University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Status consistency and its effects on marital adjustment and stability

(USC Thesis Other)

Status consistency and its effects on marital adjustment and stability

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content STATUS CONSISTENCY AND ITS
EFFECTS ON MARITAL ADJUSTMENT
AND STABILITY
by
Gary Allen Cretser
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)
September 1972
INFORMATION TO USERS
This material w as produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for p a g e s apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Pags(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
p a g e s to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the edjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essantial to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some p a g e s may have indistinct print. Filmed a s
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zoab Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 43100
73-18,803
CRETSER, Gary Allen, 19H2-
STATUS CONSISTENCY AND ITS EFFECTS ON MARITAL
ADJUSTMENT AND STABILITY.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1972
Sociology, family
University Microfilms, A XERO X Company. Ann Arbor, Michigan
© 1973
CARY A U L& ii C R h rS c .il
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICRDFLIMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
UNIVERSITY OF S O UTHERN CA LIFO R NIA
T H E O R AD UATE SCHOOL
U N IV E R S IT Y PARK
LOS AN O E LE S . C A L IF O R N IA 8 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
under the direction of hxa.... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y
.Gaxy.-AUeix.CrfiJtsex.
Date.... S.e.pt e. ra Jk e . 9 . 7 . 2 ...
ATION COMMITTEE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF T E R M S ............... I
The Problem................................... 2
General Research Hypothesis ................. 7
Definitions of Terms ........................ 8
Procedures.......................... ..... 10
Limitations of the S t u d y ...................... 10
Outline of the Remainder of the Dissertation 13
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................. 16
Marital Happiness and Stability ............. 16
Status Consistency .......................... 21
III. METHODOLOGY....................................... 29
Research Design ............................... 32
Characteristics of the Sample ........ 33
Measurement of the Independent Variable . . • 39
IV. FINDINGS............................................ • 45
Results........................................• 45
Summary.......................................... 56
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................. 58
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................. 72
APPENDICES................................................... 80
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Subjects
According to A g e ......................................34
2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Subjects
According to Race or Ethnic G r o u p ..................36
3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Subjects
According to Education ............................ 37
4. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Subjects
According to Occupation .......................... 38
5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Subjects
According to Income..................................40
6. Pearsonian Correlations Between Degree of Status
Consistency and Marital Adjustment Scores for
Husbands, Wives, Couples, Stable and Unstable
Samples...............................................46
7. Spearman's Rho Correlations Between Degree of
Status Consistency and Marital Adjustment
Scores for Husbands, Wives, Couples, Stable
and Unstable Samples..................................47
8. Median t Test Values for Stable and Unstable
Husbands, Wives, Couples on Status
Consistency Scores .......................... . . . 49
9. Frequency and Per Cent of Husbands and Wives in
Categories of Educational Status by Category of
Marital Adjustment Score ........................... 52
10. Frequency and Per Cent of Husbands and Wives in
Categories of Occupational Status by Category
of Marital Adjustment Score ...................... 53
11. Spearman's Rho Correlations Between Marital
Adjustment Scores and Educational and Occupa
tional Status for Husbands, Wives, Stable and
Unstable Samples ................................... 55
iii
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS
The research and theoretical consideration given to
factors related to marriage in the United States by the sev
eral branches of social science have indeed been consider
able. That there remains a great deal of conceptual codifi
cation and empirical verification to be undertaken cannot be
denied. In another realm of sociological investigation a
body of literature has been generated which illustrates the
influence on behavior exhibited by divergent statuses occu
pied by the same individual at the same point in time. In
considering what has been discussed in these two areas it
seems plausible that a relationship may exist and would
prove a sound area of investigation.
It is felt that in as much as social status and
related concepts have proven among the most useful and
widely applied of sociological concepts, there is a burden
on researchers to continue developing this area. Status
consistency is a relatively recent conceptual development
which may prove to be a necessary consideration whenever
individual or group status is under study. Extending the
use of status consistency to the marital situation is of
1
2
course only one of numerous applications which will be
required before its full value as a modification of general
status theories, will be known.
The Problem
Statement of the Problem
It is the general purpose of this project to inves
tigate the effect which status consistency-inconsistency, in
its different forms, has upon the quality and stability of
the marital bond.
A good deal of research has been directed in recent
years to the individual and group reactions to a condition
of status inconsistency. Lenski (1954) found that individ
uals who had a low degree of status crystallization took
strongly liberal stands on controversial political issues
more frequently than individuals enjoying a higher degree of
status crystallization. Also Lenski (1956, p. 459) found
support for the general hypothesis that "persons with a low
degree of status crystallization are more likely to be sub
jected to disturbing experiences in the interaction process
and to have greater difficulty in establishing rewarding
patterns of social interactions than others," and more spe
cifically, he found social isolates to be more numerous in
the low crystallization category. Adams (1953) in a study
of bomber crews, found that crews with high congruence
(status consistency) were characterized by their increasing
friendship, greater mutual trust, and greater intimacy as
compared to low congruency (status inconsistent) crews.
Adams felt as Lenski did, that their findings resulted from
the dissatisfaction and frustration of the individuals in
inconsistent positions. Exline and Ziller (1959) in study
ing small discussion groups found that groups made up of
status-consistent individuals were more congenial and showed
greater discussion agreement than groups composed of status
inconsistent (level of aspiration compared to level of
achievement) members. Status inconsistent groups also had a
higher incidence of mental illness. In addition, Jackson
(1962) found that status inconsistency had a "stressful
impact" on the individual producing "psychological disturb
ances." Finally Brandon (1965), comparing several theories
of status inconsistency, found that high status consistency
was related to high positive affect toward group experience.
From the above brief summary of research findings in
this area it can be hypothesized that status inconsistency
will be directly related to marital instability. If in fact
individuals experiencing a condition of status inconsistency
are also characterized by such other behaviors or psycholog
ical disturbances such as general dissatisfaction, frustra
tion, and lessened ability to operate in small group situa
tions, and also generally have more difficulty in social
interaction, it would be reasonable to expect that such
individuals would face a disproportionate risk of unhappi
ness in a marriage, especially of the companionship variety.
This reasoning leads to the expectation that status incon
sistent individuals would show a higher degree of marital
instability as well as a lower degree of marital adjustment
when compared with a sample of status consistent married
individuals. It should also be pointed out that Lenski's
(1954) original findings associated status inconsistency
(low status crystallization) with strongly liberal stands
which would argue for predicting that married individuals,
who are also status inconsistent, are more likely to accept
divorce as an alternative to an unhappy marriage.
A second form of status inconsistency to be consid
ered here may be labeled dyadic status inconsistency. Mar
riages involving partners drawn from differing social strata
have, in past studies, been labeled cross-class marriages
or class heterogeneous marriages. It is proposed here that
a comparison be made between couples having spouses with
differing status indicators to couples with both spouses
having the same status indicators as to their marital
adjustment and marital stability. Roth and Peck (1951) have
found that cross-class marriages did in fact have lower
marital adjustment than in-class marriages. However, in the
above study the status indicators were weighted and summed,
a process in direct conflict with Lenski's (1954) formula
tion of status crystallization. In the present study, sta
tus indicators are kept separate and their individual rela
tion to those of the spouse and to the adjustment and
happiness of the marriage are analyzed.
Scanzoni (1968) found that individuals in a cross
class marriage were more likely to dissolve the marriage
than in-class married individuals and he traced this finding
to differing expectations between spouses as to job pres
tige, rewards, and associated life style. Goode (1964) and
Levinger (1965) among others, also support the general
contention that marital adjustment is positively related to
"class" similarity.
There has been some work at the theoretical level
directed at explaining the connecting mechanism between a
condition of status inconsistency within an individual and
various behaviors and psychological states found to be asso
ciated with such a condition. Homan's (1961) theory of dis
tributive justice, Zalesnik's (1958) theory of social certi
tude, Sampson's (1963) principle of expectancy congruence,
and Geschwender's (1967) integration of social certitude and
expectancy congruence are the outstanding examples. Basic
ally, the motivation associated with a status-inconsistent
individual is in terms of the dissonance produced by such
inconsistency. According to Geschwender (1967, p. 163),
"... status inconsistency leads to the development of cog
nitive idssonance, and attempts to cope with this inconsis
tency represent behavioral attempts to reduce dissonance."
In line with both Sampson (1963) and Geschwender (1967,
p. 163) "each status position carries with it expectations
regarding behavior that should be forthcoming from or
directed toward, the occupant of that position. Consistent
sets of expectations facilitate the development of satisfy
ing patterns of social interaction and inconsistent sets of
expectations impede this development.”
Although in the foregoing research the focus was
upon dissimilar rankings on status indicators for an indi
vidual and the possible outcome for both the individual and
the group it seems reasonable to extend the logic of the
theoretical argument to include a situation of couple
status-inconsistency, i.e., where each individual spouse may
in fact be consistent in his or her status rankings but be
inconsistent when compared to the rankings obtained by the
spouse. The result would be a status-inconsistent dyad com
posed of two status consistent individuals. Such a situa
tion may also lead to dissonance within the individual in
that expectations and actual performance of the various
aspects of the husband and wife roles are incongruent. The
above is based on the assumption, of course, that rankings
on status indicators are related to specific content and
means of earlier socialization which produced the expecta
tions and definitions associated with marital roles. Goode
(1956) and McKinley (1964), among many others, support the
latter assumption. Status-inconsistent spouses taken
separately, and status-inconsistent couples may then be
expected to have lower marital adjustment scores as a symp
tom of such dissonance. Also, it is expected that such mar
riages will be characterized by greater instability as indi
cated by separation and divorce, which would be an attempt
to reduce dissonance produced by status inconsistency.
In summary, the theoretical framework is as follows:
1. Status incongruence produces a state of disso
nance within an individual.1
2. Individual reactions to a state of dissonance
reduce the individual's ability to interact
effectively in a marital situation.
3. Inability to interact effectively in a marital
situation produces low marital adjustment and
increased marital instability.
Dissonance is no more than a theoretical construct
for the purpose of explanation. It is not a variable in the
research design and no attempt will be made to measure it
directly.
General Research Hypothesis
HI: There will be a greater proportion of status-
inconsistent individuals and couples among the sample of
unstable marriages and low adjustment marriages than among
the sample of stable marriages and high adjustment mar
riages. (Note that marital stability and adjustment are not
synonymous.)
Individual research hypotheses can be derived from
the general hypothesis relating individual and couple incon-
8
sistency to low marital adjustment and marital instability
as follows:
Hi: There will be a greater proportion of status-
inconsistent husbands in the unstable sample than in the
stable sample.
H2: There will be a greater proportion of status-
inconsistent wives in the unstable sample them in the stable
sample.
H3: There will be a greater proportion of status-
inconsistent couples (dyadic) in the unstable sample than in
the stable sample.
H4: There will be a positive relation between sta
tus consistency and marital adjustment for husbands in both
the stable and unstable samples.
H5: There will be a positive relation between sta
tus consistency and marital adjustment for wives in both the
stable and unstable samples.
H6: There will be a positive relation between
dyadic status consistency and dyadic marital adjustment in
both the stable and unstable samples.
Definitions of Terms
Individual Status Consistency
Individual status consistency is defined as the
standard deviation of individual status scores (see below)
subtracted from one hundred.
Individual Status Scores
Education is defined in terms of a nine-point scale
categorizing years of schooling completed.
Occupation is defined in terms of a ten-category
Occupational Prestige Scale (Empey, 1956).
Income is defined in terms of monthly income in
dollars reported, and placement on a ninefold scale.
Dyadic Status Consistency
Dyadic Status Consistency is defined as the standard
deviation of the individual status scores of both spouses,
subtracted from one hundred.
Marital Adjustment
Marital Adjustment is defined as the score obtained
by each individual on the Locke, Wallace (19 59) short-form
Marital Adjustment Test.
Dyadic Marital Adjustment
Dyadic Marital Adjustment is defined as the arithme
tic mean of the marital adjustment scores for each couple.
Marital Stability
The purposive sample of seventy-four couples ob
tained by Cohen (1969) who were at some stage of the separa
tion process (except for legally separated or divorced) and
who sought assistance of the Los Angeles Court of Concilia
tion are operationally defined as unstable.
10
A second purposive sample was collected which, it
was hoped, would be roughly comparable to the first sample
with regard to age, racial background, previous marital
experience, and range of socioeconomic characteristics.
This second sample is composed of couples who have never
been separated nor sought assistance of the Los Angeles
Court of Conciliation. It is labeled operationally as
stable.
Procedures
The data from Cohen's (1969) research were made
available to this researcher in both its raw form and as
coded information on data processing cards. A questionnaire
identical in all important aspects to that administered by
Cohen was distributed to the work force of a large vending
and food service corporation. Sampling was terminated when
sixty-four complete sets of questionnaires had been
received. A coding procedure identical to that employed by
Cohen was carried out for the stable sample. The resulting
data from both samples was processed to produce status con
sistency scores for individuals and dyads. Comparisons were
then made between and within the samples in order to test
the hypotheses previously stated.
Limitations of the Study
The present study is limited in a number of ways.
Since the methodological procedure employed was to some
11
extent dictated by the decisions made by Cohen (1969) , cer
tain limitations are almost impossible to avoid. As might
be the case in many replications, the individual status
measures used in the original study were not the same as the
ones which the subsequent researcher would have chosen if
given complete latitude.
The unstable sample was gathered by Cohen at some
time prior to 1969, while the stable sample was obtained by
the present author during 1971. Such a time lag may have
introduced additional uncontrolled influence on the vari
ables under study.
It would have been preferable to obtain a single
large sample, to ensure adequate representation of stable
and unstable marriages in order to test the hypothesis sug
gested in the present study and thereby the conceptual
framework. Such a strategy was not feasible without rather
large-scale financial aid and institutional sponsorship.
Given the purposive sample design used herein, an
additional limitation is in terms of its size. It would
have been desirable to obtain larger representation of the
population(s) under consideration. However, the two samples
do include approximately the same number of couples. The
stable sample is composed of ten less couples than the
unstable sample.
In that there were only three suitable status mea
sures used for the unstable sample, and therefore the stable
12
sample, another limitation is introduced. It would have
been desirable to have had additional status measures espe
cially for those wives who were not employed and therefore
had no occupational or income status scores. Additional
status measures could have added to the range of status con
sistency obtained and in addition provided material for
analysis of specific status combinations of inconsistency
and their relation to marital stability/happiness.
A major limitation which will receive consideration
later has to do with the lack of similarity in social back
ground characteristics between the two samples. It had been
hoped tnat the majority of respondents from the stable sam
ple would be from blue-collar occupational statuses, with a
majority under forty years of age, and that it would include
representation of minority groups. It was expected at the
outset that responses from the stable sample would be
numerically large enough so that selection could be made
from the pool of responses to obtain a sample which was not
only very similar in size to the unstable sample but also
would include approximately the same age, socioeconomic, and
ethnic distributions. In that the responses were not dis
tributed as expected and in that the response rate was not
great enough to allow for matching, serious limitations are
introduced in making comparisons between the two samples.
However, even if the two samples had presented similar dis
tributions it must be pointed out that the manner in which
13
they were obtained still would differ significantly. The
unstable sample was drawn from all couples seeking assist
ance from the Conciliation Court. The amount of cooperation
in completing the questionnairs that the Court-sponsored
researcher could elicit was probably much greater than that
secured by this researcher. Further, the population served
by the Conciliation Court and that employed by the vending
and food service corporation are each bound to be circum
scribed but in different ways.
There are other limitations which could be men
tioned. These would include concern as to whether informa
tion given was truly representative of the individual. A
further concern would be whether or not the marital adjust
ment items were completed by the spouses independently of
each other and the nature of the bias introduced by not hav
ing information as to whether those who completed and
returned the questionnaires represent divergent patterns of
status consistency and marital adjustment as compared to
those who chose not to be included. These limitations are
not unique to the present study and are consequently given
little consideration here.
Outline of the Remainder of the Dissertation
Chapter II contains a review of literature relevant
to status consistency and status related to marital adjust
ment and stability. Chapter III includes the methodological
design employed by this researcher in order to generate data
14
pertinent to the testing of the hypothesis under considera
tion. Chapter IV is composed of a presentation and discus
sion of the findings. Chapter V contains a summary of the
study and of these findings, and a discussion in conjunction
with the relevant literature. In addition, various implica
tions of the results are considered with some suggestions
for further research.
FOOTNOTES
1 In the case of individual spouse status inconsis
tency the dissonance is produced by having various competing
or conflicting expectations associated with different status
positions. Dyadic status inconsistency produces dissonance
within the individual in that his or her expectations re
garding marital roles competes or conflicts with those held
by the spouse.
15
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
It seems appropriate to divide the relevant litera
ture into two parts. The first part will include empirical
findings and theoretical formulations related to marital
stability and marital happiness, primarily as it is affected
by social status. The second part contains material
centered on status consistency.
Marital Happiness and Stability
There has been a good deal of literature generated
with regard to factors associated with the happiness and
stability of marital relationships. Only those factors most
directly associated with the conceptual framework under
consideration are here included.
Hollingshead (1950) was one of the first researchers
to relate family stability to the class system. He analyzed
each of four classes individually and found a greater like
lihood for upper-status families to have greater marital
stability than lower-status families. As Hicks and Platt
indicate "Few sociological findings, in 1960, were better
established them those indicating that marriage tends to be
16
17
more stable among the well-educated, well-paid, white-collar
workers than among the poorly paid, blue-collar workers
[1970, p. 566]." This generalization is also supported by
Kephart (1955), Goode (1964), Bernard (1966), and Udry
(1966, 1967) among many others. In addition it has been
found that marital adjustment scores as well tend to be
higher among the upper levels of the socioeconomic scale
than the lower levels. Such findings are supported by Bur
gess and Cottrell (1939) , Roth and Peck (1951), and Renee
(1970).
Hollingshead (19 50) has also supported the premise
that cultural homogeniety and more specifically class homog-
amy is an important factor in mate selection. Roth and Peck
(19 51) point out that marriages involving spouses of the
same social class are more likely to have good adjustment
while those involving spouses of different class levels are
unfavorable to good adjustment. Their research indicates
"that the stress of a rapid shift in class values required
by a cross-class marriage has a negative influence on the
adjustment of the marriage [Roth, Peck, 1951, p. 480]."
More specifically Roth and Peck demonstrate that cross-class
marriages, when the wife ranks higher than the husband, show
lower marital adjustment scores than cross-class marriages
where the husband ranks higher than the wife. An additional
finding of this same study was that difference in the social
class of the parents of each spouse was not related to lower
18
marital adjustment. Roth and Peck conclude from this
that it is the present, operating values of the husband
and the wife which determine how they behave and how
they evaluate each other's behavior [and] it would be
the class-typical day-to-day behavior which would tend
to harmonize in the case of same-class marriages, and
conflict in cross-class marriages. (1951, p. 485)
Goode (1961) has also included dissimilarity of background
and different mutual role definitions by spouses as contrib
uting to divorce proneness.
Compatability between role expectations and actual
performance and congruency in role perceptions have con
tinually been supported as being associated with high mari
tal happiness (Hicks, Platt, 1970). Luckey (1960a, 1960b,
1960c) has consistently reported congruency of role percep
tions as being positively related to marital happiness.
Stuckert found (1963) that for husbands, similarity between
their own role concepts and expectations and those of their
wives was the most important single factor in their marital
happiness. In addition Hurvitz (1960, 1965) found a posi
tive relation between compatability of role expectations
and performance and marital adjustment.
In relating the process of marital adjustment to
role theory, Dyer (1962) made a systematic analysis of how
socialization occurring in non-shared social systems can
produce different role expectations and definitions which
may come into conflict in a marriage and be a factor in
reducing marital adjustment. Such differential expectations
were found to arise from exposure to and experience in dif
19
ferent regional, political, religious, etc., subcultures as
well as from different social status.
Scanzoni (1968) in a comparison of dissolved and
existing marriages, related a number of findings which bear
directly on the present research. As was indicated previ
ously there has been a tendency in the data reported for a
negative relationship to exist between marital stability and
socioeconomic status. Scanzoni reported that wives in
existing marriages responded that their husband's job had an
adequate prestige level and provided an adequate life style
in line with their own aspirations. Within the dissolved
marriages those where the husband was employed in a manual
occupation stated that the husband's job did not provide
prestige or life style in line with the wife's aspirations.
In dissolved marriages, when the husband was employed in a
non-manual occupation, wives reported that their dissatis
faction stemmed from their perception that the husband spent
too much time fulfilling his occupational role and was not
able to adequately perform his conjugal role. In both
instances the above responses appeared to be the symptom of
a lack of congruency in role perception and/or performance.
Scanzoni also concluded that in contrast to existing
marriages,
husbands and wives from dissolved marriages tend to
find mates from across class lines. We would expect
that girls who marry downward, therefore, would hold
higher levels of occupational attainment for their
husbands and higher levels of life-style for their
families than their husbands hold. . . . When they
20
(wives) marry upward the reverse is true when it comes
to assessing the time, energy, and effort that the hus
band applies to his occupation. In both categories,
the fact that these wives have come from social back
grounds divergent from those of their husbands makes it
difficult for them to conform to the lesser rewards
(manual husbands) or to the greater occupational demands
(non-manual husbands). The same reasoning would apply
to their husband's unwillingness to conform to wives'
expectations. [1968, p. 456]
Summary
The foregoing literature reviews evidence that
socioeconomic status is a factor to be considered in
analyzing the stability and adjustment/happiness of mar
riages. Higher socioeconomic status is associated with a
greater probability of marital happiness and stability while
lower socioeconomic status increases the likelihood of the
opposite condition. Social status homogamy has been demon
strated as a norm in terms of mate selection. It was also
pointed out that congruency of role expectation and perfor
mance is related to marital happiness and stability. Mar
riages involving partners from different socioeconomic
levels are more likely to be unstable or unhappy than mar
riages where both spouses have similar socioeconomic back
grounds. Some attempt was also made to illustrate the rela
tionship between the findings on the effects of role dis
crepancies on marriage and the findings relating heterogamy
of socioeconomic status to marriage. The difference in the
socioeconomic status of spouses is an indicator of probable
incongruent role expectations/performances.
21
Status Consistency
Research involving concepts related to and in some
cases identical with that of status consistency extend back
at least as far as the work of Benoit-Smullyan (1944) , Soro
kin (1947) , and Kaufman, et al. (19 53). However, Lenski
(1954) is most often considered as having first explored
this area empirically. The present researcher has borrowed
heavily from Lenski, especially his procedures for con
structing a standard measure of status consistency.
Lenski originally was concerned with testing the
following hypothesis: "Individuals characterized by a low
degree of status crystallization differ significantly in
their political attitudes and behavior from individuals
characterized by a high degree of status crystallization,
when status differences in the vertical dimensions are
controlled [1954, pp. 405-406]." Social status was measured
on four vertical hierarchies: income, occupation; educa
tion; and ethnicity. Status crystallization was defined in
terms of the degree of similarity obtained, by the individ
ual, in comparing his ranking on each of the four scales.
The hypothesis stated was supported in that liberal politi
cal tendencies were associated with low status crystalliza
tion, and individuals manifesting a low degree of status
crystallization favored the Democratic party. In making
some interpretations of his findings Lenski suggests that
the "individual with a poorly crystallized status is a par
22
ticular type of marginal man, and is subjected to certain
pressures by the social order which are not felt (at least
to the same degree) by individuals with a more highly
crystallized status [1954, p. 412]." It was also postulated
that these pressures took the form of unpleasant or embar
rassing experiences. Further, Lenski argues that such a
condition, if widespread, brings about pressures for social
change. Lenski suggests that one might react in a variety
of ways to a condition of low-status crystallization,
including frustration, placing blame on other individuals,
blaming self, and withdrawal.
In a later article (19 56, p. 459) Lenski attempted
to discover if in fact persons with a low degree of status
crystallization actually did have greater difficulty in
establishing positive patterns of interaction. A "With
drawal and Avoidance Hypothesis" was subjected to testing.
The findings tended to support the prediction that low-
crystallized individuals were more likely to become inactive
in voluntary associations. In addition it was discovered
that persons with low status crystallization were less
likely to report sociable motivations for joining voluntary
associations than were the other respondents.
In a paper which predated Lenski, Adams (1953)
investigated the effect of "status congruency" in the small
group setting. Measures of both individual and group status
congruency were formulated. However, these did not include
23
the same indices as were used by Lenski. Adams included
measures of age, rank, education, popularity, ability, per
formance, and others. Adams discovered that group congru
ency as well as individual congruency was positively related
to "social" or "social-psychological" performance:
"[bomber] crews seem to behave in an increasingly harmoni
ous, trusting, and cooperative manner as crew status congru
ency increases." However, Adams noted that status congru
ency appeared to bear a negative relation to technical
performance by the crew.
In a further application of status congruency to
small group interaction Exline and Ziller (1959) postulated
that status-incongruent individuals would attempt to "equi
librate [p. 148]" their group statuses at the level of the
highest status. In this study status congruency was defined
in terms of task ability and voting, which were both manipu
lated by the experimenter. It was expected that individual
attempts to equilibrate overall status would lead to con
flict within the group. The results indicated that status-
congruent groups were
significantly more congenial in social emotional atmos
phere [and showed] significantly more agreement with one
another in discussion. . . . Members of congruent groups
were also more likely to perceive others as gaining, and
less likely to see them as losing, in ability and influ
ence relative to themselves. [Exline, Ziller, 1959,
p. 160].
Jackson, in a study dealing with status consistency
as it related to psychological stress, suggested that status
24
inconsistents are actually exhibiting a variety of symptoms
which are based on conflicting expectations. A person faced
with conflicting expectations develops psychological stress
manifested as frustration and uncertainty. Status consis
tency was measured in terms of occupation, education, and
ethnicity. Psychological stress was defined in terms of
responses given in a paper and pencil test. For certain
patterns of status consistency a higher rate of psychologi
cal stress symptom was discovered. It was specifically
noted that symptom rate was higher for females whose educa
tional rank was superior to that of their husband's occupa
tional rank. For males, symptom rate was higher when they
held an occupational rank superior to their educational
rank.
Sampson (19 63) contributed significantly to the
integration of literature concerning status crystallization
and cognitive consistency. It is pointed out by Sampson
that earlier literature suggested incongruence in status
ranks led to frustration and motivation for change. Samp
son, however, indicates that the reason for this tendency
towards status congruency had been left largely unexplained.
One of Sampson's contributions was therefore in pointing out
the operation within the individual of "expectancy congru
ence." According to Sampson,
Both P and 0 [person and other] find incongruence unde
sirable and frustrating in that it hinders their neces
sary coordination of interaction. With congruence, the
world is unorganized and difficult to cope with, thus
25
both P and o seek to achieve and maintain a congruence
of status position, i.e., a congruence of expectations.
Placing one's self and others into status positions is
one means of ordering the social environment to facili
tate coordinated interaction. Therefore, both intra
personal and interpersonal effort is directed towards a
congruence of expectations, a condition which is found
with a congruent status structure. [1963, pp. 160-161]
Sampson further argued that the status-incongruent individ
ual appears to be "multifaced" explaining his difficulty in
obtaining trust, friendliness, and intimacy with others.
Brandon (1965) , in research supportive of Sampson,
found that in an experimental setting it was more efficient
in reflecting empirical findings, to refine the concept of
status congruency. She is critical of Lenski's failure to
distinguish between status inconsistencies expected by those
persons involved and those inconsistencies not expected.
Brandon went on to argue that "If consistency is not
expected then a divergence from consistency should not be
defined as incongruent because social certitude has not been
abused [1965, p. 274]."
An ambitious attempt has been made by Geschwender
(1967) to provide a social-psychological theory of motiva
tion which would serve to account for the predictions of
behavioral consequences associated with status consistency.
Geschwender includes a combination of theories, i.e., dis
tributive justice, social certitude, and expectancy congru
ence. These theories are integrated into cognitive disso
nance theory which is then applied to the various behavioral
consequences associated with status inconsistency in previ
26
ous literature. Geschwender argued "status inconsistency
leads to the development of cognitive dissonance, and
attempts to cope with this inconsistency represent behav
ioral attempts to reduce dissonance [1967, p. 163]." In
application it is stated, "Dissonance is tension-producing
and, in the absence of dissonance-reducing behavioral at
tempts, might easily produce a physical response leading to
psychosomatic symptoms [Geschwender, 1967, p. 168]."
Gibbs and Martin (1968) have taken what might be
termed a macro-sociological approach to the study of status
consistency. Building on Durkheim's classic work on sui
cide Gibbs and Martin theorize that "The suicide rate of a
population varies inversely with the stability and durabil
ity of social relationships within that population [1968,
p. 95]." Gibbs and Martin in the same vein extend their
reasoning in suggesting that role conflict is a major factor
in the stability and durability of social relationships. An
indicator of the degree of role conflict in society is
defined in terms of the level of status integration which in
turn is measured by the amount of variation of status combi
nations present in a society. Although the above research
is not directly related to the present paper, it is inter
esting to note that some of the same conceptual connections
linking status inconsistency to dependent behavior are being
used, i.e., role conflict or conflicting expectations.
There has been, especially in recent years, a con-
27
troversy in the status consistency literature regarding the
statistical implications of testing theories of status
consistency. This controversy has served to point out the
difficulties involved in using the more complex status
consistency models. Typically these status consistency
models are concerned with the interaction effects between
status variables which is a departure from the simpler addi
tive models designed to handle only the main effects of the
separate status variables. Blalock (1967) has pointed out
that often in status consistency research additive models
can be demonstrated to be almost as adequate as interaction
models or in some cases more adequate, in explaining the
variance of a dependent variable. Blalock (19 67, p. 69)
also indicates that status consistency analysis often is an
example of an "identification problem" in that the investi
gator is actually working with at least three independent
variables and therefore is unable to introduce control which
would allow him to sort out main effects from interaction
effects. Much of this controversy is beyond the scope of
the present paper and the reader is referred to the follow
ing literature: Mitchell (1964), Lenski (1964) , Jackson and
Burke (1965), Blalock (1965, 1966, 1968), Hyman (1966), and
Treiman (1966).
Summary
The bulk of the literature concerning status consis
tency has been concentrated into three sub-areas. The first
28
category, in which the number of separate contributions has
been the greatest, includes the studies which have found
relationships existing between status inconsistency and
various dependent variables. These dependent variables have
included prejudicial attitudes, liberal political behavior,
interpersonal conflict, withdrawal, psychological stress,
and suicide.
The second category of literature encompasses the
various theoretical formulations which have been advanced to
explain the behavioral outcome of status inconsistency.
These have most often taken the form of dissonance theory or
role-conflict theory and in some cases a combination of
these two.
Finally, a good number of publications have come
forth dealing with the statistical problems associated with
attempts to test theories of status consistency.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The present study utilizes data originally gathered
by Cohen (1969) as well as additional comparable information
obtained by this researcher. A guiding principle in con
structing a research design for the present study was to
make the additional material gathered closely approximate
the original data so that comparisons could be made. It is
therefore necessary to bear in mind that many of the metho
dological decisions made were in effect dictated by the
nature of the design implemented by Cohen.
Procedures used in the Cohen study will be reviewed
briefly prior to a discussion of the methodology employed in
the present research.
The aim of Cohen's work was to investigate the
extent to which "alternatives to living together accounts
for the occurrence and frequency of separation" and second
to "examine the length of separation with particular empha
sis on the regularity with which no separation, short
separation, and long separation occurs within the context of
the family developmental stage [1969, p. 2]."
The sample was selected from the population of mar-
29
30
ried couples who voluntarily sought the short-term marriage
and family counseling services of the Los Angeles County
Consolidated Domestic Relations and Conciliation Court. As
Cohen states:
This public agency provides voluntary short-term mar
riage and family counseling services to any legally mar
ried couple residing in Los Angeles County. The coun
seling service is available to one or both marital
partners prior to and/or during their legal domestic
relations proceedings; it is not available to those
couples whose marriage has been terminated by a final
divorce, legal separation and/or annulment. [1969,
p. 49].
Cohen points out that the "Conciliation Court couples are
generally representative of an urban population that appear
to exhibit a wide diversification of demographic and socio
logical characteristics [p. 49]." The subjects selected
were in their first marriage and had not previously
obtained the services of the Conciliation Court. In addi
tion an attempt was made to select couples representing the
various stages of family development. One hundred and
twenty-two couples were selected using the above criteria.
A rather lengthy questionnaire covering a wide variety of
other factors than those directly relating to Cohen's study
was administered to each husband and wife qualifying for
inclusion in the sample. A second questionnaire was admin
istered to all those couples still available for inclusion
after one year.
Marital adjustment was measured by the Locke, Wal
lace short form Marital Adjustment Test (1959). Scores on
31
this test can range from two to one hundred and fifty-
eight. Locke and Wallace conclude that the test has "high
reliability" and also validity in that it clearly "differ
entiates between persons who are well-adjusted and those who
are maladjusted in marriage (1959, p. 255)."
Occupational status was measured by the combined
"Occupational Prestige Scale" developed by Empey (1956)
utilizing separate scales formulated by Hatt and North
(1953) and Smith (1943). The Empey scale divides occupa
tions into ten categories. These ten categories represent
decile ranks. That is, an interpolated rank resulting from
the combining of the North-Hatt scale with the Smith scale.
Each decile represents ten per cent of the occupations com
monly ordered by both scales. The deciles rank from low to
high in that an occupation in the first decile would be of
lowest status while an occupation in the tenth decile would
be of highest status.
Education was recorded on a nine-point scale with
the first category ranging from no education to completion
of the sixth grade. The ninth category was postgraduate
student.
Monthly income was recorded directly and then coded
on a nine-point scale ranging from zero to two hundred dol
lars through eight hundred dollars and above.
Of the one hundred and twenty-two couples who com
pleted the first questionnaire in Cohen's research, seventy-
32
four were selected for inclusion in the present study. Only
couples who reported being separated at least once were
considered, thus eliminating some forty-eight couples.
These s e v e n ty -fo u r co u p le s o p e r a tio n a lly became th e u n s ta b le
sam ple r e f e r r e d t o in t h is s tu d y .
The ta s k th en became one o f s e le c t in g a " s t a b le
sam ple" w h ich c o u ld be a n a ly z e d u s in g i d e n t ic a l m easures and
com parisons made to t e s t th e h y p o th e s is fo rw a rd e d in t h is
re s e a rc h .
R esearch Design
This researcher was able to obtain the cooperation
of a large vending and food services organization which has
several divisions in the southern California area. This
organization was chosen primarily because a degree of
sponsorship and participation could be guaranteed and also
because the population of employees would be large enough
and diverse enough to provide a valid base for comparison
with the unstable sample already available. A questionnaire
identical in all significant ways to that employed by Cohen
was utilized.1 Instructions provided with each question
naire requested that the employee give an enclosed copy of
the questionnaire to his spouse and for each to complete all
items on the questionnaire independently and return each
separately in stamped addressed envelopes provided, to the
Marriage and Family Counseling Center at the University of
Southern California. Four hundred questionnaires (200
33
couples) were distributed initially. The response rate was
somewhat discouraging as only 80 questionnaires (20%) were
returned. An additional two hundred questionnaires (100
couples) were sent to two divisions operating out of central
and northern California. The managers were requested to
distribute questionnaires only to individuals who made a
verbal commitment to see that they were completed and
returned. The response rate was significantly greater and
75 questionnaires (37.5%) were received from this second
half. Approximately four months (September-December, 1971)
elapsed before questionnaires ceased arriving.
Of the total of 155 questionnaires received, one
hundred and twenty-eight were acceptable and included in the
study. Incomplete questionnaires, questionnaires received
from one spouse only, and questionnaires indicating that a
separation had occurred at least one time during the mar
riage were excluded. The remaining sixty-four couples then
operationally became the stable sample.
Characteristics of the Samples
In order to describe the characteristics of both
samples, information as to age, ethnicity, education, occu
pation, and income is included in tabular form.
As can be seen in Table 1 the unstable sample is
somewhat younger than the stable sample. Almost eighty-four
per cent of the unstable sample is under forty years of age
while about sixty-one per cent of the stable sample is under
34
TABLE 1
FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS
ACCORDING TO AGE
Age of Subjects Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent
Younger than 19 7 4.8 0
20-29 78 53.1 42 33.1
30-39 38 25.9 36 28.3
40-49 18 12.2 37 29.1
50-59 6 4.1 11 8.7
60 and Older 0 1 .8
Total 147* 127*
*1 - no punch *1 - no punch
35
forty. In addition, seven members of the unstable sample
were younger than nineteen while the stable sample had no
one in this category.
The ethnic composition was also dissimilar as can be
seen in Table 2. The unstable sample has a significantly
larger representation of Negroes (25%) and Mexican Ameri
cans (15.5%) than does the stable sample (1.6% in each of
these categories). The majority of the respondents in the
stable sample were Caucasian (90.6%).
Table 3 gives the distribution of school years com
pleted for both samples. It is apparent that the stable
sample is much better educated. Almost sixty-five per cent
of the stable sample have attended some college as compared
to approximately thirty-four per cent of the unstable sam
ple. Better than one-third of the unstable sample reported
not having completed high school as compared to less than
three per cent of the stable sample.
A comparison in terms of occupational status can be
made from Table 4. The stable half had a disproportionate
number of its members reporting higher status occupations
when compared to the unstable sample. Twenty-five per cent
of the unstable sample reported occupations classified in
categories five through ten as compared to over forty-seven
per cent of the stable sample in those same categories.
A final comparison can be made between the stable
and unstable sample with regard to their incomes by refer-
36
TABLE 2
FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS
ACCORDING TO RACE OR ETHNIC GROUP
UNSTABLE STABLE
Race of
Ethnic Group Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent
Negro 37 25.0 2 1.6
Mexican-American 23 15. 5 2 1.6
Oriental 1 .7 4 3.1
Caucasian 85 57.4 115 90.6
Other 2 1.4 4 3.1
Total 148 127*
*1 - refused to answer
37
TABLE 3
FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS
ACCORDING TO EDUCATION
UNSTABLE STABLE
Grade Level Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent
0-6 2
7- 9 15
10-11 40
High School 38
Other Post-High
School Training 2
College 1 Year 24
College 2 Years 12
College 3 Years 4
College Graduate 6
College Post-
Graduate 5
Total 148
1.35
10.14 1 .78
27.02 2 1.56
25.68 14 10.94
1.35 28 21.88
16.28 14 10.93
8.04 18 14.07
2.71 9 7.03
4.05 28 21.87
3.38 14 10.94
128
38
TABLE 4
FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS
ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION
UNSTABLE STABLE
Occupation According
to Empey Code Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent
1 5 4.24 0
2 10 8.47 6 5.66
3 18 15.26 14 13.21
4 23 19.49 6 5.66
5 32 27.12 30 28.30
6 19 16.10 28 26.42
7 6 5.08 20 9.43
8 5 4.24 10 9.43
9 1 .95
10 1 .95
Total 118* 106*
*30 unemployed *20 unemployed
2 refused to answer
39
ence to Table 5. Although one would expect the Incomes of
the stable sample to be higher than those of the unstable
sample, this difference was probably exaggerated since a
period of approximately four inflationary years had elapsed
between the times when the data for the two samples was
gathered. Table 5 shows that less than nine per cent of the
unstable sample reported earnings in excess of eight hundred
dollars per month while in the stable sample gathered four
years later, almost fifty per cent of the individuals
responding earned in excess of eight hundred dollars per
month.
The disparity between the two samples was in all
instances greater than expected, making direct comparison in
terms of status consistency difficult. In order to compen
sate partially for this fact comparisons within each sample
will be made by computing the correlation of status consis
tency and marital adjustment for husbands and wives taken
separately and together for each of the samples.
Measurement of the Independent Variable
The independent variable of status consistency was
constructed as described by Lenski (1954). Separate mea
sures of occupation, education, and income were available
from the raw data. In order to construct a measure of
status consistency it was necessary to standardize the
scales in order that a person's relative position on each
could be compared. To this end cumulative frequency dis-
40
TABLE 5
FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS
ACCORDING TO INCOME
UNSTABLE STABLE
Income Monthly Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent
$0000-$ 200 3 2.83 1 1.16
201- 300 9 8.49 1 1.17
301- 400 17 16.04 4 4.65
401- 500 32 30.19 8 9.30
501- 600 17 16.03 11 12.79
601- 700 12 11.33 4 4.65
701- 800 7 6.60 13 15.12
801- 900 9 8.49 12 13.96
901- 1000 0 9 10.46
1001- 1100 0 1 1.16
1101- 1200 0 10 11.63
1201- 1300 0 5 5.81
1301- 1400 0 2 2.33
1401- 1500 0 3 3.48
1501- 1600 0
1601- 1700 0
1701 and above 2 2.33
Total 106* 86*
*42 - unemployed or part-time *39 unemployed or part-time
3 refused to answer.
41
tributions were constructed for each of the measures. Both
husbands and wives were included in each of the cumulative
percentage distributions, however; separate distributions
were compiled for the unstable and the stable samples. This
was felt to be necessary in that the ranges of income espe
cially were dissimilar and would have unnecessarily con
stricted the deviations and thereby the consistency scores.
It is to be expected that the incomes reported by
the unstable couples would be substantially less than the
stable couples owing to the national inflation during the
three-year lag between the two samplings. Lenski, in
describing his own research states: "Using these distribu
tions as a basis, scores were assigned for each of the
various positions (or intervals) in each hierarchy on the
basis of the midpoint of the percentile range for that posi
tion (or interval) [1954, p. 407]." Once comparable scores
were obtained for each of the rankings it was necessary to
combine them into a quantitative measure. This was achieved
as Lenski stated by "taking the square root of the sum of
the squared deviations from the mean of the [three] hier
archy scores of the individual and subtracting the result
from one hundred [pp. 407-408]." Each individual then had a
status consistency score based on his position in three
status hierarchies. These scores can vary from zero to one
hundred. The higher scores indicate smaller deviations and
accordingly greater consistency.
42
It was necessary to construct a status consistency
measure for the couple as a unit. This was accomplished by
computing a mean for the couple in terms of their position
on the three status measures and then computing a standard
deviation of the six individual status measures around that
mean.
It should be noted that in both the stable and
unstable samples there were wives who were not employed or
employed part-time only. For these individuals scores for
income and occupation were either non-existent or incom
plete. In that only one score was then available it was not
possible to compute an individual status consistency score
and therefore the sample sizes were further reduced. How
ever, it was possible to establish a couple status consis
tency measure even for these couples where there was only
one score available for the wife. The single score of the
wife was added in three times in constructing the mean and
was considered as three separate deviations from that
couple's mean.1
Summary
A sample of operationally unstable married couples,
which had been obtained by a previous investigator, were
compared with a sample of operationally stable married
couples. The stable sample was gathered by this researcher
with the cooperation of a large food service corporation.
Data from both of these samples included marital adjustment
43
scores, and levels of educational, occupational, and income
status. The individual status scores were combined in
constructing status consistency scores for each spouse as
well as the marriage dyad as a unit.
Contrary to expectations demographic information
regarding age, ethnic background, and socioeconomic status,
indicated that the stable and unstable samples were not of
identical composition.
FOOTNOTES
1 There was available for every individual in the
samples a single status score derived from their years of
education completed. In those instances where the wife was
unemployed her education score was entered three times in
the formula for deriving dyadic consistency. This was done
to give equal weight to both the responses' individual sta
tuses in computing their dyadic consistency score. This, of
course, could not be extended to constructing an individual
consistency score for the unemployed wife as no deviations
could result from the use only of repeated scores.
In a very few cases an individual reported their
occupation but failed to indicate their monthly income.
When this occurred their occupational status score was
averaged with their educational score and this resulting
mean was entered as a third status score and used in com
puting both the individual and dyadic consistency scores.
44
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The presentation of the data will be in several
forms. An analysis of the relation between the degree of
status consistency and the degree of marital adjustment for
the stable and unstable samples, taken separately, is accom
plished by employing interval and ordinal measures of
association: i.e., Pearsonian r1 and Spearman's rho.2 In a
further stage of analysis comparisons are made between the
stable and the unstable samples concerning the significance
of the difference of their respective status consistency
scores. This is accomplished with the use of a non-paramet-
ric inferential statistic, i.e., the Median t Test.1 At
both stages of analysis interpretations made from the sta
tistical findings are related to the six hypotheses posited
in Chapter I and decisions made as to their substantiation.
Results
Pearsonian r correlations were calculated between
degree of status consistency and marital adjustment score
for men and women taken separately for each sample and for
couples in each sample. Table 6 presents the statistical
45
46
values obtained. The resulting Pearsonian correlations were
extremely small for all of the sub-samples. The correlation
for unstable women was the largest and also the only one in
a positive direction. Except for the correlation coeffi
cient of the unstable wives and that of the unstable couples
the results indicate in effect no relationship at all
between status consistency and marital adjustment.
TABLE 6
PEARSONIAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DEGREE OF
STATUS CONSISTENCY AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT
SCORES FOR HUSBANDS, WIVES, COUPLES,
STABLE AND UNSTABLE SAMPLES
Stable Unstable
Husbands -.000 -.004
Wives -.002 .173
Couples -.002 -.105
Rank order correlations were also carried out for
the same sub-samples as described above using Spearman's
rho. The resulting statistics are found in Table 7. Once
again, this time using a correlation statistic for ordinal
data, the resulting Spearman rhos are extremely small. With
regard to the stable husbands and couples the correlations
have become positive but their magnitude makes them inconse
quential. For the stable husbands, wives, the unstable hus
bands and couples, the Spearman correlations are slightly
47
larger than the Pearsonian figures. In the case of the
unstable couples, the results are almost identical.
TABLE 7
Stable Unstable
Husbands .019 -.034
Wives -.065 .062
Couples .013 -.103
Hypotheses four through six predicted that a sub
stantial positive relation would exist between status con
sistency and marital adjustment for husbands and wives in
both the stable and unstable samples. These hypotheses are
restated as follows:
H4: There will be a positive relation between sta
tus consistency and marital adjustment for husbands in both
the stable and unstable samples.
H5: There will be a positive relation between sta
tus consistency and marital adjustment for wives in both the
stable and unstable samples.
H6: There will be a positive relation between
dyadic status consistency and dyadic marital adjustment in
both the stable and unstable samples.
At this point it is plain that the data gathered for
this study offers no support for the existence of a statis
tical relationship between status consistency and marital
48
adjustment. Therefore it is necessary to reject the hypo
thesis in light of the data, and conclude that status con
sistency and marital adjustment, as defined, are indepen
dently variable. This conclusion also necessitates some re-
evaluation of the theoretical connections linking status
consistency to marital adjustment. Apparently, although
conditions of status inconsistency have been associated with
behavioral consequences and internal stress which would
appear as likely to reduce the degree of marital adjustment
experienced, this reasoning may be faulty.
Table 8 presents the Median t test values computed
on the differences in status consistency scores for stable
and unstable samples combined for husbands, wives, and
couples. Hypothesis one through three are restated in null
form as follows:
HI: There will be no significant difference between
stable and unstable husbands in their status consistency
scores.
H2: There will be no significant difference between
stable and unstable wives in their status consistency
scores.
H3: There will be no significant difference between
stable and unstable couples in their dyadic status consis
tency scores.
49
TABLE 8
MEDIAN t TEST VALUES FOR STABLE AND UNSTABLE
HUSBANDS, WIVES, COUPLES
ON STATUS CONSISTENCY SCORES
Chi Square
Tables Chi Square
Median
Above Below
Husbands
Stable 29 35 .728*
Unstable 40 34
Wives
Stable 20 20 0
Unstable 22 22
Couples
Stable 29 35 .728*
Unstable 40 34
♦Degrees of freedom = (k - 1) (r - 1) - 1
Corrected for Continuity
50
The Median t test employs the chi square distribu
tion (Siegel, p. 112). Given one degree of freedom and
using null hypothesis implying a two-tailed test, it is
necessary to obtain a chi square value of 3.84 to reject the
null hypothesis at the .05 level of confidence. Therefore
scores which fail to reach this magnitude indicate that the
difference in the proportion of scores in each sample above
and below a common median is not great enough to conclude
that the two samples were drawn from different populations.
As can be seen in Table 8 the values obtained are substan
tially less than would be required to reject null hypotheses
HI, H2, and H3. In fact, close examination of Table 8 indi
cates that a slightly greater proportion of the unstable
husbands and couples are above the median while for stable
husbands and couples the greater proportion are below the
status consistency median. In other words, not only is the
amount of difference very slight but the direction is con
trary to that predicted with the research hypothesis.
Unstable husbands and couples are slightly more status con
sistent than stable husbands and couples. Again from Table
8 it is evident that for stable and unstable wives the sta
tus consistency median is identical. To reiterate, the
magnitude of the difference is not statistically significant
and therefore the null hypothesis stating that no difference
exists in status consistency between stable and unstable
couples cannot be rejected.
51
As was pointed out in the section dealing with limi
tations of the study, sample size did not permit the
researcher to control for the effect on stability or adjust
ment of the individual statuses. However, Tables 9 and 10
contain frequencies and percentages of husbands and wives in
the stable and unstable samples in ranked categories of edu
cational and occupational statuses, by ranked categories of
marital adjustment scores. For occupational status the
largest single category for husbands in the stable sample is
4 through 6 with marital adjustment scores between 101 and
150 which contains 59.7% of the sample. Forty-five per cent
of the stable wives fall in this category. In the unstable
sample, occupational categories 1 through 3 contain 30.1% of
the men and 4 through 6 contains 28.8%, all at the 51 to 100
category of marital adjustment. For the unstable wives
25.0% are in occupational categories 4 through 6 with mari
tal adjustment 1 to 50. Also 27.5% of these wives are in
category 50 to 100 of marital adjustment and the same cate
gory of occupational status. The stable sample has a great
er proportion of both husbands and wives in higher occupa
tional status categories, and as would be expected, with
higher marital adjustment scores.
Table 9 indicates that both stable husbands and
wives tended to occupy educational categories 4 through 6
and 7 through 9 with marital adjustment scores between 101
and 150. In the unstable sample men were more likely to be
52
TABLE 9
FREQUENCY AND PERCCENT OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES IN CATEGORIES
OF EDUCATIONAL STATUS BY CATEGORY OF
MARITAL ADJUSTMENT SCORE
Stable Sample
M a r it a l
A d ju stm en t
Scores 1-3
Educational Status
4-6 7-9
Husb Wives Husb Wives Husb Wives
f 0 0 1 2 1 0
1- 50 % 0 0 1.6 3.1 1.6 0
f 3 0 5 6 0 4
51-100 % 4.7 0 7.8 9.4 0 6.3
f 7 7 23 20 23 22
101-150 % 10.9 10.9 35.9 31.3 35.9 34.4
f 0 0 0 3 1 0
151+ « 0 0 0 4.7 1.6 0
Unstable Sample
f 7 19 5 9 4 3
1- 50 % 9.7 25.7 6.9 12.2 5.6 4.1
f 25 29 15 5 5 2
51-100 « 34.7 39.2 20.8 6.8 6.9 2.7
f 8 5 2 2 1 0
101-150 « 11.1 6.8 2.8 2.7 1.4 0
f 0 0 0 0 0 0
151+ % 0 0 0 0 0 0
TABLE 10
53
FREQUENCY AND PER CENT OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES IN CATEGORIES
OF OCCUPATIONAL STATUS BY CATEGORY OF
MARITAL ADJUSTMENT SCORE
Stable Sample
Marital
Adjustment
Occupational Status
Scores 1-3 4-6 7-9
Husb Wives Husb Wives Husb Wives
f 0 1 2 1 0 0
1- 50 % 0 2.5 3.2 2.5 0 0
f 7 0 1 7 0 1
51-100 % 11.3 0 1.6 17.5 0 2.5
f 10 3 37 18 4 7
101-150 % 16.1 7.5 59.7 45 6.5 17.5
f 1 0 0 2 0 0
151+ % 1.6 0 0 5 0 0
Unstable Sample
f 6 7 9 10 2 0
1- 50 % 8.2 17.5 12.3 25 2.7 0
f 22 8 21 11 2 0
51-100 % 30.1 20 28.8 27.5 2.7 0
f 6 2 4 2 1 0
101-150 % 8.2 5.0 5.5 5 1.4 0
f 0 0 0 0 0 0
151+ % 0 0 0 0 0 0
54
in educational categories 1-3 and 4-6 with marital adjust
ment scores between 51 and 100. Unstable women have 39.2%
at the educational category of 1-3 with marital adjustment
scores between 51 and 100. Also 25.7% of the unstable wives
fell into the educational status category 1-3 but reported
marital adjustment between 1 and 50.
The separate occupational and educational status
scores for stable husbands and wives tended to be in higher
categories than those of the unstable sample. Marital
adjustment scores for members of the stable sample also
tended to be substantially higher than that of the unstable
sample.
A series of rank order correlations were calculated,
using Spearman's rho to determine the degree of relationship
between the separate status measures of education and occu
pation with marital adjustment. The results appear in Table
11 and include statistics for the stable and unstable sam
ples for both husbands and wives. The resulting correlation
coefficients are all of a low order with four being less
than .1 in size. Five of the correlations are in a negative
direction and three are positive. The negative correlations
are in conflict with the bulk of literature regarding social
status and marital adjustment, as was reported in Chapter
II.
It is interesting to note that for both stable and
unstable wives there was a negative correlation between
55
TABLE 11
SPEARMAN'S RHO CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MARITAL ADJUSTMENT
SCORES AND EDUCATIONAL STATUS AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT
SCORES AND OCCUPATIONAL STATUS FOR HUSBANDS, WIVES,
STABLE AND UNSTABLE SAMPLES
Marital Adjustment by Marital Adjustment by
Educational Status Occupational Status
Stable
Husbands .100 .186
Wives -.144 -.038
Unstable
Husbands -.11 .02
Wives -.077 -.094
marital adjustment and educational status and also a nega
tive correlation between marital adjustment and occupational
status. For unstable husbands there was a slight negative
relation between marital adjustment and educational status
and an approximate zero correlation for marital adjustment
and occupational status. The largest correlation discerned
was for stable husbands and their correlation between mari
tal adjustment and occupational status.
It was pointed out earlier in this paper that criti
cism has been raised as to whether the multiplicative models
associated with status consistency research were any more
adequate in explaining variance of a dependent variable than
additive models which dealt with the effects of separate
status variables. Blalock (1967) among others has argued
that the addictive models are in some cases more adequate
56
than the multiplicative and do not introduce the complex
methodological problems of control associated with the lat
ter. In the case of the present research it can be seen by
comparing tables that some support is generated for this
position. Four of the eight correlations in Table 11 are
.10 or larger while only one of those in Table 7 reached
this level.
Summary
Both Pearson r and Spearman's Rho correlations were
calculated between the variables of status consistency and
marital adjustment for individuals and dyads for both the
stable and unstable samples. The resulting statistics were
of such a low order as to reject all hypotheses which pre
dicted that a positive relation would exist between status
consistency and marital adjustment for each of the sub
samples .
Median t-tests were calculated in order to test
hypotheses predicting greater status inconsistency for
unstable individuals and dyads when compared to stable indi
viduals and dyads. The magnitude of the resulting statis
tics failed to reach a level which would allow rejection of
the null hypothesis. Null hypotheses were thereby supported
for each sub-sample and no inferential support was generated
for the directional research hypothesis.
57
FOOTNOTES
1 Pearson product-moment correlations were computed
using the formula:
r = -■ s * . r -
"VIlxHly7 )
(Blalock, 1960, p. 287). J
2Spearman rank order correlations were computed
using the formula:
YS = 1/2 N (N - 1) - T X 1/2 N (N - 1) - T Y
(Siegel, 1965, p. 218).
Median t tests were computed using the formula:
N (1AD-BC1 — —) 2
X2 = 2
(A+B) (C+dJ Ca+c) (B+dT
Two by two tables were constructed with cells containing the
frequencies above and below the grand median for stable and
unstable samples. (Siegel, p. 114).
**The author is fully cognizant of the fact that the
strict requirements necessary for employing an inferential
statistic such as the Median t test are not met by the data
utilized in this research. No defense is made to the effect
that the stable and unstable sample are random representa
tions of a known universe.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose o f th e p re s e n t s tu d y was to in v e s t ig a t e
th e e f f e c t s ta tu s c o n s is te n c y , a s s o c ia te d w ith in d iv id u a l
spouses and w ith th e m a r it a l d ya d , has upon th e s t a b i l i t y o f
th e m a r it a l bond and th e l e v e l o f a d ju s tm e n t a c h ie v e d th e r e
i n .
In order to accomplish this purpose a sample of
couples known to be unstable were compared to a sample of
married couples who reported no evidence of instability.
The unstable sample was originally obtained for other pur
poses by Cohen (1969) . They were selected from couples who
sought the assistance of the Los Angeles County Conciliation
Court. Only couples who reported a minimum of one period of
separation were included. Seventy-four couples qualified
and became the unstable sample for this study. A second
sample was obtained from employees of a large food service
corporation whose work force was volunteered to the
researcher. An effort was made to provide questionnaires to
all employees in the greater Los Angeles area. Some ques
tionnaires were also provided to operations in Central Cali
fornia. A total of sixty-four usable1 questionnaires were
58
59
returned. This group became the stable sample. The ques
tionnaires employed in obtaining information for both the
stable and unstable samples were identical in all important
respects.
Hypotheses predicting that status consistency would
be positively related to marital adjustment and marital
stability were formulated based on previous research found
primarily in the areas of status consistency.
Previous research had indicated that individuals
characterized by inconsistent statuses tended to display
behavior which was associated with psychological stress,
difficulties in social interaction and several additional
characteristics which might be expected to cause some dis
ruption in a marital relationship. In addition some theo
retical constructs were postulated linking status inconsis
tency between the individual statuses of the husband and the
wife to marital disharmony and instability. This was accom
plished by introducing role conflict theory produced by
status related socialization into marital roles.
Drawing on Lenski's (1954) suggested methodology for
constructing a numerical status consistency score, each
individual and each couple was evaluated in terms of their
education, occupation, and income.
The relationship between marital adjustment and
status consistency was tested for men, women, and couples
for both the stable and unstable samples. No significant
60
relationships were discovered using interval and ordinal
measures of association. Hypotheses predicting a positive
relationship were not supported. For the samples investi
gated it appears that status inconsistency and marital
adjustment, as measured, vary independently.
The stable and unstable samples were compared
directly in terms of status inconsistency by application of
the Median t Test. The resulting Chi square revealed no
statistically significant difference between proportions
above and below the overall status consistency median. Null
hypotheses predicting no difference in status consistency
scores between the stable and unstable samples could not be
rejected.
There are several possible areas that could be sug
gested as being primarily responsible for the reported out
comes of this study. On the one hand it is quite possible
that the various limitations, cited previously, taken singly
or in combination are entirely responsible for results con
trary to expectations. In other words, the non-random
nature of the sample, the dissimilarities between the two
samples, or the possible shortcomings of the measuring
instruments, etc., may have led to findings which are not
valid or are valid only for a small unique group, rather
than for the majority of persons. On the other hand, it may
be that the findings of the present study, although admit
tedly exploratory and tentative, do seem to cast doubt on
61
the body of status consistency theory as it now stands.
This researcher takes the latter point of view. Some fur
ther consideration of status consistency theory and possible
shortcomings associated with it seem appropriate here. Fol
lowing this discussion, some concluding thoughts related to
limitations of the present study are included, leading to
suggestions for further study.
It appears most likely that in fact characteristics
which had previously been associated with conditions of sta
tus inconsistency would affect marital relations. The pre
ponderance of evidence previously generated has pointed to
significant differences between samples of status-consis-
tents and inconsistents with regard to behavior in social
settings and individual psychological adjustment. One
explanation of the present findings would be to argue that
psychological stress and difficulties in interactions among
other reactions do not operate to any noticeable degree to
reduce marital adjustment and stability. This of course,
would be contrary to other research findings dealing
directly with marital relations. A second possible explana
tion would focus on the possible lack of a necessary causal
connection between status inconsistency and psychological
stress, interaction difficulties, etc. In other words it
may be that status inconsistency does not always produce the
reactions described in previous studies or possibly that
they are not produced to a sufficient degree to cause per
62
ceived maladjustment or instability in marriage. It is pos
sible that the theoretical framework suggested for this in
vestigation is simply incorrect. As Stehr (1968) has argued
it is not status inconsistency but strain as experienced by
the individual which is motivating in producing the results
of the experienced strain which were expected to be mani
fested in greater marital maladjustment and/or instability.
The implication is that when status inconsistency is pre
sent, strain is subjectively experienced by the individual.
Stehr further argues that status consistency is not neces
sarily related to stress within the individual. It may be
that strain is present only under certain other necessary
conditions. These conditions might include the discrepancy
between certain particular statuses or specific combinations
not studied here. Kenkel (1956) has reported findings con
trary to those reported by Lenski (1954) . Kenkel found that
tnere was no difference between his status consistent and
status inconsistent samples with regard to their politico-
economic attitudes. Lenski (1956) in a rejoinder criticized
the fact that Kenkel had not included a measure of ethnic
status which, according to Lenski, is one of the four most
salient elements of status in American life. Lenski further
argues that failure to include all four elements, which he
nad carefully selected, might be expected to produce incon
sistencies associated with consequences of lesser magnitude.
In the present study ethnic status was not considered and
63
therefore it may be that the predicted consequences in terms
of strain and marital disruption are thereby reduced to
insignificance. Lenski also points out that Kenkel did not
directly replicate his procedure for dividing a sample into
high and low groups with regard to their consistency scores.
Lenski's procedure was to divide the sample by using "natu
ral breaks" inherent in the data array. In the present
study the same criticism can be applied. "Natural breaks"
within or between samples were not readily observable. In
addition the procedure and criteria for discovering "natural
breaks" is left vague by Lenski.
Malewski (Bendix and Lipset, 1966)2 introduces the
concept of situational inconsistency. Basically what is
implied is that if the combination of statuses held by an
individual violates the normative expectations of his refer
ence groups he will experience the stress and various behav
ioral consequences associated with it. On the other hand
there are a variety of objectively inconsistent statuses and
situational combinations which would not violate normative
expectations. In these cases one would not expect the same
behavioral reactions in that "real" inconsistency was not
present. In extending his contentions to the present study,
it could be argued that due to either sampling bias, situa
tional characteristics or both, the type or degree of status
inconsistency associated with the samples under study did
not serve to violate normative expectations to the degree
64
necessary to produce the results predicted.
The comments of stehr, Lenski, and Malewski can be
seen to have much in common. Stehr is concerned with the
"importance" of status to an individual relative to other
"behavior-guiding aspects." In addition he suggests that
the "relevance" of certain patterns of "status dimensions in
social interaction to a person" (1968, p. 98), be consid
ered. Lenski (1958, p. 368) is suggesting that investigat
ors select only statuses that comprise one of the "basic
components of status in contemporary American life" (1958,
p. 368). Malewski is also concerned with only the important
or relevant patterns of status. These, he argues, are
determined by normative expectation relative to a reference
group.
The bulk of the research evidence in the area under
investigation is squarely in support of status consistency
having an effect on a variety of attitudes and behaviors.
However, there is also some contrary evidence. Contrary
evidence as used here refers to research findings, which for
the most part, report little if any difference between sta
tus consistents and status inconsistents concerning the sev
eral dependent variables. Kenkel's findings, which are of
this nature, were reported earlier in this chapter. In
addition Brandmeyer (1965) reports no relationship between
the degree of status consistency and political attitudes.
In a study conducted by Nelson (1968) an attempt was made to
65
test the hypothesis that status inconsistency would be asso
ciated with frustration. It was concluded that it is incor
rect to assume that frustration is a necessary result of
objective or subjective inconsistency.
Singer (1966) conducted an experimental study to
test the effect of status consistency on small group func
tioning. She discovered that introducing status inconsis
tency into the groups tended to produce tension but the ten
sion generated did not negatively effect the productivity or
satisfaction in the group. These findings may have direct
bearing on the present study in that some doubt is cast on
the theoretical link between strain (tension or frustration)
and marital disruption. It may be that even when the condi
tions are present to produce an experience of status incon
sistency, and even when this leads to strain in an interac
tion setting, disruption may not be the result.3
Research by Heffernan (1968) can also be cited as an
example of evidence contrary to the importance of status
consistency as an explanatory concept. He reports that sta
tus consistency was of little value in predicting desire for
social change, participation in formal organizations, and
individual improvement.
Finally, in a study by Bauman (1968) it was discov
ered that status-inconsistent individuals less frequently
had difficulty in talking to others in comparison to status-
consistent individuals. This was in direct contradiction to
66
the hypothesis. Bauman concludes that status-inconsistent
individuals more likely experience community satisfaction as
well as satisfactory social interaction. Bauman argues that
the nature of his sample is such that status inconsistency
is an effective adaptation to their social environment. He
points out that it was drawn from a highly mobile and hete
rogeneous population upon which are made demands for flexi
bility in order to interact at a satisfactory level.1 * Fol
lowing this postulation one might be led to suggest that,
given certain types of social environments, inconsistency is
an advantage which may mitigate the strain other theorists
have suggested is experienced by the inconsistent individ
ual. In referring once again to Stehr (1968) and Malewski
(Bendix, Lipset, 1966), it may be that a status-inconsistent
individual who finds himself in a mobile, heterogeneous
social environment does not experience the subjective strain
which has been hypothetically posited as the link between
objective status inconsistency and the several dependent
variables. For example in such an environment status incon
sistency may be normative. Or it may be that only a very
small number of extremely deviant status patterns violate
normative expectations to the degree that strain or disso
nance is produced. Another possibility is that status
inconsistency is not only objectively but also subjectively
present but that the advantages associated with having an
inconsistent status override or interact, such that the
individual is more successful in social interaction.
Whichever the case may be, it is possible to apply
this general reasoning to the findings of the present study.
It might be that the populations from which the stable and
67
unstable samples wereselected are heterogeneous and mobile.5
Assuming for a moment that this is the case, it could possi
bly be expected that inconsistent individuals in a marriage
setting would, on the one hand, be just as able to cope with
their entire social environment as consistent individuals
and thus introduce less tension and frustration to bear on
the spouse than was expected. On the other hand, a couple
which exhibits dyadic inconsistency, as well as individual
inconsistency, may experience some of the role conflict pre
dicted by the conceptual framework developed in this paper,
but compensate with greater flexibility in adapting to each
other.
From the above discussion it can be seen that there
are indeed a number of criticisms which can be made of sta
tus consistency theory. These are primarily associated with
the lack of specificity common to most status consistency
models. A good deal of refinement is needed at this point
in order that greater conceptual clarity can be brought to
research explanations dealing with status consistency.
Once again there are several limitations whose pos
sible influence on the results should be acknowledged.
These include the relatively small sample size, with its
associated constricted range of consistency scores, and the
dissimilarities between the two samples which made direct
comparisons tenuous.
It had been hoped during the initiation of this pro
ject that justification could be made that both samples had
been drawn from the same or similar populations. If this
had resulted the range of status consistency or marital
adjustment within each sample would have been of lesser
68
importance. The stable sample would have provided some
representation of the upper end of the marital adjustment
continuum while the unstable sample would reflect the lower
extreme. The sample background characteristics appear to be
so dissimilar that they each represent elements of entirely
different populations. This being the case an attempt was
made to analyze the range of status consistency in each sam
ple separately and relate it to the dependent variable of
marital adjustment.
In most of the previous studies the extremes of the
consistency range have been compared as to their association
with the dependent variables. Often these extreme catego
ries of consistent and inconsistent individuals have been
drawn from very large samples. Such a procedure will typi
cally produce a greater range of the number of individuals
to represent these very extreme categories. Investigators
have thus reported statistically significant differences on
the dependent variables comparing consistents to inconsis-
tents. It is, however, known that even findings significant
at .01 level using an inferential statistic may be indica
tive of a quite small relationship between the independent
and dependent variables, however this does not negate their
value in exploratory research. It is therefore the conclu
sion of this investigator that had this study been conducted
under somewhat different conditions, findings might have
been generated in support of the conceptual framework sug
gested here. These conditions would include the obtaining
of a larger, more diverse sample and the use of an inferen
tial statistic, which would have tested only the presence of
some relationship versus the correlation statistics employed
69
here to measure the degree of relationship.6 This, however,
only serves to beg the question of the value of the concept
of status consistency as a predictor of marital adjustment
and stability.
It is the opinion of this writer that some doubt may
be cast on the value of the concept of status consistency as
a predictor of the dependent variables included in this
s tudy.
An attempt has been made throughout this discussion
to point out the numerous shortcomings of this research as
well as those found in status consistency research in gen
eral. A secondary purpose throughout has thereby been to
infer how future endeavors might pursue this empirical and
theoretical area more profitably. Concerning more specific
recommendations derived from this investigation the writer
offers the following:
1. A large random sample should be taken, if pos
sible, on a national or at least an urban areawide basis.
This sample might be stratified to insure adequate represen
tation of unstable marriages. In addition it might be
stratified to include optimum minority ethnic representation
which would allow the researcher to utilize an ethnic status
indicator in construction of the consistency index. Such a
sample would allow the researcher to utilize an ethnic
status indicator in construction of the consistency index.
Such a sample would allow for approximating control of the
additive effects of individual statuses while observing the
multiplicative effects of status consistency.
2. In-depth interviewing should be conducted of the
extreme categories of status consistents and inconsistents
70
to determine whether the two groups differ as to the pres
ence of or degree of strain. Additional information should
be obtained as to their marital adjustment. Some insight
should be obtained as to the reference groups associated
with the couples and the normative expectations held by
them.
3. Additional concentration should be maintained as
to which single statuses and combinations of status incon
sistency are most influential on the marital relationship.
For example, it may be that status inconsistency associated
with a couple where the wife ranks higher than the husband
is a more important factor influencing marital adjustment
and stability than a case of dyadic inconsistency where the
husband ranks higher than the wife as has been suggested by
Roth and Peck (1951). Such a hypothesis could be supported
theoretically in terms of the previous discussion concerning
normative expectations. Certain other specific combinations
producing status inconsistency may also prove fruitful. It
could be hypothesized that either individual or dyadic in
consistency, primarily the result of low ethnic status, in
combination with other single status variables or with high
ethnic status associated with the spouse, would result in
greater strain on the marital relationship than the same
degree of inconsistency resulting from a combination of low-
and high-status education or occupations.
71
FOOTNOTES
1 An interesting feature of Malewski's postulation is
his expectation that certain combinations of statuses
between a husband and wife (dyadic inconsistency) would vio
late normative expectations and produce feelings of injus
tice, rejection, and unfriendliness.
2At this point discussion is centered on dyadic con
sistency. Singer is speaking of group tension resulting
from the introduction of status inconsistent individuals
into the group. Tension produced in the individual by his
own inconsistency is another issue.
3Actually Bauman draws from Broom (1959) who first
described this particular advantage of inconsistency for
interaction with individuals from diverse backgrounds.
‘ ‘It should be pointed out here, however, that there
is no evidence available to substantiate that populations
used in other studies which found a relationship between
status inconsistency and several dependent variables were
less heterogeneous or mobile.
5For a discussion of tests of significance in this
regard see Labovitz (1970).
6However, partitioning of the samples of this study
into high and low groups (consistent and inconsistent)
failed to produce any significant differences in terms of
marital adjustment scores.
7The concept of status consistency has also been
challenged to a further degree by Treiman (1966), Mitchell
(1964), and others. They have pointed out that even the
fact that some relationship between status consistency and a
dependent variable exists is suspicious. They agree that
employing status measures in an additive fashion often
explains the results just as adequately.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
72
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Stuart
1953 "Status Congruency as a Variable in Small Group
Performance." Social Forces, 32 (October): 16-
22.
Axelson, Leland
1963 "Marital Adjustment and Marital Role Definitions
of Husbands of Working and Non-working Wives."
Marriage and Family Living, 25 (May): 189-195.
Bauman, Karl E.
1968 "Status Inconsistency, Satisfactory Social
Interaction, and Community Satisfaction in an
Area of Rapid Growth." Social Forces, 47
(September): 45-52.
Benoit-Smullyan, Emile
1944 "Status, Status Types and Status Interrelation
ships." American Sociological Review 9 (April):
151-161.
Bernard, Jessie
1966 "Marital Stability and Patterns of Status
Variables." Journal of Marriage and the Family
28 (November)! 421-439.
Blalock, Hubert M.
1965 "Theory Building and Statistical Concept of
Interaction." American Sociological Review 30
(June) : 374-38TT!
Blalock, Hubert M.
1960 Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Blalock, Hubert M.
1967 "Tests of Status Inconsistency Theory: A Note
of Caution." Pacific Sociological Review 10
(Fall): 69-74.
1967 "Status Inconsistency, Social Mobility, Status
73
74
Integration and Structural Effects." American
Sociological Review 32 (October): 790-801.
Brandmeyer, G.
1965 "Status Consistency and Political Behavior: A
Replication and Extension of Research." Socio
logical Quarterly 6 (Summer): 241-256.
Brandon, Arlene C.
1965 "Status Congruency and Expectations." Sociome-
try 28 (September): 272-288.
Broom, Leonard
1959 "Social Differentiation and Stratification," in
Robert K. Merton (ed.), Sociology Today. New
York: Basic Books.
Cohen, Stanley N.
1969 "An Exploratory Analysis of Two Dimensions of
Family Separation." Unpublished Doctor's Dis
sertation, University of Southern California.
Dyer, William G.
1962 "Analyzing Marital Adjustment Using Role Theory."
Marriage and Family Living 24 (November): 371-
TTS~.
Empey, LaMar T.
1956 "Social Class and Occupational Aspiration: A
Comparison of Absolute and Relative Measure
ment." American Sociological Review 21 (Decem
ber) : 703-709.
Exline, Ralph V. , and Robert C. Ziller.
1959 "Status Congruency and Interpersonal Conflict in
Decision-Making Groups." Human Relations 12
(April): 147-162.
Geschwender, James A.
1967 "Continuities in Theories of Status Consistency
and Cognitive Dissonance." Social Forces 46
(December): 160-171.
Gibbs, Jack P., and Walter T. Martin.
1958 "A Theory of Status Integration and Its Rela
tionship to Suicide." American Sociological
Review 23 (April): 140-147.
Goffman, Irving W.
1957 "Status Consistency and Preference for Change in
Power Distribution." American Sociological
Review 22 (June): 275-281.
75
Goode, W. J.
1960 "A Theory of Role Strain." American Sociologi
cal Review 25 (August): 4 83-496.
Goode, William J.
1956 After Divorce. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free
Press.
Goode, William J.
1961 "Family Disorganization" in Robert K. Mertion
and Robert A. Nisbet (eds.), Contemporary Social
Problems. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Goode, William J.
1964 The Family. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, Inc.
Gover, David A.
1963 "Socio-economic Differential in the Relationship
Between Marital Adjustment and Wife's Employment
Status." Marriage and Family Living 25 (Novem
ber): 452-456.
Hatt, P. K., and C. C. North
19 53 "Jobs and Occupations: A Popular Evaluation" in
R. Bendix and S. M. Lipset (eds.), Class, Sta
tus and Power. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free
Press, pp. 5T1-426.
Heffernan, William Davey.
1968 "Status Inconsistence, Desire for Social Change,
Participation and Individual Improvement for a
Farm Sample." Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Wisconsin.
Hicks, Mary W., and Marily Platt
1970 "Marital Happiness and Stability: A Review of
the Research in the Sixties." Journal of Mar
riage and the Family 34 (November): 553-574.
Hollingshead, August B.
19 50 "Cultural Factors in the Selection of Marriage
Mates." American Sociological Review, 15 (Octo
ber): 619-627.
Homans, George C.
1961 Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Hurvitz, Nathan.
1960 "The Marital Roles Inventory and the Measurement
of Marital Adjustment." Journal of Clinical
76
Psychology 16 (October): 377-380.
Hurvitz, Nathan.
1965 "Control Roles, Marital Strain, Role Deviation,
and Marital Adjustment." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 27 (February): 29-31.
Hyman, Martin D.
1966 "Determining the Effects of Status Inconsis
tency." Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (Spring):
120-129.
Jackson, Elton F.
1962 "Status Consistency and Symptoms of Stress."
American Sociological Review 27 (August): 469-
tsit:---------- ------------
Jackson, Elton F., and Peter J. Burde.
1965 "Status and Symptoms of Stress: Additive and
Interaction Effects." American Sociological
Review 30 (August): 556-564.
Kaufman, Harold F., etal.
1953 "Problems of Theory and Method in the Study of
Social Stratification in Rural Society." Rural
Sociology 18 (March): 15.
Kelly, W. F., and W. J. Chamblis.
1966 "Status Inconsistency and Political Attitudes."
American Sociological Review 31 (June): 375-
7vr.------------- -------------
Kenkel, William F.
1956 "The Relationship Between Status Consistency and
Politico-Economic Attitudes." American Socio
logical Review 21 (June) : 365-3^8.
Kephart, William M.
19 66 The Family, Society and the Individual. Second
edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Kimberly, James C.
1967 "Status Inconsistency: A Reformulation of a
Theoretical Problem." Human Relations 20 (May):
171-179.
Leibovitz, Sanford
"The Nonutility of Significance Tests: The Sig
nificance of Tests of Significance Reconsid
ered." Pacific Sociological Review 13 (Summer):
141-148.
77
Lachenmyer, C. W.
1968 "Status Inconsistency as a Subject of Behavioral
Conflict." Pacific Sociological Review 2
(Fall): 81-5T:
Landecker, W. S.
I960 "The Cyrstallization of Social Strata." Social
Research 27 (Fall): 308-320.
Lenski, G. F.
1956 "Comment on Kendel's Communication." American
Sociological Review 21 (June) : 368-369":
Lenski, Gerhard.
1954 "Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimen
sion of Social Status." American Sociological
Review 19 (August): 405-413.
1956 "Social Participation and Status Crystalliza
tion." American Sociological Review 21 (Au
gust) : 458-464.
1964 Comment." Public Opinion Quarterly 28 (Sum
mer) : 326-330.
Levinger, George
1965 "Marital Cohesiveness and Dissolution: An Inte
grative Review." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 27 (February): 19-29.
Locke, Harvey J.
19 51 Predicting Adjustment in Marriage: A Comparison
of a Divorced and a Happily Married Group. New
York: Henry Holt and Company.
Lucky, Eleanore B.
1960a "Marital Satisfaction and Parent Concepts."
Journal of Consulting Psychology 24: 195-204.
1960b "Marital Satisfaction and Its Association with
Congruence Perception." Marriage and Family
Living 22 (February): 49-54.
1960c "Marital Satisfaction and Congruence Self-Spouse
Concepts." Social Forces 39 (December): 153-
157.
Malewski, Andrzej
1966 "The Degree of Status Incongruence and Its
Effect." in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M.
Lipset (eds.) Class, Status, and Power: Social
Stratification in Comparative Perspective. Sec
78
ond Edition. New York; The Free Press.
McKinley, Donald G.
1964 Social Class and Family Life. New York: The
Free Press of Glencoe.
Mitchell, Robert Edward
1964 "Methodological Notes on a Theory of Status
Crystallization." Public Opinion Quarterly 28
(Summer): 315-325.
Nelson, Edward Emanuel
1968 "Effects of Objective and Subjective Status
Inconsistency." Doctoral Dissertation, univer
sity of California, Los Angeles.
Nye, Ivan F.
1961 "Maternal Employment and Marital Interaction:
Some Contingent Conditions," Social Forces 40
(December): 113-119.
Pellegrin, Roland J., and Frederick L. Bates
1959 "Congruity and Incongruity of Status Attributes
within Occupations and Work Positions." Social
Forces 38 (October): 23-28.
Ren£e, Karen S.
19 70 "Correlates of Dissatisfaction in Marriage."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 32 (January):
54-66.
Roth, Julius, and Robert F. Peck.
1951 "Social Class and Social Mobility Factors
Related to Marital Adjustment." American Soci
ological Review 16 (August): 478-487.
Rush, Gary B.
1967 "Status Consistency and Right-Wing Extremism."
American Sociological Review 32 (February): 86-
Sampson, Edward E.
1963 "Status Congruence and Cognitive Consistency."
Sociometry 26 (June): 146-162.
Scanzoni, John.
1968 "A Social System Analysis of Dissolved and
Existing Marriages." Journal of Marriage and
the Family 30 (August)7 452-461.
Schmitt, D. R.
1965 "An Attitudinal Correlate of the Status Congru-
79
ency of Married Women." Social Forces 44
(December): 190-195.
Siegel, Sidney
1965 Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sci
ences . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Singer, Judith E.
1966 "The Effect of Status Congruence and Incongru
ence on Group Functioning." Doctoral Disserta
tion, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Smi th, Mapheus.
1943 "An Empirical Scale of Prestige Status of Occu
pations ." American Sociological Review 8
(April): 185-192.
Sorokin, Pitrim A
1947 Society, Culture, and Personality. New York:
Harper and Row, pp. 289-294.
Stehr, Nico.
1968 "Status Consistency: The Theoretical Concept
and Its Empirical Referent." Pacific Sociologi
cal Review 2 (Fall): 95-99.
Stuckert, K. P.
1963 "Role Perception and Marital Satisfaction: A
Configurational Approach." Marriage and Family
Living 25 (November): 415-419.
Ter man, Lewis M.
1938 Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness. New
Y*ork: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Treiman, Donald
1966 "Status Discrepancy and Prejudice." American
Journal of Sociology 71 (May): 651-664.
Winch, Robert F., Robert McGinnis, and Herbert R. Berringer.
Selected Studies in Marriage and the Family.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Zalenik, A., C. R. Christenson, and F. J. Rothlisberger.
(Collaboration with George C. Homans).
The Motivation, Productivity, and Satisfaction
of Workers. Cambridge: harvard University
Press, pp. 55-56.
A P P E N D I C E S
80
UNIVERSITY C' F SOUTHL'K.V CALIIO
V M a m j a c i a n d F a m ily C o t; v » a iis c C tv ria
703 W . 34T K $TACCT * L m A k O U l C aU I M K U 9UOO7
T — A tf E. Lm «h i, P h.D .
C w m d ' T - ’ , O t r e c o r
Au u m o B TtTun. P m X> .
Q *m *M U r.'fto r
Custom L Pm um , Ph.D
S olo* Samixj. M.D.
fty tk tS tru S u p trrtio r
}iw y A. P iiu m 'i , P*cL).
C w iJuM
G a i t A . C a m t t . HJl
Tfmi' R r tt* r k D ir tr to r
You and your rsife/nusband are lein« asV.cd to
participate in a research project bein'; conducted through
tiio auspices of the «-arr*a.",e and Family Counseling Center
of the University of Southern California. Your assistance
vill be most valuable in furthering the understanding of
dooestie relations and in addition . . ’ ill provide material
for ty dissertation.
Responses arc to remain anonymous. The Infor
mation is confidential and privileged.
For purposes of maintaining scientific objec
tivity, it is very important tost marriage partners do not
share information about their responses until after the
attached questionnaires iiavo been rctumod. rieusc try to
be objective in your ansvers and to respond to all questions
In addition, it is requested that both you and your \rife/hus<
band complete the questionnaires and return tiiem separately
in the addressed and stamped envelope Included, as soon as
possible.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Gary A. Cretser
Project Director
□CO
1. Circle the dot on the scale line belou which best describes the degree of
happiness, everything considered, of your present carriage. The middle
point, "happy," represents the degree of happiness which most people get 0027G
from marriage. The scale gradually ranges on one side to those vho are
very unhappy in carriage, and on the other, to those who experience extreme
joy In marriage.
e * * * a
Very Happy Perfectly
Unhappy EaPPP
State the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your
mata, on ltaas 2 through 9. Please check each column.
Almost Almost
Always Always Occasionally Frequently Always Always
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree disagree
1
2. handling family finances 1
I
3. iiatters of recreation
Demonstrations of
4. affection
5. Friends
6. Sex relations
4
Conventionality (rleht
7. rood, or proper conduct)
8. Philosopi.v of life
!
Ways of dealing with
9. In-laws
I
Please check your answers to questions 10 through IS.
10. When disagreements arise, they usually result in: husband giving In ,
wife giving in _____ , agreement by mutual give and taka _____.
11. Do you and your sate engage in outsldo interest^ togcthexT All ef them .
some of them , very few of them , none of them .
12. In leisure time do you generally prefer: to be "on the go" . to stay home
Does your mate generally prefer: to be "on the go" _____, to stay home _____
13. How often do you ever wish you had not married? Frequently , occasionally__
rarely . never _____ .
14. If you had your life to live over, do you think you would: Marry the same person
, marry a different person . not marry at all 7
15. How often do you confide In your state: Almost never . rarely .
usually ____, always ?
83
| | SEX: Q MALE [] FEMALE
| | HOW OLD ARE YOU? _______________
Age In yaers
I I n I 1 1 RACE: 0 Ceucaslon
I j Uegro
| j Oriental
| | Mexlcan-Anerlctn
| [ Other
[~| WHAT IS TODAY'S DATE?________________________ _______________
Month Day Year
[ | WHAT IS THE UICUEST LEVEL OF SCHOOLING YOU HAVE CO: IP LET ED?
□
0-6th GRADE
□
7—9th GRADE
□
10-12th GRADE
□
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
□
COLLEGE - 1 YEAR
□
COLLEGE - 2 YEARS
□
COLLEGE - 3 YEARS
□
COLLEGE GRADUATE
□
POSTGRADUATE
□
OTHER
n WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
[~| FULL-TIME HOUSEWIFE (HOT EMPLOYED)
0 EMPLOYED PART-TIME
Q EMPLOYED FULL-TIME
0 OTHER: DESCRIBE__________________
84
["” j u-s. y o u ~r>ir"i~r c . t j u i r i L ^ t ! y e s
| | v u a i i s y o u t occur a t 1 0 ;:? ( d l s c m e l b r i l c l y ) ______________
vuat is tour f-.oinxLY l : co: ie?
(Hot Coonunlty
| j DO TOD HAVE AUY WEALTH TEAT DOES EOT EELOE'C TO YOU? WIFE? Property)
□ STOCKS A.VD EOHDS
| | t.'EERITAHCE
n SAVI2SGS
□ REAL ESTATE
[~1 VALUABLE OBJECTS (JEWELRY, ATT, RAKE COIHS, ETC.)
| | OTHER: (DESCRIBE) ________________________
[~~1 EOHE
| [ ARE YOU A:."? YCUF. 'lARITAL FARTHER HOW LIVING APART BECAUSE OR FAMILY TROUBLE?
□ YES □ NO
IF YES, HOW LO:K HAVE YOU LIVED APART? ____________________________________
f~l IF YOU ARE :COV LIVIHG A?ART, HOW ARE YOU SUFFORTEDT
[ | SUPPORT MYSELF BY WORKING
I | MARITAL FARTHER SUPPORTS !!E VOLUNTARILY
| | COURT ORDER _ ALIMOHY AND/OR CHILD SUPPORT
□ RELATIVES
| | FRIEl.DS (NOT IilCUTING FAMILY MEMBERS)
| j PUBLIC ASSISTANCE OR OTHER TYPE WELFARE
□ OTHER: (DESCRIBE)_______________________________________
85
n IF YOU ARE NOW LIVEIC APART, HOW ATE YOU!* CHILDREN SUPPORTED?
n 1 SUPFOCT T11E! BY UOnjCING
| | MARITAL P.'JirE SUPPORTS THE! VOLKrr/.RILT
| I COURT ORDER - ALIMO.T AITi/GP CHILD SUPPORT
□ RELATIVES
| | FRIENDS CIOT INCLUDING FAMILY MEMBERS)
| | PUBLIC ASSISTAI1CE OR OTTER TYPE WELFARE
□ OTHER: (DESCRIBE) ________________________________________
□ DOES COT APPLY TO ME (We live together)
PREVIOUS MARITAL INFORMATION
| | HAVE YOU BEEN MARPJED BEFORE? f~] YES | | IB
[ | IF YES, HOW MANY PREVIOUS MARRIACES? _____________
PRESET I1ARIT/JL IKFORilATION
I I DATE OP PRESET M A R R I A G E _________________________________
— Mo:m: day year
I I BOW OLD WERE YOU AT TEE TIME OF THIS 1IAPRIACE? __________
□ » YOU H/.VE AIT CHILDREN FROM TPIS !L\RRIACE? □ YES □ NO
n IF YES, LOW I LIT CHILD RE!
| | BOW 11ANY CEILDRD1 ARE UNDER 5 YEARS OP ACE?___ ______
| | COM MANY CHILDREN ARE BETWEEN 6 AMD 11? ______
|~| HOW MANY CHILD RE! ARE BCT1IE! 12 AND 16? _______
| | BOW MANY CHI LORE! ARE OVER 18 TEARS OP ACE? ______
[ | WHAT IS THE BIRTH DATE OF THE FIRST CHILD OF THIS MARRIAGE?
MONTH DAY YEAR
□ lave you Ever. lad aiiy iaw-iace coitseli.k; previously? [] n s [] .:o
ir yes, mcs: 'T.o"?
| I PSYCUI/7P.ISTS, PSYCL’ OLOCISTS
□ social ror.Km
| | RELIGIOUS (PRIEST, UI.ISTEP)
□ ■ JTSJAGZ CO’ J.XLLOn
□ OTUER: DESCRI3E ______________________________
I I II/.VE YOU A1!D YOUR ' ARIT/L PALTUEF. EVEP. LIVED APART PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE
— "YOU COULD .-OT GET ALG.:G I.ITh EACH OTUER1 T Q YES |_J NO
| I IF YES, KOU "AIIY teies? ________
| I LOU LONG LIFE TUESL FAST SEPATAIIOUS? CIVE DATES AND LEI 1CTl'S OF SEPAR/TICUS
FIRST SEPARAIIO.I __________________
SECOUD SEPARATION _________________
THIRD SEPARATION' __________________
FOURTH SEPARATION _________________
1~1 I TAT IS TOUT PXLIGIOUS AFTILIATIO.I?
□ PROTEST/: IT
| | JEUIEE
□ catuclic
| | OTUER
| | i: o: ie
□ DID YOU LAVE A RELIGIOUS IIARRIAGE CEEEIO.IY? □ YLS Q :«o
I I HOW OFTEJ DO YOU /JTTEID RELIGIOUS SERVICES?
□ (MICE A '.UD.rTH
□ ONCE A •••EEi;
□ 2 OP. 3 TI TS A WEEK
□ FEU TEXS a TEAP.
I I UEVER
UNIVERSITY CF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
M a u u a c c a k d F a m i l y C o r s s t u v c C t s T t *
- ' V 703 W . 34TH Street • L o t A nc.u * s, C a l i m w v ia 9 0 x 7
T homas E . L i u w t u , Ph.D.
C oorJim otm g D irector
Al u a n b u B. T *n M , P hD .
Ciim ieoi D ire c to r
Cu v t o n L P M iu m , ftt-D .
Citm ieol D ire c to r
So l o n S a m i i u , M .D .
P ty c k io tric S uper 11 tor
Ja m u A . P i t u m n , Ph D .
C o o su ito o t
C a s t A . C a c t u s , M .A .
S fo e io l R rteorcA Director
You and your ^rife/husband are being ashed to
participate In a research project being conducted through
the auspices of tue ilarriage and Family Counseling Center
of the University of Southern California* Your assistance
will be wost valuable in furthering the understanding of
domestic relations and in addition •..•ill provide material
for my dissertation.
Responses are to remain anonymous* - The infor
mation is confidential and privileged*
For purposes of maintaining scientific objec
tivity, it is very important that marriage partners do cot
share Information about their responses until after the
attached questionnaires have been returned. Please try to
be objective in your answers and to respond to all questions*
In addition, it is requested that both you and your xrife/hus-
band complete tbc questionnaires and return them separately
in the addressed and stamped envelope included, as soon as
possible.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Project Director
87
88
PLEACH. DESCRIBE YOUR FEELliiGS AV TI.IS IL'E \ h . ! ] J~
' l U i ' t
Circle the dot on the scale line below which best describes the degree of
happiness» everything considered, of your present carriage. The clddle
point, "happy,"represents the degree of happiness which cost people get
froo carriage. Thu scale gradually ranges on one side to those vno arc
very unhappy in carriage, and on the other, to chose who experience cxtreoe
joy in carriage.
0017G
Very
Unhappy
Happy Perfectly
Happy
State the approxlcate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your
nate, on ltaas 2 through 9. Please check each column.
Almost Almost
Always Always Occasionally Frequently Always Al>>avs
2. handling fanilv finances 1
3. I Utters of recreation :
Danonstratiocs of
4. affection
i
3. Friends
i
6. Sex relations
|
Conventionality (rlcht
7. f;ood« or prorcr conduct)
i
i
8. Fhilosopi.v of life
j
Ways of dealing «rtth
9m in-lavs
1
Plaaaa check your answers to questions 10 through IS.
10. When disagreements arise, they usually result in: husband giving in___
wife giving in _____, agreement by mutual give and take .
11. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? All of then
of then , very few of than , none of then .
12.
13.
In lelsur- tine do you generally prefer: to be “on the go"
Itoes your sate generally prefer: to be ‘on the go" _____, to stay hooo
Eow often do you ever wish you had not married? Frequently
rarely , never .
, to stay hone
hooo _____ .
occasionally ,
14.
IS.
If you had your life to live over, do you think you would: Harry the sane person
. natty a different person _____, not merry at all_____ ?
How often do you confide In your mate: Almost never
usually . always______?
rately
89
□
□
BOW CU> ABE YOU?
SEX: □ MALE Q] FE1ALE
A|« in y«ari
ri i 1 I 1 ] RACE: □ Caucaaloa
j |
□ Oriental
j [ Kexlcan-Aaterlcan
f~~) Othar
□ WHAT IS TODAY'S DATE?
| | WHAT IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCEOOLIUG TOC HAVE CCTTLETEDT
[ [ O-Eth GRADE
| | 7-Sth GRADE
□ 10-12cb CRADE
EICH SCHOOL GRADUATE
□ COLLEGE - I YEAR
□ COLLEGE - 2 YEARS
□ COLLEGE - 3 YEARS
□ COLLEGE GRADUATE
[ | POSTGRADUATE
[ | OTHER ____________
| | UEAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
Ikrath Day Year
| | PULL-TTX HOUSEWIFE (HOT EMPLOYED)
| | EMPLOYED PART-TU1E
I | EMPLOYED PULL-TlrtE
| I OTHER: DESCRIBE_________________
90
| 1 IF YCU ARE KPLOYED, WUAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
□ □ □ □ “h a t 1S tour i:o:miLY i: : co- ie? _______________________________________
[ I BOW IXCU OF YOUT. INCOME IS ADDED TO THE FAMILY INCOME?
□ llOtTE CF IT
□ 25Z or IT
□ 50Z OF IT
f~~| ALL OF IT
^ (Mot Coaaunlty
| I DO YOU HAVE AMY WEALTH THAT DOES HOT BELONG TO YOUR HUSBAND? Frooerty)
□ STOCKS AND BONDS
□ IHHERITANCE
□ SAVIXS
□ REAL EST/iTE
| | VALUABLE OBJECTS (JE’ .'ELRY, ART. RARE COINS, ETC.)
| | OTHER___________________________________________________
| | ARE YOU AMD YOUR MARITAL FARTHER HOW LIVING APART BECAUSE OF FAMILY TROUBLE?
□ YES □ MO
| | IF YES, HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED APART?
[ | IF YOU ARE NOW LIVING APART, HOW ARE YOU SUPPORTED?
| | SUPPORT MYSELF BY WORKING
I") MARITAL PARTNER SUTPORTS ME VOLUNTARILY
[ [ COURT ORDER - ALIMONY AND/OR CHILD SUPPORT
□ RELATIVES
| | FRIENDS (HOT IHCLUDINC FAMILY MB1BERS)
n PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Or. OTHER TYPE WELFARE
n OTHER: (DESCRIBE) _____________________________________
ip too are :;ow living apart, how are your children supported?
□ I SUPPORT THE! BY WORXING
| | MARITAL PARTNER SUPPORTS THE! VOLUNTARILY
| | COURT ORDER - ALIMONY Al!D/OR CHILD SUPPORT
□ RELATIVES
| | FRIENDS (NOT INCLUDING FA’tlLY MEMBERS)
| | PUBLIC ASSISTANCE OR OTTER TYPE WELFARE
□ OTHER: (DESCRIBE) __________________________
□ DOES NOT APPLY TO ME (Ut llv* together)
PREVIOUS MARITAL INFORMATION
| | HAVE YOU BEEN MARRIED BEFORE? | | YES | |
| | IF YES, HOW MANY PREVIOUS IIARRIACES? ____________
PRESENT MARITAL IKFOPJUJTON
I I DATE OF PRESEirr MARRIAGE
NO
MOUTH DAY YEAR
I I BOW OLD WERE YOU AT THE TIKE OF THIS MARRIAGE?_________
| | DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN FROM THIS MARRIAGE? |~~| YES | 1 HO
YES. LOU ILfJIY CHILDREN
| | HOW IL’ Urr CHILDREN ARE UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE? ____
| | HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE 1ETWEEN 6 AND 11? ____
| | HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE BETWEEN 12 AND 16? ____
| | HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE OVER 18 YEARS OF AGE? ____
| | WHAT IS THE BIRTH DATE OF THE FIRST CHILD OF THIS MARRIAGE?
MONTH DAY YEAR
92
□ HAVE YOU EVER 11/0 ANY llAEMACE COUNSELIilG previously? Q yes Q no
IF YES, fro:! h:o ;t
I I PSYCHIATRISTS, ®SYC1?OLOCIETS
□ SOCIAL 1WJC?.
□ RELIC 10US (PRIEST, HINISTEP)
I I lAPEI/iGD COUNSELOR
| | OTHER: DESCRI3E _______________________________
{ I UAVE YOU Ai.Tl YOUR .lARITAL PARTNER EVEP. LIVED APART PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE
— "YOU COULD HOT CCT ALONG WITH EACH OTHER"? Q YES [_J NO
□ IF YES, HOI! rUu!Y TEES? ________
| | EOU LONG HERE THESE PAST SEPARATIONS? GIVE DATES A1!D LENGTHS OF SEPARATIONS
FIRST SEPARATION __________________
SEOOUD SEPARATION_________________
THIRD SEPARATION __________________
FOURTH SEPAS/alOi: _________________
| | UEAT IS YOUP. RELIGIOUS AFFILIATI01I?
□ PROTESTANT
[~~| jeitise
□ CATHOLIC
| | OTHER
□ TONE
F I I®0 HAVE A RELIGIOUS KARR1/.GE CERBIOIIY? □ YES □ »
| | BOW OFTEN DO YOU ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICES?
□ ONCE A MONTH
□ CNCE A irEEIC
□ 2 OR 3 TI'ES A WEEK
□ FEU T E IS A YE/P.
n HEVER

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Role Perception, Empathy, And Marital Adjustment

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

Communication Between Engaged Couples

PDF

Factors Associated With Women In Major Administrative Positions In California Community Colleges

PDF

An Exploratory Analysis Of Two Dimensions Of Family Separation

PDF

Alienation, Structural Strain, And Political Deviancy: A Test Of Merton'Shypothesis

PDF

The Effects Of Social Security Programs On Fertility Levels

PDF

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

PDF

A Study Of The Attitudes Of Mothers Of Mentally Retarded Children As Influenced By Socioeconomic Status

PDF

Complementarity, Homogeneity, Heterogeneity And Marital Stability

PDF

Group Factors And Individual Internalization Of A Value

PDF

The Selfish Self: A Social Psychological Study Of Social Character

PDF

The Relationship Between Student Characteristics And Work Rate And Between Work Rate And Performance In Programmed Instruction With Two Different Subject Matter Fields

PDF

Academic Specialization And The Construction Of Social Reality: Ideologies Regarding Deviance

PDF

Class Consciousness And Social Mobility In A Mexican-American Community

PDF

An Analysis Of The Changing Focus Of Marriage Counseling

Asset Metadata

Creator Cretser, Gary Allen (author)

Core Title Status consistency and its effects on marital adjustment and stability

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

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Lasswell, Thomas E. (committee chair), Miller, Jon P. (committee member), Wilbur, Leslie (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-805556

Unique identifier UC11364480

Identifier 7318803.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-805556 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7318803

Dmrecord 805556

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cretser, Gary Allen

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