University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Change in sex-role orientation as a function of brief marital therapy

(USC Thesis Other)

Change in sex-role orientation as a function of brief marital therapy

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CHANGE IN SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION A FUNCTION OF BRIEF MARITAL THERAPY by Selma Lewis A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) December 1982 UMI Number: DP24917 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. DissaHMion Publishing UMI DP24917 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by .............SELm__LEWIS................. under the direction of h.PL... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y ......... PlvD- Q K Dean ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i I I want to thank my committee chairman, Earl Carnes, ! i and my committee members, Dennis Hocevar and Alvin 1 Rudisell, for their belief in me and continuous assistance.j t I also want to thank my parents for encouraging me to strive to attain my goals. Finally, I would like to ! ! especially thank my sons, Ronnie, Stuart and Jeff, for j their love and willingness to put aside their needs for my | * education. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................................ V Chapter I INTRODUCTION....................................1 Background of the Problem. ...... 1 Statement of the Problem....... 4 Purpose ........................ 7 Theoretical Framework. ................7 Importance of the Study........... .19 Research Questions............................20 Research Hypotheses.;............ 21 Definition of Terms....... 22 Conceptual Assumptions. .................. 22 Limitations.............. . 23 Organization of the Remainder, of the Study. ......... 23 II REVIEW OF LITERATURE............. 24 Marital Therapy. ............ .24 General Systems Theory........... 25 Goals of Marital Therapy....... .27 Disturbed Communication in Married Couples................ 29 Communication Theories........ 30 The Outcome of Marital Therapy...............32 The Concept and Investigation of Androgyny...................................36 The Relationship Between Marital Therapy and Androgyny. . ........ 53 III METHODOLOGY. ....... .55 Research Design and Statistical Analysis.... 55 Subjects............. .................... ....55 Therapists..................................... 58 Chapter Page \ i Instrumentation........... 58 Treatment......................................61 j Testing Procedure............ .63 j Methodological Assumptions. ......... 64 i Limitations...................................65 ! IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS..... 66 Hypothesis Testing.................... 66 Discussion..................... ...............73 Recommendations for Clinical Practice ..77 Suggestions for Future Research............... 78 V SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS---80 Summary............................... 80 Conclusion..................................... 82 Recommendations...................... 83 REFERENCES....................... .85 1 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Means and Standard Deviations on the Pretest and Posttest Measures of Androgyny For Each Sex Within Two Modes of Marital Therapy....................................... 68 2 Analysis of Covariance of the Posttest of Androgyny....................... 71 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION i ! " ! ' ' Background of the Problem- • In Western society over the last 25 years the divorce rate has risen to what might be characterized as epidemic proportions (Bloom, Asher, & White, 1978). The ' 1978 statistics (National Center for Health Statistics, 1980) shows over 1 million divorces in the United States, ! which is an increase of almost 4% over the previous year. The projected divorce rate is expected to keep rising at ; j a similar percentage. We certainly appear to live in the I 1 j era of conflict and alienation. We are constantly being bombarded to do our own thing, actualize ourselves, and i ! develop our potentials. Coincident and associated with | the issuance of these imperatives has been a change in the i J general fabric of society. The extended family is no j * longer a viable force and the influence of the nuclear j I family seems to be on very shaky footing (Bane, 1976). j j Liberation movements of all stripes are urging us to | unshackle and assert ourselves and are attracting increas- I | ing numbers of converts. The seemingly insatiable appetite i , for "development" can be most obviously seen in the : tremendous number of self-help, encounter, and conscious- ! ■ness-raising groups burgeoning pervasively. ! .< ! In essence, contemporary society seems to be locked * into a conflict situation. There is a constant interplay between the older traditional values and more contemporary j ! alternative ones, between older and more current roles and j expectations. Probably the most striking example of this j state of affairs can be seen in the changing roles and ! J ; status of women. Whether this is due to the influence of ; i : the women's liberation movement, the human potential move ment, or economic imperatives such as inflation is undeter- , mined at this point in time. However, the fact is that ■ ! society is in a state of flux. ; • ■ • i That the presence of this conflict in society is ^ not cost-free on an individual level is strikingly demon- : i strated by the marital relationship. Rather than decreas- | ing,-as might be expected, the incidence of marriage is ■ i actually increasing. So too, however, is the divorce rate ; • i t (Norton & Glick, 1976). Even those marriages that do not j i j ' terminate in divorce are tending to be problematic. As j I Berman and Leif (1975) have noted, the marital problems of [ i i I patients are a significant consideration for psychothera- | t | I pists. Sager, Gundlach, and Kremer (1968) , on the basis ! : ■■ i i ! of a comprehensive survey, have demonstrated that 50% of j the patients requesting psychotherapy do so largely because I i of marital difficulties. According to .Gunn,, Veroff, and ! 3 | I i i 1 ■ Feld (I960), among the reasons people seek help for emo- I tional problems, marital problems rank first, followed by i • other family problems. ■ Psychotherapists have always been interested in the 1 relationships (sexual, marital, or family) of their patients. Since Freud's earliest formulations, attention has been directed to family conflicts or alliances (i.e., j the Oedipus complex). However, this awareness of the i interactional nature of behavior has rarely been explicitly addressed in therapy. That is, the beneficial effects of ' therapy were considered intrapsychic. Changes in the ! patient's psychic organization (including insight, for i * ‘ . < example) were assumed to: lead to changes in overt behavior , ; and in turn, to generate changes in other external indi- I ' viduals' responses to the patient. By this view, the j ; locus of.the problem is deemed to reside in the individual i ‘ : patient who seeks therapy, and spouses were rarely, if 1 ever, seen in therapy (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 198 0) . j | I Within the last 25 years, however, an alternative j i , ! I ! therapy for marital or relationship problems has been j 1 i j developed. Advocates of this marital or family therapy, I : , I ; rather than endorsing the traditional intrapsychic view of ! -j relationship problems, consider the marital unit or dyad to; be the patient, rather than individual family members. t I The locus of the.problem is interpersonal or interactional I | rather than intrapsychic. Instead of working with only one : ■ 4~| I partner, the complete marital dyad is seen and the focus is: * on the transactions that transpire between them. The ! I increasing viability of this method of treatment is empha sized by Olson and Sprenkle (1976), who note that marital therapy "is becoming the treatment of choice of a wide ■ range of emotional (intrapersonal) and relationship (inter-! personal) problems" (p. 317) . j t i Statement of the Problem As previously noted, marital therapy was developed j in part in response to the need for .a more socially rele- , 1 vant therapy, a therapy that might more adequately address , I '■ [ problems arising from current social issues or relevant to | 1 them. Ceftainly marital discord is one of these issues. ! 1 I Sex role orientation is definitely one of the aspects of , { i contemporary life undergoing radical change or upheaval. ; i ' , While there is no definite association between sex-role \ i : _ I 1 orientation and marital distress, it certainly seems , ! ' ' i 1 possible that conflict could arise in a relationship as a t t function of changes (or desire for change) in one of .the : . - . i | partners of a marital relationship. Society is obviously putting the opportunity there for conflict to arise. The * women's liberation movement, the equal rights amendment, ; and economic forces are effecting a change in women's con- I sciousness. House-husbands are now not a startlingly i ' j unfamiliar phenomenon. There is even evidence that men’ 1 are now more open to changing their traditional roles j ; (Scanzoni, 1979). However, even if the liberation move- I ' ■ i j ments are not stressing an individual relationship, the ; possibility still exists for stress in a marriage as a function of conflict with the prevailing societal sex role [ i norms (Price-BonhamL & Murphy , 1980; Rapoport & Rapoport, I 1 i { 1971a; Burke & Wier, 1976). i Within both psychology and society, masculinity and femininity have traditionally been considered as opposite j i " | ends of a single scale. That is, an individual was either I i one or the other, but not both (Bern, 1974). This distinc- l | tion has blurred the possibility that an individual might j : be both. That is, they might be androgynous (display char-: ! acteristics traditionally associated with both sexes). In j i order to consider this possibility and to investigate the j hypothesis that strongly sex-typed individuals might be j seriously limited in the range of behaviors available to I i them, as they move from situation to situation, Sandra Bern I (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977) had developed a scale to measure j psychological androgyny. ! Evidence is rapidly accumulating in support of Bern's hypothesis. The research reports can generally be inter preted as indicating that androgynous individuals exhibit i a greater degree of "mental health" (Tomeh, 1978). i _ For example, Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1974) investigated the relationship between self-esteem and 6 i i : i androgyny. Cristall and Dean (1976) sought the relation- ! j ; ship between androgyny and self-actualization. In both t j investigations, androgynous individuals exhibited the ■ positive behaviors to a significantly greater degree than | ; did sex-typed persons. The conclusion is that psychologi cal androgyny does provide an individual with more options.. ; - i The relationship of this to interpersonal relations should ; i ; be obvious. The more options one has, the less rigid and j , more adaptive one is, and the more able to develop creative] solutions to problems. ' Evidence is also accumulating that there are sex ' i differences in androgyny. That is, women may be more androgynous than men. Again, the implications of this for j ■marriage are, of course, obvious. < Different, degrees of androgyny or rigidity in a marital couple ,can lead to ; marital conflict. Tomeh (1978) has determined, on the j ! basis of a survey employing over 60 0 subjects, that "women , ! j 1 significantly prefer a family structure which is based on l i , sex-role sharing, while men continue to be concerned about | I ; their own interests and authority as traditionally defined" ! (p. 352). The extent to which sex-role conflict can lead * i to marital distress is indeterminant? however, it is probably a strong influence. i | To date, androgyny, or sex-role identification, has i j not been investigated within the context of marital 7 ! » relationships. The present study was undertaken, there- ■ fore, to determine the degree of change in androgyny as a i function of brief marital therapy. I t i i Purpose | i This study was designed to generate data which r f would assist in the determination of the effect brief : marital therapy has on the level of clients' androgyny. j ! ■ The study also sought to determine the relative efficacy I : of conjoint marital therapy and group marital therapy in j ■ effecting change in levels of; androgyny. Also investi- 1 gated were any sex differences and the interaction between , sex and modality of treatment. ! Theoretical Framework | There"are two related theoretical reasons for • ' expecting participation in brief marital therapy to effect i j changes in the sex-role orientations,, or androgyny scores, j t - ! of marital partners. These expectations are based upon j the society's changing perceptions of the relative roles i and statuses of males and females and the conflict it i * engenders, and upon investigations of distressed couples. j Contemporary Changes in SeX-Role Identification j Traditionally, males and females have assumed : rigidly prescribed, socially conditioned roles and - functions. The division of the tasks of society along \ : i i ' | sexual lines has been based on a "utilitarian" view of • t male and female psychological traits. The basic assumption; t . underlying the division is that males and females inherit } ; ' l ; a different complement of psychological characteristics, | : I due to genetic coding (Moulton, 1971; Humphrey,, 1975j 1 i : ! Colwill, 1978). ‘ The traditional ascription of specific personality : traits to "normal" males and alternative traits to "normal1 1 ! females has resulted in the conception Of male and female j I ; attributes as opposite poles of a unidimensional continuum * (Bern, 1974). For example, the personality characteristics ■ ; of aggressiveness, assertiveness, abstract thinking, \ i , inventiveness and achievement orientation are male ideals. ; i In contrast, the feminine ideal is comprised of such person1 - 1 * i ; ality attributes as compliance, passivity, nurturance, ; t ! emotionality and intuition (Singer, 1976). j j By the traditional stereotypes of male and female personalities, men are conceived of as being able to dis- I ; associate themselves from the-ir environment, thereby being j able . to analyze, manipulate/ and solve the world1 s problems i , I (Forisha, 1978). Women, on the other'hand, are assumed to i be passive, dependent, to lack creativity, and to take a ? subservient role in daily life (Bernard, 1976)'. A woman's i self-esteem is conceived of as dependent upon her skill in I ^interpersonal relations and ability to serve and please others, particularly men. On the other hand, the self- | I : worth of a man is presumed to be determined by his success j in being strong, analytical, and dominant (Forisha, 1978) . 1 Whether differing conceptions of the personalities i : of males and females have led to the assignment of differ- ! j ent societal functions, or if performance of different functions led to different personality characteristics i associated with each sex, is impossible to determine at j i i this time. Historically, specific functions have been ! considered strictly masculine (e.g., hunting, food gather- : i ing, defense) and others viewed as the province of females ! i . (e.g., food preparation and child care). 1 Perhaps the first crack in the rigid separation of I \ male and female sex roles and functions occurred with the | I : American industrial revolution. For the first time | i i : machines became able to replace men in the performance of j i tasks previously requiring brute strength. As a result ! ! J i of the advent of the machine age, women were able to ; ' ! j assume a place in the economy of the' nation outside of the j j home. However, even to date, women have not achieved ' I parity with men in either the work force or in economic j status. Women continue, for example, to be underrepre- Y \ sented in all professions and overrepresented in less j I j | prestigious areas of employment (Humphrey, 1975; Katz & : Knapp, 1974). This is not to say that women have not made significant progress since the industrial revolution, only to note that they are still significantly underrepresented , in the corridors of power. : j I ♦ By 1971 65% of the 20 million American working , i women were living with their husbands or children. Thirty- ; one percent of these working women had preschool^-age children and 52% had school-age children (Mandle, 1971). These figures .would certainly tend to suggest that the traditional values which held women to the home were no longer keeping them there. I The shift from being "just a housewife" to becoming ! a significant contributor to the family income would seem i to imply the accruing of greater input into the decision- | i making power within the marital dyad on the part of women, j t i For some, this may be occurring; however, for most couples j j i power is still related to social class and relative income j — areas that still favor men due to the differential train ing they receive and the expectations placed upon them. j i It should also be noted that there is at least one technological development that has fundamentally altered the role of women in western 'society, namely birth control. The old adage that "biology is destiny" certainly loses a i great deal of its force and explanatory power with the j bringing under control of conception. Improvements in the technology of birth control have released women from l compulsory motherhood. That" motherhood has become, at j least theoretically, optional, has increased tremendously the potential of women to more equitably compete with men. t The combination of recent technological, legal, J religious, attitudinal, and behavioral changes regarding and affecting women^ seem to forecast that in the last . quarter of.the twentiethtcentury the relationships between ■ j marital partners will cpntinue to shift as couples begin * ' i to more fully integrate social changeslinto their inter personal relationships. To assume, however, that these i newer social ideas and philosophies will be integrated j i into marriages without a great deal of stress is probably quite unrealistic.' \ "The women's movement has touched.all social levels i { and age groups; no longer is it exclusively the property j I . - ' I of the youthful intellectual or the feminist revolutionary". | (Katz & Knapp, 1974, p. 105). The goals of equality, freedom, and self-realization are now being espoused by j . i the middle-class housewife, by .traditional, married women : in relatively stable relationships. These'jwomen have been ! I i ■ relatively well educated and are at least somewhat j financially comfortable. They have tended to be "good" ! wives, have driven carpools, joined the PTA, and taken exercise classes. In other words, they have accepted and j attempted to fulfill society's role expectations for them • as women, wives, and mothers. In.the past twenty years, -these women are beginning; to express discontentment. They are experiencing an inner ; I push to explore their own potential, expand their horizons,' use their intelligence, or become involved in more meaning ful activities. The majority of these women hope to attain "personal fulfillment" by securing paid employment, ' preferably of a "meaningful" nature (Katz & Knapp, 1974). • The stress these women are undergoing and potential ly placing on their relationships by the process of con- 1 sidering new options and undertaking new roles is consider able. As Bailyn (1964) has noted, "the freedom to choose among disparate life roles introduces basic contradictions » in self-image" (p. 241). In many cases, going to work is ' contrary to the female role most valued in our culture, j i.e., being able to run a home efficiently., have a happy | i family life, and raise well-behaved, creative children. As women have entered the work force and achieved their various career goals,, another form of role conflict has arisen. Women are increasingly aware of internal j i i motivation for combining careers with the more traditional wifely and child--rearing behaviors. The sudden emergence and proliferation of dual career marriages was first identified and studied by Rhona and Robert Rapoport (1969, 1971b, 1976). There is no model in our culture for dual career relationships and therefore role strain develops 13 1 i : j (Holmstrora, 1972). The stresses to the dual career rela- 1 itionship concentrate on sex role-appropriate behaviors | and expectations (Bebbington, 1973? Rapoport & Rapoport, 1 1969, 1971a, 1976; Poloma & Garland, 1971; Johnson & I ' * * ' . 1 • Johnson, 1977; Heckman, Bryson, & Bryson, 1977). Whenever | new roles are undertaken, or even contemplated, the stress : ; ■ - • ■ ' i ;to the normal patterns of marital functioning is consider-. ’ able. ! I ? As a result of their desire for a change in life* ; ■ 1 style, today many women are suffering from confusion, mild depression, conflict in the family and maternal role, and decreased self-confidence (Letchworth, 1970; Manis & 1 f Mochizuki, 1972; Wiessman, Pincus, Radding, Lawrence, & j ' I | Siegel, 1973). For the contemporary woman these feelings I * i are not easily handled. Husbands may not be supportive; | ; i , in fact, they may be threatened by the perceived changes 1 f i • • ■ . 1 i m their partners. In essence then, many women, as a | i • | result of sex-role changes, are undergoing personal stress,j ; and their relationships are under stress. These stresses often lead to the marital therapist*s office. I Women are not the only ones undergoing sex-role J strain or conflict from their desire for modifications in t ! life style or personal behavior. Men also are suffering | j from the effects of their socialization to specific roles, j 1 As Scher (1981) has noted, "After all, women will not be ! ! liberated until men are" (p. 199). _ __________ 14 ! Masculine sex roles that once went unquestioned and unexplored are now under close scrutiny (O'Neil, ! 1980). It is now becoming widely recognized that rigid ■ male sex role attitudes and behaviors are in conflict with I new societal expectations, interpersonal effectiveness, and positive mental and physical health. As O'Neil (1980) has so eloquently noted, being a male in the latter half of the twentieth century is certainly no easier than being female: Being male in the 1970's was full of insecurities, contradictory demands, and defensive behaviors. The Feminist and Women's Movements criticized many aspects" of traditional male behavior as sexist, oppressive, and unacceptable. Traditional male courtesies were attacked and repudiated by feminists who recognized that sexism was a destructive form of human oppression. Since many men have been socialized into their traditional behaviors, there were continual personal and interpersonal conflicts in the 1970's over male-female roles, attitudes and behaviors. (p. 62) In essence, then, just being male in the last two decadesjhas, involved sex-role conflict and strain. Obvi ously, there are tremendous individual differences in the amount of role strain and conflict present in a given male's life. However, the degree of strain is certainly exacerbated by being in a relationship with a woman who is herself suffering role strain or sex-role identity conflicts. I It is not necessary, however, for a relationship to . ! I be fraught with conflicts over role strain or sexual : identity, as a function of the female partner, or as 1 4 J ! I ; reactions to liberation movements. Males are perfectly j - capable (if not as likely) to introduce the conflict ; ; themselves. ; i i Culturally, ours has traditionally been a man's I i i ! world, but as Goldberg (1976) noted, men do not seem to j be prospering personally. It would appear that power and other male prerogatives do not ensure happiness, satis- ' factory adjustment, or any of the qualities that go into ’ ! . . - ! making a well-integrated, ably-functioning individual. I i : Men are',1 unhappy and dissatisfied with their lives and seem i to be suffering from their perceived sex roles (Goldberg, j i .j | 1976; Harrison, 1978; Scher, 1981). ! Given the role strain" and sexual identity crises ' \ j I many women are facing today, it is not surprising a con- I | siderable number of them seek marital counseling in order ! to help resolve their personal difficulties. Often these i women also want their husbands to enter counseling with J j them if for no other reason than to become more sensitive | and willing to help her in her struggle (Farrell , 19 78) . | i These women are not just seeking support for liberation (or permission) . , but encouragement and a partnership j defined in more equitable terms. A higher level of | intimacy is often the stated goal. : While the problem of sex-role conflict may be more I i • visible and frequent in women, they are not the only j | i .marital partners to instigate marital therapy. Men are j also frequent initiators. They have been encultured to I i deny themselves permission to feel, to be weak, to be in j need, to be dependent, to demand or to fail (Scher, 1981). ! I 'They view counseling as a place where permission to make ! I changes in life styles and identities can be granted, as a j piace where things can be said to the marital partner j f 'which they cannot risk in private. ! Whichever spouse initiates marital therapy and for ■ i :whatever reason, it is not unreasonable to assume that sex j jrole behaviors and expectations will be more clearly I 1 defined by the process of psychotherapy. The process | i ■ .itself of making explicit and redefining sex-role belief j ; I ! systems may well effect changes toward a more androgynous ! i I ■ state that can be measured. \ _ i l Studies of Distressed Couples i 1 The previous section of this chapter set forth one- i ■ ■ ■ ' ■ * : rationale for the expectation that brief marital therapy ! ' * ■ will serve to effect movement in the androgyny scores of i ' ! . the marital partners as^.a* result of the resolution of i . ’ ' i sex-role conflicts. This section further supports that expectation by providing evidence that distressed couples (couples in therapy) do indeed tend to exhibit greater role strain than non-distressed couples. Only two studies j will be cited for the reason that this literature is quite ! small. Few studies to date have investigated the differ ential "personalities" of couples in therapy- as opposed [ to "normal" couples. The therapy literature tends to be j i either theoretical expositions or outcome studies. , | Frank, Anderson, and Rubinstein (1980) asked 80 i : non-patient couples and 50 couples.;seeking marital therapy ’ t i ■ • i to report on whom they felt should and who actually does ■ ! assume responsibility in eight major marital role areas. j ; i When the degree of individual role strain, that is, the , discrepancy between role ideals and role behavior, was ! j examined, the marital therapy patients were found to be i ; experiencing significantly more role strain. Husband-wife ! '» ? ! , discrepancies with respect to who does have' the various 1 k j j role assignments were found to be higher in the marital i t therapy couples. Additionally, within the marital therapy i group, women were found to be experiencing significantly ; more role strain than were men. i | In order to examine in more detail the differences l in role strain between distressed and non-distressed couples, Jacob, Kornblith, Anderson, and Hartz (1981) administered the Kelly-Tharp Marital Role Questionnaire | to 26 couples seeking therapy and 26 matched control i couples. The findings of the study indicated that dis tressed and non-distressed .couples; did not differ on expectation items? however, they were significantly differ-( ent on the corresponding enactment items. That is, while i the two sets of couples did not differ in their marital \ i expectations, the distressed couples did experience a i i significantly greater degree of difficulty in living up to i each others* expectations. The non-distressed, as opposed to the couples seeking therapy, reported: 1) greater I satisfaction, pleasure, and fidelity in sexual relation ships; 2) more shared activities and positive affectional/ i emotional interchanges; and 3) greater wife influence in various areas of family decision-making. I On the basis of the two studies reported above it - can be seen that couples in marital therapy are indeed ' i suffering from role strain. It would appear that these j | couples are in fact afflicted by the contemporary changes j and alternative perceptions observed in society. Whether j marital therapy can serve to alleviate this situation is j an empirical question the present investigation addresses, j ‘ • I On the basis of the foregoing, it is at least reasonable to assume that brief marital therapy can serve to remedy the role strain problem. Evidence for the efficacy of i marital therapy in the alleviation of role strain will be ^ * gathered in the form of androgyny scores. ; ■ . • ‘ ' 19 I ' t 1 Importance of the Study ! 1 The reasons that psychotherapy is becoming both more: ;pervasive and socially acceptable are not^hard to see. Gbn-' t ’ ■ • • • 1 • temporary society is becoming increasingly complex. The | I :old values and methods of coping are rapidly disappearing j t and becoming increasingly ineffectual. Alienation seems , * I [ to be the watchword of the day. It is the rare couple ! i today who does not seem to have at least some problems j ; adjusting-. . ! s i Society is also in the process of adjusting or ; redefining sex roles. It certainly seems possible that ! conflicting sex-role orientations or degree of androgyny ! I can lead to marital distress. I i ; The information to be; .yielded by the study is j ' important for two related reasons. Information relevant | ; to the function of androgyny levels in marriage may serve I ! i I to keep intact and strengthen distressed marriages. This j j is not necessarily a moral goal but at the very.least an j ' economic one. The cost of divorce in both dollars and ; lost human potential is astronomical. The study will also I j serve to shed light on the dynamics of psychotherapy. | While strictly speaking, the study is not an j outcome investigation, it will provide evidence on. the l ^ relative efficacy of two competing methods of marital } j * therapy (at least in the limited sense of androgyny)*. To date, there have been no studies comparing the relative efficacy of different marital therapies (Gurman & Kniskern,' i 1978). This study will provide a limited first start in that direction. Also, most outcome studies of marital therapy have employed global ratings of degree of improve ment (Gurman, 1973). The ratings often consisted of general marital satisfaction reports where words such as good, i average, poor or improved have been selected out and i quantified. These ratings frequently were patient self- J reports at termination of therapy, or therapists1 evalua tions of changes in clients* functioning. What is needed | is more specific measures of exactly what changes were t effected in therapy (i.e., androgyny). As Hans Strupp i i (1978) has noted in discussing the psychotherapy outcome j literature, what is needed are investigations of which J j therapy for which patients under what circumstances. j I l The present study is a step in that direction. 1 Research Questions The central research question of the study was as follows: Would brief marital therapy lead to * j i increases in androgyny as measured j by the Bern Sex Role Inventory? Additional questions were as follows: ■ Would brief conjoint marital therapy be as effective in promoting increased androgyny, as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory, as would group marital therapy? - Would marital therapy lead to greater, increases in androgyny, as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory, for women than men? - Would there be an interaction between sex and modality of marital treatment regarding increased androgyny as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory? Research Hypotheses The following are the hypotheses of the investiga tion stated in null form. 1. There will be no significant increase in androgyny as a function of brief marital therapy, as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory. 2. There will be no significant difference in the average increase in androgyny scores, as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory, between subjects receiving con joint marital therapy and those participating in group marital therapy. 22 j 3. There will be no significant difference in the : average increase in androgyny, as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory, between men and women. 1 4. There will be no significant interaction i i between sex and modality of treatment (conjoint or group ' marital therapy) regarding increased androgyny, as . i measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory. ; Definition of Terms j i The following definitions were considered necessary j to understand the study: Brief Marital Therapy: Marital therapy of any • I modality consisting of no more than 25 visits or of a j duration less than six months. I Conjoint Marital Therapy: The couple regularly meeting together with their therapist. Group Marital Therapy: The couple meeting regularlyj with other couples and their therapist. Conceptual Assumptiony The self-reported attitudes as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory are malleable and subject to modifica tion by marital therapy and consequently could be demon strated to be subject to measurable change. Limitations \ i The following limitations in the focus and potential 'generalizability of this investigation were present: 1. Only couples in which both partners are function-: i ■ I ing in the community (not institutionalized) were employed.j i 2. Only couples who were presently living together t ■were employed in the investigation. i 3. The study was limited to volunteer couples. " ' * 4. Any results would- appear to be generalizable i i 1 \ only to therapeutic processes anchored in^ a general ,systems; orientation. j i } Organization of the Remainder of the Study j : . I Chapter II provides a review of the relevant litera-j i ■ ture of marital therapy and studies of androgyny. Chapter | f I ! I III presents a description of the research design, sample 1 i ; ;of subjects, instrumentation, the procedures employed and ^ I the statistical analyses. In Chapter IV the findings of j ;the investigation are reported and interpreted. Chapter V j , t ;consists of a summary of the findings, as well as a state- j ■ ment of conclusions and recommendations. ! CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE • t [ The purpose of this chapter is to explore the !research, both theoretical and experimental, which bears j directly and indirectly upon marital therapy, androgyny, ’ I and their relationship. First, there is a discussion of ! the goals and rationales of marital therapy. Following ! 1 this is a brief discussion of the results of outcome I studies of marital therapy. Next, is presented a review of ! i the research literature of androgyny. In this review ( selected theoretical and empirical studies are-cited. The | chapter concludes with a .discussion of the relationship | between marital therapy and androgyny level. Marital Therapy Marital therapy is not a unitary set of procedures i ' or operations. Instead, it is defined as the belief in the salience of the marital dyad as the locus of the problem. The interactions between the two partners are jconceived of as the appropriate focus of .intervention. As | such, marital therapy is practiced by therapists of various | theoretical persuasions who believe, as does Gurman (1973) , I 2 5 j j J i in the application of planned, therapeutic techniques to I modify the maladaptive or maladjustive relationships of I i i married couples. In addition to being compatible with a ! i : variety of therapeutic approaches, marital therapy focuses j i i ■ on a wide variety of problematic issues and concerns in I the relationship, including feelings, attitudes and I j ' behavior. t General Systems Theory i General systems theory is undoubtedly the dominant ' ' t theoretical position in marital therapy (Olson & Sprenkle, j 1976) and the modality utilized in this study. Within a ; i general systems model of relationships there are diverse j ■ theoretical positions and applications. However, all systems theorists b'elieve that ..the relationship is involved1 * i , in the etiology of the, disturbance and is the primary ; ; : I ; treatment unit. The assumption is that in order to under- j ! stand any isolated piece of behavior, the whole.system of * i ' j \ interacting must be understood, and that change in any one i i i i i ■ member causes changes in the entire marital dyad. j ; In marital therapy, resistance to change is strong, j I . ; due to secondary gratifications that are present in the i jexisting patterns of behavior. Although the members of i the marital unit may be in conflict there is usually a J i - I ■ collusive bond between them. The function of this collu- j ! i sion is to provide a sense of familiarity and serves to I ■' maintain a state of homeostatis (Bateson, Jakcson, Haley, ! i , & Weakland, 196 3). Collusion exists between self-esteem and a per- j . | ceived reality of both one's self and the world are bound j i up in the mutually reciprocal system. The marital contract; is the embodiment of beliefs about oneself, one's mate, j ' ' I and expected and perceived behaviors on various levels. | Sager (1968) distinguishes contracts as being conscious, and either verbalized or non-verbalized, as well as uncon- i _ i scious. However, marital contracts on one level often con-j tradict those at another level. Much of the behavior of ’ ; marital units can be understood by uncovering the implicit ■ i and explicit rules that govern all communication between j the members. These rules are often contradictory (Jackson,; i » '1965; Haley, 1963). Systems therapists move from level to i j level while continuously pointing out the interaction pro- 1 j ! cess and its implications, rather than the content. That ’is, the therapists operate on the level of meta^communica- j ! ! tion (Watzlawick, Beavins, & Jackson, 1967). Jackson (1959) ' . i * believes that marital negotiation or quid pro quo is a t ' • ’ | metaphorical view of how each defines himself in the rela- | tionship. . This explains the intensity of marital issues and why contracting, on a content level, of this certain behavior for that, is so often resisted or not successful. Concepts like the double bind (Bateson et al., 1963? Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967) have been developed by marital therapists to explain recurring patterns of behavior in the couples they treat. Goals of Marital Therapy ' i As previously discussed, marital therapy can be 1 provided within a wide range of theoretical orientations I land there is no single set of unifying principles. The 1 same is true of the goals of marital therapy? however, it i is possible to enumerate a broad list of goals or objec tives that are compatible with the many diverse views and |theoretical positions of practitioners. . The idea that therapeutic intervention should be !directed toward altering the nature of marital inter- actions is basic to the concept of marital therapy. A j major goal of marital therapy is to alter marital rules and programs. Rules are relationship agreements which I limit behavior over a wide variety of content areas. As i ^ Jackson (1965) has noted, most of these rules are outside .of awareness, therefore their existence must be inferred J 'from an observation of the dyad* s. recurring patterns of .behavior. Haley (1963) has.indicated that in working with : ! couples, his primary objective is to provoke a change in t j 1 the rules by which the couple keep the marital system j j stable. | ; 28 ! i : Another dimension of marital relationships which ! has received attention is that of marital roles and i I ! boundaries. Minuchin (1974) conceives of the relation- j ( t ships of most couples who come to therapy as being either j i extremely rigid or extremely flexible. In overly rigid systems, communication becomes difficult and the couple ! I may function autonomously, but have no sense of inter- j dependence and loyalty or support. In overly:':flexible ' systems, "the differentiation of the family diffuses . . . ! : {and] the heightened sense of belonging requires a major ! > 1 ; yielding of autonomy" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 55). A major I goal of marital therapy is to re-calibrate the marital I i ■ i i i system boundaries to permit a more adequate (balanced) i I , functioning of both parties to the conflict. j i In a similar vein, Jay Haley (1963) considers a I I major goal to be the establishment of role flexibility. J By role flexibility it is meant that the couple shares i { equally in the power and control inherent in any relation- i ; sh ip. 1 Speer (1970) has suggested that dysfunctional i j couples are characterized by high morphostasis (the pro- ! cess by which a couple maintains internal stability).and \ ' P j low morphogenesis (the means by which a system alters or ! changes its structure). A major goal of therapy should be a shift away from morphostasis toward morphogenesis. ICouples should be helped to observe and change themselves as circumstances dictate. | Improved communication as a goal of marital therapy | I \ has been defined in a variety of ways: clear, congruent, ! ;non-contradictory, direct, and honest (Satir, 1964) ; open and spontaneous (Ackerman, 1961; Bell, 1961). I i • i i Disturbed Communication in Distressed Couples Although there is still much disagreement over con ceptual schemes in marital therapy, the one factor that ( has achieved wide acceptance is the effect of the environ- | mental system on thoughts, feelings, and behavior (Bermanr ; & Lief, 1975). As practitioners of marital therapy have evolved successful techniques for the removal of symptoms by altering the transactional patterns of the dyad, it is j 'becoming increasingly obvious that behavior is motivated i !not (only) by psychic conflicts but by feelings and atti- ' j tudes involving the dyad and the environment (Ackerman, I 1966; Haley, 1963; Leder & Jackson, 1968). Therefore, !marital therapy must be related to current environmental i I j and spouse-related phenomena, particularly communication patterns (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). As Berman and Lief (1975) have noted, conceptual j schemes of communication patterns in dyadic relationships are still in their infancy. Over the last 30 years though,! | 30 ; I i many clinicians from Sullivan (1953) and Spiegel (1971) to ' | Minuchin (1974) have attempted to describe interpersonal t 1 [patterns of communication. However, to date no conceptual i i 1 framework has satisfactorily, at leastiin operational 1 I terms, explained the multiple variables and processes , involved (Watzlawick et al., 1967). • Three of the most utilitarian approaches have i jcentered on the following factors: i f 1. How we communicate: the rules or formal aspects 1 of communication; 2. What we communicate: primarily issues of role expectations and behavior; ! 3. Why we communicate: motivational factors J i ' 1 involved in communication. ! * I i Communication Theories I - i i According to the view of the general systems i t 1 1 ‘ i i theorists, marital discord is due to the ambiguous, vague j i I } * i i and inconsistent nature of communication between spouses j I ! ! (Lederer & Jackson, 1968; Weakland, 1976). Friedman t ! i (1972) emphasized the role of inconsistent and ambiguous \ I 1 ! communication in disturbed marital interactions (e.g,., I * J - , I verbal messages which contradict non-verbal messages). I | The result of these double bind messages is that each spouse's behavior becomes unpredictable to the other. Knox (1971) cited the lack of honest and direct i communication among distressed couples. Honest communica- * tion refers to a statement by A to which B could respond | candidly, for example, an inquiry by A, in which he or she states his or her wishes explicitly and precisely rather j than concealing an underlying malevolent intention, in an : ostensibly benign request. Other investigators have : noted the inability of distressed couples to express both ‘ positive and negative feelings (Eisler & Hersen, 1973; : Fensterheim, 1972) . To date these accounts of disturbed couples' com munication patterns have not been subject to rigorous , empirical testing. However, there is some evidence that can be noted and interpreted as indicating both that.dis tressed couples suffer from communication "deficits" and ! ' ' - 1 * ! that marital therapy may be an efficacious remedy.- I Gottman, Notarius, Markman, Bank, Yoppi, and Rubin j .(1976) asked distressed and non-distressed couples, in two | studies, to make decisions on high and low conflict tasks. j The individuals continuously coded both the intended impact [ j of their own behavior and the impact of their spouse's i behavior. In the first study, distressed couples did not i - differ from non-distressed couples on how they intended their behavior to be received. However, the behavior of distressed spouses was actually received more negatively by their partners than the behavior of their non-distressed 32 j i counterparts. The couples in the second study also j behaved in a manner consistent with a communication deficiti I explanation of distressed marriages; that is, distressed | i couples' behavior was likely to be coded as more negative than they intended it to be. Certainly, their communica- J ■ ! ' tion problems would seem to be amenable to treatment via ; ; the interactional techniques of. the marital therapist. The Outcome of Marital Therapy As with the more generalized psychotherapy litera- j ture, the literature of marital therapy is replete with outcome studies. However, as Hans Strupp (1977, 1978; ; Strupp & Hadley, 1977) has frequently noted, the unidimen sional question, "Is psychotherapy effective?" is not as ; : relevant as the multidimensional one, "Which therapy , procedures delivered by which therapists are effective for i which clients on which outcome measures?" I | There is no longer any serious doubt as to the | efficacy of psychotherapeutic procedures (Garfield, 1981). 1 Even if the collection of studies comprising the outcome literature are generally poorly designed, individually i \ , i inadequate, and methodologically flawed, reviewed, in the i • . | aggregate, they overwhelmingly reinforce the efficacy of ; the procedures as agents of change (Glass, 1976, 1977; ! ; Smith & Glass, 1977; Smith, Miller, & Glass, 1980). i . 33 j ! As the intent of the present investigation is not an1 !outcome study in the usual sense (it is not concerned with j ' ■ , i ;the unidimensional question but instead “ addresses itself ! i to Strupp*s multidimensional one), the outcome literature J of marital therapy will not be extensively reviewed. Only .a brief discussion of this literature will be provided. ■ The intent of this section is to determine where the field ■ • stands at present in terms of being able to answer the i multidimensional question posed by Strupp (1977). Extremely comprehensive reviews of the therapeutic outcome : literature are readily available elsewhere (c.f. Garfield , ’& Bergin, 1978; Gurman & Razin, 1977). ! ■ The increasing application and utility of marital i therapy in the last several years is reflected by the con- I 1 i jsiderable number of outcome reports that have appeared in j ;the literature. Reviews of this literature (Crowe, 1 9 7 8 ; j Gurman, 1973; Olson, 1970; Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 1980) I I have shown the efficacy of various procedures designed to alter marital adjustment. As Gurman (1973) has noted, Thus, across a variety of treatment types and therapist orientations, outcome criteria, ! and rater sources, the number of patients I | "Very Much Improved, 1 1 "A Good Deal Improved, 1 1 I and "Somewhat improved" is 66 per cent. This I two-thirds improvement rate is almost exactly* ! the same as that found by both Eysenck (1952) j andBergin (1971) for eclectic therapies j with adult neurotics, despite differences I in their analysis' of the literature] Further more, the range of improvement rates from 53 to 100 per cent in the present j analysis of marital therapy is com parable to Eysenck's range from 41 to 77 per cent and especially com parable to Bergin's range from 42 to 87 per cent. .(Gurman, . 1973, p. 16) These marital studies seem to support the applica tion of marital therapeutic techniques (the unidimensional question). However, they seem to shed almost no light on the multidimensional question.• The most common outcome criteria in the investiga- :tions of marital therapy has been a global rating of the treated couples (dyads) or of each spouse individually. A , majority of such ratings have relied on patient self- report. Only rarely have studies employed 'independent ' assessment interviews, behavioral measures of specific i i symptoms, or evaluations of target complaints. Other use^ 1 i - i ful approaches such as standardized, psychological, paper . ■ and pencil tests (e.g., the Minnesota Multiphasic Person- j ; i ■ ality Inventory) , and factor-analytic batteries have almost ' : never been used (Gurman, 1973; Strupp, 1978b);. Self-and- j spouse-concept ratings have also been infrequently | employed. i 1 j The above criteria focus entirely on the psychologi- | cal functioning of individual patients. An alternative j mode of assessing marital functioning that must be given I j attention in future outcome studies is interaction-testing j (Gurman, 1978). In interaction-testing both spouses' 1 behavior is observed in structured environments which | ! i permit a variety of objective/ behavioral measures of 1 marital interaction. t In addition to assessing individual psychological i I functions and the study of marital interactions, investiga-i , tions of marital therapy should be expanded to include the ; I ' * , investigation of role behavior, expectations and conflict ■ ! ’ I i (Gurman, 1973, 1978; Crowe, 1978). Patterns of inter- | \ I ! action in the marital dyad must be viewed as part of an I , i ! | 1 ongoing social system. Discrepancies between role expec- ( j j ! tations or role desires and role enactments can to some ■ : extent be inferred from patient self-reports. However, i as Gurman (1978) has noted, investigations of marital j ! | therapy have approximated such interactive assessments i f I / * | | only in ,the crudest manner, e.g. , on the basis of global ! therapist and patient ratings of marital "quality," i "happiness" and "adjustment," etcv ! ! : Role expectations and conflicts within a "troubled" | i ' ! i marriage and the effects of marital therapy in resolving ! | j these conflicts or promoting change must be studied in a j more objective,, systematic manner. The present investiga- j tion is an attempt at such a systematic investigation. Certainly the concepts of sex-role stereotyping and androgyny are perfect vehicles for this investigation. It would appear that at least a major portion of the role i i 1 conflicts in marriage _involve_sexual stereotyping. The ___| jresults of the present investigation will clearly speak to j Struppfs (1978b) question. The effects of marital therapy j t on the levels of patients' androgyny or sex-role orienta- j ! tion is fundamental to the larger question of what are the * effects of marital therapy and how is it efficacious. | The Concept and i Investigation of Androgyny f Western culture is replete with stereotypes regard- I t . 1 'ing typical masculine and feminine behavior. Even mental health workers have been found to hold these stereotypes r ,and to employ them in making clinical judgments. Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) investigated the stereotypic beliefs held by 1 * . i ~ I I psychotherapists. The .results of the study indicated that jclinicians believed that healthy women differ from healthy ; i ' ' ' ’ i men by being more submissive, less independent, more , i ] excitable in minor crises, and less objective. Specific ■ | ' . ' - i behaviors thought of as pathological in one sex were viewed) 1 r j I as healthy in the other, and traditional masculine traits j jare seen as more socially desirable than are'feminine ones.! i | The study also posited the existence of a double I ! • • ' I standard of mental health for males and females. The j \ t existence of this double standard can probably be traced 1 ! to the notion of psychological adjustment. The concept of I i } adjustment implies that mental health is evidenced by a ! 37 * i ■ ■ i ■ ■ } , I ■ !good adjustment to one1s environment. For a woman to be healthy, she must adjust to the behavioral norms for her 4 sex, even though these norms are less socially desirable ; < I * 4 and considered less healthy. Obviously this pervasive t definition of mental health places women in the conflicted 'position of choosing between the exhibition of "male" 'behaviors and the resultant deviance in terms of femininity, •or behaving in a typically feminine manner and dealing with! the problems of second class status. i 1 Polk and Stein (1972) asked 250 university students to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each sex role. The results indicated that the female students found imore disadvantages attached to the feminine role than did •males to the male role. Also, females saw more advantages ! ■in the male role than did males in the feminine role. i » ■ * i ' i j Polk and Stein (1972) also indicated that the male : !role, as typically perceived, has 14 obligations compared ; ! to eight for the feminine role, six rights compared to j jnone, four proscriptions compared to 15, and six structural! ,benefits compared to four. ; Most of the disadvantages of the male role consist !of obligations. That is, males must be aggressive, sue- ! ■ 1 ;cessful and financially supportive of others. On the other| jhand, female disadvantages consist primarily of proscrip?* | tions (can't be aggressive, athletic or sexually free) ! (Chafetz, 1974) . The types of disadvantages accruing to , the two roles are a further indication of the stereotyped j | dichotomy between males and females. Goldberg (1968) has noted that women themselves are : often prejudiced against other women or disparage their . abilities. One hundred and forty college women were found . to judge an article as more valuable when written by a male as opposed to a female, even, though the article was identical. Even in fields traditionally popular with women (i.e., home economics), male authors were given - higher scores and presumed to be more knowledgeable. The • conclusion would certainly appear to be that women have * : . I i internalized society s stereotypic notion that women are : ! : generally less authoritative and knowledgeable than are | men. I i Komarovsky (1973) interviewed 5 3 college men regard- j ing their sex-role performance, personal preferences and i I ! expectations about women. Thirty-four percent of the i | subjects indicated that they felt the reasoning ability of j j I i . men was superior to that of women. More subjects valued ! ! . ' ’ ' I intelligence in men than in women. The obvious conclusion : based on these findings is that there exists a '.deeply j ingrained norm of male superiority. ! Stevens (1974) has discussed the negative aspects of male sex roles from a therapist*s viewpoint. Like Polk I ■and Stein (1972), she believes that the problem with sex- |role stereotypes is not confined to women— not only women have been prevented from developing fully and realizing ■their potential. While women have traditionally been jdenied the right to develop their assertive and intellec tual selves, men have been denied the opportunity to •develop their dependent, emotional selves. All people, males and; .females, have both aggressive and dependent . , i I needs. The studies reviewed in this section have clearly ; indicated the existence of sex-role stereotypes. Males are traditionally expected to be active, assertive, and intellectual; women are supposed to be passive, dependent, ■ and emotional. Not only are men and women viewed differ- ; entially;;.' the male role is definitely more highly valued ; than is the female role. i ' The Concept Of Androgyny i j Researchers have traditionally divided personality j traits into two distinct categories, those defining x imasculinity and those characterizing femininity. Bakan i j (1966) has labeled the two sets of characteristics as i i "agency" and "communion," respectively. Behaviors associ ated with the agency"; are individualism, self-protection, i t self-assertion, and self-expansion; on the other hand, communistic behaviors tend toward blending into oneness, ; selflessness, and concern with others. As the organism is j | basically dualistic, the basic development task is to i l , . 1 ! integrate the opposing forces. Personal maturity is j ; i I equated with integration of agency and communion. \ i Bern (1972) has characterized the dichotomy between I i male and female personality characteristics as between j competition/ power, and achievement versus affiliation, 1 dependency, and cooperation. Berzins (1.975) has applied i ' I traditional literal dictionary definitions to the concepts ] J of masculine and feminine. ■ ; The Random House Dictionary of the [ English Language (1966) defines 1 masculine, in part, as "having the ! qualities or characteristics of a j ‘ man; manly, virile, strong, bold" , . . . and feminine as "pertaining I I to woman or girl . . . like a woman; ' weak; gentle . . . " As the osten sibly "natural" correlates of sexual dimorphism, masculinity and femininity 1 emerge as opposites (e.g., strong and | bold versus weak and gentle)! (p. 1) I ; Block (1965) has noted that boys tend to be taught 1 achievement, competition, control of feelings, and expres- J sions of affect, and concern for rules, while girls, in ! contrast, are instructed in interpersonal relations, | encouraged to talk about feelings,"and to express physical affection. Integrating these two extremes, however, takes a high level of moral reasoning. The differential instruction and resulting polarities are not, however, | without '.negative implications. Block, Von der i ■ Lippe, and Block (1973) reported consistently observing I guilt, inhibition, submission and anxiety on the part of j ! females, land domination, aggressiveness, and egocentricityj on the part of males, ' j Osofsky and Osofsky (19 72) observed that the ! i dichotomy between male and female ideal, from the view- j point of society, produces harmful effects in both sexes. [ I , When there is a deviation from the socially accepted | ) i ! ideal of masculine and feminine role and personality ; • i ' ideals, both society's judgments and self-perceptions are ^ I negatively loaded. i In one of the most well known distinctions between; male and female attributes, Parsons (1942, 1955) referred j , to the two ideals as instrumental (male) and expressive | 1 (female). The instrumental ideal is manifested by'a focus) I i : "on getting the job done," while the expressive is cone , i j cerned with the "harmony of the group.” Spense and Helm- | i \ ' reich (19 78), in their extensive review of the traditional correlates of masculinity and femininity, conclude that 1 males are generally perceived and idealised as rational, | independent, and self-assertive; females, in contrast, are! t dominated by their emotions and a desire to nurture others I i In the 1970s, as a reaction to the persistence of ; the differential notions of male and female ideals and i role structures, and with a knowledge of the potentially harmful effects of such artificial dichotomies,researchers■ began to investigate seriously the social adaptability of this learned dichotomy. That is/ research began to question whether the division into rigid sex roles was j healthy for men and women. . v In 1973, Constantinople pointed out that implicit ; in the traditional approaches to construing and measuring individuals' adherence to "appropriate" sex roles have been the assumptions that masculinity-femininity is a single bipolar dimension ranging from extreme masculinity , t at one pole to extreme femininity at the other, and that i masculinity-femininity is best defined by sex differences j in item endorsement. Rather than being viewed as two points on a scale, f masculinity and femininity have now come to be regarded | as orthogonal dimensions, independent of one another. j l Individuals' sex-role identifications are now commonly measured on a masculine and a feminine scale rather than on a single one. (The most frequently employed measure i and the one employed in the present investigation is the • Bern Sex Role Inventory.) An individual therefore possesses simultaneously differential amounts of "male" and "female" characteristics, agentic and communal traits, A person (male or female) possessing approximately equal amounts of male and female characteristics, is defined as androgynous or referred to as an androgynous ! personality. Androgyny means literally man-woman. - In a ] psychological sense it refers to the notion of a person j i being comfortable with:, his/her gender, and able to express ; * behaviors traditionally characterized as male or female depending upon the given situation. In the past, sex-gender, sex-role, and sex^choice were all thought to be related. It has recently become - ' 1 obvious that this is not the case (Bern, 1974; Spence & j Helmreich, 1978). As Bern (1976) has written: "Let sexual preference be ignored, let sex" roles be abolished, and let gender move from figure to ground" (p. 17). Masculinity j and femininity may become negatively loaded, even destruc tive, when present in extreme and unadulterated forms (Bern, 1976, 1977; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974). j I The major effect of femininity without a balance ! of masculinity in women is the inhibition of any behavior at all, when demands are ambiguous or unspecified. These females are overly concerned with the possible negative side effects or consequences of behavior. They therefore take no risks and play it safe (Bern, 1976). Block et al. (1973) have noted that androgynous people are more likely to develop their own values and conceivably reject society's role expectations. sexual identity is not the achieve- j ment of masculinity or ‘femininity as popularly concerned. Rather, j sexual identity means, or will mean, j the learning of a sense of self in | which there is a recognition of j gender secure enough to permit the I individual to manifest human quali- ! ties which our society, until now, ! has labeled as unwomanly or unmanly. (Block et al., 1973, p. 512) Studies of Androgyny 1 Bern (1975) sought to ascertain What type of ] individuals would hold on to their beliefs in the face of alternative group pressure, and the extent to which there 1 i was differential interaction with a small kitten. The ' \ ; results indicated that androgynous subjects of both sexes ; , displayed "masculine" independent behavior in the face of ■ , i igroup pressure and "feminine"pplayfulness when confronted ; < J i I ,with the kitten. However, the "feminine" female subjects i did not display nurturing to the kitten, although the J ; i ; "feminine"males did so. Bern (1975) hypothesized that I ^playfulness with a kitten is probably an "agenic" trait. i | Bern and Lenney (1976) sought to determine if cross- J * ’ I . sex behaviors are problematic for sex-typed individuals. , Subjects were given the option of performing sex-appropri- i ate tasks for less money than for doing sex-crossed tasks. 1 These sex-typed subjects consistently chose to perform the i . • | sex-appropriate tasks. Follow-up discussions revealed the |reasons for their choice of behaviors was the presence of !anxiety in the face of sex-crossed tasks. The conclusion is that sex-typing restricts one's behavior. i I Sex-typing has consistently been found to be associ- ; ated with poorer psychological health (Bern, 1975; Chesler, ‘ 1972). Harford, Willis, and Deabler (1967) found that high! masculinity in males was correlated with anxiety, guilt- 1 i proneness, aloofness, tough poise, and suspiciousness. It > i was also determined that low masculinity in males was | correlated with warmth, brightness, emotional stability, 1 i f sensitivity and sophistication. On the other hand, sex-typing in females has been , i found to be associated with anxiety, a low self-concept, f depression and a greater incidence of mental illness i (hospitalizations) (Bart, 1971; Chesler, 1972; Sears, j 1970). ! According to both Kagen (1964) and Kohlberg (1966), | t 1 a highly sex-typed person is motivated to» keep his behavior consistent with an internalized sex-role standard. In their desire to maintain a self-image, either:.masculine or feminine, any behavior that may be considered at all inappropriate for their sex is suppressed. The conse quences for the individual from a mental health perspective * of suppressing behavior is obvious. I i Erickson (1964) has noted that the most important task of adolescence is the establishment of a stable self- I identity. A girl's search for identity is often compli- j t \ I j cated and delayed by the encouragement she receives to j remain dependent. According to Erikson (1964), young giris often ask whether they can have an identity before i 1 they know who they will marry. "Much of a young woman's identity is already defined in her kind of attractiveness ! 1 and in the selectivity of her search for a man" (1964, ' : p . 19). j ' ' * i Bart (1971), in a study of depression in middle- j I aged women residing in mental hospitals, found that prior j : intense involvement with the maternal role was often ! related to severe depression in women. Commonalities | * i among the depressed females in mental hospitals were: a . f i history of martyrdom in relation to her children; the i ' \ ■ I I inability to handle aggressive feelings; "supermom" and j j "super^housewife" behavior; and a considerable amount of | t j rigidity. ■ According to Bart (1971), the most important roles j for women in our society are those of wife and mother. | However, these roles may be lost or withdrawn at any time, j Women who are overinvolved, overidentified or overdepend- : i 1 ent with their children are placed in a vulnerable posi tion when their children leave home. Positions of i ; vulnerability can also be arrived at by women (to a.greater extent than men) by the loss of a spouse (Bloom, Asher, & White.,__l 978)_____________ ________ ______________________ I I J Bart (1971) examined the case records*of 553 women » I between the.ages of 40 and 59 who had no prior record of : I hospitalization. She found that role loss was frequently j ,associated with depression and that depressed women were ; more likely to have suffered maternal role loss than non- : depressed women. She also found that housewives had a greater incidence of depression than did working women. I Bart's (1971) investigation reinforces the conclu sion that role and self-concept are interconnected. ;Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of this connection ! is the frequency of the response to the question, "Who are you?" in terms of one's occupation or "housewife." The problem women face is that most frequently women are ;expected to fulfill themselves and secure their role identi- !fication through the dependence on others (husbands and < '.children). As a consequence of this dependence, they may j 1 find themselves with a precarious sense of self-worth and I j more dependence on others than on their own accomplish- j ! ments. ^ t I i Gordon and Hall (1974) found that the best predictor ! of a woman's happiness and satisfaction was her self-image. i i j They found that the more potent, unemotional and supportive I (traditional male characteri'stics) a woman felt, the more j j satisfied and happy she reported herself to be. | 48 i i , i i | Bardwick (1971) posited that the value one places on !the self determines the level of self-esteem. The lower ; ■the self-esteem, the greater the anxiety and the greater the tendency to behave, in a socially sanctioned role manner. ■Obviously then,, women with low self-esteem may be hesitant to exhibit behavior requiring (the more highly valued) male sex-role traits. Conversely, a woman who assumes her j socially prescribed role may feel low self-esteem through ! the realization that her role is not valued by society. ; : The double bind that women are caught in is obvious.! (Women are caught between society's traditional definition of the feminine role and the masculine qualities needed for, 'success in the working world. An androgynous woman may have higher self-esteem but may also experience great role I ! |conflict. i j Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1975) attempted to f discover the relationship between self-esteem and ,androgyny. The results, based on a sample of 430 college i r . ! ^students, indicated that androgynous subjects of both sexes J possessed the highest level of self-esteem, were less ill i I in childhood, and received more honors. It was concluded | that: | I ! Androgyny , the rpossessionof a high j I degree of both masculinity and fern- j ininity, may lead to the most j socially desirable consequences, the absolute strength of both components 49 I ! I i i influencing attitudinal and behavioral ; outcomes for the .individual. (Spence ; et al. , 1975, p. 35) i i A number of researchers have found that role con- i flict manifests itself in anxiety. Horner (1972) noted ' that the successful woman frequently feels anxious, ■ 'guilty, "unf eminine, and selfish. Maccoby (1966) has t i ' ; expressed a similar view..suggesting that the professional ! woman pays the price of anxiety for diverging from the ’ traditional feminine role. Jordan-Viola (1976) found a | positive correlation between anxiety and androgyny for . both undergraduates and working women. In addition to not boding well for a person1s mental1 health, a high level of sex-typed behavior has negative ! i consequences for intellectual growth and development. ! 1 f I ! ; Maccoby (1966) determined that greater intellectual t , development appears to be associated with cross-sex typing,j i with masculinity in girls and femininity in boys. Boys - j and girls who are less sex-typed (more androgynous) were I I | i found to have higher overall intelligence, higher spatial j ability and greater creativity. i i Hyperpassivity (the feminine model) interferes with i i concept formation and manipulation, while hyperactivity i (the male model) is incompatible with sustained and con- | centrated analysis. Additionally, a "masculine" person- ( j ality pattern in girls and a "feminine" pattern in boys I seems to facilitate a variety of intellectual activities. Thus, in girls impulsiveness and aggressiveness are positive factors and fearfulness and passivity are negative * \ ones. In boys the pattern in reversed. Maccoby (1966) has hypothesized a single personality; ! dimension ranging from passive-inhibited at one end to I ; bold-impulsive at the other. Between this personality dimension and intellectual functioning may be a curvilinear relationship such that only individuals in the intermediate i ; range of the personality variable function intellectually at a high level. In order to achieve a high degree of ; intellectual performance girls must become more bold and 1 aggressive and boys increase their inhibitions and : t \ * • , • * 1 ! passivity. ‘ j Leary*s Interpersonal Checklist and the PRF Andro j : Scale were given to 6 82 high school students by Berzins/ | Welling, and Wetter (1975). Masculine sex-typed subjects ; : ' f i J (as measured by the PRF Andro Scale) were found to be in J i t the dominant-hostile quadrant of the Interpersonal Check- i I list. Feminine sex-typed students tended to be located I in the submissive-friendly quadrant. Androgynous subjects ; I (of both sexes) were most frequently placed in the j j dominant-friendly quadrant. These results were interpreted i I as revealing the adaptability of androgynous subjects to ! most life circumstances. ' Cristall and Dean (1976) administered the Bern Sex I 'Role Inventory and the Personal Orientation Inventory to | I a sample of graduate students. It was determined that i 'there was a significant relationship between level of self-. 1 actualization and androgyny. ! Bern and Lenney (1976) found that androgynous I ■ individuals reported less psychological discomfort than sex-typed individuals when required to perform cross-sex behaviors. They concluded, that sex-typing restricts j ! behavior in unnecessary and perhaps even dysfunctional j ; ways. i Bern, Martyna, and Watson (1976) investigated j expressiveness and both verbal and non-verbal nurturant , .i i \ t J behavior. The results indicated that only androgynous ; ! persons were high in both the instrumental and expressive j : domains. The androgynous individuals were found to stand J • firm in their opinions as well as to express nurturing | ’behavior to animals, babies and adults in need. \ j Orlofsky and Windle (1978) confirmed previous .i : research findings that androgynous individuals exhibit 1 the greatest behavioral adaptability,while undifferentiated I persons exhibit";the least. One hundred and eleven college ! i students were tested for emotional expressivity, assertive- i | ness, and personal integration. Sexrtyped and sex-crossed individuals only did well on those tasks which were congruent with their measured sex role. On the other hand, androgynous subjects performed well on both masculine and feminine tasks. The fact that undifferentiated subjects performed poorly on all tasks tends to confirm the view that behavioral flexibility is due to a-istrong identifica tion with both masculine and feminine roles (androgyny) rather than from lack of identification with either. Wetter (1975) examined high school and college students* self-esteem scores as a function of androgyny. In both samples of subjects, self-esteem was correlated with masculine, but not feminine, scores. Androgynous subjects had the highest self-esteem scores, but their scores were not significantly greater than the masculine sex-typed individuals. Both feminine sex-typed and undif ferentiated subjects were significantly lower in self esteem. These findings tend to confirm the previous research cited that socialization into the femininerrole is accompanied by low levels of self-regard. From the above review of' the literature it can be seen how sex-role stereotyping may be costly to society in terms of loss of human potential and individually tragic for those individuals suffering behavioral (and by exten sion psychological) constriction. As Osofsky and Osofsky (1972) have concluded, "Changes in patterns of. socializa tion and education of females and males will lead to 53 i ' i ' * f increased alternatives and benefits for individuals of both sexes" (Osofsky & Osofsky, 1972, p. 418). Certainly \ i marital therapy may serve as both an educational and > socialization function for those persons suffering marital > | i distress. ! The Relationship Between i Marital Therapy and Androgyny ! J 1 At this point in time, the relationship between 1 i • > marital therapy and androgynous behavior is hypothetical. \ j However, the goals of marital therapy are certainly com- : >patible with the concept of androgyny. The extent to which marital therapy can promote androgynous behavior is an empirical question. The assumption that it can, how- ,ever, does not seem unwarranted. ! ! i | If an androgynous person is one who is well- ; i ' , integrated and well-functioning, able to meet the diverse ' ■ i ; expectations, discharge the competing responsibilities,. | face the increasingly problematic situations, and fulfill j * 1 l ’ the multiple roles 7 life in contemporary society presents, » I • ' ' ; i i then marital therapy may well aid in the achievement of j j this state of functioning. 1 j As Berman and Leif (1975) have noted, I . . . | The dynamic forces in the marriage j result from each spouse's need to ■ achieve liis/her expectations | (certain levels of power, intimacy, I and boundary setting), offset and ! opposed by the need to compromise 54 or submerge these desires in order to enable the partner to attain his/her expectations. The balance between the struggle for autonomous self-fulfillment and the need to please the partner of aid the rela tionship whenever these are opposing or uncomplementary forces is not only the heart of the marriage but the core of marital therapy. (Berman & Leif, 1975, p. 585) In contemporary society, androgynous individuals may well have a better chance in making marriages work. It would certainly appear that marriage is requiring more and more the qualities androgynous individuals possess. CHAPTER III r i METHODOLOGY 1 t This chapter outlines the methodology employed in ; the study as follows: research design and statistical ' analysis, subjects, therapists, instrumentation, treatment ; and testing procedures, methodological assumptions, and j limitations. • i Research Design and Statistical Analysis f i The research design is essentially a pretest-post- ; test control group design. However, rather than employing \ I a control group, two treatment groups were employed. The j data of the investigation were- analyzed by running a two- | way analysis of covariance. In the analysis, the inde pendent variables, were the type of treatment (group or conjoint marital therapy) and sex of the participants. The dependent variable.was the posttest androgyny score. The pretest androgyny score was held constant as a covariate. Subjects The subjects of the investigation were 50 couples who requested treatment for marital distress at a large i 56 | i * ' . ; |private multipurpose psychological clinic in the West Los 'Angeles area. All members of the couples were between the ages of 25 and 69 years old and had been married for at ! ileast three years. All subjects indicated that they were , i seeking marital, as opposed to individual, family or sexual therapy. All subjects in the study were Caucasian. , After an initial starting date, the next 60 couples ; requesting therapy were randomly assigned to either con- ! joint therapy or to group therapy. Within each group the I i subjects were further randomly assigned to therapists. ; Five therapists each provided conjoint therapy to four, five, or six couples. Additionally, there were five ^ couples groups, each comprised of from four to six couples. Each therapist, then, led one group as well as providing i ! ■ conjoint therapy to approximately five couples. t | Of the total of 60 couples who requested therapy, * \ ! 10 were eliminated from all data analyses. This subject ; i attrition occurred for one of two reasons. One, those , ( I ; six couples who attended less than 10 of the required 15 ! j | j therapy sessions (group or conjoint) were eliminated from i | the data analyses, as it was felt that this was not a ■ sufficient exposure to the treatment to adequately repre- ! sent the presence or absence of an effect. Three of the r ' ■ j six couples eliminated for insufficient attendance were j assigned to group therapy and three to conjoint therapy. No single therapist suffered an attrition rate of more [than two subject couples. In order for the couple to be i ! i considered present, it was necessary for both members of . i I I the marital dyad to be in attendance. j I An additional four couples were eliminated because • t i they were not present for the posttest administration of j the research instrument. Two of these couples were from j i ! ‘the conjoint group and two were assigned to group therapy. J ; I Again, it was necessary for both spouses to be present on | I the date of posttesting. No single therapist lost more j than one couple due to missing data. I t ■ ; In order to discover if this subject attrition was 1 ■ . i due to chance or to the operation of some.uncontrolled | ■subject characteristic, two sets of t tests were run on | !the pretest measure to determine if there was a signifi- i t cant difference between: the means of ,the subjects who | : ' * •- j (dropped out of the study and those who completed therapy. j I iOne set compared the pretest means of those who attended i ;less than four sessions with those who completed the requisite number of sessions. i j The other t tests compared those subjects for whom j there was incomplete data with those couples who completed j therapy and the posttest instrument. Each set of t tests was run three times. In these tests, males were compared with males, females with females, and the average of males and females combined with the average of males and females. None_of the t-^tests were significant at the .05 level, indicating that subject attendance is probably not 'related to the measure employed in the study. While drop out may be idiosyncratic or related to the process or 'concept of brief marital therapy, it does not appear to be ; ■related to the subjects" scores on the pretest measure. ' ; ; Therapists : All. five of the therapists were either licensed psychologists or marriage and family counselors associated ( ;on a full-time basis with the group practice within which i \ ! I |the study was conducted. All therapists were Caucasian. .The ages of the therapists ranged from 28 to 39 years old. Each therapist had been in practice for at least three ■years and associated with the group for at least two. As i i |the group specializes in the treatment of marital and | ■ family problems, all therapists had extensive experience ! i ! : in working with couples in both a conjoint and a group 1 : i mode. A general systems view was the theoretical orienta- j ition of all therapists. i I | None of the therapists were familiar with the I purpose of the study. They were told only that the research was designed to assess the effects of different types of set-inducing pretesting on therapeutic outcome. j In strumen ta t ion i j Sex-role attitudes (androgyny) were measured by the ! Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bern, 1974), which was designed to measure'the extent to which an individual has ; internalized sex-typed standards of desirable behavior for i men and women. Bern (1975) reviewed the literature on sex- j typing and concluded that high anxiety, low self-esteem, i and low social acceptance are associated with high , femininity in women. She suggests that the androgynous ; individual (defined as one who does not closely conform to either masculine or feminine sex-typed behavior) may be most adaptable and effective as he/she is free to engage j in whatever behavior is most appropriate for the situation.; In a series of studies by Bern (1976, 1977), women 1 with an androgynous profile on the BSRI were far more i comfortable refusing a clearly unreasonable request than were women with a feminine protocol. Yet, the androgynous , i women were more warmly responsive to a kitten and to a j baby than were the feminine women. This indicates, accord-j i ing to Bern (1977) that the androgynous individual is capa- j ble.of a wide repertoire of behavior, including "masculine"; j assertive behavior as well as "feminine" nurturant behavior. The inventory consists of 60 adjectives, 20 of which were selected.by male and female judges as signifi- 1 cantly more desirable for a man than for a woman, 20 * / . 1 judged to be significantly more desirable for a woman than for a man, and 20 judged, to be no more desirable for one j sex than for the other. The respondent is asked to indi cate on a seven-point scale how well each of the 6 0 items describes him. The BSRI was normed on two samples of college students, numbering 723 and 194, respectively. The instru ment yields three major scores: Masculinity,, Femininity, and Androgyny. The first two scores are logically and • empirically independent (average r = -.03). The Androgyny score is defined as the student's t ratio for the differ ence between a person's masculine and feminine self- * * ' endorsement. The greater the- absolute of the androgyny score, the more the'person is sex-typed-or sex-reversed, !with high negative scores indicating masculinity and high [positive scores indicating femininity. A high score 'indicates one set of attributes and the simultaneous rejection of the other, whereas a low score indicates :androgyny, or the equal endorsement of both masculine and J ‘feminine attributes (Bern, 1974). | Test-retest reliability yielded a Pearson product jmoment correlation as follows: Masculinity r = .90; i Femininity r — .90; Androgyny r = .93 (Bern, 1974). The more recent studies of sex-role behaviors 'utilize a median split and classification into one of four I i I quadrants (High Masculine , High Feminine, Androgynous, I or Undifferentiated). The trend of this recent literature • is identification of the differential characteristics of I i • ;each quadrant type. This study, however, seeks to examine j changes in androgyny levels due.to brief marital therapy. j • The original method of analyzing the BSRI scores was j utilized because it provides a numerical continuum instead of discrete categories. The numerical continuum is more * sensitive to changes in androgyny levels whereas discrete .categories would require radical score shifts before.iany ■ change could be demonstrated. i Treatment I The 60 couples who requested marital therapy and ■ were evaluated as good candidates for the procedure by an intake interview between May 1 and June 30, .1980, were : randomly assigned to either group or conjoint therapy. | i I 'Couples were also randomly assigned to therapists. Those ! : i ! individuals who at the time of the .intake interview stated j I » I a strong preference for group or conjoint therapy were not 1 included in the present experiment. (However, their ■request was complied with.) Five therapists participated i in the investigation. Each therapist ran one group (group ! marital therapy) and also saw couples individually .(con- • | joint marital therapy). It was intended that each thera- i ‘ pist see six couples and run one group composed of six !couples. Hoever, due to subject attrition, the number of * couples in some groups and the number of couples seen in ; : ! • conjoint therapy were somewhat reduced. ! > Prior to the beginning of the investigation, the j i ;experimenter met with the five therapists to secure their ( willingness to participate. However, the therapists were ! i not told of the true nature of the experiment. At this time it was discussed with the therapists that as the i nature of therapy is more in the nature of -an art than a -science, there would be no way to standardize the therapy j I I ■ sessions. Also mitigating against any a priori outline of , therapeutic procedures or techniques was the unknown , .nature of the sample,of couples and their particular prob- | ;lems, behaviors and conceptions. For this reason, the j i 7 - : jexperimenter requested the therapists to do nothing differ- t Iently than they normally would. That is, their profession- ; al behavior was not compromised or modified in any way. As previously noted, however, all of the therapists : were Caucasian, between the age of 28 and 39, and all had fbeen affiliated with the group for at least two years. As i |part of their continuing affiliation, it was necessary for !them to attend case conferences and "in-service" workshops J jwhere specific cases and techniques were discussed. Due to their continued interaction, and belief in a general i , j systems orientation that pays particular attention to the communication patterns of couples, it was felt that the I I I I I 1 treatment provided would be as similar as possible in a ; 1 non-analogue situation. I , * All group sessions met in the evenings, as did the j , ; I ' majority of conjoint meetings. All couples saw the thera- j 1 1 ! pist once a week in either the group of conjoint format. ! . Group meetings lasted for one and one-half hours. The i H 1 conjoint sessions were 60 minutes long. j I Testing Procedure j • i Subjects were asked to come to the first thera^ ; i | peutic encounter one-half hour early and to stay one-half ! i hour longer at the fifteenth session. During these two-. 1 * ; * * j periods the instrument was administere'd. The subjects I t ■ i i were not informed as to the exact nature of the tests i i . ■ ■ 4 | taken, nor the reason for them. They were, however, told ! ] that they were for purposes of research and offered the I i { opportunity to decline to participate. No one did so. It i i • was also indicated to the subjects that the results of the j f [ research would be made available to them after the com- I j pletion of the project; however, no date was specified. 1 Assurances as to the confidentiality of the data collected I ! were given to the couples. | If therapy was terminated for any reason between } the tenth and fifteenth sessions, the subjects were asked to complete a posttest BSRI. This procedure was necessi tated in only two instances; both couples were in conjoint I 64 ! i ! , I 'therapy. One couple terminated after the twelfth session : •and one after the fourteenth. One couple was unexpectedly i transferred to another city, and one felt that sufficient j progress had been made. Therapy did not necessarily ! terminate after the fifteenth session; it was felt, though, that this was a sufficient period of time for an effect to | i ,be manifested. ; I I Methodological Assumptions j 1. The research design control procedures, mode of sample selection, and statistical analyses completed were i appropriate and adequate to permit the realization of a 1 satisfactory degree of internal validity of the experiment. 1 f 2. The reliability and validity of the Bern Sex i ! * iRole Inventory were sufficient to allow accurate inferences I j - j j about the .sex-role attitudes of the subjects. t I 3. The level of skill of the'five therapists.was t essentially equivalent. ! 4. The data of the investigation were accurately ;obtained, recorded and analyzed. 1 - ■ . i 5. The levels of the entering behaviors of the ;subjects were approximately equivalent so as to permit the (manifestation of a nearly equal amount of an effect over jthe same period of time for each subject relative to the J (condition to which he was exposed. | Limitations ( i ■ 1. The subjects* knowledge of evaluation proced- i I ures may have affected the outcome. ( 2. The study was dependent on the stubjecs* will- j ■ ingness to cooperate honestly and fully on pre- and post- j test instruments. : i ; 3. The amount of time allocated for the treatment ; (marital therapy) may have been insufficient to permit measurable changes in androgyny to occur. , . ( 4. Because no behavioral' indices of androgyny \ ‘ were employed in the study, generalizations to overt 1 i behavior may be limited.- j ; 5. Individual differences in the impact of differ- | : ent therapists upon different couples could not be j , - - i ; entirely controlled/ nor could specific group character- j i i i t j isties that may have developed. i CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND j INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS In this chapter the results of the investigation t are reported and interpreted primarily within the context 1 of the research hypotheses. Possible alternative hypo- 1 t theses or tentative explanations to account for the find*: ings are presented. Suggestions for needed research are also made. Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis One The first null hypothesis of the investigation stated in null form was as follows: There wiii be no 'significant increase . in level of androgyny, as a function of : brief marital therapy, as measured by. j the Bern Sex Role Inventory. J ■ This hypothesis was tested by means of running a dependent groups t test to determine the differences I between the pretest and posttest androgyny scores for the j total sample of subjects (n = 100, 50 couples)* The results of the t test indicated that there was a significant 66 difference between the pre- and posttest means (t = 4.18, df = 99, jd-^.01). Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for both sexes and groups on each of the two • t measures of androgyny (pre- and posttest). As can be seen from the table, there was a slight but significant change in the overall androgyny level between the pretesting (X = -.03, SD = 1.12) and posttesting (X = -.15, SD =1.09)1 That is, overall, there was a slight but significant change in the androgyny level toward greater masculinity. It is important in perusing the tables to remember that the closer to absolute zero the androgyny score is, the more androgynous the person is, and that negative scores indicate masculinity and positive one's feminine sex-typed behavior. The more negative the androgyny score, the more • sex-typed as masculine the subject is. On the basis of the significant t test, it was con- : i eluded that brief marital therapy, ignoring modality, as ; i employed in this study, was sufficiently effective in I i changing androgyny levels to reject the null hypothesis ! i and to warrant further examination of the treatment effect. t i This was accomplished by testing the specific hypotheses j of the study concerning the differential effects of brief marital therapy, conducted in different modes and on j different sexes, in changing level of androgyny. j TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations on the Pretest and Posttest Measures of Androgyny For Each Sex Within Two Modes of Marital Therapy Androgyny Pretest Androgyny Posttest ? Group N X SD N X SD Group Marital Therapy 50 -0.21 1.29 50 I o • u> <1 1.16 Males 25 -1.05 1.03 25 -1.16 0.90 ; Females 25 0.64 0.93 25 0.43 0.80 Conjoint Marital Therapy 50 0.15 0.89 50 0.08 0.98 Males 25 -0.23 0.84 25 -0. 37 0.82 Females 25 0.52 0.77 25 0.51 0.93 , Males 50 -0.64 1.02 50 -0.77 0.94 j Females 50 0.58 0.85 50 0.47 0.86 j i t ! Total 100 l o • o u> 1.12 100 -0.15 1.10 ' 1 i Note: Negative numbers indicate masculine sex-typed behavior. The closer to absolute zero the score, the more androgynous. Hypotheses Two, Three and Four Hypotheses Two, Three and Four of the investigation were tested by means of a single statistical test, a two- way analysis of covariance. Hypothesis Two, stated in null form, was as follows There will be no significant difference in the androgyny scores, as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory, between subjects receiving conjoint marital therapy and those participating in group marital therapy. Hypothesis Three, stated in null form, was as follows: There will be no significant difference in androgyny, as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory, between men and women. Hypothesis Four, stated in null form, was as foTlows: There will be no significant inter action between sex and modality of treatment (conjoint or group marital therapy) regarding increased androgyny as measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory. These three hypotheses were tested by means of running a single two-way analysis of covariance. The t dependent variable was the posttest measure of androgyny. j The independent variables were the type of treatment ■ (conjoint or group) and sex of the participants. The pre test measure of androgyny was held constant as a covariate." Table 2 presents the results of this analysis. As can be seen in the table, both main effects group (Hypo thesis Two) :(F — 5.24, df = 1, p -c .05) and sex (Hypothesis — jb_ t Three) (F = 4.87, df — 1, p - s i . .05) were significant and there was no significant interaction (Hypothesis Four). Null Hypotheses Two and Three were rejected, and Hypothesis, Four was not rejected. The mode of brief marital therapy ■ delivered does differentially promote increases in level ' of androgyny. Brief marital therapy, across modes, also ! j differentially affects the androgyny levels of males and : i females. There is no group by sex interaction, however. ! t An examination of Tables 1 and 2 serves to more j precisely locate the significant effects. Regarding the j main effect of mode of therapy, as can be seen in Table 1, both the pretest and posttest mean androgyny levels of the subjects in the group therapy group werei.more sex-typed j than were those of the subjects in the conjoint therapy group. This was- true for both males and females. However,j when the effect of the differential pretest scores are 1 ■ , ' * ■ 7 1 i I ! * i Table 2 ' Analysis of Covariance ; of the Posttest of Androgyny f 4 Source SS df MS ( F ; Covariate ; Androgyny-Pre 110.128 1 110.128 1588.75**. Main Effects f i Group .363 1 .363 5.24* < Sex .337 1 .337 4.87* . 1 Interaction : Group x Sex .155 1 .155 2.30 } Error . 6.585 95 .069 i Total 117.501 99 1.187 i t Treatments Group Posttest Mean Adjusted i Mean Group Marital Therapy -0.37 i—i CM • • 0 1 Conjoint Marital Therapy 0.08 -0.09 Males I o • -j -j -0.22 i Females -.47 00 o • 0 1 ** £ .05 * £ .01 removed and the two groups are equated statistically on the present measure, the effect still obtains (Table 2). That is, the subjects receiving group therapy still evidence more sex-typed protocols or exhibit less androgy nous behavior. As the groups were statistically equated on the level of androgyny present at the beginning of the study, this result can be interpreted as indicating that conjoint marital therapy is more efficacious in promoting androgynous functioning. (The closer the androgyny score is to zero, the more androgynous or less sex-typed is the individual.) It should be noted, however, that while the conjoint therapy group was significantly more androgynous, and that in terms of absolute gain scores, the group therapy subjects became more masculine and the conjoint subjects became less feminine (more androgynous), the absolute values of the differences between the two groups are slight. That is, the subjects in both groups were relatively androgynous. With regard to the main effect of sex. Table 2 indicates that, naturally, the female subjects tended to be female sex-typed and the males male sex-typed. It can also be seen that overall, the females tended to be less sex-typed than the males; however, this effect did not obtain for the group marital therapy group. In terms of absolute values, over the course of therapy, the males i tended to become slightly more sex-typed and the females slightly less sex-typed (within both modes of therapy). I However, when the subjects (sexes) were equated statistic- ' \ ally, equalized on the level of androgyny present at the ! beginning of therapy, the results of the analysis reveals : that at the end of therapy the - females were significantly less sex-typed than were the males. The lack of a signifi-> I I cant interaction attests to this effect occurring in both I modes of therapy. Again, it should be noted that in terms ] ' of absolute levels of androgyny, the subjects are quite similar to each other, across sex, and very androgynous. The conclusion, then, based on the above presented analyses, is that brief marital therapy can serve to i ' ! i promote increased; androgynous .functioning. * The efficacy j • is not, however, constant across modes of therapy and sex j | I : of participant in the therapy. The effectiveness is 1 1 i significantly greater for the conjoint therapy mode and ' for females. While significant results were obtained, the j i absolute difference ■ in the values observed for the two j modes and sexes was quite similar. The results are inter- t ! I • preted and discussed in light of these significant but I ; similar differences. j i Discussion ; Three of the null hypotheses of the investigation • i i t | were rejected, indicating that brief marital therapy can | serve to increase the level of androgynous functioning and that the effect is significantly greater for subjects receiving conjoint marital therapy and females. A number of factors may have influenced these results. As discussed in the description of the treatment in Chapter III, the treatment delivered was intended to be as 1 identical as possible across groups and clients. However, : t as in all clinical investigations, it is impossible to * j control for the varying levels of skill of the therapists j fand the degree of interpersonal attraction between clients and their therapists. It is*also impossible to control i other less tangible factors such as norms, group culture, and cohesiveness that develop' over time in all therapy : I groups and are different in each. I i In addition to the group dynamics per se, the i characteristics of the subjects creating those dynamics i I f may also be a significant contributing factor. This study , I • randomly assigned subjects to either group of conjoint ;therapy. In a typical therapeutic practice, however, \ » I jclients are able to choose the type of therapy they desire. It is possible that a self-selection factor exists such that couples who select a group therapy, mode are measurably i I different from those who prefer conjoint treatment. A ! design which allows for self-selection might produce j different results. Additional subject factors that may have influenced j the results of the investigation,involve subject homo- i j 'geneity. The study was conducted under the auspices of [ i a large West Los Angeles private group,psychotherapy prac tice. As such, all'of.the subjects were either self- or ' physician-referred and of middle class socioeconomic status; , able to afford the relatively expensive fees. Also, the subjects were quite homogeneous on the dimension of androgyny. Because the subject population so uniformly exhibited relatively.ihigh levels of androgyny on the pre- ’ test, little room for movement toward androgyny could * actually exist. The extent to which the high levels of androgyny observed are a function of economic status or other variables is unknown. However, a replication of the j ! study with a more varied sample of subjects may yield j . different results. j t In addition to subjects, there are several other ! methodological factors which may have contributed to the ■ obtained findings. The therapy that the subjects received ■ was designated as brief marital therapy and suchQtherapy > was delivered to the clients. As such, there was no 1 ! i | segregation of the clients on the basis of presenting i i 1 | problems, goals or expectations for therapy. While the j subjects were homogeneous economically, the extent to I which they were psychologically homogeneous is not known, and their goals and expectations for therapy probably were quite diverse. • If there had been a clustering of the clients, or 1 if the therapy provided had been overtly intended to effect! androgyny, the results may well have been different. In 1 other words, if an explicit effort had been made to increase androgyny level, the results may well have been different. At the present time, all that can be said is i that brief marital therapy can incidentally increase level t df androgyny, not how much of the variance of marital ! ' • - ■ - I therapy outcomes is due to increased androgyny. The length of the treatment, 15 sessions, is fairly ‘ typical of-brief marital therapy. However, it is possible ■ • i that a longer therapeutic period may have resulted in more measurable change. There was possible confounding of j results due to couples groups being scheduled for one and j one^-half hours, while couples in conjoint therapy only i spent one hour with their therapist. Future research needs' to control for this differential in actual time spent in therapy. Related to the length of time over which therapy was conducted is the instrument employed. The Bern Sex Role Inventory appears to measure a quite stable self- concept. While brief marital therapy appears to be capable of effecting change in androgynous level, it seems ! possible that such change would not be reflected immedi ately (or after 15 weeks) because, as noted by Herson, , I Eisler, and Miller (1973), attitudinal change tends to ; lag behind behavioral change. Thus, for example, a man who becomes less masculine in his behavior may continue for some time to think of himself in stereotypically masculine behavior. j Recommendations for Clinical Practice Two major recommendations for the clinical practice ; 1 of brief marital therapy, as related to effecting changes f in level of androgyny, can be derived from the findings. ! First, marital therapy should be conducted for more than 15 weeks. While an awareness of the problem may be developed in a relatively brief period of time, pervasive ' ! behavior and attitude change probably requires a sub- j stantially longer time period to be effected. I Second, the goals of increasing androgyny, or ; ! modifying sex-role attitudes, must be clearly stated at j i the beginning of the therapy, and the group should ! i explicitly focus attention on these goals. It is unreal- ; i istic to expect goals to be realized if they are not j clearly delineated and dealt with. j Suggestions for Future Research The following recommendations for future research \ on the efficacy of brief marital therapy in effecting ; increased levels of androgyny were derived from the results ;of the present study. First, future research should be conducted over a longer period of time and with a more heterogeneous sample. - * Specific client populations, such as minorities and genera-: tions, should be studied. This would permit a more precise. measurement of change and a comparison of the effects across subsamples of couples. Future studies should also ,provide for more independent variables, including both demographic and personality variables. Multivariate statistics should also be employed in future investigations. t i These procedures will allow the investigator to account forj a greater amount of the variation within groups and will permit a greater understanding of the relative efficacy of • r group and conjoint therapy. j Second, research should be undertaken to determine 1 i ,whether there is a self-selection factor such that clients ;selecting group therapy are different from those selecting ! ■ | i conjoint therapy. j i i Third, since group and conjoint therapy may provide j i different benefits to couples, it may be best to offer !clients the opportunity to participate in both types of therapy. Future research should investigate the various possibilities for providing therapy using both formats. Finally, the relative dynamics of couples therapy versus single-sex group therapy should be investigated. The relative dynamics of these two types of therapy should be studied to determine how the group process differs between these two types of groups, and their success in promoting increased androgyny. CHAPTER V 1 i SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ! Summary I i ■ ' P u r p o s e i ! i \ I For a sample of 50 couples, all of whom were j T . I 1 Caucasian and of middle class socioeconomic status, and f were either self- or physician-referred to a private group j t ’ psychotherapeutic practice, the purpose of the study was [ 1 ; to compare the effectiveness of group marital therapy with ! i that of conjoint marital therapy in increasing the average i i ; androgyny scores of the participants. The determination of ' the effect of brief marital therapy on the androgyny level , i : of clients could have broad social and therapeutic I i i ■ relevance. i i j Hypotheses j Within a theoretical framework of the concept of ; androgyny and marital therapy, particularly general I i i systems theory (communications theory), and in the context of the findings of previous research studies concerned | with androgynous behavior, the following research hypo- ' theses were formulated: I - ! 1. There will be no significant increase in ' t . androgyny as a function of brief marital therapy, as ; \ . measured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory. i 2. There will be no significant difference in the j average increase in androgyny scores, as measured by the , i Bern Sex Role Inventory, between subjects receiving con- j j j joint marital therapy and those participating in group i - i I ! , marital therapy. i | j ! 3. There will be no significant difference in the ( i | average increase in androgyny, as measured by the Bern Sex ! i Role Inventory., between men and women. 4. There will be no significant interaction j | between sex and modality of treatment (conjoint or group j I marital therapy) regarding increased androgyny, as meas- I i • ured by the Bern Sex Role Inventory. Methodology A sample of 50 couples was randomly assigned to ; either group marital therapy or conjoint marital therapy, j j - j Both therapeutic modes met once a week for 15 weeks. The i j research design was a pretest-posttest design. The | instrument employed in the study was the Bern Sex Role i t | Inventory. The pretest was administered immediately prior j to the first session; the posttest was administered ! immediately following the fifteenth. A two-way analysis | j of covariance was carried out to determine if there were j 8 2, | I ! ■ I significant differences on the posttest measure*of i f androgyny between mode of therapy (group of conjoint) and | {between the.sexes. The possibility of an interaction ; t i ‘ between mode of therapy and group was also tested. A t test i <was run to determine the overall difference between pre- | , i land posttest measures of androgyny. : | ' ! Findings The following results may be summarized: I 1. Overall, brief marital therapy significantly j ■increased the androgyny scores of the subjects. I i 2. A significant main effect for mode of therapy j received was found. Conjoint marital therapy was more j i efficacious in promoting increased androgyny than was ; Igroup marital therapy. ; , I 3. A significant main effect for sex was observed. i \ l (The androgyny scores of females were increased signifi^ | ‘ t cantly more than those for males. I i 4. No significant interaction between mode of i !therapy and sex was found, t Conclusion r | On the basis of the data obtained, the conclusion i ;was that brief marital therapy can serve to promote increased androgynous functioning. The efficacy is not, jhowever, constant across modes of therapy and the sex of 'participants in the therapy. The effectiveness is signifi- , cantly greater for the conjoint mode and for females. j While significant results were obtained, the absolute j ;differences between the values obtained for the two modes j » land sexes were relatively small. 1 * " -■ i i ■ Recommendations : ' t \ The following recommendations for future research , * j - t t were made: . ’ j i 1. Future research should be conducted over a 1 longer period of time with more heterogeneous samples. j 'Future studies should also provide for the measurement of | i more independent variables, including both demographic , * 1 tand personality characteristics. To more accurately 1 account for the relative contribution of the independent ; variables to the total variance, multivariate statistical techniques should be employed. 2. Research should be undertaken to determine 4 . whether there is a self-selection factor such that clients selecting group therapy are different from those selecting I :conjoint therapy. i j 3. Since group and conjoint therapy may provide | different benefits to couples, it may be best to offer ; clients the opportunity to participate in both types of 'therapy. Future research should investigate the various 1 ■ i | possibilities for providing therapy using both formats. 4. Finally, the relative dynamics of couples I therapy versus single-sex group therapy should be investi- j gated. The relative dynamics of these two types of therapy’ should be studied to determine how the group process j I differs between these two types of groups, and their sue- ] t cess in promoting increased androgyny. REFERENCES 85 Ackerman, N. A dynamic for the clinical approach to family conflict. In N..Ackerman (Ed.), Exploring the base for family therapy. New York: Family Association of America, 1961. Ackerman, N. Treating the troubled family. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Bailyn, K. Notes on the role of choice in the psychology of professional women. In R. J. Lifton (Ed.), The women in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. Bakan, D. The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand -McNally, 1966. Bane, M. J. Marital disruption and the lives of children. Journal of Social Issues, 19.76, _32, 276-286. Bardwick, J. Psychology of women. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Bart, P. Depression in middle-aged women. In V. Gorwick and B. Moran (Eds.), Women in sexist society: Studies on power and powerlessness. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Bateson, G.,-Jackson, D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. Note on the double-bind. Family Process, 1963, 2, 154-161. Bebbington, A. The function of stress in the establish- j ment of the dual-career family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1973, 3j>, 530-537. j Bell, J. Family group therapy. Public Health Monograph ' 64, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1961. Bern, S. L. Psychology looks at sex roles: Where have all the androgynous people gone? Paper presented at the UCLA Symposium on Women, Los Angeles, May, 1972. Bem,t S . L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42(2), 155-162. Bern, S. L. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psy chological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31(4), 634-643. 87 Bern, S. L. Probing the promise of androgyny. In A. G. Kaplan and J. P. Bean (Eds.), Beyond sex-role stereotypes: Readings toward a psychology of androgyny. Boston: Little Brown, 1976. Bern, S. L. On the utility of alternate procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45* 196-205. Bern, S. L., & Lenney, E. Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 3_3 (1) , 48-54. Bern, S. L., Martyna, W. , & Watson, C. Sex-typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive; domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psy chology;/ 1976* 34(5>/ 1016-1023. Bergin, A. The evaluation of therapeutic outcomes. In A. E. Bergin and S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: An empirical analysis. New York: Wiley, 1971. Berman, E., & Lief, H. Marital therapy from a psychiatric perspective: An overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1975, 132, 583-592. Bernard, J. Sex differences: An overview. In A. Kaplan and J. Bean (Eds.), Beyond sex-role stereotypes: Readings toward a psychology of androgyny. Boston: Little Brown, 1976. Berzins, J. I. New perspectives on sex roles and person ality dimensions. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Associ ation, Chicago, Illinois, August 1975. Berzins, J.^II, Welling, M. AWetter, R. Androgynous versus traditional sex roles and the interpersonal behavior circle. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., August 1975. ■ r f * * Block, J. H. The child rearing practices report. Berkeley, California: Institute of Human Development, University of California, 1965. 88 Block, J. H., Von der Lippe, A., & Block, J. Sex role and socialization patterns. Some personality concom itants and environmental antecedents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41, 321-341. Bloom, B. L., Asher, S. J., & White, S. W. Marital dis ruption as a stressor: A review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 8_5, 867-894. Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S., & Vogel, R. S. Sex role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. * Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy chology, 1970, _34 (1) , 1-7. Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. Some personality differences between members of one-career and two-career families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, ! 1976, 38, 453-459. i : Chafetz, J. Masculine, feminine or human? An overview j of the psychology of sex roles. Itasca, Illinois: ; F. E. Peacock, 1974. , Chesler, P. Women and madness. Garden City, New York: I Doubleday, 1972. ! Christall, L., & Dean, R. Relationship of sex-role stereotypes and self-actualization. Psychological Reports, 1976, 39, 842. i Colwill, N. L. The study of sex differences: Research perspectives and problems. In H. M. Lips and N. L. Colwill (Eds.), The psychology of sex differ- 1 ences. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1978. ' Constantinople, A. Masculinity-femininity: An exception I to a famous dictum. Psychological Bulletin, 19 73, ! 8j0, 389-407. i i Crowe, M. J. Conjoint marital therapy: A controlled outs | come study. Psychological Medicine, 1978, 8, 623-636. Eisler, R. M., & Hersen, M. Behavior techniques in family- oriented crisis intervention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1973, 2_8, 111-116. Erikson, E. H. Inner and outer spacer Reflections on j womanhood. In R, J. Lifton (Ed.), The woman in ; America. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964. Eysenck, H. J. The effects of psychotherapy: An evalua- ; tion. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, 1_2, 319-324. j Farrell, J. The male sex role may be dangerous to your health. Journal of Social Issues, 1978, 34, 65-78. I J , 1 Fensterheim, N. Assertive methods and marital problems. j I In R. D. Rubin, H. Fensterheim, J. Henderson, and j L. P. Ullman (Eds.), Advances in behavior therapy. ■ New York: Academic Press, 1972. j ■ ! Forisha, B. C. Sex roles and personal awareness. Morris-, town, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1978. Frank, E., Anderson, C., & Rubinstein, D. Marital role ideals and perception of marital role behavior in distressed and non-distressed couples. Journal of » Marital and Family Therapy, 1980, 6 _ , 55-64. j I Friedman, P. M. Personalistic family and marital therapy. In A. A. Lazarus (Ed.), Clinical behavior therapy. New York: Brunner./Maze!, 1972. * i , Garfield, S. L.. Psychotherapy: An eclectic approach. j New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980. j Garfield, S. L. Psychotherapy: A 40-year appraisal. ! American Psychologist, 1981, 3 6 _ , 174-183. I r I Garfield, S. L., & Bergin, A. E. Handbook of psycho- j ■ therapy and behavior change. (2nd ed.) New York: John Wiley & Sons, 19 78. i ; Glass, G. V. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of I research, P Educational Researcher, 1976 , 1., 3-8. j Glass, G. V. Integrative findings: The meta-analysis of research. In L. Schulman (Ed.), Review of : Research in Education, Vol. 5. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock, 1977. j j Goldberg, H. The hazards of being male: Surviving the myth of masculine privilege. Plainview, New York: Nash, 1976. . 90 Goldberg/ P. Are women prejudiced against women? i Transaction/ 1968, _5, 28-30. : Goldenberg, I., & Goldenberg, H. Family therapy: An over- I view. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1980. Gordon, F. E., & Hall, D. T. Career choices of married women: Effects on conflict, role behavior and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 58^, 42-48. . . . | Gottman, J., Notarius,, C., Markman, H., Bank, S., Yoppi, B. , & Rubin, M. E. -Behavior exchange theory and marital decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, _34, 14-23. • Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. Americans view their i mental health: A nationwide interview survey. New York: Basic Books, 1960. I Gurman, A. S. Group marital therapy: Clinical and . 1 empirical implications for outcome research. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1971, 21, 174-189. i I Gurman, A. S. The effects and effectiveness of marital i therapy: A review of outcome research. Family ! Process, 1973, 12, 145-170. 1 \ f ; Gurman, A. S. Research on marital and family therapy: j Prognosis, perspective and prospect. In S. L. I Garfield and A. E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of i psychotherapy and behavior change. (2nd ed.) New ! York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978. i ! Gurman, A. S., & Kniskerh, D. P., "Behavioral marriage t therapy: II, Empirical perspective. Family Process, j 1978, 17, 139-148. f 1 Gurman, A. S., & Razin, A. M. Effective psychotherapy: 1 A handbook of research. New York: Pergammon Press, | T T T T .----------------------- Haley, J. Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1963. t . ! Harford, T. C., Willis, C. H., & Deabler, H. L. Personal- | *ity correlates of masculinity-femininity. Psycho- logical Reports, 1967, 21, 881-884. Harrison, J. The male sex role may be dangerous to your ; health.' Journal of Social Issues, 1978, 34, 65-78. ! i t Heckman, N. A., Bryson,, R. , & Bryson, J. B. Problems of | professional couples: A content analysis. Journal j of Marriage and the Family, 1977, J39, 323-330. | Holmstrom, L. L. The two-career family. Cambridge, ■ Massachusetts: Schenkman, 1972. i Horner, M. Toward an understanding of achievement - Related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 2 8 ^ , 157-175. Humphrey, F. G. Changing roles for women: Implications . for marriage counselors. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 1975, 1_, 219-222. Jackson, D. Family interaction, family homeostasis and some implications for conjoint family psychotherapy.: In J. H. Masserman (Ed.), Individual and family ! dynamics, New York: Grune & Stratton, 1959. Jackson, D. The study of the family. Family Process, 1965, 4 , 1-20. Jacob, T., Kornblith, S., Anderson, C., & Hartz, M. Role , expectation and role performance in distressed and I normal couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychiatry, ' 1981, 9J3, 286-290. | r i Johnson, C. L., & Johnson, F. A. Attitudes toward parent- J ing in dual-career families. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1977, 134, 391-395. Jordan-Viola, E. Feminism, androgyny and anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 867-870. Kagan, J. Acquisition and significance of sex-typing -and sex-role identity. In M. L. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 1) New York: Russell Sage Founda tion, 1964. Katz, J. A., & Knapp, N. H. Housewife, mother, other: Needs and helpers. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1974. 53. 105-108. I Knox, D. Marriage happiness; A behavioral approach to ; i counseling. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1 I 1971. i i i : Kohlberg, L. A. Cognitive-developmental analysis of j ' children*s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In ; E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differ- i ences. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1966. ; i ■ Komarovsky, M. Cultural contraindications and sex roles: ! The masculine cage. American Journal of Psychology, ! ; 1973, 18, 873-884. ; i ' Leder, W. , & Jackson, D. The mirages of marriage. New : ; York: W. W. Norton, 1968. J j Letchworth, G. E. Women who return to college: An | ; identity-integrity approach. Journal of College > ■ Student Personnel, 1970, 11, 103-106. | i Maccoby, E. E. Sex differences in intellectual function- \ ing. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of ; ! sex differences. Stanford, California: Stanford , University Press, 1966*. i ; Manis, C. G., & Mochizuki, J. Search for fulfillment: A i program for adult women. Personnel and Guidance i j Journal, 1972, 5£, 594-599. j | Mandle, J. Women*s liberation: Humanizing rather than j I polarizing. Annals of American Academy of Poli- i ! tical and Social Science, 1971, 397, 118-128. t ! j Minuchin, S. Families and family therapy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974. Moulton, R. W. Psychoanalytic reflections on women's liberation. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 1971, 2 , 192-228. National Center for Health Statistics. Final divorce statistics, 1978. DHHS Publication No. 2 9, Vol. 4, July 31, 1980. Norton, A. J., & Glick, P. C. Marital instability.in America: Past, present, and future. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32, 1-19. Olson, D. H. Marital and family therapy: Integrative i review and critique. Journal of Marriage and the ] Family, 1970, 32, 501—538. j i Olson, D. H., & Sprenkle, D. H. Emerging trends in treat- j ing relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family ; Counsel ing, 1976, 2^, 317-329. ! O'Neil, J. M. Male sex role conflicts,* sexism, and : masculinity: Psychological implications for men, J women and the counseling psychologist. The Counsel-! ing Psychologist, 1980, _9, 61-82. j Orlofsky, J. D., & Win die*, M. Sex-role orientation, behavior adaptability and personal adjustment. Sex ' Roles, 1978, 4, 801-811. Osof sky,. aJ. D.> & Osofsky,- H. J. Androgyny* as :a life ! style. The Family Coordinator, 1972, 21, 411-418. r Paloma, M. M., & Garland, T. N. The married professional woman: A study in the ’ tolerance of domestication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 531- j 540. ; Parsons, T. Age and sex in the social structure of the ; United States. American Sociological Review, ! 1942, 1 , 604-610. | Parsons, T. Family structure and the socialization of J the child. In T. Parsons and R. F.7Bales (Eds.), j Family socialization and interaction processes. i Glencoe, New York: Free Press, 1955. Polk, B., & Stein, R. Is the grass greener on the other side? In C. Safilios-Rothschild (Ed.), Toward a psychology of women. Lexington, Massachusetts: Xerox College Publishing, 1972. Price-Bonham, S., & Murphy, D. C. Dual career marriages: Implications for the clinician. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 1980, 6/(2), 181-188. Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. N. The dual-career family: A variant pattern and social change. Human Rela tions, 1969, 22, 3-30. Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. N. Dual-career families. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1971. (a) j 94 I ! ' Rapoport, R. , & Rapoport, R. N. Early and late experiences • as determinants of adult behavior: Married women 1s family and career patterns. British Journal of I Sociology/ 1971, 22^ 16-29. (b) i 'Rapoport, R. , & Rapoport/ R. N. Dual-career families I ; re-examined. New York: Harper & Row, 19 76. | Sager, C. The treatment of married couples. In S. Areti j (Ed.), American handbook of psychiatry. New York: Basic Books, 1968. ' i ; Sager, C., Gundlach, R., & Kremer, M. The married in ! i treatment. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1968, 19, 205-217. ; Satir, V. Conjoint family therapy: A guide to theory and ; technique. Palo Alto, California: Science and Beliavior Books, 1964. 1 Scanzoni, J. Strategies for changing male family roles: Research and practice implications. The Family Coordinator, 1979, 2j^, 435-444. ; Scher, M. Men in hiding: A challenge for the counselor. j Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1981, 6j0, 199-202. ; ! I Sears, R. R. Relation of early socialization experiences ! | to self-concepts and gender role in middle child- • hood. Child Development, 1970, 41, 267-289. • Singer, J. Androgyny: Toward a new theory of sexuality, i Garden City, New York: Doubleday1976. ; Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. Meta-analysis of psycho- ! therapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, ; 1977, 32, 752-760. j Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. The benefits 1 of psychotherapy. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns i Hopkins University Press, 1980., i | Speer, D. "Family systems": Morphostasis and morpho genesis or "is homeostasis enough"? Family Process, 1970, _9, 259^-279. Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1978. Spence, J. , Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity and femininity. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1974, 4, 43. Spence, J. T. , Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. Ratings of self and peers;on sex-role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32(1), 29-39. Spiegel, J. P. Transitions: The interplay between individual, family and society. New York: Science House, 1971. Stevens, B. The sexually oppressed male. Psychotherapy: % Research and Practice, 1974, 11, 18-21. Strupp, H. H. A reformation of the dynamics of the thera- . pist's contribution. In A. S. Gurman and A. M. Razin (Eds.), Effective psychotherapy: A handbook Of research. New York: Pergammon, 1977. j Strupp, H. H. Psychotherapy research and practice: An ; overview. In S. Garfield and A. Bergiri (Eds.), ' Handbook .of psychotherapy and behavior change: An j empirical analysis. (2nd ed.) New York: John j Wiley & Sons, 1978. (a) | i Strupp, H. H. The therapist * s. theoretical orientation: ! An overrated variable., Psychotherapy: Theory, | Research and Practice, 1978, 1_5, 314-317. (b) j ■ j . Strupp, H. H., & Hadley, S. W. A tripartite model of I mental health and therapeutic outcomes: With | special reference to negative effects in psycho therapy., American Psychologist, 19 77, 32 (3) , 187-196. Sullivan, H. S. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton, 1953. Tomeh, A. K. Sex-role orientation: An analysis of struc tural and attitudinal predictions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1978, 40, 341^354. 96 Watzlawick, P., Beavin, A., & Jackson, D. Pragmatics of human communications: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradox. New York: Norton, 1967. Weakland, J. H. Communication theory and clinical change. In P. J. Guerin (Ed,), Family therapy: Theory and practice. New York: Gardner Press, 1976. Weisman, M. , Pincus,C'C., Radding, N., Lawrence, R. , & Siegel, R. The educated housewife: Mild depression and the search for wprk. American Journal of Orth op sychiatry, 1973, 4 3 _ f 565-573. Wetter, R. E. Levels of self-esteem associated with four sex role categories. Paper presented at the 83rd meeting of the American Psychological Association Chicago, Illinois, August 30, 1975.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Toward a humanistic-existential rehabilitation psychology: A study of the congruence of the principles of rehabilitation psychology with the tenets of the humanistic-existential approach in psychology

PDF

Family-of-origin intervention as a therapeutic resource in enhancing marital adjustment: An intergenerational approach

PDF

Paths to sex role redefinition in dual-career women

PDF

The distribution of marital power in dual-career couples as measured by decision-making patterns

PDF

Quality of supervision and effectiveness of interns as a function of supervisor-intern psychotherapeutic orientations

PDF

Attentiveness and awareness as a variable in psychopathology and therapy: The relationship between neurosis, anxiety and the ability to attend

PDF

Reductionism in marital happiness research

PDF

Sexism and psychotherapists: The relationship between sex of therapists, their level of training, and their sex-role stereotyping

PDF

Nonverbal and demographic correlates to levels of androgyny, masculinity, femininity, and undifferentiated sex-role categories, with female clients in a therapeutic setting

PDF

The effects of a group meditation technique upon degree of test anxiety and level of digit-letter retention in high school students

PDF

The effect of group therapy on anxiety, somatic symptoms, and marital communication among primiparous married couples

PDF

Violation as a fundamental concept in humanistic psychology

PDF

Preference for gender stereotypic job applicants as a function of ethnicity and sex

PDF

A study of the influence of attitude on the outcome of therapy in a captive population

PDF

Parallel processes in therapy and supervision: Empirical evidence

PDF

Differential effects of three group treatments on self-actualization and attitudes toward the sex roles of women

PDF

The role of emotions in the theory and the practice of psychotherapy

PDF

The effect of humanistic-existential therapy on locus of control

PDF

The effects of same-sex versus mixed-sex assertion training groups on assertiveness, sex-role attitudes and locus of control beliefs of women

PDF

Value differences among therapists from three theoretical orientations: Psychoanalytic, behavior modification, and gestalt therapy

Asset Metadata

Creator Lewis, Selma (author)

Core Title Change in sex-role orientation as a function of brief marital therapy

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology, clinical

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-514054

Unique identifier UC11247033

Identifier usctheses-c26-514054 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24917.pdf

Dmrecord 514054

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lewis, Selma

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA