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 C o l u m b i a , 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Aug u s t 1983 (c ) N o e l l e Anne 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 o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I agree t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head of my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, B.C. A u g u s t , 1983 - 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 s e x u a l communication. The stu d y 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 s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l communication and p e r c e i v e d q u a l i t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 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 drawn from t h r o u g h o u t the lo w e r m a i n l a n d of B r i t i s h C o lumbia, Canada. Twenty 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 f o r d i s t r e s s e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s were drawn and c o n s t i t u t e d Group One. Twenty two c o u p l e s who were not s e e k i n g t h e r a p y and 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 c o n s t i t u t e d Group Two. Both husbands and wi v e s w i t h i n 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 : The Dyadic 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 The S e x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y . Four hypotheses were t e s t e d . Hypotheses One, Two and Three were t e s t e 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 between means t o det e r m i n e i f t h e r e was a s t a t i s -t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means o f t h e two groups on d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s o f m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . H y p o t h e s i s Four was t e s t e d u s i n g t h e Pearson 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 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 s between v a r i a b l e s . 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 c a s e . The r e s u l t s of t h e s t u d y r e c o n f i r m t h a t t h e r e 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 m a r i t a l a d j u s tment and i n t e r s p o u s a l communication. The s t u d y f u r t h e r demonstrates a s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n between open s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l a d j u s tment and between i n h i b i t e d s e x u a l communica-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 o f H y p o t h e s i s Four demonstrate t h a t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l a d j u s tment and between s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l communication a r e group s p e c i f i c and s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t between groups. - i v -TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION . . . . . Statement of t h e Problem O b j e c t i v e s of the Study S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study D e f i n i t i o n of Key Terms L i m i t a t i o n s . . . . . Overview of t h e Study CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE I n t r o d u c t i o n . . I s s u e s i n t h e O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n o f M a r i t a l Adjustment . . M a r i t a l Communication as a V a r i a b l e o f M a r i t a l Adjustment . . . S e x u a l Communication as a V a r i a b l e of S e x u a l Adjustment Summary . . . . . . - v -Page CHAPTER I I I : METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . 26 Research D e s i g n and Sampling Methods . . . 26 I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . . . . . . . 28 Data C o l l e c t i o n . . . . . . . 33 S t a t i s t i c a l Hypotheses . . . . . . 34 Summary . . . . . . . . . 3 6 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 37 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s e s of t h e Hypotheses . . 37 Supplementary A n a l y s e s . . . . . . 50 Summary of R e s u l t s . . . . . . 53 CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION . . . 55 Summary . . . . . . . . . 55 C o n c l u s i o n s and D i s c u s s i o n . . . . . 57 L i m i t a t i o n s of t h e I n v e s t i g a t i o n . . . . 62 I m p l i c a t i o n s and S u g g e s t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Research . . . . . . . 6 3 C o n c l u s i o n . . . . . . . . 65 REFERENCES:. . . . . . . . . 6 8 APPENDIX A: LETTER OF CONTACT . . . . . 73 APPENDIX B: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL . . . . 75 APPENDIX C: DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE . . . . 77 APPENDIX D: MARITAL COMMUNICATION INVENTORY . . 81 APPENDIX E: SEXUAL COMMUNICATION INVENTORY . . 86 APPENDIX F: FAMILY BACKGROUND SHEET AND SUMMARY . 9 0 APPENDIX G: FOLLOW-UP LETTER . . . . . 94 - v i -LIST OF TABLES T a b l e Page 1 S i g n i f i c a n c e of 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 Therapy (Group 1) and S u b j e c t s Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on 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 . . . 37 2 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 Males and Females i n Therapy (Group 1) on Scores of M a r i t a l A d j u s t -ment U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples . 39 3 S i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e 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 U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples . . 39 4 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 Therapy (Group 1) and S u b j e c t s Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Sco r e s 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 . . . . 4 0 5 S i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e 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 o f M a r i t a l Communi-c a t i o n U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples . 41 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 Males and Females Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Scores o f M a r i t a l Communica-t i o n U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples . 4 2 7 S i g n i f i c a n c e of 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 Therapy (Group 1) and S u b j e c t s Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Sc o r e s o f S e x u a l Communication U s i n g t - T e s t f o r Independent Samples . . . . . . 43 8 S i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e 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 o f S e x u a l Communica-t i o n U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples . 44 - v i i -T a b l e Page 9 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 Males and Females Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Scores o f S e x u a l Communication U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples . . . . . . 45 10 Group One ( i n Therapy) Pearso 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 Between D y a d i c Adjustment, M a r i t a l Communication and S e x u a l Communication (N = 44) . . . . 46 11 Group Two (Not i n Therapy) 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 Dyadic 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 Communication (N = 44) 46 12 P e a r s o n Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n Co-e f f i c i e n t s Between D y a d i c Adjustment M a r i t a l Communication and S e x u a l Commu-n i c a t i o n f o r T o t a l Sample (N = 88) . . 47 13 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 Therapy (Group 1) and S u b j e c t s Not i n Therapy (Group 2) U s i n g F i s h e r ' s Z - T r a n s f o r m a t i o n . . . . 49 14 Group One: 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 T o t a l DAS S c a l e and S u b s c a l e s and MCI and SCI Scores (n = 44) . . . 50 15 Group Two: Pearso 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 and S u b s c a l e s and MCI and SCI Scores (n =• 44) . . . 52 - v i i i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e t o ext e n d my thanks t o my t h e s i s committee, and e s p e c i a l l y t o my c h a i r p e r s o n , Dr. John Banmen, who has a c t e d as b o t h my r e s e a r c h and c l i n i c a l a d v i s o r . Dr. Banmen has o f f e r e d me s i n c e r e s u p p o r t and encouragement i n my p r o f e s s i o n a l development as a c l i n i c i a n and 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 due t o the many c o u p l e s who shared o f t h e i r time and energy i n c o m p l e t i n g and r e t u r n i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . F o r t h i s I am s i n c e r e l y g r a t e f u l . To Wink, my p a r t n e r i n l i f e , and t o our c h i l d r e n Randy, T r a c y and Tim,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 on-g o i n g s u p p o r t and a s s i s t a n c e t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o c e s s of my c o m p l e t i n g a gr a d u a t e degree. To a l l , I e x p r e s s my t h a n k s . - 1 -CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The r i c h e s t most m e a n i n g f u l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n l i f e a r e made p o s s i b l e t h r o u g h m a r r i a g e . Communication i s seen by most a u t h o r i t i e s i n f a m i l y r e s e a r c h t o be t h e l i f e b l o o d of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t h a t a m u t u a l l y s a t i s f y i n g l e v e l of communication i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a v i t a l a s p e c t of a h e a l t h y m a r r i a g e . Statement o f t h e Problem Many s t u d i e s have shown t h a t good communication i s s i g n i f i c a n t t o p e r c e i v e d m a r i t a l a d j u stment and s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r b o t h husbands and wi v e s (Bienvenu, 1970; M i l l e r , C o r r a l e s & Wackman, 1975; v/Navran, 1967; Udry, 1966; Wampler, 1982). A l t h o u g h communication i s r e g a r d e d as one o f t h e c e n t r a l 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 marry w i t h o u t t h e advantage o f h a v i n g a c q u i r e d good communication s k i l l s and as a r e s u l t t h e y a r e p o o r l y p r e p a r e d f o r t h e problem s o l v i n g and a d j u s t m e n t s r e q u i r e d i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p (Jacobson & M a r t i n , 1976) . Couples who seek m a r i t a l t h e r a p y b r i n g t o t h e t h e r a p i s t a v a r i e t y o f m a r i t a l c o m p l a i n t s . Research and c l i n i c a l d a t a have shown, however, t h a t c o u p l e s who e x p r e s s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s most c o n s i s t e n t l y i m p l i c a t e l a c k of communication and d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h s e x u a l - 2 -e x p r e s s i o n as 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 d i s c o r d ( B i r c h l e r , 1979; Green, 1981; M a s t e r s & Johnson, 1970; Sager, 1976) . One a r e a o f m a r r i a g e where communication 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 t h e a r e a o f 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 about sex and who a r e u n w i l l i n g t o be open about s e x u a l m a t t e r s may have b o t h l i m i t e d s e x u a l knowledge and l i m i t e d communication a b i l i t y . D e f i c i t s i n s e x u a l knowledge and a b i l i t y t o e x p r e s s o n e s e l f a r e u n d e r s t a n d a b l e i n view o f our c u l t u r a l a t t i t u d e 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 t a u g h t from c h i l d -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 our c u l t u r e g e n e r a l l y do n o t communicate c l e a r l y 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 about sex. Sex e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s i n our s c h o o l s and c o l l e g e s a r e not u n i f o r m l y a v a i l s a b l e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , many i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v e l i t t l e 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 o r 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 sex. F o r t h e s e p e o p l e , 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 d i f f i c u l t . C l i n i c a l 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 i s f a r from uncommon. Many normal 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 and s k i l l when c o n t e m p l a t -i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication about sex (Ford & Beach, 1951; F r a n k , Anderson and R u b i n s t e i n , 1978; Green, 1981; K a p l a n , 1974; Mace, 1971; P e n l a n d , 1981). - 3 -D e s p i t e t h e c u r r e n t l i b e r a t i n g t r e n d i n t h e a r e a o f s e x u a l i t y , i t appears t h a t many p e o p l e have n ot d e v e l o p e d t h e s k i l l s 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 communication and 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 a d j u s tment o f t h a t dyad. The st u d y a t t e m p t s t o answer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : 1. Does open s e x u a l communication c o r r e l a t e w i t h m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t ? 2. Does l a c k of s e x u a l communication c o r r e l a t e w i t h m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s ? 3. Does open s e x u a l communication c o r r e l a t e w i t h open m a r i t a l communication? 4. I s s e x u a l communication a problem f o r c o u p l e s ? S i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e Study Knowledge o f t h e impact o f s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l communication upon m a r i t a l a d j u s tment 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 programs aimed a t i n c r e a s i n g harmony and u n d e r s t a n d i n g and 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 system. Know-ledg e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between g e n e r a l communication and s e x u a l communication i s c r i t i c a l f o r t h e d e s i g n o f i n t e r v e n -t i o n programs aimed 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 s u b o r d i n a t e c o m p l a i n t i s l a c k o f communication and/or - 4 -d i f f i c u l t y w i t h s e x u a l e x p r e s s i o n . Knowledge of t h e impact 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 s t r u c t u r e 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 nrichment programs. In t h e r a p y , i t i s i m p o r t -a n t t o s e a r c h f o r p a t t e r n s o f communication o r l a c k 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 ( W a t z l a w i c k , B e a v i n & J a c k s o n , 1967). D e f i n i t i o n o f Key Terms S e v e r a l terms a r e mentioned i n t h i s t h e s i s whose d e f i n i t i o n s a r e b e i n g p r o v i d e d t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e r e a d e r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h i s s t u d y . M a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t : T h i s s t u d y uses S p a n i e r ' 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s c o n s t r u c t i s d e f i n e d as a p r o c e s s , t h e outcome of which i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e degree o f : 1) d y a d i c s a t i s f a c t i o n 2) d y a d i c consensus 3) d y a d i c c o h e s i o n 4) d y a d i c a f f e c t i o n S e x u a l communication: S e x u a l communication i s any communication about 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 communication - 5 -about concerns, agreements or disagreements about sex. Sexual communication also includes the a b i l i t y to discuss sexual matters, to ask, to refuse, or to communicate through physical touch. ( Marital communication: Marital communication refers to the individual's a b i l i t y to l i s t e n , to understand and to express one-s e l f . Marital communication also includes the manner, tone, and s t y l e of saying things. This i s a d e f i n i -tion of the patterns, styles 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, marital relationship refers to any marital or non marital cohabitation relationship of hetero-sexual couples of 24 months duration or longer. Group One: Couples presently undergoing marital counselling for marital d i s t r e s s . Group Two: Couples not i n therapy who judge t h e i r marriages to be s a t i s f a c t o r y . Limitations The participants i n th i s study were not randomly selected, therefore the results may be considered relevant - 6 -only to the couples studied and may not be generalized to other marital dyads. Results may or may not be limited further by the canvassing of two volunteer samples. A l l subjects were Caucasian secpnd generation North Americans and were residents of a westcoast urban Canadian c i t y . Such a sample may have a response set that d i f f e r s from an involun-tary population. Overview of the Study An introduction of the study has been presented i n Chapter One. The conceptual foundation f o r t h i s research i s provided i n Chapter Two which contains a review of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e . Chapter Three outlines the methodology of the study and w i l l be followed i n Chapter Four and Five by a presentation of the results and a discussion of the implications a r i s i n g out of these findings as well as suggestions for further research. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE I n t r o d u c t i o n The r e v i e w of t h e l i t e r a t u r e i s o r g a n i z e d around t h r e e a r e a s of i n t e r e s t . The f i r s t s e c t i o n c o n c e r n s i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g t h e c o n c e p t s 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 and m a r i t a l q u a l i t y . The second s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s t h e r e s e a r c h 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 a d j u s t m e n t . The t h i r d s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s t h e r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d t o s e x u a l communication as a v a r i a b l e of s e x u a l and m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . 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 w i t h t h e o b j e c t i v e of the s t u d y i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t h e p r o c e s s o f m a r i t a l communication and t h e domain of s e x u a l communication. I s s u e s i n t h e O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n o f M a r i t a l Adjustment The q u a l i t y of 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 of much f a m i l y r e s e a r c h o v e r t h e p a s t twenty y e a r s ( H i c k s & P i a t t , 1970; Lewis & S p a n i e r , 1979). As a r e s u l t o f t h e growing r a t e of s e p a r a t i o n s and d i v o r c e s , r e s e a r c h e r s have 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 which c o n t r i b u t e t o , o r i n h i b i t , t h e h i g h l e v e l o f m a r r i a g e breakdown. Lewis and S p a n i e r (19 79) i d e n t i f i e d 3 00 s t u d i e s which have examined v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e q u a l i t y of m a r i t a l f u n c t i o n -i n g . - 8 -One o f t h e problems i n t h i s t y pe o f m a r i t a l r e s e a r c h has been t h e l a c k o f agreement on t h e use o f terms such as " m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t " , " s a t i s f a c t i o n " , " s u c c e s s " , and " s t a b i l i t y " . Comparisons o f t h e r e s e a r c h c o m p l e t e d , t h e r e -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 of u n i t y i n t h e o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s . F o r 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 a d j u s t -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 w h i c h i s h i g h l y f a v o u r a b l e t o the p r o p e r f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e s o f each p a r t n e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the sphere of p r i m a r y 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) , however, d e f i n e d m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t as "the accommodation of a husband and w i f e t o each o t h e r a t a g i v e n t i m e " (p. 128). L a t e r , B u r r (1973) viewed m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t as "a s u b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n i n which an i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c e s a c e r t a i n degree of a t t a i n m e n t o f a g o a l o r d e s i r e s " (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; Lewis & S p a n i e r , 19 79) have 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 ich 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 employed i n such m a r r i a g e r e s e a r c h . 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 a d j u s t m e n t , h a p p i n e s s and s u c c e s s . They p o i n t e d o u t t h a t o n l y a few of the 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 what t h e terms meant. O b v i o u s l y , much c o n f u s i o n and a m b i g u i t y s u r r o u n d s t h e use o f such terms 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 point, i t i s important to c l a r i f y the concept of marital adjustment as i t i s used i n t h i s study to assess the quality of a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Spanier and Cole (1976) attempted to define marital adjustment to include a number of previously 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 . In addition, they conceptualized marital adjustment as a chang-ing process. This permits marital adjustment to be viewed as a process of movement along a continuum which allows evalua-tion i n terms of proximity to good or poor adjustment. Spanier and Cole (1976) operationalized t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of marital adjustment by developing a set of items that r e f l e c t e d each of the hypothesized components of the adjustment process: (1) troublesome dyadic differences; (2) interpersonal tensions and personal anxiety; (3) dyadic s a t i s f a c t i o n ; (4) dyadic cohesion; and (5) consensus on matters of importance to dyadic functioning. In 1976, Spanier published the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) which he believes i s an "adequate measure of marital 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 cl e a r conceptual planning. In the development of the DAS, a pool of 300 items was c o l l e c t e d . The items originated from a l l items ever used in any scale measuring marital adjustment or related concepts. The items were subsequently judged by three judges for content v a l i d i t y , administered to 218 people and analysed. The v a l i d - 10 -items were then f a c t o r analysed to assess the adequacy of d e f i n i t i o n s , the presence of hypothesized components, and to determine which items should be i n c l u d e d i n the f i n a l dyadic adjustment s c a l e . As a r e s u l t of f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , the f i n a l s c a l e i s composed of f o u r components of m a r i t a l adjustment: (1) dyadic s a t i s f a c t i o n ; (2) dyadic cohesion; (3) dyadic consensus; (4) a f f e c t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n . Spanier (1979) cont i n u e s to argue t h a t the Dyadic Adjustment Scale i s a good measure of m a r i t a l q u a l i t y because i t i s capable of measuring a number of components of which m a r i t a l q u a l i t y i s comprised. Lewis and Spanier (1979) argue p e r s u a s i v e l y t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s must focus s t u d i e s on the more ge n e r a l concept of m a r i t a l q u a l i t y , n o t i n g t h a t i± l i s ..the q u a l i t y of most marriages which p r i m a r i l y determines whether or not the marriage w i l l remain i n t a c t . The concept of m a r i t a l q u a l i t y i s concerned with how a marriage f u n c t i o n s d u r i n g i t s e x i s t e n c e and how each p a r t n e r f e e l s about i t . Lewis and Spanier (1979) d e f i n e m a r i t a l q u a l i t y 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 -s h i p . The range of e v a l u a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e s a continuum 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 of 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 with good judgement, adequate communication, a h i g h 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 degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the r e l a t i o n s h i p . (p. 269) The present study i s concerned with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sexual communication and p e r c e i v e d m a r i t a l 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 a d j u s t m e n t . 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 and S p a n i e r ' s (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 as encom- . p a s s i n g a wide range of terms i n c l u d i n g communication, con 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 s a t i s f a c t i o n , t h e p e r c e i v e d q u a l i t y o f m a r r i a g e i n t h i s s tudy was a s s e s s e d by t h e s u b j e c t s s c o r e on t h e Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e . 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 a p o s i t i v e 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 . Navran (1967) , f o r i n s t a n c e , a d m i n i s t e r e d the L o c k e - W a l l a c e (LW) M a r i t a l Adjustment S c a l e (Locke & W a l l a c e , 1959) t o d i s t r e s s e d and non d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e two groups were d i s c r i m i n a t e d by t h e P r i m a r y Communication I n v e n t o r y ( P C I ) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e PCI and 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 communication and m a r r i a g e a d j u s t m e n t . I n a d d i t i o n t o r e p l i c a t i n g N a v r a n 1 s (1967) s t u d y , Kahn (1970) found a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c c u r a t e non v e r b a l communica-t i o n and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t the 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 by Bienvenu (1970) i n h i s s t u d y of the p r o c e s s o f communication measured by t h e M a r i t a l Communi-c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y (Bienvenu, 1970). Based on t h e r e s u l t i n g s c o r e on t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y (MCI), groups o f - 12 -h i g h v e r s e s low s c o r i n g c o u p l e s were d i s c r i m i n a t e d as t o d i s t r e s s e d o r non d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s . Based on such s t u d i e s t h e r e i s s i g n i f i c a n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t th e p o s i t i v e 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 . As a r e s u l t of t h e above r e s e a r c h , i t i s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d by r e s e a r c h e r s and t h e r a p i s t s t h a t t r a i n i n g a c o u p l e i n t h e s k i l l s o f communication i s a p r i m a r y component of t h e r a p y and e n r i c h m e n t . I n t h e i r e x t e n s i v e summary o f f a m i l y t h e r a p y outcome r e s e a r c h from 1970 t o 1980, Gurman and K n i s k e r n (1981) v e r i f y t h i s b e l i e f . Gurman and K n i s k e r n (1981) s t a t e : 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 have c o n s i s t a n t l y p o s i t i v e e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t as f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e outcome of 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 o f the g e n e r a l mode of such 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 communication s k i l l s , (p. 749) F o r t h e c l i n i c i a n , such e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s have d i r e c t i m p l i c a t i o n s i n terms of t r e a t i n g c o u p l e s . A c c o r d i n g t o r e s e a r c h , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e c l i n i c i a n ' s t h e o r e t i c a l p r e f e r -ence, one component o f t h e c o u n s e l l i n g program s h o u l d be d i r e c t e d towards i n c r e a s i n g t h e c o u p l e ' s a b i l i t y t o communi-c a t e . The impetus t o d e v e l o p adequate r e s o u r c e s f o r t r a i n i n g c o u p l e s i n t h e a r t of communication has t h e r e f o r e , o r i g i n a t e d from two s o u r c e s : 1. Research 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 of t h e r a p i e s which i n c r e a s e c o u p l e ' s communication s k i l l s . 2. Research has shown t h a t c o u p l e s who seek m a r i t a l t h e r a p y i d e n t i f y t h e i r i n a b i l i t y t o communicate w i t h , and t o be h e a r d by, t h e i r p a r t n e r as a p r i m a r y s o u r c e of d i s t r e s s . I t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g , g i v e n t h e s e f a c t s , t h a t t h e r e has been a subsequent e x p l o s i o n i n t h e development of communication s k i l l s t r a i n i n g programs t o a s s i s t c o u p l e s who i d e n t i f y l a c k o f , o r n e g a t i v e communication as a p r i m a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s u e . Communication s k i l l s t r a i n i n g programs have emerged as 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 -l i n g f o r d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s as w e l l as a r e s o u r c e f o r non d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s s e e k i n g t o e n r i c h t h e q u a l i t y of t h e i r m a r r i a g e (Mace & Mace, 1975; T r a v i s & T r a v i s , 1975). I n r e v i e w i n g t h e outcome l i t e r a t u r e of v a r i o u s communication t r a i n i n g a p p r oaches, i t became ap p a r e n t t h a t many of t h e s t u d i e s s u f f e r from m e t h o d o l o g i c a l f l a w s as w e l l 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 p r o c e d u r e s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l f o c u s on two communication t r a i n i n g approaches which have atte m p t e d t o demonstrate e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t and which have documented the c o n t e n t and p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d i n t h e i r approach. The two programs a r e The Couples Communication Program (CCP) and The C o n j u g a l R e l a t i o n s h i p Enhancement Program (CRE). - 14 -The Couples Communication Program was developed i n 1968 and i s p r e s e n t l y one of the most widely and thoroughly researched couple's communication programs i n North America ( M i l l e r , Nunnally & Wackman, 1979; M i l l e r , Wackman, Nunnally & S a l i n e , 1981). The program i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y based i n systems and communication theory (Beck, 1975; Olson, 1970; Olson & Sprenkle, 1976; Otto, 1975). CCP focuses on t r a i n i n g couples to be aware of r u l e s and meta-communication i n the couple's system. The program s t r e s s e s r e c e p t i v i t y , d i s c l o s u r e and the te a c h i n g of s k i l l s as w e l l as f o c u s i n g on the development of an e g a l i t a r i a n r e l a t i o n s h i p through the b u i l d i n g of mutual s e l f esteem. In h i s review of s k i l l s t r a i n i n g programs, L'Abate (1981) out-l i n e s the content of the 12 hour CCP program as f o l l o w s : In the f i r s t s e s s i o n there i s a d e f i n i t i o n of the awareness wheel, which has f i v e s e c t i o n s : a c t i n g , s e n s i n g , t h i n k i n g , wanting, and f e e l i n g . Couples are 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) speaking f o r s e l f ; (b) making sense 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 statements; (e) making i n t e n t i o n a l statements; and (f) making a c t i o n statements. In the second s e s s i o n , focus s h i f t s t o l e a r n i n g how to exchange important communication a c c u r a t e l y with one's partner through a shared meaning framework, which c o n s i s t s of checking out, 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 acknowledg-ment, acknowledging the sender'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 t h r e e , couples are taught the major s t y l e s of the 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 of incongruous ways of communicating and 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 and f i n a l s e s s i o n i s a r e h e r s a l of techniques l e a r n e d i n pre v i o u s s e s s i o n s , (p. 635) - 15 -The effectiveness of the foregoing twelve hour ins t r u c t i o n program i s supported by research findings. In her review of 19 research studies on the Couple Communication Program, Wampler (198 2) found that CCP has an immediate positi v e e f f e c t on marital communication behavior and on relationship s a t i s f a c t i o n . Of the two studies which examined the e f f e c t of CCP on the perceived quality of the couples relati o n s h i p , both studies reported immediate posit i v e effects (Wampler, 1982) . One followup study reported posi-t i v e e f f e c t s of CCP on s e l f reported communication behavior 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 his recent study into the long term effects of the Couples Communication Program, assessed couples i n i t i a l l y using the s e l f report measures of the Short Marital Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959) and the Marital Communication Inventory (Bienvenu, 1970) as well as behaviorally rating the couple's i n t e r a c t i o n . Joanning's results showed that couples increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y on a l l measures at immediate posttest. However, afte r f i v e months, perceived marital adjustment, as measured by the Short Marital Adjustment Test, returned to pretest l e v e l s , where as perceived communication quality and rater judged communication quality maintained posttest l e v e l s . Joanning suggests as an explanation of his findings, that focusing on communication s k i l l s and attitudes i s a - 16 -n e c e s s a r y 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 p l u s m a i n t a i n -i n g 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 . Couples i n t h i s s t u d y r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y were aware o f an i n c r e a s e d sense of i n t i m a c y d u r i n g t h e program due t o t h e time spent t o g e t h e r 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 . T h i s i n c r e a s e d i n t i m a c y , f o l l o w e d by 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 and subsequent d e c l i n e i n m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . J o a n n i n g (198 2) s u g g e s t s : 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 about 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 program i s on communication. I t may be 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 er t i m e . (p. 467) The C o n j u g a l R e l a t i o n s h i p Enhancement (CRE) program was o r i g i n a t e d by Gurney i n 19 77. He de v e l o p e d a group f o r m a t , 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 c o u p l e s based on an e d u c a t i o n a l model which t e a c h e s c o u p l e s 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 t o d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n of f e e l i n g s and empathic l i s t e n i n g . The CRE Program, u n l i k e t h e 12 hour CCP, runs f o r s i x months w i t h meetings h e l d once a week. L'Abate (1981) d e s c r i b e s t h e CRE program as g o a l d i r e c t e d towards r e p l a c i n g v i c i o u s communica-t 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 a r e t a u g h t : (a) t o e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s and tho u g h t s c l e a r l y ; (b) t o emphasize and a c c e p t t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f a n o t h e r ; (c) t o f a c i l i t a t e and c r i t i c i z e t h e i r own communication s k i l l s from moment t o moment; and (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 r e s o l u t i o n o f c o n f l i c t s . (p. 639) The CRE program i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y based i n Rogers' h u m a n i s t i c approach (Rogers, 1951) i n terms of u n c o n d i t i o n a l a c c e p t a n c e and r e s p e c t o f o t h e r s , and i n s o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r y i n terms 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 has been w e l l r e s e a r c h e d and 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 as i m p r o v i n g communication s k i l l s and m a r i t a l a d j u stment (L*Abate, 1981). C o l l i n s (19 71) demonstrated t h a t a s i x month weekly meeting 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 s k i l l s 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 s c o r e . C o l l i n s (1971) h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t as w e l l as i m p r o v i n g communication as measured by t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y (Bienvenu, 1 9 7 0 ) , t h e CRE would improve o v e r a l l 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 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 a d j u stment v a r i a b l e s . There was s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group, b o t h on t h e communi-c a t i o n and t h e adjustment 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 between e x p e r i m e n t a l and c o n t r o l groups on t h e s ame mea su re s. To summarize, t h e CCP and CRE a r e e f f e c t i v e p r e v e n -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 s u p p o r t t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n i n c r e a s i n g communication s k i l l s and m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . There a r e some s t u d i e s how-e v e r , which i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e l o n g term e f f e c t s on p e r c e i v e d m a r i t a l a d j u stment a r e n o t m a i n t a i n e d over t i m e . One s t u d y suggested t h a t i n t i m a c y , which c o u p l e s e x p e r i e n c e d u r i n g t h e communication program, f a d e d as time passed and r e s u l t e d i n l o w e r m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n s c o r e s a t f o l l o w - u p . I t 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 both t h e CCP and CRE programs a r e d e s i g n e d t o t e a c h t h e p r o c e s s o f good communication s k i l l s . The c o n t e n t of t h e c o u p l e ' s d i a l o g u e i s not s t r u c t u r e d and t h e r e f o r e i t i s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e c o u p l e t o b r i n g f o r w a r d i s s u e s they f e e l c o m f o r t a b l e 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 f o r m a t . The d i f f e r e n c e between p r o c e s s and c o n t e n t o f c o u p l e s communication p a r a l l e l s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between m a r i t a l communication and s e x u a l communication. T h i s s e c t i o n has been concerned w i t h contemporary r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e i n communication s k i l l s t r a i n i n g f o r c o u p l e s i n terms of 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 tment o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . S e x u a l Communication as a V a r i a b l e of S e x u a l Adjustment Most of t h e l i t e r a t u r e and r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f s e x u a l communication on s e x u a l and m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t comes from t h e Sex Therapy l i t e r a t u r e and i s p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h s e x u a l l y d y s f u n c t i o n a l c o u p l e s . 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 r e l a -t i o n s h i p s have been h e l p e d immensely i n r e c e n t y e a r s by t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f M a s t e r s and Johnson (1966, 1970), t o t h e knowledge base of human s e x u a l i t y . M a s t e r s and Johnson - 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 t h e t r e a t m e n t o f s e x u a l problems„from a p s y c h o a n a l y t i c paradigm t o a b e h a v i o r a l paradigm. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e p s y c h o a n a l y t i c paradigm, f a i l u r e t o a c c o m p l i s h 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 w i t h t h e 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 t o be t h e major e t i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r i n s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n s (Freud, 1905). Treatment o f s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n s i n t h e p s y c h o a n a l y t i c 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 p s y c h o a n a l y s t , thus e n a b l i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l t a s k , n o t a c c o m p l i s h e d i n c h i l d h o o d , t o be a c c o m p l i s h e d . The p u b l i c a t i o n o f M a s t e r s and Johnson's Human S e x u a l  Inadequacy i n 1970 changed t h e g l o b a l t h i n k i n g and t r e a t m e n t o f s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n . The key d i f f e r e n c e between the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c t h i n k i n g and M a s t e r s and Johnson'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 s e x u a l 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 s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n s had t h e i r r o o t s i n more immediate and s i m p l e r problems such a s : f e a r o f f a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m , r e a l o r imagined p r e s s u r e s t o p e r f o r m , and f e a r of 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 . Through the use of s y s t e m a t i -c a l l y s t r u c t u r e d s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e s , M a s t e r s and Johnson (1970) were a b l e t o p r o v i d e a c t u a l r e l i e f and c u r e f o r - 20 -thousands o f c o u p l e s . Subsequent t o t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of M a s t e r s and Johnson's r e s e a r c h , a number of o t h e r a c c o u n t s of 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 t r e a t m e n t of s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n have appeared (K a p l a n , 1974; L o b i t z and L o P i c c o l o , 1972; 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 t h e v a r i o u s t h e r a p y programs, c e r t a i n elements a r e common t o a l l ... approaches t o s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n . The elements of t r e a t m e n t a r e : (a) r e d u c t i o n o f performance a n x i e t y (b) sex e d u c a t i o n (c) s k i l l t r a i n i n g i n communication (d) s k i l l t r a i n i n g i n s e x u a l t e c h n i q u e (e) a t t i t u d e change p r o c e d u r e s K a p l a n ( 1 9 7 4 ) , has f o c u s e d h e r r e s e a r c h on under-s t a n d i n g t h e u n d e r l y i n g causes o f s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n . She has p o i n t e d out 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 . K a p l a n (1974) c o n c e p t u a l i z e d f o u r causes of s e x u a l 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 r e l a t i o n a l c a u s e s . F o r t h e purpose o f t h i s s t u d y , t h e r e l a t i o n a l causes a r e most p e r t i n e n t . K a p l a n (1974) s t a t e s : The system o r t h e model which governs t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , r a t h e r t h a n t h e problems of t h e i n d i v i d u a l spouses, i s o f t e n t h e 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 s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e s e x u a l and m a r i t a l system i s the b a s i c aim. (p. 156) - 21 -One of the most obvious r e l a t i o n a l causes of sexual problems i s marital discord r e s u l t i n g from f a i l u r e s i n communication. Kaplan (1974) points out that poor communi-cation can lead to or perpetrate sexual d i f f i c u l t i e s . Coleman (1979) further elaborates that to be an e f f e c t i v e partner and lover, an ind 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 partner. This requires a pattern of communi-cation which may not be i n the repetoire of many couples. Today, as i n the past, the exchange of ideas and information between sexes regarding human sexuality i s seldom practiced or modelled. Therefore, a couple who i s not able, or not prepared to communicate cannot deal e f f e c t i v e l y with problems, es p e c i a l l y problems in the sexual area of the relat i o n s h i p . Lobitz and Lobitz (1978) and LoPiccolo and M i l l e r (1975) i d e n t i f y the most important interpersonal factor i n assessing sexually distressed couples as the degree of commu-nication i n the couple's r e l a t i o n s h i p . Several other researchers and therapists have i d e n t i f i e d the need to communicate as a major variable of successful sex therapy (Kaplan, 1974; Masters and Johnson, 1970; Tanner, 1973). As a r e s u l t of such research, sexual communication tr a i n i n g i s a major component of sex therapy treatment programs. In a review of outcome research from 1970 to 1980, Gurman and Kniskern (1981) point out that communication tr a i n i n g i s a routine component of a l l d i r e c t i v e sex therapy programs. - 22 -Communication 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 of 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 communication. R e c e p t i v e s e x u a l communication 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 t a k e n o t i c e of t h e o t h e r p a r t -ner 's r e s p o n s e s whether t h e res p o n s e s a r e v e r b a l o r non v e r b a l . 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 r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o s u g g e s t i o n s f o r change. E x p r e s s i v e s e x u a l communication r e f e r s t o a p a r t n e r ' s a b i l i t y t o l e t t h e o t h e r p a r t n e r know, v e r b a l l y o r non v e r b a l l y h i s / h e r l i k e s , d i s l i k e s and g e n e r a l f e e l i n g . The v a l u e o f openness o f s e x u a l communication i n terms of b e i n g 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 of t h e r a p e u t i c recommendations 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 ( K a p l a n , 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) . I n a r e c e n t s t u d y comparing t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f Sex Therapy v e r s u s Communication Therapy i n c o u p l e s c o m p l a i n i n g of p r i m a r y o r secondary orgasmic d y s f u n c t i o n , E v e r a e r d and Dekker (1981) found t h a t b o t h t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f s e x u a l 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 improved i n females i n b o t h t h e r a p i e s . The communication t h e r a p y was l i m i t e d t o e i g h t e x e r c i s e s s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r a c t i v e and p a s s i v e l i s t e n i n g , v e r b a l i z a t i o n and r e f l e c t i o n of f e e l i n g s , c o n f l i c t management and a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r . The sub s t a n c e of e x e r c i s e s c o n s i s t e d of problems and c o n f l i c t s i n t r o d u c e d by t h e c l i e n t s . A l t h o u g h many c o u p l e s 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 given. These results are important i n that they illuminate the potential and apparent effectiveness of communication t r a i n i n g f o r orgasmically dysfunctional females and t h e i r mates. In evaluating a Sex Therapy program for sexually dysfunctional couples at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Chesney, Blakeney, Chan and Cole (1981) studied the impact of the Sex Therapy program on sexual behaviors, sexual expectations, sexual communication and marital communication. Chesney et. a l . wanted to answer the question: Does an increase i n couple's sexual communication and s a t i s f a c t i o n involve only t h e i r sexual relationship? Chesney et. a l . found that the intensive therapy workshop, of which t r a i n i n g in sexual 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 behavior, sexual communication and o v e r a l l marital communication among workshop participants. The results of these two studies, Chesney et. a l . (1981) and Everaerd & Dekker (1981) , indicate that communica-tio n t r a i n i n g for sexually dysfunctional couples has both s p e c i f i c and generalizing effects on couple i n t e r a c t i o n . The former showed how communication therapy d i r e c t l y influenced sexual functioning of non orgasmic women while 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 influence marital communication and s a t i s f a c t i o n . The finding of improvements i n marital 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 t o Sex Therapy however, l e a v e s th e 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 u n a ddressed. Summary In t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e l e v a n t t o t h e o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of m a r i t a l a djustment was r e v i e w e d . I t was p o i n t e d o u t 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, a d j u s t -ment, 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 s a t i s f a c t i o n . I t was f u r t h e r s t r e s s e d t h a t communication i s a major v a r i a b l e o f m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . I t was n o t e d a l s o , t h a t s e x u a l communication t r a i n i n g i s a c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e i n a f f e c t i n g t h e outcome of sex t h e r a p y f o r s e x u a l l y d y s f u n c t i o n a l c o u p l e s . The r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n i s now d i r e c t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t v e r y l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been conducted r e g a r d i n g s e x u a l communication between c o u p l e s who a r e n o t s e e k i n g sex t h e r a p y . Y e t r e s e a r c h e r s and c l i n i c i a n s a r e aware t h a t many normal 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 l a c k i n g i n i n f o r m a -t i o n and s k i l l when i t comes t o t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l communi- • c a t i o n about sex (Ford & Beach, 1951; Green, 1981; K a p l a n , 1974; Mace, 1971; P e n l a n d , 1981). Sager (1974) e s t i m a t e s t h a t 75% of c o u p l e s s e e k i n g 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 c o m p l a i n t s 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 problem, w h i l e 70% of c o u p l e s s e e k i n g sex 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 a r e a s of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . F r a n k , Anderson and R u b e n s t e i n (1978) , a n a l y s e d t h e r e s p o n s e s of 100 w e l l e d u c a t e d , h a p p i l y m a r r i e d c o u p l e s - 25 -t o 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 o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n t h e i n c i d e n t o f s e x u a l problems e x p e r i e n c e d i n a group of 'normal' c o u p l e s . Frank e t . a l . (1978) found t h a t o v e r 80% o f t h e c o u p l e s r e p o r t e d happy and s a t i s f y i n g m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s y e t 4 0% of t h e men r e p o r t e d e r e c t i l e o r e j a c u l a t o r y d y s f u n c -t i o n w h i l e 63% o f t h e women r e p o r t e d a r o u s a l o r orgasmic d y s f u n c t i o n . The above s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t problems w i t h communi-c a t i o n and s e x u a l e x p r e s s i o n may f a l l a l o n g t h e e n t i r e continuum, from p o o r l y t o w e l l a d j u s t e d c o u p l e s . T h i s r e s e a r c h i s c o n cerned w i t h f i n d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s e x u a l communication, m a r i t a l communication and w e l l o r p o o r l y a d j u s t e d m a r i t a l c o u p l e s . - 26 -CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY T h i s c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n o f t h i s s t u d y 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 of 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 th e p r o c e d u r e s u t i l i z e d i n d a t a g a t h e r i n g and d a t a a n a l y s i s . R e search D e s i g n and Sampling Methods E i g h t y e i g h t s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h s t u d y . 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 were s e e k i n g t o r e s o l v e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t h r o u g h m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l l i n g . 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 were 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 and 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 . The c o u p l e s were sampled from a l a r g e urban a r e a on t h e Canadian West Coast and were v o l u n t a r y p a r t i c i -p a n t s . A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s were Caucasian, second g e n e r a t i o n N o r t h Americans and had been i n t h e i r p r e s e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r 24 months o r l o n g e r . Attempts were made t o examine demographic f a c t o r s t h a t might be o p e r a t i n g between t h e s e two groups. T h i s was done t o d e t e r m i n e i f Group One and Group Two were homogenous i n c e r t a i n a r e a s . I n o r d e r t o be aware of any i n t e r v e n i n g f a c t o r s t h a t might have an impact on t h e r e s u l t s , p e r s o n a l and demographic v a r i a b l e s such as ages, y e a r s m a r r i e d , number of c h i l d r e n and number of m a r r i a g e s were examined. - 27 -The 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 i n 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 were approached. A r e q u e s t was made t o the d i r e c t o r s o f each 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 were p r e s e n t l y 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 i n o r d e r t o r e q u e s t t h e i r c o - o p e r a t i o n as v o l u n t e e r s i n t h i s s t u d y . I n i t i a l 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 by l e t t e r (Appendix 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 . Twenty two c o u p l e s o u t o f twenty seven c o u p l e s so c o n t a c t e d agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e stu d y 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. These c o u p l e s compose Group One. V o l u n t e e r c o u p l e s f o r Group Two, c o u p l e s n o t i n t h e r a p y n or enrichment programs who judged t h e i r m a r r i a g e s t o be 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 suggest c o u p l e s who might v o l u n t e e r t h e i r t i m e . Some v o l u n t e e r s themselves suggested o t h e r c o u p l e s who i n t u r n , o f f e r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s t u d y . I n i t i a l c o n t a c t was made by l e t t e r (Appendix 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 . 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 c a l l , i f , i n t h e o p i n i o n of t h e s u b j e c t , h i s o r h e r m a r r i a g e was p r e s e n t l y s a t i s f a c t o r y . A p o s i t i v e answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n was a c r i t e r i a f o r Group Two a c c e p t a n c e . Twenty two c o u p l e s out o f t h i r t y one so c o n t a c t e d q u a l i f i e d and agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e stu d y and r e t u r n e d t h e i r forms. Once t h e two groups were e s t a b l i s h e d , each c o u p l e was m a i l e d a p a c k e t c o n t a i n i n g : - 28 -(a) A l e t t e r of t r a n s m i t t a l and i n s t r u c t i o n (Appendix B) (b) Two c o p i e s o f each i n s t r u m e n t (DAS, MCI, SCI) coded w i t h a symbol t o i d e n t i f y male and female r e s p o n d e n t s as w e l l as c o u p l e and group membership (Appendices C, D and E ) . (c) Two F a m i l y Background Sheets (Appendix F) (d) Two stamped, s e l f a d d r e s s e d r e t u r n e n v e l o p e s . A l l s u b j e c t s were asked t o f i l l o u t t h e 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 e n v e l o p e s p r o v i d e d . Each q u e s t i o n n a i r e took a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 minutes t o c o m p l e t e , t h e r e f o r e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e s t u d y r e q u i r e d a commitment of 3 0 minutes from each s u b j e c t . Couples were i n s t r u c t e d n o t t o d i s c u s s t h e i r r e s p o n s e s u n t i l a f t e r t hey had completed and r e t u r n e d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Each c o u p l e was a s s i g n e d a code number i n o r d e r t h a t a husband's response 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 response upon 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 . S e l e c t e d s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o b t a i n e d by means of t h e F a m i l y Background Sheet a r e summarized i n Appendix F. Ins t r u m e n t a t i o n D y adic Adjustemnt S c a l e (DAS) The Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e was d e v e l o p e d by Graham B. S p a n i e r i n ' 1 9 7 6 . The DAS i s a 32 i t e m s c a l e d e s i g n e d f o r use 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 o v e r a l l r e s u l t i n g s c o r e o f t h e DAS ranges from 0-151. Sub-- 29 -scores are derived from four 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 adjust-ment as an ever changing process with a q u a l i t a t i v e dimension which can be evaluated at any point i n time on a continuum from well adjusted to maladjusted. V a l i d i t y : Content V a l i d i t y : Items, i n the DAS were evaluated by three judges for content v a l i d i t y . Items were included only i f the judges considered the items: (1) Relevant measures of dyadic adjustment for contemporary relat i o n s h i p s . (2) Consistent with the nominal d e f i n i t i o n s suggested by Spanier and Cole (1976), for adjustment; and i t s components ( s a t i s f a c t i o n , cohesion, consensus, e t c . ) . (3) Carefully worded with appropriate fixed choice responses. C r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d V a l i d i t y : The scale was adminis-tered to a married sample of 218 persons and a divorced sample of 94 persons. Each of the 32 items i n the scale correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the external c r i t e r i o n of marital status. 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) using a t - t e s t for assessing differences between sample means (Spanier, 19 76). In addition, 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 samples were 114.8 and 70.7 r e s p e c t i v e l y . 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 . C o n s t r u c t V a l i d i t y : S i n c e a l l t h e it e m s w i t h c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y used i n p r e v i o u s m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t s c a l e s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t o r i g i n a l l y t e s t e d , i t was p o s s i b l e t o c o r r e l a t e t h e DAS w i t h o t h e r m a r i t a l a djustment s c a l e s . The c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e Locke W a l l a c e M a r i t a l Adjustment S c a l e was .86 among m a r r i e d r e s p o n d e n t s and .88 among d i v o r c e d r e s p o n d e n t s ( S p a n i e r , 1976) . F a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e f i n a l 3 2 i t e m s was a l s o done. Four f a c t o r 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 e x p r e s s i o n . R e l i a b i l i t y : R e l i a b i l i t y 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 s c a l e . I n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y was c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g Cronbach's C o e f f i c i e n t A l p h a (Cronbach, 1951). The f o l l o w i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s were e s t a b l i s h e d : T o t a l d y a d i c a d j u s t m e n t s c a l e . . . . r = .96 Dyadic consensus s c a l e . . . . . . . r = .90 Dyadic s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e . . . . . . r = .94 Dyadic c o h e s i o n s c a l e . . . . . . . . r = .86 A f f e c t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s c a l e . . . . r = .73 - 31 -M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y (MCI) The M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y i s a 46 i t e m s c a l e d e v e l o p e d by M i l l a r d J . B i e n v e n u , S r . , i n 1970 t o measure the p r o c e s s o f communication as an element of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . MCI 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 b u t r a t h e r c o n c e r n s i t s e l f 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 -t i c s , and s t y l e s o f communication. MCI e x p l o r e s a c o u p l e ' s a b i l i t y t o l i s t e n , t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e o t h e r , t o e x p r e s s o n e s e l f and t h e manner of s a y i n g t h i n g s . V a l i d i t y : C o n t e n t V a l i d i t y : F o r t y e i g h t (48) i t e m s were formu-l a t e d w i t h t h e h e l p of c o l l e a g u e s , l i t e r a t u r e , p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e and from t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of e x i s t i n g i n s t r u m e n t s d e a l i n g w i t h m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Items were r e v i e w e d by s o c i o l o -g i s t s , s o c i a l w o r k ers and p s y c h o l o g i s t s . Consensus was r e c e i v e d on t h e 48 i t e m ' s r e l e v a n c e t o m a r i t a l communication. C o n s t r u c t V a l i d i t y : The MCI was t e s t e d on 172 m a r r i e d c o u p l e s i n 1969 i n two N o r t h C a r o l i n a communities. Ages v a r i e d from 18 t o 60. F o r t y f i v e (4 5) of t h e f o r t y e i g h t (48) i t e m s d i s c r i m i n a t e d between th e upper and lower q u a r t i l e s of t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l groups a t t h e p <: .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e w i t h one degree of freedom u s i n g t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t f o r i t e m a n a l y s i s . F o r c r o s s v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e i t e m s , t h e - 32 -mean s c o r e of 105.78 earned by t h i s e x p e r i m e n t a l group o f 344 s u b j e c t s was compared t o a comparable group o f 6 0 s u b j e c t s whose mean s c o r e was 105.68 t h u s s u g g e s t i n g s t r o n g c r o s s v a l i d a t i o n e v i d e n c e . F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e of v a l i d i t y f o r t h e i n v e n t o r y was o b t a i n e d from a s t u d y o f two groups 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 t h r o u g h 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 group was comparable t o t h e f i r s t i n terms of t h e l e n g t h of m a r r i a g e , age and e d u c a t i o n b u t were w i t h o u t a p p a r e n 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 communication was found i n f a v o r of t h e group w i t h no app a r e n t problems. R e l i a b i l i t y : One r e l i a b i l i t y s t u d y i s r e p o r t e d by Bienvenu (1970). A s p l i t h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was computed u s i n g t h e Spearman-Brown f o r m u l a , on t h e s c o r e s of 6 0 r e s p o n d e n t s on t h e odd numbered and even numbered s t a t e m e n t s . 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 r e v e a l e d a f t e r c o r r e c t i o n . S e x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y (SCI) The S e x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y was c o n s t r u c t e d i n 1977 by M i l l a r d J . Bie n v e n u , S r . . The i n s t r u m e n t was d e s i g n e d i n r e s p onse t o a growing demand f o r an i n v e n t o r y t o a s s e s s a c o u p l e ' s s k i l l s i n communicating i n s e x u a l m a t t e r s . I t c o n s i s t s of 3 0 i t e m s d e a l i n g w i t h v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f s e x u a l - 33 -communication wherein couples may be d e f i c i e n t or experienc-ing d i f f i c u l t y . Items explore 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 to discuss sexual matters, to ask and to refuse and to communicate through physical touch. The possible 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 -ture c l i n i c a l experience and colleague assistance. Content v a l i d i t y was established by presenting the items to a panel of sex therapists c e r t i f i e d by the American Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists. A small p i l o t study was undertaken with 43 individuals receiving sex therapy from a c e r t i f i e d sex therapist. The mean score of the group was 6 5.27 out of a possible 90. No other data i s reported as yet for t h i s instrument although a p i l o t study i s i n progress with couples receiving either marital or sex counselling. Data C o l l e c t i o n The names of potential participants for Group One were griven to the researcher by the s t a f f and/or counsellors at the two counselling centres. For Group Two, names were given to the researcher by acquaintances, colleagues or by the volunteers themselves. Subjects were mailed a l e t t e r introducing the researcher and the research project. This l e t t e r was followed up by a telephone c a l l to answer any questions the couple may have and to request t h e i r p a r t i c i p a -- 34 -t i o n i n t h e p r o j e c t . S u b j e c t s who agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e were m a i l e d t h e n e c e s s a r y m a t e r i a l . A f t e r 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 had s c o r e s on the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : 1. M a r i t a l a d j u s tment ( p e r c e i v e d ) 2. M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . 3. M a r i t a l c o h e s i o n . 4. M a r i t a l c onsensus. 5. M a r i t a l a f f e c t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n . 6. M a r i t a l communication. 7. S e x u a l Communication. <- 8. Demographic d a t a . S t a t i s t i c a l Hypotheses H y p o t h e s i s 1 Husbands and wi v e s i n t h e r a p y w i l l 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 Dyadic 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 : A t =/tn H i :Mt ¥An w i t h / ^ b e i n g t h e group mean of c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y w i t h / A n b e i n g t h e group mean o f c o u p l e s n o t i n t h e r a p y . An independent groups t - t e s t f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e between means was used t o de t e r m i n e i f t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i -c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means o f t h e two groups a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . - 35 -H y p o t h e s i s 2 Husbands and wiv e s i n t h e r a p y w i l l 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 M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y from husbands and w i v e s n ot i n t h e r a p y . The independent groups t - t e s t f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e between means was used t o de t e r m i n e i f t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means o f t h e two groups a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . H y p o t h e s i s 3 Husbands and wiv e s i n t h e r a p y w i l l 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 n o t i n t h e r a p y . The independent groups t - t e s t f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e between means was used t o de t e r m i n e i f t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i -c a n t l y d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means of t h e two groups a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . H Q : / ^ t =/<n w i t h y ^ t b e i n g t h e group mean o f c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y with/^< n b e i n g t h e group mean o f c o u p l e s n o t i n t h e r a p y . % lA t ^ Ai with/kC-t- b e i n g t h e group mean o f c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y w i t h / ^ n b e i n g t h e group mean o f c o u p l e s n ot i n t h e r a p y . - 36 -H y p o t h e s i s 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 persons s c o r e s on t h e Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e , t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y , and t h e S e x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y . H 0 : 0 H T i / $ ± 0 Pearson's 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 e s t a b l i s h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between DAS and MCI and SCI. Summary Chapter t h r e e began w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s a m p l i n g methods and o f t h e sample. A d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t s was the n p r e s e n t e d and was f o l l o w e d by the 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 . The f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s o f d a t a a n a l y s i s . - 37 -CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS In t h e p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r , t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r b o t h d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s e s were p r e s e n t e d . T h i s c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s e s f o r e a c h o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s and t h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y a n a l y s e s . S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s e s o f H y p o t h e s e s H y p o t h e s i s 1 s t a t e d t h a t h u s b a n d s and w i v e s i n t h e r a p y (Group One) w i l l 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 D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e 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 (Group Two). 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 etween 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 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. The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d ( T a b l e 1 ) . T a b l e 1 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 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 I n d e p e n d e n t Samples V a r i a b l e N Mean S t a n d a r d v a l u e D e v i a t i o n Group 2 ( n o t i n t h e r a p y ) 44 111.61 12.05 g Q 7 i c Group 1 ( i n t h e r a p y ) 44 90.18 16.82 * p <.001 - 38 -The s u b j e c t s n o t i n t h e r a p y had a mean s c o r e o f 111.61 which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e mean s c o r e of 9 0.18 f o r s u b j e c t s who were i n t h e r a p y . S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of t h e two groups 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 s c o r e s (16.82) as compared t o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s who were n ot 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 each group was performed 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 and 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 females i n Group One and Two r e s p e c t i v e l y , on t h e Dyadic 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 between dependent sample means was performed 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 a djustment 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 a d j u stment o f females i n e i t h e r Group One o r Group Two (Table 2 and T a b l e 3 ) . The husbands i n Group One had a mean s c o r e o f 9 0.81 on t h e M a r i t a l Adjustment I n v e n t o r y w h i l e t h e wives had a mean s c o r e o f 89.54. 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 s i g n i f i c a n t . The husbands i n Group One 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 18.70 as compared t o t h e wiv 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 Significance of the Difference Between Means for Males and Females i n Therapy (Group 1) on Scores of Marital Adjustment Using a t-Test for Dependent Samples „ . , , „T Standard . T T , Variable N Mean _ • .• t-Value Deviation Males (Group 1) 22 90.81 18.70 0.39 Females (Group 1) 22 89.54 15.13 Table 3 Significance of the Difference Between Means for Males and Females Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Scores of Marital Adjustment Using a t-Test for Dependent Samples „ . , , „ ., Standard , T T , Variable N Mean • . • t-Value Deviation Males (Group 1) Females (Group 2) 22 112.63 12.68 22 110.59 11.59 0.83 - 40 -The husbands i n Group Two had a mean score of 112.63 while the wives had a mean score of 110.59. This difference was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The male and female subjects i n Group Two showed approximately the same v a r i a b i -l i t y i n t h e i r scoring with a standard deviation for males of 12.68.and females of 11.59. Hypothesis 2 stated that husbands and wives i n therapy (Group One) w i l l not score s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the Marital Communication Inventory from husbands and wives not i n therapy (Group Two). In analysing the data, the t - t e s t of the difference between means for independent groups was performed with a Type 1 error p r o b a b i l i t y equal to .05. The n u l l hypothesis was rejected (Table 4). Table 4 Significance of the Difference Between Means for Subjects i n Therapy (Group 1) and Subjects Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Scores of Marital Communication Using a t-Test for Independent Samples Variable N Mean ^ ... t-Value Deviation Group 2 (not i n therapy) 44 106.09 13.43 7.44* Group 1 (in therapy) 44 79.84 19.17 *p .001 - 41 -Husbands and wives n o t i n t h e r a p y had a mean s c o r e of 106.09 which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e mean o f 79.84 f o r husbands and w i v e s i n t h e r a p y . S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of t h e two groups 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 s c o r e s w i t h 19.17 as 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 d e v i a -t i o n was 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 each group was performed i n o r d e r t o f i n d out i f t h e males i n Group One and 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 females i n Group One and 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 S c a l e . The t - t e s t f o r dependent groups was performed 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 females w i t h i n each group was 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 . (Table 5 and T a b l e 6 ) . T a b l e 5 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f 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 Communication U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples V a r i a b l e s N Mean St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n t - V a l u e Males (Group 1) 22 80.50 20.98 .34 Females (Group 1) 22 79.18 17.64 - 42 -The husbands i n Group One had a mean s c o r e o f 8 0.50 on t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y w h i l e t h e wi v e s had a mean s c o r e of 79.18. The husbands 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, as compared t o t h e wi 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. T a b l e 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 Males and Females Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Scores of M a r i t a l Communication U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples • i n » T S t a n d a r d , T T , V a r i a b l e s N Mean _ ... t - V a l u e D e v i a t i o n Males (Group 2) 22 104.68 14.28 .95 Females (Group 2) 22 107.50 12.70 The husbands i n Group 2 had a mean o f 104.68 on t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y w h i l e t h e w i v e s had a mean s c o r e o f 107.50. The husbands i n Group 2 showed s l i g h t l y 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 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 14.28 as compared t o t h e wi 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 -H y p o t h e s i s 3 s t a t e s t h a t husbands and wiv e s i n t h e r a p y w i l l 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 wiv e s n ot i n t h e r a p y . 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 between means f o r independent groups was performed 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. The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d (Table 7 ) . T a b l e 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 Therapy (Group 1) and S u b j e c t s Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Sco r e s o f S e x u a l Communication U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Independent Samples „ . „T S t a n d a r d , T T n V a r i a b l e s N Mean _ ... t - V a l u e D e v i a t i o n Group 2 (not i n ther a p y ) 44 72.93 13.57 3.75* Group 1 ( i n t h e r a p y ) 44 59.38 19.72 *p < .001 S u b j e c t s n o t i n t h e r a p y had a mean s c o r e of 72.93 which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than 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 were i n t h e r a p y . S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e two groups 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 s c o r e s w i t h 19.72 as compared - 44 -t o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s who were n o t i n t h e r a p y , w i t h 13.57. 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 each group was a g a i n performed 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 and 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 females i n Group One and Two r e s p e c t i v e l y on t h e Se x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y . The t - T e s t of t h e d i f f e r e n c e between means f o r dependent groups was performed 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 s e x u a l 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 s e x u a l communication o f males w i t h i n Group One o r Two (Table 8 and T a b l e 9 ) . T a b l e 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 Males and Females i n Therapy (Group 1) on Scores o f S e x u a l Communication U s i n g a t - T e s t f o r Dependent Samples TT • • i i »T »» S t a n d a r d , T T _ V a r i a b l e N Mean ^ . ,. t - V a l u e D e v i a t i o n Males (Group 1) 22 60.36 19.58 .55 Females (Group 1) 22 58.40 20.27 Husbands i n t h e r a p y had a mean s c o r e o f 6 0.36 compared 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 of th e husbands? 1; s c o r e s was 19.58 compared t o t h e w i v e s ' o f 20.27. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e mean s c o r e s f o r husbands and w i v e s i n Group One. - 45 -Table 9 Significance of the Difference Between Means for Males and Females Not i n Therapy (Group 2) on Scores of Sexual Communication Using a t-Test for Dependent Samples • i -i »T Standard . T T ,. Variables N Mean _ . . . t-Value Deviation Males (Group 2) 22 71.09 16.04 1.29 Females (Group 2) 22 74.77 10.61 Husbands not in therapy had a mean score of 71.09 compared to t h e i r wives' mean score of 74.77. The standard deviation of the husbands' scores was 16.04 which showed a greater v a r i a b i l i t y i n scoring compared to the wives' standard deviation of 10.61. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ference between the mean scores for husbands and wives in Group Two. Hypothesis 4 states that there w i l l be no s i g n i f i -cant correlations among subject's scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, the Marital Communication Inventory and the Sexual Communication Inventory. In analysing the data, the Pearson product-moment co r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were calculated to i d e n t i f y the relationships between marital adjustment, marital communica-tion and sexual communication for Group One (Table 10) and Group Two (Table 11), as well as for the combined population - 46 -T a b l e 10 Group One ( i n Therapy) 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 Between Dyadic Adjustment, M a r i t a l Communication and S e x u a l Communication (N = 44) Dyadic M a r i t a l S e x u a l Adjustment Communication Communication Dyadic Adjustment - .85 .68 M a r i t a l Communication - .76 S e x u a l Communication T a b l e 11 Group Two (Not i n Therapy) 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 Between Dyadic 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 Communication (N = 44) Dyadic M a r i t a l S e x u a l Adjustment Communication Communication Dyadic Adjustment - .74 .43 M a r i t a l Communication - .36 S e x u a l Communication - 47 -of Group One and Group Two (Table 12). 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 i n s t a n c e . T a b l e 10 examines t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s among s c o r e s on the Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e , t h e M a r i t a l Communication S c a l e and the S e x u a l Communication S c a l e f o r c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y . The c o r r e l a t i o n between DAS and MCI was .85. The c o r r e l a t i o n between DAS and SCI was .68. The c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e MCI and SCI was .76. T a b l e 11 examines t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s among s c o r e s on th e Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e , t h e M a r i t a l Communication S c a l e and t h e S e x u a l Communication S c a l e f o r c o u p l e s n o t i n t h e r a p y . The c o r r e l a t i o n between DAS and MCI was .74. The c o r r e l a t i o n between DAS and SCI was .43. The c o r r e l a t i o n between MCI and SCI was .36. T a b l e 12 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 Between Dyadic A d j ustment, M a r i t a l Communication and S e x u a l Communication f o r T o t a l Sample (N = 88) Dyadic M a r i t a l S e x u a l Adjustment Communication Communication Dyadic Adjustment - .88 .67 M a r i t a l Communication - .69 S e x u a l Communication - 48 -T a b l e 12 examines t h e c o r r e l a t i o n among s c o r e s f o r t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n (n = 88) on 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 . The c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e DAS and MCI was .88. The c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e DAS and SCI was .67. The c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e MCI and SCI was .69. The o b v i o u s d i f f e r e n c e s between g r o u p s i n t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s i n v o l v i n g s e x u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n f o r t h e r e s e a r c h e r as t o t h e 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 g r o u p s on t h e s e m e a s u r e s . An a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s was, t h e r e f o r e , p e r f o r m e d on t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s t o examine i f t h e r e was s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s e s t a b l i s h e d i n Group One and Group Two. I n h y p o t h e s i s f o r m , t h e q u e s t i o n t o be a n s w e r e d was: HQ \ = P i H l Y ? l 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 c a l c u l a t e d t o t e s t t h i s a d d i t i o n a l h y p o t h e s i s a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . The r e s u l t s o f t h e Z t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a r e shown i n T a b l e 13. A t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e and 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 f o r Group One and Group Two were t h e same, was a c c e p t e d . However, i n t h e c a s e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between Group One and Group Two r e g a r d i n g t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s : 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 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 - 49 -Table 13 Significance of the Difference Between Pearson r Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s for Subjects i'n.i Therapy (Group 1) and Subjects Not i n Therapy (Group 2) Using Fisher'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 rejected at the .05 l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e . Regarding the correlations between the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Sexual Communication Inventory, Group One (in therapy) achieved a co r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .68 while Group Two (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 s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than .68 at the .05 l e v e l of confidence. S i m i l a r l y , the correlations between Marital Communication Inventory and the Sexual Communication Inventory (.76 for Group One and .36 for Group Two) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 l e v e l of confidence. - 50 -Supplementary A n a l y s e s 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 performed 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 A d j u s t -ment S c a l e and t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y and t h e S e x u a l 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 and Group Two s e p a r a t e l y u s i n g Pearson r„ (Table 14 and T a b l e 1 5 ) . T a b l e 14 Group One: 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 T o t a l DAS S c a l e and S u b s c a l e s MCI and SCI Sc o r e s (n = 44) and DAS Con. S a t . Coh. A f f . MCI SCI *i*t%^iust~ - -87 -8e -7e ment S c a l e .66 .85 .68 Consensus - .58 .52 .54 .71 .52 S a t i s f a c t i o n - .64 .49 .68 .5.8 Cohe s i o n .38 .71 .57 A f f e c t i o n a l E x p r e s s i o n - .67 .63 M a r i t a l Communi-c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y - .76 S e x u a l Communi-c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y -- 51 -T a b l e 14 examines 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 Adjustment 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 a f f e c t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n and t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y and t h e S e x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y . O b s e r v a t i o n s w i l l be made i n p o i n t form. 1. The h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s between s u b s c a l e s on t h e DAS and t h e t o t a l DAS s c o r e were p r e d i c t a b l e due t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t . S p a n i e r (1976), i n the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of t h e items o f t h e DAS, i d e n t i f i e d t h e f o u r components of t h e a n a l y s i s as consensus, s a t i s f a c t i o n , c o h e s i o n and a f f e c t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n . These components a r e viewed as concommitments of m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . 2. An a n t i c i p a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n between a f f e c t i o n a l e x p r e s 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 P e a r s o n r = .63. 3. The h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e and t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y was a l s o p r e d i c t e d (r=.85). 4. F o r c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y , t h e r e appears t o be a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l communication and s e x u a l communication (r=.76) and between s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l a d j u s tment (r=.68). T a b l e 15 examines th e c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r c o u p l e s n o t i n t h e r a p y between t h e Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e and i t s sub-s c a l e s o f consensus, s a t i s f a c t i o n , c o h e s i o n and a f f e c t i o n a l - 52 -T a b l e 15 Group Two: 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 T o t a l DAS S c a l e and S u b s c a l e s and MCI and SCI Sco r e s (n = 44) DAS Con. S a t . Coh. Af f . MCI SCI Dyadic A d j u s t -ment S c a l e .66 .74 .43 Consensus - .46 .48 .34 .41 .22 S a t i s f a c t i o n - .56 .51 .75 .28 Cohesion - .52 .64 .48 A f f e c t i o n a l .48 .57 E x p r e s s i o n M a r i t a l Communi-c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y .36 S e x u a l Communi-c a t i o n I n v e n t o r y e x p r e s s i o n and t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y and The S e x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y . A g a i n , o b s e r v a t i o n s w i l l be made i n p o i n t form. 1. The h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s between s u b s c a l e s of t h e DAS and t h e t o t a l DAS were once a g a i n p r e d i c t a b l e g i v e n S p a n i e r ' s b e l i e f t h a t t h e s u b s c a l e s r e p r e s e n t concommit-ments o f M a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . 2. An a n t i c i p a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n between a f f e c t i o n a l e x p r e s -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 r=.57. - 53 -3. The h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between Dyadic Adjustment and M a r i t a l Communication was a g a i n p r e d i c t a b l e (r=.74). 4. F o r c o u p l e s not i n t h e r a p y , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l communication and s e x u a l communication was. r=.36 and between s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l a d j u s t -ment was r=.43. Summary of R e s u l t s T h i s s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e f o u r h y p o t h e s e s , each concerned w i t h v a r i a b l e s o f m a r i t a l a d j u s t -ment. The summary p r e s e n t s each h y p o t h e s i s and t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d . Hypotheses 1. Husbands and w i v e s i n t h e r a p y w i l l 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 Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e from husbands and w i v e s not i n t h e r a p y . The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . 2. Husbands and wives i n t h e r a p y w i l l 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 M a r i t a l Communication S c a l e from husbands and wives not i n t h e r a p y . The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . 3. Husbands and wives i n t h e r a p y w i l l 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 Communica-t i o n I n v e n t o r y from husbands and w i v e s not i n t h e r a p y . The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . - 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 persons' s c o r e s on t h e Dyadic Adjustment s c a l e , t h e M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y and t h e S e x u a l Communication I n v e n t o r y . The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . Supplementary A n a l y s i s The c o r r e l a t i o n 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 summarized i n T a b l e s 14 and 15. - 55 -CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION Summary M a r i t a l and f a m i l y r e s e a r c h e r s g e n e r a l l y agree t h a t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e i s c o n s t a n t l y c h a n g i n g . A c u r r e n t t r e n d i s t h e i n c r e a s i n g d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e s 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In an e f f o r t t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d u n i que f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e t o m a r i t a l d i s t a n c i n g and d i s c o r d , t h i s s t udy 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 s e x u a l communication. 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 q u a l i t y and m a r i t a l s t a b i l i t y (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 t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o m a r i t a l q u a l i t y . T h i s s t u d y a l s o 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 commu-n i c a t i o n and p e r c e i v e d q u a l i t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A l t h o u g h s e x u a l communication has n o t r e c e i v e d much a t t e n t i o n i n m a r i t a l t h e r a p y r e s e a r c h , t h e p r o c e s s of m a r i t a l communica-t i o n has r e c e i v e d much a t t e n t i o n i n r e s e a r c h . 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 a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n (one component o f m a r i t a l q u a l i t y ) and m a r i t a l communication (Bienvenu, 1970; J o a n n i n g s , 198 2; - 56 -Kahn, 1970; Locke & W a l l a c e , 1959; M i l l e r , N u n n a l l y & Wackman, 1979; Navran, 1967; .Wampler, 1 9 8 2 ) . The o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s s t u d y were t o answer the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : 1. Does open s e x u a l communication c o r r e l a t e w i t h m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t ? 2. Does l a c k o f s e x u a l communication c o r r e l a t e w i t h . m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s ? 3. Does open s e x u a l communication c o r r e l a t e w i t h open m a r i t a l communication? 4. I s s e x u a l communication a problem f o r c o u p l e s ? To a c c o m p l i s h t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s and t o t e s t t h e hypotheses d e v e l o p e d 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 drawn from t h r o u g h o u t t h e lo w e r main-l a n d o f B r i t i s h C olumbia, Canada. Twenty 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 f o r d i s t r e s s e d r e l a t i o n -s h i p s were drawn and c o n s t i t u t e d Group One. Twenty two c o u p l e s who were 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 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 c o n s t i t u t e d Group Two. Both husbands and wi v e s w i t h i n each sample were m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Four hypotheses were t e s t e d . Hypotheses one, two and t h r e e were t e s t e d u s i n g independent groups t - t e s t f o r th e d i f f e r e n c e between means t o det e r m i n e i f t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means o f the two groups on d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s o f m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . - 57 -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 the Pearson p r o d u c t c o r r e l a -t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s 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 s between v a r i a b l e s . 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 t h e n c a l c u l a t e d t o 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 s between groups. I n terms of t h e o b j e c t i v e s of t h e s t u d y , t h e r e s u l t s r e c o n f i r m t h a t t h e r e 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 m a r i t a l a d j u s tment and i n t e r s p o u s a l communication. The s t u d y f u r t h e r demonstrates a s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n between open s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l a djustment and between i n h i b i t e d s e x u a l communication 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 h y p o t h e s i s f o u r demonstrate t h a t t h e c o r r e l a -t i o n s between s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l a d j u s tment and between s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l communication a r e group s p e c i f i c and s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t between groups. I t was noted t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between husbands' and wives' s c o r e s i n e i t h e r Group One o r Group Two r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p e r c e i v e d m a r i t a l a d j u s t -ment, m a r i t a l communication o r s e x u a l communication. I t was a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h e r e was g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y i n s c o r e s i n Group One on a l l measures t h a n t h e r e was i n Group Two. C o n c l u s i o n s and D i s c u s s i o n 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 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 Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e from husbands and w i v e s not i n t h e r a p y . - 58 -R e s u l t : The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . Couples i n t h e r a p y s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r on t h e DAS tha n c o u p l e s not i n t h e r a p y . D i s c u s s i o n : The s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n 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 by s u b j e c t ' s s c o r e s on t h e Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e . , 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 111.61 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 90.18. I n t e s t i n g H y p o t h e s i s One, a c o n s t r u c t i v e r e p l i c a t i o n of S p a n i e r ' s (1976) s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n . As i n S p a n i e r 1 s s t u d y , t h e two groups o f c o u p l e s were d i s c r i m i n a t e d by t h e DAS. T h i s r e p l i c a t i o n demonstrates f u r t h e r s u p p o r t f o r t h e c r i t e r i o n r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y o f t h e DAS as w e l l as d e m o n s t r a t i n g o b j e c t i v e 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 Groups One and Two do i n d e e d d i f f e r i n p e r c e i v e d m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . H y p o t h e s i s Two: Husbands and wiv e s i n t h e r a p y w i l l 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 M a r i t a l Communication I n v e n t o r y from husbands and wiv e s n o t i n t h e r a p y . R e s u l t s : The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . Couples i n t h e r a p y s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r on t h e MCI than c o u p l e s not i n t h e r a p y . D i s c u s s i o n : The r a t i o n a l e f o r H y p o t h e s i s Two stems from t h e c o n c e p t t h a t i n t e r s p o u s a l communication i s a major v a r i a b l e o f d y a d i c a d j u s t m e n t . The r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i -g a t i o n 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 and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and a djustment e s t a b l i s h e d by Bienvenu (1970), J o a n n i n g s (198 2 ) , Kahn (1970) , M i l l e r , N u n n a l l y & Wackman (1979) , and Navran (1976). S c o r e s o f t h e p r o c e s s of m a r i t a l communication as measured by t h e MCI d i d d i s c r i m i n a t e between c o u p l e s b e l o n g -i n g t o Group One o r Group Two. H y p o t h e s i s Three: Husbands and w i v e s i n t h e r a p y w i l l 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 not i n t h e r a p y . R e s u l t s : The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . Couples i n t h e r a p y s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o wer on t h e SCI than c o u p l e s n o t i n t h e r a p y . D i s c u s s i o n : The c o n c e p t u a l r a t i o n a l e f o r H y p o t h e s i s Three i s t h a t s e x u a l communication i s a s p e c i f i c and s p e c i a l s u b s e t o f m a r i t a l communication. I t i s s p e c i f i c i n i t s s u b j e c t m a t t e r and 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 c h a r g e d t o p i c . S cores on t h e SCI, which measures th e a b i l i t y o f 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 t h e r a p y f o r d i s t r e s s e d m a r r i a g e s and c o u p l e s who i d e n t i f y t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s as s a t i s f a c t o r y . 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 One were not s e e k i n g sex t h e r a p y nor d i d they i d e n t i f y s e x u a l problems as a s o u r c e o f d i s t r e s s . The l i k e l i h o o d t h a t c o u p l e s who 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 a g e n e r a l breakdown i n t h e p r o c e s s o f r e l a t i n g t o each o t h e r - 60 -as well as a s p e c i f i c breakdown i n discussing sexual issues can be c l e a r l y conceptualized. The demands of relat i o n s h i p communication are such that each partner i s required to be expressive and attentive regarding topics which could manifest varying degrees of v u l n e r a b i l i t y within each person. The greater the emotional involvement, and there-fore the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of each partner regarding the subject matter, the greater the need for t r u s t , support and under-standing i n the interpersonal dialogue. One could suggest that, under marital stress, the tendency would be to avoid emotionally charged topics of conversation and to d r i f t to conversational areas where communication can be directed away from the relationship. As a r e s u l t , interpersonal communication of an intimate nature would be avoided. Hypothesis Four: 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 -tions among a person's scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, the Marital Communication Scale and the Sexual Communication Inventory. Results: The n u l l hypothesis was rejected. In a l l cases (total group, group one, group two) s i g n i f i c a n t correlations were established among a person's scores on DAS, MCI, and the SCI. Discussion: The rationale for t h i s hypothesis was to c l a r i f y the relationships between marital and sexual communication and perceived marital adjustment. When the t o t a l sample population was examined (n-=88), marital - 61 -adjustment and i n t e r s p o u s a l communication were s t r o n g l y and p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d (r=.88); m a r i t a l a djustment and i n t e r -s p o u s a l s e x u a l communication were s t r o n g l y and d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d (r=.67), and t h e p r o c e s s of m a r i t a l communication and t h e a b i l i t y t o communicate about s e x u a l i s s u e s were s t r o n g l y and d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d (r=.69). Between t h e two g r o u p s , however, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s changed. F o r b o t h c o u p l e s i n and n o t i n t h e r a p y , t h e r e remained a s t r o n g and d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l a djustment and m a r i t a l communi-c a t i o n (Table 13). F o r c o u p l e s i n t h e r a p y , t h e r e i s a s t r o n g , d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l a djustment and s e x u a l communica-t i o n (r=.68), as w e l l as between m a r i t a l communication and s e x u a l communication (r=.76). F o r c o u p l e s who r e p o r t t h e i r m a r r i a g e s as s a t i s f a c -t o r y , t h e r e a r e o n l y moderate t o low c o r r e l a t i o n s between m a r i t a l a djustment and s e x u a l communication (r=.43) and between m a r i t a l communication and s e x u a l communication (r=.36). T h i s f i n d i n g may mean t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e of one v a r i a b l e upon t h e o t h e r v a r i a b l e i n p ersons who a r e w e l l a d j u s t e d i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s . F o r p ersons who a r e n o t 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 appears t o be a s u b s t a n t i a l i n f l u e n c e between s e x u a l communi-c a t i o n and a d j u s t m e n t as w e l l as between m a r i t a l and s e x u a l communication. - 62 -L i m i t a t i o n s of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n The c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h sample was r e s t r i c t e d t o s u b j e c t s who agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e on a v o l u n t e e r b a s i s . T h i s might a f f e c t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the f i n d i n g s to the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n i f the response s e t of a v o l u n t e e r p o p u l a t i o n d i f f e r s from the response s e t of the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s study was based e x c l u s i v e l y on s e l f r e p o r t techniques. T h i s may l i m i t the r e s u l t s to what the v a r i o u s couples are w i l l i n g t o r e v e a l about themselves. P o s s i b l y the d e s i g n would have been strengthened had f a c e to f a c e i n t e r -views with the couples been attempted and o b s e r v a t i o n a l data c o l l e c t e d . On the other hand, t h i s was an e x p l o r a t o r y study to observe 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 i n two groups of d i v e r s e l y a d j u s t e d c o u p l e s . These r e l a t i o n s h i p s d i d s u r f a c e with the instruments a p p l i e d . The v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the instruments i s , t h e r e -f o r e , c r u c i a l t o the study. Although the r e s e a r c h e r has c o n f i d e n c e i n the Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e and the M a r i t a l Communication Inventory, the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the Sexual Communication Inventory have not y e t been w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . In f u t u r e r e s e a r c h , other or a d d i t i o n a l a s s e s s -ment d e v i c e s should be used to measure sexual communication s k i l l s . The u n i t of a n a l y s i s f o r the p r o j e c t was the couple. I f responses were not r e c e i v e d from an i n d i v i d u a l ' s spouse, t h a t i n d i v i d u a l was dropped from the sample. The focus then - 63 -was spouse-spouse evaluations. This, i n a sense, continues a s i g n i f i c a n t trend which has been started by marriage and family researchers i n the l a s t decade to include both spouses in marital quality research (Spanier & Lewis, 1980). Implications and Suggestions for Further Research This study was exploratory i n nature and sought to discover the relationships between sexual and marital commu-nication and perceived marital adjustment. The study established that the relationships between these variables in the couples studied, were d i f f e r e n t for distressed and non distressed couples. For mar i t a l l y distressed couples, there was c l e a r l y a substantial influence between sexual communication and marital adjustment and between sexual communication and marital communication, which was not found i n couples who reported s a t i s f a c t o r y relationships. What does th i s mean? In explaining the lower c o r r e l a -tions between sexual communication and marital communication, and sexual communication and marital adjustment for Group Two, one could suggest that for well adjusted couples, an ove r a l l communication process exists which allows the couple to r e l a t e to each other and to solve problems constructively, whether the topic of discussion or current issue i s of a sexual or of another nature. In t h i s case, the process of marital communication appears to be highly correlated with dyadic adjustment whereas sexual.communication subsumes a lesser role i n marital 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 communication and m a r i t a l communication and s e x u a l communica-t i o n and m a r i t a l a d j u stment f o r Group One, i t i s c l e a r l y e v i d e n t t h a t f o r d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s , s e x u a l communication i s an i s s u e o f magnitude s i m i l a r t o m a r i t a l communication. These r e s u l t s s uggest e v i d e n c e which i n d i c a t e s t h a t d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s who seek m a r i t a l t h e r a p y l i k e l y e x p e r i e n c e , 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 c o n c u r r e n t b r e a k -down i n t h e s p e c i f i c domain o f s e x u a l communication and, t h e r e f o r e , p o s s i b l y i n t h e s e x u a l i n t i m a c y a s p e c t s of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s u p p o r t s t h e c l a i m made by B i r c h l e r (1979) and Green (1981) t h a t c o u p l e s who e x p r e s s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , o f t e n i m p l i c a t e l a c k of 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 w i t h s e x u a l e x p r e s s i o n as two p r i m a r y causes o r c o r r e l a t e s o f d i s c o r d . 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 F a m i l y Therapy? 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 im p o r t a n c e , i n t h e r a p y , o f d e f i n i n g t h e s p e c i f i c s o f t h e g l o b a l c o m p l a i n t " l a c k o f communication". What does a d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e mean when t h e y say th e y cannot communicate? I s i t s k i l l s t h e y 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 b o u n d a r i e s t o t h e i r communication? W i l l communication s k i l l s t r a i n i n g h e l p ? W i l l sex t h e r a p y h e l p ? The i m p l i c a t i o n s t o 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 : f i r s t l y , 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 e a t i n g d i s t r e s s e d m a r r i a g e s and s e c o n d l y , - 6 5 -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 T h e r a p i s t s . In t r e a t i n g d i s t r e s s e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i t appears most 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 compa-t i b i l i t y i n t h e s e x u a l a r e n a o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t appears t h a t d i s t r e s s i n t h i s domain may be guarded by t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t may never be p e r m i s s i b l e f o r one member of the dyad t o ad d r e s s t h e s e x u a l problems of t h e r e l a t i o n -s h i p d i r e c t l y i n t h e r a p y . The v u l n e r a b i l i t y and r i s k may 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 . T h i s b r i n g s i n t o f o c u s the imp o r t a n c e of 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 of 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 and 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 t h e r a p y . 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 ar e a s o f M a r i t a l and F a m i l y t h e r a p y and Sex Therapy i s n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o a d e q u a t e l y e q u i p 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 of t h e f a m i l y system. Support f o r t h i s p o i n t of vi e w i s hea r d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g words w r i t t e n by Sager (1976). A r g u i n g f o r t h e i n t e r -c onnectedness 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 vi e w , he s t a t e s : More o f t e n , however, 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 c o n n e c t e d w i t h o t h e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems t h a t t r e a t m e n t o f t h e d y s f u n c t i o n a l o n e w i l l be of r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a l u e i n mending t h e o v e r a l l f a b r i c o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t i s - 66 t h e r e f o r e , of p r i m a r y i m p o r t a n c e t o be aware 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 of 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 t h e 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 o t h e r a s p e c t s o f 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 from 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 aware of the. i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s of a r e a s o f a 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 t h e c o n n e c t i o n s between m a r i t a l disharmony and s e x u a l disharmony. One s u g g e s t i o n f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s t o t e s t e x p e r i m e n t a l l y , t h e i n f l u e n c e o f s e x u a l communication and m a r i t a l communication on m a r i t a l a d j u stment o f c o u p l e s s e e k i n g t h e r a p y , w h i l e c o n t r o l l i n g f o r t h e i n f l u e n c e of o t h e r v a r i a b l e s . I t appears t h a t f o r c o u p l e s s e e k i n g m a r i t a l 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 communication 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 as t h e 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 and m a r i t a l a d j u stment i s p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t . C o n e l u s i o n Based on t h e measures used i n t h i s s t u d y and t h e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s a p p l i e d , c o u p l e s who sought t h e r a p y f o r d i s t r e s s e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on measures of d y a d i c a d j u s t m e n t and s e x u a l and m a r i t a l commu-n i c a t i o n from c o u p l e s 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 . 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 s e x u a l 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 each o t h e r w h i l e f o r non d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s they do n o t . 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 a d j u stment and s e x u a l communication e x e r t a s t r o n g - 67 -influence on each other while for non distressed couples the influence i s moderate to low. I t appears that for distressed couples, sexual communication i s an i d e n t i f i a b l e variable of dyadic adjustment. More research i s necessary to establish any causal relationships between these variables. - 68 -REFERENCES Beck, D.F. Research findings on the outcomes of marital counseling. 1. Social Casework, 1975, 5_6_; 153-181. Bienvenu, M.J., Sr. Measurement of marital communication. The Family Coordinator, 1970, _19, 26-31. Bienvenu, M.J.,Sr. Counselor's and teacher's manual for the sexual communication inventory. Saluda, N.C.: Family L i f e Publications, Inc., 1980. Bi r c h l e r , G.R. Communication s k i l l s i n married couples. In A.S. Bellack and M. Hersen (Eds.), Research and  practice i n s o c i a l s k i l l s t r a i n i n g . New York: Plenum, 1979, 273-315. Burgess, E.W., and C o t t r e l l , L. The prediction of adjust-ment. American Soci o l o g i c a l Review, 1936, _1; 739-744. Burr, W.R. Theory construction and the sociology of the  family. New York: Wiley, 1973. Chesney, A.P., Blakeney, P.E., Chan, F.A., and Cole, CM. The impact of sex therapy on sexual behaviors and marital communication. Journal of Sex and Marital  Therapy, 1981, 7(1) > 70-79. C o l l i n s , J.D. The effects of the conjugal relationship modification method on marital communication and adjustment. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 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 counseling program (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Minnesota, 1979) . Cronbach, L.J. C o e f f i c i e n t alpha and the in t e r n a l struc-ture of t e s t s . Psychometrika, 1951, 16_t 297-334. Everaerd, W., Dekker, J. A comparison of sex therapy and communication therapy. Journal of Sex and Marital  Therapy, 1981, 7_(4) , 278-289. Ford, C.S., and Beach, F.A. Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Signet, 1951. Frank, E., Anderson, C., and Rubenstein, D. Frequency of sexual dysfunction i n normal couples. New England Journal of Medicine, 1978, 299, 111-115. - 69 -Freud, S. Three essays on the theory of female sexuality. New York: Avon, 1962. F i r s t published i n 1905. Green, B.L. A c l i n i c a l approach to marital problems (2nd ed.). S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1981. Guerney, B.G. J r . Relationship enhancement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977. Gurman, A.S., and Kniskern, D.P. Handbook of family therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel, I n c . , 1981. Hicks, M.W., and P i a t t , M. Marital happiness and s t a b i l i t y : A review of the research in the s i x t i e s . Journal  of Marriage and the Family, 1970, 3_2/ 553-574. Jacobson, N.S., and Martin, B. Behavioral marriage therapy: Current status. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1976, 83 , 540-556. Joanning, H. The long-term effects of the couple communica-tion program. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 1982, 8_; 463-468. Kahn, M. Non-verbal communication and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Family Process, 1970, 9_, 449-453. 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 for couples and f a m i l i e s . I n A.S. Gurman and D.P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy. New York: Brunner/ Mazel, 1981. Lewis, R.A., and Spanier, G.B. Theorizing about the quality and s t a b i l i t y of marriage. In W. Burr, R. H i l l , F.I. Nye, and I . Reiss (Eds.). Contemporary theories  about the family (vol. 1 ) . New York: Free Press, 1979. Lobitz, W.C, and Lobitz, G.K. C l i n i c a l assessment i n the treatment of sexual dysfunctions. I n : J. LoPiccolo and L. LoPiccolo (Eds.), Handbook of sex therapy. New York: Plenum Press, 1978. Lobitz, W.C, and LoPiccolo, J. New methods i n the behavioral treatment of sexual dysfunction. Journal of  Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1972, 3, 265-271. - 70 -L o c k e , H.J., and 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 and v a l i d i t y . M a r r i a g e and F a m i l y L i v i n g , 1 9 5 9 , 2 1 ; 2 5 1 - 2 5 5 . L o P i c c o l o , J . and L o b i t z , W.C. B e h a v i o r t h e r a p y o f s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n . I n : L.A. Hamerlynck, L.C. Handy, and E. J . Mash ( E d s . ) , B e h a v i o r change: Methodology, c o n c e p t s and p r a c t i c e . Champaign, 1 1 1 . , Research P r e s s , 1 9 7 3 . L o P i c c o l o , J . , and M i l l e r , V. A program f o r enhancing t h e s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r normal c o u p l e s . C o u n s e l i n g  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 c o u p l e . S e x u a l B e h a v i o r , 1 9 7 1 , 9_, 3 2 - 3 7 . Mace, D.R., and Mace, V.G. M a r r i a g e enrichment-wave o f t h e f u t u r e . 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., and Johnson, V.E. Human s e x u a l r e s p o n s e . B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown, 1 9 6 6 . M a s t e r s , W.H., and Johnson, V.E. Human s e x u a l inadequacy. B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown, 1 9 7 0 . M i l l e r , S., C o r r a l e s , R., and Wackman, D.B. Recent p r o g r e s s i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g and f a c i l i t a t i n g m a r i t a l communica-t i o n . The F a m i l y C o o r d i n a t o r , 1975" , 4 ? 71 4 3 r r l 5 2 " . , M i l l e r , S., N u n n a l l y , E.W., and Wackman, D.B. Couple communication I : T a l k i n g t o g e t h e r . M i n n e a p o l i s : I n t e r p e r s o n a l Communication Programs, 1 9 7 9 . M i l l e r , S., Wackman, D., N u n n a l l y , E., and S a l i n e , C. S t r a i g h t t a l k . New York: Rawson Wade, 1 9 8 1 . Navran, L. Communication and adjustment 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 and 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 M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y , 1 9 7 0 , 3_2, 5 0 1 - 5 3 8 . O l s o n , D.H.L., and S p r e n k l e , D.H. Emerging t r e n d s i n t r e a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e 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 nrichment programs i n N o r t h A m e r i c a - Re p o r t 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 , 1975, 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, and 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_, 305-309. Rogers, C R . C l i e n t - c e n t e r e d t h e r a p y . B o s t o n : Houghton M u f f l i n , 1951. 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 . In H.S. K a p l a n , The new sex t h e r a p y . New York: B r u n n e r / M a z e l , I n c . , 1974. Sager, C J . The r o l e o f . sex t h e r a p y i n m a r i t a l t h e r a p y . American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y , 1976 , 133, 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 dyads. J o u r n a l of M a r r i a g e and 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 . J o u r n a l  of Sex and M a r i t a l Therapy, 1979, 5, 288-300. S p a n i e r , G.B., and C o l e , C L . Toward 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 o f m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . I n t e r n a t i o n a l  J o u r n a l of 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., and L e w i s , R.A. M a r i t a l q u a l i t y : A r e v i e w of t h e s e v e n t i e s . J o u r n a l of 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 case 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 : Theory, r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e , 1973, 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 e nrichment program: A c t u a l i z i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . F a m i l y  C o o r d i n a t o r , 1975, 24_, 161-165. Udry, 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 . New York: J.B. L i p p i n c o t t , 1966. 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 and F a m i l y Therapy, 1982, 8^ , 345-354. - 72 -Wampler, K.S., and S p r e n k l e , D. The Mi 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., and J a c k s o n , D.D. P r a g m a t i c s of human communication. New York: 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 and 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 ( S p a n i e r , 1976) - 78 -'DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the following l i s t . (Place a check mark to indicate your answer.) Almost Occa- Fre- Almost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1. Handling family finances 2. Matters of . Recreation 3. Religious matters 4. Demonstrations of Affection 5. Friends 6. Sex relations 7. Conventionality (correct or proper behavior) 8. Philosophy of l i f e 9. Ways of dealing with parents or in-laws 10. Aims, goals, and things believed important 11. Amount of time spent together 12. Making major decisions 13. Household tasks 14. Leisure time interests and a c t i v i t i e s 15. Career decisions - 79 -More A l l Most of often Occa-the time the time than not sionally Rarely Never 16. How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separa-tion, or termi-nating 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 in your mate? 20. Do you ever regret that you married? (or lived together?) 21. How often do you and your partner quarrel? 22. How often do you and your mate "get on each others' nerves"? Every Almost Occa-day every sionally Rarely Never 23. Do you kiss your mate? Very A l l Most Some few None 24. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate? Less than Once or Once or once a twice a twice a Once a More Never month month week day Often 25. Have a stimulating exchange of ideas - 80 -Less than Once or Once or once a twice a twice a Once a More Never month month week day often 26. Laugh together 27. Calmy d i s c u s s something 28. Work together on a p r o j e c t These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate i f e i t h e r item below caused d i f f e r e n c e s of opinions or were problems i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p during the past few weeks. (Check yes or no.) Yes No 29. Being too t i r e d f o r sex. 30. Not showing love. 31. The dots on the f o l l o w i n g l i n e represent d i f f e r e n t degrees of happiness i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p . The middle p o i n t , "happy", represents the degree of happiness of most r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Please c i r c l e the dot which best describes the degree of happiness, a l l things considered, of your r e l a t i o n s h i p . Extremely F a i r l y A L i t t l e Happy Very Extremely P e r f e c t Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy Happy Happy 32. Which of the f o l l o w i n g statements best describes how you f e e l about the future of your r e l a t i o n s h i p ? Place a check mark on the appropriate l i n e . I want desperately f o r my r e l a t i o n s h i p to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that i t does. I want very much f o r my r e l a t i o n s h i p to succeed, and w i l l do a l l I can to see that i t does. I want very much f o r my r e l a t i o n s h i p to succeed, and w i l l do my f a i r share to see that i t does. I t would be nic e i f my r e l a t i o n s h i p succeeded, but I can't do much more than I am doing now to help i t succeed. I t would be nic e i f i t succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am doing now to keep the r e l a t i o n s h i p going. My r e l a t i o n s h i p can never succeed, and there i s no more that I can do to keep the r e l a t i o n s h i p going. - 81 -APPENDIX D MARITAL COMMUNICATION INVENTORY (Bienvenu, 1970) - 82 -Some-U s u a l l y t i m e s Seldom Never 1. Do you and y o u r husband d i s c u s s t h e manner i n which the f a m i l y income 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 you? 3. Do you have a tendency t o keep your f e e l i n g s t o y o u r -s e l f ? 4. I s your husband's tone o f v o i c e i r r i t a t i n g ? 5. Does he have a tendency t o say t h i n g s which would be b e t t e r l e f t u n s a i d ? 6. Are y o u r mealtime c o n v e r -s a t i o n s easy and p l e a s a n t ? 7. Do you f i n d y o u r s e l f keep-i n g a f t e r him about h i s f a u l t s ? 8. Does he seem t o under-s t a n d y o u r f e e l i n g s ? 9. Does your husband nag you? 10. Does he l i s t e n t o what you have t o say? 11. Does i t u p s e t you t o a g r e a t e x t e n t when your husband i s angry w i t h you? 12. Does he pay you c o m p l i -ments and say 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 towards you? - 83 -Some-U s u a l l y t i m e s Seldom Never 15. Does he l e t you f i n i s h t a l k i n g b e f o r e r e s p o n d i n g t o what you a r e s a y i n g ? 16. Do you and y o u r husband remain s i l e n t f o r l o n g p e r i o d s when you a r e angry w i t h one a n o t h e r ? 17. Does he a l l o w you t o pursue your own i n t e r e s t s and 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 you a r e de p r e s s e d o r d i s c o u r a g e d ? 19. Do you a v o i d e x p r e s s i n g d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h him because you a r e a f r a i d he w i l l g e t angry? 20. Does your husband c o m p l a i n t h a t you don 1 1 u n d e r s t a n d him? 21. Do you l e t y o u r husband know when you a r e d i s -p l e a s e d w i t h him? 22. Do you f e e l he says one t h i n g b u t r e a l l y means a n o t h e r ? 23. Do you h e l p him u n d e r s t a n d you by s a y i n g how you t h i n k , f e e l , and b e l i e v e ? 24. Are you and y o u r husband a b l e t o d i s a g r e e w i t h one a n o t h e r w i t h o u t l o s i n g y o u r tempers? 25. Do t h e two o f you argue a l o t o v e r money? - 84 -Some-U s u a l l y t i m e s Seldom Never 26. When a problem 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 w i t h o u t l o s i n g c o n t r o l o f y o u r emotions? 27. Do you f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o e x p r e s s y o u r t r u e f e e l i n g s t o him? 28. Does he o f f e r you c o o p e r a -t i o n , encouragement and e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t i n y o u r r o l e ( d u t i e s ) as a w i f e ? 29. Does y o u r husband i n s u l t you when angry w i t h you? 30. Do you and y o u r husband 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 ? 31. Does your husband accuse you of n ot l i s t e n i n g t o what he sa y s ? 32. Does he l e t you 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 r a t h e r than y o u r 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 than i n you? 35. Do you f e e l t h a t i n most m a t t e r s y o u r husband knows what you a r e t r y i n g t o say? 36. Does he mono 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 you and y o u r husband t a l k about t h i n g s which a r e o f i n t e r e s t t o b o t h o f you? 38. Does y o u r husband s u l k o r pout v e r y much? - 85 -Some-U s u a l l y t i m e s Seldom N e v e r 39. Do you 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 you and y o u r h u s b a n d d i s c u s s y o u r p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s w i t h e a c h o t h e r ? 41. Can y o u r h u s b a n d t e l l what k i n d o f day you have h a d w i t h o u t a s k i n g ? 42. Do you a d m i t t h a t y ou a r e wrong when you know t h a t y ou a r e wrong a b o u t some-t h i n g ? 43. Do you and y o u r h u s b a n d t a l k o v e r p l e a s a n t t h i n g s t h a t happen d u r i n g t h e day? 44. Do you h e s i t a t e t o d i s c u s s c e r t a i n t h i n g s w i t h y o u r h u s b a n d b e c a u s e you a r e a f r a i d he m i g h t h u r t y o u r f e e l i n g s ? 45. Do you p r e t e n d you 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 l i s t e n i n g ? 46. Do t h e two o f you e v e r s i t down j u s t t o t a l k t h i n g s o v e r ? - 86 -APPENDIX E SEXUAL COMMUNICATION INVENTORY (Bienvenu, 1977) - 87 -YES NO SOME-u s u a l l y seldom TIMES 1. Does your p a r t n e r d i s c u s s c l e a r l y m a t t e r s r e l a t e d t o sex? 2. Do you 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 you worry 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 sex w i t h someone o t h e r than your p a r t n e r ? 5. Do you and your p a r t n e r know each o t h e r ' s f e e l i n g s about t h e b i r t h c o n t r o l method you use? 6. Do you f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o ask your p a r t n e r t o engage i n s e x u a l a c t i v i t y ? 7. Do you and your p a r t n e r d i s c u s s ways t o improve y o u r s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ? 8. Do you and y o u r p a r t n e r d i s a g r e e o v er how o f t e n you want t o have i n t e r c o u r s e ? 9. Do you t h i n k y o ur p a r t n e r under-s t a n d s y o u r s e x u a l needs? 10. Does your p a r t n e r c o m p l a i n o f n o t u n d e r s t a n d i n g h i s / h e r s e x u a l needs? 11. Do you 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 of y o u r s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e s ? ( t o g e t h e r ) 12. Does y o u r p a r t n e r make s e x u a l needs known t o you? 13. W h i l e h a v i n g i n t e r c o u r s e , do you and y o u r p a r t n e r t a l k t o each o t h e r ? ( P l e a s e go back and c i r c l e a n y . q u e s t i o n s t h a t were n o t c l e a r t o you) - 88 -YES NO SOME-u s u a l l y seldom TIMES 14. Do you and y o u r p a r t n e r d i s c u s s t h e m a t t e r o f 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 o t h e r ? 15. Are you and your 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 o t h e r ? 16. Do you 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 you would l i k e some p h y s i c a l a f f e c t i o n ? 17. Do you and y o u r p a r t n e r d i s c u s s y o u r s e x u a l f a n t a s i e s w i t h each o t h e r ? 18. Do you 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 o ver something i n y o u r s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ? 19. Would i t be d i f f i c u l t f o r you t o a c c e p t s u g g e s t i o n s from y o u r p a r t n e r f o r i m p r o v i n g y o ur sex l i f e ? 20. Would 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 a c c e p t s u g g e s t i o n s from you f o r i m p r o v i n g y o u r sex l i f e ? 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. Would i t be d i f f i c u l t f o r your p a r t n e r t o l i s t e n i f you wanted t o t a l k about sex? 23. I s i t OK f o r you t o r e f u s e y o ur p a r t n e r a s e x u a l r e q u e s t ? 24. Would i t u p s e t you a g r e a t d e a l i f y o u r p a r t n e r r e f u s e d a s e x u a l r e q u e s t from you? ( P l e a s e go back and c i r c l e any q u e s t i o n s t h a t were n o t c l e a r t o you) - 89 -YES NO SOME-u s u a l l y seldom TIMES 25. Do you t e l l y o u r p a r t n e r when you have e n j o y e d 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 you know when a s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e has been e n j o y a b l e ? 27. Do you 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 which you e n j o y s e x u a l l y ? 28. Does y o u r p a r t n e r ask you 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 h a r d f o r you t o g e t " t o t h e p o i n t " i n d i s c u s s i n g s e x u a l m a t t e r s ? 30. Do you f i n d i t h a r d t o l e t your p a r t n e r know what you e n j o y s e x u a l l y ? ( P l e a s e go back and c i r c l e any q u e s t i o n s t h a t were not 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 i s a p p r e c i a t e d , P l e a s e be a s s u r e d of anonymity and s t r i c t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Age: Male under 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 + Female E d u c a t i o n l e v e l : High s c h o o l U n i v e r s i t y C o l l e g e T e c h n i c a l P o s t g r a d Number o f y e a r s m a r r i e d ; Number of c h i l d r e n : 5 9 2 -6 -10 - 14 15 - 20 21 - 25 25 + 0 1 2 3 4 more than 4 M a r i t a l s t a t u s : m a r r i e d common-law c o h a b i t i n g f i r s t m a r r i a g e second m a r r i a g e t h i r d m a r r i a g e 6. R e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n : 7. O c c u p a t i o n : 8. Approximate income: 9. E t h n i c background: Frequency (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 n Under 3 0 31-39 40-49 50-59 60 + Age: 44 4 21 16 3 0 n High S c h o o l U n i v e r -s i t y P o s t Grad Tech-n i c a l C o l l e g e E d u c a t i o n : 44 6 21 12 3 2 Years n 2-5 6-9 10-14 15-20 21-25 25 + M a r r i e d : 44 4 10 13 11 4 2 Number of n 0 1 2 3 4 4 + C h i l d r e n : 44 4 5 23 8 4 0 M a r i t a l n M a r r i e d • Common Law C o - h a b i t S t a t u s : 44 40 4 0 T h i s m a r r i a g e n F i r s t Second T h i r d T h i r d + i s t h e : 44 39 3 2 0 Approximate J o i n t n 22 Less than 19999 19999 29999 29999 39999 39999 49999 More than 49999 Income 2 i 7 0 12 R e l i g i o u s n None C a t h o l i c P r o t e s t a n t J e w i s h Other A f f i l i a t i o n 44 12 5 24 0 3 Frequency (Percent) Distributions of Couples i n Therapy Within Various Demographic Categories n Under 30 31^39 40-49 50-59 60 + Age: 44 11 20 10 2 1 n High School Univer-s i t y Post Grad Tech-n i c a l College Education: 44 19 9 5 5 6 Years n 2-5 6-9 10-14 15-20 21-25 25+ Married 44': 16 6 8 12 2 0 Number of n 0 1 2 3 4 4 + Children 44 11 10 10 7 4 2 Marital n Married Common Law Co-habit Status 44 40 4 0 This marriage n F i r s t . Second Third Third+ i s the: 44 36 7 1 0 Approximate Joint n Less than 19999 19999 29999 29999 39999 39999 49999 More than 49999 Income 22 2 2 7 7 4 Religious n None Catholic. Protestant Jewish Other A f f i l i a t i o n 44 13 5 24 2 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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054245/manifest

Comment

Related Items