University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received g RHOLL, Keith Norris, 1917- A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL AND MARITAL ROLES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1968 Sociology, family University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan iix7 Copyright by Keith Norris Rholl 1969 A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL AND MARITAL ROLES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT by Keith Norris Rholl 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) June 1968 UNIVERSITY O F SOUTH ERN CALIFORNIA T H E GRADUATE SC H O O L U N IV ER SITY PARK LOS A N G ELE S, C A LIFO R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by ......... Keith.Norxi.s.Rhpll......... under the direction of hi.?..... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y Date J.une,. 19.68. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE A Chatptian f y l u s l L ' t - J ' Y 7 > J TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES IV Chapter I. THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction Statement of the Problem Importance of the Study Definitions of Terms Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation General Role Theory Role Expectations Role Behavior Role Conflict Marital Role and Marital Adjustment Occupational Role Marital Role and Occupational Role Summary and Conclusions The Hypotheses Introduction The Sample Collection of the Data Social Characteristics Research Instruments Employed II, REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 12 III. THE METHODOLOGY 167 Chapter Page Research Design Statistical Procedures Data Processing Limitations of the Study IV. FINDINGS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL ROLES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT . . . 212 V. FINDINGS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THREE VARIABLES; OCCUPATIONAL ROLE, MARITAL ROLE, AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT................... 230 VI. FINDINGS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS IN COM MITMENT TO OCCUPATIONAL AND MARITAL ROLES . . . 272 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................... 292 Summary Conclusions Implications of This Study for Marriage Counseling, Social Psychology, and Sociology Suggestions for Further Research APPENDIXES Appendix A: Face Sheet Information and Wallace Marital Adjustment Test ............... 325 Appendix B; Interpersonal Check List ............... 327 Appendix C; Occupational Role Inventory ........... 329 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 331 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison of Ages of Adjusted-Unadjusted Couples.........................................174 2. Comparison of Years Married for Adjusted- Unadjusted Couples..................... 175 3. Comparison of Years Worked for Adjusted- Unadjusted Couples..............................177 4. Comparison of Proportion of Marriage Wives Worked by Year of Marriage......................178 5. Comparison of Proportion of Marriage Worked for Adjusted-Unadjusted Couples ............. 181 6. Comparison of Number of Children for Adjusted- Unadjusted Couples..............................183 7. Comparison of Education Level of Adjusted- Unadjusted Couples..............................185 8. Comparison of Income Level of Adjusted- Unadjusted Couples..............................187 9. Comparison of Religious Preference of Adjusted-Unadjusted Couples ................. 189 10. Comparison of Marital Adjustment of Adjusted- Unadjusted Couples........................... 190 11. A Comparison of Adjusted-Unadjusted Couples in Their Disparities between Various Occupa tional Role Scores and Marital Adjustment . . 213 iv Table Page 12. Comparisons of Product-Moment Correlations between Various Occupational Role Dispari ties and Marital Adjustment ................. 216 13. Comparisons of Adjusted-Unadjusted Couples in Their Various Marital Role Disparities and Marital Adjustment ....................... 231 14. Comparisons of Correlations between Various Marital Role Disparities and Marital Adjustment...................................234 15. t Scores for Difference between Means between Adjusted and Unadjusted Couples on the Marital and Occupational Roles . . 236 16. A Comparison of r-Correlations, F Scores, and Levels of Significance for Various Occupa tional and Marital Role Disparities in Their Relationship to Marital Adjustment . . . 239 17. Comparison of Partial Correlations between ■'0cV?8£pational Role and Marital Adjustment with Marital Role Controlled, between Mari tal Role and Marital Adjustment with Occu pational Role Controlled, for Adjusted and Unadjusted Couples, and for All Couples . . . 242 18. Levels of Significance for the Partials in Table 17 between Occupational Role Dispari ties and Marital Adjustment with Marital Role Controlled, between Marital Role Dis parities and Marital Adjustment with Occu pational Role Controlled, for Adjusted and Unadjusted Couples and for All Couples .... 245 19. Comparisons of Correlations between Occupa tional Role Disparities and the Correspond ing Marital Role Disparities for Adjusted, v Table Page Unadjusted, and for All Couples............... 247 20. A Comparison of Correlations between Occupa tional and Marital Roles of Husbands ........ 274 21. A Comparison of Correlations between Occupa tional and Marital Roles of W i v e s .............275 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Although the concept of role has been widely ana lyzed for many years, its study has been increasingly em phasized in recent years. Educators, sociologists, family counselors, social psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers have found this concept relevant in theory and re search. It is a most useful concept in analyzing the rela tionships of individuals to the social system through the various groups or sub-systems to which they belong. This study will use role in a sociological and social psycho logical- way. ~ Statement of the Problem This study is an exploration in role analysis. The general line of inquiry is to investigate role conflict be tween expectations and behavior. They are the aspects of 1 role that have been widely used in sociological and social psychological literature. Role expectations are normative standards which are interpreted by groups and applied to members who hold positions in their group. Role behavior refers to enactment, to what persons actually do in their positions located in a group, as well as to interpersonal relationships with other members. Behavior is evaluated in terms of the group’s expectation for each person. Since it is unlikely that any individual's actual behavior can per fectly fulfill all of his obligations and the normative de mands made upon him, there is likely to be some degree of difference between expectations and behavior which will result in role conflict. This study will investigate the differences between an individual's own expectations for himself and his actual behavior, as well as between his spouse's expectation and her perception of his role enact ment . There is also a specific focus in this study upon two kinds of institutional roles: marital and occupational. There are cultural definitions of normative standards for husbands and wives in their marital roles, but each spouse also has interpretations of these norms based on his social ization in his family of orientation, his integration of all of his experiences, his definition of the situation, etc. Insofar as the behavior of specific husbands and wives dif fer from their spouses' expectations, as well as their own, role conflict may result. On the other hand, husbands and working wives have occupational roles. Cultural definitions of normative standards, specific occupational norms, and specific reference group (individual companies with signifi cant others for individuals, individual families, etc.) norms of the work role create expectations for occupational roles. If there is any difference between occupational role expectation and behavior, either within an individual or between him and his spouse, there is a degree of role con flict. Moreover, conflict is also possible owing to incom patibilities of expectation or behavior between marital and occupational roles. This study will analyze the relationships between occupational roles and marital adjustment, between occupa tional and marital roles, and between these two roles and marital adjustment. The Importance of the Study The importance of this study is conceived of as focusing on role, which is a central concept occupying a strategic position in .sociology and social psychology. Role has been widely analyzed by sociologists, social psycholo gists, educators, family counselors, psychiatrists, social workers, and in interdisciplinary efforts. Theoretical in terest has been considerably greater than empirical research, although quantitative studies also seem to be growing in number. Role is a useful concept in providing a frame of reference for the study of an individual's behavior as a member of a particular reference group. It also provides a link in understanding relationships between the individual and the social system, including his various sub-system mem berships. The family as a primary agency of socialization, and the occupational system with its importance in self- concepts, as well as in prestige-status, are key institu tions, and there is need of more studies exploring the interrelationships between them. If there are clashes in interests, norms, values, or in changing roles, all of which are major constructs in the social system, this study pro vides a comparative basis for sociological discussion and analysis. A final purpose is to aid in the development of middle range theory in role analysis, not only as it re lates the individual to his group memberships, but also in building interconnections between the fields of the family and industrial sociology. Definitions of Terms A great number of sociological and social psycho logical concepts are employed in this study, but the follow ing are most central to its focus. Role expectations.— These are normative definitions and evaluations attached to specific functions or positions, and involve obligations, as well as rights, in shared inter personal relationships. In this work, the interest is in an individual's expectations of himself in relation to his spouse's expectations of him. Expectations are also com pared to the perceptions of both spouses. Role behavior.— This is what a person does in endur ing' interpersonal relationships with others. The focus is on an individual's perception, which includes both his defi nition of the situation and actual enactment. In this study, the attention is centered upon a person's own per ception of his behavior, as well as that of his spouse's. The husband and wife are interacting in counter-position to each other in shared responsiveness, communication, and level of consensus. 6 Reference groups.— These are groups composed of per sons significant to an individual and provide frames of ref erence for the development and maintenance of shared expec tations for individuals, as well as meaningful sanctions for behavior. In this study, we have focused on only two in dividuals within a reference group, the husband and wife as significant to each other. Two reference groups are used, the family in which marital roles are interacting with each other and the occupational group as it involves the percep tion of behavior and expectations of the spouses only. Marital role.— This term refers to either expecta tion or behavior of husband or wife in their family inter relationships with each other. Marital role expectations are held for oneself and are operationalized on the Inter personal Check List (ICL) in the test on the ideal self. They are also held for one's spouse and these are defined in terms of the ICL test on the ideal mate. One's own percep tion of his marital role behavior is operationalized on the ICL self test and his perception of his spouse on the ICL mate test. _ . Occupational role.— This refers to either perceived behavior or expectation of the husband and wife in their work interrelationships with each other. Occupational role expectations are held for oneself and these are operation alized in the Occupational Role Inventory ideal self test. Those which are expected of one's spouse are defined in terms of the Occupational Role Inventory ideal mate test. One's own perception of his occupational role behavior is operationalized in terms of the Occupational Role Inventory self test and perceptions of his spouse on the Occupational Role Inventory mate test. Marital adjustment.— This refers to the degree of consensus, cooperative and intimate companionship, satisfac tion, and mutual solidarity a husband and wife have in their interpersonal relationship. In this work two groups were selected, an unadjusted group from counseling clinics and an adjusted group from churches, both of whom were given the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. Although each group had some range in its scores, they were significantly different in their means (see p. 190 below). Scores were along a continuum and reflect a comparative satisfaction with the marriage. Thus, the adjusted wives' group had a higher mean (135.8) than the unadjusted wives, whose mean was 62.48; and the adjusted husbands' group had a higher mean (133.58) than the unadjusted husbands whose mean was 71.6. Thus, marital adjustment is operationalized by relative scores on the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. Commitment.— This refers to the relative involvement or pull of the obligation expected or behavior enacted in either marital or occupational roles. The level of pull is measured along a continuum with low scores indicating low involvement and high scores pointing to a strong pull toward the particular role. An individual's perception of his own marital role commitment is operationalized in his total score on the ICL self test, while his perception of his spouse's marital role commitment is measured on the ICL mate test. An individual's ideal marital role commitment is measured by his total test score on the ICL ideal self test, while his ideal mate's marital role commitment is operation alized by the ICL ideal mate test. Since the total scores for Dorn and Lov are not additive, they are compared to the corresponding occupational role commitment separately. An individual's perception of his occupational role commitment is operationalized by his total score on the Oc cupational Role Inventory, while his perception of his spouse's occupational role commitment is measured by the Occupational Role Inventory mate test. An individual's ideal occupational role commitment is measured by his total test score on the Occupational Role Inventory ideal self test; while his ideal mate's commitment to occupational role is measured by the Occupational Role Inventory ideal mate test. In order to compare and analyze the level of commit ment, the total test score in a specific marital role is compared to the corresponding occupational role (for exam ple, an individual's perceived marital role commitment is compared with his perceived occupational role commitment, an individual's ideal marital role commitment is compared with his ideal occupational role commitment, etc.). Thus, the relationship between levels of commitment in marital and occupational roles is compared and analyzed. Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation The procedure of this study will be as follows: the related literature is reviewed in Chapter II. The first part deals with role expectations, behavior, and conflict in general sociological works. The second section consists of a review of studies in marital role and marital adjustment taken together, after which work on occupational role is 10 presented. In the third part, there is a review of studies of general association between occupational and marital role, as well as specific interrelated work concerning job adjustment, family power structure, and working wives. Chapter III describes the methodology used in this study. The sample, the gathering of the data, and the so cial characteristics of the sample are delineated. The hypotheses are outlined, after which there follows a de scription of the three research instruments used in testing them. They are the Interpersonal Check List, the Occupa tional Role Inventory, and the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. There is a description of the statistical procedures used in analyzing the data. Finally, data processing infor mation and the limitations of the study are included. The statistical analysis and findings of the study are reported in Chapters IV, V, and VI. Chapter IV deals with hypotheses about incongruences between occupational role and marital adjustment. Chapter V is concerned with hypotheses about incongruences between occupational roles, when they are associated with disparities between marital roles, and marital adjustment. Chapter V reports on the hypotheses about commitment to occupational and marital roles. In these chapters each hypothesis is analyzed by appropriate statistical procedures, which lead to their sup port or rejection. All of these data are reported in these three chapters. Chapter VII presents a summary of the study, as well as its conclusions. It also offers some suggestions for further research and the implications of the study for so ciology and related fields. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Not only is the concept of role a most important one in anthropology, sociology, and social psychology,'*' but it is also one of the most extensively employed concepts in 2 related social sciences. It is a useful construct m the exploration of the self, the analysis of individual behav ior, the observation of interpersonal interaction, and the study of group structures, as well as functions. It has been used as a central organizing theme in a new edition of 3 a widely used text book and has a most important place m ^Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEach- ern, Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 3. ^Frederick L. Bates, "Position, Role, and Status: A Reformulation of Concepts," Social Forces. XXXIV (May, 1956), 313 . 3James A. Peterson, Education for Marriage (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1964), pp. 21-40, 207-253, 431-492. 12 13 4 many other studies. Furthermore, it is also possible that it could be used as a unifying concept which could act as a mediating influence between various interdisciplinary 5 fields. In spite of its importance, Nieman and Hughes in their extensive review of role literature observed that the 6 concept was rather vague and inadequately delimited. Sum marizing a great many studies of role, they found that there were definitions which employed the factor of socialization, together with its utility in the description of cultural patterns, functional definitions used in analyzing social systems (role as a social norm or as a synonym for behav ior), and specific definitions in terms of various group ^For example, see Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organization (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 37-197; Katherine Dupre Lumpkin, The Family: A Study of Member Roles (Chapel Hill: The Uni versity of North Carolina Press, 1933), pp. 8-139; Theodore M. Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York: The Dryden Press, 1950), 264-334; Eugene V. Schneider, Industrial Sociology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1957), pp. 2-16, ^Sally L. Kotlar, "Middle Class Marital Roles— Ideal and Perceived in Relation to Adjustment in Marriage" (un published Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Cali fornia, 1961), p. 1. ^Lionel J. Nieman and J. W. Hughes, "The Problems of the Concept of Role— A Re-Survey of Literature," Social Forces. XXX (December, 1951), 141-14-5. 14 interrelationships (role as the dynamic element of status in a status-role continuity). They concluded that "in spite of the confusion, the concept of role is at present an integral 7 part of the sociological vocabulary." More recent reviews of role literature indicate that the concept of role is receiving much attention and recog nition in terms of both theoretical inquiry and empirical g research. Normative cultural patterns or expectations, situational orientations or social locations, and role en actment or behavior are the common elements of role found in 9 present formulations. These basic elements are helpful m delimiting role for effective use in the study of interper sonal relationships,^ and have contributed to the increas ing number of studies about role in recent years. ^ 7Ibid., p. 149. ®Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Role Analysis, p. 3. 9Ibid.. pp. 11-17. See also Victoria Old, "Role Theory and Casework: A Review of the Literature," Social Casework. XLIII (January, 1962), 3-8; and Theodore R. Sar- bin, "Role Theory," in Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. by Gardner Lindzey (Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954), pp. 223-232. •^-^Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), p. 242. ■'■•'■William J. Goode, "Norm Commitment and Conformity to Role-Status Obligation," Anerican Journal of Sociology. 15 In this study, role is employed in a sociological and social psychological way. The focus is on an individ ual's perception of his own role behavior, his own role ex pectations, his perception of his spouse's role behavior, his expectations of his spouse's role, and the conflicts between these various roles . Situational aspects or social locations which are involved are the family and occupational orientations. Role is also being studied in the framework of sym bolic interactionism. It is a social psychological theory which stresses understanding of the self-concept, socializa tion of the individual in his behavior, attitudes, norms, and values within the unity of a reference group of inter acting personalities (family and occupational groups in this study), role enactment, and expectation. Personality is an integration of enduring patterns of behavior. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes the social act as a never-ending series of acting and re-acting (stimulus-response-stimulus etc.). Communication is symbolic use of language in mean ings which are shared. Interpersonal conflicts are viewed in terms of incongruities in orientation to the situation, LXVI (November, 1960), 248. ■ - . — . 16 role definitions, or self-other understandings of persons. Accuracy of perceptions of both roles and situations is im portant in the self-image, living with significant others,- and the meanings of the generalized other. Social relation ships emphasized in this study are those in family and occu pational groups. Individuals have positions as husbands, wives, employees, or employers. Role theory is of great relevance in symbolic interactionism. There is also some reliance on structure-functional— ism in this study. It is employed in understanding the po sition of individuals in groups, the contributions of cul ture to role expectations, norms or standards, role choices between various pattern variables in their relationship to values, and the family and occupational groups as social sub-systems with an interplay of interaction between these institutions within the larger social system. Role Expectations Expectation is one of the common elements involved in the concept of role. Cultural patterns provide guides to individuals in orienting themselves and roles are "the sum total of cultural patterns associated with a particular 17 12 status.” It would seem that status was a somewhat static position in a group or system occupied by at least one mem ber and recognized by other members. Attitudes, values, rights, and duties are ascribed to persons occupying this 13 position. A role is "the dynamic aspect of status," which refers to the behavior of the occupants of a given position. As certain norms are reinforced and sanctions are imposed, an individual organizes the rights and obligations of his 14 position. These norms are external to the individual and 15 have relevance for his position m the social structure. Thus, norms have objectivity, but individuals must be aware of group support for them in order for conformity to occur. A role is also a "sector of the total orientation system of an individual actor, which is organized about ex pectations in relation to a particular interaction context, that is integrated with a particular set of value standards, -l-^Raiph Linton, The Cultural Background of Person ality (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1945), p. 77. l^Ralph Linton, The Study of Man (New York: Apple- ton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1936), p. 114. l^Matilda w. Riley, John W. Riley, and Jackson Toby, Sociological Studies in Scale Analysis (New Brunswick: Rut gers University Press, 1954), p. 15. ■^Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied (Glencoe: Free Press, 1949), p. 230. 18 which govern interaction with one or more alters in the appropriate roles."^ Orientation to a position is rein forced as significant others in a person's life evaluate 17 what standards ought to be applied to any given position. Sanctions support certain alternatives in action and support 18 some norms, rather than others for any given individual. Thus, significant others in any given situation sanction the behavior of each person to the degree that his role expec- 19 tations are fulfilled. There is the added normative ele- 20 ment that individuals are expected to be consistent. Per sons also internalize these evaluations of others and they 21 become a part of the way social situations are perceived. The groups to which persons belong are a strong factor in determining their roles, according to Mead. He felt that ■^Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe: Free Press, 1951), p. 38. l^Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Role Analysis, p. 58. l^Riley, Riley, and Toby, Scale Analysis, p. 15. l^William G. Dyer, "Looking at Conflict," Adult Leadership. IX (September, 1960), 79. ^^Ralph H. Turner, "Role-Taking, Role Standpoint, and Reference Group Behavior," American Journal of Sociolo gy. LXI (January, 1956), 317. ^-*-Muzafer Sherif, The Psychology of Social Norms (New York: Harper and Bros., 1936), p. 23. 19 individuals organize the attitudes of others who are in volved in the same group situations. The generalized other develops from all the groups to which persons belong or from the organized community and this gives a self-unity to the individual, but also allows the community to exercise con- 22 trol over its individual members. Moreover, cultural influences may be divided into two groups, the general and the specific. The general influences are those which culture exerts upon the developing personalities of all members of the society which bears it. The specific influences are those which it exerts upon persons belonging to particular, socially recognized groups or categories of individuals within the society.^3 Specific roles are also taken in an interlocking pattern in social organizations in which the forms of activity are pre scribed . The network of standardized role behavior constitutes the formal structure of an organization. A formalized role system, then, is one in which the rules defining the expected interdependent behavior of incumbents of system positions are explicitly formulated and sanc tions are employed to enforce the rules.^4 In social organizations persons have rights and 22George h . Mead, Mind. Self, and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), pp. 154-155, 194, 235. 23Linton, Man. p. 470. 24Katz and Kahn, Social Psychology. p. 49. 20 duties which are relative to one another, as well as to the 25 positions or statuses which they occupy. Since rights and obligations are prescribed, group members have some under standing and feeling as to what behavior is expected in each position.*^ Through intentional teaching, as well as inci dental learning, members come to understand their role ex pectations, which apply both to their actions and to their 27 personal qualxties. Not only are rights and duties assigned to individ uals, but values are also inherent in the role expectations assigned by the group. Individual differences are expected within a general scheme of values, but once these standards are accepted and approved by group members, they constitute proper behavior for each person. Moreover, within the gen eral norms of society, an individual applies situational 28 norms to particular events in his environment. Values are helpful in understanding traditions, customs, and standards, ^Walter Coutu, "Role-Playing vs. Role-Taking: An Appeal for Clarification,1 1 American Sociological Review. XVI (April, 1951), 180. 2&carl J. Couch, "The Use of the Concept, 'Role,' and Its Derivatives in a Study of Marriage," Marriage and Family Living. XX (November, 1958), 353. 27sarbin, "Role Theory," p. 226. 28Qoode, "Norm Commitment and Conformity," p. 252. 21 which might be included under social norms, but in any in vestigation of values, it is necessary to proceed from the more comprehensive, general "social structures and go step by step to more specific ones in our psychological analy- 29 sis." Values and commitment are both elements of motiva tion which is one of the basic concerns of the theory of social systems. An understanding of the institutional be havior of individuals accounts for their relationship to the . , 30 . . , , social system. Moreover, in pattern variable theory in dividuals must make choices before they can act in any situ ation. Affective-affective neutrality, self-collectivity, universalism-particularism, ascription-achievement, and diffuseness-specificity are pattern variables, which all together form a system of role expectancy or value stan- * ^ 31 dards. Individuals differ not only in their motivations, but also in their competency. Both individuals and signifi cant others expect certain standards of proficiency in ^^Sherif, Social Norms, p. 23. 30Parsons, Essays. pp. 9-11. 31jerome Laulicht, "Role Conflict, the Pattern Vari able Theory, and Scalogram Analysis," Social Forces. XXXIII (March, 1955), 250ff. 22 32 performing any specific role functions. However, various persons differ greatly in the means that are available to them, as well as in their capacity to play any given role. Moreover, inaccurate perceptions are linked to one's role expectancies, but it is difficult to say whether it is a cause or a consequence of one's own expectations. Role ex pectancies apparently involve differential attitudes and norms which are dependent upon the positions of individu- The demands involved in role expectations, however, 34 are structurally given for specific positions. They are 35 not unified, but rather an individual adapts expectancies to specific situations within a given organizational struc- ■^Talcott Parsons, "The Social Structure of the Family," in The Family. Its Function and Destiny, ed. by Ruth N. Anshen (New York: Harper and Bros., 1949), p. 190. ■^Eugene Jacobson, W. W. Charters, Jr., and Seymour Lieberman, "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Com plex Organizations,1 1 Journal of Social Issues. VII, No. 3 (.1951), 21-24. •^^Luigi Petrullo and Bernard M. Bass, Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win ston, Inc., 1961), p. 13. •^Daniel J. Levinson, "Role, Personality, and Social Structure in the Organizational Structure," in Sociology: The Progress of a Decade, ed. by S. M. Lipset and N. J. Smelzer (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. 304. 23 ture. Each individual lives in a human environment, which has particular social norms and cultural traditions. Guides as to which patterns of behavior are acceptable for each member are formulated in the interpersonal interaction with the other members of a reference group (all other members are counter-role players to any particular member). Indi viduals whose positions are significant to others also act 36 as guides for the behavior of others. It should also be added that role expectations are bi-dimensional in that each 37 person in a group has expectancies for every other member. Since expectations are reciprocal, membership in any group carries with it the requirement that individuals learn the specific roles belonging to all the members in any given 3 8 group’s interrelationships. Patterns are taught as being 39 part of a given position and persons come to expect spe- 40 cific behavior of individuals occupying them. Once the 36l.inton, Cultural Background, pp. 11-15. 37sarbin, "Role Theory,1 1 p. 255. •^Alfred R. Lindesmith and Anselm L. Strauss, Social Psychology (New York: Dryden Press, 1949), p. 167. Linton, Cultural Background, p. 21. ^Evelyn M. Duvall, Family Living (New York: Mac millan Co., 1954), p. 113. 24 position has been occupied, it exerts formative influences 41 . . . upon the persons occupying it. Affective and repetitive patterns become internalized over time and prescriptive principles are enumerated as the roles become more institu- 42 tionalized. Finally, roles are more definite whenever the con sensus of expectations is greater, but this does not mean that roles should be thought of as precise points. There is a role distribution which indicates a range of expectancy . . . 4 3 for given individuals m specific positions. Thus, orien tations to a position, evaluations, locations in positions, sanctions, rights and obligations, learning, commitment, values, patterns, consistency, and range are some of the elements and issues which various scholars have used to de- line_ate role expectations . Role Behavior A second common element of role definition is 4-*-Robert K. Merton, "The Role Set: Problems in Sociological Theory," British Journal of Sociology. VIII (March, 1957), 111-114. 4^old, "Role Theory," p. 5. 43Jacobson, Charters, and Lieberman, "Use of Role," p. 21. 25 behaviorj which refers to what persons actually do. Coutu distinguishes between role-taking, in which a person may take another's role or pretend that he is someone else (imaginative construct one makes of alter1s role), playing- at-a-role, in which a person employs role-taking at a very elemental level or pretends to play a well-known role, and role playing or enactment, which is the appropriate behavior of the individual person (with appropriateness being pre scribed by group norms). Role enactment is actual behav- 44 lor. Behavior involves relationships between persons and this interaction is a central element of role from the 45 standpoint of sociology. An individual's role does not stand alone, but rather, develops its particular character istics within a network of interrelationships. As a person is taught appropriate behavior by counter-role players, he 46 learns how to play his own role. Even when one looks at the cultural aspects of role, the rights and duties of a 44coutu, "Role-Playing," pp. 180-187. 4^Aidan Southall, "An Operational Theory of Role," Human Relations. XII (February, 1959), 19. 46Anselm L. Strauss, "The Learning of Roles and of Concepts as Twin Processes," The Journal of Genetic Psychol ogy. LXXXVIII (June, 1956), 211-212. 26 particular position which help form norm-modeIs for the role are more meaningful when the relationship qualities of the 47 role are emphasized. Socialization may be interpreted as acquiring ways of behavior and personality as individuals organize continu ing patterns of acting. Since the social act involves per sons re-acting, as well as acting, every position must con sider counter-positions and every role assume a counter-role. Roles must necessarily refer to interpersonal relations. Moreover, persons anticipate the responses of others, as well as respond in terms of expectations of others and their 48 orientations to reference groups. Turner studied the hypothesis that a person's con ception of his self role is formed in the mutual relation ship that exists between himself and the roles of all rele vant others in the situation. A group of 120 college stu dents was given a printed story in which $5 00 was stolen by the joint efforts of two students. Each person was asked to pretend that he was the principal actor in the theft, to ^Morris j.. Daniels, "Relative Status and the Role Concept," Pacific Sociological Review. II (Spring, 1959), 48. ^Sheldon Stryker, "Symbolic Interaction as an Ap proach to Family Research," Marriage and Family Living. XXI (May, 1959), 114-117. write down how he felt about being involved in such a situa tion, and to record how he felt his family, friends, and other reference group members would react to him, both if they knew about his misdeed and if they did not know. He found that a self-role of withdrawal was associated with other-role impairment (significant at the .01 level); moral- maintenance by the self-role was associated with the assump tion of moralistic acceptance by the other-role (significant at the .05 level); and self-role passivity was related to other-role external indifference (significant at the .001 level). In summary, he found that there are alternate con ceptions of how responsible a group feels for its members and for its enforcement of the norms of society. Some limi tations are: the absence of complicating factors is re quired; harmony is necessary between the self-role percep tion as against an individual's perception of how others would treat him; role reciprocity depends upon the specific norms being regarded as under the authority of a given group; and the specific other role expectancy must be under stood as having precedence over other such expectations. Role internalizations must not take precedence over present interpersonal dynamics. A final factor was whether a group member would select relations where there was harmony over 28 those where there was disharmony. Counter roles and relationships with others help a person in his orientation or in his concept of how his role is to be played in the groups to which he belongs, but there are boundaries for roles that delimit the acts of any given member and what the organization will accept from him as a member of their group. Thus, behavior occurs within a range of acts permitted by a group to its individual members or by society to any given group.^ These community influences define the actions of individuals and groups, as well as evaluate them.^ Role plays an important part in linking the individ ual to the social system. Grinker states that the system determinants at the level of psychological focus has to do with role behavior. The patterns of transaction which are at first so zonally and somati cally oriented in structure have to be built up into various forms of role behavior. A child has to learn what it is to be a child, to behave like a child in its various roles towards sisters, brothers, mother, father, first in the environment of the family. Then it must learn the elaboration of roles in the group and in larger and larger groups, by assembling these ^Ralph H. Turner, "Self and Other in Moral Judg ment," American Sociological Review. XIX (June, 1954), 249- 259 . ^Petrullo and Bass, Interpersonal Behavior, p. 13. 5^Goode, "Norm Commitment and Conformity," p. 253. 29 patterns of transaction in various configurations. This is what we call role behavior. It represents the entry into the psychological focus of the group and society focus. That is why it is called the sys tem determinant. It comes in, because the role behav ior is the social behavior of the human being.^2 Thus, role behavior is related to group and social foci, and we can analyze the behavior of individuals occupy ing particular positions, as well as link them to the social structure. From the standpoint of the actor, social structure organizes expectations and defines proper behavior. From the standpoint of structure, an institutionali zation of roles is the mechanism for integrating many different individuals.^3 Furthermore, role provides the link between any given subsystem and the total social structure through the focus of a given actor's psychological behavior. As the dynamic aspect of status, role is the means through which 54 behavioral and ideal patterns of a society are linked. Behavior does seem to change as an individual moves from one 52R0y r . Grinker, Toward a Unified Theory of Human Behavior (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1956), p. 169. 5^Don Martindale, "Talcott Parsons' Theoretical Metamorphosis from Social Behaviorism to Macrofunctional ism, " Alpha Kappa Peltan. XXIX (Winter, 1959), 41. ^Parsons, Essays., p. 43. 30 55 group or situation to another. Role behavior has also been studied as a concept which relates personality to the social system by means of 56 symbol controls and integration. Does the amount of con sensus in a group affect the behavior of individual members? What is the consequence of consensus of varying levels in various groups? Or again, consensus is related to providing 57 individuals with satisfactions m their role performances. Every individual role is social in that a person performs it within a circle of persons who accept him to some degree and who cooperate with him.^ Cooperative behavior is responsive and can be or ganized in most complex patterns within a group's social environment. If one joins or wishes to maintain his member ship in any group, he must learn the specific roles, as well as the organized patterns of that group. Role behavior in cludes the self-concept, appropriate behavior in prescribed situations, interrelated counter-roles, and an evaluation of 55Dyer, "Conflict," p. 79. ^Gr inker, Human Behavior. p. 39. 570ld, "Role Theory," p. 5. 58piorian Znaniecki, Social Relations and Social Roles (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1965), p.235. 31 59 an individual's comparative success or failure. Individ uals participate in many group environments in which they engage in cooperative interaction with others in a contin uous pattern of stimulus-response-stimulus-etc., in which each response becomes, in turn, a stimulus activating an other response.^ Even the most deep-seated emotional re sponses develop out of interaction in ways that are charac- 61 teristic of each specific group's cultural environment. Since behavior is embedded in interaction and in communication between members of a group, playing a role would seem to involve understanding the roles of others.^ By a process of role-taking, that is, taking on the role of the other and seeing himself from the standpoint of the other's role, a person is helped in understanding his own 6 3 role. Interaction also leads a person to the development and achievement of habits, skills, and attitudes which are ^Lindesmith and Strauss, Social Psychology, pp. 165-167. 60znaniecki, Social Roles, pp. 200-203. 6 3-Linton, Cultural Background, p. 11. 62sheldon Stryker, "Relationships of Married Off spring and Parents: A Test of Mead's Theory," American Journal of Sociology. LXII (November, 1956), 308-318. ^Mead, Society, p. 254. 32 necessary for proper role behavior with those who are , 64 "above, below, and coordinate with him. Turner has developed another theory of interactive role behavior. He found that roles may be either reflective or non-reflective. Non-reflective behavior would involve acting more or less automatically in terms of already estab lished relationships with others and with established models of behavior, while reflective behavior involves evaluation of one's self as an object as seen by other persons and act ing selectively in terms of one's understanding of those reflected evaluations of other persons. Turner worked out a typology of three kinds of roles, each of which may be either reflective or non-reflective. They are: adopting the standpoint of others (accepting the evaluation of others as one's own guide), third party standpoint (using the way others play a role as a model for one's own behavior), and interactive role in which the interpersonal influences are used to facilitate role relationships.^ Thus, sociologists have studied role behavior as what persons do, action, interrelationships with others, 64-Mark A. May, A Social Psychology of War and Peace (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1943), p. 146. 65Turner, "Role-Taking," pp. 316-324. 33 interactionj counter-position, ranges of behavior, a link between an individual and the social system, degree of con sensus, responsiveness, communication, and from a stand point. Role may also be either reflective or non-reflec- ^ tive. Turner includes the elements of expectation, behav ior, and situation in defining roles as collections of behavior, which are thought to consti tute a meaningful unit and deemed appropriate to per sons occupying a particular status in society, occupy ing a particular informally defined position in inter personal relations, or identified with a particular value in society.66 Since "what is deemed appropriate to a particular status" and "identification with a particular societal value" could refer to expectations, "collections of behavior and inter personal relations" could indicate what persons actually do, and "meaningful unit and particular position" could refer to orientation to situation, this definition would seem to con tain all the common elements of role in a comprehensive, interrelated way. Goode also has classified role according to norma tive culture patterns, definition of the situation by an 66Ibid.. p. 316. 34 individual, and actual behavior. Acknowledging an increased use of role concepts, he indicates that status is used more in the analysis of the social structure, but that there has been an increase of data using role to analyze segmental parts of sub-systems or interpersonal relationships between specific individuals (or groups) in the social system. The application of particular norms to specific situations by individuals, definitions and evaluations of both actual be havior and expectations by the group, the sensitivity be tween the self and interaction with others— these are some of the areas in which role is increasingly being studied. Goode also indicates that not only the elements of role, but differences between the elements are a focus of study. Dif ferences between expectations or ideals for self and actual behavior, between self and other's expectations, and between self and others' perception of actual behavior all represent 6 7 areas for the study of role strain. Role Conflict Several scholars have worked out typologies of role conflict. Goode suggests that role strains can be classi fied as difficulties in meeting required role obligations, ^"^Goode, "Norm Commitment," pp. 247-251, 35 problems of allocation owing to multiple role requirements, which alternative response to make, and over-demands of the 68 total role-obligations. Spiegel organizes role conflict into the following categories: cognitive discrepancies, discrepancy of goals, allocative discrepancies, instrumental discrepancies, and discrepancies in cultural value orienta- 69 tions. This study will measure the conflict between ac tual behavior and ideal (expected) behavior, as well as be tween a person's own perceptions compared to those of his spouse. Strains between marital and occupational roles will also be explored. Much interest has been shown in role conflict in current studies. One of the areas pertinent to role strain has been multiple membership in several reference groups. Such groups provide a frame of reference for the experience and behavior of persons interacting with one another within specific organizational situations. However, individuals may belong to many different groups (for example, the fam ily, work organizations, etc.), each of which may and often 68william J. Goode, "A Theory of Role Strain," Amer ican Sociological Review. XXV (August, 1960), 485. 69John P. Spiegel, "The Resolution of Role Conflict within the Family," in The Family, ed. by Norman W. Bell and Ezra F. Vogel (Glencoe: Free Press, 1960), pp. 365-370. 36 70 does place different and contradictory demands upon them. In making role choices between alternative roles in differ ent groups, situational factors are often determining 71 ones. In each reference group there are several perspec tives employed in making situational judgments such as eval uations for self concepts, individual and group stability, interpersonal interaction involving the acceptance and loy alty of significant others, etc. Indeed, the question has been asked as to how role discrepancies can be resolved whenever "multiple groups or statuses, with their possibly divergent or even contradictory norms and standards are 72 taken as a frame of reference by the individual." One possible answer is that individuals make choices of roles by assigning the groups to which they belong places on a hier- 73 archical scale of importance. On the other hand, it is 70Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif, An Outline of Social Psychology (New York: Harper and Bros., 1956), p. 176. ^Eugene L. Hartley and Ruth E. Hartley, Fundamen tals of Social Psychology (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), p. 553. ^Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Struc ture (Glencoe: Free Press, 1961), p. 233. 73john Lewis Gillin and John Philip Gillin, Cultural Sociology (New York: Macmillan Co., 1948), p. 206. 37 also possible to belong to different reference groups and experience no conflict, because the roles are mutually sus taining. Persons often belong to many groups, in each of which they have statuses, positions, and roles. Each group might be defined as a reference group, if it is a unit 74 "whose perspective is used as a frame of reference" by the individual. Normative cultural patterns or expectations often arise as each person approaches his world from the 75 standpoint of the culture of his group. Persons may de fine their situation by using their reference groups as standards for evaluation. Actual behavior may be motivated by the desire to gain or maintain the acceptance of the group. When the members in several reference groups involve roles which have differing demands with corresponding vari ances in expectation and behavior, role conflict may result. Studying the demands of various groups, Turner found four groups which persons used for comparison and self- evaluation: childhood or neighborhood group in which early identification took place, one's chosen occupation, associa- ^Tamotsu Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspec tives," American Journal of Sociology. LX (May, 1955), 562. 75ibid., p. 564. 38 tional groups, and life-long friendship groups. In a self- evaluative questionnaire given to college students, he found the childhood and friendship (family would also be classi fied here) groups were of segmental relevance, because they remained as a standard for ethical behavior, but were re jected for future or success orientation. College students were oriented to future groups such as success in one's chosen occupation or the status of associational organiza- 76 tions. Another way we can compare reference groups is in the degree of social control over its members various ones might have. The more important membership in a group is for a person, as well as the greater the rewards for him in any given membership, the greater the social control of any 77 given group in comparison with others. Satisfaction is a kind of reward. If^a. group assigns meaningful roles to its members, the ability each person has in his capacity to ful fill his obligations and enjoy his rights brings satisfac 7®Ralph H. Turner, "Reference Groups of Future- Oriented Men," Social Forces. XXXIV (December, 1955), 131- 136. 77Bernard M. Bass, Leadership. Psychology, and Or ganizational Behavior (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), pp. 155, 244. 39 tion to the individual, but it also helps the group keep the person as a member Using the technique of Bales' interaction process analysis, Davis did a study of Great Books clubs with the cooperation of interviewers from the National Opinion Re search Center. They attended 172 meetings and collected 1,909 complete schedules. The findings were that the kind of role a person played in the group directly affected its holding power over him. Activity in one's role, as well as outside activity, was also associated with the level of 79 education. Moreover, in sociology and social psychology, the tie that binds members of groups together is referred to as "social nearness," "group solidarity," "consciousness of kind," "the group mind," and other similar expressions. In psychology, it is more often called "identification," or sometimes, "the social self."®^ Those kinds of things which have come to be appreciated and loved are the ones that individuals find satisfying, but 78Old, "Role Theory," p. 5. 79James A. Davis, "Compositional Effects, Role Sys tems, and the Survival of Small Discussion Groups," Public Opinion Quarterly. XXV (Winter, 1961), 574-584. 80jy[ay, Social Psychology, p. 117. 40 81 annoying, frustrating, and negative factors are avoided. In spite of group solidarity, acceptance, communica- V tion, and interaction which occur in fixing common modes of role behavior for each position, there are disturbances that 82 bring conflict to the group, as well as the individual. Indeed, it would be surprising if some deviances did not occur, because it is impossible for any group to develop ideal behavioral patterns which might cover any future situ- 83 ation. Not only do individuals have memberships in various reference groups, but each person plays a multiplicity of roles. However, scholars have not sufficiently developed studies of the multiple patterns of role-taking necessitated by the demands of the various groups to which any person has 84 membership aspirations. There may be some cases m which a person selects more or less harmonious combinations of roles out of the total available in forming the structure of 81Ibid.. p. 103. 8^Abram Kardiner, The Individual and His Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939), p.. 7. 83Linton, Cultural Background, p. 52. S^Roland G. Tharp, "Psychological Patterning in Marriage," Psychological Bulletin. LX (March, 1963), 108. 41 his personality or character. {However, a role set differs from multiple roles in that the former is associated with a single status or position and the latter with several sta- 8 5 tuses.) However, in a heterogeneous culture such as is prevalent in the United States, role strain may often devel op out of the conflicting demands of the multiplicity of 86 roles, each originating in a different sub-cultural group. If the expected behavior in each of the segmental demands placed on an individual are in conflict, it is not possible for a person to fulfill his total role obligations. A person looks for models in a multiple system, just as he does in any single group. He also tends to make a choice in fulfilling one obligation, rather than another, although some conflict may remain unresolved. Since roles involve consensual commitments toward norms on the part of members of a group, as well as upon the integration of norms within individuals, role strain may be defined as "felt 87 difficulty in fulfilling role obligations." Fulfilling 85Merton, "Role Set," p. 111. 88Mabel a . Elliott and Francis E. Merrill, Social Disorganization (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 579 . 87Qoode, "Role Strain," p. 483. 42 one's role at specific times or places, differing obliga tions for various role relationships, a variety of reponses within any role relationship, and the directional demands upon his position made by various individuals— in all of these ways conflicts are possible insofar as difficulty of fulfillment is present. However, the choice of a specific role may indicate support from one group and not from an other, as well as the arrangement of various group member ships on some kind of hierarchy of values. The individual is no longer alone in his dilemma of reconciling conflicting norms; he is a participant in an interpersonal relationship which mediates such con flicts by selecting certain norms and reinforcing them. Every individual belongs, of course, in many role rela tionships, and is still left with the necessity of or ganizing their conflicting demands upon him. But each alternative of choice is bulwarked by the positive sanctions of at least one role relationship. More over, his various role relationships may in themselves be structured in some way. There is a certain "line of authority" in many aspects of society, a difference in the degree to which the several "others" have power to impose sanctions.^8 Some scholars state that some roles are dominant over others. Roles within a group of relationships are arranged in a way that enables dominant roles to be more active at a particular moment and allows recessive roles to S^Riley, Riley, and Toby, Scale Analysis, p. 15. 43 adjust to the stronger ones. The general value system of a society may give certain roles priority, rather than others. For instance, provider, friend and confidant, male, father of a son, father of a daughter, social partner, superior- dominant, sex partner— all of these are roles that a father might play. At times, support might be given to the pro vider role as a more active one, while at other times the role of father of a daughter or son might be more dominant, according to whatever evaluations were employed. Person ality, situational characteristics, and group structure are all important in determining role dominance.^ Moreover, the expectancies for the behavior linked to any given position must be consistent and not involve conflicting norms for the same person. A particular pattern must not enjoin conflicting duties upon the same person. Thus, the ideal pattern for family life can not prescribe that the wife shall be in constant attendance upon her husband wherever he is and at the same time that she shall stay at home and look after the children . . . all male mem bers of the society must spend one month a year in a monastery and that no husband should leave his wife alone for more than twenty-four hours.^0 In addition to the general values of society, there ^Bates, "Position, Role, and Status," pp. 313-321. ^Linton, Man. p. 105. 44 are expectancies for behavior and value orientations to which individuals have been acculturated in the entire proc- 91 ess of socialization. Beliefs about expectations for appropriate role behavior, shared agreement about these be liefs, and individual awareness of group support are three such criteria.^ Values must be constantly re-affirmed and supported by consensus in order to maintain a group's stability. In a disorganized society, many persons show greater discrep ancy between their role behavior and expectancies than they 93 would in stable society. Role differences may even indi cate that a person's value orientation is in disagreement 94 with others in his sub-culture. Or alternative choices m role relationships may be recognized as containing sources of role conflict. In the various groups to which a person belongs, he is taught that there are values, whether in 9-1-Leo Srole, "Social Integration and Certain Corol laries: An Exploratory Study," American Sociological Re view. XXI (December, 1956), 711. 9^Katz and Kahn, Psychology of Organization, p. 52. 93EHiott and Merrill, Disorganization. p. 18. 94;piorence Rockwood Kluckhohn, "Dominant and Variant Value Orientations," in Personality in Mature. Society, and Culture. ed. by Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. Murray (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953), p. 353. 45 objects or in role behavior, and he must make choices among the alternatives open to him in terms of his group's stan- 95 dards of allocation. When norms are shared, the more pointedly interacting persons perceive behavior consensus and the stronger the interaction, the greater will be the 96 occurring social reinforcement. Action is also oriented to the purposive achievement of group goals which conform 97 with the shared norms. Although behavior is not limited to a narrow point, but rather to ranges of possible role relationships, there are in any group considerable areas of possible disagreement about values, as well as alternative choices of action open to the individual, and clashes of interest with the group 98 may and often do occur. There are also failures in meet ing the requirements of the group's value system and roles ^Goode, "Role Strain," p. 489. ^^Theodore M. Newcomb, "Social Psychological Theory: Integrating Individual and Social Approaches," in Social Psychology at the Crossroads, ed. by John H. Rohrer and Muzafer Sherif (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951), p. 41.. ^Parsons, Essays, p. 205. 98Nelson N. Foote and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., Identity and Interpersonal Competence (Chicago: University of Chicago -Press, 1955), p. 87. 46 99 which delimit the potentials of interacting persons. It might be said that there are strains in the relationship between values (or the way things ought to be) and condi tions (or the way they actually are) In a sample of 648 undergraduate students at Harvard and Radcliffe, Stouffer studied the role conflict between obligations to friends and responsibility to society. When the students were asked to make choices between institution al obligations in four stories presenting conflicts, he found that he could classify persons according to their selections in resolving the conflict. There was a G repro ducibility of .91, as well as admissibility that the items could form a Guttman scale, but there were such a small num ber of items that Stouffer reported that he could not speak with confidence. He found that a person may conform to one role expectation and reject the other or he may compromise by attempting to conform partially to both sets of conflict ing expectancies. In either case, the individual takes ^Howard Becker, Through Values to Social Interpre tation (Durham: Duke University Press, 1950), pp. 300-301. lOO^inston White, Bevond Conformity (Glencoe: Free Press, 1961), p. 6. ^^^-Samuel A. Stouffer, "An Analysis of Conflicting Social Norms," American Sociological Review. XIV (December, 1949), 707-717. 47 the consequences given by others for his role behavior which falls short of expectation. Moreover, a person tends to perceive what behavior is permissible along a range of what 102 might be approved, rather than as a given point of action. Scholars have also studied the degree of role strain and the resolution of conflict. There has been interest in 103 how any given person might integrate his own role system. Examinations have also been made of the degree of congruence between the self-concept and role expectation, role behav- 104 ior, and situational orientation. Moreover, unless there is some degree of adjustment between the various patterns of a social system, there could be operational difficulties for 105 society itself. In discussing this problem, Gross theor ized that symbiosis was of greater strength than consensus. In symbiosis, each person has something the other person wants and it can operate even when feelings are negative, while consensus depends upon positive feelings and negative •L^Samuel a . Stouffer and Jackson Toby, "Role Con flict and Personality," American Journal of Sociology. LI (March, 1951), 395-406. l°3Goode, "Role Strain," p. 486. l°4Le vinson, "Role, Personality, and Social Struc ture," p. 303. • l - O 3Linton, Man. p. 106. 48 106 ones are destructive to the relationship. Conflicts might be regarded as somewhat inevitable in a social system filled with multiple reference groups, each of which employs a different alternative in defining the situation according to their varying perspectives. On the other hand, an individual's capacity to de fine his own role may be a reflection of his ability to re- 107 solve conflict. Getzels and Guba, m a study of service men at Maxwell Air Force Base, devised a role conflict in strument of 46 items, which were answered in terms of an individual's self-conception compared to the degree of agreement on that item with other persons. Men who experi enced high conflict in roles were also ineffective in role behavior (chi square of 6.12, which is significant between 108 the .01 and .02 levels). It also has been reported that some students have assumed that individuals occupying positions in which there 106Edward Gross, "Symbiosis and Consensus as Inte grative Factors in Small Groups," American Sociological Re view. XXI (April, 1956), 179. •*-0^Levinson, "Role, Personality, and Social Struc ture," p. 308. 1°8J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role, Role Con flict, and Effectiveness: An Empirical Study," American Sociological Review. XIX (April, 1954), 164-175. 49 is maladjustment or inconsistency are full of psychological tensions which can be resolved by re-defining their roles in a more consistent manner or by tension-reducing mechanisms. In a hospital research, it was found that role segregation and clearly marking out choices between conflicting demands along a hierarchy of role obligations were two frequently 109 used methods of resolving conflicts. The resolution of role conflict has also been ex plored in relationship to publicity, social distance, and perception. In the light of publicity, individuals tend to favor more universalistic behavior, while particularistic action is favored when friendship is involved. Although the association is of a low level between role perception and conflict resolution, it is, nevertheless, still significant. Since the more serious acts call for greater social activ ity, role conflict tends to be resolved in a more universal istic manner.Moreover, research indicates that conflict is resolved by arranging positions with their respective lO^Stewart E. Perry and Lyman C. Wynne, "Role Con flict, Role Definition, and Social Change in a Clinical Research Organization," Social Forces. XXXVIII (October, 1959), 60. H-Oj. P. Sutcliffe and M. Haberman, "Factors Influ encing Choice in Role Conflict Situations," American Socio logical Review. XXI (April, 1956), 695. 50 role demands in a hierarchy of values or by specifying how each role may be enacted in a narrow area of behavior, which excludes other demands. Role conflict resolution, there fore, appears to have a relationship to societal values as perceived by the individual, as well as to the integration 111 of various roles. Thus, typologies of strain, multiple group member ship, reference groups, power of respective memberships, group solidarity, multiple roles, hierarchy of values, line of authority, dominant-recessive roles, role integration, norms, values, range of expectations and behavior, and con flict resolution are areas of role conflict that have been studied by scholars. Role expectations, role behavior, and role conflict are concepts which have been frequently ex plored in general sociological literature, and a discussion of their basic elements and interrelationships involves issues that are pertinent to this study of roles. Marital Roles and Marital Adjustment Not only has role theory been studied frequently in general sociological literature, but it also has been ex plored in terms of particular roles . The specific focus in ^-^Goode, "Role Strain," pp. 483-496. 51 this study is to be the relationships between marital roles, marital adjustment, and occupational roles, and the evi dences of conflict between them. The relationships between marital roles and marital adjustment have been studied by many students of the family. Both marital roles and adjustment have been analyzed in order to find their basic elements. A factor analysis of marital roles was undertaken by Tharp. He grouped the vari ous elements of marital role into five classes: external relationships, internal-instrumental (adequacy of perform ance), divisions of responsibility, sexuality, and solidar- 112 ity. One of the implications of his study was that pat terns were divergent for expectations and enactment. A factor analysis by Locke and Williamson pointed out that marital adjustment items can be organized under the following factors: companionship, consensus concerning basic values, affectional intimacy, wife accommodation, and euphoria. Of all the measures of marital success presently 113 available, they consider adjustment the most effective. H^Roland G. Tharp, "Dimensions of Marriage Roles," Marriage and Family Living. XXV (November, 1963), 389-404. •'-•'-^Harvey J. Locke and Robert C. Williamson, "Mari tal Adjustment: A Factor Analysis Study," American Socio logical Review. XXIII (August, 1958), 562-569. 52 In their text, Burgess, Locke, and Thornes state that role expectations are personal, as well as social, and the latter ones become internalized by an individual. Family expecta tions are accepted uncritically until divergent expectations 4=! ■ 4- 114 arise causing role conflict. The relationship between expectations and marital adjustment have been studied by several scholars. Dyer differentiated between the total general expectations for a given position in terms of normative definitions and the specific expectations attached to the particular functions of a given role. When one person fails to live up to his role expectations, the other applies sanctions of some kind. Value conflicts between norms or personal preferences of the spouses, role behavior of either spouse which fails in some way to agree with the expectations of the other— these are the areas of conflict. Adjustment may occur by clarifica tion through communication, changing behavior in order to meet expectations, or changing expectations to bring them into line with behavior. Moreover, spouses may adjust to each other, but fail to meet the expectations of significant 114Ernest W. Burgess, Harvey J. Locke, and Mary M. Thornes, The Family (New York: American Book Co., 1963), pp. 191-195. others (such as kinship groups, friends, or members of occu- . 115 national groups to which they belong). Thus, internal conflicts for any particular role are created by multiple demands and norm conflicts. In a sample of 32 married couples, the responses of spouses to one another were compared to the role obligations individuals fill. It was found that the relative satisfac tion a person receives in regard to his own role, as well as that of his mate, was a factor in the evaluation of one an- 116 other s role performance. Jacobson also found empirical evidence that family disorganization is related to role attitudes. His hypothe ses were supported in a sample he took of 400 persons, 100 divorced and 100 married couples. When compared to married couples, divorced persons have significantly different atti- 117 tudes towards each marital role. The works reviewed thus far point out that conflict l-^William g . Dyer, "Analyzing Marital Adjustment Using Role Theory," Marriage and Family Living. XXIV (Novem ber, 1962), 371-375. H6couch, "The Use of the Concept, 'Role,'" pp. 353- 357. 117 'Alver Hilding Jacobson, "Conflict of Attitudes towards the Roles of the Husband and Wife in Marriage," American Sociological Review. XVII (August, 1952), 146-15 0, 54 between expectations is related to marital adjustment, but the role performance of spouses is also associated with the solidarity of marriages. Some strains occur, because in dividuals do not perceive each other's role accurately. Dymond asked couples to predict their mates1 answers to 55 questions taken from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The more adjusted couples were significantly 118 more accurate in their perceptions of one another. Stryker also tested role perceptions of spouses. His sample was composed of 46 families, which included mar ried couples together with the parents of one of the pair, but not of both of them. Hypothesizing that adjustment was related to the accuracy of role predictions, he tested the number of correct predictions one person made of the other's response expressed as a percentage of all the predictions made about that person. For parental adjustment associated with role-taking accuracy, the F was 3.90, which was sig nificant at the .05 level. However, the F score for off spring was not significant. ll^Rosalind Dymond, "Interpersonal Perception and Marital Happiness," Canada Journal of Psychology. VIII (Sep tember, 1954), 164-171. - * - - * • 9 Sheldon Stryker, "Role-Taking Accuracy and Ad justment," Sociometry. XX (December, 1957), 286-296. 55 Differences occur between expectations, between per ceptions of behavior, and also between expectations and be havior. Ort used a sample of 50 male married students and their wives, as well as 50 married female students. He studied the number of role conflicts between role expecta tions and enactments, as it was related to marital adjust ment. Ort found that the correlation between role conflict and marital happiness was -.83. Husbands who were high in happiness scores had wives who were also high with a corre- 120 lation of +.398. Preston and others employed the technique of study ing the differences between self and spouse ratings. When they gave a personality appraisal to 116 couples who had post-marital counseling and to 55 mates who had only pre marital help, they found that the self-ratings had a much higher correlation with the spouse ratings for the happily married sample as compared to the unhappily married group. Happily married couples rate themselves and their spouses somewhat more favorably than unhappy ones. When couples are in the midst of conflict, they apparently have more oppor- •*-^®Robert S. Ort, "A Study of Role Conflict, as Re lated to Happiness in Marriage," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XLV (October, 1950), 691-697. 56 tunity to view their spouses as different from them- 121 selves. Differences between expectations, perceptions of behavior, and between expectations and behavior are all techniques employed by Mangus. Self and other ratings are also used. Mangus defined roles as "organized patterns of actions and qualities that characterize a person in his more enduring relations with others whose roles are reciprocal to 122 his own." Roles involve learning the rights and duties of particular positions (husband or wife) in reciprocal re lationships with the occupants of other particular posi- 123 tions. Patterns of behavior are organized in terms of the prescribed expectations of significant others and the internalization of these converging expectations constitute 124 a person's social self. Employing a concept of dispar- 121]yialcolm G. Preston, et al.. 1 1 Impressions of Per sonality as a Function of Marital Conflict," Journal of Ab normal and Social Psychology. XLVII (April, 1952), 326-336. 122^. R. Mangus, "Family Impacts on Mental Health," Marriage and Family Living. XIX (August, 1957), 256. 123^. Mangus, "Integration of Theory, Research, and Family Counseling Practices," Marriage and Family Liv ing. XIX (February, 1957), 81-85. 124a . R. Mangus, "Role Theory and Marriage Counsel ing," Social Forces. XXXV (March, 1957), 200-209. 57 ity, which involved the basic problems in role conflict, Mangus developed three hypotheses for research: 1. Reciprocal role perception (the degree of congru ence between each partner’s perception of his own role and the way that role is perceived by the other). 2. Role perception and role expectation (the degree of congruence between what a spouse expects and the actual behavior he gets). 3. Reciprocal role expectation (the degree of congru ence between the expectations one has of the other and the other's own expectation). 5 The hypotheses in each case would indicate that the greater the congruence, the greater the marital adjustment, or the greater the disparity, the lower the marital adjustment. Reasonable harmony of role expectations, perceptions, and the interactions between them reflect the quality of the marital adjustment. Mangus also suggested the use of the Interpersonal Check List to measure the disparity or incon gruence involved in each hypothesis. The ICL is composed of 128 descriptive adjectives or adjectival phrases indicative of role expectations and perceptions which can be translated into quantifiable material. When Kotlar studied the association of marital role and adjustment, she followed the theoretical considerations suggested by Mangus and tested some of his hypotheses. In 125MangUS^ "Family Impacts," p. 257. 58 her earlier work, she used a Jewish sample of 25 adjusted and 25 unadjusted couples. She found that adjusted couples had less discrepancy from cultural norms, but there were no significant differences as to their ideals. She did find a relationship between incongruence of role expectation and 126 role behavior which was significant beyond the .05 level. Taking a Christian sample of 50 adjusted and 5 0 un adjusted couples in her second study, she attempted to dis cover whether incongruences in self-perceptions, spouse per ceptions, and ideal marital role concepts were correlated with marital adjustment and also whether marital roles for spouses were differentiated in terms of instrumental (for husbands) and expressive (for wives) components. There were no significant differences between adjusted and unadjusted spouses in the instrumental role, but adjusted spouses had 127 significantly higher scores in expressive role attitudes. After obtaining adjusted couples from church groups and un adjusted couples from counseling clinics, she used the l^Sally L. Kotlar, "Attitude Differentials and Their Relationship to Marital Adjustment" (unpublished Mas ter's thesis, University of Southern California, 1959), pp. 83-92. 141. 127jj0tiar, "Middle-Class Marital Roles," pp. 123- Wallace Marital Adjustment test as an outside criterion of marital adjustment. Roles were measured by the Interper sonal Check List, as well as a Role Attitude Survey. She matched the adjusted and unadjusted in age, education, so cial class, years of marriage, and religion (Protestant). Kotlar found that the discrepancy between self-perception and a spouse's perception of a person had a correlation of -.30 with marital adjustment (significant at the .01 lev- 128 el). The discrepancy between the role expectation of the other and the spouse's actual behavior had a correlation of 129 -.77 with marital adjustment. When she added all the disparities (self-perception vs. mate perception, mate vs. ideal self), there was a correlation of -.70 with marital 130 adjustment. It was significant beyond the .01 level. According to the Kotlar studies, lack of marital adjustment is related to role conflict. Kotlar1s findings are substantially supported by the research of Luckey. Using a sample of 454 former University of Minnesota students (out of an original group of 594), who returned an adjustment test composed of Locke-Terman items, 128Ibid.. p. 124. 130Ibid.. pp. 167-168. 129Ibid.. p. 139. she divided them into an upper quartile (N = 116) and a lower quartile (N = 108) according to their adjustment scores, after which she sent an ICL to one of the spouses and upon the return of this test, she sent the other spouse 131 the ICL. In order to test her hypotheses, she employed a one-tailed, two-sample t test, in which she used Y-scale distribution in determining any difference in means between 132 the adjusted or unadjusted couples. She found that mari tal adjustment was significantly related to the congruency between the perception of self and the perception of self by one's spouse, perception of spouse and parent of the oppo site sex, perception of self and parent of the same sex, and perception of ideal self as compared to that of one's 133 spouse. She also found that the intensity of scores (reflected in the number of items checked) appeared to be 134 related to the sex of the subject. 13lEieanor B. Luckey, "Marital Satisfaction and Con gruent Self-Spouse Concepts," Social Forces. XXXIX (Decem ber, 1960), 153-157. ■*-3^Eleanor B. Luckey, "Implications for Marriage Counseling of Self-Perceptions and Spouse Perceptions," Journal of Counseling Psychology. VII, No. 1 (1960), 5. ^Eleanor B. Luckey, "Marital Satisfaction and Its Association with Congruence of Perception," Marriage and Family Living. XXII (February, 1960), 49-54. l34gj_eanor Luckey, "Perceptual Congruence of Self 61 In the next place, studies have been made in the area of the authoritarian or equalitarian nature of marital roles. Lu, who examined role conflict in terms of democrat ic -equalitarian and dominant-submissive relationship, em ployed as her sample 603 married couples selected from the Burgess-Wallin sample of 1,000 mates. She developed a scale to measure dominant-equalitarian-submissive behavior and then related these scores to the Burgess-Wallin marital adjustment scores for these couples. The critical ratio (CR) was used in relating marital role (husband more domi nant, equalitarian, wife more dominant) to marital adjust ment of poor, fair, or good for both husbands and wives. She found that the equalitarian role was significantly re lated to high marital adjustment and the dominant role of either spouse was related to low marital adjustment for both 135 husbands and wives. However, Lu felt that her instru ments needed perfecting in order to establish more effec tive predictors . and Family Concepts as Related to Marital Interaction," Sociometrv. XXIV (September, 1961), 237-238. ^ i — Ch*uang Lu, "Marital Roles and Marriage Adjust ment," Sociology and Social Research. XXXVI (July-August, 1952), 364-368. 136yi_chuang Lu, "Predicting Roles in Marriage," 62 Hurvitz took a random sample of 104 couples in a middle-class neighborhood. In an exploration of marital roles and marital adjustment, he used Wallace's marital ad justment scale, a control roles attitudes scale; a function al roles inventory, an index of strain, and an index of 137 deviation. He rejected the hypothesis that husbands' control roles (authority expressed traditionally or demo cratically) were higher than wives' (t of 1.59 indicated that the difference between means was not significant), and found a correlation of +.26 between their control role 138 scores (significant beyond the .01 level). Spouses have greater agreement about the rank order of the functional role of wives than of husbands. The t ratio was 3.46 with 139 a probability level of .001. Spouses who agree about the rank order of the functional role of one spouse agree about the rank order of the other. The t ratio was 5.15 with a 140 probability level of .001. He also accepted for hus- American Journal of Sociology. LVIII (July, 1952), 51-55. -L-^Nathan Hurvitz, "Marital Roles and Adjustment in Marriage in a Middle Class Group" (unpublished Ph.D. disser tation, University of Southern California, 1958), pp. 81- 107. 138Ibid., p. 117. l39Ibid.. p. 124. 14QIbid.. p. 143. 63 bands, but rejected for wives the following two hypotheses: spouses whose role performances are similar to their role expectations are happier than those who are divergent; and spouses whose role performances are similar to a modal pat tern in their sub-culture are happier than those whose be havior is divergent. An index of strain was used to measure disparity between the perceptions of behavior for a particu lar couple and an index of deviation measured differences between a given subject and the modal ranking in the sub- i*. 141 culture. Miller re-tested some of Hurvitz1s hypotheses. Fifty-eight happy and 36 unhappy couples were matched in age, religion, income, and education. There was a CR of 10.93 for husbands and 8.64 for wives between the two sam ples in marital adjustment. This was significant beyond the .01 level. However, his findings do not support those of 142 Hurvitz. Sociologists have also studied the place of inter - * - 4^-Nathan Hurvitz, "The Measurement of Marital Strain," American Journal of Sociology. UKV (May, 1960), 610-615 . -L^Louis Miller, "A Study of Marital Roles of Hap pily Married and Unhappily Married Couples" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, 1961), pp. 97-105. 64 actional patterns in role conflict. Stuckert found that inconsistent responses by one person tended to make the other insecure or uncertain of the validity of his own role perception. Significant components of possible role con flict were the degree of similarity between the perception of one spouse's role expectation of the other and the actual behavior of that other, the degree of similarity between the spouses' role conceptions and expectations, and the agree ment between each spouse's conception of the marital role in general and his specific marital role. The way these vari ous component parts interact functions to determine marital 143 adjustment. In an exploratory study of interaction, Buerkle and Badgley worked out the Yale Marital Inventory Battery, which might be used to measure the role-taking ability of husbands and wives. The sample consisted of 36 couples in the proc ess of counseling at the Margaret Sanger Research Bureau, as well as 186 couples who were regular attendants of relig iously affiliated couples' clubs in the New Haven area. They felt that the scale needed more refinement before p( stuckert, "Role Perception and Marital Satisfaction: A Configurational Approach," Marriage and Family Living. XXV (November, 1963), 415-416. results could be conclusive. Farber studied marital integration in a sample of 99 white families taken both from Chicago and a nearby indus trial city. Ten personality items formed an index of role tension, while the ranking of 10 domestic values composed an index of consensus. He found that the husbands' ranking of domestic values of socio-emotional interaction is associated with marital integration (chi square of 7.75 was significant at the .05 level), that wives' ranking of socio-emotional interaction is higher than the husbands' (CR of 3.32, which was significant at the .0005 level), that congruence between self and spouse ratings for husbands is related to the de gree of marital interaction (chi square of 7.3 was signifi cant at the .05 level), and that congruences in self and spouse ratings for wives is related to the degree of marital interaction (chi square of 8.4, which was significant at the . 145 .02 level). The relationship between values and marital adjust ment or roles is another area that has been explored by ■*-^Jack V. Buerkle and Robin F. Badgley, "Couple Role-Taking: The Yale Marital Interaction Battery," Marri age and Family Living. XXI (February, 1959), 53-58. 145]3ernar3 Farber, "An Index of Marital Integra tion," Sociometry. XX (June, 1957), 117-134. 66 several studies. The choice between individual and family concerns was researched by Rogers and Sebald. They dis tinguished between familism, in which the individual sub- . ordinates his interests to those of his family, and inte gration, in which each family member optimizes rewards for all others in his unit. They have also worked out a family 146 integration index which needs further refinement. ^ Sebald and Andrews explored the non-farm fringe fam ilies near a metropolitan area and found that the degree of community satisfaction was directly related to family inte gration (correlation coefficient of +.38, which was signifi cant at the .01 level). Contrary to their hypothesis, they also found that the degree of formalized participation in community social life varies directly with family integra- 147 tion (correlation coefficient of +.58). Benson re-worked the Burgess-Wallin sample in study ing the relationship between familism and happiness in mar riage. Interest directed inwardly to the home, to children, 146EVere- t :t M. Rogers and Hans Sebald, "A Distinction between Familism, Family Integration, and Kinship Orienta tion," Marriage and Family Living. XXIV (February, 1962), 25-35. •L^Hans Sebald and Wade H. Andrews, "Family Integra tion and Related Factors in a Rural Fringe Population," Mar riage and Family Living. XXIV (November, 1962), 347-351. 67 to shared values, to working for the values of others were considered family traits. Family was considered as one gen eral over-all factor and was associated with happiness in marriage, but individualistic interests and directions were 148 unfavorably associated with success m marriage. Finally, Ramsey and Nelson compared family adjust ment in relationship to values and attitudes toward specific family relationships such as agreement on ideals, the obli gation to family, home as a pleasant place to be, parental expectations, and the intimacy of family communication. When a 1939 and 1952 sample of girls was compared, the only significant difference was in their sense of obligation to 149 the family. Thus, differences between role perceptions, expec tations, and between expectations and enactment are related to marital adjustment. Authoritarian or equalitarian roles, interactional patterns of roles, and values have also been studied in their relationship to marital adjustment. 148purnej _ ] _ Benson, "Familism and Marital Success," Social Forces. XXXIII (March, 1955), 277-280. I49charles E. Ramsey and Lowry Nelson, "Changes in Value and Attitudes toward the Family," American Sociologi cal Review. XXI (October, 1956), 605-609. 68 Occupational Roles Occupational roles have also interested sociolo gists. However, there is a lack of works studying the re lationship of marital adjustment and occupational roles. There are, nevertheless, many studies of occupational role which relate to this study. Some scholars have given the area much attention for what is considered its many-sided significance.'*'^ The influence of occupation upon man, social processes, other institutions, and social change is considerable. Tensions are associated with general adjustment and many scholars point to the relationships of tensions with occupation. Economic competition, insecurity, and problems must be dealt with by every person. Leavy and Freedman in dicate that there is need of exploring the reciprocal rela- 151 tionships between mental health and economic life. In the first place, scholars have explored expecta tions . Cultural norms shape occupational roles and dis- ^-^^James H. S. Bossard and Eleanor S. Boll, The Sociology of Child Development (New Yorki Harper and Bros., 1960), p. 207. iSlstanley A. Leavy and Lawrence Z. Freedman, "Psy choneurosis and Economic Life," Social Problems. IV (July, 1956), 55-67. 69 organization results when an individual fails to meet his role demands. All kinds of occupational roles have strains 152 which occur on the job. Some of these tensions are caused by the differences between the total life of a person and his occupational role, which could be classified as dis parities between the working and non-working activities or between organizational and subjective, personal job defini- 153 tions. Becker and Carper explored the development of a per son's identification with a particular group, concluding that the general socio-cultural expectations for each given occupation, the family expectations, and the specific ex pectations of each occupational group all influenced in dividual behavior. A small sample was taken of 22 mechani cal engineers, 11 philosophy majors, and 18 physiology stu dents for a total number of 51, all of whom were graduate students and each of whom was given a tape-recorded inter view ranging from one-half to two hours in time. They admit the limitations of the study, but feel that they have opened up an area which should be further explored. Role conflict -*-52sc] ine;i _ ( jer^ industrial Sociology, pp. 26, 159. ^Robert Dubin, The World of Work (New York: Pren- tice-Hall, Inc., 1958), pp. 327-330. 70 is the result of disparity between any of the specific ex- 154 pectations discussed in their study. In a study comparing basic research, developmental, and the applied departments in an industrial firm, Evan dis covered that there was a positive relationship between or ganizational pressure and role strain. He also found that the different responses to employer-employee, professional- client, and the patient-artist relationship is grounded in 155 mutual expectations and kinds of role performance. More over, in day to day patterns, particular preferences, prej udices, emphases, and mental characteristics are developed by the demands placed upon the individual in his work , 156 role. The specificity of expectations is also a factor in understanding role relationships. Mack pointed out that many studies of role in various occupational categories have -L^James W. Carper and Howard S. Becker, "Adjust ments to Conflicting Expectations in the Development of Identification with an Occupation," Social Forces. XXXVI (October, 1957), 51-56. •^^William M. Evan, "Role Strain and the Norm of Reciprocity in Research Organizations," American Journal of Sociology. DXVIII (November, 1962), 346-354. 156^330^.^- y. , Merton, "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality," Social Forces. XVIII (May, 1940), 560-568. 71 been made, which indicate the presence of occupational sub cultural expectations and behavior growing out of work ex perience held in common. He developed the idea of deter- minant-indeterminant occupational roles, which could be arranged along a continuum with the determinant pole having elaborate prescriptions in which rights and duties, as well as interaction patterns, are well-established and definite. At the opposite end of the continuum of expectations and behavior are indeterminant roles with expectations, behav ior, and interaction patterns very informal, loosely estab- 157 lished, and not very precisely defined. In a study of 2,205 males (1,389 in sales, 515 in engineering, and 301 in banking), he found that the occupational ideology and role determinants were significantly related. Not only does he believe that the continuum method is useful in descriptions of occupational role, but also that'occupational careers influence all social behavior . Hubbard and McDonagh employed some of Mack's typolo gy in a study of greater Los Angeles business executives and - * - 5"^Raymond W. Mack, "Occupational Ideology and the Determinate Role," Social Forces. XXXVI (October, 1957), 37- 44. ^-^^Raymond W. Mack, "Occupational Determinateness: A Problem and a Hypothesis in Role Theory," Social Forces. XXXV (October, 1956), 20-25. 72 found varying degrees of moral and personal satisfaction with their jobs. They classified these men into those tech nically trained, those performing auxiliary and staff func tions, and carrying out broad ranges of managerial responsi bility, but all categories were at a low level of moral and 159 personal satisfaction. Specific and definite roles help in the formulation of expectancies of male and female roles. When roles change, future expectancies may become less definite or concise. Rose gave students in four University of Minnesota classes a 15-item questionnaire about adult role expecta tions and found that women had more problems in planning future behavior because of the indefiniteness of these 160 roles. The expectations of society are developed within specific institutional settings which help define their situations. However, Strauss says that it is possible to -* - 5 ^Harold G. Hubbard and Edward G. McDonagh, "The Business Executive as a Career Type," Sociology and Social Research. XLVII (January, 1963), 138-146. 160Arnold M, Rose, "The Adequacy of Women's Expec tation for Adult Roles," Social Forces. XXX (October, 1951), 69-77. **-6^Wilbert E. Moore, Economy and Society (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1955), p. 18. 73 manipulate the various normative demands so that a person's occupational career is a more or less harmonious one. It was found by Gusfield that both the shape and the stabil ity of careers are more influenced by the occupational role than by institutional forms in the structuring of careers at 16 3 work. The common tasks, schedules of work, job training, and career patterns predict work behavior more accurately 164 than either pre-job education or social class. Moreover, Becker and Strauss discovered that career mobility within work situations was a fundamental factor in the development 165 of adult identity. Thus, conflicting demands and pressures, as well as the differences in expectations in various multiple group memberships, create tensions for the individual. These may result in role strain. Specificity is also a factor in 162&nseim Strauss, Mirrors and Masks. The Search for Identity (Glencoe: Free Press, 1959), p. 143. 163Joseph R. Gusfield, "Occupational Roles and Forms of Enterprise," American Journal of Sociology. LXVI (May, 1961), 577. ^^Harold L. Wilensky, "Orderly Careers and Social Participation: The Impact of Work History on Social Inte gration in the Middle Mass," American Sociological Review. XXVI (August, 1961), 521-522. IkSfjoward S. Becker and Anselm L. Strauss, "Careers, Personality, and Adult Socialization," American Journal of Sociology. LXII (November, 1956), 253-263. 74 understanding occupational role expectations. Occupational role behavior has also been explored. A person's performance in his work role involves behavior appropriate to his self-concept, according to Super. Work preferences* success criteria, job satisfaction, achievement levels, parental identifications— all of these are important elements in relating occupational role and self-concepts. Gross has even said that both status and the self-concept can be loosely measured by an individual's _L6 7 occupation. The effects of expectations and personal pre-conceptions upon the interpersonal relationships of in dividuals has also been explored in an industrial set- 16 8 ting. Moreover, Roe found that both occupational choice and life time involvement categorize an individual's self- 4 - 169 image to some extent. 166pona] _ ( ^ e . Super, et al. . Career Development and Self-Concept Theory (New York: College Entrance Exam Board, 1963), pp. 11-13. 167Edward Gross, "The Occupational Variable as a Research Category," American Sociological Review. XXIV (Oc tober, 1959), 640-649. 168j30rwj _ n Cartwright, The Research Center for Group Dynamics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1950), pp. 12- 13. ^%nne Roe, The Psychology of Occupations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956), p. 11. 75 Since work channels energies into creative challen ges, Bell says that it is as necessary for spiritual suste- 170 nance as it is for the physical body. Work is inclusive enough to provide a frame of reference for structuring oc cupational situations and loyalties, for group identifica- 171 tion, and for group goals. For those laborers in mar ginal, dependent, wage-earning types of positions, their job attitudes are crucial in meeting work problems. The very preference for particular occupational roles socializes adults in the direction of taking over the goals and values 172 involved in these roles or reacting to them m some way. Middle class values, attitudes, uncertainty, fear of being overtaken by men competing against him, social pressures, and organizational demands are some of the forces with which 173 a successful executive must cope. Dubm points out that interpersonal relationships, group memberships, and Bell, Work and Its Discontents (Boston: Beacon Press, 1956), pp. 42-56. l^l-Hadley Cantril and Muzafer Sherif, The Psychology of Eero Involvements (New York: J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1947), p. 43. l^schneider, Industrial Sociology, pp. 2-6. 173william E. Henry, "The Business Executive: The Psychodynamics of a Social Role," American Journal of Soci ology. LIV (January, 1949), 286-291. 76 collective feelings all help to develop the social inter- 174 action in industrxal organxzation. Role behavior is also measured by standards. Work is considered a basic role in which prestige is given to 175 those who meet levels of excellence in role performance. Individuals take pride in the way in which they perform their work, but there also appear to be goals for success. In a study of 90 male students at Lackland Air Force Base, French found that clues of an appropriate nature could be injected into an experimental group and arouse achievement motivation, which had a measurable relationship to role 176 performance. In another study at Lackland, she found that feedback relevant to the task for achievement-oriented persons and socio-emotional feedback for affiliation-minded individuals produced the highest work performance level. Kinds of motivation appear to be related to kinds of feed back. Group performance may also be interrelated at the Dubin, Human Relations in Administration (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951), p. vi. -*-^5RUth S. Cavan, "Family in the New Suburb," in Marriage and the Family in the Modern World, ed. by Ruth S. Cavan (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1961), p. 65. !76Elizabeth G. French, "Some Characteristics of Achievement Motivation," Journal of Experimental Psychology. L, No. 4 (1955), 232-236. 77 intellectual levels of those with the greatest achievement .. .. 177 motivation. Moreover, role behavior involves interaction with other persons. If interaction is changed, sentiments and activities will also undergo change. Whyte points out that an industrial position of any worker is based on both eco- 178 nomic and social status. Individuals also occupy posi tions owing to family inheritance, as well as their special abilities, and their activities are carried on through par- 179 ticular roles. Specific attitudes, values, and interests develop out of particular roles and lead to membership in distinctive social classes. Dibble says that persons in higher ranking occupations value their jobs and have more 180 developed ideologies than the lower ranking individuals. However, the data of Simpson and Harper support the hypoth- -*-^^Elizabeth G. French, "Effects of the Interaction of Motivation and Feedback on Task Performance," in Motives in Fantasy. Action, and Society, ed. by John W. Atkinson (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1958), pp. 400-408. 178^-. j i _ Whyte, Money and Motivation (New York: Harper and Bros., 1955), pp. 96, 222. 179wiibert E. Moore, Industrial Relations and the Social Order (New York: Macmillan Co., 1951), pp. 435-438. 180yernon k . Dibble, "Occupations and Ideologies," American Journal of Sociology. LXVIII (September, 1962), 232-235. 78 esis that if a person can focus on worthwhile aspects of his occupation, he can maintain a favorable work self-con cept. For example, attendants in psychiatric work focus on * 4-* 4- 1 8 1 care of patients. There is also a unity between work and life, as well as a strong belief in belongingness. Among the most charac teristic of human needs are association and cooperation at work. Although management is apt to place more emphasis on work than laborers, all occupational groups have a degree of cohesiveness which differs in these ways: individual and social traits of members, job structure, issues involved, and management response to the pressures of workers' n . 182 needs. Work groups also have allegiances which compete with a person’s membership in other groups . In a 10 per cent random sample of 7,000 civil service employees, Reisman found that workers felt loyalties to professional associa tions, groups interacting with their offices, and to commu nity memberships, as well as to their own jobs and their 183-Richard c. Simpson and Ida Harper, "The Psychi atric Attendant: Development of an Occupational Self-image in a Low-status Occupation," American Sociological Review. XXIV (June, 1959), 392. 182w , Whyte, Men at Work (Homewood: R. D. Irwin, Inc.,1961), p. 540. 79 183 governmental employer. In another study of the sociology of the work group, several factors were discovered which are common in all occupations. They are: social contact and its scope, status range of interaction, off-the-job social demands, social leadership, group membership, participation, 184 personal obligations, and individual responsibilities. Other studies of occupational sub-cultures have focused on community relationships. Form and Miller found that there was a direct relationship between high occupa tional level with a high degree of participation in the 135 community. Work roles are naturally extended into com munity participation, which can be measured by the number of roles actually played, amount of time spent in each, fre quency of contact, the range of all participation, the man ner in which patterns are integrated in a role, and the stability of relationships. IS^Leonard Reisman, "A Study of Role Conceptions in a Bureaucracy," Social Forces. XXVII (March, 1949), 305-310. ^•^^Delbert C. Miller, "The Social Factors of the Work Situation," American Sociological Review. XI (June, 1946), 300-314. 185^iniam Form and Delbert C. Miller, "Occupa tional Career Patterns as a Sociological Instrument," Ameri can Journal of Sociology, LIV (January, 1949), 329. 186wiiensky, "Orderly Careers," pp. 521-526. 80 Thus, the self-concept, group identifications, goals, social interaction, performance standards, cohesive ness, loyalties, and participation in the occupational group are areas that have been studied in relationship to role behavior. Participation in community activities and other groups have also been explored. A number of descriptive studies of occupational sub- 187 cultures have been made. There have also been many studies of role within specific occupational settings. Hos pital workers, teachers, factory workers, executives, and military personnel are examples of some of the sub-cultures in which roles have been described. Haas selected a sample of 167 persons in studying role disharmony in hospital work groups. He found that low role performance is related to low consensus between any dyad, role performance to sociometric preference with any group, and role consensus is inversely related to the amount 187For example, see Raymond W. Mack, "Occupational Ideology," p. 37. There have also been a number of Univer sity of Southern California studies. Two examples are: Harold G. Hubbard, "Career Business Executives as Occupa tional Types" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1960) and Hamid Zahedi, "Analytic Study of Attorneys" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer sity of Southern California, 1962). 188 of friction occurring. Daniels was concerned with the cultural aspects of role. He summarized how the surgeon's total role creates pressures for nurses to perform according to certain norm models. The manner in which nurses fulfill their obliga- 189 tions influences their position in the hospital. A representative sample of 48 nurses from three hos pitals in a large midwestern city was taken by Corwin, Taves, and Haas. They developed a role conception inventory of 200 Likert-type questions pertaining to the nurses' work role. Findings were that successful nurses were rated as higher in occupational role performances, but peers rated them as lower. The successful nurses developed patterns of 190 friendships with superiors. Data were collected in Israel concerning teachers and nurses by Shuval. Religious adherence was definitely associated with interest in both nursing and teaching. (The chi square for teachers was 15.75, which was significant at J. Eugene Haas, Role Conception and Group Consen sus (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1963), pp. 1-128. - * - 8^Morris J. Daniels, "Relative Status," pp. 41-48. ^^^Ronald Corwin, Marvin J. Taves, and J. Eugene Haas, "Social Requirements for Occupational Success, Inter nalized Norms and Friendships," Social Forces. XXXIX (Decem ber, 1960), 135-140. 82 the .001 level; and the chi square for nurses was 15.49* 191 which was also significant at the .001 level.) In a 10 per cent sample of 1,000 teachers in the schools of Port City, Terrien found that teachers tend to act alike in conventional ways, that group membership and lines of authority led to behavioral control, and that the positions, as well as the functions, became formalized until they took on what appeared to be supra-individual character- 192 istics. There have been several studies of vocational agri culture teachers. Bible and McCarnes studied a sample of 30 teachers and 30 school administrators in Central Ohio. Satisfaction on the job was positively associated with role consensus and with teacher effectiveness. The zero order correlation was significant at the .05 level. Teacher ef fectiveness and role consensus were also associated. The Wilcoxon matched-pair signed ranks test score was 2.74, which was significant at the .01 level. Administrative role consensus and effectiveness were related with a Wilcoxon 191judith T. Shuval, "Occupational Interests and Sex-Role Congruence," Human Relations. XVI (May, 1963), 171- 182. 192 Frederic W. Terrien, "The Occupational Roles of Teachers," Journal of Educational Sociology. XXIX (Septem ber, 1955), 14-20. 83 test score of 3.37, which was significant at the .001 lev- , 193 el. Analyzing four hour interviews with 27 vocational agriculture teachers in Louisiana, Nix and Bates found these types of role stresses: conflict between roles, role inade quacy, frustrations, excessive expectation or demand, and role incongruity. They found that teachers tried to com partmentalize role performances, arrange roles in a choice hierarchy, and organize informal groups to work out these 194 stresses. In addition to the roles of nurses and teachers, the roles of workers and union members have been described. A study was made by Lieberman of 2,534 factory workers at Rockwell. One aspect of his concern was to sample 145 stew ards and 151 foremen as to their attitudes toward manage ment, the union, the wage incentive system, and the union seniority system. Foremen were more favorable to management and its values (results were significant at the .01 level of l^^Bond L,__Bible and James D. McCarnes, "Role Con sensus and Teacher Effectiveness," Social Forces. XLII (De cember, 1963), 225-233. ■^•^^Harold L. Nix and Frederick L. Bates, "Occupa tional Role Stresses: A Structural Approach," Rural Soci ology. XXVII (March, 1962), 7-17. 84 probability), and stewards were more inclined toward the union (.01 to .005 level of probability). Attitudes and be havior which were appropriate to the expectations were de veloped in each role position and if one were to be demoted to a lower position, attitudes and behavior would revert to 195 the demands of this new job. Another study was made of foremen who had once been stewards and those who had not been. Jacobson, Lieberman, and Charters devised experimental situations in which con flict was forced between management and the union. The foremen who had once been stewards were involved in more role conflict. It was hypothesized that stewards have more to do with union members and values than foremen do with their subordinates. Effective foremen must have the capa city to fulfill role expectations of their superiors and 196 peers, but also those of their subordinates. Seventy-six labor leaders and 108 management repre sentatives were part of a sample in a study by Haire. He presented pictures of union and management leaders together ^^Seymour Lieberman, 1 1 The Effects of Changes in Roles in the Attitudes of Role Occupants," Human Relations. IX (November, 1956), 384-402. Jacobson, Charters, and Lieberman, "The Role Con cept," pp. 18-27. 85 with descriptive statements. There were also 290 person ality-related adjectives. Labor personnel was seen as sub stantially different from management when role position was known (chi square of 11.68, which is significant at the .01 level). Both labor and management see the other as less dependable (chi square of 38.4, which is significant at the 197 .01 level). Business executives, social workers, and military personnel are other examples of roles which have been de scribed. Coates and Pellegrin studied 50 top executives, together with a like number of first line supervisors in a large southern city. Implications of their study are: ex ecutives impose their own role expectations upon subordi nates and make performance comparisons in terms of their own; subordinates account for their inferiority in terms of social-cultural factors and their own low role expectations; rewards and sacrifices differentiate desires for achievement between the two groups; and achievement expectations and desires influence career success over a life time by af- 198 fectmg role, performance. ■^^Mason Haire, "Role Perceptions in Labor-Manage- ment Relations: An Experimental Approach," Industrial and Labor Relations Review. VIII (January, 1955), 204-216. •^8Charles H. Coates and Roland J. Pellegrin, "Ex- 86 In a sample of 109 public assistance workers drawn from small, medium, and large administrative units, Thomas studied role conception and performance. He found that role consensus was relative to size (greater in small units with a chi square of 15.0 and probability at the .01 level), that greater breadth of role conception was relative to size (greater in smaller units with a chi square of 6,48 and probability at the .05 level), and that the strength of ethical commitment was relative to size (stronger in smaller units with a chi square of 20.04 and probability at the .01 199 level). Finally, Hall collected questionnaire data from 40 B-29 crews concerning their role structure. He validated the responses of crew members against ratings by outside observers. His hypothesis was that the behavior and atti tudes of aircraft commanders would eventually form norms as a result of their crews' cohesiveness and adaptability. Although his results were somewhat inconclusive, it was suggested that group norms and expectations take time to ecutives and Superiors: Contrasting Self-Conceptions and Conceptions of Each Other," American Sociological Review. XXII (April, 1957), 217-220. •^^Edwin j. Thomas, "Role Conceptions and Organiza tional Size," American Sociological Review. XXIV (February, 1959), 30-37. 87 i 200 develop. Thus, occupational roles have been studied in rela tion to expectations (conflicting demands and pressures, multiple group membership, and specificity), behavior (self- concept, identification, goals, social interaction, perform ance, cohesiveness, loyalties, participation, and community activities), and in specific, sub-cultural occupational settings. Marital Role and Occupational Role Some explorations have also been made concerning the relationships between marital and occupational roles. Many years ago (in the days of the cottage industry) husbands and wives were involved in mutually supporting family-occupa- . tional roles. It was not until the production of goods moved to factories that men and women were more sharply 201 divided in their division of labor. Our great-grand mothers were involved in essentially the same economically providing acts alongside of their husbands as employed women are today with one essential difference. Today's ^^Robert L. Hall, "Social Influence on the Aircraft Commander's Role," American Sociological Review. XX (June, 1955), 292-299. 20lMirra Komarovsky, Women in the Modern World (Bos ton: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 50. 88 wife is working at her job outside of the home, while great- 202 grandmother worked at home. Position, power, and status in economic matters were all affected by family interrela tionships in pre-industrial communities. However, in modern times the husband's and wife's position in industrial life is more individual and new decisive roles are being formed in which the relationship of spouses is more equali- tarian. Early studies tend to deal with some of the general relationships of the economic and family areas. Davis theorized that work outside the home helped to create much 204 marital unhappiness and Hamilton suggested that money earnings of working wives adversely affected both spous- 205 es. On the other hand, Burgess and Cottrell seemed to think that economic factors were not significant for ad justment in marriage, because they were interwoven with 202gve]_yn Duvall and Reuben Hill, When You Marry (New York: Association Press, 1962), pp. 188-189. 203Gideon Sjobert, "Familial Organization in the Pre-industrial City," Marriage and Family Living. XVIII (February, 1956), 35. 2°4Ka^ - ] lerj _ ne Davis, Factors in the Sex Life of 2200 Women (New York: Harper and Bros., 1929), p. 44. V. Hamilton, A Research in Marriage (New York: Lear, 1948), p. 219. other factors. Terman found that insufficient income was a central problem for both mates, as was poor management of funds. Husbands complained if wives had no interest in their busi ness or interfered with it and wives objected if their hus bands were either unsuccessful or overly interested in their work. There were not any significant differences between happy or unhappy husbands as to whether wives should have their own money or work outside of the home in order to have it, but there were for wives. The critical ratio was -2.6 for it being very essential, -3.2 for it being usually de- 207 sirable, and +2.7 for it being not desirable. On the question concerning whether wives should know all about husbands' businesses, as well as family finances, happy husbands say that it is essential much more than do unhappy ones (CR is +4.3) and unhappy husbands are more apt to say that it is decidedly not necessary (CR is -3.2). The one significant critical ratio for wives was that happy wives indicate more than unhappy ones that it is not 206surgess and Cottrell, Predicting Success, p. 349. ^O^Lewis M. Terman, Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1938), pp. 96- 99, 138-139. 90 208 necessary (CR is +3.4). He also states that "happily married women appear definitely more meticulous and per severing in their attitude toward work and show greater lik- ,,209 m g for work requiring such traits. Many studies have explored or attempted to define areas of relationship between the family and industry. Locke deals with this association only slightly. Kinds of work, economic security, standards of living, regular em ployment of husbands, and the work of the wife having the approval of the husband are all factors which enter into 210 work-family interaction.' In his study, Williamson found that the employment of women did not significantly affect the marriage relation ship. Specific economic factors which were related to ad justment in marriage were: hours of work, job interest, how well fellow employees were liked, and parental posi tions . Although there were differences in occupation in social areas, job adjustment is significantly correlated ' ■ , , . 211 with marital happiness. 208lMd., p. 139. 209Ibid-. p. 150. 210Harvey J. Locke, Predicting Adjustment in Mar riage (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1955), p. 297. 21lRobert C. Williamson, "Socio-Economic Factors and 91 Blood and Wolfe discuss colleague companionship in which the wife has frequent contacts and interaction with her husband at his work. They raise the question of whether one's priority of values is located in the family or else where and relate this to the cultural norms of society. Priorities lead to conflicts in roles and sources for these strains are in families of orientation, in families close to one's own., in models observed in mass media, and out of the situational aspects of any given family. Conflicts in role 212 relationships produce or provoke crises. Goode calls for more precise delineation of what economic factors are related to the family. He also points out the need of studies in the area of separating socio economic class from occupation as they relate to the family, as well as some indication of the kinds of economic pressure 213 which operate on the various strata of the population. In the textbook, Industrial Sociology, the extended Marital Adjustment" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer sity of Southern California, 1951), pp. 150-163. ^■^Robert P. Blood and Donald M. Wolfe, Husbands and Wives (New York: Free Press, 1960), pp. 168-172. 23-3william Goode, "Economic Factors and Marital Instability," American Sociological Review. XVI (December, 1951), 802-812. 92 family's difficulties in modern industrial society are de scribed. The nuclear family, however, is isolated with a separation of work and home in activities, values, and tra ditions. There is also equality of roles in the relation- 214 ship between spouses. The differences between the sexes in occupational and family roles is another area that has been explored by many scholars. In studying the relationship between work and the family, some scholars point out that much more of a woman's life is family-centered and that women are more de pendent upon the family. Gray and Smith found that males are apparently more preoccupied with jobs and do not need ties with parents as much as wives, require visits with the extended family, or attach themselves to families of orien tation as much as wives. Since even working wives feel the need of parental ties more than husbands, there is apparent- 215 ly a sexual difference operating here. Cavan stated that women have many more alternatives from which to choose, even though their roles are not as ^-^Schneider, Industrial Sociology, pp. 428-430. ^-*-^Robert M. Gray and Ted C. Smith, "Effect of Em ployment on Sex Differences in Attitudes Toward the Parental Family," Marriage and Family Living. XXII (February, 1960), 36-38. 93 well defined. She also has a developmental view that at different periods of a couples' marriage, the work role may increase or decrease in proportion to the other roles of a . 216 couple. In another study of differences between sexes, Slaughter found that men had many activities and ties of friendship in their occupational associations, and these groups tended to socialize men in a way that led them to believe that romance is for women and is effeminate. This study pointed out that husbands and wives will have differ ent roles owing to socioeconomic environment, occupational values, and community norms. Positions outside the family 217 tend to determine the role responses of both spouses. Differences between sexes have also been discussed in terms of feministic issues. Competitiveness with men in the economic area, conflict between home and work, choosing her occupation independently, professional training, equal ity in pay, work conditions, relative work stability, emo tional instability, division of labor, and home allowances— Ruth S. Cavan, American Marriage (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1959), pp. 336-346. _ Slaughter, "Modern Marriage and the Role of the Sexes," Sociological Review (N.S.), IV (December, 1956), 217-221. 94 all of these are issues concerning feminism, according to . , 218 Kirkpatrick. Seward considers equal rights for women one of the primary social problems. Employing a sample of 147 women taking an introductory psychology course, she gave them a 40-item questionnaire dealing with the feminine role. She also used 12 pictures from the Thematic Apperception Test, Kirkpatrick's anti-feminine scale, the Terman-Miles Male- Female test, and Maslow's dominant feeling test. In educa tional, economic, community, and social areas, the emphasis was on equality between sexes, but these women supported a subordinate female role as wife and mother. Thus, there appear to be inconsistencies in the trend toward equal- 219 ity. These discrepancies were also found in a study by Dunn. In generalized questions, 436 high school seniors agreed that given household tasks should not be assigned to males or females because of their sex, but shared according 2l80iiffor3 Kirkpatrick, "Content of a Scale for Measuring Attitudes towards Feminism," Sociology and Social Research. XX (July-August, 1936), 523. ^•^Georgene h . Seward, "Cultural Conflict and the Feminine Role: An Experimental Study," Journal of Social Psychology. XXII, No. 3 (1945), 177-194. 95 to interests and skills. However, when specific questions . . 220 were given, the responses were more traditional. In an undergraduate family course, Komarovsky used 73 autobiographies together with 80 interviews on the role of college women. Although she felt a need to refine the meaning of feminism, she found that women appeared to feel that it was necessary to feign inferiority to men and there were role confusions concerning expectations of parents. She declared that the power of a man in his home was direct- 221 ly related to his skills in providing for his family. Wallin replicated Komarovsky's study. He took a 10 per cent random sample of undergraduate females for a total number of 222 163. His results supported those of Komarovsky. Another study of feminism found that women have role confusion, frustrations resulting from desires to play roles that they are not performing, tensions over misunderstand- 220jyiarie s. Dunn, "Marriage Role Expectations of Adolescents," Marriage and Family Living. XXII (May, 1960), 99-104. 221jyiirra Komarovsky, "Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles," in Readings in Marriage and the Family, ed. by Judson T. Landis and Mary G. Landis (New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1952), pp. 375-383. ^^Paul Wallin, "Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles: A Repeat Study," in Readings in Marriage and the Familv. ed. by Judson T. Landis and Mary G. Landis (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952), pp. 384-386. 96 ings concerning roles, and that there are ethical inconsis tencies which result in women having a double burden of obligations, but not two-fold privileges. It is not clear to women whether they are to play the wife-mother, the com panion, or the partner role. Thus, women's roles are sur- 223 rounded by much ambiguity. Confusion in role is greater in changing times. Studying role change relating to industrialization and the employment of women, Hacker finds that there is some role strain owing to a greater need for success outside of gain ful employment, and to the association of success in the 224 occupational role with masculinity. Thus, some of the issues discussed in the differ ences between the sexes in their occupational and family roles are community norms, occupational values, competitiv- ity, equality, role confusion, provider skills, ethical in consistencies, and occupational success. Women were also said to be more family-centered and to have more alternative roles. ^•^Clifford Kirkpatrick, "The Measurement of Ethical Inconsistency in Marriage," International Journal of Ethics. XLVI (July, 1936), 444-460. ^^4He^en Hacker, "The New Burdens of Masculin ity," Marriage and Family Living. XIX (August, 1957), 227- 233. 97 One of the more crucial problems in the relationship between rrtarital and occupational roles is the interdepend ence between them, the relative weight of each role, or the relative pull toward one or the other. If an individual prefers the marital role and feels a pull toward fulfilling expectations in it, will he neglect the demands of his occu pational role? Will the reverse be true? Or do perform ances and expectations in both roles mutually support one another? Scholars have studied this issue in two ways: there is a reciprocal relationship in which each mutually influences the other and there is opposition or conflict between them. In the first place, marital and occupational roles have a relationship of mutuality or reciprocity. The family 225 and economic systems are interdependent functionally, but 226 they are also woven together. Using a case study method ology, Komarovsky undertook a study of 58 marriages. Low status and little prestige were related to dissatisfaction both in the home and on the job. Marriages were especially poc ^-’ Atlee L. Stroup, Marriage and Family (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966), p. 7. ^^Spurgeon English and Constance J. Foster, A Guide to Successful Fatherhood (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1954), p. 2. 98 vulnerable to economic stresses among blue-collar workers. Competing loyalties existed, but were not particularly com mon. Not only did 80 per cent of the wives have practically no social contacts with their husbands' fellow workers, but also the wives were not included in the on-the-job friend- 227 ships. Rapoport and Rosow made a generalized analysis of role relationships in a study of the families of patients treated at Belmont Hospital in London. They found that effective understanding of the occupational interactions of a patient required knowledge of their other relationships 228 such as their families. Parsons and Bales have worked out a theory that the occupational role represents a position in the economic sys tem, but through a process of "interpenetration," it is also a role in the family system. Thus, the occupational role is a "boundary-role" between the family and the work sys- 229 terns . 227jyiirra Komarovsky, Blue-Collar Marriage (New York: Random House, 1964), pp. 5-332. ^®Rhona Rapoport and Irving Rosow, "An Approach to Family Relationships and Role Performance," Human Relations. X (August, 1957), 209-221, 229Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family 99 A person's role as husband, father, worker or citi zen can be integrated and husband-father does not have to be just a wage earner to his family. Although father has lost n much authority in the trend toward equalitarianism, he has gained the possibility of closer, friendlier, democratic interaction with his family. Moreover, Udry observes that conflict over the hus bands' and wives' disparity about roles can be resolved by more accurate responses to expectation, as in the case of well-adjusted couples. Although changes in division of labor may bring greater role conflict, the couple may re solve it by the husband taking on somewhat greater responsi bility for the domestic tasks, while the wife is increas ingly willing to find outside employment. The husband gains greater power in household decisions and the wife's gains are in the area of economic decision-making. Home-making could be considered a husband-wife role and not just a 231 woman s position. Socialization and Interaction Process (Glencoe: Free Press, 1955), p. 13. 23C>Qunnar Dybwad, "Fathers Today— Neglected or Neg lectful," Child Study. XXIX (Spring, 1952), 3-5, 28-29. ^-Richard J. Udry, The Social Context of Marriage (Philadelphia: J. Lippincott Co., 1966), pp. 293, 395-399. 100 It was pointed out by Miller and Form that work attitudes affect an individual's whole outlook on life. A worker who is happy and adjusted on the job reflects this interest and purpose at home, but a maladjusted worker might well use his family as his scapegoat. All the feelings workers have about their jobs are brought into their homes. It is possible that the same general life patterns include 232 home and work life as interwoven together. On the other hand, English and French state that attitudes at home are 233 also brought to the job. Oeser and Hammond attempted to measure work and home patterns by a tension index in which the number of tensions experienced by an individual was divided by the total number of items on their questionnaire. In measuring roles, they found an area of participation of control for the wife, some for the husband, and some for both together. Questions were asked about work interest and job characteristics. They found the structure of work situations gave root to coer cions, which the family often reinforced. Work and family ^•^Delbert C. Miller and William H. Form, Industrial Sociology (New York: Harper and Bros., 1951), p. 122. 233gpurgeon o. English and Stuart M. French, Emo tional Problems of Growing Up (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1951), p. 28. 101 contained many connecting lines. Although the testing of social roles has much potential, the authors felt that lit tle had been done and that future work should center atten- 234 tion on these xssues. Gold and Slater point out how frequently scholars have noted how family functions, as well as structure, are influenced by the industrial system. Family status often depends on what level of occupation can be achieved by the male. At the blue-collar level, work is not fulfilling and it is possible that the family might be used for interper sonal satisfactions in order to compensate for it. In a study of 612 white families, they discovered that companion ship needs and values were stronger in an impersonal bu reaucracy, that wives had greater power when they played mobile roles effectively in mobile situations, and that motherhood was highly valued where mass respondents lacked power. They suggested that family and economic interrela tionships in ideology and in structure be investigated fur- ^ 235 ther. 234q . a . Oeser and S. B. Hammon, Social Structure and Personality in a City (New York: Macmillan Co., 1954), pp. 120-302. 2 3 5 ^ 2 - Gold and Carol Slater, "Office, Factory, Store,— and Family: A Study of Integration Setting," Ameri can Sociological Review. XXIII (February, 1958), 64-74. 102 Studies of the reciprocal relationships between occupational and marital roles show that attitudes and stresses in each area influence one another; understanding of one area requires knowledge of the other; the occupation al role is an intermediary between the areas; equalitarian- ism is a means for a closer relationship; and there is mu tual support and compensation between roles. On the other hand, many studies point out the con flict between marital and occupational roles. Suburban hus bands must face the conflicts between two roles: there is the occupational role which is basic to him, but his wife expects even more of him in playing the husband's role (in cluding any activities which may be associated with family 236 life in the community). It would seem as though the family is competing with other groups for the time and ener gies of the husband and wife as they play their various 237 roles. Moreover, the increasing number of employed wives makes it possible to think of occupational roles for women, as well as men, with conflict for both spouses between their 238 family and occupational roles. Individuals orient 2^Cavan, "New Suburb," p. 69. 237peterson, Marriage. p. 16. ^~^Clark E. Vincent, "Helping the College Woman 103 themselves on the basis of value commitments, which must be consistent to some degree, but there are value conflicts involved in deeper commitments or investments in some refer ence groups, rather than others. Moreover, if status achievement levels increase in some reference groups, the claims of these rights and duties may infringe upon those of 239 the family. Thus, an occupational role offering achieve ment opportunity throughout a career might offer values which could conflict with those of the family. Childhood socialization in the family is a source of the formation of occupational roles. Training in the home may teach traditional roles, but as children grow to matur ity they face emerging values. Payne questioned 416 boys and 485 girls in Georgia high schools about women working after marriage. Of the boys, 78 per cent did not want their wives to work, but 92 per cent of the girls expressed the intention of working as single women, 56 per cent planned on working after marriage, while only 24 per cent indicated Choose Her Role," in Marriage and the Family in the Modern WorId. ed. by Ruth S. Cavan {New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1961), pp. 320-322. 23 Charles w ' Hobart, "Commitment, Value Conflict, and the Future of the American Family," Marriage and Family Living. XXV (November, 1963), 405-410. 104 240 they would not work at all. This difference between the boys and girls would seem to suggest some conflict between sexes in terms of role expectations with the boys reflecting traditional tendencies and the girls the emerging equalitar- ian trends. Empey studied the employment expectations for both boys and girls in a sample of 1,981 students in the public high schools in the state of Washington (a 10 per cent sam ple), as well as 403 undergraduates at the state college of Washington. Eight out of 10 women chose marriage in pref erence to a career, 8 per cent chose a career, and the rest were uncertain, but there were not any signs of a strong dislike of working. Although the boys were further advanced in their occupational planning, women thought of work as a means to maintain given standards of living. Finally, more and more women are preparing for a dual role of both mar- 241 riage and employment. These studies of youth point to some changes in role and the family has lost the function of economic production ^^Raymond Payne, "Adolescents' Attitudes toward the Working Wife," Marriage and Family Living. XVIII (November, 1956), 345-348. ^■^La Mar T. Empey, "Role Expectations of Young Women Regarding Marriage and a Career," Marriage and Family Living. XX (May, 1958), 152-155. 105 242 to industrial institutions. This has meant a loss of 243 status-prestige to the world of business. Another con cern is that modern technology and the shills required in business today tend to be a source of separation between job and family roles. Occupational life is a separation in time away from the family. Attention centered more on work than on home, success drives on the job sapping persons of energy for home involvement or commitment, and motivation greater for goals away from home--all of these factors require adjustment in 244 marital roles to conflicting occupational ones. The roles played by a husband-father often pull in a different direction from those of a business man. At his work, Mr. Smith is shrewd, but as a father he is gentle. Should he be business-like or affectionate? He is tough-minded in his occupation, but at home he is conciliatory. Hard-headedness seems necessary on the job, while he needs to be understand ing at home. Mr. Smith is competitive as a business man, ^^Meyer p. Nimkoff, "Technology and the Future of the Family," in Marriage and the Family in the Modern World, ed. by Ruth S. Cavan (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1961), p . 67 . Meyer F.. Nimkoff, Marriage and the Family (Bos ton: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1947), p. 93. ^44Peterson, Marriage. p. 25. 106 but as a husband-father, he is friendly. He is mercenary at work, but he is generous at home. In which role is he his 245 "real" self? It is not surprising that Gianopulos and Mitchell gave 132 tests in conflict areas between spouses and found that 12 out of 14 of the significant differences , • ■ ■ 246 were centered m the domestic-economic area. Aberle and Naegele say that many factors tend to separate the family from occupational roles. The roles are not as clear in limits to responsibility and authority in home life, but aggressiveness is rewarded in the business area. Responsibility and authority are also more clearly 247 marked out for individuals in their work roles. Nevertheless, interaction occurs in all kinds of groups and the number of groups multiplies as society de velops. There are individual differences in both the number of groups to which persons belong and the intensity of Lindesmith and Strauss, Social Psychology, p. 273. ^^Artie Gianopulos and Howard E. Mitchell, "Marital Disagreement in Working Wives' Marriages as a Function of Husbands' Attitude toward Wives' Employment," Marriage and Family Living. XIX (November, 1957), 373-378. ^4^David F. Aberle and Kaspar D. Naegele, "Middle Class Fathers' Occupational Role and Attitude to Children," in Sociology, the Progress of a Decade, ed. by S. M. Lipset and N. J. Smelzer (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. 129. 107 participation in them. Although cultural values promote integration, each group struggles to reach its goals and achieve its particular standards. Thus, much more frequent is the competition between the other institutions of society— between economic in stitutions, the family, and the church, recreational facilities, and educational institutions. The eco-. nomic emancipation of women, her political enfran chisement, and the factory system of industry compete seriously with the institution of the family. The changes in our economic organization have had very grave repercussions on the functions of the home. Not only the social changes, but also the goals of workers are important. They want to play a role which will win the respect of others, make them secure economically, have a measure of occupational control, bring understanding about what is going on at work, and help them have satisfy ing interpersonal experience. The workers' home life is apt to be influenced by their economic life. One question which requires an answer is: Will home or work be the greater 249 source of their satisfaction? Kirkpatrick states that inconsistencies in cultural demands create family problems. Wives are ambivalent about the work roles of their husbands and husbands' expectations ^^Gillin and Gillin, Cultural Sociology, p. 597. ^^Richard jy^ Titmoss, "Industrialization and the Family," Social Service Review. XXXI (March, 1957), 59. 108 in marriage can create difficulties in their wives' careers. As a family passes from one stage of its development to another, roles and functions change too. All throughout an individual's life, role choices are a normal part of every- 250 day Irfe. In Crestwood Heights. it was discovered that choices in occupational role are modelled after parents. Since hus bands are more integrally tied to their jobs than their fam ilies, they experience conflicts. Success symbols, both at work and surrounding their homes, create an atmosphere of competition which is pervasive. Wives are a most strategic partner for career success, for they can advance or hinder their husbands as much as any other single person. Occupa tional success is linked to the family, but the two systems are not easily combined. Wives feel resentful conflicts in pulls toward approval as wife-mother or their roles in com munity and occupation. Plurality of conflicting demands and multiplicity of roles make for much difficulty in achieving integration, both at the individual and the institutional levels.251 250difford Kirkpatrick, The Family as Process and Institution (New York: Ronald Press, 1955), pp. 353, 424. 251j0hn R. Seeley, R. Alexander Sim, and Elizabeth W. Loosley, Crestwood Heights (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 109 In another kind of social situation, conflict be tween marital and occupational roles was felt. A study was made in New York City of trade union leaders, in which op posing demands were observed.. In order for conflict to be resolved, re-definition had to be made of the roles of hus- band-father, trade union leader, or of both roles, in which 252 they were made more complementary to each other . The resolution of marital conflict has been explored by sociologists. The husband's role integration is more in the direction of occupational values which he feels are higher than those of the family. Father's income gives him independence from the family to some extent, although there are social class and occupational differences in power. Conflict is often of a motivational nature in regard to 253 allocation of time, money, and even energy. When occupational identities are developed, conflict is not a necessity. If it does occur, disparities between parental and occupational expectations are central. Con- 1956), pp. 106-217. ^^^Alvin W. Gouldner, "Attitudes of 'Progressive' Trade-Union Leaders," American Journal of Sociology. LII (March, 1947), 389-392. ^53j, M. Mogey, "A Century of Declining Paternal Authority," Marriage and Family Living. XIX (August, 1957), 234-239. 110 flict or its adjustment is associated with various interre lationships between family desires, family power, occupa tional commitment and time allocations, support for occupa tional ideology, and the timing of incompatibilities of ex- 254 pectation between family and occupation. Moreover, Truxal and Merrill suggest that occupa tional role brings about differences in marital roles. Frustrations grow out of differences between behavior and expectation in either spouse. Certain occupations permit behavior patterns to develop which may bring complications 255 to the marital relationship. Thus, conflict between occupational and marital roles may occur because of allocations of time, money, and energy. Value commitments, status, changing roles, goal motivations, competitivity between institutions, inconsist encies in demands, multiplicity of roles, and disparities between behavior and expectation— all of these represent areas of potential role conflict. Many of these factors may operate together in conflict situations. ^^Carper and Becker, "Conflicting Expectations," pp. 51-56. ^-^Andrew g . Truxal and Francis E. Merrill, Marriage and the Family in American Culture (New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1953), pp. 200, 465-466, 484. Ill Another way of looking at role conflict is the pull between inner-directedness and other-directedness. Inner- directed individuals were socialized by parents and they internalized the norms established in early family training. A built-in gyroscope guides a person to autonomous behavior and he violates his own conscience whenever his behavior does not measure up to his family's or his own expectations. There are correlations between occupation and autonomy, and the inner-directed person is oriented toward production. Family relationships are effective and there is cultural support for behavior or expectations learned in the family. Today, there is multiplicity of groups and roles, as well as much social change. Other-directed persons gain their source of direction more from their peers, whose ap proval is important to them. Situations are defined in terms of adjustment to all the others in the groups to which a person belongs. Individuals are also oriented toward con sumption and will accept cultural definitions of work from others. It would appear that occupational roles are other- 256 directed and played away from the family. David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denny, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), pp. 11-123, 209-261. 112 Broom and Selznick state that the urban nuclear family interacts in a much smaller area of life than the peer group and peers teach values to persons. Social and technological change, as well as social mobility, are widen ing the gaps between generations. There are also many con fusions and disparities about social character and the adult 257 roles. In a sample of 2,975 students at 11 universities, Goldsen and others tested other-directedness. Occupation was ranked first by 28 per cent of the students, 47 per cent placed it in second place, 14 per cent rated it third, and 11 per cent rejected it. Family relationships were ranked first by 55 per cent, second by 27 per cent, third by 7 per cent, and 11 per cent rejected it. They found a common element in directions toward people, in wanting to be help ful to other persons, and working with others. This could be worked into family life, as well as found outside of 258 it. However, at the present time, tests of inner- directedness and other-directedness are somewhat inconclu- 257Leonar(j Broom and Philip Selznick, Sociology (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), p. 114. ^58Rose K. Goldsen, et al.. What College Students Think (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1960), pp. 16- 29, 113 sive . Some studies point out that both marital and occupa tional roles are greatly influenced by social relationships outside of the family. Bott made a very intensive study of only 20 families. It was found that the external social relationship of families was found in social networks in "which some, but not all of the component external units 259 maintain relationships with one another." Economic ties, kinds of neighborhood, extra-local opportunities for rela tionships, physical and social mobility, individuality, and social class were all factors in the social networks of . . 260 urban families. Moreover, the amount of dependence upon extra- familial social relationships or feelings within the family was found to be associated with role differentiation in the home. New social relationships are formed at each occupa tional status. In this context of social mobility and large organizational, occupational life,, there is more role strain over division of labor than when husbands and wives support ^^^Elizabeth Bott, "Urban Families: Conjugal Roles and Social Networks," Human Relations, VIII (November, 1955), 383 . 26QIbid.. pp. 345-383. each other in their life outside the home. In the next place, structural-functional theorists have studied the relationship between occupational and mari tal roles. In analyzing the interaction context of the fam ily, Parsons and Bales employ the concepts of instrumental and expressive roles, with the father-husband enacting the instrumental role of providing for the family, as well as mediating between the family and other sub-systems of soci ety. Moreover, the father was the more powerful and male children weaker instrumentally. Women enacted the expres sive roles in giving or receiving affection and in activi ties centered around the home. Wives were more powerful and female children were weaker in the expressive roles. How one plays his role depends upon his perception of the situ- 262 ation. There is also an outer circle of families which forms a network in which the nuclear family is located. Parsons seems to link the kinship system with the structure of the occupational system, but only the husband plays a 261phHip e _ Slater, "Parental Role Differentia tion, " ^neri£aj3_douoiaJ=_jQf_^0£i^logy., LXVII (November, 1961), 296-311. ^2parsons and Bales, Interaction Process, pp. 317- 321. 115 fully competitive role. He anchors his concept of role in the occupational system. There is also a segregation of sex roles along an occupational continuum and the status of the 26 3 family is tied to an occupational reference. Further more, the economic dependence of spouses may be linked in- 254 versely with incompatibility. A study by Litwak raises another question about the relationship of the family and occupational systems. His sample was 920 Caucasian married women taken in Buffalo just after their move into a new home. He rejects the hypothesis that the nuclear family (set apart from kin relationship) is the most functional for the modern technological industrial 26 5 society. Zelditch finds that role conflict is centered in some aspects of role giving rise to clashes of expectation. In an analysis of 56 societies, his data support Parson's division of spousal roles along instrumental-expressive lines. He also says that there have been relatively few 263parsonSj> "The Social Structure," pp. 176-193. 264^^^ Linton, "The Natural History of the Fami ly," in The Family, Its Function and Destiny, ed. by Ruth N. Anshen (New York: Harper and Bros., 1949), p. 25. ^Eugene Litwak, "Occupational Mobility and Extend ed Family Cohesion," American Sociological Review. XXV (Feb ruary, 1960), 9-21. 116 . , 266 studies between occupation and family. Shepherd found that the contribution of instrumental or task leaders is in ideas, problem-solving, suggestions, and control. Socio-emotional leaders make contributions in helping with decisions, tension management, and integra- 267 tion. Tharp studied the relationship between marital inte gration, perceived self-other similarity, and socio-emotion al interactional variation. Socio-emotional aspects of the interaction of wives were higher than the husbands 1 ratings (significant at the .05 level). Marital interaction varied directly with how husbands rated domestic values pertaining to socio-emotional interaction (significant at the .05 lev- .. 268 el) . In a work and family study by Straus, it was found that the following relationships hold: when a husband's and a wife's occupational achievement expectancy are both high, the family will be achievement oriented; when they are both ^^Morris Zelditch, Jr., "Cross-Cultural Analysis of Family Structure," in Handbook of Marriage and the Family, ed. by Harold T. Christiansen (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1964), pp. 462-500. 267ciovis R. Shepherd, Small Groups (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964), p. 34. ^^^Tharp, "Psychological Patterning," pp. 97-117. 117 low, the family will have low aspirations? when a husband's are high and a wife's low, the family will be a non-suppor- tive one; and when the husband's are low and the wife’s 269 high, the family will undergo achievement conflict. Thus, the structural-functional theorists define instrumental and expressive role characteristics, as well as assign roles by sexual differentiation. Economic independ ence, expectations, and achievement orientations were areas of potential role conflict. Another issue involved in the conflict between mari tal and occupational roles is values. Individuals orient themselves on the basis of value commitments, which must be consistent to some degree, but there are value conflicts because of deeper commitments or investments in some refer ence groups, rather than others. If status achievement levels increase in some reference groups, the claims of these rights and duties may infringe upon those of the fam- 270 ily. Thus, an occupational role offering achievement opportunity throughout a career might offer values which would conflict with those of the family. Tumin attempted 269]y[Urray A. Straus, "Measuring Families," in Hand book of Marriage and the Family, ed. by Harold T. Christen sen (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1964), pp. 335-400. P7D Hobart, "Value Conflict," pp. 405-410. 118 to explore the rewards possible at home or at work. He found critical factors in relative control over each envi ronment, direct consequences of efforts which could be per- 271 ceived, and rewards received. More fun at work, a higher style of living at work, and sanctuary at work— all of these are rewards which suggest competitivity between family and 272 occupation. Economic organizations also integrate family members into their processes and structures as individuals, which strengthens the economic bond at the expense of the 273 family. Form and Miller say that the ideology and values of business tend to dominate those of the family. Persons gain social approval on their jobs and their job behavior is affected by problems at home. The economic institutions want families that create hard-working, loyal, and stable employees for them. Agreement on occupational and general 274 values is necessary if marriages are to be happy. 0 7 1 c xMelvin M. Tumin, "Rewards and Task-Orientations," American Sociological Review. XX (August, 1955), 419-423. ^^William H. Whyte, Jr., "The Wife Problem," in Marriage and the Family, ed. by Robert F. Winch and Robert McGinnis (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1957), pp. 284-285. Robert F. Winch, The Modern Family (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1952), p. 54. ^William H. Form and Delbert C. Miller, Industry. 119 Moreover, an individual's ability to act in a con sistent, responsible way is dependent upon his orientation and commitment to values. Four changes have affected the family: functional losses, increasing mobility for individ uals within society, increase of status achievement over ascription, and the great gains of materialistic values. 275 America has pervasive value conflicts. Many values reflect stability. In 1935-38, Kelly secured a sample of 300 engaged couples to whom he gave a battery of tests. Sixteen to 18 years later 454 of the 600 were still married and were retested in an 86 per cent re turn. Economic values were unchanged. The re-test corre lation with the original one was .50. In addition, he em ployed the occupational level index of Strong, which he divided into lower and upper occupations. There was also no significant change in these tests between administra- 276 tions. Another value is standard of living. Although the Labor, and Community (New York: Harper and Bros., 1960), pp. 393-416. ‘ ^-’ Hobart, "Value Conflict," pp. 405-410. ^^E. Lowell Kelly, "Consistency of the Adult Per sonality," American Psychologist. X (November, 1955), 659- 681. 120 corporation may create marital tension because of its strong voice in employees' style of life, the family, itself, has a reciprocal influence on the economic institution by having conceptions of what is an appropriate life style for it . . . and by conveying these life-styles to the young . . . the family's influence goes further than influencing demand through shaping consumer be havior; the family also shapes how much of the family's available labor services the economy can consume and 277 under what conditions. Women often work to maintain or increase their fam ily's standard of living. In Great Britain, Tasch described management's needs to be flexible in regard to working wives and mothers. Of the female labor force, 48 per cent were married women working largely for financial reasons. These women seemed to feel that the neglectful mother was the stay-at-home who was indifferent to the chance of raising the standard of living for her family, not the women who worked. Although husbands were increasingly involved in household tasks, the main burden of the double role was upon 278 women. ^^David Riesman and Howard Roseborough, "Careers and Consumer Behavior," in The Family, ed. by Norman W. Bell and Ezra F. Vogel (Glencoe: Free Press, 1960), p. 143. ^®Ruth Jacobson Tasch, "The Role of the Father in the Family," Journal of Experimental Education. XX (June, 1952), 319-361. 121 Moreover, value problems may create difficulties for women. Wilson explored 100 case studies of college women. A significant number of these women felt that the old values were not working for them amidst the greater freedom in role choice women had today. Futility and failure were associ ated with frustrations of life's goals and differences in experiences would continue unless new values could be re established in roles at home or they could find positive 279 purposes in work outside of their homes. When men are unsuccessful, they may often experience futility and failure. Chinoy took a sample of automobile workers, 35 of whom were less than 41 in age, 15 of whom were between 41 and 45, and 12 of whom were over 45. Much alienation from the job was found among the laborers whose failure to rise above the wage-labor level challenged their self-esteem. He found that emphasis on goals shifted from 280 occupational ones to consumption-orientations. A drive for success on the job for these kinds of workers might in creasingly be replaced by drives for success in their home 279pauline P. Wilson, College Women Who Express Fu tility (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers' Col lege, Columbia University, 1950), pp. viii-ix, 17-36. p p n co^Ely Chinoy, Automobile Workers and the American Dream (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1955), pp. xi, 22-134, 122 life or in their over-all style of life. Commitments, rewards, agreement, standards of liv ing, stability, choices, self-esteem, success, and training are areas in which values are an issue. Choices between values are a potential source of role conflict. An area related to values is the allocation of time and energy. Family members are asked by each other to ac count for time, energy, and money spent outside of the fam ily circle. Individuals are held to standards both on the job and at home. Time, energy, and money spent in each area, movements between one role and another, how situation al demands in one area affect the other— these are some of the ways the problem of allocation in the total role system 281 is likely to produce strains. Furthermore, both an individual's boss and his wife have legitimate role expectations, which may conflict so that it is impossible to fulfill both roles. One will have 282 to have priority in the hierarchy of roles. For example, the wife may feel deprivations, but the husband may not have ^^Goode, "Role Strain," pp. 493-496. ^82rpaicott Parsons, "Role Conflict and the Genesis of Deviance," in Social Perspectives on Behavior, ed. by Herman D. Stein and Richard A. Cloward (Glencoe: Free Press, 1958), pp. 248-250. 123 any reserves of energy left after he has given the job what the boss demands. Another area in which role conflict between marital and occupational roles has been studied is that of business executives and their wives. Not only have occupational roles been increasingly differentiated from relationships to the home, but also the trends toward greater role differen- 283 tiation have resulted in continuing upgrading m demands. Thus, strains are created when there are expectations for upgrading performance levels in both roles. The collective ideas of 15 management-level individ uals who participated in a three-day research seminar at the American Management Association's center in New York was reported by Enel and Haas, These men were most conscious of upgrading standards, as well as the consequent pressures on ■ , 284 the job. Some attention has also been given by sociologists to the wives of management. Whyte conducted 230 unstruc tured depth interviews in which he attempted to randomize roughly a wide range of the types of management. The role 283^-L^g^ Bevond Conformity, pp. 82-129. ^®^John W. Enel and George H. Haas, Setting Stand ards for Executive Performance (New York: American Manage ment Association, Inc., 1960), pp. 15-17. 124 of an executive's wife was to be most gregarious, most flex ible, and understand that her spouse's obligations on the 285 job came first. He also discovered that corporations interviewed wives as carefully as they did the husbands, for both needed to be integrated into the corporation as a po- 2 86 tential husband-wife team. The attitude of many corpora tions is: "If a man's first interest is his wife and fam- 28V ily, more power to him— but we don't want him." On the other hand, there is also the question of whether wives bring pressures on their husbands to drive forward to great er success on the job. In another study of executives' wives, Helfrich gave 100 questionnaires to all of the executives who took a man agement problems course at the University of Pittsburgh. They were to take them home to their wives for a testing of social roles in terms of functions, activities, and inter ests. The women were categorized in their roles as family centered, community centered, career wives, or consultants. 285wiHiam H. Whyte, Jr., "The Wives of Management," Fortune. October, 1951, pp. 86-88. 286wiHiam H. Whyte, Jr., "The Corporation and the Wife," Fortune. November, 1951, pp. 109-111. 287wiHiam h . Whyte, Jr., Is Anybody Listening (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1952), p. 191. 125 Choices of roles were found to be associated with management level; each role has specific obligations and demands; there are individual differences in role performances? the expec tations of husbands and significant others is related to role choice; and sequential patterns develop (wife as eco nomic partner, housewife-mother, companion--all in their developmental time). Family centered and community centered 288 were the most frequently chosen roles. In the next place, conflicts or relationships be tween occupational and marital roles have been pointed out in a number of studies in which the primary focus is per sonal and social problems. There are differences, as well as similarities, in perceptions of role by various family members. A family's perceptions about father's job are associated with his own. Using the city directory of Ames, Dyer took a random sample of lower occupational class fami lies and concluded that there is a similarity of feeling concerning job attitudes about a father and the rest of his family, between the father's perceptions of other family members' feelings and his own (r = +.66), between the fa ther's perception of how other family members define his 288Margaret L. Helfrich, The Social Role of the Ex ecutive's Wife (Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1965), pp. 2-82. 126 occupational role and his own definition (r = +.89), and all family members are aware of society's ranking or the status 289 of father's occupational role in the community. Relative role consensus can change to conflict in those situations in which one or both of the spouses develop new patterns of behavior. After discussing the pressures involved in choosing between homemaking or outside careers, Landis and Landis introduce this point of conflict: what if the wife first accepts her husband's role expectations and is content to allow her behavior to conform closely to them, but then discovers she is not content to play her role in this way? As a result, disparities occur between the hus- 290 band's expectations and the wife's role behavior. The lack of common interests is another problem. In a random sample of 939 persons drawn from the electoral registry, Willmott and Young found that when one spouse worked away from home and the other in homemaking duties, it was often a problem to share interests. Vertical mobility also weakened relationships with kinship. Although mothers 289Winiam Dyer, "The Interlocking of Work and Family Social Systems among Lower Occupational Families," Social Forces. XXXIV (March, 1956), 230-233. ^Ojudson t . Landis and Mary G. Landis, Building a Successful Marriage (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953), p. 261. 127 and daughters could share common interests in homemaking, fathers and sons were too far apart owing to separations 291 caused by occupational differences. Sometimes outside problems force families to share interests and abilities in meeting them, but other diffi culties arise. Forty-six families who were clients of a New York City family society were studied for conflicts in role statuses. It was discovered that unemployment or illness of the father often creates crises for families in the working class. If homemaking remains the main role of women, who shall play the provider role? Behavior codes and symbols of 292 response were areas of conflict caused by illness. Ex plorations in losses of jobs tend to show similar results. The depression had effects on the husband and wife relation ship too. Stouffer and Lazarsfeld found that there were social results in the family as a productive agency; there were individual differences in the opportunity for work, and shifts away from individuality. The responsibility of women 293 also seemed to increase. 291peter willmott and Michael Young, Family and Class in a London Suburb (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960), pp. ix-x, 19-127. ^^Lumpkin, The Family, pp. 8-139. ^^Samuel A. Stouffer and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, 128 Wartime separations are still another source of social difficulty. In Hill's study, a sample was taken of 820. families, which was reduced to 135 units by specifica tion of problems. It was a study of separations, but it pointed out the importance of dovetailing spouses' roles in cooperative and complementary ways. He says that our most self-dependent wives were less successful in separation and in re-union, because they lacked the skill to use their competence and strengths coopera tively with their husbands and wasted much of their energies competitively against them. Their husbands, on the other hand, had not been trained to accept the idea of a wife working outside the home, or assuming community leadership, and often felt threatened in their own families by the wife's accomplishments.294 Thus, role perception, role status, role change, lack of common interests, behavior codes and symbols, chang es in expectation or responsibility, and cooperation or com petition— all of these represent areas in which personal and social problems studies have emphasized the relationship between occupational and marital roles. It appears that the trends to equalitarian relation- Research Memorandum on the Family in the Depression (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1937), pp. 9-96. 294 Reuben Hill, Families under Stress (New York: Harper and Bros., 1949), pp. 27-348. 129 ships in marital and occupational roles will continue. Ac cording to Foote, women have more financial responsibility, sharing of authority, less sexual division of labor, and 295 more companionship with their husbands. Roles in mar riage are likely to be re-defined in terms of the increasing professionalization of women. Women are doing competent work at jobs formerly held by men. The male is no longer differentiated by employment outside the home, but this blurring of appropriate male and female behavior may produce . 296 confusion for parents, as well as children. There are three specific areas, which also seem to be related to conflict between occupational and marital roles. They are job satisfaction, the power structure of the family, and working wives, all of which have been the focus of several studies. The first of these is job satis faction, which some authors treat as a matter of the dis parity between the levels of reward expected and those re- 297 ceived. Satisfaction is associated with occupational ^ 5Nelson N. Foote, "American Marriage Patterns and the Role of Women," Eugenics Quarterly. I (December, 1954), 257-259. ^^Gunnar Dybwad, Challenges in Mental Retardation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964), pp. 60-63. 297w^j2iam H. Form and James A. Geschwender, "Social 130 success, well-being, and self-expression, all of which were 298 found to be among the positive reasons why men work. These same satisfactions might be realized in the family too. Crucial aspects of the occupational role were defined as the development of work codes, self-identification (who am I or what kind of person am I), and one's position in the 299 occupational reference group. Since these aspects are also a part of family life, it might be asked: do work codes and family codes conflict or harmonize with one an other? In what ways does self-identification develop in each group? Will the family or occupational group be ranked higher in an individual's values? Moreover, work is of much more value than economic considerations alone. Vincent and Mayers state that when the satisfying qualities of any job are considered, what is most important are the interpersonal relationships and con nections. Sometimes jobs have such a narrow range in Reference Basis of Job Satisfaction: The Case of the Manual Workers," American Sociological Review. XXVII (April, 1962), 228. ^^Nancy C. Morse and Robert S. Weiss, "The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job," American Sociological Re view. XX (April, 1955), 192-198. ^^Gusfield, "occupational Roles," p. 580. ■^^Melvin J. Vincent and Jackson Mayers, New Founda- 131 highly specialized, partial roles, but human beings seek those elements which involve the whole person and lead to integrated growth in both work and non-work groups. Social approval, activity, productivity, creativity, total gains, prestige-status, and earnings— all of these concepts point to management's need of serving the total person, as well as an outreach that recognizes the importance of all human re- 301 lationships. Often an employee's problems in finding his job satisfactory are associated with difficulties in person ality or in interpersonal relationships at home. Katz, Maccoby, and Morse also report that relative productivity is associated with morale indices such as pride in the work group, job satisfaction, job status, and involvement in the 302 company's economic outlook. Much research attention is ■being—given to the—a«sociafei®G—between job satisfaction and . 303 morale. tions for Industrial Sociology (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1959), pp. 19-20, 96. 301-Dorothy Barclay, "A Historical Study of Indus trial Counseling" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, 1957), pp. 12, 52-54. 302Daniel Katz, Nathan Maccoby, and Nancy C. Morse, Productivity. Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1951), Part I, p. 48, ^Donald E. Super, The Dynamics of Vocational 132 Lyman states that blue collar workers do not value work as highly as white collar personnel. Job satisfactions are not so much a result of inequities in distribution as ■ 3 04 the consequence of evaluative differences. Friend and Haggard studied family background in at tempting to understand work adjustment as the amount of balance between satisfactions sought and those provided by the job. Eighty cases of families who had received voca tional guidance were rated by three judges. A rating scale was worked out which included these items: early childhood and youth, current family environment, first jobs, reactions to counseling, personality configuration, general and spe cific work responses, vocational capacities, adjustment, and improvement. Comparing high and low adjustments, they found several items in their scale associated with job satisfac- . . v 305 tion (significant at the .05 level). A sample of 72 mostly professional or semi-profes- Adiustment (New York: Harper and Bros., 1942), p. 204. 304j;i-LZa] :)eth Lyman, "Occupational Differences in the Value Attached to Work," American Journal of Sociology. LXI (September, 1955), 138-144. Jeannette G. Friend and Ernest A. Haggard, "Work Adjustment in Relation to Family Background," Applied Psy chology Monographs. XVI (1948), 13-44, 133 sional men was used by Schatter. Starting with Murray's list of needs, a 132-item need satisfaction scale was de veloped. A correlation coefficient of .50 was found between the mean score of the two strongest need satisfactions of 306 each individual and his over-all satisfaction on the 30b. Hoppoch found that approximately one worker in three was not satisfied with his job. He sampled 500 teachers (a 17 per cent return) from both urban and rural communities in the northeastern section of the United States. Four simple attitude scales were used to obtain a job satisfaction score and a 32-item scale was worked out to test emotional adjust ment. The 100 most and 100 least satisfied teachers were compared. Job satisfaction was associated with emotional adjustment, religious nurture, effective interpersonal re lationships, size of community, degree of success as felt by the individual, better family relationships, higher so cial status, choice of vocation, job interest, and age. The dissatisfied felt more monotony and fatigue, but these dif- . . 307 ferences were not significant. ^^Robert h . Schatter, "Job Satisfaction as Related to Need Satisfaction in Work," Psychological Monographs. LXVII, No. 14 (1953), 1-6. 3^Robert Hoppoch, Job Satisfaction (New York: Har per and Bros., 1935), pp. 1-71. 134 Hartman employed a sample of 239 hospital attendants in a study of possible interrelationships in marriage and work adjustment. He used the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test and developed a job adjustment test which was somewhat similar to that of Hoppoch. He found that if groups were divided into upper and lower on the basis of scores, it was possible to predict civil service job ratings from the scores on the marital adjustment test. For female attend ants, the coefficient of correlation between job and marital adjustment was +.53 for lower group women, +.41 for the upper group, and +.69 for all females, which is indicative of a moderately strong relationship. But for male attend ants, the correlation coefficient between job and marital adjustment was only -.05 for the upper group and -.20 for lower group men (insignificant for the former and a very 308 slight negative relationship for the latter). Satisfactions also have to do with the development of one's self-image. In a survey of 569 women in a national sample, Weiss and Samuelson found that there were strong relationships between the level of education achieved and 308william ^ . Hartman, "The Relationship between Job Adjustment and Marital Adjustment of a Selected Group of Workers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1950), pp. 210-215. 135 and the consequent use of work as a foundation for feelings of worth. Moreover, the ability of marital or occupational roles to retain personnel in competition with roles in other groups was related to the feelings of worth developed in any , 309 given role. Dyer took 87 randomly selected couples in two occu pational classes from the Ames city directory. The more dissatisfied were unhappy both inside and outside the fam ily. Reciprocal influences were brought to both systems by 310 the father. Thus,, rewards expected or received, self-identifi cation, involvement of the whole person, morale, status differences, needs, attitudes, and adjustment are areas of job satisfaction which have been studied by scholars. The second specific area pertains to the relative power of husbands and wives in their relationship. Glueck and Glueck note that employed women have a more dominant ^O^Robert s. Weiss and Nancy Morse Samuelson, "So cial Roles of American Women: Their Contribution to a Sense of Usefulness and Importance," Marriage and Family Living. XX (November, 1958), 358-363. o i n William G. Dyer, "A Comparison of Families of High and Low Job Satisfaction," Marriage and Family Living. XVIII (February, 1956), 58-60. 136 311 position in the family than homemakers. It was stated by Zelditch that the addition of the wife's independent in come, her education, and the ways she helps her husband in crease his prestige-status all tend to increase the wife's. power, while the husband's power is relative to his in- 312 come. Power is also related to the relative influence 313 each spouse has in the outcome of the decision, as well 314 as to the relative participation by each one. Strodtbeck studied several families in three dif ferent cultures in regard to their decision making. Among the Navahos, the male won decisions 34 times and the wife 46 times? in the dry Texan families, the male made 39 de cisions, while the woman had 33; but among the Mormons, the male won 42 decisions as compared to 29 for the wife. He rejected the hypothesis that women have either equal or ^H-Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, "Working Moth ers and Delinquency," Mental Hygiene. XLI (July, 1957), 347, ^■^Morris Zelditch, Jr., "Family, Marriage and Kin ship," in Handbook of Modern Sociology, ed. by Robert E. L. Faris (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1964), pp. 707-710. 313winiam F. Kenkel, "Traditional Family Ideology and Spousal Roles in Decision-Making," Marriage and Family Living. XXI (November, 1959), 334. ^l^Fred L. Strodtbeck, "The Family as a Three- Person Group," American Sociological Review. XIX (February, 1954), 29. 137 greater decision-making power than men (probability less than .01). He further hypothesized that decision-making will be associated with family participation * as well as 315 with socio-cultural power elements. Power may also change as the family goes through various developmental 316 stages. In a sample of 160 couples, Blood and Hamblin con trolled for socioeconomic class, the comparative education of spouses, the wife's education taken alone, wife's finan cial resources, number of children, religion, years married, and years wife had working role. Both the husbands and wives who worked changed to more equalitarian expectation than did husbands and wives when the latter were not work ing. Greater sharing of housework is also a measure of 317 relative power. Blood and Wolfe obtained 731 urban and 178 farm wives in a systematic probability sample of Detroit and 315Fred L. Strodtbeck, "Husband-Wife Interaction over Revealed Differences," American Sociological Review. XVI (August, 1951), 468-473. ^-^William F. Kenkel, The Family in Perspective (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966), p. 452. ^■^Robert 0. Blood and Robert L. Hamblin, "The Ef fect of the Wife's Employment on the Family Power Struc ture," Social Forces. XXXVI (May, 1958), 347-352. 138 southeastern Michigan. Outside contacts with fellow work ers , increased independence, new skills, success, and great er prestige-status all operate to cultivate more power for these women. On a scale measuring power, the husband has a score of 5.80 when the wife goes to work, but this decreases to 4,29 after she has worked 10 or more years. All the re sources each spouse brings to the marriage are determining factors in relative power. Attitudes toward the work of their husbands are important for homemakers. Not only did Blood find that shared earnings strengthen companionship, but there were also less conflicts about money than sharing 318 household duties or companionship. Analyzing 135 oral interviews, Heer concluded that family power has its basis in social controls, cultural ex pectations, discrepancy between the rewards of marriage and possible alternative rewards, relative husband-wife compe- 319 tency, and the degree of involvement of either. He says that the greater the difference of the value to the wife of the resources contributed by the husband and the ^■^-^Blood and Wolfe, Husbands. pp. 6-26 0. ^l^David M. Heer, "The Measurement and Bases of Family Power," Marriage and Family Living. XXV (May, 1963), 133-139. 139 values to the wife of the resources, which she might earn outside the existing marriage, the greater the power of her husband and vice-versa. 320 This definition would seem to emphasize reward discrepancy, competency, and involvement more than social controls or expectations, although the latter are probably implicit. Kenkel and Hoffman explored the accuracy with which a married college students' sample of 25 recognized their roles in family decision-making by using Bales1 interaction process analysis. The amount of talking each spouse did was an area where couples were quite inaccurate. They concluded that perception was more accurate in some elements of role 321 than in others. Taking every fifteenth name from a list of 750 undergraduate married students at the Iowa State campus in Ames, Kenkel selected a sample of 25 married couples. He hypothesized that the effectiveness of spouses in playing the traditionally expected role was directly related to the 322 power each had, but the results were inconclusive. 320ibid.. p. 138. 321william F. Kenkel and Dean K. Hoffman, "Real and Conceived Roles in Family Decision-Making,M Marriage and Family Living. XVIII (November, 1956), 315. 3^Kenkel, "Traditional Family Ideology," p. 334. 140 Kenkel also asked each couple to assume that they had re ceived a $300 gift and decide how to spend it. Although 58 per cent expected it to be distributed unequally, 84 per cent of the husbands and 72 per cent of the wives expected 323 to have medium to high influence in the decisions. There could be indications here of equalitarian participation, but the results are somewhat inconclusive. However, this study explored areas which ought to be researched more effective ly. Thus, independence, relative influence, prestige- status, authoritarianism-equalitarianism, outside contacts and resources, and perceptions of behavior, and expectations are some of the issues involved in the power structure of the family. Working increases power for women. A third area related to marital and occupational role conflict is the theory and research being done on the working wife. For many years, cultural expectations put many barriers in the way of working for wives. However, in recent years the low status of housework, labor-saving de vices, and the increasing employment opportunities for ^^•^William F. Kenkel, "Influence Differentiation in Family Decision-Making," Sociology and Social Research. XLII (1957), 21. 141 women have all acted to produce changes in marital roles. Since equalitarian interpersonal relationships are being emphasized, questions have been asked in regard to females maintaining their own names after they are married, working for wives, and husbands helping their wives with domestic tasks.324 Some of the positive reasons for women going to work are: smaller families, labor-saving devices, family consum- 325 ing patterns, service industries (food, clothing, 326 etc.), increased leisure, employment opportunities (de mand for their labor, factories need part-time employees, 327 etc.), supplementary income and increasing standard of living, preparation for urgencies that may come in the fu- 323 ture, uncertainties, marginal work as secondary to 324Ernest Burgess and Paul Wallin, Engagement and Marriage (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1953), p. 406. ^^Bossard ancj Boll, Child Development, p. 328. ivan Nye, "Employment Status of Mothers and Marital Conflict, Permanence and Happiness," Social Prob lems - VI (Winter, 1958-59), 261. 327J. h . Smith, "Managers and Married Women Work ers," British Journal of Sociology. XII (March, 1961), 21. 328john P. McKee and Alex C. Sherriffs, "Men's and Women's Beliefs, Ideals, and Self-Concepts," Amer i can J our- nal of Sociology. IXVI (November, 1960), 363. 142 329 husband's, following through on education and tram- 330 ing, the needs of national emergencies, for feelings of 331 self-worth, sheer enjoyment, stimulation, and interest, 332 creativity, desire for new experience, for recognition, for prestige, satisfactory outlet, gregariousness, and a reason in the future might be cultural expectations. What are the reasons for women working or planning to do so? What are the relationships in role performances of the women at work and at home? These questions were asked by Weil, who made a study of 200 married mothers of children in a suburban housing development. Positive atti tudes of husbands toward their wives' employment, pre marital occupational experience which required specialized skills, as well as high educational achievements, a continu ation of work immediately after marriage, high professional and work achievements by women, a sharing of the tasks at home, and children of a school age— these are factors 329 Mildred R. Marcus, "Women in the Labor Force," Social Casework. XLI (June, 1960), 299-300. o o n National Manpower Council, Womanpower (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), p. 213. 3-^Weiss and Samuelson, "Social Roles," p. 358. 3-^Ray E. Baber, Marriage and the Family (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953), pp. 348-351. 143 arranged in rank order of importance which influence women to be oriented toward dual careers of marriage and occupa tion , and should lead us to view the roles of women in their 333 interrelationships to the total social system. Gover found negative factors in the employment of women, such as low prestige work, long hours (over 30) or not, low wages ($50 per week) or not, and not having any help on housework. He also explored non-conventionality as a factor and stated that not only were employed wives more likely to be non-conventional, but also they scored lower on marital adjustment. He hypothesized that low evaluations of marriage, as well as of employment, might indicate a gener alized dissatisfaction with their over-all life situa- 334 tion. A 1 per cent sample of dwelling units in St. Paul was taken by Mahoney. Using a multiple correlation analy sis, he found that easily the highest relationship to 333jy[iidred W. Weil, "An Analysis of the Factors In fluencing Married Women's Actual or Planned Work Participa tion,” American Sociological Review. XXVI (February, 1961), 91-96. 334Davj_cL Gover, "Socio-Economic Differential in the Relationship between Marital Adjustment and Wife's Em ployment Status," Marriage and Family Living. XXV (November, 1963), 452-458. 144 present employment was previous employment at an early per- 335 iod in the marriage (p weight was .612). Moreover, it has been stated that the reasons women work are related to such factors as kind of work, relative economic security, standard of.living desired, husband's employment, and approval by husband.33^ Hartley examined equalitarian and traditional ex pectations in a study in which she showed 135 pictures of women doing a wide variety of tasks. Girls were asked not only whether they would enjoy each activity, but how women felt about participating in such tasks. Even the young were aware of conflicts in expectations concerning women's work. The subjects pictured women as doing what they disliked 44 per cent of the time and participating in activities they enjoyed only 15 per cent of the time. This conflict was related to occupational tasks, domestic activities, relative participation in recreational and community outlets, and 337 social class. ^ ^Thomas Mahoney, "Factors Determining the Labor Force Participation of Married Women," Industrial and Labor Relations Review. XIV (July, 1961), 568-573. •a Locke, Predicting Adiustment. p. 297. 337Ruth e . Hartley, "Current Patterns in Sex Roles: Children's Perspectives," Journal of the National Associa tion of Women Deans and Counselors. XXV (October, 1961), 3-13. 145 Nye reported that there is role conflict owing to the disequilibrium caused by the changing roles of spouses. Matching employed and non-employed mothers on the basis of presence of children, education, and occupation of the hus band, he found that the confusion in role playing produced by these recent changes show slight, but non-significantly higher adjustment in the non-working wife. If either the husband or wife were dissatisfied with the wife’s employ- 338 ment, there was greater marital maladjustment. Not only are there many opportunities for employ ment, but there are both general and specific expectations' for women in the community, as well as in the family. Nye discusses the trends in defining new roles for women. He feels that equalitarian ideologies imply equal responsi bility, as well as privilege. Upward social mobility and increased standards of living can reduce the tensions of the providing burden for husbands and bring back the wives1 contribution in the economic area. Predictions are that conflicts between the wives’ occupational and marital roles will decrease, that reduced responsibilities in both roles 338f , xvan Nye, "Maternal Employment and Marital Interaction: Some Contingency Conditions," Social Forces. XL (December, 1962), 113-118. 146 are likely to take place, and that marital roles will adjust 339 more than occupational ones. Studies have been made regarding the interaction of spouses when the wife is working. Employed wives tend to be both more independent and equalitarian. There is the possi bility both spouses could be motivated to contribute more to the relationship. However, women do not work continuously, but are in and out of the labor force as those whose careers are secondary and supplementary to their husbands1 . More over, women find enjoyment in their personal performances, but have been taught not to compete against men occupation ally, while men also avoid competition against women, but have great satisfaction in performances measured against 340 those of other men. Both husbands and wives have dual roles in work and household tasks according to Hoffman, who studied a sample of 324 intact families so drawn as to be representative of the ethnic and socioeconomic groups of Detroit. In these 339^ Ivan Nye, "Adjustment of the Mother: Summary and a Frame of Reference," in The Employed Mother in Ameri ca. ed. by F. Ivan Nye and Lois W. Hoffman (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963), pp. 395-398. •^^Theodore Caplow, The Sociology of Work (Minnea polis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954), pp. 234-243, 147 families she also matched 89 working and 89 non-employed mothers, as well as controlling for sex role and male domi nation ideologies. Significant differences were found be tween the groups in that household tasks were decreased for working wives and increased for their husbands, while domes tic decision-making was decreased for working wives but in creased for their husbands. More social interaction, an increase in social skillfulness, more self-confidence, and more awareness of alternative activities were all gains made 341 by the working wives. Several adjustment studies have also compared work ing and non-working wives. In a recent study, Nye found that there were no significant differences between employed and non-employed wives as to affect on their children, on their own personality adjustment, or in the relationships to 342 husbands (chi square of 1.1 is not significant). A 25 per cent systematic sampling of blocks with a 50 per cent sampling in the selected units was taken by 34^-Lois W. Hoffman, "Effects of the Employment of Mothers on Parental Power Relations and Divisions of House hold Tasks," Marriage and Family Living. XXII (February, 1960), 27-35. 342p^ Ivan Nye, Family Relations and Delinquent Be havior (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), pp. 11- 59. 148 Axelson, who secured 122 usable questionnaires. Exploring the idea of economic competition between spouses, he con cluded that the husband's masculinity was threatened sig nificantly more in the cases of husbands of non-working wives. Ideology of each spouse in regard to equalitarian- authoritarian roles was a more significant factor than the actual working itself. Working wives have greatly increased independence, but expectations of husbands make for demo cratic expectations when women are employed. He also found that a lower level of marital adjustment could cause a woman to seek employment in the first place, rather than be a 343 result of work itself. La Follette random sampled 36 cities in 18 states to obtain a total number of 652 women. The women's attitudes, as well as those of their husbands and the community, were important factors in their success at either the job of gainful employment or household work. It was found that sharing occupational functions helped women become more interesting companions. Happier marriages were claimed by 441 of the women, and 574 said that even if it were neces- 343Leiand J. Axelson, "The Marital Adjustment and Marital Role Definitions of Husbands of Working and Non working Wives," Marriage and Family Living. XXV (May, 1963), 189-195. 149 sary to keep on working, they would tell young women to marry and hold a job. More companionship, mutuality of in terests, personal development, stimulation of husbands' am bitions, and less financial strain were gains received from their work, and it was felt that the gains outnumbered the 344 losses. Benz studied 96 7 families in which wives were em ployed and which were relatively high in education, as well as in economic security. Many working women wondered if their household tasks would be done more effectively if they were at home, while non-working wives wondered if they would do a more effective all-around job if they enjoyed the sat isfactions involved in working. No differences between working or non-working women were noted, but they discovered three problem areas: child training, questions about wom- 345 en1s role, and home maintenance. In a study by Locke and Mackeprang, a sample of extremely well-educated couples was taken, in which there 344cecile Tipton La Follette, A Study of the Prob lems of 652 Gainfully Employed Married Women Home-makers (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Colum bia University, 1934), pp. 1-150. -^^Margaret q . Benz, Family Counseling Service in a University Community (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1940), pp. 1-116. 150 were 44 couples who both worked and were happily married, 110 happily married couples in which the wife was a home maker, 34 divorced couples in which both were working, and 68 divorced couples in which the wife had not been employed. Among the happily married, there was no significant differ ence (CR = 0.6) between working and non-working wives. There were also no significant differences between their husbands (CR = 0.1).. There were no significant differences among working and non-working divorcees (CR = 1.0), nor were 346 there any between divorced husbands (CR = 0.1). In another study by Mackeprang, employed wives and homemakers were compared, as well as their spouses, in a sample of 202 married persons. In role satisfactions, 46 per cent of the homemakers were very satisfied, 52 per cent were satisfied, and 2 per cent were very dissatisfied, while 51 per cent of the employed wives were very satisfied, 41 per cent were satisfied, and 7 per cent were dissatisfied. When occupational satisfactions of the husbands of these wives were compared, 48 per cent of the homemaker's husbands were very satisfied, 42 per cent were satisfied, 8 per cent were indifferent, and 2 per cent were dissatisfied, while ^^Harvey j# Locke and Muriel Mackeprang, "Marital Adjustment and the Employed Wife," American Journal of Soci ology. LIV (May, 1949), 536-538. 151 38 per cent of the husbands of employed wives were very satisfied, 46 per cent were satisfied, 10 per cent were dis satisfied, and 5 per cent were very dissatisfied. Differ ences between the two groups (for both husbands or wives) 347 were not significant. Stolz observed how wives felt about working in the background of the kinds of economic systems which were in volved. In a very competitive economic order, marital re lations are better if only the husband is working. However, a bureaucratic kind of situation eliminates the competition and working wives, in this case, are not much of a threat to 348 the adjustment of the marriage. The trends seem to indicate that wives will work in growing numbers. According to a British publication, one- third of all women were working and were employed, in large measure, only part-time for reasons other than economic. Between 1950 and 1956 the number of women employed part time ^■^Muriel Mackeprang, "A Comparison of the Marital Adjustment of Couples in Which the Wife Is Gainfully Em ployed Full-time Outside of the Home with Couples in Which the Wife Is a Full-time Homemaker" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, 1949), pp. 29, 57-78. 34®Lois Meek Stolz, "Effects of Maternal Employment on Children: Evidence from Research," Child Development. XXXI (December, 1960), 752-778. 152 increased 47 per cent and full time working women increased 15 per cent. If present trends continue, working women will 349 have increased 75 per cent by 1975. The trends in the United States are comparable. Women accounted for 55 per cent of the net increase in labor force between 1940 and 1950. Between 1950 and 1951, the number of employed women 350 increased 17 per cent compared to 3 per cent for males. At the present time, approximately one-third of those in the labor force are women and it is estimated that at least 50 per cent of the increase in the labor force will be women until the number of working women will total 33,600,000 by 351 1975. The number of working wives points out the need sociologists have to know about the interrelationships be tween work and family systems. Thus, reasons for working, role confusion and con flicts, intermittent working, secondary nature of women's work, dual roles of work and domestic tasks, awareness of alternatives, increase in self-image, increase in social interaction, effects on the family, attitudes toward work 349"Women, Wife and Worker in Great Britain," In ternational Labor Review. LXXXIII (May, 1961), 507-509. -^^National Manpower Council, Womanpower. pp. 17-45. 351"w0men at Work," Economist. CCI (October 28, 1961), 343. 153 ideology toward roles, lessening of financial burden, per sonal development, more stimulation and companionship, mari tal adjustment, kinds of economic system, and trends toward increasing numbers of women working— all of these are issues concerning working wives studied by scholars in recent years. Summary and Conclusions The general sociological literature as it pertains to role behavior, expectations, and conflict has been re viewed. There also has been a review of the literature on marital role and adjustment, occupational role, and occupa tional and marital roles in their general relationships, as well as in three specific areas: job adjustment, the power structure of the family, and working wives. This review points out that role is a concept of wide scope and rele vance in the study of sociology. It is also a central idea in the fields of family counseling, social pscyhology, psy chiatric orientation, social work, and interdisciplinary endeavors. Both the scope of role theory and the interest indicated in it point to its relevance for sociological theory. However, in spite of the wide interest in role theory and analysis, there has been a lack of exploration 154 of role relationships in the specific focus of this study, which examines the relationships of three variables: occu pational roles, marital roles, and marital adjustment. Which role would be ranked higher in the value hierarchy of individuals, significant others, and reference groups to which they belong? Is there a pull toward the occupational role that is in opposition to the one toward the family role? What are the factors involved in role conflict, if any, between marital and occupational roles? This study will analyze the relationships between occupational roles and marital adjustment, between occupational and marital roles, and between these two roles and marital adjustment. Norms are developed and maintained in occupational and mari tal reference groups (social change takes place too); actual behavior may differ from expectations which may lead to con flict. Are there role conflicts between an individual's expectancies and behavior for himself or between spouses? Are there role conflicts between occupational and marital roles in association with marital adjustment? This study is an attempt to explore and test role conflict relationships of this kind. The hypotheses were formulated both on the basis of the review of the literature and the particular needs of the 155 research. Role expectations, role behavior, and role con flict were three issues of theory in general sociological literature. These were utilized in the formulation of the hypotheses. In this study, role expectations are orientations to the positions of husband or wife. Both mates have individu al awareness of expectations for themselves, but also for their spouses. Socialization in childhood in the family of orientation, as well as adult socialization in the family of procreation and in various occupational groups, have helped formulate expectations for the roles of husband and wife in both family and work groups. Evaluations of significant others are internalized. Since an individual has some un derstanding of expectations for both himself and his spouse, expectations are reciprocal. The above elements of expecta tion found in the review of literature were applied to the demands for the specific positions of husband and wife. They are measured in the tests of expectation in occupation al and marital roles in terms of individuals' evaluation of their ideal self or their ideal mate. Behavior is a second element of role theory. It is enactment or what persons do and includes definition of the situation as perceived by the individual. In this study, 156 the situation is located as the home or work reference groups from the particular standpoints of each spouse. Per formance is perceived both by oneself and one's spouse. Be havior links the individual to specific patterns within the family and occupational reference groups. Interacting with one's spouse is responsive. There is action and counter action. Some quality of communication is also present and is a continual process between spouses. The above elements of behavior were found in the review of literature and ap plied to the specific enactments of husband and wife. They are measured in tests of marital and occupational role in terms of an individual's perception of the behavior of him self or his spouse. Another issue of role theory is conflict. The de gree of conflict within an individual or between individu als can be measured along a continuum from very little to very much strain. Interpersonal conflict may reflect the level of integration between various roles. Role confusion is reflected in the capacity for role definition for a given individual. Conflict may also occur between different per sons owing to lack of consensus, lack of sharing in norms, or differences in values. There are also memberships in multiple reference groups and conflicts may be the result 157 of differences in expectations or behavior between the mul tiple roles. The choice of roles becomes an issue in the conflict. The above issues were discovered in the review of literature and were applied to possible conflicts felt by a husband and wife in regard to their marital and occupational roles. This study focuses on the relationship of occupa tional roles and marital adjustment, occupational and mari tal roles, and these two roles in association with marital adjustment. Although there is a lack of literature in this area, there are works which point out that occupational roles are specific applications to particular work reference group memberships. Conflicting demands and pressures are caused by membership in a multiplicity of other groups. Behavior is seen as expressed in social and interpersonal interaction in the occupational sub-culture. The self- concept and identification in a given vocation influence performance in it. In this study, occupational expectations are held by both the husband and wife for themselves, as well as each other. Behavior is also perceived in oneself and in one's spouse. Therefore, both self and spouse rat ings are employed for perceptions of behavior and for ex pectations. Marital role and marital adjustment studies 158 point out three role hypotheses, which this study applied to the relationship between occupational roles and marital ad justment. They are differences between expectations, be tween perceptions, and between expectations and perceptions. Both differences within an individual (between perceptions of behavior and expectations for himself) and differences between spouses are employed. The second group of eight hypotheses test the rela tionships between occupational roles and marital adjustment in association with marital roles and marital adjustment. Studies of the relationship of marital role and marital ad justment have pointed out a positive relationship between the two variables. This study adds a third variable, occu pational roles. There are specific expectations for occu pational roles, as well as marital ones. Behavior inter action in the husband and wife relationships exists in both marital and occupational roles. Awareness of one's own role, as well as one's spouse is called for in any enduring relationship. This study includes both self and other rat ings in the measurement of roles. There may be differences in expectations, in perceptions, and between expectations and perceptions. In this way, this study explores the rela tionship between occupational and marital roles in their 159 association with marital adjustment. The third and final group of eight hypotheses test the relationship between occupational and marital roles. Social change brings with it changes of role for husbands and wives in their family, as well as their work interac tion. Many relationships between occupational and marital role have been pointed out in theory more than in empirical studies. Questions have been raised as to whether these roles are interdependent or mutually supporting because of factors like socio-cultural compatibility or whether there are opposing pulls toward each role owing to differences in values, allocations of time, money, or energy, and many other considerations. This study attempts to test the rela tionship between these two roles. In this group of hypoth eses, the relative pull toward marital or occupational role is measured by a total score on tests of each role. Their relationship is analyzed by appropriate statistical proced ures. Thus, this study focuses on the relationship between occupational roles and marital adjustment, between occupa tional and marital roles, and between these two roles in their association with marital adjustment. The Hypotheses On the basis of the focus of this study on marital and occupational roles as related to marital adjustment, as well as the findings and suggestions discovered in other analyses in the review of literature, it seems reasonable to formulate the following hypotheses to guide the research. 1. The greater the incongruence between perceptions and expectations of occupational roles made by the husband and wife, the lower the marital ad justment . a. The greater the incongruence between the husband's perception of his occupational role and the perception of the wife of her husband's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. b. The greater the incongruence between the wife's perception of her occupational role and the perception of the husband of his wife's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. c. The greater the incongruence between the husband's expectation of his occupational role and the expectation of the wife of her husband's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The greater the incongruence between the wife’s expectation of her own occupational role and the expectation of the husband of his wife’s occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The greater the incongruence between the husband’s perception of his wife's occupa tional role and his expectation for his wife's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The greater the incongruence between the wife's perception and her expectation of her husband's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The greater the incongruence between the husband's perception and his expectation of his own occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The greater the incongruence between the wife's perception and her expectation of her own occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The greater the incongruence between occupation al roles, when associated with relatively great er disparity between marital roles, the lower the marital adjustment. a. The greater the incongruence between the husband's perception of his occupational role and the perception of the wife of her husband's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the husband's perception of his mar ital role and the wife's perception of her husband's marital role, the lower the mari tal adjustment. b. The greater the incongruence between the wife's perception of her occupational role and the perception of the husband of his wife's occupational role, when it is associ ated with relatively greater disparity be tween the husband's perception of his wife's marital role and the wife's perception of her marital role, the lower the marital ad justment . 163 c. The greater the incongruence between the husband's expectation of his occupational role and the expectation of the wife of her husband's occupational role, when it is as sociated with relatively greater disparity between the husband's expectation of his marital role and the expectation of the wife of her husband's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. d. The greater the incongruence between the wife's expectation of her occupational role and the expectation of the husband of his wife's occupational role, when it is asso ciated with relatively greater disparity between the wife's expectation of her mari tal role and the expectation of the husband of his wife's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. e. The greater the incongruence between the husband's perception of and his expectation for his wife's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the husband's perception of and his expectation for his wife's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. The greater the incongruence between the wife's perception of and her expectation of her husband's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the wife's perception of and her ex pectation of her husband's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. The greater the incongruence between the husband's perception and his expectation of his own occupational role, when it is asso ciated with relatively greater disparity between the husband's perception and his ex pectation of his own marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. The greater the incongruence between the wife's perception and her expectation of her occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the wife's perception and her expectation of her own marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. There is no relationship between commitment to occupational and marital roles. a. There is no relationship in the husband's perceived commitment to his occupational and marital roles. b. There is no relationship in the wife's per ceived commitment to her occupational and marital roles. c. There is no relationship in the husband's ideal commitment to his occupational and marital roles. d. There is no relationship in the wife's ideal commitment to her occupational and marital roles. e. There is no relationship in the wife's per ception of her husband's commitment to his occupational and marital roles. f. There is no relationship in the husband's perception of his wife's commitment to her occupational and marital roles. g. There is no relationship in the wife's ideal for her husband's occupational and marital 166 h. There is no relationship in the husband's ideal for his wife's occupational and mari tal roles. The hypotheses in group one test the relationships between occupational role and marital adjustment. Those in group two test the relationships between occupational role, as it is associated with marital role and marital adjust ment. Those in group three test the relationships between marital and occupational roles. All of these hypotheses will be tested by appropriate statistical procedures in the analysis of the data. CHAPTER III THE METHODOLOGY Introduction In this chapter, the manner in which the hypotheses will be tested is reported. The sample' is described, after which there is a report on how the data were collected, fol lowed by a delineation of the social characteristics of the sample. The hypotheses are set down, followed by a descrip tion of the reliability and validity of the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test, the Interpersonal Check List, and the Occu pational Role Inventory. The statistical procedures used in the analysis of the data and the limitations of the study are also included. Sample The selection of a well-adjusted married group to compare with one composed of married couples who are unhappy is the most widely used sampling methodology in family 167 16 8 research.^ The two groups of couples were matched for age, number of years married, years worked, number of children, education, income, and religion. Chapin strongly supports individual or frequency matching as a sound method of study- . . 2 ing human relations under controlled social conditions. In this study, a sample was secured of 50 adjusted and 50 unadjusted couples. The unadjusted group was ob tained from marriage counselors and counseling clinics. The problems involved in administering the questionnaires were discussed with the various counselors or clinics, but in every case the only contacts with the subjects used was through the counselors. A total of 65 questionnaires from different unadjusted couples was obtained. Three were elim inated because only one member was in counseling and no in formation was available on the other mate. Nine were thrown out because the wives were not working full-time outside of the home. In one case, one of the spouses refused to fill out one page of the marital adjustment test. Two couples were eliminated owing to relatively high scores on the ■^William M. Kephart, The Family. Society, and the Individual (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1961), p. 612. ^F. Stuart Chapin, Experimental Designs in Socio logical Research (New York: Harper and Bros., 1947), pp. 109-124. 169 marital adjustment test. In all cases, the subjects were fully aware that they were participating in a research pro gram. The adjusted couples were selected from organiza tions in Christian churches in the greater Los Angeles met ropolitan area with the concentration of selection being in Whittier. Groups were selected from middle-middle to upper- middle class status churches in order to obtain couples who might match the unadjusted couples who could afford marriage counseling in the private practices of marriage counselors or the clinics chosen. Location and denomination were two criteria employed in the choice. The individual denomina tion is not named on the questionnaires, but samples were obtained at Congregational, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Meth odist, Quaker, Baptist, Christian, and Roman Catholic churches. Fifty-three completed questionnaires were ob tained. Two of the couples were eliminated because their marital adjustment scores were low. One questionnaire was not fully completed. Collection of the Data A questionnaire was put together which contained a face sheet in order to allow for categories for the matching 17 0 of the adjusted and unadjusted groups on the seven variables listed above. It also contained the three research instru ments, the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test, the Interperson al Check List, and the Occupational Role Inventory, which are used in testing the hypotheses. The unadjusted group is differentiated from the ad justed group by the factor of actually seeking and under going marriage counseling. In addition, the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test was employed in order to attempt to test the relative difference between the adjusted and unadjusted groups in terms of their test scores. Wallace developed a short marital adjustment scale of the most discriminating items from the Burgess-Cottrell, Terman, Burgess-Wallin, and Locke adjustment instruments. It will be further described later on in this chapter. Following the theoretical suggestions of Mangus, as well as the empirical studies of Kotlar, Luckey, and others, the Interpersonal Check List was used as the measure of testing marital role behavior and expectations. A subject's perception about his own or his spouse's role attributes can be assessed using this instrument, which will also be fur ther described later in this chapter. An Occupational Role Inventory was developed for 171 this study. It is a 5-point Likert-type scale with weighted scores on each question from 0 to 4. It was designed to test perceptions of role behavior and expectations in the occupational area. It will also be further described later in this chapter. Thus, the questionnaire consisted of a face sheet with questions for the frequency matching of seven controlled variables, a marital adjustment test to evaluate the general level of interpersonal relationships in the marriage, the Interpersonal Check List to assess marital role expectations and behavior, and an Occupational Role Inventory to determine work role expectations and behavior. Data were gathered from September 1, 1966 to April 1, 1967. The questionnaires of the unadjusted couples were administered by marriage counselors. An attempt was made to secure the couples' confidence by assurances of anonymity, as well as the suggestion of obtaining knowledge to help married couples, and by an introductory statement on the questionnaires. Undoubtedly cooperation depended to some degree on the counselors' relationships to their clients. The questionnaires for adjusted couples were gath ered in churches. The pastor of a church was seen person ally, at which time the study was discussed (one-half hour average per interview). Sometimes the minister, himself, arranged for meetings with couples and in other cases presi dents of organizations were also seen personally in order to discuss the study. An offer was made to exchange a talk about marriage and the family for the group's cooperation in filling out the questionnaires. Thirty-one church organ izations were visited in order to obtain a large enough sample of wives who worked full-time. After the talk and discussion which composed their evening's program, the co operation of the couples was secured and the filling out of the questionnaires explained. They sat where they had been sitting and the researcher remained in front available for questions if they came up and for whatever supervision was necessary. They were asked to give their answers quickly without pondering over them and to do their work with com plete independence. The range of time used for working couples was from 35 minutes to one hour and 20 minutes (for completion of the test). In addition, in order to allow for possible morale problems, questionnaires were also given to non-working wives and their spouses. They were asked to mark "not working" on the front page, but also told to omit the parts of the questionnaire which referred to the wife working. A couple's questionnaire was matched by a system of duplicating numbers (e.g., H-123, W-123). 173 Social Characteristics The adjusted and unadjusted samples were matched for age, years married, years worked, number of children, educa tion, income, and religion. In Table 1 it can be observed that the range of ages for adjusted husbands was from 24 to 51 years of age, while for unadjusted men it was from 25 to 54. The mean age for the former was 37.58 and for the lat ter it was 38.76. There was no significant difference be tween means (t score of -0.7, which is significant at the .001 level). For adjusted wives the range of ages was from 22 to 52 and for unadjusted women it was from 24 to 54. The mean age for the former was 35.22 and for the latter it was 35.82. The difference between means was not significant (t score of -0.4, which is significant at the .001 level). Thus, the adjusted and unadjusted groups are matched in age for both husbands and wives. Table 2 is a comparison of years married between the adjusted and unadjusted groups. It can be observed in Table 2 that the number of years married ranged from three to 30 for the adjusted couples and from two to 33 for unadjusted spouses. The mean number of years married was 13.12 for adjusted husbands and 14.00 for unadjusted ones, but this TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF AGES OF ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES Group Youngest Oldest Mean t-scores Level of Significance Adjusted Husbands 24 51 37.68 -0.7 .001 Unadjusted Husbands 25 54 38.76 Adjusted Wives 22 52 35 .22 -0.4 .001 Unadjusted Wives 24 54 35.82 h- 1 TAB EE 2 COMPARISON OF YEARS MARRIED FOR ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES Group Fewest Most Mean t score Level of Significance Adjusted Husbands 3 30 13.12 -0.6 .001 Unadjusted Husbands 2 33 14.00 Adjusted Wives 3 30 13.10 -0.7 .001 Unadjusted Wives 2 33 14.04 H U1 176 was not a significant difference (t score was -0.6, which was significant at the .001 level). The mean number of years married was 13.10 for adjusted wives and 14.04 for unadjusted women. This was not a significant difference (the t score is -0.7, which is significant at the .001 lev el). Thus, the adjusted and unadjusted groups are matched for years married. Table 3 is a comparison of years worked between the two groups. Here it is seen that adjusted husbands worked a range of three to 30 years of their marriage, with a mean of 12.92 in working years, while unadjusted husbands had a range from two to 33 years of work within their marriage with a mean of 13.90. There was no significant difference between means (t score of -0.7, which is significant at the .001 level). The range of years worked was from one to 18 for adjusted wives and from one to 17 for unadjusted ones. The mean was 4.66 years of work during marriage for adjusted wives and 5.32 for the unadjusted ones. This is not a sig nificant difference between means (t score of -0.9, which is significant at the .001 level). On Table 4, which is on page 178, there is a com parison between adjusted and unadjusted wives of the pro portion of those working in each year of their marriage. TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF YEARS WORKED FOR ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES Group Fewest Most Mean t score Level of Significance Adjusted Husbands 3 30 12.92 -0.7 .001 Unadjusted Husbands 2 33 13 ..90 Adjusted Wives ' 1 18 4.66 -0.9 .001 Unadjusted Wives 1 17 5.32 <1 i TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF MARRIAGE WIVES WORKED BY YEAR OF MARRIAGE Year of Marriage Percentage Who Worked by Each Year of Their Marriage Year of Marriage Percentage Year of Who Worked by Each Their Marriage Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted 1 72 80 14 34 33 2 52 44 15 35 36 3 50 33 16 45 30 4 43 33 17 41 32 5 21 29 18 50 39 6 20 25 19 55 69 7 15 26 20 60 75 8 16 37 21 67 50 9 17 38 23 50 50 10 29 37 25 50 60 11 16 27 30 100 50 12 17 32 33 — 100 13 29 32 178 179 It can be observed in the table that adjusted wives worked the first years of their marriages (heaviest from the first to the fourth year of marriage), but the trend indicates a decline in the proportion of those working until the twelfth year of marriage. At this time, there is an upward trend in the proportion of those working until the twenty-first year of the marriage. One might hypothesize that women work until they have their first child and go back to work when their children can take care of themselves. The number is too small to hypothesize about the trends after the twenty- first year. It can also be observed in Table 4 that unadjusted wives work the first years of marriage (first to sixth) in a declining trend. There is a three-year upward trend in years eight to 10, a one-year drop in the eleventh year, and then an upward trend in work until the twentieth year of the marriage. When the trends in the adjusted and unadjusted are compared, there is a strong proportion working in the first years of the marriage in a declining trend to the twelfth year. The unadjusted have a three-year counter trend with a slight increase in the eighth through the tenth year of the marriage, but this is only a one-year increase (tenth year) in the case of the adjusted. The unadjusted 180 proportion working through years six to 12 appears to be somewhat higher than the adjusted. In both groups there is an upward trend in the proportion of those working from the twelfth to the twentieth years. In Table 4 there appear to be some differences in proportion of wives working by year of marriage, but the number was small in some of these. The proportion of the marriage that each wife worked was calculated and a mean computed for each sample. These results are shown in Table 5. The range in proportion for the adjusted wives was 20 per cent working in the sixth year to 80 per cent working the first year. The mean is 43 per cent of the marriage worked for the adjusted group. The range of unadjusted wives is from 25 per cent working the sixth year of the marriage to 80 per cent working the first year and the mean proportion of years worked to years of marriage was 46 per cent for the unadjusted wives. This is not a significant difference between wives (the z score is -0.36, which is significant at the .001 level). Means of proportion were compared between adjusted and unadjusted wives for the years of marriage from one to five, six to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20, and 21 to 25. There were no significant differences in the means of proportions between the adjusted and unadjusted TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF MARRIAGE WORKED FOR ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES Group Mean z score Level of Significance Adjusted Husbands .997 - .001 .001 Unadjusted Husbands .998 Adjusted Wives .428 -0.36 .001 Unadjusted Wives .465 182 wives. Among adjusted husbands, one man did not work the first three years of his marriage, one the first year, and one the second year only. One adjusted husband did not work the first four years of his marriage, one the second year only, and three did not work the first year of their mar riages in the sample of adjusted husbands. One might hy pothesize that all of these cases were studying in college, but there is no supporting evidence of any kind. However, the mean proportion of years worked to years of marriage was 99.7 per cent for adjusted husbands and 99.8 per cent for unadjusted ones. This is not a statistically significant difference (the z score is -.001, which is significant be yond the .001 level). Thus, the adjusted and unadjusted groups are matched for years of the marriage in which they worked. As is shown in Table 6, the number of children range from one to six in both groups. Adjusted husbands had a mean number of children of 2.62, while the unadjusted had one of 2.66. This difference was not significant (t score of -0.2, which is significant at the .001 level). Adjusted wives had a mean number of children of 2.60, while the mean for unadjusted women was 2.68. This was not a significant TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF CHILDREN FOR ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES Group Fewest Most Mean t score Level of Significance Adjusted Husbands 1 6 2.62 -0.2 .001 Unadjusted Husbands 1 6 2.66 Adjusted Wives 1 6 2.60 -0.3 .001 Unadjusted Wives 1 6 2.68 H 00 OJ 184 difference between means (t score was -0.3, which was sig nificant at the .001 level). Thus, the adjusted and unad justed groups are matched for number of children. Educational level was coded for quantification pur poses as follows: one through eight for elementary grades, nine through 12 for high school, 13 through 16 for college, and 17 through 20 for years of graduate school. The answer was given in terms of the highest grade level completed. The range of education, as is shown in Table 7, for adjusted husbands is from a minimum of completion of high school to a maximum of completion of four years of graduate work. The years of completed education for unadjusted men is from tenth grade to four years of graduate work. The mean for completed years of education is 15.94 or just short of fin ishing the junior year of college for adjusted men, while it is 15.52 or half-way through the junior year of college for unadjusted men. This is not a significant difference be tween means (t score is +0.9, which is significant at the .001 level). The range of completed education for adjusted wives was from a tenth grade minimum to two years of graduate work as a maximum, while for unadjusted wives the range was from a tenth grade minimum to four years of graduate work as a TABLE 7 COMPARISON OF EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES Group Minimum Grade Maximum Grade Mean Grade Completed t score Level of Significance Adjusted Husbands 12 20 15 .94 +0.9 .001 Unadjusted Husbands 10 20 15.52 Adjusted Wives 10 18 14.04 -0.1 .001 Unadjusted Wives 10 20 14.06 186 maximum. The mean years of education completed is 14.04 for adjusted wives and 14.06 for unadjusted ones. In both cases this represents a point slightly past the sophomore year of college. This does not represent a significant difference between means (t score is -.01, which is significant at the .001 level). Table 8 presents a comparison of income level of adjusted and unadjusted couples. Income was coded as fol“ lows: under $5,000 is 0, between $5,000 and $6,999 is 1, between $7,000 and $8,999 is 2, between $9,000 and $10,999 is 3, between $11,000 and $12,999 is 4, between $13,000 and $14,999 is 5, and over $15,000 is 6. The range for both the adjusted and unadjusted couples is from 1 to 6. The mean category for adjusted husbands is 4.12 and for unadjusted ones it is 4.02. In both cases this represents the lower end of the classification from $11,000 to $12,999. The dif ference between means is not significant (t score is +0.3, which is significant at the .001 level). The mean category ,for adjusted wives is 4.10 and for unadjusted wives it is 3.96. In this case, the adjusted wives fall in the lower end of the $11,000 to $12,999 classification, while the un adjusted women are in the upper end of the $9,000 to $10,999 category. However, the difference between means is not TABLE 8 COMPARISON OF INCOME LEVEL OF ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES Group Minimum Maximum Mean t score Level of Significance Adjusted Husbands 1 6 4.12 + 0.3 .001 Unadjusted Husbands 1 6 4.02 Adjusted Wives 1 6 4.10 +0.5 .001 Unadjusted Wives 1 6 3 .96 187 188 significant (t is +0.5, which is significant at the .001 level). Thus, the adjusted and unadjusted samples are matched in income. As can be seen in Table 9, in both samples for hus bands and for wives, there are 44 Protestants and six Roman Catholics. In order to quantify the answers, Protestants were classified 1 and Roman Catholics 2. The mean for both adjusted and unadjusted husbands is 1.12. There is no dif ference at all between means. The mean for adjusted wives is 1.10 and for unadjusted ones is 1.12. This is not a sig nificant difference between means (t is -0.3, which is sig nificant at the .001 level). Thus, the two groups of ad justed and unadjusted couples are matched for religion. The adjusted and unadjusted husbands, as well as the adjusted and unadjusted wives, are controlled in a frequency distribution matching for age, number of years married, num ber of years worked, proportion of years worked to years married, number of children, education, income level, and religion. There are no significant differences between com pared groups in the means of any of these variables and all the t scores are significant at the .001 level. However, when the samples were compared in their marital adjustment, as can be seen in Table 10, adjusted TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE OF ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES Group Protestants Catholics Coded Mean t score Level of Significance Adjusted Husbands 44 6 1.12 0 .001 Unadjusted Husbands 44 6 1.12 Adjusted Wives 44 6 1.10 -0.3 .001 Unadjusted Wives 44 6 1.12 ! - ■ 03 VD TABLE 10 COMPARISON OF MARITAL ADJUSTMENT OF ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES Group Minimum Score Maximum Score Mean t score Level of Significance Adjusted Husbands 106 16 0 133.58 21.1 .001 Unadjusted Husbands 40 103 71.6 Adjusted Wives 110 160 135.8 21.1 .001 Unadjusted Wives 19 108 62.48 191 husbands' scores on the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test ranged from a minimum of 106 to a maximum of 160, while un adjusted men's scores ranged from a minimum of 40 to a maxi mum of 103. The range is slightly wider for the unadjusted group. The mean score of adjusted husbands is 133.58, but for unadjusted men it is 71.6. This difference between means is a significant one with a t score of 21.1* which is significant at the .001 level. Adjusted wives' scores ranged from a minimum of 110 to a maximum of 160, while unadjusted wives fluctuated from a minimum of 19 to a maximum of 108. The mean score for adjusted wives is 135.8, but for unadjusted women it is 62.48. The difference between means was a significant one with a t score of 21.1, which was significant at the .001 level. When the husbands' scores were combined with those of their wives, the scores ranged for adjusted couples from 71 to 99 per cent of the total score possible, but for un adjusted couples the scores ranged from 23 to 52 per cent of the highest possible score. Thus, the differences in mari tal adjustment between adjusted and unadjusted husbands, as well as between adjusted and unadjusted wives, and between their scores as couples, is a pronounced one. The groups 192 for both husbands and wives are significantly different in their marital adjustment. Research Instruments This study employs three research instruments to test the hypotheses. They are the Wallace Marital Adjust ment Test to measure the general marital adjustment level of the couple, the Interpersonal Check List to assess marital role expectations and behavior, and the Occupational Role Inventory to score occupational role expectations and be havior . Wallace Marital Adjustment Test Wallace carefully reviewed studies of marital pre diction in order to ascertain the most elemental kinds of questions. In particular, he found 195 multiple items in the Burgess-Cottrell test, 133 in Burgess-Wallin, 182 in Terman, 180 in Terman-Oden, 155 for male or 158 for female 3 in Locke, and 94 for men or 102 for women in Karlsson. His scientific problem was to test whether these items could be ^Harvey J. Locke and Karl M. Wallace, "Short Marital Adjustment and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and Predicability," Marriage and Family Living. XXI (August, 1959), 251. 193 reduced to the most fundamental, the most discriminating ones, but not greatly reduce either the reliability or the validity in a shorter test. After selecting the items which had the greatest power of discrimination in the original studies, he made some slight modifications in constructing a test of 15 items, 14 of which were from Burgess and Cot trell with one from Terman. Later he added a sixteenth question on whether one would marry the same person, a dif ferent person, or not at all. He used weights roughly similar to those assigned in the original studies for some of the items, but arbitrarily assigned weight in others. The association between assign ing weights by marital happiness rates and arbitrary weight- 4 xng of marital adjustment items is .95. By summing togeth er the weighted scores for all of the questions, a total score is derived for each subject. The total possible score is 160. Marital adjustment tests do not precisely assess the actual adjustment in any particular marriage, but rather measure the general level of success which probably ^Ernest W. Burgess and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage (New York: Pren- tice-Hall, Inc., 1939), pp. 59-65. 194 5 characterizes the given marriage. Wallace used a sample of 236 couples (including 46 known to be unadjusted or di vorced), but only used one spouse in each family for a total of 118 husbands and 118 wives. The mean score was 135.9 for adjusted couples and 71.7 for unadjusted ones (the CR is 17.5,^ which is significant beyond the .01 level). In the unadjusted group, there were only 17 per cent whose scores were 100 or more, but in the well-adjusted sample 96 per cent had scores at this figure or higher. On a longitudinal basis of comparison with the longer tests, his correlation of .47 between husbands' and wives' tests are most similar to those in Burgess-Cottrell (.48), as well as Terman (.54 7 for men and .47 for women) studies. The Wallace Marital Adjustment Test can be correlated with the Wallace Marital Prediction Test scores for validity. Moreover, Wallace says that it "has validity, since it seems to measure what it 8 purports to measure." He used the split-half method of 5Karl M. Wallace, "Construction and Validation of Marital Adjustment and Prediction Scales" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1947), pp. 180-183. 6Ibid.. p. 181. ^Locke and Wallace, "Prediction Tests," p. 255. ^Wallace, "Validation of Marital Adjustment," p. 183 . 195 testing for reliability and corrected his correlation by the Spearman-Brown formula to arrive at a reliability correla- 9 tion of .84, which is a strong association. Wallace's con clusions were that adjusted and unadjusted couples can be separated along a marital success continuum relatively ac curately by using a marital adjustment scale, which utilizes 10 a relatively few basic questions. The Interpersonal Check List The Interpersonal Check List was developed by Leary 11 and his associates over a four-year period. A list of 334 adjectives deemed to be representative of interpersonal traits were compiled from a thorough review of the litera ture. Balance and comparability between the 16 interper sonal categories chosen, minimizing the extraneous test score determinants, intensity ratings corrected for cultural biases, refining definitions, and perfecting intercorrela tions were some of the steps followed through four major revisions of the test until it has reached its present form ^Locke and Wallace, "Prediction Tests," p. 255. -^Wallace, "Validation of Marital Adjustment," pp. 180-183. -^-Timothy Leary, Interpersonal Diagnosis of Person ality (New York: The Ronald Press, 1957), pp. 458-461. 196 12 of 128 items. These trait items employ adjectival phrases or words to express and describe the subjects' perceptions of role in symbolic language. There is an inner consistency and balance between the various test items, which include eight units for each of the 16 interpersonal role descriptions. In comparing the trends of interpersonal behavior, it was found that all of the 16 generic variables could be interrelated along two axes: a vertical continuum for dominance-submissiveness and a horizontal axis of hostility-affection. Subjects receive scores in each of the 16 classifications and these scores are summed up in a formula for each of the axes (adjoining sixteenths are put together in octants) in this way: AP represent the managerial-autocratic octant, HI the self- effacing, NO the responsible-hypernormal, BC the competi tive-narcissistic, FG the rebellious-distrustful, JK the docile-dependent, LM the cooperative-overconventional, and DE the aggressive-sadistic octant. The formulas are: DOM = AP - HI + .7 (NO + BC - FG - JK) for the vertical axis? and LOV = LM - DE + .7 (NO - BC - FG + JK) for the horizontal axis. The raw score totals from these formulas can be 12Ibid., p. 458. 197 translated into standard scores, which place subjects along a continuum on each axis, and can be summed up at the point 13 at which the ordinate and abscissa axes intersect. This enables the research worker to compare the scores on dif ferent tests either in terms of the distance of points from each other on a circular interpersonal grid or by the dif ferences in standard scores on each axis. The latter method is utilized in this study. For example, if the standard score on dominance was 67 on the ideal self, but 61 on the self test, and on affection it was 53 on the ideal self, but 48 on the self test, there is a disparity of six between the self and ideal self scores in dominance and one of five on the hostility-affection axis. The two differences add up to a total disparity of 11 be tween the ideal and self tests. The incongruences between various tests were measured in this way. The differences on various tests ranged from zero to 80 to form an interval scale on each test which could be statistically analyzed in its relationships to the score on another test. Each spouse did four Interpersonal Check List Tests: a self test, an ideal self test, a mate test, and an ideal mate test. The -*-^Ibid. . pp. 68-69. 198 husband's perception of self compared to his wife's percep tion of him, the wife's perception of her behavior versus the husband's perception of her, the husband's expectation < for himself compared to his wife's expectation for him, the wife's expectation for herself versus the husband's expec tation of her, the husband's perception of his wife's be havior in relationship to his expectations for her, the wife's perception of her husband's behavior versus her ex pectations for him, the husband's perception and expectation of his own behavior, and the wife's perception and expecta tion for her own behavior— these are the various ways the four tests by each spouse were manipulated in this study in order to compare disparities between various role scores. Reliability studies have been done on the ICL. An obesity sample of 77 females was given the ICL and re-tested on it two weeks later. The average correlation for octants 14 is .78 and for sixteenths it is .73, both of which are strong associations. Moreover, variables which are next to each other are more closely related than those further apart. On the obesity samples the correlation coefficient for one variable apart was .46; for two, .37; for three, 14Ibid., pp. 461-462. 199 .34; for four, .28; for five, .24; for six, .21; for seven, 15 .19; and for eight, .12. It can be seen that there is a definite trend in regard to the distance between variables and their interrelationships. These results were corrobor ated in an outpatient sample of 76 males and an outpatient 16 sample of 122 females. The validity of the Interpersonal Check List has 17 been tested in a variety of ways. There are the three previous versions, each of which was revised as a result of statistical data, checking frequencies of adjectives or phrases, correcting for misunderstandings of items, inter item analysis, octant correlations, as well as outside rat ings by five judges (psychologists). There were many ad ministrations of the tests to several thousands of patients as a standard entering evaluation technique, patients from Dr. Lawrence's private dermatology practice, and an obesity 18 sample of 200. In addition to hospital patients and medical prac tice, samples have been compared in group psychotherapy, in industrial management, and in colleges in Berkeley, as well • * - 5Ibid. . p. 462. -t-^Ibid. . p. 461. l7Ibid.. pp. 459-461. 18Ibid.. p. 458. 200 as San Francisco. Much has been learned about it through its use in many research studies (i.e., Kotlar, Luckey, Taylor, Phillips, etc.). Moreover, patients' self tests have been checked against evaluations of members of their families, as well as by the cross-check ratings of Kaiser staff clinicians. The Interpersonal Check List has also been validated against the 19 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Them- 20 atic Apperception Test. All of the scores on these three tests can be put on the same ICL grid for the purposes of analyzing or comparing them. Occupational Role Inventory The Occupational Role Inventory was designed to test perceptions of behavior and expectations of the occupational role. High scores are indications of high standards of role enactment or high expectations, while low scores show low evaluations of role behavior or low expectations. The Occu pational Role Inventory was compiled from a list of 158 descriptive items concerning the work role found in a re view of the literature. Related ideas and concepts were integrated into descriptive phrases or statements. Ten- l9Ibid.. pp. 439-441. 2QIbid.. pp. 464-466. 201 sions, adjustment, self-concepts, job satisfaction, atti tudes, performances, career orientation, status, need of belonging, relation to fellow workers, social change, allo cation of time and energy, and determinant or indeterminant character— these were some of the elements discussed in the review of literature which are used in the formulation of the questions on the test. The factor of service to others was also employed in two questions. The first form of the inventory contained 54 items in a Likert-type scale with forced answers along an intensity continuum which was scored from zero to four. A final page was attached to this test for purposes of validating the inventory. This page was the Remmer Pur due Attitude Scale: a scale for measuring attitudes toward any vocation, form B. Remmers, Sigafoos, and others have shown that a test asking general questions which may be applied to any individual's occupation can measure voca tional attitudes as well as a test of a specific vocation. The principle employed in constructing Remmer’s test is Thurstone's technique of attitude scaling. Reliability tests for the original scale of 40 items ranged between .71 and .92. Hancock demonstrated that reducing the number of items does not decrease reliability to any appreciable 202 21 degree. Therefore, the shorter test was used m the validity study of the Occupational Role Inventory. The validity of the Remmers Scale was tested against Thurstone's specific scales, in which work the correlation was very high (over .90). It also was able to discriminate in attitude 22 differences between groups known to differ. Since the object in testing the Occupational Role Inventory was to measure reliability and validity, the sam ple did not need to be representative. However, an effort was made to select subjects who held a variety of jobs. Two summer school classes were chosen at Whittier College in which there were teachers, probation workers, Young Men's Christian Association and Young Women's Christian Associa tion personnel, social workers, clerks, office managers, typists, etc. A sample of workers was also obtained from workers in local businesses along both Greenleaf and Phila delphia Streets in Whittier. The total sample was 87. Scores on this form of the Occupational Role Inven tory ranged from 69 to 206. The mean for the entire group 21h . H. Remmers, Manual for the Purdue Master Atti tude Scales (West Lafayette: University Book Store, 1960), pp. 3-5. 22lbid.. pp. 3-4. 203 was 146.97. A split-half testing was done by comparing the scores on odd-numbered questions against those on the even- numbered ones. The odd half had a mean of 72 as compared to a mean of 7 3 on the even half. The correlation, after being corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, was .93, which is a strong and reliable association. When the Occupational Role Inventory was tested against the Remmers scale, the chi square was 30.84. This is significant beyond the .001 level. The next step was to make an inter-item analysis. The upper 25 per cent in scores on the inventory were com pared against the 25 per cent who had the lowest scores (22 in each group). For each of the 54 questions, the mean was ascertained both for the highest and the lowest group. The mean in the lowest unit was subtracted from the one in the highest group to arrive at a given question's discriminatory power. Eleven questions in which the discriminatory power was less than one were eliminated in the revised form of the inventory, which contains 43 items. Each spouse completed the Occupational Role Inven tory in four ways; his self test, his ideal self, his mate, and his ideal mate. The husband's perception of self com pared to his wife's perception of him, the wife's perception of her behavior versus the husband's perception of her, the husband's expectation for himself compared to his wife's expectation for him, the wife's expectation for herself versus the husband's expectation for her, the husband's per ception of his wife's behavior in relationship to his expec tations for her, the wife's perception of her husband's be havior versus her expectations for him, the husband's per ception and expectation of his own behavior, and the wife's perception and expectation for her own behavior— these are the ways the eight tests, four by each mate, were manipula ted in order to compare, various disparities in occupational role. If the score on the occupational self test was 125 and on the ideal self it was 151, the difference was 26. The disparities on various occupational role test scores were analyzed in relationship to marital adjustment scores, both with the occupational role taken by itself and in its relationship to marital role disparities. These differences formed an interval scale from zero to 80. Total scores on the Occupational Role Inventory were also analyzed in rela tionship to total scores on each axis of the marital role. Research Design Fifty adjusted couples were secured from church organizations and 50 unadjusted ones were obtained from marriage counselors and counseling clinics. Both groups were given the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test and by ana lyzing the differences between mean scores on it, the groups were established as significantly different in their general level of marital adjustment. The two groups were frequency matched for age, years married, years worked, number of children, education, proportion of years worked to years married, income, and religion, in all of which variables there were no significant differences in t tests of the means (in the proportion of years worked to years married, a z test was computed). All of the subjects were asked to complete both the Interpersonal Check List (marital role) and Occupational Role Inventory in four different ways (self, ideal self, mate, and ideal mate). The various dis parities between different applications of role, as well as associations between total scores of various tests were analyzed by appropriate statistical procedures. Statistical Procedures A sample was obtained of adjusted husbands and wives, as well as unadjusted husbands and wives, for two samples or four sub-samples. The mean and standard devia- 206 tion of each of the four groups were ascertained and three standard deviations taken on each side of the mean. The distribution in the four groups approximates a normal curve in each case. In addition, the mean and the median are essentially the same in each of the groups. It is necessary to know the level of probability that the differences be tween groups are actual ones and not due to variances in sampling procedure or sampling error. The z and t tests are used for such levels of probability. The z test was used in analyzing the means of the samples in proportion of years worked to years of marriage in both groups. In all of the other variations between the social characteristics' vari ables, as well as in the comparable ICL or Occupational Role tests, the t score was used to analyze the significances of differences between means. In all of these procedures the .05 level was taken as the acceptable level of confidence. In other words, there would be less than a 5 per cent chance that any variation is an actual one and not due to the samp ling process or chance. This is a probability, rather than an actual fact. Pearson's product moment of coefficient (r) was used to test the eight hypotheses concerning the relationship between the occupational role and marital adjustment. Here 207 a correlation of less than .20 indicates a slight relation ship, between .20 and .40 a small but definite relationship, between .40 and .70 a moderate to strong one, between .70 23 and .90 a high relationship, and over .90 a very high one. There are also tables to establish an F score for any spe cific correlation, as well as a level of significance for it. The eight hypotheses concerning the relationship of the occupational role in its association with marital role as they were both related to marital adjustment were ana lyzed by partial correlations, as were the eight hypotheses about the relationship between occupational and marital roles. (When total scores were compared, it was necessary to treat Dom and Lov as two variables and compare each to the corresponding occupational role.) The t test was also used. In this study, three variables were analyzed: occu pational role, marital role, and marital adjustment. An attempt was made to test the association between occupation al role and each of the other two taken one at a time. They P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychol ogy and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956), p. 145. 208 were also analyzed three at a time with one being controlled in partial correlation techniques. If there is a correla tion between marital role and marital adjustment, as well as between occupational role and marital adjustment, but this association disappears between occupational role and marital role, the relationship is likely to be spurious and the apparent relationship between occupational and marital roles is owing to their separate relationships to the third vari able, marital adjustment, and not to each other. This study will use partials to test the relationships between the three variables. There are also tests of significance that can be used with partial correlation techniques (a type of F test). Some use will also be made of the range, the mean, the standard deviation, and the Spearman-Brown formula. Data Processing The data from the usable questionnaires were quanti fied or coded and put on four large columnar sheets: one for adjusted husbands, another for unadjusted men, one for adjusted wives, and a final one for unadjusted women. These data were then key punched on IBM Fortran cards, after which they were programmed at the University of Southern Califor 209 nia Computer Sciences Laboratory. The 180Q automath com puter was used. The project was numbered SOCI-0012 for the year 1966-67. Limitations of the Study Since the sampling methodology is not truly repre sentative , there is the possibility of some bias from samp ling occurring. In the adjusted groups, neither the denomi nation nor the individual churches selected allows an equal chance for all churches in a given area to be chosen. In the particular church, some members' absence at the particu lar meeting the project was undertaken eliminated them from consideration. In the unadjusted group, the clients were obtained from some clinics and counselors, rather than from others. There could be bias in the greater cooperativeness or relative availability of subjects in the return of ques tionnaires from these particular unadjusted clients. It is also possible that the clientele who chose the particular counselors and clinics are not representative of all the couples involved in counseling. However, the one z test and several t tests give assurance that chance factors or errors in the sampling process are less than 5 per cent in their probability (for the traits analyzed). 210 In the gathering of the data, questionnaires were administered in a great number of clinics and counselors' offices where the environmental conditions during the taking of individual tests were likely to be dissimilar in some respects. On the other hand, the adjusted couples had heard a talk, were in a coffee-dessert period, and were undoubted ly in a comparatively relaxed, happy atmosphere. Is there more of a halo effect for the adjusted couples or a greater hostility effect for the unadjusted? This cannot be ans wered precisely, but conditions were likely somewhat dif ferent between the adjusted and unadjusted couples. There is also a question of uncontrolled variables. Although seven factors were matched in a frequency distribu tion, are there other elements that ought to have been con sidered? Psychological factors or personality of spouses, comparative ages of the children, intensity or frequency of church relatedness, kinds of work within occupations, health, relations to children, situational factors— these are some possible variables which were not controlled in this study, and might have some effect on the findings. On the research instruments employed, the Occupa tional Role Inventory had sufficient reliability and valid ity, but it was developed for this study. It undoubtedly 211 needs to be employed in several research studies for fur ther refinement. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL ROLES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT In this chapter the findings about the relationships between occupational roles and marital adjustment are pre sented. -The major hypothesis is: the greater the incongru ence between perceptions and expectations of occupational role made by husbands and wives, the lower the marital ad justment. This major hypothesis is elaborated by eight minor ones. A comparison of the differences between the means of adjusted and unadjusted couples in several occupa tional role tests is presented in Table 11. It will be noted that the range of differences is greater for unadjusted couples than it is for the adjusted ones with one exception, the scores on the differences be tween the husband's self and ideal self tests used in hy pothesis VII. A negative t score indicates that the mean difference for unadjusted couples is greater than the one 212 TABLE 11 A COMPARISON OF ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES IN THEIR DISPARITIES BETWEEN VARIOUS OCCUPATIONAL ROLE SCORES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT Test Range of Scores Mean Difference t score3 Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted DOHSWHb 0-42 2-54 13.90 22.16 -3.5{.01) ; DOWSHWc 0-34 0-61 9.22 20.06 -4.6(.01) DOHISWIMd 0-41 0-52 12.78 19.08 -2.5(.05) DOWISHIMe 0-40 1-62 9.30 17.88 -3.9(.01) DOHWHIMf 1-47 0-75 15 .82 23.16 -2.4(.05) DOWHWIM^ 0-77 2-99 17.52 29.62 -2.7(.01) DOHSHlSh 1-80 2-64 21.24 24.58 -0.9(NS) DOWSWIS1 1-45 1-74 14.46 20.64 -2.1(.05) aThe level of significance is placed in parentheses immediately following the t scores. NS means not significant. bDOHSWH is the difference on the occupational role inventory between the husband's self test and the wife's test on her husband. It tests hypothesis I. ro H (jO TABLE 11— Continued cDOWSHW is the difference on the occupational role inventory between the wife's self test and the husband's test on his wife. It tests hypothesis II. ^■DOHISWIM is the difference on the occupational role inventory between the hus band's ideal self and the wife's test on her ideal mate. It is used in testing hypothesis III. eDOWISHIM is the difference on the occupational role inventory between the wife's ideal self and the husband's test on his ideal mate. It is used in testing hypothesis IV. ^DOHWHIH is the difference on the occupational role inventory between the hus band's test on his wife and the husband's ideal mate test. It is used in testing hypothe sis V. ^DOWHWIM is the difference on the occupational role inventory between the wife's test on her husband and the wife's ideal mate test. It is used in testing hypothesis VI. ^DOHSHIS is the difference on the occupational role inventory between the hus band's self test and his test on his ideal self. It is used in testing hypothesis VII. 1D0WSWIS is the difference on the occupational role inventory between the wife's self test and her test on her ideal self. It is used in testing hypothesis VIII. 214 215 for adjusted ones. The t scores are significant for all the role disparities with one exception, the difference between the husband's self and ideal self tests used in hypothesis -•«* VII. In Table 12, there is a comparison of the product moment correlations between the various role disparities and marital adjustment. A negative correlation shows an associ ation between greater disparity and lower marital adjust ment, while a positive correlation is one in which the rela tionship is direct. The correlations for the scores of all test differences in their relationship to marital adjustment are all significant at either the .05 or .01 level of con fidence . Hypothesis I is: the greater the incongruence be tween the husband's perception of his occupational role and the perception of the wife of her husband's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is based on the theoretical consideration that greater dispar ity between the perceptions of individuals reflect diffi culties or conflicts in their interpersonal relationships. The range of disparities between the husband's occupational self test and the wife's test on her mate was from zero to 42 for adjusted couples, while the differences went from a TABLE 12 COMPARISONS OF PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIOUS OCCUPATIONAL ROLE DISPARITIES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT Testa r for Adjusted Couples r for Unadjusted Couples r for All Couples F score13 DOHSWH + .03 -.39 -.39 17 .58(.01) DOWSHW + .02 -.29 -.47 27.79(.01) DOHISWIM -.01 -.12 -.25 6 .53( .05) DOWISHIM + .05 -.08 -.34 12 .81(.01) DOHWHIM -.01 -.01 -.22 4. 99(.05) DOWHWIM -.37 -.46 -.40 18 .67(.01) DOHSHIS -.34 -.22 -.20 4 . 08{.05) DOWSWIS + .10 -.28 -.26 7.11(.01) aThe key to the symbols used to describe various test disparities is the same as that used in Table 11 (see above; pp. 213-214). ■ ' - ’ The level of significance is placed in parentheses immediately following the F scores. NS means not significant. ro j_ i c r « 217 low of two to a high of 54 for the unadjusted ones. None of the unadjusted mates had disparity scores as low as zero or one, as did the adjusted, and the maximum difference for the Unadjusted is 26 per cent higher. The mean difference is 13.90 for the adjusted couples, while it is 22.16 for the unadjusted ones. This difference between mean disparities for adjusted and unadjusted couples is significant at the .01 level (t is -3.5). Thus, disparity in perception be tween spouses is related to a lower general adjustment in their marriage. This finding is in agreement with other research pertaining to other kinds of role disparities and adjustment. The correlation between the couples' disparity score on the husband's occupational role behavior and marital ad justment is -.39, which is a low moderate association. The F score is 17.58, which is significant at the .01 level. It will be noted in the partial correlations in Table 12 that there is also a low moderate association of -.39 for unad justed couples, but that the relationship for adjusted couples is a negligible +.03. This emphasizes the associa tion between greater disparity and lower marital adjustment, but it also points out that generalizations are on a strong er basis for unadjusted couples than for adjusted ones. The 218 hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis II is: the greater the incongruence be tween the wife's perception of her occupational role and the perception of the husband of his wife's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. This is founded on the same theoretical considerations as in Hypothesis I, that greater disparity in perception between individuals is re lated to conflict in their interpersonal relationships. However, in this hypothesis the wife's behavior is the cen ter of focus. The range of disparities between the wife's occupational self test and the husband's test on his wife is from zero to 34 for adjusted couples, while the differences for unadjusted couples range from zero to 61. The scope of differences is again wider for unadjusted couples, but the maximum disparity score is 79 per cent higher for the latter compared to the former. The mean disparity is 9.22 for un adjusted couples and 20.06 for unadjusted ones, which is a mean over twice as great for the latter. The differences in the perception of wives' behavior are greater than in the perceptions of husbands' behavior in comparing adjusted and unadjusted samples. The difference in mean disparity be tween the wives' and husbands' perception of wives' behavior is significant at the .01 level (t score of 4.6). 219 The correlation between the couples' disparity over the wife's occupational behavior and their marital adjust ment is -.47* which is a substantial* moderate relationship. It is an even stronger one than the -.39 association con cerning the husband's behavior. The F score for a -.47 cor relation is 27.79* which shows a significance at the .01 level. It is again noted on Table 12 that the partial cor relation is much more definite for unadjusted couples. The partial for the unadjusted group is -.29* which is signifi cant at the .05 level* but the partial for adjusted couples is a negligible one of +.02. There is a sound basis for the generalization that greater disparity of perception is as sociated with a lower general level of marital adjustment* but caution should be exercised in stating that low dispar ity is associated with higher marital adjustment. Both the t test and the correlation support the relationship between greater disparity and lower marital adjustment. The hypoth esis is accepted. Hypothesis III is: the greater the incongruence between the husband's expectations of his occupational role and the expectation of the wife of her husband's occupation al role* the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is based on the theoretical consideration that relatively 220 greater differences in spouses' expectations about husbands' occupational role reflect interpersonal role conflicts with lower adjustment levels between individuals. The range of differences between the husband's ideal self and the wife's ideal mate in occupational expectations was from zero to 41 for adjusted and from zero to 52 for unadjusted couples. The latter has a 29 per cent wider range of disparities. The mean for adjusted couples is 12.78, while it is 19.08 for unadjusted ones. This is a difference between means which is significant at the .05 level (t score is -2.5). Insofar as a generalization can be made, this finding would indicate that frustrations involved in conflict in role ex pectations are related to a lower general level of marital adjustment. The correlation between disparity scores concerning spouses' expectations for the husband's occupational role and marital adjustment is -.25, which indicates a definite, though low, relationship. The F score for this correlation is 6.53, which is significant at the .05 level. The partial correlation is again stronger for unadjusted (-.12) than for adjusted (-.01) couples, but both are negligible relation ships. However, both the t test and the correlation for all couples are significant. The hypothesis is accepted. 221 Hypothesis IV is: the greater the incongruence be tween the wife's expectation of her occupational role and the expectation of the husband of his wife's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is based upon the same theoretical considerations as those in Hypothesis III. Differences in expectations between indi viduals involve role conflict which affects their interper sonal relationships. In this hypothesis the focus is on differences in expectations for the wife. The range of in congruences between the wife's ideal self and the husband's ideal mate in occupational expectations is from zero to 40 for adjusted and from one to 62 for unadjusted couples. The range is 54 per cent wider for the latter as compared to the former. The mean discrepancy score is 9.30 for adjusted couples, while it is 17.88 for unadjusted ones. The mean difference is 92 per cent greater for the latter compared to the former. This is a difference between means which is significant at the .01 level of confidence (t score is -3.9). There is a correlation of -.34 between the couples' disparity score concerning occupational expectations for the wife and marital adjustment, which represents a low, moder ate relationship. The F score for a -.34 correlation is 222 12.81, which is significant at the .01 level. This is a stronger association for wives (-.34) than for the husbands (-.29), who were tested in Hypothesis III. However, the correlation in the partials is +.05 for adjusted women and -.08 for unadjusted ones, neither of which are significant relationships. Conflict in role expectations is related to a generally low level of adjustment in interpersonal rela tionships insofar as can be generalized from the association found for all couples. Both the t score for differences be tween means of adjusted and unadjusted couples, and the cor relation between disparity in expectations and marital ad justment are significant. The hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis V is: the greater the incongruence be tween the husband's perception of his wife's occupational role and his expectation of his wife's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is found ed on the theoretical consideration that when another per son's behavior differs from an individual's expectation for him, there will be role conflicts with lower general adjust ment levels in their interpersonal behavior. The range of differences in scores between a husband's perception of his wife's occupational behavior and his expectation for his wife was from one to 47 for adjusted couples, while it was 223 from zero to 75 for unadjusted couples. The range for the latter is 81 per cent wider than that of the former. The mean discrepancy score is 15.82 for the adjusted sample and 23.16 for the unadjusted one. This is a difference between means which is significant at the .05 level of confidence (t score is -2.4). The correlation between the husband's disparity between perception and expectation for his wife is -.22, which represents a low but definite relationship. The F score for a -.22 correlation is 4,99, which is significant at the .05 level. The partial correlations for adjusted (-.01) and unadjusted (-.01) couples are negligible. Inso far as can be generalized from this finding, a husband's conflict between how he expects his wife to act in her occu pational role and how she actually does behave is associated with a generally low level of adjustment between them. The t score representing differences in means between happy and unhappy couples, as well as the correlation for the dispar ity between husbands' perceptions and expectations for wives' occupational role and marital adjustment, are sig nificant. The hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis VI is: the greater the incongruence be tween the wife's perception and her expectation of her 224 husband's occupational role, the lower the marital adjust ment. This hypothesis is founded on the same assumptions as in Hypothesis V, namely that differences between perceptions and expectations for another person are associated with role conflict and this affects the interpersonal relationships of individuals. In this hypothesis, the focus is on the wife's conflict in regard to her husband. The range of differences in scores is from zero to 77 for adjusted couples and from two to 99 for unadjusted ones. The range is 28 per cent wider for the latter as compared to the former. These ranges are both considerably larger than those in Hypothesis V, in which the husband's disparity for the wife was tested. The mean discrepancy is 17.52 for adjusted and 29.62 for unadjusted couples. This is a difference between means which is significant at the .01 level (t score is -2.7). The correlation for the discrepancy between the wife's perception and her expectations for her husband's occupational role as it is related to marital adjustment is -.40, which represents a moderately substantial relation ship. The F score for this correlation is 18.67, which is significant at the .01 level of confidence. Both partials show significant correlations, too, with a -.37 for adjusted couples as compared to a -.46 for unadjusted ones. One can 225 generalize from these findings that the role conflict of wives over the differences between their expectations and their husbands' actual occupational role behavior is associ ated with a generally lower level of adjustment for all wives. Both the t test of difference between means and the correlation are significant. The hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis VII is: the greater the incongruence between the husband's perception and his expectation of his own occupational role., the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is based on the theoretical consideration that an individual's intrapersonal role conflict is associ ated with lower adjustment in interpersonal relationships. The range of disparities for husbands' differences between occupational role behavior and expectations is from one to 80 for adjusted husbands and from two to 64 for unadjusted ones. It is a 41 per cent wider range for the former as compared to the latter and is the only occupational dispar ity tested in this study in which the range was greater for adjusted couples. The mean discrepancy is 21.24 for adjust ed and 24.58 for unadjusted couples. This is not a signifi cant difference between means (the t score is only -0.9). One clue for this lack of significance in difference is that the adjusted husbands are higher in their total score on the 226 occupational role inventory self test. The mean for ad justed husbands on this test is 132.06, while it is 119.18 for unadjusted husbands. This is a significant statistical difference between means at the .001 level (t score is +3.9). But adjusted husbands also have much higher expectations for themselves. The mean total score on the total occupational inventory is 146.46 as compared to 135.22 for unadjusted husbands. This difference between means is significant at the .01 level (the t score is +3.3). The correlation for the disparity between husbands' perceptions and expectations for themselves as it is related to marital adjustment is -.20, which represents a low order of relationship. The F test for this correlation is 4.08, which is the lowest acceptable significance at the .05 lev el. Thus, it represents a borderline relationship in regard to its significance. The partial correlations shed some light on the problems here, for the partial for unadjusted couples is -.22, which is not a significant association, but it is -.34 for adjusted couples. Thus, the relationship is much stronger between greater disparity and lower marital adjustment among the sample whose marital adjustment scores are significantly higher. This would tend to weaken the association between marital adjustment and greater dispar 227 ity. Since the association is of borderline significance, as well as the evidence of the partials showing relation ships in the opposite of the hypothesized direction, and the t score is not significant, the hypothesis is rejected. As long as any doubt exists, there is less chance of error in rejecting it. Hypothesis VIII is: the greater the incongruence between the wife1s perception and her expectation of her occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is based on the same theoretical considerations as in Hypothesis VII, namely that intrapersonal conflict involving differences in an individual's perception and ex pectation for himself are associated with relatively lower adjustment in his interpersonal relationships. In this hypothesis the wife's role disrepancies are being analyzed. The range in disparities between the wife's expectations and perceptions of her occupational role is from one to 45 for adjusted wives and from one to 74 for unadjusted ones. This is a 65 per cent wider range for the latter as compared to the former. The mean discrepancy is 14.46 for happy and 20.64 for unhappy wives. This is a difference between means which is significant at the .05 level (t score is -2.1). The correlation for the disparity between wives' 228 perceptions and expectations for their occupational role is -.26, which represents a low but definite relationship. The F test for this correlation is 7.11, which is significant at the .01 level. Insofar as can be generalized from these findings, role conflict between wives' expectations for themselves and their actual behavior is associated with a lower general level of marital adjustment. The partial cor relation for unadjusted couples is -.28, which is about the same as in the total, but the partial for adjusted wives is +.10. This is not a significant relationship, but it may provide a clue for further research. If greater disparity in occupational role expectations and behavior for wives is associated with higher marital adjustment, perhaps they are finding their role satisfactions in other roles, such as the marital role. Or perhaps the occupational role is a second ary one for these women. Both the t test of differences between means and the correlation are significant. This hypothesis is accepted. Thus, with the single exception of Hypothesis VII concerning husbands' perceptions and expectations of their own occupational role in relationship to marital adjustment (which was rejected), all of the other hypotheses analyzing disparities between various occupational roles and marital 229 adjustment are accepted. Therefore, the differences between mates in percep tion of occupational behavior of both spouses is signifi cantly associated with marital adjustment. The disparity between mates in occupational expectations for both spouses is significantly related to marital adjustment. The incon gruence between the husband's perception and expectations for his wife's occupational role is significantly associated with marital adjustment, as is the difference between the wife's perception and expectation of her husband's occupa tional role. The disparity between a wife's perception and expectation for her own occupational role is significantly associated with marital adjustment, but the incongruence between a husband's perception and expectation for his own occupational role is not significantly related to marital adjustment. CHAPTER V FINDINGS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THREE VARIABLES: OCCUPATIONAL ROLE, MARITAL ROLE AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT In this chapter, the findings are presented about the relationships of occupational and marital roles in their association with marital adjustment. The major hypothesis is: the greater the incongruence between perceptions and expectations of occupational roles, when they are associated with relatively greater disparity between perceptions and expectations of marital roles, the lower the marital adjust ment. In the previous chapter, occupational role dispari ties and marital adjustment were analyzed. Table 11 com pared the range of scores, the mean disparities, and the levels of significance of t tests for the discrepancies in occupational role. Table 12 presented the correlations be tween various occupational role disparities and marital adjustment. In this chapter, Table 13 is a presentation of 230 TABLE 13 COMPARISONS OF ADJUSTED-UNADJUSTED COUPLES IN THEIR VARIOUS MARITAL ROLE DISPARITIES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT Score Range of Disparity Mean Difference t score3 Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted DMHSWHb 3-33 1-50 12.00 18.20 -3.4(.01) DMWSHWC 2-42 3-42 12.46 19.42 -4.4(.01) DMHISWIMd 0-28 2-30 9.26 11.30 -1.6 (NS). DMWlSHIMe 2-23 1-26 5.19 5.63 -2 .8(.01) DMHWHIMf 0-34 3-42 10.44 18.30 -4.1(.01) DMWHWIMg 0-47 1-52 11.12 23.42 -6.2(.01) DMHSHISh 2-36 2-46 13.52 20.40 -3 .5(.01) DMWSWIS1 1-39 6-56 15 .12 21.68 -3.3(.01) aThe levels of significance are in parentheses after the t score. NS means not significant. bDMHSWH is the disparity score between the husband's self test and the wife's test on her husband on the Interpersonal Check List. i t u> TABUS 13— Continued CDMWSHW is the disparity between the wife's self test and the husband's test on his wife on the Interpersonal Check List. ^DMHISWIM is the disparity between the husband's ideal self and the wife's test on her ideal mate on the Interpersonal Check List. eDMWISHIM is the disparity between the wife's ideal self and the husband's test on his ideal mate on the Interpersonal Check List. ^DMHWIM is the disparity between the husband's test on his wife and his ideal mate on the Interpersonal Check List. 9DMWHWIM is the disparity between the wife's test on her husband and her ideal mate on the Interpersonal Check List. ^DMHSHIS is the disparity between the husband's perceived self test and his ideal self on the Interpersonal Check List. 1DMWSWIS is the disparity between the wife's perceived self test and her ideal self on the Interpersonal Check List. 232 233 the range of scores, the mean disparities, and the levels of significance of t tests for various discrepancies in marital roles. Table 14 is a comparison of the correlations between various marital role disparities and marital adjustment. The range of disparity scores tends to be less, as can be seen in Table 13, for adjusted compared to unadjusted with one exception, the disparity between the wife's self test and the husband's test on his wife. The range is not as wide in marital role discrepancies as it was in the occupa tion role differences. The t tests for differences between means in the various marital role disparities are signifi cant with one exception. The -1.6 score in the difference between the husband's ideal self and the wife's test on her ideal mate is not significant. Although the .05 level of confidence was accepted for this study, all of the other t tests are significant at the .01 level. The various dis crepancy scores with the range of differences, the mean dis parities, the t scores, and the significances for each in congruence are presented in Table 13 above. In Table 14 there is a presentation of the correla tions between the various marital role discrepancies and marital adjustment. There is a total correlation for all couples, as well as partial correlations for adjusted and 234 TAB HE 14 COMPARISONS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIOUS MARITAL ROLE DISCREPANCIES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT Role Disparity3 r for Adjusted Couples r for Unadjusted Couples r for All Couples DMHSWH - .05 -.25 -.36 DMWSHW 0 OJ • 1 -.003 -.39 DMHISWIM - . 1 0 + . 1 2 OJ H • 1 DMWISHIM -.04 + . 1 0 - . 2 2 DMHWHIM -.06 -.16 -.39 DMWHWIM -.40 in OJ • l -.58 DMHSHIS - . 33 - . 2 , 1 0 1 DMWSWIS -.17 -.14 -.34 aThe keys to interpreting the symbols for the vari ous role disparities are the same as they were in Table 13 on pp. 231-232 above. 235 unadjusted couples . An r correlation for all couples must be .20 or higher to be significant. All correlations for all couples are negative, that is, the greater disparity is associated with lower marital adjustment. All are significant correla tions with the exception of the -.12 for the disparity be tween the husband's ideal self and the wife's ideal mate. A partial correlation for either adjusted or unad justed couples must be .29 or higher in order to be signifi cant. There are no significant partial correlations for unadjusted couples. For adjusted couples, there are two significant partials. There is a -.40 partial for the rela tionship between the disparity between the wife's perception of her husband and her ideal mate. This is also the strong est relationship (-.58) for all couples. There is also a partial of -.33 for the association between the disparity between the husband's perceived self and his ideal self. For the same role disparity in the total for all couples, this represents the second highest correlation (-.40). In Table 15, there is a presentation of the t tests for differences between means for all role disparities in both occupational and marital roles. The disparity between the husband's ideal self and the wife's test on her ideal TABLE 15 t SCORES FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEANS BETWEEN ADJUSTED AND UNADJUSTED COUPLES ON THE MARITAL AND OCCUPATIONAL ROLES Disparity t on Occupational Role t on Marital Role Level of Significance Occupational Role Marital Role HSWHa -3.5 -3.4 .01 .01 WSHWb -4.6 -4.4 .01 .01 HISWIMC -2.5 -1.6 .05 NS WISHIMd -3.9 -2.8 .01 .01 HWHIMe -2.4 -4.1 .05 .01 WHWIMf -2.7 -6.2 .01 .01 HSHIS^ -0.9 -3.5 NS .01 WSWISh -2.1 -3.3 . 05 .01 aHSWH is the disparity between the husband's self test and the wife's test on her husband. ^WSHW is the disparity between the wife's self test and the husband's test on his wife. 236 TABLE 15— Continued CHISWIM is the disparity between the husband's ideal self and the wife's ideal mate. ^WISHIM is the disparity between the wife's ideal self and the husband's ideal mate. eHWHIM is the disparity between the husband's perception of his wife and the hus band's ideal mate. ^WHWIM is the disparity between the wife's perception of her husband and the wife's ideal mate. ^HSHIS is the disparity between the husband's perception of his own behavior and his ideal self. ^WSWIS is the disparity between the wife's perception of her own behavior and her ideal self. 237 238 mate does not have a significant difference between the means of adjusted and unadjusted couples for the marital role, but it does have for the occupational role. The dis parity between the husband's perception of his behavior and his ideal or expectation for himself does not have a sig nificant difference between means for the occupational role, but it does have for the marital role. Allowing for these two exceptions, the same role disparity in both occupational and marital roles have significant differences between the means of the adjusted and unadjusted couples. In Table 16 there is a presentation of the product moment correlations for both marital and occupational roles. F test scores and levels of significance are also given. It may be observed in Table 16 that all of the cor relations are significant for the relationships between marital role and marital adjustment with one exception. The association between HISWIM (husband's expectations for him self and the wife’s expectation for her husband) and marital adjustment is not a significant one. This is in agreement with the t score for difference between means in Table 15. All of the occupational role disparities have significant relationships with marital adjustment. However, the associ ation between HSHIS (husband's perception of his own TABLE 16 A COMPARISON OP r CORRELATIONS, F SCORES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR VARIOUS OCCUPATIONAL AND MARITAL ROLE DISPARITIES IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO MARITAL ADJUSTMENT Disparitya r for Marital Role r for Occupational Role F Score for Marital Ro le F Score for Occupational Role Level of Significance Marital Occupational HSWH -.36 -.39 14.59 17 .58 .01 .01 WSHW -.39 -.47 17.58 27 .79 .01 .01 HISWIM -.12 -.25 1.43 6 .53 NS .05 WISHIM -.22 -.34 4.99 12.81 .05 .01 HWHIM -.39 -.22 17.58 4.99 .01 .05 WHWIM -.58 -.40 49.68 18.67 .01 .01 HSHIS -.40 -.20 18.67 4.08 .01 .05 WSWIS -.34 -.26 12.81 7.11 .01 .01 aThe keys to the various role disparities are the same as in Table 15, pp. 236- 237. 239 240 behavior as it differs from his expectation for himself) and marital adjustment is of borderline significance, for it is the lowest possible acceptable F score. This is in agree ment with the t score for the difference between means in which these disparities were the only ones not significant. Allowing for these two exceptions (the t score and correla tions are in basic agreement on all disparities), all of the other disparities have significant relationships to marital adjustment for both the marital and occupational roles. It will also be noted in Table 16 that for interpersonal dis parities (the first four) the correlations for occupational role and marital adjustment are the stronger ones, but for intrapersonal disparities (the second four) the associations between marital role and marital adjustment are the strong er . In Tables 15 and 16, the trends show that the in dependent relationships of marital role to marital adjust ment and occupational role to marital adjustment vary to gether and in the same direction. But does the relationship of marital role to the other two variables influence the relationship of occupational role and marital adjustment or does the association of occupational role to the other two variables affect the association of marital role and marital 241 adjustment. Partial correlation is a statistical technique in which the values of one variable can be controlled in the analysis of the relationship of one of the independent vari ables to the dependent one. Thus, the relationship of an independent variable, occupational role, to a dependent one, marital adjustment, can be analyzed by controlling for the other independent variable, marital role. Occupational role can be controlled in analyzing the relationship of marital role and marital adjustment. In Table 17, there is a pres entation of the partial correlations for marital role and marital adjustment, as well as for occupational role and marital adjustment, for adjusted couples, for unadjusted couples, and for all couples. In a comparison of the product moment correlations between occupational roles and marital adjustment in Table 16 with the corresponding partials for their relationships in Table 17, it will be seen that the partial correlations (which control for marital role) are somewhat lower or weak er than the product moment relationships. The product mo ment correlation for all couples for the relationship be tween HSHIS (the disparity between the husband's perception of himself and his expectation for himself) in the occupa tional role and marital adjustment was of borderline TABLE 17 COMPARISON OF PARTIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL ROLE AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT WITH MARITAL ROLE CONTROLLED, BETWEEN MARITAL ROLE AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT WITH OCCUPATIONAL ROLE CONTROLLED, FOR ADJUSTED AND UNADJUSTED COUPLES, AND FOR ALL COUPLES Disparitya Occupational Role— Marital Adjustment Marital Role— Marital Adjustment Adjusted Unadjusted All Couples Adjusted Unadjusted All Couples HSWH + .03 -.34 -.33 -.15 -.15 -.29 WSHW -.06 -.29 -.49 -.22 + .006 -.38 HISWIM -.01 -.17 -.24 -.10 + .17 -.07 WISWIM + .05 -.07 -.35 -.03 + .09 -.24 HWHIM -.01 + .02 -.15 -.06 -.16 -.36 WHWIM -.24 -.45 -.28 -.28 -.23 -.52 HSHIS -.25 -.22 -.14 -.24 -.22 -.38 WSWIS + .22 -.33 -.18 -.14 -.10 -.29 aThe key for disparities is the same as in Table 15 (pp. 236-237). 242 243 significance. When marital role is controlled in the par tials, this relationship is only -.14 and definitely not significant. Two other correlations, the one between HWHIM (disparity between husband's perception of his wife and his expectation for his wife) and marital adjustment (-.15), as well as the one between WSWIS (disparity between the wife's perception of herself and her expectations for herself) and marital adjustment (-.18) are also not significant. The other partial correlations for all couples between occupa tional role and marital adjustment are significant ones. All of the correlations between marital role dis parities and marital adjustment are significant ones with one exception. This is the same disparity as has been noted in the product moment correlations in Tables 15 and 16, the correlation between the marital role disparity (between the husband's expectation for himself and the wife's expectation for her husband) and marital adjustment. In Table 17, it is only -.07, which is a negligible relationship. It will be noticed in comparing Table 17 for the partial correlations for all couples with the product moment correlations in Table 16 that the partials again tend to be somewhat lower. The lower partials for both the marital role association with marital adjustment and the occupational role relation- 244 ship with marital adjustment is evidence that the third variable is of some influence in the relationship of the other two. Controlling for it lowers the relationship in the other two. In Table 18, there is a presentation of the levels of significance for the various partial correlations in Table 17, The levels of significance are used with the cor relations in Table 17 in the general discussion of role dis parity and marital adjustment (just below Table 17). Before the hypotheses can be analyzed, there is need also of a correlation between marital and occupational roles, for the hypotheses state that the greater the incon gruence between perceptions and expectations of occupational roles, when they are associated with relatively greater dis parity between perceptions and expectations of marital roles, the lower the marital adjustment. It is necessary to compare the correlation of the disparity in occupational roles with the incongruence in marital roles. In Table 19, there is a presentation of these correlations for adjusted and unadjusted couples, as well as for all couples. It will be observed in Table 19 that three of the correlations for all couples are not significant. They are the associations between the occupational and marital roles TABLE 18 LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE3 FOR THE PARTIALS IN TABLE 17 BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL ROLE DISPARITIES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT WITH MARITAL ROLE CONTROLLED, BETWEEN MARITAL ROLE AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT WITH OCCUPATIONAL ROLE CONTROLLED, FOR ADJUSTED AND UNADJUSTED COUPLES, AND FOR ALL COUPLES Disparity' * 3 Occupational Role— Marital Adjustment Marital Role— Marital Adjustment Adjusted Unadjusted All Couples Adjusted Unadjusted All Couples HSWH NSC .05 .01 NS NS .01 F 6 .14 F 11.85 F 8.91 WSHW NS .05 .01 NS NS .01 F 4.32 F 30.65 F 16.37 HISWIM NS NS .05 F 5.93 NS NS NS WISHIM NS NS .01 F 13.31 NS NS F . 05 5.93 HWHIM NS NS NS NS NS F .01 14.44 245 TABLE 18— Continued Disparity Occupational Role— Marital Adjustment Marital Role— Marital Adjustment Adjusted Unadjusted All Couples Adjusted Unadjusted All Couples WHWIM NS .01 F 11.93 .01 F 8.25 NS NS .01 F 35.95 HSHIS NS NS NS NS NS .01 F 16.37 WSWIS NS .05 F 5.74 NS NS NS .01 F 8.91 aThe F score is placed immediately below the level of significance in all cases. ■^The key for the various disparities is the same as in Table 15 (pp. 236-237). CNS stands for not significant. ro < T > TABLE 19 COMPARISONS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL ROLE DISPARITIES AND THE CORRESPONDING MARITAL ROLE DISPARITIES FOR ADJUSTED, UNADJUSTED, AND ALL COUPLES Disparity Adjusted Couples Unadjusted Couples All Couples HSWHa -.17(NS)1 +.30(.05) +.26(.05) WSHWb -.34(.05) +.03(NS) +.14(NS) HISWIMC -.02(NS) +.32(.05) +.23(.05) WISHIMd 17(NS) -.09(NS) -.02(NS) HWHIMe -.005(NS) + . 20(NS) +.22(.05) WHWIMf +.44(.01) +.10(NS) +.31(.01) HSHIS1 ? +.36(.01) + . 02 (NS ) +.18{NS) WSWISh +.41(.01) + . 15(NS ) +.29(.01) aHSWH is the disparity between the husband's perception of himself and the wife's perception of her husband on both the occupational and marital roles tests. kwSHW is the disparity between the wife’s perception of herself and the husband's perception of his wife on both the occupational and marital roles tests. ro •-.l TABLE 19— Continued CHISWIM is the disparity between the husband's expectation for himself and the wife's expectations for her husband on both the occupational and marital roles tests. ^WISHIM is the disparity between the wife's expectations for herself and the hus band's expectation for his wife on both the occupational and marital roles tests. eHWHIM is the disparity between the husband's perceptions of his wife and his ex pectations for his wife on both the occupational and marital roles tests. ^WHWIM is the disparity between the wife's perceptions of her husband and her ex pectations for him on both the occupational and marital roles tests. 9HSHIS is the disparity between the husband's perceptions and expectations of his own role on both the occupational and marital roles tests. ^WSWIS is the disparity between the wife's perceptions and expectations of her own role on both the occupational and marital roles tests. 1The levels of significance are in parentheses immediately following the correla tions . 248 249 between each WSHW (the disparity between the wife's percep tion of herself and the husband's perception of his wife), between each WISHIM (the disparity between the wife's expec tation for herself and the husband's expectation for his wife), and between each HSHIS (the disparity between the husband's perception and expectation of his own behavior). The other disparities between occupational and marital roles are significant in their associations. Hypothesis IX is: the greater the incongruence be tween the husband's perception of his occupational role and the perception of the wife of her husband's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater dispar ity between the husband's perception of his marital role and the wife's perception of her husband's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is based on the theoretical consideration that incongruences in role perception are associated with difficulties in interpersonal relationships. The correlation between disparities in occu pational role perceptions and marital adjustment for all couples is -.33, which is a low, moderate relationship. The F score for this correlation is 11.85, which is significant at the .01 level. The direction for this association is largely in unadjusted couples for the correlation here is 250 -.34, which is significant at the .05 level, while for ad justed couples it is a negligible +.03. The correlation between disparities in marital role perceptions and marital adjustment for all couples is -.29, which is a low but definite relationship. The F score is 8.91, which is significant at the .01 level. Both the par tial correlations for adjusted and unadjusted couples are -.15, which is not significant. Both associations in mari tal and occupational roles as related to marital adjustment are negative and close to the same strength. The association between marital and occupational role discrepancies is + .26, which is a low but definite relationship. The F score for this correlation is 8.91, which is significant at the .01 level. The partial corre lations supply additional data. The direction of this asso ciation comes more from unadjusted couples in which the association is +.30, which is significant at the .05 level. Adjusted couples have a correlation of -.17, which is low and not significant, but it is also in the opposite direc tion of the hypothesis and the other correlations. For ad justed couples, lower disparity in the marital role is asso ciated with greater disparity in the occupational role, but not at a significant level. 251 There is a significant relationship between occupa tional role disparity and marital adjustment, between mari tal role disparity and marital adjustment, and between occu pational and marital role disparities for all couples. There is a stronger basis for the association in unadjusted couples as compared to adjusted ones. The hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis X is: the greater the incongruence be tween the wife's perception of her occupational role and the perception of the husband of his wife's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity be tween the husband's perception of his wife's marital role and the wife's perception of her marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is based on the same assumptions as Hypothesis IX. However, here the focus is on disparities in role perception of the wife as they are re lated to difficulties in interpersonal relationships. The correlation between disparities in occupational role per ceptions of the wife's role and marital adjustment is -.49, which is a substantial, moderate relationship. The F test score for this correlation is 30.65, which is significant at the .01 level of confidence. Again, the greater strength in this relationship is in unadjusted couples, for the 252 partial for them is 29, which is significant at the .05 level, as compared to a negligible association of -.06 for adjusted couples. The correlation in disparities between the spouses' perception of the wife's marital role and marital adjustment is -.38, which is a low, moderate relationship. The F score is 16.37 for this correlation, which represents an .01 level of confidence. The partials are reversed for marital roles as compared to occupational ones, for the greater strength in the association is in adjusted couples with a correlation of -.22, as compared to one of +.006 for the unadjusted. Both occupational and marital role disparity are signifi cantly related to marital adjustment. However, the correlation for the disparity between occupational and marital roles is only +.14 for all couples and this is not a significant relationship. Apparently, the discrepancies in the spouses' perception of the wife's occu pational and marital role behavior are each independently related to marital adjustment, but do not—have a dependable association with one another. There is a clue in the par tials that would suggest a new hypothesis to be tested. The evidence is that there is a negligible positive relationship of +.03 for unadjusted couples, but a low, moderate negative 253 relationship for adjusted couples of -.34. The F for this correlation is 6.08, which is significant at the .05 level of confidence. This means for adjusted couples that low disparity in the marital role is associated with greater disparity in the occupational role at a significant level. Does this mean that agreement or satisfaction in one role compensates for dissatisfaction in others? Does it mean that for adjusted wives less disparity in marital role sug gests that the marital role is primary and occupational role secondary? Do adjusted wives threaten their husband's occu pational roles least? These questions would have to be tested in further research. There is a significant relationship between occupa tional role disparity and marital adjustment, between mari tal role disparity and marital adjustment, but not between occupational and marital role disparities. The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis XI is: the greater the incongruence between the husband's expectation of his occupational role and the expectation of the wife of her husband's occupa tional role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the husband's expectation of his marital role and expectation of the wife of her husband's marital 254 role, the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is based on the theoretical consideration that discrepancies in expectations between persons are associated with interper sonal difficulties between them. The focus in this hypothe sis is upon differences in expectations in the husband's roles. The correlation for incongruences in occupational role expectations for husbands is -.24 for all couples, which is a low but definite relationship. The F test for a -.24 association is 5.93, which is significant at the .05 level. Neither the partial correlation for adjusted (-.01), nor the partial for unadjusted (-.17) couples is signifi cant, but the association is much stronger for the latter. The correlation for discrepancies in marital role expectations for husbands is -.07, which is in the hypothe sized direction, but is not significant. The evidence in the partials suggests that the lack of relationship may be influenced by the association for adjusted couples being in the hypothesized direction with a slight relationship of -10, while unadjusted couples have a correlation in the opposite direction of +.17. This weakens the association for all couples. The correlation between occupational and marital 255 role discrepancies is +.23, which is a low but definite relationship. The F score is 5.42, which is significant at the .05 level of confidence. The partials indicate that this relationship is much stronger for unadjusted couples, whose correlation is +.32. The F score for this low, moder ate relationship is 5.37, which is significant at the .05 level. On the other hand, the partial correlation for ad justed couples is a negligible -.02. There is a significant relationship between dispari ties in occupational role expectations and marital adjust ment, between occupational and marital role disparities, but not between disparities in marital role expectations and marital adjustment. The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis XII is: the greater the incongruence between the wife's expectation of her occupational role and the expectation of the husband of his wife's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater dispar ity between the wife's expectation of her marital role and the expectation of the husband of his wife's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. As in Hypothesis XI, this hypothesis is based on the theoretical consideration that discrepancies in expectations between individuals are asso ciated with interpersonal difficulties. The focus here is 256 on incongruences in expectations for the wife. The correlation for disparities in spouses' occupa tional role expectations as they are related to marital ad justment is -.35 for all couples, which is a low, moderate relationship. The F test score is 13.31 and it is signifi cant at the .01 level. The evidence in both partials is negligible. The correlation for disparities between spouses' marital role expectations and marital adjustment is -.24, which is a low but definite relationship. The F test score is 5.93, which is significant at the .05 level. The rela tionships in the partials for adjusted and unadjusted cou ples is very slight and in opposite directions. The correlation between occupational and marital role discrepancies is a negligible one of -.02. The rela tionship in both the partials for adjusted (-.17) and unad justed (-.09) couples is in the hypothesized direction, but is not significant. The evidence here supports an indepen dent relationship to marital adjustment for both occupa tional and marital role discrepancies, but not a dependable association with each other. The partials in both marital and occupational role disparities as each is related to marital adjustment have helpful evidence. Although the 257 relationships are all slight, the partial correlation be tween occupational role disparities and marital adjustment is +.05 for adjusted and -.07 for unadjusted couples. In marital role discrepancies as related to marital adjustment the relationship is reversed, with a partial correlation of -.03 for adjusted couples and +.09 for unadjusted ones. The reversed directions of the associations in the partials weaken the correlation between occupational and marital role discrepancies. There is a significant relationship between discrep ancies in occupational role expectancies and marital adjust ment, between incongruences in marital role expectancies and marital adjustment, but not between occupational and marital role discrepancies. The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis XIII is: the greater the incongruence between the husband's perception of his wife's occupational role and his expectation of his wife's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity be-- tween the husband's perception of his wife's marital role and his expectation of his wife's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that intrapersonal differences between expecta tions and perceived behavior are associated with difficul- 258 ties in interpersonal relationships. The correlation for the disparities between the hus band's role expectations for his wife and his perception of her behavior as it is related to marital adjustment is -.15 for all couples, which is a slight relationship in the j - i * hypothesized direction, but it is not a significant one. The relationship in both the partial for adjusted (-.01) and for unadjusted (+.02) couples is negligible. There may be some confusion about occupational role expectations for working wives that is reflected here. In spite of trends toward working wives, as well as new values alongside of older traditions, there may be uncertainty as to what occu pational norms ought to be for women. This might be a fruitful area for study. The correlations for disparities between a husband's expectations and perceptions of his wife's marital role as it is related to marital adjustment is -.36 for all couples, which is a low, moderate relationship. The P score is 14.44, which is significant at the .01 level. This rela tionship is stronger in the unadjusted partial (-.16) than it is in the adjusted one (-.06). The association between occupational and marital role disparity is +.22, which indicates that greater 259 disparity in each role is related. This is a low but defi nite relationship with an F score of 4.93, which is signifi cant at the .05 level. The relationship is much stronger for unadjusted couples (+.22) than it is for adjusted ones (-.005). Both marital and occupational role disparity, as well as marital role disparity and marital adjustment are significantly associated. However, although occupational role and marital adjustment are slightly related and in the hypothesized direction, it is not a significant association. The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis XIV is: the greater the incongruence between the wife's perception of and her expectation for her husband's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the wife's perception of and her expectation for her husband's marital role., the lower the marital adjustment. The basic idea being tested is the same as in Hypothesis XIII, namely that intrapersonal differences between perception and expectation are associ ated with difficulties in interpersonal relationships. Here the focus is on the disparity between the wife's expecta tions of and perceptions of her husband's roles. The correlation for the disparity between wives' 260 expectations and perceptions of their husbands' work role in its relationship to marital adjustment is -.28, which is a low but definite relationship. The F score is 8.25, which is significant at the .01 level. In the partial correla tions, this association is much stronger for unadjusted couples, where there is a substantial, moderate relationship of -.45. This is significant at the .01 level. The asso ciation for adjusted couples is also in the hypothesized direction, but is a weaker one of -.24. The correlation for the disparity between a wife's expectation and perception of her husband's marital role is -.52, which is a strong, moderate relationship. The F score is 35.95, which is significant at the .01 level of confi dence. Apparently, frustrations of wives owing to the dif ferences of their husbands' behavior from what they expected is associated with a lower general level of marital adjust ment. Both of the partial correlations for adjusted (-.28) and unadjusted (-.23) couples show low but definite rela tionships in the hypothesized direction. The correlation between occupational and marital role disparities is +.31, which shows that relatively great er disparity in each role is associated in a low, moderate way. The F score is 10.42, which is significant at the .01 261 level. The partial correlation for unadjusted couples is a slight one (+.10), but there is a substantial, moderate relationship for adjusted ones (+.44). There are significant correlations between occupa tional role disparities and marital adjustment, between marital role incongruences and marital adjustment, and be tween occupational and marital role disparities. The hy pothesis is accepted. Hypothesis XV is: the greater the incongruence be tween the husband's perception and his expectation of his own occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the husband's perception and ex pectation of his own marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. This is based on the theoretical consideration that intrapersonal disparities between perceptions and ex pectations for one's own role are associated with inter personal problems. The correlation for occupational role disparity be tween a person's perception and his expectation of his occu pational role behavior as it is related to marital adjust ment is -.14. This is a low relationship, which is in the hypothesized direction, but it. is not a significant one. Both of the partials show somewhat stronger relationships 262 of -.25 for adjusted couples and -.22 for unadjusted ones, but these are also not significant. The correlation for marital role disparity between the husband's perception of his marital role behavior and his expectations for himself as it is related to marital adjustment is -.38, which is a low, moderate relationship. The F score is 16.37, which is significant at the .01 level of confidence. In both of the partial correlations, the relationship is slight, but in the hypothesized direction (-.24 for adjusted and -.22 for unadjusted couples). The correlation between occupational and marital role disparities is +.18, which is in the hypothesized direction and does show a low relationship, but it is not a significant one. The association is weakened by the negli gible relationship (+.02) in the partials for unadjusted couples. Adjusted couples have a partial correlation of +.35, which is a low, moderate relationship and is signifi cant at the .01 level. Thus, the correlation between marital role disparity and marital adjustment is a significant one, but the asso ciation between occupational role disparity and marital adjustment, as well as between marital and occupational role discrepancies, are low relationships in the hypothesized 263 direction, but are not quite at an acceptable level of sig nificance. The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis XVI is: the greater the incongruence between the wife's perception and her expectation of her occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the wife's perception and her ex pectation of her marital role, the lower the marital adjust ment. This is based on the same theoretical consideration as was Hypothesis XV, namely that intrapersonal disparities between the perceptions and expectations for one's own roles are associated with relative lack of adjustment in inter personal relationships. Here the focus is on the differ ences between the wife's perceptions and expectations of her own roles. The correlation for disparities between wives' per ceptions of their own behavior and expectations'for them selves in their occupational roles as related to marital adjustment is -.18. This is a low correlation and in the hypothesized direction, but it is not significant. Evidence from the partials is helpful at this point. There is a low, moderate correlation for unadjusted wives in the partial of -.33, which is significant at the .05 level, and it is in the hypothesized direction also. But the partial for 264 adjusted wives is +.22, which is in the opposite of the direction hypothesized. This may be interpreted as the larger the disparity between expectations and behavior in -*v occupational roles the higher the general level of marital adjustment. It raises questions about women's occupational roles. Does a large disparity mean adjusted wives have secondary jobs, underestimate their jobs, or feel less com petition with their husbands' occupational roles? Does it reflect a feeling that adjusted wives regard their occupa tional roles as secondary to their marital ones? This pre sents a fruitful area for research in exploring questions such as these. However, the adjusted wives' correlation in a positive direction and the unadjusted in a negative one has the effect of weakening the association for all wives. The correlation for the disparities between wives' marital role perceptions and their expectations for them selves as related to marital adjustment is -.29. This is a low, moderate relationship. The F score is 8.91 for this correlation and it is significant at the .01 level. Both the partials for adjusted and unadjusted couples are low (-.14 for adjusted and -.10 for the unadjusted), but they are in the hypothesized direction. The correlation between occupational and marital 265 role disparities is +.29, which shows a low but definite relationship. The F score is 8.91 and this means that the correlation is significant at the .01 level. The relation ship is much stronger for adjusted couples, for their par tial correlation is +.41. This is a moderate relationship which is significant at the .01 level. The correlation for unadjusted couples is +.15, which represents a low relation ship. There is a significant relationship between wives' marital role disparity concerning perceived behavior over against expectations for themselves as it is related to marital adjustment, as well as between marital and occupa tional role disparities, but the relationship between occu pational role disparities concerning perceived behavior and expectations for themselves as related to marital adjustment is low and is not at an acceptable level of significance. The hypothesis is rejected. In this chapter, Hypothesis IX (disparities between husbands' perceived behavior and the wives' perceptions of their husbands' behavior), as well as Hypothesis XIV (dis parities between wives' perceptions and expectations for husbands as related to marital adjustment) were accepted. The rest of the hypotheses were rejected. In these rejected hypotheses, all but one had significant relation ships between two variables, but not in the case of the third factor. In Hypothesis X (wives' perceived behavior and husbands' perception of their wives' behavior) and Hypothesis XII (disparities between the spouses' expectation of wives), there was a significant relationship between marital role disparities and marital adjustment, as well as between occupational role disparities and marital adjust ment, but not between marital and occupational role dispari ties. The latter relationship had a low association in Hypothesis X and a negligible one in Hypothesis XII. In Hypothesis XIII (disparities between husbands' perception of and expectation for their wives' roles), there was a sig nificant relationship between marital role disparities and marital adjustment, as well as between marital and occupa tional role disparities, but not between occupational role disparities and marital adjustment. This was also true in Hypothesis XVI (disparities between wives' expectations and their own perceived behavior). In both cases the relation ship between occupational role disparities and marital ad justment was low and in the right direction, but not quite at an acceptable level of significance. In Hypothesis XI (spouses' expectations of the husbands' role), there was a 267 significant relationship between occupational role disparity and marital adjustment, as well as between marital and occu pational role disparities, but not between marital role dis parities and marital adjustment. In the association of the latter variables, the relationship was in the hypothesized direction, but was only a slight relationship. In Hypothe sis XV (disparity between husbands' perceptions of and ex pectations for their own roles), there was a significant relationship between marital role disparity and marital ad justment, but not one between occupational role disparity and marital adjustment, nor between marital and occupational role disparities. In the latter two relationships, neither of which was significant, the association was in the hypoth esized direction and there was a low relationship. Thus, the two significant relations among the three variables are both concerned with husbands. Differences in perceptions of the husband's behavior are related to diffi culties in marital relationships. Differences between a wife's expectations and her perceptions of her husband's behavior create conflicts for her that are associated with lack of marital adjustment. In most of the hypotheses in this chapter, the par tial correlations show a significant relationship between 268 two of the variables, but there is one relationship, which is in the hypothesized direction, but is an insignificant one. Differences in spouses' perceptions of the wife's be havior in occupational role as associated with marital role are not significantly related. Disparities in expectations for wives in comparing their marital and occupational roles are also not significant. Both of these roles are separate ly related to marital adjustment, but not to each other. In the case of disparities between expectations and perceptions of behavior for the roles of the wife, the in significant relationship is between occupational role and marital adjustment. This raises questions for future re search as to the factors which might be involved. Are ex pectations for women's occupational roles confused or in consistent? Is the occupational role secondary for adjusted women? Further research could test these questions. Inconsistencies are also shown both in interpersonal differences between spouses in regard to expectations for the husband and intrapersonal conflicts in the husband in regard to his own expectations (as these disparities are related to marital adjustment). The partials point out that (in these cases) marital role is positively related and occupational role is negatively related with marital 269 adjustment for unadjusted couples in interpersonal con flicts. In the intrapersonal conflicts, there is a positive relationship between occupational role and marital adjust ment of adjusted couples and a negative association for the unadjusted spouses. These data point out the inconsisten cies between marital and occupational role expectations. When the partial association between marital role dispari ties and marital adjustment for adjusted couples is positive (i.e., +.20) and the partial correlation for unadjusted couples is negative (i.e., -.20), the effect is to bring the correlation for all couples close to .00, because a +.20 and a -.20 correlation tend to cancel each other out. When both the partial correlations are in the same direction (-.20 for adjusted couples and -.20 for unadjusted spouses), the over all relationship for all couples tends to be stronger in that same direction (i.e., -.30). In the hypotheses in this chapter which were re jected, the relationships between two of the variables were significant, but the associations for the third relationship in the variables were not significant, although they were in the hypothesized direction. The correlations which were not significant were: the association of +.14 between occupa tional role disparity and the corresponding marital role incongruence (the wife's perception of herself and the hus band's perception of his wife in both roles) in Hypothesis X (see p. 252), the association of -.07 between marital role incongruence (the husband’s expectations for himself com pared to his wife's expectations of him) and marital adjust ment in Hypothesis XI (see p. 254), the association of -.02 between occupational role disparity and the corresponding marital role incongruence (the wife's expectation for her self compared to her husband’s expectation of her) in Hy pothesis XII (see p. 256), the association of -.15 between occupational role disparity and marital adjustment (hus band's perception of his wife compared to his expectation for his wife) in Hypothesis XIII (see p. 258), and the association of -.18 between marital role incongruence and marital adjustment (wife's perception of herself compared to her expectations for herself) in Hypothesis XVI (see p. 263). In Hypothesis XV one of the relationships was sig nificant, but the other two were not. The associations which were not significant were a relationship of -.14 be tween occupational role disparity (husband's perception of himself compared to his expectation for himself) and marital adjustment and a relationship of +.18 between the occupa tional role disparity and the corresponding marital role incongruence (husband's perception of himself compared to his expectation for himself) in Hypothesis XV (see pp. 261- 262). Although all of these relationships fall short of statistical significance, this does not mean that they should be overlooked in further research. These relation ships range from .11 to .18 (with two exceptions of -.07 and -.02) and a correlation of .20 is the lowest acceptable association at the .05 level. More effective control of other variables (personality or situational factors), re finement of the instruments, improvement of techniques in methodology and statistical procedures might be employed to increase sociological knowledge about the significant fac- •t tors in the relationship of these three variables, marital role, occupational role, and marital adjustment. CHAPTER VI FINDINGS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS IN COMMITMENT TO OCCUPATIONAL AND MARITAL ROLES In the analysis of the data thus far, the disparity scores for differences between roles have been employed. In the data in this chapter, there is use of the total scores in the tests of various occupational and marital roles. A comparison is made of the direction of high or low scores in each test of a role. Are high scores in occupational role associated with high or low scores in marital roles? Or is there any difference at all? These are the kinds of ques tions explored in the group of hypotheses analyzed in this chapter. Since disparities are not being employed, the Dorn and Lov axes of the marital role must be studied separately, for their total scores cannot be added together. The major hypothesis is: there is no relationship between commitment to occupational and marital roles. 272 273 In this chapter marital adjustment is not a variable stated in the hypotheses, but it is a part of the method ology, because the total scores are those of 50 adjusted and 50 unadjusted couples, who are statistically similar on social characteristics, but significantly different in re gard to marital adjustment. Partial correlations were cal culated for the relationship between marital and occupation al roles for both adjusted and unadjusted couples, as well as for all couples. In Table 20 there is a comparison of correlations between occupational and marital roles for husbands. For all husbands there are two significant relationships and they are both between marital role behavior (Dorn) and occu pational role behavior. There is a significant association between husbands' perception of their behavior in marital role (Dom) and occupational role, as well as between the perceived behavior of spouses. In Table 21 there is a comparison of correlations between occupational and marital roles for wives. For all wives the correlations between perceived behavior are sig nificant, but all the correlations between expectations are not significant. Hypothesis XVII is: there is no relationship in the 274 TABLE 20 A COMPARISON OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL AND MARITAL ROLES OF HUSBANDS3 Ro le Adjusted Husbands Unadjusted Husbands All Husbands ICLSDOCCSb +.095(NS) +.443(.01) +.413(.001) ICLSL0CCSc +.235(NS) -.269(NS) +.023(NS) ICLlSDOCCISd -.008(NS) +.lll(NS) +.115(NS) ICLISLOCCISe +.094(NS) +,019(NS) + . 171( NS ) ICLMATEDOCCMf +.341(.05) +.448(.01) +.422(.001) ICLMATEL0CCM9 +.239(NS) -.249(NS) +.112(NS) ICLIMDOCCIMh +.001(NS) +.087(NS) +.183(NS) ICLIMLOCCIM1 -.026(NS) -.043(NS) +.065(NS) aThe levels of significance are in parentheses after each correlation. NS means not significant. bICLSDOCCS is the perceived self for marital (Dorn) and occupational roles. cICLSL0CCS is the perceived self for marital (Lov) and occupational roles. dICLlSDOCCIS is expectations for self for marital (Dorn) and occupational roles, eICLISLOCCIS is expectations for self for marital (Lov) and occupational roles. fICLMATEDOCCM is perceptions of spouse for marital (Dom) and occupational roles. UlCLMATEDLOCCM is perceptions of spouse for marital (Lov) and occupational roles. i bICLIMDOCCIM is expectations of spouse for marital (Dom) and occupational roles. 1IC LIMDDCCIM is expectations of spouse for marital (Lov) and occupational roles. 275 TABLE 21 A COMPARISON OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL AND MARITAL ROLES OF WIVESa Ro le^5 Adjusted Wives Unadjusted Wives All Wives ICLSDOCCS +.391(.01) +.147(NS) +.277(.01) ICLSLOCCS +.266(NS) +.207(NS) +.255(.01) ICLISDOCCIS + .156(NS) +.048(NS) +.007(NS) ICLISLOCCIS +.339(.05) +.015(NS) +.188(NS) IC LMATEDOCCM +.398(.01) -.184(NS) +.316(.01) IC LMATE LOCCM +.225(NS) +.204(NS) +.371(.001) IC LIMDOCCIM +.029(NS) +.201(NS) +.142(NS) ICLIMLOCCIM +.058(NS) +.018(NS) +.132(NS) aThe levels of significance are in parentheses after each correlation. NS means not significant. ■^The key to the various roles is the same as that in Table 20. 276 husband's perceived commitment to his occupational and mari tal roles. This hypothesis is based on the theoretical idea that role behavior is relatively consistent both at work and at home. The correlation between marital (Dom) and occupa tional role behavior is +.413 for all husbands. The F score for this correlation is 20.76, which is significant at the .01 level. However, the partials show that the relationship is much stronger for unadjusted husbands, whose correlation is +.443 (this is significant at the .01 level). The rela tionship for adjusted husbands is +.095, which is a very low relationship. This does not mean that unadjusted husbands are more dominant in both roles. The mean total score on the occupational self test is 132.02 for adjusted and 115.74 for the unadjusted. The mean total score on the marital role (Dom) is 59.18 for adjusted and 53.22 for unadjusted husbands. Both of these roles show a much higher level of test score for adjusted husbands with a difference that is significant at the .001 level. The association in marital and occupational roles is much weaker, however, for adjusted husbands. Nevertheless, the relationship is positive for both samples and this is in the hypothesized direction. The association between Lov in the marital role and 277 occupational role behavior is +.023 for all husbands and this is a negligible relationship. In an examinationjof the partials it is observed that the relationship is inverse for the unadjusted and direct for adjusted men, but in both cases it is somewhat lower than a significant relationship. The correlation is +.235 for adjusted and -.269 for unad justed husbands. Insofar as can be generalized, this means that unadjusted husbands tend to show less affection in marital role behavior and are more absorbed in their work role satisfactions, whereas adjusted husbands are as warm and loving in marital role behavior as they are strong in occupational role behavior. The hypothesis is rejected for occupational role behavior and marital role behavior (Dom), for there is a significant relationship for all husbands. The hypothesis is accepted for occupational and marital (Lov) role be havior . Hypothesis XVIII is: there is no relationship in the wife's perceived commitment to her occupational and marital roles. This is based on theoretical foundations similar to those in Hypothesis XVII, namely that role be havior is relatively consistent both at home and at work. The correlation between marital (Dom) and occupa- tional role behavior as perceived by all wives is +.277, which is a low, moderate relationship. The F score for this association is 8.17, which is significant at the .01 level. However, the partials reverse what was found in the role behavior of men. The partial correlation between these two roles for adjusted women is +.391, which is a substantial moderate relationship that is significant at the .01 level. On the other hand, the partial for unadjusted women is +.147, which is a low association and not a significant one. In the total test scores, the mean for adjusted women is 132.06, while it is 119.18 for unadjusted ones in perceived occupational role behavior. This is a difference that is significant at the .001 level. But the difference in means is not significant in the total test scores for perceived marital role (Dom) behavior. Does this mean that adjusted wives receive more support in their occupational roles? Do unadjusted wives have fewer creative satisfactions in their occupational roles? Are the latter less flexible in their work roles and resent them more? Are adjusted husbands more equalitarian in their relationships to their working wives? Questions like these require further research. The correlation between marital (Lov) and occupa tional role behavior is +.255, which is a low but definite 279 relationship. The F score for a .255 correlation is 6.81, which is significant at the .01 level of confidence. Both the partial for adjusted (+.226) and for unadjusted (+.207) wives show a low relationship, but it is not a significant one. They are similar associations and both in the hypoth esized direction. The hypothesis is rejected. The evidence supports a definite association between marital and occupational role behavior for all wives. There is a stronger relationship in adjusted women. Hypothesis XIX is: there is no relationship between the husband's expectations in his occupational and marital roles. This hypothesis is based on the theoretical founda tion of socio-cultural compatibility, that is, the theory that expectations in various institutions support one an other . It also tests the reverse assumption that role ex pectations are uncertain in periods .of relatively greater social change leading to the possibility of role conflict. In this hypothesis the focus is on the husband’s expecta tions . The correlation between marital (Dom) and occupa tional role expectations is +.115, which is a low relation ship, but not a significant one. There is even less of an association in the partials for both samples. The partial correlation is -.008 for adjusted husbands and this is a negligible relationship, while it is +.111 for unadjusted men, a low order of relationship which is not significant. In the total test scores, the mean for adjusted husbands is 152.14 and for unadjusted ones it is 138.92. The t score for this difference between means is 4.0, which is signifi cant at the .001 level. Adjusted husbands have higher occu pational role expectations than unadjusted ones. There is no significant difference between means in the marital role expectations. A possible generalization from these findings is that family and work expectations are not supporting of one another. Explorations might look into whether men com partmentalize their work and family expectations or regard them as separate unrelated norms, each having its own rights and obligations. The correlation between marital (Lov) and occupa tional roles is +.171, which is a low relationship but not a significant one. Neither partial correlation is signifi cant, for the association is +.094 for adjusted and +.019 for unadjusted men. There is also not a significant differ ence between the means of adjusted and unadjusted husbands in total scores for marital role (Lov) expectations. 281 The hypothesis is accepted for both Dom and Lov marital role expectations. There is no relationship between marital and occupational role expectations. Hypothesis XX is: there is no relationship between the wife's expectation in her occupational and marital roles. This hypothesis is also based on the theoretical foundation of socio-cultural compatibility as to whether expectations in various institutions support one another or not. In the midst of considerable social change in the roles for women; are there stable norms in family and work roles that may be associated with one another or not? In this hypothesis the focus is on the expectations of wives. The correlation between marital (Dom) and occupa tional role expectations for all wives is +.007* which is a very negligible relationship. The partial for adjusted wives is +.156* which is a low association* while the par tial correlation for the unadjusted is +.048* which is neg ligible. None of these relationships are significant ones. The mean for total scores in occupational role expectations is 146.46 for adjusted women and 135.22 for unadjusted ones. The t score for this difference between means is 3.3* which is significant at the .01 level. Adjusted wives have higher occupational role expectations. However, the difference 282 between the two samples is not significant for marital role (Dom) expectations. Insofar as can be generalized from these findings, expectations for occupational roles for women are not related to their marital role (Dom) expecta tions . The correlation between marital role (Lov) and occu pational role expectations is +.188 for all wives and this is a low relationship which is not significant. The partial correlation for unadjusted women is only +.015, which repre sents a negligible association, but the partial for adjusted women is +.339 and this is a low, moderate relationship. The F score is 6.46, which is significant at the .05 level. This raises questions about the basis for the association in adjusted women only. Do adjusted women have greater expec tations of love and service which unify the two institution al roles? Is there greater role expectancy integration in adjusted women? These are questions that could be explored in further research. As pointed out above, adjusted women have higher occupational role expectations than adjusted ones. However, there is no difference between samples in marital role (Lov) expectations. The hypothesis is accepted. There is no significant relationship between marital and occupational expectations for all wives. Hypothesis XXI is-: - there is no relationship in the wife's perception of her husband's commitment to his occupa tional and marital roles. This hypothesis is founded on the question as to whether a wife views her spouse as consistent in his behavior in various roles or as being more committed to one role in relationship to the other. The correlation between a wife's perception of her husband's marital (Dom) and occupational role behavior is +.316, which is a substantial moderate relationship. The F score for this correlation is 10.08 and it is significant at the .01 level. The partial correlation for adjusted women is +.398, which is also significant at the .01 level. The association is much weaker for unadjusted women, whose par tial is -.184; this is a low relationship, but not a sig nificant one. Insofar as it can be generalized, there ap pears to be a strong relationship for all women to perceive their spouses as committed to much the same role behavior at home and at work. This is an especially strong relationship for adjusted women. But while the relationship for unad justed women is low, it is a negative or inverse one. This would mean that there is a tendency for them to perceive their husbands as more committed to the occupational role. 284 The correlation between a wife's perception of her husband's marital (Lov) and occupational roles is +.371, which represents a low to moderate relationship. The F score for this correlation is 15.64, which is significant at the .01 level. The partial for adjusted wives is +.225 and for unadjusted women it is +.204, neither of which is sig nificant. They are similar correlations and both in the positive direction. Insofar as can be generalized from these findings, wives seem to perceive a consistency in their husbands' role behavior in marital and occupational positions. The hypothesis is rejected. There is an association between wives' perceptions of their husbands' marital and occupational roles. Hypothesis XXII is: there is no relationship be tween the husband's perception of his wife's commitment to her occupational and marital roles. This hypothesis is also based on the question of consistency in role behavior. Does a husband view his wife as consistent or more committed to one role in relationship to the other? The correlation between a husband's perception of his wife's marital (Dom) and occupational role behavior is +.422, which is a substantial, moderate relationship. The 285 F test for this correlation is 20.02, which is significant at the .001 level. Both partials indicate strong relation ships too. For adjusted husbands, the partial correlation is +.341, which is significant at the .05 level, while the partial correlation for unadjusted husbands is +.448, which is significant at the .01 level. Insofar as can be general ized from these findings, husbands perceive their wives as acting in the same way for both marital (Dom) and occupa tional roles. However, the correlation between marital (Lov) and occupational roles for all husbands is +.112, which is a low relationship, but not a significant one. The partial corre lations point out an important difference. For adjusted men the partial is +.239, which is a low but not significant relationship. On the other hand, the partial for unadjusted men is -.249, which is in the opposite direction and is also not significant. The two partials offset each other and weaken the over-all relationship for all men. Adjusted husbands perceive a relationship in which the direction is that stronger occupational role behavior is somewhat asso ciated with greater socio-emotional strength in the marital role. But unadjusted husbands perceive the direction of the relationship to be: the stronger the occupational role, the 286 weaker the socio-emotional strength of the marital role. Unadjusted husbands seem to perceive their wives as less effective in their marital role insofar as they are more committed to their occupational role (but not at a signifi cant level of association). The hypothesis is rejected for the relationship be tween the husband's perception of the wife's commitment to her occupational and marital (Dom) roles. The correlation of +.422 is significant at the .01 level. Husbands tend to perceive their wives as acting in the same way in both occu pational role and marital role (Dom) behavior. However, the hypothesis is accepted for the relationship between hus bands' perceptions of wives' commitment to their occupation al and marital (Lov) roles, because the association is only + .112 and is not significant. Men do not seem to perceive the marital role behavior (Lov) of wives as having any re lationship to how wives behave at work. Hypothesis XXIII is: there is no relationship in the wife's expectations for her husband's occupational and marital roles. This hypothesis is based on the theoretical idea of socio-cultural compatibility. Do expectations and ideals in various ideas mutually support one another or not? The focus here is on the expectations of the wife in 287 occupational and marital roles. The correlation between the wife's expectation in marital role (Dom) and occupational role for all wives is +.142, which is a slight relationship, but not a significant one. There is greater strength in the relationship for un adjusted wives, in which the association is +.201, than for adjusted wives, where the correlation is +.029, but these relationships are also not significant ones. In total ideal mate scores adjusted wives have a mean of 147.64, while un adjusted wives have a mean of 136.26. The t score for dif ferences between means is 3.5, which is significant at the .001. level. Adjusted wives have greater occupational role expectations than do unadjusted ones. However, the differ ence in marital role (Dom) expectations is not significant. The correlation between the wife's expectation in marital (Lov) and occupational roles for all wives is +.132, which is also a slight relationship, but not one that is significant. The partial correlations for adjusted (+.058) and unadjusted wives (+.018) are both negligible. Adjusted wives have a mean score in ideal marital role expectations (Lov) of 52.41, while the mean for unadjusted wives is 49.30. The t score for this difference between means is 3.0, which is significant at the .01 level. Since it was 288 pointed out above that adjusted wives have greater occupa tional role expectations, it can be generalized that ad justed wives have greater occupational and marital role (Lov) expectations than unadjusted ones. Various cultural norms for the family and work areas do not tend to support one another insofar as there is no dependable association - in role expectations for wives in these areas. These findings raise the question as to whether role confusion in the midst of present social change has led to inconsistency and uncertainty as to what marital and occupational norms should be for working wives. Or is there some kind of role segregation that weakens any pos sible relationship? These are questions that might be ex plored in further research. The hypothesis is accepted. There is no relationship in the wife's expectation for her husband's occupational and marital roles. Hypothesis XXIV is: there is no relationship in the husband's expectations for his wife's occupational and mari tal roles. This hypothesis is also based on the theoretical idea of socio-cultural compatibility which holds that vari ous cultural elements in a society tend to support each other. The focus in this hypothesis is on the husband’s expectations in his marital and occupational roles. 289 The correlation between marital (Dom) and occupa tional expectations of all husbands for their wives is +.183, which is a low relationship, but not- a significant one. Both the partial correlation for adjusted (+.001) and for unadjusted (+.087) husbands are negligible. In total expectation scores the mean for adjusted husbands in occu pational role expectations for their mates is 145.3 as com pared to a mean of 131.10 for unadjusted husbands. The t score for this difference between means is 5.0, which is significant at the .001 level. The mean score for adjusted husbands in expectations in the marital role (Dom) is 64.26 and for unadjusted husbands it is 61.46. The t score for this difference between means is 3.5, which is significant at the .001 level. Adjusted husbands have greater expecta tions for their wives in both occupational and marital (Dom) roles than do unadjusted husbands. But these expectations are independent ones and not significantly related to each other. The correlation between marital (Lov) and occupa tional roles is +.065, which is a negligible relationship. Again, both the partial correlations for adjusted (-.026) and unadjusted (-.043) husbands also show only negligible relationships. The total expectation scores in marital role 290 (Lov) show a mean for adjusted husbands of 54.72 and for unadjusted ones of 52.46. The t score for this difference between means is 2.2, which is significant at the .05 level. Thus, adjusted husbands have greater occupational and mari tal (Lov) role expectations for their wives than do unad justed ones. However, these expectations are independent ones and are not significantly related to each other. Insofar as can be generalized for husbands, the expectations in the family and work areas do not tend to support one another. Role compartmentalization, role segre gation, and role confusion between expectancies in these areas represent concepts and issues that might be explored. The hypothesis is accepted. There is no relationship be tween a husband's expectations for his wife in occupational and marital roles. In this chapter, the relationship between marital (Dom) and occupational role behavior for husbands was found to be significant, but none of the other role relationships involving husbands1 perceptions or expectations either for themselves or their spouses were found to be strong enough for acceptance. For wives, their perceptions of role be havior for themselves and for their spouses were significant in the relationships between marital and occupational roles, but their role expectations for themselves and their hus bands were not significant. From these relationships^ it may be generalized that perceptions of occupational and marital role behavior tend to be significantly related^ but occupational and marital role expectations show a low order of relationship which is not significant. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Role is an important concept and its analysis is most relevant for sociological theory. This study investi gated the relationship between an individual's own expecta tions for himself and his actual behavior, as well as be tween his spouse's expectations and enactment. Expectation and behavior were analyzed in the relationship between occu pational roles and marital adjustment, between occupational and marital roles, and between these two roles and marital adjustment. Twenty-four hypotheses were formulated to guide the research in these relationships. Sociological literature was reviewed as it pertained to role behavior, role expectations, and role conflict as basic concepts related to the issues of this study. There was a presentation of studies in marital role and marital adjustment taken together, after which followed a review of 292 293 studies in occupational role. There was also a review of theory and existing research in the general relationship of marital and occupational roles, as well as in specific as sociated areas of job satisfaction, marital power structure, and working wives. Fifty adjusted couples were secured from organiza tions in churches and 50 unadjusted mates were obtained from marriage counselors, as well as counseling clinics. Both groups were found to be significantly similar in a frequency matching of age, years married, years worked, proportion of years worked to years married, number of children, educa tion, income, and religion. Both the adjusted and unadjust ed samples were given the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test and found to be significantly different in marital adjust ment. All of the subjects completed the Interpersonal Check List (marital role) and the Occupational Role Inventory in four different ways (self, ideal self, mate, and ideal mate). The various disparities between different applica tions of role were analyzed by appropriate statistical pro cedures to test the hypotheses. Conclusions The first 16 hypotheses were stated in the form of 294 inverse relationships: the greater the role disparity, the lower the marital adjustment. The last eight hypotheses were stated in the null form of no relationship between occupational and marital roles. The first eight hypotheses dealt with the relationships between occupational and mari tal roles. 1. The hypothesis was accepted that the greater the incongruence between the husband's perception of his occupa tional role and the perception of the wife of her husband's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The t score was significant at the .01 level and the correlation of -.39 was statistically significant at the .01 level. 2. The hypothesis was accepted that the greater the incongruence between the wife's perception of her occupa tional role and the perception of the husband of his wife's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The t score of -4.6 and the correlation of -.47 were both signifi cant at the .01 level. 3. The hypothesis was accepted that the greater the incongruence between the husband's expectation of his occu pational role and the expectation of the wife of her hus band's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The t score of -2.5 and the correlation of -.25 were both 295 significant at the .05 level. 4. The hypothesis was accepted that the greater the incongruence between the wife's expectation of her occupa tional role and the expectation of the husband for his wife's occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The t score of -3.9 and the correlation of -.34 were both significant at the .01 level. 5. The hypothesis was accepted that the greater the incongruence between the husband's perception of his wife's occupational role and his expectation of his wife's occupa tional role, the lower the marital adjustment. The t score of -2.4 and the correlation of -.22 were both acceptable at the .05 level. 6. The hypothesis was accepted that the greater the incongruence between the wife's perception and her expecta tion of her husband's occupational role, the lower the mari tal adjustment. The t score of -2.7 and the correlation of -.40 were both acceptable at the .01 level. 7. The hypothesis was rejected that the greater the incongruence between the husband's perception and his expec tation of his own occupational role, the lower the marital adjustment. The t score was -0.9 and was not significant. Although the correlation was of borderline significance, 296 the evidence in both partial correlations shows an associa tion in the opposite of the hypothesized direction. As long as there is doubt because of the evidence of the t score and the partial correlations, it is sounder to reject the hy pothesis and risk a type I error than to accept and risk a type II error. 8. The hypothesis was accepted that the greater the incongruence between the wife's perception and her expecta tion of her occupational role, the lower the marital adjust ment. The t score of -2.1 was significant at the .05 level and the correlation of -.26 was acceptable at the .01 level. There were eight hypotheses concerning the relation ship of occupational roles, marital roles, and marital ad justment . 9. The hypothesis was accepted that the greater the incongruence between the husband's perception of his occu pational role and the perception of the wife of her husband's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the husband’s perception of his marital role and the wife's perception of her husband's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. The corre lation between occupational role and marital adjustment was -.33, between marital role and marital adjustment it was 297 -.29; and between occupational and marital role discrepan cies it was +.26. All were significant at the .01 level. 10. The hypothesis was rejected that the greater the incongruence between the wife's perception of her occu pational role and the perception of her husband of his wife's occupational role, when it is associated with rela tively greater disparity between the husband's perception of his wife's marital role and the wife's perception of her marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. The corre lation between occupational role and marital adjustment was -.49, and between marital role and marital adjustment it was -.38, both of which were significant at the .01 level. But the association between occupational and marital role dis parities was +.14 and was not acceptable. 11. The hypothesis was rejected that the greater the incongruence between the husband's expectation of his occupational role and the expectation of the wife of her husband's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the husband's expecta tion of his marital role and the expectation of the wife of her husband's marital role, the lower the marital adjust ment. The correlation between occupational role and marital adjustment was -.24 and between occupational and marital 298 role discrepancies it was +.23, both of which were accept able at the .05 level of confidence. But the association between marital role and marital adjustment was -.07 and was not a significant relationship. 12. The hypothesis was rejected that the greater the incongruence between the wife's expectation of her occu pational role and the expectation of the husband of his wife's occupational role, when it is associated with rela tively greater disparity between the wife's expectation of her marital role and the expectation of the husband of his wife's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. The correlation between occupational role disparity and marital adjustment is -.35 and between marital role disparity and marital adjustment it is -.24. The former is significant at the .01 and the latter at the .05 level of confidence. But the correlation between occupational and marital role dis crepancies is -.02, which is a negligible relationship. 13. The hypothesis was rejected that the greater the incongruence between the husband's perception of his wife's occupational role and his expectation of his wife's occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the husband's perception of his wife’s marital role and his expectation of his wife's 299 marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. The corre lation between occupational role and marital adjustment is -.15, which is not a significant relationship. The correla tion for marital role and marital adjustment was -.36 and between occupational and marital role disparities it was +.22. The former was significant at the .01 and the latter at the .05 level of confidence. 14. The hypothesis was accepted that the greater the incongruence between the wife's perception of and her expectation for her husband’s occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the wife's perception of and her expectation for her husband's marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. The corre lation between occupational role disparities and marital adjustment was -.28, between marital role incongruences and marital adjustment it was -.52, and between occupational and marital role discrepancies it was +.31. All of these rela tionships were significant at the .01 level. 15. The hypothesis was rejected that the greater the incongruences between the husband's perception and his expectation of his own occupational roles, when it is asso ciated with relatively greater disparity between the hus band's perception and expectation of his own marital roles, 300 the lower the marital adjustment. The correlation between occupational role disparity and marital adjustment was -.14 and between occupational and marital role discrepancies it was +.18. Both are low relationships in the hypothesized direction, but are not at an acceptable level of confidence. The correlation between marital role disparity and marital adjustment was -.38, which was significant at the .01 level. 16. The hypothesis was rejected that the greater the incongruence between the wife's perception and her ex pectation of her occupational role, when it is associated with relatively greater disparity between the wife's per ception and her expectation of her marital role, the lower the marital adjustment. The correlation between occupation al role disparity and marital adjustment is -.18, which is a low relationship, but it is not at an acceptable level of confidence. The correlation between marital role discrep ancy and marital adjustment is -.29 and between occupational and marital role incongruences it is +.29. Both of the lat ter two relationships are significant at the .01 level. There were eight null hypotheses. These concerned relationships between commitment to occupational and marital roles. 17. The null hypothesis of no relationship in the 301 husband's perceived commitment to his occupational and mari tal roles is rejected for occupational role and marital role (Dorn) behavior (the correlation is +.413, which is signifi cant at the .01 level), but it is accepted for occupational and marital (Lov) role behavior (correlation of +.023, which is negligible). 18. The null hypothesis of no relationship in the wife's perceived commitment to her occupational and marital roles is rejected. There is a relationship between occupa tional and marital (Dom) roles of +.277 and between occupa tional and marital (Lov) roles of +.255, both of which are significant at the .01 level. 19. The null hypothesis of no relationship between the husband's expectations in his occupational and marital roles is accepted. The correlation between occupational and marital (Dom) roles is +.115 and between occupational and marital (Lov) roles it is +.171. Both are low relation ships, but not significant ones. 20. The null hypothesis of no relationship between the wife's expectations in her occupational and marital roles is accepted. The correlation between occupational and marital (Dom) roles is +.007 and between occupational and marital (Lov) roles it is +.188, neither of which is 302 significant. 21. The null hypothesis of no relationship in the wife's perception of her husband's commitment to his occupa tional and marital roles is rejected. The correlation be tween occupational and marital (Dom) roles is +.316 and be tween occupational and marital (Lov) roles it is +.371* which represents a low* moderate relationship* which is sig nificant at the .01 level in both cases. 22. The null hypothesis of no relationship in the husband's perception of his wife's commitment to her occu pational and marital roles is rejected for the relationship between occupational and marital (Dom) role* for which there is a correlation of +.422, which is significant at the .001 level* but it is accepted for the relationship between occupational and marital (Lov) role behavior* in which there is a low relationship of +.112 that is not significant. 23. The null hypothesis of no relationship in the wife's expectations for her husband's occupational and mari tal roles is accepted. The correlation between occupational role and marital (Dom) role is +.142 and between occupation al role and marital (Lov) role it is +.132. Both of these are low relationships* but neither is a significant one. 24. The null hypothesis of no relationship in the 303 husband's expectation for his wife's occupational and mari tal roles is accepted. The correlation between occupational and marital (Dom) roles was +.183 and between occupational and marital (Lov) roles it was +.065, neither of which is a significant relationship. In testing the hypotheses, it was also found that in some cases occupational and marital roles are independently related to marital adjustment, but are not associated with one another. Two of these cases are: the relationship be tween spouses' perception of the role behavior of wives, in which the association between occupational role and marital adjustment for all wives is -.49, while between marital role and marital adjustment it is -.38, both of which are sig nificant at the .01 level. The relationship between occupa tional and marital role disparities is +.14, which is in the hypothesized direction, but it is not a significant associa tion. In the relationship between spouses' expectations for wives, the association between occupational role and marital adjustment is -.35, while between marital role and marital adjustment it is -.24. The former is significant at the .01 level and the latter at the .05 level of confidence. The relationship between occupational and marital role dispari ties is -.02 and is negligible. In both cases it is the 304 perceptions or expectations of the spouses concerning the wives which is involved. In both cases marital and occupa tional roles are independently related to marital adjust ment, but are not significantly associated with each other. Moreover, significant differences between adjusted and unadjusted couples are found in the relationship between occupational and marital role disparities. The correlation for unadjusted couples in disparities of perception of the husbands' behavior is +.30 (significant at the .05 level), while it is -.17 (NS) for the adjusted spouses. Greater disparity in marital role is related positively to greater disparity in occupational role in unadjusted couples, but less disparity in marital role is somewhat (NS) related to greater disparity in occupational role in adjusted couples. There is a significant (at the .05 level) correlation for adjusted couples of -.34 in disparities of'perception about the wives' behavior (greater occupational role disparity is associated with lower marital role disparity), but the rela tionship is negligible for unadjusted couples (+.03). These are both disparities in spouses' perception of role behav ior. In both cases the relationship is positive (greater disparity in both occupational and marital roles) for unad justed couples and negative (greater disparity in occupa 305 tional role and less disparity in the marital role) for ad justed spouses. The relationship is significant for the perception of the behavior of unadjusted husbands and ad justed wives. In the marital and occupational role disparities between the husband's expectation for himself and the wife's expectation for her mate, unadjusted couples have a positive correlation of +.32, which is significant at the .05 level, while this relationship is a negligible one (-.02) for ad justed mates. This finding would seem to point to greater frustration of expectation in both marital and occupational roles for the unadjusted couples. There is a positive cor relation of + .44 (significant at the .01 level) for adjusted couples in the disparity between the wife's perception of her husband's behavior and the wife's expectation for him, but this relationship is only a slight one for unadjusted spouses (+.10). In the disparity between the husband's per ception of his own behavior and his expectation for himself, the association is +.36 (significant at the .01 level) for adjusted couples and a negligible relationship (+.02) for unadjusted spouses. The relationship is +.41 for adjusted wives (significant at the .01 level) in the disparity be tween the wife's perception of herself and her expectations 306 for herself, but this association is only a slight one (+.15) for unadjusted women. All of these last four com parisons of discrepancy have been between marital and occu pational role incongruences. The last three differences are intrapersonal disparities. Questions might be raised which could be tested in further research as to whether unadjusted couples have less role integration and more inner role in consistencies or the adjusted spouses have greater flexi bility in respect to differences within themselves. Another hypothesis might be that adjusted couples can accept more occupational role disparity because of fewer marital role differences. There is also a stronger correlation between com mitment in occupational and marital (Dom) role behavior of +.391 for adjusted wives compared to +.147 for unadjusted spouses, while this relationship is reversed for husbands with a correlation between commitment in occupational and marital (Dom) role behavior of +.443 for unadjusted men and a negligible association of +.095 for adjusted husbands. Since adjusted husbands have significantly higher total scores on the occupational and marital role (Dom) tests than do unadjusted married men, the question can be raised as to whether adjusted couples have more equalitarian relation- 307 ships or greater flexibility for each other's strengths, while unadjusted husbands have more role confusion, inaccu rate perceptions, inconsistencies in behavior, or are more inflexible in showing their dominance in both roles. These issues would have to be tested in further research. Another finding was that occupational roles in rela tionship to marital adjustment (-.39, -.47, -.25, and -.34) had the stronger associations than the comparable marital role disparities and marital adjustment (-.36, -.39, -.12, and -.22) for interpersonal disparities (see Table 16, p. 239). But the stronger associations were between marital role disparities and marital adjustment (-.39, -.58,. -.40, and -.34) in relationship to the comparable occupational role disparities and marital adjustment correlations (-.22, -.40, -.20, and -.26} for intrapersonal disparities. This gives an inner-directed family tendency for the relation ships between marital role disparities and marital adjust ment, but an outer-directedness to occupational role dis parities in association with marital adjustment. Furthermore, in a comparison of correlations between occupational and marital role commitment for all wives, all the relationships for behavior are significant at the .01 level or beyond (see Table 21, p. 275). This is for the 308 wives' perception of both their own and their spouses' be havior. The relationships between marital (Dom) and occu pational role behavior for husbands' perceptions of their own and their spouses' behavior was found to be significant. However, the relationship between marital (Lov) and occupa tional role behavior for husbands' perception of both their own and their spouses' behavior was not significant (see Table 20, p. 274). None of the relationships between com mitment to occupational or marital role expectations are significant for either husbands or wives. Commitment in behavior for marital and occupational roles seems to be more consistent than commitment in expectations. Implications of This Studv for Marriage Counseling. Social Psychology. and Sociology There are many implications for marriage counselors in this study. It might be wise in the counseling process to discover where the areas of role frustration or dissatis faction were in order to reinforce total satisfactions or discover the reasons for the difficulties in trying to help couples resolve their marital troubles. In this study, the Occupational Role Inventory total test scores point out that adjusted couples have signifi- cantly higher scores than unadjusted ones in both occupa tional role behavior and expectations. Therefore, occupa tional role commitment or involvement in occupation does not seem to be the basis of the difficulty in the marriage in itself, but rather, it appears to be a question of what work commitment means to each spouse in terms of their interper sonal relationships. It is the disparities between spouses concerning their role expectations or behavior which are associated with lower marital adjustment. Occupational dis parities between spouses' perceptions, between their expec tations, between wives' perceptions and expectations for both themselves and their mates, and between husbands' per ceptions and expectations for their spouses, but not for themselves were all significantly related to marital adjust ment. These findings suggest that counselors must under stand the occupational roles of spouses and what they mean to each spouse in order to do effective marriage counseling. Moreover, as was pointed out in the summary on pp. 304-305, adjusted couples differ significantly from unad justed spouses in marital and occupational role disparities for the perception of the behavior of unadjusted husbands and adjusted wives. The relationships are positive (greater disparity in both occupational and marital role behavior) for unadjusted spouses and negative (greater disparity in occupational role and less disparity in marital role behav ior) for adjusted spouses. Thus* the marriage counselor can explore the relationships which involve disparity in both roles for the unadjusted mates. However, when there is less marital role disparity, the findings indicate adjusted couples can tolerate greater occupational role differences. Thus, working on marital role disparities in relationship to marital adjustment could be a primary point of focus for the counselor. Moreover, at those points where adjusted couples differ significantly, they are still measured along the same continuum on the ICL or Occupational Role Inventory. The differences between adjusted and unadjusted spouses are in the degree of role disparity in relationship to their ad justment. Thus, adjusted couples might be used as role models. These differences might also provide clues for questions that lead to further research or areas to explore for the counselor. Greater disparity in both roles is asso ciated with lack of adjustment for the unhappy couples. The findings could lead the counselor to ask questions about role confusion, role integration, satisfaction in roles, or interest in specific life situations, and also about total or general interest in life. 311 There is also the finding that occupational role disparities had higher correlations with marital adjustment in interpersonal roles and marital role disparities had higher correlations with marital adjustment in intrapersonal roles (see p. 307). Since diagnosing the problems is im portant for counselors in helping couples work out solutions to their difficulties, this finding could be quite useful to marriage counselors in focusing on the type of difficulties involved in a particular marriage. Moreover, although an individual's difficulties in occupational or marital roles may have separate relation ships to marital adjustment, this study points out that there is much reciprocal influence between marital and occu pational roles. Partial correlations are lower than product moment correlations. Controlling one of the role dispari ties to analyze the relationship of the other variable to marital adjustment shows that occupational role disparities influence the relationship between marital role disparities and marital adjustment, but marital role disparities also influence the association between occupational role incon gruences and marital adjustment. This study indicated that knowledge of the interrelationships of both occupational and marital roles is necessary for a more complete understanding 312 of each variable or factor. A knowledge of their interre lationships will increase the effectiveness of counseling. There are also suggestions in this study that key marital or occupational role choices depend upon norms and values. Counselors cannot ignore them. Some understanding of cultural and individual norms is necessary. Findings of this study point out that unadjusted couples are more frus trated in their expectations than adjusted spouses. Role confusion and lack of role integration may underlie incon sistencies in expectations. Moreover, there are implications in this study that commitments in marital and occupational role expectations of married couples are not mutually supporting. Norm confusion or conflict may underlie this lack of reciprocal support. Relationship between commitment in behavior was more con sistent than commitment in expectations for marital and occupational roles. This suggests an emphasis on behavior as leading to an understanding of an individual's over-all organization of interaction with others. Therefore, coun selors should pay more attention to action or activity pro grams in resolving conflict between spouses. There are also implications in this study for social psychology. Individuals were linked to the social system 313 through not just one role in one group, but through multiple roles in the marital and occupational sub-systems. The links between systems were not provided by sociocultural compatibility of family and economic institutions, because expectations were not significantly related between marital and occupational roles. However, occupational and marital role behavior as perceived by individuals and spouses were linked in several of the findings (six out of eight rela tionships in occupational and marital role disparities; see pp. 299-303). Thus, this study suggests that role behavior research should be emphasized in building middle range theory linking family and economic systems. This study points out for sociology the importance and relevance of linking family and industrial institutions. Occupational role was found to be significantly related to marital role adjustment in all of the role relationships except one (see pp. 294-296). Differences between adjusted and unadjusted couples were found (see pp. 304-306), which point to problems in social disorganization or in deviancy in the family or occupational groups. These differences need to be studied further. Roles are concepts which are useful in building middle range theory. Exploring more than one role relation 314 ship at a time, as was done in this study, links knowledge between two or more institutions. The findings point out that role behavior is related in marital and occupational n > . role commitment. Role behavior studies are a means to building interrelations between family and industrial soci- ology. Role expectations are not significantly related be tween marital and occupational role commitments. The nega tive findings suggest that more work be done in studying role change, role confusion or lack of role integration in expectations. Are there differences in roles when both spouses are working compared to couples where only the hus band works outside the home? Several studies of role sep arated by short periods of time could be very useful in leading to more understanding of roles which are changing. Finally, the usefulness of partial correlations in controlling one variable while measuring the relationships between the other two or in elaborating the association be tween two variables by means of a third point out their value in sociology. When sociologists work with multiple variables which are mutually affecting each other, as well as the total relationship, partial correlations are among the most useful techniques in analyzing data to increase 315 sociological knowledge. Partial correlations measure the mutual influence of marital and occupational roles upon one another, as well as their separate relationships to marital adjustment. Seven out of eight relationships in occupation al role disparity and marital adjustment, as well as seven out of eight relationships between marital role disparity and marital adjustment were significant. When the three variables were studied together, the findings were that each role disparity influenced the other's relationship to mari tal adjustment. Only two of the eight hypotheses in the second group showed significant relationships between the three variables (see pp. 299-301). Finally, partial corre lations not only helped to control one variable in analyzing the relationship between the other two, but they also helped point out significant differences between adjusted and un adjusted groups. Therefore, partial correlations are one of the techniques sociologists might employ in expanding socio logical knowledge by analyzing relationships between three or more variables in future studies. Suggestions for Further Research In the process of exploring the relationship be tween occupational role, marital role, and marital adjust- ment in this study, many other questions were raised. These might well be explored in further research which could be undertaken in these areas. 1. Studies in role relationships: a. What are the relationships of role satisfac tion to role choices or allotment of time and energy? b. What are the associations of role choices with role integration or norms? c. What are the relationships of role segrega tion or compartmentalization to marital ad justment? d. What are the differences between role con fusion and role conflict in both expectation and behavior. e. What are the relationships of roles at dif ferent levels: intrapersonal, interperson al, normative, institutional, and person ality? f. What are the relationships between the self concept and multiple roles? g. Many factor analyses of multiple roles might be undertaken. In addition to studies of the accuracy of role perception, explorations could be made of the functions of inaccurate role percep tion, communication, and role compartmental- ization. If there is more consistency between various behavioral roles, studies could be made in interpersonal skills and interactive influ ences in roles. Since intrapersonal disparity is associated with marital roles (and marital adjustment) and interpersonal disparity with occupation al roles (and marital adjustment), this finding suggests a study of inner-outer directedness between the relationships of marital roles, occupational roles, and mari tal adjustment. A series of developmental studies could be undertaken exploring the relationships be tween marital roles, occupational roles, and marital adjustment at different periods of family life. A study could be made of the competition 318 between sexes in marital and occupational roles as a function of relative adjustment, m. One might study the gaps between generations reflected in differences in expectations, n. Is there any relationship between stronger occupational role commitment and higher occupational role expectations for both sexes (in relationship to adjustment)? o. A study of working versus non-working wives could be made in regard to the relationships between marital roles, occupational roles, and marital adjustment, p. Disparity scores have been studied. What is the significance of the direction of differ ences (spouse's score higher than self as compared with self score higher than spou se's)? 2. Studies in adjustment: a. What is the relationship of marital adjust ment to general life adjustment? b. Do adjusted couples have greater flexibility or more tolerance for role conflict than unadjusted couples? 319 c. Studies could be made of role commitment in terms of whether there is equal strength in several roles or dominant or recessive roles. (Adjusted husbands were high in socio-emotional strength and occupational roles for a positive relationship, while un adjusted were low in socio-emotional strength and high in occupational role for a negative relationship.) d. Is less disparity in marital roles than in occupational roles more related to marital adjustment in working wives? e. What is the relationship between support for each other's roles and marital adjustment? f. What relationship does creativity at work or degree of resentment of work have to marital adjustment? g. What relationship does relative socio-emo tional strength have for women in relation ship to occupational role and adjustments? Related role relationships: a. A study might be made of extra-family par ticipation (community activity and recrea- tion) in relationship to marital roles, oc cupational roles, and marital adjustment. b. One might study how to identify and measure value hierarchies in their relationship to role choices in multiple roles. c. Is there a relationship between the level, of consensus in each multiple group and role choices in relationship to adjustment? (Also dependency-independency in each group, and the idea of social network of groups.) d. Other persons could be added (children in families, parents of married couples, fellow workers) and all of the interpersonal rela tionships could be measured in these added dimensions. What other methodology might be employed? a. Different sampling techniques might be em ployed (Shevsky-Bell sampling of different neighborhoods of greater Los Angeles; dif ferent religious groups, different ethnic groups, different levels of status). b. Different kinds of work could be compared (use of occupational determinateness in 321 relationship to marital role, occupational role, and marital adjustment; one also might analyze specific kinds of workers or insti tutions such as engineers, teachers, insur- - ance company employees, department store em ployees, factory workers), c. The refinement of the Occupational Role In ventory to improve its effectiveness in re search could be undertaken in a series of studies. 5. Occupational role, marital role, and marital adjustment could be studied in relationship to other variables (personality, situational fac tors ) . This study investigated the relationships between ~ marital roles, occupational roles, and marital adjustment. The literature concerning these variables was reviewed. Fifty adjusted and 50 unadjusted couples were established as significantly different in scores on the Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. All of these subjects did a self, an ideal self, a mate, and an ideal mate test on the Interpersonal Check List for marital roles and the Occupational Role Inventory for work roles. Hypotheses were formulated and tested by appropriate statistical procedures. It was found that occupational role and marital adjustment were signifi cantly related (seven out of eight hypotheses). Disparities in spouses' perception of the husband's role behavior, as well as incongruences between the wives' perception and ex pectation of the husbands' roles were found to be signifi cantly relationships between three variables of marital role, occupational role, and marital adjustment. It was also found that marital and occupational role behavior were significantly related, but not expectations. The study of relationships between marital roles, occupational roles, and marital adjustment is a relevant and fruitful area for re search for sociologists. A P P E N D I X E S 323 A P P E N D I X A Face Sheet Information and Wallace Marital Adjustment Test 324 This is a research study being inidertaken under the direction of the Sociology Department of the University of Southern California. We are trying to learn more .about the factors involved in happy and unhappy marriages in •which both spouses are working. To do this we need the cooperation and assistance of a large number of married couples. You can have a part in it and be of great help by answering the following questions frankly and carefully. Experience has shown that all persons willingly answer questions if they • know that their answers will. be kept in complete confidence. Any information you give will be so regarded. It is not necessary to give your name anywhere. Please answer all of the questions. If you find it difficult to give an exact answer, do the best you can. Please do not communicate with your spouse in answering this questionnaire, 1, Whose answers are these? (1) Husband,_____; (2}__Wife____ . 2, Age?_____. 3, How many years have you been married? . 4, How many years have you worked while you have been married? . 5, Please circle those years of marriage in which you worked more than three months of the year: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. * 6, Number of children_____. 7, Highest grade in school completed: 8__, 9___, 10__, 11__,12___5 years in college: 1__, 2___, 3__ , 4__J graduate work: 1__, 2____, 3____4__. 8, Approximate family income (both husband and wife) per year; Under $5,000____, , $5,000-6,999 , 7,000-8,999____,_9,000-10,999___J $11.000-12.999 13,000-14,999.____ J over $15,000____ . 9, Religious preference: Protestant , Catholic , Jewish___, None__ Other , Section B I, Check the dot on the scale line below which best describes the degree of happiness, everything considered, of your present marriage. The middle point, "average," represents the degree of happiness which most people get from marriage,'and the scale gradually ranges on one side to those few who are extremely unhappy in marriage, and on the other to those few who experience extreme joy or felicity in marriage, 0 3 10 15 20 27 3b Extremely unhappy Average Extremely happy I n d ic a te th e approxim ate e x te n t o f agreem ent o r d isag ree m e n t betw een you and yo u r mate on th e fo llo w in g ite m s by ch eck in g th e m ost a p p ro p ria te o f th e seven p o in ts on each s c a le f o r each c a te g o ry . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. H andling Fam ily 3 . F in an ces M atters o f Always D isag ree • • • Average • * Always Agree • « R e c re a tio n <■ 4 * Demons t r a t i o n s • • « • * • • o f A ffe c tio n 5. F rie n d s • * • • 0 • • 6* Sex R e la tio n s « « « « • * • 7 . C o n v e n tio n a lity ♦ • « • • • • 8 . (P ro p er Conduct) P h ilo so p h y o f L ife • « * • • 4 • 9 . Ways o f D ealin g W ith In-Laws Aims, g o a ls , • * • « • « • 10. * • • • 4 * • and Id e a ls 11. When d isa g re e m e n ts a r i s e , th e y u s u a lly r e s u l t i n : (check) husband g iv in g in w ife g iv in g in , n e ith e r g iv in g i n ______ , agreem ent by m utual g iv e and t a k e , 12. Do you- and y o u r mate engage in o u ts id e i n t e r e s t s to g e th e r? (check) A ll o r alm o st a l l o f them _____ , m ost o f th e m , some o f them ______, v e ry few o f them _____ , none o f th e m . 13. When problem s a r is e do you and y o u r mate u s u a lly t a l k th in g s ov er t o g e th e r? (check) alw ays ___ __, m ost o f th e tim e _____ , o c c a s i o n a l l y ______ r a r e l y , n ev er . 14. Do you c o n fid e i n your m ate? (check) a lm o st n e v e r , r a r e ly ___ , o c c a s io n a lly ____, in m ost th in g s ______, in e v e ry th in g o r alm o st e v e ry th in g _____. 15. Do you e v e r w ish you had n o t m arried ? (ch eck ) v e ry f r e q u e n tly , o c c a s io n a lly _____ , r a r e l y , n ev er _. 16 - I f you had y o u r l i f e to l i v e o v e r, do you th in k you would: (check) m arry th e same p erso n _____ , m arry a d i f f e r e n t p erso n , n o t m arry a t a l l ? APPENDIX B Interpersonal Check List 326 327 I I Please check those items which describe yg (J'S'crC^fr “ WftME- DATE well thought of makes a good impression able to give orders forceful self-respecting independent able to take care of self can be indifferent to others can be strict if necessary firm but just can be frank and honest critical of others can complain if necessary often gloomy able to doubt others frequently disappointed able to criticize self apologetic can be obedient usually gives in grateful' admires and imitates others appreciative very anxious to be approved of cooperative eager to get along with others friendly affectionate and understanding _considerate encourages others helpful big-hearted and unselfish 1------- 2._______3. _often admired respected by others good leader likes responsibility self-confident self-reliant and assertive businesslike likes to compete with others hard-boiled when necessary stern but fair irritable straightforward and direct resents being bossed skeptical hard to impress touchy and easily hurt easily embarrassed lacks self-confidence _easily led modest often helped by others very respectful of authority accepts advice readily trusting and eager to please always pleasant and agreeable wants everyone to like him sociable and neighborly warm kind and reassuring tender and soft-hearted enjoys taking care of others gives freely of self 4____ 5_____ 6 . always giving advice acts important bossy dominating boastful proud and self-satisfied thinks only of himself shrewd and calculating impatient with other's mistakes self-seeking outspoken often unfriendly bitter complaining jealous slow to forgive a wrong self-punishing shy passive and unaggressive meek dependent wants to be led lets others make decisions easily fooled too easily influenced by friends will confide in anyone fond of everyone likes everybody forgives anything oversympathetic generous to a fault overprotective of others 7---- 8____ DOM___ _tries to be too successful _expects everyone to admire him ^manages others _dictatorial _somewhat snobbish _egotistical and conceited _selfish _cold and unfeeling _sarcastic _cruel and unkind _frequently angry _hard-hearted _resentful _rebels against everything _stubborn _distrusts everybody _timid _always ashamed of self _obeys too willingly _spineless _hardly ever talks back _clinging vine JLikes to be taken care of _will believe anyone _wants everyone's love _agrees with everyone _friendly all the time _loves everyone _too lenient with others _tries to comfort everyone _too willing to give to others _spoils people with kindness LOV____ Please check Chose items which describe 1 //7e/frc suy- ^fAME~ DATE z J/oOA. I & < = f t C - Sc? ~ C ~ / - well thought of makes a good impression able to give orders forceful self-respecting independent able to take care of self can be indifferent to others can be strict if necessary firm but just can be frank and honest critical of others can complain if necessary often gloomy able to doubt others frequently disappointed able to criticize self _apo logetic can be obedient usually gives in grateful admires and imitates others appreciative very anxious to be approved of cooperative eager to get along with others friendly affectionate and understanding considerate encourages others helpful big-hearted and unselfish 1---- 2____ 3 often admired respected by others good leader likes responsibility self-confident self-reliant and assertive businesslike likes to compete with others hard-boiled when necessary stern but fair irritable straightforward and direct resents being bossed skeptical hard to impress touchy and easily hurt easily embarrassed lacks self-confidence _easily led modest often helped by others very respectful of authority accepts advice readily _trusting and eager to please always pleasant and agreeable _wants everyone to like him sociable and neighborly _warm kind and reassuring tender and soft-hearted enjoys taking care of others gives freely of self 4_____ S____ 6 . always giving advice acts important bossy dominating boastful proud and self-satisfied thinks only of himself shrewd and calculating impatient with other's mistakes self-seeking outspoken often unfriendly bitter complaining jealous slow to forgive a wrong self-punishing shy passive and unaggressive meek dependent wants to be led lets others make decisions easily fooled too easily influenced by friends will confide in anyone fond of everyone likes everybody forgives anything oversympathetic generous to a fault overprotective of others 7_____ 8_____ DOM___ tries to be too successful expects everyone to admire him jnanages others dictatorial somewhat snobbish egotistical and conceited _self ish cold and unfeeling _sarcastic cruel and unkind frequently angry hard-hearted _resentful rebels against everything stubborn distrusts everybody timid always ashamed of self _obeys too willingly spineless hardly ever talks back clinging vine likes to be taken care of will believe anyone jwants everyone's love agrees with everyone _friendly all the time loves everyone _too lenient with others tries to comfort everyone _too willing to give to others spoils people with kindness LOV_____ 327 Please check Chose items which describe well thought of makes a good impression able to give orders forceful self-respecting independent able to take care of self can be indifferent to others can be strict if necessary _firm but just can be frank and honest critical of others can complain if necessary often gloomy able to doubt others frequently disappointed _able to criticize self apologetic can be obedient usually gives in grateful admires and imitates others appreciative very anxious to be approved of cooperative _eager to get along with others-- friendly _affectionate and understanding considerate encourages others _helpful big-hearted and unselfish 1-----------2_____ 3 . often admired respected by others good leader likes responsibility self-confident self-reliant and assertive businesslike likes to compete with others hard-boiled when necessary stern but fair irritable straightforward and direct resents being bossed skeptical hard to impress touchy and easily hurt easily embarrassed lacks self-confidence easily led jnodest often helped by others very respectful of authority accepts advice readily _trusting and eager to please always pleasant and agreeable wants everyone to like him sociable and neighborly warm kind and reassuring tender and soft-hearted _enjoys taking care of others _gives freely of self 4_____ 5_____ 6 . H ftH E T DATE always giving advice acts important bossy dominating boastful proud and self-satisfied thinks only of himself shrewd and calculating impatient with other's mistakes self-seeking outspoken often unfriendly bitter complaining j ealous slow to forgive a wrong self-punishing shy passive and unaggressive meek dependent wants to be led lets others make decisions easily fooled too easily influenced by friends will confide in anyone fond of everyone likes everybody forgives anything oversympathetic generous to a fault overprotective of others _tries to be too successful expects everyone to admire him manages others dictatorial _somewhat snobbish egotistical and conceited selfish cold and unfeeling sarcastic _cruel and unkind frequently angry _hard-hearted resentful _rebels against everything stubborn distrusts everybody timid always ashamed of self obeys too willingly spineless _hardly ever talks back clinging vine likes to be taken care of will believe anyone wants everyone's love agrees with everyone friendly all the time loves everyone too lenient with others tries to comfort everyone too willing to give to others spoils people with kindness 7 . 8 . DOM. LOV. 327 Please check those items which describe 'y£ (J/z^ , A I ^ T - cT DATE well thought of makes a good impression able to give orders forceful self-respecting independent able to take care of self can be indifferent to others can be strict if necessary firm but just can be frank and honest critical of others can complain if necessary often gloomy able to doubt others frequently disappointed able to criticize self apologetic can be obedient usually gives in grateful admires and imitates others appreciative very anxious to be approved of cooperative eager to get along with others friendly affectionate and understanding considerate encourages others helpful big-hearted and unselfish 1 2 3 . often admired respected by others good leader likes responsibility self-confident self-reliant and assertive businesslike likes to compete with others hard-boiled when necessary stern but fair irritable straightforward and direct resents being bossed skeptical hard to impress touchy and easily hurt easily embarrassed flacks self-confidence easily led modest often helped by others very respectful of authority accepts advice readily trusting and eager to please always pleasant and agreeable wants everyone to like him sociable and neighborly warm kind and reassuring tender and soft-hearted enjoys taking care of others gives freely of self _ 4___________ 6. _always giving advice _acts important _bossy _dominating _boastful _proud and self-satisfied _thinks only of himself _shrewd and calculating _impatient with other's mistakes _self-seeking _outspoken _often unfriendly _bitter _complaining _jealous _slow to forgive a wrong _self-punishing _shy _passive and unaggressive _meek _dependent _wants to be led _lets others make decisions _easily fooled _too easily influenced by friends will confide in anyone _fond of everyone _likes everybody forgives anything oversympathetic _generous to a fault _overprotective of others 7----- 8________ DOM_ _tries to be too successful _expects everyone to admire him _manages others _dictatorial _somewhat snobbish _egotistical and conceited _selfish _cold and unfeeling _sarcastic _cruel and unkind _frequently angry _hard-hearted _resentful _rebels against everything _s tubborn _distrusts everybody _timid _always ashamed of self _obeys too willingly _spineless _hardly ever talks back _clinging vine _likes to be taken care of _will believe anyone _wants everyone's love _agrees with everyone _friendly all the time _loves everyone _too lenient with others _tries to comfort everyone _too willing to give to others _spoils people with kindness L O V_____ APPENDIX C Occupational Role Inventory 328 JdOf-ScFt-/= t u * '9'ban<if '£or person-on-whom the b s s t - i a •being takon.- Place a check in the column-which most a c c u ra te ly in d ic a te s your fo o lin g -fo r each o f-th e follow ing statem en ts. Please answer each one. The ab b rev iatio n SA stands fo r "strongly ag ree," A fo r "ag ree," ? fo r "undecided," D fo r "d isag ree," and SD fo r "stro n g ly d isa g re e ." • ^ „ SA A ? D SD 1 . . . . . j o b f i t s him w e ll. 2 . . . . . 1s e n th u sia s tic about h is jo b , 3........performs h is job s a ti s f a c to r ily . _____ _____ U . , . . . i s f a i r l y rewarded fo r h is a b i l i t i e s . _____ ___ _ _____ _____ ____ 5 has self-c o n fid e n ce about work a b i l i t i e s . _____ _____ _____ ____ 6 . . . . . 1s w ell accepted a t work. _____ _____ ____ _ _____ ____ 7. . . . . job i s boring and monotonous. _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 8 i s am bitious in h is work. _ _ _____ _____ _____ ____ 9 work gives him c re a tiv e o p p o rtu n itie s. _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 1 0 ....... i s in te re s te d in h is work most of the tim e, ____ _____ _______ ____ 1 1 .........i s s a tis f ie d w ith h is job s e c u rity . ‘ _______ _____ _____ _____ _ _____ ____ 1 2 .........work gives him a sense of s e lf - s a tis f a c tio n ____ . ______ ____ 13. . . . .e f f o r ts a t work go u n noticed. . ______ ____ ____ 111.. . . .cooperates w e ll on m utual task s w ith h is fello w w orkers. _ _ _ _____. _____ _____ ____ 1 5 . . . . . 1 . on an o ccupational le v e l as good or b e tto r than th a t of b ro th e r(s) or s i s t e r ( s) ______ _____ ______ ____ 16 many o f . .fe llo w workers lo a f on the jo b , . _____ _____ 1 7 . . . . .lis te n s to the id eas o f h is fello w w orkers. _____ _____ _ _____ ____ 1 8 . . . . .fe llo w workers lik e one an o th er. _____ ______________ _ _____ ____ 1 9 . . . . .fo llew workers f e e l th a t he has s p e c ific ta le n t and knowledge fo r h is jo b .__________ _____ _____ ____ _ _____ ____ I 2 0 . . . . .1 .te r e s ts a rc sim ila r to many o th ers in h is work group.____________________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 2 1 ; . . . .i s h e lp fu l to o th ers a t work.______________ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 2 2 work group has capable p erso n n el.__________ _____ _____ _ _____ _____ _____ 2 3 spouse understands or a p p reciates h is jo b . _____ _____ _ _____ _____ ____ 2k has in flu en c e in h is own work group._______ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 25. . . . .work group has high m orale.________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 2 6 . . . . . fello w workers f e e l h is p o in ts o f view about work a rc a cc e p tab le .________________ _____ ____ _ _____ _____ ____ 329 ' SA A ? D SD 27. . ^ , was w ell prepared in tra in in g and education fo r h is job.- ■ —— ■ ---------- -------- ----- 28 quickly accepts a d d itio n a l resp o n si b i l i t i e s a t work. . .. 2 ? . . .com pletes h is work assignm ents on time and e f f ic ie n tly . 3 0 . . . . . i s w illin g to work whatever time h is job re q u ire s . 31. . . ..a d a p ts re a d ily to most job em ergencies, 32 employs most of h is en erg ies a t h is jo b , 33. . . . .1s much involved in h is o ccupational t i c s . 3k . . . . . j o b i s c le a r ly defined or o u tlin e d . 35. . . . . r e la te s nuch of h is le is u r e to work. 36 b e lie v e s in the values or standards of h is work or p ro fe ssio n . 3 7 . . . . . f e e ls h is job has more than average p re s tig e in h is community. 3 8 . . . . . f e e ls h is job c o n trib u te s to o th e rs . 3 9 . . . . . fo o ls h is job i s more im portant than most «f h is o th er i n t e r e s t s . lj.0 reads l i t e r a t u r e and gets o u tsid e tr a in ing to improve him self a t work. k l . . . . . f e e l s he i s n o t going anywhere and i s in r u t a t work. k 2 .....h a s a good fu tu re on h is jo b , J4.3 f e e ls co n sid erab le p ressu re to change , jo b s. 329 VdOR. (- *>cf^p ' 1 if't-v • •. i fy (, .•stands- f o r the person-on-whom the te st-i-3 • b ein g taken.- -Place a check in the column-which most a c c u ra te ly in d ic a te s your fe e lin g --fo r each o f the fol3.evd.ng s ta te m e n ts. P lease answer each one. The a b b re v ia tio n SA stan d s fo r "stro n g ly a g rc c j" A fo r " a g re e ," ? f o r "undecided," D f o r " d is a g re e ," and SD f o r " stro n g ly d is a g r e e ." SA A ? D SD 1 . . . . , job f i t s him w e ll. 2 i s e n th u s ia s tic about h is jo b , _____ 3 perform s h is job s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . _____ li i s f a i r l y rew arded f o r h is a b i l i t i e s . _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 5 . . . . . has s e lf-c o n fid e n c e about work a b i l i t i e s . _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 6 i s w e ll accep ted a t w ork. _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 7 job i s b o rin g and m onotonous, _ _ _ _ _ 8 . . . . . 1s am bitious in h is w ork. _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 9 . . . . .work g iv e s him c r e a tiv e o p p o r tu n itie s , _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 0 . . . . . 1 . in te r e s t e d in h is work most o f th e tim o._______ _____ _____ _____ 1 1 . . . . . 1 . s a t i s f i e d w ith h is job s e c u r ity ,________ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 1 2 . . . . . work g iv e s him a sense o f s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n _____ _____ _______ 1 3 e f f o r t s a t work go u n n o tic e d ,_______________ _____ _____ _____ _______ _______ 111.. . . .c o o p e ra te s w e ll on m utual ta sk s w ith ‘ h is fo llo w w o rk ers._________________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 5 . . . . . 1 . on an o c c u p a tio n a l le v e l as good o r b e t t e r th an th a t o f b r o th e r ( s ) o r s i s t o r ( s) i . _____ 16 many o f . . . .fe llo w w orkers lo a f on the jo b . _____ . _ . _____ 1 7 . •• . . l i s t e n s to the id e a s o f h is fe llo w w ork ers. _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 8 fe llo w w orkers li k e one a n o th e r. _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 9 . . . . .f c lls w w orkers f e e l t h a t ho has s p e c if ic t a l e n t and knowledge f o r h is jo b . . _____ 2 0 . . . . . 1 .t e r e s t s a r c s im ila r to many o th e rs i n h is work group. , _____ _____ _____ 2 1 ; , . . . i s h e lp f u l to o th e rs a t w ork._______________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 2 2 .....w o r k group has cap ab le p e rso n n e l, _ _ _ _ . _____ 2 3 spouse u n d erstan d s o r a p p re c ia te s h is jo b , _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 2 k has in flu e n c e i n h is own work group._______ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 25 work group has high m o rale._________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 2 6 . . . . .fe llo w w orkers f e e l h is p o in ts o f view about work a rc a c c e p ta b le . _____ _____ _____ 329 27. . -v*. was w ell prepared in tra in in g and education fo r h is job,- 28........qu ick ly accep ts a d d itio n a l re sp o n si b i l i t i e s a t work. 2 y » ., , .com pletes h is work assignm ents on time and e f f ic ie n tly . 30........ i s wil lin g to work whatever time h is job re q u ire s . 31. . . •■•adapts re a d ily to most job em ergencies, 1 32 employs most o f h is, en erg ies a t h is jo b , 33. . . . .1 . much involved in h is occu p atio n al t i e s . 3b .o ,.,jo b i s c le a rly defin ed or o u tlin e d , 35. . . . .r e la te s much of h is le is u r e to work, 3 6 . .b e lie v e s in the values o r stan d ard s of h is work o r p ro fe ssio n . 37. . . . .f e e ls h is job has more than average p re s tig e in h is community. 38. . . . . f e e ls h is job c o n trib u te s to o th e rs . 39 f e e ls h is job i s more im portant than most ®f h is o th e r i n t e r e s t s . b O r e a d s l i t e r a t u r e and g e ts o u tsid e tr a in in g to improve h im self a t work. h i . . . . . f e e l s he i s n o t going anywhere and i s in r u t a t work. b 2 ...,,h a s a good fu tu re on h is jo b . b3 f e e ls co n sid erab le p ressu re to change jo b s. SA A 1 D SD I 329 ’ • • • .s ta n d s -fo r the person on-whom the t-sst--is b ein g taken,- Place a chock in the column-which most a c c u ra te ly in d ic a te s your f e e lin g - f o r each o f-th e fo llo w in g sta te m e n ts. Ploaso answer each one. The a b b re v ia tio n SA stands fo r "stro n g ly a g r e e ," A fo r "a g re e ," ? f o r "undecided," D f o r " d is a g re e ," and SD f o r "stro n g ly d is a g re e ." SA A ? D SD 1 ..........job f i t s him w e ll. 2 . . . . . 1 . e n th u s ia s tic about h is jo b . 3 . . . . .perform s h is job s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . _____ _____ U i s f a i r l y rew arded fo r h is a b i l i t i e s . _____ _____ ___ _ ___ _ ____ 5 . . . . . has s o lf-c o n fid c n c c about work a b i l i t i e s . _____ _____ _____ ____ 6 i s w e ll accep ted a t w ork. _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 7 . . . . .jo b i s b o rin g and monotonous, ______ ______ 8 ........ i s am bitious in h is work.____________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 9 ...........work g iv es him c re a tiv e o p p o rtu n itie s . ______ _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 0 i s in te r e s te d in h is work most c f th e tim e, __________ _____ ______ 1 1 . . . . . 1 s s a t i s f i e d w ith h is job s e c u r ity .________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 2 .........work g iv e s him a sense o f s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n _____ __________________ _ _____ 1 3 . . . . .e f f o r t s a t work go u n n o tic e d .____________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 cooperates w e ll on m utual ta sk s w ith h is fo llo w w o rk ers._________________________ ______ _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 5 . . . . . 1 s on an o c c u p a tio n a l le v e l as good or b e tto r th an th a t o f b ro th e r(s ) o r s i s t e r ( s ) _____ — _ _ — _____ 1 6 many o f . . . .fe llo w w orkers lo a f on the jo b . . ______ 1 7 .l i s t e n s 'to the id e a s o f h is fe llo w w orkers. __________ _____ _____ _____ 1 8 ......... fe llo w w orkers lik e one a n o th e r. ___________ _____ 1 9 ,« ...f c l l e w w orkers f e e l t h a t he has s p e c ific t a l e n t and knowledge f o r h is jo b . i _____ ______ 2 0 . . . . .1 n te re s ts a re s im ila r to many o th e rs i n h is work group. _____ - ■ ■ - _____ _____ 2 ; l ; . . . . i s h e lp fu l to o th e rs a t w ork._______________ _____ _____ ______ _____ _____ 2 2 work group has capable p e rso n n e l, . _____ ______ 2 3 .....s p o u s o u n d erstan d s o r a p p re c ia te s h is jo b . _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 2k .........has in flu e n c e i n h is own work group._______ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 25>..« » .work group has high m o rale. .______ _____ 2 6 ......... fe llo w w orkers f e e l h is p o in ts o f view ab o u t work a rc a c c e p ta b le . _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 329 27. " ;rd5 prepared in tra in in g and education fo r h is job,- — 28 quickly accepts a d d itio n a l resp o n si b i l i t i e s a t work. 2 y ,. . . .com pletes h is work assignm ents on time and e f f ic ie n tly . 3 0 . . . . . 1 . wil l i ng to work whatever tim e h is job re q u ire s , 31. ..a d a p ts re a d ily to most job em ergencies, 32. . . . . employs most of h is en erg ies a t h is jo b , 33. . . . . 1 . much involved in h is occupational t i c s , 3 i* .« ...jo b i s c le a r ly defined or o u tlin e d . 3$ ........r e la te s much of h is le is u r e to work. 36. . . . .b e lie v e s in the v alues o r stan d ard s of h is work o r p ro fe ssio n . 37. . . . .f e e ls h is job has more than average p re s tig e in h is community. 38. . . . . f e e ls h is job c o n trib u te s to o th e rs . 39• . . . . f e e l s h is job i s more im portant than most *f h is o th er i n t e r e s t s . 1*0.........reads l i t e r a t u r e and g e ts o u tsid e tr a in in g to improve h im self a t work. 1 * 1 .....f e e ls he i s n o t going anywhere and i s i n r u t a t work. 1*2........ has a good fu tu re on h is jo b . 1 *3.... * fe e ls co n sid erab le p ressu re to change jo b s. /pea*- 9^ ftrr l f e r ^ - A . . . .'Stands- fo r the person on-whom tho te st-i-a ■ being taken.- - Place a-chock in the column which most a c c u ra te ly -in d ic a te s your feelin g --fo r each o f-th e follow ing statem e n ts. Ploasc answer each one. The ab b rev iatio n SA stands fo r "stro n g ly a g re e ," A fo r " a g re e ,1 1 ? fo r "undecided," D fo r " d is a g re e ," and SD fo r "stro n g ly d is a g re e ." b J 1 • U p.* u. Sk k ? D SD 1 . . . . , j o b f i t s him w e ll. 2 . . . . . 1s e n th u s ia s tic about h is jo b , 3 ........perform s h is job s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . . ^ ........i s f a i r l y rewarded fo r h is a b i l i t i e s . 5 . . . . . has se lf-c o n fid e n c e about work a b i l i t i e s . 6 ........i s -well accepted a t work. 7. . . . . job i s boring and monotonous. _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 8 ........ i s am bitious in h is work. 9 .........work g iv es him c re a tiv e o p p o rtu n itie s , ______ ^ 1 0 * . . . . i s in te r e s te d in h is work most # f th e tim e, _____ _____ _____ 1 1 . . . . . 1 . s a ti s f i e d w ith h is job s e c u rity . _____ _____ _____ 1 2 work g iv es him a sense o f s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n ____ _______ ____ _______ 13. . . . . e f f o r ts a t work go u n n o ticed .____________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 1 1 .....c o o p e ra te s w e ll on m utual ta sk s w ith h is fe llo w w orkers.________________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 15 . . . . . i s on an o ccu p atio n al le v e l as good or b e t t e r than th a t o f b ro th e r(s ) or s i s t e r ( s ) ___ _ _ _ _____ 1 6 many o f . . . .fe llo w workers lo a f on the jo b . ______ _____ _____ _____ ____ 1 7 . . . . .l i s t e n s to the id e as o f h is fe llo w w orkers. _____ _____ _____ _____ 1 8 . . . . .fo llo w workers lik e one a n o th er. ______ _ ______ ____ 1 ? fo llew w orkers f e e l th a t he has s p e c ific ta le n t and knowledge fo r h is jo b . _____ ,_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 0 ........i n t e r e s t s a re s im ila r to many o th e rs in h is work group.____________________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 2 i l ; . . . . i s h e lp fu l to o th e rs a t work.____________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ 2 2 work group has capable p e rso n n el.__________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 23. . . . .spouse understands o r a p p re c ia te s h is jo b , _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 2l | , . . ..h a s in flu e n c e in h is own work g r o u p . _____ _____ _____ _____ 25 . . . . . work group has high m orale._________________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 2 6 . . ...f e llo w w orkers f e e l h is p o in ts o f view about work a rc a c c e p ta b le . _____ _____ __________ _____ 329 SA A ? D SD 27. ^ . was w ell prepared in tra in in g and education fo r h is jo b . • • 28. . . . .q u ick ly accep ts a d d itio n a l re sp o n si b i l i t i e s a t work. 29* . . ..com pletes h is work assignm ents on time and e f f ic ie n tly . 30. . . , . i s v d llin g to work w hatever time id s job re q u ire s . 31. . . ..a d a p ts re a d ily to raost job em ergencies. 32 employs most o f h is en erg ies a t h is jo b . 33. . . . . 1s much involved in. h is o ccu p atio n al t i c s . 3lu » ...jo b i s c le a r ly d efin ed or o u tlin e d , 35. . . . .r e la te s much of h is le is u r e to work. 36. . . . .b e lie v e s in the valu es or stan d ard s 0f h is work or p ro fe s sio n . 37 f e e ls h is job has more th an average p re s tig e in h is community. 38. . . . . f e e ls h is job c o n trib u te s to o th e rs . 3 9 . . . ..f e e l s h is job i s more im portant than most ©f h is o th er i n t e r e s t s . 1 ) 0 ,....read s l i t e r a t u r e and g e ts o u tsid e tr a in in g to improve h im self a t work, h i , . . . .f e e ls he i s n o t going anywhere and i s i n r u t a t vrork. 1)2 has a good fu tu re on h is jo b . 1 )3 .... .f e e ls co n sid erab le p ressu re to changc jo b s . 329 S E L E C T E D B IBLIOGRAPHY 330 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Aberle, David F., and Naegele, Kaspar D. "Middle Class Fathers' Occupational Role and Attitude to Chil dren." Sociology; The Progress of a Decade. Ed ited by S. M. Lipset and N. J. Smelzer. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. Baber, Ray E. Marriage and the Family. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953. Bass, Bernard M. Leadership. Psychology, and Organizational Behavior. New York: Harper and Row, 1960. Becker, Howard. Through Values to Social Interpretations. Durham: Duke University Press, 1950. Bell, Daniel. Work and Its Discontents. Boston: Beacon Press, 1956. Benz, Margaret G. Family Counseling Service in a University Community. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1940. Blood, Robert P., and Wolfe, Donald M. Husbands and Wives. New York: Free Press, 1960. Bossard, James H. S., and Boll, Eleanor S. The Sociology of Child Development. New York: Harper and Bros., 1960. 331 332 Broom, Leonard, and Selznick, Philip. Sociology. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Burgess, Ernest W. , and Cottrell, Leonard S., Jr. Predict ing Success or Failure in Marriage. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1939. Burgess, Ernest W.; Locke, Harvey J.; and Thomes, Mary M. The Family. New York: American Book Co., 1963. Burgess, Ernest W., and Wallin, Paul. Engagement and Mar riage . Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1953. Cantril, Hadley, and Sherif, Muzafer. The Psychology of Ego Involvements. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1947. Caplow, Theodore. The Sociology of Work. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954. Cartwright, Dorwin. The Research Center for Group Dynamics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1950. Cavan, Ruth S. American Marriage. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1959. ________ . "Family in the New Suburb." Marriage and the Family in the Modern World. Edited by Ruth S. Cavan. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1961. Chapin, F. Stuart. Experimental Designs in Sociological Research. New York: Harper and Bros., 1947. Chinoy, Ely. Automobile Workers and the American Dream. Garden City: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1955. Davis, Katherine B. Factors in the Sex Life of 2200 Women. New York: Harper and Bros., 1929. Duvall, Evelyn M. Family Living. New York: Macmillan Co., 1954. and Hill, Reuben. When You Marry. New York: Association Press, 1962. 333 Dubin, Robert. Human Relations in Administration. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951. ________ , The World of Work. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958. Dybwad, Gunnar. Challenges in Mental Retardation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Elliott, Mabel A., and Merrill, Francis E. Social Disorgan ization . New York: Harper and Bros., 1950. Enel, John W., and Haas, George H. Setting Standards for Exe cuti ve Per forman ce. New York: American Manage ment Association, Inc., 1960. English, Spurgeon 0., and Foster, Constance J. A Guide to Successful Fatherhood. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1954. English, Spurgeon 0., and French, Stuart M. Emotional Prob lems of Growing U p . Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1951. Foote, Nelson N., and Cottrell, Leonard S., Jr. Identity and Interpersonal Competence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Form, William H., and Miller, Delbert C. Industry. Labor. and Community. New York: Harper and Bros., 1960. French, Elizabeth G. "Effects of the Interaction of Motiva tion and Feedback on Task Performance." Motives in Fantasy. Action, and Society. Edited by John W. Atkinson. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1958. Gillin, John Lewis, and Gillin, John Philip. Cultural Soci ology . New York: Macmillan Co., 1948. Goldsen, Rose K., et al. What College Students Think. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1960. Grinker, Roy R. Toward a Unified Theory of Human Behavior. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1956. 334 Gross, Neal; Mason, W. S.; and McEachern, Alexander W. Explorations in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956 . Haas, J. Eugene. Role Conception and Group Consensus. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1963. Hamilton, G. V. A Research in Marriage. New York: Lear, 1948. Hartley, Eugene L., and Hartley, Ruth E. Fundamentals of Social PsychoIqctv. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961. Helfrich, Margaret L. The Social Role of the Executive’s Wife. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1965. Hill, Reuben. Families Under Stress. New York: Harper and Bros., 1949. Hoppoch, Robert. Job Satisfaction. New York,: Harper and Bros., 1935. Kardiner, Abram. The Individual and His Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1939. ’ Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966 . Katz, Daniel; Maccoby, Nathan; and Morse, Nancy C. Produc tivity. Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situa tion . Part I. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Re search, University of Michigan, 1951. Kenkel, William F. The Family in Perspective. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. Kephart, William M. The Family, Society, and the Individu al . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961. 335 Kirkpatrick, Clifford, The Family as Process and Institu tion . New York: Ronald Press, 1955. Kluckhohn, Florence Rockwood. "Dominant and Variant Value Orientations." Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture. Edited by Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. Murray. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953. Komarovsky, Mirra. Blue-Collar Marriage. New York: Random House, 1964. ________. "Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles." Read ings in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Judson T. and Mary G. Landis. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952. ___ ________. Women in the Modern World. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953. La Follette, Cecile Tipton. A Study of the Problems of 652 Gainfully Employed Married Women Home-makers. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1934. Landis, Judson T., and Landis, Mary G. Building a Success ful Marriage. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953. Leary, Timothy. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: The Ronald Press, 1957. Levinson, Daniel J. "Role, Personality, and Social Struc ture in the Organizational Structure." Sociology: The Progress of a Decade. Edited by S. M. Lipset and N. J. Smelzer. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1961. Lindesmith, Alfred R., and Strauss, Anselm L. Social Psy cho logy. New York: Dryden Press, 1949. Linton, Ralph. The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1945. "The Natural History of the Family." The Familv. Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth N. Anshen. New York: Harper and Bros., 1949. 3 36 Lintonj Ralph. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc.,, 1936. Locke, Harvey J. Predicting Adjustment in Marriage. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1955. Lumpkin, Katherine Dupre. The Family: A Study of Member Roles. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1933. May, Mark A. A Social Psychology of War and Peace. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1943. Mead, George H. Mind. Self, and Society. Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1934. Merton, Robert K. "Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: Free Press, 1961. Miller, Delbert C., and Form, William H. Industrial Soci ology . New York: Harper and Bros., 1951. Moore, Wilbert E. Economy and Society. Garden City: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1955. ________ . Industrial Relations and the Social Order. New York: Macmillan Co., 1951. National Manpower Council. Womanpower. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Newcomb, Theodore M. "Social Psychological Theory: Inte grating Individual and Social Approaches." Social Psychology at the Crossroads. Edited by John H. Rohrer and Muzafer Sherif. New York: Harper and Bros ., 1951. ________. Social Psychology. New York: Dryden Press, 1950. Nimkoff, Meyer F. Marriage and the Family. Boston: Hough ton Mifflin Co., 1947. 337 Nimkoff, Meyer F. "Technology and the Future of the Fam ily." Marriage and the Family in the Modern World. Edited by Ruth S. Cavan. New York: Thomas Y. Crow ell Co., 1961. Nye, F. Ivan. "Adjustment of the Mother: Summary and a Frame of Reference." The Employed Mother in Ameri ca . Edited by F. Ivan Nye and Lois W. Hoffman. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963. _______. Family Relations and Delinquent Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Oeser, 0. A., and Hammon, S. B. Social Structure and Per sonality in a City. New York: Macmillan Co., 1954. Parsons, Talcott. Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied. Glencoe: Free Press, 1949, ________ . "Role Conflict and the Genesis of Deviance." Social Perspectives on Behavior. Edited by Herman D. Stein and Richard A. Cloward. Glencoe: Free Press, 1958. ________ . "The Social Structure of the Family." The Fam ily: Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth N. Anshen. New York: Harper and Bros., 1949. ________ . The Social System. Glencoe: Free Press, 1951. ________ , and Bales, Robert F. Family Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe: Free Press, 1955. Peterson, James A. Education for Marriage. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1964. Petrullo, Luigi, and Bass, Bernard M. Leadership and Inter personal Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961. Remmers, H. H. Manual for the Purdue Master Attitude Scales. West Lafayette: University Book Store, 1960. 338 Riesman, David; Glazer, Nathan; and Denny, Reuel. The Lone ly Crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. Riesman, David, and Roseborough, Howard. "Careers and Con sumer Behavior." The Family. Edited by Norman W. •Bell and Ezra F. Vogel. Glencoe: Free Press, 1960. Riley, Matilda W.; Riley, John W.; and Toby, Jackson. Soci ological Studies in Scale Analysis. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1954. Roe, Anne. The Psychology of Occupations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956. Sarbin, Theodore R. "Role Theory." Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by Gardner Lindzey. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954. Schneider, Eugene V. Industrial Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1957. Seeley, John R.; Sim, R. Alexander; and Loosley, Elizabeth W. Crestwood Heights. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1956. Sheperd, Clovis R. Small Groups. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co.-y- 1964. Sherif, Muzafer. The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper and Bros., 1936. ________, and Sherif, Carolyn W. An Outline of Social Psy chology . New York: Harper and Bros., 1956. Spiegel, John P. "The Resolution of Role Conflict within the Family." The Family. Edited by Norman W. Bell and Ezra F. Vogel. Glencoe: Free Press, 1960. Stouffer, Samuel A., and Lazarsfeld, Paul F. Research Mem orandum on the Family in the Depression. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1937. Straus, Murray A. "Measuring Families." Handbook of Mar riage and the Family. Edited by Harold T. Christen sen. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1964. 339 Strauss, Anselm L. Mirrors and Masks, the Search for Iden tity . Glencoe: Free Press, 1959. Stroup, Atlee L. Marriage and Family. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1966. Super, Donald E. The Dynamics of Vocational Adjustment. New York: Harper and Bros., 1942. ________ , et al. Career Development and Self-Concent Theory. New York: College Entrance Exam Board, 1963. Terman, Lewis. Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1938. Truxal, Andrew G., and Merrill, Francis E. Marriage and the Family in American Culture. New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1953. Udry, Richard J. The Social Context of Marriage. Phila delphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1966. Vincent, Clark E. "Helping the College Woman Choose Her Role." Marriage and Family in the Modern World. Edited hy Ruth S. Cavan. New York: Thomas Y. Crow ell Co., 1961. Vincent, Melvin J., and Mayers, Jackson. New Foundations for Industrial Sociology. Princeton: D. Van Nos trand Co., Inc., 1959. Wallin, Paul. "Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles: A Repeat Study." Readings in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Judson T. Landis and Mary G. Landis. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952. White, Winston. Beyond Conformity. Glencoe: Free Press, 1961, Whyte, W. F. Men at Work. Homewood: R. D. Irwin, Inc., 1961. Money and Motivation . New York: Harper and Bros., 1955. 340 Whyte, William H. Is Anybody Listening? New York: Simon and Schuster * 1952. Whyte, William H. Jr. "The Wife Problem." Marriage and the Familv. Edited by Robert F. Winch and Robert McGin nis. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1957' Willmott, Peter, and Young, Michael. Family and Class in a London Suburb. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960. Wilson, Pauline P. College Women Who Express Futility. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950. Winch, Robert F. The Modern Family. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1952. Zelditch, Morris Jr. "Cross-Cultural Analysis of Family Structure." Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Edited by Harold T. Christensen. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1964. _________. "Family, Marriage, and Kinship." Handbook of Modern Sociology. Edited by Robert E. L. Faris. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1964. Znaniecki, Florian. Social Relations and Social Roles. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1965. Articles and Periodicals Axelson, Leland J. "The Marital Adjustment and Marital Role Definitions of Husbands of Working and Non-Working Wives." Marriage and Family Living. XXV (May, 1963), 189-195. Bates, Frederick L. "Position, Role, and Status: A Reform ulation of Concepts." Social Forces. XXXIV (May, 1956), 313-321. Becker, Howard S., and Strauss, Anselm L. "Careers, Person ality, and Adult Socialization." American Journal of Sociology. LXII (November, 1956), 253-263. 341 Benson, Purnell. "Familism and Marital Success." Social Forces. XXXIII (March, 1955), 277-280. Bible, Bond L., and McCarnes, James D. "Role Consensus and Teacher Effectiveness." Social Forces. XLII (Decem ber, 1963), 225-233. Blood, Robert 0., and Hamblin, Robert L. "The Effect of the Wife's Employment on the Family Power Structure." Social Forces. XXXVI (May, 1958), 347-352. Bott, Elizabeth. "Urban Families: Conjugal Roles and So cial Networks." Human Relations. VIII (November, 1955), 345-384. Buerkle, Jack V., and Badgley, Robin F. "Couple Role- Taking: The Yale Marital Interaction Battery." Marriage and Family Living. XXI (February, 1959), 53-58. Carper, James W., and Becker, Howard S. "Adjustments to Conflicting Expectations in the Development of Iden tification with an Occupation." Social Forces. XXXVI (October, 1957), 51-56. Coates, Charles H., and Pellegrin, Roland J. "Executives and Superiors: Contrasting Self-Conceptions and Conceptions of Each Other." American Sociological Review. XXII (April, 1957), 217-220. Corwin, Ronald; Taves, Marvin J.; and Haas, J. Eugene. "Social Requirements for Occupational Success, In ternalized Norms and Friendships." Social Forces. XXXIX (December, 1960), 135-140. Couch, Carl J. "The Use of the Concept, 'Role,1 and Its Derivatives in a Study of Marriage." Marriage and Family Living. XX (November, 1958), 353-357. Coutu, Walter. "Role-Playing vs. Role-Taking: An Appeal for Clarification." American Sociological Review. XVI (April, 1951), 180-187. 342 Daniels, Morris J. "Relative Status and the Role Concept." Pacific Sociological Review. II (Spring, 1959), 41- 48. . . Davis, James A. "Compositional Effects, Role Systems, and the Survival of Small Discussion Groups." Public Opinion Quarterly. XXV (Winter, 1961), 574-584. Dibble, Vernon K. "Occupations and Ideologies." American Journal of Sociology. LXVIII (September, 1962), 229- 241. Dunn, Marie S. "Marriage Role Expectations of Adolescents." Marriage and Family Living. XXII (May, 1960), 99- 104. Dybwad, Gunnar. "Fathers Today— Neglected or Neglectful." Child Study. XXIX (Spring, 1952), 3-5, 28-29. Dyer, William G. "Analyzing Marital Adjustment Using Role Theory." Marriage and Family Living. XXIV (Novem ber, 1962), 371-375. ________. "A Comparison of Families of High and Low Job Satisfaction." Marriage and Family Living. XVIII (February, 1956), 58-6 0. ________. "The Interlocking of Work and Family Social Sys tems among Lower Occupational Families." Social Forces. XXXIV (March, 1956), 230-233. ________. "Looking at Conflict." Adult Leadership. IX (September, 1960), 79-80. Dymond, Rosalind. "Interpersonal Perception and Marital Happiness." Canada Journal of Psychology. VIII (September, 1954), 164-171. Empey, La Mar T. "Role Expectations of Young Women Regard ing Marriage and a Career." Marriage and Family Living. XX (May, 1958), 152-155. Evan, William M. "Role Strain and the Norm of Reciprocity in Research Organizations." American Journal of Sociology. LXVIII (November, 1962), 346-354. 343 Farmerj Bernard. "An Index of Marital Integration." Soci- ometrv. XX (June, 1957), 117-134. Foote, Nelson N. "American Marriage Patterns and the Role of Women." Eugenics Quarterly. I (December, 1954), 254-260. Form, William H. "Toward an Occupational Social Psycholo gy." Journal of Social Psychology. XXIV (1946), 85- 99. ________ , and Geschwender, James A. "Social Reference Basis of Job Satisfaction: The Case of the Manual Work ers." American Sociological Review. XXVII (April, 1962), 228-237. ________ , and Miller, Delbert C. "Occupational Career Pat terns as a Sociological Instrument." American Jour nal of Sociology. LIV (January, 1949), 317-329. French, Elizabeth G. "Some Characteristics of Achievement Motivation." Journal of Experimental Psychology. L, No. 4 (1955), 232-236. Friend, Jeannette G., and Haggard, Ernest A. "Work Adjust ment in Relation to Family Background." Applied Psychology Monographs. XVI (1948), 1-150. Getzels, J. W., and Cuba, E. G. "Role, Role Conflict, and Effectiveness; An Empirical Study." American Soci ological Review. XIX (April, 1954), 164-175. Gianopulos, Artie, and Mitchell, Howard E. "Marital Dis agreement in Working Wives' Marriages as a Function of Husbands' Attitude toward Wives' Employment." Marriage and Family Living. XIX (November, 1957), 373-378. Glueck, Sheldon, and Glueck, Eleanor. "Working Mothers and Delinquency." Mental Hygiene. XLI (July, 1957), 327-352. Gold, Martin, and Slater, Carol. "Office, Factory, Store— and Family: A Study of Integration Setting." Amer ican Sociological Review. XXIII (February, 1958), 64-7.4. 344 Goode, William J. "Economic Factors and Marital Instabili ty." American Sociological Review. XVI (December, 1951), 802-812. _________. "Norm Commitment and Conformity to Role-Status Obligation." American Journal of Sociology. LXVI (November, 1960), 216-258. "A Theory of Role Strain." American Sociological Review. XXV (August, 1960), 483-496. Gouldner, Alvin W. "Attitudes of 'Progressive' Trade-Union Leaders." American Journal of Sociology. LI I (March, 1947), 389-392. Gover, David A. "Socio-Economic Differential in the Rela tionship between Marital Adjustment and Wife's Em ployment Status." Marriage and Family Living. XXV (November, 1963), 452-458. Gray, Robert M., and Smith, Ted C. "Effect of Employment on Sex Differences in Attitudes toward the Parental Family." Marriage and Family Living. XXII (Febru ary, 1960), 36-38. Gross, Edward. "The Occupational Variable as a Research Category." American Sociological Review. XXIV (October, 1959), 640-649. ________ . "Symbiosis and Consensus as Integrative Factors in Small Groups." American Sociological Review. XXI (April, 1956), 175-179. Gusfield, Joseph R. "Occupational Roles and Forms of Enter prise." American Journal of Sociology. LXVI (May, 1961), 571-580. Hacker, Helen M. "The New Burdens of Masculinity." M a r riage and Family Living. XIX (August, 1957), 227- 233 . Haire, Mason. "Role Perceptions in Labor-Management Rela tions: An Experimental Approach." Industrial and Labor Relations Review. VIII (January, 1955), 204- 216 . 345 Hall, Robert L. "Social Influence on the Aircraft Command er's Role." American Sociological Review. XX (June, 1955), 292-299. Hartley, Ruth E. "Current Patterns in Sex Roles: Chil dren's Perspectives." Journal of National Associa tion of Women Deans and Counselors. XXV (October, 1961), 3-13. Heer, David M. "Dominance and the Working Wife." Social Forces. XXXVI (1958), 341-347. "The Measurement and Bases of Family Power. Marriage and Family Living. XXV (May, 1963), 133- 139 . Henry, William E. "The Business Executive: Psychodynamics of a Social Role." American Journal of Sociology. LIV (January, 1949), 286-291. Hobart, Charles W. "Commitment, Value Conflict, and the Future of the American Family." Marriage and Family Living. XXV (November, 1963), 405-414. Hoffman, Lois W. "Effects of the Employment of Mothers on Parental Power Relations and Divisions of Household Tasks." Marriage and Family Living. XXII (February, 1960), 27-35. Hubbard, Harold G., and McDonagh, Edward G. "The Business Executive as a Career Type." Sociology and Social Research. XLVII (January, 1963), 138-146. Hurvitz, Nathan. "The Measurement of Marital Strain." American Journal of Sociology. LXV (May, 1960), 610- 615 . Jacobson, Alver Hilding. "Conflict of Attitudes towards the Roles of the Husband and Wife in Marriage." Ameri can Sociological Review. XVII (August, 1952), 146- 150. Jacobson, Eugene; Charters, W. W. Jr.; and Lieberman, Sey mour. "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Complex Organizations." Journal of Social Issues. 346 VII, No. 3 (1951), 18-27. Kelly, E. Lowell. "Consistency of the Adult Personality." American Psychologist. X (November, 1955), 659-681. Kehkel, William F . "Influence Differentiation in Family Decision-Making." Sociology and Social Research. XLII (1957), 18-25. _________. "Traditional Family Ideology and Spousal Roles in Decision-Making." Marriage and Family Living. XXI (November, 1959), 334-339. _________, and Hoffman, Dean K. "Real and Conceived Roles in Family Decision-Making." Marriage and Family Liv ing. XVIII (November, 1956), 311-316. Kirkpatrick, Clifford. "Content of a Scale for Measuring Attitudes towards Feminism." Sociology and Social Research. XX (July-August, 1936), 512-526. _________. "The Measurement of Ethical Inconsistency in Mar riage." International Journal of Ethics. XLVI (July, 1936), 444-46 0. Laulicht, Jerome. "Role Conflict, the Pattern Variable Theory, and Scalogram Analysis." Social Forces. XXXIII (March, 1955), 250-254. Leavy, Stanley A., and Freedman, Lawrence Z. "Psychoneuro sis and Economic Life." Social Problems. IV (July, 1956), 55-67. Lieberman, Seymour. "The Effects of Changes in Roles in the Attitudes of Role Occupants." Human Relations. IX (November, 1956), 385-402. Litwak, Eugene. "Occupational Mobility and Extended Family Cohesion." American Sociological Review. XXV (Feb ruary, 1960), 9-21. Locke, Harvey J., and Mackeprang, Muriel. "Marital Adjust ment and the Employed Wife." American Journal of Sociology. LIV (May, 1949), 536-538. 347 , I Locke^ Harvey J ., and Wallace, Karl M.. "Short Marital Ad justment and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and Predicability." Marriage and Family Living. XXI (August, 1959), 251-255. Locke, Harvey J., and Williamson, Robert C. "Marital Ad justment: A Factor Analysis Study." American Soci ological Review. XXIII (August, 1958), 562-569. Luckey, Eleanor B. 1 1 Implications for Marriage Counseling of Self-Perceptions and Spouse Perceptions." Journal of Counseling Psychology. VII, No. 1 (1960), 3-9. _________. "Marital Satisfactions and Congruent Self-Spouse Concepts." Social Forces. XXXIX (December, 1960), 153-157. _________. "Marital Satisfaction and Its Association with Congruence of Perception." Marriage and Family Liv ing. XXII (February, 1960), 49-54. _________. "Perceptual Congruence of Self and Family Con cepts as Related to Marital Interaction." Sociome- trv. XXIV (September, 1961), 234-250. Lu, Yi-Chuang. "Marital Roles and Marital Adjustment." Sociology and Social Research. XXXVI (July-August, 1952), 364-368. _________. "Predicting Roles in Marriage." American Journal of Sociology. LVIII (July, 1952), 51-55. Lyman, Elizabeth L. "Occupational Differences in the Value Attached to Work." American Journal of Sociology. LXI (September, 1955), 138-144. Mack, Raymond W. "Occupational Determinateness: A Problem and a Hypothesis in Role Theory." Social Forces. XXXV (October, 1956), 20-25. "Occupational Ideology and the Determinate Role." Social Forces. XXXVI (October, 1957), 37-44. 348 Mahoney, Thomas A. "Factors Determining the Labor-Force Participation of Married Women." Industrial and Labor Relations Review. XIV (July, 1961), 563-577. Mangus, A. R. "Family Impacts on Mental Health." Marriage and Family Living. XIX (August, 1957), 256-262. ________ . "Integration of Theory, Research, and Family Counseling Practices." Marriage and Family Living. XIX (February, 1957), 81-85. ________ . "Role Theory and Marriage Counseling." Social Forces. XXXV (March, 1957), 200-209. Marcus, Mildred R. "Women in the Labor Force." Social Casework, XLI (June, 1960), 298-302. Martindale, Don. "Talcott Parsons' Theoretical Metamorpho sis from Social Behaviorism to Macrofunctionalism." Alpha Kappa Deltan. XXIX (Winter, 1959), 38-46. McKee, John P., and Sherriffs, Alex C. "Men's and Women's Beliefs, Ideals, and Self-Concepts." American Jour nal of Sociology. LXVI (November, 1960), 356-363, Merton, Robert K. "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality." Social Forces. XVIII (May, 1940), 560-568. ________ . "The Role Set: Problems in Sociological Theory." British Journal of Sociology. VIII (March, 1957), 106-120. Miller, Delbert C. "The Social Factors of the Work Situa tion." American Sociological Review. XI (June, 1946), 300-314. Mogey, J. M. "A Century of Declining Parental Authority." Marriage and Family Living. XIX (August, 1957), 234- 239 . Morse, Nancy C., and Weiss, Robert S. "The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job." American Sociological Review. XX (April, 1955), 191-198. 349 Nieman, Lionel J., and Hughes, J. W. "The Problems of the Concept of Role— a Re-Survey of Literature." Social Forces. XXX (December, 1951), 141-149. Nix, Harold L., and Bates, Frederick L. "Occupational Role Stresses: A Structural Approach." Rural Sociology. XXVII (March, 1962), 7-17. Nye, F. Ivan. "Employment Status of Mothers and Marital Conflict, Permanence, and Happiness." Social Prob lems . VI (Winter, 1958-59), 260-267. ________ . "Maternal Employment and Marital Interaction: Some Contingency Conditions." Social Forces. XL (December, 1962), 113-119. Old, Victoria. "Role Theory and Casework: A Review of the Literature." Social Casework. XLIII (January, 1962), 3-8. Ort, Robert S. "A Study of Role Conflict, as Related to Happiness in Marriage." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholoav. XLV (October, 1950), 691-699. Payne, Raymond. "Adolescents' Attitudes toward the Working Wife." Marriage and Family Living. XVIII (November, 1956), 345-348. Perry, Stewart E., and Wynne, Lyman C. "Role Conflict, Role Definition, and Social Change in a Clinical Research Organization." Social Forces. XXXVIII (October, 1959), 60-65. Preston, Malcolm G., et al. "Impressions of Personality as a Function of Marital Conflict." Journal of Abnor mal and Social Psychology. XLVII (April, 1952), 326- 336 . Ramsey, Charles E., and Nelson, Lowry. "Changes in Value and Attitudes toward the Family." Amer.ican Socio logical Review. XXI (October, 1956), 605-609. Rapoport, Rhona, and Rosow, Irving. "An Approach to Family Relationships and Role Performance." Human Rela tions . X (August, 1957), 209-221. 350 Reisman, Leonard. "A Study of Role Conceptions in a Bu reaucracy." Social Forces. XXVII (March, 1949), 305-310. Rogers, Everett M., and Sebald, Hans. "A Distinction be tween Familism, Family Integration, and Kinship Orientation." Marriage and Family Living. XXIV (February, 1962), 25-35. Rose, Arnold M. "The Adequacy of Women's Expectation for Adult Roles." Social Forces. XXX (October, 1951), 69-77 . Schatter, Robert H. "Job Satisfaction as Related to Need Satisfaction in Work." Psychological Monographs. LXVII, No. 14 (1953), 1-29. Sebald, Hans, and Andrews, Wade H. "Family Integration and Related Factors in a Rural Fringe Population." Mar riage and Family Living. XXIV (November, 1962), 347- 351. Seward, Georgene H. "Cultural Conflict and the Feminine Role: An Experimental Study." Journal of Social Psychology. XXII, No. 3 (1945), 177-194. Shibutani, Tamotsu. "Reference Groups as Perspectives." American Journal of Sociology. LX (May, 1955), 562- 569. Shuval, Judith. "Occupational Interests and Sex-Role Con gruence." Human Relations. XVI (May, 1963), 171- 182. Simpson, Richard C., and Harper, Ida. "The Psychiatric Attendant: Development of an Occupational Self- image in a Low-status Occupation." American Socio logical Review. XXIV (June, 1959), 389-392. Sjobert, Gideon. "Familial Organization in the Pre-indus trial City." Marriage and Family Living. XVIII (February, 1956), 30-36. 351 Slater, Philip E. "Parental Role Differentiation." Ameri can Journal of Sociology. LXVII (November, 1961), 296-311. ~ ' Slaughter, C. "Modern Marriage and the Role of the Sexes." Sociological Review. N.S., IV (December, 1956), 217- 221. Smith, J. H. "Managers and Married Women Workers." British Journal of Sociology. XII (March, 1961), 12-22. Southall, Aidan. "An Operational Theory of Role." Human Relations. XII (February, 1959), 17-34. Srole, Leo. "Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study." American Sociological Re view. XXI (December, 1956), 709-716. Stolz, Lois Meek. "Effects of Maternal Employment on Chil dren: Evidence from Research." Child Development. XXXI (December, 1960), 749-782. Stouffer, Samuel A. "An Analysis of Conflicting Social Norms." American Sociological Review. XIV (Decem ber, 1949), 707-717. ________ , and Toby, Jackson. "Role Conflict and Personal ity." American Journal of Sociology. LI (March, 1951), 395-406. Strauss, Anselm L. "The Learning of Roles and of Concepts as Twin Processes." The Journal of Genetic Psychol ogy. LXXXVIII (June, 1956), 211-217. Strodtbeck, Fred L. "The Family as a Three-Person Group," American Sociological Review. XIX (February, 1954), 23-29. ________ . "Husband-Wife Interaction over Revealed Differ ences. " American Sociological Review. XVI (August, 1951), 468-473. Stryker, Sheldon. "Relationships of Married Offspring and Parents: A Test of Mead's Theory." American Jour nal of Sociology. LXII (November, 1956), '308-319. 352 Stryker, Sheldon. "Role-Taking Accuracy and Adjustment." Sociometry. XX {December, 1957)", 286-296. ________ . "Symbolic Interaction as an Approach to Family Research." Marriage and Family Living. XXI (May, 1959), 111-119. Stuckert, Robert P. "Occupational Mobility and Family Rela tions." Social Forces. XLI (1963), 301-307. ________ . "Role Perception and Marital Satisfaction: A Configurational Approach." Marriage and Family Liv ing. XXV (November, 1963), 415-419. Sutcliffe, J. P., and Haberman, M. "Factors Influencing Choice in Role Conflict Situations.” American Soci ological Review. XXI (April, 1956), 695-703. Tasch, Ruth Jacobson. "The Role of the Father in the Fam ily." Journal of Experimental Education. XX (June, 1952), 319-361. Terrien, Frederic W. "The Occupational Roles of Teachers." Journal of Educational Sociology. XXIX (September, 1955), 14-20. Tharp, Roland G. "Dimensions of Marriage Roles." Marriage and Family Living. XXV (November, 1963), 389-404. ________ . "Psychological Patterning in Marriage," Psycho logical Bulletin. LX (March, 1963), 97-117. ~~ Thomas, Edwin J. "Role Conceptions and Organizational Size." American Sociological Review. XXIV (Febru ary, 1959), 30-37. ■ I , Titmoss, Richard M. "Industrialization and the Family." Social Service Review. XXXI (March, 1957), 54-62. ~Tumin, Melvin M. "Rewards and Task-Orientations." American Sociological Review. XX (August, 1955), 419-423. Turner, Ralph H. "Reference Groups of Future-Oriented Men." Social Forces. XXXIV (December, 1955), 130-136. 353 Turner, Ralph H. "Role-Taking, Role Standpoint, and Refer ence Group Behavior." American Journal of Sociolo gy . LXI (January, 1956), 316-328. _________. 1 1 Self and Other in Moral Judgment." American Sociological Review. XIX (June, 1954), 249-259. Weil, Mildred W. "An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Married Women's Actual or Planned Work Participa tion." American Sociological Review. XXVI (Febru ary, 1961), 91-96. Weiss, Robert S., and Samuelson, Nancy Morse. "Social Roles of American Women: Their Contribution to a Sense of Usefulness and Importance." Marriage and Family Living. XX (November, 1958), 358-366. Whyte, William H., Jr. "The Corporation and the Wife." Fortune. November, 1951, pp. 109-111, 150, 152-156, 158. ________ . "The Wives of Management." Fortune. October, 1951, pp. 86-88, 204, 206. Wilensky, Harold L. "Orderly Careers and Social Participa tion: The Impact of Work History on Social Integra tion in the Middle Mass." American Sociological Review. XXVI (August, 1961), 521-539. Williamson, Robert C. "Economic Factors in Marital Adjust ment." Marriage and Family Living. XIV (1962), 298- 301. "Women at Work." Economist. CCI (October 28, 1961), 343. "Women, Wife, and Worker in Great Britain." International Labor Review. LXXXIII (May, 1961), 507-509. Unpublished Material Barclay, Dorothy. "A Historical Study of Industrial Coun seling." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, 1957. 354 Hartman, William E. "The Relationship between Job Adjust ment and Marital Adjustment of a Selected Group of Workers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer sity of Southern California, 1950. Hubbard, Harold G. "Career Business Executives as Occupa tional Types." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni versity of Southern California, 1960. Hurvitz, Nathan. "Marital Roles and Adjustment in Marriage in a Middle Class Group." Unpublished Ph.D. disser tation, University of Southern California, 1958. Kotlar, Sally L. "Attitude Differentials and Their Rela tionship to Marital Adjustment." Unpublished Mas ter's thesis, University of Southern California, 1959. ________ . "Middle Class Marital Roles— Ideal and Perceived in Relation to Adjustment in Marriage." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Califor nia, 1961. Mackeprang, Muriel. "A Comparison of the Marital Adjustment of Couples in Which the Wife Is Gainfully Employed Full-time Outside of the Home with Couples in Which the Wife Is a Full-time Homemaker." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, 1949 . Miller, Louis. "A Study of Marital Roles of Happily Married and Unhappily Married Couples." Unpublished Mas ter's thesis, University of Southern California, 1961. Wallace, Karl M. "Construction and Validation of Marital Adjustment and Prediction Scales." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Califor nia, 1947. Williamson, Robert G. "Socio-Economic Factors and Marital Adjustment." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni versity of Southern California, 1951. 355 Zahedi, Hamid. "Analytic Study of Attorneys." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Califor nia, 1962.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Complementarity, Homogeneity, Heterogeneity And Marital Stability

PDF

Role Perception, Empathy, And Marital Adjustment

PDF

Familism, Suburbanization, And Residential Mobility In A Metropolis

PDF

An Empirical Study On The Differential Influence Of Self- Concept On The Professional Behavior Of Marriage Counselors

PDF

Some Characteristics Of A Selected Sample Of Free Methodist Pastoral Dropouts

PDF

Consensus Of Role Perceptions In A Welfare Planning Council

PDF

Middle-Class Marital Roles - Ideal And Perceived In Relation To Adjustment In Marriage

PDF

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

PDF

Normative values of selected law enforcement officers and adult male offenders

PDF

Status consistency and its effects on marital adjustment and stability

PDF

Interpersonal Relations In Ethnically Mixed Small Work Groups

PDF

An Analysis Of The Positive And Negative Functions In The Contemporary Usage Of An Ancient Rite Of Passage

PDF

An Empirical Examination Of The Relationship Of Vertical Occupational Mobility And Horizontal Residential Mobility

PDF

Social Factors Related To Dentistry As A Career

PDF

A Critique Of The Concept Ethnocentrism As Set Forth In Selected Social Science Literature

PDF

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

PDF

Sex-Role Preferences Of Early Adolescents In Relation To Adjustment

PDF

Creativity In Children: A Study Of The Relationship Between Temperament Factors And Aptitude Factors Involved In The Creative Ability Of Seventh Grade Children With Suggestions For A Theory Of C...

PDF

Power Relationships In Marital Discord

PDF

Personality And Interpersonal Factors Associated With The Duration Of Marriage Counseling

Asset Metadata

Creator Rholl, Keith Norris (author)

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

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

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

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

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Peterson, James A. (committee chair), McDonagh, Edward C. (committee member), Robb, J. Wesley (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-638261

Unique identifier UC11361173

Identifier 6900641.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-638261 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6900641.pdf

Dmrecord 638261

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rholl, Keith Norris

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