Citation
Multivariate discrimination between effective and ineffective birth planning of married college couples

Material Information

Title:
Multivariate discrimination between effective and ineffective birth planning of married college couples
Added title page title:
Birth planning of married college couples
Creator:
Griffin, Alan Nash, 1943-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 111 leaves. : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Birth control ( jstor )
Children ( jstor )
Contraception ( jstor )
Husbands ( jstor )
Marriage ( jstor )
Pregnancy ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Rain ( jstor )
Sexual relations ( jstor )
Wives ( jstor )
Birth control -- United States ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Family size ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 106-110.
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator(ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
022042587 ( ALEPH )
13428322 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













Multivariate Discrimination Between Effective and Ineffective
Birth Planning of Married College Couples











By

ALAN NASH GRIFFIN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1971




















































































art



ea












DEDICATION



This work is dedicated to the child who is unwanted because he

has arrived into the world at a time when his parents have not planned for him.









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I wish to express my thanks to Dr. Carl T. Clarke, Director of the Marriage and College Life Project, under whose auspices these data were collected. Special thanks also go to my supervisory chairman, Dr. Ben Barger, for his invaluable encouragement and help with the design of the study. Thanks also to the other men who have served on my advisory committee -- Dr. Marvin E. Shaw, Dr. John Saunders, and Dr. Richard K. McGee.

There were many others whose work and whose thoughts contributed to the success of this study. Thanks to Mr. Mark Lefkowitz, Mrs. Mary Davis and Mrs. Roberta Hudson for their work with the Marriage and College Life Project. Special thanks to Mrs. Pam Marcum for her excellent typing skills. Most of all, my extra special thanks to Mr. Darryl Downing, without whose computer programming skills my task would have been many times greater.


iii















PREFACE


In September of 1969, I joined the staff of the Marriage and

College Life Project as a graduate assistant. My first assignment by its director, Dr. Carl T. Clarke, was to prepare a short review of literature on family planning behavior. I quickly became enmeshed in the subject, later turning to favor the term birth planning over the

more popular term of family planning.

In my forays into the literature, and in earlier research

analyses of birth planning behavior, I became aware of the fact that there were numerous difficulties to be found in this area of research. For one thing, definitions of the behavior indicated that there were many behaviors which were operating, some of these often operating concurrently. Included in the broader definition can be behaviors related to use of contraception, abortion, sterilization, and even attempts to overcome lack of ability to conceive. After much deliberation, I decided to concentrate on birth planning from the standpoint of attempts to control the use of contraception in manipulating

timing of births. This led me to the choice of dependent variable groups of effective vs ineffective birth planners in terms of success or failure in use of contraception in achieving planned births.

There was another influence which has urged me onward in my

research interests in this area. In my early readings of the "pioneer"


iv











studies of fertility and birth planning, I read several authors' conclusions that psychological variables were of no consequence. This not only challenged my professional interests in the field of psychology; it simply did not make good common sense to me. So, I embarked upon a search for psychological correlates of birth planning behavior.

Concurrent with all of this, I developed an interest in social

role behavior. As a psychologist interested in the reciprocity between man and his social environment, this intrigues me. So, I settled on

my psychological variables of interest as those dealing with role behavior. I might add that the influence of Dr. Clarke was none too slight in this respect.

In my studies of the methodologies used in previous research efforts, I became aware of the fact that few of the researchers evidenced a grasp of the totality of behavior interrelatedness. Most studies had concentrated on simple bivariate or trivariate analyses. Multivariate analyses were the exception. Yet, it had occurred to me that these various behaviors had covarying effects. Moreover, the demographic variables were of such power that they often overshadowed underlying psychological variables. Could it be that the early researchers simply lacked the skills or imagination to devise adequate measures and procedures to get at these underlying psychological
correlates? I thought this to be the case. Therefore, a multivariate analysis simply made good sense and was the only way to adequately understand how all of the various influences were interacting with one another. Therefore, I hope that the reader may come to have an


v










appreciation for the complexity of this study and the fruits of its design. I can, in all honesty, say that I have learned a great deal

from the data analysis itself, and I could never have written the revised theory which appears at the end of this work without it.




Alan Griffin
June, 1971


vi













TABLE OF CONTENTS


DEDICATION.........

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PREFACE .......

LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABSTRAC........

QIAPIER


I" INTRODUCTI(N
Background. ...............
Study Rationale
Purposes of the Study
Hypotheses. ...............

II: IETHODOLOGY. ...............

III: RESULTS.. . ... .........
Tests of the Hypotheses
Relationships Between the'Variables
The Multivariate Analysis

IV: DISCUSSION . ... ..........Test of the Study Rationale
Ancillary Analyses.. ..........
Revised Theory of the Phenomena ..
Conclusions

APPENDIX .......................

REFERENCE . ......................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..


vii


Page



iv iii iv



ix xi


1
2
16 20 22

23

28 30 37 45

50 50 52 61 65

67

106

i1














LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1: Breakdown of 243 Couples in Available Subject
Pool ..................... 29

2: Selected Descriptive Statistics of the Sample
by Groups...................................31

3: Means and Standard Deviations of Independent
Variables...............................32
4: Initial F Values for Independent Analyses of
Variance............................... 34

5: Intercorrelation Matrix of Control Variables 38 6: Intercorrelation Matrix of Investigatory
Variables...............................39

7: Intercorrelation Matrix of Exploratory Variables...............................41

8: Correlation Matrix of Investigatory vs
Control Variables........................43

9: Correlation Matrix of Investigatory vs
Exploratory Variables....................44
10: Correlation Matrix of Control vs Exploratory
Variables.... ...................46

11: Summary of Step-Wise Discriminant Analysis . . . 47 12: Accuracy of Classification Matrixes of Discriinant
Function at Selected Steps..................48

13: Time of (set of First Pregnancy..............55

14: Contraceptive Success or Failure in Birth Planning
According to Type of Contraceptive............56

15: Current Method of Contraception by Groups . ... 58


viii











LI ST OF ABBREVIATIONS


A. Control Variables


1. W-RelInf: Influence of the wife's religion on birth planning behavior.
2. H-RelInf: Influence of the husband's religion on birth planning behavior.
3. AnInc: Family annual income.
4. H-Class: Husband's student classification.
5. HFOcc: Husband's father's occupation.
6. WFOcc: lVife's father's occupation.

B. Investigatory Variables

7. H-IntInst: Discrepancy between husband's perception of ideal expectations about marriage and enactments
within his own marriage in the functional area of internal instrumentality within the marriage.
8. H-DivResp: Same as above for the functional area of division of responsibility within the marriage.
9. H-Sol: Same for solidarity of the marriage.
10. H-ExtRel: External relations of the family to non-family world.
11. H-Sex: Sexuality within the marriage.
12. W-IntInst: Wife's scores corresponding to H-IntInst.
13. W-DivResp: Division of responsibility, see above, etc.
14. W-Sol: Solidarity, etc.
15. W-ExtRel: External relations, etc.
16. W-Sex: Sexuality, etc.
17. DAVE-H: Discrepancy between perceptions of marital partners
regarding ideal expectations about marital roles
assigned to the husband. 18. DAVE-W: Same for roles assigned to the wife.
19. DAVE-P: For roles assigned to the partnership.
20. DIPORE-H: Discrepancy between perceptions of marital partners regarding enactments in their own marriage of
roles assigned to the husband. 21. DIPORE-W: Same for roles assigned to the wife.
22. DIPORE-P: Roles of the partnership.


ix











LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (continued) :


C. Exploratory Variables

23. H-Age-Mar: Age of the husband at time of marriage.
24. W-Age-Mar: Age of the wife at time of marriage.
25. AdComp: Perceived adequacy of marital companionship.
26. H-Stress: Index of the husband's perception of situational marital stress.
27. W-Stress: Index of the wife's perception of situational marital stress.


x











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

MULTIVARIATE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE
BIRTH PLANNING OF MARRIED COLLEGE COUPLES By

Alan Nash Griffin

August, 1971

Chairman: Ben Barger, Ph.D.
Major Department: Psychology

A multivariate discrimination of differences between a group of

effective birth planners and a group of ineffective birth planners was conducted. The rationale of the study was that differential perceptions

of functions of marital roles along with congruence of spouses' perceptions of role assignments would be significantly different between groups of birth planners.

It was hypothesized that effective birth planners would exhibit more congruence of spouses' perceptions of roles of the husband, roles of the wife, and partnership roles. It was also hypothesized that individual subjects' congruence of expectations of ideal marital roles with enactments of their own marital roles would be greater for effective birth planners than for ineffective birth planners.

There were 61 couples in the effective birth planners group and 47 couples in the ineffective birth planners group who met the criterion of length of marriage of two through 11 years of marriage. Data had previously been gathered through the Marital Roles Questionnaire as well as an additional questionnaire as a part of an overall research effort of the University of Florida Marriage and College Life Project.


xi










Additional variables concerning religious influence on birth planning, socio-economic status, adequacy of marital companionship, ages at time

of marriage, and perceived situational marital strain were also analysed. All variables were analyzed by the statistical procedure

of step-wise discriminant analysis.

Hypothesis One received limited support. Hypothesis Two was confirmed. Additionally, the interrelationships between all test variables were analyzed and discussed. Finally, an empirical determination of the five variables which best discriminated between groups was found.

From these results, a revised theory of the phenomena was

developed. Implications for the reciprocal relationship between birth planning effectiveness and marital roles behavior were discussed. These implications were discussed in the context of predetermining factors arising out of demographic influences upon the respective

behaviors. Conclusions with regard to a longitudinal predictive study with predetermined hypotheses were made, emphasizing the antecedent and subsequent effects of birth planning effectiveness and marital roles behavior upon each other.


xii












QCHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Birth control and birth planning behavior are areas which are receiving increasing attention these days. There have been articles written in the commercial press and even television programs devoted to the subject (for example: ABC News, 1970). Last year, the federal government, in response to public concerns about overpopulation and man's relationship to his environment in general, passed massive legislation to support population programs and new research in the area. After a conspicuous absence of enthusiasm for the topic over the course of several years, the psychological profession decided to become involved in the area of study. Accordingly, the American Psychological Association (1970) established a task force to deal with the psychological study of population and to encourage greater participation by psychologists in the research of population problems. From the many areas of population research, this paper concentrates on the area of birth planning behavior. Note that the term, "birth planning behavior," is used in lieu of the more familiar "family planning behavior." As pointed out by Pohlman (1969), the latter tern is subject to some confusion. For example, what is the family planning? On the other hand, the term, "birth planning behavior," clearly implies behavior regarding the planning of births.


1




2


Background

In surveying the literature on birth planning behavior, it is

quickly seen, as pointed out by Pohlman (1967), that the work relating psychological variables to the behavior is scant indeed. On the other hand, the emphasis upon demography is considerable (Whelpton and Kiser,

Eds., 1946-1958; Freedman, Whelpton, and Campbell, 1959; Whelpton, Campbell, and Patterson, 1966; Westoff, Potter, Sagi, and Mishler, 1961; Westoff, Potter, and Sagi, 1963; Kiser, Grabill, and Campbell, 1968). In general, these studies found relationships between fertility and birth planning and these following classes of variables:

color and ethnic group effects
residence and migration
education
occupational status
economic conditions
religious preference.

By far, the strongest influences upon birth planning behavior were found to be religious preference and occupational status. The findings in regard to the religion variables were almost always based upon the

religious preference of the wife. Typically, Catholics accounted for most of the variation, although other variations are discussed in a later section of this paper. Not only in terms of birth planning

failure or ineffectiveness did Catholics stand out but also in terms of size of completed family, both actual and desired, and ages of the

couples during which child bearing occurred. The findings relating to occupational status concentrated on the occupational status of the husband as a general rule. Although less clear cut than findings relating to religious preference, those relating occupational status,








and socio-economic status in the broader context, to birth planning

showed the least effective planners to be at the lower end of the scale. It is perhaps noteworthy that Kiser et al. (1968) concluded that the influence of socio-economic status in general was diminishing and that this might also become true for the influence of religion

upon birth planning and fertility.

Within the contexts of demographic categories, whatever their

ultimate effects, the significance of psychological variables in relation to birth planning variables clearly emerges. For example, as

pointed out by Rainwater (1965), there are psychological undertones to the degree of acceptance or rejection of religious teachings, and, too, there are psychological characteristics which correlate with the degree to which one identifies with his social peer or reference group. So, the realm of the psychological, long neglected or afforded little more than peripheral treatment, comes as an area of much potential in the

research of birth planning behavior.

The early studies of birth planning behavior were carried out,

for the most part, by demographers who intended to attack the area from a comprehensive standpoint. As such, they could have hardly ignored psychological study of the behavior. Their results, however, tended to reflect the inadequacies of their research methods. These early studies,

the Indianapolis Study (Whelpton and Kiser, Eds., 1946-58), the Princeton Study or Growth of American Families Study (Freedman et al., 1959; Whelpton et al., 1966), and the Family Growth in Metropolitan America Study (Westoff et al., 1961; Westoff et al., 1963), were massive "tshotgun"l efforts aimed at describing the social psychological correlates







of fertility and birth planning behavior. Their drawbacks lay primarily in the choice of instruments used. The main instrument, in each case, was the questionnaire, either self-administered or administered by an interviewer. Another important drawback was the almost exclusive reliance upon data taken from female subjects. Also, there were often limitations upon eligibility of subjects which curtailed the studies. For example, the Indianapolis Study was limited to native, white, Protestant, once-married, urban subjects who were married in the years 1927-1929. The FGIMA study excluded subjects who had experienced illegitimacy, plural births, adoption, child death, or pregnancy wastage in excess of one miscarriage. The subject couples were white, native, once-married, living together, residents of seven of the eight largest metropolitan areas of the United States who had given birth to a child in September of 1956.

Scant though they were, the results of the investigations of

psychological correlates of birth planning of the early studies were of some value, especially in terms of laying plans for future research. The Indianapolis Study (Kiser and Whelpton, 1958) offered up these results regarding "personality characteristics" and birth planning behavior. Personal inadequacy related positively to contraceptive effectiveness and negatively to size of planned family. These findings all but vanished, however, when socio-economic status was held constant.
No support was found for the hypothesis that a feeling that children restrict personal freedom motivated couples to control fertility and plan smaller families. Their data, which were post hoc, did however confirm that lack of success in fertility planning and having three or




5



more children were associated with a feeling of restriction. The hypothesis that ego-centered interest in children was related to

fertility planning status or size of planned family was unconfirmed. Fear of pregnancy showed a very slight relationship to fertility planning status as also rationality of behavior related very slightly to fertility. The relationship between conformity and fertility was unclear. In each of these analyses, the data were taken from a few selected items from the questionnaire instrument. By and large, it was the authors' own conclusion that the data were inadequate to test these hypotheses, the limitations of the questionnaire items being the chief source of the inadequacies.

Westoff et al. (1961, 1963), using data from the Edwards

Personal Preference Schedule in the FGIMA Study, tested ten hypotheses. In only three instances did correlations reach statistical significance. Manifest anxiety correlated -.07 with number of children desired. Compulsiveness and ambiguity tolerance, which appeared to be two measures of one underlying factor, correlated, respectively, -.11 and .11 with number of children desired. Little overall confidence was

given to these as predictive indices. It is noted that this study shared a common perspective with the Indianapolis Study; that is, the investigation of psychological variables was limited to personality constructs or traits. This approach was very narrow and failed to acknowledge other areas of psychological investigation. Nevertheless, these researchers concluded that psychological variables were of little importance in the study of birth planning behavior.








An important outgrowth of these pioneer studies was an emphasis

on the development of the KAP studies. The initials of these studies stand for Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practises related to birth planning

behavior. The early studies were fertility surveys aimed at sampling cross-sections of large populations in order to explore the social and psychological factors associated with fertility differences. There also was a desire for data upon which projections of future trends could be made. These survey studies prompted much discussion about the directions to be taken in population research (Kiser, 1962; Berelson, 1966; Bogue, 1966, 1967). Bogue (1966) in particular pointed out the need for baseline data in order to be able to measure the effects of public information programs in bringing about change. The KAP studies, many still in progress, were designed essentially for this purpose (Berelson, 1966; Bumpass and Westoff, 1969; Westoff and Ryder, 1969; Bumpass andWtoff,1970). lvre than 400 KAP studies have been conducted all over the world. These data have been useful in demonstrating to governments the acceptability of birth planning programs

and have also been used to provide explanations of fertility differences, mainly in terms of social stratification variables (Fawcett, 1970). Fawcett's statement very succinctly summarizes the results of these study data.

Typically, KAP data have shown that women desire
a smaller family size than they are likely to have by the end of their reproductive period;
that they are not unwilling to discuss sex, procreation, and contraception; that they know
little about methods of preventing pregnancy
but are anxious to learn; and that they consider
it proper that governments should provide family
planning advice and services (1970, p. 39).




7


Fawcett further noted that the KAP survey projects provided remarkable opportunities for controlled research in field settings; for example,

in the area of persuasive communications.

An interesting area which has come about more or less as a spin-off from the KAP studies is the investigation of persuasive communications in affecting public levels of knowledge, attitudes, and practises related to birth planning. There have been many field

studies of this type which are reported in various issues of Studies in Family Planning. As far as formal research projects are concerned, the more interesting ones have been done in Puerto Rico and Jamaica (Hill, Stycos, and Back, 1959; Stycos and Back, 1964) and in Taiwan (Berelson and Freedman, 1964; Freedman and Takeshita, 1969). There have also been interesting discussions on the possibilities of applications of various communications theories and concepts to studies of this kind (Berelson, 1963, 1964,1966 Bogue, 1962, 1967; Smith, 1965). Other studies are also mentioned briefly by Fawcett (1970) and Pohlman (1969).

The study by Hill, Stycos, and Back (1959) principally

investigated the effects upon women patients who were seen in family planning clinics in Puerto Rico. They conducted classes on birth planning and contraception and found that there was a favorable response in the direction of acceptance of contraception. Another interesting

finding by this group of researchers was that any form of public communication which drew attention to contraception aroused enough curiosity to eventually stimulate inquiry and some degree of acceptance of contraception.

The study done in Taiwan (Freedman and Takeshita, 1969) was




8


a well-planned and well-executed experimental effort to make birth planning available quickly to the whole population of an Asian city and to observe the effects systematically. It emphasized bringing

birth planning to those who wanted to limit the size of their families rather than attempting to change ideas about the number of children desired. Neighborhood units were randomly assigned to one of four communications treatment: (a) personal visits by health workers,

mailing, and group meetings applied to both husbands and wives,

(b) those applied to wives only, (c) mailings only, and (d) no treatment. In addition, treatment was varied according to density of population. In the most dense sector of the city, 50% of the neighborhood units received treatment (a). In the least dense section, 20% of the units received treatment (a). The major dependent variable

was increase in the practise of birth planning for the period of the experiment and for a two-year follow-up.

It was found that, of the various experimental treatments -group meetings, home visits, mailings -- the most effective was group meetings which were rated as "effective" immediately afterwards by the person conducting the meeting. This was especially effective for the acceptance of the IUD. Efforts directed at both marital partners were no more effective than those directed at wives alone. It was suggested that informal processes of diffusion of information played an important role when it was found that there were powerful effects even for the low- density neighborhoods. Those persons who believed that use of contraception was increasing among their friends and relatives were more apt to accept contraception themselves. This








finding pointed to the importance of support within the social system, and the overcoming of "pluralistic ignorance."

A very salient point involving research and programs aimed at persuasive communications has been made by Smith (1965); that is, that the most strategic class of factors that govern the effectiveness of persuasive communication seemsto be essentially political. It is one thing to observe effects of persuasion upon a population in Taiwan where the national policy is one of encouragement of family limitation (as is also the case throughout Asia). It is quite another case to undertake attitude change. Smith indicated that psychological research might well aim at change of political conditions affecting the issues

of birth planning.

Another area of research which would seem to follow logically on the heels of the preceding is the study of the psychological consequences of family size and population density. Unfortunately, the research efforts in this area are scant. The most noteworthy effort has been Pohlman's attempt to review the literature on the adverse effects of unwanted pregnancy. It was his conclusion, however, that the evidence was inconclusive and the findings unconvincing. One problem has been the confusion which has prevailed in regard to the term "unwanted" (Pohlman, 1965a). The concept of wanting is highly subject to the influence of time. A conception may have been unwanted before it occurred; yet, after pregnancy has progressed, the as-yet-unborn child may be looked upon more favorably and willingly accepted at birth.

Sketchy results have been found in studies of the effects of




10


family size and birth spacing on the children of the family. Lieberman

(1970) has suggested that family size bears some relation to emotional adjustment and psychological illness with differential effects. Clausen (1966) has cited studies which suggest that achievement orientation, verbal ability, school performance, and occupational success are inversely related to family size. A study by Strodtbeck and Creelan (1968) analyzed variations in parent-child and sibling

relationships due to differences in number and spacing of children as these might account for intelligence or for sex role identity. In a review of studies relating marital success to family size, Christensen

(1968) suggested that a fruitful line might be the analysis of marital success in relation to the balance achieved between values and behavior in childbearing.

Certainly one of the most important areas of research which is related to birth planning behavior is that which investigates psychological factors in the use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Pohlman (1969) has reviewed much of the literature in this area without reaching any firm conclusions. Three consistent reasons for not using contraception when conception was unwanted were found by Westoff et al. (1961). These were religion, interference with sexual relations, and fear or ignorance of contraception. Rainwater (1965) found that some of his subjects expressed the feeling
that fear of pregnancy inhibited their sexual relations. Rodgers and Ziegler (1968a) concluded that couples who successfully adopted use of oral contraceptives experienced an improvement in sexual relations. Thlis improvement, however, represented a return to the more or less




11


normal pattern rather than an exceptional improvement. These subjects were also found to experience better psychological functioning following adoption of contraception (Ziegler et al., 1968). Babchuk and LaCognata (1960) concluded from their study that couples who had more problems in the areas of sex and husband-wife relations were less successful in using contraceptive methods. And, Ziegler et al. (1966) found that men undergoing vasectomies reported no loss in sexual

activity or pleasure. However, Ziegler et al. also concluded that other data suggested that other behavior did not correspond to the verbal behavior of these subjects. An interesting finding was reported by Adams (1961). He found that subjects who expressed attitudinal ambivalence towards contraception were more prone to use of less effective methods of contraception or no methods at all. One feature of the Adams study which makes it especially interesting is that his

data were taken from the Family Growth in Metropolitan America Study whose original authors had concluded that psychological variables were

of no importance in affecting birth planning.

A research angle which takes a rather different approach is the study of factors affecting desire for children. Pohlman (1969)

has catalogued the research findings in this area, and Bogue (1967) has provided a schema for the study of the area. Examples of conflicting motives may be found in the proposition that large families contribute to good marital adjustment, yet small families provide husbands and wives with more leisure opportunity and improve sexual adjustment by eliminating or reducing fear.

Apart from discussion of motives related to desire for children




12


(see Wyatt, 1967; Pohlman, 1965b, 1969), notable research has been done by Rabin (1965) and Rabin and Green (1968) in their development of a scale to measure motivation for parenthood. Four motivational categories seem to be of promise: altruistic, fatalistic, narcissistic, and instrumental. Rainwater's research (1960, 1965) has suggested the operation of conformity to social noms as a motivating factor. Whelpton et al. (1966) suggested that liking for children was a factor

in wanting children. Hoffman and Wyatt (1960) hypothesized that having children provided more of a challenge to the wife in her family role, and this received some modest empirical support from Rainwater (1965). Westoff et al. (1961, 1963) found small correlations between marital

adjustment and size of family. On the other hand, Blood and Wolfe (1960) concluded from their data that more than three or four children seemed to impair communication, intimacy, romance, and satisfaction in the marriage. Delay of the first child for purposes of facilitating adjustment and allowing for companionship was found to be desired by subjects interviewed by Westoff et al. (1961). Dyer's (1963) subjects characterized the first child as an intrusion of a third, nonsocialized, all-demanding member into the family system. And, Griffin, Clarke, and Day (1970) found that couples whose children were unplanned perceived the companionship in their marriages as less adequate than

couples who had some or all of their children planned.
In the area of study of family interaction, one finds a body of literature which has been the most promising in affording insights into differences between various classes of birth planning behavior. The research in the Caribbean was directed strongly at the study of




13


family interaction variables in influencing birth planning (Stycos, 1955; Hill, Stycos, and Back, 1959; Stycos and Back, 1964). For example, vague and ambivalent small family values were overshadowed

by aspects of conjugal family structure that interfered with actions necessary to strengthen or realize those values. Variables such as communication between spouses, sexual satisfaction, marital happiness,

and patterns of autonomy and dominance related to birth planning behaviors. These are variables which have related to the behavior fairly consistently. For example, poor marital conmuication has been shown elsewhere to be associated with less consistency of planning behavior (Brooks, 1966; also, Yaukey, Griffiths, and Roberts, 1967). Patterns of marital dominance were found to be related to birth planning by the early Indianapolis Study (Whelpton and Kiser, 1958)

and as late as the recent study by Rodgers and Ziegler (1968b). Chilman (1968), in analyzing the relationship between fertility and poverty with particular attention to family variables, concluded that family life styles included factors such as segregation of husband and wife roles which interfere with effective birth planning.

The most provocative research, from a psychologist's point of view, has been that done by Rainwater (1960, 1965). He studied family size preferences and contraceptive practises among middle- and lowerclass urban Americans in relation to conjugal role relationships and
sexual behavior. His conclusion was that preference for a small family was associated with husband-dominated or jointly organized conjugal relationships, interest in activities outside of the home, and anxiety on the part of the wife about coping with household tasks,




14


while large family preferences were associated with medium-segregated conjugal relationships, values oriented toward children and the home, high salience of sexual relationships, and concern about excessive egocentricism. His conclusions with regard to contraceptive practice

are discussed in the next section of this paper.

The present study is prompted by the conclusions of Rainwater's

research regarding the relationship between marital role relationships and birth planning behaviors. The Rainwater research was very provocative, and it has provided the most comprehensive theory to date about the relationship between husband-wife interaction and

birth planning behaviors. On the other hand, the basis for his research conclusions was very shaky due to the poor methodology of his study.

The purpose for the Rainwater (1965) research was the exploration of the social psychological factors that lie behind the goals of

family size that people set for themselves and the factors that affect the effectiveness of couples' family limitation methods, if any, in achieving their own desired family size goals. His research population was white American families from the middle and lower classes, and Negro American families from the lower classes, equally represented by classes and represented by quotas for Catholic/noncatholic religion. His sample contained 152 couples plus subjects from an earlier study
(1960) who were 50 men and 55 women not married to each other. In all, there were 409 subjects representing 257 families. Of these, 185 families lived in Chicago, 45 in Cincinnati, and 32 in Oklahoma City. All wives were under 40 years of age. Subjects were contacted




15


and interviewed at home through open-ended, conversational interviews. The research instrument was a form containing lead questions regarding topic areas and instructions to the interviewer for areas to probe

in more detailed discussion, all open-ended. All responses were recorded by hand by the interviewer.

The topics of the Rainwater interview instrument were raised in this order: number of children born to wife, general discussion of the marriage, of the responsibilities and personal qualities of

husband and wife, and of the problems the couple had in the marriage; discussion of family size ideals, the couples' own desires in terms of number of children, ideas about why couples want large and small families; contraceptive experiences and attitudes, and feelings about medical resources for contraceptive advice, and discussion of sexual relations in the marriage. Later, all of the subjects' responses were

coded by Rainwater himself by sections, and then each interview was read on a case history basis. Some of the coded variables were subjected to bivariate statistical comparisons (i.e., chi-square test), but for the most part, the analyses consisted of case history style presentations and quotations from individual cases to support the inferences drawn by Rainwater. The major variables which he treated were: social class, race, gender, religion, conjugal role relationships, sexual and marital relations, family size preferences, rationales for
family size, motivations for large and small families, family limitation and contraceptive methods, effective and ineffective contraceptive practises, and knowledge and use of medical assistance for family limitation.




16


There were several methodological flaws in the Rainwater study. First, he did not explain the basis for the selection of his particular subjects. He did, however, describe their demographic characteristics. There was no check of interviewer reliability, although the instrument was heavily dependent upon the probing efforts of the persons who conducted the interviews. Most importantly, the coding of all responses was done by Rainwater alone, with no other judge as a crosscheck. Additionally, his few quantitative data analyses were relatively simple with no attempt to control for variable covariances. His choice

of use of qualitative analysis left the strength of his conclusions open to the reader's willingness to accept Rainwater's personal inferences.

Despite these obvious flaws, there is much merit which can be found in Rainwater's discussion. He has raised some interesting questions regarding the relationship between marital roles, social

class, and bird planning behaviors. In particular, he has raised some very salient points regarding effective as opposed to ineffective birth planning in relation to marital roles. It is to the investigation of these variables which the present research directs itself.



Study Rationale

Rainwater (1965) investigated the relationship between conjugalrole relationships and effective/ineffective birth planning. His definition of conjugal-role relationships was taken from Bott (1957), and also included strong influences from Bell and Vogel (1960) and Hess and Handel (1959).




17


By a conjugal-role relationship is meant those
aspects of the relationship between husband and
wife that consist of reciprocal role expectations and the activities of each spouse in relation to
the other. Patterns of task performance and
expectations about it are involved, as are the
kinds of family leadership, the solidarity
characteristic of couples, and the value systems
used to legitimate marital role execution.
Separateness and connectedness (one aspect of
family solidarity) is an important theme in
characterizing the role relationship, as are the
central family concerns and the way the couple
establishes boundaries for its world. Consensus
(congruence of images) between the partners is
significantly conditioned by the acceptance each partner gives to the role-relationship as it has
developed in the marriage (Rainwater, 1965, p. 29).

All of these many aspects of marriage Rainwater attempted to compress into one dimension, ranging from the jointly organized to the highly segregated conjugal role-relationship. In relating this to effective and ineffective contraceptive practises, he concluded

that marriages which exhibited a joint-role relationship were effective (100% afterthe birth of the last wanted child) as opposed to highlysegregated relationships which were largely ineffective (74% after

the birth of the last child as opposed to only 26% effective). Rainwater further concluded that couples in the more segregated

relationships tended to have less communication with each other, to go their own separate ways more, to have more serious financial and interpersonal problems, and to be generally less family-centered in
their conceptions of themselves than couples in less segregated rolerelationships. This same distinction of type of role-relationship was also found between social classes. The upper-middle class exhibited 88% joint role-relationships, while the lower-lower class exhibited only 4% joint with 72% segregated role-relationships.




18


The general area of roles and role patterning in marriages was excellently reviewed by Tharp (1963a). These were his summary generalizations from the study of existing research and theoretical materials:

Mates are selected from a field of eligibles....
Cultural homogamys provide for a similarity
between mates with respect to social, value, and
personality characteristics. Mate-selection
(courtship) roles manifest patterns of needs and expectations which differ in context and organization from marriage roles .... Modal role
definitions exist and are sex-differentiated.
They are provided for by parental identifications.
The husband role is the more instrumental, the
wife role the more expressive-integrative....
The more general statement is ... that marital satisfaction is a function of the satisfaction
of needs and/or expectations specific to husband
and wife roles (p. 115).

Thus, the integrative quality of a marriage is a function of role perception, role expectation, and role performance of marital partners.

In another study, Tharp (1963b) employed a factor-analytic design in breaking down the marital roles into five areas. These were: (1) internal instrumentality, (2) division of responsibility,

(3) solidarity, (4) external relations, and (5) sexuality. There were some differences in the composition of these factors between the two sexes. For example, sexuality was found to contain an element of non-sexual companionship for men but not so for women. Note the similarity between these factors which were empirically derived by
Tharp and the factors proposed by Bell and Vogel (1960) or by Hess and Handel (1959) which influenced Rainwater (1965) in his definition of conjugal role relationships. Bell and Vogel proposed four broad functional problems of activity: (1) task performance, (2) family




19


leadership, (3) integration and solidarity, and (4) pattern maintenance. Hess and Handel outlined five major processes: (1) establishing a

pattern of separateness and connectedness, (2) establishing a satisfactory congruence of images through the exchange of suitable testimony,

(3) evolving modes of interaction into central family concerns,

(4) establishing the boundaries of the family's world of experience, and (5) dealing with significant biosocial issues of family life.

There appear to emerge, then, several aspects of marital roles which describe the qualities of the marital relationship and dynamics. And, according to the Rainwater conclusions, some, if not all, of these aspects of marital roles relate to effectiveness of birth planning

behavior. The central thesis of the present research is a test of that relationship, and a more thorough examination of the relationship between the perception of marital roles and birth planning effectiveness.

The analysis of marital roles may be accomplished in two basic

approaches. One is the analysis of congruence between each individual's expectations about roles with his perceptions of actual role performance. Another is the analysis of the congruence between partners in regard to role expectations or perceived role performances. These analyses can be broken down by assignment of the roles to the husband or the wife or a shared role, or these analyses can be broken down according to the function of the role in the marriage as per Tharp's five factors,
internal instrumentality, division of responsibility, solidarity, external relations, and sexuality.

It is the thesis of this study that congruence of spouses'

expectations and perceived enactments of roles of the husband, roles




20


of the wife, and shared roles, along with congruence of individuals' expectations and perceived enactments of marital roles according to Tharp's five areas of functions relate positively to effectiveness

of birth planning behavior. That is, effective planners should exhibit a greater degree of congruence according to these measures of marital roles than do ineffective planners. In particular, this should be true for spouses' congruence of perceptions of the enactments of the husband's role and also should be true for congruence of individuals' expectations and perceived enactments of the functional areas of internal instrumentality and division of responsibility.



Purposes of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to test the thesis stated above. Beyond this, however, there were several other purposes of this study, some intentional and some exploratory. It was pointed out earlier that birth planning behaviors have been shown to relate strongly to two main demographic variables, religion and socio-economic

status as defined primarily by the occupation of the head of the household. Additionally, it was suggested by Rainwater (1965) that the primary set of independent variables, those assessing the several aspects of marital roles, also tend to relate to socio-economic status.

With these points in mind, this study was designed as a multivariate analysis, as suggested by a report by the American Psychological Association (1970), in order to investigate the relationships between each of thle independent variables and birth planning effectiveness after having ascertained and controlled for the effects of confounding




21


of variables. The confounding effects of the demographic variables were also modified by the use of a readily identifiable subject population, married college students. While a college population is not entirely homogeneous, it still is more homogeneous than the general population. Aside from this design control of the demographic

variables, a more precise empirical control was employed by the statistical procedure.

This study also analyzed a set of exploratory variables. For example, adequacy of companionship in the marriage, shown to relate to birth planfulness (Griffin et al., 1970),was thought also to relate to planning effectiveness. Additionally, companionship has been shown to be the single most important need in contemporary American marriages (Blood and Wolfe, 1960). A second exploratory variable was also suggested by the study by Griffin et al. (1970); that is, the perception

of situational marital strain. Accordingly, an index of perception of situational marital strain was one of the exploratory variables. Finally, more out of curiosity than theory, the ages of each of the marital partners at the time of marriage were exploratory variables. There have been discussions of the feasibility of approaching the study of marriage as a function of human development (see Rowe, 1966). If

this were a viable approach, then age at time of marriage may have borne an important relationship not only to marital roles but also
to birth planning effectiveness.

In all, this study contained three classes of independent variables. These were investigatory, exploratory, and control variables. The study was intended to discriminate between two clearly




22


defined groups of birth planners along a continuum of planning

effectiveness. A two-fold result of this was expected. First, this would lend itself to some of the differences between the psychological environments of these two groups, differences of psychological perspective. Secondly, a model of correlating psychosocial influences with planning effectiveness would serve to generate hypotheses regarding the further study of factors which may prove

useful in predicting planning effectiveness.



Hypotheses

Each of these was a general hypothesis, and each was tested by several different measures.

1. Effective birth planners as opposed to
ineffective birth planners exhibit less
discrepancy between individual's expectations about ideal marital roles and
perceived role enactments in five areas
of marriage functions as defined by
Tharp (1963b).

2. Effective birth planners as opposed to
ineffective birth planners exhibit less
discrepancy between marital partners' role
ideals and role enactments for the role
of the husband, the role of the wife, and
partnership roles.

Operational definitions of these hypotheses are provided in the methodology section.













CIAPTER II

METHODOLOGY



There was an existing data pool available through the

University of Florida Marriage and College Life Project. The

subjects for this research were married couples selected on the

basis of the husband's being an enrolled college student at the

University of Florida in the Fall quarter of 1969. The data were

gathered in 1969-70. All together, 243 couples completed each of

the following instruments:

1. Survey of Needs and Services for Married
Students. This was completed by the
husbands and wives jointly. Many questions
were asked regarding the background,
finances, recreational activities, housing
accommodations, etc., of the subjects.

2. Marriage and College Environment Inventory.
This is a research instrument developed by Clarke.1 This instrument and each instrument listed below were completed without
collaboration between subjects.

3. Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale
(modified short form), (Locke and
Wallace, 1959).

4. The Marriage Roles Questionnaire (Tharp,
1963b, 1965).



1
Available from Dr. Carl T. Clarke, Marriage and College Life Project, Infirmary, University of Florida.


23




24


5. The Family Planning Questionnaire. This
instrument contained items relating to
birth control practices. It also assessed the planfulness of each wife's pregnancies and type of contraceptive procedure which
was used in the past. Also included was a semantic-differential instrument to measure
attitudes towards various contraceptive
procedures.2

These data were collected by two procedures. The first precedure

collected data through group testing sessions. The second data

collection method obtained the subjects' testing through home visits.

In no case was collaboration between marital partners permitted (except

for the one survey instrument as indicated above). The full

methodology of the project study has been described in an unpublished

report.3

From the existing data pool, two groups of subjects were

drawn. Since many of the independent variables were subject to

effects from very short or long lengths of marriage, the limitations

of length of marriage from two through 11 years were imposed. The

two groups were:

1. Effective planners. These were subjects
who had had only planned pregnancies, or
if they had had no pregnancies, were using
same form of contraception at time of
interview.

2. Ineffective planners. These were subjects
who had had at least one unplanned pregnancy
which occurred during a time that some fonm of contraception was being used. That is to say, the pregnancy represented contraceptive
failure.


2
Ibid.
3
By Griffin, A. and Clarke, C. T. Marriage and College Life Project, Infirmary, University of Florida.




25


Groups 1 and 2 were compared for group differences by use of

the statistical procedure of step-wise discriminant analysis along

the following variables:

1. Area discrepancy scores of differences
between ideal expectations about marriage
and enactments within one's own marriage
from the Marriage Roles Questionnaire as
per the scoring system of Tharp (1963b,
1965) .4 There were scores for husband(S)
and scores for wive(5) in each of these
areas:
a. Division of responsibility.
b. Internal instrumentality.
c. External relations.
d. Solidarity.
e. Sexuality.

2. Role discrepancy scores between marital
partners' perceptions of ideal marriage
expectations and of own marriage enactments.5 Scores for each couple were obtained for each
of the following:
a. Roles for the husband.
b. Roles for the wife.
c. Roles shared on a partnership basis.
These scores were obtained for discrepancies between ideal marriage expectations (3) and
also for one's own marital enactments (3).

3. Ratio of stress to satisfaction items from
the Marriage and College Environment Inventory
for husbands and also for wives.

In addition to these variables, two classes of "control" variables

were also entered into the statistical procedure. These were:

1. Assessment of religious influence on planning,
empir'ically based on studies by Westoff et al.
(1961, 1963); Whelpton et al. (1966); Freediian


4
With some minor modifications according to personal comuncations between R. G. Tharp and C. T. Clarke. Available from Dr. Carl T. Clarke, Marriage and College Life Project, Infirmary, University of Florida.
5
Scoring developed by Clarke, C. T., Lefkowitz, M., and Griffin, A. Marriage and College Life Project, Infirmary, University of Florida.




26


et al. (1959). Each subject was classed along a continuum of religious influence on planning
from least efficient to most efficient as
follows:
1. Active Catholic.
2. Inactive Catholic.
3. Inactive Protestant, no religious affiliation.
4. Active Protestant.
5. Jewish.
This was found as a variable for the wives and
as an additional variable for the husbands.
"Active" was defined as attending religious
services more than once per month.

2. Assessment of socio-economic influences. This
was defined in several ways:
a. Total annual income per couple.
b. The occupational status of the father of
the subject husbands as follows:
(1) Professional.
(2) Managerial.
(3) Clerical or Sales.
(4) Skilled.
(5) Semi-skilled.
c. The occupational status of the father of the
subject wives according to the above scheme.
d. The level of educational attainment of the
subject husbands.
Definitions b through d represented experimental
variables. The literature indicated that the
occupational status of the husbands was a major variable. However, each of the husbands of this study had the occupation of student. Therefore,
these variables were suggested as ones of
possible interest.

The operational hypotheses were:

1. Group 1 has lower scores than Group 2 (as
reflected in an F-ratio which is significant
at the .05 level) of discrepancy between
individuals' expectations about ideal
marriage and perceived enactments of their
own marriages as per scores of the Marriage Role Questionnaire in each of the following areas of marriage function for the husbands'
scores (5) anld also for the wives' scores (5):
a. Division of responsibility.
b. Internal instrumentality.
c. External relations.
d. Solidarity.
e. Sexuality.




27


2. Group 1 has lower scores than Group 2 (as
reflected in an F-ratio which is significant
at the .05 level) on these measures:
a. Discrepancy between marital partners' perceptions about marital role expectations and perceptions of marital role enactments in the areas of:
(1) Role of the husband.
(2) Role of the wife.
(3) Partnership role.

The statistical procedure of step-wise discriminant analysis yielded

a final "function" (mathematical model) which best discriminated between the groups. The step-wise feature ranked the variables according to the degree of discrimination between groups offered by each variable. The statistical procedure had built into it an automatic adjustment for covariance of variables such that the final function weighted variables differentially to produce the best discrimination between groups. Once all variables were analyzed, only the five best discriminating variables were selected for the final descriptive model

for the purposes of this study, exploration of psychological differences between effective and ineffective birth planners.












CHAPTER III

RESULTS


There were 27 independent variables treated in this study, and it is understandable that the presentation of the results is

rather lengthy and somewhat complex. If, however, the reader follows the written text and examines each data table as it is referred to, then the task of assimilation becomes less awesome. Referring back

to the List of Abbreviations is essential.

First, who were the subjects of this study? From the preceding chapter, it was learned that there was an available subject pool of 243 couples from whom all relevant data were available. Of these

243 couples, 90 did not meet the proper length of marriage requirements (see Table 1). Of those couples who were married the desired two to 11 years, 45 were classed as either nonplanners (no attempt to plan) or as indeterminant. The indeterminancy of many was accounted for by their non-use of contraception in order to have a child at the the time of interview. Of the remaining couples, 61 were effective planners and 47 ineffective planners. Of the 61 effective planners, 34 were nonparents and 27 were parents by design. All of

the 47 ineffective planners had had at least one child whose conception represented contraceptive failure.


28




29


TABLE 1

Breakdown of 243 Couples in Available Subject Pool




Length of marriage less than 2 years 72 Length of marriage greater than 11 years 18 Length of marriage 2 through 11 years

Non-planners or indeterminate (may be attempting
to have a child) 45

Effective planners 61 Ineffective planners 47


TOTAL


243




30


Table 2 along with the first section of Table 3 (control

variables) present data which are descriptive of the demographic

characteristics of the sample. While the marriages were young ones on the average, they had been in progress long enough to permit a

settling down of marital roles and also an opportunity for some childbearing to have occurred. Also, note that the ages of the

subjects at the time of testing and interview were not as young as the term "married students" would seem to imply. The breakdown of the

religious preferences and activity of the subjects is of special interest as this was used as the basis for two of the control variables.



Tests of the Hypotheses

At the onset of this study, there were two general hypotheses, each of which was tested in several ways. See Chapter I for the general statements of the hypotheses (p. 22) and Chapter II for the operational hypotheses (p. 26). Table 4 presents the results of each independent one-way analysis of variance for each variable. Note that the critical ratio (C. R.) for statistical significance in each case was 3.95. The F ratios which met this criterion are underlined in Table 4 for ease of recognition.

Among the control variables, the two variables dealing with

religious influence were significant for group differences. In each case, the active Catholic end of the continuum was associated with the ineffective planners group while the active Protestant and Jewish end favored the effective planners group. None of the variables related to socioeconomic background yielded significant differences be tween group means.




31


TABLE 2

Selected Descriptive Statistics of the Sample by Groups


Effective Planners


Ineffective Planners


M


1. Length of marriage


4.5


M


2. Age at time of data
collection
Husbands
Wives


27.4 26.2


S.D. M

1.8 5.3


S.D. M



3.5 27.2 2.7 25.7


3. Religious preference/
activity
active Catholic
inactive Catholic
no affiliation,
inactive Protestant
active Protestant
Jewish


Husbands



3 (5%)
4 (7%) 21(34%) 16(26%) 16(26%) 1 (2%)


Wives Husbands


3 (5%) 3 (5%)
13(21%) 14(39%) 17(28%) 1 (2%)


6(13%) 2 (4%) 18(38%) 17(36%) 4 (9%)
0


Note: Statistics on family annual income, occupational status of subjects'
fathers, husbands' student classification, and subjects' ages at
time of marriage are presented in Table 3.


S.D.


2.2


S.Do


2.7
2.2


Wives



6(13%) 5(11%) 19(40%) 12(26%) 5(11%)
0










TABLE 3


Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables


Effective Planners Ineffective Planners
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

I. Control Variables
Religious influence (wife) 3.16 .76 2.74 .82 Religious influence (husband) 3.13 .76 2.79 .78 Annual income $7663 $3132 $6734 $3178 Husbands' student classification 4.74 1.25 4.60 1.28 Husbands' fathers' occupation 2.48 1.16 2.43 1.35 Wives' fathers' occupation 2.13 1.12 2.26 1.28

II. Investigatory Variables
A. Marital roles by functional areas
(Discrepancy between individuals'
perception of expectations and
enactments)
1. Husbands' scores
Internal instrumentality .53 .20 .68 .30 Division of responsibility .40 .22 .50 .18 Solidarity .52 .25 .74 .27 External relations .62 .33 .77 .33 Sexuality .48 .41 .78 .52
2. Wives' scores
Internal instrumentality .72 .36 .81 .36 Division of responsibility .42 .22 .40 .26 Solidarity .53 .21 .67 .25 External relations .65 .22 .72 .28 Sexuality .53 .38 .69 .45













TABLE 3 (continued):


Effective Planners Ineffective Planners
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

B. Marital roles by role assignment
(Discrepancy between marital partners'
perceptions)
1. Ideal expectations
Husband roles .46 .19 .50 .21 Wife roles .48 .17 .49 .21 Partnership roles .49 .14 .51 .15
2. Marital enactments
Husband roles .60 .20 .69 .22 Wife roles .61 .19 .63 .24 Partnership roles .56 .16 .61 .22

III. Exploratory Variables
Age at time of marriage (husband) 23.0 3.5 21.9 2.7 Age at time of marriage (wife) 21.7 2.7 20.4 2.2 Perceived adequacy of marital companionship 3.50 1.1 2.89 1.2
Index of perceived situational marital
strain (husband) .26 .19 .45 .32
Index of perceived situational marital
strain (wife) .27 .24 .41 .44


(A4
U-4




34


TABLE 4
Initial F Values for Independent Analyses of Variance



F

Control Variables

1. Religious influence (wife) 7.57 2. Religious influence (husband) 5.29 3. Annual income 1.72 4. Husband's student classification 0.33 S. Occupation of husband's father 0.04 6. Occupation of wife's father 0.29

Investigatory Variables

Discrepancy of Roles by Functional Areas
Husband's scores:
7. Internal instrumentality 9.28 8. Division of responsibility 9. Solidarity 20.40 10. External relations 5.6q 11. Sexuality IT-5
Wife's scores:
12. Internal instrumentality 1.92 13. Division of responsibility 0.10 14. Solidarity 9.76 15. External relations 2.36 16. Sexuality 4.25

Discrepancy of Partner's Perceptions of Role
Assignments
Expectations of roles:
17. Husband role 0.92 18. Wife role 0.06 19. Partnership role 0.85
Enactments of roles:
20. Husband role 4.88 21. Wife role 0.13 22. Partnership role 2.05




35


TABLE 4 (continued):


F


Exploratory Variables


23. 24. 25. 26. 27.


Age at time of marriage (husband) Age at time of marriage (wife) Adequacy of marital companionship
Perception of situational strain (husband) Perception of situational strain (wife)


2.92 7.82 8.07
15.73
-4-57


Note: C.R. for F (1,106;.05) is 3.95.


Underlined values are statistically significant at the .05 level.




36


Of the investigatory variables, eight of ten variables dealing with intra-person agreement between expectations and enactments of marital roles according to areas of functions of the roles were significant for group differences. In all cases, save one, ineffective

planners experienced more discrepancy between expectations and enactments than did the effective planners. These results confirmed Hypothesis One. Note that the effects were stronger for husbands' perceptions than for wives' perceptions. Note also that the functional areas of solidarity and sexuality produced the strongest and most

consistent effects.

Of the six investigatory variables dealing with agreement

between marital partners' perceptions of assignments of roles, only one was significant. That variable was agreement between partners

as to the enactments of the husbands' roles in their own marriage. These findings offered limited support for Hypothesis Two, that ineffective planners showed more discrepancy between spouses' perceptions of expectations and enactments of assignments of marital roles than effective planners.

In rounding out the results of the independent analyses shown

in Table 4, it is seen that four of five exploratory variables were significant for group differences. The ages of the effective planners' wives were older at time of marriage than the ages of ineffective planners' wives. This was not so for the husbands' ages at time of marriage. Effective planners demonstrated a greater degree of perceived adequacy of marital companionship than did the ineffective planners. Finally, both the husbands and the wives of the ineffective planners perceived a greater degree of situational marital strain than did the effective planners.





37


Relationships Between the Variables

A major purpose of this study was not simply to test the

hypotheses of the study but also to explore the relationships between each of the variables. This was especially desirable for the relationships between the control variables and the investigatory variables.

First, the interrelationships of each class of variables is shown. Note that in each case a significant (p < .05) correlation coefficient is .19 or greater. Again, the significant values are underlined for ease of recognition.

Table 5 presents the intercorrelations of the control variables. None too surprisingly, the wife's religious influence. correlated highly with the husband's religious influence. These two religion

variables also correlated significantly and positively with annual income. The occupational status of the fathers of the subject husbands and of the subject wives correlated positively, although of a rather low order. None of the other relationships between the control

variables correlated significantly. The variable of husband's student classification did not relate significantly to any of the other control variables.

The intercorrelations of the 16 investigatory variables are

shown in Table 6. There was a great deal of significant interrelatedness

of these variables. Note that three of the variables took exception to this. Those were the three variables measuring agreement between partners' perceptions of ideal expectations of role assignments. Rather than variables dealing with agreement about desired roles, they were those dealing with reality which were sensitive to the other variables.




38


TABLE 5

IntercorrelatiOn Matrix of Control Variables



1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. W-RelInf

2. H-RelInf .76

3. AnInc .24 .22 4. H-Class .15 .13

5. HFOcc -.17 -.18 -.07 .01

6. WFOcc .00 .06 -.09 -.06 .21




Note: Variable abbreviations for all variables are explained in LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS.

For sample size N = 108, r > .19 is significant at the .05 level.

All correlation coefficients are rounded down to lower number for
the more conservative figure.

Underlined values are statistically significant at the .05 level.














TABLE 6


Intercorrelation Matrix of Investigatory Variables


7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21


7. H-IntInst 8. H-DivResp
9. H-Sol 10. H-ExtRel 11. H-Sex 12. W-IntInst 13. W-DivResp 14. W-Sol 15. W-ExtRel 16. W-Sex
17. DAVE-H 18. DAVE-W 19. DAVE-P 20. DIPORE-H 21. DIPORE-W 22. DIPORE-P


.37
.31 .35
.3U 741 .35
-IT .T f .-W .25
.28 .13 .05 .22 .12
727 .29 .30 .19 .25 .26 17 -.2 U.30 37 .33 4 .39 .31 .12 .12 .33 .05 2T .38 .43 .12 .14 .54 .27 .60 .19 .15 .51 .14 .06 .07 .00 .8 0O -T .09 T .01 .13 .00 .03 .04 .17 .05 .06 .07 .18 .20 .12 .46
.16 .27 .08 .10 .00 .16 .17 .12 .02 .11 .10 .14
.23 T7 .36 .37 .35 .07 .02 .13 .19 .31 .27 .23 .00
-TO2 .21 T12 T25 .17 .26 .24 .53 .- . 744 .-4 .-" .13 .22
.10 T18 .28 726 .18 .19 .23 .37 .18 .19 .18 722 .37 .35 .29


See Note, Table 5.




40


Of particular interest are the correlations between the investigatory variables which produced the highest correlation coefficients. The husbands' perceptions of solidarity correlated

highly (.74) with sexuality and also with the wives' perception of sexuality (.54). Additionally, the husbands' and wives' perceptions of sexuality correlated .60. And also, the wives' solidarity correlated .51 with sexuality. Finally, it is interesting to note that the wives' perception of solidarity correlated .53 with the

partners' agreement about the enactments of the wife's roles within the marriage.

This section of the Results chapter is undoubtedly the most

tedious because of the massiveness of the data presentation. In many ways, however, it is the most important of the sections in that it allows for all of the little questions of "yes, but how does this

relate to this other," to be answered. So, the reader is urged to persevere and try and learn from the data as they are presented.

The intercorrelations of the exploratory variables are presented

in Table 7. The ages of the husbands and wives at time of marriage correlated highly at .76. Also, significantly negatively correlated were perception of adequacy of companionship with both husbands' and wives' perception of situational strain. And, quite expectedly although of a rather lower order than might have been anticipated,
the husbands' and wives' perceptions of situational strain showed scine degree of agreement (.28).

Now, how did the control variables (all demographic) relate to the investigatory variables (all variables of congruence of




41









TABLE 7

Intercorrelation Matrix of Exploratory Variables



23 24 25 26 23. H-AgeMar

24. W-AgeMar .74 25. AdComp -.07 -.06 26. H-Stress -.12 -.15 -.34 27. W-Stress .12 -.02 -.24 .28


See Note, Table 5.




42


perceptions)? There were some surprises. Table 8 presents the

findings. The wives' religious influence, a combination of preference and activity, related inversely to the wives' perceptions of the functional area of the external relations of the marriage.

The husbands' religion variable also related inversely (and more strongly) to this wife variable as well as to the husbands' perceptions of the external relations of the marriage and to the partners' agreement of perceptions of the enactments of the husband's roles. Annual income of the family related significantly to the husbands' perceptions of the

internal instrumentality of the marriage (inversely) and also to the partners' perceptions of the enactments of the wife's roles (positively). This last result is interesting in that it indicates that as the family income rose, the disagreement between partners' perceptions also tended to rise. The husbands' student classification, again, related to none of the variables significantly. Finally, the variables of

occupational status of family of origin yielded only one significant correlation. The lower the occupational level of the fathers of the husbands, the greater the tendency for agreement between the husbands' expectations and perceptions of enactments in the area of sexuality within the marriage.

Pushing on, Table 9 shows the correlations between investigatory and exploratory variables. The husbands' age at time of marriage correlated with none of the investigatory variables; and the wives' age at time of marriage correlated with only one of these variables, the wives' perceptions of sexuality in the marriage, in an inverse relationship. The couples' perceptions of adequacy of marital




43









TABLE 8

Correlation Matrix of Investigatory Vs Control Variables




W-RelInf H-RelInf AnInc H-Class HFOcc WFOcc
1 2 3 4 5 6

7. H-IntInst -.03 -.17 -.24 -.15 -.06 -.02
8. H-DivResp .03 .01 -.08 -.08 -.13 -.12
9. H-Sol -.05 -.11 .06 -.06 -.15 -.13
10. H-ExtRel -.17 -.26 -.14 -.03 -.02 -.04
11. H-Sex -.02 -.06 .16 .00 -.21 -.09
12. W-IntInst -.01 -.08 -.05 -.06 -.04 .02
13. W-DivResp .11 .02 .08 -.07 -.14 -.03
14. W-Sol -.01 -.06 .09 -.11 .11 .13
15. W-ExtRel -.22 -.37 -.13 -.10 .09 .09
16. W-Sex -.04 -.09 .16 -.03 .03 .08
17. DAVE-H .00 -.07 .00 -.02 .07 .06 18. DAVE-W -.03 -.14 -.01 -.05 .10 .06
19. DAVE-P .02 .09 .00 -.07 -.05 -.05
20. DIPORE-H -.14 -.25 -.13 -.12 .00 .00
21. DIPORE-W .01 -.01 .20 .09 .05 .08 22. DIPORE-P -.08 -.10 700 -.18 -.01 .04


See Note, Table 5.




44









TABLE 9


Correlation Matrix


of Investigatory vs Exploratory Variables


H-AgeMar W-AgeMar AdComp
23 24 25


H-IntInst H-DivResp H-Sol H-ExtRel H-Sex
W-IntInst W-DivResp W-Sol W-ExtRel W-Sex
DAVE-H DAVE-W DAVE- P DIPORE-H DIPORE-W DIPORE-P


-.14
- .16
-.01
- .08
.02 .01
-.02
.09 .03
-.06
-.06
.01
-.11
.02 .01 .12


See Note, Table 5.


7.
8.
9.
10. ii.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.


-.06
-.07
- .02
-.09
-.05
- .05
- .02
-.03
-.02
-.20
-.05
.01
- .05
- .02
-.04
.04


H-Stress
26


.46 .25
.38 .31
.20
.12 .24
.13 .27
.14 .03
-.05
.11 .17
.02 .11


- .20
- .08
-.29
- .35
-.23
- .14
-.15
-.26
-.17
- .21
- .07

.17
- .32
- .23
- .16


W-Stress
27


.18
-.01
.01 .26
-.07
.30 .16
.52
.37 .:17
.14 .24
.09 .11
.26 .23




45


companionship, along with both husbands? and wives' perceptions of situational marital strain correlated with several of the intraindividual perception scores. These three exploratory variables also correlated with some of the scores of spouse agreement about assigned role enactments. Again, spouses' agreement about desirable role assignments correlated very little with any other variables.

The last of the tables dealing with the correlations between variables is Table 10. This table shows that among the exploratory variables, adequacy of marital companionship bore no significant relationship to any of the control variables. Both variables of age at time of marriage, however, showed positive relationships to

family annual income and the husbands' student classification. Additionally, the variables of perception of situational strain related in several instances to demographic characteristics of the subjects.



The Multivariate Analysis

The "heart" of the results is shown in Tables 11 and 12. In Table 11, the independent contribution of each variable, in order of importance to the discrimination between groups, is shown. For

purposes of comparison, Table 12 shows how the addition of each variable improves the accuracy of discrimination. In order of importance of independent contribution to the differences between groups, controlling for the co-varying effects of variables already partialled out were the variables of 1) husbands' perceptions of

)lidarity in the marriage, 2) the wives' ages at time of marriage,




46


TABLE 10

Correlation Matrix of Control vs Exploratory


Variables


H-AgeMar W-AgeMar AdComp H-Stress W-Stress
23 24 25 26 27


.09 .00 .45 .34

.15 .10


.07 .01

.48 .40

.11

-.01


-.12

.06 .03 .07

-.11

- .03


- .14

- .26

-.29

- .12

.01

.24


See Note, Table S.


1.

2.

3.

4.

S.

6.


W-RelInf H-RelInf AnInc H-Class HFOcc WFOcc


-.09

- .17

- .11

- .21

- .11

.06




47


TABLE 11
Summary of Step-Wise Discriminant Analysis


Step Number Variable Entered F Value to Enter

1 H-Sol 20.40 2 W-AgeMar 6.03 3 W-RelInf 4.17 4 AdComp 3.35 5 W-DivResp 1.96 6 W-Sol 2.96 7 W-Sex 4.80 8 H-Class 2.22 9 H-IntInst 1.41 10 AnInc 2.19 11 H-ExtRel 1.32 12 DAVE-P 1.02 13 WFOcc .93 14 DIPORE-W .79 15 H-DivResp 1.23 16 W-Stress .92 17 DIPORE-H .46 18 H-Stress .46 19 HFOcc .23 20 DAVE-H .24 21 H-Sex .10 22 DIPORE-P .08 23 DAVE-W .03 24 H-AgeMar .03 25 W-IntInst .02 26 W-ExtRel .02 27 H-RelInf .01





Note: Variable abbreviations are explained in LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.




48


TABLE 12

Accuracy of'ClassificationMatrixes of Discriminant Function at Selected Steps


Accuracy of Classification

69% 71% 70% 73% 76% 75% 77% 75% 78% 75% 79%


Variable Added to Dis criminant Function

H-Sol

W-AgeMar W-RelInf

AdComp

W-DivResp

W-Sol W-Sex

H-Class

H- IntInst

AnInc

All variables


Step

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

27




49


3) the wives' religious influence on birth planning, 4) perceptions of adequacy of marital companionship, and 5) the wives' perceptions of division of responsibility in the marriage. At the point of step five (five variables) in the discriminant analysis, Table 12 indicates

that accuracy of classification reached a peak which was little improved upon by the addition of more variables. In effect, these five variables accounted for the lion's share of the independent contribution to the differences between groups. All of the 27 variables made some independent contribution to group differences, but controlling for the effects of variable covariation singled out the top five variables. The discussion of the possible implications of this discriminant analysis and its mathematical model, the discriminant function, is discussed

in the next chapter.












CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION



There were several purposes of this study. First, a theory

of the relationships between marital roles and birth planning behavior

was subjected to empirical test. Secondly, several variables of exploratory interest were analyzed. Thirdly, the relationships between different types of variables were analyzed. And, lastly, a model of contributions to differences between groups of birth

planners of the divergent variables was analyzed. What are the implications of all this massive data analysis?



Test of the Study Rationale

Recall that the original theoretical conclusion of Rainwater

(1965) was that effective birth planners exhibited a high degree of integrated role relationships while ineffective birth planners exhibited a high degree of segregation of role relationships. A more thorough examination of ideas about marital roles, aided especially by the work of Tharp (1963), more clearly laid out the

expected relationships between marital roles and birth planning effectiveness. Tharp summarized a great deal of work in the area of marital roles to offer these pertinent conclusions. First, the
assignment of roles to the husband is of prime importance to the


50





51


marriage, the roles of the wife falling to a very secondary position. Secondly, those aspects dealing with the instrumental functions of the marriage are of greater importance to the husband while the aspects dealing with the integrative-affective functions are of greater importance to the wife. By way of illustration, it might be

said that it is important to the husband that he feel as though he has been a good provider and family defender, an executive within the marriage, while it is more important to the wife to feel as though

she has been a loving and affectionate companion and a desired sexual partner. Above all, however, it is important that both partners agree

upon the roles played by the husband in order to facilitate a marriage of a high quality of satisfaction. Extrapolating from this to the relationship between marital roles and birth planning effectivess, as suggested by Rainwater, it was expected that agreement between

partners as to the roles assigned to the husband would emerge as the strongest of the role assignment variables in discriminating between groups of planning effectiveness. Additionally, it was thought that the functions of the roles which would have the strongest association with birth planning effectiveness would be those associated with the need system of the husband -- that is, the instrumental aspects of the marital roles.

In general, the association between marital roles and birth
planning effectiveness was demonstrated. In particular, the partner' s agreement about the roles of the husband as they existed in the marriage was clearly more important than roles assigned to the wife or roles assigned to the partnership since neither of the latter two was




52


significantly related to birth planning effectiveness. Also in line within the study rationale, the perceptions of the husbands in terms of congruence between expectations and enactments of the functions of roles were more consistent than were perceptions of the wives in relating to birth planning effectiveness. Where the results of the study departed from the study rationale was in the area of which functions of the marriage were of greatest importance. While both instrumental and integrative aspects of the marriage were associated with birth planning effectiveness, they were the integrative ftctions which were the more powerful rather than the instrumental. This suggests that the need system which has traditionally been accepted as associated more withl the wife than the husband, albeit the husband's perception of that system, is of the more importance in relating to birth planning effectiveness.



Ancillary Analyses

At the beginning of the study, it was pointed out that all

the previous studies had found religion effects upon birth planning. These were not always consistent in the past. Some studies --.for example, Rainwater (1965) -- simply treated Catholic vs non-Catholic differences. Others, however, notably Westoff et al. (1963), found differential effects for the influence of religious preference in combination with religious activity upon birth planning effectiveness.

The present study has confirmed again the association between birth planning effectiveness and religion. Moreover, the combined effects of preference and activity yielded an even clearer picture of the relationship between religion and birth planning.




53


An important implication of the Rainwater (1965) conclusions was that there was a co-action of marital roles, birth planning effectiveness, and socioeconomic status. Even within the confines

of the relative sample homogeneity of this study, some modest support was found for this contention. A few minor results of significant correlations between socioeconomic variables and role variables were found. Interestingly, the association of religion with marital roles produced more clear-cut results, especially in the area of external

relations of the family to the non-family world. It would appear from this data analysis that Catholics tended to experience more difficulty in this area than did Protestants or Jews.

Particularly gratifying were the results of the exploratory variables. For example, youthfulness of the wife at the time of marriage related to ineffectiveness of birth planning. Perception

of greater situational marital strain was clearly associated with ineffective birth planning, but then this strain also related to

difficulties with marital roles. And, also, perception of adequacy of marital companionship related to birth planning effectiveness, but this, too, related highly to role difficulties. From several different aspects, then, effective birth planners seemed to have it well over ineffective birth planners insofar as marital relations were concerned.

At this point, it may have occurred to the reader that all of the ineffective planners were parents, while many of the effective planners were nonparents. With this in mind, it is possible that the data analyses were simply assessing differences between parents and nonparents. In order to test this, the entire analysis was




54


repeated, controlling for the effect of parenthood upon all variables. The data results, in terms of contribution to the discriminant

function, were virtually identical. Thus, the analysis was one of differences between effective birth planners and ineffective birth planners and not simply between parents and nonparents.

In order to contribute to an increased measure of understanding

of the differences between birth planners, a further data analysis was conducted after all the other results had been obtained. Table 13 shows a striking difference between effective planners and ineffective

planners in terms of timing of their first pregnancies. Note the high incidence of conception before marriage by the ineffective group. Note also that this pattern extended over into the early

months of marriage. Could it be that the ineffective group was thwarted in its attempts to plan from the very early stages of the relationship and that a pattern of unsatisfactory role relationships was established throughout the marriage?

One final data analysis was conducted which is of interest to this study. Since this study obviously rested on the behavior of its subjects in their use of contraception, an analysis of the types of contraception which were successfully or unsuccessfully used

was performed. Table 14 shows the results of an analysis of the relative success or failure of types of contraceptive used in birth
planning. Note that these methods cut across groups of planners and are indicated for numbers of pregnancies which were planned or unplanned. Planned nonpregnancies are not included. Clearly, use of oral pills was a highly successful method. Use of an intrauterine




55


TABLE 13

Time of Onset of First Pregnancy


Effective Planners Ineffective Planners

N % N %

1. before marriage 1 4% 17 38%

2. within 1-6 months of
marriage 2 8% 14 31%

3. within 7-12 months of
marriage 7 28% 5 11%

4. within 13-18 months of
marriage 1 4% 3 7%

5. within 19-24 months of
marriage 5 20% 5 11%

6. within the third year
of marriage 4 16% 1 2%

7. within the fourth year
of marriage 2 8% 0

8. after the fourth year
of marriage 3 12% 0


the 34 non-parent


Note: Not all subjects provided these data. Also,
effective planners are not reflected here.




56


TABLE 14

Contraceptive Success or Failure in Birth Planning
According to Type of Contraceptive


Number of times used Number of times failed successfully and ter- resulting in an unType of minated to achieve a planned pregnancy Contraceptive planned pregnancy

1. condom 4 8 2. diaphragm 7 7

3. douche 0 1 4. jelly, cream or foam 4 8 5. non-coital 0 0 6. oral pills 21 2 7. rhythm method 3 18 8. withdrawal 0 5

9. intrauterine device 1 0


Note: These data include multiple responses by some subjects and no
response by non-parents. These data are independent of overall
planning effectiveness.




57


device might also have been highly successful had there been more

incidence of use to draw conclusions from. The "mechanical" methods of contraception were of moderate to low success, and the rhythm method of very low success. The comparison of the type of contraception

being used at the time of testing is shown in Table 15 for all of the 108 couples by effectiveness of birth planning group. Note that the use of the rhythm method was exclusive to the ineffective planners group. When an empirical index of effectiveness of type of contraception was correlated for method used at time of testing with the main psychological variable -- husbands' perceptions of marital solidarity -- the resulting coefficient was -.13. Could it possibly be that marital roles were associated more with the consistency of use of contraception rather than choice of method of contraception?

As an interesting sidelight, two couples, one from each group, who were highly atypical of their respective groups, were chosen for closer scrutiny. That is to say, in terms of the independent variables of interest, these couples resembled more the couples from the opposing group. There were some interesting addendums to their test results. For example, consider couple "A They had been married two years and had no children. They had successfully employed the

use of oral pills to delay the birth of a child. Their reasons: (wife) -- time to achieve emotional readiness, to be financially ready, to be mature enough to accept the new responsibilities; (husband) - - an unplanned pregnancy interferes with husband-wife relationship, deprives the child of love and attention devoted to a planned child, deprives the child of material advantages available




58


TABLE 15

Current Method of Contraception


by Groups


Method

1. vasectomy

2. IUD

3. oral pills 4. diaphragm

5. condi

6. jelly, cream or foam

7. rhythm 8. douche


Effective Planners Ineffective Planners


Effective Planners
N %

1 2% 4 7%

38 62%

4 7% 5 8% 9 14%

0


0


Ineffective Planners
N %

0

4 9%

25 53%

3 6% 3 6%

6 13% 5 11% 1 2%


J6




59


when the family is in better circumstances. Yet, this couple was atypical of the effective planners group. Some additional comments:

(husband) -- a planned pregnancy (perhaps any pregnancy?) brings a loss of day-to-day freedom and a need to suppress [his] own problems in order to behave consistently toward the child; (wife) -- a planned pregnancy might result in one's waiting so long as to take the spontaneity and fun out of it, [she] might be so old that it may be unsafe for her to be a mother, [she] secretly desires a baby so it

would make [her] happy.

Consider a second couple, couple "B" who had also been married two years. Couple B had been using condoms, douche, withdrawal, and

the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy. Despite their efforts, an unplanned pregnancy began before their marriage. What were their comments about the disadvantages of an unplanned pregnancy? The wife: their financial position was worsened and her educational plans were postponed. A planned pregnancy would have allowed more opportunity for enjoyment of the pregnancy and they would have been in a better financial position. The husband: a disadvantage of

unplanned pregnancy was that they got married at an earlier date than they planned. But, also, the husband added that an advantage of unplanned pregnancy was that they did get married. And, the wife continued on, stating that advantages of the unplanned pregnancy resulted in an earlier marriage which helped both of them mature sooner and also contributed to a change in majors which made both of them happier.




60


So, each of these couples would seem to have been misclassed

by their test results. Yet, underlying their behavior could be found elements of attitudes and concerns which made each more typical of the opposing group of subjects. Perhaps this was not as dissonant with the test results as might first have appeared. Anxieties about pregnancy, especially an unplanned one, were associated with difficulties

in handling marital roles for the one couple; on the other hand, mutual pleasures related to a marriage which was "forced" upon another couple by an unplanned pregnancy were associated with fairly comfortable views of marital roles.

At this point, it may have become fairly obvious that simple

bivariate analyses would have raised more questions than they answered.

If one were to look at only the independent analyses or only the correlations between variables, one could quickly become confused by

the mass of significant and non-significant data results. This is where the multivariate analysis enters the scene to provide a much clearer explanation of the phenomena. There were two groups, effective

birth planners and ineffective birth planners. Five major variables emerged as differences between these two groups. These were variables which had the highest degree of independent effects in discriminating between groups, variables of relatively low covarying effects upon each other.
The five major differences between groups represented five

different classes of variables. These were: 1) perceptions of the husband about a function of thle marriage, 2) the wife's age at the time of marriage, 3) the influence of the wife' s religion, 4) the




61


couple's joint perception of the adequacy of time and energy devoted to companionship in the marriage, and 5) the wife's perceptions about another functional area of the marriage. The relative independence

of these variables in apparent.

In terms of the demographic variables which were brought into the marital relationship, those of the wife were more important than

those of the husband. While the perceptions of the husband were of greater relative importance, each contributed its part. Of particular interest is that the perceptions which played the most part had to do with each partner's individual thoughts about a functional area which dealt most with the need system of the other partner. And, to top it all off, their joint agreement about the one aspect which is most sensitive to marital harmony and success, companionship, rounded out the picture.

There seem to have been several things going on concurrently.

Each partner seemed to be experiencing difficulties handling functions which supported the presumed need system of the other. Mutual decision

making and mutual support of the other seemed to be playing a part. Overshadowing it all were values and a stage of personality development which the wife had brought to the marriage. Out of it all, a rethinking of the rationale of the study has emerged. Greater cogency and improved insight into the fitting together of each of the pieces have evolved.


Revised Theory of the Phenomena

Birth planning effectiveness is concerned with the behavior of couples in following through on whatever decisions have been made about




62


pregnancy and childbirth, be they overt or covert decisions. There

are two aspects to birth planning. These are planning the number of births and planning the timing of births. For some of the couples, there have been enough children already born to the marriage. For others, their main concern is to properly time the births of their children to meet their situational needs. After all, these are fairly young marriages, and each is a student marriage, an all-important fact with implications for the financial situation of the couple and also for the availability of time and energy to devote to childbearing.

Each of the couples has used in the past and continues to use some method of contraception. These are individuals who, by their behavior, indicate that they are actively concerned about birth

planning. The strength of that concern, the importance of planning, and the abilities to jointly make and carry out decisions are all

involved in that planning. There are factors which influence decisions about whether to use contraception and which method to use. Moreover, there are also factors which influence the effective use of contraception. And, there are sequelae to effective planning.

From a mechanical or physiological standpoint, many methods of

contraception should be virtually 100% effective. At any rate, a relatively high degree of success should be the case. This, however, is not so. The

reasons for the major part of contraceptive failure are psychological.
The position is taken that the wife is in the best position to determine contraceptive effectiveness. The chemical methods depend upon acceptance by her body in order to work. The mechanical methods by and large depend upon the responses of her body to their use. Even




63


the "masculine" method of use of condoms may have been necessitated by inability or unwillingness to use other methods.

The wife's attitudes and values about contraception, about

sexuality, and about personal responsibility set the stage for behaviors related to birth planning effectiveness. These factors are initially brought into the marriage by way of variables such as her religion,

social background, and level of personal maturity as reflected in part by her age. Onto this backdrop of attitudes and expectations,

the husband's impact upon the wife's behavior and their joint behavior in the marital relationship is felt. His needs and value system come into play with hers.

There are fairly well-defined needs within a marital relationship,

although these needs are undergoing much change. These needs are generally culturally determined and play into the expectancies of the marital partners. By and large, the needs of the wife are met by the integrative functions of the marriage. It is important that she feel the giving and taking, the sharing of love, affection, and mutual concern. On the other hand, the needs of the husband center more on the instrumental aspects of the marriage. It is important to him that he feel that he contributes

of his industry to the family welfare, that he is an effective executive in the relationship. Above all, it is important that both partners agree upon the roles the husband plays.
A well-integrated marriage, one which meets the needs of the partners, is one in which there is reciprocal satisfaction of need systems. Such a marital relationship is one which is conducive to effective communications, effective decision making, effective execution




64


of decisions, and effective birth planning. Such a marital relationship

is also an outgrowth of effective communications, decision making, decision execution, and of effective birth planning. A marriage in which the relationship between partners is subject to strain is one which contributes to ineffective birth planning and which is subsequent

to ineffective birth planning.

The sources of strain upon the marital relationship can lie

in discrepancies between expectancies of partners or in discrepancies of perceptions of reality of enactments of roles. When things go awry, then the individuals experience strain. Then, the discrepancies between how things are with how each partner would like them to be become important. Each partner perceives difficulties in dealing with the need system of the other. The husband experiences difficulty in coping with the wife's needs for integrative affection, closeness, support, and encouragement. The wife experiences difficulty in coping

with the husband's need for instrumentation of the providing for daily existence and the delegation of work responsibility.

It is the husband's ability to deal with the need system which is traditionally the wife's which is the major factor in relating to birth planning effectiveness. If the husband has difficulty in meeting the

wife's needs for closeness and affection, then she is apt to turn elsewhere for the satisfaction of those needs. The alternative is often a
turning to a child to meet those needs and the result is the birth of a child who might not otherwise be planned. The decision to seek need satisfaction through this alternate route does not have to be a conscious decision and more typically would be unconscious. After the




65


birth of the unplanned-for child, the husband experiences further difficulties in the area of marital solidarity by having had this third individual brought into the picture. Now, he is even further

isolated from the wife; and the cycle of relationships and behavior goes on. Thus, it may well be that the reciprocal relationship between birth planning effectiveness and marital roles behavior set up a cycle of circumstances which eventuates in the couple's having one unplanned

child after another until the limits of strain on the relationship are reached.


Conclusions

That there is a relationship between marital roles behavior

and birth planning effectiveness has been established. It has also been established that these behaviors covary with demographic variables. The general theory that the role of the husband in the marriage is of prime importance has gained support. The conclusion that differential functions within the marital relationship are related to birth planning effectiveness has gained some support. It has also been suggested that a mutual meeting of reciprocal functional needs in the marriage is related to birth planning effectiveness.

An important next step to be taken in continuing research

efforts into birth planning is the establishing of a long-term predictive study. Perhaps this can only be accomplished through an established research agency whose efforts continue over a long course of time.


An important hypothesis to test is that congruence of




66


expectations of marital roles behavior contributes to birth planning effectiveness. Another hypothesis to test is that congruence of perceptions of enactments of marital roles is a sequel to birth planning effectiveness. This latter will probably also involve accuracy of interpersonal perception and effectiveness of communication.

In a time of increasing strains upon marriage and individual

marriages, and in a time of increasing emphasis upon population control, these are important questions to be answered. Through the answering of questions like these and others, perhaps keener efforts to exercise

control over the production of human life will be possible. And, perhaps the family environments into which those new lives are born

will be strengthened in their capacities to contribute to the healthy growth and maturity of the individual.



























APPENDIX




The Marriage Role Questionnaire and Scoring Forms




68


Date Code # Marriage and College Life Project 11/69 Wor W




MARRIAGE ROLE QUESTIONNAIRE


Your answers to the Questionnaire items will be kept completely confidential. Please do not compare your answers irith those of your spouse, since it is
important that your responses represent your ownpersonapinion.

If you have no children, there will be some questions concerning children that you will not be able to answer. Leave these blank. Otherwise, Please answer every question.

As you come to each new sectioV, please read carefully the set of response categories that go up the side of the page. They change in meaning from section to section.





69
Directions: Of the things mentioned below, some are probably essential to a happy marriage, some not desirable, and some not importanrt at all.

Before each statement, draw an X through one of the circles to indicate your opinion of the thing mentioned. What we want is o2 own personal opinion, whether it agrees with the opinions of other people or not.


YOUR VIEWS


ABOUTTHEIDEAL MARRIAGE


How important for the ideal marriage is it:


1. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband should be the social equal of his wife? 2. 0 0 0 0 0 That the wife should be the social equal of her husband? 3. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband should be at least equal to his wife in intelligence?

4. 0 0 0 0 0 That the wife should be at least equal to her husband in intelligence?

5. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband and wife should have sinilar intellectual interests, such as scientific, literary, musical, etc.?


00 00 0


That husband and wife should like the same types of amusements, such as cards, dancing, theater, etc.?


7. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband and wife should engage in the same outdoor sports, such as golf, hiking, swimming, etc.?

8. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband and wife should each respect the other's religious, political, or ethical convictions and not
strive to change them?

9. 0 0 0 0 0 That the wife should be kept fully informed of the family finances and of her husband's business?


0


0



4)


4) 'ci

0


4)


0
H


*0 rd


H


0)


0 Cd


4) r-l 03 4) 'Cd


6.


I




70


YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THE IDEAL MARRIAGE, CONT:





0) a


4b
d 4
0

P+ -Pk=1
+ 0

ar' r+



How important for the ideal marriage is it:

10. 0 0 0( 0 0 That the father should take an active interest in the discipline and training of the children? li. 0 0 .) 0 0 That the household affairs should be run in a neat, orderly manner?
12. 0 G 0" 0 0 That the wife should not have had sexual intercourse with any other man before marriage? 13. 0 C 0 Q That the husband should not have had sexual intercourse with any other woman before marriage? 14. 0 0 (1 0 0 That after marriage, the wife should be 100% faithful to her husband in regard to sex? 15. 0 0 0, 0 0 That after marriage, the husband should be 100% faithful to his wife in regard to sex? 16. 0 o a a 0 That husband and wife should be equally fond of social gatherings?


How important is it to your marriage:

17. 0 0 0: 0 0 That you "get ahead" on your job? 18. 0 ( T 0 0 That your home be clean and in order at all times? 19. 0 0 ) 0) 0 That your wife devote the major part of her interest and energy to her home and family? 20. 0 0 0) 0 Q That your home is a place where your family and their friends can relax and enjoy themselves at all times? 21. 0 0 Q) (f 0 That you and your wife take part in many recreational activities together? 22. 0 a (@ 0' 0 To have children in your family? 23. 0 0 0) 0) 0 To have sexual relations every time you desire it? 24. 0 0 (1 0 0 That your sexual relations are closely bound up with love and affection?


25. 0 0 0a 0 .0 That you find pleasure in your sexual relations with your wife?
26. 0 a 0 0 0 That your children are good and well-behaved at all times?





71
YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THE IDEAL MARRIAGE, CONT:


4)
0 .4



r1-I
0





0


0

W 40 SH








0


0


0


0


4)







,0
-
Uc)
U)



.5-4







0
in



0







0
0

0


1)
H


ol r-d
0





0 CcS
0



0


0


0


0


0


rU





H
aS
-H

rdj







0


0


0


0
0


How important is it to your marriage:

That your children's ideas and feelings are considered and talked over when family decisions are being made?

That you, your wife, and your children take part in many recreational activities together? That you have sexual intercourse with your wife every
time you desire it?

That your wife find pleasure in her sexual relations with you?

That your wife be considerate of your feelings about sex?


4,3




0




0


0


0


0
0


27. 28.


29. 30.


31.





72


OPINIONS



This section asks for opinions. There are no right or wrong answers; the best ansver to each question is your o personal opinion.


Draw and X through the circle which most about each statement.


C)









ci
H


a) 4-3


H
a) a)
3-4 bo


(L)


)
M 1-I G 0) rd



0


closely indicates your feeling


U a)





,O


32. 0 0 0 0 0 Women who want to remove the word "obey" from the marriage service don't understand what it means to be a wife.


33o 0 0 0 0 0


Some equality in marriage is a good thing, but by and large, the husband ought to have the main say-so in
family affairs.




73


YOU, YOUR WIFE, AND YOUR MA RRIAGE
The Parts You and Your Wife Play: In some way, life is like a play. You each take a turn at playing a number of different parts. At various times, you are a breadwinner, handyman, host, participant in community affairs, friend and companion to your wife, lover and sexual partner to your wife, and father. You have probably found that you are naturally better cast for some of these parts than you are for others. Some men may play the parts of father and breadwinner best. Others may be best fitted for handyman, host, and participant in community affairs. And still others may be best as friends to their wives.

-fl

0




0 0 How important is it to you that YOUR VIFE should play each of the following parts well?

34,o o 0 0 Housekeeper 35. 0 0 0 Cook 36. o 0 0 hostess
37. 0 0 0 Participant in community affairs 38,o 0 0 0 Friend and companion to you 399 0 0 0 Lover and sexual partner to you 4o, o 0 0 Mother


How important is it to you that YOU should play each of the following parts well?

41,e o 0 0 Breadwinner 42e 0 0 0 Handyman 43e� 0 0 0 Host 44. o 0 0 Participant in community affairs 45. 0 0 0 Friend said companion to wfife i 0 0 0 Father I -P




74


YOU, YOURIIFE AND YOUR MARRIAGE, CONT:





Cd0) 0)


.:1400

00
04

c02 030
oDg o D () 0
WO In general, wrho do you think should have more influence in determine the way the family does things in each of the following areas?

48. 0 0 0 0 0 Relationships with relatives 49. 0 0 0 0 0 Choice of friends 50. 0 0 0 0 0 Recreation and soei.&. nctiv.tJes 51. 0 0 0 0 0 Earning family income 52. 0 0 0 0 0 Spending family income 53. 0 0 0 0 0 Running the household 54. 0 0 0 0 0 Sexual relations 55. 0 0 0 0 0 Size of family 56. 0 0 0 0 0 Bringing up children





75


IDEAL FREQUENCY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES


A4 4-)~
C) o) 0 3E-4 0U) 0 57. 0 0 0 0


4-,
0 El


0 cr3 4-,



0


How often would you like to with other people with your


have informal get-togethers wife?


58. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to have informal get-togethers with other people without your wife?

59. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like for you and your wife to play gas, chtat 01' wacv7at home without the children or anyone else?

60. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like for you and your wife to go out for social or recreational activities without the
children or anyone else?


61.


0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to attend meetings or other
activities of groups or organizations without your wife?


62. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to attend such meetings or activities with your wife?

63. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation at home?

6h. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation away from home?

65. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like for all members of the family to get together for some kind of recreation at home?

66. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like for all members of the family to get together for some kind of recreation away from home?




76


a)
W 4-)
S 0 0


67. 0 0 68. o o 69. 0 0


0
0
0


0 0 0 0 0 0


70. 0 0 0 0 0 71. 0 0 0 0 0
72. 0 0 0 0


ro
)


ciH
r- r-d *H
0 0

0 4 H o
o E

73. 0 0 0 0 0


x



)t
0
E-1D


How much of the housework should usually be done by
the following family members?


Wife Husband Children


How much of the physical maintenance of house and yard should usually be done by the following family members?

Wife
Husband Children














When my family is completed, the number of children I prefer is:


43- 4 OH c 03

H43
o r: 0


714. 0 0 0 0 0
75. o o o o o


How well do you feel your wife should understand your ideas and feelings?
How well do you feel that you should understand your wife's ideas and feelings?




77


YOUR VIEWS ABOUT YOUR OWN MARRIAGE



4' 4
43

oto o o
H 0 0 0 P E-i 0Z
To what extent:

76. 0 0 0 0 0 Are you the social equal of your wife? 77. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your wife your social equal? 78. 0 0 0 0 0 Are you equal to your wife in intelligence? 79. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your wife equal to you in intelligence? 80. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your wife have similar intellectual interests, such as scientific, literary, musical, etc.? 81. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your wife like the same types of amusements, such as cards, dancing, theater, etc.? 82. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your wife engage in the same outdoor sports, such as golf, hiking, swimming, etc.? 83. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your wife respect each other's religious, political, or ethical convictions and not strive to change them?

84. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you keep your wife informed of the family finances
and of your business?




78


YOUR VIEWIS ABOUT YOUR OWNN MARRIAGE, CONT:


43I

4-)

0 0)0 H
04 P 0);
~ +


To what extent:

85. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you take an active interest in the discipline and training of the children?

86. 0 0 0 0 0 Are the household affairs run in a neat, orderly manner?


87. 0 0 0 0 0 Has your wife been faithful to you inregard to sex? 88. 0 0 0 0 0 Have you been faithful to your wife in regard to sex? 89. 0 0 0 0 0 Are you arid your wife equally fond of social gatherings?



90. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you "get ahead" on your job? 91. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your home clean and in order at all times? 92. 0 0 0 0 0 Does your wife devote the major part of her interest to her home and family?

93. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your home a place where your family and their friends
can relax and enjoy themselves at all times? 94. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your wife take part in recreational activities together?

95. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you have sexual relations every time you desire it? 96. 0 0 0 0 0 Are your sexual relations closely bound up with love and affection?
97. 0 0 0 0 0 Have you found pleasure in your sexual relations with your wife during the last three years? 98. 0 0 0 0 0 Are your children good and well-behaved at all times?




79


YOUR VIEWS ABOUT YOUR OW MARRIAGE, CONT:


,
4-,


43
0


To what extent:


99. 0 0 0 0 0 Are your children's ideas and feelings considered and talked over when family decisions are being made?


100. 0 0 0 0 0


Do you, your wife, and your children take part in many recreational activities together?


101. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you have sexual intercourse with your wife every time you desire it?

102. 0 0 0 0 0 Has your wife found pleasure in her sexual relations with you during the last three years?


103. 0 0


0 00


lO4. 0 o o o o


Is your wife considerate of your feelings about sex?

Do you have the main say-so in family affairs?


4

Wo o


H 0 UU)fE-


,-4

4-) 0c




80


YOU, YOUR WIFE, AN[D YOUR nU RIAGE




V-4I

HH H
H H l
0 H 0
0
ci 0 P

How well do you think YOUR WIFE plays each of the following parts?

105. 0 0 0 0 0 Housekeeper 106. 0 0 0 0 0 Cook 107. 0 0 0 0 0 Hostess 108. 0 0 0 0 0 Participant in community affairs 109. 0 0 0 0 0 Friend and companion to you 110. 0 0 0 0 0 Lover and sexual partner to you 11. 0 0 0 0 0 Mother How well do you think YOU play each of the following

parts?

112. 0 0 0 0 0 Breadwinner 113. 0 0 0 0 0 Handyman 114. 0 0 0 0 0 Host 115. 0 0 0 0 0 Participant in community affairs 116. 0 0 0 0 0 Friend and companion to wife 117. 0 0 0 0 0 Lover and sexual partner to wife 118. 0 0 0 0 0 Father




81


YOU YOUR WIFE AND YOUR MARRIAGE, CONT:




r.
U)

Ic 0

S-+' a) 0 493 1areas







120. 0 0 0 0 Chieofrnd
1 00










rd5. d0 rd 0 00 Sxa eain 12.09 0 0 SMeo fml
12. i re



In general, who has more influence in determining the way-your family does things in each of the followingO' areas?

119. 0 0 0 0 0 Relationships with relatives 120. 0 0 0 0 0 Choice of friends 121. 0 0 0 0 0 Recreation and social activities 122. 0 0 0 0 0 Earning family income 123. 0 0 0 0 0 Spending family income 124. 0 0 0 0 0 Running the household 125. 0 0 0 0 0 Sexual relations 126. 0 0 0 0 0 Size of family 127. 0 0 0 0 0 Bringing up children




82


FREQUENCY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
s 0 0

C)

! 0llJA 0I 0 rtd+ 0
0 0
1r 0 0 00S






130. 11010 0 0M Hwotnd o n ou iepa aecao
0 0W 006-4


128. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you have informal get togethers with other people with your wife?

129. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you have informal get-togethers with other people without your wife?

130. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you and your wife play games, chat, or watch TV at home without the children or anyone else?

131. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you and your wife go out for social or recreational activities without the children or anyone else?

132. 0 0 0 0 0 how often do you attend meetings or other activites of groups or organizations without your wife?

133. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you attend such meetings or activities with your wife?

1314. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation at home?

135. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation away from home?

136. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do all members of the family get together for some kind of recreation at home?

137. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do all members of the family get together for some kind of recreation awray from home?




83


H


4
43
Ai 4r-' 4) 43 h. C ) rI 4
bf oH <0


0
0
0


0
0
0


0
0
0


0
0
0


0
0
0


How much of the housework is usually done by the following family members?


Wife Husband Children


How much of the physical maintenance of house and yard is usually done by the following family members?


� 1 r-I Uk ro r ) OH r- ~

4) o o 0 : ,-


Wife Husband Children


144. o o o o o

a)
4-31


U-I o 4) 4) *H j ci
1p 4 4)Hr(1) b El aM 4H I 0 c
P4 Cd M
C) E- E OC W 145. 0 0 0 0 0

146. o o o o o


My completed family will probably include this number of children:


How well do you feel your wife understands your ideas and feelings? How well do you feel you understand your wifets ideas and feelings?


138. 139. 14o.


14l.
142.
143.


0
0
0


0
0
0


0
0
0


0
0
0


0
0
0


4) rl
U
o

v C)
0

0



0






84


rd
U)


4-) U)

'H
4)


4) 4,i
Pi


rd
0)

chof-I 43 Cd U)



cd



0


U) .i
o)


rd 4) E) U)



-H
rH




0


4-) Ul)
i
orrd





4


0


147. 0 0 0 0


All of us have ideas about what we expect from marriage and what marriage should be like ideally. In terms of the things which you expect from marriage, how satisfied would you say you are with your marriage?




85


1. INTERNAL INSTRUMENTALITY Expectation Enactment Displacement

11 86


Form M


2. DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY


Expectation

8


Enactment Displacement

83


17 90 9 84 18 91 10 85

26 98 47 118

34 105 48 119 35 106 49 120

36 107 50 121 40l- 51 122 42 113 52 123 54 125 53 124 67 138 55 126

68 139 56 127


69


140


71 142 7 2 143


Total Displacement = No. Items Answered


Mean
Score


Total Displacement = b"___ =


No. Items Answered


tlean Score


70


141




86


3. SOLIDARITY ExpPcttion -Enactment Displacement


Form M
4. EXTERNAL RELATIONS Expectation Enactment Displacement


1 76 36 107 2 77 37 108 3 8_143 114 4 79 44 115
5 80 58 129 6 81 59 130 7 82 60 131


16 89
19 92


+


20 1


24 96 25 97 27 99 28 1 100 30 102 ----_


31 103 38 109
- 39 110


61


132


62 133
Total Displacemnt =__No. Items Answered
Sc(

5. SEXUALITY


Expectation Enactment
14 87


15


23


ore


Displacement


88


95


40 111 25 97 45 116 _...... 29 101 46 117 30 102
I A. �t I 1 f "


47I
57 128


63


134


135


65
66


74


136 137 _


38


39


4' - -


45


I U*


109


110


116


________ 4' ________


145


75 14 6


No. .Items Answered


Mean Score


46


117


Total Displacement = No. Items Answered


Mean Score


Tc




87
Date 87_Code # Marriage and College Life Project 11/69 H or




MARRIAGE ROLE QUESTIONNAIRE


Your answers to the Questionnaire items will be kept completely confidential. Please do not compare your answers with those of your spouse, since it is important that your responses represent your own personal opinion.

If you have no children, there will be some questions concernin children that you will not be able to answer. Leave these blank. Otheryise, please answer every question.

As you come to each new section, please read carefully the set of response categories that go up the side of the page. They change in meaning from section to section.




Full Text

PAGE 1

Multivariate Discrimination Between Effective and Ineffective Birth Planning of Married College Couples By ALAN NASH GRIFFIN A DISSERTATIrn PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITI OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILL\1ENT OF mE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF OOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSI1Y OF FLORIDA 1971

PAGE 3

DEDICATION This work is the child who is unwanted because he has arrived into the world at a time when his parents have not planned for him.

PAGE 4

Aa
PAGE 5

PREFACE In September of 1969, I joined the staff of the Marriage and College Life Project as a graduate assistant. My first assignment by its director, Dr. Carl T. Clarke, was to prepare a short review of literature on family planning behavior. I quickly became enmeshed in the subject, later turning to favor the term birth planning over the more popular term of family planning. In my forays into the literature, and in earlier research analyses of birth planning behavior, I became aware of the fact that there were numerous difficulties to be found in this area of research. For one thing, definitions of the behavior indicated that there were many behaviors which were operating, some of these often operating concurrently. Included in the broader definition can be behaviors related to use of contraception, abortion, sterilization, and even attempts to overcome lack of ability to conceive. After much deliberation, I decided to concentrate on birth planning from the standpoint of attempts to control the use of contraception in manipulating timing of births. This led me to the choice of dependent variable groups of effective vs ineffective birth planners in terms of success or failure in use of contraception in achieving planned birth? There was another influence which has urged me onward in my research interests in this area. In my early readings of the "pioneer" iv

PAGE 6

studies of fertility and birth planning, I read several authors' conclusions that psychological variables were of no consequence. This not only challenged my professional interests in the field of psychology; it simply did not make good connnon sense to me. So, I embarked upon a search for psychological correlates of birth planning behavior. Concurrent with all of this, I developed an interest in social role behavior. As a psychologist interested in the reciprocity between man and his social environment, this intrigues me. So, I settled on my psychological variables of interest as those dealing with role behavior. I might add that the influence of Dr. Clarke was none too slight in this respect. In my studies of the methodologies used in previous research efforts, I became aware of the fact that few of the researchers evidenced a grasp of the totality of behavior interrelatedness. Most studies had concentrated on simple bivariate or trivariate analyses. Multivariate analyses were the exception. Yet, it had occurred to me that these various behaviors had covarying effects. Moreover, the demographic variables were of such power that they often overshadowed underlying psychological variables. Could it be that the early researchers simply lacked the skills or imagination to devise adequate measures and procedures to get at these underlying psychological correlates? I thought this to be the case. Therefore, a multivariate analysis simply made good sense and was the only way to adequately understand how all of the various influences were interacting with one another. Therefore, I hope that the reader may come to have an v

PAGE 7

appreciation for the complexity of this study and the fruits of its design. I can, in all honesty, say that I have learned a great deal from the data analysis itself, and I could never have written the revised theory which appears at the end of this work without it. vi Alan Griffin Jillle, 1971

PAGE 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION • • • ACKN(]IJ1EDGEMENTS PREFACE . • • LIST OF TABLES LIST OF ABBREVIATICNS ABSTRACT iliAPTER I: INTRODUCTICN • • . • • Background . . . . . . . Study Rationale . . . Purposes of the Study Hypotheses II : • . • • • I I I : RESULTS. • • • • • • . • • • • Tests of the Hypotheses . . . . . . Relationships Between the Variables The Multivariate Analysis IV: DISCUSSICN • • • • • • • • . • . Tes t of the Study Rationale Ancillary Analyses • . . . . . • . Revised Theory of the Phenomena . . . . Conclusions APPENDIX •• REFERENCES . . . . . BI OGRAPHI CAL SKETGI vii ii iii iv viii ix xi 1 2 16 20 22 23 28 30 37 45 50 50 52 61 65 67 106 111

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Breakdown of 243 Couples in Available Subject Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2: Selected Descriptive Statistics of the Sample by Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3: Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4: Initial F Values for Independent Analyses of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5: Intercorrelation Matrix of Control Variables 38 6: 7 : 8: Intercorrelation Matrix of Investigatory Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix of Exploratory Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix of Investigatory vs Control Variables . . . . • . . . . . 9: Correlation Matrix of Investigatory vs Exploratory Variables . . . . . . . . 10: Correlation Matrix of Control vs Exploratory Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11: Surronary of Step-Wise Discrllninant Analysis 39 41 43 44 46 47 12: Accuracy of Classification Matrixes of Discrllninant Function at Selected Steps . . .. 48 13: Time of Onset of First Pregnancy 55 14: Contraceptive Success or Failure in Birth Planning According to Type of Contraceptive 56 15: Current Method of Contraception by Groups . . .. 58 viii

PAGE 10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A. Control Variables 1. W-RelInf: Influence of the wife's religion on birth planning behavior. 2. H-RelInf: Influence of the husband's religion on birth planning behavior. 3. AnInc: Family annual income. 4. H-Class: Husband's student classification. s. HFOcc: Husband's father's occupation. 6. WFOcc: Wife's father's occupation. B. Investigatory Variables 7. H-IntInst: Discrepancy between husband's perception of ideal expectations about marriage and enactments within his awn marriage in the functional area of internal instrumentality within the marriage. 8. H -Di vResp: Same as above for the flIDctional area of division of responsibility within the marriage. 9. H-Sol: Same for solidarity of the marriage. 10. H-ExtRel: External relations of the family to non-family world. 11. H -Sex: Sexuali ty wi thin the marriage. 12. W-IntInst: Wife's scores corresponding to H-IntInst. 13. W-DivResp: Division of responsibility, see above, etc. 14. W-Sol: Solidarity, etc. IS. W-ExtRel: External relations, etc. 16. \'I-Sex: Sexuality, etc. 17. DAVE-H: Discrepancy between perceptions of marital partners regarding ideal expectations about marital roles assigned to the husband. 18. DAVE-W: Same for roles assigned to the wife. 19. DAVEP: For roles assigned to the partnership. 20. DIPORE-H: Discrepancy between perceptions of marital partners regarding enactments in their awn marriage of roles assigned to the husband. 21. DIPORE-W: Same for roles assigned to the wife. 22. DIPORE-P: Roles of the partnership. ix

PAGE 11

LIST OF ABBREVIATICNS (continued): C. Exploratory Variables 23. H-Age-Mar: Age of the husband at time of marriage. 24. W-Age-Mar: Age of the wife at time of marriage. 25 . AdComp : Perceived adequacy of marital companionship. 26. H-Stress: Index of the husband's perception of situational marital stress. 27. W-Stress: Index of the wife's perception of situational marital stress. x

PAGE 12

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy MULTIVARIATE DISCRIMINATION BElWEEN EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE BIRTH PLANNING OF MARRIED COLLEGE COUPLES By Alan Nash Griffin August, 1971 Chairman: Ben Barger, Ph.D. Maj or Department: Psychology A multivariate discrimination of differences between a group of effective birth planners and a group of ineffective birth planners was conducted. The rationale of the study was that differential perceptions of nmctions of marital roles along with congruence of spouses' perceptions of role assignments would be significa,ntly different between groups of birth planners. It was hypothesized that effective birth planners would exhibit more congruence of spouses' perceptions of roles of the husband, roles of the wife, and partnership roles. It was also hypothesized that individual subjects' congruence of expectations of ideal marital roles with enactments of tileir own marital roles would be greater for effective birth planners than for ineffective birth planners. There were 61 couples in the effective birth planners group and 47 couples in the ineffective birth planners group who met the criterion of length of marriage of two through 11 years of marriage. Data had previously been gathered through the Marital Roles Questionnaire as well as an additional questionnaire as a part of an overall research effort of the University o Florida Marriage and College Life Project. xi

PAGE 13

Additional variables concerning religious influence on birth planning, socio-economic status, adequacy of marital companionship, ages at time of marriage, and perceived situational marital strain were also analysed. All variables were analyzed by the statistical procedure of step-wise discriminant analysis. Hypothesis One received limited support. Hypothesis Two was confirmed. Additionally, the interrelationships between all test variables were analyzed and discussed. Finally, an empirical determination of the five variables which best discriminated between groups was fotmd. From these results, a revised theory of the phenomena was developed. Implications for the relationship between birth planning effectiveness and marital roles behavior were discussed. These implications were discussed in the context of predetermining factors arising out of demographic influences upon the respective behaviors. Conclusions with regard to a longitudinal predictive study with predetermined hypotheses were made, emphasizing the antecedent and subsequent effects of birth planning effectiveness and marital roles behavior upon each other. xii

PAGE 14

rnAPTER I INT RODUCT I ON Birth control and birth planning behavior are areas which are receiving increasing attention these days. There have been articles written in the commercial press and even television programs devoted to the subject (for example: ABC News, 1970). Last year, the federal government, in response to public concerns about overpopulation and man's relationship to his environment in general, passed massive legislation to support population programs and new research in the area. After a conspicuous absence of enthusiasm for the topic over the course of several years, the psychological profession decided to became invo1 ved in the area of study. Accordingly, the American Psychological Association (1970) established a task force to deal with the psychological study of population and to encourage greater participation by psycho1ogis ts in the research of population problems. Fram the many areas of population research, this paper concentrates on the area of birth planning behavior. Note that the term, ''birth planning behavior," is used in lieu of the more familiar "family planning behavior." As pointed out by Pohlman (1969), the latter term is subject to some confusion. For example, what is the family planning? On the other hand, the term, "birth planning behavior," clearly implies behavior regarding the planning of births. 1

PAGE 15

2 Background In surveying the literature on birth planning behavior, it is quickly seen, as pointed out by Pohlman (1967), that the work relating psychological variables to the behavior is scant indeed. On the other hand, the emphasis upon demography is considerable (Whe1pton and Kiser, Eds., 1946-1958; Freedman, Whe 1p ton , and Campbell, 1959; Whe1pton, Campbell, and Patterson, 1966; Westoff, Potter, Sagi, and Mishler, 1961; Westoff, Potter, and Sagi, 1963; Kiser, Grabill, and Campbell, 1968). In general, these studies found relationships between fertility and birth planning and these following classes of variables: color and ethnic group effects residence and migration education occupational status economic conditions religious preference. By far, the strongest influences upon birth planning behavior were fOlmd to be religious preference and occupational status. The findings in regard to the religion variables were almost always based upon the religious preference of the wife. Typically, Catholics accounted for most of the variation, although other variations are discussed in a later section of this paper. Not only in terms of birth planning failure or ineffectiveness did Catholics stand out but also in terms of size of completed family, both actual and desired, and ages of the couples during which child bearing occurred. The findings relating to occupational status concentrated on the occupational status of the husband as a general rule. A1 though less clear cut than findings relating to religious preference, those relating occupational status,

PAGE 16

3 and socio-economic status in the broader context, to birth planning showed the least effective planners to be at the lower end of the scale. It is perhaps noteworthy that Kiser etal. (1968) concluded that the influence of socio-economic status in general was diminishing and that this might also became true for the influence of religion upon birth planning and fertility. Within the contexts of demographic categories, whatever their ultimate effects, the significance of psychological variables in relation to birth planning variables clearly emerges. For example, as pointed out by Rainwater (1965), there are psychological undertones to the degree of acceptance or rejection of religious teachings, and, too, there are psychological characteristics which correlate with the degree to which one identifies with his social peer or reference group. So, the realm of the psychological, long neglected or afforded little more than peripheral treatment, comes as an area of much potential in the researdl of birth planning behavior. The early studies of birth planning behavior were carried out, for the most part, by demographers who intended to attack the area from a comprehensive standpoint. As such, they could have hardly ignored psychological study of the behavior. Their results, however, tended to reflect the inadequacies of their research methods. These early studies, the Indianapolis Study (Whelpton and Kiser, Eds., 1946-58), the Princeton Study or Growth of American Families Study (Freedman et al., 1959; Whelpton et al., 1966), and the Family Growth in Metropolitan America Study (Westoff et al., 1961; Westoff et al., 1963), were massive "shotgun" efforts aimed at describing the social psychological correlates

PAGE 17

4 of fertility and birth planning behavior. Their drawbacks lay primarily in the choice of ins truments used. The main ins trument , in each case, was the questionnaire, either self-administered or administered by an interviewer. Another important drawback was the almost exclusive reliance upon data taken from female subjects. Also, there were often limitations upon eligibility of subjects which curtailed the studies. For example, the Indianapolis Study was limited to native, white, Protestant, once-married, urban subjects who were married in the years 1927-1929. The FGIMA study excluded subjects who had experienced illegitimacy, plural births, adoption, child death, or pregnancy wastage in excess of one miscarriage. The subject couples were white, native, once-married, living together, residents of seven of the eight largest metropolitan areas of the United States who had given birth to a child in September of 1956. Scant though they were, the results of the investigations of psychological correlates of birth planning of the early studies were of some value, especially in terms of laying plans for future research. The Indianapolis Study (Kiser and Whelpton, 1958) offered up these results regarding "personality characteristics" and birth planning behavior. Personal inadequacy related positively to contraceptive effective-ness and negatively to size of planned family. These findings all but vanished, however, when socio-economic status was held constant. No support was found for the hypothesis that a feeling that children restrict personal freedom motivated couples to control fertility and plan smaller families. Their data, which were post hoc, did however confirm that lack of success in fertility planning and having three or

PAGE 18

5 more children were associated with a feeling of restriction. The hypothesis that ego-centered interest in children was related to fertility planning status or size of planned family was unconfirmed. Fear of pregnancy showed a very slight relationship to fertility planning status as also rationality of behavior related very slightly to fertility. The relationship between conformity and fertility was unclear. In each of these analyses, the data were taken from a few selected items from the questionnaire instrument. By and large, it was the authors' own conclusion that the data were inadequate to test these hypotheses, the limitations of the questionnaire items being the chief source of the inadequacies. Westoff et al. (1961, 1963), using data from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule in the FGIMA Study, tested ten hypotheses. In only three instances did correlations reach statistical significance. Manifest anxiety correlated -.07 with number of children desired. Compulsiveness and ambiguity tolerance, which appeared to be two measures of one underlying factor, correlated, respectively, -.11 and .11 with number of children desired. Little overall confidence was given to these as predictive indices. It is noted that this study shared a corronon perspective with the Indianapolis Study; that is, the investigation of psychological variables was limited to personality constructs or traits. This approach was very narrow and failed to acknowledge other areas of psychological investigation. Nevertheless, these researchers concluded that psychological variables were of little importance in the study of birth planning behavior.

PAGE 19

6 An important outgrowth of these pioneer studies was an emphasis on the development of the KAP studies. The initials of these studies stand for Knowledge, and Practises related to birth planning behavior. The early studies were fertility surveys aimed at sampling cross-sections of large populations in order to explore the social and psychological factors associated with fertility differences. There also was a desire for data upon which projections of future trends could be made. These survey studies prompted nruch discussion about the directions to be taken in population research (Kiser, 1962; Berelson, 1966; Bogue, 1966, 1967). Bogue (1966) in particular pointed out the need for baseline data in order to be able to measure the effects of public information programs in bringing about change. The KAP studies, many still in progress, were designed essentially for this purpose (Berelson, 1966; Bumpass and Westoff, 1969; Westoff and Ryder, 1969; Burnpass ani We:;toff, 1970). M:>re than 400 KAP studies have been conducted allover the world. These data have been useful in demon-strating to governments the acceptability of birth planning programs and have also been used to provide explanations of fertility differences, mainly in terms of social stratification variables (Fawcett, 1970). Fawcett's statement very succinctly summarizes the results of these study data. Typically, KAP data have shown that women desire a smaller family size than they are likely to have by the end of their reproductive period; that they are not unwilling to discuss sex, procreation, and contraception; that they know little about methods of preventing pregnancy but are anxious to learn; and that they consider it proper tllat government should provide family planning advice and services (1970, p. 39).

PAGE 20

7 Fawcett further noted that the KAP survey projects provided remarkable opportunities for controlled research in field settings; for example, in the area of persuasive communications. An interesting area which has come about more or less as a spin-off from the KAP studies is the investigation of persuasive communications in affecting public levels of knowledge, attitudes, and practises related to birth planning. There have been many field studies of this type which are reported in various issues of Studies in Family Planning. As far as formal research projects are concerned, the more interesting ones have been done in Puerto Rico and Jamaica (Hill, Stycos, and Back, 1959; Stycos and Back, 1964) and in Taiwan (Berelson and Freedman, 1964; Freedman and Takeshita, 1969). There have also been interesting discussions on the possibilities of applications of various communications theories and concepts to studies of this kind (Berelson, 1963, 1964,1966;Bogue, 1962, 1967; Smith, 1965). Other studies are also mentioned briefly by Fawcett (1970) and Pohlman (1969). TIle study by Hill, Stycos, and Back (1959) principally investigated the effects upon women patients who were seen in family planning clinics in Puerto Rico. They conducted classes on birth planning and contraception and found that there was a favorable response in the direction of acceptance of contraception. Another interesting finding by this group of researchers was that any form of public communication which drew attention to contraception aroused enough curiosity to eventually stimulate inquiry and some degree of acceptance of contraception. TIle study done in Taiwan (Freedman and Takeshita, 1969) was

PAGE 21

8 a well-planned and well-executed experimental effort to make birth planning available quickly to the whole population of an Asian city and to observe the effects systematically. It emphasized bringing birth planning to those who wanted to limit the size of their families rather than attempting to change ideas about the number of children desired. Neighborhood units were randomly assigned to one of four communications treatment: (a) personal visits by health workers, mailing, and group meetings applied to both husbands and wives, (b) those applied to wives only, (c) mailings only, and (d) no treatment. In addition, treatment was varied according to density of population. In the most dense sector of the city, 50% of the neighborhood units received treatment (a). In the least dense section, 20% of the units received treatment (a). The major dependent variable was increase in the practise of birth planning for the period of the experiment and for a two-year follow-up. It was found that, of the various experimental treatments group meetings, home visits, mailings --the most effective was group meetings which were rated as "effective" immediately afterwards by the person conducting the meeting. This was especially effective for the acceptance of the IUD. Efforts directed at both marital partners were no more effective than those directed at wives alone. It was suggested that informal processes of diffusion of information played an important role when it was found tllat there were powerful effects even for the low-densi ty neighborhoods. Those persons who believed that use of contraception was increasing among their friends and relatives were more apt to accept contraception themselves. This

PAGE 22

9 finding pointed to the importance of support wi thin the social system, and the overcoming of "pluralis tic ignorance." A very salient point involving research and programs aimed at persuasive communications has been made by Smith (1965); that is, that the most strategic class of factors that govern the effectiveness of persuasive communication seensto be essentially political. It is one thing to observe effects of persuasion upon a population in Taiwan where the national policy is one of encouragement of family limitation (as is also the case throughout Asia). It is quite another case to undertake attitude change. Smith indicated that psychological research might well aim at change of political conditions affecting the issues of birth planning. Another area of research which would seem to follow logically on the heels of the preceding is the study of the psychological consequences of family size and population density. Unfortunately, the research efforts in this area are scant. The most noteworthy effort has been Pohlman's attempt to review the literature on the adverse effects of unwanted pregnancy. It was his conclusion, however, that the evidence was inconclus i ve and the findings unconvincing. One problem 11as been the confusion which has prevailed in regard to the term "unwanted" (Pohlman, 1965a). The concept of wanting is highly subject to the influence of time. A conception may have been unwanted before it occurred; yet, after pregnancy has progressed, the as-yet-unborn child may be looked upon more favorably and willingly accepted at birth. Sketchy results have been found in studies of the effects of

PAGE 23

10 family size and birth spacing on the children of the family. Lieberman (1970) has suggested that family size bears same relation to emotional adjustment and psychological illness with differential effects. Clausen (1966) has cited studies which suggest that achievement orientation, verbal ability, school performance, and occupational success are inversely related to family size. A study by Strodtbeck and Creelan (1968) analyzed variations in parent-child and sibling relationships due to differences in number and spacing of children as these might account for intelligence or for sex role identity. In a review of studies relating marital success to family size, Christensen (1968) suggested that a fruitful line might be the analysis of marital success in relation to the balance achieved between values and behavior in childbearing. Certainly one of the most important areas of research which is related to birth planning behavior is that which investigates psychological factors in the use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Pohlman (1969) has reviewed much of the literature in this area without readling any firm conclusions. Three consistent reasons for not using contraception when conception was unwanted were found by Westoff et al. (1961). These were religion, interference with sexual relations, and fear or ignorance of contraception. Rainwater (1965) found that some of his subjects expressed the feeling that fear of pregnancy inhibited their sexual relations. Rodgers and Ziegler (1968a) concluded that couples who successfully adopted use of oral contraceptives experienced an improvement in sexual relations. TIlis improvement, however, represented a return to the more or less

PAGE 24

11 nonnal pattern rather than an exceptional improvement. These subjects were also found to experience better psychological functioning following adoption of contraception (Ziegler et al., 1968). Babchuk and LaCognata (1960) concluded from their study that couples who had more problems in the areas of sex and husband-wife relations were less successful in using contraceptive methods. And, Ziegler et al. (1966) found that men undergoing vasectomies reported no loss in sexual acti vi ty or pleasure. However, Ziegler et al. also concluded that other data suggested that other behavior did not correspond to the verbal behavior of these subjects. An interesting finding was reported by Adams (1961). He found that subjects who expressed attitudinal ambivalence towards contraception were more prone to use of less effective methods of contraception or no methods at all. One feature of the Adams study which makes it especially interesting is that his data were taken from the Family Growth in Metropolitan America Study whose original authors had concluded that psychological variables were of no importance in affecting birth planning. A research angle which takes a rather different approach is the study of factors affecting desire for children. Pohlman (1969) has catalogued the research findings in this area, and Bogue (1967) has provided a schema for the study of the area. Examples of conflicting motives may be found in the proposition that large families contribute to good marital adjustment, yet small families provide husbands and wives with more leisure opportunity and improve sexual adjustment by eliminating or reducing fear. Apart from discussion of motives related to desire for children

PAGE 25

12 (see Wyatt, 1967; Pohlman, 1965b, 1969), notable research has been done by Rabin (1965) and Rabin and Green (1968) in their development of a scale to measure motivation for parenthood. Four motivational categories seem to be of promise: altruistic, fatalistic, narcissistic, and instrumental. Rainwater's research (1960, 1965) has suggested the operation of conformity to social norms as a motivating factor. Whelpton et ale (1966) suggested that liking for children was a factor in wanting children. Hoffman and Wyatt (1960) hypothesized that having children provided more of a challenge to the wife in her family role, and tilis received some modest empirical support from Rainwater (1965). Westoff et ale (1961, 1963) found small correlations between marital adjustment and size of family. On the other hand, Blood and Wolfe (1960) concluded from their data that more than three or four children seemed to impair communication, intimacy, romance, and satisfaction in the marriage. Delay of the first child for purposes of facilitating adjustment and allowing for companionship was found to be desired by subjects interviewed by Westoff et ale (1961). Dyer's (1963) subjects characterized the first dlild as an intrusion of a third, nonsocialized, all-demanding member into the family system. And, Griffin, Clarke, and Day (1970) found that couples whose children were unplanned perceived the companionship in their marriages as less adequate than couples who had some or all of their children planned. In the area of study of family interaction, one finds a body of literature which has been the most promising in affording insights into differences between various classes of birth planning behavior. The research in the Caribbean was directed strongly at the study of

PAGE 26

13 family interaction variables in influencing birth planning (Stycos, 1955; Hill, Stycos, and Back, 1959; Stycos and Back, 1964). For example, vague and ambivalent small family values were overshadowed by aspects of conjugal family structure that interfered with actions necessary to strengthen or realize those values. Variables such as communication between spouses, sexual satisfaction, marital happiness, and patterns of autonomy and dominance related to birth planning behaviors. These are variables which have related to the behavior fairly consistently. For example, poor marital communication has been shown elsewhere to be associated with less consistency of planning behavior (Brooks, 1966; also, Yaukey, Griffiths, and Roberts, 1967). Patterns of marital dominance were found to be related to birth planning by the early Indianapolis Study OWhelpton and Kiser, 1958) and as late as the recent study by Rodgers and Ziegler (1968b}. Chilrnan (1968), in analyzing the relationship between fertility and poverty with particular attention to family variables, concluded that family life styles included factors such as segregation of husband and wife roles which interfere with effective birth planning. The most provocative research, from a psychologist's point of view, has been that done by Rainwater (1960, 1965). He studied family size preferences and contraceptive practises among middleand lowerclass urban Americans in relation to conjugal role relationships and sexual behavior. His conclusion was that preference for a small family was associated with husband-dominated or jointly organized conjugal relationships, interest in activities outside of the hame, and anxiety on the part of the wife about coping with household tasks,

PAGE 27

14 while large family preferences were associated with medium-segregated conjugal relationships, values oriented toward children and the home, high salience of sexual relationships, and concern about excessive egocentricism. His conclusions with regard to contraceptive practice are discussed in the next section of this paper. The present study is prompted by the conclusions of Rainwater's research regarding the relationship between marital role relationships and birth planning behaviors. The Rainwater research was very provocative, and it has provided the most comprehensive theory to date about the relationship between husband-wife interaction and birth planning behaviors. On the other hand, the basis for his research conclusions was very shaky due to the poor methodology of his study. The purpose for the Rainwater (1965) research was the exploration of the social psychological factors that lie behind the goals of family size that people set for themselves and the factors that affect the effectiveness of couples' family limitation methods, if any, in achieving their own desired family size goals. His research population was wllite American families from the middle and lower classes, and Negro American families from the lower classes, equally represented by classes and represented by quotas for Catholic/noncatholic religion. His sample contained 152 couples plus subjects from an earlier study (1960) who were 50 men and 55 women not married to each other. In all, there were 409 subjects representing 257 families. Of these, 185 families lived in Olicago, 45 in Cincinnati, and 32 in Oklahoma City. All wives were under 40 years of age. Subjects were contacted

PAGE 28

15 and interviewed at home through open-ended, conversational interviews. The research instrument was a form containing lead questions regarding topic areas and instructions to the interviewer for areas to probe in more detailed discussion, all open-ended. All responses were recorded by hand by the interviewer. The topics of the Rainwater interview instrument were raised in this order: number of children born to wife, general discussion of the marriage, of the responsibilities and personal qualities of husband and wife, and of the problems the couple had in the marriage; discussion of family size ideals, the couples' own desires in terms of number of children, ideas about why couples want large and small families; contraceptive experiences and attitudes, and feelings about medical resources for contraceptive advice, and discussion of sexual relations in the marriage. Later, all of the subjects' responses were coded by Rainwater himself by sections, and then each interview was read on a case history basis. Some of the coded variables were subjected to bivariate statistical comparisons (i.e., chi-square test), but for tile most part, the analyses consisted of case history style presentations and quotations from individual cases to support the inferences drawn by Rainwater. The major variables which he treated were: social class, race, gender, religion, conjugal role relationships, sexual and marital relations, family size preferences, rationales for family size, motivations for large and small families, family limitation and contraceptive methods, effective and ineffective contraceptive practises, and knowledge and use of medical assistance for family limitation.

PAGE 29

16 There were several methodological flaws in the Rainwater study. First, he did not explain the basis for the selection of his particular subjects. He did, however, describe their demographic characteristics. There was no check of interviewer reliability, although the instrument was heavily dependent upon the probing efforts of the persons who conducted the interviews. Most importantly, the coding of all responses was done by Rainwater alone, with no other judge as a crosscheck. Additionally, his few quantitative data analyses were relatively simple with no attempt to control for variable covariances. His choice of use of qualitative analysis left the strength of his conclusions open to the reader's willingness to accept Rainwater's personal inferences. Despi te these obvious flaws, there is much merit which can be found in Rainwater's discussion. He has raised same interesting questions regarding the relationship between marital roles, social class, and birth planning behaviors. In particular, he has raised same very salient points regarding effective as opposed to ineffective birth planning in relation to marital roles. It is to the investigation of these variables which the present research directs itself. Study Rationale Rainwater (1965) investigated the relationship between conjugalrole relationships and effective/ineffective birth planning. His definition of conjugal-role relationships was taken from Bott (1957), and also included strong influences from Bell and Vogel (1960) and Hess and Handel (1959).

PAGE 30

17 By a conjugal-role relationship is meant those aspects of the relationship between husband and wife that consist of reciprocal role expectations and the activities of each spouse in relation to the other. Patterns of task perfonnance and expectations about it are involved, as are the kinds of family leadership, the solidarity characteristic of couples, and the value systems used to legitimate marital role execution. Separateness and connectedness (one aspect of family solidarity) is an important theme in characterizing the role relationship, as are the central family concerns and the way the couple establishes boundaries for its world. Consensus (congruence of images) between the partners is significantly conditioned by the acceptance each partner gives to the role-relationship as it has developed in the marriage (Rainwater, 1965, p. 29). All of these many aspects of marriage Rainwater attempted to compress into one dimension, ranging from the jointly organized to the highly segregated conjugal role-relationship. In relating this to effective and ineffective contraceptive practises, he concluded that marriages which exhibited a joint-role relationship were effective (100% aftertre birth of the last wanted child) as opposed to highly-segregated relationships which were largely ineffective (74% after the birth of the last child as opposed to only 26% effective). Rainwater further concluded that couples in the more segregated relationships tended to have less communication with each other, to go their own separate ways more, to have more serious financial and interpersonal problems, and to be generally less family-centered in their conceptions of themselves than couples in less segregated role-relationships. This same distinction of type of role-relationship was also found between social classes. The upper-middle class exhibited 88% joint role-relationships, while the lower-lower class exhibited only 4% joint with 72% segregated role-relationships.

PAGE 31

18 The general area of roles and role patterning in marriages was excellently reviewed by Tharp (1963a). These were his summary generalizations from the study of existing research and theoretical materials: Mates are selected from a field of eligibles .... Cultural homogamys provide for a similarity between mates with respect to social, value, and personality characteristics. Mate-selection (courtship) roles manifest patterns of needs and expectations which differ in context and organization from marriage roles .... Modal role definitions exist and are sex-differentiated. They are provided for by parental identifications. The husband role is the more ins tnnnental, the wife role the more expressive-integrative .... The more general statement is ..• that marital satisfaction is a function of the satisfaction of needs and/or expectations specific to husband and wife roles (p. 115). Thus, the integrative quality of a marriage is a function of role perception, role expectation, and role performance of marital partners. In another study, Tharp (1963b) employed a factor-analytic design in breaking down the marital roles into five areas. These were: (1) internal instrumentality, (2) division of responsibility, (3) solidarity, (4) external relations, and (5) sexuality. There were same differences in the composition of these factors between the two sexes. For example, sexuality was found to contain an element of non-sexual companionship for men but not so for women. Note the similarity between these factors which were empirically derived by Tharp and the factors proposed by Bell Vogel (1960) or by Hess and Handel (1959) which influenced Rainwater (1965) in his definition of conjugal role relationships. Bell and Vogel proposed four broad functional problems of activity: (1) task performance, (2) family

PAGE 32

19 leadership, (3) integration and solidarity, and (4) pattern maintenance. Hess and Handel outlined five major processes: (1) establishing a pattern of separateness and connectedness, (2) establishing a satisfactory congruence of images through the exchange of suitable testimony, (3) evolving modes of interaction into central family concerns, (4) establishing tile boundaries of the family's world of experience, and (5) dealing with significant biosocial issues of family life. There appear to emerge, then, several aspects of marital roles which describe tile qualities of the marital relationship and dynamics. And, according to the Rainwater conclusions, some, if not all, of these aspects of marital roles relate to effectiveness of birth planning behavior. The central thesis of the present research is a test of that relationship, and a more thorough examination of the relationship between the perception of marital roles and birth planning effectiveness. The analysis of marital roles may be accomplished in two basic approaches. One is the analysis of congruence bebveen each individual's expectations about roles with his perceptions of actual role performance. Another is the analysis of the congruence between partners in regard to role expectations or perceived role performances. These analyses can be broken down by assignment of the roles to the husband or the wife or a shared role, or these analyses can be broken down according to the function of the role in the marriage as per Tharp's five factors, internal instrumentality, division of responsibility, solidarity, external relations, and sexuality. It is the thesis of this study that congruence of spouses' expectations and perceived enactments of roles of the husband, roles

PAGE 33

20 of the wife, and shared roles, along with congruence of individuals' expectations and perceived enactments of marital roles according to Tharp's five areas of functions relate positively to effectiveness of birth plarming behavior. That is , effective plarmers should exhibit a greater degree of congruence according to these measures of marital roles than do ineffective plarmers. In particular, this should be true for spouses' congruence of perceptions of the enactments of the husband's role and also should be true for congruence of individuals' expectations and perceived enactments of the functional areas of internal instrumentality and division of responsibility. Purposes of the Study The main purpose of this study was to test the thesis stated above. Beyond this, however, there were several other purposes of this study, some intentional and some exploratory. It was pointed out earlier that birth plarming behaviors have been shown to relate strongly to two main demographic variables, religion and socio-economic status as defined primarily by the occupation of the head of the household. Additionally, it was suggested by Rainwater (1965) that the primary set of independent variables, those assessing the several aspects of marital roles, also tend to relate to socio-economic status. With these points in mind, this study was designed as a multivariate analysis, as suggested by a report by the American Psychological Association (1970), in order to investigate the relationships between each of tile independent variables and birth plarming effectiveness after having ascertained and controlled for the effects of confounding

PAGE 34

21 of variables. The confounding effects of the demographic variables were also modified by the use of a readily identifiable subject population, married college students. While a college population is not entirely homogeneous, it still is more homogeneous than the general population. Aside from this design control of the delOOgraphic variables, a more precise empirical control was employed by the statistical procedure. This study also analyzed a set of exploratory variables. For example, adequacy of companionship in the marriage, shown to relate to birth planfulness (Griffin et al., 1970),was thought also to relate to planning effectiveness. Additionally, companionship has been shown to be the single most important need in contemporary American marriages (Blood and Wolfe, 1960). A second exploratory variable was also suggested by the study by Griffin et al. (1970); that is, the perception of situational marital strain. Accordingly, an index of perception of situational marital strain was one of the exploratory variables. Finally, more out of curiosity than theory, the ages of each of the marital partners at the time of marriage were exploratory variables. There have been discussions of the feasibility of approaching the study of marriage as a function of human development (see Rowe, 1966). If this were a viable approach, then age at time of marriage may have bOTIle an important relationship not only to marital roles but also to birth planning effectiveness. In all, this study contained three classes of independent variables. These were investigatory, exploratory, and control variables. The study was intended to discriminate between two clearly

PAGE 35

22 defined groups of birth planners along a continuum of planning effectiveness. A two-fold result of this was expected. First, this would lend itself to some of the differences between the psychological environments of these two groups, differences of psychological perspective. Secondly, a model of correlating psycho-social influences with planning effectiveness would serve to generate hypotheses regarding the further study of factors which may prove useful in predicting planning effectiveness. Hypotheses Each of these was a general hypothesis, and each was tested by several different measures. 1. Effective birth planners as opposed to ineffective birth planners exhibit less discrepancy between individual's expectations about ideal marital roles and perceived role enactments in five areas of marriage fllllctions as defined by Tharp (1963b). 2. Effective birth planners as opposed to ineffective birth planners exhibit less discrepancy between marital partners' role ideals and role enactments for the role of the husband, the role of the wife, and partnership roles. Operational definitions of these hypotheses are provided in the methodology section.

PAGE 36

rnAPTER II MEIHOOOLOGY There was an existing data pool available through the University of Florida Marriage and College Life Project. The subjects for this research were married couples selected on the basis of the husband's being an enrolled college student at the University of Florida in the Fall quarter of 1969. The data were gathered in 1969-70. All together, 243 couples completed each of the following instnnnents: 1 1. Survey of Needs and Services for Married Students. This was completed by the husbands and wives jointly. Many questions were asked regarding the background, finances, recreational activities, housing accommodations, etc., of the subjects. 2. Marriage and College Environment Inventory. This is a research instrument developed by Clarke. l This instrument and each instrument listed below were completed without collaboration between subjects. 3. Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (modified short form), (Locke and Wallace, 1959). 4. The Marriage Roles Ques tionnaire (Tharp, 1963b, 1965). Available from Dr. Carl T. Clarke, Marriage and College Life Project, Infinnary, University of Florida. 23

PAGE 37

24 s. The Family Plaming Questionnaire. This instrument contained items relating to birth control practices. It also assessed the planfulness of each wife's pregnancies and type of contraceptive procedure which was used in the past. Also included was a semantic-differential instrument to measure attitudes towards various contraceptive procedures. 2 These data were collected by two procedures. The first precedure collected data through group testing sessions. The second data collection method obtained the subjects' testing through home visits. In no case was collaboration between marital partners permitted (except for the one survey instrument as indicated above). The full methodology of the project study has been described in an unpublished report. 3 From the existing data pool, two groups of subjects were drawn. Since many of the independent variables were subject to effects from very short or long lengths of marriage, the limitations of length of marriage from two through 11 years were imposed. The two groups were: 2 Ibid. 3--1. Effective planners. These were subjects who had had only planned pregnancies, or if they had had no pregnancies, were using same form of contraception at time of interview. 2. Ineffective planners. These were subjects who had had at least one lll1planned pregnancy which occurred during a time that some form of contraception was being used. That is to say, the pregnancy represented contraceptive failure. By Griffin, A. and Clarke, C. T. Marriage and College Life Project, Infirmary, University of Florida.

PAGE 38

25 Groups 1 and 2 were compared for group differences by use of tlle statistical procedure of step-wise discriminant analysis along tile following variables: 1. Area discrepancy scores of differences between ideal expectations about marriage and enactments wi tilin one's own marriage from tile Marriage Roles Questionnaire as per tile scoring system of Tharp (1963b, 1965).4 There were scores for husband(5) and scores for wive(5) in each of tilese areas : a. Division of responsibility. b. Internal instrumentality. c. External relations. d. Solidarity. e. Sexuality. 2. Role discrepancy scores between marital partners' perceptions of ideal marriage 5 expectations and of own marriage enactments. Scores for each couple were obtained for each of tile following: a. Roles for tile husband. b. Roles for tile wife. c. Roles shared on a partnership basis. These scores were obtained for discrepancies between ideal marriage expectations (3) and also for one's own marital enactments (3). 3. Ratio of stress to satisfaction items from the Marriage and College Environment Inventory for husbands and also for wives. In addition to tilese variables, two classes of "control" variables were also entered into the statistical procedure. These were: 1. Assessment of religious influence on planning, empirically based on studies by Westoff et al. (1961, 1963); Whelpton et al. (1966); Freedman 4 5 Witil some minor modifications according to personal communications between R. G. Tharp and C. T. Clarke. Available from Dr. Carl T. Clarke, Marriage and College Life Project, Infirmary, University of Florida. Scoring developed by Clarke, C. T., Lefkowitz, M., and Griffin, A. Marriage and College Life Project, Infirmary, University of Florida.

PAGE 39

26 et al. (1959). Each subject was classed along a continuum of religious influence on planning from least efficient to most efficient as follows: 1. Active Catholic. 2. Inactive Catholic. 3. Inactive Protestant, no religious affiliation. 4. Active Protestant. 5. Jewish. This was found as a variable for the wives and as an additional variable for the husbands. "Active" was defined as attending religious services more than once per month. 2. Assessment of socio-economic influences. This was defined in several ways: a. Total annual income per couple. b. The occupational status of the father of the subject husbands as follows: (1) Professional. (2) Managerial. (3) Clerical or Sales. (4) Skilled. (5) Semi-skilled. c. The occupational status of the father of the subject wives according to the above scheme. d. The level of educational attainment of the subject husbands. Definitions b through d represented experimental variables. The literature indicated that the occupational status of the husbands was a major variable. However, each of the husbands of this study had tile occupation of student. Therefore, these variables were suggested as ones of possible interest. The operational hypotheses were: 1. Group 1 has lower scores than Group 2 (as reflected in an F-ratio whicll is significant at the .05 level) of discrepancy between individuals' expectations about ideal marriage and perceived enactments of their own marriages as per scores of the Marriage Role Questionnaire in each of the following areas of marriage function for the husbands' scores (5) ffild also for the wives' scores (5): a. Division of responsibility. b. Internal instrumentality. c. External relations. d. Solidarity. e. Sexuality.

PAGE 40

27 2. Group 1 has lower scores than Group 2 (as reflected in an F-ratio which is significant at the .05 level) on these measures: a. Discrepancy between marital partners' perceptions about marital role expectations and perceptions of marital role enactments in the areas of: (1) Role of the husband. (2) Role of the wife. (3) Partnership role. The statistical procedure of step-wise discriminant analysis yielded a final "fln1ction" (mathematical model) which best discriminated between the groups. The step-wise feature ranked the variables according to the degree of discrimination between groups offered by each variable. The statistical procedure had built into it an automatic adjustment for covariance of variables such that the final function weighted variables differentially to produce the best discrimination between groups. Once all variables were analyzed, only the ive best discriminating variables were selected for the final descriptive model for the purposes of this study, exploration of psychological differences between effective and ineffective birth planners.

PAGE 41

lliAP1ER I I I RESULTS There were 27 independent variables treated in this study, and it is understandable that the presentation of the results is rather lengthy and somewhat complex. If, however, the reader follows the written text and examines each data table as it is referred to, then the task of assimilation becomes less awesome. Referring back to the List of Abbreviations is essential. First, who were the subjects of this study? From the preceding chapter, it was learned that there was an available subject pool of 243 couples from whom all relevant data were available. Of these 243 couples, 90 did not meet the proper length of marriage requirements (see Table 1). Of those couples who were married the desired two to 11 years, 45 were classed as either nonplanners (no attempt to plan) or as indeterminant. The indeterminancy of many was accounted for by their non-use of contraception in order to have a child at the the time of interview. Of the remaining couples, 61 were effective planners and 47 ineffective planners. Of the 61 effective planners, 34 were nonparents and 27 were parents by design. All of the 47 ineffective planners had had at least one child whose conception represented contraceptive failure. 28

PAGE 42

29 TABLE 1 Breakdown of 243 Couples in Available Subject Pool Length of marriage less than 2 years Length of marriage greater than 11 years Length of marriage 2 through 11 years Non-planners or indeterminate (may be attempting to have a child) Effective planners Ineffective planners TOTAL 72 18 45 61 47 243

PAGE 43

30 Table 2 along with the first section of Table 3 (control variables) present data whiCh are descriptive of the demographic Characteristics of the sample. While the marriages were yOlmg ones on the average, they had been in progress long enough to permit a settling down of marital roles and also an opportunity for same childbearing to have occurred. Also, note that the ages of the subjects at the time of testing and interview were not as young as the term "married students" would seem to imply. The breakdown of the religious preferences and activity of the subjects is of special interest as this was used as the basis for two of the control variables. Tes ts of the Hypotheses At the onset of this study, there were two general hypotheses, eaCh of which was tested in several ways. See Chapter I for the general statements of the hypotheses (p. 22) and Chapter II for the operational hypotheses (p. 26). Table 4 presents the results of each independent one-way analysis of variance for eaCh variable. Note that the critical ratio (C. R.) for statistical significance in each case was 3.95. TIle F ratios which met this criterion are underlined in Table 4 for ease of recognition. Among the control variables, the two variables dealing with religious influence were significant for group differences. In each case, the active Catholic end of the contmuum was associated with the ineffective planners group while the active Protestant and Jewish end favored the effective planners group. None of the variables related to socioeconomic background yielded significant differences between group means.

PAGE 44

31 TABLE 2 Selected Descriptive Statistics of the Sample by Groups Effective Planners Ineffective Planners M S.D. M S.D. 1. Length of marriage 4.5 1.8 5.3 2.2 M S.D. M S.D. 2. Age at time of data collection Husbands 27.4 3.5 27.2 2.7 Wives 26.2 2.7 25.7 2.2 Husbands Wives Husbands Wives 3. Religious preference/ activity acti ve Catholic 3 (5%) 3 (5%) 6(13%) 6(13%) inactive Catllo1ic 4 (7%) 3 (5%) 2 (4%) 5(11%) no affiliation, 21(34%) 13(21%) 18(38%) 19 (40%) inactive Protestant 16(26%) 14(39%) 17(36%) 12(26%) active Protestant 16 (26%) 17 (28%) 4 (9%) 5(11%) Jewish 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 0 0 Note: Statistics on family annual income, occupational status of subjects' fathers, husbands' student classification, and subjects' ages at time of marriage are presented in Table 3.

PAGE 45

TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables I. Control Variables Re]gious influence (wife) Religious influence (husband) ArulUal income Husbands' student classification Husbands' fathers' occupation Wives' fathers' occupation II. Investigatory Variables A. Marital roles by flillctional areas (Discrepancy between individuals' perception of expectations and enactmen ts) 1. Husbands' scores Internal instrumentality Division of responsibility Solidarity External relations Sexuality 2. Wives' scores Internal instrumentality Division of responsibility Solidarity External relations Sexuality Effective Planners Mean S.D. 3.16 .76 3.13 .76 $7663 $3132 4.74 1.25 2.48 1.16 2.13 1.12 .53 .20 .40 .22 .52 .25 .62 .33 .48 .41 .72 .36 .42 .22 .53 .21 .65 .22 .53 .38 Ineffective Planners Mean S.D. 2.74 .82 2.79 .78 $6734 $3178 4.60 1. 28 2.43 1.35 2.26 1.28 tN N .68 .30 .50 .18 .74 .27 .77 .33 .78 .52 .81 .36 .40 .26 .67 .25 .72 .28 .69 .45

PAGE 46

TABLE 3 (continued): Effective Planners Ineffective Planners Mean S.D. Mean S.D. B. Marital roles by role assignment (Discrepancy between marital partners' perceptions) 1. Ideal expectations Husband roles .46 .19 .50 .21 Wife roles .48 .17 .49 .21 Partnership roles .49 .14 .51 .15 2. Marital enactments Husband roles .60 .20 .69 .22 Wife roles .61 .19 .63 .24 Partnership roles .56 .16 .61 .22 III. Exploratory Variables Age at time of marriage (husband) 23.0 3.5 21.9 2.7 tN tN Age at time of marriage (wife) 21. 7 2.7 20.4 2.2 Perceived adequacy of marital companionship Index of perceived situational marital 3.50 l.1 2.89 1.2 strain (husband) .26 .19 .45 .32 Index of perceived situational marital strain (wife) .27 .24 .41 .44

PAGE 47

34 T.ABLE 4 Initial F Values for Independent Analyses of Variance Control Variables 1. Religious influence (wife) 2. Religious influence (husband) 3 . ArulUal income 4. Husband's student classification 5. Occupation of husband's father 6. Occupation of wife's father Investigatory Variables Discrepancy of Roles by FunctiDnal .Areas Husband's scores: 7. Internal instnnnentali ty 8. Division of responsibility 9. Solidari ty 10. External relations 11. Sexuality Wife's scores: 12. Internal instnnnentality 13. Division of responsibility 14. Solidarity 15. External relations 16 . Sexuali ty Discrepancy of Partner's Perceptions of Role .As s ignmen ts Expectations of roles: 17. Husband role 18. Wife role 19. Partnership role Enactments of roles: 20. Husband role 21. Wife role 22. Partnership role F 7.57 5.29 r.n 0.33 0.04 0.29 9.28 D:"TI 2(J."4() 5.64 lr.-s3" 1.92 0.10 9.76 2.36 4.25 0.92 0.06 0.85 4.88 0.13 2.05

PAGE 48

35 TABLE 4 (continued): Exploratory Variables 23. Age at time of marriage (husband) 24. Age at time of marriage (wife) 25. Adequacy of marital companionship 26. Perception of situational strain (husband) 27. Perception of situational strain (wife) Note: C.R. for F (1,106; .05) is 3.95. F 2.92 7.82 8.07 1"5.73 4.57 Underlined values are statistically significant at the .05 level.

PAGE 49

36 Of the investigatory variables, eight of ten variables dealing with intra-person agreement between expectations and enactments of marital roles according to areas of functions of the roles were significant for group differences. In all cases, save one, ineffective planners experienced more discrepancy between expectations and enactments than did the effective planners. These results confinned Hypothesis One. Note that the effects were stronger for husbands' perceptions than for wives' perceptions. Note also that the flIDctional areas of solidarity and sexuality produced the strongest and most consistent effects. Of the six investigatory variables dealing with agreement between marital partners' perceptions of assignments of roles, only one was significant. That variable was agreement between partners as to the enactments of the husbands' roles in their own marriage. These findings offered limited support for Hypothesis Two, that ineffective planners showed more discrepancy between spouses perceptions of expectations and enactments of assignments of marital roles than effective planners. In rOlIDding out the results of the independent analyses shown in Table 4, it is seen that four of five exploratory variables were significant for group differences. The ages of the effective planners' wives were older at time of marriage than the ages of ineffective planners' wives. This was not so for the husbands' ages at time of marriage. Effective planners demonstrated a greater degree of perceived adequacy of marital companionship than did the ineffective planners. Finally, both tile husbands and the wives of the ineffective planners perceived a greater degree of situational marital strain than did the effective planners.

PAGE 50

37 Relationships Between the Variables A major purpose of this study was not simply to test the hypotheses of the study but also to explore the relationships between each of the variables. This was especially desirable for the relationships between the control variables and the investigatory variables. First, the interrelationships of each class of variables is shown. Note that in each case a significant (p < .05) correlation coefficient is .19 or greater. Again, the significant values are underlined for ease of recognition. Table 5 presents the intercorrelations of the control variables. None too surprisingly, the wife's religious influence, correlated highly with the husband's religious influence. These two religion variables also correlated significantly and positively with annual 1ncome. The occupational status of the fathers of the subject husbands and of the subject wives correlated positively, although of a rather low order. None of the other relationships between the control variables correlated significantly. The variable of husband's student classification did not relate significantly to any of the other control variables. The intercorrelations of the 16 investigatory variables are shown in Table 6. There was a great deal of significant interrelatedness of these variables. Note that three of the variables took exception to this. Those were the three variables measuring agreement between partners' perceptions of ideal expectations of role assignments. Rather than variables dealing with agreement about desired roles, they were those dealing with reality which were sensitive to the other variables.

PAGE 51

38 TABlE 5 Intercorrela tibnMci. trix of ContrblVariables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. W-RelInf 2. H-RelInf .76 3. ArlIne .24 .22 4. H-Class .15 .13 5. HFOcc -.17 -.18 -.07 .01 6. WFDcc .00 .06 -.09 -.06 .21 Note: Variable abbreviations for all variables are explained in LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. For sample size N = 108, r .19 1S significant at the .05 level. All correlation coefficients are rounded down to lower number for the more conservative figure. Underlined values are statistically significant at the .05 level.

PAGE 52

TABLE 6 Intercorre1ation Matrix of Investigatory Variables 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7. H-IntInst 8. H-DivResp .37 9. H-Sol .31 .35 10. H-ExtRe1 :3IT A2" .35 11. H-Sex -:IT :I9" -:t4 .25 12. W-IntInst .28 .13 .05 .22 .12 13. W-DivResp 717 .29 .30 .19 .25 .26 14. W-Sol ""TI -:-zo . 3(}! . 37 :-33 .39 15. W-ExtRe1 .31 .12 .12 .33 .05 -:38 .43 16. W-Sex .12 .14 .54 .27 .60 .19 .15 .51 .14 17. DAVE-H .06 .07 -:T8" .09 -:-IT .01 .13 18. DAVE-W .00 .03 .04 .17 .05 .06 .07 .18 .20 .12 .46 19. DAVE-P .16 .27 .08 .10 .00 .16 .17 .12 .02 .11 .10 .14 tN 1.0 20. DIPORE-H .23 "TI .36 .37 .35 .07 .02 .13 .19 .31 .27 .23 .00 21. DIPORE-W -:or .21 -:-IT "TI .26 .24 .53 :TO -:-TI .13 .22 22. DIPORE-P .10 .28 -:zo .18 .19 .23 .37 .18 .19 .18 .22 .37 .35 .29 See Note, Table 5. •

PAGE 53

40 Of particular interest are the correlations between the investigatory variables which produced the highest correlation coefficients. The husbands' perceptions of solidarity correlated highly (.74) with sexuality and also with the wives' perception of sexuality (.54). Additionally, the husbands' and wives' perceptions of sexuality correlated .60. And also, the wives' solidarity correlated .51 with sexuality. Finally, it is interesting to note that the wives' perception of solidarity correlated .53 with the partners' agreement about the enactments of the wife's roles within the marriage. This section of the Results chapter is undoubtedly the most tedious because of the massiveness of the data presentation. In many ways, however, it is the most important of the sections in that it allows for all of the little questions of "yes, but how does this relate to this other," to be answered. So, the reader is urged to persevere and try and learn from the data as they are presented. The intercorrelations of the exploratory variables are presented in Table 7. The ages of the husbands and wives at time of marriage correlated highly at .76. Also, significantly negatively correlated were perception of adequacy of companionship with both husbands' and wives' perception of situational strain. And, quite expectedly although of a rather lower order than might have been anticipated, the husbands' and wives' perceptions of si tua tional s train showed same degree of agreement (.28). Now, IIOW did the control variables (all demographic) relate to the investigatory variables (all variables of congruence of

PAGE 54

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 41 TABLE 7 Intercorre1ationMatriXofExp1oratory Variables 23 24 25 26 H-AgeMar W-AgeMar .74 AdComp .07 -.06 H-Stress -.12 -.15 -.34 W-Stress .12 -.02 -.24 .28 See Note, Table 5.

PAGE 55

42 perceptions)? There were some surprises. Table 8 presents the findings. The wives' religious influence, a combination of preference and activity, related inversely to the wives' perceptions of the functional area of the external relations of the marriage. The husbands' religion variable also related inversely (and more strongly) to this wife variable as well as to the husbands' perceptions of the external relations of the marriage and to the partners' agreement of perceptions of the enactments of the husband's roles. Armual income of the family related significantly to the husbands' perceptions of the internal instn.nnentali ty of the marriage (inversely) and also to the partners' perceptions of the enactments of the wife's roles (positively). This last result is interesting in that it indicates that as the family income rose, the disagreement between partners' perceptions also tended to rise. The husbands' student classification, again, related to none of the variables significantly. Finally, the variables of occupational status of family of origin yielded only one significant correlation. The lower the occupational level of the fathers of the husbands, the greater the tendency for agreement between the husbands' expectations and perceptions of enactments in the area of sexuality within the marriage. Pushing on, Table 9 shows the correlations between investigatory and exploratory variables. The husbands' age at time of marriage correlated with none of the investigatory variables; and the wives' age at time of marriage correlated with only one of these variables, the wives' perceptions of sexuality in the marriage, in an inverse relationship. The couples' perceptions of adequacy of marital

PAGE 56

43 TABIE 8 Correlation Matrix of Investigatory vs Control Variables W-RelInf H-RelInf AnInc H-C1ass HFOcc WFOcc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. H-Intlnst -.03 -.17 -.24 -.15 -.06 .02 8. H-DivResp .03 .01 -=-:os -.08 .13 -.12 9. H-So1 .05 -.11 .06 -.06 .15 -.13 10. H-ExtRe1 -.17 -.26 -.14 -.03 -.02 -.04 II. H-Sex -.02 -=-:00 .16 .00 -.21 -.09 12. W-Intlnst .01 .08 .05 .06 -.04 .02 13. \II-DivResp .11 .02 .08 .07 -.14 -.03 14. W-So1 -.01 .06 .09 -.11 .11 .13 15. W-ExtRe1 -.22 -.37 -.13 -.10 .09 .09 16. \II-Sex .04 -.09 .16 -.03 .03 .08 17. DAVE-H .00 -.07 .00 -.02 .07 .06 18. DAVE-W .03 -.14 -.01 -.05 .10 .06 19. DAVE-P .02 .09 .00 -.07 -.05 -.05 20. DIPORE-H -.14 -.25 -.13 -.12 .00 .00 2I. DIPORE-W .01 -.01 .20 .09 .05 .08 22. DIPORE-P .08 -.10 :00 -.18 .01 .04 See Note, Table 5.

PAGE 57

44 TABIE 9 Correlation Matrix of Investigatory vsExp1oratoryVariab1es H-AgeMar W-AgeMar AdComp H-Stress W-Stress 23 24 25 26 27 7. H-IntInst -.14 -.06 -.20 .46 .18 8. H-DivResp -.16 .07 .08 .25 -.01 9. H-So1 .01 -.02 -.29 .38 .01 10. H-ExtRe1 -.08 -.09 :n .26 II. H-Sex .02 .05 -.23 .20 12. W-IntInst .01 .05 -.14 -:TI .30 13. W-DivResp -.02 -.02 -.15 .24 --:TO 14. W-So1 .09 -.03 -.26 .13 .52 IS. W-ExtRe1 .03 .02 -.17 .27 .37 16. W-Sex -.06 -.20 -.21 .14--:Ii 17. DAVE-H -.06 -=-:n .03 .14 18. DAVE-W .01 .01 -.07 -.05 .24 19. DAVE-P .11 -.05 .17 .11 .09 20. DIPORE-H .02 -.02 -.32 .17 .11 2I. DIPORE-W .01 -.04 -=-:TI .02 .26 22. DIPORE-P .12 .04 -.16 .11 .23 See Note, Table 5.

PAGE 58

45 companionship, along with both husbands' and wives' perceptions of situational marital strain correlated with several of the intraindividual perception scores. These three exploratory variables also correlated with some of the scores of spouse agreement about assigned role enactments. Again, spouses' agreement about desirable role assignments correlated very little with any other variables. The last of the tables dealing with the correlations between variables is Table 10. This table shows that among the exploratory variables, adequacy of marital companionship bore no significant relationship to any of the control variables. Both variables of age at time of marriage, however, showed positive relationships to family annual income and the husbands' student classification. Additionally, the variables of perception of situational strain related in several instances to demographic characteristics of the subjects . The MUltivariate Analysis The "heart" of the results is shown in Tables 11 and 12. In Table 11, the independent contribution of eaCh variable, in order of importance to the discrimination between groups, is shown. For purposes of comparison, Table 12 shows how the addition of each variable improves the accuracy of discrimination. In order of importance of independent contribution to the differences between groups, controlling for the co-varying effects of variables already partial led out were the variables of 1) husbands' perceptions of )lidarity in the marriage, 2) the wives' ages at time of marriage,

PAGE 59

46 TABLE 10 Correlation Matrix of Contro1vs Exploratory Variables H-AgeMar W-AgeMar MComp H-Stress W-Stress 23 24 25 26 27 1. W-RelInf .09 .07 -.12 -.14 -.09 2. H-RelInf .00 .01 .06 -.26 -.17 3. AnIne .45 .48 .03 -.29 -.11 4. H-C1ass .34 .40 .07 .12 -.21 5. HFOee .15 .ll .11 .01 -.11 6. WFOee .10 -.01 -.03 .24 .06 See Note, Table 5.

PAGE 60

Step NtDIlher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 47 TABlE 11 SumrnaryofStep-Wise Discriminant Analysis Variable Entered H-So1 W-AgeMar W-RelInf AdComp W-DivResp W-So1 W-Sex H-Class H-IntInst AnInc H-ExtRe1 DAVE-P WFOcc DIPORE-W H-DivResp W-Stress DIPORE-H H-Stress HFOcc DAVE-H H-Sex DIPORE-P DAVE-W H-AgeMar W-IntInst W-ExtRe1 H-RelInf F Value to Enter 20.40 6.03 4.17 3.35 1.96 2.96 4.80 2.22 1.41 2.19 1.32 1.02 .93 .79 1. 23 .,92 .46 .46 .23 .24 .10 .08 .03 .03 .02 .02 .01 Note: Variable abbreviations are explained in LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.

PAGE 61

Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 27 48 TABLE 12 AccuracY of Classification Matrixes of Discriminant FurtctidnatSelected Steps Variable Added to Accuracy of Classification Discriminant Function 69% H-Sol 71% W-AgeMar 70% W-RelInf 73% AdComp 76% W-DivResp 75% W-Sol 77% W-Sex 75% H-Class 78% H-IntInst 75% ArlIne 79% All variables

PAGE 62

49 3) the wives' religious influence on birth planning, 4) perceptions of adequacy of marital companionship, and 5) the wives' perceptions of division of responsibility in the marriage. At the point of step five (five variables) in the discriminant analysis, Table 12 indicates that accuracy of classification reached a peak which was little improved upon by the addition of more variables. In effect, these five variables accounted for the lion's share of the independent contribution to the differences between groups. All of the 27 variables made some independent contribution to group differences, but controlling for the effects of variable covariation singled out the top five variables. The discussion of the possible implications of this discriminant analysis and its mathematical model, the discriminant function, is discussed in the next chapter.

PAGE 63

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSHN There were several purposes of this study. First, a theory of the relationships between marital roles and birth planning behavior was subjected to empirical test. Secondly, several variables of exploratory interest were analyzed. Thirdly, the relationships between different types of variables were analyzed. And, lastly, a model of contributions to between groups of birth planners of the divergent variables was analy.zed. What are the implications of all this massive data analysis? Test of the Study Rationale Recall that the original theoretical conclusion of Rainwater (1965) was that effective birth planners exhibited a high degree of integrated role relationships while ineffective birth planners exhibited a high degree of segregation of role relationships. A more thorough examination of ideas about marital roles, aided especially by the work of Tharp (1963), more clearly laid out the expected relationships between marital roles and birth planning effectiveness. Tharp summarized a great deal of work in the area of marital roles to offer these pertinent conclusions. First, the assignment of roles to the husband is of prime importance to the 50

PAGE 64

51 marriage, the roles of the wife falling to a very secondary position. Secondly, those aspects dealing with the instrumental functions of the marriage are of greater importance to the husband while the aspects dealing with the integrative-affective functions are of greater importance to the wife. By way of illustration, it might be said that it is important to the husband that he feel as though he has been a good provider and family defender, an executive within the marriage, while it is more important to the wife to feel as though she has been a loving and affectionate companion and a desired sexual partner. Above all, however, it is important that both partners agree upon the roles played by the husband in order to facilitate a marriage of a high quality of satisfaction. Extrapolating from this to the relationship between marital roles and birth planning effectivess, as suggested by Rainwater, it was expected that agreement between partners as to the roles ass igned to the husband would emerge as the strongest of the role assignment variables in discriminating between groups of planning effectiveness. Additionally, it was thought that the functions of the roles which would have the strongest association with birth planning effectiveness would be those associated with the need system of the husband --that is, the instnnnental aspects of the marital roles. In general, the association between marital roles and birth planning effectiveness was demonstrated. In particular, the partner's agreement about the roles of the husband as they existed in the marriage was clearly more important than roles assigned to the wife or roles assigned to the partnership since neither of the latter two was

PAGE 65

52 significantly related to birth planning effectiveness. Also in line with the study rationale, the perceptions of the husbands in tenns of congruence between expectations and enactments of the functions of roles were more consistent than were perceptions of the wives in relating to birth planning effectiveness. Where the results of the study departed from the study rationale was in the area of which functions of the marriage were of greatest importance. While both instrunlental and integrative aspects of the marriage were associated with birth planning effectiveness, they were the integrative fWlctions which were the more powerful rather than the instrumental. This suggests that the need system which has traditionally been accepted as associated more with the wife than the husband, albeit the husband's perception of that system, is of the more importance in relating to birth planning effectiveness. Ancillary Analyses At the beginning of the study, it was pointed out that all the previous studies had found religion effects upon birth planning. These were not always consistent in the past. Some studies --for example, Rainwater (1965) --simply treated Catholic vs non-Catholic differences. Otilers, however, notably Westoff et al. (1963), found differential effects for tlle influence of religious preference in combination with religious activity upon birth planning effectiveness. The present study has confirmed again the association between birth planning effectiveness and religion. tile combined effects of preference and activity yielded an even clearer picture of the relationship between religion and birth planning.

PAGE 66

53 An important implication of the Rainwater (1965) conclusions was that there was a co-action of marital roles, birth planning effectiveness, and socioeconomic status. Even wi thin the confines of the relative sample homogeneity of this study, some modest support was fOlmd for this contention. A few minor results of significant correlations between socioeconomic variables and role variables were found. Interestingly, the association of religion with marital roles produced more clear-cut results, especially in the area of external relations of the family to the non-family world. It would appear from this data analysis that Catholics tended to experience more difficulty in this area than did Protestants or Jews. Particularly gratifying were the results of the exploratory variables. For example, youthfulness of the wife at the time of marriage related to ineffectiveness of birth planning. Perception of greater situational marital strain was clearly associated with ineffective birth planning, but then this strain also related to difficulties with marital roles. And, also, perception of adequacy of marital companionship related to birth planning effectiveness, but this, too, related highly to role difficulties. From several different aspects, then, effective birth planners seemed to have it well over ineffective birth planners insofar as marital relations were concerned. At this point, it may have occurred to the reader that all of the ineffective planners were parents, while many of the effective planners were With this in mind, it is possible that the data analyses were simply assessing differences between parents and nonparents. In order to test this, the entire analysis was

PAGE 67

54 repeated, controlling for the effect of parenthood upon all variables. The data results, in terms of contribution to the discriminant fllllction, were virtually identical. Thus, the analysis was one of differences between effective birth planners and ineffective birth planners and not simply between parents and nonparents. In order to contribute to an increased measure of llllderstanding of the differences between birth planners, a further data analysis was conducted after all the other results had been obtained. Table 13 shows a striking difference between effective planners and ineffective planners in terms of timing of their first pregnancies. Note the high incidence of conception before marriage by the ineffective group. Note also that this pattern extended over into the early months of marriage. Could it be that the ineffective group was thwarted in its attempts to plan from the very early stages of the relationship and that a pattern of llllsatisfactory role relationships was established throughout the marriage? One final data analysis was conducted which is of interest to this study. Since this study obviously rested on the behavior of its subjects in their use of contraception, an analysis of the types of contraception which were successfully or unsuccessfully used was perfonned. Table 14 shows the results of an analysis of the relative success or failure of types of contraceptive used in birth planning. Note that these methods cut across groups of planners and are indicated for numbers of pregnancies which were planned or unplanned. Planned nonpregnancies are not included. Clearly, use of oral pills was a highly successful method. Use of an intrauterine

PAGE 68

55 TABLE 13 Time of Onset of First Pregnancy Effective Planners Ineffective Planners N % N % 1. before marriage 1 4% 17 38% 2. within 1-6 months of marriage 2 8% 14 31% 3. within 7-12 months of marriage 7 28% 5 11% 4. within 13-18 months of marriage 1 4% 3 7% 5. within 19-24 months of marriage 5 20% 5 11% 6. within the third year of marriage 4 16% 1 2% 7. within the fourth year of marriage 2 8% 0 8. after the fourth year of marriage 3 12% 0 Note: Not all subjects provided these data. Also, tile 34 non-parent effective planners are not reflected here.

PAGE 69

56 TABLE 14 Contraceptive Success or Failure in Birth Planning According to Type of Contraceptive Number of times used Number of times failed successfully and ter-resul ting in an un-Type of minated to achieve a planned pregnancy ContraceEtive planned pregnancy l. condom 4 8 2. diaphragm 7 7 3. douche a 1 4. jelly, cream or foam 4 8 5. non-coital a a 6. oral pills 21 2 7. rhythm method 3 18 8. withdrawal a 5 9. intrauterine device 1 a Note: TIlese data include multiple responses by some subjects and no response by non-parents. These data are independent of overall planning effectiveness.

PAGE 70

57 device might also have been highly successful had there been more incidence of use to draw conclusions from. The "mechanical" methods of contraception were of moderate to low success, and the rhythm method of very law success. The comparison of the type of contraception being used at the time of testing is shawn in Table 15 for all of the 108 couples by effectiveness of birth planning group. Note that the use of the rhythm method was exclusive to the ineffective planners group. When an empirical index of effectiveness of type of contraception was correlated for method used at time of testing with the main psychological variable --husbands' perceptions of marital solidarity --the resulting coefficient was -.13. Could it possibly be that marital roles were associated more with the consistency of use of contraception rather than choice of method of contraception? As an interesting sidelight, two couples, one from each group, who were highly atypical of their respective groups, were chosen for closer scrutiny. That is to say, in terms of the independent variables of interest, these couples resembled more the couples from the opposing group. There were some interesting addendums to their test results. For example, consider couple "N! They had been married two years and had no children. They had successfully employed the use of oral pills to delay the birth of a child. Their reasons: (wife) --time to achieve emotional readiness, to be financially ready, to be mature enough to accept the new responsibilities; (husband) -an unplaImed pregnancy interferes with husband-wife relationship, deprives the child of love and attention devoted to a planned child, deprives the child of material advantages available

PAGE 71

58 TABLE 15 Current Method of Contraception by Groups Effective Planners Ineffective Planners Method N !!: 0 N % l. vasectomy 1 2% 0 2. IUD 4 7% 4 9% 3. oral pills 38 62% 25 53% 4. diaphragm 4 7% 3 6% 5. condom 5 8% 3 6% 6. jelly, cream or foam 9 14% 6 13% 7. rhythm 0 5 11% 8. douche 0 1 2%

PAGE 72

S9 when the family is in better circumstances. Yet, this couple was atypical of the effective planners group. Some additional COIIIDlents: (husband) --a planned pregnancy (perhaps any pregnancy?) brings a loss of day-to-day freedom and a need to suppress [his] own problems in order to behave consistently toward the child; (wife) --a planned pre gnancy might resul t in one's waiting so long as to take the spontaneity and fLm. out of it, [she] might be so old that it may be unsafe for her to be a mother, [she] secretly desires a baby so it would make [her] happy. Consider a second couple, couple "B" who had also been married two years. Couple B had been using condoms, douche, withdrawal, and the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy. Despi te their efforts, an unplanned pregnancy began before their marriage. What were their COIIIDlents about the disadvantages of an unplanned pregnancy? The wife: their financial position was worsened and her educational plans were postponed. A planned pregnancy would have allowed more opportuni ty for enj oyment of the pregnancy and they would have been in a better financial position. The husband: a disadvantage of unplanned pregnancy was that they got married at an earlier date than they planned. But, also, the husband added that an advantage of unplanned pregnancy was that they did get married. And, the wife continued on, stating that advantages of the unplanned pregnancy resulted in an earlier marriage which helped both of them mature sooner and also contributed to a change in majors which made both of them happier.

PAGE 73

60 So, each of these couples would seem to have been misclassed by their test results. Yet, lUlderlying their behavior could be fOlUld elements of attitudes and concerns which made each more typical of the opposing group of subjects. Perhaps this was not as dissonant with the test results as might first have appeared. Anxieties about pregnancy, especially an unplanned one, were associated with difficulties in handling marital roles for the one couple; on the other hand, mutual pleasures related to a marriage which was "forced" upon another couple by an unplanned pregnancy were associated with fairly comfortable views of marital roles. At this point, it may have become fairly obvious that simple bivariate analyses would have raised more questions than they answered. If one were to look at only the independent analyses or only the correlations between variables, one could quickly become confused by the mass of significant and non-significant data results. This is where the multivariate analysis enters the scene to provide a much clearer explanation of the phenomena. There were two groups , effective birth planners and ineffective birth planners. Five major variables emerged as differences between these two groups. These were variables which had the highest degree of effects in discriminating between groups, variables of relatively low covarying effects upon each other. The five major differences between groups represented five different classes of variables. These were: 1) perceptions of the husband about a flUlction of the marriage, 2) the wife's age at the time of marriage, 3) the influence of the wife's religion, 4) the

PAGE 74

61 couple's joint perception of the adequacy of time and energy devoted to companionship in the marriage, and 5) the wife's perceptions about another functional area of the marriage. The relative independence of these variables in apparent. In terms of the demographic variables which were brought into the marital relationship, those of the wife were more important than those of the husband. While the perceptions of the husband were of greater relative importance, each contributed its part. Of particular interest is that the perceptions which played the most part had to do with each partner's individual thoughts about a functional area which deal t mos t with the need system of the other partner. And, to top it all off, their joint agreement about the one aspect which is most sensi ti ve to marital harmony and success, companionship, rounded out the picture. There seem to have been several things going on concurrently. Each partner seemed to be experiencing difficulties handling functions which supported the presumed need system of the other. M.ltual decision making and mutual support of the other seemed to be playing a part. Overshadowing it all were values and a stage of personality development which the wife had brought to the marriage. Out of it all, a rethinking of the rationale of the study has emerged. Greater cogency and improved insight into the fitting together of each of the pieces have evolved. Revised Theory of the Phenomena Birth planning effectiveness is concerned with the behavior of couples in following through on whatever decisions have been made about

PAGE 75

62 pregnancy and childbirth, be they overt or covert decisions. There are two aspects to birth planning. These are planning the number of births and planning the timing of births. For some of the couples, there have been enough children already born to the marriage. For others, their main concern is to properly time the births of their dlildren to meet their situational needs. After all, these are fairly young marriages, and each is a student marriage, an all-important fact with implications for the financial situation of the couple and also for the availability of time and energy to devote to childbearing. Each of the couples has used in the past and continues to use some method of contraception. These are individuals who, by their behavior, indicate that they are actively concerned about birth planning. The strength of that concern, the importance of planning, and the abilities to jointly make and carry out decisions are all involved in that planning. There are factors which influence decisions about whether to use contraception and which method to use. Moreover, there are also factors which influence the effective use of contraception. And, there are sequelae to effective planning. From a mechanical or physiological standpoint, many methods of contraception should be virtually 100% effective. At any rate, a relatively high degree of success should be the case. This, however, is not so. The reasons for tile major part of contraceptive failure are psychological. The position is taken that the wife is in the best position to determine contraceptive effectiveness. The dlemical methods depend upon acceptance by her body in order to work. The mechanical methods by and large depend upon tile responses of her body to their use. Even

PAGE 76

63 the "masculine" method of use of condoms may have been necessitated by inability or unwillingness to use other methods. The wife's attitudes and values about contraception, about sexuality, and about personal responsibility set the stage for behaviors related to birth planning effectiveness. These factors are initially brought into the marriage by way of variables such as her religion, social background, and level of personal maturity as reflected in part by her age. Onto this backdrop of attitudes and expectations, the husband's impact upon the wife's behavior and their j oint behavior in the marital relationship is felt. His needs and value system come into play with hers. There are fairly well-defined needs within a marital relationship, although these needs are undergoing much change. These needs are generally culturally determined and play into the expectancies of the marital partners. By and large, the needs of the wife are met by the integrative functions of the marriage. It is important that she feel the giving and taking, the sharing of love, affection, and mutual concern. On the other hand, the needs of the husband center more on the instnnnental aspects of the marriage. It is important to him that he feel that he contributes of his industry to the family welfare, that he is an effective executive in the relationship. Above all, it is important that both partners agree upon the roles the husband plays. A well-integrated marriage, one which meets the needs of the partners, is one in which there is reciprocal satisfaction of need systems. Such a marital relationship is one which is conducive to effective communications, effective decision making, effective execution

PAGE 77

64 of decisions, and effective birth planning. Such a marital relationship is also an outgrowth of effective communications, decision making, decision execution, and of effective birth planning. A marriage in which the relationship between partners:is subject to strain is one which contributes to ineffective birth planning and which is subsequent to ineffective birth planning. The sources of strain upon the marital relationship can lie in discrepancies between expectancies of partners or in discrepancies of perceptions of reality of enactments of roles. When things go awry, then the individuals experience strain. Then, the discrepancies between haw things are with how each partner would like them to be become important. Each partner perceives difficulties in dealing with the need system of the other. The husband experiences difficulty in coping with the wife's needs for integrative affection, closeness, support, and encouragement. The wife experiences difficulty in coping with the husband's need for instrumentation of the providing for daily existence and the delegation of work responsibility. It is the husband's ability to deal with the need system which is traditionally the wife's which is the major factor in relating to birth planning effectiveness. If the husband has difficulty in meeting the wife's needs for closeness and affection, tllen she is apt to turn elsewllere for the satisfaction of those needs. The alternative is often a turning to a child to meet those needs and the result is the birth of a child who might not otllenvise be planned. The decision to seek need satisfaction through this alternate route does not have to be a conscious decision and more typically would be unconscious. After the

PAGE 78

65 birth of the tmplanned-for child, the husband experiences further difficulties in the area of marital solidarity by having had this third individual brought into the picture. Now, he is even further isolated from the wife; and the cycle of relationships and behavior goes on. Thus, it may well be that the reciprocal relationship between birth planning effectiveness and marital roles behavior set up a cycle of circtnllStances which eventuates in the couple's having one tmplanned child after another tmtil the limits of strain on the relationship are reached. Conclus ions That there is a relationship between marital roles behavior and birth planning effectiveness has been established. It has also been established that these behaviors covary with demographic variables. The general theory that the role of the husband in the marriage is of prime importance has gained support. The conclusion that differential functions within the marital relationship are related to birth planning effectiveness has gained some support. It has also been suggested that a mutual meeting of reciprocal ftmctional needs in the marriage is related to birth planning effectiveness. An important next step to be taken in continuing research efforts into birth planning is the establishing of a long-term predictive study. Perhaps this can only be accomplished through an established research agency whose efforts continue over a long course of time. An important hypothesis to test is that congruence of

PAGE 79

66 expectations of marital roles behavior contributes to birth planning effectiveness. Another hypothesis to test is that congruence of perceptions of enactments of marital roles is a sequel to birth planning effectiveness. This latter will probably also involve accuracy of interpersonal perception and effectiveness of communication. In a time of increasing strains upon marriage and individual marriages, and in a time of increasing emphasis upon population control, these are important questions to be answered. Through the answering of questions like these and others, perhaps keener efforts to exercise control over the production of human life will be possible. And, perhaps the family environments into which those new lives are born will be strengthened in their capacities to contribute to the healthy growth and maturity of the individual.

PAGE 80

APPENDIX The Marriage Role Questionnaire and Scoting Forms

PAGE 81

68 Date and College Life Project Code # 11/69 ---qVor \-l MARRIAGE ROLE QUESTIONNAIRE Your answers to the Questionna.ire itE:ms will be kept completely confidential. Please do not compa.re your answers ,rith those of your spouse, since it is important that your responses represent your oWI'!...E.ersonal opinion. If you have no children, there will be some questions concerning children that you will not be able to answer. Leave these blank. Otherwise, please answer every question. As you come to each new please read carefully the set of response categories that go up the side of the pagea They change in meaning from section to section.

PAGE 82

69 Directions: Of the things mentioned below, some are probably essential to a happy marriage, some not desirable, and some not important at all. Before each statement, draw an X through one of the circles to indicate your of the thing mentioned. l-1hat we vTant is your personal opinion, whether it agrees with the opinions of other people or not. YOUR VIEVlS ABOUT THE IDEAL HARRIAGE How important for the ideal marriage is it: 1. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband should be the social equal of his vrife? 2. 0 0 0 0 0 That the wife should be the social equal of her husband? 3. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband should be at least equal to his wife in intelligence? 4. 0 0 0 0 0 5. 0 0 0 0 0 That the wife should be at least equal to her husband in intelligence'? That the husband and 'nfe should have similar intellectual interests, such as scientific, literary, musical, etc.? 6. 0 0 0 0 0 That husband and "ife should like the same types of amusements, such as cards, dancing, theater, etc.? 7 • 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband and wife should engage in the SJD.e outdoor sports, such as golf, hiking, swimming, etc.? 8. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband and wife should each respect the other's religious, political, or ethical convictions and not strive to change them? 9. 0 0 0 0 0 That the -wife should be kept fully informed of the family finances and of her husband's business?

PAGE 83

70 YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THE IDEAL MARRIAGE, CONT: Gal (l) = CIl Jilt, Gi ... iii 4H rot' it 4). '01 r-t ... 0' .... V s::; f.4 CD. ri' ort G i f.4. 112, ott .';1 0 4) 81 f.4 res ort ort Q)I 81 lit. r+ D ..., 4) Itt ..." at ortl 112 'CS t) ,.+ CD ';I lD: r-t' ot:t t Q1. at -r+ :! ::t 0 4) • l to CJ > ::s: A How important for the ideal marriage is it: 10. 0 0 Q' en 0 That the father should take an active interest in the discipline and training of the children? li. 0 a (] 0 0 That the household affairs should be run in a neat, orderly manner? 12. 0 G 0: 0 0 That the wife should not have had sexual intercourse with &n7 other marriage? 13. 0 0 a 0 0 That the husband should not have had sexual intercourse with any other woman before marriage? 14. 0 0 a o 0 That after marriage, the wife should be 100% faithful to her husband in regard to sex? 15. 0 0 0. 0 0 That after marriage, the husband should be 100% fa! thful to his wife in regard to sex? 16. 0 a 0: a 0 That husband and wife should be l:quaUy fond of social gatherings? How important is it to your marriage: 17. 0 0 0: 0 0 That you "get ahead" on your job? 18. 0 0 a 0 0 That your home be clean arid in order at all times? 19. 0 0 (1 CI-0 That your wife devote the major part of her interest and energy to her home and family? 20. 0 0 (l) 0 a That your home is a place where your family and their friends can relax and enjoy themselves at all times? 21. 0 Q lID at a That you and your wife take part in many recreational activities together? 22. 0 Q (lJ) 0' 0 To have children in your family? 23. 0 a 0' a. 0 To have sexual relations every time you desire it? 24. 0 G 0: 0 0 That your sexual relations are closely bound up with 10ve and affection? 25. 0 0 a 0 0 That you find pleasure in your sexual relations with your wife? 26. 0 Q (;) 0 0 That your children are good and well-behaved at all times?

PAGE 84

71 YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THE IDEAL MARRIAGE. CONT: Q) CJ I=: Q) H Q) ft..t Q) ft..t r-l oM Q) rt:j r-l H 0 on Q) I=: H CI.I r-l on Q) H CI.I rt:j r-l 0 Q) 81 H rt:j .. on Q) 81 +l CI.I .-i I=: dJ +l dJ rt:j +l CI.I on CI.I r-l dJ r-l dJ r-l OJ r-l 'd '" Q) '" oM H .!<: CJ dJ CI.I '" CI.I Q) > ::> :<: ::> A Hml important is it to your marriage: 27. 0 0 0 0 0 That your children's ideas and feelings are considered and talked over when decisions are being made? 28. 0 0 0 0 0 That you, your wife, and your children take part in many recreational activities together? 29. 0 0 0 0 0 That you have sexual intercourse with your "I-Tife every time you desire it? 30. 0 0 0 0 0 That your wife find pleasure in her sexual relations with you? 3l. 0 0 0 0 0 That your wife be considerate of your feelings about sex?

PAGE 85

72 OPINIONS This section asks for opinions. There are no right or vITong answers; the best answer to each question is your own personal opinion. Draw and X through the circle which most closely indicates your "feeling about each statement. Q) 0 s::: Q) J.t Q) CH CH .c: orl Q) 0 ro r-i .c: +> 0 Q) 2 +> E r-i orl +> ttl M +> Q) t' orl Q) cd > r-i Q) cd Q) Q) > cd S Q) Q) J.t J.t Q) Q) +> tlG Q) Q) cd J.t J.t s::: (/) (/) bO bO to OM ..-t cd cd Q) ro ro 0 H H t=l H H 32. 0 0 0 0 0 Women who want to remove the word "obey" from the marriage service don't understand what it means to be a 1-Tife. 33. 0 0 0 0 0 Some equality in marriage is a good thing, but by and large, the husband ought to have the main say-so in f'amily affairs.

PAGE 86

73 YOUR HIFE, AND YOUR rARRIAGE The Parts You and Your Wife Play: In some "tray life is like a play. You each take a turn at playing a number of different parts. At various times, you are a bread"Tinner, handyman, host, participant in community .affairs, friend and companion to your wife, lover and sexual partner to your wife, and father. You have probably found that you are naturally better cast for some of these parts than you are for others. Some men may play the parts of father and breadwinner best. Others may be best fitted for handyman, host, and participant in community affairs. And still others may be best as friends to their wives. 34. 0 35. 0 36. 0 37. 0 38. 0 39. 0 40. 0 4l. 42. 43. 44. 45. -5/?1i6. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o r-I r-I Gi 1IJ .p How important is it to you that YOUR 1-lIFE should play each of the following parts "Tell? o Housekeeper o Cook o Hostess o Participant in community affairs o Friend and companion to you o Lover and sexual partner to you o Mother o o o o o o How important is it to you that YOU should play each of the following parts '-Tell? Bread"Tinner Handyman Host Participant in community affairs Friend and companion to '-rife Father .--.> ...

PAGE 87

74 YOU? YOUR \-lIFE, AND YOUR CONT: Q) Q) 'd fH or-! > til .0 til s:l ..., .E aJ Q) g .r:: J.I .p 0 .g s:l l Q) aJ JI) J.I .s:: J.I tJ Q) 0 .p 0 s a -E or-! Q) > J.I .r:: a; 0 CJ H 't:I ' s E s:l til d QJ .s:: ri::! CJ rO 'd s:: s:l III aJ aJ ,0 ,0 ,0 Q) Q) al til til !H :E ..... In genera12 'Tho do you think should have more influence in determing the ... ray the family. does things in each of the following 48. 0 0 0 0 0 Relationships with relatives 49. 0 0 0 0 0 Choice of friends 50. 0 0 0 0 0 Recreation and sodal. flct.:ivit.jeR 510 0 0 0 0 Earning family income 52. 0 0 0 0 0 Spending family income 53. 0 0 0 0 0 Running the household 54. 0 0 0 0 0 Sexual relations 55. 0 0 0 0 0 Size of family 56. 0 0 0 0 0 Bringing up children

PAGE 88

75 IDEAL FREQUENCY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ,.c:::: o EI aJ G> () ,.c:::: 0 o EI aJ aJ :S G> [I) () til G> o H 57. 0 0 0 0 0 Hm., often would you like to have informal get-togethers with other people with your wife? 58. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to have informal get-togethers vith other people without your 59. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like for you and your wife to play gc:.L1'::3, chat Oi' i-latch '1'v' a.t hville wi tlwu(, the chilclrell or anyone else? 60. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like for you and your wife to go out for social or recreational activities without the children or anyone else? 61. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to attend meetings or other activities of groups or organizations without your wife? 62. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to attend such meetings or activities with your wife? 63. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation at home? 64. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation a,fay from home? 65. 0 0 0 0 0 Hml often would you like for all members of the f'a:nily to get toeether for some kind of recreation at home? 66. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like for all members of the family to get together for some kind of recreation away from home?

PAGE 89

76 QJ rC QJ .p M al +' QJ +' .s:::: QJ oM QJ tID tJ El M 0 0 Hmr much of the housework should usually be done by < .a CQ
PAGE 90

77 YOUR VIEHS ABOUT YOUR OHN HfJ-RRIAGE To what extent: 76. 0 0 0 0 0 Are you the social equal of your "Tife? 77. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your wife your social equal? 78. 0 0 0 0 0 Are you equal to your wife in intelligence? 79. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your wife equal to you in intelligence? 80. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your "Tife have similar intellectual interests, such as scientific, literary, musical, etc.? 81. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your ,rife like the same types of amusements, such as cards, dancing, theater, etc.? 82. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your wife engage in the same outdoor sports, such as golf, hiking, etc.? 83. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your "rife respect each other's religious, political, or ethical cOIlvictions and not strive to change them? 84. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you keep your wife informed of the family finances and of your business?

PAGE 91

78 YOUR VIEHS ABOUT YOUR mm CONT: 11 Q) +' +> >< Q) Q) rl +> +> >< .s:: rl Q) to rJ Q) Q) or-! +> J.. Q) rl Q) bD S til +> rl 0 al P. al til S +> 0 0 0 0 t) 8 8 0 z To what extent: 85. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you take an active interest in the discipline and training of the children? 86. 0 0 0 0 0 Are the household affairs run in a neat, orderly manner? 87. 0 0 0 0 0 Has your wife been faithful to you inregard to sex? 88. 0 0 0 0 0 Have you been faithful to your wife in regard to sex? 89. 0 0 0 0 0 Are you and your wife equally fond of social gatherings? 90. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you "get ahead" on your job? 91. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your home clean and in order at all times? 92. 0 0 0 0 0 Does your wife devote the major part of her interest to her home and family? 93. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your home a place where your family and their friends can relax and enjoy themselves at all times? 94. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you and your wife take part in recreational activities together? 95. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you have sexual relations every time you desire it? 96. 0 0 0 0 0 Are your sexual relations closely bound up love and affection? 97. 0 0 0 0 0 Have you found pleasure in your sexual relations with your wife during the last three years? 98. 0 0 0 0 0 Are your children good and well-behaved at all times?

PAGE 92

79 YOUR VIE1f1S ABOUT YOUR OVn1 MARRIAGE, CO-NT: ..., Ul ..., G.J G.J r-i t< ..., ..., th r-i r-i f-I 8 0 To what extent: 99. 0 0 0 0 0 Are your children's ideas and feelings considered and talked over when family decisions are being made? 100. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you, your wife, and your children ta..l{e part in many recreational activities together? 101. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you have sexual intercourse with your wife every time you desire it? 102. 0 0 0 0 0 Has your wife found pleasure in her sexual relations vnth you during the last three years? 103. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your wife considerate of your feelings about sex? 104. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you have the main say-so in family affairs?

PAGE 93

80 YOU 2 YOUR WIFE, AND YOUR MlillRIAGE r-l r-l r-f .-l .-l r-l .-l .-l r-i r-l cv .-l !:t cv .-l r-i III cv r-l 0 III !:t 0 "'al ,... .p ,... C1> ,... 'r! cv III 0 0 t!) How well do you think YOUR \-lIFE Elays each of the following parts? 105. 0 0 0 0 0 Housekeeper 106. 0 0 0 0 0 Cook 107. 0 0 0 0 0 Hostess 108. 0 0 0 0 0 Participant in community affairs 109. 0 0 0 0 0 Friend and companion to you 110. 0 0 0 0 0 Lover and partner to you Ill. 0 0 0 0 0 l-1other How well do you think YOU play each of the following parts? 112. 0 0 0 0 0 Breadwinner 113. 0 0 0 0 0 Handyman 114. 0 0 0 0 0 Host 115. 0 0 0 0 0 Participant in community affairs 116. 0 0 0 0 0 Friend and companion to wife 117. 0 0 0 0 0 Lover and sexual partner to wife 118. 0 0 0 0 0 Father

PAGE 94

81 YOU, YOUR AND YOUR HARRIAGE CONT: Q) Q) 't:I CH m "S ttl til ,D til +l ::i ttl Q) ::i ..r:: ..r:: J.i 0 +' 0 ,D S ttl Q) ttl Q) J.i ..r:: J.i +l Q) 0 +l 0 ttl CH S S • ..-1 Q) ) +l J.i Q) ttl g C,) a 't:I 0 til ttl Q) 't:I 't:I S C,) 't:I 0 til ttl ttl ttl ,D ,D ,D Q) Q) til til til CH ct-. • ..-1 • ..-1 ::: In who has more influence in determining the way family does things in each of the following areas? 119. 0 0 0 0 0 Relationships with relatives 120. 0 0 0 0 0 Choice of friends 1210 0 0 0 0 Recreation and social activities 122. 0 0 0 0 0 Earning family income 123. 0 0 0 0 0 Spending family income 124. 0 0 0 0 0 Running the household 125. 0 0 0 0 0 Sexual relations 126. 0 0 0 0 0 Size of family 127. 0 0 0 0 0 Bringing up children

PAGE 95

Q) Q) 0 Q) o 'r-! 0 8 8 .c: o a as Q) o .c: 0 o a as ..c as +' Q) til g a1 o H FREQUENCY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES 128. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you have informal get-togethers with other people with your wife2 129. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you have informal get-togethers with other people without your wife? 130. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you and your wife play games, chat, or watch TV at home without the children or anyone else? 131. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you and your ,fife go out for social or recreational activities .nthout the children or anyone else? 132. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you attend meetings 01" o ... ner activities of groups or organizations ,\-li thout your wife? 133. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you attend such meetings or activities with your wife? 134. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation at home? 135. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do you get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation away from home? 136. 0 0 0 0 0 Hm., often do all members of the family get together for some kind of recreation at home? 137. 0 0 0 0 0 How often do all members of the family get together for some kind of recreation away from home?

PAGE 96

83 M C1I ro C1I -+aJ M +' C1I .p J..l .c: C1I 'rl C1I much of the housework is usually done by the tlD u S M 0 0 following fa"'llily members? < CI) < 138. 0 0 0 0 0 rlife 139. 0 0 0 0 0 Husband 140. 0 0 0 0 0 Children How much of the physical maintenance of house and yard is usually done by the following famill members? 1410 0 0 0 0 \-Tife 142. 0 0 0 0 0 Husband 143. 0 0 0 0 0 Children t: 4.l it M 'rl t: .c: u C1I t: J..l C1I C1I rc J..l M 0 rc .,.; s M r-I .c: t: .,.; orf U J..l C1I .c: .c: 0 u u (\') -r-I --..::t orf r-I C\J -.s::: ...... ...... 4) u C1I J..l 4) 0 J..l g 0 t: .0 Z 0 E-I E-I fX. 144. 0 0 0 0 0 My completed family will probably include this number of children: C1I t: +' t: 4.l C1I r-I +' +' k >< .c: M C1I t:l r-I C1I C1I 'rl +' J..l 4.l r-I 4.l tlD a III P/4 r-I 0 PI III >., 0 0 +' 0 t.> 8 8 0 145. 0 0 0 0 0 Hm-l well do you feel your wife understands your ideas and feelings? 146. 0 0 0 0 0 How well do you feel you understand your wife's ideas and feelings?

PAGE 97

84 't:l 't:l Q) Q) or-! 't:l 'M frl Q) 't:l frl til 'ri Q) til or-! frl 'M oM .p til frl a:l or-! til til iiJ ',-1 til til .p Q) til 'M (Il a:l bD 'ri 't:l til a:l 't:l >. H >. r-l ::t Q) >. r-l Q) r-l Q) .p r-l ,..; .p Q) til a:l Q) ,..; H .p H ,..; Q) ::I Q) Pi 0 8 0 Q) ,0 Q) t) c.:> c.:> u 147. 0 0 0 0 0 All of us have ideas about what we expect from marriage and what marriage should be like ideally. In terms of the things which you expect from marriage, how satisfied would you say you are with your marriage?

PAGE 98

85 Form H 1. I NTERNAL I NSTRutHlTAll TY 2. DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY Expectation Enactment Expectation Enactment Displacement 11 17 18 26 34 35 36 ljo -42 . 54 67 -68 69 70 71 72 -Total 86 8 83 90 91 98 105 .. _---106 107 111 113 125 138 139 li.o 141 142 -143 -----D i sp 1 = = .. 9 84 10 85 47 118 .z ... 48 119 --.-------.---49 120 50 121 -51 122 52 123 -53 124 55 126 56 127 Total 1acement c No. I terns Ans\vered = Ue Sc an ore No. Items Answered Mean Score

PAGE 99

86 Form t-1 3. SOLIDARITY 4. EXTERNAL RELATIONS Displacement Expectation Enactment Displacement _____ -.l6, _________ __ ._.J_0 . ...:7 ____ _ 2 77 3 '/3 -, -----_ .... -..... .. -_._-_.-._.-..... __ .. 4 ) 5 8e -6 81 ------7 82 16 89 19 92 ___ -_._-"2...,,1 ____ -9.4 -24 96 25 97 --27 99 28 100 -37 --44 58 60 61 62 108 114'---------.. _... 115 ." .... "...-129 130 131 .. _ . . _---_.-133 ...-.----..... .. -Totol = = No. Items Ansv/ered Hea -Sco 5. SEXUALITY 30 1 02 Expectat ion Enactment Displacement 31 103 14 87 .. --.... _ ...... _--_.-----_._-----_. _38. _____ 109_ 15 ___ 8_8 ____ _ n re 23 95 ----l------------------39 110 .----.. _ .... ;.-.... _---_._.-40 111 45 116 46 117 47 118 --_ .. 57 128 -63 134 64 135 65 136 _ .... _ ... _--_._--.-.66 137 74 145 75 146 To fa 1 Oisp1acem2nt = __ .= No •. , terns Answered _." 0" Score 25 97 -29 101 30 102 31 103 _. -38 109 39 110 1;5 116 46 117 Total = ___ = No. I terns Answered tean Score

PAGE 100

Date Marriage and College Life Project 87 Code # _____ 11/69 H or MARRIAGE ROLE QUESTIONNAIRE Your answers to the Questionnaire items will be kept completely confidential. Please do not compare your answers Yith those of your spouse, since it is important that your responses represent your own personal opinion. If you have no children, there will be some questions concernin9 children that you will not be able to answer. Leave these blank. Otheryise, please anS"Ter every question. As you come to each new please read carefully the set of response categories that go up the side of the page. They change in meaning from section to section.

PAGE 101

88 Directions: Of the things mentioned below, some are probably essential to a happy marriage, some not desirable, and some not at all. Before each statement, draw an X tl1rough one of the circles to indicate your of the thing mentioned. vfuat we "rant is your personal opinion, whether it agrees with the opinions of other people or not. YOUR VIEHS ABOUT THE IDEAL HARRIAGE How important for the ideal marriage is it: 1. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband should be the social equal of his wife? 2. 0 0 0 0 0 That the wife should be the social equal of her husband? 3. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband should be at least equal to his wife in intelligence? 4. 0 0 0 0 0 That the wife should be at least equal to her husband in intelligence'l 5. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband and wife should have similar intellectual interests, such as scientific, literary, musical, etc.? 6. 0 0 0 0 0 That husband and uife should like the same types of amusements, such as cards, dancing, theater, etc.? 7. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband and w.ife should engage in the sme outdoor sports, such as golf, hiking, swimming, etc.? 8. 0 0 0 0 0 That the husband and wife should each respect the other's religious, political, or ethical convictions and not strive to change them? 9. 0 0 0 0 0 That the wife should be kept fully informed of the family finances and of her husband's business?

PAGE 102

10. 0 0 0 0 0 11. 0 0 0 0 0 12. 0 0 0 0 0 13. 0 0 0 0 0 14. 0 0 0 0 a 15. 0 0 0 a 0 16. 0 0 0 0 a 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 o 0 o 0 o 0 o a o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 89 YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THE IDF.A.L MARRIAGE, CaNT; Hoy important for the ideal marriage is it: That the father should take an active interest in the discipline and training of the children? That the household affairs should be run in a neat, orderly manner? That the wife should not have had sexual intercourse with any other man before marriage? That the husband should not have had sexual intercourse with any other woman before marriage? That after marriage, the wife should be 100% faithful to her husband in regard to sex? That after marriage, the husband should be 100% faithful to his wife in regard to sex? That husband and wife should be equally fond of social gatherings? How important is it to your marriage: That your husband "get ahead" on his job? That your home be clean and in order at all times? That you devote the major part of your interest and energy to your home and family? That your home is a place where your family and their friends can relax and enjoy themselves at all times. That you and your husband take part in many recreational activities together? To have children in your family? To have sexual relations every time you desire it. That your sexual relations are closely bound up with love and affection? That you find pleasure in your sexual relations with your husband? That your children are good and well-behaved at all times?

PAGE 103

90 YOUR VIEHS ABOUT THE IDEAL HARRIAGE, CONT: IV (J IV J.t IV fr.l IV M oM IV ,0 ro M cd 0 J.t oM IV J.t III M oM IV J.t III ro M 0 IV cd J.t ro 21 oM 'M IV co M 81 IV +' QJ '0 +' >. til oM M III M ro IV r-i IV M co M ro cd IV cd oM .!tl (J IV III cd III IV :> :::,;:: ::> A How important is it to your marriage: 27. 0 0 0 0 0 That your children's ideas and feelings are considered and talked over when family decisions are being made? 28. 0 0 0 0 0 That you, your husband, and your children take part in many recreational activities together? 29. 0 0 0 0 0 That you have intercourse with your husband every time you desire it? 30. 0 0 0 0 0 That your husband find pleasure in his sexual relations with you? 31. 0 0 0 0 0 That your husband be considerate of your feelings about sex?

PAGE 104

91 OPINIONS This section asks for opinions. There are no right or wrong answers; the best answer to each question is your own personal opinion. Draw and X through the circle which most closely indicates your feeling about each statement. IV (.I s:: IV J..t IV ft-t ft-t .s:: oM IV (.I to M .s:: +' (.I IV +' M s:: oM t-+' al r-I +' IV orl IV al :> J..t M .!<: IV al IV ClJ :> al a ClJ Q) J..t J..t IV IV +' tlD till IV Q) .. al al J..t J..t s:: (/) (/) tlD bO (/) rl oM al al IV to to 0 H H A H H 32. 0 0 0 0 0 Homen who want to remove the word "obey" from the marriage service don't understand what it means to be a wife. 33. 0 0 0 0 0 Some equality in marriage is a good thing, but by and large, the husband ought to have the main say-so in family affairs.

PAGE 105

92 YOU? YOUR HUSBAND, AND YOUR MARRIAGE The Parts You and Your Husband Play: In some ways, life is like a play. You each take a turn at playing a number of different parts. At various times, you are a housekeeper, cook, hostess, participant in community affairs, friend and companion to your husband, lover and sexual partner to your husband, and mother. You have probably found that you are naturally better cast for some of these parts than you are for others. Some women may play the parts of mother and housekeeper best. Others may be best fitted for cook, hostess, and participant in community affairs. And still others may be best as friends to their husbands. aI +> H +> 0 0 J..i Po 0 .;j ..-t ..-t r-I r-I +> aI Q) aI m +> aI J..i Q) +> e +> &l 0 tf) z How imEortant is it to you that YOU should Elay each of the following parts "Tell: 34. 0 0 0 Housekeeper 35. 0 0 0 Cook 36. 0 0 0 Hostess 37. 0 0 0 Participant in community affairs. 38. 0 0 0 Friend and companion to husband 39. 0 0 0 Lover and sexual partner to husband 40. 0 0 0 Mother How imEortant is it to you that YOUR HUSBAND should play each of the follmring parts well? 410 0 0 Breadwinner 42. 0 0 0 Handyman 43. 0 0 0 Host 44. 0 0 0 Participant in community affairs 45. 0 0 0 Friend and companion to you 46. 0 0 0 Lover and sexual partner to you 47. 0 0 0 Father

PAGE 106

93 YOU, YOUR HUSBAND, AND YOUR MARRIAGE, CONT: Q) Cl1 ro III III .0 III +' ::1 III Cl1 ::1 .c .c M 0 +' 0 a Cl1 III Cl1 M .c M -+aJ Cl1 0 +' 0 a a OM
PAGE 107

94 IDEAL FREQUENCY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES C1) C1) en o 0 en C1) o 0 H 57. 0 0 0 0 0 58. 0 0 0 0 0 59. 0 0 0 0 0 60. 0 0 0 0 0 61. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63. 0 0 0 0 0 64. 0 0 0 0 0 65. 0 0 0 0 0 66. 0 0 0 0 0 How often would you like to have informal get-togethers with other people your husband? How often would you like to have informal get-togethers with other people yTithout your husband? How often would you like for you and your husband to play games, chat, or watch TV at home without the children or anyone else? How often would you like for you and your husband to go out for social or recreational activities without the children or anyone else? How often would you like to attend meetings or other activities of groups or organizations without your husband? How often would you like to attend such meetings or activities with your husband? How often would you like to get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation at home? How often ,",ould you like to get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation away from home? How often would you like for all members of the family to get together for some kind of recreation at home? How often would you like for all members of the family to get together for some kind of recreation away from home?

PAGE 108

95 r-I ex:! (l) rei (l) .f-l r-I ex:! .f-l (l) .f-l ,., .s::: (l) oM (l) too () 8 rl 0 < tr.l < Z "'" How much of the houseiwrk should usually be done bl the follmving family members? 67. 0 0 0 0 0 Wife 68. 0 0 0 0 0 Husband 69. 0 0 0 0 0 Children How much of the physical maintenance of house and yard should usually be done by the following members? 70. 0 0 0 0 0 Wife 710 0 0 0 0 Husband 72. 0 0 0 0 0 Children s:: (l) .a r-I ..... s:: 0 C1J s:: ,., C1J C1J rei ,., .a r-I 0 rd oM S r-I r-I .s::: s:: orf or! () ,., C1J or: or: 0 ,., () () rd ('t') ,-.. r-I -'-" ...::t oM r-I C\I .....-.s::: ....... ....... C1J () (l) g (l) 0 M 0 s:: z 0 p... 73 .. 0 0-0 0 0 When my family is completed, the number of children .f-l I would prefer is: s:: v ...., x (l) (l) r-I ...., .f-l 1ij x or: rl (l) bD rl Q) Q) oM ex:! ...., ,., Q) r-I .(l) to S Ul .p r-f 0 aJ III Ul ...., 0 0 0 0 (.) 8 8 0 ;;:.; 74. 0 0 0 0 0 How well do you feel that your husband should under-stand your 'ideas and feelings? 75. 0 0 0 0 0 How well do you feel that you should understand your husband's ideas and feelings?

PAGE 109

76. 0 0 0 0 0 77. 0 0 0 0 0 78. 0 0 0 0 0 79. 0 0 0 0 0 80. 0 0 0 0 0 81. 0 0 0 0 0 82. 0 0 0 0 0 83. 0 0 0 0 0 84. 0 0 0 0 0 96 YOUR VIEHS ABOUT YOUR OHN MARRIAGE To what extent: Is your husband your social equal? Are you the social equal of your husband? Is your husband equal to you in intelligence? Are you equal to your husband in intelligence? Do you and your husband have similar intellectual interests, such as scientific, literary, musical, etc.? Do you and your husband like the same types of amusements, such as cards, dancing, theater, etc.? Do you and your husband engage in the sruae outdoor sports, such as golf, hiking, swimming, etc? Do you and your respect each other's religious, political, or ethical convictions and not strive to change them? Does your husband keep you fully informed of the family finances and of his business?

PAGE 110

97 fOUR VIEHS ABOUT YOUR mm t-1ARRlAGE, CONT: .+, cu +' X >. cu cu r-l +' +' k iil >< .t:: r-I cu bO r-l cu cu or! 0:1 +' J.. cu r-I cu bO 5 CIl r-l e' 0:1 CIl k +' 0 0 0 t.> E-I E-I 0 z To 'That extent: 85. 0 0 0 0 0 Does your husband take an active interest in the 86. training and discipline of the children? 0 0 0 0 0 Are the household affairs run in a neat, orderly manner? 81. 0 0 0 0 0 Have you been faithful to your husband in regard to sex? 0 0 0 0 0 Has your husband been faithful to you in regard to sex? 89. 0 0 0 0 0 Are you and your husband equally fond of social gatherings? 90. 0 0 0 0 0 Does your husband "get ahead" on his job? 91. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your clean and in order at all times? 92. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you devote the major part of your interest and energy to your home and family? 93. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your home a place where your family and their friends 94. 0 0 0 can relax and enjoy themselves at all times? 0 0 Do you and your husband take part in recreational activities together? 95. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you have sexual relations every time you desire it? 96. 0 0 0 0 0 Are your sexual relations closely bound up with love and affection? 91. 0 0 0 0 0 Have you found pleasure in your.seAlWal relations with your husband during the last three years? 98. 0 0 0 0 0 Are your children good and well-behaved at all times?

PAGE 111

98 YOUR VIEWS ABOUT YOUR OHN HARRIAGE, CONT: CIJ +> +> x s:: ::t CIJ CIJ -+> +> k +> x ..c: rl cd CIJ t:.D r-i CIJ CIJ .,; cd +> H Q) r-i CIJ bO S til "'cd rl 0 B cd til +' 0 0 0 U 8 E-i 0 :<:; To what extent: --99. 0 0 0 0 0 Are your children's ideas and feelings considered and talked over when family decisions are being made? 100. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you, your husband, and your children take part in many recreational activities together? 10l. 0 0 0 0 0 Do you have sexual intercourse with your husband every time you desire it? 102. 0 0 0 0 0 Has your husband found pleasure in his sexual relations with you during the last three years? 103. 0 0 0 0 0 Is your husband considerate of your feelings about sex? 104. 0 0 0 0 0 Does your husband have the main say-so in family affairs?

PAGE 112

99 YOU,. YOUR HUSBAND, AND YOUR MARRIAGE ri riri rl rirl rl 4.1 4.1 ri r-I ri 4.1 rl 4.1 rl ro 0 C\l >. 0 +' 4.1 H ri +' C\l H 4.1 H +' s:: .,.; +' +' It! 0 0 z z How well do lOU think YOU each of the following parts? 105. 0 0 0 0 0 Housekeeper 106. 0 0 0 0 0 Cook 107. 0 0 0 0 0 Hostess 108. 0 0 0 0 0 Participant in community affairs 109. 0 0 0 0 0 Friend and companion to husband 110. 0 0 0 0 0 Lover and sexual partner to husband Ill. 0 0 0 0 0 f.lother HO'tf well do you think YOUR HUSBAND Elays each of the following parts? 112. 0 0 0 0 0 Breadwinner 113. 0 0 0 0 0 Handyman 114. 0 0 0 0 0 Host 115. 0 0 0 0 0 Participant in community ,affairs 116. 0 0 0 0 0 Friend and companion to you 117. 0 0 0 0 a Lover and sexual partner to you 118. a a a a 0 Father

PAGE 113

100 yc,'U, YOUR HUSBAI-m, AND YOUR CONT: Q) Q) 't:I tr-t @ @ rl CIl ,0 CIl s:: ;j ct! Q) f...t 0 +l 0 s:: S Q) ct! Q) f...t f...t +l Q) 0 +l 0 ct! tr-t S S "S Q) +l f...t Q) ct! 0 () @ 't:I ' S s:: CIl ct! Q) () rg 't:I 't:I ;j s:: s:: CIl S ct! ct! ct! .0 ,0 ,0 Q) Q) CIl CIl CIl tr-t ft-I &1 rl rl In genera12 who has more influence in determing the way your family does things in each of the following areas? 119. 0 0 0 0 0 Relationships with relatives 120. 0 0 0 0 0 Choice of friends 121. 0 0 0 0 0 Recreation and social activities 122. 0 0 0 0 0 Earning family income 123. 0 0 0 0 0 Spending family income 124. 0 0 0 0 0 Running the household 125. 0 0 0 0 0 Sexual relations 126. 0 0 0 0 0 Size of family 121. 0 0 0 0 0 Bringing up children

PAGE 114

4J 4J 0 8 E .r::: b Ctl 4J o .r::: b 0 g @ .r::: Ctl +l 4J 4J CIl o 0 en 4J o 0 H 128. 0 0 0 0 0 129. 0 0 0 0 0 130. 0 0 0 0 0 131. 0 0 0 0 0 132. 0 0 0 0 0 133. 0 0 0 0 0 134. 0 0 0 0 0 135. 0 0 0 0 0 136. 0 0 0 0 0 137. 0 0 0 0 0 101 FREQUENCY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES How often do you have informal get-togethers with other people with your husband? HO>I often do you have informal get-togethers with other people without your husband? HOrT often do you and your husband play games, chat, or watch TV at home without the children or anyone else? Hmr often do you and your husband go out for social or recreational activities without the children or anyone else? How often do you attend meetings or other activities of groups or organizations "ithout your husband? How often do you attend such meetings or activities with your husband? How often do you get to together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation at home? How often do you get together with one or more of the children for fun or recreation away from home? How often do all members of the family get together for some kind of recreation at home? How often do all members of the family get together for some kind of recreation away from home?

PAGE 115

r-I 102 ctl GJ 'tj GJ "til rl GJ J.. .r::: Cl> OM GJ b!l c.:: 5 rl R c:z: .& [/) c:z: "" .... ",-, How much of the housework is usually done b;z: the follmTing family 138. 0 0 0 0 0 Hife 139. 0 0 0 0 0 Husband 140. 0 0 0 0 0 Children How much of the Ehzsical maintenance of house and is usually done br the follm-Ting familr members? l4l. 0 0 0 0 0 Wife 142. 0 0 0 0 0 Husband 143. 0 0 0 0 0 Children GJ J.. 'tj rl ..-t .r::: () GJ J.. GJ GJ 'tj J.. rl 0 'tj 'tj OM S rl rl .r::: OM ..-t tJ J.. GJ .r::: .r::: 0 tJ tJ ..-.. ('t') ..-.. r-I ,...... ..-.. -..:t ..-tr-l C\J ........ .r:::-........ dJ () dJ g dJ J.. 0 .r::: z 0 E-i 144. 0 0 0 0 0 My completed family will probably include this number of children: t: dJ t: >< GJ dJ rl +' +' .p >< .r::: rl r-I al GJ tl.O r-I cv Cl> OM III +' J.. dJ r-I Cl> be S til r-I 0 al III II) +' 0 0 Q 0 t.) 8 8 0 145. 0 0 0 0 0 How well do you feel your husband understands your ideas and feelings? 146. 0 0 0 0 0 How well do you feel you understand your husband's ideas and feelings?

PAGE 116

103 'rl 'rl 00 'rl 00 'rl rl rl 00 m ori 00 00 'rl 00 00 m 00 'rl 00 m 'rl 00 m H M M M M M m m M H H M 0 8 0 0 147. 0 0 0 0 0 All of us have ideas about what we expect from marriage and what marriage should be like ideally. In terms of the things which you expect from marriage, how satisfied would you say you are your marriage?

PAGE 117

104 I ! I I , , Form F INTERHAL INSTRUHENTALITY i i , 2. DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY i Expectation Enactment Displacement j Expectation Enactnent Displacement I 11 86 33 104 18 91 43 114 -----26 98 48 119 ... .... -34 105 49 120 35 106 50 121 42 113 51 122 .. --" ---.----..... _ .. ..... ... ----67 138 52 123 -------69 140 53 124 71 142 54 125 .. --' .... --. ---no .. ----..... ,-. : ..• 72 143 55 126 ._ .... e -Total Displacement -56 127 ----------No. Items Answered 68 139 Mean Score 70 141 Total Disnlacement .. --No. Items Answered -Mean Score .. a_ '0'

PAGE 118

3. SOLIDARITY 1054 • EXTERNAL RELATIONS Form F Expectation Enactment Displacement Expectation Enactment Displacement 1 76 8 83 ... 2 77 17 90 3 78 21 79 ______ _ __ -"5 ___ -.::80 6 j=' ____ 107 __ . ____ _ 37 108 43 114 4 81 -7 82 44 115 -9 84 57 128 10 85 58 129 -16 89 59 130 19 92 60 131 20 93 61 132 2h 96 62 133 --27 99 Total Displacement = = 28 100 No. Items Ansvered -Hean 103 Score 38 109 39 110 40 111 5. SEXUALITY 45 116 Expectation Enactment Displacement h6 117 14 87 4 7 118 15 88 63 134 23 95 64 25 97 65 136 29 101 66 1':l7 30 102 ___ 7.:...4-"___ _________ ___ 7.!-.5.:...__ --.:1 _ _____ . __ . ___________ = ___ = _Total = ___ = No. Items Answered No. Items Mea.n Nean Score

PAGE 119

REFERENCES ABC News. Now: We have met the enemy and he is us. American Broadcasting Corporation Telecast, August 17, 1970. Adams, J. R. Attitudinal ambivalence and choice of contraceptive method. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 1961. (Dissertation Abstracts, 1962, 2894.) American Psychological Association. Task force on psychology, family planning, and population policy: ProgresS-report no. 1:.. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, June, 1970. Babchuk, N. & LaCognata, A. Crises and the effective utilization of contraception. Marriage and Family Living, 1960, 254-258. Bell, N. W. and Vogel, E. F. A modem introduction to the family. New York: Free Press, 1960. ---Berelson, B. On family planning connnunications. Demography, 1964, 1., 94-105. Berelson, B. Cannumication, conmunication research and family planning. In Milbank Memorial Fund, Emerging techniques in population research. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1963. Berelson, B. [Ed.] Family planning and population programs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Berelson, B. & Freedman, R. A study in fertility control. Scientific American, 1964, 210(5),29-37. Blood, R. O. & Wolfe, D. M. Husbands and wives. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. Bogue, D. J. Family planning research: An outline of the field. In Berelson, 1966, 721-736. Bogue, D. J. Reevaluation of social-psychological studies of family planning. Paper delivered at annual meeting of Population Association of America, 1967. 106

PAGE 120

107 Bogue, D. J. Some tentative recommendations for a "sociologically correct" family planning communication and motivation program in India. In C. V. Kiser [Ed.], Research in family planning. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Bott, E. Family and social network. London: Tavistock Publications, 1957. Brooks, M. L. Factors related to patterns of communication regarding contraceptive practise among a group of college student wives. Master's thesis, University of Florida, 1966. Bumpass, L. & Westoff, C. F. The perfect contraceptive population. Science, 1970, 169, 1177-1182. Bumpass, L. & Westoff, C. F. The prediction of completed fertility. Demography, 1969, 445-454. Christensen, H. T. Children in the family: Relationship of member and spacing to marital success. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968, 30(2), 283-289. Clausen, J. A. Family structure, socialization, and personality. In 1. W. Hoffman and M. 1. Hoffman [Eds.] , Review of child development research, Vol. II. New York: RussellSage Foundation, 1966. Chi lman , C. Fertility and poverty in the United States: Some implications for family planning programs, evaluation, and research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968, 30, 207-227. Dyer, E. P. Parenthood as crlS1S: Are-study. Marriage and Family Living, 1963, 196-201. Fawcett, J. T. PsychOl0fa and population: Behavioral research issues in fertill ty and aml"'"TY praml1ng. .An occaslonal paper of the Population Council, New York, 1970. Freedman, R., Whe lp ton , P. K. & Campbell, A. A. Family planning, sterility, and population growth. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Freedman, R. & Takeshita, J. Y. Family planning in Taiwan. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton lmJ9 Griffin, A., Clarke, C. & Day, D. Satisfaction with marital canpanionship and family planning behavior. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Florida Psychological Association, April, 1970.

PAGE 121

108 Hess, R. D. & Handel, G. Family worlds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Hill, R., Stycos, J. M. & Back, K. W. The family and population control: A Puerto Rican experiment in social change. Chapel Hill, NortK Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1959. Hoffman, L. W. & Wyatt, F. Social change and motivations for having larger families: Some theoretical considerations. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 1960, 235-244. Kiser, C. V. [Ed.]. Research in family planning. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962. Kiser, C. V., Grabill, W. H. & Campbell, A. A. Trends and variations in fertili!y in the United States. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard 1968. Kiser, C. V. & Whelpton, P. K. Sunnnary of chief findings and implications for future studies. Milbank Memorial Fillld Quarterly, 1958, 33, 282-329. --Liebennan, E. J. Reserving a womb: Case for the small family. American Journal of Public Health, 1970, 60, 87-92. Locke, H. J. & Wallace, K. M. Short marital adjustment and prediction test: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 1959, 21, 251-255. Nye, F. I. & Berardo, F. M. [Eds.]. Emerging conceptual frameworks in family analysis. New York: Maanillan, 1966. Pohlman, E. Results of llllwanted conceptions: Some hypotheses up for adoption. Eugenics Quarterly, 1965a, 12, 11-18. Pohlman, E. ''Wanted'' and "llllwanted": Toward less ambiguous definitions. Eugenics Quarterly, 1965b, 12, 19-27. Pohlman, E. A psychologist's introduction to the birth planning literature. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 23(4), 13-28. Pohlman, E. The psychology of birth planning. Cambridge, Massac.llliSetts: SCheiUGllan, .1969. Rabin, A. I. Motivation for parenthood. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 405-411. Rabin, A. I .. & Greene, R. J. Assessing motivation for parenthood. Journal of Psychiatry, 1968, 69, 39-46.

PAGE 122

109 Rainwa ter, 1. And the poor get children. Chicago: Quadrangle, 1960. Rainwater, 1. Family Marital sexuality, family size, and family planning. icago: Aldine, 1965. Rodgers, D. A. & Ziegler, F. J. Changes in sexual behavior consequent to use of noncoital procedures of contraception. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1968a, 495-505. Rodgers, D. A. & Ziegler, F. J. Social role theory, marital relationships, and use of ovulation suppressors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968b, 584-591. Rowe, G. P. The developmental conceptual framework of the study of the family. In Nye and Berardo [Eds.], 1966. Smith, M. B. Motivation, connrn.mications research, and family planning. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1965, 18, 1201-1213. Strodtbeck, F. L. & Creelan, P. G. The interaction linkage between family size, intelligence, and sex-role identity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968, 207-227. Stycos, J. M. Family and fertility in Puerto Rico. New York: Coltnnbia University Press, 1955. -Stycos, J. M. & Back, K. W. The control of human fertility in Jamaica. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press-,-1964. Tharp, R. G. Psychological patterning in marriage. Psychological Bulletin, 1963a, 60, 97-117. Tharp, R. G. Dimensions of marriage roles. Marriage and Family Living, 1963b, 25, 389-404. Tharp, R. G. Marriage roles, child development and family treatment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1965, 35, 531538. Westoff, C. F. & Ryder, N. B. Recent trends in attitudes toward fertility control and the practise of contraception in the United States. In S. J. Behrman et ale [Eds.], Fertility and familt planning. .Ann Arbor: lfuIVersi ty of MiChigan Press, 19 9, 388-412. Westoff, C. F., Potter, R. G., Jr. & Sagi, P. C. The third child. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963. Westoff, C. F., Potter, R. G., Jr., Sagi, P. C. & Mishler, E. G. Family growth in metropolitan .America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1961.

PAGE 123

no Whelpton, P. K. & Kiser, C. V. [Eds.]. Social and psychological factors affecting fertility. (5 vols.) New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1946-1958. All 33 articles originally appeared in Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Whe lp ton , P. K., Campbell, A. A. & Patterson, J. Fertility and family plarming in the United States. Princeton, New Jersey-: Princeton-ulliversity Press, 1966. Wyatt, F. Clinical notes on the motives of reproduction. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 23(4), 29-56. Yankey, D., Griffi ths, W. & Roberts, B. J. Couple convenience and empathy on birth control motivation in Dacca, East Pakistan. American Sociological Review, 1967, 32, 716-726. Ziegler, F. J., Rodgers, D. A. & Kriegsman, S. A. Effect of vasectomy on psychological functioning. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1966, 50-63. Ziegler, F. J., Rodgers, D. A., Kreigsman, S. A. & Martin, P. L. Ovulation suppressors, psychological functioning, and marital adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1968, 204, 849-853. ---

PAGE 124

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETrn Alan Nash Griffin was born October 23, 1943, in Dallas, Texas, where he graduated from Woodrow Wilson High School in 1961. He received B. A. and M. A. degrees, majoring in psychology, from North Texas State University in 1965 and 1966. Before undertaking doctoral studies at the University of Florida in 1969, he was professionally employed as a staff psychologist. His last position was with Dallas Child Guidance Clinic. While completing his graduate studies, he has been a graduate assistant with the University of Florida Neuropsychology Lab and the Marriage and College Life Project. He is currently an intern psychologis t with the J. Hillis Miller Health Center. Alan Griffin is married to the former Carleen Riek. They have no children. III

PAGE 125

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. 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. Carl T. Clarke Assistant Professor of Psychology 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. Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology 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. Professor of Psychology

PAGE 126

I certify that I have read this study and that in my oplll10n 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 Department of Psychology in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Augus t, 1971