Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparison of a behavioral and a lecture-discussion approach to pre-marital counselling McRae, Bradley C. 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A2 M03.pdf [ 7.67MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0053793.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0053793-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0053793-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0053793-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0053793-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0053793-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0053793-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0053793-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0053793.ris

Full Text

A COMPARISON O F A BEHAVIORAL AND A L E C T U R E - D I S C U S S I O N A P P R O A C H TO P R E - M A R I T A L COUNSELLING by Bradley C . McRae B . A . , Chico State College M . A . , Chico State College A THESIS TO B E S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E O F DOCTOR O F EDUCATION In the Department ' of Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education We aQergpfe^rrs" JEhesis a3 conforming to the required standard T H E UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH COLUMBIA - August, 1975 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e that, the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i 1 a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i A B S T R A C T The question of the viability and permanence of the institution of marriage was discussed. Statistical findings indicate not only that the divorce rate is increasing, but also, that the number of people who remain single is decreasing as well as the length of time a divorced person remains single before remarrying. One possible explanation put forth for this seemingly contradictory set of findings is that people are not dissatisfied with the institution of marriage, but that they become dissatisfied with their own marriages. One approach to the problem of troubled marriages has been an increased interest in marriage counselling. An alternate approach to the problem lies in the area of prevention — namely premarital counselling. It was the latter approach with which this study was concerned. A review of the literature indicated that the social scientist has paid scant attention to the area of premarital counselling. What work that has been done was found to be weak methodologically and three recommenda-tions were made for future studies: 1 . that the treatment rationale be explicitly stated, 2. that multiple criteria be used, and 3 . that both subjective and objective measures be used within the same study. These recommendations were incorporated into the present study. i i i A review of the literature on the efficacy of marital treatment (Gupman, 1973b) showed the behavioral approach to be a particularly effective form of treatment. A method of behavioral group premarital counselling based on the work of Stuart (1969a, 1969b, 1973) was devel-oped (Stuart & McRae, 1975a). This method was used as the experi-mental treatment in the present study. A survey by the Pastoral Institute of British Columbia (1974) indica-ted that the lecture-discussion approach to premarital counselling was the most commonly used approach in the province of British Columbia. The lecture-discussion method was selected as the comparison (control) treatment in the present study. With the cooperation of the Pastoral Institute of British Columbia and the Burnaby Family Life Institute, ministers of the United, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, and Unitarian Churches were contacted. With the help of the ministers, engaged couples were contacted and asked if they would be willing to participate in the study. After eighteen couples agreed to participate in the study both in Vancouver and in Burnaby, they were randomly assigned to the experimental and comparison groups in their respective areas. An expansion of the Campbell and Stanley Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design was used as the experimental design in the present study (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 13). i v Biographic and demographic information was collected prior to the start of the sessions using the Premarital Inventory Part A . The P r e - marital Inventory Part B and the Marriage Prediction Schedule were administered at the beginning of the first session and during the last session of the six week experimental and control courses. The Course  Evaluation Form was administered during the last sessions. The major finding of the present study was that the behavioral treat-ment was not found to be more effective in producing change in the couples volunteering for premarital counselling than the lecture-discussion treat-ment. The results from the study showed only partial support for one of the fifteen hypotheses tested. Subjects in the experimental treatment group gave the experimental treatment a significantly more positive rating on the Course Evaluation Form than the subjects in the control treatment gave their group. However, this difference was found to be attributable to the experimental group females. The findings and limitations of the study were discussed along with implications for further research. V T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Chapter Page Abstract i i List of Tables viii Acknowledgements x I Introduction 1 Introduction 1 Review of the Literature 3 Conjoint Premarital Counselling 3 Group Premarital Counselling 6 Recommendations 10 II The Research Problem 1 2 The Experimental Treatment ; 12 Development of a Behavioral Approach 12 The Behavioral Group Premarital Counselling Program 13 The Control Treatment 14 Statement of the Problem 14 Statement of the General Hypothesis 14 Description of the Criterion Measures 15 The Premarital Counselling Inventory 15 The Premarital Counselling Inventory Part A 16 vi Chapter Page The Premarital Counselling Inventory Part B 16 The Marriage Prediction Schedule 18 The Course Evaluation Form 20 Statement of the Specific Hypotheses 20 III Methodology .'• 23 Population and Assignment of Couples to Groups 23 The Experimental Treatment 25 The Control Treatment 27 Data Collection 28 Design 29 Factor (Independent Variables) 29 Design 29 Statistics 30 IV Results 33 Preliminary Analyses 33 Tests for Equivalency 33 Biographic and Demographic Variables 34 Pre _ Test Variables 38 Tests of Hypotheses 42 V Discussion 66 Discussion of the Results. . 66 Limitations of the Study 72 vii Chapter Page Implications for Further Research 73 Conclusion 74 References 77 Appendices 83 A . The Course Announcement 83 B . The Experimental Treatment 85 C . The Control Treatment 104 D . Criterion Instruments •••• 120 E . Analyses 143 viii LIST O F T A B L E S Table Page 1 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on Father's Religiousness 35 2 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on Mother's Religiousness 35 3 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on the Subject's rating of the Happiness of His Parent's Marriage 36 4 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on the Subject's Rating of the Happiness of His Childhood 36 5 -Pre-treatment Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on the Subject's Confidence in the Decision to Marry 39 6 Pre-treatment Means for the Vancouver and Burnaby Samples on Self Evaluation Score, (SES) , Fiance(e) Evaluation Score (FES) , Understanding Score (Und), and the Marriage Prediction Schedule (MPS) 40 7 Pre-treatment Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on Subject's Understanding Score. . . . 41 8 Confidence in the Decision to Marry (Con): Linked Analysis of Co-Variance 44 9 Parent's Reaction to the Decision to Marry: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance 45 10 Friend's Reaction to the Decision to Marry: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance 46 11 The Frequency with which the Subjects within each Couple See Each Other: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance. 48 Table Page 12 Self Evaluation Score (SES): Linked Analysis of Co-Variance 49 13 Fiance(e) Evaluation Score (FES) : Linked Analysis of Co-Variance . 50 14 Self/Ideal-Self Discrepancy Score: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance 51 15 Self/Fiance(e) Discrepancy Score: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance 53 16 Matching Score: Analysis of Variance 54 17 Agreement Score: Analysis of Variance 55 18 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on Agreement Score 56 19 Understanding Score (Und): Linked Analysis of C o - Va ria nee 57 20 Confidence in the Marriage Score: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance 58 21 Marriage Prediction Schedule Score (MPS): Linked Analysis of Co-Variance 60 22 Course Evaluation Form Score: Analysis of Variance. . 61 23 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Group and Sex 62 24 Bonferroni t Comparisons for the Interaction Beh/veen the Factors of Group and Sex 63 25 Rate of Course Attendance: Analysis of Variance 65 X A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S I would like to thank the members of my committee, Drs . Stuart, Conry> Tolsma, and my advisor D r . Marks for their help, guidance, and support. I would also like to acknowledge my thanks to Frank Colistro and Mike Whitchick as the coordinators and the guest speakers for their participation in the control treatment, the Pastoral Institute of British Columbia and the Burnaby Family Life Institute for their help in securing the population for the study, and to all of the couples who participated in the study. Special thanks to Francis Donaldson for typing parts of the first draft and to Dorothy Neufeld for typing the final draft. I am grateful to my friends and family for their support, under-standing, and encouragement when I needed it most. C H A P T E R I INTRODUCTION Introduction The question of the viability and the permanence of the institution of marriage is currently a topic of considerable controversy. However, when examined statistically, the above question appears in a different light. Olson (1972, p. 383) pointed out that although the divorce rate is increasing, it is also true that a smaller percentage of the population than ever before remain single, that is , do not marry at any time during their lives. A s well, the average length of time a divorced person remains single before remarrying is decreasing. This evidence does not support the contention of the demise of the institution of marriage in our society. A better explanation of the above evidence is not that people are dissatisfied with the institution of marriage, but that they end up being dissatisfied with their own particular marriage and thence divorce. Two possible reasons for the high divorce rate are: 1 . People enter into marriage with unreasonably high expectations and consequently become easily frustrated. 2. They lack the skills necessary to make their expectations explicit and to negotiate and compromise their mutual expectations vis a vis their partners. 2 To summarize, contrary to popular belief, the evidence does not support the contention that the institution of marriage is threatened. The trouble lies in the expectations couples have of and satisfactions they derive from their individual marriages. One approach to the problem of troubled marriages has been an i n -creased interest in marital treatment (Olson, 1970; Gurman, 1971, 1973; A z r i n e t a l . , 1973; Stuart, 1973; and Weiss, Hops, and Patterson 1973). An alternate approach to this problem is premarital counselling. The importance of premarital counselling as prevention has been emphasized by Burgess and Locke (1960), Dicks (1966), Rutledge (1966), Bader(1974), and Stuart (1974). There is currently indication that state and provincial governments are taking an increasing interest in premarital counselling. Shonick (1972) reported on a program in California, where according to a new state law, premarital counselling is now mandatory for all persons under eighteen years of age who wish to marry. Studies by the provincial governments of Ontario (1967), Newfoundland (1968), and British Columbia (1975) recommended social policy and monetary support increasingly favorable for programs of premarital counselling. In light of the fact that premarital counselling has been made manda-tory for persons eighteen and under in California, and that it has been recommended that premarital counselling be given governmental support in Ontario, Newfoundland, and British Columbia, it is surprising that, as 3 the review of the literature will show, there exists very little, if any, evidence which either supports or denies the value and the efficacy of pre-marital counselling. Review of the Literature A review of the literature indicated that little attention has been given to the area of premarital counselling. For the mo-t part, the few studies that have been done are descriptive. Methodologically sound studies re-garding the efficacy of any of the existing forms of premarital treatments or comparisons among different types of premarital treatments are non-existant. The literature will first be reviewed in the area of individual couple (conjoint) premarital counselling and secondly in the area of group pre-marital counselling. This review will cover premarital counselling only, that is counselling done before a couple is married. It will not cover counselling for the newly-weds or counselling where the couple is seen not only prior to but also after they have been married, for example Bader, (1974). Conjoint Premarital Counselling Conjoint premarital counselling is defined as a counselling situation where a counselor works with an individual couple. Three studies are re-viewed in this area. 4 Ellis (1961) described the use of Rational Therapy in two conjoint premarital counselling cases. The author stated that the clients were "significantly" helped. A s this observation was based on the therapist's subjective report on only two cases and no other evidence was presented to substantiate the effectiveness of this form of treatment, the results of this, study add little if any valid information regarding the efficacy of con-joint premarital counselling. Meadows and Taplin (1970) presented a model of premarital counselling based primarily on the work of Rutledge (1968b), in which six engaged couples were seen individually in from one to four sessions and conjointly in from one to three sessions. The authors stated that: The approach stressed (a) the need for each partner in the premarital relationship to possess a deep understanding of the personality and emotional life of himself and the intended marriage partner, (b) the importance of communication skills in marital adjustment, and (c) the necessity to develop problem solving skills in order to resolve the inevitable areas of conflict that arise in both the engagement period and marriage. Values were considered to be especially important dimensions in potential marriage adjustment (Meadows & Taplin, 1970, p.516). One month following the treatment each couple received an evaluation questionnaire. Eleven out of twelve clients completed the questionnaire: Four clients rated the experience as very helpful and seven as somewhat helpful. The majority of clients, nine, found the joint interviews most productive. Although there was a positive evaluation of the counselling experience, 5 the use of global, unspecific, self-report data and the absence of a control or comparison group make the evaluation of the treatment difficult to interpret. Guldner (1971) reported on a follow up study of eighteen couples who had experienced three or more premarital counselling sessions with their ministers. These couples were later interviewed and asked to share their impressions of the premarital sessions. The results of the interviews were: Eleven out of the eighteen couples indicated that they could not remember much of what was said during the sessions. Four of the couples felt that the sessions were of value in that they helped them talk about issues which they had not really felt comfortable talking about previously. The remaining three couples felt that the ministers were the cause of some conflict during the sessions (Guldner, 1971, p. 115). The author concluded that: In general it could be said that, with the exception of four couples who expressed satisfaction with the premarital counselling experience in one area or another, the majority of couples did not benefit in any expressable manner from the experience (Guldner, 1971, p. 116). To summarize, two of the studies reviewed reported positive outcomes from conjoint premarital counselling, Ellis (1961) and Meadows and Taplin (1970). The first study used the therapist's subjective opinion, and in the second, eleven couples responded to a questionnaire. One study showed rather negative results using open ended interview follow up evaluations 6 of eighteen couples' experience with premarital counselling. The results of all of the above evaluations are questionable as the methods of evalua-tion reported in all three studies were subjective, and no comparisons were made with alternate treatments or with a no treatment control. Little if any valid information can be gleaned from these studies regarding the efficacy of conjoint premarital counselling. Group Premarital Counselling Group premarital counselling is defined as a group counselling situa-tion where a counselor works with several (two or more) couples simulta-neously. Seven studies will be reviewed in this area. The first article to mention group premarital counselling was by Levine and Brodsky (1949). The service consisted of three sessions which dealt with love, sex, and parenthood. Six months after the couples had married the authors held a follow up session to evaluate the course. Three out of twenty-seven couples who had participated in the courses attended. A l -though these three couples stated that they had been helped by the premari-tal counselling course,the validity of subjects' opinions as an evaluation procedure is questionable. The sample size at follow up also makes it impossible to generalize from the findings. Therefore, little information if any is gained from these findings regarding the efficacy of group pre-marital counselling. Unfortunately, the quality of the evaluative procedure in this study is the norm rather than the exception for research in this area. 7 Freeman (1965) reported on a program of group premarital counsel-ling developed in Montreal, Quebec. The program was limited to 5 or 6 couples who met for from 6 to 10 two hour sessions. The topics of dis-cussion were as follows: . . .expectations of love and marriage, the working wife, relationships to parents and in-laws, attitudes about money (budgeting and credit-buying), sexual adjustment and the honeymoon, becoming parents, and a family faith and value system (Freeman, 1965, p.40). No theoretical rationale for this method was stated and there was no formal evaluation of the program although the author did present a sample of couples subjective opinions. Therefore, the results of this study as well contribute little usable information with respect to the question of the effectiveness of group premarital counselling. Maxwell (1971) presented a rationale for a developmental and non-directive approach to premarital counselling. The author listed the following goals for couples who participated in the program: 1 . The understanding of emotional needs and their effect upon the relationship. 2. Recognition of marriage role expectations. 3. Development of skill in communication affecting the relationship. 4. Development of understanding of and control over conflict in the relationship. 5. Development of a situation within which couples may give and receive feedback from other couples (Maxwell, 1971, p. 12). 8 Although the author has clearly identified his goals, no attempt was made to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. Consequently this study also adds little information regarding the efficacy of group pre-marital counselling. In two separate articles, Holoubek and Holoubek (1973) and Holoubek, et a l . (1974) described an interfaith interdisciplinary approach to marriage preparation where: The psychological, physical, legal, spiritual, and practical aspects of marriage have been presented by physicians, lawyers, clergyman, and panels of married couples (Holoubek, et a l . , 1974, p.314). Evaluation questionnaires of the program were presented to each couple at the conclusion of the course and they were asked to make sugges-tions for change. However, no theoretical basis for the program was pre-sented to suggest why couples partaking in the program should change and no evaluation was carried out to assess if any change did in fact take place. Rolfe described in detail a program of " . . .structured group participation, utilizing short keynote talks, pencil and paper exercises, discussion exercises and open group discussion" for preparing groups of engaged couples for marriage (Rolfe, 1973, p.1). The following six topics were covered in the program: 1. Adjustment and Priorities 2. Communication Skills 3. Parenthood 4. Money Management 5. Religious Dimensions in Marriage 6. Sexuality 9 The speakers included a family life educator, a doctor or nurse, a clergyman, a financial resource person, married couples, and other resource people from the community. The author listed some support for the program from the participants' evaluation. However, as previously stated, this type of finding adds very little if any valid information concerning the efficacy of group premarital counselling. Glendening and Wilson (1972) reported on a program of premarital counselling where the sessions were concentrated into a single weekend. This program made use of role playing, group exercises, and group dis-cussion as an alternate to the lecture series method. The focus of the pro-gram was on how to make improvements in and maintain an intimate rela-tionship. The evaluation of the program consisted of formal pre and post ques-tionnaires administered to the couples and a review of tape recorded in-formal discussions with the couples. The authors stated: The written evaluation, coupled with the discussion, indicated that the couples thought the weekend had been a good investment in terms of time and money. Although the weekends did not meet every need of the couples, it is our opinion that they were a significant improvement over more traditional approaches to premarital counselling (Glendening & Wilson, 1972, p. 561). The questionnaire was vague, general and non-behavioral. A s no alternate treatment or a no treatment control group was used, the results 10 of the evaluation of this study are difficult to interpret. Knox and Patrick (1971) used a behavioral model for a preparation for marriage course at East Carolina University. One hundred-seventy sub-jects participated in the program. The authors assigned each participant a behavioral analysis, the purpose of which was: 1 . To provide an objective index of who you are by observing what you do and by listing your abstract values. 2. To provide an objective index for you and your date by having him (her) observe his (her) own behavior and list his (her) abstract values. 3. To get inside the head of your date and to allow him (her) inside yours by asking specific questions (Knox & Patrick, 1971, p. 112). The authors reported student evaluations of the program. A s previously stated, when used by themselves, subject's evaluations are a questionable evaluative procedure. To summarize, seven studies have been reviewed on group premarital and three studies have been reviewed on conjoint premarital counselling. The methodological weaknesses of these studies have been pointed out. It can be concluded that there is no sound evidence which either supports or denies the efficacy of either group or conjoint premarital counselling, and that systematic research in this area is needed. Recommendations Based on the review of the literature just cited, three recommendations 11 can be made for future studies on premarital counselling: 1 . that the treatment rationale be explicitly stated, 2. that multiple criteria be used, and 3. that both objective and subjective measures be used within the same study. These recommendations were incorporated into the methodology and design of the present study. 12 C H A P T E R II T H E R E S E A R C H P R O B L E M Given the findings from the review of the literature, it was concluded that a systematic approach to the evaluation of the efficacy of premarital counselling is needed. The subject of this dissertation was to experi-mentally test the efficacy of a specifically defined behavioral premarital counselling program vis a vis a control (comparison) premarital program. The Experimental Treatment Development of a Behavioral Approach A review of the literature on the efficacy of marital treatment sugges-ted that behavioral marital treatment is the most effective form of marital treatment. Gurman stated that: Despite the difficulties in marital therapy outcome assessment, there does exist a body of research on the efficacy of the treat-ment of marital problems (1973b, p. 161). Assessment of improvement rates according to treatment method yielded the following: group, 71 per cent; conjoint (behavioral and non-behavioral combined), 74 per cent; conjoint (non-behavioral), 68 per cent; behavioral only 93 per cent (1973b, p. 158). Although the number of cases for the behavioral treatment was small , n=19, the data are indicative of the potential efficacy of the behavioral approach to marital treatment. After a review of the behavioral approaches (Goldiamond, 1965; 13 Liberman, 1970; Knox, 1971; Stuart, 1969a, 1969b, 1973; A z r i n et a l . , 1973; Patterson and Hops, 1972; Weiss, Hops, and Patterson, 1973) it appeared that an extrapolation of the behavioral methods to group pre-marital counselling would indeed seem promising. A group premarital counselling program, based on the work of Stuart (1969a, 1969b, 1973) was proposed as the experimental form of treatment in the present study. The behavioral group premarital counselling program A behavioral group premarital program based on the work of Stuart (1969a, 1969b, 1973) was developed by Stuart and McRae (1975a). Stuart and Stuart stated: There is growing indication that a high percentage of marriages result in divorce within the first b/vo years. While it is possible to explain this trend by alluding to errors in judgment about mate selection, by casting barbs at the institution of marriage itself, or by pointing to broad situational factors such as housing and economics as sources of marital stress, another, more manage-able explanation is available. It is possible that the process of courtship may covertly foster certain misunderstandings and faulty expectations, which, after marriage, become the source of intense conflict. This would happen if either or both spouses were capricious. But it can also happen as a result of incomplete or inaccurate communication about basic attitudes and expecta-tions for giving and receiving in the various aspects of marital interaction (Stuart & Stuart, 1975b,p.1). Based on the above premises, it is the purpose of the behavioral pre-marital counselling program that participants should: 1 . Learn to state explicitly and specifically their expectations for themselves-, for their intended spouse, and for their marriage. 2. Learn how to become solution rather than problem oriented. 14 3. Learn how to request change positively and soecifically. 4. Learn how to negotiate, and compromise. 5. Learn how to form a viable and workable marriage contract. The Control Treatment The lecture-discussion approach to premarital counselling was found to be the most commonly used form of premarital counselling in the province of British Columbia (Pastoral Institute of British Columbia, 1974), as well as being widely used outside the province, for example, Holoubek and Holoubek (1973). The lecture-discussion approach was chosen as the control treatment in the present study for two reasons. First , it was found to be the most widely used approach to premarital counselling, and second, it enabled comparisons to be made between the experimental and control treatments. Statement of the Problem The major goal of the present study was to experimentally evaluate and compare the efficacy of the behavioral premarital counselling treatment with the control premarital counselling treatment. Statement of the General Hypothesis The general hypothesis for the present study was that subjects in the behavioral premarital counselling treatment would show significantly more positive gain scores than subjects in the control premarital counselling 15 treatment on the criterion measures. Description of the Criterion Measures A sign of the sophistication of an area of psychological inquiry is the sophistication of the measurement instruments capable of assessing change in that area. One of the problems in doing research in premarital counsel-ling is the lack of valid and reliable research instruments. After reviewing the literature, it was recommended that multiple criteria be used in any future studies of premarital counselling, and further, that both objective and subjective measures be used within the same study. Three criterion instruments were employed in the present study. The objective measures were The Premarital Inventory, a new instrument dev-eloped by Stuart & Stuart (1975a), and The Marriage Prediction Schedule, developed by Burgess and Wallin (1953). The subjective measure (measure of subjects' satisfaction with the treatment) was the Course Evaluation  Form, developed by Stuart and McRae (1975b). A detailed description of these instruments follows: The Premarital Inventory The Premarital Inventory is a new instrument which was developed by Stuart and Stuart (1975). The authors described the inventory as follows: This Inventory is intended to be used for assessment purposes in offering counselling to couples who have made tentative decisions to marry and who wish to carefully evaluate their decision. It is useful as a means of identifying basic dis-crepancies in attitudes and expectations, in assessing each partner's understanding of the other's position, and in providing 16 data useful for accommodating each other's position (Stuart and Stuart, 1975b, p. 1). The research edition of the Premarital Inventory is divided into two parts: Part A and Part B . Part A of the Premarital Inventory is designed to assess basic demo-graphic and biographic data in the areas of family background and past marital history. Premarital Counselling Inventory Part B (PMT-B) Part B of the Premarital Inventory contains the following criterion measures: Part I (A) Description of the Present Relationship. In part (A) the couple is asked to describe their relationship in terms of their plans to marry, their confidence in their decision, their parents' reaction, and the reaction of their friends to their plans to marry. Each of these questions is answered on a five point scale. (B) Have you ever called off your plans to marry? Part (B) asks each couple, if they have ever called off their plans to marry, what was the cause, and how the situation was resolved. (C) How close is your relationship at this time? Part (C) asks how many times per week they see each other. This question is answered on a five point scale. Part II Repertory Grid Analysis (based on the work of Kelly, G . A . (1955) and Bannister, D . and Mair , J . M . (1968). The Repertory Grid was used as a measurement technique in the following five areas: 17 (A) Constructs that each couple chooses that are the same or that have similar meanings, i . e . , con-structs that listed as similar in Roget's College Thesaurus (1958) are computed as the Matching Score. (B) The positive value each person gives to himself is computed (self evaluation score). (C) The positive value each person gives to his fiance(e) is computed (fiance(e) evaluation score). (D) The self ideal-self descrepancy score for each person is computed. (E) The self-fiance(e) descrepancy score for each person is computed. Part III Agreement To measure agreement on the value judgement scale, the differences in rating for each of the thirteen questions are derived for each couple. The difference in the ratings for the couple on each question is then squared. The sum of the squared differences for each of the thirteen questions represents the agreement score for that couple. Part IV Understanding To measure understanding on the value judgement scale, each person's ratings on Part III are compared to his fiance(e)'s estimate of his or her ratings on Part IV. Differences on the ratings for the thirteen questions are computed, squared and then summed. The sum of the squared differences represents the understanding score of that person for his fiance(e). Part V Confidence in the Marriage These ratings are designed to assess how confident each person is about their marriage in nine important areas. Each of the nine questions have five scalar ratings for a total scalar range of forty-five. High scores indicate a great degree of confidence in the marriage, while low scores indicate little confidence in the marriage. 18 For a more detailed description of the scoring of the Premarital Inventory see Stuart and Stuart (1975b), Guide to the use of the Premarital  Counselling Form and Bannister and Mair (1968), The Evaluation of  Personal Constructs. The Marriage Prediction Schedule Burgess and Wallin (1953, p.509) defined prediction as " . . .a method of analyzing the relationship between two complex series of events, for example, success or failure in a given activity and the events accounting for i t . " On the basis of the above definition, the authors developed a ninety-two question Marriage Prediction Schedule based on five factors: (1) background, (2) engagement history, (3) personality, (4) engagement success and (5) anticipated contingency factors. Validity of the Marriage Prediction Schedule: Content Validity: The items were selected from a larger pool and weighted by item analysis. Concurrent Validity: Correlations with marital adjustment indexes for various samples are about .50 (Burgess & Wallin, 1953). Predictive Validity: Correlation for six hundred men of prediction scores obtained during engagement with their marital adjustment scores three to five years after marriage, .50 (Burgess & Wallin, 1953). Construct Validity: The scores for one hundred University of Utah students on the M P S were correlated with the twelve sub-scales, the two 19 factor scales, and the total full-scale score on the California Test of Personality (Skid mo re, R . A . , & McPhee, W . M . , 1951). The two factor scores were: 1 . Self-adjustment (based on feelings of personal security), and 2. Social Adjustment (based on feelings of social security). The M P S correlated .58 with Self-Adjustment, .49 with Social Adjustment, and .62 with the total scale scores for the California Test of Personality. In their summary, Burgess and Wallin concluded: . . .the prediction of success or failure in marriage now rests on a solid scientific basis. Predictive methods have met and passed the acid test of relating predictive data obtained before marriage with criteria of success secured after marriage. The efficiency of expectancy tables for predicting marital success has been tested by applying them to a new group of subjects (Burgess & Wallin, 1953, pp. 556-557). Scoring the Marriage Prediction Schedule: High scores on the Marriage Prediction Schedule, those above 630, are favourable for marital adjustment. Research findings show that approximately 75% of persons with these scores in the engagement period are well adjusted in the marriage. Low scores, those below 567, are much less favourable for happi-ness in marriage. The probability is that only 25% of persons with these scores will be well adjusted in marriage. Scores between 567 and 630 indicate a 50% chance for marital success and a 50% chance for marital failure (Burgess, undated). For a more detailed description of the scoring of the Marriage Prediction Schedule see Burgess, The Counselor's Guide: Administration Scoring, and Interpretation of Scores for use with A Marriage Prediction Schedule 20 and A Marriage Adjustment Form. The Course Evaluation Form , The Course Evaluation Form (Stuart & McRae , 1975b) was designed to assess to what extent participants enjoyed, used and were influenced by the course as a whole as well as their reaction to specific sections and discussions within the course. Part I assesses their evaluation of the course as a whole, and is .made up of ten questions. Each question is rated on a five item Likert scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. There is a scalar range from ten to fifty. Part II assesses their evaluation of specific sessions and discussions within the course. There are seven questions. Each question is rated on a five item Likert scale from Very Helpful to Not Very Helpful. There is a scalar range from seven to thirty-five. In addition there is a NP (Not Present) rating which is to be marked for persons who missed a particular session. Part III consists of six questions concerning the length of the course, the length of the sessions, how participation in the course influenced their relationship, what they liked about the course, and their suggestions for improving the course. Copies of the Pre-Marital Inventory, the Marriage Prediction Schedule, and the Course Evaluation Form appear in Appendix D. Statement of the Specific Hypotheses Following is a list of the specific hypotheses for the present study: 21 The subjects in the experimental treatment group will report a significantly greater increase than the subjects in the control treatment group on their confidence in their decision to marry as measured by question I-A(1) on the P M I - B . The subjects in the experimental treatment group will report a significantly more positive increase than the subjects in the control treatment group on their parents' reaction to their decision to marry as measured by question I-A(2) on the P M I - B . The subjects in the experimental treatment group will report a significantly more positive increase than the subjects in the control treatment group on their friends' reaction to their decision to marry as measured by question I-A(3) on the P M I - B . The subjects in the experimental treatment group will report a significantly greater increase than the subjects in the control treatment group in the frequency with which the subjects within each couple see each other as measured by question I~C(1) on the P M I - B . There will be a significantly greater increase in the Self-Evaluation Score for subjects in the experimental treat-ment group than for subjects in the.control treatment group as measured in Part II of the P M I - B . There will be a significantly greater increase in the Fiance(e) Evaluation Score for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group as measured in Part II of the P M I - B . There will be a significantly greater decrease in the Self / Ideal Self Discrepancy Score for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group as measured in Part II of the P M I - B . There will be a significantly greater decrease in the Self / Fiance(e) Discrepancy Score for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group as measured in Part II of the P M I - B . 22 H9 There will be a significantly greater increase in the Matching Score for couples in the experimental treatment group than for couples in the control treatment group as measured in Part II of the P M I - B . H10 There will be a significantly greater increase in the Agreement Score for couples in the experimental treat-ment group than for couples in the control treatment group as measured in Part III of the P M I - B . H11 There will be a significantly greater increase in the Understanding Score for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treat-ment group as measured through Parts III and IV of the P M I - B . H12 There will be a significantly greater increase in the Confidence in the Marriage score for the subjects in the experimental treatment group than for couples in the control treatment group as measured in Part V o f the P M I - B . H13 There will be a significantly greater increase in Predicted Marital Success for the subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group as measured by the Marriage Prediction Schedule. H14 The subjects in the experimental treatment course will rate that course significantly more positively than the subjects in the control treatment course will rate that course as measured by the Course Evaluation F o r m . H15 The couples in the experimental treatment course will have a significantly higher rate of attendance than the couples in the control treatment course as measured by number of sessions attended. J 23 C H A P T E R III M E T H O D O L O G Y Population and Assignment of Couples to Groups The population for the present study was made up of couples who were either formally engaged, had made an informal commitment to marry, or were in the process of deciding on whether or not to marry. The cooperation of the British Columbia Pastoral Institute and the Burnaby Family Life Institute was solicited. With the support of these two agencies, Ministers-of the Anglican, United, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Unitarian Churches were contacted in Vancouver and Burnaby. The ministers were asked to submit the names of engaged couples who were planning to be married. Some ministers preferred to contact the couples first before submitting the names to be contacted. Additional advertising for the course took place through an announce-ment placed in the University of British Columbia Calendar for Continuing Education and the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver evening newspaper. The announcement was also placed on Bulletin Boards at Vancouver City College, on the New Westminster Campus of Douglas College, and at Simon Fraser University. As the names of the couples were submitted, they were contacted by phone and asked if they would be willing to participate in the program. Each person was first read a description of the course (See Appendix A 24 for a copy of the course announcement). They were then told: 1 . That this is a positively oriented, skill-building course. 2. That they would be with six additional couples who are at the same stage in life. 3. That their participation would help us to do some valuable and worthwhile research. It was necessary to contact forty eight couples in order to secure eighteen couples for the Vancouver sample. These eighteen couples were then randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups run in Vancouver. It was necessary to contact forty three couples in order to secure eighteen couples for the Burnaby sample. These eighteen couples were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups run in Burnaby. Of the eighteen couples randomly assigned to the experimental and control group in Vancouver and in Burnaby, one couple assigned to the Vancouver control group and two couples assigned to the Burnaby control group did not attend the first or any subsequent sessions. At this point the sample for the study consisted of eighteen experimental and fifteen control couples. For a couple to be considered in the study, they had to have attended three or more sessions. Couples who completed two sessions or less were considered to have dropped out of the study. There were no drop outs from either the Vancouver experimental or control groups. There 25 were three couples who dropped out of the Burnaby experimental group and four couples who dropped out of the Burnaby control group. The present study was based on a final sample of fifteen experimental and twelve control couples. The Vancouver experimental and control groups were held in h/vo seminar rooms in the Health Sciences Complex on the University of British Columbia campus. The Burnaby experimental and control groups were held in two classrooms in Burnaby Central Senior Secondary School in Burnaby. Burnaby is a suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia. ThevExperimental Treatment The six week program for the experimental treatment group consisted of the following: Session I Data Collection: Introductory Exercises and Caring Behaviors Exercises, Rationale, Assignment Session II Npn-Verbal Behaviors: Exercises, Rationale, Assignment Session III Unrevealed Differences, Decision Making and The Change First Principle: Exercises, Rationale, Assignment Session IV Making Latent Contracts Manifest: Exercises, Rationale, Assignment 26 Session V Sexuality: Exercises, Rationale, Assignment Session VI Conclusion: Data Collection General discussion regarding the participants evaluation of the course A l l sessions were tape recorded on a cassette recorder and later tran-scribed in order to insure the accuracy of the description of the experi-mental treatment. For a detailed description of the experimental pre-marital program, see Appendix B. It should be noted that the subjects in the experimental treatment received three pages of additional questions with Part A of the Premarital  Inventory which were designed to orient them into the experimental treat-ment. These pages appear as pages four, five, and six in Part A of the Premarital Inventory in Appendix D, but were sent to the experimental subjects only. The experimental program was presented by the same group leader for both the Vancouver and the Burnaby experimental groups. The experi-mental group leader is a doctoral candidate in the department of Counselling Psychology at the University of British Columbia. He has worked for four years as a psychologist at the Family and Children's Clinic of the British Columbia Youth Development Centre and is the author of the present study. 27 The Control Treatment The six week program for the control treatment group consisted of the following: Session I Introduction to the Course: Session II Session III Session IV Data Collection Talk and Discussion of the meaning of marriage by D r . S . D r . S . is a senior mental health worker for the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Project and also runs marriage enrichment programs for the Cold Mountain Institute of Vancouver, British Columbia. The Communication Process: Talk, Discussion, and Exercises concerning communication by D r . C . D r . C.is a Vancouver psychiatrist for emotionally disturbed children and has worked extensively in the area of marriage and family counselling. Communication and Sexuality: F i l m : Communication and Sexuality Discussion with Miss S . Miss S . is a public Health Nurse at a free clinic in Vancouver. She also teaches sex education in the schools and has participated as a discussion leader in the marriage preparation course presented by the Burnaby Family Life Institute. Law, Finance, and Marriage: Talk and Discussion with M r . A . M r . A . is a Burnaby Lawyer who has also participated as a discussion leader in the marriage preparation course offered by the Burnaby Family Life Institute. 28 Session V The Goals and Aspirations of Marriage: Talk, Discussion, and Exercises with Rev. P. Rev. P . is a minister in Burnaby and has also participated as a discussion leader in the marriage preparation course offered by the Burnaby Family Life Institute. Session VI Conclusion: Data Collection General discussion regarding the participants evaluation of the course. A l l of the guest speakers gave the same presentation for both the Vancouver and the Burnaby Control groups. A l l sessions were tape recorded on a cassette recorder and were later transcribed in order to accurately describe the control treatment. For a detailed description of the control premarital program see Appendix C . Data Collection The Premarital Inventory Part A was mailed with self-addressed stamped envelopes. Each participant was asked to return the inventory at least one week prior to the time the groups began. The Premarital Inventory Part B and the Marriage Prediction  Schedule were administered on the first evening of the course. The Premarital Inventory Part B, the Marriage Prediction Schedule, and the Course Evaluation Form were administered during the sixth and final session of the course. 29 Five couples were not in attendance during the sixth session. These couples were contacted by phone and asked if they would be willing to fil l in the forms. The forms were then delivered to their homes, and the couples were given a stamped envelope and asked to return the inventories to the author within one week. The forms were returned by all five couples. Design Factors (Independent Variables) The three factors (independent variables) considered in the design for the present study are: 1 . Place — Vancouver/Burnaby 2. Group — Experimental/Control 3. Sex — Male/Female Design The Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design is listed as design four in Campbell and Stanley (1963, p. 13). The advantages of this design are: subjects can be randomly assigned to groups, the quality of the groups can be compared at the pre-test condition, and comparisons can be made as to the effectiveness of the treatments. An expansion of the above design was used for the present study. This design is symbolically represented as follows: 9 30 VAN R O H Or (experimental) Or X, o (control) BBY Where R R 0C X . o, 6 (experimental) 0. X 0 0 8 (control) VAN BBY indicates that the subjects have been randomly assigned to either the experimental or control groups, represents one location, i . e . , Vancouver represents the second location, i . e . , Burnaby ° 1 , ° 3 , 05> a n d ° 7 X l X 0 0 2 , 0 4 , 0 6 , and 0 8 represent pre-treatment observations, represents the experimental treatment, represents the control treatment, and represent post-treatment observations. The expanded design was employed to take advantage of the possibility of combining the premarital sample from Vancouver with the premarital sample from Burnaby and thereby increasing the overall sample size for the tests of the hypotheses, as well as, increasing the generalizability of the findings from the study. Statistics The statistical analyses were conducted in three parts. Part I con-sisted of the prelimiary analyses, Part II consisted of the tests of equivalency* and Part III consisted of the tests of hypotheses. 31 In Part I, the preliminary analyses, the Hoyt (1941) internal-consis-tency estimate of the reliability was computed for the Marriage Prediction  Schedule and the Course Evaluation F o r m . In Part II, the tests of equivalency, it was necessary to insure that the experimental and control groups were equivalent so that no unaccounted differences would influence the tests of hypotheses at the post test condition. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to test for equivalency on all continuous biographic and demographic variables. Significant differ-ences on these variables were identified as general co-variates. General co-variates account for differences between groups based on biographic and demographic variables. Chi-square was used to test for equivalency on all non-continuous biographic and demographic variables. Multivariate analysis of variance was also used to test for equiv-alency on all pre-test variables. Significant differences on pre-test variables were identified as specific co-variates. Specific co-variates account for differences between groups based on pre-test variables. In Part III, tests of hypotheses, hypotheses fourteen and fifteen were tested by analysis of variance. Hypotheses one through thirteen were tested by analysis of variance where there were no significant differences on the continuous biographic and demographic, and pre-test variables in the tests of equivalency which affected that particular hypothesis. 32 In the cases where there were significant differences on the continuous biographic and demographic, and pre-test variables which affected a particular hypothesis, those hypotheses were tested by linked analysis of co-variance (Cronbach & Furby, 1970). The strategy for conducting linked analysis of co-variance is represented as follows: Y . = ud + (covQ) + cov s + INT i P9 S where: an individual's score on one of the dependent variables Yd ud the grand mean for the dependent variable Yd the general covariates identified in the tests of equivalency cov s the specific covariate identified in the tests of equivalency for Hypothesis Yd INT, pgs the interaction of the factors of place, group, and sex, for the dependent variable Yd the error term for the dependent variable Yd A l l significance tests in the present study were performed at oc = .05. 33 C H A P T E R IV R E S U L T S Preliminary Analyses A s reliability is not reported for the Marriage Prediction Schedule, and the Course Evaluation Form is a new test, it was necessary to com-pute the reliability for these two measures. For the Marriage Prediction  Schedule the Hoyt (1941) internal consistency estimate of reliability was 0.84 and for the Course Evaluation Form, the estimate of reliability was 0.83. Tests of Equivalency The next set of statistical procedures were used to test for equiva-lency among groups. These analyses are divided into two parts. The first part concerns tests for equivalency on biographic and demographic variables and the second part concerns tests for equivalency on the pre-test variables. Multi-variate analysis of variance was used to test for equivalency for all of the continuous variables. The three factors (independent variables) used in all of the multi-variate analyses were: 1 . Place — Vancouver/Burnaby 2. Group — Experimental/Control 3. Sex — Male/Female Chi-square significance tests were used to test for equivalency between groups for all non-continuous variables. 34 Biographic and demographic variables The biographic and demographic variables in the first multi-variate analysis of variance were: 1 . Number of siblings (Sib). 2. Rating of the subject's father's religiousness ( F Rel). 3. Rating of the subject's mother's religiousness (M Rel). 4. Subject's age (Age). 5. Subject's education (Ed). 6. Months the subjects within each couple had known each other (Mth). The results of this analysis indicated that there were significant dif-ferences between the experimental and control groups on the variables of father's religiousness and mother's religiousness. For father's relig-iousness, the experimental group had a mean of 2.083 and the control group had a mean of 2.433. For mother's religiousness, the experimental group had a mean of 1 .861 and the control group had a mean of 2.267. On these scales a low score indicates a high rating on religiousness. There were also a significant difference for the interaction of the factors of place and group on father's religiousness and mother's religious-ness. The means for the interaction of the factors of place and group for these variables appear in Table 1 and 2. The subject's rating of father's religiousness and the subject's rating of mother's religiousness were used as general co-variates in the tests of the hypotheses which used linked analysis of co-variance. See 35 Appendix E -1 , E-2, and E-3 , for the cell means and standard deviations, correlations, and the multi-variate analysis for the above variables. Table 1 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on Father's Religiousness Experimental Control  Vancouver 1.778 2.563 Burnaby 2.389 2.286 Table 2 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on Mother's Religiousness Experimental Control  Vancouver 1.611 2.500 Bu rnaby 2.111 2.000 The second multi-variate analysis of variance concerned: 1 . The subject's rating of the happiness of his parent's marriage (H PM). 2. The subject's rating of the happiness of his childhood (H CH). 36 The results of this analysis indicated that there were significant interaction effects between the factors of place and group on the rating of the happiness of his parent's marriage and on the subject's rating of the happiness of his childhood. A low score on these scales indicates a positive rating. The means for the interaction of the factors of place and group for these variables appear in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on the subject's rating of the Happiness of His parent's Marriage Experimental Control Vancouver 1 .500 2.188 Burnaby 2.111 1 .429 Table 4 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on the Subject's Rating of the Happiness of His Childhood Experimental Control Vancouver Burnaby 1 .444 1 .889 1 .875 1 .357 37 The subject's rating of the happiness of his parent's marriage and the subject's rating of the happiness of his childhood were used as general co-variates in the tests of the hypotheses which used linked analysis of co-variance. See Appendix E-4, E-5, and E-6, for the cell means and standard deviations, correlations, and the multi-variate analysis for the above variables. Two tailed Chi-square tests of significance were used to test for equivalency between groups on the following five variables: 1 . Parent's marital state. 2. Subject's incidence of previous marriage. 3. Subject's decision to marry. 4. Subject's who at one time had called off their plans to marry. 5. Subject's church attendance. None of the above tests for equivalency were significant with the exception of subject's church attendance which was significant at c& = .01 . See Appendix E~7 for the Chi-square tests of significance for the above variables. In conventional linked analysis of co-variance, it is necessary that co-variates be measured on interval or ratio scales. Since subject's church attendance is an ordinal variable, it was not used as a general co-variate in the tests of the hypotheses. When subject's church atten-dance (an ordinal variable) was correlated with both the subject's rating 38 of father's religiousness and the subject's rating of mother's religiousness (interval variables) using Pearson's equation (Underwood e t a l . , 1954) the resulting coefficients were significant at a = .01 . A s these two variables, the subject's rating of his father's religiousness and the subject's rating of his mother's religiousness were used as general co-variates in sub-sequent analyses, no further use was made of the subject's church atten-dance in the statistical tests of the hypotheses. See Appendix E-8 for the means, standard deviations, and correlations between the variables: subject's rating of his father's religiousness, subject's rating of his mother's religiousness, and subject's church attendance. Pre-test variables The pre-test variables tests for equivalency were computed in three parts, parts one and two concerned the individual subject's scores on individual pre-test variables, and part three concerned couple's scores on the couple's pre-test variables. The dependent variables for the individual pre-test measures in the first multi-variate analysis of variance were: 1 . Confidence in the decision to marry (Con). 2. Parent's reaction to the decision to marry (P Rea). 3. Friend's reaction to the decision to marry (F Rea). The results of this analysis indicated that there was a significant interaction effect between the factors of place and group on subject's con-fidence in the decision to marry. A low score on this scale indicates a 39 high degree of confidence in the decision to marry. The means for the interaction of the factors of place and group appear in Table 5. The subject's pre -treatment confidence in the decision to marry score was used as a specific co-variate in the statistical test for hypothesis one. See Appendix E-9 , E-10, and E-11, for the cell means and standard deviations, correlations, and the multi-variate analysis for the above variables. Table 5 Pre-treatment Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on the Subject's Confidence in the Decision to Marry Experimental Control  Vancouver 1.333 1.167 Burnaby 1.125 1.857 The dependent variables in the second multi-variate analysis of variance were: 1. The frequency with which the subjects within each couple see each other (F SEO) . 2. The Self Evaluation Score (SES) . 3. The Fiance(e) Evaluation Score (FES) . 4. The Self/Ideal-Self Discrepancy Score (S/I -S) . 5. The Self/Fiance(e) Discrepancy Score ( S / F ) . 40 6. The Understanding Score (Und). 7. The Confidence in their Marriage Score (CIM). 8. The Marriage Prediction Schedule Score (MPS). The results for this analysis indicate that there were significant dif-ferences for the factor of place on the subject's Self Evaluation Score, the subject's Fiance(e) Evaluation Score, the subject's Understanding Score, and the subject's Marriage Prediction Schedule Score. The means for these differences appear in Table 6. There was also a significant dif-ference for the factor of group on the subject's understanding score. The experimental group had a mean of 26.31 and the control group had a mean of 18.43. A high score on these scales indicates a positive rating. Table 6 Pre-treatment Means for the Vancouver and Burnaby Samples on Self Evaluation Score, (SES) , Fiance(e) Evaluation Score ( F E S ) , Understanding Score (Und), and the Marriage Prediction Schedule (MPS) Variable Vancouver Burnaby S E S 33.94 28.72 F E S 37.94 32.25 Und 19.21 26.47 M P S 611.80 593.20 There was a significant interaction effect between the factors of place and group on the subject's Understanding Score. The means for 41 the interaction of the factors of place and group appear in Table 7. Table 7 Pre-treatment Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on Subject's Understanding Score Experimental Control Vancouver 26.67 10.81 Burnaby 25.94. 27.14 The subject's pre-treatment Self Evaluation Score was used as a specific co-variate in the statistical test of hypothesis five, the subject's pre-treatment Fiance(e) Evaluation Score was used as a specific co-variate in the test of hypothesis six, the subject's pre-treatment Under-standing Score was used as a specific co-variate in the test of hypothesis eleven, and the subject's pre-treatment Marriage Prediction Schedule Score was used as a specific co-variate in the test for hypothesis thirteen. See Appendix E-12, E-13, and E-14 for the cell means and standard deviations, correlations, and the multi-variate analysis for the above va riables. The dependent variables in the third multi-variate analysis of variance were: 1. The Matching Score (Mat). 2. The Agreement Score (Agr). 42 For this analysis, the unit of observation was the couple rather than the individual. The results for this analysis indicated no significant differences. See Appendix E-15, E _ 16, and E _17 for the cell means and standard devia-tions, correlations, and the multi-variate analysis for the above variables. Tests of Hypotheses Each of the fifteen hypotheses were tested independently. The three factors (independent variables) used in all of the analyses were: 1. Place — Vancouver/Burnaby 2. Group — Experimental/Control 3. Sex — Male/Female Hypotheses, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, and thirteen were tested by the procedure of linked analysis of covariance (Cronbach & Furby, 1970). The adjusted cell means for these hypotheses appear in Tables E-18 and E-19. The four general co-variates identified in the tests of equivalency and used in these analyses were: 1 . The subject's rating of his father's .religiousness (F Rel). 2. The subject's rating of his mother's religiousness (M Rel). 3. The subject's rating of the happiness of his parent's marriage (H PM). 4. The subject's rating of the happiness of his childhood (H CH). The specific co-variates for these analyses were labeled in each separate analysis. 43 Hypotheses nine, ten, fourteen, and fifteen were tested by analysis of variance. The cell means for these hypotheses appear in Tables E-20, E-21, and E-22. The results of the tests of the hypotheses were as follows: H1 The subjects in the experimental treatment group will report a significantly greater increase than the subjects in the control treatment group on their confidence in their decision to marry. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 8). A significant difference for the factor of place with a Vancouver mean of 1.203 (N=30) and a Burnaby mean of 1 .450 (N=25) was found at cx = .05. indicating a greater degree of confidence in their decision to marry for the Vancouver sample. H2 The subjects in the experimental treatment group will report a significantly more positive increase . than the subjects in the control treatment group on their parent's reaction to their decision to marry. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 9). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. H3 The subjects in the experimental treatment group will report a significantly more positive increase than the subjects in the control treatment group on their friend's reaction to their decision to marry. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 10). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. 44' Table 8 Confidence in the Decision to Marry (Con): Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F _JD Place 0.745 1 0.745 5 .260 0. 028 Group 0.002 1 0.002 0 .015 0. 904 Sex 0.010 1 0.010 0 .073 0. 789 Pla -Gr 0.028 1 0.028 0 .201 0. 657 Pla-Sex 0.171 1 0.171 0 .210 0. 278 Gr-Sex 0.169 1 0.169 0 .190 0. 282 P - G - S 0.055 1 0.055 0 .392 0. 535 General Covariates F Rel 0.203 M Rel 0.060 H P M 0.060 H CH 0.114 Specific Covariate Con (Pretest) 6.032 E r r o r 5.240 37 0.203 0.060 0.060 0.114 6.023 0.142 1 .432 0.422 0.421 0.808 0.239 0.520 0.521 0.374 42.598 0.001 Total 12.889 49 45 Table 9 Parent's Reaction to the Decision to Marry: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Place 1.916 1 1 .916 2.673 0.111 Group 2.433 1 2.433 3.394 0.073 Sex 0.129 1 0.129 0.180 0.674 P l a - G r 0.002 1 0.002 0.003 0.956 Pla-Sex 0.601 1 0.601 0.838 0.366 Gr-Sex 0.590 1 0.590 0.823 0.370 P - G - S 1 .025 1 1 .025 1 .430 0.239 neral Covariates F Rel 0.356 1 0.356 0.496 0.486 M Rel 2.296 1 2.296 3.203 0.082 H P M 1 .041 1 1 .041 1 .452 0.236 H CH 0.342 1 0.342 0.477 0.494 E r r o r 26.524 37 0.717 Total 37.255 48 46 Table 10 Friend's Reaction to the Decision to Marry: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P Place 0.512 0.512 1 .196 0.281 Group 0.295 1 0.295 0.689 0.412 Sex 0.004 1 0.004 0.010 0.921 Pla-Gr 0.079 1 0.079 0. 184 0.670 Pla-Sex 0.030 1 0.030 0.070 0.792 Gr-Sex 0.002 1 0.002 0.004 0.953 P - G - S 0.032 1 0.032 0.075 0.785 General Covariates F Rel 0.073 1 0.073 0.170 0.682 M Rel 0.172 1 0.172 0.403 0.529 H P M 0.288 1 0.288 0.674 0.417 H CH 0.318 1 0.318 0.744 0.394 E r r o r 16.254 38 0.428 Total 18.059 49 47 H4 The subjects in the experimental treatment group will report a significantly greater increase than the subjects in the control treatment group in the frequency with which the subjects within each couple see each other. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 11). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. H5 There will be a significantly greater increase in the Self-Evaluation Score for subjects in the experi-mental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 12). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. H6 - There will be a significantly.greater increase in the Fiance(e) Evaluation Score for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 13). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. H7 There will be a significantly greater decrease in the Self/Ideal-Self Discrepancy Score for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 14). A significant difference for the factor of sex with mean for males of 14.550 (N=27) and a mean for females of 20.117 (N=27) was 48 Table 11 The Frequency with which the Subjects within each Couple See Each Other: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Place 0.230 1 0.023 0.026 0.872 Group 0.199 1 0.199 0.227 0.636 Sex 0.022 1 0.022 0.025 0.874 Pla-Gr 0.191 1 0.191 0.218 0.643 Pla-Sex 0.019 1 0.019 0.021 0.884 Gr-Sex 0.179 1 0.179 0.205 0.653 P - G - S 0.010 1 0.101 0.011 0.916 neral Covariates F Rel 2.869 1 2.869 3.282 0.077 M Ret 0.158 1 0. 158 0.180 0.673 H P M 0.090 1 0.090 0.103 0.750 H CH 0.003 1 0.003 0.004 0.950 E r r o r 36.717 42 0.874 Total 40.687 53 49 Table 12 Self Evaluation Score (SES): Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P Place 1.632 1 1 . 632 0. 020 0.888 Group 64.807 1 64. 807 0. 802 0.376 Sex 60.815 1 60. 815 0. 753 0.391 P l a - G r 12.068 1 12. 068 0. 149 0.701 Pla-Sex 34.073 1 34. 073 0. 422 0.520 Gr-Sex 15.120 1 15. 120 0. 187 0.668 P - G - S 2.590 1 2. 590 0. 032 0.859 General Covariates F Rel 0.127 1 P» 127 0. 002 0.969 M Rel 54.007 1 54. 007 0. 668 0.418 H P M 229.255 1 229. 255 2. 837 0.100 H CH 287.325 1 287. 325 3. 556 0.066 Specific Covariate S E S (Pretest) 708.687 1 708. 687 8. 771 0.005 E r r o r 3312.585 41 80. 795 Total 4783.091 53 50 Table 13 Fiance(e) Evaluation Score (FES) : Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F ' P Place 9.216 1 9.216 0.116 0.735 Group 30.126 1 30.126 0.379 0.541 Sex 10.611 1 10.611 0. 134 0.717 P l a - G r 7.419 1 7.419 0.093 0.761 Pla-Sex 6.622 1 6.622 0.083 0.774 Gr-Sex 24.801 1 24.801 0.312 0.579 P - G - S 1 .304 1 1 .304 0.016 0.899 General Covariates F Rel 13.718 1 13.718 0. 173 0.680 M Rel 48.339 1 48.339 0.609 0.440 H P M 106.625 1 106.625 1 .343 0.253 H CH 141.801 1 141.801 1 .786 0. 189 Specific Covariate F E S (Pretest) 597.784 1 597.784 7.530 0.009 E r r o r 3254.846 41 79.386 Total 4253.212 53 51 Table 14 Self/Ideal-Self Discrepancy Score: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Place 7.704 1 7.704 0.097 0.757 Group 44.460 1 44.460 0.561 0.458 Sex 501.938 1 501.938 6.329 0.016 Pla -Gr 85.834 1 85.834 1 .082 0.304 Pla-Sex 208.767 1 208.767 2.632 0.112 Gr-Sex 0.726 1 0.726 0.009 0.924 P - G - S 13.834 1 13.834 0.174 0.678 neral Covariates F Rel 126,. 568 1 126.568 1 .596 0.213 M Rel 170*. 680 1 170.680 2. 152 0.150 H P M 270.317 1 270.317 3.408 0.072 H CH 339.361 1 339.361 4.279 0.045 Error 3330.969 42 79.309 Total 5101.158 53 52 found at oc = .05 indicating a lower Self/Ideal-Self discrepancy score for males. H8 There will be a significantly greater decrease in the Self/Fiance(e) Discrepancy Score for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 15). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. H9 There will be a significantly greater increase in the Matching Score for couples in the experimental treatment group than for couples in the control treatment group. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 16). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. H10 There will be a significantly greater increase in the Agreement Score for couples in the experimental treatment group than for couples in the control treatment group. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 17). A significant difference for the factor of place with a Vancouver mean of 15.294 (N=17) and a Burnaby mean of 27.400 (N=10) was found at oc = .05 indicating higher level of agreement on the Value Judgement Scale for the Burnaby sample. A significant interaction effect between the factors of place and group was also found for the couple's agreement score at oc = .05. The 53 Table 15 Self/Fiance(e) Discrepancy Score: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Place 143.622 1 143.622 1 .768 0.191 Group 0.432 1 0.432 0.005 0.942 Sex 203.350 1 203.350 2.504 0. 121 P l a - G r 163.970 1 163.970 2.019 0.163 Pla-Sex 130.821 1 130.821 1 .611 0.211 Gr-Sex 116.114 1 116.114 1 .430 0.239 P - G - S 111.563 1 111.563 1 .374 0.248 neral Covariates F Rel 20.802 1 20.802 0.256 0.615 M Rel 28.460 1 28.460 0.350 0.557 H P M 87.292 1 87.292 1 .075 0.306 H CH 146.589 1 146.589 1 .805 0.186 Error 3411.121 42 81.217 Total 4564.136 53 54 Table 16 Matching Score: Analysis of Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Place 0.185 1 0.185 0.081 0.807 Group 3.135 1 3.135 1.036 0.319 P l a - G r 1.249 1 1.249 0.413 0.527 Error 69.597 23 3.026 Total 74.166 26 55 Table 17 Agreement Score: Analysis of Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Place 1129.440 1 1129.440 9.608 0.005 Group 0.085 1 0.085 0.001 0.979 Pla -Gr 782.249 1 782.249 6.655 0.017 Error 2703.681 23 117.551 Total 4615.455 26 56 means for the interaction of the factors of place and group appear in Table 18. Table 18 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Place and Group on Agreement Score Experimental Control  Vancouver 20.556 9.370 Burnaby 22.833 34.250 H11 There will be a significantly greater increase in . the Understanding Score for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 19). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. H12 There will be a significantly greater increase in the Confidence in the Marriage Score for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 20). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. 57 Table 19 Understanding Score (Und): Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P Place 329.055 1 329.055 3 .867 0.057 Group 0.002 1 0.002 0 .000 0.996 Sex 80.002 1 80.002 0 .933 0.340 P l a - G r 59.800 1 59.800 0 .697 0.409 Pla-Sex 137.115 1 137.115 1 .599 0.213 Gr-Sex 21.054 1 21.054 0 .245 0.623 P - G - S 32.255 1 32.255 0 .376 0.543 General Covariates F Rel M Rel H P M H CH Specific Covariate Und (Pretest) 83.178 8.965 276.521 2.236 572.598 83.178 8.965 276.521 2.236 572.598 0.970 0.105 3.224 0.026 6.677 0.330 0.748 0.080 0.873 0.013 Error 3516.191 41 58.761 Total 5118.972 53 58 Table 20 Confidence in the Marriage Score: Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Place 17.791 1 17.791 1 . 512 0.226 Group 37.374 1 37.374 3. 177 0.082 Sex 12.345 1 12.345 1 . 049 0.312 P l a - G r 0.000 1 0.000 0. 000 0.997 Pla-Sex 15.964 1 15.964 1 . 357 0.251 Gr-Sex 2.636 1 2.636 0. 224 0.638 P - G - S 0.993 1 0.993 0. 084 0.773 neral Covariates F Rel 10.509 1 10.509 0. 893 0.350 M Rel 0.912 1 0.912 0. 078 0.782 H P M 0.818 1 0.818 0. 070 0.793 H CH 47.473 1 47.473 4. 036 0.051 E r r o r 494.054 42 11.763 Total 640.869 53 59 H13 There will be a significantly greater increase in Predicted Marital Success for subjects in the experimental treatment group than for subjects in the control treatment group. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 21). There were no significant differences for any of the factors used in the analysis. H14 The subjects in the experimental treatment course will rate that course significantly more positively than the subjects in the control treat-ment course will rate that course. The results of the analysis did support the above hypothesis (See Table 22) . A significant difference for the factor of group with an experimental treatment group mean of 39.734 (N=30) and a control treat-ment group mean of 44.583 (N=24) was found at oi = .05 indicating a significantly more positive evaluation of the experimental treatment group. Hotelling's T 2 statistic was used to test for significant differences between the experimental and the control treatment groups on the means of the seventeen items of the Course Evaluation F o r m . See Appendix E-23. The results of this analysis indicated no significant differences between the two groups on any of the seventeen items. This indicates that although there was a significant main effect for the total Course Evaluation Form score for the experimental and control groups, there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups on the individual items which make up the scale. 60 Table 21 Marriage Prediction Schedule Score (MPS): Linked Analysis of Co-Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P Place 34.983 1 34. 983 0.187 0.668 Group 383.218 1 383. 218 2.045 0.160 Sex 21.812 1 21 . 812 0.116 0.735 Pla -Gr 54.165 1 54. 165 0.289 0.594 Pla-Sex 1 .244 1 1 . 244 0.007 0.935 Gr-Sex 146.539 1 146. 539 0.782 0.382 P - G - S 146.560 1 146. 560 0.782 0.382 General Covariates F Rel 60.220 1 60. 220 0.321 0.574 M Rel 264.261 1 264. 261 1 .411 0.242 H P M 3.721 1 3. 721 0.020 0.889 H CH 54.024 1 54. 024 0.288 0.594 Specific Covariate M P S (Pretest) 14747.145 1 14747. 145 78.714 0.001 Error 7681.427 41 187. 352 Total 23599.319 53 61 Table 22 Course Evaluation Form Score: Analysis of Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F . p Place 0.191 1 0.191 0.003 0.956 Group 376.362 1 376.362 6.140 0.017 Sex 125.059 1 125.059 2.040 0.160 P l a - G r 84.447 1 84.447 1 .378 0.247 Pla-Sex 63.584 1 63.584 1 .037 0.314 Gr-Sex 299.612 1 299.612 4.888 0.032 P - G - S 11.584 1 11.584 0.189 0.666 E r r o r 2819.444 46 61.292 Total 3780.283 53 62 A significant interaction effect between the factors of group and sex was found for the subject's course evaluation score at ox = .05. The means for the interaction of the factors of group and sex appear in Table 23. Table 23 Means for the Interaction of the Factors of Group and Sex Male Female  Experimental 43.934 35.533 Control 44.250 44.916 Bonferroni's t statistic (Kirk, 1968,. p. 79) was used to test for the significance of the differences between these means. It was found that the experimental group and the control group males did not differ significantly and, that the average between the experimental and the control group males did not differ significantly from the control group females. However, the average among the experimental group males, the control group males, and the control group females did differ significantly from the experimental group females. The results from these analyses appear in Table 24. Hotelling's T statistic was used to test for significant differences between the means of the experimental group females and the means for 63 all of the other groups combined (experimental group males, control group males, and control group females) on the seventeen items of the Course Evaluation F o r m . The results of this analysis indicated no signi-ficant differences on any of the seventeen items. See Appendix E-24. This indicates that although there is a significant interaction effect (the mean for the experimental group females was significantly different from the mean of all of the other groups combined) there are no significant dif-ferences between the experimental group females and all of the other groups combined on the individual items which make up the Course Evalu-ation F o r m . Table 24 Bonferroni t Comparisons for the Interaction Between the Factors of Group and Sex Contrast Means Compared d Difference between means 1 Ex group males vs Control group males 7.580 0.316 2 Ex and control group males vs control group females 6.808 0.842 3 Ex group males, control group males, and control group females vs ex group females 7.453 8.800* *p < .05 d represents the difference that a comparison must exceed in order to declared significant 64 H15 The couples in the Experimental Treatment Course will have a significantly higher rate of attendance than the couples in the Control Treatment Course. The results of the analysis did not support the above hypothesis (See Table 25). A significant difference for the factor of place with a Vancouver mean of 5.118 (N=17) and a Burnaby mean of 3.813 (N=15) was found at oi = .05 indicating a significantly higher rate of attendance for the Vancouver sample. 65 Table 25 Rate of Course Attendance: Analysis of Variance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F p Place 13.806 1 13.806 5.398 0.027 Group 0.018 1 0.018 0.007 0.934 Pla -Gr 0.009 1 0.009 0.003 0.954 Error Total 74.177 88.010 29 32 2.558 66 C H A P T E R V DISCUSSION In this chapter the results and limitations of the present study are discussed along with implications for further research. Discussion of the Results Of the fifteen substantive hypotheses, only one hypothesis proved to be at least partially supported by the present study. For hypothesis fourteen, a significant difference for the factor of group was found indicating that subjects in the experimental group rated the experimental treatment more positively on the Course Evaluation Form than subjects in the control treatment group rated the control treatment on the same form. Subsequent analysis showed no significant differences between the experimental group and the control-group on any of the individual items which made up the Course Evaluation F o r m . An interaction effect for the factors of group and sex was also signifi-cant for hypothesis fourteen. Bonferroni t comparisons for differences among means indicated that there were no significant differences among the means for the control group males, the control group females, or the experimental group males. The mean for the experimental group females, however, was significantly lower than the mean for these other three groups combined. This would indicate that the significant difference between the experimental and control groups on the Course Evaluation 67 Form was due to the significantly more positive evaluation given to the course by the experimental group females, and not to a significant dif-ference between the experimental and the control groups per se. The difference between the experimental and control groups is attibutable, then, to the significantly more positive evaluation given to the course by the females in the experimental group. Jerome Frank (1962) defined good psychotherapy as a consistent message within a desensitizing environment. Consistency and continuity were built into the experimental treatment program. A model of a positively oriented relationship based on the reciprocity of specific positive behaviors was presented, built upon, and repeated throughout the course. Having the same leader for all of the sessions also may have helped to insure greater continuity and cohesiveness in the experimental groups. The control group treatment in contrast, was presented by five different leaders with five somewhat different philosophies and models for a satisfying marital relationship. Therefore, a certain amont of inconsis-tency and discontinuity were intrinsically a part of this treatment. It is possible then that the significantly more positive rating by the experimental group females on the Course Evaluation Form was due to the factors of continuity of leadership and consistency of program built into the experimental treatment. However, one would have to explain why this would be true for the females and not the males in the experimental treatment. Perhaps making the marriage work is seen as more of the 68 role of the woman than of the man in our society, and therefore, the women in the experimental group found the course more useful and hence gave the course the higher rating. Another possible explanation for the significant interaction effect between the factors of group and sex for hypothesis fourteen can be attributed to characteristics of the experimental treatment. These characteristics were, one, the groups were lead by a male leader, (sex variable), and two, this leader was with the groups for every session which gave him time to build upon a relationship with the experimental treatment subjects (relationship variable).. Either separately or in com-bination, the factors of sex of the leader and the relationship he had with the experimental group females may have been intervening variables accounting for the significantly higher evaluation of the course by the experimental females. Again one would have to explain why these factors worked differentially with the female and the male experimental subjects. A third possibility is that, as the experimental group leader was the same for both experimental groups, the significantly higher course evauation by the experimental females may be due to the personality of . this particular group leader (therapist variable). One again is left with the question as to why there was no effect on the experimental males. Although several possibilities have been listed, the best way to try to explain the differential findings from hypothesis fourteen would be through 69 replication of the study using different male as well as female experimental group leaders. There was then only partial support for one of the hypotheses in the present study. It is necessary to speculate as to why there was no support for the remaining hypotheses. One possibility is that the criterion measures were not sensitive enough to measure the change produced by the treatment. A second possibility may be that the type of change induced by the experimental treatment takes more than six weeks to show. This might indicate that either a longer treatment period is necessary, or that it may be necessary to measure change at more than one period (see implications for further research). A third possibility relates to the sample. A l l of the couples who participated in the study volunteered to do so. Perhaps the couples who would have benefited most from the treatment are the couples who did not volunteer to participate in the study in the first place. The author's clinical impression would offer some support for this hypothesis. Volunteer subjects may form an attenuated sample. If they were, in fact, from the more well adjusted end of the population, there may have been less room for them to change, and this could have been reflected in few significant changes on the criterion measures. 70 A fourth possibility relates to the fact that the behavioral treatment is a newly developed treatment which has just been offered for the first time. Possibly with refinement and systematic development, this technique would become more potent and would therfore show a greater influence vis a vis the outcome measures. For hypothesis ten, there was a significant interaction effect for the factors of place and group on the agreement scale. There is little dif-ference in the means for the experimental groups in Vancouver and Burnaby. However, there is a substantial difference between the control group means showing the Vancouver control group to be low on agreement and the Burnaby control group to be high on agreement. This indicates that the interaction effect for place and group is due to the differences in the control group means in Vancouver and Burnaby. It is probable that the above finding is due to an artifact of sampling in the present study. There was also significant differences not related to the experimental and control groups in the tests of the hypotheses. For hypothesis one, a significant difference for the factor of place was found indicating a greater degree of confidence in their decision to ' marry for the Vancouver group. There is no evidence to suggest why this might be the case, such as differences between the Vancouver and Burnaby samples in terms of age or education. 71 For hypothesis seven a significant difference for the factor of sex was found which indicated more congruence between self and ideal-self for males than for females. Possibly role and role expectations in our society lead to less congruence for women than for men. For hypothesis ten, a significant difference for the factor of place was found indicating a higher agreement score on the Value Judgement Scale for couples in Burnaby than for couples in Vancouver. A s explained previously for the interaction effect for hypothesis ten, the above finding was thought to be a sampling artifact in the present study. For hypothesis fifteen, a significant difference for the factor of place was found indicating a significantly greater rate of attendan ce for the Vancouver than for the Burnaby sample. The differential attendance rate is probably due in part to the dif-ference in the environmental setting in which the Vancouver and the Burnaby groups were held. The Vancouver groups were held in two seminar rooms in the Health Sciences Centre on the University of British Columbia Campus. Both rooms were small , well furnished, and quiet. The Burnaby groups were held in two classrooms in Burnaby Central Senior Secondary School. These rooms in contrast, were large, had standard school desks and chairs, and the walls between the classes were made of cinder blocks which allowed noise, such as the sound tracks of movies being shown next door, to interfere with the classes where the 72 groups were being held. A l l things considered, the physical environment for the Vancouver groups was much superior to the physical environment for the Burnaby groups, and this factor may account in part for the dif-ferential attendance rate between the Vancouver and the Burnaby sample. Limitations of the Present Study The factor which had the greatest effect in limiting the generalizability of the findings of the present study was the fact that there was only one experimental group leader. It could be argued that the findings of the present study are limited to that leader. It is doubtful if this was the case as the experimental treatment was very thoroughly structured which would suggest that the effects are due to the treatment rather than to the person-ality of the leader. It could also be argued that the findings of the present study are limited to male experimental group leaders. The fact that there was a significant sex by treatment group interaction for hypothesis fourteen would add some support for this hypothesis The question of the generalizability of the findings from the present study with respect to other male, or female experimental group leaders remains unanswered from the present study. Replication of the study using a number of male and female experimental group leaders would best answer the above questions.. In addition, another confounding variable was that some control treat-ment leaders did not strictly adhear to the lecture-discussion formate. 73 More specifically, two of the guest speakers used experiential exercises in their presentations. This would have the effect of making the control treatment more similar to the experimental treatment than was intended in the original design of the study. Therefore it would be advisable to insure that there were more stringent controls regarding treatment dif-ferences in future studies. Implications for further Research Perhaps the best test of the general hypothesis in this study, that the experimental group treatment will have differential effects from that of the control group treatment, would be to do a follow up study. Such a study is currently in the planning stages. A l l of the subjects in the present study were asked to submit their parent's names and addresses so that they could be contacted in approxi-mately two years time. The two year time period was chosen as "There is growing indication that a high percentage of marriages result in divorce within the first two years (Stuart & Stuart, 1975b, p.1). At that time the subjects will be assessed on the following criteria: 1 . The percentage of engaged couples who did in fact marry. 2. The percentage of those couples who married and are still married and living together at the time of the two year follow up. 3. Those couples who are still married will be assessed as to their marital satisfaction with inventories of marital satisfaction. The subjects who were in the experimental and control groups will then be compared on one, two, and three above. 74 Conclusion The major finding of the present study was that the behavioral treat-ment was not found to be more effective in producing change in couples volunteering for premarital counselling than the lecture-discussion treatment. There was only partial support for one hypothesis which showed that the experimental treatment was rated significantly more positively by the experimental group females. Perhaps the most con-clusive test of the general hypothesis of the present study regarding the efficacy of the experimental and control treatments is based on divorce rate and measures of marital satisfaction which can only be assessed at some point in the future. This is an inherent difficulty in the evaluation of all premarital counselling research as all of the criterion measures used can only be reflections or substitutes for the couple's future behavior. An additional difficulty with research in the area of premarital counselling is that the premarital population is difficult to work with. The premarriage time tends to be an extremely busy time for these couples. Considerable effort is necessary to obtain a sample for a study on this population. Perhaps the greatest asset or strength of the present study lies not in its substantive findings, but in the development of a model of methodol-ogically sound research in an area that has been neglected by the social scientist. The follow up study on the experimental and control subjects two years after their marriages plus replication of the present study using 75 both male and female experimental group leaders would give additional evidence regarding the efficacy of the experimental treatment. Several authors (Guldner, 1971, & Bader, 1974) have advocated counselling newlyweds in post marital counselling. Three advantages of counselling newlyweds are: 1. This would be a less busy time in the couple's lives than the premarital period. 2. The couples would have had time to experience the realities of marriage. 3. A s all of the couples would be living together at this time, it would be easier for them to carry out the treatment interventions. Perhaps if the experimental treatment from the present study were to be modified for the newlywed population, it would have a better chance of influencing the couples and thereby producing significant changes. A s well, it would be interesting to teach the principles of relationship building from the behavioral approach in high schools. Ideally, then a large scale study could be conducted to determine which or which combina-tion of treatments and time periods are the most effective. The use of governmental support for large scale research may be a more sound investment of limited resources than the proliferation of existing programs. Integrally related to the present study was the development of a behavioral approach to premarital counselling (Stuart & McRae, 1975b). The assets of this approach were that the treatment rationale and goals of the treatment were explicitly stated. The behavioral program was 76 developed on the learning principles'of presentation, variation, and repetition. A model of a positively oriented relationship based on rec i -procity of specific positive behaviors was introduced. This model was then used to present the various content areas of the course, and was repeated throughout the course. Consistency and continuity were there-fore built into the behavioral program. The method of presentation, then, rather than the context itself is probably the crucial variable in pre-marital counselling. For this reason it is the author's belief that the behavioral program is a promising approach and warrants further research and development. 77 R E F E R E N C E S A z r i n , N . H . , Naster, B . J . , & Jones, R. "Reciprocity counseling: A rapid learning-based procedure for marital counseling." Behavior Research and Therapy, 1973, 1_1_, 365-382. Bach, G . R . , & Wyden, P . The intimate enemy: How to fight fair in love and marriage. New York: William Morrow & C o . , Inc., 1969. Bader, E . Preventive marriage counselling. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. , Unpublished manuscript, 1974. Bannister, D. & Mair , J . M . The evaluation of personal constructs. London: Academic Press L t d . , 1968. Belliveau, F . , & Richter, L . Understanding human sexual inadequacy. Boston, M a s s . : Little, Brown and C o . , 1970. Bergin, A . E . & Strupp H . H . "New directions in psychotherapy research." Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 76, 13-26. Bergin, A . E . & Garfield, S . L . Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior  change. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971 . Burgess, E . W . The counselor's guide: Administration, scoring, and interpretation of scores for use with a marriage prediction schedule and a marriage adjustment form. Durhan, North Carolina: Family Life Publications, Inc., undated. Burgess, E . W . , & Wallin, P. "Predicting adjustment in marriage from adjustment in engagement." American Journal of Sociology, 1944, 49, 324-330. Burgess, E . W . & Wallin, P. Engagement and marriage. New York: J . B . Lippincott Publishing C o . , 1953, 507-557. Burgess, E . W . , & Locke, J . H . The family, 2nd ed. New York: American Book C o . , 1960, 693-716. Buros, O.K. (ed). The fourth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N . J . : Gryphon Press, 1953. 78 Buros, O.K.(ed) . The fifth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N . J . : Gryphon Press, 1959. Buros, O . K . (ed). The sixth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N . J . : Gryphon Press, 1965. Buros, O . K . (ed). The seventh mental measurements yearbook. Vol II. Highland Park, N . J . : Gryphon Press, 1972. Campbell, D . T . , & Stanley, J . C . Experimental and quasi-experimental  designs for research. Chicago, 111.: Rand McNally College Publishing C o . , 1963. Comfort, A . (Ed.) The joy of sex. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. , 1972. Cronbach, L . J . & Furby, L . "How we should measure 'change' — or should we? " Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74(1), 68-80. Dicks, R. Premarital guidance. Englewood Cliffs , N . J . : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. E l l i s , A . "A rational approach to pre-marital counseling." Psychological  Reports, 1961, 8, 333-338. Frank, J . D . "The role of cognitions in illness and healing." In H . H . Strupp & L . Luborsky, (Eds.) , Research in psychotherapy, Vol.11. Washington, D . C . : American Psychological Association, Inc., 1962, 1-12. Freeman, D . R . "Counseling engaged couples in small groups." Social  Work, October, 1965, 36-42. Glendening, S . E . , & Wilson, A . J . "Experiments in group premarital counseling." Social Casework, November, 1972, 551-562. Goldiamond, I. "Self-control procedures in personal behavior problems. " Psychological Reports, 1965, _17, 851-868. Gordon, T . Parent effectiveness training. New York: Peter H . Wyden, Inc., 1970. Guldner, C . A . "The post-marital: An alternate to pre-marital counseling." The Family Coordinator, A p r i l , 1971, 115-119. 79 Gurman, A . S . "Group marital therapy: Clinical and empirical implications for outcome research." International Journal of Group  Psychotherapy, 1971, 21_, 174-189. Gurman, A . S . "Marital therapy: Emerging trends in research and practice." Family Process, 1973(a), 12^  45-54. Gurman, A . S . "The effects of marital therapy: A review of outcome research." Family Process, 1973(b), 12," 145-170. Harris , T . A . I'm OK - You're O K . New York: Avon Books, 1967. Holoubek, A . B . , & Holoubek, J . E . "Pre-marriage counseling." Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society, 1973, 70(5), 176-178. Holoubek, A . B . , Holoubek, J . E . , Bergeron, J . R . , Bacarisse, A . L . Inaina, J . , Sanders, A . H . , & Baker, D . L . "Marriage preparation: An interdisciplinary approach." Journal of the Louisiana State  Medical Society, 1974, 126(9), 313-316. Hoyt, C . "Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance." Psychometrika, 1941, 6(13), 153-160. Kelly, G . A . The psychology of personal constructs; Vols. land II. New York: Norton Publishing C o . , 1955. Kirk, R . R . Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Cal i f . : Wadsworth Publishing C o . , Inc., 1968. Knox, D . M . Marriage happiness: A behavioral approach to counseling. Champaign, III.: Research Press, 1971. Knox, D . M . , & Patrick, J . A . "You are what you do: A new approach in preparation for marriage." The Family Coordinator, 1971, 20, 109-116. Levine, L . , & Brodsky, J . "Group pre-marital counseling." Mental  Hygiene, 1949, 33, 577-578. Levinger, G . "Supplementary methods in family research." Family  Process, 1963, 2, 357-366. Liberman, R. "Behavioral approaches to family and couples therapy." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1970, 40, 106-118. 80 Maxwell, J . A . "Group pre-marriage counseling: A tentative model." Paper presented at the American Personnel and Guidance Association, Atlantic City, N . J . , 1971. Meadows, M . E . , & Taplin, J . F . "Premarital counseling with college students: A promising triad." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17(6), 516-518. Mil ler , D . C . Handbook of research design and social measurement. New York: David McKay C o . , Inc., 1974. Nunnally, J . C . Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o . , 1967. Olson, D . H . "Marital and family therapy: Integrative review and critique." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1970, 32, 501-538. Olson, D . H . "Marriage of the future: Revolutionary or evolutionary change." Family Coordinator, October, 1972, 383-393. Patterson, G . R . , & Hops, H . , "Coercion, a game for two: Intervention techniques for marital conflict." In R. E . Ulrich and P. Mountjoy (Eds.) , The experimental analysis of social behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972. Rappaport, A . F . , & Harrell , J . "A behavioral-exchange model for marital counseling." The Family Coordinator, A p r i l , 1972, 203-212. Rolfe, D . J . "Preparing groups of engaged couples for marriage." Paper presented at the National Council of Family Relations, Toronto, Ont. , October, 1973. Rutledge, A . Pre-marital counseling. Cambridge, M a s s . : Schenkman Publishing C o . , Inc., 1966. Rutledge, A . "An illustrative look at the history of pre-marital counseling." In J . A . Peterson (Ed.) , Marriage and family counseling : Perspective  and prospect. New York: Association Press, 1968(a). Rutledge, A . " A systematic approach to premarital counseling." In J . C . Heston & W . B . Erick (Eds.), Counseling for the liberal arts campus. Yellow Springs, Ohio: The Antioch Press, 1968(b). 81 Shonick H . "Premarital counseling in California." Health Services  Report, 1972, 87(4), 304-310. Skidmore, R . A . , & McPhee, W . M . "The compariative use of the California test of personality and the Burgess-Cottrell-Wallin schedule in predicting marital adjustment." Marriage and Family  Living, 1951, _13, 121-126. Strauss, M . A . Family measurement techniques: Abstracts of published  instruments 1935-1965. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969. Stuart, F . M . , Stuart R . B . , Maurice, W . L . , & Szasz, G . Sexual adjustment inventory. Champaign, III.: Research Press, 1975. Stuart, R . B . "Operant-interpersonal treatment for marital discord." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969(a), 33, 675-682. Stuart, R . B . "Token reinforcement in marital treatment." In R. Rubin & C M . Franks (Eds). , Advances in behavior therapy. New York: Academic Press, 1969(b), 221-230. Stuart, R . B . "Behavioral remedies for marital i l ls : A guide to the use of operant-interpersonal techniques. " In press, 1973. Stuart, R . B . Presentation on prevention at the Sixth Banff International Conference on Behavior Modification, March, 1974. Stuart, R . B . & Lederer, W . J . How to make a bad marriage good and a  good marriage better. New York: W . W . Norton Publishing C o . , In press. Stuart, R . B . & McRae, B . C . A behavioral approach to group pre-marital counselling. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B . C . , 1975(a). Stuart, R . B . & McRae, B . C . The course evaluation form, Unpublished paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B . C . , 1975(b). Stuart, R . B . & Stuart, F . M . The premarital inventory. Unpublished paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B . C . , 1975(a). 82 Stuart, R . B . & Stuart, F . M . Guide to the, use of the pre-marital counselling form. Unpublished paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B . C . , 1975(b). Underwood, D . J . , Duncan, C P . , Spence, J . T . , & Cotton, J . W . Elementary statistics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954. Weiss, R. L . , Hops, H . , & Patterson, G . R . "A framework for conceptual-izing marital conflict, a technology for altering it, some data for evaluating i t . " In L . A . Hamerlynchk, L . C . Handy, & E . J . Mash (Eds.) , Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practise. Champaign, III.: Research Press, 1973, 309-342. British Columbia Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law, Report Number Eight, Preparation for Marriage, 1975. Media exchange catalog. Vancouver, B . C . : Media Exchange Co-operative, 1973. Newfoundland Family Law Study, 1968. Ontario Family Law Project, 1967. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association: 1967 revision. Washington, D . C . : American Psychological Association, Inc., 1967. Roget's college thesaurus. New York: The New American Library, Inc., 1958. Survey of attitudes and practices of British Columbia clergy regarding preparation for marriage and the performance of marriages. Unpublished paper. The Pastoral Institute of British Columbia, Vancouver, B . C . , 1974. 83 APPENDIX A T H E COURSE A N N O U N C E M E N T 85 A P P E N D I X B T H E E X P E R I M E N T A L T R E A T M E N T 86 SESSION I INTRODUCTORY E X E R C I S E S AND CARING BEHAVIORS 1 . Data Collection: Administration of: (a) The Marriage Prediction Schedule (b) The Pre-Marital Inventory Part B 2. Exercise: Introduce your fiance(e) to the group Each person is to introduce their fiance(e) to the group by stating four specific positive things (behaviors) that they like about that person. The group leader models the appropriate behavior. The group members are told that they may use the writing paper to help them to organize their thoughts. After five minutes, the leader goes around the group and asks each person to introduce their fiance(e) to the group by stating four specific positive things about them. Point: The point of this exercise is to begin to emphasize the importance of positive behavioral specificity. 3. Exercise: The Classified Ad Ideal Husband and Ideal Wife Each person is asked to write anonymously a classified advertise-ment that would appear in the Vancouver Sun, the Province, the Georgia Straight, the Christian Science Monitor, or whatever they read. They are to write an advertisement for themselves as an ideal husband if they are a man and an ideal wife if they are a woman. They are told that they will not be reading what they wrote and to feel free to be quite fanciful and boastful. When they have finished the leader has them fold their papers in half and then re-distributes them so that no one receives the paper that he or she wrote. The men are each asked to read the description of the ideal husband which they have received. The women are each asked to read the description of the ideal wife which they have received. 87 Point: The point of this exercise is to help each person begin to look at the expectations they have of themselves and of each other as husbands and wives in the marriage. 4 . Assignment: Caring Behaviors The assignment which they are to do at home, is to write down four caring behaviors that your fiance(e) can do for you that show you that they care for you. This is called a 'caring list ' . The leader models writing a 'caring list ' . They are told that next week's session will begin with their 'caring lists ' . 5. The group leader gives a brief outline of the course and asks for questions. SESSION II N O N - V E R B A L BEHAVIOR, YOU CAN NOT NOT C O M M U N I C A T E , AND HOW YOU WILL A N N O U N C E Y O U R S E L V E S T O T H E W O R L D . . 1 . Last Week's Assignment The assignment from last week was to list four caring behaviors. The leader goes around the room in round robin fashion asking each person to read their list and helps them to be positive and specific. Point: It is the small things that make or break a marriage. A l l marriages have bad things that happen, but in good marriages the ratio is four good to one bad. 2. You can not not communicate. A man and a woman are sitting next to each other on an airplane. He wants desperately to talk with her. She wants desperately to not talk with anyone in the world. What do they do? The leader explains the principle that you can not not communicate. 3. A man and a woman come to a party and immediately join different groups. What does that indicate about their relationship? 88 Each person is asked to think about the above question and to write their answer down on their tablets. The leader asks a number of people from the group how they responded to the question. Point: There are no fixed rules for interpreting nonverbal behavior. The important point is whether or not the couple agree on their behavior and how that agreement is worked out — it depends on how the couple have defined their relationship and if they both agree on that definition. How will you announce your relationship to the world? (a) I would l i ke you to imagine that you and your fiance(e) are going to a party. What would you like to nonverbally communi-cate about your relationship to the other people at the party? How would you want what you want communicated? (b) What would you want your fiance(e) to communicate about your relationship to others who are present at the party and how would you want this to be communicated? (c) What would you like your fiance(e) to communicate about your relationship to your parents? How would this be communicated non-verbally? (d) What would you like to communicate about your relationship to his or her parents? How would this be communicated non-verbally? (e) What would you like your fiance(e) to communicate about your relationship to another married couple? How would this be communicated non-verbally? (f) What would you like to communicate about your relationship with your fiance(e) to another single person when just the three of you are together? How would this be communicated? Point: There is a whole array of non-verbal ways of communicating 89 A l l the time that you are communicating you are defining the way that relationship is and also the way you would like that relationship to be. No matter where you are, if two people have a relationship they are communicating in some way, e .g . by a glance, picking up a book, etc. A l l the time you are communicating you are defining your relationship. There are really three aspects to consider, there are the two of you and there is the relationship the two of you have established. Review of specific positive behaviors that the couples have mentioned during the exercise, e .g . winking, glancing, sitting close to each other, etc. . The Table Exercise: This is the dining room table in your home. I would like you to label one of the small circles mother, one for father, and one for each of the three children. This is a table at a fancy restaurant. Same instructions as above. This is a church pew. Same instructions as above. O 0 O 0 O O 0 O O i Point: Furniture is important because it determines how we use space. How we use furniture and space relates to how we define our relationships. If the two parents sit next to each other they can touch each other and this shows the children that the parents' relationship comes first. Non-verbal Gestures and Postures: What are the non-verbal gestures and postures that we use to indicate the following: 90 (a) You exist (c) You're important (e) I Love You (g) Thank You (b) You Don't Exist (d) You're Not Important (f) I Do Not Love You (h) No Thank You Point: These non-verbal gestures and postures make up a vocabulary that we use in our relationships. If any of you have seen the movie "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe" you saw two people who were experts at using non-verbal negatives. The leader goes around the group in round robin fashion and the group lists gestures and postures that indicate (a) through (h) above. Point: The idea of congruent and incongruent verbal and non-verbal behaviors. It's really important that the verbal and the non-verbal behavior go together. If the man says "Let's go to a movie," and sits down, takes his shirt off, opens up a bottle of beer and turns on the hockey game — that is an incongruent message. Or if she says, "Well I guess I don't care if we go out to dinner, I'll cook something here." And she opens up an old can of tinned spaghetti and serves it with crackers, that might indicate that she really did want to go out. 7. Assignment: We have talked about caring behaviors and verbal and non-verbal ways of communicating existence, importance, caring and commitment. The assignment for next week is to expand your list of caring behaviors to include some of the positive non-verbal behaviors we talked about tonight. (The group leader writes the words existence,' importance, caring and commitment on the board.) The list should have six to ten behaviors listed down the left hand side of the page. Across the top write M T W T F S S for each day of the week. Then each night before you go to bed, place a check mark next to the behaviors that occurred during tha.t day. 91 Although this procedure might seem foreign to you, think of it as an experiment. Tracking behavior is important. In fact, it is one of the most important techniques that we can use in changing behavior and settling disagreements in a relationship. The group leader gives h/vo examples of the use of tracking behavior. (1) I wanted to run a mile and a half every day so I could get into shape for cross-country skiing. I ran sometimes, and I didn't run sometimes depending on the weather, my mood or whatever. Then I decided that I would keep track of that behavior on my calendar and every time that I ran I put a mark on the calendar. Just by marking down when I ran I increased my running by 100%. I ran every day and I could see when I had run and when I did not run. (2) A husband and his wife were arguing. She said that she never knew when to have dinner ready because he was never home on time. So he started keeping track of when he came home. It turned out that he came home at 6 o'clock every night except Wednesday evening when he worked overtime on reports. On the basis of this information (and they were not aware of it before) they were able to say that they would have dinner at 6 o'clock every night except Wednesday when they would have it at 7 o'clock. The point is that just keeping track of behavior helps to get a base line so you can see what is happening and what needs to be changed. For this week please make your caring lists to include existence, importance, caring and commitment and each night place a mark by these specific behaviors when they occur. SESSION III U N R E V E A L E D D I F F E R E N C E S , DECISION MAKING, AND T H E C H A N G E FIRST PRINCIPLE 1 . Go over the assignment and review concepts from last week: List six to ten non-verbal and verbal behaviors your fiance(e) can do for you that indicate you exist, you're important, that they care for you, and that they are committed to your relationship. 92 Each person is to write M T W T F S S at the top of the page for each day of the week and then estimate how many times each of the behaviors on their list happened during the week. The unrevealed differences test: How do they resolve the problem? How do they decide? What do they do? Each person is given the unrevealed differences test. After they have filled out the form, they are told to compare their answers question by question. They are to write A by the question if they agreed on the solution, and a D by the question if they disagreed. They are told that disagreements are a part of any relationship so they should not be upset if they find that they have disagreed. If they do not have time to complete all the questions during class time they may take them home to finish them. Points to get across during the discussion of the questions: the idea of a win-win and a win-loss relationship. the idea that a short range victory can be a long range loss. successful couples have good compromise, negotiating and decision making skills . the idea of shared time and private time. Each person is given the handout on Models of Unsuccessful and Successful Divisions of Decision-Making Authority and the handout is discussed. Assignment: The Change First Principle The change first principle states that in order to change another person or your relationship with that person you must change your own behavior first . The change first principle can be applied to improving an already good relationship. Each person is asked to list three things that they could do for their fiance(e) during the next week that would improve their relationship. These are to be behaviors that are not now occurring or could happen more often. The group leader models the use of the change first principle. 93 The group leader then goes around the room in round robin fashion and asks each person to name one of the things that they will do for their fiance(e) during the next week (these are called acceleration targets). Each person is also asked to list three specific positive requests that their fiance(e) could do for them. The idea is to develop an increasing rich menu of behaviors that they can choose from in pleasing each other. 94 WHAT DO T H E Y DO? HOW DO T H E Y R E S O L V E T H E P R O B L E M ? HOW DO T H E Y DECIDE? 1 . John and Mary both work. Mary wants John to do the dishes each night after dinner. John thinks working and taking care of the yard and their cars is enough. How do they resolve the problem? 2. Mary wants to go on a holiday to Hawaii with just her and John. John wants them to take their three children and go to Disneyland in California. What do they do? 3. John has a chance for a promotion, but it would mean moving to Dawson Creek. If they move Mary would loose her job (a job usually found only in larger cities). What do they do? 4. John wants to eat dinner while watching the evening news. Mary wants to eat dinner while listening to soft background music. How do they resolve One problem? 5. John and Mary have had a fight. He would like to make up but is waiting for her to make the first move. She would like to make up but is waiting for him to make the first move. How is the problem resolved? 6. When John comes home from work he likes to read the paper for half an hour to relax. Mary feels slighted. What do they do? 95 7. Mary wants to buy a color T . V. on credit. John doesn't feel that buying on credit is right. What do they do? 8. John wants Mary to go with him to the hockey game this Sunday at the Colosseum. Mary wants John to go with her this Sunday to see the ballet at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre. Where do they do? 9. It's Wednesday night. John has come home dead beat from work. They have a date to go to a movie with another couple. John would really like to stay home and rest . Mary has been looking forward to going out all day. What do they do? 10. It's Friday evening. John wants to go to the pub with the boys. Mary wants them to have friends over. What do they do? 11 . John and Mary are both invited to the home of their respective parents for Christmas. Whose parents home do they go to? 12. John and Mary are both looking forward to going camping over the long weekend. John thinks he may be getting sick. Mary says that they should stay home (she doesn't want John to be sick for work). John says that they will go (he doesn't want to disappoint Mary). What do they do? 13. John and Mary both work, their middle child is sick. Who stays home? 96 14. John works. Many keeps house. Mary doesn't feel she is an equal partner because she doesn't have half the say in where the income goes. How do they resolve the problem? 97 M O D E L S O F U N S U C C E S S F U L AND S U C C E S S F U L DIVISIONS O F DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY U N S U C C E S S F U L M O D E L S U C C E S S F U L M O D E L S 98 SESSION IV MAKING L A T E N T C O N T R A C T S M A N I F E S T 1. Go over the assignment: List three things that each person did in the last week for the other. Go over the list of requests that the other could do for their fiance(e). Go .around the group and ask each person the actual number or their estimate of how many times each behavior occurred. 2. Exercise: The Prerogatives of Husbands and Wives Each person is to write (A) the three most basic prerogatives (prior or exclusive right or privilege) of husbands and (B) the three most basic prerogatives of wives. Point: This is important because we have an internalized set of role expectations. When our expectations are not met we feel violated. This can be related to last week's discussion on disagreements, negotiation, compromise and decision making. 3. Exercise: Shared and Private Goals for Next Month, Next Year and Five Years from Now. Each person is to fill in part (a) for each of the questions on the form. The group leader first models the behavior for the task. When they have finished, each person is asked to place a star next to the shared goals that he wrote that he thinks will also appear on his fiance(e)'s list of shared goals. They are then to compute the number of matching shared goals. The leader goes around the room in round robin fashion and asks each person to read from their private and shared goals for next month, next year, or five years from now. 4 . Exercise: The Marriage Contract Each person is to fill out parts one, two and three of the marriage contract. The leader will go around the room in round robin fashion and ask individuals to read from parts one, two or three of their contract. The remaining parts of the contract will be assigned as homework. 99 SHARED AND P R I V A T E G O A L S Goals may include interests you have now but would like to do more of, eg. going for a walk several times per week, or new interests you would like to develop, eg . , one or both take up back packing. Goals may also include things you would like to have or accomplish, eg . , having children, buying a house, or travelling to Europe. List four specific goals you have for your relationship for next month (shared time). a b c d List four specific goals you have for yourself for next month (private time). a b c d List four shared goals you have for your relationship for next year. a_ b c d List four private goals you have for yourself for next year. a__ b c d List four shared goals you have for your relationship five years from now. a b c d List four private goals you have for yourself five years from now. a b . c d 100 T H E MARRIAGE C O N T R A C T If you were going to make a legal contract with your fiance(e) for the next five to ten years, what would the terms of the contract be regarding: 1 . Work and career development 2. money 3. in-laws 4. shared time and private time 5. (Same sex, opposite sex) friends 6. affection and sex 7. children, and 8. where you live and the bype of accommodation in which you reside. The contract should be written in eight sections, one section for each of the eight areas listed above: 1 . 101 SESSION V S E X U A L I T Y 1 . Images of Male and Female (a) ask each man to write down three words that describe • how he sees what it is to be male and then write down three words for what it is to be female. (b) ask each woman to write down three words that describe how she sees what it is to be female and then write down three words for what it is to be male. Each person then hands in his list and the leader and several volunteers make a master list on the board. Point: maleness and femaleness is a continuum m f 2. Attitude toward Sex Each participant is instructed to complete the sex attitude scale (the sex attitude scale is one of the scales from the Sex Attitude Inventory by Stuart, Stuart, Maurice, & Szasz, 1975). Next, each couple is instructed to compare their answers for each item and compute the numerical difference between their answers. This number squared is the difference score for that couple on that particular item. The scale is made up of three subscales. Part I (questions 1, 4, 7, 10) is concerned with people's acceptance of the social basis of sex. Part II (questions 2, 5, 8, 11) is concerned with situational aspects of sex. And Part III (questions 3, 6, 9, 12) is concerned with conventional stereotypes toward sex. At this point the couples can compute their score for each of the three subscales by adding up their difference scores for the four items in each subscale. The difference scores for each subscale is handed in anony-mously and the distribution placed on the board. The lower a couples difference score, the less their attitudinal pre-dispositions to sex will be a problem for them. Any question on which there is a scalar difference of two or more is an area of potential conflict. 102 T H E FOLLOWING QUESTIONS A R E CONCERNED WITH S O M E O F YOUR A T T I T U D E S TOWARD S E X . P L E A S E R E M E M B E R T H A T T H E R E A R E NO RIGHT OR WRONG A N S W E R S TO T H E S E Q U E S T I O N S . Please indicate your answer by drawing an " X " over the number corresponding to the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Strongly Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree 1 4. 5 . 6. 8. 9. 10. 1 1 12, Couples may be able to have good sex even though they usually do not get along well together in other ways. Partners who often see each other nude experience increased intimacy and sexual excitement. Men usually need more sex and want a greater variety of sex than women. Partners should know what each other enjoys about sex without having to ask or to tell. Sex should be enjoyable any time of the night or day, in any place that is private. Thinking about sex with other partners is an indication of a poor sexual relationship with the present partner. If a man has a problem responding sexually, he and not the couple should receive help. Keeping the lights on during sex often helps the couple to increase pleasure. Oral-genital sex is a perfectly acceptable part of love making. There are times when one partner might help the other to experience pleasure even though he or she may not have chosen that experience at that time. Couples can improve their pleasure by talking during intercourse. Pornography tells modern couples more about sex than does the Bible. 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 103 Points: It is necessary to negotiate areas of extreme difference. Well functioning couples are couples who have been able to talk about what they would like to have different in their love making and then to negotiate these differences. Sex is a form of communication — a good way to com-municate existence, importance, commitment and caring. Sex is a form of communication used in defining a relationship. The decision making process about sex is a very, very important way that couples define their relationship. 3. Forbidden Topics Ask each person to make an anonymous list of aspects that they would be least likely to tell or talk about with their partner about sex. Collect and make a list collage of the verboten on the board. There are two good books in the area of sexuality that I would strongly recommend: The Joy of Sex, by Alex Comfort and Understanding Human Sexual Inadequacy, by Belliveau and Richtler. Both books are passed around the group. 4. Exercise: Each person is to write their fantasy of what an ideal evening with their fiance(e) would be for them (be selfish). Compare fantasies and make a compromise fantasy which is to be maximally pleasing for both parties. SESSION VI DATA C O L L E C T I O N Administration of: (1) The Marriage Prediction Schedule (2) The Pre-Marital Inventory Part B (3) The Course Evaluation Form (4) . Discussion and feedback on evaluation of the course. 104 APPENDIX C T H E C O N T R O L T R E A T M E N T 105 SESSION I INTRODUCTION TO T H E C O U R S E , DATA C O L L E C T I O N AND T A L K ON T H E MEANING O F MARRIAGE  1 . The course co-ordinator introduces himself and welcomes the participants to the course. 2. Data Collection: The Administration of: (a) The Pre-Marital Inventory Part B (b) The Marriage Prediction Schedule 3. Introduction of the guest speaker, D r . S . , who is a Senior Mental Health Worker for the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Project. D r . S . also runs a marriage enrichment program for the Cold Mountain Institute of Vancouver, B . C . 4. Each person is asked to introduce his fiance(e) by saying what they feel is most relevant about that person. 5. Expectations for the Course: Each person is asked what expectations they have for the course, what they would like to talk about, what they have on their minds. 6. Lecture and Discussion on the Meaning of Marriage: The following issues and points were covered in the lecture: similarities and differences and how they affect living together, the idea of finding a balance between one's own personal identity and the relationship, direct and indirect communications. Satir's five basic postures: placating, blaming, changing the subject and being irrelevant, the computing attitude, and being real were explained. The following questions were raised in the discussion. What does getting married mean as opposed to living together? What does it mean for the woman to take on the man's name? Why do people get married? Is it a tribal rite? Is it because of social pressure? Or a celebration? Does marriage come about out of a fear of being alone or a need to fulfill an essence of wholeness that is lacking and can only be arrived at by mating? 7. The course outline was read and the first session ended. 106 SESSION II A W A R E N E S S , COMMUNICATIONS, AND FIGHT TRAINING 1. The guest speaker, D r . C . , is introduced. D r . C . is a psychiatrist for emotionally disturbed children. He has worked extensively in the area of marriage and family counselling. 2. Awareness Exercise: Reporting with One's Senses Each couple is asked to sit and face each other. Each person is asked to report to their partner on their sensory awareness of themselves (i .e . sight, sound and smell). They are to choose which person goes first, and not to make statements about feelings, but just a simple report on what they are aware of about themselves. When one person is finished his reporting, it is the other person's turn to report on his awareness. The participants are then asked to share their experience with each other and with the group. 3. Awareness Exercise: Same as above plus the added dimension of feelings. The awareness exercise as described above is carried out again with the addition that each person is asked to report their aware-ness of their partner and then to make some guesses about what their partner might be feeling. They are asked to share this experience with each other and then with the group. 4. Awareness Exercise: Trust, Openness, Authenticity, Realness, and Leveling. Each person is asked to get a mental image of their partner which he can then take inside and keep with his eyes closed. He is instructed to become aware of his feelings about his partner, and to imagine how his partner is feeling about him. He is further instructed to imagine what it would be like for him if his partner was feeling that way and to imagine what it would be like to share his thoughts and imagination with his partner. The group is asked, "How much could you share and how much would you have to hold back and what would it be like for you in holding this back? " When they have completed the exercise they are asked to open their eyes and come back to their partner, and to share their experiences with the group. Throughout the exercise D r . C . emphasizes the element of risk, and daring to be open. 107 5. Exercise on Resentments and Appreciations. The participants are again asked to form pairs, and to make the following statements to each other. What I like about you is , and You make me mad when . They are instructed not to make long complicated statements, just simple statements. They are then instructed to go back to the first thing I liked about you and the first time you made me mad. The exercise is debriefed and then shared with the group. 6. How is your anger accepted? "You can give in, fight, reason it out, become irrelevant and change the subject, or you pan be aware of what you are experiencing and recognize that you are responsible for what you experience." "You don't have to hook in, you don't have to fight back, you don't have to feel terrible." "You can hear the other person's anger without hooking in and coming back with a dysfunctional response. You can thank the other person for letting you know what is happening to them. You can thank them for trusting the relationship to share that with y o u . " 7. Fight training: A summary of D r . Bach's Model (Bach & Wyden, 1969) "You can fight to ventilate feeling or you can fight so something constructive comes out of it. " "Ritual Fights: Ritual fights are fights that are very familiar, often get dirty and below the belt." "A Fight for Change: A fight for change occurs when you have decided that your beef is important enough to you to ask for some change within the relationship. It is valuable to bring in new information which can be used constructively." Following are the rules for a fight for change: a. Define your needs specifically and exactly b. Paraphrase c. Reward for correct feedback 108 d. Make a demand for change being as specific as you can e. The other party can agree, disagree, or negotiate f. Set a time limit, e . g . , to try the new procedure for a period of two weeks. Dr . C . then demonstrated the above method of Fight Training with a couple from the group. 8. "You" Messages and "I" Messages. "Importance of the definition of self, Who I am, vWnat is me, What can I manage and not manage, What changes I can reasonably expect to make of myself. " " T r y to make the communication process more effective by making statements about myself instead of messages which begin with y o u . " "You statements frequently become blaming, accusatory, and dis-tancing. I statements are more informative and more meaningful." Dr . C . recommends Parent Effectiveness Training as a very effective communications mode. He then explains Virginia Satir's model of responsibility for feelings: "You can't make me feel anything. .1 have my own feelings and I am responsible for them. What I am saying is , I am me and you are you. I own my feelings. You don't make me feel what I feel. I am responsible." 9. Closing: D r . C . asks for reactions, comments and questions. He then recommends the Cold Mountain Institute and Family Place for those who would like further communications training. SESSION III S E X U A L I T Y A N D HUMAN COMMUNICATIONS 1 . Introduction of the guest speaker. Miss S . is a public health nurse with a free clinic for young people which deals with birth control, V . D . , sexual dysfunction in Vancouver. Miss S . also teaches sex education in the schools and has worked extensively with the marriage preparation course of the Burnaby Family Life Institute. 109 Warm up exercises: a) What it is to be a man. What it is to be a woman. Each person is asked to join in pairs with a person of the opposite sex but not with the person they are engaged to, and to find a place in the room where they can sit down and talk with each other. Each man is to write down on a piece of paper three words which describe characteristics of what it means to be a man, and then three words that mean woman. Each woman is to write down three words that mean woman, and then three words that mean man. Once they have written the words for man and woman down, they are to talk to each other about them. b) When they have finished the first exercise, each pair is given the following questions and then asked to answer and discuss them. M F 1 . Where did you get your earliest information about sex? Was it "good" information? 2. What has been the most helpful source of information? 3. Rate yourself in terms of how well informed you are about sex and about sexual functioning in the male and female: uninformed ; poorly informed ; some informed : informed enough ; well informed . 1 4. When did you last discuss sex with: a . someone of the same sex as yourself b. someone of the opposite sex Did you find it easy or difficult? 5. Do you think it is important to talk about sex to someone who you are (or will) have sexual relations with? 6. Should sex education be taught in the schools? Why? Why not? Introduction of the fi lm: "Sexuality and Human Communications " The guest speaker introduces the film "Sexuality and Human Communications". Half of the class is asked to write down three physical aspects of sexual functioning or sexuality that they find interesting, that they found new, or that they would like to explore. 110 The other half of the class is asked to write down three emotional aspects or relationship aspects, or communications aspects that they find interesting or significant. This will be discussed after the fil m. 4. The film "Sexuality and Human Communications". The Media Exchange Catalog (1973) describes the film as follows: S E X U A L I T Y AND HUMAN COMMUNICATION with Beryl A . Chernick and Avinoam B. Chernick at a symposium at the Ontario Science Centre. Ortho Pharmaceutical (Canada) Made by Mobius, 1971 58 min.sd.color . 16mm. Summary: A simulated case study by D r s . Beryl A . Chernick and Avinoam B . Chernick. Discusses the physiological aspects of human sexual intercourse and the psychological aspects of sexual relations in marriage. Illustrates the importance of communication in the latter area. 5. The group is asked their impressions of the f i lm. Questions relating to the physical and relationship aspects of sexuality given in number three above are discussed. The following topics were also dealt with: The importance of open lines of communication, of getting to know and understand the other person sexually, and the element of exploring adventure, and experimentation. The place of fear and anxiety, performance anxiety, and the importance of a non-demanding atmosphere. The falsity of the idea that every sexual experience has to be perfect. Differences between the male and the female orgasm. The importance of learning what turns each person on and what turns each person off. Trouble couples can have in their sexual interaction: Impotence, Frigidity, and Premature Ejaculation. What they as a couple can do about the problem and where and how to select professional help. Discussion of Sex Education in the Schools. 111 6. Each person was given the Sex Knowledge Test to take home. The correct answers appear upside down on the last page of the test. (Only Part I of the Sex Knowledge Test which consists of 30 items was distributed to the participants). 112 S E X KNOWLEDGE T E S T The following test is designed to enable you to gauge your knowledge of sex anatomy, techniques and vocabulary. It was developed by S E X O L O G Y magazine in consultation with the following advisers: D r . Harry Benjamin, endocrinologist; Dr . LeMon Clark, gynecologist; Rev. William H . Genne, family life consultant; D r . John Money, psychologist; D r . Ashley Montagu, anthropologist; D r . Wendell B . Pomeroy, marriage counselor; D r . Philip Reichert, cardiologist; D r . Aaron L . Rutledge, marriage counselor; and D r . Walter R. Stokes, psychiatrist. After you have completed the test, score your paper by checking with the answers found at the bottom of the last page of the test. Each of the 100 questions counts 1 point. P A R T I - yes or_no (30 points) Directions: Circle either the word Y E S or NO in front of each question. Read each statement carefully before answering. Y E S NO 1. Y E S NO 2. Y E S NO 3. Y E S NO 4. Y E S NO 5. Y E S NO 6. Y E S NO 7. Y E S NO 8. Y E S NO 9. Y E S NO 10. Y E S NO 1 1. Y E S NO 12. Y E S NO 13, Is frigidity in women usually caused by a physical condition, rather than by emotional conflict? Will frequent masturbation cause undesirable mental or physical consequences? Can strong sex desires be created by eating certain foods? Do women's sex desire and response usually diminish at the change-of-life (menopause)? Is having sex relations before marriage a sufficient criterion for a couple to judge whether they are likely to be sexually well-mated after marriage? Does sex ability end at a particular age in life? Is the best frequency for intercourse in the younger years three times a week? Although having a climax at the same time is generally preferable, can marital happiness be realized without a mutual climax? Does conception generally take place during the mid-point of the women's monthly cycle? Does the size of the male penis determine the extent of his partner's sexual satisfaction? Is it unhealthy to have intercourse during the women's menstrual period? Is impotence in men under forty most often the result of a physical condition? Is it possible for a woman to have a ruptured hymen and yet be a virgin? 113 Y E S NO 14. Can an impotent male ever have children? Y E S NO 15. Will injection of male hormones change a homosexual's sexual orientation? Y E S NO 16. Does frequent sexual intercourse deprive the body of products needed for health? Y E S NO 17. Are men who molest children usually over the age of sixty? Y E S NO 18. Do persons who commit sex crimes generally have an unusually strong physical sex drive? Y E S NO 19. If a couple fails to have children, should the husband as well as the wife be checked by a physician? Y E S NO 20. Can persons continue sex activity after they have recovered from a heart attack? Y E S NO 21 . During intercourse does it generally take the female more time for sexual arousal and climax than the male? Y E S NO 22. Does it usually take the average male ten minutes or longer to reach a climax after intromission? Y E S NO 23. Have the new drugs wiped out the danger of venereal infection? Y E S NO 24. If close relatives marry, are the offspring bound to be defective in some way? Y E S NO 25. Should parents answer a very young child's questions about sex frankly? Y E S NO 26. Are all forms of sex foreplay considered acceptable in marriage by leading marriage counselors if they are mutually agreeable? Y E S NO 27. Should women refrain from their usual work, exercise or bathing during their menstrual periods? Y E S NO 28. Are nocturnal emissions harmful? Y E S NO 29. Is it dangerous and unhealthy for women to engage in intercourse during the period of pregnancy? Y E S NO 30. Is varity in position and method of coitus considered unethical and improper by leading marriage counselors? O N "08 O N O N •81- O N '31. O N *9 O N *6S O N *83 O N 'LI. O N • n . O N •9 O N •83 O N *33 O N '91 O N •oi. O N 'P O N V S S 9 A * 1-3 O N •91 S 3 A •6. O N *8 •93 S 9 A •03 S 3 A 'VI S 9 A *8 O N •3 S 9 A *93 S 9 A •61. S 9 A •81- O N • L O N • V I J_cdVd ScJ_MSNV 114 SESSION IV LAW, FINANCE AND MARRIAGE  1. Introduction of the guest speaker, M r . A . M r . A . is a lawyer in Burnaby, B . C . and has worked extensively with the marriage preparation course at the Burnaby Family Life Institute. 2. Outline of the topics to be covered: Life insurance, marriage contracts, wills and estate matters, housing, real estate, matters of landlord and tenant, recent amendments in the Bills of Sale Act , the Conditional Sales Act , Mortgages, the Consumer Protection Act , the issue of the wife not taking her husband's name. 3. Marriage Contracts — there are basically two kinds of marriage contracts. One has to do with property and are in fact pre-marital separation agreements. They set out all the terms and conditions upon which certain property presently existing will be divided up into a certain formula if the couple separates. The second type of marriage contract has to do with the type of relationship, that the couple set up. The purpose of this type of contract is to define contractually what you are going to do when you get into the marriage. The speaker, M r . A . , recommended that they write up a marriage contract as it is a good exercise and a chance to work things out, and open up communication. 4. M r . A . talked about the rights between husbands and wives, and existing legislation: The Wives Protection Act , and the Family Relations Act . These acts are available from the government printer for 35$ each. 5. M r . A . then talked about the Death Act , and said that the time you have your first child is the time to have a wi l l . He talked about some of the details connected with writing a wil l , and recommends hiring a lawyer when they want to write a will as it is a very com-plicated and technical procedure. 6. The next topic was Estate Taxes and Joint Tenancy. It was recom-mended that the couples put as many of their assets into Joint Tenancy as possible to avoid paying Estate Taxes if one of them should die. 115 7. Mortgage Insurance— two ways to set up a mortgage: Option A — Whole Life Insurance: when you buy whole life insurance you are paying share holder's profits, administrative salaries, and what is left over from your earnings is returned and that works out to be a pretty low percentage. Option B — is to prepare for your retirement yourself if you think you can save and invest. If you don't feel you can do this, then whole life insurance is a good thing because something is better than nothing. 8. Mortgages — there are two kinds of mortgages: open and closed. You pay higher interest rates on an open mortgage but you can take your money out without penalty. 9. Real Estate — It was recommended that the couples take a course in real estate as there is an incredible amount to know. The importance of a subject clause when buying a house was dis-cussed . 10. Buying property — there are two different ways to buying property: by Agreement for Sale and by Deeding over the Property. In the Agreement for Sale the original owner's name stays on the property until all of the payments are made, only then is the title transferred. Deeding over the Property provides more-protection for the buyer. The title is transferred into your name and you give the mortgage to the original owner. 11. Credit Unions and the Credit Union Act . a . credit union mortgages are open. b. they are more expensive than banks in terms of interest rate. c. they have limits as to how much they can make on it before you become a shareholder or get a rebate. 12. The Trade Practices Act . It was recommended that the couples all get a copy of the Trade Practices Act (35$) from the Queen's Printers. It is a very important piece of legislation, which is concerned with unenforce-able contracts and misrepresentation. 116 13. There was a change in the consumer credit laws as of July, 1973. Consumer Services puts out a booklet that explains consumer credit, and it was recommended that the couples obtain a copy. 14. The legal aspects of changing and not changing the name of the wife, hyphenated names, and implications for the children were discussed. 15. General discussion and Question and Answer Period on the presenta-tion (15 minutes). SESSION V T H E GOALS AND ASPIRATIONS O F MARRIAGE  1 . Introduction of the guest speaker, Rev. P. Rev. P . is a pastor in Burnaby, and has worked extensively with the marriage preparation course of the Burnaby Family Life Institute. 2. Rev. P. introduces himself and gives an introduction into the evenings topic by saying: "Tonight is not something I can tell you very much about though because there is no way I can tell you what your expectations ought to be, but perhaps we can do some things together to help you identify your own expectations and work a little bit at negotiating those kinds of things together." 3. Rev. P . shares with the group something of his own background pro-fesionally and tells the group something about his own marriage and family. He then states his philosophy about marriage to the group. "A good marriage is the result of a heck of a lot of work. Marriage is a real moral, personal commitment to make a go of it and to struggle through the crises when they come and to deal with them. I think its really great. I think its a heck of a lot of hard work. I think that at the same time there is a tremendous pressure on marriages today, a disintegrating kind of a pressure, but at the same time there is just exciting opportunity, all kinds of role expectations have been freed up, people are freer to choose their own life styles and there is so much opportunity for people to grow personally and so I think its an exciting time for marriage." 4. Rev. P. then introduces to the group a series of exercises which are designed to: 117 . "help them to identify what their expectations are, what they think marriage ought to be, what they think their marriage ought to be, what they think their relationship is now, and what they hope it will become." Each person is asked to walk around the room where there are a series of thirteen pictures. They are to write down a name, a word or a phrase which best describes the relationship that they see in the pictures. After they have completed the task for all thirteen pictures they are to share their lists with their fiance(e). They are asked which of the pictures speaks most for them, either about their own relationship or about marriage as they think it ought to be. Rev. P . then invites the individual couples to share their reactions to the exercise with the group. Priorities Exercise. Rev. P. gives each person a copy of the Priorities Exercise. He tells them to ignore the directions as given and gives them the following directions verbally: There are thirteen things on this sheet, what I want you to do is to look at these and rate them according to top priority,middle priority and unimportant. Things that you really want as top priority in your relationship, things that you would like to have middle priority and things that you don't really care if you have or not as unimportant. Do it individually and then when you've both finished it you can share the results. MARR Sexual Compatibility Travel Continuing education or training Social entertaining Emotional harmony Own our own house Sharing religious faith and involvement. E E X P E C T A T I O N S Financial security Intellectual stimulation Children and family life Job promotion Assist in partner's self-development. Life-long relationship. Debriefing the exercise: Rev. P. asks them how they dealwith differences — do they just ignore them or is there some way that they can be negotiated. 118 Rev. P . suggests that the couples make a contract to select a time and place where they will sit down and evaluate where they are at, possibly with a third party. This evaluation is important at two times: a) when things are not going too well and b) at crisis points. S. Rev. P . talks about the dangers associated with not listening to the other person and/or making assumptions about what they want, and that frustration and unhappiness results from not having your expectations met. The basic way way we find fulfillment and purpose and happiness is having our expectations met. "Any counsellor will say that 90% of the people that come for marriage counselling have let it go till too late. They have left it to deal with till its such a crisis that it's beyond dealing with." 7. Rev. P. introduces the concepts of Parent, Adult and Child from transactional analysis and recommends that the couples read I'm OK, You're OK . He then related the roles of Parent, Adult, and Child to expectations. Next he talked about expectations and dependency, expectations and decision making eg. do you expect that you or the other person is going to be the decision maker at all times. He then asks the couples to talk with each other concerning their expectations of each other in the three roles of parent, adult and child and to say a positive and a negative thing about each other in the three roles. 8. Next, Rev. P. asked them to share together and try to identify for their partner what they think their parents' expectations and attitudes about marriage were and then try to see how much that influences your own priorities by either agreeing with them or reacting against them. "The idea behind this is to try to help you identify for yourselves so you know a little more about who you are in relationship to where you came from and to help your partner in understanding you. It will also help you to understand your parents and how they relate to you. " 9. "The church has always thought that there are three purposes for marriage and they are equally important and they are equally balanced and at different times. 119 a. The mutual fellowship, support, and comfort of one another which to me talks about friendship, companionship, and partnei— ship, b. Procreation, and c. Sexuality — "the creation of a relationship in which sexuality may serve personal fulfillment in a community of faithful love." 10. Questions and comments (10 minutes). There was a brief discussion on morality and then they began talking about the marriage ceremony. SESSION VI DATA C O L L E C T I O N  Administration of: 1 . The Marriage Prediction Schedule 2. The Pre-Marital Inventory Part B 3. The Course Evaluation Form 4. General Discussion on the evaluation of the course. 120 APPENDIX D CRITERION INSTRUMENTS 121 PREMARRIAGE COUNSELING INVENTORY PART A As you w i l l f i n d , t h i s Inventory asks s e v e r a l s e r i e s of questions aimed at d e s c r i b i n g who you are, what you l i k e about your present r e l a t i o n -ship and what you would l i k e to see i t evolve i n t o . Based upon your tho u g h t f u l answers to these questions, the counselor can help you to determine your l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h things as they now are. You can a l s o be helped to r e d e f i n e together some aspects of your r e l a t i o n s h i p which could be improved. Based upon t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n you may be able to make a more confident d e c i s i o n about whether to marry or you may be able to strengthen the d e c i s i o n which you have already made. Please complete t h i s form s e p a r a t e l y and do not discu s s your answers. When you have returned them to the Counseling Center, the i n f o r m a t i o n which you have s u p p l i e d w i l l be given to you i n a u s e f u l way. Thank you. Name: Address: Phone(s) Occupation: Race: Education: What was your mother's r e l i g i o n ? Date: Sex: Male Female Date of B i r t h : How many hours per week do you work? Ethnic background: R e l i g i o u s background: What was your f a t h e r ' s r e l i g i o n ? Where was your f a t h e r born? Where was your mother born?_ Where were you born? Was he: very, somewhat or not very r e l i g i o u s ' Was she: very, somewhat, or not very r e l i g i o t What i s your r e l i g i o n ? Do you attend r e g u l a r s e r v i c e s ? R e g u l a r l y , o c c a s i o n a l l y , almost never 122 -2 Family Background A. When you were bom: 1. How old was your father? 2. How old was your mother? B. Please l i s t the year of birth and sex of each of your brothers and sisters (e.g., 1950-male) including yourself in order as "self-1952". C. How old were you when you left home permanently? Or do you s t i l l live with your parents (unless you are attending school)? D. Were your parents ever: 1. Divorced? 2. Separated? 3. Widowed? E. What were your parents' occupations? 1. Father: ; 2. Mother: ,  F. Would you rate your parents' marriage as: 1. Very happy - 2. Usually happy 3. Sometimes troubled 4. Quite poor G. Would you rate your childhood as: 1. Very happy 2. Usually happy 3. Sometimes troubled 4. Quite poor If so, how old were you? 123 -3 I I . Past M a r i t a l H i s t o r y I f you have not been married b e f o r e , please go on to the next s e c t i o n . I f you have been married b e f o r e , please answer each of the f o l l o w i n g questions f o r each of your p r i o r marriages. F i r s t Marriage Second Marriagd A. How o l d were you when you married? B. How o l d was your spouse when you married? C. How many c h i l d r e n d i d you have by sex and year of b i r t h (e.g., boy: 1965)? Please c i r c l e the c h i l d r e n who are now l i v i n g w i t h you. D. How d i d the marriage work out? Divorce Annulment Death Divorce Annulment Death How many years and months d i d t h i s marriage l a s t ? Please l i s t three strong p o i n t s of t h i s marriage. 2. 2<_ 3. 3. G. Please l i s t three areas of c o n f l i c t i n t h i s marriage. 124 -4 F i r s t Marriage Second Marriage H. What d i d you l e a r n about your-s e l f from t h i s experience? I I I . H i s t o r y of t h i s R e l a t i o n s h i p A. When d i d you f i r s t meet? 1 B. For how many years and months have you known each other? C. What f i v e strong p o i n t s a t t r a c t you t o the other person? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. D. 1. 2. 3. E. 1. 2. Please l i s t three ways i n which you th i n k a p o s i t i v e and s p e c i f i c change i n the behavior of the other person would help you to enjoy your r e l a t i o n s h i p more. For example, please w r i t e , "Ask me how I spent my day" ( p o s i t i v e and s p e c i f i c ) , r a t h e r than, "Don't ignore me" (negative and vague). Is t h i s : very important unimportan 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 What are your three most important personal i n t e r e s t s ? 3. 125 -5 F. What are the three things which you and your friend most enjoy doing together? 1. 2. 3. ' If you were entering into a contract with your friend for the next twenty years or more, what would you choose as the terms of this agreement? A. Who is to work at what jobs outside the home and for how many hours? You? Your friend? B. Who is to have which chores within the home? You? Your friend? C. Who w i l l i n i t i a t e sex? How? and within what limits? D. How w i l l you handle money—gifts or earnings which you receive and which the other receives? Yours? Your friend's? E. How many children do you expect to have? ! 126 -6 F. What are your duties and what are your friend's duties with regard to taking care of your child(ren)? Yours? Your friend's? G. What sort of relationships w i l l you and the other have with relatives, same sex friends, opposite sex friends? You?_ "  The other? What problems, i f any, should be overcome before you feel completely comfortable in marrying the other person? 127 PREMARRIAGE COUNSELING INVENTORY PART B As you w i l l f i n d , t h i s Inventory asks s e v e r a l s e r i e s of questions aimed a t d e s c r i b i n g who you are and how you see your present r e l a t i o n s h i p . Please complete t h i s form s e p a r a t e l y and do not d i s c u s s your answers. NAME: DATE: ADDRESS: • SEX: MALE FEMALE: In your present r e l a t i o n s h i p -A. Have you decided to marry: Yes No . I f no, please go on to question B. i f yes, please answer the f o l l o w i n g questions. 1. How confident are you about the wisdom of your d e c i s i o n ? Very confident P r e t t y confident N e u t r a l Have some doubt _ Very unsure 2. What r e a c t i o n have your parents had to your d e c i s i o n ? Very p o s i t i v e P o s i t i v e N e u t r a l Negative Very Negative 3. What r e a c t i o n have your f r i e n d s had to your d e c i s i o n ? Very p o s i t i v e P o s i t i v e N e u t r a l Negative Very Negative B. Have you ever c a l l e d o f f your plans to marry? Yes No . I f no, please go on to question C. I f yes, please answer the f o l l o w i n g questions. 1. When d i d t h i s happen? 2. What would you say was the cause? 3. How d i d you r e s o l v e the s i t u a t i o n ? C. How c l o s e i s your r e l a t i o n s h i p at t h i s time? 1. We see each other: a. every day b. 5-6 days/week c. 3-4 days/week d. 1-2 days/week e. l e s s than once per week 128 II. -2 In the blanks at the top of each column, please w r i t e t e n a d j e c t i v e s which are important i n the ways i n which you t h i n k of y o u r s e l f , your parents, and your f r i e n d s . Then, reading across the rows, f o r each person l i s t e d please w r i t e "5" i f t h i s a d j e c t i v e i s very t r u e o f t h i s person, "3" i f sometimes true and "1" i f i t i s r a r e l y i f ever t r u e . You may use "2" and "4" i n your r a t i n g s as w e l l . Myself My I d e a l S e l f My Father My Mother The one I may marry A good f r i e n d of my sex Ex-flame Someone I d i s l i k e Please indicate how strongly you agree with each of the following statements by ci r c l i n g the number corresponding to your answer. A. The husband is breadwinner and his needs should come f i r s t . Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree B. The man should make the major decisions but should consult his wife. C. Women should decide how the children should be handled. D. Religion is important in the lives of men and women. E. It is important to place financial security ahead of having good times with the family. F. Women should always have their own bank accounts separate from their husband. 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 G. Women should not work unless their children are in school. H. In-laws should be invited into the family circle and should be consulted in important decisions. I. It is necessary to report every dollar earned on income tax and never to cut corners. 1 2 1 2 1 2 If there is a choice of helping a child with homework or having a good time together, the couple should usually stay home and help their child. 1 2 K. It is acceptable for married men to have sexual contact with other women. 1 2 L. It is acceptable for married women to have sexual contact with other men. M. Men and women should not see each other nude. N. Men and women should always make certain that they close the bath-room door when they t o i l e t . IV. 130 Please indicate how you think your friend would mark each of the following statements by making an "x" over the number corresponding to your estimate of their choice. Strongly Agree Neutral A. The husband i s breadwinner and his needs should come f i r s t . the man should make the major decisions but should consult his wife. C. Women should decide how the children should be handled. D. Religion i s important in the lives of men and women. E. I t i s important to place financial security ahead of having good times with the family. F. Women should always have their own bank accounts separate from their husband. G. Women should not work unless their children are in school. H. In-laws should be invited into the family c i r c l e and should be consulted in important decisions. I . I t i s necessary to report every dollar earned on oncome tax and never to cut corners. J . I f there is a choice of helping a child with homework or having a good time to-gether, the couple should usually stay home and help their child. K. I t i s acceptable for married rien to have sexual contact with other women. 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 L . I t i s acceptable for married women to have sexual contact with other men. M. Men and women should not see each other nude. N. Men and women should always make certain that they close the bathroom door when they toilet, 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 131 -5 '."V.. Looking ahead at marriage with the other person: A. How confident are you about liking the other person for the next twenty years or more? B. How secure do you feel about your a b i l i t y to manage economically 95% • 75% 50% 25% t 0 8 e t h e r ? 95%- 75% 5 0 % 2 5 % 5%-5%-C. How comfortable are you about the prospect of r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n w i t h the other person as a partner? D. How confident are you that you can trust the other person to act in ways which are important to you? E. How confident are you that you w i l l grow personally in ways important to you i f married to the other person? F. How confident are you that you w i l l enjoy sexual relations with your friend? G. How confident are you that you w i l l agree about important i s s u e s over a period of time? 95%-*- 75% 50% 25% 5%-95%+ 75% 50% 25% 5%-95%+ 75% . 50% 25% • 5%-95%+ 75% 50% 25% 5%-95%+ 75% 50% 25% 5%-H. How l i k e l y i s i t that you and your friend w i l l understand each other w e l l ? 95%+ 75% 50% 25% 5%-How confident are you that you w i l l share the same sense of responsibility to your respective families in the years to come? 95%+ 75% 50% 25% 5%-132 A MARRIAGE PREDICTION SCHEDULE IT ERNEST W. BURGESS Name Date Planned date of Marriage_ I. MARRIAGE-PREDICTION SCHEDULE. (Please Read These Instructions Carefully before and after Fill-ing Out the Schedule) • This schedule Is prepared for persons who are seriously considering marriage. It is designed for couples who are engaged or who nave a private understanding to be married, but it can also be filled out by other persons who would like to know their probability of success in marriage. The value of the findings of the schedule depends upon your frankness in answering the questions. The following points should be kept in mind in filling out the schedule: 1. Be sure to answer every question. 2. Do not leave a blank to mean a "no" answer. 3. The word "flance(e)" will be used to refer to the person to whom you are engaged or are con-sidering as a possible marriage partner. 4. Do not confer with your fiance(e) on any of these questions. After you have checked it, please transfer the number to the right of and below the answer of your choice to column one at the right side of the page. Question one Is used below to show you how to check and transfer your answer. 1. What is your present state of health? chronic Ill-health ...; temporary ill-health 13 23 . . . ; average health . . . ; healthy . . . ; very healthy 15 .25 17 ' ' ' 1 2 IS The answer given here is only an example. Check the answer of y_our choice on the next page and place its number in column one. Be sure to remember that the value of your score depends upon your frankness in answering the questions. ^ Permission to reprint this schedule has been received from Ernest W. Burgess, University of Chicago, Chicago, 4 •i • 133 Part One 1. What Is your present state of health? chronic Ill-health : . . ; temporary Ill-health . . . ; 13 ' 2 3 average health . . . ; healthy . . . ; very healthy ... 15 25 17 2. Give your present marital status: single . . . ; widowed . . . ; separated . . . ; di-35 43 41 vorced ... 31 3. Total number of years of schooling completed at present time: Grades 22 1 . . . . 2 .... 3 ... . 4. . . . 5 .... 6 .... 7 .... 8..; . ; High School College 32 15 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ...; 1 . . . 2 . . .' 3 . . . 4 . . . ; gradu-ate of college . . . ; number of years beyond college in graduate 25 work or professional training . . . 35 4. Work record: regularly employed . . . ; worked only during vacations and/or only part-17 time while in school • . . ; none because in school or at home . . . ; always employed 34 24 but continually changing jobs . . . ; irregularly employed ... 32 13 5. Are you a church member ? yes . . . ; no . . . 16 23 . Your activity in church: never attend . . . ; attend less than once a month 4 0 ' " a m o n m o , • • • J once 16 or twice a month . . ; three times a month . . . ; four times a month ^ 6. At what age did you stop attending Sunday school or other religious school fo/ehildren and young People, never attended^. .. ; before 10 years old . . . ; U . 1 8 y e a r s . . . ; „ ^ ^ • . . ; still attending ... . 4 2 16 35 7 How many organizations do you belong to or attend regularly, such as church club, social club, luncheon club (like the Rotary, Kiwanls, Lions), fraternal order, college fraternity, college sorority, civic organization, music society, patriotic organization, Y. W. C. A., Y.UCA. , Y. M, H. A., C. Y. Q. ? none . . . ; one . . . ; two . . . ; three or more ... 22 32 15 25 8. What do you consider to have been the economic status of your parents during your adolescence? well-to-do . . . ; wealthy . . . ; comfortable . . . ; meager . . . ; poor . . . 34 43 15 32 40 9. What do you consider to be the social status of your parents in their own community? one of the leading families . . . ; upper class . . . ; upper-middle class . . . ; middle class . . . 26 16 42 32 lower-middle class . . . ; lower class . . . ; no status as they are dead . . . 40 21 33 10. Marital status of your parents: married (both living) . . . ; separated . . . ; divorced . . . 24 41 31 both dead . . . ; one dead (specify which one) ... 15 33 11. Your appraisal of the. happiness of your parents' marriage: very happy ... . ; happy average . . . ; unhappy . . . ; v e ry unhappy . 24 41 W y 3 1 36 1 6 134 12. Indicate your attitudes toward your parents on the following scales: (1) Your attitude toward your father when you were a child: very strong attachment . . . ; 35 considerable attachment . . . ; mild attachment . . . ; mild hostility . . . ; con-25 41 13 siderable hostility . . . ; very strong hostility . . . 30 21 (2) Your present attitude toward your father: very strong attachment ... considerable 44 attachment . . . ; mild attachment . . . ; mild hostility . . . ; considerable aos-16 23 22 tility . . . ; very strong hostility ... ; no attitude as he is dead . . . 12 21 24 (3) Your attitude toward your mother when you were a child: very strong attachment . . . ; . 2 6 considerable attachment . . . ; mild attachment . . . ; mild hostility- . . . ; con-34 14 31 siderable hostility . . . ; very strong hostility ... 30 12 (4) Your present attitude toward your mother: very strong attachment . . . ; considerable at-17 tachment . . . ; mild attachment . . . ; mild hostility . . . ; considerable hostility 43 32 13 21 . . . ; very strong hostility . . . ; no attitude as ahe is dead . . . 30 15 .13. Rate your parents'appraisal of the happiness of their marriage. Write M for mother's rating; F for father's rating: extraordinarily happy . . . ; decidedly happy . . . ; happy . . . ; 27 25 41 somewhat happy . . . ; average . . . ; somewhat unhappy . . . ; unhappy . . . ; de -30 30 12 21 cidedly unhappy . . . ; extremely unhappy ... 30 12 14. Outside your family and kin, how many separated and divorced people do you know personally? none . . . ; one . . . ; two . . . ; three . . . ; four . . . ; five . . . ; six or 26 43 23 40 30 12 more ... 21 15. How do you rate your first information about sex? wholesome . . . ; unwholesome . . . ; 16 23 Where did you get your first information about sex ? from parent . . . ; from wholesome 35 reading . . . ; brother . . . ; sister . . . ; other relative . . . ; other adult or teacher 16 41 41 41 24 . . . ; other children . . . ; from pernlcioue reading . . . ; other(spectfy) . . . 31 12 16 Do you consider your present knowledge of sex adequate for marriage ? yes . . . ; no . . . ; 34 14 doubtful ... 42 16. Do you smoke? Not at all . . . ; rarely . . . ; occasionally . . . ; often . . . 26 15 32 22 17. Do you drink? not at all . . . ; rarely . . . ; occasionally . . . ; often . . . 35 42 23 31 135 Part Two Rate the following personality traits of your flance(e), .. Place, a check mark in the column which best describes your fiance^). ' Trait Very muc so 1 Consider-ably Somewhat A little Not at all 1 2 Takes responsibility willingly 26 ' 13 16 23 06 33 23 16 13 44 40 ' ' 14 24 25 17 35 25 15 14 13 22 ' '41 ' '51 ' 43 ' .35 40 50 60' 34 26 Angers easily '•' .'l3'' '23 '33' 25 44 Si' '41 15 ' 16 26 17 16 24 32 04 44 43 42 14 22 Easygoing . 22 14 24 25 . - 17 26 ' 25 ' "l5 '4l' ' 31 Sense of duty 35' . ' 34 24 23 22 Sense of humor 31 23 51 52 35 44 16 15 14 13 Self-confident 22 ' 23 33 43 44 22 23 24 25 35 26 "l6 33 41 13 Likes belonging to 136 Trait Very much so Consider-ably Somewhat A little Not at all 1 2 40 14 06 34 17-Impractical 13 05 42 16 26 Easily depressed 31 32 24 07 44 Easily excited • » • • . • . T 1 What Is the attitude oi your closest friend or friends to your liance(e)? approve highly . . . ; 25 approve with qualification ... ; are resigned . . . ; disapprove mildly . . . ; disapprove 15 32 13 seriously ... 31 2. How many of your present men and women friends are also friends of your flance(e)? all 17 . . . ; most of them . . . ; a few . . . ; none ... 25 23 13 3. How would you rate the physical appearance of your fiance(e)? very good looking . . . ; 35 good looking . . . ; fairly good looking . . . ; plain looking . . . ; very plain looking 25 41 22 31 4. Do you think your fiance<e) Is spending a disproportionate amount of present Income on any of the following (check only one)? clothes (or other personal ornamentation) . . . ; 13 recreation . . . ; hobbies . . . ; food . . . ; rent . . . ; education 41 22 24 33 16 ' not think so . . . 36 5. With how many of the opposite sex, other than your flance(e), have you gone steadily ? do none . . . ; one . 25 42 two ; three or more 24 15 6. Defining friends as something more than mere acquaintances but not necessarily as always having been boon companions give an estimate of the number of your men friends before going steadily with your fiance(e): none . . . ; few . . . ; several . . . ; many 31 14 24' (in round numbers, how many? . . . . ) 7. Estimate the number of your women friends before going steadily with your fiance(e): none 34 . . ; few ; several ; many . . . ; (in round numbers, how many?. 04 . ) 32 33 16 8. Have you ever been engaged before (or had any previous informal understanding that you were to be married)? never twice 35 42 14 ; three or more times 137 9 Give the attitude of your father and mother toward your marriage: both approve . . . ; 26 both disapprove . . . ; one disapproves: (your father . . . ; your mother . . . ) 31 22 31 10. What is your attitude toward your future father-in-law? like him very much . . . ; 25 like him considerably . . . ; like him mildly . . . ; mild dislike . . . ; consider^  15 32 40 able dislike . . . ; very strong dislike . . . ; no attitude, as he is dead . . . 12 , 3 0 42 Mother-in-law: Like her very much . . . ; like her considerably . . . ; like her 34 24 mildly . . . ; mild dislike . . . ; considerable dislike . . . ; very strong dislike 41 22 21 12 . . . ; no attitude as she is dead ... 24 11. How long have you been keeping company with your flance(e)? less than 3 months . . . ; 13 3 to 5 months . . . ; 6 to 11 months . . . ; 12 to 17 months . . ; ; 18 to 23 months 32 24 25 35 . . . ; 24 to 35 months . . . ; 36 months or more . . . 17 44 12. How many months will elapse between your engagement (or time at which you both had a definite understanding that you were to be married) and the date selected for your mar-riage ? less than 3 months . . . ; 3 to 5 months . . . ; 6 to 11 months . . . ; 12 to 40 14 33 17 months . . . ; 18 to 23 months . . . ; 24 or more months ... 25 35 44 Part Four 1. Do you and your fiance(e) engage In Interests and activities together? all of them . . , ; - 43 most of them . . . ; some of them . . . ; a few of them . . . ; none of them . . . 15 23 . 31 . 22 2. Is there any Interest vital to you In which your flance(e) does not engage? yes . . . ; no . . . 43 3. Do you confide In your fiance(e)? about everything . . . ; about most things . . . ; 36 16 about some things . . . ; about a few things . . • ; about nothing . . . 23 22 30 4. Does your fiance(e) confide In you? about everything . . . ; about most things . . • ; 27 25 about some things . . . ; about a few things . . . ; about nothing . . . 41 31 12 5. What is the frequency of demonstration of affection you show your fiance(e) kissing, em-bracing, etc.)? occupies practically all of the time you are alone together . . . ; very 18 frequent . . . ; occasional . . . ; rare . . . ; almost never . . . 26 14 31 12 6. Who generally takes the Initiative In the demonstration of affection ? mutual . . .' ; 26 you . . . ; your fiance(e) ... 23 41 138 7. Are you satisfied with the amount of demonstration of affection? yes . . . ; (no: desire 35 less . . . ; desire more . . . ) 30 12 Is your flance(e) satisfied with the amount of demonstration of affection? yes (no: desires less . . . ; desires more . . . ) 03 30 44 9. In leisure-time activities: .we both prefer to stay at home ... ; we both prefer to be 26 "on the go" . . . ; one prefers to stay at home and the other to be "on the ao" 14 .40 ' ' 10. State the present approximate agreement or disagreement with your flance(e) on the fol-lowing items. Please place a check in the proper column opposite every Item. Check one column for each item below Money matters Matters of recrea-tion Religious matters Demonstrations of affection Friends Table manners Matters of conven-tionality Philosophy of life Ways of dealing with your fami-lies Arrangements for your marriage Dates with one an-other 35 •i t 16 42 14 22 30 11. When disagreements arise between you and your flance(e) they usually result in: agreement by mutual give and take . . . ; your giving In . . . ; your fiance(e) giving in . . . ; 5 3 16 30 neither giving in . . . 21 12. Do you ever wish you had not become engaged? never 44 once . 14 ; occasionally . . . ; frequently 40 13. Have you ever contemplated breaking your engagement ? never . . . ; once . . , ; oc-35 41 casionally . . . ; frequently . . . 31 40 139 14. Has your steady relationship with your fiance(e) ever been broken oil temporarily ?. never 61 . . . ; once . . . ; twice . . . ; three or more times ... 23 40 13 15. How confident are you that your marriage wiU, be a happy one ? very confident . . . ; con-\ 25 fident . . . ; a little uncertain . . . ; very uncertain ... 33 14 40 Part Five 1. Where do you plan to be married? at church . ... ; at home ... ; elsewhere ... 35 16 32 • 2. By whom do you plan to be married? minister, priest, or rabbi' . . . ; other person . . . 16 14 3. Where do you plan to live after marriage ? private house . . . ; small apartment biflld-26 ing . . . ; large apartment tu ilding . . . ; apartment hotel . . . ; hotel . . . ; 52 15 .41 22 rooming house ... 30 •• • . ' ' ' 4. Have bought a home . . . ; plan to buy a home . . . ; plan to rent a home . . . 44 25 14 5. Population of city or town where you plan to live: open country . . . ;'2500 or under ' 27' " .. 35 ; 2500 to 10, 000 . . . ; 10, 000 to 50, 000 . . . ; 50, 000 to 100, 000 ..'.;• 16 ' 4 2 32 100, 000 to 500, 000 . . . ; over 500, 000 . . . ; suburb' ... 04 . 3 0 17 6. After marriage where do you plan to live ? in own home or apartment . . . ; with your 53 parents .... ; with parents-in-law . . . ; with other relatives ... ; with relatlves-13 30 21 ' In- law . . . ; with other persons . . . . . 03 12 7. What is your attitude toward having children? desire children very much . . . ; mildly •' 25 desire them . . . ; mild objection to them . . . ; object very much to having them • • . 41 -31 • 13 '. 8. How many children would you like to have? four or more . . . ; three . . . ; two . . 17 52 33 one . . . ; none 41 13 ... ' 9. What is your fiance(e)'s attitude toward having children? desires children very much . . . 43 mildly desires them . . . ; mild objection to them . . . ; objects very much to having 14 . 4 0 them ... 31 Summation of Scores Part I , Part n ..... , Part m , Part IV . Part V , Total. ..... 140 COURSE EVALUATION FORM Part I . PLEASE INDICATE YOUR ANSWER BY MAKING A CIRCLE AROUND THE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH EACH STATEMENT. 1. I enjoyed what I experienced i n the course. 2. The course i n f l u e n c e d me i n my present r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h my f i a n c e ( e ) . 3 . The content of the course w i l l i n f l u e n c e me i n our marriage. 4. I would recommend that my f r i e n d s take t h i s course. 5. I found i t easy to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s e s s i o n s . 6. I f e l t that the group l e a d e r ( s ) understood me. 7. My f i a n c e ( e ) and I t a l k e d about our experiences i n the sessions during the week. 8. I understood the o b j e c t i v e s of the course. 9. I a p p l i e d the concepts from the sessions i n my i n t e r a c t i o n s during the week. 10. I f e e l that the p r e p a r a t i o n f o r marriage course I have j u s t taken should be made mandatory by the province. S t r o n g l y Agree N e u t r a l 141 Page 2. Course Evaluation_Form. Pa r t I I . HOW HELPFUL WERE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING. (Please c i r c l e NP i f you were not p r e s e n t ) . 11. The i n t r o d u c t o r y s e s s i o n 12. The d i s c u s s i o n on communications 13. The d i s c u s s i o n on d e c i s i o n making. 14. The d i s c u s s i o n on c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . 15. The d i s c u s s i o n on goals . 16. The d i s c u s s i o n on s e x u a l i t y 17. The d i s c u s s i o n on marriage c o n t r a c t s . Very H e l p f u l 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 N e u t r a l 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 18. Did you f e e l that the group sessions were: A. B. C. 19. Did you f e e l that the l e n g t h of the course was: Too long Too short J u s t r i g h t . A. Too long B. Too short C. The r i g h t l e n g t h . 20. Please l i s t three ways i n which p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s course has changed your present i n t e r a c t i o n s . 21. Please l i s t three ways i n which p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the course may have changed, the way you w i l l i n t e r a c t i n your marriage. 142 Page 3. _Course_Evaluation_Form. 22. Please l i s t three things that you l i k e d about the course. 23. Please make three suggestions that you f e e l would improve the course. 143 APPENDIX E A N A L Y S E S 144 Table E-1 Number of Siblings (Sib), Rating of Father's Religiousness (F Rel), Rating of Mother's Religiousness (M Rel), Subject's Age (Age), Education (Ed), and Months the Subjects Within Couple had known each other: Cell Means and Standard Deviations Group Sib F Rel M Mean S . D . Mean S . D . M< Bby Control Female Bby Control Male Bby Ex Female Bby Ex Male Van Control Female Van Control Male Van Ex Female Van Ex Male 2.000 1.732 1.714 1.254 2.778 1.641 1.667 0.707 2.375 0.744 1.750 1.282 1 .444 1 .236 1.778 0.833 2.571 0.535 '2. 2.000 1.000 1 ; 2.333 0.707 2.. 2.444 0.726 2. 2.875 0.354 2. 2.250 0.707 2. 1.778 0.667 1.i 1.778 0.833 'I.; A 9 e Ed Mths N Mean S . D . Mean S . D . Mean S . D . •488 23.571 3.910 14.143 2.116 48.571 33.665 7 "951 20.857 9.668 12.714 6.880 43.286 40.331 7 707 24.000 6.124 14.111 2.315 32.444 29.228 9 667 25.444 6.747 14.778 2.224 32.889 31.123 9 '535 23.625 2.722 14.750 1.488 22.750 1 6.158 8 '535 26.250 6.431 16.250 1.488 22.250 15.369 8 500 22.222 2.539 14.222 1.716 29.778 18.526 9 527 24.778 3.114 15.333 2.398 29.444 18.882 9 Total N = 66 145 Table E~2 Number of Siblings (Sib), Rating of Father's Religiousness (F Rel), Rating of Mother's Religiousness (M Rel), Subject's Age (Age), Education (Ed), and Months the Subjects Within Couple had known each other: Correlation Matrix Variable Sib F Rel M Rel Age Ed Mth Sib 1 .000 F Rel 0.205 1 .000 M Rel 0.250 0.578 1 .000 Age -0.183 0.135 0.253 1 .000 Ed 0.106 0. 166 0.160 0.514 1 .000 Mth 0.03.1 -0.021 -0.069 0.171 0.438 1 .000 Note - Sample size is 66 df=64 at c/~ .05 correlations greater than .250 are significant at oC .01 correlations greater than .325 are significant 146 Table E-3 Number of Siblings (Sib), Rating of Father's Religiousness (FRel), Rating of Mother's Religiousness (M Rel), Subject's Age (Age), Education (Ed), and Months the Subjects Within Couple had known each other: Multi-variate analysis of variance Factor(s) variables Place Hypothesis Mean Sq Sib F Rel M Rel Age Ed Mth 0.941 0.638 0.018 5.013 20.592 2455.222 Univariate F 0.634 1 .257 0.046 0.163 2.862 3.433 0.429 0.267 0.831 0.688 0.096 0.069 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Group Sib F Rel M Rel Age Ed Mth 0.055 2.003 2.709 3.509 0.217 119.534 0.037 4.105 6.942 0.114 0.030 0.167 0.848 0.047 0.01 1 0.737 0.863 0.684 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Sex Sib F Rel M Rel Age Ed Mth 2.970 0.970 0.136 21.879 4.909 24.242 2.000 1 .912 0.349 0.710 0.682 0.034 0.163 0.172 0.557 0.403 0.412 0.855 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Pla -Gr Sib F Rel M Rel Age Ed Mth' 2.720 3.217 4.081 63.526 12.329 1693.842 1 .832 6.342 10.457 2.062 1 .714 2.368 0. 181 0.015 0.002 0.157 0.916 0.129 Degrees of Freedom = 1 147 Pla-Sex Sib F Rel M Rel Age Ed Mth 1 .648 0.047 0.018 36.188 9.826 1 1 .230 1.110 0.092 0.046 1 . 174 1 .366 0.016 0.297 0.762 0.831 0.283 0.247 0.901 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Gr-Sex Sib F Rel M Rel Age Ed Mth 0.040 1 .741 0.431 15.821 2.667 33.123 0.027 3.432 1 . 105 0.513 0.371 0.046 0.870 0.069 0.298 0.477 0.545 0.830 Degrees of Freedom = 1 P - G - S Sib F Rel M Rel Age Ed Mth 3.246 0.003 0.835 19.239 6.296 31.579 2.186 0.007 2.140 0.592 0.875 0.044 0.145 0.935 0.149 0.445 0.354 0.834 Degrees of Freedom 1 Variance S . D . E r r o r Sib F Rel M Rel Age Ed Mth 1 .485 0.507 0.390 30.816 7.194 715.293 1 .219 0.712 0.625 5.551 2.682 26.745 Degrees of Freedom for Error = 58 148 Table E-4 Rating of the Happiness of Parent's Marriage (H PM) and Rating of the Happiness of Childhood (H CH): Cell Means and Standard Deviations H P M H CH Group Mean S . D . Mean S . D . N Bby Control Female 1.429 0.535 1.286 0.488 7 Bby Control Male 1.429 1.272 1.429 0.976 7 Bby Ex. Female 2.667 1.225 2.111 1.167 9 Bby Ex. Male 1.556 0.527 1.667 0.500 9 Van. Control Female 2.375 1.188 1.750 0.707 8 Van. Control Male 2.000 1.309 2.000 0.756 8 Van. Ex. Female 1.333 0.500 1.222. 0.441 9 Van. Ex. Male 1.667 1.000 1.667 0.866 9 Total N = 66 149 Table E-5 Rating of the Happiness of Parent's Marriage (H PM) and Rating of the Happiness of Childhood (H CH*): Correlation Matrix Variable H P M H CH H P M 1.000 H CH 0.466 1 .000 Note — sample size is 66 df = 64 A t cA. .05 correlations greater than .250 are significant At o<- .01 correlations greater than .325 are significant Table E-6 Rating of the Happiness of Parent's Marriage (H PM) and Rating of the Happiness of Childhood (H CH): Multi-variate Analysis Facto r(s) variables Hypothesis Mean Sq Univariate F P Place H P M 0.002 0.002 0.964 H CH 0.001 0.002 0.962 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Group H P M 0.012 0.012 0.912 H CH 0.018 0.030 0.864 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Sex H P M 1 .515 1 .528 0.222 H CH 0.136 0.225 0.637 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Pla -Gr H P M 7.660 7.723 0.007 H CH 3.779 6.247 0.015 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Pla-Sex H P M 1.610 1 .623 0.208 H CH 1 .204 1 .990 0. 164 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Gr-Sex H P M 0.116 0.117 0.734 H CH 0.136 0.224 0.638 Degrees of Freedom = 1 P - G - S H P M 3.377 3.405 0.070 H CH 0.624 1.031 0.314 Degrees of Freedom = 1 151 Variance S . D . E r r o r H P M 0.992 0.996 H CH 0.605 0.778 Degrees of Freedom for E r r o r = 58 152 Table E-7 ' Parent's Marital State, Subject's Incidence of Previous Marriage, Subject's Decision to Marry, Subject's who at one time had called off their Plans to Marry, Subject's Church Attendance: CHI Square Analyses on Differences Beh/veen Experimental and Control Groups Test of significance on Critical Value df Parents Marital State .05 = 7.815 7.216 Subject's Incidence of Previous Marriage ,05 = 3.841 0.502 Subject's Decision to Marry ,05 = 3.841 2.550 Subject's who at one time had called off their Plans to Marry ,05 = 3.841 1 .260 Subject's Church Attendance .01 = 0.210 17.904** ** p < .01 153 Table E-8 Rating of Father's Religiousness (F Rel), Rating of Mother's Religiousness ( M Rel), and the Subject's Church Attendance (S CA): Sample Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations Variable Mean S . D . F Rel M Rel S CA F Rel 2.292 0.701 1.000 M Rel 2.046 0.648 0.658 1.000 S CA 2.385 0.842 0.389 0.339 1.000 Note — Sample size is 65 df = 63 at c*.05 correlations greater than .250 are significant at «*• .01 correlations greater than .325 are significant Table E-9 Confidence in the Decision to Marry (Con), Parent's Reaction to the Decision to Marry (P Rea), and Friend's Reaction to the Decision to Marry (F Rea): Pre-Test Cell Means and Standard Deviations Con P R e a R e a Group Mean S . D . Mean S . D . Mean S . D . N * .____--______—.——________________ Bby Control Female 2.143 1.676 1.571 0.787 1.714 0.756 7 Bby Control Male 1.571 1.134 1.714. 0.756 1.714 0.756 7 Bby Ex. Female 1.125 0.354 1.750 1.035 1.375 0.518 8 Bby Ex. Male 1.125 0.354 1.075 0.991 1.625 0.744 8 Van. Control Female 1.167 0.408 1.333 0.816 1.333 0.816 6 Van. Control Male 1.167 0.408 1.333 0.516 1.333 0.516 6 Van. Ex. Female 1.222 0.441 1.444 0.726 1.444 0.726 9 Van. Ex. Male 1.444 0.527 1.333 0.500 1.333 0.500 9 155 Table E-10 Confidence in the Decision to Marry (Con), Parent's Reaction to the Decision to Marry (P Rea), and Friend's Reaction to the Decision to Marry ( F Rea): Correlation Matrix Pre-test variable Con P Rea F Rea Con 1.000 P Rea 0.251 1.000 F Rea 0.313 0.465 1.000 Note - sample size is 60 df = 58 at ^ .05 correlations greater than .273 are significant at .01 correlations greater than .354 are significant 156 Table E-11 Confidence in the Decision to Marry (Con), Parent's Reaction to the Decision to Marry (P Rea), and Friend's Reaction to the Decision to Marry ( F Rea): Multivariate Analysis of Variance Facto r(s) Pre-test Variables Hypothesis Mean Sq Univariate F P Place Con 0.600 0.982 0.326 P Rea 2.017 3.236 0.078 F Rea 0.817 1 .807 0.185 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Group Con 1.241 2.032 0.160 P Rea 0.189 0.304 0.584 F Rea 0.098 0.217 0.643 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Sex Con 0.067 0.109 0.743 •P Rea 0.017 0.027 0.871 F Rea 0.017 0.037 0.849 Degrees of Freedom = 1 P l a - G r Con 2.961 4.847 0.032 P Rea 0.048 0.077 0.783 F Rea 0.267 0.591 0.446 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Pla-Sex Con 0.600 0.982 0.326 P Rea 0.150 0.241 0.626 F Rea 0.150 0.332 0.567 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Gi—Sex Con 0.587 0.960 0.332 P Rea 0.015 0.024 0.878 F Rea 0.019 0.043 0.837 Degrees of Freedom = 1 157 P - G - S Con 0.112 0.183 0.671 P Rea 0.008 0.013 0.911 F Rea 0.120 0.265 0.609 Degrees of Freedom = 1 Error Con P Rea F Rea variance S . D . 0.611 0.782 0.623 0.789 0.452 0.672 Degrees of Freedom for E r r o r = 52 158 Table E-12 The Frequency with which the Subjects within each Couple see each other (F S E O ) , Self Evaluation Score (SES) , Fiance(e) Evaluation Score (FES) , Self/Ideal-Self Discrepancy Score (^/1-S), Self/Fiance(e) Discrepancy Score (S/F), Understanding Score (Und), Confidence in the Marriage Score (CIM), and Marriage Prediction Schedule Score (MPS): Pre-test Cell Means and Standard Deviation F S E O S E S F E S S / I - S Group M S . D . M S . D . M S . D . M S . D . Bby Control Female 1 .286 0.488 24.571 8. 142 29.143 9.720 16.714 7.017 Bby Control Male 1 .429 0.535 26.714 10. 750 29.571 7.700 26.429 17 .756 Bby Ex. Female 1 .444 0.726 33,444 10. 806 37.778 9.846 16.778 11. .167 Bby Ex. Male 1 .444 0.726 28.778 12. 222 31.222 11.487 14.667 8 .411 Van Control Female 1 .500 0.756 35.125 5. 617 38.625 2.560 13.375 8 .193 Van Control Male 1 .625 0.744 32.125 3. 227 34.500 3.891 17.125 9 .203 Van Ex. Female 1 .778 0.972 32.444 6. 464 39.222 8.105 20.555 17 .650 Van Ex. Male 1 .889 0.928 36.000 6. 633 39.111 4.226 17.667 14 .534 I S / F Und CIM M P S N M S . D . M S . D . M S . D . M S . D . 11.143 13.777 27.857 17.121 40.429 5.224 586.857 31.720 7 14.571 14'. 034 26.429 14.684 39.857 3.805 589.143 25.298 7 12.444 7.844 26.667 14.916 41.333 3.241 594.555 26.800 9 9.111 6.791 25.222 14.498 40.778 3.801 600.000 20.815 9 6.750 6.364 11.375 7.210 41.875 2.167 608.250 28.173 8 7.875 8.823 10.250 5.898 41.250 3.808 602.375 24.980 9 17.222 20.468 32.111 18.738 41.000 4.000 618.444 17.234 8 11.444 7.667 21.222 12.387 40.778 3.596 616.778 18.960 9 Total h = 66 Table E-13 The Frequency with which the Subjects within each Couple see each other (F SEO), Self Evaluation Score (SES), Fiance(e) Evaluation Score (FES) , Self/Ideal-Self Discrepancy Score (S/I-S) , Self/Fiance(e) Discrepancy Score (S/F), Understanding Score (Und), Confidence in the Marriage Score (CIM), and Marriage Prediction Schedule Score (MPS): Correlation Matrix Pre-test Variable F S E O S E S F E S S/I -S S / F Und CIM M P S F S E O 1 .000 S E S 0.033 1 .000 F E S -0.039 0.824 1 .000 S/I -S 0.004 -0.508 -0.119 1 .000 S / F 0.032 -0.357 -0.017 0.610 1 .000 Und -0.036 0.017 0.075 0.144 0.001 1 .000 CIM -0.101 0.21 1 0.354 -0.142 -0.113 -0.009 1 .000 M P S -0.088 0.188 0.276 -0.185 -0.103 -0.119 0.641 1 .000 Note - Sample size is 66 df = 64 at ^ .05 correlations greater than .250 are significant at .01 correlations greater than 0325 are significant 160 T a b l e E-14 T h e F r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h the S u b j e c t s w i t h i n e a c h C o u p l e s e e each o t h e r ( F S E O ) , S e l f E v a l u a t i o n S c o r e ( S E S ) , F i a n c e E v a l u a t i o n S c o r e ( F E S ) , S e l f / I d e a l - S e l f D i s c r e p a n c y S c o r e ( S / I - S ) , S e l f / F i a n c e ( e ) D i s c r e p a n c y S c o r e ( S / F ) , U n d e r s t a n d i n g S c o r e (Und), C o n f i d e n c e i n the M a r r i a g e S c o r e ( C I M ) , and M a r r i a g e P r e d i c t i o n S c h e d u l e S c o r e ( M P S ) : M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e P r e - t e s t H y p o t h e s i s F a c t o r ( s ) v a r i a b l e s M e a n S q U n i v a r i a t e F P P l a c e F S E O 1 .480 2.532 0.1 17 S E S 449.604 6.237 0.015 F E S 533.935 8.665 0.005 S / I - S 16.063 0.104 0.749 S / F 7. 139 0.053 0.819 Und 869.562 4.520 0.038 C I M 4.980 0.354 0.554 M P S 5706.106 9.688 0.003 D e g r e e s o f F r e e d o m = 1 G r o u p F S E O 0.544 0 . 9 3 0 0 . 3 3 9 S E S 141.667 1 .965 0.166 F E S 239.425 3.885 0.054 S/ I - S 10.914 0.070 0.792 S / F 113.622 0.841 0.363 Und 953.720 ,4.958 0 , 0 3 0 C I M 0. 134 0.010 0 . 9 2 3 M P S 1921.781 3.263 0.076 D e g r e e s of F r e e d o m = 1 S e x F S E O 0. 136 0.233 " 0.631 S E S 5.470 0.076 0.784 F E S 122.727 1 .992 0. 164 S/I - S 42.561 0.274 0.602 S / F 36.379 0.269 0.606 Und 256.060 1 .331 0.253 C I M 3.879 0.276 0.602 M P S 0. 137 0.000 0.988 D e g r e e s of F r e e d o m = 1 161 Pla-Gr F S E O S E S F E S S/I -S S / F Und CIM M P S 0. 138 96.828 26.302 384.794 337.959 1186.704 10.269 37.227 0.235 1 .343 0.427 2.481 2.503 6.169 0.730 0.063 0.630 0.251 0.516 0. 121 0.1 19 0.016 0.397 0.802 Degrees of Freedom = 1 F S E O 0.013 0.021 0.884 S E S 19. 194 0.266 0.608 F E S 9.273 0.151 0.700 S/I -S 32.941 0.212 0.647 S / F 19.129 0.142 0.708 Und 97.205 0.505 0.480 CIM 0.094 0.007 0.935 M P S 244.969 0.416 0.522 Degrees of Freedom = 1 F S E O 0.024 0.040 0.842 S E S 0.056 0.001 0.978 F E S 6.745 0.110 0.742 S/I -S 341.200 2.200 0.144 S / F 190.900 1 .414 0.239 Und 104.935 0.546 0.463 CIM 0. 191 0.014 0.908 MPS 56.029 0.095 0.759 Degrees of Freedom = 1 F S E O 0.017 0.029 0.865 S E S 182.242 2.528 0.117 F E S 123.405 2.003 0.162 S/I -S 27.444 0.177 0.676 S / F 0.020 0.000 0.990 Und 96.947 0.504 0.481 CIM 0. 153 0.011 0.917 M P S 1 . 123 0.002 0.965 Degrees of Freedom = 1 162 Variance S, . D . F S E O ' 0.585 0. 765 S E S 72.085 8. 490 F E S 61.621 7. 850 s/i-s 155.098 12. 454 S / F 135.032 11 . 620 Lhd 192.379 13. 870 CIM 14.071 3. 751 M P S 588.966 24. 269 Degrees of Freedom for E r r o r = 58 163 Table E-15 Matching Score (Mat), and Agreement Score (Agr): Pre-test Cell Means and Standard Deviations Mat A g r Group Mean S . D . Mean S . D . N Bby Control 5.143 2.116 27.143 19.394 7 Bby Ex. 4.333 2.646 26.111 17.055 9 Van. Control 4.375 1.685 13.875 6.266 8 Van. Ex. 3.778 1.922 29.333 17.685 9 Total N = 33 164 Table E-16 Matching Score (Mat), and Agreement Score (Agr): Correlation Matrix Pre-test Variable Mat A g r Mat 1 .000 A g r -0.147 1.000 Note - sample size (couples) is 33 df = 31 at<* .05 correlations greater than .349 are significant at <* .01 correlations greater than .449 are significant 165 Table E-17 Matching Score (Mat), and Agreement Score (Agr): Multi-Variate Analysis of Variance Pre-test Facto r(s) Variables Hypothesis Mean Sq Unis/ariate F P < Place Pla-Gr Match Agree Group Match Agree Match Agree 3.258 167.183 0.714 0.659 Degrees of Freedom = 1 3.999 0.877 461.401 1 .818 Degrees of Freedom = 1 0.092 0.020 554.854 2.186 Degrees of Freedom = 1 0.405 0.424 0.357 0.188 0.888 0.150 E r r o r Match Agree Variance 4.562 253.816 S . D . 2.136 15.932 Degrees of Freedom for Error = 29 Table E—18 Confidence in the Decision to Marry (Con), Parent's Reaction to the Decision to Marry (P Rea), Friend's Reaction to the Decision to Marry (F Rea), and the Frequency with which the Subjects within each Couple see each other (F SEO) : Adjusted Post-test Cell Means Group Con Mean N P Rea Mean N F Rea Mean N F S E O Mean N Bby Control Females Bby Control Males Bby Ex Females Bby Ex Males Van Control Females Van Control Males Van Ex Females Van Ex Males 1 .452 1 .498 1 .614 1 .251 1 .082 1 .230 1 .212 1 .248 4 4 6 6 6 6 9 9 1 .204 1 .883 2.311 1 .871 1 .355 0.921 1 .786 1 .! 4 4 6 5 6 6 9 9 1 .723 1 .686 1 .377 1 .477 1 .410 1 .382 1 .363 1 .246 4 4 6 6 6 6 9 9 1 .668 1 .488 1 .858 1 .870 1 .757 1 .598 1 .602 1 .751 4 4 6 6 8 8 9 9 Total N = 50 Total N = 49 Total N = 50 Total N = 54 Table E—19 Self Evaluation Score (SES) , Fiance(e) Evaluation Score (FES) , Self/Ideal-Self Discrepancy Score (S/I-S) , Self/Fiance(e) Discrepancy Score (S/F) , Understanding Score (Und), Confidence in the Marriage Score (CIM), and the Marriage Prediction Schedule Score (MPS): Adjusted Post-test Cell Means Group S E S F E S s/i-s S / F Und CIM M P S N Bby Control Females 32.431 36.018 24.351 22.120 25.898 37.652 601.327 4 Bby Control Males 34.822 35.924 12.131 8.265 19.482 40.628 599.606 4 Bby Ex Females 29.320 33.292 22.087 11.403 22.924 40.376 610.016 62 Bby Ex Males 34.981 36.828 12.558 10.125 17.145 41.807 608.295 6 Van Control Females 34.333 38.338 15.234 8.002 12.627 40.323 608.977 8 Van Control Males 34.358 37.442 13.524 6.948 16.413 40.412 600.748 8 Van Ex Females 29.914 34.496 21.261 11 .935 18.366 42.470 605.664 9 Van Ex Males 31.244 35.868 17.866 11.031 16.050 42.186 611.737 9 Total N = 54 168 Table E~20 Matching Score (Mat), and Agreement Score (Agr): , Post-test Cell Means Group Mat A g r N Means Means Bby Control 5.000 34.250 4 Bby Ex 3.833 22.833 6 Van Control 4.375 9.375 8 Van Ex 4.111 20.556 9 Total N = 27 169 Table E-21 Course Evaluation Score: Cell Means Group Mean N Bby Control Female 48.750 4 Bby Control Male 43.750 4 Bby Ex. Female 34.667 6 Bby Ex. Male 41.500 6 Van Control Female 43.000 8 Van Control Male 44.500 8 Van Ex. Female 36.111 9 Van Ex. Male 45.556 9 Total N = 54 170 Table E - 22 Rate of Attendance: Cell Means Group Mean N Bby Control 3.857 7 Bby Ex. 3.778 9 Van Control 5.125 8 Van Ex. 5.111 9 Total N = 33 171 Table E-23 Experimental and Control Group Means and Standard Deviations on the Seventeen Item Course Evaluation Form Experimental Group Control Group Item Mean S . D . Mean S . D . 1 1 .867 0.629 2.125 0.680 2 2.733 0.980 3.042 1 .160 3 2.467 0.860 2.875 1.116 4 2.267 0.868 2.458 0.833 5 2.133 1 .106 2.625 1 .056 6 2.000 0.871 2.958 0.624 7 1 .800 0.714 1 .917 0.504 8 2.000 0.910 2.333 1 .007 9 2.167 0.699 2.750 0.897 10 3.033 1 .299 3.458 1 .179 11 2.667 0.884 3.250 1 .294 12 2.267 0.828 2.458 1 .215 13 2.167 0.791 2.625 0.711 14 2.200 0.761 2.000 0.933 15 2.333 0.758 2.375 1 .013 16 3.033 0.999 2.625 1 .408 17 2.600 0.814 2.708 0.955 Total 39.734 44.583 N = 30 24 172 Table E-24 Experimental Group Females and A l l Other Groups Combined Means and Standard Deviations on the Seventeen Item Course Evaluation Form Experimental Group Females Combined Groups Item Mean S . D . Mean S . D . 1 1.600 0.507 2.128 0.656 2 2.467 1 .060 3.026 1 .038 3 2.133 0.640 2.846 1 .040 4 1 .933 0.884 2.513 0.790 5 1 .933 0.884 2.513 1 .144 6 1 .933 0.799 2.615 0.877 7 1 .600 0.632 1 .949 0.605 8 1 .800 0.414 2.282 1 .075 9 1 .933 0.594 2.615 0.847 10 2.333 0.816 3.564 1 .231 11 2.333 0.900 3.154 1 . 113 12 1 .867 0.743 2.538 1 .047 13 1 .933 0.799 2.538 0.720 14 2.067 0.799 2.128 0.864 15 2.133 0.915 2.436 0.852 16 3.067 1 .223 2.769 1 .202 17 2.467 0.990 2.718 0.826 Total 35.532 44.332 N 15 39 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0053793/manifest

Comment

Related Items