UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Marital adjustment and ego states in transactional analysis Hiland, Patricia Ann 1978-12-31

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1978_A8 H54.pdf [ 5.39MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054292.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054292+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054292.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054292+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054292+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054292+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054292 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0054292.txt
Citation
1.0054292.ris

Full Text

M A R F T / A L I N  A D J U S T M E N T  A  N  T R A N S A C T I O N A L  D E  G  O  S T A T E S  A N A L Y S I S  by  PATRICIA ANN HILAND B.Ed., (Secondary), U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Counselling  Psychology  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1978 c)  P a t r i c i a Ann H i l a n d , 1978  1972  In p r e s e n t i n g an the  this thesis  in p a r t i a l  advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y Library  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may representatives.  be granted by  his  of  t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  University  Counselling of B r i t i s h  2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  requirements f o r  Columbia,  f o r reference  the Head of my  It i s understood shall  permission.  Department of  the  Psychology  Columbia  that  not  I agree and  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  by  The  of B r i t i s h  s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n  written  fulfilment of  study.  this  thesis  Department  copying or  that  or  publication  be allowed without  my  ABSTRACT The  purpose  relationship their  level  consisted Marital  Adjustment by  the  Scale  Personal  groups  scores.  Group  one  couples  the  eighty-one  to  analyze  on  the  adjustment (Spanier,  of  the  I  couples.  the  from  the  male  ordering the  between  ego s t a t e  scores  all  s i x ego s t a t e s .  to  analyze  six  ego  the  state  were  top t h i r t y  (a  =  of  .001)  t h e means  and the  female  Six t-tests  differences  measures  between  f o r the  moment  correlations  were  Parent  and A d a p t i v e C h i l d  (a  =  ego s t a t e  the  of  combined eighty-  thirty  of  calculated  the  two  groups  showed t h a t  (a  =  difference  by s u b t r a c t i n g  the  ego s t a t e  scores  .05)  calculated  were  t h e means  between scores  of  each  Pearson the  the  .001)  Ego s t a t e  two g r o u p s .  calculated  results,  was  results  group.  measured  1975) .  the bottom  calculated  from the  were  the couples'  differed significantly  couples  Dyadic  Adjustment Scale  low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d  f o r the  couples.  by the  (Kealy,  and  sample  cohabitating  consisted.of  Adjustment Scale  d y a d i c a l l y group  scores  of  of couples  The r e s e a r c h  Questionnaire Dyadic  the  and ego s t a t e s  A t-test  difference  high  patterns  or  1976)  consisted II  explore  was m e a s u r e d  formed by rank  and Group  Dyadic  married  Response  were  was t o  adjustment.  eighty-one  dyadic  study  the ego s t a t e  of marital  On t h e b a s i s two  this  between  of  or  of  for  of  the  product-  Critical  and the  Nurturing  Parent of  and  each  Adaptive  group,  relationships presented  to  personality The  was  of  the  This the  of  (a =  state  test  any  the  two  t-tests  regarding  the  data  the  were  similarities  in  groups. testing  and  that  the  or  couples  regarding  Descriptive  statistical  the  for  hypotheses  differences  .05), indicated  hypotheses  scores  the  variables.  the  including  the  of  the  null  correlation  co-  of  the  eight  hypotheses,  Adult  ego  state  variable  rejected. to  dyadically  significant the  to  illustrate  According high  these  results  efficients  order  ego  p r o f i l e s between  hypotheses,  only  in  Child  Adult  the  adjusted  (a =  ego  .05)  state  statistically l i t e r a t u r e on  spouses  Reasons  couples  lower  than  ego  the  state  low  marriage, has  a  which  positive  for  the  discussed  and  than  lack for  of  the  difference  holds effect  recommendations  for  the  scores  adjusted  with  that  similarity  of  on  state  future  couples.  accordance  the  marital  s a t i s f a c t i o n and  ego  in  in  statistically Adult  that  statistically  dyadically  i t s corresponding  other  appear  evidenced  and  results,  suggested.  i t would  s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t was  (homogamy)  relationship  results  adjustment.  significant variable,  research  were  were  -IV-  TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II.  INTRODUCTION  1  THEORY  5  AND  RELATED RESEARCH  Transactional  Analysis  Structural  Analysis  Theory  5 6  Transactional Analysis Transactions i n Marriage and Other C l o s e R e l a t i o n s h i p s  III.  9 .. . 13  Transactional  Analysis  Research  16  Transactional  Analysis  and Marriage  17  Homo gamy  19  Heterogamy  25  METHODOLOGY AND Specific  DESIGN  30  Questions  Definition  30  o f Terms  31  Design  35  Experimental  Procedure  35  Hypotheses  37  Statement  of the General  Statement  o f the Specific  Hypothesis Hypothesis  37 ....  Instrumentation The The  P e r s o n a l Response Dyadic Adjustment  Description Procedures Procedure  39 Questionnaire Scale  o f P o p u l a t i o n and  i n Collecting  37  '..  3 9' 42  Sampling 43  Data  46  -v-  Table  o f Contents  continued Page  Chapter Limitations  48  Statistical IV.  Analysis  P R E S E N T A T I O N AND Descriptive Mean  48  A N A L Y S I S OF D A T A  50.  Data  50  and S t a n d a r d  Deviation Scores  50  Summary  52  Results  o f Hypothesis  Testing  Results  f o r the General  Results  f o r the Specific  52  Hypothesis  52  Hypotheses  54  Summary V.  63  D I C U S S I O N AND  SUMMARY  65  Restatement  o f the Problem  Description  o f Procedures  Principal  65 Used  65  F i n d i n g s and C o n c l u s i o n s  Recommendations  f o r Future  66-  Research  69\  BIBLIOGRAPHY  72  APPENDIX  A:  P e r s o n a l Response  Questionnaire  76  APPENDIX  B:  Dyadic  Scale  81  APPENDIX  C:  Scatter  Adjustment Diagrams  ^Representing  The C o r r e l a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s o f The C r i t i c a l P a r e n t Ego S t a t e S c o r e s W i t h The A d a p t i v e C h i l d Ego S t a t e :  Scores APPENDIX  D:  f o r - B o t h Groups  S c a t t e r Diagrams Representing The C o r r e l a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s o f The N u r t u r i n g P a r e n t Ego S t a t e S c o r e s W i t h The A d a p t i v e C h i l d Ego S t a t e S c o r e s f o r .Both G r o u p s  86  -vi-  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE I II  III  IV.  V.  DESCRIPTION D e s c r i p t i o n o f Four  Page Groups  46  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f Ego S t a t e D i f f e r e n c e S c o r e s f o r Group I and Group I I  5Q1  t - v a l u e s f o r D i f f e r e n c e s Between t h e Means o f t h e Ego S t a t e D i f f e r e n c e Scores o f the High D y a d i c a l l y Adjusted G r o u p a n d t h e Low D y a d i c a l l y A d j u s t e d Group  53 .  Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Between the C r i t i c a l P a r e n t Ego S t a t e S c o r e s and t h e A d a p t i v e C h i l d Ego S t a t e S c o r e s o f the High Adjusted Couples and the Low A d j u s t e d C o u p l e s  60  Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Between the N u r t u r i n g P a r e n t Ego S t a t e S c o r e s and t h e A d a p t i v e C h i l d Ego S t a t e S c o r e s o f t h e H i g h A d j u s t e d C o u p l e s a n d t h e Low Adjusted Couples  62  -vii-  LIST OF FIGURES Figure  Page  1.  Structure  2.  An Example  of a Parallel  3.  An  of a Crossed Transaction  4.  An Example o f an U l t e r i o r T r a n s a c t i o n  12  5.  P r o f i l e o f Mean D i f f e r e n c e s f o r Group I and G r o u p I I  51  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n a n d B a r G r a p h on C r i t i c a l P a r e n t Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r Group I and Group I I  55  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n and B a r G r a p h on N u r t u r i n g P a r e n t Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r Group I and Group I I  5-5  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n and B a r G r a p h on A d u l t Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r Group I and Group I I  56  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n and B a r G r a p h on A d a p t i v e C h i l d Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r Group I and G r o u p I I  56  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n and B a r Graph on R e b e l l i o u s C h i l d Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r Group I and Group I I  58  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n and B a r G r a p h on N a t u r a l C h i l d Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r G r o u p I and Group I I  5 9/  '6.  7.  8.  9.  10.  11.  Example  o f the P e r s o n a l i t y Transaction  8 10 11  - v i i i -  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I  am  assisted my  family  in  doing I  my  thankful me  with  who  t o t h e many p e r s o n s  the research  provided  would  supervisor  also  like  and  h e l p f u l comments  Dr.  Todd  and  to a l l those  the course  i n the design  thankful who  committee  Borgen  for their of the  support  appreciation  to members ideas  study. provided  and s t a t i s t i c a l  for his contribution  I am  appreciation  t o D r . R a t z l a f f , who  In a d d i t i o n ,  Rogers  Lastly, and  i s given  assistance  the study.  during  my  a n d my  R a t z l a f f and Dr. B i l l  s p e c i a l thanks  of  especially to  encouragement  to express  D r . Norm Amundson  Harold  valuable  continual  have  the study.  Dr.  A  project,  who  analysis  i s extended  to the  to  research.  to the counsellors,  couples  participated i n the reserach  project.  THRISHA HILAND, Vancouver, S p r i n g , 1978  Chapter  I  INTRODUCTION Marriage research i s r i c h to  i n literature  and c o n t i n u e s  be a m a j o r s o u r c e o f r e s e a r c h i n t h e p r e s e n t .  well  a s k why r e s e a r c h i s s t i l l  One may  b e i n g done, as i t h a s b e e n i n  p r o c e s s s i n c e t h e t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y , when P e a r s o n compared t h e a n t h r o p o m e t r i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1890.  However, d u r i n g t h i s  marriage  first  o f spouses i n  t i m e p e r i o d o f some e i g h t y y e a r s ,  a n d t h e methods o f r e s e a r c h have u n d e r g o n e  tremendous  changes. Early  studies  atheoretical  o f m a r r i a g e were f o r t h e most  and h a d few s p e c i f i c  The  s t u d i e s borrowed  the  relevant  sociology,  piecemeal  disciplines;  etc. Until  hypotheses  to investigate.  from t h e g e n e r a l t h e o r i e s o f  i . e . psychology,  only recently  social  s i v e c o n c e p t u a l framework, t a i l o r e d  Locke  a comprehen-  to the question o f  itself.  Moreover, Burgess  psychology,  has r e s e a r c h been  done t o f i t a l l c u r r e n t k n o w l e d g e t o g e t h e r i n t o  marriage  part  the c l a s s i c  and C o t t r e l l  s t u d i e s o f m a r r i a g e , Terman  (1939), Burgess  (1953) a r e b a s e d on m a r r i a g e s  much a s t h i r t y y e a r s ago and n e e d  and W a l l i n  (1938),  (1935), and  t h a t were c o n t r a c t e d as  replication  i n this  era of  change. Furthermore,  t h e r e have b e e n s i g n i f i c a n t  marriage, p a r t i c u l a r i l y i n the l a s t  changes i n  two d e c a d e s  and much o f  -2-  the  earlier  research  questionable questions  have  been  sixties, variety  Hicks  to their  Many  answering"  those  by  studies  there  i s a  shift to-  places  (homogamy)  of self  enhance  associated with  tendency  not the only has a l s o  toward  tendency been  relationship  1966  and t h e  and spouse  marital  found  (Winch,  1962;  1962; K a t z ,  that  &  conof  and a r e  satisfaction. likes",  or  homogamy,  i n the l i t e r a t u r e  on  marriage.  "unlikes" element  marry i n the  and i t s concomitant  & Ktsanes,  Cohen  found  and s i m i l a r i t y  i s an i m p o r t a n t  Ktsanes  a , 1964 b ;  relationship  marrying  relationship  satisfaction  o f the spouses,  , have  the marital  "likes  this  of the marital  em-  e t . al_. , 1952; M u r s t e i n  the proposition that  and t h a t  greater  1960 a , 1960 b , 1964  & Glaudin,  spouses  Toman,  "for a  done o n t h e m a r i t a l  1954 ; P r e s t o n  of perceptions  (heterogamy)  which  that  o f the spouses.  Luckey,  1972; M u r s t e i n  positively  reasons,  i n the  found  and p e r s o n a l i t y i n t e r a c t i o n  1 9 4 1 ; Dymond,  quality  New  revolution, the  need  p . 555)  o f the marital  gruence  There  least  society.  o f the research  marriage",  of the research  including  The  (1970,  and p e r s o n a l  interaction  relationship  is  urgently  review  and P i a t t  of social  personality  Beck,  by the sexual  e t c .which  on t h e q u a l i t y  Kelly,  o f our changing  raised  the companionship  phasis  or at  1 9 7 6 , p . 8) .  According  ward  seems o b s o l e t e  i n the l i g h t  women's m o v e m e n t , (Blood,  "now  1954; K e r c k o f f  & C a s t i g l i o n e , 196 3) .  &  Davis,  -3-  However, d e s p i t e the  the f i n d i n g s  which support  p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f l i t e r a t u r e on m a r r i a g e f a v o u r s t h e  t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s homogamy  i n enhancing the m a r i t a l  Hence, i t i s t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h i s r e s e a r c h e r expect s i m i l a r i t y marital  a closer  that  i t i s t h e main p u r p o s e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h  look  In  doing  so, the researcher w i l l analysis  transactional interaction  framework and w i l l  analysis  apply the concepts o f  theory i n analysing  with marital  c o n c e p t o f ego s t a t e s ,  l o w e r ego s t a t e  difference  low d y a d i c a l l y  Transactional originated studying an  authors  f o c u s on t h e t r a n s couples  adjusted w i l l  show  are i d e n t i f i e d  adjusted.  Analysis  (TA) i s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l  approach  I t i s a method o f  human b e h a v i o u r and r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w h i c h h a s l e d t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what i s h a p p e n i n g w i t h i n  and what i s h a p p e n i n g between i n d i v i d u a l s .  t h e r e h a s b e e n no s y s t e m a t i c actional  satisfaction  s c o r e s t h a n c o u p l e s who  by E r i c B e r n e i n t h e 1950's.  increased  dividual  relationship,  t o see whether  who a r e i d e n t i f i e d a s b e i n g h i g h d y a d i c a l l y  being  the p e r s o n a l i t y  In p a r t i c u l a r , the study w i l l  analysis  similarity  relationship.  and e x p r e s s i v e a s p e c t s o f t h e m a r i t a l  adjustment.  to take  look a t marriage i n the t r a n s -  w h i c h a r e t h o u g h t t o be a s s o c i a t e d  as  study  a t s p e c i f i c marriages t o e x p l o r e whether  s p o u s e s h a s a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e m a r i t a l  actional  one w o u l d  o f s p o u s e s t o be t h e m a j o r f a c t o r i n p r e d i c t i n g  of  actional  relationship. .  s a t i s f a c t i o n and adjustment.  Thus,  and  heterogamy,  analysis  research  and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n  ( B e r n e , 1961; H a r r i s ,  the i n -  Although  i n the area o f t r a n s to marriage,  several  1967; Campos a n d M c C o r m i c k , 1972)  -4-  haye and  suggested i n marriage The  provide  further  analysis  the  marital  to  to  spouses  not  give  marry.  of  this  through  marital  study  This to  i t is  analysis  counselling. aid  areas  the of  additional  study,  relationship  then,  application study  the  the  have  study  therapist  possible objective  in  of  of  to  personality the  transactional  significance  to  of  a  in  experimentally  this  application  couple's  ego  counselling  conflict, couples  analysis  researcher  fruitful  the  marital data  the  is  transactional  opinion  could  The  has  investigate  r e l a t i o n s h i p through  only  the  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  system.  first  transactional  identify  also  empirical  Moreover,  marital  would  of  the  framework.  to  improving  counselling.  conceptual  i t is  that  in  overall rationale  interaction  that  i t s use  but who  states process would  are  planning  -5-  Chapter THEORY AND  In  general,  explain the  the  three  theory  and  of  satisfaction  work  of  Dr.  that  home, deal  in  Its the  with  classroom,  each  analysis  of  as  a  relationship;  as  elements  corresponding  effect  of on  Theory is a  system  Berne,  who  own  in  the  i t as  and  an  is a  learn  to  rational on  trust  and  developed extension  i s based  decisions  be  analysis  analysis  behaviour  his  of  saw  the himself,  express  applied  on  the  community  --  wherever  analysis  within  the  i s divided  job,  what  which  into  explains  individual; transactional i s happening  game a n a l y s i s ,  transactions  theory  s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s , which  explains  dividuals;  their  for  marital  heterogamy  i n d i v i d u a l can make  the  to  his in  the  people  people.  analyses:  which  and  p r i n c i p l e s can  Transactional  happening  transactional  Transactional  any  for himself,  feelings.  Eric  understanding  assumption  research  be  adjustment.  Analysis  psychoanalysis. to  and  Analysis  Transactional  of  homogamy  r e l a t i o n s h i p and  Transactional  think  of  chapter w i l l the  understanding  marital  approach  outline  for  the  of  to  this  basis  theories  the  of  theory  the  from  focus  RESEARCH  the  and  A.  RELATED  areas:  conceptual  marital  the  II  have  which  bad  between explains  two  or  four  what  is  analysis, more  in-  p a r t i c u l a r kinds  f e e l i n g Dayoffs:  and  kinds  script  of  -6-  analysis, may  be  which  ego  structural  states  constructs  1.  and  review  (1961)  the  division  and  Child.  of  pattern  of  the  plan  that  an  individual  the  analysis of  focus  the  self  notion  .  of  the  self  t r a n s a c t i o n s are  present these  study,  two  the  two  this  concepts.  into  structural  three  ego  ego  states  a n a l y s i s to  states:  stands  defines  an  and  experience  ego  as  one  s t a t e as  directly  consistent pattern of  Adult  of  the  major  based  "A  consistent  related  behaviour"  denote  Parent,  transactional analysis i s  Berne  feeling  corresponding  on  term  of  upon w h i c h  1971)  division  Analysis  used  the  This  cornerstones (Steiner,  analysis,  will  Structural  Berne  to  a  (Berne,  1966,  364) . Berne's  havioural such  as  changes  changes  control  of  people of  the  Moreover, limited tinct  occurred  facial  gestures  other  and  inside these  or  from  his observation  that  i n an  individual  a  sound  entered  expressions, posture. the  inner  his  work  I t was  individual. different  when  as  though  At  certain  people  Berne  of  of  ego  states which  behaviour.  These  fall  These  individual are  three  were  times to  has  separate  into  body  there  seemed  according  each  stimulus,  intonations,  total personality.  to  be-  new  focus.  individual's  repertoire  sources  evolved  gesture  involved  different the  theory  a word,  movements,  or  life  most p e r t i n e n t f o r the  theoretical  p.  the  living.  Since into  explains  be  only  and  one in  a  dis-  types:  -7-  (a)  exteropsychic  from  parental  reproduces ponses state  the  of  which  was  of  and  (c)  established at  and  state  attitudes,  figures;  data  ego  which  significant authority  i s concerned  reality;  feelings  other  feelings,  those  processing of  and  ( P a r e n t ) , an  (b) with  the  and  a  a p a r t i c u l a r moment o r  of  ego  collecting  ( C h i l d ) , an  time  an  logical  reproduces  and  res-  (Adult),  toward  archaepsychic  i n childhood  and  autonomous  i s directed  borrowed  figures  behaviour  neopsychic  is  ego  the  and  appraisal state  which  behaviour  the  child's  and  de-  velopment. Both forms.  Parent  The  Parent  "prejudiced judiced  and  attitudes pressed by  as  "adaptive  ponds  t o be  ego  by such  structure  follows:  the  The  state the  behaviour as  by  be  divided  exhibited  by  either  Parent".  dogmatic with  and  into  "pre-  critical  Parent"  i n d i v i d u a l and  two  the  The  arbitrary  "nurturing  be-  non-rational i s often i s  ex-  demonstrated  behaviours.  i s also  exhibited  "natural which  compliance by  can  "nurturing  f o r another  and  situations of  states  filled  nurturing  i s expressed to  the  opinions.  Child"  expressed  Child"  or  sympathy  influences,  as  tends  Child  ego  i s expressed  s u p p o r t i n g and The  is  or  Child  i s typically  Parent"  Parent"  haviours  and  Child".  i n two The  forms,  "adaptive  i s responsive to or withdrawal.  autonomous  spontaneously  forms and  of  The  behaviour  can  be  Child"  parental  intuitively.  individual's personality  the  "natural and Thus,  resthe  diagrammed  -8-  FIGURE 1  Prejudiced Parent Nurturing Parent  Adult  Adaptive C h i l d Natural Child  Structure  o f the Personality  One o f t h e g o a l s o f T r a n s a c t i o n a l be a  Analysis  i s that  there  a b a l a n c e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e t h r e e ego s t a t e s , a n d free  that  flow o f psychic  e n e r g y among a l l t h e ego s t a t e s  a person can a c t u a l l y s h i f t  f r o m one ego s t a t e t o  a n o t h e r when i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e . e a c h ego s t a t e  so  I t i s helpful to think o f  as h a v i n g b o u n d a r i e s .  According  t o Berne  ( 1 9 6 1 ) , ego b o u n d a r i e s c a n be t h o u g h t o f as s e m i p e r m e a b l e membranes t h r o u g h w h i c h p s y c h i c state  to another.  otherwise, psychic and  energy can flow  f r o n one ego  "Ego b o u n d a r i e s must be s e m i p e r m e a b l e ; e n e r g y w o u l d be bound up i n one ego  u n a b l e t o move a b o u t s p o n t a n e o u s l y a s s i t u a t i o n s  state  change"  (James & J o n g e w a r d , 1971, p . 2 2 6 ) . In in  addition,  executive  i t i s desirable  control  t o have t h e A d u l t  o f t h e o t h e r ego s t a t e s .  ego s t a t e  I f the Adult  -9-  is  free  Child  from  ego  negative  influence  from  states,  the  individual  is  decisions.  Thus,  the  p e r s o n who  has  ...  to  "learns  child-like  qualities  appropriate Adult  exercise  ego  only  company" state  person  ego  because  states,  emerge  allows  each  at  1966,  essential  and  able  has  Parent to  Adult  insight  (Berne,  i s an  functioning  Adult  the  and  make  autonomous  executive  and  control  appropriate p.306).  of  control  so  that  times  Hence,  requirement  appropriate  the  a  to  and  a  in  strong  fully  expression  i t s contribution  these  of  make  a l l  a  total  personality. 2.  Transactional  Communication A  transaction  between  two  a  response  any  combination  four  ego  actions  a  two  states. linked  transactions, also  of  i s done by  and/or  It  specific  ego  ego  states.  A  ego  states,  or  A  conversation  together. parallel,  corresponding  There crossed  rule  of  means o f  nonverbal  individuals.  between  only  people  verbal  more  and  involving  with  is a  or  Analysis  communication  consists states,  of  complex,  a  and  transaction  consists  transactions.  stimulus  i t may  may  be  involving of  a  are  three  and  ulterior.  three of  kinds  of  There  for  simple,  series  basic  communication  involve  trans-  is  each kind  of  transaction. A  transaction or  is parallel action  at  when  someone  phrase,  gesture  another  replies  in  the  same e g o  state,  Child.  If  the  response  i s appropriate  such  person as  aims and  Parent, to  the  a  word,  that Adult  person or  stimulus,  or  the  -10-  person the  will  get  the  expected  transaction  can  continue.  transaction  as  and  the  follows  (Berne,  1964,  nature.  A  following  one  which  natural  p.29).  parallel figure  is  ego  Berne  ...  order  An  state  of  shows.  The  the  healthy  be  a  expected  relationships"  i s i t s ongoing  diagramed  communication  and  parallel  and  human  feature  can  other  describes  "appropriate  essential  transaction  of  as  vectors  the are  parallel.  FIGURE  2  X: Y:  Y  X An  Example  of  a  Parallel  Transaction  "How I 'm  old  are  y o u ? II  thirty-twon  -11-  The occurs than  second  when t h e  the  lines  crossed  of  there  not  If  a  individuals.  When t h i s  realignment  an  of  a  third  is  more  complex  in  that  they or  different  stimulus the  crossing  of  ego  example  transaction,  and  ego  state  response  transaction  is  occurs,  intended  the  transaction  states  by one  often  have  a  ceases  or  both  an  element  i n misunderstandings.  of  a  crossed  of  The  transaction  3  Y  Example  verbal  the  and f r e q u e n t l y r e s u l t  X  The  from a  Crossed transactions  diagram i s  crossed  down a n d t h e  FIGURE  An  a  parallel,  u s u a l l y breaks  is  surprise  reacts  expected.  transaction.  following  transaction,  diagram are  communication  the  of  respondent  initiator  in a  until  type  Crossed  type than  always  of  Transaction  transaction,  p a r a l l e l or involve  n o n - v e r b a l message  more with  an u l t e r i o r  crossed than a  ones.  two e g o  hidden  transaction, They  states.  differ It  psychological  is  a  -12-  meaning, level. can  be  which The  communication  either  communication entirely  i s disguised  parallel  or  vectors  from  a  socially  i n an  crossed,  i s confusion,  different  under  but  because  t h e one  acceptable  ulterior the  result  the v e r b a l  which  transaction of  the  m e s s a g e may  i s being  be  given  nonverbally. The  f o l l o w i n g i s an  illustration  of  an  ulterior  trans-  action.  FIGURE  Saleswoman  4  Customer  Saleswoman:  Customer's  A  "This coat i s our latest style, but i t may b e t o o expensive f o r you". A."Yes, you a r e r i g h t considering my budget".  T h e s t a t e m e n t w a s made t o t h e customer's A d u l t , b u t the nonv e r b a l message comes f r o m t h e saleswoman's C h i l d ego s t a t e and i s sent to the customer's C h i l d ego s t a t e . The c u s t o m e r must choose which message t o r e s p o n d t o a n d may f e e l confused. An  Example  o f an  Ulterior  Transaction  -13-  3.  Transactions  (a)  Parallel  i n Marriage  The  have  value  of parallel  of parallel  i s ongoing  healthy  relationship.  a  human  enough,  though  225).  A  ego  state  not  dynamic.  An a  stop  can  works  transactions  become  (Berne,  on o n l y  mainly  become  individuals  1966  o n e o r two  unchanging  may  un-  deteriorate  parallel"  to remain  t o one o r b o t h  abundance  o f crossed  i n close  transactions  they  lead  remain  trans-  condition f o r  a r e l a t i o n s h i p based  parallel  a psychological  feeling  out, a parallel  but not the sole  i s likely  to a  and on  boring  involved.  Transactions  relationship, when  i s that  contributes  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p may  Thus,  disadvantage  crossed  and t h i s  relationship that  frustrating  Crossed  transactions  points  the vectors  levels  Parent-Child or  transactions.  relationship; i f the transactions  palatable  p.  as Berne  " i sa necessary  'good'  even  Relationships  a r e l o n g - l a s t i n g and happy  communication  However,  (b)'  which  an abundance  primary  action  Close  Transactions  Relationships often  and o t h e r  relationships.  puzzled,  game o r t o c h a n g e i s usually  a n d someone u s u a l l y  p u t down  to further  can a l s o  Although  c a n be u s e f u l , e s p e c i a l l y t o  communication  a r e used,  transactions  a  static  interrupted ends  or misunderstood.  cross-ups  and  up This  resentments.  be  -14-  Hence, on  i f a marriage  crossed  relationship  i s based p r i m a r i l y  transactions, the lines  of  communication  would  c o n t i n u a l l y be c r o s s i n g and t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n  would  break  o f funtil  there  i s a realignment  o f ego  states.  (c)  Ulterior  Transactions  Relationships  rely  on a p l e n i t u d e  transactions  are l i k e l y  t o be unhappy  transactions  often  t o games w h i c h  feeling  payoffs.  relationship another they  (d)  that  want  Adult  never  (James  mentioned  Adult  ality. close  ones.  ulterior  Ulterior  have b a d  involved  and honest  manipulation  and Jongeward,  i n such with  a  one  t o g e t what  19 75) .  Transactions previously,  ego s t a t e  This  be o p e n  use devious  - to - Adult As  the  The i n d i v i d u a l s  may  a n d may  lead  of  i t i s advantageous  i n executive  i s especially  r e l a t i o n s h i p s where  c o n t r o l of the  important persons  person-  i n marriage  relate  on an  t o have  and  intimate  level. Having mean  that  i n executive  the individual  It  means  an  impulse  when  the Adult  that may  "The A d u l t be acted  reality  o f t h e moment"  i s always  acting  i s 'tuned  i n ' a n d knows  on  i tmust be c o n t a i n e d  c o n t r o l does n o t  with  great"  or modified  (James  from  the Adult.  pleasure  when and  to f i tthe  and Jongeward,  1971, p . 2 4 9 ) .  4  -15-  The  Adult  use  from  makes  the Parent  expression. ego  This  states  Adult  c u l a r l y since a If  two  of  each  solve  i n marriage  f o r a variety  individuals  problems  together,  they  among  i f they  switch  a balanced  re-  i s parti-  and c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s and to the  t o be  gather  a l l t h e ego s t a t e s .  position  quality  are able  to  ego s t a t e s and p e r m i t t i n g  freely  and f l e x i b l e  other,  maintaining  to  for their  the individual  - as - e x e c u t i v e  i t allows  i s appropriate  and allows  the three  t o flow  valuable  dyanamic  enables  between  energy  The  or Child  autonomously,  lationship psychic  d e c i s i o n s about what  relationship.  sympathetic  and c a r i n g  and use i n f o r m a t i o n  together,  i f they  laugh  are using  the f u l l  gives  to  and have f u n  range  of their  ego  states.  Thus, goals most the  according  t o Berne,  one o f t h e  important  of transactional analysis i f "to establish open  and a u t h e n t i c  effective  personality" essential  volved.  and i n t e l l e c t u a l (Berne,  1966,  i n a marriage  relationship  communication  i s t o be  possible  components  p . 216).  or else  satisfying  This  the  between  of the i s especially  relationship,  i fthe  to the people i n -  -16-  B.  Transactional Little  Analysis  research  analysis  and  Although  many b o o k s  on  TA,  the  most  reasons  analysis and  existance there  states  could once  Thomson  audio  (P,  with  A,  fined.  As  a  contention  C).  that  ego  which  David  consists  acting made  pondent  in  has  few  TA  TA  been  in  in  One  are  clinicians  Berne  written  on  of  transactional  transactional  as  marriage.  published  nature.  researchers  states,  analysis  have  verified  indicated.  transactional  books.  demonstrated  was  found  with was  He  a  the  validity  developed  illustrative that as  people well  high  he  as  in-  the  three not  experts,  of  accuracy,  them  supported  of  were  TA  to  an  of  who  degree  explained  findings, are  of  have in  transactional  and  de-  Berne's  i d e n t i f i a b l e phenomena  and  can  designed  Inventory  identified. McCarley of  various  from  a  analysis,  states  states  in  of  use  limited  verify  which He  his  the  research.  states  ego  r e s u l t of  consistently Dr.  (19 72)  tapes,  and  of  to  several  transactional  concept  so  involved  ego  in his  a l l i d e n t i f y ego the  been  some m a t e r i a l in  on  area  articles  made  three  the  done  However,  marriage  with  has  in  theoretical  people  recognition  strument  familar  been  been  been  been  the  George  ego-state  ego  of  has  and  Dr.  is  research  empirically.  analysis  be  why  most  done  journal  them have  that  been  has  and  e f f o r t s have  concepts  Also  less  of  is  few  the  even  has  Research  the five  a  (1971)  series  social Adult  cartoons  situations.  ego  choices  of  state  in  from which  the  showing A  State people  comment o r  each to  Ego  cartoon  answer,  and  inter-  question the  res-  corresponding  -17-  to  the  Punitive  (Critical  Adaptive  Child  used  inventory  in  the  five  more  concept In  and  has  egograms  use  material and  visual p.  his  idea  not  ego  individuals  predominance to  state  the not  objectively. clinician,  "Egograms  represent  the  He  reports work,  or  identifiable  which  from  the  one  conclusive „  egograms,  of  of  particular  i s an  analysis  emanating  Adult,  McCarley  of  clinical  support  an  he  Dr. uses  intensity  ego-state,  predominant the  validity  but  there  John in and  and  ego  states"  and  reliability  i s no  empirical  this.  Analysis  and  previously,  transactional  has  the  measured  symbols  38).  mentioned of  the  a  or  r e s u l t s were  transactional  stimuli  Transactional As  the  the  showed  Parent,  states.  whether  His  be  practice.  in  to  a  ego  corresponding  that  i t can  devised  1972,  evidence  C.  of  provide  (Dusay,  indicated  that  clinical  states,  Nurturing  Child  determine  profession.  addition,  frequency  of  the  they  Dusay,  they  to  d i f f e r e n t ego  However,  his  Rebellious  different professions  demands o f  M.  or  Parent),  Marriage there  analysis  been w r i t t e n  by  is  little  information  i n marriage,  transactional  although  analysis  on some  clinicians  theorists. According  to  Thomas H a r r i s ,  analysis  therapist  applying  transactional  counselling. when b o t h  and  Harris  partners  author,  have  one  analysis  suggests  a  to  that  well-known of  the  most  transactional useful  marriage  is  the  marriages  best  s i m i l a r backgrounds  and  in  ways  of  premarital grow  similar  reality  -18-  interests are of  (Harris,  ignored the  before  couple  Hence, could The  be  may  of  In  about  each  relationship  or  not  the  way,  might  be  Berne  find  goes  out  on  marriage the  mate  among a l l t h e  from  (Berne, those  who  give  who  do  not.  the  former  actionally Lastly,  p.  the  by  the  final  rests  on  the  whole  script.  one  Thus,  hope  be  a  of  one.  for this  the  candidates  are  i s narrowed to  candidates among  i s most  the  likely  "partners  the  the  are  basis two  of  drawn  a  this"  sorted  the  into  and  those  among  trans-  required  through  of  on  further  game-eligible go  other.  selection  first  down  couple's  each  responses,  play  to  the  i s based  r e v e a l which will  whether  essential  "The  transactional  field  the  script".  kind  research  with  possible candidates The  what  Harris's  diagramming  the  each  more o b j e c t i v e  f u t u r e , and  parallel  that  of  predicting  parallel  say  thorough  Child  have  are  to  more  and  i f they  choice who  would  relevance  game-testing,  eligible  Adult,  a  of  215).  the  undertake  use  appropriate  Then  to  the  "contract of  1961,  marriage.  s e c r e t c o n t r a c t between  Children,  marriage.  contemplating  woul  further  i s the  the  states  couple  p o s s i b l e i n the  i t recommends  s t a t e s to  planning  ego  diagram  couple  with  Child  a personality  Parent,  the  other,  of  the  dissimilarities  that  be  i s of particular  since  the  would  relationship  suggestion  of  the  important  because  i n charge  i s i n the  this  of  ego  be  this  o f what  partner.  study  a marriage  constructed of  inquiry  Often  H a r r i s recommends  purpose  data  1967).  games.  candidates with  together  the by  the  -19-  intuitive (Berne,  assumption  1961,  p.  that  215).  However, a  relationship  may  not  says,  the  most  one  marriage the  of  therapy  marriage  compulsive, can  D.  be  be  to  (Berne,  review has  vestigate  of  parallel as  Berne  transactional and  games  in  instead  unconstructive  p..  1961,  of  been the  the  a  literature  plethora  e f f e c t of  of  interpersonal  come.  there  However,  point will  of  view,  review the  the  In  in  the  a l l the  assortative in  Brugess Kelly, In five  the and  of  elements-  216).  on  early  Cottrell,  study  judges  and  done on  also  studies  in  done  ("like marries  been  support  ("unlikes" the  area  to  in-  like")  marriage for  the  marry). of  that  out-  opposing  This  homogamy  on  section  (similarity)  (dissimilarity) will  be  section.  studies,  1920's and  indicated  a t t r a c t i o n and  heterogamy  mating,), i s  marriage  research  heterogamy  following  Richardson a  has  literature  literature  reviewed  began  or  on  homogamy  mate-selection,  by  Therefore,  made o p t i o n a l or  this  Homogamy  there  as  one.  relationships  be  complementary"  some c a s e s  goals  destructive  eliminated"  A  and  in  healthy  the  have  that  s c r i p t s are  important  i s that  "will so  their  the  homogamy trend.  included  Burgess  and  (which  Such  the  known  investigations  pioneering  Wallin,  is also  work  Terman,  of  Kirkpatrick,  Locke. by  Kelly  thirty-six  (1940), traits  personality  were  obtained  ratings from  three  -20-  hundred  engaged  analysis  couples.  of assortative  The r e p o r t e d mating,  as r e v e a l e d  b e t w e e n m e m b e r s o f t h e 300 p a i r s Otis  S-A,  attitudes  Bernreuter, towards  entertaining, children;  with the  a median range  Thus,  the results  human  mating. In  marriage,  church,  divorce,  care  o f t h e lawn  of physical  However,  when  negative  found  done  (194 3)  a n d "Homogamy  Characteristics"  (1944)  by Burgess  further  i n support  were  based  results  that  such  conceptions ships,  as family  o f marriage,  religious  like  varied  affiliation  f o r family  c u l t u r a l background  hood,  s o c i a l and economic also  In  Their  engaged  fairly  status high  place  indicated.  Social  found  findings couples.  The  by s o c i a l behaviour,  o f items, (.54),  they  family  relation-  The d e g r e e  of  the highest  and t h e next  ( r u r a l o r urban  of parents,  (.33)  and t h e  contingencies  and behaviour.  and b e h a v i o u r  f o r attentuation,  o f homogamy i n  social participation,  (.38)  I t was  were  courtship  by t h e group  +.42  t o +.74  square  took  background,  religious affiliation  mating with  etc).  o f homogamy.  mating  to  i n Personality  o f one thousand  assortative  zero  and W a l l i n ,  o f t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f mean  indicated factors  on a sample  zero  "Homogamy  Characteristics"  evidence  from  i n support  on  of  The raw  correlations  evidence  studies  and r e a r i n g  corrected  from  scores;  housekeeping,  traits.  c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged  No  two o t h e r  variables:  and A l l p o r t - V e r n o n  o f +.13.  +.21.  correlations  f o r the following  o f t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s was  m e d i a n was  an  Strong,  gardening,  mating  by  were  Bell,  a n d a number  assortative  findings  place  f o r courtship  like being  highest  child-  of birth behaviour,  -21-  conceptions (124). fact  of marriage  The i n f l u e n c e  that  every  higher  actual  unions  and that  tically were  than  personality  the  in  expected  was  i n their  high  Inventory  of  and t h e i r  found  that  o f the items  were  the distribution  forty-two  items  none were  height,  items  Another reported the  studied,  total  neurotic  health  research  paper  on t h e r e s u l t s  resemblances  Homogamy  o f husband  indicating  on  topics  the correlations  attitudinal none  and i n t e r e s t s .  traits  were  than  higher  found  also  from  shown f o r  (1939),  1 9 2 8 - 19 39 o n  Richardson reported and wife i n  associations,  The r e s u l t s  opinions  demonstrated  i n the i n t e l l e c t u a l  i n the t r a i t s  o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s were  In  o f homogamy  by Richardson  o f husband  v a l u e s , i n f o r m a t i o n , work  that  o f the Inventory,  on a l l b u t one o f t h e  was  done  attitudes, current  and W a l l i n  attractiveness.  and w i f e .  similarity  of  conform  significant.  o n homogamy  of studies  o f one  scores,  i n the direction  and p h y s i c a l  important  sample  Burgess  o f responses  was  which  o f the Thurstone  statistically  heterogamous.  weight,  satis-  the responses  o f the forty-two items  addition,  and  t o be  o f homogamy i n  u s i n g t h e same  to individual  reported that  fourteen  a  assortative  enough  g e n e r a l t o t h e t h e o r y o f homogamy.  (1944)  showed  significance.  investigation  couples, they  couples  items  by t h e  according to the chi-square tests  characteristics,  engaged  participation  demonstrated  proportion  a l l b u t s i xwere  engaged  Neurotic  o f homogamy  to evaluate s t a t i s t i c a l  Moreover,  thousand  and s o c i a l  one o f t h e f i f t y - o n e  significant,  done  (.31),  o f temperament.  t o be r e l i a b l y  and Also  negative, ^  -22-  as  the theory Thus,  homogamy  o f heterogamy  the e a r l y  literature  mating been  over  have  logists  and s o c i o l o g i s t s ,  support  the theory  temperament,  These  (1960)  done  i n the last which  (1950),  have  Katz  and Blood  and Wolfe  o u t "Homogamy  istics  i s one o f t h e few c l e a r  of  similar  status,  age, r e s i d e n c e ,  and education"  However,  gamy r e s e a r c h  (Winch,  to  have  (Burgess  accountable  This  i s less  persons race,  has l e d c u r r e n t  of  charactera few) b y  V e r o f f and  Schellenberg character-  tend  t o marry  persons  1960, p . 1 5 7 ) . i n personality  from  trends  physical  and f i n a l l y  1943).  other  socio-economic  The e a r l i e r  emphasis  o f homo-  character-  to personality  I n d i v i d u a l psychology  f o r the " f i e l d t h e mate must  researchers  mate-selection.  religion,  of  i s  eligibles"  u l t i m a t e l y be s e l e c t e d .  t o extend  psychological factors affecting  outcome.  cite  and c u l t u r a l  of similarity  and W a l l i n ,  from which  As  to  and c o n s i s t e n t e m p i r i c a l  abilities  t o some d e g r e e  19 5 2 ) ,  i n social  settled.  changed  to intellectual  traits  (1960) .  other  psycho-  of other  (1958) , G u r i n ,  (Schellenberg,  the question  characteristics  istics  that  on  interests,  (to only  t o come o u t o f s t u d i e s  c a n be no d o u b t  by  f u r t h e r evidence  done  and H i l l  points  generalizations  two d e c a d e s  a n d a number  been  (1960)  I n a d d i t i o n , many  i n attitudes,  tendency  studies  of research  o f homogamy o r  give  o f homogamy  neurotic  Hollingshead  There  i n the f i e l d  heterogamy.  studies  Feld  require.  i n d i c a t e s the preponderance  assortative  istics.  would  their investigations  mate-selection  and marriage  -23-  One n o t a b l e of  happiness  of  husband  volunteer  and w i f e couples  couples  their  and  was  a  them.  study  (1966) .  on t h e verge  Zimmerman  or  related  happiness  Schedule.  personality  traits  The  indicated  nificant  positive  and  the other  but  were  was  done  groups  would  that  not significant.  were  i s enhanced  to support the  of married  given  be  Signori  couples,  group  and a  the Guildford  tested related  was  General  that  similar  to marital  or unrelated  to marital  unhappiness. showed  f o r the happily married a l l i n the expected  For those  provided  by P i c k f o r d ,  four of the t r a i t s  correlation  .75  the earlier  married  dissimilar  be r e l a t e d  that  sixtraits  would  was  the data  and t h e B u r g e s s - W a l l i n  traits  which  they p r e d i c t e d  evidence  The h y p o t h e s i s  and c o n v e r s e l y ,  sort,  (1954) .  an u n h a p p i l y  Survey  Marital  happiness  supports  further  matched  Twenty  i n marriage  o f s e p a r a t i o n , were  personality  results  This  similarity  reported f o r  Thus,  happiness  gave  Three  Q  a n d f o r how  to marital  o r homogamy  Temperament  Satisfaction  adjective  a n d Dymond  which  (1956) .  The c o r r e l a t i o n  that  (1941)  to the  and W a l l i n ' s  a t t h e .01 l e v e l .  h a p p i l y married- group,  group  item  i n relation  of similarity  Rempel  given Burgess  of personality.  of Kelly  Another  and  sort  f o r the notion  similarity  theory  by C o r s i n i  fifty  the relationship  i n marriage  sorted f o r themselves  similarity  findings  investigated  done  and a  significant  support by  was  were  test  mate w o u l d  couples'  which  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g  Satisfaction the  study  groups  having  a  siggroup  direction troubles  -24-  in  their  ficant,  marriages, with  direction. similar  I t was  wife  evidence  that  has been  the association  faction  and s i m i l a r i t y  agreement  1964  (Murstein  1957),  & Beck,  1967).  the and  marital  fairly  i n husband  to marital was  that  success  correlates  1966),  un-  proved  variables: attraction per-  1 9 6 0 a,- 1 9 6 0 b , e t a l . , 1952;  o f spouse  evidence  o f husband  satis-  person  1964 b ) , a n d m e n t a l  homogamy  or  interpersonal  1954; P r e s t o n  i s overwhelming  relationship  adjustment.  gave  i n the research to  1972; L u c k e y ,  personality  (Murstein,  suggests  traits  on c e r t a i n  & B l a y l o c k , 1963),  1966; L u c k e y ,  which  found  o r homogamy  1 9 4 1 ; Dymond,  there  self-  adjustment  the former  between m a r i t a l  & Glaudin,  Thus,  or  was r e l a t e d  (Levinger & Breedlove,  a; K e l l y ,  Mangus,  of personality  were  persistency of  The d a t a  happiness  although  couples  enthusiasm,  deliberateness,  marital  signi-  the l a t t e r .  evidence  (Byrne  happily married  dissimilarity  support  attitudes  were  i n the expected  and a g r e e a b i l i t y .  o r maladjustment;  Further  being  productivity,  to similarity  stronger than  ception  that  energy,  and that  happiness  and  traits  found  friendliness  was r e l a t e d  much  two o f t h e t r a i t s  serious-mindedness,  consistent  and  other  i n drive,  control, effort,  five  only  (Murstein  health  i n the literature  and w i f e  and i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g  enhances  satisfaction  -25-  E.  HeterogamyHeterogamy  complementary  needs  been  be  both  mean o n e  a n d t h e same  To  Tharp  quote  other  in  mate  influence  similar,  mate  selection of  within  heterogamy  He  section  "In marriage  produced i n the l a s t theory  decade  terms as  they  mate  research,  has been  o f complementary  and h i s a s s o c i a t e s  f o r viewing  stated,  selection  next  two  have  selection  as  needs  presented i n terms o f  or dissimilar,  rather  than  o f needs.  variables, normally in  These  of  thing.  o f complementary,  pattern  Briefly  i n this  a s R.F. W i n c h ' s  evidence  t o as t h e t h e o r y  marry).  (1963, p . 1 0 4 ) ,  selection.  empirical the  interchangeably  hypothesis  influential"  referred  ("unlikes"  will  no  used  has a l s o  the theory  associated establishes  this  field  holds  with a  that  although  the theory  "field  those  o f homogamy  of eligibles",  i s d e t e r m i n e d by a  of motives - complementarity.  mate  specific  Winch  kind  defines  complementarity: When t w o p e r s o n s , A a n d B, a r e i n t e r a c t i n g , we consider the r e s u l t i n g g r a t i f i c a t i o n s o f both to be ' c o m p l e m e n t a r y ' i f one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s is satisfied: (1)  (2)  t h e need o r needs i n A which a r e b e i n g g r a t i f i e d are ' d i f f e r e n t i n kind' from t h e n e e d o r n e e d s b e i n g g r a t i f i e d i n B; the need gratified from the being g r a 1954, p .  or  o r needs i n A which a r e b e i n g a r e 'very d i f f e r e n t i n i n t e n s i t y ' same n e e d s i n B w h i c h a r e a l s o tified. (Winch, K t s a n e s & K t s a n e s , 243) .  -26-  Each of  individual  eligibles  maximum their  need  who  offers  dividuals  A  resulting  behaviour  who  provide  needs,  studied  consisted  total with  done  twelve  a c t according  with  of  "B s 1  gratifi-  the behaviour  (Winch done  to  i f i n -  patterns,  source  to support  o f C,  ejt a l . , 1 9 5 4 , p . 242) . several  studies to  the theory  be h e l p f u l  as w e l l  education  persons.  as three  o f com-  to look  (1)  a need  a t some  (3)  an e i g h t - c a r d technique  product-moment  (2)  classifi-  traits.  students  was  status,  fairly  The  spouses,  race, age,  the data  a case-history apperception was  were  were  interview,  test.  The  used:  and  statis-  the interspousal  i . e . the husbands'  respective wives'  a  homogeneous  religion,  of gathering  sample  i n selected  Fortyrfour subvariables  i n the study  correlation,  their  Murray's  general  The sample  thematic  used  H.A.  and Ktsanes  U n i v e r s i t y and t h e i r  methods  interview,  Ktsanes  undergraduate  married.  and three  times  from  t o socio-economic  and y e a r s  identified  by Winch,  needs  a t North-western  respect  scores  t o A"  and i t would  of twenty-five  of fifty  tical  similar  study  o f needs,  schools  be t h e case  of providing  Hence,  need  field  i n detail.  One m a j o r  cation  o f motives.  be a g r e a t e r  empirical evidence  these  (1954),  as the partners  and h i s a s s o c i a t e s have  plementary  h i s or her  promise  complementary  will  will  i s psychically Winch  of  than  within  the greatest  pattern  and B have  to A  a mate  satisfaction,  complementary  cation  seeks  subvariable  subvariable  scores.  -27-  Out  of  1,9 36  possible interspousal correlations,  hypothesized  The  results of  not  support  other  the  the  the  around  hypothesis are  of  the  from  final  distributions,  latter of  zero.  Thus,  analyses  or  which  based  were  d i d not  bulk tend  did-  selection,  of  evidence  to  r a t h e r than  support  also  homogamous mate the  support  selection,/  TAT,  individuals  dissimilar,  two  distributions  theory  that  the  distri-  conference)  i n mate  the  five  select  similar  to  own. Another  study  complementarity (1962). of  consensus  which  i n mate They  consensus  used  lends  support  selection Schutz's  to measure  marriage.  progress  toward  period. between  The  results  permanence The  data  of  the  theory  by  who  s c a l e s and  were then  compared  there  heterogamy  was  and  need and  Farber's and  seriously  relationship  that  of  Kerckhoff  complementarity  their  or  to done  FIRO  were  indicated  complementarity  was  need  i n ninety-four couples,  sidering  ship  out  derived  needs  these  opposite  mates whose needs  month  from  two  However,  clustered  supports  index  (those  complementary The  three  c a s e - h i s t o r y i n t e r v i e w and  theory.  Davis  that  i n t e r v i e w and of  the  they  showed  correlations  need  the  their  sign:  t h a t 44 i n t e r s p o u s a l c o r r e l a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e s a m e n e e d o r t r a i t w o u l d b e n e g a t i v e ( W i n c h ejt a l . , 1954, p . 245) .  heterogamy.  as  of  b)  theory  upon  direction  t h a t 344 i n t e r s p o u s a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , e a c h o f w h i c h i n v o l v e d two d i f f e r e n t n e e d s o r t r a i t s , w o u l d b e positive; and  the  the  to  were  a)  butions of  as  388  con-  with  over no  value  a  seven-  relation-  progress  -28-  toward  permanence.  But f o r the long-term  relationship  was  clusion  a n d a t t h e .05 l e v e l  area  measured  by S c h u t z s  findings  relationship  and in  their  significant. t o mean and need  particular,  permanence  selection Both needs), may  theories,  may,  and or  interpreted  early  f o r both  complementarity  i n the later.  homogamy (heterogamy),  t o a sense interval  Thirdly,  t h e o t h e r may  other  Secondly,  together by both  and heterogamy  be c o r r e c t .  t o each  like  i n every  dissimilarities  of progress  i n t h e mate  be p r e d o m i n a n t . i n some  and  "would  be i n t e r m s  probably  characteristics  there  marriage  be h e t e r o g a m o u s  (complementary certain  by s i m i l a r i t i e s  and u n l i k e  union  between  Firstly,  i n some u n i o n s ,  may  1956,  support  seven-month  homogamy  i n fact,  dissimilarities.  needs.  area, the  o r heterogamy  t o be r e l a t e d  during a  as  period.  be a t t r a c t e d  drawn  found  Need  area,  and Davis  operates  complementarity  theories. was  Kerckhoff  added  i n -  t h e same b u t n o t  homogamy  r e s e a r c h gave  heterogamy  toward  that  was  i n the  i n the control  In the a f f e c t i o n  of the relationship  statistically  Thus,  a t t h e .02 l e v e l  scale.  1  direction  the  significant  couples, the  couples  and o t h e r s  couples  may  characteristics are both  marital  rather  than  single  taking  t h e cue from  variables"  the review  one  i n others,  personality (Bowerman  p. 605). Therefore,  and  relationships  i n s t a n c e s a n d homogamous of patterns of  be  similarities  partners, although  Hence,  by  of the  & Day,  -29-  literature this  on  marriage  researcher  will  and  Bowerman  investigate  and Day's  the patterns  personality  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , as  indicated  or  of  states,  patterns  findings theories, will  the couples'  correspond or  i n turn,  to either  to both have  ego  theories,  any  of the  t o see  t h e homogamy and whether  relationship  by  suggestion,  or  i f the heterogamy  these  to marital  profiles  results  adjustment.  -30-  Chapter  Three  METHODOLOGY AND The  focus  o f chapter  questions  which  of  design,  terms,  hypotheses, sampling  experimental  procedures,  statistical  A.  Specific  research  attempt  done  procedure  t o answer,  definition  statement  o fthe  o f p o p u l a t i o n and  i n collecting  data,  limitations  analysis.  Questions.  on t h e m a r i t a l analysis  to  determine  i fthere  in  ego s t a t e  scores  those  the specific  procedure,  reported i n the introduction,  transactional  from  will  i s upon  instrumentation, description  and  As  the study  three  DESIGN  couples  Specifically,  relationship  framework.  Thus,  i sa statistically  o f couples who  there  the study  which this  will  attempt  no  systematic  applies  study  tothe  will  significant  who a r e h i g h  a r e low d y a d i c a l l y  has been  attempt  difference  dyadically  adjusted,  adjusted. t o answer  the following  questions: Question Is couples  1  t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e ego s t a t e and t h e i r l e v e l o f m a r i t a l adjustment?  Question  patterns of  2  Is t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e C r i t i c a l P a r e n t ego s t a t e s o f c o u p l e s and t h e i r A d a p t i v e C h i l d ego s t a t e s ? Question  3  Is t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between states o f couples and t h e i r Adaptive  t h e N u r t u r i n g P a r e n t ego C h i l d ego s t a t e s ?  -31-  B.  Definition The  of  following  researcher  has  Terms terms w i l l  d e f i n e d some  analysis  Personal  Response Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  i n the study.  The  according to both  and t o the d e f i n i t i o n s  trans-  i n Lynn  Kealy's  State An  ego  feeling  Critical  ego  Critical  occur  ways  of  thinking,  t o g e t h e r and a r e r e l a t e d (Berne,  to a  1966).  incorporates the attitudes  of a l l emotionally significant t o the c h i l d ;  and t h e N u r t u r i n g  The  Critical  opinions  about  etc.).  These  and  be  things  state, Also  (i.e.,  Typical criticising, devaluiing,  judgmental, Also  this  may  state  tends  religion,  may  be  both  t o be  the  filled  politics,  use p r e j u d i c i a l  with  child  bossy,  rearing, fact  Critical and  critical  intimidate  other  them.  behaviours  moralizing,  include  may  include:  irritating,  non-accepting,  would  a c t as  u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d by  appear  alienate  Parent  alienating,  who  When o p e r a t i n g o u t o f t h e  the person  Critical  people  and i t i n c l u d e s  often  the person  even  and  Parent.  ego  o p i n i o n s may  and perhaps  punitive.  Parent  prejudiced.  ego  remarks. people  that  state  figures  may  the habitual  Parent  behaviour  Parent  denotes  pattern of behaviour  Parent  parent  state  and r e a c t i n g  consistent  The  used  terms  actional  Ego  theory  be  embarassing,  disrespectful  any n e g a t i v e  chastising,  and  reinforcers  -32-  that  c o u l d be g i v e n  verbal  or non-verbal  finger  a t a person,  According consists  The  1975,  o f behaviour on f a c t "  sympathetic,  worthwhile.  encouragement, Also  shaking  the " C r i t i c a l  based  a  Parent  on unexamined i n -  and " i s b a s i c a l l y  ego s t a t e  solicitous  (i.e.,  Typical  sympathy,  this  be g i v e n  verbal  grimacing,  composed  of  about r e l i g i o n ,  politics,  tends  itself i n  p.9).  Nurturing Parent  feel  could  definition,  i s a c c e p t i n g and c a r i n g  love.  they a r e  Parent  nurturing,  them  to Kealy's  and prohibitions- . i . e . ,  etc.""(Kealy, Nurturing  frowning,  whether  etc.).  r a t h e r than  rules  Parent  (i.e.,  o f standards  formation laws,  t o an i n d i v i d u a l ,  would  to reveal  behaviour.  of others  and d e s i r e s  Nurturing  Parent  empathy,  concern,  t o an i n d i v i d u a l ,  whether  t o make  behaviours a r e :  caring,  i n c l u d e any p o s i t i v e  s m i l e s , nods  The N u r t u r i n g  r e s p e c t and  reinforcers  that  v e r b a l o r non-  o f acknowledgment,  hugs,  touches,  etc.). Kealy sympathetic for  others  pp.  9-10).  defines the Nurturing Parent and p r o t e c t i v e " ; and i s i n t e n t  a person  on c a r i n g  as b e i n g  who  "more  "knows w h a t  f o r them"  i s good  ( K e a l y , 1975,  Adult The logic  Adult  ego s t a t e  and o b j e c t i v i t y .  senses,  compute's,  decisions.  reveals i t s presence I t takes  s t o r e s memories  through  i n i n f o r m a t i o n from and uses  facts  rationality, the five  t o make  -33-  The  Adult  ego s t a t e  the  personality,  and  t o be more  the  Adult  also  enabling  functions  as t h e executive  an i n d i v i d u a l t o s u r v i v e  s e l e c t i v e i n making  responses.  of  autonomously  Berne  defines  ego s t a t e s a s : ... a n i n d e p e n d e n t s e t o f f e e l i n g s , a t t i t u t e s , and behaviour p a t t e r n s that are adapted t o t h e c u r r e n t r e a l i t y and are n o t a f f e c t e d by P a r e n t a l prejudices or a r c h a i c a t t i t u d e s l e f t over from c h i l d h o o d . . . . The A d u l t i s t h e ego s t a t e w h i c h makes s u r v i v a l p o s s i b l e (Berne, 1963, p. 1 3 7 ) .  In  functioning  "Adult" Parent  can a c t as a r e f e r e e to find  expression Parental ness.  assumptions  Thus,  make  compromises  of the inner  expression to  as the executive  defines  previous  data  "It  examines  also  appropriate, (Kealy,  The  decisions  and t o accept  ego s t a t e  of reality allows  because  or  reject  and  f o r the  each  f o r the  appropriateappropriate  has i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n  personality. the Adult  t o determine  ego s t a t e  whether  i ti s s t i l l  feelings, deciding  and whether  as one which  whether  or not to allow  "examines  relevant";  and  o r n o t they a r e  them  to  surface"  Child Adaptive  which  authority complying, not-OK.  Child;  new  C h i l d and the  1975, p. 1 0 ) .  Adaptive  state  the inner  a n d t o make  o f a l l ego s t a t e s  Kealy  between  on the b a s i s  the Adult  to a total  o f the, p e r s o n a l i t y , t h e  reacts  figures.  C h i l d ego s t a t e o r conforms  i s that  part  t o demands  from  Typical Adaptive  withdrawing,  rebelling,  o f t h e ego significant  Child behaviours  p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and  include: feeling  -34Ke'aly  defines-  manipulative wants. very  of  other  "Adaptive  Rebellious The which  with  the to  by  openly  Child  Natural state  which  (Kealy,  being  needs  that  19 75  part  of  p.  of  or being  10).  ego  The  usually  and  negative  argues,  is  re-  Rebellious  self-indulgent.  upset  state  figures.  Child  s a r c a s m , -:etc. and  the  authority  Rebellious  Natural  Kealy  Child  In  addition,  when  stubborn  Child  told and  what has  touch,  and  Dyadic  the  very  of  Marital  is  defined  young,  infant  s t i l l  behaviours  are  affectionate,  the  as  that  untrained, inside  each  suggested  sensuous,  part  of  natural, person.  by:  spontaneous,  Natural  to  creative  and  ego  state  curious,  as  being  with  the  urges  Adjustment used  Spanier's  measure m a r i t a l  a d j u s t m e n t was or  Child  experience.  researcher  (19 76)  definition  the  uninhibited,  feel  or  state  creative.  defines  expressive,  is  ego  expressive  and  Scale  i t s own  is usually  that  the  gets  Child  uncensored  As  as  leaders.  curious,  Marital  is  withdraws,  impulsive,  to  Child  assertive  with  unprogrammed, Typical  state  Child  The ego  compliant"  boredom,  sulks,  difficulty  the  ego  satisfy  behaviour  Kealy,  anger,  He  Natural  to  rebelling against to  Rebellious do.  and  Rebellious  reacts  also  people  Child  Child  According  is  Adaptive  Child  cooperative  bels  the  dyadic  or  Dyadic  dyadic  Adjustment  adjustment,  his  used.  adjustment  is  an  ever-changing  process  -35with  a qualitative  point  i n time  adjusted. ment  can  be  by  anxiety;  the  from  sense,  a  of:  dyadic on  (Spanier,  those  i n the  top  (1)  matters 1976,  adjusted  the  outcome  mad-  of  adjust-  which  is  personal  dyadic  importance  1.  to  any  dyadic  and  (4)  at  "dyadic  troublesome  of  cohesion;  to  dyadic  17).  Couples  adjusted  couples thirty  evaluated  marital or  satisfaction;  dyadically  as  be  interpersonal tensions  Dyadically Adjusted  defined  can well  process,  degree  consensus  High  them  continuum  in this  (2)  (3)  functioning" High  which  d e f i n e d as  differences;  (5)  a  Thus,  determined  and  on  dimension  couples  were  whose combined  of  those  operationally  adjustment  t a k i n g the  Dyadic  scores  rank  Adjustment  Scale. Low  Dyadically Adjusted Low  defined rank  dyadically as  them  those  C.  design  dyadic  of  whose c o m b i n e d thirty  of  those  operationally  adjustment  scores  taking  Dyadic  the  this  study  study.  the  consisted of  This  s i x ego  design  state  was  a  two-group,  used  variables  to  with  explore the  Eighty-one research  instruments,  the  Procedure married  or  study.  Each  Personal  cohabiting couples couple  Response  was  participated  administered  Questionnaire  and  the  variable  adjustment.  Experimental  the  of  field  relationship  in  were  Scale.  descriptive  D.  bottom  couples  Design The  of  adjusted  couples  i n the  Adjustemnt  Couples  two the  -36-  Dyadic  Adjustment  Following the by  Dyadic rank  Group  the c o l l e c t i o n  Adjustment  ordering  consisted  Scale.  Scale  results,  the couples'  of the top t h i r t y  o f data  and the a n a l y s i s o f two  combined  groups  scores.  o f the eighty-one  I I c o n s i s t e d o f the bottom  were  thirty  formed  Group  I  couples  of the  and  eighty-one  couples. Moreover,  t o determine  whether  adjusted  couples  differed  adjusted  couples  on t h e Dyadic  (a  =  the  .001) w a s means  scores  with  adjusted  group)  group).  The r e s u l t s  male all  a n d 21.37  adjusted  248.53  couples  group  scale  and t h e low  a n d 190.6 r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  showed  differed  t-test  couple  dyadically  ( f o r t h e low d y a d i c a l l y  of the t-test  t h e two g r o u p s  f o r each  ego s t a t e  couple score  s i x ego s t a t e s .  state  a  that  adjusted  the high  significantly  couples  (a =  .001)  on t h e D y a d i c  Scale.  After scores  combined  dyadically adjusted  t h e low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d  Adjusted  Scale,  d e v i a t i o n s o f 9.0 8 ( f o r t h e h i g h  adjusted  dyadically  t h e low d y a d i c a l l y  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between  T h e mean  group were  dyadically  from  Adjustment  c a l c u l a t e d to analyze  f o r the high  standard  from  significantly  o f t h e two g r o u p s .  dyadically  the high  were  from  was  used  formed,  obtained  the female  A n a l y s i s was  difference scores.  significance  were  A  t o analyze  by s u b t r a c t i n g t h e ego s t a t e  then  t-test  ego s t a t e d i f f e r e n c e  done  score f o r  on t h e i r  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  ego of  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  -3  means  of  the  two  groups  on  7-  each  of  the  six  ego  state  variables. In  addition,  relationships Child  ego  Child  correlation of  each  Critical  and  state  hypotheses  the  regarding  Parent  Nurturing  scores,  c o e f f i c i e n t s were  Pearson  calculated  and  the  Adaptive  Parent  and  the  product-moment for  the  couples  group. descriptive  any  i n d i v i d u a l or  E.  Hypotheses  couple  1.  Statement  The  general  (couples) adjusted  who will  of  differences  the  are  General  show  for  defined  as  by  Adjustment  than low  study  illustrate the  two  as  was  that  high  groups.  Subjects  and  the  ego  (couples) adjusted, Personal  subjects  dyadically  s i g n i f i c a n t lower  dyadically  Scale  to  between  defined  statistically scores"  shown  Hypothesis  this  operationally  operationally Dyadic  d a t a were  hypothesis  "difference  the  the  the  scores ego  Moreover,  state  test  between  state  Adaptive  to  as  who  are  measured  Response  Questionnaire.  2.  for  Statement  of  the  The following is a the p r e s e n t study. HI:  Specific  list  of  Hypotheses  specific null  hypotheses  T h e r e i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (a = .05) i n C r i t i c a l P a r e n t ego s t a t e "difference scores", as m e a s u r e d by t h e P e r s o n a l R e s p o n s e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , b e t w e e n c o u p l e s who are high d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d a n d c o u p l e s who a r e low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d , as m e a s u r e d by t h e D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t Scale-.  -38-  Hr 2  T h e r e i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (a = .05) i n N u r t u r i n g P a r e n t ego state " d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s " , as m e a s u r e d by t h e Personal R e s p o n s e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , b e t w e e n c o u p l e s who are h i g h d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d a n d c o u p l e s who are low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d , as m e a s u r e d by t h e D y a d i c Adjustment Scale • -} •  H:3'  T h e r e i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (a = .05) i n A d u l t ego s t a t e " d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s " , as m e a s u r e d by t h e P e r s o n a l R e s p o n s e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , b e t w e e n c o u p l e s who are high d y a d i c a l l y adjusted a n d c o u p l e s who a r e low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d , as m e a s u r e d by t h e D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e .  H:4  T h e r e i s n o s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (a = i n A d a p t i v e C h i l d ego s t a t e " d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s " , as m e a s u r e d by t h e P e r s o n a l Response Questionnaire, b e t w e e n c o u p l e s who are high d y a d i c a l l y adjusted a n d c o u p l e s who a r e low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d , as m e a s u r e d by t h e D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e .  H:5  T h e r e i s n o s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (a = i n R e b e l l i o u s C h i l d ego s t a t e " d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s " , as m e a s u r e d by t h e P e r s o n a l R e s p o n s e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , b e t w e e n c o u p l e s who are high d y a d i c a l l y adjusted a n d c o u p l e s who a r e low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d , as measured by the D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e .  H:6  T h e r e i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (a = .05) i n N a t u r a l C h i l d ego s t a t e " d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s " , as m e a s u r e d by t h e P e r s o n a l R e s p o n s e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , b e t w e e n c o u p l e s who are high d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d a n d c o u p l e s who a r e low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d / as m e a s u r e d by t h e D y a d i c A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e .  .05)  .05)  -39-  F.  H7:  T h e r e i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( a =.05) c o r r e l a t i o n between the C r i t i c a l P a r e n t ego state s c o r e o f one p a r t n e r and t h e A d a p t i v e C h i l d ego s t a t e s c o r e o f t h e o t h e r p a r t n e r , as m e a s u r e d by the P e r s o n a l Response Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , f o r c o u p l e s who are high d y a d i c a l l y adjusted or f o r couples who a r e low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d , as m e a s u r e d by the Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e .  H8:  T h e r e i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( a = .05) c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e N u r t u r i n g P a r e n t ego state s c o r e o f one p a r t n e r and t h e A d a p t i v e C h i l d ego state s c o r e o f t h e o t h e r p a r t n e r , as m e a s u r e d by the P e r s o n a l Response Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , f o r couples who are high h y a d i c a l l y adjusted or f o r couples who a r e low d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d , as m e a s u r e d by the Dyadic Adjustement Scale.  Instrumentation The  Personal (1975)  the  The  Dyadic  the  study  were  developed  Adjustment  Personal  a)  Background  Personal the  states,  theory.  in  validity  of  Response  Scale,  by  the  Kealy  developed  by  of a  Questionnaire  Test Questionnaire  strengths  developed  Kealy by  of  and  Lynn  (PRQ)  the  was  individual's  transactional  Kealy  designed  for a  six  analysis  doctoral  1975.  developed  model  of  d e f i n e d by  It.was  Kealy  Response  relative  as  dissertation  1)  in  Questionnaire,  The  measure  (1957)  used  (19 7 6 ) .  1.  ego  instruments  Response  and  Spanier  to  two  test  test  the  PRQ  according  development,  has  three  where  aspects  or  to  the  the  Loevinger  construct  components:  the s u b s t a n t i v e component - where the c o n s t r u c t must be d e r i v e d f r o m an e x p l i c i t l y formulated, t h e o r e t i c a l l y based d e f i n i t i o n of  -40-  a trait. This d e f i n i t i o n i s then t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a l a r g e sample o f items which a r e d e s i g n e d t o serve as b e h a v i o r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e t r a i t . These items a r e then s u b j e c t e d t o the judgments o f e x p e r t raters. T h i s i s what i s u s u a l l y r e f e r r e d t o as content validity. (2)  t h e s t r u c t u r a l component - c o n c e r n i s focused, on the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y o r homogeneity o f the s c a l e as w e l l as i t s f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e . Internal consistency i s concerned with r e l i a b i l i t y , and t h e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e with construct v a l i d i t y .  (3)  t h e e x t e r n a l component - i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h what most i n v e s t i g a t o r s c a l l c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y and c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y , and i n c l u d e s n o n - t e s t behaviour, f a c t o r p a t t e r n s , and r e l a t i o n s o r c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r t e s t s ( K e a l y , 1975, pp. 2 9 - 3 0 ) .  The  steps  i n the development  according  to the Loevinger  consisted  o f the development  the  theoretical  states. the  The  first The  first  ability were  of the  scale  then  estimated  o f 205  by  component  items  based  on  o f t h e s i x ego  judges,  resulting  i n  consisted of administering  and t h e Marlowe-Crowne students.  Social The  the  Desir-  results  analyzed.  o f t h e PRQ  r  The  rated  followed  PRQ.  e x t e r n a l component  draft  resulting  then  were  substantive  definitions  t o 50 8 u n d e r g r a d u a t e  factor  The  of a pool  component  o f t h e PRQ  (C .'P:;i/j. t o 139  found  were  structural  The final  draft  draft  model.  and b e h a v i o u r a l  items  o f t h e PRQ  with  consisted of administering the C a l i f o r n i a  undergraduate  students  Personality  and a n a l y z i n g  the Inventory  the  correlations. internal by  consistency  t h e KR-20  t o range  from  .47  formula -  .69.  f o r each  factor  was  then  and the c o e f f i c i e n t s The  s i x ego  were  s t a t e s were  also  -41-  revealed  as  (b)  Validity  The be  a  six to  research  valid  and  a  TA  ego  test the  Factor  3 of  mindedness  on  there  the on on  CPI  CPI the  the  Presence ternal  at  on  -.350;  the  CPI  were  (c)  are  no  Response  (d)  Scoring  The  decimal  with  CPI  RC  at  with  .194+). the  reasons:  agreement  the  CPI  various  on  on  four  scales  on  with  Psychological-  correlated negatively  -.373  and  with  Self-control  with  Social  Internal consistency,  structural and  i t to  corresponding  correlated positively  norms  were  and  states.  The  scores of  and  TA  states  form".  needs  to  profiles  component at  of  acceptable  ex-  construct levels.  a  reflect  i s not  the  fractional graph  as  the  standardized.  or  relative  scores  can  'egogram'  can  strengths be  changed  be  for  interpretation.  PRQ  i s ready  of  the  into  plotted.  A  Research "that  However, be  available,  Interpretation  i s required  Future  Kealy  or  Questionnaire  scores  (e)  work  at  final  knowledge  present  one  inter-judge  and  -.374;  the  shows  correlated negatively  -.300  demonstrated  Personal  ego  at  AC  PRQ  Norms  There  six  each  high  the  following  correlation  at  NC  and  of  f o r the  was  .27;  CPI  on  analysis.  c o r r e l a t e d between  at  CPI  validation  validity  test  was  (CP  Socialization  the  development  there  factors  Sociability  with  i n the  state;  factor  Reliability  f a c t o r s emerged,  items;  six  and  f a c t o r s by  reliable  independent  the of  independent  done  on  the he  also  the  PRQ  states adding  f o r use  that to  "More the  in i t s extensive  external  -42coirtponent o f v a l i d i t y " b e e n ;.no  additional  external v a l i d i t y 2.  The  Dyadic  (a)  independent  of the  Adjustment  Dyadic  relevant,  valid  dyadic  of^marriage  developed  judges  r e l i a b l e m e a s u r e s , w h i c h c o u l d be  t o meet t h e need f o r  nonmarital dyadic  Content items  judges  used  relationships.  in The  empirically  dyadic  satisfaction,  affectional  expression  Validity  i n c l u d e d i n t h e S c a l e were e v a l u a t e d by  found (1)  The  adjustment: and  other  Validity  for content  ii.  and  and  dyadic cohesion,  new  1976).  i. The  the  is a  s c a l e was  consensus,  (b)  validity.  the  The  three  i t e m s were i n c l u d e d o n l y i f  items:  r e l e v a n t measures o f d y a d i c adjustment f o r contemporary r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; (2) consistent w i t h t h e n o m i n a l d e f i n i t i o n s s u g g e s t e d by S p a n i e r and C o l e (1974) f o r a d j u s t m e n t and i t s components ( s a t i s f a c t i o n , c o h e s i o n , and c o n s e n s u s ) ; and (3) c a r e f u l l y worded w i t h appropriate f i x e d choice responses (Spanier, 1976, pp. 2 2 - 2 3 ) .  Criterion-related Dyadic  sample o f 218 For  the q u a l i t y  components o f d y a d i c  (Spanier,  the  ( S p a n i e r , 1976)  i n c l u d e s s u b s c a l e s w h i c h measure f o u r  verified  has  Test  The  r e s e a r c h on m a r i t a l and scale  yet there  Scale  to assess  dyads.  As  r e s e a r c h done t o v e r i f y  Adjustment Scale  measure d e s i g n e d  p.67).  PRQ.  Background of  The  similar  ( K e a l y , 1975,  A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e was  persons  each o f the  Validity  32  and  items,  administered  a d i v o r c e d sample o f 94 t h e d i v o r c e d sample  to a  married  persons.  differed  -43-  significantly t-test each  external scores  i n the  were  scale  All  and  of  marital  scores 70.7,  with  originally  tested. most  Adjustment  Scale  reported  respondents  and  ponents  (dyadic  sensus,  and  the 1976)  the  selected  final  theoretical  and  to  with  .001  and  Thus,  the  the  total  level,  divorced  the  samples  was  well-accepted whether  the  respondents  .86  scale.  of  Adjustment  Four  Scale  defined  of  for  married  the  dyadic which  factor  found  to  measure  (Spanier  com-  con-  were  were  appears earlier  The  (p<.001).  cohesion,  adjustment,  Dyadic  interrelated  three  Scale  marital  construct.  s c a l e s was  expression),  construct  M a r i t a l Adjustment  same g e n e r a l  dyadic  marital  instrument  f u r t h e r e s t a b l i s h e d by  32-item  components  i n previous  research  assess  these  satisfaction,  Dyadic  the  used  i n the  for divorced  validity  as  the  between  affectional  hypothesized Hence,  .88  the  validity  Locke-Wallace  measured  correlation  of  at  a  sample means.  Moreover,  married  f r e q u e n t l y used  s c a l e , was  analysis  f o r the  included  The  adjustment  Construct  different  content  s c a l e s were  the  status.  using  Validity  adjustment  (1959),  (p.<.001),  respectively,  Construct items  sample  d i f f e r e n c e s between  significantly  114.8  i i i .  married  scale correlated significantly  criterion  total  being  the  for assessing  item  mean  from  to  and  exist.  partially Cole,  . (c)  Reliability  Reliability scales,  as  well  was as  determined  the  total  f o r each  s c a l e , by  of  the  component  Cronbach's  Coefficient  -4.4-  Alpha The  (1951) , w h i c h  reliability  scale was  ranged  .96.  using  to  be  coefficients  from  .73  Moreover,  the  ternal  i s a measure  -  "a  .96,  .96"  that  the  total  high  reliability  f o r the  four  and  total  1976,  scale  the  average  (Guildford,  (Spanier,  internal  and  scale  justify  of  the  of  inter-item  p.24).  Thus,  their  use  the  reliability for i n -  also  data  have  as  scale  was  the  of  reliability  formula  1954:354,359)  i t s components  to  consistency.  components  separate assessment  Spearman-Brown  consistency  of  found  indicate  sufficiently  measures  of  dyadic  adjustment. (d) The a  simple  Scoring scoring  cumulation of  Dyadic  Adjustment  scores.  The  Scale  total  consists  possible  of  score i s  151. (e)  Future  Since search to  scale  are  scale, begin :  so  about  appearing  The four  group, group  fifty  selected  uses  the  t h e r e i s no  scale.  research  literature  studies which  new  However, a c c o r d i n g i n March,  1977,  underway which  uses  re-  the  scale  use  the  should  soon. of  P o p u l a t i o n and  Sampling  eighty-one couples participating different  a marriage and  which  new,  personal correspondence  published  Description  from  i s relatively  yet published  Spanier, through  there  G.  the  Research  groups.  encounter  a marriage  The  group,  counselling  to participate  groups  i n the  Procedures i n the  consisted  a marriage  group.  study  These  study of  came  a  control  enrichment groups  i n order to  were  ensure  -45extremes  of marital  'well-adjusted'  for  adjustment,  to those  Hence,  c o u p l e s were  marriage  enrichment  (those  c o u p l e s who  wish  adjusted  marriage)  marriage  counsellors  counselling in  their  who  asked  a control  encounter  an a l r e a d y  various  social  groups  basically  agencies and who  do  are experiencing  group  counselling  were  different  summer  five  of  British  to  participate  or  cohabiting.  one  couple  asked  marriage  problems  school  The o n l y  a d j u s t e d , was  from  from  the Marriage  were  operationally o f twelve  the Marriage  couples  from  Enrichment  Marriage  Counselling  group  either  from  group  group.  as from  Encounter  group,  and one c o u p l e  The group  the Control  of couples,  a d j u s t e d , was  group,  two c o u p l e s  and f o u r t e e n  defined  o f nineteen couples  the Marriage  group.  University  be m a r r i e d  operationally  comprised  group,  participate  a t The  as low d y a d i c a l l y  Encounter  Marriage  experience o r  f o r the couples  they  Enrichment  Counselling defined  that  were  nine couples  the Marriage  classes  condition  o f c o u p l e s , who  group,  encounter  h a d h a d no  to volunteer to  i n t h e s t u d y was  dyadically Control  o f c o u p l e s who  and marriage  Columbia.  group  the  from  marriage  classes  relationship).  marriage  prised  were 1  i n t h e Lower M a i n l a n d  enrichment  high  who  'maladjusted .  to enrich  and from  those  t o v o l u n t e e r from  and from  marriage  The  were  ( t h o s e c o u p l e s who  Moreover,  from  from  couples  two  who com-  couples  from the from the  -46-  A the  description  following  TABLE  1.  o f t h e sample  i s summarized i n  table:  Description  o f Four  Groups  Number o f Couples i n Group  Groups  Origin Group  of  Location Group  a.  C o n t r o l Group  44  5 summer classes  b.  Marriage  15  Marriage Encounter groups  Encounter  c.  Marriage  d.  Marriage Counselling  H.  Procedure The  and in  Enrichment  the study.  17  i n Collecting  various social  marriage  5  counsellors  school  of  University B.C.  Richmond,  Marriage Enrichment c l a s s e s  of  B.C.  North Shore L i v i n g and Learning Centre West Vancouver,  Catholic Family Coquitlam & Services Vancouver, B.C. Pastoral Institute Vancouver, B.C. Unitarian Family L i f e Centre Vancouver, B.C. Eugene Elmore, Vancouver, B.C. Marriage Counsellor  Data  agencies, Marriage were  Encounter  c o n t a c t e d and asked  The r e s e a r c h e r met w i t h  each  to  contact  co-ordinators participate person,  -47-  detailed the  the  instruments  consisted sets  of  In group, study  of  and  A  each  them  consent  case,  except  couples  who  this  was  not  explanation  and  agency  mailed  The  school asked  a  control  researcher.  the  tests.  data  with  sheets  two  (see  letter to  and  to  enrichment  participate  the  the  study,  of  the  a  a  the  marriage  testing  from  enrichment  materials, plus  covering from  of  the  tests,  letter the  of  contact  couples.  was  contacted with  short outline participate then  m a t e r i a l s and  in  instructions  introduction  r e s e a r c h e r met gave  marriage  given  p e r s o n a l l y by each of  of  the  i n the  the  for  five  research study.  envelopes  instructions  the  which  summer and  The contained  self-administration  tests.  tests  answers  administer  m a t e r i a l s , which couple  m a t e r i a l s and  the  s u b j e c t s were  Moreover,  should  and  to  for self-administration  f o r " v o l u n t e e r s to  testing  forms  possible  group  The  classes,  volunteer  f o r each  volunteered  an;" o u t l i n e o f  were  how  testing  However, w i t h  instructions  with  the  f o r the  testing  contact persons.  along  the  gave  on  B).  r e c e i v e d the  detailed  of  instructions  a m a n i l l a envelope  and  the  group,  the  gave  instruments,  Appendix  the  study,  not  was  f o r each necessary,  communicate  should  case  be  i t was  during  changed  where  self-administration  stressed  the  of  that  the  couple  test-taking  and  that  following  the  completion  of  no the  -48-  I.  Limitations This  of  study  the sampling  participate the  those  belonged  c o u p l e s who  Also  Response  i n terms  On  justment  rank  study  scores.  thirty  Two  groups  couples  couples.  A  the Dyadic  Adjustment  high dyadically  from  ego  state  score  marriage  may  university research  on  ego  states.  Adjustment  t-test  n o t be  classes. the Personal Scale i s  .001)  o b t a i n e d by  .05)  Ego  consisting  were  o f the  o f t h e two showed (a =  state  subtracting  state  score  ad-  calculated  significantly  a d j u s t e d group.  (a =  was  and t h e r e s u l t s  ego  I,  I I , consisting  (a =  differed  Scale,  combined  Group  b e t w e e n t h e means  the female  Six t-tests  formed  and Group  c o u p l e were from  were  Scale  group  t h e low d y a d i c a l l y f o r each  (i.e.,  o f married or co-  ordered according to their  on  scores  i n this  o f the Dyadic  analyze the difference  from  used  independent  to  the  of people  Analysis  the top t h i r t y  bottom  from  of instrumentation.  the basis  were  to  to volunteer  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e D y a d i c Adjustment  1.  of  asked  counselling,  of the general population  Statistical  couples  group  of verifying  limitation  result  selected  t h e y were group  a  encounter).  c o u p l e s , as t h e y were  Lack  J.  Rather,  as  selected  n o t randomly  had had marriage  the control  validity  couples  to a specific  or marriage  representative habiting  The  i n t h e s t u d y were  they  enrichment  i n external  procedures.  general population.  because  a  i s limited  groups that .001)  difference t h e male  for a l l  calculated  to  six  -49-  means  of  each  of  the  six  ego  state  measures  for  the  two  groups. 2.  Pearson  product-moment  between  the  and  Nurturing  the  scores  for  the  hypotheses The  Critical  regarding  significance  tables  patterns used  to  group  using  data  present highlight  personality and  a  each  in  low  tested  were  the  compiled  any  illustrate data.  dyadically  to any  Also  differences between  were  calculated  state ego  scores  state  order  to  of  these  at  the  test  the  variables.  .05  level  of  test.  representations to  in  relationships  data  ego  Child  group,  two-tailed  and  profiles  the  of  Child  Adaptive  c o e f f i c i e n t was  graphical  statistical  and  the  Descriptive and  Adaptive  Parent  couples  correlaiton  3.  and  correlations  the  in  the  form  supplement  the  relationships  descriptive  data  or  similarities  high  dyadically  adjusted  of  group.  or were  in adjusted  -50-  Chapter P R E S E N T A T I O N AND A.  Descriptive  dyadically couples, in  the  the  two  OF  DATA  were  compiled  to  give  the  ego  state  couples  illustrate  In  the  the  adjusted  low or  dyadically  relationships  descriptive  difference  or  data  Standard  Deviation  Scores  The  mean and  standard  deviation  of  for  couple  to  between  scores  show  .19  Figure  II  (NP  from  relative  shows  to  between  .13  profile  (A  to  that  position  the  for  II). ego  .23  were  the  ego  state  calculated  and  for  dispersion  of  each scores  II).  state  Group  II)  each  (Table  ego  state  Group A  the  groups  Table  ranged  served  groups. and  ego  high  occuring  similarities  Mean  from  complete the  patterns  addition,  significant  and  a more  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  1.  group  for  to  any  difference  (A  of  data.  highlight  data  adjusted  and  ANALYSIS  Data  Descriptive representation  Four  (A  means  Group  The  I  for  both  and  Group  variance  for  state  for  Group  ego  state  for  comparison  of  the  two  I  groups II)  both and  Group groups  ranged  to  .32  groups  AC  ego  state  II). i s presented  5.  Figure difference  5  indicates  scores  the  appears  to  difference be  the  i n mean  strongest  ego  state  between  the  in  TABLE I I :  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f Ego S t a t e D i f f e r e n c e S c o r e s f o r Group I and Group I I  State-  Ego CP  Variables  NP  A  AC  RC  NC  .21 .19  .19 .15  .18 .13  .24 .16  .22 .21  .24 .19  .20 .18  .19 .14  .32 .23  .22 .13  .19 .14  .28 . 21  G r o u p I (N=30) High D y a d i c a l l y Adjusted Mean Standard  Deviation  G r o u p I I (N=30) Low Dyadically Adjusted Mean Standard  Deviation  MEAN DIFFERENCES FIGURE  5  High D y a d i c a l l y A d j u s t e d Group I X Low D y a d i c a l l y A d j u s t e d Group I I  .'3  J2  CP  NP  A  AC EGO  RC  STATES  P r o f i l e o f Mean D i f f e r e n c e s F o r Group I and Group I I  NC  . -—  -52-  Adult  ego  adjusted score the is  states group  than  of  showing  the  high  difference  of  the  difference which the  is  high  2.  less,  groups. (with  same  group  for both  for  this  the  ego  low  state  adjusted  a  group.  mean ego  other  four  exception groups)  of  are  group  Although of  difference  state  difference  mean  ego  state  Nurturing  slightly  than  particular  dyadically difference  similar pattern  Child  adjusted  the  basis  of  the  mean  each  group,  the  high  slightly  higher  ego  state  state  scales  (CP,  significant. state  low  for  Parent  higher  the  low  for  dyadically  sample.  difference  the  latter  proved  two  the  strongest  ego  state  1.  of  Results  It  was  ego  no  state  adjusted on  none  numerical  scores  group  three  of  indicated the  ego  proved s t a t i s t i c a l l y  difference  in  the  NP  ego  group.  adjusted  of  the  data  ego  gave  difference  group  evidenced  state  scales  additional between  at  a  (NC, the  evidence  the  two  higher A)  and  .05 to  groups  level. suggest  was  in  the  variable. Hypothesis for  the  postulated  dyadically  although  difference  statistically significant  descriptive  Results  lower  on  state  differences  either  The  Adult  high  for  ego  dyadically  RC),  dyadically  ego  that  AC,  T h e r e was  variable The  B.  mean  The  the  with  SUMMARY On  for  two  higher  Natural  dyadically  adjusted  a  groups,  dyadically  the  scores  the  two  i s much  shown b e t w e e n  scores  the  Testing:  General that  adjusted  subjects  would  "difference  Hypothesis  show  scores"  (couples)  who  were  statistically  significant  than  (couples)  subjects  -5.3-  who  were  low d y a d i c a l l y  Adjustment This not  was  and  supported  f o r the other A  to  Scale  t-test  analyze  groups  on  cludes  a  TABLE  EGO  adjusted,  the Personal  f o r the Adult five  (a =  ego  .05)  ego  the  Dyadic  Questionnaire.  state  variable  but  variables.  between  o f t h e s i x ego  summary  III.  state  Response  f o r independent  the difference each  as measured by  s a m p l e s was  t h e means  state  of each  variables.  calculated of the  Table  two  IIIi n -  of the r e s u l t s :  t - V a l u e s f o r D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n t h e Means o f the Ego S t a t e D i f f e r e n c e S c o r e s o f t h e H i g h D y a d i c a l l y A d j u s t e d G r o u p a n d t h e Low Dyadically A d j u s t e d Group.  t-VALUES  STATES Critical  .137  Parent  Nurturing  .04  Parent  2.88*  Adult Adaptive Rebellious Natural  . 346  Child  .580  Child  .802  Child  * p  <  .05  The at  the  t-value  .05  variable  level  showed between  f o r t h e two  a  statistically t h e means  groups.  significant  o f the Adult  ego  difference state  -54-  2.  Results (a)  It  was  significant scores", (a  =  and by  f o r the S p e c i f i c  Hypothesis  as measured  .05), between couples  1  hypothesized difference  who  the Dyadic  that  there  i n Critical  by  w o u l d be Parent  the Personal  couples  were  Hypotheses  low  who  were  Adjustment Scale.  ego  "difference  Questionnaire  dyadically  adjusted,  The  statistically  state  Response high  dyadically  no  as  hypothesis  adjusted  measured was  not.  rejected. Figure that on  there  6 gives i s very  the C r i t i c a l  It  Parent  hypothesized difference  between  was  not rejected.  and  shows on  that  Figure  that  hypothesized difference  t h e two  groups  be  Parent  high  ego  adjusted. a  statistically state  dyadically  state  "difference  adjusted  The  summary  difference ego  no  hypothesis  o f the  between  the  results two  variable.  3 that  there  i n Adult  were  low d y a d i c a l l y  would  presents  Parent  was  a  were  i s minimal  Hypothesis  who  there  dyadically  Figure.7  there  8 indicates  who  low  (c)  couples  were  were  indicates  variable.  i n Nurturing  the Nurturing  significant  who  who  state  between  and  2  couples  couples  of the r e s u l t s  difference  ego  was  and  between  little  Hypothesis  scores",  It  summary  (b)  significant  groups  a  high  ego  state  dyadically  adjusted.  summary  w o u l d be  of  the  The  no  statistically  "difference  scores",  adjusted  and  couples  hypothesis  was  rejected.  results.  Couples Combined . Difference 1  Scores.on Critical Parent 90-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 31-40 21-30 11-20 1-10 0  Frequency For Group High (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  Bar Graph f o r Group 1 and G r o u p I o n CP V a r i a b l e  Low (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  2  Group  I  Group I I  11 1 1 3 2 7 3 7 6  3 1 8 4 7 5  111 1 11111111 1111 1111111 11111  FIGURE 6 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n and B a r Graph on C r i t i c a l Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r Group I and Group I I  2 2 222 22 2222222 222 2222222 222222  Parent  Couples' Combined Freguency For Group  Difference Scores', on Nurturing Parent 91-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 31-40 21-30 11-20 1-10 0  Frequency  High (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  Low (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  1  3 3 10 10 .... 3 .  Bar Graph f o r Group 1 and G r o u p 2 o n RC V a r i a b l e  Group  I  Group I I  1  1 1 1 7 9 6 5  111 111 1111111111 1111111111 111  FIGURE 7 D i s t r i b u t i o n and B a r Graph on Parent Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r Group I and Group I I  Nurturing  2 2 2 2222222 222222222 222222 22222  -56-  Couples' Combined ~ Difference S c o r e s .on Adult  91-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 31-40 21-30 11-20 1-10 0  Frequency  for  High (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  Group  Bar and  Graph f o r Group 1 Group 2 on A V a r i a b l e  Low (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  Group  1  1 4  2  2 2222  1 5 8 10  8 2 5 5  1 11111 11111111 1111111111  22222222 22 22222 22222  6  5  111111  22222  FIGURE Frequency  Group  8  D i s t r i b u t i o n a n d B a r Graph on A d u l t Ego . V a r i a b l e f o r Group: I a n d G r o u p I I  Couples Combined Difference  Frequency  Scores:: on Adaptive Child  High (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  State  1  91-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 31-40 21-30 11-20 1-0 0  4 5 4 7 6 4  for  Group  Low (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  1 4 10 6 5 4  Bar and  Group  Graph f o r Group 1 G r o u p 2 o n AC V a r i a b l e  1  1111 11111 1111 1111111 : 111111 1111  FIGURE-9 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n and Bar Graph on A d a p t i v e Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e .for Group I and Group I I  Group  2  2 2222 2222222222 222222 22222 2222  Child  -5 7-  It  appears  difference  between  variable,  thus  significant variable,  It  is in  The  results Figure  difference state  9  to  It  ego  .05  state and  is  level.  there  between  was  couples  who  not  i n Figure  the  be  no  difference i n Adaptive  couples  supports  would  were  who  low  Child  were  ego  high  dyadically  rejected.  A  summary  i s  of  9.  the  notion  that  two  groups  on  there  the  little  Adaptive  Hypothesis  Child  ego  was  5  hypothesized  that  there  would  be  significant  difference i n Rebellious  Child  "difference  scores",  who  adjusted  of  state  statistically-  direction =  ego  variable. (e)  The  notable  Adult  Adult  a  the  the  the  f o r the  that  hypothesis  between  on  is a  4  and  i s shown  there  groups  at  "difference scores",  adjusted.  that  predicted  significant  adjusted  the  the  hypothesized  dyadically  8  support  (2.88)  Hypothesis was  two  significant  statistically state  the  t-value  statistically  Figure  lending  which  (d)  from  and  couples  hypothesis the  results.  was  between who  not  couples  were l o w  rejected.  ego  were  dyadically Figure  no  10  statistically state  high  dyadically  adjusted. provides  a  summary  -58-  ,Couples ' Combined Di fference S c o r e s on Rebellious Child  Frequency  f o r Group  H i g h (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  91-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 31-40 21-30 11-20 1-10 0  Bar and  Low (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  Graph Group  Group  1 1  f o r Group 1 2 o n RC V a r i a b l e  1  Group  1 1  1 2 4 2 5 11 3  1 11 1111 11 11111 11111111111 111  3 7 3 5 7 5  222 2222222 222 22222 2222222 22222  F I G U R E 10 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n and Bar Graph on R e b e l l i o u s Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r Group I and Group I I  It  appears  between  t-value  This  (.580)  (f) It  was  scores",  not  10  that  who  rejected  predicted  by a  f o r the Rebellious  there  difference  were  that  there  i n Natural  couples  who  were  low d y a d i c a l l y  (see Figure 11 i n d i c a t e s  direction,  i s little  difference  Child  state  ego  statistically Child  Child  non-significant  ego s t a t e  variable,  6  hypothesized  between  Figure  the  Figure  i s supported  Hypothesis  significant  couples  from  t h e two g r o u p s o n t h e R e b e l l i o u s  variable.  2  11  w o u l d be no  Child high  ego s t a t e dyadically  adjusted.  f o r a summary  that  although  two g r o u p s o n t h e N a t u r a l  there  "difference adjusted  The h y p o t h e s i s of the  i s a slight  the actual Child  statistically  was  results).  trend  difference  ego s t a t e  and  i n the  between  variable i s  -59-  negligibl-e. Child a  =  The c a l c u l a t e d t - v a l u e  ego s t a t e v a r i a b l e , w h i c h  .05 l e v e l ,  Couples Combined Difference  gives  (.802)  f o r the Natural  i s not significant  f u r t h e r evidence  to support  a t the  this.  1  Frequency  Scores on Natural Child  H i g h (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  91-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 31-40 21-30 11-20 1-10 0  1 1 1 3 2 7 11 4  f o r Group  Bar Graph f o r Group 1 and G r o u p 2 o n NC V a r i a b l e  Low (N=30) Dyadically Adjusted  Group  1 2  1  Group  2  7 2 6 7  1 1 1 111 11 1111111 11111111111  2222222 22 222222 2222222  5  1111  22222  FIGURE  2 22  11  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n and B a r Graph on N a t u r a l C h i l d Ego S t a t e V a r i a b l e f o r Group I and Group I I  (g) It  Hypothesis was  significant score the  either The  hypothesized  that  correlation  between  o f one p a r t n e r  other  partner,  high  7 there  and the Adaptive  f o r couples  was  be no  the C r i t i c a l  who  dyadically adjusted  hypothesis  would  not rejected.  Child  were  statistically  Parent  ego  ego s t a t e  identified  o r low d y a d i c a l l y  as  state  score being  adjusted.  of  -60-  Pearson between scores  the C r i t i c a l  a  was  ego  state  and  the low  correlations  were  and  Child  of each  tested  two-tailed  coefficients  TABLE  Parent  f o r the couples  coefficient using  product-moment  test.  Table  f o r the high  dyadically  IV.  group.  a t the a =  f o r the C r i t i c a l  scores  Adaptive  The  .05  level  and  dyadically  adjusted  Adjusted  Couples  Dyadically  correlation  adjusted  Child  couples  Adjusted  Couples  that  IV  coefficients  indicates are not  male but  COEFFICIENT  .2269 -.1208  Table  positively  the  couples.  AC AC  AC AC  The  significance  (N=30)  M a l e CP a n d F e m a l e F e m a l e CP a n d M a l e  level.  of  Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Between t h e C r i t i c a l P a r e n t Ego S t a t e S c o r e s and t h e A d a p t i v e C h i l d Ego S t a t e S c o r e s o f t h e H i g h A d j u s t e d C o u p l e s a n d t h e Low A d j u s t e d Couples  M a l e CP a n d F e m a l e F e m a l e CP a n d M a l e Low  state  the Adaptive  CORRELATION High  ego  correlation  IV p r o v i d e s  Parent  calculated  (N=30) .0132 -.0189  the r e s u l t s  statistically  Critical  Parent  non-significantly  of  the  correlation  s i g n i f i c a n t a t the a  ego with  state the  scores female.  =  .05  correlated Adaptive  - 6 1 -  Child  ego  female  state  scores  f o r both  Critical  Parent  ego  negatively Child  state  Scatter  with  scores  f o r both  diagrams were  correlational  groups  state  the Adaptive  It  Hypothesis was  hypothesized  that  score  o f one  score  of the other  being  either  adjusted. summary  The  The  positively ego  Parent  scores  and  partner,  high  the Adaptive  f o r couples  dyadically  hypothesis  w o u l d be  the  ego  state  f o r both  was  no  the Nurturing  adjusted  who  statistically  Parent  Child were  o r low  not rejected.  out that  the r e s u l t s  ego  ego  state  identified dyadically  Table  V  includes  male  Nurturing  Parent  state  female  scores  Nurturing  with  ego  state  scores  For  the low  f o r the high  dyadically  Nurturing  non-significantly  ego  with  with  scores  scores  scores  .05  correlated  Adaptive  adjusted  Adaptive  adjusted both  =  couples.  correlated  the male  couples,  state  correlation  the female  dyadically  adjusted  Parent  state  dyadically  state  but non-significantly  ego  ego  f o r the high  Parent  of the  s i g n i f i c a n t at the a  are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y  but non-significantly  negatively  but  partner  V points  coefficients  female  to i l l u s t r a t e  of the r e s u l t s .  Table  The  state  there  state  Child  Adaptive  8  c o r r e l a t i o n between  level.  the male  plotted  ego  significant  a  correlated  o f the C r i t i c a l  Child  the  groups.  also  relationship  with  Conversely,  (see Appendix C ) .  (h)  as  scores  but non-significantly  ego  scores  groups.  couples.  the male  correlated  t h e i r partners' Adaptive  Child  and  negatively Child  -62-  ego  state In  scores.  addition,  graphically  scatter  diagrams were  the c o r r e l a t i o n a l  Parent  ego s t a t e  scores  f o r both  TABLE  V.  scores with groups  plotted  relationship the Adaptive  o f the Nurturing Child  state  Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n Coefficients Between t h e N u r t u r i n g P a r e n t Ego S t a t e S c o r e s and t h e A d a p t i v e C h i l d Ego S t a t e S c o r e s o f t h e H i g h A d j u s t e d C o u p l e s a n d t h e Low A d j u s t e d C o u p l e s  Dyadically  Adjusted  M a l e NP a n d F e m a l e F e m a l e NP arid M a l e Low  ego  (see Appendix D).  CORRELATION  High  to represent  Dyadically  Adjusted  M a l e NP a n d F e m a l e F e m a l e NP a n d M a l e  Couples  (N=30)  AC AC Couples AC AC  COEFFICIENT  .059 7 -.259 3 (N=30) -.2182 -.0096  3.  Summary The  results  hypothesis t-test that  of  the  statistical  testing  and  the  s p e c i f i c hypotheses,  results  and  the  the  between  only the  dyadically  correlation  statistically  high  adjusted  ( a =  i n the  general the  coefficients,  adjusted  g r o u p was  the  including  significant  dyadically  of  indicated  . 0 5 ) difference  group  and  Adult  ego  the  low  state  variable. It  was  group would difference The  the  show  of  Adult  ego  significant It  was  at  than  the  variables  state the  correlation  between  the  partner  other  positive Parent  the  =  that  the  the  same  Child  dyadically  adjusted  group.  and  the  female  was  the  predicted  of  the  group.  six  d i r e c t i o n but to  be  state  ego only  statistically  male  dyadically  Parent Child  ego  ego  The  the  Parent  ego  d i r e c t i o n but  ego  score  of  Nurturing  f o r the  of  Child  score  significant the  scores  result  Critical  Adaptive  between  state  state  state  statistically  ego  adjusted  significant positive  expected  Adaptive  in  high  Adaptive  c o r r e l a t i o n was  scores  ego  adjusted  two  shown  Critical  The  the  adjusted  . 0 5 level.  the  partner.  that  was  statistically  and  between  dyadically  predicted  variable a  dyadically  s i g n i f i c a n t lower  showed  and  analysis  high  low  i n the  expected show  one  the  t-test  were  group would  of  that  statistically  scores  results  state  expected  state  high  correlational state scores  non-significant  for  the  -64-  high d y a d i c a l l y a d j u s t e d group. The  d e s c r i p t i v e data f o r the general and the  s p e c i f i c hypotheses gave a d d i t i o n a l support  t o the  n o t i o n t h a t there were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s , except  f o r the A d u l t ego s t a t e  However t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y  variable.  significant result  c o u l d have o c c u r r e d by chance alone, as a r e s u l t o f repeated  t - t e s t s on data from the same s u b j e c t s u s i n g  s u b - t e s t scores from one instrument; Type I e r r o r . hypothesis  o r because o f a  A Type I e r r o r i s made when a t r u e n u l l  i s rejected.  In t h i s study with a = .05,  there were f i v e chances out o f one hundred f o r committing a Type I e r r o r .  -65-  Chapter  Five  D I S C U S S I O N AND A.  Restatement The  ship level  1  study  lower  as b e i n g  high  dyadically  as being  sample  o f the study  cohabiting;. couples.  measured  by t h e Dyadic  On groups scores.  the basis were One  formed group  couples  the  eighty-one  scores Six  couples  who  would  couples  were  show  who  were  adjusted.  consisted o f eighty-one or dyadic  Adjustment  Scale  by t h e P e r s o n a l  o f the Dyadic by rank  married  adjustment  (Spanier,  was  1976),  Response  from  t-tests  Adjustment  ordering  Scale  and  Questionnaire  and one g r o u p couples.  the female  results,  the couples'  consisted of the top t h i r t y  were c a l c u l a t e d  significant each  on t h e  1975).  one  couples  their  Used  Marital  s t a t e s were measured  (Kealy,  than  relation-  and  focused  adjusted  low d y a d i c a l l y  the  of couples  t o see whether  D e s c r i p t i o n o f Procedures The  to explore  The s t u d y  ego s t a t e d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s  identified  ego  was  t h e ego s t a t e p a t t e r n s  ego s t a t e p a t t e r n s  identified  or  of this  o f m a r i t a l adjustment.  couples  B.  o f the Problem  purpose  between  SUMMARY  combined  of the eighty-  c o n s i s t e d of the bottom  thirty  Ego s t a t e d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s by s u b t r a c t i n g the male ego s t a t e  (a= .05) w e r e  scores  calculated  d i f f e r e n c e between  ego s t a t e  fora  the d i f f e r e n c e score  o f t h e s i x ego s t a t e measures  f o r t h e two  of  f o rthe  f o r a l l s i x ego  to test  two  states.  statistically means o f  groups.  -66-  Pearson  product-moment  between  the  AC  ego  order  CP  state to  test  these  to  illustrate  the  any  hypotheses, state  (a  =  only  variable  significant Adult  couples.  (a  =  spouses  the  two  and  group,  in  relationships  were  presented  similarities  the  t-test  in  groups.  testing  and  indicated  hypothesis  the  results  .05)  the  that  of  the  correlation  of  the  regarding  the  with  i t would  couples  eight Adult  ego  state  than  the  low  the  ego  holds  i t s corresponding  effect  =  on  scores  adjusted  .05)  marriage  that  the  statistically  dyadically  l i t e r a t u r e on  a positive  that  difference  s i g n i f i c a n t (a  I I ) , which  has  appear  evidenced  lower  state  (homogamy) and  each  Np  supported.  i n Chapter  relationship  the  Conclusions  statistically  i n accordance  discussed  the  adjusted  ego  The  the  or  statistical  .05),  to  dyadically  the  the  was  According high  of  of  data  calculated  and  regarding  differences  including  coefficients  scores  Descriptive  and  were  couples  p r o f i l e s between  results  hypotheses,  state  hypotheses  Principal Findings The  is  ego  f o r the  variables.  personality  in  AC  scores  of  A.  and  correlations  result (as  similarity the  satisfaction  of  marital and  adjustment. Moreover,  although  the  statistical  significance  (a =  .05)  -67-  based  on  variable of  a  is  strong  the  difference  may  have  I  error  Type  marriage The state  null  explained  are  by  the  that  although  This  a l l of  Adult  ego  the state  of  Personal of  ego In  Response  addition,  NP  ego  AC  on  or  because  IV),  there  homogamy  AC,  the  in  state  Chapter  could,  particular i t may  be  to  there  between  marriage  due  the  to  for  the  be  couples. the  validity  (Kealy,  Day,  results  however, of  or  and  except  sample  be  II,  (Bowerman  variables,  attesting  might  non-significant  It  ego  (similarities  predominant  ego  NC  relationship  other  the  and  results  in  marital  RC  dissimilarities  or  be  CP, These  Questionnaire  the  null  the  CP  state  were  supported.  were  no  the  the  every and  this  alone  lack of  1975)  as  In of  the a  measure  the  cor-  states.  between  in  in  state  Chapter  discussed  explain  research  relations and  for  instrumentation,  supportive  in  ego  contrary.  variable. of  chance  supported.  may  five  characteristic terms  the  one  could  by  Adult  literature  research  dissimilarities)  for  the  similarities  partners,  1956).  in  are  the  discussed  hypotheses  suggests  both  (as  suggest  variables  which  resulted  evidence to  for  statistically Adult  ego  and  scores  This  state  hypotheses AC  for  further  ego the  state couples  evidence  significant variable.  regarding scores of  each  suggests  results,  and  other  the group  that than  there  -68-  The except of  f a i l u r e to f i n d  for  the  methodological  procedures  and  contributed Stanley, in  Adult  the  a  1966,  and  level  their In  a  of  addition,  results.  As  indicates, the  ment  differences  19 7 5 ) ,  the  state  ego  couples'  ego  state  of  adjustment  these  Personal represent  or  The  a  the  the  may  result  sampling  s a m p l e may  have  (Campbell  standard  and  approach  also  may  have  couples'  ego  states  added on of  to  the  did  not  take  the  turn,  in  scores.  detracts  from  i s also  Questionnaire's measure  a  account  an  the  measurement  have  The  Adjustsex  Questionnaire  the  may  III  research  Dyadic  into  Response  occurred in  and  validity  i n Chapter  v e r i f y i n g independent  have  There  as  of s i g n i f i c a n t  Instrumentation  Personal  and  lack  affected  subjective  self-report personality  adequately  a  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such  also  scales  variables. Response  of  difference and  of  Questionnaire  variables,  self-administered marital  lack  Response  which  study.  be  adjustment.  have  in  could  instruments  measure  study  the  lack  the  dyadic  present  (Kealy,  of  instrument  This  variable,  internal validity  of  is a  significant results,  non-randomized  discussion  there  Scale.  a  The  might  the  Personal  of  15).  true  reliability,  state  of  administration from  on  use  lack  p.  detracted  and  ego  weaknesses  the  to  statistically  of the  nature  inventories  accurate  possibility did  not  certain  ego  state  and  assessment  that  items  the  sufficiently character-  istics. One the  first  of  the  study  positive to  aspects  investigate  of  this  study  experimentally  is the  of  that  i t is  marital  -69-  relationship Moreover,  through  the and  expressive  aspects  to D.  be  for  of  1.  the  basis  research  marital the  marital  this are  Marital  or  process  which  may  aid  understand  more  r e l a t i o n s h i p and  the  spouses,  which  several  at  adjustment any  points  on  given a  point  dimension  basis  Paper  get  relationship.  Dyadic  time  to  this  and  objective  It  i s suggested  the  Scale  p e n c i l measures assessment  Thus,  there  order  to  get  is a a  of  need  more  at  research are  by  only  adjusted  assessment  be  done  on  a  evaluation  that  future  administering  different  points  in  experiment. useful  marital  or  for outside  objective  well  Thus, to  has  accurate  into account  Adjustment  throughout  1976).  a more  time  from  r e l a t i o n s h i p needs  marital  ever-changing  in  the  the  possibilities  i s an  of  take  thought  suggested:  (Spanier,  research  are  Research  maladjusted  the  marriage the  to  of  the  fully  research,  dyadic  continuing  framework.  adjustment.  f o r Future  of  arbitrary  2.  the  with  study  to  i n t e r a c t i o n of  Recommendations  future  the  counsellor  associated  On  transactional analysis  r e s u l t s of  researcher  personality  the  but  limited  dyadic  adjustment.  evaluators  assessment  in  of  in the  marital relationship. 3.  There  i s evidence  Response (Kealy,  of  sex  Questionnaire's 1975).  differences  in  the  Personal  measurement  of  ego  state  Therefore,  i t i s recommended  for  -70-  f u t u r e r e s e a r c h t h a t the ego  s t a t e s o f females  males c o u l d be measured s e p a r a t e l y o f c o u p l e s ' ego separate and  and  (not i n the form  s t a t e d i f f e r e n c e scores)  and  that  hypotheses c o u l d be s t a t e d f o r females  males.  There i s a need f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on the PRQ  in  o r d e r to p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l v a l i d a t i o n f o r i t s use a measurement o f ego  states.  Concurrent v a l i d i t y  be i n c r e a s e d by u s i n g another TA ego a d d i t i o n to the PRQ.  The  as could  s t a t e measure i n  e x t e r n a l component o f  v a l i d i t y c o u l d a l s o be i n c r e a s e d by u s i n g an a d d i t i o n a l p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y with the same o r c o n s t r u c t s as the  similar  PRQ.  F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s recommended on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale to p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l c r i t e r i o n related  validity.  The present sample.  study  d i d not use an unbiased  o r randomized  Thus, i n order to be able to g e n e r a l i z e  r e s u l t s to the p o p u l a t i o n , randomized samples be used i n f u t u r e  the  should  research.  There i s a need f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on the A d u l t ego  s t a t e v a r i a b l e to see whether s i m i l a r i t y o f  couples' A d u l t ego  the  state i s p o s i t i v e l y associated  w i t h m a r i t a l adjustment.  Another study  might  r e p l i c a t e t h i s study with a random sample to see i f the A d u l t ego  s t a t e v a r i a b l e shows s t a t i s t i c a l  -71-  significance  over  differentiating adjusted be  done  TA  ego  the other  between  couples. replicating  state  ego  high  adjusted  Furthermore, this  measure.  one,  state variable i n and  another  but using  low  study a  could  different  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Berne,.,E. Transactional Grove P r e s s , 1961. Berne, E. Groups. Berne,  Analysis  i n Psychotherapy.  New  York:  The S t r u c t u r e and Dynamics o f O r g a n i z a t i o n s and P h i l a d e l p h i a : J.B. L i p p i n c o t t , 1963.  E . Games P e o p l e  Play.  New  York:  Grove  Treatment.  P r e s s , 1964.  Berne, E. Principles P r e s s , 1966.  o f Group  New  B l o o d , R.O., & W o l f e , of Married Living. 1960.  D.M. Husbands a n d Wives: The Dynamics G l e n c o e , I l l i n o i s : The F r e e P r e s s ,  B l o o d , R.O. Research needs o f a f a m i l y l i f e marriage counsellor. Journal o f Marriage 1976, 37, 7-12.  York:  Grove  educator and and The F a m i l y ,  B o w e r m a n , C . E . & D a y , B.R. A test of the theory o f complementary needs as a p p l i e d t o c o u p l e s d u r i n g A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1956, 21, 602-605. B u r g e s s , E.W., & C o t t r e l l , L.S. P r e d i c t i n g Success M a r r i a g e . New Y o r k : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1939.  courtship  or Failure i n  B u r g e s s , E.W., & W a l l i n , P. Homogamy i n s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , 1 9 4 3 , 49_, 1 0 9 - 1 2 4 . B u r g e s s , E.W. & W a l l i n , P. Homogamy i n p e r s o n a l i t y characteristics. J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1944, 39, 475-484. B u r g e s s , E.W., Lippincott,  & Wallin, 1953.  P. E n g a g e m e n t :  and M a r r i a g e .  Chicago:  !  B y r n e , D., & B l a y l o c k , B . S i m i l a r i t y and assumed s i m i l a r i t y of a t t i t u d e s between husbands and wives. Journal of A b n o r m a l a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 3 , 6_7, 6 3 6 - 6 4 0 . C a m p b e l l , D..T., & S t a n l e y , J . C . E x p e r i m e n t a l a n d Q u a s i E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n s f o r R e s e a r c h . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1966. C a m p o s , L . , & M c C o r m i c k , P. I n t r o d u c e Y o u r M a r r i a g e T o T r a n s a c t i o n a l A n a l y s i s . Stockton, C a l i f o r n i a : San J o a q u i n "TA I n s t i t u t e , 1 9 7 2 . C o r s i n i , R.J. Understanding and s i m i l a r i t y i n marriage. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1956, 52, 327-333.  -73-  Cronbach , L . J . C o e f f i c i e n t alpha and t h e i n t e r n a l of tests. Psychometrika, 1 9 5 1 , 16_, 2 9 7 - 3 3 4 .  structure  D u s a y , J.M. Egograms and t h e " c o n s t a n c y hypothesis". Transactional Analysis Journal, 1 9 7 2 , 2_ (3) , 3 7 - 4 1 . D y m o n d , R. Canadian  I n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n and m a r i t a l happiness. J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 5 4 , 8_, 1 6 4 - 1 7 1 .  G u i l f o r d , J.P. McGraw-Hill, G u r i n , G., Health.  Psychometric 1954.  Methods  (2nd e d . ) .  V e r o f f , J . , & F e l d , S. American New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1 9 6 0 .  H a r r i s , T.A. 1967.  I'm  O.K.  - You're  O.K.  New  New  View  York:  York:  Their  Harper  Mental  and  Row,  H i c k s , M., & P i a t t , M. M a r i t a l happiness and s t a b i l i t y : A review o f research i n the s i x t i e s . Journal o f Marriage a n d t h e F a m i l y , 1 9 7 0 , 32_, 5 5 3 - 5 7 3 . Hollingshead, A.B. marriage mates. 619-627.  Cultural American  factors i n the s e l e c t i o n o f S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1950, 15, —  J a m e s , M., & J o n g e w a r d , D. B o r n To Win: T r a n s a c t i o n a l Analysis w i t h G e s t a l t E x p e r i m e n t s . Don M i l l s , O n t . : A d d i s o n - W e s l e y P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1971 . J a m e s , M., & J o n g e w a r d , D. The P e o p l e Book. A d d i s o n - W e s l e y P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1 9 7 5 .  Don M i l l s ,  Ont.:  K a t z , A.M., & H i l l , R. R e s i d e n t i a l p r o p i n q u i t y and m a r i t a l selection: A r e v i e w o f t h e o r y , method, and f a c t . M a r r i a g e a n d F a m i l y L i v i n g , 1 9 5 8 , 20_, 2 7 - 3 5 . K a t z , I . , C o h e n , M., & C a s t i n g l i o n e , L . E f f e c t o f one type of need c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y on m a r r i a g e p a r t n e r s ' conformity t o one a n o t h e r ' s judgements. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1963. 67 ( 1 ) , 8-14. Kealy, L. Construct v a l i d i t y of the Personal Response Questionnaire f o r Transactional Analysis. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a , 1975. K e l l y , E.L. Psychological Psychological Bulletin,  factors i n assortative 1 9 4 0 , 37_ , 5 7 6 .  mating.  K e l l y , E.L. M a r i t a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y as r e l a t e d t o p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f husbands and wives as r a t e d by s e l f and spouse, T h e J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 4 1 , 13_, 1 9 3 - 1 9 8 .  K e r c k h o f f , A.C., & D a v i s , K.E. Value c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y i n mate s e l e c t i o n . R e v i e w , 1962, 27, 295-303.  consensus American  and need Sociolog ica1  L e v i n g e r , G., & B r e e d l o v e , J . I n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n and agreement: A study o f marriage partners. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 6 , 3_, 3 6 7 - 3 7 2 . Locke, H.J. P r e d i c t i n g Adjustment i n Marriage: A Comparison of a D i v o r c e d and a H a p p i l y M a r r i e d Group. New Y o r k : H o l t , 1953. L o c k e , H . J . , & W a l l a c e , K.M. S h o r t m a r i t a l adjustment and prediction tests: T h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . Marriage and F a m i l y L i v i n g , 1959, 21, 251-255. Loevinger, theory.  J. O b j e c t i v e t e s t s as i n s t r u m e n t s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1 9 5 7 , 3_, 6 3 5 - 6 9 4 .  Luckey, E.B. concepts.  Marital satisfaction S o c i a l F o r c e s , 1960,  and congruent s e l f - s p o u s e 39_, 1 5 3 - 1 5 7 . (a)  L u c k e y , E.B. M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and i t s a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h congruence o f p e r c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e and the F a m i l y , 1 9 6 0 , 31, 4 9 - 5 4 . ( b ) : L u c k e y , E.B. Marital satisfaction of spouse. Journal of Marriage 2 1 7 - 2 2 0 . (a)  and p e r s o n a l i t y and t h e F a m i l y ,  correlates 1964, 26,  L u c k e y , E.B. M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and i t s concomitant p e r c e p t i o n s of s e l f and spouse. J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 11 ( 2 ) , 1 3 6 - 1 4 5 . (b) M a n g u s , A.R. F a m i l y i m p a c t s on m e n t a l F a m i l y L i v i n g , 1 9 5 7 , 1J9, 2 5 6 - 2 6 2 .  health.  Marriage  and  M c C a r l e y , D.G. The ego s t a t e i n v e n t o r y , i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of A l b e r t a , 1971. Murstein, B.I. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f m e n t a l h e a l t h t o m a r i t a l c h o i c e and c o u r t s h i p p r o g r e s s . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e and the F a m i l y , 1 9 6 7 , 2_9, 4 4 7 - 4 6 1 . (b) . M u r s t e i n , B . I . , & B e c k , G.D. Person perception, marriage adjustment, and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Journal of Consulting a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 2 , 39_, 3 9 6 - 4 0 3 . M u r s t e i n , B . I . , & G l a u d i n , V. adjustment to p e r s o n a l i t y : i n t e r p e r s o n a l check l i s t . 1966, 28, 37-43.  The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f m a r i t a l A factor analysis of the J o u r n a l o f Marriage and the F a m i l y ,  -75-  P r e s t o n , M.G., P e l ' t z , W.L., M u d d , E . H . , & F r o s c h e r , H.B. Impressions o f p e r s o n a l i t y as a function o f m a r i t a l conflict. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1952, 47, 326-336. P i c k f o r d , J . H . , S i g n o r i , E . I . , & R e m p e l , H. Similar or r e l a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s as a f a c t o r i n m a r i t a l happiness. J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y , 1 9 6 6 , 28_, 1 9 0 - 1 9 2 . R i c h a r d s o n , H.M. S t u d i e s o f mental resemblance between husbands and wives and between f r i e n d s . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1 9 3 9 , 36^, 1 0 4 - 1 2 0 . S c h e l l e n b e r g , J . A . Homogamy i n p e r s o n a l v a l u e s a n d t h e of E l i g i b l e s " . Social Forces, 1 9 6 0 , 3_9, 1 5 7 - 1 6 2 .  "Field  S p a n i e r , G..B. M e a s u r i n g d y a d i c adjustment:: New s c a l e s f o r a s s e s s i n g the q u a l i t y o f marriage and s i m i l a r dyads. J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e a n d t h e . F a m i l y , 1 9 7 6 , _38_ ( 1 ) , 1 5 - 2 8 . Spanier,  G.B.  Personal  communication,  March  16, 1977.  S p a n i e r , G.B. & C o l e , C L . Toward c l a r i f i c a t i o n and i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f m a r i t a l adjustment. International o f S o c i o l o g y o f t h e F a m i l y , 1976, 121-146. Steiner,  C.  T e r m a n , L.M. New Y o r k : T h a r p , R.G. Bulletin,  Games A l c o h o l i c s P l a y . Psychological Facotrs M c G r a w - H i l l , 1938.  New  York:  i n Marital  Psychological Patterning 1 9 6 3 , 6_0 ( 2 ) , 9 7 - 1 1 7 .  Grove  Press,  1971.  Happiness.  i n marriage.  T h o m s o n , G. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f ego s t a t e s . A n a l y s i s J o u r n a l , 1972, 2 ( 4 ) , L96-210  Journal  Psychological  Transactional  T o m a n , W. Family c o n s t e l l a t i o n o f the partners i n divorced and married couples. J o u r n a l o f I n d i v i d u a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1962, IS!, 4 8 - 5 1 . Winch,  R.F.  The Modern  Family.  New  York:  Holt,  1952.  Winch, R.F., K t s a n e s , T., & K t s a n e s , V . The t h e o r y o f complementary needs i n m a t e - s e l e c t i o n : An a n a l y t i c and d e s c r i p t i v e study. A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1954, 19, 241-249.  -76-  APPENDIX A PERSONAL RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE  -77-  PERSONAL RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE  Directions: L i s t e d below a r e a number o f statements c o n c e r n i n g p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e s and t r a i t s . Read each i t e m and d e c i d e whether t h e statement i s T r u e o r F a l s e as i t p e r t a i n s t o you p e r s o n a l l y , and mark i t on t h e answer sheet provided. P l e a s e c i r c l e T o r F. T  :  F  (1)  When i n a d i f f i c u l t o r t e n s e s i t u a t i o n , my hands sweat.  stomach c h u r n s and  T  :  F  (2)  I u s u a l l y g e t u p s e t i f I don't g e t my own  way.  T  :  F  (3)  I l i k e t o l e a v e as few t h i n g s t o chance a s p o s s i b l e .  T  :  F  (4)  Many p e o p l e a r e f o r g e t t i n g t h a t i t i s o n l y t h r o u g h h a r d work t h a t they w i l l reach the top.  T  :  F  (5)  I am seen as b e i n g a s t u b b o r n p e r s o n .  T  :  F  (6)  I seem t o have d e v e l o p e d a c a p a c i t y f o r independent t J i i n k i n g , as opposed t o many who conform t o o t h e r p e o p l e ' s thoughts and i d e a s .  T  .  F  (7)  When p e o p l e t e l l me t h a t I s h o u l d do something, t o do j u s t t h e o p p o s i t e .  T  .  F  (8)  I u s u a l l y t r y t o l i v e up t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f o t h e r s .  T  .  F  (9)  I t b o t h e r s me t h a t t h e r e a r e n o t enough p e o p l e today w i t h t h e courage t o s t a n d up f o r what i s r i g h t .  I have a  my  tendency  T  F  (10)  I u s u a l l y e s t i m a t e t h e r i s k s o f making a d e c i s i o n b e f o r e a c t u a l l y making i t .  T  F  (11)  When I am happy, everyone seems t o know i t .  T  F  (12)  I t h i n k t h a t I am more o b s e r v a n t t h a n most p e o p l e .  T  :  F  (13)  When I see p e o p l e t h a t a r e weak and unassuming, I t r y t o make s u r e t h a t o t h e r s don't t a k e advantage o f them.  T  :  F  (14)  I f e e l comfortable following a strong leader.  T  :  F  (15)  P e o p l e a r e n o t m o r a l enough today.  T  :  F  (16)  I o f t e n wonder what "they" w i l l s a y about t h i n g s t h a t I do.  T  :  F  (17)  There a r e t o o many u n p r o d u c t i v e p e o p l e i n t h e w o r l d .  T  :  F  (18)  Most p e o p l e s h o u l d go t o c h u r c h more o f t e n t h a n t h e y do.  -78-  T  :  F  (19)  I f I do something grudgingly.  T  :  F  (20)  I t i s i m p o r t a n t f o r me I act.  T  :  F  (21)  My  T  :  F  (22)  I o f t e n f i n d m y s e l f i n s i t u a t i o n s where I am t h e l e a d e r and o t h e r group members depend on me f o r g u i d a n c e .  T  :  F  (23)  I t t a k e s a l o t t o c o n v i n c e me t o do i t .  T  :  T  (24)  I f i n d t h a t I want t o c o m f o r t p e o p l e who  F  (25)  You a r e judged by t h e company you keep.  F  (26)  When wandering t h r o u g h a s t o r e , I f i n d t h a t I l i k e t o t o u c h and f e e l many o f t h e s t o r e ' s goods.  T  F  (27)  What p e o p l e need today i s more d i s c i p l i n e .  T  F  (28)  I u s u a l l y a c t t h e way  T T  :  t h a t I d o n ' t want t o do, I u s u a l l y do i t  t o analyze a l l s i t u a t i o n s thoroughly before  f i r s t r e a c t i o n when t o l d t o do something  i s t o say  "no".  t o do something when I don't want  a r e h a v i n g bad t i m e s .  I f e e l , r a t h e r t h a n c o n t r o l l i n g my  emotions.  T  .  F  (29)  I have a tendency t o t a l k and l a u g h l o u d l y i n my others.  interactions with  T  :  F  (30)  When p e o p l e d o n ' t see t h i n g s my way, but t r y t o hide i t .  T  :  F  (31)  I have d i f f i c u l t y g e t t i n g a l o n g w e l l w i t h most l e a d e r s .  T  :  F  (32)  One way o f s t o p p i n g wrong-doing i s t o s e v e r e l y p u n i s h p e o p l e break t h e law.  T  :  F  (33)  I o f t e n f i n d m y s e l f u s i n g e x p r e s s i o n s l i k e "Wow!", "Gosh!", e t c .  T  :  F  (34)  When c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a d v e r s i t y , I e i t h e r s u l k o r withdraw.  T  :  F  (35)  I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o know how  T  :  F  (36)  I f e e l u n c c m f o r t a b l e when p e o p l e e x p r e s s n e g a t i v e emotions anger, boredom, e t c .  T  :  F  (37)  I am c a r e f u l n o t t o l a u g h o r t a l k t o o l o u d l y .  T  :  F  (38)  I f something seems t h a t i t may of alternative solutions.  T  :  F  (39)  I d i s l i k e o t h e r p e o p l e t e l l i n g me what I "ought" o r " s h o u l d " do.  T  :  F  (40)  I f e e l most i m p o r t a n t when I am h e l p i n g o t h e r s .  T  :  F  (41)  My whole body t e n s e s when someone t e l l s me  T  :  F  (42)  I r e a l l y get frustrated  who  t o " g e t around p e o p l e " .  become a problem,  I f i n d m y s e l f b e i n g open and spontaneous  such as  I t r y to think  I have t o do  something.  w i t h other people.  - 79-  F  (43)  I f i n d t h a t b e i n g r e a l l y n i c e t o p e o p l e h e l p s g e t me t h i n g s t h a t I want.  F  (44)  You j u s t don't g e t s e r v i c e any more l i k e y o u used t o .  F  (45)  I u s u a l l y come t o t h e a i d o f f r i e n d s who a r e i n d i f f i c u l t y .  T  F  (46)  I t e n d t o agree r a t h e r t h a n argue w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e about c o n c e p t s o f r i g h t and wrong, i d e a s about what t o do, p l a n s , programs, systems, p r o c e d u r e s , e t c .  T  F  (47)  I would e n j o y working i n t h e a r e a o f h e l p i n g o t h e r s .  T  F  (48)  I t e n d t o argue r a t h e r t h a n agree w i t h p e o p l e about c o n c e p t s o f r i g h t and wrong, i d e a s about what t o do, e t c .  T  F  (49)  When I f e e l angry I l e t p e o p l e know.  T  F  (50)  Some p e o p l e s a y t h a t I have a c h i p o n my s h o u l d e r .  T  F  (51)  I s e e m y s e l f a s b e i n g a p e r s o n w i t h good f o r e s i g h t .  T  F  (52)  I enjoy doing "stupid" things j u s t f o r t h e fun o f i t .  F  (53)  I t ' s d i s g u s t i n g t h e way t a x e s keep g o i n g up t o s u p p o r t p e o p l e on social welfare.  T  F  (54)  I t e n d t o l o o k a t " a l l t h e f a c t s " and p l a n c a r e f u l l y b e f o r e s t a r t i n g some a c t i o n .  T  F  (55)  I have a tendency t o s u p p o r t t h e underdog.  T  .  T T  T  :  :  T  :  F  (56)  I t±iink c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be t a u g h t t o h e l p o t h e r p e o p l e a s much as p o s s i b l e .  T  :  F  (57)  I e n j o y making d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e good o f o t h e r p e o p l e .  T  .  F  (58)  I t d i s t u r b s me t h a t p e o p l e a r e l o s i n g s i g h t o f t r a d i t i o n a l and c o n s e r v a t i v e ways o f d o i n g t h i n g s .  T  :  F  (59)  Many p e o p l e need t o be p r o t e c t e d from  T  .  F  (60)  Teenagers would be b e t t e r o f f i f t h e y l i s t e n e d t o and l e a r n e d from t h e e x p e r i e n c e s o f o l d e r p e o p l e .  society.  -80'  KEY TO PERSONAL RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE  Items are answered True o r False and a l l are keyed True. to the correct ego states as follows:  Items are keyed  C r i t i c a l 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  Adult  -  3, 6, 10, 12, 38, 51, 54, 20  Adaptive C h i l d  -  1, 8, 14, 16, 30, 35, 36, 37, 43, 46  Rebellious C h i l d  -  2, 5, 7, 19, 21, 23, 31, 34, 39, 41, 48, 50  Natural C h i l d  -  11, 26, 28, 29, 33, 42, 49, 52  \oo j <*0 •  80EG06RNA  so 30  AO100  C?  $9  AC  Score  /a  APPENDIX  B  DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE  DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE Always Agree 1.  Handling f a m i l y finances  2.  Matters o f r e c r e a t i o n  3.  Religious matters  4.  Demonstrations  5.  Friends  6.  Sex r e l a t i o n s  7.  Conventionality (correct o r proper behavior)  8.  Philosophy o f l i f e  9.  Ways o f d e a l i n g w i t h p a r e n t s or in-laws  Occasionally Disagree  Frequently Disagree  Almost Always Disagree  Always Disagree  of affection  10.  Aims, g o a l s , and t h i n g s b e l i e v e d important  11.  Amount o f t i m e s p e n t t o g e t h e r  12.  Making major d e c i s i o n s  13.  Household  14.  L e i s u r e t i m e i n t e r e s t s and activities  15.  Career decisions  i  CO  to  i  tasks  All t h e time 16.  Almost Always Agree  Most o f t h e time  More often than n o t  Occasionally  Rarely  Never  How o f t e n do y o u d i s c u s s o r have y o u c o n s i d e r e d d i v o r c e , separation, o r terminating your r e l a t i o n s h i p ?  cont'd .  /All t h e time  17.  Most o f t h e time  More often than not  Occasionally  Rarely  Never  How o f t e n do you o r y o u r mate l e a v e t h e house a f t e r a f i g h t ?  0  1  2  3  4  5  I n g e n e r a l , how o f t e n do y o u t h i n k t h a t t h i n g s between you and y o u r p a r t n e r a r e g o i n g - w e l l ?  5  4  3  2  1  0  19.  Do y o u c o n f i d e i n y o u r mate?  5  4  3  3  1  0  20.  Do y o u e v e r r e g r e t t h a t y o u married? (or l i v e d together)  0  1  2  3  4  5  How o f t e n do you and y o u r partner quarrel?  0  1  2  3  4  5  How o f t e n do you and y o u r mate " g e t o n each o t h e r ' s nerves?"  0  1  2  3  4  5  18.  21.  22.  E v e r y Day 23.  Do y o u k i s s y o u r mate?  4  All of them 24.  Do you and y o u r mate engage i n outside i n t e r e s t s together?  4  Almost E v e r y Day 5  Most o f them.  3  Occasionally 2  Seme o f them  2  Rarely 1  V e r y few o f them  1  Never 0  None o f them  0  cont'd  Less than once a month  Never  25.  Once o r twice a month  Once o r twice a week  Once a day  More o f t e n  Have a s t i m u l a t i n g exchange o f ideas  5  26.  Laugh t o g e t h e r  0  1  2  3  4  .  5  27.  C a l m l y d i s c u s s something  0  1  2  3  4  5  28.  Work t o g e t h e r o n a p r o j e c t  Q  l  2  3  4  5  These a r e some t h i n g s about w h i c h c o u p l e s sometimes agree and scmetime d i s a g r e e . Indicate i f e i t h e r item below c a u s e d d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p i n i o n s o r were problems i n y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p d u r i n g t h e p a s t few weeks. (Check YES o r NO).  i  29.  Yes -p  No i  Being too t i r e d  30.  Q  l  N o t showing  31.  its  f o r sex  I  love  The d o t s o n t h e f o l l o w i n g l i n e r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n t degrees o f h a p p i n e s s i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p . The m i d d l e p o i n t , "happy", r e p r e s e n t s t h e degree o f happiness o f most r e l a t i o n s h i p s . P l e a s e c i r c l e t h e d o t which b e s t d e s c r i b e s t h e degree o f h a p p i n e s s , a l l t h i n g s c o n s i d e r e d , o f y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p  Extremely Unhappy  32.  CO  Fairly Unhappy  A little Unhappy  Happy  Very happy  Extremely happy  Perfect  Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g statements b e s t d e s c r i b e s hew you f e e l about t h e f u t u r e o f y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p ? 5 I want d e s p e r a t e l y f o r my r e l a t i o n s h i p t o succeed, and would go t o almost any l e n g t h t o see t h a t i t does I want v e r y much f o r my r e l a t i o n s h i p t o succeed, and w i l l do a l l I c a n t o s e e t h a t i t does. 3  I want v e r y much f o r my r e l a t i o n s h i p t o succeed, and w i l l do my f a i r share t o see t h a t i t does.  cont'd.  32.  2  I t would be n i c e i f my r e l a t i o n s h i p succeeded, now t o h e l p i t succeed.  b u t I c a n ' t do much more t h a n I am d o i n g  1  I t would be n i c e i f i t succeeded, keep t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p g o i n g .  0  My r e l a t i o n s h i p c a n never succeed, and t h e r e i s no more t h a t I c a n do t o keep t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p going.  b u t I r e f u s e t o do any more than I am d o i n g now t o  TOTAL  -  151  i 00  Cn  I  -86-  APPENDIX  C  SCATTER DIAGRAMS REPRESENTING The C o r r e l a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s o f The C r i t i c a l P a r e n t Ego S t a t e Scores W i t h The A d a p t i v e C h i l d Ego S t a t e S c o r e s f o r Both Groups  - 87 -  4 1  D i a c rjrai i R ep:ires  Sc a t t:er  j.—  4-vw—  ^— 11  -lei.-—  Fe'male !Ad a p t l i v e 2 Via.  .e 2x:  iPair e n t _ I Stc i t e  Sc  -trr 5a]  1 1 L  1  :or e  i1  U fill  I  1 %>  o  <*.  /  •V-  X  _J  State  e l a L t i ona 1 R e l a t i o n s h : LP i , , f pox.^o*r-<S'S wi" ph. 1  —  Score  HJ  Ac  ;  !  i  i  I  i  I 1  qh Dye die a l l y tec Gi DUT. i  Lc w I yac i c e 11> Ac JU£ tec Gi our.  ;  r.  3  i  1  |  Ego  t h e Cc  1  |  |  //V  Ch i l d  Ijin g j  13  \  f— —7  X  II  •  I—  >  i j  9 !  i  <, >  » 1  I J  v  ™  .  A  •  \ «  j,  «  I  \*  *  "  )  1  i  '  V  i  r  •  T-  •»,.,,„  >  ; ;A  i  i 1  i  f*—i I  •  :  /  - K .  7  ^  z_  r  J  1 1  »-*  , J  j  >  —y  D '  4  - i  —"  Urn  1  i  • X  r  r.  0  —/  >  •  O  —«  (  < »  •4  >  I  5  >  F P I rial 2  Ac3ap1Live Chiild EgcD SItati i i ~Scpre  i  /  l  1  i I  1 ^ ! —1—C  8 8  -  -  u 1  in£ f th e ^ Sc|< ;ex '-am ram spar o f t r te 1 ale C r i j t i c a l P a r e r i t Egc -Ad aptxvc-5~Gh"rtrd~[E-gb— S t H tre~ Scut>re  1  eue l e C r i t i c aly a r e rit-_E y oi  s t a t e Sc o r e  -M-  _//>.  >——  f  Q  —< / . V  —>  7"  >  >  \  ?  TiT W T yar i P r l l y Ac jU£ t e c Gi our: I I  )  .1  iV-rr  \  1  «  Jf  r—  i  <  t  •—  \  -  \  Q  r ~ 1  i /_.. i  f\  »  i  i  *r  h  i 4  J  —  k  W  f  y  •r 4V  >  4  i 1  i  i  •  1"  9  i, i i  K  .  V" i  —— I  •  T  •  i  A  5r  t.  i  ..  L—  fm—  \  r  M a ie  f  s  it  th e  fligh nyr dir a l 1 y..„ Ac jus tec our: I X )  7"  wd t h  -  .  f  ;  s bate [Scdre  _  ;  //"  Co rr£B l a t i o n a " L_R e.Lfi t i o.n.Hshi p  r\  I  t  t  /  *  ....  $  t  (  1  «  . —,  Ii  M  <  i  .Ad?iptjLve C h i l d E(jo £3ta1be £3 CO]  -  i  iL  -89-  APPENDIX SCATTER  DIAGRAMS  D  REPRESENTING  The C o r r e l a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s o f The N u r t u r i n g P a r e n t Ego S t a t e S c o r e s W i t h The A d a p t i v e C h i l d Ego S t a t e Scores f o r Both Groups  —  Lt± e r _ . D i . a m : a m R e p r of  th e  i?'ei r i a l e -Ma- L e _ .N.u Eg  ctx r . i j  t a be  igi,  Boo : e  '  \. •  f4 a 1 3  n t Lnq  N u r bui -in 5  /^ . d a p t i r v e "  P,arc-  tl le  Co] : r e l a i : i o n a !  E<g o  State  - c i - ±i- a — E ' g o " - s t  2—S  R s l a t i Dns h i 711 h t. h e  Sc : o r  COJ t e  1  |  K\.  F  e»- Y#  s/  k.  ) IP </  7  iA  -Q.  t  f1  r  >  L  \  t  j JA *  J  t  f k  /  k  <  \  k  > t. i\  ?  A d jus e d  H i fh?I )yac Jic£ i l l s G r o u p I-  X -  L o T D ^acL ,ca~. - i y A d j u s e d G r c >up I I  • -  —  1 I  > r"  ik  \ f  r  O  >  j  \  0  t  /  A  \-  %-  -  -)  f  1  —i  F —  -K-. •J  1  >  *  f  ——_  J *  >  >  f.  —t1  O  t0  5  I i  r  8  t  N  >  Le_, ^da] •vH 7P E g o : 3 t a - be ! 3co: r e 1  ( "•hi'  tt n i , =3q_riam _Re P-T<? s e n t : .nq t i ie C o i •re L a i o f t h e I"em ale' N i r t u r i n g Pc•ire n t Eg|o S t a t e CIf r i l cT~Ecfd - s i Scopre Ma J e Adei p t 1 a r i ng-y b'e Utile IN art: \ Star e ' Hif h r Pa r e n t Ego Sc ore Ad; ust e d in Iv t Lov • Dja d T3S1 * ii ,! >f 9/ J -  i o ia3 R(2 l a ti< )ns h i j S c Dre w i t h t l i e  u  t  &  J  O. d . A. J  * iV L.  1  i •  i  K  4  JA  >  X-  ca! i y up FT" • -  i  f  —7 I— i—  V  V- -  L  r—  \  11\ Grc up r  —  J  r  7  /r V  ID  >  1  — J ¥r  <•  J  f — 3 \—  1  3,  J  1-  -4i 0  *  1  )  L  5  >  *  <  8 — t  •s Ma Le .\da 3 t i ve i Zhi Ld Eg D S t a t 5 S(x>r<  /< —  i  —  1  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 12 0
India 9 0
China 8 0
Germany 5 4
Canada 5 0
Turkey 3 0
Russia 3 0
Nigeria 3 0
France 2 0
Hong Kong 1 1
City Views Downloads
Unknown 13 14
Delhi 6 0
Ashburn 6 0
Beijing 4 0
Shenzhen 4 0
Munich 4 0
Moscow 3 0
New Delhi 2 0
Fort Worth 2 0
Kibriskoy 2 0
Kansas City 2 0
Frankfurt am Main 1 0
Mountain View 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

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