A Study of the Relationship between Marital Expectations

Western Michigan University Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

8-1986

A Study of the Relationship between Marital Expectations and A Study of the Relationship between Marital Expectations and

Satisfaction for First Married and Remarried Couples on Factors Satisfaction for First Married and Remarried Couples on Factors

Extracted from Two Marital Adjustment Scales Extracted from Two Marital Adjustment Scales

Daniel K. Ehnis Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Counseling Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Ehnis, Daniel K., "A Study of the Relationship between Marital Expectations and Satisfaction for First Married and Remarried Couples on Factors Extracted from Two Marital Adjustment Scales" (1986). Dissertations. 2297. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2297

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grad

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2297&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1268?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2297&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2297?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2297&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]



A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARITAL EXPECTATIONS AND SATISFACTION FOR FIRST MARRIED AND REMARRIED

COUPLES ON FACTORS EXTRACTED FROM TWO MARITAL ADJUSTMENT SCALES

byDaniel K. Ehnis

v i r -

A Dissertation Submitted to the

Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education

Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan

August 1986

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARITAL EXPECTATIONS AND SATISFACTION FOR FIRST MARRIED AND REMARRIED

COUPLES ON FACTORS EXTRACTED FROM TWO MARITAL ADJUSTMENT SCALES

Daniel K. Ehnis, Ed.D.Western Michigan University, 1986

The primary purpose of this study was to establish the construct validity of the Marital Comparison Level Index (MCLI), an instrument designed by Sabatelli (1984) to assess the degree to which married individuals' outcomes compare with their marital expectations. A subordinate goal was to examine the relationship between expectations and satisfaction in marriage.

To accomplish these goals, the factorial content of the MCLI was compared with the factor structure of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), a well-validated measure of marital satisfaction. Responses of 170 married individuals on both scales were factor analyzed using a principal components analysis with varimax rotation in separate and combined factor analyses. Factor scores were computed to compare differences between first married and remarried individuals on factors extracted from the MCLI and DAS. Correlation coefficients were also obtained to determine the degree of relationship between expectations and satisfaction for the same individuals.


Factor analyses of the MCLI and DAS revealed that the scales have similar factor structures. The combined rotation of both instruments identified five factors: AffectionalExpression, Agreement, Compatibility, Household Responsibility, and Commitment. Although the factorial composition of the MCLI and DAS are similar, they measure these constructs differently. No significant differences were found between the mean factor scores of first married and remarried individuals on factors extracted from both adjustment scales.

The results of the study suggest that the MCLI is a valid instrument for assessing marital expectations. Furthermore, correlation coefficients between MCLI apd DAS scores empirically demonstrate the positive relationship between marital expectations and satisfaction. Thus, the MCLI has the potential to become a valuable tool for clinicians by providing a simple and accurate means for assessing specific expectations and complaints in marriage.


INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a manuscript sent to us for publication and m icrofilm ing. W hile the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any manuscript may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. Manuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain missing pages, a note appears to indicate this.

2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the manuscript, a note appears to indicate this.

3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections w ith small overlaps. Each oversize page is also film ed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or in black and white paper format.*

4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, all photographs are available in black and white standard 35mm slide form at.*

*For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions, please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

UMI Dissertation Information Service

University Microfilms InternationalA Bell & Howell Information Company300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Micfiigan 48106

Reproduced witti permission of ttie copyrigfit owner. Furtfier reproduction profiibited witfiout permission.


8624324

Ehnis, D an ie l K.

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARITAL EXPECTATIONS AND SATISFACTION FOR FIRST MARRIED AND REMARRIED COUPLES ON FACTORS EXTRACTED FROM TWO MARITAL ADJUSTMENT SCALES

Western Michigan University Ed.D. 1986

University Microfilms

I nternetione! æo N. zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1987

by

Ehnis, Daniel K.

All Rights Reserved



PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. Giossy photographs or pages.

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3. Photographs with dark background____

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page.

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages t X

8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print.

11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school orauthor.

12. Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages_____

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received

16. Other ________________________________________________________________

UniversityMicrofiims

internationai



©1987

DANIEL K. EHNIS

Ail Rights Reserved


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First I would like to thank my committee chairman, Dr. Gilbert Mazer, who contributed immeasurably to this research. His support, tolerance, and accessibility from inception to completion are sincerely appreciated.

Thanks are also due to the members of my doctoral committee. Dr. Robert Brashear, Dr. Malcolm Robertson, and Dr. Edward Trembley for their assistance and advice throughout this study.

1 am personally indebted to those who assisted me in collecting and processing the data for this research. I am especially thankful to Jill Van Ryn who worked so diligently with me in typing the dissertation and its many drafts.

Heartfelt thanks are given to my parents and personal family who extended support and understanding during this undertaking. I thank Doris, my wife and partner, for a very satisfying marriage and her unflagging support. To my daughter Ashley, I wish to express my love and it is my hope that this accomplishment will serve as an inspiration for her to strive toward formal education and pursuit of knowledge. Finally, I thank the Lord for giving me the ability to accomplish this task.

Daniel K. Ehnis

IX


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................... iiLIST OF TABLES . . ............................ viiLIST OF F I G U R E S ..................viiiCHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1Statement of the Problem ..................... 1Theoretical Model ............................ 2

Social Exchange ............................ 2Purpose of the S t u d y ..................... 8Need and Significance of the S t u d y ...... 8

Understanding Perceptual Differences . . . . 9Criteria for Marital Assessment Tools . . . 10Importance of Construct Validity . . . . . . 11

Definition of T e r m s ...................... 13Organization of the S t u d y ................14

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................... 15Marital Expectations ......................... 15

Sex Differences: Marital Expectations . . . 19Marital Satisfaction ......................... 21

Conceptualization and Definition ........... 21Assessing Marital Satisfaction ............. 24Factor Analysis: Testing the Definition . . 25

iii


Table of Contents--ContinuedCHAPTER

Major Factors Affecting Marital Satisfaction . 27Sex Differences: Marital Satisfaction . . . . 31

Remarriage......................................... 33Marital Expectations: Remarriage . ........ 34Marital Satisfaction: Remarriage ........... 36

S u m m a r y ........................................... 38III. METHODS and PROCEDURES............................ 40

Research Instruments .......................... 40Marital Comparison Level Index ............. 40Dyadic Adjustment Scale . . . . . ' ........... 42

Sampling and Data Collection....................46Data Analysis .......................... 47

Factor Analysis ............................ 48Factor Scores .............................. 48Correlational Analyses . . . . . . ........ 49

Limitations.....................................49S u m m a r y ......................................... 50

IV. R E S U L T S ........................................... 51Review of Information Regarding Data ........ 51

Respondent Characteristics ................. 51Analysis of Data ........................54Description of Data: M C L I ....................55Description of Data: D A S ....................56

iv


Table of Contents--ContinuedCHAPTER

Correlational Analyses ....................... 57Factor Analyses ................................ 58

Factor Analysis of the M C L I ................... 58Factor Analysis of D A S ......................... 62Combined Factor Analysis of the MCLI and DAS . 65Analysis of Factor Scores ................... 71S u m m a r y .........................................72

V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 79Discussion.......................................79

Factor Structure of M C L I ..................... 79Factor Structure of D A S .....................82Combined Factor Structure of theMCLI and D A S .................................. 83

Conclusions.................................... 83How Does the Factor Structure of the MCLI Compare to the Factor Structure of the D A S ? .................................. 83Are There Any Significant Differences in the Mean Scores of First Married and Remarried Individuals on Factors Extracted From the MCLI and D A S ? ............. 85What is the Degree of RelationshipBetween MCLI and DAS Scores Among FirstMarried and Remarried Individuals? ........ 85

Summary and Recommendations ................. 86

V


Table of Contents--Continued

A P P E N D I C E S ..................................... 89A. Materials Distributed to Participants . . 90B. Letters of Permission to Reproduce

Instruments................................ 100C. Descriptive Statistics of First Married

and Remarried Individuals ............... 103D. Scattergram and Pearson "r" Calculations . 113

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... 116

vi


LIST OF TABLES

1.

2 .3.4.5.

6 .

7.

8 .

9.

10.

11.12.

13.

14.15.16.

17.

18.

Descriptive Characteristics of Males and Females or Total Group in Percentage and Frequency ................................Rotated Factor Structure of the MCLI . . . .Rotated Factor Structure of the DAS . . . .Rotated Factor Structure of the MCLI and DASMeans and Standard Deviations for MCLI Factor Scores of First Married and Remarried CouplesMeans and Standard Deviations for MCLI Factor Scores of First Married and Remarried MalesMeans and Standard Deviations for MCLI Factor Scores of First Married and Remarried FemalesMeans and Standard Deviations for DAS Factor Scores of First Married and Remarried CouplesMeans and Standard Deviations for DAS Factor Scores of First Married and Remarried Males .Means and Standard Deviations for DAS Factor Scores of First Married and Remarried FemalesSample Summary Data for MCLI and DAS Scales .Means and Standard Deviations of MCLI Scores for First Married and Remarried Individuals .Means and Standard Deviations of DAS Scores for First Married and Remarried Individuals .Item Summary Data for MCLI Scale Item Summary Data for DAS Scale ,Correlation of MCLI with DAS for First Married and Remarried Couples .......................Correlation of MCLI with DAS for First Married and Remarried Males .........................Correlation of MCLI with DAS for First Married and Remarried Females .......................

52596368

73

74

75

76

77

78 106

107

108 109 111

115

115

115

Vll


LIST OF FIGURES

1. Skree Test for Eigenvalues........................ 662. Bar Graph of MCLI Scores for Total Group . . . . 1043. Bar Graph of DAS Scores for Total G r o u p .......... 1054. Typical Scattergram Showing Relationship

Between MCLI and DAS Scores.......................114

Vlll


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

During the past twenty years, the marriage and family literature has been dominated by the study of marital satisfaction. This concept is so vague and ill defined that some writers (Donohue & Ryder, 1982; Lively, 1969) have urged researchers to turn their attention elsewhere and investigate better articulated constructs. However, this advice has been largely ignored. More than four hundred studies which used marital adjustment, happiness, or satisfaction as criterion variables were identified in a recent computer search by Rogers and Sharpley (1984).

The focus of many of these studies has been directed toward the examination of factors related to marital satisfaction. One of these factors, congruence of expectations and performance, has been regarded as significantly affecting marital satisfaction (Burr, 1971; Grafton, 1979; Ort, 1950). In fact, Lenthall (1977) theorized that marital satisfaction is a function of the congruence between one's marital expectations and one's marital outcomes. However, the majority of studies pertaining to expect at ions/enactment have lacked sufficient empirical evidence to validate theoretical constructs. Instruments are

1


2

needed to assess expectations that are theoretically grounded, clearly operationalized, and psychometrically sound.

A major purpose of the present study was to establish the construct validity of the Marital Comparison Level Index (MCLI), an instrument recently designed by Sabatelli (1984) to be "theoretically grounded in exchange theory and to assess a particular aspect of the perception of one's marital relationship, i.e., the degree to which the outcomes derived from the relationship, in a number of marital areas, are measuring up to one’s expectations" (p. 651). To accomplish this purpose, the factor structure of the MCLI was examined empirically and compared with the factorial composition of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), a widely used measure of marital satisfaction designed by Spanier (1976). The rationale underlying the construction of the MCLI and social exchange theory is presented in the next section.

Theoretical Model

Social Exchange

Social psychological exchange theories (Homans, 1961; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) provide a useful framework for examining the progress of social relationships. These theories are concerned with the interactions that take place between groups and/or individuals. A basic premise of exchange theory proposes that


individuals view their social relationships in terms of a profit motive. After carefully weighing the rewards and costs, a person chooses one relationship over another because it offers a more profitable outcome.

According to Homans (1974), social relationships are similar to business transactions; people are attracted to those who reward them and repelled by those who are a burden. However, he is quick to emphasize that social exchange, which often includes intangible services, does not have the impersonality of the economic market. This is demonstrated by his concept of "distributive justice," which refers to the individual's expectations that rewards in the relationship will be proportionate to the amount of energy invested in it. In other words, distributive justice is the individual's perception that the exchanges in his/her relationships are fair, equitable, and just. Since the failure of an expected reward leads to anger and resentment, people learn to pursue activities which are rewarded by the attainment of justice and avoid those that involve unfair exchanges.

Kelley and Thibaut (1978) and Thibaut and Kelley (1959) have analyzed the subjective process used in calculating rewards and costs in the relationship. They note that the final outcome (rewards and costs) of an interaction must always be evaluated with reference to the individual's expectations. This evaluation consists of two basic processes. The first process, the individual's Comparison


Level (CL), is defined as a "standard by which individuals evaluate the rewards and costs of a given relationship in terms of what they feel they deserve" (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959, p. 21). The CL is determined by outcomes in past interpersonal relationships and perception of relationships through direct observations. This information provides a reference point in evaluating a present relationship. The CL is a mid-point occurring where a relationship is neither satisfying or dissatisfying. Thus, outcomes above the CL are perceived to be pleasant while outcomes below the CL are perceived to be unpleasant.

The Comparison Level of Alternatives (CL alt) is the next process which explains why people form or maintain relationships. A CL alt is "the lowest level of outcomes a member will accept in the light of alternative opportunities" (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959, p. 21). Whenever an individual perceives that better alternatives exist, he/she will leave, or be tempted to leave, the present relationship for the alternative that proves a better reward-cost outcome.

Outcomes at or above the CL are, by definition, satisfactory to the individual and alternatives are seldom sought. Conversely, persons whose outcomes are below their CL will be inclined to search for other alternatives. If better alternatives are not found, one will reluctantly remain in the relationship. However, "if better alternatives become available, individuals will leave the relationship regardless


5

of whether it is below, at, or above their CL” (Nye, 1979, p. 3).

According to Thibaut and Kelley (1959), the individual's degree of attraction to the relationship depends on the level of outcomes relative to the CL. At the same time, the degree of dependence on the current relationship is determined by the perceived outcomes and the CL alt. Sabatelli (1984) concludes :

By comparing the outcomes derived from a relationship (the relative amount of rewards minus costs) to a person's CL and CL alt, we receive some insight into the degree of satisfaction and dependence experienced in the relationships and thus, some insight into the stability of the relationships, (p.634)Thibaut and Kelley's (1959) social exchange paradigm has

been utilized in the study of marital relationships. Most research (Lewis & Spanier, 1979, 1982; Nye, 1979, 1982) has focused on the issue of marital satisfaction and stability. Nye (1979) found the CL and CL alt, to be useful concepts in explaining the apparent paradox that exists in many marriages.

For example, some couples have no intention to terminate their relationship even though they are dissatisfied with it. Similarly, other couples may express satisfaction with their marriage but choose to discontinue it. Nye (1979) used a fourfold classification system to study this complex interaction between marital satisfaction and marital stability. The four categories of marriage were; (1) happy,


6Stable; (2) happy, unstable; (3) unhappy, unstable; (4) unhappy, stable. A stable marriage was defined as a relationship not terminating in divorce or a voluntary permanent separation.

Spouses in a happy, stable marriage (Type 1) perceive their outcomes at or above their CL. In addition, they have not encountered any satisfactory alternatives to the relationship that would cause them to contemplate leaving it.

Couples in a happy, unstable marriage, also report outcomes above their CL. However, their social contacts at work, in organizations, and in other situations are viewed as offering more attractive alternatives (more rewards and/or fewer costs) than their present relationship..

In Type 3 marriages (unhappy, unstable), couples' outcomes are below their CL. Other alternatives, single status and/or remarriage, appear superior to the marriage so divorce or separation occurs.

Individuals in unhappy, but stable marriages (Type 4), have outcomes below their CL but not above their CL alt. Thus, a relationship, which is minimally rewarding may be quite stable and persistent if the individuals perceive that the probability of remarrying or being single is not a satisfying alternative. Furthermore, some anticipate the consequences of leaving the relationship--financial loss, criticism of family and friends, guilt, loneliness, opposition of a church--too costly.


7The subjective processes by which spouses evaluate their

marriage is indeed a complex issue. It is possible for both partners to enter the marriage contract with rewards above the CL and CL alt. At any point over time, the CL and CL alt may increase or decrease, thereby affecting the degree of satisfaction with the marriage. For example, a wife may complain about the lack of affection she is receiving from her husband. The husband may not be any less affectionate; instead, his wife has increased her expectations of him. The wife's CL has increased, changing the minimum acceptable reward level as a result of her increased investment in the relationships (Sabatelli, 1984).

According to Schindler and Vollmer (1984), social exchange theory assumes the existence of higher order cognitive structures in evaluating outcomes in marriage. Expectations concerning ideal spouse, concept of marriage, and concept of self contribute to the process of calcuating rewards and costs in the relationship.

Sabatelli (1984) also stresses the importance of expectations in contributing to marital happiness. He states:

Any attempt to assess an individual's perception of his or her marital relationship must take into account the expectation level. If no account of the expectation level is taken, as is true of the marital adjustment/quality instruments, then the degree of agreement with some statement, or the assessment of how frequently some marital act occurs, becomes hard to evaluate in terms of its importance to the evaluation of the marriage, (p.654)


Purpose of the Study

The purposes of this study were twofold: (1) to establish the construct validity of the Marital Comparison Level Index (MCLI), a measure of marital expectations, and (2) to investigate the relationship between these expectations and marital satisfaction for first married and remarried individuals. The study was concerned with obtaining information on a variety of variables in order to enhance the development and evaluation of marital adjustment measures. Specifically, answers were sought for the following research questions:

1. How does the factor structure of the MCLI compare to the factor structure of the DAS?

2. Are there any significant differences in the mean scores of first married and remarried individuals on factors extracted from the MCLI and DAS?

3. What is the degree of relationship between MCLI and DAS scores among first married and remarried individuals?

Need and Significance of the Study

In order for the MCLI to be useful as a research and clinical tool, it needs to be demonstrated that it assists marriage counselors in understanding spouses' perceptual differences in expectations, meets acceptable criteria as an assessment tool, and manifests high construct validity.


Understanding Perceptual Differences

Until recently, both researchers and counselorsemphasized external factors associated with maritalsatisfaction and distress. Internal factors (i.e., cognitiveand perceptual differences) were subject to methodologicalweaknesses and viewed as impediments to successful therapy(Stuart, 1969). Nonetheless, there is evidence thatindicates cognitive/perceptual factors are important incontributing to marital happiness (Braiker & Kelly, 1979).

Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers (1976) claim thatsubjective aspects of the marital experience are the keys tounderstanding different levels of marital satisfaction sincestudies demonstrate that personal characteristics such asage, educational level, income, and so on, account for verylittle variance in marital satisfaction. They state:

It is only when we consider the subjective experience of married people that we begin to account for significant amounts of the variations in their satisfactions with their marriages. A knowledge of the personal characteristics of the individual adds relatively little to this explanation. (p. 331)One important first step in helping distressed couples

is to understand perceptual differences in expectations priorto focusing on communication and problem solving skills at thebehavior level. A significant theoretical advance wasprovided by Sager (1976) who reported that many maritalproblems stem from different "contracts" that couples bringto the relationship . These "contracts" are essentially a way


10of describing the couples' expectations about theirrelationship, specifically in terms of what they want to give and receive from it. However, there is little empirical research to assess the expectations each partner brings to the marital relationship.

Criteria for Marital Assessment Tools

The absence of adequate measures for the objectiveassessment of marital dysfunction has plagued clinical and research efforts (Goldfried, 1977; Snyder, 1979). According to Stuart (1980), marital assessment is most effective when it is parsimonious, multidimensional, directly linked to a theory of intervention, and situational specific.

1. Assessment Must Be Parsimonious. Along withreliability and validity, parsimony is one of the essential characteristics of a marital assessment protocol. It is important that marriage therapists seek only necessary and sufficient information to guide treatment planning, rather than seeking complete information.

2. Assessment Must Be Multidimensional. An adequate assessment package includes diverse measures and methods that yield overlapping results along with others that assess separate aspects of the relationship. Stuart (1980) cautions that parsimony must be balanced with multidimensionality so that sufficient, but not excessive, levels of measurement are undertaken.


11

3. Assessment Should Be Linked to a Theory of Intervention. The majority of measures used for assessing marital and family functioning lack a theoretical foundation. Thus, there is a need for an assessment approach that has a direct bearing on the way therapeutic decisions are made without making untenable assumptions or using ambiguous theoretical jargon.

4. Assessment Should Be Situation-Specific. A "state" approach to assessment is much preferred over a "trait" approach when assessing marital interactions. The observation that family members behave differently with each other in the home, and the fact that spouses treat each other differently than they treat strangers, led many researchers (Ryder, 1968; Stone, 1973) to conclude that behavior is more state than trait-governed.

It is anticipated this study will demonstrate that the MCLI is an assessment tool that meets the criteria outlined above. There is a need for an instrument that can be used with confidence since adequate measures of marital expectations are largely unavailable.

The Importance of Construct Validity

Sabatelli (1984) designed the MCLI to assess the degree "to which individuals perceive their relationships as measuring up to their expectations, and hence, their level of complaints about their relationship" (p. 651). It seems


12

logical to assume that the more complaints individuals have of their relationship, the more dissatisfied they will be with the marriage.

Construct validity assesses the extent to which the MCLI is measuring what it purports to measure. Carmines and Zeller (1979) emphasize the importance of construct validity in measuring abstract theoretical concepts employed in the social sciences. They propose that construct validity involves three distinct steps:

1. The theoretical relationship between the concepts themselves must be specified.

2. The empirical relationship between measures of the concepts must be examined.

3. The empirical evidence must be interpreted in terms of how it clarifies the construct validity of the particular measure, (p. 23)

Closely related to construct validity is Campbell's conception of convergent validity and discriminant validity (Campbell, 1960; Campbell & Fiske, 1959). "Convergent validity" refers to the extent to which two instruments are, in fact, measuring the same construct. Two examples of convergent methods are factorial and congruent validity.

On the other hand, "divergent validity" is the extent to which measures expected to assess different constructs yield different results. Not only should a test correlate with other tests claiming to measure the same construct, it should also be uncorrelated with tests measuring different constructs. A valid test, then, measures a construct independent of other established constructs.


13

This study utilizes the approaches to construct validity advocated by both Carmines and Zeller (1979) and Campbell and Fiske (1959). Factor analytic procedures will be used to identify the constructs which are measured by the MCLI. The factor structures will then be compared with that of the DAS to establish congruence and factor structure similarity. Finally correlational analyses will be performed to clarify further the constructs that are measured by the MCLI.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions apply to this study:Marital expectations represent unique impressions of, or

opinions about, what is acceptable to a person in a marital relationship (Sabatelli, 1984). Expectations are derived from observations and personal experiences in past relationships, and are applied to the present and projected into the future as guidelines for obtaining desired outcomes (Grafton, 1979).

Marital satisfaction is the subjective evaluation of the overall quality of an individual's marriage. "It is the degree to which needs, expectations, and desires are met in marriage" (Bahr, Chappell, & Leigh, 1983, p. 797).

Remarried couple refers to a marriage between two partners, at least one of whom has been previously married.


14

Organization of Study

Four additional chapters comprise the remainder of the study. Chapter II is a review of the literature pertinent to marital expectations and marital satisfaction. Chapter III presents a description of the subjects used in the study, the procedures followed in conducting the study, a review of the Marital Comparison Level Index and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and discussion of the statistical methods employed to analyze the data. The results of the data collection and analysis will be found in Chapter IV. The final Chapter presents the conclusion about the purpose of the study as well as recommendations for future research.


CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter contains a number of topical sections which reflect the current status of literature relevant to the study. The first section deals with expectations particularly as they relate to marital satisfaction. Differences in expectations of men and women will also be addressed.

The second section will consider the various factors which have been found to affect marital satisfaction. Also included is a discussion of the problems that exist in conceptualizing, defining, and assessing marital satisfaction.

The final section of this chapter will focus on remarried individuals. Research pertaining to expectations, satisfaction, and sex differences of remarried spouses will be presented.

Marital Expectations

Expectations are a critical variable in marital relationships as they significantly affect the satisfaction and success of the marriage. Individuals bring to the marriage their own expectations with regards to how various needs should be met and how various roles should be performed.

15


16Conflict, tension, and disappointment occur when expectations are unmet, leading to dissatisfaction in the marriage (Grafton, 1977).

Several studies have examined the relationship between expectations and marital satisfaction. The bulk of the research evidence indicates that marital satisfaction is dependent on three factors: (1) clarity of expectations, (2)consensus in marital expectations, and (3) conformity to spouse's expectations,

1. Clarity of Expectations. When expectations are clear-cut and unambiguous, there appears to be less conflict and strain in relationships. Sager (1976), in his theory of unexpressed marital contracts, stresses how important it is for couples to understand and clarify the expectations they bring to the marriage. He states that:

One's expectations may comprise a personal, unstated contract for one's marriage. Sometimes each person acts as if the other knew the terms of the contract and feels angered, hurt, betrayed, etc., when he/she feels that the partner did not fulfill his/her part of the contract. Expectations are not only what you want from your partner, they are also what you are willing to give. Many marital problems arise between spouses who have very different, unstated contracts for marriage.(p. 26)

Marital contracts are derived from particular needs and wishes of the individual (e.g., independence-dependence, dominance-submission) and expectations regarding the institution of marriage (e.g., constant loyalty, submission, companionship).


17Furthermore, Sager classifies expectations into three

types. The first type is verbalized expectations which are relatively easy to communicate. Examples include "I expect we will share many activities together" and "I expect we will have three children." Type two contains expectations of which one is aware but is afraid to communicate for fear of embarrassment, starting a fight, or hurting the other's feelings. Examples include "I expect my career will be more important than yours" and "I expect we will have children as soon as we are married." A third type of expectations is vaguely perceived and is often difficult to verbalize. These expectations are often discovered by examining "hidden agendas" (Gottman, Notarius, Gonso, & Markman, 1976) that emerge during interactions. Content may vary but themes usually revolve around control, roles, and intimacy. Couples often express feelings of anger, frustration, and helplessness as a result of these hidden expectations and agenda issues.

In marital counseling, Sager's goal is to assist couples to work through a mutually contracted agreement. First, couples learn to become aware of their psychological needs and expectations of their relationship. Next, spouses report what they want from each other and what they are willing to give.

Greene (1970) reported that the lack of communication heads the a list of marital complaints. Constant arguments.


18unfulfilled emotional needs, and sexual dissatisfaction were next in the order of concern. Thus, it is important that expectations are made explicit so they will not become "destructive and frustrated demands" (Brorby, 1981, p. 22).

2. Consensus in Marital Expectations. Couples who share similar expecations enjoy more satisfying and stable relationships (Chadwick, Albrecht, & Kunz, 1976; Hicks & Platt, 1970; Laws, 1971). Ort (1950) was one of the first individuals to study the effect of expectations in the marital relationship. He hypothesized that marital satisfaction was related to the mutual fit between the expectations of one's spouse and the spouse’s actual behavior. Ort compared the expectations and actual behaviors of 50 married college students and obtained a correlation coefficient of -.83 between lack of concensus and marital satisfaction. He concluded that marital happiness was related to the ability of each spouse to meet the other's expectations.

Support for the positive relationship of marital satisfaction and expectations was also reported by Hawkins and Johnson (1969). They studied 15 married couples from a psychiatric outpatient clinic and found that perceived concensus regarding marital role expectations contributes to marital satisfaction, while perceived dissensus of role expectations leads to marital dissatisfaction.

Burr (1971) examined the discrepancies between role expectations and role behaviors of married couples. He


19reported that marital satisfaction increased as the discrepancy between marital role expectations and role behaviors decreased among couples. In addition, Grafton(1979) found the discrepancy between expectations and perceived spouse behavior to be significantly greater in dissatisfied than satisfied couples.

3. Spouse's Conformity to Expectations. Conformity of a partner's behavior to his/her mate's expectations has also been correlated with marital satisfaction. Chadwick et al.(1976) randomly sampled 775 couples and found the adequacy of role performance and spouse's conformity to expectations were the best predictors of marital satisfaction. They conclude "if one's spouse performs family activities in accordance to one's expectations it permits the individual to maximize his or her satisfaction from family behavior" (p. 437).

Having established there is a relationship between marital expectations and marital satisfaction, attention now is directed toward understanding the source of these expectations. This calls for an examination of views toward marriage itself and corresponding perceptions of males and females.

Sex Differences ; Marital Expectations

Hicks and Platt (1970) discuss two basic types of marriage in their review of the literature. The first type is the institutional or traditional marriage. It is


20characterized by adherence to traditional sex roles, customs, and duties. The husband's role is more instrumental, task- oriented, and directed toward society. The wife's role is expressive and directed toward the family. She is responsible for the emotional well-being of her husband and children.

The second type, the companionship marriage, is more concerned with personal relationships, not roles. There may be role specifications and role sharing but the emphasis is on such qualitative factors as companionship, communication, expression of love, and sexual enjoyment. Hicks and Platt(1970) caution that these two models are not mutually exclusive but a matter of which aspects are predominant in a marriage.

Various studies have also indicated that husbands and wives have different expectations of each other. According to Langhorne and Secord (1955), wives wanted their husbands to be instrumentally oriented as well as affectionate and understanding. Husbands, on the other hand, want a wife who is expressive and who makes a good impression. He hopes that this impression will further his success in achieving.

Stuckert (1963) reported that husbands expect their wives to support their ambition and success while wives expect husbands to help them make decisions. In Tharp's (1963) study, wives expect more sharing of concerns within and outside the family than husbands ' expect.


21Laws (1971), in her review of the marital adjustment

literature concludes that men have more traditional expectations while women have more egalitarian expectations.In the end, however, wives usually accommodate to their husbands' expectations. Various studies (Grafton, 1979; Hurvitz, 1960, 1965; Tharp, 1963) have indicated the wife's conformity to her husband's expectations is more important to marital satisfaction than vice versa. However, the Chadwick et al. (1976) study failed to support this conclusion.

In summary, expectations play an important role in marriage, as they significantly affect how spouses evaluate the quality of their relationship. The next section will include other factors related to marital satisfaction.

Marital Satisfaction

Conceptualization and Definition

Marital quality is a complex phenomena that is difficult to conceptualize and define. A major problem in dealing with research on marital satisfaction is a lack of concensus about what word to use. The terms that appear most frequently in the literature are "success," "happiness," "adjustment," and "satisfaction." Much debate has been generated over these terms.

Various criticisms have been leveled against the use of "marital happinesd." One of the earliest objections was articulated by Terman and Buttenwiser (1935) :


22Who is wise enough to say what constitutes a happy marriage? There are so many kinds of happiness and unhappiness incident to marriage that no weighing in the balance of one kind against another can do justice to the complex emotional facts in question.(p. 167)According to Burgess, Locke, and Thomas (1953) the

criterion of happiness is very subjective and means different things to different people. Lively (1969) adds to the barrage with the following criticisms: (a) spouses often disagreeabout the level of happiness; (b) happiness may be attributed to other aspects outside of the marriage; and (c) personality traits may influence the frequency and intensity of reported happiness.

Grafton (1979) notes that a number of studies argue against these objections: (a) husbands and wives have no difficulty in evaluating and reporting marital happiness; (b) subjective reporting is important since it determines the partners' perceptions of their relationship, and (c) an index of happiness is useful in distinguishing happy from unhappy spouses.

Spanier and Cole (1976) prefer using the term "maritaladjustment," which they define as:

a process, the outcome of which is determined by the degree of (1) troublesome marital differences;(2) interpersonal tensions and personal anxiety;(3) marital satisfaction; (4) dyadic cohesion; and (5) consensus on matters of importance to marital functioning, (pp. 127-128)They suggested that such terms as "happiness" and

"satisfaction" could be subsumed under a broader heading of marital adjustment.


23In Lively's (1969) view, marital adjustment connotes

some ultimate condition, not a continuous process. Burr, Leigh, Day, and Constantine (1979) also object to the concept of "adjustment" because it is too objective and impersonal. Instead, they prefer the word "satisfaction" because it most adequately describes the subjective evaluation of one's marriage. In this study the term "marital satisfaction" is used because it appears frequently in several recent theories (Burr, 1973; Miller, 1976; Burr et al., 1979; Rollins & Galligan, 1978).

Defining marital satisfaction has not been an easy task. Some scholars (Burgess & Locke, 1945; Lenthall, 1977) have favored an interpersonal conceptualization of marital satisfaction (amount of congruence between one's marital expectations and outcomes). Others (Burr, 1970; Burr et al. 1979; Hawkins, 1968) have conceptualized marital satisfaction intrapersonally (subjectively experienced reaction).

Bahr et al. (1983) have integrated both points of view and define marital satisfaction as "a subjective evaluation of the overall quality of marriage. It is the degree to which needs, expectations, and desires are met in marriage" (p. 797).

The ambiguity and subjectivity in conceptualizing marital satisfaction has led some writers (Donohue & Ryder, 1982; Hicks & Platt, 1970; Lively, 1969; Sabatelli, 1984) to suggest that researchers abandon the whole set of terms and


24

turn their attention toward realistic conceptualizations that can be studied more precisely.

Assessing Marital Satisfaction

In addition to the conceptual chaos, measures of marital adjustment/satisfaction are equally subject to criticism. The most serious charge leveled by critics is that self-report measures are heavily contaminated by social desirability and conventionality (Edmonds, 1967; Edmonds, Withers, & Dibatista, 1972; Hawkins, 1966).

Edmonds (1967) has defined conventionalization as "the extent to which appraisal of a phenomenon is distorted in the direction of social desirability" (p. 682). There is atendency for subjects to endorse test items in a manner which they think is preferable, but which may not represent their true response. The inevitable result is that most respondents report they are very satisfied with their marriage.

Historically, marital satisfaction scores have always been skewed. Terman (1938) reported that 94.9% of married males and females in his sample felt their marriages were happier than average. Laws (1971), in her review, noted that 60-85% of the couples studied reported being "very happy" in their marriage. She concluded that people tend to claim marital happiness regardless of their genuine feelings.

Bowerman (1964) states that the cultural tendency toward "optimism" in regard to marriage affects reporting behavior.


25Bradburn (1969) conjectures that there may be more satisfying marriages because the unhappy ones have been terminated through divorce. Whatever the reason, most individuals are unwilling to publicly admit their marriage is less than satisfying.

Overall, Hawkins (1966) concluded that social desirability is not a major determinant of variance in marital satisfaction measures. Others have gone so far to suggest that social desirability contributes to marital adjustment (Clayton, 1975; Gagnon & Greenblat, 1968).

Efforts have been developed to compensate for the proclivity to give socially desirable responses. These include different types of self-report measures (Schultz,1977), ratings of the couple’s happiness by family members other than spouses (Kolb & Strauss, 1974), ratings by interviewers (Birchler, Weiss, & Vincent, 1975), and spouses’ application for marital therapy versus their self-designation as happily married (Gottman, 1979).

Factor Analysis: Testing the Definition

Despite criticisms leveled against measures of marital satisfaction, Locke (1951) believes that marital adjustment is best defined by factor analysis of marital prediction tests. The first factor analysis was performed by Burgess and Cottrell (1939). Using 26 marital prediction variables, the authors found five factors predictive of adjustment. They


26were: Agreement and Settlement of Disagreements, CommonInterests and Activities, Demonstrations of Affection and Confiding, Satisfaction with the Marriage, and Absence of Feelings of Unhappiness and Loneliness.

In 1951, Locke developed the Marital Adjustment Test (MAT). He included 19 items from the Burgess-Cottrell Index (1939) and added ten of his own. A shortened version of this test was factor analyzed by Locke and Williamson (1958) and produced five interpretable factors. They were: Companionship, Agreement, Affectional Intimacy, Masculine Interpretation, and Euphoria.

In a later study, Kimmel and VanderVeen (1974) reexamined the factor structure of the MAT and obtained three factors-Sexual Congeniality, Compatibility, and Closeness.

Orden and Bradburn (1968) concluded that marital happiness was best defined as a function of the balance between satisfactions and tensions. Factor analysis of their index. The Marriage Adjustment Balance Scale (MABS) , produced two independent dimensions--Marital Satisfaction and Marital Tension.

Another measure of adjustment the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), was developed by Spanier (1976) to assess unmarried cohabiting couples as well as married couples. This scale contains 32 items which form four factors--Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Cohesion, Dyadic Concensus, and Affectional Expression. These same factors were confirmed in a later analysis by Spanier & Thompson (1982).


27As research has progressed, defining marital adjustment

has become more complex and precise. Assessment tools have advanced from a single criterion (i.e., couple reports they are happy), to composite criterion measures with a number of items, to multiple criteria whereby a graphic picture is displayed across a variety of marital factors.

Major Factors Affecting Marital Satisfaction

The marital literature is replete with studies that have examined factors related to marital satisfaction. Prior to 1960, research investigators were interested in exploring and identifying a broad range of sociodemographic and psychological correlates of marital satisfaction (Ferguson, 1938; Hamilton, 1929; Terman, 1938). As a result of these early studies, there was widespread interest in developing global measures to assess and predict satisfaction in marriage (Burgess & Cottrell, 1939; Burgess and Wallin, 1944; Corsini, 1956; Locke & Wallace, 1959; Terman, 1950).

During the 1960s, marital research focused on communication (Cutler & Dyer, 1965; Levinger & Senn, 1967; Navran, 1967), personality predispositions as determinants of interpersonal attraction (Cattell & Nesselroade, 1967, Levinger, 1966; Murstein, 1967, 1972), and effects ofnoncongruence in partner's roles on marital satisfaction (Chadwick et al. 1976, Stuckert, 1963; Tharp, 1963; Wright, 1978).


28Since 1970, the marital satisfaction literature has paid

particular attention to the following areas: number andspacing of children, length of marriage, role enactment, and similarity in background characteristics.

1. Effects of Children on Marital Satisfaction. There is considerable evidence to suggest that children lower the marital satisfaction of their parents (Burr, 1970; Campbell, 1980; Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976; Feldman, 1971; Glenn, 1975; Glenn & McLanahan, 1982; Glenn & Weaver, 1978; Houseknect, 1979; Rollins & Galligan, 1978; Ryder, 1973). It seems that children create extra household work, tie parents down, and divert attention from the spouse to the child or children (Laws, 1971).

Other evidence indicates that the number of children and their spacing are related to marital satisfaction. Figley (1973) and Miller (1976) found no relationship between marital satisfaction and child density (number of children in a family divided by the number of years parents have been married). The only positive effects of children on parents' marriages have come from studies which assessed respondents' perceptions of how their children affected them (Chilman, 1983; Gurin, Veroff, & Feld, 1960). Although the evidence is not conclusive, "on the average children adversely affect marital quality, both in the total population in the U.S. and in several large and important subpopulations" (Glenn & McLanahan, 1982, p. 63).


29

2. Family Life Cycle. Early studies examining the relationship between marital satisfaction and family life cycle often produced contradictory results. The apparent contradictions were found to be a result of measurement differences rather than population differences (Rollins & Cannon, 1974). Recent evidence has pointed to a general pattern throughout the length of the marriage. First, there is an initial decline in marital satisfaction after the birth of the first child. This decline persists during the early stages of the family life cycle. Next, there is a leveling off during the middle stages followed by an increase in marital satisfaction in the later stages (Miller, 1976; Rollins & Cannon, 1974; Rollins & Feldman, 1970; Rollins & Galligan,1978).

The presence of children, changing family roles, and a "wearing off" of the initial newness of marriage are reasons most often given to explain marital satisfaction is highest early and late in the marriage with a lag during the middle period (Rollins & Cannon, 1974). Overall, studies consistently show a decline in marital satisfaction during the first ten years of marriage. Hicks and Platt (1970) reported that divorces occur most frequently during the third and seventh years of marriage.

While investigators acknowledge that the whole life cycle is a significant correlate of marital satisfaction, it accounts for only a small amount of the variation in


30

satisfaction. Most studies (Anderson, Russell, & Schunun,1983; Rollins & Cannon, 1974; Rollins & Galligan, 1978) reportthat 4 to 8 percent of the variance in marital satisfactioncan be explained by the family life cycle. This finding hasled Anderson et al. (1983) to question its validity as apredictor of marital satisfaction.

It remains a question for future research whether other aspects of marital quality can be practically predicted by family life-cycle category or by family life-cycle category with other discrete predictors such as age of individuals, length of marriage, number of children, or presence of children, (p. 137)3. Spouse Role Enactment. The quality of spouse role

enactment has been shown to have a positive influence on marital satisfaction (Burr et al., 1979; Chadwick et al. 1976; Galligan & Bahr, 1978. Role enactment refers to the adequacy to which each spouse performs roles that are expected of him/her. Nye (1976) has identified eight family roles commonly associated with the positions of spouse and parent. These roles include provider, housekeeper, child care, child socialization, sexual, therapeutic, recreation, and kinship.

Research evidence has indicated that marital satisfaction is affected by performance in the therapeutic role (emotional support and person helping behavior) (Brinley, 1975; Chadwick et al., 1976; Nye & McLaughlin, 1976), adequacy in the child socialization role (Chadwick et al., 1976), economic role performance (Cutright, 1971), and husband's skill in the provider role (Brinley, 1975).


314. Spousal Consensus (Agreement). This factor is an

important contributor to marital satisfaction. Consensus between spouses is critical to facilitating marital stability because it reduces conflict between values, expectations, and behavior patterns (Chadwick et al., 1976; Larson, 1974; Tallman, 1976).

According to Booth and Welch (1978), studies have examined agreement between husbands and wives in two primary areas: (a) attitude similarity between spouses, and (b)events or conditions shared by both spouses. Studies of attitude similarity have explored such topics as spousal agreement on marital values (Kerckoff, 1972; Medling & McCarrey, 1981); amount of dogmatism (Byrne & Blaylock, 1963); and filial responsibility (Van Es & Shingi, 1972).

Studies examining shared events are concerned with the agreement between spouses on certain demographic variables (e.g., education level, socioeconomic status, length of marriage), reports related to decision making, and reports of events involving both spouses (e.g., task performance, conflict situations).

Sex Differences : Marital Satisfaction

Male-female differences in levels of marital satisfaction have been linked to such conditions as socioeconomic characteristics (Landis, 1963; Levinger, 1965; Scanzoni, 1968), wives' employment outside the home (Axelson,


321963; Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Burke & Weir, 1976; Booth & Welch, 1978; Glenn & Weaver, 1977), number and age of children (Figley, 1973; Miller, 1975; Rollins & Galligan, 1978), and friendship/affection (Rhyne, 1981; White, 1979).

Recent research has devoted considerable attention to sex differences with respect to satisfaction over the family life cycle. The major part of the evidence suggests that males tend to remain fairly constant with respect to satisfaction with increasing satisfaction reported in the later years of marriage. In contrast, women show significant decreases in satisfaction levels with the advent of children (Miller, 1976; Rollins & Galligan, 1978).

The most consistent finding in the literature regarding male-female differences is that men tend to be more satisfied with their marriages than women (Atkinson, 1980; Bernard, 1972; Campbell et al., 1976; Rhyne, 1981). It appears that men and women assess their marriages differently. Women focus more on the companionship or verbal interactive aspects of the relationship than men (Laws, 1971). Friendship, interest, and time spouse spends with children are also more important for women than men (Rhyne, 1981). Nonetheless, the bulk of research evidence indicates that gender differences with respect to marital satisfaction are quite limited.


33Remarriage

Remarried families, especially after divorce, have increased in both number and frequency of occurrence and are projected to climb throughout the 1980s (Macklin, 1980). The most recent figures indicate that remarriages represent 32 percent of all marriages in the United States today (Price- Bonham & Balswick, 1980). Five out of six divorced men eventually remarry compared to three out of four divorced women. Futhermore, about 13 percent of children under the age of eighteen are in reconstituted families with over 17 percent in single-parent families (Visher & Visher, 1979).

Census data reveal that remarried individuals have a slightly higher divorce rate than those in first marriages (Carter & Click, 1976). Various hypotheses have been postulated to explain this finding: (a) remarriages are ofpoorer quality because they are not a social institution with well-defined norms (Cherlin, 1983), (b) remarriedindividuals, in their zeal to succeed in a relationship tend to deny conflict (Goldstein, 1974), (c) certain kinds ofpeople are "destined" to contract unstable marriages repeatedly throughout their lives (Dean & Gurak, 1978), and (d) remarried individuals see divorce as an acceptable alternative to remaining in an unsatisfactory relationship.


34Marital Expectations; Remarriage

Even though marital expectations and enactment are important factors in marital stability, little research has been conducted regarding the expectations of remarried individuals. In first marriages, expectations are learned from the family of origin and culture (Udry, 1971). The experience of a previous marriage, particularly one that ends in divorce, often creates different expectations for subsequent marriages (Maxwell & Andress, 1982). Hunt and Hunt(1977) report that the divorced who plan to remarry go through a time of critical self-examination regarding the type of person they want for a mate and the type of relationship they prefer.

In 1982, Maxwell and Andress compared marital role expectations of remarried men and women with first married men and women. They adapted 37 items from Dunn's Marriage RoleExpectation Inventory and examined six dimensions ofexpectations along the continuum of traditionalism versus equalitarianism in sex roles. The dimensions were: (1)authority patterns; (2) household tasks; (3) childcare; (4) personal characteristics; (5) social participation; and (6) finances and employment. Several statistical comparisons were made by marital status and sex.

The data yielded the following conclusions: (a) women,in general, expect more equality in marriage roleresponsibilities than men, (b) remarried men were more


35equalltarian than first married men, (c) remarried women were more equalitarian than any other comparison group, and (d) the discrepancy between expectations in matters of authority, finances, and employment is widened between remarried men and women as a result of divorce.

According to Maxwell and Andress (1982) divorce leads to a more equalitarian marriage ideology for men and women. Experiences in an earlier marriage may predispose an individual to "equalitarian beliefs involving personal growth and self-fulfillment, enhancement of the quality of interpersonal relationships and the sharing of roles based on interest, needs, and abilities." (p.65)

It seems that many women in particular are forced to assume more authority and responsibility after divorce out of , economic necessity. They may be unwilling to give up these roles for fear of becoming dependent on a spouse again or because they like the control these roles provide (Maxwell & Andress, 1982).

Thayer (1980) also reported that mid-life divorced men and women expressed more equalitarian views toward marriage role responsibilities. Even though they talked about the need for shared domestic responsibility, dual careers, and open communication, few were willing to expend the effort to achieve these rewards. Thus, she concluded most of the expectations that mid-life men and women brought to their first marriages persisted in subsequent marriages.


36Marital Satisfaction; Remarriage

Despite the complexity of remarriage (e.g., new roles, reconstituted family, financial burdens, moving to a new residence) studies consistently show that remarried individuals are very satisfied in their current relationships. Glenn and Weaver (1977) analyzed data from three national surveys conducted in 1973, 1974, and 1975, and reported that 66 percent of those surveyed said their marriages were "very happy." Similar results were obtained by Albrecht (1979) who found that 88 percent of remarried spouses perceived their present marriage "much better" than the previous one which ended in divorce.

The marital satisfaction of remarried individuals has also been compared with those of first marriages. Renne(1971), Glenn and Weaver (1977) and White (1979) all found lower levels of satisfaction among the remarried, although differences are typically small.

For example, in Glenn and Weaver’s (1977) study, 68.5 percent of never divorced compared to 52.4 percent of divorced females described their marriages as "very happy." The corresponding percentages for females "not too happy" were 3.1 percent and 6.3 percent. Differences for men were smaller and not significant. The authors concluded that "remarriages of divorced persons which do not quickly end in divorce probably are, as a whole, almost as successful as intact first marriages" (p. 333).


37Weingarten (1980) obtained similar results when

comparing remarrieds and first marrieds on levels ofsatisfaction. However, these differences disappeared whencontrols were used for the effects of education. She addsthat differences in Glenn and Weaver's study may also beaccounted for by education.

The studies by Glenn and Weaver (1977) and Weingarten(1980) used one or two questions in assessing maritalsatisfaction. In a recent study, Demaris (1984) comparedremarrieds and first marrieds on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale(DAS), a comprehensive instrument that assesses maritalsatisfaction in several areas. No significant differenceswere found between the two groups. Since he sampled youngermiddle-class couples (married at least one year, but not morethan two years), he hypothesized that differences in maritalsatisfaction between remarrieds and first marrieds appearafter the first couple of years. According to Demaris:

The key to these differences lies in the greater potential for remarriage itself to generate areas of conflict over time. They may consist of added financial burdens with former spouses who will not quite "let go" or difficulties in adjusting to the role of stepparent, (p. 448).White (1979) also examined sex differentials in the

global happiness of first married and remarried couples. The results of her study indicate that remarried men report greater happiness than men in first marriages. Conversely, remarried women were found to be less happy in their marriages than first married women. White offered two explanations for this discrepancy.


38First, differences in happiness among remarried men and

women may be a result of recruitment. Remarriage tends to attract the most financially secure divorced men and the least financially secure women. Since remarried men report higher incomes than first married men, they have more choices when it comes to selecting a partner. Women who remarry are often motivated by economic necessity and therefore cannot be too selective in choosing a marital partner.

Her second explanation dealt with structural differences between remarried women and men. It was demonstrated that remarried women are disadvantaged with respect to factors which correlate with global happiness: general satisfaction,marital satisfaction, affiliation, and socioeconomic status. These associations persisted under control for age, education, and income.

Summary

This literature review of areas relevant to a validation study of the Marital Comparison Level Index yields some significant findings. Research on expectations in marriage is lacking, as relatively few studies have addressed this subject. Previous studies have definitely linked the importance cf expectations to marital satisfaction.

The topic of marital satisfaction continues to be the focus of much family research. Investigators are still attempting to discover new correlates which may explain more


39of the variance in marital satisfaction. Despite its popularity, this variable is surrounded by such liabilities as (a) the lack of consensus regarding what term to use, (b) an incomplete theoretical basis, (c) a shortage of valid instruments measuring marital satisfaction, and (d) a general tendency to report high marital satisfaction.

While extensive research has been conducted on the topic of marital satisfaction, comparatively little has dealt with the satisfaction of remarried spouses. Even less attention has been given to the study of remarried individuals' expectations. The bulk of the research evidence thus far indicates that differences regarding expectations and satisfaction between first married and remarried couples are minimal. However, most investigations have been concerned with establishing differences instead of empirically testing them.

Therefore, it seems appropriate to pursue this study as a significant addition to the existing literature, and to promote further understanding of the relationship between marital expectations and marital satisfaction specifically for first married and remarried couples.


CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Chapter III includes a discussion of the following: instruments selected for data gathering, subjects used in the study, procedures followed in conducting the research, statistical methods employed to analyze the data, and limitations of the study.

Research Instruments

Two instruments were used for data collection (See Appendix A). They are the:

1. Marital Comparison Level Index (MCLI)--assesses the degree to which marital outcomes are measuring up to the individual's expectations (Sabatelli, 1984).

2. Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)--assesses partners' perceptions regarding the degree of adjustment/satisfaction in their relationship (Spanier, 1976).

Marital Comparison Level Index

Sabatelli (1984) recently developed the MCLI to assess the degree to which the outcomes derived from various aspects of marriage measure up to one's expectations. This scale is based on the social exchange perspectives of Thibaut and Kelley (1959), with a particular focus on comparative

40


41processes. The MCLI contains 32 items that examine various personal and social resources available to married individuals, evaluations of their lifestyles, and rewards from interactions with their spouses.

Subjects who take the MCLI respond to the items on a 7- point Likert Scale ranging from Much Worse Than Expected (-3) to As Expected (0) to Much Better Than Expected ( + 3). A scale score of 1 is assigned when a person circles -3, a scale score of 4 is assigned when a person circles 0, and 7 is the scale score assigned when a person circles +3. Thus, the higher the score, the more favorable evaluation of outcomes relative to expectations. Items added together yield a total score which ranges from 32 to 224.

Sabatelli (1984) used Cronbach's coefficient alpha to estimate reliability for the MCLI and found it to be .93 for males, females, and the entire sample. The standard error of measurement averaged 1.95, making it a respectable assessment tool in terms of measurement error characteristics.

Content validity for the MCLI was established by selecting items and dimensions from Lewis and Spanier's (1979) comprehensive theory of marital quality and stability.An item analysis was conducted by requiring respondents to determine the importance of each variable to satisfactions and dissatisfactions experienced in their relationships.

The relationship between scores on the MCLI and scores on measures of relational equity and commitment were examined by


42Sabatelli (1984) to assess construct validity. Correlation coefficients of .62 and .65 were obtained for husbands and wives, respectively, when the MCLI was compared to the perception that husbands and wives have of the fairness of their relationships. A positive relationship was also found when the MCLI was correlated with expressed commitment to the relationship ("r's" of .58 and .59 for husbands and wives, respectively).

A principal components factor analysis was undertaken to support the assumption that the MCLI is a unidimensional construct. The first extracted factor accounted for 42% of the variance, the next two factors each accounted for approximately 5% of the variance, and the ne%t three factors accounted for approximately 4% of the variance, etc. The results of this analysis provided evidence for a cohesive set of items according to the criteria established by Carmines and Zeller (1979). Since the MCLI was recently developed, these statistics regarding validity should be considered preliminary.

Dyadic Adjustment Scale

The DAS (Spanier, 1976) is a self report instrument which yields a composite score representing the degree of adjustment reported in marriage and similar dyads. Respondents are asked to estimate the extent of agreement or disagreement with their partners on a number of common marital


43issues (finances, religion, household tasks, sexual relations, etc.). Individuals who often disagree on these issues are judged to have dissatisfying marriages.

Spanier's purpose in developing the DAS was twofold. First, he desired an instrument that could be used to assess other dyadic relationships as well as the marital relationship. Second, he wanted to test the definition that "adjustment is an ever-changing process with a qualitative dimension that can be evaluated at any point in time on a dimension from well-adjusted to maladjusted" (Spanier, 1976, p. 17).

Spanier (1976) reviewed several marital adjustment scales and obtained a pool of approximately 300 items that had been used in original studies. He then constructed a questionnaire after deleting items that were redundant and lacked content validity according to the consensus of three judges.

Questionnaires were administered to a purposive sample of 218 married and 94 recently divorced working and middle class residents of central Pennsylvania. Analysis of the results led to further revisions and refinement, leaving a total of 32 items remaining.

Over half of the DAS (17 of 32 items) is concerned with consensus on issues from philosophy of life to handling of money. Of the remaining items, 7 refer to activities that the couple may or may not share together (e.g., confiding in each


44other or working on a project together), 4 relate to conflict (e.g., divorce threats, frequency of quarreling), and 4 of the items refer to satisfaction and commitment to the marriage. Items added together yield a total score which theoretically ranges from 0 to 151.

The DAS has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of marital adjustment. Spanier (1976) reports a total scale reliability of .96 using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The four subscales yielded alphas ranging from .73 to .94.

Various measures of validity have been established on the DAS. Content validity was enhanced by including relevant measures of dyadic adjustment for contemporary relationships and those consistent with definitions given for adjustment and its components (satisfaction, cohesion, and consensus).

Each item of the instrument has been shown to discriminate between married and divorced samples, supporting its criterion-related validity. The overall mean score for the divorced group was 70.7, while the mean score for the married group was 114.8. These scores were significantly different at the .001 probability level (Spanier, 1976).

To establish construct validity, the DAS was compared with the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (Locke & Wallace, 1959), the most frequently used scale. The correlation between these scales was .86 for married individuals and .88 among divorced respondents. Factor analysis has also provided support for the construct validity


45of the DAS by yielding four interrelated factors: DyadicConsensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Cohesion, and Affectional Expression.

The psychometric properties of the DAS have been examined in additional studies. Spanier and Thompson (1982) administered this instrument to a homogenous sample of 205 separated and divorced individual and obtained an overall reliability of .91. The authors also found that the four factors accounted for 94 percent of the covariance among the items.

Sharpley and Cross (1982) were also interested in replicating earlier results of the DAS. Sampling 95 unrelated married individuals, the authors reported an overall reliability of .96, duplicating Spanier's (1976) original findings. Each item on the scale was found to significantly discriminate between high and low adjustment groups at the .001 level except items 29 (p = .046) and 13 (p = .003). A factor analysis, using Spanier's (1976) rotated four factor solution, failed to produce the underlying dimensions previously hypothesized. The results from Sharpley and Cross's (1982) study yielded one component which accounted for 73% of the variance. The second factor accounted for 7% of the variance, while factors 3 and 4 accounted for very little variance.

The DAS appears to be the most appropriate instrument for the present study. Since publication, it has been widely used


46in marriage research. In 1982, Spanier and Thompson reported that more than three hundred researchers had requested permission to use this scale in their studies. In brief, the DAS appears to represent a significant improvement over previous measures of marital satisfaction.

Sampling and Data Collection

The sample for this study consists of 170 married individuals (85 couples). Of 100 sets (male and female) of research instruments distributed, 85 sets were correctly completed by both spouses. Participation in the study was completely voluntary. No attempt was made to limit the sample with respect to age, ethnicity, education, number of years married, occupation, and income.

Twelve coordinators in eight different southwestern Michigan cities assisted the researcher in the collection of data. They contacted potential subjects and explained the purpose of the study. The coordinators were instructed to use only subjects with whom they were not acquainted. Packets containing the research instruments were distributed to participants only after both husband and wife agreed to participate. Spouses were asked to refrain from discussing responses until they completed the inventories. The completed forms were sealed in an envelope and never seen by the coordinators. Instead, they were distributed directly to the researcher, thus encouraging subjects to answer candidly.


47All materials in each packet were coded with a couple

number. Along with the couple code number, each partner circled "male" or "female" to permit the pairing of spouses for data analysis. Inventories were returned in separate envelopes to encourage husbands and wives to work independently.

Materials in each research packet were presented in the following order:

1. Statement regarding purpose of the study2. Personal data sheet3. Dyadic Adjustment Scale4. Marital Comparison Level Index

All instruments were machine scored and the results placed on a computer disc. A computer printout of scores was compared with the original data sheets to ensure accuracy.

Data Analysis

Three statistical procedures were used in this study to analyze the collected data:

1. A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to determine the minimum number of factors necessary to account for the variance on the MCLI and DAS. A combined factor analysis of all items on both scales was also employed to determine if they share a common factor structure and measure the same constructs.

2. The "t" test for independent means was utilized to explore differences between first married and remarried


48individuals on factor scores extracted from the MCLI and DAS solutions.

3. Correlations using Pearson Product Moment coefficients were computed to determine the degree of relationship between the MCLI and DAS scores for first married and remarried individuals.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was used for establishing the construct validity of the MCLI. This statistical procedure determined the minimum number of constructs (factors) necessary to account for the intercorrelations among variables on the MCLI and DAS. The goal of factor analysis is to find clusters of variables that measure the same factor (Nunnally, 1967).

Brown (1976) states that factor analysis provides the number of factors needed to account for correlations among the tests, factor loadings, i.e. , the relation of each item to the factors on the test, and the commonality, or total amount of variance in the test scores accounted for by common factors.

The mathematical model of factor analysis used in this study was "image analysis" (Kaiser, 1970). The method of image analysis is identified by Kaiser (1970) as "Little Jiffy." He defines "Little Jiffy" as a "factor analytic method which commonly refers to principal components with associated eigenvalues greater than one followed by normal varimax rotation" (p. 403).


49Factor Scores

All variables in each factor were used in the computation of factor scores. This "exact method" (Gorsuch, 1974) was preferred since it maximizes differences in factor scores. T- tests were employed to compare mean factor scores among first married and remarried participants.

Correlational Analyses

The relationships between MCLI and DAS scores for first married and remarried individuals was also examined. The rationale for using marital satisfaction to examine the construct validity of the MCLI originates from (a) Sabatelli's (1984) claim that the MCLI assesses spouses' complaints about the marital relationship, and (b) Lenthall's (1977) conceptualization of , marital satisfaction as the comparison between one's marital expectations and one's marital outcomes.

Limitations

Generalizations of the results from this research are limited by the nature of the sample's selection. Subjects who participated in the study were volunteers. Although restrictions were not imposed with respect to age, ethnicity, education, occupation, and income, the participants were not randomly selected. Both spouses in a given marital dyad agreed to complete the research materials. Thus, the results of this investigation apply to the sample studied.


50The question arises as to whether selection bias

operates when volunteers are used for marital research. Perhaps more satisfied individuals are willing to discuss their relationships and more egalitarian marriages are sampled when both spouses agree to participate in the study.

The study is further limited by use of self-report inventories. These measures are vulnerable to social desirability, response styles, and inaccurate perceptions (Edmonds, 1967). The extent to which the findings can be generalized to actual behavior is uncertain.

In the present investigation, respondents may have been less than candid knowing their mates were also answering identical questions and might ask to see their forms. Care was taken to minimize the degree of collaboration between spouses by attaching special instructions and providing separate return envelopes in the research packet.

Summary

This chapter presented a description of the sample, review of the research instruments, and discussion of the procedures used to collect and analyze the data. The next chapter will address the results of the data collection and analysis.


CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Chapter IV reports the findings of the study. The purpose of this research was to examine the factor structure of the MCLI and DAS, and to explore differences between first married and remarried individuals on the extracted factors. A subordinate goal was to determine the degree of relationship between MCLI and DAS scores for the total sample. The first section of this chapter will discuss general information regarding the collected data. The second section will report the results of the factor analyses and comparisons among factor score means of first married and remarried participants.

Review of Information Regarding Data

Respondent Characteristics

Descriptive data was obtained on 170 married individuals (85 couples) and is reported in Table 1. Frequencies and percentages are displayed for males and females separately, and for couples when appropriate.

Though there were some exceptions, the subjects for the study can generally be described as Anglo-American, college- educated, and middle class. The mean age for all participants was 36 years, with a range from 20 years to 73 years of age.

51


CD■ DOQ.CgQ.

■ DCD

C/)C/)

Table 1Descriptive Characteristics of Males and Females

or Total Group in Percentage and Frequency

8■ D

VariableMale

(n = 85) % f

SexFemale (n = 85)

% fTotal Group (n = 170)% f

Age

33 "CD

CD■DOQ.CaO3"Oo

20-29 27.0 2330-39 48.2 4140-49 11.8 1050-59 5.9 560-69 7.1 6

Ethnic/Racial BackgroundCaucasian 94.1 80Other 5.9 5

29.445.811.8 5.9 7.1

95.34.7

25391056

814

28.247.011.85.97.1

4880201012

94.7 161 5.3 9

CDQ. Attended College

T3CD

(/)C/)

YesNo

Family Income Per Year$ 5,000 to $19,999/yr. $20,000 to $39,999/yr. $40,000 to $59,999/yr. $60,000 or more

69.430.6

5926

68.231.8

5827

68.9 117 31.1 53

22.4 3849.4 8421.1 367.1 12

u iN>

7JCD■DOQ.CgQ. Table 1 — Continued■DCD

(/)(/)Variable Sex

Male (n = 85) % f

Female (n = 85) % f

Total Group (n = 170)% f

CD

8■D( O '

3.3"CD

CD■DOQ.CaO3"OoCDQ.

■DCD

(/)(/)

5. Marital Status

6.

7.

8.

First marriage 65.9 56 68.2 58 67.1 114Second marriage 31.8 27 27.1 23 29.4 50More than 2 marriages 2.3 2 4.7 4 3.5 6

Length of Time BetweenCurrent & Previous MarriageLess than two years 44.0 11 23.1 6 33.4 27Two to four years 32.0 8 34.6 9 33.3 17More than four years 24.0 6 42.3 11 33.3 17

Length of Current MarriageLess than 1 year 7.1 121-4 years 25.9 445-9 years 23.5 4010-19 years 29.4 5020-40 years 9.5 16Over 40 years 4.7 8

Number of Children fromCurrent MarriageNone 37.2 64One 20.0 34Two 25.9 44Three or more 9.4 16 w

54The average age for 85 female subjects was 35.7, whereas for the 85 male subjects, it was 36.8 years.

Nearly 69% of the sample had some college education, with 39% of the subjects attending college for more than four years. Fifty percent of the married couples reported their family income to be in excess of $30,000 per year, and 12.9% reported an income in excess of $50,000.

The mean number of years married for the sample population was 14.2 years, with a range from 1 month to 52 years. There were 114 (67.1%) first married individuals and 56 (32.9%) remarried individuals. Six of the remarriedsubjects had been married more than two times. For remarrieds, the average length of time between their current and previous marriage was 3.08 years, ranging from 3 months to 10 years.

Fifty-three couples (62%) reported having children. Nearly 26% had two children, while 20% and 37.7% reported having one child and no children, respectively. Over one- third of the remarried participants had children by previous marriage and 24.6% had two or more stepchildren.

Analysis of Data

The first data analysis procedure to be carried out was the computer generation of bar graphs for MCLI and DAS scores. (See Appendix C). These bar graphs verified the negative skew prevalent in measures of marital adjustment (Bradburn, 1969).


55Descriptive statistics were calculated and are presented

in Appendix C. Categorical comparisons were made of the raw scores, mean scores, and standard deviations for: (a) all participants, (b) first married vs. remarried couples, (c) first married females vs. remarried females, and (d) first married males vs. remarried males.

Pearson "r" correlations were computed for comparisons between MCLI and DAS scores. Scattergrams were plotted as a visual confirmation of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coeefficient (PPMC) Calculations. A sample scattergram and Pearson "r" calculations are included in Appendix D.

Description of Data: MCLI

The mean score for the total group on the MCLI was 154.2 (SD = 33.4), close to that obtained by Sabatelli (1984) x = 147.4, SD = 23.9. The scores on this scale potentially range from 32 to 224, with a score of 128 representing that point on the continuum where outcomes are judged to be at the expectation level. It is clear that the mean scores for the total group fall above this point. Therefore, the majority of subjects in this study perceive their marital experience to be better than what they expected.

Remarried couples obtained a higher mean score (157.9) than first married couples (152.4). There was a greater discrepancy between remarried females (161.2) and first married females (149.8) than there was for remarried males (154.5) and first married males (154.9).


56An item analysis indicated that 23 of 32 items on the

MCLI contained mean scores between 4.5 and 5.0 (a score of 4 indicates outcomes are at the expected level). Means above 5.0 were found on the following items: love (5.2), partner's trust in you (5.4), spouse's support of occupation (5.5), and commitment from spouse (5.6). Items with means below 4.5 were: conflict over daily decisions (4.4), criticism bypartner (4.4), amount of sexual activity (4.3), and arguing over petty issues (4.3).

Description of Data: DAS

The mean score for all participants on the DAS was 114.2 (SD = 18.2, nearly identical to that reported by Spanier (1976) 3c = 114.8, SD = 17.8. Scores ranged from 34 to 149 (total possible score = 151). Although Spanier (1976) did not provide a cut-off point for ''satisfied" and "dissatisfied" couples, Sharpley and Cross (1982) recommend using any score between 101 and 108. Overall, the mean score indicates that individuals in this study report being generally satisfied with their marriages.

Mean scores on the DAS for first married and remarried couples (115.2 and 112.2, respectively) were very similar. When means were compared by sex, the results showed that first married and remarried females were practically identical with respect to perceived marital satisfaction (113.9 and 113.8, respectively). For males, the first married group (116.3)


57expressed greater satisfaction than their remarried counterparts (111.1).

The highest mean scores were found on the following DAS items pertaining to commitment: consider ending marriage(4.4), leave the house after fighting (4.4), and do not regret marrying (4.3). Items that reflect togetherness contained the lowest mean scores. They were: stimulating exchange ofideas (3.1), work together on a project (2.8), and engage in outside interests (2.6).

Correlational Analyses

The results of the Pearson "r" correlations for MCLI and DAS scores are presented in Appendix D. Correlations between the two scales were statistically significant at the .001 level for all groups. A review of the scattergram suggests a positive and linear relationship between the MCLI and DAS for all subjects. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient for these data was .718.

A higher correlation coefficient was reported for the fifty-six remarried individuals (r=.855) than for first married individuals (r=.633). The relationship between the two adjustment scales was also slightly higher for males (r=.732) than for females (r=.702).

Thus, the scattergram suggests, and the correlation coefficients confirm, the presence of a positive relationship between marital expectations and reported marital satisfaction for the 170 married participants.


58Factor Analyses

Factor Analysis of the MCLI

The rotated factor analysis of the MCLI was examined and factors were defined using the following criteria: (a)factors must have at least 3 items with loadings of .50 or higher, and (b) factors must have eigenvalues greater than one. Based on these criteria, five factors emerged from the solution and accounted for 68% of the total variance. The first factor was clearly the most salient factor, accounting for 50% of the common factor variance. The second and third factors accounted for 6% and 5%, respectively. Approximately, 7% of the variance was shared equally by the fourth and fifth factors.

The data set forth in Table 2 display the thirty-two items of the MCLI with their respective factor loadings. It is generally assumed that factor loadings of .3, .4, or .5 are used as lower bounds for meaningful loadings (Kachigan, 1982; Nunnally, 1967). For this research project, factor loadings of .50 to .65 are considered low, loadings from .65 to .75 are moderate, and loadings of .75 and above are considered high.

Factor 1 consisted of eight items with factor loadings in the low range. These items refer to compatibility between spouses that contribute to harmony or mutuality between husband and wife. Thus, this factor is termed, Compatibility.


Table 2Rotated Factor Structure

of the MCLI

59

Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4 5 h'

1. Companionship 47 -27 -16 - 08 722. Partner’s trust in you 33 -59 -15 -14 34 613. Amount of sexual activity -06 -24 -21 -11 764. Confiding between spouses 40 -30 -28 -24 51 645. Conflict over daily decisions 52 -55 -21 -06 16 656. Time spent together 43 -23 -30 -09 57 667. Partner's display of affection 28 -14 -09 -09 75 678. Sharing resp. for house tasks 25 -12 - 08 27 839. Amount partner listens to you 43 -24 30 28 6710. Relationship equality 50 -15 -47 36 37 7611. Conflict over money -28 -32 -15 12 5712. Amount of compatibility 60 -24 -09 -29 48 7513. Conflict over leisure time 40 -50 -29 -29 32 6814. Disagreement over friends 38 -58 -19 -35 -09 6515. Partner's interest in sex -04 -05 -12 15 84 7416. Money spent fairly 35 -23 -53 35 28 6517. Criticism by partner 48 -55 -19 14 20 6318. Mutual respect 53 -35 -23 -30 41 71


Table 2 -- Continued 50

Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4 5 h*

19. Effective inter, communication 55 -18 -18 -30 52 7220. Amount of love experienced 46 -20 -09 -38 60 7621. Degree needs are met 37 -24 -22 -27 63 7122. Freedom for outside friends -01 ~ à l -30 -38 19 6423. Resp. for house chores -09 -07 -19 14 7624. Amount partner discusses sex - 08 -12 -27 -44 6725. Amount of privacy experienced -13 -43 -39 -53 29 7226. Spouses support of occupation 27 -15 -17 -05 4927. Agree on lifestyle -20 , -28 -50 26 7328. Agree on number of children 14 -25 -08 -77 12 6929. Partner's phys. attractiveness 26 -13 -21 27 5530. Arguing over petty issues 36 -09 -12 24 6431. Partner's jealousy - 08 - 80 -06 -16 - 08 6932. Commitment from spouse 50 -23 -02 -41 32 57

2Note. The decimal point is omitted, h = communality


61Marital Discord, the second factor, contained seven

items emphasizing the negative aspects of marriage. Item 31, "amount of jealousy expressed by one's partner," had the highest loading (.80). The remaining variables (e.g., amount of conflict, disagreement, and criticism) also indicate the presence of conflict or tension in the marital relationship.

The highest loadings in the solution appeared on Factor3. The items, "sharing responsibility for household tasks" (23), and "partner's responsibility for household chores" (23) loaded .82 and .83, respectively. Loadings in the low range were reported for "amount partner listens" (9) and "money spent fairly" (16). Based on the salient loadings of items 7 and 23, this factor was labeled Household Responsibility.

Factor 4, Agreement, articulates areas in which the couple agree or hold similar views. All items loaded in the low categoryi except 28 ("agree on number of children") which loaded in the high range.

Three items (3,7,15) loaded above .75 on Factor 5. They referred to the "amount of affection displayed by one's mate" (7), "partner's interest in sex" (15), and "amount of sexual activity" (3). An additional seven items emphasized other aspects of intimacy (e.g., confiding, love, degree to which needs are met). All these variables are considered as direct or indirect expressions of affection. Thus, the factor was named Affectional Expression.


62In summary, the factor structure of the MCLI defined five

distinct factors: Compatibility, Marital Discord, HouseholdResponsibility, Agreement, and Affectional Expression.

Factor Analysis of the DAS

The rotated solution for the DAS yielded six factors that accounted for 64% of the total variance. Four factors were interpreted since few acceptable loadings were found on the remaining factors. Collectively, the factors accounted for approximately 56% of the common factor variance with Factor 1 contributing 42%, Factors 2 and 3, 5% each, and Factor 4, 3%. Table 3 displays the 32 items of the DAS with their corresponding factor loadings and communalities.

Factor 1 contained five items (2, 19, 20, 23, 32) with loadings ranging from .55 to .76. Except for item 2 (agreeregarding matters of recreation), this factor reflects one's

■

commitment to the marital relationship. Thus, this factor is termed Commitment.

Agreement, factor 2, is represented by six items that express agreement in the following areas: friends (5), properbehavior (7), philosophy of life (8), dealing with parents (9), aims and goals (10), and major decisions (12). This factor is easily verified and replicates earlier findings (Spanier, 1976; Spanier & Thompson, 1982).

Factor 3 includes one item (29) in the high range and two items (17, 30) with loadings in the low category. These


Table 3Rotated Factor Structure

of and DAS

63

Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4 h*

1. Agree on family finances 18 13 16 -24 632. Agree on recreation 55 21 -02 -22 623. Agree on religious matters 41 30 -11 36 624. Demonstrations of affection 31 29 29 -26 565. Agree on friends 17 76 -04 -06 646. Agree on sex relations 41 23 30 -42 637. Agree on proper behavior -06 63 -04 -14 548. Agree on philosophy of life 43 -09 21 589. Agree on dealing with parents 23 51 37 -05 6110. Agree on aims and goals 39 51 11 -41 7011. Agree on amount of time together 37 30 -07 - 60 7212. Agree on major decisions 24 56 13 -36 6213. Agree on household tasks -01 29 -08 -25 4814. Agree on leisure time 46 36 -02 -30 6715. Agree on career decisions -04 20 14 -32 6716. Consider ending marriage 42 31 34 -46 6317. Leave house after fighting 24 13 55 -09 4418. Things going well 45 29 23 -54 69



Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4 h*

19. Confide in mate 62 33 28 -28 7120. Do not regret marrying 58 45 26 -41 7921. Quarrel -05 35 31 -17 6922. Get on other's nerves 23 33 29 -33 7023. Kiss your mate 76 -07 -02 -22 6624. Engage in outside interests 43 -04 -05 -37 6025. Stimulating exchange of ideas 29 13 10 -65 6526. Laugh together 12 11 -07 -76 6427. Calmly discuss something 28 14 - 06 6228. Work together on a project -09 -05 16 -63 6029. Too tired for sex -02 -17 77 -07 6630. Not showing love -08 44 59 -22 6131. Happiness in marriage 47 40 19 -56 7432. Commitment to marriage 72 26 12 -15 65

Note. The decimal point is omitted. h^ = communality


65variables, "leaving house after a fight," "toe tired for sex," and "not showing love" refer to the lack of affection shown by one's partner. Affectional Expression is a reasonable label for this factor.

The fourth factor. Compatibility, is composed of six items. One item, "frequency of laughing together" (26) loaded in the high range. The other variables loaded in the low and moderate ranges and reflect sharing activities and experiences that contribute to a satisfying relationship.

Factor analysis of the DAS yielded four interpretable factors: Commitment, Agreement, Affectional Expression, andCompatibility. Except for Commitment, the factors were distinctly defined by the rotated solution.

Combined Factor Analysis of the MCLI and DAS

A factor analysis was conducted utilizing the intercorrelations of the 64 items from the DAS and MCLI. Thirteen factors emerged with an eigenvalue greater than one, accounting for 71% of the total variance. Over half of the common factor variance was accounted for by factor 1. Collectively, factors 2,3, and 4 contributed an additional 17 percent of shared variance. The remaining nine factors were negligible with respect to the variance criterion, and all but one, contained acceptable factor loadings.

Utilizing the Skree Test Plotting Process (Cattell, 1973) in Figure 1, the image eigenvalues begin to fall off


66

Percentageof

TotalVariance

22

Successive Factors Extracted

Figure 1. Skree Test for Eigenvalues


67approximately after the fourth factor. According to Gorsuch (1974), when values drop in size, the inclusion of additional factors contributes little to the information already extracted. In this study, five of the thirteen extracted factors were identified and accounted for 55% of the total variance.

Table 4 displays the 64 items by their rotated factor loadings and communalities. All items on Factor 1, the most salient in the solution, refer to the sexual relationship and the amount of affection shown by one's mate. Item 47 ("partner's interest in sex") loads in the high range, while items 6, 35, 39, and 56 load in the low and moderate ranges. This factor is labeled Affectional Expression.

Factor 2 included four items, (5, 7, 12, 14) with loadings above .50. All these items emphasize agreement between spouses in such areas- as friends, correct or proper behavior, major decisions, and use of leisure time. This factor is termed Agreement.

Twenty-two items, all from the MCLI, included loadings between .50 and .73 on Factor 3. Eight items had factor loadings in the moderate range and fourteen items loaded in the low range. These items reflect a common theme of working together and/or living in harmony with one another. Compatibility was the name given to this factor.

Factor 4, Household Responsibility, contained one item with loadings in the high (77), moderate (70), and low (59)


Table 4 68

Rotated Factor Structure of the MCLI and DAS

Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4 5 h*

1. Agree on family finances 24 19 16 14 04 662. Agree on recreation 24 -26 09 -01 44 683. Agree on religious matters -05 -19 00 05 26 684. Demonstrations of affection 42 -34 20 13 16 655. Agree on friends -06 - 68 21 -12 11 656. Agree on sex relations -37 11 07 38 807. Agree on proper behavior 07 -72 13 10 10 61a. Agree on philosophy of life 02 -41 ■ 21 -00 43 729. Agree on dealing with parents 07 -36 28 06 05 73

10. Agree on aims and goals 03 -44 28 11 38 7311. Agree on amt. of time together 21 -34 28 -03 28 7712. Agree on major decisions 09 20 07 25 6813. Agree on household tasks 14 -42 11 -59 05 6914. Agree on leisure time 25 -54 18 16 45 7715. Agree on career decisions 12 -22 11 06 05 7616. Consider ending marriage -02 -26 27 04 45 6917. Leave house after fighting 07 -07 21 14 12 6218. Things going well 21 -28 25 06 43 7419. Confide in mate 18 -24 28 -00 52 7020. Do not regret marrying 08 -36 31 -02 W 78



Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4 5 h'

21. Quarrel 03 -39 29 11 02 7022. Get on other's nerves 20 -47 21 22 26 7123. Kiss your mate 35 -04 16 06 6424. Engage in outside interests 24 -20 10 -01 32 6025. Stimulating exchange of ideas 12 -07 21 12 26 6926. Laugh together 16 -14 12 -01 06 7027. Calmly discuss something 14 -16 19 11 27 6128. Work together on a project 09 -09 13 16 07 7029. Too tired for sex 16 05 02 02 02 7930. Not showing love 13 -37 23 04 12 6131. Happiness in marriage 15 -28 39 -00 45 7532. Commitment to marriage 02 -19 23 -03 67 6533. Companionship 41 -11 49 08 18 7434. Partner's trust in you 19 -19 65 01 02 6635. Amount of sexual activity -22 28 09 12 7836. Confiding between spouses 28 -14 60 09 00 6937. Conflict over daily decisions 04 -27 73 03 09 6838. Time spent together 36 -12 47 15 03 7439. Display of affection 70 03 41 06 00 8040. Sharing resp. for house tasks 24 -05 42 70 20 8141. Amount partner listens to you 11 -04 63 39 28 7442. Relationship Equality 20 -03 62 33 10 80



Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4 5 h"

43. Conflict over money 06 -00 59 09 38 7744. Amount of compatibility 24 -15 61 02 20 7845. Conflict over leisure time 21 -26 17 08 7546. Disagreement over friends 04 -25 71 03 17 7347. Partner's interest in sex 78 -02 25 03 08 7748. Money spent fairly 22 03 63 27 09 7049. Criticism by partner 10 -33 70 08 23 6750. Mutual respect 27 -12 71 08 32 7151. Effective Inter. Communication 26 -01 • 59 13 44 7652. Love 41 -11 56 05 39 8253. Degree needs are met 42 -10 52 14 09 7454. Freedom for outside friends 13 -16 59 10 02 6455. Resp. for house chores 17 -00 33 77 35 8056. Amount partner discusses sex 50 06 40 16 16 7257. Amount of privacy experienced 13 -14 50 15 05 7058. Spouses support of occupation -06 16 60 08 32 6959. Agree on lifestyle 12 02 66 20 20 7660. Agree on number of children 01 -00 58 00 47 6561. Phys. attractiveness 12 01 45 25 47 6062. Arguing over petty issues 11 -29 67 02 10 6763. Partner's jealousy 08 -24 -07 05 6564. Commitment from spouse 24 -00 62 06 22 67

Note; The decimal point is omitted. h*=communality


71ranges. Items measured the extent to which the couple either agrees, takes responsibility, or shares household tasks.

The following items loaded in the low and moderate ranges on Factor 5: 19 ("Do you confide in your mate"?), 23 ("Do youkiss your mate?"), and 32 ("How do you feel about the future of your relationship"?). This factor was assigned the label. Commitment, since the items reflect one's satisfaction and contentment with the present relationship.

The factor structure of the combined analysis may be summarized as follows: the thirteen factor solution yieldedfive meaningful factors--Affectional Expression, Agreement, Compatibility, Household Responsibility, and Commitment.

Analysis of Factor Scores

There was interest in comparing mean scores on factors extracted from the rotated solutions of the MCLI and DAS for the following groups: first married and remarried couples,first married and remarried males, and first married and remarried females. To accomplish this goal, factor scores were computed for subjects according to sex and marital status. T-test statistics were employed to determine whether mean factor scores were significantly different at the .05 level for the identified groups.

Comparisons between first married and remarried subjects were conducted on five MCLI factors: Compatibility, MaritalDiscord, Household Responsibility, Agreement, and


72Affectional Expression. Tables 5,6, and 7 display the means, standard deviations, T-values, and probability levels for factor scores of the various groups. No significant differences were reported for first married and remarried spouses.

T-tests for factor score means on the DAS were also computed with no significant differences noted between groups. These results are included in Tables 8,9, and 10.

Summary

Results have been offered which support the purpose of the study. The first section summarized characteristics of the sample and descriptive data obtained from the MCLI and DAS. The second section presented the factor structures of the two scales and comparisons between first married and remarried individuals on the extracted factors. The next chapter offers a discussion concerning the results and conclusions that can be drawn from the data analysis presented in this chapter. In addition, recommendations are made for future research and use of this study.


73

Table 5Means and Standard Deviations for MCLI Factor Scores

of First Married and Remarried Couples

MCLIFactors

First Married Couples (n=57)

Remarried Couples (n=28)

TValue

2-tail Prob.

Compatibility -.005 .011 -0.07 .942( .647) (1.037)

Marital -.012 .024 -.20 .841Discord ( .771) ( .755)Household .076 .706 1.42 .159Responsibility (-.155) ( .700)Agreement .028 -.058 .51 .613

( .704) (0.789)Affectional -.035 .071 - .51 .608Expression ( .800) (1.053)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses df=83


74


of First Married and Remarried Males

MCLI First Married Factors Males (n=57)

Remarried Males (n=28)

TValue

2-tailProb.

Compatibility .017 .039 - .10 .917( .914) (1.001)

Marital -.060 .240 -1.24 .220Discord (1.037) (1.090)Household -.290 .707 .31 .754Responsibility -0.341 0.689Agreement .165 1.039 .90 .371

(1.039) (.930)Affectional - .102 .089 - . 06 .953Expression ( .945) (1.121)



75


of First Married and Remarried Females

MCLIFactors

First Married Females (n=57)

Remarried Females (n=28)

TValue

2-tail Prob.

Compatibility -.027 .019 -0.03 .976( .858) (1.412)

Marital -.037 .977 1.05 .295Discord (-.193) ( .868)Household .442 1.177 1.56 .123Responsibility ( .030) (1.079)Agreement -.109 .925 -.16 .873

(-.072) (1.14 )Affectional .032 .229 -.77 .477Expression ( .874) (1.217)

Note. Standard. deviations are in parenthesesdf=83


76

Table 8Means and Standard Deviations for DAS Factor Scores

of First Married and Remarried Couples

MCLIFactors

First Married Couples (n=57)

Remarried Couples (n=28)

IValue

2-tail Prob.

Commitment .072 -.146 1.00 .322( .681) (1.048)

Agreement .089 -.183 1.41 .162( .790) ( .930)

Affectional .003 -.007 .008 .933Expression ( .527) ( .548)Compatibility .035 .071 -.53 .599

( .802) (1.003)



77


of First Married and Remarried Males

MCLI First Married Factors Males (n=57)

Remarried Males (n=28)

TValue

2-tail Prob.

Commitment .004 -.319 1.02 .314( .815) (1.577)

Agreement .192 -.239 1.90 .062( .876) (1.178)

Affectional -.025 .097 - .16 .870Expression ( .527) ( .548)Compatibility -.025 .097 -.58 .563

( .981) ( .745)

Note. Standard deviations are in parenthesesdf=83


78


of First Married and Remarried Females

MCLI First Married Factors Females (n=57)

Remarried Females (n=28)

IValue

2-tail Prob.

Commitment .139 .027 .57 .570( .837) ( .892)

Agreement -.012 -.127 .49 .623(1.045) ( .929)

Affectional -.031 -.099 .28 .778Expression (1.061) (1.000)Compatibility -.045 .909 -.31 .758

( .045) (1.405)



CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As previously stated, this study has been conducted for the purpose of establishing the construct validity of the Marital Comparison Level Index and examining the relationship between marital expectations and marital satisfaction among first married and remarried individuals. This chapter discusses the results of the data analysis and presents conclusions pertaining to the research questions posed in the beginning of the study. A summary and recommendations for further research are also included in this chapter.

Discussion

Factor Structure of the MCLI

For this particular group of subjects, the MCLI appears to be measuring couples' expectations on the following dimensions: compatibility, marital discord, householdresponsibility, agreement, and affectional expression. These factors are discussed below.

1. Compatibility. The Compatibility factor describes the couple in a companionate and cooperative stance. Items include the degree of mutual give and take in settling disputes, participation in outside interests together, mutual expression of affection, and role sharing. Compatibility was

79


80first implied by Burgess and Cottrell (1939) in their factor, Common Interests and Activities. This dimension has also appeared in factor structures of other marital adjustment scales (Kimmel & VanderVeen, 1974; Locke & Williamson, 1958; Marini, 1976). In brief, these and other findings led Lewis and Spanier (1979) to conclude that "the greater the interaction the greater the marital quality" (p. 283).

2. Marital Discord. Factor 2 describes variables that contribute to tension and conflict in the marital relationship. It was Bradburn and Caplovitz (1965) who first suggested that the concept of "marital happiness" can best be seen as a function of the ratio between positive and negative affect. Later studies (Orden & Bradburn, 1968; Gottman, 1979) also concluded it was not unusual for a negative factor to merge with positive factors when evaluating marital functioning.

3. Household Responsibility. A perennial problem for many families has been that of assigning household responsibility. The debate concerns the actual amount of time spent in housework, as well as the perception regarding who has the ultimate responsibility for household tasks. Although women have been rapidly changing their traditional roles, men have been slower to change their role within the household (Portner, 1983). According to Chadwick et al. (1976), husbands and wives disagree more often over housekeeping than any other role. However, it is interesting


81that this factor has seldom appeared in previous factorial studies. Perhaps this role conflict reflects an even greater concern for couples in the 1980s.

4. Agreement. This factor has often been linked to building and maintaining successful marriages. Spouses with similar interests and background characteristics tend to be more comfortable with one another because they feel understood (Ruesch, 1957), experience less conflict (Norton & Click, 1976; Pascal, 1974), and solve problems more efficiently (Katz, 1974). Patterson and Reid (1970) propose that similarity of interests provides some marital "glue," while dissimilarity leads spouses in different directions.

Agreement, or consensus, has been a robust factor for over three decades. This construct has appeared in several factorial studies (Burgess & Cottrell, 1939; Locke & Williamson, 1958; Kimmel & VanderVeen, 1974; Spanier, 1976).

5. Affectional Expression. The relationship between affectional expression and marital satisfaction is well established in the family literature. Similar labels, "Affectional Intimacy" (Locke & Williamson, 1958) and "Affectional Communication" (Snyder, 1979) have been assigned to factors that include agreement on sex relations, sexual satisfaction, emotional closeness (intimacy) and demonstrations of love, caring, and respect.


82Factor Structure of the DAS

The underlying factor structure hypothesized by Spanier (1976)--Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Cohesion, and Affectional Expression--was validated for this group of subjects. Except for Dyadic Consensus, the other factors are not as clearly defined as in the original solution.

In this study, Spanier's (1976) factors, Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, and Dyadic Cohesion were relabeled, Agreement, Commitment, and Compatibility, respectively. It appears that these terms more accurately represent the items that measure the factors.

Commitment was the only factor of the DAS not found in the rotated solution of the MCLI. Understanding the forces that hold marriages together or lead to their dissolution has attracted much interest among researchers. Lewis and Spanier (1979) propose that satisfying marriages tend to have a high degree of commitment and stability. They define a stable marriage as "one which is terminated only by the natural death of one spouse" (p. 268). According to social exchange theory, a relationship will be stable when experiences are consistent with expectations and when it offers more net rewards than can be gained by available alternatives (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).

Spouses express their commitment to each other in several ways. Stuart (1980) states that commitment is expressed in the feelings and behaviors of each spouse at all


83times. In a positive sense, commitment draws the couple together, while in its negative sense, forces them apart.

Combined Factor Structure of the MCLI and DAS

The combined rotated solution of the MCLI and DAS yielded five interpretable factors: Affactional Expression,Agreement, Compatibility, Household Responsibility, and Commitment.

There was little sharing of items between the MCLI and DAS. Agreement and Commitment were uniquely defined by items on the DAS. Likewise, only items from the MCLI loaded on factor 3, Compatibility. The MCLI also contributed all the items, except one, for each of the two factors, Affectional Expression and Household Responsibility.

Closer inspection of the combined analysis revealed that only nine of 32 items on the DAS loaded at or above .50. In contrast, 30 of 32 MCLI items had loadings of .50 or greater and consequently appear in the solution. Therefore, the rotated matrix is dominated by MCLI items.

Conclusions

The questions raised in Chapter One may be answered as follows:

How Does the Factor Structure of the MCLI Compare to the Factor Structure of the DAS?

The factorial pattern of the MCLI shares some common


84features with the DAS. In both scales, the first factor accounted for most of the variance suggesting that the measures are essentially homogenous. Nevertheless, individuals who use these two instruments must recognize their factorial complexity. It should be noted that the MCLI and DAS identified three of the same factors -- Compatibility, Agreement, and Affectional Expression.

Differences between the factor structures of the MCLI and DAS were also manifested. Two MCLI factors. Marital Discord and Household Responsibility, did not appear in the DAS solution. On the other hand, factor analysis of the DAS defined Commitment as one of its components.

The inclusion of items from the MCLI, and DAS in the combined factorial analysis permitted more items to load on a factor. Since the factors were better articulated when the scales were combined, it is suggested that this solution more accurately measures the constructs underlying the responses for this particular group of subjects. Furthermore, the addition of items seems to aid in understanding factors in marriage. It is speculated that marital adjustment is a complex construct that cannot be adequately measured by 32 items.

In this investigation, the MCLI appears to be a better measure of compatibility, affectional expression, and household responsibility while the DAS is superior at assessing couples' perceived degree of commitment and agreement in marriage.


85Separate analyses of the MCLI and DAS yielded similar

factor structures. However, the combined solution of both scales indicated that the MCLI and DAS are assessing different constructs. Therefore, one might speculate that marital expectations and marital satisfaction are related but should be treated as distinctive variables.

Are There Any Significant Differences in the Mean Scores of First Married and Remarried Individuals on Factors Extracted from the MCLI and DAS?

The following groups were compared by marital status and sex on factors extracted from the MCLI and DAS: (a) first married and remarried couples, (b) first married and remarried males, and (c) first married and remarried females.No significant differences were reported between mean factor scores for all individuals, regardless of marital status and sex. These results generally support previous research that did not find differences in marital satisfaction (Demaris, 1984; Glenn & Weaver, 1977; Renne, 1971; White, 1979) and expectations (Albrecht, 1979; Thayer, 1980) between first married and remarried spouses. For this sample, it appears that the MCLI and DAS factors do not discriminate between first married and remarried individuals.

What is the Degree of Relationship Between MCLI and DAS Scores for First Married and Remarried Individuals?

There was a positive relationship (.718) between the scales for all married individuals. Correlation coefficients


86ranged from .882 for remarried males to .627 for first married males. The results indicate that expectations and satisfaction are compatible. One of the well-accepted premises of social exchange theory, the relationship between expectations and satisfaction, has been supported by the present analysis (See Chapter One).

Summary and Recommendations

This study attempted to establish the construct validity of the Marital Comparison Level Index. Factor analyses and correlational analyses indicate that the MCLI measures what it purports to measure. In addition, the performance of the scale empirically demonstrates the theoretically derived assumptions of social exchange theory by incorporating a comparison level (CL) to assess spouses' perceptions of their marriage.

The ease and flexibility of its use make the MCLI an attractive instrument. Counselors may use this measure as an adjunct tool to assist couples in discussing specific expectations and complaints. The MCLI has a particular advantage in that it is brief and can be completed in a few minutes. Even more encouraging is the ability of the scale to overcome methodological and conceptual limitations associated with other measures of marital adjustment/satisfaction.


87Additional research is needed to further strengthen the

value and utility of the MCLI. Establishing the constructvalidity of the MCLI is an ongoing process involving the

?accrual of information from multiple' sources addressing the discriminant validity of the scale along with its diagnostic and predictive value. Relevant research may include: (a)using the MCLI as a criterion measure in studies comparing couples in therapy with couples from the general population.(b) examining differences between married and divorced respondents on the MCLI, (c) assessing the ability of the MCLI to predict couples' réponse to short-term marital therapy, and (d) assessing differences in remarried couples when divorce is imposed or requested.

Since any factor analysis is sample sensitive, replication of the present study should be conducted using larger and demographically different samples. This would allow for a stable, meaningful factor structure to emerge. Ideally, a stratified random sample would be studied to enhance the generalizability of the results. Populations should include older subjects who have been married over fifteen years, subjects with less education, and subjects from both high and low income brackets. Other areas of fruitful investigation would be: (a) to examine the separatefactor structures of the MCLI for first married and remarried couples and males and females, thereby determining which factors are replicable, (b) to use homogenous groups to


88eliminate the possibility that factors are produced by variability with respect to age, sex, and education, and (c) to employ multiple regression analyses to identify specific items which best predict the factor.

Finally, it is hoped that this research study will result in additional analyses and research concerned with marital expectations. More information is needed with respect to expectations of husbands and wives, expectations of first married and remarried couples, and expectations that occur across the family life cycle.


APPENDICES

89


Appendix AMaterials Distributed to

Participants

90


91

June, 1985

Bear ParticipantsAre you willing to help improve marital counseling? If so, we ask that you take about twenty minutes of your time to complete this anonymous survey of marital attitudes and behavior. Your answers will provide information about marital relationships that will help resolve concerns of couples who seek assistance. Thus, your honest responses could be important.To ensure privacy, do not write your name on any of these forms. Both husband and wife should complete the forms separately. Please do not discuss any answers with your spouse until you are finished.Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Sincerely,7 1 ■

Ban Shnis, M.S.Doctoral Student in

Counseling PsychologyGil E. iVazer, Ph.D. Research Professor


92

PERSONAL INFORMATION SHEET

Direction*. Please circle the correct word or number when appropriate.

1. What is your age? _____ What is your sex? Female Male

2. How do you describe yourself?

3.

0 American Indian 31 Asian or Filipino 62 Black or Afro-American 5

Did you attend college? Tea No If yes, how many years?

0 One term 41 One year 52 Two years 63 Three years 7

Hispanic or Chicano White or Caucasian Other _____________

Four years Five years Six yearsMore than six years

What is your occupation?

6.

7.

What is your family income?0 Less than $5,000 41 $5,000 to $9,999 52 $10,000 to 19,999 63 $20,000 to 29,000 7

Are you currently married? Tes No If yes, how long?

$30,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 ' $50,000 to $59,999 $60,000 or more

8.

Have you been married before? Tes NoIf yes, were you widowed or divorced? (Please circle)How many times?What was the length of time between your current marriage and the

previous one?

Do you have any children from your current marriage? Tes No If yes, how msny? ____________

Do you have any children from previous marrlage(s)? Tes If yes, how many? _______________

No


93

BTiOXC A B j m H E H SCXU

laala Spnla»

Most patMu h w dlaagrMMBC* la chair ralacioeahipa. apprexiaaea tentât of agraaaaac or iMoagracmaar bacooaa aaeh icaa oa tha foUoolag lise.

Alaaae Oeca- Alaaps Alwapa aioaallp

Aaraa Dlaaaraa

1. Handling faailp flaaacas2. Haecara ot raeraaeioa3. laligious aaecara4. Daaoaatracloaa of

affaccion5. Friacda6. Sax ralaeloDS7. ConMCioaaliep (eorraet

or propar baharior)8. Fhiloaopfap of llfa9. Haps of daallag «1th

parcoto or la-ls«a10. Alas, goals, sad ehlags

baliavad laporcaac11. AaovBt of tlaa apoat

cogaehar12. haklag aajor daeiaiooa13. loaaahold casks14. Laianra tlaa lataraaea

and aetirltiaa15. Caraar daelaioaa

flaaaa ladleata halo» tha poa sad poor partaar for

Tra-qosatlpDlaaaraa

All Moat tha tlaa tha

16. Bow oftsa do pou dla- euas or'hawa pou eon- sidarod dlvorea, sap- aratloa, or earaiaac- lag pour ralacionabipT

17, Row oftan do pou or pour aaca laawa tha bouaa afcar a fight?

IB. la gaaaral, how oftaa do pou thlak that thlags batwaan pou sad pour partaar ara golag wall?

AlaoacAlwapaDlaaaraa

1111

111

11

Moraf oftaa Oeea- ma tbn_net sionalla

AlwapaDlaaaraa

0000

000

00

Havar

5


94

DYADIC AOJOSIMBR SCALE Pm#« 2

HoraAll Hose of ofeaa Oeea-

tha tlaa eba_çlaa than not ilonally19. Do you eonflda In 5

your naca?20. Do you avar ragrac 0

ehac you aarrlad?(or livad eogathar)

21. Row oftan do you 0mod your parenar quarral?

22. How oftan do you 0and your mata"gat on aaeh othar'a narwaa?"

Evary Day

23. Do you klsa your aaca? 4

Alaoat Evary Day

Occa-alonallv

Raraly

1

*«aly

1

Havar0

Havar

0

All of than

24. Do you and your mata angaga in outaida Intaraata togathar?

Moat of than

Soma of than

Vary few Hona ofof than chan

Row oftan would you may tha following avanta occur batwaan you and your mata?

25. Rava a atinulating axchanga of idaaa

26. Laugh togathar

27. Calmly diacuaa aonathlng

28. Work togathar on a project

Havar0

Lasa thanonca a month

Onca or twica a month

Onca ortwica a Onca a waak dav

Moraoften


95

siABie abjhstmest s c a u - *:* 3

Thaaa ar* i o m thing# about which cenplaa aouatloua agraa and ao«f:ln#a diaagraa. lodlcata if althar itam below eonoad diffaroDcaa of opiaioaa or vara problaaa ia TOUT ralacieaahip during tha pane faw woaka. (Chock ;aa or no)

Taa 20

29. 0 1 Being too tired for aa%.

30. 0 1 Not ahowing Iowa.31. Tha dota on tha following Una rapraaant dlffarut dagraaa of happiseaa in pour

ralacionahip. Tha aiddla point, "happp", rapresanta tha dagraa of happinaaa of moat ralationahipa. flcaaa elrela tha doc which baac daaerlbaa tha dagraa of happinaaa, all thing# conaidarad, of pour ralatioaahip.

Utramalp Fairly A Uctla happp Verp ixcraaalp ? art actDnhappp Cnhappp Dnhanoy Happp Happp

32. Which of tha following atatananta bant daaeribaa how pou foal about tha future of pour ralatioaahip?__5_I want daapacatalp for ap ralatioaahip to aueeaad, and would po to alaoac

anp laopth to aaa that it doaa._ ^ _ I want warp much for mp ralatioaahip to aueeaad, and will do all I can to

aaa that it doaa.3 I want warp much for ap ralatioaahip to aueeaad, and will do ag imis ahara

to aaa chat it doaa.2 It would bn aiea if mp ralacionahip aueeaadad, but I can't do ouch ooro

than X an doting now to halp it aueeaad.1 It would ba nlea if it aueeaadad, but I refuaa to do any more than X am

doing now to kaap tha ralacionahip going.0 My ralacionahip can newer aueeaad, and char# ia no more that X can do to

kaap tha ralacionahip going.


96

INSTRUCTIONS

U« would liko you to assuao that tha mid-point on the seal# (0) represents what you realistically feel you deserve or your basic expectation for the relationship issue listed. With zero (0) representing your expectation

level. Please indicate to what degree your relationship currently compares, favorably or unfavorably, to your expectation level by circling the appropriate number. A score of -3 would indicate that your current experience falls BELOW your expectation and is thus perceived by you as much worse than you expect or feel you deserve; a score of 0 would indicate that your current experience EQUALS your expectation level; a score of +3

would indicate that your current experience falls ABOVE your expectation and is thus perceived by you as much better than you expect or feel you deserve.

REMEMBER* INDICATE BY CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER HOW YOUR CURRENT EXPERIENCES COMPARE TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Worse Than About What Better ThanI Expect I Expect I Expect

1. The amount of companionship you experience. -3 -2 -1 0 +l +2 +3

2. The amount your partner is trusting of you. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 -3

3. The amount of sexual activity that -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +5you experience.


97

PAGE 2

REMEMBERt INDICATE BY CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER HOWYOUR CURRENT EXPERIENCES COMPARE TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS

-3 -2 -I 0 *l +2 +3

Worm# Than About What Bottar Than I Expect I Expect I Expect

4, The amount of confiding that occurs -3 -2 -between you and your spouse.

5. The amount of conflict over daily decisions -3 -2 -that exists.

6. The amount of time you spend together. -3 -2 -

7. The amount of affection your partner -3 -2 -displays.

8. The amount the responsibility for household -3 -2tasks is shared.

9. The amount your partner is willing -3 -2to listen to you.

10. The amount of relationship equality -3 -2you experience.

11. The amount of conflict over money -3 -2you experience.

12. The amount of compatibility that -3 -2you experience.

13. The amount of conflict over the use of -3 -2leisure time that you experience.

14. The amount of disagreement over friends -3 -2 -you experience.

0 +I +2 +3

0 +1 +2 +3

0 +1 +2 +S

0 +1 +2 +3

0 +1 +2 +3

0 +1 +2 +3

0 +1 +2 +3

0 +1 +2 +3

0 +l +2 +3

0 +1 +2 +3

0 +1 +2 +3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.

REMEMBER: INDICATE BY CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER HOWYOUR CURRENT EXPERIENCES COMPARE TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS

98

PAGE 3

-3 -2 -1 ♦ 1 +2 +3Worse Then About What Batter ThanI Expect I Expect Z Expect

15. The amount of interest in sex your partner expresses.

—3 —2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3

16. The fairness with which money is spent. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

17. The amount of criticism your partner expresses.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

IS. The amount of mutual respect you experience. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

19. The degree to which your interpersonal communications are effective.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

2C. The amount of love you experience. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

21. The degree to which your needs are met, 3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

22. The amount of freedom you experience in pursuing other friendships.

-3 —2 -1 0 +1 +2 +:

23. The amount of responsibility your partner accepts for household chores.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

24. The amount that you and your partner discuss sex.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

25. The amount of privacy you experience. -3 -2 -1 0 +l +2 +3

26. Tne amount to which your spouse supports your choice of an occupation.

2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3


99

PACE 4REMEMBER: INDICATE BY CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER HOW

YOUR CURRENT EXPERIENCES COMPARE TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS

- 3 -2 -I +2 +5Uors* Than About What Bettar ThanI Expaet I Expact I Expect

27. The amount to which you and your apouaa agree on your life-atyla.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

2S. The amount to which you and your apouaa agree on tha number of children to have.

-3 -2 -1 0 +I +2 +3

29. The degree of your partner.

-3 -2 -1 0 4-1 +2 +S

30. Tha amount of arguing over petty iaauea that you experience.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

31. Tha amount of jealouay your partner axpreaaea.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

32. Tha amount of commitment you experience from your apouaa.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 4-3


Appendix BLetters of Permission to

Reproduce Instruments

100


THEl'XI\^ERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

101School of Family StudiesHuman Development and Family RelationsBox U-1I7, Room 9843 Bolion RoadSiorrs, Connecticut 06268 May 22 , 1985

Dan Ehnis 3534 E. Fu lton Grand Rapids, MI 49506

Dear Dan:

I would be happy to have you use the MCLI in your research and you have my perm ission to reproduce th e s c a le . I 'm enclosing a copy o f th e MCLI fo r your convenience.

I am in te re s te d in your proposed research and would apprec ia te i t i f you would keep me inform ed o f your fin d in g s .I am a b i t confused, however, as to how you a re going to measure m a r ita l s a t is fa c t io n and would ap p rec ia te fu r th e r d e ta i ls when you get a chance.

Good lu c k in your research .

S in c e re ly ,

Ronald M. S a b a te ll i A s s is ta n t Professor

RMS/e tk

Enclosure

An Equal Opportunity Employer '


102

May 17, 1985

D r. Graham Spanler C ollege o f Human Development The Pennsylvania S ta te U n iv e rs ity U n iv e rs ity P ark , PA 16802

Dear D r. S p an ie r:

I am a d o c to ra l student in th e counseling psychology program a t Western M ichigan U n iv e rs ity p re se n tly conducting research fo r my d is s e r ta t io n . I would l i k e to assess the outcomes o f approxim ately 100 couples r e la t iv e to th e ir expectations of m arriage and measure the degree to which they covary w ith m a r ita l s a t is fa c t io n . Thus, the purpose o f th is l e t t e r is to ob ta in your perm ission to use the Dyadic Adjustment Scale as my measure o f m a r ita l s a t is fa c t io n . I would l i k e to purchase copies o f the DAS and /or your permission to reproduce th is s ca le .

Thank you so much fo r your a tte n tio n to th is m a tte r. I look forward to hearing from you.

S in c e re ly ,

Dan Ehnis 3534 E. Fu lton Grand Rapids, MI 49306 616-957-1386 (Telephone)


Appendix CDescriptive Statistics of First

Married and Remarried Individuals

103


104

Range o f Values Freq. Pcent66.00 - 76.53 2 1.2 IX76.53 - 87.07 2 0 .6 IX87.07 - 97.60 4 1 .4 IXX97.60 - 108.1 7 4 .1 IXXXX108.1 - 118.7 6 3 .5 IXXXX118.7 - 129.2 22 12.9 IXXXXXXXXXXXXX129.2 - 139.7 16 9 .4 IXXXXXXXXX139.7 - 150.3 23 13.5 IXXXXXXXXXXXXXX150.3 - 160.3 21 12.4 IXXXXXXXXXXXX160.3 - 171.3 16 9 .4 IXXXXXXXXX171.3 - 181.9 13 7 .6 IXXXXXXXX181.9 - 192.4 11 6 .5 IXXXXXX192.4 - 202.9 12 7 .1 IXXXXXXX202.9 - 213.4 9 5 .3 IXXXXX213.4 224.0 7

170

4 .1 ixiixx +------ + -------+ -------+•

5 .0 10.0 15.0 20.0PERCENTAGE

F igure 2. Bar Graph o f MCLI Scores fo r T o ta l Group


105

Range o f Values Freq. Pcent34.00 - 41.67 1 0 .5 I41.67 - 49.33 0 0 .0 I49.33 - 57.00 2 1.1 IX57.00 - 64.67 0 0 .0 I64.67 - 72.33 3 1.8 IX72.33 - 80.00 4 2 .4 IX80.00 - 87.67 6 3.5 IXX87.67 - 95.33 6 3.5 IXX95.33 - 103.0 10 5 .9 IXXX103.0 - 110.7 24 14.1 IXXXXXX110.7 - 118.3 38 22.4 IXXXXXXXXXXXX118.3 - 126.0 33 19.4 IXXXXXXXXXX126.0 - 133.7 25 14.8 IXXXXXXXX133.7 - 141.3 15 8 .8 IXXXXX141.3 149.0 3

170

1.8 IX

10.0 20.0 3CPERCENTAGE

F igure 3. Bar Graph o f DAS Scores fo r T o ta l Group


106

Table 11

Sample Summary Data fo r MCLI and DAS Scales

C oef.

Scale Means Minimum Maximum SD SEM* Skew of V a r.

DAS 114.2 34 149 18.2 1.40 -1 .36 15.93MCLI 154.2 66 224 33.4 2.56 -0 0 .3 21.68

^ Standard e rro r o f measurement


107

Table 12

Means and Standard D eviations o f MCLI Scores fo r F ir s t M arried and Remarried In d iv id u a ls

MCLI F ir s t M arried Remarried tValue

2 - t a i lProb.

Couples 152.4 157.9 - .71 .501(2 9 .9 ) (3 9 .3 )

Males 154.9 154.5 - .04 .966(15) (2 7 .7 )

Females 149.8 161.2 -1 .39 .173(2 7 .7 ) (41)

N ote. Standard d ev ia tio n s are in parentheses n = 170 (85 couples) d f = 168


108

Table 13

Means and Standard D eviations o f DAS Scores fo r F ir s t M arried and Remarried In d iv id u a ls

DAS F ir s t M arried Remarried tValue

2 - t a i lProb.

Couples 115.2 112.2 .68 .501(1 5 .9 ) (2 2 .3 )

Males 116.3 111.1 1.20 .239(1 5 .1 ) (2 3 .9 )

Females 113.9 113.8 .02 .986(1 6 .6 ) (2 0 .6 )

Note. Standard d ev ia tio n s are in parentheses n = 170 (85 couples) d f = 168


109Table 14

Item Summary Data fo r MCLI Scale

Items

MeanItemScore

StandardDeviation

1. Companionship 4 .9 1.6

2. P a rtn e r 's t r u s t in you 5 .4 1.5

3. Amount o f sexual a c t iv i ty 4 .3 1.7

4. Confid ing between spouses 4 .8 1.5

5. C o n flic t over d a ily decisions 4 .4 1.3

6. Time spent together 4 .6 1 .6

7. P a rtn e r 's d is p la y o f a ffe c tio n 4 .7 1.7

8. Sharing resp. fo r household tasks 4 .5 1 .6

9. Amount p a rtn e r lis te n s to you 4 .9 ' 1 .5

10, R e latio n sh ip e q u a lity 4 .9 1.5

11. C o n flic t over money 4 .5 1 .4

12. Amount o f c o m p a tib ility 5 .0 1.5

13. C o n flic t over le is u re tim e 4 .6 1.3

14. Disagreement over frien d s 4 .6 1.2

15. P artn e r's in te re s t in sex 4 .6 1.6

16. Money spent f a i r l y 4 .8 1 .4

17. C ritic is m by p a rtn e r 4 .4 1.5

18. Mutual respect 5 .0 1.5

19. E ffe c tiv e In te rp erso n a l Communication 4 .6 1.6

20. Amount o f love experienced 5 .2 1.7


110Table 14 - Continued

Items

MeanItemScore

StandardD evia tio n

21. Degree needs are met 4 .9 1.6

22. Freedom fo r ou ts ide fr ie n d s 5 .0 1.5

23. P a rtn e r 's resp. fo r house chores 4 .8 1.7

24. Amount p a rtn e r discusses sex 4 .6 1.6

25. Amount o f p rivacy experienced 4 .8 1 .4

26. Spouses support o f occupation 5 .5 1 .4

27. Agree on l i f e s t y le 5 .0 1 .4

28. Agree on number o f c h ild re n 5 .0 1 .4

29. P artn e r's physica l a ttra c tive n e ss 5 .4 1.5

30. Arguing over p e tty issues 4 .3 1.5

31. P a rtn e r 's jea lousy 4 .6 1.6

32. Commitment from spouse 5 .6 1.5


Table 15

Item Summary Data fo r DAS Scale

111

Items

MeanItemScore

StandardDeviation

1. Agree on fam ily finances 3.7 0 .8

2. Agree on re c re a tio n 3 .8 0 .8

3. Agree on re lig io u s matters 3 .9 1.0

4. Agree on demonstrations o f a ffe c tio n s 3 .6 1 .0

5. Agree on frien d s 3 .9 0 .8

6. Agree on sex re la tio n s 3 .6 1.1

7. Agree on co rrec t or proper behavior 3 .6 0.9

8. Agree on philosophy o f l i f e 3 .8 0 .9

9. Agree on d ealin g w ith parents 3 .7 . 0 .9

10. Agree on aims and goals 4 .0 0 .9

11. Agree on amount o f tim e together 3 .8 1.0

12. Agree on major decisions 4 .0 0 .8

13. Agree on household tasks 3.5 1.0

14. Agree on le is u re time 3.7 0 .9

15. Agree on career decisions 4 .0 0 .8

16. Consider ending marriage 4 .4 0 .8

17. Leave house a f te r fig h tin g 4 .4 0.7

18. Things going w e ll 3 .9 0 .9

19. Confide in mate 4 .0 0.9

20. Do not re g re t marrying 4 .3 0 .9


Table 15 - Continued 112

Items

MeanItemScore

StandardDeviation

21. Q uarrel

22. Get on o th e r 's nerves

23. Kiss your mate

24. Engage in ou ts ide in te re s ts

25. S tim u la tin g exchange o f ideas

26. Laugh together

27. Calmly discuss something

28. Work to g e th er on a p ro je c t

29. Too t i r e d fo r sex

30. Not showing love

31. Happiness in m arriage

32. Commitment to m arriage

3 .5

3 .4

3 .6

2.63 .1

4 .1

3 .9

2.8 0 .7

0 .7

3 .9

4 .1

0.80 .7

0.80 .7

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.3

0 .5

0 .4

1.3

0 .9


Appendix DScattergram and Pearson "r"

Calculations

113


114

PLOT OF VARIABLE: DTOT • (HORIZ.) vs VARIABLE: MTOT (VERT.224.0 +

A M M B ■ ■ «ai M

11L 11 111 1I ill 1 1I 1 21 2 311

192.0

160.0

123.0

96.00

64.00 +1

31.50

1 1 1 1 111

1 1 1 1 1

81.50

111 1111 1 1 2 1 21 1

I 211 1 3 21 11 122

1 1 113112 1 211121343 1 1

1 3 31322112 112 2 1

II 11331121 2 11 111 31111 3

1 1 1 1

131.556.50 106.5 156.

Figure 4: Typical Scattergram ShowingRelationship Between MCLI and DAS Scores


Table 16

Correlation of MCLI with DASfor First Married and Remarried Couples

115

V aria b le C o rre la tio n w ith DAS

F ir s t M arried Remarried Couples (n=114) Couples (n=56)

T o ta l Group (n=170)

MCLI .63 3 * .855* .718*

*p ^ .001

Table 17

1

C o rre la tio n o f MCLI w ith DAS fo r F i r s t M arried and Remarried Males


F ir s t M arried Remarried Males (n=57) Males (n=28)


MCLI .627* .882* .732*

*p ^ .001

Table 18

C o rre la tio n o f MCLI w ith DAS fo r F i r s t M arried and Remarried Females


F ir s t M arried Remarried Females (n=57) Females (n=28)


MCLI . 639* . 826* .702*

*p S .001


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrecht, S. L. (1979). Correlates of marital happiness among the remarried. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

857-867.Anderson, S. A., Russell, C. S., & Schumm, W. R. (1983).

Perceived marital quality and family life cycle categories : A further analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

127-139.Atkinson, T. (1980). Public perceptions of the quality of

life. In H. J. Adler & D. A. Burgess (Eds.), Perspectives Canada III (pp. 275-292). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Axelson, L. J. (1963). The marital adjustment and marital role definitions of husbands of working and nonworking wives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 25, 189-196.

Bahr, S. J., Chappell, C. B., & Leigh, G. K. (1983). Age at marriage, role enactment, role consensus, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 795-803. ' “

Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New York:World Press.

Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L., & Vincent, J. P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between maritally distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 349-360. ~

Blood, R. 0., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives : Thedynamics of married living. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Booth, A., & Welch, S. (1978). Spousal consensus and its correlates: A reassessment. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 40, 23-32.

Bowerman, C. E. (1964). Prediction studies. In H. T.Christensen (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family.(pp. 41-64). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological wellbeing. Chicago: Aldine.

Bradburn, N. M., & Caplovitz, D. (1965). Reports on happiness. Chi cago: Aldine.

116


117Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the devel

opment of close relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135-167). New York: Academic Press.

Brinley, D. E. (1975). Role competence and marital satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University.

Brorby, S. A. (1981). Development and field testing of the Premarital Relational Expectations Inventory. Dissertation Abstracts International. 41, 4362A. (University Microfilms No. 81-16028).

Brown, F. G. (1976). Principles of educational and psycho- ogical testing (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.

Burgess, E. W., & Cottrell, L. S. (1939). Predicting success or failure in marriage. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Burgess, E. W., & Locke, H. J. (1945). The family: Frominstitution to companionship (1st ed.). New York:American Book.

Burgess, E. W., & Locke, H. J., & Thomas, M. M. (1953). The family. New York: American Book.

Burgess, E. W., & Wallin, P. (1944). Predicting adjustment in marriage from adjustment in engagement. American Journal of Sociology, 49, 324-330.

Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. (1976). Relationship of wives’ employment status to husbands: Wife pair satisfaction and performance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 279-287.

Burr, W. R. (1970). Satisfaction with various aspects of marriage over the life cycle: A random middle class sample.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1970, 29-37.

Burr, W. R. (1971). An expansion and test of a role theory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 363-372.

Burr, W. R. (1973). Theory construction and the sociology of the family. New York: Wiley.

Burr, W. R., Hill, R., Nye, F. I., & Reiss, I. L. (1979).Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1). New York: The Free Press.

Burr, W. R., Leigh, G. K., Day, R. D., & Constantine, J. (1979).


118Symbolic interaction and the family. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp. 42-111). New York: Free Press

Byrne, D., & Blaylock, B. (1963). Similarities of attitude between husband and wife. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67, 636-640.

Campbell, A. (1980). The sense of well-being in America.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, and discriminant validity. American Psychologist. 15. 546-553.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 56. 81-105.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. In J.L. Sullivan (Ed.), Quantitative applications in the social sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 94-114). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Carter, H. & Glick, P. (1976). Marriage and divorce: Asocial and economic study. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Cattell, R. B. & Nesselroade, J. R. (1967). Likeness and completeness theories examined by 16 personality factor measures on stably and unstably married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1, 351-361.

Chadwick, B, A., Albrecht, S. L., & Kunz, P. R. (1976). Marital family role satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 38, 431-440.

Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology. 84. 634-650.

Chilman, C. S. (1983). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Researchresults and implications. In E. D. Macklin & R. H. Rubin (Eds.), Contemporary families and alter-lifestyles : Handbook on research and theory (pp. 147-162). Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.


119Clayton, R. R. (1975). The family, marriage, and social change.

Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Corsini, R. J. (1956). Multiple predictors and marital happi

ness. Marriage and Family Living. 18, 240-242.Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal

structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16, 297-334.Cutler, B. R., & Dyer, W. G. (1965). Initial adjustment pro

cesses in young married couples. Social Forces, 44,195-201. ~

Outright, P. (1971). Income and family events: Maritalstability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33,291-306. ~

Dean, G ., & Gurak, D. T. (1978). Marital homogamy the second time around. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 559-570.

Demaris, A. (1984). A comparison of remarriages with first marriages on satisfaction in marriage and its relationship to prior cohabitation. Family Relations, 33, 443-449.

Donohue, K. C., & Ryder, R. G. (1982). A methodological note on marital satisfaction and social variables. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 743-747.

Edmonds, V. (1967). Marital conventionalization: Definitionand measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 681-688. ~

Edmonds, V. H., Withers, G., & Dibatista, B. (1972). Adjustment, conservatism, and marital conventionalization.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34, 96-103.

Feldman, H. (1971). The effects of children on the family.In A. Michel (Ed.), Family issues of employed women in Europe and America (pp. 107-125). W. Leiden, Netherlands:E. J. Brill.

Ferguson, L. W. (1938). Correlates of marital happiness.Journal of Psychology, 6, 284-294.

Figley, C. R. (1973). Child density and the marital relationship. Journal of Marriage and the*Family, 35, 272-282.

Gagnon, J. H., & Greenblat, C. S. (1968). Life designs: Individuals, marriages, and families. Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman.

Galligan, R. J. & Bahr, S. J. (1978). Economic well-


120being and marital stability: Implications for incomemaintenance programs. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 283-290.

Glenn, N. D. (1975). The contribution of marriage to the psychological well-being of males and females. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 594-600.

Glenn, N. D. & McLanahan,S. (1982). Children and marital happiness: A further specification of the relationship.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 63-73.

Glenn, N., & Weaver, C. (1977). The marital happiness of remarried divorced persons. Journal of Marriage and and the Family, 39, 331-337.

Goldfried, M. (1977). Behavior assessment in perspective.In J. D. Cone & R. P. Hawkins (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: New directions in clinical psychology. (pp. 3-22).New York: Bruner/Mazel.

Goldstein, H. S. (1974). Reconstituted families: Thesecond marriage and its children. Psychiatric Quarterly, 48 (3), 433-440.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Factor analysis. Philadelphia, PA:W. B. Saunders.

Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interactions : Empirical investigations. New York: Academic Press.

Gottman, J., Notarius, C., Gonso, J., & Markman, H. (1976).A couple's guide to communication. Champaign, IL:Research Press.

Grafton, N. M. (1979). Marital expectations of satisfied and dissatisfied couples (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 5321A-5322A.

Greene, B. L. (1970). A clinical approach to marital problems. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. (1960). Americans view their mental health. New York: Basic Books.

Hamilton, G . V. (1929). A research in marriage. New York: Lear.

Hawkins, J. L. (1966). The Locke Marital Adjustment Test and social desirability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 28, 193-195.


121Hawkins, J. L., & Johnson, K. (1969). Perception of behav

ioral conformity, imputation and consensus, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 31, 507-511.

Hicks, M. W. & Platt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and stability; A review of the research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 32. 553-573.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms.New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms.(2nd ed). New York: Harcourt & Brace.

Houseknect, S. K. (1979). Childlessness and marital adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 41. 259-265.

Hunt, M., & Hunt, B. (1977). The divorce experience: A look at the world of the formerly married. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hurvitz, N. (1960). The marital roles inventory and the measurement of marital adjustment. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 16. 377-380.

Hurvitz, N. (1965). Control roles, marital strain, role deviation, and marital adjustment. Journal of Marriageand the Family. 27. 29-31.

Kachigan, S. K. (1982). Multivariate statistical analysis.New York: Radius Press.

Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy.Psychometrika. 35. 401-415.

Katz, M. (1974). Agreement on connotative meaning in marriage. Family Process. 8, 64-74.

Kelley, H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.

Kerckoff, A. (1972). Status-related value patterns among married couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family,3A, 105-110.

Kimmel, D., & VanderVeen, F. (1974). Factors of marital adjustment in Locke's marital adjustment test. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 36, 57-63.

Kolb, T. M., & Strauss, M. A. (1974). Marital power and marital happiness in relation to problem-solving abil-


122ity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 756-766.

Landis, J.T. (1963). Social correlates of divorce or nondivorce among the unhappily married. Marriage and Family Living. 25, 178-180.

Langhorne, M. C., & Secord, P. F. (1955). Variations inmarital needs with age, sex, marital, status, and regional locations. Journal of Social Psychology. 41, 19-38.

Larson, L. E. (1974). System and sub-system perception of family roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 123-128. ~

Laws, J. L. (1971). A feminist review of the marital adjustment literature: The Rape of the Locke. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 483-516.

Lenthall, G. (1977). Marital satisfaction and marital stability. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 25-32.

Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: Anintegrative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27,19-28. ' ~

Levinger, G. (1966). Source of marital dissatisfaction amongapplicants for divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,

803-807.Levinger, G., & Senn, D. J. (1967). Disclosure of feelings in

marriage. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 13, 237-249.Lewis, R.A., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the

quality and stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill,F. I. Nye, and I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp 268-294). New York: The Free Press.

Lewis, R.A., & Spanier, G . B. (1982). Marital quality, marital stability, and social exchange. In F. I. Nye (Ed.), Family relationships: Rewards and costs. (pp. 49-65). BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Lively, E. L. (1969). Toward conceptual clarification: Caseof marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 108-114.

Locke, H. J. (1947). Predicting marital adjustment by comparing a divorced and happily married group. American Sociological Review. 12, 187-191.

Locke, H. J. (1951). Predicting adjustment in marriage; A


123comparison of a divorced and happily married group. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriageand Family Living. 21. 251-255.

Locke, H. J., & Williamson, R. C. (1958). Marital adjustment:A factor analysis study. American Sociological Review, 23, 562-569.

Macklin, E. D. (1980). Nontraditional family forms : A decadeof research. Journal of Mirriage and the Family, 1980,

905-922.Marini, M. M. (1976). Dimensions of marriage happiness: A

research note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 443-448.

Maxwell, J. W., & Andress, E. L. (1982). Marriage roleexpectations of divorced men and women. Journal of Divorce,5 (4), 55-66.

Medling, J. M., & McCarrey, M. (1981). Marital adjustment over segments of the family life cycle: .The issue of spouses' value similarity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, « , 195-202.

Miller, B. C. (1975). Child density, marital satisfaction, and conventionalization: A research note. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 37, 345-347.

Miller, B. C. (1976). A multivariate developmental model of marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family,38. 643-657.

Murstein, B. I. (1967). Empirical tests of role, complementary needs, and homogamy theories of marital choice. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 689-696.

Murstein, B. I. (1972). Person perception and courtship progress among premarital couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34, 621-626.

Navron, L. (1967). Communication and adjustment in marriage. Family Process, 6, 173-184.

Norton, A. J., & Glick, P. C. (1976). Marital instability:Past, present, and future. Journal of Social Issues,32, 5-20.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York:


124McGraw-Hill.

Nye, F. I. (1976). Role structure and analysis of the family.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Nye, F. I. (1979). Choice, exchange, and the family. InW. R. Burr, R. Hill, R. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp. 1-41). New York: The Free Press.

Nye, F . I. (1982). The basic theory. In F. I. Nye, Familyrelationships: Rewards and costs (pp. 13-31). BeverlyHills, CA: Sage..

Nye, F . I., & McLaughlin, S. (1976). Role competence and marital satisfaction. In F. I. Nye (Ed.), Role structure and analysis of the family (pp. 191-205). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Orden, S. R., & Bradburn. (1968). Dimensions of marriage happiness. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 715-731.

Ort, R. S. (1950). A study of role-conflicts as related tohappiness in marriage. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 45, 691-699.

Pascal, H. J. (1974). Need interaction as a factor inmarital adjustment. Dissertation Abstracts International,15, 2056A-2057A.

Patterson, G. R., & Reid, J. B. (1970). Reciprocity andcoercion: Two facets of social systems. In C. Neuringer& J. Michael (Eds.), Behavior modification in clinical psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Portner, J. (1983). Work and family: Achieving a balance.In H. I. McCubbin & C. R. Figley (Eds.), Coping with normative transitions (Vol. 1, pp. 163-178). New York: Bruner/Mazel.

Price-Bonham, S., & Balswick, J. 0. (1980). The noninstitutions: Divorce, desertion, and remarriage. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 42, 959-972.

Renne, K. S. (1971). Health and marital experience in an urban population. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33. 338-350. ~

Rhyne, D. (1981). Bases of marital satisfaction among menand women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43. 941-955.

Rogers, H. J., & Sharpley, C. F. (1984). Preliminary valida-


125tion of the abbreviated dyadic adjustment scale: Some psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital adjustment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 1045-1049.

Rollins, B. C., & Cannon, K. L. (1974). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle: A réévaluation. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 36, 271-282.

Rollins, B. C., & Feldman, H. (1970). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 20-28.

Rollins, B. C., & Galligan, R. (1978). The developing child and marital satisfaction of parents. In R. Lerner &G. Spanier (Eds.), Children's influences on marital and family interaction: A life-span perspective. (pp. 71-102).New York: Academic Press.

Ryder, R. G. (1968). Husband-wife dyads versus married strangers. Family Process, 7, 233-238.

Ryder, R. G . (1973). Longitudinal data relating marriage satisfaction to having a child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35, 604-606.

Ryder, R. G., & Goodrich, D. W. (1966). Married couples' response to disagreement. Family Press, 5, 43-48.

Ruesch, J. (1957). Disturbed communication. New York:Norton.

Sabatelli, R. M. (1984). The Marital Comparison Level Index:A measure for assessing outcomes relative to expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 651-662.

Sager, C. J. (1976). Marriage contracts and couple therapy: Hidden forces in intimate relationships. New York: Bruner/Mazel.

Scanzoni, J. (1968). A social system analysis of dissolved and existing marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 452-461.

Schindler, L., & Vollmer, M. (1984). Cognitive perspectives in behavioral marital therapy: Some proposals for bridging theory, research, and practice. In K. Halweg & N. S. Jacobson, Marital interaction: Analysis and modification(pp. 309-322). New York: Guilford Press.

Schultz, L. K. (1977). Role performance congruity and marital satisfaction. (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State


126University). Dissertation Abstracts International. 37, 5747A. “

Sharpley, C. F., & Cross, D. G. (1982). A psychometric evaluation of the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 44, 739-741.

Snyder, D. K. (1979). Multidimensional assessment of marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 813-823. ~

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: Newscales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.

Spanier, G. B., & Cole, C. L. (1976). Toward clarification and investigation of marital adjustment. International Journal of the Sociology of the Family, 6, 121-146.

Spanier, G. B., & Thompson, L. (1982). A confirmatory analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 731-738.

Spanier, G. B., & Lewis, R. A. (1979). Marital quality: Areview of the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 825-839.

Stone, W. F. (1973). Patterns of conformity in couples varying in intimacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 413-418.

Stuart, R. B. (1969). Operant interpersonal treatment for marital discord. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 675-682.

Stuart, R. B. (1980). Helping couples change: A sociallearning approach to marital therapy. New York:Guilford Press.

Stuckert, R. P. (1963). Role perception and marital satisfaction-a configurational approach. Marriage and Family Living, 25, 415-419.

Tallman, I. (1976). Passion, action, and policies: Aperspective on social problems and social problemsolving. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Terman, L. W. (1938). Psychological factors in maritalhappiness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Terman, L. W. (1950). Prediction data: Predicting marriage failure from test scores. Marriage and Family


127Living, 12, 51-54.

Terman, L., & Buttenwiser, P. (1935). Personality factors in marital compatibility. Journal of Social Psychology,9, 143-171.

Tharp, R. G. (1963). Dimensions of marriage roles.Marriage and Family Living. 25, 389-404.

Thayer, J. P. (1980). Between the real and the ideal:A study of the past and future expectations of marriage as reported by mid-life men and women. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 1801-A (University Microfilms No. 80-22, 168).

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Udry, J. (1971). The social context of marriage (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.

Van Es, J., & Shingi, P. (1972). Response consistency of husband and wife for selected attitudinal items.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34, 741-749.

Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1979). Stepfamilies:A guide to working with stepparents and stepchildren.New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Weingarten, H. (1980). Remarriage and well-being.Journal of Family Issues, i (4), 533-559.

White, L. K. (1979). Sex differentials in the effect of remarriage on global happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 869-876.

Wright, J. D. (1978). Are working women really satisfied: Evidence from several national surveys.Journal of Marriage and the Family. 40. 301-313.


Documents

A Study of the Relationship between Marital Expectations