Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Sexual and marital communication : and perceived marital adjustment Vogel, Noelle Anne 1983

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 V63.pdf [ 3.88MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054245.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054245-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054245-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054245-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054245-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054245-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054245-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054245-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054245.ris

Full Text

SEXUAL AND MARITAL COMMUNICATION AND PERCEIVED MARITAL ADJUSTMENT  by NOELLE ANNE VOGEL B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h  Columbia,  1980  A T H E S I S SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology)  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g to the required  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA A u g u s t 1983 (c)  N o e l l e A n n e V o g e l , 1983  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an  advanced degree a t the  B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that freely  the  a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may  D e p a r t m e n t o r by  be  s h a l l not  be  study.  I  The  University  g r a n t e d by  Vancouver,  August,  1983  B.C.  the  Head o f  thesis my  I t i s understood thesis for  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  Psychology  of B r i t i s h Columbia  further  copying of t h i s  his representatives.  Department of C o u n s e l l i n g  of  s h a l l make i t  t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s gain  University  Library  agree that permission f o r extensive for  the  written  financial  permission.  - i i-  ABSTRACT T h i s s t u d y sought t o examine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l q u a l i t y and i n t e r s p o u s a l  sexual communication.  The  study a l s o sought t o examine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between communication of  and m a r i t a l communication  and p e r c e i v e d  sexual quality  relationships. A p u r p o s i v e sample  o f f o r t y f o u r c o u p l e s was d r a w n  from throughout the lower mainland of B r i t i s h Canada. ling  Columbia,  T w e n t y two c o u p l e s who w e r e r e c e i v i n g m a r i t a l  f o rdistressed  G r o u p One.  counsel-  r e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e drawn a n d c o n s t i t u t e d  T w e n t y two c o u p l e s who w e r e n o t s e e k i n g t h e r a p y  and who j u d g e d t h e i r m a r r i a g e s t o b e s a t i s f a c t o r y w e r e d r a w n and c o n s t i t u t e d  G r o u p Two.  Both husbands and w i v e s  within  each sample were m a i l e d t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : Dyadic Adjustment Scale,  The M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n  and The S e x u a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n  Inventory  Inventory.  Four h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d . Three were t e s t e d  Hypotheses  One, Two a n d  u s i n g independent groups t - t e s t f o r t h e  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n means t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e was a tically  The  statis-  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e means o f t h e two  g r o u p s on d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s  of marital  adjustment.  H y p o t h e s i s F o u r was t e s t e d u s i n g t h e P e a r s o n P r o d u c t Moment correlation coefficient between v a r i a b l e s . case.  to establish the relationships  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d  i n each  The  r e s u l t s of the study r e c o n f i r m t h a t there i s a  s t r o n g p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between i n t e r s p o u s a l communication.  The  a s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n between  open  marital  a d j u s t m e n t and b e t w e e n  t i o n and m a r i t a l  distress.  The  marital  sexual communication  and  r e s u l t s of Hypothesis Four between  sexual  communication  sexual communication  c o m m u n i c a t i o n a r e g r o u p s p e c i f i c and groups.  demonstrates  i n h i b i t e d s e x u a l communica-  a d j u s t m e n t and b e t w e e n  s i g n i f i c a n t between  a d j u s t m e n t and  study f u r t h e r  demonstrate that the c o r r e l a t i o n s and m a r i t a l  marital  and  statistically  - iv-  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  .  .  .  TABLE OF CONTENTS L I S T OF TABLES  . .  .  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION  Statement of t h e Problem Objectives  of t h e Study  Significance  of t h e Study  D e f i n i t i o n o f Key Terms Limitations  .  .  .  Overview of t h e Study CHAPTER  TWO:  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction  .  .  Issues i n the Operational of M a r i t a l Adjustment M a r i t a l Communication of M a r i t a l Adjustment Sexual Communication of Sexual Summary .  .  Definition .  as a V a r i a b l e .  .  .  as a V a r i a b l e  Adjustment .  .  .  .  .  - v Page CHAPTER I I I : METHODOLOGY Research  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  D e s i g n and Sampling Methods  .  .  26  .  .  26  Instrumentation  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  28  Data C o l l e c t i o n  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  33  .  .  .  .  34  S t a t i s t i c a l Hypotheses  .  Summary .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  . 3 6  CHAPTER I V : RESULTS .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s e s o f t h e Hypotheses Supplementary  Analyses  .  Summary o f R e s u l t s  .  .  .  .  .  . .  37  .  .  37  .  .  50  .  .  53  CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION  .  Summary .  .  .  .  .  .  C o n c l u s i o n s and D i s c u s s i o n Limitations Implications  REFERENCES:.  .  .  of the Investigation  .  .  .  . .  .  .  55  .  55  .  57  .  62  and S u g g e s t i o n s f o r  Further Research Conclusion  .  .  . .  . . .  . .  . .  .  . .  . .  . .  .  . .  . .  .  APPENDIX A:  LETTER OF CONTACT  .  APPENDIX B:  LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL  .  .  APPENDIX C:  DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE .  .  APPENDIX D:  MARITAL COMMUNICATION  APPENDIX E:  SEXUAL COMMUNICATION  .  . 6 8 .  73  .  .  75  .  .  77  .  .  81  .  .  86  APPENDIX F:  FAMILY BACKGROUND SHEET AND SUMMARY  .  90  APPENDIX G:  FOLLOW-UP LETTER  .  94  .  INVENTORY  65  . .  63  INVENTORY .  .  .  - v i -  L I S T OF TABLES Table 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Page S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r S u b j e c t s i n T h e r a p y (Group 1) a n d S u b j e c t s N o t i n T h e r a p y (Group 2) on S c o r e s o f M a r i t a l A d j u s t m e n t U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Independent Samples . . Significance of the Means f o r M a l e s a n d (Group 1) on S c o r e s ment U s i n g a t - T e s t  .  D i f f e r e n c e Between Females i n Therapy of M a r i t a l Adjustf o r Dependent Samples  37  .  39  S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r M a l e s a n d F e m a l e s N o t i n T h e r a p y (Group 2) on S c o r e s o f M a r i t a l A d j u s t m e n t U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples .  .  39  S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r S u b j e c t s i n T h e r a p y (Group 1) and S u b j e c t s N o t i n T h e r a p y (Group 2) on Scores o f M a r i t a l Communication U s i n g a t T e s t f o r Independent Samples . . .  .  40  S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r M a l e s a n d F e m a l e s i n T h e r a p y (Group 1) on S c o r e s o f M a r i t a l Communic a t i o n U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples  .  41  Significance of the Means f o r M a l e s a n d (Group 2) on S c o r e s t i o n Using a t-Test  .  42  S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r S u b j e c t s i n T h e r a p y (Group 1) a n d S u b j e c t s N o t i n T h e r a p y (Group 2) on S c o r e s of S e x u a l Communication U s i n g t - T e s t f o r Independent Samples . . . . .  .  43  S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Means f o r M a l e s a n d (Group 1) on S c o r e s tion Using a t-Test  .  44  D i f f e r e n c e Between Females Not i n Therapy o f M a r i t a l Communicaf o r Dependent Samples  D i f f e r e n c e Between Females i n Therapy o f S e x u a l Communicaf o r Dependent Samples  - v i i Table 9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Page S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r M a l e s and F e m a l e s N o t i n T h e r a p y (Group 2) on S c o r e s o f S e x u a l Communication Using a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples . . . .  .  .  45  G r o u p One ( i n T h e r a p y ) P e a r s o n P r o d u c t Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s B e t w e e n Dyadic Adjustment, M a r i t a l Communication and S e x u a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n (N = 44) . . .  .  46  G r o u p Two (Not i n T h e r a p y ) P e a r s o n Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Between D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t , M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n and S e x u a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n (N = 44)  46  P e a r s o n P r o d u c t - M o m e n t C o r r e l a t i o n Coe f f i c i e n t s Between D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d S e x u a l Commun i c a t i o n f o r T o t a l Sample (N = 88) . S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Pearson r C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r S u b j e c t s i n T h e r a p y ( G r o u p 1) a n d S u b j e c t s N o t i n T h e r a p y ( G r o u p 2) U s i n g Fisher's Z-Transformation . . .  .  .  G r o u p One: P e a r s o n r C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r T o t a l DAS S c a l e a n d S u b s c a l e s and MCI and S C I S c o r e s (n = 44) . . G r o u p Two: P e a r s o n r C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r T o t a l DAS S c a l e a n d S u b s c a l e s and MCI a n d S C I S c o r e s (n =• 44) . .  49  .  .  47  50  52  - viii  -  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I w o u l d l i k e t o e x t e n d my t h a n k s t o my t h e s i s committee,  a n d e s p e c i a l l y t o my c h a i r p e r s o n , D r . J o h n Banmen,  who h a s a c t e d a s b o t h my r e s e a r c h a n d c l i n i c a l a d v i s o r . D r . Banmen h a s o f f e r e d me s i n c e r e s u p p o r t a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t i n my p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t a s a c l i n i c i a n a n d r e s e a r c h e r . A p p r e c i a t i o n i s a l s o d u e t o t h e many c o u p l e s who shared o f t h e i r time and energy the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  For this  i n c o m p l e t i n g and r e t u r n i n g  I am s i n c e r e l y  To W i n k , my p a r t n e r i n l i f e ,  grateful.  and t o o u r c h i l d r e n  R a n d y , T r a c y a n d T i m , I am e s p e c i a l l y t h a n k f u l f o r t h e i r o n going support and a s s i s t a n c e throughout completing a graduate degree.  To a l l ,  t h e p r o c e s s o f my I e x p r e s s my  thanks.  - 1 -  CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The  r i c h e s t most m e a n i n g f u l  a r e made p o s s i b l e  through marriage.  by most a u t h o r i t i e s i n f a m i l y of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t h a t communication healthy  Communication i s seen  r e s e a r c h t o be t h e l i f e  blood  a mutually s a t i s f y i n g l e v e l of  i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a v i t a l  aspect of a  o f t h e Problem  Many s t u d i e s  h a v e shown t h a t  significant to perceived marital both husbands and wives  & Wackman, 1 9 7 5 ; v/Navran, Although communication  good communication  adjustment  ( B i e n v e n u , 1970; M i l l e r ,  s o l v i n g and adjustments & Martin,  Couples therapist clinical  implicate  marry  communication  prepared  required  f o r the  i n a relationship  1976) .  who s e e k m a r i t a l  a variety of marital  therapy bring  complaints.  to the  R e s e a r c h and  d a t a h a v e shown, h o w e v e r , t h a t c o u p l e s who  d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with  1982).  i s r e g a r d e d a s one o f t h e c e n t r a l  and as a r e s u l t they a r e p o o r l y  (Jacobson  Corrales  1967; U d r y , 1966; W a m p l e r ,  w i t h o u t t h e a d v a n t a g e o f h a v i n g a c q u i r e d good  problem  is  and s a t i s f a c t i o n  p r o c e s s e s i n e v e r y r e l a t i o n s h i p , many i n d i v i d u a l s  skills  in life  marriage.  Statement  for  relationships  t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s most  l a c k of communication  express  consistently  and d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h  sexual  -  2  -  e x p r e s s i o n a s two o f t h e p r i m a r y a r e a s o f m a r i t a l (Birchler,  1979; Green, 1981; Masters  & Johnson,  discord 1970; Sager,  1976) .  One a r e a o f m a r r i a g e w h e r e c o m m u n i c a t i o n  can be  p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t i s the area of s e x u a l i t y .  Woods  (1979)  s u g g e s t s t h a t c o u p l e s who a r e u n a b l e t o t a l k a b o u t s e x a n d who a r e u n w i l l i n g t o be open a b o u t s e x u a l m a t t e r s may h a v e both l i m i t e d ability.  s e x u a l knowledge and l i m i t e d  Deficits  communication  i n s e x u a l knowledge and a b i l i t y  oneself are understandable  i n view of our c u l t u r a l  t o express attitude  r e g a r d i n g sex. C h i l d r e n i n our c u l t u r e a r e taught from  child-  hood t o a v o i d e x p r e s s i n g s e x u a l i m p u l s e s and f e e l i n g s . P a r e n t s i n o u r c u l t u r e g e n e r a l l y do n o t c o m m u n i c a t e  clearly  and c o m f o r t a b l y w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n a b o u t s e x . Sex e d u c a t i o n courses i n o u r s c h o o l s and c o l l e g e s a r e n o t u n i f o r m l y a v a i l s able.  Consequently,  many i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v e  little  p r e p a r a t i o n o r p r a c t i c e i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e i r own s e x u a l i t y or  i n l e a r n i n g t o communicate t h e i r f e e l i n g s about s e x . F o r  these people, i n i t i a t i n g m a r i t a l d i a l o g u e about sex i s difficult. Clinical  d a t a and c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s t h a t  f a i l u r e t o communicate about s e x u a l i s s u e s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s is  f a r f r o m uncommon.  Many n o r m a l  c o u p l e s as w e l l as  d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s l a c k i n f o r m a t i o n a n d s k i l l when ing  i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication  1951;  contemplat-  about sex (Ford & Beach,  Frank, Anderson and R u b i n s t e i n , 1978; Green, 1981;  Kaplan,  1974;  Mace, 1971; P e n l a n d ,  1981).  - 3 Despite the current l i b e r a t i n g trend i n the area of s e x u a l i t y , i t a p p e a r s t h a t many p e o p l e h a v e n o t d e v e l o p e d t h e skills  and a t t i t u d e s n e c e s s a r y f o r t a l k i n g about t h e s p e c i f i c s  of a s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r p a r t n e r  (Bienvenu; 1980).  O b j e c t i v e s o f t h e Study T h i s s t u d y f o c u s e s on s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o g e n e r a l communication i n m a r i t a l dyads and t o the m a r i t a l adjustment o f t h a t dyad. answer t h e f o l l o w i n g 1.  The s t u d y a t t e m p t s t o  questions:  Does o p e n s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o r r e l a t e w i t h  marital  adjustment? 2.  Does l a c k o f s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o r r e l a t e marital  3.  distress?  Does open s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o r r e l a t e w i t h marital  4.  with  open  communication?  I s sexual communication a problem f o r couples?  Significance  of t h e Study  Knowledge o f t h e i m p a c t o f s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n upon m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t i s n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o expand and improve e x i s t i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n aimed a t i n c r e a s i n g  harmony a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d d e c r e a s i n g  m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c o n f l i c t i n t h e m a r i t a l ledge o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between sexual communication i s c r i t i c a l t i o n programs  programs  system.  Know-  g e n e r a l communication and f o rthe design of interven-  a i m e d a t t r e a t i n g c o u p l e s whose p r i m a r y o r  subordinate c o m p l a i n t i s lack o f communication  and/or  - 4 d i f f i c u l t y with sexual expression.  Knowledge o f t h e i m p a c t  of s e x u a l communication w i t h i n t h e m a r i t a l system has i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e f u t u r e d e s i g n and  structure  of sex e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s , p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l l i n g programs and m a r i t a l e n r i c h m e n t p r o g r a m s .  In therapy, i t i s import-  ant t o search f o r p a t t e r n s of communication or lack of communication t h a t a r e d i a g n o s t i c a l l y i m p o r t a n t i n terms of p e r m i t t i n g t h e p l a n o f an a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n (Watzlawick, Beavin  & Jackson,  1967).  D e f i n i t i o n o f Key Terms S e v e r a l t e r m s a r e m e n t i o n e d i n t h i s t h e s i s whose d e f i n i t i o n s are being provided to f a c i l i t a t e understanding  of t h i s  the  reader's  study.  M a r i t a l adjustment: This study uses Spanier's  (1976) c o n s t r u c t o f d y a d i c  a d j u s t m e n t t o measure t h e q u a l i t y o f a  relationship.  T h i s c o n s t r u c t i s d e f i n e d a s a p r o c e s s , t h e outcome of w h i c h i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e d e g r e e o f :  Sexual  1)  dyadic  satisfaction  2)  dyadic  consensus  3)  dyadic  cohesion  4)  dyadic  affection  communication: S e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s any c o m m u n i c a t i o n a b o u t s e x u a l needs o r s e x u a l l i k e s and d i s l i k e s o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n  - 5 about concerns, agreements o r disagreements about sex.  Sexual communication a l s o i n c l u d e s  to d i s c u s s  the a b i l i t y  sexual matters, t o ask, t o r e f u s e ,  communicate through p h y s i c a l  or t o  touch.  (  Marital  communication: M a r i t a l communication r e f e r s t o the i n d i v i d u a l ' s ability self.  to l i s t e n ,  t o understand and t o express one-  M a r i t a l communication a l s o i n c l u d e s  tone, and s t y l e of s a y i n g t h i n g s . t i o n of the p a t t e r n s ,  This  the manner,  i s a defini-  s t y l e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  communication. Marital  relationship: In t h i s study, m a r i t a l marital  r e l a t i o n s h i p r e f e r s t o any  o r non m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n  r e l a t i o n s h i p of  h e t e r o - s e x u a l couples of 24 months d u r a t i o n  or l o n g e r .  Group One: Couples p r e s e n t l y marital  undergoing m a r i t a l c o u n s e l l i n g f o r  distress.  Group Two: Couples not i n therapy who judge t h e i r marriages t o be  satisfactory.  Limitations The selected,  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study were not randomly  therefore  the r e s u l t s may be c o n s i d e r e d  relevant  -  6  -  only to the couples s t u d i e d and other m a r i t a l dyads.  may  R e s u l t s may  f u r t h e r by the canvassing  of two  not be g e n e r a l i z e d  or may  not be  volunteer  s u b j e c t s were Caucasian secpnd g e n e r a t i o n  to  limited  samples.  All  North Americans  and  were r e s i d e n t s of a westcoast urban Canadian c i t y .  Such a  sample may  involun-  tary  have a response s e t t h a t d i f f e r s from an  population.  Overview of the An  i n t r o d u c t i o n of the study has been presented i n  Chapter One. provided  Study  The  conceptual  i n Chapter Two  relevant l i t e r a t u r e .  foundation  which c o n t a i n s  f o r t h i s research a review of  is  the  Chapter Three o u t l i n e s the methodology  of the study and w i l l be f o l l o w e d  i n Chapter Four and  a presentation  a d i s c u s s i o n of  of the r e s u l t s and  i m p l i c a t i o n s a r i s i n g out of these f i n d i n g s as w e l l suggestions f o r f u r t h e r  research.  the as  Five  by  CHAPTER  TWO  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The three areas  review of the l i t e r a t u r e i s organized of i n t e r e s t .  i n v o l v i n g the concepts and m a r i t a l q u a l i t y .  The f i r s t  around  s e c t i o n concerns issues  and d e f i n i t i o n o f m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t The s e c o n d s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s  the research  r e l a t e d t o m a r i t a l communication as a v a r i a b l e of m a r i t a l adjustment.  The t h i r d  section presents  the research  related  t o s e x u a l communication as a v a r i a b l e o f s e x u a l and m a r i t a l adjustment.  T h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l framework i s c o n s i s t e n t  with the o b j e c t i v e of the study process  i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t h e  o f m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and t h e domain o f s e x u a l  communication. Issues  i n the Operational D e f i n i t i o n of Marital The  Adjustment  q u a l i t y o f m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s has been t h e  f o c u s o f much f a m i l y r e s e a r c h o v e r (Hicks & P i a t t ,  t h e past twenty  1970; L e w i s & S p a n i e r ,  1979).  years  As a r e s u l t  of t h e growing r a t e o f s e p a r a t i o n s and d i v o r c e s ,  researchers  h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o d i s c o v e r t h e many f a c t o r s w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e to, or inhibit, and  Spanier  the high l e v e l of marriage  (19 79)  identified  examined v a r i o u s a s p e c t s ing.  breakdown.  Lewis  3 00 s t u d i e s w h i c h h a v e  of the q u a l i t y of m a r i t a l f u n c t i o n -  - 8 One o f t h e p r o b l e m s  i n t h i s type of m a r i t a l research  h a s b e e n t h e l a c k o f a g r e e m e n t on t h e u s e o f t e r m s s u c h a s "marital adjustment", " s a t i s f a c t i o n " , "stability".  Comparisons  " s u c c e s s " , and  of the research completed,  there-  f o r e , a r e o f t e n d i f f i c u l t o r i m p o s s i b l e due t o t h e l a c k o f unity i n the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of these d e f i n i t i o n s . example,  Burgess and C o t t r e l l  (1936) d e f i n e d m a r i t a l  For adjust-  ment a s : A m a r r i a g e i n which t h e a t t i t u d e s and a c t i o n s of each o f t h e p a r t n e r s produce an environment which i s h i g h l y favourable t o the proper functioning of the personality structures of each p a r t n e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e sphere o f primary r e l a t i o n s h i p s . ( p . 63) Locke and W a l l a c e  (1959) , h o w e v e r , d e f i n e d m a r i t a l  as " t h e accommodation o f a husband a given time"  adjustment  and w i f e t o each o t h e r a t  ( p . 1 2 8 ) . L a t e r , B u r r (1973) v i e w e d  marital  a d j u s t m e n t a s "a s u b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l experiences a c e r t a i n degree of attainment o f a goal o r desires"  (p. 6 8 ) . S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s ( B u r r , 1973; H i c k s & P i a t t , 1970;  L e w i s & S p a n i e r , 19 79) h a v e w r i t t e n on t h e l a c k o f c l a r i t y w h i c h i s a p p a r e n t i n many o f t h e c o n c e p t s e m p l o y e d marriage research.  S p a n i e r and C o l e  (19 76)  r e v i e w e d 26  m a r r i a g e and f a m i l y t e x t s which d i s c u s s e d m a r i t a l happiness and s u c c e s s .  i n such  adjustment,  They p o i n t e d o u t t h a t o n l y a f e w o f  t h e t e x t s i n c l u d e d d e f i n i t i o n s o f w h a t t h e t e r m s meant. O b v i o u s l y , much c o n f u s i o n a n d a m b i g u i t y s u r r o u n d s t h e u s e o f s u c h t e r m s when d e f i n i t i o n s a r e o m i t t e d .  - 9 At t h i s p o i n t , i t i s important t o c l a r i f y the concept of m a r i t a l adjustment  as i t i s used i n t h i s study to assess  the q u a l i t y of a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Spanier and Cole adjustment  (1976) attempted  to define marital  t o i n c l u d e a number of p r e v i o u s l y used  concepts  such as s a t i s f a c t i o n , consensus, cohesion, and a f f e c t i o n . a d d i t i o n , they c o n c e p t u a l i z e d m a r i t a l adjustment ing p r o c e s s .  T h i s permits m a r i t a l adjustment  a process of movement along a continuum  as a chang-  t o be viewed  as  which a l l o w s e v a l u a -  t i o n i n terms of p r o x i m i t y t o good or poor Spanier and Cole  In  adjustment.  (1976) o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of  m a r i t a l adjustment by d e v e l o p i n g a s e t of items t h a t  reflected  each of the h y p o t h e s i z e d components of the adjustment  process:  (1) troublesome dyadic d i f f e r e n c e s ; t e n s i o n s and p e r s o n a l a n x i e t y ; (4) dyadic cohesion; and  (2) i n t e r p e r s o n a l  (3) dyadic s a t i s f a c t i o n ;  (5) consensus  on matters of  importance t o dyadic f u n c t i o n i n g . In 1976, Scale  (DAS)  Spanier p u b l i s h e d the Dyadic  Adjustment  which he b e l i e v e s i s an "adequate  measure of  m a r i t a l q u a l i t y " with adequate  v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y  and  which i s based on c l e a r c o n c e p t u a l p l a n n i n g . In the development of the DAS, was  collected.  a pool of 300  items  The items o r i g i n a t e d from a l l items ever used  i n any s c a l e measuring  m a r i t a l adjustment  or r e l a t e d concepts.  The items were subsequently judged by three judges f o r content v a l i d i t y , a d m i n i s t e r e d t o 218 people and a n a l y s e d .  The  valid  -  i t e m s were t h e n  the presence  to  which items  dyadic adjustment As  -  factor analysed  definitions, determine  10  to assess  of h y p o t h e s i z e d s h o u l d be  i n c l u d e d i n the  of f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ,  the  composed o f f o u r components o f m a r i t a l satisfaction;  consensus;  (2) d y a d i c  (4) a f f e c t i o n a l  Spanier  components,  i s capable  marital  final  scale i s  adjustment:  cohesion;  (3)  dyadic  expression.  (1979) c o n t i n u e s  to argue t h a t the  Dyadic  or  not  marital during  i s comprised.  of m a r i t a l q u a l i t y ,  o f most m a r r i a g e s the marriage quality  will  Spanier  (1979)  remain i n t a c t .  Spanier  how  argue  t h e more  n o t i n g t h a t i± l i s ..the  which p r i m a r i l y  i s concerned  i t s e x i s t e n c e and  L e w i s and  L e w i s and  t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s must f o c u s s t u d i e s on  general concept quality  because  o f m e a s u r i n g a number o f components o f w h i c h  quality  persuasively  and  final  A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e i s a good measure o f m a r i t a l q u a l i t y it  of  scale.  a result  (1) d y a d i c  the adequacy  w i t h how  determines The  concept  a marriage  each p a r t n e r f e e l s  (1979) d e f i n e m a r i t a l q u a l i t y  whether of  functions about i t . as:  A s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of a couple's r e l a t i o n ship. The r a n g e o f e v a l u a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e s a c o n t i n u u m r e f l e c t i n g numerous c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n and m a r i t a l f u n c t i o n i n g . High m a r i t a l q u a l i t y , t h e r e f o r e , i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h good judgement, a d e q u a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a high l e v e l of m a r i t a l happiness, i n t e g r a t i o n , and a h i g h d e g r e e o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e relationship. (p. 269) The  present  study  i s concerned  between s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n  and  with  the  relationship  perceived marital  adjustment  as w e l l as between  m a r i t a l communication and p e r c e i v e d  m a r i t a l adjustment. and S p a n i e r ' s  Because t h i s r e s e a r c h e r r e s p e c t e d Lewis  (1979) d e f i n i t i o n o f m a r i t a l q u a l i t y a s encom- .  p a s s i n g a wide range o f terms i n c l u d i n g  communication,  c o n s e n s u s , a d j u s t m e n t , a f f e c t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n and m a r i t a l satisfaction,  the perceived q u a l i t y of marriage i n t h i s  s t u d y was a s s e s s e d b y t h e s u b j e c t s Adjustment  s c o r e on t h e D y a d i c  Scale.  M a r i t a l Communication  as a V a r i a b l e  of M a r i t a l Adjustment  S e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s have e s t a b l i s h e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between satisfaction. the  m a r i t a l communication and m a r i t a l  Navran  (1967) , f o r i n s t a n c e ,  Inventory  couples. discriminated In addition,  communication and m a r r i a g e a d j u s t m e n t .  to r e p l i c a t i n g Navran s 1  t i o n and m a r i t a l  s t u d y , Kahn  (1967)  p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  In addition  (1970)  a c c u r a t e non v e r b a l  satisfaction.  found a communica-  Further evidence t o support  r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l communication and m a r i t a l  s a t i s f a c t i o n was o f f e r e d b y B i e n v e n u the  (PCI).  (Locke &  P C I a n d LW s c o r e s i n d i c a t e d a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p  between  the  and non d i s t r e s s e d  r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e two g r o u p s w e r e  by t h e P r i m a r y C o m m u n i c a t i o n the  administered  L o c k e - W a l l a c e (LW) M a r i t a l A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e  W a l l a c e , 1959) t o d i s t r e s s e d The  a positive  (1970)  p r o c e s s o f communication measured  cation  Inventory  (Bienvenu, 1970).  s c o r e on t h e M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n  i n h i s study of  b y t h e M a r i t a l Communi-  Based on t h e r e s u l t i n g Inventory  (MCI), groups o f  h i g h v e r s e s low distressed  scoring  o r non  12  -  c o u p l e s were d i s c r i m i n a t e d  distressed couples.  B a s e d on  there i s s i g n i f i c a n t evidence to support the  as  such  to studies  positive  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and  marital  satisfaction. As  a r e s u l t of  a c c e p t e d by i n the  the  above r e s e a r c h ,  r e s e a r c h e r s and  skills  t h e r a p y and  therapists  (1981)  generally  that t r a i n i n g a  of c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s a p r i m a r y component  enrichment.  In t h e i r extensive  t h e r a p y outcome r e s e a r c h f r o m 1970 Kniskern  i t is  (1981) v e r i f y t h i s b e l i e f .  t o 1980,  couple of  summary o f Gurman  Gurman and  family  and  Kniskern  state: The o n l y t r e a t m e n t i n g r e d i e n t s t h a t h a v e c o n s i s t a n t l y p o s i t i v e empirical support as f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e outcome o f m a r i t a l t h e r a p i e s , a p p a r e n t l y r e g a r d l e s s of the g e n e r a l mode o f s u c h t h e r a p i e s ( c f . Gurman, 1975b; J a c o b s o n , 1979) , a r e t h o s e t h a t i n c r e a s e c o u p l e s c o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s , (p. 749) For  the  implications  clinician,  i n terms of  such e m p i r i c a l  treating couples.  research,  regardless  of the  e n c e , one  component o f the  directed  towards i n c r e a s i n g  r e s u l t s have d i r e c t According  clinician's theoretical counselling the  prefer-  program should  couple's a b i l i t y  to  be  t o communi-  cate . The  impetus to develop adequate resources  t r a i n i n g couples i n the originated  f r o m two  a r t o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n has  sources:  for therefore,  1.  Research of  has  shown e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e outcome  t h e r a p i e s which  increase couple's  communication  skills. 2.  Research  has  shown t h a t c o u p l e s who  therapy i d e n t i f y t h e i r i n a b i l i t y and of  seek  marital  t o communicate w i t h ,  t o be h e a r d b y , t h e i r p a r t n e r a s a p r i m a r y  source  distress.  I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , given these f a c t s , t h a t there has been a subsequent communication identify  skills  e x p l o s i o n i n the development of t r a i n i n g programs t o a s s i s t c o u p l e s  l a c k o f , o r n e g a t i v e communication  relationship issue.  Communication s k i l l s  as a  who  primary  training  programs  h a v e emerged a s a r e s o u r c e , and a d j u n c t t o , m a r i t a l c o u n s e l ling  f o r d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s a s w e l l a s a r e s o u r c e f o r non  d i s t r e s s e d couples seeking t o e n r i c h the q u a l i t y of marriage  (Mace & Mace, 1975; In  Travis & Travis,  their  1975).  r e v i e w i n g t h e outcome l i t e r a t u r e o f v a r i o u s  communication  t r a i n i n g approaches,  i t became a p p a r e n t  that  many o f t h e s t u d i e s s u f f e r f r o m m e t h o d o l o g i c a l f l a w s a s  well  as a l a c k o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n of t h e t r e a t m e n t c o n t e n t and/or procedures.  Therefore, the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l  on two c o m m u n i c a t i o n to  demonstrate  t r a i n i n g approaches  empirical  The  attempted  s u p p o r t and w h i c h h a v e d o c u m e n t e d  t h e c o n t e n t and p r o c e d u r e s two p r o g r a m s a r e The  which have  focus  f o l l o w e d i n t h e i r approach.  Couples  Communication Program  C o n j u g a l R e l a t i o n s h i p Enhancement Program  (CCP)  (CRE).  The and  - 14 -  The C o u p l e s C o m m u n i c a t i o n 1968  and i s p r e s e n t l y  P r o g r a m was d e v e l o p e d i n  one o f t h e most w i d e l y a n d t h o r o u g h l y  r e s e a r c h e d c o u p l e ' s c o m m u n i c a t i o n programs  i n North America  ( M i l l e r , Nunnally  & Wackman, 1979; M i l l e r ,  Wackman, N u n n a l l y  & Saline,  The p r o g r a m i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y  1981).  systems and communication t h e o r y Olson  & Sprenkle, CCP  1976; O t t o ,  stresses as  well  receptivity, as f o c u s i n g  relationship his  couples  i n the couple's  t o be aware o f r u l e s system.  The p r o g r a m  d i s c l o s u r e and t h e t e a c h i n g  of s k i l l s  on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f an e g a l i t a r i a n  through the b u i l d i n g  review of s k i l l s  lines  (Beck, 1975; O l s o n , 1970;  1975).  f o c u s e s on t r a i n i n g  and m e t a - c o m m u n i c a t i o n  based i n  training  of mutual s e l f  programs, L'Abate  esteem. (1981)  In  out-  t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e 12 h o u r CCP p r o g r a m a s f o l l o w s : In t h e f i r s t s e s s i o n t h e r e i s a d e f i n i t i o n of t h e awareness wheel, which has f i v e s e c t i o n s : a c t i n g , sensing, t h i n k i n g , wanting, and f e e l i n g . Couples a r e taught s i x s k i l l s f o r v e r b a l l y e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r awareness: (a) s p e a k i n g f o r s e l f ; (b) making s e n s e statements; (c) making i n t e r p r e t i v e s t a t e ments; (d) making f e e l i n g s t a t e m e n t s ; (e) making i n t e n t i o n a l s t a t e m e n t s ; a n d (f) making a c t i o n s t a t e m e n t s . I n t h e s e c o n d s e s s i o n , f o c u s s h i f t s t o l e a r n i n g how t o exchange i m p o r t a n t communication a c c u r a t e l y w i t h one's partner t h r o u g h a s h a r e d meaning framework, w h i c h c o n s i s t s o f c h e c k i n g o u t , s t a t i n g i n t e n t i o n s and a s k i n g f o r acknowledgment, a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e s e n d e r ' s message, c o n f i r m i n g and c l a r i f y i n g . In s e s s i o n three, c o u p l e s a r e taught t h e major s t y l e s o f t h e H i l l I n t e r a c t i o n M a t r i x , which c o n s i s t s o f i n c o n g r u o u s ways o f c o m m u n i c a t i n g a n d l e a r n i n g more e f f i c i e n t ways t o communicate. The f o u r t h a n d f i n a l s e s s i o n i s a r e h e r s a l o f t e c h n i q u e s l e a r n e d i n p r e v i o u s s e s s i o n s , (p. 635)  - 15 The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the f o r e g o i n g twelve hour i n s t r u c t i o n program i s supported by r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s . her review of 19 r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s on the Couple Program, Wampler  (198 2)  found t h a t CCP  Communication  has an immediate  p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on m a r i t a l communication behavior and relationship satisfaction. the e f f e c t of CCP  Of the two  In  on  s t u d i e s which examined  on the p e r c e i v e d q u a l i t y of the couples  r e l a t i o n s h i p , both s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d immediate p o s i t i v e effects  (Wampler, 1982) .  t i v e e f f e c t s of CCP  One  followup study r e p o r t e d p o s i -  on s e l f r e p o r t e d communication b e h a v i o r  6 months to 5 years a f t e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the program (Wampler & Sprenkle, 198 0). Joanning  (1982), i n h i s r e c e n t study i n t o the long  term e f f e c t s of the Couples  Communication Program, assessed  couples i n i t i a l l y u s i n g the s e l f r e p o r t measures of the Short M a r i t a l Adjustment T e s t  (Locke & Wallace,  the M a r i t a l Communication Inventory  (Bienvenu,  1959) 1970)  as b e h a v i o r a l l y r a t i n g the couple's i n t e r a c t i o n .  and as w e l l  Joanning's  r e s u l t s showed t h a t couples i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on a l l measures a t immediate p o s t t e s t . p e r c e i v e d m a r i t a l adjustment,  However, a f t e r f i v e months,  as measured by the Short  M a r i t a l Adjustment T e s t , r e t u r n e d t o p r e t e s t l e v e l s , where as p e r c e i v e d communication q u a l i t y and communication q u a l i t y maintained Joanning  rater  judged  posttest levels.  suggests as an e x p l a n a t i o n of h i s f i n d i n g s ,  t h a t f o c u s i n g on communication s k i l l s  and a t t i t u d e s i s a  - 16 necessary ing  b u t i n s u f f i c i e n t method f o r i m p r o v i n g  increased marital s a t i s f a c t i o n .  reported  plus  Couples i n t h i s  maintainstudy  t h a t t h e y were aware o f an i n c r e a s e d s e n s e o f  i n t i m a c y d u r i n g t h e p r o g r a m due t o t h e t i m e s p e n t f o c u s i n g on t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p .  This  increased  together  intimacy,  f o l l o w e d b y l o s s i s one e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e i n c r e a s e a n d subsequent d e c l i n e i n m a r i t a l adjustment. Joanning  (198 2)  suggests:  A l t h o u g h CCP p r o v i d e s some o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c o u p l e s t o e x p l o r e new c o n c e p t s a b o u t r e l a t i o n s h i p s and t o e x p e r i e n c e each o t h e r e m o t i o n a l l y , t h e f o c u s o f t h e p r o g r a m i s on communication. I t may b e n e c e s s a r y t o i n c r e a s e t h e r o l e o f c o g n i t i v e and e m o t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s i n t h e program t o promote i n c r e a s e d m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n o v e r t i m e . ( p . 467) The  Conjugal  R e l a t i o n s h i p Enhancement  was o r i g i n a t e d b y G u r n e y i n 19 77. format,  He d e v e l o p e d a g r o u p  s t r u c t u r e d program o f communication t r a i n i n g f o r  d i s t r e s s e d couples teaches couples to  (CRE) p r o g r a m  b a s e d on an e d u c a t i o n a l model w h i c h  c l i e n t - c e n t e r e d communication s k i l l s r e l a t e d  direct expression  o f f e e l i n g s and empathic l i s t e n i n g .  The  CRE P r o g r a m , u n l i k e t h e 12 h o u r CCP, r u n s f o r s i x months w i t h m e e t i n g s h e l d o n c e a week.  L'Abate  (1981) d e s c r i b e s t h e CRE  program a s g o a l d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s r e p l a c i n g v i c i o u s communicat i o n c y c l e s w i t h d i r e c t open c y c l e s .  P a r t i c i p a n t s are taught:  (a) t o e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s a n d t h o u g h t s c l e a r l y ; (b) t o e m p h a s i z e a n d a c c e p t t h e e x p r e s s i o n s of another; (c) t o f a c i l i t a t e a n d c r i t i c i z e t h e i r own c o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s f r o m moment t o moment; a n d (d) t o d i s c u s s t h e c o n s t r u c t i v e resolution of c o n f l i c t s . ( p . 639)  The  CRE p r o g r a m  approach  i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y b a s e d i n Rogers' h u m a n i s t i c  ( R o g e r s , 1951) i n terms o f u n c o n d i t i o n a l  acceptance  and r e s p e c t o f o t h e r s , a n d i n s o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r y i n t e r m s of  m o d e l l i n g and p r a c t i c i n g b e h a v i o r s .  CRE h a s b e e n w e l l  r e s e a r c h e d a n d i s v a l i d a t e d i n t h e outcome l i t e r a t u r e a s improving communication (L*Abate,  skills  and m a r i t a l  adjustment  1981).  Collins  (19 71) d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t a s i x month w e e k l y  m e e t i n g f o r m a t was e f f e c t i v e i n i m p r o v i n g b o t h a c o u p l e ' s communication Collins  skills  and t h e i r m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n  score.  (1971) h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a s w e l l a s i m p r o v i n g  communication Inventory  as measured by t h e M a r i t a l  Communication  ( B i e n v e n u , 1 9 7 0 ) , t h e CRE w o u l d i m p r o v e  m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t as measured by t h e M a r i t a l  overall  Adjustment  T e s t and t h e C o n j u g a l L i f e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Guerney,  1977).  C o l l i n s found a h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between communication and the  m a r i t a l adjustment v a r i a b l e s .  T h e r e was  significant  i m p r o v e m e n t i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p , b o t h on t h e communic a t i o n and t h e a d j u s t m e n t i n s t r u m e n t as w e l l as a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n e x p e r i m e n t a l a n d c o n t r o l g r o u p s on t h e s ame mea su r e s. To s u m m a r i z e ,  t h e CCP a n d CRE a r e e f f e c t i v e  preven-  t i v e and r e m e d i a l programs which have r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s t o support t h e i r effectiveness i n increasing skills  and m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t .  communication  T h e r e a r e some s t u d i e s how-  e v e r , w h i c h i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e l o n g t e r m e f f e c t s on p e r c e i v e d  m a r i t a l adjustment suggested  are not maintained over time.  t h a t i n t i m a c y , which  communication  One  study  couples experience d u r i n g the  program, f a d e d as t i m e passed  and  resulted in  lower m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n scores a t follow-up. It  s h o u l d be drawn t o t h e r e a d e r s a t t e n t i o n t h a t  b o t h t h e CCP  and  CRE  programs a r e designed t o t e a c h  p r o c e s s o f good communication  skills.  The  c o u p l e ' s d i a l o g u e i s n o t s t r u c t u r e d and  the  content of  the  t h e r e f o r e i t i s the  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the couple t o b r i n g forward i s s u e s they f e e l comfortable t o d i s c u s s w i t h i n a s t r u c t u r e d group The  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n p r o c e s s and c o n t e n t o f  couples  communication  p a r a l l e l s the d i f f e r e n c e between m a r i t a l  communication  and  sexual  communication.  T h i s s e c t i o n has been c o n c e r n e d r e s e a r c h and  format.  p r a c t i c e i n communication  with skills  contemporary training for  c o u p l e s i n t e r m s o f i t s e f f e c t on t h e o v e r a l l a d j u s t m e n t the  of  relationship.  S e x u a l Communication as a V a r i a b l e of S e x u a l M o s t o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e and e f f e c t s of s e x u a l communication adjustment  Adjustment  research regarding the  on s e x u a l and  marital  comes f r o m t h e Sex T h e r a p y l i t e r a t u r e and i s  p r i m a r i l y concerned Couples  with sexually dysfunctional couples.  e x p e r i e n c i n g s e x u a l problems i n t h e i r  rela-  t i o n s h i p s h a v e b e e n h e l p e d i m m e n s e l y i n r e c e n t y e a r s by c o n t r i b u t i o n of Masters  and  Johnson  k n o w l e d g e b a s e o f human s e x u a l i t y .  (1966,  1970), t o the  M a s t e r s and  Johnson  the  - 19 r e d e f i n e d s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n as a r e l a t i o n s h i p problem r a t h e r than an i n d i v i d u a l problem.  T h i s l e d t o r e - e v a l u a t i o n and  r e - d i r e c t i o n of the treatment psychoanalytic  paradigm t o a b e h a v i o r a l  According accomplish  o f s e x u a l problems„from  to the psychoanalytic  paradigm. paradigm, f a i l u r e t o  t h e c h i l d h o o d development t a s k s a s s o c i a t e d  the r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e o e d i p a l complex i s c o n s i d e r e d major e t i o l o g i c a l  f a c t o r i n sexual dysfunctions  Treatment of sexual d y s f u n c t i o n s  a  with  t o be t h e  (Freud,  1905).  i n the psychoanalytic  paradigm i s d i r e c t e d toward t h e re-enactment of t h e o e d i p a l s i t u a t i o n i n a one t o one r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e thus enabling childhood,  the developmental task, not accomplished i n  t o be  The  psychoanalyst,  accomplished.  p u b l i c a t i o n o f M a s t e r s a n d J o h n s o n ' s Human  I n a d e q u a c y i n 1970 c h a n g e d t h e g l o b a l t h i n k i n g a n d of sexual  treatment  dysfunction.  The and  Sexual  key d i f f e r e n c e between t h e p s y c h o a n a l y t i c  thinking  M a s t e r s a n d J o h n s o n ' s t h i n k i n g was t h a t t h e l a t t e r  d e f i n e d sexual d y s f u n c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n s h i p r a t h e r than i n i n d i v i d u a l terms.  M a s t e r s and Johnson f e l t t h a t  sexual  d y s f u n c t i o n s h a d t h e i r r o o t s i n more i m m e d i a t e a n d s i m p l e r problems such a s : f e a r o f f a i l u r e imagined pressures  t o p e r f o r m , and f e a r o f r e j e c t i o n and  h u m i l i a t i o n by one's p a r t n e r . cally  t o perform, r e a l or  Through t h e use o f s y s t e m a t i -  structured sexual experiences,  (1970) w e r e a b l e t o p r o v i d e  M a s t e r s and Johnson  actual relief  and c u r e f o r  - 20 thousands of  couples.  Subsequent t o t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f M a s t e r s and  Johnson's  r e s e a r c h , a number o f o t h e r a c c o u n t s o f b e h a v i o r a l o r q u a s i b e h a v i o r a l approaches t o treatment of sexual have appeared  (Kaplan,  dysfunction  1 9 7 4 ; L o b i t z and L o P i c c o l o , 1 9 7 2 ;  L o P i c c o l o and L o b i t z , 1 9 7 3 ) . W h i l e t h e r e a r e u n i q u e elements i n each of the v a r i o u s therapy  p r o g r a m s , c e r t a i n e l e m e n t s a r e common t o a l l ...  approaches t o sexual d y s f u n c t i o n .  The  elements of treatment  are: (a) r e d u c t i o n o f p e r f o r m a n c e (b) s e x  anxiety  education  (c) s k i l l  t r a i n i n g i n communication  (d) s k i l l  training  i n sexual  technique  (e) a t t i t u d e c h a n g e p r o c e d u r e s Kaplan standing  ( 1 9 7 4 ) , has f o c u s e d  her research  on  under-  the u n d e r l y i n g causes of sexual d y s f u n c t i o n .  She  has p o i n t e d o u t t h a t s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n has m u l t i p l e c a u s e s . Kaplan  (1974)  conceptualized  f o u r causes of sexual  problems:  c u l t u r a l c a u s e s , i n t r a p s y c h i c c a u s e s , l e a r n e d c a u s e s , and relational  causes.  For the purpose of t h i s a r e most p e r t i n e n t .  Kaplan  study,  (1974)  the r e l a t i o n a l  causes  states:  The s y s t e m o r t h e m o d e l w h i c h g o v e r n s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , r a t h e r than the problems of the i n d i v i d u a l spouses, i s o f t e n the major s o u r c e o f a s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n and t h e optimum s i t e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n . I n t r e a t i n g a sexual dysfunction m o d i f i c a t i o n of the s e x u a l and m a r i t a l s y s t e m i s t h e b a s i c a i m .  ( p . 156)  - 21 One  of the most obvious  r e l a t i o n a l causes of sexual  problems i s m a r i t a l d i s c o r d r e s u l t i n g from f a i l u r e s i n communication.  Kaplan  (1974) p o i n t s out t h a t poor communi-  c a t i o n can l e a d t o or p e r p e t r a t e sexual Coleman  difficulties.  (1979) f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t e s t h a t t o be an e f f e c t i v e  p a r t n e r and l o v e r , an i n d i v i d u a l must know the l i k e s and d i s l i k e s of a p a r t n e r .  T h i s r e q u i r e s a p a t t e r n o f communi-  c a t i o n which may not be i n the r e p e t o i r e of many c o u p l e s . Today, as i n the p a s t , the exchange of ideas and i n f o r m a t i o n between sexes r e g a r d i n g human s e x u a l i t y i s seldom p r a c t i c e d or modelled. prepared  T h e r e f o r e , a couple who i s not a b l e , o r not  t o communicate cannot d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y with problems,  e s p e c i a l l y problems i n the sexual area of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . L o b i t z and L o b i t z (1978) and L o P i c c o l o and M i l l e r (1975) i d e n t i f y the most important  interpersonal factor i n  a s s e s s i n g s e x u a l l y d i s t r e s s e d couples as the degree o f commun i c a t i o n i n the couple's  relationship.  Several  other  r e s e a r c h e r s and t h e r a p i s t s have i d e n t i f i e d the need t o communicate as a major v a r i a b l e of s u c c e s s f u l sex therapy (Kaplan,  1974; Masters and Johnson, 1970; Tanner, 1973). As a r e s u l t of such r e s e a r c h , sexual communication  t r a i n i n g i s a major component of sex therapy programs.  treatment  In a review of outcome r e s e a r c h from 1970 t o 1980,  Gurman and Kniskern  (1981) p o i n t out t h a t communication  t r a i n i n g i s a r o u t i n e component of a l l d i r e c t i v e sex therapy programs.  - 22 C o m m u n i c a t i o n i n s e x u a l i n t e r a c t i o n c o n s i s t s o f two components: r e c e p t i v e and e x p r e s s i v e s e x u a l Receptive  communication.  s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n r e f e r s t o one p a r t n e r ' s  w i l l i n g n e s s t o l i s t e n and t o take n o t i c e o f t h e o t h e r  part-  n e r 's r e s p o n s e s w h e t h e r t h e r e s p o n s e s a r e v e r b a l o r n o n verbal.  I t a l s o r e f e r s t o p a r t n e r awareness, a c c e p t a n c e and  responsiveness  t o suggestions  f o r change.  Expressive  communication r e f e r s t o a partner's a b i l i t y  t o l e t the other  p a r t n e r know, v e r b a l l y o r n o n v e r b a l l y h i s / h e r l i k e s , and  general f e e l i n g .  sexual  dislikes  The v a l u e o f o p e n n e s s o f s e x u a l  communication i n terms of being  r e c e p t i v e and e x p r e s s i v e , has  become a c e n t r a l f o c u s o f t h e r a p e u t i c r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r b u i l d i n g a good s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p  (Kaplan,  1974; L o P i c c o l o  & L o b i t z , 1973; L o P i c c o l o & M i l l e r ,  1975; M a s t e r s & .Johnson,  1970) .  In a recent study Therapy versus of primary Dekker  c o m p a r i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f Sex  Communication Therapy i n couples  o r secondary orgasmic d y s f u n c t i o n , E v e r a e r d and  (1981)  found t h a t both  the experience  i n t e r a c t i o n and t h e orgasmic e x p e r i e n c e i n both  complaining  therapies.  improved i n females  The c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h e r a p y  eight exercises s p e c i f i c a l l y  of sexual  was l i m i t e d t o  f o r a c t i v e and p a s s i v e  v e r b a l i z a t i o n and r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g s , c o n f l i c t and  a s s e r t i v e behavior.  of problems and c o n f l i c t s many c o u p l e s  The s u b s t a n c e  listening, management  of exercises consisted  i n t r o d u c e d by t h e c l i e n t s .  Although  d i s c u s s e d t h e i r s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , no e x p l i c i t  - 23 sex therapy was g i v e n .  These r e s u l t s are important i n t h a t  they i l l u m i n a t e the p o t e n t i a l and apparent e f f e c t i v e n e s s of communication t r a i n i n g f o r o r g a s m i c a l l y  d y s f u n c t i o n a l females  and t h e i r mates. In e v a l u a t i n g dysfunctional  a Sex Therapy program f o r s e x u a l l y  couples a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Texas M e d i c a l  Branch a t Galveston, Chesney, Blakeney, Chan and Cole s t u d i e d the impact of the Sex Therapy program on b e h a v i o r s , sexual  expectations,  m a r i t a l communication. question:  sexual  sexual  communication and  Chesney e t . a l . wanted t o answer the  Does an i n c r e a s e  i n couple's sexual  and s a t i s f a c t i o n i n v o l v e only t h e i r sexual  communication  relationship?  Chesney e t . a l . found t h a t the i n t e n s i v e therapy of which t r a i n i n g i n sexual  workshop,  communication was a component,  e f f e c t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed couple's sexual sexual  (1981)  behavior,  communication and o v e r a l l m a r i t a l communication among  workshop p a r t i c i p a n t s . The r e s u l t s of these two s t u d i e s , Chesney e t . a l . (1981) and Everaerd & Dekker  (1981) , i n d i c a t e t h a t communica-  tion t r a i n i n g f o r sexually dysfunctional  couples has both  s p e c i f i c and g e n e r a l i z i n g e f f e c t s on couple i n t e r a c t i o n . former showed how communication therapy d i r e c t l y sexual  The  influenced  f u n c t i o n i n g of non orgasmic women w h i l e the l a t t e r  showed how  sexual  communication t r a i n i n g i n d i r e c t l y  m a r i t a l communication and s a t i s f a c t i o n .  influence  The f i n d i n g of  improvements i n m a r i t a l communication, sexual  communication  - 24 and  -  r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t i s f a c t i o n due  l e a v e s the  t o Sex  Therapy however,  r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s  unaddressed.  Summary In t h i s s e c t i o n , the operational It  was  l i t e r a t u r e relevant  to  d e f i n i t i o n o f m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t was  pointed  out  reviewed.  t h a t m a r i t a l q u a l i t y encompassed a wide  range of terms i n c l u d i n g communication, concensus, ment, a f f e c t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n and was  further stressed  marital  I t was  The  sex  r e s e a r c h has  i s now  Yet  r e s e a r c h e r s and  skill  directed  are  c l i n i c i a n s are  1974;  Mace, 1971; Sager  (Ford  to the  not  fact sexual  s e e k i n g sex  lacking in  interpersonal  & B e a c h , 1951;  Penland,  couples.  therapy.  a w a r e t h a t many n o r m a l  when i t comes t o t h e  c a t i o n a b o u t sex  sexual  dysfunctional  c o u p l e s as w e l l as d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s a r e t i o n and  variable  been conducted r e g a r d i n g  c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n c o u p l e s who  It  variable in affecting  therapy f o r sexually  reader's attention  that very l i t t l e  satisfaction.  noted a l s o , that  communication t r a i n i n g i s a c r i t i c a l outcome o f  adjust-  t h a t communication i s a major  of m a r i t a l adjustment.  the  the  informa-  communi- •  G r e e n , 1981;  Kaplan,  1981). 75%  of c o u p l e s  seeking  m a r i t a l t h e r a p y have s i g n i f i c a n t s e x u a l  complaints  in  addition  to t h e i r presenting  s e e k i n g sex  problem, while  70%  of  couples  t h e r a p y e x h i b i t d i s t r e s s i n o t h e r areas of  relationship. the  (1974) e s t i m a t e s t h a t  F r a n k , A n d e r s o n and  responses of  100  Rubenstein  w e l l educated, happily  their  (1978) , a n a l y s e d  married  couples  -  25  -  to a s e l f - r e p o r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n order to a s c e r t a i n the i n c i d e n t of sexual problems experienced couples. couples  i n a group of  F r a n k e t . a l . (1978) f o u n d t h a t o v e r r e p o r t e d h a p p y and  y e t 4 0% o f t h e men t i o n w h i l e 63%  80%  of  'normal' the  satisfying marital relationships  reported e r e c t i l e or e j a c u l a t o r y dysfunc-  o f t h e women r e p o r t e d a r o u s a l o r  orgasmic  dysfunction. The c a t i o n and  a b o v e s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t p r o b l e m s w i t h communis e x u a l e x p r e s s i o n may  fall  along the  continuum, from p o o r l y t o w e l l adjusted couples.  entire This  r e s e a r c h i s concerned w i t h f i n d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and poorly adjusted m a r i t a l couples.  w e l l or  - 26 -  CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the research design of t h i s study as w e l l as t h e s e l e c t i o n and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e sample, t h e i n s t r u m e n t s used t o measure t h e v a r i a b l e s and the procedures Research  utilized  Design  i n data g a t h e r i n g and data  analysis.  and Sampling Methods  Eighty eight subjects participated i n this study.  F o r t y f o u r s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t i n g 22 c o u p l e s  seeking t o resolve d i f f i c u l t i e s marriage  counselling.  be s a t i s f a c t o r y .  were  t h e i r marriages t o  The c o u p l e s w e r e s a m p l e d f r o m a l a r g e u r b a n  A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e Caucasian, s e c o n d  N o r t h Americans and had been i n t h e i r p r e s e n t  partici-  generation  relationship  24 months o r l o n g e r . A t t e m p t s w e r e made t o e x a m i n e d e m o g r a p h i c  t h a t m i g h t be o p e r a t i n g b e t w e e n t h e s e two g r o u p s . done t o d e t e r m i n e in c e r t a i n areas.  factors T h i s was  i f G r o u p One a n d G r o u p Two w e r e homogenous I n o r d e r t o be aware o f any i n t e r v e n i n g  f a c t o r s t h a t m i g h t h a v e an i m p a c t and  through  F o r t y f o u r s u b j e c t s o r 22 c o u p l e s  a r e a on t h e C a n a d i a n West C o a s t a n d w e r e v o l u n t a r y  for  were  i ntheir relationship  not s e e k i n g m a r i t a l c o u n s e l l i n g and judged  pants.  research  on t h e r e s u l t s ,  personal  demographic v a r i a b l e s such as ages, years m a r r i e d ,  o f c h i l d r e n a n d number o f m a r r i a g e s  were examined.  number  - 27 The in  v o l u n t e e r c o u p l e s f o r t h i s s t u d y were o b t a i n e d  a v a r i e t y o f ways.  Two c o u n s e l l i n g c e n t r e s w e r e  approached.  A r e q u e s t was made t o t h e d i r e c t o r s o f e a c h c e n t r e f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o c o n t a c t c o u p l e s who w e r e p r e s e n t l y r e c e i v i n g  marital  c o u n s e l l i n g i n order t o request t h e i r c o - o p e r a t i o n as volunteers i n this Initial (Appendix  study.  c o n t a c t w i t h t h e s e c o u p l e s was made b y l e t t e r  A ) , and f o l l o w e d up 5 days l a t e r by t e l e p h o n e .  T w e n t y two c o u p l e s o u t o f t w e n t y agreed  seven c o u p l e s so c o n t a c t e d  t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e study and s u b s e q u e n t l y r e t u r n e d  t h e i r forms.  T h e s e c o u p l e s compose G r o u p One.  V o l u n t e e r c o u p l e s f o r G r o u p Two, c o u p l e s n o t i n therapy nor enrichment be  p r o g r a m s who j u d g e d t h e i r m a r r i a g e s t o  s u c c e s s f u l , were found from d i v e r s e s o u r c e s .  The r e -  s e a r c h e r c o n t a c t e d a c q u a i n t a n c e s , c o l l e a g u e s and s t u d e n t s and asked  them t o s u g g e s t c o u p l e s who m i g h t v o l u n t e e r t h e i r  Some v o l u n t e e r s t h e m s e l v e s  suggested  o t h e r c o u p l e s who i n  turn, offered t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. was  made b y l e t t e r  by t e l e p h o n e . call, was  (Appendix  Initial  contact  A) a n d f o l l o w e d u p 5 d a y s  later  The r e s e a r c h e r a s k e d , d u r i n g t h e t e l e p h o n e  i f , i n the opinion of the subject, h i s o r h e r marriage  presently satisfactory.  q u e s t i o n was a c r i t e r i a couples out of t h i r t y to  time.  A p o s i t i v e answer t o t h i s  f o r G r o u p Two a c c e p t a n c e .  T w e n t y two  one s o c o n t a c t e d q u a l i f i e d a n d a g r e e d  p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e study and r e t u r n e d t h e i r  forms.  Once t h e two g r o u p s w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d , e a c h c o u p l e was mailed a packet c o n t a i n i n g :  - 28  -  (a) A l e t t e r o f t r a n s m i t t a l (b) Two  and i n s t r u c t i o n  (Appendix  c o p i e s o f e a c h i n s t r u m e n t (DAS, MCI,  w i t h a symbol as w e l l  SCI)  t o i d e n t i f y m a l e and f e m a l e  as c o u p l e and group membership  B)  coded  respondents  (Appendices  C, D and E ) .  All  (c) Two  F a m i l y Background  Sheets  (d) Two  stamped, s e l f a d d r e s s e d r e t u r n  s u b j e c t s were asked t o f i l l  (Appendix  envelopes.  out the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  i n d e p e n d e n t l y and t o r e t u r n them by m a i l i n t h e provided.  envelopes  E a c h q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o o k a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10  to complete, t h e r e f o r e p a r t i c i p a t i o n commitment o f 3 0 m i n u t e s instructed  F)  i n the study required  from each s u b j e c t .  Couples  not to discuss t h e i r responses u n t i l  h a d c o m p l e t e d and r e t u r n e d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e E a c h c o u p l e was  minutes a  were  after  they  questionnaires.  a s s i g n e d a c o d e number i n o r d e r t h a t a  h u s b a n d ' s r e s p o n s e c o u l d be r e u n i t e d w i t h t h e w i f e ' s r e s p o n s e u p o n b e i n g r e c e i v e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r . Selected social characteristics the  F a m i l y Background  o b t a i n e d by means o f  Sheet a r e summarized i n Appendix  F.  Ins t r u m e n t a t i o n Dyadic Adjustemnt The  Dyadic Adjustment  B. S p a n i e r i n ' 1 9 7 6 .  The  DAS  Scale  (DAS)  S c a l e was  d e v e l o p e d by  Graham  i s a 32 i t e m s c a l e d e s i g n e d f o r  u s e w i t h e i t h e r m a r r i e d o r u n m a r r i e d c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s . The overall resulting  s c o r e o f t h e DAS  r a n g e s f r o m 0-151.  Sub-  - 29 scores a r e d e r i v e d from f o u r subscales measuring dyadic consensus,  dyadic s a t i s f a c t i o n , dyadic cohesion and dyadic  a f f e c t i o n a l expression.  Spanier  (1976) views dyadic a d j u s t -  ment as an ever changing  process with a q u a l i t a t i v e  dimension  which can be e v a l u a t e d a t any p o i n t i n time on a continuum from w e l l a d j u s t e d t o maladjusted. Validity: Content V a l i d i t y :  Items, i n the DAS were e v a l u a t e d by  t h r e e judges f o r content v a l i d i t y .  Items were  i n c l u d e d o n l y i f the judges c o n s i d e r e d the items: (1)  Relevant measures of dyadic adjustment f o r contemporary  (2)  relationships.  C o n s i s t e n t with the nominal by Spanier and Cole i t s components  definitions  suggested  (1976), f o r adjustment;  ( s a t i s f a c t i o n , cohesion,  and  consensus,  etc.). (3)  C a r e f u l l y worded with a p p r o p r i a t e f i x e d c h o i c e responses.  Criterion-related Validity:  The s c a l e was adminis-  t e r e d t o a married sample of 218 persons and a d i v o r c e d sample of 94 persons.  Each of the 32 items  i n the s c a l e c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i o n of m a r i t a l s t a t u s .  Sample A  d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from Sample B (p< .001) u s i n g a t - t e s t f o r a s s e s s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between sample means (Spanier, 19 76).  In a d d i t i o n , the mean t o t a l  -  30  -  s c a l e s c o r e s f o r t h e m a r r i e d and d i v o r c e d w e r e 114.8 a n d 70.7 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  samples  These s c o r e s a r e  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t t h e p <; .001 l e v e l . Construct V a l i d i t y :  Since a l l the items  with  content v a l i d i t y used i n previous m a r i t a l s c a l e s were i n c l u d e d originally DAS w i t h  tested,  i t was p o s s i b l e  instrument  t o correlate the  other m a r i t a l adjustment s c a l e s .  correlation with Scale  i n the research  adjustment  The  t h e Locke Wallace M a r i t a l Adjustment  was .86 among m a r r i e d r e s p o n d e n t s a n d .88 among  divorced  respondents  of the f i n a l  (Spanier,  1976) .  3 2 i t e m s was a l s o done.  Factor Four  analysis  factor  components were e s t a b l i s h e d , d y a d i c s a t i s f a c t i o n , d y a d i c c o h e s i o n , d y a d i c consensus and a f f e c t i o n a l expression. Reliability:  Reliability  i s a v a i l a b l e f o r each o f t h e  components o f t h e s c a l e as w e l l as f o r t h e t o t a l Internal consistency  r e l i a b i l i t y was c a l c u l a t e d  Cronbach's C o e f f i c i e n t Alpha f o l l o w i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s were  (Cronbach, 1951).  A f f e c t i o n a l expression  The  . . . . r = .96  . . . . . . . r = .90  Dyadic s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e Dyadic cohesion s c a l e  using  established:  T o t a l dyadic adjustment scale Dyadic consensus s c a l e  scale.  . . . . . . r = .94  . . . . . . . . r = .86 scale  . . . . r = .73  - 31  -  M a r i t a l Communication Inventory The developed process MCI  M a r i t a l Communication Inventory  by M i l l a r d J . B i e n v e n u ,  i s a 46  S r . , i n 1970  item scale  t o measure  o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n as an e l e m e n t o f m a r i t a l  tics,  and  ability  itself  the  interaction.  i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o measure c o n t e n t of communication  r a t h e r concerns  and  (MCI)  but  more w i t h t h e p a t t e r n s , c h a r a c t e r i s -  s t y l e s of communication.  t o l i s t e n , to understand  MCI  explores a  couple's  the other, to express  oneself  t h e manner o f s a y i n g t h i n g s . Validity: Content V a l i d i t y :  Forty eight  (48)  l a t e d w i t h the h e l p of c o l l e a g u e s , p e r s o n a l and examination  p r o f e s s i o n a l experience of e x i s t i n g instruments  marital interaction. gists, was  items were formuliterature, and  from  dealing with  Items were r e v i e w e d  s o c i a l w o r k e r s and  r e c e i v e d on t h e 48  psychologists.  item's  the  by  sociolo-  Consensus  relevance to marital  communication. Construct V a l i d i t y : couples  i n 1969  The  MCI  u p p e r and at  t e s t e d on  172  (48)  Forty five  (4 5) o f  items d i s c r i m i n a t e d between  l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e w i t h one  the  the  lower q u a r t i l e s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l  t h e p <: .01  married  i n two N o r t h C a r o l i n a c o m m u n i t i e s .  A g e s v a r i e d f r o m 18 t o 60. forty eight  was  groups  degree  of freedom u s i n g the c h i - s q u a r e t e s t f o r item analysis.  For c r o s s v a l i d a t i o n of the items,  the  - 32 mean s c o r e o f 105.78 e a r n e d  by t h i s  experimental  g r o u p o f 344 s u b j e c t s was c o m p a r e d t o a c o m p a r a b l e g r o u p o f 6 0 s u b j e c t s whose mean s c o r e was 105.68 thus suggesting strong cross v a l i d a t i o n Further evidence  of v a l i d i t y  evidence.  f o r t h e i n v e n t o r y was  o b t a i n e d f r o m a s t u d y o f t w o g r o u p s o f 23 s u b j e c t s each.  The f i r s t  group r e c e i v e d c o u n s e l l i n g through  a F a m i l y C o u n s e l l i n g Agency w h i l e t h e second was of  comparable t o t h e f i r s t marriage,  apparent  group  i n terms o f t h e l e n g t h  age and e d u c a t i o n b u t were w i t h o u t  problems.  U s i n g t h e Mann-Whitney U t e s t , a  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n was found  i n f a v o r o f t h e g r o u p w i t h no a p p a r e n t  Reliability: Bienvenu was  One r e l i a b i l i t y  (1970).  A split  problems.  study i s r e p o r t e d by  half correlation  coefficient  c o m p u t e d u s i n g t h e Spearman-Brown f o r m u l a , on t h e  scores of 6 0 respondents numbered s t a t e m e n t s . revealed after  o n t h e o d d numbered a n d e v e n  A r e s u l t i n g c o e f f i c i e n t o f .93 was  correction.  S e x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y (SCI) The  S e x u a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y was c o n s t r u c t e d i n  1977 b y M i l l a r d J . B i e n v e n u , in  response  couple's  t o a growing  skills  S r . . The i n s t r u m e n t was d e s i g n e d  demand f o r a n i n v e n t o r y t o a s s e s s a  i n communicating i n sexual matters.  I t  c o n s i s t s of 3 0 items d e a l i n g w i t h v a r i o u s aspects of sexual  - 33 communication wherein couples may be d e f i c i e n t o r e x p e r i e n c ing d i f f i c u l t y .  Items e x p l o r e the couples sexual needs,  l i k e s and d i s l i k e s , t h e i r concerns and disagreements  over  sex, t h e i r a b i l i t y t o d i s c u s s sexual matters, t o ask and t o r e f u s e and t o communicate through p h y s i c a l touch.  The  p o s s i b l e range of scores on the SCI i s from 0-90. Items were formulated from a review of the l i t e r a t u r e c l i n i c a l experience and c o l l e a g u e a s s i s t a n c e .  Content  v a l i d i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d by p r e s e n t i n g the items t o a panel of sex t h e r a p i s t s c e r t i f i e d by the American A s s o c i a t i o n of Sex Educators, C o u n s e l l o r s and T h e r a p i s t s . study was undertaken  with 43 i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v i n g sex  therapy from a c e r t i f i e d sex t h e r a p i s t . the group was 6 5.27  A small p i l o t  The mean s c o r e of  out of a p o s s i b l e 90.  No other data i s  r e p o r t e d as y e t f o r t h i s instrument although a p i l o t  study  i s i n progress w i t h couples r e c e i v i n g e i t h e r m a r i t a l o r sex counselling. Data  Collection The names of p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r Group One  were g r i v e n t o the r e s e a r c h e r by the s t a f f and/or c o u n s e l l o r s a t the two c o u n s e l l i n g c e n t r e s .  For Group Two, names were  given t o the r e s e a r c h e r by acquaintances, c o l l e a g u e s o r by the v o l u n t e e r s themselves.  Subjects were mailed a l e t t e r  i n t r o d u c i n g the r e s e a r c h e r and the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t .  This  l e t t e r was f o l l o w e d up by a telephone c a l l t o answer any q u e s t i o n s the couple may have and t o request t h e i r  participa-  - 34 tion i n the project.  S u b j e c t s who a g r e e d  mailed the necessary After  <-  material.  variables:  M a r i t a l adjustment  (perceived)  2.  Marital  satisfaction.  3.  Marital  cohesion.  4.  Marital  consensus.  5.  Marital affectional  6.  Marital  7.  Sexual  8.  Demographic  Statistical  expression.  communication. Communication. data.  Hypotheses  Hypothesis  1  Husbands and w i v e s i n t h e r a p y w i l l cantly  were  d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , t h e r e s e a r c h e r h a d s c o r e s on  the f o l l o w i n g 1.  to participate  d i f f e r e n t on t h e D y a d i c  not score  signifi-  Adjustment S c a l e from husbands  and w i v e s n o t i n t h e r a p y . Hg Hi  An  :  A  t  =/t  n  :Mt ¥An  w i t h / ^ b e i n g t h e g r o u p mean o f c o u p l e s  i n therapy  with/A  not i n therapy.  n  b e i n g t h e g r o u p mean o f c o u p l e s  independent groups t - t e s t f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e  was u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e cant difference  b e t w e e n means  i f t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  signifi-  b e t w e e n t h e means o f t h e two g r o u p s a t t h e .05  level of significance.  - 35 Hypothesis  2  Husbands and w i v e s cantly  not score  signifi-  d i f f e r e n t on t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y  husbands and w i v e s H  Q  withy^  t  with/^< The  i n therapy w i l l  not i n therapy.  : / ^ t =/<  n  b e i n g t h e g r o u p mean o f c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y b e i n g t h e g r o u p mean o f c o u p l e s n o t i n t h e r a p y .  n  independent  groups t - t e s t f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e  was u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e difference  from  i f t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  b e t w e e n means significant  b e t w e e n t h e means o f t h e two g r o u p s a t t h e .05  level of significance. Hypothesis  3  Husbands and w i v e s cantly  i n therapy w i l l  not score  signifi-  d i f f e r e n t on t h e S e x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y  husbands and wives  from  not i n therapy.  % lA  t ^Ai  with/kC-t- b e i n g t h e g r o u p mean o f c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y with/^ The  independent  n  b e i n g t h e g r o u p mean o f c o u p l e s n o t i n t h e r a p y . groups t - t e s t f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e  was u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e cantly .05  difference  i f t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  b e t w e e n means signifi-  b e t w e e n t h e means o f t h e two g r o u p s a t t h e  l e v e l of significance.  -  -  4  Hypothesis  There w i l l persons  36  b e no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s  s c o r e s on t h e D y a d i c  among a  Adjustment S c a l e , the M a r i t a l  Communication I n v e n t o r y , and t h e Sexual  Communication  Inventory. H  0  :  H  T  i / $  0 ±  Pearson's C o r r e l a t i o n  0  C o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d t o  e s t a b l i s h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n DAS a n d MCI a n d S C I . Summary Chapter  t h r e e began w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n  methods and o f t h e sample.  A description  of t h e sampling  of the instruments  was t h e n p r e s e n t e d a n d was f o l l o w e d b y t h e p l a n f o r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s . r e s u l t s of data  analysis.  The f o l l o w i n g  chapter presents the  -  37  CHAPTER  -  FOUR  RESULTS  In data  the  preceding  collection  describes  the  hypotheses  analyses  results  and  Statistical  and  the  Analyses  the  in  therapy  Dyadic  In between Type was  1  ( G r o u p One)  on  of  of  will  1 error rejected  presented.  analyses  for  This  f o r each  of  both chapter  the  analyses.  Hypotheses  not  score  and  wives  significantly  Scale  from  data,  the  husbands  and  in  different wives  not  Two).  a n a l y s i n g the  means  procedure  s t a t e d t h a t husbands  Adjustment  (Group  the  the  were  supplementary  Hypothesis therapy  chapter,  f o r independent probability (Table  t-test  groups  equal  to  was  .05.  of  the  difference  performed The  null  with  a  hypothesis  1). Table  1  S i g n i f i c a n c e of the D i f f e r e n c e Between M e a n s f o r S u b j e c t s i n T h e r a p y ( G r o u p 1) a n d S u b j e c t s N o t i n T h e r a p y ( G r o u p 2) o n S c o r e s o f M a r i t a l Adjustment U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Independent Samples  Variable  N  Group  2  (not  Group  1  ( i n therapy)  *  p  <.001  i n therapy)  Mean  Standard Deviation  44  111.61  12.05  44  90.18  16.82  value  g  Q  7  i  c  - 38 The s u b j e c t s n o t i n t h e r a p y h a d a mean s c o r e o f 111.61 w h i c h was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e mean s c o r e o f 9 0.18 f o r s u b j e c t s who w e r e i n t h e r a p y .  Standard  d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e two g r o u p s r e f l e c t t h a t t h e c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y showed a g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y  i n t h e i r scores  (16.82)  as c o m p a r e d t o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s who w e r e n o t i n t h e r a p y (12.05). A f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a w i t h i n e a c h g r o u p was performed  i n o r d e r t o f i n d o u t i f t h e m a l e s i n G r o u p One a n d  Two r e s p e c t i v e l y , r e s p o n d e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e females  i n G r o u p One a n d Two r e s p e c t i v e l y , on t h e D y a d i c  Adjustment S c a l e .  The t - t e s t o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e  d e p e n d e n t s a m p l e means was p e r f o r m e d p r o b a b i l i t y e q u a l t o .05. adjustment  w i t h a Type 1 e r r o r  I t was f o u n d  that the marital  o f males i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e  m a r i t a l adjustment Two  between  of females  i n e i t h e r G r o u p One o r G r o u p  (Table 2 and T a b l e 3 ) . The h u s b a n d s i n G r o u p One h a d a mean s c o r e o f 9 0.81  on t h e M a r i t a l A d j u s t m e n t I n v e n t o r y w h i l e t h e w i v e s h a d a mean s c o r e o f 8 9 . 5 4 . significant. bility  The d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y  The h u s b a n d s i n G r o u p One showed more v a r i a -  i n t h e i r s c o r i n g w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 18.70  as c o m p a r e d t o t h e w i v e s who showed a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 15.13.  - 39 -  Table 2 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r Males and Females i n Therapy (Group 1) on Scores of M a r i t a l Adjustment Using a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples  „ . ,, Variable  Males  „ N  T  (Group 1)  Females  (Group 1)  Mean  Standard _ • .• Deviation  22  90.81  18.70  22  89.54  15.13  . , t-Value TT  0.39  Table 3 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r Males and Females Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Scores of M a r i t a l Adjustment Using a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples  „ . ,, Variable  Males  (Group 1)  Females  (Group 2)  „ N  ., Mean  Standard • .• Deviation  22  112.63  12.68  22  110.59  11.59  , , t-Value TT  0.83  - 40 -  The husbands i n Group Two had a mean score of 112.63 w h i l e the wives had a mean score of 110.59. was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant.  The male and female  s u b j e c t s i n Group Two showed approximately lity of  This difference  the same v a r i a b i -  i n t h e i r s c o r i n g with a standard d e v i a t i o n f o r males  12.68.and females of 11.59. Hypothesis  therapy  2 s t a t e d t h a t husbands and wives i n  (Group One) w i l l not score s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different  on the M a r i t a l Communication Inventory from husbands and wives not i n therapy  (Group Two).  In a n a l y s i n g the data, the t - t e s t of the d i f f e r e n c e between means f o r independent  groups was performed  Type 1 e r r o r p r o b a b i l i t y equal t o .05. was r e j e c t e d  The n u l l  with a  hypothesis  (Table 4 ) . Table 4  S i g n i f i c a n c e of the D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r Subjects i n Therapy (Group 1) and Subjects Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Scores o f M a r i t a l Communication Using a t - T e s t f o r Independent Samples  Variable  N  Group 2 (not i n therapy) Group 1 ( i n therapy) *p  .001  Mean  ^ ... Deviation  44  106.09  13.43  44  79.84  19.17  t-Value  7.44*  -  41  -  H u s b a n d s a n d w i v e s n o t i n t h e r a p y h a d a mean s c o r e o f 1 0 6 . 0 9 w h i c h was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e mean o f 79.84  f o r husbands  and wives i n t h e r a p y .  Standard deviations  o f t h e t w o g r o u p s r e f l e c t t h a t t h e c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y showed a greater v a r i a b i l i t y  i n t h e i r s c o r e s w i t h 19.17 a s compared  t o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s n o t i n t h e r a p y whose s t a n d a r d t i o n was  devia-  13.43.  A f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a w i t h i n e a c h g r o u p was p e r f o r m e d i n o r d e r t o f i n d o u t i f t h e m a l e s i n G r o u p One a n d Two  r e s p e c t i v e l y , responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e  f e m a l e s i n G r o u p One a n d Two r e s p e c t i v e l y , on t h e M a r i t a l Communication  Scale.  The t - t e s t f o r d e p e n d e n t g r o u p s was  p e r f o r m e d w i t h a Type 1 e r r o r p r o b a b i l i t y e q u a l t o .05. I t was  found t h a t t h e m a r i t a l communication o f males and  f e m a l e s w i t h i n e a c h g r o u p was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different.  (Table 5 and T a b l e 6 ) . Table 5 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r M a l e s a n d F e m a l e s i n T h e r a p y (Group 1) on S c o r e s o f M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples  Standard Deviation  Variables  N  Mean  Males  22  80.50  20.98  22  79.18  17.64  (Group 1)  t-Value  .34  Females  (Group 1)  - 42 The h u s b a n d s i n G r o u p One h a d a mean s c o r e o f 8 0.50 on t h e M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y w h i l e t h e w i v e s h a d a mean s c o r e o f 79.18.  The h u s b a n d s showed more v a r i a b i l i t y  i n t h e i r s c o r i n g w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 20.98, a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e w i v e s who showed a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 17.64.  Table 6 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r M a l e s a n d F e m a l e s N o t i n T h e r a p y (Group 2) on S c o r e s o f M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples  • in Variables  » T N  Mean  Standard _ ... Deviation  Males  22  104.68  14.28  22  107.50  12.70  (Group 2)  Females  ( G r o u p 2)  , , t-Value TT  .95  The h u s b a n d s i n G r o u p 2 h a d a mean o f 104.68 o n t h e M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y w h i l e t h e w i v e s h a d a mean s c o r e o f 107.50.  The h u s b a n d s i n G r o u p 2 showed  greater v a r i a b i l i t y  slightly  i n t h e i r scoring with a standard  devia-  t i o n o f 14.28 a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e w i v e s w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 12.70.  - 43 Hypothesis therapy w i l l  3 s t a t e s t h a t husbands and wives i n  n o t s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on t h e S e x u a l  Communication I n v e n t o r y from husbands and w i v e s  noti n  therapy. In a n a l y s i n g t h e d a t a , t h e t - t e s t o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n means f o r i n d e p e n d e n t  g r o u p s was p e r f o r m e d  Type 1 e r r o r p r o b a b i l i t y e q u a l t o .05. was r e j e c t e d  The n u l l  with a hypothesis  (Table 7 ) .  Table 7 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r S u b j e c t s i n T h e r a p y (Group 1) a n d S u b j e c t s N o t i n T h e r a p y (Group 2) on S c o r e s o f Sexual Communication Using a t - T e s t f o r Independent Samples  „ . Variables  „ N  Mean  Group 2 (not i n therapy)  44  72.93  13.57  Group 1 ( i n therapy)  44  59.38  19.72  T  Standard _ ... Deviation  , t-Value TT  n  3.75*  *p < .001  S u b j e c t s n o t i n t h e r a p y h a d a mean s c o r e o f 72.93 w h i c h was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e mean s c o r e o f 59.38 f o r s u b j e c t s who w e r e i n t h e r a p y .  Standard  t h e two g r o u p s r e f l e c t t h a t t h e c o u p l e s greater v a r i a b i l i t y  deviations of  i n t h e r a p y showed a  i n t h e i r s c o r e s w i t h 19.72 a s c o m p a r e d  - 44 t o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s who w e r e n o t i n t h e r a p y , w i t h A f u r t h e r analysis of the data w i t h i n  13.57.  e a c h g r o u p was  a g a i n p e r f o r m e d i n o r d e r t o f i n d o u t i f t h e males i n Group One a n d Two r e s p e c t i v e l y , r e s p o n d e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different  f r o m t h e f e m a l e s i n G r o u p One a n d Two r e s p e c t i v e l y o n t h e Sexual Communication Inventory.  The t - T e s t o f t h e  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n means f o r d e p e n d e n t g r o u p s was p e r f o r m e d w i t h a T y p e 1 e r r o r p r o b a b i l i t y e q u a l t o .05.  I t was f o u n d  that t h e sexual communication of females i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e sexual communication o f males within  G r o u p One o r Two  (Table 8 and T a b l e 9 ) .  Table 8 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r M a l e s a n d F e m a l e s i n T h e r a p y ( G r o u p 1) on S c o r e s o f S e x u a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples  TT • • i i Variable  »T N  »» Mean  Males  22  60.36  19.58  22  58.40  20.27  (Group 1)  Females  ( G r o u p 1)  Standard ^ . ,. Deviation  , _ t-Value TT  .55  Husbands i n t h e r a p y h a d a mean s c o r e o f 6 0.36 c o m p a r e d t o t h e i r wives'mean s c o r e o f 58.40.  The s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f  t h e husbands? ; s c o r e s was 19.58 c o m p a r e d t o t h e w i v e s ' o f 1  20.27.  T h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e mean  s c o r e s f o r h u s b a n d s a n d w i v e s i n G r o u p One.  - 45 Table 9 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the D i f f e r e n c e Between Means f o r Males and Females Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Scores of Sexual Communication Using a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples  • i -i Variables  » N  Mean  Males  22  71.09  16.04  22  74.77  10.61  T  (Group 2)  Females  (Group 2)  Standard _ . . . Deviation  . ,. t-Value T T  1.29  Husbands not i n therapy had a mean score of 71.09 compared  t o t h e i r wives' mean score of 74.77.  The standard  d e v i a t i o n of the husbands' scores was 16.04 which showed a g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y i n s c o r i n g compared standard d e v i a t i o n of 10.61.  t o the wives'  There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t  dif-  f e r e n c e between the mean scores f o r husbands and wives i n Group Two. Hypothesis 4 s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e w i l l be no s i g n i f i cant c o r r e l a t i o n s among s u b j e c t ' s scores on the Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e , the M a r i t a l Communication the Sexual Communication  Inventory and  Inventory.  In a n a l y s i n g the data, the Pearson  product-moment  c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d t o i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between m a r i t a l adjustment, m a r i t a l communicat i o n and sexual communication f o r Group One (Table 10) and Group Two (Table 11), as w e l l as f o r the combined  population  - 46  Table  -  10  G r o u p One ( i n T h e r a p y ) P e a r s o n P r o d u c t - M o m e n t C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Between D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t , M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n and S e x u a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n (N = 44)  Dyadic Adjustment Dyadic Adjustment  Marital Communication  Sexual Communication  .85  .68  -  .76  -  Marital Communication Sexual Communication  Table  11  G r o u p Two (Not i n T h e r a p y ) P e a r s o n P r o d u c t Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s B e t w e e n D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t , M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n and Sexual Communication (N = 44)  Dyadic Adjustment Dyadic Adjustment Marital Communication Sexual Communication  -  Marital Communication  Sexual Communication  .74  .43  -  .36  - 47 o f G r o u p One a n d G r o u p Two was r e j e c t e d Table Dyadic  i n each  ( T a b l e 1 2 ) . The n u l l  hypothesis  instance.  10 e x a m i n e s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s  among s c o r e s on t h e  Adjustment S c a l e , t h e M a r i t a l Communication S c a l e and  the Sexual Communication S c a l e f o r couples c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n DAS a n d MCI was .85. b e t w e e n DAS a n d S C I was .68.  i n therapy.  The  The c o r r e l a t i o n  The c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n  t h e MCI  and S C I was .76. Table the Dyadic  11 e x a m i n e s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s  Adjustment S c a l e , t h e M a r i t a l Communication  and t h e S e x u a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n therapy.  among s c o r e s on Scale  Scale f o r couples not i n  The c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n DAS a n d MCI was .74.  c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n DAS a n d S C I was .43.  The  The c o r r e l a t i o n  b e t w e e n MCI a n d S C I was .36. Table  12  Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n Coefficients Between D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t , M a r i t a l Communication and S e x u a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n f o r T o t a l Sample (N = 88)  Dyadic Adjustment Dyadic Adjustment Marital Communication Sexual Communication  -  Marital Communication  Sexual Communication  .88  .67  -  .69  -  Table the  total  12  population  communication  and  between  t h e DAS  the  DAS  and  and  S C I was  magnitude  and  An  significant  to  be  The  additional  coefficients  and  answered  between  Group  was:  Two.  HQ  \  =  of  MCI  Z transformation  At  the  .05  the Marital were  at the  correlations  and  Marital  sexual  between was,  as  g r o u p s on  therefore,  to  these  performed  i f there  was  established  form,  the  question  Pi  level  of  of  this  significance.  The  13.  significance,  the n u l l  hypothesis  the Dyadic Adjustment Inventory accepted.  Group  of the other  Adjustment and  level  to test  i n Table  between  between  calculated  a r e shown  t h e s a m e , was  the  involving  t o examine  .05  Communication  the differences  i n the  f o r the researcher  r was  the  of  the  l Y ? l  Z transformation  the c o r r e l a t i o n s  groups  In hypothesis  of  Two  marital  between  between  the c o e f f i c i e n t s  results  Group  for  correlation  correlation  between  analysis  hypothesis  and  The  coefficients  additional  that  scores  adjustment,  correlation  of the difference  difference  One  Fisher  The  the question  H  The  dyadic  .88.  differences  raised  the c o r r e l a t i o n  Group  was  of the c o r r e l a t i o n  measures.  on  communication.  .67.  obvious  significance  in  MCI  88)  among  .69.  communication  on  sexual  -  the correlation  (n =  S C I was  The  the  examines  48  One  and  variables:  Sexual  f o r Group However, Group Sexual  Communication  Scale  One  and  i n the  Two  case  regarding  Communication and  Marital  - 49 -  Table  13  S i g n i f i c a n c e of the D i f f e r e n c e Between Pearson r C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Subjects i'n.i Therapy (Group 1) and Subjects Not i n Therapy (Group 2) Using F i s h e r ' s Z-Transformation  Group One  Group Two  Z Value  DAS  and MCI  r=.85  r=.74  1.39*  DAS  and SCI  r=.68  r=.43  1.67**  MCI  and SCI  r=.-76  r=.36  2.80***  * P < .10 ** P < .05 *** P < .01 Communication, the n u l l hypotheses  were r e j e c t e d a t the  .05  l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Regarding  the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the  Adjustment Scale and the Sexual Communication Group One  ( i n therapy)  .68 w h i l e Group Two  Dyadic Inventory,  achieved a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of  (not i n therapy) achieved a c o r r e l a t i o n  c o e f f i c i e n t of .43 which was the .05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .  s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than  S i m i l a r l y , the c o r r e l a t i o n s  between M a r i t a l Communication Inventory and the Communication Inventory Two)  (.76  f o r Group One  and  Sexual .36  f o r Group  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t the .05 l e v e l of  confidence.  .68 a t  - 50 Supplementary  Analyses  I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above f o u r h y p o t h e s e s ,  supplemen-  t a r y a n a l y s e s were p e r f o r m e d t o e x p l o r e t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e t o t a l  s c a l e and s u b s c a l e s o f t h e Dyadic  Adjust-  ment S c a l e a n d t h e M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y a n d t h e Sexual Communication I n v e n t o r y .  T h i s a n a l y s i s was done f o r  Group One a n d G r o u p Two s e p a r a t e l y u s i n g P e a r s o n  r„  (Table  14 a n d T a b l e 1 5 ) . T a b l e 14 G r o u p One: P e a r s o n r C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r T o t a l DAS S c a l e a n d S u b s c a l e s a n d MCI a n d S C I S c o r e s (n = 44)  *i*t%^i ~ ust  DAS  Con.  Sat.  -  -  -  87  8e  Coh. Aff.  -  7e  MCI  SCI  .66  .85  .68  .58 .52  .54  .71  .52  -  .49  .68  .5.8  Cohesion  .38  .71  .57  Affectional Expression  -  .67  .63  -  .76  ment S c a l e Consensus  Satisfaction  M a r i t a l Communication Inventory Sexual cation  CommuniInventory  -  .64  -  - 51 Table  -  14 e x a m i n e s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r c o u p l e s  t h e r a p y b e t w e e n The  Dyadic  A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e and  i t s sub-  s c a l e s o f c o n s e n s u s , s a t i s f a c t i o n , c o h e s i o n , and e x p r e s s i o n and  Observations  will  The  be made  h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n s u b s c a l e s on t h e  t h e t o t a l DAS  s c o r e w e r e p r e d i c t a b l e due  of the instrument.  Spanier  o f t h e i t e m s o f t h e DAS,  to the  affectional expression.  identified  2.  An  t h e f o u r components of and as  adjustment.  a n t i c i p a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n between  e x p r e s s i o n and  nature  These components a r e v i e w e d  concommitments of m a r i t a l  DAS  (1976), i n the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s  t h e a n a l y s i s as c o n s e n s u s , s a t i s f a c t i o n , c o h e s i o n  r =  the  form.  1. and  affectional  t h e M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y and  Sexual Communication I n v e n t o r y . in point  in  affectional  sexual communication d i d occur w i t h a  Pearson  .63. 3.  The  S c a l e and predicted 4.  h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between the Dyadic  Adjustment  t h e M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y was  also  (r=.85).  For couples  i n therapy,  t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be a s t r o n g  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and communication  (r=.76) and b e t w e e n s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n  m a r i t a l adjustment Table  sexual and  (r=.68).  15 e x a m i n e s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r c o u p l e s  i n t h e r a p y between the Dyadic  A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e and  s c a l e s o f c o n s e n s u s , s a t i s f a c t i o n , c o h e s i o n and  not  i t s sub-  affectional  - 52 Table  15  G r o u p Two: P e a r s o n r C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r T o t a l DAS S c a l e a n d S u b s c a l e s a n d MCI a n d S C I S c o r e s (n = 44)  DAS  Con.  S a t . Coh.  Dyadic A d j u s t ment S c a l e Consensus  -  Satisfaction Cohesion  Af f .  MCI  SCI  .66  .74  .43  .46  .48  .34  .41  .22  -  .56  .51  .75  .28  -  .52  .64  .48  .48  .57  Affectional Expression M a r i t a l Communication Inventory Sexual cation  .36  CommuniInventory  e x p r e s s i o n a n d t h e M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y a n d The Sexual  Communication Inventory.  be made i n p o i n t 1. and  Again, observations  will  form.  The h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n s u b s c a l e s o f t h e DAS  t h e t o t a l DAS w e r e o n c e a g a i n p r e d i c t a b l e g i v e n  Spanier's b e l i e f ments o f M a r i t a l 2.  that the subscales represent  concommit-  adjustment.  An a n t i c i p a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n a f f e c t i o n a l  s i o n and s e x u a l communication d i d o c c u r w i t h a Pearson  expresr=.57.  -  3.  The  -  h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between Dyadic  M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n was 4.  53  Adjustment  and  a g a i n p r e d i c t a b l e (r=.74).  For couples not i n therapy, the  b e t w e e n m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and  relationship  sexual communication  was.  r=.36 and b e t w e e n s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and m a r i t a l a d j u s t ment was  r=.43.  Summary o f R e s u l t s T h i s s t u d y was hypotheses, ment.  The  designed  each concerned  to investigate  four  w i t h v a r i a b l e s of m a r i t a l a d j u s t -  summary p r e s e n t s e a c h h y p o t h e s i s and  the  results  obtained. Hypotheses 1.  Husbands and w i v e s  i n therapy w i l l  not  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on t h e D y a d i c S c a l e f r o m h u s b a n d s and w i v e s null 2.  h y p o t h e s i s was  Husbands and w i v e s  Husbands and w i v e s  i n therapy w i l l  not  The  Communication The  rejected. i n therapy w i l l  not  I n v e n t o r y f r o m h u s b a n d s and w i v e s  therapy.  score  not i n therapy.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on t h e S e x u a l tion  The  rejected.  S c a l e f r o m h u s b a n d s and w i v e s  3.  Adjustment  not i n therapy.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on t h e M a r i t a l  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was  score  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was  score Communicanot i n  rejected.  - 54 4.  There w i l l  be no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s  among a  p e r s o n s ' s c o r e s on t h e D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t s c a l e , M a r i t a l Communication Communication  the  I n v e n t o r y and t h e S e x u a l  Inventory.  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  was  rejected. Supplementary  Analysis  The c o r r e l a t i o n s summarized i n T a b l e s  f o r t h e s c a l e s and s u b s c a l e s a r e  14 and  15.  -  -  55  CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION Summary Marital the  and f a m i l y  researchers generally  i n s t i t u t i o n o f marriage i s constantly  current trend i s the increasing  agree  changing.  that  A  d i s s o l u t i o n of marriages  w i t h fewer and fewer c o u p l e s r e m a i n i n g i n u n s a t i s f a c t o r y relationships. In an e f f o r t t o b e t t e r which c o n t r i b u t e  to marital  understand unique  distancing  factors  and d i s c o r d ,  study sought t o examine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between q u a l i t y and i n t e r s p o u s a l  sexual communication.  marital Because  t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between m a r i t a l and  marital  stability  quality.  quality  (Lewis & S p a n i e r , 1979), i t i s  i m p o r t a n t t o examine t h o s e f a c t o r s marital  this  This study a l s o  that  contribute  to  sought t o examine t h e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l nication  and p e r c e i v e d q u a l i t y o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  commu-  Although  s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n h a s n o t r e c e i v e d much a t t e n t i o n i n marital  therapy research, the process of m a r i t a l  t i o n h a s r e c e i v e d much a t t e n t i o n investigators  have e s t a b l i s h e d  between m a r i t a l and  marital  satisfaction  communication  i n research.  a positive  communica-  Several  relationship  (one component o f m a r i t a l  quality)  ( B i e n v e n u , 1970; J o a n n i n g s , 198 2;  -  56  -  K a h n , 1 9 7 0 ; L o c k e & W a l l a c e , 1 9 5 9 ; M i l l e r , N u n n a l l y & Wackman, 1979;  N a v r a n , 1 9 6 7 ; .Wampler, 1 9 8 2 ) . The  following 1.  objectives  o f t h i s s t u d y were t o answer t h e  questions:  Does o p e n s e x u a l  communication c o r r e l a t e with  marital  adjustment? 2.  Does l a c k o f s e x u a l marital  3.  4.  communication c o r r e l a t e w i t h  open  communication?  I s sexual To  .  distress?  Does open s e x u a l marital  communication c o r r e l a t e with  communication a problem f o r couples?  accomplish these objectives  and t o t e s t t h e  hypotheses developed f o r t h e s t u d y , a p u r p o s i v e sample o f f o r t y f o u r c o u p l e s was d r a w n f r o m t h r o u g h o u t t h e l o w e r m a i n land  of B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a , Canada.  T w e n t y two c o u p l e s who  were r e c e i v i n g m a r i t a l c o u n s e l l i n g ships  were drawn and c o n s t i t u t e d  f o rdistressed relation-  G r o u p One.  T w e n t y two  c o u p l e s who w e r e n o t s e e k i n g m a r i t a l c o u n s e l l i n g  a n d who  judged t h e i r m a r r i a g e s t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y were drawn and constituted  G r o u p Two.  sample were m a i l e d  Both husbands and w i v e s w i t h i n  each  questionnaires.  Four h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d .  H y p o t h e s e s o n e , two  and  t h r e e were t e s t e d u s i n g  the  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n means t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e was a  statistically the  independent groups t - t e s t f o r  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e means o f  two g r o u p s on d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s  of marital  adjustment.  - 57 H y p o t h e s i s f o u r was  -  t e s t e d using the Pearson product c o r r e l a -  t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s to e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  between  variables.  then  The F i s h e r Z t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f r was  calculated to test for significant differences  between  groups. In terms of the o b j e c t i v e s of the s t u d y , the r e s u l t s reconfirm that there i s a strong positive between The  correlation  m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t and i n t e r s p o u s a l  communication.  study f u r t h e r demonstrates a strong c o r r e l a t i o n  between  open s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t and inhibited  between  s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s .  The  r e s u l t s of hypothesis four demonstrate t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s between and b e t w e e n  s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t  s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and m a r i t a l  a r e g r o u p s p e c i f i c and s t a t i s t i c a l l y groups.  I t was  communication  significant  n o t e d t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t  between  differences  e x i s t e d b e t w e e n husbands' a n d w i v e s ' s c o r e s i n e i t h e r One  o r G r o u p Two  regarding their perceived marital  Group adjust-  ment, m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n o r s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n . was  a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h e r e was  i n G r o u p One  on a l l m e a s u r e s  C o n c l u s i o n s and  greater v a r i a b i l i t y t h a n t h e r e was  It  i n scores  i n Group  Two.  Discussion  H y p o t h e s i s One:  Husbands and w i v e s i n t h e r a p y w i l l  s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on t h e D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t from husbands  and w i v e s n o t i n t h e r a p y .  not Scale  -  Result:  58  -  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d .  therapy scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y  Couples i n  l o w e r o n t h e DAS t h a n  couples  not i n therapy. Discussion:  The s u b j e c t i v e  evaluation  by c o u p l e s i n  t h i s s t u d y o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e s was v a l i d a t e d o b j e c t i v e l y b y subject's  s c o r e s on t h e D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t  Scale.,  Couples  who r e p o r t e d s a t i s f a c t o r y r e l a t i o n s h i p s o b t a i n e d a mean s c o r e o f 1 1 1 . 6 1 on t h e DAS w h i l e t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s s e e k i n g c o u n s e l l i n g o b t a i n e d a mean s c o r e o f 9 0 . 1 8 . H y p o t h e s i s One, a c o n s t r u c t i v e (1976)  s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n .  r e p l i c a t i o n of Spanier's As i n S p a n i e r s s t u d y , t h e 1  two g r o u p s o f c o u p l e s w e r e d i s c r i m i n a t e d r e p l i c a t i o n demonstrates related validity objective do  In testing  by t h e DAS.  This  f u r t h e r support f o rthe c r i t e r i o n  o f t h e DAS a s w e l l a s d e m o n s t r a t i n g  s u p p o r t f o r t h e c r i t e r i o n t h a t G r o u p s One a n d Two  indeed d i f f e r  i n perceived marital  H y p o t h e s i s Two:  Husbands a n d w i v e s  adjustment. i n therapy w i l l not  s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on t h e M a r i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y from husbands and wives n o t i n t h e r a p y . Results:  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d .  therapy scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y  Couples i n  l o w e r on t h e MCI t h a n  couples  not i n therapy. Discussion: the concept  that  The r a t i o n a l e f o r H y p o t h e s i s Two s t e m s i n t e r s p o u s a l communication  v a r i a b l e of dyadic adjustment. gation  from  i s a major  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s  investi-  add f u r t h e r s u p p o r t t o t h e p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p found  - 59  -  between m a r i t a l communication adjustment Kahn  and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n  e s t a b l i s h e d by B i e n v e n u  (1970), Joannings  (1970) , M i l l e r , N u n n a l l y & Wackman (1979) , and  (1976).  and  (198 2 ) , Navran  Scores of the process of m a r i t a l communication  m e a s u r e d by t h e MCI i n g t o G r o u p One  d i d d i s c r i m i n a t e between c o u p l e s  o r Group  Hypothesis Three:  as  belong-  Two.  Husbands and w i v e s  i n therapy  n o t s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on t h e S e x u a l  will  Communication  I n v e n t o r y f r o m h u s b a n d s and w i v e s n o t i n t h e r a p y . Results:  The  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was  therapy scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y  rejected.  Couples  l o w e r on t h e SCI t h a n  in  couples  not i n therapy. Discussion:  The  conceptual r a t i o n a l e f o r Hypothesis  Three i s t h a t s e x u a l communication subset of m a r i t a l communication. s u b j e c t m a t t e r and charged  topic.  i s a s p e c i f i c and I t i s specific  special  in i t s  s p e c i a l i n t h a t i t i s an e m o t i o n a l l y  S c o r e s on t h e S C I , w h i c h m e a s u r e s t h e  ability  of s u b j e c t s t o communicate w i t h t h e i r p a r t n e r about s e x u a l m a t t e r s , d i s c r i m i n a t e d between c o u p l e s s e e k i n g m a r i t a l therapy f o r d i s t r e s s e d marriages t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s as  and c o u p l e s who  identify  satisfactory.  I t . i s i m p o r t a n t t o note t h a t c o u p l e s i n Group were n o t s e e k i n g sex t h e r a p y nor d i d t h e y i d e n t i f y problems as a s o u r c e o f d i s t r e s s . c o u p l e s who  The  likelihood  One  sexual that  seek m a r i t a l t h e r a p y a r e e x p e r i e n c i n g b o t h  g e n e r a l breakdown i n the p r o c e s s of r e l a t i n g t o each  a  other  - 60 as w e l l as a s p e c i f i c breakdown i n d i s c u s s i n g sexual can be c l e a r l y c o n c e p t u a l i z e d .  issues  The demands of r e l a t i o n s h i p  communication a r e such t h a t each p a r t n e r e x p r e s s i v e and a t t e n t i v e r e g a r d i n g  i s r e q u i r e d t o be  t o p i c s which c o u l d  manifest  v a r y i n g degrees of v u l n e r a b i l i t y w i t h i n each  person.  The g r e a t e r the emotional involvement, and t h e r e -  f o r e the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of each p a r t n e r r e g a r d i n g matter, the g r e a t e r the need f o r t r u s t , support standing  i n the i n t e r p e r s o n a l d i a l o g u e .  the s u b j e c t and under-  One c o u l d  suggest  t h a t , under m a r i t a l s t r e s s , the tendency would be t o a v o i d emotionally  charged t o p i c s of c o n v e r s a t i o n  and t o d r i f t t o  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l areas where communication can be d i r e c t e d away from the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  As a r e s u l t , i n t e r p e r s o n a l  communication o f an i n t i m a t e nature would be Hypothesis Four:  avoided.  There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a -  t i o n s among a person's scores on the Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e , the M a r i t a l Communication Scale and the Sexual Communication Results: cases  Inventory. The n u l l hypothesis  was r e j e c t e d .  In a l l  ( t o t a l group, group one, group two) s i g n i f i c a n t  c o r r e l a t i o n s were e s t a b l i s h e d among a person's scores on DAS, MCI, and the SCI. Discussion:  The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s hypothesis  was t o  c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between m a r i t a l and sexual communication and p e r c e i v e d m a r i t a l adjustment. t o t a l sample p o p u l a t i o n was examined  When the  (n-=88), m a r i t a l  -  a d j u s t m e n t and positively  interspousal  related  spousal sexual  ( r = . 6 7 ) , and  and  ability  strongly  and  -  c o m m u n i c a t i o n were s t r o n g l y  ( r = . 8 8 ) ; m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t and  c o m m u n i c a t i o n were s t r o n g l y  related the  61  the  p r o c e s s of m a r i t a l  t o communicate about s e x u a l  directly related  Between the  two  not  groups, however, the For  i n therapy, there remained a strong  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t and cation  (Table For  directly  communication issues  were  relationship both couples and  direct  marital  communi-  couples i n therapy, there i s a strong,  direct  sexual  communica-  ( r = . 6 8 ) , as w e l l as b e t w e e n m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n  sexual  communication For  in  13).  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t and tion  inter-  (r=.69).  between t h e s e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s changed. and  and  and  (r=.76).  c o u p l e s who  t o r y , there are  only  and  report  t h e i r m a r r i a g e s as  m o d e r a t e t o low  m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t and  sexual  (r=.36).  T h i s f i n d i n g may  influence  o f one  c o r r e l a t i o n s between  communication  b e t w e e n m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and  sexual  (r=.43)  and  communication  mean t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s  v a r i a b l e upon the  satisfac-  other variable  i n persons  who  are w e l l adjusted i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  not  w e l l a d j u s t e d i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , however, t h e r e  a p p e a r s t o be c a t i o n and  a substantial influence  For  little  p e r s o n s who  between s e x u a l  a d j u s t m e n t as w e l l as b e t w e e n m a r i t a l and  communication.  are  communisexual  -  Limitations  agreed  affect  current research to p a r t i c i p a t e  on  the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y  population differs  i f the response  from the  response  T h i s s t u d y was techniques. couples  -  of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n  The who  62  T h i s may  are w i l l i n g  sample was  a volunteer basis. of the  s e t of a v o l u n t e e r s e t of the g e n e r a l  based e x c l u s i v e l y limit  the  results  collected. to  observe  On the  communication  The  validity  fore,  confidence  i n two  the  Sexual  ment d e v i c e s  reliability  to the  study.  Inventory,  of the  the  report  Although  adjusted  be u s e d  couples.  instruments  and  study  sexual  applied.  i s , there-  the researcher  reliability  Inventory  inter-  exploratory  A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e and the  various  P o s s i b l y the  instruments  the  has  Marital  validity  of  have n o t y e t been w e l l  In f u t u r e r e s e a r c h , o t h e r should  self  between m a r i t a l and  d i d surface with  Communication  established.  population.  o b s e r v a t i o n a l data  an  groups of d i v e r s e l y  i n the Dyadic  Communication  population  face to face  been a t t e m p t e d and  relationships  and  crucial  had  might  general  t o what t h e  t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h i s was  These r e l a t i o n s h i p s  on  subjects  This  to r e v e a l about themselves.  the couples  to  f i n d i n g s to the  d e s i g n would have been s t r e n g t h e n e d views with  restricted  or a d d i t i o n a l  t o measure s e x u a l  assess-  communication  skills. The If  responses  that  unit  o f a n a l y s i s f o r t h e p r o j e c t was  were n o t  i n d i v i d u a l was  r e c e i v e d f r o m an  dropped  from the  the  individual's  sample.  The  couple. spouse,  focus  then  - 63 was spouse-spouse e v a l u a t i o n s .  T h i s , i n a sense, c o n t i n u e s  a s i g n i f i c a n t trend which has been s t a r t e d by marriage and family researchers  i n the l a s t decade t o i n c l u d e both spouses  i n m a r i t a l q u a l i t y research Implications  (Spanier  and Suggestions f o r F u r t h e r  T h i s study was e x p l o r a t o r y discover  & Lewis, 1980). Research  i n nature and sought t o  the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between sexual  n i c a t i o n and p e r c e i v e d  m a r i t a l adjustment.  and m a r i t a l commuThe study  e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these v a r i a b l e s i n the couples s t u d i e d , were d i f f e r e n t f o r d i s t r e s s e d and non  d i s t r e s s e d couples.  For m a r i t a l l y d i s t r e s s e d couples,  there was c l e a r l y a s u b s t a n t i a l i n f l u e n c e between communication and m a r i t a l adjustment and between  sexual sexual  communication and m a r i t a l communication, which was not found i n couples who r e p o r t e d  satisfactory relationships.  What does t h i s mean? t i o n s between sexual and  sexual  In e x p l a i n i n g the lower c o r r e l a -  communication and m a r i t a l  communication,  communication and m a r i t a l adjustment f o r Group  Two, one could  suggest t h a t f o r w e l l adjusted  c o u p l e s , an  o v e r a l l communication process e x i s t s which allows the couple to r e l a t e t o each other and t o s o l v e problems c o n s t r u c t i v e l y , whether the t o p i c of d i s c u s s i o n or c u r r e n t sexual  o r of another nature.  issue i s of a  In t h i s case, the process of  m a r i t a l communication appears t o be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with dyadic adjustment whereas sexual.communication subsumes a l e s s e r r o l e i n m a r i t a l adjustment.  - 64 In e x p l a i n i n g  t h e h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between s e x u a l  c o m m u n i c a t i o n and m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and s e x u a l communicat i o n and m a r i t a l adjustment  f o r G r o u p One, i t i s c l e a r l y  evident that  couples, sexual communication i s  f o rdistressed  an i s s u e o f m a g n i t u d e s i m i l a r t o m a r i t a l These r e s u l t s suggest  evidence which  c o u p l e s who s e e k m a r i t a l t h e r a p y  communication.  indicates that  distressed  l i k e l y experience, i n  a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r p r e s e n t i n g problems,  a concurrent  break-  down i n t h e s p e c i f i c d o m a i n o f s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d , therefore,  possibly  relationship. by B i r c h l e r  i n the sexual intimacy aspects of t h e i r  This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n supports the claim  (1979) a n d G r e e n  (1981) t h a t c o u p l e s who  d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r relationships, often  made express  implicate  l a c k o f communication as w e l l as s p e c i f i c d i f f i c u l t i e s s e x u a l e x p r e s s i o n a s two p r i m a r y c a u s e s  with  or correlates of  discord. What a r e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s f i n d i n g t o M a r i t a l and  Family Therapy?  importance,  i n therapy, of defining the s p e c i f i c s of the  global complaint distressed  "lack of communication".  What d o e s a  c o u p l e mean when t h e y s a y t h e y c a n n o t  Is i t s k i l l s boundaries  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y s u p p o r t t h e  they l a c k o r a r e t h e r e e m o t i o n a l and domain  t o t h e i r communication?  t r a i n i n g help?  Will  W i l l communication  sex therapy help?  M a r i t a l and F a m i l y Therapy a r e t w o f o l d : implications  communicate?  skills  The i m p l i c a t i o n s t o firstly,  f o r t r e a t i n g d i s t r e s s e d marriages  there are  and s e c o n d l y ,  - 65 t h e r e a r e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t r a i n i n g M a r i t a l and F a m i l y Therapists. In  treating distressed relationships,  i t appears  m o s t i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e t h e r a p i s t n o t assume t h e r e i s compatibility  i n t h e sexual arena  appears t h a t d i s t r e s s relationship. of  of the relationship.  It  i n t h i s d o m a i n may b e g u a r d e d b y t h e  I t may n e v e r b e p e r m i s s i b l e f o r one member  t h e dyad t o address  t h e s e x u a l problems of t h e r e l a t i o n -  ship d i r e c t l y  i n therapy.  The v u l n e r a b i l i t y a n d r i s k  be t o o h i g h .  I t becomes, t h e r e f o r e , i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e  t h e r a p i s t t o assume t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . focus the importance  This brings  may  into  o f t h e c o n t e n t o f t r a i n i n g programs f o r  M a r i t a l and F a m i l y T h e r a p i s t s i n terms o f p r o v i d i n g f o r b o t h t h e o r e t i c a l and e x p e r i e n t i a l competence i n t h e a r e a o f human s e x u a l i t y a n d s e x u a l l y f o c u s e d i n t e r a c t i o n a l  therapy.  T h i s r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s t h a t some i n t e g r a t i o n i n t h e a r e a s o f M a r i t a l a n d F a m i l y t h e r a p y a n d Sex T h e r a p y i s necessary  i n order t o adequately  equip f a m i l y t h e r a p i s t s t o  be a b l e t o i n t e r v e n e a t a l l l e v e l s o f t h e f a m i l y Support  f o r t h i s p o i n t of view  words w r i t t e n by Sager connectedness  (1976).  i s heard Arguing  system.  i n the following f o rthe i n t e r -  o f m a r i t a l t h e r a p y and sex t h e r a p y from a sex  t h e r a p i s t ' s p o i n t o f v i e w , he s t a t e s : More o f t e n , h o w e v e r , s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i s so i n t r i n s i c a l l y connected w i t h other i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems that treatment of the dysfunction alone w i l l be o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a l u e i n m e n d i n g t h e overall fabric of the relationship. It i s  -  66  t h e r e f o r e , o f p r i m a r y i m p o r t a n c e t o be a w a r e of t h e i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s of t h e v a r i o u s a r e a s o f t h e c o u p l e ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p and t o d e f i n e the c o n n e c t i o n s between s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n and  other aspects of m a r i t a l disharmony.  (p.  555)  The  same p h i l o s o p h y i s i m p o r t a n t f r o m a f a m i l y  t h e r a p i s t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e i n t h a t i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o be of and  the. i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s o f a r e a s o f a c o u p l e ' s  aware  relationship  t o d e f i n e the c o n n e c t i o n s between m a r i t a l disharmony  sexual  and  disharmony. One  suggestion f o r further research i s to  test  e x p e r i m e n t a l l y , the i n f l u e n c e of sexual communication m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n on m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t  of  and  couples  s e e k i n g therapy, w h i l e c o n t r o l l i n g f o r the i n f l u e n c e of variables.  I t appears t h a t f o r couples seeking  other  marital  t h e r a p y , b o t h s e x u a l and m a r i t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n s may  be a p p r o p r i a t e a s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s e  a b l e s and m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t  i s p o s i t i v e and  vari-  significant.  Conelusion B a s e d on t h e m e a s u r e s u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y and statistical for  a n a l y s i s a p p l i e d , c o u p l e s who  distressed relationships differed  measures of d y a d i c adjustment n i c a t i o n f r o m c o u p l e s who  and  sought  the  therapy  significantly  on  s e x u a l and m a r i t a l commu-  reported satisfactory  F o r d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s m a r i t a l and  relationships.  sexual communication  e x e r t a s u b s t a n t i a l i n f l u e n c e on e a c h o t h e r w h i l e f o r d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s t h e y do n o t . m a r i t a l adjustment  and  For d i s t r e s s e d  non  couples,  sexual communication e x e r t a strong  - 67 i n f l u e n c e on each other w h i l e f o r non d i s t r e s s e d couples influence  i s moderate to low.  the  I t appears t h a t f o r d i s t r e s s e d  c o u p l e s , sexual communication i s an i d e n t i f i a b l e v a r i a b l e of dyadic adjustment.  More r e s e a r c h i s necessary  to e s t a b l i s h  any c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these v a r i a b l e s .  - 68 -  REFERENCES Beck, D.F. Research f i n d i n g s on the outcomes of m a r i t a l counseling. . S o c i a l Casework, 1975, 5_6_; 153-181. 1  Bienvenu, M.J., Sr. Measurement of m a r i t a l communication. The Family C o o r d i n a t o r , 1970, _19, 26-31. Bienvenu, M.J.,Sr. Counselor's and teacher's manual f o r the sexual communication i n v e n t o r y . Saluda, N.C.: Family L i f e P u b l i c a t i o n s , Inc., 1980. B i r c h l e r , G.R. Communication s k i l l s i n married c o u p l e s . In A.S. B e l l a c k and M. Hersen (Eds.), Research and practice in social s k i l l s training. New York: Plenum, 1979, 273-315. Burgess, E.W., and C o t t r e l l , L. The p r e d i c t i o n of a d j u s t ment. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1936, _1; 739-744. Burr, W.R. Theory c o n s t r u c t i o n and the s o c i o l o g y of the f a m i l y . New York: Wiley, 1973. Chesney, A.P., Blakeney, P.E., Chan, F.A., and C o l e , C M . The impact of sex therapy on sexual b e h a v i o r s and m a r i t a l communication. J o u r n a l of Sex and M a r i t a l Therapy, 1981, 7(1) > 70-79. C o l l i n s , J.D. The e f f e c t s of the c o n j u g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p m o d i f i c a t i o n method on m a r i t a l communication and adjustment. (Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971). Coleman, E . J . E f f e c t s of communication s k i l l s t r a i n i n g on the outcome of a sex c o u n s e l i n g program (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1979) . Cronbach, L . J . C o e f f i c i e n t alpha and the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of t e s t s . Psychometrika, 1951, 16_t 297-334. E v e r a e r d , W., Dekker, J . A comparison of sex therapy and communication therapy. J o u r n a l of Sex and M a r i t a l Therapy, 1981, 7_(4) , 278-289. Ford, C.S., New  and Beach, F.A. P a t t e r n s of sexual b e h a v i o r . York: S i g n e t , 1951.  Frank, E., Anderson, C., and Rubenstein, D. Frequency of sexual d y s f u n c t i o n i n normal c o u p l e s . New England J o u r n a l of Medicine, 1978, 299, 111-115.  - 69  -  Freud, S. Three essays on the theory of female s e x u a l i t y . New York: Avon, 1 9 6 2 . F i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 0 5 . Green, B.L. A c l i n i c a l approach t o m a r i t a l problems ( 2 n d ed.). S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r l e s C. Thomas, 1981.  Guerney, B.G. J r . R e l a t i o n s h i p enhancement. Jossey-Bass, 1 9 7 7 .  San  Francisco:  Gurman, A.S., and Kniskern, D.P. Handbook of f a m i l y New York: Brunner/Mazel, I n c . , 1 9 8 1 .  therapy.  H i c k s , M.W., and P i a t t , M. M a r i t a l happiness and s t a b i l i t y : A review of the r e s e a r c h i n the s i x t i e s . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1 9 7 0 , 3_2/ 5 5 3 - 5 7 4 . Jacobson, N.S., and M a r t i n , B. B e h a v i o r a l marriage therapy: Current s t a t u s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 9 7 6 , 83 ,  540-556.  Joanning, H. The long-term e f f e c t s of the couple communicat i o n program. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy, 1982,  Kahn, M.  8_;  463-468.  Non-verbal communication and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . Family Process, 1 9 7 0 , 9_, 4 4 9 - 4 5 3 .  Kaplan, H.S.  The  new  sex therapy.  New  York: Brunner/Mazel,  1974 .  L"Abate, L. S k i l l t r a i n i n g programs f o r couples and families. I n A.S. Gurman and D.P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of f a m i l y therapy. New York: Brunner/ Mazel, 1 9 8 1 . Lewis, R.A., and Spanier, G.B. T h e o r i z i n g about the q u a l i t y and s t a b i l i t y of marriage. I n W. Burr, R. H i l l , F . I . Nye, and I . R e i s s (Eds.). Contemporary t h e o r i e s about the f a m i l y ( v o l . 1 ) . New York: Free P r e s s , 1979.  L o b i t z , W.C, and L o b i t z , G.K. C l i n i c a l assessment i n the treatment of sexual d y s f u n c t i o n s . I n : J. LoPiccolo and L. L o P i c c o l o (Eds.), Handbook of sex therapy. New York: Plenum Press, 1 9 7 8 . L o b i t z , W.C, and L o P i c c o l o , J . New methods i n the b e h a v i o r a l treatment of sexual d y s f u n c t i o n . J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1 9 7 2 , 3,  265-271.  -  Locke,  70  -  H.J., a n d W a l l a c e , K.M. S h o r t m a r i t a l - a d j u s t m e n t and p r e d i c t i o n t e s t s : T h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y a n d validity. Marriage and Family L i v i n g , 1959 , 2 1 ; 251-255.  L o P i c c o l o , J . a n d L o b i t z , W.C. Behavior therapy of sexual dysfunction. I n : L.A. H a m e r l y n c k , L.C. Handy, a n d E . J . Mash ( E d s . ) , B e h a v i o r c h a n g e : M e t h o d o l o g y , concepts and p r a c t i c e . Champaign, 1 1 1 . , Research Press,1 9 7 3 . L o P i c c o l o , J . , a n d M i l l e r , V. A p r o g r a m f o r e n h a n c i n g t h e sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r normal couples. Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1 9 7 5 , 5_> 4 1 - 4 6 . Mace, D.R. C o u n s e l l i n g a s e x u a l l y i n h i b i t e d S e x u a l B e h a v i o r , 1 9 7 1 , 9_, 3 2 - 3 7 .  couple.  Mace, D.R., a n d Mace, V.G. M a r r i a g e e n r i c h m e n t - w a v e o f t h e future. F a m i l y C o o r d i n a t o r , 1 9 7 5 , .24, 1 3 1 - 1 3 5 . M a s t e r s , W.H., a n d J o h n s o n , V.E. Human s e x u a l B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown, 1 9 6 6 .  response.  M a s t e r s , W.H., a n d J o h n s o n , V.E. Human s e x u a l B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown, 1 9 7 0 .  inadequacy.  Miller,  S., C o r r a l e s , R., a n d Wackman, D.B. R e c e n t p r o g r e s s i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d f a c i l i t a t i n g m a r i t a l communication. The F a m i l y C o o r d i n a t o r , 1 9 7 5 " , 4 ? 7 1 4 3 r r l 5 2 " . ,  Miller,  S., N u n n a l l y , E.W., a n d Wackman, D.B. C o u p l e communication I : T a l k i n g together. Minneapolis: I n t e r p e r s o n a l Communication Programs, 1 9 7 9 .  Miller,  S., Wackman, D., N u n n a l l y , E., a n d S a l i n e , C. Straight talk. New Y o r k : Rawson Wade, 1 9 8 1 .  N a v r a n , L. C o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d a d j u s t m e n t i n m a r r i a g e . F a m i l y P r o c e s s , 1 9 6 7 , 6_> 1 7 3 - 1 8 4 . O l s o n , D.H. M a r i t a l a n d f a m i l y t h e r a p y : I n t e g r a t i v e r e v i e w and c r i t i q u e . J o u r n a l o f Marriage and t h e F a m i l y , 1970,  3_2,  501-538.  O l s o n , D.H.L., a n d S p r e n k l e , D.H. E m e r g i n g t r e n d s i n treating relationships. J o u r n a l o f Marriage and F a m i l y C o u n s e l i n g , 1 9 7 6 , 2_, 3 1 7 - 3 2 9 .  - 71 O t t o , H.A. M a r r i a g e and f a m i l y e n r i c h m e n t programs i n N o r t h America - Report and a n a l y s i s . The F a m i l y C o o r d i n a t o r , 1 9 7 5 , 24., 137-142. P e n l a n d , L.R. Sex e d u c a t i o n i n 1900, 1940, a n d 1980: An h i s t o r i c a l s k e t c h . J o u r n a l o f S c h o o l H e a l t h , 1981, 4_, 3 0 5 - 3 0 9 . Rogers,  CR. Client-centered therapy. M u f f l i n , 1951.  Boston:  Houghton  Sager, C J . S e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n s and m a r i t a l d i s c o r d . H.S. K a p l a n , The new s e x t h e r a p y . New Y o r k : B r u n n e r / M a z e l , I n c . , 1974.  In  S a g e r , C J . The r o l e o f . s e x t h e r a p y i n m a r i t a l t h e r a p y . A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y , 1976 , 1 3 3 , 555-558 . S p a n i e r , G.B. M e a s u r i n g d y a d i c a d j u s t m e n t : New s c a l e s f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e q u a l i t y o f m a r r i a g e and s i m i l a r d y a d s . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y , 1976, 3_8; 15-28. S p a n i e r , G.B. The measurement o f m a r i t a l q u a l i t y . Journal o f Sex a n d M a r i t a l T h e r a p y , 1979, 5, 288-300. S p a n i e r , G.B., a n d C o l e , C L . T o w a r d c l a r i f i c a t i o n and i n v e s t i g a t i o n of m a r i t a l adjustment. International J o u r n a l o f t h e S o c i o l o g y o f t h e F a m i l y , 1976 , 6_> 121-146. S p a n i e r , G.B., a n d L e w i s , R.A. Marital quality: A review of t h e s e v e n t i e s . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y , 1980, 825-838. Tanner,  B.A. Two c a s e r e p o r t s on t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e e j a c u l a t o r y response w i t h t h e squeeze t e c h n i q u e . P s y c h o t h e r a p y : T h e o r y , r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e , 1 9 7 3 , 10; 297-300.  T r a v i s , R.P., and T r a v i s , P.Y. The p a i r i n g program: A c t u a l i z i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . C o o r d i n a t o r , 1 9 7 5 , 24_, 161-165. U d r y , J.R. The s o c i a l c o n t e x t o f m a r r i a g e . J.B. L i p p i n c o t t , 1966.  enrichment Family New  York:  Wampler, K.S. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e M i n n e s o t a c o u p l e communication program: A r e v i e w o f r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f M a r i t a l a n d F a m i l y T h e r a p y , 1982, 8^, 345-354.  - 72 Wampler, K.S., a n d S p r e n k l e , D. The M i n n e s o t a c o u p l e communication program: a f o l l o w - u p s t u d y . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y , 1980, £ 2 , 577-584. W a t z l a w i c k , P., B e a v i n , J . H . , a n d J a c k s o n , D.D. Pragmatics o f human c o m m u n i c a t i o n . New Y o r k : N o r t o n , 196 7. Woods, N.F. ( E d . ) . Human s e x u a l i t y i n h e a l t h a n d i l l n e s s . S t . L o u i s : C.V. Mosby, 1979.  - 73 -  APPENDIX A LETTER OF CONTACT  - 75 -  APPENDIX B LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL  - 77  -  APPENDIX C DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE (Spanier,  1976)  -  78  -  'DYADIC ADJUSTMENT  SCALE  Most persons have disagreements i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Please i n d i c a t e below the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner f o r each item on the following l i s t . (Place a check mark to i n d i c a t e your answer.)  Always Agree  Almost Always Agree  Occasionally Disagree  Frequently Disagree  Almost Always Disagree  Always Disagree  1. Handling family finances 2. Matters of Recreation 3. R e l i g i o u s matters 4. Demonstrations of Affection 5. Friends 6. Sex r e l a t i o n s 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 i n t e r e s t s and activities 15. Career decisions  .  -  All the time  79  -  Most of the time  More often than not  Occasionally  Rarely  Never  Every day  Almost every  Occasionally  Rarely  Never  All  Most  Some  Very few  16. How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separat i o n , or terminating your relationship? 17. How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight? 18. In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well? 19. Do you confide i n your mate? 20. Do you ever regret that you married? (or l i v e d 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 k i s s your mate?  None  24. Do you and your mate engage i n outside i n t e r e s t s together? How  often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate?  Never 25. Have a stimulating exchange of ideas  Less than once a month  Once or twice a month  Once or twice a week  Once a day  More Often  - 80 -  L e s s than once a month  Never 26.  Laugh t o g e t h e r  27.  Calmy d i s c u s s something  Once o r twice a month  Once o r twice a week  Once a day  More often  28. Work t o g e t h e r on a project These a r e some t h i n g s about which c o u p l e s sometimes a g r e e and sometimes d i s a g r e e . I n d i c a t e i f e i t h e r i t e m below c a u s e d d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p i n i o n s o r were problems i n y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p d u r i n g t h e p a s t few weeks. (Check y e s o r no.) Yes  No  29.  Being too t i r e d  f o r sex.  30.  Not showing l o v e .  31. The d o t s on t h e f o l l o w i n g l i n e r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n t d e g r e e s o f h a p p i n e s s i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p . The m i d d l e p o i n t , "happy", r e p r e s e n t s t h e d e g r e e o f h a p p i n e s s o f most r e l a t i o n s h i p s . P l e a s e c i r c l e t h e d o t which b e s t d e s c r i b e s t h e degree o f h a p p i n e s s , a l l t h i n g s c o n s i d e r e d , o f y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p .  Extremely Unhappy  Fairly Unhappy  A Little Unhappy  Happy  Very Happy  Extremely Happy  Perfect  32. Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s b e s t d e s c r i b e s how you f e e l a b o u t t h e f u t u r e of your r e l a t i o n s h i p ? P l a c e a check mark on t h e a p p r o p r i a t e l i n e . I want d e s p e r a t e l y f o r my r e l a t i o n s h i p t o s u c c e e d , a l m o s t any l e n g t h t o see t h a t i t d o e s .  and would go t o  I want v e r y much f o r my r e l a t i o n s h i p t o s u c c e e d , t o see t h a t i t d o e s .  and w i l l  I want v e r y much f o r my r e l a t i o n s h i p t o s u c c e e d , s h a r e t o see t h a t i t d o e s .  and w i l l do my  I t would be n i c e i f my r e l a t i o n s h i p succeeded, than I am d o i n g now t o h e l p i t s u c c e e d .  do a l l I c a n fair  b u t I c a n ' t do much more  I t would be n i c e i f i t s u c c e e d e d , b u t I r e f u s e t o do any more than d o i n g now t o keep t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p g o i n g . My r e l a t i o n s h i p c a n n e v e r s u c c e e d , t o keep t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p g o i n g .  I am  and t h e r e i s no more t h a t I c a n do  -  81  -  APPENDIX D MARITAL COMMUNICATION INVENTORY ( B i e n v e n u , 1970)  -  82  -  Usually 1. Do y o u a n d y o u r h u s b a n d d i s c u s s t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e f a m i l y i n c o m e s h o u l d be spent? 2. Does he d i s c u s s h i s work and i n t e r e s t s w i t h y o u ? 3. Do y o u h a v e a t e n d e n c y t o keep your f e e l i n g s t o yourself? 4. I s y o u r h u s b a n d ' s t o n e o f voice i r r i t a t i n g ? 5. Does he h a v e a t e n d e n c y t o s a y t h i n g s w h i c h w o u l d be better l e f t unsaid? 6. A r e y o u r m e a l t i m e c o n v e r s a t i o n s e a s y and p l e a s a n t ? 7. Do y o u f i n d y o u r s e l f k e e p i n g a f t e r him about h i s faults? 8. Does he seem t o u n d e r stand your f e e l i n g s ? 9. Does y o u r h u s b a n d 10. Does he l i s t e n have t o say?  nag  you?  t o what you  1 1 . Does i t u p s e t y o u t o a g r e a t e x t e n t when y o u r husband i s angry w i t h you? 12. Does he pay y o u c o m p l i m e n t s and s a y n i c e t h i n g s t o you? 13. I s i t h a r d t o u n d e r s t a n d your husband's f e e l i n g s and a t t i t u d e s ? 14. I s he a f f e c t i o n a t e you?  towards  Sometimes  Seldom  Never  - 83 -  Usually 15. Does h e l e t y o u f i n i s h t a l k i n g before responding t o what you a r e s a y i n g ? 16. Do y o u a n d y o u r h u s b a n d remain s i l e n t f o r l o n g p e r i o d s when y o u a r e a n g r y w i t h one a n o t h e r ? 17. Does h e a l l o w y o u t o p u r s u e y o u r own i n t e r e s t s a n d a c t i v i t i e s even i f they a r e d i f f e r e n t from h i s ? 18. Does he t r y t o l i f t y o u r s p i r i t s when y o u a r e depressed o r discouraged? 19. Do y o u a v o i d e x p r e s s i n g disagreement w i t h him because y o u a r e a f r a i d he w i l l g e t angry? 20. Does y o u r h u s b a n d c o m p l a i n t h a t y o u don 1 u n d e r s t a n d him? 1  21. Do y o u l e t y o u r h u s b a n d know when y o u a r e d i s p l e a s e d w i t h him? 22. Do y o u f e e l he s a y s one t h i n g b u t r e a l l y means another? 23. Do y o u h e l p h i m u n d e r s t a n d y o u b y s a y i n g how y o u t h i n k , f e e l , and b e l i e v e ? 24. A r e y o u a n d y o u r h u s b a n d a b l e t o d i s a g r e e w i t h one another without l o s i n g your tempers? 25. Do t h e two o f y o u a r g u e l o t o v e r money?  a  Sometimes  Seldom  Never  - 84 Usually 26. When a p r o b l e m a r i s e s between you and y o u r husband a r e you a b l e t o d i s c u s s i t without losing control of your emotions? 27. Do y o u f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o express your true f e e l i n g s t o him? 28. Does he o f f e r y o u c o o p e r a t i o n , encouragement and emotional support i n your r o l e ( d u t i e s ) as a w i f e ? 29. Does y o u r h u s b a n d i n s u l t y o u when a n g r y w i t h y o u ? 30. Do y o u a n d y o u r h u s b a n d engage i n o u t s i d e i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s t o g e t h e r ? 3 1 . Does y o u r h u s b a n d a c c u s e y o u o f n o t l i s t e n i n g t o what he says? 32. Does he l e t y o u know t h a t you a r e i m p o r t a n t t o him? 33. I s i t e a s i e r t o c o n f i d e i n a f r i e n d rather than your husband? 34. Does he c o n f i d e i n o t h e r s r a t h e r t h a n i n you? 35. Do y o u f e e l t h a t i n m o s t m a t t e r s y o u r h u s b a n d knows what you a r e t r y i n g t o say? 36. Does h e m o n o p o l i z e t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n v e r y much? 37. Do y o u a n d y o u r h u s b a n d t a l k about t h i n g s which a r e of i n t e r e s t t o b o t h o f you? 38. Does y o u r h u s b a n d s u l k o r p o u t v e r y much?  Sometimes  Seldom  Never  -  85 -  Usually  39.  Do y o u d i s c u s s s e x u a l m a t t e r s w i t h him?  40.  Do y o u a n d y o u r h u s b a n d discuss your personal problems w i t h each other?  41.  Can y o u r husband t e l l what k i n d o f day you have had without asking?  42.  Do y o u a d m i t t h a t y o u a r e w r o n g when y o u know t h a t y o u a r e w r o n g a b o u t something?  43.  Do y o u a n d y o u r h u s b a n d talk over pleasant things t h a t happen d u r i n g t h e day?  44.  Do y o u h e s i t a t e t o d i s c u s s c e r t a i n things with your husband because you a r e a f r a i d he might h u r t y o u r feelings?  45.  Do y o u p r e t e n d y o u a r e l i s t e n i n g t o h i m when a c t u a l l y you a r e n o t r e a l l y listening?  46.  Do t h e t w o o f y o u e v e r s i t down j u s t t o t a l k t h i n g s over?  Sometimes  Seldom  Never  - 86 -  APPENDIX E SEXUAL COMMUNICATION INVENTORY ( B i e n v e n u , 1977)  - 87 YES usually 1. Does y o u r p a r t n e r d i s c u s s matters r e l a t e d t o sex?  NO seldom  SOMETIMES  clearly  2. Do y o u l e t y o u r p a r t n e r know what t u r n s you o f f s e x u a l l y ? 3. Do y o u w o r r y o r f e e l g u i l t y o v e r any p r e v i o u s s e x u a l a s s o c i a t i o n s ? 4. I s i t e a s i e r t o d i s c u s s s e x w i t h someone o t h e r t h a n y o u r p a r t n e r ? 5. Do y o u and y o u r p a r t n e r know e a c h other's f e e l i n g s about the b i r t h c o n t r o l method you use? 6. Do y o u f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o a s k y o u r p a r t n e r t o engage i n s e x u a l activity? 7. Do y o u and y o u r p a r t n e r d i s c u s s ways t o i m p r o v e y o u r s e x u a l relationship? 8. Do y o u and y o u r p a r t n e r d i s a g r e e o v e r how o f t e n y o u w a n t t o h a v e intercourse? 9. Do y o u t h i n k y o u r p a r t n e r u n d e r stands y o u r s e x u a l needs? 10. Does y o u r p a r t n e r c o m p l a i n o f n o t understanding his/her sexual needs? 11. Do y o u a v o i d d i s c u s s i n g w i t h y o u r p a r t n e r any a s p e c t s o f y o u r sexual experiences? (together) 12. Does y o u r p a r t n e r make s e x u a l n e e d s known t o y o u ? 13. W h i l e h a v i n g i n t e r c o u r s e , do y o u and y o u r p a r t n e r t a l k t o e a c h other? ( P l e a s e go b a c k and c i r c l e a n y . q u e s t i o n s t h a t w e r e n o t t o you)  clear  - 88 YES usually  NO seldom  SOMETIMES  14. Do y o u a n d y o u r p a r t n e r d i s c u s s the matter of v a r i e t y i n your s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h each other? 15. A r e y o u a n d y o u r p a r t n e r p h y s i c a l l y a f f e c t i o n a t e w i t h each other? 16. Do y o u a v o i d l e t t i n g y o u r p a r t n e r know when y o u w o u l d l i k e some physical affection? 17. Do y o u a n d y o u r p a r t n e r d i s c u s s your s e x u a l f a n t a s i e s w i t h each other? 18. Do y o u l e t y o u r p a r t n e r know when you're d i s a p p o i n t e d over something i n your sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p ? 19. W o u l d i t be d i f f i c u l t f o r y o u t o accept suggestions from your p a r t n e r f o r improving your sex life? 20. W o u l d i t b e d i f f i c u l t f o r y o u r partner t o accept suggestions from you f o r i m p r o v i n g y o u r sex life? 21. Would i t be d i f f i c u l t f o r you t o l i s t e n i f y o u r p a r t n e r wanted t o t a l k about sex? 22. W o u l d i t be d i f f i c u l t f o r y o u r p a r t n e r t o l i s t e n i f you wanted to t a l k about sex? 23. I s i t OK f o r y o u t o r e f u s e y o u r partner a sexual request? 24. W o u l d i t u p s e t y o u a g r e a t d e a l i f your partner refused a sexual r e q u e s t from you? ( P l e a s e go b a c k a n d c i r c l e to you)  any q u e s t i o n s  t h a t were n o t c l e a r  - 89 YES usually  NO seldom  SOMETIMES  25. Do y o u t e l l y o u r p a r t n e r when y o u have enjoyed a s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e ? 26. Does y o u r p a r t n e r l e t y o u know when a s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e h a s b e e n enjoyable? 27. Do y o u a v o i d a s k i n g y o u r p a r t n e r t o do t h e t h i n g s w h i c h y o u e n j o y sexually? 28. Does y o u r p a r t n e r a s k y o u t o do what i s s e x u a l l y e n j o y a b l e ? 29.  I s i t v e r y hard f o r you t o g e t "to the p o i n t " i nd i s c u s s i n g sexual matters?  30. Do y o u f i n d i t h a r d t o l e t y o u r p a r t n e r know w h a t y o u e n j o y sexually?  ( P l e a s e go b a c k a n d c i r c l e a n y q u e s t i o n s t h a t w e r e n o t c l e a r t o you)  -  90  -  APPENDIX F FAMILY BACKGROUND SHEET  - 91 FAMILY BACKGROUND SHEET Your c o o p e r a t i o n i n p r o v i d i n g a l l t h e answers P l e a s e be a s s u r e d o f a n o n y m i t y  Male  Age:  Education  level:  Number o f c h i l d r e n :  status:  6.  Religious  7.  Occupation:  8.  Approximate  9.  Ethnic  confidentiality.  u n d e r 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 +  Female  High s c h o o l University College Technical Post grad  Number o f y e a r s m a r r i e d ;  Marital  and s t r i c t  i s appreciated,  affiliation:  background:  - 5 - 9 - 14 - 20 - 25 +  0 1 2 3 4 more t h a n 4  married common-law cohabiting  income:  2 6 10 15 21 25  f i r s t marriage second marriage t h i r d marriage  Frequency  n  Age:  (Percent) D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Couples Not i n Therapy W i t h i n V a r i o u s Demographic C a t e g o r i e s  Under 3 0  31-39 21  60 + 0  40-49  50-59  16  3  Post Grad  Technical  College  12  3  2  10-14  15-20  21-25  25 +  13  11  4  2  44  4  n  High School  44  6  n  2-5  44  4  10  Number o f  n  0  1  2  3  4  4+  Children:  44  4  5  23  8  4  0  Marital  n  Married  • Common Law  Status:  44  40  4  n  First  44  39  Education: Years Married:  This  marriage  is the: Approximate Joint Income Religious Affiliation  n 22  Less than 19999 2  University 21 6-9  Second 3 19999 29999 i  n  None  Catholic  44  12  5  Co-habit 0 Third  Third+  2  0  29999 39999  39999 49999  More t h a n 49999  7  0  12  Jewish  Other  0  3  Protestant 24  Frequency  Age:  Education: Years Married Number of Children  (Percent) D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Couples i n Therapy Within Various Demographic C a t e g o r i e s  Under 30  44  11  n  High School  University  44  19  9  n  2-5  5  6  6-9  10-14  15-20  21-25  25+  16  6  8  12  2  0  n  0  1  2  3  4  4+  44  11  10  10  7  4  2  44':  40  n  First .  44  36  Religious Affiliation  n 22  Less than 19999 2  n  None  44  13  Post Grad  Co-habit  Common Law  Married  44  Approximate Joint Income  1  5  Status  i s the:  2  10  20  60 +  College  n  marriage  50-59  Technical  Marital  This  40-49  31^39  n  0  4 Second 7 19999 29999 2 Catholic. 5  Third 1 29999 39999 7 Protestant 24  Third+ 0 39999 49999  More than 49999 4  7 Jewish 2  Other 0  - 94  -  APPENDIX G FOLLOW UP LETTER  

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.831.1-0054245/manifest

Comment

Related Items