Citation
Marital adjustment and the sex-typed personality characteristics of married student couples

Material Information

Title:
Marital adjustment and the sex-typed personality characteristics of married student couples
Creator:
Carner, Richard Malcolm, 1948-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 90 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students ( jstor )
Dyadics ( jstor )
Femininity ( jstor )
Gender roles ( jstor )
Husbands ( jstor )
Marriage ( jstor )
Masculinity ( jstor )
Spouses ( jstor )
Wives ( jstor )
Women ( jstor )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Marriage ( lcsh )
Married students ( lcsh )
Sex role ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 81-89.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Richard Malcolm Carner.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Richard Malcolm Carner. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
026322034 ( ALEPH )
04064244 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text














Marital fdjustunent and t c Sex-_ylped Personality
Characteristics of M- i i-ed Student Couples
















Richard 1,' olm Carnier















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED 'THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVE.SITY OF Tl1-IDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUI, :'_'NTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF 1T' [IIDSOPHY








UNIVERSITY! OF FLORIDA 1q7/


A

















For Judy whose gentleness and care have helped me through this trying time and with whom I hive shared many beautiful mamnts.


















My sincere and deepest gratitude is extended to the following:

Dr. Robert 0. Stripling, my a-visor and chairman of my doctoral committee for his leadership and ruiidance during the last two years;

Dr. Larry C. ioesch, a member ofE my co-rrittee for his supoort and invaluable s-. aostions during the development of this study;

Dr. Walter Busby, a rmerber of my committee for his suggestions and encouragent( during the last two years:

Dr. Suzan Schafer, for her c'nqtructive criticisms and helpful suggestions;

Dr. Milan Kolarik, for his unsolicited support and interest in my professional development;

Ms. Karen Griggs, For her -ati ence in tyDing the manuscript.


,i L
















TABLE OF CMNTENIS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGME1NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

CHAPTER I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Discussion of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

CHAP TER I I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

REVIEW OF RENLAYLD LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Developmnt of Sex-Roles front a Historical Persoective 6
Pervasiveness of Sex-Role Stereotyping. . . . . . . . . . 8
Confusion and Conflict Over Sex-Stereotyped Roles . . . . 14
Role Theory and Dyadic Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Parareters of Marital Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Mate Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Masculine Self-Lmage ani Marital Adjust-nent. . . . . . 25
Perceptual Congruence Betveen Partners . . . . . . . . 27
Pa er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Women's Work Status and marriage . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Androgyny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

CHAPTER III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

RESEARCH METHiDOiDGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

The Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Sampling Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Selection Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Collection of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Analyses oF Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48











TABLE OF CT'TLS - continued


Page

CHAPTER IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Description of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Age of Spouses and Length of fMarriage. . . . . . . . . 50 Highest Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Present Student Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Employment Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Analyses of the Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Question 1: What is the relationship between sextymed personality characteristics and the level of
adjustment in the marriages of student couples?. . 52
Question 2: For each couple studied, what is the
relationship between -:h spouse's perceived
level of adjustment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Question 3: For each co'-ir)e studied, what is the
rela tirnship between e :h spouse' s internalized
sex-typed personality characteristics? . . . . . . . 52
Question 4: Is there a difference in the level of
marital adjustment, as ixerceived by husbands and
wives, in the student population?. . . . . . . . . . 53
Question 5: Do spouses differ regarding their
internalized perceptions of sex-typed personality
characteristics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Question 6: What are the relationships among
selected demographic characteristics and the
level of adjustment in the marital relationship? . . 53
Question 7: What are thc relationships anong
selected denoqraphic characteristics and the
sex-typed personality characteristics of
married student couples? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

CHAPTER V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

SUWMARY AND C(NCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Flexibility in Sex-Role Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Length of Marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
The College Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
The Contem-n)oraneity of the Issue of Sex-Role
Stereotyping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Implications for Further Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71











TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued


Page

APPENDIX A - BEM SEX-RDLE INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

APPENDIX B - DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

APPENDIX C - DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIPE FOR MARRIED STUDENTS . . 78 APPENDIX D - GUIDELINE FOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . 79 APPENDIX E - COVER SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETC.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
















LIST ()I T(ALES


Table Page

1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON MARRIED STUDENT SPOUSES. .... 54

2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS A4NG BEM SEX-ROLE
INVENTORY AND DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE SCORES FOR
100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG DYADIC
ADJUSTMENT SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES. . 56

4 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMJNG BEM SEXROLE INVENTORY SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT
COUPLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5 T-TESTS CC TlE DYADIC AEDTJSTMEN4T SCORES FOR 100
MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6 T-TESTS ON BEM SEX-ROLE INVENTORY SCOPES FOR 100
MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

7 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG DYADIC
ADJUSTED SCALE SCOPES AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES. . . . . . . . . . . 60

8 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMDNG BEM SEXROLE INVENTORY SCORES AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES. . . . . . . . . . . 61


.. ; i














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirenents for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


Marital Adjustment and the Sex-Typed Personality
Characteristics of Married Student Couples By

Richard Malcolm Carner

December, 1977

Chairman: Robert 0. Stripling Major Department: Counselor Education

The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship

between marital adjustment and the sex-typed personality characteristics

of married couples. Certain demographic characteristics also were studied. Central to this study was the idea that sex-role stereotyping is occurring in this society between men and wcmen of all ages and that it creates stress in relationships.

Two psychological instruments, a Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI)

and a Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), as well as a demographic questionnaire (Questionnaire) were presented to 200 married student couples at the University of Florida. Usable data were collected from 100 of these couples.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients and T-Tests were used to

answer the various research questions. This study did not demonstrate any evidence of sex-role stereotyping or stress in the marriages of the couples in the sample. Several possible factors may have been


viii










responsible for this. Those that were reviewed included (1) flexibility in sex-role belhavior, (2) length of marriage, (3) the college

experience, and (4) the conterporaneity of the issue of sex-role stereotyping.


ix















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research was to study the relationship

between marital adjustment and sex-typed personality characteristics of married couples. The population studied consisted of married undergraduate and graduate student couples. At least one of the

spouses in the couple was enrolled full-time at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. In the academic year 1969-70, approximately 4,000 married students, composing 21% of the student body, were enrolled at the University of Florida. The nost recent survey, conducted in October of 1976, indicated that 5,500 of the university's approximately 28,000 students were married.

Purpose of this Study

This study was designed to investigate the level of adjustment

in the marriages of college couples as a function of the sex-typed personality characteristics of each spouse. Certain demographic characteristics were studied also. The research questions were:

1. What is the relationship between sex-typed personality
characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marriages
of student couples?

2. For each couple studied, what is the relationship between
each spouse's perceived level of adjustment?

3. For each couple studied, what is the relationship between
each spouse's internalized sex-typed personality characteristics?

4. Is there a difference in the level of marital adjustment
experienced between husbands and wives in the student
population?


I






2


5. Do spouses differ regard i ng their internalized perceptions
of sex-typed personality characteristics?

6. What are the relationship ,s between selected demographic
characteristics and the I-vel of adjustment in the marital
relationship?

7. What are the relationships between selected demographic
characteristics and sex-typed personality characteristics
of married student couple';?


Discussion of the Problem

Central to this study was the assumption that sex-role stereotyping is a pervasive, general phenomenon occurring in this society between men and women of all ages. According to Webster' s unabridged Third New International Dictionary, a stereotype is defined as:

a standardized mental picture held in conmn by members of a
group and representing an ovrsimplified opinion, affective
attitude, or uncritical judgcnent (as of a person, a race, an
issue, or an event). (1971:2238)

Sex-role stereotyping, then, may be considered the process of attempting to make an individual or individuals conform to a pre-existing mind set. The damaging effects of sex-role stereotyping result when a particular group of people lose individual characteristics and are overtly and/or covertly manipulated into a fixed or general pattern of behavior.

Various social movements such as Women's Liberation represent responses directed at widely held stereotyped beliefs regarding the differences between men and women. A study of history illustrates that when a society begins openly to question the meaning of existence and the value of the individual there develops a time of uncertainty and confusion. That time has come for the institution of marriage.

The traditional concept of marriage currently is being called into question by men and women who think that the roles expected of them are too stifling. Studies on role conflict in marriage suggest






3


that it is warren who must make the greatest adjustment in the relationship. Tarvis (1973) found that unhappily married women were more likely than happily married wanen to think that men are sexists and are better off than waen in this society. Satisfaction with the division of labor in the household was strongly related to marital satisfaction. Men were nore content than wcmen with the distribution of domestic tasks: 62% of the men were very satisfied canpared with 44% of the wcmn. Furthenmore, 75% of the men dissatisfied with their marriages were satisfied with the division of labor while, of unhappily married women, only 43% were satisfied with the division of labor. Nevill and Damico (1975) concluded that all women, whether married or not, have difficulty in defining their various roles. Of the three groups of women studied--married, single, and divorced--the authors noted that the married group experienced significantly more conflict with respect to roles. They interpreted these findings to mean that marriage is a more stressful situation for women than for men.

Parsons and Bales (1965) coined the terms "instrumentality" and "expressivity" in their conceptualizations of the male and female personality. Instrumentality was defined as a masculine trait associated with the pragmatic and cognitive aspects of life, while expressivity was depicted as feminine in nature, highlighting caring and conmunal activities. Since Parsons and Bales, other theorists have borrowed or expanded on this dichotomy (Bakan, 1966).

Whether intentional or not, the social reality of sex-role constructs has been used to support the idea that men and women inherently are different. Social-psychological research has tended to maintain these differences between men and women based on socially approved sex-role expectations.







4

Jung (Campbell, 1971) was one of the first theorists to recognize

that strict sex-role stereotyping has dehabilitating effects on men and wanen. Although he did not develop fully a social theory regarding the differences between men and women, he did propose a theory that nen and womn have female (anima) and male (animus) components, and that these "archetypes" were crucial determinants in the developmental unfolding of the human personality.

Mre recently, sex-role flexibility and psychological health have

been topics of discussion by authors such as Bem (1975) and Constaninople (1973). The healthy personality, according to Bem, is composed of the best of masculine and feminine characteristics. Research has supported the idea that rigidity in highly sex-typed behavior is maladaptive and creates mental health problems in males and females. Bem' s theory that the healthy personality should be androgynous (having a combination of both male and female characteristics) was based partly on the increased amount of flexibility in behavior possessed by individuals. In general terms, a person may demnstrate competence and assertiveness (masculine attributes) as well as canpanionship and sensitivity (feminine attributes). The literature on this topic will be reviewed more extensively in chapter two.

It should be noted that if androgynous individuals are more adaptive than highly sex-stereotyped individuals, and the literature seems to bear this out, the quality of life within the marital situation should be affected. Androgynous couples may experience less stress in their relationships due to their ability to adapt to new situations as they arise.

Many questions have been raised as a result of the discussions surrounding sex-stereotyped behave or and the recent perspectives








5


concerning mental health and the androgynous personality. 'lhe research questions that were proposed attempted to address these issues.
















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This review of the literature will include: (1) the development of sex-roles from an historical perspective, (2) pervasiveness of sexstereotyped roles, (3) confusion and conflict over sex-stereotyped roles, (4) role theory and dyadic interaction, (5) parameters of marital adjustnmnt, and (6) androgyny.

Development of Sex-Roles from a Historical Perspective

Research indicates that the socialization of masculine and feminine sex-roles occurs at a very early age. In a study by Block, Von der Lippe, and Block (1973), it was discovered that learning socially approved sexroles takes place through what the authors call "reactivity." Traditional sex-roles are passed on to offspring through "selective reinforcement of complementary reactions by responding to the child in sexually implicit ways" (1973:337). These authors noted that: (1) highmasculine/high-socialized and high-feminine/high-socialized individuals

originate from family systems in which the parents display unambiguous and traditional role patterns; (2) low-masculine/high-socialized and low-feminine/high-socialized individuals come from families in which the parents present a variety of alternative role interpretations suggesting an androgynous outlook; (3) high-masculine/low-socialized and highfeminine/low-socialized children conre from families in which the samesex parent rejected the child, was neurotic, and offered an inadequate model for identification; and (4) low-masculine/low-socialized and low-






7


feminine/low-socialized individuals come from families typically experiencing conflict and psychopathology. Parents in these families failed to inculcate any consistent role patterns in their children due to their unhappy marriages. The authors concluded that a process of culturally sanctioned sex-stereotyping involves reactivity and/or modeling of the samre-sex parent's behavior, while culturally unapproved behavioral patterns are a function of the type of family in which a child is reared.

Biller (1971) discovered a relationship between sex-role attitudes and the way in which children are reared in fatherless families. After

examining the variables that were associated with the growth and developrent of children having androgynous personality characteristics, he concluded that the absence of fathers in upper middle class families created a situation in which the mother became more authoritative, particularly if she worked outside the home. The sons in these families were found to be less aggressive and competitive, and more dependent and nurturant than boys coming from families with fathers in them. Daughters in these fatherless families were found to be more independent and assertive, and more likely to view themselves in a vocation other than that of a homenmker. Biller suggested that the convergence of sexroles is a function of the psychosocial conditions existing in this milieu. Additional studies are needed in order to examine this assertion.

Selcer and Hilton (1972) investigated the attitudes of children from a very traditional sub culture and from a sub culture emphasizing far less distinction in sex-stereotyped roles. Children from nontraditional families behaved in ways that were significantly removed from stereotyped masculine and feminine role patterns. The results of this stuly, however, must be interpreted cautiously since they were







8


obtained from a small sample, failed to define the population conclusively, and confused sex-role stereotyping with sex-role behavior. Kagan's and Mcss' (1961) investigation of sex-role attitudes lends further support to the idea that masculine and feminine characteristics are developed at an early age.

A tentative conclusion which may be drawn from these studies is

that sex-typed or androgynous personality characteristics are instilled into children at a very early age and tend to remain stable throughout adult life. The powerful influences of family life seem to serve as accurate predictors for the particular sex-stereotyped roles that males and females eventually adopt.

Pervasiveness of Sex-PRole Stereotyping

Many studies have shown that men with masculine characteristics are valued rore highly in this society than women with feminine characteristics (Dinitz, Dyness, and Clarke, 1954; Sheriffs & McKee, 1953; and Smith, 1939). Fernberger (1948) was one of the first to explore systematically this phenomenon. From a survey adopted from Look magazine, he measured the sex-role attitudes of graduate and undergraduate students at Pennsylvania State University and concluded that both men and women believe that women are at the heart of any disturbances that occur in a relationship; that men are more intelligent; and that women are more loquacious, passionate, and sensitive. Men generally felt that women should assume a secondary position in a relationship. Fernberger concluded that social biases regarding the sexes are universal and independent of sex.

Seeman (1950) studied the attributes of physical prowess, physical attractiveness, and vocational success as they applied to a sample of male and female college students. He found both men and wamen agreeing







9


that performing well in physical gues and achieving vocational success are more important to men than to women, and that to be physically attractive was more important to rmen than to men.

The Fernberger and Seeman studies were replicated by Neufeld,

et al., (1974) in order to determine if there was a change in stereotypic perceptions over a 20-year period. Strict attention was paid to the details of each study to insure that they were repeated accurately. Results indicated that there were no obvious differences between the attitudes of college students of 1948-50 and students in the year 1974 regarding stereotyped sex-roles. The authors suggest that it is misleading to assume that sex-role stereotyping is disappearing and that "the above stereotypes may reflect long lasting, basic sex differences"

(1974:253).

Attitudes of high school students offer insights into beliefs concerning sex-roles. A study by Nelson and Goldman (1969) suggested that boys and girls in a variety of groups differ in their attitudes concerning sex-roles. While girls favor an increased involvement in activities outside the home, boys almst unanimously desire a wife who is a homemaker exclusively.

Komarovsky (1973) investigated the attitudes of college male seniors regarding the role of wife as breadwinner. Four types of responses emerged: (1) "traditionalists," making up 24% of the men sampled, rejected the idea of their wives having a job outside of domestic and civic responsibilities, (2) "pseudo feminists," comprising 16% of the men, approved of their wives working, but attached strings to that

approval which made it impossible for this situation to actually occur,

(3) "modern traditionalists," (48%) felt that it was crucial for wives






10


to stay home during their children's pre-school years. Work outside the home was governed by the qualificiti-on that wives be home when the children return from school in the afternoon. Men in this group generally agreed that they would help their wives during the child rearing years with the exception of tasks such as the laundry, changing diapers, and cleaning, and (4) "feminist types" (7% of the sample) agreed that their participation in family life would be based on mutual cooperation and an understanding that their wives' careers were equally important.

In another study by Komarovsky (1976), beliefs about traditional and non-traditional sex-roles were explored in a sample of married male graduate students. Out of a sample of 62 males interviewed, only one male reported that he would be willing to allow his wife to obtain an education while he worked full-time and delayed his own educational plans. One-third of the males sampled felt that their self-esteem would be threatened by a reversal of sex-roles. A majority of the males accepted their wives' working to support them even though the wage earning wife is often perceived by males as a threat. One-third of the group supporting traditional sex-roles approved of their wives working, since their status as wage earners was temporary. The husbands in this group realized that their positions as primary wage earners would be established upon graduating from college and acquiring a job. Komarovsky found that the men in this study were more egalitarian in behavior than in ideology. On many occasions, professed traditional beliefs gave way to flexible adjustments in the marriages of college students. She found an association between high levels of marital satisfaction, reported by males, and their adjustment to a situation in which the wives were the key money earners. The student husbands in this study maintained







11


their beliefs about nren and women by deemphasizing the adjustments they had made in their marriages. Thus, in a statement offering insight into how values change, Kanarovsky wrote that "in a period of change, new norms will be more readily accepted if they serve the interests of the individual" (1976:28). The ambitions of male graduate students in this study, as applied to educational and vocational goals, created

conditions conducive to flexible behavior even though traditional beliefs about sex-roles remained the same.

Goodes's (1963) thesis generally corroborated these findings. Even though there is a trend toward egalitarian relationships due to the rapid rise of woven in the work force, stereotyped beliefs about the differences between the sexes have been internalized while behaviors have adjusted accordingly.

Differences in attitudes between single and married college women were reported in a study by Pappaport, Payne, and Steinmann (1970). The Inventory of Female Values was administered to married and single college women. Results indicated that the single group was significantly more family oriented than the married group in the categories of "poerceiving self" and "the ideal woman." Although these two groups agreed in their beliefs that the majority of men would want an "ideal woman" with a strong intra-familial orientation, the authors concluded that the traditional female stereotype is maintained more by single college women than by married college women. While single college women generally indicated that their primary goals were those of fulfilling the roles of wife and mther, married student women appeared to value more highly self-actualizing goals such as planning a career. Although the authors never made this deduction, it may be that the differences between






12


the married and single groups were based on the dichotomy between "first hand experience" (the married group), and an idealization of the roles of wife and mther (the single group). Perhaps married wanen, having had the opportunity of experiencing the restrictions attached to the homemaker role, begin to seek ways of enhancing themselves beyond the boundaries of conventional role patterns.

Studies examining the attitudes of mental health clinicians also report stereotyped perceptions regarding differences between males and females. Broverman and Broverman (1972) found that the literature consistently indicated a positive relationship between the social desirability of masculine and feminine attributes and clinical ratings of the same behaviors as to their normality or abnormality. Based on the idea that positively valued masculine traits form a cluster entailing ccnpetence, and that positively valued feminine traits reflect warmth and expressiveness, a sex-role questionnaire was given to 79 male and female mental health clinicians. The authors expected that clinicians would maintain distinctions in their concepts of healthy behavior in men and women paralleling stereotypic sex differences. Upon comparing the clinicians' judgements as to what constitutes the healthy male and female personality, it was discovered that the desirable masculine characteristics (ccrmpetency cluster) were ascribed to the healthy man more often than to the healthy wanan. However, only half of the socially desirable feminine characteristics (warmth-expressiveness cluster) were ascribed more often to women than to men. They concluded that wcmen were being evaluated negatively by the clinicians. Implicit in the clinicians' assessments is the idea that healthy women differ from healthy men since they are perceived as being more easily influenced, suLmissive, less aggressive,






13


less independent, less competitive, less adventurous, less objective, Tore conceited about their appearances, more emotional, and more excitable in minor crises.

Similar findings were reported in a study by Neulinger (1968) in which male and female psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers were asked to take 20 paragraphs based on Murray's Manifest Needs Scale and rank them on how accurately they described the Optimlly Integrated Personality (OIP). According to Neulinger' s findings, characteristics such as dominance, achievement, autonomy, and aggression were attributed to the male personality significantly more often than to the female personality. Sentience, nurturance, play, succoranoe, deference, and abasement were rated higher for the female OIP than the male OIP. Neulinger found clear evidence of contradictions among clinicians regarding the healthy male and female personality, and that "the sex orientation of this society is not only shared, but also promoted by its clinical personnel" (1968:55).

In conclusion, evidence exists suggesting that the biases of many remmbers of the helping professions influence their descriptions of the optimally functioning person. The ideally healthy person was usually defined by applying masculine characteristics. Devaluation of women within the clinical setting could have far reaching effects on the type of educational, vocational, personal, or marital counseling which is employed. Choosing to ignore personal biases regarding the emotional health of men and women invites additional complications for the marriage counselor in counseling married couples. If the therapist supports the husband's need for dominance and superiority, dependency and inferiority in the wife my be encouraged. At the least, women may experience






14


conflict and confusion as the result of counselors imparting values and suggestions that ultimately are counter-productive to their best interests and welfare.

For example, Miller and Mthner (1971) have observed that sexual

inequality creates strife between males and females and that the marital relationship frequently serves as a vehicle for promoting this discord. Therefore, it behooves the counselor to pay attention to this situation since clinical judgements may be influenced by unexamined biases.

Research by Rosenkrantz, et al., (1968) indicates that sex-role

stereotyping exists among members of this society regardless of a person' s sex, socio-economic class, religion, or educational level. Potentially stressful situations may occur when women and men have divergent opinions

about the female sex-role. Steinmann and Fox (1969) studied women in one North American and two South Anerican urban-industrial communities in order to discover how women perceive themselves in their roles and hcw they think the "man's ideal woman" would perceive these roles. Results indicated that both North and South American women believed that the "man's ideal woman" would be conventional in her views, placing the homemaking and family roles over "outward achieving" activities. However, North American women tended to be more outspoken in their need to be involved in a vocation that would offer a sense of fulfillment outside of the family system. In another study by Steinmann (1975), it was noted that the contemporary woman is experiencing a dilemma as a result of the need to do her "own thing" while at the same time maintaining "ultra-femininity" and desirability.

Confusion and Conflict Over Sex-Stereotyped Roles

Confusion over appropriate sex-role behavior has been known to

affect the types of goals that w( 3n establish for themselves. Horner






15


(1968) utilized the Thematic Aperception Test (TAT) to investigate the psychological barriers that wanmn may be facing in their attempts to achieve success in a career. A definite motive for avoiding success was discovered in 65% of the women respondents. However, only 10% of the men sampled gave an avoidance type of response to the TAT profile. In order to understand the barriers women perceive, responses were classified into three categories: (1) fear of social rejection, (2) selfdoubts about one's adequacy as a person or about one's femininity, and

(3) total denial of any possibility of success. Horner surmised that aggressive masculine traits, associated with a concept of success and carpetition in this society, foster feelings of inadequacy and insecurity in women. As a result of these feelings, many wcmen who abandon career aspirations and become homemakers adopt conventional role patterns which they might not adopt, were they not also intimidated.

Women's fear of success also was examined by Tanlinsin-Keasey

(1974). This study, which supports Horner's conclusions, indicated that there is a conflict between society's role demands for females and the personal aspirations of females.

The existence of a negative valuation of the traditional feminine role also was noted by Baruch (1974). In a sample of college women, he discovered that cognitive development and the degree of femininity reported were significantly associated. Citing research, Baruch observed that women scoring highest in femininity were the least likely to gain in I.Q. Also, intelligent women students were not encouraged by educators in their efforts to realize their career aspirations, while their male counterparts did receive encouragement. This observation was supported by the fact that fewer wcrrn than men pursue graduate studies. A conclusion drawn from this study was hat the lack of a genuine sense of






16


self-worth and an overall feeling of self-confidence on the part of women seem to be related to the particular personality traits that this society values in women.

Page (1973) demonstrated that male dominance and social status are two social forces inseparably linked together, with which women must contend. Women with career goals were found to experience high levels of anxiety associated with a fear of success. It was further noted that this fear of success was related to a belief on the part of women that there would be social disapproval should they attempt to find niches in the competitive world of work that is dominated by males.

The importance of role saliency and self-esteem which are associated with sex-roles have been discussed by Weis (1970) who suggested that role saliency has two components: (1) the degree to which implementation of the self-concept within the social environment is possible, and (2) the degree to which satisfaction is the outcome of a particular role enactrent. Weis made two hypotheses: (1) role saliency among women will be a function of the level of self-esteem reported, and (2) demographic

variables such as age, educational background, and the number of children and their ages will vary systematically with the level of self-esteem and role saliency experienced by womn. Data gathered positively linked the level of self-esteem with role saliency. Greater role saliency was associated with greater self-esteem and vice versa. Weis concluded that the psycho-social status of woman in this society is a reflection of the sex-stereotyped roles wamen are expected to adopt.

Ricely (1973) found that self-esteem, role saliency, and sex-role identification are interrelated. She investigated the relationship between conformity to sex-role stereotypes and feelings of self-esteem in male and female college stude, ;. It was hypothesized that the degree






17


of conformity of one's own sex-role would be directly related to one's level of self-esteem and that the degree of this relationship would be affected by other mediating variables. A relationship between selfesteem and conformity to one's sex-role was found in the male but not in the female sample. In females, conformity to the male sex-role was correlated positively with the level of self-esteem. There was no significant correlation between the level of self-esteem reported by women and conformity to the female sex-role. Ricely concluded that conformity to male stereotypes by females is associated with higher levels of self-esteem that conformity to the female stereotype. The pressure to conform to male sex-stereotyped roles, in the face of an opposite pull to be "ultrafeminine," creates and fosters conditions of stress and ambiguity in woman and in their relationships with men. Literature on role stress and mental health will be reviewed later in this chapter.

The "ideal" sex-role concepts of men and women were investigated by Elman et al., (1970). Their results indicated that the male and female sex-role stereotypes are indicative of how both male and female subjects describe the "ideal man" and the "ideal woman." The "ideal woman" is viewed as less aggressive, less independent, less active, more emotional, and less decisive than the "ideal man." In comparison, males and females perceived the "ideal man" as significantly less religious, less tidy, less gentle, less sensitive, and less expressive than the "ideal woman." A conclusion that Elman made is that women were valued and desired more for their greater warmth and expressiveness while men were valued mre for their competence and independence. Woman reported dissatisfaction with existing sex-role patterns in this society.

Gordon and Hall (1974), in a study of 229 college educated women,

investigated the self-images of 1, minine woman. The women's perceptions






18


of how males view femininity was the best predictor of various types of conflict experienced by women. Critical to a woman' s method of coping with conflict were her perceptions about herself. Self-image was also associated with happiness and satisfaction. The number of conflicts related to the work-hcme roles generally decreased as women felt that the males' perceptions about stereotypes were balanced by the males' support and patience.

In another study, Cardi (1972) presented a cluster of competency

and reliability traits to 62 women in order to find out how they describe the ideal "adult male" and "adult female." These women were divided into low and high sex-stereotyped groups, based on their differentiation between an "adult male" and an "adult female." Subjects played the Prisoner's Dilema Game in a number of trials with a partner of the same sex and then with a member of the opposite sex. Competition in this game was most noticeable between high stereotyped females and other females than between high stereotyped females and males. Low stereotyped females cooperated more with other females and competed more against males. The group of high stereotyped females was the least cooperative in its interactions with members of either sex. The author suggested that for this group of females, compliance with the culturally designed roles and status of women was closely associated with selfdepreciation and distrust of other women as evidenced by their lack of cooperation in the experimental situation.

Hjelle and Butterfield (1974) investigated the self-actualization patterns of two groups of wcmen (conservative and liberal) labeled according to the Attitudes Toward Women Scale. Results indicated that

women reflecting "liberal profeminist attitudes" were more self-actualized







19


than women having traditional sex-role attitudes. These authors concluded by stating that "these findings suggest that profeminist subjects perceive themselves as relying more confidently upon their own internal norms without seeking constant sup vart from others for self-validation." Research to be reviewed in the area of androgyny will tend to support this conclusion.

To summarize the review of literature in this section, women in this society seem to be experiencing confusion and conflict regarding sexrole identification, due to the high value placed on male attributes and the negative assessment of characteristics considered feminine. In addition, expectations which males and females have as to the roles women should adopt also result in conflict and confusion.

Role Theory and Dyadic Interaction

Although an extensive review of the literature on role theory should date back to the work of George Herbert Meade, such an effort is judged to be beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, only the aspects of role theory pertaining to the marital relationship and sex-role behavior will be discussed.

Udry (1974:227) defines a social role in the following way:

... a set of norms for the behavior of persons occupying certain
positions in a society. They may be seen as generalized expectations held by people (with wide variation) that anyone in a certain position should behave in certain ways. These roles tend to
be more stereotyped than the actual behavior of people occupying
the position. For example, there are certain expectations as to how fathers should behave towcird their children. In actual fact, there is far more variation in the behavior of fathers than there
is in peoples' expectations of fathers.

The expectations that husbands and wives hold for each other within the confines of the marital relationship led Parsons and Bales (1965) to distinguish between "instrinrental" and "expressive" roles. Instrumental







20


roles, such as paying bills, fixing the car, and making important financial or career-related decisions, are usually fulfilled by husbands. The expressive roles, such as household resonsibilities and taking care of the children, are usually the responsibilities of the wife. Parsons and Bales suggested, however, that instrumentality and expressivity are not mutually exclusive and may be adopted by either partner, depending on the situation.

For example, Leik (1963) developed an experimental situation in which he observed the behavior of a group of men and women with their own spouses as well as with strangers of the opposite sex. He noted that the behavior of husbands and wives varied in accordance with Parsons' and Bales' schema. A clear distinction in sex-role behavior was evident when husbands and wives were involved with strangers of the opposite sex. Males exhibited high levels of instrumentality and females displayed high levels of expressivity. However, when husbands and wives did the sane exercise together, there was a significant reduction in sex-stereotyped behavior.

Kenkel (1957) discovered discrepencies between internalized sexstereotyped beliefs and actual behavior in the dyadic relationship. A pre-task questionnaire which was completed by a sample of men and women showed that both sexes expected men to be more influential in making financial decisions. However, in an experimental situation involving a variety of decision-making tasks power was evenly distributed between husbands and wives. Kenkel concluded that "the belief in male dominance, though widespread, may rest more upon myth than fact" (1957:24).

Taking a quasi-phenomenological approach to the question of why individuals experience role conflict, Arafat and Yorburg (1973:47) suggested the following:






21


The subjective feeling of beingc frustrated, or of being pulled
in opposite directions in the performance of a role occurs when expectations between role partners are not mutual (the situation
of a career woman married to a traditional husband) , when economic,
intellectual, physical, or emtional resources are inadequate
or inappropriate for performing a role (the situation of the unemployed male), when the demands of two or more roles are inccmnpatible (the experience of the employed mther) , when role
definitions are lacking or anhiguous (the situation of the divorced
person or of unmarried couples who are living together), or when
the role prescribes inconsistent or contradictory values or
behavior (the role of the teacher which requires a subjective
approach in relating to individual students and, at the same time,
objectivity in evaluating student performance).

In an effort to uncover what, if any, were the current role discrepancies between men and women, these authors interviewed a sample of 1048 males and females from a variety of settings, including business firms, university campuses, shopping centers and several professional

buildings. Their results revealed that: (1) more women than men would be willing to work for a woman employer, (2) mare womn than men believed that the liberation of women was threatening to the male ego, (3) 30.4% of the males sampled and 17.3% of the females sampled felt that only the husband's career was important in the issue of deciding where a family should reside, and (4) 43% of the males disapproved of the dual role of homemaker and career woman for the wife. In addition these authors noted that 66% of the males sampled and 80% of the women agreed that household chores should be divided equally between spouses. Arafat and Yorburg concluded that discrepancies exist between male and female attitudes regarding sex-roles and division of household tasks. Responses of women were consistently and significantly less traditional than the responses of men.

An association between sex-role stereotyping and the psychological well-being of men and women in this society was demonstrated by Gurin, Veroff and Feld (1960). They fomd that women, more often than men,






22


experience marriage as a stressful situation. Women were found to have rore marital problems than men did and tended to be less satisfied with their marriages. In addition, the woren were more inclined to blame their spouses for their unhappy marriages.

Gove (1972) identified four reasons for women having higher rates of mental illness than men: (1) women bring fewer resources to the

marital relationship than men do, usually engaging in the sole occupation of homemaker, while men are involved in at least two major roles, those of household head and worker; (2) the role of housewife is experienced by women as unrewarding in contrast to a career outside of the family;

(3) waren are discouraged from working outside the home because they fear discrimination, low pay, and poor working conditions; and (4) the husband's career takes priority over the wife's career. Gove concluded:

Married women do tend to have higher rates of mental illness
than married men. But when single men are compared with single
wcren, divorced men with divorced women, and widowed men with
widowed women, it is found that these women do not tend to
have higher rates than their male counterparts. (1972:291)

An interpretation of these findings should take into account the

complex dynamics involved in a marriage. It would be a misinterpretation and an overgeneralization to simply say that "women have it rough and men have it made" within the context of marriage. For example in a study by Zanron-Gass and Nichols (1975) married partners of both sexes reported their individuality was being suppressed by the other partner and that inequalities existed in the marital relationship. In the pages to follow, a review of the pertinent studies in the area of marital adjustment, satisfaction, and happiness will attempt to identify the important factors which determine whether a marriage is experienced as satisfying or unsatisfying. Factors considered relevant to the level of marital






23


adjustment will be examined: (1) mate selection, (2) masculine selfimage, (3) perceptual congruence between partners, (4) power, (5) women's work status, and (6) changing sex-roles.

Before considering the various factors affecting the success of a marriage, it is important to note that there is ambiguity and confusion surrounding terms such as "marital happiness," "marital satisfaction," "arital stability," and "marital adjustment." For example, Hicks and Platt (1970:553) made the following observation.

For our society marriages are assessed by two norms: happiness
and stability. Happiness is an extremely personal and subjective
phenomenon and difficult to measure with the tools that are
currently available to social scientists.

Terms such as these have been used interchangeably in the literature for some time with little regard as to their exact meaning. Without a uniform

set of definitions, comparisons between studies is at best a delicate affair. A review of the following studies is done in full view of this fact.

Parameters of Marital Adjustment

Mate Selection

Winch's (1958:74) theory of complementary needs is based on the idea that one chooses a mate who has "deep seated characteristics very different from one's own." Mate selection is understood as a way of fulfilling, through another person, certain deficiencies in one's own personality. That people choose each other because of a narcissistic need to satisfy certain deficiencies in their own personalities, has not been empirically supported in the literature. For example, a study of dating college couples (Bowman and Day, 1971), provided little support for this theory. Similarly, Blazer (1963) found after administering the Edwards Personality Preference Schedule to young married couples that mate selection







24


was more likely to be the result of what these couples had in camon rather than what was missing in their individual personality makeups.

If the theory of caplementary needs is not strongly supported by empirical evidence, a question arises as to why many family theorists still appear to be attracted by this theory. Segfried and Hendrich (1973) offer one possible explanation. They maintain that attraction between the sexes is based on reciprocal role attitudes rather than personality dimensions. For instant, a highly masculine male and a highly feminine female may be attracted to each other because their expectations of each other are clear and precise.

Segfried and Hendrich may, inadvertently, be offering further support for Winch's theory. If sex-typed personality characteristics underlie sex-role behavior, then applying Winch's paradigm, a highly masculine male may be attracted to a highly feminine female because certain of her personality characteristics, such as expressiveness, are missing in his own psychological makeup. Additional research on this topic is needed in order to clarify these issues.

The research on homegamy in the marital relationship tends to support the theory that high rates of happiness in marriage are related more significantly to the male's role performance than to the female's role performance. For example, Tharp (1963:90) made the following observation:

The wife being more accommodating, the husband more rigid in role
needs, the likelihood marital success is a function of the husband's
possession of the expected instrumental needs and capacities.

Research on conventional role patterns and the tendency of women to adapt to these patterns will be reviewed more extensively in the section related to the masculine self-image.






25


Coombs (1968) suggested a position on mate selection lying between "complementary needs" and "homegamy." There are three basic components to his theory: (1) persons with similar backgrounds learn similar values;

(2) sharing similar backgrounds leads to positive interaction, communication, and understanding; and (3) the relationship between two people becomes self-perpetuating based on feelings of mutual satisfaction.

One alternative theory about mate selection offers a possibility for further study. King (1974), applying Maslow's theory on selfactualization, discovered that self-actualizing people choose other selfactualizers as mates.

Knowing sorre of the reasons for a couple's becoming involved with each other to begin with may be helpful to the marriage counselor since many problems experienced by couples may be the result of the particular attitudes and beliefs that each spouse brought to the relationship. Masculine Self-Image and Marital Adjustment

Most of the research on marital adjustment and the self-concept follows a pattern reflected in a study by Dean (1966). In this study, involving 117 couples, personality scores for each spouse were correlated with marital adjustment scores. Dean found that the wife's perceived level of marital adjustment was directly related to the husband's rating of his own emotional maturity. There was no significant relationship between the husband's perceived level of marital adjustment and the wife's rating of her emotional maturity.

An earlier study in this area demonstrated the way in which stereotyped perceptions on the part of each spouse are significantly related to marital adjustment scores. Corsini (1956) administered the General Satisfaction of Self, Concept of Mate Selection in Marriage, and the







26


Adjective Q-Sort Technique to 20 Couples. When husbands and wives rated each other in a stereotyped manner, higher levels of happiness within the marriage were reported. A hiqh level of happiness was noted in marriages in which the husbands were bound to the masculine stereotype. The husband's perceptions of himself and of the way in which his wife perceived him were critical to the perceived level of marital adjustment for both partners. The wife's perception of herself and of the way in which her husband perceived her was not significantly related to the perceived level of marital adjustment reported by either partner.

That a mutually shared concept of masculinity plays an important part in marital adjustment was further demonstrated by Drewery and Roe (1969). Two groups of husbands and wives were compared to each other. One group was composed of male alcoholic patients and their wives. The other group was a control group similar in most respects (social, economic, and occupational status), except that the husbands in that group were not alcoholic patients. They found a lesser degree of husband/wife agreement as to the husband's image in the patient group than in the control group. Agreement between the control group husband's selfdescription and his wife's description of him was based on a shared consensus of the masculine stereotype. However, discrepancies between the patient's self-description and his wife's description of him may be attributed to a lack of a shared concept of masculinity. The authors suggested that differences between the two groups may be due to an absence of a mutually shared concept of masculinity in the alcoholic patient group.

A study by Barry (1970) indicated that the background and personality factors in husbands (not in wives) are associated with marital success.







27


An analysis of the marital relationship utilizing conflict theory and research, revealed that, among other things, women have a need for security and support during the transitory period from being a wife to becoming a mother. If the husband has a "healthy" personality, he will be able to respond better to his wife's needs, thus avoiding stress in the relationship. Barry concluded, upon reviewing the literature on

marital adjustment, that women depend much more upon marriage as a source of satisfaction and self-fulfillment than do men. This could account for the relationship between the level of adjustment in a marriage and the personality variables in males. The tendency of many women to place all of their "emotional chips" into a marriage as a source of satisfaction will be approached in a later section of this chapter by analyzing the nature of power and the resources that spouses differentially

acquire and contribute to a relationship. Perceptual Congruence between Partners

There is evidence that self-spouse perceptual congruence patterns strongly influence the level of satisfaction in the marital relationship (Kelly, 1941; Dymond, 1954; and Luckey, 1960a). Critical to this point of view is that high levels of satisfaction experienced by partners in a marriage are based on each person having approximately the sane view of his/her partner as the partner has of him/herself. This is true whether the "self" is described in terms of personality traits or in terms of marital role expectations.

After having couples complete the Leary Interpersonal Check List, Luckey (1960a) reported that happiness for the marital pair was related to four factors: (1) husband-wife congruence on husband' s self-image,

(2) congruence of husband's self-image and his ideal self-image, (3) congruence of husband's self-image w . his concept of his father, and







28


(4) congruence of the wife's concept of her husband and her concept of her father. Identification with the masculine stereotype by husbands and wives was found to be related to marital happiness. However, the husband's perception of his wife's self-image did not influence significantly the level of happiness in the marriage.

This was also reported by Preston, et al., (1952) who examined twu groups of married couples, one group about to seek counseling and another having recently terminated counseling. Significantly more congruence was reported regarding perceptions spouses had for each other in the post-marital counseling group than in the pre-counseling group. Even though the post-counseling group reported a significantly higher level of happiness than the pre-counseling group, the husband's agreement with his wife's self-image was not a factor in determining the level of marital satisfaction.

Stuckert (1963) found that the masculine stereotype is crucial to the level of marital happiness or satisfaction experienced by husbands and wives. The perceived level of marital satisfaction in the group of wives he sampled was associated with the accuracy with which wives were able to perceive the role expectations their husbands had of them. However, no significant relationship was found to exist between the husband's perception of his wife's expectations and their marital satisfaction scores. A possible interpretation of the marital satisfaction scores of wives in this group is that a crucial role for married women is that of "accommodating" the husband with respect to role expectations and personality factors. A successful accommodation will not occur if the wife is not able to perceive accurately her husband's expectations. Since there is less demand on a husband to make reciprocal accommodations






29


in terms of his wife's expectations, it is not vital that he perceive

accurately her expectations.

Power

An analysis of power in marriage and the family may help to explain the persistence of the masculine stereotype. Blood and Wolfe (1965:11) in their study, Husbands and Wives, defined power as "the potential ability of one person to influence the other's behavior." These authors defined authority as "legitimate power, i.e., power held by one partner because both partners feel it is proper for hiVher to do so" (1965:11).

The importance of the concept of power as defined by Blood and Wolfe lies in the fact that "The balance of power between husbands and wives is a sensitive reflection of the roles they play in marriage--and in turn has many repercussions on other aspects of the relationship" (1965:4). Power, according to these researchers, is determined not only by existing social norms but by the number of "resources," such as educational level, skills, and expertise, that each partner brings to the relationship.

In order to examine the nature of power in marriage, Blood and Wolfe asked a cross section of families in American society to complete an interview questionnaire designed to find out which partner made the final decision in typical family situations. A weakness of this study might be the way in which these authors tabulated their data. Blood and Wolfe assumed that every decisio-rmaking situation was of equal importance in the marriages of these couples. For example, the question of who decides where the family will live was given the same weight as the question of who decides what doctor to call when the children are sick. Blood's and Wolfe's argument that power in the marriages of these couples is evenly distributed is weakened by the undifferentiated weighting of their questions.







30


However, other aspects of this study provide important information about life in the average American family. These authors note that

the patriarchal family is on the decline: The role of culture has shifted fram sanctioning a competent sex
over an incompetent sex to sanctioning the competent marriage
partner over the incanpetent, regardless of sex. (1965:161)

Nevertheless, husbands continue to have more power in the marital relationship since they continue to bring more resources to it. As these authors suggest, the husband's power in the relationship is based on

(1) high occupational prestige, (2) high earnings, and (3) higher educational level.

Involvement in a career has heen the subject of many studies and can be related to a theory of power and resources. Aldous (1969) found that the males' participation in the job market was related significantly to a high level of involvement in family life. Without a job, men experienced a loss of power and influence in the affairs of their families.

Kolb and Straus (1974), in another study relating to power, asked whether or not a relationship might exist between the power structure of a family and marital happiness. The results of their study indicated that power and happiness were related in four basic ways: (1) low power husbands feel unhappy in their marriages; (2) the opposite is the case with high power husbands; (3) high power in wives was not associated with marital happiness; and (4) low power in wives was not associated with marital happiness, but neither was it associated with marital unhappiness.

A conclusion drawn from the above studies is that the concept of power, which is based on the number of resources each spouse brings to the relationship, is an important factor in determining the level of happiness experienced in marriage and family life. Since World War II,







31


women have been acquiring more resources. Consequently, many of the recent studies on the American family indicate that poer is equally distributed between many partners. FurtherIore, the literature on this subject suggests that currently men have more power because they continue to contribute more resources, and, as women gain more resources through an advanced education or other means, power will become more equally distributed.

Wmen's Work Status and Marriage

Documentation on the woman's work status by Safilios-Pothschild

(1970) revealed that working women with "high work commitment" reported more satisfaction with their marriages than non-working women. These women felt that they were more involved in the decision-making processes within their marriages than was the case with non-working women. Grover (1963) identified the existence of a negative relationship between the wife's work status and marital adjustment. However, he reported a smaller negative relationship in the upper than in the lower socio-economic classes.

In contrast to these studies, Locke and MacKeprang (1949) reported no significant difference between the marital adjustment level of wives engaged in full-time employment and the marital adjustment level of those who were full-time homemakers. Nor was there a significant difference in the marital adjustment levels of husbands in these two groups.

Most of the literature in this area currently indicates that a

significantly greater degree of stress is occurring in marriages of women who are not engaged in activities outside of the home environment than in the marriages of working wives. Howenstein, et al., (1972:265) defined

stress as "dissonance between one's present social milieu and the






32


expectations one had formed from early experiences. . .". In a study by these authors, dissonance regarding role dissatisfaction was confined physiologically. The recorded blood pressure readings of 508 married women from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds were reported to vary significantly between housewives and working wives. For housewives, blood pressure was positively related to feelings of strain from housework and low self-evaluations related to their homemaking roles. In contrast, the blood pressure readings of working wives were related to positive attitudes toward their working roles, e.g., "not wanting to quit their jobs and spend more time at home, assigning high importance to job success, and low self-evaluation of their success at their jobs" (1972:266).

The question of whether or not vxcmen change their values as a result of pursuing a career was examined by Howe (1973) . His hypothesis that two groups of mothers would differ in their scores on the Inventory of Feminine Values, with unemployed mothers reporting more conservative selfconcepts and more conservative "ideal selves" than employed mothers, was not supported. However, women in the unemployed group reported significantly higher occurrences of anxiety than women in the employed group. Anxiety in the unemployed group was related to discrepancies between the ideal self and the real self, between the self and the perception of the husband' s ideal wife, and when the ideal self was perceived as more liberal than the perception of the husband' s ideal wife. This research demonstrated that involvement in a career has a significant affect upon one's self-image and overall state of being.

The dynamics of the marital relationship have been noted to change

as a result of women entering the work force. For example, Hoffman (1960)







33


observed that working wives tended to reject the "traditional sex-role ideology" in favor of a mre egalitarian form of participation on the part of both spouses. Although husbands in these families assumed a greater share of the household tasks, Hoffman noted that many women still accepted the dominant position of the male in the family structure.

AndrOyn

The entry of worn into the work force in the last 20 years has affected the ways in which men and women relate to each other. The stereotypical belief that "a woman's place is in the home" is collapsing in the face of evidence demonstrating that women are as competent and resourceful as men in many arenas. Williamson (1970:27) suggested that this situation has affected the institution of marriage in the following way:

Marriage has emerged frcm an institution based on certain biological and economic functions sanctified by religious authority,
to a relationship oriented to companionship and affectional
needs.

Personality characteristics of men and women continue to be differentiated along masculine and feminine lines. The strict segregation of the "expressive" and "instrumental" roles is one major reason for the existence of conflict and stress in marriages.

Komarovsky (1962), in her book, Blue Collar Marriage, showed that extreme role segregation and stereotyping amng working class respondents limited the possibility of husbands sharing in the "expressiveness role." Ccmponents of the expressiveness role such as self-disclosure, companionship, and mutual psychological support, were lacking in the marriages of these couples.

Similarly, Balswick (1970) discovered that the males in her study

simply did not function on an ernruonal level necessary for real companionship. She found this situation to ,xist among all socio-economic groups,






3 4


but particularly among lower class males. Although sexual distinctions may be on the decline, inexpressiveness, at least for males, is still viewed as consistent with a "proper" definition of the masculine role.

In contrast to strict role segregation is role amalgamation.

Associated with role amalgamation is the concept of androgyny, which is concerned with the integration of the best of both male and female characteristics. Consider Heilbrun's (1973:38) definition of androgyny:

This ancient Greek word--from andro (male) and gyn (female)-defines a condition under which the characteristics of the
sexes, and the human impulses expressed by men and women are
not rigidly assigned.

The following is Bem's (1974:155) interpretation of what androgyny means:

Both in psychology and in society at large, masculinity and femininity have long been conceptualized as bipolar ends of
a single continuum; accordingly, a person has had to be either
masculine or feminine but not both. This sex-role dichotomy
has served to obscure two very plausible hypotheses: first, that
many individuals might be "androgynous; that is, they might be
both assertive and yielding, both instrumental and expressive-depending on the situational appropriateness of these various
behaviors; and conversely, that strongly sex-typed individuals might be seriously limited in the range of behaviors available
to them as they move from situation to situation.

One of the major reasons for androgyny becoming a popular concept is that it seems to offer a way of approaching the problems that men and women are facing due to confusion and conflict over sex-roles. The social issues that were so volatile in the sixties seem to have affected and permeated the entire society in the seventies. One consequence of this phenomenon is that stereotyped behavior, whether masculine or feminine, is no longer adequate in meting the demands of most social situations. Many woman feel stifled in conventional role patterns while men are experiencing frustration over an inability to express themselves.

Thus, most theorists writing on androgyny argue that highly stereotyped masculine and feminine roler severely restrict the range of






35


behaviors a person may have at his/her disposal in any given situation. For example, Bem (1975:2) suggested that androgynous individuals are more flexible in their behavior than highly stereotyped individuals.

In contrast, because his or her self-definition excludes neither
masculinity nor femininity the androgynous individual should
be able to remain sensitive to the changing constraints of the
situation and engage in whatever behavior seems most effective at
the momnt, regardless of its stereotype as appropriate for one
sex or the other. What we are hypothesizing, then, is that whereas a narrowly masculine self-concept may inhibit so-called
feminine behaviors, and a narrowly feminine self-concept may inhibit so-called masculine behaviors, a mixed or androgynous self-concept may allow an individual to freely engage in both
masculine and feminine behaviors.

Several of Bem's studies have been motivated by a desire to test the hypothesis that androgynous individuals are more adaptable in their behaviors than persons who have a strong masculine or feminine orientation. In one study (Bem, 1975) it was hypothesized that masculine or androgynous individuals would not be influenced by social pressure as much as feminine individuals. This hypothesis was confirmed in an experiment involving students from an introductory psychology class at Stanford University. In another study by Bem (1975) both males and females were allowed to interact with a kitten in order to discover whether feminine and androgynous subjects would be more "nurturant and playful" with a kitten than masculine subjects. Results indicated that feminine and androgynous males did interact significantly more with the kitten, a behavior judged to be "feminine in nature," than the group of males with masculine characteristics. Bem concluded that:

Androgynous subjects of both sexes displayed a high level of
"masculine" independence when under pressure to conform, and
they displayed a high level of "feminine" playfulness when given
the opportunity to interact with a tiny kitten. (1975:19)







36


Bem concluded that these findings represent:

the first empirical demonstration that there exists a distinct
class of people who can appropriately be termed androgynous, whose sex-role adaptability enables them to engage in situationally effective behavior without regard for its stereotype
as masculine or feminine. (1975:20)

Research on androgyny in marriage is noticeably lacking. Previously mentioned studies, however, have linked stereotyped roles to stress in the marriages of couples. A theory of androgyny would imply that two people in a relationship would be able to relate to each other based on situations as they arise and not according to fixed expectations that are a function of stereotyped roles. Males could be expressive and playful in certain situations and females could be pragmatic and decisive in other situations. This flexibility in behavior on the part of husbands and wives would allow for creativity and vitality in the relationship. Such an undertaking is not without a risk factor. In the absence of clearly defined roles, instability and confrontation between mates regarding their particular needs or wants will be unavoidable. The distinctions between "separateness" and "togetherness" may become more obvious as husbands and wives begin to express and assert themselves in the course of their relationship. Two strongly willed personalities may clash, resulting in feelings of alienation.

But does not marriage, or for that matter any relationship, lend

itself to risks and insecurities when two people have a strong emotional investment in each other? A theory of androgyny, like any other theory, should be realistic in its expectations. It should avoid any utopian or romantic expectations that the problematic aspects of being human will be eliminated. Perhaps the formulation of the concept of androgyny offers a possible alternative for the wa- in which males and females may relate






37



to each other as human beings. Future studies in this area, such as the one presented for consideration, may shed more light on this speculation.















CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The design for this study was based on two concerns. First, there

are very little data on the life of the married college student. Secondly, a correlation between the sex-typed personality characteristics of married couples and stress in the marital relationships have been alluded to in the literature; but rarely has an endeavor been made to explore systematically this relationship.

A descriptive research design was selected for use in this study. The purpose of descriptive research, as outlined by Issac and Michaels (1971), is to:

1. collect detailed factual information that describes existing
phenomena,

2. make comparisons and evaluations,

3. identify problems or justify current conditions and practices,
and

4. determine what others are doing with similar problems or situations and benefit from their experience in making future plans
and decisions.

The rest of this chapter is concerned with the research methodology including (1) research questions, (2) description of the population,

(3) sampling procedure, (4) selection procedure, (5) collection of data,

(6) analyses of data, and (7) instruments and demographic questionnaire. Limitations of the study will be addressed also.


j8






39


The Research Questions

This study was designed to investigate seven questions related to the effect of sex-typed personality characteristics on the level of adjustment in the marriages of student couples:

1. What is the relationship between sex-typed personality characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marriages of
student couples?

2. What is the relationship between each spouse's perceived
level of adjustment?

3. What is the relationship between each spouse's internalized
sex-typed personality characteristics?

4. Is there a difference in the level of marital adjustment
experienced between husbands and wives in the student
population?

5. Do spouses differ regarding their internalized perceptions of
sex-typed personality characteristics?

6. What are the relationships between selected demographic characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marital relationship?

7. What are the relationships between selected demographic characteristics and sex-typed personality characteristics of married
student couples?

Population

The population consisted of married undergraduate and graduate student couples in which at least one of the spouses was enrolled full-time at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Characteristics of this population were deduced from Stebbins' (1975) study. Her data, gathered fram University of Florida students seeking graduate degrees from the College of Education, the College of Engineering, the College of Law, and the College of Medicine, indicated that the mean age of husbands was 28.4 years, and of wives, 26.9 years. The average length of the marriage for her sample was 5.4 years. Only 18% of student couples were married less than o: year.






40


Data on the divorce rate of students at the University of Florida

or for the married student population in this country were unobtainable.

However, reporting on the current situation regarding married students,

Clarke (1970a:4) wrote:

We have here, then, married couples whose reported stress and satisfactions probably represent the adaptation of an ongoing
relationship to the student situation rather than the reaction of newlyweds to the initial experience of marriage complicated
by continuing bombardment by school-related stresses. On the
other hand, most of our couples at some time close to the beginning of their marriages--nearly half were married a month or
less before entering a student situation--did undergo the kind of double stress which we have described. And this experience
may have affected them to the extent that their perceptions are
still colored by it. Response to such questionnaire items as
those related to stress and satisfaction in marriage cannot,
therefore, be simplistically interpreted by reference only to
the present situation of our couples. The past must also be
taken into account.

Stebbins (1975) reported that a little more than 50% of the couples

sampled were parents, with 58% having more than one child. Couples

having children were slightly older than couples without children:

The parent husbands and wives were an average age of 30.9 years
and 28.8 years respectively, compared with 24.8 years and 24.1 years for the nonparents. Correspondingly, the average parent
was married 8. 3 years while the average nonparent was married
2.6 years. (Stebbins, 1975:48)

In Stebbins' sample, 88% of the women who were married to men pursuing

graduate degrees had at least some college experience and 59% had

completed at least a baccalaureate degree.

Clarke (1970a) reported a correlation between parenthood and

educational level. Parent wives had significantly less educational

experiences on the college level than parent husbands. Clarke and his

associates observed that:

there appears to be a greater educational gap between husband
and wife in the parent group as opposed to the nonparent group,
and that this gap is not narrowing for the majority of the
parent couples. (Clarke, 1970a:ll)






41


Data from Stebbins' study indicated that 67% of the wives, as

opposed to 44% of the husbands, were employed. Whereas only 19% of the husband group were employed, 40 or more hours a week, 75% of the wives worked more than 40 hours a week.

Hence, the wives tended to be employed more often, work longer
hours, and earn more than their husbands. (Stebbins, 1975:49) Sampling Procedure

Married students were selected from a list acquired from the Office for Student Services, University of Florida. The selection process involved a random sampling procedure. Beginning with the first name appearing on the list, every fourth name thereafter was drawn until the list was exhausted. An alternate pool of students, randomly selected frame the list, but beginning with the second name on the list, was collected in the event more names would be needed. This situation did not arise. Two-hundred married student couples were contacted and usable data were obtained from 100 of these couples.

Selection Procedure

All students and non-student spouses meeting the following criteria were eligible for inclusion in the study: (1) married for at least one year, (2) at least one spouse was a full-time undergraduate or graduate student at the University of Florida, (3) United States citizen, (4) currently residing in Gainesville with his/her spouse, and (5) having a telephone listing in either the Gainesville Telephone Directory or the University of Florida Directory.

The rationale for selecting students with these characteristics was based upon three considerations: (1) students seeking degrees from one

of the colleges within the university and married a minimum of one year would tend to provide a more stw, !, homogeneous population;






42


(2) requiring that students be United States citizens would tend to limit the possibility of unknown factors relative to foreign students from influencing any conclusions that may be drawn from this study; and

(3) selection of full-time graduate or undergraduate students and nonstudent spouses, as opposed to part-time students, would tend to guarantee more stability and harogeneity of the population.

Collection of Data

The original plan was for a telephone call to be placed to married students selected for participation in the study. The purpose of the study was to be explained to either the husband or wife (Appendix D). If either spouse demonstrated a positive inclination to participate in the study, a package of materials was to be mailed immediately. Included in the package was (1) a cover sheet explaining the purpose of the study, plus instructions pertaining to the rest of the materials (Appendix E);

(2) two copies of the Bem Sex-Pole Inventory (BSRI); (3) two copies of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS); (4) one copy of Demographic Questionnaire (Questionnaire); and (5) a stamped return envelope.

A margin of eight days following initial contact was established in order to allcw respondents enough time to complete the Questionnaire and the instruments. The BSRI takes approximately 15 minutes to canplete and the DAS, ten minutes. The Questionnaire can be completed in five minutes. A follow-up telephone call was placed to respondent households who had not returned the completed materials at the end of eight days. Those who had decided not to participate in the study were deleted from the list. However, if it was simply a matter of respondents forgetting to fill out the questionnaire, or of losing the packet, an additional two-week period was planned for the mailing of a second set





43


of materials and their completion and return. No additional contact occurred if at the end of the second two-week period the couple had not responded. This plan was abandoned soon after it was discovered that very few of the packages mailed out were being sent back in completed form.

A decision to change tactics was conpounded by the fact that the initial telephone contacts to potential respondents were made in late May and early June of 1977, just preceding the final examination period for spring quarter at the University of Florida. Therefore, it was decided that direct personal communication with married students would be more effective in obtaining the completed materials. The conversation reflected in Appendix D was utilized in its approximate form when doorto-door contact with respondents was initiated. The BSRI, DAS, and Questionnaire were presented to 200 married student couples. Usable data were collected from 100 of these couples.

Stebbins (1975), in her study involving married students at the

University of Florida, reported an attrition rate of 31.9% of the total sample on unreturned questionnaires. For the purposes of this study, it was felt that if 200 sets of questionnaires were distributed and a contingency plan was carefully followed, at least 100 sets of materials would be returned.

The attrition of the sample from the number of student couples who were given a packet of materials to complete to the number who returned the completed materials was 38%. The general consensus from couples who had not completed the materials after eight days was that graduation, moving, and final exams were the key elements preventing them from completing the questionnaires and sending them back.






44


Analyses of Data

A Pearson product moment correlation was used to analyze the data from research questions one, two, and three. Question one involved correlating the level of marital adjustment reflected in the DAS with the BSRI score. This correlation was used in cases where paired scores are expected to have a linear relationship (Van Dalen, 1973). All four sub-scale scores and the total scale score of the DAS were correlated with the BSRI scale score for males, females, and the total group.

In questions two and three the data derived were linear in nature. The second question involved the computation of correlations for each of the four sub-scales of the DAS as well as the total scale score, with the BSRI scale score for each of the couples. The third question involved correlating the BSRI scores for each of the married couples. A t-test was used in order to answer questions four and five.

Differences regarding the four sub-scales of the DAS and the total scale score between husbands and wives, using a .05 level of significance, were determined. Question five measured the differences between

husbands and wives regarding the Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny scores obtained from the BSRI, using a .05 level of significance.

Questions six and seven involved the use of Pearson's correlation coefficients. In the sixth question, the criterion variable was the level of adjustment and the predictive variables consisted of the various demographic characteristics for husbands, wives, and the total group. The criterion variable for the seventh question was the BSRI score and the predictive variables consisted of the various demographic characteristics for husbands, wives, and the total group.






45


Instrumentation

Two psychological instruments, the BSRT and the DAS, as well as a Questionnaire were used to answer the research questions. The BSRI is a measure of psychological androcyny. Three scales, Masculinity, Femininity, and Social Desirability, make up the instrument. Each scale contains 20 personality characteristics. The BSRI was created on the assumption that a male with mostly masculine characteristics and a female with mostly feminine characteristics have a set of internalized beliefs about socially desirable masculine and feminine behaviors.

Self-described feminine and masculine characteristics determine the range of Masculinity and Femininity scores. Thus a person' s androgyny is calculated by subtracting the Femininity (F) mean score from the Masculinity (M) nman score. As the difference between F-M diminishes, the degree of androgyny increases; and conversely, high positive scores indicate Femininity while high negative scores reflect Masculinity. The full range of scores on the 60 item BSRI runs from

60 to 420. BSRI items extend from one ("never or almost never true") to seven ("always or almost always true").

Internal consistency of the BSRI is based on the coefficient alpha cnputed for Masculinity, Femininity, and Social Desirability scores

of subjects in each of the two normative samples. Reliability of both samples is high: Masculinity, .86 and .86; Femininity, .80 and

.82; Social Desirability, .75 and .70; and the Androgyny Difference score, .85 and .86.

Normative data were derived from two samples of college students at Stanford University and Foothill Jr. College. From the results of

these data, it was reported that males scored significantly higher than







46


females on the Masculinity scale and females scored significantly higher than males on the Femininity scale. With respect to the Androgyny score, males scored on the masculine side of zero and females on the feminine side of zero.

That the Masculinity and Femininity scores of the BSRI are divorced frame each other is evidenced by the fact that the normative samples have the following correlations: Stanford males, r = .11, females, r = .14; Foothill males r = -.02, and females, r = -.07.

Since previous research has disclosed that personality characteristics often are described in masculine and feminine terms (by "law people" and therapists alike), Bem checked to determine if the Androgyny score was not simply tapping a social desirability set. Product-moment correlations were run between the Social Desirability score and the Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny scores for both normative samples. While Masculinity and Femininity were, as expected, correlated with Social Desirability, there was almost a zero correlation between Androgyny and Social Desirability. This insures that the Androgyny score is not simply measuring a tendency to respond in a socially desirable direction.

The DAS was developed by Spanier "to assess the quality of marriage and other similar dyads" (1973:15). This scale was developed in response to clear-cut methodological problems and inadequacies of other marital adjustment inventories. After reviewing same 30 marriage instruments developed in this country, Spanier created a measurement of dyadic adjustment which included four empirically verifiable sub-scales: Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Cohesion, and Affectional Expression.







47


Spanier's definition of dyadic adjustment considered the "process of mvement along a continuum..." (p. 17) as well as' the quality of interactions and characteristics of the relationship at any given time. The difficulty in measuring a process is obvious in that the dimensions of whatever is being measured are subject to both qualitative and quantitative changes. Recognizing the difficulty in measuring marriage-as-process, and the over-simplification involved in the "snapshot" approach, Spanier, in the development of his scale, considered the best of both approaches:

Thus, we subscribe to the notion that adjustment is an everchanging process with a qualitative dimension frm well
adjusted to maladjusted (1973:17).

A factor analysis was performed on 40 items judged to be the mst appropriate in order to attempt to establish empirical verification for the sub-scales, as well as the overall definition of dyadic adjustment. After this analysis was completed, the list was reduced to 32 items. Most of the items, reported Spanier, assess the individual's perception of the "adjustment of the relationship" (1973:22). An acceptable conclusion is that differentiating responses between partners on the various items infers a difference in perceptions regarding the relationship's functioning.

IWo form of validity reported by Spanier suggest empirical verification for using the instrument in measuring marital adjustment. Criterion-related validity, based on the differences in responses to the test by married and divorced subjects, was p .001. Construct validity was assessed by comparison of the DAS with the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale. Correlations between these scales were .86 for the married samples and .88 for the divorced group.






48


Internal consistency reliability for the total scale was .96; and the following dyadic components reported reliabilities of: (1) dyadic consensus sub-scale, .90; (2) dyadic satisfaction sub-scale, .94; (3) dyadic cohesion sub--scale, .86; and (4) dyadic expression sub-scale, .73. Scores ranged from 0 to 151 with the high scoring end of the scale suggesting adjustment and the low end suggesting maladjustmnent in the dyadic relationship.

The third and last instrument the respondents completed was the Questionnaire. The information frcm this instrument, such as age of both spouses and length of marriage, was used in answering a variety of research questions related to the level of marital adjustment occurring between spouses.

Limitations of the Study

(1) The BSRI and DAS are research instrnments and there is considerable debate regarding the theoretical constructs underlying each instrument. Terms such as "sex-typed personality characteristics" and "marital adjustment," have not been applied uniformly in the literature, nor is there a uniform definition of either concept currently in existence.

(2) The problem of self-report questionnaires lending themselves to socially desirable response sets has been reviewed extensively in the literature. The fact that the authors of both instruments attempted to avoid such a phenomenon cannot erase the fact that reduction in variability of responses may be the result of socially desirable response sets.

(3) If it is found that sex-typed personality characteristics

significantly affect the level of adjustment in the marital relationship







49


of student spouses, the generalization of the findings my be limited due to the fact that this sample may not be representative of the married population in this country as a whole.















CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

An analysis of the results of this study will be divided into two sections: (1) description of the sample, and (2) analyses of the research questions. Those demographic variables considered to be most relevant to this study were the (1) age of spouses and length of marriage, (2) number of children, (3) highest level of education,

(4) present student classification, and (5) employment status.

Description of the Sample

Age of Spouses and Length of Mar iage

The man age of husbands was 25.3 years and, of the wives, 24.1. The student couples had been married an average of 3.3 years. Highest level of Education

While 11% of the wives reported that their highest level of

education was the l1th or 12th grade, only 1% of the husbands were in this category (Table 1). A fairly equal proportion of nmn and wonen, 35% and 39% respectively, were undergraduates. However, where there was found to be an approximately equal dispersion of women in each of the first three years of college respectively, (11%, 15%, and 13%) the majority of the male undergraduates (33%) were in their third year of college. Thirty-eight percent of the husbands and 43% of the wives were college graduates. Twenty-five percent of the remainder of the husbands and 5% of the wives held graduate degrees.


50







51


Present Student Classification

Fifty-one percent of the males were enrolled in graduate school and approximately half of this group had completed their second year of graduate work. Forty percent of the husbands were undergraduates with a large proportion of them (30%) in their senior year of college. Of the women, 20% were in graduate school and 28' in undergraduate school. Hence, fewer womn than men were enrolled at the University of Florida. This is born out by the fact that only 4% of the males reported a non-student status while 51% of the women were non-students. Employment Status

The work status of student spouses may help to explain why more of the husbands than their spouses are enrolled at the University of Florida. While only 6% of the males worked full-time or part-tim and had a non-student status, 39% of the women sampled were working fullor part-time. Another 17% of the women were full-time hamemakers and not enrolled in school. Far more men than women (57% as opposed to 21%) were unemployed and enrolled full-time in college. Thus, more wives than husbands were in the work force. This situation may imply one of two things: either that warmn in this sample are postponing their education in favor of helping their husbands obtain their education goals, or they have gone as far as they plan in college and are beginning to assume a hcmemaking or work role. Probably a cacbination of these possibilities best reflects what is occurring in this population.

Analyses of the Research Questions

To test the following research questions Pearson correlation

coefficients and t-tests were calculated on scores pertaining to the various instruments employed.







52


Question 1: What is the relationship between sex-typed personality characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marriages of student couples?

An analysis of the data indicated that there were few significant relationships between the sex-typed personality characteristics of married students and the level of perceived marital adjustment. There was no significant relationship between the BSRI Masculinity and BSRI Androgyny scores and the four sub-scales and total scale score of the DAS (Table 2). Significant relationships were found to exist between the BSRI Femininity score and the Dyadic Cohesion, Dyadic Affectional Expression, and Dyadic Total scores. However, the total shared variance of'these relationships was so low as to preclude any possibility of making a significant interpretation about the relationships in question. Question 2: For each couple studied, what is the relationship between each spouse's perceived level of adjustment?

An analysis of the data indicated that there was a significant relationship between the DAS scores of couples in this study. The correlation coefficients were (1) Dyadic Consensus, .73; (2) Dyadic Cohesion, .61; (3) Dyadic Affectional Expression, .73; (4) Dyadic Satisfaction, .71; and (5) Dyadic Total Score, .82 (Table 3). Question 3: For each couple studied, what is the relationship between each spouse's internalized sex-typed personality characteristics?

' There was no significant relationship between each spouse's internalized sex-typed personality characteristics with respect to the BSRI Masculinity and BSRI Androgyny scores. There was a significant relationship between couples with respect to the BSRI Femininity score (Table 4).







53


Question 4: Is there a difference in the level of marital adjustment,

as perceived by husbands and wives, in the student population?

No significant difference was found between the level of marital adjustment, as perceived by husbands and wives, in the student population (Table 5).

Question 5: Do spouses differ regarding their internalized perceptions

of sex-typed personality characteristics?

Spouses differ significantly regarding their internalized perceptions of sex-typed personality characteristics with respect to their BSRI Masculinity ( .05) and Femininity ( .05) scores but not with respect to the BSRI Androgyny score. While husbands had significantly higher Masculine scores and significantly lower Femininity scores, the total or Androgyny was unchanged (Table 6). Question 6: What are the relationships among selected demographic characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marital relationship?

There were no significant relationships arong the selected demographic characteristics of (1) age of husband, (2) age of wife, (3) length of marriage, (4) quarters in attendance at the University of Florida, and (5) number of children in the family, and the level of adjustment in the marital relationship (Table 7). Question 7: What are the relationships among selected demographic characteristics and the sex-typed personality characteristics of married student couples?

There were no significant relationships among selected demographic

characteristics referred to in question six and the sex-typed personality characteristics of married student couples.







54


TABLE 1

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON AJIRIED STUDENT SPOUSES


Husbands Wives
Variable *(N = 100) (N = 100)
Age
Mean 25.27 24.11
Standard Deviation 3.98 4.01

Highest Level of Education**
llth grade 0% 2%
12th grade 1% 9%
lst yr. college 1% 11%
2nd yr. college 1% 15%
3rd yr. college 33% 13%
College graduate 38% 43%
Masters degree 16% 5%
Medical, Law, etc. 7% 0%
Ph.D. 2% 0%
Other 1% 2%

Present Student Classification**
Not a student 4% 51%
Freshman 0% 3%
Sophomore 1% 7%
Junior 9% 7%
Senior 30% 9%
lst yr. graduate 15% 8%
2nd yr. graduate 21% 7%
3rd to 4th yr. graduate 9% 4%
Grad more than 4 6% 1%
Other 5% 3%

Work Situation**
Working full-time & not a student 5% 29%
Working part-tine & not a student 1% 10%
Staying home full-tine/not working 0% 17%
Working part-time/student part-time 4% 5%
Working full-time/student full-time 3% 6%
Not working/student full-time 57% 21%
Working part-time/student full-time


*N = 100 for the husband and wife groups respectively.

**Differences between husbands and wives significant beyond .001.







55


TABLE 2

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG BEM SEX-ROLE
INVENTORY AND DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES (N = 200)


Dyadic
Dyadic Dyadic Affectional Dyadic Dyadic
Variables Consensus Cohesion Expression Satisfaction Total

Bem r = .18 r = .06 r = .07 r = .13 r = .15

Masculinity *s = .01 s = .42 s = .29 s = .07 *s = .03

Bem r = .19 r = .28 r = .31 r = .20 r = .26

Femininity *s = .007 *s = .001 *s = .001 *s = .005 *s = .001

Bem r = .08 r = .18 r = .08 r = .08 r = .1l

Androgyny s = .25 *s = .01 s = .26 s = .25 s = .10


*Significant beyond .05 level.







56


TABLE 3

PEARSON OCRPEIATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG DYADIC
ADJUSTMENT SCALE SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES* Wives (N = 100)


Dyadic Dyadic Dyadic Affect. Dyadic Dyadic
Consenses Cohesion Fx>oression Satisfaction Total Score

.73 .61 .73 .71 .82


*All relationships significant beyond .001 level.


H U S
B A N
D S
(N = 100)






57


TABLE 4

PEASM CORRELATION COEFFICTENTS AMONG BEM SEX-ROLE INVTENT)RY SCORES FOR 100
MARRED STUDENT COUPLES


Wives


Bem Bem Bem
Masculinity Score Femininity Score Androgyny Score

.02 .28 -.05

s = .87 s = .005 s = .62


H
U
S
B
A
N
D
S











TABLE 5

T-TESTS ON DYADIC AI-fUSTIE ' SCORES
FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES


Number of Standard T Degrees of 2-Tail
Variable Cases Mean Deviation Value Freedom Probability

Dyadic Husbands 100 47.74 7.56
Consensus -1.23 196.24 .22
Wives 100 49.12 8.31

Dyadic Husbands 100 16.12 3.92
Cohesion -1.49 197.25 .14
Wives 100 16.92 3.68

Dyadic Husbands 100 8.29 2.48
Affectional -1.40 196.54 .16
Expression Wives 100 8.76 2.27

Dyadic Husbands 100 39.12 6.35
Satisfaction - .08 195.47 .93
Wives 100 39.20 7.12

Dyadic Husbands 100 111.35 17.59
Total -1.04 197.65 .30
Score Wives 100 114.00 18.35


U-1 oD





TABLE 6


T-TESTS (1N BEM SEX-LE INVENTORY SCORES
FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES


Pooled Variance Estimate Separate Variance Estimate
Number of Standard T Degrees of 2-Tail T Degrees of 2-Tail
Variable Cases Mean Deviation Value Freedan Prob. Value Freedon Prob.


Bem Masculinity Score Husbands

Bem Masculinity Score Wives

Bem Femininity Score Husbands

Bem Feininity Score


100


100


100


100


104.35 12.82


92.18 13.96


93.95 11.5 103.26 11.33


Wives


Bem Androgyny Score Husbands

Ben Androgyny
Score


100


70.75 49.49


-1.54 180.34


100


33.7


68.05


Wives
*Significant beyond a .05 level.


*6.42


198


0.000


*-5.76


198


0.000


.126







60


TABLE 7

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICTENTS AMONG DYADIC ADJUSTET
SCALE SCORES AND DEMoGRAPHIC VARIABLES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT mUPLES
(N = 100) in all cases


Dyadic
Dyadic Dyadic Affectional Dyadic Dyadic
Variables Consensus Cohesion Expression Satisfaction Total

Age of r = -.02 -.19 -.03 -.23 -.14
Husband
Group s = .97 s = .06 s = .79 s = .19 s = .18

Age of r = .01 .22 -.05 -.22 -.13
Spouse
Group s = .89 *s = .03 s = .59 *s = .03 s = .20

Length of r = -.04 -.26 -.09 -.25 -.18
Marriage
s = .72 *s = .01 s = .38 *s = .01 s = .07

Quarters in -.02 -.26 -.08 -.21 -.16
Attendance
at the U. F. s = .87 *s = .01 s = .41 *s = .03 s = .12

Number of r = .02 -.15 -.10 -.17 -.10
Children
s = .86 s = .13 s = .34 s = .10 s = .35


*Significant beyond .05 level.









TABLE 8

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMO]NG BEI SEX-IOLE INVEN'TORY SCORES
AND DEMlJGRAPHIC VARIABLES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES


(N = 100)


Variables

Age of Husband


Age of Spouse


Length of Marriage


Quarters in Attendance at U. F.

Number of Children


Bern


Bem
Masculinity

r = -.07 s = .51 r = -.10 s= .32 r= .13 s= .20 r = -.14 s= .17 r = -.005 s= .96


Husbands
Ben
Femininity

r = -.13 s = .21 r = -.09 s = .38 r = -.14 s= .17 r = -.10 s= .30 r = -.02 s= .83


Beri Bern


Berm,
Androgyny

r = .03 s = .75 r = -.03 s = .74 r = .0006 s = .99 r = .03 s = .73 r = -.01 s= .92


Bem
Masculinity

r = -.08 s = .45 r = -.06 s = .57 r = .06 s = .57 r = .02 s = .86 r = -.04 s = .68


Wives
Bern
Fenininity

r = -.15 s = .13 r = -.03 s = .77 r = -.10 s= .34 r = -.25 s = .01 r = -.10 s= .37


Bern


Bem
Androayny

r = .05 s = .64 r = .04 s = .72 r = .04 s = .70 r = -.05 s = .62 r = -.03 s = .78


0-
















CHAPTER V
SUMMVARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between marital adjustment and the sex-typed personality characteristics of student couples. Certain demographic characteristics were also examined with respect to the population. The population studied consisted of married undergraduate and graduate student couples where at least one spouse was in attendance at the University of Florida in 1977.

A review of the literature suggested that there are many factors

which are indicative of stress and satisfaction in marriage. In recent years, sex-role stereotyping has emerged as an important issue in domestic life. Research indicated that a pattern of sex-role stereotyping transcended ethnic, cultural, and educational boundaries.

One of the major objectives of this study was to investigate whether or not sex-role stereotyping was a significant phenomenon in the lives of married students attending the University of Florida. In conjunction

with this and other questions, two psychological instruments, the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (9SRI) and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) , as well as a demographic questionnaire (Questionnaire) were presented to 200 married student couples. The results of the collected data were reported in Chapter IV. The findings demonstrated that:

1. there was no significant relationship between the sex-typed
personality characteristics of married student couples and
the level of marital adjustment,


62






63

2. there was a significant relationship between spouses within
each couple regarding the level of adjustment in the
relationship,

3. there was no significant relationship between the sex-typed
personality characteristics of each spouse with respect to
their BSRI Masculinity and Androgyny scores,

4. there was a significant relationship between the sex-typed
personality characteristics of each spouse with respect to
the BSRI Femininity scores,

5. there was a significant relationship between the marital
adjustment scores of husbands and wives in this sample,

6. the BSRI Masculinity and Femininity scores of husbands and
wives were different significantly,

7. there ivere no significant relationships between selected
demographic characteristics and marital adjustment scores
reflected in the DAS for these couples,

8. there were no significant relationships between selected
demographic characteristics and the sex-typed personality
characteristics of these student couples.

This study did not demonstrate any appreciable evidence of sex-role stereotyping or stress in the marriages of these student couples. Several possible factors may be responsible for this situation, including,

(1) flexibility in sex-role behavior, (2) length of marriage, (3) the college experience, and (4) the contemporaneity of the issue of sex-role stereotyping.

Flexibility in Sex-Role Behavior

The data in this study indicated that there was no significant difference between the androgyny scores of each spouse. At the same time, a significant relationship between DAS scores of couples was reported. If androgynous individuals are more adaptive than highly sexstereotyped individuals, and the literature seems to support this point of view, the quality of life within the marital situation may be positively affected.






64


Sex-role flexibility and psychological health have been topics of discussion by authors such as Bem (1973) and Constaninople (1972). Bem has suggested that the healthy personality is composed of the best of masculine and faninine characteristics. Previously mntioned research indicates that flexibility in sex-role behavior is conducive to the development of healthy relationships. Bem's theory that the healthy personality should be androgynous (having a combination of both male and female characteristics) is based partly on the increased repertoire of behaviors possessed by androgynous individuals.

It may be that congruence in androgyny scores of couples in this

sample has led to flexibility in sex-roles. Flexibility in behavior by spouses, particularly in the university setting where self-sacrifice is required in order to achieve educational goals, would obviously improve or aid the quality of life within the marriage. Androgynous couples may experience less stress in their relationships due to their ability to adapt to new situations as they arise.

Length of Marriage

The literature suggests that the length of a marriage is a crucial variable in determining stress and satisfaction in a relationship. The couples in this study were married an average of 3.4 years. Due to the

fact that these marriages were in an early stage of development, malcontent with the relationship may not have been as problematical as it might be in later years. This line of thought is supported by Pineo's research (1961). In the process of ccrnleting a study initiated by Burgess and Wallin (1953), Pineo investigated the relationships of a sample of couples during their engagement period, after four or five years of marriage, and after 20 years of marriage. He found a significant






65


correlation between marital satisfaction scores and length of marriage. The longer a couple was married the less satisfaction regarding the relationship was reported. Another longitudinal study similar to Pineo' s was conducted by Luckey (1966) , who reported that, as the length of a marriage increases, experienced dissatisfaction with the relationship increases. Other studies which arrived at similar conclusions as Pineo's and Luckey's are Blood and Wolfe (1960), Luckey (1966), and Rollins and Feldman (1970).

The College Experience

The "elan vital" that seems to be part of the early stages of a marriage may, in the case of the University of Florida married student

population, outweigh the shortcamings that are associated with the marriages of couples who have been living together for more than four years. There may exist a blend of factors that, considered as an aggregate, create a healthy dynamic tension between spouses while they are in attendance at a university.

Although a pattern of sex-stereotyped roles seemed to exist in

this study, more women than men were the primary breadwinners, and more men than women were enrolled at the university part-time or full-time. These dichotamized roles do not seem to have adversely affected the relationships of these couples. Intuition would suggest that the selfconcepts of husbands would be threatened as a result of role reversal. Although a picture of the self-concepts of husbands in this sample was not obtained, role reversal did not seem to have a negative effect on

the marriages of these student couples. It may be the case that in the majority of instances, role reversal is viewed as a temporary situation cormensurate with the caqpletion of the particular educational objectives of each couple.






66


For example, a review of the major studies in Chapter III on college aged men and wimen indicated that sex-role attitudes have been internalized while behavior has adjusted accordingly (Goode, 1963 and Komarovsky, 1976). In Komarovsky's analysis of the married student situation, she noted that sex-stereotyped attitudes on the part of spouses are modified by the contingencies placed upon them by the experience of being in college. Student husbands were able to accept the idea of their wives supporting them, knowing that the situation would change once they were graduated and in the work force.

Komarovsky's sample of married students may be different than the

married student population at the University of Florida; therefore, only a speculation can be made as to whether husbands and wives who participated in this study have expectations similar to those found in Kcmarovsky's sample. In any event, the effects of cultural "conditioning" ray be so pervasive that married couples automatically assume that the male spouse should begin his career first, as a sort of security blanket or investment in the future. Another possibility is that women develop an awareness of vocational possibilities and are willing to delay choosing a vocation until a later stage in life. It is highly probable that at the heart of this matter is a socialization process which begins in early

childhood.

In addition, discontent in the marriages of college students may

be less noticeable because the factors that give rise to dissatisfaction have not yet begun to emerge. It cannot be denied that the college experience is a stressful situation for married students. Finances, the uncertainty associated with a fluctuating job market, and the stresses associated with academic life are realities. But marriage in the university setting may be unique in ,_veral ways. It can provide a






67


stimulating environment for intellectual growth and develo:nent. In addition, spouses living on or near the campus have the distinct advantage of knowing their neighbors and sharing with them a ccmxon pathos, something that is often laclkinq in the imarriage of couples living in middle-class suburbs.

1What is proposed here is that this sample of married students may

have a relatively high degree of harmony and stability in their relationships due to the existence of a consensus regarding vocational goals and projected life styles. For example, with respect to the sample studied, it is plausible that a basic reason for congruence in the spouses' DAS scores has as it basis the knowledge that goals and aspirations about the future are held in crnmnn. Suffice it to say that the educational experience and temporary life style, with all of the attending sacrifices, can be surmounted best through a combined effort on the part of both spouses. Perhaps, in a very fundamental sense, one of the criteria for perceived adjustment in a marriage involves husbands and wives agreeing on the goals, aspirations, and expectations regarding their shared existence.

The Contemporaneity of the Issue of Sex-Role Stereotyping

For the married students in this study, sex-role stereotyping mnay

have been an issue at one time, but does not seem to be one now. Perhaps a saturation point has been reached regarding this topic in the university community. Public debate centering around the rights of wonen and sexrole conflict has advanced beyond the infant stage. The university setting has served traditionally as the vanguard for debate surrounding controversial issues. College students typically are the first to experiment with new role patterns and rndes of behavior. However, experimentation with sex-roles by ,i-ried students is not only encouraged






68


by what is currently in vogue but by the pragmatics of the situation. Student couples who share a dream about the future will tend to form a better team even if it involves a reformulation of traditional role patterns.

This reformulation of traditional role patterns may be deeper and nore longlasting in some instances than in others. The data in this study were not sensitive enough to measure these differences. The crux of the matter is that, in this study, questions such as why more husbands than wives are enrolled in college full-tim pursuing a degree, or why women are the primary breadwinners in this sample remain unanswered. Perhaps the origin of this phenomenon lies in the primordial conceptions men and wxnen have about their sex-role identities and how these identities are grounded in life's activities. Is it as simple as Blood's and Wolfe's (1960:99) assumption that, "If a wife has less education than her husband, the chances are she will be unusually satisfied with his income and less apt to go to work herself"?

The literature of the 1960's lends support to Blood's and Wolfe's thesis in the sense that, even in an age in which sex-roles and identity are open topics, a positive relationship exists between the instrumental aspects of the males' roles and marital happiness (Hicks and Platt, 1970). In addition, studies by Luckey (1960a and 1960b) indicate that ". . . satisfaction in marriage is related to the congruence of the husband's self-concepts and that held of him by his wife" (1960a:77). However the literature in the 70's presents a different view and suggests that women are becaning increasingly dissatisfied with the hanemaking role and the limitations that are the result of sex-role segregation.






69


Implications for Further Study

Family systems are very complex. People get married and stay

married as the result of many different motives. Scme of these motives are readily apparent to the researcher and others are not. Fram a methodological point of view, it might be informative if married student couples were compared to older married couples from socially and economically different backgrounds. Utilizing the DAS and the BSRI, or some other sex-role inventory, it might be found that married couples from a university setting and married couples from other backgrounds have differing viewpoints regarding sex-roles.

In any event, addressing the issue of sex-role stereotyping in the larger population of married couples might produce same interesting results. The issue is not dead. The divorce rate in this country has doubled in the last 15 years. In increasing numbers, couples are visiting marriage counselors in an attempt to resolve their disagreements.

A question that remained unanswered in this study centers around

the decision-making process of married students attending the University of Florida. Why is the husband's education generally given more priority than the wife's? What agreements are made between couples regarding their roles after graduation? How often do conflicts arise as a result of role patterns that are agreed upon within the university setting? The data obtained from this study do not generate any information about these questions. Yet they are fairly significant questions because it appears that this generation of married students is more liberal in its attitudes about basic social issues than married students in the past; very basic sex-role patterns still exist. The existence

of traditional sex-role patterns without, at the same time, significant







70


differences in the BSRI scores, does not necessarily imply contradictions in the thinking and behavior of this population. Since society is not a rigid system, but is an ensemble of the new and the old, the permanent and the transitory, elements of new approaches to marriage, caxmbined with a traditional outlook about what it means to be a male or a female, are bound to exist.

Still it remains to be seen whether women in this sample will be content to be homemakers or to simply work part-time to supplement the family income; perhaps they are simply postponing their educational and vocational goals until their husbands have completed their objectives. A longitudinal study that would follow this population for 10 to 20 years after the students have been graduated could conceivably answer these questions. It would answer the question of whether or not wonen delay or postpone their educational and vocational goals. It might lay the groundwork for a vocational development theory related to married wnen, the inference being that married vwmen have a latent period of vocational development that begins to exert itself after certain circumstances, such as the husband' s vocational plans, family finances, and child rearing have been reasonably worked out. Because of the expense and time involved, longitudinal studies are the exception rather than the rule. Yet they offer a rich body of information that is iimossible to obtain from the "snapshot" approach to studying a particular population.

Divergence in BSRI scores by husbands and wives does not necessarily imply that there will be problems in a marriage. In fact, it may be that the role prescriptions adhered to by a couple have their own internal logic, thereby yielding differences in the sex-typed personality characteristics of each partner.







71


It might be infonrnative if a sex-role inventory were utilized in conjunction with the BSRI on a heterogeneous population of married couples in order to discover whether there is a significant relationship between sex-roles and the sex-typed personality characteristics of husbands and wives. If significant relationships were found to exist between these two factors, the BSRT would be validated for use as a measure of inferred sex-role stereotyping.

Conclusions

This study did not uncover any significant evidence of sex-role

stereotyping or stress in the marriages of student couples attending the University of Florida. Several factors may be responsible for this fact and they have been alluded to in previous sections of this chapter.

The homogeneity of the married student population with respect to

age, educational level, and economic status may have seriously reduced variability with respect to BSRI and DAS scores. In conjunction with this fact, had significant differences between husbands and wives been found, generalization to the population of married couples across social strata would be limited.

In addition, most of the research data in this study were gathered frcm respondents in June, 1977, a month of transition for many university student couples. Events such as graduation, moving, and sumr vacation coming as they did in the midst of the data collection, may have affected the ways in which subjects responded to the various instruments. For example, excitement over events such as graduation, future employment, and moving frrm one geographical location to another could color a person's perceptions about many things, including feelings






72


about the quality or current status of one's relationship with a loved one. Timing may be an important elerrvant to consider in conjunction with data collection.

Finally, the instruments themselves may not have offered a complete enough profile regarding the quality of life in marriage. Cvmmensurate with this fact is the idea that other foirms of data collecting including participant observation, group and individual interviews, and longitudinal approaches could have enriched the data, yielding a richer body of knowledge about the current status of married life among students in the university ccrmunity.










APPENDIX A
BEM SEX-ROLE INVENTORY


Full Name Sex

Year in School


(Please print)
Age School

Occupation


(if not a student)

Telephone (If you have no phone, please give us some
way of contacting you, e.g., your address:)



On the following page, you will be shown a large number of personality


characteristics.


We vnuld like you to use those characteristics in order


to describe yourself. That is, we would like you to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7, how true of you these various characteristics are. Please do not leave any characteristic unmarked. Example: sly

Mark a 1 if it is NEVER OR AMDST NEVER TRUE that you are sly.
Mark a 2 if it is USUALLY NOT TRUE that you are sly.
Mark a 3 if it is SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY TRUE that you are sly.
Mark a 4 if it is OCCASIONALLY TRUE that you are sly.
Mark a 5 if it is OF'EN TRUE that you are sly.
Mark a 6 if it is USUALLY TRUE that you are sly.
Mark a 7 if it is ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALAYS TRUE that you are sly.

Thus, if you feel it is sometimes but infrequently true that you are "sly," never or almost never true that you are "malicious," always or almost always true that you are "irresponsible," and often true that you are "carefree," then you would rate these characteristics as follows:


Irresponsible 7 Carefree 5


73


Sly 3

Malicious 1










UStFYLLY SOTIMES BUT OCCASIONALLY OFTEN NOT INFREOUEN'LY TRUE TRUE
TRUE TRUE


Self reliant Yielding Helpful Defends own
beliefs Cheerful Mody

Independent Shy

Conscientious Athletic Affectionate Theatrical Assertive Flatterable Happy Strong personality Loyal Unpredictable Forceful Feminine


Reliable Analytical Sympathetic Jealous Has Leadership
abilities

Sensitive to the
needs of others Truthful illing to take risks Understanding Secretive Makes decisions
easily

Compassionate Sincere Self-sufficient Eager to soothe
hurt feelings Conceited Doiunant Soft-spoken Likable Masculine


74
7


6


1

NEVER OR AIID)ST NEVER TRUE


2


USUALLY AUAYS OR
TRUE AL21DST
ALWAYS TRUE


Warm

Solemn Willing to take
a stand Tender Friendly Aggressive Gullible Inefficient Acts as a leader Childlike Adaptable Individualistic Does not use
harsh language Unsystematic Competitive Loves children

Tactful Ambitious Gentle Conventional


3


4


5











APPENDIX B
DYADIC ADJUS'I ETI SCALE

Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approimte extent of agreement or disareermnt between you and your partner for each iten on the following list.


Always Agree


1. Handling family finances
2. atters of recreation
3. Religious matters 4. Demonstrations of
affection
5. Friends
6. Sex relations
7. Conventionality (correct or proper
behavior)
8. Philosophy of life
9. Ways of dealing with parents or in-laws
10. Aims, goals, and things
believed important 11. Amount of time spent
together
12. Making major decisions
13. Household tasks 14. Leisure tiTe interests
and activities 15. Career decisions


Almost Always Agree


Occasionally Disagree


5 4 3


5
5

5
5



5
5


4
4

4
4
4


4
4


3
3

3
3
3


3
3


5 4 3

5 4 3


5
5
5

5
5


4
4
4

4
4


3
3
3

3
3


Most
All the of the time time


16. How often do you
discuss or have you considered divorce,
separation, or
terminating your
relationship?
17. How often do you or
your mate leave the house after a fight? 18. In general, how often
do you think that
things between you
and your partner are
going well?


More often


than not sionally


0 1 2


0 1 2


5 4 3 2


Frequently Disagree

2

2 2

2 2 2


2 2

2

2

2 2 2

2 2


Almost Always Disagree

1

1 1

1 1 1


1
1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1


Always
Disagree

0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Occa-


Rarely






4


4


Never






5


5


3


3


1 0






76


lost More
All the of the of ten Occatime tine than not sionally Rarely Never
19. Do you confide in your mate? 5 4 3 2 1 0
20. Do you ever regret that you married? (or
lived together) 0 1 2 3 4 5
21. Hovi often do you and your partner quarrel? 0 1 2 3 4 5
22. Hai often do you and
your mate "get on each
other's nerves? 0 1 2 3 4 5

Almost
Every Every OccaDay Day sionally Rarely Never
23. Do you kiss your mate? 4 3 2 1 0


All of Most of Some of Very few None of
them them them of them them

24. Do you and your mate
engage in outside
interests together? 4 3 2 1 0

Haw often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate?
Less
than Once or Once or once a twice a twice a Once a More
Never month month week Day Often
25. Have a stimulating
exchange of ideas 0 1 2 3 4 5
26. Laugh together 0 1 2 3 4 5
27. Calmly discuss something 0 1 2 3 4 5
28. Work together on a
project 0 1 2 3 4 5

These are some things about which couples soretiimes agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationship during the past few weeks. (Check yes or no)

Yes No

29. 0 1 Being too tired for sex.
30. 0 1 Not showing love.






77


31. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of
happiness in your relationship. The riddle point, "haopy," represents the degree of happiness of mst relationships. Please circle
the dot which best describes the degree of hanoiness, all things
considered, of your relationship.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Extremely Fairly A Little Happy Very Extremely Perfect Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy Happy Happy

32. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about
the future of your relationship?

5 I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to
almst any length to see that it does.
4 I want very much for my relationship to succeed and- will do all I can
to see that it does.
3 I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair
share to see that it does.
2 It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can't do much
more than I am doing now to help it succed.
1 It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I
an doing now to keep the relationship going.
0 My relationship can never succeed, and there is no mere that I can do to keep the relationship going.








APPE)DKI C
DF1OGPAPHTC QUESTIONAT IE FOR MIARRIFD STUDENTS
(Confidential Data)


1. Name of spouse filling out this questionnaire


last first initial


2. What is your age?


years


3. What is your spouse's age? years

4. Length of present marriage? years, and


months


5. Since you have been married, how many terms have you and your spouse
attended the U. of F. (include the present term)? quarters.

6. What is the highest level of education you and your spouse have ompleted at the present time? (Check only the highest level).
WIFE HUSBAND
llth grade. 12th grade. lst year of college. 2nd year of college. 3rd year of college. College Graduate.
Master's degree. Medical, Law, Theological, or Specialist Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree Other, please specify

7. What is you and your spouse's PRESENT student classification?
WIFE HUSBAND
Not a student.
Freshman.
Sophomore.
Junior.
Senior.
Graduate, first year.
Graduate, second year. Graduate, three to four years. Graduate, more than four years. Other, please specify

8. Which of the following describes you and your spouse's situation best?
(Check one: full-time work = 40 or more hours/week) .
WIFE HUSBAND
Working, full-time AND not a student. Working, part-time AND not a student. Staying home, full-time AND not working. Working, part-time, AND a student, part-time. Working, full-time, AND a student, part-time. NOT working AND a student, full-tine. Working, part-time AND a student, full-time.


9. How many children do you have in your family?










APPENDIX D
GUIDELINE FOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS

The following format will be used Aien making telephone contacts

to potential respondents. Leeway naturally wil l be made as questions

core up. This forrat is governed basically by the assumption that the

spouse on the other end of the phone is demonstrating a positive inclination to participate in the stuly.

Hello, my name is Dick Carner. I am a graduate student
in the Counselor Education D apartment at the University of Florida and I am doing research on married college students
for my doctoral dissertation.
It is my understanding that you are married and that
you and/or your spouse is a student here at the University
of Florida; is that correct?...
My study involves examining various factors indicative
of stress and adjustment in the marriages of student couples
here at the University.
This research may help college counselors and administrators understand more about the particular problems
married students face while in school.
I would like to knaq if you and your husband (wife) would
take approximately 20 minutes each in order to fill out several
questionnaires that I have. If you decide to participate, the information that I obtain from you and your husband (wife) will
be treated in a confidential manner at all tines.
(If the respondent says that he/she will participate in
the study the following staterint will be made.)
I appreciate you and your husband's (wife's) participation
in my study. In the next day or so a package of materials
will be sent to you in the mail. Directions related to filling
out the various materials will be placed on top. I shall
appreciate it if you and your husband (wife) will fill out
these materials and send them back as soon as possible.
Also it would be helpful if you both complete the questionnaires separately and avoid discussing your responses until
after you have completed the materials and placed them in the
mail. In this way, I will be assured that your responses will
more accurately reflect your current attitudes regarding each
question.
Do you have any questions at this point?...
Thank you once again for helping me out. Goodbye.


7"












APPT-:';u! L
COVER SHET


Dear Mr. and Ms...

Enclosed you will find (1) two copies of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale,
(2) two copies of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, and (3) one Demographic Questionnaire for Married Students.

Each spouse is being asked to complete the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. It does not matter who completes the Demographic Questionnaire for Married Students as long as it is filled out.

Please cor.uPlete all of the materials and send them back, as soon as possible, using the return stamped envelope. Also, it would be helpful if you would both complete these materials seoarately and avoid discussing your responses until after you have completed the materials and placed them in the mail.

If you have any questions regarding these questionnaires or the research being conducted in conjunction with them, please do not hesitate to call m at 392-1575 or 377-1695.

Confidentiality of the information obtained from you will be maintained at all tims.

Thank you for participating in this study.

Cordially,



Dick Carner
202-5 N. W. 15 Street
Gainesville, Florida 32601


80















BBIiL PAPhJ~IY


Aldous, J. Occupational characteristics and males' role performance
in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, 31(4),
707-712.

. The making of family roles and family change. Family
Coordinator, 1974, 23(3), 231-235.

Arafat, I. and Yorburg, B. The New Women: Attitudes, Behavior, and
Self-image. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1973.

Bakan, D. The Duality of Human Existence. New York: The Viking
Press, 1966.

Balswick, J. 0. The effect of spouse canpanionship support on
employment success. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1970,
32, 212-215.

and Peek, C. W. The inexpressive male: A tragedy of
American Society. Family Coordinator, 1971, 20(4), 363-368.

Barrett, C., Bey, P., Eaton, E., and Pameroy, E. Implications of
wcrmen's liberation and the future of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Pesearch, and Practice, 1974, 11, 11-15.

Barry, W. A. Marriage research and conflict: An integrative review.
Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 41-55.

Baruch, G. K. The traditional feminine role: Some negative effects.
The School Counselor, 1974, 21(4), 285-289.

Bell, R. Marriage and Family Interaction. New York: Harper and Paw,
1963.

Bem, S. L. The measurenent of psychological arxrogyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42(2), 155-162.

___ . Sex-role adaptability: One consequence of psychological
androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,
31(4) , 634-643.

Bernard, J. The Future of Marriage. San Francisco: World Publishing
Co., 1972.

Biller, H. B. Father, Child, and Sex-role; Paternal Determinants of
Personality Development. Lexington: Heath Iexington Books,
1971.


L






82


Blazer, J. A. Canplementary needs and marital happiness. Marriage and
Family Living, 1963, 25, 89-95.

Block, T., Von der Lippe, A., and Block, J. Sex-roles and socialization
patterns: Some personality conconmitants and environmental
antecedents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973,
41, 321-341.

Blood, R. 0., Jr., and Wolfe, D. M. Husbands and Wives. New York:
Free Press of Glencoe, 1965.

Bowman, H. A. Marriage for Moderns. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1960.

Brigante, M. E. A trans-generational study of sex-roles in marriage
in middle class America. Dissertation Abstracts International,
1972, 33 (5-A) , 2160.

Broverman, I. K., and Broverman, D. M. Sex-role stereotypes: A current
appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28(2), 59-78.

Burchinal, L. G., Hawkes, G. R., and Gardner, B. Personality characteristics and marital satisfaction. Social Forces, 1957, 35,
218-222.

Burgess, E. W., and Wallin, P. Fngagement and Marriage. Chicago:
Lippincott, 1953.

Burr, R. An expansion and test of the Role Theory of Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 368-372.

Campbell, J. The Portable Jung. New York: The Viking Press, 1971.

Cardi, M. W. The relationship between sex-role stereotype and trust
among women as measured by cooperation and competition. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1972, 33(4-B), 1784.

Chesler, A. Women and Madness. Garden City, Long Island: Doubleday
and Co., 1972.

Clarke, C. Survey of married graduate students: Winter quarter 1969, a
survey a sample. Gainesville, Florida: Marriage and College Life
Project, Bulletin No. 5, May 1970a. Cited by Stebbins, L. B. Stress
and satisfaction in graduate student marriages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1975.

Constaninople, A. Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous
dictum. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80(5), 389-407.

Cocmbs, R. C. An investigation of sex-differences on the influence of
dependence. Sociametry, 1968, 30(2), 50-63.

Corsini, R. J. Understanding and similarity in marriage. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 327-332.






83


Cottrell, L. Roles and marital adjustment. Publications of the
American Sociological Society, 1933, 27, 107-115.

Cross, H. J. and Aran, R. The relationship of unobtrusive measures of
marital conflict to reirembered differences between parents.
Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, 1971, 6(part 1), 365-366.

Dean, D. G. Emotional maturity and marital adjustment. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 1966, 28, 454-457.

Dinitz, M., Dyress, R., and Clarke, V. Preferences for male or female
children: Traditional or affectional. Marriage and Family Living,
1954, 16, 128-130.

Dreery, J. and Roe, J. B. Comparison of alcoholic and non-alcoholic
marriages. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1969, 115(520), 287-299.

Dymond, R. F. Adjustrent changes over therapy from self-sorts. In
Dymond, R. F., and Rogers, C. R. (Fds.), Psychotherapy and
Personality Chanqe; Co-ordinated Research Studies in the ClientCentered Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.

Elman, J., Press, A., and Rosenkrantz, P. Sex roles and self concepts:
real and ideal. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1970, 5(part 1), 455-456.

Fernberger, S. W. Persistence of stereotypes concerning sex differences.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1948, 43, 97-101.

Foder, I. Sex-role conflict and symptom formation in woien: Can
behavior therapy work? Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 1974, 11, 22-29.

Goode, W. J. World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: The
Free Press, 1963.

Gordon, F. E. and Hall, D. T. Self image and stereotypes of femininity:
Their relationship to women's role conflict and coping. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59(2), 241-243.

Gove, W. R. The relationship between sex-roles, marital status, and
mental illness. Social Forces, 1972, 51(1),

Grover, D. A. Socio-econcmic differential in the relationship between
marital adjustment and the wife's employment status. Marriage
and Family Living, 1963, 25, 452-456.

Gurin, G. J., Veroff, and Feld, S. Americans View Their Mental Health.
New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Hartley, R. E. American Core Culture: Changes and Continuities in
Sex Poles in a Chanqinq Society. New York: Random House, 1970.





84


Heilbrun, C. Toward a Recognition of Androgyny. New York: Knopf, 1973.

Hicks, M. W., and Platt, M. Marital happiness and stability: A review
of the research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 1970, 32(4) , 553-574.

Hjelle, L. A., and Butterfield, R. Self actualization and women's
attitudes taiard their roles in contemporary society. Journal
of Psychology, 1974, 87(2), 225-230.

Hobart, C. W. and Klausner, W. J. Social interactional correlates of
marital role disagreements and marital adjustment. Marriage and
Family Living, 1959, 21(3) , 256-263.

Hoffman, L. W. Parental poer relations and the division of household
tasks. Marriage and Family Living, 1960, 22, 27-35.

Horner, M. S. Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts
in women. Journal of Social Issues, 1968, 28, 157-175.

Howe, R. R. Relationship between female role concepts and anxiety
among employed and non-employed mothers of pre-school age children.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33(12-A), 7037-7038.

Howenstein, L. L. Housewives and working wives: Reported role satisfaction related to diastolic blood pressure. Proceedings of the
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
1972, 7(part 1) , 265-266.

Ibsen, C. A. The married college student: A problem of congruence.
Family Life Coordinator, 1967, 16, 25-27.

Issac, S. and Michaels, W. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San
Diego: Robert R. Knapp, 1971, 18.

Jacobson, A. H. Conflict attitudes towards the role of husband and wife
in marriage. American Sociological Review, 1952, 17, 146-150.

Kagan, J. and Moss, H. Birth to Maturity. New York: John Wiley, 1961.

Kammeyer, K. The feminine role: An analysis of attitude consistency.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1964, 26, 295-305.

Kaplan, A. G. Androgyny as a model of mental health for women: From
theory to therapy. In Kaplan, A. G. and Bean, J. (Eds.), Beyond Sex-Role Stereotypes: Readings Toward a Psychology of Androgyny.
New York: Little, Brown & Co., 1976.

Kelly, E. L. Marital compatibility as related to personality traits
of husbands and wives as rated by self and spouse. Journal of
Sociological Psychology, 1941, 13, 193-198.

Kenkel, W. F. Influence differentiation in family decision making.
Sociology and Social Research, 1957, 42, 18-25.

King, M. Sex differences in sel' actualization. Psychological Reports,
1974, 35, 602.






85


Kolb, M. J., and Straus, M. A. Marital power and marital happiness in relation to problem solving ability. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 1974, 36(4), 756.

Komarovsky, M. Cultural contradictions and sex roles. American Journal of Sociology, 1946, 51, 182-189.

. Blue-Collar Marriage. New York: Random House, 1962.

. Cultural contradictions and sex roles: The masculine
case. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78(4), 450-459.

. Dilenias of Masculinity. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,
1976.

Kotlar, S. L. Instrumental and expressive marital roles. Sociology
and Sociametry, 1963, 26, 131-145.

. Middle class marital role perceptions and marital adjustment.
Sociological and Social Research, 1965, 49, 283-293.

Kronsky, B. Feminism and psychotherapy. Journal of Contenporary
Psychotherapy, 1971, 3(2) , 89-98.

Krupinski, J. and Farmer, R. A study of aspects of marital life and
roles in marriage guidance client and non client marriages.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 1973, 4(2), 195-308.

Leach, E. J. Dominance relationship between husbands and wives: Public
versus private behavior. Thesis, University of Florida, 1972.

Leik, R. K. Instrumentality and emotionality in family interaction.
Sociametry, 1963, 26, 131-145.

Levine, S., Kamin, L., and Levine, E. Sexism and psychiatry. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1974, 44, 327-335.

Lively, R. Toward concept clarification: A case of marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, 31(1), 108-114.

locke, H. J. and MacKeprang, L. Marital adjustment of the employed wife.
American Journal of Sociology, 1949, 54, 536-539.

Luckey, E. G. Marital satisfaction and congruent self-spouse concepts.
Social Forces, 1960a, 39, 153-157.

. Marital satisfaction and its association with congruence of
perception. Marriage and Family Living, 1960b, 22, 49-54.

-__. Number of years married as related to personality perception
and marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966,
28(1), 44-48.

Manaker, E. The therapy of omn in light of psychoanalytic theory and
the emergence of a new view. In Franks, V. and Burtle, V. (Eds.),
Women in Therapy, New York: iruner/Mazel, 1974.






86


McKee, J. P. and Sheriffs, A. C. Men's and women's beliefs, ideals, and self concepts. American Journal of Sociology, 1959, 64,
356-363.

Miller, L. and Mothner, A. Validity of four measures of family power.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 34(3), 224-234.

Millman, M. Observations on sex-role research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 772-776.

Mitchell, H. E., Bullard, J. W., and Mudd, E. H. Areas of marital conflict in successfully and unsuccessfully functioning families.
Journal of Health and Human Behavior, 1962, 3, 88-93.

Murstein, B. S. and Beck, G. D. Person, perception, marriage adjustment, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1972, 39(3) , 396-403.

Nelson, H. Y. and Goldmen, P. R. Attitudes of high school students and young adults toward the gainful employment of married women.
Family Coordinator, 1969, 18(3), 251-255.

Neufeld, E., Langmeyer, D., and Seeman, W. Samr sex-role stereotypes
and personal preferences, 1950 and 1970. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 1974, 38(3), 247-254.

Neulinger, J. Perceptions of the optimally integrated person: A
redefinition of mental health. Proceedings of the 96th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1968, 553-554.

Nevill, D. and Damico, S. Role conflict in women as a function of
marital status. Human Relations, 1975, 28(5), 487-497.

Nye, I. F. Marital interaction. In Nye, I. F. and Hoffman, L. W. (Eds.),
The Employed Mother in America. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

Orden, S. R. and Bradburn, N. M. Dimensions of marriage happiness.
American Journal of Sociology, 1968, 73, 715-731.

Osofsky, J. D. and Osofsky, H. J. Androgyny as a life style. The
Family Coordinator, 1972, 21(4), 411-418.

Page, J. P. The relationship between sex-role conformity and selfesteem, anxiety, and motive to avoid success. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1973, 34(3-B), 1281.

Parsons, T. and Bales, R. (Eds.). Family Socialization and Interaction
Process. Glencoe: Free Press, 1965.

Pilpel, H. F. and Zavin, T. Your Marriage and the Law. New York:
Collier Books, 1964.

Pineo, P. C. Disenchant-nent in the later years of marriage. Marriage
and Family Living, 1961, 23(1) , 3-11.






87


Pineo, P. C. Development patterns in marriage. Family Coordinator, 1969, 18, 135-140.

Poster, M. Women in therapy: A gestalt therapists view. In Franks, V. and Burtle, V. (Eds.), Worw-n in Therapy: New Psychotherapies
for a Changinq Society. New York: Bruner/Mazel, 1974.

Preston, M. G., Peltz, W. L., Mudd, E. H., and Froscher, H. B.
Impressions of personality as a function of marital conflict.
Journal of Abnormal and Sociological Psychology, 1952, 47, 326-336.

Price, S. and Bonham, S. Student husbands versus students couples.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1973, 35(1), 33-37.

Rapoport, R. and Rapoport, R. The dual career family: A variant family and social change. Human Relations, 1969, 22, 3-30.

Rappaport, A. F., Payne, D., and Steinmann, A. Marriage as a factor
in the dyadic perception of the female sex-role. Psychological
Reports, 1970, 27(1), 283-284.

, , and . Perceptual differences between
married and single college women for the concepts of self,
ideal women, and men's ideal women. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 1970, 32(3), 441-442.

Rebecca, M., Hefner, R., and Olshensky, B. A model of sex-role
transcendence. The Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32(3),
197-206.

Ricely, N. L. Level of self esteem and conformity to sex-role stereotypes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 34 (4-B),
1757-1758.

Rosenkrantz, P. S., Vogel, S. R., Bee, H., Broverman, I. K., and
Broverman, D. M. Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in
college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
1968, 32, 287-295.

Safilios-Rothschild, C. The influence of the wife's degree of work
comnitment upon some aspects of family organization and dynamics.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1970, 32(4), 681-691.

Seeman, W. An investigation of Freud's daydream theory. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota), 1950. Cited by Neufeld, E.,
Langrreyer, D., and Seeman, W. Sam sex-role stereotypes and personal preferences, 1950 and 1970. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 1974, 38(3), 247-254.

Segfried, B. A. and Hendrich, C. When do opposites attract? When they
are opposite in sex and sex-role attitudes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1973, 25(1) , 15-20.






88


Selcer, R. J., and Hilton, I. R. Cultural differences in the acquistion of sex-roles. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of
the APA, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1972, 8, 91-92.

Shainess, N. A. Psychiatrists view: Images of women--past and present,
overt and obscured. In Morgan, R. (Ed.), Sisterhood is Powerful,
New York: Vantage Books, 1970.

Sheriffs, L. and McKee, R. Sex differences in attitudes about sex
differences. Journal of Psychology, 1953, 35, 161-168.

Smith, L. Age and sex differences in childrens opinions concerning
sex differences. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1939, 54, 451-464.

Spanier, G. B. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing
the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 1976, 38(1), 15-28.

Stebbins, L. B. Stress and satisfaction in graduate students' marriages.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1975.

Steinmann, A. Studies in male-female sex-role identifications. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1975, 12(4), 412.

and Fox, D. J. Specific areas of agreement and conflict in
wcmen' s self-perceptions and their perceptions of men' s ideal
women in two South American communities and an urban carmunity in
the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969,
31 (2) , 281-289.

Straus, M. A. Marriage role expectations of high school students.
Marriage and Family Living, 1961, 23(1), 42-43.

Stuckert, R. P. Role perception and marital satisfaction: A configurational approach. Journal of Marriage and Family Living,
1963, 25, 415-419.

Tarvis, C. Who likes wr-men's liberation and why: The case of the
unliberated liberals. Journal of Social Issues, 1973, 29(4),
175-198.

Tharp, R. G. Psychological patterning in marriage. Psychological
Bulletin, 1963, 2, 90-117.

Tomlinsin-Keasey, R. Role variables: Their influence on female
motivational constructs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1974,
21 (3) , 232-237.

Udry, R. J. The Social Context of Marriage. Philadelphia: J. B.
Lippincott Co., 1974.

Van Dalen, D. B. Understanding Educational Research. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Springfield: G. and C.
Merriam Co., 1971, 2238.






89


Weis, S. J. Self esteem and self implementation in role saliency of
wcumn. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 30(11-A),
5071-5072.

Wells, J. A. College women seven years after graduation. Washington,
D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

Williamson, R. C. Marriage Roles, Anerican Style, In Sex-Roles in
Changing Society, Steward, G. H. and Williamson, R. C. (Eds.),
New York: Random House, 1970.

Winch, R. F. Mate Selection. New York: Haroer--Brothers Pub., 1958.

Zamon-Gass, G. and Nichols, W. C. Take ne along: A marital syndrom.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 6(3), 209-217.















BIOIAPHICAL SK'ICII

Richard M. Carner was born in Syracuse, New York, on January 2, 1948. His parents are Richard L. Carner and Carol R. Spivey. He spent the first 13 years of his life in New York state and with the exception of one year in Charlotte, North Carolina, he has been a resident of Florida.

He was graduated from Palmetto High School, Miami, Florida, in 1966, and he received an Associate of Arts degree from Miami Dade Conmnunity College in 1969. After exploring his abilities in the fields of sales, construction, and carpentry, he enrolled at the University of West Florida where he earned a baccalaureate degree in psychology in 1973.

Since 1973, Richard has been pursuing a Ph.D. in counselor

education at the University of Florida. His professional interests are varied and include the relationships among counselor education and counseling in the university setting, existential-phenamenological psychology, community mental health, and mrriage and family counseling.












I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



PRobet O. tripin-gOalrman
Distinguished Service Professor of Counselor Education



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



Earry C. Toesch
Assistant Professor of Education of Counselor Education



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



Walter Busy
Associate Professor of Psychol ical Foundations of Education



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Counselor Education and the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

December, 1977


Dean, Graduate School




Full Text

PAGE 1

Marital Mjustment and tiie Sex-T^ped Personality Characteristics of M'y > led Student Couples « Richard M,; ' -olm Carrier A DISSERTATION PRESENTED ID THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF TtJE UNIVERSITY OF FIOI^DA IN ?/\RriAL FULFILLMEOT OF THE REQUIklMFJNTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DCCTOR OF PKirjOSOPHY UNIVERSITY/ OF FLORIDA 1977

PAGE 2

DEDICATiaNi For Jiady whose gentleness ajn^i c^u:e have helped me through this trying time and with, whcsn I have shared many beautiful monents.

PAGE 3

My sincere and deepest gratitude is extended to the follwing: Dr. Robert 0, Stripling, my .ri.lvisor and cliairrnan of my doctoral cannittee for his leadership and guidance during the last two years; Dr. Larry C. Loesch, a member of ray camittee for his support and invaluable suggestions during the deve].opfnent of this study; Dr. V7alter Busby, a member of my canmittee for his suggestions and enoouragemant -luring the last tv/o years: Di:. Suzan Schafer, for her c instruct ive criticisms and helpful suggestions; Dr. ?4ilan Kolarik, for liis unsolicited support and interest in my professional development; Ms. Karen Griggs, for her patience in typing the manuscript.

PAGE 4

TABLE OF COMTEITrS Page ACKNOWLEDO^TTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii ABSTRACT '^iii CHAPTER I 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of this Study 1 Discussion of tlie Problem 2 CHAPTER II 6 REVIEl'^ OF REI/vlED LITERATURE 6 Development of Sex-Roles fron a Historical Perspective . 6 Pervasiveness of Sex-Role Stereotyping 8 Confusion and Conflict Over Sex-Stereotyped Roles .... 14 Role Theory and Dyadic Interaction 19 Parameters of flarital Adjustment 23 Mate Selection 23 ffesculine SelfImage and Marital Adjustment 25 Perceptual Congruence Between Partners 27 Pa>7er 29 Vfcmen's Work Status and .'larriage 31 Androgyny 33 CHAPTER III 38 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 38 The Research Questions 39 Population 39 Sanpling Procedure 41 Selection Procedure 41 Collection of Data 42 Analyses of Data 44 Instrumentation 45 Limitations of the Study 48 V

PAGE 5

TmiE OF OOrn'ErrrS continued Page QiAPTER IV 50 RESULTS 5C Description of the Sample 50 Age of Six)uses and Lengtl'i of mrriage 50 Highest Ijevel of Education 50 Present Student Classification 51 Eiiploymcnt Status 51 Analyses of the Research Questions 51 Question 1: What is the relationship betv^een sextypeci fjersonality characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marriages of student couples?. . . 52 Question 2: For each couple studied, v/hat is the relationship between oach spouse's perceived level of adjustment? 52 Question 3: For each co'ir)le studied, is the relationship betaveen e: ::h spouse's internalized sex-typed personality cliaracteristics? 52 Question 4: Is there a difference in the level of marital adjustment, as perceived by husbands and wives, in the student population? 53 Question 5: Do spouses differ regarding their internalized perceptions of sex-typed personality characteristics? 53 Question 6: VJhat are the relationships among selected donographic characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marital relationship? . . 53 Question 7: \
PAGE 6

TABLE OF CCNTETsITS continued Page APPENDIX A BEM SEX-RDLE INVENTORY 73 APPENDIX B DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCy\IiE 75 APPENDIX C DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNMRE FOR MARRIED STUDENTS . . 78 APPENDIX D GUIDELINE FOR TELEPHdffi INTERVIEWS 79 APPENDIX E COVER SHEET 80 BIBLIOGRAPHY 81 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETQi 90

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 DEMDGRAPHIC DATA ON MARRIED STUDENT SPOUSES 54 2 PEARSON CORRELATIOSI COEFFICIENTS ATCNG BEM SEX-ROLE INVENTORY AND DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES 55 3 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES. . 56 4 PEARSON CORRELATICN COEFFICIENTS AMONG BEM SEXROLE INVETTTORY SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED SITOENT COUPLES 57 5 T-TESTS m THE DYADIC AD7USTMENT SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES 58 6 T-TESTS ON BEM SEX-ROLE INVENTORY SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES 59 7 PEARSON CORRELATICN COEFFICIENTS AMONG DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE SCORES AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES FOR 100 MARPJ[ED STUDENT COUPLES 60 8 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMC^G BEM SEXROLE INVENTORY SCORES AND DEMDGRAPHIC VARIABLES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES 61 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requireirients for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Marital Adjustment and the Sex-Typed Personality Characteristics of Married Student Couples By Richard Malcolm Camer December, 1977 Chairman: Robert 0. Stripling Major Department: Counselor Education The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between marital adjustirent and the sex-typed personality characteristics of mairried couples. Certain demographic characteristics also vrere studied. Central to this study was the idea that sex-role stereotyping is occurring in this society between men and wonen of all ages and that it creates stress in relationships. Two psychological instruments, a Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) and a Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) , as well as a dorographic questionnaire (Questionnaire) were presented to 200 married student couples at the University of Florida. Usable data were collected from 100 of these coij^les. Pearson Correlation Coefficients and T-Tests were used to answer the various research questions. This study did not demonstrate any evidence of sex-role stereotyping or stress in the marriages of the couples in the saitple. Several possible factors may have been viii

PAGE 9

responsible for this. Those that were reviewed included (1) flexibility in sex-role behavior, (2) length of narriage, (3) the college experience, and (4) the contenporaneity of tlie issue of sexrole stereotyping. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this research was to study the relationship between marital adjustment and sextyped personality characteristics of married couples. The population studied consisted of married undergraduate and graduate student couples. At least one of the spouses in the couple was enrolled full-time at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. In the academic year 1969-70, approximately 4,000 married students, canposing 21% of the student body, were enrolled at tlie University of Florida. The most recent survey, conducted in October of 1976, indicated that 5,500 of the university's approximately 28,000 students were married. Purpose of this Study This study was designc^d to investigate the level of adjustment in the marriages of college couples as a function of the sex-typed personality characteristics of each spouse. Certain demographic characteristics were studied also. The research questions were: 1. What is the relationship between sextyped personality characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marriages of student couples? 2. For each couple studied, what is the relationship between each spouse's perceived level of adjustment? 3. For each couple studied, what is the relationship between each spouse's internalized sextyped personality characteristics? 4. Is there a difference in tiie level of marital adjustment experienced between husbands and wives in the student population? 1

PAGE 11

2 5. Do spouses differ regarding their internalized perceptions of sex-t^'ped personality cliaracteri sties? 6. What are the relationshit between selected demographic characteristics and the l.-vel of adjustment in the marital relationship? 7. What are the relationships between selected danographic characteristics and sex-typed personality characteristics of married student couples? Discussion of the Problan Central to this study was the assuirption that sex-role stereotyping is a pervasive, general phencmenon occurring in this society between men and wanen of all ages. According to Webster's unabridged Third New International Dictionary , a stereotype is defined as: a standardized mental picture held in cormion by rrembers of a group and representing an oversimplified opinion, affective attitude, or uncritical judgement (as of a person, a race, an issue, or an event). (1971:2238) Sex-role stereotyping, then, may be considered the process of atteirpting to make an individual or individuals conform to a pre-existing mind set. The damaging effects of sex-role stereotyping result when a particular group of pecple lose individual characteristics and are overtly and/or covertly manipulated into a fixed or general pattern of behavior. Various social movements such as Woiien's Liberation represent responses directed at widely held stereotyped beliefs regarding the differences between men and women. A study of history illustrates that when a society begins openly to question the meaning of existence and the value of the individual there develops a time of uncertainty and confusion. That time has ccme for the institution of marriage. The traditional concept of m^urriage currently is being called into question by men and women who think that the roles expected of than are too stifling. Studies on role conflict in marriage suggest

PAGE 12

3 that it is woiTEn who nuist rrake thie greatest adjustment in ttie relationship. Tarvis (1973) found that unhappily married women Vvere more likely than happily married women to think that men are sexists and are better off than wcnen in this society. Satisfaction with the divisicn of labor in the housetold was strongly related to marital satisfaction, Msn were more content than wonen with the distribution of domestic tasks: 62% of the men were very satisfied conpared with 44% of the wonen. Furthermore, 75% of the nen dissatisfied with their marriages were satisfied with the division of labor vdiile, of unhappily married wonen, only 43% were satisfied with the division of labor. Nevill and Damico (1975) concluded that all wanen, whether married or not, have difficulty in defining their various roles. Of the three groups of women studied — married, single, and divorced — the authors noted that the married group experienced significantly more conflict with respect to roles. They interpreted these findings to mean that marriage is a more stressful situation for wonen than for men. Parsons aiid Bales (1965) coined the terms "instrumentality" and "ej^ressivity" in their conceptualizations of the itale and female personality. Instrumentality was defined as a msculine trait associated with the pragmatic and cognitive aspects of life, while ejq^ressivity was depicted as feminine in nature, highlighting caring and communal activities. Since Parsons and Bales, other theorists have borrowed or expanded on this dichotomy (Bakan, 1966). Whether intentional or not, tlie social reality of sex-role constructs has been used to support the idea that nen and wonen inherently are different. Social-psychological research has tended to naintain these differences between men and wonen based on socially approved sex-role expectations.

PAGE 13

4 Jung (Campbell, 1971) was one of the first theorists to recognize that strict sex-role stereotyping has dehabilitating effects on men and wonen. Although he did not develop fully a social theory regarding the differences between rten cind W3men, he did propose a theory that men and wmen have female (anima) and male (animus) components, and that these "archetypes" were crucial determinants in the developmental unfolding of the human personality. More recently, sex-role flexibility and psychological health have been topics of discussion by authors such as Bern (1975) and Constaninople (1973). The healthy personality, according to Bern, is corposed of the best of masculine and feminine characteristics. Research has supported the idea that rigidity in highly sex-typed behavior is maladaptive and creates mental health problems in males and females. Bern's theory that the healthy personality should be androgynous (having a ccxnbination of both male and female characteristics) was based partly on the increased amount of flexibility in behavior possessed by individuals. In general terms, a person may demonstrate conpetence and assertiveness (masculine attributes) as veil as canpanionship and sensitivity (feminine attributes) . The literature on this topic will be reviewed more extensively in chapter two. It should be noted that if aixirogynous individuals are irore adaptive than highly sex-stereotyped individuals, and the literature seems to bear this out, the quality of life within the marital situation should be affected. Androgynous couples may experience less stress in their relationships due to their ability to adapt to new situations as they arise. Many questions have been raised as a result of the discussions surrounding sex-stereotyped behavior and the recent perspectives

PAGE 14

concerning irental health and the androgynous personality. The research questions that were proposed atteitpted to address the: issues .

PAGE 15

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This review of the literature will include: (1) the development of sex-roles from an historical perspective, (2) pervasiveness of sexstereotyped roles, (3) confusion and conflict over sex-stereotyped roles, (4) role tlieory and dyadic interaction, (5) parameters of marital adjustment, and (6) androgyny. Development of Sex-Roles from a Historical Perspective Research indicates that the socialization of masculine and feminine sex-roles occurs at a very early age. In a study by Block, Von der Lippe, and Block (1973) , it was discovered that learning socially approved sexroles takes place through wliat the authors call "reactivity." Traditional sexroles are passed on to offspring through "selective reinforcement of corplementary reactions by responding to the child in sexually iirplicit ways" (1973:337). These authors noted that: (1) highmasculine/high-socialized and highfeminine/high-socialized individuals originate frcm family systems in u'iiich the parents display unambiguous and traditional role patterns; (2) low-nasculineAiigh-socialized and low-feminineAiigh-socialized individuals cone fron families in which the parents present a variety of alternative role interpretations suggesting an androgynous outlook; (3) high-masculine/low-socialized and highferoinine/low-socialized children come from families in which the sanesex parent rejected the child, was neurotic, and offered an inadequate model for identification; and (4) low-masculine/low-socialized and lov;^ o

PAGE 16

7 feminine/low-socialized individuals coine from families typically experiencing conflict and psychopathology. Parents in these families failed to inculcate any consistent role patterns in their children due to their unhappy marriages. The authors concluded that a process of culturally sanctioned sex-stereotyping involves reactivity and/or modeling of the saine-sex parent's behavior, while culturally unapproved behavioral patterns are a function of the type of family in which a child is reared. Biller (1971) discovered a relationship between sex-role attitudes and the way in which children are reared in fatherless families. After examining the variables that were associated with the growth and developitent of children having androgynous personality characteristics, he concluded that the absence of fathers in upper middle class families created a situation in which the mother became more authoritative, particularly if she worked outside the hone. The sons in these families were found to be less aggressive and coipetitive, and rrore dependent and nurturant than boys coming fron families with fathers in them. Daughters in these fatherless families were found to be more independent and assertive, and more likely to view themselves in a vocation other than that of a horieiTaker. Biller suggested that the convergence of sexroles is a function of the psychosocial conditions existing in this milieu. Additional studies are needed in order to examine this assertion. Selcer and Hilton (1972) investigated the attitudes of children from a very traditional sub culture and from a sub culture eirphasizing far less distinction in sex-stereotyped roles. Children from nontraditional families behaved in ways that were significantly removed from stereotyped masculine and femxnine role patterns. The results of this study, however, must be inton)reted cautiously since they were

PAGE 17

8 obtained fmn a smll sample, failed to define the population ccaiclusively, and ccnfused sex-role stereotyping with sex-role behavior. Kagan's and Mdss' (1961) investigation of sex-role attitudes lends further support to the idea that msculine a.nd feminine characteristics are developed at an early age. A tentative conclusion which may be drawn frcm these studies is that sex-typed or androgynous personality characteristics are instilled into children at a very early age and tend to remain stable throughout adult life. The powerful influences of family life seem to serve as accurate predictors for the particular sex-stereotyped roles that males and females eventually adopt. Pervasiveness of Sex-Role Stereotyping Jfeny studies have shown that men with masculine characteristics are valued more highly in this society' than women with feminine characteristics (Dinitz, Dyness, and Clarke, 1954; Sheriffs & NfcKee, 1953; and Smith, 1939) . Femberger (1948) was one of the first to explore systematically this phencmenon. From a survey adopted from Look magazine, he measured the sex-role attitudes of graduate and undergraduate students at Pennsylvania State University and concluded that both men and wcmen believe that wonen are at the heart of any distvirbances that occur in a relationship; that men are more intelligent; and that women are more loquacious, passionate, and sensitive. I^n generally felt that wonen should assume a secondiu:Y position in a relationship. Femberger concluded that social biases regarding the sexes are universal and independent of sex. Seeman (1950) studied the attrihutes of physical prowess, physical attractiveness, an^i vocational success as they applied to a saitple of male and female college students. He found both men and woman agreeing

PAGE 18

9 that perforrtdng well in physical gunes and acliieving vocational success are more inportant to men than to women, and that to be physically attractive was more inportant to \vomen than to men. The Femberger and Seeman studies were replicated by Neufeld, et al . , (1974) in order to determine if there was a change in stereotypic perceptions over a 20-year period. Strict attention was paid to the details of each study to insure that they were repeated accurately. Results indicated tliat there were no obvious differences between the attitudes of college students of 1948-50 and students in the year 1974 regarding stereotyped sex-roles. The authors suggest that it is misleading to assume that sex-role stereotyping is disappearing cind that "the above stereotypes may reflect long lasting, basic sex differences" (1974:253) . Attitudes of high school students offer insights into beliefs concerning sex-roles. A study by Nelson and Goldman (1969) suggested that boys and girls in a variety of groups differ in their attitudes concerning sex-roles. t^Jhile girls favor an increased involvement in activities outside the home, boys almost unanimously desire a wife who is a hcjnemaker exclusively. Komarovsky (1973) investigated the attitudes of college male seniors regarding the role of wife as breadwinner. Four types of responses emerged: (1) "traditionalists," making up 24% of the men sampled, rejected the idea of their wives having a job outside of domestic and civic responsibilities, (2) "pseudo feminists," conprising 16% of the men, approved of their wives working, but attached strings to that approval v*iich made it iitpossible for this situation to actually occur, (3) "modem traditionalists," (48%) felt that it was crucial for wives

PAGE 19

10 to stay hone during their children's pre-school years. Work outside the hcine was governed by the qualification that wives be hone v^en the children return from school in the afternoon. Men in this group generally agreed that they would help tlieir wives during the child rearing years with the exception of tasks such as the laundry, changing diapers, and cleaning, and (4) "feminist types" (7% of the saitple) agreed that their participation in family life would be based on mutual oocperation and an understanding that their wives' careers were equally inportant. In another study by Kcmarovsky (1976) , beliefs about traditional and non-traditional sex-roles were explored in a sample of married male graduate students. Out of a sairple of 62 males interviewed, only one male reported that he v;ould be willing to allow his wife to obtain an education while he worked full-time and delayed his own educational plans. One-third of the itHles sampled felt that their self-esteem would be threatened by a reversal of sexroles. A majority of the males accepted their wives ' working to support them even though the wage earning wife is often perceived by males as a threat. Onethird of the group supporting traditional sexroles approved of their wives working, since their status as wage earners was tenporary. The husbands in this group realized that their positions as primary wage earners would be established upon graduating from college and aoguiring a job. Konarovsky found that the men in this study were more egalitarian in behavior than in ideology. On many occasions, professed traditional beliefs gave way to flexible adjustments in the marriages of college students. She found an association between high levels of marital satisfaction, reported by males, and their adjustment to a situation in v^ich the wives were the key money earners. The student husbands in this study maintained

PAGE 20

11 their beliefs abDut inen and women by deeitphasizing the adjustments they had made in their marriages. Thus, in a statement offering insight into how values change, Konarovsky wrote that "in a period of change, new norms will be more readily accepted if they seirve the interests of the individual" (1976:28). The ambitions of irale gradiaate students in this study, as applied to educational and vocational goals, created conditions conducive to flexible behavior even though traditional beliefs about sex-roles remained the saine. Goodes's (1963) thesis generally corroborated these findings. Even though there is a trend toward egalitarian relationships due to tlie rapid rise of woren in the work force, stereotyped beliefs about the differences between the sexes have been internalized while behaviors have adjusted accordingly. Differences in attitudes between single and married college women were reported in a study by Rappaport, Payne, and Steinitiann (1970). The Inventory of Female Values was administered to married and single college wcrnen. Results indicated that the single groip was significantly more family oriented than the married group in the categories of "perceiving self" and "the ideal woman." Although these two groups agreed in their beliefs that the majority of wen would want an "ideal wotian" mth a strong intra-familial orientation, the authors concluded that the traditional female stereotype is maintained more by single college women than by married college women. While single college wctren generally indicated that their primary goals were those of fulfilling the roles of wife and mother, married student women appeared to value rtore highly self-actualizing goals such as planning a career. Although the authors never made this deduction, it may be that the differences between

PAGE 21

12 tiie married and single groups were based on the dichotany between "first hand experience" (the nrarried groiip) , and an idealization of tlie roles of wife and mother (the single group) . Perhaps married \^OT\en, having had the opportunity of experiencing the restrictions attached to the homainaker role, begin to seek ways of enhancing themselves beyond the boundaries of conventional role patterns. Studies examining the attitudes of mental health clinicians also report stereotyped perceptions regarding differences between males and females. Brovermn and Broverman (1972) found that the literature consistently indicated a positive relationship between the social desirability of masculine and feminine attributes and clinical ratings of the same behaviors as to their normality or abnormality. Based on the idea that positively valued masculine traits form a cluster entailing ccnpetence, and that positively valued feninine traits reflect warmth and ej
PAGE 22

13 less independent, less conpetitive , less adventiarous , less objective, more conceited about their appearances, more emotional, and more excitable in minor crises. Similar findings were reported in a study by Neulinger (1968) in vdrLch male and female psycliiatrists , psychologists, and social workers were asked to take 20 paragraphs based on Murray's Manifest Needs Scale and rank them on how accurately they described the OptiiTHlly Integrated Personality (OIP) . According to Neulinger 's findings, characteristics such as dominance, achievement, autoncsTY, and aggression were attributed to the male personality significantly more often than to the female personality. Sentience, nurturance, play, succorance, deference, and abasement were rated higher for tiie female OIP than the male OIP. Neulinger found clear evidence of contradictions among clinicians regarding the healthy male and female personality, and that "the sex orientation of this society is not only shared, but also prcannoted by its clinical personnel" (1968:55). In conclusion, evidence exists suggesting that the biases of many rrembers of the helping professions influence their descriptions of the optimally functioning person. The ideally healthy person was usually defined by applying masculine characteristics. Devaluation of vromen within the clinical setting could have far reaching effects on the type of educational, vocational, personal, or marital counseling ^^^ich is employed. Choosing to ignore personal biases regarding the emotional health of men and women invites additional conplications for the marriage counselor in counseling married couples. If the therapist supports the husband's need for dominance and superiority, dependency and inferiority in the wife may be encouraged. At tlie least, wonen may experience

PAGE 23

14 conflict and confusion as the result of counselors imparting values and suggestions that ultinately are counter-productive to their best interests and welfare. For exairple, Miller and Mothner (1971) have observed that sexual inequality creates strife between males and females aiid that the irarital relationship frequently serves as a vehicle for prcsmoting this discord. Therefore, it behooves the counselor to pay attention to this situation since clinical judgerrents may be influenced by unexamined biases. Research by Rosenkrantz, et al . , (1968) indicates that sexrole stereotyping exists among members of this society regardless of a person's sex, socio-economic class, religion, or educational level. Potentially stressful situations may occur when wcmen and men have divergent opinions about the female sexrole. Steinmann and Fox (1969) studied woren in one North American and two South American urban-industrial conmunities in order to discover how women perceive themselves in their roles and hew they think the "man's ideal wcman" would perceive these roles. Results indicated that botli North and South American women believed that the "man's ideal woman" TOuld be conventional in her views, placing the honemaking and family roles over "outward achieving" activities. However, North American wonen tended to be more outspoken in their need to be involved in a vocation that would offer a sense of fulfillment outside of the family system. In another study by Steinmann (1975) , it was noted that the contenporary woman is experiencing a dilemma as a result of the need to do her "own thing" while at the same time maintaining "ultrafemininity" and desirability. Confusion and Conflict Over Sex-Stereotyped Roles Confusion over appropriate sex-role behavior has been known to affect the types of goals that wcn.v^n establish for themselves. Homer

PAGE 24

15 (1968) utilized the Thematic Aperception Test (TAT) to investigate the psychological barriers that wcnen may be facing in their attenpts to achieve success in a career. A definite motive for avoiding success was discovered in 65% of the wcmen respondents. However, only 10% of the itBn sanpled gave an avoidance type of response to the TAT profile. In order to understand the barriers women perceive, responses were classified into three categories: (1) fear of social rejection, (2) selfdoubts about one's adequacy as a person or about one's femininity, and (3) total denial of any possibility of success. Homer surmised that aggressive masculine traits, associated with a concept of success and catpetition in this society, foster feelings of inadequacy and insecurity in women. As a result of these feelings, many wonen who abandon career aspirations and becoTB homemakers adopt conventional role patterns v^ich they might not adopt, were they not also intimidated. Wonen 's fear of success also was examined by Tcmlinsin-Keasey (1974). This study, which supports Homer's conclusions, indicated that there is a conflict between society's role donands for females and the personal aspirations of females. The existence of a negative valuation of the traditional feminine role also was noted by Baruch (1974) . In a sanple of college wonen, he discovered that cognitive developn^nt and the degree of femininity reported were significantly associated. Citing research, Baruch observed that woiren scoring highest in femininity were the least likely to gain in I.Q. Also, intelligent women students were not encouraged by educators in their efforts to realize their career aspirations, while their male counterparts did receive encouragement. This observation was supported by the fact that fewer wcmen than men pursue graduate studies. A conclusion drawn frcm this study was »-hat the lack of a gentiine sense of

PAGE 25

16 self-vorth and an overall feeling of self-confidence on the part of votien seem to be related to the particular personality traits that this society values in women. Page (1973) demonstrated that male dominance and social status are two social forces inseparably linked together, with v^ich women must contend. Wonen with career goals were found to experience hi^ levels of anxiety associated with a fear of success. It was further noted that this fear of success was related to a belief on the part of women that there would be social disapproval should they attenpt to find niches in the oonpetitive world of work that is dominated by males. The importance of role saliency and self-esteem which are associated with sex-roles have been discussed by Weis (1970) v^o suggested that role saliency has two components: (1) the degree to which inplementation of the self-concept within tlie social environment is possible, and (2) the degree to v^iich satisfaction is the outccfftie of a particular role enactment. Weis made two hypotheses: (1) role saliency among women will be a f motion of the level of self-esteem reported, and (2) demographic variables such as age, educational background, and the number of children and their ages will vary systematically with the level of self-esteem and role saliency experienced by wonen. Data gathered positively linked the level of self-esteem with role saliency. Greater role saliency was associated with greater self-esteem and vice versa. Weis concluded that the psycho-social status of women in this society is a reflection of the sex-stereotyped roles wonen are expected to adopt. Ricely (1973) found that self-esteem, role saliency, and sexrole identification are interrelated. She investigated the relationship between conformity to sex-role stereotypes and feelings of self-esteem in male and female college studet,!.;. It was hy^xjthesized tliat the degree

PAGE 26

17 of conformity of one's own sexrole would be directly related to one's level of self-esteem and that the degree of this relationship vrould be affected by other mediating variables. A relationship between selfesteem and conformity' to one's sexrole was found in the male but not in the female sample. In females, conformity to the male sexrole was correlated positively with the level of self-esteem. There was no significant correlation between the level of self-esteem reported by women and conformity to the female sex-role. Ricely concluded that conformity to male stereotypes by females is associated with higher levels of self-esteem that conformity to the female stereotype. The pressure to conform to male sex-stereotyped roles, in the face of an opposite pull to be "ultrafeminine, " creates and fosters conditions of stress and ambiguity in women and in their relationships with nen. Literature on role stress and mental health will be reviewed later in this chapter. The "ideal" sex-role concepts of men and women were investigated by Elman et al . , (1970). Their results indicated that the male and femle sex-role stereotypes are indicative of how both male and female subjects describe the "ideal man" and the "ideal wonan." The "ideal woman" is viewed as less aggressive, less independent, less active, more emotional, and less decisive than the "ideal man." In conparison, males and females perceived the "ideal iran" as significantly less religious, less tidy, less gentle, less sensitive, and less expressive than the "ideal woriBn." A conclusion that Eliran made is that women were valued and desired irore for their greater warmth and expressiveness while men were valued more for their competence and independence. Women reported dissatisfaction with existing sexrole patterns in this society. Gordon and Hall (1974) , in a study of 229 college educated women, investigated the self-images of iVniinine woman. The woiisn's perceptions

PAGE 27

18 of how males view fenininity was the best predictor of various types of conflict experienced by wDinen. Critical to a wcman' s method of coping with conflict were her perceptions about herself. Self-image was also associated with happiness and satisfaction. The number of conflicts related to the work-hone roles generally decreased as women felt that the males' perceptions about stereotypes were balanced by the males' support and patience. In another study, Cardi (1972) presented a cluster of conpetency and reliability traits to 62 wanen in order to find out how they describe the ideal "adult male" and "adult female." These women were divided into low and high sex-stereotyped groups, based on their differentiation between an "adult male" and an "adult female." Subjects played the Prisoner's Dilemma Game in a number of trials with a partner of the same sex and then with a manber of the opposite sex. Ccrtpetition in this game was most noticeable between high stereotyped femles and other females than between high stereotyped fanales and males. Low stereotyped faiiales cooperated more with other females and ccxrpeted nore against males. The group of high stereotyped females was the least cooperative in its interactions with members of either sex. The author suggested that for this group of females, conpliance with the culturally designed roles and status of wcmen was closely associated with selfdepreciation and distrust of other wcmen as evidenced by their lack of cooperation in the experimental situation. Hjelle and Butterfield (1974) investigated the self-actualization patterns of two groups of wonen (conservative and liberal) labeled according to the Attitudes Toward Women Scale. Results indicated that vonen reflecting "liberal profeminist attitudes" were nore self -actualized

PAGE 28

19 t±ian woren having traditicxial sexrole attitudes. These authors concluded by stating that "these findings suggest that profeminist subjects perceive themselves as relying more confidently upon their own internal norms without seeking constant support from others for self validation. " Research to be reviewed in the area of androg^my will tend to support this conclusion. To surarrarize the review of literature in this section, women in this society seem to be experiencing caifusion and conflict regarding sexrole identification, due to the high value placed on male attributes and the negative assessment of characteristics considered feminine. In addition, expectations which rrales and females have as to the roles women should adopt also result in ccnflict and confusion. Role Theory and Dyadic Interaction Although an extensive review of the literatxare on role theory should date back to the work of George Herbert Meade, such an effort is judged to be beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, only the aspects of role theory pertaining to the marital relationship and sexrole behavior will be discussed. Udry (1974:227) defines a social role in the following way: ...a set of norms for the behavior of persons occupying certain positions in a society. They may be seen as generalized expectations held by people (with wide variation) tliat anyone in a certain position should behave in certain ways. These roles tend to be more stereotyped than the actual behavior of people occi^ying the position. For example, there are certain expectations as to how fathers should behave tav'f;rd their children. In actual fact, there is far more variation in tlie behavior of fathers than there is in peoples' expectations of fathers. The expectations that husbands and wives hold for each other within the confines of the marital relationship led Parsons and Bales (1965) to distinguish between "instrumental" and "expressive" roles. Instrunental

PAGE 29

20 roles, such as paying bills, fixing the car, and inaking inportant financial or career-related decisions, are usually fulfilled by husbands. The expressive roles, such as household responsibilities and taking care of the children, are usually the responsibilities of the wife. Parsons and Bales suggested, however, that instrumentality and expressivity are not mutually exclusive and may be adopted by either partner, depending on the situation. For exaitple, Leik (1963) developed an experimental sitioation in which he observed the behavior of a group of men and women with their own spouses as well as with strangers of the opposite sex. He noted that the behavior of husbands and wives varied in accordance with Parsons' and Bales' schema. A clear distinction in sex-role behavior was evident vjhen husbands and v/ives were involved with strangers of the opposite sex. Males exhibited high levels of instrumentality and females displayed high levels of expressivity. However, when husbands and wives did the sane exercise together, there was a significant reduction in sex-stereotyped behavior. Kenkel (1957) discovered discrepencies between internalized sexstereotyped beliefs and actual behavior in the dyadic relationship. A pre-task questionnaire which was completed by a sanple of men and women showed that both sexes expected men to be more influential in making financial decisions. However, in an experimental situation involving a variety of decision-making tasks pcMer was evenly distributed between husbands and wives. Kenkel concluded that "the belief in male dominance, though widespread, may rest more upon myth than fact" (1957:24). Taking a quasi-phenomenological approach to the question of v^y individuals ej
PAGE 30

21 Hhe subjective feeling of being frustrated, or of being pulled in c^posite directions in the performance of a role occurs when expectations between role partners are not mutual (the situation of a career v-^ouan married to a traditional husband) , when economic, intellectual, physical, or emotional resources are inadequate or inappropriate for performing a role (tlie situation of the unemployed male) , when the demands of two or more roles are inconpatible (the experience of the employed mother) , when role definitions are lacking or ambiguous (the situation of the divorced person or of unmarried couples who are living together) , or when the role prescribes inconsistent or contradictory values or behavior (the role of the teacher which requires a subjective approach in relating to individual students and, at the same time, objectivity in evaluating student performance) . In an effort to uncover vihat, if any, were the current role discrepancies between men and vramen, these authors interviewed a sample of 1048 males and females from a variety of settings, including business firms, university canpuses, shopping centers and several professional buildings. Their results revealed that: (1) more wcsnen than men v\^Duld be willing to work for a vroman employer, (2) more women than men believed that the liberation of women was threatening to the mle ego, (3) 30.4% of the males sanpled and 17.3% of the females sairpled felt that only the husband's career was inportant in the issue of deciding where a family should reside, and (4) 43% of th3 males disapproved of the dual role of homemaker and career woman for tlie wife. In addition these authors noted that 66% of the ireles sanpled and 80% of the wcnen agreed that household chores should be divided equally between spouses. Arafat and Yorburg concluded that discrepancies exist between male and feirale attitudes regarding sexroles and division of household tasks. Responses of women were ccnsistently and significantly less traditional than the responses of men. An association between sex-role stereotyping and the psychological well-being of men and wcmen in this society was demonstrated by Gurin, Veroff and Feld (1960). They fovnd tliat women, more often than men.

PAGE 31

22 experience inarriage as a stressful situation. Women were found to have more marital prcfolems than men did and tended to be less satisfied with their marriages. In addition, the women were more inclined to blame their spouses for their unhappy marriages. Gove (1972) identified four reasons for wanen having higher rates of mental illness than men: (1) women bring fewer resources to the marital relationship than men do, usually engaging in the sole occupation of homemaker, while iren are involved in at least two major roles, those of household head and worker; (2) the role of housewife is experienced by wanen as unrewarding in contrast to a career outside of the family; (3) wotien are discouraged from working outside the home because they fear discrimination, low pay, and poor working conditions; and (4) the husband's career takes priority over the wife's career. Gove concluded: r>ferried wcmen do tend to have higher rates of mental illness than married rten. But v^en single men are conpared with single wotren, divorced men with divorced women, and widowed men with widowed \\/amen, it is found that these wcmen do not tend to have higher rates than their male counterparts. (1972:291) An interpretation of these findings should take into account the corplex dynamics involved in a nnrriage. It would be a misinterpretation and an overgeneralization to sinply say that "women have it rough and men have it made" within the context of marriage. For exanple in a study by Zamon-Gass and Nichols (1975) married partners of both sexes reported their individuality was being suppressed by the other partner and that inequalities existed in the marital relationship. In the pages to follow, a review of the pertinent studies in the area of marital adjustment, satisfaction, and happiness will atteirpt to identify the important factors vMch determine whether a marriage is experienced as satisfying or unsatisfying. Factors considered relevant to the level of norital

PAGE 32

23 adjustment will be axamined: (1) mate sele?ction, (2) masculine selfimage, (3) perceptual congruence between partners, (4) power, (5) wcmen's work status, and (6) changing sex-roles. Before considering the various factors affecting the success of a marriage, it is important to note that there is ambiguity and confusion surrounding terms such as "roarital happiness," "marital satisfaction," "marital stability," and "marital adjustment." For example. Hicks and Piatt (1970:553) made the following observation. For our society marriages are assessed by two norms: happiness and stability. Happiness is £in extremely personal and subjective phencmenon and difficult to measure with the tools that are currently available to social scientists. Terms such as these have been used interchangeably in the literature for seme time with little regard as to their exact meaning. Without a uniform set of definitions, corparisons between studies is at best a delicate affair. A review of the following studies is done in full view of this fact. Parameters of t^rital Adjustment Mate Selection Winch's (1958:74) theory of complementary needs is based on the idea that one chooses a mate who has "deep seated characteristics very different fron one's own." folate selection is understood as a way of fulfilling, through another person, certain deficiencies in one's own personality. That people choose each other because of a narcissistic need to satisfy certain deficiencies in their ovm personalities, has not been empirically supported in the literature. For example, a study of dating college couples (Bownan and Day, 1971) , provided little support for this theory. Similarly, Blazer (1963) found after administering the Edwards Personality Preference Schedule to young married couples that mate selection

PAGE 33

24 was nore likely to be the result of what tliese couples had in cxymon rather than what was nussing in their indivddual personality makeups. If the theory of carplementary needs is not strongly supported by eiipirical evidence, a question arises as to why many family theorists still ^pear to be attracted by this theory. Segfried and Hendrich (1973) offer one possible explanation. They maintain that attraction between the sexes is based on reciprocal role attitudes rather than personality dimensions. For instance, a highly masculine male and a highly feminine fomale may be attracted to each other because their expectations of each other are clear and precise. Segfried and Hendrich may, inadvertently, be offering further support for Winch's theory. If sex-typed personality characteristics underlie sexrole behavior, tlien applying Winch's paradigm, a highly masculine male may be attracted to a highly feminine female because certain of her personality characteristics, such as expressiveness, are missing in his own psychological makeip. Additional research on this topic is needed in order to clarify these issues. The research on homegamy in the marital relationship tends to support the theory that high rates of happiness in irarriage are related more significantly to the male's role performance than to the female's role performance. For exarple, Tharp (1963:90) made the following observation: The wife being more accommodating, the husband more rigid in role needs, the likelihood marital success is a function of the husband's possession of the expected instrumental needs and capacities. Research on conventional role patterns and the tendency of woren to adapt to these patterns will be reviewed more extensively in the section related to the masculine self-image.

PAGE 34

25 Coombs (1968) suggested a position on mate selection lying betoveen "oonplenentary needs" and "homegamy," There are three basic conponents to his theory: (1) persons witli similar backgrounds learn similar values; (2) sharing similar backgrounds leads to positive interaction, ccjtinunication, and understanding; and (3) the relationship between two people becoires self-perpetuating based on feelings of mutual satisfaction. One alternative tlieory about mate selection offers a possibility for further study. King (1974), applying Maslow's theory on selfactualization, discovered that self-actualizing people choose other selfactualizers as mates. Knowing sone of the reasons for a couple's beccnung involved with each other to begin with may be helpful to the rtarriage counselor since many problems experienced by coiples may be the result of the particular attitudes and beliefs that each spouse brought to the relationship. Masculine Self-image and r^rital Adjustment Most of the research on marital adjustnient and the self -concept follows a pattern reflected in a study by Dean (1966), In this study, involving 117 couples, personality scores for each spouse were correlated with marital adjustment scores. Dean found that the wife's perceived level of marital adjustriEnt was directly related to the husband's rating of his own einotional maturity. There was no significant relationship between the husband's perceived level of irarital adjustnient and the wife's rating of her emotional maturity. An earlier study in this area demonstrated the way in which stereotyped perceptions on the part of each spouse are significantly related to marital adjustitent scores. Corsini (1956) administered the General Satisfaction of Self, Concept of Mate Selection in Marriage, and the

PAGE 35

26 Adjective Q-Sort Technique to 20 coijples. When husbands and wives rated each other in a stereotyped manner, higher levels of happiness within the marriage were reported. A high level of happiness was noted in marriages isi which the husbands were bound to the masculine stereotype. The husband's perceptions of himself and of tlie way in v^ich his wife perceived him were critical to the perceived level of marital adjustment for both partners. The wife's perception of herself and of the way in vhich her husband perceived her was not significantly related to the perceived level of marital adjustment reported by either partner. That a mutually shared concept of masculinity plays an important part in marital adjustment was further demonstrated by Drewery and Bee (1969) . Tii?o groups of husbands and wives were oonpared to each other. One group was composed of male alcoholic patients and their wives. The other group was a control groijp similar in most respects (social, economic, and occupational status) , except that the husbands in that group were not alcoholic patients. They found a lesser degree of husband/wife agreement as to the hi:isband's image in the patient group than in the control group. Agreement between the control group husband's selfdescription and his wife's description of him was based on a shared consensus of the masculine stereotype. However, discrepancies between the patient's self-description and his wife's description of him may be attributed to a lack of a shared concept of nasculinity. The authors suggested that differences between tlie two groups may be due to an absence of a mutually shared concept of masculinity in the alcoholic patient group. A study by Barry (1970) indicated that the background and personality factors in husbands (not in wives) are associated with marital success.

PAGE 36

27 An analysis of the irarital relationsliip utilizing conflict theory and research, revealed that, among other things, women have a need for security and support during the transitory period from being a wife to becoming a mother. If the husband has a "healthy" personality, he will be able to respond better to his wife's needs, thus avoiding stress in the relationship. Barry concluded, upon reviewing the literature on marital adjustment, that women depend much more upon marriage as a source of satisfaction and self-fulfillment than do men. This could account for the relationship between the level of adjustment in a marriage and the personality variables in males. The tendency of many women to place all of their "emotional chips" into a marriage as a source of satisfaction v/ill be approached in a later section of this chapter by analyzing the nature of power and the resources that spouses differentially aoguire and contribute to a relationship. Perceptual Congruence between Partners There is evidence that self-spouse perceptual congruence patterns strongly influence the level of satisfaction in the marital relationship (Kelly, 1941; Dymond, 1954; and Luckey, 1960a), Critical to this point of view is that high levels of satisfaction experienced by partners in a marriage are based on each person having approximately the same view of his/her partner as the partner has of him/herself. This is true whether the "self" is described in terms of personality traits or in terms of marital role expectations. After having couples corplete the Leary Interpersonal Clieck List, Luckey (1960a) r^x3rted that happiness for the marital pair was related to four factors: (1) husband-wife congruence on husband's self-image, (2) congruence of husband's self-image and his ideal self-image, (3) congruence of husband's self-image and his concept of his father, and

PAGE 37

28 (4) congruence of the wife's concept of her husband and her concept of her father. Identification with the masculine stereotype by husbands and wives was found to be related to marital happiness. Hcwever, the husband's perception of his wife's self-image did not influence significantly the level of happiness in the marriage. This was also reported by Preston, et al . , (1952) who examined tvro groi:ips of married couples, one group about to seek counseling and another having recently terminated counseling. Significantly more congruence was reported regarding perceptions spouses had for each other in the post-inarital counseling group than in the pre-counseling group. Even though the post-counseling group r^xDrted a significantly higher level of happiness than the pre-counseling group, the husband's agreement with his wife's self-image was not a factor in determining the level of marital satisfaction. Stuckert (1963) found that the masculine stereotype is crucial to the level of marital happiness or satisfaction experienced by husbands and wives. The perceived level of marital satisfaction in the group of wives he sampled was associated with the accuracy with which wives were able to perceive the role expectations their husbands had of them. However, no significant relationship was found to exist between the husband's perception of his wife's expectations and their marital satisfaction scores. A possible interpretation of the marital satisfaction scores of wives in this group is that a crucial role for married women is that of "accommodating" the husband with respect to role expectations and personality factors. A successful acconmodation will not occur if the wife is not able to perceive accurately her husband's expectations. Since there is less demand on a husbaiid to make reciprocal accomrodations

PAGE 38

29 in terms of his wife's expectations, it is not vital that he perceive accurately her expectations. Power An analysis of pov.^r in marriage and the family may help to explain the persistence of the masculine stereotype. Blood and Wolfe (1965:11) in their study. Husbands and Wives , defined pc^'er as "the potential ability of one person to influence the other's behavior." These authors defined authority as "legitimate pov^r, i.e., power held by one parizner because both partners feel it is proper for him/her to do so" (1965:11). The inportance of the concept of power as defined by Blood and ^.'tolfe lies in the fact that "The balance of power between husbands and wives is a sensitive reflection of the roles tliey play in marriage — and in tiom has many repercussions on other aspects of the relationship" (1965:4) . Fewer, according to these researchers, is determined not only by existing social norms but by the number of "resources," such as educational level, skills, and expertise, that each partner brings to the relationship. In order to examine the nature of power in marriage, Blood and Wolfe asked a cross section of families in American society to conplete an interview questionnaire designed to find out which partner made the final decision in typical family situations. A weakness of this study might be the way in which these authors tabulated their data. Blood and Wolfe assumed that every decision-making situation was of equal importance in the marriages of these coi:^les. For exanple, the question of who decides where the family will live was given the sane weight as the question of who decides what doctor to call wlien the children are sick. Blood's and Wolfe's argument that power in the marriages of these couples is evenly distributed is weakened by the undifferentiated weighting of their questions.

PAGE 39

30 However, otJier aspects of this study provide important information about life in the average American family. These authors note that the patriarchal family is on the decline: The role of culture has shifted fron sanctioning a conpetent sex over an inccmpetent sex to sanctioning the cofrpetent marriage partner over the inccmpetent, regardless of sex. (1965:161) Nevertheless, husbands continue to have more po\'jer in the marital relationship since they continue to bring more resources to it. As these authors suggest, the husband's power in the relationship is based on (1) high occupational prestige, (2) high earnings, and (3) higher educational level. Involvement in a career has been the subject of many studies and can be related to a theory of power and resources. Aldous (1969) found that the males' participation in the job market was related significantly to a high level of involvement in family life. Without a job, men experienced a loss of po^r and influence in the affairs of their families. Kolb and Straus (1974) , in another study relating to power, asked whether or not a relationship might exist between the power structure of a family and marital happiness. The results of their study indicated that power and happiness were related in four basic ways: (1) low power husbands feel i:inhappy in their marriages; (2) the opposite is the case with high pov^r husbands; (3) high power in wives was not associated with marital happiness; and (4) low power in wives was not associated with marital happiness, but neither was it associated with marital unhappiness. A conclusion drawn from the above studies is that the concept of power, which is based on the number of resources each spouse brings to the relationship, is an inportant factor in determining the level of happiness ej^rienced in marriage and family life. Since Vforld War II,

PAGE 40

31 wanen have been acquiring more resources. Consequently, many of the recent studies on the American fanuly indicate that power is equally distributed between many partners. Furthermore, the literature on this subject suggests tliat currently men have more power because they continue to contribute more resources, and, as wanen gain more resources through an advanced education or other means, power will become more equally distributed. Wanen 's Work Status and Marriage Documentation on the wonan's work status by Safilios-Rothschild (1970) revealed that working vonen with "high work commitment" reported more satisfaction \^7ith their marriages than non-working women. These women felt that they were more involved in the decision-raajcLng processes within their marriages than was ti\e case with non-wDrking wanen. Grover (1963) identified the existence of a negative relationship between the wife's work status and marital adjustirent. However, he reported a smaller negative relationship in the ipper than in the lower socio-economic classes. In contrast to these studies, Locke and MacKeprang (1949) reported no significant difference between the marital adjustment level of wives engaged in full-time enployment and the marital adjustment level of those who were full-time hanemakers. Nor was there a significant difference in the marital adjustment levels of husbands in these two groups. Most of the literature in this area currently indicates that a significantly greater degree of stress is occurring in marriages of woren who are not engaged in activities outside of the home environment than in the marriages of working wives. Howenstein, et al . , (1972:265) defined stress as "dissonance between one's present social milieu and the

PAGE 41

32 expectations one had formed fron early experiences. . .". In a study by these authors, dissonance regarding role dissatisfaction was confirmed physiologically. The recorded blood pressure readings of 508 narried vonen from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds were reported to vary significantly between housewives and working wives. For housewives, blood pressure was positively related to feelings of strain fron housewDrk and low self-evaluations related to their hcmemaking roles. In contrast, the blood pressure readings of working wives were related to positive attitudes toward their working roles, e.g., "not wanting to quit their jobs and spend more time at hone, assigning high importance to job success, and lov^ self-evaluation of their success at their jobs" (1972:266) . The question of whether or not vonen change their values as a result of pursuing a career was examined by Howe (1973) . His hypothesis that two groups of mothers would differ in their scores on the Inventory of Feminine Values, with unemployed mothers reporting more conservative selfconcepts and more conservative "ideal selves" than orployed mothers, was not supported. Hcwever, wcanen in the unertployed group reported significantly higher occurrences of anxiety than wanen in the eitployed group. Anxiety in the unenployed group was related to discrepancies between the ideal self and the real self, between the self and the perception of the husband' s ideal wife, and when the ideal self was perceived as more liberal than the perception of the husband's ideal wife. This research danonstrated that involvement in a career has a significant affect upon one's self-image and overall state of being. The dynamics of the marital relationship have been noted to change as a result of wcmsn entering the work force. For exaitple, Hoffman (1960)

PAGE 42

33 observed that working wives tended to reject the "traditional sex-role ideology" in favor of a more egalitarian form of participation on the part of both spouses. Although husbands in these families assumed a greater share of the tousehold tasks, Hoffman noted that neny women still accepted the dominant position of tlie male in the family structure. Andro gyny The entry of women into the work force in the last 20 years has affected the ways in which men and women relate to each other. The stereotypical belief that "a woman's place is in the home" is collapsing in the face of evidence demonstrating that wcmsn are as coirpetent and resourceful as men in many arenas. Williamson (1970:27) suggested that this situation has affected the institution of marriage in the following way: Marriage has emerged fran an institution based on certain biological and econonic functions sanctified by religious authority, to a relationship oriented to corpanionship and affectional needs. Personality characteristics of men and wonen continue to be differentiated along masculine and feminine lines. The strict segregation of the "expressive" and "instrumental" roles is one major reason for the existence of conflict and stress ini marriages. Kcmarovsky (1962) , in her book, Blue Collar >farriage , showed that extrerie role segregation and stereotyping among working class respondents limited the possibility of husbands sharing in the "expressiveness role." Ccnponents of the expressiveness role such as self-disclosure, oonpanionship, and mutual psychological support, were lacking in the marriages of these coiples. Similarly, Bals\^^ick (1970) discovered that the males in her study sinply did not function on an emotional level necessary for real ccfipanionship. She found this situation to oxist among all socio-economic groups,

PAGE 43

34 but particularly airong lo/er class mles. Although sexual distinctions may be on the decline, inexpressiveness, at least for males, is still viewed as consistent with a "proper" definition of the masculine role. In contrast to strict role segregation is role amalgamation. Associated with role amalgamation is tlie concept of androgyny, which is ccncemed with the integration of tlie best of both male and female characteristics. Consicfer Heilbrun's (1973:38) definition of androgyny: This ancient Greek word — from andro (male) and gyn (female) — defines a condition under which the characteristics of the sexes, and the human iitpulses expressed by men and women are not rigidly assigned. The following is Bern's (1974:155) interpretation of what androgyny means: Both in psychology and in society at large, masculinity and femininity have long been conceptualized as bipolar ends of a single continuum; accordingly, a person has had to be either masculine or feminine but not both . This sex-role dichotoiY has served to obscure two ver^' plausible hypotheses: first, that nany individuals might be "androgynous; that is, they might be both assertive and yielding, both instrumental and expressive — depending on the situational appropriateness of these various behaviors; and conversely, that strongly sextyped individuals might be seriously limited in the range of behaviors available to them as they move fron situation to situation. One of the major reasons for androgyny becoming a popular concept is that it seems to offer a way of approaching the problems that men and women are facing due to confusion and conflict over sex-roles. The social issues that were so volatile in the sixties seem to have affected and permeated the entire society in the seventies. One consequence of this phenomenon is that stereotyped behavior, whether msculine or feminine, is no longer adequate in meeting the demands of most social situations. Many women feel stifled in conventional role patterns while men are experiencing frustration over an inability to express thonselves. Thus, most theorists writing on androgyny argue that highly stereotyped masculine and feminine roles severely restrict the range of

PAGE 44

35 behaviors a person may have at his.^ier disposal in any given situation. For exairple, Bern (1975:2) suggested that androgynous individuals are more flexible in their behavior than highly stereotyped individuals. In contrast, because his or her self-definition excludes neither rnasculinity nor femininity the androgynous individual should be able to remain sensitive to the changing constraints of the situation and engage in whatever behavior seems most effective at the moment, regardless of its stereotype as appropriate for one sex or the other. What we are hypothesizing, then, is that \^^ereas a narrowly masculine self -concept may inhibit so-called feminine behaviors, and a narrowly feminine self -concept may inhibit so-called masculine behaviors, a mixed or androgynous self -concept may allow an individual to freely engage in both masculine and feminine behaviors. Several of Bern's studies have been motivated by a desire to test the hypothesis that androgynous individuals are more adaptable in their behaviors than persons who have a strong masculine or feminine orientation. In one study (Ban, 1975) it was hypothesized that masculine or androgynous individuals would not be influenced by social pressure as much as feminine individuals. This hypothesis was confirmed in an experiment involving students from an introductory psychology class at Stanford University. In another study by Bern (1975) both males and females were allowed to interact with a kitten in order to discover whether feminine and androgynous subjects would be more "nurturant and playful" with a kitten than masculine si±)jects. ResiiLts indicated that feminine and androgynous males did interact significantly more with the kitten, a behavior judged to be "feminine in nature," than the group of males with masculine characteristics. Bem concluded that: Androgynous subjects of both sexes displayed a high level of "masculine" independence when under pressure to conform, and they displayed a high level of "feminine" playfulness when given the opportunity to interact with a tiny kitten. (1975:19)

PAGE 45

36 Bern concluded that these findings represent: the first enpirical demonstration that there exists a distinct class of people who can appropriiitely be termed androgynous, v^^ose sex-role adaptability enables them to engage in situationally effective behavior without regard for its stereotype as masculine or feminine(1975:20) Research on androgyny in riHrriage is noticeably lacking. Previously itentioied studies, however, have linked stereotyped roles to stress in the marriages of couples. A theory of androgyny would inply that two people in a relationship would be able to relate to each other based on situations as they arise and not according to fixed expectations that are a function of stereotyped roles. Males could be expressive and playful in certain situations and females could be pragmatic and decisive in other situations. This flexii^ility in behavior on the part of husbands and wives would allow for creativity and vitality in the relationship. Such an undertaking is not without a risk factor. In the absence of clearly defined roles, instability and confrontation between mates regarding their particular needs or wants will be unavoidable. The distinctions betAA^n "separateness" and "togetherness" may becorie nvore obvious as husbands and wives begin to express and assert themselves in the course of their relationship. Two strongly willed personalities may clash, resulting in feelings of alienation. But does not marriage, or for that matter any relationship, lend itself to risks and insecurities when two people have a strong emotional investment in each other? A theory of androgyny, like any other theory, should be realistic in its expectations. It should avoid any Utopian or ronantic expectations that the problematic aspects of being human will be eliminated. Perhaps the formulation of the concept of androgyny offers a possible alternative for the wain which males and females may relate

PAGE 46

37 to each other as human beings. Futiire studies in this area, such as the one presented for consideration, may shed irore light on this speculation.

PAGE 47

CHAPTER III RESEAECH METHODOLOGY The design for this study was based on two concerns. First, there are very little data on the life of the married college student. Secondly, a correlation between the sextyped personality characteristics of iTHrried couples and stress in the marital relationships have been alluded to in t±ie literature; but rarely has an endeavor been made to explore systematically this relationship. A descriptive research design was selected for use in this study. The purpose of descriptive research, as outlined by Issac and Michaels (1971) , is to: 1. collect detailed factual information that describes existing phenonena, 2. make conparisons and evaluations, 3. identify problems or justify current conditions and practices, and 4. determine what others are doing with similar problems or situations and benefit from tlieir experience in making future plans and decisions. The rest of this chapter is concerned with the research methodology including (1) research questions, (2) description of the population, (3) sampling procedure, (4) selection procedure, (5) collection of data, (6) analyses of data, and (7) instrrments and demographic questionnaire. Limitations of the study will be addressed also. J8

PAGE 48

39 The Research Questions This study was designed to investigate seven questions related to the effect of sex-typed personality characteristics on the level of adjustment in the marriages of student couples: 1. Wliat is the relationship between sextyped personality characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marriages of student couples? 2. What is the relationship between each spouse's perceived level of adjustment? 3. VJhat is the relationship between each spouse's internalized sex-typed personality characteristics? 4. Is there a difference in the level of marital adjustment experienced between husbands and wives in the student population? 5. Do spouses differ regarding their internalized perceptions of sextyped personality characteristics? 6. What are the relationships between selected demographic characteristics and the level of adjustrrent in the marital relationship? 7. What are the relationships between selected demographic characteristics and sex-typed personality characteristics of married student couples? Population The population consisted of married undergraduate and graduate student coiples in v^Mch at least one of the spouses was enrolled full-time at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Characteristics of this population were deduced from Stebbins' (1975) study. Her data, gathered frcm University of Florida students seeking graduate degrees from the College of Education, tlie College of Engineering, the College of Law, and the College of Medicine, indicated that the mean age of husbands was 28.4 years, and of wives, 26.9 years. The average length of the marriage for her sample was 5.4 ye^irs. Only 18% of student couples were married less than o: year.

PAGE 49

40 Data on the divorce rate of students at the University of Florida or for the married student population in this country were unobtainable. However, reporting on the current situation regarding married students, Clarke (1970a: 4) wrote: Vfe have here, then, married coiples v^ose reported stress and satisfactions probably represent the adaptation of an ongoing relationship to the student situation rather than the reaction of n»^7lyweds to the initial experience of marriage corplicated by continuing bonbardment by schoolrelated stresses. On the other hand, most of our couples at sane time close to the beginning of their marriages — nearly half were married a month or less before entering a student situation — did undergo the kind of double stress v^ich we have described. And this experience may have affected than to the extent that their perceptions are still colored by it. Response to such questionnaire items as those related to stress and satisfaction in marriage cannot, therefore, be siitplistically interpreted by reference only to the present situation of our couples. The past must also be taken into account. Stebbins (1975) reported that a little more than 50% of the couples ' saitpled were parents, with 58% having more than one child. Couples having children were slightly older than couples without children: The parent husbands and wives were an average age of 30.9 years and 28.8 years respectively, corpared with 24.8 years and 24.1 years for the nonpar ents. Correspondingly, the average parent was married 8.3 years while the average nonpatent was married 2.6 years, (Stebbins, 1975:48) In Stebbins' sanple, 88% of the women who were married to men pursuing graduate degrees had at least some college experience and 59% had corpleted at least a baccalaureate degree. Clarke (1970a) reported a correlation between parenthood and educational level. Parent wives had significantly less educational ej^erieices on the college level than parent husbands. Clarke and his associates observed that: there appears to be a greater educational gap between husband and wife in the parent group as opposed to the nonparent group, and that this gap is not narrowing for the majority of the parent couples. (Clarke, 1970a:ll)

PAGE 50

41 Data frcxn Stebbins' study indicated that 67% of the wives, as opposed to 44% of the husbands, were employed. Whereas only 19% of the husband group were enployed, 40 or more hours a week, 75% of the wives worked more than 40 hours a week. Henoe, the wives tended to be enployed more often, work longer hours, and earn more than tlieir husbands. (Stebbins, 1975:49) Sairpling Procedure Married students were selected from a list acquired from the Office for Student Serxdces, University of Florida. The selection process involved a randan sampling procedure. Beginning with the first name appearing on the list, every fourth name thereafter was drawn until the list was exhausted. An alternate pool of students, randomly selected fron the list, but beginning with the second name on the list, was collected in the event more names would be needed. This situation did not arise. Two-hundred married student couples were contacted and usable data were obtained from 100 of these couples. Selection Procedure All students and non-student spouses meeting the following criteria were eligible for inclusion in the study: (1) married for at least one year, (2) at least one spouse was a full-time undergraduate or graduate student at the University of Florida, (3) United States citizen, (4) currently residing in Gainesville with his/her spouse, and (5) having a telephone listing in either the Gainesville Telephone Directory or the University of Florida Directory . The rationale for selecting students with these characteristics was based upon three considerations: (1) students seeking degrees fron one of the colleges within the university and married a minimum of one year would tend to provide a more st£ii-:
PAGE 51

42 (2) requiring that students be United States citizens vrould tend to limit the possibility of unknown factors relative to foreign students fran influencing any conclusions that may be drawn fran this study; and (3) selection of full-time graduate or undergraduate students and nonstudent spouses, as opposed to part-time students, would tend to guarantee more stability and homogeneity of the population. Collection of Data The original plan was for a telephone call to be placed to married students selected for participation in the study. The purpose of the study was to be explained to either the husband or wife (Ajpendix D) . If either spouse demonstrated a positive inclination to participate in the study, a package of materials was to be mailed iimiediately , Included in the package was (1) a cover sheet explaining the purpose of the study, plus instructions pertaining to the rest of the materials (Appendix E) ; (2) two copies of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) ; (3) two copies of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) ; (4) one copy of Derrographic Questionnaire (Questionnaire) ; and (5) a stamped return envelope. A margin of eight days following initial contact was established in order to allow respondents enough time to complete the Questionnaire and the instruments. The BSRI takes approximately 15 minutes to complete and the DAS, ten minutes. The Questionnaire can be completed in five minutes. A follow-\:p telephone call was placed to respondent households who had not returned the ccnpleted materials at the end of eight days. Those who had decided not to participate in the study were deleted fron the list. However, if it was sinply a matter of respondents forgetting to fill out the questionnaire, or of losing the packet, an additional two-week period was planned for the mailing of a second set

PAGE 52

43 of materials and their corpletion and return. No additional contact occurred if at the end of the second two-week period the couple had not responded. This plan was abandoned soon after it was discovered that very fav of the packages mailed out were being sent back in cortpleted form. A decision to change tactics was corpounded by the fact that the initial telephone contacts to potential respondents were made in late May and early June of 1977, just preceding the final examination period for spring quarter at the University of Florida. Therefore, it was decided that direct personal comiunication with married students would be more effective in obtaining the ccfrpleted materials. The conversation reflected in Appendix D was utilized in its approximate form when doorto-door contact with respondents was initiated. The BSRI, DAS, and Questionnaire were presented to 200 married student couples. Usable data were collected from 100 of these couples. Stebbins (1975), in her study involving married students at the University of Florida, reported an attrition rate of 31.9% of the total sanple on unretumed questionnaires. For the purposes of this study, it was felt that if 200 sets of questionnaires were distributed and a contingency plan was carefully followed, at least 100 sets of materials WDuld be returned. The attrition of the sairple from the number of student couples v^o were given a packet of materials to conplete to the number who returned the oonpleted materials was 38%. The general consensus from couples who had not corpleted the materials after eight days was that graduation, moving, and final exams were the key elarients preventing them fran cotpleting the questionnaires and sending them back.

PAGE 53

44 Analyses of Data A Pearson prorluct manent correlation was used to analyze the data from research questions one, two, and tliree. Question one involved correlating the level of marital adjustment reflected in the DAS with the BSRI score. This correlation was used in cases where paired scores are expected to have a linear relationship (Van Dalen, 1973) . All four sub-scale scores and the total scale score of the DAS were correlated with the BSRI scale score for males, females, and the total group. In questions two and three the data derived were linear in nature. The second question involved the ccmputation of correlations for each of the four sub-scales of the DAS as well as the total scale score, with the BSRI scale score for each of tlie couples. The third question involved correlating the BSRI scores for each of the married couples. A t-test was used in order to answer questions four and five. Differences regarding the four si±i-scales of the DAS and the total scale score between husbands and wives, using a .05 level of significance, were determined. Question five measured the differences between husbands and wives regarding the Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny scores obtained from the BSRI, using a .05 level of significance. Questions six and seven involved the use of Pearson's correlation coefficients. In the sixth question, the criterion variable v/as the level of adjustment and the predictive variables consisted of the various deiiographic characteristics for husbands, wives, and the total groip. The criterion variable for the seventh question was the BSRI score and the predictive variables consisted of the various demographic characteristics for husbands, wives, and the total group.

PAGE 54

45 Instrumentation Two psychological instruments, the BSRI and the DAS, as well as a Questionnaire were used to answer the research questions. The BSRI is a measure of psychological androgiTiy. Three scales, Nfesculinity, Fardninity, and Social Desirability, make up tlie instrument. Each scale contains 20 personality characteristics. Tlie BSRI was created on the assumption that a mle with mostly masculine characteristics and a feinale with mostly feminine characteristics have a set of internalized beliefs about socially desirable masculine and feminine behaviors. Self-described feminine and masculine characteristics determine the range of Masculinity and Femininity scores. Thus a person's androgyny is calculated by subtracting the Femininity (F) mean score fron the Masculinity (M) mean score. As the difference between F-M diminishes, the degree of androgyny increases; and conversely, high positive scores indicate Femininity while high negative scores reflect Masculinity. The full range of scores on the 60 item BSRI runs fran 60 to 420. BSRI items extend fron one ("never or almost never true") to seven ("always or almost always true") . Internal consistency of the BSRI is based on the coefficient alpha copputed for Nfesculinity, Fanininity, and Social Desirability scores of subjects in each of the two normative samples. Reliability of both samples is high: Masculinity, .86 and .86; Femininity, .80 and .82; Social Desirability, .75 and .70; and the Androgyny Difference score, .85 and .86. Normative data were derived from two sanples of college students at Stanford University and Foothill Jr. College. Fran the results of these data, it was reported tliat males scored significantly higher than

PAGE 55

46 females on the Masculinity scale and feinales scored significantly higher than males on the Femininity scale. With respect to the Androgyny score, males scored on the masculine side of zero and females on the feminine side of zero. That the lyfesculinity and Femininity scores of the BSBl are divorced from each other is evidenced by the fact that the normative samples have the following correlations: Stanford males, r = .11, females, r = .14; Foothill males r = -.02, and females, r = -.07. Since previous research has disclosed that personality characteristics often are described in masculine and feminine terms (by "law people" and therapists alike) , Bem checked to determine if the Androgyny score was not simply tapping a social desirability set. Product-mDment correlations were run between the Social Desirability score and the Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny scores for both normative samples. While Masculinity and Fardninity were, as expected, correlated with Social Desirability, there was almost a zero correlation between Androgyny and Social Desirability. This insures that the Androgyny score is not sirtply measuring a tendency to respond in a socially desirable direction. The DAS was developed by Spanier "to assess the quality of marriage and other siinilar dyads" (1973:15). This scale was developed in response to clear-cut methodological problems and inadequacies of other marital adjustment inventories. After reviewing sane 30 marriage instruments developed in this country, Spanier created a measuronent of dyadic adjustment which included four empirically verifiable sub-scales: Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Cohesion, and Affectional Expression. pi. -•

PAGE 56

47 Spanier's definition of dyadic adjustment considered the "process of movement along a continuum..." (p. 17) as well as' the quality of interactions and characteristics of the relationship at any given time. The difficulty in measuring a process is obvious in that the dimensions of whatever is being measured are subject to both qualitative and quantitative changes. Pecognizing the difficulty in measuring marriage-as-process, and the oversimplification involved in the "snapshot" approach, Spanier, in the development of his scale, considered the best of both approaches: Thus, v\e subscribe to the notion that adjustment is an everchanging process with a qualitative dimension from well adjusted to maladjusted (1973:17). A factor analysis was performed on 40 items judged to be the most appropriate in order to attenpt to establish enpirical verification for the sub-scales, as well as the overall definition of dyadic adjustnent. After this analysis was ccnpleted, the list was reduced to 32 items. Most of the items, reported Spanier, assess the individual's perception of the "adjustment of the relationship" (1973:22). An acceptable conclusion is that differentiating responses between partners on the various items infers a difference in perceptions regarding the relationship' s functioning. TWO forms of validity reported by Spanier suggest enpirical verification for using the instrument in measuring marital adjustment. Criterion-related validit^f based on the differences in responses to the test by married and divorced siabjects, was p .001. Construct validity was assessed by conparison of the DAS with the Locke-Wallace r^arital Adjustment Scale . Correlations between these scales were .86 for the married samples and .88 for the divorced group.

PAGE 57

48 Internal consistency reliability for the total scale was .96; and the following dyadic corponents reported reliabilities of: (1) dyadic consensus sub-scale, .90; (2) dyadic satisfaction sub-scale, .94; (3) dyadic cohesion su]D-scale, .86; and (4) dyadic expression sub-scale, .73. Scores ranged from 0 to 151 v/ith the high scoring end of the scale suggesting adjustnent and the low end suggesting itialadjustinent in the dyadic relationship. The third and last instruinent the respondents ccnpleted was the Questionnaire. The information fron this instrument, such as age of both spouses and length of marriage, was used in answering a variety of research questions related to the level of marital adjustment occurring between spouses. Limitations of the Study (1) The BSRI and DAS are research instruments and there is considerable debate regarding the theoretical constructs underlying each instrurrent. Terms such as "sextyped personality characteristics" and "marital adjustitent," have not been applied uniformly in the literature, nor is there a uniform definition of either concept currently in existence. (2) The problan of self -report questionnaires lending themselves to socially desirable response sets has been reviewed extensively in the literature. The fact that the authors of botli instruments atteirpted to avoid such a phenomenon cannot erase the fact that reduction in variability of responses may be the result of socially desirable response sets. (3) If it is found that sextyped personality characteristics significantly affect the level of adjustment in the marital relationship

PAGE 58

49 of student spouses, the generalization of the findings may be limited due to the fact that tliis sample may not be representative of the married population in this country as a whole.

PAGE 59

CHAPTER IV RESULTS An analysis of the results of this study will be divided into two sections: (1) description of the sanple, and (2) analyses of the research questions. Those demographic variables considered to be nost relevant to this stuc^ were the (1) age of spouses and length of marriage, (2) number of children, (3) highest level of education, (4) present student classification, and (5) enployment status. Description of the Sample Age of Spouses and Length of Marriage The mean age of husbands was 25.3 years and, of the wives, 24.1. The student couples had been married an average of 3.3 years. Highest Level of Education While 11% of the wives r^orted that their highest level of education was the 11th or 12th grade, only 1% of the husbands were in this category (Table 1) . A fairly equal proportion of men and woren, 35% and 39% respectively, were undergraduates. However, where there was found to be an approxiniately equal dispersion of wcnen in each of the first three years of college respectively, (11%, 15%, and 13%) the majority of the male undergraduates (33%) were in their third year of college. Thirty-eight percent of the husbands and 43% of the wives were college graduates. T\A?enty-five percent of the remainder of the husbands and 5% of the wives held graduate degrees. 50

PAGE 60

51 Present Student Classification Fifty-one percent of the males were enrolled in graduate school and approximately half of this group had oonpleted their second year of graduate work. Forty percent of the husbands were undergraduates with a large proportion of them (30%) in their senior year of college. Of the woren, 20% were in graduate school and 28% in undergraduate school. Hence, fewer women than men were enrolled at the University of Florida. This is bom out by the fact that only 4% of the males reported a non-student status v^ile 51% of the women were non-students. Enployment Status The work status of student spouses may help to explain why more of the husbands than their spouses are enrolled at the University of Florida. While only 6% of the males worked full-time or part-tine and had a non-student status, 39% of the v/omen saiipled were working fuller part-time. Another 17% of the women were full-tinie hcmsmkers and not enrolled in school. Far more men than wcnen (57% as opposed to 21%) were unemployed and enrolled full-time in college. Thus, more wives than husbands were in the work force. This situation may imply one of two things: either that wonen in this sairple are postponing their education in favor of helping their husbands obtain their education goals, or they have gone as far as tliey plan in college and are beginning to assume a hanemaking or work role. Probably a canbination of these possibilities best reflects what is occurring in this population. A nalyses of the Research Questions To test the following research questions Pearson correlation coefficients and t-tests were calcjlated on scores pertaining to the various instruments enployed.

PAGE 61

52 Question 1: What is the relationship betv^^een sextyped personality characteristics and tlie level of adjustment in the marriages of student couples? An analysis of the data indicated that there were few significant relationships between the sex-typed personality characteristics of married students and the level of perceived marital adjustment. There was no significant relationship between the BSRI Masculinity and BSRI Androgyny scores and the four sub-scales and total scale score of the DAS (Table 2) , Significant relationships were found to exist between the BSRI Femininity score and the Dyadic Cohesion, Dyadic Affectional Expression, and Dyadic Total scores. Hcwever, the total shared variance of 'these relationships was so low as to preclude any possibility of making a significant interpretation about the relationships in question. Question 2: For each couple studied, what is the relationship between each spouse's perceived level of adjustiient? An analysis of the data indicated that there was a significant relationship between the DAS scores of couples in this study. The correlation coefficients were (1) Dyadic Consensus, .73; (2) Dyadic Cohesion, .61; (3) Dyadic Affectional Expression, .73; (4) Dyadic Satisfaction, .71; and (5) Dyadic Total Score, .82 (Table 3). Question 3; For each couple studied, x-jhat is the relationship between each spouse's internalized sextyped personality characteristics ? There was no significant relationship between each spouse's internalized sex-typed personality characteristics with respect to the BSRI Masculinity and BSRI TVndrogyny scores. There was a significant relationship between couples with respect to the BSRI Femininity score (Table 4) .

PAGE 62

53 Question 4: Is there a difference in the level of marital adjustment , as perceived by husbands and wives, in the student population ? No significant difference was found between the level of marital adjustnent, as perceived by husbands and wives, in the student peculation (Table 5) . Question 5: Do spouses differ regarding their internalized perceptions of sex-typed personality characteristics? Spouses differ significantly regarding their internalized perceptions of sex-typed personality characteristics with respect to their BSRI Masculinity ( .05) and Faiiininity ( .05) scores but not with respect to the BSRI Androgyny score. While husbands had significantly higher Masculine scores and significantly lower Femininity scores, the total or Androgyny was mchanged (Table 6) . Question 6: What are the relationships among selected demographic characteristics and the level of adjustment in the marital relationship? There were no significant relationships among the selected demographic characteristics of (1) age of husband, (2) age of wife, (3) length of marriage, (4) quarters in attendance at the University of Florida, ard (5) number of children in the family, and the level of adjustment in the marital relationship (Table 7) . Question 7: IVhat are the relationships among selected demographic characteristics and the sex-typed personality characteristics of married student coiples ? There were no significant relationships among selected demographic characteristics referred to in question six and the sex-typed personality characteristics of married student couples.

PAGE 63

54 TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON HARRIED STUDENT SPOUSES Husbands Wives Variable *(N = 100) (N = 100) 25. 27 24.11 standard Deviation 3.98 4.01 2% Li 1 y X ctUt: 9% 1 Cii" VT* OOl 1 f^HTlP 1% 11% <:lIl(J. yx • vJtw'XXtJyt; 1% J — Jo -jxli yj• i^uxxcyt1 3% 38% 43% 1 JCl O JO J( V 16% 5% 7% 0% 2% VJ o Other 1% 2% Noi" ri s 1" 1 id pn i" 4% 51% 0% 3% Sophomore 1% 7% Junior 9% 7% Spni or 30% 9% 1st vr draduatp 15% 8% 2nd yr. graduate 21% 7% 3rd to 4th yr. graduate 9% 4% Grad more than 4 6% 1% Other 5% 3% Work Situation** Working full-time & not a student 5% 29% Working part-time & not a student 1% 10% Staying hone full-tiire/not working 0% 17% Iferking part-time/student part-tin^ 4% 5% Working full-tirre/student full-time 3% 6% Not working/student full-time 57% 21% Working parttime/student fulltine *N = 100 for the husband and wife groups respectively. **Differences betvveen husbands and wives significeuit beyond .001.

PAGE 64

55 TABLE 2 PEARSON COREELATI»I COEFFICIETTTS ANDNG REM SEX-ROLE INVENTORY AND DYADIC ADJUSTMEtTT SCALE SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES (N = 200) Dyadic Dyadic Dyadic Affectional Dyadic Dyadic Variables Consensus Cohesion Expression Satisfaction Total Bern r = .18 r = ,06 r = .07 r = .13 r = .15 rfesculinity *s .01 s = .42 s = .29 s = .07 *s = .03 Bern r-.19 r=.28 r-.31 r = .20 r = .26 Femininity *s = .007 *s = .001 *s = .001 *s = .005 *s = .001 Bern r = .08 r = .18 r = .08 r = .08 r = .11 Androgyny s = .25 *s = .01 s = .26 s = .25 s = .10 *Significant beyond .05 level.

PAGE 65

56 TABLE 3 PEARSa^ CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE SCOl^S FOR 100 MARRIED STUDEInIT COUPLES* Wives (N = 100) H Dyadic Consenses Dyadic Cohesion Dyadic Affect. Expression Dyadic Satisfaction Dyadic Total Score U S .73 .61 .73 .71 .82 B A N D S (N = 100) *A11 relationships significant beyond .001 level.

PAGE 66

TABLE 4 PEAESCN CDRRELATION COEFFICIENTS Ai^-DNG BEM SEX-R3LE ItTVENTORY SCORES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES Wives Ban Bon Bern Masculinity Score Femininity Score Ajidrogyny Score .02 .28 -.05 s = .87 s = .005 s = .62

PAGE 67

58 u <4-i Q) CD CD 0) H > O § > H u I cn •H § ^5 in CM rH in cn o r-H I in 00 o tn (/] •H tn X3 > tn I CO •H g •H tn C O O -H •rH tn o +J tn •H y 0) o H +J U fd U 4-: .'^ rd IJ >-, rd o 1-D O CM CO CO LTl CN m ID ro C-i ro rH in cn rCO n m r\!
PAGE 68

59 o o o o o o 0) 0) CO 03 Si •K CO in o o o •H O S CO 3 CO o o •H 8 S W O IX) in I * rg o s m n o o o CO C/3 i \

PAGE 69

60 TAI5LE 7 PEAJ^QvI CORREIATIOSI COEFFICIENTS AMONG DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE SCORES Aid DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES FOR 100 MARRIED STUDENT COUPLES (N = 100) in all cases Variables Dyadic Ccnsensus Dyadic Cohesion Dyadic Af fectional Expression Dyadic Satisfaction Dyadic Total Age of Husband r -.02 -.19 -.03 -.23 -.14 Group s = . o7 s = .06 s = .79 s = .19 s = .18 Age of Spouse r = .01 .22 -.05 -.22 -.13 Group s = .89 *s = .03 s .59 *s = .03 s = .20 Length of Marriage r = -.04 s = .72 -.26 *s = .01 -.09 s .38 -.25 *s .01 s -.18 = .07 Quarters in Attendance -.02 -.26 -.08 -.21 -.16 at the U. F. s = .87 *s = .01 s = .41 *s = .03 s = .12 Number of Children r = .02 -.15 -.10 -.17 -.10 s = .86 s = .13 s = .34 s = .10 s = .35 *Significant beyond .05 level.

PAGE 70

61 P O >!}• fSJ C o r-~ c r-II II U CO o 00 m 0) in ro o 'J" rH o iH r^ "^r o m o in O 00 I II II II m u w II (/I 11 II CD I II u CO 00 a 03 u t/) o CO in m o o o o II rH r o 10 II rH o^ 00 ^ (N O ro rH rH II II o o rH ro I I II II II II II m u w u v> o I O II ro 00 II CO -H rH 5 o I II ^-1 rH O fN ro m m i-i II CO o in o o o o UH 2 O 3 0) CO HH a) O CO o (U IS

PAGE 71

CHAPTER V SIM^Y AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between marital adjustment and the sex-typed personality characteristics of student couples. Certain denographic characteristics were also examined with respect to the population. The population studied consisted of married undergraduate and graduate student couples where at least one spouse was in attendance at the University of Florida in 1977. A review of the literature suggested that there are many factors which are indicative of stress and satisfaction in marriage. In recent years, sex-role stereotyping has emerged as an inportant issue in doirestic life. Research indicated that a pattern of sex-role stereotyping transcended ethnic, cultural, and educational boundaries. One of the major objectives of this stud^ was to investigate whether or not sex-role stereotyping was a significant phenanenon in the lives of married students attending the University of Florida. In conjunction with this and other questions, two psychological instruments, the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) , as well as a demographic questionnaire (Questionnaire) were presented to 200 married student couples. The results of the collected data v/ere reported in Chapter IV. The findings danonstrated that: 1. there was no significant relationship between the sextyped personality characteristics of married student couples and the level of marital adjustment, 62

PAGE 72

63 2. there vras a significant relationship betav-een spouses within each couple regarding the level of adjustment in the relationship, 3. there vias no significant relationship bet';^n the sextyped personality characteristics of each spouse v.ath respect to their BSRI Masculinity and Androgyny scores, 4. there was a sinnificant relationship between the sextyped personality characteristics of each spouse with respect to the BSRI Femininity scores, 5. there was a significant relationship between the marital adjustiTvant scores of husbands and mves in this sanple, 6. the BSRI Masculinity and Femininity scores of husbands and wives were different significantly, 7. there were no significant relationships between selected demographic characteristics and marital adjustment scores reflected in the DAS for these couples, 8. there vAsre no significant relationships between selected demograpliic characteristics and the sex-typed personality characteristics of these student couples. This study did not demonstrate any appreciable evidence of sex-role stereotyping or stress in the marriages of these student couples. Several possible factors may be responsible for this situation, including, (1) flexibility in sexrole behavior, (2) length of marriage, (3) the college experience, and (4) the conteirporaneity of the issue of sex-role stereotyping . Flexibility in Sex-Role Behavior The data in this study indicated that there was no significant difference between the androgyny scores of each spouse. At the same time, a significant relationship betaveen DAS scores of couples was reported. If androgynous individuals are more adaptive than highly sexstereotyped individuals, and the literature seems to support tiiis point of view, the quality of life within the marital situation may be positively affected.

PAGE 73

64 Sex-role flexibility and psychological health have been topics of discussion by authors such as Bern (1975) and Gonstaninople (1972) . Bern has suggested that the healthy personality is caTijX)sed of the best of masculine and feminine characteristics. Previously mentioned research indicates that flexibility in sex-role behavior is conducive to the development of healthy relationsMps . Bern's theory that the healthy personality sliould be androgynous (having a combination of both male and fenale characteristics) is based partly on the increased repertoire of behaviors possessed by androgynous individuals. It may be that congruence in androgyny scores of couples in this sairple has led to flexibility in sex-roles. Flexibility in behavior by spouses, particularly in the university setting where self-sacrifice is required in order to achieve educational goals, would obviously inprove or aid the quality of life within the marriage. Androgynous couples may experience less stress in their relationships due to their ability to adapt to new situations as they £irise. Length of ^larriage The literature suggests that the length of a marriage is a crucial variable in detemining stress and satisfaction in a relationship. The couples in this study were married an average of 3.4 years. Due to the fact that these marriages were in an early stage of developnent , malcontent with the relationship nay not have been as problematical as it might be in later years. This line of thought is supported by Pineo's research (1961) . In the process of ccnpleting a study initiated by Burgess and Wallin (1953) , Pineo investigated the relationships of a sanple of couples during their engaganent period, after four or five years of marriage, and after 20 years of marriage. Fie found a significant

PAGE 74

65 correlation between marital satisfaction scores and length of marriage. Itie longer a couple was married tlie less satisfaction regarding the relationship was reported. Another longitudinal study similar to Pineo's was conducted by Ijjckey (1966) , who reported timt, as the length of a marriage increases, experienced dissatisfaction with the relationship increases. Other studies which arrived at similar conclusions as Pineo's and Luckey's are Blood and Wolfe (1960) , Luckey (1966) , and Rollins and Feldman (1970). The College Experience The "elan vital" that seons to be part of the early stages of a marriage may, in the case of the University of Florida married student popjlation, outweigh the shortconings that are associated witli tlie marriages of couples \^*io have been living together for more than four years. There may exist a blend of factors that, considered as an aggregate, create a healthy dynamic tension between spouses while they are in attendance at a university. Although a pattern of sex-stereotyped roles seemed to exist in this study, more women than men were the primary breadwinners, and more men than wcnen were enrolled at the university part-time or full-time. These dichotonized roles do not seem to have adversely affected the relationships of these couples. Intuition would suggest that the selfconcepts of husbands would be threatened as a result of role reversal. Although a picture of the self-concepts of husbands in this sanple v/as not obtained, role reversal did not seem to have a negative effect on tlie marriages of these student couyriJes. It may be the case Uiat in the majority of instajices, role reversal is vieA^od as a temporary situation ccnmensurate witli tiie caipletion of tlie particular educational objectives of each couple.

PAGE 75

66 For exairple, a review of the major studies in Cl-iapter III on college aged men and wonen indicated that sex-role attitudes have been internalized while behavior has adjusted accordingly (Goode, 1963 and Komarovsky, 1976). In Konarovsky's analysis of the married stixient situation, she noted that sexstereotyped attitudes on the part of spouses are modified by the contingencies placed upon them by the experience of being in college. Student husbands were able to accept the idea of their wives supporting them, knowing that the situation would change once they were graduated and in the work force. Konarovsky's sartple of married students may be different than the married student population at the University of Florida; therefore, only a speculation can h>e made as to whether husbands and wives who participated in this study have expectations similar to those found in KomarovslQ' ' s sanple. In any event, the effects of cultural "conditioning" may be so pervasive that married couples autcanatically assune tliat the male spouse should begin his career first, as a sort of security blanket or investment in the future. Another possibility is that wonen develop an awareness of vocational possibilities and are willing to delay choosing a vocation until a later stage in life. It is highly probable that at the heart of this matter is a socialization process which begins in early childhood. In addition, discontent in the marriages of college students may be less noticeable because the factors that give rise to dissatisfaction have not yet begun to emerge. It cannot be denied that the college experience is a stressful situation for married students. Finances, the uncertainty associated witli a fluctuating job market, and the stresses associated with acadanic life are realities. But marriage in the university setting may be unique in tjeveral ways. It can provide a

PAGE 76

67 stimulating environment for intellectual growth and develoarent. In addition, spouses living on or near tlie canpus have the distinc± advantage of knaving tlieir neighbors and sharing with than a ccnuTDn pathos, something that is often lacldng in the marriage of couples living in middle-class si±)urbs. ' VJhat is proposed here is that this sanple of married students my have a relatively high degree of harmony and stability in their relationships due to the existence of a consensus regarding vocational goals and projected life styles. For example, with respect to the sample studied, it is plausible that a basic reason for congruence in the spouses' DAS scores has as it basis the knov/ledge that goals and aspirations about the future are held in ccnnion. Suffice it to say that the educational experience and tenporary life style, with all of the attending sacrifices, can be surmounted best through a canbined effort on the part of both spouses. Perhaps, in a very fundamental sense, one of the criteria for perceived adjustment in a marriage involves husbands and wives agreeing on tlie goals, aspirations, and expectations regarding their shared existence. The Contemporaneity of the Issue of Sex-Role Stereotyping For the narried students in this study, sexrole stereotyping may have been an issue at one time, but does not seem to be one now. Perhaps a saturation point has been reached regarding tliis topic in the university camuanity. Public debate centering around the rights of wonen and sexrole conflict has advanced beyond the infant stage. The university setting has served traditionally as the vanguard for debate surrounding controversial issues. College students typically are the first to experiment witli new role patterns and nrdes of behavior. Hcuvever, experimentation with sex-roles by l anried students is not only encouraged

PAGE 77

68 by what is currently in vogue but by the pragmatics of the situation. Student coiples who share a dream about the future will tend to form a better team even if it involves a reformulation of traditional role patterns. This reformulation of traditional role patterns may be deeper and more long lasting in some instances than in others. The data in this study were not sensitive enough to measure these differences. The crux of the matter is that, in this study, questions such as why more husbands than wives are enrolled in college full-time pursuing a degree, or why wcmen are the primary breadwinners in this sample remain unanswered. Perhaps the origin of this phenonenon lies in the primordial conceptions lien and vrcmen have about their sex-role identities and hew these identities are grounded in life's activities. Is it as sinple as Blood's and Wolfe's (1960:99) assunption that, "If a wife has less education than her hiasband, the chances are she v/ill be unusually satisfied with his income and less apt to go to work herself"? The literature of the 1960 's lerds support to Blood's and Wolfe's thesis in the sense that, even in an age in which sex-roles and identity are open topics, a positive relationship exists between the instruirental aspects of the males' roles and marital happiness (Hicks and Piatt, 1970) . In addition, studies by Luckey (1960a and 1960b) indicate that "... satisfaction in marriage is related to the congruence of the husband ' s self-concepts and that held of him by his wife" (1960a: 77) . However the literature in the 70 's presents a different view and suggests that wonen are beconing increasingly dissatisfied with the hananaking role and the limitations that are the result of sex-role segregation.

PAGE 78

69 Iirplications for Further Study Family systans are very ccxnplex. People get married and stay married as the result of many different motives. Sane of these motives are readily apparent to the researcher and others are not. Fran a methodological point of view, it might be informative if married student couples were coirpared to older married couples fron socially and econonically different backgrounds. Utilizing the DAS and the BSRI, or seme other sex-role inventory, it might be found that married couples frcm a university setting and married couples from other backgrounds have differing via^points regarding sexroles. In any event, addressing the issue of sex-role stereotyping in the larger population of narried couples might produce sane interesting results. The issue is not dead. The divorce rate in this country has doubled in the last 15 years. In increasing numbers, coiples are visiting marriage counselors in an attenpt to resolve their disagreements. A question that rerained unanswered in this study centers around the decision-making process of married students attending the University of Florida. Why is the husband's education generally given nore priority than the wife's? What agreenents are made between couples regarding their roles after graduation? How often do conflicts arise as a result of role patterns that are agreed upon within the university setting? The data obtained from this study do not generate any information about these questions. Yet they are fairly significant questions because it appears that this generation of married students is more liberal in its attitudes about basic social issues than married students in the past; very basic sexrole patterns still exist. The existence of traditional sexrole patterns without, at the same time, significant

PAGE 79

70 differences in the BSRI scores, does not necessarily imply contradictions in tlie thinking and behavior of tliis ^xipulation. Since society is not a rigid system, but is an ensemble of the new and the old, the permanent and the transitory, elements of new approaches to marriage, coTibined with a traditional outlook about what it means to be a male or a fenale, are bound to exist. Still it remains to be seen v;hether women in this sample will be content to be honemakers or to simply work part-time to supplement the family incone; perhaps they are simply postponing their educational and vocational goals until their husbands have completed their objectives. A longitudinal study that would follcw this population for 10 to 20 years after the students have been graduated could conceivably answer these questions. It would answer the question of vv^ether or not women delay or postpone tlieir educational and vocational goals. It might lay the groundwork for a vocational development theory related to married vonen, the inference being that married wanen have a latent period of vocational development that begins to exert itself after certain circumstances, such as the husband's vocational plans, family finances, and child rearing have been reasonably worked out. Because of the expense and time involved, longitudinal studies are tlie exception rather than the rule. Yet they offer a rich body of information that is iirpossible to obtain from the "snapslx»t" approach to studying a particular population. Divergence in BSRI scores by husbands and mves does not necessarily iirply that there v^n.ll be problems in a marriage. In fact, it may be that the role prescriptions adhered to by a couple have their own internal logic, ttereby yielding differences in the sex-typed personality characteristics of each partner.

PAGE 80

71 It mi^t be infomiative if a sex-role inventory v.'ere utilized in oonjunction with the BSRI on a heterogeneous population of nvarried couples in order to discover whether tiiere is a significant relationship between sex-roles and the sex-typed personality characteristics of husbands and wives. If significant relation sliips were found to exist between these two factors, the BSRI would be validated for use as a measure of inferred sex-role stereotyping. Conclusions This study did not uncover any significant evidence of sex-role stereotyping or stress in the mrriages of student couples attending the University of Florida. Several factors niay be responsible for this fact and they have been alluded to in previous sections of this chapter. The honogeneity of the married student population with respect to age, educational level, and economic status may have seriously reduced variability with respect to BSRI and DAS scores. In conjunction with this fact, had significant differences between hiisbands and wives been found, generalization to the population of married couples across social strata would be liniited. In addition, most of the research data in this study were gathered from respondents in June, 1977, a n^ntli of transition for many university student couples. Events such as graduation, moving, and surmEr vacation coming as they did in the midst of the data collection, may have affected the v;ays in v/hich subjects responded to the various instruments. For example, excitement over events such as graduation, future employment, and moving fran one geographical location to another could color a person's perceptions about many things, including feelings

PAGE 81

72 about the quality or current stati:is of one's relationship witli a loved one. Timing may be an inportant eleirvBnt to consider in conjunction with data collection. Finally, the instruments ther.Tselves may not have offered a ccitiplete enough profile regarding the quality of life in mrriage. Canmensurate with this fact is the idea that other fonns of data collecting including participant observation, group and individual interviews, and longitudinal approaches could have enriched the data, yielding a richer body of knowledge about the cxorrent status of married life among students in the university ccnmunity.

PAGE 82

APPEtroiX A BEf'l SEX-POLE nJVQITOFY Full Naire (PleasG print) Sex Age School Year in School Occupation (if not a student) Telephone (If you have no phone, please give us some way of contacting you, e.g., your address:) On the following page, you will be shewn a large number of personality characteristics. We vrauld like you to use those characteristics in order to describe yourself. That is, we would like you to indicate, on a scale frcTO 1 to 7, how true of you these various characteristics cure. Please do not leave any cliaracteristic unrrarked. Exaitple : sly r-lark a 1 if it is NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE that you are sly. Mark a 2 if it is USUALLY NOT TRU E that you are sly. Mark a 3 if it is SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY TRUE that you are sly. Mark a 4 if it is OCCASIONALLY TRUE that you are sly. Mark a 5 if it is OFTEIJ TRUE that you are sly. mrk a 6 if it is USUALLY TRUE that you are sly. riark a 7 if it is AU'giYS OR ALfOST AL^YS TRUE that you are sly. Thus, if you feel it is sometimes but infrequently true that you are "sly," never or almost never true that you are "malicious," always or almost always true that you are "irresponsible," and often true that you are "carefree," then you would rate these characteristics as follows: Sly 3 Irresponsible 7 Malicious 1 Carefree 5 73

PAGE 83

74 NEVER OR USUALLY SOTIETIMES BUT OCCASIO^IAUA' OFTEti USUALLY AU'IAYS OR AK'DST NOT INFREOUErm.y TRUE TRUE TRu"E ALt'DST NEVER TRUE TRUE TRUE ALl^YS TRUE Self reliant Yielding Helpful E)e fends cwn beliefs Cheerful Mocdy Independent Shy Conscientious Atliletic Affectionate Theatrical Assertive Flatterable Happy Strong personality Loyal LYipredictable Forceful Feminine Reliable Analytical Sympathetic Jealous Has Leadership abilities Sensitive to the needs of others Truthful Willing to take risks Understanding Secretive Makes decisions easily Ccmpassionate Sincere Self-sufficient Eager to soothe hurt feelings Conceited Dominant Soft-sDoken Likable Warm Solemn Willing to take a stand Tender Friendly Aggressive Gullible Inefficient Acts as a leader Childlike Adaptable Individualistic Does not use harsh language Unsystematic Conpetitive Loves children Tactful Ambitious Gentle Conventional f'lasculine

PAGE 84

APPENDIX B DYADIC ADJUSllTE\rr SCALE ftost persons have disagreernents in their relationships. Please indicate belo^v the approjciiTBte extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each iton on the following list. Almost OccaFreAlmost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1. Handling family finances 5 4 3 2 1 0 2. Matters of recreation 5 4 3 2 1 0 3. Religious matters 5 4 3 2 1 0 4. Demonstrations of affection 5 4 3 2 1 0 5. Friends 5 4 3 2 1 0 6. Sex relations 5 4 3 2 1 0 7. Conventionality (correct or proper behavior) 5 4 3 2 1 0 8. Philosophy of life 5 4 3 2 1 0 9. V7ays of dealing \^?ith parents or in-lav/s 5 4 3 2 1 0 10. Aims, goals, and things believed important 5 4 3 2 1 0 11. Amount of time spent together 5 4 3 2 1 0 12. r-laking major decisions 5 4 3 2 1 0 13. Household tasks 5 4 3 2 1 0 14. Leisure tiiTie interests and activities 5 4 3 2 1 0 15. Career decisions 5 4 3 2 1 0 rfost Nfere All the of the often Occatime time than not sionally Rarely Neve 16. Ha-/ often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation , or terminating your relationship? 17. How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight? 18. In general, how often do you think that tilings betaken you and your partner are going well? 3 3

PAGE 85

76 All the tiine 19. Do you confide in your mate? 20. Do you ever regret that you married? (or lived together) 21. UOf} often do you and your partner qiaarrel? 22. How often do you and your mate "get on each other's nerves? ?tet of tlie tine More often than not Occasionally Rarely Never Every Day 23. Do you kiss your mate? Almost Every Day Occasionally 2 Rarely 1 Never All of Most of Sorre of them them them Very few None of of them them 24. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? 4 3 2 1 0 Hav often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate? Less than Once or 25. Have a stimulating exchange of ideas 26. Laugh together 27. Calmly discuss something 28. Work together on a project Never 0 0 0 0 once a twice a month month 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Once or twice a week 3 3 3 3 Once a Itore Day Often 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 These are sane things about v*iich couples sometijnes agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate if either item belav caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationsMp during the past few weeks. (Check yes or no) 29. 30. Yes 0 No 1 0 Being too tired for sex. Not showing love.

PAGE 86

77 31. Ihe dots on the follov/ing line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. Tlie middle point, 'happY/" represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot \
PAGE 87

APPHIDIX C DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTiaWil'^E FOR mRRIED STUDENTS (Confidential Data) 1. Name of spouse filling out this (juestionnaire last first initial 2. IVhat is your age? years 3. bliat is your spouse's age? years 4 . Length of present marriage? years , and months 5. Since you have been married, how many terms have you and your spouse attended the U. of F. (include the present term)? quarters. 6. VJhat is the highest level of education you and your spouse have completed at the present time? (Check only the highest level) . WIFE HUSBAND ( ) ( ) ( ) 11th grade. ( ) ( ) ( ) 12th grade. ( ) ( ) ( ) 1st year of college. ( ) ( ) ( ) 2nd year of college. ( ) ( ) ( ) 3rd year of college. ( ) ( ) ( ) College Graduate. ( ) ( ) ( ) Master's degree. ( ) ( ) ( ) ffedical, Law, Theological, or Specialist ( ) ( ) ( ) Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree ( ) ( ) ( ) Other, please specify 7. ^'^at is you and your spouse's PRESENT student classification? WIFE HUSBAND ( ) ( ) ( ) Not a student. ( ) ( ) ( ) Freshman. ( ) ( ) ( ) Sophanore. ( ) ( ) ( ) Junior. ( ) ( ) ( ) Senior. ( ) ( ) ( ) Graduate, first year. ( ) ( ) ( ) Graduate, second year. ( ) ( ) ( ) Graduate, three to four years. ( ) ( ) ( ) Graduate, more than four years. ( ) ( ) ( ) Other, please s[3ecify 8. V'Jhich of the following describes you and your spouse's sitiaation best? (Check one: full-time work = 40 or more hours/week) . V7IFE HUSBAND ( ) ( ) ( ) Working, full-time AND not a student. ( ) ( ) ( ) Workincj, part-time AND not a student. ( ) ( ) ( ) Staying hcrne, full-time AND not working. ( ) ( ) ( ) Working, part-time, A^JD a student, part-tiire. ( ) ( ) ( ) Working, full-time, ATO a student, part-tiire. ( ) ( ) ( ) NOT working AND a student, fulltine. ( ) ( ) ( ) Working, part-time AND a student, full-tirre. 9. How many chilclroii do you have in your family? 7n

PAGE 88

APPE?iniX D GUIDELIInE for TELEPHOt-sIE irraiRVIH^S The folla//ing format will be used vA^en making telephone contacts to potential respondents. Leeway naturally will be rrede as questions cane up. This forrret is governed basically by the assunption that the spouse on the other end of the phone is denonstrating a positive inclination to participate in the study. Hello, iny name is Dick Camer. I am a graduate student in the Counselor Education Departirent at tlie University of Florida and I am doing research on married college students for my doctoral dissertation. It is my understanding that you are married and that you and/or your spouse is a student here at the University of Florida; is that correct?... r^y study involves exaiuining various factors indicative of stress and adjustment in the marriages oc student couples here at the University. This research may help college counselors and administrators understand more about the particular problems married students face vmile in school. I would like to loiow if you and your husband (wife) would take approxiiiiately 20 minutes each in order to fill out several questionnaires that I have. If you decide to participate, the information that I obtain from you and your husband (wife) will be treated in a confidential manner at all tines, (If the respondent says that he/she will participate in the study tlie folloiving staterent will be made. ) I appreciate you and your husband's (vafe's) participation in my study. In the next day or so a package of materials will be sent to you in the mail. Directions related to filling out the various materials will be placed on top. I shall appreciate it if you and your husband (wife) will fill out these materials and send them back as soon as possible. Also it would be helpful if you botli conplete the questionnaires separately and avoid discussing your responses until after you have corpleted the materials and placed them in the mail. In this way, I will be assured that your responses will more accurately reflect your current attitudes regarding each question. Do you have any questions at this point?. . . Thank you once again for helping re out. Goodbye. 70

PAGE 89

APPENDK E COVER SIEET 1 Dear Mr. and Ms. . . Enclosed you will find (1) tv/o copies of the Dyadic Mjustinent Scale , (2) two copies of the Bern SexRole Inventory , and (3) one Denrographic Questionnaire for Married Students . Each spouse is being asked to conplete the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Bern Sex-Role Inventor;/ . It does not matter who conpletes the Demographic Questionnaire for ferried Students as long as it is filled out. Please conplete all of the materials and send tliem back, as soon as possible, using the return stamped envelope. Also, it would be helpful if you would both coirplete these materials separately and avoid discussing your responses until after you have completed the materials and placed them in the nail. If you have any questions regarding these questionnaires or the research being conducted in conjunction with them, please do not hesitate to call me at 392-1575 or 377-1695. Confidentiality of the information obtained frcni you will be maintained at all times. Thank you for participating in this study. Cordially, Dick Camer 202-5 N. W. 15 Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 80 i

PAGE 90

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldous, J. Occupational characteristics and males' role perfora^ce in the family. Journal of tterriage and the Family , 1969, 31 (4) , 707-712 . . The making of family roles and family change. Family Coordinator , 1974, 23(3), 231-235. Arafat, I. and Yorburg, B. The New Women; Attitudes, Behavior, and Selflinage . Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1973. Bakan, D. The Duality of Human Existence . New York: The Viking Press, 1966. Balswick, J. 0. The effect of spouse conpanionship support on employment success. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1970, 32, 212-215. and Peek, C. W. The inexpressive male: A tragedy of American Society. Fandly Coordinator , 1971, 20(4) , 363-368. Barrett, C. , Bey, P., Eaton, E. , and Poneroy, E. Implications of wcnen's liberation and the future of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, and Practice , 1974, 11, 11-15. Barry, W. A. Marriage research and conflict: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin , 1970, 73, 41-55. Baruch, G. K. The traditional feminine role: Sane negative effects. The School Counselor , 1974, 21(4), 285-289. Bell, R. Marriage and Family Interaction . New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Bern, S. L. The meas'^urement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psych ology, 1974, 42(2), 155-162. . Sex-role adaptability: One conseqiience of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1975, 31(4) , 634-643. Bernard, J. The Future of Marriage . San Francisco: World Publishing Co. , 1972. Biller, H. B. Fat her, Child, and Sexrole; Paternal Determinants of Personality te v elopinent . Lexington: Heath lexington Books, 1971.

PAGE 91

82 Blazer, J. A. Conplementary needs and marital happiness. Marriage and Family Living , 1963, 25, 89-95. Block, T., Von der Lippe, A., and Block, J. Sex-roles and socializatim patterns: Some personality concartmitants and environmental antecedents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1973, 41, 321-341. Blood, R. 0., Jr., and Wolfe, D. M. Husbands and Wives . New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1965. Bowman, H. A. Marriage for Modems . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Corpany, 1960. Brigante, M. E. A trans-generational study of sex-roles in marriage in middle class America. Dissertation Abstracts International , 1972, 33(5-A) , 2160. Broveniian, I. K. , and Broverraan, D. M. Sex-role stereotypes: A oirrent appraisal. Journal of Social Issues , 1972, 28(2), 59-78. Burchinal, L. G. , Hawkes, G. R. , and Gardner, B. Personality characteristics and marital satisfaction. Social Forces , 1957, 35 , 218-222. Burgess, E. W. , and Wall in, P. E ngagement and Marriage . Chicago: Lippincott, 1953. Burr, R. An expansion and test of tte Role Theory of Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1971, 33, 368-372. Caitpbell, J. The Portable Jung . New York: The Viking Press, 1971. Cardi, M. W. The relationship between sex-role stereotype and trust among women as measured by cooperation and ccnpetition. Dissertation Abstracts International , 1972, 33 (4-B) , 1784. Chesler, A. Women and I-ladness . Garden City, Long Island: Doubleday and Co. , 1972, Clarke, C. Survey of married graduate students: Winter quarter 1969, a survey a sample. Gainesville, Florida: Marriage and College Life Project, Bulletin No. 5, May 1970a. Cited by Stebbins, L. B. Stress and satisfaction in graduate student marriages. Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1975. Constaninople, A. Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictim. Psychological Bulletin , 1973, 80(5), 389-407. Coctnbs, R. C. An investigation of sex-differences on the influence of dependence. Socimetry , 1968, 30.(2), 50-63. Corsini, R. J. Understanding and similarity in marriage. Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psycholo gy, 1956, 52, 327-332.

PAGE 92

83 Cottrell, L. Roles and mrital adjustment. Publications of the American Sociological Society , 1933, 27, 107-115. Cross, H. J. and Aran, R. The relationship of unobtrusive measures of marital oonflict to remembered differences between parents. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of tlie American Psyclxilogical Association , 1971, 6^(part 1) , 365-366. Dean, D. G. Emotional mturity and marital adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1966, 28, 454-457. Dinitz, M. , Dyness, R. , and Clarke, V. Preferences for male or female children: Traditional or affectional. Marriage and Family Living , 1954, 16, 128-130. Brewery, J. and Roe, J. B. Cotparison of alcoholic and non-alcoholic marriages. British Journal of Psychiatry , 1969, 115(520), 287-299. DymDnd, R. F. Adjustirent changes over therapy from self -sorts. In Dymond, R. F. , and Rogers, C. R. (Eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change; Co-ordinated Research Studies in the ClientCentered Approach . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954. Elman, J., Press, A., and Rosenkrantz, P. Sex roles and self concepts: real and ideal. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association , 1970, 5(part 1), 455-456. Femberger, S. VI . Persistence of stereotypes concerning sex differences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1948, 43^, 97-101. Foder, I. Sex-role conflict and synptom formation in wonen: Can behavior therapy work? Psychotherapy; Theory, Research, and Practice , 1974, 11, 22-29. Goode, W. J. \\brld Revolution and Family Patterns . New York: The Free Press, 1963. Gordon, F. E. and Hall, D. T. Self image and stereotypes of femininity: Their relationship to women's role conflict and coping. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1974, 59(2), 241-243. Gove, W. R. The relationship between sexroles, marital status, and mental illness. Social Forces , 1972, 51 (1) , Grover, D. A. Socio-econcmic differential in the relationship between marital adjustment and the wife's eitployirent status. I^to^riage and Family Living , 1963, 25, 452-456. Gurin, G. J., Veroff, and Feld, S. Americans View Their Mental Health . New York: Basic Books, 1960. Hartley, R. E. American Core Cu lt ure: Cliajiges and Continuities in Sex Rjles in a Changing Society. New York: Random House, 1970.

PAGE 93

84 Heilbrun, C, Toward a Recognition of Androg^Tiy . New York: Knopf, 1973 Hicks, M. W. , and Piatt, M. Marital happiness and stability: A review of the research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1970, 32(4) , 553-574. Hjelle, L. A., and Butterfield, R. Self actualization and wonen's attitudes tavard their roles in contenporary society. Journal of Psychology , 1974, 87(2), 225-230. Hcbart, C. W. and Klausner, W. J. Social interactional correlates of marital role disagreanents and marital adjustment. Marriage and Family Living , 1959, 21(3), 256-263. Hoffman, L. W. Parental power relations and the division of household tasks. I'torriage and Family Living , 1960, 22^, 27-35. Homer, M. S. Toward an understcinding of achievanent-related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues , 1968, 28, 157-175. Howe, R. R. Relationship between forale role concepts and anxiety among enployed and non-onployed mothers of pre-school age children. Dissertation Abstracts International , 1973, 33(12-A) , 7037-7038. Howenstein, L. L. Housewives and working wives: Reported role satisfaction related to diastolic blood pressure. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association , 1972, 7 (part 1), 265-266. Ibsen, C. A. The married college student: A prcblon of congruence. Family Life Coordinator , 1967, 16, 25-27. Issac, S. and Michaels, W. f^andbook in Research and Evaluation . San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, 1971, 18. Jacobson, A. H. Conflict attitudes towards the role of husband and wife in marriage. American Sociological Review , 1952, 17, 146-150. Kagan, J. and Mcdss, H. Birth to Maturity . New York: John Wiley, 1961. Kammeyer, K. The feminine role: An analysis of attitude consistency. Journal of M£irriage and the Family , 1964, 26, 295-305. Kaplan, A. G. Androgyny as a model of mental health for wonen: Fran theory to therapy. In Kaplan, A. G. and Bean, J. (Eds.), Beyond SexRole Stereotypes: Readings Tcward a Psychology of Androgyny . New York: Little, Brown & Co., 1976, Kelly, E. L. Marital corpatibility as related to personality traits of husbands and wives as rated by self and spouse. Journal of Sociological Psychology , 1941, 13, 193-198. Kenkel, W. F. Influence differentiation in family decision making. Sociology and Social Ftesearch , 1957, 42^, 18-25. King, M. Sex differences in se] " actualization. Psychological Reports , 1974, 35, 602.

PAGE 94

85 Kolb, M. J., and Straus, M. A, Marital pcwer and marital happiness in relation to problem solving ability. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1974, 36(4), 756. Kcxnarovsky, M. Cultural contradictions and sex roles. AnBrican Journal of Sociology , 1946, 51, 182-189. . Blue-Collar Marriage . New York: Random House, 1962. . Cultural contradictions and sex roles: The msculine case. Arterican Journal of Sociology , 1973, 78.(4), 450-459. . Dilgrmas of Masculinity . New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1976. Kotlar, S. L. Instrumental and expressive nerital roles. Sociology and Socionetry , 1963, 26, 131-145. . Middle class marital role perceptions and marital adjustment. Sociological and Social Research , 1965, £9, 283-293. Kronsky, B. Feminism and psychotherapy. Journal of Contenporary Psychotherapy , 1971, 3(2), 89-98. Krupinski, J. and Farmer, R. A study of aspects of marital life and roles in marriage guidance client and non client marriages. Journal of Corparative Family Studies , 1973, 4^(2), 195-308. Leach, E. J. Dordnance relationship between husbands and wives: Public versus private behavior. Thesis, University of Florida, 1972. Leik, R. K. Instrumentality and emotionality in family interaction. SocioTietry , 1963, 26, 131-145. Levine, S., Kamin, L. , and Levine, E. Sexism and psychiatry. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1974, 44, 327-335. Lively, R. Toward concept clarification: A case of marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1969, 31(1), 108-114. locke, H. J, and MacKeprang, L. Marital adjustment of the enployed wife. American Journal of Sociology , 1949, 5^4, 536-539. Luckey, E. G. Marital satisfaction and congruent self-spouse concepts. Social Forces , 1960a, 39, 153-157. . IVferital satisfaction and, its association with congruence of perception. Marriage and Fam.ily Living , 1960b, 22, 49-54. . Nunber of years narried as related to personality perception and marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966, 28(1), 44-48. ~~ Manaker, E. The tiierapy of women in light of psychoanalytic theory and the emergence of a new view. In Franks, V. and Burtle, V. (Eds.), Vtanen in Therapy , New York: iiruner/Mazel, 1974.

PAGE 95

It 86 McKee, J. P. and Sheriffs, A. C. Men's and women's beliefs, ideals, and self concepts. American Journal of Sociolocrv , 1959, 64, 356-363. ~~ Miller, L. and Mothner, A. Validity of four measures of family power. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1971, 34(3), 224-234. Millman, M. Observations on sexrole research. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1971, 33, 772-776. Mitchell, H. E. , Bullard, J. W. , and Madd, E. H. Areas of marital conflict in successfully and unsuccessfully functioning families. Journal of Health and Human Behavior , 1962, 2^ 88-93. Mur stein, B. S. and Beck, G. D. Person, perception, marriage adjustment, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1972, 39(3), 396-403. Nelson, H. Y. and Goldmen, P. R. Attitudes of high school students and young adults toward the gainful enployment of married wonen. Family Coordinator , 1969, 18(3), 251-255. Neufeld, E, , Langmeyer, D. , and Seeman, W. SaitE sexrole stereotypes and personal preferences, 1950 and 1970. Journal of Personality Assessment , 1974, 38.(3), 247-254. Neulinger, J. Perceptions of the optimally integrated person: A redefinition of mental health. Proceedings of the 96th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association , 1968, 553-554. Nevill, D. and Damico, S. Role conflict in women as a function of iTHTital status. Huimn Relations , 1975, 28 (5) , 487-497. Nye, I. F. Marital interaction. In Nye, I. F. and Hoffean, L. W. (Eds.), The Enployed Mother in America . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Orden, S. R. and Bradbum, N. M. Dimensions of marriage happiness. American Journal of Sociology , 1968, 73, 715-731. Osofsky, J. D. and Osofsky, H. J. Androgyny as a life style. The Family Coordinator , 1972, 21(4), 411-418. Page, J. P. The relationship between sex-role conformity and selfesteem, anxiety, and motive to avoid success. Dissertation Abstracts International , 1973, 34 (3-B) , 1281. Parsons, T. and Bales, R. (Eds.). Family Socialization and Interaction Process . Glencoe: Free Press", 1965. Pilpel, H. F. and Zavin, T. Your Marriage and the Law . New York: Collier Books, 1964. Pineo, P. C. Disencl-iantment in the later years of marriage. Marriage and Family Living , 1961, 23(1), 3-11.

PAGE 96

87 Pineo, P. C. Develcpment patterns in itiarriage. Family Coordinator , 1969, 18, 135-140. Polster, M. Women in therapy: A gestalt therapists view. In Franks, V. and Burtle, V. (Eds.), Wome n in Therapy; New Psychotherapies for a Changing Society . New York: Bruner/Mazel , 1974. Preston, M. G. , Peltz, W. L. , Mudd, E. H. , and Froscher, H. B. Iirpressions of personality as a function of marital conflict. Journal of Abnomal and Sociological Psychology , 1952, £7, 326-336. Price, S. and Bonham, S. Student husbands versus students couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1973, 35(1), 33-37. Rapcport, R. and Rapoport, R. The dual career family: A variant family and social change. Human Relations , 1969, 22^, 3-30. Rappaport, A. F. , Payne, D. , and Steinmann, A. Marriage as a factor in the dyadic perception of the female sex-role. Psychological Reports , 1970, 27(1), 283-284. / , and . Perceptual differences between married and single college wanen for the concepts of self, ideal women, and nen's ideal women. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1970, 32(3), 441-442. Rebecca, M. , Hefner, R. , and Olshensky, B. A model of sex-role transcendence. The Journal of Social Issues , 1976, 32(3), 197-206. — Ricely, N. L. I^ivel of self esteem and conformity to sex-role stereotypes. Dissertation Abstracts International , 1973, 34(4-B), 1757-1758: ~ ~" Rosenkrantz, P. S. , Vogel, S. R. , Bee, H. , Broveman, I. K. , and Broverman, D. M, Sex-role stereotypes and self -concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting a nd Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 287-295. " Safilios-Rothschild, C. The influence of the wife's degree of work commitment upon seme aspects of family organization and dynamics. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1970, 32(4), 681-691. Seeman, W. An investigation of Freud's daydream theory. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota), 1950. Cited by Neufeld, E., Langmeyer, D. , and Seeman, W. Sane sex-role stereotypes and personal preferences, 1950 and 1970. Journal of Personality Assessment , 1974, 38(3) , 247-254. Segfried, B. A. and Hendrich, C. Wlien do opposites attract? \
PAGE 97

88 Selcer, R. J., and Hilton, I. R. Cultural differences in the acquistion of sexroles. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the APA , Honolulu, Hawaii, 1972, 8, 91-92. Shainess, N. A. Psychiatrists view: Images of women — past and present, overt and obscured. In Morgan, R. (Ed.) , Sisterhood is Powerful , New York: Vantage Books, 1970. Sheriffs, L. and McKee, R. Sex differences in attitudes about sex differences. Journal of Psychology , 1953, 35, 161-168. Smith, L. Age and sex differences in childrens opinions concerning sex differences. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1939, 54, 451-464. Spanier, G. B. Measuring dyadic adjustment: Ne^^7 scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1976, 38(1), 15-28. Stebbins, L. B. Stress and satisfaction in graduate students' marriages. Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1975. Steinmann, A. Studies in male-female sex-role identifications. Psychotherapy; Theor^^ Research, and Practice , 1975, 12(4), 412. and Fox, D. J. Specific areas of agreerrent and conflict in wonen's self -perceptions and their perceptions of men's ideal wonen in two South American ccmmunities and an urban conmunity in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1969, 31(2) , 281-289. Straus, M. A. Marriage role expectations of high school students. Marriage and Family Living" , 1961, 23(1), 42-43. Stuckert, R. P. Role perception and marital satisfaction: A configurational approach. Journal of Marriage and Family Living , 1963, 25, 415-419. Tarvis, C. \
PAGE 98

89 Weis, S. J. Self esteem and self inplementation in role saliency of voTisn. Dissertation Abstracts International , 1970, 30(11-A) , 5071-5072. Wells, J. A. College women seven years after graduation. Washington, D. C. , U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Williamson, R. C. Marriage Roles, American Style, Sex-Roles in Changing Society , Steward, G. H. and Williamson, R. C. (Eds.), New York: Randan House, 1970. Winch, R. F. Mate Selection. New York: Harper — Brothers Pub., 1958. Zamon-Gass, G. and Nichols, W. C. Take me along: A marital syndrom. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 6(3), 209-217.

PAGE 99

BIOGKWHIQ\L SKETCH Richard M. Camer was bom in Syracaase, New York, on January 2, 1948. His parents are Richard L. Camer and Carol R. Spivey. He spent the first 13 years of his life in New York state and v/ith the exception of one year ia Charlotte, North Carolina, he has been a resident of Florida. He was gradiaated from Palmetto High School, Miami, Florida, in 1966, and he received an Associate of Arts degree fron Miami Dade CoTTnunity College in 1969. After exploring his abilities in the fields of sales, construction, and carpentry, he enrolled at the University of VIest Florida where he earned a baccalaureate degree in psychology in 1973. Since 1973, Richard has been pursuing a Ph.D. in counselor education at the University of Florida. His professional interests are varied and include the relationships among counselor education and counseling in the university setting, existential-phenonenological psychology, coimunitY mental health, ard marriage and family counseling. on

PAGE 100

I certify that I have read tliis study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I certify that I have read this study and that in m/ opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I certify that I have read this study and that in it^ opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Factdty of the Department of Counselor Education and the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of tlie requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December, 1977 Rcfoert 0. StriplingT—Chaafinan Distinguished Service Professor of Counselor Education Larry C. Loesch Assistant Professor of Education of Counselor Education Associate Professor of Psychological Foundations of Education Dean, Graduate School