Citation
The Relationship of repression-sensitization to aspects of marital dyad functioning

Material Information

Title:
The Relationship of repression-sensitization to aspects of marital dyad functioning
Creator:
Day, Dennis Alvin, 1944-
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
Dennis Alvin Day
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1972
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 115 leaves. : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Dyadic relations ( jstor )
Human aggression ( jstor )
Husbands ( jstor )
Philosophical psychology ( jstor )
Psychological stress ( jstor )
Ratings ( jstor )
Self ( jstor )
Social interaction ( jstor )
Spouses ( jstor )
Stress ratio ( jstor )
Adjustment (Psychology) ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Married students ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Repression (Pshchology) ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 112-114.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022659793 ( AlephBibNum )
13944038 ( OCLC )
ADA4958 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 4 MBs ) ( .pdf )

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_025.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_026.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_004.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_043.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_020.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_018.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_024.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_011.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_017.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_022.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_021.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_033.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_031.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_023.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_032.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_012.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_006.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_040.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_039.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_030.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_005.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_037.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_029.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_014.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_016.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_045.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_010.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_003.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_027.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_041.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_009.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_028.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_046.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_044.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_035.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_007.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_038.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_042.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_019.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_015.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_001.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_pdf.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_034.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_008.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_013.txt

relationshipofre00daydrich_Page_036.txt


Full Text













The Relationship of Rcprcssioni-Sensitization
to Aspects of llarital Dyad Functioning


By

DE NNIS ALVIN DAY










ACTION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
... UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAji
UENT OF THE jRQUIrL. .EETS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1972





EEEEEEEE.
EEEEEEEEEllllllll L
EEEEEEEE"11111111111 i































To my wife,

Priscilla











AC KNOWLEDGE NTS


The writer wishes to gratefully acknowledge the

assistance he received from the members of his supervisory

committee: Drs. Benjamin Barger, Chairman; Carl Clarke,

Marvin Shaw, and Richard MicGee of the Department of Psy-

chology; and Dr. Gerald Leslie of the Department of Sociology.

He also wishes to thank Mlr. Larry Carstensen for assisting

with the statistical analysis and the computer programming.

He wishes to express a special word of appreciation to

Dr. Carl Clarke, who provided invaluable professional com-

petence and personal encouragement in all phases of this

research.


iii














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMETS . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . .


ABSTRACT

CHAPTER


. . .


* .

* .


. . *


S. iii




. viii


I INTRODUCTION . .


. .


Theoretical Background . .
Self-Perception . . .
Personal Adjustment . .
Group Process . . .
Implications for Present Research .
Study of R-S in the Marital Relationship

II MrETHOD . . . . .

Subjects . . . .
Instruments . . . .
Procedure . . .
Analysis . . . .
Hypotheses . . .

III RESULTS . . . .

IV DISCUSSION [ . . .


APPENDICES .


. 1


S. 28


. 41

. 52

. 70


APPENDIX A.

APPENDIX B.

APPENDIX C.


APPENDIX D.


Health and Opinion Survey

Locke-Wallace .

Marriage and College
Environment Inventory .

Bales' Rating Scales .


* *

* *


* S *

* .











APPENDIX E.

APPENDIX F.

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Inventory of Ibarital Conflict

Additional Statistical Tables



. * * .


Pa ge

. 94

. 109

. 112

S. .115











LIST OF TABLES


Table Par

1 Analysis of Variance of Locke-Wallace Ratings
for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 42

2 Ranked Means of Locke-Wallace Ratings for
Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers . 42

3 Ranked Eleans of Locke-Wallace Ratings for
All Neutral Dyads . . . 43

4 Analysis of Variance of IACE Stress/
Satisfaction Ratio for Repressors, Neutrals,
and Sensitizers . . . . 44

5 Ranked Means of MACE Stress/Satisfaction
Ratio for Repressors, Neutrals, and
Sensitizers . . . . 44

6 Ranked Means of iACE Stress/Satisfaction
Ratio for Neutrals in NR, NN, and NS Dyads 45

7 Ranked Means of INC "Win index" for
Both iates in RS Dyad . . . 46

8 Ranked Means of Bales'"Difference Score" for
Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers . 47

9 Analysis of Variance of Bales'"Difference
Score" Repressors, Neutrals, and
Sensitizers . . . . 48

10 Analysis of Variance of Bales'(4-8) Self-Ratings
for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 49

11 Ranked Means of Bales'(4-8) for Repressors,
Neutrals, and Sensitizers . . 49

12 Analysis of Variance of Bales' (4-8)
Rating-of-Spouse Score for Repressors,
Neutrals, and Sensitizers . . 49

13 Ranked Means of Bales' (4-8) Rating-of-Spouse
Score for Repressors, Neutrals,
and Sensitizers . . . ... 50

vi






Table Pai

14 Analysis of Variance of IfLACE "Agreement
Score" for Represeors, Neutrals, and
Sensitizers . . . . 50

15 Ranked i.,eans of 1-ACE "Agreement Score" for
Repre;ssors, Ileutrals, and Sensitizers . 51


vii






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

THE RELATIOIISHIP OF REPRESSION-SENSITIZATION
TO ASPECTS OF MARITAL DYAD FUNCTIONING

By

Dennis Alvin Day

June, 1972

Chairman: Dr. Benjamin Barger
Co-Chairman: Dr. Carl T. Clarke
Ilajor Department: Department of Psychology

The present investigation represents an attempt to

examine and extend findings from previous studies of the

repression-sensitization, R-S, personality construct into

the context of the marital dyad. In the R-S dimension,

repression has been represented as an orientation of avoid-

ance of threatening stimuli, while sensitization has been

represented as an orientation of approach to threatening

stimuli. Relevant literature was reviewed with focus being

made upon those studies which related R-S to aspects of small

group interaction. It was pointed out after this review

that research efforts were needed to relate the R-S variable

to the process and outcome features of natural groups. Also,

it was presented that information about the neutral on the

R-S dimension could serve to answer important issues in R-S

theory. Finally, the need to compare self-rating data with

data collected by other means was emphasized. The marital

dyad was chosen as the crucible for examining issues from

R-S research because of several reasons: (1) the marital


viii






dyad is a substantive area in need of research from many

perspectives, (2) it is naturally-found, (3) it is self-

selected, and (4) it is of a long-term nature. The specific

areas of marital dyad functioning that were assessed by

research measurements were as follows: (1) marital adjust-

ment, (2) the perception of satisfaction and stress of

marriage in a college setting, (3) the resolution of marital

conflicts, (4) the perception of own aggressiveness, (5) the

perception of spouse's aggressiveness, and (6) the congruency

between self-perception and perception by one's mate.

The participants in this investigation were randomly

chosen and individually contacted married college couples.

Couples were successively contacted until 60 dads, repre-

senting all combinations of repressor, neutral, and sensitizer

mates, were identified and were willing to participate in

the study. Data relevant to this research's interests were

collected during both the initial identification session of

the study and a second measurement session.

The main findings of this study, as related to each of

the separate hypotheses, are as follows:

(1) Repressors reported significantly better marital

adjustment than did the sensitizers and neutrals.

(2) For all three R-S categories, repressors, neutrals,

and sensitizers, the lower their spouse's R-S score, the

better w'as their marital adjustment.

(3) Sensitizers reported significantly greater stress
from their life situation, relative to their reporting of

satisfaction, than did repressors and neutrals.






(4) For all R-S categories, repressors, neutrals, and

sensitizers, the lower their spouse's R-S score, the lower

was their assessment of stress from their life situation.

(5) The sensitizer, vhcn married to the repressor,
prevailed in having his judgment endorsed by his repressor

mate, when both were confronted with ambiguous choice situ-

ations.

(6) The sensitizer perceived himself to be more aggres-

sive in social situations than his mate perceived him to be.

There was no such discrepancy in the case of the repressor.

(7) The sensitizer rated himself as behaving at a

significantly more aggressive level than the repressor rated

himself to be.

(8) The feelings that the repressor held about aspects

of his life situation were more congruently perceived by his

mate than was the case for the sensitizer.

It was argued that these findings support the following

inferences: (1) that R-S is linearly related to measures of

personal and marital adjustment, (2) that R-S denotes a con-

struct that is more general and comprehensive than previously

considered, (3) that R-S represents more than just a "response

bias," and (4) that the expression and reaction to "aggres-

siveness" seems an important differentiating behavior relative

to R-S.





It was posited that R-S differentiates a generalized

style of reactivity to both personal and interpersonal

events, which in turn relates to experiencing both the

impact and evaluation of those events in characteristic

terms of stress-satisfaction and negativity-positivity.

Finally, possible implications of this research for marital

counseling were discussed.












CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION



The personality construct Repression-Sensitization (R-S)

has stimulated several research efforts to assess its value

and to determine its relationship to individual functioning

in situations of threat, ambiguity, and conflict. More

recently, additional interesting findings have been reported

relating R-S to various aspects of group functioning. The

present research investigation represents an attempt to exam-

ine and extend findings from previous studies of the R-S con-

struct into the context of the marital dyad.



Theoretical Eackground

Before presenting an explanation and rationale for the

present study, the historical development and scope of this

research area will be outlined.


A point of clarification should be offered about the
relationship of R-S to the instrument used to assess R-S
(Health and Opinion Survey). On this self-rating instru-
ment (Derived from M~IP scales), an individual who achieves
a low HOS score falls at the repressing end of the R-S con-
tinuum, while an individual who achieves a high HOS score
falls at the sensitizing end. Thus, a direct linear relation-
ship between R-S and a dependent variable would indicate that
the sensitizer ranks high on that particular factor, while an
inverse linear relationship would indicate that the repressor
ranks high on that factor.







The R-S construct evolved from studies in the late

1940's and the 1950's that have since been referred to as

the "new look" in perception. The essential feature of this

"new look" orientation was its approach to perception as

being an active process, ,.'herein features of the perceiver

figured perhaps as importantly in the process of perception

as features of the perceived stimuli. This orientation to

perception as an active process was described by Bruner and

Postman (1947),

Perception is a form of adaptive behavior. Its
operation reflects not only the characteristics
of sensorineural processes, but also the dominant
needs, attitudes, and values of the organism.
(p. 69)

John C. Raven (1951) also describes this orientation as

follows, ,

Our perception of events is intentional in the
sense that we always respond to and perceive
.events with intent, as if reaching out with desire
or effort directed toward the aoorehension of
some objective, although at the tiie not neces-
sarily realized and not necessarily pursued with
deliberation. (p. 15)

A newly identified phenomenon was reported in this early

research one which stimulated many diverse studies. The

experimental situation for these studies involved the measure

of recognition thresholds for tachistoscopically presented

words of different affective value. It was found that two

distinct patterns of differential recognition thresholds

existed for some subjects when visually perceiving these

"neutral" and "threatening" stimuli. One of these response

patterns was identified by subjects who exhibited a signifi-

cantly higher threshold for the recognition of "threatening"




3
stimuli than for "neutral stimuli." This response style was

characterized as an avoidance of threat or fear and was termed

"perceptual defense." While this finding is congruent with

long-established concepts about the avoiding of unwelcome or

fear-provoking stimuli, a perceptual pattern was discovered

that was not of such a predictable nature. This latter re-

sponse pattern was identified by subjects who revealed a

significantly lower threshold for the recognition of threat-

ening stimuli than for neutral stimuli. This response style

was characterized as an "approach" to threat or fear and it

was termed "perceptual vigilance."

Since the most important of the early investigations of

these perceptual findings were done by Jerome Bruner and Leo

Postman, a review of their experimental method and procedure

will be presented. In this study (Bruner and Postman, 1947)

subject's associative reaction times were elicited to a vari-

ety of stimuli words. These stimuli included words of both

neutral and potentially "threatening" connotation. Examples

of the latter, threatening words, include rape, penis, and

death. From the associative reaction time data, an individ-

ualized list of three groups of words was arranged for each

subject. These three groups consisted of those words that

had the longest associative reaction times, the shortest

associative reaction times, and the midmost reaction times.

At a later experimental session each subject was asked to

recognize this latter selection of words as they again were

presented tachistoscopically. The exposure time for each




4

stimulus word was progressively increased until the word w'as

correctly recognized. Two different recognition patterns

were found to exist for some of these subjects. One of the

patterns was defined by a longer exposure time for the recog-

nition of the threatening words as compared to the exposure

time necessary for the recognition of the neutral words.

While the other pattern involved exactly the opposite rela-

tionship, i.e. a relatively shorter exposure time w.as neces-

sary for the threatening words compared to the neutral words.

The first of these patterns, or perceptual styles, exemplifies

perceptual defense and the second exemplifies perceptual

vigilance.

The term perceptual defense has subsequently evolved into

the term "repression," and the term perceptual vigilance has

evolved into the term "sensitization." Since the sensitizer,

perceptual vigilant, recognizesthe threatening stimuli

earlier than the neutral stimuli, this perceptual style was

also characterized as one of "approach', while the style of

the repressor, perceptual defender, which revealed the oppo-

site relationship was characterized as one of "avoidance."

Both of these perceptual modes share the fact that they in-

volve differential awareness to threatening stimuli. Conse-

quently, both have been thought to represent polar opposites

in the handling of the anxiety or fear that is aroused by

aversive stimuli. Hence, the perceptual styles have also

been thought of as defense mechanisms, while their polarity




5

has been considered to anchor an approach-avoidance dimension

of individual reactivity to aversive stimuli.

The majority of research subsequent to the investigation

by Bruner and Postman can be divided into two successive con-

ceptual endeavors. The earlier efforts consisted of diverse

attempts to verify, explain, and extend the nature of these

identified perceptual phenomena, while the second group of

investigations proceeded from the established fact of indi-

vidual differences in perceptual style, in an effort to de-

termine how this relates to self-perception, person percep-

tion, personal adjustment, and interpersonal interaction. It

is with this latter group of investigations that the present

research derives its conceptual ground.

A crucial feature of this second development in R-S

research w'as the establishment of a psychometric assessment

instrument of the Repression-Sensitization dimension. This

psychometric identification of perceptual style contrasts

with the original determination of R-S accomplished by psycho-

physiological methods. One of the first attempts to utilize

selected Minnesota i.iultiphasic Personality Inventory (MiPI)

scales as a measure of R-S was made by Jesse Gordon (1957).

He also originally coined the term sensitization. His effort

was followed by several attempts to utilize single scales of

the MrPI to assess R-S. The next development was by Altrocchi,

Parsons, and Dickoff (1960) who utilized multiple 1%MPI scales

to assess R-S style. However, it was Byrne (1961) who




6

accomplished certain advances in the usage of multiple I.1'PI

scales that established a measure that was accepted by others

in this research area. His instrument, the Health and Opinion

Survey (HOS) (1963), has been shown to have split-half reli-

ability of .94 and test-retest reliability of .83 (three

months).

The R-S construct has thus become the generally accepted

term for the dimension of perceptual defense-perceptual vigi-

lance: Repression being the counterpart of perceptual de-

fense and sensitization being the counterpart of perceptual

vigilance. Repression represents a generalized marde of avoid-

ance to potentially threatening stimuli and sensitization

represents a generalized mode of approach to potentially

threatening stimuli. Inferences have been made in regards to

the characteristic defense mechanisms subserved by both ex-

tremes of the R-S dimension. It is hypothesized that the

repressor utilizes defense behaviors such as denial and avoid-

ance, while the sensitizer utilizes the defensive behaviors

of manifest worrying, obsession-compulsion, and intellectual-

ization.

Since the present investigation is concerned with the

relationship of R-S to features of interpersonal functioning

in the marital dyad, selected research in the areas of self-

perception, person perception, and personal adjustment in

group interaction as related to R-S will be reviewed.






Self-Perceotion

Altrocchi et al. (1960) reported that R-S was positively

correlated with self-ratings for being rebellious, aggressive,

and self-effacing. This pattern of self-description resulted

in a general portrait of the sensitizer as one who manifested

a poorer self-image than was true for the repressor. In

fact, the related finding that the sensitizer had a greater

discrepancy between his self-image and his ideal-image than

did the repressor, was also accounted for by the sensitizer's

lower self-image. That is, both the sensitizer and the re-

pressor had a similar ideal-image, but the sensitizer's lower

self-image resulted in a greater self-ideal discrepancy.

In an investigation by Byrne, Barry, and Nelson (1963),

the previous finding of there being a greater self-ideal dis-

crepancy for sensitizers than repressors was again examined.

This time, however, the newly revised R-S scale developed by

Byrne (the Health and Opinion Survey, HOS) was utilized to

identify repressors and sensitizers. The previous findings

were replicated, in that the sensitizer revealed a greater

self-ideal discrepancy than the repressor. Also, as before

this discrepancy was shown to be a function of the sensi-

tizer's lower self-image. A second aspect of this study in-

volved testing the hypothesis that R-S would be related to

differences in the ways repressors and sensitizers handle

hostility. To assess this hypothesis, the Hostility Incon-

gruency Test (Byrne, 1961) was correlated with R-S. The






former measure represents a further development of an instru-

nent devised by IMcReynolds (1958). This instrument assesses

the extent to which one's feelings and values are incon-

sistent for specific areas of behavior. The procedure for

this latter assessment consisted of having the subject eval-

uate various statements, all involving some degree of hos-

tility, along three identified dim.n*nsions: Like-Dislike,

Good-Bad, and Pleasant-Unpleasant. Incongruency w'as defined

and measured by totaling items that were placed at con-

flicting poles across the three dimensions. For instance,

with the Like-Dislike and Good-B*ad dimensions, a score of in-

congruency was counted whenever a person rated a particular

behavior as occupying both the Like and Bad poles simulta-

neously, or whenever a behavior was rated at both the Dislike

and Good poles simultaneously. It was found that incongru-

ency was correlated significantly and positively with R-S

across all of the incongruency measures. And, more impor-

tantly, it vwas found that only one of the two possible sub

varieties of incongruency accounted for this correlation.

This is, the Like-Bad, Like-Unpleasant, and Bad-Pleasant sub

scores were significantly correlated with R-S, while the

Dislike-Good, Dislike-Pleasant, and Bad-Pleasant scores were

shonm to be uncorrelated with R-S. Thus, it was found by

this investigation that sensitizers tend to report conflicted

feelings and attitudes related to their liking and enjoying

hostile behavior that they also consider to be bad or morally

wrong, while this was not the case for repressors.






Altrocchi, Shrauger, and IcLeod (1964) employed two

separate measures of hostility, the Rosenweig Picture Frus-

tration Test and a self-rating scale, to further examine the

relationship of R-S and hostility. They obtained results

th.-t were consistent with those of the previous investigations.

That is, sensitizers revealed more hostility than did reprcs-

sort on both of these measures.

Byrne and Sheffield (1965) explored the hypothesis that

sc-nnitizers v:ould react with greater verbalized anxiety than

would repressors in a situation involving sexually arousing

stimuli. A factorial design was utilized wherein different

groups of repressors and sensitizers read either sexually

explicit passages or sexually neutral passages that were

taken from the same book. Self-ratings of arousal were then

obtained and significant differences were four to exist be-

tween the experimental groups. Significantly greater arousal

was found for both the repressor and sensitizer groups v:ho

read the sexually explicit passages. More interesting, how-

ever, was the difference between repressors and sensitizers

that emerged when a correlation was made between the scale

for sexual arousal and the remaining rating scales. It was

found that distinctly different patterns of feelings associ-

ated with sexual arousal emerged for the sensitizers and the

repressors. Whereas the sensitizers reported feelings of

(1) being entertained, (2) lack of boredom,and (3) being

anxious -- the repressors revealed feelings of (1) being






disgusted, and (2) being angry. These differences between

sensitizers and repressors in their self-rated feelings

associated with sexual arousal are open to several possible

interpretations. One interpretation that would appear to fit

especially well would involve the idea that the repressor

feels less anxiety in potentially threatening situations due

to directing his feelings outward, while the sensitizer feels

more anxiety due to directing of his feelings inward.

A study by Altrocchi (1961) provides information of how

the repressor's and the sensitizer's evaluation of their o.wn

characteristics compares to their evaluation of others. The

subjects in this study rated themselves and three classmates

on the Leary Interpersonal Check List. An analysis was made

of the difference between the subject's self-perception and

his perception of others. This analysis was expressed in

terms of a measure of the assumed dissimilarity between self

and others. It was found by this index that the sensitizer

assumes a significantly greater disparity between himself

and others than is true for the repressor.

The several previously described investigations reveal

consistent findings that the sensitizer evaluates both him-

self and others differently than does the repressor. It was

also established that the general direction of this difference

was in terms of the sensitizer manifesting a less positive

evaluation of himself than he has for others. Other investi-

gations will now be cited which attempt to ascertain whether






R-S might also be related to differences in the area of

personal adjustment.

Personal Adjustr.ent

Byrne, Golightly, and Sheffield (1965) tested the hy-

pothesis that R-S would be related to personal adjustFmenet in

a curvilinear fashion. This hypothesis was based on the

argument that "Neither obsessional concern with conflicts

nor selective forgetting of them should result in opti;ial

adjustment" (p. 586). Here, the "obsessional concern" with

conflicts would characterize the sensitizer, and the "selec-

tive forgetting" of conflicts would characterize the re-

pressor. 'he California Psychological Inventory (CI) \was

administered as the measure of adjustment, and each of the

eighteen CPI scales was correlated with R-S. It was shown

that significant correlations existed between R-S and seven

of the CPI scales. The direction of this correlation, with-

out exception, indicated that sensitizers were more malad-

justed than were repressors. The scores of persons falling

in the "Neutral" range of the R-S scale were also exn.ained

in this study. They were found to fall between those of the

repressors and the sensitizers. Thus, a significant linear

relationship, rather than a curvilinear relationship, was

found to exist between R-S and this measure of personal ad-

justment.

Thelen (1969) also investigated the relationship between

R-S and adjustment for college students who sought psycho-

therapy, compared to a control group who did not. He, too,






employed the CPI as the measure of personal adjustment.

There were tw.o important findings from this study. First,

those who sought psychotherapy had significantly higher

scores on the R-S scale than those :who did not. And, second,

when the therapy--neeking group and the non-therapy-seeking

group '..ere equated for adjustment, the therapy-seeking group

weroe found to be significantly higher in sensitization. In

regards to this latter finding, Thelen stated that "Perhaps

the R-S scale measure[-i sic] 'adjustment' as well as the tend-

ency to approach or avoid stress. Such a relationship does

not make the terms interchangeable and certainly does not

reduce the value of the R-S concept" (p. 164).

Byrne, Blaylock, and Goldberg (1966) tested the hypoth-

esis that the personality dynamics of the repressor, which

are charact'r-rized repressing and denying defense mechan-

isms, v'ould fit the personality pattern associated with dog-

matism. R-S was correlated with dogmatism, measured by

Rokeach's Dogmatism and Opinionation Scales, in two inde-

pendent samples. The relationship between dogmatism and R-S

was found to be both significant and positive in the inde-

pendent samples. Thus, dogmatism was found to relate more

strongly to sensitizing defenses than to repressing defenses.

The authors presented tw:o possible interpretations to explain

this unpredicted relationship. First, that while dogmatism

might serve as a defense against anxiety, the specific de-

fenses employed are sensitizing rather than repressing.






Second, that the close-minded or dogmatic person has basic

beliefs that man is alone, isolated, and helpless -- and that

this there is also reflected by the sensitizing person. The

authors conclude, "Thus, the dogmatic, sensitizing, person-

ally unhappy individual tends to express negative feelings

toward self and toward others" (p. 741).

Gayton and Bernstein (1969) investigated two issues

raised by R-S theory and previous R-S research. They also

assessed Byrne's hypothesis that R-S would be related in a

curvilinear fashion to personal adjustment. They investi-

gated specific areas of personal conflict via Trehub's ego-

disjunction measure of incompatible needs. Briefly, Trehub's

measure is an index arrived from responses to the Edwards

Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). Eight of the EPPS's

scales are grouped into four pairs of conflicting needs,

"deference-aggression, autonomy-abasement, succorance-nur-

turance, and order-change" (p. 192). The joint magnitude of

each of these pairs is used as a measure of incompatible need

strength. The results of this investigation supported the

previously established linear relationship between R-S and

personal adjustment. Additionally, it identified only two

of the four need-pairs as contributors to this incompatibility

in need strength: succorance-nurturance and autonomy-abase-

ment. The remaining need-pairs showed no such need discrep-

ancy. Thus, the need areas of succorance-nurturance and

autonomy-abasement might be tentatively identified as areas

of particular conflict for those at the sensitizing end of

the R-S dimension.




14

In an attem-t to assess the extent that R-S might relate

to a differential incidence of physical illness, Byrne,

Steinberg, and Schwartz (1963) examined both a self-rated

incidence of illness and an incidence of illness based upon

visits made to a student health center. The prediction was

made that both repressors and sensitizers would have a

greater incidence of illness than would neutrals. Instead,

a linear relationship was found between R-S and both measures,

at least for the male student sample. Thus, in this study

both the self-assessment and the behavioral assessment of

physical illness were found to be related linearly to R-S.

Up to this point I have reviewed several investigations

that dealt with the relationship of R-S to measures of (1)

self-perception,(2) person perception:and (3) personal ad-

justment. Now, this review will focus upon studies that are

essentially concerned with R-S as related to group process

and group outcome variables.

Ground Process

One of the earliest investigations that attempted to

study the relationship between R-S and group functioning w'as

by Joy (1963). Subsequent to establishing that R-S corre-

lated -.87 with leadership (as measured by an 1.1I.PI scale)

Joy arranged experimental problem-solving groups. These

groups were each composed of three members: a repressor, a

sensitizer, and a neutral. Each group was assigned a human

relations problem as a group discussion task. Following this






group interaction, each of the group members rated himself

and the other two members on a number of variables. There

were two important findings. First, on the ratings of

others, the sensitizers were significantly loss often chosen

to be work partners. Second, the repressors rated themselves

to be more concerned for maintaining friendly group relations

than did the sensitizers.

Perhaps the first study that related R-S to a short-

term, non-experimentally created, group was that by Turk

(1963). In this investigation he examined the congruence of

self-rating and rating of others in student nurse and student

physician teams. The student nurses were the only dyad mem-

bers that were identified on the R-S dimension. These phy-

sician-nurse teams worked together in a clinic for a period

of three weeks. The dependent variable under study was the

perceived "enjoyment" by each of the dyad members during this

work experience. Each of the subjects rated himself and the

other dyad member on a multi-faceted questionnaire. A sig-

nificant correlation was found to exist between R-S and the

rating of other for task enjoyment, only when the nurse being

rated was a sensitizer. That is, the self-rating of enjoy-

ment for repressor nursing students was not accurately per-

ceived by the doctors with whom they worked, while it was so

for sensitizer nursing students. A second important finding

was the existence of a significantly greater assumed simi-

larity of other rating for the repressor nurse group than for




16

the sensitizer group. That is, the sensitizer nurse assumed

a greater difference between herself and her dyad partner

than did the repressor nurse. Parsons and Fulgenzi (1968)

followed up early findings in R-S research to examine the

developing conclusion that "hostility is of special impor-

tance in this personality dimension" (p. 537). Subjects in

this study were identified via the HOS into three groups:

repressors, sensitizers and neutrals. Two separate proce-

dures were employed to determine if these groups differed in

their expression of hostility. The first procedure involved

the administration of the group Rorschach. The second pro-

cedure involved the formation of five-person groups of heter-

ogeneous R-S composition that subsequently engaged in a group

story construction task. During this latter task, experi-

enced judges rated each group member's interpersonal behavior

on several behavior rating scales. Finally, each of tie group

members rated all other group members on a twenty-five-item

scale. The findings showed no significant differences among

the three R-S groups on the hostility score derived from

their Rorschach protocal. However, on the behavior ratings

by the judges, repressors were assessed to be significantly

more aggressive and hostile than were sensitizers. Supporting

this finding were the ratings from each of the group members

as they too consistently rated the repressor as more aggres-

sive and hostile than the sensitizer.

Parsons, Fulgenzi, and Edelburg (1969) report a study

which investigates this problem area by comparing the self-






assessment, behavioral-assessment, and psychophysiological

assessment of a specific interpersonal interaction. Again,

they utilized five-person discussion groups. The group ma-

jority was structured so that an equal number of groups

would have repressors or sensitizers as predominate. Two

independent investigations were then carried out. The first

was essentially a replication of the previously reported

experiment, Parsons and Fulgenzi (1968). The results of this

part of the rudy were also in agreement with the earlier

study; i.e. (1) repressors rated themselves to be less ag-

gressive than sensitizers rated themselves,and (2) there was

greater discrepancy between the judges' rating of aggression

and the self-ratings of aggression for the repressors. The

authors concluded this part of the study with the observation

that these repeatedly established findings "provide an experi-

mental analogue to the psychotheropeutic encounter (p. 239).

That is, like some therapy clients, the repressor reveals

behavioral signs of hostility and aggressiveness but does not

report a parallel state of emotional arousal, while the sensi-

tizer, who does not reveal such behavioral assertiveness,

reports that he is in fact quite emotionally aroused.

This repeatedly observed discrepancy between overt

behavior and self-assessed emotional experience, resulted

in the subsequent study that made a psychophysiological meas-

ure of the emotional state of repressors and sensitizers.

Five-person groups, with either repressors or sensitizers in




18

majority, engaged in a half-hour discussion while (1) their

skin conductance responses (SCRs) were recorded, (2) their

interaction was rated for aggressiveness of behavior, and (3)

their verbal behavior was recorded. The results show the

repressors to have a higher level of aggressive behavior,

that ',was in turn accompanied by a higher level of SCHs, while

the sensitizers had a lower level of a'ggressivener.s that

was accompanied by a lower level of SCRs. The authors follow

by stating,

Repressors, then, appear to be highly involved,
both by behavioral and psychophysiological cri-
teria, in the group discussion, goal oriented
(getting on with the task), and perceived by
others as aggressive but not reporting themselves
as aggressive. The sensitizers are less aggres-
sive and not as effectively aroused at least as
measured by the SCR. On The other hand, they
rate themselves higher than repressors on aggres-
siveness and hostility but are not so rated by others.
(p. 242)

When these empirical relationships were evaluated in the terns

of Lacey's (1959) "transactional" interpretation of autonomic

responses, the inference was presented that repressors were

more task and goal oriented, while the sensitizers were

more oriented to the emotional quality of the interpersonal

relationships.

A study by Wilkins and Epting (1971) provides findings

that relate to the issue of differential interpersonal ori-

entation between sensitizers and repressors. They employed

Bieri's Interpersonal Cognitive Complexity (ICC) measure to

differentiate the nature of interpersonal orientation related






to R-S. According to the authors,

Interpersonal Cognitive Complexity is defined in
terms of the degree of differentiation bctwoen the
dimensions of a construct system. A construct
system \which highly differentiates P.ong persons
in the social environment is considered to be
cognitively complex in structure. On the other
hand, a construct system which poorly differ-
entiates among persons is considered to be cogni-
tively simple. (p. 1)

The authors predicted that the sensitizer, with obsessive

traits, would manifest interpersonal complexity, and that the

repressor, with traits of avoidance, would manifest inter-

personal simplicity. The results supported these predictions.

These findings were interpreted to reveal that repressors are

less discriminating in their interpersonal orientation than

are sensitizers. These findings also support the inference

from the previous study (Parsons et al.) -*- that sensitizers

are particularly attuned to the interpersonal quality of

social events, while repressors are not.

Cohen and Foerst (1968) present evidence that supports

the second inference from Parsons et al. that repressors are

more goal directed in problem-solving situations. It has

previously been shown that some personality variables are

related to differences in group performance. Thus, it is

appropriate to assess whether R-S too has such a relationship.

In this study, experimental groups were homogeneously com-

posed of either five sensitizers or five repressors. They

were situated in a structured communication network and

asked to participate in group problem-solving tasks. The






iiajn findings were summarized by the authors as follows,

"R groups formed appropriate problem-solving systems earlier

than S groups, had faster times in performing tasks, and

exhibited greater continuity of leadership (p. 214).

These results seemed consistent with the inference by Parsons

et al. that the repressor may, be more goal oriented and less

vulnerable than the sensitizer to interpersonal distraction.

Two studies by Cohen and Carrera (196'?) and Carrera and

Cohen (1968) also relate R-S to aspects of a problem-solving

interaction. They utilized five-person experimental groups

homogeneously composed of repressors or sensitizers. Both

investigations involved group interaction that led to experi-

ences of group success or group failure. Both studies had

similar procedures and results, thus the second study might

be essentially thought of as a replication of the first.

Although there was a tendency, for "extreme" sensitizers to

verbalize more hostility subsequent to a failure experience,

there were no significant differences in affect, nor in judg-

ments concerning their performance, for either repressors or

sensitizers subsequent to group failure or group success.

The general conclusions inferred from this absence of meas-

ured difference in verbal behavior and in evaluative judgments

were as follows:

It was suggested that group factors may consti-
tute a set of mitigating conditions that inter-
vene between the induction of stimuli and their
effects on the manifest productions of personality
(p. 221),


and,






In both studies the repression-sennitization
variable proved to be of relatively minor impor-
tance for interpersonal behavior within the con-
text of small groups. (p. 13)

In contrast to studies that related individual response

tendencies to R-S, the studies by Carrera and Cohen indicate

crucial limitations in the value of R-S as a relevant vari-

able in small group interaction. The following section will

discuss this crucial implication as related to the present

study as well as several general findings presented in this

selected review of R-S research.

Implications for Present Research

Several conclusions and implications can be distin-

guished in the previous R-S investigations. First, and most

comprehensively, the R-S construct has shown both theoreti-

cally and empnirically congruent relationships with several

other psychological constructs and measures. Second, the

R-S instrument, the Health and Opinion Survey, has evidenced

good reliability and construct validity. Third, the R-S

concept has been found useful in delineating features of

individual response tendency and in delineating some features

of small group interaction.

In addition to these very general positive features of

R-S research, several limitations and areas of neglect can

also be identified. First, because of the very nature of the

R-S variable, self-rated assessments need to be related to

more objective modes assessing the same behavior. Second,

few R-S studies have directed attention to the behavior of






the intermediate scorers (Neutrals) as related to extreme

scorers (Repressors and Sensitizers). Third, while there

have been only a fe' efforts to study the relationship of

R-S to aspects of small group or dyadic process, the infer-

ence has been reported that the R-S variable is of little

significance in group interaction.

These general findings and limitations in R-S research

provide grist for the present investigation. The observa-

tion is presented that previous studies of small group inter-

action have been based almost exclusively on artificially

organized "experimental" groups. These groups did not have

the characteristics of being (1) naturally found,(2) self-

selected, nor (3) were they of a long-term nature. It is

argued that if R-S were a valuable dimension in group pro-

cess and outcome, that the study of natural groups, embodying

the just enumerated characteristics, would be very desirable.

As stated by Byrne,

Any pervasive personality variable such as
repression-sensitization, is potentially an
important determiner of some aspects of inter-
personal behavior. An individual's socially
relevant motives, his perceptions of others,
his response to the demands of group situations,
and his effect on others are likely to be in
part a function of his characteristic defense
modes. (1964, p. 203)

The formulation of defense modes has been of long-standing

interest and value in personality theory. However, there

seems to have been little attempt to measure and study these

defense modes as they relate to aspects of interpersonal




23

relationships. The general purpose of the present study is

thus to investigate various R-S findings and inferences as

related to aspects of a particular interpersonal relation-

ship the marital dyad.

Study of R-S in the Marital Relationship

The current study utilized the marital dyad in the

examination of several factors relevant to R-S; those factors

being (1) marital adjustment, (2) the perception of satis-

faction and stress in marriage in a college setting, (3)

the resolution of marital conflicts, (4) self-perception,

and (5) spouse-perception. The marital dyad was chosen as

the relationship of focus for several critical reasons

which will not be discussed. Previous R-S research has been

concerned, among other variables, with the relationship of

R-S to the perception of aggression in self and other group

members and with the effectiveness of group performance.

The groups utilized in these studies were experimentally

created, and as such they differ considerably from naturally

formed groups. It is argued that if individual differences,

measured in terms of R-S, do reveal differential effects in

these experimental groups, then such differences should be

even more manifest in long-term naturally formed groups.

Also, it seems evident that the resolution of conflict is a

feature of all but perhaps the most casual or formalized

relationship, and that probably few relationships could

involve the extent of conflict resolution that would occur in






the marital dyad. Thus, the marital dyad, where an indi-

vidual functions intensively and extensively in a self-

chosen relationship, appears to provide a most excellent

natural group for the investigation of hypotheses drawn from

R-S research.

It has been argued that the marital dyad represents a

particularly good setting for the investigation of issues

drawn from the R-S literature. The following section pre-

sents the reasoning involved in the several areas that will

later be delineated by specific hypotheses.

It has been reported (Byrne, 1964) that social desira-

bility scores are highly correlated with R-S scores. This

relationship is one in which those with repressor scores also

have high social desirability scores, while those with sensi-

tizer scores have very low social desirability scores. The

picture is presented that the repressor, v:ith a high social

desirability set, is one who would like to think of himself

in very positive terms while the sensitizer operates with

the very opposite orientation. It would then be expected

that the repressor would paint a very positive picture of

himself and his marital relationship on a self-rated instru-

ment while the sensitizer would be expected to do the

opposite.

Earlier studies have also shown that the repressor rated

himself low in aggressive behavior in a group interaction,

but that he is rated by both co-acting peers and observing






judges as high in aggressive behavior. The sensitizer

presents quite the opposite picture -- he rates himself to

be high in aggressive behavior, but he is rated by peers and

judges as manifesting little aggression. An important fact

here is that comparable ratings have been given by both the

interacting peers and the judges. In a marital conflict-

resolution situation it would be expected that the greater

aggressiveness of the repressor would be revealed by his

judgment being accepted more frequently than the sensitizer's

judgment. In this situation the sensitizer would also be

expected to rate himself as being more aggressive than he is

perceived to be by his mate, and the repressor would be

expected to rate himself as less aggressive than he is per-

ceived to be by his nate.

In summary up to this point, the R-S construct refers

to a dimension of individual differences in reactivity to

emotionally arousing stimuli especially those of an aversive

nature. There are two most central features of the poles of

this dimension. The first is characterized as a bias to

operate toward (repressor), or away from (sensitizer), so-

cially desirable responses, while the second is character-

ized as the lack of correspondence between how the repressor

and sensitizer perceive aspects of their behavior and how

they are perceived by others. It is argued that the exami-

nation of responses made by neutrals (those who have inter-

mediate socres on the R-S scale) may provide a new perspective




26

when related to these and to other aspects of the R-S picture.

The neutral can be viewed as one who does not operate with

the degree of positive or negative response bias as the sensi-

tizer or repressor. Consequently the ratings made by the

neutral, of his marital relationship, should be less dis-

torted than those made by the repressor and the sensitizer.

Therefore, the most objective evaluation of the quality of

a marriage between a repressor and a neutral, or between a

sensitizer and a neutral, would be expected to be that made

by the neutral spouse.

The marital ratings received from the neutral should

thus establish a clear-cut test of Byrne's cornerstone

assumption that R-S is related curvilinearly to adjustment

and well-being. That is, the excessive avoidance or approach

modes of defensive behavior of the repressor or sensitizer

spouse is predicted to limit the adjustment and satisfaction

partners in the marital dyad could achieve. Therefore,

neutrals would be expected to report more satisfaction in a

marriage with another neutral than in a marriage with either

a repressor or a sensitizer spouse.

Also, from previous R-S research, it was shown that the

perception of enjoyment in a dyadic working relationship is

much more accurate when the perceptual target is a sensitizer

than when the target is a repressor. It would be expected

that the sensitizer spouse will be more congruently evaluated

by his mate, than will the repressor spouse, on a measure of

environmental stress and satisfaction.




27

Finally, the inference reported by Carrera and Cohen,

that R-S is a variable of relatively minor importance in

small group interaction, could be evaluated on the basis of

whether there are significant relationships established

between R-S and the several dependent measures in the present

investigation.











CHAPTER II


METHOD



Subjects

The program of this experimental research began with

the identification of marital dyad partners in terms of

their R-S scores on the Health and Opinion Survey (HOS).

Sixty couples who had been married for at least one year, and

in which at least one member was a University of Florida stu-

dent, were needed for this study. Prospective couples were

personally contacted and asked to respond to the HOS. This

procedure was followed until the six experimental cells,

presented below, were represented by ten couples each. The

experimental cells consisted of dyads with all possible com-

binations of repressor (R), sensitizer (S), and neutral (N)

mates. According to the most common practice in R-S research,

subjects were identified as repressors if their score was

below 39, as sensitizers if it was above 55, and as neutrals

if their score fell between 39 and 55. Thus the following

cells were represented:







Mate 1 Mate 2
R R
R N
R S
N N
N S
S S


Instruments

The Health and Opinion Survey (Byrne, 1963) was used to

identify sensitizers, repressors, and neutrals. This instru-

ment is composed of 127 out of 182 possible items from six

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory scales (D,L,K,

Hy, Pt, and Welsch Anxiety). The deletion of some of these

182 items was initiated by Byrne to eliminate the item over-

lap of earlier R-S scales. This revised R-S instrument, HOS,

has shown a Brown-Spearmen corrected split-half reliability of

.94 and a three month test-retest correlation of .82 (Byrne,

1963).

The Inventory of IMarital Conflict (I.'iC) by Olson

(1969) is comprised of 18 vignettes designed to induce con-

flict in problem resolution between the husband and wife on

12/18 stories, and to induce agreement in spousal judgments

on the remaining 6/18. Each spouse is asked to individually

read the vignettes, which describe relatively common conflict

experiences that a couple may have, and assign a judgment of

responsibility for the described problem. After the spouses

individually assess problem responsibility, they must jointly

reach a single judgment as a couple. Twelve of the eighteen

vignettes are written such that spouses are led to believe

that different story characters are in the wrong. Six of






the 18 vignettes are written so that both spouses will

judge the same story character as being in the wrong.

A "Win" index was derived based upon which spouse's

opinion was accepted during the joint resolution of the 12/18

conflict vignettes. Winning was determined by whose decision

was jointly endorsed when the husband and wife differed in

their individual judgments. The win index was computed by

awarding each spouse one point when his individual judgment

was later endorsed by his mate in the joint resolution. This

sum was then divided by the total number of stories that

they differed upon. It is inferred froir this index which

spouse is the more aggressive and ,which thie more submissive

in the conflict resolution interaction.

Further information will now be presented regarding

aspects of the construction and validation of the IiCC. The

conflict situation in each vignette is presented with slight

differences in slant regarding the information that each

spouse of the experimental dyad receives. Thus a delicate

balance must be attained so that a difference in the assign-

ment of responsibility for the described conflict situation

could be achieved without having the couple realize that

they had in fact been misled. The judgment that this desired

balance has been achieved can be substantiated by data pro-

vided by the IMC author (Olson, 1969). For example, on the

story situations designed to produce a conflict in judg-

ments, 86 percent of the stories designed to produce con-

flicting judgments did so. In general, the II.IC represents






a significant improvement in assessing interaction in a

conflict resolution situation over its more widely known

predecessor Strodtbeck's Revealed Difference Technique

(1951).

Behavior RPatinc Scales. Following the 1-IC interaction,

each spouse filled out an eight scale assessment of inter-

personal boeiavior. They rated both themselves and their

spouse on each of the scales. These 8 scales represent

categories defined by Bales (1950) in the Interaction Process

Analysis, and modified by Parsons et al. (1969). Five of the

scales assess aggressive behavior (scales 4-8), and three

assess non-aggrrcssive, but interaction-relevant behavior

(scales 1-3).

The Locke-'.allace "Short maritalal Adjustment Test" (1959)

is a fifteen-item inventory composed of selected items from

marital inventories which proved to have the highest dis-

criminative value and which did not seem to overlap other

items in content. The authors have presented evidence that

their shortened inventory has essentially the same reliability

as the longer form. The range of scores possible to achieve

is from 2 to 158 points.

The .i-arriage and College Environment Inventory (LIACE)

by Clarke (1969) is a recently devised instrument for married

couples wherein either one or both of the mates are college

students. It is designed to assess the extent to which various

personal and interpersonal aspects of the marriage experience

and features of the college environment are viewed as sources




32

of stress or satisfaction. The I:ACE is composed of 175 items,

has both a husband and wife form, and is designed for the

spouses to complete alone without consultation with each

other. There are four possible response categories available

for each of the 175 items: (1) Non-applicable, (2) Generally

satisfactory, (3) Generally stressful, and (4) Neither.

The i'iACE was administered on two separate occasions to

each subject. The first administration requested each sub-

ject to respond to the MACE statements on the basis of his

own feelings. A proportion score was generated from these

responses by dividing the number of items that he rated as

"Generally stressful" by the number of items that he rated as

"Generally satisfactory." This proportion score was termed

the IMACE stress/satisfaction ratio. The higher this ratio

is, the greater the amount of stress the subject is experi-

encing.

On the second administration of the iiACE, the subject

was requested to respond on the basis of how he perceived his

spouse to feel. A second score was thus derived by comparing

each subject's own responses to the MACE with the responses

ascribed to him by his spouse. This resulting score was

termed the MACE agreement score. This score was arithmetically

computed by summing one point for each L.LACE statement that

was responded to similarly by the subject's self-rating and

by his spouse's rating of him. This sum was then divided by

the total number of responses that fell in the "Generally

stressful" and "Generally satisfactory" categories for that






person. The MACE agreement score could thus serve as a

statistic for comparing the degree of congruency between a

person's self-rated feelings and his spouse's perception of

his feelings.

Procedure

The 60 couples, 10 couples in each cell, who participated

in this study, were selected from names provided by the

Registrar at the University of Florida. This list included

all persons who were then currently enrolled married students.

Couples were randomly selected from this list and asked to

participate in a research project. This project was described

as a study of aspects of college married life.

Initial contact with each prospective subject couple

was made by the investigator at the subjects' home. It was

felt that such personal contact would maximally encourage a

positive attitude toward participation in the study. If the

couple were willing to participate in the investigation, a

date and time were agreed upon for the investigator to return

with the initial questionnaires, i. e. HOS, MACE, and Locke-

Wallace. To insure non-collaborative responses on these

measures, the couples were asked to fill out the question-

naires with the investigator present. At the end of this

first phase of testing, the couples were informed that they

might be contacted in the near future for the purposes of

an unrelated investigation that would provide a nominal re-

muneration ($4.00). This reference to a future investigation

was actually an attempt to promote participation in the second

phase of the study.




34

Coupleos who were identified as having the desired co.-

binatiLcn of R-S scores were then contacted by telephone to

particirate- in the second phase of data collection, i. e.

If;C, L:1-s' rating scales, and ,MACE. This final phase of

da.a co.e].';.ion was again carried out in the subjects' home,

while .t.o investigator was present. The subjects were first

girver.- thL- 13 v*inettes of the IMC and asked individually to

assj-r. -r3sor'.ioiility for the described problem situations.

Upon cc:.eri ion cf this task, the coupe was brought to-

gether_ in order to make a mutually endorsed assignment of

res pon~;i: ility for the same 18 vignet-es. They were next

a2::ed t: rate themccc.lve and their mate on the 8 Eales'

scales i.n regards to their behavior during conflict resolution.

L?.tly, thcy :~a~-.n responded to t.e V[J.CE; however, this time

they responded the ;.'ay that they thought their spouse would

rcepovr..

A. a cor;:ente on the apparent effectiveness of these pro-

cedur-- to enlist cooperation, it can be noted that it only

took contact \:.ith 62 coul].es, having the desired combination

of R- -cores, to fill the 6 experimental cells of 10 couples

each. The total number of couples who were tested in order

to identify those having the desired R-S combinations was 197.



The statistics appropriate for testing the hypotheses

of this study were derived from analyses of variance with

planned comparisons of cell means. Further statistics were

computed with multiple compariscns made among the R-S dyads




Full Text

PAGE 1

The Relationship of Repression-Sensit Lzation -to Aspects ox Marital Dyad Functioning By DENNIS ALVIN DAY A DISSERTATION PRES I TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN ] RTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRE S FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1972

PAGE 2

iiiiiili

PAGE 3

To my wife, Priscilla

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The v/riter wishes to gratefully acknowledge the assistance he received from the members of his supervisory committee: Drs. Benjamin Barger, Chairman; Carl Clarke, Marvin Shaw, and Richard LlcGee of the Department of Psychology; and Dr. Gerald Leslie of the Department of Sociology. He also wishes to thank Mr. Larry Carstensen for assisting with the statistical analysis and the computer programming. He wishes to express a special word of appreciation to Dr. Carl Clarke, who provided invaluable professional competence and personal encouragement in all phases of this research. 0.11

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vi ABSTRACT viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Theoretical Background 1 Self-Perception 7 Personal Adjustment 11 Group Process Ik Implications for Present Research 21 Study of R-S in the Marital Relationship . . 23 II METHOD 28 Subjects 28 Instruments 29 Procedure 33 Analysis 34 Hypotheses 35 III RESULTS ill IV DISCUSSION 52 APPENDICES 70 APPENDIX A. Health and Opinion Survey .... 71 APPENDIX B. Locke-Wallace 81 APPENDIX C. Marriage and College Environment Inventory 83 APPENDIX D. Bales' Rating Scales 92 IV

PAGE 6

Pa/?;e APPENDIX E. Inventory of Marital Conflict . . ^k APPENDIX F. Additional Statistical Tables . . 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY 112 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 115

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Tabic Pag;e 1 Analysis of Variance of Locke-Wallace Ratings for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers ... 42 2 Ranked Means of Locke-Wallace Ratings for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 42 3 Ranked Means of Locke-Wallace Ratings for All Neutral Dyads 43 4 Analysis of Variance of MACE Stress/ Satisfaction Ratio for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 44 5 Ranked Means of MACE Stress/Satisfaction Ratio for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 44 6 Ranked Means of MACE Stress/Satisfaction Ratio for Neutrals in NR, NN, and NS Dyads ... 45 7 Ranked Means of IMC "Win index" for Both Mates in RS Dyad 46 8 Ranked Means of Bales' "Difference Score" for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 4-7 9 Analysis of Variance of Bales' "Difference Score" Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 4-8 10 Analysis of Variance of Bales' (4-8) Self-Ratings for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers ... 49 11 Ranked Means of Bales' (4-8) for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 49 12 Analysis of Variance of Bales' (4-8) Rating-of -Spouse Score for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 49 13 Ranked Means of Bales' (4-8) Rating-of -Spouse Score for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 50 vi

PAGE 8

Table Pa^e 14 Analysis of Variance of MACE "Agreement Score" for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 50 15 Ranked Means of MAGE "Agreement Score" for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers 51 vii

PAGE 9

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 THE RELATIONSHIP OF REPRESSION-SENSITIZATION TO ASPECTS OF MARITAL DYAD FUNCTIONING By Dennis Alvin Day June, 1972 Chairman: Dr. Benjamin Barger Co -Chairman: Dr. Carl T. Clarice jor Department: Department of Psychology The present investigation represents an attempt to examine and extend findings from previous studies of the repression-sensitization, R-S, personality construct into the context of the marital dyad. In the R-S dimension, repression has been represented as an orientation of avoidance of threatening stimuli, while sensitization has been represented as an orientation of approach to threatening stimuli. Relevant literature was reviewed with focus being made upon those studies which related R-S to aspects of small group interaction. It was pointed out after this review that research efforts were needed to relate the R-S variable to the process and outcome features of natural groups. Also, it v/as presented that information about the neutral on the R-S dimension could serve to answer important issues in R-S theory. Finally, the need to compare self -rating data with data collected by other means was emphasized. The marital dyad v/as chosen as the crucible for examining issues from R-S research because of several reasons: (1) the marital Vlll

PAGE 10

dyad is a substantive area in need of research from many perspectives, (2) it is naturally-found, (3) it is selfselected, and (*0 it is of a long-term nature. The specific areas of marital dyad functioning that v/ere assessed by research measurements were as follows: (1) marital adjustment, (2) the perception of satisfaction and stress of marriage in a college setting, (3) the resolution of marital conflicts, (^-) the perception of own aggressiveness, (5) the perception of spouse's aggressiveness, and (6) the congruency between self -perception and perception by one's mate. The participants in this investigation were randomly chosen and individually contacted married college couples. Couples were successively contacted until 60 dyads, representing all combinations of repressor, neutral, and sensitizer mates, were identified and were willing to participate in the study. Data relevant to this research's interests were collected during both the initial identification session of the study and a second measurement session. The main findings of this study, as related to each of the separate hypotheses, are as follows: (1) Repressors reported significantly better marital adjustment than did the sensitizers and neutrals. (2) For all three R-S categories, repressors, neutrals, and sensitizers, the lower their spouse's R-S score, the better was their marital adjustment. (3) Sensitizers reported significantly greater stress from their life situation, relative to their reporting of satisfaction, than did repressors and neutrals. ix

PAGE 11

(k) For all R-S categories, repressors, neutrals, and sensitizers, the lower their spouse's R-S score, the lov/er was their assessment of stress from their life situation. (5) The sensitizer, v/hen married to the repressor, prevailed in having his judgment endorsed by his repressor mate, v/hen both were confronted with ambiguous choice situations. (6) The sensitizer perceived himself to be more aggressive in social situations than his mate perceived him to be. There was no such discrepancy in the case of the repressor. (7) The sensitizer rated himself as behaving at a significantly more aggressive level than the repressor rated himself to be. (8) The feelings that the repressor held about aspects of his life situation were more congruently perceived by his mate than was the case for the sensitizer. It was argued that these findings support the following inferences! (1) that R-S is linearly related to measures of personal and marital adjustment, (2) that R-S denotes a construct that is more general and comprehensive than previously considered, (3) that R-S represents more than just a "response bias,and (k) that the expression and reaction to "aggressiveness" seems an important differentiating behavior relative to R-S.

PAGE 12

It was posited that R-S differentiates a generalized style of reactivity to both personal and interpersonal events, v/hich in turn relates to experiencing both the impact and evaluation of these events in characteristic terms of stress-satisfaction and negativity-positivity . Finally, possible implications of this research for marital counseling v/ere discussed. XI

PAGE 13

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The personality construct Repression-Sensitization (R-S) has stimulated several research efforts to assess its value and to determine its relationship to individual functioning in situations of threat, ambiguity, and conflict. More recently, additional interesting findings have been reported relating R-S to various aspects of group functioning. The present research investigation represents an attempt to examine and extend findings from previous studies of the R-S construct into the context of the marital dyad. Theoretical Background Before presenting an explanation and rationale for the present study, the historical development and scope of this research area will be outlined. A point of clarification should be offered about the relationship of R-S to the instrument used to assess R-S (Health and Opinion Survey). On this self-rating instrument (Derived from MMPI scales), an individual who achieves a low HOS score falls at the repressing end of the R-S continuum, while an individual who achieves a high HOS score falls at the sensitizing end. Thus, a direct linear relationship between R-S and a dependent variable would indicate that the sensitizer ranks high on that particular factor, v/hile an inverse linear relationship would indicate that the repressor ranks high on that factor.

PAGE 14

2 The R-S construct evolved from studies in the late 19^0' s and the 1950' s that have since been referred to as the "new look" in perception. The essential feature of this "new look" orientation was its approach to perception as being an active process, wherein features of the perceiver figured perhaps as importantly in the process of perception as features of the perceived stimuli. This orientation to perception as an active process was described by Bruner and Postman (19^7). Perception is a form of adaptive behavior. Its operation reflects not only the characteristics of sensorineural processes, but also the dominant needs, attitudes, and values of the organism. (P. 69) John C. Raven (1951) also describes this orientation as follows, Cur perception of events is intentional in the sense that we always respond to and perceive events with intent, as if reaching out with desire or effort directed toward the apprehension of some objective, although at the time not necessarily realized and not necessarily pursued with deliberation. (p. 15) A nev/ly identified phenomenon was reported in this early research one which stimulated many diverse studies. The experimental situation for these studies involved the measure of recognition thresholds for tachistoscopically presented words of different affective value. It was found that two distinct patterns of differential recognition thresholds existed for some subjects when visually perceiving these "neutral" and "threatening" stimuli. One of these response patterns was identified by subjects who exhibited a significantly higher threshold for the recognition of "threatening"

PAGE 15

3 stimuli than for "neutral stimuli." This response style was characterized as an avoidance of threat or fear and was termed "perceptual defense." While this finding is congruent with long-established concepts about the avoiding of unwelcome or fear-provoking stimuli, a perceptual pattern v/as discovered that was not of such a predictable nature. This latter response pattern was identified by subjects who revealed a significantly lower threshold for the recognition of threatening stimuli than for neutral stimuli. This response style was characterized as an "approach" to threat or fear and it was termed "perceptual vigilance." Since the most important of the early investigations of these perceptual findings were done by Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman, a review of their experimental method and procedure will be presented. In this study (Bruner and Postman, 194?) subject's associative reaction times were elicited to a variety of stimuli words. These stimuli included words of both neutral and potentially "threatening" connotation. Examples of the latter, threatening words, include rape, penis, and death. From the associative reaction time data, an individualized list of three groups of words was arranged for each subject. These three groups consisted of those words that had the longest associative reaction times, the shortest associative reaction times, and the midmost reaction times. At a later experimental session each subject was asked to recognize this latter selection of words as they again were presented tachistoscopically. The exposure time for each

PAGE 16

4 stimulus word was progressively increased until the word was correctly recognized. Two different recognition patterns were found to exist for some of these subjects. One of the patterns was defined by a longer exposure time for the recognition of the threatening v/ords as compared to the exposure time necessary for the recognition of the neutral v/ords. V/hile the other pattern involved exactly the opposite relationship, i.e. a relatively shorter exposure time was necessary for the threatening words compared to the neutral words. The first of these patterns, or perceptual styles, exemplifies perceptual defense and the second exemplifies perceptual vigilance. The term perceptual defense has subsequently evolved into the term "repression, " and the term perceptual vigilance has evolved into the term "sensitization." Since the sensitizer, perceptual vigilant, recognizes the threatening stimuli earlier than the neutral stimuli, this perceptual style was also characterized as one of "approach," while the style of the repressor, perceptual defender, which revealed the opposite relationship was characterized as one of "avoidance." Both of these perceptual modes share the fact that they involve differential awareness to threatening stimuli. Consequently, both have been thought to represent polar opposites in the handling of the anxiety or fear that is aroused by aversive stimuli. Hence, the perceptual styles have also been thought of as defense mechanisms, while their polarity

PAGE 17

has been considered to anchor an approach-avoidance dimension of individual reactivity to aversive stimuli. The majority of research subsequent to the investigation by Bruner and Postman can be divided into two successive conceptual endeavors. The earlier efforts consisted of diverse attempts to verify, explain, and extend the nature of these identified perceptual phenomena, while the second group of investigations proceeded from the established fact of individual differences in perceptual style, in an effort to determine how this relates to self -perception, person perception, personal adjustment, and interpersonal interaction. It is with this latter group of investigations that the present research derives its conceptual ground. A crucial feature of this second development in R-S research was the establishment of a psychometric assessment instrument of the Repression-Sensitization dimension. This psychometric identification of perceptual style contrasts with the original determination of R-S accomplished by psychophysiological methods. One of the first attempts to utilize selected Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scales as a measure of R-S was made by Jesse Gordon (1957). He also originally coined the term sensitization. His effort was followed by several attempts to utilize single scales of the MMPI to assess R-S. The next development was by Altrocchi, Parsons, and Dickoff (i960) who utilized multiple MMPI scales to assess R-S style. However, it was Byrne (1961) who

PAGE 18

6 accomplished certain advances in the usage of multiple MMPI scales that established a measure that was accepted by others in this research area. His instrument, the Health and Opinion Survey (HOS) (1963)1 has been shown to have split-half reliability of .9^ and test-retest reliability of .83 (three months) . The R-S construct has thus become the generally accepted term for the dimension of perceptual defense-perceptual vigilance: Repression being the counterpart of perceptual defense and sensitization being the counterpart of perceptual vigilance. Repression represents a generalized mode of avoidance to potentially threatening stimuli and sensitization represents a generalized mode of approach to potentially threatening stimuli. Inferences have been made in regards to the characteristic defense mechanisms subserved by both extremes of the R-S dimension. It is hypothesized that the repressor utilizes defense behaviors such as denial and avoidance, while the sensitizer utilizes the defensive behaviors of manifest worrying, obsession-compulsion, and intellectualization. Since the present investigation is concerned with the relationship of R-S to features of interpersonal functioning in the marital dyad, selected research in the areas of selfperception, person perception, and personal adjustment in group interaction as related to R-S will be reviewed.

PAGE 19

Self -Percept ion Altrocchi et al_. (i960) reported that R-S was positively correlated v/ith self -ratings for being rebellious, aggressive, and self-effacing. This pattern of self-description resulted in a general portrait of the sensitizer as one who manifested a poorer self-image than was true for the repressor. In fact, the related finding that the sensitizer had a greater discrepancy between his self-image and his ideal-image than did the repressor, was also accounted for by the sensitizer's lower self-image. That is, both the sensitizer and the repressor had a similar ideal-image, but the sensitizer's lower self-image resulted in a greater self-ideal discrepancy. In an investigation by Byrne, Barry, and Nelson (1963), the previous finding of there being a greater self-ideal discrepancy for sensitizers than repressors was again examined. This time, however, the nev/ly revised R-S scale developed by Byrne (the Health and Opinion Survey, KOS) was utilized to identify repressors and sensitizers. The previous findings were replicated, in that the sensitizer revealed a greater self-ideal discrepancy than the repressor. Also, as before this discrepancy was shown to be a function of the sensitizer's lower self-image. A second aspect of this study involved testing the hypothesis that R-S would be related to differences in the ways repressors and sensitizers handle hostility. To assess this hypothesis, the Hostility Incongruency Test (Byrne, 196l) was correlated with R-S. The

PAGE 20

8 former measure represents a further development of an instrument devised by McReynolds (1958). This instrument assesses the extent to which one's feelings and values are inconsistent for specific areas of behavior. The procedure for this latter assessment consisted of having the subject evaluate various statements, all involving some degree of hostility, along three identified dimensions i Like-Dislike, Good-Bad, and Pleasant-Unpleasant. Incongruency was defined and measured by totaling items that were placed at conflicting poles across the three dimensions. For instance, with the Like-Dislike and Good-Bad dimensions, a score of incongruency was counted whenever a person rated a particular behavior as occupying both the Like and Bad poles simultaneously, or whenever a behavior v/as rated at both the Dislike and Good poles simultaneously. It v/as found that incongruency v/as correlated significantly and positively with R-S across all of the incongruency measures. And, more importantly, it was found that only one of the two possible sub varieties of incongruency accounted for this correlation. This is, the Like-Ead, Like-Unpleasant, and Bad-Pleasant sub scores were significantly correlated with R-S, while the Dislike-Good, Dislike-Pleasant, and Bad-Pleasant scores were shown to be uncorrelated with R-S. Thus, it was found by this investigation that sensitizers tend to report conflicted feelings and attitudes related to their liking and enjoying hostile behavior that they also consider to be bad or morally wrong, while this was not the case for repressors.

PAGE 21

9 Altrocchi, Shrauger, and McLeod (1964) employed two separate measures of hostility, the Rosenweig Picture Frustration Test and a self -rating scale, to further examine the relationship of R-S and hostility. They obtained results that were consistent with those of the previous investigations. That is, sensitizers revealed more hostility than did repressors on both of these measures. Byrne and Sheffield (1965) explored the hypothesis that sitizers would react with greater verbalized anxiety than would repressors in a situation involving sexually arousing stimuli. A factorial design was utilized v/herein different groups of repressors and sensitizers read either sexually explicit passages or sexually neutral passages that were taken from the same book. Self -ratings of arousal were then obtained and significant differences were found to exist between the experimental groups. Significantly greater arousal war. found for both the repressor and sensitizer groups who read the sexually explicit passages. More interesting, however, was the difference between repressors and sensitizers that emerged when a correlation v/as made between the scale for sexual arousal and the remaining rating scales. It was found that distinctly different patterns of feelings associated with sexual arousal emerged for the sensitizers and the repressors. Whereas the sensitizers reported feelings of (1) being entertained, (2) lack of boredom, and (3) being anxious — the repressors revealed feelings of (1) being

PAGE 22

10 disgusted, and (2) being angry. These differences between sensitizers and repressors in their self-rated feelings associated with sexual arousal are open to several possible interpretations. One interpretation that would appear to fit especially well would involve the idea that the repressor feels less anxiety in potentially threatening situations due to directing his feelings outward, while the sensitizer feels more anxiety due to directing of his feelings inward. A study by Altrocchi (I96I) provides information of how the repressor's and the sensitizer's evaluation of their own characteristics compares to their evaluation of others. The subjects in this study rated themselves and three classmates on the Leary Interpersonal Check List. An analysis was made of the difference betv/een the subject's self -perception and his perception of others. This analysis was expressed in terms of a measure of the assumed dissimilarity between self and others. It was found by this index that the sensitizer assumes a significantly greater disparity betv/een himself and others than is true for the repressor. The several previously described investigations reveal consistent findings that the sensitizer evaluates both himself and others differently than does the repressor. It was also established that the general direction of this difference was in terms of the sensitizer manifesting a less positive evaluation of himself than he has for others. Other investigations will now be cited which attempt to ascertain whether

PAGE 23

11 R-S might also be related to differences in the area of personal adjustment. Personal Adjustment Byrne, Golightly, and Sheffield (1965) tested the hypothesis that R-S would be related to personal adjustment in a curvilinear fashion. This hypothesis v/as based on the argument that "Neither obsessional concern with conflicts nor selective forgetting of them should result in optimal adjustment" (p. 536). Here, the "obsessional concern" with conflicts would characterize the sensitizer, and the "selective forgetting" of conflicts would characterize the repressor. The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) was administered as the measure of adjustment, and each of the eighteen CPI scales was correlated with R-S. It was shown that significant correlations existed between R-S and seven of the CPI scales. The direction of this correlation, without exception, indicated that sensitizers were more maladjusted than were repressors. The scores of persons falling in the " Neutral " range of the R-S scale were also examined in this study. They v/ere found to fall between those of the repressors and the sensitizers. Thus, a significant linear relationship, rather than a curvilinear relationship, v/as found to exist between R-S and this measure of personal adjustment. Thelen (1969) also investigated the relationship between R-S and adjustment for college students who sought psychotherapy, compared to a control group who did not. He, too,

PAGE 24

12 employed the CPI as the measure of personal adjustment. There were two important findings from this study. First, those who sought psychotherapy had significantly higher scores on the R-S scale than those who did not. And, second , when the therapy-seeking group and the non-therapy-seeking group were equated for adjustment, the therapy-seeking group were found to "be significantly higher in sensitization. In regards to this latter finding, Thelen stated that "Perhaps the R-S scale measure'[_ sic.] 'adjustment* as v/ell as the tendency to approach or avoid stress. Such a relationship does not make the terms interchangeable and certainly does not reduce the value of the R-S concept" (p. l6k) . Byrne, Blaylock, and Goldberg (1966) tested the hypothesis that the personality dynamics of the repressor, which are characterized by repressing and denying defense mechanisms, would fit the personality pattern associated with dogmatism. R-S was correlated with dogmatism, measured by Rokeach's Dogmatism and Opinionation Scales, in two independent samples. The relationship between dogmatism and R-S was found to be both significant and positive in the independent samples. Thus, dogmatism was found to relate more strongly to sensitizing defenses than to repressing defenses. The authors presented two possible interpretations to explain this unpredicted relationship. First, that while dogmatism might serve as a defense against anxiety, the specific defenses employed are sensitizing rather than repressing.

PAGE 25

13 Second, that the close-minded or dogmatic person has basic beliefs that man is alone, isolated, and helpless -and that this theme is also reflected by the sensitizing person. The authors conclude, "Thus, the dogmatic, sensitizing, personally unhappy individual tends to express negative feelings toward self and toward others" (p. 7^1 ) • Gayton and Bernstein (1969) investigated two issues raised by R-S theory and previous R-S research. They also assessed Byrne's hypothesis that R-S would be related in a curvilinear fashion to personal adjustment. They investigated specific areas of personal conflict via Trehub's egodisjunction measure of incompatible needs. Briefly, Trehub's measure is an index arrived from responses to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). Eight of the EPPS's scales are grouped into four pairs of conflicting needs, "deference-aggression, autonomy-abasement, succorance-nurturance, and order-change" (p. 192). The joint magnitude of each of these pairs is used as a measure of incompatible need strength. The results of this investigation supported the previously established linear relationship between R-S and personal adjustment. Additionally, it identified only two of the four need-pairs as contributors to this incompatibility in need strength! succorance-nurturance and autonomy-abasement. The remaining need-pairs showed no such need discrepancy. Thus, the need areas of succorance-nurturance and autonomy-abasement might be tentatively indentified as areas of particular conflict for those at the sensitizing end of the R-S dimension.

PAGE 26

14 In an attempt to assess the extent that R-S might relate to a differential incidence of physical illness, Byrne, Steinberg, and Schwartz (1968) examined both a self-rated incidence of illness and an incidence of illness based upon visits made to a student health center. The prediction was made that both repressors and sensitizers would have a greater incidence of illness than v/ould neutrals. Instead, a linear relationship was found between R-S and both measures, at least for the male student sample. Thus, in this study both the self -assessment and the behavioral assessment of physical illness were found to be related linearly to R-S. Up to this point I have reviewed several investigations that dealt with the relationship of R-S to measures of (1) self -perception, (2) person perception, and (3) personal adjustment. Nov/, this review will focus upon studies that are essentially concerned with R-S as related to group process and group outcome variables. Group Process One of the earliest investigations that attempted to study the relationship between R-S and group functioning was by Joy (I963). Subsequent to establishing that R-S correlated -.87 with leadership (as measured by an MMPI scale) Joy arranged experimental problemsolving groups. These groups were each composed of three members: a repressor, a sensitizer, and a neutral. Each group was assigned a human relations problem as a group discussion task. Following this

PAGE 27

15 group interaction, each of the group members rated himself and the other two members on a number of variables. There were two important findings. First, on the ratings of others, the sensitizers were significantly less often chosen to be work partners. Second, the repressors rated themselves to be more concerned for maintaining friendly group relations than did the sensitizers. Perhaps the first study that related R-S to a shortterm, non-experimentally created, group was that by Turk (I963). In this investigation he examined the congruence of self-rating and rating of others in student nurse and student physician teams. The student nurses were the only dyad members that were identified on the R-S dimension. These physician-nurse teams worked together in a clinic for a period of three weeks. The dependent variable under study was the perceived "enjoyment" by each of the dyad members during this work experience. Each of the subjects rated himself and the other dyad member on a multi-faceted questionnaire. A significant correlation was found to exist between R-S and the rating of other for task enjoyment, only when the nurse being rated was a sensitizer. That is, the self-rating of enjoyment for repressor nursing students was not accurately perceived by the doctors with whom they worked, while it was so for sensitizer nursing students. A second important finding was the existence of a significantly greater assumed similarity of other rating for the repressor nurse group than for

PAGE 28

16 the sensitizer group. That is, the sensitizer nurse assumed a greater difference between herself and her dyad partner than did the repressor nurse. Parsons and Fulgenzi (1968) followed up early findings in R-S research to examine the developing conclusion that "hostility is of special importance in this personality dimension" (p. 537) • Subjects in this study were identified via the HOS into three groups: repressors, sensitizers and neutrals. Two separate procedures were employed to determine if these groups differed in their expression of hostility. The first procedure involved the administration of the group Rorschach. The second procedure involved the formation of five-person groups of heterogeneous R-S composition that subsequently engaged in a group story construction task. During this latter task, experienced judges rated each group member's interpersonal behavior on several behavior rating scales. Finally, each of tie group members rated all other group members on a twenty-five-item scale. The findings showed no significant differences among the three R-S groups on the hostility score derived from their Rorschach protocal. However, on the behavior ratings by the judges, repressors were assessed to be significantly more aggressive and hostile than were sensitizers. Supporting this finding were the ratings from each of the group members as they too consistently rated the repressor as more aggressive and hostile than the sensitizer. Parsons, Fulgenzi, and Edelburg (1969) report a study which investigates this problem area by comparing the self-

PAGE 29

17 assessment, behavioral-assessment, and psychophysiological assessment of a specific interpersonal interaction. Again, they utilized five-person discussion groups. The group majority was structured so that an equal number of groups would have repressors or sensitizers as predominate. Two indepe:ident investigations were then carried out. The first was essentially a replication of the previously reported experiment, Parsons and Fulgenzi (1968). The results of this part of the study were also in agreement with the earlier study? i.e. (1) repressors rated themselves to be less aggressive than sensitizers rated themselves, and (2) there was greater discrepancy between the judges' rating of aggression and the self -ratings of aggression for the repressors. The authors concluded this part of the study with the observation that these repeatedly established findings "provide an experimental analogue to the psychotheropeutic encounter " (p. 239). That is, like some therapy clients, the repressor reveals behavioral signs of hostility and aggressiveness but does not report a parallel state of emotional arousal, while the sensitizer, v/ho does not reveal such behavioral assertiveness, reports that he is in fact quite emotionally aroused. This repeatedly observed discrepancy between overt behavior and self -assessed emotional experience, resulted in the subsequent study that made a psychophysiological measure of the emotional state of repressors and sensitizers. Five-person groups, with either repressors or sensitizers in

PAGE 30

18 majority, engaged in a half -hour discussion while (1) their skin conductance responses (SCRs) were recorded, (2) their interaction was rated for aggressiveness of behavior, and (3) their verbal behavior was recorded. The results show the repressors to have a higher level of aggressive behavior, that was in turn accompanied by a higher level of SCRs, while the sensitizers had a lower level of aggressiveness that was accompanied by a lower level of SCRs. The authors follow by stating, Repressors, then, appear to be highly involved, both by behavioral and psychophysiological criteria, in the group discussion, goal oriented (getting on with the task), and perceived by others as aggressive but not reporting themselves as aggressive. The sensitizers are less aggressive and not as affectively aroused at least as measured by the SCR. On the other hand, they rate themselves higher than repressors on aggressiveness and hostility but are not so rated by others. (p. 242) V/hen these empirical relationships v/ere evaluated in the terms of Lacey's (1959) "transactional" interpretation of autonomic responses, the inference was presented that repressors were more task and goal oriented, while the sensitizers were more oriented to the emotional quality of the interpersonal relationships . A study by Wilkins and Epting (1971) provides findings that relate to the issue of differential interpersonal orientation between sensitizers and repressors. They employed Bieri's Interpersonal Cognitive Complexity (ICC) measure to differentiate the nature of interpersonal orientation related

PAGE 31

19 to R-S. According to the authors, Interpersonal Cognitive Complexity is defined in terms of the degree of differentiation between dimensions of a construct system. A construct system which highly differentiates among persons in the social environment is considered to he cognitively complex in structure. On the other hand, a construct system which poorly differentiator .ig persons is considered to be cognitively simple. (p. 1) The authors predicted that the sensitizer, with obi ve traits, would manifest interpersonal complexity, and that the repressor, with traits of avoidance, would manifest interpersonal simplicity. The results supported these predictions. These findings were interpreted to reveal that repressors are less discriminating in their interpersonal orientation than are sensitizers. These findings also support the inference from the previous study (Parsons et al . ) •-that sensitizers are particularly attuned to the interpersonal quality of social events, while repressors are not. Cohen and Foerst (I960) present evidence that supports the second inference from Parsons et, al. that repressors are more goal directed in problem-solving situations. It has previously been shown that some personality variables are related to differences in group performance. Thus, it is appropriate to assess whether R-S too has such a relationship. In this study, experimental groups were homogeneously composed of either five sensitizers or five repressors. They were situated in a structured communication network and asked to participate in group problem-solving tasks. The

PAGE 32

20 main findings were summarized by the authors as follows, "R groups formed appropriate problem-solving systems earlier than S groups, had faster times in performing tasks, and exhibited greater continuity of leadership " (p. 214-). These results seemed consistent with the inference by Parsons et al . that the repressor may be more goal oriented and less vulnerable than the sensitizer to interpersonal distraction. Two studies by Cohen and Carrera (19&?) and Carrera and Cohen (1968) also relate R-S to aspects of a problem-solving interaction. They utilized five-person experimental groups homogeneously composed of repressors or sensitizers. Both investigations involved group interaction that led to experiences of group success or group failure. Both studies had similar procedures and results, thus the second study might be essentially thought of as a replication of the first. Although there was a tendency for "extreme" sensitizers to verbalize more hostility subsequent to a failure experience, there were no significant differences in affect, nor in judgments concerning their performance, for either repressors or sensitizers subsequent to group failure or group success. The general conclusions inferred from this absence of measured difference in verbal behavior and in evaluative judgments were as follows: It was suggested that group factors may constitute a set of mitigating conditions that intervene between the induction of stimuli and their effects on the manifest productions of personality (p. 221), and,

PAGE 33

21 In both studies the repression-sensitization variable proved to be of relatively minor importance for interpersonal behavior within the context of small groups. (p. 13) In contrast to studies that related individual response tendencies to R-S, the studies by Carrera and Cohen indicate crucial limitations in the value of R-S as a relevant variable in small group interaction. The following section will discuss this crucial implication as related to the present study as well as several general findings presented in this selected review of R-S research. Implications for Present Research Several conclusions and implications can be distinguished in the previous R-S investigations. First, and most comprehensively, the R-S construct has shown both theoretically and empirically congruent relationships with several other psychological constructs and measures. Second, the R-S instrument, the Health and Opinion Survey, has evidenced good reliability and construct validity. Third, the R-S concept has been found useful in delineating features of individual response tendency and in delineating some features of small group interaction. In addition to these very general positive features of R-S research, several limitations and areas of neglect can also be identified. First, because of the very nature of the R-S variable, self-rated assessments need to be related to more objective modes assessing the same behavior. Second, few R-S studies have directed attention to the behavior of

PAGE 34

22 the intermediate scorers (Neutrals) as related to extreme scorers (Repressors and Sensitizers). Third, while there have been only a few efforts to study the relationship of R-S to aspects of small group or dyadic process, the inference has been reported that the R-S variable is of little significance in group interaction. These general findings and limitations in R-S research provide grist for the present investigation. The observation is presented that previous studies of small group interaction have been based almost exclusively on artificially organized "experimental" groups. These groups did not have the characteristics of being (1) naturally found, (2) selfselected, nor (3) were they of a long-term nature. It is argued that if R-S were a valuable dimension in group process and outcome, that the study of natural groups, embodying the just enumerated characteristics, would be very desirable. As stated by Byrne, Any pervasive personality variable such as repression-sensitization, is potentially an important determiner of some aspects of interpersonal behavior. An individual's socially relevant motives, his perceptions of others, his response to the demands of group situations, and his effect on others are likely to be in part a function of his characteristic defense modes. (1964, p. 203) The formulation of defense modes has been of long-standing interest and value in personality theory. However, there seems to have been little attempt to measure and study these defense modes as they relate to aspects of interpersonal

PAGE 35

23 relationships. The general purpose of the present study is thus to investigate various R-S findings and inferences as related to aspects of a particular interpersonal relationship the marital dyad. Stu dy of R-S in the Marital Relationship The current study utilized the marital dyad in the examination of several factors relevant to R-S 5 those factors being (1) marital adjustment, (2) the perception of satisfaction and stress in marriage in a college setting, (3) the resolution of marital conflicts, (k) self-perception, and (5) spouse-perception. The marital dyad was chosen as the relationship of focus for several critical reasons which will not be discussed. Previous R-S research has been concerned, among other variables, with the relationship of R-S to the perception of aggression in self and other group members and with the effectiveness of group performance. The groups utilized in these studies were experimentally created, and as such they differ considerably from naturally formed groups. It is argued that if individual differences, measured in terms of R-S, do reveal differential effects in these experimental groups, then such differences should be even more manifest in long-term naturally formed groups. Also, it seems evident that the resolution of conflict is a feature of all but perhaps the most casual or formalized relationship, and that probably few relationships could involve the extent of conflict resolution that would occur in

PAGE 36

24 the marital dyad. Thus, the marital dyad, where an individual functions intensively and extensively in a selfchosen relationship, appears to provide a most excellent natural group for the investigation of hypotheses drawn from R-S research. It has been argued that the marital dyad represents a particularly good setting for the investigation of issues drawn from the R-S literature. The following section presents the reasoning involved in the several areas that will later "be delineated by specific hypotheses. It has been reported (Byrne, 1964) that social desirability scores are highly correlated with R-S scores. This relationship is one in which those with repressor scores also have high social desirability scores, while those with sensitizer scores have very low social desirability scores. The picture is presented that the repressor, with a high social desirability set, is one who would like to think of himself in very positive terms while the sensitizer operates with the very opposite orientation. It would then be expected that the repressor would paint a very positive picture of himself and his marital relationship on a self-rated instrument while the sensitizer would be expected to do the opposite. Earlier studies have also shown that the repressor rated himself low in aggressive behavior in a group interaction, but that he is rated by both co-acting peers and observing

PAGE 37

25 judges as high in aggressive behavior. The sensitizer presents quite the opposite picture — he rates himself to be high in aggressive behavior, but he is rated by peers and judges as manifesting little aggression. An important fact here is that comparable ratings have been given by both the interacting peers and the judges. In a marital conflictresolution situation it v/ould be expected that the greater aggressiveness of the repressor would be revealed by his judgment being accepted more frequently than the sensitizer's judgment. In this situation the sensitizer would also be expected to rate himself as being more aggressive than he is perceived to be by his mate, and the repressor would be expected to rate himself as less aggressive than he is perceived to be by his mate. In summary up to this point, the R-S construct refers to a dimension of individual differences in reactivity to emotionally arousing stimuli especially those of an aversive nature. There are two most central features of the poles of this dimension. The first is characterized as a bias to operate toward (repressor), or away from (sensitizer), socially desirable responses, while the second is characterized as the lack of correspondence between how the repressor and sensitizer perceive aspects of their behavior and how they are perceived by others. It is argued that the examination of responses made by neutrals (those who have intermediate socres on the R-S scale) may provide a new perspective

PAGE 38

26 when related to these and to other aspects of the R-S picture. The neutral can be viewed as one who does not operate with the degree of positive or negative response bias as the sensitizer or repressor. Consequently the ratings made by the neutral, of his marital relationship, should be less distorted than those made by the repressor and the sensitizer. Therefore, the most objective evaluation of the quality of a marriage between a repressor and a neutral, or between a sensitizer and a neutral, would be expected to be that made by the neutral spouse. The marital ratings received from the neutral should thus establish a clear-cut test of Byrne's cornerstone assumption that R-S is related curvilinearly to adjustment and well-being. That is, the excessive avoidance or approach modes of defensive behavior of the repressor or sensitizer spouse is predicted to limit the adjustment and satisfaction partners in the marital dyad could achieve. Therefore, neutrals would be expected to report more satisfaction in a marriage with another neutral than in a marriage with either a repressor or a sensitizer spouse. Also, from previous R-S research, it was shown that the perception of enjoyment in a dyadic working relationship is much more accurate when the perceptual target is a sensitizer than v/hen the target is a repressor. It would be expected that the sensitizer spouse will be more congruently evaluated by his mate, than will the repressor spouse, on a measure of environmental stress and satisfaction.

PAGE 39

27 Finally, the inference reported by Carrera and Cohen, that R-S is a variable of relatively minor importance in small group interaction, could be evaluated on the basis of whether there are significant relationships established between R-S and the several dependent measures in the present investigation.

PAGE 40

CHAPTER II METHOD Subjects The program of this experimental research began with the identification of marital dyad partners in terms of their R-S scores on the Health and Opinion Survey (HOS). Sixty couples who had been married for at least one year, and in which at least one member v/as a University of Florida student, were needed for this study. Prospective couples were personally contacted and asked to respond to the HOS. This procedure v/as followed until the six experimental cells, presented below, were represented by ten couples each. The experimental cells consisted of dyads v/ith all possible combinations of repressor (R), sensitizer (S), and neutral (N) mates. According to the most common practice in R-S research, subjects were identified as repressors if their score was below 39, as sensitizers if it was above 55i and as neutrals if their score fell between 39 and 55. Thus the following cells were represented i 28

PAGE 41

29 Mate 1

PAGE 42

30 the 18 vignettes are written so that both spouses will judge the same story character as being in the wrong. A "Win" index was derived based upon which spouse's opinion was accepted during the joint resolution of the 12/18 conflict vignettes. Winning was determined by whose decision was jointly endorsed when the husband and wife differed in their individual judgments. The win index was computed by av/arding each spouse one point when his individual judgment was later endorsed by his mate in the joint resolution. This sum was then divided by the total number of stories that they differed upon. It is inferred from this index which spouse is the more aggressive and which the more submissive in the conflict resolution interaction. Further information will now be presented regarding aspects of the construction and validation of the IMC. The conflict situation in each vignette is presented with slight differences in slant regarding the information that each spouse of the experimental dyad receives. Thus a delicate balance must be attained so that a difference in the assignment of responsibility for the described conflict situation could be achieved without having the couple realize that they had in fact been misled. The judgment that this desired balance has been achieved can be substantiated by data provided by the IMC author (Olson, 1969). For example, on the story situations designed to produce a conflict in judgments, 86 percent of the stories designed to produce conflicting judgments did so. In general, the IMC represents

PAGE 43

31 a significant improvement in assessing interaction in a conflict resolution situation over its more widely known predecessor Strodtbeck's Revealed Difference Technique (195D. Beha v ior R ating S cales . Following the IMC interaction, each spouse filled out an eight scale assessment of interpersonal behavior. They rated both themselves and their spouse on each of the scales. These 8 scales represent categories defined by Bales (1950) in the Interaction Process Analysis , and modified by Parsons et al. (1969). Five of the scales assess aggressive behavior (scales ^-8), and three assess iion-agrjressive, but interaction-relevant behavior (scales 1-3). The Locke-Wallace " Short Marital Adjustment Test " (1959) is a fifteen-item inventory composed of selected items from marital inventories which proved to have the highest discriminative value and which did not seem to overlap other items in content. The authors have presented evidence that their shortened inventory has essentially the same reliability as the longer form. The range of scores possible to achieve is from 2 to 158 points. The Marriage and College Environment Inventory (MACE) by Clarke (1969) is a recently devised instrument for married couples wherein either one or both of the mates are college students. It is designed to assess the extent to which various personal and interpersonal aspects of the marriage experience and features of the college environment are viewed as sources

PAGE 44

32 of stress or satisfaction. The MACE is composed of 1?5 items, has both a husband and wife form, and is designed for the spouses to complete alone without consultation with each other. There are four possible response categories available for each of the 175 items: (1) Non-applicable, (2) Generallysatisfactory, (3) Generally stressful, and (4) Neither. The MACE was administered on two separate occasions to each subject. The first administration requested each subject to respond to the MACE statements on the basis of his own feelings. A proportion score was generated from these responses by dividing the number of items that he rated as "Generally stressful" by the number of items that he rated as "Generally satisfactory." This proportion score was termed the MACE stress/satisfaction ratio. The higher this ratio is, the greater the amount of stress the subject is experiencing. On the second administration of the MACE, the subject was requested to respond on the basis of how he perceived his spouse to feel. A second score was thus derived by comparing each subject's own responses to the MACE with the responses ascribed to him by his spouse. This resulting score was termed the MACE agreement score. This score was arithmetically computed by summing one point for each MACE statement that was responded to similarly by the subject's self -rating and by his spouse's rating of him. This sum was then divided by the total number of responses that fell in the "Generally stressful" and "Generally satisfactory" categories for that

PAGE 45

33 person. The MACE agreement score could thus serve as a statistic for comparing the degree of congruency between a person's self-rated feelings and his spouse's perception of his feelings. Procedure The 60 couples, 10 couples in each cell, who participated in this study, were selected from names provided by the Registrar at the University of Florida. This list included all persons who were then currently enrolled married students. Couples were randomly selected from this list and asked to participate in a research project. This project was described as a study of aspects of college married life. Initial contact with each prospective subject couple was made by the investigator at the subjects' home. It was felt that such personal contact would maximally encourage a positive attitude toward participation in the study. If the couple were willing to participate in the investigation, a date and time were agreed upon for the investigator to return with the initial questionnaires, i. e. HOS, MACS, and LockeV/allace. To insure non-collaborative responses on these measures, the couples were asked to fill out the questionnaires with the investigator present. At the end of this first phase of testing, the couples were informed that they might be contacted in the near future for the purposes of an unrelated investigation that would provide a nominal remuneration ($4.00). This reference to a future investigation was actually an attempt to promote participation in the second phase of the study.

PAGE 46

34 Couples who were identified as having the desired combination of R-S scores were then contacted by telephone to participate in the second phase of data collection, i. e. IMC, Bales' rating scales, and MACE. This final phase of data c ] ction was again carried out in the subjects' home, while the investigator was present. The subjects were first given the 18 vignettes of the IMC and asked individually to assign responsibility for the described problem situations. Upon c ' .'etion of this task, the couple was brought together in order to make a mutually endorsed assignment of responsibility for the same 18 vignettes. They were next asked to rate themselves and their mate on the 8 Bales* scales in regards to their behavior during conflict resolution. Lastly, tj .;; again responded to the MACE; however, this time they responded the way that they thought their spouse would respc I. As a comment on the apparent effectiveness of these proto enlist cooperation, it can be noted that it only took contact with 62 couples, having the desired combination of R-S scores, to fill the 6 experimental cells of 10 couples each. The total number of couples who were tested in order to identify those having the desired R-S combinations was 197. Analysis The statistics appropriate for testing the hypotheses of this study were derived from analyses of variance with planned comparisons of cell means. Further statistics were computed with multiple comparisons made among the R-S dyads

PAGE 47

Mate 1

PAGE 48

36 It would be expected that marriage with a sensitizer or repressor would be less satisfactory than marriage with a neutral. To limit the response bias that seems to characterize the repressor and sensitizer, the evaluations of only neutral spouses, in RN, SN, and NN dyads, were compared. The Locke-Wallace marital adjustment scores for each of the neutral mates in the NN dyad were combined into a total neutral mean. This mean was compared with both the mean of the neutral spouse in the RN dyad and the mean of the neutral spouse in the SN dyad. Thus, it was predicted that: The mean Locke -Wallace score for neutrals with a neutral soouse will be greater than for neutrals with a sensitizer soouse and for neutrals with a repressor soouse at the . 05 level . Hypothesis (3) In reporting their perceptions of stresses and satisfactions, the repressor operates with a response bias toward positive reporting. The repressor selectively remembers and reports more of the good than the bad, while the sensitizer has the opposite orientation. The MACE stress/satisfaction ratio for each of the repressor mates in RR, RS, and RN dyads was combined into a total repressor mean. This mean was compared with the comparable total sensitizer mean (from the sensitizer mates in RS, SS, and SN dyads). Thus, it was predicted thati The mean frACE stress/satisfaction ratio for sensitizers will be greater than for repressors at the .0$ level .

PAGE 49

37 Hypothesis (^) Sir.ce the se. :er and represser are defined as operating with ext lefensive behavior, this quality would be expected to limit the satisfaction that can be achieved in their marriage. 1 'ore, it Li predicted that a Marriage with a zer or reprer ill be less satisfactory than a : th a neutral. To c trol for the response bias tracterizes . the : tizer and represser, only t evaluations of cuses in Rlf, s:.', and I iril] be c< 9, The RACE stress/satisfaction ratio for each of . neutral rates in the r
PAGE 50

38 Hypothesis (6) The sensitizer assesses himself to be more aggressive in interpersonal relationships than he is rated by others. The opposite relationship is expected to occur for the repressors, who rates himself to be less aggressive than he is rated by others. A "Difference Score" was computed for each of the dyad members by subtracting each person's self-rating of aggressiveness by his spouse's rating of aggressiveness in him (Bales' scales k~8) . The mean of this absolute difference was figured for all of the repressors in RR, RS, and RN dyads. A comparable mean was figured for all of the sensitizers in RS, NS, and SS dyads. Thus, it was predicted that: The Differenc e score for repres sor and sensitizer dyads will not be significantly different from each other at the .05 level . Hypothesis (7) Repressors perceive themselves to be less aggressive in interpersonal interaction than sensitizers perceive themselves to be. Others rate the repressor as being more aggressive in interpersonal interaction than they rate the sensitizer to be. (7) (A) The self-ratings of aggressiveness for each of the repressor mates in the RR, RS, and RN dyads were combined into a total repressor mean (Bales* scales 4-8). This mean was compared with the comparable total sensitizer selfrating mean (from the sensitizer mate means in RS, SS, and SN dyads) .

PAGE 51

39 Thus, it was predicted that: The mean self-rating of aggressiveness for sensitii will be gr eater than for repressors at the . 05 levc 1 . (?) (B) The mean of the rating-of -spouse scores on the Bales' scales ('1-8) from the repressors' mates in RR, RS, and RN dyads were combined into a total mean. This mean was compared with the comparable rating-of-spouse scores from the sensitizers* mates (in the RS, SS, and SN dyads). It was predicted that: The mean rat: r.c-of-spouse score for aggressiveness given by, the repressor' s mate , will be greater than that giv en bv the sens itizer' s mate. Hyp othesis (8) Since the sensitizer had been shown to have his feelings regarding his job experiences more accurately perceived than is true of the repressor, the sensitizer's feelings of marital and environmental stress and satisfaction are expected to be more accurately perceived by his partner. Thus, the sensitizer's self -ratings and the ratings of him by his spouse should be more congruent than is the case for the repressor's self-ratings and the ratings of him by his spouse. The means of the "agreement" scores computed from the MACE, for each of the repressor mates in the RR, RS, and RN dyads, were combined into a total repressor score. This mean was compared with the comparable total sensitizer "agreement" mean (from the sensitizer mate means in RS, SS, and SN dyads) .

PAGE 52

40 Thus, it was predicted thati The mean MACE "; merit " score for sensitizers will be greater than for re at the .05 level . In addition to the above hypotheses where differenc between repressors and sensitizers were predicted, there were additional comparisons made between the neuti and those of the sensitizer and repressor. These Ltional comparisons were made on the following dependent n urest Locke -Wallace, IMC "Win" index, Bales' self -ratings, Baler,' ratings-cf-spouses, MACE self -ratings, and MACE e ment score. These comparisons were primarily indue".light on v/hether or not a curvilinear relationshi] • :ists between these variables and R-S. Further data are also referenced in Appendix F, Table 1 to 6. These tables include additional infori i that will be drawn upon in the final Discussion section.

PAGE 53

CHAPTER III RESULTS The data which comprise the results of this research will be presented in a format wherein statistics which are appropriate for a specific test of each enumerated hypothesis are first reported. Following this explicit test of each hypothesis, any other aspects of the related data which may extend, amplify, or qualify the hypotheses and their findings will be referenced in the Appendices section. othcslr. (Jj_) predicted that the mean Locke-Wallace score for repressors v/ill be greater than for sensitizers. An analysis of variance of the data appropriate for a test of hypothesis (1) (Table 1) indicates support for the presence of a significant difference along the R-S dimension on this dependent measure. It can be shown by Table 2, which comprises the R-S category means and the planned comparison test, that the mean marital adjustment score for repressors is 117.6, for neutrals is 112.5, and for sensitizers is 91.9. Tests for significant differences between these means, reveal that the repressor and neutral are both significantly different from the sensitizer, and that they are not significantly different from each other. i*l

PAGE 54

TABLE 1 Analysis of Variance of Locke-Wallace Ratings for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers Source . SS DF MS F P_ Among Groups 14,852.59 2 7,426.29 12.7? .05 Within Grouos 68,063.56 117 581.74 Total 82,916.13 119 TABLE 2 Ranked Means of Locke-Wallace Ratings for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers Rank Label Mean Test P_ 1 S 91.875 S vs. R .05 2 N 112.475 3 R 117.625 Hypothesis (2) predicted that the mean Locke-Wallace score for neutrals with a neutral spouse will be greater than for neutrals with a sensitizer or repressor spouse. This hypothesis v/as also concerned with the relationship betv/een R-S and marital adjustment. It was conceptualized as an attempt to examine this relationship while concurrently controlling for the evaluative bias that characterizes the polar extremes of the R-S dimension. Table 3 represents the means and planned comparison tests among these means for the three

PAGE 55

^3 neutral dyads. It can be observed that there are no significant differences between the means for these three dyads. It can be seen that the neutral married to the sensitizer does have a lower marital adjustment rating than does the neutral married with either a neutral or a repressor. In these latter two dyads, the mean marital adjustment ratings are almost identical. The means of all R-S dyads, which enter into a more complete analysis of the marital adjustment ratings in the Discussion section, are presented in Appendix P, Table 1. TABLE 3 Ranked Means of Locke-7/allace Ratings for All Neutral Dyads Rank

PAGE 56

0.^28, and sensitizers = 0.602, and planned comparisons presented in Table 5» that not only do the sensitizers and repressors differ as predicted, but also that they both differ significantly from the neutrals. The neutrals can be seen to occupy an intermediate position between that of the sensitizers and repressors. Further data are presented in Appendix F, Table 2, of a complete breakdown which permits additional comparisons between each dyad or. the basis of its MACE ratio. TABLE ^ Analysis of Variance of MCE Stress/Satisfaction Ratio for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers Source SS DF MS F P_ Among Grouos 2.12 2 1.06 10.66 .05 Within Groups 11. 63 117 0.10 Total 13.75 119 TABLE 5 Ranked Means of MACE Stress/Satisfaction Ratio fo: Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers

PAGE 57

^5 Hypothesis (k) again argued from the perspective that neutral persons, being characterized as not operating with either extreme of defensiveness, should evidence a smaller mean MACE stress/satisfaction ratio with a neutral spouse, than with either a repressor spouse or a sensitizer spouse. It can be seen from the means and planned comparison test data presented in Table 6, that the predicted curvilinear relationship between R-S and these MACE scores is not supported, but rather that a linear relationship is supported. Although the difference between NR and NN dyads is not significant, it is in the direction of a direct linear relationship. The other two comparisons reveal significant differences and further establish the linear relationship between R-S and the ratio of perceived stress to perceived satisfaction. TABLE 6 Ranked Means of MACE Stress/Satisfaction Ratio for Neutrals in NR, NN, and NS Dyads . , Rank Label Mean Test P 1

PAGE 58

Hypothesis (£) predicted that the mean IMC "Win index" score for repressors v/ill be greater than for sensitizers in the RS dyad. The diametrically opposite relationship was found to occur, as can be seen from the planned comparison test data as presented in Table 7« Here it is shown that the sensitizer v/as successful in having his initial judgment endorsed by his repressor spouse in 63 percent of the conflict situations. Further data in Appendix F, Table 3i reveal that for all other marital dyads, each person v/as successful approximately half the time in having his initial judgment endorsed by his spouse. TABLE 7 Ranked Means of IMC "Win Index" for Both Mates in RS Dyad Rank Label Mean P 1 RS 1 36.79 .05 2 RS 63.21 The underlined letter in the RS dyad label indicates that the data are for the spouse with that particular R-S classification. Hypothesis (6) predicted that a discrepancy would exist between the self-rating of aggressiveness by sensitizers and repressors and the rating of them by their respective spouses, but that the absolute value of this discrepancy would not be significantly different from each other. It can be seen by the planned comparison test data in Table 8 and 9,

PAGE 59

^7 that there was a signif icant difference between the discrepancy scores for repressors and sensitizers. It can be seen that for the sensitizer there was a difference in selfrated aggressiveness tha'l averaged 2.30 from his spouse, while the average discre; . between the repressor's selfassessment and his spouse's assessment was O.03. That is, the sensitizer was shown to have a significantly greater discrepancy in the perception of aggressiveness for himself relative to his mate's a: ssment of him than is true for the repressor. There was essentially no discrepancy between the repressor's self -rating and his mate's rating of him. It can also be seen that the neutral occupies a position essentially halfway between that of the repressor and that of the sensitizer. Further data relevant to a more complete discussion of these findings are referenced in Appendix F, Table TABLE 8 Ranked Means of Bales* "Difference Score" for Repressors, Kcutrals, and Sensitizers Rank Label Mean Test 1

PAGE 60

^8 TABLE 9 Analysis of Variance of Bales' "Difference Score" Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers Source SS DF MS Among Groups

PAGE 61

49 and sensitizer = 10.08, that there was essentially no difference among the ratings given by their respective spouses for all three R-S groupings. TABLE 10 Analysis of Variance of Bales' (4-8) Self-Ratings for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers Source SS DF MS Among Groups

PAGE 62

50 TABLE 13 Ranked Means of Bales' (4-8) Rating-of -Spouse Score for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers Rank Label Mean 1 R 9.83 2 N 9.83 3 S 10.08 Hypothesis (8) predicted that the mean MACE "Agreement score" for sensitizers would be greater than for repressors. While it can be seen by the analysis of variance presented in Table 1^4that a significant main effect was found, it is shown by the means in Table 15 that it is in the opposite direction than v/hat was predicted. It will be observed that the sensitizer with a score of ,6k reveals a lower level of congruence with his mate's rating of him than is the case with the repressor, who has a rating of .71. TABLE Ik Analysis of Variance of MACE "Agreement Score" for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers Source SS DF MS F P_ 5.21 .05 Among Groups

PAGE 63

TABLE 15 Ranked Means of MACE "Agreement Score" for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers Rank Label Mean Te s t 1 S 0.64 S vs. R .05 2 N 0.70 N vs. S .05 3 R 0.71 51

PAGE 64

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The present investigation was principally concerned with examining the relationship of the R-S personality construct to aspects of the functioning of the marital dyadmarital satisfaction, the assessment of stress and satisfaction in the context of college marriage, the resolving of conflict situations, the perception of aggression in self and spouse, and the degree of congruency in the perception of a spouse's feelings. It was anticipated that the dependent variables related to R-S in this study would add new data to this research area. Also, it was expected that the particular nature of these experimentally established relationships would provide information relevant to crucial issues about the R-S construct itself. Some of these latter issues include the question of whether R-S is curvilinearly related to measures of "adjustment," whether R-S is essentially a "response bias," and whether the R-S construct is best thought to be a continuum of defense behaviors. To aid in the discussion of . the previously presented hypotheses, a brief description of each of the empirically established relationships will be presented. 52

PAGE 65

53 Hypothesis (1.) Repressors reported significantly better marital adjustment than did the sensitizers and neutrals. Hypothes is (2) For all three R-S categories, repressors, neutrals, and sensitizers! the lower their spouse's R-S score, the better was their marital adjustment. Hypothesis Q) Sensitizers reported significantly greater stress from their life situation, relative to their report of satisfaction, than did repressors and neutrals. Hypothesi s (k) For all three R-S categories, repressors, neutrals, and sensitizers, the lower their spouse's R-S score, the lower was their assessment of stress from their life situation. Hypothesis (£) The sensitizer when married to the repressor prevailed in having his judgments endorsed by his repressor mate when both were confronted with ambiguous choice situations. Hypothesis (6) The sensitizer perceived himself to be more aggressive in social situations than his mate perceived him to be. There was no such discrepancy in the case of the repressor. Hypothesis (2) The sensitizer rated himself as behaving at a significantly more aggressive level than the repressor rated himself to be.

PAGE 66

5^ Hypothesis (8) The feelings that the repressor held about aspects of his life situation were more congruently perceived by his mate than was the case for the sensitizer. The results from the first two hypotheses refer to findings concerning the relationship between R-S and marital adjustment. It was shown that the predicted inverse relationship between R-S and a self -rated measure of marital adjustment did occur. Thus, the person who scores at the repressing end of the R-S continuum rates his marital adjustment as significantly better than does the person at the sensitizing end of the R-S continuum. This finding lends support for the idea that R-S denotes a construct that is more general and comprehensive than previously considered. That is, the person who endorses feelings of personal distress also endorses feelings of situational stress and discomfort related to his marriage adjustment. It was then predicted on the basis of Byrne's hypothesis of a curvilinear relationship existing between R-S and personal adjustment (Byrne et al. 1965) "that marital adjustment would also be limited by the defenses characteristic of the extreme scorers on the R-S continuum. Thus, a person should have a better marital adjustment when his mate was a neutral than when his mate was either a repressor or sensitizer. Further, the evaluation of only the neutral mate was examined in this hypothesis because of the argument that the neutral's

PAGE 67

55 perception should theoretically be less biased than the repressor's or sensitizer's. The predicted curvilinear relationship between R-S and marital adjustment was not supported. Instead, it can be seen by the examination of each of the sensitizer dyad groupings (Appendix F, Table 1) that there is a significantly better marital adjustment for sensitizers married to repressors, 10^-. 7t than for those married to other sensitizers, 82.5. Differences between neutral and repressor dyad groupings do not reach a level of significance, although they do indicate the presence of the same linear trend. It thus appears that the quality of the sensitizer's adjustment is more affected by his spouse's personality characteristics, as assessed by R-S, than is the case for the neutral or repressor. The finding that the neutral's marital adjustment is not curvilinearly related to his mate's R-S rating brings the arguments concerning the neutral's characteristics into question. It had been argued from a theoretical point of view that the neutral should be able to make the most objective assessment of an interpersonal relationship. This was based on Byrne's assumption that the neutral does not function with the extremes in defensiveness that characterize the repressor and sensitizer. However, previous research has failed to demonstrate the hypothesized curvilinear relationship between R-S and measures of adjustment (Byrne et al . , 1965 ; Thelen, 1969; Gayton and Bernstein, 1969). In the present

PAGE 68

56 investigation the curvilinearity hypothesis was again bereft of empirical substantiation. In fact, without exception, all of the dependent factors in this study were linearly related to R-S. In light of the repeated disconfirmation of the curvilinearity hypothesis, it follows that the subordinate assumption that the neutral is less "biased" than the repressor and sensitizer is without support. However, there is a previously cited criticism that could be leveled at the finding of a linear relationship between R-S and any self -rated measure. Namely, that R-S could be said to merely represent a continuum of "response bias" to selectively endorse or deny statements of personal distress or difficulty. Furthermore, it could be argued that the reported relationship between R-S and marital adjustment merely reflects this response bias. However, there are salient reasons and findings that would argue against such an interpretation. First, unlike the measures in several previous studies, the Locke-Wallace measure of marital adjustment used in the present investigation does not involve item-overlap in the independent and dependent instruments. Thus, the present findings are freer of this source of response bias than those studies where item-overlap was present. Second, the further examination of SR, SN, and SS dyad groupings (Appendix F, Table 1) showed that the sensitizer indicates significantly less marital dissatisfaction when his

PAGE 69

57 mate is a repressor than when his mate is a sensitizer or neutral. If only a "response bias" were operating it would be expected that the sensitizer would evaluate his marriage in relatively negative terms regardless of the R-S classification of his mate. It was further observed that the trend exists across all dyads such that the lower their mate's R-S score the better is their perceived marital adjustment. These findings provide a cogent reason for considering R-S to represent more than just a blind and automatic response bias that operates regardless of situational and interpersonal factors. The two findings, that the sensitizer in general reveals a significantly lov/er self -rated marital adjustment than neutrals and repressors, but that he also has significantly and progressively better marital adjustment when married to a neutral or repressor rather than another sensitizer, would again seem to support an alternative interpretation to the idea that this relationship only represents a response bias. Instead it could be posited that R-S differentiates a generalized style of reactivity to both personal and interpersonal events, which in turn relates to experiencing both the impact and evaluation of these events in characteristic terms of stress-satisfaction and negativity-positivity. This conception of R-S seeks to expand upon a unidimensional understanding of the R-S construct in order to encompass the perceptual, physiological, cognitive, learning history, etc.,

PAGE 70

58 aspects of R-S relevant behavior. While the prediction of specific behaviors related to this multidimensional conception of R-S requires further research efforts, there are areas where congruent patterns of findings are beginning to emerge. For example, the cited research by Parsons et al. (1969), Carrera and Cohen (1 968), and Joy (1963) a H reveal the repressor to function in a manner that was more "aggressive" during small group interaction than did the sensitizer. However, the sensitizer was shown by Altrocchi et al. (196*1-) to function with greater self-attributed hostility than did the repressor, and also to be more conflicted regarding the expression of hostility than repressors (Byrne et al. . 1963). It seems however that this "aggressive" behavior on the part of the repressor is related to his orientation toward the development of effective problem-solving behavior (Parsons et al. , I969), while the "hostility" of the sensitizer seems related to his orientation toward the evaluation of the quality of the interpersonal relationships. This interpretation receives added support from the research by Wilkins and Epting (1971), who found the sensitizer to function with a more highly differentiated (cognitively complex) interpersonal system than was true of the repressor. Thus in terms of an understanding of R-S on the basis of a differential reactivity to interpersonal events, it would be interpreted from these studies that the repressor typically reacts more to the task demands of an interpersonal activity, while

PAGE 71

59 the sensitizer characteristically reacts more to the quality of the interpersonal relationships. More data which relate to this conception of R-S can be gleaned from the examination of findings for hypothesis (3) • Hypothesis (3) referred to the data from the MACE. Again, attention should be given to the content and characteristics of this instrument, as it differs importantly from previous reported measures in R-S research. The MACE was described as a self -rating assessment of the "Generally stressful" and "Generally satisfactory" nature of experiences in response to specific features of life situations typical to married college students. As such, it differs from the perception of personal distress that characterizes the diagnostic orientation of MMPI -derived instruments. Essentially, it is oriented to the assessment of specific marriage experiences and environmental circumstances, not to the evaluation of disturbing personal behavior and feelings. There is another crucial difference between what the MACE assesses and what the psychodiagnostic instruments, on which the R-S rating is based, assess. Namely, the MACE requests a person to evaluate features of his environment that are shared to greater or lesser extent by another person his spouse. Thus, two persons are evaluating circumstances that are to some degree public and shared. For example, the following MACE items seem illustrative of this point as they ask a person to evaluate these features of his life:

PAGE 72

60 "Associating with other married students, Monthly earnings relative to cost of living, and Extent to which we share free time." These items stand in contrast to typical HOS (MMPIderived) items: "My hands and feet are usually warm enough, Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about, and At times I feel like swearing." The difference in content and orientation of the MACE permits the opportunity to assess whether the differences between repressors and sensitizers, in their evaluation of personal events, also extend to their evaluation of maritalexperiences and environmental events. It can be seen (Results, Table 5) that the sensitizer's pattern of assessing personal events as relatively more stressful also characterizes his assessment of specific marital circumstances. It thus appears that the sensitizer can be portrayed as a person who generally assesses both his own functioning and his life-situation as relatively stressful, while the repressor assesses his functioning and his life-situation as relatively satisfactory. An important trend that emerges from examination of the MACE ratio for each of the dyads is that their rating of marital and environmental stressfulness increases directly with the R-S rating of one's mate. For example, in looking at the stress/satisfaction ratio for the three sensitizer dyad groupings (Appendix F, Table 2), the stressfulness rating is higher when the mate is a neutral than when the

PAGE 73

61 mate is a repressor, and it is highest when the mate is a sensitizer. This general trend is apparent for each of the repressor, neutral, and sensitizer dyad groupings. It again appears that both the person's own R-S rating and that of his mate are influencing factors in the individual's perception of environmental stressfulness. Thus, the data derived from the MACE show results similar to those from the LockeV/allace that in a marital dyad both a person's R-S status and the R-S status of his mate relate to the over-all adjustment of their marital relationship. The comparable findings from both the Locke-Y'allace and MACE data, that marital adjustment is a function of the R-S scores of both spouses, add support to the following considerations: (1) that R-S represents more than a "response bias," and (2) that the same linear relationship that .was found between R-S and the endorsement of personal distress exists between R-S and the endorsement of marital-environmental distress. This latter consideration, that persons who endorse feelings of personal distress also endorse feelings of situational distress, provides compelling support for the argument that R-S denotes a "generalized" reactivity to features of one's life. The remainder of the hypotheses dealt with several questions pertaining to the relationship between R-S and aggressiveness in the marital dyad, and also to the question of congruency in the perception of one another's personal

PAGE 74

62 feelings and attitudes as related to R-S. The first finding (Hypothesis 5i Table 7) that the sensitizer in the RS dyad was significantly more successful in having his individual judgment endorsed by his mate was opposite to the stated prediction. It would seem to be compatible v/ith previous research which utilized group problem-solving situations (Parsons and Fulgenzi, 19685 Parsons, Fulgenzi, and Edelburg, 1969; and Cohen and Foerst, 1968) to infer that the sensitizer functions with greater aggressiveness in resolving conflicts. However, there are considerations which make this inference rather impossible to establish. The most important consideration is that the nature of the interaction during this task was much less experimentally restricted than in the previous experimental tasks. Consequently, styles of interaction other than "aggressiveness" could possibly account for the findings, e.g. passive -aggressiveness, dominance-submission, etc. Again, the fact that the present investigation utilized natural groups rather than experimentally created groups introduces another factor of unassessed importance. Also, the difference in the experimental tasks themselves could be another source of unknown variance. However, regardless of these considerations which render the making of inferences to be untenable, there is an important conclusion to be derived from this finding that the sensitizer had his judgment endorsed significantly more often than did the repressor. Namely, the previously

PAGE 75

63 uncontradicted conclusion that the repressor functions more aggressively in group interaction needs to be reexamined natural groups with focus on the history of the group, the group composition, the nature of the task, and the kind of experimental observation and data collected. By t: ie token it should also be stressed that the marital dyad nee to be studied under a variety of laboratory conditions relative to aggressive behavior and problem-solving behavior. The next two hypotheses (Hypothesis 6 and 7) dealt with data that were achieved in much the same fashion as in previous investigations of R-S and aggressiveness. That is, self-ratings for aggressiveness and ratings-of-spouse for aggressiveness were requested from both marital partners in response to Bales' statements. It was found in Hypothesis (6) that for the repressor there were essentially congruent evaluations between his self -rating of aggressiveness and the rating of him by his partner. However, for the sensitizer there was a significant over-estimation of his self-rating for aggressiveness as compared to his partner's rating of him. The latter of these two findings is comparable to previous results (Parsons and P'ulgenzi, 1968; and Parsons, Fulgenzi, and Edelburg, 1969) where sensitizers overestimated their aggressiveness. However, the former finding, where repressors were not rated by others as more aggressive than sensitizers, differs from the findings of these studies. One possible explanation of this difference might be the

PAGE 76

6k consideration that the marital relationship could represent an intervening factor that relates to differential aggressiveness on the part of the repressor. The finding by Carrera and Cohen (I968) that extreme sensitizers manifest significantly greater verbal hostility subsequent to a failure experience might point to the need for the repressor to accomodate himself to the verbal aggressiveness of the sensitizer by reducing his own aggressiveness. Also, the finding by Joy (19^3) that repressors were more concerned for maintaining harmonious group relations would seem to support the idea that the repressor would place priority on such accomodation, especially in his marriage. However, the finding that the repressor is not rated as more aggressive than the sensitizer in the context of the marital relationship remains discrepant from previous investigations. Hypothesis (7) revealed that the sensitizer rates himself to be significantly more aggressive than the repressor rates himself to be. Thus, not only does the sensitizer rate himself to be more aggressive than he is rated to be by his mate, but also that the level at which he rates himself is significantly greater than the level at which the repressor rates himself to be. This finding occurs in dyad relationships where there are no significant differences in how any of the subjects, regardless of their R-S rating, are rated by their mate. This finding of the sensitizer's exaggerated selfperception of aggressiveness seems consonant with the

PAGE 77

65 findings by Altrocchi et al. (i960) and Byrne et al. (1963)1 whore the sensitizer showed a significantly lower self-concept, and with the findings by Byrne and Griff itt (I969) where the sensitizer showed a significantly greater verbalization of "unpleasant descriptions of their internal state . . . ." These findings add support to the argument that in many situations the sensitizer functions with introjected feelings of a hostile or negative nature. The final data (Hypothesis 8) revea] the repressor to be more congruently perceived by his mate in regard to their evaluation of the stressful or satisfactory nature of aspects of their daily environment. These findings are opposite to the previously cited relevant study (Turk, 1963) which found the sensitizer to have his feelings more accurately perceived. It might be speculated that the present finding could relate to the fact that this study utilized naturally found, longterm, groups dealing with life-like tasks, while the majority of cited studies utilized experimentally created, short-term groups that dealt with human relations problems or common symbol tasks. Again it appears crucial that further studies need to be addressed to the issue of the generalizability of findings from such experimental groups to natural groups. It might be interpreted from the present finding that the repressor, who is more congruently perceived regardless of the R-S rating of his partner, functions in a more open manner, while the sensitizer functions in a more closed

PAGE 78

66 manner, vis-a-vis expressing positive and negative feelings. However, examination of the separated "Agreement scores" for each of the "Generally stressful" and "Generally satisfactory" categories (Appendix F, Tables 5 and 6) reveals that it is only with the "Generally satisfactory" items that there is a significant difference in congruency scores. It can be seen by these scores that the sensitizer is less well perceived in regard to his communication of "positive" feelings. Perhaps the sensitizer has special difficulty in the expression of positive feelings, in addition to the previously established fact that he also indicates significantly fewer "positive" feelings in the first place. The findings in the present investigation show that the repressor exhibits a more successful level of marital adjustment, a lower level of perceived environmental stress, less aggressiveness in marital conflict resolution, a lower level of self -perceived aggressiveness, and a higher level of congruence between his self -evaluation and his spouse's evaluation of him. These findings consistently support a linear relationship between R-S and all dependent variables. It has also been argued that aspects of these data support the notion that more than just a "response bias" explanation is necessary to characterize the differential ratings made by repressors and sensitizers. These findings appear to be complementary to other cited findings that reveal the repressor to be more concerned with

PAGE 79

6? maintaining group relationships, to have a more positive self-image, and to solve problems better in group situations. On the other hand the sensitizer was found to be more anxious, more troubled by conflicting interpersonal needs, marked by more finely differentiated interpersonal cognition, etc. These differentiating features characterize the sensitizer as a person more attuned to evaluative judgments, particularly in the area of interpersonal relationships. It might further be posited that this "sensitization" can interfere in the accomplishment of various personal and interpersonal goals because of the sensitizer's over-concern with the quality of interpersonal relationships. In this investigation the R-S concept v/as shown to have evolved from definition by a psychophysical criterion to the present psychometric criterion. This latter means of measuring R-S has been shown to reveal linear relationships rather than the theoretically predicted curvilinear relationships with various dependent factors. This empirically based rejection of the curvilinearity assumption would also seem to reject the conception of R-S in principally "defense mechanism" terms. Further, the findings from the present investigation, along with previous studies, would seem to support the conception of R-S in terms of both cognition and affection. That is, a theory more along the lines of the original "new look" studies, that included emphasis on both the relative sensitization (cognition) and the relative

PAGE 80

68 evaluative orientation (affection) would seem to better elucidate the R-S construct. The data from the present study would support such an understanding. It would thus seem that a conception of R-S as a generalized differential reactivity to features of one's personal and interpersonr environment would he appropriate to fit the data. The present data and the previously cited research indicate that some of the areas of differential reactivity would include reaction to stress, to failure, to problem-solving in a group, and to interpersonal conflict. A comment should be made regarding the conclusion by Carrera and Cohen (1968) that R-S appears to be a variable of relatively minor importance in small group interaction. The many significant findings in the present investigation certainly should establish the potential value of the R-S construct in examining process and outcome factors in natural groups. Perhaps the possibly premature rejection of the R-S construct is related to the previously described differences in investigative approach. This latter consideration should further establish the desirability of studying the relationship between personality variables and interpersonal processes within the context of natural groups, especially that of the marriage relationship. Finally, consideration should be directed to the possible implications for marital counseling that may be derived from the present research. If future investigations find comparable

PAGE 81

69 relationships between R-S and measures of marital satisfaction and adjustment, efforts v/ould then need to be directed to the issue of whether high R-S ratings lead to marital maladjustment, or whether maladjustment leads to high R-S ratings. While R-S could in either case be useful as an index of current functioning, it could also serve as a predictive indicator if it relc.ted to increasing marital distress. Therapeutic strategies might then be developed in the areas of personal and interpersonal functioning which have already been described as ones of apparent difficulty for persons with high R-S ratings, e.g. self-attitudes, expressing feelings, and conflict situations.

PAGE 82

APPENDICES

PAGE 83

APPENDIX A HEALTH AND OPINION SURVEY (INSTRUCTIONS) Date Marriage and College Life Project Code # This inventory consists of numbered statements. Read each statement and decide whether it is true as applied to you or false as applied to you. You are to mark your answers the answer sheet you have. Look the example of the answer sheet i at the right. If a statement is i on at hown TRUE Section of sheet corr marked T IJ 13 ansv/er ectly F ?r.or MOSTLY TRUE, as applied to you, blacken between the lines in the column headed T. (See A at the right). If a statement is FALSE or NOT USUALLY TRUE, as applied to you, blacken between the lines in the column hea.ded F. (See B at the right). If a statement does not apply to you or if it is something that you don't know about, make no mark on the answer sheet. Remember to give YOUR OWN opinion of yourself. Do not leave any blank spaces if you can avoid it . In marking your ansv/ers on the answer sheet, be sure that the number of the statement agrees with the number on the answer sheet . Make your marks heavy and black. Erase completely any answer you wish to change. Do not make any marks on this booklet. Remember, try to make some answer to every statement. NOW OPEN THE BOOKLET AND GO AHEAD. 71

PAGE 84

72 (HOS Statements) 1. I have a good appetite. 2. I wake up fresh and rested most mornings. 3. I am easily awakened by noise. ^. I like to read newspaper articles on crime. 5. My hands and feet are usually warm enough. 6. My daily life is full of things that keep me interested. 7. 1 am about as able to work as I ever was. 8. There seems to be a lump in my throat much of the time. 9. I enjoy detective or mystery stories. 10. Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about. 11, I am very seldom troubled by constipation. 12, At times I have fits of laughing and crying that 1 cannot control. 13. I am troubled by attackes of nausea and vomiting. 1^, I feel that it is certainly best to keep my mouth shut when I'm in trouble . 15. At times I feel like swearing. 16. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. 17. I seldom worry about my health. 18. At times I feel like smashing things. 19. I have had periods of days, weeks, or months when I couldn't take care of things because I couldn't "get going." 20. My sleep is fitful and disturbed. 21. Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over. 22. I do not always tell the truth. 23. My judgment is better than it ever was.

PAGE 85

73 24. Once a week or oftener I feel suddenly hot all over, without apparent cause. 25. I am in just as good physical health as most of my friends. 26. I prefer to pass by school friends, or people I know but have not seen for a long time, unless they speak to me first. 27. I am almost never bothered by pains over the heart or in my chest. 28. I am a good mixer. 29. Everything is turning out just like the prophets of the Bible said it would. 30. I do not read every editorial in the newspaper every day. 31. I sometimes keep on at a thing until others lose their patience with mc. 32. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. 33. I think a great many people exaggerate their misfortunes in order to gain the sympathy and help of others. 3^. I get angry sometimes. 35. Most of the time I feel blue. 36. I sometimes tease animals. 37. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. 38. I usually feel that life is worthwhile. 39. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth. 40. Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today. 41. I think most people v/ould lie to get ahead. 42. I do many things I regret afterv/ards. (I regret things more or more often than others seem to.) 43. I go to church almost every week. 44. I have very few quarrels with members of my family.

PAGE 86

74 45. I believe in the second coming of Christ. 46. My hardest battles are with myself. 47. I have little or no trouble with my muscles twitching or jumping. 48. I don't seem to care what happens to me. 49. Sometimes when I am not feeling well I am cross. 50. Much of the time I feel as if I have done something wrong or evil. 51. I am happy most of the time. 52. Some people are so bossy that I feel like doing the opposite of what they request, even though I know they are right. 53 • Often I feel as if there were a tight band about my head. 54. My table manners are not quite as good at home as when I am out in company. 55. I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others around me. $6. Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than to lose it. 57. The sight of blood neither frightens me nor makes me sick. 58. Often I can't understand why I have been so cross and grouchy. 59. I have never vomited blood or coughed up blood. 60. I do not worry about catching diseases. 61. At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I could speak them. 62. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen I would probably do it. 63. I commonly wonder what hidden reason another person may have for doing something nice for me. 64. I believe that my home life is as pleasant as that of most people I know.

PAGE 87

75 65. Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly. 66. My conduct is largely controlled by the customs of those about me. 67. I certainly feel useless at times. 68. At times I feel like picking a fist fight with someone. 69. I have often lost out on things because I couldn't make up my mind soon enough. 70. It makes me impatient to have people ask my advice or otherwise interrupt me when I am working on something important . 71. I would rather win than lose in a game. 72. Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas bothering me. 73' During the past few years I have been well most of the time . 7^. I have never had a fit or convulsion. 75. I am neither gaining nor losing weight. 76. I cry easily. 77. I cannot understand what I read as well as I used to. 78. I have never felt better in my life than I do now. 79. I resent having anyone take me in so cleverly that I have had to admit that it was one on me. 80. I do not tire quickly. 81. I like to study and read about things that I am working at. 82. I like to know some important people because it makes me feel important. 83. What others think of me does not bother me. 84. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others are doing the same sort of things. 85. I frequently have to fight against showing that I am bashful.

PAGE 88

76 86. I have never had a fainting spell. 87. I seldom or never have dizzy spells. 88. My memory seems to be all right. 89. I am worried about sex matters. 90. I find it hard to make talk when I meet new people. 91. I am afraid of losing my mind. 92. I am against giving money to beggars. 93. I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do something. 9^. I can read a long while without tiring my eyes. 95* 1 feel weak all over much of the time. 96. I have very few headaches. 97. Sometimes,, when embarrassed, I break out in a sweat which annoys me greatly. 98. I have had no difficulty in keeping my balance in walking . 99. I do not have spells of hay fever or asthma. 100. I do not like everyone I know. 101. I wish 1 "ivere not so shy. 102. I enjoy many different kinds of play and recreation. 103. I like to flirt. 10^. In walking I am very careful to step over sidev/alk cracks. 105. I frequently find myself worrying about something. 106. I gossip a little at times. 107. I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I am seldom short of breath. 108. I have at times stood in the way of people who were trying to do something, not because it amounted to much but because of the principle of the thing.

PAGE 89

77 109. I get mad easily and then get over it soon. 110. I brood a great deal. 111. I have periods of such great restlessness that I cannot sit long in a chair. 112. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself. 113. I believe I am no more nervous than most others. 114. I have few or no pains. 115. Sometimes without any reason or even when things are going wrong I feel excitedly happy, "on top of the world . " 116. I can be friendly with people who do things v/hich I consider wrong. 117. Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I know very little. 118. I have difficulty in starting to do things. 119. I sweat very easily even on cool days. 120. It is safer to trust nobody. 121. Once a week or oftener I become very excited. 122. V/hen in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about. 123. When I leave home I do not worry about whether the door is locked and the windows closed. 124. I do not blame a person for taking advantage of someone who lays himself open to it. 125. At times I am all full of energy. 126. My eyesight is as good as it has been for years. 127. I have often felt that strangers were looking at me critically. 128. I drink an unusually large amount of water every day. 129. Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke. 130. I am always disgusted with the law when a criminal is freed through the arguments of a smart lawyer.

PAGE 90

78 131. I work under a great deal of tension. 132. I am likely not to speak to people until they speak to me, 133I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful without any special reason. 13*4-. Life is a strain for me much of the time. 135. In school I find it very hard to talk before the class. 136. Even when I am with people I feel lonely much of the time. 137. I think nearly anyone would tell a lie to keep out of trouble. 138. I am easily embarrassed. 139. I worry over money and business. 1*1-0. I almost never dream. 1*1-1. I easily become impatient with people. 1*4-2. I feel anxiety about something or someone almost all the time. 1*1-3. Sometimes I become so excited that I find it hard to get to sleep. 14*1-. I forget right away what people say to me. 1*1-5. I usually have to stop and think before I act even in trifling matters . 1*1-6. Often I cross the street in order not to meet someone I see. 1*4-7. I often feel as if things were not real. 1*4-8. I have a habit of counting things that are not important such as bulbs on electric signs, and so forth. 1*1-9. I have strange and peculiar thoughts. 150. I get anxious and upset when I have to make a short trip away from home. 151. I have been afraid of things or people that I knew could not hurt me.

PAGE 91

79 152. I have no dread of going into a room by myself where other people have already gathered and are talking. 153. I have more trouble concentrating than others seem to have. 154. I have several times given up doing a thing because I thought too little of my ability. 155. Bad words, often terrible words, come into my mind and I cannot get rid of them. 156. Sometimes some unimportant thought will run through my mind and bother me for days. 157. Almost every day something happens to frighten me. 158. I am inclined to take things hard. 159. I am more sensitive than most other people. 160. At periods my mind seems to work more slowly than usual. 161. I very seldom have spells of the blues. 162. I wish I could get over worrying about things I have said that may have injured other people's feelings. 163. People often disappoint me. 16^. I feel unable to tell anyone all about myself. 165. My plans have frequently seemed so full of difficulties that I have had to give them up. 166. Often, even though everything is going fine for me, I feel that I don't care about anything. 167. I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up so high that I could not overcome them. 168. I often think, "I wish I were a child again." 169. I have often met people who were supposed to be experts v/ho v/ere no better than I . 170. It makes me feel like a failure when I hear of the success of someone I know well. 171. I am apt to take disappointments so keenly that I can't put them out of my mind.

PAGE 92

80 172. At times I think I am no good at all. 173. I worry quite a bit over possible misfortunes. 17^. I am apt to pass up something I want to do because others feel that I an not going about it in the right way. 175. I find it hard to set aside a task that I have undertaken, even for a short time. 176. I have several times had a change of heart about my life work. 17?. I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond reason over something that really did not matter. 178. I like to let people know where I stand on things. 179. I have a daydream life about which I do not tell other people. 180. I have often felt guilty because I have pretended to feel more sorry about something than I really was. 181. I feel tired a good deal of the time. 182. I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces.

PAGE 93

APPENDIX B LOCKE-WALLACE SHORT MARITAL ADJUSTMENT TEST Circle the dot on the scale line below which best describes the degree of happiness, everything considered, of your present marriage. 1. Very Unhappy Happy Perfectly Happy On the following items state the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your mate. Please circle the appropriate number for your response. Always Agree Almost Always Agree Occasionally Frequently Almost Always Disagree Disagree Always Disagree Disagree ± 2. Handling family finances 123 h 5 3. Matters of recreation 12 3 45 4. Demonstrations of affection 123 ^5 5. Sex relations 12 3 45 6. Friends 12 3 45 7. Conventionality (right, good, or oroper conduct) 12 3 k 5 8. Philosophy of life 12 3 45 9. V/ays of dealing with in-laws 12 3 45 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 10. When disagreements arise, they usually result in: husband giving in , wife giving in , agreement by mutual give and take . 11. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? All of them . Some of them . Very few of them . None of them 81

PAGE 94

82 12. In leisure time do you generally prefer: To be "on the go" . To stay at home ? Does your mate generally prefer: To be "on the go" . To stay at home ? 13. Do you ever wish you had not married? Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never 14. If you had your life to live over, do you think you would: i-iarry the same person , Harry a different person , Not marry at all ? 15. Do you confide in your mate? Almost never Rarely In most things In everything

PAGE 95

APPENDIX C MARRIA J COLLEGE ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY 1 (INSTRUCTIONS) Date Code #. Marriage and Co.' Life Project The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine those aspects of the college situation which are most commonly sources of s or satisfaction to married college students. On the basis of the information gathered we hope to aid the married stude ports will be presented to several different levels of v. '> : administration v/hich will focus attention on v he university may work more effectively toward improv i the Jiving, social, and academic conditions of married stud life. Your ansv/ers will be added to those of *IOO other cou . All of you have been specially selected so t] tie findings of this study will be representative ! " be of considerable importance. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. The items listed relate to aspects of your marriage or the college env." ant which are experienced as satisfying or as stressful. Consider each item and rate it according to what is generally true. If the aspect generally has been a source of satisfaction or gratification to you, rate it as generall?; sati If the aspect generally has been a source of s r dissatisfaction to you, rate it as generally stressful. If you feel that the item has neither been particularly satisfying nor s . . Ful, rate it in the appropriate category — neither. PI-EASE CONSIDER EACH ITEM CAREFULLY, and place in the " jr" category only those items which you feel have not affected you in a satisfying or stressful sense. The MACE has both a Husband and a Wife form that include a few statements that require an appropriate differentiation based upon the sex of the responder. The following statements are those comprising the Wife form. 83

PAGE 96

84 Rate as non-applicable those items which have not been part of your life experience. Example : If you have no children, items such as, "Amount of time spent with children, should be rated "non-applicable." However, other items such as, "Amount of encouragement you receive from your husband," should not be rated as "non-applicable." If you receive no encouragement from your husband, consider whether this lack of encouragement has been "generally stressful," "generally satisfying," or has had "neither" effect upon you. RESPONSE SCALE Generally Generally Non-applicable Satisfying Stressful Neither "(1) (2) (3) (4) EXAMPLE : (06) 12 3^ Amount of encouragement you receive from your husband If you find that this is generally a source of satisfaction to you, you should circle the number 2. The first two digits (06) are for purposes of identification and should be ignored by you.

PAGE 97

85 (MACE Statements) Please consider each item carefully and circle the appropriate number: RESPONSE SCALE Non-applicable (1) 06 07 08 09 10 2 2 2 2 2 4 Generally Satisfying (2) Generally Stressful (3) Neither w Associating with other married students Monthly earnings relative to cost of living Husband's having friends over frequently Extent to v/hich we share free time Financial expenses related to children 11 12 13 J 1 1 4 4 Ik 1 2 3 4 Working while going to school Availability of student financial assistance Amount of time your husband has available for family after studying Amount of time you have available for family after studying 15 12 3 4 Amount of time you take for personal recreation 16 17 18

PAGE 98

86 RESPONSE SCALE Generally Generally Non-applicable Satisfying Stressful Neither "(1) (2) (3) (4) 31 1 2 3 ^ Membership in cm-campus organizations 32 12 3 4 Adjusting to a lower income level 33 1 2 3 ^ Adjusting to social life and activities of the university 34 12 3 4 Attitude of university toward educational interests of wives 35 12 3^ Your not being able to complete your education 36 12 3 4 Degree to which you are pursuing your personal interests Buying on credit Your working full or part-time Attending cultural events with your husband Your social involvement with your husband's department Your social involvement with your department Varied schedules from quarter to quarter Other's caring for your children while you work or study V/ide range of attitudes, values, and beliefs on campus . Requirements of your husband's particular study program Requirements of your particular study program Your husband's relationship to faculty Your relationship to faculty Your husband's studying at home Your studying at home Impersonal nature of the university Competition within classes Your husband's grades Your grades Your husband's study habits Your study habits Studying with children present Preparation for quals or comprehensives Work on thesis or dissertation Effects of mobile situation on children 37 38 39 40

PAGE 99

66

PAGE 100

88 Non-applicable (1) RESPONSE SCALE Generally Satisfying (2) Generally Stressful (3) Neither (4) 11 12 3^ Extent to which your husband needs you 12 12 3^ Amount of encour ent you receive from your husband 13 12 3^ The prospect of future financial security lh 12 3^ Postponing things you both want to do 15 12 3^ Sharing responsibilities which are usually the husband • s 16 12 3^ Availability of student housing 17 12 3^ Help you received finding housing 18 12 3^ Friendliness and helpfulness of non-university people 19 12 3 4 Schools for your children 20 12 3^ Anticipation of how you will fill your role in relation to your husband's profession 21 12 3^ Living in a student village 22 1 2 3 k Living off-campus 23 12 3^ Amount of orientation university gives to married students 2k 1 2 3 ^ University-provided medical services for you and family 25 12 3^ Community-provided medical services for you and family 26 12 3^ Availability of employment for you 27 12 3^ Unanticipated expenses of a new environment 28 12 3^ Availability of employment for your husband 29 12 3^ Availability of cultural activities in this city 30 12 3^ Availability of bargain centers and discount stores 31 32 33 34 35 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 k k Amount of knowledge concerning this community before coming Available recreation outside of university atmosphere Finding babysitters Privacy from neighbors Cost of living in this city

PAGE 101

89 RESPONSE SCALE Generally Generally Non-applicable Satisfying Stressful Neither (1) (2) (3) (4) 36 12 3 4 Playground facilities for children 37 12 3 4 Day-care centers 38 12 3 4 Knowing that your stay here is temporary 39 12 3 4 Availability of playmates for your children 40 12 3 4 Adjusting during the first months of marriage 41 12 3 4 Husband's views on money matters, and his spending habits 42 12 3 4 Husband's interests and hobbies 43 12 3 4 Emotional ties with parents 44 12 3 4 Maturity of husband in accepting responsibility and handling problems 45 12 3 4 Your sex life 46 12 3 4 Amount of attention husband gives to the children Amount of attention husband gives to you Living far away from parents Husband's remembrance of sentimental occasions Husband's comments on your personal appearance Relationship with your in-laws Husband's ability to work out differences openly Amount of affection shown to you by husband Your understanding of how men think, react, etc. V/ay in which husband accepts your shortcomings, failures, etc. 56 12 3 4 Amount of knowledge of sex at time of marriage 57 12 3 4 Combining adjusting to marriage with going to school 58 12 3 4 Husband's display of moods and emotions 59 12 3 4 Ability to discuss and communicate v/ith each other 60 12 3 4 Openness in discussion of sex interests and concerns 61 12 3 4 Husband's habits and idiosyncracies 62 12 3 4 Working together on house repair, furnishing, etc. 63 12 3 4 Husband's possessive nature 64 12 3 4 Way in which problems and arguments are handled in your marriage 65 12 3 4 Your husband's health 47 48 49 50

PAGE 102

90 RESPONSE SCALE Generally Generally Non-applicable Satisfying Stressful Neither (1) (2) (3) W 66 12 3^ Marrying at the time you did 67 1 2 3 *JDiffering family backgrounds 68 1 2 3 ^ Learning on your own to be effective in marriage 69 12 3^ Your husband's expectations of you as a wife 70 12 3 4 Parental attitudes toward your getting married 71 1 2 3 ^ Husband's comparing you to other women 72 12 3^ How your expectations for marriage have worked out 73 12 3^ Mutual interests and activities 7^ 1 2 3 4Husband's asserting his individuality 75 12 3^ Husband's views on education 76 1 2 3 ^ Husband's idea of what your social activities should be Having close friends in common Manner in which you make decisions together Husband's religious beliefs and practices Husband's ability as a "handyman" 06 1 2 3 AFlexibility of husband to change, to accept new ideas 07 12 3^ Husband's need for material goods 08 12 3^ Competition with husband in spcrts, intellectual activities, etc. 09 12 3^ Husband's political viewpoints 10 12 3 4 Strong personality of husband 11 12 3 4Husband's occupational goals 12 12 3^ Effect of your religious beliefs 13 1 2 3 ^ Husband's maintaining neat appearance Ik 1 2 3 if Being (or the thought of being) a mother 15 12 3^ How decision was made regarding method of contraception 16 12 3^ Your present status of having (or not having) children 17 12 3^ Attitude of husband concerning family planning 18 12 3^ Possibility of an unplanned pregnancy 19 12 3^ The contraceptive being used 20 1 2 3 k First unplanned pregnancy 77

PAGE 103

91 RESPONSE SCALE Generally Generally Non-applicable Satisfying Stressful Neither (1) (2) (3) W 21 12 3 4 Second or third unplanned pregnancy 22 1 2 3 *JSide effects of contraceptive method 23 12 3^ Religious considerations in planning a family 2k 12 3^ Anticipation of your becoming pregnant 25 12 3 k Spacing of children 26 12 3^ Learning on your own how to be a parent 27 12 3^ The first weeks with your new baby 28 12 3^ Extent to which your husband shares in the care of the baby 29 12 3 4 Amount of knowledge of what to expect of children 30 12 3 4 Extent to which parenthood has had a maturing effect upon you

PAGE 104

APPENDIX D BALES' RATING SCALES (SPOUSE-RATING INSTRUCTIONS ) The next task is for you to rate your partner on several behavior categories regarding how he usually acts in interpersonal situations of problem-solving and conflict. Using your experience in the previous task as an example of such situations I would like you to rate your spouse on each of the items contained on the next page. Be as accurate as possible and make sure that you answer every item even if it is necessary to guess. These items are to be rated on a five-point scale. That is, a rating of 1 would indicate that particular behavior was "not displayed at all." A rating of 5 would indicate that behavior was "very strongly displayed." Read each item carefully and decide how strongly, if at all, that particular behavior is displayed by your partner in situations of conflict. Then write the appropriate number beside that category. (SELF-RATING INSTRUCTIONS ) Now, I would like you to rate yourself on the same categories that you just used to rate your spouse. Think of your behavior in such situations of problem-solving and conflict while using tonight's experience as an example of such situations. Again, read each item carefully and decide how strongly, if at all, that particular behavior is displayed by you in situations of conflict. Then write the appropriate number beside that category. 92

PAGE 105

93 (BALES Statements) Not Displayed Slightly Moderately Strongly Very Strongly at all Displayed Displayed Pi splayed Displayed 12 3 4 5 Beside each category, place the number you feel is most appropriate . 1. Shows tension release by joking, laughing, clowning, or "kidding." Includes remarks made to smooth over some tension. 2. Shov/s passive acceptance, is modest, humble, unassertive, retiring, and contributes little. 3. Shows active concern to arrive at solutions or decisions and to adopt a plan of action or resolution. b. Attempts to control, regulate, govern, direct, or supervise in a manner in which freedom of choice or consent for the other person is greatly limited or nonexistent. 5. Shows stubborn and resistive behavior. Is noncompliant, unwilling, or disobliging, and resists efforts or imagined efforts of someone to take some satisfaction from him. 6. Attempts to deflate others' status by overriding their conversation, interrupting, belittling, ridiculing, and making fun of them. ?. Attempts to excite, amaze, fascinate, entertain, shock, intrigue, or amuse others as a means of raising his own status. 8. Shows emotional reactions such as being cranky, uncongenial, touchy, irritable, and ill-tempered. Is aggressive, combative, belligerent, quarrelsome, or argumentative.

PAGE 106

APPENDIX E INVENTORY OF MARITAL CONFLICTS 1 CASE DESCRIPTIONS 1. (Same) Bob and Frank are good friends. Janis, aob's wife, likes Frank but is becoming increasingly annoyed with his unannounced and excessively long visits to their apartment, usually at mealtimes. She has suggested to Bob that he ask Frank to please phone before visiting, but her husband feels this would be insulting to his friend. Janis suggests that she might ask Frank to please phone before visiting, but this only makes her husband angry. After accusing his wife of interfering with his friendship, he refuses to discuss the matter further. 2. (Same) Cora doesn't really enjoy sexual relations. When she was first married she would avoid love making by telling her husband it was painful. More recently she has pretended to be tired when her husband has approached her. Now she has resorted to retiring earlier than her husband. Cora believes sex is an unpleasant subject that one does not discuss unless absolutely necessary, and she becomes furious when Jack insists they should talk about this problem. 3. (Wife) When Don finally arrives home from work he immediately sits down and makes himself comfortable with a can of beer and scatters his jacket, tie and shoes on the furniture and/or floor, where they stay until some time after dinner. After putting up with this sloppiness for a while, Francine asks Don to stop tossing his clothes around the apartment, even if he does eventually pick them up. Two days later, Don repeats his usual performance as if Francine had said nothing. When she mentions it again, an argument develops. The IMC has separate husband and wife forms for their initial judgments. The vignettes that have different versions for a given situation have both forms represented in this appendix. 9^

PAGE 107

95 3. (Husband) When Don finally gets home from work he takes off his jacket, tie and shoes, and makes himself comfortable with a can of beer. After dinner Don has a little more energy, so he goes back and puts away the various articles of clothing he has taken off. One day Francine tells Don he is sloppy and lazy and demands that he not leave clothes lying around, even for a short period of time. Two days later, Don forgets to do as his wife had demanded, and she angrily repeats her complaint. An argument develops. *K (Wife) Nina has been shopping around carefully for some time to find a pair of shoes she can afford that will go with her favorite dress. She finally finds a satisfactory pair of shoes and is happy to discover that they are on sale. She purchases the shoes and takes them home to show her husband, Peter. He does not care whether or not the shoes are satisfactory. He doubts that they are necessary at all and fails to understand their importance to her or how much trouble she has gone to in order to save money . 4-, (Husband) Nina has been looking for a pair of shoes to wear with her favorite dress. Upon finding a pair of shoes on sale, Nina just cannot resist and purchases them. Later that evening she shows her new purchase to Peter. He remembers that she already has many pairs of shoes and asks about the necessity of such a purchase at this time. Nina becomes outraged and accuses him of being cheap and inconsiderate. 5. (Same) Mark and Elaine have both been working since their marriage in order to live at a level which they feel to be comfortable. Occasionally, Elaine becomes depressed because she wants to have a child but knows that on Mark's salary alone this would be extremely difficult. Elaine's emotions get the best of her, and she accuses Mark of not being aggressive enough, implying that he is an inadequate provider. Mark was advised not to go to college because of scholastic difficulties and has done as well as could reasonably be expected, but his wife continually compares him unfavorably to his collegeeducated friends. Mark's self esteem is injured and an argument begins. 6. (Wife) A conflict has arisen between Jack and Colleen following a party with friends. During the party, Jack becomes involved with another woman and ignores his wife. Colleen feels hurt and attempts to discuss her feelings of being neglected but feels like she is not understood.

PAGE 108

96 6. (Husband) A conflict has arisen between Jack and Colleen following a party with friends. During the party, Jack talked to another woman, resulting in his v/ife becoming very angry. Following the party, Colleen angrily accuses Jack of intentionally ignoring her for the entire evening and becomes argumentative. 7. (Wife) Betty and Phil have been having marital difficulties for the past year. Betty is no longer reassured by having her husband minimize her unhappiness and wants to seek professional counseling. Phil, on the other hand, insists on holding off indefinitely before spending money on counseling. He says she is far too extravagant. In the weeks to come, many arguments arise because of their differing opinions. 7. (Husband) Betty and Phil have been having marital difficulties for the past year. One of the problems has been Betty's extravagance. Now Betty insists on immediately seeking costly professional counseling. Phil points out that there simply is no money to pay for such an expensive venture until they can cut down their expenses some place else. Betty will not hear of waiting until money is available, and many arguments arise in the weeks to come. 8. (Same) Jim routinely arrives home from work at 5 '00 PM and enjoys his dinner soon after his arrival. Susan has been a full-time housev/ife since the birth of their first child one year ago but still leaves her domestic chores undone. Jim has asked Susan if she would have the house clean and dinner prepared when he returns home. Upon arriving home, Jim again finds the ironing board with a pile of clothes in the living room, a dining table that has not been set, and his v/ife sitting on the sofa reading a magazine. Upon viewing the situation Jim appears discouraged, whereupon Susan accuses him of always finding fault with her and angrily storms into the kitchen. 9. (V/ife) It's Friday evening, and the Carter family has a dinner engagement, which had been made the previous week. Frank surprises his wife by getting home from work a half hour early and uses the bathroom continuously until it is almost time to leave. Since it takes Mary more than the few minutes Frank has left her to wash, comb her hair, and put on her makeup, it becomes obvious that they will be late for their appointment. Frank raises his voice and accuses her of always making them late. Mary tries to calm Frank down by saying that being a little late is not all that serious, but Frank just becomes more enraged and an argument develops.

PAGE 109

97 9. (Husband) It's Friday evening and the Carter family have a dinner engagement, which had been made the previous week, Frank comes home a half hour early so he can be sure to be ready on time. He showers, shaves and is dressed and ready to leave on time. But when it is time to go, Mary is still in the bathroom combing her hair and putting on makeup. Since Mary almost always makes them late this way, Frank becomes upset. Mary retorts that she isn't very concerned about being late since they always get where they are going sooner or later. 10. (Wife) Linda and Steve plan to take a weekend trip by car. V/hile Linda is driving Steve to work on Friday morning, Steve decides that the spark plugs need changing and that other minor adjustments should be made. He tells his wife to get the work done in time for them to leave that evening. Linda also has all the other preparations to manage for them and their two children but she manages to get the car to the garage and asks for a tuneup. On the trip, Steve hears a "Dinging" noise, discovers that the spark plugs are the same ones he had been using, and blames his wife for the soark plugs not bein^ changed. Linda feels that if he is going to be so picky about how things are going to be done, he should assume some responsibility for doing them himself. Steve tells her he was too busy. 10. (Husband) Linda and Steve plan to take a weekend trip by car< . while Linda is driving Steve to work on Friday morning, Steve hears a "pinging" noise and realizes that the spark plugs should be changed along with other minor adjustments. Since they plan to leave Friday evening and Steve has xo work, he has to ask his wife to take the car to the garage. Linda complains about the other preparations she says she has to make for them and their two children but says she will have time to take the car to tne garage, and agrees to do so. Later on the trip, Steve hears the "pinging" noise and realizes the soar': J lu p * ave n °t been changed. It turns out that Linda took the car to the garage but did not bother to mention the spark plugs. Linda says that if Steve doesn't like the way sne does things he can do them himself. Steve points out that he was unable to take the car to the garage and that when she agrees to do something she should 11 ' i!f if ?^ When Ch arlotte and Richard were living with RiS^-nS nf^'n* l0t ° f U1 Wil1 developed between Richard and his in-laws. Richard told his wife to stop talking so much with members of her family. When Charlotte's mother found out how Richard felt, she was

PAGE 110

98 hurt and said she thought Ri was out of place to make such a demand. Richard and Charlotte now have their own home but the situation continue . Richard will rarely visit his inlaws, so Charlotte's only regular contact with them is by phone. Charlotte usually speaks only to her mother and only phones her i. r when her husband is not around, but Richard is still not satisfied. Richard insists that Charlotte stop speaking with he.? mother. 11. (Husband) V/hen Charlotte an:". d were living with Charlotte's family, a lot of ill will developed between Richard and his in-laws. Ch tte told her parents just about everything that happened, and when Richard told her to stop, his mother-in-law said \ .& hurt and told Charlotte to keep Richard in place. Richard and Charlotte now have their own e, but the situation continues. Richard will rarely visit Ids in-laws, but whenever he is not around Charlo . ' s on the phone with her mother, passing on informati id receiving advice. V/hen Richard tells Charlotte that she should stop telling things to her mother, Charlotte becomes enraged. 12. (Same) Each night Larry pre ' . Judy that he will throw the garbage out after they finish dinner. Invariably, Larry forgets and leaves the kitchen without doing v/hat he has promised. Judy has felt 1 I the best thing to do is to throw the garbage away by herself and has been doing this later in the evening. When he notices this, Larry becomes angry with Judy, stating that this is his job. As Larry continues to follow his old habits, Judy begins to do the chore herself, only to be angrily criticized by her husband. 13. (Wife) At parties Nancy prefers the company of men to the other women and spends much of the evening with them because she finds them intellectually stimulating and shares many of their interest. Nancy finds at parties that the women's conversations are limited to housekeeping, children, etc. Nancy is upset by Bob's accusations that her behavior may lead to involvement in an affair or, at the very least, misinterpretation of her behavior by other people, which would cause gossip. She is deeply hurt by his lack of trust since she' is a devoted wife and would not consider an involvement with another man. 13. (Husband) At parties that Bob and Nancy attend, Nancy spends most of her time v/ith the men present and obviously enjoys being with them. Bob is very concerned and has tried to tell Nancy that her behavior is interpreted as flirtatious and could lead to a romantic involvement with another man. Nancy denies this, but Bob knows

PAGE 111

99 from his own experience that this type of thing does frequently happen and feels that she is being inconsiderate of his feelings by not giving up this behavior. Ik. (Wife) Jerry regularly comes home from work, eo.ts, and sits down in front of the television screen for the entire evening. Betty is cooped up in the house all day and feels that she will go crazy if she can't get out and have some sort of contact with other human beings. Jerry refuses to go out and so there is a disagreement between Betty and Jerry. 14. (Husband) When Jerry comes home from work in the evening he is tired and likes to relax over a pleasant meal. After dinner he prefers to be alone with his wife. However, Betty does not understand Jerry's unwillingness to go out after a hard day's work, and she is after him to go out partying in the evenings. She tells Jerry he is a lazy do-nothing. 15. (Wife) Dick and Diane have been married for three years. Dick likes his job and is anxious to get ahead. For the past year he has been voluntarily spending a great deal of time at his work. Diane feels that their marital relationship is deteriorating due to the lack of time they are able to spend together. She attempts to explain to Dick that financial success will be meaningless if their marriage is destroyed in the process. Dick cooly tells his v/ife that her response is so immature that it is pointless to discuss the subject further. 15. (Husband) Dick and Diane have been married for three years. Dick likes his job and is anxious to get ahead. For the past year he has been voluntarily spending a great deal of extra time at his work. Diane has repeatedly accused Dick of caring more about his job than he cares for her. Dick explains that his career is important to both of them and that it is necessary for him to work additional hours if he expects to get promoted. Diane refuses to listen to Dick's explanations and unreasonably demands that he substantially cut down his hours of over-time work. 16. (Wife) Tom claims to be worried about Betty's health because she smokes so much and has a cough. He gives her endless detailed lectures about health hazards and is always demanding that she stop or cut down. Betty realizes that she smokes too much and is trying to cut down, but Tom's continued badgering is no help. Tom apparently feels that because he stopped smoking without any difficulty, everybody else should quit too and should have no trouble doing so. He seems unable to understand

PAGE 112

100 that it is difficult for her to change her smoking habits and he says that if she really loved him she v/ould quit. Betty has tried to control herself and not get angry at Tom's continuous comments, but Tom goes right on lecturing to her and eventually there are a series of arguments. 16. (Husband) Tom is very concerned about his wife's smoking habits. Betty is a very heavy smoker and has a severe cough. Although Tom used to be a heavy smoker himself, he has now quit completely, so he is convinced that Betty could at least cut down. He has told her in detail about the health hazards involved in smoking and he has asked her to stop or at least cut down, if not for herself then because of her love for him. Betty's usual reaction has been to get sarcastic. She says she is trying but doesn't change. As a result there has been a series of arguments. 17. (Wife) Chuck is an ardent sport fan who spends every Sunday afternoon glued to the television screen watching football. His wife Betty is getting tired of being left by herself every Sunday, so she asks him to give up this part of his football watching and plans some Sunday activities for them together. Chuck not only refuses to give up any football, but he launches into a v/hole series of arguments to defend himself. He tells Betty that no one else's wife is as unreasonable as she is. He accuses her of spending her time watching soap operas while he is at work. He also tells her that since he works hard he should be able to watch football games if he wishes. Betty is upset by his attitude but continues to want him to spend Sunday with her. 17. (Husband) Chuck is a football fan who likes to watch the pro games on Sunday afternoons. His wife Betty is upset at this, so she plans a series of activities for them together on Sundays and tells him he will have to give up the football games. Chuck feels that this is an unreasonable demand. He points out that he works all week and should be entitled to a couple of hours of relaxation watching TV on Sunday. He reminds her that she watches many hours of soap operas during the week when he is at work. Chuck also reminds Betty that the other wives they know do not get so upset just because their husbands watch football. Betty, however, continues to be annoyed and insists that he stop watching games. 18. (Same) John has been out of college for three years and is able to provide a modest but adequate income for himself and his wife, Jean. They have been planning a vacation, which Jean has been enthusiastically anticipating.

PAGE 113

101 John has always been a stereo enthusiast and presently feels that he wants to improve his stereo by buying new speakers. If John proceeds with his plan, the vacation they have planned would be impossible. John states that he is the breadwinner in the family and deserves a luxury. He insists that as the man in the family, he should make the decision.

PAGE 114

102 (IMC INDIVIDUAL , ANSWER SHEET) Instructi ons : It is very important that I case you decide which spouse, either the husband Lfe, is primarily responsible ONE response for both PART unanswered. Comfor the problem. A and PART B. Do plete each case before goirj >n to the next item. You not

PAGE 115

103

PAGE 116

104 [ PART A Case iO. Conflict over car breakdovm while taking a short week-end trip. Who is primarily responsible for the problem ? Check One Husband V/ife PART B Which of the follov/ing would be a better way to resolve the conflict? Check Only One Should Linda thoroughly carry out her responsibilities once she has accepted them? OR is Steve being unreasonable in blaming his wife for the work not getting done? 11. Conflict over wife's conversations with her mother. Is Richard justified in becoming upset with Charlotte discussing matters with her mother? OR Should Charlotte be able to speak freely with her mother? 12. Conflict about the responsibility for throwing the garbage away. Is Larry neglecting his responsibility by not carrying out the garbage? OR Is Judy expecting too much by asking her husband to carry out the garbage? 13. Conflict over wife's conversations; with men at parties, Should Nancy realize that her behavior can be interpreted by other men as flirtatious and could unintentionally lead to further involvements OR Should Bob trust his wife and not be upset that she is enjoying the company of other men? 14. Conflict regarding evening entertainment. After working hard all day should Jerry be allowed to spend a quiet evening at home with his wife? OR Should Jerry understand and respond to Betty's boredom by going out in the evening?

PAGE 117

105

PAGE 118

106 (IMC JOINT JUDGMENT ANSWER SHEET) Instructions : Please read each case description and answer questions a, b, c and d for each case. Check the appropriate box in each colunn and do not leave an?/ questions unanswered .

PAGE 119

107

PAGE 120

103 (a)

PAGE 121

APPENDIX F TABLE 1-A Ranked Means of Locke-Wallace Ratings for All R-S dyads Rank Label Mean Test 1

PAGE 122

110 TABLE 3 -A Ranked Means of IMG "Win" Index for All R-S Dyads Rank Label Mean Test 1 RS 36^79 RS vs. SR .05 2 RN 48.23 3 SN 48.40 4 SS 50.00 5 RR 50.00 6 NN 50.00 7 NS 51.60 8 NR 51.77 9 SR 63.21 TABLE 4-A Ranked Means of Bales' "Difference Score" for All R-S Dyads Rank Label Mean 1 RN -0.70 2 NS -0.50 3 RR 0.05 4 RS 0.70 5 SS 1.10 6 NR 1.60 7 NN 1.85 8 SN 3.50 J) SR 3 .50

PAGE 123

Ill TABLE 5 -A Ranked Means of MACE "Agreement Score" for "Generally satisfactory" Items for Repressors, Neutrals, and Sensitizers Rank

PAGE 124

BIBLIOGRAPHY Altrocchi, J. Interpersonal perceptions of repressors and sensitizers and component analysis of assumed dissimilarity scores. J. Abnorm . Soc . Psychol . . 1961, 62, 528-53^. Altrocchi, J., Parsons, 0. A., and Dickoff, Hilda. Changes in self -ideal discrepancy in repressors and sensitizers. J. Abnorm . Soc . Psychol . . i960, 61, 67-72. Altrocchi, J., Shrauger, S., and McLeod, Mary. Attribution of hostility to self and others by expressors, sensitizers, and repressors. J. Clin . Psychol . , 1964, 20, 233. Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis : A method for the study of small groups, Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1950. Bruner, J. S., and Postman, L. Emotional selectivity in perception and reaction. J. Pers . , 1947, 16, 69-77. Byrne, D. The repression-sensitization scale: Rationale, reliability, and validity. J. Pers . . 1961, 29, 3343^9. Byrne, D. Repression-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research . Vol. I. New York: Academic Press, 1964. Pp. 169-220. Byrne, D. and Griffitt, W. Similarity and av/areness of similarity of personality characteristics as determinants of attraction. J. Exp . Res . Pers . , 1969, 3, 179186. Byrne, D. and Sheffield, J. Response to sexually arousing stimuli as a function of repressing and sensitizing defenses. J. Abnorm . Psychol . . 1965, 70, 114-118. Byrne, D. , Barry, J., and Nelson, D. Relation of the revised repression-sensitization scale to measures of self-description. Psychol . Rep . . I963, 13, 323-334. 112

PAGE 125

113 Byrne, D., Blaylock, Barara, and Goldberg, June. Dogmatism and defense mechanisms. Psychol . Rep . , 1966, 18, 739-7^2. Byrne, D., Golightly, Carole, and Sheffield, J. The repression-sensitization scale as a measure of adjustment: Relationship with the CPI. J. Consul t. P sychol . , 1965, 29, No. 6, 586-589. Byrne, D., Steinberg, M. A., and Schwartz, M. S. Relationship between repression-sensitization and physical illness. J. Abnorm . Psychol . , 1968, 73, No. 2, 154-155. Carrera, R. N. and Cohen, A. M. Discussion patterns of homogeneous groups of repressors and sensitizers following success and failure. Psychol . Rep . , 1968, 22, 7-14, Clarke, C. T. Marriage and college environment inventory. Personal communication. August, 1969. Cohen, A. M, and Carrera, R. N. Changes in the judgments of sensitizers and repressors in response to failure and success evaluations of group performance. J. Sp_c. Psychol ., 1967, 72, 217-221. Cohen, A. M. and Foerst, J. R. Organizational behavior and adaptations to organizational change of sensitizer and repressor problem-solving groups. J. Pers . Soc. Psychol . , 1968, 8, 209-216. Gayton, W. and Bernstein, S. Incompatible need strength and the repression-sensitization dimension. J. Clin . Psychol ., 1969, 15. No. 2, 192-19^. Gordon, J. E. Interpersonal predictions of repressors and sensitizers. J. Pers . . 1957, 25, 686-698. Joy, V. L. Repression-sensitization, personality, and interpersonal behavior. Doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Texas, Austin, Texas, I963. Lacey, J. I. Psychophysiological approaches to the evaluation of psychotherapeutic process and outcome. In E. A. Rubinstein and II. B. Parloff (Eds.), Research in psychotherapy . Washington, D. C.j American Psychological Association, 1959. Locke, H. I. and Wallace, K. M. Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Harr. and Fam. Living, 1959, 21, 251-255.

PAGE 126

McReynolds, P. Anxiety as related to incongruencies between values and feelings. Psychol . Rec . . 1953, 8, 57-66. Olson, D. H. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Washington, D. C, October, 19^9. Parsons, 0. A., and Fulgenzi, L. B. Overt and covert hostility in repressers and sensitizers. Percept . Mot . Skills , 1968; 27, 537-533. Parsons, 0. A., Fulgenzi, L. B., and Edelberg, R. Aggressiveness and psychophysiological responsivity in groups of repressors and sensitizers. J. Pers . Soc . Psychol . , I969, 12, 235-2^. Raven, J. C. Controlled projection for children. London: H. K. Lewis and Co., Ltd., 1951Strodtbeck, F. L. Husband-wife interaction over revealed difference. Amer . Soc . Rev ., 1951, 16, ^68-^73. Thelen, M. H. Repression-sensitization: Its relation to adjustment and seeking psychotheropy among college students. J. Consult . Clin . Psychol . , 1969, 33, No. 2, 161-165. Turk, H. Norms, persons, and sentiments. Sociometry , 1963, 26, 163-177. Wilkins, G. and Epting, F. Relationship between the R-S personality dimension and interpersonal cognitive complexity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Miami, Florida, March, 1971.

PAGE 127

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dennis Alvin Day was born June 2, 1944, at West Palm Beach, Florida. In Juno, 19&2, he graduated from Pompano Beach Senior High School, Pompano Beach, Florida. He enrolled in the University of Florida as a Robert 0. Law Foundation Scholar and was awarded a Bachelor of Arts with departmental honors in psychology in 1966. He then enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida in the Fall of 1966 as an NDEA Fellow to work toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. He completed his year's internship in clinical psychology at the Henderson Clinic of Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in September, 1971. In 1967, Dennis Alvin Day married the former Priscilla Elaine Ogle of St. Petersburg, Florida. They are currently residing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He is a member of the Broward County Psychological Association and Psi Chi. 115

PAGE 128

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, a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Q^v^ Benjamin Barger h Professor of Cha4\ Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in .
PAGE 129

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. Gerald R. Leslie Professor of Sociology 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. April, 1972 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 130

3^ / C\ 0> /SM27 17>117.