<%BANNER%>

Effects of Career and Marriage on Newlywed Individuals' Marital and Career Satisfaction

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024181/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Career and Marriage on Newlywed Individuals' Marital and Career Satisfaction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (111 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcginley, Donna
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: career, coping, family, marital, newlywed, satisfaction, work
Counselor Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Marriage and Family Counseling thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Newlywed couples face many challenges in the early years of marriage that can affect their satisfaction with the marital relationship. Research has identified the balance of career and marriage as one of the prominent stressors in newlywed couples lives. However, studies have not explored what is problematic about balancing career and marriage. Since past research has found the first years of marriage to be predictors of marital stability and longevity, research attention needs to be given to exploring the career-marriage interface. The purpose of this study was to examine the challenges and benefits of a dual-career lifestyle on newlywed individuals' marital and career satisfaction. This study's sample consisted of 122 newlywed individuals that were part of a dual-career relationship. Of the participants, 79.5% were female, 86.1% were Caucasian, and 85.2% had obtained at least a bachelor's degree. Participants ranged in age from 20 45 with an average length of marriage of 26.93 months. The data were analyzed by means of Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses. In the first analysis, career-marriage challenges and marriage-career spillover were found to be significant predictors of marital satisfaction. In the second analysis only career-marriage benefits was found to be a significant predictor of career satisfaction. Surprisingly, career and marital satisfaction were not significantly correlated. In addition, no gender differences were found on the variables measured. The study's limitations, areas for future research, and implications for theory and practice were discussed. Future studies may benefit from obtaining a more gendered representative sample. Similarly, researchers may seek to recruit participants with diverse ethnic backgrounds and professional fields.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Donna Mcginley.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Sherrard, Peter A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024181:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024181/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Career and Marriage on Newlywed Individuals' Marital and Career Satisfaction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (111 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcginley, Donna
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: career, coping, family, marital, newlywed, satisfaction, work
Counselor Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Marriage and Family Counseling thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Newlywed couples face many challenges in the early years of marriage that can affect their satisfaction with the marital relationship. Research has identified the balance of career and marriage as one of the prominent stressors in newlywed couples lives. However, studies have not explored what is problematic about balancing career and marriage. Since past research has found the first years of marriage to be predictors of marital stability and longevity, research attention needs to be given to exploring the career-marriage interface. The purpose of this study was to examine the challenges and benefits of a dual-career lifestyle on newlywed individuals' marital and career satisfaction. This study's sample consisted of 122 newlywed individuals that were part of a dual-career relationship. Of the participants, 79.5% were female, 86.1% were Caucasian, and 85.2% had obtained at least a bachelor's degree. Participants ranged in age from 20 45 with an average length of marriage of 26.93 months. The data were analyzed by means of Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses. In the first analysis, career-marriage challenges and marriage-career spillover were found to be significant predictors of marital satisfaction. In the second analysis only career-marriage benefits was found to be a significant predictor of career satisfaction. Surprisingly, career and marital satisfaction were not significantly correlated. In addition, no gender differences were found on the variables measured. The study's limitations, areas for future research, and implications for theory and practice were discussed. Future studies may benefit from obtaining a more gendered representative sample. Similarly, researchers may seek to recruit participants with diverse ethnic backgrounds and professional fields.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Donna Mcginley.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Sherrard, Peter A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024181:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EFFECTS OF CAREER AND MARRIAGE ON NEWLYWED INDIVIDUALS MARITAL AND CAREER SATISFACTION By DONNA M. McGINLEY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Donna M. McGinley

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank m y mother, Mary Adkins, and my grandparents, Claude and Donna Croft, for their endless love and support. I am especially grateful to my mother who has been in my corner every step of the way and who instilled in me the importance of fulfilling my dreams. She is my best friend and hero. My gran dparents are not here to see the culmination of my schooling, but their encouragement and faith helped me to push forward and achieve my dreams. Next, I would like to thank my committee members for their wisdom and guidance throughout my doctoral program. I would like to tha nk Dr. Peter Sherrard, my doctoral chair, for his encouragement, support, and wisdom throughout my doctoral studies. I have come to cherish his insight and guidance and will take his words a nd advice with me as I travel down the journey of life. Second, I am grateful to Dr. Ellen Amatea who helped me develop my dissertation topic. She provided me with the support and feedback I n eeded to grow and succeed. I also appreciate Dr. Linda Goodwin and Dr. David Miller for helpi ng me with some of the challenging aspects of my study. Their patience and wisdom helped me grow both personally and professionally. I would also like to thank Dr. Be har-Horenstein for helping me begi n the dissertation process. Her guidance and support was invaluable. I appreciate her comforting smile and kind words as I embarked on an unfamiliar journey. Last but not least I w ould like to thank my family and fr iends for all of their support and encouragement. Thank you for believing in me and for talking with me when things got rough. Specifically, I would like to thank my doctoral co lleagues that walked w ith me down this long road. I enjoyed the friendship, long talks, and good times. I also would like to thank the many friends I made in Gainesville ove r the years. I thank them for t ouching my life in special ways and for making my school experien ces a true and memorable one.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 DEFINITION OF TERMS ..............................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............9 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 11 Theoretical Perspective ....................................................................................................... ....13 Role Strain Theory .......................................................................................................... 13 Gender Theory .................................................................................................................16 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................18 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... .....19 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ .....19 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................................20 Relationship between Dual-Earner and Dual-Career .............................................................20 Dual-Career Couple .........................................................................................................21 Early Factors of Marital Stress and Success .................................................................... 25 Relationship Dynamics of the Dual-Career Couple ........................................................27 Challenges of the Dual -Career Lifestyle ......................................................................... 30 Work-Family/Family-Work Gains and Strains ............................................................... 37 Coping With Stressors in Newlywed Couples ................................................................ 42 Dual-Career Lifestyle an d Marital Satisfaction ...............................................................47 Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........50 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 52 Statement of Purpose ..............................................................................................................52 Research Design and Relevant Variables ...............................................................................52 Instrumentation and Operationalized Variables ..................................................................... 53 Career-Marriage Challenges ............................................................................................53 Career-Marriage Benefits ................................................................................................54 Buffering Effects: Career-Marriage ................................................................................ 56 Strategies Contributing to Balance/Imbalance ................................................................ 57 Marital Satisfaction .........................................................................................................58 Career Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................58 Description of the Population and Sample ............................................................................. 59

PAGE 5

5 Sample Selection Procedures ..........................................................................................60 Participants .................................................................................................................. ....60 Participants Gender, Ages, and Length of Marriage ......................................................61 Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................... .....62 Education Level ...............................................................................................................62 Professional Field ............................................................................................................ 62 Household Income ...........................................................................................................63 Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................................63 Research Questions and Null Hypotheses .............................................................................. 64 4 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........67 Data Analysis Procedures .......................................................................................................67 Description of the Data ....................................................................................................... ....67 Measurement Reliability ................................................................................................. 71 Correlational Analyses ....................................................................................................71 Regression Analyses ........................................................................................................... ....72 Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........74 5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... .....78 Discussion of the Studys Findings ........................................................................................ 78 Predictors of Marital Satisfaction ....................................................................................78 Predictors of Career Satisfaction .....................................................................................81 Limitations ................................................................................................................... ...........82 Implications of the Findings .................................................................................................. .84 Implications for Future Research .................................................................................... 84 Implications for Theory ................................................................................................... 86 Implications for Practice .................................................................................................. 87 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ..........89 APPENDIX A WORK-FAMILY STRAINS SCALE ....................................................................................90 B WORK-FAMILY GAINS SCALE .........................................................................................91 C POSITIVE FAMILY-TO-WORK SPILLOVER ................................................................... 92 D COPING STRATEGIES SCALE ........................................................................................... 93 E LOCKE-WALLACE MARITAL ADJUSTMENT TEST ..................................................... 94 F BRAYFIELD-ROTHE JOB SATISFACTION INDEX ........................................................96 G DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................98 H INFORMED CONSENT LETTER ...................................................................................... 100

PAGE 6

6 REFERENCE LIST .....................................................................................................................102 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................111

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Participants age and length of marriage ........................................................................... 65 3-2 Participants ethnicity ................................................................................................... .....65 3-3 Participants and spouses highest educational level completed ....................................... 65 3-4 Participants professional field ..........................................................................................66 3-5 Participants reported household income ...........................................................................66 4-1 Categorical demographic variables .................................................................................... 75 4-2 Continuous demographic variables .................................................................................... 75 4-3 Descriptive statistics for the studys variables (N = 122) ..................................................76 4-4 Descriptive statistics by ge nder for the studys variables ..................................................76 4-5 Measurement reliabilities ................................................................................................. ..77 4-6 Correlation matrix ........................................................................................................ ......77

PAGE 8

8 DEFINITION OF TERMS Benefits Things that promote or enhan ce individual or relational well-being. For the purposes of this study, the cons truct will be defined by the WorkFamily Gains Scale score. Buffers Something that protects or less ens the impact of a stressor. This construct will be defined by the Positive Family-to-Work Spillover Scale score. Career An occupation or profession that require a higher level of training and commitment (Granello & Navin, 1997). Career satisfaction For the purposes of this study, this construct will be defined by the Job Satisfaction Index score. Challenges For the purposes of this study, this construct will be defined by the Work-Family Strains scale score. Coping Cognitive and behavioral efforts made in response to a threat (Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002, p. 3). Dual-career couple An arrangement where both marital spouses pursue a career and marriage simultaneously (Rapoport & Rapoport, 1976). Factor A component that contribut es to a situation or result. Family The general definition of family often includes two or more people who are related by genetics, adoption, or marriage. For the purpose of this study, family is defined as a mar ital dyad consisting of a male and female. Family-work conflict When family roles, obli gations, and expectations spillover into work roles and functioning (Tatman et al., 2006). Marital satisfaction Marital satisfaction is defi ned as an attitude of greater or lesser favorability towards ones own marital relationship (Roach, Frazier, & Bowden, 1981, p. 567). For the purposes of this study, this construct will be defined by the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test score. Newlywed A married couple in thei r first five years of marriage. Strategy A plan of action or a series of steps undertaken to achieve a goal or result. For the purposes of this study the construct will be defined by the Coping Strategies Scale. Spillover The positive and negative feelings attitudes, and behaviors that might emerge in one domain and are carried over into the other (Googins, 1991, p. 9). Work-family conflict When work roles, obligations, and expectations spillover into family roles and functioning (Tatman et al., 2006).

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EFFECTS OF CAREER AND MARRIAGE ON NEWLYWED INDIVIDUALS MARITAL A ND CAREER SATISFACTION By Donna M. McGinley May 2009 Chair: Peter Sherrard Major: Marriage and Family Counseling Newlywed couples face many challenges in the ea rly years of marriage that can affect their satisfaction with the marital relationship. Research has identified the balance of career and marriage as one of the prominent stressors in newlywed couples liv es. However, studies have not explored what is problematic about balancing ca reer and marriage. Since past research has found the first years of marriag e to be predictors of marital stability and longevity, research attention needs to be given to exploring the career-marriage in terface. The purpose of this study was to examine the challenges and benefits of a dual-career lifestyle on newlywed individuals marital and career satisfaction. This studys sample consisted of 122 newlywed individuals that were part of a dual-career relationship. Of the participants, 79.5% were female, 86.1% were Caucasian, and 85.2% had obtained at least a bachelors degree. Participan ts ranged in age from 20 45 with an average length of marriage of 26.93 months. The data were analyzed by means of Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses. In the first analysis, career-marriage challenges and marriage-career spi llover were found to be significant predictors of marital satisfaction. In the second analysis only career-ma rriage benefits

PAGE 10

10 was found to be a significant predictor of caree r satisfaction. Surprisingly, career and marital satisfaction were not significantly correlated. In addition, no gender differences were found on the variables measured. The studys limitations, areas for future research and implications for theory and practice were discussed. Future studies may benefit from obtaining a more gendered representative sample. Similarly, researchers may seek to recr uit participants with diverse ethnic backgrounds and professional fields.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The dual-career couple has been a to pic of interest for various social scientists including sociologists, psychologists, and family therapis ts (Berscheid, 1994). Like many institutions, the dual-career couple has been influe nced and prescribed by the histor ical time period and culture in which it exists. Rapoport and Rapoport (1976), the first researchers to use the term dual-career couple, described the dual -career couple as a type of marital partnership th at is characterized by a commitment and dedication to car eer and marriage. However, a definition of what constitutes a dual-career couple has not been specified or uniformly employed (Haddock, Zimmerman, Ziemba, & Current, 2001). Criteria used by previ ous researchers to describe the dual-career couple includes hours spent in domestic and paid labor and its effect on the marriage. Others distinguish dual-career couples by their level of education, income, career position (Haddock, Zimmerman, Schindler, Ziemba, & Lyness, 2006, p. 231), amount of experience in a career field, and dedication to a profession for psychological and financial satisfaction (Granello & Navin, 1997). To describe the effects of the dual-care er lifestyle on couples, many researchers have examined constructs such as marital satisfac tion (Faulkner, Davey, & Davey, 2005; Greenstein, 1995; Wilkie, Ferree, & Ratcliff, 1998), marital quality (Barnett, Marshall, & Pleck, 1992; Vannoy & Philliber, 1992), marital happiness (Ver off, Douvan, Orbuch, & Acitelli, 1998), and marital adjustment (Burley, 1995). However, rese archers have just begun to explore the career and relationship stressors and benefits that sh ape the life of the newly married dual-career couple. Specifically, attention is now being give n to the importance of career and marriage in newlywed dual-career couples lives. Newlywed couples face multiple ch allenges in the early years of marriage that affect their marital satisfaction. In the past, researchers have differed in their approach to examining and

PAGE 12

12 identifying characteristics associ ated with distressed couples. So me researchers focused heavily on behavioral components (Margolin, 1981; Ti ng-Toomey, 1983; Williams, 1979), while others viewed distress through a cognitive lens (Car rere, Buehlman, Gottman, Coan, & Ruckstuhl, 2000). Still, others have argued that couples assessment of mar ital quality has a large affective component (Gottman, 1979; Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001). Recently, researchers have tried to identify the gains and strains (Marshall & Barn ett, 1993) and challenges and benefits (Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003) of a dua l-career lifestyle on newlywed couples in their first years of marriage. Instead of looking so lely at distressed couples, researchers are now shifting their focus to couples who consider their marriage successful. Several recent studies on newlywed couples re port the balance of career and family as a prominent stressor in their re lationship (Haddock & Bowling, 2001; Schramm, Marshall, Harris, & Lee, 2005). However, what is problematic about this imbalance has only begun to be explored. Few in-depth studies have been devoted sole ly to newlywed couples and even fewer on newlywed dual-career couples. Even though research has found the first few years of marriage to be important predictors of mar ital stability and longevity (Carre re et al., 2005; Huston et al., 2001), most studies have included couples tran sitioning to parenthood (K urdek, 1993). Since the transition to first time parenthood has its own set of challenges that does not apply to childless couples (Lindahl, Clements, & Markman, 1998), atte mpts to apply findings to all couples would be misleading and distorted. Similarly, recent research that has examined couples coping behaviors and strategies have not clearly distinguished be tween dual-earner and dual-career couples (Barnett & Rivers, 1996; Haddock et al., 2001). In these st udies, both types of couples were grouped together or were used interchangeab ly. This study will attempt to bridge the gaps in the research and provide a more thorough desc ription of this increasingly common marital

PAGE 13

13 type. The purpose of this study was to investig ate the career-marriage balance in newlywed couples and the affects of multiple factors and strategies on marital and career satisfaction. Theoretical Perspective Role Strain Theory Many theories have been used to explain th e im pact of the dual-career lifestyle on the marital relationship. Role strain theory posits that people have and are a part of many role relationships. The result of the various interactions between role relationships can have positive or negative consequences on th e person, family, and/or other roles a person occupies (Goode, 1960). For instance, studies have found that women who enjoy their job are better able to handle family related stressors than women who are unha ppy with their job (Barne tt, Marshall, & Sayer, 1992). However, engaging in multiple roles can also negatively impact one or more areas of life. At times, fulfilling diverse role obligations and demands may require conflicting actions that may put a strain on the other roles a person enga ges in. For example, two newlyweds that are trying to build a marriage and car eer find that there are not enough hours in the day to devote to nurturing each role. Confronted with this dilemma the wife decides to se t boundaries at work so she can spend more time at home with her husband. However, due to the nature of his profession, the husband is expected to pull long hours. In this example, there are two role dilemmas. For the husband, the demands of one role are interfering with his ability to devote time and energy to another. Second, the husband is being asked to act differently depending upon the immediate context. In the home setting he has equal decision making power. However, at work, he has little input or control over the amount of hours he works. The cons equences of switching between behaviors can negatively impact his role as husband and employee. At some point in life, people who are a part of many role relationships are likely to experience role strain (Goode, 1960). Goode defined role strain as the difficulty of fulfilling

PAGE 14

14 role demands (p. 483) and views strain as normal and inevitable. Most role theorists agree that role strain is unavoidable and a common result of participating in several roles simultaneously (Goode; Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003; Marshall & Barnett, 1993). However, many theorists differ in their approach to examining and explaining the consequences of managing multiple roles and how the various roles interact and influence each other. The scarcity and expansion hypotheses attemp t to explain the physical and psychological impact of combining multiple roles (Ha ddock & Rattenborg, 2003). One explanation, the scarcity hypothesis of role involvement, focuse s on the number of roles a person occupies and the amount of personal resources available. It holds that as the number of roles and responsibilities increase, the hi gher the potential for role ove rload and psychological distress (Goode, 1960; Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003; Marshall & Bennett, 1993). This hypothesis is based on the assumption that people have a da ily reservoir of time and energy that when consumed cannot be replenished until the next da y (Paden & Buehler, 1995). It is up to the individual, then, to decide how they want to divide their energy and resources among their various roles. The amount of time and energy an individual puts into each role is dependent on factors such as perceived value of the role, demands of the role, ability to fulfill the role, and the consequences of role involvement (Goode, 1960). If people have a finite amount of time and energy that is allotted to them daily and additional resources cannot be added to their su pply throughout the day, then each role can only receive a limited amount of effort. Therefore, committing to multiple roles limits the resources a person can devote to each role. To give to one role is to take potential time and resources away from another. As a result, a person who attempts to manage several roles will be (come) the victim of role conflict since any degree of commitment to one role will detract from his

PAGE 15

15 commitment, and chances of success, in the other, simply in terms of the availability of time and energy (Marks, 1977, p. 924). For instance, a person that has a demanding job will most likely use up most of their daily supply of energy at wo rk. This substantial consumption of the days resources leaves the person with a decreased quanti ty of time and energy that they can utilize to fulfill family roles/responsibilities. Psychological distress often results when a person becomes overly burdened and/or experiences tension/competition among the varying roles. Once conflict oc curs, the person must then find a way to regain their intrinsic motivati on to regain balance or reduce role strain. This strain can be reduced by either leaving specific role relationships or engaging in role bargaining (Goode, 1960). However, several researchers have turned thei r attention to discoveri ng and discussing the benefits of engaging in multiple role responsib ilities. According to the expansion hypothesis (Sieber, 1974), the gains associated with occupy ing multiple roles offsets the stresses of role management. These gains can have a positive aff ect on both husbands and wives and can impact reported levels of marital satisfaction (Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003). For example, studies have found that holding multiple roles may promote wive s mental and physical h ealth (Haddock et al., 2001; Stevens, Minnotte, Mannon, & Kiger, 2007). In addition, wives employment increases the amount of social resources women have access to, provide women with economic and social status and security, increases life satisfaction, and assists in the management of problems (Barnett & Rivers, 1996). Wives who work are more likely to pus h for fairness in the marital relationship (Lennon & Rosenfeld, 1994) which is often associated with increased marital satisfaction (Gottman, 1999). Men also benefit fro m their wives participation in paid labor. Barnett and Rivers suggested that wives econom ic contribution to the family often relieves

PAGE 16

16 husbands of the burden of being the sole inco me provider. As a result, sharing financial responsibility provides husbands with the opport unity to devote more time to family life. Gender Theory According to gender theory, gender is a set of qualities, behaviors, and roles assigned to m ales and females from the society they live in. Advocates of this view of gender argue that masculinity and femininity are not biological pr escriptions but are social constructions that are developed and maintained by society. These so cially constructed definitions are embedded in social contexts and processes through a system of boundaries that help to define what is appropriate for each gender (Zvonkovic, Greaves, Schmiege, & Hall, 1996, p. 92). In essence, the dominant culture, or the group with the most social power, dictates what behavior is considered masculine and feminine. Feminist scholars contend that the meaning assigned to these constructs creates a ge nder dichotomy that overly empha sizes between-sex differences while ignoring commonalities. This gender distinction serves to pr otect and further the interests of one group while oppressing and su bjugating the other (Ferree, 1990). In westernized societies, men are appointed the role of primary income provider or breadwinner and women the role of homemake r, supporter of the husband, and supplemental income provider (Wilkie et al., 1998). This role provides Caucasian me n with a substantial amount of social power, which allows them to control the resources that advantage their group and disadvantage others (Ferree, 1990). This priv ilege, assigned to men because of their gender, creates a hierarchical structur e that favors men and oppresses women. The resulting power gap allows men to further individual and group goals mainly at the expense of women (Ferree, 1990). Thompson (1993) discussed some of the societal messages given to men and women that have shaped and promoted the gendered division of labor that still exists today. For example, women have been told that it is their job to provide emotional care and support for their wage working

PAGE 17

17 spouses. Since men were given the role of prim ary breadwinner, their j obs were given higher status and deemed more important than womens wa ged work. As a result of their devalued work contribution, women often do not receive the sa me support from society or their husbands for their participation in the labor force. This l ack of support and credit has not deterred women from pursuing careers. However, this does not imply that women do not need societal or spousal support. Research has shown that women who perceive their husba nds as supporting their career endeavors report higher marital satisfaction than their non-supportiv e counterparts (Faulkner et al., 2005). Working men and women in marital relationships continually renegotiate their gender roles throughout the course of their marriage. Since ma ny couples have both spouses participating in paid labor, juggling marriage and work has become an increasingly common issue for both genders (Schramm et al., 2005). Many couples, esp ecially newlyweds, have to make decisions about their involvement and commitment to car eer and marriage. Researchers have found that how these decisions are made and how couples adjust are largely influenced by gender (Zvonkovic et al., 1996). For newlywed s, research has found that gendered divisions of labor are largely negotiated within the first year of marri age. After marriage, women report taking on more responsibility for housework than when they were cohabitating (Co ltrane, 2000; Quek & Knudson-Martin, 2006). Similarly, st udies have found that regardle ss of hours spent in paid labor, women still complete the majority of household work. Although men are doing more housework than in the past, the amount of time spent on completing household tasks is still unequal (Coltrane). The in ternalized set of gendered behavior s supports the belief that household work is still largely perceived as the womans domain regardless of any other outside obligations they assume (i.e., wage earner).

PAGE 18

18 Researchers who study marital relationships mu st consider gender differences that may exist in their phenomena of interest (Berscheid, 1994). There has been a gr eat deal of research that supports the existe nce of gender differences in rela tionship behaviors. For instance, husbands and wives were found to differ in thei r perceptions of each others contributions in paid and domestic work (Coltrane 2000; Hochschild, 1989; Quek & Knudson-Martin, 2006; Wilkie et al., 1998), perceptions of equality in the marriage (Blaisur e & Allen 1995; Coltrane; Hochschild; Rosenbluth, Steil, & Whitcomb, 1998), and the influence of husbands attitudes on wives employment status (Vannoy & Philliber, 1992) As a consequence, assessments of marital quality and satisfaction often differ between spouses for reasons often related to gender roles and beliefs (Coltrane; Wilkie et al.). Significance of the Study Em pirical evidence that will result from id entifying and exploring the challenges and benefits of a dual-career lifestyle on newlywed couples will bene fit clients, service providers, researchers, and professors. Resear chers will be able to utilize this information to expand their own knowledge base and contribute to the literature on dual-career newlywed couples. Therapists will benefit from these findings in seve ral ways. First, they will be better able to recognize and dismantle some of the common myths surrounding dual-career couples. Second, they can use the information derived from th is study to educate their dual-career clients (Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003). Researchers have found that family therapists feel that their academic training programs did not adequately prep are them to assist couples with work-family conflict (Tatman, Hovestadt, Yelsma, Fenell, & Canfield, 2006) With increased understanding and knowledge on work-family issues, professors can better prepare future service providers for some of the challenges they may face with this population (Haddock & Bowling, 2001).

PAGE 19

19 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study will be to identif y and explore the challenges and benefits newlywed dual-career couples face in their first years of marriage. Partic ular attention will be given to the problematic and bene ficial effects associated with balancing career and marriage and its effects on perceptions of marital and career sa tisfaction in the first fi ve years of marriage. Research has identified several broad areas based on self-reports that are problematic for newlywed working couples but few have explored these areas in depth. The Center for Marriage and Family (2000) found that the number one reported problem among newlyweds married five years or less was balancing car eer and marriage. Similarly, a st udy of newlywed couples married two to nine months found that balancing work and marriage was the primary stressor reported by both husbands and wives in distre ssed marriages (Schramm et al ., 2005). However, neither study addressed what was problematic about managing work and family. This study will attempt to address this limitation by identifying component s that characterize newlywed couples who are successfully managing career and marriage from t hose who are not. In add ition, there was also a need to explore the positive and negative aff ects of career on marriage and vice versa. Role theorists have discussed and documented the strains (Goode, 1960; Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003) and benefits (Marshall & Barnett, 1993; Si eber, 1974) of filling multiple roles. Similarly, this study will examine the buffering and exacer bating effects that one context (i.e., marriage or career) can have on the other. Research Questions This study addresses the fo llowing research questions: 1. W hat is the relationship betw een career, challenges, benef its, buffers, strategies, and gender and marital satisfaction? 2. What is the relationship between marriage, ch allenges, benefits, buffers strategies, and gender and career satisfaction?

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Research on newlywed dual-career couples is lim ited. The literature review that follows integrates the findings found in qualitative studi es that have been conducted with newlywed couples (e.g., Schramm et al., 2005 ) with the larger body of literature on dual-earner and dualcareer couples. First, the distin ction between dual-earn ers and dual-careers are addressed. Next, relevant statistics and characteristics that have co ntributed to the rise in dual-career marriages are discussed. The remainder of the chapter examines the multiple affects of a dual-career lifestyle on multiple individual and relational domains. Relationship between Dual -Earner and Dual-Career Research on dual-career couples has gained momentum in the past few decades. However, though researchers have suggest ed that these couples posse ss unique personal and marital characteristics (Raley, Mattingly, & Bianchi, 2006), they are often still grouped with dualearners (Baskin, 1998). Since previous researchers have not separated the groups or applied a clear and consistent definition of what constitu tes each group (Barnett & Rivers, 1996; Becker & Moen, 1999; Haddock et al., 2001), ge neralizing previous findings to the dual-career population should be made with caution. Dual-earner and dual-career couples share a common feature--having both spouses participating in the workforce. However, what di stinguishes dual-career c ouples from the larger, overarching dual-earning group is wives commitmen t to career. According to Baskin (1998), in the dual-career family or couple, wives are more career oriented rather th an simply holding jobs, as in many cases of dual-earner couples (p. 1). Dual-career couples are described as having a higher commitment to career (Baskin), a strong de sire to advance steadily in their profession (Granello & Navin, 1997), and consider their car eers as an important pa rt of their personal

PAGE 21

21 identity (Bird & Schnurman-Crook, 2005) than do dua l-earner couples. Other differences include advanced training and education and more experience in a career field (Baskin, 1998). In this literature review, the dual-career couple will continue to be considered as a subgroup of the dual-earner population. Research on both dual-career and dual-earner couples will be included and examined. Dual-Career Couple The dual professional couple paradigm is th e result of wom ens increasing educational attainment and career aspirati ons (Becker & Moen, 1999; Dilwor th, 2004; Raley et al., 2006). Husbands have been considered a constant in the workplace and in hi gher education, so little research attention has been given to studying th e stability of their ro les and their impact on marital satisfaction (Wilkie et al ., 1998). Since their roles have re mained relatively stable, most of the research in the last century has focused on the processes and consequences of changes in womens marital roles and how this a ffects marital quality and satisfaction. Newlyweds Most people decide to marry at some point in their life. In 2003, there were 2.2 million marriages in the United States (Fre y, 2006). Of this number, 62% were first marriages for both partners (Kreid er, 2005). Although the majority of people still marry at least once in their lifetime, the picture of marri age has changed. For one, men and women are marrying later. This may be partially due to th e increase in women pursu ing college degrees. For men and women who turned 20 between 1995 and 1999, 8% and 18% were married compared to 21% and 51% from 1955 to 1959. Currently, the medi an age for first time marriages is 27 and 25 for men and women (Kreider). Unfortunately, many first marriages end in divorce. For all marriages, the divorce rate has remained around 50% over the last 30 years and is not projected to change substantially in the near future (Ahrons, 2004). For first marriages, roughly 20% fail

PAGE 22

22 within the first five years (Bra mlett & Mosher, 2002). Other researchers estimate that 2 out of 3 first marriages will end in divorce (Carter & Carter, 1995; Gottman, 1994). Paid labor Women are not newcomers in the workplace. They have long been a part of the paid labor force and have significantly cont ributed to the family income. However, until recently, their contributions were undervalue d and the importance of their contributions unacknowledged (Ferree, 1990; Viers & Prouty, 2001). In 1970, 43% of women were in the workforce. This number increased to 59% in 2004. Similarly, the number of couples who had both spouses participating in the workforce also increased from 44% in 1967 to 58% in 2004 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). Due to the lack of distinction between dual-earner and dualcareer in the national database, it is difficult to estimate the number of dual-career couples. Wilcox-Matthew and Minor (1989) re ported the number of dual-caree r couples to be just under a million in 1960. In 1983, this number increased to 3.3 million. Todays women are increasingly sharing the family income responsibility with their partner. In 1970, 9% of women contributed an equal share in the family income earnings. In 2001, this number more than doubled to 24%. Even though the numbers of women who contribute substantially to their familys income is increasing, men are still considered the primary monetary provider in the majority of couples (Raley et al., 2006). Education Higher education institutions have also seen a tremendous rise in female enrollment and degree attainment. In 1970, 11% of women age 25-64 held a college degree compared to 33% in 2004 (Bureau of Labor Statis tics, 2004). In addition, figures show that many more women are attending gradua te school and even outnumber men in some previously all male fields. For instance, 41% of educational admini strative positions in 1983 were held by women. This number rose to 67% in 2000. Other occupations that shifted in the number of employed men

PAGE 23

23 and women between 1983 and 2000 were physicians a ssistants (36% to 58%), accountants (39% to 56%) and management related occupations (4 0% to 57%) to name a few (United States Census Bureau, 2004). Projections for the number of bachelors and masters degrees that will be awarded to women in the 2005-2006 school ye ar is 845,000 for bachelors and 350,000 masters. This translates into women earning 59% of bachel ors and 60% of masters degrees that will be given between 2005 and 2006 (Peoples, 2005). A strong association has been reported between wives college education, especially when they hold a postgraduate degree, and the likeli hood that a couple will become a dual-career couple. In 1970, if a wife held a postgraduate degree, the couple was more likely to be dualcareer. Similarly, wives that held college de grees in the 1980s, 1990s, and in 2001 were more likely to be in dual-career marriages. This number was higher for wives that obtained postgraduate education (Raley et al., 2006). Career. Commitment to career has multiple imp lications for the individual and the marriage. More than any time period, woman ar e placing more emphasis on and attaching more importance to employment goals (Phillips & Imho ff, 1997). Like their male counterparts, career women view their careers as an important pa rt of their identity (Bird & Schnurman-Crook, 2005) and reported life satisfaction (Van Daalen, Sanders, & Willemsen, 2005). Wives increased interest and participation in a career does not mean that they are sacr ificing or placing less significance on marriage. Career women still consid er the marital domain as a primary part of their life (Haddock et al., 2001). Past research (Stryker & Serpe, 1994) has viewed the management of multiple identities as hierar chical with one identity (e.g., career) taking precedence over another (e.g., marriage). According to this view, if a discrepancy arose between two identities, the resolution would be decided on an identitys relevance in the hierarchy. For

PAGE 24

24 example, a married man was given an ultimatum that he either put in more hours at work or risk not getting a promotion. If the man viewed his mari tal identity as more important than his career identity, he would most likely ma ke a decision that would favor his marital identity. Instead of viewing one role as more favorable than anot her, some researchers now conceptualize and describe these roles as existing side-by-si de (Bird & Schnurman-Cr ook; Zimmerman, 2001). The salient issue, then, becomes the balance of work and family identities (Zimmerman, 2001). Unfortunately, since most of the research inte rest on dual-earner couples stem from womens increasing involvement in paid labor, the successf ul balance of marital an d career identities have been associated with womens ability or inability to manage these various roles (Haddock et al., 2001; Tatman et al., 2006; Zimmerma n, Haddock, Current, & Ziemba, 2003). Benefits Participation in a dual-career lifest yle has many individual and relational benefits. It has been repeatedly documented th at men build and maintain their self-concept and life satisfaction by occupyi ng the role of financial provider (Barnett & Marshall, 1993; Bird & Schnurman-Crook, 2005; Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Similarly, women report that career participation increases their self-e steem, boosts their independence (Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003), promotes feelings of self-reliance and self-su fficiency (Granello & Navin, 1997), and provides them with the opportunity to build social contacts and supports (Haddock et al., 2001). Spouses that share a dual-car eer lifestyle have many resour ces to draw upon that can benefit the marital relationship. According to Granello and Navin ( 1997) and Haddock et al. (2001), due to their educational attainment and commitment to career, dual-career spouses can provide each other with intellectual compani onship and emotional support. Since both spouses are attempting to manage both career and marri age they are better able to understand and

PAGE 25

25 empathize with the stresses, successes, expect ations, and obligations of marriage and work. Dual-career spouses can also serve the role of confidant and provide each other with advice, knowledge, and assistance in other domains. For example, a husband may offer to do the wifes share of the housework when the wife has to work later hours. Other benef its of this lifestyle include greater financial freedom a wider network of social s upport, and greater exposure to personal and professional reso urces (Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003). Early Factors of Marital Stress and Success Researchers have attem pted to explain and pr edict early marital factors that lead to distressed or successful marita l relationships. Previous stud ies have focused on newlywed couples behavioral, cognitive, and/or affectiv e components with the goal of forecasting which marriages will last and which are headed for divorce (Gottman & Driver, 2005; OLeary & Smith, 1991). Three models have been proposed that try to identify early warning signs that may contribute to marital distress a nd dissolution and those character istics that promote successful, happy marriages. Disillusionment model. According to the Huston, McHale, and Crouters (1986) disillusionment model, newly married spouses behave in ways that sustains romance and minimizes conflict. When entering into marriag e, each partner brings with them a certain understanding of what marriage is about and what it looks like. These preconceived notions or illusions (Huston et al., 2001, p. 238) are what initi ally drives spouses to act in ways that are consistent with their beliefs and to overlook potentially harmful behavior s that may later cause disruption. Similarly, this model holds that s pouses tend to view each other favorably and downplay or ignore their negative traits. Because spouses tend to think and act in ways that overly accentuate the positive and disregard the ne gative, romantic love should be high and ambivalence about the relationship should be low (Huston et al.).

PAGE 26

26 There is a fair body of research on whether this romanticized, ideal view of their partner is harmful or beneficial to the couple (Murra y, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996). In addition, some researchers pose the question about what is too much idealization ? These questions are hard to measure and answer. On the one hand, marriag e creates interdepende nce between spouses (Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994) that make s it hard to ignore spousal flaws and shortcomings. When partners over-idealize thei r spouses attributes a nd ignore their faults, idealizers put themselves at risk for disillusionment. This threat of disappointment is particularly prominent for those partners who fell in love with the idealized version of the person they constructed (Huston et al., 2001). In a study by Murray et al. ( 1996), spouses who maintained some degree of idealization about their partners traits reported higher mar ital satisfaction. This was particularly true for partners who mutually viewed the other as posse ssing attributes the part ner did not report having. In addition, the more realistic th e idealization, that is, the more the image is grounded in fact and not fantasy, the greater the benef its to the marital relationship. Emergent distress model. The emergent distress m odel (Bradbury, Cohan, & Karney, 1998), like the disillusionment model, maintain s that newlyweds begin the marital union as affectionate, romantic partners. However, spouses do not enter the marriage with the expectation that these heightened intensities of feeling will last. They acknowledge that some of the positive feelings and behaviors exhibited during the initi al transition will subside and do not view this cooling off as distressing (Hus ton et al., 2001). Instead, proponent s of this model believe that marital distress and dissatisfaction is the result of increased conflict and the expression of negativity between spouses over time (Bradbury et al.).

PAGE 27

27 Enduring dynamics model In contrast to the previ ous two models, the enduring dynamics model (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, 2000) posited that spouses enter into a marital union knowing their partners shortcomings and weaknesses. Awareness of possible incompatibilities and faults become apparent during dating and carry over into marriage. Following this line of reasoning, then, problems that occur in the newlywed stage are most likely issues that were present before the marri age (Caughlin et al.; Huston et al., 2001). Relationship Dynamics of the Dual-Career Couple There are many interactional processes that influ ence marital success. Because the wide body of research is voluminous the discussion will be limited to three fundamental components that have been linked with marital success--c ommunication, commitment, and conflict (Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). According to Gottman (1999), marital partners frequently engage in mind-reading (p. 16) when conversing with one another. Mind reading occurs when one partner assumes they know what the other partner is thinking and feeling. Gottman reported that these unspoken assumptions are characteristic of marital convers ations and are not necessarily dysfunctional or indicative of poor communication. In fact, these verbalizations are said to convey real knowledge about situations and are quite accurate in cont ent. In sum, the act of communicating what one partner believes the other is thinking is not harmful. What can be damaging to marital relationships, said Gottman, is way the message is delivered. That is, it is the affect of the message that determines how the message will be received by the recipient. When the listening/receiving partner percei ves the message as blaming or condemning s/he often reacts by running (shutting down) or escalating the conflict. If the receiving partner responds by avoiding or confronting it is less likely th at the initiator will influence the partner. Gottman found this type

PAGE 28

28 of interaction common in ailing ma rriages. In troubled marriages, th e issue is not one of unclear communication but the amount of negative expr ession in the conversation (Gottman, 1999). Commitment dynamics have also been show n to affect marital relationships (Johnson, Caughlin, & Huston, 1999). Commitment can be fu rther broken down into two types--the dedicated and the obligated. In the former, the spouse has a pers onal investment in the marriage and wishes to maintain the quality of the relation ship so that both partners will benefit. In the latter, one or both spouses stay in the marriage out of necessity. In these cases, splitting up is more costly than staying together (Jo hnson et al.; Stanle y & Markman, 1992). Stanley et al. (2002) examined the amount of negative interaction in 908 couples (86.7% were married) and how it affected levels of commitment and marital satisfaction. They found that as the number of negative interactions increased among married couples the lower the reported levels of marital satisfaction and comm itment to the relationship. In addition, they found that spouses who were dedicated to their rela tionship were more likely to be satisfied with their marriages. This study yielded some useful information about the behaviors of married couples on measures of commitment but it does not address gender differe nces in the expression of commitment. Conflict usually results when one spouse does something the other pa rtner does not like. When a conflictual situation occurs partners may respond by confronting and discussing the issue or avoiding the conversation. The results of these interaction styles can have positive or negative affects on the mar ital relationship (Stanley et al., 2 002; Verhofstadt, Buysse, DeClerca, & Goodwin, 2005). When couples openly discu ss problems and attempt to understand each others point of view, effectiv e problem solving can take place (Gottman, 1994). Couples who confront their issues are said to experiences more global positiv ity than when either or both

PAGE 29

29 partners withdraw (Stanley et al .). However, couples may also behave in ways that intensifies the conflict and leads to other negati ve relational processes. For in stance, Gottman (1999) described a harmful interaction where both partners engage in mutual blaming or criticizing. This often happens when one partner feels attacked by the other and responds in a defensive manner. An example of this type of interaction would be wh en one partner vocalizes their concerns to their spouse and is met not with understanding but with a complaint of their own. Another type of negative interaction occurs when one partner wants to discuss an issue and the other withdraws from the c onversation. Christensen and Heavey (1990) labeled this type of interaction the demand/withdraw pattern. Researchers have repeatedly found a gender linkage in this pattern with women often occupying the ro le of demander and men typically disengaging and withdrawing (Christensen & Heavey; Faul kner et al., 2005; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Stanley et al., 2002; Verhofstadt et al., 2005). However, the dema nd/withdraw pattern may shift if the husband, not the wife, is th e seeker of change in the relationship (Christensen & Harvey,). Researchers have attempted to explain th e gender differences that accompany the demand/withdraw pattern of communication. Ch ristensen and Heavey (1990) argued that the female-demand/husband-withdraw patte rn is the result of their social position than from inherent gender differences. Since men have more soci al power (Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 1996) and have developed and maintained rules that benefit them more than wome n (Ferree 1990; Tamres et al., 2002), it is not surprising to find that women show more discontent and seek change while men seek to avoid it (Christensen & Heavey). Gottman (1999) explained the gender difference in the demand/withdraw pattern in te rms of the amount of emotional arousal that is experienced by each partner. After an argument where both part ners are involved in the conversation, women tend to calm down by engaging in self-soothing thoughts while men hold onto their level of

PAGE 30

30 arousal. Gottman believed this vigilance is a resu lt of biological proce sses that have required men to stay alert in the face of perceived dange r. However, men find this amount of arousal as aversive and engage in mechanisms (i.e., withdraw al) to reduce their disc omfort (Verhofstadt et al., 2005). Husbands abilities to re gulate their emotiona l arousal (more so than the wives) plays a vital role in the success a nd continuation of the marriage (G ottman, 1999; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Verhofstadt et al.s (2005) study also explored the effect s of conflict on husbands and wives. They also found gender differences in th e way that husbands a nd wives react and respond after a marital conflict. Specifi cally, they examined levels of emotional arousal and negative affect in the demand/withdraw pattern. Husbands experienced lower levels of emotional arousal and negative affect when they assumed the with draw role than when they initiated change (demander role). However, the reverse was true for women. Wives experienced higher levels of discomfort and emotional reactivity when they withdrew than when th ey were the demanders. Challenges of the Dual-Career Lifestyle Stress domains. Rapoport and Rapoport (1969) identified five stress dom ains that impact dual-career couples: work overload, decreased social networks, bala ncing work and marital roles, individual identity conf licts, and conflicts between personal a nd societal norms. In theory, since dual-career couples invest a high amount of personal and rela tional time and energy into pursuing and supporting each partners career, they are more likely than their single career counterparts to experience heightened stress in these domains. However, researchers have discovered that only three of the five domains --work overload and distress and balancing career and marital roles--negatively affect dual-career couples stress levels. Even though these couples experience a general decrease in time spent with outside family and friends and report identity conflicts, they were not found to n ecessarily cause increased distress.

PAGE 31

31 Workload Both men and women report that work-related issues affect their mental health and distress levels. Barnett and Brennan (1997) followed 201 dualearner couples over a 2 year period and assessed the effects of changes in job demands and control on psychological distress levels. They predicted that individuals who ha d acquired or maintained high job control and decision making power would be le ss prone to experience psychologi cal distress (i.e., anxiety or depression). In this study, job control was defined as possessing the authority and resources necessary to complete the job. In addition, the researchers added a second dimension, skill discretion, to the definition of job control. Skill discretion is de fined by the nature of job tasks and is divided into high or low depending on the variety of tasks required to perform the job. An occupation that requires little deviation in tasks, is not ch allenging, and provides little opportunity to learn new skills would be considered low in skill discretion. This study found that the dual-career men and women who report having to work under time pressures and conflicting demands, viewed their jobs as dull and monotonous and felt their ski lls were underutilized experienced higher levels of psychological distress over time. Social support. Dual-career couples ofte n find themselves with many obligations and not enough time in the day to fulfill them. One of the consequences of the time demands of managing marriage and career is the lack of time available to form and nurture social relationships. This can be partic ularly distressing to women who rely heavily on extended family and friends for support (Haddock et al., 2001). However, career women can also receive support from their colleagues. Women often report that working outside the home provides them with an opportunity to build supportive re lationships with others in th eir field (Haddock et al., 2001). These relationships often allow women to expand their network of emotional resources (Crossfield, Kinman, & Jones, 2005) while help ing alleviate job stress and increasing job

PAGE 32

32 satisfaction (Granello & Navin, 1997). Husbands, unlike their fema le counterparts, frequently identify their spouse as their primary support sy stem (Van Daalen et al., 2005). Studies have found that men experience increased psychological distress when they per ceive their wives as being emotionally taxed or unava ilable (Haddock et al., 2001). Si nce both partners are employed and experience career stressors, this situation may be more common in dual-career couples. Balancing roles. Dual-career couples occupy and actively participate in at least two roles-employee and spouse. Each role has its own de mands on a persons time and energy. At times, a particular role obligation may in terfere with responsibilities in the other domain. Research has found that more couples allow work to interfere with marital responsibilities than vice versa. Aryee, Luk, Leung, and Lo (1999), examined the affects of work place and family demands and stressors on family, life, and job satisfaction. Pa rticipants were given a 43 question Likert-type survey that assessed couples coping behaviors, interrole conflict, spous al support, and role stressors. They found that work overload impact ed both family-work and work-family conflict. Work overload was found to have more of a ne gative impact on family life than parental overload. In addition, couples that scored high on work-family c onflict also reported lowered life and family satisfaction. In sum, this study supports the notion that work stressors have a greater influence on life, job, and family sati sfaction than family related stressors. Identity Men and women in dual-ca reer couples consider marriage and career as vital components of their personal identity. When one or more parts of their identity are threatened or when stress creates tension in or between the domains these couples are more likely to engage in efforts to preserve both parts of self. The atte mpt to manage conflicts while staying true to personal identities can be challenging and many times requires relational efforts and strategies to reduce interrole conflict. Bi rd and Schnurman-Crook (2005) a ssessed 15 dual-career couples

PAGE 33

33 coping behaviors in response to work and family st ressors. To be included in the study, couples had to have a college degree, work at least 35 hours in outside employment, be employed in an occupation that was commensurate with education and training, and have a spouse that met similar criteria. Women and men in this samp le worked an average of 49.5 and 52.7 hours, respectively. The couples had ch ildren that ranged in age from preschool to young adults. In order to promote a supportive, nonjudgmental en vironment, couples were assessed individually then together. Couples were questioned about their current work situation, benefits of combining career and marital roles, stresses of living a dua l-career lifestyle, and ho w they handle stressors when they arise. All of the couples talked abou t the importance of career on personal identity and the significance of having spous al support of that identity. Th e presence of mutual support for both partners professional id entity was reported to positiv ely impact the individual and strengthen the marital relationship. Norms. The dual-career lifestyle deviates tremen dously from the traditional couple. Even though the number of dual-career couples are steadily increasi ng and their lifestyle becoming more common (Raley et al., 2006), many women and men still struggle with internalized messages that support prescribed gender roles. This discrepancy can still be detected in current research on marital satisfaction and the division of household la bor. In a review of the dualcareer literature, Granello and Navin (1997) f ound that many women believe they are largely responsible for completing househol d duties. One explanation given for this belief may stem from womens guilt about taking time away from their homemaker role to pursue a career. Other research, however, notes many womens dissatisfaction with th e unequal division of household labor. Women who engage in more household related chores report higher levels of

PAGE 34

34 psychological distress (Viers & Prouty, 2001), re duced marital satisfaction (Faulkner et al., 2005), and increased spillover effect s into other domains in life (e.g., work; Steven s et al., 2007). Spousal support and intimacy. External sources of support se rve as an important source of encouragement, empathy, and understanding for the dual-career spouse. Another vital, equally as or more important source is their partner. Ac cording to Granello and Navin (1997), because of the demands of two careers, dual-career couple s may experience difficulty in meeting their partners emotional needs and/or neglect to nourish the intimate relationship. This is particularly true after a demanding day on the job. A spouse th at has had a mentally draining day at work may not be able to provide their partner that al so had a hard day with the degree of support they may want/need. In addition, these couples may ge t so wrapped up in their careers and supporting each others career growth and deve lopment that they neglect othe r aspects of their relationship. Couples report that maintaining intimacy was a vital component in assessing their degree of marital satisfaction. Zimmerman et al. (2003) in terviewed 47 dual-earner couples who reported successfully balancing work and family. To be e ligible for the study, participants had to answer yes to five statements that indicated their be lief about effectively managing work and family such as My spouse and I believe that we are skil led in balancing the many responsibilities in our lives (e.g., spouse, parent, employee; p. 110). Coupl es were given a questionnaire that measured the division of emotional work in the relations hip and participated in a 90 minute conjoint interview with the researchers. They found that these couples ofte n praised their spouses for their talents and contributions to the family and fre quently communicated their support, respect, and concerns for their partners career activities. In a ddition, these couples re port that they also supported their spouses nonw ork life goals. For instance, they encouraged one another to take personal time to pursue individua l hobbies, activities, or spend time with friends. As for

PAGE 35

35 emotional work, both men and women reported their marital relationship to be a high priority in their lives and actively took steps to maintain intimacy. Thes e couples attributed their marital success to preserving a deep friendship by making couple time, maintaining mutual respect for one another, willingness to work through difficult ies together, giving and offering assistance, and expressing appreciation. Power and competition. Two other issues that dual-car eer couples face surround power and competition. Unlike traditional women--partly because career women work and contribute financially to the family--many career women f eel they have more decision making power in other areas of marital life (Zimmerman et al., 2003). At times, this decision-making arrangement may interfere with personal and marital well-being. One example of where this issue may come into play concerns gender role beliefs. A lthough both spouses may support some nontraditional role beliefs about appropriate male and female behavior, one partner ma y still hold traditional beliefs regarding other marital tasks. For instan ce, a male spouse may support his wifes career pursuits but believe that housework is mainly a womans responsibility. Power or decision making conflicts can manifest themselves in a number of other areas including childcare, career moves, and personal, relational, and social tim e (Granello & Navin, 1997). In their interviews with couples who were successf ully balancing work and family, Zimmerman et al. (2003) reported that these couples took a more eg alitarian approach to decision making and responsibility. These couples were flexible, maintained open dialogues, and frequently renegotiated the division of hous ehold labor depending upon current career and family factors. It was important for these spouses to feel that they could turn to one another during times of stress and know that their spouse would help them find solutions. These couples felt that both spouses were equally responsible for making decisions regarding household and financial affairs.

PAGE 36

36 Spouses frequently discussed issues as they arose and worked together as a team to find the best outcome. Instead of assigning tasks based on prec onceived notions of gender, these couples took a joint approach to managing career and family. Given the job requirements and personal attributes necessary to be successful in a career, it is not surprising that some dual-career c ouples deal with some degree of spousal competitiveness. This is not necessarily unhealthy or problematic and can be expected in certain situations. For instance, a certain level of competition may ensue between spouses that occupy the same profession and are therefore competing for some of the same resources (Granello & Navin, 1997; Vannoy & Philliber, 1992). However, pr oblems can arise if spouses believe that one career must take precedence over the other or if certain members of the family hold more traditional gender beliefs. Vannoy and Philliber found that women who felt they were making more career sacrifices for the marriage than their husbands reported increased conflict, resentment, and competition in their marriages Similarly, husbands who adhered to more traditional gender roles reported dissatisfaction w ith their marriage if their wives held higher status positions than they did. Overload and conflict. Role overload and c onflict are issues that dual-career couples frequently encounter throughout the course of their marriage (Stevens et al., 2007). The dualcareer couple is engaged in constant negotiation between at least three commitments: his career, her career, and maintaini ng a meaningful marital relationship. The amount of resources that are consumed to restore and sustain balance within and between these res ponsibilities can get overwhelming and affect both personal and ma rital well-being (Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003). Previous researchers (Barnett, Marshall, & Sayer, 1992; Dilworth, 2004; Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003; Marshall & Barnett, 1993) have discussed the importance of viewing career

PAGE 37

37 and marital commitments as interconnected with the mutually infl uencing domains. That is, each responsibility (e.g., his career, her career) does not exist separately and independently from each other and can have a positive or negative affect on other areas of life. Work-Family/Family-Work Gains and Strains Many term s have been used to describe the bidirectional impact of marriage and career: role strain, role permeability, spillover, stress contagion, stress crossover, family-to-work and work-to-family conflict or sp illover (Dilworth, 2004) and wo rk-family strains (Marshall & Barnett, 1993). These terms imply that most spill over affects are negative and as a result research has largely focused on the problems that arise when stress is carried over from one domain into another (Kinnunen, Feldt, Geurts, & Pulkkinen, 2006; Stevens et al., 2007). By definition, spillover is defined as the positive and negative feelings, attitudes, and behaviors that might emerge in one domain and are carried over into the other (Googins, 1991, p. 9). Work-family and family-work spillover, then, can be positive or negative and can have different effects on the person and role relationships. Research has focused heavily on work-to-family spillover, perhaps because it has been found to be more prevalent th an family-to-work spillover (Dilworth). Lastly, past research has found gender differences in who is more likely to experience a certain type of spillover. Largely due to thei r perceptions about the unequal distribution of household labor, women with children report more family-towork conflict than do men (Mennino, Rubin, & Brayfield, 2005; Stevens et al., 2007; Tatman et al., 2006). However, research on gender differences in levels of work-to-family conflict have shown mixed results. Some studies have found that both genders are equally vulnerable to and experience the same amount of work-tofamily conflict (Tatman et al.), others report women have slightly higher work-family spillover (Marshall & Barnett, 1993; Mennino et al.), and yet others hold that men experience more workto-family conflict (Dilworth).

PAGE 38

38 In an earlier study, Marshall a nd Barnett (1993) identified and investigated several sources of work-family gains and strains for dual-earner couples. In the first wave of this two year longitudinal study, researchers interviewed 300 dual-earner participants and gathered information on their experience as partner, parent, employee, and multiple role manager. Participants in this study did not have to be married to be considered for the study; however, they had to be cohabitating. Only a small proporti on (3%) of the sample was unmarried. Next, partners were given a questionnaire that measured workload, job and marital role quality, parentrole quality, resources, work-ro le commitment, sex-role attitudes, mans attitude towards partners employment, and work-family gains and strains. For nonparents, workload and experiences on the job, marital role quality, and sex-role attitudes infl uenced reported workfamily gains and strains. In other words, men and women reported work-family gains when home and job experiences were pos itive and both partners held le ss traditional sex-role beliefs. In addition, couples that received social support from friends and family reported greater gains. Overall, for nonparents, combining work and family was a positive experience. Juggling work and family made partners feel more well-round ed and confident in their ability to manage multiple responsibilities. In a sample of 453 married spouses, Dilworth (2004) attempted to id entify predictors of negative family-to-work (FW) spillover. The re searcher wanted to kno w if FW spillover was greater for men or women and if there were common predictors that influenced negative spillover for both sexes. To be included in the study, respondents had to be married, had to have both spouses employed at least 30 hours a week, a nd have at least one ch ild under 18 residing in the home. Only one spouse per household was allowed to participate in the study. Negative spillover from home to work was measured us ing a five item Likert-type scale that asked

PAGE 39

39 respondents to indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = never and 5 = very often) how often in the past 3 months: their family or personal life kept them from getting work done on time, from taking on extra work, from doing a good job at work, from c oncentrating on work, and caused them to feel drained of energy needed for work. Time spent engaging in household chores was also assessed using a two item question that measured hours sp ent engaging in household tasks on work and nonwork days. Participants were asked what th ey would like their spouses to be doing with regards to housework. Lastly, four questionnaire items assessed marital and family life satisfaction. Respondents were asked to respond using a 4 point Likert-type scale with 1 = extremely satisfied and 4 = not too satisfied. The results indicated that women reported more negative family-to-work spillover than men. Specifi cally, hours worked on the job influenced the amount of FW spillover experienced. Interestingly, the number of hours spent completing household chores did not increase FW spillove r for women. For both men and women, family satisfaction impacted the amount of FW spillover. Also, low family satisfaction but not marital satisfaction affected negative spillover. A study by Tatman et al. (2006) examined work and family stressors that contributed to work-family conflict (WFC) and family-work conflict (FWC). The sample consisted of 142 participates in specifically chos en occupations. The researchers were interested in examining the influence of educational achievement on the depe ndent variables. Of the 142 participants, 6 had doctoral degrees, 53 had masters degrees, 39 had bachelors degrees, 24 had post-secondary vocational certificates, 16 had hi gh school diplomas, and 4 had other Participants did not have to be married or have children to be incl uded in the study. The sample was given a 42 item Likert-type questionnaire that measured work ov erload, conflicting job expectations, inflexible working conditions, seeking new employment, job satisfaction, parental overload, and family

PAGE 40

40 performance. The researchers found that WFC an d FWC were indeed distinct concepts that affected couples differently. Both genders repo rted similar amounts of WFC but women reported higher FWC levels than men. With regard to ed ucational attainment, people with masters and doctoral degrees experienced less FWC than peopl e with bachelors or post-secondary vocational degrees. Several job stressors--wor k overload, conflicting job expect ations, desire for a new job-were identified as negatively impacting family life satisfaction. Not fulfilling family responsibilities and parent al overload were reported to influence degree of work satisfaction. A limited amount of research has been devoted to studying the positive impact of work on family and family on work. Research that has focused on the positive affects have used the terms positive spillover (Stevens et al., 2007), work-family gains (Marshall & Barnett, 1993), and positive crossover (Crossfield et al., 2005) to describe this phenomenon. A similar concept, the buffering effect (Haddock & Rattenborg, 2003 p. 327), holds that one domain may buffer the stresses experienced in another. For instance, when spouses reported a good marital relationship, problems in the job domain produced less psyc hological distress (Barnett & Marshall, 1992). In a qualitative study aimed at discovering the bene fits of combining career and family, Haddock and Rattenborg (2003) found six themes that characterized couples that were successfully balancing career and family. Thr ough 90 minute conjoint in terviews, researchers hoped to gather a rich description on the benefits and challenges of a dual-earner lifestyle. In particular, they focused on the adaptive strategies these couples employed to achieve success within and between domains. The study consisted of 47 couples that were married, had both spouses working at least 35 hours weekly, a nd had at least one ch ild under age 12. The researchers organized the benefits into six themes: modeling an egalitarian relationship for the children, increased self esteem and well-being, in creased financial resources, increased social

PAGE 41

41 networks that employment prov ided, spending time away from th e children that led to better parenting, and improved social and intellectual skills for their children. Challenges were clustered into three themes: lack of support, feelings of guilt, and sacrifices. One of the biggest challenges these couples faced came from unfriendl y workplaces that were not family centered. Other couples reported feeling gu ilty for taking time away from their partner and children to work outside the home. The couples that reported experiencing sporadic bouts of guilt explained that they felt they had made sacrifices in some areas of life in order to balance career and family. For instance, one woman reported declining a promotion so that she could spend more time with her family. Overall, even though some couples discussed the challenges they face as a result of living a dual-earner lifestyle, most repor t the benefits outweigh the costs. Past research has neglected the impact of family factors on work functioning (Dilworth, 2004). A study by Stevens et al. (2007) examined the family factors that positively and negatively influence work. The researchers studie d three family factors--demographics, domestic labor, and relationship--that were thought to impact workplace functioning. The demographic variables consisted of income, education, work hours, and presence of preschool children. Domestic labor was measured by number of housework hours, emotion work, and status enhancement. Emotion work is referred to as m anaging or enhancing the psychological needs of family members (p. 246). Status enhancement is defined as behaviors that enhance the work experiences and career development of ones part ner (p. 246). Relationship satisfaction and family cohesion were also measured. Family cohesion was described as a couples commitment to the family and each members well-being. The sa mple consisted of an unspecified number of cohabitating couples that were part of a nother ongoing project. Ma rital status was not determined. Each partner was asked to complete a written questionnaire independently of their

PAGE 42

42 partner. The demographic variables did not signif icantly affect positive or negative spillover. As for domestic labor, emotion work was found to significantly impact spillover for men and women but status enhancement was only positiv ely associated with spillover for men. In addition, women reported higher family to work spillover when housework labor satisfaction was high. Family cohesion was found to positiv ely impact spillover for men and women but relationship satisfaction was only significant for men. Coping With Stressors in Newlywed Couples There is a wide body of research on the stre sses associated with com bining work/career and family (Becker & Moen, 1999; Bird & Sc hnurman-Crook, 2005). However, many of the coping strategies that have b een studied are individually empl oyed attempts to reduce stress, conflict, and role overload (Stanfield, 1998). Rese archers have made the argument that because spouses are interdependent, results gained from individual coping studies can be generalized to relational outcomes (Bird & Schnurman-Crook, 2005; Tallman & Hsiao, 2004). That is, what one spouse does to rectify a problem or reduce stress will impact the other spouse and the marriage. However, in order for a strategy to be effective, steps and solutions must be designed with both partners wants and n eeds in mind (Carter & Carter, 1 995). Other studies that have examined coping behaviors in the home and wo rkplace found that some coping strategies are implemented in both domains while others are do main specific (Becker & Moen; Haddock et al., 2001). However, some of these category specific coping behaviors are not mutually exclusive. Oftentimes, a strategy used to re duce stress in one area impacts the other area. For instance, a common tactic women use to manage work place demands is setting time boundaries (Haddock et al., 2001). A woman who specifi es and sticks to a predetermi ned set of working hours a week may find her home life stresses have improved by her increased time at home. In addition, there appear to be gender differences in coping styles. Men are fou nd to use more problem-solving

PAGE 43

43 proactive behaviors and women more emotion-focu sed behaviors in times of stress (Tamres et al., 2002). Many researchers have attempted to discover how two earner families make it work. That is, they want to know how dual-earner/dual-career c ouples keep a balance between work and family while succeeding at both. Some studies have examined individual strategies used to maintain or regain balance whereas others have sought to focus on relational techniques employed to manage work-family issues. Still, others question the exis tence of a dual-career lifestyle opting instead for support of a one career one job arrangement. There is some research that suggests dual-car eer couples are rare a nd only exist at certain points during a couples life course For instance, Becker and Moen (1999) found that most dualcareer couples, that is, couples where both spouses were dedicated to en hancing their career status, were young, childless couples. However, this status changed when children entered the picture. Also, women were found to make most of the caree r sacrifices th roughout the life course. In this qualita tive study of 100 dual-earner couples at various stages in the lifespan, researchers examined individual and relational strategies employed to maintain a two earner lifestyle. The three strategies often utilized were placing limits, one jobone career, and trading off. Two thirds of the women in the study descri bed setting boundaries at work such as limiting number of hours worked. Both men and women talked about refusing job promotions or changing jobs when work demands began infr inging upon family time. Other couples (40%) described their two earner status as consisting of one career and one job. Two thirds reported that the husband held the career and the wife held a job. This arrangement was maintained regardless of age or presence of children residing in the hom e. One third of couples engaged in trading off. That is, these spouses took tu rns employing the other two stra tegies. Depending upon the life

PAGE 44

44 stage, many couples switched job and career stat us. For instance, one woman put her career on hold while her husband finished graduate school a nd secured a job. She then returned to pursuing a career. Unlike the previous study, other researchers have found these couples to be engaging in more relational strategies to manage family and work. In a study by Haddock et al. (2001), they found both spouses to be equally invested in fa mily and work and employed strategies that promoted both spouses and the families well-being. In this qualitative study of 47 dual-earner couples, researchers investigated the adaptive st rategies of dual-earner couples that were successfully managing family and work. Ten ma jor strategies were found: valuing family, striving for partnership, derivi ng meaning from work, mainta ining work boundaries, focusing and producing at work, taking pride in dual-ea rning, prioritizing family fun, living simply, making decisions proactively, and valuing time. Forty six couples reported family as their top priority. These couples reported establishing family activities weekly and s acrificing at work to maintain time spent with family. Forty five couples attributed part of their success to establishing an equal partnership in their relationship. These couples reported dividing up the housework more fairly, making decisions as a team, and prov iding support and encourag ement to each other. Forty two couples report that enjoyment in th eir profession boosted their energy and positively affected their lives. They di scussed the importance of bei ng productive and deriving meaning from their work while setting and maintaining wo rk boundaries. Many couples (43) took pride in their dual-earner status and felt that it had a positive impact on all family members. Another strategy these couples utilized was managing ti me spent at work and home. Some couples structured their days and activit ies in order to maximize meaningful time spent with family. In

PAGE 45

45 sum, couples who employed relational strategies and worked together to achieve personal and family goals reported satisfaction fr om living a dual-earner lifestyle. In a later study by Zimmerman et al. (2003), these researcher s focused extensively on the importance of maintaining a working marital pa rtnership to enhance family-work success. Drawing from quantitative and qualitative data gathered from their previous study, these researchers examined the division of household labor, childcare, decision-making, finances, emotion work, and career goals and priorities These couples felt that both spouses were responsible for housework and divided up chores based on this belief. One strategy employed was developing rules for specific household tasks, such as if one cooks, the other cleans up. Joint decision making was another key ingredient to thes e couples success. This involved being able to freely express their opinions, maintaining an open dialogue, negotiating, and compromising. Since both spouses contributed to the family inco me, it was important that both spouses felt that they had equal access to and say so over finances. Some couples made agreements on the way money would be spent. For instance, one couple st ated they did not make big purchases without consulting the other first. Lastly, these couples developed strategies that supported personal and professional goals while maintain ing an intimate relationship. A qualitative study by Bird and Schnurman-Croo k (2005) identified four coping patterns and two coping strategies employed by the 15 dual-career couples in their study. The investigators were interested in gaining a broad picture of how individual s and couples cope with family and career stressors. In this study, fa mily and career stresses were identified and examined separately. The coping patterns consis ted of two individual coping efforts and were classified as problem or emotion focused, dyadi c, and communal. Over half of the couples reported applying a problem solving approach to reduce work stressors. Problems were tackled

PAGE 46

46 by breaking them down into smaller, more manag eable components. Other behavioral strategies employed were working harder to meet career needs and adding hours to their workday (i.e., getting up earlier, working through lunch). Howeve r, the latter finding is not consistent with previous research in this area. Researchers have found that wh en work stress becomes too high, couples, particularly women, reduce their invol vement in this arena (Becker & Moen, 1999; Haddock et al., 2001). Individuals also approach work stressors by using emotion-fo cused strategies. Both women and men in the Bird and Schnurman-Crook (2005) study listed fellow employees work output as a prominent stressor. In order to resolve this frustration, both men and women reported having to learn to accept colleagues and coworkers limita tions. Even though men and women agreed that acceptance was key to coping with coworkers low work effort, they differed in how they react to these inequities (Bird & Sc hnurman-Crook). Studies have found gender differences in the way men and women think about and respond to c onflict (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Gottman, 1994; Paden & Buehler, 1995). In the workplace, as in other areas in life, women are more likely to vocalize their discontent than their male counterparts. Men, on the other hand, deal with workplace frustrations by confronting the proble m head on or withdrawing (Gottman, 1994; Bird & Schnurman-Crook; Paden & Buehler). Another strategy used by men and women to manage workplace stressors is cognitive restructuring (Bird & Schnurman-Crook, 2005; Cart er & Carter, 1995; Paden & Buehler, 1995). Cognitive restructuring is an individuals attempt to redefine stressful, negative situations as neutral or positive experiences (P aden & Buehler, p.103). In order to cope with a less than ideal working environment, then, individuals need to examine and change their beliefs and attitudes toward the stressful situation. Si milarly, positive self-talk is another cognitive strategy used to

PAGE 47

47 combat workplace stressors. This type of talk is mostly utilized by women and consists of repeated statements that boost esteem and allo w an individual to overcome paralyzing stress (Tamres et al., 2002). Dual-Career Lifestyle and Marital Satisfaction In studying the affects of a dua l-career lifestyle on m arital functioning, researchers have assessed constructs such as ma rital satisfaction (Faulkner et al., 2005; Wilkie et al., 1998), marital quality (Barnett, Marshall, & Pleck, 1992; Rogers & May, 2003), marital happiness (Veroff et al., 1998) and marital adjustment (Bur ley, 1995). To assess the a ffects of a dual-career lifestyle on work functioning, resear chers have studied concepts such as job role quality (Barnett 1994; Marshall & Barnett, 1993) and job satisfaction (Rogers & May). The link between marital quality and job sati sfaction was explored in a study by Rogers and May (2003). The data for this article was derived from a 12 year longitudinal study that examined marital instability. Tw o measures, marital quality (mar ital satisfaction and discord) and job satisfaction were assessed at 4 points (1980, 1983, 1988, 1992). Specifically, the researchers wanted to know if marital quality and job satisfacti on were related over the long run, which domain was more influential, and if the resu lts varied by gender. The sample used in this study consisted of 1,065 married individuals that were under 55 years of age that were employed consecutively over two time periods. Some data from the original study of 2,034 individuals were excluded because they did not meet the st udys criteria. The researchers found that, overall, marital quality was related to job satisfaction ove r the periods examined. Specifically, changes in marital satisfaction were significantly related to ch anges in job satisfaction at three of the four periods assessed. Marital discord was found to impact job satisfaction in 1988 and 1992. Job satisfaction was only significantly related to ma rital satisfaction and discord in 1983. Secondly, it was determined that marital quality had a larger influence on job satisf action than vice versa.

PAGE 48

48 Lastly, there was no gender differe nces in the processes studied. This study demonstrates that there are spillover processes at play between ma rital quality and job satisfaction but only in a broad sense. Another study by Barnett (1994) studied the moderating effects of marital role quality on the relationship between job role quality and ps ychological distress. The sample for this study included 300 women involved in du al-earner relationships. All pa rticipants were employed full time and sixty percent had children. The aver age age of the women in the study was 34.21. Barnett found that marital experiences affected the relationship between job satisfaction and distress. When marital quality is low, womens distress levels were greatly influenced by job satisfaction. If the quality of the marital relationship was reported as high, problems or stresses in the job arena were not shown to sign ificantly affect distress levels. Research has also focused on gender differences on reported levels of marital satisfaction. Studies have found that women who hold nontraditio nal roles and beliefs and do the majority of the household chores report being less satisfied w ith their marriages than their more traditional counterparts (Greenstein, 1995). Similarly, empl oyed women who assume the bulk of domestic work frequently report lower levels of marita l satisfaction (Faulkner et al., 2005). Hochschild (1989) labeled this second set of responsibilities that women fulfill as the second shift. In a study conducted in 1989, she examined the division of domestic work in 50-dual-earner couples. She divided husbands into one of three groups --sharing, moderate, little--depending on their involvement in housework and child care tasks. Husbands who participated in 45-55% of the work were considered equal contributors, while those who contri buted under 30% fell into the little help category. Next, she divided these men into three groups--traditional, transitional, egalitarian--based on their beliefs concerning spousal roles and the division of domestic labor. Of

PAGE 49

49 the traditional men, 22% shared responsibilitie s equally, 44% helped moderately, and 33% did little. Transitional men shared equally in the wo rk 3% of the time, m oderately 10%, and the majority (87%) helped minimally. Of the ega litarian men surveyed, 70% were reported to contribute equally to the domestic tasks while the remaining 30% helped moderately. When these groups were combined, only 18% of husbands were found to contribute substantially to the domestic work. It is important to note that this study examined the division of domestic labor among dual-earner couples not dualcareer couples specifically. A recent study by Cast and Bird (2005) examined the division of domestic and paid labor among egalitarian and nonegalitarian couples. The researchers hypothesized that the more egalitarian the couple, the more each would engage in nontraditional gender role tasks. That is, when spouses view each other as equals in the ma rriage, and do not adhere to traditional gender roles, the more involved men would be in household labor and wome n in paid work. The researchers found that men and women who held eg alitarian values perceived their spouses as contributing significantly to nontra ditional tasks. However, per ception did not imply the equal division of labor. When asked how much time each spent doing the traditional and nontraditional tasks, men still reported doi ng less housework than women while women worked 7 paid hours less a week than men. In addition, th e researchers noted two other tre nds in the data. First, as the number of hours spent in paid labor increased, the less time me n devoted to domestic chores. This did not hold true for women. In fact, as the study progressed, womens participation in paid worked decreased but the reported time spent fulfilling household tasks increased. This study demonstrates that egalitarian c ouples perceive a more equal divi sion of labor even though actual time spent engaging in the two tasks (paid a nd household labor) were unequal and divided among gender role lines.

PAGE 50

50 Other researchers have found that one spouse doing more housework than the other is not necessarily unfair or un equal (Cast & Bird, 2005; Rosenblut h et al., 1998; Wilkie, Ferree, & Ratcliff, 1998). In a study by Rose nbluth et al., they interviewed spouses of dual-career couples. Sixty four percent of the spouses commented that their perception of fairne ss with regards to the division of domestic labor depende d upon a variety of factors. Befo re they judged the division of domestic tasks as being unequal, these spouses assessed the career demands of both partners, each partners contributions to the marriage, and personal choice and sources of satisfaction. In this study, 65% of the women and 43% of the men viewed women as assuming the primary homemaker role. Similarly, in a study by Marsha ll and Barnett (1993), the division of household labor was not significantly associated with work -family gains or strains for males or females without children. Summary The litera ture is full of studies that attempt to examine the lifestyles of dual-earner and, to a lesser extent, the dua l-career couple subgroup. The newlywed dual-career couple is a subgroup of the larger population of dua l-earner couples. Researchers ha ve proposed several individual and relational characteristics that distinguish dual-career couple s from two income households. The literature continues to demonstrate the use of multiple definitions when studying this couple type. In addition, research on this group (speci fically newly married, career oriented, with no children) is sparse. Several qualita tive studies have been conducte d in an attempt to explore the lives of newlywed, dual-employed couples, but fe w in depth studies have been devoted to exploring the marriage-career interface. The si gnificance of studying this group of couples is evidenced by the research on the early years of marriage as predictors of marital stability, happiness, and divorce (Carrere et al., 2000). A brief review of the literature on marital adjustment and contentment during the early years of marriage was presented followed by a

PAGE 51

51 discussion on communication, commitment, and c onflict in marital rela tionships. The next section of the review outlined previous resear ch findings on the challenges and benefits and gains and strains of a dual-career lifestyle on s pouses and their marital relationship. Lastly, the identification and use of specific coping strate gies was described and the impact of managing career and marriage on marital satisfaction was presented.

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Statement of Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigat e the benefits and challenges newlywed dualcareer couples experience during th e first five years of m arriage and its influence on career and marital satisfaction. Seven primary variables comp rised the focus of this study including (a) the presence and type of challenges associated with career and marriage, (b) benefits of combining career and marriage, (c) buffering eff ects of marital life on career (d) strategies that contribute to the balance and imbalance of career and marriage, (e) partners level of marital satisfaction, (f) partners level of career satisfa ction, (g) gender differences in responses and experiences on the predictor and criterion variables. In this chapter, the research design, variables, instrumentation, sample, sample selection procedures, data co llection procedures, and the studys hypotheses are described and discussed. Research Design and Relevant Variables A survey design using correlational and genera l linear equation methods was used in this study. Two regression analyses were utilized to examine the res earch questions. In the first analysis, the predictor variables were challenges, benefits, buffers strategies, career satisfaction, and gender and was measured using the Work-Fam ily Strains and Gains Scale, Positive Familyto-Work Spillover Index, Coping Strategies Scale, and Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index. The criterion variable, marital satisfaction, was measured using the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. In the second analysis, the pr edictor variables include d challenges, benefits, buffers, strategies, gender, and marital satisfactio n. The criterion variable was career satisfaction. A gender by variable interaction was employed in both models to determine gender differences.

PAGE 53

53 Instrumentation and Operationalized Variables Multip le scales were combined to address different aspects of the research questions. The instruments used in this study include, the Work-Family Strain s and Gains Scale (Marshall & Barnett, 1993; see Appendix A and B), the Positi ve Family-to-Work Spillover Index (Stevens et al., 2007; see Appendix C), Coping Strategies S cale (Kirchmeyer, 1993; see Appendix D), the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (LWM AT; Locke & Wallace, 1959; see Appendix E), the Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index (Bra yfield & Rothe, 1951; see Appendix F), and a demographic questionnaire (see Appendix G). Career-Marriage Challenges As noted in the lite rature review, balancing work and family was one of the most frequently reported problems by both partners in newlywed couples (Center for Marriage and Family, 2000; Schramm et al., 2005). Previous research has noted se veral career-marriage challenges that often arise when stress exists in one or both domains (Viers & Prouty, 2001). The Work-Family Strains subscale (Marshall & Barn ett, 1993) encompasses many of the challenges of a dual-career lifestyle and was used to m easure the impact of career on marriage and vice versa. The Work-Family Strains subscale is com posed of 7 items taken from Wortman, Biernat, and Lang (1991) that measures the spillover effects of stress from one domain to the other. Two additional items were taken from a study by Barne tt and Baruch (1985) to measure multiple role conflict and overload. Items for the Work-Family Strains scale were devised from open-ended interviews with 300 couples where both partne rs were employed full-time in an outside occupation. The Work-Family Stra ins subscale utilizes a 4-point Likert-type scale that asks participants to respond to the seve n items by indicating if the statemen t is 1 = not at all true to 4 = extremely true. Examples of items on th is subscale include when you spend time with your family, youre bothered by all the things at work that you should be doing, and because of

PAGE 54

54 your family responsibilities, you have to turn down work activities that you would prefer to take on. In this study, some of the wording in th e items was changed to reflect work-marriage challenges. For instance, the above sample items were changed to whe n you spend time with your spouse, youre bothered by all the things at work that you should be doing and because of your marital responsibilities, you have to turn down work activities that you prefer to take on. In addition, the work-family strains subscale inco rporates two additional items that measure multiple role overload and conflict. Respondents ar e asked to rate statements on a 4-point scale with 1 = never to 4 = very often. Scores for the total subscale range from 9 to 36 with higher scores indicating more perceived work-family st rain. Cronbachs alpha for this subscale is 0.78 for men and 0.81 for women. Similarly, Haddock and Rattenborg (2003) provided additional support for the reliability of the Work-Family St rains scale. In their study, Cronbachs alpha was 0.75 for husbands and .80 for women. Career-Marriage Benefits Marshall and Barnetts (1993) W ork-Family St rains and Gains scales are composed of many measures that explore multiple areas of st ress and support associated with dual-earner families. The Work-Family Gains was used to measure the benefits of combining work and marriage. The Multiple Role Strains and Role Gain s (Marshall & Barnett, 1991) was an early instrument developed to assess employed mothers work-family gains and strains. The data for this analysis came from the fi rst year of a 3 year longitudi nal study of 403 women employed at least part time as social workers or licensed pr actical nurses (LPNs). In this particular study, only employed mothers (n = 229) were surveyed. Par ticipants were asked to respond using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all true to 4 = extremely true) how applicable the given statements were for them. The Multiple Gains scale consists of 4 items and includes items such as the

PAGE 55

55 money you make contributes to a better life for your children and working makes you a better mother. The Multiple Role Strains scale measur es the impact of employment on children and is comprised of five items that include statements such as your work in terferes with your time with your children, working creates strains for your children, and you r children resent the fact that you work. Cronbachs alpha is 0.56 fo r the gains scale and .83 for the strains scale. The Work-Family Gains subscale consists of seven items that measures positive gains that result from combining work and family roles (Marshall & Barnett, 1993). Items for this instrument were formulated from open-ended in terviews with 403 women that were working at least part time as social workers or licensed practical nurses (LPNs; Ma rshall & Barnett, 1991). In this wave of the study, researchers interviewed 300 dual-earner couples employed full-time in the workforce. Participants were each given a survey asking them to rate the following statements on a scale of 1 = not at all true to 4 = very true: having both work and family responsibilities: makes you a more well-rounde d person, means you manage your time better, and managing work and family responsibilities as well as you do makes you feel competent (Marshall & Barnett, 1993, p. 77). The item wording was adapted in the pres ent study to assess work-marriage benefits. For instance, having both work and family responsibilities was changed to having both work and marital respon sibilities. Possible scores on this measure range from 7 to 28 with higher scores indi cating greater perceived work-family gains. Cronbachs alpha for this scale is 0.85 for men and 0.86 for women. A study conducted by Haddock and Rattenborg (2003) provided additional support for the initial Work-Family Gains subscale reliability coefficients In this study, Cronbachs alpha was 0.82 for wives and .90 for husbands.

PAGE 56

56 Buffering Effects: Career-Marriage The Positiv e Family-to-Work Spillover Index (Stevens et al., 2007) is a nine item Likerttype instrument that measures the impact of family to work spillover. The measure was adapted from a 15 item scale developed by Kirchmeyer (1992, 1993) that was designed to assess positive nonwork-to-work spillover. Items from this initial scale were develope d from Siebers (1974) four outcomes of role accumulation and past st udies (see Crouter, 1984; Pi otrkowski, 1979) that document workers personal experi ences with spillover. In this study, 479 respondents were asked to indicate on a six point Likert -type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) their degree of agreement with the listed st atements. Respondents were asked to rate their involvement in three nonwork domains--parenting, community, and r ecreational. Sample items include being a parent helps me understand the people at work be tter, being involved in the community gives me support so I can face the difficulties of work, and being involved in recreation/hobby groups improves my image at work. Cronbach s alphas for the pare nting, community, and recreation domains were 0.90, 0.87, and 0.89 (Kir chmeyer, 1992). Stevens et al. (2007) employed and adapted 9 of the 15 statements to assess the familys impact on work functioning. A sample of 156 coresidential, dual-employed couples were asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) their level of agreement or disagreement with the 9 statements. Scores rang e from 9 to 36 with higher scores indicating higher levels of spillover. Alpha reliability coefficients for the scale are 0.81 for women and 0.77 for men. In this study, the wording was changed to reflect marriage to work spillover. For instance, instead of my family helps me to forget the problems at work the instrument wording was changed to read my spouse helps me to fo rget the problems at work. Another example, my family gives me ideas that can be used at work was reworded to my spouse gives me ideas that can be used at work.

PAGE 57

57 Strategies Contributing to Balance/Imbalance Kirchm eyers (1993) Coping Strategies Scale is an index that measures 16 strategies individuals utilize to co pe with role conflicts. Items for this instrument were taken from Halls (1972) study on working women and coping stra tegies. In this study, Hall asked college educated, working women how do (did) you attemp t to deal with thes e conflicts? (Hall, p. 475). Based on their responses, 16 co ping strategies were identifie d, analyzed, coded, and placed in one of three general coping categories--structural ro le redefinition, persona l role redefinition, and reactive role behavior. Struct ural role definition strategies include re ducing or eliminating role activities while maintaining roles and atte mpting to change others expectations. Personal role redefinition involves changing personal at titudes and behaviors in order to reduce role conflict. Lastly, reactive role behavior seek s to find ways to satisfy all demands (Hall; Kirchmeyer 1993). In a study by Kirchmeyer (1993), 221 individuals were asked to think about how they manage the multiple roles in their life and indicate on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not typical of me, 4 = very typi cal) how typical each strategy is to their approach to managing these roles. The researchers were interested in discovering what copi ng strategies people considered most effective. In other words, they were not focu sed on the number of strategies used but the frequency of reported strategies. A factor analysis was performed on the coping strategies to determine underlying dimensions. Ei ght of the 16 items loaded on the dominant factor and spanned across Halls three types. Inte rnal reliability for the eight coping strategies was 0.76. Examples of strategies include ove rlap different roles whenever possible and increase my efficiency by scheduling and orga nizing role activities carefully. Additional support for the reliability of the eight item s cale was supported in a later study by Kirchmeyer and Cohen (1999). In this study, Cronbachs alpha was 0.73. In the present study, the item examples (not the strategies) were adapted to reflect work and marital roles. For instance,

PAGE 58

58 overlap different roles whenever possible (such as partic ipating in a sport th at my kids enjoy) was amended to say overlap different roles when ever possible (participating in a hobby that my spouse enjoys). Marital Satisfaction Marital satis faction was measured using th e Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (LWMAT; Lock & Wallace, 1959). The LWMAT is one of the most widely used measures of marital adjustment (Spangenberg & Theron, 1999). Marital adjustment is defined as the accommodation of partners to each other at a ny given time (Fischer & Corcoran, 2007, p. 128). However, the instrument has also been used to evaluate marital sa tisfaction (e.g., Addis & Bernard, 2002; Kosek, 1996). The LWMAT is a 15-it em self-report instrument that measures agreement/ disagreement between spouses on a numb er of issues and relationship style. Example items include handling family finances, philo sophy of life, and demon stration of affection. Initial normative data was gathered on a sample of 236 predominantly white married couples. In this sample, the mean score for adjusted res pondents was determined to be 135.9, whereas the mean score for maladjustment was 71.7 (Fischer & Corcoran, p. 128). Scores range from 2 to 158, with a score of 100 and below indicating maladjustment. In addition, some items are scored more heavily than others. For example, a score of 8 is given to spouses that always agree on demonstration of affection but only receive 5 points for always agre eing on philosophy of life. Internal consistency was estimated us ing the Spearman-Brown formula and yielded a correlation of 0.90. The instrument also has good concurrent, discriminate, and convergent validity (Fischer & Corcoran; Spangenberg & Theron). Career Satisfaction The Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index ( BRJSI; Brayfield & Rothe, 1951) is a w idely used instrument that measures an individuals job satisfaction. Fo r the purposes of this study, the

PAGE 59

59 BRJSI was used as an assessment of career satis faction. The construction of the scale items was modeled after Thurstons attit ude scaling techniques (Goode, 1960) After statements had been chosen for consideration, scale and Q values were computed. An initial scale of 18 items was developed, given to 10 female workers, and test ed using Thurstons met hodical suggestions. The resulting Spearman-Brown coefficient was 0.48. The au thor then decided to use Likerts scoring methods and developed a second scale. After consu ltation with peers, nine items were replaced. The new 18 item 5 point Likert-type scale was ad ministered to 8 additional females. The Spearman-Brown coefficient for the revised scale was 0.77. The BRJSI was given to 231 females employed in office-type positions. Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongl y disagree) how they felt about their present job. Sample items include my job is like a hobby to me and I am often bored with my job. Scores for this population range d from 35-87, with a mean of 63.8 and standard deviation of 9.4. An odd-even product moment relia bility coefficient was calculated (0.77) and was corrected using the Spearman-Brown formula. The resulting reliability coefficient was 0.87. The authors cited face validity, small Q values among statements, and conducted additional studies with various populations to support the instrume nts validity. Scores for this instrument range from 18-90 with 54 signifying a neutral point. Lower scores indica te job dissatisfaction. Scoring includes both positive and negative items and has reversed scoring. The nine positive (satisfied) items include: 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 17 and are scored 5 to 1, whereas the remaining nine items (negative or dissatisfied) are scored from 1 to 5. Description of the Population and Sample A convenience sam ple for this study was dr awn from the population of newlywed dualcareer individuals. Exact statistics on the number of dual-career couples is hard to estimate. This is partially due to the lack of distinction in the national database between dual-earners and dual-

PAGE 60

60 careers. The U.S. Census Bureau acknowledges th e distinction between these two groups but does not gather information on them separately. The statistics reported, then, are a combination of both dual-earner and dual-career couples. However, Wilc ox-Matthew and Minor (1989) estimated the number of dual-career couples to be around 3.3 million in 1983. Since more women are obtaining masters degrees (Peoples, 2005), this nu mber has likely increased substantially. In the United States, 62% of the 2.2 milli on marriages in 2003 were first marriages. Current median age at first marriage for men and women is 27 and 25 respectively (Kreider, 2005). Sample Selection Procedures This studys participants consisted of 122 ne wlywed individuals. Participants were inform ed that to be eligible for the study, they and their spouse must meet the following criteria: be in their first marriage; have been married between 1-5 years; have both spouses employed full time in professional occupations; ha ve both spouses working in thei r career field for at least 1 year; and have no children. However, post data collection, criteria was changed to include respondents that had taken the survey but had been married less than 1 year. Participants were solicited through three venues. Requests were posted in several Internet bulletin boards including forums designed for newlyweds, married individuals, and career professionals. Secondly, faculty members from co unselor education programs were emailed and asked to forward the study information to thei r counselor education lis tservs. In addition, a request for participation in the study was poste d to a national counselor education listserv. Participants A total of 136 participants started the surv ey. However, 11 participants (8 females, 2 males, 1 unknown) did not complete the survey. Of those 11, 1 began the survey but did not fill

PAGE 61

61 in any information, 5 stopped after filling out th e demographic section, and 2 did not take the coping, martial satisfaction, or job satisfaction scales. One particip ant did not fill out the marital satisfaction and job satisfaction scales. The 2 remaining participants did not take the job satisfaction survey. In addition, 3 participants data (2 males, 1 female) were not included because their reported le ngth of marriage exceeded the 5 ye ar (60 month) cutoff. Two males reported being married for 132 and 72 months a nd one female reported a marriage length of 90 months. Consequently, thes e participants were excl uded from the analyses. The participants for this study included 122 married indi viduals. All participants completed an internet-based survey. Participants Gender, Ages, and Length of Marriage This studys participants cons isted of 122 m arried individual s. Within this sample, 97 respondents were female and 25 were male. The participants age ranged from 20 to 45. The average age for women was 29.24 with a median ag e of 29. Two men reported an age of 1 and 2. These two responses were excluded from computi ng the descriptive data for age. The average age for men was 28.91, with a median age of 28. Th e length of the participants marriages was calculated based on reported lengt h in months. Participants were asked to round up to the next month if they were 2 weeks into the next month. Similarly, respondents were asked to round down if they were less than 2 weeks into the next month. To demonstrate the instructions, participants were given the follo wing example: For instance, 12 months and 2 weeks would be rounded up to 13 months. In cont rast, 12 months and 1 week w ould remain 12 months. The participants in this study had been married for an average length of 26.93 months, with a median marriage length of 23.50 months (see Table 3-1).

PAGE 62

62 Ethnicity This studys sam ple was primarily Caucasian (86.1%). Of the remaining participants, 3 (2.5%) were African-American, 4 (3.3%) were Hi spanic, 1 (.8%) were Native American, and 5 (4.1%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 4 (3.3%) were Bi-racial or Bi-ethnic. An other category was included to encompass participants that did not identify with the other ethnic categories. None of the participants c hose the other category (see Table 3-2). Education Level More than 8 5% of the sample reported attaini ng at least a Bachelors degree, with more than 50% of the participants obt aining a masters degree or highe r (see Table 3-3). Participants also reported their spouses educ ational attainment. More than 71% of participants spouses had at least a bachelors degree, with over 28% ha ving obtained a masters degree or higher. Four participants (3.3%) and 6 spous es (4.9%) reported achieving an Associates degree and 8 participants (6.6%) and 21 spouses (17.2%) had completed their education with a high school diploma. In addition, 3 (2.5%) participants and 3 (2.5%) spouses received specialized training from trade schools. An other category was ad ded for those participants and spouses that obtained higher education that was not liste d. Three (2.5%) respondents and 5 (4.1%) spouses reported their highest level of education did not fall into one of the listed categories. Professional Field The participants cam e from a wide range of professional backgrounds (see Table 3-4). Participants were asked to type in their professional field. Some of the career fields represented were accounting, administration, ed ucation, computers, counseling, entertainment, engineering, information technology, law, military, and psychology.

PAGE 63

63 Household Income The participants reported a wide range of annual household incom es (see Table 3-5). Out of 122 participants, 109 responded to the question. Partic ipants were asked to type in their numerical earnings. Most par ticipants reported a household income that exceeded $100,000 (33.94%). Only 1 (0.91%) participant re ported an income of less than $20,000. Data Collection Procedures Approval from the University of Floridas In stitutional Review Bo ard was obtained prior to the studys commencement. Participants also provided informed consent subsequent to starting the survey (Appendix H). The compilation of surveys used in this investigation was piloted on 10 newlywed females prior to advertising and collecti ng data for the study. Pilot partic ipants were asked to take the Internet-based survey and provi de feedback on the clarity of the survey instruments and instructions. No one reported any difficulties completing the survey or understanding the directions. They report completing the survey in less than 15 minutes. After receiving feedback from the pilot sample, the survey was administ ered to the individuals in the study sample. All participants took an Internet-based surv ey. A portion of the informed consent and a direct link to the survey was used to solicit participation. A few par ticipants emailed the researcher to request additional information about the study prior to participating. The researcher responded to the inquiries by email as no other contact information was provided. The Internet based informed consent and survey was accessible th rough a link that directed the participants to Survey Monkey. Survey Monkey is a password pr otected internet program designed to collect and analyze data. Once directed to the site, partic ipants were taken to the informed consent then asked to complete the survey which is hosted on a private server. The ut ilization of a private server and password protected access ensures th e confidentiality of re spondents answers.

PAGE 64

64 Research Questions and Null Hypotheses This study addressed the following res earch questions and null hypotheses: 1. W hat is the relationship betw een career, challenges, benef its, buffers, strategies, and gender and marital satisfaction? H1. There is no significant relationship betw een career, challenges, benefits, buffers, strategies, and gender on marital satisfaction. H2. There is no significant in teraction between gender and career, challenges, benefits, buffers, and strategies on marital satisfaction. 2. What is the relationship between marriage, ch allenges, benefits, buffers, strategies, and gender and career satisfaction? H3. There is no significant rela tionship between marriage, ch allenges, benefits, buffers, strategies, and gender on career satisfaction. H4. There is no significant inte raction between gender and marri age, challenges, benefits, buffers, and strategies on career satisfaction.

PAGE 65

65 Table 3-1. Participants ag e and length of marriage Mean Median SD Range Low High Womens age (in years) 29.24 29.00 4.48 20 45 Mens age (in years) 28.91 28.00 3.32 24 39 Length of marriage (in months) 26.93 23.50 15.46 1 60 Table 3-2. Particip ants ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Frequency ( f ) Percent %) Cumulative f Cumulative % African American/Black 3 2.5 108 88.5 Asian or Pacific Islander 5 4.1 118 96.7 Bi-racial/Bi-ethnic 4 3.3 122 100.0 Caucasian/White 105 86.1 105 86.1 Hispanic/Latino/Latina 4 3.3 112 91.8 Native-American 1 0.8 113 92.6 Table 3-3. Participants and spouses highest educational level completed Education Frequency ( f ) Percent (%) Cumulative f Cumulative % P S P S P S P S High school 8 21 6.6 17.2 8 21 6.6 17.2 Associates 4 6 3.3 4.9 12 27 9.8 22.1 Bachelors 42 52 34.4 42.6 54 79 44.3 64.8 Masters 48 24 39.3 19.7 102 103 83.6 84.4 Ph.D., Ed.D., Psy.D. 13 6 10.7 4.9 115 109 94.3 89.3 JD 1 4 0.8 3.3 116 113 95.1 92.6 MD 0 1 0.0 0.8 116 114 95.1 93.4 Trade school 3 3 2.5 2.5 119 117 97.5 95.9 Other 3 5 2.5 4.1 122 122 100.0 100.0

PAGE 66

66 Table 3-4. Participants professional field Professional field Frequency ( f ) Percent (%) Cumulative f Cumulative % Administration 6 4.92 6 4.92 Accounting 2 1.64 8 6.56 Advertising/Marketing 3 2.46 11 9.02 Arts/Entertainment 3 2.46 14 11.48 Child services 2 1.64 16 13.12 Counseling/Consulting 33 27.05 49 40.17 Computers 4 3.28 53 43.45 Education/Research 20 16.39 73 59.84 Engineering 3 2.46 76 62.30 Government/Military 5 4.10 81 66.40 Healthcare 3 2.46 84 68.86 Information Technology 5 4.10 89 72.96 Law 5 4.10 94 77.06 Psychology 13 10.66 107 87.72 Science 3 2.46 110 90.18 Other 12 9.84 122 100.00 Table 3-5. Participants reported household income Income Frequency ( f ) Percent (%) Cumulative f Cumulative % Under $19,999 1 0.82 1 0.82 $20,000-29,999 2 1.64 3 2.46 $30,000-39,999 7 5.74 10 8.20 $40,000-49,999 1 0.82 11 9.02 $50,000-59,999 8 6.56 19 15.58 $60,000-69,999 9 7.38 28 22.96 $70,000-79,999 14 11.48 42 34.44 $80,000-89,999 19 15.57 61 50.01 $90,000-99,999 11 9.02 72 59.03 Over $100,000 37 30.33 109 89.36 No response 13 10.66 122 100.00

PAGE 67

67 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to explore th e relationships between m arital and career satisfaction with five additional individual and workplace variables for newlywed couples, including (a) the challenges associated with co mbining marriage and career (b) the benefits of combining marriage and career, (c) the buffering effects of marital life on career (d) strategies that contribute to the balance/imbalance of ma naging marriage and career, (e) spouses level of marital satisfaction, (f) spouses level of caree r satisfaction, and (g) gender differences in responses on all variables. In th is chapter, results fr om a survey of 122 newlywed individuals are presented. First, methods used to analyze the data are explained. Next, sample demographics will be described followed by measurement reliab ilities, sample descri ptives, and general correlations. Lastly, the studys four hypotheses are addressed th rough the results of regression analyses. Data Analysis Procedures Survey data were analy zed through two multiple regression analyses. In multiple regression analysis, the relationshi p between a variable and a comb ination of linear variables is examined. This analysis allows researchers to make predictions on a dependent variable from a set of independent variables. In addition, to a ssess the effects of a cate gorical variable on the predictor variables an interaction model was employed. If the model was found to be nonsignificant the interaction term woul d be taken out and the analyses rerun. Description of the Data The survey used in our study consisted of six previously established m easures and a demographic questionnaire. The descriptive statis tics for each of the measures are described below. The results of the demographic questionna ire were discussed in Chapter 3. A select group

PAGE 68

68 of demographics are presented below. The frequencies and percentages for the studys categorical demographic variables are listed in Table 4-1. The means, standard deviations, and ranges for the studys continuous demographic variables are list ed in Table 4-2. Descriptive statistics for the studys variable s are listed in Table 4-3 and desc riptive statistics for the studys variables by gender is listed in Table 4-4. The descriptive statistics generated from the Work-Family Strains and Gains scales cannot be compared to findings from previous rese arch. Marshall and Benne tt (1993), the surveys authors, did not provide descriptive statistics for the sample of men and women without children in their study. However, descriptives were presented by gender for each of the subscales. Therefore, the subsample of women with childr en was grouped with the subsample of childless women. Similarly, the subgroup of fathers was grouped with the subsample of childless men. In addition, the means presented were the mean pe r-item score (total score divided by the number of items). In this study, the mean score for the sample of newlywed individuals was 17.93 for the Work-Family Strains scale within a possible ra nge of 9 to 36. The mean score for the WorkFamily Gains Scale was 21.75 within a range of 7 to 28. The ranges utilized in this study were identical to the ranges developed by Marsha ll and Bennett (1993) for the two measures. Positive family-to-work spillover scores coul d range from 9 to 36 with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive spillover. The average level of positive spillover in Stevens et al. (2007), was 25.09 for men and 25.10 for women w ith standard deviations of 3.67 and 4.15. In this study, the average score for men (M = 25.04) was comparable with the authors findings. The standard deviation for men (SD = 4.33) was a little higher than what was found in the original study. For women, this studys mean score was slightly higher than the Stevens et al. study but the standard deviations we re comparable (M = 27.00, SD = 4.32).

PAGE 69

69 Within a possible range of 8 to 32, the average newlywed score obtained in this sample for the Coping Strategies Scale was 23.30, slightly lower than the aver age score reported by Kirchmeyer (1993) of 24.78. In addition, the standa rd deviation in this study was 2.93 whereas Kirchmeyer was somewhat higher at 4.09. Kirc hmeyer (1993; Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1999) did not specify a scoring method or provide guideline s to categorize the resu lts of the Likert-type scale. However, since Kirchmeyers score was comp arable to this studys re sults it is likely the same scoring methods were employe d. This instrument contained ei ght items with scores ranging from 1 (not typical of me) to 4 (typical of me). The same Likert scale was used in this study. In this study, the items were summed to get a total score. Higher scores indicated a higher number and frequency of coping strategies being utilized to manage multiple role obligations. The Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (L ocke & Wallace, 1959) is one of the most widely used measures of marital adjustment (Spangenberg & Theron, 1999). This study cannot be compared to the original studys findings; Locke and Wallace, the surveys authors, have not provided descriptive statistics fr om their instrument. However, th e authors did include a scoring rubric with scores under 100 indicating maladjus tment in the marital relationship. The mean score for participants in this study was 116.46 within a possible range of 2-158. The Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index (B rayfield & Rothe, 1951) scores range from 18-90 with 54 indicating a neutral score. Scor es over 54 indicated gr eater job satisfaction whereas scores that fell below represented j ob dissatisfaction. The average level of job satisfaction in the authors study was 70.4 with a standard deviation of 13.2. The authors did not break down the data by gender. The range of job sa tisfaction scores in th e authors study was 2989. In the present study, the mean for the sample was 65.56, slightly lower than what was found by the authors. However, the range of scores for this study was 28-88; similar to what was

PAGE 70

70 found in the original study. The standard devi ation for this study was 12.97, similar to the original study. The mean score for men and women in this study were 63.48 and 66.09, respectively. The sample consisted of 122 participants (97 female, 25 male). The sample was primarily Caucasian, 86.1% (N = 105), followed by Asian/P acific Islander, 4.1% (N = 5), Hispanic/Latino, 3.3% (N = 4), Bi-racial/Bi-Ethnic, 3.3% (N = 4), African American, 2.5% (N = 3), and Native American, 0.8% (N = 1). The mean age of the participants was 29.18 (SD = 4.27). All participants indicated that they were marrie d, that this was their fi rst marriage, that they and their spouse where childless, that both the partic ipant and their spouse were employed at least 35 hours per week in paid employment, and that both participant and spouse had been in their career field for at least 1 year. They re ported a mean length of marriage as 26.93 months (SD = 15.46), where they were asked to round up if they were two weeks or more into the next month of marriage. Participants reported their combined y early income as M = $92,567.12 (SD = $44,804.45). The highest level of education was primarily a masters degree, 39.3% (N = 48), followed by a bachelors degree, 34.4% (N = 42), Ph.D., Ed.D., or Psy.D., 10.7% (N = 13), high school diploma, 6.6% (N = 8), associatels degree, 3.3% (N = 4), trade school, 2.5% (N = 3), JD, 0.8% (N = 1), and other, 2.5% (N = 3). Participants re ported their significant ot hers highest level of education as primarily a bachelors degree, 42.6% (N = 52), followed by a masters degree, 19.7% (N = 24), high school degree 17.2% (N = 21), associates degree, 4.9% (N = 6), Ph.D., Ed.D., Psy.D., 4.9% (N = 6), JD, 3.3% (N = 4), trade school, 2.5% (N = 3), MD, 0.8% (N = 1), and other, 4.1% (N = 5; see Tables 4-1 & 42 for all categorical and continuous demographic variables).

PAGE 71

71 Measurement Reliability Measurem ent reliabilities for the Work-Family Strains Scale, Work-Family Gains Scale, Positive Family-to-Work Spillover Index, Copi ng Strategies Scale, Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test, and Job Satisfaction Index app ear in Table 4-5. Cronbachs coefficient alpha for the Work-Family Strains Scale = 0.87 and the Work-Family Gains Scale showed a reliability alpha = 0.76. This is comparable and better than previ ous reports by Marshall and Barnett (1993; 0.78 for men and 0.81 for women; 0.85 for men and 0.86 for women, respectively). Reliability for the Positive Family-to-Work Spillover index indicated an alpha level of 0.79. This is also comparable to previous repor ts by Stevens et al. ( 2007; 0.81 for women and 0.77 for men). Reliability findings for the Coping Strategies Scale revealed a Cronbachs coefficient alpha of 0.49. This alpha level is low and subsequent analyses using this measure should be considered with caution. This was not comparable to Kirchmeyers (1993; 0.76) and Kirchmeyers (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1999; 0.73). Reliability findings for the Locke-Wallace Ma rital Adjustment Test revealed a SpearmanBrown split-half reliability of 0.72. This was so mewhat lower than what was reported in the original study Fischer and Corcoran (2007; 0.90). Lastly, reliability findings for the Job Satisf action Index revealed an alpha of 0.94. This was comparable to and better than what was found in the original study Brayfield and Rothe (1951; 0.87). Correlational Analyses Pearson Product Mom ent correlations, using a criterion level of 0.05 (2-tailed), were computed between the predictor variables (career satis faction, marital sati sfaction, challenges,

PAGE 72

72 benefits, buffers, strategies, and gender) and each of the criterion variables (marital and career satisfaction) in an attempt to confirm the relationships between variables (see Table 4-6). The Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test was significantly positiv ely correlated with the Work Family Gain Scale (r = 0.31, P < 0.001), the Positive Family-to-Work Spillover Index (r = 0.44, P < 0.001), and the Coping Strategies S cale (r = 0.19, P < 0.040) and was significantly negatively correlated with the Work Fam ily Strain Scale (r = -.33, P < 0.001). The Job Satisfaction Index was significantly negatively correlated with the Work Family Strain Scale (r = -0.20, P < 0.029), and was signifi cantly positively correlated with the Work Family Gain Scale (r = 0.51, P < 0.001), the Positive Family-to-Work Spillover Index (r = 0.20, P < 0.029), and the Coping Strategies Scale (r = 0.25, P < 0.006). See Table 4-6 for a summary of correlations between variables. Regression Analyses In order to a ssess the capacity of the data to meet the normality assumptions of multiple regression, the data was subjected to tests of skewness and kurtosi s. Results of these analyses indicate that the assumptions for multivariate normality were met. All skewness and kurtosis estimates for the variables fell within th e generally accepted va lues of 2 and -2. Research question 1. What is the relationship between career, challenges, benefits, buffers, strategies, and gender and marital satisfaction? Hypothesis 1. There is no significant relationship between career, cha llenges, benefits, buffers, strategies, and gender on marital satisfaction. Hypothesis 2. There is no significant interaction be tween gender and career, challenges, benefits, buffers, and strategi es on marital satisfaction. A series of two multiple regressions were used to investigate the research questions. The first multiple regression, marital satisfaction serv ed as the criterion variab le. Career satisfaction, challenges, benefits, buffers, strate gies, and gender served as pred ictors of participants marital

PAGE 73

73 satisfaction. Interaction terms for gender by career satisfaction, challenges, benefits, buffers, and strategies were created for all predictors specif ied and included in the current model. Since no a priori hypotheses had been made to determine the order of entry of the predictor variables, a direct method was used for the multiple linear regression analyses. The model accounted for 25% of the variance in marital satisfaction F( 11, 110) = 4.64, p < 0.001. Of the five predictors, only challenges ( =-0.30, p < 0.01) and buffering effects ( = 0.44, p < 0.001) served as significant predictors of marital satisfaction. Statistical evidence for Hypothesis 1 indicated that participants with more buffering effects (positive family-to-work spillover) and less challenges (work-family strains) had higher levels of mar ital satisfaction. In addition, for Hypothesis 2, there was not a significant ge nder interaction found in the current regression analyses. Research question 2. What is the relationship between marriage, challenges, benefits, buffers, strategies, and gender and career satisfaction? Hypothesis 3. There is no significant relationship be tween marriage, challenges, benefits, buffers, strategies, and gender on career satisfaction. Hypothesis 4. There is no significant interaction be tween gender and marriage, challenges, benefits, buffers, and strategi es on career satisfaction. In the second analysis, career satisfaction served as the criterion variable. Marital satisfaction, challenges, benefits, buffers, strate gies, and gender served as predictors of participants career satisfaction. Interaction terms for gender by ma rital satisfaction, challenges, benefits, buffers, and strategies were created fo r all predictors specified and included in the current model. Since no a priori hypotheses had been made to determine the order of entry of the predictor variables, a direct method was used for the multiple linear regression analyses. The model accounted for 23% of the variance in career satisfaction F(11, 110) = 4.33, p < 0.001. Of the five predictors, only be nefits of work and marriag e significantly predicted ( = 0.48, p < 0.001) career satisfaction. For hypothesis 3, participants who e ndorsed more benefits of work

PAGE 74

74 and marriage (work-family gains) had higher ratings for career satisfaction. For hypothesis 4, there was not a significant ge nder interaction found in the current regression analyses. Summary In this chapter, the resu lts of a survey of newlywed individuals who are balancing career and marriage were presented. Descriptive stat istics for the studys research variables and correlations between the predicto r and criterion variables were explained and discussed. The studys research questions and hypotheses were answered by deta iling the results of the two regression analyses. In Chapter 5, the results of the study and its limitations will be discussed along with implications for theory, practice, and future research.

PAGE 75

75 Table 4-1. Categorical demographic variables Demographic variable Frequency ( f ) Percentage (%) Gender Male Female Total 25 97 122 20.5 79.5 100.0 Ethnicity African American Asian/Pacific Islander Bi-racial/ethnic Caucasian Hispanic/Latino Native American 3 5 4 105 4 1 2.5 4.1 3.3 86.1 3.3 0.8 Participant highest level of education High school Associates Bachelors Masters Ph.D., Ed.D., Psy.D. JD Trade school Other 8 4 42 48 13 1 3 3 6.6 3.3 34.4 39.3 10.7 0.8 2.5 2.5 Spouse highest level of education High school Associates Bachelors Masters Ph.D., Ed.D., Psy.D. JD MD Trade school Other 21 6 52 24 6 4 1 3 5 17.2 4.9 42.6 19.7 4.9 3.3 0.8 2.5 4.1 Table 4-2. Continuous demographic variables Demographic variable N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Age 122 20 45 29.18 4.17 Months married 122 1 60 26.93 15.46 Income 109 11,125.00 300,000.00 92,567.12 44,504.45

PAGE 76

76 Table 4-3. Descriptive statistic s for the studys variables ( N = 122) Range SD Mean Minimum Maximum Challenges 17.93 9 32 5.43 Benefits 21.75 10 28 4.16 Buffers 26.60 11 35 4.38 Strategies 23.30 15 32 2.93 Marital satisfaction 116.46 30 155 22.60 Career satisfaction 65.56 28 88 12.97 Table 4-4. Descriptive statistics by gender for the studys variables Range SD Mean Minimum Maximum Challenges Male Female 16.88 18.20 9 9 29 32 5.26 5.48 Benefits Male Female 20.48 22.08 14 10 28 28 3.61 4.24 Buffers Male Female 25.04 27.00 17 11 35 35 4.33 4.32 Strategies Male Female 22.04 23.61 15 17 26 32 2.49 2.96 Marital satisfaction Male Female 113.44 117.24 67 30 146 155 22.08 22.79 Career satisfaction Male Female 63.48 66.09 30 28 87 88 14.62 12.53 Note : N = 97, female; N = 25, male

PAGE 77

77 Table 4-5. Measurement reliabilities Scale N Alpha P-value Work-Family Strains Scale 122 0.87 0.001 Work-Family Gains Scale 122 0.76 0.001 Positive Family-to-Work Spillover Index 122 0.79 0.001 Coping Strategies Scale 122 0.49 0.001 Job Satisfaction Index 122 0.94 0.001 Scale N Spearman-Brown P-value Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test 122 0.72 0.001 Table 4-6. Correlation matrix Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Marital satisfaction 0.17 -0.33** 0.31** 0.44** 0.19* 2. Job satisfaction -0.20* 0.51** 0.20* 0.25** 1. Work-family strain (challenges) -0.26** -0.02 -0.02 2. Work-family gain (benefits) 0.35** 0.52** 3. FW spillover (buffers)a 0.32** 4. Coping strategies (strategies) **Correlations is signif icant at the 0.01 level; *Correla tion is significant at the 0.05 level; aFW = Family-to-work

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Getting m arried is a joyous, challenging, a nd transforming event in a persons life. However, newlywed couples face multiple challe nges in the early years of marriage that can affect their happiness and satisfaction with the marital relationship. Studies have identified the balance of career and marriage as a prominent stressor in newlywed dual-career couples lives (Haddock & Bowling, 2001; Schramm et al., 2005). What is problematic about managing these two roles has not been adequately explored. Sinc e research has found the early years of marriage to be important predictors of marital stability and longevity (Carrere et al., 2005; Huston et al., 2001), increasing knowledge on career-marriage challenges is a vital component in understanding the lives of these couples. The pr imary purpose of this study was to explore and identify the challenges and benefits newlywed dualcareer couples face in their first five years of marriage. The positive affects of marriage on career was also explored. Coping strategies were examined and the affects of multiple factors and strategies on marital and career satisfaction were analyzed. Discussion of th e Studys Findings Predictors of Marital Satisfaction Research question 1 in this study investigated the relationship between m arital satisfaction and several predictor variable s (benefits and cha llenges of combining marriage and career, buffering effects, coping strategies gender, and career satisfaction) The results of the regression analysis revealed two significant predictors of marital satisfaction --challenges and buffering effects. The model accounted for 25% of the variance in marital satisfaction. In this study, participants who endorsed less challenges with balancing work and marriage were found to have higher levels of marital sa tisfaction. This finding is similar to previous

PAGE 79

79 research findings on marital role quality and the strains of balancing work and family. For nonparents, Marshall and Barnett (1993) found that lower marital role quality was associated with higher work-family strains. Specifically, an individual that had more marital role concerns also reported high work-family strains. Howeve r, the present study differs from the original study in several ways. First, the present study utili zed marital satisfaction as the criterion variable and work-family strains as a predictor variable. Second, Ma rshall and Barnett employed a measure of marital role quality which appears to be conceptually different from marital satisfaction. The authors asked respondents to indicate on a 4-point s cale how rewarding (or concerning) each item was for them presently. Role quality was operationalized by a summation of the rewards and concerns scores reported in each area under examination (e.g., marital role, job role). The LWMAT (Locke & Wallace, 1959) ut ilized in this study focuses on levels of agreement between spouses in various areas (e.g., finances, recreation) and about spousal behaviors. The present study also differs from some of the other research on work-family challenges. First, some studies (Netemeyer Boles, & McMurrian, 1996, Tatman et al., 2006) have separated work-family conflict (WFC) from family-work conflict (FWC ). The present study used a global measure of work-family conflict. Second, similar to Marshall and Barnett, these studies also employed marital or relationship satisfaction as pred ictors of work-family, familywork conflict. The findings of these studies are mixed. Dilworth (2004) did not find marital satisfaction to be predictive of FWC. Howeve r, a study by Netemeyer et al. found a significant correlation between marital satisfaction and FW C with three different samples of employed adults. A significant correlation between marita l satisfaction and WFC wa s found in two of the three samples.

PAGE 80

80 Positive family-to-work spillover was also a significant predictor of marital satisfaction. Participants that reported more positive family-t o-work (FW) spillover reported higher levels of marital satisfaction. This finding is similar to the results found by Hill (2005) and Stevens et al. (2007). In the latter study, rela tionship satisfaction was positively correlated with positive family-to-work spillover only for the men in th eir sample. In the present study, men and women reported similar levels of positive FW spillover. A possible explanation for the gender differences found in the Stevens et al., study may be due to sample characteristics. In their study, participants had an average of 1.5 children. Re search has found that mothers report more negative family-to-work spillover than fathers (Crouter 1984; Dilworth, 2004). The lack of gender differences in responses on positive FW spillover for nonparents is supported in a study by Crouter. Like the present study, Crouter reported similar re sponses from male and female nonparents on measures of FW spillover. Intriguingly, although marital satisfaction was found to be significantly positively correlated work-family gains and coping strate gies they were not found to be significant predictors of marital satisfaction. One possible explanation for this fi nding may be length of marriage and time it takes to identify the benefits of combining work and family roles. In this study, the median length of marriage was just under 2 years. Since many of the participants are just getting used to the idea of being married spouses work-family gains and coping skills may still be developing. Alternativ ely, a moderating variable may better explain the relationship between work-family gains and marital satisf action. Several studies (Barnett 1994; Barnett, Marshall, & Pleck 1992; Barnett, Marshall, & Sayer, 1992) have documented the psychological benefits and stresses of combining work and fa mily roles. It may be that people who report higher work-family benefits also report higher levels of marital satisfaction because of the

PAGE 81

81 presence of psychological benefits (e.g., self -esteem, competency) derived from managing multiple roles and responsibilities. Contraril y, people who report fewer gains from managing work and marital roles may become distressed whic h may then impact their marital satisfaction. Predictors of Career Satisfaction Research question 2 exam ined the relationshi p between career satisfaction and several predictor variables (benefits a nd challenges of combining marriage and career, buffering effects, coping strategies, gender, and marital satisfaction) The results of the seco nd regression analysis revealed only one significant predictor of caree r satisfaction--work-family gains. The model accounted for 23% of the vari ance in career satisfaction. Participants that reported more work-family be nefits also reported higher levels of career satisfaction. This finding is similar to the findings by Marshall and Barnett (1993) on job role quality and work-family gains. In their study, job role quality was found to be a significant predictor of work-family gains for childless couples. Again, compared to the present study, Marshall and Barnett hypothesized that job role quality woul d influence work-family gains whereas this study examined work-family bene fits on career satisfaction. The finding that participation in multiple roles can have a positiv e impact on one or more of the roles a person engages in has been documented in several st udies (see Dilworth 2004; Hill 2005; Kirchmeyer, 1992; Rogers & May, 2003; Stevens et al., 2007). However, these studies examined the impact or spillover one role has on another not the effect s of participation in multiple roles on career satisfaction. The present study adds to the literature on the bene fits of combining work and family on career satisfaction. Interestingly, although career satisfaction wa s significantly positively correlated with positive family-to-work spillover and coping stra tegies and significantly negatively correlated with work-family strains as pred icted these variables were not f ound to be significant predictors

PAGE 82

82 of career satisfaction. One possible explanati on is that certain work-family dynamics are experienced/brought to the marital domain and th erefore have a larger impact on the marital relationship. This study offers support for this notion in that spouses that report fewer workfamily strains and more positive family-to-work spillover also experience higher levels of marital satisfaction. Research has found that spouses involv ed in a dual-career relationship often turn to each other for emotional support and encouragement (Granello & Navin, 1997; Haddock et al., 2001). Since both spouses are juggling multiple roles they may be better able to empathize with the stressors experienced in one or more dom ains and provide each other with support and advice. Thus, since spousal support has been shown to strengthen th e martial relationship (Zimmerman et al., 2003) it may have more of an impact on marital than career satisfaction. What is even more interesting about this studys findings is the lack of relationship between marital and career satisfaction. One reas on for this result may be that a single measure of marital and career satisfaction on one occasion may not be sufficient to examine the bidirectional effects of marita l and career satisfaction. Multip le measurements over time may provide better insight into how fluctuations in one domain affe cts satisfaction in another. The results found in a study by Rogers and May (2003) provide some support for the benefits of studying marital and job satisfacti on over time. In their study, incr eases in job satisfaction over a three year period contributed to an increase in ma rital satisfaction when measured at year three. Similarly, an increase in marital satisfaction over time was associated with increases in job satisfaction at all three measurement points. Limitations Issues involving the recruitm ent and characteristics of the samp le contribute to inherent methodological limitations. Convenience sampling was utilized and resulted in a limited sample. Although efforts were made to increase the dive rsity of the sample, the researcher had limited

PAGE 83

83 success recruiting male spouses and particip ants with diverse ethnic backgrounds and occupational fields. For instance, of the 122 pa rticipants, 97 were female and 25 were male. Additionally, 86.1% of the sample was Caucasian and roughly half of th e participants were employed in education, counseling, and psychology fields. Therefore, this study is limited in its representativeness and calls into question the generalizability of the results. One limitation of this study i nvolves the inclusion of dualworker individuals in the sample. This study did not specify or employ a se t of exclusionary crite ria to determine what occupations were considered prof essional. As a result, all occupa tions listed were included in the study. The lack of distinction between professional and nonprof essional fields limits the generalizability of th e results to the dual -career population. Since this study was largely composed of fema le participants any conclusions made about the role of gender should be made with caution. Even though studies on couples without children generally do not find gender differences (Crout er, 1984; Marshall & Barne tt 1993), this does not mean that gender should be discounted. Stronger efforts should be made to recruit a more gendered representative sample. Re searchers may seek to physically recruit male participants from community and religious organizations a nd varying workplace settings and occupations. Another limitation of this study involves the pr ofessional fields involve d in this study and its possible effects on involvement in the study a nd responses to the instruments. Many of the participants had obtained degr ees in education, counseling, a nd psychology. Over 39% of the sample had obtained at least a masters degr ee. Since many participants had acquired an advanced degree it is likely that participants are familiar with the research process and the implications involved with conducting researc h. This might have inadvertently impacted

PAGE 84

84 participants responses and decision to particip ate in the study. However, although this threat pertains to any research st udy, it was assumed that particip ants would answer honestly. There were some inherent problems in one of the instruments used in this study. The Coping Strategies Scale yielded a reliability of 0.49. This was considerably lower than what was found in previous studies, Kirchmeyer (1993; 0.76) and Kirchmeyer and Cohen (1999; 0.73). One reason for this discrepancy may be the lim ited representativeness of this studys sample. This sample was largely composed of particip ants in the counseling, psychology, and educational fields. This may have attributed to th e narrow range of scores in this study. Future researchers may want to consider sampling a diverse range of occupations when using this instrument or utilizi ng other coping strategies scales. Implications of the Findings Implications for Future Research The findings of the present investigation suggest several directions for future research. In particular, th e results of this study raise que stions about the types of spillover and their relationship to marital and career satisfaction and the association between marital and career satisfaction. Further exploration of positive and negative family-to-work and work-to-family spillover is needed. Most of the family-work (FW), wo rk-family (WF) research has focused on the negative affects one domain has on the other (Ste vens et al., 2007) and ha s given little attention to the positive bidirectional eff ects of marriage and car eer. In addition, sin ce research has found WF and FW conflict to be two distinct phenomena that affects couples diff erently (Tatman et al., 2006) attention should be given to both types of c onflict. In the present in vestigation, both workfamily strains (negative WF, FW spillover) and positive family-to-work spillover was examined and found to predict marital satisfaction. However, in this study, a globa l measure of negative

PAGE 85

85 spillover was employed. In addition, a reliable, di stinct measure of positive work-to-family spillover has not been established and was not assessed in the current study. A recent study by Kinnunen et al. (2006) attempted to distinguish positive FW from WF spillover. They found that their devised measures of positive FW and WF spillover were highly mutually correlated, shared many similar elements, and utilized similar word ing. The researchers suggested further research and development was required for the positive sc ales in their study. Future research should attempt to separate and further explore the inte rplay between work-family (bidirectional) positive and negative spillover and their association to marital and career satisfaction. In this study, work-family negative spillove r and positive family-to-work spillover were found to be associated with marital satisfacti on. Since little research has been devoted to examining the struggles and successes of a newlyw ed dual-career lifestyle, future studies may benefit from taking a closer look at the components that comprise these scales. Due to a low male participant rate, future studi es might seek to recruit a larger sample of newlywed males. Even though there were no signi ficant gender differences found in this study, a larger male sample may generate more significant resu lts in the responses measured. In addition, since previous research has found gender differences in some of the constructs of interest, future research should continue to examine th e role of gender in marital studies. In the present study, a cross sectional, corr elational design was used to measure the association between marital and career satisfact ion. Unfortunately, this studys findings did not support a relationship between thes e two constructs. Since marital and career satisfaction are not static constructs, future res earchers might consider conducting a longitudinal study to further explore if/how changes in marital satisfaction a ffect career satisfacti on and vice versa over the newlywed years. In addition, research may wa nt to utilize both qualitative and quantitative

PAGE 86

86 methods to explore possible moderating variables that may exist and influence the relationship between these two constructs. Implications for Theory This studys findings provide only partial validat ion for the two theories that guided this study. The first theoretical fram ework that guided this research wa s role strain th eory. According to this theory, as the number of roles a person assumes increases, the higher the chance for role conflict, overload, and distress. The resulti ng role accumulation can have both positive and negative affects on the person and other roles. The problems associated with juggling multiple roles have been termed role strain (Goode, 1960). In this study, the am ount of role strain between work and marital roles had an impact on reported levels of marital satisfaction. Specifically, as the strains between work and marital roles increased, marital satisfaction decreased. Another tenet of role th eory stipulates that the various interactions be tween roles can have beneficial effects on one or more roles. Theorists have termed this phenomenon positive spillover which is defined as positive feelings, attitudes, and behaviors that might emerge in one domain and are carried over into the othe r (Googins, 1991, p. 9). This study supports the positive impact that marriage can have on career. Spouses that reported higher positive familyto-work spillover were found to have higher levels of marital satisfaction. More research is needed to determine what marital factors (e.g., fe elings, attitudes, behavi ors) are often carried over into the career domain. Anothe r assertion of role theory, th e expansion hypothesis (Sieber, 1974), was also supported by this studys findings. In contrast to role strain theory, which overly focuses on the negative affects of managing multiple roles, the expansion hypothesis draws attention to the benefits of multiple role partic ipation. This study found that the gains associated with occupying multiple roles had a positive infl uence on career satisfact ion. Overall, this study is an example of how two seemingly contradictory processes (role gain and role strain) can be at

PAGE 87

87 play simultaneously. Role strain was a more prominent factor when examining marital satisfaction whereas multiple role participation played a more important role in career satisfaction. Gender theory comprised the second theo retical foundation that guided this study. Research has stipulated that men and women may respond differently to measures of marital and career satisfaction as a result of gender role be liefs and attitudes (Coltrane 2000; Wilkie et al., 1998). In this study, no gender differences were found in responses to any of the marriage-career concepts examined and tested. There may be se veral reasons for this finding. First, gender differences may not be as prominent in the pre-pa renthood years. It may be that the transition to parenthood and the duties associated with ch ildcare encourage men and women to align themselves with traditionally gendered roles. In fact, most of the studie s that have found gender differences in the family-career interface have st udied couples or spouses with children. Second, many studies (e.g., Dilworth, 2004; Hill, 2005; Mars hall & Barnett, 1993; Stevens et al, 2007) examined specific marital and/or career factor s (e.g., number of hours engaged in household chores and workplace policies) that may contribute to the presence of gender differences found in their studies. However, the presence and t ype of gender differences found in these studies often contradict each other. These findings i ndicate that the role of gender in work-family dynamics may be more complex and complicated than previously thought. Regardless, the findings of this study and other studies indicate that gender differences and similarities in the work-family arena need further exploration before any conclu sions regarding gender can be made with confidence. Implications for Practice Marr iage and family therapists frequently ad dress work-family issues in therapy sessions (Tatman et al., 2006). However, many report having a limited understanding of the dynamics

PAGE 88

88 between work and family roles (Haddock & Bow ling, 2001). For marriage and family therapists working with newlywed clients understanding work-family dynamics is a necessity. The results of this study can provide a helpful framework for counseling professionals working with newlywed dual-career in dividuals and couples. Like other studies (Dilworth, 2004; Hill, 2005; Rogers & May, 2003; Stevens et al., 2007) this study reiterates the importa nce of focusing on relational dynamics when examining familywork issues. Spouses that scored high on positive family-to-work spillover and low on workfamily strains reported higher le vels of marital satisfaction. These findings indicate that resources and obstacles derived from the marita l relationship often crossover into the work domain. How these resources influence work functioning needs to be further explored. Still, when therapists encounter clients that are struggling with work-f amily issues attention may focus on the spousal relationship and how it affects both marita l and work life. In addition, few assessment tools are available to therapists to quick ly identify and assess work-family issues (Tatman et al., 2006). This study found the positive family-to-work scale and work-family strains scale to be indicators of current marital functioning. Therapists may choose to give one or both of these short measures to their clients to gain a better understanding of couples work-family relations and degree of mar ital satisfaction. In addi tion, the responses to the individual items may provide counselors wi th a template or jumping off point for workfamily discussions. Similarly, managing work and family roles was found to positively impact career satisfaction. Therapists may decide to explore how managing both work and family obligations affect the individual and job performance and sati sfaction. Again, these tools offer different ways

PAGE 89

89 for therapists to approach work-family issues. They provide a short assessment of work-family challenges and strengths and offer some insight into current marita l and career functioning. Conclusion The newlywed years are a tim e of transition, new experiences, and exciting events. They can also be challenging and stre ssful. Research has identified th e management of marital and career roles as one of the prom inent stressors reported during this life stage. However, information on the specifics of marriage-career dynamics with the newlywed population is limited. This study explored the positive and ne gative bidirectional a ffects of marriage and career. Specific attention was gi ven to the challenges and benefits reported by newlywed spouses and their relationship to marita l and career satisfaction. In ad dition, the association between positive family-to-work spillover, coping strategies and marital and career satisfaction were also examined. This study found two significant predictors of marital satisfaction--ma rriage-career strains and positive marriage-career spillover. The resear cher found that as marriage-career challenges decrease marital satisfaction increases. Similarly, participants that reported higher marriage-tocareer spillover also reported higher marital satisfaction. Combining marital and career roles were shown to significantly influence career satisfaction. This result supports the role expansion hypothesis that holds that managing multiple roles can have a positive impact on an individu al. Managing career and marriage has been shown to increase life satisfaction (V an Daalen et al., 2005) and au tonomy (Granello & Navin, 1997). This study provides evidence of the importan ce of marriage-career dynamics on marital and career satisfaction. The results of this study provide therapis ts, researchers, and educators with some insight into the interplay betw een marriage and career and ways to begin conversations surrounding marriage-career issues.

PAGE 90

90 APPENDIX A WORK-FAMILY STRAINS SCALE 1 2 3 4 Not at all true Extremely true 1. When you spend time with your spouse, youre bothered by all the thin gs at work that you should be doing. 2. Because of your marital responsibilities, you have to turn down work activities or opportunities that you would prefer to take on. 3. Because of your marital responsibilities, th e time you spend working is less enjoyable and more pressured. 4. When you spend time working, youre bothered by all the things at home or concerning your family that you should be doing. 5. Because of the requirements of your job, you have to miss out on home or marital activities that you would pr efer to participate in. 6. Because of the requirements of your job, your marital time is less enjoyable and more pressured. 7. During the time set aside for work, you feel resentful because youd rather be spending time with your spouse. 1 2 3 4 Never Very often 8. In general, how often do you feel pulle d apart from having to juggle conflicting obligations? 9. How often do the things you do a dd up to being just too much?

PAGE 91

91 APPENDIX B WORK-FAMILY GAINS SCALE 1 2 3 4 Not at all true Very true Having both work and mari tal responsibilities: 1. Makes you a more well-rounded person 2. Gives your life more variety 3. Allows you to use all your talents 4. Challenges you to be the best you can be 5. Means you manage your time better 6. Clarifies your priorities. Managing work and marital res ponsibilities as well as you do ma kes you feel more competent.

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX C POSITIVE FAMILY-TO-WORK SPILLOVER 1 2 3 4 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1. My family gives me ideas that can be used at work. 2. My family is interested in my job. 3. I feel good about how my family affects my work. 4. My family helps me face challenges at work. 5. I am more highly regarded at work because I have a family. 6. My family helps me understand the people at work better. 7. My family expresses concern for how my day goes. 8. My family helps me to forget the problems at work. 9. My family makes disappointments on the job seem easier to take.

PAGE 93

93 APPENDIX D COPING STRATEGIES SCALE Think about how you m anage your va rious life roles. On the scale below, indicate how typical each strategy is to your approach to role management. Not typical of me Slightly typical Fairly typical Very typical Concentrate on those activities of nonwork roles that are meaningful to me, and drop the meaningless activities. Overlap different roles whenever possible (e.g., participating in a hobby that my spouse enjoys). Establish personal sets of priorities and rules for dealing with the responsibilities of various roles (e.g., a spouse that is recovering from surgery takes precedence over work whereas a spouse with a cold does not. Keep roles separate from each other (e.g., keeping work out of family life). Develop attitudes which put role demands in a positive light. Consider the fulfillment of role demands as a way to develop and grow. Increase my efficiency by scheduling and organizing role activities carefully. Work hard to do everything expected of me.

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX E LOCKE-WALLACE MARITAL ADJUSTMENT TEST Circle the d ot on the scale line below which be st describes the degree of happiness, everything considered of your present marriage Very Happy Perfectly Unhappy happy State the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your mate on the following items. Please check each column. Always agree Almost always agree Occasiona lly agree Frequentl y disagree Almost always disagree Always disagree Handling family finances Matters of recreation Demonstration of affection F r i e n d s Sex relations Conventionality (right, good, or proper conduct) Philosophy of life Ways of dealing with inlaws When disagreements arise, they usually result in: a) husband giving in b) wife giving in c) agreement by mutual give and take Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? a) all of them b) some of them c) very few of them d) none of them In leisure time do you generally prefer: a) to be on the go b) to stay at home?

PAGE 95

95 Does your mate generally prefer: a) to be on the go b) to stay at home? Do you ever wish you had not married? a) Frequently b) Occasionally c) Rarely d) Never If you had your life to live over, do you think you would: a) Marry the same person b) Marry a different person c) Not marry at all Do you confide in your mate: a) almost never b) rarely c) in most things d) in everything

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX F BRAYFIELD-ROTHE JOB SATISFACTION INDEX This section contains 18 statem ents about jobs. Please circle which answ er best describes how you feel about your present job. 1. My job is like a hobby to me. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 2. My job is usually interesting e nough to keep me from getting bored. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 3. It seems that my friends are more interested in their jobs. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 4. I consider my job rather unpleasant. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 5. I enjoy my work more than my leisure time. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 6. I am often bored with my job. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 7. I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 8. Most of the time I have to force myself to go to work. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 9. I am satisfied with my job for the time being. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 10. I feel that my job is no more in teresting than othe rs I could get. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

PAGE 97

97 11. I definitely dislike my work. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 12. I feel that I am happier in my work than most other people. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 13. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 14. Each day of work s eems like it will never end. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 15. I like my job better than the average worker does. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 16. My job is pre tty uninteresting. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 17. I find real enjoyment in my work. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 18. I am disappointed that I ever took this job. STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECID ED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

PAGE 98

98 APPENDIX G DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Age: _____ 2. Gender _____ Male _____ Female 3. Ethnicity _____ Caucasian/White _____ African American/Black _____ Hispanic/Latino/Latina _____ Native-American _____ Asian or Pacific Islander _____ Bi-racial/Bi-ethnic _____ Other 4. Are you currently married? _____ YES _____ NO 5. How long have you been married? (in months). Please round up if you're 2 weeks into the next month. For instance, 12 months and 2 weeks would be rounded up to 13 months. In contrast, 12 months and 1 week would remain 12 months. ____________________________________________________ 6. Is this you and your spouses first marriage? _____ YES _____ NO 7. Do you or your spouse have children? _____ YES _____ NO 8. Highest level of education attained: _____ High school _____ Associates _____ Bachelors _____ Masters _____ Ph.D./Ed.D./Psy.D. _____ JD _____ MD _____ Trade school _____ Other 9. Spouses highest level of education attained: _____ High school _____ Associates _____ Bachelors _____ Masters

PAGE 99

99 _____ Ph.D./Ed.D./Psy.D. _____ JD _____ MD _____ Trade school _____ Other 10. Are you and your spouse employed at least 35 hours per week in paid employment? _____ YES _____ NO 11. What is your professional fiel d (e.g., psychology, medicine)? __________________________________________________ 12. What is your combined yearly income? __________________

PAGE 100

100 APPENDIX H INFORMED CONSENT LETTER Dear Participant, Im asking for your help in a study of newl ywed couples who are managing career and marriage. This study is part of my dissertati on research project I am completing as a doctoral candidate in the Department of Counselor Education at the Univer sity of Florida. As a new professional who is juggling multiple roles, I know how valuable your time is to you, your spouse, and your other responsibil ities and I will be especially grateful for your time knowing this. The information Im asking you to provide will help Marriage & Fa mily Therapists to better understand the stresses and be nefits of a dual-career lifestyle on newlywed couples. It will also show us more about what helps coup les cope effectively with those stresses and strains so that newlywed couples can benefit from your experience. The purpose of this study is to investigate the career-marriage balance in newlywed couples. In particular, this study will ex amine the affects of multiple f actors and strategies on marital and career satisfaction. If you volunteer for this study, you will be asked to complete a demographic questionnaire which asks you to provide basic background information (e.g., age range, gender, educational attainment, professional field). You will also be asked to complete six short surveys containing items that ask you about the benefits and stresses of combining career and marriage, how you manage career an d marital responsibilit ies, and how happy you are with various aspects of your career and ma rriage. The study will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Completing this survey is completely voluntar y. If you choose to par ticipate in this study, you may withdraw your consent at any time without penalty. You do not have to answer any questions you do not wish to answer. If you agre e to participate, your answers will be kept confidential to the extent provi ded by law and will only be pr esented in summaries where no individual responses can be identified. Before completing the survey, please make sure you are eligible to participate by checking the space next to the following questions if the answer is yes: _____ Is this you and your spouses first marriage? _____ Have you been married between 1-5 years? _____ Are you and your spouse employed at leas t 35 hours each a week in professional fields? _____ Have you and your spouse been in your career fields for at least 1 year? _____ Are you and your spouse childless? There are no anticipated risks, no direct benefi ts, nor compensation for participating in this study. However, participating in this study may help you better understand how you and your spouse are managing a dual-career lifestyle. I would like to provide you with a summary of the results of this study upon comple tion of this research project. If you wish to receive these results, please complete the request for study results page after you submit the survey. Your

PAGE 101

101 request for the results of this study will not be connected to your responses in any way and will remain confidential. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. If you have any questions or comments about this study, I would be happy to talk with you. You can call me at (xxx) xxxxxxx or email me at xxxxxxx@xxx.com. You can also contact my advisor, Dr. Peter Sherrard at the Department of Counselor Educati on, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117047, 1215 Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL, 32611-7046; phone (352) 392-0731; email: psherrard@coe.ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about the rights of research participants in this study can be directed to the UFIRB Office, P.O. Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-2250; phone (352) 392-0433. By clicking on the Yes button below, you are stating that you have read and understand the procedure described above and voluntarily agree to participate in this survey. You also acknowledge that you have received a copy of this description. On ce you click on the Yes button, click Next and you will be ta ken to the beginning of the survey. Thank you very much for helping with this important study. Sincerely, Donna McGinley, M.Ed., Ed.S. Doctoral Candidate Principal Investigator

PAGE 102

102 REFERENCE LIST Addis, J., & Bernard, M. E. (2002). Marital adjustm ent and irrational beliefs. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 20(1), 3-13. Ahrons, C. (2004). Were still family. What grown childre n have to say about their parents divorce.. New York: Harper Collins. Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Ro le stressors, interrole conflict, and wellbeing: The moderating influence of s pousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 259-278. Barnett, R. C. (1994). Home-to-work spillove r revisited: A study of full-time employed women in dual-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56 (3), 647-656. Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. K. (1985). Womens involvement in multiple roles and psychological distress. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49 (1), 135-145. Barnett, R. C., & Brennan, R. T. (1997). Change s in job conditions, change in psychological distress, and gender: a longitudi nal study of dual-earner couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18 (3), 253-274. Barnett, R. C., & Marshall, N. L. (1992). Mens job and partner roles: Spillover effects and psychological distress. Sex Roles, 27 (9-10), 455-472. Barnett, R. C., & Marshall, N. L. (1993). Me n, family-role quality, job-role quality, and physical health. Health Psychology, 12 (1), 48-55. Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1992). Mens multiple roles and their relationship to mens psychological distress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2), 358-367. Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Sayer, A. (1992). Positive-spillover effects from job to home: A closer look. Women & Health, 19 (2-3), 13-41. Barnett, R. C., & Rivers, C. (1996). She works, he works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Baskin, B. (1998). Dual-career couples: Facing the stress of success. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.selfhelpmagazi ne.com/articles/career-couples.php Becker, P. E., & Moen, P. (1999). Scaling back : Dual-earner couples work-family strategies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61 (4), 995-1007. Berscheid, E. (1994). Inte rpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45 79-129.

PAGE 103

103 Bird, G. W., & Schnurman-Crook, A. (2005). Prof essional identity and coping behaviours in dual-career couples. Family Relations, 54 (1), 145-160. Blaisure, K. R., & Allen, K. R. (1995). Feminists and the ideology a nd practice of marital equality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 (1), 5-19. Bradbury, T. N., Cohan, C. L., & Karney, B. R. (1998). Optimizing longitudinal research for understanding and preventing marital dys function. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.). The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 279-311). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Coha bitation, marriage, divorce, remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 23, 22. Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307-311. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004). Women in the labor force: A databook Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://www.bls .gov/cps/wlf-intro-2005.pdf Burley, K. A. (1995). Family variables as medi ators of the relationship between work-family conflict and marital adjustment among dual-career men and women. Journal of Social Psychology, 135 (4), 483-497. Carrere, S., Buehlman, K., Gottman, J. M., Co an, J. A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1), 42-58. Carter, J., & Carter, J. D. (1995). He works she works: Successful strategies for working couples New York, NY: American Management Association. Cast, A. D., & Bird, S. R. (2005). Patricipati on in households and paid labor: Effects on perceptions of ro le-taking ability. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68 (2), 134-159. Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 326-336. Center for Marriage and Family. (2000). Time, sex, and money: The first five years of marriage Omaha, NE: Creighton University, Center for Marriage and Family. Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 7381.

PAGE 104

104 Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household la bor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62 (4), 12081233. Crossfield, S., Kinman, G., Jones, F. (2005). Cr ossover of occupational stress in dual-career couples. Community, Work, and Family, 8 (2), 211-232. Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work-family interface. Human Relations, 37, 425-442. Dilworth, J. E. (2004). Predictors of negative spillover from family to work. Journal of Family Issues, 25(2), 241-261. Faulkner, R. A., Davey, M., & Davey, A. (2005) Gender-related predictors of change in marital satisfaction and marital conflict. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33(1), 61-83. Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond separate sphe res: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52 (4), 866-884. Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. (2007). Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook (4th ed., vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press. Frey, B. (2006). Valentines day fact sheet 2006. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociologi cal Review, 25 (4), 483-496. Googins, B. K. (1991). Work/family conflicts: Private lives-public responses. New York: Auburn House. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: experimental investigations. New York: Academic. Gottman, J. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail and how you can make yours last New York, NY: Fireside. Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York: Norton. Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Mar ital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57 (1), 47-52. Gottman, J. M., & Driver, J. L. (2005). Dysf unctional marital conflict and everyday marital interaction. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 43 (3-4), 63-78.

PAGE 105

105 Granello, D. H., & Navin, S. (1997). Clinical issues in working with dual career couples: Implications for counselors. The Family Journal, 5 (1), 19-31. Greenstein, T. N. (1995). Gender ideology, marita l disruption, and the employment of married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 (1), 31-42. Haddock, S. A., & Bowling, S. W. (2001). Therapis ts approaches to th e normative challenges of dual-earner couples: negotiating outdated societal ideologies. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 13 (2-3), 91-120. Haddock, S. A., & Rattenborg, K. (2003). Bene fits and challenges of dual-earning: Perspectives of successful couples. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31 (5), 325-344. Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Schindler, T ., Ziemba, S. J., & Lyness, K. P. (2006). Practices of dual earner couples succe ssfully balancing work and family. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27 (2), 207-234. Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Ziemba, S. J., & Current, L. R. (2001). Ten adaptive strategies for family and work balance: Advice from successful families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27 (4), 445-458. Hall, D. T. (1972). A model of coping with role conflict: The role behavior of colledge educated women. Administratvie Science quarterly, 17 (4), 471-486. Hill, E. J. (2005). Work-family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers, workfamily stressors and support. Journal of Family Issues, 26 (6), 793-819. Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift New York: Viking. Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Sm ith, S. E., George, L. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (2), 237-252. Hutson, T. L, McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (1986). When the honeymoons over : Changes in the marriage relationship over th e first year. In R. Gilmore & S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 109-132). New York: Erlbaum. Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and st ructural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61 (1), 160-177. Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Geurts, S., & Pulkkinen, L. (2006). Types of work-family interface: Well-being correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47 (2), 149-162.

PAGE 106

106 Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Perceptions of nonwor k-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conflict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(2), 231-249. Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Nonwork-to-work spillover: A more balanced view of the experiences and coping of professional women and men. Sex Roles, 28 (9-10), 531-552. Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1999). Different strategies for managing the work/non-work interface: A test for unique pathways to work outcomes. Word and Stress, 13 (1), 5973. Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. R. ( 1996). Gender dilemmas and myth in the construction of marital bargains : Issues for marital therapy. Family Processes, 35 (2), 137-153. Kosek, R. B. (1996). The quest for a perfect spouse: Spousal ratings and marital satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 79 (3, part 1), 731-735. Kreider, R. M. (2005). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2001. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from http:// www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/ marr-div.html Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Nature and prediction of changes in marital quality for first-time parent and nonparent husbands and wives. Journal of Family Psychology, 6 (3), 255-265. Lennon, M. C., & Rosenfield, S. (1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. The American Journal of Sociology, 100 (2) 506-531. Lindahl, K., Clements, M., & Markman, H. (1998) The development of marriage: A 9-year perspective. In T. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 205-236) New York: Cambridge University Press. Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short ma rital-adjustment and predictions tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255. Margolin, G. (1981). Behavioral exchange in happy and unhappy marriages: A family cycle perspective. Behavior Therapy, 72 329-343. Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42 (6), 921-936. Marshall N. L., & Barnett, R. C. (1991). Race, class, and multiple role strains and gains among women employed in the service sector. Women and Health, 17 (4), 1-19.

PAGE 107

107 Marshall, N. L., & Barnett, R. C. (1993). Work-family strains and gains among two-earner couples. Journal of Community Psychology, 21(1), 64-78. Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990's and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 (4), 1173-1191. Mennino, S. F., Rubin, B. A., & Brayfield, A. (2005). Home-to-job and job-to-home spillover: The impact of company policies and workplace culture. The Sociological Quarterly, 46 (1), 107-135. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the cons truction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1), 79-98. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurri an, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400-410. OLeary, K. D., & Smith, D. A. (1991). Marital interactions. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 191-212. Paden, S. L., & Buehler, C. (1995). C oping with the dual-income lifestyle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 (1), 101-110. Peoples, B. (2005). Labor force, employment, and earnings: No. 593. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: A decade of research. Annual Review of Psychology, 48 31-59. Piotrkowski, C. S. (1979). Work and family system New York: Free Press. Quek, K. M., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2006). A push toward equality: Processes among dualcareer newlywed couples in collectivist culture. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 56-69. Raley, S. B., Mattingly, M. J., & Bianchi, S. M. (2006). How dual are dual-income couples? Documenting change from 1970-2001. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68 (1), 11-28. Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. N. (1969). The dual-ca reer family: A variant pattern and social change. Human Relations, 22(1), 3-30. Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. (1976). Dual-career families re-examined London: Robertson.

PAGE 108

108 Roach, A. J., Frazier, L. P., & Bowden, S. R. (1981). The marriage satisfaction scale: Development of a measure for intervention research. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 43 (3), 537-546. Rogers, S. J., & May, D. C. (2003). Spillover be tween marital quality and job satisfaction: Long-term patterns and gender differences. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 (2), 482-495. Rosenbluth, S. C., Steil, J. M., & Whitcomb, J. H. (1998). Marital equality: What does it mean? Journal of Family Issues, 19 (3), 227-241. Schramm, D. G., Marshall, J. P., Harris, V. W., & Lee, T. R. (2005). After I do: The newlywed transition. Marriage and Family Review, 38 (1), 45-67. Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 567-578. Spangenberg, J. J., & Theron, J. C. (1999). Stress and coping stategies in spouses of depressed patients. Journal of Psychology, 133 (3), 253-262. Stanfield, J. B. (1998). Couples coping with dua l careers: A description of flexible and rigid coping styles. Social Science Journal, 35 (1), 53-64. Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Asse ssing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 (3), 595-608. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41 (4), 659-675. Stevens, D. P., Minnotte, K. L., Mannon, S. E., & Kiger, G. (2007). Examining the neglected side of the work-family in terface: Antecedents of positive and negative family-towork spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 28 (2), 242-262. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complimentary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57 (1), 16-35. Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5), 857869. Tallman, I., & Hsiao, Y. L. (2004). Resources cooperation, and problem solving in early marriage. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67 (2), 172-188.

PAGE 109

109 Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (1), 2-30. Tatman, A. W., Hovestadt, A. J., Yelsma, P., Fenell, D. L., & Canfield, B. S. (2006). Work and family conflict: An often overlooke d issue in couple and family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 28 (1), 39-51. Thompson, L. (1993). Conceptualizing gender in marriage: The case of marital care. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55 (3), 557-569. Ting-Toomey, S. (1983). An analysis of ve rbal communication patte rns in high and low marital adjustment groups. Human Communication, 9 (4), 306-319. United States Census Bureau. (2004). Labor statistics. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from http://www.factfinder.census.gov Van Daalen, G., Sanders, K., & Willemsen, T. M. (2005). Sources of social support as predictors of health, psychological well-being and life satisfaction among Dutch male and female dual-earners. Women & Health, 41 (2), 43-62. Vannoy, D., & Philliber, W. W. (1992). Wifes employment and quality of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 (2), 387-398. Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., DeClerca, A ., & Goodwin, R. (2005). Emotional arousal and negative affect in marital conflict: The infl uence of gender, conflict structure, and demand-withdrawal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35 (4), 449-467. Veroff, J., Douvan, E., Orbuch, T. L., & Acitelli, L. K. (1998). Happiness in stable marriages: The early years. In T. Bradbury, The development course of marital dysfunction (pp. 152-179) New York: Cambridge University Press. Viers, D., & Prouty, A. M. (2001). Weve come a long way? An overview of research of dualcareer couples stresso rs and strengths. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 13(2-3), 169-190. Wilcox-Matthew, L., & Minor, C. W. (1989). The dual career couple: concerns, benefits, and counseling implications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68(2), 194-198. Wilkie, J. R., & Ferree, M. M., & Ratcliff, K. S. (1998). Gender and Fairness: Marital satisfaction in two earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (3), 577594. Williams, A. M. (1979). The quantity and quality of marital interaction related to marital satisfaction: a behavioral analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 12 (4), 665678.

PAGE 110

110 Wortman, C., Biernat, M., & Lang, E. ( 1991). Coping with role overload. In M. Frankenhaeuser, U. Lundberg, & M. A. Chesney (Eds.), Women, work, and health: Stress and opportunities (pp. 85-110). New York: Plenum Press. Zimmerman, T. S. (2001). Balancing family and work NewYork: Haworth Press. Zimmerman, T. S., Haddock, S. A., Current, L. R., & Ziemba, S. (2003). Intimate partnership: Foundation to the successful balance of family and work. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31 (2), 107-124. Zvonkovic, A. M., Greaves, K. M., Schmiege, C. J., & Hall, L.D. (1996) The marital construction of gender through work and fa mily decisions: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58 (1), 91-100.

PAGE 111

111 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Donna McGinley was born and raised in Jack sonville, Florida. Donna was raised by her mother, Mary Croft Adkins, and her grandparents, Claude C. Croft, Sr. and Donna Fulm er Croft. She has one younger brothe r, Justin McGinley. Donna graduated from the University of Florida in 2001 with a b achelors degree in psychology. In 2004, Donna received her Master of Education and Speci alist in Education degrees, specializing in mental health counseling, through the Department of Counselor Education at the University of Florida. During her graduate studies, D onna had the opportunity to work with various age groups in the community and completed her internships at Shands at Vista, Pace Center for Girls, Shands Eastsi de Community Practice, and Childrens Home Society. As a doctoral student, Donna taught tw o classes: Interpersonal Communication Skills for three semesters, and Drug and Alcohol Abuse for two semesters. She was a graduate teaching assistant for Introduction to Counseling for two se mesters and completed a graduate assistantship at P. K. Yonge Developmental Research School. Donnas interests include tr aveling and animal rescue. She is a member of DARE (Dachshund Adoption, Rescue and Education) and participates in many events to promote animal adoption and spay and neutering.