19.7 \10.7 Hzle's R Female L chzle's R Female L a 21.7 01/"..~ n 16.7 ‘18.9 Male Male \* i‘ L 16.3 20.0 L 18.7—*> .3 Hale's Female Female's Female 3' 3 L 3: R L R 8.3 8.2 R 4.9 7.9 / Male Male * L 5.0 10.7 L 4.1/ 5.7 37 Table 18, cont'd: Hale's Female Female's Female 2: R L 2: R L R 4.4 3.2 R 4.7-*"-2.1 Male IL Male L 5.1 6.7 L 4.6 4.3 Hale's Female Female's Female 1: R L 1: R L R 1.5 .11 R 1.2 .44 Male /* Hale L 5.1 .00 L .36 1.0 Sigificant Find_i_r_:gs: 1. His married to RFs had more strongly negative responses regard- ing family concept (FC) than mas married to LFs (t-1.75, 14 Q. 2. Dis married to LFs had more moderately negative responses regard- ing so than me married to LFs (121.68, 10 g). 3. RFs married to Ride had more moderately negative FC responses than LFs married to has (t=2.27, 16 9g). 4. Us married to Dis had more moderately negative PC responses than we married to His (te1.76, 1o 91;). 5. LFs married to His had more neutral FC responses than RFs married to ma (t=1.38, 14 d_f_). 6. Rlls married to LFs had more moderately positive FC responses than Dis married to RFs (t=2.27, 14 93). 7. ms married to His had more moderately positive r0 responses than RFs married to Ms (131.57, 10 g). 38 8. LFs married to His had more moderately positive RC responses than LFs married to m (12:259. 10 _d_r). 9. LFs married to His had more moderately positive PC responses than RFs married to ma (tense, 8 g). 10. Ms married to LFs had more moderately positive FC responses than LFs married to We (t=2.46, 14 99. 11. Ms married to We had more strongly positive F0 responses than LFs married to ma (t=1.59, 1o 51;). 12. RFs married to Kids had more strongly positive F'C responses than RMs married to RFs (t-1.76, 16 11;). 13. ms married to Ms had more strongly positive PC responses than mm married to LFs (t=2.43, 14 it). Hypothesis 5 predicted that Ill-RM (cc) couples would have a sig- nificantly higher CIFC score on the F'CI than RP-LH (CI) couples. Table 19 lists mean FCI scores for couples. The scores ranged from 294 to 445 with a mean of 378 and a standard deviation of 27. Table 19 Kean F'CI Scores for Couples Female R L a 376.9 388.4 Hale L 373.6 366.0 The mean scores (LP—Bl! :- 388.4 and RIF-m a 373.6) were in the pre- dicted direction but the _t-test comparison was not significant. II '1 11"" l.‘ allllllll'r "LlI-I! ‘0 l1. 39 Hypothesis 5, therefore, was not confirmed. LF—BM couples did, however, have a significantly higher CIFC score on the F01 than LF-LM couples (ts1.38, 1o 93;). Table 20 looks at the average times a unit was used by couples reflecting the relative intensity and positiveness or negativeness of couples' responses on the F01. Table 20 Mean Times Unit was Used, Couple-Wise 5. .5. Female Female 11 L R L R 32.7 28.9 R 38.3 /4$.o Male Male * L 36.1—-h——21.3 L 35.0/ 48.3 2 a Female Female R L a L R 13.2 16.1 n 8.9 /5.3 llale Hale /* L .1 14.3 L 9.7 11.|o .1. Female a L a 2.8 .56 4o Hypothesis 6 predicted that LF-BM (CC) couples would have sig- nificantly more positive FC responses than RF-LM (CI) couples, and RF-m (CI) couples would have significantly more negative F0 res- ponses than LF-RM (CC) couples. ‘mese were the significant findings. IF-RM couples had more moderately positive PC responses than RF-LH couples (1:21.56, 1431;). RF-IM couples had more strongly negative FC responses than LF-RM couples (t=1.77, 14 9.3-). RF-IM couples had more moderately negative no responses than LF-RM couples (t=1.38, 14 _d_f). Hypothesis 6 was, therefore, confirmed. Significant findings not pertinent to Hypothesis 6 were as follows: 1. LF-IM couples had more moderately negative FC responses than Lia-m couples (t-.-.2.86, 10 if). 2. LF-RM couples had more neutral FC responses than RF—LM couples (te1.88, 14 9;). 3. RF-Dl couples had more neutral F0 responses than IF—IM (t=1.60, 8 if). Hypothesis 7 predicted that LF-RM (CC) couples would be significantly fewer units apart with their responses (therefore, show less disagree- ment) than RF-LM (CI) couples. Table 21 lists Degree of Disagreement (DD) mean scores (average units apart) for couples on the F01. he mean scores (LP-RM a 40.2 and BF-m - 47.9) were in the pre- dicted direction, but the _t-test comparison was not significant. Hy- pothesis 7, therefore, was not confirmed. IF-RM couples, did, however, disagree less (agree more) about family 41 Table 21 Average Units Apart (DD Mesa Scores) for Couples on FCI Female R L R 45.2 .2 Male L 47.9 4.3 concept than LF-LM couples (t=2.56, 1O _d_f_). Hypothesis 8 predicted that LF-RM (CC) couples would have signifi- cantly more same PC responses than RF-D! (CI) couples. Table 22 represents the mean nunber of same responses for couples on the FCI. ll‘able 22 Mean Same Responses for Couples on FCI Female R L R 17.33 17.89 Male 8 L 16.14 13.67 The mean scores (IF-HM - 17.89 and BF-In :- 16.14) were in the pre- dicted direction but the _t-test comparison was not significant. Hypothesis 8, therefore, was not confirmed. There were, however, significantly more same FC responses from lit-RH couples than from LF-Hl couples (ta-1.93, 10 g). 42 Table 23 Battery Score for g—Test Comparisons General Information Card Data: otential C sons 88 2 times by chance: Obtained: st (Individuals): Potential Cm’ sons 270 2 times by chance: Obtained: 1N8 (Couples): Potential Cygnus 183 2 times by chance: Obtained: FCI (Individuals) Potential isons 1 2 times by chance : Obtained: FCI (Couples) Potential Cflgsons 42 2 times by chance: Obtained: Hypotheses 1-8: Potential Casi-isons 10 by chance: Obtained: siflficsnce level .10 .03 .025 .01 17.6 8. 474 1.76 6 6 4 o 54 27 13.5 5.4 21 12 7 4 36.6 18.3 9.2 3.36 38 16 7 4 21.6 10.8 5.4 2.16 14 6 5 0 8.4 4.2 2.1 .84 6 4 2 1 1.0 .5 .25 .1 7 S 3 2 43 DISCUSSION Classification of Subjects Since subjects were classified on the basis of the direction of the majority of lateral eye-movements, a subject making only 4 res- ponses out of 10 chances (if 3 of the 4 were in the same direction) could conceivably be classified a right- or left- mover. However, in this experiment the subjects averaged 9.7 responses out of 10 chances (considering the proverbs only), clearly eradicating the above possibility. Consistency 9; flea-Movement 'me proverbs were settled upon as the independent variable for lateral eye-movement response because of both their reflexive and "neutral" quality. The marriage questions were introduced in this connection to determine whether their supposedly more "emotional" nature might alter the subject's eye-movement consistency. As Table 2 attests, generally speaking, there was very little change in eye- movement consistency in going from the proverbs to the marriage quest- ions. In the case of 6 out of 60 subjects (4 males and 2 females), there was a reversal effect. When the marriage questions were asked, eachofthe 6 (all ofwhonhadbeenright-movers inresponse to the proverbs) became left-movers. However, only 10 percent subject change was not deemed sufficiently great enough to draw any inference. Complementarity, gmthesis‘ 1 Of the 28 couples whose data could be used, 16, or 57%, were either LF-RM or RF-IM. this percentage is little more than one might expect from chance alone and considerably less than the percentages that Day and Bakan have suggested. Clearly, if right-movers and left-movers are considered "opposites" (given that there is no sex difference and approximately an equal distribution in the general population), then on the basis of this experimenter's findings, the notion of com- plementarity in marriage cannot be substantiated. General Information _C_a_r_g a}; As: he finding that left-moving males (1M) significantly more than right-moving males (RI!) preferred mate choice where the male was older makes sense if we concur that the personality variables of right-movers (left hemisphere) in our society more appropriately be- long to the male and personality variables of left-movers (right hemi- sphere) more appropriately to the female. men a Ll! would be more "culturally congruent” marriage-wise than a 1m. Furthermore, a 114 married to a right-moving female (RF) would probably find that she possesses some of the personality characteristics that society ex- pects from him, and consequently, would at least want age to be on his side. a El would not have the same problem, and therefore, would not need to be older. was; 9 out of 10 Ills were living in the city where they were born as compared to 8 of 17 Ella. Ills, being more emotional and passive, would 45 be expected to pay more attention to their "roots" - to childhood experiences, hometown faces, the place where their life began. mm, being more rational and active, would be expected to want to be less confined and more likely to just "pick up and go." Education 'lhe interpretations of these findings are predicated at least in part upon the asmmptions that in our society males are generally expected to have more education than females, and right-movers (left hemisphere), being more verbal, analytic, abstract, rational and objective, are more likely to have more education than left-movers (right hemisphere), who are more pro-verbal, synthetic, concrete, emotional and subjective. 1. Bids had more education than LMs. his is in keeping with our asstmption that right-movers are more likely to have more education than left-movers. In our data, Rs had a mean of 13.5, Le a mean of 15.1; the lower the score, the more education. 2. RFs married to We had more education than RFs married to His. Since me have more education than Die, the RFs married to Bis would be expected to have more education, because of the RM's encouragement possibly, or in order to at least hold their own, as opposed to the RF married to an m, where there wouldn't be the same kind of challenge or problem. 3. LFs married to His had more education than RFs married to Lids. 'ihe Ms would be more inclined to pull up the educational level of their mates, especially H’s, while the Lfls would be more inclined to pull it down, especially if their mates were right-movers, either 45 because of the threat involved to the ms or because the RFs would lack the incentive. 1}. RMs married to LFs had more education than we married to RFs. his is simply turning the explanation for No. 3 around, and needs no further consent. 5. Bids married to LFs had more education than RMs married to RFs. Perhaps because the RM-LF combination represents marriage in the “traditional" sense (husband the authority, wife the help-mate), the Bus need more education than in the RM—BP combination which more closely approaches marriage in the ”egalitarian" sense (or a coming together of equals). M Position BMs married to LFs had higher social position than Ills married to RFs. For the most part, this is just simple aritlmetic. Social position .- Education + Occupational level. an: had more echtcatien and their occupational level (which is generally positively correlated with educational level) was slightly higher than Ills. Hence BIIs' social position was expected to be higher than Lfls' no matter when they married. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that the "culturally congruent” marriage (Ell-IF) has a higher social position than the "culturally incongruent" marriage (Ill-BF), a finding which seems in keeping with societal expectations of role functions. Courtship Rls had longer courtship time than Lfls. his makes sense if one remembers that right-movers are more analytical, rational and ob- jective than left-movers. herefore, we might expect them to take 147 longer to size things up, to look at the matter from every conceivable angle, before taking the big step toward marriage. Left-movers, act- ing more on their subjective feelings, would move more quickly. LFs started courtship earlier than RFs. Again, we would expect females who are more emotional, subjective and passive (i.e., LF), to be more susceptible to male persuasion and hence to early wooing, than females of the right-moving type. Children One interesting finding that wasn't mentioned in the Results section (probably because we had no idea how to interpret it), was that among families with 2 or more children, 7 out of 8 LF-BM couples had chil- dren of the same sex; among the other couples, the ratio never get higher than 3 to 4 (BF-124 couples). Concept Inventor; (F'CI) If, in keeping with our hypotheses, we look at the Results of the LES and the FCI strictly from the perspective of ”culturally congruent” (LP-ml) marriages versus ”culturally incongruent" (RF-LI) marriages, our findings were, almost without exception, if not significant, then at least in the predicted direction, both on an individual and couple basis. _LU_S_ (Individual-wise) Overall LFs married to RMs had a higher Level of Adjustment (LL) (although not significant :- n.s.) overall than RFs married to His. BMs married to LFs had a higher LL (this was significant as s.) overall than LMs married to RFs. Sim I has Lib married to RMh were happier (8.) than RFs married to nab. Fads married to LFs were happier (s.) than LMs married to RFs. m I! lama LFs married to Ms agreed more often (n.s.) than RFs married to 124s in respect to recreation, affection, friends, sex, conventional- ity, and philosophy. RMs married to LFs agreed more often (n.s.) than Dis married to RFs in respect to affection, sex and philosophy. In respect to the handling of finances, LFh married to Rfls and RMs married to LFs scored lower (disagreed more often) (n.s.) than RFs married to Dis and 124s married to RFs, respectively. One can only speculate in this regard that perhaps having a rightqnoving fe- male type take charge of the marriage funds makes for better adjust- ment. Both LFs married to His and mu married tc LFs agreed mere often (s.) about their relationship with in-laws than RFs married to Ills or Dds married to RFs. Intuitively, we would surmise that LFs might be less inclined to confront the motherbinplaw than RFs. 9mm .11.; Lune The finding concerning the handling of disagreements was not in the predicted direction. Both RFs married to His and Ills married to RFs more often agreed (n.s.) about how to settle their differences than LFs married to Ride or Ms married to LFs. Perhaps, the passivity of the His lends itself particularly well to the activity of the RFs in this connection. 49 However, concerning both how they spent their leisure time and whether they would marry the same person again, LFs married to Bus and Ms married to We were more in agreement (n.s.) than RFs mar- ried to His or Dis married to RFs. 9.2-1:2 IV. £2029. Concerning the frequency with which they confided in their mates, there was no difference among individuals. LFs married to Ma and Ride married to LFs participated in more outside interests together (n.s.) than RFs married to His or Ills married to RFs. RFs married to His and His married to RFs more often (n.s.) thought about not being married than LFs married to Ms or Ms mar- ried to LFs. HQ (Cogle-wise) Ema 3. lies Hypothesis 2 was confirmed. "Culturally congruent” (CC) LF-BM couples were significantly happier and more in agreement about how happy they were than ”culturally incongruent" (CI) RF-LK couples. Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. 5 out of 7 CC couples had husbands and wives in perfect accord as to how happy they were while the same could be said about none (0) of the 8 CI couples. 2:922 l1. lama CC couples more often agreed (n.s.) about matters like recreation, affection, friends, sex and philosophy of life than CI couples. CC couples agreed significantly more often about their in-laws than CI couples . 50 CI couples more often agreed (n.s.) about.matters like finances and conventionality than CC couples. Apparently in matters of handling money and deciding upon right and proper conduct, the influence of an analytical, rational, objective rightdnover’prevails even though the marriage be "culturally incongruont." CC couples disagreed less than CI couples about friends and.inplaws and disagreed significantly less than CI couples about sex and.philo- sophy of life. CI couples disagreed less than CC couples about finances, recrea- tion, affection and conventionality. The fact that CI couples, when compared to CC couples, disagreed less on 4 items, but had.higher La on only 2, might prompt one to speculate that having a right-moving (hence analytic, rational, active, etc.) female married to a leftpmoving male (hence synthetic, emotional, passive, etc.) while not loading to a higher level of adjustment, may lead to less disagreement. QEEEELIIEHIEQEE CC couples scored higher than CI cowles on the item, Leisure Time, which can be interpreted to mean that they are more in agreement about generally preferring to stay at home. CC couples also had a significantly higher La and.lower DD (Degree of Disagreement) than CI couples regarding Marry Again, which means they agreed they would most likely marry the same person were they to marry again. CI couples had a significantly higher La and lower DD than CC couples regarding the handling of disagreements. Perhaps, the fact 1 .Illll‘l If] I. l‘ I] l ‘f‘i‘t 51 that the female is the more analytical, rational and active partner in CI couples counterbalances the "cultural incongruity" and brings about more mutual give-and-take. 92.022 .1! here. Both CC and CI couples came close to saying that they confide in their mate in everything. However, concerning outside interests, CC couples had a higher LA while CI couples had a lower DD, which seems to suggest that CC couples do more things together, but CI couples argue about what they're going to do less. CC couples more than CI couples were less inclined to wish that they hadn't been married, but CI couples more than CC cowles were closer in the way they felt about it. Hypothesis 4 was confirmed. CC (IF-RM) couples had an overall significantly higher Lovel of Adjustment (LA) on the LHS than CI (RF-m) couples, which translated simply means that at least on the basis of their scores on the LVS, "culturally congruent" couples were better adjusted in marriage than "culturally incongruent" couples. §_'_C_I_[_ (Individual-wise) Looking exclusively at ”culturally congruent” versus "culturally incongruent" marriages, we find that Ms married to RFs had more strongly negative responses regarding family concept (F'C) than RMa married to LFs. RMs married to LFs had more moderately positive FC responses than Dds married to RFs. £2; (Goggle-wise) Hypothesis 5 was not confirmed but the findings were in the pre- dicted direction. CC couples had more responses that came closer to 52 the ideal family concept (CIFC) than CI couples. Hypothesis 6 was confirmed. CC couples had significantly more positive FC responses than CI couples, and CI couples had signifi- cantly more negative FC responses than CC couples. Hypothesis 7 was not confirmed, but the findings were in the pre- dicted direction. CC couples were more in agreement about family concept than CI couples. Hypothesis 8 was not confirmed, but the findings were in the pre- dicted direction. here were more husbands and wives with the same PC responses among CC couples than CI couples. Battepz Score for Hmtheses Concem E versus CI Copples Hypothesis: 1. Not confirmed, but in the predicted direction 2. Confirmed 3. Confirmed 4. Confirmed 5. Not confirmed but in the predicted direction 6. Confirmed 7. Not confirmed, but in the predicted direction 8. Not confirmed, but in the predicted direction ram ass. aria .3...“ 1.. Although data was collected and reported concerning these couples, it was not within the scope of this thesis to interpret the findings. In general, however, it may be noted that BF-RM couples scored rela— tively high on both the IRS and the FCI. For example, RF-RM couples were even happier than LF—RH couples according to the results. Because there were only 3 LF-m couples, it is risky to talk in gen- eralizations. However, overall, LF—LM couples didn't do as well as their counterparts. 53 Subsequent research might wish to focus more specifically on making RF-RM and LF-IM comparisons. 54 SW his experiment investigated the possibility that the lateral eye-movement, reported by Day, Bakan, 23. 9A., might be related to marital selection and adjustment. 30 married couples, whose identity had been carefully concealed from the experimenter, were tested individually. he subjects, whose visual attention was directed toward the experimenter's face, were asked to respond to a series of questions requiring reflection. lateral eye-movements following the questions were observed and re- corded. he subjects were classified as right— or left- movers on the basis of the direction of the majority of movements. A general information card (GIC) , the Locke-Wallace Scale of Marital Adjustment (IRS), and the Family Concept Inventory (PCI) were also achninistered. In view of Day's (1964) report that 71% of 1142 couples, and Bakan's (personal commication) informal finding that 1&7 of 50 couples were opposite movers, plus Uinch's (1954, 1958) theory of complementarity in marriage, it was hypothesized (1) that there would be more different (LP-RM or RF-IM) than same (RF-RH or Ila-Ht) couples. his hypothesis, however, was not confirmed; there were more opposite movers, but 57% was not statistically significant. he remaining hypotheses (2-8) of this experiment had to do with 55 comparing the two combinations of opposite movers (IF-RM 8c RF-LM) with respect to happiness and marital adjustment. LF-RM couples were dubbed ”culturally congruent” because the personality variables which Bakan ( 1971) ascribed to right hemi- sphere or left-moving people (synthetic, emotional, subjective, passive, etc.) seemed more "role-appropriate" for the female of our society, and those personality variables ascribed to left hemisphere or right-moving people (analytic, rational, objective, active, etc.), seemed more ”role-appropriate” for the male of our society. RF-LH couples were dubbed "culturally incongruent" out of the same reason- ing. It was predicted that LF—RM couples would consequently be happier, better adjusted in marriage, agree more, and share a family concept closer to the ideal than RF—IM couples. he results, virtually on every count, substantiated this: (2) "Culturally congruent" (CC) couples (LP-RM) were significantly happier and more in agreement about their happiness than were ”cul- turally incongruent" (CI) RF-Lll couples. (3) 5 of 7 CC couples had husbands and wives in perfect accord about how happy they were while the same could be said about none (0) of the 8 CI couples. (ll) CC couples had an overall significantly higher Level of Adjustment (LA) on the LWS than CI couples. (5) CC couples had more responses that came closer to the ideal family concept than CI couples on the F01. (6) CC cowles had significantly more positive family concept 56 (FC) responses than CI couples, and CI couples had significantly more negative FC responses than CC couples. (7) CC couples were more in agreement about family concept than CI couples. (8) There were more husbands and wives with the same FC responses among CC couples than CI couples. In conclusion, while this experiment showed.no relationship be- tween lateral eye-movement and.marital selection, it did show a very definite relationship between lateral eye-movement and.marital adjust- ment, especially where opposite movers were concerned. 57 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bakan, P. Hypnotizability, laterality of eye-movements and functional brain asynmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, _2__8_. 927—932. Bakan, P., & Shotland, L. Lateral eye-movement, reading speed and visual attention. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 15, 93—911. Bakan, P. 'Ihe eyes have it. Psychology Today, 1971, April, 611. Day, M. E. An eye-movement phenomenon relating to attention, thought, and anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19611, _12, 443-11116. Day, M. E. An eye-movement indicator of type and level of anxiety: Some clinical observations. Journal 2; Clinical Ps cholo , 1967a, g1, 438-4111 . Day, M. E. An eye-movement indicator of individual differences in the physiological organization of attentional processes and anxiety. Journal 9; Ps cholo , 1967b, 96;, 51-62. Duke, J. D. Lateral eye-movement behavior. Journal 2; General 33y- cholo , 1968, 18_, 189-195. Hawkins, J. L. ‘Ihe Locke marital adjustment test and social desir- ability. Journal gf Marriage g_n_d__t_l_1_e_ Family, 1966, g_8_, 193-195. Roman, K. C. An investigation of the construct validity of marital adjustment and the similarity betwaen marital adjustment of spouses. Unpublist master's thesis, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1966. Hollingshead, A. B. Two factor index of social position. 1965 Yale Station, New Haven, Conn. : August B. Hollingshead, 1959. Kata, M. Agreement on connotative meaning in marriage. Family Process, 1965, 3, 6L7ll. Locke, H. J ., a Wallace, K. M. Short marital-adjustment and pre- diction tests: ‘Iheir reliability and validity. Journal g_f_ Manama Fail 9 1959. 2.1. 251-255. Navran, L. Communication and adjustment in marriage. Family Process, 1967. g, 173-181;. m Palonen, D. Interpersonal perceptions and marital adjustments. Un- published master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. 58 Van der Veen, P., Huebner, B., Jorgens, B., a: Neja, P., Jr. Relation- ships between the parents' concept of the family and family ad- justment. American Journal 9; Orthopsychiatgy, 1964, 15, h5—55. winch, R. P., Ktsanes, '1‘., 8: Ktsanes, V. The theory of complemen- tary needs in mate selection: An analytic and descriptive study. American Sociological Review, 19511, 12, 2111-2119. Winch, R. F. Mate-selection: A study 9; complemenm needs. New York: Harper, 1958. APPENDIX {Inl‘llll{{l|i ‘(llul'F1‘ . I‘ll I’lll'rl‘ 59 Appendix General Information Card (GIG) Identifying Number - Ase - Birthplace - Occupation - Education - Religion - Children (sex 6: age) - Married Before? - How Long Go Together Before Marrying? - How Long Been Married? - Reflexive figstions (R3) Proverbs 1. In for a penny, in for a pound. 2. Better an egg today than a hen tomorrow. 3. Don't empty the baby with the bath water. 11. If you cannot bite, never show your teeth. 5. A little learning is a dangerous thing. 6. Love me, love my dog. 7. Still waters run deep. 8. 'me proof of the pudding is in the eating. 9. You cannot sell the cow and drink the milk. 10. Some people cannot see the wood for the trees. Marriage 1 . What should a wife primarily contribute to a marriage? 2. What do you like the least about being married? 3. What should two people talk about before getting married? 4. What does a husband need most of all from a marriage? 5. How do you feel about birth control? 6. What's your idea of an ideal marriage set-up? 7. What should a husband primarily contribute to a marriage? 8. What do you like most about being married? 9. How do you feel about divorce? 10. Hhat does a wife need most of all from a marriage? Encircle the dot on the scale below which best describes the de- gr:e of happiness, everything considered, of your present marriage. 'lhe middle point, "Happy," represents the degree of happiness which most people get from marriage, and the scale gradually ranges on one side to those few who are very unhappy in marriage and on the other to those few who experience extreme joy or felicity in marriage. 0 2 7 15 20 25 35 Very Happy Perfectly Unhappy Happy State the approximate extent of agreement between you and your mate on the following items. Please encircle the appropriate dots. Almost Occa— Fre- Almost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Handling family 5 4 3 2 1 0 finances Matters of recrea- 5 h 3 2 1 0 tion Demonstrations of 8 6 lb 2 1 0 affection Friends 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sex relations 15 12 9 4 1 O Conventionality 5 ll 3 2 1 0 (right, good or proper conduct) Philosophy of life 5 I} 3 2 1 O Hays of dealing 5 ll 3 2 1 0 with in-laws When disagreements arise, they usually result in: husband's giving in 0 , wife's giving in 2 , agreement by mutual give-and-take 1O . Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? All of them 10 , someofthem 8 ,veryfewofthem 3 ,noneofthem 0 . In leisure time, do you generally prefer: to be "on the go" - , to stay at home + 7 Does your mate generally prefer: to be "on the go" - , to stay at home + ? Do you ever wish you had not married? Frequently O , occasion- ally } , rarely 8 , never 15 . If you had your life to live over, do you think you would: marry the same person 15 , marry a different person 0 , not marry at all 2 Do you confide in your mate: almost never 0 , rarely 2 , in most things 10 , in eveW? *‘lhis part of the item was not included in the test. In leisure time do you generally prefer: to be "on the go" , to stay at home ? was the included part. If both mates marked ”on the go" the couple's score was ”3.” If both mates marked ”stay at home,“ the couple's score was “10." If they disagreed, their score was "2." an; Family Concept Inventogy (FCI) Instructions: Indicate the degree S; of your agreement or disagreement with each of the following items as it applies to your imadiate family (hus- band or wife and children), and encir- cle the letter(s) representing the appropriate response . First impre s- sions are satisfactory, and most peo- ple are able to complete this inven- tory in ten minutes. It is quite important that you give a response to each item, even though it may some- times be difficult to make a decision. no la In- It? Neither Agree nor Disagree Stronsly lam Tend to Agree Tend to Disagree 1. He usually can depend on each SA a N d SD other. 2. We have a nmber of close SA a N d SD friends. 3. Us feel secure when we are SA a N d SD with each other. ‘1. We do many things together. SA a N (1 SD -5. Eachofuswantstotellthe SA a N d SD others what to do. ~6. here are serious differences SA a N d SD in our standards and values. Family Concept Inventory, cont'd: 7. We feel free to express any thoughts or feelings to each other. 8. Our home is the center of our activities. 9. We are an affectionate family. -10. It is not our fault that we are having difficulties. -11. Little problems often become big ones for us. -12. We do not understand each other. 13. We get along very well in the community. 111. We often praise or compliment each other. -15. We do not talk about sex. -16. We get along much better with persons outside the family than with ' each other. 17. We are proud of our family. -18. We do not like each other's friends. -19. There are many conflicts in our family. 20. We are usually calm and relaxed when we are together. 21. We respect each other's privacy. -22. Accomplishing what we want to do seems to be difficult for us. -23. We tend to worry about many things. 24. We are continually getting to know each other better. 25. We encourage each other to de- velop in his or her own individual way. 26. We have warm close relationships with each other. 27. Together we can overcome almost any difficulty. 28. We really do trust and confide in each other. 29. the family has always been very important to us. -30. We get more than our share of illness. 31. We are considerate of each other. 32. We can stand up for our rights if necessary. 2 m g» EEEEEBE’E 2H 2 22 z 22 2 2 2222222222222222 0:0- 0- 0-9» 0- 09- Cl- 9- 90 O- O- D- D- O- D- Qo 9- 0-0- 0: Q- on. SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD Family Concept Inventory, cont'd: 33. We have very good times toge~ SA a N d SD ther. ~3h. We live largely by other people's SA a N d SD standards and values. ~35. Usually each of us goes his own SA a N d SD separate way. ~36. We resent each other's outside SA a N d SD activities. 37. We have respect for each other's SA a N :1 SD feelings and opinions even when we differ strongly. -38. We sometimes wish we could be an SA a N d SD entirely different family. 39. We are sociable and really enjoy SA a N (1 SD being with people. ~40. We are a disorganized family. SA a N d SD 411. We are not really fond of one SA a N d SD another. 42. We are a strong, competent SA a N d SD leYe ~43. We just cannot tell each other SA a N d SD our real feelings. 4111. We are not satisfied with any- SA a N (1 SD thing short of perfection. #5. We forgive each other easily. SA a N d SD ’46. We usually reach decisions by SA a N d SD discussion and compromise. #7. We can adjust well to new situa- SA a N d SD tions. ~48. Our decisions are not our own, SA a N d SD but are forced on us by circt-stances. ~ items are scored the same direction as + items, i.e., on a ~ item, strongly disagree 3 5, on a «0- item, strongly disagree = 1. ~1tem,SA-1,8-2,N=3,dnu, SD35 +111”, SAIS, tallyns}, daz, 31381 M7111111111113ffliilfflfil'lflflalflflfflflfllfl'ES