Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 17 October 2014, At: 09:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Explaining the Sense of FamilyCoherence Among Husbandsand Wives: The Israeli CaseLiat Kulik aa Bar Ilan UniversityPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Liat Kulik (2009) Explaining the Sense of Family CoherenceAmong Husbands and Wives: The Israeli Case, The Journal of Social Psychology, 149:6,627-647
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540903344989
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
627
The Journal of Social Psychology, 2009, 149(6), 627–647Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications
VSOC0022-4545The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 149, No. 6, Oct 2009: pp. 0–0The Journal of Social Psychology
Explaining the Sense of Family Coherence Among Husbands and Wives:
The Israeli Case
The Journal of Social PsychologyKulik LIAT KULIKBar Ilan University
ABSTRACT. This study examined variables belonging to the family environment thatexplain the sense of family coherence among husbands (n = 133) and wives (n = 133) inIsrael. Specifically, the explanatory variables tested were spousal power relations (asexpressed in equality in the division of household labor and decision making), and per-ceived family conflict. In general, the sense of family coherence among spouses wasfound to be high. Perceived family conflict contributed to explaining the sense of familycoherence for both husbands and wives. Equality in the division of household labor and indecision making had a greater impact on husbands than wives. Family coherence corre-lated negatively with age for husbands and positively with income for wives. The explana-tory variables had a greater impact on the sense of family coherence among husbands thanamong wives.
Keywords: family coherence, division of household labor, decision making, perceivedfamily conflict
Normative, social, and economic developments in contemporary societies havegenerated stressors in family life that require a process of constant change andadaptation (Olson & DeFrain, 1997). Recent studies have found that one impor-tant resource that facilitates adaptation is family coherence (Sagy, 1998). Basedon Antonovsky’s (1987) concept of the personal sense of coherence, the conceptof family coherence pertains mainly to elements of consistency in rules andnorms, even-handedness in demands, and meaningful participation in the collec-tive family experience. Numerous research findings have revealed that the senseof family coherence can be understood as a family resilience resource that has aninfluence on the individual’s quality of life and diminishes the negative impact ofstressful life events and crises (Friborg, Sorlie, & Rosenvinge, 2005; Lightburn &Pine, 1996; Pierce, 2001; Randsom, Fisher & Howard, 1992; Sagy, 1998; Sagy &
Address correspondence to Liat Kulik, School of Social Work, Bar Ilan University, RamatGan, 52900 Israel; [email protected] (e-mail).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
628 The Journal of Social Psychology
Dotan, 2001). In grappling with adversity, families do best when a sense ofcoherence is achieved by recasting a crisis as a challenge that is comprehensible,manageable, and meaningful to tackle. This involves efforts to clarify the natureand source of problems and available options. For the most part, researchers haveconsidered the sense of family coherence as a predictor of successful adjustment,for both individuals and families, to stressful life situations, or as a mediatingvariable between stressors and adaptation. With very few exceptions (e.g.,Friborg et al., 2005), researchers have not examined family coherence as an out-come of other variables. Owing to the importance of family coherence as aresource for adaptation, it is important to examine the factors that shape thisresource in family environment.
This study fills a gap in knowledge regarding the sources of the sense offamily coherence among spouses in the Israeli society. Given that family coher-ence is considered a family resource, we examined its sources in the interper-sonal relations of family members.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of the present study was based on Bronfenbrenner’s(1979, 1995) ecological approach. Bronfenbrenner conceptualized how contextcharacteristics and specific elements in the environment (e.g., objects, events,actions, and relationships) shape the individual’s development. Bronfenbrenner’sapproach conceptualizes the individual’s environment as a series of concentriclevels involving settings of day-to-day living, including personal relationshipsbetween family members. The aspects of interpersonal relations examined in thiscontext are spousal power relations, reflected in the division of household laborand decision making, and perceived family conflict. The study also seeks tounderstand whether or not the sources of perceived family coherence are different foreach spouse.
The theoretical basis for testing differences between husbands and wives inthe sets of variables that explain the sense of family coherence is gender role the-ory, which posits that there is broad agreement on the properties that characterizemen and women (Williams & Best, 1982). Most of the properties that characterizemen focus on personal development and achievement, whereas most of the prop-erties that characterize women focus on consideration and care for others. Inwork predating that of Williams and Best, Bakan (1966) grouped properties thatcharacterize women under the title “communion,” and properties that characterizemen under the title “agency.” The term agency, as coined by Bakan (1966),denotes self-protection, self-assertion, and self-expression, and is thus characterizedby individuation and independence in relationship to others. The orientationtoward agency, which typifies masculine behavior, often causes the individual tosacrifice the needs of others in order to maintain personal autonomy. In contrast,the term communion alludes to participation in a group and denotes openness,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 629
sympathy, compassion, and responsibility for the social and interpersonal aspectsof family life. Such expectations are common for women, who are encouraged toplace the needs of others above their own and to take the lead in the developmentof social relations (Brown & Gilligan, 1992). Based on this theoretical frame-work, the present study examined the relationships between several aspects ofinterpersonal relations in the family environment and the sense of family coher-ence for husbands and wives.
Aspects of Interpersonal Relations
Spousal Power Relations
The concept of power relations has played a central role in describing spousaldynamics since Blood and Wolfe’s (1960) classic study, which has, over theyears, produced a steady stream of research and theoretical developments (Kulik,2004; Reiss & Webster, 2004; Rodman, 1972; Safilios-Rothschild, 1970). Thepractical importance of the concept of spousal power relations derives from itsconnections to aspects of couples’ emotional welfare and quality of marital life(Kulik & Rayyan, 2003; Wilcox & Nock, 2006). In the family context, we evalu-ated this dimension on the basis of two measures—division of household labor,and decision-making—which are the predominant measures cited in the researchliterature on spousal power relations.
Division of household labor. Theories relating to the division of household laborassume that both men and women consider housework an undesirable task, andthat the partner with greater resources will engage in negotiations in an attempt toavoid responsibility for housework (Brines, 1993) and will essentially be themore powerful partner at home. Despite increasing female labor force participa-tion and changing attitudes toward sharing of housework, gender inequalitypersists. Regardless of age, race, ethnicity, and marital status, women spend moretime doing unpaid family work than men (Bergen, 1991; Blair, 1993; Demo &Acock, 1993). Although women in dual-earner families spend less time doinghousework than other wives, and notwithstanding the increase in the husband’srelative contributions, employed wives still bear the primary responsibility fortraditionally feminine tasks (Lewin-Epstein, Stier & Braun, 2006).
Decision-making. The tendency to give decision-making power to one partner orboth partners is largely determined by social norms, as well as by the amount ofresources available to each partner and the extent to which each partner is knowl-edgeable about the issue at hand (Kulik & Zuckerman-Bareli, 1997; Kurdek,1993; Reiss & Webster, 2004). Research findings have revealed that equality inthe division of household labor and in decision making are related to maritalquality, and that dissatisfaction can arise when relationships are inequitable
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
630 The Journal of Social Psychology
(i.e., when spouses feel overvalued or undervalued in their social interactions,Kulik, 2002b; Spitze, 1988). Many contemporary family scholars argue that egal-itarian marriages are characterized by the kind of affection, empathy, and qualitytime devoted to intimacy that makes for high-quality, stable marriages (Amato,Johnson, Booth & Rogers, 2003; Goldscheider & Waite, 1991). Sharing roles anddecision-making is believed to increase the quality of marriage for a number ofreasons. First, sharing activities provides husbands and wives with commonexperiences and interests, around which they can build conversations, empatheticregards and mutual understanding. Second, the elimination of patriarchal author-ity and power in the marital relationship through sharing and equality is seen as akey mechanism for promoting marital intimacy (Wilcox & Nock, 2006).
For all of the reasons mentioned above, it can be supposed that equality inmarriage, as expressed in the division of household labor and decision-makingpatterns, will provide spouses with a sense of consistency, manageability, and ameaningful marital life, which are the basic elements of family coherence. Fol-lowing above-mentioned distinction between male and female orientations andcharacteristics (Bakan, 1966), and based on research findings that have demon-strated that women have more egalitarian attitudes regarding family life (Evelo,Jessell, & Beymer, 1991; Kulik, 2002a), we assumed that perceived equality inthe division of household labor and in decision making will have a greater posi-tive impact on the sense of family coherence for wives than for husbands.
Conflictual Family Relations
The perception of conflict in family life reflects the degree of anger, aggression,and discord between family members on major issues of concern (Moos & Moos,1981). Within the family context, conflicts may arise between spouses andbetween parents and their children, especially when those children are adoles-cents (as in this study’s sample). In a major study of families across their lifecycle, Olson, Russell & Sprenkel (1983) found that family cohesion and maritaland family satisfaction tend to be low in families with adolescent children, wherethe rate of disputes between spouses was highest and the levels of marital com-munication were lowest. Conflicts over autonomy-related issues and increasingparent-adolescent distance diminished marital satisfaction and negatively influ-enced the psychological well-being of parents (Silverberg & Steinberg, 1987).
In light of this evidence, we hypothesized that a harmonious family climatecharacterized by low levels of perceived conflict will foster a sense of familycoherence. Furthermore, in accordance with Bakan’s approach (1966), and in-linewith the findings of recent studies (for a review see Walker, 1999) demonstratingthat despite changes to contemporary gender roles, harmony in social relations isstill more important to women than men, we hypothesized that the impact of highlevels of perceived conflict will have a greater and more negative impact on thesense of family coherence for wives than for their husbands.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 631
The Israeli Family
Since 1948, Israel has absorbed large groups of Jewish immigrants from allover the world, including North African and Middle-Eastern countries as well ascountries in Europe and other parts of the Western world. Israeli society is industri-alized and urbanized on the one hand but maintains a traditional family orientationon the other (Fogiel-Bijaoui, 2006; Lavee & Katz, 2003). The high value of familylife derives from the combined influence of the Jewish religion and traditional cul-ture, especially for Jews of Asian-African origin, who are typically more traditionalthan their European-American counterparts. The familistic orientation in Israelisociety is also found for descendants of Holocaust survivors who seek to establishnew families. Moreover, continued military unrest has intensified the need for per-sonal security and support deriving from family ties. In keeping with the familisticorientation in Israeli society, allocation of domestic tasks is still largely traditionalin many Israeli families, i.e., women still bear the main responsibility for child care,whereas men are considered the main providers (Fogiel-Bijaoui, 2006).
At the same time, changes in the direction of egalitarian patterns of family lifeare evident in Israel. Since the 1960s, there has been a steady increase in the pro-portion of women with academic education, as well as in the number of women pur-suing careers that were once considered exclusively masculine (Svirsky, Connor,Svirsky, & Yehezkel, 2000). As a result, many women are financially independent,and some can support themselves and their children on their own (Fogiel-Bijaoui,2006). Under these conditions, more couples are also willing to terminate their mar-riage when they feel that the relationship is unsatisfactory. Thus, divorce rates haverisen over the past decades among the Jewish population of Israel, followed by asubstantial increase in single-parent families. Today, three main family patterns canbe distinguished in Israeli society: (a) Traditional families, in which the husband isthe dominant partner and serves as the main provider while the wife maintains thehousehold and has a lower status. (b) Modern families, which combine modern andtraditional characteristics. In these families, which are most prevalent in Israel, thehusband is the main provider and the wife supplements the family income. The divi-sion of labor in the home still tends to be traditional, but the husband participatesmore actively in household chores than in traditional families. And (c) Post-modernfamilies, in which the husband and wife are financially autonomous, and both ofthem espouse values that emphasize individual needs that are fulfilled in the familycontext. These families include dual-career families as well as families in which thewife earns more than her husband (Stier, 2006). In addition, these families incorpo-rate single-parents, and families in which the partners are of the same sex.
Research Hypotheses
Based on the theoretical and the empirical background presented above, thefollowing hypotheses were tested in the study:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
632 The Journal of Social Psychology
1. The more household labor is equally divided, the higher the spouses’sense of family coherence will be.
2. The relationship between equality in the division of household labor andsense of family coherence will be stronger for wives than for husbands.
3. The more decision making is perceived as equitable, the higher thespouses’ sense of family coherence will be.
4. The relationship between equality in decision making and sense of familycoherence will be stronger for wives than for husbands.
5. The lower the level of perceived family conflict, the higher the sense offamily coherence for husbands and wives.
6. The relationship between perceived family conflict and sense of familycoherence will be stronger for wives than for husbands.
7. In addition, the study examined the general contribution of family envi-ronment variables to explaining the sense of family coherence for eachspouse separately. Given the different orientations and family rolesmentioned above, it was expected that there would be some differencesin the set of variables that explain the sense of family coherence forhusbands and wives.
METHOD
Sample
The research sample was comprised of 133 married Israeli couples(133 husbands and 133 wives), all of whom were parents with at least one ado-lescent child. The mean age was 49.00 (SD = 5.45) for the husbands and 45.8(SD = 4.90) for the wives. The distribution of education level among husbandswas 45.8% high school graduates and 54.2% with some post-secondary educa-tion (academic or other). The distribution of education among wives was 44.8%and 55.2% respectively. All of the participants belonged to dual-earner families,i.e., families in which both partners were employed at least part-time. Themean duration of marriage was 22.9 years (SD = 4.67), and the average numberof children per family was 2.8 (SD = 1.80).
Religiosity was distributed as follows: 51.9% of the husbands defined them-selves as secular, 19.5% as traditional, and 28.6% as religious. Among the wives,the distribution was 49.1%, 24.5%, and 26.4%, respectively. Regarding income,11.3% of husbands defined themselves as having lower-than-average income,38.3% as having average income, and 50.4% as having above-average income.The distribution of self-defined income among wives was 11.6%, 45.0%, and43.4% respectively. Regarding ethnic origin, 47.3 % of the husbands definedthemselves as Mizrahim (Jews of Middle Eastern or African origin), and 52.7%as Ashkenazim (Jews of European origin). Among the wives, the distribution was49.2% and 50.8%, respectively.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 633
Instruments
Sociodemographic Background
The questionnaire included basic items on the participants’ background vari-ables such as age, ethnic origin (assessed by self-definition), level of education,number of children, and duration of marriage. Other background variablesincluded self-assessed family income, on a scale ranging from 1 (considerablybelow average) to 5 (considerably above average); and self-assessed religiosity—1(secular), 2 (traditional), 3 (religious).
Family Coherence
This construct was evaluated on the basis of the Family Coherence Scaleadopted by Sagy (1998) from Antonovsky & Sourani’s (1988) personal sense ofcoherence questionnaire. The instrument used in this study consisted of 12 itemsthat examined the extent to which participants perceived the family unit as beingcharacterized by an orderly and manageable structure (e.g., “Has a family mem-ber you relied on disappointed you?” “Do you sometimes feel that you have noclear sense of what is about to happen in your family?” “To what extent do youfeel that the rules in your family are clear to you?”). Responses were based on a7-point scale, which was formulated such that higher scores reflected higherlevels of family coherence. The questionnaire was found to distinguish betweenchildren who were abused by their parents and those who were not (Dothan,1996). The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability value for the questionnaire in the presentstudy was .85. One score was derived by calculating the mean of the items of thequestionnaire: the higher the score, the higher the participant’s sense of coherence.
Spousal Power Relations
This dimension was evaluated by the division of household labor and decision-making patterns.
Division of Household Labor
The original questionnaire, developed by Ichilov and Rubineck (1978),examined which partner does most of the household labor and included 11 items.The authors of the questionnaire reported that it distinguished between adoles-cents’ evaluations of the division of household labor and the actual division oftasks in the household. The questionnaire was redesigned for the present study,and some of the items that correlated highly with each other were combined.In addition, after adding some items that reflect the division of household laborin the family today, the final questionnaire included 12 items. For each item,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
634 The Journal of Social Psychology
participants were asked to indicate who does most of the work at home, such asgrocery shopping, cooking, and household repairs. Responses were based on a5-point scale ranging from 1 (husband always) to 5 (wife always). In the dataanalysis stage, items were recoded to reflect the extent of equality in householdlabor as follows: The responses 1 (husband always) and 5 (wife always) on theoriginal questionnaire were both given a score of 1 on the new scale to indicate“totally unequal division of household labor.” The responses 2 (husband some-times) and 4 (wife sometimes) on the original questionnaire were both given ascore of 2 on the new scale to indicate a “somewhat egalitarian division of house-hold labor.” The response of 3 on the original questionnaire remained the sameand indicated “egalitarian division of household labor.” One score was derivedby calculating the mean of the items of the questionnaire: the higher the score, themore the division of household labor was perceived as egalitarian. The Cronbach’sAlpha reliability of the questionnaire in the present study was .86.
Decision Making
A 10-item questionnaire developed by Katz (1980) and updated for thisstudy (Kulik, 2002b) was used to evaluate which partner makes major decisionsin the home (e.g., “who decides about major purchases in your household?”). Inthe original questionnaire, responses were based on a 5-point scale ranging from1 (husband always) to 5 (wife always). To create a scale that measures the extentof equality in decision-making patterns at home, the basic scale of the instrumentwas recoded. The responses “I always decide” (1) and “my spouse always decides”(5) were both given a score of 1 to indicate non-egalitarian decision making. Theresponses “I usually decide” (2) and “my spouse usually decides” (4) were given ascore of 2 to indicate somewhat non-egalitarian decision making. The midpoint, 3,remained the same and represented equality in decision making. One score wasderived by computing the mean of the scores on all items: the higher the score, themore egalitarian the decision-making patterns. Kulik (2002b) used the sameupdated questionnaire and reported a correlation between dominance in decisionmaking and the amount of resources available to each partner. In this study theCronbach’s Alpha reliability value for the questionnaire was .87.
Conflictual Family Relations
This dimension was reflected by the extent of perceived conflict in the familyclimate and was evaluated on the basis of one scale from the Family Environ-ment Questionnaire (Moos & Moos, 1981). The perceived family conflict scaleused in this study included 18 items, which examined the extent of anger, aggression,and struggle in the family. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to whicheach item reflected their perceived level of conflict in their families (e.g., “thereis very little cooperation between family members”). Answers were given on a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 635
5-point scale ranging from 1 (to a great extent) to 5 (not at all). One score wasderived by calculating the mean of the items on the questionnaire: the higherscore, the higher the level of perceived conflict in the family. The Cronbach’sAlpha reliability value for the questionnaire used in the present study was .78.
Data Collection
Research assistants collected data in 2003 and 2004 as part of a largeresearch project conducted at a university in Israel that dealt with comparing per-spectives of mothers, fathers, and their adolescent children regarding maindimensions of family life. The findings presented here refer only to husbands andwives. Research assistants were instructed to contact 10 local community centerswith active youth groups. Adolescents at those centers were asked to providetheir telephone number, and their parents were subsequently contacted by theresearch assistants to fill in the questionnaires. The questionnaires were adminis-tered at the family’s home in the presence of the research assistants. The spousescompleted the questionnaire separately. Twenty-five minutes were required tocomplete the questionnaire. Of the families approached to participate in thestudy, 70% agreed to take part. Thirty questionnaires were eliminated becauseresponses were not obtained from both spouses.
Data Analysis
The data analysis stage began by conducting a MANOVA and ANOVAs toexamine differences between husbands and wives in the main research variables.This procedure was also used to generate a general profile of the main researchvariables. The general strategy for data processing was comparing the relation-ships between the sense of family coherence and the explanatory variables asreflected in the various family dimensions for each spouse. To this purpose, Pearsoncorrelations were carried out separately for husbands and wives (testing Hypotheses1–6). In order to examine the combined contribution of the research variables toexplaining the sense of family coherence for each spouse, and in order to exam-ine whether the set of the explanatory variables are different for husbands andwives, hierarchical regression analysis was carried out separately for each spouse(testing Hypothesis 7).
RESULTS
Differences Between Husbands and Wives in Family Coherence and the Explanatory Variables
The one-way MANOVA performed to examine differences betweenhusbands and wives in the research variable revealed no significant differences.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
636 The Journal of Social Psychology
The means and standard deviations of family coherence and the explanatory vari-ables for the entire sample are presented in Table 1. The findings revealed a highlevel of family coherence: M = 5.19, SD = 0.83 on a 7-point scale, above scalemidpoint 4.00. In addition, the level of perceived family conflict was low:M = 2.15, SD = 0.55, on 5-point scale, below the scale midpoint 3.00. Moreover,the division of household labor was perceived by the participants as equal:M = 2.02, SD = 0.32. The same was true for decision-making: M = 2.26,SD = 0.34, both variables on a 3-point scale.
Correlations Between Sense of Family Coherence and the Research Variables (Hypotheses 1–6)
Table 2 presents the intercorrelations between the research variables sepa-rately for each spouse. As for the relations between the sense of family coherenceand the explanatory research variables, high and negative correlations werefound between perceived family conflict and family coherence for both husbandsand wives. For both spouses, high levels of perceived family conflict correlatednegatively with sense of family coherence. Although Fisher Z tests revealed nosignificant differences between the correlations, Table 2 indicates that thestrength of the correlation was higher for husbands than for wives. In addition, alow but positive correlation was found between equality in the division of house-hold labor and the sense of family coherence for both spouses: the greater theequality in the division of household labor, the higher the sense of family coher-ence. Equality in decision making correlated positively and moderately with thesense of family coherence only for husbands and not for wives. For husbands, thehigher the perceived equality in decision making in marital life, the higher thesense of family coherence.
In addition to the correlations between family coherence and the explanatoryvariables, significant correlations between participants’ background variablesand family coherence should be mentioned. As shown in Table 2, a negative,moderate, and significant correlation between age and family coherence wasfound for husbands but not for wives: the older the husbands, the lower their
TABLE 1. Research Variables Description (N=133)
Variables Mean SD Min Max Scale
Family coherence 5.19 .83 1.38 5.91 1–7Family conflict 2.15 .55 2.14 5.00 1–5Equality in division of household labor 2.02 .32 1.33 3.00 1–3Equality in decision-making 2.26 .34 1.11 3.00 1–3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 637
TA
BL
E 2
. Int
erco
rrel
atio
ns B
etw
een
the
Res
earc
h V
aria
bles
Hus
band
sW
ives
Var
iabl
es1
23
45
67
81
23
45
67
8
1A
ge.1
8*.6
8***
.06
−.23
**.1
4.0
2.0
7.2
8**.7
1***
−.07
−.06
.12
−.20
*−.
052
Rel
igio
sity
.38**
.07
−.02
.04
−.17
*.0
4.4
9***
.16*
.11
−.09
−.22
**−.
22**
3M
arita
l Dur
atio
n.1
0−.
01.0
1.0
8.0
6.1
2.0
8.0
7−.
12−.
114
Fam
ily I
ncom
e16
*.0
4.0
8.0
6.2
5**−.
12.3
0**.0
35
Fam
ily C
oher
ence
−.65
***
.16*
.32**
−.59
**.1
7*.1
06
Fam
ily C
onfl
ict
−.08
−.22
**−.
04−.
16*
7E
qual
ity in
div
isio
n of
hou
seho
ld la
bor
.22*
.38**
*
8E
qual
ity in
dec
isio
n-
mak
ing
* p
< .0
5 **
p <
.01
***
p <
.001
.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
638 The Journal of Social Psychology
sense of family coherence. An additional background variable that correlatedsignificantly to the sense of coherence for both spouses was income level.Although Fisher Z tests revealed no significant differences among the correla-tions, as shown in Table 2, the correlation was higher for wives than for hus-bands. In addition, several correlations between the explanatory variableswere found to be significant. A low but significant negative correlation wasfound for both spouses between the level of perceived family conflict andequality in decision making: the greater the perceived equality in decisionmaking, the lower the level of perceived family conflict. In addition, a moder-ate but significant positive correlation was found between equality in the divi-sion of household labor and equality in decision making. This correlation wasfound for both husbands and wives: the more spouses perceive the division ofhousehold labor as equal, the more they perceived decision-making patterns asequal as well.
The Combined Contribution of the Research Variables to Explaining Sense of Family Coherence Among Husbands and Wives (Hypothesis 7)
To examine the combined contribution of the variables included in the inter-personal dimensions of marital life, hierarchical regressions were conductedseparately for husbands and wives. In the first step, background variables, includ-ing age, religiosity, origin, marital duration, and income, were entered into theregression equation, parceling out their impact on the sense of family coherencefrom the impact of the other variables, which were entered into the regressionequation in later steps.
In the second step, perceived family conflict was entered. In the third step,the variables representing spousal power relations were entered. These includeequity in the division of household labor and equity in decision making.
Husbands
Taken together, the independent research variables accounted for 60% of thesense of family coherence for husbands. The background variables explained12% of the husbands’ sense of family coherence. For the background variables,only age contributed significantly. Beta coefficients indicate that the higher theage, the lower the sense of family coherence. Perceived family conflict, whichentered in the second step, explained a high proportion of variance in familycoherence for husbands (Δ = 44%), over and above the variance explained by thebackground variables. Beta coefficients indicated that the more the husbandperceived conflict in family relations, the lower his sense of family coherence. Itshould be mentioned that the impact of age on family coherence remained signif-icant even after entering the perceived family conflict variable. The variablesrelating to equality in spousal power relations, entered in the fourth step, explained
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 639
4% of the variance over and above the variance explained by the variablesentered in previous steps. However, as Table 3 indicates, of the two variablesrelating to equality in spousal power relations, only equality in decision mak-ing had a significant impact. The Beta coefficient indicated that the higher thelevel of perceived equality in decision making, the higher the sense of familycoherence for husbands. It should also be mentioned that the impact of ageand perceived family conflict remained significant even after entering thevariables relating to equality in spousal power relations into the regressionequation.
Wives
Taken together, as indicated in Table 4, the independent research variablesaccounted for 42% of the sense of family coherence for wives. The backgroundvariables explained 8% of the wives’ sense of family coherence. Among the
TABLE 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Explaining Family Coherence – Husbands (N = 133)
B SEB b R2 �R2
Step 1Age −.06 .02 −.38** .12 12Religiosity −.10 .10 −.10Origin −.06 .18 −.04Marital duration .05 .02 −.16Income .13 .11 .12
Step 2Age −.03 .01 −.23* .56 44Religiosity −.12 .07 −.12Origin .02 .12 .01Marital duration .03 .01 .15Income .09 .08 .08Family Conflict −.08 .10 −.68***
Step 3Age −.04 .01 −.26** .60 04Religiosity −.11 .07 −.11Origin .02 .12 .01Marital duration .03 .01 .17Income .09 .08 .09Family Conflict −.90 .10 −.61***
Equality in division of household labor .01 .01 −.03Equality in decision making .53 .20 .18**
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
640 The Journal of Social Psychology
background variables, only income contributed significantly. The direction ofBeta coefficients indicates that the higher the income, the higher the sense offamily coherence. Perceived family conflict explained a high proportion of thevariance in wives’ sense of family coherence (Δ = 33%) and the impact of thisvariable was the highest. Beta coefficients indicated that the more the wives per-ceived conflict in family relations, the lower their sense of family coherence. Itshould be mentioned that the impact of age and income were no longer significantin the second step after the entrance of perceived family conflict. In contrast,marital duration, which did not add a contribution in the first step, added a signif-icant contribution in the second step.
Beta coefficients indicated that the longer the marital duration reported bywives, the higher their sense of family coherence. No significant impact wasfound for any of the variables entered in the third step (equality in the division ofhousehold labor and equality in decision making).
TABLE 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Explaining Family Coherence – Wives (N = 133)
B SEB b R2 �R2
Step 1Age −.02 .02 −.17 .08 08Religiosity .04 .10 .04Origin −.03 .16 −.02Marital duration .02 .02 .16Income .22 .10 .22*
Step 2Age −.02 .01 −.14 .41 33Religiosity −.03 .08 −.03Origin .05 .13 .03Marital duration .03 .02 .23*
Income .13 .08 .13Family conflict −.56 .12 −.58***
Step 3Age −.02 .02 −.14 .42 01Religiosity −.02 .09 −.02Origin .04 .13 .03Marital duration .03 .02 .23*
Income .11 .09 .11Family conflict −.97 .13 −.59***
Equality in division of household Labor .00 .01 .05Equality in decision-making −.08 .20 −.01
* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 641
DISCUSSION
The central aim of this research was to test the set of variables found inhousehold settings that explain the sense of family coherence among a sample ofmiddle-aged Israeli couples with adolescent children. Before discussing thespecific research hypothesis, it should be noted that the study’s findings do notreflect general differences between contemporary men and women, but ratherdifferences between husbands and wives. This limit results from the fact that thesample included husbands and wives experiencing the same household reality,and thus, their outlooks may be influenced by one another with regard to thesources of family coherence. It could be that if the same study were carried outon a general population of women and men (with no spousal connection), thefindings for sources of family coherence would be different.
With this understanding, a number of general conclusions that arise from theresearch should be mentioned. First, there is strong congruence in the way thathusbands and wives view their household reality across all dimensions tested inthis research. For all dimensions tested, including the sense of family coherence,there were no significant differences between spouses. The research findingssupport the congruence approach regarding spousal perceptions of marital life asrevealed by both classic studies (Bales, 1953; Festinger, 1957; Larson, 1974) andcontemporary researchers (Knapp & Vangelisti, 1996; Kulik, 2002b). In the samevein, it has been argued that couples construct their own shared social reality, whichevolves over time as a result of continuous interaction. This process has beenreferred to as effectivization of reality (Berger & Kellner, 1964) or “coupling”(Davis, 1973). Likewise, Knapp and Vangelisti (1996) claim that couplesdevelop a joint identity through attempts to balance the need for individuality andthe need for mutuality in their relationship.
An additional overall finding presents the families that participated in the studyas rather harmonious and cohesive. Relations between spouses are adequately egali-tarian, at least with regard to the division of household labor and decision making.The research also reveals that the overall level of family coherence is rather high andthat perceived family conflict is low. These findings stand in contradiction to thefindings of other studies that have shown the family environment during the periodof child adolescence as characterized by conflict between parents and children and,consequently, by tension between parents, resulting in a conflictual family environ-ment (Holmbeck & Hill, 1991; Silverberg & Steinberg, 1987). The high sense offamily coherence and low level of perceived family conflict in this study is less sur-prising in light of the work of several researchers, who have argued, contrary to thebeliefs of the general public and media reports, that little empirical support exists forthe contention that family relations during children’s adolescent years are character-ized by extra levels of conflict engagement (Laursen & Collins, 1994; Offer &Schonert-Reichl, 1992). Accordingly, this study adds to the body of research thatbreaks the accepted conception of family conflict during adolescent years.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
642 The Journal of Social Psychology
As for the specific research hypotheses, the background and familial variablesthat were tested succeeded in explaining significant percentages of variation in thesense of family coherence for both husbands and wives, although the variablesmore significantly explained the husbands’ sense of family coherence. Examinationof the set of variables relating to the sense of family coherence among spousesrevealed both similarities and differences (partially supporting hypothesis 7). Forboth husbands and wives, the variable that most significantly explains the senseof family coherence was perceived family conflict (supporting hypothesis 5).Apparently, when the level of perceived family conflict is low, individuals have astronger sense of family coherence, as manifested in consistency, meaningful-ness, and confidence in their ability to cope with conflicts that arise. The findingthat the family environment, as expressed in perceived family conflict, contrib-utes to the individual’s sense of family coherence both confirms and expands onAntonovsky’s (1987) approach; Antonovksy focused on the contribution offamily climate to the sense of coherence for adolescents, and based on thisstudy’s findings, it seems that this same kind of contribution can be extended toadult family members.
Contrary to expectations, there was no significant difference in the extentto which perceived family conflict explained family coherence among hus-bands and wives (rejecting hypothesis 6). With regard to variables of equalityin spousal relations, despite the correlations found between the sense of familycoherence among spouses (supporting hypotheses 1 and 3), it was found, con-trary to expectations, that aspects of the household climate contributed moreto explaining the sense of family coherence for men than women (rejectinghypotheses 2 and 4). This finding can possibly be explained by the gendermyth of equality among women. The phenomena of gender myth, whichDeutsch (1999) calls the “myth of women’s power at home” (p. 48), has beenexplored in several studies (Carrington, 1999; Hochschild & Machung, 1989).It suggests that even when women are responsible for a majority of householdlabor, they still describe their spousal relations as fair and satisfying (DeMaris& Longmore, 1996). This explanation gives rise to situations in which womendescribe their spousal relations as equitable, even though this may not be truein practice. Their reporting reflects a distortion of reality insofar as the womenactually do carry the burden of maintaining the household. Therefore, evenwhen women report equality in the division of household labor and decisionmaking, the reality of their situation may be quite different and, therefore,their perception of equality may not be correlated to their sense of familycoherence.
Even though this study did not elicit specific hypotheses for the backgroundvariables, it is worthwhile to emphasize their contribution in explaining the out-come. For example, it was found that high overall family income correlated morestrongly with the sense of family coherence for women than for men. The expla-nation for this might lie in the different meaning that husbands and wives
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 643
attribute to income. Even though the families in the sample were dual-earnercouples, the male still usually maintains an income advantage (as revealed in thepresent study). Because a large proportion of the women in the study stilldepended on their husbands to provide financial support and manage householdfinances, those who evaluated their family income as low felt lower levels ofmanageability and security which, in turn, weakened their sense of family coher-ence. The importance of perceived security in marital relations for women isunderscored by the finding that duration of marriage explained the sense of familycoherence only for the women and not for men.
Another noteworthy finding relates to the impact of age: as the men grewolder, their sense of family coherence was found to decrease. This result might beindicative of the general decline in men’s coping resources as they grow older(for a review, see Kimmel, 1990). The absence of this relationship for womenmight be explained by theoretical approaches that argue that women becomestronger with age due to personal and familial changes experienced during thelife stage examined in this study, i.e., from mid-life onwards (Guttman, 1975;Kulik, 2007).
In sum, it can be concluded that although there is a common set of variablesthat explains family coherence for both spouses, there are also significant differ-ences. For example, some of the findings revealed differences in the variablesthat explain perceived family coherence for husbands and wives, contrary to theresearch hypotheses proposed earlier. Apparently, those variables reflect changesin the definition of gender roles in the family and society. Moreover, the findingssuggest that Bakan’s (1966) attribution of communion to women and agency tomen, which was popular in the 1970s, might no longer be completely valid in thepostmodern context. The concepts of communion and agency lose their basicmeaning in an age of vicissitudes in gender roles, where conventions and mythsof the attributes and orientations of men and women have been undermined.Postmodern life is characterized by androgynous concepts, so that aspects of thefamily environment that were once meaningful mostly to wives are becoming rel-evant to husbands. Cohesive family relations and equality in the distribution ofhousehold labor and decision making shape and influence the new husband’ssense of emotional welfare, including his sense of family coherence, which wasthe focus of this present study.
Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Further Research
This study was conducted in the Israeli society, which, despite having under-gone rapid modernization of family institutions over the previous decades, is stillconsidered a family-oriented society among professionals. This fact may haveaffected the findings of the study. Additionally, the study utilized a homogeneoussample, which included middle-class couples in mid-life with at least one adoles-cent child. Therefore, in order to widen generalizations, other studies should be
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
644 The Journal of Social Psychology
conducted that utilize more heterogeneous samples and in less family-orientedsocieties. Another limitation of the study stems from its correlative nature, and itmight be that the direction between the variables that were examined with rela-tion to the sense of coherence is reversed. That is to say, because of the partici-pants’ high family coherence, their spousal relations are egalitarian, and theirfamily climate is without conflict. In order to reach more decisive conclusionsabout the causality between the study’s variables and the sense of coherence,other longitudinal studies should be conducted that examine the development ofthe sense of family coherence over time amongst the same group of participants.In addressing the methodological limitations of this current study, future studieson the sense of family coherence should be widened to include postmodernfamily patterns, like cohabitant families. In this context, the question arises as towhether the sources of family coherence among post-modern families are thesame as those for the families that were examined in this study. No doubt, profes-sionals dealing with contemporary spousal relations await many research chal-lenges in this area.
Practical Recommendations
Several practical recommendations can be derived from the research findingsthat are relevant to professionals working with married couples. First, followingthe connection found between equality in spousal power relations and the senseof family coherence, when professionals intervene in families, they shouldemphasize the importance of equal relations in spousal life. Second, profes-sionals must recognize that equality in spousal power relations is not onlyimportant to wives, as was commonly thought until now, but also to their hus-bands. Furthermore, while husbands are encouraged to take an active part inhousework, professionals should be aware of the unwanted results that thistrend may generate; some wives serve as gatekeepers of their household terri-tory and may prevent their husbands from taking an active role in the house-hold to maintain control over that territory. Finally, as a result of contemporarydevelopments in gender roles, professionals should adopt a systems approachto family life and maintain awareness of the accompanying effects that changesmay have on the spousal unit. The process of guiding couples through changestowards equal relations should be approached with sensitivity and the utmostcaution.
AUTHOR NOTES
Liat Kulik is an associate professor at the Bar Ilan University School of SocialWork, Ramat Gan, Israel. Her main research interests are relationships between gender,work, and family, as well as intergenerational transmission of values and attitudes, indi-vidual responses to volunteering, and gender roll attitudes. Prof. Kulik teaches advancedcourses on human resources, gender, and stress in the workplace.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 645
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R., Johnson, D. R., Booth, A., & Rogers, S. J. (2003). Do attitudes towarddivorce affect marital quality? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 1–22.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Understanding the mystery of health: How people manage stressand stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A., & Sourani, T. (1988). Family sense of coherence and family adaptation.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 79–92.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Boston: Beacon Press.Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales, &
E. A. Shils (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action (pp. 111–161). Glencoe, IL:Free Press.
Bergen, E. (1991). The economic context of labor allocation: Implications for genderstratification. Journal Family Issues, 12, 140–157.
Berger, P., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality. Diogenes, 46, 1–25.Blair, S. L. (1993). Employment, family, and perceptions of marital quality among
husbands and wives. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 189–212.Blood, R. A., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of married
living. New York: Free Press.Brines, J. (1993). The exchange value of housework. Rationality and Society, 5, 302–340.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time. In P. Moen,
G. Elder, & K. Lusher (Eds.), Examining lives in context (pp. 619–648). Washington,D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women’s psychology andgirls’ development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carrington, C. (1999). No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbianand gay men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davis, M. S. (1973). Intimate relations. New York: Free Press.DeMaris, A., & Longmore, M. A. (1996). Ideology, power, and equity: Testing com-
peting explanations for the perception of fairness in household labor. Social Forces,74, 1043–1071.
Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1993). Family diversity and the division of labor: Howmuch have things really changed? Family Relations, 42, 323–331.
Deutsch, F. M. (1999). Halving it all: How equally shared parenting works. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Dothan, N. (1996). Masha’abei hitmodedut shel yeladim mukim bamishpaha hatormimlethushat competentiut velethushat koherentiut [Coping resources of battered children,which contribute to the sense of competence and coherence]. Unpublished master’sthesis, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel (Hebrew).
Evelo, L. S., Jessell, J., & Beymer, L. (1991). Sex-typing of occupations: Preference andliberality. Journal of Career Development, 18(2), 139–151.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.
Fogiel-Bijaoui, S. (2006). Family. In U. Em & N. Berkowitz (Eds.), Inequality (pp. 265–273).Beersheva, Israel: Ben Gurion University Press (Hebrew).
Friborg, O., Sorlie, T., & Rosenvinge, J. H. (2005). Breast cancer: A manual for a pro-posed group treatment integrating evidence based resilience factors. PsychologicalReports, 97, 77–97.
Goldscheider, F., & Waite, L. J. (1991). New families, no families? The transformation ofthe American home. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
646 The Journal of Social Psychology
Guttman, D. (1975). Parenthood: A key to the comparative study of the life cycle. InN. Datan & L. H. Ginsberg (Eds.), Lifespan developmental psychology: Normative lifecrises (pp. 167–182). New York: Academic Press.
Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolu-tion at home. New York: Viking.
Holmbek, G. N., & Hill, J. P. (1991). Conflictive engagement, positive affect, andmenarche in families with seventh-grade girls. Child Development, 62, 1030–1048.
Ichilov, O., & Rubineck, B. (1978). Israeli adolescents’ aspirations concerning someaspects of their future families. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Tel Aviv University, TelAviv, Israel.
Katz, R. (1980). Koah bamishpaha: Mash’abim verekah tarbuti al ma’azan hakoach benbn’ei zug nesu’im [Power in the family: The balance of power between married couples].Unpublished doctoral thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (Hebrew).
Kimmel, D. C. (1990). Adulthood and aging: An interdisciplinary, developmental view.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1996). Interpersonal communication and human rela-tionships (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kulik, L. (2002a) The impact of social background on gender-role ideology: Parents’versus children’s attitudes. Journal of Family Issues, 23(1), 26–52.
Kulik, L. (2002b). Marital equality and the quality of long term marriage in later life.Ageing and Society, 22, 459–481.
Kulik, L. (2004). Perceived equality in spousal relations, marital quality and life satisfaction:Comparison of elderly Israeli wives and husbands. Families in Society, 85, 243–250.
Kulik, L. (2007). Havayat hahitnadvut umash’abei hitnadvut be’kerev nashim besheruteiharevaha: Nituah mashve leoreh magal hahaim [Women’s experience with volunteeractivity and resources for volunteering in social service organizations: A comparativeanalysis by stage of the life cycle]. Bitahon Soziali, 72, 77–104 (Hebrew).
Kulik, L., & Rayyan, F. (2003). Wage-earning patterns, perceived division of domesticlabor and social support. Sex Roles, 48(2), 53–66.
Kulik, L., & Zuckerman-Bareli, C. (1997). Continuity and discontinuity in attitudestoward marital power relations: Pre-retired versus retired husbands. Ageing and Society,17, 577–595.
Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Predicting marital dissolution from demographic, individual differ-ence, interdependence, and spouse discrepancy variables: A 5-year prospective longitu-dinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,221–242.
Larson, L. E. (1974). System and subsystem perception of family roles. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 36, 123–138.
Laursen, B. & Collins, W. A. (1994). Interpersonal conflict during adolescence. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 115, 197–209.
Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2003). The family in Israel: Between tradition and modernity.Marriage and Family Review, 35, 193–217.
Lewin-Epstein, N, Stier, H., & Braun, M. (2006). The division of household labor inGermany and Israel. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1147–1164.
Lightburn, A & Pine, B. A. (1996). Supporting and enhancing the adoption of childrenwith developmental disabilities. Children and Youth Services Review, 18, 139–162.
Moos, R. H. & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family environment scale manual. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists’ Press.
Offer, D. & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (1992). Debunking the myths of adolescence: Findingsfrom recent research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry, 31, 1003–1004.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
Kulik 647
Olson, D. H., & DeFrain, J. D. (1997). Marriage and the family: Diversity and strengths(2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Olson, D. H., Russell, C. R., & Sprenkel, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of marital andfamily systems IV: Theoretical update. Family Process, 23, 69–83.
Pierce, L. (2001). Coherence in the urban family caregivers role with African Americanstroke survivors. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 8, 64–72.
Randsom, D. C., Fisher, L., & Howard, E. (1992). The California Family Health Project:Family world view and adult health. Family Process, 31, 251–267.
Reiss, M. C., & Webster, C. W. (2004). An examination of established antecedents ofpower in purchase decision making: Married and nontraditional couples. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 34, 1825–1845.
Rodman, H. (1972). Marital power and the theory of resources in cultural context. Journalof Comparative Family Studies, 3(Spring), 50–67.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1970). The study of family-power structure: Review, 1960–1970.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 534–552.
Sagy, S. (1998). Effects of personal, family and community characteristics of emotionalreaction in a stress situation: The Golan Heights negotiations. Youth & Society, 29,311–329.
Sagy, S., & Dotan, N. (2001). Coping resources of maltreated children in the family: Asalutogenic approach. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1463–1480.
Silverberg, S. B., & Steinberg, L. (1987). Adolescent autonomy, parent-adolescentconflict, and parental well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 293–312.
Spitze, G. (1988). Women’s employment and family relations: A review. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 50, 595–618.
Stier, C. (2006). Job market. In U. Em & N. Berkowitz (Eds.), Inequality (pp. 285–292).Beersheva, Israel: Ben Gurion University Press.
Svirsky, S., Connor, E., Svirsky, B., & Yehezkel, Y. (2000). Nashim beshuk ha’avoda shelmedinat harevaha beyisrael [Women in the labor market of the Israeli welfare state].Tel Aviv, Israel: Adva (Hebrew).
Walker, A. J. (1999). Gender and family relationships. In M. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, &G.W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 439–474). New York:Plenum Press.
Wilcox, B., & Nock, S. L. (2006). What’s love got to do with it?: Equality, equity, com-mitment and women’s marital quality. Social Forces, 84, 1321–1345.
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study.Beverly Hills: Stage.
Received December 19, 2007Accepted April 10, 2008
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
9:00
17
Oct
ober
201
4
