CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONGST
MARITAL SATISFACTION, COMMUNICATION, AND PERSONALITY
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 1n
Educational Psychology,
r
Counseling and Guidance
by
Nancy Baughman Polen
June, 1981
The Thesis of Nancy Baughman Polen is approved:
Dr. Robert Docter
nr. Bernard Nisenh~~
Lfr: CharLes
R~son,
Chairperson
California State University, Northridge
ii
Table of Contents
Page
v
List of Tables
vi
Abstract
Chapter
1.
Introduction
1
2.
Review of Literature
5
Marital Adjustment
6
Definition of Marital Adjustment
6
Background and Concepts
7
Communication .
8
Definition of Verbal Communication
8
Definition of Nonverbal Communication
9
Definition of Conflict
9
Persona1i ty . .
11
Definition of Personality-Types
3.
14
Summary . .
15
Hypotheses
16
Importance of the Study
16
18
Methodology . .
Subject Selection
18
Procedure . . .
19
.
iii
Chapter
3.
4.
Page
Methodology (continued)
Description of the Sample .
19
Instruments .
20
Results .
30
Findings from Participants' Scores
Marital Adjustment Scores .
30
Communication Scores
31
Relationship Between Marital Adjustment
and Communication . . . . . . . . .
32
Relationship Between Personality and
Marital Adjustment
33
Heterogamy vs. Homogamy .
34
Couples Average Scores
34
Determining Joint Scores
34
Scores on the Primary
Inventory .
. . .
35
Communic~tion
Scores on the Locke-Thomes Marital
Adjustment Test
...
Summary of Results
5.
30
35
36
Discussion of Findings and Suggestions
for Further Research
38
Discussion of Findings
38
Suggestions for Further Research
42
References
45
Appendices .
51
A.
Informed Consent Form
52
B.
Questionnaire Cover Note
53
C.
Personal
54
Info~mation
Form
iv
List of Tables
Table
Page
1.
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
2.
Relationship Between Marital Adjustment
and Communication
3.
21
32
Relationship Between Couples Marital
Adjustment and Communication . . .
v
36
ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONGST
MARITAL SATISFACTION, COMMUNICATION, AND PERSONALITY
by
Nancy Baughman Polen
Master of Arts in Educational Psychology,
Counseling and Guidance
This study investigated the relationship amongst
married couples' communication, personality-types, and
marital satisfaction.
Fifty-two subjects (26 married couples) completed
the following measures without collaborating with their
spouse, and were returned to the researcher:
1.
The Locke-Thomes Marital Adjustment Test, an
instrument assessing marital satisfaction,
2.
The Primary Communication Inventory (PCI), an
assessment of verbal and nonverbal communication
between marital couples, and their judgment of
Vl
each other's communication, and
3.
The California Psychological Inventory (CPI),
a personality questionnaire.
Strong positive correlations were found between
marital satisfaction and all three components of communication.
Verbal communication was the strongest predictor
of marital satisfaction.
Three personality factors,
Socialization, Sense of Well-Being, and Self-Control
showed significant, although moderately positive
correlations with marital adjustment.
The importance of these findings are discussed in
relation to previous investigations and with reference
to their implications for marital
Vll
couns~ling.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Marriage continues to be an ever-popular institution
in our society, with over 90 percent of American men and
women getting married at least once in their lifetimes
(Jacobson, 1959).
Despite the statistics that support its
popularity, one third of those marriages end in divorce.
The highest divorce rate occurs during the first three
years of marriage, while the second highest rate occurs
after 18 to 20 years, a time that coincides with the
children leaving home and mid-life crises (Kasdan, 1981).
Four out of five people who get divorced remarry within
a short period of time, even though 40 percent of second
marriages also end in divorce (Kas·dan, 1981).
Despite the popularity of this institution and the
rapid escalation of divorce rates throughout the country,
psychologists and researchers have given comparatively
little attention to this ubiquitous institution and the
complexities involved in it,
It has been speculated
that marital satisfaction is related to maturity, mental
health, compatibility and good luck.
1
Although the contributing factors affecting marital
satisfaction or dissatisfaction are numerous, it is this
researcher's contention that among the primary factors
are communication and personality-types.
The objective of this research study is to determine
if there is a relationship between couples' communication
and their personality-type, and how these two indices
affect the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the marital
adjustment.
It may be that satisfaction is associated
with these psychological factors.
Such a finding would
have important implications in the area of counseling.
This study will address the following questions:
1.
What constitutes successful marital adjustment?
2.
What are the nature of the personality and
communication differences between couples who
have a "happy" marital adjustment and those who
have an "unhappy" marital adjustment?
3.
Does homogamy (like choosing like) or heterogamy
(attraction to another because of needs which
complement each other) affect marital adjustment?
4.
Do individual personality patterns affect
intra-marital personality interactions?
5.
Is there a link between communication, both verbal
and non-verbal, and marital satisfaction?
The importance of this study derives from the fact
that there has been no investigation of the simultaneous
3
relationship amongst personality, communication and marital
adjustment.
While studies have focused on each of these
factors separately, the effects that communication and
personality have on marital satisfaction have never been
employed together in this type of study.
Clear and accurate verbal and nonverbal communication
between spouses has been considered an important factor
in the success of interpersonal marital relationships.
Adjustment in marriage and communication were found to
be highly interrelated (Murphy and Mendelson, 1973).
Un-
happily married couples were found to communicate less
accurately than did happily married couples (Kahn, 1969).
Both of these studies support the theory that communication
is an important factor in successful marital interaction.
Lack of communication, or the absence of open
communication channels results in conflict.
It has been
suggested that people repeatedly use specific strategies
or styles to resolve conflict in an intimate relationship
(Oson and Ryder, 1969).
Luckey (1964) further suggests
that these unique patterns are indicative of the personality of that particular individual.
In introducing and describing the problem of this
investigation, this chapter will lay the groundwork for
a more in-depth exploration of the central issues encompassed in this problem,
This will be presented in Chapter
2, where literature will be reviewed supporting the
4
following claims:
(a) communication has an effect on
marital satisfaction; (b) personality-types and their
combinations in spouses affect marital satisfaction; and
(c) similarity of spouse's personality traits (homogamy)
is related to marital satisfaction; and dissimilar or
unrelated personality traits (heterogamy) has an effect
on marital unhappiness.
The Methods for this particular investigation will
be presented in Chapter 3.
Instruments and questionnaires
that were utilized will be described in detail and pertinent literature reviewed.
Information about participants
and procedures will also be provided.
The results of the study will be presented in Chapter
4.
Chapter 5 will discuss the findings and their
implications for marital counseling.
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
Research efforts regarding the causes of marital success or failure have not matched the significance and
impact that marital breakdown has on individuals, families
and the community.
Most research on marital adjustment
prior to the sixties focused on the cultural, social,
economic and physical aspects of marriage.
During the
sixties, however, an interest in marital communication
began to be viewed as a significant variable in marital
interaction, even though novelists and playwrights had
emphasized its importance for years.
During this same
period of time, researchers in the United States, in
their quest to determine the cause of the high divorce
rate, took a new look at personality and its effect on
marital adjustment.
Since the term "marital adjustment" has many meanings
in the literature, terminology will be discussed, followed
by the usage of "marital adjustment" and related background concepts and issues.
The following sections of
the chapter review the literature relevant to the three
main areas of the study:
communication, personality
5
6
characteristics and personality-types, and how these three
variables affect marital adjustment.
A brief summary
will indicate the areas of agreement or disagreement in
the review of the literature.
The final section of the
chapter will outline the aims and hypotheses of the present
study.
Marital Adjustment
Definition of marital adjustment.
For the purpose
of this study, marital adjustment is defined as the
overall happiness or satisfaction that each partner feels
in the marital relationship (Burgess and Locke, 1960).
This criteria has the following limitations:
(1) it
can be influenced by social desirability (giving socially
acceptable responses and withholding embarrassing responses);
(2) the halo effect (how one feels about self, job,
weather, etc., can affect his responses);
(3) the per-
ceiver's accuracy can be contaminated by a stereotypic
response set (in other words, a person may respond to
a question by describing himself or another in a culturally stereotypic or socially desirable way rather than
describing how that person truly is); and (4) response
sets such as the tendency to use middle categories on a
rating scale of marital satisfaction can also influence
accuracy scores.
This definition of marital adjustment
is, however, believed to be a better criteria than success
based on the basis of endurance of marriage or the absence
7
of marital counseling.
observation:
These terms neglect a common
many marriages are far from ideal yet never
reach the stage of divorce, separation or marital counseling.
Marital adjustmertt - background and concepts.
The
background of males and females has been investigated as ·
an important factor affecting marital adjustment or as a
predictor for marital success.
Hill (1951) found the
following background variables to be associated with
marital adjustment; happiness of husband's parents'
marriage, husband's close attachment to his father, the
husband's childhood residence in the country, husband's
age at marriage and the husband's educational level.
Burgess and Cottrell (1939) also found the husband's
background to be associated with marital adjustment.
The socioeconomic status of the husband (education,
income, and occupation) has also been found to have a
positive correlation with endurance of marriage (Bernard,
1966) and with reported happiness with marriage (Gurin,
Veroff and Feld, 1960).
Emotional factors also appear to influence marital
adjustment.
Dean (1966) found that the variable which
correlated highest with both the husbands' and the wives'
marital adjustment was the wives' positive rating of their
husbands emotional maturity.
8
This research
suggest~
that a solid male identifi-
cation and high level of self-esteem determine the success
of interpersonal relations in marriage.
This foundation
comes from an internal object-relation system (one's internal reference based on his own experience).
In other
words the "healthier" the husband's personality, the more
capable he is of being emotionally supportive of his
wife~
need for security and support as she leaves her independent role and makes the transition af becoming a wife and
a mother.
However, this concept does not fit the modern
day woman.
Women are becoming increasingly individuated
by changing the traditional female roles and plunging into
higher· levels of education and occupation.
More research
is needed to bring old data in line with the current female role.
Communication
Communication in marriage is a constant exchange of
information or messages from one spouse to another.
For
purposes of this study communication will be referred to
as verbal and nonverbal, unless otherwise stated.
Definition of Verbal Communication.
Verbal communi-
cation is defined as the ability to impart or convey a
message, thought or information verbally from one person
(the sender) and have it received and understood by the
other person (the receiver).
9
Definition of nonverbal communication. Nonverbal
communication is defined as gestures, facial expressions,
body movements and inflection or tone of voice that
conveys a thought or information from one person (the
sender) and is received and interpreted by the other person (the receiver).
Adjustment in marriage and communication were found
to be highly correlated by Locke, Sabagh and Thomes
(1956).
Navran (1967) replicated the previous study and
again found a high correlation between the two variables.
He also found that verbal communication was found to be
a stronger factor in marital adjustment than was nonverbal communication.
Satir (1967) contends that communication is the
single most significant factor that determines the success
or failure of inter-relationships.
Since interpersonal
conflict can change verbal and nonverbal communication
behaviors, it is important to define and assess its
effects.
Definition of conflict.
Conflict is a clash or
divergence of opinions or interests from one person to
another (interpersonal conflict)
(Deutsch, 1969).
Conflict may arise from differences in information or
belief, differences in interests, values or desires, or
when one person tries to outdo or undo the other.
10
Beier and Sternberg (1970) found that newlywed
couples who reported the least disagreement sat closer
together, had more frequent eye contact and longer durations of eye contact, touched each other more often,
touched themselves less often and their legs were in a
more open position than couples who reported the most
disagreement.
A follow-up study of these same partici-
pants after one year of marriage showed conflict to have
not only increased; but the topics of conflict also
changed.
The newlywed husbands who reported the most
disagreements originally rated money, friends and politics
as the topics of conflict.
However, one year later, they
listed money, sex and friends as the topics causing most
disagreement.
The newlywed wives initially listed
friends, politics and religion as the topics generating
most disagreement.
One year later they also listed sex,
friends and money in this category.
Mitchell, Bullard and
Mudd (1961) found that successfully functioning couples
and unsuccessfully functioning couples ranked their topics
I
of conflict in the same order:
economic problems highest
and religious and education problems lowest.
Thus couples
with the least amount of conflict in their marriage communicated their closeness in extraverbal behaviors; while
couples who reported the most amount of conflict
communicated their lack of closeness in extraverbal
behaviors.
Topics of conflict amongst couples with the
11
most disagreement tended to be more of an interpersonal
nature than those couples who reported little disagreement.
Kahn (1968) also found differences between satisfied
and dissatisfied couples.
His study indicated that
dissatisfied husbands and wives are particularly prone to
misinterpreting each other's nonverbal signals.
Poor verbal communication and the inability to
interpret nonverbal signals, thus implies significance in
the marital adjustment.
Personality
Personality, as mentioned throughout this study,
refers to the 13 scale characteristics of personality
under investigation, which have been grouped for convenience into three broad categories, combining those having
related implications:
Group I - Measures of poise, ascendancy, selfassurance, and interpersonal adequacy.
1.
Do
Dominance
2.
Cs
Capacity for Status
3.
Sy
Sociability
4.
Sp
Social Presence
5'
Sa
Self-acceptance
6.
Wb
Sense of well- being
Group II- Measures of socialization, responsibility,
interpersonal values and character,
12
GrouE III
-
7.
Re
Responsibility
8.
So
Socialization
9.
Sc
Self-control
10.
To
Tolerance
11.
Gi
Good Impression
Measures of intellectual and interest modes.
12.
Py
Psychological-mindedness
13.
Fe
Feminity
The scales refer to the favorable and positive aspects of
personality rather than to the pathological.
Even though
they are grouped in categories, they will be investigated
individually for purposes of this study.
Scale defini-
tions are provided in the Methods Chapter.
The study of personality as an important variable
and determining factor in the functionality of marriage
isn;t new.
Kirkpatrick in 1937 found personality to be
a significant factor in marital adjustment.
Later, Himes
(1949) concluded from his research that personality is
the chief determiner of successful and happy marriages.
How personality affected marital relations or to what
degree wasnrt investigateduntilmany years later.
Luckey (1964) found that individuals who were
unsati~
fied with their marriages saw different personality
dimensions in their spouses than did individuals who
were satisfied with their marriages,
Individuals who were
unsatisfied with their marriage saw their mates as having
13
more extreme or intense qualities such as being skeptical,
distrustful,_ blunt and aggressive.
indivi~
In contrast,
duals who were satisfied in marriage described their mates
as having more moderate qualities such as being
ble, generous,
co~operative
and conventional.
responsi~
Murstein
and Glaudin (1966), however, found marital adjustment
for men is not strongly tied to personality, whereas
for women there was a moderate relationship.
Again,
marital adjustment for women was found related to the
perception they had of their husbands as dominant and
managerial, but in a loving and kindly manner and their
own intraperception of themselves as wanting to be
trust~
ing and unrebellious.
Hansen (1975) found functionality in marriage is
generally related to higher scores on personality
characteristics.
However, functionality was found in
females with lower scores on social presence,
self~
acceptance and flexibility, while only low scores on
flexibility applied to males.
for couples on
self~acceptance,
Higher scoring patterns
social presence and
flexibility were associated with marital dysfunction.
Hansen's study suggests that marriage is successful when
partners are "needy."
Women who reported a successful
marriage were found to have little
acceptance,
self~worth
self~confidence,
self~
or ability to interact socially.
Men who reported a successful marriage were found to have
14
little flexibility and adaptability in their thinking
and social behaviors.
The antithesis of the above was
found for dysfunctioning couples, for they characteristically scored high on poise, self-confidence, selfacceptance, and self-worth.
They were further able to
be flexible and adaptable in their thinking and social
behavior.
Definition of personality-types.
a.
Homogamy - an individual who chooses another
individual because of similarities (like
choosing like).
b.
Heterogamy - individuals who seek out other
individuals according to their needs (needs
which complement the other's needs).
The affect that degrees of homogamy or heterogamy
has on marital adjustment has not yet been established.
It was purported by Winch (1958) that individuals
seek out other individuals according to needs which
complement each other.
In stable relationships Bermann
and Miller (1967) found need complementarity to prevail
in the selection of roommate choices.
This, however,
was not the case in unstable relationships.
Going one
step further, Hansen (1975), using the California
Psychological Inventory (CPI) to measure personalities of
marriage partners, found seven scales to be sensitive
to complementarity and related to marital dysfunction:
15
dominance, sociability, sense of well-being, tolerance,
achievement via conformance, intellectual efficiency
and psychological mindedness.
Research findings of the
past two decades, however, support the theory that marital
success is based on a homogamous relationship (Corsini,
1956; Tharp, 1963; Pickford, Signori,
& Rempel,
1966;
Barry , 1 9 7 0 ) .
On a slightly different level Coombs (1966) found
value consensus to be the rewarding interpersonal attraction of mates.
His theory posits that individuals with
similar backgrounds learn similar values and interaction
between such persons is mutually rewarding.
It is likely
then that homogamy provides a comfort zone or level for
marital partners which fosters communication and understanding with a minimum of tension, threat and conflict.
Summary
This review of marital research shows that:
(a)
background and socioeconomic factors in husbands are
associated with marital success;
(b) the wives' perception
of their mates personality characteristics and maturity
make for a good marital adjustment;
(c) happy marriages
were found to display more physical touching of each
other, more eye contact, longer durations of eye contact
and more open 1 eg positions;
(d) topics of conflict are
the same for successful and unsuccessful marriages;
there are conflicting reports as to what personality
(e)
16
factors affect marital adjustment and to what degree;
(f) marital success is based on a homogamous relationship;
and (g) communication, both verbal and nonverbal, is an
important factor in the marital interpersonal relationship.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1:
There is a significant relationship
between marital communication and personality
characteristics, and their effect on marital adjustment.
Hypothesis 2:
There is a stronger relationship between
verbal communication and marital adjustment than
nonverbal communication and marital adjustment.
Hypothesis 3:
Homogamy will be associated with higher
scores in marital adjustment than heterogamy.
Hypothesis 4:
Communication will show a significant
positive relationship with marital adjustment.
Importance of the Study
Since previous research has neglected to investigate
the relationship between personality and communication and
their effects on marital adjustment, this study is
believed to make an important contribution to understand?
ing the marriage relationship.
Potentially, scores on
these three indices can be used to predict possible
problems.
counseling.
Such information could be useful in marital
17
This study may further contribute to the ability
to predict marital adjustment by assessing the personality
and communication factors of a couple.
Chapter 3
Methodology
This research investigation incorporates both
descriptive and inferential procedures (Best, 1977).
This section contains an appraisal of the procedures
and rationale for:
(a) Subject Selection; (b)
Description of the Sample;
ments.
(c) Procedure; and (d) Instru-
Key variables, definitions and methodologies are
identified througout the sections.
Subject Selection
Due to the lengthy questionnaires which discouraged
some people from participating, participants were recruited from two sources:
(1) graduate students from
California State University, Northridge's (CSUN's)
Department of Educational Psychology and (2) couples
from Marriage Encounter, an organization that teaches
communication by the exchange of written letters.
Graduate students were asked to participate only if
they felt their spouse too would complete the questionnaires.
Since only couples attend the Marriage Encounter
meetings, only interested couples were asked to take
questionnaires at the end of the meeting.
1&
Personal
1~
feedback regarding scores on the questionnaires was
offered as an incentive to participate.
All participants
were assured of complete confidentiality, so as to
encourage honest and open responses.
They were also
told to seal and mail their own questionnaires,
Sixty-six questionnaires were given to interested
participants, and of those fifty-two were completed
and returned.
Most couples who decided not to return
their questionnaires said that they chose not to because
only one partner was interested, or because they did not
have sufficient time available.
However, since these may
be the most socially acceptable reasons, it is difficult
to assess whether couples decided not to participate because of some other reason (e.g., perceived threat).
Procedure
Volunteers were each given an envelope containing
the Locke-ThomesMarital Adjustment Test, Primary Communication Inventory, California Psychological Inventory, and
a stamped, self-addressed envelope.
They were then
instructed to complete the questionnaires individually
without collaborating with their spouse.
Each participant
was then told to seal and return the questionnaires to
the researcher within five days.
Description of the Sample
Completed questionnaires were returned by 26 couples.
The mean length of the marital relationship was 18 years,
20
11 months; and the range was from two to fifty-two years.
The individual participants had a wide spread of ages
(ranging from 26 to 72) with a mean age of 43.
similar in terms of SES.
They were
All were Caucasian, and the
majority were upper-middle class and college educated.
Table 1 gives the demographic characteristics of the
sample.
Eighty-five percent of the participants were
Jewish.
Few had prior marriages and most had one or two
teenage children living at home.
of the sample worked:
percent full time.
Seventy-nine percent
15 percent part time and 64
Fifty-six percent of the participants
reported some previous individual, group, or marriage
counseling.
Sixty-two percent of the participants were
active members in marriage encounter, for a mean period
of two years.
This suggests that they may represent a
more distressed or psychologically-minded sample than the
population at large.
Instruments
Three test instruments were used.
The Locke-Themes
Marital Adjustment Test is a fifteen-item, multiple
choice test designed to measure marital adjustment.
items are classified under four factors:
The
consensus or
agreement, satisfaction with intimate relationships, being
companionable and home-centeredness.
The husband and wife
were instructed to take the test separately and asked to
indicate the degree to which they agreed/disagreed with
21
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Variable
Men
Women
Percent
Age:
Mean
Race:
White
Religion:
Education:
43
45.3
40.8
100
100
100
Jewish
85
85
85
Protestant
10
8
12
Baptist
4
4
4
Catholic
2
4
0
High School
15
15
15
Some College
17
12
23
College Grad
13
8
19
Grad Level
27
23
31
Higher Degrees
27
42
12
10
15
4
Previously Married:
Couples with Children
Living at Home:
81
Children's Age:
One Child (years)
0- 4
4
4
4
10-14
8
8
8
15-18
6
6
6
4
4
4
More Than One Child (years)
0- 9
22
Table 1 (Cont'd.)
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Men
Variable
Women
Percent
More Than One Child (Cont'd.)
10-15
31
31
31
16-18
21
21
21
4
4
4
12
12
12
Medical Ser1Z'ices
4
4
4
Psychological Services
6
4
8
40
65
12
6
8
4
12
4
23
79
96
62
Work - Part Time
15
0
31
Full Time
64
96
31
19+
Occupation:
Education
Business
Engineering
Clerical
S. E. S. (work)
Total Combined Income
16-25K
8
26-35K
15
36-45K
27
46+K
50
Some Previous Experience With:
Individual Therapy
33
27
38
Group Therapy
46
3.8
54
23
Table 1 (Cont'd.)
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Variable
Men
Women
Percent
Some Previous Experience With:
Marriage Counseling
19
19
19
Marriage Encounter
62
62
62
24
the various items.
They also described the extent to
which they are satisfied with their marriage and with
each other, the extent to which they have achieved common
interests and activities, and their preference to either
be on the go or to be at home with each other.
Each item
was scored by summing the various empirical weights given
each answer, giving a total score of adjustment.
The
possible scores for the test ranged from 30-86 points.
The Locke-Thomes Marital Adjustment Test (1979) is
a revised and shortened version of the Locke-Wallace
Marital Adjustment Test of 1971.
There are no validity
or reliability figures on the revised instrument; however,
the original Locke-Wallace Test was found to have a high
reliability (,90) in 1959, computed by the split-half
method.
In Locke's original study in 1951, the marital
adjustment scores of 200 happily married couples and 201
divorced couples were compared.
The mean scores of
happily married and divorced men on the marital adjustment test were 138.5 and 100.8 (p
<
.0001).
The mean
scores of happily married and divorced women were 137.4
and 102.4 (£ < .0001).
groups
~s
The mean scores of these two
evidence of the validity of the original
Locke·Marital Adjustment Test.
The Primary Communication Inventory (PCI), is a selfreport measure consisting of 25 items where husbands and
wives rate the quality of their communication.
25
Participants respond to the items on a
ranging from:
five~point
scale
very frequently, with a value of 5;
frequently, with a value of 4; sometimes, with a value of
3; seldom, with a value of 2; and never, with a value of 1.
The possible scores for the total communication score
range from 25-125 points, and include 25 items.
In
addition to the total scores, three sub-scores are computed:
verbal score, nonverbal score and a judgment
score.
The verbal score consisted of 18 items (e.g., How
often do you and your spouse talk over pleasant things
that happen during the dayn and possible scores range from
18-90 points.
The nonverbal score consisted of seven items
(e.g., When you start to ask a question, does your spouse
know what it is before you ask it?) and possible scores
range from 7-35 points.
The judgment score, which meas-
ures judgment about the spouse's communication (e.g.,
Do you feel that in most matters your spouse knows what
you are trying to say?) consisted of nine items,
scores for judgment range from
9~45
Possible
points.
The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) is
intended primarily for use with "normal," nonpsychiatrically disturbed subjects.
Its scales are
addressed to personality characteristics important for
social living and social interaction (e.g., variables that
are a part of everyday life) .
scales.
The CPI includes 18 standard
However, it was shortened for the present study
26
to measure characteristics which were judged to be
relevant regarding marital communication and adjustment.
The characteristics are listed below with their definitions
and total possible raw scores.
Each scale assesses one
important facet of interpersonal psychology and is designed
to predict a person's responses under defined conditions
and to identify how others who know them well would
describe them.
Each scale score was the continuous sum
of items checked by each individual on each of the true/
false questions, as it agreed with the scoring sheet.
1.
Do
Dominance (46) - assesses factors of leadership ability, dominance, persistence and
social initiative.
2.
Cs
Capacity for Status (32) - measures the
personal qualities and attributes which underlie and lead to status.
3.
Sy
Sociability (36) - to identify persons of
outgoing, sociable, participative temperament.
4.
Sp
Social Presence (56) - assesses poise,
spontaneity, and self-confidence in personal
and social interaction.
5.
Sa
Self-acceptance (34) - assesses personal
worth, self-acceptance, and capacity for
independent thinking and action.
27
6.
Wb
Sense of Well-Being (44) - to identify
persons who minimize their worries and
complaints, free from doubt and disillusionment.
7.
Re
Responsibility (42) - to identify persons of
conscientious, responsible, and dependable
disposition and temperament.
8.
So
Socialization (54) - indicates the degree of
social maturity, integrity and rectitude
which the individual has attained.
9.
Sc
Self-Control (50)
- assesses the degree and
adequacy of self-regulation and self-control
and freedom from impulsivity and selfcenteredness.
10.
To
Tolerance (32) - identifies persons with
permissive, accepting, and non-judgmental
social beliefs and attitudes.
11.
Gi
Good Impression (40) - identifies persons
capable of creating a favorable impression,
and who are concerned about how others react
to them.
12.
Py
Psychological-mindedness (22) - measures the
degree to which the individual is interested
in, and responsive to the inner needs,
motives and experiences of others.
28
13.
Fe
Femininity (38) - to assess the masculinity
and femininity of interests.
(High scores
indicate more feminine interests, low
scores more masculine).
The personality assessment for this study is
essentially self-administered, containing 373 True or
False statements, as taken from the 480 CPI statements.
The participants were requested to mark "true" or "false"
according to whether they agree or disagree with a statement or felt that it is or is not true about them.
The
inventory yields 13 raw scores, which for purposes
of this study were not converted to standard scores as
the sample was not compared to normative groups; but
rather looked at as individual scores, correlated with
spouse's scores and correlated with marital adjustment and
communication scores.
Reliability for this instrument is moderate and
sufficient for this investigation.
Test-retest reliabili-
ties based on one sample of the 18 scores ranged from .49
to
~87
with a median of .80.
AnotheT test-retest corre-
lation sample was .65 for males and .68 for females.
The test author, Gough, is confident of the validity
of the CPI, as taken from the manual; however, scale
validity is known to be difficult to assess since the
ratings are subjective,
For example, a scale like Re
(responsibility) can only be correlated with other
29
subjective ratings of responsibility.
do provide us some degree of truth.
Nevertheless, they
Cross~validational
studies quoted in the manual range from .32 to .48 for all
scales.
Chapter 4
Results
This Chapter presents the findings from participants'
scores on the following:
(1) marital adjustment scores,
(2) communication scores,
(3) the relationship between
marital adjustment and communication, (4) the relationship
between personality and marital adjustment, and (5)
heterogamy vs. homogamy.
Scores for each marital pair are
averaged to provide one score for the couple, and the
findings will be presented regarding:
(1) scores on the
Primary Communication Inventory as divided into high,
moderate and low communication groups, and (2) scores on
the Locke-Thomes Marital Adjustment Test, which are
divided into high, moderate and low satisfaction groups.
Findings from Participants' Scores
Marital adjustment scores.
The mean score on marital
adjustment for all subjects was 68.3 with a standard
deviation of 8.7.
A normal distribution was found for the
marital adjustment scores.
30-86 points.
Cut-off points were arbitrarily selected
by subject frequency:
=
The range of raw scores was
low satisfaction (unhappilymarried)
0-64, moderate satisfaction (moderately happy)
30
=
65-71,
31
and high satisfaction (happily married)
=
72-84.
Approxi-
mately one-third of the subjects fell in the unhappily
married group, with a mean of 57.6, one-third in the
moderately happy group, with a mean of 68.9, and one-third
in the happily married group, with a mean of 77.5.
Communication scores.
A.
Primary Communication Inventory - Total Scores
The range of raw scores on total communication was 25-125 points.
A mean of 96.3 and a
standard deviation of 10.6 was found.
Scores were
normally distributed.
B.
PCI Nonverbal Scores
The range of raw scores on
nonverb~l
)
communication was 7-}S points.
The mean for all
subjects was 26.5, with a standard deviation of
3. 5.
C.
PCI Verbal Scores
An overall mean of 69.8 and a standard
deviation of 8.2 was found for all subjects.
The range of raw scores was 18-90 points.
The
data were normally distributed.
D,
PCI Judgment Scores
The range of raw scores was 9-45 points.
An overall mean of 31.7 and a standard deviation
of 4.1 was found.
32
Relationship between marital adjustment and
communication.
Scores for the four aspects of communica-
tion and how they relate to the three marital adjustment
groups (happy, moderately happy and unhappy), are presented
in Table 2.
Table 2
Relationship Between Marital Adjustment
and Communication
PCI Non- PCI JudgPCI Total PCI Verbal verbal
ment x
Scores
Scores x Scores Scores
x
x
Happily Marrieds
103.7
75.7
28
34
Moderately Happy
Marrieds
97.4
70.2
27.2
32
Unhappily Marrieds
87.3
63
24.3
29.1
The PCI Total Score mean for unhappily married (UM)
couples on communication (x
= 87.3) was significantly lower
than the means for both the moderately happy (MH) couples
(x
=
97.4) and the happily married (HM) couples (x
=
103.7;
F = 15.43, E.< .01).
The means for the unhappily married couples on verbal
communication (x = 63), nonverbal communication (i = 24.3),
and judgment (x
= 29.1) were all significantly lower than
the means for both the moderately happy and happy couples.
The means for the moderately happy couples were:
communication (x
=
verbal
70. 2), nonverbal communication (x = 27. 2),
33
and judgment (x
=
32).
married couples were:
The means for the happily
verbal communication (x
=
75.7),
= 28), and judgment (x = 34).
nonverbal communication (x
The significant difference amongst the unhappily
marrieds, moderately happy marrieds and happily marrieds
on communication is further substantiated by the high
correlation on total communication and marital satisfaction
(~ =
.65, p < .01).
The correlations and significant
levels on communication and marital adjustment follow:
=
~
Total Communication:
.65, (p < .01)
r
=
Nonverbal Communication:
r
Verbal Communication:
Judgment:
~
=
.42,
(£
.66,
(p < .01)
= .43,
(£ < .01).
< .01)
The relationship between personality and marital
adjustment (low, moderate and high groups).
Data on
personality scores were analyzed according to three
groups:
those scoring high, moderate and low on the
marital adjustment scale,
Of these thirteen discriminating
scales, only Socialization, Well-Being, and Self-Control
showed a significant, although moderately positive
correlation with marital adjustment.
lated with marital adjustment (r
communication (_r
(£
=
=
.32, £ < .05).
=
Socialization corre-
.31, £ < .OS), total
,30, p < .05) and verbal communication
The correlation between Socialization
and the subcomponents of communication was significant
only for verbal communication.
Nonverbal communication
34
and judgment were not significantly correlated.
again suggests
~hat
This
verbal communication is the strongest
predictor of marital satisfaction.
with marital adjustment
(~
=
Well-being correlated
.31, p < .05).
Well-being,
or how a person feels about himself, suggests that the
same quality is brought into the marital relationship.
Self-control correlated with marital adjustment (r
p < .OS).
=
.23,
Self-control, or self-regulation, with the
freedom from impulsivity and self-centeredness suggests
that self-control and concern for others is also brought
into the marital relationship.
Heterogamy vs. homogamy.
Studies have either
support~
heterogamy or homogamy as a factor in determining marital
adjustment.
This study, however, found no correlation
between personality characteristics of spouses and marital
happiness or unhappiness.
Couples Average Scores
Determining joint scores for the couple as a unit.
All couples were given a single score for marital adjustment and for communication satisfaction, which was
determined by averaging the scores of the husband and wife.
Using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, marital
adjustment for couples was highly correlated with total
communication
(~
= ,73, £
< .01).
Verbal communication
was also strongly associated with marital adjustment
(~
=
.76, p < ,01).
Nonverbal communication correlated
35
with marital adjustment
(~
=
.48, p < .01); but to a
lesser degree than total communication and verbal communication.
Verbal communication was found to have a signi-
ficantly higher correlation with marital adjustment than
was nonverbal communication.
Nonverbal communication is
an important factor in marital adjustment.
However, it
may not be as important as verbal communication due to
less sensitivity to the spouse's gestures, expressions,
etc., over time.
The data suggests that without clear
and accurate verbal communication between spouses there
cannot be satisfactory marital interaction.
Scores on the Primary Communication Inventory (high,
moderate, and low groups).
Scores for marital satisfaction
of both partners were averaged to give a couples' score.
These couples' scores were divided into three groups, those
scoring low on marital satisfaction, those with moderate
marital satisfaction, and those high on marital satisfaction.
A strong correlation was found when couples
unit scores on marital satisfaction were correlated with
communication.
Table 3 shows the communication means for
the low, moderate and high groups on marital satisfaction.
Scores on the Locke-Thomes Marital Adjustment Test
(high, moderate, and low groups).
The average marital
adjustment scores of husband and wife were divided into
three groups:
those who were highly satisfied, those who
were moderately satisfied and those whose marital
36
Table 3
Communication and Marital Satisfaction
Couples
Couples Avg.
Couples
Verbal Commun. Total Commun. Nonverbal Commun.
Score x's
Score x's
Score x's
Low
Satisfaction
62.7
87.2
24.5
Moderate
Satisfaction
72.3
99.6
27.3
High
Satisfaction
74.1
101.5
27.4
satisfaction was low.
The means on marital adjustment
for the three groups were as follows:
Low Adjustment Mean
=
59.8
Moderate Adjustment Mean
High Adjustment Mean
=
=
69.0
76.0
Analysis of variance was done amongst the three
groups and significance was found between groups (F
p < .01).
=50~~
All three groups were found to be significantly
different from each other.
The Locke-Themes Marital
Adjustment Test suggests that the test does validly measure marital adjustment.
The differences in means also
suggest a good sampling of the population was tested.
Summary of Results
The relationships of total communication, verbal
communication, nonverbal communication, judgment and
personality factors in predicting marital adjustment were
37
analyzed.
The major findings reported in the Chapter
were summarized below:
1.
The degree of verbal communication in a marriage
is positively related to marital adjustment.
2.
Nonverbal communication is also significant and
positively related to marital adjustment, however,
not to the same degree as verbal communication.
3.
Judgment, or how one perceives his or her
spouse, is related to marital adjustment, however,
to a lesser degree than the above variables.
4.
Of the thirteen personality scales, only
Socialization, Well-Being, and Self-Control
showed a significant, although moderately positive
correlation with marital adjustment.
5,
No correlation was found between personality
characteristics of spouses and marital adjustment (heterogamy vs. homogamy).
Chapter 5
Discussion of Findings and Suggestions
for Further Research
The findings in this study show that clear and
accurate verbal communication is an important factor in
how an individual or couple rates the success of their
marriage.
Locke~
This replicates studies by Navran (1967) and
Sabagh and Thomes (1956) where high correlations
were found between the Marital Relationship Inventory
and the Primary Communication Inventory.
Those subjects
with high scores on verbal communication had the highest
level of marital adjustment.
And conversely, subjects with
low scores on verbal communication had the lowest level of
marital adjustment.
Discussion of Findings
Based upon the high correlation of communication and
marital adjustment in this study, it is purported that
couples with a happy marital adjustment have better
communication skills to deal effectively with the problems
and crises inherent in close relationships.
Conversely,
couples with an unhappy marital adjustment are purported
to have developed poor communication skills.
38
This deficit
39
can promulgate anxiety, frustration, tension, anger and
the inability to resolve conflicts.
Honest and open communication in a marital relationship will probably affect how a couple view their marriage.
Couples who freely communicate their feelings of anger
and frustration are likely to suffer less alienation than
couples wh·o avoid expressing their feelings.
The differ-
ences in communication scores for happy and unhappy couples
suggest that dissatisfied husbands and wives misunderstand
verbal messages, misinterpret nonverbal signals, and are
unable to listen to and understand each other due to
built-in defenses.
Given these conditions such couples
are likely to create conflict when they communicate rather
than resolve issues.
While nonverbal communication is considered an
important factor in marital adjustment, it is not as
important as verbal communication.
Perhaps nonverbal is
less direct and thus doesn't provide the emotional
release or catharsis that verbal expression allows.
Over
time a marital partner may become less sensitive to
his
mate~
idiosyncratic gestures and, therefore, such
gestures do not carry the same impact in communication.
Nonverbal communication is not as clear as verbal
communication and as a result is open to several interpretations.
Misreading a marital partner's nonverbal
signals could also create conflict or set an "emotional
40
climate," whereas clear and accurate verbal communication,
whether positive or negative, clarifies the mood of the
individual.
This clarity in the relationship can promote
new experiences and helpful responses.
Judgment, although not as important as the above two
factors, proved to be a significant factor in how individuals rated their marital adjustment.
How one judges a
marital partner's behavior of openness, sensitivity, understanding and gestures can contribute to their feelings
about the relationship.
On the other hand, other
qualities in the relationship may be more important in
determining positive or negative ratings of marital
adjustment.
It was found, however, that positive feeling~
of one's spouse correlated with a happy marriage; and
conversely negative feelings of one's spouse correlated
with an unhappy marriage.
Of the thirteen personality scales measured, Socialization, Sense of Well-Being and Self-Control showed a
significant, although moderately positive correlation
with marital adjustment.
Socialization, which indicates
the degree of social maturity and integrity that an
individual has attained, showed significance with marital
adjustment.
This was especially true for those high
on marital satisfaction.
Perhaps people who are socially
mature feel more comfortable being with others and
thus communicate and self-disclose more frequently.
The
41
scale for socialization suggests that those people who
scored high have greater self-esteem, more self-worth,
and are more extroverted.
As a result, they have learned
to communicate with and self-disclose to others.
No
doubt this carries over into the marital relationship.
Well-being, or people who minimize their worries and are
free from doubt and disillusionment, are perhaps not as
pre-occupied with fears of conflicts and crises in the
marital relationship.
Self-control, which assesses self-
regulation and freedom from impulsivity and selfcenteredness, suggests that a person with more self-control
brings security and concern for others into the marital
relationship.
Thus, people who enjoy being with others,
feel good about themselves and have self-control, are
more likely to feel satisfied with marriage.
The correlation between communication and marital
satisfaction does not answer the question of which came
first, the satisfaction in marriage or honest and open
communication.
No doubt this relationship is circular,
if not causal.
As dissatisfaction with the marriage grows,
so does the lack of open communication.
This increases
conflict and thus the dissatisfaction increases.
On the
other hand, as open and honest communication increase,
mistrust, skepticism and misunderstandings decrease and
satisfaction with the marriage increases.
42
No significant findings were found on the variables
of sex, age or length of marriage and how they relate to
personality scales, communication or marital adjustment.
The implications from these findings suggest that the
only variable that affects marital adjustment is whether
or not a couple has good communication skills.
Suggestions for Further Research
The present investigation replicates earlier studies
supporting the relationship between communication and marital satisfaction.
However, the findings are not in agree-
ment with studies on personality factors and how they
relate to marital adjustment.
Murstein and Glaudin (1966)
found that marital maladjustment for men is not strongly
tied to personality.
Women, however, showed a moderate
relationship between marital adjustment and some personality factors.
Perceiving their huibands as dominant and
themselves as wanting to be trusting and unrebellious
were surprisingly associated with feeling good about the
marriage,
Luckey (1964) found that subjects who were
satisfied with marriage saw their spouses differently than
those who were dissatisfied.
Those subjects who were
satisfied with their marriages saw their .spouse as strong,
well-thought of, self-confident, firm and just and able
to take self-criticism,
Pickford, Signori and Rempel (1966)
found that happily married couples are similar in drive,
energy, enthusiasm, self-control and persistance.
43
The lack of findings in this study supporting a
relationship between the other personality factors and
marital adjustment questions these earlier investigations.
It may be, however, that the personality measure used in
this study is not sensitive to personality factors that
would influence marital satisfaction.
It is recommended that further investigations measure
the differences in background experience between two
groups:
1.
those with a happy, loving and accepting relation-
ship with their parents and siblings, and
2.
those who lacked a happy, loving and accepting
relationship in childhood,
and how these two groups are associated with marital
adjustment and communication.
This study of personality, communication and
marital relationships departs from an ideal research design in several ways:
1.
Ideally, a random sample of couples should be
studied.
2.
A more heterogeneous sample should be tested.
3.
Ideally, assessments could be made prior to
marriage, followed by a longitudinal study with repeated
measurements of personality and communication,
4.
Background variables of one's childhood should
be studied as they relate to personality prior to
44
marriage.
A longitudinal follow-up study on personality
after several years of marriage could be conducted to
note
whethe~
there have been any significant changes.
These findings have important implications for our
understanding of the marital relationship and for professionals who attempt to improve interpersonal relationships.
Open and honest communication is a vehicle for improvement
in marital relations.
It is recommended that couples be
educated in the area of communication prior to therapy
or marriage counseling.
This can be done through communi-
cation workshops where emphasis is placed on learning to
self-disclose and to listen.
Exercises for lowering
defenses and expressing one's feelings without fear of
reprisal would also be useful.
Unless couples learn
how to communicate and resolve interpersonal conflicts,
they will continue to use therapy as a courtroom for
resolving their conflicts.
References
& Wyden, P.
Bach, Eric,
The intimate enemy.
New York:
William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1969.
Barry, W. A.
Conflict in marriage:
A study of the
interactions of newlywed couples in experimentally
induced conflicts.
of Michigan.
1968.
Doctoral dissertation, University
Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University Microfilms,
No. 68-13, 273.
Barry, William A.
Marriage research and conflict:
integrative review.
An
Psychological Bulletin, 1968,
~'
41-54.
Beier, E.,
& Sternberg,
D.
Marital communication-
Subtle cues between newlyweds.
tion, 1970,
~'
Journal of Communica-
343-351.
& Miller, D. R. The matching of mates.
Jessor & S. Feschbach (Eds.) Cognition,
Bermann, E.,
In R.
personality and clinical psychology.
Calif.:
Jossey-Bass, 1967.
Bernard, J.
Marital stability and patterns of status
variables.
~'
San Francisco,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966,
421-439.
Best, J. W.
Research in education.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977.
45
New Jersey:
46
Boulding, K. E.
theory:
Conflict and defense:
New York:
Burgess, E.,
A general
Harper, 1962.
& Locke,
H.
The family.
New York:
American Book Company, 1960.
Burgess, E. W.,
& Cottrell,
failure in marriage.
Carkhuff, R. R.
New York:
New York:
Predicting success or
Prentice-Hall, 1939.
Helping and human relations, Vols. I
Holt, Rinehard
Coombs, R. H.
& Winston,
& II.
1969.
Value consensus and partner satisfaction
among dating couples.
the Family, 1966,
Corsini, R.
L. S.
~'
Journal of Marriage and
166-173.
Understanding and similarity in marriage.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956,
~'
327-332.
Coser, L. A.
Ill.:
The functions of social conflict.
Glencoe,
Free Press, 1956.
Dean, D. G.
Emotional maturity and marital adjustment.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966,
Deutsch, M.
Conflicts:
~'
7-41.
Deutsch, Morton. Socially relevant science:
on some studies of interpersonal conflict.
Dominian, Jack.
454-457.
Productive and destructive.
Journal of Social Issues, 1969,
Psychologist, 1969,
~'
~'
Reflections
American
1076-1092.
Marital breakdown.
Franciscan Herald Press, 1968.
Chicago, Ill.:
47
Edmunds, Evelyn P.
Marital communication breakdown/
causes and cures - Alphabet of 26 marital problems
and techniques for dealing with them.
ERIC, 1974,
presented at Southwest Psychological Association,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
& Boomer,
Goodrich, D. Wells,
DonaldS.
Experimental
assessment of modes of conflict resolution.
Process, 1963,
~'
15-24.
Gurin, G., Veroff, J.,
mental health:
New York:
Haley, J.
Grune
Family
& Feld,
S.
Americans view their
A nationwide interview survey.
Basic Books, 1960.
Strategies of psychotherapy.
& Stratton,
Hansen, Charles.
New York:
1963.
Personality interaction among function-
ally and dysfunctionally married individuals.
Psychology, 1975,
Hill, R.
~'
Social
119-120.
Contemporary developments in family theory,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966,
Hillman, K. G.
~'
10-26.
Marital instability and its relation to
education, income and occupation:
on census data.
An analysis based
In R. F. Winch, R. McGinnis,
&
H. R. Barringer (Eds.), Selected studies in marriage
and the family.
Rinehart
(Rev. ed.).
& Winston,
1962.
New York:
Holt,
48
Himes, N.
Personality as the chief determiner of success-
ful and happy marriage.
Sexology, 1949,
Ivey, A. E.,
~'
International Journal of
217-224.
& Rollin,
S. A.
Performance curriculum:
Human relations, a commitment to intentionality.
Journal of Teacher Education, 1962,
Jackson, D. D.
Family rules:
~'
The marital quid pro quo
Archives of General Psychiatry, 1965,
Jacobson, Neil S.
!I,
589-594.
Marital communication breakdown/
causes and cures.
Counseling, 1977,
Jacobson, P. H.
161-166.
International Journal of Family
~'
22-31.
American marriage and divorce.
New
York, 1959.
Kahn, Malcolm.
Non-verbal communication and marital
satisfaction.
Kasdan, M.
Family Process, 1968, 449-456.
A groomy forecast.
Kirkpatrick, C.
Factors in marital adjustment.
Journal of Sociology, 1937,
Laing, R. D.
Valley News, Sec. 4, 1981.
±l,
American
270-283.
The politics of experience.
New York:
Ballantine Books, 1967.
Locke, H. J. Sabagh, G.,
& Thomes,
M. M.
of primary communication and empathy.
Correlates
Research
Studies of the State College of Washington, 1956,
115-124.
3±,
49
Luckey, Eleanore Braun.
Marital satisfaction and person-
ality correlates of spouse.
the Family, 1964,
~'
Journal of Marriage and
217-220.
Mitchell, Howard E., Bullard, James,
& Mudd,
Emily.
Areas of marital conflict in successfully and unsuccessfully functioning families.
Human Behavior, 1962,
Murphy, Donald C.,
l'
Journal of Health and
88-93.
& Mendelson,
and adjustment in marriage:
tionship.
Communication
Investigating the rela-
Family Process, 1973, 317-325.
Murstein, B.,
& Glaudin,
V.
The relationship of marital
adjustment to personality:
interpersonal check list.
the Family, 1966,
Navran, Leslie.
marriage.
Ort, R. S.
Lloyd, A.
~'
A factor analysis of the
Journal of Marriage and
37-43.
Communication and adjustment in
Family Process, 1967,
~'
173-184.
A study of role-conflicts as related to
happiness in marriage.
Psychology, 1959,
Oson, David H.,
conflicts:
~'
& Ryder,
Journal of Abnormal and Social
364-368.
Robert G.
Inventory of marital
An experimental interaction procedure.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1970,
Pickford, J., Signori, E.,
& Rempel,
H.
~'
443-448.
Similar or
related personality traits as a factor in marital
happiness.
~'
190-192.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966,
50
Preston, M. G.
A function of marital conflict/impress of
personality.
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,
1952, ±1,326-336.
Raush, Barry, Hertel,
& Swain.
Explorations in the
theory and study of intimate relationships.
tion, conflict, and marriage.
San Francisco, Calif.:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishing,
& Dowd,
Rollin, S. A.,
Communica-
1974.
E. Thomas.
Conflict resolution:
A model for effective marital and family relations.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 1979,
Satir, F.
Conjoint family therapy.
z,
61-67.
Palo Alto, Calif.:
Science and Behavior Books, 1964.
Shave, David W.
Communication Breakdown.
St. Louis, Mo.:
Warren H. Green, Inc., 1975.
Tharp, R. G.
Psychological patterning in marriage.
Psychological Bulletin, 1963,
Winch, R. F.
needs.
Mate selection:
New York:
~'
97-117.
A study of complementary
Harper, 1958.
APPENDICES
51
Appendix A
Informed Consent Form
I have volunteered to participate in this study and I
understand that the information I give will be confidential
and used for research purposes only.
Signed,
52
Appendix B
Questionnaire Cover Note
iiTarch 7, 1981
Dear
Particip~~t:
I am currently enrolled in a Master Jegree ?rogram in
Counseling and Guidance a-c California State :Jniversi ty a-c
Northridge. I am interested in learning about marital relationships. In particular, I am studying the interrela-cionship
of personality and com:nunica-cion styles r:n rr:arital sa-ci::::faction.
I sense that differences and similarities in style effect
how we f.:el in marriage; but there is currently no :::-esearc:-~
that describes this.
I would appreciate your completing the enclosed c;_uestionnaire. All information 'Nill be strictly .::onfideno:ial, so '.:!.::::
to encourage you to be honest and -.:pen in your answers. ?:i.aa~a
answer all questions as to how you are, :!Ot how you would 1::. ;;:a
to be. All information ·.vill be coded bfnumber for compute!" ;.;;;;",
and no names will be used in conjunction with any of the information.
If you would like to know the results of the study, :
would be glad to mail you a copy cf the results when it is
completed.
.Just check the spa~e ~eltJlN --co let me knov1 ar:G fi2.l
in your name and address on ~he Personal Inform3.ticn ?arm ::!'i:t:3.;.:!h·?·:.!.
There are a number of questions to answer, howe;-er, most can
be answered quickly. The majo:::-i ty of people who ;-,ave: ~~inished ':hes2
forms can complete all the questions in ab01~t ~5 to 50 minutes.
It is imnortant that
yoe~
do not discuss 2.ny q_uestior.s with
ycur spouse until you Joth have
comple~ed
the q:..testicnr:airs.
Please fill out the questionnaire independently, pl~~e ir. o:ha
enclosed, s'elf-addressed, starnped envelope and r.~ail it to m;;
within five (5) days.
I truly appreciate your participation in makir:g this study
possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy 3. ?olc;n
desire individual feedback
desire g=oup ;rofile scores
desire ba~h t~e ~Dove
53
Appendix C
Personal Information Form
PERSONAL INFORlV!AT!ON FOR.1V!
Name:
Phone:
Address:
(Name and address)
(Optional
)
·Race:
Sex:
Age:
Highest Educational Level Achieved:
College:
1 2 J 4
Degrees held:
BA
PhD
High School:
1 2 J 4 4+
Graduate:
ri!A
Religion:
Other:
Other - - - - - -
Current Status of your Relationship:
Length of Marriage:
1 2 3 4
Married:
Engaged:
Neither:
_ _ _Years, _ _ _.Months
Number of Prior Marriages:
How many children are living with you?
Occupational
Ages:
L~formation:
What kind of work do you do?
Do you and your spouse beth work?
Do you work:
Pull-time
Yes
No
Part-time
Check category of total combined income:
up to $10,000 _ _ ,
$10,000-$15,000 _ _ , $15,000-$25,000 _,
$25,000-$35,000 - - · $35,000-$45,000 - - · $45,000+ - - ·
Have you ever had marriage counseling?
Yes
No
Have you ever been L~volved in any type of personal growth groups,
sensitivity t:::-aining groups or similar workshops? Yes
No
bescribe briefly:
Have you ever been or are you cur::-ently involved wi~h Mar::-iage
Encounter? Yes
No
How long? - - - - - - - Have you ever been involved in individual counseling or therapy?
Yes
· No
How long?
ears, ___ months.
54