University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Role Perception, Empathy, And Marital Adjustment

(USC Thesis Other)

Role Perception, Empathy, And Marital Adjustment

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been 65-12,267
m icrofilm ed exactly as received
TAYLOR, Alexander B lair, 1933-
ROLE PERCEPTION, EMPATHY, AND
MARITAL ADJUSTMENT.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1965
Sociology, family
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
ROLE PERCEPTION, EMPATHY, AND
MARITAL ADJUSTMENT
by
Alexander Blair Taylor
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
(Sociology)
August 1965
UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
A LEXANDE R BLAIR TAYLOR
under the direction of h.XS...Dissertation C o m
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
Date.....August..1.96 5
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
; / v / Chairman
/ //
...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ............................ iv
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED . . 1
The Problem
Definitions of the Terms Used
Organization of Remainder of the Thesis
II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................... 18
Theoretical Background
Some Basic Literature on Marital Adjustment
Selected Research on Role, Role Perception,
Empathy, and other Related Studies
Summary
III. THE SAMPLE AND THE METHODOLOGY U S E D ........ 92
The Sample
The Methodology Used
Limitations of the Study
Summary
IV. SELF PERCEPTION AND MATE PERCEPTION........ 127
Self Perceptions
Mate Perceptions
Self-Mate Discrepancy Scores
Summary
Chapter Page
V. EMPATHY AND SELF PERCEPTIONS................... 149
Predictions of Mates' Perceptions
Empathy Discrepancy Scores
Summary
VI. INTRA-INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTIONS ................... 172
Intra-Individual Discrepancy Scores
Summary
VII. TOTAL PERCEPTUAL DISCREPANCIES ................ 185
Total Discrepancy Scores
Communication and Perceptual Discrepancies
Summary
VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS....................... 198
Summary
Conclusions
APPENDIX............................................... 223
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 232
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Religious Preferences of Adjusted and Unad
justed Men and Women, by Percentages .... 98
2. Percentages of Reported Education According to
Men and Women in the Adjusted and Unadjusted
G r o u p s................................. 101
3. Occupation of Adjusted and Unadjusted Men and
Women, by Percentages ........................ 103
4. Length of Marriage of Adjusted and Unadjusted
Couples, by Percentages ...................... 107
5. Number of Children of Adjusted and Unadjusted
Couples, by Percentages ...................... 109
6. Means of ICL Octant Raw Scores for Adjusted and
Unadjusted Males on SeIf-Perception with
t-Scores for the Difference between the Means 129
7. Means of ICL Octant Raw Scores for Adjusted and
Unadjusted Females on Self-Perception with
t-Scores for the Difference between the Means 131
8. Means of ICL Octant Raw Scores for Adjusted and
Unadjusted Males' Mate Perception with
t-Scores for the Difference between the Means 134
9. Means of ICL Octant Raw Scores for Adjusted and
Unadjusted Females' Mate Perceptions with
t-Scores for the Difference between the Means 135
Table Page
10. Mean of Raw Discrepancy Scores for Adjusted and
Unadjusted Groups with t-Scores for the
Difference between the Means ................ 144
11. Mean of Percentage Discrepancy Scores for
Adjusted and Unadjusted Groups with t-Scores
for the Difference between the Means .... 145
12. Means of ICL Octant Raw Scores for Adjusted and
Unadjusted Husbands' Predictions of Wives'
Perceptions of Their Husbands with t-Scores
for the Difference between the Means .... 151
13. Means of ICL Octant Raw Scores for Adjusted and
Unadjusted Wives' Predictions of Husbands'
Perceptions of Their Wives with t-Scores for
the Difference between the Means ........... 153
14. Means of ICL Octant Raw Scores for Adjusted and
Unadjusted Husbands' Predictions of Wives'
Perceptions of Themselves with t-Scores for
the Difference between the Means ........... 155
15. Means of ICL Octant Raw Scores for Adjusted and
Unadjusted Wives' Predictions of Husbands'
Perceptions of Themselves with t-Scores for
the Difference between the Means ........... 156
16. Means of Raw and Percentage Discrepancy Scores
for the Adjusted and Unadjusted Groups with
t-Scores for the Difference between the Means 166
17. Means of Raw and Percentage Intra-Individual
Discrepancy Scores for the Adjusted and
Unadjusted Groups with t-Scores for the
Difference between the Means ................ 180
18. Means of Total Raw and Percentage Discrepancy
Scores for the Adjusted and Unadjusted Groups
with t-Scores for the Difference between
the Means....................................... 189
v
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS
OF TERMS USED
This project deals with the relationships between
role perceptions of marital partners, empathic accuracy of
these role perceptions and marital adjustment. A basic
question is whether it is the objective situation that is
most important to human interaction or the interpretation
of that situation by the actors. In sociological litera
ture much has been written with respect to role behavior
and role expectations. Most of these writings indicate
that individuals take roles based on that which is commu
nicated to them by others and the individuals' interpreta
tions of that communication. When there is a discrepancy
between role interpretations by marital partners they would
be interacting in a situation in which each has different
definitions and different expectations. If a spouse
believes that his mate views him in a given way and in
reality she has divergent expectations or interpretations,
the role-reciprocal relationships are likely to be less
effective. These role discrepancies grow out of marriages
formed within a highly heterogeneous society which produces
an atmosphere conducive to inaccurate role perception, role
conflict, and eventual marital difficulties.
The Problem
Statement of the problem
It was the purpose cf this study:
1. To compare the role perceptions of husbands and
wives and relate discrepancies of these role
perceptions to marital adjustment. This aspect
of the project is a cross validation of the
study of role perception by Kotlar.^ The basic
question asked in the first section is whether
husbands and wives who view each other differ
ently in terms of roles are likely to have
lower adjustments than husbands and wives who
■^Sally Lee Kotlar, "Middle Class Marital Roles--
Ideal and Perceived in Relation to Adjustment in Marriage"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1961).
have similar role perceptions.
2. To compare the relationship between the ability
to predict the marital role perceptions of the
mate and marital adjustment. The question
raised by this comparison is: are spouses who
are able to predict accurately how their mates
see them able to achieve a higher level of
marital adjustment than marital partners who
are not able to predict accurately how their
mates perceive them and the mate's own role?
3. To compare the discrepancy between one's own
role perception and the predicted role percep
tion of that self by the mate and its relation
ship to marital adjustment. The question
raised by the third purpose of the study is
whether an individual who perceives himself as
being significantly different from the way his
spouse perceives him will have a lower marital
adjustment than an individual who has the same
role perceptions of himself that he believes
his mate does.
The problem investigated by the study is based on
the theory and research on marital interaction which
4
indicate that differences in role perception, role expecta
tion, and lack of appropriate communication of these roles
O
are negatively associated with marital adjustment.
Major hypotheses
For purposes of clarity the major hypotheses will
be stated in verbal terms, but in order to simplify some of
the complex verbal statements a symbolic statement will
also be made.
The symbols used will be as follows:
H is used to represent "husband” or "husband's"
W is used to represent "wife" or "wife's"
P is used to represent "predictions"
I is used to represent "perceptions"
The symbolic forms applied to the study are combined as
follows:
1. To indicate husband's perception of his role
the symbols HIH will be used.
2. To depict the husband's prediction of his
wife's perception of his role the symbols
^Willard Waller and Reuben Hill, The Family: A
Dynamic Interpretation (New York: The Dryden Press),
1951.
HPWIH will be used.
3. To indicate the husband's perception of his
wife's role the symbols HIW will be used.
4. To indicate the husband's prediction of his
wife's impression of her roles the symbols
HPWIW will be used.
A similar notation is used when the wife's perceptions are
being discussed.
The major hypotheses for this study are:
1. The greater the degree of similarity between
the mate's self-perception and the spouse's
perception of that self, the greater will be
the degree of marital adjustment.
(The greater the similarity between HIW and
WIW, the greater the degree of marital adjust
ment. The greater the similarity between WIH
and HIH, the greater the degree of marital
adjustment.)
This hypothesis is one presented by Kotlar and
was supported by her study.
2. The greater the degree of similarity between
the mate's predicted perception of the self by
the spouse and the spouse's actual perception,
the greater will be the degree of marital
adjustment. (The greater the similarity
between HPWIW and WIW, the greater the degree
of marital adjustment. The greater the simi
larity between HPWIH and WIH, the greater the
degree of marital adjustment. The greater the
similarity between WPHIH and HIH, the greater
the degree of marital adjustment. The greater
the similarity between WPHIW and HIW, the
greater the degree of marital adjustment.)
The greater the degree of similarity of a
spouse's self-perception and the same spouse's
prediction of the mate's perception of that
self, the greater the degree of marital adjust
ment. (The greater the similarity between HIH
and HPWIH, the greater the degree of marital
adjustment. The greater the similarity between
HIW and HPWIW, the greater the degree of mari
tal adjustment. The greater the similarity
between WIW and WPHIW, the greater the degree
of marital adjustment. The greater the simi
larity between WIH and WPHIH, the greater the
degree of marital adjustment.)
Importance of the study
The rapid change in American society has allowed
individuals from divergent sociocultural backgrounds to
come into close association with one another. Individuals
coming from divergent religious, socioeconomic, educational
and cultural backgrounds marry with regularity in American
society. Further, these individuals come out of families
that have widely divergent role patterns. The change in
the American family from the institutional to the compan
ionship type has further complicated the process of learn
ing roles which are to be played in marriage. With indi
viduals entering marriage having role expectations that are
partly unfamiliar to the marital partner, it is not sur
prising that role conflicts develop frequently within mar
riage. Role theory has been developing in recent years in
the analysis of marital conflicts as well as conflict
between individuals in various social situations. If
individuals are to be expected to marry and achieve a
workable relationship, it appears likely that it would be
necessary for these individuals to have an accurate percep
tion of their own roles and the roles expected by the mari
tal partner. The demands of marriage today, differing '
somewhat from those in past years, place greater emphasis
on the companionship element of marriage. The demands for
intimate association and the mutual meeting of emotional
needs have resulted in the need for greater understanding
of the marital partner for happiness to be attained.
This study builds upon research that has been done
in the past on role perception and marital adjustment. The
clarification and refinement of factors of role perception
and their relation to marital adjustment are likely to be
continuing types of social research. While this study
deals with role perceptions between husbands and wives,
many other studies could be undertaken that would involve
similar concepts, such as the investigation of role percep
tions between parent and child and their empathic accuracy
as related to adjustments within the family. The under
standing of these factors should be of importance in three
possible ways.
First, with greater understanding of the relation
ship of role perception, it may be possible in education
for marriage to improve the ability of individuals to take
the role of the other, to appreciate the need for accurate
role perceptions and to encourage individuals about to
enter marriage to explore the role expectations of their
partners. It may also be possible to test out the accuracy
with which engaged couples understand the role perceptions
of each other and thereby become aware of areas which need
to be worked on in their relationships prior to marriage.
Second, with the development of additional informa
tion into the nature of the marriage relationship, marriage
counselors may be able to use such information to help
couples further to clarify their relationships and achieve
sound, working marital adjustments. Through this technique
marriage counselors may be able to predict areas of future
conflict, especially if research goes on to the point of
refinement where problems presented by couples may be
related to specific types of interrelational conflicts such
as those that might arise from inaccurate role perceptions.
With developing knowledge in the field of marriage and the
family, it may eventually be possible for a marriage coun
selor to diagnose the nature of a problem which would lead
the counselor directly to a system or technique of treat
ment. For example, couples may enter marriage counseling
complaining of difficulties in settling a way of living or
reaching consensus on a value system. This problem could
possibly be related by the counselor to inaccuracy of role
perceptions and expectations, developed out of their early
lives, which were not accurately communicated during the
10
development of their relationship.
Third, it is hoped that the techniques and tools
developed in this study will lead to further research on
self-perceptions as they may be related to marital or fam
ily conflicts.
Definitions of the Terms Used
Role
As might be expected, the definition of role dif
fers to some extent with each author and with each type of
theoretical emphasis. Kotlar defined role as, ". . . the
subjective aspect of role behavior in terms of qualities or
attitudes rather than with reference to role performance
3
itself." Burgess and Locke offer the following defini
tion:
A role may be defined as an organization of behav
ior in response to the group expectation. It is
the pattern or type of behavior which the child or
adult builds up in terms of what others expect or
demand of him. Role is literally the "part" a
person plays in the drama of life. Roles are
functional in relation to the objectives and the
activities of the group.^
3Ibid.. p. 7.
^Ernest W. Burgess and Harvey J. Locke, The Familv
from Institution to Companionship (2d ed.; New York: Ameri
can Book Company, 1953), p. 22.
11
Sarbin^ interprets role as a pattern sequence of learned
actions or deeds performed by a person in an interactional
situation. Blood discusses the concept of role as follows:
A role is a collection of rights and duties
expected of an incumbent of a particular position
in a system of relationships. Every man has his
own role conceptions, that is, the pattern ways he
conceives of himself as acting in the role of hus
band. At the same time he also has certain role
expectations for his wife--how he expects her to
behave because she is a married woman. Compati
bility requires the husband's conceptions about
how he should behave to coincide with his wife's
expectations of how he will behave, and vice
versa.
Newcomb defines role as consisting of a set of behaviors
which are characteristic of all occupants of any position.
He indicates that a prescribed role involves approved ways
of carrying out the functions of the occupant of the posi
tion. ^
A summary of definitions of role by types has been
^Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory," Handbook of
Social Psychology, ed. Gardner Linzey (Vol. I; Cambridge,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954).
^Robert 0. Blood, Jr., Marriage (New York: The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), p. 46.
^Theodore Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1950), p. 330.
12
8
worked out by Neitnan and Hughes. Their organization of
definitions may be outlined as follows:
1. Definitions in terms of the dynamics of person
ality development:
a. Role is seen as a basic factor in the
process of socialization.
b. Role is viewed as a cultural pattern.
2. Functional definitions in terms of society as
a whole:
a. Role can be defined as a social norm--no
connection with status explicit or implicit.
b. Role is defined as a synonym for behavior--
nondefinitive.
3. Functional definitions in terms of specific
groups:
a. Status-role continuity--definitive as
activated status.
b. Role is defined as participation in a
specific group.
In spite of the discrepancies noted by Neiman and
8
Lionel J. Neiman and James W. Hughes, "The Problem
of the Concept of Role: A Re-Survey of the Literature,"
Social Forces, XXX (1951), 141-149.
13
Hughes, they do find common elements in the role defini
tions. They state:
1. In all of the definitions and usages of the
concept there is involved either an individual
definition of a specific situation or an
individual acceptance of a group's definition
of a specific situation.
2. Role behavior, no matter how it is defined,
or even when non-defined, involves the assump
tion of a process of symbolic interaction or
communication as a prerequisite, which leads
then to a further generalization, namely,
that man is the only role-playing animal and
that is one of the characteristics which dis
tinguishes man from animals.
3. Human behavior cannot be explained or de
scribed by use of traits or other atomized
concepts, but must be viewed from the frame
work of organized and integrated patterns of
behavior.9
For purposes of this study the role definition offered by
Kotlar, which is based on Mangus's^ discussion of role
theory, will be utilized.
Role perception
The concept of role perception is not widely used
or applied in the literature. Sarbin defines role percep-
9Ibid., pp. 147-148.
R. Mangus, "Role Theory and Marriage Counsel
ing," Social Forces. XXXV (1957), 200-209.
14
tion as an organized response of a person to stimuli in a
social context. He states:
Role perception may be thought of as a sequence of
behaviors in which the perceptual response is the
first part of the social act: the (usually) silent
naming or locating the position of the other (from
observed actions or inferred qualities), which
serves to locate the position of the self. The
second part of the social act is the motoric
response, the role enactment, in which the actor
performs actions appropriate to his location of
the position of self and other. H
Within the framework of this study, role perceptions may be
viewed as the subjective evaluation and interpretation of
the role of the individual as measured by the Interpersonal
Check List.
Empathy
Empathy is generally considered to be basic to
understanding another's needs or inner feelings. Blood
defines empathy as, "The ability to perceive the partner's
attitudes and feelings.In their discussion of empathy
Locke, Sabagh, and Thomes state:
Empathy is defined as taking the role of another
person with sufficient accuracy so that one can
predict his responses. This definition is about
■^Sarbin, op. cit.. p. 229.
■^Blood, op. cit. . p. 23.
15
the same as that of other investigators. Dymond,
for example, defined empathy as putting one's
self imaginatively into the place of the other
and seeing the world as he does. Foote and
Cottrell's definition of empathy was the ability
to correctly anticipate and predict the attitudes,
intentions, and behavior of another p e r s o n . 13
Operationally, empathy is defined as the correct
prediction of the mate's responses by a husband or wife on
the Interpersonal Check List.
Marital adjustment
There are two criteria for marital adjustment for
this project. The first is whether or not the couple is
seeking marriage counseling. The second criterion is the
score on the Wallace Marital Success Test (see Appendix).
The unadjusted group consists of couples who were
seeking marriage counseling and who received scores on the
Wallace Marital Success Test within the range from 17 to
115. The adjusted group consists of individuals who were
not seeking marriage counseling, were members of married
couples clubs, and received scores on the Wallace Marital
Success Test within the range from 87 to 158.
■^Harvey J. Locke, Georges Sabagh, and Mary Margar
et Thornes, "Correlates of Primary Communication and
Empathy," Research Studies of the State College of Washing
ton. XXIV (1956), 116-124.
16
Organization of Remainder of the Thesis
Chapter II, Review of the Literature, deals with
the theoretical approach used in this study, some basic
literature on marital adjustment, as well as a discussion
on some of the currently used adjustment scales, role
theory, and a survey of the literature on role and role
perception as related to the topic of this dissertation.
Chapter III discusses the sample of the study, how
the data were gathered, and the social characteristics of
the sample. It also presents the statistical procedures
utilized, the Wallace Marital Success Test, and the Inter
personal Check List and their validities. Chapter III also
includes limitations of the study.
Chapter IV presents the findings on self perception
and mate perception. Discrepancies between self percep
tions or the adjusted and unadjusted mates are included.
Chapter V deals with the predicted self perceptions
of the husbands and wives. Discrepancies between the pre
dicted self perceptions and the actual self perceptions are
evaluated. A discussion of empathy as it relates to these
findings is presented.
Chapter VI reports the findings on intra-individual
perceptual discrepancies.
17
Chapter VII presents the findings on the total dis
crepancy scores. A discussion of communication as it
relates to perceptual accuracy and marriage adjustment is
presented.
Chapter VIII reviews the findings of the study and
discusses their implications for the sociology of the fam
ily and marriage counseling. Suggestions are made for
future research.
A bibliography and appendix conclude the study.
CHAPTER II
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter will contain sections that deal with
the theoretical background to the study including sections
on the interactional approach and basic role theory. Fol
lowing this the literature on the major marital adjustment
studies is presented. A final major section of this chap
ter presents research on roles, role perception, and the
interrelationship of role perception and marriage adjust
ment .
Theoretical Background
Symbolic-interaction theory
A basic conceptual frame of reference utilized in
this project is the symbolic-interactional approach. Hill
and Hansen‘ S have reviewed the literature in marriage and
^Reuben Hill and Donald A. Hansen, "The Identifica
tion of Conceptual Frameworks Utilized in Family Study,"
18
19
family research. They identify the symbolic-interactional
approach as a major conceptual approach for studies of
marriage. This approach is rooted in the early social
psychological work of George Herbert Mead, especially in
his analysis of the development of the self, and by Ernest
W. Burgess, who emphasized the possibilities of studying
the family as an interacting unity. Hill and Hansen state:
An interactional conception of the family takes
these lines: the family is a unity of interacting
persons, each occupying a position (s) within the
family to which a number of roles are assigned,
i.e., the individual perceives norms or role ex
pectations held individually or collectively by
other family members for his attributes and behav
ior. In a given situation, an individual defines
these role expectations primarily in view of their
source (reference group) and of his own self-con
ception. Then he role-plays. Most immediately
the family is studied through analysis of overt
interacts (interaction of role-playing family mem
bers) cast in this structure.2
They point out that in the past the interactional approach
has focused on problems of status and inter-status rela
tions, processes of communication, conflict, problem solv
ing, decision making, and stress reaction, as well as other
interactive processes within the family.
Marriage and Family Living. IV (1960), 299-311.
2Ibid., p. 303.
20
The basic assumptions of the symbolic-interactional
approach are:
1. Social conduct is most immediately a function
of the social milieu.
2. A human is an independent actor as well as a
reactor to his situation.
3. A basic autonomous unit is the acting individ-
ual in a social setting.
Stryker^ presents a more detailed analysis of the
symbolic-interactional approach. He views this approach as
a social psychological theory which concerns itself pri
marily with problems of socialization and personality. He
believes that personality (the organization of persistent
behavior patterns) can be accounted for on a basis of social
relationships. One great advantage of this approach,
according to Stryker, is that it treats personal organiza
tion and disorganization as aspects of the same problem.
Major concepts of the symbolic-interaction theory include:
1. Act and social act--behavior by an organism
3Ibid., p. 309.
^Sheldon Stryker, "Symbolic Interaction as an
Approach to Family Research," Marriage and Family Living,
II (1959), 111-119.
stemming from an impulse requiring some adjust
ment to appropriate objects in the external
world. The social act includes the element of
the other. There is act and react with the
actor and reactor taking the other into account.
Common gestures develop which become basic ele
ments of communication, eventually becoming sig
nificant symbols for continued communication.
Symbols--arise in the context of social acts.
They serve to complete acts and reflect the
interests from which the acts stem. Thus,
individuals respond to symbols as predictors of
further behavior which provide a basis for
adjustments before the later behavior occurs.
Therefore, symbols assist in the organization
of behavior.
Categories--various symbols are classified into
categories to enable persons to respond to
everyday events rather than treating each new
experience as unique.
Symbolic environment--individuals respond to a
classified world. Individuals define the situ
ation according to symbols. Positions such as
"father," "teacher," or "boss" are commonly
used categories. Expectations of behavior are
attached to each position which is organized
into roles. These expectations are social so
that each role has a reciprocal role. It is
impossible to talk about a position except with
reference to some context of other positions
(father-son, father-mother, etc.).
Self--categories one applies to himself such as
a set of self-identifications. The self is the
way one describes to himself his relationship
to others in a social process.
Role taking--anticipating the responses of
others implicated with one in some social act.
It is also possible to take the role of the
"generalized other," which is to see one's
behavior as taking place in the context of a
defined system of related roles. The term
"reference group" is used in a similar context.
Significant other--certain others occupy high
rank or are of particular importance. They
are given priority or added weight in social
23
actions.
Stryker indicates that the crucial question is con
gruence of definitions, situation, role, and self of the
interacting persons. This congruence of definitions per
mits efficient, organized behavior.^ When there is a lack
of congruity in definitions, then any incongruities in
expectations which result may lead to conflict. This study
presents one of the methods of dealing with lack of con
gruity of definition in perceptions and relates these
inaccurate perceptions to marital conflict.
The symbolic-interactional approach views self
perception and role perception within given social situa
tions as extremely important factors in the determination
of interpersonal relations. Role perceptions in terms of
specific reference groups are also given a high degree of
influence on human behavior.^ A basic approach of symbolic
interaction is that emphasis is on interpersonal relation
ships rather than intrapersonal relationships. The inter-
5Ibid., pp. 113-115. 6Ibid.. p. 117.
^Hubert Bonner, Social Psychology: An Interdisci
plinary Approach (New York: American Book Company, 1953),
pp. 44-45.
24
O
play of social roles is a basic unit of analysis. Kotlar
points out that for social interactionists, role theory is
almost synonymous with self theory as it bears on the de
velopment and perception of self. She states:
Self awareness or a sense of self develops as
the individual acts out the role of others to him
self. "He takes the role of the other" as the
social philosopher Mead put it. The individual
plays as many different roles as there are persons
to whom he responds. Out of all these roles in
response to the behavior of others there is devel
oped a self which Mead calls a "generalized
other." The person can stimulate himself as well
as being stimulated by others and in his acting
out the role of others he then becomes aware of
himself. The individual is therefore organized
in terms of social organization of the outer world.
For Mead the self includes the "I" or "Ego" which
is an active agent or activity itself and an
empirical self or me which is constructed through
social interaction. He also saw the social con
sciousness of the individual as developing before
any sense of physical consciousness.9
At this point Kotlar observes it follows that interpersonal
relations provide the mechanism through which is acquired a
large part of systems of thought, feeling, and action of
the individual. She indicates that for the theorist under
Sally Lee Kotlar, "Middle Class Marital Roles--
Ideal and Perceived in Relation to Adjustment in Marriage,"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1961).
9Ibid., pp. 26-27.
25
discussion personality is viewed primarily as a product of
the expectations, actions, or suggestions of other people
transmitted and perceived through social interaction.
The heavy emphasis that the symbolic-interactional
approach places on role theory warrants a separate discus
sion and development of the concepts involved in role and
role conflict.
Role theory
One of the earliest discussions involving role was
made by Mead who considered role a central concept in the
social foundations and functions of thought and communica
tion. He developed the concept of "taking the role of the
other" as the way an individual has of recognizing his part
in the communication system which allows him to participate
more effectively in the process of communication and
socialization. Mead states:
This taking the role of the other . . . is of
importance in the development of cooperative ac
tivity. The immediate effect of such role taking
lies in the control which the individual is able
to exercise over his own response. The control of
the action of the individual in a cooperative
process can take place in the conduct of the indi
vidual himself if he can take the role of the
other. It is this control of the response of the
individual himself through taking the role of the
26
other that leads to the values of this type of
communication from the point of view of the organ
ization of conduct of the g r o u p . ^
Much is currently being written regarding role theory, role
conflict, and role expectations. In the field of marriage
and the family, role theory has been particularly promis
ing.
The value of role theory in marriage counseling is
well presented by Mangus.^^ He feels that human conduct is
organized and directed in terms of social acts. Behavior
is generally organized and predictable in most adults with
human behavior being goal directed. Most human activities
require or involve counter activities on the part of other
persons; therefore, human activity is social. Mangus
states:
The part performed by any one participant in
organized social activities is called a role.
Roles, then are learned patterns of human conduct.
They are acquired by the individual in response to
prescriptions and expectations of other significant
persons in the life of that individual. The term
"role" is most appropriate as applied to the organ
ization of conduct, for it correctly implies that
^George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 249.
H-A. R. Mangus, "Role Theory and Marriage Counsel
ing," Social Forces, XXXV (1957), 200-209.
27
the behavior is socially patterned. Roles are
always reciprocal.^
He goes on to indicate that roles, as patterns of conduct,
are organized in response to prescriptions and expectations
of significant others in a person's life as these expecta
tions are adopted by the person himself. He implies the
subjective aspect of role behavior. Role becomes not only
actual behavior, but states of readiness to behave in
interactional situations which are called "role expecta
tions." He defines role expectations as,
. . . intentional predispositions or attitudes
regarding appropriate ways for one to act and
regarding the reciprocal acts that are anticipated
on the part of other participants in the same
social situation.
Thus, Mangus asserts that maturity and the process of
socialization are essentially the processes of learning
roles and of attaining competence in their perception and
performance. Through the roles that one learns, the indi
vidual gains identity or self. Many roles must be learned
along with their reciprocals. These roles are then inter
nalized and integrated. For Mangus, the social self is the
organization of internalized roles. Internalized role
12Ibid., p. 201 13Ibid., p. 202
28
expectations which converge upon a given person constitute
that person’s social self. The individual has an awareness
of his self which becomes an important aspect of the total
personality. The awareness comes when the individual must
assume the other's role and acts toward himself as the
other does. In this way he is able to see himself as
others do and to evaluate himself in terms of the evalua
tions of others. The self is not considered static but
ever-changing, and each change in role or status requires
an alteration in the self concept; however, this alteration
is usually a gradual process.
In addition to the social self as a system of
internalized roles, the total personality includes impor
tant elements of uniqueness, autonomy, and creativity. The
individual is not viewed as a carbon copy of his culture or
others around him. He is endowed with certain capacities
and aptitudes not a result of outside influence. For Man
gus, the total personality represents a merging or interac
tion of biological and social elements. Adaptive behavior'
in any continuing social situation such as marriage depends
upon a reasonable harmony of role expectations among the
participants in the situation. Interpersonal problems or
mental health problems result from disparities and
29
unresolved conflicts in role expectations of the partici
pants in a given social situation. Mangus summarizes his
position by stating:
. . . the personal and social development and well
being of a person is viewed as a function of fac
tors that facilitate or impede effective role
perception and role performance in group situa
tions. It is assumed that such maladapted behav
ior and emotional stress rise out of role con
flicts. It is suggested that a major goal for
humans is interpersonal competence in the percep
tion and enactment of social roles and in inte
grating roles into a healthy social self.!-4
Sarbin^ suggests a concise and understandable
approach to role theory. In role-playing, which Sarbin
calls role enactment, this behavior is defined as the overt
performance of the person which validates or invalidates
the role expectations of the other in the social situation.
This is equivalent to Mead's "role playing" or Newcomb's
"role behavior." The mechanics of the role taking process
involves four concepts: number of roles, organismic in
volvement, accessibility or reportability, and the as-if
dimension.
1. Number of roles--generally, the more roles in
14Ibid., p. 209.
^Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory" in Handbook of
Social Psychology, ed. Gardner Linzey (Vol. I; Cambridge,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954), pp. 223-
a person's repertory, the better his social
adjustment. This involves the ability to be
self critical, to be objective with self, and
the capacity to integrate self conception.
Organismic dimension--i.e., the intensity
dimension of role enactment. Levels range from
minimal affect (e.g., customer in a supermar
ket) to maximum affect where heated acting
takes place.
Dimension of accessibility--this dimension
applies to events in which the actor of the
role reports his actions. Self-criticism of
roles or actions requires that the individual
be aware of these actions. Thus, making acces
sible the inaccessible aspects of one's self-
reactions makes modification possible and can
be therapeutic. This is similar to the psycho
analytic dictum of making the unconscious con
scious to bring about personality change.
The as-if dimension--the person must be able
to treat an object or event as if it were
31
something else in order to learn roles.
The interaction of the self and role is basic to
Sarbin's interpretations. He hypothesizes that the effect
of performing a role on a long term basis in a daily and
exclusive practice of the role produces a quality of the
self of rigidity which is clearly defined, regularized, and
conforming. He quotes Murphy, from his book, Personality:
A Biosocial Approach to Origin and Structure, as saying:
Personality is in considerable degree a matter of
role behavior; even more, however, it is a matter
of role perception and of self perception in the
light of the role.
Sarbin suggests two major types of role conflict.
The first is self-role conflict. To describe this type of
conflict Sarbin indicates:
A cognitive structure tends to maintain its
organization despite the forces directed toward
changing it. . . . The same principle applies to
substructures--the differentiations of the broader
structure--in this case systems of role expecta
tions. When the broader system--the qualities
that make up the self--direct the organism to one
set of role enactments, and the narrower system--
the acts and qualities that make up role expecta
tions --are incongruent or disjunctive, then we
have conflict. This is the quintessence of the
moral dilemma.^
When this occurs there is anxiety and a need to return to
16Ibid., p. 250. 1?Ibid., p. 251.
32
the stable state for the organism. Various defense mechan
isms are used in this effort.
Sarbin’s second type is role-role conflict. This
second type of social psychological conflict arises when
two substructures of the social self (the two systems of
role expectations) are incongruent. Two means of handling
this type of role conflict are:
1. By using a hierarchical principle, i.e., cer
tain role obligations are given priority over
others. For example, a young man will report
for his selective service induction rather than
going to work. Sometimes priorities are not
easily established and an excuse is sought.
Acceptance of failure to fulfill a role obliga
tion is accomplished by declaring that the
competing role has priority. This solves the
conflict and maintains statuses.
2. A second means of dealing with role conflict is
by the "segregation principle." Here subroles
are enacted separately at different times.
Thus, one role is stalled or put off temporar
ily.
33
Ackerman, a psychiatrist, emphasizes social role as
an important aspect of family dynamics. He uses "social
role" as synonymous with the operations of the "social
self" or social identity of the person in the context of a
given life situation. He states:
The concept of social role implies the capacity
of the personality to modify its form in varying
degree, in accordance with the adaptational re
quirements of the individual's position in soci
ety. The individual's orientation in this phase
of social participation presupposes a set of goals
and values commensurate with his position in the
given group. What is involved here is a particu
lar quality of perception of reality (interpreted
in the context of interpersonal relationship), the
implementation within the context of the given
role of specific techniques of emotional control,
specific defenses against anxiety, and the effort
to find solutions to personal conflict and achieve
gratification of personal needs.18
Ackerman points out that identity of individual members
normally is developed gradually through interaction in the
family, and that the social role of an individual can be
either positive or negative in function within the process
of adaptation. The self images and family images are
reciprocally interdependent, according to Ackerman. He
states:
18
Nathan W. Ackerman, Psychodynamics of Family
Life (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958), p. 54.
34
In the context of a family relationship or
group, psychological identity refers to elements
of joint psychic identity--the strivings, values,
expectations, actions, fears, and problems of
adaptation, mutually shared or complemented by the
role behaviors of members in the family group.
In essence, this is a segment of shared identity,
reflected in layers of joint experience, and
enacted in the reciprocal, or complementary family
role behaviors of these joint persons.- * - 9
Ackerman's position is that the interaction of family mem
bers in their various roles governs the nature of stability
in family relationships and affects their capacity to cope
with conflict and to restore balance in emotional situa
tions. He feels that the problems involved in a marital
situation can be understood best in terms of the mutuality
and interdependence of the various family role adaptations,
the complementarity of sexual behavior, the reciprocity of
emotional and social companionship, the showing of author
ity, and the division of labor. When parenthood becomes
involved in the relationship, another level of complexity
in family relations is added and additional possible con
flicts in role relations are superimposed upon conflicts
which already may exist. Along with many theorists in
sociology, Ackerman recognizes the complexities of fulfill-
19Ibid., pp. 83-84.
35
ing such complex roles as the father role or mother role
within a culture which does not define them accurately or
specifically. He adds this to the overall social situation
and self image of the individual in his evaluation of emo
tional problems, marital conflicts, anxiety, perception of
reality, and related problems.
These authors, along with others, have touched upon
the close interrelationship between role, role-taking accu
racy, self-perception, and personality. Thus, Honigman^O
indicates that character structure is essentially based on
the individual's view of his world and himself and these
result in his continuing interpretation of the realities
about him. For Honigman, personality is chiefly a product
of expectations, actions, or suggestions of other people
transmitted and perceived in social situations. Apt and
Beliak^ emphasize the point that as a result of past per
ceptual experiences an individual tends to build or acquire
a sense of certainty regarding his present perceptual
experiences. Past perceptions that have been validated in
20
John J. Honigman, Culture and Personality (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1954).
21
Lawrence E. Apt and Leopold Beliak (eds.), Pro-
jective Psychology (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950).
36
the mind of the perceiver tend to become fixated and
responses become tendencies to act in a given way.
Two authors who have emphasized the importance of
perception in influencing human behavior, especially as
these perceptions affect role behavior, are Newcomb and
Heider.
Newcomb places considerable emphasis on the concept
of role in his social psychological approach to human be
havior. He indicates that human drives are forever public
and yet forever private at the same time. Each person
acts, feels, and thinks in unique ways because he is unique
unto himself, and because the experiences which the indi
vidual has have never been exactly duplicated by anyone
else. Newcomb indicates that individuals learn to perceive
themselves in ways that cannot possibly be shared by anyone
else and what is felt, thought, and done results essential
ly from private self-perception. He further indicates that
it would not be possible to learn to perceive one's self
at all if individuals did not live in a world of shared
22
communication. He points out the constant interplay
2?
Theodore Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1950), p. 328.
37
between private perceptions and responses to how others
perceive us:
When we study human behavior in terms of roles,
we are looking at its public, or shared aspect.
Whether we like it or not, we are all assigned to
various positions, and we are perceived by others
as occupants of these positions. . . . Thus both
our behavior and others1 perceptions of our behav-
ior--which, together, constitute the two-way
process of communication--are determined by our
role assignments. 2-*
Newcomb indicates that individuals sometimes mistakenly
assume that their own behavior will be perceived by others
as that of the occupant of a position which he and they
understand in similar ways. Thus it is necessary for
individuals to share common norms in order to perceive
occupants of given positions in similar ways. For Newcomb,
role behavior is a form of communication based on shared
norms. He states:
Like all other motivated behavior^, role behaviors
include perceptions. In role behavior as in other
forms of motivated behavior, what a person does,
feels, and thinks depends upon what he perceives.
As role behaviors involve a relationship between
one's self and others, they are bound to be in
fluenced by the ways in which one's self and
others are perceived.24
Thus he feels that in order to understand why a person
23Ibid., pp. 328-329. 24Ibid., p. 332.
38
takes his roles just as he does, a clear understanding of
that individual's self-perceptions is essential. In evalu
ating self-perceptions, Newcomb points out that they may be
viewed as intervening variables in understanding role be
havior. This approach to self-perception or role percep
tion could be helpful in understanding some of the discrep
ancies that will be noted in the studies involving role
perception and marital adjustment.
It is sufficient for present purposes to point out
the distinct similarity of most theorists dealing in per
ception and role behavior. The application of this theo
retical position to marriage flows naturally. Marriage may
be viewed as a process of reciprocal role perception,
understanding, and performance on the part of marital part
ners. Mangus indicates that integrative or adaptive qual
ities of a marriage are seen in the degree to which rele
vant role expectations are shared between spouses and with
other significant people in their lives. He feels that the
most pressing interpersonal problems in marriage result
from disparities among the role concepts and self concepts
pertinent to the marital situation. Mangus states:
According to the present orientation, the
essential social bond in marriage is viewed as a
39
system of common role expectations built into the
attitudinal makeup of marital partners. To the
degree that spouses share expectations of self and
other, each is able to gear his own conduct to
that of the other's. This produces what is here
conceived as the integrative or adaptive marriage.
In instances where husband and wife deviate widely
from each other with respect to their reciprocal
role perceptions and role expectations, their role
performances fail to integrate. Each becomes a
threat to the social self of the other. Marital
behaviors become defensive and perhaps inappropri
ate and maladapted.^5
Mangus interprets successful counseling or psychotherapy as
largely consisting of assisting the client to revise an
inappropriate or inadequate self conception or role con
ception and to give up inappropriate or unrealistic role
behaviors in favor of more appropriate, adequate, and real
istic ones. New or revised self concepts, role patterns,
and role expectations are learned in successful counseling,
according to Mangus. Marriage counseling is aimed at
changes in certain of the internalized roles that consti
tute the social self, and with the dissolution of disrup
tive defenses in favor of competent role performances.
The theoretical statements in both the symbolic-
interaction frame of reference and in the role theory sys
tems support the hypotheses offered for this project.
^Mangus, op. cit., pp. 207-208.
Some Basic Literature on
Marital Adjustment
The major marital adjustment
studies
Between the years 1931 and 1933 Burgess and Cot-
9 f \
trell sent out 7,000 questionnaires which were distrib
uted by university students. From these questionnaires
526 couples were selected on the basis of their residency
in the state of Illinois and length of marriage. The sample
for the Burgess and Cottrell study was upper income, highly
educated, and predominantly urban. Their study was an
attempt to predict success in marriage and define factors
associated with marital adjustment. Important conclusions
from this study were:
1. The background conditioning experiences of the
husband are much more important for adjustment
in marriage than are similar items of the wife.
2. Affectional relationships in childhood condi
tion the response patterns of the adult and
affect his marital relationship.
9 6
Ernest W. Burgess and Leonard S. Cottrell,
Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage (New York: Pren-
tice-Hall, 1939).
41
3. The socialization of the person as indicated
by his participation in the social and cultural
life of his society is significantly related to
adjustment in marriage.
4. Prediction before marriage of later marital
adjustment is feasible and should be developed.
9 7
Terman and his associates studied 792 couples m
the three broad areas of social background, personality,
and sexual adjustment. Terman attempted to investigate the
degree of association between marital happiness of approxi
mately 380 variables through the use of questionnaires
which the couples filled out separately. The sample used
by Terman was primarily volunteer couples secured from
various groups and agencies in California. They were pre
dominantly urban, highly education, and in upper income
brackets. Personality correlates of marital unhappiness
found in the Terman study were: the unhappy marital part
ner tends to be touchy or grouchy, to lose his temper
easily, to fight, to get his own way, to be critical of
others, to chafe under discipline, to lack self-confidence,
^Louis M. Terman, Psychological Factors in Marital
Happiness (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1938).
42
to dominate the relationship with the opposite sex, and to
be unconventional in attitudes.
Terman and Oden^ analyzed data on 567 gifted
couples who took the marriage questionnaire. Comparisons
were made between the group in the original Terman study
of 792 couples and the gifted sample used in this study.
Little difference was found between the two samples in
terms of their graded happiness, consideration of divorce,
outside activities together, and similar types of items.
Three major areas were investigated: marital aptitude, mar
ital happiness, and sexual adjustment. The authors indi
cate that their findings support the hypothesis that mari
tal happiness is to a considerable extent determined by all
around happiness of temperament and personality of that
individual. A comparison of the three major tests used in
the study shows that the best prediction is offered by the
test of marital aptitude and that the marital happiness
test is only slightly less predictive. The sexual adjust
ment test ranked as a poor third. It was also found that
one's happiness in marriage is largely determined by all
28
Louis M. Terman and Melita H. Oden, The Gifted
Child Grows Up: Twenty-five Years' Follow-up of a Superior
Group (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1947).
around happiness of temperament and that this trait can be
at least roughly measured by a paper and pencil test.
Burgess and Wallin^ studied 1,000 engaged couples
in an attempt to predict marital adjustment from scores on
an engagement adjustment scale similar to the Burgess and
Cottrell Marriage Adjustment Scale. The couples were given
a marital adjustment test three years after marriage. The
sample was collected by having students in colleges and
universities in metropolitan Chicago distribute question
naires to engaged couples whom they knew. The follow-up
sample included 666 couples to determine the correlation
between marital adjustment and engagement adjustment. The
correlations between the two adjustment scores were .43 for
men and .41 for women. This study was a particularly impor
tant one in that it utilized the longitudinal method and
demonstrated the possibility of predicting adjustment in
marriage from adjustment in engagement.
Locke^® studied 201 divorced husbands and their
29
Ernest W. Burgess and Paul Wallin, Engagement and
Marriage (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1953).
30
Harvey J. Locke, Predicting Adjustment in Mar
riage: A Comparison of a Divorced and a Happily Married
Group (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1951).
wives, plus 123 divorced cases where only a husband or a
wife was available. The sample was fairly representative
of the general population of a county in Indiana and in
cluded a total of 929 individuals. The purpose of the
Locke study was to determine what behavior attitudes before
and after marriage could be used to differentiate between
divorced and happily married groups. The criteria for
adjustment included both marital adjustment tests and hap
piness of the marriage as judged by an outsider. Some of
the significant items found in this study associated with
marital adjustment were: very great affection for mate
before marriage, adaptable personality, mates about the
same age, both belonging to the same church, very little
conflict with mate before marriage, usually had own way as
a child, sociable personality, having friends in common,
childhood being happy, parents approving of marriage, and
rarely refusing sexual intercourse to mate.
In his study of marital adjustment in Sweden,
31
Karlsson included 423 persons in his sample who were
3^-George Karlsson, Adaptability and Communication
in Marriage: A Swedish Predictive Study of Marital Satis
faction (Uppsala, Sweden: Almquist and Wiksells Boktry-
cheri, 1951).
45
almost entirely husbands and their wives. Most of the sub
jects were middle-aged (about 40), married approximately
eleven years, predominantly native born, and similar to the
general population in education and occupational status.
He compared four groups in his study:
1. Ninety couples plus one spouse recommended as
happily married by persons in a representative
general population.
2. Fifty-one couples plus one spouse representa
tive of the general population.
3. Thirty-nine couples recommended as unhappily
married by the interviewed happily married
couples.
4. Twenty-five couples plus eleven spouses that
were separated cases in the year's waiting
period prior to divorce.
Some of Karlsson's findings are particularly appro
priate to this project. The element of communication was
investigated by Karlsson. Three problems of communication
in marriage, according to Karlsson, are:
1. Communicating role expectations so that the
spouses are aware of the size and direction of
the adjustment they are required to make.
46
2. Communication of feelings of love and tender
emotion.
3. Communication of feelings of respect and admira
■ 3 0
tion, i.e., giving status. ^
With respect to the communication of role expecta
tions, he points out that this communication is necessary
for adjustment. Without it, the spouses would not know to
what to adjust, in what direction, and how much to adjust.
It is also necessary for marital partners to be able to
predict what the other will do in order to have efficient
marital interaction. He indicates that it is important to
communicate dissatisfactions (where there is some hope for
change) in order to allow the other spouse to minimize
these dissatisfactions, which is a prerequisite of adjust
ment. Any limitations to the communication, such as fail
ure to communicate, semantic inaccurateness, or inaccurate
interpretation can lead to problems of role expectations
and marital difficulties. Karlsson constructed a communi
cation index to study the amount of understanding each
spouse had of the other's wishes. A series of items
describing role characteristics were administered in two
32Ibid.« p. 33.
47
ways: first, the subject was asked whether he wanted more
or less or was satisfied with the amount of characteristics
possessed by his mate; and second, the subject was asked
if he believed that his mate was satisfied with the amount
of characteristics possessed by him or wanted him to pos
sess more or less of it. The amount of communication was
then obtained by comparing the answers of husband and wife
and adding the number of items where the wish of one mate
corresponded to what the other thought the wish to be (i.e.,
where mates gave the same answers). Karlsson summarizes
his findings by stating:
The correlations between marital satisfaction and
these various indices were found to be: informa
tion of mate: .45 for husbands and .44 for wives;
information of self: .48 for husbands and .35 for
wives; communication of marriage: .48 for hus
bands and .56 for wives. The communication of
marriage index thus showed the closest correlation
with marital satisfaction. It has also the
strongest theoretical importance, communication
both ways being of importance to the marital
satisfaction of each one of the spouses, and it
was therefore selected as the communication index
for the over-all prediction.33
o /
Locke and Wallace reviewed various marital
33Ibid.. p. 132.
3^Harvey J. Locke and Karl M. Wallace, "Short Mari
tal -Adjustment and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and
Validity," Marriage and Family Living. XXI (1959), 251-255.
48
prediction studies from which they developed their short
marital adjustment and prediction test. They then tested
the reliability and validity of the test by applying it to
a new sample. The authors point out that the various mari
tal adjustment tests developed have many items; for exam
ple, the Burgess and Wallin Marital Success Schedule in
cludes 89 items with a total of 246 questions; the Terman
Happiness Test contains 75 items, the Terman and Oden test
contains 103 items, the Locke Marital Adjustment Test con
tains 50 items, and the Karlsson Index of Marital Satisfac
tion contains 40 items. A short marital adjustment test
was constructed consisting of 15 items. This test was
administered to 118 husbands and 118 wives. The sample
was predominantly young, native white, educated, Protes
tant, white collar, professional, and urban in nature.^
This test was found to have a split half reliability of
.90, and in comparing couples that were known to be malad
justed (they were receiving help at a marriage counseling
center or had recently been divorced or separated) as com
pared to an equal number of persons adjudged to be excep
tionally well adjusted it was found that the mean
35Ibid., p. 254.
49
adjustment score for the well adjusted group was 135.9 and
the mean score for the maladjusted group was 71.7. This
was a highly significant difference. The authors conclude:
The foregoing data confirm the hypothesis tested
in this study: namely, that marital-adjustment and
marital-prediction tests, constructed with a
relatively small number of basic and fundamental
items, achieve results approximately comparable
with the longer and more complex adjustment and
prediction t e s t s . 36
The Wallace Marital Success Test is used in this study as
one criterion for marital adjustment.
Some evaluations and comments
on marital adjustment tests
Waller and Hill^? indicate that the chief yardstick
for twenty major studies which they reviewed dealing with
marital success were permanence, satisfaction, happiness,
and adjustment. Four other criteria which have not been
used by published studies, according to these authors, are
conformity to social expectations, companionship of the
pair, integration of the marriage, and personality growth
and development within the marriage. In Waller and Hill's
36Ibid., p. 255.
3^Willard Waller and Reuben Hill, The Family: A
Dynamic Interpretation (New York: The Dryden Press, 1951).
50
overall critique of marital success studies, they state:
Our criticism of marital success studies
involves five points: (1) Because of the criteria
used, the studies "stack the cards" in favor of a
conventionality and conservativism of behavior
better suited to the Victorian boudoir family
situations of the day before yesterday than those
of today. (2) The factors asserted to be most
highly associated with success in marriage are
unconfirmed for the most part by more than two or
three studies and are questioned by other stud
ies. (3) The factors, if valid, are probably
valid only for the early years of marriage. (4)
The findings are limited in application to the
white, urban, middle class, from which they were
drawn. (5) the coefficient of determination of
the best associations is still small; roughly 75%
of the factors that account for marital success
are left unaccounted for.38
These authors feel that a developmental concept of adjust
ment would offer a more dynamic approach to the meaning of
marriage adjustment. In discussing this subject, they
state:
If we reject outright the rigidities of per
manence and community expectations as inapplicable
in a democratic society, and if we eliminate the
criterion of happiness as ephemeral, fluctuating,
and undependable, there remain three criteria of
dyadic focus: integration, companionship, and
adjustment; and the two criteria of privately
defined character: satisfaction and personality
development. The first three reflect the esprit
de corps of the pair as a pair, whereas the second
two reflect the personal morale of the individual
participants. . . .
38Ibid.. p. 353.
51
Measures of integration will provide both an
expression of values shared by the couple and the
presence of affectional bonds of togetherness.
The concept of adjustment may be enriched by
measures of companionship, especially the emo
tional interdependence achieved through comple
mentary role playing. Finally, we can give some
tangible substance to the elusive criterion of
personality development by providing measures of
growth and zest for pair living from the satisfac
tion criterion. As these measures are merged
together into a single instrument, we have a means
for classifying marriages which might be called
developmental adjustment.39
Waller and Hill's developmental approach to adjustment in
addition to the current emphasis on role theory has led to
the evaluation of marriage adjustment in terms of role
interaction, role integration, and role expectations.
Dyer^ points out that in marriage it is necessary
to establish new statuses and roles. For this purpose most
people are relatively inexperienced in adapting themselves
to the demands of the continual interaction of personali
ties. He indicates that role theory offers the best back
ground from the study of these factors. Dyer suggests four
major areas that should be studied and understood in the
39lbid., pp. 361-362.
^William G. Dyer, "Analyzing Marital Adjustment
Using Role Theory," Marriage and Family Living, XXIV
(1962), 371-375.
52
process of understanding marital adjustment:
1. Normative orientations.
It is necessary to understand the cultural norms or stand
ards of behavior that direct and orient an individual's
thinking about a situation. The development of shared
norms and orientations would be basic to the integration of
marriage. When there are great differences in normative
orientations, such as when individuals come from widely
differing religious or social backgrounds, this creates an
atmosphere where conflict is possible.
2. Position-role.
Each marital partner enters the new relationship with pre-
established conceptions as to how he or she should behave.
These perceptions of one's own role in the marriage or
family are frequently not clearly stated or understood by
the person. Dyer states:
The important aspect of either conceptualization
is that husband and wife in their new positions
have a range of duties that are normatively
defined for them. The central problem of roles
stems from the condition that the new husband or
wife are usually not experienced in these new
roles, and definitions of these roles have often
been worked out between them but have not been
derived separately from the other social systems
to which they were oriented before marriage.
41Ibid., p. 372.
53
3. Role expectations.
Each individual enters marriage with expectations as to how
each should behave in the respective roles. Associated
with this is the difference between role definitions and
role performance. Thus, there is often a difference be
tween what is agreed on in terms of what the person should
do and what that individual actually does. Role expecta
tions also involve how roles should be fulfilled as well as
what duties are involved. Dyer agrees that conflicts may
arise when one's self-perception does not agree with the
perception of the spouse. In fulfilling a role a husband
may view himself as helpful, friendly, efficient, while his
mate views him as stingy, suspicious, and overbearing. If
the wife expects her mate to be of a certain type of per
sonality and he behaves in such a way as to manifest char
acteristics of a different type, this can elicit negative
reactions from the wife.
4. Sanctions.
This involves the granting of rewards, such as praise,
affection, and good will, when family members meet the role
performance that is expected by other members of the fam
ily. If the role performance of the family member violates
the expectations then negative sanctions may result, such
54
as tears, quarreling, or withdrawal of affection.
Based on his analysis, Dyer feels that there are
three basic points of conflict in marriage: first, where
norms and personal preferences of the couple are in con
flict; second, where role performance of the wife does not
agree with the role expectations of the husband; third,
where role performance of the husband does not agree with
the role expectations of the wife. For Dyer, this can
result in several types of role conflict as well as several
types of mutual adjustments.
One approach utilizing concepts such as role and
integration in the development of a marital adjustment test
/ o
was done by Farber, who developed a test to measure mari
tal integration that had the following aims:
1. To pertain primarily to matters of consensus
and interpersonal relations.
2. To require little time to administer and score.
3. To refrain from asking the respondent to evalu
ate his marriage overtly or describe difficul
ties in the marriage.
^Bernard Farber, "An Index of Marital Integra
tion," Sociometry. XX (1957), 117-134.
55
4. To be derived from explicit a s s u m p t i o n s . ^
Farber regards family integration as having two main as
pects. First is integration of ends, which is defined as
consensus on the rank ordering of values by family members,
and second, integration of means, which is based on an
index of mutual coordination of domestic roles. Farber
states:
The degree of family integration then is
determined by the extent to which the family mem
bers agree on the rank ordering of values and the
degree of appropriate coordination of domestic
roles. Failure to coordinate roles places the
role system in a state of tension. Interaction of
family members under conditions of high role ten
sion affects perceptions of one another by the
family members.^
The test developed by Farber to measure marital integration
consisted of an index of consensus and an index of role
tension. The index of consensus was based on a list of ten
domestic values which were ranked in order of decreasing
importance to family success by husbands and wives. Items
such as companionship, personality development, healthy and
happy children, economic security, etc., made up this list.
The index of role tension was composed of ratings by the
subjects for both self and spouse on ten personality traits
43Ibid., p. 117. 44Ibid.. p. 119.
56
such as moody, easy-going, jealous, easily excited, etc.
The sample consisted of 99 married couples who were primar
ily white, urban, middle class families. Farber also
tested perceived similarity and its relationship to marital
integration. The procedure for classifying relationships
as having high perceived similarity or low perceived simi
larity was based on the ratings of ten personality traits
used in the Marital Integration Index. If the respondent
rated himself and the other being rated with whom he was
comparing himself identically for six or more of the ten
traits, the relationship was classified as having high
similarity. Five or fewer identical ratings of the other
individual and himself placed the relationship in "low per
ceived similarity" categories. The relationship between
marital integration scores and the husband's perceived
similarity between his wife and himself was significant at
the .05 level. The marital integration scores and the
similarity between ratings by the wives of themselves and
their children was also significant at the .05 level. In
his final discussion, Farber states:
It was found that, for white, urban, middle
class families, with at least one child of school
age, as measured by the index, marital integration
tends to vary directly with: (1) The husband's
57
emphasis on companionship or social emotional ends
in his family-value hierarchy. (2) The degree of
identification (perceived similarity) of the hus
band with his wife. (3) The degree of identifica
tion of the wife with at least one of her chil
dren. (4) The personal adjustment of the husband
and wife in marriage.^5
Farber’s test of marital integration also had some emphasis
on the division of roles into instrumental and emotional
roles.
Selected Research on Role.
Role Perception, Empathy,
and Other Related Studies
Many studies have been completed which emphasize
the relationship between role conflict, role expectations,
role attitudes, and marital happiness.
Ort^ used a sample of college students in studying
the relationship of marital happiness to conflict in role
expectations and role behavior. The subjects were asked 22
questions on role expectations, which were compared to 22
questions answered on roles played by the subject in mar
riage. Questions were also asked regarding expectations of
45Ibid., pp. 132-133.
46
Robert S. Ort, "A Study of Role Conflict as
Related to Happiness in Marriage,” Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, XLV (1950), 691-699.
58
the mate's role in marriage and the mate's role behavior as
perceived by the subject. Conflict was defined as unreal
ized role expectations for the subject and unrealized role
expectations of his mate. The relationship between role
conflicts and happiness rating for the sample was found to
be -.83.
Jacobson^ tested the hypothesis that divorced
couples exhibit a greater disparity in the attitudes toward
the roles of husband and wife in marriage than do married
couples. He constructed a 28-item test so that a tradi
tional male-dominant attitude was indicated by a low score,
a liberal equalitarian attitude was indicated by the higher
scores, and a completely female-dominant attitude was
represented by the highest scores. His sample consisted of
400 persons, 100 divorced and 100 married couples living in
and around Chillicothe, Ohio. Jacobson found the following
relationships:
1. No statistically significant coefficients of
correlation were found to exist between atti
tude scores of the various sex and marital
status categories and such attributes as age,
education and occupation.
^Alver Hilding Jacobson, "Conflicts of Attitudes
Toward the Roles of Husband Wife in Marriage," American
Sociological Review. XVII (1952), 146-150.
59
2. A high positive coefficient of correlation was
found between married couples' attitude scores
and also between divorced couples' attitude
scores.
3. The divorced males had the lowest scores which
then arose among the married males, married
females, to the divorced females.
4. The difference between mean scores for the
divorced couples was approximately four times
as great as that for married c o u p l e s .
Jacobson concludes that within the limits of his study
divorced couples were shown to exhibit greater disparity
in their attitudes toward marital roles than married cou
ples .
49
In his study of 104 middle-class couples, Hurvitz
investigated the relationship between the disparity of role
expectations and role behavior to marital happiness. He
developed an Index of Strain which is a measure of the
difference between role expectations and role fulfillment.
His basic thesis was that there is a hierarchy of marital
roles. A wide discrepancy between marital partners' defi
nitions of this hierarchy arrangement indicates strain in
48Ibid., pp. 148-149.
49
Nathan Hurvitz, "Marital Roles and Adjustment in
Marriage in a Middle Class Group" (unpublished Ph.D. dis
sertation, University of Southern California, 1958).
60
their marital adjustment. He found that the husband's
Index of Strain increases as his Index of Deviation of per
formance roles increases, which suggests that husbands who
perceive their functional roles differently from the typical
pattern of role performance in their culture, experience
increasing strain as they differ from the role rank order
of performance roles. Where the spouses have a pattern of
role expectations that differs from the typical pattern of
role expectations of the other spouse, the other spouse
experiences strain in the marriage. He also found that
wives who hold traditional attitudes regarding the source
and kind of authority expressed within the family are
married to husbands who experience greater strain in their
marriage.
Couch-*® studied 32 married couples to investigate
the relationship between consensus between marital role
definitions and length of marriage. Little relationship
was found between length of marriage and how either husband
or wife evaluated the husband's role performance. In eval
uating the wife's role performance, Couch found women who
■^Carl J. Couch, "The Use of the Concept Role and
Its Derivatives in the Study of Marriage," Marriage and
Family Living. XX (1958), 353-357.
61
were married more than two years evaluated themselves high
er than those wives married less than two years. However,
at the same time, the husbands married over two years gave
a lower evaluation of their wives' performance than did
those husbands married less than two years. Couch found
that the degree of consensus on role performance expecta
tions tended to increase with length of marriage.
Bechill"^ studied the thesis that divorced couples
would show greater role incongruity in their marital roles
than married couples. His sample was obtained in Detroit
and was matched on several characteristics. They were
matched on the basis of color, previous marriage, religion,
number of years married, number of children, and age.
Incongruence in perception of dominance in marriage was
studied with the divorced group reporting greater role
incongruity. Bechill states:
Behaviorally, married husbands see themselves as
more dominant than their wives, while their wives
see themselves more dominant than their husbands
report. For the divorced couples, the husbands
see their wives as more dominant while the wives
^Veme C. Bechill, "A Comparison of Role Incon
gruity in Married and Divorced Couples," Dissertation
Abstracts, XXIII (1962), 1449-1450.
62
C O
see their husbands as more dominant.
The differences between an individual's behavior and his
attitudes (interpersonal role confusion) resulted in sig
nificant differences at .001 with the married group
exhibiting less confusion.
Farber and Blackman^ attempted to assess marital
role conflict by means of disparity of spouses' ratings.
They sampled 211 couples who had participated in the Bur
gess and Wallin study. Information was obtained from the
couples three years and fourteen years after marriage.
They studied marital role tensions through the use of a
list of attitudes such as angers easily, takes responsibil
ity willingly, etc., and through these ratings of each
other an index of tension was developed. The index of
tension was related to number of children in the family
and sex of the children. Role tension was found by having
the subjects rate the self and mate on the items with face
validity which indicated tension, anxiety, and frustration
associated with role maladjustment. Combined scores were
52Ibid., pp. 1449-1450.
53
Bernard Farber and Leonard S. Blackman, "Marital
Role Tensions and Number and Sex of Children," American
Sociological Review. XXI (1956), 596-601.
used since the authors felt that role tension "seems cumu
lative and mutually stimulating." After a factor analysis
the items with the high loadings were: irritable, depressed,
moody, easily excited, dominating, and jealous. The final
index of tension included a few additional items. The
authors found that families with 0, 4, or 5 children had
the highest tension, and those with 1, 2, or 3 children had
the least tension. They also found that there was some
decline in marital tension over time. There was no sup
port for the position that there is a relationship between
number of children desired early being fulfilled and
changes in marital tension. There was no relationship
found between sex of children and marital tension.
Another group of studies emphasizes the nature of
the perceptions of selves, the similarity of perception of
self and others, and similarity of perception of values as
related to interpersonal relations.
Backman and Secord^ studied interpersonal congru
ency theory which they indicate emphasizes the locus of
stability and change in individual behavior in the
■^Carl W. Backman and Paul F. Secord, "Liking
Selective Interaction and Misperception in Congruent Inter
personal Relations," Sociometry, XXV (1962), 321-335.
64
interaction process rather than in intra-individual struc
tures. The theory studied by this investigation was
related to Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance,
Heider's theory of balanced states, and Newcomb's theory of
strain toward symetry. The authors sampled 30 sorority
girls living in a sorority house. They were administered a
total of seven check lists or ranking forms which relied
heavily on a basic list of sixteen paired personality
traits such as warm-cold, adventurous-shy, secure-insecure,
etc. The hypotheses tested were:
1. Others with whom subject interacts more fre
quently are perceived by subject as having
more congruent perceptions of him than others
with whom subject interacts less frequently.
2. Those persons whom subject likes will be per
ceived as having more congruent perceptions
of him than those others toward whom subject
feels neutral or whom he dislikes.
3. The more he interacts with another, the more
subject will distort other's presumed percep
tions of him in the direction of congruency.
4. The more he likes another, the more subject
will distort other's presumed perceptions of
him in the direction of congruency. 5
The authors report that all of the hypotheses listed were
strongly supported by their evidence.
55Ibid., p. 335.
65
Rollins-^ based his study on Parsons' general the
ory of social interaction and other empirical studies. He
investigated value consensus (which was defined as the
similarity of attitudes toward the importance of objects to
marriage), and cohesion (which was defined as the effect of
forces tending to unite or disintegrate the dyad as a sys
tem of action). The sample consisted of 222 couples with
children living at home drawn from a total sample of 852
couples in Syracuse, New York. Strong support was found
for: (1) an increase in perceived value consensus being
associated with an increase in marital cohesion; (2) per
ceived value consensus being a better predictor of marital
cohesion than actual value consensus. The author indicates
that the most clear-cut finding of this investigation was
the relationship between perceived value consensus and
cohesion. He questions the utility of Parsons' general
theory of action in application to the husband-wife dyad
and indicates that the Newcomb, Festinger, and Heider
social psychological theories more adequately account for
the data.
-^Boyd Carter Rollins, "Values Consensus and Cohe
sion in the Husband-Wife Dyad," Dissertation Abstracts,
XXII (1962), 4112.
66
Kogan and Jackson"^ sought to identify factors
associated with the perceivor and with the instrument which
may in part account for frequency with which contradictory
or nonsignificant findings have been reported upon self and
spouse. They studied 24 women who were administered the
Interpersonal Check List four times. The first time the
subject answered in terms of "ideal wife," the second time
"self perception," the third "most husbands are," and
fourth "perceptions of the husband." Each subject also
completed the MMPI. The subjects were obtained by recom
mendations in a study of alcoholics and their wives and
consisted of married females who had no alcoholism problem
in the family. For comparative purposes each subject's
self description was paired with the description of a hus
band other than her own. The correlation between these two
unrelated person descriptions was calculated in addition to
the comparisons of self and mate. The comparisons with
husbands other than the self were called "stranger" correla
tions. They found that the average rank order correlation
for the 24 spouse pairs was .52 while the average correla-
■^Kate L. Kogan and Joan K. Jackson, "Perceptions
of Self and Spouse: Some Contaminating Factors," Marriage
and Family Living. XXVI (1964), 60-64.
67
tion for stranger pairs was .45. The difference between
the two correlations was not significant. The authors
indicate that this is evidence to show that there is no
systematic or consistent trend as a group toward perceiv
ing one's own husband as being clearly similar or comple
mentary to the selves. In making this type of comparison
it was found that wives who perceived themselves as being
more like their husbands also turned out to be more like
the description of other husbands. That is, perhaps, like
more people in general. This introduced the possibility
that there might be another important factor, that of
social desirability. In analyzing the way various items
were answered, the authors found that for the ICL response
patterns which are high in social desirability there are
more features in common than those with less desirable
response patterns. In summary, Kogan and Jackson state:
Spouse perceptions of 24 women revealed a wide
range in the amount of similarity attributed to
self and husband. Further analysis revealed that
favorability of the self perception was closely
related to the perceived similarity of self and
spouse and suggested that differences in endorse
ment of social desirability have contaminated
efforts to study similarity versus complementar
ity. 58
58Ibid.. p. 64.
68
One study which uses the perceptual approach in the
59
investigation of mate selection was completed by Udry.
In order to test some of the contentions made by Winch on
the concept of complementarity in mate selection, Udry
studied 47 married couples married from two to thirty-five
years and 50 engaged couples. His sample was primarily of
college level. Both samples took the Cottell 16 PF test
on themselves and then were asked to describe the mate’s
personality by answering the test the way they perceived
the mate would respond. The Cottell test contains the
following trait names: outgoing, intelligence, mature,
dominant, enthusiastic, conscientious, adventurous, sensi
tive, suspicious, eccentric, sophisticated, insecure, ex
perimenting, self-sufficient, well controlled, and somatic
tension. Udry summarizes his findings as follows:
First, that mate perceptions of each other tend
to exaggerate the existing personality differences
between them in both the engaged and married
groups. Second, mates' perceptions of each other
involves a great deal of projection of one's own
traits, with the tendency most pronounced among
the engaged individuals, especially the females.
Third, accuracy of perception was greater among
■^J. Richard Udry, "Complementarity in Mate Selec
tion: A Perceptual Approach," Marriage and Family Living.
XXV (1963), 281-290.
69
females for each marital status in spite of the
greater female tendency to project. But the accu
racy of perception was also greatest in the mar
ried sample for each sex.^O
Udry points out that a theory which takes into considera
tion the perceptions of the interactors is necessary as
long as social interaction continues to maintain that per
son's response to others on the basis of their perceptions
of those others. Udry appears to overdraw his conclusions.
He has not really fully measured what he intended. He
measures self-perception on a test of personality and the
subject's guess as to how the partner sees himself; how
ever, this is not the same as having the husband rate the
wife as compared to how he believes she sees herself. This
added dimension could make a significant difference in his
conclusions. It may also be noted that in a review of the
61
literature on psychological factors in marriage, Tharp
utilizes role theory and reaches somewhat different con
clusions from those that Udry reached with respect to mate
selection and marital interaction patterns.
Other studies support the contention that happily
60Ibid., p. 288.
f i 1
Roland G. Tharp, "Psychological Patterning in
Marriage," Psychological Bulletin, LX (1963), 97-117.
70
married individuals tend to rate themselves more similarly
62
than do unhappily married couples. Preston utilized the
self rating of the husband and his rating of his wife and
the wife's self rating and her rating of her husband on a
personality inventory. The sample consisted of clients of
the Marriage Council in Philadelphia. The conflicted group
consisted of 116 cases who had come for marriage counsel
ing. The adjusted group of 55 cases were couples who had
come for premarital counseling and were then living to
gether without apparent marital difficulties. The study
showed that spouses tend to rate themselves and their mates
similarly in personality traits. The group seeking post-
marital counseling showed less similarity between self
perceptions and perceptions by their partners than did the
group counseled premaritally.
Mangus studied young married couples from a mid-
western county who were participating in a large mental
health research program. The Interpersonal Check List
^Malcolm Preston, et al., "Impressions of Person
ality as a Function of Marital Conflict," Journal of Abnor
mal and Social Psychology. XLVII (1962), 326-333.
^A. R. Mangus, "Family Impacts on Mental Health,"
Marriage and Family Living, XIX (1957), 256-262.
71
was used to study the following role attitudes: (1) sub
ject’s perception of himself as a spouse, (2) subject's
perception of the partner as a spouse, (3) subject's role
expectations of a husband, and (4) subject's role expecta
tions of a wife. Mangus describes an actual case in which
divorce proceedings had already begun. The maladaptive
quality of the marriage was said to be reflective in the
great discrepancies of the role descriptions of the husband
and wife. The wife perceived the husband quite differently
from the way he viewed himself, and quite differently from
her expectations of a husband. He perceived himself as
failing to fulfill either his own or his wife's expecta
tions of a husband. The husband's expectations of the role
of the wife were quite different from his expectations of
the role attitudes of his wife.
Corsini^ studied 20 students at the University of
Chicago who were administered a 26-item happiness in mar
riage questionnaire constructed by Burgess, a 10-item test
of favorability of background which was adapted from Ter-
man, a 35-item personality test constructed by Burgess and
^Raymond J. Corsini, "Multiple Predictors of Mar
ital Happiness," Marriage and Family Living. XVIII (1956),
240-242.
72
his collaborators, and a 50-item adjective Q-sort con
structed by the author. In considering background, person
ality, and similarity of self-perceptions, the author found
that background and similarity of self-perception were the
best two predictors for men and women. The best combina
tion of tests for men is personality and similarity of
self-perception, while the best combination for women is
background and similarity in self-perception for prediction
of marital happiness. Corsini concludes that similarity of
personality adds considerably to prediction of marital
happiness, or possibly people who are happily married tend
to become more similar over time as a result of their mari
tal association, whereas the unhappy do not.
Some key studies that may now be considered deal
with accuracy of role perception, congruency of role per
ception, and empathic ability in role perceptions. It
appears that accuracy of self-perception and social inter
action have been demonstrated to have a close association
in marital interaction as well as other types of social
interaction. For example, Goslin^-* indicates that social
^David A. Goslin, "Accuracy of Self Perception
and Social Acceptance," Sociometry, XXV (1962), 283-296.
73
interaction is based on accuracy of expectations about one
another's behavior and applies this to a study of adoles
cent individuals who had achieved low degrees of social
acceptance within their groups. He investigated to see how
accurately these individuals perceived themselves in their
relationships with others in the groups. It was found that
rejected individuals perceived themselves differently from
the way they were perceived by the group. It was also
found that rejected subjects were inaccurate in predicting
the group's perception of them. Goslin states:
. . . it is evident that rejected children as we
have defined them differ as a group from accepted
children with respect to (1) the amount of dispar
ity between self rating and peer ratings, (2) the
amount of disparity between prediction of peer
ratings and actual ratings, and (3) the amount of
disparity between self ratings and prediction of
peer ratings (self conflict), (4) the degree of
over estimation or under estimation of peer rat
ings, and (5) the amount of variance of spread in
the distribution of peer ratings received. ®
Luckey^ used the Interpersonal Check List to eval
uate the congruence of marital role perceptions. The pur
pose of the study was to test the relationship between
66Ibid., p. 294.
^Eleanor Braun Luckey, "Marital Satisfaction and
Its Association with Congruence of Perception," Marriage
and Family Living, XXII (1960), 49-54.
marital satisfaction and congruence of role perceptions.
Evaluations were made in terms of congruence of role con
cepts of spouses in relation to self-perception and mate
perception; self concept and ideal self; in relation to
congruence of ideal self and concept of spouse; concept of
parent of same sex and self concept; and in relation to
congruence of concept of spouse and parent of the opposite
sex. Luckey found that the congruence of perceptions in
all the above had a significant relationship to marital
satisfaction, with the exception of the relationship be
tween self concept and concept of the ideal self.
Kotlar investigated role perceptions of 50
adjusted and 50 unadjusted couples. Adjustment was based
on scores on a marital adjustment test as well as whether
couples were receiving marriage counseling or not. She
administered the Interpersonal Check List to these couples
four times, with instructions to the couples to rate (1)
the self, (2) the mate, (3) ideal wife, and (4) ideal hus
band. Kotlar found that adjusted wives perceive themselves
^Sally Lee Kotlar, "Middle Class Marital Roles--
Ideal and Perceived in Relation to Adjustment in Marriage"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1961).
75
higher on the dominant-submissive dimension than did the
wives in the unadjusted group. The mates of husbands and
wives in the adjusted group also perceived them as being
significantly higher on the dominance dimension than did
the mates of the unadjusted spouses. On the hostility-
affection dimension the adjusted groups were on the average
much higher than those of the unadjusted spouses. Kotlar
found that congruence of self-perception and spouse percep
tion of that individual was related to marital adjustment.
The study also supports the hypothesis that adjusted hus
bands and wives perceive their mates as approaching their
expectations to a greater degree than did the unadjusted
couples. In regard to self-perception and conflict, Kotlar
states:
There is a significant relationship between
the individual’s self-perception, his conceptual
ization of his ideal marital role, and his marital
happiness. The hypothesis of the relationship to
good marital adjustment of small disparity between
self-perception and same-sex role conceptualiza
tion was accepted. Since the ideal roles approach
the cultural norm, the implications are that indi
viduals who perceive themselves more in accord
with the basic cultural values are more often
found in the adjusted marital group than those who
perceive themselves as possessing the more deviant
role attitudes.69
69Ibid.. p. 248.
76
In his presentation of his study on role perception
and marital satisfaction, Stuckert^ states that previous
studies on the relationship between role perception and
marital satisfaction indicate four significant components
of perception: (1) the degree of similarity between the
role concepts and expectations of one partner and the other
partner’s own role concepts and expectations; (2) the de
gree of similarity between the way a person perceives the
role expectations of his marital partner and the partner's
actual role expectations; (3) the degree of congruence
between his concept of the marital role in general and his
concept of his specific role; and (4) the degree of simi
larity between a person's role expectations and his per
ception of the expectations of his spouse. Stuckert be
lieves that marital adjustment and marital satisfaction
are a function of the interaction of these components. He
studied fifty couples between the ages of 19 and 26 who
had applied for marriage licenses in Milwaukee. Role con
cepts and expectations were determined by a set of thirty
questions incorporated into an interview schedule. The
couples were to indicate the relative importance to the
individual of selected personality factors in husbands' and
wives' roles. Ten personality needs which are most
^Robert P. Stuckert, "Role Perception and Marital
Satisfaction: A Configurational Approach, Marriage and
Family Living. XXV (1962), 415-419.
77
frequently listed in marital choice were used and the
couples were asked to evaluate the relative importance of
the factors in three ways: (1) their importance to marriage
in general, (2) their importance to one's own marriage, and
(3) the importance from the point of view of the spouse.
It was found that the accuracy with which the wife perceived
the marital expectations of her husband was related to the
wife's marital satisfaction, and that the accuracy of the
husband's perception of his wife's view was not associated
with satisfaction in the early period of marriage. The
degree of similarity between the views of husband and wife
was found to be related to marital satisfaction of the
husband but not of the wife. Stuckert points out that
accurate perception may detract from marital satisfaction
when the spouses have widely different expectations of
marital roles. He points out that accurate role perception
is necessary for marital partners to make the adjustments
that are necessary in marriage. He feels that his study
points out that wives, particularly, need to have accurate
role perceptions in order to make their adjustments, and
that wives tend to make more accommodations in marriage
than do husbands.
Several studies that include role perception also
78
add the dimension of empathy in the investigation of mari
tal interaction or marital adjustment. Cottrell and
Dymond^ reported some of the beginning findings of studies
being undertaken at Cornell University, one being done on
70 males and 60 females. They indicate that their experi
ence shows it is possible to develop a quantitative index
of relative empathic ability which can be distinguished
reasonably well. Their test was based essentially upon
having the subjects assume the attitudes of a series of
others with whom they had been associated over a specific
period of time and predicting the way that these others
would rate that person. The early results showed that
predictions were far better than could be accounted for by
chance. They found a wide variation in empathic ability of
the subjects tested. There was a significant relationship
between empathic ability as measured by them and insight
into one’s own behavior. When comparing individuals with
high empathic ability scores on various tests such as
Thematic Apperception Test, the California Ethnocentrism
Test, and the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Test, it was
^Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., and Rosalind F. Dymond,
"The Empathic Response," Psychiatry. XII (1949), 355-359.
79
found that those individuals with high empathy scores
appeared to be more emotionally expressive, outgoing,
optimistic, and warm individuals who had a strong interest
in other people. These same individuals also tended to be
more flexible personalities. Those with low scores tended
to be rigid, introverted, and appeared to have a more
inhibited emotional life, as well as tending toward emo
tional outbursts. These individuals tended to be somewhat
self-centered and demanding in their personal relations or
be "lone wolves" who preferred to avoid strong ties with
other people.
72
In another study, Dymond investigated whether
accurate perception of the marital partner is related to
effectiveness of their relationship. The sample consisted
of 15 couples who had been married from six months to
thirty-eight years. A subjective marital happiness score
was obtained by having each couple list ten married couples
they knew. They were then required to list them from the
most happily married to the least happily married. The
couples then rated their own marriage in relation to those
^Rosalind Dymond, "The Relation of Accuracy of
Perception of Spouse and Marital Happiness," American
Psychologist, VIII (1953), 344.
80
tested. The second part of the procedure was having each
partner fill out two copies of a questionnaire consisting
of 115 MMPI items. The first group of answers was for the
self and the second was as the individual predicted the
spouse would answer. The results showed that the happy
group made fewer errors in prediction of their spouses'
responses. The partners in the happy group had a higher
degree of similarity of their self concepts and fewer pro
jection type errors (errors of assuming that the spouse
will answer similarly when, in fact, they differ). Dymond
concludes that accurate prediction of the partner's self
concept and satisfaction within the relationship tend to
occur together.
In contrast to Dymond's study, Corsini^ obtained
different results in his study of 20 university student
couples. The hypotheses studied by Corsini were:
1. Happiness in marriage is a function of the
understanding of the mates, self and other.
That is, happiness would be a function of the congruence of
the husband's perception of himself compared to his wife's
73
Raymond J. Corsini, "Understanding and Similar
ity in Marriage," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol
ogy. LI I (1956), 327-332.
81
perception of him, the husband's perception of the wife in
comparison to the wife's prediction of the husband's per
ception of her, the wife's perception of herself as com
pared to the husband's prediction of the wife's perception
of herself, and the wife's perception of her husband as
compared to the husband's prediction of the wife's percep
tion of him.
2. Understanding between a husband and wife is a
function of the degree of similarity of the
two selves.
In this hypothesis, Corsini is comparing husband's self-
perception to wife's prediction of his self-perception,
husband's perception of wife as compared to wife's predic
tion of his perception of her, the wife's self-perception
compared to the husband's prediction of her self-percep
tion, and the wife's perception of the husband as compared
to the husband's prediction of her perception of him.
3. Happiness in marriage is related to similar
ity of selves of the partners.
This is a comparison of happiness being a function of the
husband's self-perception as compared to the wife's self-
perception.
The author reaches the following five conclusions:
82
1. There is no evidence that happiness in mar
riage is a function of understanding the mate.
2. There is no evidence that understanding the
mate is a function of similarity of selves of
the mate.
3. The evidence indicates that happiness in mar
riage is associated with similarity of self
perceptions of the mates.
4. Husbands and wives are no more similar in
their self perceptions than randomly paired
men and women.
5. Happiness in marriage is related to the con
formity of men to self perceptions of their
sex. This relationship does not hold for
women.^
Corsini indicates that his study seriously challenges the
results found by Dymond in her study of perception and
marital happiness.
Locke, Sabagh, and Thornes^ also question the rela
tionship between empathy and marital adjustment. They
studied two aspects of marital interactions: primary com
munication and empathy. Primary communication was measured
by responses of the couples to questions about communica-
74Ibid., p. 332.
7' ’Harvey J. Locke, Georges Sabagh, and Mary Margar
et Thornes, "Correlates of Primary Communication and Empa-
thy," Research Studies of the State College of Washington,
XXIV (1956), 116-124.
83
tion between husbands and wives. Empathy was measured by
the accuracy with which subjects predicted their mates'
responses on a 21-item test with items such as "I try to be
the boss," "I am critical of others," etc. Marital adjust
ment was based on the Locke Marital Adjustment Test. The
sample consisted of 126 couples from the Los Angeles area.
The authors summarized their findings as follows:
1. Primary communication and marital adjustment
are positively correlated.
2. There is no significant relationship between
empathy and marital adjustment. Marital
couples, however, have high empathy scores.
3. There is no significant relationship between
primary communication and empathy.
4. Primary communication of younger couples is
significantly greater than that of older
couples.
5. Husbands with more education have greater
primary communication than do those with
less.
One serious limitation of this study is recognized by the
authors in their summary--the need to validate the tests of
primary communication and empathy.
76Ibid., pp. 123-124.
84
Hobart and Klausner^ attempted to extend the
Locke, Sabagh, Thornes study in their investigation of
empathy, communication, marital role disagreement, and
marital adjustment. Three different instruments of commu
nication were used:
1. Items referring to barriers to communication
which concerned issues and relationships that
tend to be taboo in husband-wife verbal commu
nications. There were 19 items in this cate
gory.
2. Items dealing with empathic communication which
involve nonverbal communication, such as where
a husband or wife is able to anticipate the
other's response.
3. The overall communication score, which is the
total of one and two.
The empathy test developed used three sets of
items:
1. Each subject rated himself and his mate on a
^Charles W. Hobart and William J. Klausner, "Some
Social Interactional Correlates of Marital Role Disagree
ment and Marital Adjustment," Marriage and Family Living,
XXI (1959), 256-263.
85
five point scale with respect to 21 items which
generally dealt with personality characteris
tics, some being positive, some negative, and
others neutral in terms of desirability.
2. An empathy test where the subjects answered for
themselves and predicted the responses of their
mates on 27 items concerning marital role
opinions. These items were taken from the
Kirkpatrick and Hobart family opinion survey.
3. An empathy test taken from Burgess and Wallin's
personality rating section of their marriage
prediction schedule.
A marital role disagreement score was obtained by
comparing personal opinions of husbands and wives on the
same 27 marital role opinion items used in the second
empathy test. Marital adjustment was measured by 23 items
from the Locke Marital Adjustment Test. The subjects were
married students attending a west coast sectarian college
and consisted of 59 couples who were contacted on three
successive occasions in one year. The authors referred to
the caution pointed out by Hastorf and Bender (1952) that
when one is able to predict accurately how another will
answer where he answers the same way, the projection may
86
confound the results significantly, particularly if a hus
band and his wife's opinions are similar in general. Under
these circumstances, a husband may have a low nonempathy
score, not because he has insight into his wife's attitudes
but because he is unconsciously projecting his own atti
tudes onto his wife. They feel that this confounding may
be somewhat lessened by a "refined empathy" score. Under
these circumstances, a person is credited with empathy only
when he correctly predicts his mate's attitudes which happen
to be different from his own. A refined empathy score such
as this was computed by Hobart and Klausner. Conclusions
based on their findings were:
1. Communication is significantly related to mari
tal adjustment for both husbands and wives but
at the same time communication is a multi
dimensional concept.
2. Barriers of communication appear to be more
importantly related to marital adjustment and
empathic communication may be more closely
related to role disagreement.
3. Psychological empathy is more closely related
to marital adjustment than is marital role
empathy for insight into the marital roles
ir
87
which the mate expects self and spouse to play.
4. No relationship between role disagreement and
marital adjustment was found, which challenges
many of the studies which have been done to
78
date in the field of marital adjustment.
Summary
The major conceptual approach for this study is
based upon symbolic-interactional theory. This social
psychological approach places emphasis on the development
of the self, the family as an interacting unity, role ex
pectations, role behavior, processes of communication, and
the symbolic factors involved in each of these concepts.
The symbolic interactionalists account for personality on
the basis of social relationships. This theoretical frame
work relates interpersonal conflict to differences in
definitions of self, role, or the situation. Thus, self-
perception and role perception within specific social situ
ations become extremely important in the determination of
interpersonal relations. Within this framework heavy
emphasis is placed on role theory, both in the development
78Ibid., p. 263.
88
of personality and in the analysis of interpersonal con
flict. Accuracy of perception of one's own roles and the
roles of others is generally considered essential for func
tional marital or family interrelations. Some authors
interpret successful counseling or psychotherapy in terms
of effective revision of self-perception or role perception
and the giving up of inappropriate or unrealistic role
behaviors. Realistic and appropriate role perception, role
behavior, and role expectations are sometimes viewed as
criteria of personal and marital adjustment.
The major marital adjustment studies of Burgess and
Cottrell (1939), Terman (1938), Terman and Oden (1947),
Burgess and Wallin (1953), Locke (1951), and Karlsson
(1951) were reviewed. These studies resulted in similar
but limited tests of marriage adjustment. The Karlsson
study effectively showed the relationship between the com
munication of role expectations and marital adjustment.
The short form marital adjustment scale developed by Locke
and Wallace proved to be an effective tool for a research
project such as this.
Selected studies on role, role perception, and
empathy were also reviewed. Ort (1950), Jacobson (1952),
Hurvitz (1958), Couch (1958), Bechill (1962), and Farber
89
and Blackman (1956) found positive relationships between
role definitions, role expectations, and marital adjustment
or marital conflict. Other researchers have investigated
self-perception and similarity of perception of self and
other as related to interpersonal relations. Backman and
Secord (1962), Rollins (1962), Kogan and Jackson (1964),
Udry (1963), Tharp (1963) demonstrate the relationship
between self-perception and interpersonal relationships,
both in and out of marriage. Other studies (Preston
[1962], Mangus [1957], Corsini [1956]) support the conten
tion that happily married individuals tend to rate them
selves more similarly than do unhappily married couples.
Accuracy of role perception, congruency of role perception,
and empathic ability in role perception have been related
to social acceptance (Goslin [1962]) and marital satisfac
tion (Luckey [1960], Kotlar [1961], Stuckert [1962], and
Dymond [1953]). However, other studies do not support
these findings. Corsini (1956) and Locke, Sabagh, and
Thornes (1956) did not find a relationship among understand
ing of the mate, empathy, and marital adjustment.
The great majority of the studies reviewed support
the contentions of the symbolic-interactionalists and pro
vide evidence of the strong relationship among role
90
perception, empathy, and marital adjustment. At the same
time, each study is a reminder of the need continually to
expand, refine, and develop methods of investigating these
relationships. They also indicate that there is a highly
complex relationship of role, role behaviors, role expec
tations, communication, empathy, and interpersonal effec
tiveness .
Stryker indicates that the crucial question is that
of congruence of definition, situation, role, and self of
the interacting persons. Congruence of definitions permits
efficient, organized behavior. Lack of congruity in these
areas may lead to interpersonal conflict.
Karlsson's communication index using similarity of
role expectation including a method of predicting the mate's
role satisfaction was predictive of marital satisfaction.
Further research points to a strong relationship between
role conflict and unhappiness in marriage. Several meas
ures of role conflict and strain have been developed. One
is based on differences in male versus female dominance
while another is based on differences between role expecta
tion and role fulfillment. Additional studies reported
indicated a relationship between similarity of self-percep
tions and satisfying interpersonal relationships. Per
ceived value consensus has been related to marital cohe
sion. Accuracy of self-perception has been related to
both marital and other interpersonal relationships. The
major hypothesis dealing with (1) similarity of role per
ceptions and marital adjustments and (2) discrepancies
between self-perceptions of a mate and predictions by that
same mate follow from these research projects.
Investigations of role perception and empathic
ability have not been conclusive in either direction. Some
studies support the relationship between empathic ability
and health of personality. Marital happiness has also been
related to accurate prediction of the mate's self-concept.
Other studies, however, have not found a relationship
between empathy and marital happiness. The third major
hypothesis tested in this project evolves from this unan
swered question. The relationship between self-perception
and the spouse's prediction of that self-perception is
being investigated. Symbolic-interactionist theory sup
ports the hypothesis; however, research findings thus far
have been inconclusive.
CHAPTER III
THE SAMPLE AND THE METHODOLOGY USED
The Sample
The sample of the present
study
An attempt was made in this study to secure a sam
ple similar to the sample obtained by Kotlar^- in her study
of marital roles and marital satisfaction. In order to
obtain couples for the adjusted group, various married
couples clubs having church affiliations were contacted.
In return for a lecture dealing with family relationships,
the members of the clubs agreed to fill out the question
naires for this study. Typically, a short introduction to
the nature of the investigation was given. Husbands and
-*-Sally Lee Kotlar, "Middle Class Marital Roles--
Ideal and Perceived in Relation to Adjustment in Marriage"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, 1961), pp. 60-77.
92
wives were then seated so that they could not discuss or
compare their answers. When all the questionnaires had
been completed they were collected and the lecture fol
lowed. Any couples who entered the meeting while the ques
tionnaires were being taken were also given the question
naire. Ten church groups participated in the study: four
Methodist, four Presbyterian, one Congregational, and one
Jewish. It was hoped that some Catholic couples could have
been included in the adjusted sample; however, none of the
Catholic churches contacted were able to supply an appro
priate group. Therefore, the adjusted sample does not
include any Catholic couples. The questionnaire was admin
istered to a total of 75 couples and 25 sets of question
naires were eliminated because of failure to complete the
questionnaire (7 sets) or because one or both of the mari
tal partners scored extremely low on the Marital Success
Test (18 couples). This procedure was consistent with that
of the Kotlar study and was designed purposely so that only
couples with relatively high adjustment scores would be
used in the adjusted sample. In addition, three couples
refused to take the questionnaire.
The unadjusted group was obtained by distributing
questionnaires to marriage counselors in private practice,
94
public marriage counseling groups, and psychological groups
that included marriage counseling in their services. All
of the questionnaires were administered to couples who were
entering counseling and who had not had more than three
counseling hours. The cases in this group were also super
vised so that husband and wife could not discuss their
responses. Each counselor was given the option of indicat
ing that the purpose of the testing was for research; how
ever, most of the counselors preferred that the respondents
consider the testing as part of the counselor's work with
them. Profiles of the ICL were provided the counselor. A
total of nine marriage counseling groups cooperated in the
study. Fifty-seven sets of questionnaires were returned.
Two sets were eliminated due to incomplete responses and
five sets were eliminated as a result of one or both
spouses scoring extremely high on the Marital Success Test.
Those individuals who scored extremely high on the Marital
Success Test were all seeking counseling for a very spe
cific family problem but generally considered their mar
riages to be happy and successful.
In order to make the total sample more homogeneous
only couples with minor children living in the home were
administered the questionnaires. In the unadjusted group,
95
counselors were requested to administer the questionnaires
with this restriction. In the adjusted group, couples
without children were given the option to take the ques
tionnaire or not. Those questionnaires completed by cou
ples without children were not used in the study. All of
the couples studied lived in Los Angeles and vicinity.
The questionnaire administered was titled "Marital
Interaction Survey" and consisted of three main sections:
(1) the face sheet, (2) the Wallace Marital Success Test,
and (3) the Interpersonal Check List. The face sheet that
was administered to couples in the church groups contained
the following statement:
We are trying to learn more about factors
which make for happy and unhappy marriages. To do
this, we need the cooperation and assistance of
married couples. You can help us a great deal by
filling out the following questionnaires as frankly
and as carefully as possible.
Experience has shown that some people hesitate
to answer personal questions if they have to
reveal their identity. Therefore, we do not ask
for names. Moreover, most questions can be
answered by a simple checkmark (v/) which also
safeguards your identity. Please answer every
question. If you cannot give the exact answer to
a question, answer the best you can. Please do
not consult with your mate in answering the ques
tionnaires .
They were then asked to check approximate items dealing
with sociological factors such as age, race, occupation,
96
etc.
The Marital Success Test and the Interpersonal
Check List are described in the Methodology section of
O
this chapter.
The final sample contains a total of 100 sets of
questionnaires (200 individuals), 50 adjusted couples and
50 unadjusted couples. No attempt was made to obtain a
representative sample of the general population.
Social characteristics
Nine social characteristics are presented to de
scribe the sample and compare the adjusted and unadjusted
groups: age, race, educational level, number of previous
marriages, income, occupation, religion, number of chil
dren, and length of marriage.
Age.--The ages of men in the happy group ranged
from 21 to 59, with a mean of 34.90. Their wives' ages
ranged from 20 to 55, with a mean of 32.66.
Unadjusted men ranged from 23 to 54 in age, with a
mean of 36.20. Their wives' ages ranged from 18 to 54,
2
See Appendix for a copy of the Marital Interaction
Survey questionnaire.
97
with a mean of 33.50.
The difference in mean ages in the happy group was
2.24 and in the unhappy group 2.70. Mean difference in age
between adjusted and unadjusted men was 1.30, while the
difference for the women was 0.74. With respect to this
variable both groups were similar in age and in mean dif
ferences between husband and wife.
Race.--The sample was predominantly Caucasian.
Ninety-eight per cent of the adjusted males and females
were Caucasian. Ninety-two per cent of the unadjusted
males and ninety-four per cent of their wives were Cauca
sian. The remainder in both groups were Negroes. No
Oriental individuals were included in the sample.
Religious preference.--Table 1 presents religious
preference for the adjusted and unadjusted men and women.
Slightly over half of the sample identified themselves as
Protestant. There is some difference between the adjusted
and unadjusted groups in religious preference. There were
no Catholic couples in the adjusted group; however, five
Catholic couples were obtained from marriage counselors.
The adjusted group also had approximately ten per cent more
Jewish couples. There were also differences in the number
98
TABLE 1
RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES OF ADJUSTED AND UNADJUSTED
MEN AND WOMEN, BY PERCENTAGES
Religious
Preference
N
Men
Adjusted Unadjusted
N-50 N-50
Women
Adjusted Unadjusted
N=50 N=50
Protestant 115 64.0 46.0 64.0 56.0
Catholic 10 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
Jewish 49 30.0 18.0 30.0 20.0
Other 11 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
None 15 0.0 20.0 2.0 8.0
Totals 200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
99
that indicated no religious preference in the male sample.
This difference is not surprising since all of the adjusted
individuals were sampled from clubs with religious affil
iations. It was also to be expected that happily married
persons would express greater religious interest as is
pointed out by Locke in a case analysis of a happily mar
ried couple:
Three factors appear to be involved: (1) Reli
gion is an indication of conventional and conform
ing behavior. (2) It is significant that the
friends of this couple were religious and that
their religion is opposed to divorce. Consequent
ly, the pressure and support of a circle of reli
gious friends with their expectations that fami
lies will stay together, determined, in part, the
unity of this family. (3) In many of these fami
lies in which religion is significant, the members
engaged in praying together and reading the Bible
together, and these serve as common activities,
which psychologically unite the husband and wife.
One of the functions of religion in these homes is
to cause the couple to reinforce each other reli
giously and thereby create conforming attitudes
with reference to the maintenance of the f a m i l y . ^
It may also be noted that nearly twenty-five per cent of
the sample is Jewish, which is higher than would be
expected in a random sampling.
3
Harvey J. Locke, Predicting Adjustment in Mar
riage: A Comparison of a Divorced and a Happily Married
Group (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1951), p. 221.
100
Educational level.--On the fact sheet of the Mari
tal Interaction Survey, the respondents could check from
six to twenty years of formal education. Mean years of
education for the adjusted men and their wives was 16.60
and 14.72, respectively. The unadjusted men and their
wives' mean years of education was 14.78 and 13.50. Thus
the adjusted men had an average of 1.82 more years of edu
cation than did the unadjusted men, and the adjusted women
had an average of 1.22 more years of education than did the
unadjusted women. Table 2 shows percentages of reported
education in four major categories of education. The table
indicates that a greater number of adjusted men than unad
justed men had graduate level education, while a larger
percentage of the unadjusted men were in the nine to twelve
years of education category. A comparison of the females
indicates that the primary difference in education was in
the 13 to 16 (college) level. Sixty-two per cent of the
adjusted women had some college education, while this
amount was indicated in forty per cent of the unadjusted
women. Nearly three-quarters of the total sample had some
college education.
The educational level of the present sample is
higher than would be expected from a random sample of Los
101
TABLE 2
PERCENTAGES OF REPORTED EDUCATION ACCORDING TO
MEN AND WOMEN IN THE ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED GROUPS
Men Women
Education
N
Adjusted
N=50
Unadjusted
N=50
Adjus ted
N=50
Unadjusted
N-50
0 - 8 3 0.0 2.0 0.0 4.0
9-12 52 10.0 28.0 24.0 42.0
13 - 16 94 44.0 42.0 62.0 40.0
16 + 51 46.0 28.0 14.0 14.0
Totals 200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
102
Angeles County but is very similar to the Kotlar sample.
In the Kotlar study the mean educational level for husbands
in both groups was 15.05 and the mean of wives was 13.7.^
The present sample means for husbands and wives are 15.67
and 14.11, respectively.
Occupational level.--For purposes of this study
seven occupational classifications were used: professional-
technical, proprietor-managerial, clerical-sales, skilled,
semiskilled, housewife, and student. Percentages of indi
viduals in each of these categories are indicated in Table
3. As may be expected from the high educational level, a
large percentage of the male sample is in professional-
technical and proprietor-managerial occupations. Eighty-
four per cent of the men are in these categories; however,
twenty per cent more of the adjusted men were in profes
sional-technical occupations than were unadjusted men.
Nearly eighty per cent of the women were housewives with
most of the remainder (fourteen per cent) of both the
adjusted and unadjusted women indicating professional-
technical occupations.
^•Qp. cit. , p. 74.
103
TABLE 3
OCCUPATION OF ADJUSTED AND UNADJUSTED
MEN AND WOMEN, BY PERCENTAGES
Men Women
Occupation N
Adiusted
N=50
Unadjusted
N=50
Adiusted
N=50
Unadius
N=50
Professional
technical 66 62.0 42.0 14.0 14.0
Proprietor-
managerial 18 16.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
Clerical-
sales 17 8.0 16.0 2.0 8.0
Skilled 17 14.0 18.0 0.0 2.0
Semiskilled 2 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0
Housewife 78 0.0 0.0 82.0 74.0
Student 2 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
Totals 200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
104
Income--Cons is tent with some of the differences in
education and occupation discussed above, the adjusted
group indicates a somewhat higher level of income. Six
categories of income could be checked by the respondents
(see Appendix). Fifty per cent of the adjusted couples
indicated an annual income of over $12,000.00, while six
teen per cent of the unadjusted group reported this level
of income. Twenty-four per cent of the adjusted couples
reported $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 and thirty-four per cent
of the unadjusted group indicated this amount. Only twelve
per cent of the adjusted couples reported less than $8,000
income per year; however, thirty-eight per cent of the
unadjusted group checked one of the categories indicating
an income of less than $8,000. The adjusted group reported
higher income than the unadjusted group, and both groups
indicated higher income than would be expected in the gen
eral population. This is consistent with the levels of
education and occupation discussed above.
Kotlar reports consistent findings in comparing
her pilot and final studies. Kotlar's pilot study sample
had slightly higher income than did the sample in the major
project. The present sample is well matched on several
characteristics. Both the adjusted and unadjusted groups
105
are similar in age of husbands, age of wives, number of
years married, and number of children. Differences in
level of education and occupation in this study are con
sistent with the characteristics of the Kotlar sample,
where similar differences were reported. For example,
Kotlar's two highest occupational categories are reported
as containing 68 per cent of the adjusted husbands and 48
per cent of the unadjusted husbands. The present study has
78 per cent of the adjusted husbands and 62 per cent of the
unadjusted husbands in the two highest occupational cate
gories. This sample is more closely matched on mean number
of years married and number of children. Future studies
on this subject should attempt to match their samples more
closely in education, occupation, and income.
Number of years married.--The average number of
years married for the adjusted group was 10.62 and 10.86
for the adjusted group. The average length of marriage for
this sample was somewhat longer than Kotlar's sample. Her
adjusted group had an average length of marriage of 4.72
years while her unadjusted group averaged 7.36 years.^
^Kotlar, op. cit., pp. 65-66.
This difference was to be expected since only couples with
minor children living in the home were included in the
sample, whereas Kotlar did not add this restriction on her
sample. As may be noted in Table 4, the distribution of
years married in both groups is very similar. Eight per
cent fewer adjusted couples fell into the 16 to 20 cate
gory, while eight per cent more adjusted couples had been
married six to ten years.
Previous marriages.--In the male sample ninety-two
per cent of the adjusted men and eighty-four per cent of
the unadjusted men had no previous marriages. Fourteen per
cent of the unadjusted men and eight per cent of the ad
justed men had one previous marriage. One of the unadjusted
males had had two previous marriages. For the wives,
ninety per cent of the adjusted and eighty per cent of the
unadjusted had not been married before. The remaining ten
per cent of the adjusted wives had had one prior marriage.
Sixteen per cent of the unadjusted wives had one previous
marriage. The remaining two wives had been married twice
and three times.
Number of children.--The average number of children
of the adjusted couples was 2.38, the average number for
107
TABLE 4
LENGTH OF MARRIAGE OF ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED COUPLES, BY PERCENTAGES
Adjusted Unadjusted
Years N Couples Couples
N=50 N=50
0 - 5 22 20.0 24.0
6-10 38 42.0 34.0
11 - 15 17 20.0 14.0
16 - 20 12 8.0 16.0
20 + 11 10.0 12.0
Totals 100 100.0 100.0
108
the unadjusted couples was 2.28. Table 5 shows the dis
tribution of the number of children for each group. The
distribution indicates that the unadjusted group tended
to have more one-child and five-or-more-children families.
A larger percentage of the adjusted couples had three
children. This difference in number of children is consis
tent with some findings which have associated number of
£
children and marriage adjustment.
The Methodology Used
In addition to selection of the sample and means of
gathering the data, other methodological features of the
study require comment. These were the statistical proce
dures, integrity of the subjects' responses, the marital
success scale, the Interpersonal Check List, and limita
tions of the study.
Statistical procedures
There are available statistical procedures which
give the relative probability that obtained differences
between two groups are the result of sampling processes.
Bernard Farber and Leonard S. Blackman, "Marital
Role Tensions and Number and Sex of Children," American
Sociological Review, XXI (1956), 596-601.
109
TABLE 5
NUMBER OF CHILDREN OF ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED COUPLES, BY PERCENTAGES
Number of
Children
N
Adjusted
Couples
N=50
Unadjusted
Couples
N=50
1 27 22.0 32.0
2 39 38.0 40.0
3 18 26.0 10.0
4 8 10.0 6.0
5+ 8 4.0 12.0
Totals 100 100.0 100.0
110
The t-ratio which measures the significance of the differ
ence between means was used to test the discrepancy scores
of the adjusted and unadjusted groups.^
To test degree of association between the Marital
Success Test and the various discrepancy scores in each
group the Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation
Q
(r) was used.
In order to account for differences in response
styles the data were treated in two ways:
The first was raw scores. The differences between
raw scores for each octant on the Interpersonal Check List
were calculated and the total of the eight octant differ
ences was compared. For example, if a husband checked
seven descriptive items in category AP and three items in
category BC in his description of himself, while his wife
checked five items in category AP and eight items in cate
gory BC in describing her husband, etc., the discrepancy
score would include the sum of two plus five along with the
difference of the other six categories. A comparison was
^Helen M. Walker and Joseph Lev, Statistical In
ference (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1953), pp.
143-178.
8Ibid., pp. 230-260.
Ill
then made between the adjusted and unadjusted group on the
mean of these total discrepancy scores. Which discrepancy
score was being compared depended on the hypothesis being
tested. Comparisons were also made combining all of the
discrepancy scores as well as combining specific discrep
ancy scores. Those scores combined are described later in
this report.
The second was percentage scores. It became obvi
ous during the collection of the data that there was wide
variation in the tendency to check items on the Interper
sonal Check List. In order to control for this factor a
second statistical procedure was utilized. Percentage of
items checked were computed for each octant and discrepancy
scores were based on the difference between these percen
tages. For example, if a husband checked seven items in
category AP and three items in BC in describing himself,
and he checked a total of thirty items, his scores became
23.3 per cent in AP and 10 per cent in BC. If his wife
checked five items in category AP and eight items in BC in
describing her husband, and she checked a total of eighty
items, her scores became 6.3 per cent in category AP and
10 per cent in category BC. These percentage differences
were then added and treated in the same way that the raw
112
scores were analyzed. As may be noted in the BC category
in both of these examples, a raw score difference of five
was obtained; however, in using percentages of items
checked, the discrepancy score became zero.
The data analyzed were punched on IBM cards and the
statistics were calculated on the Honeywell 800 Computer at
the Computer Sciences Laboratory of the University of
Southern California. The computer time was supported by a
grant from the University of Southern California.
In statistical research, an investigator may arbi
trarily select the level of risk he is willing to take that
his obtained differences may be due to sampling error and
would not be found in a different sample. In this study it
was decided to accept a difference between the adjusted and
unadjusted group if there were five or less possibilities
in 100 that the difference was due to chance. A critical
ratio (CR) or t-score of 1.98 with 98 degrees of freedom
yields this level of risk. The larger the critical ratio,
the level of t, the greater the probability that a differ
ence or an association is real and not due to chance
factors.
113
Integrity of the subjects'
responses
It has been shown that subjects' replies are not
always consistent with actual behavior. This may be due to
intended falsification, misunderstanding, or errors of
memory. However, it has also been stated that the impor
tant thing is not whether the reported behavior actually
9
occurred, but the meaning of the behavior for the subject.
Thus, a married person may rate his marriage as "very
happy," although outside observers would disagree. His
reply may be a better index for prediction purposes than
for indicating the actual situation. For purposes of this
study, replies of the subjects are considered one important
factor. In part, the possible distortion is controlled by
the method of selection of the subjects. The groups are
divided on the subjective criterion of self ratings on the
Marital Success Test and by selecting individuals who have
entered marriage counseling.
The Marital Success Test
The Marital Success Test gives the general level
Q
Harvey J. Locke, Predicting Adjustment in Mar
riage: A Comparison of a Divorced and a Happily Married
Group (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1951), p. 8.
114
of adjustment for a particular marriage. Previous investi
gations using the Marital Success Test indicate that "today
one can measure the probability that a certain general
level of marital adjustment will characterize a given
marriage.
A sixteen-item Marital Success Test was adminis
tered. Fifteen of the items were taken from the Wallace
Adjustment Scale^ and one from the Locke Marital Adjust-
12
ment Test. A score for each individual in the sample
was obtained by adding the weights assigned to each item.
The weightings developed by the original authors were used
in this study.
The Wallace Marital Success Scale, using relatively
few items, has been shown to differentiate between adjusted
13
and unadjusted marriages. This scale consists of the
^ Ibid. , p. 46 .
^Karl Miles Wallace, "Construction and Validation
of Marital Adjustment and Prediction Scales" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, 1947).
12
Locke, op. cit., pp. 48-52.
^Harvey J. Locke and Karl M. Wallace, "Short Mari
tal -Adjustment and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and
Validity," Marriage and Family Living, XXI (August, 1959),
251-255.
115
the most significant items used in other studies of marital
adjustment. Most of the items were assigned weighted
values proportional to their significance in original
studies while some of the items were weighted arbitrarily.
Burgess and Cottrell report a correlation of .95 between
arbitrarily weighted items and the method they employed,
namely, assigning weights according to their association
with marital happiness ratings.^
The Wallace scale has been used in many research
projects and was the instrument used by Kotlar. Its value
is that it can be used successfully to classify couples
into adjusted and unadjusted groups. It does not, however,
reveal much information regarding the underlying dynamics
of the marital relationship.
Comparison of adjustment scores
of spouses
Mean adjustment scores for the unadjusted men and
women were 68.0 and 65.2, respectively. Mean adjustment
scores for the adjusted group were 125.2 for the men and
127.6 for the women. There was no significant difference
■^Ernest W. Burgess and Leonard Cottrell, Predict
ing Success or Failure in Marriage (New York: Prentice-Hall
Company, 1939), pp. 59-65.
116
between the adjustment scores of the unadjusted men and
women nor between the adjustment scores of the adjusted
sample. There was, of course, a highly significant differ
ence between the adjusted and unadjusted adjustment score
means.
Correlations between husbands and wives in both
groups resulted in surprisingly low correlations. The cor
relation between adjustment scores of the unadjusted men and
women was only .20. For the adjusted sample the correla
tion was .46. These correlations are considerably lower
than those reported by Kotlar. In her total sample the
adjustment scores had a correlation of .77.^
The Interpersonal Check List
The instrument administered for the assessment of
role perception and empathy was the Interpersonal Check
List (ICL). It was developed by the psychology staff of
the Kaiser Foundation as part of an interpersonal system of
personality measurement and diagnosis. In the original
development of the ICL, raw scores were used as the basic
unit of analysis so as to minimize assumptions involved in
■^Kotlar, op. cit. . p. 86.
117
scaling techniques.^ The check list has its original
score in a 334 adjective check list prepared by Suczek as
representative of trait lists in psychological literature.
It was developed over a three year period and was adminis
tered to several thousand subjects in various ways. La-
Forge and Suczek report that the check list was adminis
tered to several hundred students at the University of
California at Berkeley, 100 students at San Francisco State
College, as well as to the psychiatric patients described
in the ICL manual.^ Leary reports that patients involved
at the Kaiser Foundation Hospital were also used in the
development of the instrument. Patient groups included
were obese, ulcer and dermatitis patients, medical control
patients, psychotics, psychiatric admission clinic group
psychotherapy patients, and individuals in individual
1 R
psychotherapy. Other samples included in the development
1 f i
Rolfe LaForge and Robert F. Suczek, "The Inter
personal Dimension of Personality: III, An Interpersonal
Check List," Journal of Personality, XXIV (September,
1955), 98-99.
17Ibid., p. 101.
18
Timothy Leary, Multilevel Measurement of Inter
personal Behavior: A Manual for the Use of the Interper
sonal System of Personality (Berkeley, Calif.: Psychologi
cal Consultation Service, 1956).
118
19
were fifty prison inmates, 100 Army officers, 176 Air
Force enlisted men, and 209 undergraduate students at the
20
University of Illinois.
Reliability of the ICL was determined by test-
retest correlations. On a sample of 77 obese cases, the
test-retest reliability correlations over a two-week period
for the eight major trait areas ranged from .73 to .83,
21
with an average of .78. This average octant correlation
is well within acceptable ranges in view of the fact that
self-perception is subject to change to some degree as a
result of changes in outside environment and internal mood
states. It is felt that this level of stability is suffi
cient to be useful in personality research and clinical
22
evaluation.
The final form of the ICL contains a check list of
128 adjectival statements which can be used to describe
19
Timothy Leary and Hubert S. Coffey, "Interperson
al Idagnosis: Some Problems of Methodology and Validation,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. L (1955), 110-
124.
20
Rolfe LaForge, "Research Use of the ICL," ORI
Technical Report, IV (October, 1963), 20-22.
21
Leary, op. cit., p. 15.
LaForge and Suczek, op. cit., p. 105.
119
O O
various levels of personality. Leary indicates that the
system behind the use of the ICL is interpersonal, since it
selects for analysis those aspects of personality which
concern a subject's relationship to others. A prime use
was to develop a system for the interpersonal diagnosis of
personality and to predict the future course of treatment.
Leary points out that a major goal involved in the diagno
sis of personality is to summarize before treatment those
aspects of personality which will have a bearing on treat
ment, such as degree of motivation or lack of communica-
0 /
tion. Leary indicates that interpersonal analysis of
family dynamics is a specific use of the Interpersonal
Check List.2“*
Detailed descriptions of the rationale and back
ground of the ICL are presented in Leary (1957), King
(1961), and Kotlar (1961). Extensive development and
research use of the ICL has been carried on by LaForge. He
presents a summary of the administration, scoring, response
23
Timothy Leary, Interpersonal Diagnosis of Per
sonality (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957).
A /
Leary, Multilevel Measurement . . ., pp. 1-7.
25Ibid., p. 56.
120
styles and sets, underlying rationale, samples used, and
9 f\
statistical methods for research purposes using the ICL. D
He states,
The wide variety of uses to which the ICL may
be put (e.g., as a multivariate sociometric tech
nique, a self-acceptance inventory, a family or
small-group interpersonal perception instrument)
leads to a variety of specific effects and cau
tions. Most of these can be derived by consider
ing the ICL protocol simply as a communication
from the subject to the examiner concerning the
former's assessment of a "figure" (a real or
imaginary person or interpersonal role). Consid
ered in this light, the ICL responses are clearly
subject to all the factors affecting and distort
ing any interpersonal communication. The basic
approach which the ICL represented was not in fact
the "measurement" of personality traits existing
"in" the subject. Scores derived from interper
sonal communications of this type are clearly
"measurements" of ephemeral phenomena, and can
probably more satisfactorily be regarded merely
as counts of how many elements of specified
classes occur under specified conditions.
According to this approach, any personality
test protocol, such as an ICL description of a
figure by a subject, is interpreted as a communi
cation by the subject to those he believes may see
his responses, with due regard for the test situa
tion and the context of the subject's larger life-
situation. The choice of items and scoring, which
operationally define the test, impose arbitrary
limits and structure on the subject's attempts to
communicate. The subject's temporary and enduring
motivations, perceptions, and values also affect
^LaForge, op. cit. . 1963.
121
the communication. "Because these effects . . .
are differentially reflected . . . the ICL is an
effective and flexible observational device for
personality research."27
The ICL is particularly suited to the type of problem being
investigated in this research. The rationale for its use
has been presented by Kotlar. She states,
The ICL permits the subject to describe his
role perceptions and expectations in terms of
qualities or attitudes rather than as actions or
performance. Role attitudes are more basic than
role behavior as they are the dynamics which de
termine the form of role playing, being inculcated
early and throughout life in terms of the exper
iences shared with the significant others in the
life of the individual.
Personality, in its social stimulus value, is
in considerable degree a matter of role behavior;
even more, however, it is a matter of role percep
tion and of seIf-perception in the light of the
social role. The social role or social self is an
organization of attitudes or qualities, and the
adjective is a linguistic device which enables the
subject to define his attitudes. The ICL uses
adjectives or short adjectival phrases to permit
the subject to translate his role perceptions and
expectations into language symbols. This device
also permits another individual to assess a sub
ject in terms of the latter's role attitudes.28
She goes on to state,
The use of the ICL in terms of role research
is justified in that it was developed as an
27Ibid. , pp. 16-17.
28
Kotlar, op. cit., p. 91.
122
interpersonal system of personality assessment.
However, personality in its social stimulus value
is in a considerable degree a matter of role be
havior, and even more a matter of role perception
and of self perception in the light of the social
role. Role behavior and role expectations are to
a considerable extent influenced by the reciprocal
action expected on the part of the role partner.
Therefore, interpersonal relations such as those
in the marital group are best studied through an
instrument of this type which can assess personal
ity in terms of structural, temporal and situa
tional variation.^9
The specific uses, for purposes of this study, include not
only the measurement of role perception but also that of
communication and empathy. This is achieved particularly
through the method of instructions to the subjects for tak
ing the ICL. The prediction of the mate's perception was,
by definition, considered one type of measurement of commu
nication and empathy.
Limitations of the Study
The adjusted couples were obtained through the
cooperation of married couples clubs associated with church
organizations. Only those present at the meetings could
fill out the questionnaires, which could be a biasing fac
tor. Further, couples who belong to such groups could be
29Ibid., p. 106.
123
a biasing factor. Further, couples who belong to such
groups could be significantly different from individuals who
do not. No attempt was made to control for this factor in
the group entering marriage counseling.
There are some differences between the two groups
(adjusted and unadjusted), particularly in the areas of
religion, education, and income.
The selection process built into the study in order
to obtain two extreme groups may have resulted in biases.
Thus, the elimination of individuals in the adjusted group
who scored low on the adjustment test and the elimination
of individuals from the unadjusted group as a result of
scoring very high on the adjustment test introduces an
unknown variable.
The selection of subjects in the unhappy group was
based on their entering marriage counseling and having low
scores on the Marital Success Test. This group must neces
sarily represent a very limited segment of the population
and could not be considered representative of unadjusted
couples in general. The total sample is not representative
of the general population, nor was this the intention. The
application of the findings must be limited to the special
ized group measured in this study.
124
In addition, the ICL has limitations. To date
limited validation studies are available. In the process
of collecting the data it was observed that some personal
ities tend to check many items while others check practi
cally none. Since the ICL is not a forced choice tech
nique, this tendency to check many or few items could re
sult in different scores based on factors other than com
munication, empathy, or similarity of perceptions. This
latter limitation was in part accounted for through statis
tical techniques.
The refusal rate of some church groups to cooperate
in the study, as well as the selection process by the coun
selors cooperating in the study in administering the ques
tionnaires to their clients, introduces additional un
knowns .
Summary
The sample for this study was obtained by having
married couples in church groups respond to the question
naires and by administering questionnaires to couples
entering marriage counseling. Only couples with minor
children living in the home were included in the sample.
One hundred sets of questionnaires (200 individuals), fifty
125
adjusted couples and fifty unadjusted couples, made up the
total sample. The sample is primarily young adult, Cau
casian, and upper middle class. Approximately two-thirds
of the sample was Protestant and twenty-five per cent were
Jewish. The educational level was relatively high. The
couples had been married on an average of approximately
eleven years. Most of the individuals in both groups had
not been previously married; however, between eight and
sixteen per cent were previously married. Both groups
averaged slightly over two children.
Statistical techniques used for testing differences
between means and degree of association were the t-ratio
and the Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation.
Both raw scores and percentage of items checked were
treated statistically. The questionnaires administered
included a face sheet requesting sociological information,
the Wallace Marital Success Test, and the Interpersonal
Check List. Mean adjustment scores for the unadjusted men
and women were 68.0 and 65.2, respectively. Mean adjust
ment scores for the adjusted group were 125.2 for the men
and 127.6 for the women. Correlations between adjustment
scores for husbands and wives were relatively low. For
the unadjusted men and women adjustment scores correlated
at .20, while for the adjusted sample the correlation was
. 46.
The Interpersonal Check List was reviewed and found
to be especially useful in the measurement of family dynam
ics. Test-retest reliability correlations for the eight
trait areas had a mean of .78.
The following are possible limitations of the study
couples obtained through married couples clubs could be
different from couples not belonging to such groups; cou
ples attending meetings could be different from couples not
attending; not all groups contacted agreed to cooperate in
the study; there are differences between the adjusted and
unadjusted groups, particularly in the areas of religion,
education, and income; the selection process eliminating
some couples based on adjustment scores could introduce a
bias; the sample represents a very limited segment of the
general population; personalities tend to respond differ
ently on the ICL, especially in relation to the number of
items checked; counselors did not administer the question
naire to every couple entering counseling who would have
been appropriate for the study; and couples entering mar
riage counseling were not controlled for membership in
couples clubs.
CHAPTER IV
SELF PERCEPTION AND MATE PERCEPTION
This chapter will present mean octant raw scores
for the four subgroups, along with tests of significance
between the adjusted and unadjusted men and between the
adjusted and unadjusted women. This technique is somewhat
different from the one used by Kotlar. The comparisons of
scores made by Kotlar were based on summation scores, Dorn
and Lov,^ which were not computed for this project.
In addition, discrepancy scores comparing the hus
bands* perception of themselves (HIH) as compared to their
wives' perception of them (WIH), wives' perception of
themselves (WIW) as compared to their husbands' perception
of them (HIW), and the total of these two discrepancies
Sally Lee Kotlar, "Middle Class Marital Roles--
Ideal and Perceived in Relation to Adjustment in Marriage,"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, 1961), pp. 97-100.
127
128
will be presented. Comparisons will be made using raw
score discrepancies and percentage score discrepancies.
Correlations for each of the four subgroups' discrepancy
scores and marital success scores will also be included.
Husbands
Table 6 shows the mean octant raw scores for the
adjusted and unadjusted husbands. A review of these scores
indicates that there is a significant difference between
the two groups on three of the octants: DE--Blunt-Aggres-
sive,^ FG--Skeptical-Distrustful,^ and HI--Modest-Self-
4
effacing. These three octants represent the hostile-weak
dimension of the ICL. It is possible to compare these dif
ferences with the ones found by Kotlar. In the Kotlar study
no significant difference was found on the Dom dimension;
however, there was a significant difference between the
adjusted and unadjusted husbands on the Lov dimension."*
The present findings would suggest that specific categories
on the ICL may contribute more specifically to the differ-
Self Perceptions
2
The t was 2.7.
3,
The t was 3.8.
4
The t was 2.3.
5
Ibid., pp. 114-116.
129
TABLE 6
MEANS OF ICL OCTANT RAW SCORES FOR ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED MALES ON SELF-PERCEPTION WITH
t-SCORES FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE MEANS
Adjusted Unadjusted
Octant Males Males t
N=50 N=50
AP Managerial-Autocratic 4.68 5.48 1.3
BC Competitive-Exploitative 4.84 5.22 0.7
DE Blunt-Aggressive 4.44 5.80 2.7
FG Skeptical-Distrustful 2.74 4.58 3.8
HI Modest-Self-effacing 3.06 4.14 2.3
JK Docile-Dependent 3.32 4.08 1.6
LM Cooperative-Overconventional 4.68 4.86 0.3
NO Responsible-Overgenerous 3.96 4.10 0.2
130
ence than all categories combined.
Wives
The pattern of scores in the octants for the wives
was somewhat different from the pattern for the husbands.
Table 7 presents the mean octant scores for the wives.
Four of the octants showed significant differences between
the adjusted and unadjusted women: FG--Skeptical-Distrust-
r 7 8
ful; HI--Modest-Self-effacing; JK--Docile-Dependent; and
Q
NO--Responsible-Overgenerous. The pattern of significant
differences suggests that unadjusted wives rate themselves
as more submissive than do adjusted wives. A comparison
with the Kotlar study indicates that she found significant
differences on both the Dom and Lov dimensions."^ The
meaning, however, of the present findings could lead to a
different interpretation from the Kotlar findings. The
present findings would suggest that unadjusted wives tend
to rate themselves more submissive than adjusted wives.
This is not the same as stating that adjusted wives rate
6
The t was 4.1.
7
The t was 3.0.
8
The t was 3.1.
9
The t was 3.4.
10
Ibid., pp. 116-117.
131
TABLE 7
MEANS OF ICL OCTANT RAW SCORES FOR ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED FEMALES ON SELF-PERCEPTION WITH
t-SCORES FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE MEANS
Adjusted Unadjusted
Octant Females Females t
N=50 N=50
AP Managerial-Autocratic 3.40 3.42 0.0
BC Competitive-Exploitative 3.04 3.46 1.0
DE Blunt-Aggressive 3.92 4.48 1.1
FG Skeptical-Distrustful 3.20 5.14 4.1
HI Modest-Self-effacing 4.08 5.76 3.0
JK Docile-Dependent 4.18 5.84 3.1
LM Cooperative-Overconventional 4.66 5.54 1.7
NO Responsible-Overgenerous 3.46 5.26 3.4
132
themselves higher in dominance than unadjusted wives.
Another way to state this is that adjusted wives may see
themselves as neither dominant nor submissive. The differ
ences found by Kotlar once again could be a result of spe
cific octant differences as opposed to total differences.
For example, the difference on the Dom dimension might be
accounted for in part by differences in the HI score, but
not at all by differences in the AP score. Such interpre
tations are tentative at this time and should be investi
gated further.
Mate Perceptions
Husbands' perceptions of their
wives
Husbands in the adjusted group perceive their wives
11
as being less Skeptical-Distrustful and more Cooperative-
12
Overconventional. The difference on the Responsible-
Overgenerous octant fell just below the .05 level of sig-
13
nificance. On the other specific octants, no significant
differences were found between the mean raw scores of the
^The t was 5.1.
^The t was 1.9.
12 „ ,
The t was 2.1.
adjusted and unadjusted husbands.
133
Wives1 perceptions of their
husbands
Table 9 shows that the two groups of wives differ
significantly on four of the octants: BC--Competitive-
Exploitative;^ DE--Blunt-Aggressive; ^ FG--Skeptical-
16 17
Distrustful; and NO--Responsible-Overgenerous. The
three continuous categories of BC, DE, and FG represent the
hostility dimension. Thus, these findings suggest that the
unadjusted wives perceive their husbands as more hostile
than do the adjusted wives. There is also some support
that the adjusted wives perceive their husbands as slightly
more affectionate than do the unadjusted wives.
Luckey correlated items on the ICL with marital
satisfaction.^® She states,
The data permit the conclusion that individu
als who indicate that their marriages were not
satisfactory saw their spouses differently from
individuals who indicated that their marriages
were happy. Unsatisfied persons described their
■^The t was 3.0. ^The t was 3.1.
16The T was 6.2. 17The t was 2.5.
18
Eleanore Braun Luckey, "Marital Satisfaction and
Personality Correlates of Spouse," Journal of Marriage and
the Family. XXVI (May, 1964), 217-220.
134
TABLE 8
MEANS OF ICL OCTANT RAW SCORES FOR ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED MALES' MATE PERCEPTION WITH
t-SCORES FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE MEANS
Adjusted Unadjusted
Octant Males Males t
N=50 N=50
AP Managerial-Autocratic 5.40 4.56 1.5
BC Competitive-Exploitative 3.50 3.72 0.4
DE Blunt-Aggressive 4.28 4.42 0.2
FG Skeptical-Distrustful 3.10 5.92 5.1
HI Modest-Self-effacing 3.04 3.66 1.1
JK Docile-Dependent 3.44 4.00 0.9
LM Cooperative-Overconventional 5.34 3.94 2.1
NO Responsible-Overgenerous 4.74 3.46 1.9
135
TABLE 9
MEANS OF ICL OCTANT RAW SCORES FOR ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED FEMALES' MATE PERCEPTIONS WITH
t-SCORES FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE MEANS
Octant
Adjusted
Females
N=50
Unadjusted
Females
N=50
t
AP Managerial-Autocratic 5.84 6.36 0.8
BC Competitive-Exploitative 4.82 6.46 3.0
DE Blunt-Aggressive 4.16 6.02 3.1
FG Skeptical-Distrustful 2.64 6.32 6.2
HI Modest-Self-effacing 2.28 2.78 1.1
JK Doc ile-Dependent 2.54 3.10 1.2
LM Cooperative-Overconventional 4.62 4.22 0.7
NO Responsible-Overgenerous 3.96 4.10 0.2
136
mates as having more extreme or intense qualities
and as being decidedly more skeptical and distrust
ful, blunt and aggressive. Satisfied persons, on
the other hand, attributed moderate qualities to
their spouses and saw them primarily as responsi
ble, generous, cooperative, and conventional. On
the dimension of dominance versus docility, satis
fied subjects saw their spouses as being either
very managerial or very modest; the dissatisfied
subjects claimed their spouses were either too
dictatorial or too passive.^
The findings of the present study support those of this
study, especially on the questions of differences in hos
tility and passivity.
Once again the question must be raised as to wheth
er it is accurate to state that less hostility is the same
as more affection. The present findings suggest that the
adjusted wives perceive their husbands as less hostile but
only slightly more affectionate than do the unadjusted
wives. In reporting her findings Kotlar states,
The husbands in the unadjusted group were per
ceived by their wives as being significantly
less affectionate than the husbands in the
adjusted group were p e r c e i v e d .20
It is possible that her findings could be interpreted as
the following: the husbands in the unadjusted group were
19Ibid., p. 220.
90
Kotlar, op. cit.. p. 118.
137
perceived by the wives as being significantly more hostile
than the husbands in the adjusted group were perceived. At
this point only the question can be raised.
Self-Mate Discrepancy Scores
Discrepancy scores for the total sample were ob
tained in two ways: (1) total number of items checked in
each octant to describe a self was subtracted from the
total number of items checked by the mate to describe that
self. Separate computations were made for each octant and
« * »
the total difference became the discrepancy score for that
couple. Mean scores of the adjusted and unadjusted couple
were then compared. (2) Percentage of total items checked
in each octant (percentage of total items checked by that
individual) were computed and totaled in a similar fashion
to that using raw scores.
This technique is used to test the first major
hypothesis of this study:
Hypothesis I--The greater the degree of similarity
between the mate’s self-perception and the spouse's
perception of that self, the greater will be the
degree of marital adjustment.
Utilizing the symbols, the hypothesis can be restated as:
138
1. The greater the similarity between HIW and WIW,
the greater the degree of marital adjustment.
2. The greater the similarity between HIH and WIH,
the greater the degree of marital adjustment.
This hypothesis is one presented by Kotlar and was sup
ported by her study. As was noted above, the same hypoth
esis is being tested; however, with a different approach to
the scores.
Raw score comparisons--HIH-WIH
The range of total discrepancy scores for the
unadjusted group was from 9 to 46, while for the adjusted
couples it was from 5 to 43. The mean of the adjusted
group scores was 18.2. The mean discrepancy score for the
unadjusted sample was 25.3. The difference between the
21
means was significant beyond the .01 level. This score
supports the findings of Kotlar, who obtained a t-ratio of
2.53 when comparing discrepancy scores of husbands' self-
perceptions and wives' perceptions of those s e l v e s . ^
The correlation between discrepancy scores and the
^The t was 4.58.
^Kotlar, op. cit. , p. 124.
)
139
Marital Success Test for the adjusted men was .11 and for
the unadjusted men -.17. The correlation for the wives
was -.07 and -.20 for the adjusted and unadjusted women,
respectively.
Percentage comparisons--HIH-WIH
In order to control for differences in number of
items checked by husbands and wives, percentage comparisons
were also made. The range of discrepancy scores for the
unadjusted group was from 22.8 to 105.2 and for the adjusted
group the scores ranged from 10.8 to 117.6. The means for
the adjusted and unadjusted groups were 51.7 and 57.2,
respectively. The difference between the means fell
slightly below the .05 level of significance.^ The dif
ference between the t-ratios when comparing raw scores and
percentage scores suggests that both the pattern of self
perceptions and the intensity of those perceptions, when
taken together, are related to difficulties in their inter
personal relations. The pattern of self-perceptions taken
alone was not predictive.
Correlations between percentage discrepancy scores
^The t was 1. 78 .
140
and the Marital Success Test for the adjusted and unad
justed men were -.07 and .06, respectively. For the wives
the correlations were -.33 for the adjusted women and -.20
for the unadjusted women. These correlational scores sug
gest a stronger relationship between similarity of percep
tion of the husband and marital adjustment for wives than
for husbands. The correlations do not support a relation
ship between similarity of perception for husbands and
their marital adjustment scores. It must be noted, how
ever, that all of the correlations between discrepancy
scores and the Marital Success Test reported here and in
later sections are likely to be of limited value due to the
low level of correlation between husbands' and wives'
scores on the Marital Success Test.
Raw score comparisons --WIW-HIW
The discrepancy scores between the wives' self
perceptions and their husbands' perceptions of them in the
unadjusted group ranged from 9 to 42, while for the
adjusted group the scores ranged from 6 to 43. Means for
the adjusted and unadjusted groups were 19.2 and 23.5,
respectively. There was a significant difference between
141
2 B
the mean discrepancy scores of the two groups. This
significant difference is in contrast to the findings of
25
Kotlar, where no significant difference was found. The
difference was smaller than in perceptions of the husband
but was significant and consistent with the hypothesis.
Correlations between discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test for the adjusted men were .21 and for
the unadjusted men -.25. These correlations are contra
dictory and follow the same pattern as the correlations
dealing with perceptions of the husband. Correlations for
the wives were .10 and -.10 for the adjusted and unadjusted
groups, respectively. Since all of these correlations are
of relatively low order, no conclusion could be drawn from
them.
Percentage comparisons --WIW-HIW
The range of scores for the unadjusted group was
from 20.5 to 115.8 with a mean of 56.3. For the adjusted
group the scores ranged from 10.5 to 148.1 and a mean of
56.3. As may be noted, the two means are identical.
24
The t was 2.57.
25
Kotlar, op. cit.. p. 122.
142
Again, the t-ratio for the raw score comparison was signif
icant; however, when the percentage control was used no
significant difference was found.
All of the correlations of discrepancy scores and
the Marital Success Test for this variable were relatively
low and not significant.
Raw score comparisons--Total:
HIH-WIH plus WIW-HIW
Total discrepancy scores were computed combining
differences in perception of each mate. The discrepancy
scores ranged from 28 to 86 for the unadjusted group, with
a mean of 48.8. The adjusted couples1 scores ranged from
18 to 86, with a mean of 37.4. There was a significant
difference between the total mean discrepancy scores of the
7f\
two groups. This t-ratio compares to a t of 2.83
? 7
reported by Kotlar. The level of significance found in
this study was significant beyond the .01 level.
Correlations between the total discrepancy scores
and the Marital Success Test was .18 for the adjusted men,
-.25 for the unadjusted men, .02 for the adjusted women,
^The t was 4.07.
27
Kotlar, op. cit., p. 124.
and -.17 for the unadjusted women.
Percentage comparisons --Total:
HIH-WIH plus WIW-HIW
The ranges of scores for the unadjusted group was
from 62.7 to 216.6. For the adjusted couples the range was
from 31.4 to 214.8. The means for these two groups were
108.0 for the adjusted couples and 113.5 for the unadjusted
couples. The difference between the means was not signifi-
- 28
cant.
Correlations for each of the subgroups’ discrepancy
scores and the Marital Success Test were of a low negative
order and not significant.
29
A comparison of the two sets of t-ratios obtained
shows differing results. All of the t-scores comparing the
raw discrepancy means were significant; however, none of
the t-scores comparing percentage means were significant.
The raw discrepancy t-scores support the hypothesis that a
low discrepancy between an individual's self-perception and
his mate’s perception of that self is related to marital
adjustment as defined for this study. This difference
28The t was 0.78.
2^See Tables 10 and 11, pp. 144 and 145.
144
TABLE 10
MEAN OF RAW DISCREPANCY SCORES FOR ADJUSTED
AND UNADJUSTED GROUPS WITH t-SCORES FOR
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEANS
Category
Adjusted
Group
N=50
Unadjusted
Group
N-50
t
Self-perception of husbands
versus wives 1 perception
of husbands 18.2 25.3 4.58
Self-perception of wives
versus husbands1 percep
tion of wives 19.2 23.5 2.57
Total self-perception
versus mate's perception
of that self 37.4 48.8 4.07
145
TABLE 11
MEAN OF PERCENTAGE DISCREPANCY SCORES FOR
ADJUSTED AND UNADJUSTED GROUPS WITH
t-SCORES FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE MEANS
Category
Adjusted
Group
N=50
Unadjusted
Group
N=50
t
Self-perception
versus wives'
of husbands
of husbands
perception
51.7 57.2 1.78
Self-perception of wives
versus husbands' percep
tion of wives 56.3 56.3 0.0
Total self-perception
versus mate's perception
of that self 108.0 113.5 0.78
146
appears to be significant combining perceiving the spouse
as having different characteristics, as well as perceiving
the spouse as having a greater or less intensity of the
characteristics. The differences found were significant
for discrepancies in perception of the husband and the
wife. The specific correlations between the discrepancy
scores and the Marital Success Test were, however, incon
sistent and mostly insignificant.
Summary
The unadjusted husbands perceived themselves sig
nificantly higher on the Blunt-Aggressive, Skeptical-
Distrustful, and Modest-Self-effacing octants. The unad
justed wives perceived themselves as significantly higher
in the Skeptical-Distrustful, Modest-Self-effacing, Docile-
Dependent, and Responsible-Overgenerous octants. The pat
terns of these differences indicate the hostility dimension
as the main difference between the two groups. For the
wives, responses also suggest that the unadjusted wives
consider themselves more submissive than do the adjusted
wives. It was emphasized that differences in submissive
ness or hostility are not necessarily associated with
differences in dominance and affection.
147
When considering mate perceptions, it was found
that the unadjusted husbands perceived their wives as more
Skeptical-Distrustful but less Cooperative-Overconvention-
al. The unadjusted wives perceived their husbands as being
higher in the Competitive-Exploitative, Blunt-Aggressive,
and Skeptical-Distrustful octants. These findings suggest
that unadjusted wives perceive their husbands as more hos
tile than do the adjusted wives. The only category that
did not show a significant difference on any of the compar
isons was in the Managerial-Autocratic octant.
Discrepancy scores were obtained by two methods:
(1) by comparing differences in raw scores for each octant,
and (2) by comparing the percentage of total items checked
in each octant.
The hypothesis that greater similarity between
self-perception and the spouse's perception of that self
would be related to marital adjustment was supported by the
raw score comparisons. There were significant differences
between the adjusted and unadjusted groups when comparing
self-perceptions of husbands versus wives' perceptions of
husbands, self-perceptions of wives versus husbands' per
ceptions of wives, and total seIf-perceptions versus mates'
perceptions of that self. The comparisons using the
148
percentage method resulted in no significant differences
between the two groups on the same three comparisons.
Evaluations of these differences suggest that both
a difference in pattern and intensity of perceptions be
tween mates is associated with their feeling about their
interpersonal relationships. The findings suggest that
when a discrepancy only in the pattern of perceptions
between mates is considered, this is not sufficient for
differentiating adjustment in marriage. For example, both
husband and wife may perceive the wife as being a hostile,
submissive person, but their main difference in attitude
could be in the degree of her hostility and submissiveness.
The findings are consistent with the theoretical position
that discrepancies in mate perceptions are related to in
terpersonal difficulties.
Correlations between the discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test, utilizing both the raw score and per
centage score techniques, were inconsistent, mostly insig
nificant, and at times contradictory. It was felt that
this was due partly to the lack of correlation between hus
bands' and wives' scores on the Marital Success Test. No
conclusions could be drawn from the correlations obtained.
CHAPTER V
EMPATHY AND SELF PERCEPTIONS
Empathy has been operationally defined as the cor
rect prediction of a mate's responses by a husband or wife
on the Interpersonal Check List. This chapter will first
present the mean raw scores in each octant for the re
sponses indicating husbands' and wives' predictions of
their mates' responses to the ICL. This will include four
categories: (1) husband's prediction of wife's perception
of him (HPWIH), (2) husband's prediction of wife's percep
tion of herself (HPWIW), (3) wife's prediction of husband's
perception of her (WPHIW), and (4) wife's prediction of
husband's perception of himself (WPHIH). The mean octant
scores for the four subgroups, along with tests of signif
icance between the adjusted and unadjusted men and the
adjusted and unadjusted women, are presented. In addition,
discrepancy scores comparing individual self-perceptions
and the mate's prediction of that self-perception are
149
150
presented. Again, both raw discrepancy scores and per
centage discrepancy scores were included in the data ana
lyzed. Correlations for the four adjustment groups' dis
crepancy scores and marital success scores are reported.
Predictions of Mates' Perceptions
Husbands' predictions of wives1
perceptions of their husbands
When husbands were requested to predict which items
their wives would check in describing them, the unadjusted
husbands indicated that their wives saw them as signifi-
1 2
cantly more Competitive-Exploitative, Blunt-Aggressive,
3
and Skeptical-Distrustful, but less Cooperative-Overcon-
ventional^ and Responsible-Overgenerous.^ In this case,
the dimensions dealing with hostility and affection appear
to be more important in separating the two groups than the
dominance and submissiveness dimensions. There is also
some evidence that the husbands were correct with respect
to the hostility predictions, but incorrect with regard to
their predictions about the affection dimension.
■^The t was 2.5. ^The t was 2.9.
^The t was 4.5. ^The t was 2.1.
^The t was 2.4.
151
TABLE 12
MEANS OF ICL OCTANT RAW SCORES FOR ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED HUSBANDS' PREDICTIONS OF
WIVES' PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR HUSBANDS
WITH t-SCORES FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE MEANS
Octant
AP Managerial-Autocratic
BC Competitive-Exploitative
DE Blunt-Aggressive
FG Skeptical-Distrustful
HI Modest-Self-effacing
JK Docile-Dependent
LM Cooperative-Overconven-
tional
NO Responsible-Overgenerous
Adjusted Unadjusted
Husbands Husbands t
N=50 N=50
5.82 6.48 1.1
4.80 6.30 2.5
4.24 6.04 2.9
2.92 5.66 4.5
2.52 2.70 0.4
2.48 2.80 0.6
4.80 3.46 2.1
3.74 2.30 2.4
152
Wives' predictions of husbands'
perceptions of their wives
Table 13 shows that the adjusted and unadjusted
wives differed significantly on two of the octants: BC--
Competitive-Exploitative^ and FG--Skeptical-Distrustful.^
Both the LM and NO octants show some difference in the
hypothesized directions; however, the t-ratios were not
significant. When the wives' predictions are compared with
the actual perceptions of their husbands, it is found that
they are correct in their predictions regarding the FG
octant but not for the BC octant. There is also enough
similarity on the LM and NO octants to warrant further
investigation.
Husbands' predictions of wives'
perceptions of themselves
As Table 14 indicates, the two groups differed on
g
only one category: FG--Skeptical-Distrustful. Means for
the rest of the octants were very similar and were not
significant. As was reported in Chapter IV, self-percep
tions of females in the adjusted and unadjusted groups
f l
The t was 2.1.
®The t was 2.3.
^The t was 5.0.
153
TABLE 13
MEANS OF ICL OCTANT RAW SCORES FOR ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED WIVES' PREDICTIONS OF HUSBANDS'
PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR WIVES WITH t-SCORES
FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEANS
Octant
Adjusted
Wives
N=50
Unadjusted
Wives
N=50
t
AP Managerial-Autocratic 4.30 4.70 0.7
BC Competitive-Exploitative 3.14 4.28 2.1
DE Blun t-Aggre s s ive 3.82 4.52 1.2
FG Skeptical-Distrustful 3.38 6.56 5.0
HI Modest-Self-effacing 2.94 3.14 0.4
JK Doc ile-Dependent 3.18 2.94 0.4
LM Cooperative-Overconven-
tional 4.58 3.48 1.8
NO Responsible-Overgenerous 3.54 2.58 1.6
154
TABLE 14
MEANS OF ICL OCTANT RAW SCORES FOR ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED HUSBANDS' PREDICTIONS OF WIVES'
PERCEPTIONS OF THEMSELVES WITH t-SCORES
FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEANS
Octant
Adjusted
Husbands
N=50
Unadjusted
Husbands
N-50
t
AP Managerial-Autocratic 3.98 3.52 0.8
BC Competitive-Exploitative 3.62 3.70 0.1
DE Blunt-Aggres s ive 4.24 4.28 0.1
FG Skeptical-Distrustful 3.08 4.30 2.3
HI Modest-Self-effacing 3.44 3.88 0.8
JK Docile-Dependent 3.88 3.88 0.0
LM Cooperative-Overconventional 5.34 4.88 0.7
NO Respons ible-Overgenerous 4.44 4.48 0.1
155
differed on four of the octants: FG, HI, JK, and NO. A
more detailed interpretation of the differences between
predicted self-perception and actual self-perception is
presented in the sections dealing with discrepancy scores.
Wives' predictions of husbands1
perceptions of themselves
A pattern very similar to the husbands' predictions
was found for the wives. The only category in which a sig
nificant difference was found between the means for ad-
9
justed and unadjusted wives was FG--Skeptical-Distrustful.
A review of the seIf-perception, mate perception, and pre
diction of perception scores indicates that the FG octant
is the only one which significantly differs for husbands
and wives. It is possible that the sixteen items which
make up this octant could be administered in several ways,
as was done in this study, as a method of differentiating
spouses into adjusted and unadjusted groups. It may also
be possible eventually to select items which could be pre
dictive of marital prognosis by selecting items from those
categories which best differentiate adjustment and unad
justment in marriage.
^The t was 2.9.
156
TABLE 15
MEANS OF ICL OCTANT RAW SCORES FOR ADJUSTED AND
UNADJUSTED WIVES' PREDICTIONS OF HUSBANDS'
PERCEPTIONS OF THEMSELVES WITH t-SCORES
FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEANS
Adjusted Unadjusted
Octant Wives Wives t
N=50 N=50
AP Managerial-Autocratic 4.86 5.56 1.1
BC Competitive-Exploitative 5.08 5.76 1.4
DE Blunt-Aggressive 4.56 5.36 1.5
FG Skeptical-Distrustful 2.54 3.84 2.9
HI Modest-Self-effacing 2.48 2.62 0.3
JK Docile-Dependent 2.36 2.62 0.6
LM Cooperative-Overcontentional 4.36 5.12 1.3
NO Responsible-Overgenerous 3.42 4.02 1.0
157
Empathy Discrepancy Scores
Discrepancy scores
The major hypothesis tested was:
Hypothesis II--The greater the degree of similarity
between the mate's predicted perception of the self
by the spouse and the spouse's actual perception,
the greater will be the degree of marital adjust
ment .
Utilizing the symbols, this hypothesis summarizes the four
following statements:
1. The greater the similarity between HIH and
WPHIH, the greater the degree of marital ad
justment.
2. The greater the similarity between WIW and
HPWIW, the greater the degree of marital
adjus tment.
3. The greater the similarity between HIW and
WPHIW, the greater the degree of marital
adjustment.
4. The greater the similarity between WIH and
HPWIH, the greater the degree of marital
adjustment.
158
Raw score comparisons--HIH-WPHIH
The range of discrepancy scores for the unadjusted
group was from 10 to 50, with a mean of 22.6. The adjusted
group's discrepancy scores ranged from 5 to 42, with a mean
of 18.0. The difference between the means was significant
just beyond the .01 level.'*'®
Correlations between the discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test were insignificant for husbands and
wives in both the adjusted and unadjusted groups.
Percentage comparisons --HIH-WPHIH
The range of discrepancy scores for the unadjusted
group was from 15.7 to 107.4, with a mean of 54.5. For the
adjusted group the discrepancy scores ranged from 8.9 to
112.5, with a mean of 49.2. The difference between the
means was in the expected direction but was not signifi-
i- 11
cant.
As with the raw score comparisons, none of the
correlations between these discrepancy scores and the Mari
tal Success Test were significant. The highest correlation
obtained was -.12 for the adjusted women.
'*'®The t was 2.64. ^The t was 1.60
159
Raw score comparisons--WIW-HPWIW
The discrepancy scores between the wives' self-
perceptions and their husbands' predictions of those self-
perceptions ranged from 8 to 49 for the unadjusted group,
and 7 to 49 for the adjusted group. The means for these
two groups were 21.6 and 18.6. The difference between the
1 2
means was not significant.
Correlations between discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test were .21 for the adjusted men, -.12
for the unadjusted men, .06 for the adjusted women, and
-.25 for the unadjusted women. Once again it may be noted
that these correlations fail to show a consistent pattern.
Percentage comparisons--WIW-HPWIW
The range of scores for the unadjusted group was
from 11.9 to 106.7, with a mean of 50.7. For the adjusted
group the discrepancy scores ranged from 23.1 to 152.0,
with a mean of 54.7. The adjusted group had a higher and
wider range of scores than did the unadjusted group. Fur
ther, the difference in means was in a direction opposite
to that hypothesized. This difference was not significant,
•^The t was 1.83.
160
however.^
Correlations ranged from -.02 to -.17 and were not
significant.
Raw score comparisons--HIW-WPHIW
The discrepancy scores between the husband's per
ception of his wife and the wife's prediction of that per
ception ranged from 7 to 54 in the unadjusted group, and
from 5 to 45 for the adjusted group. The means were 21.2
and 19.1. Although the means were in the hypothesized
direction the difference between them was not signifi-
14
cant.
Correlations between the discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test ranged from .01 to .18 and were not
significant.
Percentage comparisons--HIW-WPHIW
Discrepancy scores for the unadjusted group ranged
from 13.0 to 101.0, with a mean of 54.5. For the adjusted
group the range was from 15.9 to 126.8, with a mean of
53.7. The difference between the means was not
13The t was 0.85. ^The t was 1.13.
161
significant.
Correlations between discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test for the unadjusted men were .17 and
for the adjusted men -.08. For the unadjusted women the
correlation was .31 while for the adjusted women it was
-.11. Although the .31 correlation is within the signifi
cant range, it is doubtful that this has much meaning, as
none of the other correlations were significant and a con
sistent pattern was not observable.
Raw score comparisons --WIH-HPWIH
The discrepancy scores between the wives' percep
tions of their husbands and the husbands' predictions of
those perceptions in the unadjusted group ranged from 9 to
52, with a mean of 23.1. For the adjusted group the dis
crepancy scores ranged from 7 to 43, with a mean of 19.1.
The difference between the means was significant at the .05
i i 16
level.
Correlations ranged from .01 to -.19 for the four
subgroups and were not significant.
^The t was 0.16.
16
The t was 2.19.
162
Percentage comparisons --WIH-HPWIH
The range of scores for the unadjusted group was
from 14.0 to 130.8, with a mean of 52.0. For the adjusted
group the discrepancy scores ranged from 24.6 to 133.3,
with a mean of 53.6. Once again, the adjusted group had a
slightly larger mean discrepancy score than did the ad
justed group but this difference was not significant.-^
While the two reversals of means occurred in asso
ciation with differences in self-perception and the hus
bands' prediction of those self-perceptions, the low order
of the differences do not allow conclusions to be drawn.
It may also be noted that these reversals occurred only in
the percentage discrepancy comparisons. All of the differ
ences between means in the raw scores were in the hypothe
sized direction.
Correlations between discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test were -.12 for the adjusted men, .06
for the unadjusted men, -.46 for the adjusted women, and
.04 for the unadjusted women. The -.46 correlation was the
highest one obtained and is by itself significant. When
considered in the light of the other correlations it is
■^The t was 0.33.
163
very difficult to draw conclusions from this correlation.
Raw score comparisons --Total;
HIH-WPHIH plus WIW-HPWIW
Total discrepancy scores were computed combining
each mate's self-perception and their spouse's prediction
of that self-perception. The discrepancy scores ranged
from 27 to 99 in the unadjusted group and from 12 to 91 in
the adjusted group. The means for the unadjusted and
adjusted groups were 44.2 and 36.6, respectively. There
was a significant difference between the total mean dis-
"I O
crepancy scores of the two groups.
None of the correlations between the total discrep
ancy scores and the Marital Success Test were significant.
Percentage comparisons--Total:
HIH-WPHIH plus WIW-HPWIW
The range of scores for the unadjusted group was
from 58.8 to 186.3, with a mean of 105.2. For the adjusted
group the discrepancy scores ranged from 38.9 to 214.4,
with a mean of 104.0. The difference between the means was
not significant.-^
18
The t was 2.61.
19
The t was 0.17.
164
As with the raw score comparisons, the correlations
were of low order and not significant.
Raw score comparisons --Total:
HIW-WPHIW plus WIH-HPWIH
Discrepancies between the mate’s perception of his
spouse and the spouse's prediction of that perception were
summated. The discrepancy scores of the adjusted group
ranged from 15 to 88, with a mean of 38.1. For the unad
justed group the range was from 25 to 94, with a mean of
44.3. The t-ratio for the means was just below the .05
? fl
level of significance. w
The correlations for the four subgroups ranged from
.01 to .13 and were not significant.
Percentage comparisons--Total:
HIW-WPHIW plus WIH-HPWIH
For the unadjusted group the discrepancy scores
ranged from 51.7 to 218.8, with a mean of 106.5. The
adjusted group had discrepancy scores ranging from 40.4 to
243.1, with a mean of 107.3. The difference between the
O 1
means was not significant. • L
^The t was 1.96. With 98 degrees of freedom, a t
of 1.98 is needed for significance at the .05 level.
^The t was 0.10.
165
Correlations between these discrepancy scores and
the Marital Success Test were -.12 for the adjusted men,
.13 for the unadjusted men, -.34 for the adjusted women,
and .20 for the unadjusted women.
Discussion
Table 16 presents the mean raw and percentage dis
crepancy scores with the t-ratios for the difference be
tween the means. A review of this table indicates some
relationship between empathic accuracy in marriage and
marriage adjustment. Significant differences were found
only when comparing raw score discrepancies. None of the
percentage score discrepancies resulted in significant
differences between the adjusted and unadjusted groups.
This difference between the two techniques of analyzing the
data could again be interpreted as meaning that differences
in quality and quantity of the perception of the other as
compared to the mate's prediction of that perception is
related to marital adjustment. Further review of the table
suggests that this relationship exists for perceptions of
the husband's self but not for the wife's self. Thus sig
nificant differences were found in discrepancies between
the husbands' self-perceptions and their wives' predictions
TABLE 16
MEANS OF RAW AND PERCENTAGE DISCREPANCY SCORES FOR THE ADJUSTED
AND UNADJUSTED GROUPS WITH t-SCORES FOR
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEANS
Category
Adjusted
Group
N=50
Raw
Unadjusted
Group
N=50
Raw
t
Adjusted
Group
N=50
Percentage
Unadjusted
Group
N=50
Percentage
t
HIH-WPHIH 18.0 22.6 2.64 49.2 54.5 1.60
WIW-HPWIW 18.6 21.6 1.83 54.7 50.7 0.85
HIW-WPHIW 19.1 21.2 1.13 53.7 54.5 0.16
WIH-HPWIH 19.1 23.1 2.19 53.6 52.0 0.33
HIH-WPHIH + WIW-HPWIW 36.6 44.2 2.61 104.0 105.2 0.17
HIW-WPHIW + WIH-HPWIH 38.1 44.3 1.96 107.3 106.5 0.10
167
of those selves, and between the wives' perceptions of the
husbands' selves and the husbands' predictions of their
wives' perceptions of them. It was also found for raw
score discrepancies that the total discrepancy between a
self-perception and the spouse's prediction of that self-
perception was related to adjustment. The total discrep
ancy between perception of a mate and that mate's predic
tion of the perception was just below the .05 level of sig
nificance. Specific and scattered correlations between
these empathic categories and the Marital Success Test were
also found; however, there was no consistent pattern to
9 9
these correlations. Dymond's study showed a relationship
between accurate predictions of marital partners' self
concepts and marital satisfaction. Her testing, however,
utilized a forced choice technique which was not employed
in this study. Furthermore, Dymond's sample consisted of
only fifteen couples. The studies of Corsini^ and Locke,
22
Rosalind Dymond, "The Relation of Accuracy of
Perception of Spouse and Marital Happiness," American
Psychologist, VIII (1953), 344.
23
Raymond J. Corsini, "Understanding and Similarity
in Marriage," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
LI I (1956), 327-332.
168
Sabagh, and Thornes^ did not find a relationship between
empathy and marital adjustment. Some limitations are also
apparent, however, in each of these studies. Corsini's
sample consisted of twenty university student couples and
the Locke study utilized a previously unvalidated test.
The findings of this study fail to allow for a clear state
ment in support of either position. There is some evidence
based on the findings of this project that some relation
ship does exist between marital adjustment and empathy,
especially in relationship to perceptions of the husbands'
role.
Summary
Adjusted and unadjusted husbands differed in their
predictions of their wives' perceptions of them. The unad
justed husbands predicted that their wives perceived them
as more Competitive-Exploitative, Blunt-Aggressive, and
Skeptical-Distrustful. The unadjusted husbands also pre
dicted that their wives perceived them as less Cooperative-
Overconventional and Responsible-Overgenerous. The scores
^Harvey J. Locke, Georges Sabagh, and Mary Mar
garet Thornes, "Correlates of Primary Communication and
Empathy," Research Studies of the State College of Washing
ton, XXIV (1956), 116-124.
169
may be interpreted as meaning that unadjusted husbands
believe that, in general, their wives perceive them as more
hostile and less affectionate than do the adjusted hus
bands. The dominance and submissive dimensions appear to
have less influence in differentiating the two groups. For
the wives only two octants, Competitive-Exploitative and
Skeptical-Distrustful, resulted in significant differences.
When husbands and wives were requested to predict
how their mates perceived themselves, the only octant in
which a significant difference was found was Skeptical-
Distrustful. Both the unadjusted husbands and unadjusted
wives predicted that their mates perceived themselves as
more skeptical and distrustful than did the adjusted
spouses. The Skeptical-Distrustful octant was the only one
which differentiated between adjusted and unadjusted groups
in all of the comparisons made.
Empathy was operationally defined as the correct
prediction of a mate's responses by a husband or wife on
the Interpersonal Check List. Four major comparisons of
discrepancies between self-perceptions, mate perceptions,
and the predicted perceptions of those selves were made,
utilizing both the raw score and percentage score tech
niques. The hypothesis that greater similarity between a
170
mate's predicted perception of a self and the spouse's
actual perception was in part supported by the raw score
comparisons. Significant differences were found between
the two groups when comparing husbands' self-perceptions
versus their wives' predictions of those self-perceptions
and between the wives' perceptions of their husbands versus
the husbands' predictions of those perceptions. When com
bining categories of perceptions, a significant difference
was found between a spouse's self-perception and the mate's
prediction of what that self-perception is. Total dis
crepancy scores comparing mate perception versus the mate's
prediction of that perception fell just below a significant
level. None of the comparisons utilizing the percentage
method showed significant differences between the adjusted
and unadjusted groups.
The findings suggest that empathic accuracy is more
significant with respect to perceptions of the husband than
in perceptions of the wife. It is also likely that accu
racy of empathy in marriage is related to adjustment in the
interpersonal relationship. The differences found suggest
that the combined knowledge of the qualities of self-per
ception and the intensities attached to those qualities are
associated with adjustment in marriage.
171
Correlations between the discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test, utilizing both the raw score and per
centage score techniques, were mostly insignificant. It
was felt that no conclusions should be drawn from the cor
relations.
CHAPTER VI
INTRA-INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTIONS
Intra-individual perceptions represent the sub
jects' feeling about the similarity or discrepancy of self
perceptions. Previous findings reported compared responses
of the husband in one category to responses by the wife in
some related category. In this chapter discrepancy scores
represent differences in perception resulting from two sets
of responses by an individual. The four major categories
to be compared include: (1) discrepancies between husbands'
self-perception (HIH) and the husbands' predictions of
their wives' perceptions of them (HPWIH), (2) husbands'
perceptions of their wives (HIW) and the husbands' predic
tions of their wives' self-perceptions (HPWIW), (3) wives'
self-perceptions (WIW) and the wives' predictions of their
husbands' perceptions of them (WPHIW), and (4) wives' per
ceptions of their husbands (WIH) and the wives' predictions
of their husbands' perceptions of themselves (WPHIH).
172
173
Discrepancy scores in these four categories are presented,
along with correlations between discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test. Both raw discrepancy scores and per
centage discrepancy scores are included in the data ana
lyzed .
Intra-Individual Discrepancy Scores
Discrepancy scores
The major hypothesis tested was:
Hypothesis III--The greater the degree of similar
ity of a spouse's self-perception and the same
spouse's prediction of the mate's perception of
that self, the greater the degree of marital
adjustment.
Utilizing the symbols, this hypothesis summarizes the four
following statements:
1. The greater the similarity between HIH and
HPWIH, the greater the degree of marital ad
justment .
2. The greater the similarity between HIW and
HPWIW, the greater the degree of marital
adjustment.
174
3. The greater the similarity between WIW and
WPHIW, the greater the degree of marital
adjustment.
4. The greater the similarity between WIH and
WPHIH, the greater the degree of marital
adjustment.
Raw score comparisons--HIH-HPWIH
The discrepancy scores between husbands' self-per-
ceptions and the husbands' predictions of their wives' per
ceptions of them ranged from 5 to 45 in the unadjusted
group, and from 2 to 21 in the adjusted group. The unad
justed group mean was 18.6, while the adjusted group mean
was 10.6. The difference between the means was significant
beyond the .01 level.'*'
Correlations between the discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test were low and not significant for the
four subgroups.
Percentage comparisons--HIH-HPWIH
For the unadjusted group, discrepancy scores ranged
from 14.1 to 117.6, with a mean of 52.5. The adjusted
-*-The t was 6.15.
175
group's scores ranged from 7.5 to 100.0, with a mean of
36.0. The difference between the means was significant
beyond the .01 level.^ For this variable, discrepancy
scores differentiated between adjusted and unadjusted
couples utilizing both raw and percentage discrepancy
scores.
Correlations for the adjusted men and women were
not significant; however, for the unadjusted men the cor
relation was -.23 and for the unadjusted women -.33.
Raw score comparisons--HIW-HPWIW
Discrepancy scores between the husbands' percep
tions of their wives and the husbands' predictions of their
wives' self-perceptions ranged from 4 to 31 in the unad
justed group, and from 2 to 26 in the adjusted group. The
mean for the unadjusted group was 15.4 and for the adjusted
group it was 11.0. The difference between the means was
significant beyond the .01 level.
The only significant correlation between the dis
crepancy scores and the Marital Success Test was .21 for
the adjusted women.
^The t was 3.77. ^The t was 3.57.
176
Percentage comparisons--HIW-HPWIW
Discrepancy scores for the unadjusted group ranged
from 14.0 to 98.1, with a mean of 48.8. The adjusted
group's scores ranged from 7.9 to 150.0, with a mean of
38.3. The difference between the means was significant at
the .05 level.^
Correlations were .29 for the adjusted men, -.07
for the unadjusted men, .11 for the adjusted women, and
-.30 for the unadjusted women. The two significant corre
lations are in opposite directions and of doubtful meaning.
Raw score comparisons --WIW-WPHIW
Discrepancy scores between the wives' self-percep
tions and their predictions of their husbands' perceptions
of them ranged from 4 to 41 in the unadjusted group, with
a mean of 19.6. For the adjusted group the range was from
3 to 24, with a mean of 11.1. The difference between the
means was significant beyond the .01 level.^
The correlations for the four subgroups fell at
approximately -.13 and were not significant.
4
The t was 2.31.
5
The t was 6.39.
Ill
Percentage comparisons--WIW-WPHIW
For the unadjusted group the discrepancy scores
ranged from 16.7 to 100.0, with a mean of 53.3. For the
adjusted group the range was from 8.8 to 133.3, which a
mean of 42.3. The difference between the means was signif
icant at the .05 level.^
None of the correlations between these discrepancy
scores and the Marital Success Test exceeded -.09.
Raw score comparisons --WIH-WPHIH
Discrepancy scores between the wives' perceptions
of their husbands and the wives' predictions of their hus
bands' self-perceptions ranged from 3 to 39 in the adjusted
group, and from 4 to 22 in the unadjusted group. The means
were 14.9 and 10.4 for the unadjusted and adjusted couples,
respectively. The difference between the means was signif
icant beyond the .01 level.^
The only significant correlation was -.20 for the
unadjusted women.
Percentage comparisons--WIH-WPHIH
For the unadjusted group the discrepancy scores
^The t was 2.34. ^The t was 3.71.
178
ranged from 11.5 to 81.8, with a mean of 40.0. The ad
justed couples' discrepancy scores ranged from 11.7 to
130.0, with a mean of 38.5. The difference between the
means was not significant and was the only intra-individual
comparison not significant.^
For both the adjusted and unadjusted women, the
discrepancy scores and the Marital Success Test correlated
at -.21. Correlations for the men were not significant.
Raw score comparisons --Total:
HIN-HPWIH plus HIW-HPWIW
Total discrepancy scores were computed combining
each subject's intra-individual discrepancies. For the
men discrepancy scores ranged from 11 to 62, with a mean
of 34.0 in the unadjusted group. The adjusted group had
discrepancy scores which ranged from 4 to 39, with a mean
of 21.5. The difference between the means was significant
9
beyond the .01 level.
Correlations between the total discrepancy scores
for the men and their marital success scores were not
significant.
g
The t was 0.48.
9
The t was 6.31.
179
Percentage comparisons--Total:
HIH-HPW1H plus HIW-HPWIW
For the unadjusted group the scores ranged from
34.5 to 191.8, with a mean of 101.3. The adjusted group's
scores ranged from 15.3 to 221.4, with a mean of 74.3.
The difference between the means was significant beyond the
.01 level.^
Correlations between discrepancy score totals and
the Marital Success Test were .22 for the adjusted men and
-.19 for the unadjusted men.
Raw score comparisons--Total:
WIW-WPH1W plus WIH-WPHIH
The total intra-individual discrepancy scores for
the women ranged from 7 to 72 in the unadjusted group, and
10 to 50 in the adjusted group. The means were 34.5 and
21.5 for the unadjusted and adjusted groups, respectively.
The difference between the means was significant beyond the
.01 level.'*''*'
Correlations between total raw discrepancy scores
and the marital success scores were -.13 and -.20 for the
adjusted and unadjusted women, respectively.
^The t was 3.61. "^The t was 6.19.
TABLE 17
MEANS OF RAW AND PERCENTAGE INTRA-INDIVIDUAL DISCREPANCY
SCORES FOR THE ADJUSTED AND UNADJUSTED GROUPS WITH
t-SCORES FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEANS
Category
Adjusted
Group
N=50
Raw
Unadjusted
Group
N=50
Raw
t
Adjusted
Group
N=50
Percentage
Unadjusted
Group
N=50
Percentage
t
HIH-HPWIH 10.6 18.6 6.15 36.0 52.5 3.77
HIW-HPWIW 11.0 15.4 3.57 38.3 48.8 2.31
WIW-WPHIW 11.1 19.6 6.39 42.3 53.3 2.34
WIH-WPHIH 10.4 14.9 3.71 38.5 40.0 0.48
HIH-HPWTH + HIW-HPWIW 21.5 34.0 6.31 74.3 101.3 3.61
WIW-WPHIW + WIH-WPHIH 21.5 34.5 6.19 80.8 93.3 1.62
181
Percentage comparisons--Total;
WIW-WPHIW plus WIH-WPHIH
For the unadjusted group discrepancy scores ranged
from 28.2 to 148.0, with a mean of 98.3. For the adjusted
group the range was from 28.3 to 263.3, with a mean of
80.8. The difference between the means was in the hypoth
esized direction but fell below the .05 level of signifi-
12
cance.
Correlations between total percentage discrepancy
scores and the adjustment scores were not significant.
Discussion
That which has been labeled "intra-individual per
ceptions" represents the individual's attitude about the
similarity or disparity of the self-perceptions of the
spouses. When there is a disparity in the intra-individual
perceptions the spouse is stating one of the two following:
(1) I perceive myself in this manner; however, my spouse
perceives me differently; (2) I perceive my mate in this
manner; however, he or she perceives him or herself differ
ently. It does not necessarily follow that this will
always lead to marital conflict or dissatisfaction, for an
12The t was 1.62.
182
individual may be aware of real or imagined discrepancies
and be willing to accept and live with them. There are,
however, many implications to the intra-individual dis
crepancies. For one, they include part of the definition
of the relationship. Haley has stated that human communi-
13
cation takes place at several levels. The working out of
a relationship goes beyond the mere presence or absence of
messages. People not only communicate, but they communi
cate about the communication. Intra-individual perceptions
may characterize marital partners' attitudes about their
communication. They may be stating that they are not com
municating about who they are, and for some this represents
a significant factor in their relationship. In a research
project dealing with group communication and group coopera
tion, Rogers found barriers to communication within groups
exist only as they are perceived by the individual members
as barriers. That is, what was a barrier to one person
may not have been a barrier for another.^
13
Jay Haley, Strategies of Psychotherapy (New
York: Grune & Stratton, Inc., 1963), p. 7.
■^Carl R. Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951), p. 345.
183
All of the raw score discrepancies were significant
beyond the .01 level and were among the highest discrepan
cies found in this study. Intra-individual discrepancy
scores significantly differentiated the adjusted groups
from the unadjusted groups for the six comparisons. Using
the percentage method, four of the six comparisons were
also significant and were the only percentage discrepancy
scores that did result in significant t-ratios. The re
sults support the hypothesis. One may conclude that when
interrelationships develop to the point where individuals
in the relationships believe they lack consensus on their
self-perceptions, difficulties in the relationships are
likely to result. This conclusion holds in this study for
husbands and wives, whether they are responding to items
describing their self-perceptions or the perceptions of
their mates.
Summary
The adjusted and unadjusted groups differed signif
icantly on the six comparisons made using the raw score
technique. The unadjusted group had significantly higher
discrepancy scores when comparing: (1) husband's self-per
ception versus husband's prediction of wife's perception
184
of him; (2) husband’s mate perception versus husband's
prediction of wife's self-perception; (3) wife's self-per-
ception versus wife's prediction of her husband's percep
tion of her; and (4) wife's mate perception versus wife's
prediction of her husband's self-perception. Combinations
of both of the husbands' discrepancy scores and both of
the wives' discrepancy scores also resulted in significant
differences. The percentage method also resulted in sig
nificant differences on four of the six comparisons; how
ever, the raw score technique resulted in consistently
higher t-ratios. Once again, it appears that the combina
tion of similarity in perception of self and the intensity
of those self-perceptions is associated with adjustment in
marriage.
It has been suggested that this intra-individual
measurement is one way of estimating the individuals'
attitude toward the communication and definition of the
relationship in marriage. When an individual feels that
there is a lack of consensus in the definitions of the
selves, he is more likely to experience difficulty in the
relationship. This is one of the more subjective feelings
which affects the relationship.
CHAPTER VII
TOTAL PERCEPTUAL DISCREPANCIES
In this chapter findings combining the discrepancy
categories will be presented. Total discrepancy scores
were computed as follows.
First, for the men discrepancy scores between mate
and self perceptions, between self and predicted percep
tions and the husbands' intra-individual discrepancies were
summed. That is, all discrepancy scores were added except
the wives' intra-individual perceptual discrepancies. This
means that the total discrepancy score is the sum of eight
discrepancy scores for the husband.
Second, for the women the same procedure was used
with the substitution of the wives' intra-individual dis
crepancy scores in place of the husbands' intra-individual
discrepancy scores. The total discrepancy score for the
wives would also be the sum of their eight discrepancy
scores.
185
186
Since the discrepancy scores may be viewed as a
measure of communication, discussion will follow the pre
sentation of the findings suggesting some possible inter
pretations within this context.
Total Discrepancy Scores
Raw score comparisons--total
discrepancy--men
The range of total discrepancy scores for the
unadjusted men was from 112 to 308, with a mean of 171.2.
For the adjusted men the discrepancy scores ranged from 66
to 289, with a mean of 133.7. The difference between the
means was significant beyond the .01 level.^
The correlations between the Marital Success Test
and the total discrepancy scores were not significant.
Percentage comparisons--total
discrepancy--men
For the unadjusted men the scores ranged from 231.0
to 770.6, with a mean of 426.5. The adjusted husbands'
scores ranged from 160.3 to 854.3, with a mean of 393.6.
As might be expected, the difference between the means was
■^The t was 4.44.
187
2
not significant.
Correlations utilizing the percentage discrepancies
were not significant.
Raw score comparisons--total
discrepancy--women
The range of total discrepancy scores for the
unadjusted women was from 103 to 301, with a mean of 171.8.
For the adjusted wives, the range was from 71 to 278, with
a mean of 133.6. The difference between the means was
3
significant beyond the .01 level.
Correlations between these discrepancy scores and
the wives' Marital Success Tests were not significant.
Percentage comparisons--total
discrepancy--women
For the unadjusted wives the total discrepancy
scores ranged from 242.1 to 719.4, with a mean of 418.5.
The adjusted wives' discrepancy scores ranged from 140.4 to
781.7, with a mean of 400.1. The difference between the
means was not significant.^
The adjusted wives' total discrepancy scores cor-
2
The t was 1.34.
4
The t was 0.73.
3
The t was 4.49.
188
related at -.23; however, the unadjusted women's discrep
ancy scores correlated at -.07.
As may be noted in Table 18, the differences be
tween means were significant for both husbands and wives
when raw scores were used; however, the differences between
means using percentage score comparisons were not signif
icant. This pattern has been consistent throughout the
study. Most of the differences between raw score compari
sons were significant, while only intra-individual discrep
ancy comparisons utilizing the percentage method were
significant. In this latter case the t-ratios were higher
for the raw score comparisons. Had the percentage compari
sons been the significant ones, the most logical interpre
tation would have been that qualitative differences in the
perceptions of selves were related to marital adjustment.
The present findings, however, suggest that quantitative
differences, i.e., perception of selves having similar
patterns but different intensities, may have a significant
affect on marital relationships.
Communication and Perceptual Discrepancies
Communication has been defined as,
. . . the process through which a set of meanings
embodied in a message is conveyed to a person or
TABLE 18
MEANS OF TOTAL RAW AND PERCENTAGE DISCREPANCY SCORES FOR
THE ADJUSTED AND UNADJUSTED GROUPS WITH t-SCORES FOR
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEANS
Category
Adjusted
Group
N=50
Raw
Unadjusted
Group
N=50
Raw
t
Adjusted
Group
N=50
Percentage
Unadjusted
Group
N=50
Percentage
t
Total discrepancy
score--husbands 133.7 171.2 4.44 393.6 426.5 1.34
Total discrepancy
score--wives 133.6 171.8 4.49 400.1 418.5 0.73
190
persons in such a way that the meanings received
are equivalent to those which the initiator(s)
of the message intended.^
Lundberg, et al., state,
Symbolic interaction is the basis of human
communication and that intricate network of under
standings which both results in and is derived
from group behavior. Collective life of any kind
requires communication. To build and maintain
society or state, community or caste, family or
fraternity, government or gang, corporation or
clan, human beings must communicate.^
They go on to state that common understanding of goals or
ends and some agreement about the means for their attain
ment rest upon adequate communication. Consensus, shared
perspectives, values, beliefs, or definitions of situations
among persons involved in joint action are developed through
communicative acts.7 It may be stated that while commu
nication begins with contact between persons, this contact
does not necessarily result in communication. Transmission
of meanings is an essential. Another essential for
Joel Smith, Robert C. Bealer, and Francis M. Sim,
"Communication and the 'Consequences' of Communication,"
Sociological Inquiry, Winter, 1962, p. 12.
^George A. Lundberg, Clarence C. Schrag, Otto N.
Larsen, Sociology (3d ed.; New York: Harper 6c Row, 1963),
p. 199.
7Ibid.
191
communication is identification with each other's sitlia-
tions. Therefore, the act of communication may be consid
ered as a reciprocal taking of roles, or a process of sym
bolically putting one's self in the place of another and
reacting as if one were subject to the experiences and
associations which affect the other individual. Inaccurate
perceptions or role taking, therefore, become one way of
measuring lack of communication. As Lundberg suggests,
. . . we tend to experience things not as they are
but as we are. Previous experience sets up expec
tancies which determine what and how new impres
sions will be received. Selective attention and
selective perception have vast implications for
all acts of communication, ranging from interper
sonal to international relations. Whatever is
contrary to previous experience or interests is
likely to be ignored or transformed in the act
of communication.^
Most authors who discuss the nature of interper
sonal problems and the treatment to remedy these problems
indicate that freedom of communication is a prerequisite
for friendly interpersonal relations and for adequate
adjusted behavior. Further, free communication is often
seen as a requirement for the development of mutual
8
Ibid., p. 202.
9
Ibid.. pp. 215-216.
192
understandings.^ The complex nature of communication is
further explored by Haley, who emphasizes the number of
qualifications which accompany each communicative act."^
Each message is qualified by the context in which it takes
place, additional verbal messages, vocal and linguistic
patterns, and bodily movement. Difficulties in interper
sonal relationships can therefore easily arise through
faulty communication involving any one of these qualifica
tions. Haley states,
When messages qualify each other incongru-
ently, then incongruent statements are being made
about the relationship. If people always quali
fied what they said in a congruent way, relation
ships would be defined clearly and simply even
though many levels of communication were function
ing. However, when a statement is made which by
its existence indicates one type of relationship
and is qualified by a statement denying this, then
difficulties in interpersonal relationships
become inevitable.
Haley indicates that when one individual communicates a
message to another this act is a maneuver to define the
relationship. The other individual must accept or reject
^Carl R. Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951), p. 344.
^Jay Haley, Strategies of Psychotherapy (New
York: Grune & Stratton, Inc., 1963), p. 7.
12Ibid., pp. 7-8.
193
the definition or qualify it in some way. In any inter
change between two people, they deal with what kind of
behavior is to take place between them and how that behav
ior is to be qualified. The struggle to define the rela
tionship is inevitable, with constant definition and
redefinition occurring. For Haley this process of defining
the relationship through communication is basic to estab
lishing control within the relationship and will play a
large role in determining the presence or absence of con-
13
flict. Jackson also emphasizes the importance of commu
nication and its relationship to defining the marital
relationship. He points out that there is a redundancy
principle operating in family life. This principle in
cludes the concept that the family will interact in repeti
tious sequences in all areas of its life. Some areas may
highlight the repetitions or patterns of communication more
quickly and systematically than do others.^
The specific application of communication problems
as they may be related to interpersonal difficulties is
13Ibid.. pp. 8-10.
Don D. Jackson, "The Study of the Family," Family
Process, IV (March, 1965), 7-11.
beginning to become more prominent in research projects.
Poliak studied communication in conflicted families. His
investigation was based on the theory that family relation
ships may suffer from insufficient communication resulting
in failure to meet each other's idiosyncratic needs.
Further, it was suggested that family members are sometimes
so preoccupied with their own wishes, fears, anxieties, and
moods that they do not accurately perceive the need signals
of other family members. Poliak found in studying the
results of family sessions that when a recording of a joint
session was played back to family members, their perception
of one another increased.^ In an experimental study of
communication patterns found in an interview situation with
mothers of hospitalized psychiatric patients, transcripts
were made of the recorded interviews. The responses to
interviewers' questions concerning feelings were categor
ized according to statements being definites, evasions, or
shifts. The author concludes that family members of the
schizophrenics characteristically resorted to distorted
ways of communicating. He indicates that long exposure to
^Otto Poliak, "Issues in Family Diagnosis and
Family Therapy," Journal of Marriage and the Family. XXVI
(August, 1964), 279-287.
195
ambiguous or obscure communication may be significantly
1 6
related to severe emotional disturbance. D
Katz approaches the communication issue from the
semantic standpoint.^ He studied semantic similarities
between happily and unhappily married couples. He had the
couples give meanings to words that would be related to
marriage and meanings to words not related to marriage. He
states,
The findings of this study show that (I)
troubled couples are more discrepant in their
overall semantic structures than are untroubled
couples, (II) troubled couples are more discrep
ant than untroubled couples in the meanings that
they attribute to concepts defined as marriage-
related, (III) troubled couples show greater dis
crepancies in the meanings they attribute to the
marriage-related concepts than in the meanings
they ascribe to concepts unrelated to marriage.
Katz suggests that success of effectiveness in interper
sonal relationships is associated with agreement upon the
19
relevant issues for the two-person relationship.
W. R. Beavers, Stanley Blumberg, Kenneth R. Tim
ken, and Myron F. Weiner, "Communication Patterns of Moth
ers of Schizophrenics," Family Process. IV (March, 1965),
95-104.
•^Myer Katz, "Agreement on Connotative Meaning in
Marriage," Family Process, IV (March, 1965), 64-74.
18Ibid., p. 73. 19Ibid., pp. 72-73.
196
The findings of this study offer support for the
theoretical propositions relating communication to inter
personal adjustment. If discrepancies in self-perceptions
can be considered a measure of communication as has been
suggested by the above authors, then the total discrepancy
scores would represent one such measure of communication.
The raw score discrepancies differentiate between the
adjusted and unadjusted groups at significant levels.
These differences support the contention that incongruent
messages may lead to difficulties in interpersonal rela
tionships. Katz's findings raised the question as to
whether spouses might have defined the specific phrases on
the ICL differently and thereby answered them differently.
It is, however, likely that if they are not in agreement
over the meanings of the words and cannot estimate how
their mate would define the word or words, this describes a
communication problem. They have not communicated suffi
ciently or accurately enough to reach common definitions.
The total discrepancy score is one method which summarizes
a form of inaccurate communication. These total scores are
comprised, however, of several aspects of communication as
well as the attitudes of the couples toward the communica
tion in the marriage.
Summary
Total discrepancy scores were computed for the four
subgroups, utilizing both the raw score and percentage
score methods. Adjusted and unadjusted husbands differed
significantly when using the raw score comparison, with the
unadjusted husbands having a higher mean discrepancy score.
The difference between means using the percentage method
was not significant. For the wives, the unadjusted group
had a significantly higher raw discrepancy mean than did
the adjusted wives. The difference between the means using
the percentage method was not significant.
It was suggested that a discrepancy in self-per
ceptions could be considered one measure of communication.
Inaccurate perceptions or inaccurate role taking are ways
of measuring lack of communication. The connection between
lack of communication and interpersonal difficulties has
been discussed by many authors and has found support in
research projects dealing with several types of interper
sonal difficulties. Findings of this project are consist
ent with these theoretical positions. The discrepancy
scores are a method of measuring communication in marriage,
as well as differentiating adjustment and unadjustment of
husbands and wives.
CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The purposes of this study were:
1. To compare the role perceptions of husbands and
wives and related discrepancies of these per
ceptions to marital adjustment.
2. To compare the relationship between discrepan
cies between role perceptions and predicted
role perceptions and marital adjustment (that
is, to relate empathic accuracy in role per
ceptions to marital adjustment).
3. To compare discrepancies between one's own role
perceptions and the predicted role perceptions
of that self by the mate and its relationship
to marital adjustment.
The study further attempts to relate discrepancies in role
perceptions and effectiveness of communication in the mar-
198
199
riage. The problem investigated is based on theory and
research on marital interaction which indicate that differ
ences in role perceptions, role expectations, and lack of
appropriate communication of these roles are negatively
associated with marital adjustment.
The conceptual frame of reference on which the
hypotheses were based was the symbolic interactional
approach which states that the family is a unity of inter
acting persons with each person occupying a position within
the family to which a number of roles may be assigned. The
family members perceive norms and role expectations which
are held individually or collectively by other family mem
bers for his or her own attributes and behaviors. The
individual defines these expectations and perceptions in
view of their source and in view of his own self concep
tions. These definitions and expectations lead to various
role behaviors. For the social interactionists, role
theory is nearly synonymous with self theory as it bears on
the development and perception of self. A review of the
literature on symbolic interaction theory, role theory,
marriage adjustment, role perception, and empathy was pre
sented. Most of the studies reviewed supported the conten
tions of symbolic interaction theory, especially in
200
relation to the importance of role perceptions, self-per
ceptions, and their relationship to adequate interpersonal
relationships. There was, however, some evidence from
other studies which did not support some of the theory,
especially that having to do with empathic accuracy and
marriage adjustment.
The major hypotheses developed from this theoreti
cal and research background were:
I. The greater the degree of similarity between
the mate's self-perception and the spouse's
perception of that self, the greater will be
the degree of marital adjustment.
II. The greater the degree of similarity between
the mate's predicted perception of the self by
the spouse and the spouse's actual perception,
the greater will be the degree of marital
adjustment.
III. The greater the degree of similarity of a
spouse's self-perception and the same spouse's
prediction of the mate's perception of that
self, the greater the degree of marital adjust
ment .
201
Each of these hypotheses was followed by a series of sec
ondary hypotheses which grew out of the original major
ones .
Methodology
The sample was obtained by having married couples
in church groups respond to questionnaires and by adminis
tering questionnaires to couples entering marriage counsel
ing. Only couples with minor children living in the home
were included in the sample. One hundred sets of question
naires (200 individuals), 50 adjusted couples and 50 unad
justed couples, made up the total sample. The sample was
primarily young adult, Caucasian, and upper middle class.
Approximately two-thirds of the sample was Protestant and
twenty-five per cent were Jewish. The questionnaire admin
istered to the couples included a face sheet requesting
background information, a Marital Success Test, and the
Interpersonal Check List. The Interpersonal Check List was
administered with four sets of instructions. The couples
were asked to check (1) those items which described them
selves, (2) those items which described their mate, (3) to
predict how their mate would describe them by checking the
appropriate items, and (4) to predict how the mate would
202
describe him- or herself by checking the appropriate items.
In comparing discrepancy scores of the adjusted and
unadjusted groups, two main statistical methods were used.
First, the difference between raw scores for each octant on
the Interpersonal Check List for each couple was calculated
and the total of the eight octant differences was compared.
Means were calculated for each of the discrepancy cate
gories for adjusted and unadjusted groups. They were then
tested using the t-ratio as the measure of difference. In
the second method, percentage of total items checked was
computed for each octant and discrepancy scores for the
spouses were based on the difference between the percentage
differences. In order to obtain a percentage score, the
total number of items checked by an individual was calcu
lated and the percentage of items checked in each octant
became his percentage score. Discrepancy scores were then
obtained by the same method that was used for raw score
comparisons and t-ratios were again employed.
The following are possible limitations of the
study: couples obtained through married couples clubs could
be different from couples not belonging to such groups;
couples attending meetings could be different from couples
not attending; not all groups contacted agreed to cooperate
203
in the study; there are differences between the adjusted
and unadjusted groups, particularly in the areas of reli
gion, education, and income; the selection process of
eliminating some couples based on adjustment scores could
introduce a bias; the sample represents a limited segment
of the general population; counselors did not administer
the questionnaire to every couple entering counseling who
would have been appropriate for the study; couples entering
marriage counseling were not controlled for membership in
couples clubs; and there was a relatively low correlation
between husbands and wives on the Marital Success Test.
Findings on self perception and
mate perception
The unadjusted husbands perceived themselves sig
nificantly higher on the Blunt-Aggressive, Skeptical-
Distrustful, and Modest-Self-effacing octants. The unad
justed wives perceived themselves significantly higher on
the Skeptical-Distrustful, Modest-Self-effacing, Docile-
Dependent, and Responsible-Overgenerous octants. These
differences suggest that the hostility dimension was the
main area of difference between the two groups. The wives'
responses also suggest that the unadjusted wives consider
themselves more submissive than do the unadjusted wives.
204
When considering mate perceptions, the unadjusted husbands
perceived their wives as more Skeptical-Distrustful but
less Cooperative-Overconventional. The unadjusted wives
perceived their husbands as being higher in Competitive-
Exploitative, Blunt-Aggressive, and Skeptical-Distrustful
traits. Unadjusted wives therefore perceived their hus
bands as being more hostile than did the adjusted wives.
The hypothesis that greater similarity between
self-perception and the spouse's perception of that self
would be related to marital adjustment was supported by the
raw discrepancy score comparisons. There were significant
differences between the adjusted and unadjusted groups when
comparing self-perceptions of husbands versus wives' per
ceptions of husbands, self-perceptions of wives versus
husbands' perceptions of wives, and total seIf-perceptions
versus mates' perceptions of that self. When discrepancy
scores based on the percentage method were compared, no
significant differences between the adjusted and the unad
justed groups were found. The difference in the findings
when using the raw score method as compared to the percent
age score method suggests that lack of consensus in both
the pattern and intensity of perception between mates may
be associated with their feelings about their interpersonal
205
relationship. Difference in response styles on the Inter
personal Check List resulted in some differences between
the two groups; however, these differences in style may
also operate to create difficulties in the marriage, since
the Marital Success Test has a forced choice technique and
a disparity in the number of items checked was not possible
in responding to that test.
Correlations between discrepancy scores on the
Marital Success Test utilizing both the raw score and
percentage score techniques were inconsistent, mostly
insignificant, and at times contradictory. The relatively
low correlation between husbands' and wives' scores on the
Marital Success Test could in part be responsible for this
lack of correlation. No conclusions were drawn from these
correlations.
Findings on empathy and self-
perception
Adjusted and unadjusted husbands differed in their
predictions of their wives' perceptions of them. The unad
justed husbands predicted that their wives perceived them
as more Competitive-Exploitative, Blunt-Aggressive, and
Skeptical-Distrustful. The unadjusted husbands also pre
dicted that their wives perceived them as less Cooperative-
206
Overconventional and Responsible-Overgenerous. These
scores may be interpreted as meaning that unadjusted hus
bands feel that their wives see them as more hostile and
less affectionate than do the adjusted husbands. The
dominance and submissive dimensions appeared to have less
influence in differentiating the two groups on this vari
able. For the wives, the unadjusted group rated themselves
higher in the Competitive-Exploitative and Skeptical-Dis
trustful octants when predicting their husbands' attitudes
toward them.
When husbands and wives were requested to predict
how their mates perceived themselves, the only octant in
which significant differences were found was Skeptical-
Distrustful for both the unadjusted husbands and unadjusted
wives. The groups predicted that their mates perceived
them as being higher in this trait.
Empathy was operationally defined as the correct
prediction of a mate’s responses by a husband or wife on
the Interpersonal Check List. The hypothesis that greater
similarity between the mate's predicted perception of the
self by the spouse and the spouse's actual perception was
in part supported by the raw score comparisons. Signifi
cant differences were found between the two groups when
207
comparing husbands' self-perceptions versus their wives'
predictions of those self-perceptions, and between the
wives' perceptions of their husbands versus the husbands1
predictions of those perceptions. None of the comparisons
utilizing the percentage method resulted in significant
differences between the adjusted and unadjusted groups.
The findings suggest that empathic accuracy is more signif
icant with respect to perceptions of the husband than in
perceptions of the wife. The differences suggest that a
combined knowledge of the qualities of self-perception and
the intensities attached to those qualities are associated
with adjustment in marriage.
Correlations between discrepancy scores and the
Marital Success Test utilizing the raw score and percentage
score techniques were mostly insignificant.
Findings on intra-individual
perceptions
Intra-individual perceptions represent the sub
ject's feeling about the similarity or discrepancy of self-
perceptions. The intra-individual discrepancy scores are
differences in perception resulting from two sets of
responses by the same individual. Using the raw score
discrepancy score method, significant differences were
208
found between: (1) husbands' self-perceptions and the hus
bands' prediction of the wives' perception of them, (2)
husbands' perception of their wives and the Husbands' pre
diction of the wives' self-perceptions, (3) wives' self-
perceptions and wives' predictions of their husbands' per
ceptions of them, and (4) wives' perceptions of their hus
bands and the wives' predictions of their husbands' percep
tions of themselves. There were also significant differ
ences when the total intra-individual perceptions were com
bined for husbands and wives. The percentage method also
resulted in significant differences between the adjusted
and unadjusted groups; however, the t-ratios were lower
than were found using the raw score method. As with pre
vious findings discussed, it appears that the combination
of similarity in perception of self and the intensity of
those self-perceptions is associated with adjustment in
marriage.
The intra-individual discrepancy score is a way of
measuring the individual's attitude toward the couple's
communication and definition of the marital relationship.
When an individual feels that there is a lack of consensus
in the role definitions he is more likely to experience
difficulty in the relationship. This subjective feeling
209
about the communication in the marriage resulted in the
highest and most consistent differences between the
adjusted and unadjusted groups.
Findings on total perceptual
discrepancies
Total discrepancy scores were computed for the four
subgroups in the sample. For the men, discrepancy scores
between mate perceptions and self-perceptions, between
self-perceptions and predicted perceptions, and the hus
band's intra-individual discrepancies were summed. That
is, all of the husband's discrepancy scores were added
except the wives' intra-individual discrepancies. The same
procedure was used to obtain total perceptual discrepancy
scores for the wives. That is, all of their discrepancy
scores were totaled except the husbands' intra-individual
discrepancy scores. Adjusted and unadjusted husbands dif
fered significantly when using the raw score comparison,
with the unadjusted husbands having higher mean discrepancy
scores. The difference between means using the percentage
method was not significant for the husbands. For the wives
the unadjusted group had a significantly higher raw dis
crepancy mean than did the adjusted wives. The difference
210
between the means using the percentage method was not sig
nificant for the females in the sample.
A discussion of definitions of communication along
with the relationship of communication to interpersonal
difficulties was presented. The findings of this study
offer support for theoretical statements relating communi
cation to interpersonal adjustment. Discrepancies in self-
perceptions may be considered a measure of communication
and the total discrepancy score represents a summation of
differences in seIf-perceptions. Since the raw score dis
crepancies differentiated between the adjusted and unad
justed groups, it was suggested that this could be consid
ered one measure of the adequacy of communication in the
marriage. If couples were not able to agree on the per
ceptions they had of themselves and of their mates, whether
this be a result of a real difference in perceiving the
behavior or interpreting the meanings of the phrases on the
Interpersonal Check List idiosyncratically, this was con
sidered a problem of communication. It was suggested,
however, that the total discrepancy score contains several
aspects of communication rather than one "pure" factor.
Conclusions
The Interpersonal Check List may be used as one
measure of marital adjustment or conflict; however, the
FG--Skeptical-Distrustful octant proved to be the only
octant which distinguished between adjusted and unadjusted
husbands and wives on all of the comparisons. The analysis
of octant scores suggests that an absolute difference in
dominance (as opposed to discrepancies in perceptions) may
not be as important a factor as was indicated by Kotlar.
Unadjusted wives perceive themselves as more submissive
than do adjusted wives but not more dominant. Since the
Dom score is a summary of responses of both the dominant
and submissive octants, this can be misleading. It appears
that specific octant scores are of greater value in evalu
ating marital interaction than the more inclusive dimen
sions of Dom and Lov. The findings of this study as well
as those of Luckey indicate that perceiving mates as being
hostile is associated with unadjustment in marriage. There
was less support for the theory that adjusted spouses per
ceive their mates as more affectionate. While Kotlar
reached the conclusion that the unadjusted wives perceived
their husbands as less affectionate, the present study
indicates that the unadjusted wives perceive their mates as
212
more hostile. The difference in conclusions is based on a
difference in method of analysis.
When predictions of mate perceptions are consid
ered, the findings may be interpreted as meaning that unad
justed husbands believe their wives perceive them as more
hostile and less affectionate than do the adjusted husbands.
Unadjusted wives also report a difference, but only with
respect to the hostility dimension.
The consistent differences found between the
adjusted and unadjusted groups when using the raw score
technique support the theory that differences in role per
ceptions are related to interpersonal conflicts. The com
paratively few significant differences between the groups
using the percentage score technique indicates that differ
ences in perceptions include discrepancies in both the
specific qualities or patterns perceived as well as the
intensities of the perceptions. Whether an individual who
checks very few items on the Interpersonal Check List does
so because he is resisting the task, is a quiet and con
trolled individual, is unable to communicate his attitudes,
or for some other reason, the discrepancy in the percep
tions is related to marital adjustment.
213
Empathic accuracy in self-perceptions were found to
be more significant with respect to__perceptions of the
husband than in perceptions of the wife. There is some
support for the contention that empathic accuracy is help
ful in interpersonal relationships; however, the findings
of this study are far from conclusive.
The significant relationship found between intra
individual perceptions and adjustment in marriage indicates
that the individual's attitude toward the consensus (or
lack of consensus) of role perceptions is associated with
interpersonal conflict. A subjective negative attitude
about the amount of agreement (high intra-individual dis
crepancy score) that exists in defining the selves of both
mates is related to unadjustment in marriage. This rela
tionship is significant for husbands and wives.
Total perceptual discrepancies using the raw score
method were related to marriage adjustment. This total
score may be considered one measure of communication in
marriage and indicates that less communication in marriage
is related to difficulty in the relationship.
Implications for sociology
Much of the research in sociology, and especially
214
in the area of marriage and the family, has been carried on
without being rooted in a particular theoretical framework.
This study was based on the formulations of symbolic inter
action theory out of which grew the hypotheses and design
of the project. The emphasis on roles, self-perceptions,
and communication in interpersonal relationships presented
by the symbolic interactionalists was investigated and, in
part, supported.
Many previous studies of marital interaction have
not attempted to include the developmental stage of the
family. Developmental theory emphasizes qualitative
changes in the family as it moves from stage to stage.
Hill has suggested that family studies be refined to ac
count for this variable. The present study has made a step
in this direction by limiting the sample to couples with
minor children living in the home. While developmental
theory indicates that even this refinement does not reduce
the sample to one "pure" stage, nevertheless several stages
have been eliminated, e.g., newlywed, childless, and post
child launching stages. This type of step to less inclu
sive samples in studies of the family will be important in
the development of sociological knowledge and will eventu
ally lead to a more refined application of this knowledge.
215
Some of the differences found in this study as com
pared to the Kotlar study contribute to the importance of
re-evaluating assumptions associated with theoretical con
tinuums. Is it accurate to view hostility and affection as
a true continuum? Is it accurate to view dominance and
submissiveness as a "pure" continuum? Is the Interpersonal
Check List a proper measure of these continuums (if they
are continuums)? These questions are important results of
this study.
Another implication of this study for sociology is
the fact that it follows from and builds upon previous
research projects. A frequent criticism in sociology is
the lack of continuous research and cross validation of
prior projects. This study is particularly built upon the
work of Luckey, Dymond, and Kotlar. One of Kotlar's hy
potheses was cross validated in this research.
There are many implications for small group theory
in a study such as this. While the marital dyad was the
focus for chis study, many of the techniques and findings
may be employed in the study of larger family groupings,
friendship groups, as well as other primary or secondary
groups. Measures of self-perception, empathy, and communi
cation are applicable to a great variety of human interac-
216
tions, be they in families, clubs, political groups, or
educational institutions.
Implications for marriage
counseling
The Interpersonal Check List has proved to be a
valuable tool in gathering information about role percep
tions, communication, and feelings about the perceptions.
Couples entering marriage counseling may be tested and the
results of the tests reviewed as a means of clarifying
their perceptions, as well as opening the communication
between the spouses or family members. Inappropriate self-
images or inaccurate attitudes toward the perceptions may
be explored to allow couples to function more smoothly.
Conflicting role expectations may be revealed in
some cases along with significant background information
in each spouse which has lead to the inaccurate perception.
Information gained from testing such as was done in this
study may assist the couple in redefining their relation
ship in a more acceptable way. In other cases, interper
sonal testing may expose areas of expectations that are
incompatible and allow the couple to dissolve the relation
ship with a minimum of damage to either party.
The discussion of interpretations placed on
217
behaviors as compared to the intentions of the behaviors is
an important element in counseling. Most counselors would
agree that nearly all interacts in marriage have reciprocal
elements and many couples are caught in a circle of inter
actions which do not allow for a satisfactory level of
adjustment. Many of these dysfunctional acts may be re
lated to distorted perceptions and communications. To
break the chain of events would be a key factor in resolv
ing a long-standing conflict. The Interpersonal Check List
may assist the counselor in changing the couple’s focus
from specific issues over which they argue to the nature
of their interaction which could be the source of their
difficulty.
When couples believe that they have less consensus
in their role perceptions than may be objectively true, the
information gained from the Interpersonal Check List may
help to alleviate this type of misconception.
The Interpersonal Check List may be used as a
measure of changes in the relationship or in the individual.
The counselor may wish to verify his judgments regarding
the progress of a couple, as well as determine unsuspected
developments in the relationship over time.
Most of the suggestions for application of the
218
findings to marriage counseling may also be suggested for
premarital counseling. Important achievements in premari
tal counseling are to assist couples toward realistic role
expectations, open channels of communication, correct dis
torted self-perceptions, and to make couples aware of po
tential areas of conflict. The Interpersonal Check List,
using a variety of administrations, appears to be particu
larly suited to these tasks. There is likely to be value
in presenting the findings on each of the comparisons made
in this study to couples contemplating marriage so that
they would enter marriage with a minimum of perceptual dis
tortions and blocks to their communication.
Suggestions for future research
There would be an advantage to a repeat of this
study that would have a more closely matched sample. It
would also be desirable to repeat the study on couples who
are in specific family stages. The selection of the ad
justed group should come from a source other than church
clubs, as this group represents a very limited segment of
the population.
Of particular advantage could be studies employing
a longitudinal approach. It was suggested above that
219
couples in specific stages be studied; however, it would
also be important to study discrepancies in perceptions
over time. Ideally, couples would be tested initially at
time of engagement and then retested as they entered each
stage of family development. Evaluations of the type of
change in role perceptions or the stability of perceptions
as they may be related to family or individual conflict
could be of value.
A study that would allow the researcher to observe
interaction patterns and then relate actual behavior to the
various self-perceptions would lend more meaning to the
Interpersonal Check List traits. There is a need to clarify
that which leads to specific self-perceptions. For exam
ple, do wives who rate themselves as highly submissive
actually act more submissive or do they have less real con
trol than wives who rate themselves differently? This
might be tested by having couples work on tasks while being
observed. The judges' observations could then be related
to various Interpersonal Check List measurements.
An important development in this line of research
would be to study the possibility that specific types of
marital conflicts or complaints may be related to difficul
ties in role perceptions, while other difficulties may show
220
little or no relationship. For example, do couples exper
iencing sexual problems differ in their perceptions from
couples who fight over money?
To date there has been relatively limited research
that evaluates the counseling process. Most counselors are
likely to state that their patients communicate better, are
more realistic in their expectations, and have more accu
rate self-perceptions when counseling is successful. The
Interpersonal Check List could be used as one of the in
struments to measure actual or perceived progress in treat
ment. It would be important to know whether such changes
actually occur and, if they do, under what therapeutic
circumstances. Do directive counselors achieve greater or
less change than nondirective counselors? Does self-per-
ception alter before, after, or simultaneously with behav
ioral changes?
The technique of a checklist introduces certain
methodological questions. The Interpersonal Check List is
not a forced choice technique. An individual may check one
hundred items or ten items. Response style, therefore, may
become very important. The Interpersonal Check List should
be evaluated to see whether significantly different results
are obtained when subjects are forced to respond to each
221
item rather than leaving items blank. This would result in
a loss of certain types of information such as resistance
to the task, but might result in making the Interpersonal
Check List a more effective instrument.
The use of the Interpersonal Check List in investi
gations of perceptions of parents, children, or other
significant relatives has begun and should continue. The
suggestions for research have been directed to the marital
dyad; however, the inclusion of other family members or
important figures in the life of the family could be
included in these research projects. The Interpersonal
Check List and techniques used in this study could be
adapted easily to small group research in many areas. In
the study of military personnel, race and religious prob
lems, delinquency, employee relations, political attitudes,
and many other areas of sociological inquiry, the evalua
tions of self-perceptions are likely to be of value.
APPE NDI X
APPENDIX
MARITAL INTERACTION SURVEY
We are trying to learn more about factors which
make for happy and unhappy marriages. To do this, we need
the cooperation and assistance of married couples. You can
help us a great deal by filling out the following question
naires as frankly and as carefully as possible.
Experience has shown that some people hesitate to
answer personal questions if they have to reveal their
identity. Therefore, we do not ask for names. Moreover,
most questions can be answered by a simple checkmark (y)
which also safeguards your identity. Please answer every
question. If you cannot give the exact answer to a ques
tion, answer the best you can. Please do not consult with
your mate in answering the questionnaires.
1. Male Female
2. Age
3. White Negro Oriental
4. Number of years married
5. Number of previous marriages
6. Number of children . Ages of children
7. Highest school grade completed: 6 ,7
9__, 10___, 11___ , 12____. College: 1____ , 2
3__, 4____. Graduate : 1___, 2____, 3___, 4_
223
224
8. Occupation____________________________________________
9. Family’s approximate income per year: under $4,000
; $4,000-5,900___; $6,000-7,900 ; $8,000-
9,999___; $10,000-12,000___; over $12,000____.
10. Religious preference: Protestant , Catholic___,
Jewish , Other____________, None______.
Denomination__________________________________________
11. Number of brothers . Number of sisters .
12. Have you ever received any professional marriage
counseling? Yes No .
Has your mate ever received any professional mar
riage counseling? Yes No .
225
The following 16 questions represent the Marital
Success Test:
1. Check the dot on the scale line below which best
describes the degree of happiness, everything con
sidered, of your present marriage. The middle
point, "average," represents the degree of happiness
which most people get from marriage, and the scale
gradually ranges on one side to those few who are
extremely unhappy in marriage, and on the other to
those few who experience extreme joy or felicity in
marriage.
Extremely unhappy Average Extremely happy
Indicate the approximate extent of agreement or
disagreement between you and your mate on the fol
lowing items by checking the most appropriate of
the seven points on each scale for each category
Always Disagree Average Always Agree
2. Handling_______. _______ . _______ . _______ . _______ . _______ .
family
finances
3. MatterS Of . _______. ________. ______; ________. _______ .
recreation
4. Demons tr a- . _______. ________. ______. ________. _______
tions of
affection
5 . Friends . _______. ________. ______. . ___.
6. Sex rela- _
tions
7. Convention- _
ality (proper
conduct)
226
Always Disagree Average Always Agree
8. PhilOSOphy______ .______ . ________. _______._______.______ . _______ J_
of life
9. WayS Of________ . _____. ______ . ______. ______. _____• ______
dealing with
in-laws
10. Aims, goals,___ . _____. ______ . ______. ______. _____. ______._
and ideals
11. When disagreements arise, they usually result in:
(check) husband giving in , wife giving in ,
neither giving in , agreement by mutual give and
take.
12. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests
together? (check) All or almost all of them ,
most of them , some of them , very few of them
, none of them .
13. When problems arise do you and your mate usually
talk things over together? (check) Always____ ,
most of the time , Occasionally___, rarely____,
never .
14. Do you confide in your mate? (check) Almost never
, rarely , occasionally , in most things
, in everything or almost everything____.
15. Do you ever wish you had not married? (check)
Very frequently , frequently , occasionally
, rarely , never .
16. If you had your life to live over, do you think you
would: (check) Marry the same person___, marry a
different person , not marry at all ?
227
The following are items which make up the Interper
sonal Check List. These items were administered four times
to each spouse with the following sets of instructions:
1. Please check those items which describe your
self .
2. Please check those items which describe your
mate.
3. Please predict how your mate would describe
you by checking the appropriate items.
4. Please predict how your mate would describe
him(her)self by checking the appropriate items.
jwell thought of
_makes a good impression
_able to give orders
_forceful
_seIf-respecting
JLndependent
often admired
respected by others
_good leader
able to take care of self
_lik.es responsibility
_self-confident
_self-reliant and asser
tive
businesslike
can be indifferent to
others
likes to compete with
others
_can be strict if necessary hard-boiled when neces
sary
_firm but just stern but fair
can be frank and honest
critical of others
can complain if necessary
often gloomy
able to doubt others
frequently disappointed
able to criticize self
apologetic
can be obedient
usually gives in
grateful
admires and imitates
others
appreciative
very anxious to be
approved of
cooperative
jeager to get along with
others
_friendly
_affectionate and under
standing
_considerate
_encourages others
228
irritable
straightforward and direct
resents being bossed
skeptical
hard to impress
touchy and easily hurt
easily embarrassed
lacks self-confidence
easily led
modest
often helped by others
very respectful of author
ity
_accepts advice readily
_trusting and eager to
please
_always pleasant and agree
able
_wants everyone to like him
_sociable and neighborly
_warm
_kind and reassuring
tender and soft-hearted
helpful
big-hearted and unselfish
always giving advice
acts important
bossy
dominating
boastful
_proud and self-satisfied
thinks only of himself
shrewd and calculating
_impatient with other's
mistakes
_self-seeking
outspoken
_often unfriendly
_bitter
complaining
jealous
_slow to forgive a wrong
_seIf-punishing
_shy
_passive and unaggressive
229
enjoys taking care of
others
jgives freely of self
tries to be too successful
expects everyone to admire
him
manages others
dictatorial
somewhat snobbish
egotistical and conceited
selfish
cold and unfeeling
sarcastic
_cruel and unkind
frequently angry
hard-hearted
_resentful
_rebels against everything
stubborn
_distrusts everybody
_timid
_always ashamed of self
_obeys too willingly
meek
dependent
jwants to be led
lets others make decisions
easily fooled
too easily influenced by
friends
will confide in anyone
fond of everyone
_likes everybody
forgives anything
_oversympathetic
_generous to a fault
_overprotective of others
230
spineless
hardly ever talks back
clinging vine
likes to be taken care of
will believe anyone
wants everyone's love
agrees with everyone
friendly all the time
loves everyone
_too lenient with others
_tries to comfort everyone
too willing to give to
others
_spoils people with kind
ness
BIBL IO GRA PHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Ackerman, Nathan W. Psychodynamics of Family Life. New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958.
Apt, Lawrence E., and Beliak, Leopold (eds.). Projective
Psychology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950.
Blood, Robert 0., Jr. Marriage. New York: The Free Press
of Glencoe, 1962.
Bonner, Hubert. Social Psychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. New York: American Book Company, 1953.
Burgess, Ernest W., and Cottrell, Leonard S. Predicting
Success or Failure in Marriage. New York: Pren-
tice-Hall, 1939.
________ , and Locke, Harvey J. The Family from Institution
to Companionship. New York: American Book Company,
1953.
________ , and Wallin, Paul. Engagement and Marriage.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1953.
Haley, Jay. Strategies of Psychotherapy. New York: Grune
and Stratton, Inc., 1963.
Honigman, John J. Culture and Personality. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1954.
Karlsson, Georg. Adaptability and Communication in Mar
riage: A Swedish Predictive Study of Marital Satis
faction. Uppsala, Sweden: Almquist and Wiksells
Boktrycheri, 1951.
232
233
Leary, Timothy. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality.
New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957.
_________. Multilevel Measurement of Interpersonal Behavior:
A Manual for the Use of the Interpersonal System
of Personality. Berkeley, Calif. : Psychological
Consultation Service, 1956.
Locke, Harvey J. Predicting Adjustment in Marriage: A
Comparison of a Divorced and a Happily Married
Group. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1951.
Lundberg, George A., Schrag, Clarence C., and Larson, Otto
N. Sociology. 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row,
1963.
Mead, George H. Mind. Self and Society. Chicago: Univer
sity of Chicago Press, 1934.
Newcomb, Theodore. Social Psychology. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1950.
Raimy, Victor C. "Self-Reference in Counseling Interviews,"
Readings in Modern Methods of Counseling. Edited
by Arthur H. Brayfield. New York: Appleton-Cen-
tury-Crofts, Inc., 1950.
Rogers, Carl R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1951.
Ruesch, Jurgen. Therapeutic Communication. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1961.
Sarbin, Theodore R. "Role Theory," Handbook of Social
Psychology. Vol. I. Edited by Bardner Linzey.
Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com
pany, Inc., 1954.
Terman, Lewis M. Psychological Factors in Marital Happi
ness . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1938.
, and Oden, Melita H. The Gifted Child Grows Up:
Twenty-five Year's Follow-up of a Superior Group.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1947.
234
Walker, Helen M., and Lev, Joseph. Statistical Inference.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953.
Waller, Willard, and Hill, Reuben. The Family: A Dynamic
Interpretation. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951.
Periodical Articles
Backman, Carl W., and Secord, Paul F. "Liking Selective
Interaction and Misperception in Congruent Inter
personal Relations," Sociometry, XXV (1962), 321-
335.
Beavers, W. R., Blumberg, Stanley, Timken, Kenneth R., and
Weiner, Myron F. "Communication Patterns of Mothers
of Schizophrenics," Family Process. IV (March,
1965), 95-104.
Bechill, Verne C. "A Comparison of Role Incongruity in
Married and Divorced Couples," Dissertation
Abstracts, XXIII (1962), 1449-1450.
Corsini, Raymond J. "Multiple Predictors of Marital Happi
ness," Marriage and Family Living, XVIII (1956),
240-242.
_________. "Understanding and Similarity in Marriage,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LII
(1956), 327-332.
Cottrell, Leonard S., Jr., and Dymond, Rosalind F. "The
Empathic Response," Psychiatry, XII (1949), 355-
359.
Couch, Carl J. "The Use of the Concept Role and Its Deriv
atives in the Study of Marriage," Marriage and
Family Living, XX (1958), 353-357.
Dyer, William G. "Analyzing Marital Adjustment Using Role
Theory," Marriage and Family Living. XXIV (1962),
371-375.
235
Dymond, Rosaline. "The Relation of Accuracy of Perception
of Spouse and Marital Happiness," American Psy
chologist. VIII (1953), 344.
Farber, Bernard. "An Index of Marital Integration,"
Sociometry. XX (1957), 117-134.
, and Blackman, Leonard S. "Marital Role Tensions
and Number and Sex of Children," American Socio
logical Review. XXI (1956), 596-601.
Goslin, David A. "Accuracy of Self Perception and Social
Accepance," Sociometry, XXV (1962), 283-296.
Hill, Reuben, and Hansen, Donald A. "The Identification
of Conceptual Frameworks Utilized in Family Study,"
Marriage and Family Living, IV (1960), 299-311.
Hobart, Charles W., and Klausner, William J. "Some Social
Interactional Correlates of Marital Role Disagree
ment and Marital Adjustment," Marriage and Family
Living, XXI (1959), 256-263.
Jackson, Don D. "The Study of the Family," Family Process,
IV (March, 1965), 1-20.
Jacobson, Alver Hilding. "Conflicts of Attitudes Toward
the Roles of Husband Wife in Marriage," American
Sociological Review, XVII (1952), 146-150.
Katz, Myer. "Agreement on Connotative Meaning in Mar
riage," Family Process, IV (March, 1965), 64-74.
Kogan, Kate L., and Jackson, Joan K. "Perceptions of Self
and Spouse: Some Contaminating Factors," Marriage
and Family Living, XXVI (1964), 60-64.
LaForge, Rolfe. "Research Use of the ICL," ORI Technical
Report, IV, No. 4, October, 1963.
______ , and Suczek, Robert F. "The Interpersonal Dimension
of Personality: III, An Interpersonal Check List,"
Journal of Personality, XXIV (September, 1955),
94-112.
236
Leary, Timothy, and Coffey, Hubert S. "Interpersonal
Diagnosis: Some Problems of Methodology and Valida
tion," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
L (1955), 110-124.
Locke, Harvey J., Sabagh, Georges, and Thornes, Mary Mar
garet. "Correlates of Primary Communication and
Empathy," Research Studies of the State College of
Washington. XXIV (1956), 116-124.
________ , and Wallace, Karl M. "Short Marital-Adjustment
and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and
Validity," Marriage and Family Living. XXI (1959),
251-255.
Luckey, Eleanore Braun. "Marital Satisfaction and Its
Association with Congruence of Perception," Mar
riage and Family Living. XXII (1960), 49-54.
________ . "Marital Satisfaction and Personality Correlates
of Spouse," Journal of Marriage and the Family,
XXVI (May, 1964), 217-220.
Mangus, A. R. "Family Impacts on Mental Health," Marriage
and Family Living, XIX (1957), 256-262.
________ . "Role Theory and Marriage Counseling," Social
Forces, XXXV (1957), 200-209.
Murrell, Stanley A., and Stachowiak, James G. "The Family
Group: Development, Structure, and Therapy,"
Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXVII (Febru
ary, 1965), 13-18.
Neiman, Lionel J., and Hughes, James W. "The Problem of
the Concept of Role--A Re-Survey of the Literature,"
Social Forces. XXX (1951), 141-149.
Ort, Robert S. "A Study of Role Conflict as Related to
Happiness in Marriage," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, XLV (1950), 691-699.
Poliak, Otto. "Issues in Family Diagnosis and Family
Therapy," Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXVI
(August, 1964), 279-287.
237
Preston, Malcolm, et al. "Impressions of Personality as a
Function of Marital Conflict," Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, XLVII (1962), 326-333.
Rollins, Boyd Carter. "Values Consensus and Cohesion in
the Husband-Wife Dyad," Dissertation Abstracts.
XXII (1962), 4112.
Smith, Joel, Bealer, Robert C., and Sim, Francis M. "Com
munication and the 'Consequences' of Communica
tion," Sociological Inquiry, Winter, 1962.
Stryker, Sheldon. "Symbolic Interaction as an Approach to
Family Research," Marriage and Family Living. II
(1959), 111-119.
Stuckert, Robert P. "Role Perception and Marital Satis
faction: A Configurational Approach," Marriage and
Family Living, XXV (1962), 415-419.
Tharp, Roland G. "Psychological Patterning in Marriage,"
Psychological Bulletin, LX (1963), 97-117.
Udry, J. Richard. "Complementarity in Mate Selection:A
Perceptual Approach," Marriage and Family Living,
XXV (1963), 281-290.
Unpublished Materials
Hurvitz, Nathan. "Marital Roles and Adjustment in Mar
riage in a Middle Class Group." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, 1958.
King, Elsie V. "Personality Characteristics--Ideal and
Perceived in Relation to Mate Selection." Unpub
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, 1961.
Kotlar, Sally Lee. "Middle Class Marital Roles--Ideal and
Perceived in Relation to Adjustment in Marriage."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1961.
238
Wallace, Karl Miles. "Construction and Validation of
Marital Adjustment and Prediction Scales." Unpub
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, 1947.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Study Of Relationships Between Occupational And Marital Roles And Marital Adjustment

PDF

Some Characteristics Of A Selected Sample Of Free Methodist Pastoral Dropouts

PDF

Power Relationships In Marital Discord

PDF

An Investigation Of Complementary Needs Between Marital Partners

PDF

On Becoming A Parent: Attitude And Feeling Changes

PDF

A Study Of The Relationships Between Religious Affiliation, Religious Practices And Marital Adjustment

PDF

Attitudes Toward Sex In Marriage And Patterns Of Erotic Behavior In Dating And Courtship Before Marriage

PDF

Status consistency and its effects on marital adjustment and stability

PDF

Communication Between Engaged Couples

PDF

An Analysis Of The Changing Focus Of Marriage Counseling

PDF

A Comparison Of Perceptions Reported By Nondelinquents And Delinquents Regarding Their Identification With Selected Socialization Agents And Normative Prescriptions

PDF

Personality Characteristics: Ideal And Perceived In Relation To Mate Selection

PDF

Power Struggle And Organizational Goals: A Case Study Of An Industrial Firm

PDF

Social Stratification In A Selected Community

PDF

Personality And Interpersonal Factors Associated With The Duration Of Marriage Counseling

PDF

Complementarity, Homogeneity, Heterogeneity And Marital Stability

PDF

Familial Role Typology, Accuracy Of Perception, And Mutual Needs Among Pre-Nuptial Partners

PDF

'Disorderly Order' In The Garden Literature Of Browne, Marvell, And Milton

PDF

An Exploratory Analysis Of Two Dimensions Of Family Separation

PDF

Dying And Death Role-Expectation: A Comparative Analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Taylor, Alexander Blair (author)

Core Title Role Perception, Empathy, And Marital Adjustment

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, individual and family studies

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Peterson, James A. (committee chair), Lasswell, Thomas E. (committee member), Robb, J. Wesley (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-189919

Unique identifier UC11359709

Identifier 6512267.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-189919 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6512267.pdf

Dmrecord 189919

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Taylor, Alexander Blair

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