UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Development of a Dyadic Partner Validation Scale Stumpe, Tiina-Mai 1992

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_stumpe_tina_mai.pdf [ 2.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054074.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054074-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054074-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054074-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054074-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054074-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054074-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054074-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054074.ris

Full Text

DEVELOPMENT OF A DYADIC PARTNER VALIDATION SCALE by  TIINA-MAI  STUMPE  B.Ed. (Elementary), University of Alberta, 1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April,  1992  © Tina-Mai Stumpe, 1992.  In  presenting this  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make  it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  ABSTRACT  Self-validation is a process of restoring or enhancing one's wellbeing around the five interrelated thematic components of the self-validation model developed by Ishiyama, (1987, 1989). The thematic components of comfort, support,and security: self-worth and self-acceptance; competence, and autonomy; identity and belonging; and love, fulfillment and meaning in life are essential for self-validation and relationship validation. The Dyadic Parmer Validation Scale was developed to measure this construct This study tested the psychometric properties of Dyadic Partner Validation Scale. Item-total correlations ranged from .24 - .93, internal consistency correlations (Cronbach alpha) at .82, .81 and .70 and with a test-retest coefficient of .79 and .85 over a three weektimeperiod. Reliability correlations for the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale were high.  As hypothesized, relationship validation measured by the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale had high positive correlation (xr .59, .75 and .78) with relationship satisfaction measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. This hypothesis was accepted. It was hypothesized that relationship validation would have high negative correlations (j-  .19, -.21 and -.30) with self-esteem  measured by Rosenberg's Self Esteem Scale and high negative correlations (r- .01, -.17 and -.33) with indices of mental health measured by Hopkin's Symptom Checklist This hypothesis was not supported but the correlations were moving in the expected negative direction. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale was found to have predictive validity with relationship satisfaction. This scale provides a useful assessment tool for clinical and research purposes in studying marital and  ii  nonmarital relationships. Limitations of the study and theoretical and clinical implications are discussed. Further scale validation is recommended, and clinicians may consider using this instrument for exploratory purposes.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  ii  LIST OF FIGURES  vii  LIST OF TABLES  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Chapter L  ChapterIL  ix  INTRODUCTION  1  Definition of Terms  1  The Problem  3  Research Question and Hypotheses  5  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Theoretical Underpinnings  6 6  Sieburg's Theory of Interpersonal Confirmation  7  Larson's Theory of Interpersonal Confirmation.  9  Differences Between Sieburg's and Larson's Theories of Interpersonal Confirmation Interpersonal Confirmation Within Marriage  12 13  The Phenomenon of Marital Satisfaction  16  Ishiyama's Model of Self-Validation  22  Security, Comfort and Support  25  Self-Worth and Self-Acceptance  26  Competency and Autonomy  27  Identity and Belonging  27  Love, Fulfillment, and Meaning in Life  28  Validation and Marital Satisfaction iv  29  Chapter m.  METHODOLOGY  32  Subjects  32  Instrumentation  33  Development of the Dyadic Partner Scale  37  Data Collection  41  Chapter IV.  RESULTS  42  Chapter V.  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION  50  REFERENCES  60  APPENDIX A : Letter to Professors Requesting Cooperation in Selecting Volunteer Subjects  63  APPENDIX B: Description of the Purpose and Significance of the Study  66  APPENDIX C: Covering Letter and Questionnaire for Acquiring Information for Independent Variables  69  APPENDDC D: Dyadic Partner Validation Scale (DPVS)  73  APPENDDC E: Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)  77  APPENDDC F: Perceived (Confirmation Scale (PCS)  81  APPENDDC G: Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL)  83  APPENDDC H : Rosenbergs Self Esteem Survey (RSE)  85  APPENDIX I:  Item Pool Developed in Consultation with Dr. Ishiyama  APPENDDC J:  87  Item Pool Based on Literature Review  89  APPENDDC K : Questions for Interviews  96  APPENDDC L : Interview Examples  99 v  APPENDIX M : APPENDIX N :  First Prototype of the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale  102  Final Version of the Dyadic Partner VahdationScale  105  vi  LIST OF FIGURES  Psychological Aspects of Self-Validation  vu  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE 1 :  TABLE 2:  TABLE 3:  Dyadic Partner Validation Scale Item-Total Correlations  43  CorrelationsBetween Relationship Validation and Relationship Satisfaction  47  Exploring Correlations Between Relationship Validation and Neurotic Symptoms  49  vui  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I am grateful to a number of individuals who have made the completion of this research possible. My sincere thanks to the committee members - Dr. Marv Westwood, Dr. John Banmen and especially Dr. Ishu Ishiyama who have provided unfailing support and guidance over the duration of this project I am grateful to all of the individuals who completed the questionnaires - without you, there would be no study. To my friends Heather Hayward, Daljeet Bains, and Suzan Vmer-Warkentin, and the Tuesday Night Group your assistance,and support has been very much needed and appreciated. Dr. Walter Boldt, you have a special thankyou for helping me with my statistics on the computer.  With fondness and gratitude, I wish to acknowledge the support given me by my husband Bjarne. His investment into our "Life Insurance Policy" for our family has reaped many rewards. Without his support, I would not have been able to pursue this dream. To my children Kilian, Rian and Leana, your smiles have helped me to continue my journey. I also wish to thank my parents, Rein and Laine Sastok who began this journey for me by teaching me the importance of education and by supporting me through my undergraduate degree. Lastly, to my Higher Power who has given me the grace and opportunity to fly with my dreams and help me through all of my storms.  ix  CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION  Relationships are what give individuals their greatest joys and also their greatest sorrows. There are many types of relationships which individuals participate in - work, social, nuclear and extended family to name a few. Most individuals are searching for relationships in which they feel validated, satisfied and fulfilled versus feeling invalidated, empty arid lonely. Most people have had experiences with failed relationships and are searching for ways to make relationships work, or they are looking for ways to enrich the relationships that they are currently in. The present study deals with the development of a scale on relationship validation which is then correlated with scales on relationship satisfaction, self-esteem, perceived confirmation and mental health. The information contained in these scales, can be used to assess relationships. In order to faciliate understanding for the reader, definitions which are important to the concepts in this study with be outlined.  Definitions Important To The Study Confirmation.  Confirmation used in an interpersonal sense refers to any behavior that  causes another person to value himself/herself more (Sieburg & Larson, 1971). Confirmation responses indicate acceptance of self and relationship definitions as offered by the other. These positive responses communicate an endorsement or acceptance of the displayed qualities of the other (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).  1  Disconfirmation.  Disconfirmation used in an interpersonal sense refers to any  behavior that causes another person to value himself less (Sieburg & Larson, 1971). Disconfirmation communicates a failure or refusal to recognize the reality of the other's self and relationship definitions (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Rejection.  Rejection responses communicate recognition of the other's self definition,  but rejection of it (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).  Self-Validation.  Ishiyama  (1987) writes that "self- validation is the process of  restoring and reinforcing the sense of self-worth, meaning in life, and personal identity and competence through a variety of activities and interactions with the natural and social environments, and transcending these qualities to a spiritual level" (p. 7). Self-validation thus refers to the recognition and affirmation of all aspects of self and the value and meaning of personal existance (Ishiyama, 1989).  Self-Invalidation.  Self-invalidation is the process where a person's feelings, thoughts  and behaviors are counted as having no value. A person who feels invalidated feels worthless, useless, and hopeless in that they have difficulty seeing any meaning and purpose in life (Ishiyama, 1989).  Difference Between Confirmation and Self-Validafinn.  The major difference between  confirmation and self-validation is that confirmation deals with the dimensions of self-concept while self-validation goes further by including the dimensions of identity, spirituality, and meaning in life. Self-validation adds an existential component which addresses the following:  2  Why am I on this planet?  Who am I?  Where am I going?  What purpose does my life  serve? How can I be happy with myself and with another human being?  The Problem The area of marital satisfaction has been studied by many researchers (Montgomery • 1981; Laurence 1982; Matthews & Clark 1982; Beck 1983; Brillinger 1983; Cawsey 1985;) and all state that affirmation/validation is an integral part of a healthy functional relationship. One way which validation is given to the other person is through interpersonal speech communication  (Cissna 1976, Sieburg 1970,  Clarke 1973,  Larson 1975,  Montgomery 1981, Matthews & Clark 1982). Matthews and Clark (1982) found that subjects who felt validated by their spouses reported more relationship satisfaction, greater relationship stability, more assistance from their spouses in intellectual and emotional growth, and greater sexual satisfaction than did subjects who did not feel validated by their spouses. Validated individuals were highly satisfied with their marital relationships and they were highly certain that they would still be married to the same person in ten years.  The desire to be understood and accepted by a spouse does not fade away after the honeymoon stage of a marriage. Rather, it was found that individuals married for an average of 9.5 years continue to associate validation with a high degree of satisfaction in the marital relationship and non-validation with dissatisfaction in the marital relationship (Matthews &  3  Dark, 1982). The subject's own descriptions of the ways in which their spouses demonstrate understanding and acceptance of them do provide some evidence that validation ratings were based on perceptions of their partner's actual behaviors. Some behaviors which were described as validating were the willingness to listen, to attempt to understand and respond to emotional needs and difficulties, encouraging the pursuit of personally satisfying careers and outside interests and verbally expressing caring. Feelings of self-validation were extremely important to the individuals' feelings about themselves  and their relationships. How an individual  perceives themselves as being validated or invalidated by their partner affects how satisfied they felt in their relationship. The subject of relationship self-validation is not well researched and there is no comprehensive scale which measures feelings of validation within relationships. The only similar scale is one developed by Sieburg (1973), which is a six-item summated scale of the Likert type which measures feelings of œnfirmation/disconfirrnation. As a result, this author has developed an instrument which measures a person's subjective experience of feeling validated in relationships based on Ishiyama's (1989) Model of Self-validation.  In an unpublished paper, Ishiyama  (1987 & 1989) has developed eight basic  assumptions on self-validation, which are to be tested in research. One of the assumptions is that the quality of self-validation practiced in the interpersonal context (Le., social self-validation) is the primary determinant of people's mental health and emotional development This author has attempted to address this question in this study. Development of the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale is one part of this study, with correlational work with the constructs of relationship satisfaction and mental health being being the latter part.  4  Research Question and Hypothèses Research Question  Is the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale a reliable and valid instrument? The following hypotheses are tested regarding the psychometric properties of the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale:  Research Hypothèses 1. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale will have internal reliability as measured by item-total correlations, Cronbach alpha value and test-retest correlations.  2. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale will be positively correlated with the Perceived Confirmation Scale to support the former's criterion-related validity. 3. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale will be positively correlated with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale to support the former's predictive validity.  4. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale will be negatively correlated with Rosenberg's Self Esteem Scale to support the former's predictive validity.  5. TheDyadic Partner Validation Scale will be negatively correlated with Hopkins Symptom Checklist to support the former's predictive validity.  5  CHAPTER n. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  Theoretical Underpinnings To validate another person is to recognize, acknowledge and endorse the uniqueness that is the other person, in terms of their self-worth, identity, competence and meaning in life (Ishiyama, 1987, 1989). To be with another person in a way that communicates the uniqueness of the other person is to engage in the most intimate of human acts: interpersonal speech communication. Cissna (1976) writes that interpersonal confirmation may be the most pervasive dimension in human communication. There are two theoretical explanations of interpersonal œnfirmation developed by Evelyn Sieburg (1970) and Carl Larson (1975). Both theories are concerned with: a) ways individuals communicate confirmation or disconfirmation in their interpersonal relationships and; b) with the relationship aspect of communication and the ways in which these communicative acts influence an individual's self-worth. Montgomery (1981) and Clarke (1973) further develop the importance of confirmation in marital relationships.  The latter part of the review explains the phenomenon of marital satisfaction, followed by an extensive review of Ishiyama's Model of Self-Validation which the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale (DPVS) was based upon. The review is concluded with a discussion of validation and marital satisfaction.  6  Siehurg's Theory of Interpersonal Confirmation  Sieburg  (1970) has derived five criteria that are characteristic of confirming  communication. She states that human communication is called confirming to the extent that it performs the following functions: a) it expresses recognition of the other person's existence; b) it expreses recognition of the other as a unique person, not a role or an object; acknowledges the significance of the other person;  c) it  d) it expresses acceptance of the other  person's way of experiencing the world; and e) it expresses concern for the other person and a willingness to be involved with him, that is, it imparts value to the relationship.  Sieburg's (1970) theory of interpersonal confirmation then moves to the distinction between messages and the accompanying meta-messages which are present in any communicative act  The meta-message in human communication concerns the nature of the  relationship between the interacting inividuals and has in fact been called the relationship aspect of a message, as distinguished from the content aspect (Watzlawick, Beavin,& Jackson, 1967).  Sieburg (1976) has identified four meta-messages which can be implicit in a person's communication which have confirmmg/disconfirming implications to the other. The first confirming meta-message is "You exist" and the corresponding disconfirming meta-message is "You do not exist" The implications of these mesages to the individual's self-experience arise from the existential fear of non-being.  7  The second confirming meta-message is "You are worthwhile," while the disconfirming meta-message is "You do not matter," perhaps with the addendus "because you are uninteresting or unimportant" Because each person has deep doubts about his or her own worth, this meta-message arouses intense fears of being unnoticed. The third confirming meta-message is "I accept your way of perceiving," while the disconfirming meta-message is "I deny your way of perceiving." Here the implications to self arise out of the fear of guilt, shame or condemnation. Lastly, Sieburg (1976) states that the fourth confirming meta-message is "We are relating" and the disconfirming meta-message is "We are not relating." The dynamic of this meta- message arises out of a fear of alienation, loneliness or abandonment  Building on these critera and the meta-messages implicit in any communicative act, the heart of Sieburg's (1976) theory is contained in four primary themes, which constitute propositions or predictions about the nature of different confirmmg/dlsconfmning behaviors. Firstly, it is more confirming to acknowledge another persons' existence than to treat him as nonexistent Secondly it is more confirming to accept another's feelings than to deny, modify, interpret, or evaluate them. Thirdly, it is more confirming to respond conjuctively than disjunctively. While her most recent version of this theory does not explicitly identify this final theme, it is implied: personal response is more confirming than impersonal response (Cissna, 1976).  8  In summary, this theory centres on the implicit meta-messages that accompany any communication and which have implication regarding the nature of an interpersonal relationship. These meta-messages ultimately define four types of interpersonal confirmation/discxinfirrnation, as indicated by the four themes which constitute testable predictions about interpersonal confirmation.  T.arsrm's Theory o f Interpersonal Confirmation  Carl Larson (1975) had not intended his theory to be one of interpersonal confirmation. It constitutes a theoretical explanation of what Dance and Larson (1976) call the "linking function" of human communication at the interpersonal level. However, because of the way they chose to describe human interpersonal linking, this theory can be seen as an explanation of the same events as Sieburg's (1975). This theory's fundamental concern is the way in which individuals perceive themselves and others communicating different levels of acceptance and rejection in their interpersonal relationships.  Dance and Larson (1976) state that one of the natural and inevitable results of human communication is that individuals "link" themselves with other individuals and with their environment This, "linking function'' occurs through establishing a relationship between one's self and others. Two basic assumptions are: a) most communicative acts involve some degree of disclosure; and b) acts of disclosure involverisk.What isriskedin any human communicative event is the image the individual holds of his or her self. The individual risks having that self-image rejected by another with whom the individual is in contact From this, Larson (1975)  9  derives his fundamental proposition that an individual's communicative linkages with o&i.** take two basic forms: acceptance and rejection. According to Dance and Larson (1976), not all human communicative acts involve accepting or rejecting the self-image of the individual. Therefore, this theory describes the behavior of the receiver of a communicative act and focuses on those responses which would cause an "orientational shift" away from the content of the message toward an evaluation of either one's own or the other's self.  Dance and Larson (1976) state that there are four classes of responses which can cause an orientational shift toward the relationship and toward an evaluation of an individual's self. These categories are a) explicit rejection; b) implicit rejection; c) explicit acceptance; and d) implicit acceptance. If the self-image of an individual is accepted and reinforced, then everything continues as before. It is when the self-image of an individual is rejected, that interesting consequences occur.  As a result of responses which reject an individuals' self- image, one of three paths can be chosen by the individual. Dance and Larson (1976) state that the first impact which may occur is a réévaluation of the other. If the other's responses to a person are inconsistent with the person's self-image, one likely alternative is to reevaluate the individual who is perceived as doing the rejecting. This is frequently less stressful than questioning the validity of one's own self-image.  A second possible impact is to amplify the aspect of self that is being rejected. If an individual perceives another as rejecting an aspect of the first individual's self-image, the  10  individual may attempt to portray that aspect of self even stronger - to amplify it - in order to finally, somehow have it be accepted and appreciated by the other. The third possible impact is that an individual may attempt to salvage those aspects of self that can be salvaged. When some aspects of self, having been rejected by others, are then abandoned, other aspects of self are frequently gained, aspects that were not previously part of the individual's self-image (Dance & Larson, 1976). Which of these impacts is most likely to occur depends on three factors: a) the certainty of the self-image; b) the importance of the other, and c) the consistency of the other's responses. When the rejected aspect of one's self is held with great certainty, the individual is likely to reevaluate the other. When the other who is perceived as doing the rejecting is very important to the individual, the individual is likely to amplify or increase the efforts to project that aspect of self. When the responses of others are fairly consistent in rejecting an aspect of an individual's self, it is likely that the individual will salvage those aspects of self that have been accepted or confirmed by others (Dance & Larson, 1976).  In summary, Dance and Larson (1976) isolate those communicative behaviors which are thought to cause m orientational shift away from the topic of discussion and toward the nature of the interpersonal relationship and toward an evaluation of the self- images of one or both of the parties engaged in the interaction. This theory focuses on those instances in which rejection of the individual's self-image occurs. Specific predictions are made regarding which of three impacts rejection is likely to have depending on the three related variables.  11  Differences between Siehnrg's and Larson's Theories o f Interpersonal Confirmation  There are a number of ways in which these two theories differ and three differences will be discussed. The first difference involves which communicative acts are involved in interpersonal confirmation. Sieburg (1970) seems to imply that all communications have confirming or disconfirming consequences, while Larson (1975) is only concerned with some communicative acts, those which cause an orientational shift It is always the receiver who determines whether the communication is confirming or disconfirming. What may cause an orientation shift in one person may not in the next One can speculate that the certainty of a person's self-concept may be influential in determing whether an orientational shift is likely to occur or not  There is a great deal of similarity in the types of responses which Sieburg (1970) and Larson (1976) see as œnfirrnmg/disœnfirming, but there is at least one type of response which is present in Sieburg's theory, but not in Larson's. Sieburg includes as her final theme that personal responses are more confirming than impersonal responses. This theme seems to imply that self-disclosure is experienced as confirming to another. This type of response is not present in Larson's theory.  A second difference between the theories is i n the way i n which confirmation/disconfirmation is conceptualized. For Sieburg, there seems to be degrees of confirming and disconfirming behaviors while Larson seems to imply that confirmation/disinformation is an either/or phenomenon. There is no provision for feeling slightly confirmed or slightly disconfirmed. If the orientational shift does occur, then the  12  inividual either feels confirmed or disconfirmed. It may be that human perceptions of confirmation are interpreted as either you are accepting me or you are rejecting me (Cissna, 1976). A third difference involves the level of predictive specificity which they each achieve. Sieburg (1970) provides a testable structure of œnfirming and disconfirming behavior, but she does not delineate any differential responses to the various conditions, and one wonders what to do with i t Larson (1975) provides three testable propositions concerning the responses of individuals to various disconfirming events (he does not concern himself with the consequences of confirming communication). Larson (1976) formulates the following: a) an individual encountering rejection will reevaluate the other if the rejected individual is certain of his own disparged self-image; b) that an individual encountering rejection will amplify that aspect of self-image which was rejected if the rejecting other is especially important to the individual; and c) that an individual encountering rejection will modify or revise that aspect of self-image which was rejected if the rejection is consistent with responses provided by others and if the total set of responses encountered by the individual forms a highly consistent pattern.  Interpersonal Confirmation Within Marriage Montgomery (1981) has defined the form and function of quality communication in marriage as the interpersonal, transactional, symbolic process by which marriage partners achieve and maintain understanding of each other. She states that quality communication consists of four major components: a) openness; b) confirmation; c) transactional management; and d)  13  situational adaptability. It is the second component of œnfirmation which is of particular interest and significance to this study. Montgomery (1981) has hypothesized that levels of reported or observed confirmatory communication in marital interactions are positively related to levels of marital satisfaction. To further develop the concept of confirmation, Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) discuss three communication responses which summarize forms of relational feedback - confirmation, rejection, and disconfirmation. These researchers state that confirmation responses indicate acceptance of self and relationship definitions as offered by the other. These positive responses communicate an endorsement or acceptance of the displayed qualities of the other. Rejection responses communicate recognition of the other's self definition, but rejection of it. Disconfirmation communicates a failure or refusal to recognize the reality of the other's self and relationship definitions.  Montgomery (1981) has hypothesized that levels of reported or observed confirmatory communication in marital interactions are positively related to levels of marital satisfaction. This author believes that good communication skills are positively related to marital relationships with high satisfaction, therefore good communication is necessary for self-validation in marriage. Within marriage, mutual validation becomes extremely important, where partners validate each other and help the spouse to self-validate. Due to the nature of marital relationships, spousal acceptance or rejection of the other's self definition becomes a major contributor to psychological well-being. In marriages where there is mutual validation, there are more realistic interpersonal expectations, relational responses are more appropriate and communication is open. Partners  14  feel more confident in their self-definitions because they know that their partner shares that definition. Within marriages, spouses often share information about their perceptions of the relationship. Based on these perceptions, they are negotiating a relationship definition which is a description of all aspects of their relationship. If a mutually acceptable relationship definition cannot be established, a common ground for interaction cannot exist and the marital system breaks down (Montgomery, 1981). She proposes that mutual validation and relationship definitions are presented as the two fundamental products of quality communication.  Based on the above theories, Clarke (1973) attempted to discover which of three interpersonal variables would be the best predictor of marital satisfaction-attraction in each of three stages in marital relationships. He hypothesized that different variables would be the best predictors in different stages of the relationship. Besides perceived confirmation (as measured by the Perceived Confirmation Scale; Sieburg, 1973), he examined the extent of mutual self-disclosure and the degree of predictive accuracy exhibited by the couples. He found that perceived confirmation accounted for more variance in satisfaction-attraction in these marriages in all three stages than either of the other variables. Interpersonal confirmation accounted for 53%, 43% and 50% of marital satisfaction-attraction respectively in each of the three stages, while self-disclosure and accuracy contributed non-significant additional predictive ability in each instance.  15  The Phenomenon of Marital Satisfaction Hicks and Piatt (1970) in their review of research on marital happiness and stability in the sixties, found difficulties in conceptualizing marital satisfaction. A decade later, S panier and Lewis (1980) diet a review of research on marital quality in the seventies and found that there was still considerable difficulties with defining marital satisfaction. Burr (1973) stated that marital satisfaction is a subjective phenomenon which occurs within individuals. He defines marital satisfaction as the degree to which the desires of the individual are fulfilled which is then perceived as satisfaction with the marriage as a whole. This variable is perceived in varying degrees from low to high satisfaction. Another researcher of marital satisfaction who has attempted a definition is Hawkins (1968). His definition of marital satisfaction as the subjective feelings of happiness, satisfaction, and pleasure experienced by a spouse when considering all current aspects of his marriage. This variable is perceived as a continuum running from much satisfaction to much dissatisfaction. Marital satisfaction is clearly an attiradinal variable and is thus a property of individual spouses. Marital satisfaction is a global measurement in the sense that the respondent is asked to express his feelings of satisfaction or dissasrisfaction regarding large numbers of specific facets of the marriage by responding to a few questions phrased very generally.  It is not an easy task to define the dependent variable of marital satisfaction or that there only several definitions to choose from. Unfortunately, neither is the case. The task is complex and it is probably not possible at this time to achieve a consensus about what the term  16  satisfaction denotes. There is ambiguity in the research completed and among the unambiguous definitions there are two fairly inçompatiable points of view. One point .of view is that satisfaction is the amount of congruence between the exectations a person has and the rewards the person actually receives. The other point of view is that satisfaction is a subjectively experienced phenomenon of pleasure versus displeasure, contentment versus discontentment, or happiness versus unhappiness.  In today's society, marriage has become a bond based primarily on psychological and emotional needs. People are still getting married and generally expecting that their spouse will become their best friend, lover and source of primary emotional gratification (Amnions & Stinnett, 1980). Couples enter marriage confident that their relationship will transcend the divorce rates and be a happy satisfying and fulfiling one. This puts a new burden upon today's marriages. As Broderick (1979) pointed out, one of the consequences of the existential revolution is that couples have changed their standards for a good relationship. Even among traditional couples, it is not enough for each person to do his or her duty, love and marriage are supposed to bring happiness as well as satisfaction.  There has been an abundance of quanitative research exarnining factors influencing marital satisfaction. However, there appears to be only four studies that used the qualitative procedure of existential-phenomenological investigation to study marital satisfaction. These studies were done by Laurence (1982); Beck (1983); Brillinger (1983); and Cawsey (1985).  Laurence (1982) interviewed twenty-five couples who had been married from one-and-a-half to twenty-five years with a mean of 6.81 years of marriage. Laurence summarized  17  his results by identifying "ground" descriptors which he feels are the foundations or melody for happily married people. His ground descriptors were commitment, common sense, practicality, a willingness to assume personal responsibility for their lives, humour, strong coalitions and boundary formation, a warm and pleasant atmosphere in the relationship, and "couple constancy." Laurence (1982) stated that these descriptors are elements of identity formation and that a solid and growth producing identity and identity as a couple are the foremost characteristics of these couples.  He also identifies secondary descriptors which he metaphorically refers to as the words each couple writes for their song. He found the secondary descriptors to have a high degree of variability through his sample. The secondary descriptors included: closeness, mythology, negotiation, clarity of communication, invasiveness, conflict, problem-solving, sexuality, intamacy, chores and similarities/differences. These descriptors are the sort of items that are generally categorized as growth, self-fulfillment and affiliation. He also states that the one element that all the happily married couples exhibit is couple constancy. He says that couple constancy means that they both show a strong sense of being a couple and a belief in the ability of the relationship to endure and prosper. Faith in the ability to thrive as a couple and to master the storms of life anchors them in the world of others. Quick to assume personal responsibility for the quality of their lives, these couples show commitment to the relationship, a willingness to work hard and to carve out possibilities for meaning in their relationship. Laurence (1980) is careful to point out that couple constancy is not a trait but rather a multivariate construct He feels that the couple constancy process begins very early in the relationship and that his couples stated that finding someone with similar goals, compatible values and someone whom  18  one has fun and simply enjoys being with are the first steps in the process of becoming a couple. Beck (1983) interviewed fifteen couples married for more than twenty-five years. She did a qualitative descriptive analysis of the themes she extracted from her interviews. Beck (1983) found six basic themes which the couples described. They stated that their relationships consisted of: (a) a continuing process of commitment which satisfied personal needs and thereby deepened commitment to the sustained relationship; (b) a sharing of self through self-disclosure increased the desire to remain in the marriage and work towards its enhancement; (c) the building of mutual memories which were a significant part of their long term marriage relationship; (d) experiencing a distancing that occurs in the natural ebb and flow of life and during crisis: (e) experiencing a shifting from self-orientation to a oneness of being in the world while retaining individuality; and (f) a branching outward of impact upon the lives of others such as children, extended family and friends.  Brillinger (1983) interviewed forty individuals, twenty male and twenty females who had been married for a minimum of ten years. She was not looking at marital satsifaction per se but rather at planned changes that individuals in satisfying marriages make to enhance their relationship. She asked them what marital satisfaction meant to them as applied to their own marriage. She then developed themes from her interview. The themes in the order of frequency were: (a) sharing and companionship, (this was mentioned more than three times as often as the next more frequently identified ingredient, she reports.) Brillinger (1983) also stated that 78% of the subjects mentioned some form of sharing as contributing to their feelings of wellbeing around the marriage. In the study, the sharing of activities, interests, values and goals,  19  experiences, friendships, a philosophy of life, tasks and responsibilities were the most frequently identified contributors to people's satisfaction with their marriage; (b) comfort, contentment, fulfillment; (c) support and security; (d) handling of differences; (e) verbal sharing and openness; (f) feelings of acceptance and closeness (g) commitment to the relationship; (h) autonomy; (i) stimulation and growth; (j) enjoyment and excitaient; and (k) trust and respect Cawsey (1985) interviewed five married individual, three females and two males, who had been married for ten years or longer. They were selected on the basis that they were experiencing  satisfaction  in their marriage  by their own reckoning. The  existential-phenomenological approach was used which resulted in the explication of fifteen themes which are: (a) ease of communication; (b) self-disclosures; (c) emotional commitment; (d) intimacy; (e) values consensus; (f) shared goals; (g) couple solidarity; (h) respect; (j) joie de vivre (someone with whom one enjoys being with and has fun with; (j) complementary differences; (k) autonomy/dependence; (1) realstic outlook on marriage and life; (m) strong personal identity; (n) emotional security/support ; and (o) existential couple identity.  In summary, marital satisfaction is a multivariate phenomenon that fluctuates during the course of the marriage. Marital satisfaction requires an effective ease of communication between partners. This includes day-to-day communication of a functional and preventative nature and, on a deeper level, self-disclosure exists that is therapeutic and growth producing for the relationship. A strong emotional commitment to the relationship is present It includes a deep sense of faith in the partner and the marriage. This manifests itself in a responsibility to, and for, the marital bond. It is built and maintained through relationship work and tolerance.  20  Intimacy is valued and occurs on intellectual, emotional and physical levels. It helps in keeping the relationship vital and alive. Values consensus is basic to the satisfaction of the marriage. Partners experience a trust in each other and the relationship which stems from knowing their respective values have remained congruent over the course of the marriage. Couple and individual goals are shared and supported in the relationship. This gives the relationship direction and satisfaction in the present and positive feelings for the future. A feeling of couple solidarity is prevalent in the marriage. It is an experience of togetherness wherein one finds support for the common challenges in life. This solidarity is epitomized by the feeling of "we did it together" that may be experienced after going through a crisis together or simply being together and feeling good about it over the years.  Typical of the interconnectedness of the experience of marital satisfaction is the theme of respect A difficult concept to clearly define in terms of a marriage, it is perhaps best described as a positive regard that one feels for and, in turn, feels from one's partner. The relationship is fun to be in. This is experienced as an overall feeling of a "joie de vivre.'' The difference in character of the partners is not only accepted but adds to each partner's sense of completeness and satisfaction with the marriage. The relationship offers a balance of autonomy/dependence that both partners thrive upon.  People experiencing marital satisfaction accept their partners short comings and recognize that one must allow for unrealistic ideals related to being married. To deal with the realities of life and marriage, partners need to be able to draw on their personal resources grounded in a strong personal identity. A strong personal identity is in turn supported and nurtured through a  21  relationship which offers emotional security and support Marital satisfaction occurs in the context of a relationship which allows one to "refuel" and to experience a "gentle kind of love."  The experience of marital satisfaction occurs on the level of existential couple identity. Intertwined with couple solidarity, existential couple identity is experienced more on an affective level than the cognitive/behavioral make-up of couple solidarity. It involves being a couple because of choice that provides meaning in life. In the aforementioned studies, a theme of mutual validation is apparent as being one of the major contributors to relationship satisfaction.  Ishiyama's Model of Self-Validation Ishiyama's (1989) model of self-validation served as the conceptual guide for developing the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale. Ishiyama (1987) writes that " self-validation is the process of restoring and reinforcing the sense of self-worth, meaning in life, and personal identity and competence through a variety of activities and interactions with the natural and social environments, and transcending these qualities to a spiritual level" (p. 7). Self-validation thus refers to the recognition and affirmation of all aspects of self and the value and meaning of personal existance (Ishiyama, 1989). According to Ishiyama (1989), people are motivated to restore, maintain and enhance the sense of self by various activities in the physical, social and personal dimensions.  The model of self-validation contains five major thematic components: a) security, comfort, and support; b) self-worth and self-acceptance; c) competence and autonomy; d) identity  22  and belonging, and e) love, fulfillment, and meaning in life; see Figure 1. These components are in contrast to those of self-invalidation. Social reinforcers surround these self-validation components which then shape and reward socially acceptable behaviors (Ishiyama, 1989). These thematic components are not independent of each other. Rather, they are closely related and interactive with each other, and it is impossible to discuss one component without referring to the rest For the purpose of this study, they will be discussed seperately. These psychological components provide a focus for discussion and self-exploration, and a framework for identifying how one is validated or invalidated through physical, social, and personal activity dimensions (Ishiyama, 1989). These components will be discussed in relation to the social activity dimension, in particular to an individual's significant partner.  Most relationships have difficulties and some of these individuals may seek counselling. If this occurs, the problems that the couple may be experiencing can usually be found to be occuring in one or several of the thematic components of the self validation model. The counsellor can then explore these different areas with the couple, using the scale reported in the present thesis. When describing each of the thematic components, the author will also endeavor to present possible questions which the counsellor could ask the couple. It was found that these questions were important to the wellbeing and satisfaction of the relationship. It showed the importance of developing an instrument which would measure these components in a self-report fashion which could be answered and scored quickly. This assessment tool could then save the counsellor having to obtain this information through the counselling process, and the assessment tool could help the individuals in the relationship to focus on specific behaviors  23  Social Reinlorcers vs. Lack ol Social Reinlorcers  Social Reinlorcers vs. Lack ol Social Reinlorcers  Competence & Autonomy vs. Incompelence & Helplessness  Identity & Belonging vs. Identity Loss & Alienation  Sell-Worth & Self-Acceptance vs. Self-Deprecation & Self-Rejection  Security, Comfort, & Support vs. Insecurity, Discomlort, & Abandonment  Social Reinlorcers vs. Lack of Social Reinlorcers  Social Reintorcers vs. Lack ol Social Reinlorcers  Psychological Themes and Components of Self-Validation  Source:  Ishiyama,(1989) & Ishiyama & Westwood, (1992)  24  within the relationship as they relate to relationship validation. The scale could be used as a training guideline in terms of teaching specific skills necessary for a validating relationship.  Security. Comfort, and Support  Ishiyama (1989) states that the first component of the self- validation model is "concerned with the feelings of physical and emotional security and comfort, protection, familiarity with the environment, predictability, and social support among others. The. experience of self-invaliation, on the other hand, may be characterized by the feelings of insecurity, discomfort, abandonment, and others" (pp. 42-43). Partners in relationships have a need to know that their relationships are secure and that there is a stability and future, irregardless of any immediate problems they may be having. Support for each individual in the relationship is integral to feeling secure and to feeling wanted and needed. When partners begin to feel insecure, blaming begins, and the negative effects begin to spill over into the other thematic components.  In exploring and assessing relationship dynamics, it is also essential to look at how each individual validates themselves or if they expect their partner to validate them in all ways. Relationship validation is important and necessary, but it needs to be balanced with self-validation. Important areas to explore are those of self-esteem, self-respect, confidence, meeting one's own needs and wants, outside support systems and each persons self-talk. In their self-talk, do they support and comfort themselves and their partner, or do they criticize and judge themselves and their partner. The principal questions here are: How does your partner help to make you feel secure, supported and at home? What kinds of activities contribute to generating such feelings in you? Another way of exploring this component is: How does your  25  partner make you feel insecure, anxious and abandoned and in what ways? What activities are missing in your life?  Self-Worth and Self-Acceptance  The second component of the self-validation model (Ishiyama, 1989) is "concerned with self-worth and self- acceptance in contrast to self-deprecation and self-rejection. Positive self-evalation and unconditional self-acceptance form the basis for internalizing security and developing healthy and genuine relationships with others" (p. 45).  Partners who feel invalidated in relationships feel misunderstood and rejected by the other partner. This in turn effects one's self-esteem and results in loss of respect and confidence which could lead into feelings of hopelessness and depression. Communication difficulties, blaming and distancing set in motion a cycle of self-deprecation and rejection, and both partners may end up feeling trapped. Partners may then find that they are protecting themselves from more hurt and disappointment and more defenses are set in place. Thoughts of separation and divorce may set in. This loss of self-esteem may also spill into other areas of their lives such as parenting, work life, social life etc. and another vicious cycle is begun where the partners may begin to feel like they are failures in their lives. The principal questions here are: How does your partner help you to feel a sense of unconditional self-worth and self-acceptance? Another way of exploring this component is: How does your partner make you feel invalidated, rejected and belittled?  26  Competency and Autonomy The third component of the self-validation model (Ishiyama, 1989) is "concerned with the areas and the degrees of competence and autonomy experienced in various dimensions of life ( e.g., social, vocational, intellectual, physical, financial, etc.). The invaliating experience, on the other hand may be characterized by feelings of incompetence and helplessness (p. 46). When relationships are in difficulty, each partner's competency suffers. They may feel like they are failures in their relationship and that they can't do anything right It could then become a trap of why bother, because it is not going to work anyways. Feelings of discouragement, hopelessness and helplessness need to be acknowledged. Partners may respond in one of two ways, with more distancing or more enmeshment and dependence. One's sense of autonomy may be compromised. Partners may begin doing things that they never thought that they would do, all in an attempt to acheive some success in the relationship. The principal questions here are: How does your partner help you to appreciate and validate the competent and autonomous self and in which activities and aspects of life? Another way of exploring this component is: How does your partner make you feel incompetent, powerless and helpless? Identity and Belonging  The fourth component of the self-validation model (Ishiyama, 1989) is "concerned with identity and a sense of belonging. Issues such as identity crisis, loss of status, role confusion, and social exclusion are important concerns for people of all ages (Erikson, 1968)  people  define themselves in terms of physical appearance, gender and sexuality, occupation, reference  27  groups, social status, academic achievement, roles, religion, and political and philsophical orientations. Different degrees of personal significance and priority are attached to these roles. In this modeL identity is considered to be multi-lateral. Self is defined at any or all of the following levels: physical, familial, socio-cultural (gender, role-related, activity-related, vocational, racial-ethnic, etc), transcultural-individual, and transpersonal (collective and spiritual). Certain levels of self tend to take a more dominant role in forming one's conscious self identity (p. 48).  One's identity and sense of belonging are threatened when relationship problems exist Feelings of insecurity, frustration and loss can be intense. The principal questions here are: How does your partner validate who you are? What activities do you do apart and together? How does your partner help you to feel like you belong? Another way of exploring this component is: How does your partner invalidate who you are and make you feel alienated?  Love. Fulfillment, and Meaning in Life  Finally, the fifth component of the self-validation model (Ishiyama, 1989) "is the central theme in human existance, a holistic dimension of love, fulfillment, and meaning in life. It concerns the quality of life. People desire to live constructively and harmoniously in their private and social domains of life. Invalidation of the core of personal existence may be reflected in feelings of lovelessness, emptiness, and meaninglessness. Specific activities and experiences, closely related to the above-mentioned four components, may play a significant role in restoring and strengthening these holistic intrapersonal and interpersonal qualities'' (p. 51). In the process of validating the self, social reinforcers are involved in conditioning, shaping, modeling and  28  rewarding socially acceptable behaviors and they serve as externally contributing factors in self-validation. Social reinforcers influence people's sense of emotional security, self-worth, competence, identity, and meaning and fulfillment in life (Ishiyama, 1989). Relationships are one of the primary sources where individuals experience love, fulfillment and meaning in life. When the relationship is in distress, lack of intimacy, invalidation and hopelessness take the place of happiness, hope and emotional well-being. If the relationship is to stay together, the counsellor can assist the partners in finding love, fulfillment and meaning in themselves, the relationship and in life. New ways of relating can be found and change can take place. The principal questions here are: How does your partner give you meaning in life, a sense of fulfillment and the opportunities to experience love and caring for self and others? Another way of exploring this component is: How does your partner contribute to you feeling lovelessness, emptiness, goallessness and meaninglessness?  Validation and Marital Satisfaction Matthews and Clark (1982) completed a study with sixty married couples. They hypothesized that the need for affirmation from a significant other person was a major motivating factor in the establishment of long-term, intimate relationships and that equity and satisfaction in a marital relationship depends, to a large part, on whether an individual experiences the relationship as personally validating. It was proposed that the perception that the spouse understands the individual in basically the same way that they understand themselves (empathy) is very important The perception that the spouse accepts and appreciates the individual on the  29  basis of this understanding; that is, as the individual "really is" is crucial Their study measured the relationship between validation, equity, and relationship satisfaction for couples involved in their relationship at the "working" phase of their relationship. That is couples who have passed through the "honeymoon" stage of their relationship and are now settling down to the business of making the relationship work for a lifetime. Matthews and Clark (1982) found that subjects who felt validated by their spouses reported more relationship satisfaction, greater relationship stability, more assistance from their spouses in intellectual and emotional growth, and greater sexual satisfaction than did subjects who did not feel validated by their spouses. Validated individuals were highly satisfied with their marital relationships and they were highly certain that they would still be married to the same person in 10 years.  According to the findings in Matthews's and Clark's 1982 study, the desire for understanding and acceptance from a spouse does not fade away after the honeymoon stage of a marriage. Rather, it was found that individuals married for an average of 9.5 years continue to associate validation with a high degree of satisfaction in the marital relationship and non-validation with dissatisfaction in the marital relationship. The subjects' own descriptions of the ways in which their spouses demonstrate understanding and acceptance of them do provide some evidence that validation ratings were based on perceptions of partner's actual behaviors. Some behaviors which were described as validating are the willingness to listen, to attempt to understand and respond to emotional needs and difficulties, encouraging the pursuit of personally satisfying careers and outside interests and verbally expressing caring.  30  Validated subjects perceived their spouses as providing more assistance for intellectual and emotional growth than did non-validated subjects. Individuals in mutually validating relationships experienced their relationships as a vehicle for personal growth. They viewed their partners as helpful in assisting them to learn about, and understand new ideas and helpful in assisting them to learn about themselves and to grow emotionally. Thus, validating relationships are likely to generate the excitement associated with expanding one's intellectual and emotional capabilities. This excitement may provide an important antidote for feelings of boredom and stagnation which may infect a long-term intimate relationship once the romantic glow begins to fade (Walster & Walster, 1978).  In summation, the review of the literature supports that relationship validation is an important factor to the well-being of dyadic relationships and families. To be able to validate a person in all aspects appears to be essential to the well-being of that person and the stability of the relationship. Due to the importance of this concept in everyday life and in relationship counselling, the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale was developed and validated based on Ishiyamas' (1987, 1989) model of self-validation. It was considered that the development of the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale would be of benefit in relationship counselling.  31  CHAPTER m. METHODOLOGY  A correlational analysis was completed using the following dependent variables: 1) relationship validation; 2) relationship satisfaction; 3) perceived confirmation; 4) self- esteem; and 5) neurotic symptoms.  Subjects Data were collected from three different sources for subjects, making up three groups: two groups of students at the University of British Columbia and Fraser Valley College; and a clinical group at Pacifica Alcohol and Drug Treatment Centre, all located in the Vancouver lower mainland.  The subjects were recruited in the following manner. For UBC, the 1990 Spring/Summer Course Catalogue was used, where the author chose all 3.0 unit courses which ran for 6 weeks to be the target for subjects. Each professor who was named in the catalogue received a letter requesting their cooperation in soliciting volunteer subjects for the study; see Appendix A . Enclosed with the letter was a short description of the purpose and significance of the study; see Appendix B. When the author visited the classrooms and made the request for volunteers, only "those students who were interested in the study completed the questionnaire as they were required to do this on their own time.  32  For Ûie group of Fraser Valley College (FVQ, the author went to three classrooms in the Social Services Program. Two of the three classes were Social Services students and one class was Criminology students. The professors of these classes gave the author classtime to complete the questionnaire and as a result all students completed the questionnaire, including those who would not have completed the survey if it was completed on a volunteer basis. For the group of Pacifica Alcohol and Drug Treatment Centre (Pacifica), all clients who attended Pacifica for two concurrent months, completed the questionnaire on their first full day of treatment Intake ocurred every two weeks.  Instrumentation Each participant in the study received a battery of five scales. Each package of questionnaires had a cover letter with a short questionnaire to gather information for the independent variables; see Appendix C. The scales completed were: 1. Dyadic Partner Validation Scale - Appendix D 2. Dyadic Adjustment Scale - Appendix E 3. Perceived Confirmation Scale - Appendix F 4. Hopkins Symptom Checklist - Appendix G 5. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale - Appendix H  33  Hopkins Symptom Checklist rHSCLl The HSCL was developed by Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, and Covi (1974) who reported high validity and reliability on large sample populations. Waskow and Parloff (1975) recommended this scale as a core battery for psychotherapy outcome research.  This study used the 5-dimensional 45-item HSCL (a  condensed form of the 58- item version based on factor analysis) which was reported to have high internal consistency for each neurotic dimension (Derogatis, et al, 1974, pp. 84-85).  The HSCL yields five scores for the following five dimensions. The somatization dimension represent physiological reactions such as headaches, dizziness, low energy, hot/cold spells, and lump in throat The obsessive-compulsive dimension represents such cognitive disturbances such as memory problems, blocked feelings, the need to double check things, mind going blank, and trouble concentrating. The interpersonal sensitivity dimension represents negative and vulnerable experiences such as feeling negatively treated by others, irritation, temper outbursts, not being understood, and feelings of inferiority. The depression dimension represents reactions such as suicidal thoughts, poor appetite, crying easily, feeling trapped, selfblame, loneliness, and hopelessness.  The anxiety dimension represents involuntary phobic  reactions such as trembling, fearfulness, heart pounding, the urge to avoid objects and situations, and tenseness.  The Dyadic Adjustment Scale fDASV The Dyadic Adjustment Scale was developed by Graham B. Spanier in 1976 to measure the dependent variable of marital satisfaction. The instrument consists of 32 items which can be completed in. a few minutes with the overall resulting score of dyadic adjustment ranging from 0-151. Additional scores are derived from  34  the following subscales: Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Cohesion and Affectional Cohesion. Spanier (1976) defines dyadic adjustment as a process, the outcome of which is determined by the degree of troublesome dyadic differences, interpersonal tensions and personal anxiety, dyadic cohesion and dyadic satisfaction. More simply stated, dyadic adjustment is an ever changing process with a qualitative dimension which can be evaluated at any point in time on a continuum from well-adjusted to maladjusted. Reliability and Validity. Reliability estimates of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and its subscales ranged from i - .73 to i - .96. Criterion-related validity (which encompasses both predictive and concurrent validity) was assessed by administering the scale to a sample of 218 married persons and 94 divorced persons. For each item, the divorced sample differed significantly from the married sample using a t-test for assessing differences between sample means (Spanier, 1976). Construct validity (the extent to which a test measures a theoretical construct or trait) was established by determining whether the Dyadic Adjustment Scale measured the same general construct as a well accepted marital adjustment scale the Locke-Wallace. The correlation between the two scales was i - .86 among married respondents and r - .88 amongst divorced respondents (p.<001) (Spanier, 1976). Perceived Confirmation Scale (PCS) This scale determines the extent to which an individual feels confirmed by another individual as developed by Sieburg (1973) (sometimes called the Perceived Confirmation Inventory). The PCS is a six-item summated scale of the  35  Likert type, including three reverse scored items. It yields a maximum perceived confirmation score of 42. Clarke (1973) was the first to determine test-retest reliability for the PCS. Administrations given three weeks apart with twenty subjects yielded a correlation coefficient of i - .70. Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale fRSE^ The Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is a 10-item Guttman Scale designed to measure the totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object Subjects are instructed to respond to the items on a four point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The items on this questionnaire were grouped into six categories or items yielding a maximum score of four for each item. Rosenberg noted that the ten questions can be added together to derive a total score. This method of scoring was used in the current investigation. Internal reliability coefficients of v .92 were reported by Rosenberg (1969). Test-retest reliability coefficients over a two week period of .85 were reported by Silber and Tippet (1965). Rosenberg (1969) tested the construct validity of the scale by looking at the relationship between self-esteem, depressive affect, anxiety and peer group reputation. He found a clear relationship between self-esteem and depressive effect where 4% of those with the highest self-esteem scores compared with 80% of those with the lowest scores were rated as highly depressed i ~ .30.  The scale's convergent validity was also supported (Silber & Tippet, 1965) in terms of its meaningful correlations with (a) Rosenberg Scale, (b) Kelly Repertory Test, (c) Health Self-image Questionnaire, and (d) a psychiatric rating.  36  Development of the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale (DPVS) was developed by this author under the guidance of Dr. F. Ishu Ishiyama, who had proposed the model of self-validation. The self-validation model was originally proposed as a model for understanding ethnic clients and their adjustments to a new culture. In an unpublished paper by Ishiyama (1987), he states that the quality of self validation practiced in the interpersonal context (ie. social self validation) is the primary determinant of a persons mental health and emotional development Taking the concepts of self validation and the author's interest in marital/nonmarital relationships, it was decided that the goal of the author's research would be to operationalize the concepts of relationship validation in dyadic partnerships by developing an instrument The scale was designed to measure the degree of validation or lack of validation experienced in a dyadic marital or nonmarital relationship. Subjects responded to the items on a 6-point Likert-type true scale ranging from "not true'' to "extremely true". This research is a preliminary piece of work on the concept of relationship validation. Because of this, it was decided not to use subscores for the five thematic components of the self-validation model. Developing subscore scales would be an excellent further piece of research building upon the results contained in this study.  The following steps were taken in developing the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale following the guidelines set out by Sudman & Bradburn (1982), Borg & Gall (1983), and Kline  37  (1986). These sources were researched for obtaining correct procedures for developing psychological instruments. Step 1. Objectives of the scale were devised so that the questionnaire would reflect the concepts of relationship validation. Step 2. The author in consultation with Dr. Ishiyama began developing an item pool for the questionnaire. The items were developed by taking each component of the self-validation model and making a specific behavioral statement for each characteristic. Each component of the self-validation model was discussed and collaborative brainstorming occurred over several sessions in order to generate an item pool; see Appendix I.  Step 3. Based on the items generated, the target population was defined as being middle class individuals representative of the normal population.  Step 4. A review of related instruments was done, and the only instrument which seemed to measure a similar constuct was the Perceived Confirmation Scale (PCS) developed by Sieburg (1973). This one was chosen because of its title and the six items in the instrument seemed to be measuring a similar construct to relationship validation - face validity. The Perceived Confirmation Scale addressed two concepts which the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale did not and these are the concepts of trust and like/dislike. Otherwise, the other four items in the PCS are similar to ones in the DPVS, such as "My partner listens to me without his/her full attention when I talk" (DPVS), and  "He/she isn't at all interested in what I say" (PCS). A second  example is " My partner accepts me for who I am" (DPVS), and "He/she accepts me" (PCS). A third example is "My partner does not show enough respect towards me as a person as I  38  would like" (DPVS) and "He/she has no respect for me at all" (PCS). A final example which is somewhat similar-is that of "My partner is aware of my feelings" and "My partner actively seeks out my company" (DPVS) and "He/she is aware of me" (PCS). The items in the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale were usually more specific than that of the Perceived Confirmation Scale, yet the items in these two scales were similar enough for it to be considered for criterion-related validity.  Step 5. The literature on interpersonal communication, marital satisfaction and validation in marital satisfaction was reviewed and a list of the traits and behaviors which were described as being necessary towards a healthy relationship was completed; see Appendix J. These items were then compared against the original item pool developed by this author and Dr. Ishiyama. It was found that both lists of items were similar. Some changes were made to the wording of the items, but no major changes were made.  Step 6 The author conducted interviews with individuals in the Abbotsford area where they were asked questions about relationship validation in the areas of self-worth, identity and meaning in life; see Appendix K. Two examples of these interviews are in Appendix L. Step 7. A prototype for the present scale was developed, including all of the items from the aforementioned list along with scale instructions; see Appendix M .  Step 8. The prototype was then evaluated by ten professionals working in the helping field with unemployed men and women. They were asked to complete the scale and then to evaluate the appropriateness of the instructions and items. They checked for wording and clarity of the items, and made suggestions for improving the scale. The author interveiwed each  39  evaluate* and discussed their feedback. All of the evaluators were satisfied with the items in the survey and could not give any further suggestions for additional items which would be considered necessary for a satisfying and validating relationship. Their suggestions regarding wording of the items were incorporated into the next revision. Step 9. Based on the feedback received, another revision of the prototype was completed. The new prototype was then given to 15 fifth year teachers in training at the University of British Columbia. They were asked to evaluate the questionnaire, checking for wording and clarity of the items and made suggestions for improving the scale. There were a few suggestions given to wording of the items, otherwise they were satisfied with die scale as it was.  Step 10. The prototype was also given to five graduate students in Counselling Psychology. These were students working under the guidance of Dr. Ishiyama for their research endeavors for their M.Ed. or M . A . Degrees. Their feedback was incorporated into the questionnaire. Basically, they gave little feedback as they were satisfied with the scale as it stood.  Step 11. Based on the above feedback, the final version of the scale was developed. The final version of the scale had a total of 38 items.  Scoring There is a total score which represents the degree to which a person feels validated within their relationship with their partner. The highest score possible is 217.  40  Data Collection The questionnaires were collected anonymously.  Each questionnaire booklet was  assigned a number which identified which group the subject came from. Each subject's data were then encoded onto computers forms with the following information: 1. Dyadic Partner Validation Scale Score; 2. Dyadic Adjustment Scale Score and four subscales; 3. Perceived Confirmation Scale Score; 4. Hopkins Symptom Checklist Score and five subscales; 5. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Score.  41  CHAPTER IV. RESULTS  Reliability Internal Reliability  Item-Total Correlations.  The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale originally contained 26  items for the first section of the questionnaire and 12 items for the second section with a total of 38 items. The first section of the scale deals with specific behaviors which the partner does or doesn't do in the relationship, while the second section deals with mutual behaviors done together. After item-total correlations were completed, the finalized version of the scale contained 31 items, 21 items in the first section and 10 items in the second section; see Appendix N . Seven items were dropped due to low correlations. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale had internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach alpha) of .82, .81, .70 for the groups of UBC, FVC and Pacifica respectively and Hoyt Estimate of Reliability was also high at .94, .97 and .93 for UBC, FVC and Pacifica.  The correlations between each item and the total scores ranged from .36 - .82 for UBC, .39 - .93 for FVC and .24 - .85 for Pacifica (See Table 1). Item #9 had a correlation below the .3 cutoff point of .24 for one of the sample groups (i.e. Pacifica), but the item was kept because of its high correlations with the other sample groups.  42  Table 1  Dyadic Partner Validation Scale Item-Total Correlations  Group Scale Item  UBC (n-60)  FVC (n-34)  PACIFICA (n-53)  M Y PARTNER: 1.  Is aware of my feelings.  .69  .75  .85  2.  Actively seeks out my company.  .58  .61  .54  3.  Disregards my opinions.*  .41  .76  .46  4.  Respects my feelings.  .70  .75  .58  5.  Is attracted to my personality.  .62  .58  .57  6.  Does not show enough respect towards me as a person as I would like.*  .63  .71  .57  7.  Treats me gently when I am hurting or upset  .50  .75  .72  8.  Accepts me for who I am.  .53  .86  .69  9.  Has difficulty understanding me.*  .48  .81  .24  10.  Verbally acknowledges my personal strengths.  .75  .60  .50  11.  Makes me feel loved.  .78  .82  .73  12.  Treats me with consideration.  .66  .93  .78  13.  Shows little recognition of what I do well.*  .47  .67  .30  14.  Supports me in pursuing my own interests.  .63  .81  .74  43  Dyadic Partner Validation Scale Item-Total Correlations  Group  Scale Item  UBC  FVC  PACIFICA  (n-60) (  n-34)  (n-53)  M Y PARTNER:  15.  Values my unique personal qualities.  .57  .73  .60  16.  Actively encourages me to appreciate myself.  .57  .76  .60  .62  .39  .40  17.  Rarely acknowledges my " personal accomplishments.*  18.  Uses affection when touching me.  .70  .70  .56  19.  Finds in me a quality where I can be giving, loving, and accepting towards others.  .62  .62  .61  20.  Shows support for my pursuing fulfillment in my career, study, or personal projects.  .68  .78  .60  21.  Considers me to be his/her best friend.  .79  .70  .67  44  Dyadic Partner Validation Scale Item-Total Correlations  Group Scale Item  UBC  FVC  PACIFICA  (n-60)  (n-34)  (n-53)  Our goals in life are different*  .36  .52  .32  2.  We plan together for the future.  .53  .56  .51  3.  We share a value of learning to become more loving, giving, and accepting towards others.  .73  .78  .56  4.  We seem to lack a deep emotional bond with each other.*  .67  .39  .42  5.  We are both committed to doing what we need to do to add to each other's happiness.  .75  .88  .69  6.  We make decisions together.  .69  .74  .59  7.  We both have doubts about the future of our relationship.*  .55  .59  .48  8.  We are both committed to helping each other grow towards our highest potential  .82  .86  .71  9.  Our relationship is a safe place where we can openly examine our feelings.  .78  .87  .66  10.  My partner plays a very important part in my life.  .49  .76  .52  Cronbach Alpha  .82  .81  .70  Hoyt Estimate of Reliability  .94  .97  .93  IN M Y RELATIONSHIP WITH M Y PARTNER: 1.  *reverse-scored items  (these values are for both sections combined - 31 items)  45  Test-Retest Reliability The test-retest reliability coefficients were .79 for UBC  (a- 49) and .85 for F V C  (n- 30) for the total score over a three week time period. Pacifica did not complete a test-retest because it would be expected that their answers would change over the course of treatment due to clinical intervention.  Validity Criterion-Related Validity Contrary to expectation, correlations between the Dyadic Partner Validaton Scale and the Perceived Confirmation Scale were extremely low for all three groups as follows: UBC (n- 60, i - - .08); F V C (a- 32, i - .07); and Pacifica  (a- 53, r - .14).  Possible reasons for such low correlations are explored in the Discussion.  Predictive Validity Relatively high positive correlations (all at the p,<001 level) were found between the DPVS and DAS Total Scores and between the DPVS and DAS Subscales; see Table 2 for the details.  46  Table 2  Correlations Between Relationship Validation and Relationship Satisfaction  UBC (n-60)  FVC (n-34)  PACIFICA (n-53)  Dyadic Adjustment Total Score  .59  .75  .78  Dyadic Consensus Subscale  .40  .62  .66  Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale  .61  .78  .64  Dyadic Cohesion Subscale  .42  .72  .74  Affectional Cohesion Subscale  .56  .58  .62  47  Contrary to the expectation, extremely low correlations were found between the DPVS and the HSCL Total Score and between the DPVS and the HSCL Subscales. Only two correlations had statistical significance. One was at the Q.<05 level which was in the Depression Dimension for Pacifica Cn- S3, v  -.52), and the other was at p.<.01 level which was in the  Anxiety Dimension for FVC (n- 32, i - .58); see Table 3 for the details. Possible reasons for such low correlations are explored in the Discussion.  As expected, negative correlations were found between the DPVS and RSE. Correlations for 2 out of 3 groups did not reach a significant level at the Q.<05 level. The correlations for the two groups were: UBC (a- 60, r-  -.19); FVC (jar 32, r-  -.21). The correlation for  the group of Pacifica was significant at p.<01 (Q- 53, i - -.30). A l l of the tests were completed as a 2- tailed test  48  Table 3  Exploring Correlations Between Relationship Validation and Neurotic Symptoms  UBC (n-60)  FVC (n-34)  PACIFICA (n-53)  .01  -.17  -.33  -.02  .12  -.02  Obsessive/Compulsive Dimension  .16  -.35  .16  Interpersonal Sensitivity Dimension  .01  -.28  -.16  Depression Dimension  -.03  -.28  -.52  Anxiety Dimension  -.10  .58  -.25  HSCL Total Score Somatization Dimension  49  CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION  Reliability and Validity Tnternal consistency and test-retest  reliability. Reliability concerns the accuracy with  which measurement is performed, m terms of reliability, the present study showed that the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale (DPVS) had high internal consistency. High test-retest correlations over a three week period indicated that the stability of scores over time was good.  Validity. Validation at the operational level, consisted of mquiring into the nature and meaning of the variables in the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale. Validity of the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale was partially supported in three types of validity: content, criterion-related and predictive validity.  Content Validity. Content validity of the DPVS involved a systematic examination of the scale content to determine whether the DPVS covered a representative sample of the behaviors, attitudes and characteristics of self-validation. Content validation was guided by the following question: "Is the content of the DPVS representative of the universe of content of this property being measured?'' Content validation is essentially judgemental in nature. The items of the DPVS were studied by two professional groups: one of professionals working within the job reentry field; and the other of graduate students in Counselling Psychology. Each item was judged for its presumed relevance to the concepts of relationship validation. The raters feedback on the adequacy of the item content and item wording indicated that they agreed that  50  the scale was measuring the concepts of the self-validation model. The rators could not give me further items or concepts which could have been added to the scale.  Predictive Validity.  In predictive validity the basic interest is usually in some practical  outcome than in predictors. Emphasis is on criterion and its predictions. One predicts the existance or nonexistence of a relation. The correlations which were found between the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale Total Score and Subscale Scores were statistically significant for all groups. It seems that if a persons feels validated by their partner in the relationship, mat high relationship satisfaction exists. Correspondingly, if a person feels invalidated or undervalidated by their partner, low relationship satisfaction exists. This tends to support the fact that relationship validation has predictive validity with the relationship satisfaction. The DPVS seems to be a good predictor of relationship satisfaction.  Correlations between relationship validation and self-esteem were statistically nonsignificant for two subject groups. It is interesting that the group which had a statistically significant correlation with relationship validation was Pacifica, which had the lowest overall self-esteem scores. It is suspected that the phenomena of codependency is operating, where one gives up one's identity for the other, and therefore it would account for low self-esteem correlating with relationship validation. At this point, it is an unknown factor yet to be explored in future research. Even though the correlations were weak, they were moving in the expected negative direction. Possible reasons that relationship validation does not seem to be a good predictor of self-esteem is that individuals can be basically satisfied with their relationships yet not be happy with themselves. The author wonders if another self-esteem measure were to be used, if similar results would occur. This is something to consider for future research. If similar  51  results were obtained, one might want to explore the differences between couples who report both high relationship validation and high self-esteem against those who report high relationship validation and low self- esteem. Where are the differences? How many of these relationships are healthy and functional, versus being dysfunctional and unhealthy? Where do the differences lie? It seems like relationship validation is not a strong predictor of self-esteem. For the purposes of this study, the negatives correlations which were reported does support the validity of the DPVS.  Correlations between relationship validation and the total score for neurotic symptoms were statistically nonsignificant for most of the subscales. There were two exceptions. For the group of Pacifica, the correlation between relationship validation and the Depression Dimension was statistically significant The significance of this correlation makes sense when one considers that this is for the clinical population, many who have been on depressant drugs such as alcohol or tranquillizers. Due to the crisis state of their lives, it seems to make sense that they would be feeling depressed about being in a residential treatment centre for their addictions. The other exception was on the Anxiety Dimension for the group of F V C The author can only speculate that the students were feeling some anxiety as it was exam time when the survey was completed. Otherwise, there are no apparent reasons for this significance. Even though the correlations were weak, the correlations were moving in the predicted negative direction. It seems like relationship validation is not a strong predictor of indicies of mental health, at least between the DPVS and HSCL. One reason ^yhy the correlations were weak could be due to the nature of the HSCL. The HSCL is an index for negative mental health ( ie. continual disorders) and the items may  52  have been too clinical for the purposes of this study. For future research it may be more practical to use a stress instrument which would be more general rather than clinical. . Criterion-Related Validity. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale was compared with another external variable or criteria believed to measure a similar construct Regarding criterionrelated validity for the DPVS, the results were contrary to what had been expected. Correlations between the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale (DPVS) and the Perceived Confirmation Scale (PCS) were extremely low and statistically non-significant for all three subject groups. This finding was puzzling as on the surface the DPVS and PCS-seem to be measuring a similar construct - face validity. If the PCS had more items the correlations may have been higher as there would have been more overlap. As it stood, only 4 out of the 6 items seemed to be measuring similar constructs as those in the DPVS. The author wonders if the correlations would have been higher if the scoring scale used the same words. The author also wonders if the PCS is a valid scale. Correlations were found for reliability but none were found for validity.  Summary.  The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale appears to be a reliable instrument  On measures of validity, the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale seems to have predictive validity with.relationship satisfaction. Further work needs to be completed on validity measures with the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale. In exploring correlations between relationship validation, self esteem and indices of neurotic symptoms, it was found that the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale was not a significantly strong predictor of self-esteem or indices of mental health.  Researchers  and theorists on interpersonal speech communication (Sieburg, 1970;  Dance & Larson, 1976; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967; Montgomery, 1981) have  53  hypothesized that levels of confirmatory communication are positively related to marital satisfaction. Studies -involving marital relationships conducted by Clarke (1973) and Matthews and Clark (1982) supported this hypothesis, in that if the partners of the relationship feel validated, they tend to have high relationship satisfaction. The present study also supported this hypothesis. Researchers who have studied the phenomenon of marital satisfaction (Laurence, 1982; Beck, 1983; Brillinger, 1983; and Cawsey, 1985) state that effective relationships require an effective ease of communication on all levels. Intimacy is valued and occurs on intellectual, emotional and physical levels. There is a theme of trust and respect between the partners. Partners feel secure within the relationship knowing that they can accept their partners shortcomings and grow within the relationship. Existential couple identity is experienced on an affective level where being a couple is a choice that provides meaning in life. These characteristics are also found within Ishiyama's (1989) model of self-validation, upon which the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale was developed. The concept of relationship validation seems to be integral to having relationship satisfaction. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale offers the counsellor a quick assessment tool which is specific in nature, yet very practical to use. The DPVS could be utilized as an excellent starting point in designing treatment interventions. The next section addresses some of the clinical uses of the DPVS.  54  the Dyadic Counselling  Use o f  Partner  in the.  Process  Validation  Scale and the  Dyadic Adjustment Scale  The Dyadic Partner Adjustment Scale appears to be an appropriate discussion tool for assessing what is working well within the relationship and what areas need improvement The scale could be completed by both partners independently and then their responses to each individual question could be compared. If there is a point spread of two or more, this could then indicate a possible area for intervention. Due to the specific nature of each question it allows the counsellor to be specific about the interactions between each partner in the relationship. The counsellor could discuss with each partner the weaknesses and strengths of the relationship and how each partner would like these needs to be met and whether the other partner would be willing to implement changes. Each person's perceptions could be validated, yet each partner's hurts and dissatisfaction could be addressed in a specific and nonthreatening manner with a counsellor. The DPVS lends itself as an excellent beginning point for designing interventions.  The Dyadic Adjustment Scale could also be used in a similar manner as an excellent companion questionnaire to the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale. Due to the subjective nature of these questionnaires, they become an excellent tool for monitoring growth and changes in the relationship as they could be completed at various times during the counselling process to assess how each partner in the relationship perceives the strengths, weaknesses and improvements in the relationship.  55  Limitations of the Study A potential threat to the reliability and validity of this study centres around the issue of self selection. The groups surveyed were not randomly selected at the outset, plus subjects were asked to volunteer for the study. The subjects had the opportunity to terminate their participation at any stage of the survey. For the group of Pacifica, there were a few clients who terminated their participation after beginning the questionnaires, possibly due to the fact they were having difficulty with concentrating because of detoxification, or the language of the questionnaires was too difficult, or that comprehension was too difficult. It is difficult to control for self selection as there are ethical issues regarding the subject of volunteer participation in research studies. As a result, the generalizability of the study is affected. The results of this research apply to individuals who are interested in assessing their relationships who are of an educated background, mainly in the helping professions (eg. teachers, social service workers, psychology students etc). On the other hand, these results also generalize to individuals who come from varied backgrounds who have addiction problems.  Social desirability is also of concern. It may be possible that the participants in the study wanted to represent themselves and their relationships in the best light possible, and for this reason they did not answer the items authentically. The individual and relationship perceptions are considered valid in that they reflect the participants view of the world as they exist in the survey context on that particular day. Relationship validation and satisfaction is a subjective experience, and the respondents answers could vary dramatically depending on  56  whether they are getting along well or if they just had a fight the day before. These would mainly affect the test-retest scores. A further limitation of the study is in the fact that not all respondents were presently involved in a relationship. If a respondent was not currently involved in a relationship, they were instructed to think back to a previous relationship at a specific time and answer the questions from that perspective. As a result, their answers could be biased through time and memory distortions. Further research would be more reliable and valid if the questionnaire respondents were all currently involved in a relationship.  Directions for Further Research This study is a beginning piece of research concerning the development of the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale. The scales reliability and validity should be explored further using different populations, and possibly different instruments measuring similar constructs.  Research could be completed on construct validity where the researcher would want to know what psychological or other properties could explain the variance of the DPVS. The researcher would want to know the meaning of the test, and what proportion of the total test variance has accounted for the constructs. The research would want to explain individual differences in the test scores with emphasis usually being in the property being measured than in the test itself. In construct validity, one must validate the theory behind the test The significant point about construct validity is its preoccupation with theory, theoretical constructs  57  and scientific empirical inquiry involving the testing of hypothesized relations. Further advanced statistics could be completed on the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale measures the general concepts of the self-validation model as developed by Ishiyama (1989). It is beyond the scope of the present preliminary study to to break down the items into the five components of the self-validation model. It is suggested that this further work be completed in another study. Then the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale would have a total score, plus five subscale scores, similar to that of the DAS. This author had hypothesized that high DPVS scores would predict high self esteem and good mental health. The results of this study have rejected these hypotheses. This author finds it puzzling, so further research could be carried out on' why these results occured. One would think that if one felt validated in their relationship, they would also feel good about themselves and have low neurotic symptoms. Literature in the addictions field addresses the construct of codependency, where a person gives up oneself to please another at the expense of themselves. This would account for the differences where one does not think well of themselves yet they think highly of their relationship. One begins to wonder how healthy and functional these relationships are - are relationship addictions involved? This would be worthwhile pursuing to see if there is any merit in this, as there would be implications for the counsellor on how to best approach treatment issues.  58  Conclusion The primary objective of this study was to develop a scale which could be used with confidence to assess relationship validation in marital and nonmarital relationships. The concepts of the self-validation model were operationalized into the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale. This research has attempted to present the results of the scale development process and psychometric properties. This study was designed to meet the need for a relevant, reliable and valid measure which can be used in survey research on marital and nonmarital dyadic relationships. The Dyadic Partner Validation Scale seems to be an appropriate research tool for studying relationship validation in marital and nonmarital dyadic relationships in a clinical and research setting. The scale fits well with the phenomena of relationship satisfaction and the potential is there to further refine the scale. The author feels confident that the Dyadic Parmer Validation Scale is a useful tool in assessing relationships and provides many entry points for the counsellor on where to intervene during the process of relationship counselling. Therefore the therapy process becomes client-centered rather than therapist-centered, and alternate solutions can be found for improving their relationships in the areas which they report are important to increasing relationship validation.  59  REFERENCES  Amnions, P. & Stinnet, N . (1980). The vital marriage: A closer look. Family and Child Studies.  29,  37-  Journal o f Applied  42.  Beck, W.A. (1983/1984). The experience of the long-term marriage relationship (Doctoral dissertation, T h e Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities. 1983). Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International (3592). Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1983). New York: Longman.  Educational research:  Brillinger, M.E. (1983). Individuals' intentional changes doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto. Broderick, C.B. (1979).  Marriage and the family.  Burr, W.R. H973V Theory Wiley and Sons.  An  introduction.  Fourth Edition.  related to marriage.  Unpublished  Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.  construction and the sociology o f the  family.  New York: John  Burr, W.R., Leigh, G.K., Day, R.D., & Constantine, J. (1979). Symbolic interaction and the family. In W.R. Burr, R. Hill, FJ. Nye, & L L . Reiss Œds.\ Contemporary theories about the family: General theories/theoretical orientations. Volume JJ fpp, 42-111V N e w York: T h e Free Press. Cawsey, P. (1985). An existential-phenomenological approach to understanding the experience of marital satisfaction. Unpublished master's thesis, University of British Columbia, British Columbia. Cissna, K . N . (1975). Familitative communication and interpersonal relationships: A n empirical test of a theory of interpersoal communication (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Denver, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International. 36. 1976, 4103A. (University Microfilms No. 76-1233). Cissna, K . N . (1976). and research  Tnterpersonal confirmation:  A review  of  current theory,  measurement,  (Eric Ed 126 544).  Cissna, K . N . & Keating, Sr. S., (1979). Speech communication antecedents of perceived confirmation. The Western Journal of Speech Communication. 43. 48-60. 60  Clarke, P.P. (1973). Interpersonal communication variables as predictors of marital satisfaction-attraction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1973). . Dissertation ' Abstracts International. 34. 1973, 34, 4458A. University Microfilms No. 73-30.188). Coopersmith, S. (1967).  T h e antecedents  of  self-esteem.  San Fransisco: W.H. Freeman.  Cushman, D.P. & Florence B.T. (1974). The development of interpersonal communication theory. Today's Speech, 22. pp 11-15. Cushman, D.P. & Cahn D.D. (1985). Communication in York: University of New York Press. Dance, H E X . & Larson, C E . (1976). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.  interpersonal  T h e functions o f human  relationships.  communication.  New  New York:  Hawkins, J.L. (1968). Associations between companionship, hostility, and martial satisfaction. Journal o f Marriage arTd the Family, 30, 647-650. Hicks, M.W., & Piatt, M . (1970). Marital happiness and stability: A review of research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 32, 553-573. Ishiyama, FJ. (1987. On self-validation. and Odyssey, 5 (4), p7, 16-18. Ishiyama, F.I. (1987).  Self-valiation.  Heartwood: A Journal  o f Experience. Expressions.  Unpublished manuscript  Ishiyama, F.I. (1989). Understandingforeign adolescents' difficulties in cross-cultural adjustment* A self- validation model. Canadian Journal of School Psychology. Galley Proof. 4, (2), 41-56. Ishiyama, F.L & ' Westwood, M J . (1990) Enhanding Client- Validating Communication: Helping Discouraged Clients in Cross-Cultural Adjustment Journal of Multicultural CniitiRftllinp and Development. In Press. Jacobs, M . (1973) Levels of confirmation and disconfirmation in interpersonal communication (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts  International.  McHarg, V . C (1989).  A n evaluation  immigrants in their  of  adjustment.  a peer-pairing project  designed to assist  adolescent  Unpublished M.Ed, paper. University of British  Columbia, Vancouver, B . C  61  Matthews, C , & Clark ILL R.D.. (1982). Marital satisfaction: A validation approach._Bask and Applied SocialPsvchologv. 3, 1969-186. Montgomery, B.M. (1981). The form and function of quality communication in marriage. Family Relations, 30. 21-30. Sieburg, E. (1969). Dysfunctional communication and interpersonal responsiveness in small groups. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1969). Dissertations Abstracts International, 30,1969. ,2622A (University Microfilms No. 69-21,156). Sieberg, E. (1974). Confirming and disconfirming communication context Personnel Woman. 18, 5, p.4- 11.  in an organizational  Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 41, 813-823. Spanier, G.B. & Cole, C.L. (1976). Toward clarification and investigation of marital adjustment International Journal of Sociology and the Family, 6, 121-146. Spanier, G.B. & Lewis, R.A. (1980). Marital Quality: A review of the seventies. of Marriage and the Family, 42, 825-838. Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N . M . (1982). Asking questions: questionnaire design, New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co.  A  Journal  practical guide to  Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jacksons, D . D . H9671 Pragmatics of h u m m a n communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton.  62  Appendix A Letter to Professors Requestion Cooperation in Selecting Volunteer Subjects  63  June 19, 1990 Tuna-Mai Stumpe Graduate Student Researcher 2842 Glenshiel Drive R.R. #9 Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 6B7 Dr. Brough Department of Science Education University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1W5 Dear Dr. Brough: I am a Masters' Degree Student at UBC completing my thesis in Counselling Psychology and I am looking for students to complete my questionnaire survey. I would need approximately five minutes of your classtime to explain the survey to your students and hand out the survey questionnaires. The students would complete the questionnaire on their own time. I or my representative are prepared to come to your classroom at any time during the first two weeks of class, preferably at the end of your classtime. I am hoping that you will be able to cooperate with me in this endeavor. Part of my research requires me to complete a test-retest, therefore I would need to come back to your class approximately four weeks after the first administration of the questionnaire. This would take only several minutes of your classtime as only those students who have completed the first survey questionnaire would need to complete the test-retest I have enclosed a short summary of my study for your information. I would appreciate it if you could please fill out the bottom of this letter with the appropriate information. I will be further contacting you during the first week of classes and I look forward to talking to you at that time. Jf you have any questions, I can be reached at 852-4393. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours truly,  Tuna-Mai Stumpe B.Ed., CEAP, MA.(Candidate)  64  AFFIRMATIVE Yes, I am able to provide students for your study. The best date and time for me are  . I can be reached at  this phone number  between the hours of to confirm these arrangements.  OTHER  65  Appendix B  Description of the Purpose and Significance of the Study  66  DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A RELATIONSHIP SELF-VALIDATION SCALE  PURPOSE OF THE STUDY  The purpose of this thesis is two fold: 1. to develop a Relationship Self-Validation Scalerand 2. to complete a correlational study using the dependent variables of 1) relationship self-validation; 2) marital satisfaction; 3) neurotic symptoms; 4) self-esteem; and 5) perceived confirmation. The subject of relationship self-validation is not well researched, yet it seems obvious that feelings of self-validation are extremely important to the individuals' feelings about the relationship and towards themselves. This study proposes to explore what the relationship is between perceived feelings of self-validation in the relationship, relationship satisfaction and neurotic symptoms.  There is no comprehensive scale which measures relationship  self-validation, therefore the author has developed one. This study will test the following hypotheses: High relationship self-validation is positively correlated to high levels of relationship satisfaction, and; High relationship self-validation is positively correlated to high self-esteem and indices of neurotic symptoms.  67  SIGNIFICANCE OF PROPOSED RESEARCH The results of this study will contribute to the body of knowledge concerning relationship self-validation and how it impacts relationship satisfaction, self esteem and indices of neurotic symptoms. These areas of study impact most people, as most people have been in a love relationship, are currently in one, or are looking for one. Most people have had experiences with failed relationships and are searching for ways to make relationships work, or to enrich the relationships that they are currently in. Further research would confirm that the concepts present in the Relationship Self-Validation Scale are essential to an individual experiencing high relationship satisfaction, high self-esteem and a lack of neurotic symptoms. Most individuals are searching for relationships in which they feel validated, satisfied and fulfilled versus feeling invalidated, empty and lonely, and the information in this scale could further enable individuals to clarify what they would like out of a relationship and what they need to put into a relationship. Practitioners in the field could use this scale as a diagnostic tool"and as a springboard for discussion. The concepts presented in the Relationship Self-Validation Scale could help individuals clarify what their needs and wants are, and therefore, they would be more able to share these with their partner. Individuals who are in relationships where they feel validated, then have the potential to make their families happy, healthy places to be, which will impact this generation and the next generation in a positive manner.  68  Appendix C  Covering Letter and Questionnaire for Acquiring Information for Independent Variables  69  TITLE OF PROJECT -  D E V E L O P M E N T AND VALIDATION O F A DYADIC PARTNER VALIDATION S C A L E  We, Tiina-Mai Stumpe, an M.A. Student and Dr. Ishu Ishiyama^n Assistant Professor in the Department of Counselling Psychology, University of British Columbia (phone 228-5329), would like you to complete the attached questionnaires which will take approximately 20-25 minutes of your time. You are free to not participate or to withdraw from this study at any time without jeopardizing your class standing or your registration at the University of British Columbia. Your responses will be kept in the strictest confidence with all of the data being number coded for statistical purposes. By completing the attached scales, it will be assumed that your consent to participate and offer data for our research has been given. We are interested in studying how you feel about various aspects of an intimate relationship. This study, with yjour cooperation will help us to develop effective ways of understanding and working with couples and families in counselling situations. Your honest answers will be most appreciated. P L E A S E C O M P L E T E T H E FOLLOWING: Male  Female  Age  Occupation.  What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School College Trade School Bachelors' Degree Graduate Degree Other Was your Mother bom in Canada? Yes No Was she raised in Canada? Yes No Was your Father born in Canada? Yes Was he raised in Canada? Yes No  No.  If you are presently living with a partner, please answer Section A If you are presently in a dating relationship, please answer Section B . If you are not in a relationship at the present, but have been in the past, please answer Section C. If you have never been in a relationship with the opposite sex, please answer Section D Please come up with a code which you can remember one month from now, so that I can match your questionnaires, for example your birthdater  70  SECTION A What relationship does your partner have to you? Spouse Common-law Spouse How long have you been in this relationship? Does your partner have the same religious background as you? Yes No Does your partner have the same cultural background as you? Yes No  SECTION B How long have you been dating? What relationship does this person have to you? Boyfriend Girlfriend Does your partner have the same religious background as you? Yes No Does your partner have the same cultural background as you? Yes No  SECTION C If you are not currently dating, but have been in a relationship in the past, how longdid this relationship last? What relationship did your partner have to you? Spouse Common-law Spouse Boyfriend Girlfriend Did your partner have the same religious background as you? Yes No Did your partner ??iave the same cultural background as you? Yes No When answering the questionnaires, please mink of a specific time in that relationship and answer the questions according to your perception of the relationship at that time.  1  71  SF.CTTON D  Please think of a parent of the opposite sex and answer the questions in relationship to them. Jf you did not have a parent of the opposite sex raise you, please use the same sex parent Are you using an Opposite Sex Parent? or a Same Sex Parent? Are they still alive? Yes No Do you have a relationship with them at the present time? Yes No  72  Appendix D  Dyadic Partner Validation Scale (DPVS)  73  DYADIC PARTNER VALIDATION SCALE  PART i  l  Please partner  c i r c l e t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e number t o b e s t d e s c r i b e your on t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s u s i n g t h e r a t i n g s c a l e b e l o w :  Rating Scale: ! not slightly true true 2  MY  3 somewhat true  4 moderately true  5 quite true  6 very true._  7 extremely true  PARTNER:  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  1.  I s a w a r e o f my f e e l i n g s .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  2,  L i s t e n s t o me w i t h o u t when I  his/her  full  attention  talk.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  3.  A c t i v e l y s e e k s o u t my  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  4.  Disregards  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  5.  R e s p e c t s my f e e l i n g s .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  6.  I s a t t r a c t e d t o my p e r s o n a l i t y .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  7.  Does n o t show e n o u g h t r e s p e c t  my  opinions.  a p e r s o n as I would me  company.  t o w a r d s me  as  like.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  8.  Treats  g e n t l y when I am h u r t i n g o r u p s e t .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  9.  A c c e p t s me  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  10.  Has d i f f i c u l t y  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  11.  V e r b a l l y a c k n o w l e d g e s my p e r s o n a l  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  12.  Makes me  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  13.  Treats  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  14.  Shows l i t t l e  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  15.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  16.  Respects my religious or non-religious beliefs. R e s p e c t s my c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n s .  f o r who  feel  I  am.  understanding  me. strengths.  loved.  me w i t h  consideration.  r e c o g n i t i o n o f what I do  74  well.  Rating 1  not true  Scale: 2  slightly true  3  somewhat true  4 moderately true  5  6  quite true.  7  very true  extremely true  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  17.  S u p p o r t s me  i n pursuing  my own  interests.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  18.  Shows a l a c k o f r e s p e c t  f o r my  privacy.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  19.  Values  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  20.  Actively  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  21.  Rarely  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  22.  U s e s a f f e c t i o n when t o u c h i n g  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  23.  F i n d s i n me a q u a l i t y w h e r e I c a n be g i v i n g , l o v i n g , and a c c e p t i n g t o w a r d s o t h e r s .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  24.  Shows s u p p o r t f o r my p u r s u i n g f u l f i l l m e n t i n my c a r e e r , s t u d y , o r p e r s o n a l p r o j e c t s .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  25.  Considers  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  26.  T e n d s t o t r e a t me as a p e r s o n in a role (e.g., wife, husband, parent, student) r a t h e r than as a unique i n d i v i d u a l .  my u n i q u e p e r s o n a l e n c o u r a g e s me  qualities.  to appreciate  a c k n o w l e d g e s my p e r s o n a l  me  75  myself.  accomplishments  me.  t o be h i s / h e r b e s t  friend.  Rating Scale: 1 2 not slightly true true  PART Please  --3 somewhat true  4 moderately true  5 quite true  6 very true  7 extremely true  2± u s e t h e same r a t i n g  s c a l e to answer the f o l l o w i n g  IN MY R E L A T I O N S H I P WITH MY  PARTNER:  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  1.  Our g o a l s  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  2.  We  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  3.  We s h a r e a v a l u e o f l e a r n i n g t o become more l o v i n g , g i v i n g , and a c c e p t i n g t o w a r d s o t h e r s ,  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  4.  We seem t o l a c k a deep e m o t i o n a l each o t h e r .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  5.  We  are both committed to doing  to  do t o a d d t o e a c h o t h e r ' s  plan  in life  items:  together  are d i f f e r e n t . f o r the f u t u r e .  bond  what we  with need  happiness.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  6.  We make d e c i s i o n s  together.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  7.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  8.  We b o t h h a v e d o u b t s a b o u t t h e f u t u r e o f o u r relationship. We a r e b o t h c o m m i t t e d t o h e l p i n g e a c h other grow t o w a r d s o u r h i g h e s t p o t e n t i a l .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  9.  Our r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a s a f e - p l a c e can  openly  where  we  examine o u r f e e l i n g s .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  10.  Our v a l u e s  are d i f f e r e n t .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  11.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  12.  We are both committed to h e l p i n g our c h i l d r e n and/or o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s towards a s a t i s f y i n g way o f l i f e . My p a r t n e r p l a y s a v e r y i m p o r t a n t p a r t i n my life.  76  Appendix E  Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)  77  DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate extent of agreement between you and your partner for each item on the following list. (Place a checkmark to indicate your answer.) Almost OccasionFrequentAlmost Always Always ally Iy Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1.  2.  Handling family finances  -  Matters of recreation  3.  Religious matters  4.  Demonstrations of affection  5.  Friends  6.  Sex relations  7.  Conventionality (Correct or proper behavior)  8.  Philosophy of life  9.  Ways of dealing with parents or in-laws  10.  Aims, goals, and things believed important  11.  Amount of time spent together  12.  Making major decisions  13.  Household tasks  14.  Leisure time interests and activities  15.  Career decisions  78  All the time 16.  How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation, or terminating your relationship? _  17.  How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight?_  Most of the time  More often than not  Occasionally  Rarclv  MSY&C  Every Day.  Almost every  Occasionally  Rarely  Never  All  Most  Some  Verv Few  Norq  18. In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well?. 19. Do you confide in your mate? 20. Oo you ever regret that you married?(or lived together? 21. How often do you and your partner quarrel?. 22.  How often do you and your mate "get on each others' nerves*?.  23. Do you kiss your mate?  24. Do you and your mate engage in outside intereste together?  How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate?  Never  Less than Once a Month  Once or Twice a Month  25. Have a stimulating exchange of Ideas 26. Laugh together 27.  Calmly discuss something.  28.  Work together on a project  79  Once or Twice a Week  Once a Day.  More Often  These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationship during the past few weeks. ( Check yes or no.)  Yes  th  29.  Being too tired for sex.  30.  '  Not showing love.  31. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point, "happy*, represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.  Extremely Unhappy  Fairly Unhappy  A little Unhappy  Happy  Very Happy  Extremely Happy  Perfect  32. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship? Place a check mark on the appropriate line. I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that it does. I want very much for my relationship to suceed, and will do all I can to see that it does. I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does. It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can't do much more than I am doing now to help it succeed. It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am doing now to keep the relationship going. My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going.  80  Appendix F  Perceived Confirmation Scale  81  PERCIEVED CONFIRMATION SCALE  Instructions Circle the number on each scale that accurately reflects your attitude toward the associated statement as it relates to your partner. He/she is aware of me. 7 6  5  3  2  1  Agree  Disagree  Disagree strongly  Disagree very strongly  3  2  1  Agree  Disagree  Disagree strongly  Disagree very strongly  5  3  2  1  Agree  Disagree  Disagree strongly  Disagree very strongly  3  2  1  Agree  Disagree  Disagree strongly  Disagree very strongly  5  3  2  1  Agree strongly  Agree  Disagree  Disagree strongly  Disagree very strongly  6  5  3  2  1  Agree strongly  Agree  Disagree  Disagree strongly  Disagree very strongly  Agree very strongly  Agree strongly  He/she isn't at all interested in what I say. 7 6 5 Agree very strongly  Agree strongly  He/she accepts me. 76 Agree very strongly  Agree strongly  He/she has no respect for me at all. 7 6 5 Agree very strongly  Agree strongly  He/she dislikes me. 7 6 Agree very strongly He/she trusts me. 7 Agree very strongly  82  Appendix G  Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL)  83  Hnptdns Svmpton  Checklist  How serious are the following symptons if you experience any of them? Please circle an appropriate number for each item to indicate the level of distress you tend to experience. Scale:  1 - 2 - '3 - 4 Extremely Not Distressful at all  "I tend to experience ..." 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)  (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (3D (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45)  Headaches Nervousness or shaldness inside Faintness or dizziness Loss of sexual interest or pleasure Feeling critical of others Trouble remembering things Worried about sloppiness or carelessness Feeling easily annoyed or irritated Pains in the heart or chest Feeling low in energy or slowed down Thoughts of ending your life Trembling Poor appetite Crying easily A feeling of being trapped or caught Suddenly scared for no reason Temper outbursts you could not control Blaming yourself for things Pains in the lower part of your back Feeling blocked or stymied in getting things done Feeling lonely Feeling blue Worrying or stewing about things Feeling no interest in things Feeling fearful Your feelings being easily hurt Feeling others do not understand you or are unsympathetic Feeling that people are unfriendly or dislike you Having to do things very slowly in order to be sure you are doing them right Heart pounding or racing Feeling inferior to others Soreness of your muscles Having to check and double-check what you do Difficulty making decisions Trouble getting your breath Hot or cold spells Having to avoid certain activities or places because they frighten you Your mind going blank Numbness or tingling in parts of your body A lump in your throat Feeling hopeless about the future Trouble concentrating Weakness in parts of your body Feeling tense or keyed up Heavy feelings in your legs or arms  84  Appendix H  Rosenberg's Self Esteem Survey (RSE)  85  ROSENBERG'S SELF ESTEEM QUESTIONNAIRE  Instructions: How much do you agree with the following statements? Please be as honest as you can and answer all of the following questions.  Strongly Agree 1  Agree  Disagree  2  Strongly disagree  3  4  1-2-3-4  1.  On the whole I am satisfied with myself.  1-2-3-4  2.  At times I think I am no good at all.  1-2-3-4.  3.  I feel that I have a number of good qualities.  1-2-3-4  4.  I am able to do things as well as other people.  1.-2-3-4  5.  I feel that I do not have much to be proud of.  1-2-3-4  6.  I certainly feel useless at times.  1-2-3-4  7.  I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.  1-2-3-4  8.  I wish I could have more respect for myself.  1-2-3-4  9.  All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.  1-2-3-4  10. I take a positive attitude towards myself.  86  Appendix I  Item Pool Developed in Consultation with Dr. Ishiyama  87  ITEM  I  feel  accepted  by  I  feel  understood  I  feel  safe  I  feel  respected  for  I  feel  supported  by  I  feel  respected  for  I  feel  trusted  and  by  My  partner  values  My  partner  plays  My  partner  treats  My are  partner  :  (1)  who my  my I  relationship.  am by  partner  my t h o u g h t s  to  me w i t h  my and  full  someone  large  part  feelings. opinions  me w i t h  attention  my m e a n i n g  respect  and  friend  (4)  sexual  (5)  occupational  when  I  partner.  talk.  of  life.  appreciation  when  I  am  in  share  partner  our  role:  feelings  with  each other  whether  negative.  partner  and  I  share  time  My  partner  and  I  share  responsibilities  in  my  wife/husband  My  relationship  by  irreplaceable.  in  (3)  or  partner.  partner.  mother/father  I  my  in  (2)  and  positive  in  me a s a  VALIDATION  partner.  my  listens  RELATIONSHIP  partner.  secure  partner  role.of  my by  My  the  POOL -  good  together  order.  88  doing for  fun  things.  keeping  our  they  Appendix J  Item Pool Based on Literature Review  89  ITEM POOL -  1.  IDENTITY  My p a r t n e r  hears  My p a r t n e r  discusses  3.  My p a r t n e r  understands  4.  My p a r t n e r  trusts  me.  5.  My p a r t n e r  shares  life  6.  My p a r t n e r  h a s made a n e m o t i o n a l  7.  My p a r t n e r  believes  in  8.  My p a r t n e r  respects  me.  9.  My p a r t n e r  is  10.  My p a r t n e r  belongs  AND S E L F - W O R T H  and u n d e r s t a n d s what with  me,  and  I  thoughts  the  and  and  ideas  about  life.  a c c e p t s me.  experiences with  available  say.  commitment  future  to  me.  of  this  to  me.  relationship.  me.  takes  responsibility  for  the  relationship. 11.  My p a r t n e r  anything  in  will  of  himself  to  me w i t h o u t  expecting  return.  12 •  My p a r t n e r  is  13.  My  and  14.  My p a r t n e r  partner  preferences,  give  is  likes  emotionally I  learn  aware and  accessible  and grow  of  me.  together.  my t h o u g h t s  ,  feelings,  attitudes.  dislikes.  15.  My p a r t n e r  supports  me on a d a y  16.  My  partner  supports  me d u r i n g  17.  My  partner  recognizes  18.  My  partner  likes  19.  My p a r t n e r  enjoys  20.  My  accepts  partner  to  who  me a s I  being and  likes  day  how  someone s p e c i a l I  run  me a n d we the  90  basis.  crisis.  being  am a n d with  a  to  my have  differences  and  unique.  life. fun  together.  between  us.  21. My p a r t n e r  h e l p s me t o d e v e l o p my  22. My p a r t n e r  allows  potential.  me t o have my own s e l f - i d e n t i t y  within the  relationship. 23. My p a r t n e r  recognizes  that  I am s u b j e c t t o human l i m i t s and  faults. 24. My p a r t n e r  has a r e a l i s t i c  25. My r e l a t i o n s h i p and  outlook  on o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p .  i s a p l a c e where t h e r e  i s emotional  security  support.  2é>. My p a r t n e r  supports  my r o l e  27. My p a r t n e r  recognizes  that  i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . I have a v a l i d  contribution to  make t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . 28. My p a r t n e r  willingly  accepts  r e l a t i o n s h i p of s a t i s f a c t i o n 29. My p a r t n e r 30.  I feel  l o v e s me  my  a  person.  partner.  unconditionally.  32. My p a r t n e r a p p r e c i a t e s  me.  33. My p a r t n e r  recognizes  34. My p a r t n e r  h e l p s me t o s e l f - a c t u a l i z e  at a p h y s i c a l ,  social,  35. My p a r t n e r  h e l p s me t o f i n d  one w i t h  and m a i n t a i n i n g  f o r both of us.  a f f i r m s me a s a s e x u a l  a t "one" w i t h  31. My p a r t n e r  building  t h e u n c o n d i t i o n a l w o r t h o f my  t o a meaningful  p e r s o n a l , and s p i r i t u a l my h i g h e r  self  feels  37. My p a r t n e r  t r e a t s me l i k e  38. My p a r t n e r  is  where I f e e l a t  proud o f me.  thoughtful  an e q u a l . and c o n s i d e r a t e  39. My p a r t n e r shows a f f e c t i o n  t o w a r d s me.  40. My p a r n t e r  has c o n f i d e n c e  i n me.  41. My p a r t n e r  a s k s me f o r my  advice.  whole  level.  the world.  3c.. My p a r t n e r  being.  towards me.  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  My  partner  me. My  partner  My  partner  I feel  heard  and u n d e r s t o o d  I feel  trusted.  I feel  my  I feel  respected.  I feel  supported  I feel  t h a t my  I feel  supported  on a day t o day  I feel  supported  during  I feel  loved  I feel  accepted  partner  i n what  I say.  has made an e m o t i o n a l  i n my  individual  commitment  goals.  accomplishments a r e acknowledged.  a  basis.  crisis.  unconditionally. f o r my  individuality.  92  t o me.  69.  I feel  accepted  70.  I feel  t h a t our r e l a t i o n s h i p  emotional  security  i n that  and  71. I f e e l  t h a t we  72.  supported  I feel  I have human l i m i t s  i s a p l a c e where  faults.  there i s  support.  have a s h a r e d f o r my  power  role within  73. I f e e l  a f f i r m e d as a s e x u a l  74.  a t "one" w i t h  I feel  and  my  base. the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  person.  partner.  75. I f e e l  appreciated.  76.  I feel  like  I am  treated like  an  77.  I feel  that  I am  treated with  c o n s i d e r a t i o n and  equal.  thoughtfulness. 78.  I feel  supported  i n my  79.  I feel  wanted  80.  I feel  supported  81.  I feel  appreciated  quest  to develop  my  and needed. i n what  I do.  i n everything  93  t h a t I do.  spirituality.  ITEM POOL - MEANING OF L I F E  1.  We have a s h a r e d  power  2.  Our r e l a t i o n s h i p  i s a p l a c e where t h e r e i s e m o t i o n a l  and  support.  3.  We  4.  We have a "we d i d i t t o g e t h e r " fe«s i i n g .  5.  We have s h a r e d  interests.  6.  We have s h a r e d  activities.  7.  We have s i m i l a r v a l u e s ,  learn  and grow  base. security  together.  both  on a v e r b a l  and e x p e r i e n t i a l  level. 8.  We have a common  9.  We have s h a r e d  10. We dream  way o f l i v i n g .  goals.  together  11. We have a p r e s e n t  f o r the future. and a u n i t e d f r o n t  12. My p a r t n e r and I have a s p e c i a l be a l o n e  experiential  values,  we can  we b o t h  both  on a v e r b a l and  level.  14. My p a r t n e r and I have b a l a n c e d feel  15. We w i l l i n g l y of  s e t a s i d e so that  together.  13. My p a r t n e r and I have s i m i l a r  that  time  t o the world.  good  i n t o one  about.  accept  s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r both  16. We have a r e a l i s t i c  o u r two p e r s o n a l i t i e s  building  and m a i n t a i n i n g  a  relationship  of us. outlook  on o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p .  94  17.  We  believe  18.  We  are  19.  We  have d e v e l o p e d  20.  We  have a s a f e and  thoughts  faithful,  and  21.  We  can  22.  We  will  i n the  f u t u r e o f our loyal, our  own  t r u e to each  e n v i r o n m e n t where we  whether they  childlike  other.  traditions.  secure  feelings,  be  and  relationship.  are  p o s i t i v e or  w i t h e a c h o t h e r and  g i v e of o u r s e l v e s w i t h o u t  can  have f u n  expecting  share a l l  negative. together.  anything  in  return. 23.  My  p a r t n e r and  24.  We  p u r s u e t h e same t y p e s o f s p i r i t u a l  25.  We  pray  26.  We  help each o t h e r  at 27.  "one"  Nature, 28.  We  the we  w i t h each  other.  and/or r e l i g i o u s  goals.  together. our  higher selves,  so  t h a t we  world.  serve  deeply  "one"  to find  a God,  o r w h a t e v e r you feel  at  and/or worship  with  Together  I feel  may  connected  a Higher  Power, U n i v e r s e ,  Mother  call i t . emotionally  95  and  spiritually.  feel  Appendix K  Questions for Interviews  96  Identity 1. What roles do you have? (social and personal roles). Which ones are you most happiest in? How do you validate yourself in each of these roles? How does your spouse validate you in each of these roles? Be as specific as possible. 2. How do you you invalidate yourself in these roles? How does your spouse invalidate you in these roles? Be as specific as possible. 3. How do you identify yourself? Social, physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual etc. How do you validate yourself? How does your spouse validate you? 4. In your identity, how do you invalidate yourself? How does your spouse invalidate you? 5. What do you wish that your partner would say or do which would make you feel more validated?  Self-Worth 1. How much understanding of your personality and emotional concerns does your spouse have of you? How is this understanding communicated? or not communicated? 2. With your friends, how do they express acceptance and appreciation of you? Be as specific as possible. 3. Sometimes in -narital relationships, individuals may feel that their partner understands them and mat their partner accepts and appreciates them just as they "really are". They feel appreciated for being themselves and they can trust their partner's positive feelings towards them because their partner seems to know them well. To what extent does your partner demonstrate acceptance and appreciation of you as you "really are"? How is this acceptance and appreciation communicated? How is it communicated if your partner rejects you and takes you for granted? 4. What do you wish that your partner would do say or do that would make you feel more validated?  97  Meaning of Life 1.  What makes your life happy and meaningful? What makes your life unhappy and meaningless?  2; How does your partner contribute to making your life happy and meaningful? Unhappy and meaningless. Describe specific behaviors. 3. In receiving and giving genuine love and caring in a non-possessive and non-manipulative way, we experience a deep spiritual bond with certain individuals who make our life especially meaningful. Even in the midst of personal crisis the loving presence of such individuals helps us keep hope and meaning in life and a balanced perspective on life events, thus validating who we are. Who do you have a deep spiritual bond with? How is this bond communicated or not communicated? What makes these relationships special? 4. What do you wish that your partner would say or do that would make you feel more validated?  How many years have you been married or in a nonmarital relationship? How satisfied are you with your relationship ? You may choose any number between 0-100 with 0 being very unsatisfactory to 100 being totally satisfied. Your choice is  98  Appendix L  Interview Examples  99  Been married 27 years. Rates her experience of her marriage as being 100 satisfied.  Self-Worth My partner -  never complains is faithful, loyal and true makes life easier for me buys things for me (gadgets) plans to do things together decisions are made together buys little spontaneous gifts he's a good listener - I feel heard good provider he's dependable - doesn't let me down  He doesn't invalidate me but if her were to he would have to put me down and be unfaithful to me.  Identity My partner -  appreciates everything that I do makes me feel wanted and needed supports me in my babysitting job and whatever I want to do we parent together and there is a togetherness in disciplining with the children takes an interest in what I do  He doesn't invalidate me but if he were to he would have to put me down and not support me  Meaning in Life My partner and I - serve the Lord and then our fellow man - we pray together and worship together - we encourage each other - we have common goals - we provide role models to our children on how to live purposeful lives - he appreciated me when I looked after his folks when they were sick and lived with us - he helped me out - he is considerate of me - he goes out of his way to help people important to me - he is devoted to our family  100  Been married 8 years. Rates his experience of his marriage as being 50% satisfied.  Self-Worth My partner -  respects me talks to me about daily living things is sarcastic, sharp-tongued doesn't hear and/or understand me  What I want is for us to feel love towards each other and say it. I want us to share feelings. I want us to share activities and what I'm doing. I want to be appreciated.  Identity My partner - accepts me like I am - accepts that I bring a paycheck home - is snippy - she has a tongue like a sword What I want is for us to show love through saying and touching.  Meaning in Life My partner - feels proud of me - support me in what I'm doing - has similar values and beliefs There are a lot of things that I don't like in my relationship but I'm not sure on how to go about changing things.  101  Appendix M  First Prototype of the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale  102  Marital  Self-Validation  Scale  I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the Insturment The f o l l o w i n g are statements about relationships. Read statements and c i r c l e t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e f o r how p r e s e n t l y f e e l i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p .  Rating  the you  Scale  Disagree very strongly  Disagree strongly  Disagree  Agree  1  2  3  4  My p a r t n e r shows t h e i r touching me.  2.  My  p a r t n e r has  3.  My  partner  4.  I feel  5.  My  6.  I f e e l t h a t my p a r t n e r i s a t t r a c t e d t o my and i n t e l l e c t u a l b e i n g .  7.  I feel  like  8.  I feel  appreciated  9.  My partner accurately.  10.  I feel  1.1.  I am  consulted  12.  I am  t r e a t e d w i t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n and  13.  My p a r t n e r c l e a r l y background.  14.  I do ethnic  partner  like  difficulty  tells  me  that they  partner  does not  t h a t he/  f o r my  me  to  me  p a r t n e r makes a c o n s c i o u s on  and my  not f e e l l i k e background.  my  by  loves  me.  thoughts. feelings.  emotional, with and  and  physical  respect. strengths. understands  effort  a l l d e c i s i o n s w h i c h h a v e t o be  r e s p e c t s my  me  company.  respects  inner resources  listens  she  opinions  treat  6  towards  a p p r e c i a t e my  a c k n o w l e d g e s and  actively my  me  p a r t n e r d i s r e g a r d s my  clearly  my  affection  telling  Agree very strongly  5  1.  t h a t my  l o v e and  Agree strongly  to a v o i d  me me.  made.  kindness.  religious  or  non-religious  respects  my  cultural  partner  103  and  15.  My p a r t n e r a c t i v e l y i n t e r e s t s which are  16.  My partner fulfillment  17.  My  18.  I feel  19.  My partner a c t i v e l y e n c o u r a g e s me unique i n d i v i d u a l i t y .  20.  My p a r t n e r s t a t e s t h a t t h e y f i n d a q u a l i t y i n me t h a t may be described as s p i r i t u a l , where I am g i v i n g , l o v i n g and accepting of o t h e r s .  21.  I feel talents  22.  My partner friend.  23.  My p a r t n e r t r e a t s me unique i n d i v i d u a l .  24.  We a r e b o t h c l e a r l y add t o e a c h o t h e r ' s  25.  Our  26.  We  plan together  27.  We  seem t o l a c k a deep e m o t i o n a l  28.  My partner t r e a t s me w i t h r e s p e c t as important p a r t i n making d e c i s i o n s .  29.  We  30.  We are both c l e a r l y committed to h e l p i n g each towards our h i g h e s t l e v e l of p e r s o n h o o d .  31.  We to  32.  We both share i n t e r e s t and/or other i n d i v i d u a l s  33.  My  34.  Our  partner  fails to active i my c a r e e r , s t u d y , shows a l a c k o f  t h a t ny  respect  partner values  tells  inlife  me  are  that  my  as  they  and  support me in pursuing or p e r s o n a l p r o j e c t s . f o r my  privacy.  unique personal to  see  me  as  my  his  a person i n a r o l e ,  committed to doing happiness.  qualities.  appreciate  t h a t my p a r t n e r f a i l s t o recognize and p e r s o n a l a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s .  goals  both  s u p p o r t s me i n my p u r s u i t o f h o b b i e s d i f f e r e n t from h i s / h e r s .  my  expertise,  or  her  r a t h e r than  what we  own  best as  n e e d t o do  a to  different.  f o r the  have doubts about  future.  the  bond w i t h  each  having  f u t u r e of our  other. an  equally  relationship. other  grow  are both c l e a r l y committed to our s p i r i t u a l development become l e s s s e l f i s h , m o r e g i v i n g , and more a c c e p t i n g o f o t h e r s .  partner  and j o y i n h e l p i n g towards a s a t i s f y i n g  is a significant  v i e w s on  life  are  part  different.  104  o f my  reason  our way for  children of l i f e . living.  Appendix N  Final Version of the Dyadic Partner Validation Scale (DPVS)  105  DYADIC PARTNER V A L I D A T I O N  SCALE  PART 1 : Please partner  Rating 1  not true  c i r c l e t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e number t o b e s t d e s c r i b e your on t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s u s i n g t h e r a t i n g s c a l e b e l o w :  Scale:  3  2-  slightly true  4  somewhat true  5  moderately true  6  quite true  7  very true  extremely true  MY PARTNER : 1-2-3-4-5-6-7  1.  I s aware o f my  feelings.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  2.  Actively  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  3.  Disregards  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  4.  R e s p e c t s my  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  5.  I s a t t r a c t e d t o my p e r s o n a l i t y .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  6.  Does n o t show e n o u g h  s e e k s o u t my my  opinions.  feelings.  a p e r s o n as I w o u l d me  company.  respect  t o w a r d s me  like.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  7.  Treats  g e n t l y when I am h u r t i n g o r  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  8.  A c c e p t s me  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  9.  Has d i f f i c u l t y  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  10.  V e r b a l l y a c k n o w l e d g e s my p e r s o n a l  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  11.  Makes me  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  12.  Treats  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  13.  Shows l i t t l e  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  14.  S u p p o r t s me  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  15.  V a l u e s my u n i q u e p e r s o n a l  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  16.  Actively  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  17.  Rarely  f o r who  feel  as  upset.  I am.  understanding  me. strengths.  loved.  me w i t h  consideration.  r e c o g n i t i o n o f what I do i n pursuing  e n c o u r a g e s me  my  own  interests.  qualities.  to appreciate  a c k n o w l e d g e s ray p e r s o n a l  106  well.  myself.  accomplishments.  Rating Scale: 1— 2 — not slightly true true  3 somewhat true  4 moderately true  5-quite true  6 very true  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  18.  Uses a f f e c t i o n  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  19.  F i n d s i n me a q u a l i t y l o v i n g , and a c c e p t i n g  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  20.  Shows s u p p o r t f o r my p u r s u i n g my c a r e e r , s t u d y , o r p e r s o n a l  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  21.  Considers  PART Please  me  when t o u c h i n g  -7 extremely true  me.  w h e r e I c a n be g i v i n g , towards o t h e r s . fulfillment in projects.  t o be h i s / h e r b e s t  friend.  2± u s e t h e same r a t i n g  s c a l e to answer t h e f o l l o w i n g  IN MY R E L A T I O N S H I P WITH MY  items:  PARTNER:  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  1.  Our g o a l s  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  2.  We  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  3.  We s h a r e a v a l u e o f l e a r n i n g t o become more l o v i n g , g i v i n g , and a c c e p t i n g t o w a r d s o t h e r s ,  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  4.  We seem t o l a c k a deep e m o t i o n a l each o t h e r .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  5.  We  plan  in life are-different.  together  f o r the f u t u r e .  are both committed  to doing  t o do t o a d d t o e a c h o t h e r ' s  bond  with  what we  need  happiness.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  6.  We make d e c i s i o n s  together.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  7.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  8.  We b o t h have d o u b t s a b o u t t h e f u t u r e o f o u r relationship. We a r e b o t h c o m m i t t e d t o h e l p i n g each other grow t o w a r d s our h i s h e s t p o t e n t i a l .  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  9.  1-2-3-4-5-6-7  10.  Our r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a s a f e p l a c e can o p e n l y examine o u r f e e l i n g s .  where  My p a r t n e r life.  part  plays  107  a very  important  we i n my  

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.831.1-0054074/manifest

Comment

Related Items