UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Marital adjustment and ego states in transactional analysis Hiland, Patricia Ann 1978-02-26

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 H54.pdf [ 5.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054292.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054292-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054292-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054292-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054292-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054292-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054292-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054292-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054292.ris

Full Text

MARFT/AL ADJUSTMENT AND EGO STATES IN TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS by PATRICIA ANN HILAND B.Ed., (Secondary), University of British Columbia, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Counselling Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA c) Patricia Ann Hiland, 1978 in April, 1978 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Counselling Psychology The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the ego state patterns of couples and their level of marital adjustment. The research sample consisted of eighty-one married or cohabitating couples. Marital or dyadic adjustment was measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) and ego states were measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire (Kealy, 1975) . On the basis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale results, two groups were formed by rank ordering the couples' combined scores. Group I consisted of the top thirty of the eighty-one couples and Group II consisted.of the bottom thirty of the eighty-one couples. A t-test (a = .001) was calculated to analyze the difference between the means of the two groups on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the results showed that the high dyadically group differed significantly (a = .001) from the low dyadically adjusted group. Ego state difference scores for the couples were calculated by subtracting the male ego state scores from the female ego state scores for all six ego states. Six t-tests (a = .05) were calculated to analyze the differences between the means of each of the six ego state measures for the two groups. Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between the Critical Parent and Adaptive Child ego state scores and the Nurturing Parent and Adaptive Child ego state scores for the couples of each group, in order to test the hypotheses regarding the relationships of these variables. Descriptive data were presented to illustrate any differences or similarities in personality profiles between the two groups. The results of the statistical testing of the null hypotheses, including the t-tests and the correlation co efficients (a = .05), indicated that of the eight hypotheses, only the hypotheses regarding the Adult ego state variable was rejected. According to the results it would appear that the high dyadically adjusted couples evidenced statistically significant (a = .05) lower ego state difference scores in the Adult ego state than the low dyadically adjusted couples. This statistically significant result was in accordance with the literature on marriage, which holds that similarity of spouses (homogamy) has a positive effect on the marital relationship and its corresponding satisfaction and adjustment. Reasons for the lack of statistically significant results, other than for the Adult ego state variable, were discussed and recommendations for future research were suggested. -IV-TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH 5 Transactional Analysis TheoryStructural Analysis 6 Transactional Analysis 9 Transactions in Marriage . . . and Other Close Relationships 13 Transactional Analysis Research 6 Transactional Analysis and Marriage 17 Homo gamy 19 Heterogamy 25 III. METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN 30 Specific QuestionsDefinition of Terms 31 Design 35 Experimental Procedure 3Hypotheses  7 Statement of the General Hypothesis 37 Statement of the Specific Hypothesis .... 37 Instrumentation 39 The Personal Response Questionnaire 3 9' The Dyadic Adjustment Scale '.. 42 Description of Population and Sampling Procedures 4 3 Procedure in Collecting Data 46 -v-Table of Contents continued Page Chapter Limitations 48 Statistical Analysis 4IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 50. Descriptive Data 50 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores 5 0 Summary 52 Results of Hypothesis Testing 5Results for the General Hypothesis 52 Results for the Specific Hypotheses 54 Summary 63 V. DICUSSION AND SUMMARY 65 Restatement of the Problem 6Description of Procedures Used 65 Principal Findings and Conclusions 66-Recommendations for Future Research 69\ BIBLIOGRAPHY 72 APPENDIX A: Personal Response Questionnaire 76 APPENDIX B: Dyadic Adjustment Scale 81 APPENDIX C: Scatter Diagrams ^Representing The Correlational Relationships of : The Critical Parent Ego State Scores With The Adaptive Child Ego State Scores for-Both Groups 86 APPENDIX D: Scatter Diagrams Representing The Correlational Relationships of The Nurturing Parent Ego State Scores With The Adaptive Child Ego State Scores for .Both Groups -vi-LIST OF TABLES TABLE DESCRIPTION Page I Description of Four Groups 46 II Means and Standard Deviations of Ego State Difference Scores for Group I and Group II 5Q1 III t-values for Differences Between the Means of the Ego State Difference Scores of the High Dyadically Adjusted Group and the Low Dyadically Adjusted Group 53 . IV. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients Between the Critical Parent Ego State Scores and the Adaptive Child Ego State Scores of the High Adjusted Couples and the Low Adjusted Couples 60 V. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients Between the Nurturing Parent Ego State Scores and the Adaptive Child Ego State Scores of the High Adjusted Couples and the Low Adjusted Couples 62 -vii-LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Structure of the Personality 8 2. An Example of a Parallel Transaction 10 3. An Example of a Crossed Transaction 11 4. An Example of an Ulterior Transaction 12 5. Profile of Mean Differences for Group I and Group II 51 '6. Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Critical Parent Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II 55 7. Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Nurturing Parent Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II 5-5 8. Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Adult Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II 5 6 9. Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Adaptive Child Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II 56 10. Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Rebellious Child Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II 5 8 11. Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Natural Child Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II 5 9/ -viii-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am thankful to the many persons who have assisted me with the research project, especially to my family who provided continual encouragement and support in doing the study. I would also like to express my appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Norm Amundson and my committee members Dr. Harold Ratzlaff and Dr. Bill Borgen for their ideas and helpful comments during the course of the study. A special thanks is given to Dr. Ratzlaff, who provided valuable assistance in the design and statistical analysis of the study. In addition, appreciation is extended to Dr. Todd Rogers for his contribution to the research. Lastly, I am thankful to the counsellors, couples and to all those who participated in the reserach project. THRISHA HILAND, Vancouver, Spring, 1978 Chapter I INTRODUCTION Marriage research is rich in literature and continues to be a major source of research in the present. One may well ask why research is still being done, as it has been in process since the turn of the century, when Pearson first compared the anthropometric characteristics of spouses in 1890. However, during this time period of some eighty years, marriage and the methods of research have undergone tremendous changes. Early studies of marriage were for the most part atheoretical and had few specific hypotheses to investigate. The studies borrowed piecemeal from the general theories of the relevant disciplines; i.e. psychology, social psychology, sociology, etc. Until only recently has research been done to fit all current knowledge together into a comprehen sive conceptual framework, tailored to the question of marriage itself. Moreover, the classic studies of marriage, Terman (1938), Burgess and Cottrell (1939), Burgess and Wallin (1935), and Locke (1953) are based on marriages that were contracted as much as thirty years ago and need replication in this era of change. Furthermore, there have been significant changes in marriage, particularily in the last two decades and much of -2-the earlier research "now seems obsolete or at least questionable in the light of our changing society. New questions have been raised by the sexual revolution, the women's movement, etc. which urgently need answering" (Blood, 1976, p. 8) . According to their review of the research in the sixties, Hicks and Piatt (1970, p. 555) found that "for a variety of social and personal reasons, there is a shift to ward the companionship marriage", which places greater em phasis on the quality of the marital relationship and the personality interaction of the spouses. Many of the research studies done on the marital relationship and personality interaction of the spouses, including those by Luckey, 1960 a, 1960 b, 1964 a, 1964 b; Kelly, 1941; Dymond, 1954 ; Preston et. al_. , 1952; Murstein & Beck, 1972; Murstein & Glaudin, 1966 , have found that con gruence of perceptions of self and spouse and similarity of spouses (homogamy) enhance the marital relationship and are positively associated with marital satisfaction. The tendency toward "likes marrying likes", or homogamy, is not the only tendency found in the literature on marriage. There has also been the proposition that "unlikes" marry (heterogamy) and that this is an important element in the quality of the marital relationship and its concomitant satisfaction (Winch, Ktsanes & Ktsanes, 1954; Kerckoff & Davis, 1962; Toman, 1962; Katz, Cohen & Castiglione, 196 3) . -3-However, despite the findings which support heterogamy, the preponderance of literature on marriage favours the tendency towards homogamy in enhancing the marital relationship. . Hence, it is the position of this researcher that one would expect similarity of spouses to be the major factor in predicting marital satisfaction and adjustment. Thus, it is the main purpose of this research study to take a closer look at specific marriages to explore whether similarity of spouses has a positive effect on the marital relationship. In doing so, the researcher will look at marriage in the trans actional analysis framework and will apply the concepts of transactional analysis theory in analysing the personality interaction and expressive aspects of the marital relationship, which are thought to be associated with marital satisfaction and adjustment. In particular, the study will focus on the trans actional analysis concept of ego states, to see whether couples who are identified as being high dyadically adjusted will show lower ego state difference scores than couples who are identified as being low dyadically adjusted. Transactional Analysis (TA) is a psychological approach originated by Eric Berne in the 1950's. It is a method of studying human behaviour and relationships, which has led to an increased understanding of what is happening within the in dividual and what is happening between individuals. Although there has been no systematic research in the area of trans actional analysis and its application to marriage, several authors (Berne, 1961; Harris, 1967; Campos and McCormick, 1972) -4-haye suggested its use in improving the marital relationship and in marriage counselling. The overall rationale of this study, then, is to provide further empirical investigation of the personality interaction of spouses through application of the transactional analysis conceptual system. This study has significance in that it is the first study to investigate experimentally the marital relationship through the transactional analysis framework. Moreover, it is the opinion of this researcher that transactional analysis could have fruitful application to marital counselling. The study of a couple's ego states would not only aid the therapist in the counselling process to identify areas of possible marital conflict, but would also give additional objective data to couples who are planning to marry. -5-Chapter II THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH In general, the focus of this chapter will be to explain the theory and to outline the research for each of the three areas: the theory of transactional analysis as a conceptual basis for understanding the marital relationship; and the theories of homogamy and heterogamy as elements of the marital relationship and their corresponding effect on marital satisfaction and adjustment. A. Transactional Analysis Theory Transactional Analysis is a system of analysis developed from the work of Dr. Eric Berne, who saw it as an extension of psychoanalysis. Transactional analysis is a rational approach to understanding behaviour and is based on the assumption that any individual can learn to trust himself, think for himself, make his own decisions and express his feelings. Its principles can be applied on the job, in the home, in the classroom, in the community -- wherever people deal with people. Transactional analysis theory is divided into four kinds of analyses: structural analysis, which explains what is happening within the individual; transactional analysis, which explains what is happening between two or more in dividuals; game analysis, which explains particular kinds of transactions which have bad feeling Dayoffs: and script -6-analysis, which explains the life plan that an individual may be living. Since structural analysis, the division of the self into ego states and the analysis of transactions are the two constructs most pertinent for the present study, this theoretical review will focus on these two concepts. 1. Structural Analysis Berne (1961) used the term structural analysis to denote the division of the self into three ego states: Parent, Adult and Child. This notion of ego states stands as one of the major cornerstones upon which transactional analysis is based (Steiner, 1971) . Berne defines an ego state as "A consistent pattern of feeling and experience directly related to a corresponding consistent pattern of behaviour" (Berne, 1966, p. 364) . Berne's theory evolved from his observation that be havioural changes occurred in an individual when a new stimulus, such as a word, gesture or sound entered his focus. These changes involved facial expressions, work intonations, body movements, gestures and posture. It was as though there were different people inside the individual. At certain times one or the other of these inner different people seemed to be in control of the individual's total personality. Moreover, according to Berne each individual has only a limited repertoire of ego states which are separate and dis tinct sources of behaviour. These fall into three types: -7-(a) exteropsychic (Parent) , an ego state which is borrowed from parental and other significant authority figures and reproduces the feelings, attitudes, behaviour and res ponses of those figures; (b) neopsychic (Adult), an ego state which is concerned with the autonomous collecting and processing of data and is directed toward a logical appraisal of reality; and (c) archaepsychic (Child), an ego state which was established in childhood and reproduces the behaviour and feelings at a particular moment or time of the child's de velopment. Both Parent and Child ego states can be divided into two forms. The Parent is typically exhibited by either the "prejudiced Parent" or the "nurturing Parent". The "pre judiced Parent" is expressed by dogmatic and critical be haviours and tends to be filled with arbitrary non-rational attitudes or opinions. The "nurturing Parent" is often ex pressed as sympathy for another individual and is demonstrated by supporting and nurturing behaviours. The Child ego state is also exhibited in two forms, the "adaptive Child" and the "natural Child". The "adaptive Child" is expressed by behaviour which is responsive to parental influences, such as compliance or withdrawal. The "natural Child" is expressed by autonomous forms of behaviour and res ponds to situations spontaneously and intuitively. Thus, the structure of the individual's personality can be diagrammed as follows: -8-FIGURE 1 Prejudiced Parent Nurturing Parent Adult Adaptive Child Natural Child Structure of the Personality One of the goals of Transactional Analysis is that there be a balanced relationship between the three ego states, and a free flow of psychic energy among all the ego states so that a person can actually shift from one ego state to another when it is appropriate. It is helpful to think of each ego state as having boundaries. According to Berne (1961), ego boundaries can be thought of as semipermeable membranes through which psychic energy can flow fron one ego state to another. "Ego boundaries must be semipermeable; otherwise, psychic energy would be bound up in one ego state and unable to move about spontaneously as situations change" (James & Jongeward, 1971, p. 226). In addition, it is desirable to have the Adult ego state in executive control of the other ego states. If the Adult -9-is free from negative influence from the Parent and the Child ego states, the individual is able to make autonomous decisions. Thus, the person who has Adult executive control ... "learns to exercise Adult insight and control so that these child-like qualities only emerge at appropriate times and in appropriate company" (Berne, 1966, p.306). Hence, a strong Adult ego state is an essential requirement of a fully functioning person and allows appropriate expression of all ego states, because each has its contribution to make a total personality. 2. Transactional Analysis Communication with people is done by means of transactions. A transaction is a verbal and/or nonverbal communication between two or more individuals. It consists of a stimulus and a response between specific ego states, and it may involve any combination of ego states. A transaction may be simple, involving only two ego states, or complex, involving three or four ego states. A conversation consists of a series of trans actions linked together. There are three basic kinds of transactions, parallel, crossed and ulterior. There is also a corresponding rule of communication for each kind of transaction. A transaction is parallel when someone aims a word, phrase, gesture or action at another person and that person replies in the same ego state, such as Parent, Adult or Child. If the response is appropriate to the stimulus, the -10-person will get the expected ego state of the other and the transaction can continue. Berne describes a parallel transaction as one which is ... "appropriate and expected and follows the natural order of healthy human relationships" (Berne, 1964, p.29). An essential feature is its ongoing nature. A parallel transaction can be diagramed as the following figure shows. The communication vectors are parallel. FIGURE 2 X: "How old are you? II Y: I ' m thirty-two n X Y An Example of a Parallel Transaction -11-The second type of transaction, a crossed transaction, occurs when the respondent reacts from a different ego state than the initiator expected. If the stimulus and response lines in a diagram are not parallel, the transaction is a crossed transaction. When this crossing occurs, the intended communication usually breaks down and the transaction ceases until there is a realignment of ego states by one or both of the individuals. Crossed transactions often have an element of surprise and frequently result in misunderstandings. The following diagram is an example of a crossed transaction FIGURE 3 X Y An Example of a Crossed Transaction The third type of transaction, an ulterior transaction, is more complex than parallel or crossed ones. They differ in that they always involve more than two ego states. It is a verbal or non-verbal message with a hidden psychological -12-meaning, which is disguised under a socially acceptable level. The communication vectors in an ulterior transaction can be either parallel or crossed, but the result of the communication is confusion, because the verbal message may be entirely different from the one which is being given nonverbally. The following is an illustration of an ulterior trans action. FIGURE 4 Saleswoman Customer A Saleswoman: "This coat is our latest style, but it may be too expensive for you". Customer's A."Yes, you are right considering my budget". The statement was made to the customer's Adult, but the non verbal message comes from the saleswoman's Child ego state and is sent to the customer's Child ego state. The customer must choose which message to respond to and may feel confused. An Example of an Ulterior Transaction -13-3. Transactions in Marriage and other Close Relationships (a) Parallel Transactions Relationships which are long-lasting and happy often have an abundance of parallel transactions. The primary value of parallel transactions is that communication is ongoing and this contributes to a healthy human relationship. However, as Berne points out, a parallel trans action "is a necessary but not the sole condition for a 'good' relationship; if the transactions become un palatable enough, the relationship may deteriorate even though the vectors remain parallel" (Berne, 1966 p. 225). A relationship that works on only one or two ego state levels is likely to remain unchanging and not dynamic. Thus, a relationship based mainly on Parent-Child parallel transactions may become boring or frustrating to one or both individuals involved. (b)' Crossed Transactions An abundance of crossed transactions can also be a disadvantage in close relationships. Although crossed transactions can be useful, especially to stop a psychological game or to change a static relationship, communication is usually interrupted when they are used, and someone usually ends up feeling puzzled, put down or misunderstood. This can lead to further cross-ups and resentments. -14-Hence, if a marriage relationship is based primarily on crossed transactions, the lines of communication would continually be crossing and the communication would break off until there is a realignment of ego states. (c) Ulterior Transactions Relationships that rely on a plenitude of ulterior transactions are likely to be unhappy ones. Ulterior transactions often lead to games which have bad feeling payoffs. The individuals involved in such a relationship may never be open and honest with one another and may use devious manipulation to get what they want (James and Jongeward, 19 75) . (d) Adult - to - Adult Transactions As mentioned previously, it is advantageous to have the Adult ego state in executive control of the person ality. This is especially important in marriage and close relationships where persons relate on an intimate level. Having the Adult in executive control does not mean that the individual is always acting from the Adult. It means that "The Adult is 'tuned in' and knows when an impulse may be acted on with great" pleasure and when it must be contained or modified to fit the reality of the moment" (James and Jongeward, 1971, p.249). 4 -15-The Adult makes decisions about what is appropriate to use from the Parent or Child and allows for their expression. This enables the individual to switch ego states autonomously, maintaining a balanced re lationship between the three ego states and permitting psychic energy to flow freely among all the ego states. The Adult - as - executive position is parti cularly valuable in marriage and close relationships since it allows for a variety of transactions and gives a dyanamic and flexible quality to the relationship. If two individuals are able to be sympathetic and caring of each other, if they gather and use information to solve problems together, if they laugh and have fun together, they are using the full range of their ego states. Thus, according to Berne, one of the important goals of transactional analysis if "to establish the most open and authentic communication possible between the effective and intellectual components of the personality" (Berne, 1966, p. 216). This is especially essential in a marriage or else relationship, if the relationship is to be satisfying to the people in volved. -16-B. Transactional Analysis Research Little research has been done in the area of transactional analysis and even less has been done on the use of TA in marriage. Although many books and journal articles have been published on TA, most of them have been theoretical in nature. One of the reasons why research has been so limited in transactional analysis is that most people involved in TA are clinicians and few efforts have been made to verify transactional analysis concepts empirically. However, a few researchers have verified the existance of the three ego states, as Berne indicated. Also there has been some material written on transactional analysis and marriage in several books. Dr. George Thomson (19 72) demonstrated the validity of ego-state recognition in his research. He developed an in strument with audio tapes, which was illustrative of the three ego states (P, A, and C). He found that people who were not familar with transactional analysis, as well as TA experts, could all identify ego states with a high degree of accuracy, once the concept of ego states was explained to them and de fined. As a result of his findings, he supported Berne's contention that ego states are identifiable phenomena and can be consistently identified. Dr. David McCarley (1971) designed the Ego State Inventory which consists of a series of cartoons showing people inter acting in various social situations. A comment or question is made from the Adult ego state in each cartoon and the res pondent has five choices from which to answer, corresponding -17-to the Punitive (Critical Parent), Nurturing Parent, Adult, Adaptive Child or Rebellious Child ego states. McCarley used the inventory to determine whether or not individuals in five different professions showed a predominance of one or more different ego states, corresponding to the particular demands of the profession. His results were not conclusive „ However, they indicated that the ego state is an identifiable concept and that it can be measured objectively. In addition, a transactional analysis clinician, Dr. John M. Dusay, has devised the idea of egograms, which he uses in his clinical practice. "Egograms represent the intensity and frequency of the stimuli emanating from an ego-state, and they provide visual symbols of the predominant ego states" (Dusay, 1972, p. 38). He reports the validity and reliability of egograms in his clinical work, but there is no empirical evidence to support this. C. Transactional Analysis and Marriage As mentioned previously, there is little information on the use of transactional analysis in marriage, although some material has been written by transactional analysis clinicians and theorists. According to Thomas Harris, a well-known transactional analysis therapist and author, one of the most useful ways of applying transactional analysis to marriage is in premarital counselling. Harris suggests that the best marriages grow when both partners have similar backgrounds and similar reality -18-interests (Harris, 1967). Often important dissimilarities are ignored before a marriage because the Child ego states of the couple may be in charge of planning the marriage. Hence, Harris recommends that a personality diagram could be constructed of the couple contemplating marriage. The purpose of this would be to undertake a more thorough inquiry of what is in the Parent, Adult, and Child of each partner. In this way, the couple would have more objective data about each other, with the hope of predicting what kind of relationship might be possible in the future, and whether or not the relationship woul be a parallel one. Harris's suggestion is of particular relevance for this research study since it recommends the use of diagramming the couple's ego states to find out if they are parallel with each other. Berne goes on further to say that the essential basis of the marriage is the secret contract between the two Children, the "contract of the script". "The selection of a mate from among all the possible candidates is based on this" (Berne, 1961, p. 215). The candidates are first sorted into those who give appropriate transactional responses, and those who do not. Then the field is narrowed down further among the former by game-testing, to reveal which of the trans-actionally eligible candidates will play the required games. Lastly, the final choice among the game-eligible candidates rests on the one who is most likely to go through with the whole script. Thus, the "partners are drawn together by the -19-intuitive assumption that their scripts are complementary" (Berne, 1961, p. 215). However, in some cases this parallel relationship may not be a healthy one. Therefore, as Berne says, one of the most important goals of transactional marriage therapy is that the relationships and games in the marriage "will have to be made optional instead of compulsive, so that destructive or unconstructive elements-can be eliminated" (Berne, 1961, p.. 216). D. Homogamy A review of the literature on marriage indicated that there has been a plethora of research studies done to in vestigate the effect of homogamy ("like marries like") on mate-selection, interpersonal attraction and marriage out come. However, there has also been support for the opposing point of view, or heterogamy ("unlikes" marry). This section will review the literature in the area of homogamy (similarity) and the literature on heterogamy (dissimilarity) will be reviewed in the following section. In all the early studies, homogamy (which is also known as assortative mating,), is the trend. Such investigations began in the 1920's and included the pioneering work of Brugess and Cottrell, Burgess and Wallin, Terman, Kirkpatrick, Kelly, Richardson and Locke. In a study done by Kelly (1940), personality ratings by five judges on thirty-six traits were obtained from three -20-hundred engaged couples. The reported findings were an analysis of assortative mating, as revealed by correlations between members of the 300 pairs for the following variables: Otis S-A, Bernreuter, Bell, Strong, and Allport-Vernon scores; attitudes towards marriage, church, divorce, housekeeping, entertaining, gardening, care of the lawn and rearing of children; and a number of physical traits. The raw assortative mating coefficients ranged from zero to +.42 with a median of +.13. However, when corrected for attentuation, the range of the coefficients was from zero to +.74 and the median was +.21. No negative correlations were indicated. Thus, the results found evidence in support of homogamy in human mating. In two other studies done on "Homogamy In Social Characteristics" (194 3) and "Homogamy in Personality Characteristics" (1944) by Burgess and Wallin, they found further evidence in support of homogamy. Their findings were based on a sample of one thousand engaged couples. The results of the coefficients of mean square contingencies indicated that assortative mating took place by social factors such as family background, courtship behaviour, conceptions of marriage, social participation, family relation ships, religious affiliation and behaviour. The degree of like mating with like varied by the group of items, the highest being religious affiliation and behaviour (.54), and the next highest (.38) for family cultural background (rural or urban child hood, social and economic status of parents, place of birth etc). It was also fairly high (.33) for courtship behaviour, -21-conceptions of marriage (.31), and social participation (124). The influence of homogamy was demonstrated by the fact that every one of the fifty-one items showed a higher actual than expected proportion of assortative unions and that all but six were high enough to be satis-tically significant, according to the chi-square tests which were done to evaluate statistical significance. Moreover, in their investigation of homogamy in personality characteristics, using the same sample of one thousand engaged couples, they found that the responses of the engaged couples to individual items of the Thurstone Neurotic Inventory and their total neurotic scores, conform in general to the theory of homogamy. Burgess and Wallin (1944) reported that of the forty-two items of the Inventory, fourteen of the items were statistically significant. In addition, the distribution of responses on all but one of the forty-two items studied, was in the direction of homogamy and none were heterogamous. Homogamy was also shown for height, weight, health and physical attractiveness. Another important paper on homogamy by Richardson (1939), reported on the results of studies done from 1928 - 19 39 on the resemblances of husband and wife. Richardson reported research indicating similarity of husband and wife in attitudes, values, information, work associations, opinions on current topics and interests. The results demonstrated that the correlations were higher in the intellectual and attitudinal traits than in the traits of temperament. Also none of the correlations were found to be reliably negative, ^ -22-as the theory of heterogamy would require. Thus, the early literature in the field of research on homogamy indicates the preponderance of homogamy or assortative mating over heterogamy. In addition, many other studies have been done in the last two decades by psycho logists and sociologists, which give further evidence to support the theory of homogamy in attitudes, interests, temperament, neurotic tendency and a number of other character istics. These studies have been done (to only cite a few) by Hollingshead (1950), Katz and Hill (1958) , Gurin, Veroff and Feld (1960) and Blood and Wolfe (1960) . As Schellenberg (1960) points out "Homogamy in social and cultural character istics is one of the few clear and consistent empirical generalizations to come out of studies of mate-selection. There can be no doubt that persons tend to marry other persons of similar age, residence, race, religion, socio-economic status, and education" (Schellenberg, 1960, p.157). However, the question of similarity in personality characteristics is less settled. The earlier trends of homo gamy research have changed emphasis from physical character istics to intellectual abilities and finally to personality traits (Burgess and Wallin, 1943). Individual psychology is accountable to some degree for the "field of eligibles" (Winch, 19 52), from which the mate must ultimately be selected. This has led current researchers to extend their investigations to psychological factors affecting mate-selection and marriage outcome. -23-One notable study which investigated the relationship of happiness and understanding in marriage to the similarity of husband and wife was done by Corsini (1956) . Twenty volunteer couples were given Burgess and Wallin's Marital Satisfaction test and a fifty item adjective Q sort, which the couples sorted for themselves and for how they predicted their mate would sort them. The correlation reported for couples' similarity in relation to marital happiness was .75 and was significant at the .01 level. Thus, the data provided support for the notion that happiness in marriage is enhanced by similarity of personality. This supports the earlier findings of Kelly (1941) and Dymond (1954) . Another study which gave further evidence to support the theory of similarity or homogamy was done by Pickford, Signori and Rempel (1966) . Three matched groups of married couples, a happily married- group, an unhappily married group and a group on the verge of separation, were given the Guildford Zimmerman Temperament Survey and the Burgess-Wallin General Satisfaction Schedule. The hypothesis tested was that similar or related personality traits would be related to marital happiness and conversely, that dissimilar or unrelated personality traits would be related to marital unhappiness. The results indicated that four of the traits showed a sig nificant positive correlation for the happily married group and the other six traits were all in the expected direction but were not significant. For those groups having troubles -24-in their marriages, only two of the traits were signi ficant, with five other traits being in the expected direction. It was found that happily married couples were similar in drive, energy, productivity, enthusiasm, self-control, serious-mindedness, deliberateness, persistency of effort, friendliness and agreeability. The data gave fairly consistent evidence that marital happiness or adjustment was related to similarity of personality traits in husband and wife and that dissimilarity was related to marital un-happiness or maladjustment; although the former was proved much stronger than the latter. Further evidence has been found in the research to support the association between marital success or satis faction and similarity or homogamy on certain variables: attitudes (Byrne & Blaylock, 1963), interpersonal attraction and agreement (Levinger & Breedlove, 1966), person per ception (Murstein & Beck, 1972; Luckey, 1960 a,- 1960 b, 1964 a; Kelly, 1941; Dymond, 1954; Preston et al., 1952; Mangus, 1957), personality correlates of spouse (Murstein & Glaudin, 1966; Luckey, 1964 b), and mental health (Murstein, 1967). Thus, there is overwhelming evidence in the literature which suggests that homogamy of husband and wife enhances the marital relationship and its corresponding satisfaction and adjustment. -25-E. Heterogamy-Heterogamy has also been referred to as the theory of complementary needs ("unlikes" marry). These two terms will be used interchangeably in this next section as they both mean one and the same thing. To quote Tharp (1963, p. 104), "In marriage research, no other hypothesis produced in the last decade has been as influential" as R.F. Winch's theory of complementary needs in mate selection. He and his associates have presented empirical evidence for viewing mate selection in terms of the influence of complementary, or dissimilar, rather than similar, pattern of needs. Briefly stated, the theory holds that although those variables, normally associated with the theory of homogamy in mate selection establishes a "field of eligibles", mate selection within this field is determined by a specific kind of heterogamy of motives - complementarity. Winch defines complementarity: When two persons, A and B, are interacting, we consider the resulting gratifications of both to be 'complementary' if one of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) the need or needs in A which are being gratified are 'different in kind' from the need or needs being gratified in B; or (2) the need or needs in A which are being gratified are 'very different in intensity' from the same needs in B which are also being gratified. (Winch, Ktsanes & Ktsanes, 1954, p. 243) . -26-Each individual seeks a mate within his or her field of eligibles who offers the greatest promise of providing maximum need satisfaction, as the partners act according to their complementary pattern of motives. Hence, if in dividuals A and B have complementary need patterns, "B1s resulting behaviour will be a greater source of gratifi cation to A than will be the case with the behaviour of C, who is psychically similar to A" (Winch ejt al. , 1954, p. 242) . Winch and his associates have done several studies to provide empirical evidence to support the theory of com plementary needs, and it would be helpful to look at some of these in detail. One major study done by Winch, Ktsanes and Ktsanes (1954), studied twelve needs from H.A. Murray's classifi cation of needs, as well as three general traits. The sample consisted of twenty-five undergraduate students in selected schools at North-western University and their spouses, a total of fifty persons. The sample was fairly homogeneous with respect to socio-economic status, religion, race, age, education and years married. Fortyrfour subvariables were identified and three methods of gathering the data were used: (1) a need interview, (2) a case-history interview, and (3) an eight-card thematic apperception test. The statis tical technique used in the study was the interspousal product-moment correlation, i.e. the husbands' subvariable scores times their respective wives' subvariable scores. -27-Out of 1,9 36 possible interspousal correlations, 388 were hypothesized as to direction of sign: a) that 344 interspousal correlations, each of which involved two different needs or traits, would be positive; and b) that 44 interspousal correlations involving the same need or trait would be negative (Winch ejt al., 1954, p. 245) . The results showed that three out of the five distri butions of correlations (those derived from the two analyses of the need interview and from the final conference) support the theory of complementary needs in mate selection,/ or heterogamy. The other two distributions, which were based upon the case-history interview and the TAT, did not support the theory. However, these latter distributions also did-not support the opposite theory of homogamous mate selection, as they clustered around zero. Thus, the bulk of evidence supports the hypothesis that individuals tend to select mates whose needs are dissimilar, rather than similar to their own. Another study which lends support to the theory of need complementarity in mate selection was done by Kerckhoff and Davis (1962). They used Schutz's FIRO scales and Farber's index of consensus to measure need complementarity and value consensus in ninety-four couples, who were seriously con sidering marriage. The results were then compared with progress toward permanence of their relationship over a seven-month period. The data indicated that there was no relation ship between complementarity or heterogamy and progress -28-toward permanence. But for the long-term couples, the relationship was significant at the .02 level in the in clusion area and at the .05 level in the control area, as measured by Schutz1s scale. In the affection area, the direction of the relationship was the same but not statistically significant. Kerckhoff and Davis interpreted the findings to mean that homogamy operates early in the relationship and need complementarity or heterogamy later. Thus, their research gave added support for both homogamy and heterogamy theories. Need complementarity (heterogamy), in particular, was found to be related to a sense of progress toward permanence during a seven-month interval in the mate selection period. Both theories, homogamy and heterogamy (complementary needs), may, in fact, be correct. Firstly, certain couples may be attracted to each other by similarities and others by dissimilarities. Secondly, in some unions, couples may be drawn together by both like and unlike characteristics and needs. Thirdly, in every union there are both similarities and dissimilarities between marriage partners, although one or the other may be predominant. Hence, marital relationships may be heterogamous in some instances and homogamous in others, and "would probably be in terms of patterns of personality characteristics rather than single variables" (Bowerman & Day, 1956, p. 605). Therefore, taking the cue from the review of the -29-literature on marriage and Bowerman and Day's suggestion, this researcher will investigate the patterns of personality characteristics, as indicated by the profiles or patterns of the couples' ego states, to see if the findings correspond to either the homogamy or heterogamy theories, or to both theories, and whether these results will in turn, have any relationship to marital adjustment. -30-Chapter Three METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN The focus of chapter three is upon the specific questions which the study will attempt to answer, definition of terms, design, experimental procedure, statement of the hypotheses, instrumentation, description of population and sampling procedures, procedure in collecting data, limitations and statistical analysis. A. Specific Questions. As reported in the introduction, there has been no systematic research done on the marital relationship which applies to the transactional analysis framework. Thus, this study will attempt to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in ego state scores of couples who are high dyadically adjusted, from those couples who are low dyadically adjusted. Specifically, the study will attempt to answer the following questions: Question 1 Is there a relationship between the ego state patterns of couples and their level of marital adjustment? Question 2 Is there a relationship between the Critical Parent ego states of couples and their Adaptive Child ego states? Question 3 Is there a relationship between the Nurturing Parent ego states of couples and their Adaptive Child ego states? -31-B. Definition of Terms The following terms will be used in the study. The researcher has defined some terms according to both trans actional analysis theory and to the definitions in Lynn Kealy's Personal Response Questionnaire. Ego State An ego state denotes the habitual ways of thinking, feeling and reacting that occur together and are related to a consistent pattern of behaviour (Berne, 1966). Critical Parent The Parent ego state incorporates the attitudes and behaviour of all emotionally significant people who act as parent figures to the child; and it includes both the Critical and the Nurturing Parent. The Critical Parent ego state tends to be filled with opinions about things (i.e., religion, politics, child rearing, etc.). These opinions may often be unsubstantiated by fact and may be prejudiced. When operating out of the Critical Parent ego state, the person may use prejudicial and critical remarks. Also the person may appear bossy, intimidate other people and perhaps even alienate them. Typical Critical Parent behaviours may include: chastising, criticising, alienating, moralizing, irritating, embarassing, devaluiing, judgmental, non-accepting, disrespectful and punitive. Also this would include any negative reinforcers -32-that could be given to an individual, whether they are verbal or non-verbal (i.e., frowning, grimacing, shaking a finger at a person, etc.). According to Kealy's definition, the "Critical Parent consists of standards of behaviour based on unexamined in formation rather than on fact" and "is basically composed of laws, rules and prohibitions- .i.e., about religion, politics, etc.""(Kealy, 1975, p.9). Nurturing Parent The Nurturing Parent ego state tends to reveal itself in nurturing, sympathetic, solicitous behaviour. The Nurturing Parent is accepting and caring of others and desires to make them feel worthwhile. Typical Nurturing Parent behaviours are: encouragement, sympathy, empathy, concern, caring, respect and love. Also this would include any positive reinforcers that could be given to an individual, whether verbal or non verbal (i.e., smiles, nods of acknowledgment, hugs, touches, etc.). Kealy defines the Nurturing Parent as being "more sympathetic and protective"; a person who "knows what is good for others and is intent on caring for them" (Kealy, 1975, pp. 9-10). Adult The Adult ego state reveals its presence through rationality, logic and objectivity. It takes in information from the five senses, compute's, stores memories and uses facts to make decisions. -33-The Adult ego state also functions as the executive of the personality, enabling an individual to survive autonomously and to be more selective in making responses. Berne defines the Adult ego states as: ... an independent set of feelings, attitutes, and behaviour patterns that are adapted to the current reality and are not affected by Parental prejudices or archaic attitudes left over from childhood.... The Adult is the ego state which makes survival possible (Berne, 1963, p. 137). In functioning as the executive of the, personality, the "Adult" can act as a referee between the inner Child and the Parent to find compromises and to make new decisions for the expression of the inner Child; and to accept or reject Parental assumptions on the basis of reality and appropriate ness. Thus, the Adult ego state allows for the appropriate expression of all ego states because each has its contribution to make to a total personality. Kealy defines the Adult ego state as one which "examines previous data to determine whether it is still relevant"; and "It also examines feelings, deciding whether or not they are appropriate, and whether or not to allow them to surface" (Kealy, 1975, p. 10). Adaptive Child The Adaptive Child ego state is that part of the ego state which reacts or conforms to demands from significant authority figures. Typical Adaptive Child behaviours include: complying, withdrawing, rebelling, procrastinating and feeling not-OK. -34-Ke'aly defines- the Adaptive Child ego state as being manipulative of other people to satisfy its own needs or wants. "Adaptive Child behaviour is usually that of being very cooperative and compliant" (Kealy, 19 75 p. 10). Rebellious Child The Rebellious Child is that part of the ego state which reacts by rebelling against authority figures. According to Kealy, the Rebellious Child usually re bels with anger, boredom, sarcasm, -:etc. The Rebellious Child is also openly assertive and self-indulgent. In addition, the Rebellious Child gets upset and negative when told what to do. He sulks, withdraws, argues, is stubborn and has difficulty with leaders. Natural Child The Natural Child ego state is defined as that part of the ego state which is the very young, untrained, natural, unprogrammed, expressive infant still inside each person. Typical Natural Child behaviours are suggested by: impulsive, curious, affectionate, sensuous, spontaneous, uncensored and creative. Kealy defines the Natural Child ego state as being expressive, uninhibited, creative and curious, with the urges to touch, feel and experience. Marital or Dyadic Adjustment As the researcher used Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale (19 76) to measure marital or dyadic adjustment, his definition of adjustment was used. Marital or dyadic adjustment is an ever-changing process -35-with a qualitative dimension which can be evaluated at any point in time on a continuum from well adjusted to mad-adjusted. Thus, in this sense, marital or "dyadic adjust ment can be defined as a process, the outcome of which is determined by the degree of: (1) troublesome dyadic differences; (2) interpersonal tensions and personal anxiety; (3) dyadic satisfaction; (4) dyadic cohesion; and (5) consensus on matters of importance to dyadic functioning" (Spanier, 1976, 1. 17). High Dyadically Adjusted Couples High dyadically adjusted couples were operationally defined as those couples whose combined adjustment scores rank them in the top thirty of those taking the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Low Dyadically Adjusted Couples Low dyadically adjusted couples were operationally defined as those couples whose combined adjustment scores rank them in the bottom thirty of those taking the Dyadic Adjustemnt Scale. C. Design The design of this study consisted of a two-group, descriptive field study. This design was used to explore the relationship of the six ego state variables with the variable of dyadic adjustment. D. Experimental Procedure Eighty-one married or cohabiting couples participated in the research study. Each couple was administered two instruments, the Personal Response Questionnaire and the -36-Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Following the collection of data and the analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale results, two groups were formed by rank ordering the couples' combined scores. Group I consisted of the top thirty of the eighty-one couples and Group II consisted of the bottom thirty of the eighty-one couples. Moreover, to determine whether the high dyadically adjusted couples differed significantly from the low dyadically adjusted couples on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, a t-test (a = .001) was calculated to analyze the difference between the means of the two groups. The mean combined couple scale scores for the high dyadically adjusted group and the low dyadically adjusted group were 248.53 and 190.6 respectively, with standard deviations of 9.0 8 (for the high dyadically adjusted group) and 21.37 (for the low dyadically adjusted group). The results of the t-test showed that the high dyadically adjusted couples differed significantly (a = .001) from the low dyadically adjusted couples on the Dyadic Adjusted Scale. After the two groups were formed, ego state difference scores for each couple were obtained by subtracting the male ego state score from the female ego state score for all six ego states. Analysis was then done on their ego state difference scores. A t-test at the .05 level of significance was used to analyze the difference between the -3 7-means of the two groups on each of the six ego state variables. In addition, to test the hypotheses regarding the relationships between the Critical Parent and Adaptive Child ego state scores and the Nurturing Parent and the Adaptive Child ego state scores, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated for the couples of each group. Moreover, descriptive data were shown to illustrate any individual or couple differences between the two groups. E. Hypotheses 1. Statement of the General Hypothesis The general hypothesis for this study was that subjects (couples) who are operationally defined as high dyadically adjusted will show statistically significant lower ego state "difference scores" than Subjects (couples) who are operationally defined as low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Personal Response Questionnaire. 2. Statement of the Specific Hypotheses The following is a list of specific null hypotheses for the present study. HI: There is no statistically significant difference (a = .05) in Critical Parent ego state "difference scores", as measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire, between couples who are high dyadically adjusted and couples who are low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale-. -38-Hr 2 There is no statistically significant difference (a = .05) in Nurturing Parent ego state "difference scores", as measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire, between couples who are high dyadically adjusted and couples who are low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale • -} • H:3' There is no statistically significant difference (a = .05) in Adult ego state "difference scores", as measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire, between couples who are high dyadically adjusted and couples who are low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. H:4 There is no statistically significant difference (a = .05) in Adaptive Child ego state "difference scores", as measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire, between couples who are high dyadically adjusted and couples who are low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. H:5 There is no statistically significant difference (a = .05) in Rebellious Child ego state "difference scores", as measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire, between couples who are high dyadically adjusted and couples who are low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. H:6 There is no statistically significant difference (a = .05) in Natural Child ego state "difference scores", as measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire, between couples who are high dyadically adjusted and couples who are low dyadically adjusted/ as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. -39-H7: There is no statistically significant (a =.05) correlation between the Critical Parent ego state score of one partner and the Adaptive Child ego state score of the other partner, as measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire, for couples who are high dyadically adjusted or for couples who are low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. H8: There is no statistically significant (a = .05) correlation between the Nurturing Parent ego state score of one partner and the Adaptive Child ego state score of the other partner, as measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire, for couples who are high hyadically adjusted or for couples who are low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustement Scale. F. Instrumentation The two instruments used in the study were the Personal Response Questionnaire, developed by Kealy (1975) and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, developed by Spanier (19 76). 1. The Personal Response Questionnaire a) Background of Test The Personal Response Questionnaire (PRQ) was designed to measure the relative strengths of the individual's six ego states, as defined by Kealy and transactional analysis theory. It.was developed by Lynn Kealy for a doctoral dissertation in 1975. Kealy developed the PRQ according to the Loevinger (1957) model of test development, where the construct validity of a test has three aspects or components: 1) the substantive component - where the construct must be derived from an explicitly formulated, theoretically based definition of -40-a trait. This definition is then translated into a large sample of items which are designed to serve as behavioral representations of the trait. These items are then subjected to the judgments of expert raters. This is what is usually referred to as content validity. (2) the structural component - concern is focused, on the internal consistency or homogeneity of the scale as well as its factor structure. Internal consistency is concerned with reliability, and the factor structure with construct validity. (3) the external component - is concerned with what most investigators call criterion-related validity and construct validity, and includes non-test behaviour, factor patterns, and relations or correlations with other tests (Kealy, 1975, pp. 29-30). The steps in the development of the PRQ were followed according to the Loevinger model. The substantive component consisted of the development of a pool of 205 items based on the theoretical and behavioural definitions of the six ego states. The items were then rated by judges, resulting in the first draft of the PRQ. The structural component consisted of administering the first draft of the PRQ and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desir ability scale to 50 8 undergraduate students. The results were then factor analyzed. The external component consisted of administering the final draft of the PRQ with the California Personality Inventory (Cr.'P:;i/j. to 139 undergraduate students and analyzing the resulting correlations. The internal consistency for each factor was then estimated by the KR-20 formula and the coefficients were found to range from .47 - .69. The six ego states were also -41-revealed as independent factors by factor analysis. (b) Validity and Reliability The research in the development of the PRQ shows it to be a valid and reliable test for the following reasons: six independent factors emerged, each one corresponding to a TA ego state; there was high inter-judge agreement on the test items; there was correlation with the CPI on four of the six factors (CP correlated between various scales on Factor 3 of the CPI at .27; AC correlated negatively with Sociability on the CPI at -.300 and with Psychological-mindedness on the CPI at -.374; RC correlated negatively with Socialization on the CPI at -.373 and with Self-control on the CPI at -.350; NC correlated positively with Social Presence on the CPI at .194+). Internal consistency, ex ternal validation and the structural component of construct validity were demonstrated and were at acceptable levels. (c) Norms There are no norms or profiles available, as the Personal Response Questionnaire is not standardized. (d) Scoring and Interpretation The final scores reflect the relative strengths of the six ego states. The fractional scores can be changed into decimal scores and a graph or 'egogram' can be plotted. A knowledge of TA is required for interpretation. (e) Future Research Kealy states "that the PRQ is ready for use in its present form". However, he also states that "More extensive work needs to be done on the PRQ adding to the external -42-coirtponent of validity" (Kealy, 1975, p.67). As yet there has been ;.no additional independent research done to verify the external validity of the PRQ. 2. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (a) Background of Test The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) is a new measure designed to assess the quality of^marriage and other similar dyads. The scale was developed to meet the need for relevant, valid and reliable measures, which could be used in research on marital and nonmarital dyadic relationships. The scale includes subscales which measure four empirically verified components of dyadic adjustment: dyadic satisfaction, dyadic consensus, dyadic cohesion, and affectional expression (Spanier, 1976). (b) Validity i. Content Validity The items included in the Scale were evaluated by three judges for content validity. The items were included only if the judges found the items: (1) relevant measures of dyadic adjustment for contemporary relationships; (2) consistent with the nominal definitions suggested by Spanier and Cole (1974) for adjustment and its components (satisfaction, cohesion, and con sensus) ; and (3) carefully worded with appropriate fixed choice responses (Spanier, 1976, pp. 22-23). ii. Criterion-related Validity The Dyadic Adjustment Scale was administered to a married sample of 218 persons and a divorced sample of 94 persons. For each of the 32 items, the divorced sample differed -43-significantly from the married sample (p.<.001), using a t-test for assessing differences between sample means. Thus, each item in the scale correlated significantly with the external criterion of marital status. Moreover, the total scores were significantly different at the .001 level, the mean total scale scores for the married and divorced samples being 114.8 and 70.7, respectively, iii. Construct Validity All items with content validity used in previous marital adjustment scales were included in the research instrument originally tested. The Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (1959), the most frequently used and well-accepted marital adjustment scale, was selected to assess whether the Dyadic Adjustment Scale measured the same general construct. The correlation reported between these scales was .86 for married respondents and .88 for divorced respondents (p<.001). Construct validity was further established by the factor analysis of the final 32-item scale. Four interrelated com ponents (dyadic satisfaction, dyadic cohesion, dyadic con sensus, and affectional expression), three of which were hypothesized as components of adjustment, were found to exist. Hence, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale appears to measure partially the theoretical construct defined earlier (Spanier and Cole, 1976) . (c) Reliability Reliability was determined for each of the component scales, as well as the total scale, by Cronbach's Coefficient -4.4-Alpha (1951) , which is a measure of internal consistency. The reliability coefficients for the four components of the scale ranged from .73 - .96, and the total scale reliability was .96. Moreover, "a separate assessment of scale reliability using the Spearman-Brown average inter-item formula for in ternal consistency (Guildford, 1954:354,359) was also found to be .96" (Spanier, 1976, p.24). Thus, the data indicate that the total scale and its components have sufficiently high reliability to justify their use as measures of dyadic adjustment. (d) Scoring The scoring of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale consists of a simple cumulation of scores. The total possible score is 151. (e) Future Research Since the scale is relatively new, there is no new re search yet published which uses the scale. However, according to Spanier, through personal correspondence in March, 1977, there are about fifty research studies underway which use the scale, so published literature which uses the scale should begin appearing soon. G. : Description of Population and Sampling Procedures The eighty-one couples participating in the study came from four different groups. The groups consisted of a control group, a marriage encounter group, a marriage enrichment group and a marriage counselling group. These groups were selected to participate in the study in order to ensure -45-extremes of marital adjustment, from those who were 'well-adjusted' to those who were 'maladjusted1. Hence, couples were asked to volunteer from classes for marriage enrichment and from marriage encounter groups (those couples who wish to enrich an already basically adjusted marriage) and from various social agencies and marriage counsellors in the Lower Mainland who do marriage counselling (those couples who are experiencing problems in their relationship). Moreover, a control group of couples who had had no marriage enrichment and marriage encounter experience or marriage counselling were asked to volunteer to participate from five different summer school classes at The University of British Columbia. The only condition for the couples to participate in the study was that they either be married or cohabiting. The group of couples, who were operationally defined as high dyadically adjusted, was comprised of nineteen couples from the Control group, nine couples from the Marriage Encounter group, one couple from the Marriage Enrichment group and one couple from the Marriage Counselling group. The group of couples, who were operationally defined as low dyadically adjusted, was com prised of twelve couples from the Control group, two couples from the Marriage Encounter group, two couples from the Marriage Enrichment group and fourteen couples from the Marriage Counselling group. -46-A description of the sample is summarized in the following table: TABLE 1. Description of Four Groups Groups Number of Couples in Group Origin of Group Location of Group a. Control Group 44 5 summer school classes University of B.C. b. Marriage Encounter 15 Marriage En counter groups Richmond, B.C. c. Marriage Enrichment 5 Marriage Enrich ment classes North Shore Living and Learning Centre West Vancouver, d. Marriage Counselling 17 Catholic Family Services Pastoral Insti-Coquitlam & Vancouver, B.C. tute Vancouver, B.C. Unitarian Family Life Centre Vancouver, B.C. Eugene Elmore, Vancouver, B.C. Marriage Counsellor H. Procedure in Collecting Data The various social agencies, Marriage Encounter co-ordinators and marriage counsellors were contacted and asked to participate in the study. The researcher met with each contact person, -47-detailed the study, gave instructions on how to administer the instruments and gave them the testing materials, which consisted of a manilla envelope for each couple with two sets of instruments, consent forms and data sheets (see Appendix A and B). In each case, except for the marriage enrichment group, the couples who volunteered to participate in the study received the testing materials and instructions from the contact persons. However, with the marriage enrichment group, this was not possible and the testing materials, plus detailed instructions for self-administration of the tests, along with an;" out line of the study, a covering letter of explanation and a letter of introduction from the contact agency were mailed to the couples. The control group was contacted personally by the researcher. The researcher met with each of the five summer school classes, gave a short outline of the research and asked for"volunteers to participate in the study. The volunteer subjects were then given envelopes which contained the testing materials and instructions for self-administration of the tests. Moreover, for each case where self-administration of the tests was necessary, it was stressed that the couple should not communicate during the test-taking and that no answers should be changed following the completion of the tests. -48-I. Limitations This study is limited in external validity as a result of the sampling procedures. The couples selected to participate in the study were not randomly selected from the general population. Rather, they were asked to volunteer because they belonged to a specific group of people (i.e., those couples who had had marriage counselling, marriage enrichment or marriage encounter). Also the control group used in this study may not be representative of the general population of married or co habiting couples, as they were from university classes. Lack of verifying independent research on the Personal Response Questionnaire and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale is a limitation in terms of instrumentation. J. Statistical Analysis 1. On the basis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, couples were rank ordered according to their combined ad justment scores. Two groups were formed Group I, consisting of the top thirty couples and Group II, consisting of the bottom thirty couples. A t-test (a = .001) was calculated to analyze the difference between the means of the two groups on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the results showed that the high dyadically group differed significantly (a = .001) from the low dyadically adjusted group. Ego state difference scores for each couple were obtained by subtracting the male ego state score from the female ego state score for all six ego states. Six t-tests (a = .05) were calculated to -49-means of each of the six ego state measures for the two groups. 2. Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between the Critical and Adaptive Child ego state scores and the Nurturing Parent and Adaptive Child ego state scores for the couples of each group, in order to test the hypotheses regarding the relationships of these variables. The correlaiton coefficient was tested at the .05 level of significance using a two-tailed test. 3. Descriptive data were compiled in the form of tables and graphical representations to supplement the statistical data and to illustrate any relationships or patterns present in the data. Also descriptive data were used to highlight any differences or similarities in personality profiles between the high dyadically adjusted group and the low dyadically adjusted group. -50-Chapter Four PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA A. Descriptive Data Descriptive data were compiled to give a more complete representation of the ego state characteristics of the high dyadically adjusted couples and the low dyadically adjusted couples, and to illustrate patterns or relationships occuring in the data. In addition, the descriptive data served to highlight any significant difference or similarities between the two groups. 1. Mean and Standard Deviation Scores The mean and standard deviation of the ego state difference scores for each couple were calculated for each group to show the relative position and dispersion of scores between groups (Table II). Table II shows that the means for both groups ranged from .19 (NP ego state for Group I and Group II) to .32 (A ego state Group II). The variance for both groups ranged from .13 (A ego state for Group I and AC ego state for Group II) to .23 (A ego state for Group II). A profile comparison of the two groups is presented in Figure 5. Figure 5 indicates the difference in mean ego state difference scores appears to be the strongest between the TABLE II: Means and Standard Deviations of Ego State Difference Scores for Group I and Group II Ego State- Variables CP NP A AC RC NC Group I (N=30) High Dyadically Adjusted Mean Standard Deviation .21 .19 .19 .15 .18 .13 .24 .16 .22 .21 .24 .19 Group II (N=30) Low Dyadically Adjusted Mean Standard Deviation .20 .18 .19 .14 .32 .23 .22 .13 .19 .14 .28 . 21 MEAN DIFFERENCES FIGURE 5 High Dyadically Adjusted Group IX-Low Dyadically Adjusted Group II . -— .'3 J 2 CP NP A AC RC NC EGO STATES Profile of Mean Differences For Group I and Group II -52-Adult ego states of the two groups, with the low dyadically adjusted group showing a higher mean ego state difference score than the high dyadically adjusted group. Although the difference is much less, a similar pattern of difference is shown between the Natural Child mean ego state difference scores of the two groups. The other four mean ego state difference scores (with the exception of Nurturing Parent which is the same for both groups) are slightly higher for the high dyadically adjusted group than for the low dyadically adjusted group for this particular sample. 2. SUMMARY On the basis of the mean ego state difference scores for each group, the high dyadically adjusted group indicated slightly higher ego state differences on three of the ego state scales (CP, AC, RC), although none proved statistically significant. There was no numerical difference in the NP ego state variable for either group. The low dyadically adjusted group evidenced a higher ego difference on two of the ego state scales (NC, A) and the latter proved statistically significant at the .05 level. The descriptive data gave additional evidence to suggest that the strongest difference between the two groups was in the Adult ego state variable. B. Results of Hypothesis Testing: 1. Results for the General Hypothesis It was postulated that subjects (couples) who were high dyadically adjusted would show statistically significant lower ego state "difference scores" than subjects (couples) -5.3-who were low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Personal Response Questionnaire. This was supported for the Adult ego state variable but not for the other five ego state variables. A t-test (a = .05) for independent samples was calculated to analyze the difference between the means of each of the two groups on each of the six ego state variables. Table III in cludes a summary of the results: TABLE III. t-Values for Differences Between the Means of  the Ego State Difference Scores of the High  Dyadically Adjusted Group and the Low Dyadically  Adjusted Group. EGO STATES t-VALUES Critical Parent .137 Nurturing Parent .04 Adult 2.88* Adaptive Child . 346 Rebellious Child .580 Natural Child .802 * p < .05 The t-value showed a statistically significant difference at the .05 level between the means of the Adult ego state variable for the two groups. -54-2. Results for the Specific Hypotheses (a) Hypothesis 1 It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference in Critical Parent ego state "difference scores", as measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire (a = .05), between couples who were high dyadically adjusted and couples who were low dyadically adjusted, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The hypothesis was not. rejected. Figure 6 gives a summary of the results and indicates that there is very little difference between the two groups on the Critical Parent ego state variable. (b) Hypothesis 2 It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference in Nurturing Parent ego state "difference scores", between couples who were high dyadically adjusted and couples who were low dyadically adjusted. The hypothesis was not rejected. Figure.7 presents a summary of the results and shows that there is minimal difference between the two groups on the Nurturing Parent ego state variable. (c) Hypothesis 3 It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference in Adult ego state "difference scores", between couples who were high dyadically adjusted and couples who were low dyadically adjusted. The hypothesis was rejected. Figure 8 indicates a summary of the results. Couples 1 Combined . Difference Frequency For Bar Graph for Group 1 and Group Group I on CP Variable Scores.on High (N=30) Low (N=30) Critical Dyadically Dyadically Parent Adjusted Adjusted Group I Group II 90-100 81-90 71-80 2 11 61-70 1 2 51-60 1 2 41-50 31-40 3 1 3 2 111 1 222 22 21-30 11-20 8 4 7 3 11111111 1111 2222222 222 1-10 7 7 1111111 2222222 0 5 6 11111 222222 FIGURE 6 Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Critical Parent Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II Couples' Combined Difference Freguency For Bar Graph for Group 1 and Group Group 2 on RC Variable Scores', on High (N=30) Low (N=30) Nurturing Dyadically Dyadically Parent Adjusted Adjusted Group I Group II 91-100 81-90 1 1 71-80 61-70 51-60 1 2 41-50 1 2 31-40 3 1 111 2 21-30 3 7 111 2222222 11-20 10 9 1111111111 222222222 1-10 10 6 1111111111 222222 0 .... 3 . 5 111 22222 FIGURE 7 Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Nurturing  Parent Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II -56-Couples' Combined ~ Difference Scores .on Adult Frequency for Group Bar Graph for Group 1 and Group 2 on A Variable High (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted Low (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted Group 1 Group 2 91-100 81-90 71-80 1 2 61-70 4 2222 51-60 41-50 1 8 1 22222222 31-40 5 2 11111 22 21-30 8 5 11111111 22222 11-20 10 5 1111111111 22222 1-10 0 6 5 111111 22222 FIGURE 8 Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Adult Ego State . Variable for Group: I and Group II Couples 1 Combined Frequency for Group Bar Graph for Group 1 Difference and Group 2 on AC Variable Scores:: on High (N=30) Low (N=30) Adaptive Dyadically Dyadically Child Adjusted Adjusted Group 1 Group 2 91-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 4 1 1111 2 31-40 5 4 11111 2222 21-30 4 10 1111 2222222222 11-20 7 6 1111111 : 222222 1-0 6 5 111111 22222 0 4 4 1111 2222 FIGURE-9 Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Adaptive Child Ego State Variable .for Group I and Group II -5 7-It appears from Figure 8 that there is a notable difference between the two groups on the Adult ego state variable, thus lending support to the statistically-significant t-value (2.88) for the Adult ego state variable, which is in the predicted direction and is statistically significant at the a = .05 level. (d) Hypothesis 4 It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference in Adaptive Child ego state "difference scores", between couples who were high dyadically adjusted and couples who were low dyadically adjusted. The hypothesis was not rejected. A summary of the results is shown in Figure 9. Figure 9 supports the notion that there is little difference between the two groups on the Adaptive Child ego state variable. (e) Hypothesis 5 It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference in Rebellious Child ego state "difference scores", between couples who were high dyadically adjusted and couples who were low dyadically adjusted. The hypothesis was not rejected. Figure 10 provides a summary of the results. -58-,Couples ' Combined Frequency for Group Bar Graph for Group 1 and Group 2 on RC Variable Di fference Scores on Rebellious Child High (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted Low (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted Group 1 Group 2 91-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 31-40 21-30 11-20 1-10 1 2 4 2 5 11 3 1 1 3 7 3 5 7 5 1 11 1111 11 11111 11111111111 111 1 1 222 2222222 222 22222 2222222 22222 0 FIGURE 10 Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Rebellious Child  Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II It appears from Figure 10 that there is little difference between the two groups on the Rebellious Child ego state variable. This is supported by a statistically non-significant t-value (.580) for the Rebellious Child ego state variable, (f) Hypothesis 6 It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference in Natural Child ego state "difference scores", between couples who were high dyadically adjusted and couples who were low dyadically adjusted. The hypothesis was not rejected (see Figure 11 for a summary of the results). Figure 11 indicates that there is a slight trend in the predicted direction, although the actual difference between the two groups on the Natural Child ego state variable is -59-negligibl-e. The calculated t-value (.802) for the Natural Child ego state variable, which is not significant at the a = .05 level, gives further evidence to support this. Couples 1 Combined Difference Frequency for Group Bar Graph for Group 1 and Group 2 on NC Variable Scores on High (N=30) Low (N=30) Natural Dyadically Dyadically Child Adjusted Adjusted Group 1 Group 2 91-100 81-90 71-80 1 1 1 2 61-70 1 2 1 22 51-60 1 1 41-50 3 7 111 2222222 31-40 2 2 11 22 21-30 7 6 1111111 222222 11-20 11 7 11111111111 2222222 1-10 0 4 5 1111 22222 FIGURE 11 Frequency Distribution and Bar Graph on Natural Child Ego State Variable for Group I and Group II (g) Hypothesis 7 It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant correlation between the Critical Parent ego state score of one partner and the Adaptive Child ego state score of the other partner, for couples who were identified as being either high dyadically adjusted or low dyadically adjusted. The hypothesis was not rejected. -60-Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between the Critical Parent and Adaptive Child ego state scores for the couples of each group. The correlation coefficient was tested at the a = .05 level of significance using a two-tailed test. Table IV provides the correlation coefficients for the Critical Parent and the Adaptive Child ego state scores for the high dyadically adjusted couples and the low dyadically adjusted couples. TABLE IV. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients  Between the Critical Parent Ego State Scores  and the Adaptive Child Ego State Scores of the  High Adjusted Couples and the Low Adjusted  Couples CORRELATION COEFFICIENT High Adjusted Couples (N=30) Male CP and Female AC .2269 Female CP and Male AC -.1208 Low Dyadically Adjusted Couples (N=30) Male CP and Female AC .0132 Female CP and Male AC -.0189 Table IV indicates that the results of the correlation coefficients are not statistically significant at the a = .05 level. The male Critical Parent ego state scores correlated positively but non-significantly with the female. Adaptive -61-Child ego state scores for both groups. Conversely, the female Critical Parent ego state scores correlated negatively but non-significantly with the male Adaptive Child ego state scores for both groups. Scatter diagrams were also plotted to illustrate the correlational relationship of the Critical Parent ego state scores with the Adaptive Child ego state scores for both groups (see Appendix C). (h) Hypothesis 8 It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant correlation between the Nurturing Parent ego state score of one partner and the Adaptive Child ego state score of the other partner, for couples who were identified as being either high dyadically adjusted or low dyadically adjusted. The hypothesis was not rejected. Table V includes a summary of the results. Table V points out that the results of the correlation coefficients are not statistically significant at the a = .05 level. The male Nurturing Parent ego state scores correlated positively but non-significantly with the female Adaptive Child ego state scores for the high dyadically adjusted couples. The female Nurturing Parent ego state scores correlated negatively but non-significantly with the male Adaptive Child ego state scores for the high dyadically adjusted couples. For the low dyadically adjusted couples, both the male and female Nurturing Parent ego state scores correlated negatively but non-significantly with their partners' Adaptive Child -62-ego state scores. In addition, scatter diagrams were plotted to represent graphically the correlational relationship of the Nurturing Parent ego state scores with the Adaptive Child ego state scores for both groups (see Appendix D). TABLE V. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients  Between the Nurturing Parent Ego State Scores  and the Adaptive Child Ego State Scores of the  High Adjusted Couples and the Low Adjusted Couples CORRELATION COEFFICIENT High Dyadically Adjusted Couples (N=30) Male NP and Female AC .059 7 Female NP arid Male AC -.259 3 Low Dyadically Adjusted Couples (N=30) Male NP and Female AC Female NP and Male AC -.2182 -.0096 3. Summary The results of the statistical testing of the general hypothesis and the specific hypotheses, including the t-test results and the correlation coefficients, indicated that the only statistically significant (a = .05) difference between the high dyadically adjusted group and the low dyadically adjusted group was in the Adult ego state variable. It was expected that the high dyadically adjusted group would show statistically significant lower ego state difference scores than the low dyadically adjusted group. The results of the t-test showed that two of the six ego state variables were in the predicted direction but only the Adult ego state variable was shown to be statistically significant at the a = .05 level. It was expected that the high dyadically adjusted group would show statistically significant positive correlation between the Critical Parent ego state score of one partner and the Adaptive Child ego state score of the other partner. The same statistically significant positive correlation was expected between the Nurturing Parent and Adaptive Child ego state scores for the high dyadically adjusted group. The result of the correlational analysis between the male Critical Parent ego state scores and the female Adaptive Child ego state scores was in the predicted direction but non-significant for the -64-high dyadically adjusted group. The descriptive data for the general and the specific hypotheses gave additional support to the notion that there were no statistically significant results, except for the Adult ego state variable. However this statistically significant result could have occurred by chance alone, as a result of repeated t-tests on data from the same subjects using sub-test scores from one instrument; or because of a Type I error. A Type I error is made when a true null hypothesis is rejected. In this study with a = .05, there were five chances out of one hundred for committing a Type I error. -65-Chapter Five DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY A. Restatement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to explore the relation ship between the ego state patterns of couples and their level of marital adjustment. The study focused on the couples1 ego state patterns to see whether couples who were identified as being high dyadically adjusted would show lower ego state difference scores than couples who were identified as being low dyadically adjusted. B. Description of Procedures Used The sample of the study consisted of eighty-one married or cohabiting;. couples. Marital or dyadic adjustment was measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), and ego states were measured by the Personal Response Questionnaire (Kealy, 1975). On the basis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale results, two groups were formed by rank ordering the couples' combined scores. One group consisted of the top thirty of the eighty-one couples and one group consisted of the bottom thirty of the eighty-one couples. Ego state difference scores for the couples were calculated by subtracting the male ego state scores from the female ego state scores for all six ego states. Six t-tests (a= .05) were calculated to test for a statistically significant difference between the difference score means of each of the six ego state measures for the two groups. -66-Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between the CP and AC ego state scores and the Np and AC ego state scores for the couples of each group, in order to test the hypotheses regarding the relationships of these variables. Descriptive data were presented to illustrate any differences or similarities in personality profiles between the two groups. A. Principal Findings and Conclusions The results of the statistical testing of the hypotheses, including the t-test and the correlation coefficients (a = .05), indicated that of the eight hypotheses, only the hypothesis regarding the Adult ego state variable was supported. According to the results it would appear that the high dyadically adjusted couples evidenced statistically significant (a = .05) lower ego state difference scores in the Adult ego state than the low dyadically adjusted couples. The statistically significant (a = .05) result is in accordance with the literature on marriage (as discussed in Chapter II), which holds that similarity of spouses (homogamy) has a positive effect on the marital relationship and its corresponding satisfaction and adjustment. Moreover, although the statistical significance (a = .05) -67-based on the difference for the Adult ego state variable may have resulted by chance alone or because of a Type I error (as discussed in Chapter IV), there is strong evidence in the literature on homogamy in marriage to suggest the contrary. The null hypotheses for the CP, AC, RC and NC ego state variables are supported. These results might be explained by the research discussed in Chapter II, which suggests that in every marital relationship there are both similarities and dissimilarities between marriage partners, although one or the other (similarities or dissimilarities) may be predominant (Bowerman and Day, 1956). This could explain the non-significant results for all of the five ego state variables, except for the Adult ego state variable. It could, however, be characteristic of this particular sample of couples. In terms of instrumentation, it may be due to the lack of supportive research attesting to the validity of the Personal Response Questionnaire (Kealy, 1975) as a measure of ego states. In addition, the null hypotheses regarding the cor relations between the CP and AC ego state scores and the NP and AC ego state scores for the couples of each group were supported. This further evidence suggests that there were no statistically significant results, other than in the Adult ego state variable. -68-The failure to find statistically significant results, except for the Adult ego state variable, could be a result of methodological weaknesses of the study. The sampling procedures and the use of a non-randomized sample may have contributed to a lack of internal validity (Campbell and Stanley, 1966, p. 15). The lack of a standard approach in the administration of the instruments also may have detracted from a true measure of the couples' ego states and their level of dyadic adjustment. In addition, instrument characteristics, such as validity and reliability, might have added to the lack of significant results. As the discussion on Instrumentation in Chapter III indicates, there is a lack of verifying independent research on the Personal Response Questionnaire and the Dyadic Adjust ment Scale. This study also did not take into account the sex differences present in the Personal Response Questionnaire (Kealy, 19 75), which may have occurred in the measurement of the ego state variables, and in turn, may have affected the couples' ego state difference scores. The subjective nature of self-administered and self-report personality inventories and marital adjustment scales detracts from an accurate assessment of these variables. There is also a possibility that the Personal Response Questionnaire's items did not sufficiently represent or adequately measure certain ego state character istics. One of the positive aspects of this study is that it is the first study to investigate experimentally the marital -69-relationship through the transactional analysis framework. Moreover, the results of the study may aid the marriage researcher and counsellor to understand more fully the expressive aspects of the marital relationship and the personality interaction of the spouses, which are thought to be associated with marital adjustment. D. Recommendations for Future Research On the basis of this research, several possibilities for future research are suggested: 1. Marital or dyadic adjustment is an ever-changing process which at any given point in time has only arbitrary points on a dimension from well adjusted to maladjusted (Spanier, 1976). Thus, assessment of the marital relationship needs to be done on a continuing basis to get a more accurate evaluation of the relationship. It is suggested that future research take this into account by administering the Dyadic Adjustment Scale at different points in time throughout the research experiment. 2. Paper and pencil measures are useful but limited in objective assessment of marital or dyadic adjustment. Thus, there is a need for outside evaluators in order to get a more objective assessment of the marital relationship. 3. There is evidence of sex differences in the Personal Response Questionnaire's measurement of ego state (Kealy, 1975). Therefore, it is recommended for -70-future research that the ego states of females and males could be measured separately (not in the form of couples' ego state difference scores) and that separate hypotheses could be stated for females and males. There is a need for further research on the PRQ in order to provide additional validation for its use as a measurement of ego states. Concurrent validity could be increased by using another TA ego state measure in addition to the PRQ. The external component of validity could also be increased by using an additional personality inventory with the same or similar constructs as the PRQ. Further research is recommended on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale to provide additional criterion-related validity. The present study did not use an unbiased or randomized sample. Thus, in order to be able to generalize the results to the population, randomized samples should be used in future research. There is a need for further research on the Adult ego state variable to see whether similarity of the couples' Adult ego state is positively associated with marital adjustment. Another study might replicate this study with a random sample to see if the Adult ego state variable shows statistical -71-significance over the other ego state variable in differentiating between high adjusted and low adjusted couples. Furthermore, another study could be done replicating this one, but using a different TA ego state measure. BIBLIOGRAPHY Berne,.,E. Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. New York: Grove Press, 1961. Berne, E. The Structure and Dynamics of Organizations and  Groups. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1963. Berne, E. Games People Play. New York: Grove Press, 1964. Berne, E. Principles of Group Treatment. New York: Grove Press, 1966. Blood, R.O., & Wolfe, D.M. Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics  of Married Living. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. Blood, R.O. Research needs of a family life educator and marriage counsellor. Journal of Marriage and The Family, 1976, 37, 7-12. Bowerman, C.E. & Day, B.R. A test of the theory of complementary needs as applied to couples during courtship American Sociological Review, 1956, 21, 602-605. Burgess, E.W., & Cottrell, L.S. Predicting Success or Failure in  Marriage. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1939. Burgess, E.W., & Wallin, P. Homogamy in social characteristics. American Journal of Sociology, 1943, 49_, 109-124 . Burgess, E.W. & Wallin, P. Homogamy in personality characteristics. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1944, 39, 475-484. Burgess, E.W., & Wallin, P. Engagement and Marriage. Chicago: Lippincott, 1953. : ! Byrne, D., & Blaylock, B. Similarity and assumed similarity of attitudes between husbands and wives. Journal of  Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 6_7, 636-640. Campbell, D..T., & Stanley, J.C. Experimental and Quasi - Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Campos, L., & McCormick, P. Introduce Your Marriage To Transactional Analysis. Stockton, California: San Joaquin "TA Institute, 1972. Corsini, R.J. Understanding and similarity in marriage. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 327-333. -73-Cronbach , L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16_, 297-334. Dusay, J.M. Egograms and the "constancy hypothesis". Transactional Analysis Journal, 1972, 2_ (3) , 37-41. Dymond, R. Interpersonal perception and marital happiness. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1954, 8_, 164-171. Guilford, J.P. Psychometric Methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954. Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. American View Their Mental  Health. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Harris, T.A. I'm O.K. - You're O.K. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Hicks, M., & Piatt, M. Marital happiness and stability: A review of research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage  and the Family, 1970, 32_, 553-573. Hollingshead, A.B. Cultural factors in the selection of marriage mates. American Sociological Review, 1950, 15, 619-627. — James, M., & Jongeward, D. Born To Win: Transactional Analysis  with Gestalt Experiments. Don Mills, Ont.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1971 . James, M., & Jongeward, D. The People Book. Don Mills, Ont.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1975. Katz, A.M., & Hill, R. Residential propinquity and marital selection: A review of theory, method, and fact. Marriage and Family Living, 1958, 20_, 27-35. Katz, I., Cohen, M., & Castinglione, L. Effect of one type of need complementarity on marriage partners' conformity to one another's judgements. Journal of Abnormal and  Social Psychology, 1963. 67 (1), 8-14. Kealy, L. Construct validity of the Personal Response Questionnaire for Transactional Analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, 1975. Kelly, E.L. Psychological factors in assortative mating. Psychological Bulletin, 1940, 37_ , 576. Kelly, E.L. Marital compatibility as related to personality traits of husbands and wives as rated by self and spouse, The Journal of Social Psychology, 1941, 13_, 193-198. Kerckhoff, A.C., & Davis, K.E. Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection. American Sociolog ica1 Review, 1962, 27, 295-303. Levinger, G., & Breedlove, J. Interpersonal attraction and agreement: A study of marriage partners. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3_, 367-372. Locke, H.J. Predicting Adjustment in Marriage: A Comparison  of a Divorced and a Happily Married Group. New York: Holt, 1953. Locke, H.J., & Wallace, K.M. Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage  and Family Living, 1959, 21, 251-255. Loevinger, J. Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 1957, 3_, 635-694. Luckey, E.B. Marital satisfaction and congruent self-spouse concepts. Social Forces, 1960, 39_, 153-157. (a) Luckey, E.B. Marital satisfaction and its association with congruence of perception. Journal of Marriage and the  Family, 1960, 31, 49-54. (b): Luckey, E.B. Marital satisfaction and personality correlates of spouse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1964, 26, 217-220. (a) Luckey, E.B. Marital satisfaction and its concomitant perceptions of self and spouse. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1964, 11 (2), 136-145. (b) Mangus, A.R. Family impacts on mental health. Marriage and  Family Living, 1957, 1J9, 256-262. McCarley, D.G. The ego state inventory, its construction and validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, 1971. Murstein, B.I. The relationship of mental health to marital choice and courtship progress. Journal of Marriage and the  Family, 1967, 2_9, 447-461. (b) . Murstein, B.I., & Beck, G.D. Person perception, marriage adjustment, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting  and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 39_, 396-403. Murstein, B.I., & Glaudin, V. The relationship of marital adjustment to personality: A factor analysis of the interpersonal check list. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966, 28, 37-43. -75-Preston, M.G., Pel'tz, W.L., Mudd, E.H., & Froscher, H.B. Impressions of personality as a function of marital conflict. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 326-336. Pickford, J.H., Signori, E.I., & Rempel, H. Similar or related personality traits as a factor in marital happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966, 28_, 190-192. Richardson, H.M. Studies of mental resemblance between husbands and wives and between friends. Psychological  Bulletin, 1939, 36^, 104-120. Schellenberg, J.A. Homogamy in personal values and the "Field of Eligibles". Social Forces, 1960, 3_9, 157-162. Spanier, G..B. Measuring dyadic adjustment:: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the .Family, 1976, _38_ (1), 15-28. Spanier, G.B. Personal communication, March 16, 1977. Spanier, G.B. & Cole, CL. Toward clarification and investigation of marital adjustment. International Journal  of Sociology of the Family, 1976, 121-146. Steiner, C. Games Alcoholics Play. New York: Grove Press, 1971. Terman, L.M. Psychological Facotrs in Marital Happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1938. Tharp, R.G. Psychological Patterning in marriage. Psychological  Bulletin, 1963, 6_0 (2), 97-117. Thomson, G. The identification of ego states. Transactional  Analysis Journal, 1972, 2 (4), L96-210 Toman, W. Family constellation of the partners in divorced and married couples. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1962, IS!, 48-51. Winch, R.F. The Modern Family. New York: Holt, 1952. Winch, R.F., Ktsanes, T., & Ktsanes, V. The theory of complementary needs in mate-selection: An analytic and descriptive study. American Sociological Review, 1954, 19, 241-249. -76-APPENDIX A PERSONAL RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE -77-PERSONAL RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE Directions: Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is True or False as it pertains to you personally, and mark it on the answer sheet provided. Please circle T or F. When in a difficult or tense situation, my stomach churns and my hands sweat. I usually get upset if I don't get my own way. I like to leave as few things to chance as possible. Many people are forgetting that it is only through hard work that they will reach the top. I am seen as being a stubborn person. I seem to have developed a capacity for independent tJiinking, as opposed to many who conform to other people's thoughts and ideas. When people tell me that I should do something, I have a tendency to do just the opposite. I usually try to live up to the expectations of others. It bothers me that there are not enough people today with the courage to stand up for what is right. I usually estimate the risks of making a decision before actually making it. When I am happy, everyone seems to know it. I think that I am more observant than most people. When I see people that are weak and unassuming, I try to make sure that others don't take advantage of them. I feel comfortable following a strong leader. People are not moral enough today. I often wonder what "they" will say about things that I do. There are too many unproductive people in the world. Most people should go to church more often than they do. T : F (1) T : F (2) T : F (3) T : F (4) T : F (5) T : F (6) T . F (7) T . F (8) T . F (9) T F (10) T F (11) T F (12) T : F (13) T : F (14) T : F (15) T : F (16) T : F (17) T : F (18) -78-T : F (19) T : F (20) T : F (21) T : F (22) T : F (23) T : T (24) T F (25) T : F (26) T F (27) T F (28) T . F (29) T : F (30) T : F (31) T : F (32) T : F (33) T : F (34) T : F (35) T : F (36) T : F (37) T : F (38) T : F (39) T : F (40) T : F (41) T : F (42) If I do something that I don't want to do, I usually do it grudgingly. It is important for me to analyze all situations thoroughly before I act. My first reaction when told to do something is to say "no". I often find myself in situations where I am the leader and other group members depend on me for guidance. It takes a lot to convince me to do something when I don't want to do it. I find that I want to comfort people who are having bad times. You are judged by the company you keep. When wandering through a store, I find that I like to touch and feel many of the store's goods. What people need today is more discipline. I usually act the way I feel, rather than controlling my emotions. I have a tendency to talk and laugh loudly in my interactions with others. When people don't see things my way, I really get frustrated but try to hide it. I have difficulty getting along well with most leaders. One way of stopping wrong-doing is to severely punish people who break the law. I often find myself using expressions like "Wow!", "Gosh!", etc. When confronted with adversity, I either sulk or withdraw. It is important to know how to "get around people". I feel unccmfortable when people express negative emotions such as anger, boredom, etc. I am careful not to laugh or talk too loudly. If something seems that it may become a problem, I try to think of alternative solutions. I dislike other people telling me what I "ought" or "should" do. I feel most important when I am helping others. My whole body tenses when someone tells me I have to do something. I find myself being open and spontaneous with other people. - 79-T . F (43) T F (44) T : F (45) T F (46) T F (47) T F (48) T F (49) T F (50) T F (51) T F (52) T : F (53) T F (54) T F (55) T : F (56) T : F (57) T . F (58) T : F (59) T . F (60) I find that being really nice to people helps get me things that I want. You just don't get service any more like you used to. I usually come to the aid of friends who are in difficulty. I tend to agree rather than argue with other people about concepts of right and wrong, ideas about what to do, plans, programs, systems, procedures, etc. I would enjoy working in the area of helping others. I tend to argue rather than agree with people about concepts of right and wrong, ideas about what to do, etc. When I feel angry I let people know. Some people say that I have a chip on my shoulder. I see myself as being a person with good foresight. I enjoy doing "stupid" things just for the fun of it. It's disgusting the way taxes keep going up to support people on social welfare. I tend to look at "all the facts" and plan carefully before starting some action. I have a tendency to support the underdog. I t±iink children should be taught to help other people as much as possible. I enjoy making decisions for the good of other people. It disturbs me that people are losing sight of traditional and conservative ways of doing things. Many people need to be protected from society. Teenagers would be better off if they listened to and learned from the experiences of older people. -80' KEY TO PERSONAL RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE Items are answered True or False and all are keyed True. Items are keyed to the correct ego states as follows: Critical Parent - 4, 9, 15, 17, 18, 25, 27, 32, 44, 53, 58, 60 Nurturing Parent - 13, 22, 24, 40, 45, 47, 55, 56, 57, 59 - 3, 6, 10, 12, 38, 51, 54, 20 - 1, 8, 14, 16, 30, 35, 36, 37, 43, 46 Rebellious Child - 2, 5, 7, 19, 21, 23, 31, 34, 39, 41, 48, 50 Natural Child - 11, 26, 28, 29, 33, 42, 49, 52 Adult Adaptive Child Score /a EG06RNA \oo j <*0 • 80-so 30 AO-10-0 C? $9 AC APPENDIX B DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE 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 life 9. Ways of dealing with parents or in-laws 10. Aims, goals, and things believed important 11. Amount of time spent together 12. Making major decisions 13. Household tasks 14. Leisure time interests and activities 15. Career decisions 16. How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation, or terminating your relationship? DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE Almost Occa- Fre- Almost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree i CO to i More All Most of often Occa-the time the time than not sionally Rarely Never cont'd . More /All the time Most of the time often than not Occa sionally Rarely Never 17. How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight? 0 1 2 3 4 5 18. In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going-well? 5 4 3 2 1 0 19. Do you confide in your mate? 5 4 3 3 1 0 20. Do you ever regret that you married? (or lived together) 0 1 2 3 4 5 21. How often do you and your partner quarrel? 0 1 2 3 4 5 22. How often do you and your mate "get on each other's nerves?" 0 1 2 3 4 5 Every Day Almost Every Day Occa sionally Rarely Never 23. Do you kiss your mate? 4 5 2 1 0 All of them Most of them. Seme of them Very few of them None of them 24. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? 4 3 2 1 0 cont'd 25. Have a stimulating exchange of ideas Less than Once or Once or once a twice a twice a Once a More often Never month month week day 5 26. Laugh together 0 1 2 3 4.5 27. Calmly discuss something 0 1 2 3 4 5 28. Work together on a project Q l 2 3 4 5 These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and scmetime disagree. Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationship during the past few weeks. (Check YES or NO). Yes No 29. -p i Being too tired for sex i CO its I 30. Q l Not showing love 31. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point, "happy", represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes the degree of happiness, all things considered,of your relationship Extremely Fairly A little Happy Very Extremely Perfect Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy happy happy 32. Which of the following statements best describes hew you feel about the future of your relationship? 5 I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that it does I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to see that it does. 3 I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does. cont'd. 32. 2 It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can't do much more than I am doing now to help it succeed. 1 It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am doing now to keep the relationship going. 0 My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going. TOTAL - 151 i 00 Cn I -86-APPENDIX C SCATTER DIAGRAMS REPRESENTING The Correlational Relationships of The Critical Parent Ego State Scores With The Adaptive Child Ego State Scores for Both Groups - 87 -4 1 Sc at j.— t:er 4-vw— D iac rjrai -lei.-— i R ep: ^— ires 11 13 Ijin g the j _J Cc ela Lti i ona 1 wi" Rel ation ,, f 1 sh: LP Fe'male !Ad aptlive 2 C hild Ego State Score pox. I ^o*r-< S'S— ph. i -trr :or 1 | i Via. iPai .e ren 2x: t_I Sc 5a] 1 1 Stc ite e L HJ qh Dye die all y U i 1 1 Ac tec Gi DUT. i X fi Lc w I yac ice 11> ll I | I ; ; Ac JU£ tec Gi our. II • I— //V | i ! r. \ > i 3 1 f— —7 i j 1 ! i » 9 1 ,< > ™ v . \ 1 I J j, • A « %> •V- « V r • > o X I " * \* i ; ; A i <*. 1 ) •»,.,,„ T- 1 i / i ' i f*—i • I : -K. / ^ z _ 7 r ( —« »-* > j J , J D' —y 1 1 - i 4 i Urn —" • X r > 1 > —/ • < » i FPI rial 2 Ac 3ap1 Live O r. 0 •4 > I 5 -/ l Chiild i i Egc D SI tati 1 ~Scpre ^ ! 1 i —1—C I - 88 -u 1 Sc|< ;ex '-am ram spar in£ f t he^ Co rr£B la tio na" L_R e.Lf iti o.n.H shi p of tr te 1 ale C rijtical Pa rer it Egc s bate-[Scdre wd th th e Mai e -Ad aptxvc-5~Gh"rtrd~[ E-gb— StHt re~ Scut >re . .. _ eue le rit-e S Cri _ i tic aly 1 s are tat Eyo core -M- f fli gh nyr dir al 1 y..„ ; Ac jus tec our: I X f TiT W T yar i Pr lly //" ; ) Ac jU£ tec Gi our: II • — — _//>. > — —< /. f — V \ L— I —> fm— A iV-rr i .1 7" ? 5r ) \ 1 Q > it s > \ « t. t 7" r J f r— < •— \ -• » i i J i \ i y K * r i /_... h — k . T r~1 i i W Q f f > •r \ 4 4 V V" 4 i i i • 1 i i 1 " 9 t i , i r\ M jo £ .Ad? 3ta1 iptj be £ I i Lve Child I t t / * $ ( « 1 < i E( 3 CO] i i .... . —, - L -89-APPENDIX D SCATTER DIAGRAMS REPRESENTING The Correlational Relationships of The Nurturing Parent Ego State Scores With The Adaptive Child Ego State Scores for Both Groups — Lt± er_ .Di. am :am Re pr nt Lnq tl le Co] :re lai :io na! R sla ti Dns hi of th e f 4a 1 3 Nur bui -in 5 P,arc- E< go State Sc :or 711 h t .he -Ma- Le_ .N.u ta ctx be r.ij Boo igi, :e ' i?'ei rial e / ^.daptirve" -ci- ±i-a—E'go" -st 2—S COJ te 1 Eg \. • | K\. k. s/ / t f t Hi fh?I )yac Jic£ ills F ) IP A > \ J k / k Ad jus ed Group I- X -e»- Y# </ > L j t < Lo T D ^acL ,ca~. -iy 7 i A J A* \ k Ad jus ed Grc >up II • -— 1 I -Q. t j > t. > r" 0 \ ? i \ i k f- \ 1 1 r r f f O %- \- - -) —i F— -K-. 1 •J > f * J ——_ > f. * > —t-1 N Le_, 3ta-^da] be ! •vH 1 7P ( "•hi' O t-0 5 I i r 8 t > Ego : 3co: re tt ni, =3q_r iam _Re P-T< ?se nt: .nq ti ie Coi •re Lai io ia3 R( 2la ti< )ns hij of th e I "em ale' N irt uring Pc •ire nt Eg|o Sta te Sc Dre w ith tl ie u ari Sta Ma J te Ade ipt CI fril cT~Ecfd -si Scopre 1 b'e Pa Utile IN rent E art: go ng-y re' \ Hif h r 11\ \ Sc ore in & Ad; ust ed Grc up r X-Iv t J Lov • Dj ad ca! iy 9- * ii ,! > f T3S1 up FT" • -i / J -O. * K L > f d i V i J A 4 r— —7 I— . A. L. • V- - V > i— ID J 1 i r J — 7 1 /r V —J ¥r <• J f 1 —3 \— 3, J 1--4-i •s Ma Le . \da 3ti ve i Zhi Ld 0 * ) L 5 > * 8 < /< Eg D S tat 5 S( x>r< 1 —t —i— 1 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054292/manifest

Comment

Related Items