FUNCTIONING AND NON-FUNCTIONING MARRIAGES
A STUDY OF PERSONALITIES, ROLES
AND RELATIONSHIPS
by
EUGENE C. WATERS, B.A., M.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
PSYCHOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Accepted
December, 1974
SO) T3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my deep appreciation for the guidance
and encouragement of my committee members during the various
stages of this study. Dr. George, Dr. Mahone, Dr. Ray and
Dr. Jones all made valuable criticisms without which the idea
would not have been brought to fruition.
Special thanks goes to Dr. Lawlis, my chairman, for
his patience, expertise and calmness throughout the course
of the research. Also, a special note of appreciation is
due Mr. Don Beal, who helped greatly with some statistical
obscurities.
Finally, to my wife, Cynthia, goes my love and appre
ciation for her endless patience and understanding during
all of this.
11
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Review of the Literature 4
Concluding Remarks and Tentative
Hypotheses 13
II. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 16
Instruments 18
Design and Procedure 24
Hypotheses 25
Statistical Analysis 28
III. RESULTS 31
IV. DISCUSSION 56
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 64
REFERENCES . . . 67
APPENDIX 71
111
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Religiosity and Ethnicity for Males and Fejnales 1° u
2. Educational Levels for Males and Females 19
3. Family Salaries for Couples in Groups I and II 19
4. Length of Marriage for Couples in Groups I and II 20
5. Number of Children in Family of Origin
for Males and Females 20
6. Birth Order for Males and Females 21
7. Prior Marriages of Males and Females 21
8. Couples Who Lived Together 21
9. T-Test Summary for Males' 16PF Scores 3 2
10. T-Test Summary for Females' 16PF Scores 33
11. Chi Square Values for Males' 16PF Scores . . . . 34
12. Chi Square Values for Females' 16PF Scores . . . 34
13. Regression Analysis of 16PF Scores 35
14. T-Test Summary for Similarity Scores on the 16PF 36
15. Intercorrelations of Husband and Wife on 16PF Factors 37
16. Resemblance of Husband's Score on one Trait of the 16PF to Wife's Score on Another Trait Group II 38
IV
Table Page
17. Resemblance of Husband's Score on one Trait of the 16PF to Wife's Score on Another Trait Group I 40
18. T-Test Summary for Complementary Scores
on the 16PF 42
19. T-Test Summary for Males' PAI Scores 43
20. Chi Square Values for Males' PA I Scores 44
21. T-Test Summary for Females' PAI Scores 45
22. Chi Square Values for Females' PAI Scores . . . . 45
23. T-Test Summary for Similarity of PAI Scores . . . 46
24. Regression Analysis of PAI Scores 46
25. T-Test Summary for Complementary PAI Scores . . . 47
26. T-Test Summary for Males' 4RF Scores 48
27. T-Test Summary for Females' 4RF Scores 48
28. Chi Square Values for Males' 4RF Scores 49
29. Chi Square Values for Females' 4RF Scores . . . . 49
30. Regression Analysis of 4RF Scores 50
31. T-Test Summary of Similarity for 4RF Scores . . . 51
32. T-Test Summary of Complementary 4RF Scores . . . 51
33. Chi Square Values for Males' Demographic Variables 52
34. Chi Square Values for Females' Demographic Variables 52
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Leary's Interpersonal Circle 5
2. Male and Female PAI Scores 53
3. Male and Female 4RF Scores 54
4. 16PF Profiles for Groups I and II 55
VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Considerable controversy has arisen as to whether
current divorce trends indicate a rejection of the mar
riage system per se or whether it merely illustrates an
unwillingness to tolerate unsatisfactory experiences within
the system (Scanzoni, 1972). As professionals who deal
with marriage at several different levels of intervention
it behooves us to determine if the institution of marriage
is salvageable or if a viable alternative should be sought.
Statistics on divorce rates vary depending on the
source, but Scanzoni (1972) reported a "refined" divorce
rate, based on every 1,000 married women who are over fif
teen years of age. This rate has increased steadily since
1920, and in 1967 for every 1,000 married women, approxi
mately 11 experienced divorce. The number of divorces in
19^0 was 170,000 and the postv/ar low point for total number
of divorces was reached in 1958 (368,000). In 1967 there
was 523,000 divorces, or an increase of 42.1 percent over
1958. Estimates for 1968 and 1969 were 582,000 and 660,000,
respectively (Plateris, 1967) . The current trend is that at
least 25 percent of all marriages will end up in divorce.
with some reporters viewing this as a conservative figure
(Scanzoni, 1972).
Before the above statistics on divorce convince us
that the system of marriage is headed for obsolescence, it
is the author's opinion that further investigation of the
components of marriage needs to be initiated, with the hope
that although we are seeing some dramatic changes in mar
riage, the system can remain with us as a viable part of
society as it has for the past several hundred years.
When attempting to investigate marriage one is con
fronted with an immense problem of ambiguity. Lively (1969)
felt that the terms used to define and describe marriage are
"so full of nuances that there seems to be justification for
advocating their elimination from the field (p. 108)".
Methodological problems abound; most studies on marriage
have been done with self-report instruments which have lit
tle or no validation information; subjects have typically
been college-educated white Protestants; and studies have
dealt with terms such as "happiness" and "stability",
definitions of which depend on the subjectivity involved
in defining them (Hicks, & Piatt, 1970).
Two terms which have been used consistently in the
studies of marital relationships are "complementarity" and
"similarity". Complementarity is defined as a polarity, or
a tendency toward a polarity, in the needs, perceptions or
psychological characteristics of two people which attracts
them to each other. Similarity, or symmetry, consists of
similar or like kinds of perceptions, needs or psychological
characteristics of the two people. Winch (1958) hypothe
sized that maximum need gratification for married partners
is complementary rather than similar in nature. Watzlawick,
Beavin, and Jackson (1967) discussed "symmetrical" couples
who are similar in their psychological makeup and have
equalitarian relationships which are more satisfactory than
those with larger differences between the persons.
Cattell (1950) proposed that positive resemblances in
ability, temperament and sentiments are part of a main
principle which operates in the marital relationship. He
felt that these resemblances would lead to similarity on
the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) profile,
and that the similarity would be less for marriages which
were less satisfactory.
Cattell and Nesselroade (1967, 1968) found evidence to
support the above idea concerning similarities, and, indeed,
found that with one exception (Tough-mindedness vs. Tender-
mindedness) all 16PF correlations in stable marriages were
positive, while in unstable marriages the correlations were
negative. They found similarity in certain traits to be of
particular significance: intelligence, ego-strength, social
boldness, imaginativeness and self-sentiment. Value systems
of radicalism-conservatism and superego strength also were
found to be highly significant.
Each person who decides to marry brings with him an
entire individual history of attitudes, beliefs and char
acteristics. The combining of the two individual histories
makes it difficult, at the very least, to predict what the
interaction effects will be. In any marriage there are at
least three levels worth evaluating: the individual per
sonalities of the spouses, the roles that they assume within
the marriage and the relationship they share in general.
How each of these affects one's own investment in the mar
riage should help us to better understand what contributes
to success or failure in the system.
The intent of this study was to further explore the
marital relationship in terms of individual personality,
role and relationship variables. A further goal was to
gain a better understanding of the complementarity-similarity
issue. Finally, investigation of three specific testing
instruments and their usefulness in a marriage counseling
setting was attempted.
Review of the Literature
Since marriage is a specific type of social relation
ship, the review of the literature is divided into two
parts. The first part is a brief review concerning social
relations in order to establish a groundwork for exploration
of the issues included in the review of marital relations,
which comprise the second part of the literature review.
Social Relations
Benjamin (1974) described social behavior in ter.s of
two categories: the multidimensional or trait approach, as
exemplified by Cattell-s Sixteen.Personal^^
naxre analysis, and a graphic model consisting of two o.
three personality dimensions, such as that of Leary (1957)
in his use of the interpersonal circle (see Figure 1).
Fig. 1.—Leary's Interpersonal Circle
The latter approach has the advantage of parsimony and
the clarity which comes from having a picture of a model in
graphic representation. Interpersonal models such as those
used by Leary (1957) and Schaefer (1965) also can be related
to classic psychoanalytic theory. For example, Carson (1969)
used four categories derived from Leary (hostile-dominant;
friendly-dominant; hostile-submissive; friendly-submissive)
and related his view to the psychiatric theories of Harry
Stack Sullivan. Chance (1966) related her version of Leary's
interpersonal circle to Freud, Adler, Horney, Jung and Fromm.
Benjamin (1974), in an elaboration of the models of
interpersonal behavior developed by Leary and Schaefer, pre
sented a model in which complements play a major role. She
defined complements as behaviors which are compensatory to
one another and which reciprocally fill voids not filled by
each individual behavior. She listed 36 complementary pairs
of behavior: dominate-submit, authoritarian-obey routines,
threaten-yield and equalitarian-cooperate as examples.
Others, including Parsons (in Baldwin, 1967), Feffer (1970),
Mueller (1969), Mueller and Dilling (1968), Schaefer (1971),
Foa (1966) and Carson (1969) have also presented complements
as important in understanding interpersonal behavior.
Carson (1969) stated the idea of complementarity as
such:
When a person "offers" behavior falling within any of the quadrants of the interpersonal circle, he is, in effect.
"inviting" the other person to adopt a complementary stance in respect to both of the principle dimensions within the circle (p. 147).
For example, this means that a hostile-submissive person
invites relations v;ith a friendly-dominant person, whereas
a friendly-submissive person invites response from a hostile-
dominant person. He also stated that, developmentally, com
plementarity is evidenced by the fact that, "Almost uni
formly, studies...have come up with the same conclusion:
hateful behavior in the parents begets hateful behavior in
the child, and loving in the parents begets loving behavior
in the child (p. 151)."
The theme of the relationship betv/een adult behavior
and experience with significant others during childhood has
been a major source of concern for theory and practice since
the beginning of the study of psychology. For example, an
individual who typically reacts to authority with passive
deference may be continuing a role he learned in childhood
in order to effectively deal v/ith his parents. The idea of
relating adult behavior to childhood experiences with parents
is a basic principle of psychoanalysis and recently has been
extended to include siblings as an early influential cause
of adult behavior (Toman, 1971).
Inseparable from this discussion is the concept of
introjection, of attitudes toward the self being based on
the way one is treated by significant others (Herber, Gelfand
and Hartmen, 1969) . Sullivan (1953) stated that from early
8
infancy a child's self-concept reflects the way others
thought of him and treated him. The psychoanalytic idea of
introjection has also been related sociologically by Cottrell
(1971): "The self emerges and is perceived by the individual
only through the responses of reference—others v/hose role
he takes toward his own acts (p. 552)."
Foa (1961, 1966) and Parsons (in Baldwin, 1967) also
endorsed the idea that the self-concept reflects experi
ences with significant others. Recently, Felker and Thomas
(1971) demonstrated a relationship between self-concept
and behavior, and Coopersmith (1967) confirmed the relation
ship between parent-child interactions and children's
self-concepts.
With the above ideas about social relations in mind,
let us now turn to a review on various aspects of the mari
tal relationship which seem appropriate to this study.
Marriage, as an excellent example of social relations, al
lows us to observe the aforementioned dynamics of interper
sonal interaction in an intensified, encapsulated setting.
Marital Relations
The area of marital relations has received avid atten
tion during the past several years in the form of numerous
books and journal articles. The Journal of Marriage and the
Family is expressly dedicated to issues about marriage. The
institution of marriage has been investigated by experts in
the legal, sociological, anthropological, psychological and
theological fields, and yet the divorce rate in the United
States has continued to increase.
Marriage is a process, an interaction between two peo- ^
pie. This at times is forgotten by those who tend to con
ceptualize marital adjustment as an ultimate condition rather
than as a continuous striving. Historically, the concep
tualizations about marriage have centered mainly around the
controversy betv/een complementarity and similarity, or
whether spouses' needs should be different or similar in
order to promote marital adjustment. As cited earlier,
Cattell (1950), and Cattell and Nesselroade (1967, 1968)
have shown evidence for the latter argument. Others who
also have supported the argument for similarity in marriage
are Katz, Blucksberg, and Krauss (1960), Blazer (1963), and
Murstein (1961).
Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) in their book
on interpersonal communication discussed "symmetrical"
couples who are similar in their psychological makeup and
are reported to be mirrors of each other, having relation
ships which are equalitarian and in which differences are
minimized. Rapoport, Rapoport, and Thiessen (1974) also
discussed couple symmetry and stated that "...more symmet
rical couples have a higher level of enjoyment of everyday
activities (p. 588)."
Young and Willmott (1973) predicted that:
10
By the next century... society v/ill have moved from (a) one demanding job for the wife and one for the husband, through (b) two demanding jobs for the wife and one for the husband, to (c) two demanding jobs for the wife and two for the husband. The symmetry v/ill be complete (p. 278).
According to Murstein and Glaudin (1966) it appeared
that a balance of good or redeeming characteristics v/as
important for marital adjustment, while Lederer and Jackson
(1968) found that too much diversity in married couples
tended to destroy the marriage because of the difficulty
in communication which they feel is the real foundation of
any relationship.
VJinch (1958) was a leader in the argument for com
plementarity. He hypothesized that maximum need gratifi
cation for married partners is complementary rather than
similar in nature. He found support for the following
hypotheses:
1. There is a bipolar dimension of mate selection v/hich is characterized at one end by needs and traits which are assertive and at the other by needs and traits which are receptive in nature.
2. Persons with "assertive" personality characteristics do not tend to marry each other, and similarly, persons v/ith "receptive" characteristics do not tend to marry each other, but:
3. Irresponsive of gender, persons who fall into one of these clusters tend to marry persons who fall into the other, for example, assertive-receptive and vice versa (p. 127).
11
In addition to differences associated with marital
instability, Cattell and Nesselroade (1967) also found that
stability in marriage was facilitated by differences in
dominance and guilt-proneness.
Other studies further exploring the complementarity
hypothesis by Katz, et aJ. (1960), Blazer (1963), and
Murstein (1961) were unsuccessful, as was most of the re
search which preceded Winch, in finding a pattern of com
plementary differences in happy marriages.
Many other variables have been identified as being
related to marital happiness, such as: higher occupational
status, income and educational level for husbands; husband-
wife similarities in socioeconomic background, age and
religion; affectional rewards such as esteem for spouse,
sexual enjoyment and companionship; and also, age at mar
riage and race (Hicks & Piatt, 1970).
Gurin, Veroff, and Feld (1960) found that marital
happiness depended on the quality of the marital relation
ship, and that people reporting happy marriages were more
likely to concentrate on relationship sources of happiness,
while those who were less happy depended on situational
variables such as children, home and social life. Thus,
when a person was happy with the relationship he was happy
with the marriage, and to a considerable extent happiness
in marriage implied happiness in the relationship.
The issues brought out by the above studies, along
12
with current trends in approaches to marriage inevitably
lead to a discussion of the egalitarian marriage. As early
as 1932 Mowrer distinguished four kinds of families: the
paternal, the maternal, the filiocentric and the egalitarian
He noted two kinds of egalitarian marriages: that of con
ventional middle-class and professional people, and that of
"emancipated" persons—the current term would be "liberated"
In these egalitarian marriages there were no children,
relations were free from convention, both partners were
employed, relations with neighbors were casual, touch-and-
go, contacts with others were on the basis of common in
terests rather than geography, interests and activities
were outside rather than inside the home, and the interests
of one were not allowed to interfere with those of the
other (Mowrer, 1932).
The egalitarian marriage was based on companionship,
and reflected a new concept of the relationship between
husbands and wives. Burgess and Locke (1945) wrote a text
book on marriage and the family and had as the sub-title,
"From institution to companionship". The following is a
quote from their book:
The companionship concept of marriage (v/ith its emphasis on affection, comradeship, democracy, and happiness of members of the family) is replacing the old-time notion of marriage as a relation stressing respect, obedience, authority, and duty. This new concept has arisen as the result of many factors, including the loss of economic and other functions by the family, the growth
13
of the urban way of life, the rising status of women, the continued decline in parental control of children's marriage, and the application of democracy in marital relations (p. 479).
Bernard (1972) pointed out that although there has
been a trend toward equalizing the legal obligations and
rights of husbands and wives there is no research that
proves that egalitarianism is increasing. He bases his con
clusion on the research of Popenoe (1933), Burgess and
Wallin (1953), Winch (1958), Heer (1958), and Hoffman (1960).
A prescription for the egalitarian marriage was given by
O'Neill and O'Neill (1972) in their controversial book.
Open Marriage.
Concluding Remarks and Tentative Hypotheses
Due to the reports in the literature on the nature of
social relationships, specifically in terms of the concepts
of complementarity and similarity, the author became in
terested in those concepts as they would relate to marriage.
It was found that although much information had been accumu
lated on the marital relationship, there was still consider
able controversy. The concepts of complementarity and
similarity seemed especially interesting for the study of
marriage, for, although they have been volatile elements in
past studies, there are inconsistent findings about them.
Much has been written about marriage and marital rela
tions. Investigations of the personality traits which fa
cilitate marital adjustment have been made, along with
14
exploration of virtually every aspect of the marriage system.
With all our knowledge about the mechanics of the system and
the dynamics of the marital relationship, divorce rates have
increased steadily during the past century.
The present study was based on concerns about the sys
tem of marriage and how it is dealt with both personally and
professionally. It was the author's hope that further under
standing of the complementarity-similarity issue could be
gained, as well as other variables involved in marriage which
might help people in making the decision of whether or not
to wed. Also, due to the lack of testing instruments specifi
cally designed for use in the marriage conunseling setting,
it was hoped that the psychological testing instruments used
in the study would be shown to be of value to the professional
in his efforts with couples seeking guidance.
The possibility that functioning and non-functioning
marriages could be discriminated on the basis of complemen
tarity and similarity of various aspects of the marital
relationship was hypothesized, including spouses' personality
traits, the roles they take in the relationship, and the
relationship as a whole. It was further hypothesized that
the aspects which could possibly discriminate the marriages
also could be used by professionals to aid couples in their
decisions about marriage. These tentative hypotheses were
considered with the ultimate hope that certain aspects of
functioning marriages could be ascertained so as to assist
15
the professional counselor. The dangers of conjecture about
the marital relationship based on a small sample which was
not completely representative of the general population were
also taken into consideration.
CHAPTER II
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Research methods and procedures in differentiating
functioning and non-functioning married couples and deter
mining the usefulness of three instruments (the Pair At
traction Inventory, Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
and the Four Relationship Factors Test) in marital and pre
marital counseling are included in this chapter. The areas
covered include: (1) subjects; (2) instruments; (3) design
and procedures; (4) statistics; and (5) hypotheses.
There were two groups of subjects for this study.
Group I, the functioning group, was comprised of 3 5 couples
who were not seeking marriage counseling and who did not
express to the examiner that they were experiencing marital
difficulties. These couples were selected on a voluntary
basis from the staff of a state psychiatric hospital and
from friends and acquaintances of that staff. All couples
were from the Dallas, Texas area. Couples were selected so
as to provide as much diversity as could be obtained in
terms of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, length of marriage
and age of spouses.
Group II, the non-functioning group, was comprised of
35 couples who either were seeking professional help for
16
17
J i ital problems or who expressed to the examiner that they
were experiencing severe marital difficulties. They were
selected on a voluntary basis from private and public
sources, including psychologists, marital counselors, a
family service agency, a state psychiatric hospital and
through personal contact with the examiner.
The definition of the two groups was selected by the
examiner after much deliberation. As mentioned earlier,
the literature is replete with words which describe the
two basic types of marriages represented in this study,
and there appears to be much confusion about what each
means. It was felt that the functioning group was validly
defined in that the couples apparently were satisfied with
their relationships and were not seeking out professional
intervention. Had this group been defined based on test
results, the probability of their seeking that intervention
was still seen as negligible, since the problem areas were
not great enough at the time of the testing for them to be
very concerned. The definition of the non-functioning
group was thought to be valid because of the expression by
the couples that their marriages in fact were not function
ing, at least not very well.
An effort was made to transcend the emphasis of past
studies in the selection of various ethnic and socioeconomic
groups, however, the reader should note that the sample used
was highly educated and highly salaried. See Tables 1
18
through 8 for the demographic breakdown of the subjects.
Groups I and II combined to make a total sample of 7 0 cou
ples with the total number of subjects being 140. Again,
all subjects were volunteers.
TABLE 1
RELIGIOSITY AND ETHNICITY FOR MALES AND FEMALES
Religious Group Protestant Catholic Unitarian Atheist Agnostic
Ethnic Group ^ Anglo
"Mexican-American Negro Indian-American Cuban
Group
Male
21 5 4 0 5
32 0 1 1 1
I
Female
22 4 4 0 5
32 1 1 1 0
Group
Male
26 3 2 3 1
29 0 4 0 2
II
Female
27 2 1 1 4
31 0 4 0 0
N = 70 couples
Instruments
1. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)
was selected for this study because of its history of use in
identifying personality traits for various kinds of studies.
It has been used in over 200 studies since its inception and
is an extremely well-known paper-and-pencil inventory devel
oped by Cattell and Eber (1962). It furnishes scores on
each of sixteen separate personality dimensions which are
19
TABLE 2
EDUCATIONAL LEVELS FOR MALES AND FEMALES
Education
Some High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate Some Graduate School Master's Degree PhD Degree
Group
Male
0 3 10 5 3 11 3
I
Female
0 6 11 10 2 6 0
Group
Male
3 8 5 5 4 9 1
II
Female
3 8 8 13 1 2 0
N = 70 couples
TABLE 3
FAMILY SALARIES FOR COUPLES IN GROUPS I AND II
Salary Group I Group II
$20,000 and over
$15,000 to $19,999
$10,000 to $14,999
$5,000 to $9,999
11
9
14
1
9
16
7
3
Group I mean salary = Group II mean salary
N = 70 couples
$16,501 = $18,174
20
TABLE 4
LENGTH OF MARRIAGE FOR COUPLES IN GROUPS I AND II
Length of Marr
30-35
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
iage Group I
2
1
0
1
5
13
13
Group II
1
2
2
2
4
11
13
N = 70 couples
TABLE 5
NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN FAMILY OF ORIGIN FOR MALES AND FEMALES
Number of Children Group
Male
0
0
0
3
1
6
8
13
4
I Female
1
1
1
2
4
1
14
10
1
Group Male
1
2
0
3
5
7
4
11
2
II Female
1
1
0
1
5
5
7
8
7
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
N = 70 couples
21
Birth Order
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
BIRTH
TABLE 6
ORDER FOR I4ALES
Group I
Male
0 0 0 0 0 3 1
11 20*
AND
Female
1 0 0 0 0 2 7
13 12
FEMALES
Group
Male
1 0 1 1 0 5 5
11 11
F(
II
Bmale
0 0 0 0 2 2 3
12 16
*p<.05 for X2 N = 70 couples
TABLE 7
PRIOR MARRIAGES OF MALES AND FEMALES
Prior Marriages
Group I
Male Female
Group II
Male Female
2 1 0
1 8
26
1 9
25
1 9
25
1 8
26
N = 70 couples
TABLE 8
COUPLES WHO LIVED TOGETHER
Lived Together Group I Group II
Yes No
9 26
10 25
N = 70 couples
22
bipolar and include both technical and adjectivial descrip
tions. The sixteen first-order factors are:
A Reserved vs. Outgoing B Less Intelligent vs. More Intelligent C Affected by Feelings vs. Emotionally Stable E Humble vs. Assertive F Sober vs. Happy-go-Lucky G Expedient vs. Conscientious H Shy vs. Venturesome I Tough-minded vs. Tender-minded L Trusting vs. Suspicious M Practical vs. Imaginative N Forthright vs. Shrewd 0 Self-assured vs. Apprehensive Qj^ Conservative vs. Experimenting Q2 Group-dependent vs. Self-sufficient Q^ Undisciplined Self-conflict vs. Controlled Q. Relaxed vs. Tense
The instrument gives a general description of the
personality and was derived by factor-analytic studies based
on the source-trait conception of personality structure.
Form A, which was the form used for this study, consists of
187 items and can be administered individually or in groups.
Validity and reliability coefficients for Form A range from
.61 to .81 (Cattell & Eber, 1962).
2. The Four Relationship Factors (4RF) test was
selected because of its emphasis on different aspects of the
total relationship. It has not appeared in the literature,
but Lawlis (1973) has reported it to be a promising instru
ment for investigating dyads. It is also a pencil-and-paper
instrument which is scored on the basis of four factors
which were derived through factor analysis. The four factors
are:
23
1. Parental-Respect 2. Problem Solving 3. Identification 4. Sexual Relationship
The test consists of 44 statements to which the sub
ject responds by indicating degrees of truth about his rela
tionship with the other person in the dyad. Reliability
coefficients from .70 to .90 for the four factors, and test-
retest reliabilities are shown to be from .91 to .98 for the
four factors (Lawlis, 1973).
3. The Pair Attraction Inventory (PAI) was selected
because of its emphasis on complementary and symmetrical
roles in dyads, and its specific applicability to the mari
tal relationship. Shostrom (197 2) has reported good pre
liminary findings, and the PAI also appears to be a promising
instrument for use in analyzing marital dyads. The PAI is a
paper-and-pencil test based on seven scales, each of which
consists of 32 non-overlapping paired items. It contains
224 true-false items which describe feelings and attitudes
about the male-female relationship. The items are presented
in contrasted pairs, with one statement in the pair describ
ing the examinee's feelings about the other person, while
the paired statement refers to the other person's feelings
about the examinee. Separate booklets are provided for
males and females, as are special answer and profile sheets.
There are four complementary role pairs: Mother-Son,
Daddy-Doll, Bitch-Nice Guy and Master-Servant. There are
also two symmetrical role pairs: Hawks and Doves. The most
24
important scale according to Shostrom is the Rhythmic scale:
Person-Person. The PAI Manual reports test-retest measures
which indicate reliability coefficients for the seven scales,
as follows: Mother-Son—.78; Daddy-Doll—.89; Bitch-Nice
Guy—.93; Master-Servant--.89; Hawks—.87; Doves--.90; and
Rhythmic—.92.
^ Design and Procedure
The examiner gave each spouse a marriage questionnaire
(see Appendix A) which consisted of several demographic
questions; the 16PF (Cattell & Eber, 1962); the PAI (Shostrom,
1971); and the 4RF (Lawlis, 1972). The locations of test
administrations varied, depending on time and geographical
considerations. Some couples were tested in their homes,
others in the examiner's home and still others in the setting
which recommended them for this study.
/ Each couple was informed by the examiner prior to the
testing that the study was being done to assess various
marital roles and the personality factors involved in them.
All subjects were told that the study was for a doctoral
dissertation and that all results would be held confidential
with all participants remaining anonymous. Each couple was
assigned a number and no one was required to place his name
on any of the testing materials. All subjects also were
informed that the results for individual couples would be
available to them and that feedback would be provided for
those who desired it. Each couple was requested not to
25
discuss the tests or their answers with spouses until after
all testing was completed. Each subject was then asked to
complete the marriage questionnaire, the 16PF, the PAI and
the 4RF.
Hypotheses
Four major hypotheses are represented in this study,
with three of the four divided into specific hypotheses for
each of the instruments used. These are stated in positive
form below.
Hypothesis 1. Individual Personality, as shown by each of
the subject's individual scores, will be
predictive of membership in the functioning
group.
a. Several personality characteristics have
been found to correlate with marital stabili
ty, such as emotional stability (Dean, 1966,
1968), and intelligence, enthusiasm, con
science, social boldness and imagination for
both men and women (Cattell & Nesselroade,
1967). Thus, individual scores on the 16PF
for the above items will be predictive of
membership in the functioning group.
b. Shostrom (1972) reported correlation
between the G (Rhythmic) scale and actualizing
couples. Thus, individual scores on the G
26
scale will be predictive of membership in the
functioning group.
c. Lawlis (1972) has stated that high scores
on the 4RF factors are indicative of overall
satisfaction with the relationship. Thus,
the individual scores on the four factors
will be predictive of such membership.
Hypothesis 2. Complementarity, as shown by the difference
scores for each couple, will be predictive of
membership in the functioning group.
a. As stated by Winch (1958), complementary
need satisfaction makes for better adjust
ment; also, Cattell and Nesselroade (1967)
found that differences for dominance and
guilt-proneness on the 16PF made for stable
marriages. It is hypothesized that com
plementarity on the above two factors and
the overall 16PF profile will be predictive
of membership in the functioning group.
b. Based on the findings of Leary (1957),
Schaefer (1965) and Benjamin (1974), persons
in need of role complementarity will have
functioning marriages. Significant agreement
on the four complementary scales of the PAI
will be predictive of membership in the
functioning group.
27
c. Based on the above findings, complemen
tarity on the 4RF role factors as measured
by the difference in spouses' scores, will be
predictive of membership in the functioning
group.
Hypothesis 3. Similarity, as shown by an analysis of three
different levels of spouses' scores: a con
junctive or additive level, a commensurate
or like score level, and a consistency or
correlative level, will be predictive of
membership in the functioning group.
a. Prior research by Cattell and Nesselroade
(1967) has shown that likeness in intelli
gence, emotional stability, enthusiasm, con
science, social boldness and imagination
facilitate stable marriages. Analysis of
additive scores, correlated scores, and simi
larity of mean difference scores for spouses,
all as overlapping aspects of similarity,
will be predictive of membership in the func
tioning group.
b. In conjunction with the findings of
Watzlawick, et_ a]^. (1967) , which showed simi
larity in couples to be facilitative of stable
marriages, the above analyses of the overlap
ping aspects of similarity will be applied to
28
the PAI and will be predictive of membership
in the functioning group. This would also
follow the findings of Shostrom (1972) con
cerning the similarity in scores on the PAI
for actualizing couples. This will not only
be true for the G scale, but for the other
six scales as well.
c. Again, in conjunction with statements by
Lawlis (1972), higher similarity in scores
on all factors of the 4RF will be predictive
of membership in the functioning group.
Hypothesis 4. Demographic variables, as shown by the answers
on the marriage questionnaire, will be pre
dictive of membership in the functioning
group. Specifically, as reported by Hicks
and Piatt (197 0), higher income, higher edu
cational level, birth order, religion, and
length of marriage will be predictive of such
membership.
Statistical Analysis
The first hypothesis was based on exploration of wheth
er the mean differences between the men and women of the two
groups would differentiate them by three statistical methods.
T-tests and stepwise regressions were computed for the scores
of each couple to determine mean differences between the two
groups of men and women and which test variables would
29
discriminate group membership for the men and women. In ad
dition, Chi squares were computed for each test score for
men and women to determine significant test variables which
would discriminate group membership.
The second hypothesis was also exploratory, and was
tested by two statistical methods. First, a t-test was done
on the difference scores for each couple to determine mean
differences for each of the tests between the two groups.
Second, a stepwise regression was done on all the test
scores to determine specific test variables which would be
predictive of group membership.
The third exploratory hypothesis was tested at three
different levels in order to obtain a comprehensive under
standing of the similarities in spouses' scores. A con
junctive level, showing how spouses co-varied in their
scores was tested by summing the scores and computing t-tests,
chi squares and a stepwise regression. A consistency level,
showing how consistently alike spouses' scores were, was
tested by means of a point biserial correlation, with
Fisher's z-test for correlated samples used to determine
actual group differences. Finally, a commensurate level was
tested by computing t-tests for the mean differences of the
spouses and then converting the t-scores into z-scores to
facilitate investigating how alike the scores were.
The fourth hypothesis was tested by means of chi square
30
analysis to determine significant demographic variables
which would differentiate between the two groups.
Post hoc Analysis
As suggested by Cattell and Nesselroade (1967, 1968) a
cross-trait analysis for the husband and wife 16PF scores
was done in order to test an "exchange" principle involved
in the personalities of the spouses. This principle states
that significant relations are desirable not only on one
trait but in the total organic relation of the traits. Cor
relations of husbands' scores on one trait with wives'
scores on other traits were investigated for significance.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
This chapter reflects the results for the four major
hypotheses. Results pertain to personality, role and rela
tionship variables, with each divided into individual,
complementarity and similarity analyses, and with the simi
larity responses divided into conjunctive, consistent and
commensurate levels of analysis; and finally, with regard
to the demographic variables.
Analysis of the 16PF protocols to detem.ine which
individual personality variables would differentiate group
membership was accomplished by subjecting the 140 Form A
protocols to t-tests, regression analysis and chi square
analysis. Individually, the 32 personality factors (16 for
each sex) proved virtually unsuccessful in differentiating
group membership, as only two t-values were significant.
For men, factor I (Tough-minded vs. Tender-minded) was pre
dictive of membership in the functioning group (t=-2.13,
df=68, p<.05), with the men being more tender-minded. See
Table 9 for the men's scores. For women, factor G (Expedient
vs. Conscientious) was predictive of membership in the func
tioning group (t=-2.18, df=68, p^.05), with the women being
more conscientious (see Table 10). The reader is cautioned,
31
32
however, that given the number of factors that were analyzed
for males and females, significance for this number of vari
ables is what would be expected by chance, and therefore
the significance for these two factors is held to be tenta
tive. Chi square analysis for both men and women was not
significant, as shown in Tables 11 and 12, respectively.
TABLE 9
T-TEST SUMMARY FOR MALES' 16PF SCORES
Group I Group II
16PF Factor Mean S.D. Mean S. D. t sig
•
A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
L
M
N
0
Qi
^2
Q3
Q4
4.7143
7.0286
5.3143
6.6286
6.4286
4.9714
5.6286
6.8286
6.0857
6.1429
4.8571
5.6857
5.400
6.6571
5.0857
6.1143
2.094
1.932
1.859
2.129
2.004
1.902
1.957
1.424
1.884
1.865
1.987
1.937
2.428
' 2.028
1.314
1.997
5.3429
6.2857
5.0571
6.0286
5.6857
5.1143
4.9429
5.9714
5.7429
5.2357
5.6000
5.5714
6.1714
5.8571
4.7429
6.6000
1.714
1.919
1.970
2.216
2.097
2.069
1.984
1.902
1.597
1.994
1.786
1.975
1.932
1.785
1.540
2.047
1.37
-1.61
-0.56
-1.15
-1.51
0.30
-1.46
-2.13
-0.82
-1.86
1.64
-0.24
1.47
-1.75
-1.00
1.01
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns *
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
*p<.05 N = 70
33
T-
TABLE 10
-TEST SUMMARY FOR FEMALES' 16PF SCORES
16PF Factor
A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
L
M
N
0
Qi
Q2 mm
Q3
Q4
*p<.05 N = 70
Group
Mean
5.1429
6.6571
5.7429
6.1429
6.2571
5.3429
6.1429
6.1143
6.0857
5.4571
5.1429
5.7429
6.2857
5.7714
5.3714
5.7143
I
S.D.
1.768
1.714
1.990
1.768
1.945
1.984
1.833
1.641
1.652
1.686
2.088
1.559
2.217
1.880
1.864
2.163
Group
Mean
5.4857
6.3429
4.8571
6.5714
6.1429
4.3714
6.0000
5.7143
6.2000
5.9714
4.9714
5.4571
6.6714
5.3429
4.7714
5.9714
II
S.D.
2.120
1.644
2.116
2.090
2.171
1.734
2.058
1.742
1.491
2.007
2.229
2.477
2.146
2.169
1.972
2.370
t
0.73
-0.78
-1.80
0.93
-6.23
-2.18
-0.31
-0.99
0.30
1.16
-0.33
-0.58
0.55
-0.88
-1.31
0.47
sig
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns *
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
As shown in Table 13, the regression analysis of the
16PF scores proved factor Q^ (Conservative vs. Experimenting)
to be predictive of membership in the non-functioning group
for males (p<.05), with the men being more conservative.
Factor C (Affected by Feelings vs. Emotionally Stable) was
predictive of membership in the non-functioning group for
females (p<.05), who were more affected by feelings.
TABLE 11
CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR MALES' 16PF SCORES
34
16PF Factor d.f y2 sig
A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4
7 6 9 9 9 8 6 7 8 8 8 6 9 7 6 8
6.99682 0.01000
12.02930 10.74627 12.39290 5.05873 7.35174 12.01149 5.35470 8.53916 11.69285 0.01000 8.29142 4.68888 6.85150 9.23174
ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
N = 70
CHI SQUARE
16PF Factor
A B C E F G H I L M N 0
Ql Q2 Q3 Q4
TABLE
VALUES
d.f
7 6 9 8 8 7 7 9 7 7 9 8 9 9 8 9
FOR
•
12
FEMALES' 16PF
7(2
4.72689 0.10000
14.21367 8.86196
11.13695 9.72548 0.01000 7.87619 8.64964 5.35104 3.02650 0.01000 7.29725 14.30203 12.83809 8.61558
SCORES
sig
ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
N = 70
35
TABLE 13
REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF 16PF SCORES
16PF Variable F sig
Q^ (For Males) 6.6643 *
C (For Females) 6.2272 *
I (Similarity-Conjunctive) 8.1040 **
M (Complementary) 7.2855 **
*p^.05 **p^.01
Table 14 illustrates the similarity scores of the 16PF
and shows one of the Conjunctive (additive) level scores to
be significant. Factor I (Tough-minded vs. Tender-minded)
was predictive of a couple's membership in the functioning
group (t=-2.27, df=68, p<.01), with both spouses being more
tender-minded. This was supported by regression analysis,
as shown in Table 13. For the Consistency or correlative
level, functioning couples' scores were significantly cor
related on three factors: factor B (Intelligence) (r=.464,
p<.01); factor E (Assertiveness) (r=.420, p<.05); and factor
O (Apprehension) (r=.362, p<.05). Only one correlation was
significant for the non-functioning group: factor M (Prac
ticality) (r=.340, p<.05). Fisher z tests for differences
between the groups proved non-significant for all of the
factors. This is illustrated in Table 15. Scores at the
Commensurate level did not prove significantly similar.
36
TABLE 14
T-TEST SUMMARY FOR SIMILARITY SCORES ON THE 16PF
16PF Factor
A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
L
M
N
0
Q
Q
Q
Q
*p<.05 N = 70
Group
Mean
9.8571
13.6857
11.0571
12.7714
12.6857
10.3143
11.7714
12.9429
12.1714
11.6000
10.0000
11.4286
11.6857
12.4286
10.4571
11.8286
couples
Results of the po
I
S.D.
2.735
3.123
2.890
3.291
2.898
2.958
2.991
2.141
2.802
2.511
2.990
2.893
3.724
2.883
2.559
3.024
St hoc
Group
Mean
10.8286
12.6286
9.9143
12.6000
11.8286
9.4857
10.9429
11.6857
11.9429
11.2571
10.5714
11.0286
12.7429
11.2000
9.5143
12.5714
analysis of
II
S.D.
2.975
2.723
2.672
3.483
3.204
2.874
2.473
2.483
2.222
3.275
3.022
3.230
3.329
3.123
2.582
3.183
cross-
t
1.42
-1.51
-1.72
-0.21
-1.17
-1.19
-1.26
-2.27
-0.38
-0.49
-0.80
-0.55
1.25
-1.71
-1.53
1.00
sig
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns *
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
-trait corre-
lations showed only chance significance in the non-functioning
group, with 12 of 240 possible correlations reaching levels
of significance (see Table 16). However, in the functioning
group 27 of the 240 possible correlations were significant,
showing that some type of interaction exists between the
37
personality traits of functioning spouses which does not
exist between non-functioning spouses. See Table 17 for the
latter correlations.
TABLE 15
INTERCORRELATIONS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE ON 16PF FACTORS
Z of 16PF Factor Group I sig Group II sig difference sig
A -.004 ns .195 ns .245 ns
B .464 .01 .163 ns .434 ns
C .125 ns -.146 ns -.026 ns
E .420 .05 .307 ns .160 ns
F .076 ns .126 ns .063 ns
G .158 ns .135 ns .029 ns
H .244 ns -.252 ns -.006 ns
I -.029 ns -.073 ns .055 ns
L .252 ns .034 ns .279 ns
M -.002 ns .340 .05 .445 ns
N .075 ns .122 ns .058 ns
O .362 .05 .041 ns .426 ns
Q^ .284 ns .330 ns -.063 ns
Q2 .086 ns .241 ns -.201 ns
Q3 .275 ns .067 ns .272 ns
Q4 .055 ns .034 ns .026 ns
N = 70 couples
Complementary scores on factor M (Practical vs. Imagi
native) were predictive of membership in the functioning
group (t=-2.38, df=68, p-^.Ol). In other words, when one
spouse is practical and the other spouse is imaginative
38
vo r-i
W 1-
m < t
O EH
P4 CU vo rH
u ffi ir* H
H C14 0 CU
D EH 0 H rt
S " EH EH
H
0 EH
2 « 0 W
ffi H EH 0:: 0 0 S U < W
2 w 0 Q W
< 0 « u w w K W
Pn H 0 P4
H
w u 2: 3 m s H W H »J
H
o
Cn
u
n
0)
•H
12
CN ro o
cy
I
cr»
^ 00 rH O rH CO
in
I
vo iH
LO CM VO iH
00 0 CM
in
vo iH
ro r 0
iH 0 r-\
ro in 0
vo vo iH
ro 00 iH
00 vo ro
ro
I I
^ in iH
* 0 VO
ro
CM CM 0
vo in CNl
vo CM H
00 in CM
^ in 0
iH 00 0
<T> ro rH
^ ^ 0
in
CM
in
o ro CM CM
I I
iH
cr» 0
vo CM CN)
r-0
ro
ro • ^
0
ro t^ 0
•K
vo o CM
m o CM
00
o
00 ro CM
ro CM
vo
I i I I
CM CM vo ^ O O ^ 00 ro O H rH
c r > v o v D c r > v o ^ r < . i H C M V O i H i n c J ^ i H C M - ^ O O i H i H r H O C M C M
I I I I I I
o o
• v o
H o^ H 0
r--0 iH
^ VO rH
rv) a> 0
0 in CM
CM in CM
in 0 iH
ro vo rH
^ in H
vo CM 0
<y^ ^ rH
0 r CM
vo ro 0
a\ in CM
ro rr 0
0 M* CM
r-00 0
in
ro r-\
00 in iH
CT\ ro iH
CJ ^ CM
in
ro rH
0 CM iH
r 00 0
^ 00 0
rH 00 0
ro cr> 0
0 CM iH
ro
ro vo o
I I
ro
CM
O
CM
I
rH ^J 0
VO
ro CM
00
r-H
r-r-CM
^ in CM
ro vo rH
ro vo CM
(Ti iH 0
00 in CM
ro 0
ro
vo <y\ 0
in
vo CM
'^ VO
H iH **
I I
in in
f-i o
in CM r^ ro O rH
CM O
ro in CM ro CM o iH ro rH
vo 00 o ^ rH O
00 CM
CM
o o CM
CM CM
o ^ CM o o
I I I I I t I
00
a\ 0
r 0 CM
in 0 rH
0 VO 0
* rH
a\ ro
ro vo CM
V
Ck •K •K
iH CM ro ^
< « u w f a O K H h q s 2 : o a a a a
(0 Q)
iH
o u in ro
in o V
39
73 0)
•H 4J C O U I I vo
< EH
ro m
in r--o
<T> r CM
ro 00 o
r--o o
r vo o
in CM o
CM a\ o
vo in CM
* a\ o in
ro 00 o
iH CM ro
vo rH o
H vo o
in iH rH
r-vo o
^ in o
CN
a
a
(d
CO
MH •H 12
in in o
I
vo 00 o
^ 00 o
rH ^ O
00 o o
CN ^ CM
H VO o
in ro CM
VO o rH
ro fH TT TT vo vo ro o o o I
vo CM
.H r o in o o
I
I I
r-- CM <y\ o H O
in 00 ro
in 00 o o
vo in CM o
in in o
vo
rH o
iH in CM
CM
O O
CM
I
c\ <r> o
1
ro CM o
a\ o o
1
in CM CM
r-in CM
ro rH rH
VO 00 rH
a^ o ro
iH r o
ro ro o
rH in rH
1
vo r« H
^ ^ CM
00 00 rH
<7 CM CM
1
VO ro o
'^ ^ rH
1
<7\ in rH
ro 00 rH
ro ro CM
1
cr» a\ CM
1
rH ro CM
1
O in CM
1
rH "«* O
o ro ro
in CM CM
CM in CM
00 ro rH
ro O H
<y\ •^ o
•K
ro in ro
1
VO -H o
les
cu ^ 0 o in
ro
II 2
VO 00 '^ •^ ro vo iH O CM
I I i
vo ro ro
I
rH in
ro
ro
r^ r^
'Si' 00 CM
00
o
o in
PO
CNJ
*
ro in
I
o
I
ro ro CM
I
o
ro
CM CN
in o CN
I
o
ro CM CM
I
o in
CM
I
ro 00 CM
in CN ro rH
^ o O CN
I
o CM CM
O O CM
VO '^ o
o ro rH
vo o
o
in CO
CM
•^ ro o
in CN O
o 00 o
vo ro o
o ro rH
VO
I I I I
vo in '^ CM
o o
I
< CQ U W fa O ffi iJ 2 2 O rH CN ro ^ a a a a
•K
in o •
V a
40
o EH
fa Oi vo i H
w ffi EH
H fa O P
D EH O H «
S " EH EH
H
2 K O EH
r- 2 ct; •H O W
ffi fa H EH h^ P:i O m O S < u < EH W
7Z W O
Q fa 2 Pi < O CQ U W W D ffi w
fa w O fa
H W 12 CJ z a PQ S fa w fa «
H
K
O
fa
C
CO fa
u
ffl
0) MH • H
12
00
CM
I
I
CM
00 00 CM
<r> ro r H
rH CM o
CN in CM
o
H
ro ro
r CN O
H ro O
vo in rH
ro CM rH
<T\ ^ rH
^ r-rH
00 00 O
r r*-o
ro in rH
00
r o
in rH o
CM rH o
ro o o
• ^
^ CM
'^ CM CM
a\ OS o
in ro O
CM O CM
CN <y\ CN
as "sr o
H in rH
CTi O O
in rH o
00 in o H
CM CM ro
in
ro
00 in o
CM
o vo
o
in o o
vo o o
in CM
V O ro o
CM o ro cr> ro CNj o o o
I I I
o in in r CM o
00 ro
ro
I
vo
o
I
vo CM
00 o
vo ro ro
I
in
I I I
CM ro CM
ro
CM o
I I I I I
CM O vo O CM ro iH O rH
O CM
o in o o ro CM CM
in vo vo
CM
V O O CM
in ro
I I
00 ^ ro
in CM rH
cr> CM rH
o in o
r-i 00 o
rH ro ro
vo vo rH
r r CM
CM O 00 o
00 ro
in
vo in CM
I
ro a\ CM
I
i n ro ro i n O CM
I
cr» r^ 00 ro iH o rH O rH
1
r vo o
* * ** vo «*
o r-rH
CM VO r H
cr> a\ o
r rH CM
CO CN rH
1
ro o r H
1
CM rH CM
ro cr» CM
1
o ro o
1
* * ^ ' ^ in
1
,
CM ro o
* vo vo ro
1
r »* CM
1
r-00 rH
<.
01
a* * •K
I I
'^ o o
ro CJ o
in ^ rH
o r>-r H
CO 00 O
•K O in ro
ro r-* o
CM CM O CM
00 00
CT\
CM
C3 a\
o
[^ CM i n i n O rH
CM
I I I I I
CO Q)
rH
o o in ro
< ffl U W fa O rH CN ro ^
K H h ^ s z o a o o o i
in o
• V Cu
41
C •H -P
O
u
w
EH
•^ Ul
rH VO o
* ro CN ro
in in rH
00 r>-o
in o rH
r • ^
o
ro a
•K a\ in ro
o ro H
in CM o
CM O
a
c
CO
(U «4-l •H
^ CTv ro rH
* o 00 ro
<T\ in o
rH CM CM
00 o CM
in 00 rH
VO CM rH
a\ rH o
in in o
rH in O rH
VO
CM
r r o
in
ro rH
'd' in o
vo 00 o
• ^
a\ CN
00 00 o
00 ro o
CT> ro o
H • ^
O
CM ro o
'a r CM
^ <r> o
CM
ro
in CM o
ro
00 vo o
in o o
CM o ro O
O
•K
*
ro CNJ 00 o
vo 00
a\ CM
vo ro
<y\ o rH
1
in r-rH
VO CM O
* 00 r ro
ro 00 CM
rH CM O
1
r 00 CM
un vo o
1
ro 00 rH
in "^ o
CM r o
1
^ CM rH
•JC O ro ro
O vo CM
1
in CM O
<y\ in H
1
O VO o
1
cr> rH rH
1
in in rH
CM vo o
rH CM rH
1
ro o o
1
* a\ CM ro
1
* CM VO ro
1
•^ 00 CM
CM <T> rH
•
r ro o
1
CM in o
r in o
in CM o
1
vo ^ CM
1
rH O o
CO
a; rH
a, 3 0 u in ro
II
S
rH 00 rH
00 o •^
o in CN
CN CM O
rH O rH
VO vo rH
VO CM rH
CM rH CM O
ro in ro
in r--o
"r in rH
o <T H
'sr vo rH
CN in o
ro r CM
00 C7 o
CN ro CN ro
CM CM O
in o o
CM H ro
<T\ ro rH
o r--o
CM o o
o CM o
rH <T\ ro
^ o in in r- r*- ^ cr> rH ro rH CM
I
ro in 00 CN ^ O H cr» ^ vo in rH vo ';r O CM O CM rH CM rH
r^ CN cr> o 00 in ^ r-» rH CM o o
* CM in in ro ^ o rH ro rH
rH 00 O 00 O rH
I I I I I I I
< f n u f a f a O f f i H rH CM ro ^
t - q s z o a o o o
V cu
in o V Cu
*
42
they tend to be better adjusted (see Table 18)
TABLE 18
T-TEST SUMMARY FOR COMPLEMENTARY SCORES ON THE 16PF
Group I Group II
16PF Factor Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t sig
A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
L
M
N
0
Ql . Q2
Q3
Q4
*p<.05 N = 70
-0.4286
0.3714
-0.4286
0.4857
0.1714
-0.3714
-0.5143
0.7143
0.0001
0.6857
-0.2857
-0.7571
-0.8857
0.8857
-0.2857
-0.4000
couples
2.747
1.986
2.547
2.120
2.684
2.522
2.331
2.204
2.169
2.518
2.771
1.999
2.784
2.643
1.964
2.862
-0.1429
-0.0571
0.2000
-0.5429
-0.4571
0.7429
-1.0571
0.2571
-0.4571
-0.6857
0.6286
0.1143
-0.4000
0.5143
-0.0286
-0.6286
2.451
2.313
3.095
2.536
2.822
2.513
3.199
2.672
2.147
2.298
2.680
3.104
2.366
2.454
2.419
3.078
0.46
-0.85
0.93
-1.84
-0.95
1.85
-0.81
-0.78
-0.89
-2.38
1.40
0.27
0.79
-0.61
0.49
0.32
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns *
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Role variables were taken from the 140 PAI protocols
and also subjected to t-tests, regression analysis, and chi
square analysis. For males, three scales proved to be sig
nificant. Scale C (Bitch-Nice Guy) (t=2.01, df=68, p<.05).
Scale E (Hawks) (t=2.07, df=68, p<.05) and Scale G (Rhythmic)
43
(t=-6.05, df=68, p^. 01) discriminated group membership. The
first two were predictive of males' membership in the non
functioning group, while the last was predictive of the
males' membership in the functioning group. These scores
are illustrated in Table 19. Chi square analysis also
showed Scale G (Rhythmic) to be significant ()( =4 0.28 563,
df=26, p<.05) and predictive of males' membership in the
functioning group, as shown in Table 20.
TABLE
T-TEST SUMMARY
19
FOR MALES' PAI SCORES
PAI Scale
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
*p<. 05 **p<.01 N = 70
One PAI
Group
Mean
22.2571
26.2286
18.8286
20.4286
10.4000
23.9143
41.2857
I
S.D.
7.853
7.658
7.217
8.085
8.321
7.204
4.944
Group
Mean
21.9714
25.1143
22.8286
17.0857
14.6571
22.1714
30.2000
scale proved predictive of
II
S.D.
8.484
8.629
9.285
7.644
8.845
8.410
9.655
t sig
-0.15
-0.57
2.01
-1.78
2.07
-0.93
-6.05
group membership
ns
ns *
ns •
ns * *
for females. Scale G (Rhythmic) (t=-5.93, df=68, p^.Ol) pre
dicted membership in the functioning group. Females' PAI
scores are illustrated in Table 21. This was supported by
44
2 the chi square analysis (X =39.49997, df=28, p/..05) as shown
in Table 22.
CHI
TABLE 20
SQUARE VALUES FOR PAI SCORES
MALES'
PAI Scale
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
*p^.05 N = 70
d.f.
30
28
28
24
25
28
26
30.
25.
36.
22.
27,
17,
40
^ 2
.26665
.99998
.39992
.99326
.58742
.99997
.28563
sig
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
*
Similarity proved to be predictive of group membership
for two scales of the PAI at the Conjunctive level. Scale E
(Hawks) (t=2.34, df=68, p- .Ol) predicted membership in the
non-functioning group, and Scale G (Rhythmic) (t=-7.70, df=68,
p .. 01) was predictive of membership in the functioning group.
Those scores are illustrated in Table 23. Regression analy
sis supported both of the above scores' significance, with
p .05 for Scale E and p .01 for Scale G, (see Table 24).
Complementarity did not prove to be significantly pre
dictive of group membership for roles as judged by the PA^
45
scores. These scores are illustrated in Table 25.
TABLE
T-TEST SUI4MARY FOR
21
FEr>lALES' PAI SCORES
PAI Sc
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
N =
ale
01 : 70
Group
Mean
19.2000
25.1714
18.2286
21.4286
9.8286
23.2857
40.1429
I c n
6.342
9.587
6.796
9.115
5.997
9.083
4.353
Group
Mean
18.1439
21.6286
19.5143
18.4286
12.7429
22.2857
30.6286
II
S.D.
6.634
7.859
6.780
7.477
6.666
7.458
8.426
-0.68
-1.69
0.83
-1.51
1.92
-0.50
-5.93
sig
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns * *
CHI SQUARE
TABLE
VALUES FOR
22
FEMALES' PAI SCORES
PAI Scale
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
*p^l.05 N = 70
d.f.
22
27
26
25
22
30
28
^ 2
24.20496
22.35234
24.39998
28.10818
32.52545
32.13318
39.49997
sig
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns *
46
T
PAI Scale
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
-TEST SUMMARY
Group
Mean
41.4571
51.4000
37.0571
41.8571
20.2286
47.3000
81.4286
*p^.05 **p<.01 N = 70 couples
TABLE 23
FOR SIMILARITY OF
I
S.D.
12.940
15.962
12.247
15.485
13.202
13.955
8.140
TABLE
Group
Mean
40.1143
46.7428
42.3438
35.5143
27.4000
44.4571
60.8286
24
REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF PAI
PAI Scale
E (Similarity-Conjunctive)
G (Similarity-Conjunctive)
*p^, **p^. N =
,05 ,01 = 7 0 couples
F
4.9367
57.6551
PAI SCORES
II
S.D.
13.357
14.720
14.282
13.127
12.455
14.435
13.572
SCORES
t
-0.43
-1.27
1.73
-1.85
2.34
-0.81
-7.70
sig
*
* *
sig
ns
ns
ns
ns *
ns • •
The relationship variables, as depicted on the 140 4RF
protocols, were subjected to the same statistical treatment
as the role variables. Virtually all of the four factors
were significant at every level of analysis with the exception
47
of the Consistency and Commensurate levels of similarity.
For both males and females individually, the PA factor
(Parental-Respect) (t=-3.32, df=68, p l.Ol, and t=-4.33,
df=68, p/^.Ol, respectively) was predictive of membership in
the functioning group. This was also true for the PR factor
(Problem Solving) (t=-3.52, df=68, p^.Ol, and t=-6.03, df=68,
p^.Ol, respectively), the ID factor (Identification) (t=-3.88,
df=68, p^. 01, and t=-4.74, df=68, p^.Ol, respectively) and
the S factor (Sexual) (t=-3.00, df=68, pz..01, and t=-5.39,
df=68, p^.Ol, respectively). The scores for males and fe
males are illustrated in Tables 26 and 27, respectively.
TABLE 25
T-TEST SUMMARY FOR COMPLEMENTARY PAI SCORES
Group I Group II
PAI Scale Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t sig
A •
B C
D
E
F
G
3.0571
1.0571
0.6000
-1.0000
0.5714
0.6286
1.1428
6.029
6.808
6.822
7.558
6.011
8.606
4.533
3.8286
3.4857
3.3143
-1.3429
1.9143
-0.1143
-0.4286
7.318
7.469
8.509
7.507
9.497
6.659
12.010
0.48
1.42
1.47
-0.19
0.71
-0.44
-0.72
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
N = 70 couples
Chi square analysis proved two 4RF scores for males to
be predictive of membership in the functioning group: the
PR factor (Problem Solving) ( ^ g, 68716, df=7 , ip/..05) , and
48
4RF Factor
PA
PR
ID
S
**pz.01 N = 70
TABLE
T-TEST SUMMARY FOR
Group
Mean
8.0571
7.6857
8.2000
7.8857
I
S.D.
0.938
0.932
0.994
0.963
26
MALES' 4RF
Group
Mean
7.1714
6.6571
6.8000
7.0000
SCORES
II
S.D.
1.272
1.454
1.891
1.455
t
-3.32
-3.52
-3.88
-3.00
sig
* *
**
* *
* *
TABLE
T-TEST SUMMARY FOR
27
FEMALES' 4RF SCORES
4RF Factor
PA
PR
ID
• S
**pz.01 N = 70
Group
Mean
8.2857
8.0286
8.2571
8.2000
I
S.D.
0.893
1.014
0.919
1.158
Group
Mean
7.0286
6.0857
6.8000
6.6571
II
S.D.
1.465
1.616
1.568
1.235
t
-4.33
-6.03
-4.74
-5.39
sig
* •
* *
* *
• *
also, the ID factor (Identification) {X'^=16,1361S, df=8,
pz.05). These and the other scores are illustrated in Table
28. For females, the chi square analysis proved three fac
tors to be predictive of membership in the functioning group.
The PR factor (Problem Solving) (X^=28.88887, df=7, pZ.Ol),
the ID factor (Identification) (7^2=21.60913, df=7, p .Ol) and
49
the S factor (Sexual) ( 2=21.38332, df=6, pZ.Ol). These are
illustrated in Table 29.
CHI SQUARE
TABLE
VALUES FOR
28
MALES' 4RF SCORES
4RF Factor
PA
PR
ID
S
*pZ.05 N = 70
d.f.
6
7
8
6
^ 2
10.74874
16.68716
16.13675
10.85983
sig
ns *
*
ns
CHI SQUARE
4RF Factor
PA
PR
ID
S
*pA.05 N = 70
TABLE
VALUES
d.f.
6
7
7
6
FOR
29 '
FEMALES' 4RF
7'2
10.95413
28.88887
21.60913
21.38332
SCORES
sig
ns *
*
*
Regression analysis shows the ID factor (Identifica
tion) for males to be predictive of membership in the func
tioning group (p^.05) as shown in Table 30, and the PR factor
(Problem Solving) for females also to be predictive of mem
bership in the functioning group (p^.Ol), likewise shown
r 0
in Table 30.
TABLE 3 0
REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF 4RF SCORES
4RF F sig
ID (for males) 4.5403 *
PR (for females) 22.8760 **
*p -.05 **p/i. 01
Similarity was predictive of membership in the func
tioning group at the Conjunctive level for all four factors
of the 4RF. For factor PA (t=-4.50, df=68, p^.01), for fac
tor PR (t=-5.90, df=68, p^.Ol), for factor ID (t=-5.02,
df=68, p^.Ol) and for factor S (t=-5.42, df=68, p^i.Ol), as
shown in Table 31. Similarity scores were not significant
at the Consistency and Commensurate levels. Complementarity
oil the PR factor proved predictive of couples' membership
in the non-functioning group (t=2.59, df=68, pz.05), as
shown in Table 32.
Only one demographic variable proved predictive of
group membership. A 2x2 chi square analysis showed that
first-born males were found significantly more often in the
functioning group, while later-born males were found sig
nificantly more often in the non-functioning group. There
was contamination in the definition of birth in this study,
as time spans between births were not delineated and certain
51
T-
4RF Factor
PA
PR
ID
S
**p/-.01 N = 70
T-
•TEST SUMMARY
Group
Mean
16.3428
15.7143
16.4571
16.0857
couples
-TEST SUMMARY
TABLE 31
OF SIMILARITY FOR
I
S.D.
1.644
1.690
1.633
1.634
TABLE
Group
Mean
14.2000
12.7429
13.6000
13.6571
32
FOR COMPLEMENTARY
4RF SCORES
II
S.D.
2.286
2.454
2.943
2.086
t
-4.50
-5.90
-5.02
-5.42
4RF SCORES
sig
**
**
• •
**
4RF Factor
PA
PR
ID •
S
*p^.05 N = 70 <
Group
Mean
-0.2286
-0.3429
-0.5710
-0.3143
:::ouples
I
S.D.
0.808
0.968
0.998
1.367
Group
Mean
0.1429
0.5714
0.0100
0.3429
II
S.D.
1.517
1.852
1.847
1.714
t
1.28
2.59
0.16
1.77
sig
ns *
ns
ns
persons could have been raised as if he were in another birth
order position, depending on the ages of his siblings. No
other demographic variables were significant, contrary to
previous findings. See Tables 33 and 34 for these.
Figures 2, 3 and 4 illustrate the mean profiles for
males and females in both groups for the PAI, the 4RF and
52
the 16PF, respectively.
TABLE 33
CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR MALES' DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Demographic Variables
Age
Ethnicity
Religion
Education
Salary
Length of Marriage
Prior Marriages
Lived Together
Children in Family of Origin
Birth Order
d.f.
28
3
4
6
20
23
2
1
7
6
72
27.99997
3.28087
8.13818
8.28225
31.60475
23.43808
0.07843
0.07224
7.91025
8.77957
sig
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
N = 70
TABLE 34
CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR FEMALES' - DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Demographic Variable
Age
Ethnicity
Religion
Education
Prior Marriages
Children in Family of Origin
Birth Order
d.f.
26
3
4
5
2
8
5
i' 21.33331
3.81587
4.08798
6.48403
0.07843
11.16666
5.21142
sig
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
N = 70
53
Complementary
Mother- -Daddy- Bitch- Master-Son Doll Nice Guy Servant
Symmetrical
70
Hawks Doves
Rhythmic
Person-Person
70
40 40
30
Group I Males _ Group I Females
30
Group II Males - O - O Group II Females — X—X
Fig. 2—Male and Female PAI Scores
10
54
8 \ /
''•—X -VCr- »fc •
Group I Males Group I Females - -
Group II Males - o- o Group II Females—X-X
Fig. 3.—Male and Female 4RF Scores
55
Reserved
Less Intelligent
Affected by Feelings
Humble
Sober
Expedient
Shy
Tough-Minded
Trusting
Practical
Forthright
Self-Assured
Conservative
Grpup-Dependent
Undisciplined Self-Conflict
Relaxed
Group I Males
10
'^ « . . . Outgoing
\ More Intelligent
Emotionally Stable
Assertive
Happy-go-Lucky
^^y . . . . Conscientious
\
h
Group I Females - - -
t • . . . Venturesome
Tender-Minded
Suspicious
Imaginative
Shrewd
Apprehensive
Experimenting
Self-sufficient
Controlled
Tense
Group II Males — 0 — O Group II Females «X-*X
Fig. 4.—16PF Profiles for Groups I and II
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Several interesting conclusions arise from the results
of this study. Some concern the very concept of marriage
itself, the historic argument between complementarity and
similarity, equalitarian versus institutional marriages,
whereas others apply to the use of specific instruments in
conjunction with marital and pre-marital counseling.
Most dramatic is the fact that there was virtually no
significant pattern of personality which emerged for either
the functioning or the non-functioning group. Contrary to
the findings of Cattell and others, this study could not
identify individual personality traits which would predict
marital adjustment, with a few exceptions: non-functioning
males tended to be more conservative, and non-functioning
females tended to be affected more easily by feelings than
their counterparts in the functioning group; also, func
tioning males tended to be more tender-minded, and func
tioning females tended to be more conscientious than their
counterparts in the non-functioning group. Also, func
tioning couples appear to consist of persons of higher
intelligence than non-functioning couples, lending support
to prior findings that intelligent people seek each other
as marital partners. 56
57
Some interesting results were found in the investiga
tion of the off-diagonal correlations for the personality
traits. This type of comparison would indicate a "toler
ance" factor among spouses which would contribute to an
exchange of traits in the spouses' interactions. Cattell
and Nesselroade (1967, 1968) refer to this as an "exchange"
principle, the effect of which is what persons seek, in a
free, competitive situation, to marry someone who possesses
to a greater degree those qualities which they possess and
value.
The functioning couples demonstrated a high level of
this tolerance, with 27 of the 240 possible correlations
attaining significant levels. Some of the more interesting
combinations are as follows: both intelligent men and women
marry self-assured, secure spouses (B and 0-, 0- and B) ;
liberal, experimenting men marry self-assured, secure women;
however, liberal women marry apprehensive, insecure men.
Stated otherwise, it appears that guilt-prone men seek in
their wives an experimenting attitude that they do not af
ford themselves, but that liberal men seek self-assured
wives {Q^ and 0-, 0 and Q^). Intelligent women also marry
emotionally stable men who are relaxed and unfrustrated
(C and B, Q4- and B). Emotionally stable men seek out se
cure women (C and 0-); as do assertive, dominant men (E and
0-). Moralistic men marry serious-minded women (G and F-),
and imaginative, unconventional men marry women who are both
58
self-assured and self-sufficient. Self-sufficient men marry
emotionally stable women who are both self-assured and re
laxed. These correlations and others are illustrated in
Table 17.
Only chance occurrence of significance was attained in
the non-functioning group with 12 of the 240 possible cor
relations reaching significant levels. Apparently, the ex
change and tolerance that exists in thriving marriages does
not exist in marriages experiencing difficulties, and in
fact, one might conjecture that without that tolerance, the
marriage is more likely to be unsatisfactory. The cross-
trait correlations for the non-functioning group are illus
trated in Table 16.
The essence of the findings for the two groups of cou
ples is as follows: functioning couples are comprised of
first-born men who are highly tender-minded and sensitive.
They see their relationships with their wives as having no
rigid role boundaries, with a high rhythmic, non-manipulative
quality to them. These men feel a confidence about their
marital relationships which allows them to enter a recip
rocal dependency agreement with their wives, each allowing
the other to "let down" periodically with full support from
the spouse. They are goal-oriented within the relationships
and are able to control impulses in order to accomplish
goals. They share many interests and concerns with their
wives, mirroring the values and morals to which their wives
59
ascribe. Finally, they identify a high level of affectional
and sexual satisfaction in their marriages.
The women of the functioning group are conscientious
and moralistic (show high superego strength), and mirror
their husbands percepts of the relationships. They also
feel that there is a healthy dependency evident in their
marriages, have entered into a goal-oriented agreement with
their husbands, minimize selfish needs, identify highly with
the values and morals of their mates, and finally, also
perceive a highly satisfactory environment for affectional
and sexual expression in their marriages.
The marriages in the functioning group tend to be
similar rather than complementary in terms of personality,
role and relationship traits and needs. As stated above,
the couples tend to mirror each other's values and morals
and enjoy a healthy, non-manipulative relationship. These
findings support earlier studies by Watzlawick, et. al. ,
who found similar or "symmetrical" couples to be more stable,
and Cattell and Nesselroade (1967, 1968), Lederer and Jack
son (1968), and others who found similarity of needs to
contribute to marital adjustment. Shostrom's (1972) concept
of the "rhythmic" relationship, in which there is consider
able flexibility without neurotic, manipulative goals proves
to be an essential element in the functioning marriage. Sup
port also is given to the research of Bernard (1972), O'Neill
and O'Neill (1972), and others who have written about the
60
trend away from the institutional marriage and toward equali-
tarianism within marriage.
Non-functioning marriages consist of later-born men
who are conservative and tradition-bound. They view them
selves as being the weaker of the two spouses, but use this
weakness in a controlling manner to manipulate their wives.
They also identify a strong competitive component in their
relationships, which contributes to the overall manipula
tive quality of the marriage.
The women of the non-functioning group are affected by
their feelings (show lower ego strength) and are easily up
set. Otherwise, they do not differ significantly from the
women of the functioning group. As a couple, both spouses
in the non-functioning group view the destructive competi
tiveness as their most prominent role conflict. They di
verge on goal-orientedness, that is, one is willing and able
to accomplish goals at the expense of self-sacrifice, while
the other is not willing to do so.
Contrary to previous studies reported by Hicks and
Piatt (197 0), demographic variables were not important in
distinguishing functioning from non-functioning marriages.
The only exception to this was birth order for men, as noted
previously in the comparison of the two types of marriages.
The implications for pre-marital and marital counsel
ing are numerous. Discernment of potential marital conflict
based on demographic items, such as family income.
61
educational level, religion, and birth order of wives is not
practicable. Marked difficulty also exists in predicting
the outcome of a marriage based on the individual person
alities of the spouses, although there is tentative proof
that males will be better adjusted in marriage if they are
more sensitive, and that females will be better adjusted
in marriage if they are conscientious and moralistic. Con
servative males are more likely to experience marital dif
ficulties, as are emotionally unstable females.
Potential spouses should be cautioned of likely con
flicts if both of them do not share in the willingness to
check individual impu] ses for the sake of the relationship.
Also, potential danger exists if they carry pre-determined
roles into the marriage that preclude flexibility and com
munication. It does appear that couples with similar needs
and traits have a better chance at marital adjustment, and
that the more equalitarian their relationship is, the better
chance they have as a married couple. Their chances of
marital adjustment are also increased when they allow each
other to be dependent in a healthy fashion and when they
identify with each other's values and morals. Finally,
affectional and sexual needs are of major importance in
marital adjustment.
Marital counselors would do well to encourage an equali
tarian approach to marriage, emphasizing open communication
and expression of affection. Situational variables do not
62
appear to be important, and if the affectional needs of the
couple are not met, marital conflict appears inevitable.
Roles within the marriage may be detrimental to the rela
tionship, especially if the relationship lacks a total
rhythmic quality.
Concerning the instruments used in the study, the 4RF
appears to emerge as an excellent source of differentiation
between functioning and non-functioning marriages. All of
its factors attained significant differences between the
two groups at virtually every level of comparison. The
reader is cautioned, however, that the likelihood of overlap
between the factors and the possibility of a general factor
being involved may have contaminated these results. Scores
for both males and females were significantly higher in the
functioning group. This was also true for their combined
scores, which showed similarity at a conjunctive level.
For complementary scores, however, the only significant
factor was the Identification factor, which showed higher
divergence in the non-functioning group. Based on the results
of this study, it appears that the 4RF should be included
as an aid to the marriage counselor in his efforts to guide
couples in decisions about their relationships.
The 16PF was virtually ineffective in discriminating
between the individual personalities of the spouses in the
two groups. There were six exceptions to this, and two of
those were held to be tentative due to the large number of
63
variables analyzed. Also, no differences in the correlations
of personality traits of the two spouses could be found be
tween the two groups.
Although not all of the scales of the PAI proved to be
predictive of group membership, it appears that as Shostrom
(1972) has stated, the Rhythmic scale is an excellent mea
sure of currently functioning marriages. He holds the
Rhythmic scale to be the most relevant scale for measuring
general differences in what he terms "actualization", and
this study provides validity for his construct, based on the
wide differences in scores between the two groups. The PAI
continues to appear to be a very useful tool for the mar
riage counselor.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
marital relationship in terms of some of the specific issues
related to success and failure of marriages. Two groups
were defined as functioning and non-functioning and the mar
ried couples in each of these groups were compared as to
individual, complementary and similar levels of personality
(as shown on the 16PF) , roles (as shown on the PAI) and re
lationships (as shown on the 4RF) variables. Demographic
variables for each group were also compared.
It was hypothesized that couples in the functioning
group of married couples could be significantly discrimi
nated from those couples in the non-functioning group based
on the above variables. The three aforementioned instru
ments, the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF),
the Pair Attraction Inventory (PAI) and the Four Relationship
Factors (4RF) test were given to a sample of subjects drawn
from private and public sources in the Dallas, Texas area.
It was found that the hypothesis for individual vari
ables was confirmed for the G (Rhythmic) scale of the PAI
and the four factors on the 4RF. The hypothesis for com
plementarity was not confirmed. The hypothesis for similarity
64
65
was confirmed for the G (Rhythmic) scale of the PAI and the
factors of the 4RF. The demographic hypothesis was not con
firmed except for birth order of males. The functioning
couples scored significantly higher on the G (Rhythmic)
scale of the PAI and the four factors of the 4RF, both in
dividually and as a couple. Functioning couples tended to
be more symmetrical than non-functioning couples, and more
like the egalitarian couple described by Burgess and Locke
(1945) . There were tentative personality differences be
tween the men and women of the two groups, but no major
pattern emerged. The 4RF and the PAI continue to appear to
be excellent tools for use in the marriage counseling
setting.
Weaknesses of this study involved a selection process
which was arbitrary due to time and geographical limita
tions; the fact that the 16PF did not attain more signifi
cance indicates that another personality instrument possibly
should have been used; the consistently significant findings
for the four factors of the 4RF may indicate the presence of
overlap or a general factor that is being tapped; a larger
N could have been used; and behavioral observations, rather
than sole reliance on self-report instruments could have
been used.
Further investigation of the PAI and the 4RF as tools
for marriage counseling should be done, possibly with a wider
range of ethnic groups and with more emphasis on the use of
66
behavioral observations to compare with the scores on the
instruments. This also could be accomplished in a setting
where the differences between the institutional and egali
tarian marriage could be compared more behaviorally.
REFERENCES
Baldwin, L. L. Theories of Child Development. New York: Wiley, 196T: ' " —
Benjamin, L. S. "Structural Analysis of Social Behavior," Psychological Review, 1974, Vol. 81, No. 5, 392-425.
Bernard, J. S. The Future of Marriage. New York: Bantam Books, 1972.
Blazer, J. A. "Complementary Needs and Marital Happiness," Marriage and Family Living, 1963, pp. 89-95.
Burgess, E. W. , & Locke, H. J. The Family. New York: American Book Company, 1945.
Burgess, E. W. , & Wallin, P. Engagement and Mr.rriage. Philadelphis: J. B. Lippencott, 1953.
Carson, R. C. Interaction Concepts of Personality. Chicago: Adline, 1969.
Cattell, R. B. Personality: A Systematic Theoretical and Factual Study. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.
Cattell, R. B. , & Eber, H. W. "The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire," Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1962.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W. , & Tatsuoka, M. M. "Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)," Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1970.
Cattell, R. B., & Nesselroade, J. R. "Likeness and Completeness Theories Examined by Sixteen Personality Factor Measures on Stably and Unstably Married Couples," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, pp. 351-361.
Cattell, R. B., & Nesselroade, J. R. "Note on Analyzing Personality Relations in Married Couples," Psychological Reports, 1968, pp. 381-382.
67
68
Chance, E. "Content Analysis of Verbalizations about Interpersonal Experience," In L. Gottschalk, and A. Auerback Methods of Research in Psychotherapy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1967.
Cottrell, L. "Interpersonal Interaction in the Development of Self," Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1971.
Dean, D. G. "Emotional Maturity and Marital Adjustment," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966, pp. 454-457.
Feffer, M. "Developmental Analysis of Interpersonal Behavior," Psychological Review, 1970, pp. 197-214.
Felker, D. W. , & Thomas, S. B. "Self-Initiated Verbal Reinforcement and Positive Self-Concept," Child Development, 1971, pp. 2185-2187.
Foa, U. G. "Convergence in the Analysis of the Structure of Interpersonal Behavior," Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(15, Whole No. 623).
Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. Americans View Their Mental Health. New York: Basic Books, 1960.
Heer, D. M. "Dominance and the Working Wife," Social Forces, 1958, pp. 341-347.
Herber, E. W. , Gelfand, D. M., & Hartman, D. P. "Imitation and Self-Esteem as Determinants of Self-Critical Behavior," Child Development, 1969, pp. 421-430.
Hicks, M. W., & Piatt, M. "Marital Happiness and Stability: A Review of the Research of the Sixties," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1970, pp. 553-574.
Hoffman, L. W. "Parental Power Relations and the Division of Household Tasks," Marriage and Family Living, 1960, pp. 27-35.
Katz, I., Blucksberg, S., & Krauss, R. "Need Satisfaction and Edwards PPS Scores in Married Couples, Journal ot Consulting Psychology, 1960, pp. 205-208.
Lawlis, G. F. "The Four Relationship Factors Test," Wichita, Kansas: Test Systems, Inc., 1972.
69
Lawlis, G. F. The Quality of Relationship as a Part of the Therapeutic Process: A Simple Structure Solution. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Dallas, 1973.
Leary, T. Interpesonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: The Ronald Press, 1957.
Lederer, W. J., & Jackson, D. D. The Mirages of Marriage. New York: Norton, 1968.
Lively, E. L. "Toward a Concept Clarification: the Case of Marital Interaction," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, pp. 49-54.
Mowrer, E. The Family, Its Organization and Disorganization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932.
Mueller, W. J. "Patterns of Behavior and Their Reciprocal Impact in the Family and in Psychotherapy," Journal of Counseling Psychology Monograph, 1969.
Murstein, B. I. "The Complementary Need Hypothesis in Newlyweds and Middle-Aged Married Couples," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1961, pp. 194-197.
O'Neill, N., & O'Neill, G. Open Marriage. New York: Avon Books, 197 2.
Plateris, A. A. Divorce Statistics Analysis, United States, 1963. (USPHS Serires 21, No. 13), October. Washington, D. C : United States Government Printing Office, 1967.
Popenoe, P. "Can the Family Have Two Heads?," Sociology and Social Research, 1933, pp. 12-17.
Rapoport, R., Rapoport, R., & Thiessen, V. "Couple Symmetry and Enjoyment," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1974, pp. 588-591.
Scanzoni, J. Sexual Bargaining: Power Politics in the American Marriage. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Schaefer, E. S. "A Configural Analysis of Children's Reports of Parent Behavior," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, pp. 552-557.
Shostrom, E. L. "The Pair Attraction Inventory," San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1971.
70
Shostrom, E. L. "Manual for the Pair Attraction Inventory," San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1972.
Sullivan, H. S. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: W. Norton, 1953.
Toman, W. "The Duplication Theorem of Social Relationships as Tested in the General Population," Psychological Review, 1971, pp. 380-390.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. Pragmatics of Human Communications. New York: W. Norton, 1967.
Winch, R. Mate-Selection. New York: Harper and Row, 1958.
Young, M. , & Willmott, P. The Symmetrical Family. New York: Pantheon, 1973.
APPENDIX
MARRIAGE QUESTIONNAIRE
Couple number: Husband Wife Age
Length of present marriage yrs months
Have you been married before? yes no
How many times?
What religion are you? Catholic Protestant
Jewish Other (Specify)
To which ethnic group do you belong? Negro Anglo
Mexican-American Indian-American Other (Specify)
How long did you know your spouse before you married?
Did you live together before you married? yes no
How many children were there in your family (including you)?
Where were you in relation to the others (oldest, youngest, only child, etc.)?
Have you ever separated from your spouse due to problems?
yes no
What is your family income? .per
How much education have you had? (Please check one)
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
Some graduate work
Graduate degree (specify)
71
