Citation
The interaction between friendship-based primary networks and sexually interdependent primary relationships

Material Information

Title:
The interaction between friendship-based primary networks and sexually interdependent primary relationships
Creator:
Mitchell, David L., 1961-
Copyright Date:
1992
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
27779181 ( OCLC )
AJM7683 ( LTUF )
0028700011 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN FRIENDSHIP-BASED PRIMARY NETWORKS AND SEXUALLY INTERDEPENDENT PRIMARY RELATIONSHIPS: THE DEVELOPMENT AND TEST OF A MODEL LINKING SOCIAL NETWORKS AND MICRORELATIONSHIPS
By
DAVID L. MITCHELL

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

1992




Copyright 1992
by
David L. Mitchell




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS,
The writer wishes to acknowledge the assistance and support of the many persons who played an active and supportive role in conducting this research.
The encouragement and counsel of Dr. John Scanzoni, the writer's committee chairman, are deeply appreciated. Sincere thanks are also extended to the other members of the committee, Dr. Anthony J. La Greca, Dr. Ronald Akers, Dr. Felix Berardo, and Dr. Robert B. Gaither.
Finally, the writer wishes to express a special note of thanks to his wife, Sue, his parents Stan and Barbara Mitchell, and his sister Debby Mitchell for their encouragement and support throughout this research.




TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................. ii i
ABSTRACT ..........................................v i
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.. 1
The Functionalist View of Sexual Behavior .........3
The Symbolic Interactionist View of Sexual
Behavior . . . . . . .* 4
Sexually Interdependent Primary Relationship
and Its Relevance to Family Sociology ...........8
Social Networks .............................11
2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM..................1 5
Aim of the Research ...........................1 5
The FBPR SIPR Model ........................ 20
Research Questions.......................... 25
Pilot Study ................................. 26
3 METHODOLOGY.............................. 30
Primary Sample .............................. 33
Sample Profile ............................. 37
Secondary Sample ............................ 37
Quantitative Data Collection .....................39
The Questionnaire ..........................40
Relationship Phase Questions ..................40
Time One Questions .........................41
Time Two Questions .........................42
Time Three Questions .......................43
Qualitative Data Collection ......................45
Data Analysis Procedures .......................49
4 RESULTS................................... 55
Changes in the FBPR Network Across Time .........55 Changes in the SIPR Across Time ................ 60
Conflict with Partner Over Friends ................63
Difference in Influence of FBPR Network and SIPR 65
5 DISCUSSION ................................ 71




CHAPTERS page
6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ................ 76
APPENDICES
A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER ........... 84
B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ........................ 87
C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .......................... 100
REFERENC ES ............................................. 101
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................... 106




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN FRIENDSHIP-BASED PRIMARY NETWORKS
AND SEXUALLY INTERDEPENDENT PRIMARY RELATIONSHIPS: THE
DEVELOPMENT AND TEST OF A MODEL LINKING SOCIAL NETWORKS AND MICRORELATIONSHIPS
By
David L. Mitchell
August 1992
Chairman: John Scanzoni
Major Department: Sociology
This research focused on the idea that micro and macro levels of the social world have a reciprocal influence on each other over time. The functionalist perspective holds that the regulation of sexual behavior is a function of the family for the order of the larger society. The interactionists, taking a microoriented approach, see sexual behavior being shaped through individual interaction. In reality, there is an interplay between the two perspectives.
This perceived "gap" in the two perspectives was bridged was by incorporating social networks as mesolevel representations of social structure. A model was developed which allows for the interaction between these networks and micro relationships. The model assumes that friendship-based primary networks influence individuals in the initial development of sexually interdependent




primary relationships and that during the subsequent development of those relationships the sexual partners' influence over the individuals becomes stronger than the influence of the friendship networks. This shift in influence makes it likely that an individual will affect strucural change in the network to allow the further development of the sexual relationship.
The test of this model was conducted by combining a mailed questionnaire survey with indepth interviews. The survey sample consisted of 101 married males living in married housing at the University of Florida, Gainesville. The indepth interviews were conducted using a subset of eight cases from the survey sample.
The results of this research suggest support for the idea that macro and micro levels of explanation of sexual relationships can be integrated into a dynamic explanation of how and why sexual relationships develop as they do. It was found that individuals are constrained by structural forces. Social interaction is constrained by the kind of structures that are operating on the individuals' interactions. It was further found that individuals can and do affect changes to the macrolevel components of their lives as they interact on an individual basis with a sexual partner. Over time, the individual changes the macro structures in his/her life so that the influence from these structures allows the individual to maintain a sexual relationship even though the formation and development of this sexual relationship was influenced by these structures.




CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Prior to World War 11, theories concerning sexuality were concentrated in the fields of psychoanalysis and biology. The premise of these theories was that humans have innate sex drives which pre-exist any form of social life (Turkle, 1979). As the post World War 11 era began, sociologists began to consider sexuality as a social phenomenon. This sociological interest in sex raised questions with the drive model. While not denying the conditions underlying the drive model, sociologists pointed out that biological drives cannot determine the way in which sexual needs are satisfied (Berger & Luckman, 1967).
The initial interest in sexuality from a sociological point of view was founded in the functionalist tradition. The functionalist model held that society needs to control how individuals express their sexuality (Putts, 1964, Parsons, 1965, & Beach, 1967). As the interest in sexuality continued to expand, researchers (Kinsey, Pomeroy & Martin, 1948, Kinsey, 1953) found empirical realities which led some researchers to question the structural-functional view.
The symbolic interactionist approach attempted to more fully explain empirical realities which were unaccounted for in functionalist models, e.g., that sexual behavior was shaped by interactions. The symbolic interactionists focused not only on




sexual behaviors per se but also on the processes that go into making a sexual relationship (Long & Hadden, 1985).
The functionalist perspective holds that the regulation of sexual behavior is a function of the family for the order of the larger society. On the other hand, the interactionists, taking a microoriented approach, see sexual behavior being shaped through individual interaction. In fact, there is an interplay between the two perspectives. With only one perspective, there is the possibility that an explanation of sexual behavior may be incomplete. For this reason, there is a need for developing a model which allows for their integration. As it currently stands, there has not been a great deal of effort to develop such a model (Stein, 1989).
This research addresses the problem of linking the micro and macro perspectives of sexual relationships. A model was developed which links micro and macro levels of analysis through the incorporation of network structures. The assumptions generated through this model were tested using data collected through the use of a survey questionnaire and face-to-face interviews. The data gathered through the use of the questionnaire were analyzed by determining the difference between levels of variables over time. In addition, the interview data were explored using qualitative analysis techniques. These two sets of data were combined to form the basis of conclusions concerning the validity of the model. Following the analysis, a discussion of the outcomes was presented and conclusions drawn as to the validity of the model and the application of findings toward further research in this area.




The Functionalist View of Sexual Behavior
The functionalist view of sexuality, as described by Parsons (1937, 1965), extended the psychoanalytical or drive model of sexuality to include cultural and structural explanations of sexual behavior. It held that people were driven to sex because of innate forces, but it was up to society to control the expression of these forces. This is illustrated by Pitts (1964), who states that hormonal changes do not have the overwhelming motivational force in humans as in animals. Humans have the capability of scheduling biological satisfaction which allows for the allocation of these satisfactions to social roles marked by reciprocity and exchange. Further, because of the genetic make-up of humans, "the most effective way of impregnating a woman is by ensuring cohabitation with a man for long periods of time" (Pitts, 1964, p. 58).
The functionalists believed that "every society shapes, structures, and constrains the development and expression of sexuality in all of its members" (Beach, 1977, p. 116). That is, there exists in society roles which pre-date the existence of the individual and into which the individual is socialized. Further, social institutions such as the family and religion are the source of these roles and the norms which govern sexual expression (Stein, 1989).
According to Davis (1971) the regulation of sex is essential because it has the potential of creating a new human being. What the normative system does is to link coitus with the institutional mechanisms that guarantee the bearing and rearing of children. Also, a person's desirability as a sex object is a valuable but scarce




and perishable good. This being the case, the normative system provides an orderly distribution of rights in the use of this good. Sex roles are subordinate to the family in that they support the formation and continuance of families or at least do not interfere with them. In other words, by governing sex, society also governs the form of the sexual patterns in the society. "Real societies," according to Davis (1971), have a moral preference for durable marriage and they manage to give priority to the marital bond as the normative pattern for sexual control. This pattern universally links sex regulation with the family in that coitus is obligatory within marriage. Davis (1971) claims that females desire pre-marital sex because they have an intense desire to get married and further, Davis also claims that illegitimate births result from an unsuccessful effort to trap a man into marriage.
The key to understanding why norms regarding sex exist as
they do is found in the functions they provide. Pitts (1964) believed that the basic functions of the nuclear family, defined as "the socially sanctioned cohabitation of a man and woman who have preferential or even exclusive enjoyment of economic and sexual rights over one another and are committed to raise the children brought to life by the woman," (p. 56) are to maintain its members in physical and mental health to reproduce and to socialize the children. In order to fulfill these functions, society must regulate sexuality through approved sexual relationships.
The Symbolic Interactionist View of Sexual Behavior
While the functionalists see norms and roles as determinants of sexual behavior, the symbolic interactionists believe that




people's sexual behaviors are created through an interactive process of developing "sexual scripts" (Gagnon & Simon, 1973). Sexual scripts are the conditions that define and control the outlet of sexual behavior. The sexual potential of any situation becomes effective only when the situation is defined as appropriate anA the partner is sexually available. The elements of these definitions, or the sources of the sexual scripts, are found in the attributes of both the situation and the actors. Individuals are motivated to seek out sexual gratification. The processes of socialization are how a person learns the scenarios available to achieve this end. These scenarios provide behavioral guidelines to which a person can match his or her sexual orientation. The departure from functionalism becomes evident at this point, in that sexual behaviors arise from these social interactions rather than from preexisting structural constraints. Unlike the functionalist, the interactionist allows for the creation of scripts and scenarios through interaction and thus can take into account the fact that persons' sexual behaviors change over time. The functionalist notion of the family as a rigid institution is, in this sense, seen simply as the patterns of interaction that are occurring at a given time and place. The idea that sexual scripts are developed through interactions was inspired, in part, because functionalists could not account for the empirical realities of sexual variance in society.
The Kinsey studies (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948, Kinsey, 1953) were a series of surveys of the sexual behavior of middleclass Americans and correlated such activities as masturbation, homosexuality, and premarital sex with age, class and gender




variables. The data revealed a significant diversity of behavior within the United States, evidencing a great disparity with the accepted social norm of procreative, heterosexual intercourse. In placing homosexuality and heterosexuality on a continuum, these studies determined, for instance, that there was a much greater incidence of homosexual activity, particularly among men, than was popularly believed to exist. There were, however, serious flaws in the methods employed by Kinsey. For example, the overestimation of rates of homosexuality due to the fact that there was a large number of prisoners involved in the sampling. This fact did not prevent the findings from serving to relativize sexual behavior and discredit notions of pathology, calling into question rigid sexual norms and laying the foundation for more wide-ranging sex research.
The Kinsey reports seemed to reflect what the interactionists believed, that is, that much sexual behavior exists outside the family. This is not to say that the functionalists did not recognize extrafamilial sex, only that where the functionalists viewed this type of sex as either deviant or a function of some other deviance whereas the interactionists viewed this type of sexual behavior as normal. This allowed the research of sexual behavior and sexual relationships to be conducted outside the area of deviance. Like society, the family was seen as a process which changed over time and whose essential nature was created and influenced by the individuals within it (Burgess, 1926). Through the development of models of human agency or construction ism, a distinct difference in the focus of sexual behavior patterns was created.




What becomes important to the symbolic interactionists are the processes that go into making a sexual relationship and what determines the sexual script. This focus on process was a shift away from the idea that sexual behavior, and further, sexual relationships are guided by social structure, to a notion that perceived social structures, for example, the nuclear family, are no more than the culmination of individual interactions. "in this way, interactionists shifted the research emphasis from sexual roles~. to the looser notion of sexual jidenatity.--from showing how social norms constrain and shape the sexual impulse, to showing how individuals, as active agents, negotiate sexual conduct through social interaction" (Stein, 1989, p. 7).
Social interaction, as defined by Turner (1988), is a situation where the actions of one actor are reorganized by and conversely influence the behaviors of another actor. Turner further defines behavior as movements, deliberations, and physiological processes of individuals: "At its most intense level, then, social interaction is the process whereby the overt movements, covert deliberations, and basic physiology of one individual influences those of another, and vice versa" (Turner, 1988, p. 16).
Social interaction, according to Turner (1988), can be broken down into three distinct processes. First, there is the motivational process whereby people are seen as willing to expend energy to interact with others. Second, the interactional process is what people actually do when they influence others. Third, structuring, or structuration, is the process by which social interactions are repeated across time as well as organized in space (Turner, 1988).




Turner (1988) also analyzes the clash between micro and macro perspectives. Part of the reason for this conflict is that when addressing the topic of structure, theorists become too macro and overemphasize long-term interactive patterns. Functionalists tend to err in this direction. This is due to the fact that they recognize patterns of interaction and reify these patterns of interaction and thus these structures become forces in the determination of sexual relations. On the other hand, when connecting these macro dimensions of structure to individuals, they typically become too micro and "delve into the properties of human consciousness and cognition" (Turner, 1988, p. 149). This is how the interactionists tend to err when dealing with sexual relationships. Interactionists tend to overlook structural aspects of determination because of the preoccupation with individual interaction. The result is an inability to both conceptualize the macro structural order and the inner-workings of individual mental processes.
Turner (1988) believes the gap between macro and micro
sociology is probably wider than necessary. "All that remains, then, is a synthesis of these works into a composite model of structuring that suspends consideration of how to bridge the micro-macro gap" (Turner, 1988, p. 150).
Sexually Interdependent Primary Relationship and Its Relevance to Family Sociology
In the conceptualization and measurement of what Turner (1988) called structuration, a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches might be utilized. One useful way of addressing the concept of structuring is by utilizing what Scanzoni




(1991) refers to as primary relationships. The term primary relationship is used as a "generalizing construct" for explaining the interdependencies which circumscribe the institution of families (Scanzoni, 1991). According to Scanzoni (1991), primary relationships exhibit five distinguishing characteristics. These are: 1) emotion, 2) form, 3) time, 4) social network, and 5) interdependency.
Emotion, the first characteristic, can range from the strongly positive to the strongly negative. These emotions may include fierce and intense feelings connected with obligations, jealousy, love, resentment, and hate, among others. The second characteristic, form, pertains to the way in which face-to-face interactions occur. In situations where face-to-face contact is not possible, other types of contact may become "functional equivalents" (letters, phone calls, etc.). The third feature, time, is composed of frequency, which is the number of contacts within specified intervals and duration which refers to the ongoing interaction. Certain interactions distinguish the primary institution (family) from the political and economic institutions. These interactions include sexual, intrinsic, extrinsic, and formal types. These four sets of interactions are not mutually exclusive and may or may not overlap at certain times. Lastly, there is the social network which refers to primary relationships which over time have ongoing reciprocal impacts on one another. These networks are said to be mesolevel structures mediating between the macro environment and micro interactions (Scanzoni, 1991).




Scanzoni (1989) identifies, among others, seual interdepende~nt (SIPR) and friendship-based (FBPR) primary relationships. Sexual interdependence refers to the perceptions of the individuals in a primary relationship regarding consensual sexual access. The SIPR, in its development, is said to move through three different and distinct phases. These are: 1) formation, 2) maintenance/change, and 3) dissolution (Buckley, 1967, Scanzoni, 1989). The formation phase is characterized by the presence of a perception of the prospects of sexual exchange with someone with whom intrinsic interdependence is already being maintained. In other words, the formation phase describes a situation in which there is a perceived likelihood that coitus may occur and that the relationship might become a sexually interdependent one.
The second phase, maintenance/change (M/C), involves sexual interdependence, conflict resolution, explicit decision-making, and behaviors aimed at the maintenance of the relationship. It is at this point that the persons involved in the relationship are considered sexual partners. In the M/C phase, one or both partners may seek to negotiate changes regarding some issue while other issues are being maintained. The effectiveness of these negotiations and the acceptability of their outcomes defines this change and maintenance process. Effective negotiations and acceptable outcomes are indications that a relationship is in this phase. This process of interacting to maintain the relationship is what has been defined by Turner (1988) as sttu~ing.




This structuring process does not produce a "real" entity in a Durkheimian manner but rather is a process of producing and reproducing interactive responses. These responses, once created, become a "mental template" for determining how individuals will interact at a later time (Turner, 1988). In effect, a structure is being created and will be recreated until acted upon by outside forces. "Thus, the process of structuring is, on the one hand, an overt patterning of behaviors in time and space and, on the other hand, a mental modeling of information about what interactive sequences apply to varying types of situations" (Turner, 1988, p. 149).
The third phase in the development of an SIPR is dissolution, defined as the gradual undermining of the bonds of the relationship owing to low levels of effective and acceptable negotiation, reduced control of participation in effective negotiation, and a lowered sense of well-being.
Social Networks
While sexually interdependent relationships exist, they do not exist in isolation from other types of relationships. In other words, people are involved in more than one relationship at a time, albeit other than sexually interdependent ones. The existence of these multiple relationships gives rise to the concept of networks. By the introduction of the construct of networks, it is possible to gain insight into how the structuring of a sexual relationship occurs given that the individual is involved in other "sets" of relationships or networks.




In presenting a description of the types of networks to which individuals belong, the "structural properties" of these networks must be described, namely size, density, frequency, and duration. Size refers to the number of similar relationships (by similar, it is meant that the basis for these relationships is the same, for example, friendship-based) in which a person is involved outside of the sexual relationship. Density is described as the degree of commonality of relationships within a network (i.e., the greater degree to which members of a network interact with one another in that network). Frequency denotes the sum of the interactions which occur between PERSON and other members of the network. Duration is the span of time over which these interactions occur.
In 1957, Elizabeth Bott distinguished between two types of social networks, those she called "close-knit" and those she called "loose-knit." Each of these types consisted of a different structure and, therefore, had an impact on the way married couples carried out their roles. Her hypothesis was that the degree of connectedness, or how close-knit a network is, is directly related to the amount of role segregation in a marriage.
Bott (1957) believed that persons who come from close-knit or connected networks were more likely to have segregated roles in their marriage. She referred to the consensus of norms in closeknit networks as exerting informal pressure on members to help one another. In this sense, then, couples were constrained to seek emotional and other assistance from their respective networks and not from each other.




This hypothesis, however, was not supported by Rogler and Procidano (1986). They suggested that Bott's hypothesis was too vague and failed to "include independent variables reflecting historical changes in socio-culture and economic forces" (Rogler and Procidano, 1986, p. 700). Another criticism of Bott's hypothesis is that she did not attempt to distinguish between the types of networks to which each individual may belong.
Fischer (1982) and Milardo (1988) have taken this step in
trying to identify distinct types of networks and the function each serves. The first type of network is the exchange network which consists of relations that involve the sharing of activities, providing material and emotional assistance or both (Fischer, 1982). Milardo (1989, p. 165) calls these networks psychologiQal networks, "collections of people who are considered important and perhaps intimate 'friends' by target individuals." These networks are made up of those relationships which are primary. The idea is that all the primary relationships in which an individual is involved make up these networks. These will be referred to as primary networks for the purpose of this research.
The other type of network discussed by Milardo (1988) is the interactive network. This type of network consists of those relationships which are more or less secondary to the individual. They are made up of persons with whom the target individual has some degree of "superficial" interaction, such as coworkers, acquaintances, and some kin. Because secondary relationships lack one or more of the essential properties of primary relationships,




secondary networks are described as not having the same type and same level of impact on individual members as primary networks.
There are those who perceive the network structure as a
determinant of individual behavior (Wellman, 1989), and those who believe that changes in the network are produced by individual interactions within an SIPR (Banck, 1973). In seeking to clarify the idea of networks for sociologists, Wellman and Berkowitz (1989, p. 4) offer this solution, "Network analysis is neither a method nor a metaphor, but a fundamental intellectual tool for the study of social structures . and that social structures can be represented as networks--as sets of nodes and sets of ties depicting their interconnections." Although Wellman and Berkowitz reject "cultural realism," Pescosolido and Georgianna (1989) used networks to replace "society" in their recasting -of Durkheim's theory of suicide, furthering the use of networks as a working "tool" for sociological research.
The social network as a tool for sociological research is
evidenced in the fact that by locating persons in relation to their networks, "we can make some useful estimates as to who and what they know, the resources to which they have access, the social constraints on their behavior, and how they are likely to think and act" (Wellman & Berkowitz, 1989, p. 16).




CHAPTER 2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Aim of the Research
It has been suggested that micro and macro factors may have a reciprocal influence on each other over time. Milardo (1988, p. 145) states that some social scientists "[H]ave long subscribed to the notion that individuals are as active in constructing their environment as they are reactive and defined by it." This suggests that possibilities exist for research to describe these reciprocal influences. For instance, what conditions in the environment might serve to constrain or to enable the way in which individuals interact within relationships (Giddens, 1981)?
Modell (1989) argues that young people have increasingly taken control of the youthful life course, encouraged by ideological currents. As a result, peer group oversight of youthful heterosexual relationships has retreated, leaving couples to do what seems right (Modell, 1989). The peer group, or primary network, has developed into a structure which supports behaviors which were previously considered deviant. Krohn (1986) furthers this notion by stating that "We need not think of constraint being only in the direction of conventional behavior. Rather, the nature of the constraints on behavior depends on what is necessary for the continuation of network relationships" (Krohn, 1986, p. 581).
There is an interplay between dyadic relationships and
networks which has been demonstrated in research. Surra (1985)




found that persons maintained their network relationships more or less depending upon their level of commitment to marriage. In a similar fashion, Milardo, Johnson, and Huston (1983) found that frequency and duration of interactions with network members are strong indicators of changes in social participation with network members, concurrent with an advancing or deteriorating close relationship.
Johnson and Leslie (1982) reported that in a college dating population, romantically involved couples who are dating consistently reported a decrease in the number of friends in their networks, and a decrease in the level of involvement with those friends as their "courtship" progressed. These findings tend to suggest a social "regression" as suggested by Slater (1963), namely that long-term effects of a developing relationship involve the reduction in the size of social networks, and the short-term outcomes include reductions in the frequency and duration of social interactions.
As Stein (1989, p. 11) points out, "Sociologists have yet to put forth a more nuanced sense of social and individual determination which links the-micro and macro levels of sexuality." She further argues that any attempt at creating such a model must be achieved with a complementary reworking of the idea of structure. It can be argued, she contends, that cultural scenarios enabling sexual practices to occur are "embedded" in social institutions (Stein, 1989). Giddens (1982) furthers this structuring concept by recognizing a duality of structure. This duality of structure is as the recursive character of social life: "The structural properties of




social systems are both medium and outcome of the practices that constitute these systems" (Giddens, 1982, p. 37). Social patterns encompassing sexual behaviors are thus seen as practices or points of articulation between persons and structures. In this sense there exists a "dialectical" relationship between the "objective structures," or template in Turner's language, and the cognitive and motivating structures of persons that they produce and that tend to produce them (Stein, 1989).
The purpose of this research is to develop and test a model
which describes "duality" between sexually interdependent primary relationships (SIPR) and friendship-based primary relationship (FBPR) networks. In other words, an explanation is developed regarding how an individual's capability to structure an SIPF? is influenced by the primary network of the individual and how, over time, the primary network is affected by the structuring of that SIPR. The primary network surrounding PERSON's sexually interdependent primary relationship included in this research will be the network consisting of friendship-based primary relationships (FBPR). Researchers have acknowledged that the structural properties change as sexually intimate relationships develop. They report changes in size, density, frequency, and duration of network interactions and these are discussed in descriptive terms. However, what is lacking is a sense of yday. or hD these changes occur. The model presented in this research provides an explanation of the changes in the structural properties of the networks through the concepts of influence, both structural and individual. In so doing,




this research advances the research on networks by offering a plausible explanation of what factors determine network change.
The intention of this research in using FBPRs was to address a need for inclusion of friendship-based studies in broader sociological research and theory. Friendship is a relationship to which great personal and cultural importance is attached. Friends help to provide a sense of identity and confirm social worth. The value of friendship in society is indicated by the popularity of various media hints and advice on how to make and keep friends (Allan, 1989). However, there has been relatively little serious analysis of friendship as a form of personal relationship (Hess, 1979). Cohen and Rajkowski (1982) portray friendship as a freely chosen, voluntary and expressive relationship. Generally, when friendship is the topic of study, it tends to be viewed in isolation from other social processes. "in other words, it is usually not integrated into an analysis with any wider empirical or theoretical significance, but in a distinctly asociological fashion just examined for its own sake" (Allan, 1989, p. 3).
Also important to this research is the concept of norms. A
problem with developing models which utilize "normative" concepts is that, in the past, norms have tended to be conceptualized as expectations which are consensually accepted and unambiguously tied to social positions (Giddens, 1984). They were "givens," with no attempt made to explain their origins. As such, these norms act as guides of conduct for role behavior of individuals occupying a given status in the social system. Seen in this way, norms pre-exist the individual and are, thus, reified. However, the fact that people




do have organized lives and structured patterns of behavior, follow rules, and conform to these rules, demonstrates that norms do, in fact, have operative force.
Norms not only describe rights and obligations, but also more generalized interpretive schemes" (Giddens, 1984). Giddens (1984) provides three points of emphasis when discussing the normative element of structuring. First, norms are catalogued stores of information about obligations, rights, duties, and interpretive perspectives. Second, the generative nature of norms means that understanding exists concerning procedures by which normative information is categorized, stored, retrieved, assembled, and reassembled for use. Third, situational responses are ordered by the use of normative stores of information about rights, duties, obligations, and interpretations.
These three points stress "the generative and transformable nature of normative behavior as actors actively negotiate, or as is often the case, renegotiate their general interpretations of, and respective obligations in, specific context" (Turner, 1988, p. 157). Even when individuals confront situations where options are very limited and where clear and consensual rules exist to explain what should occur, these established normative expectations constitute a general framework for interpretation and action. In general, according to Turner (1988), persons are highly motivated to "1normatize situations" because it enables them to structure their interaction to meet basic motivating needs. In addition, normatizing facilitates the operation of other structuring processes (Turner, 1988).




For the purposes of this research structuring will be viewed as a situation of established norms. For this research, norms are defined as the perception of PERSON that PERSON knows what is expected by both friends and PARTNER of his/her behaviors and attitudes regarding interaction in these relationships. While over time norms change, it is reasoned that at any moment in time or relatively short span of time, norms can be viewed as being "fixed." This allows for a definition of structuring as: 1) a fixed or stable set of norms, 2) a fixed attitude on the part of PERSON regarding perceived obligations to the maintenance of these relationships, and 3) the presence of a perception on the part of PERSON that there exists stable patterns of interaction, including face-to-face interaction and interaction via non-face-to-face correspondence. These last two parts of this definition represent indications that norms are, in fact, present and give some clues as to what the norms are.
The FBPR SIPR Model
In order to explain the reciprocal influences of SIPRs and
primary networks, a model has been developed and is represented in Figure 1. This Figure illustrates how, over time, an individual's entry into and development of a sexually interdependent primary relationship (SIPR) is influenced by the structuring of friendshipbased relationships within the primary network and how, ovrime, the structuring of an SIPR influences how the individual interacts with network members. It is assumed that the relationships within the FBPR network are currently in a M/C phase.




TIME I FBPR's
PRE-FORMRT I ON PHASE

TIME 2 FBPR's
FORMAT I ON PHASE OF SIPR

TIME 3

TIME 4

FBPR's FBPR's
MAI NTENANCE/CHANGE MAI NTENANCEICHANGE PHASE OF SIPR PHASE OF SIPR

I FBPR's S IPR 0r
.0

- Friendship-Based Primary Relationship Network
- Sexually Interdependent Primary Relationship The presence of structuring
- The influential effects of structuring
- PERSON
- PROSPECT
- PARTNER

Figure 1. Model for the interaction between FBPR network and SIPR.
During Time 1, PERSON is currently not involved in an SIPR.
The double arrow represents the structuring which exists between PERSON and FBPRs in the primary network. What occurs as a result of this structuring is a set of norms which serve to influence PERSON's behavior and attitudes. By influence it is not meant that PERSON is limited in choice of behaviors, but rather, given a choice between two options of behavior, one option which conforms to the norm, the other is in conflict with the norm, the likelihood of choosing the option which opposes the norms would be less than




selecting the conforming option. This is indicated by the double arrow between FBPRs and PERSON. This leads to ASSUMPTION 1 which states: When PERSON is not involved in an SIPR, the norms which influence the way in which PERSON conducts him or herself and the attitudes about how one should conduct him/herself stem from the structuring which is taking place in the relationships within PERSON'S FBPR network. The norms present in this structuring represent behaviors and attitudes which are acceptable to PERSON because they have been agreed upon, and therefore, PERSON will use these norms as guides for how to interact with others. This does not mean that PERSON'S interactions are necessarily the same across FBPRs. The fact that PERSON may relate differently to each friend does not change the idea that PERSON will be influenced by the norms of those relationships. Lacking the presence of an SIPR, those interactions will remain constant.
During Time 2, PERSON enters into the formation phase of an SIPR. The way in which PERSON interacts with PROSPECT will be guided by the norms which have developed in the structuring between PERSON and network members during Time 1. Thus, the double arrow between FBPR and PERSON remains. The one-sided arrow between PERSON and PROSPECT represents FBPR network influence on PERSON. As the formation phase of the SIPR continues, PERSON and PROSPECT begin to develop norms for their interaction.
ASSUMPTIONS 2a and 2b stem from what is happening between PERSON and the FBPR network and PERSON and PROSPECT during Time 2. ASSUMPTION 2a states: When PERSON enters into an SIPR




and this SIPR is in its formation phase, the patterns of interaction between PERSON and FBPR network members will remain constant relative to those patterns of interaction during Time 1. This structuring will act as a guide for the way in which PERSON interacts with PROSPECT whereby PERSON will not violate the norms of the FBPR network. The behaviors PERSON exhibits in interactions with PROSPECT will reflect those behaviors that would be expected by the FBPR network.
ASSUMPTION 2b states: During the formation phase of the
SIPR, PERSON and PROSPECT begin the process of developing norms within the SIPR. They begin to formulate, often implicitly, what behaviors are acceptable as well as attitudes conducive to the interaction.
During Time 3, PERSON and PROSPECT become PERSON and
PARTNER, and the SIPR moves to M/C phase. This change is marked by the occurrence of a sexual partnership and often the time when PERSON announces the partnership to network members. Also, at this time, structuring occurs between PERSON and PARTNER. This is represented by the double arrow between PERSON and PARTNER. That is, PERSON and PARTNER create and recreate norms for their interaction. This structuring gives PERSON a "mental template" which acts as a guide for how PERSON interacts with members of the FBPR network. Thus, PERSON, being influenced by the structuring of the SIPR, begins to institute normative changes in the FBPR network such that the "normatizing" within the FBPR network will have the effect of reducing the level of influence that the FBPR network has on PERSON in the SIPR. It is here that structural




changes in the FBPR network begin to occur, e.g., a reduction in the size of PERSON'S FBPR network. This means that rather than, as in Time 2, PERSON'S interaction with PROSPECT being influenced by the norms of the FBPR network, PERSON'S interaction with the FBPR network is now being influenced by the norms present in the SIPR. Therefore, the single arrow between PERSON and FBPR network is pointing toward the FBPR network.
ASSUMPTION 3 states: As the SIPR enters the M/C phase and structuring occurs between PERSON and PARTNER, PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes will reflect the structuring of the SIPR. This structuring will cause PERSON to interact with the FBPR network in a manner which reflects this structuring. When there is a conflict between the norms of the relationship between PERSON and the FBPR network and PERSON and PARTNER, PERSON will tend to violate the norms of the FBPRs and adhere to those in the SIPR.
Time 4 is where the results of the influential effects of the structuring of the SIPR are found. At this time, the norms created through the interaction of PERSON and the FBPR network members during Time 3 are such that PERSON can now interact with the FBPR network and PARTNER in such a manner as to allow a sense of symbiosis between the interactions of PERSON and the FBPR network, and PERSON'S interaction with SIPR PARTNER. This period can be described as a situation where the FBPR network influences PERSON such that interaction with PARTNER can be governed by norms created in that interaction. Further, PERSON is influenced by PARTNER to interact with the FBPR network whereby these interactions can be guided by the norms governing those




interactions. Thus, ASSUMPTION 4 states: As PERSON continues in M/C phase of an SIPR, the norms of the interaction between PERSON and the FBPR network members will allow PERSON to interact with PARTNER such that PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes may not violate network norms. At the same time, the norms present in the structuring of the SIPR will allow PERSON to interact with the FBPR network while perhaps not violating these norms. Research Questions
The specific model which is to be tested in this investigation consists of the research questions derived from the model assumptions. In order to answer these questions, a specific methodology was employed which allowed for the testing of these questions through the use of survey data. The type of empirical evidence which was used to support the assumptions of the model based on these questions is discussed in CHAPTER 3.
QUESTION 1 is derived from ASSUMPTION 1. Will the structuring of FBPRs within the network be reflected in the interactions between PERSON and FBPR network members? At Time 1, PERSON'S interactions with FBPR network members will consist of stable patterns of interactions. Further, PERSON will know in a rather precise manner what types of behaviors and attitudes are expected from FBPR network members. PERSON will also have an established attitude regarding the obligations to the FBPR network members.
QUESTION 2. When PERSON enters into an SIPR (formation
phase, Time 2, Figure 1), does PERSON'S interaction with PROSPECT reflect the structuring present in the FBPR network? That is, if




PERSON is in the formation phase of an SIPR, there will be no significant change in the structuring which is occurring between PERSON and FBPR network members. Thus, it is said that PERSON'S interaction with PROSPECT is being influenced by FBPR network.
QUESTION 3. If PROSPECT becomes PARTNER and the SIPR moves from formation phase to M/C phase, does the interaction between PERSON and PARTNER consist of stable patterns of interaction, and is PERSON'S sense of obligation to the SIPR firmly established and will PERSON know what PARTNER expects in terms of PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes? Also during this time, there will be a perception on the part of PERSON that there is no longer a fixed pattern of interaction with the FBPR network, PERSON'S sense of obligation to the FBPR network will be less than at Time 1 or 2.
In the spring of 1990, interviews were conducted and data gathered from 92 couples, each living together. Both married and non-married couples were included in the interviews. Both persons were interviewed which produced a respondent sample of 184. It was determined that all married persons (n=118) were in the M/C phase of an SIPR. Those who were not married were separated into the M/C phase and formation phase of their SIPR. This separation was based on the fact that these respondents identified themselves as dating (n=32) or cohabitating (n=34). One of the purposes of the interviews was to conduct a simple pretest of some of the ASSUMPTION S in the model in order to gain some idea as to its validity.




The survey consisted of several questions aimed at gathering evidence as to the type of activities engaged in with friends and partner, the number of friends in respondent's FIBPR network, and the amount of influence friends had over the respondent. The questions on the survey were straightforward and the answers lend some preliminary support for the model.
Three primary questions were used for the pilot study program: 1) "Is the amount of time you spend with your friends something you and your partner discuss?" The responses were categorized as "yes" or "no." 2) "Does the amount of time you spend with your friends ever cause conflict in your relationship with your partner?" Again, the response categories were limited to either "yes" or "no." 3) "Please tell [me] about the amount of influence your close friends have over the decisions made by you and your partner." This question was left open ended. Responses to this question were then scaled based on the least amount of influence reported which was "none" and the most amount of influence reported which was "I always think about what my friends are going to think." These questions all measured, to some degree, the amount of influence the FBPR network had on the respondent.
It was assumed that the greater the influence the FBPR
network had on PERSON, the more likely it would that PERSON and PARTNER would discuss the amount of time spent with friends and the more likely PERSON would report conflict with PARTNER over the time spent with friends. Also, it was assumed that the greater amount of influence the FBPR network had over PERSON, the more




likely PERSON would be to take into consideration the network members when making decisions within the SIPR.
In reviewing the data, it was found that 58% of married people reported no discussion of the amount of time spent with friends; 53% of cohabitating persons reported no discussion of the amount of time spent with friends. The percentage of "no discussion" responses from cohabitating respondents, who defined themselves as dating, dropped to 42%. Married persons who reported that the amount of time spent with friends caused conflict in their relationship totaled 15%. For cohabitators, the percentage dropped to 6%. However, 48% of daters reported that the amount of time spent with friends caused conflict within the relationship. These results suggest that the amount of influence is greator for those persons who defined themselves as dating, or being in the formation phase of an SIPR. This was indicated by the fact that both the amount of "no discussion" and the presence of conflict reported was found to a greator extent within this group.
In reviewing the responses to the amount of influence from friends perceived by respondents, further support for the these assumptions can be found. While all three categories of respondents reported relative equal levels of influence by friends, only the dating persons reported "definite" influence. All other responses ranged from "none" to "little". In all three categories, there were some respondents who reported that at an earlier time in their relationship friends did, in fact, have influence over their decisions with their partners but that influence no longer existed.




29
While these data were not meant to prove or disprove the
proposed model discussed above, they provided some insight into the tenets of the model which can be used for additional research and development.




CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The decision to select a particular methodology is derived
from the research needs of the stated problem (Krippendorff, 1986). In this case, there is a need to capture the complexities associated with the notion of structuring, normatization, phases of relationships, and subtleties of network relationships. For this reason, a research design was selected which allowed the researcher to approach the problem from a number of directions. These directions are couched into the two major categories of research design, namely, quantitative and qualitative.
For the purposes of this research, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to validate the model. A questionnaire was administered from which quantitative results were analysed. This analysis provided the researcher with a static reference, a "snapshot," which was used in determining the validity of the model. In addition, qualitative methods were employed which served to demonstrate the dynamics of the changes predicted in the model.
The major definitive difference between quantitative and
qualitative research is that the former is based on de~duction and the latter on inuction. Quantitative researchers begin with theoretical premises, predict a pattern of results and examine the data to test the deduction. A further distinction is sometimes made in which qualitative data are described as "real" and "deep" and quantitative




data are described as being "hard." Further, it is sometimes argued that quantitative analysis should be distinct and clear relative to qualitative research. McCracken (1988) argues that the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is that: "In the first, categories take shape in the course of research, whereas in the second, they are fixed from the beginning. In the first, the analyst uses his or her methods to capture complexity and to search out patterns of interrelationship between many categories. In the second, the analyst looks, instead, for a very precise relationship between a limited set of categories. The first is designed to elicit testimony that the respondent has difficulty articulating with ease and clarity. The second seeks to ask different, more precisely answerable questions. . It is not intended to capture issues of distribution and generalization (McCracken, 1988).
Not all qualitative research, however, is as different from quantitative work as may appear on surface examination. For example, construct validity can be determined in a qualitative exercise if the researcher can demonstrate multiple instances of a given construct, a task readily available in the quantitative approach due to the inherent qualities of the method. Multiple observations act like multiple items or repeated measurements of a quantitative scale--they demonstrate a construct exists. To this end, it has been suggested that qualitative research can be "deep," "rich," and "hard" (Kidder, 1981).
For the purposes of this study, it is important to gain a clear picture of the status of the normative behavior of the respondents as they move through the phases of the relationship with respect to




time. The use of a statistical analysis through quantitative methods allows the researcher to examine the data for patterns and points of reference which can be identified as significant change in the relationships previously identified. A more thorough and detailed description of the events including personal perceptions regarding those events is necessary to fully understand the changes so described. Discussion with the respondents through the long interview process are used to provide these descriptions.
In a study conducted by Smith and Robbins (1982) involving Federal Educational Programs and parental involvement, the dual research model was utilized to gather data in schools and school districts. The investigation was carried out by initially doing a questionnaire survey. In addition, certain locations were selected for interviews and more detailed data gathering, using methods which made it possible for a substantial amount of data to be garnered which did not replace the quantitative statistical findings but added to the process to produce a more "rich and textured" set of information for examination.
A similar research pattern was conducted by Huberman and Crandall (1982) in which both quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (interview) approaches were used to present an overall result which retained the qualities of each method while presenting an overall result which was uniquely effective as a multidimensional exercise. Such studies are likely to engender more confidence in their findings because they are derived from more than one method of investigation (Webb, 1966).




Specifically, the method employed in this research was a
combination of questionnaire and interview. The concepts that were investigated in the research are: 1) friendship network (FBPR), 2) sexually interdependent primary relationship (SIPR), 3) phase of relationship, 4) norms, 5) influence, and 6) structuring. These concepts were examined using specific questions on both the questionnaire and the interview.
Primary Sample
The sample was needed which would allow for a test of the model. This sample was selected based on the following criteria. First, the respondents had to be in their first marriage and coresiding with their spouse. Secondly, respondents had to be in the M/C phase of the relationship. Finally, respondents had to be male. Selecting a homogeneous sample serves to control for factors which are extraneous to the theoretical framework (Benson-von der Ohe, 1987).
Assumptions were made regarding the group of persons to be selected. These assumptions were: 1) most would have or would have had a friendship-based primary network, 2) a relationship phase could be identified, and 3) persons would have moved through the relationship phases of a sexually interdependent primary relationship. Specifically, the respondents would be able to provide information regarding friends, time-based information regarding the meeting of the spouse, and information regarding the changes in the relationships with friends and partner throughout the development of the sexual relationship.




The sample selected for this research was chosen from persons who had the greatest likelihood of having reached the maintenance/change (M/C) phase of an SIPR. The reason for having the sample group based on relationship phase is to allow for respondents to reflect on and discuss the different time frames of the model. In order to achieve this, a sample group was needed which consisted of persons who were in their first marriage. Sexual exclusivity and the perception of relationship permanence can be seen as ways to mark the transition from formation phase to M/C phase. Normatively, engagement and/or marriage is commonly defined, in part, as making the decision to have relationship permanence. For this reason, it was assumed that those individuals who were married were likely to be in the M/C phase. Screening respondents on this basis was conducted in order to add extra insurance that the respondents were, in fact, in the M/C phase.
For this study, the exclusion of cohabitators reduced the uncertainty associated with the establishment of the phase relationship needed for study. The pilot study has shown that cohabitators do not necessarily move into the M/C phase.
It was assumed that respondents in the M/C phase of a first
marriage would have experienced the phase changes associated with the development of the SIPR. The historical trends of family studies stress responses from either both husband and wife or from wives only, there appears a need for studies which utilize the responses from males only (Saffron-Rothschild, 1969).
Within the sociology of the family, there has been little
emphasis placed on men in families. The decade in review for the




Journal of Marriage and Family had no separate review dealing with men in the family. This in spite of what Scanzoni and Fox (1980) refer to as the "virtual torrent of sexual research in the 1970s." Since that decade review, "there is little evidence to suggest that the growing interest in men and masculinity has been seriously reflected in either the Journal of Marriage and the Family..or.thae JoQurna.l of Family Issues" (Morgan, 1990). For these reasons, this sample was restricted to male respondents only.
There was no consideration for further limitations placed on the sample. While it is recognized that factors such as race, ethnicity, sex, SES characteristics, and cultural variations are important aspects of sociological study, it was deemed that this research could present an appropriate test of the assumptions of the model without including a strategy for incorporating these factors into the analysis. One factor in limiting the use of these background considerations is the fact that given the sample size of this study, it may have presented difficulties in conducting a proper analysis. Another determining factor in the limitations in the use of these issues has to do with the type of model which was developed. It was assumed that this processual model would apply to various social categories of people equally. It was believed that there would be no loss of integrity of the design of the model or the analysis due to these limitations.
Included for study were those who met the selection criteria and were residing in married housing at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. It was determined that a sample size of 100 would offer the most efficient and effective number from which to




obtain data for the study. A list of married housing residents was obtained from the Housing Office at the University of Florida. From that list a random selection of males was generated using a random generating computer program. A return of approximately 50% can be expected from mailed surveys (Bailey, 1977). A number of surveys (220) was selected which would yield a satisfactory number of responses. The final list included names and addresses of 220 married housing residents. Each one of these 220 males were mailed a copy of the questionnaire which included a cover letter (see Appendix A) requesting their participation in this research. The cover letter also included a timeframe for the completion and return of the questionnaire. Respondents were given 5 days for completion. Respondents were provided with a self-addressed, stamped envelope to facilitate the return of the questionnaire.
The original intention was to send follow-up notices in order to maximize the return rate. However, after a two week period, out of the 220 surveys mailed, 108 were returned. This percentage of return (49%) satisfied the requirements of the sample size, and therefore, the follow-up procedure was deemed unnecessary.
Participants' rights were protected by the proper procedures including all requirements of the Division of Sponsored Research, University of Florida with respect to anonymity and consent (see Appendix A).
After reviewing returned questionnaires for appropriate
responses for questions R1 through R12 (see Appendix B), the final sample was selected. Responses to these questions determined the eligibility for inclusion in the sample.




Seven respondents were rejected because they failed to meet the criteria. One was determined to be a co-habitator, two were in the process of divorce, one was returned with no responses, and three reported that they were not in their first marriage. The final sample included 101 males in their first marriage. Also, it was determined that these respondents were in the M/C phase of their respective SIPR.
Sample Profile
The mean age of the sample is 28.3. The mean length of time that the respondent has known his spouse is 7.3 years. The average length of time since they became sexually exclusive is 5.8 years. The average time period for phase one is 1.5 years. The average length of marriage is 4.8 years. The average length of time living together is 4.9 years.
Secondary Sample
The sample for the qualitative portion of the research was selected to be used in conducting face-to-face interviews. The guideline for conducting long interviews is that it is most effective to use a minimum number of respondents and collect as much information as possible from each. McCracken (1988) believes eight respondents is the point at which the researcher can maximize information without that information becoming too voluminous to be analyzed effectively. It was reasoned that the nature of conducting long interviews was such that more than eight would produce a volume of data which would be unmanageable. Also, the added benefit, if any, of having more data would be relatively insignificant.




The sample for the qualitative research was selected from the respondents who indicated a willingness to take part in a face-toface interview. There were 17 respondents who indicated this willingness to participate. These respondents' returned questionnaires were ordered in sequence according to the date of their return. The procedure was to contact these persons based on this order until eight interviews had been arranged. The first five respondents to be called agreed to be interviewed in their respective homes. These interviews turned out to be similar in regard to the setting and mood of the interview. This similarity was not surprising given the fact that they all took place in the married housing apartments. These interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 90 minutes in length. However, in each case there seemed to be an interest expressed in this research and, therefore, postinterview discussions proved to enhance the interpretation of the responses.
The next two respondents contacted were unable to participate in the interview because of scheduling conflicts. The next three respondents agreed to participate and a subsequent time and place for the interviews was arranged. One interview was to take place in the Sociology Department conference room. However, this person failed to appear at the scheduled time and subsequent contact with this individual was never achieved. A substitute was contacted from the respondent list and an interview was arranged. Of these three interviews one was conducted in an office, one was held in a conference room and the other interview took place in the football stadium. These three interviews averaged approximately one hour




and fifteen minutes in length. There was a sense, however, unlike the five in-home interviews, that the respondents did not show the same level of interest in the research. Throughout the course of all eight interviews, the interviewer found no indication that the responses given were insincere and there was no reason to believe that the data obtained from these interviews would produce questionable results.
The respondents were given labels (131 to R8) which
represented their order of interview for purposes of reporting the data. The reporting of these data in relationship to the qualitative findings is shown in the findings section and is woven into the narrative relative to each research issue. By incorporating the qualitative data findings in this manner, they provided a more dynamic view of the changes occurring in each time period.
Quantitative Data Collection
In order to obtain measures that reflected the movement through time described by the model, the analysis relied on retrospection on the part of the respondents. Respondents were required to remember and reconstruct their lives prior to initial involvement with partner and at subsequent relationship phase intervals up to the present time. This was accomplished by a questionnaire and interviews whereby the respondent answered a series of questions for each time period represented in the model. The questions pertained to the relationships the respondent has with the FBPR network and with the prospect/partner in respondent's SIPR. The respondent was asked similar questions for each time




frame. Further, the time frames were determined according to respondent's own perception of when the changes occurred. The Questionnaire
In order to establish a set of questions which provided the
opportunity to gather information relative to the research questions presented earlier, it was necessary to separate the time elements in a manner which provided the most convenient and accurate exercise for the respondent. In addition, an initial set of questions was included which was used to determine the respondent's appropriate inclusion in the final primary sample (see Appendix A). Relationship Phase Questions
The following questions were used as an indication of phase of relationship. For this study, only those respondents who were determined to be in the M/C phase were included in the data analysis. This determination was based on the fact that they are living together, that there was an identifiable tie which marked the beginning of their relationship as special, and the fact that they indicate expected M/C phase responses. These questions were:
1. Is this a first marriage?
2. Age?
3. Date of first meeting with current spouse?
4. Date relationship was first perceived as being special?
That is, the decision was made to be mutually exclusive.
5. Are respondent and spouse coresiding?
6. What are the feelings about the present relationship:
a. Is thought given to ending the relationship?




b. Would respondent be worse off if the relationship
ended?
c. How much effort is given to keep the relationship
going?
d. Reasons for sustaining the relationship?
Results of the Pilot Study indicate that these factors are quite acceptable in determining the phase of relationship as needed in this study.
Time One Questions
The concept of influence was measured for different phases in the relationship. Influence is basically the presence of or the operation of norms on the individual. If a norm is present then it is said to have an influence on a person. It can be enabling or constraining, either positive or negative. Influence is the result of norms and needs to be measured at all times. For example, as a person progresses through the formation phase, the strength of the influence of the FBPR network can be determined by knowing how willing that person would be to change some behavior in order to compromise to the demands of a Prospect. If on the other hand, norms emerge in a person's sexual relationship that changed that person's thinking of what before had been considered to be norm violation relative to the FBPR network, then this would demonstrate a weakening of the normative influence of the friendship network and a strengthening of the normative influence of the sexual relationship.
Questions for the time preceding and up to the time when respondent met his partner were included in the Time 1 section.




Also included was a series of questions about friendship relationships during that time. Such questions established the existence and structure of the friendship-based primary network. The respondent was asked to describe his friends during this time. These questions established the strength of and the structuring of norms for the respondent's FBPR:
1. How many people were considered to be close friends?
2. How many total hours per week was spend with friends?
3. The majority of time spent with network members was in:
a. school related activities?
b. recreational activities?
c. work related activities?
d. social activities?
4. Was there interaction with these friends on a regular
basis?
5. On those times when participation in an activity with
friends was not possible, were negative feelings
experienced?
6. Were friends thought about in their absence?
7. Was importance placed on what friends thought ?
8. Were friends considered to be important? Tome Two Questions
Time 2 questions covered the period of time from the moment that respondent met his current partner up to the time they decided their relationship was special, i.e., exclusivity and permanence. He was asked to describe both the friendship network and the relationship with his partner at this time. Time 2 questions were




identical to those in Time 1 with respect to the friendship network. In addition, questions were included which provided information on the development of the relationship with partner. Instructions to respondents were specific and required the answers to reflect conditions during the specific time period in question:
1-8. Friendship questions, identical to Time 1 questions.
9. Amount of time spent with prospect?
10. How was time spent with prospect?
11. Was there discussion of friends with prospect?
12. Did the activities engaged in with friends ever
cause conflict with prospect?
13. Did the amount of time spent with prospect ever cause
conflict with friends?
Responses to these questions provided data which were used to measure the amount of change from Time 1 to Time 2. The information related to the activity of the FBPR interaction from the regularity of the interaction from the amount of time spent with friends, compared in Time 1 and Time 2, were things which were used to show this change.
Time Three Questions
Time 3 questions represented the relationship beginning with the point at which the relationship became special or when Prospect became Partner. Questions for Time 3 were identical to those in Time 2. As in the previous section, instructions to the respondents were specific and instructed the respondents to regard the proper time when considering the responses.




The data derived from these questions will establish the
existence of an FBPR network and that PERSON is aware of and can articulate a stable pattern of interaction with the FBPR network. These data establish a basis from which change in the structure and the influence of the FBPR network on PERSON can be measured. Respondents were asked to report the number of close friends and the amount of hours per week spent with their close friends for each time period. Also, respondents were asked to report how this time was spent, either in school, recreation, work, or social activities. If the respondents report little or no significant decrease in the amount of time spent with close friends from Time 1 to Time 2 and they report a significant difference in the amount of time spent with close friends from Time 2 to Time 3, then this would be an indication that these changes occurred as the SIPR developed. Further, such change is to be expected based on the assumptions of the model.
The measures of influence stem from questions 5 through 8 in each time period. Respondents were asked to indicate, using a Likert-type scale with five categories ranging from always to never, the extent to which they perceived some influence from their FBPR network. Data from these measures would provide insight into changes occurring in the level of perceived influence from Time 1 to Time 2 and again from Time 2 to Time 3. If the assumptions of the model are correct, then the changes in influence would be little or not significant from Time 1 to Time 2 and would significantly decrease from Time 2 to Time 3.




In Time 2 and Time 3, there is an additional set of questions pertaining to the interaction PERSON has with PARTNER. For these questions, respondents were asked to report the number of hours per week spent with PARTNER and how this time was spent. If the respondents report a significant increase in the amount of time spent with their SIPR partner, then this would be interpreted as demonstrating support for the model. Measures of the amount of influence PERSON received from PARTNER were also obtained in Time 2 and Time3. As with the FBPR questions, responses to these questions were coded using a Likert-type scale. According to the assumptions of the model, there should be a significant increase across these measures.
The final set of questions pertaining to the relationship
between PERSON and PARTNER deals with the amount of conflict which is present in the SIPR due to the relationship PERSON has with the FBPR network. A decrease from Time 2 to Time 3 for the measures of conflict will be seen as support for the model. However, if no change is present, then the assumptions of the model can neither be supported nor rejected.
Qualitative Data Collection
The qualitative data were gathered by way of face-to-face
interview. The interview questions were based on the questionnaire and were used to elicit similar information ( see Appendix B). The procedure used was similar to the "long interview" as discussed by McCracken (1988). The interview consisted of "grand tour" questions and "prompting" questions (McCracken, 1988) (see Appendix B). The interview questions allowed respondents to tell




their own story in their own terms. These "grand-tour" questions were used to get respondents to talk without overspecifying the substance of their talk. Prompting is a way to get the respondent to give a more detailed testimony. This was done through the use of
H
"floating prompts, which are spontaneous, and "planned prompts" which are used when spontaneous prompting fails to bring about discussion of phenomena that do not easily come to mind (McCracken, 1988). These were used in the interviews to further induce the respondents to describe specific events or give specific examples pertaining to their discussions.
According to McCracken (1988) the quality of qualitative
analysis cannot be judged by quantitative standards. The concept of what people think and do, as contrasted to how many of them do it, is the essence of the differences (McCracken, 1988, p. 49). The technique of combining approaches in this study will afford optimum gain in that the qualitative aspect will help to illustrate the dynamics or flow of change appearing from Time 1 through Time
3 and the quantitative measures will determine, for specific time phases, the structuring of norms as compared to other time phases.
Because the focus of this study is the perception of the
interaction between an individual and that individual's network and the interactions between the individual and that individual's partner, it was not necessary to interview PERSON'S partner. While not within the scope of this research, future researchers may wish to include interviews from both persons in the SIPR.
In order to address QUESTIONS 1 and 2, respondent was asked to recall the interactions with friends that occurred prior to




entering the formation phase of the current SIPR. The questions here required the respondent to discuss the patterns of interaction which took place with members of the FBPR, PERSON'S sense of obligation to maintaining those relationships, and PERSON'S knowledge on the FBPR network members' expectations of PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes. The respondent was then asked about interactions with friends from the time when the respondent entered into the formation phase with PROSPECT up to the time when respondent decided the relationship became special. This series of questions allowed a determination to be made as to whether or not the structuring of FBPRs has significantly changed from Time 1 to Time 2.
The "Grand Tour" questions for Time 1 were:
1. In the time before you met your spouse, describe the
relationship you held with those whom you considered to
be your closest friends.
The next set of questions required the respondent to discuss interactions with PROSPECT. These questions concentrated on respondent's perceptions on whether or not the interaction with PROSPECT required respondent to violate FBPR network norms, and if so, how this is resolved. Responses to these questions were used to help determine the amount of influence the FBPR network has over PERSON during the formation phase of the SIPR.
2. Please describe the relationship you held with those friends
after you met your spouse.
3. Describe your relationship with your spouse during the time
after you met.




QUESTIONS 3 and 4 were addressed by requiring respondents to recall the interactions with the FBPR network and PARTNER at the time when PROSPECT has become PARTNER. This series of questions was similar to the previous questions with the exception that PERSON was asked to recall the time when PROSPECT became PARTNER. As before, PERSON was asked to discuss the patterns of interaction with FBPR network members, the obligations for maintaining these relationships, and what the network members expect from PERSON in terms of behaviors and attitudes. Further, these questions required PERSON to discuss the elements of structuring as they relate to the interactions with PARTNER. The final questioning addressed PERSON'S current interactions with FBPR network members and PARTNER. PERSON was asked to discuss patterns of interactions with FBPR network members and PARTNER, and obligations and expectations of these relationships as they currently stand. The next series of questions related to how PERSON is currently interacting with FBPR network members. These questions allowed for a determination of the amount of change in PERSON'S interaction with the FBPR network as it relates to the structuring of the SIPR.
4. Describe the relationship you had with your friends after
the time you decided your relationship with your spouse
was special.
5. Describe the relationship you had with your spouse after
the time you decided your relationship was special with respect to the relationship you had with your friends at
that time.




6. Describe the your current relationship with your spouse
relative to the relationship you currently hold with your
friends.
These interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed for analysis. This analysis was used to determine if the respondents' descriptions of their relationships with their friends and their spouses corresponded to the assumptions of the model.
Data Analysis Procedures
The analysis of the data for this study consists of combining aspects of quantitative and qualitative approaches. The variables and their means for the variables from the questionnaire are shown in Table 1.
The variables for time spent with friends and spouse were coded as continuous variables. The variables for how time was spent with friends and spouse were coded as categorical variables using a Likert Scale with one representing no time and five representing all of the time. The variables REGRETF(S), HOWF(S)TH, CONSIDF(S), AND ABSENTF(S) were also coded using a Likert Scale with one representing always and five representing never. This same coding was using for DISCUS, CONFTIM and CONFACT. The variable IMPORT was coded as one representing very and five representing not at all.
The first part of the analysis utilizes the quantitative data to test for changes in the FBPR network and the SIPR over time. This analysis entails three key considerations: 1) the modelling considerations from the FRIENDSHIP variables at Time 1 to the




Table 1: Means for FBPR Network and SIPR Variables
Time 1* Time 2** Time 3***
Number of friends NOFR 4.5 4.3 4.8
Hours spend with friends HRSFR 26 19.8 12.6
Time spent with friends in:
School activities SCHACTF 3.4 3.7 3.9
Recreation activities RECACTF 2.5 2.9 3.1
Work activities WRKACTF 3.9 3.9 4.0
Social activities SOCACTF 2.5 3.0 3.2
Amount of regret or negative
feelings when being with
friends not possible REGRETF 3.2 3.5 3.5
Amount of consideration of
friends when engaging in
activities HOWFTH 3.2 3.4 3.7
Amount of thought given to
friends in their absence ABSENTF 2.9 3.2 3.3
Level of concern over what
friends might think of
behavior CONSIDF 3.2 3.5 3.6
Importance of friends IMPORTF 2.1 2.5 2.6
Hours spent with spouse HRSSP N/A 28.8 53.7
Time spent with spouse in:
School activities SCHACTS N/A 4.0 4.1
Recreation activities RECATS N/A 2.9 3.1
Work activities WRKACTS N/A 4.4 3.9
Social activities SOC~CTS N/A 2.3 3.2

Amount of regret or negative
feelings when being with spouse not possible

REGRETS

N/A

2.5




Amount of consideration of spouse when engaging in activities HOWSTH N/A 2.6 2.3
Amount of thought given to spouse in their absence ABSENTS N/A 2.1 1.9
Level of concern over what spouse might think of behavior CONSIDS N/A 2.5 2.1
Importance of spouse IMPORTS N/A 1.7 1.2
Amount of discussion with spouse about friends DISCUSS N/A 2.8 2.9
Amount of conflict with
spouse over time spent
with friends CONFTIM N/A 3.7 3.6
Amount of conflict with
spouse over activities
with friends CONFACT N/A 3.7 3.7
N = 101
*Time before meeting spouse
**Time from meeting spouse to becoming special
***Time after becoming special

FRIENDSHIP variables at Time 2 and the FRIENDSHIP variables from Time 2 to Time 3 (Time 1 to Time 3 relationship might also be of heuristic value), 2) the consideration of the SPOUSE variables from Time 2 to Time 3, and 3) there is the modelling consideration of the relationship between the FRIENDSHIP variables and the SPOUSE variables at Time 2 and again at Time 3. These modelling concerns are shown in the schematic of Figure 2. This schematic is an

Table !--continued

Time 1 *

Time 2** Time 3***




Time 1 Time Before Meeting nnIJ e

Time 2
Time from First Meeting to Becoming Soecial

Time 3 Time After Relationship Became Soecial

NOFR1 HRSFR1 SCHACTF1 RECACTF1
WRKACTF1 SOCACTF1

REGRETF1 HOWFTH1 ABSENTF1
CONSIDF1
IMPORTF1
STRUCTURING

FBPR Network Variables
NOFR2
HRSFR2
SCHACTF2 RECACTF2 WRKACTF2
,- SOCACTF2 -

REGRETF2 HOWFTH2 ABSENTF2
CONSIDF2

NOFR3 HRSFR3 SCHACTF3 RECACTF3
WRKACTF3 SOCACTF3
REGRETF3 HOWFTH3 ABSENTF3
CONSIDF3

IPORTF2 IMPO;TF3
*' SIPR Variables HRSSP2 HRSSP3
SCHACTS2 SCHACTS3
RECACTS2 RECACTS3
WRKACTS2 WRKACTS3
SOCACTS2 SOCACTS3

REGRETS2 HOWSTH2 INFLUENCE ABSENTS2
CONSIDS2
IMPORTS2
DISCUS2 CONFLICT CONFTIM2
CONFACT2

REGRETS3 HOWSTH3 ABSENTS3
CONSIDS3
IMPORTS3
DISCUS3 CONFTIM3 CONFACT3

Figure 2 : Schematic of concepts and measures for data analysis.

-1




empirical representation of the model and the concepts presented in the model on page 21.
The data gathered from the interviews were synthesized
utilizing coding schemes similar to the "sociologically constructed codes" (Strauss, 1987). Coding for qualitative analysis refers to the conceptual ization of data for the purpose of "giving provisional answers about the categories and their relations" (Strauss, 1987, p. 21). Categories refers to the distinctions found in the data. The analysis in this research differs from the "classical" sense of qualitative analysis in that here the research stems from a predetermined, theoretically constructed model. The analysis of the data gathered for this research seeks to discover whether the categories presented in the respondents' testimonies reflect those predicted in the conceptual perspective model. In this sense, the analysis moves away from "pure," ethnographic qualitative analysis such as that of Garfinkel (1967) toward a more conservative approach to qualitative method.
The categories sought from the interviews appeared to be
consistent with the concepts presented for this study. Of particular importance will be evidence of change of influence from one phase of relationship to another. In this type of analysis, influence as a concept was investigated by examination of statements which may give evidence of concept strength, such as, "I wanted to go out with them [friends] real bad, but couldn't." In this way, the quantitative data were enhanced and allowed for a more thorough discussion of the concepts as related to the model.




Results of the interviews are reported as data elaboration to the quantitative methodology. As the quantitative data are used to examine changes in the variables for structuring and influence for FBPR network and SIPR across time, the qualitative data extend the examination of these changes. This is accomplished by incorporating those discussions pertaining to the particular time period explored through the quantitative methods. In this way, excerpts from the interview responses which can be identified as relating to the concepts presented by the model are used as these discussions.




CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Changes in the FBPR Network Across Time

In order to test for the changes in the stri,.tuong. of the FBPR network, t-tests for the differences in the mean level of structuring across the time periods were run. The results of these t-tests are shown in Table 2. As can be seen from this table, the difference from Time 1 to Time 2 was significant for all structuring

Table 2. T-test for Difference in Means
for FBPR Network

for Structuring Variables

Change from Change from Change from
Variables T1 to T2 T2 to T3 T1 to T3
Number of friends -.168 -.47 -.30
Hours spent with friends -5.54** -7.1 1 ** -12.65**
Amount of time spent with
friends in school related
activities -.28** -.22 -.50*
Amount of time spent with
friends in recreation
related activities -.36** -.24* -.60**
Amount of time spent with
friends in social related
activities -.50** -.21 -.71
Amount of time spent with
friends in work related
activities -.10 -.02 -.12
N = 101
* a< .05
** a < .01




measures except the number of friends reported and the amount of time spent with friends in work related activities. For the hours per week respondent spent with friends in the FBPR network, there was a reported decrease of 5.54 hours from Time 1 to Time 2. Also during this time, there was a decrease in the amount of time respondent spent with friends in school, recreation and social activities. These results indicate that there were, in fact, significant changes in the stable patterns of interaction found in the FBPR network from the time before respondent first met spouse and the time immediately following that first meeting. This is contrary to the notion presented in the model where no significant change was expected during this time. In addition to these changes, there is evidence to suggest that changes in the structuring of the FBPR network continues from Time 2 to Time 3. These changes are found in the hours spent with network members and the amount of time spent in recreational activities. The hours per week spent with friends is a significant decrease of 7.11 hours from Time 2. This change, accompanied by the decrease in the amount of time spent in recreational activities, supports the changes expected from the model.
The friendship and spouse variables for the concept of
influence were scaled and found to have high reliability, Cronbach's alpha of .80 in Time 1, .82 in Time 2 and .84 in Time 3. Also, a scale of the same variables for spouse influence in Times 2 and 3 had reliability coefficients of alpha=.84 and .77, respectively. These high alpha levels (alpha > .6) indicate that a scale can be created using all four measures to produce a single variable measurement




for the concept of influence. This scale was produced by adding the variables for the level of regret felt when participation with friends or spouse was not possible, the amount of consideration of friends or spouse when engaging in activities, the amount of thought given to friends or spouse in their absence and the level of concern over what friends or spouse thinks of behaviors. It was felt that there was no loss of data integrity by producing these scales. Table 3 shows the results of the t-tests for the differences in the amount
Table 3. T-test for Difference in Means for Influence Variables for
FBPR Network _ _ __ _ _ _ _
Change from Change from Change from Variables Ti to T2 T2 to T3 Ti1 to T3
Influence scale -1 .04** -.65** -1 .69**
Importance of friends
in network -.5*-.09 54*
N = 101
** a :r, .1
of influence the FBPR network has on respondent. Results found in this table indicate that the change in influence between Time 1 and Time 2 is greater than the change in influence from Time 2 to Time
3. The negative and significant values for the difference in influence and friendship importance from Time 1 to Time 2 suggest that influence of friends and friendship importance decrease early in the SIPR. While this result runs contrary to the expectations about such change found in the model, it is consistent with the changes in structuring (stable patterns of interaction) across this




same time. Further consistency with the structuring changes is found in the influence change of the FBPR network from Time 2 to Time 3. The negative and significant value indicates that the influence of the FBPR network continues to decrease after PROSPECT has become PARTNER. This follows the expected decrease in influence from Time 2 to Time 3 suggested by the model.
Further results related to the changes in the FBPR network
over time are the responses by the interviewees in response to the questions 1, 3, and 4 of the interview schedule (see Appendix B). These responses were compared with the t-test results to determine further clarification of the predicted changes in the model.
The interviewees all reported some change in the amount of time and kind of time spent with friends from Time 1 to Time 2. Further, these discussions illustrate the dynamic process of these changes. R1 discussed his friends and how the relationship held with these friends changed: "I'd say that I've slacked off on my activities with my friends a little bit and [1] used to get kinda pissed off because they'd tease me a little bit because the boys are going out having a good time and here I am with this new broad."
R2 related the changes through this account, "There were
times though that I had to cancel out because I was either going to LSU to a party with her or going to a football game with her, or doing something, there were times that I didn't participate with them." Not dissimilar was R33's comment about these changes, "No, it became a gradual process, I think initially we still, you know I




would hang out with them, but then as time progressed we didn't hang out as much."
Speaking about his friends after meeting his spouse, R4 said, "Just in that two week period of time, almost went from wide-open to nil, didn't hardly associate with them at all." R5 relates this about the changes in friendship activities during the time he was dating his spouse to be, "Yeah, I guess I missed some fraternity functions because the fraternity didn't seem quite as important to me any more."
R6 clearly indicates a decrease in the amount of influence exerted by the FBPR network and how this change comes about, I couldn't say it was the day we got engaged or any of that but I remember discussing with her the possibilities of marriage and living together and working and trying to get on with our lives after college was over and, you know, if we're gonna have these kinds of feelings for each other and not be like this I kinda realized, well, you know, something's gotta give, i gotta put some of my shenanigan on the back burner there and they've gotta take kind of a back seat and become a little bit less important and not worry about worrying so much about, you know, hurting anybody's feelings or what anybody's going to say and you know that kind of stuff.
R7 reports, "But then after 3 or 4 months or so some
opportunities that came up to do some things and uh, uh, didn't seem to cause a lot of conflict, but I just, I just either, uh, participate with her or don't participate at all." R8 sums up the resulting decrease in FBPR network influence in this statement referring to a




time after becoming "serious" about his spouse to be, "To tell you the truth, I haven't had much time to think about my friends."
Review of these comments indicates the changes in the FBPR network which occur over the relationship phases. These changes reflect movement through the phases, with time spent with FBPR network members decreasing and influence of these same members also decreasing. This is similar to the results of the quantitative data analysis for the change in the FBPR network. These interviews paralleled the t-test findings that change occurs more rapidly than the model assumed. However, in keeping with the assumptions of the model, these statements demonstrate a continued change in the structuring of the FBPR network along with a continued decrease of the influence of the FBPR network from the time when PERSON met PROSPECT to when PROSPECT becomes PARTNER.
Changes in the SIPR Across Time
The results for the change in the struQturina in the SIPR are shown in Table 4. There are two significant changes which occur from Time 2 to Time 3. The first of these is the hours per week spent with spouse. There is an increase of 24.83 hours per week from Time 2 to Time 3. Also, there is an increase in the amount of time respondent spent with spouse in recreational activities. These results suggest that there is a change in the structuring of the SIPR from the time PERSON meets PROSPECT to when PROSPECT becomes PARTNER. It appears that the recreational time spent with friends is replaced with recreational time spent with spouse. This fits with the expectations of the model. That is, these results fit the notion that as PROSPECT becomes PARTNER, the structuring in the




FBPR network changes to allow for changes in the structuring within the SIPR.

Table 4. T-test for Difference in Means for Structuring Variables
for Spouse
Changes from Variables T2 to T3
Time spent with spouse 24.83**
Time spent with spouse in
school related activities .08
Time spent with spouse in
recreation related activities .47**
Time spent with spouse in
social related activities .22
Time spent with spouse in
work related activities .07
N = 101
** a< .01

Changes in the amount of influence the SIPR has on respondent are shown in Table 5. Both the influence measure and the importance of spouse change significantly in the expected direction. Influence from the SIPR increases from Time 2 to Time 3. This increase corresponds to a similar amount of decrease in the influence received from the FBPR network over the same time. Also, the importance of spouse increases as the importance of the FBPR network members decreases. This further demonstrates the changes in influence over time.




Table 5. T-test for Difference in Means for Influence Variables for
Spouse______________ _Changes from
Variables T2 to T3
Influence of spouse .77**
Importance of spouse .49**
N = 101
a< a,.01
The results of the interviews show additional support for the findings that increases in the influence of the SIPR across time occur. This can be seen in Ri's response, "I guess after that first 2 months when I felt that our relationship was exclusive with my spouse now, I tried to accommodate both my friends and her. . not so much any more, that's pretty much changed. . I haven't been able to accommodate my friends"
R2 states, "So it's getting to the point now, I shouldn't say
that, you know she pretty much lets me go play when I want to play." Also supporting the notion of increasing influence is R3, who comments, "I think as the relationship became more serious I think that I was influenced more by what she thought about me and her feelings were more important than what my friends thought."
R4 recited a vivid description of spousal influence, "And all of a sudden it was almost like she expected me to stop hanging out with the guys and stop playing golf and stop drinking beer and stop doing everything and still does." Likewise, R5 reported that becoming sexually exclusive had an impact on the social activity which had previously been a part of the FBPR network. "There was




never any conflict except when I went without her. If I wouldn't let her go she got hacked." Later, as R5 reported, "Yeah. I missed a lot of socials. I missed all the socials. I didn't go to any."
R6 related the influence from the SIPR as, "As far as I was
concerned it was dating and we didn't go out all the time, you know I still played golf on Friday whether she wanted me to or not, I didn't care, I never asked her whether or not, you know, I'd say 'Do you want to go out Saturday night, if you want to go out Friday afternoon, I'm playing golf and we're not going' and that was about it. Later on if Jane wanted to do something and it was conflicting with what the fellows were doing, you know, I'd sometimes do it with her and sometimes with the fellows but I'd make sure that it didn't cause any conflict with her, 'cause it got to the point that I didn't want to upset her and make her mad."
R7 states, "I surely don't go and spend a lot of time with them without her 'cause I don't really have any friends, or a group of friends now that's not friends with her and there's a lot of couples." Finally, R8 sums up the influence of the spouse by this statement, "She became special pretty quick, I'd say within about 2 months and then after that we just did everything together."
A review of the qualitative responses to the questions
concerning changes in the structuring in the SIPR and in the amount of influence of the SIPR indicates support for the results reported in tables 3 and 4. The influence from the SIPR increases over time.
Conflict with Partner Over Friends
One more possible measure for the level of influence from
PARTNER was the amount of discussion and conflict respondent had




with spouse and how that changed over the development of the SIPR. The measures for conflict (discussion with PARTNER, amount of time spent with friends, and conflict over activities with friends) were tested for scaling reliability. It was determined, based on low Cronbach's alphas in Time 2 and Time 3, that such a scale would not be reproducable and therfore no scale was created. Table 6 shows the results of the changes in conflict over time. As can be seen, there was no significant change, over time, in the amount of discussion
Table 6. T-test for Difference in Means for Conflict Variables for
Spouse ___________Changes from
Variables T2 to T3
Discussion of friends with Partner -.1 2
Amount of time spent with friends .05
Conflict about activities .08
N = 101
with spouse about friends and no change in the level of reported conflict with spouse over friends. These results do not necessarily contradict the changes in influence expected. This is because a lack of conflict does not mean a lack of influence. As stated earlier, expected change in the level of conflict would have been seen as support of the model, but lack of such change does not lend itself to non-support of the model.




Further examination of this issue through the interview
process yielded these supporting statements. R4 responded with, "We didn't really fight about it [the kind of things I did with my friends] we just both kind of gave a little bit." In addition, R6 states, "There really wasn't much of a problem there [time spent with friends], I'd just say, 'Jane, we're not going out tonight, I'm going out with the buddies, no, no, you're not invited, we're just going to hang out and stuff.' It was a callous way and she understood I had my friends and needed to do stuff with them."
Difference in Influence of FBPR Network and SIPR
Further testing of the model was done by generating t-tests for the differences between the influence of the FBPR network and the influence of the SIPR in Time 2 and again in Time 3. These results are shown in Table 7. The resulting number in Time 2 means that the influence from the FBPR network was less than the
Table 7. T-test for Difference in Means Between the Influence of
Friends and the Influence of Partner at Time 2 and at Time 3
___ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ ___ __ __ Time 2 Time 3
Difference in the influence of FBPR -3.88 **-5.31 *
network and the influence of
the SIPR
N = 101
** a < .01




influence of the SIPR in this time. In Time 3, the difference between the amount of influence from the FBPR network and SIPR is larger than the difference in the previous time.
The results of the analysis of data regarding relative influence of the FBPR network and the SIPR over time show what the model predicts. That is, the influence of the SIPR increases from Time 2 to Time 3 and that change corresponds to a decrease in the amount of influence of the FBPR network over this same time. Most interviewees were able to directly and positively show how this difference changed from phase to phase. An example is R3 who reported: "I think as the relationship became more serious I was influenced more by what she thought about me and her feelings were more important to me than what my friends thought." At this point, what the quantitative data do not reveal and what can now be obtained from the interviews are the reasons for these changes and the dynamics of the processes through which these changes come about. The structuring which occurs within the FBPR network in Time 1 will influence PERSON in the interaction with PROSPECT during Time 2. This notion is suggested by R1 as he described first the structuring within the FBPR network and then the circumstances under which he first met and initially interacted with his spouse to be.
"Immediately before I met my spouse, I was still in school,
and a couple of my closest friends were in school with me, so I had an opportunity to spend a part of everyday, almost every day with my part of my friends. The ones I didn't spend part of that day with down at the University, I spend with them almost every night




including the guys that I went to school with too, we were all about the same age. Some of us finished school before the others did. We would, almost every night, get together for some type of activity; having a couple of beers that night, playing basketball, going to the show. We were all single expect for one of us who was out of town anyway, so we frequented all the nightspots where you could meet women, played sports, played golf all the time, every weekend for sure was a golf game. We were pretty close-knit, pretty tight. Even the girls that we did see, the relationships we had with each other were more important than the female relationships we had. We did all kinds of things, all the typical things that I think guys do--get a cabin and blow it out for a weekend, drink beer, fish, play cards and all that kind of stuff. We'd do that a few times spring and summer. That's basically the kinds of stuff we did."
In reference to the circumstances in which R1 met his spouse to be, he says, "I met her in an office that I happened to be in that day. She was a golfer, so we had similar interests there. She was in a golf tournament at that present time and it's kind of funny because I had a golf game, we had a golf outing planned at this resort with a couple of my buddies that following Saturday and this was a Monday. I mentioned to her that maybe she could play [golf] with us on that Saturday and when I went back and brought it up to my buddies, we did need an eighth, we had two foursomes going and needed an extra person and they didn't want her involved, so I just kinda not called her and told her that we were playing golf. . but I kind of let my buddies put the nix on that and I went with what they wanted instead of what she wanted."




This illustrates the degree to which the established behavior patterns present in 131's FBPR network worked as a guide to how R1 could interact with his spouse-to-be. This interaction, early in Time 2, stems from a well-established, "close knit" group of friends. The unwillingness of Ri to try to change the group to accommodate his new relationship suggests the strength of the influence of the structuring of the FBPR network relative to his behavior. In fact, he was unwilling to communicate this to her. The interaction with the spouse-to-be at this point is based on the premise that the norm of the group was that female relationships were not as important as the "relationships we had with each other."
Describing the changes occurring in the FBPR network relative to the SIPR during Time 2, respondent R6 seems to point toward initiating changes in the network in order to accommodate newly created norms in the SIPR.
"it was business as usual. I would make plans, go out with
Ann, but you know if I had something scheduled with the boys, if we were going to go do something, I'd probably pretty much do that, because I could go out with Sue the next time. And I figured there wasn't any problem. There really wasn't much of a problem there, I'd just say, 'Ann, we're not going out tonight, I'm going out with the buddies and no, you're not invited. We're just going to hang out and stuff.' It was a callous way and she understood I had my friends and needed to do stuff with them and she had friends. She was living with four other girls and they did activities all the time together. You know, it wasn't any big thing. But there was a time when gradually the things I did with them [the boys] got less. Of course,




it was 2 years after we met and I'd say that I always had at least one of my closest friends in town living nearby, they hadn't all moved away and I still stay in contact with at least one of them. But, you know, it got to the point later on that if Ann wanted to do something and it was conflicting with what the fellows were doing, I'd sometimes do it with her and sometimes with the fellows but I'd make sure that it, we didn't cause any conflict with Ann, 'cause it got to the point that I didn't want to upset her and make her mad. . I couldn't say it was the day we got engaged or anything but I remember discussing with her the possibilities of marriage and living together and working and trying to get on with our lives after college was over and, if we're gonna have these kinds of feelings for each other and not be like this I kinda realized that something's gotta give, I gotta put some of my shenanigans on the back burner there and they've gotta take kind of a back seat and become a little bit less important and not worry so much about hurting anybody's feelings or what anybody's going to say."
Throughout the course of this response, the respondent refers to processes of change. He states, and chronologically so, that at one point it (the SIPR) was at one status and he balanced his friends with his girlfriend during this time. At this point, which was early on in the SIPR, he was trying not to "make her mad." The respondent then describes a gradual change to a point at which the girlfriend becomes more important and becomes more of an influence over him than are his friends. He clearly realizes and articulates that at this time his friends definitely must take a "back seat" to his relationship with his spouse to be. He reaches this conclusion




70
because at this time she has become more important and exerts more of an influence over him than his friends. This change, over time, is now reflected in his willingness to make his friends less important. He is actually effecting the change in the FBPR network.




CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was to present and test a model that describes the reciprocal impact of structural forces on an individual as that individual formulates and develops a sexually interdependent primary relationship. Essential to this purpose was to investigate the underlying causes of the structural changes which have been known to occur during such relationships. At the heart of this research is the attempt to bridge the gap between macro and micro levels of understanding. On the one hand, it was predicted that there are structural forces associated with group membership which serve to influence a particular member of that group in that persons interactions with other individuals. For the purposes of this research, structural influence was said to exist in a network of friendship-based primary relationships. It was implied that this network of friends acted as a mesolevel structure representing larger society. It is in this sense that the network could be used to represent macrolevel structures.
On the other hand, individual or micro forces play a role in
shaping an individual's life. It was further argued that an individual relationship such as a sexually interdependent primary relationship exerts its influence over the individuals involved in that relationship differentially throughout the stages of that relationship.




The model described how an individual's FBPR network exerts influence over that individual and that this influence is present as the individual forms an SIPR. Further, the model describes how, over the continued development of this SIPR, the amount of influence over PERSON from the FBPR network decreases due to the increase in the amount of influence PERSON receives from the SIPR. These changes are due to the fact that in our interactions with others we develop norms which we then use as guides for our lives.
In testing for the validity of the model, research questions
were developed which incorporated the concepts under consideration in the model. Measurements for these concepts were created in the form of questionnaires and interviews. These concepts were struQtuLrag, defined as stable and ongoing patterns of interaction,
0 nfluenck, defined as the presence of norms, and conflict. More specifically, changes in these concepts over time were used in the determination of the validity of the model.
Research methods employed for the testing of the model were developed so as to maximize the conceptual interpretation of the results. It was felt that a parsimonious approach to conducting this research would lend itself to meeting this end. The methodology employed enabled the researcher to test for changes in the concepts of structuring and influence. This methodology consisted of generating data for testing using t-tests and qualitative data interpretation.
The first assumption related to the model was that there could be a determination that structuring within the FBPR network existed in the time before PERSON met PARTNER. This structuring was




confirmed by the existence of a stable pattern of interactions within the network and this structuring formed the basis for the identification of change occurring across time.
The second assumption referred to Time 2 of the model. The
way in which PERSON interacts with PROSPECT during this time will be guided by the norms which have developed in the structuring between PERSON and network members during Time 1. Further, PERSON and PROSPECT will begin to develop norms for the SIPR. In order to address this assumption, tests were performed to measure the amount of change in the amount of time spent with network members and the ways in which this time was spent changed from the time immediately preceding the beginning of the formation phase of an SIPR to the time immediately following this meeting. Results indicated significant changes in the amount of time spent with friends and in the amount of influence perceived by PERSON from the FBPR network. These results do not appear to precisely support this assumption. There are two possible reasons for these findings.
First, the questionnaire could have been constructed in such a way so as to not differentiate clearly enough the time period (phase) under consideration. Supporting this contention are data from some of the interviews, wherein respondents indicated some change in the influence and/or activities immediately upon initiating the relationship with the future spouse.
Second, there may have been an underestimation of the amount of influence a perspective partner has over PERSON. This underestimation does not necessarily adversely affect the tenets of




the model. The fact that the predicted changes occur from Time 2 to Time 3 suggests that the major emphasis of the model is still supported. The changes from Time 1 to Time 2 along with the changes from Time 2 to Time 3 further illustrate the dynamic process predicted. That is, what is suggested by these results is a structural change within an FBPR network occurring over time as a function of the development of an SIPR.
Actually, the point at which the person in the SIPR becomes
"special" marks the time that PERSON has effected enough change in the FBPR network to allow that to occur. As normatizing occurs in the SIPR during Time 2, and as the partners exchange goals and aspirations for the relationship, and as they work out what the structuring of their relationship is going to be at Time 3, PERSON actually effects change in the FBPR network which allows that structuring to exist.
The final assumption to be examined relates to the time as the SIPR enters the M/C phase and structuring occurs between PERSON and PARTNER. At this time, PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes will reflect the structuring of the SIPR. This structuring will cause PERSON to interact with the FBPR network in a manner which reflects this structuring. When there is a conflict between the norms of the relationship between PERSON and the FBPR network and PERSON and PARTNER, PERSON will tend to violate the norms of the FBPRs and adhere to those in the SIPR.
The results indicate that as the SIPR moves from formation to M/C phase, structuring occurs within the SIPR as predicted. Also, PERSON'S sense of obligation to the SIPR becomes established. This




is shown in the results by an increase in the amount of influence PARTNER has over PERSON from formation to M/C.
Highlighting this assumption with the response from R7,
during Time 2, "1 don't think that anything with my friends happened much in this time because we [spouse-to-be and 1] didn't really spend a whole lot of time together, we just went out on regular dates." After [we] became special, "I've got some friends and we've got some mutual friends and we do a lot of activities together, I surely don't go and spend a lot of time with them without her 'cause I don't really have any friends or a group of friends now that's not friends with her and there's a lot of couples. We do some things with her family and their spouses and that's sort of a new group. I don't see my old buddies too much. Most of them have all gone on, but I still do have some friends that live here in town that I had before and we still do a few things, but not nearly as much as we used to do."
The group of friends that R7 described in Time 1 and Time 2 has been more or less replaced with a group consisting of mutual friends, couples and family members. These new groups and the activities done with them are a reflection of the structuring within the SIPR created from the normatizing which occurred throughout the course of its development.




CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of this research was to link micro and macro explanations of how individuals form and develop sexual relationships. The functionalist view holds that there exists in society structures which determine the way in which individuals can form and maintain sexual relationships. These sex "roles" exist as society's means to control sexual behavior in order to insure the orderly functioning of the "family." This view represents a macro level perspective which explains the development of sexual relationships as a result of structural forces. The symbolic interactionist view or micro perspective explains sexual relationship development and structural formation from a human action point of view. It is through individual interaction and decision making that sexual relationships develop. As these relationships develop, structures seem to emerge. The major delineation between the symbolic interactionist perspective and the functionalist perspective exists because neither perspective fully incorporates the ideas of the other.
The focus of this research was to create a model which
allowed the two perspectives to interact. It was argued that as individuals interact, structures are created and these structures act as guides for future action. This future action either reinforces the structure or acts somehow to change it. As new structures are created, new guidelines for action are developed. The way in which




this perceived "gap" in the two perspectives was bridged was by incorporating the usage of networks as mesolevel representations of social structure.
It was suggested that some social scientists subscribe to the notion that individuals are as active in constructing their environment as they are defined by it. It was further suggested that research should be conducted to describe what conditions in the social environment might serve to constrain the way in which individuals interact and how these social environment conditions come about. One way to conduct this research would be to incorporate the use of networks as a mesolevel tool for measuring the social world. Research endeavors in the past which focused on the study of networks pointed towards a definite connection between these networks as structures and the individual members which comprise them. Results of these studies indicated that changes in an individual's sexual relationship accompanied changes in such things as the size and density of the individual's network. What was needed in this research was a sense of what produced these accompanying changes.
This research was conducted utilizing a dual method of data
collection and analysis. The primary sample, which was utilized for quantitative data collection, consisted of 101 married males living in married housing at the University of Florida, Gainesville. It was believed that this sample size was adequate to provide the necessary data for testing the model. Married males were selected for two reasons. The first reason was that selecting a sample of married persons provided the best opportunity to maximize the




chances of having respondents who were in the maintenance/change phase. The second reason was that is was perceived that males have not received sufficient attention with regard to sexual relationships.
There was no attempt made to select a sample based on social categories or background information as it was assumed that the processual nature of the model was such that it would apply across such categories. Further, without such information, it was deemed possible to achieve a base level indication as to the support or non support of the model. It is recognized, however, that such factors should be included in future efforts.
The sample for the qualitative data collection consisted of
respondents from the primary sample who agreed to participate in a face-to-face interview. Out of 17 respondents who agreed to participate, eight were selected for interviews. This number of interviewees was deemed sufficient based on the notion that this would produce a volume of information that could be analyzed effectively.
The data collected for this research utilized survey
questionnaires mailed to the primary sample and face-to-face interviews with the secondary sample. The questionnaire enabled the researcher to collect quantitative data to measure the concepts of structuring, influence and conflict during different phases of the sexual relationship. The respondents were required to remember their lives prior to initial involvement with their spouse and at subsequent time periods throughout the development of this relationship. The responses to the questions in the questionnaires




provided the researcher with data which were used to measure the various concepts and assumptions associated with the model. Because the model required these concepts to be measured at different time periods, and those measurements were to be compared across time periods, it was important that the data were collected in this fashion.
The interviews were conducted so as to provide qualitative data which could be used to further explore the assumptions of the model. The interview questions, which were based on the questionnaire, allowed respondents to tell their own story using their own words through the use of grand-tour questions and a prompting strategy. This strategy helped induce the respondents to give specific accounts of the events pertaining to their discussions.
The analysis of the data combined aspects of quantitative and qualitative approaches. For the quantitative data analysis, the data were tested for changes in the FBPR networks and the SIPIR over time. Specifically, the friendship variables were measured at the time respondents met their spouses, the time when these relationships became special and again after the time the relationships became special. T-tests were conducted to test for significant changes occurring in these variables from time to time. The spouse variables were measured at the time respondents met their spouses and again at the time after these relationships became special. Again T-tests were performed to test for significant change in these variables across this time. In order to complete the quantitative analysis, the differences in the friendship variables and spouse variables were tested for the last two time periods.




The information that these tests provided was examined in relation to the assumptions of the model. Based on these assumptions, it was expected that there would be little change from the first time period to the second time period in the friendship variables and significant change from the second time period to the third time period. It was further expected that there would be significant changes in the spouse variables from the second time period to the third time period. It was also expected that there would be a change in the difference between the friendship variables and the spouse variables from the second time period to the third time period.
The qualitative data were synthesized and examined to provide extra evidence of the expected changes derived from the quantitative data. Also, an examination of the qualitative data give an indication of the reasons for these changes and the dynamics of the processes through which these changes occur. The limited qualitative data in this study proved useful in elaborating the statistics, hence future research efforts should expand the qualitative dimension to confirm of not confirm the model.
While the lack of change assumed from Time 1 to Time 2 for influence and structuring of the FBPR network was not clearly demonstrated, there was positive indication that this result should not cause a substantial alteration to the model. It was found that individuals are constrained by primary networks to which they belong. The networks which influence individuals do so because individuals create norms as they interact with these networks. The structures which influence individuals do so because individuals




perceive these structures as real. As such, when individuals interact, this interaction is in part determined by the norms of the network that are operating on the individuals. It was further found that individuals can and do affect changes to the primary network as they interact on an individual basis with a sexual partner. These changes are produced systematically as the sexual relationship develops through a series of stages. This is due to the fact that the interaction which occurs in the sexual relationship produces an influencing effect on the individual which becomes stronger than the effects of the network. The implication of these results is that over time, the individual changes the macro structures in his/her life so that the influence from these structures allows the individual to maintain a sexual relationship even though the formation and development of this sexual relationship was influenced by these structures.
There is a basic assumption which may be made regarding the interaction between micro relationships and larger social structures. This assumption is that the social world interacts with the individual members and this interaction is mediated through the individual's primary contact with society. This primary contact is through primary networks. The results of this research suggest support for this assumption due to the fact that networks of primary relationships were shown to have a structural impact on the individual members such that this impact acts as a guide for the initial development of a sexually interdependent primary relationship. Further, the creation of patterns of behavior and attitudes during the subsequent development of the sexually




interdependent primary relationship acts as a determining force in the way in which an individual will restructure a primary network.
In future research, what should be considered is how this
model can be used to compare specific subgroups of the population. For example, it may be of interest to see how this model applies to groups whose religious values are extremely diverse. A method to accomplish this would involve comparative study utilizing samples from a conservative, fundamentalist college and from an urban, liberal arts college. The research design would entail collecting in-depth information from married students at the colleges and comparing the processes of network influence and SIPR development.
In this research, comparisons of the two groups would focus on how the model applied to both groups and how the processes might differ between groups. Research questions would include: 1) Do the processes that the model assumes concerning the development of sexual relationships apply to both groups? and 2) Is there a difference in the two groups which can be attributed to factors related to group membership?
Another factor in this research would be the inclusion of kinship networks as well as friendship networks in the study to determine a broader range of possible influence on the development of the SIPR. For example, in one group, the model might apply when kinship networks are included but not apply for friendship networks. In addition, the opposite might hold true for the second group. A result such as this would give evidence of the way in which social group membership determines the type of network which would




exert the kind of influences on the individual that are described in the model.
Another way in which future research concerning this model could be conducted would be to develop a panel design. The sample would consist of a cohort of persons in the formation phase of an SIPR. This cohort would consist of both males and females from different SES categories. Once established, this group would be followed through the subsequent development of their SIPRs. Information would be gathered throughout the development of these SIPRs regarding the concepts and assumptions of the model.
The collection of this data would be accomplished by the use of surveys and interviews. The surveys would be part of a continuous effort and would result in monthly updating of the condition of the development stages of the SIPRs. Less frequent interviews would be conducted to establish the dynamics of the processes. This method would not require the respondents to recall information but would enable the researcher to gather data which was timely and therefore avoid the possible error due to retrospection.
The expectations would be for a more precise analysis of the applicability of the model and would allow for exploration of other factors such as the processes of relationship dissolution, the timing of the influence changes, and the time involved in creating norms. In addition, the precision involved in this type of research design would also apply to the recognition and establishment of the differences, if any, across sex, race, and SES dimensions.




APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER
Dear Friend: (on letterhead)
I am engaged in a research project for my doctoral
dissertation in the Department of Sociology at the University of Florida. Would you please take a few minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire? The information that you provide in your answers to the questionnaire will be held in the strictest confidence. Your name will not be used or published in this or any other project. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer on the questionnaire.
When you have completed the questionnaire, please indicate your willingness or non-willingness to participate in a face-to-face interview concerning the same issues raised in this questionnaire by placing a check mark in the space provided on the questionnaire, Question P1. If you do not wish to participate in the face-to-face interview, place a check mark in the space provided for the aa answer to Question P1. Please mail the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope which has been provided for your convenience within 5 days from the date of receipt.
If you are willing to participate in a face-to-face interview, please place a check mark in the space provided for the y u answer to Question P1 and print your name and phone number in




the spaces provided. Please mail the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope which has been provided for your convenience within 5 days from the date of receipt. Your name and phone number will be removed from the questionnaire, thereby disassociating your name from your questionnaire responses. At no time will your name or phone number be connected with your questionnaire responses.
If you indicated that you would be willing to participate in a face-to-face interview, you will be contacted within 10 days of receipt of your completed questionnaire to arrange the interview schedule. The face-to-face interview will be tape recorded and will only be heard by the principal investigator and will be destroyed after any transcribing. Further, your name will be removed from any transcribed tape recording. Your name will not be used or published in this or any other project. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer on the questionnaire and during the face-to-face interview.
By completing and returning this questionnaire you are
consenting to the use of your responses in this research. Further, you are acknowledging that you understand that your name will not be connected to your answers nor will your name be published or used in this or any other research.
If you would like to receive a copy of the results of this research, please contact me in writing at the address given




below. Thank you in advance for agreeing to participate in this important research. Sincerely,
David L. Mitchell, M.A. Department of Sociology 3219 Turlington Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32602 Ph: Office (904) 392-0265 or Home (904) 376-4454




APPENDIX B
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE
IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO RECALL SPECIFIC PERIODS OF TIME DURING YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR SPOUSE. THIS QUESTIONNAIRE CONTAINS QUESTIONS WHICH CAN BE ANSWERED BY EITHER PLACING A CHECK MARK IN THE SPACE PROVIDED NEXT TO THE POSSIBLE CHOICES, OR BY WRITING IN YOUR RESPONSE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY PLACING A CHECK MARK IN THE SPACE PROVIDED OR BY WRITING IN YOUR RESPONSE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED.
1 Is this your first marriage?
yes__ no__2. How old were you on your last birthday?___3. When did you and your spouse first meet?
month____ year
4. When did you first decide to be sexually exclusive with your spouse-to-be? That is, you would not date nor have sex with anyone except your spouse-to-be.
month____ year
5. When did you and your spouse get married?
month____ year
6. Are you and your spouse currently living in the same household?
yes_ no_If yes, when did you move in together?
month____ year




immediately

1. The following questions apply to the time before you met your current spo se.

88
7. Concerning your feelings about your present relationship:
A. Do you ever think about ending the relationship?

yes
If yes, how often?
always
often
sometimes
seldom
never

no

B. Do you think you would you be worse relationship ended?

off if your

yes-

C. Do you going?

work hard to see that your relationship keeps

yes-

no

because you have

D. Do you stay in your relationship more to or more because you want to?

both

have to

want to

F1. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how many persons did you consider to be your close friends?
F2. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how many hours per week did you spend with your close friends?




89
Please indicate (check which applies for each question) the amount of time you spent with your close friends in the time immediately before you met your current spouse in:
F3. school related activities
all of my time
most of my time ----some of my time little of my time
no time
F4. recreational activities
all of my time .....
most of my time
some of my time ----little of my time
no time
F5. work related activities
all of my time ----most of my time .....
some of my time little of my time
no time
F6. social activities
all of my time
most of my time ----some of my time little of my time
no time
F7. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, when you could not participate in an activity with
our close friends, how often did you experience a negative feeling or regret:
always
often
sometimes
seldom
never




F8. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how often were you concerned about the way your close friends thought about the way you behaved:
always
often
sometimes
seldom
never
F9. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how often did you think about your close friends when you were not with them:
always
often
sometimes
seldom
never
F1O. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, in making your decisions about your activities and behavior, how often did you take into consideration what your close friends would think about it:
always
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Fli. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how important were your close friends in your life?
very important
important
somewhat important
not very important
not important
II. The following questions apply to the time period from when you first met your spouse up to the time you decided your relationship with her was special. Your
relationship became special when you decided you would date no one other than your spouse-to-be. When answering the following questions, it will be helpful if you will think of this time period as the time between the month and year indicated in your answer to Question 3, page I, and the month and year indicated in your answer to Question 4, page 1.




91
Fl. Durin this time, how many persons did you consider to
cl,
be your 0 se friends?
F2. During this time, how many hours per week did you spend with your close friends?
Please indicate (check which applies for each question) the. amount of time you spent with your close friends during this time in:
F3. school related activities
all of my time
most of my time
some of my time .....
little of my time .....
no time
F4. recreational activities
all of my time .....
most of my time
some of my time .....
little of my time .....
no time
F5. work related activities
all of my time ----most of my time ----some of my time ----little of my time .....
no time
F6. social activities
all of my time .....
most of my time
some of my time .....
little of my time
no time
F7. During this time, when you could not participate in an activity with your close friends, how often did you experience a negative feeling or regret:
always often
sometimes
seldom
never




F8. During this time, how often were you concerned about the way your close friends thought about the way you behaved:
always --often
sometimesseldomnever
F9. During this time, how often did you think about your close friends when you were not with them:
always
often
sometimesseldomnever
F10. During this time, in making your decisions about your activities and behavior, how often did you take into consideration what your close friends would think about it:
always --often
sometimesseldom
never
F1 1. During this time, how important were your close friends in your life?
very important--important
somewhat important
not very important
not important--Si. During this same time, when you first met your spouse-to-be and up to the time you decided your relationship with her was special, how many hours per week did you spend with the person who was to become your spouse?___




93
Please indicate (check which applies for each question) the amount of time you spent with your spouse-to-be during this time in:
S2. school related activities
all of my time
most of my time some of my time little of my time
no time
S3. recreational activities
all of my time
most of my time some of my time little of my time
no time
S4. work related activities
all of my time
most of my time some of my time little of my time
no time
S5. social activities
all of my time
most of my time some of my time little of my time
no time
S6. During this time, when you could not participate in an activity with your spouse-to-be, how often did you experience a negative feeling or regret:
always
often
sometimes
seldom
never
S7. During this time, how often were you concerned about the way your spouse-to-be thought about the way you behaved:
always
often
sometimes
seldom
never




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN FRIENDSHIP-BASED PRIMARY NETWORKS AND SEXUALLY INTERDEPENDENT PRIMARY RELATIONSHIPS: THE DEVELOPMENT AND TEST OF A MODEL LINKING SOCIAL NETWORKS AND MICRORELATIONSHIPS By DAVID L. MITCHELL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1992

PAGE 2

Copyright 1992 by David L. Mitchell

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge the assistance and support of the many persons who played an active and supportive role in conducting this research. The encouragement and counsel of Dr. John Scanzoni, the writer's committee chairman, are deeply appreciated. Sincere thanks are also extended to the other members of the committee, Dr. Anthony J. La Greca, Dr. Ronald Akers, Dr. Felix Berardo, and Dr. Robert B. Gaither. Finally, the writer wishes to express a special note of thanks to his wife, Sue, his parents Stan and Barbara Mitchell, and his sister Debby Mitchell for their encouragement and support throughout this research.

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mi ABSTRACT v i CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 1 The Functionalist View of Sexual Behavior 3 The Symbolic Interactionist View of Sexual Behavior 4 Sexually Interdependent Primary Relationship and Its Relevance to Family Sociology 8 Social Networks 11 2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 15 Aim of the Research 15 The FBPR SIPR Model 20 Research Questions 2 5 Pilot Study 26 3 METHODOLOGY 3 Primary Sample 33 Sample Profile 37 Secondary Sample 3 7 Quantitative Data Collection 39 The Questionnaire 40 Relationship Phase Questions 40 Time One Questions 41 Time Two Questions 4 2 Time Three Questions 4 3 Qualitative Data Collection 4 5 Data Analysis Procedures 4 9 4 RESULTS 55 Changes in the FBPR Network Across Time 55 Changes in the SIPR Across Time 60 Conflict with Partner Over Friends 63 Difference in Influence of FBPR Network and SIPR 6 5 5 DISCUSSION 71 IV

PAGE 5

page CHAPTERS ^^ 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 76 APPENDICES A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER 84 B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 87 C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 100 REFERENCES 101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 106

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE INTERACTION BETWEEN FRIENDSHIP-BASED PRIMARY NETWORKS AND SEXUALLY INTERDEPENDENT PRIMARY RELATIONSHIPS: THE DEVELOPMENT AND TEST OF A MODEL LINKING SOCIAL NETWORKS AND MICRORELATIONSHIPS By David L. Mitchell August 1992 Chairman: John Scanzoni Major Department: Sociology This research focused on the idea that micro and macro levels of the social world have a reciprocal influence on each other over time. The functionalist perspective holds that the regulation of sexual behavior is a function of the family for the order of the larger society. The interactionists, taking a microoriented approach, see sexual behavior being shaped through individual interaction. In reality, there is an interplay between the two perspectives. This perceived "gap" in the two perspectives was bridged was by incorporating social networks as mesolevel representations of social structure. A model was developed which allows for the interaction between these networks and micro relationships. The model assumes that friendship-based primary networks influence individuals in the initial development of sexually interdependent VI

PAGE 7

primary relationships and that during the subsequent development of those relationships the sexual partners' influence over the individuals becomes stronger than the influence of the friendship networks. This shift in influence makes it likely that an individual will affect strucural change in the network to allow the further development of the sexual relationship. The test of this model was conducted by combining a mailed questionnaire survey with indepth interviews. The survey sample consisted of 101 married males living in married housing at the University of Florida, Gainesville. The indepth interviews were conducted using a subset of eight cases from the survey sample. The results of this research suggest support for the idea that macro and micro levels of explanation of sexual relationships can be integrated into a dynamic explanation of how and why sexual relationships develop as they do. It was found that individuals are constrained by structural forces. Social interaction is constrained by the kind of structures that are operating on the individuals' interactions. It was further found that individuals can and do affect changes to the macrolevel components of their lives as they interact on an individual basis with a sexual partner. Over time, the individual changes the macro structures in his/her life so that the influence from these structures allows the individual to maintain a sexual relationship even though the formation and development of this sexual relationship was influenced by these structures. VII

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Prior to World War II, theories concerning sexuality were concentrated in the fields of psychoanalysis and biology. The premise of these theories was that humans have innate sex drives which pre-exist any form of social life (Turkle, 1979). As the post World War II era began, sociologists began to consider sexuality as a social phenomenon. This sociological interest in sex raised questions with the drive model. While not denying the conditions underlying the drive model, sociologists pointed out that biological drives cannot determine the way in which sexual needs are satisfied (Berger & Luckman, 1967). The initial interest in sexuality from a sociological point of view was founded in the functionalist tradition. The functionalist model held that society needs to control how individuals express their sexuality (Pitts, 1964, Parsons, 1965, & Beach, 1967). As the interest in sexuality continued to expand, researchers (Kinsey, Pomeroy & Martin, 1948, Kinsey, 1953) found empirical realities which led some researchers to question the structural-functional view. The symbolic interactionist approach attempted to more fully explain empirical realities which were unaccounted for in functionalist models, e.g., that sexual behavior was shaped by interactions. The symbolic interactionists focused not only on

PAGE 9

sexual behaviors per se but also on the processes that go into making a sexual relationship (Long & Hadden, 1985). The functionalist perspective holds that the regulation of sexual behavior is a function of the family for the order of the larger society. On the other hand, the interactionists, taking a microoriented approach, see sexual behavior being shaped through individual interaction. In fact, there is an interplay between the two perspectives. With only one perspective, there is the possibility that an explanation of sexual behavior may be incomplete. For this reason, there is a need for developing a model which allows for their integration. As it currently stands, there has not been a great deal of effort to develop such a model (Stein, 1989). This research addresses the problem of linking the micro and macro perspectives of sexual relationships. A model was developed which links micro and macro levels of analysis through the incorporation of network structures. The assumptions generated through this model were tested using data collected through the use of a survey questionnaire and face-to-face interviews. The data gathered through the use of the questionnaire were analyzed by determining the difference between levels of variables over time. In addition, the interview data were explored using qualitative analysis techniques. These two sets of data were combined to form the basis of conclusions concerning the validity of the model. Following the analysis, a discussion of the outcomes was presented and conclusions drawn as to the validity of the model and the application of findings toward further research in this area.

PAGE 10

The Functionalist View of Sexual Behavior The functionalist view of sexuality, as described by Parsons (1937, 1965), extended the psychoanalytical or drive model of sexuality to include cultural and structural explanations of sexual behavior. It held that people were driven to sex because of innate forces, but it was up to society to control the expression of these forces. This is illustrated by Pitts (1964), who states that hormonal changes do not have the overwhelming motivational force in humans as in animals. Humans have the capability of scheduling biological satisfaction which allows for the allocation of these satisfactions to social roles marked by reciprocity and exchange. Further, because of the genetic make-up of humans, "the most effective way of impregnating a woman is by ensuring cohabitation with a man for long periods of time" (Pitts, 1964, p. 58). The functionalists believed that "every society shapes, structures, and constrains the development and expression of sexuality in all of its members" (Beach, 1977, p. 116). That is, there exists in society roles which pre-date the existence of the individual and into which the individual is socialized. Further, social institutions such as the family and religion are the source of these roles and the norms which govern sexual expression (Stein, 1989). According to Davis (1971) the regulation of sex is essential because it has the potential of creating a new human being. What the normative system does is to link coitus with the institutional mechanisms that guarantee the bearing and rearing of children. Also, a person's desirability as a sex object is a valuable but scarce

PAGE 11

and perishable good. This being the case, the normative system provides an orderly distribution of rights in the use of this good. Sex roles are subordinate to the family in that they support the formation and continuance of families or at least do not interfere with them. In other words, by governing sex, society also governs the form of the sexual patterns in the society. "Real societies," according to Davis (1971), have a moral preference for durable marriage and they manage to give priority to the marital bond as the normative pattern for sexual control. This pattern universally links sex regulation with the family in that coitus is obligatory within marriage. Davis (1971) claims that females desire pre-marital sex because they have an intense desire to get married and further, Davis also claims that illegitimate births result from an unsuccessful effort to trap a man into marriage. The key to understanding why norms regarding sex exist as they do is found in the functions they provide. Pitts (1964) believed that the basic functions of the nuclear family, defined as "the socially sanctioned cohabitation of a man and woman who have preferential or even exclusive enjoyment of economic and sexual rights over one another and are committed to raise the children brought to life by the woman," (p. 56) are to maintain its members in physical and mental health to reproduce and to socialize the children. In order to fulfill these functions, society must regulate sexuality through approved sexual relationships. The Symbolic Interactio nist View of Sexual Behavior While the functionalists see norms and roles as determinants of sexual behavior, the symbolic interactionists believe that

PAGE 12

people's sexual behaviors are created through an interactive process of developing "sexual scripts" (Gagnon & Simon, 1973). Sexual scripts are the conditions that define and control the outlet of sexual behavior. The sexual potential of any situation becomes effective only when the situation is defined as appropriate and the partner is sexually available. The elements of these definitions, or the sources of the sexual scripts, are found in the attributes of both the situation and the actors. Individuals are motivated to seek out sexual gratification. The processes of socialization are how a person learns the scenarios available to achieve this end. These scenarios provide behavioral guidelines to which a person can match his or her sexual orientation. The departure from functionalism becomes evident at this point, in that sexual behaviors arise from these social interactions rather than from preexisting structural constraints. Unlike the functionalist, the interactionist allows for the creation of scripts and scenarios through interaction and thus can take into account the fact that persons' sexual behaviors change over time. The functionalist notion of the family as a rigid institution is, in this sense, seen simply as the patterns of interaction that are occurring at a given time and place. The idea that sexual scripts are developed through interactions was inspired, in part, because functionalists could not account for the empirical realities of sexual variance in society. The Kinsey studies (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948, Kinsey, 1953) were a series of surveys of the sexual behavior of middleclass Americans and correlated such activities as masturbation, homosexuality, and premarital sex with age, class and gender

PAGE 13

variables. The data revealed a significant diversity of behavior within the United States, evidencing a great disparity with the accepted social norm of procreative, heterosexual intercourse. In placing homosexuality and heterosexuality on a continuum, these studies determined, for instance, that there was a much greater incidence of homosexual activity, particularly among men, than was popularly believed to exist. There were, however, serious flaws in the methods employed by Kinsey. For example, the overestimation of rates of homosexuality due to the fact that there was a large number of prisoners involved in the sampling. This fact did not prevent the findings from serving to relativize sexual behavior and discredit notions of pathology, calling into question rigid sexual norms and laying the foundation for more wide-ranging sex research. The Kinsey reports seemed to reflect what the interactionists believed, that is, that much sexual behavior exists outside the family. This is not to say that the functionalists did not recognize extrafamilial sex, only that where the functionalists viewed this type of sex as either deviant or a function of some other deviance whereas the interactionists viewed this type of sexual behavior as normal. This allowed the research of sexual behavior and sexual relationships to be conducted outside the area of deviance. Like society, the family was seen as a process which changed over time and whose essential nature was created and influenced by the individuals within it (Burgess, 1926). Through the development of models of human agency or constructionism, a distinct difference in the focus of sexual behavior patterns was created.

PAGE 14

What becomes important to the symbolic interactionists are the processes that go into making a sexual relationship and what determines the sexual script. This focus on process was a shift away from the idea that sexual behavior, and further, sexual relationships are guided by social structure, to a notion that perceived social structures, for example, the nuclear family, are no more than the culmination of individual interactions. "In this way, interactionists shifted the research emphasis from sexual roles to the looser notion of sexual identitv -from showing how social norms constrain and shape the sexual impulse, to showing how individuals, as active agents, negotiate sexual conduct through social interaction" (Stein, 1989, p. 7). Social interaction, as defined by Turner (1988), is a situation where the actions of one actor are reorganized by and conversely influence the behaviors of another actor. Turner further defines behavior as movements, deliberations, and physiological processes of individuals: "At its most intense level, then, social interaction is the process whereby the overt movements, covert deliberations, and basic physiology of one individual influences those of another, and vice versa" (Turner, 1988, p. 16). Social interaction, according to Turner (1988), can be broken down into three distinct processes. First, there is the motivational process whereby people are seen as willing to expend energy to interact with others. Second, the interactional process is what people actually do when they influence others. Third, structuring, or structuration, is the process by which social interactions are repeated across time as well as organized in space (Turner, 1988).

PAGE 15

Turner (1988) also analyzes the clash between micro and macro perspectives. Part of the reason for this conflict is that when addressing the topic of structure, theorists become too macro and overemphasize long-term interactive patterns. Functionalists tend to err in this direction. This is due to the fact that they recognize patterns of interaction and reify these patterns of interaction and thus these structures become forces in the determination of sexual relations. On the other hand, when connecting these macro dimensions of structure to individuals, they typically become too micro and "delve into the properties of human consciousness and cognition" (Turner, 1988, p. 149). This is how the interactionists tend to err when dealing with sexual relationships. Interactionists tend to overlook structural aspects of determination because of the preoccupation with individual interaction. The result is an inability to both conceptualize the macro structural order and the inner-workings of individual mental processes. Turner (1988) believes the gap between macro and micro sociology is probably wider than necessary. "All that remains, then, is a synthesis of these works into a composite model of structuring that suspends consideration of how to bridge the micro-macro gap" (Turner, 1988, p. 150). Sexually Inter dependent Primary Relationship and Its Relevance to Family Sociology In the conceptualization and measurement of what Turner (1988) called structuration, a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches might be utilized. One useful way of addressing the concept of structuring is by utilizing what Scanzoni

PAGE 16

(1991) refers to as primary relationships. The term primary relationship is used as a "generalizing construct" for explaining the interdependences which circumscribe the institution of families (Scanzoni, 1991). According to Scanzoni (1991), primary relationships exhibit five distinguishing characteristics. These are: 1) emotion, 2) form, 3) time, 4) social network, and 5) interdependency. Emotion, the first characteristic, can range from the strongly positive to the strongly negative. These emotions may include fierce and intense feelings connected with obligations, jealousy, love, resentment, and hate, among others. The second characteristic, form, pertains to the way in which face-to-face interactions occur. In situations where face-to-face contact is not possible, other types of contact may become "functional equivalents" (letters, phone calls, etc.). The third feature, time, is composed of frequency, which is the number of contacts within specified intervals and duration which refers to the ongoing interaction. Certain interactions distinguish the primary institution (family) from the political and economic institutions. These interactions include sexual, intrinsic, extrinsic, and formal types. These four sets of interactions are not mutually exclusive and may or may not overlap at certain times. Lastly, there is the social network which refers to primary relationships which over time have ongoing reciprocal impacts on one another. These networks are said to be mesolevel structures mediating between the macro environment and micro interactions (Scanzoni, 1991).

PAGE 17

10 Scanzoni (1989) identifies, among others, sexually interdependent (SIPR) and friendship-based (FBPR) primary relationships. Sexual interdependence refers to the perceptions of the individuals in a primary relationship regarding consensual sexual access. The SIPR, in its development, is said to move through three different and distinct phases. These are: 1) formation, 2) maintenance/change, and 3) dissolution (Buckley, 1967, Scanzoni, 1989). The formation phase is characterized by the presence of a perception of the prospects of sexual exchange with someone with whom intrinsic interdependence is already being maintained. In other words, the formation phase describes a situation in which there is a perceived likelihood that coitus may occur and that the relationship might become a sexually interdependent one. The second phase, maintenance/change (M/C), involves sexual interdependence, conflict resolution, explicit decision-making, and behaviors aimed at the maintenance of the relationship. It is at this point that the persons involved in the relationship are considered sexual partners. In the M/C phase, one or both partners may seek to negotiate changes regarding some issue while other issues are being maintained. The effectiveness of these negotiations and the acceptability of their outcomes defines this change and maintenance process. Effective negotiations and acceptable outcomes are indications that a relationship is in this phase. This process of interacting to maintain the relationship is what has been defined by Turner (1988) as structuring

PAGE 18

1 1 This structuring process does not produce a "real" entity in a Durkheimian manner but rather is a process of producing and reproducing interactive responses. These responses, once created, become a "mental template" for determining how individuals will interact at a later time (Turner, 1988). In effect, a structure is being created and will be recreated until acted upon by outside forces. "Thus, the process of structuring is, on the one hand, an overt patterning of behaviors in time and space and, on the other hand, a mental modeling of information about what interactive sequences apply to varying types of situations" (Turner, 1988, p. 149). The third phase in the development of an SIPR is dissolution, defined as the gradual undermining of the bonds of the relationship owing to low levels of effective and acceptable negotiation, reduced control of participation in effective negotiation, and a lowered sense of well-being. Social Networks While sexually interdependent relationships exist, they do not exist in isolation from other types of relationships. In other words, people are involved in more than one relationship at a time, albeit other than sexually interdependent ones. The existence of these multiple relationships gives rise to the concept of networks. By the introduction of the construct of networks, it is possible to gain insight into how the structuring of a sexual relationship occurs given that the individual is involved in other "sets" of relationships or networks.

PAGE 19

12 In presenting a description of the types of networks to which individuals belong, the "structural properties" of these networks must be described, namely size, density, frequency, and duration. Size refers to the number of similar relationships (by similar, it is meant that the basis for these relationships is the same, for example, friendship-based) in which a person is involved outside of the sexual relationship. Density is described as the degree of commonality of relationships within a network (i.e., the greater degree to which members of a network interact with one another in that network). Frequency denotes the sum of the interactions which occur between PERSON and other members of the network. Duration is the span of time over which these interactions occur. In 1957, Elizabeth Bott distinguished between two types of social networks, those she called "close-knit" and those she called "loose-knit." Each of these types consisted of a different structure and, therefore, had an impact on the way married couples carried out their roles. Her hypothesis was that the degree of connectedness, or how close-knit a network is, is directly related to the amount of role segregation in a marriage. Bott (1957) believed that persons who come from close-knit or connected networks were more likely to have segregated roles in their marriage. She referred to the consensus of norms in closeknit networks as exerting informal pressure on members to help one another. In this sense, then, couples were constrained to seek emotional and other assistance from their respective networks and not from each other.

PAGE 20

13 This hypothesis, however, was not supported by Rogler and Procidano (I986). They suggested that Bott's hypothesis was too vague and failed to "include independent variables reflecting historical changes in socio-culture and economic forces" (Rogler and Procidano, 1986, p. 700). Another criticism of Bott's hypothesis is that she did not attempt to distinguish between the types of networks to which each individual may belong. Fischer (1982) and Milardo (1988) have taken this step in trying to identify distinct types of networks and the function each serves. The first type of network is the exchange network which consists of relations that involve the sharing of activities, providing material and emotional assistance or both (Fischer, 1982). Milardo (1989, p. 165) calls these networks psychological networks, "collections of people who are considered important and perhaps intimate 'friends' by target individuals." These networks are made up of those relationships which are primary. The idea is that all the primary relationships in which an individual is involved make up these networks. These will be referred to as primary networks for the purpose of this research. The other type of network discussed by Milardo (1988) is the interactive network. This type of network consists of those relationships which are more or less secondary to the individual. They are made up of persons with whom the target individual has some degree of "superficial" interaction, such as coworkers, acquaintances, and some kin. Because secondary relationships lack one or more of the essential properties of primary relationships,

PAGE 21

14 secondary networks are described as not having the same type and same level of impact on individual members as primary networks. There are those who perceive the network structure as a determinant of individual behavior (Wellman, 1989), and those who believe that changes in the network are produced by individual interactions within an SIPR (Banck, 1973). In seeking to clarify the idea of networks for sociologists, Wellman and Berkowitz (1989, p. 4) offer this solution, "Network analysis is neither a method nor a metaphor, but a fundamental intellectual tool for the study of social structures . and that social structures can be represented as networks--as sets of nodes and sets of ties depicting their interconnections." Although Wellman and Berkowitz reject "cultural realism," Pescosolido and Georgianna (1989) used networks to replace "society" in their recasting of Durkheim's theory of suicide, furthering the use of networks as a working "tool" for sociological research. The social network as a tool for sociological research is evidenced in the fact that by locating persons in relation to their networks, "we can make some useful estimates as to who and what they know, the resources to which they have access, the social constraints on their behavior, and how they are likely to think and act" (Wellman & Berkowitz, 1989, p. 16).

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Aim of the Research It has been suggested that micro and macro factors may have a reciprocal influence on each other over time. Milardo (1988, p. 145) states that some social scientists "[H]ave long subscribed to the notion that individuals are as active in constructing their environment as they are reactive and defined by it." This suggests that possibilities exist for research to describe these reciprocal influences. For instance, what conditions in the environment might serve to constrain or to enable the way in which individuals interact within relationships (Giddens, 1981)? Modell (1989) argues that young people have increasingly taken control of the youthful life course, encouraged by ideological currents. As a result, peer group oversight of youthful heterosexual relationships has retreated, leaving couples to do what seems right (Modell, 1989). The peer group, or primary network, has developed into a structure which supports behaviors which were previously considered deviant. Krohn (1986) furthers this notion by stating that "We need not think of constraint being only in the direction of conventional behavior. Rather, the nature of the constraints on behavior depends on what is necessary for the continuation of network relationships" (Krohn, 1986, p. 581). There is an interplay between dyadic relationships and networks which has been demonstrated in research. Surra (1985) 15

PAGE 23

16 found that persons maintained their network relationships more or less depending upon their level of commitment to marriage. In a similar fashion, Milardo, Johnson, and Huston (1983) found that frequency and duration of interactions with network members are strong indicators of changes in social participation with network members, concurrent with an advancing or deteriorating close relationship. Johnson and Leslie (1982) reported that in a college dating population, romantically involved couples who are dating consistently reported a decrease in the number of friends in their networks, and a decrease in the level of involvement with those friends as their "courtship" progressed. These findings tend to suggest a social "regression" as suggested by Slater (1963), namely that long-term effects of a developing relationship involve the reduction in the size of social networks, and the short-term outcomes include reductions in the frequency and duration of social interactions. As Stein (1989, p. 11) points out, "Sociologists have yet to put forth a more nuanced sense of social and individual determination which links the micro and macro levels of sexuality." She further argues that any attempt at creating such a model must be achieved with a complementary reworking of the idea of structure. It can be argued, she contends, that cultural scenarios enabling sexual practices to occur are "embedded" in social institutions (Stein, 1989). Giddens (1982) furthers this structuring concept by recognizing a duality of structure. This duality of structure is as the recursive character of social life: "The structural properties of

PAGE 24

17 social systems are both medium and outcome of the practices that constitute these systems" (Giddens, 1982, p. 37). Social patterns encompassing sexual behaviors are thus seen as practices or points of articulation between persons and structures. In this sense there exists a "dialectical" relationship between the "objective structures," or template in Turner's language, and the cognitive and motivating structures of persons that they produce and that tend to produce them (Stein, 1989). The purpose of this research is to develop and test a model which describes "duality" between sexually interdependent primary relationships (SIPR) and friendship-based primary relationship (FBPR) networks. In other words, an explanation is developed regarding how an individual's capability to structure an SIPR is influenced by the primary network of the individual and how, over time, the primary network is affected by the structuring of that SIPR. The primary network surrounding PERSON'S sexually interdependent primary relationship included in this research will be the network consisting of friendship-based primary relationships (FBPR). Researchers have acknowledged that the structural properties change as sexually intimate relationships develop. They report changes in size, density, frequency, and duration of network interactions and these are discussed in descriptive terms. However, what is lacking is a sense of whv or how these changes occur. The model presented in this research provides an explanation of the changes in the structural properties of the networks through the concepts of influence, both structural and individual. In so doing,

PAGE 25

18 this research advances the research on networks by offering a plausible explanation of what factors determine network change. The intention of this research in using FBPRs was to address a need for inclusion of friendship-based studies in broader sociological research and theory. Friendship is a relationship to which great personal and cultural importance is attached. Friends help to provide a sense of identity and confirm social worth. The value of friendship in society is indicated by the popularity of various media hints and advice on how to make and keep friends (Allan, 1989). However, there has been relatively little serious analysis of friendship as a form of personal relationship (Hess, 1979). Cohen and Rajkowski (1982) portray friendship as a freely chosen, voluntary and expressive relationship. Generally, when friendship is the topic of study, it tends to be viewed in isolation from other social processes. "In other words, it is usually not integrated into an analysis with any wider empirical or theoretical significance, but in a distinctly asociological fashion just examined for its own sake" (Allan, 1989, p. 3). Also important to this research is the concept of norms. A problem with developing models which utilize "normative" concepts is that, in the past, norms have tended to be conceptualized as expectations which are consensually accepted and unambiguously tied to social positions (Giddens, 1984). They were "givens," with no attempt made to explain their origins. As such, these norms act as guides of conduct for role behavior of individuals occupying a given status in the social system. Seen in this way, norms pre-exist the individual and are, thus, reified. However, the fact that people

PAGE 26

19 do have organized lives and structured patterns of behavior, follow rules, and conform to these rules, demonstrates that norms do, in fact, have operative force. Norms not only describe rights and obligations, but also more generalized "interpretive schemes" (Giddens, 1984). Giddens (1984) provides three points of emphasis when discussing the normative element of structuring. First, norms are catalogued stores of information about obligations, rights, duties, and interpretive perspectives. Second, the generative nature of norms means that understanding exists concerning procedures by which normative information is categorized, stored, retrieved, assembled, and reassembled for use. Third, situational responses are ordered by the use of normative stores of information about rights, duties, obligations, and interpretations. These three points stress "the generative and transformable nature of normative behavior as actors actively negotiate, or as is often the case, renegotiate their general interpretations of, and respective obligations in, specific context" (Turner, 1988, p. 157). Even when individuals confront situations where options are very limited and where clear and consensual rules exist to explain what should occur, these established normative expectations constitute a general framework for interpretation and action. In general, according to Turner (1988), persons are highly motivated to "normatize situations" because it enables them to structure their interaction to meet basic motivating needs. In addition, normatizing facilitates the operation of other structuring processes (Turner, 1988).

PAGE 27

20 For the purposes of this research structuring will be viewed as a situation of established norms. For this research, norms are defined as the perception of PERSON that PERSON knows what is expected by both friends and PARTNER of his/her behaviors and attitudes regarding interaction in these relationships. While over time norms change, it is reasoned that at any moment in time or relatively short span of time, norms can be viewed as being "fixed." This allows for a definition of structuring as: 1) a fixed or stable set of norms, 2) a fixed attitude on the part of PERSON regarding perceived obligations to the maintenance of these relationships, and 3) the presence of a perception on the part of PERSON that there exists stable patterns of interaction, including face-to-face interaction and interaction via non-face-to-face correspondence. These last two parts of this definition represent indications that norms are, in fact, present and give some clues as to what the norms are. The FBPR SIPR Model In order to explain the reciprocal influences of SIPRs and primary networks, a model has been developed and is represented in Figure 1. This Figure illustrates how, over time an individual's entry into and development of a sexually interdependent primary relationship (SIPR) is influenced by the structuring of friendshipbased relationships within the primary network and how, over time the structuring of an SIPR influences how the individual interacts with network members. It is assumed that the relationships within the FBPR network are currently in a M/C phase.

PAGE 28

21 TIME 1 FBPR's TIME 2 FBPR's TIME 3 FBPR's TIME 4 FBPR's >o PRE-FORMRT I ON FORMAT I ON PHRSE PHASE OF SIPR !<->*: i OR MR I NTENRNCE/CHRNGE MR I NTENRNCE/CHRNGE PH ASE OF S IPR PHASE OF S IPR FBPR's SIPR Friendship-Based Primary Relationship Network Sexually Interdependent Primary Relationship "^ The presence of structuring -^ The influential effects of structuring PERSON o PROSPECT *j PARTNER Figure 1. Model for the interaction between FBPR network and SIPR. During Time 1, PERSON is currently noi involved in an SIPR. The double arrow represents the structuring which exists between PERSON and FBPRs in the primary network. What occurs as a result of this structuring is a set of norms which serve to influence PERSON'S behavior and attitudes. By influence it is not meant that PERSON is limited in choice of behaviors, but rather, given a choice between two options of behavior, one option which conforms to the norm, the other is in conflict with the norm, the likelihood of choosing the option which opposes the norms would be less than

PAGE 29

22 selecting the conforming option. This is indicated by the double arrow between FBPRs and PERSON. This leads to ASSUMPTION 1 which states: When PERSON is not involved in an SIPR, the norms which influence the way in which PERSON conducts him or herself and the attitudes about how one should conduct him/herself stem from the structuring which is taking place in the relationships within PERSON'S FBPR network. The norms present in this structuring represent behaviors and attitudes which are acceptable to PERSON because they have been agreed upon, and therefore, PERSON will use these norms as guides for how to interact with others. This does not mean that PERSON'S interactions are necessarily the same across FBPRs. The fact that PERSON may relate differently to each friend does not change the idea that PERSON will be influenced by the norms of those relationships. Lacking the presence of an SIPR, those interactions will remain constant. During Time 2, PERSON enters into the formation phase of an SIPR. The way in which PERSON interacts with PROSPECT will be guided by the norms which have developed in the structuring between PERSON and network members during Time 1. Thus, the double arrow between FBPR and PERSON remains. The one-sided arrow between PERSON and PROSPECT represents FBPR network influence on PERSON. As the formation phase of the SIPR continues, PERSON and PROSPECT begin to develop norms for their interaction. ASSUMPTIONS 2a and 2b stem from what is happening between PERSON and the FBPR network and PERSON and PROSPECT during Time 2. ASSUMPTION 2a states: When PERSON enters into an SIPR

PAGE 30

23 and this SIPR is in its formation phase, the patterns of interaction between PERSON and FBPR network members will remain constant relative to those patterns of interaction during Time 1. This structuring will act as a guide for the way in which PERSON interacts with PROSPECT whereby PERSON will not violate the norms of the FBPR network. The behaviors PERSON exhibits in interactions with PROSPECT will reflect those behaviors that would be expected by the FBPR network. ASSUMPTION 2b states: During the formation phase of the SIPR, PERSON and PROSPECT begin the process of developing norms within the SIPR. They begin to formulate, often implicitly, what behaviors are acceptable as well as attitudes conducive to the interaction. During Time 3, PERSON and PROSPECT become PERSON and PARTNER, and the SIPR moves to M/C phase. This change is marked by the occurrence of a sexual partnership and often the time when PERSON announces the partnership to network members. Also, at this time, structuring occurs between PERSON and PARTNER. This is represented by the double arrow between PERSON and PARTNER. That is, PERSON and PARTNER create and recreate norms for their interaction. This structuring gives PERSON a "mental template" which acts as a guide for how PERSON interacts with members of the FBPR network. Thus, PERSON, being influenced by the structuring of the SIPR, begins to institute normative changes in the FBPR network such that the "normatizing" within the FBPR network will have the effect of reducing the level of influence that the FBPR network has on PERSON in the SIPR. It is here that structural

PAGE 31

24 changes in the FBPR network begin to occur, e.g., a reduction in the size of PERSON'S FBPR network. This means that rather than, as in Time 2, PERSON'S interaction with PROSPECT being influenced by the norms of the FBPR network, PERSON'S interaction with the FBPR network is now being influenced by the norms present in the SIPR. Therefore, the single arrow between PERSON and FBPR network is pointing toward the FBPR network. ASSUMPTION 3 states: As the SIPR enters the M/C phase and structuring occurs between PERSON and PARTNER, PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes will reflect the structuring of the SIPR. This structuring will cause PERSON to interact with the FBPR network in a manner which reflects this structuring. When there is a conflict between the norms of the relationship between PERSON and the FBPR network and PERSON and PARTNER, PERSON will tend to violate the norms of the FBPRs and adhere to those in the SIPR. Time 4 is where the results of the influential effects of the structuring of the SIPR are found. At this time, the norms created through the interaction of PERSON and the FBPR network members during Time 3 are such that PERSON can now interact with the FBPR network and PARTNER in such a manner as to allow a sense of symbiosis between the interactions of PERSON and the FBPR network, and PERSON'S interaction with SIPR PARTNER. This period can be described as a situation where the FBPR network influences PERSON such that interaction with PARTNER can be governed by norms created in that interaction. Further, PERSON is influenced by PARTNER to interact with the FBPR network whereby these interactions can be guided by the norms governing those

PAGE 32

25 interactions. Thus, ASSUMPTION 4 states: As PERSON continues in M/C phase of an SIPR, the norms of the interaction between PERSON and the FBPR network members will allow PERSON to interact with PARTNER such that PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes may not violate network norms. At the same time, the norms present in the structuring of the SIPR will allow PERSON to interact with the FBPR network while perhaps not violating these norms. Research Questions The specific model which is to be tested in this investigation consists of the research questions derived from the model assumptions. In order to answer these questions, a specific methodology was employed which allowed for the testing of these questions through the use of survey data. The type of empirical evidence which was used to support the assumptions of the model based on these questions is discussed in CHAPTER 3. QUESTION 1 is derived from ASSUMPTION 1. Will the structuring of FBPRs within the network be reflected in the interactions between PERSON and FBPR network members? At Time 1, PERSON'S interactions with FBPR network members will consist of stable patterns of interactions. Further, PERSON will know in a rather precise manner what types of behaviors and attitudes are expected from FBPR network members. PERSON will also have an established attitude regarding the obligations to the FBPR network members. QUESTION 2. When PERSON enters into an SIPR (formation phase, Time 2, Figure 1), does PERSON'S interaction with PROSPECT reflect the structuring present in the FBPR network? That is, if

PAGE 33

26 PERSON is in the formation phase of an SIPR, there will be no significant change in the structuring which is occurring between PERSON and FBPR network members. Thus, it is said that PERSON'S interaction with PROSPECT is being influenced by FBPR network. QUESTION 3. If PROSPECT becomes PARTNER and the SIPR moves from formation phase to M/C phase, does the interaction between PERSON and PARTNER consist of stable patterns of interaction, and is PERSON'S sense of obligation to the SIPR firmly established and will PERSON know what PARTNER expects in terms of PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes? Also during this time, there will be a perception on the part of PERSON that there is no longer a fixed pattern of interaction with the FBPR network, PERSON'S sense of obligation to the FBPR network will be less than at Time 1 or 2. Pilot Study In the spring of 1990, interviews were conducted and data gathered from 92 couples, each living together. Both married and non-married couples were included in the interviews. Both persons were interviewed which produced a respondent sample of 184. It was determined that all married persons (n=118) were in the M/C phase of an SIPR. Those who were not married were separated into the M/C phase and formation phase of their SIPR. This separation was based on the fact that these respondents identified themselves as dating (n=32) or cohabitating (n=34). One of the purposes of the interviews was to conduct a simple pretest of some of the ASSUMPTION S in the model in order to gain some idea as to its validity.

PAGE 34

27 The survey consisted of several questions aimed at gathering evidence as to the type of activities engaged in with friends and partner, the number of friends in respondent's FBPR network, and the amount of influence friends had over the respondent. The questions on the survey were straightforward and the answers lend some preliminary support for the model. Three primary questions were used for the pilot study program: 1) "Is the amount of time you spend with your friends something you and your partner discuss?" The responses were categorized as "yes" or "no." 2) "Does the amount of time you spend with your friends ever cause conflict in your relationship with your partner?" Again, the response categories were limited to either "yes" or "no." 3) "Please tell [me] about the amount of influence your close friends have over the decisions made by you and your partner." This question was left open ended. Responses to this question were then scaled based on the least amount of influence reported which was "none" and the most amount of influence reported which was "I always think about what my friends are going to think." These questions all measured, to some degree, the amount of influence the FBPR network had on the respondent. It was assumed that the greater the influence the FBPR network had on PERSON, the more likely it would that PERSON and PARTNER would discuss the amount of time spent with friends and the more likely PERSON would report conflict with PARTNER over the time spent with friends. Also, it was assumed that the greater amount of influence the FBPR network had over PERSON, the more

PAGE 35

28 likely PERSON would be to take into consideration the network members when making decisions within the SIPR. In reviewing the data, it was found that 58% of married people reported no discussion of the amount of time spent with friends; 53% of cohabitating persons reported no discussion of the amount of time spent with friends. The percentage of "no discussion" responses from cohabitating respondents, who defined themselves as dating, dropped to 42%. Married persons who reported that the amount of time spent with friends caused conflict in their relationship totaled 15%. For cohabitators, the percentage dropped to 6%. However, 48% of daters reported that the amount of time spent with friends caused conflict within the relationship. These results suggest that the amount of influence is greator for those persons who defined themselves as dating, or being in the formation phase of an SIPR. This was indicated by the fact that both the amount of "no discussion" and the presence of conflict reported was found to a greator extent within this group. In reviewing the responses to the amount of influence from friends perceived by respondents, further support for the these assumptions can be found. While all three categories of respondents reported relative equal levels of influence by friends, only the dating persons reported "definite" influence. All other responses ranged from "none" to "little". In all three categories, there were some respondents who reported that at an earlier time in their relationship friends did, in fact, have influence over their decisions with their partners but that influence no longer existed.

PAGE 36

29 While these data were not meant to prove or disprove the proposed model discussed above, they provided some insight into the tenets of the model which can be used for additional research and development.

PAGE 37

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The decision to select a particular methodology is derived from the research needs of the stated problem (Krippendorff, 1986). In this case, there is a need to capture the complexities associated with the notion of structuring, normatization, phases of relationships, and subtleties of network relationships. For this reason, a research design was selected which allowed the researcher to approach the problem from a number of directions. These directions are couched into the two major categories of research design, namely, quantitative and qualitative. For the purposes of this research, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to validate the model. A questionnaire was administered from which quantitative results were analysed. This analysis provided the researcher with a static reference, a "snapshot," which was used in determining the validity of the model. In addition, qualitative methods were employed which served to demonstrate the dynamics of the changes predicted in the model. The major definitive difference between quantitative and qualitative research is that the former is based on deduction and the latter on induction Quantitative researchers begin with theoretical premises, predict a pattern of results and examine the data to test the deduction. A further distinction is sometimes made in which qualitative data are described as "real" and "deep" and quantitative 30

PAGE 38

31 data are described as being "hard." Further, it is sometimes argued that quantitative analysis should be distinct and clear relative to qualitative research. McCracken (1988) argues that the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is that: "In the first, categories take shape in the course of research, whereas in the second, they are fixed from the beginning. In the first, the analyst uses his or her methods to capture complexity and to search out patterns of interrelationship between many categories. In the second, the analyst looks, instead, for a very precise relationship between a limited set of categories. The first is designed to elicit testimony that the respondent has difficulty articulating with ease and clarity. The second seeks to ask different, more precisely answerable questions. ... It is not intended to capture issues of distribution and generalization (McCracken, 1988). Not all qualitative research, however, is as different from quantitative work as may appear on surface examination. For example, construct validity can be determined in a qualitative exercise if the researcher can demonstrate multiple instances of a given construct, a task readily available in the quantitative approach due to the inherent qualities of the method. Multiple observations act like multiple items or repeated measurements of a quantitative scale-they demonstrate a construct exists. To this end, it has been suggested that qualitative research can be "deep," "rich," and "hard" (Kidder, 1981). For the purposes of this study, it is important to gain a clear picture of the status of the normative behavior of the respondents as they move through the phases of the relationship with respect to

PAGE 39

32 time. The use of a statistical analysis through quantitative methods allows the researcher to examine the data for patterns and points of reference which can be identified as significant change in the relationships previously identified. A more thorough and detailed description of the events including personal perceptions regarding those events is necessary to fully understand the changes so described. Discussion with the respondents through the long interview process are used to provide these descriptions. In a study conducted by Smith and Robbins (1982) involving Federal Educational Programs and parental involvement, the dual research model was utilized to gather data in schools and school districts. The investigation was carried out by initially doing a questionnaire survey. In addition, certain locations were selected for interviews and more detailed data gathering, using methods which made it possible for a substantial amount of data to be garnered which did not replace the quantitative statistical findings but added to the process to produce a more "rich and textured" set of information for examination. A similar research pattern was conducted by Huberman and Crandall (1982) in which both quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (interview) approaches were used to present an overall result which retained the qualities of each method while presenting an overall result which was uniquely effective as a multidimensional exercise. Such studies are likely to engender more confidence in their findings because they are derived from more than one method of investigation (Webb, 1966).

PAGE 40

33 Specifically, the method employed in this research was a combination of questionnaire and interview. The concepts that were investigated in the research are: 1) friendship network (FBPR), 2) sexually interdependent primary relationship (SIPR), 3) phase of relationship, 4) norms, 5) influence, and 6) structuring. These concepts were examined using specific questions on both the questionnaire and the interview. Primary Sample The sample was needed which would allow for a test of the model. This sample was selected based on the following criteria. First, the respondents had to be in their first marriage and coresiding with their spouse. Secondly, respondents had to be in the M/C phase of the relationship. Finally, respondents had to be male. Selecting a homogeneous sample serves to control for factors which are extraneous to the theoretical framework (Benson-von der Ohe, 1987). Assumptions were made regarding the group of persons to be selected. These assumptions were: 1) most would have or would have had a friendship-based primary network, 2) a relationship phase could be identified, and 3) persons would have moved through the relationship phases of a sexually interdependent primary relationship. Specifically, the respondents would be able to provide information regarding friends, time-based information regarding the meeting of the spouse, and information regarding the changes in the relationships with friends and partner throughout the development of the sexual relationship.

PAGE 41

34 The sample selected for this research was chosen from persons who had the greatest likelihood of having reached the maintenance/change (M/C) phase of an SIPR. The reason for having the sample group based on relationship phase is to allow for respondents to reflect on and discuss the different time frames of the model. In order to achieve this, a sample group was needed which consisted of persons who were in their first marriage. Sexual exclusivity and the perception of relationship permanence can be seen as ways to mark the transition from formation phase to M/C phase. Normatively, engagement and/or marriage is commonly defined, in part, as making the decision to have relationship permanence. For this reason, it was assumed that those individuals who were married were likely to be in the M/C phase. Screening respondents on this basis was conducted in order to add extra insurance that the respondents were, in fact, in the M/C phase. For this study, the exclusion of cohabitators reduced the uncertainty associated with the establishment of the phase relationship needed for study. The pilot study has shown that cohabitators do not necessarily move into the M/C phase. It was assumed that respondents in the M/C phase of a first marriage would have experienced the phase changes associated with the development of the SIPR. The historical trends of family studies stress responses from either both husband and wife or from wives only, there appears a need for studies which utilize the responses from males only (Saffron-Rothschild, 1969). Within the sociology of the family, there has been little emphasis placed on men in families. The decade in review for the

PAGE 42

35 Journal of Marriage and Family had no separate review dealing with men in the family. This in spite of what Scanzoni and Fox (1980) refer to as the "virtual torrent of sexual research in the 1970s." Since that decade review, "there is little evidence to suggest that the growing interest in men and masculinity has been seriously reflected in either the Journal of Marriage and the Family or the Journal of Family Issues" (Morgan, 1990). For these reasons, this sample was restricted to male respondents only. There was no consideration for further limitations placed on the sample. While it is recognized that factors such as race, ethnicity, sex, SES characteristics, and cultural variations are important aspects of sociological study, it was deemed that this research could present an appropriate test of the assumptions of the model without including a strategy for incorporating these factors into the analysis. One factor in limiting the use of these background considerations is the fact that given the sample size of this study, it may have presented difficulties in conducting a proper analysis. Another determining factor in the limitations in the use of these issues has to do with the type of model which was developed. It was assumed that this processual model would apply to various social categories of people equally. It was believed that there would be no loss of integrity of the design of the model or the analysis due to these limitations. Included for study were those who met the selection criteria and were residing in married housing at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. It was determined that a sample size of 100 would offer the most efficient and effective number from which to

PAGE 43

36 obtain data for the study. A list of married housing residents was obtained from the Housing Office at the University of Florida. From that list a random selection of males was generated using a random generating computer program. A return of approximately 50% can be expected from mailed surveys (Bailey, 1977). A number of surveys (220) was selected which would yield a satisfactory number of responses. The final list included names and addresses of 220 married housing residents. Each one of these 220 males were mailed a copy of the questionnaire which included a cover letter (see Appendix A) requesting their participation in this research. The cover letter also included a timeframe for the completion and return of the questionnaire. Respondents were given 5 days for completion. Respondents were provided with a self-addressed, stamped envelope to facilitate the return of the questionnaire. The original intention was to send follow-up notices in order to maximize the return rate. However, after a two week period, out of the 220 surveys mailed, 108 were returned. This percentage of return (49%) satisfied the requirements of the sample size, and therefore, the follow-up procedure was deemed unnecessary. Participants' rights were protected by the proper procedures including all requirements of the Division of Sponsored Research, University of Florida with respect to anonymity and consent (see Appendix A). After reviewing returned questionnaires for appropriate responses for questions R1 through R12 (see Appendix B), the final sample was selected. Responses to these questions determined the eligibility for inclusion in the sample.

PAGE 44

37 Seven respondents were rejected because they failed to meet the criteria. One was determined to be a co-habitator, two were in the process of divorce, one was returned with no responses, and three reported that they were not in their first marriage. The final sample included 101 males in their first marriage. Also, it was determined that these respondents were in the M/C phase of their respective SIPR. Sample Profile The mean age of the sample is 28.3. The mean length of time that the respondent has known his spouse is 7.3 years. The average length of time since they became sexually exclusive is 5.8 years. The average time period for phase one is 1.5 years. The average length of marriage is 4.8 years. The average length of time living together is 4.9 years. Secondary Sample The sample for the qualitative portion of the research was selected to be used in conducting face-to-face interviews. The guideline for conducting long interviews is that it is most effective to use a minimum number of respondents and collect as much information as possible from each. McCracken (1988) believes eight respondents is the point at which the researcher can maximize information without that information becoming too voluminous to be analyzed effectively. It was reasoned that the nature of conducting long interviews was such that more than eight would produce a volume of data which would be unmanageable. Also, the added benefit, if any, of having more data would be relatively insignificant.

PAGE 45

38 The sample for the qualitative research was selected from the respondents who indicated a willingness to take part in a face-toface interview. There were 17 respondents who indicated this willingness to participate. These respondents' returned questionnaires were ordered in sequence according to the date of their return. The procedure was to contact these persons based on this order until eight interviews had been arranged. The first five respondents to be called agreed to be interviewed in their respective homes. These interviews turned out to be similar in regard to the setting and mood of the interview. This similarity was not surprising given the fact that they all took place in the married housing apartments. These interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 90 minutes in length. However, in each case there seemed to be an interest expressed in this research and, therefore, postinterview discussions proved to enhance the interpretation of the responses. The next two respondents contacted were unable to participate in the interview because of scheduling conflicts. The next three respondents agreed to participate and a subsequent time and place for the interviews was arranged. One interview was to take place in the Sociology Department conference room. However, this person failed to appear at the scheduled time and subsequent contact with this individual was never achieved. A substitute was contacted from the respondent list and an interview was arranged. Of these three interviews one was conducted in an office, one was held in a conference room and the other interview took place in the football stadium. These three interviews averaged approximately one hour

PAGE 46

39 and fifteen minutes in length. There was a sense, however, unlike the five in-home interviews, that the respondents did not show the same level of interest in the research. Throughout the course of all eight interviews, the interviewer found no indication that the responses given were insincere and there was no reason to believe that the data obtained from these interviews would produce questionable results. The respondents were given labels (R1 to R8) which represented their order of interview for purposes of reporting the data. The reporting of these data in relationship to the qualitative findings is shown in the findings section and is woven into the narrative relative to each research issue. By incorporating the qualitative data findings in this manner, they provided a more dynamic view of the changes occurring in each time period. Quantitative Data Collection In order to obtain measures that reflected the movement through time described by the model, the analysis relied on retrospection on the part of the respondents. Respondents were required to remember and reconstruct their lives prior to initial involvement with partner and at subsequent relationship phase intervals up to the present time. This was accomplished by a questionnaire and interviews whereby the respondent answered a series of questions for each time period represented in the model. The questions pertained to the relationships the respondent has with the FBPR network and with the prospect/partner in respondent's SIPR. The respondent was asked similar questions for each time

PAGE 47

40 frame. Further, the time frames were determined according to respondent's own perception of when the changes occurred. The Questionnaire In order to establish a set of questions which provided the opportunity to gather information relative to the research questions presented earlier, it was necessary to separate the time elements in a manner which provided the most convenient and accurate exercise for the respondent. In addition, an initial set of questions was included which was used to determine the respondent's appropriate inclusion in the final primary sample (see Appendix A). Relationship Phase Questions The following questions were used as an indication of phase of relationship. For this study, only those respondents who were determined to be in the M/C phase were included in the data analysis. This determination was based on the fact that they are living together, that there was an identifiable tie which marked the beginning of their relationship as special, and the fact that they indicate expected M/C phase responses. These questions were: 1. Is this a first marriage? 2. Age? 3. Date of first meeting with current spouse? 4. Date relationship was first perceived as being special? That is, the decision was made to be mutually exclusive. 5. Are respondent and spouse coresiding? 6. What are the feelings about the present relationship: a. Is thought given to ending the relationship?

PAGE 48

41 b. Would respondent be worse off if the relationship ended? c. How much effort is given to keep the relationship going? d. Reasons for sustaining the relationship? Results of the Pilot Study indicate that these factors are quite acceptable in determining the phase of relationship as needed in this study. Time One Questions The concept of influence was measured for different phases in the relationship. Influence is basically the presence of or the operation of norms on the individual. If a norm is present then it is said to have an influence on a person. It can be enabling or constraining, either positive or negative. Influence is the result of norms and needs to be measured at all times. For example, as a person progresses through the formation phase, the strength of the influence of the FBPR network can be determined by knowing how willing that person would be to change some behavior in order to compromise to the demands of a Prospect. If on the other hand, norms emerge in a person's sexual relationship that changed that person's thinking of what before had been considered to be norm violation relative to the FBPR network, then this would demonstrate a weakening of the normative influence of the friendship network and a strengthening of the normative influence of the sexual relationship. Questions for the time preceding and up to the time when respondent met his partner were included in the Time 1 section.

PAGE 49

42 Also included was a series of questions about friendship relationships during that time. Such questions established the existence and structure of the friendship-based primary network. The respondent was asked to describe his friends during this time. These questions established the strength of and the structuring of norms for the respondent's FBPR: 1. How many people were considered to be close friends? 2. How many total hours per week was spend with friends? 3. The majority of time spent with network members was in: a. school related activities? b. recreational activities? c. work related activities? d. social activities? 4. Was there interaction with these friends on a regular basis? 5. On those times when participation in an activity with friends was not possible, were negative feelings experienced? 6. Were friends thought about in their absence? 7. Was importance placed on what friends thought ? 8. Were friends considered to be important? Time Two Questions Time 2 questions covered the period of time from the moment that respondent met his current partner up to the time they decided their relationship was special, i.e., exclusivity and permanence. He was asked to describe both the friendship network and the relationship with his partner at this time. Time 2 questions were

PAGE 50

43 identical to those in Time 1 with respect to the friendship network. In addition, questions were included which provided information on the development of the relationship with partner. Instructions to respondents were specific and required the answers to reflect conditions during the specific time period in question: 1-8. Friendship questions, identical to Time 1 questions. 9. Amount of time spent with prospect? 10. How was time spent with prospect? 11. Was there discussion of friends with prospect? 12. Did the activities engaged in with friends ever cause conflict with prospect? 13. Did the amount of time spent with prospect ever cause conflict with friends? Responses to these questions provided data which were used to measure the amount of change from Time 1 to Time 2. The information related to the activity of the FBPR interaction from the regularity of the interaction from the amount of time spent with friends, compared in Time 1 and Time 2, were things which were used to show this change. Time Thr ee Questions Time 3 questions represented the relationship beginning with the point at which the relationship became special or when Prospect became Partner. Questions for Time 3 were identical to those in Time 2. As in the previous section, instructions to the respondents were specific and instructed the respondents to regard the proper time when considering the responses.

PAGE 51

44 The data derived from these questions will establish the existence of an FBPR network and that PERSON is aware of and can articulate a stable pattern of interaction with the FBPR network. These data establish a basis from which change in the structure and the influence of the FBPR network on PERSON can be measured. Respondents were asked to report the number of close friends and the amount of hours per week spent with their close friends for each time period. Also, respondents were asked to report how this time was spent, either in school, recreation, work, or social activities. If the respondents report little or no significant decrease in the amount of time spent with close friends from Time 1 to Time 2 and they report a significant difference in the amount of time spent with close friends from Time 2 to Time 3, then this would be an indication that these changes occurred as the SIPR developed. Further, such change is to be expected based on the assumptions of the model. The measures of influence stem from questions 5 through 8 in each time period. Respondents were asked to indicate, using a Likert-type scale with five categories ranging from always to never, the extent to which they perceived some influence from their FBPR network. Data from these measures would provide insight into changes occurring in the level of perceived influence from Time 1 to Time 2 and again from Time 2 to Time 3. If the assumptions of the model are correct, then the changes in influence would be little or not significant from Time 1 to Time 2 and would significantly decrease from Time 2 to Time 3.

PAGE 52

45 In Time 2 and Time 3, there is an additional set of questions pertaining to the interaction PERSON has with PARTNER. For these questions, respondents were asked to report the number of hours per week spent with PARTNER and how this time was spent. If the respondents report a significant increase in the amount of time spent with their SIPR partner, then this would be interpreted as demonstrating support for the model. Measures of the amount of influence PERSON received from PARTNER were also obtained in Time 2 and Time3. As with the FBPR questions, responses to these questions were coded using a Likert-type scale. According to the assumptions of the model, there should be a significant increase across these measures. The final set of questions pertaining to the relationship between PERSON and PARTNER deals with the amount of conflict which is present in the SIPR due to the relationship PERSON has with the FBPR network. A decrease from Time 2 to Time 3 for the measures of conflict will be seen as support for the model. However, if no change is present, then the assumptions of the model can neither be supported nor rejected. Qualitative Data Collection The qualitative data were gathered by way of face-to-face interview. The interview questions were based on the questionnaire and were used to elicit similar information ( see Appendix B). The procedure used was similar to the "long interview" as discussed by McCracken (1988). The interview consisted of "grand tour" questions and "prompting" questions (McCracken, 1988) (see Appendix B). The interview questions allowed respondents to tell

PAGE 53

46 their own story in their own terms. These "grand-tour" questions were used to get respondents to talk without overspecifying the substance of their talk. Prompting is a way to get the respondent to give a more detailed testimony. This was done through the use of "floating prompts," which are spontaneous, and "planned prompts" which are used when spontaneous prompting fails to bring about discussion of phenomena that do not easily come to mind (McCracken, 1988). These were used in the interviews to further induce the respondents to describe specific events or give specific examples pertaining to their discussions. According to McCracken (1988) the quality of qualitative analysis cannot be judged by quantitative standards. The concept of what people think and do, as contrasted to how many of them do it, is the essence of the differences (McCracken, 1988, p. 49). The technique of combining approaches in this study will afford optimum gain in that the qualitative aspect will help to illustrate the dynamics or flow of change appearing from Time 1 through Time 3 and the quantitative measures will determine, for specific time phases, the structuring of norms as compared to other time phases. Because the focus of this study is the perception of the interaction between an individual and that individual's network and the interactions between the individual and that individual's partner, it was not necessary to interview PERSON'S partner. While not within the scope of this research, future researchers may wish to include interviews from both persons in the SIPR. In order to address QUESTIONS 1 and 2, respondent was asked to recall the interactions with friends that occurred prior to

PAGE 54

47 entering the formation phase of the current SIPR. The questions here required the respondent to discuss the patterns of interaction which took place with members of the FBPR, PERSON'S sense of obligation to maintaining those relationships, and PERSON'S knowledge on the FBPR network members' expectations of PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes. The respondent was then asked about interactions with friends from the time when the respondent entered into the formation phase with PROSPECT up to the time when respondent decided the relationship became special. This series of questions allowed a determination to be made as to whether or not the structuring of FBPRs has significantly changed from Time 1 to Time 2. The "Grand Tour" questions for Time 1 were: 1. In the time before you met your spouse, describe the relationship you held with those whom you considered to be your closest friends. The next set of questions required the respondent to discuss interactions with PROSPECT. These questions concentrated on respondent's perceptions on whether or not the interaction with PROSPECT required respondent to violate FBPR network norms, and if so, how this is resolved. Responses to these questions were used to help determine the amount of influence the FBPR network has over PERSON during the formation phase of the SIPR. 2. Please describe the relationship you held with those friends after you met your spouse. 3. Describe your relationship with your spouse during the time after you met.

PAGE 55

48 QUESTIONS 3 and 4 were addressed by requiring respondents to recall the interactions with the FBPR network and PARTNER at the time when PROSPECT has become PARTNER. This series of questions was similar to the previous questions with the exception that PERSON was asked to recall the time when PROSPECT became PARTNER. As before, PERSON was asked to discuss the patterns of interaction with FBPR network members, the obligations for maintaining these relationships, and what the network members expect from PERSON in terms of behaviors and attitudes. Further, these questions required PERSON to discuss the elements of structuring as they relate to the interactions with PARTNER. The final questioning addressed PERSON'S current interactions with FBPR network members and PARTNER. PERSON was asked to discuss patterns of interactions with FBPR network members and PARTNER, and obligations and expectations of these relationships as they currently stand. The next series of questions related to how PERSON is currently interacting with FBPR network members. These questions allowed for a determination of the amount of change in PERSON'S interaction with the FBPR network as it relates to the structuring of the SIPR. 4. Describe the relationship you had with your friends after the time you decided your relationship with your spouse was special. 5. Describe the relationship you had with your spouse after the time you decided your relationship was special with respect to the relationship you had with your friends at that time.

PAGE 56

49 6. Describe the your current relationship with your spouse relative to the relationship you currently hold with your friends. These interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed for analysis. This analysis was used to determine if the respondents' descriptions of their relationships with their friends and their spouses corresponded to the assumptions of the model. Data Analysis Procedures The analysis of the data for this study consists of combining aspects of quantitative and qualitative approaches. The variables and their means for the variables from the questionnaire are shown in Table 1. The variables for time spent with friends and spouse were coded as continuous variables. The variables for how time was spent with friends and spouse were coded as categorical variables using a Likert Scale with one representing no time and five representing all of the time. The variables REGRETF(S), HOWF(S)TH, CONSIDF(S), AND ABSENTF(S) were also coded using a Likert Scale with one representing always and five representing never. This same coding was using for DISCUS, CONFTIM and CONFACT. The variable IMPORT was coded as one representing very and five representing not at all. The first part of the analysis utilizes the quantitative data to test for changes in the FBPR network and the SIPR over time. This analysis entails three key considerations: 1) the modelling considerations from the FRIENDSHIP variables at Time 1 to the

PAGE 57

50 Table 1 : Means for FBPR Network and SIPR Variables

PAGE 58

51 Table 1 --continued

PAGE 59

52 Time 1 Time Before Meeting Spouse Time 2 Time from First Meeting to Becoming Special Time 3 Time After Relationship Became Special NOFR1 HRSFR1 SCHACTF1 RECACTF1 WRKACTF1 SOCACTF1 REGRETF1 HOWFTH1 ABSENTF1 CONSIDF1 IMPORTF1 STRUCTURING INFLUENCE FBPR Netw ork Variables NOFR2 HRSFR2 SCHACTF2 RECACTF2 WRKACTF2 -*SOCACTF2 1 REGRETF2 HOWFTH2 ABSENTF2 CONSIDF2 IMPORTF2 M SIPR Variables NOFR3 HRSFR3 SCHACTF3 RECACTF3 WRKACTF3 SOCACTF3 REGRETF3 HOWFTH3 ABSENTF3 CONSIDF3 IMPORTF3 HRSSP2 SCHACTS2 RECACTS2 WRKACTS2 SOCACTS2 REGRETS2 HOWSTH2 ABSENTS2 CONSIDS2 HRSSP3 SCHACTS3 RECACTS3 WRKACTS3 SOCACTS3 REGRETS3 HOWSTH3 ABSENTS3 CONSIDS3 IMPORTS2 IMPORTS3 CONFLICT DISCUS2 CONFTIM2 CONFACT2 DISCUS3 CONFTIM3 CONFACT3 Figure 2 : Schematic of concepts and measures for data analysis.

PAGE 60

53 empirical representation of the model and the concepts presented in the model on page 21. The data gathered from the interviews were synthesized utilizing coding schemes similar to the "sociologically constructed codes" (Strauss, 1987). Coding for qualitative analysis refers to the conceptualization of data for the purpose of "giving provisional answers about the categories and their relations" (Strauss, 1987, p. 21). Categories refers to the distinctions found in the data. The analysis in this research differs from the "classical" sense of qualitative analysis in that here the research stems from a predetermined, theoretically constructed model. The analysis of the data gathered for this research seeks to discover whether the categories presented in the respondents' testimonies reflect those predicted in the conceptual perspective model. In this sense, the analysis moves away from "pure," ethnographic qualitative analysis such as that of Garfinkel (1967) toward a more conservative approach to qualitative method. The categories sought from the interviews appeared to be consistent with the concepts presented for this study. Of particular importance will be evidence of change of influence from one phase of relationship to another. In this type of analysis, influence as a concept was investigated by examination of statements which may give evidence of concept strength, such as, "I wanted to go out with them [friends] real bad, but couldn't." In this way, the quantitative data were enhanced and allowed for a more thorough discussion of the concepts as related to the model.

PAGE 61

54 Results of the interviews are reported as data elaboration to the quantitative methodology. As the quantitative data are used to examine changes in the variables for structuring and influence for FBPR network and SIPR across time, the qualitative data extend the examination of these changes. This is accomplished by incorporating those discussions pertaining to the particular time period explored through the quantitative methods. In this way, excerpts from the interview responses which can be identified as relating to the concepts presented by the model are used as these discussions.

PAGE 62

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Changes in the FBPR Network Across Time In order to test for the changes in the structuring of the FBPR network, t-tests for the differences in the mean level of structuring across the time periods were run. The results of these t-tests are shown in Table 2. As can be seen from this table, the difference from Time 1 to Time 2 was significant for all structuring Table 2. T-test for Difference in Means for FBPR Network for Structuring Variables Variables

PAGE 63

56 measures except the number of friends reported and the amount of time spent with friends in work related activities. For the hours per week respondent spent with friends in the FBPR network, there was a reported decrease of 5.54 hours from Time 1 to Time 2. Also during this time, there was a decrease in the amount of time respondent spent with friends in school, recreation and social activities. These results indicate that there were, in fact, significant changes in the stable patterns of interaction found in the FBPR network from the time before respondent first met spouse and the time immediately following that first meeting. This is contrary to the notion presented in the model where no significant change was expected during this time. In addition to these changes, there is evidence to suggest that changes in the structuring of the FBPR network continues from Time 2 to Time 3. These changes are found in the hours spent with network members and the amount of time spent in recreational activities. The hours per week spent with friends is a significant decrease of 7.11 hours from Time 2. This change, accompanied by the decrease in the amount of time spent in recreational activities, supports the changes expected from the model. The friendship and spouse variables for the concept of influence were scaled and found to have high reliability, Cronbach's alpha of .80 in Time 1, .82 in Time 2 and .84 in Time 3. Also, a scale of the same variables for spouse influence in Times 2 and 3 had reliability coefficients of alpha=.84 and .77, respectively. These high alpha levels (alpha > .6) indicate that a scale can be created using all four measures to produce a single variable measurement

PAGE 64

57 for the concept of influence. This scale was produced by adding the variables for the level of regret felt when participation with friends or spouse was not possible, the amount of consideration of friends or spouse when engaging in activities, the amount of thought given to friends or spouse in their absence and the level of concern over what friends or spouse thinks of behaviors. It was felt that there was no loss of data integrity by producing these scales. Table 3 shows the results of the t-tests for the differences in the amount Table 3. T-test for Difference in Means for Influence Variables for FBPR Network Variables

PAGE 65

58 same time. Further consistency with the structuring changes is found in the influence change of the FBPR network from Time 2 to Time 3. The negative and significant value indicates that the influence of the FBPR network continues to decrease after PROSPECT has become PARTNER. This follows the expected decrease in influence from Time 2 to Time 3 suggested by the model. Further results related to the changes in the FBPR network over time are the responses by the interviewees in response to the questions 1, 3, and 4 of the interview schedule (see Appendix B). These responses were compared with the t-test results to determine further clarification of the predicted changes in the model. The interviewees all reported some change in the amount of time and kind of time spent with friends from Time 1 to Time 2. Further, these discussions illustrate the dynamic process of these changes. R1 discussed his friends and how the relationship held with these friends changed: "I'd say that I've slacked off on my activities with my friends a little bit and [I] used to get kinda pissed off because they'd tease me a little bit because the boys are going out having a good time and here I am with this new broad." R2 related the changes through this account, "There were times though that I had to cancel out because I was either going to LSU to a party with her or going to a football game with her, or doing something, there were times that I didn't participate with them." Not dissimilar was R3's comment about these changes, "No, it became a gradual process, I think initially we still, you know I

PAGE 66

59 would hang out with them, but then as time progressed we didn't hang out as much." Speaking about his friends after meeting his spouse, R4 said, "Just in that two week period of time, almost went from wide-open to nil, didn't hardly associate with them at all." R5 relates this about the changes in friendship activities during the time he was dating his spouse to be, "Yeah, I guess I missed some fraternity functions because the fraternity didn't seem quite as important to me any more." R6 clearly indicates a decrease in the amount of influence exerted by the FBPR network and how this change comes about, "I couldn't say it was the day we got engaged or any of that but I remember discussing with her the possibilities of marriage and living together and working and trying to get on with our lives after college was over and, you know, if we're gonna have these kinds of feelings for each other and not be like this I kinda realized, well, you know, something's gotta give, I gotta put some of my shenanigan on the back burner there and they've gotta take kind of a back seat and become a little bit less important and not worry about worrying so much about, you know, hurting anybody's feelings or what anybody's going to say and you know that kind of stuff. . ." R7 reports, "But then after 3 or 4 months or so some opportunities that came up to do some things and uh, uh, didn't seem to cause a lot of conflict, but I just, I just either, uh, participate with her or don't participate at all." R8 sums up the resulting decrease in FBPR network influence in this statement referring to a

PAGE 67

60 time after becoming "serious" about his spouse to be, "To tell you the truth, I haven't had much time to think about my friends." Review of these comments indicates the changes in the FBPR network which occur over the relationship phases. These changes reflect movement through the phases, with time spent with FBPR network members decreasing and influence of these same members also decreasing. This is similar to the results of the quantitative data analysis for the change in the FBPR network. These interviews paralleled the t-test findings that change occurs more rapidly than the model assumed. However, in keeping with the assumptions of the model, these statements demonstrate a continued change in the structuring of the FBPR network along with a continued decrease of the influence of the FBPR network from the time when PERSON met PROSPECT to when PROSPECT becomes PARTNER. Changes in the SIPR Across Time The results for the change in the structuring in the SIPR are shown in Table 4. There are two significant changes which occur from Time 2 to Time 3. The first of these is the hours per week spent with spouse. There is an increase of 24.83 hours per week from Time 2 to Time 3. Also, there is an increase in the amount of time respondent spent with spouse in recreational activities. These results suggest that there is a change in the structuring of the SIPR from the time PERSON meets PROSPECT to when PROSPECT becomes PARTNER. It appears that the recreational time spent with friends is replaced with recreational time spent with spouse. This fits with the expectations of the model. That is, these results fit the notion that as PROSPECT becomes PARTNER, the structuring in the

PAGE 68

61 FBPR network changes to allow for changes in the structuring within the SIPR. Table 4. T-test for Difference in Means for Structuring Variables for Spouse

PAGE 69

62 Table 5. T-test for Difference in Means for Influence Variables for Spouse Variables

PAGE 70

63 never any conflict except when I went without her. If I wouldn't let her go she got hacked." Later, as R5 reported, "Yeah. I missed a lot of socials. I missed all the socials. I didn't go to any." R6 related the influence from the SIPR as, "As far as I was concerned it was dating and we didn't go out all the time, you know I still played golf on Friday whether she wanted me to or not, I didn't care, I never asked her whether or not, you know, I'd say 'Do you want to go out Saturday night, if you want to go out Friday afternoon, I'm playing golf and we're not going' and that was about it. Later on if Jane wanted to do something and it was conflicting with what the fellows were doing, you know, I'd sometimes do it with her and sometimes with the fellows but I'd make sure that it didn't cause any conflict with her, 'cause it got to the point that I didn't want to upset her and make her mad." R7 states, "I surely don't go and spend a lot of time with them without her 'cause I don't really have any friends, or a group of friends now that's not friends with her and there's a lot of couples." Finally, R8 sums up the influence of the spouse by this statement, "She became special pretty quick, I'd say within about 2 months and then after that we just did everything together." A review of the qualitative responses to the questions concerning changes in the structuring in the SIPR and in the amount of influence of the SIPR indicates support for the results reported in tables 3 and 4. The influence from the SIPR increases over time. Conflict with Pa rtner Over Friends One more possible measure for the level of influence from PARTNER was the amount of discussion and conflict respondent had

PAGE 71

64 with spouse and how that changed over the development of the SIPR. The measures for conflict (discussion with PARTNER, amount of time spent with friends, and conflict over activities with friends) were tested for scaling reliability. It was determined, based on low Cronbach's alphas in Time 2 and Time 3, that such a scale would not be reproducable and therfore no scale was created. Table 6 shows the results of the changes in conflict over time. As can be seen, there was no significant change, over time, in the amount of discussion Table 6. T-test for Difference in Means Spouse

PAGE 72

65 Further examination of this issue through the interview process yielded these supporting statements. R4 responded with, "We didn't really fight about it [the kind of things I did with my friends] we just both kind of gave a little bit." In addition, R6 states, "There really wasn't much of a problem there [time spent with friends], I'd just say, 'Jane, we're not going out tonight, I'm going out with the buddies, no, no, you're not invited, we're just going to hang out and stuff.' It was a callous way and she understood I had my friends and needed to do stuff with them." Difference in Influence of FBPR Network and SI PR Further testing of the model was done by generating t-tests for the differences between the influence of the FBPR network and the influence of the SIPR in Time 2 and again in Time 3. These results are shown in Table 7. The resulting number in Time 2 means that the influence from the FBPR network was less than the Table 7. T-test for Difference in Means Between the Influence of Friends and the Influence of Partner at Time 2 and at Time 3 Difference in the influence of FBPR network and the influence of the SIPR N = 101 ** a < .01 Time 3 -5.31

PAGE 73

66 influence of the SIPR in this time. In Time 3, the difference between the amount of influence from the FBPR network and SIPR is larger than the difference in the previous time. The results of the analysis of data regarding relative influence of the FBPR network and the SIPR over time show what the model predicts. That is, the influence of the SIPR increases from Time 2 to Time 3 and that change corresponds to a decrease in the amount of influence of the FBPR network over this same time. Most interviewees were able to directly and positively show how this difference changed from phase to phase. An example is R3 who reported: "I think as the relationship became more serious I was influenced more by what she thought about me and her feelings were more important to me than what my friends thought." At this point, what the quantitative data do not reveal and what can now be obtained from the interviews are the reasons for these changes and the dynamics of the processes through which these changes come about. The structuring which occurs within the FBPR network in Time 1 will influence PERSON in the interaction with PROSPECT during Time 2. This notion is suggested by R1 as he described first the structuring within the FBPR network and then the circumstances under which he first met and initially interacted with his spouse to be. "Immediately before I met my spouse, I was still in school, and a couple of my closest friends were in school with me, so I had an opportunity to spend a part of everyday, almost every day with my part of my friends. The ones I didn't spend part of that day with down at the University, I spend with them almost every night

PAGE 74

67 including the guys that I went to school with too, we were all about the same age. Some of us finished school before the others did. We would, almost every night, get together for some type of activity; having a couple of beers that night, playing basketball, going to the show. We were all single expect for one of us who was out of town anyway, so we frequented all the nightspots where you could meet women, played sports, played golf all the time, every weekend for sure was a golf game. We were pretty close-knit, pretty tight. Even the girls that we did see, the relationships we had with each other were more important than the female relationships we had. We did all kinds of things, all the typical things that I think guys do--get a cabin and blow it out for a weekend, drink beer, fish, play cards and all that kind of stuff. We'd do that a few times spring and summer. That's basically the kinds of stuff we did." In reference to the circumstances in which R1 met his spouse to be, he says, "I met her in an office that I happened to be in that day. She was a golfer, so we had similar interests there. She was in a golf tournament at that present time and it's kind of funny because I had a golf game, we had a golf outing planned at this resort with a couple of my buddies that following Saturday and this was a Monday. I mentioned to her that maybe she could play [golf] with us on that Saturday and when I went back and brought it up to my buddies, we did need an eighth, we had two foursomes going and needed an extra person and they didn't want her involved, so I just kinda not called her and told her that we were playing golf. . but I kind of let my buddies put the nix on that and I went with what they wanted instead of what she wanted."

PAGE 75

68 This illustrates the degree to which the established behavior patterns present in R1's FBPR network worked as a guide to how R1 could interact with his spouse-to-be. This interaction, early in Time 2, stems from a well-established, "close knit" group of friends. The unwillingness of R1 to try to change the group to accommodate his new relationship suggests the strength of the influence of the structuring of the FBPR network relative to his behavior. In fact, he was unwilling to communicate this to her. The interaction with the spouse-to-be at this point is based on the premise that the norm of the group was that female relationships were not as important as the "relationships we had with each other." Describing the changes occurring in the FBPR network relative to the SIPR during Time 2, respondent R6 seems to point toward initiating changes in the network in order to accommodate newly created norms in the SIPR. "It was business as usual. I would make plans, go out with Ann, but you know if I had something scheduled with the boys, if we were going to go do something, I'd probably pretty much do that, because I could go out with Sue the next time. And I figured there wasn't any problem. There really wasn't much of a problem there, I'd just say, 'Ann, we're not going out tonight, I'm going out with the buddies and no, you're not invited. We're just going to hang out and stuff.' It was a callous way and she understood I had my friends and needed to do stuff with them and she had friends. She was living with four other girls and they did activities all the time together. You know, it wasn't any big thing. But there was a time when gradually the things I did with them [the boys] got less. Of course,

PAGE 76

69 it was 2 years after we met and I'd say that I always had at least one of my closest friends in town living nearby, they hadn't all moved away and I still stay in contact with at least one of them. But, you know, it got to the point later on that if Ann wanted to do something and it was conflicting with what the fellows were doing, I'd sometimes do it with her and sometimes with the fellows but I'd make sure that it, we didn't cause any conflict with Ann, 'cause it got to the point that I didn't want to upset her and make her mad. . I couldn't say it was the day we got engaged or anything but I remember discussing with her the possibilities of marriage and living together and working and trying to get on with our lives after college was over and, if we're gonna have these kinds of feelings for each other and not be like this I kinda realized that something's gotta give, I gotta put some of my shenanigans on the back burner there and they've gotta take kind of a back seat and become a little bit less important and not worry so much about hurting anybody's feelings or what anybody's going to say." Throughout the course of this response, the respondent refers to processes of change. He states, and chronologically so, that at one point it (the SIPR) was at one status and he balanced his friends with his girlfriend during this time. At this point, which was early on in the SIPR, he was trying not to "make her mad." The respondent then describes a gradual change to a point at which the girlfriend becomes more important and becomes more of an influence over him than are his friends. He clearly realizes and articulates that at this time his friends definitely must take a "back seat" to his relationship with his spouse to be. He reaches this conclusion

PAGE 77

70 because at this time she has become more important and exerts more of an influence over him than his friends. This change, over time, is now reflected in his willingness to make his friends less important. He is actually effecting the change in the FBPR network.

PAGE 78

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this research was to present and test a model that describes the reciprocal impact of structural forces on an individual as that individual formulates and develops a sexually interdependent primary relationship. Essential to this purpose was to investigate the underlying causes of the structural changes which have been known to occur during such relationships. At the heart of this research is the attempt to bridge the gap between macro and micro levels of understanding. On the one hand, it was predicted that there are structural forces associated with group membership which serve to influence a particular member of that group in that persons interactions with other individuals. For the purposes of this research, structural influence was said to exist in a network of friendship-based primary relationships. It was implied that this network of friends acted as a mesolevel structure representing larger society. It is in this sense that the network could be used to represent macrolevel structures. On the other hand, individual or micro forces play a role in shaping an individual's life. It was further argued that an individual relationship such as a sexually interdependent primary relationship exerts its influence over the individuals involved in that relationship differentially throughout the stages of that relationship. 71

PAGE 79

72 The model described how an individual's FBPR network exerts influence over that individual and that this influence is present as the individual forms an SIPR. Further, the model describes how, over the continued development of this SIPR, the amount of influence over PERSON from the FBPR network decreases due to the increase in the amount of influence PERSON receives from the SIPR. These changes are due to the fact that in our interactions with others we develop norms which we then use as guides for our lives. In testing for the validity of the model, research questions were developed which incorporated the concepts under consideration in the model. Measurements for these concepts were created in the form of questionnaires and interviews. These concepts were structuring defined as stable and ongoing patterns of interaction, influence defined as the presence of norms, and conflict More specifically, changes in these concepts over time were used in the determination of the validity of the model. Research methods employed for the testing of the model were developed so as to maximize the conceptual interpretation of the results. It was felt that a parsimonious approach to conducting this research would lend itself to meeting this end. The methodology employed enabled the researcher to test for changes in the concepts of structuring and influence. This methodology consisted of generating data for testing using t-tests and qualitative data interpretation. The first assumption related to the model was that there could be a determination that structuring within the FBPR network existed in the time before PERSON met PARTNER. This structuring was

PAGE 80

73 confirmed by the existence of a stable pattern of interactions within the network and this structuring formed the basis for the identification of change occurring across time. The second assumption referred to Time 2 of the model. The way in which PERSON interacts with PROSPECT during this time will be guided by the norms which have developed in the structuring between PERSON and network members during Time 1. Further, PERSON and PROSPECT will begin to develop norms for the SIPR. In order to address this assumption, tests were performed to measure the amount of change in the amount of time spent with network members and the ways in which this time was spent changed from the time immediately preceding the beginning of the formation phase of an SIPR to the time immediately following this meeting. Results indicated significant changes in the amount of time spent with friends and in the amount of influence perceived by PERSON from the FBPR network. These results do not appear to precisely support this assumption. There are two possible reasons for these findings. First, the questionnaire could have been constructed in such a way so as to not differentiate clearly enough the time period (phase) under consideration. Supporting this contention are data from some of the interviews, wherein respondents indicated some change in the influence and/or activities immediately upon initiating the relationship with the future spouse. Second, there may have been an underestimation of the amount of influence a perspective partner has over PERSON. This underestimation does not necessarily adversely affect the tenets of

PAGE 81

74 the model. The fact that the predicted changes occur from Time 2 to Time 3 suggests that the major emphasis of the model is still supported. The changes from Time 1 to Time 2 along with the changes from Time 2 to Time 3 further illustrate the dynamic process predicted. That is, what is suggested by these results is a structural change within an FBPR network occurring over time as a function of the development of an SIPR. Actually, the point at which the person in the SIPR becomes "special" marks the time that PERSON has effected enough change in the FBPR network to allow that to occur. As normatizing occurs in the SIPR during Time 2, and as the partners exchange goals and aspirations for the relationship, and as they work out what the structuring of their relationship is going to be at Time 3, PERSON actually effects change in the FBPR network which allows that structuring to exist. The final assumption to be examined relates to the time as the SIPR enters the M/C phase and structuring occurs between PERSON and PARTNER. At this time, PERSON'S behaviors and attitudes will reflect the structuring of the SIPR. This structuring will cause PERSON to interact with the FBPR network in a manner which reflects this structuring. When there is a conflict between the norms of the relationship between PERSON and the FBPR network and PERSON and PARTNER, PERSON will tend to violate the norms of the FBPRs and adhere to those in the SIPR. The results indicate that as the SIPR moves from formation to M/C phase, structuring occurs within the SIPR as predicted. Also, PERSON'S sense of obligation to the SIPR becomes established. This

PAGE 82

75 is shown in the results by an increase in the amount of influence PARTNER has over PERSON from formation to M/C. Highlighting this assumption with the response from R7, during Time 2, "I don't think that anything with my friends happened much in this time because we [spouse-to-be and I] didn't really spend a whole lot of time together, we just went out on regular dates." After [we] became special, "I've got some friends and we've got some mutual friends and we do a lot of activities together, I surely don't go and spend a lot of time with them without her 'cause I don't really have any friends or a group of friends now that's not friends with her and there's a lot of couples. We do some things with her family and their spouses and that's sort of a new group. I don't see my old buddies too much. Most of them have all gone on, but I still do have some friends that live here in town that I had before and we still do a few things, but not nearly as much as we used to do." The group of friends that R7 described in Time 1 and Time 2 has been more or less replaced with a group consisting of mutual friends, couples and family members. These new groups and the activities done with them are a reflection of the structuring within the SIPR created from the normatizing which occurred throughout the course of its development.

PAGE 83

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this research was to link micro and macro explanations of how individuals form and develop sexual relationships. The functionalist view holds that there exists in society structures which determine the way in which individuals can form and maintain sexual relationships. These sex "roles" exist as society's means to control sexual behavior in order to insure the orderly functioning of the "family." This view represents a macro level perspective which explains the development of sexual relationships as a result of structural forces. The symbolic interactionist view or micro perspective explains sexual relationship development and structural formation from a human action point of view. It is through individual interaction and decision making that sexual relationships develop. As these relationships develop, structures seem to emerge. The major delineation between the symbolic interactionist perspective and the functionalist perspective exists because neither perspective fully incorporates the ideas of the other. The focus of this research was to create a model which allowed the two perspectives to interact. It was argued that as individuals interact, structures are created and these structures act as guides for future action. This future action either reinforces the structure or acts somehow to change it. As new structures are created, new guidelines for action are developed. The way in which 76

PAGE 84

77 this perceived "gap" in the two perspectives was bridged was by incorporating the usage of networks as mesolevel representations of social structure. It was suggested that some social scientists subscribe to the notion that individuals are as active in constructing their environment as they are defined by it. It was further suggested that research should be conducted to describe what conditions in the social environment might serve to constrain the way in which individuals interact and how these social environment conditions come about. One way to conduct this research would be to incorporate the use of networks as a mesolevel tool for measuring the social world. Research endeavors in the past which focused on the study of networks pointed towards a definite connection between these networks as structures and the individual members which comprise them. Results of these studies indicated that changes in an individual's sexual relationship accompanied changes in such things as the size and density of the individual's network. What was needed in this research was a sense of what produced these accompanying changes. This research was conducted utilizing a dual method of data collection and analysis. The primary sample, which was utilized for quantitative data collection, consisted of 101 married males living in married housing at the University of Florida, Gainesville. It was believed that this sample size was adequate to provide the necessary data for testing the model. Married males were selected for two reasons. The first reason was that selecting a sample of married persons provided the best opportunity to maximize the

PAGE 85

78 chances of having respondents who were in the maintenance/change phase. The second reason was that is was perceived that males have not received sufficient attention with regard to sexual relationships. There was no attempt made to select a sample based on social categories or background information as it was assumed that the processual nature of the model was such that it would apply across such categories. Further, without such information, it was deemed possible to achieve a base level indication as to the support or non support of the model. It is recognized, however, that such factors should be included in future efforts. The sample for the qualitative data collection consisted of respondents from the primary sample who agreed to participate in a face-to-face interview. Out of 17 respondents who agreed to participate, eight were selected for interviews. This number of interviewees was deemed sufficient based on the notion that this would produce a volume of information that could be analyzed effectively. The data collected for this research utilized survey questionnaires mailed to the primary sample and face-to-face interviews with the secondary sample. The questionnaire enabled the researcher to collect quantitative data to measure the concepts of structuring, influence and conflict during different phases of the sexual relationship. The respondents were required to remember their lives prior to initial involvement with their spouse and at subsequent time periods throughout the development of this relationship. The responses to the questions in the questionnaires

PAGE 86

79 provided the researcher with data which were used to measure the various concepts and assumptions associated with the model. Because the model required these concepts to be measured at different time periods, and those measurements were to be compared across time periods, it was important that the data were collected in this fashion. The interviews were conducted so as to provide qualitative data which could be used to further explore the assumptions of the model. The interview questions, which were based on the questionnaire, allowed respondents to tell their own story using their own words through the use of grand-tour questions and a prompting strategy. This strategy helped induce the respondents to give specific accounts of the events pertaining to their discussions. The analysis of the data combined aspects of quantitative and qualitative approaches. For the quantitative data analysis, the data were tested for changes in the FBPR networks and the SIPR over time. Specifically, the friendship variables were measured at the time respondents met their spouses, the time when these relationships became special and again after the time the relationships became special. T-tests were conducted to test for significant changes occurring in these variables from time to time. The spouse variables were measured at the time respondents met their spouses and again at the time after these relationships became special. Again T-tests were performed to test for significant change in these variables across this time. In order to complete the quantitative analysis, the differences in the friendship variables and spouse variables were tested for the last two time periods.

PAGE 87

80 The information that these tests provided was examined in relation to the assumptions of the model. Based on these assumptions, it was expected that there would be little change from the first time period to the second time period in the friendship variables and significant change from the second time period to the third time period. It was further expected that there would be significant changes in the spouse variables from the second time period to the third time period. It was also expected that there would be a change in the difference between the friendship variables and the spouse variables from the second time period to the third time period. The qualitative data were synthesized and examined to provide extra evidence of the expected changes derived from the quantitative data. Also, an examination of the qualitative data give an indication of the reasons for these changes and the dynamics of the processes through which these changes occur. The limited qualitative data in this study proved useful in elaborating the statistics, hence future research efforts should expand the qualitative dimension to confirm of not confirm the model. While the lack of change assumed from Time 1 to Time 2 for influence and structuring of the FBPR network was not clearly demonstrated, there was positive indication that this result should not cause a substantial alteration to the model. It was found that individuals are constrained by primary networks to which they belong. The networks which influence individuals do so because individuals create norms as they interact with these networks. The structures which influence individuals do so because individuals

PAGE 88

81 perceive these structures as real. As such, when individuals interact, this interaction is in part determined by the norms of the network that are operating on the individuals. It was further found that individuals can and do affect changes to the primary network as they interact on an individual basis with a sexual partner. These changes are produced systematically as the sexual relationship develops through a series of stages. This is due to the fact that the interaction which occurs in the sexual relationship produces an influencing effect on the individual which becomes stronger than the effects of the network. The implication of these results is that over time, the individual changes the macro structures in his/her life so that the influence from these structures allows the individual to maintain a sexual relationship even though the formation and development of this sexual relationship was influenced by these structures. There is a basic assumption which may be made regarding the interaction between micro relationships and larger social structures. This assumption is that the social world interacts with the individual members and this interaction is mediated through the individual's primary contact with society. This primary contact is through primary networks. The results of this research suggest support for this assumption due to the fact that networks of primary relationships were shown to have a structural impact on the individual members such that this impact acts as a guide for the initial development of a sexually interdependent primary relationship. Further, the creation of patterns of behavior and attitudes during the subsequent development of the sexually

PAGE 89

82 interdependent primary relationship acts as a determining force in the way in which an individual will restructure a primary network. In future research, what should be considered is how this model can be used to compare specific subgroups of the population. For example, it may be of interest to see how this model applies to groups whose religious values are extremely diverse. A method to accomplish this would involve comparative study utilizing samples from a conservative, fundamentalist college and from an urban, liberal arts college. The research design would entail collecting indepth information from married students at the colleges and comparing the processes of network influence and SIPR development. In this research, comparisons of the two groups would focus on how the model applied to both groups and how the processes might differ between groups. Research questions would include: 1) Do the processes that the model assumes concerning the development of sexual relationships apply to both groups? and 2) Is there a difference in the two groups which can be attributed to factors related to group membership? Another factor in this research would be the inclusion of kinship networks as well as friendship networks in the study to determine a broader range of possible influence on the development of the SIPR. For example, in one group, the model might apply when kinship networks are included but not apply for friendship networks. In addition, the opposite might hold true for the second group. A result such as this would give evidence of the way in which social group membership determines the type of network which would

PAGE 90

83 exert the kind of influences on the individual that are described in the model. Another way in which future research concerning this model could be conducted would be to develop a panel design. The sample would consist of a cohort of persons in the formation phase of an SIPR. This cohort would consist of both males and females from different SES categories. Once established, this group would be followed through the subsequent development of their SIPRs. Information would be gathered throughout the development of these SIPRs regarding the concepts and assumptions of the model. The collection of this data would be accomplished by the use of surveys and interviews. The surveys would be part of a continuous effort and would result in monthly updating of the condition of the development stages of the SIPRs. Less frequent interviews would be conducted to establish the dynamics of the processes. This method would not require the respondents to recall information but would enable the researcher to gather data which was timely and therefore avoid the possible error due to retrospection. The expectations would be for a more precise analysis of the applicability of the model and would allow for exploration of other factors such as the processes of relationship dissolution, the timing of the influence changes, and the time involved in creating norms. In addition, the precision involved in this type of research design would also apply to the recognition and establishment of the differences, if any, across sex, race, and SES dimensions.

PAGE 91

APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER Dear Friend: (on letterhead) I am engaged in a research project for my doctoral dissertation in the Department of Sociology at the University of Florida. Would you please take a few minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire? The information that you provide in your answers to the questionnaire will be held in the strictest confidence. Your name will not be used or published in this or any other project. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer on the questionnaire. When you have completed the questionnaire, please indicate your willingness or non-willingness to participate in a face-to-face interview concerning the same issues raised in this questionnaire by placing a check mark in the space provided on the questionnaire, Question P1. If you do not wish to participate in the face-to-face interview, place a check mark in the space provided for the jip_ answer to Question P1. Please mail the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope which has been provided for your convenience within 5 days from the date of receipt. If you are willing to participate in a face-to-face interview, please place a check mark in the space provided for the yes answer to Question P1 and print your name and phone number in 84

PAGE 92

85 the spaces provided. Please mail the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope which has been provided for your convenience within 5 days from the date of receipt. Your name and phone number will be removed from the questionnaire, thereby disassociating your name from your questionnaire responses. At no time will your name or phone number be connected with your questionnaire responses. If you indicated that you would be willing to participate in a face-to-face interview, you will be contacted within 10 days of receipt of your completed questionnaire to arrange the interview schedule. The face-to-face interview will be tape recorded and will only be heard by the principal investigator and will be destroyed after any transcribing. Further, your name will be removed from any transcribed tape recording. Your name will not be used or published in this or any other project. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer on the questionnaire and during the face-to-face interview. By completing and returning this questionnaire you are consenting to the use of your responses in this research. Further, you are acknowledging that you understand that your name will not be connected to your answers nor will your name be published or used in this or any other research. If you would like to receive a copy of the results of this research, please contact me in writing at the address given

PAGE 93

86 below. Thank you in advance for agreeing to participate in this important research. Sincerely, David L Mitchell, M.A. Department of Sociology 3219 Turlington Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32602 Ph: Office (904) 392-0265 or Home (904) 376-4454

PAGE 94

APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO RECALL SPECIFIC PERIODS OF TIME DURING YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR SPOUSE. THIS QUESTIONNAIRE CONTAINS QUESTIONS WHICH CAN BE ANSWERED BY EITHER PLACING A CHECK MARK IN THE SPACE PROVIDED NEXT TO THE POSSIBLE CHOICES, OR BY WRITING IN YOUR RESPONSE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY PLACING A CHECK MARK IN THE SPACE PROVIDED OR BY WRITING IN YOUR RESPONSE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED. 1. Is this your first marriage? yes no 2. How old were you on your last birthday? 3. When did you and your spouse first meet? month year 4. When did you first decide to be sexually exclusive with your spouse-to-be? That is, you would not date nor have sex with anyone except your spouse-to-be. month year 5. When did you and your spouse get married? month year 6. Are you and your spouse currently living in the same household? yes no If yes, when did you move in together? month year 87

PAGE 95

88 7. Concerning your feelings about your present relationship: A. Do you ever think about ending the relationship? yes no If yes, how often? always often sometimes seldom never B. Do you think you would you be worse off if your relationship ended? yes no C. Do you work hard to see that your relationship keeps going? yes no D. Do you stay in your relationship more because you have to or more because you want to? have to want to both I. The following questions apply to the time immediatel y before you met your current spou se. F1. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how many persons did you consider to be your close friends? F2. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how many hours per week did you spend with your close friends?

PAGE 96

89 Please indicate (check which applies for each question) the amount of time you spent with your close friends in the time immediately before you met your current spouse in: F3. school related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F4. recreational activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F5. work related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F6. social activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F7. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, when you could not participate in an activity with your close friends, how often did you experience a negative feeling or regret: always often sometimes seldom never

PAGE 97

90 F8. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how often were you concerned about the way your close friends thought about the way you behaved: always often sometimes seldom never F9. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how often did you think about your close friends when you were not with them: always often sometimes seldom never F10. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, in making your decisions about your activities and behavior, how often did you take into consideration what your close friends would think about it: always often sometimes seldom never F11. In the time immediately before you met your current spouse, how important were your close friends in your life? very important important somewhat important not very important not important II. The following questions apply to the time period from when you first met your spouse up to the time you decided your relationship with her was spec ial. Your relationship became special when you decided you would date no one other than your spouse-to-be. When answering the following questions, it will be helpful if you will think of this time period as the time between the month and year indicated in your answer to Question 3, page I, and the month and year indicated in your answer to Question 4, page 1.

PAGE 98

91 F1. During this time, how many persons did you consider to be your close friends? F2. During this time, how many hours per week did you spend with your close friends? Please indicate (check which applies for each question) the amount of time you spent with your close friends during this time in: F3. school related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F4. recreational activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F5. work related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F6. social activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F7. During this time, when you could not participate in an activity with your close friends, how often did you experience a negative feeling or regret: always often sometimes seldom never

PAGE 99

92 F8. During this time, how often were you concerned about the way your close friends thought about the way you behaved: always often sometimes seldom never F9. During this time, how often did you think about your close friends when you were not with them: always often sometimes seldom never F10. During this time, in making your decisions about your activities and behavior, how often did you take into consideration what your close friends would think about it: always often sometimes seldom never F11. During this time, how important were your close friends in your life? very important important somewhat important not very important not important S1. During this same time, when you first met your spouse-to-be and up to the time you decided your relationship with her was special, how many hours per week did you spend with the person who was to become your spouse?

PAGE 100

93 Please indicate (check which applies for each question) the amount of time you spent with your spouse-to-be during this time in: 52. school related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time 53. recreational activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time 54. work related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time 55. social activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time 56. During this time, when you could not participate in an activity with your spouse-to-be, how often did you experience a negative feeling or regret: always often sometimes seldom never 57. During this time, how often were you concerned about the way your spouse-to-be thought about the way you behaved: always often sometimes seldom never

PAGE 101

94 58. During this time, how often did you think about your spouse-to-be when you were not with her: always often sometimes seldom never 59. During this time, in making your decisions about your activities and behavior, how often did you take into consideration what your spouse-to-be would think about it: always often sometimes seldom never 510. During this time, how often did you discuss your close friends with your spouse-to-be? always often sometimes seldom never 511. During this time, how often did the amount of time you spent with your close friends cause conflict with your spouse-to-be: always often sometimes seldom never 512. During this time, how often did the activities in which you participated with your close friends cause conflict with your spouse-to-be: always often sometimes seldom never

PAGE 102

95 S13. During this time, how important was your spouse-to-be in your life? very important important somewhat important not very important not important III. Finally, consider the time period from when yo u decided your relationship with vour spouse was spe cial to the presen t. To answer the following questions, it will be helpful if you think of this time period beginning in the month and year indicated in your answer to Question 4, page 1 and up to the present. F1. During this time, how many persons did you consider to be your close friends? F2. During this time, how many hours per week did you spend with your close friends? Please indicate (check which applies for each question) the amount of time you spent with your close friends during this time in: F3. school related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F4. recreational activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F5. work related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time

PAGE 103

96 F6. social activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time F7. During this time, when you could not participate in an activity with your close friends, how often did you experience a negative feeling or regret: always often sometimes seldom never F8. During this time, how often were you concerned about the way your close friends thought about the way you behaved: always often sometimes seldom never F9. During this time, how often did you think about your close friends when you were not with them: always often sometimes seldom never F10. During this time, in making your decisions about your activities and behavior, how often did you take into consideration what your close friends would think about it: always often sometimes seldom never

PAGE 104

97 F11. During this time, how important were your close friends in your life? very important important somewhat important not very important not important S1. During this same time, when you first decided your relationship with your spouse-to-be was special and up to the present time, now many hours per week did you spend with the person who was to become your spouse? Please indicate (check which applies for each question) the amount of time you spent with your spouse-to-be during this time in: 52. school related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time 53. recreational activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time 54. work related activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time 55. social activities all of my time most of my time some of my time little of my time no time

PAGE 105

98 56. During this time, when you could not participate in an activity witn your spouse-to-be, how often did you experience a negative feeling or regret: always often sometimes seldom never 57. During this time, how often were you concerned about the way your spouse-to-be thought about the way you behaved: always often sometimes seldom never 58. During this time, how often did you think about your spouse-to-be when you were not with her: always often sometimes seldom never 59. During this time, in making your decisions about your activities and behavior, how often did you take into consideration what your spouse-to-be would think about it: always often sometimes seldom never S10. During this time, how often did you discuss your close friends with your spouse-to-be? always often sometimes seldom never

PAGE 106

99 S11. During this time, how often did the amount of time you spent with your close friends cause conflict with your spouse-to-be: always often sometimes seldom never 512. During this time, how often did the activities in which you participated with your close friends cause conflict with your spouse-to-be: always often sometimes seldom never 513. During this time, how important was your spouse-to-be in your life? very important important somewhat important not very important not important P1. Please indicate below if you would be willing to participate in a face-to-face interview about the information contained in this questionnaire. yes no If yes, please print your name and phone number in the space below. Name Ph # Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire!

PAGE 107

APPENDIX C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. In the time before you met your spouse, describe the relationship you held with those whom you considered to be your closest friends. 2. Please describe the relationship you held with those friends after you met your spouse. 3. Describe your relationship with your spouse during the time after you met. 4. Describe the relationship you had with your friends after the time you decided your relation with your spouse was special. 5. Describe the relationship you had with your spouse after the time you decided your relation was special with respect to the relationship you had with your friends at that time. 6. Describe the your current relationship with your spouse relative to the relationship you currently hold with your friends. 100

PAGE 108

REFERENCES Allan, Graham 1989 Friendship: Developing a Sociological Pe rspectiveLondon: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Bailey, Kenneth D. 1978 Methods of Social Research New York: New York Free Press. 1973 "Network analysis and social theory." In Jeremy Boissevain and J. Clyde Mitchell (eds.) Network Analysis Studies in Hu man Interaction. Paris, Mouton & Co. Beach F A 1977' Human Sexuality in Four Perspectives Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Benson-von der Ohe 1987 First and Se cond Marriages. New York: Praeger. Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckman 1979 The Social Construction of Reality New York: Anchor Books. Bott, Elizabeth 1957 Family and Social Networks New York: Free Press. Buckley, W. 1967 Sociology and Modern Systems Theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Burgess, E. 1926 "The family as a unity of interacting personalities." Family 7:3-9. Cohen, C. I. and H. Rajkowski 1982 "What's in a friend? Substantive and theoretical issues." The Gerontolooist 22:261-266. Davis, Kingsley 1971 "Sexual behavior." In Robert K. Merton and Robert Nisbet (eds.) Contemporary Social Problems New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 101

PAGE 109

102 Fischer, Claude S. 1982 To Dwell Among Friends Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Gagnon, J. H. and William Simon 1973 Sexual Conduct: The Social Sour ces of Human Sexuality Chicago: Aldine. Garfinkel, Harold 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodoloav Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Giddens, Anthony 1981 "Agency, institution, and time-space analysis." In K. Knorr-Cetina and A. V. Cicourel (eds.), Advances in Social Theory and m ethodology. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1982 Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hess, B. B. 1979 "Sex roles, friendship and the life course." Research on Aging 1:494-515. Huberman, A.M. and D. P. Crandall 1982 "Fitting words to numbers: Multisite/multimethod research in educational dissimination." American Behavioral Scientist 26(1):62-83. Johnson, Michael P. and L. Leslie 1982 "Couple involvement and network size: A test of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis." Social Psychology Quarterly. 45:34-43. Kidder, Louise H. 1981 "Qualitative research and quasi-experimental frameworks." In Marilynn B. Brewer and Barry E. Collins (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Kinsey, Alfred 1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female Philadelphia: Saunders Co. Kinsey, Alfred, W. B. Pomeroy and C. E. Martin 1 948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

PAGE 110

103 Krippendorff, Klaus 1986 Information Theory: Str uctural Models for Qualitative Data Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Krohn, Marvin 1986 The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems. 33:6, 581-593. Long, Theodore and Jeffrey Hadden 1985 "A reconceptualization of socialization." Sociological Theory 3:39-49. McCracken, Grant 1988 The Long Interview Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Milardo, Robert M. 1988 "Personal choice and social constraint in close relationships: Applications of network analysis." In Derlega, Valerian J. and Barbara A. Winstead (eds.) Friendship and Social Interaction. New York: Springer-Verlag. 1989 "Theoretical and methodological issues in the identification of the social networks of spouses. Journal of Marriage a nd the Family. 51:165-174. Milardo, Robert M., Michael P. Johnson, and Ted L. Huston 1983 "Developing close relationships: Changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social Psychology 44, no. 5: Modell, J. networks." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44. no. 5:964-976.t M. 1989 Into One's Own: From Youth to Ad ulthood in the United States. 1920-1975 Berkeley: University of California Press. Morgan, David H. J. 1990 "Issues of critical sociological theory: Men in families." In Jetse Sprey (ed.) Fashioning Family Theory. New Approaches. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Parsons, Talcott 1937 The Structure of Social Action New York: McGraw Hill. 1965 "The normal American family." In S. Farber, P. Mustacchi, and R. Wilson (eds.) Man and Civilization: The Family Search for Survival New York: McGraw Hill.

PAGE 111

104 Pescosolido, Bernice A. and Sharon Georgianna 1989 "Durkheim, suicide, and religion: Toward a network theory of suicide. American Sociologic al Review. 54:33-48. Pitts J R 1964 "The structural-functional approach." In H. T. Christensen (ed.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. Rogler, Lloyd H. and Mary E. Procidano 1986 "The effect of social networks on marital roles: A test of the Bott hypothesis in an intergenerational context." Journal of M arriage and the Family. 48:693-701. Saffron-Rothschild, Constantina 1969 "Family sociology or wives' family sociology? A cross-cultural examination of decision-making." Journal of Marriage and the Family May, 290-303. Scanzoni, John 1989 The Sexual Bond: Rethinking Families and Close Relationships Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1991 "The structuring of primary relationships." Unpublished paper. Scanzoni, John and G.L. Fox 1980 "Sex roles, family and society: the seventies and beyond." Journal of Marriage an d the Family. 42:743-758 Slater, Philip E. 1963 "On social regression." American S ociological Review 28:339-358. Smith, A.G. and A.E. Robbins 1982 "Structured ethnography: The study of parental involvement." American Behavioral Scientist 26(1):45-61. Stein, Arlene 1989 practices. Sociologica l Theorv.7:1-13 ity: Th Strauss A l_ 1987 Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 112

105 Surra, Catherine A. 1985 "Courtship type: Variations in interdependence between partners and social networks." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 49, no. 2:357375. Turkle, Sherry 1979 Psychoanalytic Politics: Freud's French Re volution. London: Burnett Books. Turner, Jonathan H. 1988 A Theory of Social Interaction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Webb, Eugene 1966 Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences Chicago: Rand McNally. Wellman, Barry 1989 "Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance." In Barry Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz (eds.) Social Structures: A Network Approach Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wellman, Barry and S. D. Berkowitz 1989 Social Structures: A N etwork Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 113

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David Lee Mitchell was born November 19, 1961, in Jacksonville, Florida. He was graduated from P. K. Yonge High School in Gainesville, Florida, in June 1980. He attended the University of Florida and received the Bachelor of Science degree in business administration in 1985. He was awarded the Master of Arts degree in sociology from the University of Florida in May 1987. The Doctor of Philosophy degree was awarded from the University of Florida in August 1992. David Lee Mitchell is married to Suzanne Davis of Coral Springs, Florida. 106

PAGE 114

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. £2L2ip£ y John H. Scanzoni, Chairman Professor of Sociology 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. Anthony Jr LaKBreca Professor of Sociology 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. Ronald L. Akers Professor of Sociology 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. M. Berardo (Professor of Sociology

PAGE 115

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. Robert B. Gaither Professor of Engineering This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Sociology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment o the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August 1992 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 116

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08285 327 5