UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Marital quality revisited : do classic predictors of marital quality predict positive & negative feelings… Prévost, Chantal 1999

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1999-0166.pdf [ 2.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089061.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089061-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089061-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089061-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089061-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089061-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089061-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089061-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089061.ris

Full Text

M A R I T A L Q U A L I T Y R E V I S I T E D : D O C L A S S I C P R E D I C T O R S OF M A R I T A L Q U A L I T Y P R E D I C T P O S I T I V E & N E G A T I V E F E E L I N G S OF M A R R I A G E ? by C H A N T A L P R E V O S T B.A.Sc . , The University of Guelph, 1996 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R THE, D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF A R T S in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S School of Family and Nutritional Sciences Family Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A A pr i l 1999 ® Chantal Prevost, 1999 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. D e p a r t ™ , o, S&JjjA, ( f r ^ t d ^ " * ' The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Marital satisfaction and dissatisfaction have traditionally been conceptualized as opposite ends of the same continuum. The marriage literature has largely assessed people's moods by placing them on a bipolar continuum, rather than allowing for positive and negative evaluations to be expressed independently. To assess marital quality, Fincham and Linfield (1997) have developed a 2-dimensional construct comprising positive and negative evaluations. In the present project, 101 married individuals were recruited through the University of British Columbia Chi ld Care Services and randomly selected from the U B C telephone directory. In the present study, classic predictors of marital satisfaction were selected and applied to Fincham and Linfield's (1997) 2-dimensional model to determine i f the correlates o f satisfaction and dissatisfaction differed. Overall findings indicated mixed results concerning separate positive and negative dimensions in marital quality. Factor analysis supported Fincham and Linfield (1997), yet correlational analysis showed each factor was predicted by a more or less similar set of correlates. This study helped to further explore one approach to the construct of marital quality intended to increase conceptual clarity in the field. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Table of Contents i i i Acknowledgements iv List o f Tables v Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Traditional Measures of Marital Quality 5 The Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage Scale 9 Predictors o f Marital Quality 16 Statement of the Problem 19 Chapter 3 Methodology 21 Recruitment of Subj ects 21 Data Collection Procedures 22 Instruments 23 Chapter 4 Results 29 Sample Demographics 29 Findings 29 Chapter 5 Discussion, Limitations and Implications 45 References 53 Apendix A Marital Quality Survey 56 Apendix B Descriptive Statistics 65 in Acknowledgements M y sincere thanks to my thesis advisor, Dr. Dan Perlman, for his invaluable guidance, for his constant support, and most importantly, for his strong dedication to this project. M y appreciation to Dr. J im White and Dr. Lesley Andres for their constructive feedback and many helpful suggestions. Thank-you also to my family and loving partner Alan, for their much needed support, encouragement, and patience. IV List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Correlations for Variables Predicting Positive & Negative Dimensions of Marriage and Marital Stability 32 Table 2 Testing the Differences in Correlations 34 Table 3 Summary o f Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Positive & Negative Dimensions of Marital Quality and Marital Stability 37 Table 4a Analysis of Variance for Marital Satisfaction Typologies 39 Table 4b Analysis of Variance for Marital Satisfaction Typologies: The Difference in Means 41 Table 5 Principal Components Analysis - Rotated Factor Matrix 44 for Positive & Negative Quality in Marriage V 1 CHAPTER 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N When individuals are asked to rank their life goals, having a happy marriage is always among the most important. Marital difficulties are the most common problem for which individuals seek professional help (Norton, 1983). There exists substantial reliable documentation about the deleterious effects of marital discord on the physical and psychological well-being of individuals (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Given the prominence o f marital satisfaction in our lives, and the fact that many marriages encounter difficulty, it is not surprising that family scientists and psychologists have been trying to assess the extent to which couples attain marital satisfaction and have attempted to identify the conditions under which it is l ikely to be attained. These efforts have been extensive, and the academic and clinical literature that deals with marital happiness and marital satisfaction is huge (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987). In broad terms, since the 1930s, the marital satisfaction literature has been theoretical and empirical in nature and has been concerned, among other foci, with the correlates of marital satisfaction and measurement issues. The prescientific and the scientific are two stages which can be identified with the development of research on marriage and the family. Firstly, the prescientific stage was characterized by the preresearch stage and social Darwinism (Christensen, 1993). The preresearch stage in the 1850s encompassed very few systematic thoughts about the family and reflected ideas regarding 'traditional beliefs, religious pionouiiceincnis and philosophical speculation' (Christensen, 1993). Next, Darwin's theory of evolution was 2 applied to a variety of social institutions, including marriage and the family and gave rise to a period o f social Darwinism. B y the turn o f the century, changing economic and social conditions called attention to problems in families and heightened a period of emerging science. This period, referred to as the scientific stage, emphasized direct study using empirically based procedures rather than value-laden assumptions about family life. The scientific stage has been characterized by the three following traditions; the sociological tradition, the behavioral tradition and the mediational tradition (Fincham & Bradbury, 1990). The sociological tradition of research, which was the first of these three, was conducted largely by sociologists and included large-scale surveys that investigated a variety of potential correlates of marital quality, ranging from demographic variables to individual psychological variables. Nye (1988) characterized the late 1930's as a new era in which scientific research on family behavior blossomed. It was a time when researchers began to look inside the institution to the values, behaviors, relationships, and feelings of live women, men, and children. Higher goals for the well-being of individuals were emerging, beyond just survival, in the belief that scientific research could be employed to discover how people could find the best person to marry, the best age at which to marry, and the best patterns of interaction in the marriage to produce happy relationships, and in finding marital happiness, to have a large start on a happy life (Nye, 1988). Nye (1988) has argued that sociological advances beyond those made by early researchers have been limited. He concludes: "Early on, Burgess and CottrelL.took 3 every individual characteristic they could think of and correlated it with marital success, producing an R of about .50 and an R2 o f .25, or 25% of the variance in the dependent variable. Not a bad start, but we have not progressed much beyond that point in 50 years" (Nye, 1988, p. 315). The second major tradition of marital research, the behavioral tradition, began in 1961 when the overt behaviors of couples engaged in improvised marital conflicts in the laboratory were examined (Sternberg & Hojjat, 1997). This gave rise to behavioral marital therapy in which the application of operant conditioning principals (positive and negative reinforcement) was used in the treatment of marriage. The emphasis given to the observation of overt behavior was an important development. The behavioral tradition never fully relinquished reliance on self-report as the criterion variable to which behavior was related. Marital quality was assessed via this modality. Psychologists' interest in close relationships has created a favorable climate for the study of marriage, and articles on this relationship have appeared with increased frequency in mainstream psychology journals. In the 1980s the recognition of the limitations of a purely behavioral account o f marriage gave rise to the emergence of mediational tradition of research. In this tradition, subjective factors such as thoughts and feelings, that might mediate between overt behavior and marital satisfaction have assumed greater significance. Unlike the behavioral tradition, which arose out of dissatisfaction with earlier research, the mediational phase of research represented an acceptance and expansion of behavioral approaches (Sternberg & Hojjat, 1997). A further understanding of the development of the marital satisfaction literature w i l l be outlined in the next chapter, in which traditional measures of marital quality w i l l be reviewed. It questions whether evaluations of marriage are really just one dimension. The research I have conducted for thesis was designed to shed light on this question. 5 CHAPTER 2 T R A D I T I O N A L M E A S U R E S OF M A R I T A L Q U A L I T Y The measurement of marital satisfaction can be dated back at least as far as Katherine Davis's 1929 groundbreaking book Factors in the sex life of 2200 women. As the field grew, subsequent researchers offered an ever-evolving series of new measures to assess marital adjustment. In 1939, Burgess and Cottrell's classic Predicting success or failure in marriage contained an index to predict marital success. A decade later, Terman and Wal l in (1949) published a psychometric article on marital prediction and adjustment scales that contained their own efforts at a superior measure. A t the end of the 1950s, Locke and Wallace (1959) published their well-regarded Marital Adjustment Test ( M A T ) . B y the 1970s, family scientists were discussing the lack of clarity surrounding the many concepts used in the marriage literature. In that decade, researchers did not widely agree on the meaning and use of terms such as marital adjustment, marital satisfaction and marital happiness. Spanier and Lewis (1979) analyzed this confusion and chose to employ the general concept of marital quality to encompass the entire range of terms. Consistent with Spanier and Lewis' interpretation of the marital quality domain as being multifaceted, Spanier (1976) published the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) , a four-dimensional measure intended to assess marital satisfaction among individuals. The four factors of this scale are Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Cohesion, and Affectional Expression. The questions involve the respondents making a range of 6 evaluations, typically along a continuum, reflecting numerous characteristics of marital interaction. Lewis and Spanier (1979) argued that one o f the most significant developments in marital research in the seventies had been the recognition that the quality of marriage involved a multidimensional phenomena. Certainly the scale has gained extremely widespread use. In the next decade, the 1980s, there was an increase in the number of studies using large, representative national samples. In the early marital satisfaction measures, marital happiness was one o f many questions. Generally speaking, the large national data sets used for marital quality research did not include multiple items designed to measure marital quality. Instead, there was an increase in the use of one-item and two-to-three-item indicators of marital quality during the 1980s (Glenn, 1990). Often these short scales focused on the affective domain. Within it, marital satisfaction measures have typically included straightforward questions that ask respondents to rate their marriages on a scale of happiness (Glenn, 1990). U p to ten points may be included on some scales, but most often there are only three or four. One of the most widely used data sets for studies of marital quality during the past 20 years was the General Social Survey Cumulative File in which the only data on marital quality are responses to the simple question, "Taking things altogether, how would you describe your marriage? Would you say that your marriage is very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?" (Glenn, 1990). Unfortunately, in the past couple of decades, there has not been a consensus on either the nature of marital quality or the best way to assess it. Both short measures and 7 multifaceted measures such as the D A S have been criticized. Discussion o f these measurement issues have become integrally intertwined with debates on the best way o f conceptualizing marital quality (Glenn, 1990). Critics have identified several classic reasons for the alleged inferiority of one-item indicators in comparison to scales (e.g., the lack of reliability of single-item measures). Rebuttals to some of these criticisms can be offered (for instance, greater random measurement error with one-item indicators is not a serious problem when marital quality is the dependent variable i f one is not excessively concerned about maximizing explained variance). Yet, questions such as those posed in the General Social Survey are deficient even in comparison to other one-item indicators (Glenn, 1990). The General Social Survey Question has only three response alternatives (very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy), which precludes fine distinctions. Furthermore, the responses to it are highly skewed, with up to two-thirds of the respondents saying their marriages are "very happy." So few respondents say their marriages are "not too happy" that the responses are commonly dichotomized into "very happy" versus all others. Because the assumption that the interval between "very happy" and "pretty happy" is the same as that between "pretty happy" and "not too happy" seems untenable, dichotomized scoring is probably justifiable. Nonetheless, dichotomous measures o f continuous variables are at best quite crude (Glenn, 1990). O f greater relevance to the present study are the criticisms leveled against multidimensional measures, especially the D A S . In 1983, Norton considered past measures of marital quality and critically examined the dependent variables used to 8 assess satisfaction. Norton (1983) used both semantic and empirical criteria to judge the development o f marital quality scales. In marital quality scales, he found a confounding of the antecedents of satisfaction with marital satisfaction itself. For instance, he argued that questions such as the extent to which partners disagree on the handling o f finances may be an antecedent of marital satisfaction rather than an indication of the couple's satisfaction per se. Norton's (1983) views moved research toward a more affective domain of understanding marital quality. He shifted the focus to marital quality rather than analyzing complex factors that are identified as enhancing or destroying marital quality. Consistent with his conceptual analysis o f marital satisfaction, Norton developed a unidimensional scale to assess the phenomena o f marital quality. Using data from 430 people l iving in four different states he constructed the Quality Marriage Index (QMI) to reflect the "goodness" of the marriage. For instance the Q M I includes an item that reads "We have a good marriage," and another question on how satisfied the respondents are with their marriages. Essentially ^  the Q M I represented a more restrictive indicator of a quality marriage, but it did not obscure marital phenomena. The final recommendation by Norton (1983) was that researchers who were interested in a better indicator o f marital quality use a set of evaluative items similar to the Q M I . In the article entitled, "The Assessment of Marital Quality: A Reevaluation", Fincham and Bradbury (1987) supported both multidimensional and unidimensional measures of marital quality. Essentially, Fincham and Bradbury (1987) suggested that a multidimensional approach to understanding marital quality would be most effective for 9 practitioners, therapists and individuals working with clients to improve marital relations. Fincham and Bradbury (1987) suggested that a unidimensional measure would be best, however, for researchers and academics wanting to study the complex phenomenon associated with marital satisfaction. L ike Norton, Fincham and Bradbury wanted to avoid confounding the antecedents of marital satisfaction with the indicators used to measure it. Again they advocated assessing marital quality in terms o f partners' evaluations of their relationships. Finally, in their 1997 article, Fincham and Linfield identified two dimension o f marital quality, evaluation of satisfaction and evaluation of dissatisfaction. Based on their findings, they contended that these two dimensions were largely independent and experienced simultaneously. The second dimension (negative marital quality) identified by Fincham and Linfield (1997) was not in itself a predictor of positive marital quality but rather, a dimension of marital satisfaction in and of itself. Thus their expansion of marital satisfaction to two dimensions was not inconsistent with Fincham and Bradbury's (1987) or Norton's (1983) earlier criticisms of multidimensional scales. The Positive and Negative Quality In Marriage Scale ( P A N Q M S ) In the past, marital satisfaction and dissatisfaction have been conceptualized as opposite ends of the same continuum (Fincham & Lindfield, 1997). To avoid the problem of interpretation that arises in many omnibus measures of marital quality, Fincham and Bradbury (1987) defined marital quality in terms of a spouse's sentiment as reflected in subjective, evaluative judgments of the marriage or partner. In order to 10 assess marital quality, Fincham and Linfield (1997) have developed a two-dimensional model intended to increase conceptual clarity in the field. The measure is called the Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage Scale ( P A N Q I M S ) and is a six-item measure designed as a brief, global assessment of positive and negative quality in marriage. A sample question includes; "Considering only the positive qualities of your partner, and ignoring the negative ones, evaluate how positive these qualities are." The items are modeled on the format used by researchers to assess positive and negative dimensions of attitudes (Watson, Clark & Tellegan, 1988). The items in Fincham and Linfield's (1997) study instructed respondents to evaluate one dimension (positive or negative) at a time in three areas. For each item, respondents were instructed to indicate their response by circling a number from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely). Responses to the three items for each dimension were summed so that higher scores on each dimension reflected more positive and more negative evaluations, respectively. The internal consistency of each dimension was high (coefficient alpha for husbands = .87 and . 91 , and for wives = .90 and .89, for positive and negative dimensions, respectively). Overall, results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the two-dimensional model provided a better fit to the obtained data compared with one- and three-dimensional models that did not fit the data at al l (Fincham & Linfield, 1997). The positive and negative dimensions were moderately, but not highly correlated (r = -.37 for men, and r = -.39 for women). Therefore, based on Fincham and Linfield's (1997) view, marital quality is not bipolar in which satisfaction and dissatisfaction represent opposite ends of a single dimension. Rather, positive and negative aspects of marriage are viewed as largely 11 independent and can be experienced simultaneously. Traditionally, the use of items anchored by positive (e.g. happy) and negative (e.g. unhappy) end points have not allowed positive and negative evaluations to be expressed independently. In this sense, the marital literature is similar to the literature on affect (see below) in which people's moods have been assessed by placing them on a bipolar continuum. Fincham and Linfield (1997) are among the first scholars to propose the idea o f independent dimensions in the marriage literature. A s a result, much controversy exists over this issue and some researchers argue that traditional demonstrations of the separateness o f positive and negative affect are flawed. A more comprehensive analysis of this controversy wi l l be reviewed in the limitations section of this paper. However, it must be noted that recent research on affect has provided support for the view that positive and negative dimensions are more accurately seen as separate and are only moderately negatively correlated (Fincham & Linfield, 1997). In a study entitled "The Independence of Positive and Negative Affect", researchers Diener and Emmons (1985) reported on the relation between positive and negative affect. These researchers found that positive feelings were remembered as being nearly independent o f negative feelings in the past year. The principal finding was that positive and negative affect were independent in terms of how much people felt in their lives over longer time periods (Diener & Emmons, 1985). Similarly, in a study conducted by Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1988) two 10-item mood scales comprising the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule ( P A N A S ) were developed. The two scales showed different and distinct patterns of relations with external variables (see below) that have been seen in other 12 studies, which supported the independent expression of positive and negative dimensions (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). Furthermore, positive and negative sets of items were negatively correlated, although in a factor analysis the positive and negative sets of items emerged as separate factors. In addition, two-dimensional models have been used in other areas of research. For example, Constantinople (1973) used a two-dimensional model to test masculinity-femininity in adults, thus challenging the traditional view that the construct was unidimensional in nature and could be adequately measured by a single score. Finally, in a study conducted by Gilford and Bengtson (1979) a two-dimensional measure was developed to measure marital satisfaction across the life span. The construct of marital satisfaction was operationalized in this research by asking respondents to read a list o f "some things husbands and wives may do when they are together," and to indicate how often it occurred between themselves and their spouse. Five of the items referred to positive interaction; five to negative sentiment from interaction. The positive interaction items included the following; 1) you calmly discuss something together, 2) you work together on something (dishes, yardwork, hobbies), 3) you laugh together, 3) you have a stimulating exchange of ideas, 4) you have a good time together. The negative sentiment items were the following; 1) one of you is sarcastic, 2) you disagree about something important, 3) one of you refuses to talk in a normal manner, 4) you become critical and belittling, 5) you become angry. In light of the critiques of the 1979's Gilford and Bengston probably have confounded antecedents with marital satisfaction. Nonetheless, their findings indicated that the five positive interaction items were highly positively correlated with one another and the five negative sentiment items were positively correlated. Furthermore, positive and negative sets of items were negatively correlated. Each positive item and each negative item was correlated to the total marital satisfaction scale score in the expected direction. The average correlations among the positive items, among the negative items, and between positive and negative items were generally the same among pairs of generational groups. Therefore, research in the areas of affect, masculinity-femininity and marital satisfaction have developed two-dimensional models in which the results of the studies support that positive and negative dimensions are more accurately seen as separate. From the perspective of this research, conceptualizing marital quality as a two-dimensional construct comprising correlated positive and negative evaluative judgments may be more enlightening than continuing to treat it as a single-dimensional, bipolar construct captured by heterogeneous measures that have an unclear theoretical implication (Fincham & Linfield, 1997). If there are two separate dimensions, then a logical next question is: Does each dimension have unique correlates? In the affect literature, Watson et al. (1988, p. 1063) write: " N A [Negative Affect] - but not P A [Positive Affect] - is related to self-reported stress and poor coping (Clark & Watson, 1986; Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981; Wi l l i s , 1986), health complaints (Beiser, 1974; Bradburn, 1969; Tessler & Mechanic, 1978; Watson & Pennebaker, i n press), and frequency of unpleasant events (Stone, 1981; Warr, Barter, & Brownbridge, 1983). In contrast P A - but not N A - is related to social activity and satisfaction and to frequency of pleasant events." 14 In the literature on job satisfaction, Herzberg (1973) claimed that motivator factors (e.g., responsibility, recognition, work itself) were related to job satisfaction and hygiene factors (e.g., company policies and administration, working conditions, supervision) were related to dissatisfaction. Fincham and Lindfield (1997) did not test to determine whether any of their variables differentially predicted marital satisfaction and dissatisfaction, but inspection of their data suggests some did. Although researchers have made considerable progress in measuring variability in marital quality, they have failed to specify adequately the subject of their inquiries, while at the same time proceeding as though the referent for the construct were clear (Sternberg & Hojjat, 1997). It can be argued that at the level o f measurement the referent is clear, owing to the widespread use of a limited number o f instruments (most often the M A T and the D A S ) . However, the interpretation of scores obtained from these measures is often not clear. As mentioned, Fincham and Bradbury (1987) have developed a new conception of marital quality in which their approach builds on the theoretically straightforward conception o f marital quality as the spouses' global, evaluative judgments of the marriage. According to Fincham and Linfield (1997), the first step toward addressing the complexity o f relationships is to conceive of evaluative judgments of the marriage as multidimensional, comprising positive marital quality ( P M Q ) and negative marital quality ( N M Q ) dimensions. Another implication of this two-dimensional approach is that it has the potential to provide a more differentiated view of those who are neither high nor low in marital quality. Therefore, a distinction can be made between "indifference," or caring about neither of the two endpoints, and "ambivalence," or caring strongly about both. As a result, the two dimensions, P M Q and N M Q , can be crossed to produce a fourfold typology o f couples that can be distinguished in terms of important characteristics of their marriages. Two of the categories are already identified through established measures. Those high on P M Q and low on N M Q seem to fit the traditional understanding of "happy" or "satisfied" spouses, just as those high on N M Q and low on P M Q fit the traditional understanding o f "distressed" spouses. The two other categories of spouses (high P M Q - high N M Q and low P M Q - low N M Q ) , however, are not currently distinguished in most measures of marital quality and correspond to our distinction between "ambivalent" and "indifferent" spouses. Fincham and Linfield (1997) formed four groups of spouses, using median scores on the P M Q and N M Q dimensions. Those scoring above the median were classed as high on that dimension, and those scoring below the median were classed as low on the dimension. The M A T scores of ambivalent and indifferent spouses were significantly lower than those o f happy spouses and significantly higher than those of distressed spouses. However, in keeping with our earlier analysis, ambivalent and indifferent the groups did not differ from each other in overall marital quality ( M A T scores), despite differences between them on the correlates of marital quality. That is, ambivalent and indifferent wives differed i n reports of behavior and in attributions. Ambivalent wives attributed significantly more cause and responsibility to their partners for negative events, and reported higher ratios of negative to positive partner behaviors. In contrast, 16 ambivalent and indifferent husbands did not differ significantly in attributions or in reports of behavior. Predictors o f Marital Quality There exists a large body o f literature on the predictors of marital satisfaction which have been reviewed and/or reflected upon by several scholars (Glenn, 1990 ; Nye, 1988; Kamey & Bradbury, 1995). Although some general and mini-theories have been developed, as Nye (1988) noted, precise and specific predictions of marital satisfaction fail to exist. Essentially, this literature has identified numerous factors that have at least modest correlation's with marital happiness. In reviewing the findings, many of the propositions w i l l parallels those in Lewis and Spanier's (1979) classic presentation o f "Theorizing about the Quality and Stability of Marriage." In addition, the findings o f Cate and L loyd (1988) regarding premarital predictors of marital satisfaction wi l l be referred to in this paper. It must be noted that this section covers a large variety o f variables which have been identified in the literature; however, for the purpose of this paper, only select variables w i l l be measured based on the importance of the findings in the literature and the feasibility to include the variables in this project. In this section several propositions relating various factors to marital quality w i l l be identified. Some of the earliest research on courtship undertaken by family studies scholars examined the power of premarriage factors in predicting later marital success (Terman, 1938). These studies emphasized the roles of background factors in later marital happiness. Over time the focus o f such predictive studies shifted from 17 characteristics of the individual to dyadic factors (Reiss, 1960). This shift from individual to dyadic factors parallels the corresponding shift in the history of courtship from choosing a quality person to enhancing the quality of the relationship (Cate & Lloyd, 1988). A great deal of research suggests that homogamy operates as a norm in mate selection (Burgess & Wall in , 1953). Therefore, it is not surprising that when the norms of homogamy are violated, the possibility of negative consequences for marital quality is increased. Based on the research conducted by Lewis and Spanier (1979), couples exhibiting greater premarital homogamy, were more likely to experience higher levels o f marital quality. On the other hand, Renne (1970) found the following variables to be associated with lower marital quality among couples: different socioeconomic status, different religious affiliations, and differences in age. Based on the conclusions from Lewis and Spanier (1979) the following variables have been associated with high marital quality among couples: high level of education, older age at first marriage, higher social class, longer courtship before marriage, higher level o f interpersonal skill functioning, good emotional health, positive self-concept and greater physical health. Similarly, Cate and L loyd (1988) have found that older age at first marriage has been related to greater marital satisfaction. These findings were consistent with those of Burr (1973) in which the older the members of the couple at marriage, the higher the level of marital happiness. 18 In addition, Cate and Lloyd (1988) supported the findings that length of courtship was positively related to marital adjustment. Longer courtship's are believed to allow partners the time to test their compatibility and gain important information about one another (Cate & Lloyd, 1988). Similarly, Locke (1951) found that partners who have dated for longer periods of time and who have been engaged longer report higher marital happiness. Finally, Cate and Lloyd (1988) also supported the finding that level of education is positively related to both marital adjustment and stability. One variable which was identified as having a negative effect on marriage included the following: "the greater the amount of neurotic behavior, the lower the marital quality." This finding was consistent with the research of Vaillant (as cited in Cate and Lloyd, 1988) who assessed the marital satisfaction of 51 men and found that maritally satisfied men had been rated as significantly more mentally healthy (versus mentally ill) in college than were subsequently divorced or maritally dissatisfied men. The following propositions identify as correlates of marital quality a number of dyadic factors: perceived physical, sexual attractiveness (Kirkpatrick & Cotton, 1951) positive evaluations of the other (Tharp, 1963), value consensus (Schellenberg, 1960) and validation of self by the other (Lewis, 1973). In addition, the following aspects of emotional gratification were all found to be linked to marital quality: the expression of affection (Levinger, 1965), respect between partners (Holstein, Goldstein & Bern, 1971), egalitarian power structures (Stryker, 1964) boundary maintenance (Lewis, 1973), emotional interdependence (Pineo, 1961), sexual satisfaction (Levinger, 1965), and the couple's identity as a couple (Lewis, 1972). In addition, Lewis and Spanier (1979) suggested that the greater the interaction among a couple, the greater the marital quality. In a study conducted by Christensen (1987) gender differences in marital conflict in relation to demand/withdrawl interaction patterns were assessed. The demand/withdrawl pattern is essentially an interaction pattern which makes two important assumptions. Firstly, that its occurrence is related to marital dissatisfaction and secondly, that gender is linked to the roles in the patterns, with women more likely to be demanders and men more likely to be withdrawers. Results indicated that a demand/withdraw pattern was strongly related to marital dissatisfaction. Some evidence also existed to demonstrate that the pattern may be predictive o f long-term dissatisfaction in marriage with the reversal of the typical pattern being predictive of positive changes in marital satisfaction (Christensen, 1987). Statement of the Problem Despite the very extensive literature on the correlates of marital satisfaction, the concerns regarding the conceptualization and measurement of marital quality suggest that further advances might be made in the understanding of marital satisfaction i f renewed attention was focused on these concerns. Based on Fincham and Linfield's (1997) article, " A N e w Look at Marital Quality: Can Spouses Feel Positive and Negative About Their Marriage?", the present paper w i l l explore one approach to the construct of marital quality intended to increase conceptual clarity in the field. 20 It wall explore whether positive and negative aspects o f marriage are largely independent and can be experienced simultaneously. Specifically, the five following questions w i l l be looked at: 1) D o marital satisfaction and marital dissatisfaction again emerge as two relatively separate dimensions with only a moderate correlation between them? 2) W i l l the predictor variables of marital quality (presented in the above section) predict satisfaction and dissatisfaction in marriage? What w i l l be the strength of the association? 3) W i l l the variables predict one dimension (e.g. satisfaction) better than the other dimension (e.g. dissatisfaction)? What w i l l be the relative strength o f the associations? 4) What set o f variables best predicts satisfaction or dissatisfaction i n marriage? 5) Which variables are associated with Fincham and Linfield's (1997) four typologies of marriage (satisfied, dissatisfied, ambivalent, indifferent) and what is the difference between the 4 groups? 21 C H A P T E R 3 M E T H O D O L O G Y Recruitment of Subjects The subjects were couples who were legally married. Subjects were recruited by two different methods. Firstly, a current list o f 17 group daycare sites was obtained from the University of British Columbia Ch i ld Care Services. Five of the centers provided care for children under 3 years of age, 5 centers provided care for children in the preschool years and 7 centers provided care for school age children. O f the 17 sites listed, 2 were excluded from the target centers because of the special nature of the centers (one center for special needs children or integrated daycare, and 1 center providing only after school care). It was believed that the characteristics of couples with children in such centers would not be representative o f the larger population o f group day care users. The daycare director, who was the supervisor of the 15 remaining daycare sites, was contacted in person and asked (1) i f any of the couples with children at their center met the eligibility requirements and (2) i f they were wi l l ing to allow the researcher to recruit subjects through their center. The daycare director agreed to participate and signed the permission form, required by the U B C Ethics ' Committee, for the recruitment of subjects through their daycare center. The second way in which couples were recruited was by mail-out questionnaires. The U B C faculty and administrative telephone directory was used to randomly select individuals from the university. The directory includes a listing of all full time faculty and administrators. It must be noted that support staff are not listed in the U B C faculty directory. Essentially, every 10th individual was randomly selected from the U B C directory. A package containing a covering letter, the Marital Quality Survey, and an addressed interdepartmental envelope was mailed to a total of 200 individuals drawn randomly from a sampling frame o f approximately 5,550 addresses. The covering letter briefly explained the purposes o f the study and indicated participation was voluntary. Data Collection Procedures Over a period of 4 months, questionnaires were hand delivered to the 15 daycare sites that were included in the recruitment process. From 5 to 25 questionnaires were initially left at each center depending on the number requested by the site supervisor. A total o f approximately 200 questionnaires were delivered at this time. Notices outlining the eligibility requirements for subjects were posted, and questionnaires were placed in the parents' mail boxes. Volunteer participants picked up questionnaires at their daycare center and were asked to return their completed questionnaire to the School of Family and Nutritional Sciences in the self addressed campus envelope provided. A follow-up call was made to the daycare supervisor 15 days after questionnaires were initially distributed to each center to see whether additional questionnaires were required and to arrange a time for the researcher to return to the center to pick up any questionnaires that had not been taken. During the second and final visit to the daycare sites, approximately 4 weeks after the initial visit, additional questionnaires (approximately 50 in total) were dropped off at each of the centers. A t this time, questionnaires were left on a counter in the main entrance, rather than placed in the individual mail boxes. A total o f approximately 30 questionnaires were returned from individuals at the daycare centers. In terms of the subjects who were randomly sampled from the U B C telephone directory, the procedures differed. Approximately three weeks after the first mailing (to 150 individuals) individuals not responding received an additional questionnaire encouraging participation in the study. One month later, 50 new addresses were randomly selected and mailed a copy of the questionnaire. From the 150 questionnaires delivered in the first round and the 50 questionnaires reissued to new subjects, 71 questionnaires were returned. Therefore, the response rate was 36%. Instruments In order to measure and assess marital quality, an instrument developed by Fincham and Linfield (1997) was used. In Fincham and Linfield 's (1997) study, the Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage Scale ( P A N Q I M S ) was used to assess marital quality. It is a six-item measure designed as a brief, global assessment of positive and negative quality in marriage. The items are modeled on the format used by Kaplan (1972) and subsequent researchers to assess positive and negative dimensions of attitudes (Thompson et al. , 1995). The items in Fincham and Linfield 's (1997) study instructed respondents to evaluate on dimension (positive or negative) at one time in three areas. For each item, respondents were instructed to indicate their responses by circling a number from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely). Responses to the three items for each dimension were summed so that higher scores on each dimension reflected more positive and more negative evaluations, respectively. Although the concept of using a 2-dimensional construct is appealing, it must be noted that Fincham and Linfield 's (1997) scale is indeed brief. In order to assess a range o f the potential predictors of marital quality, participants answered a variety o f questions regarding premarital factors, individual factors and interpersonal factors which may have influenced satisfaction in marriage. The first few items of the survey included standard questions regarding the respondent's age, sex, ethnicity, religious background and level of education. The format o f the questions and response items used have been modeled based on population surveys conducted by Statistics Canada. Essentially, each of the above questions address the issue o f homogamy and serve as subcategories to test the proposition that "the greater the premarital homogamy, the higher the marital satisfaction". Next, age at first marriage and length of courtship prior to marriage were measured. Self concept was measured next by using the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale, which is a 10 item scale designed to optimize ease of unidimensionality and face validity. Respondents were required to report feelings about the self directly. It is scored using a four-point response format (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree), resulting in a scale range o f 10-40 with higher scores representing higher self-esteem. Specific examples of questions include the following: 1) I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others 2) I feel I have a number o f good qualities 3)1 wish I could have more respect for myself. The Rosenburg (1965) has had widespread use and utility as a unidimensional measure of self-esteem. In order to assess interpersonal skil l functioning, the Social Anxiety Subscale o f the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) was used. The variable, social anxiety, is defined as discomfort in the presence of others. The scale consists of six items that are answered on a five-point scale (0, extremely uncharacteristic; 4, extremely characteristic). In terms of reliability, Cronbach's alpha for the original scale is about .70. For the Scheiser and Carver revision, Cronbach's alpha is .79. Two-week test-retest reliability of the original scale is .73. The 4 week test-retest correlation for the Scheier and Carver version is .77. The original Social Anxiety Subscale of the Self-Consciousness Scale correlates significantly with the Interaction Anxiousness Scale (r=.78), test anxiety (r=.23), and self-esteem (r=.-35) (Turner, Scheier, Carver, & Ickes, 1978). Due to its novelty, the Scheier and Carver (1985) revision has not been validated, but there is little reason to expect it to be less valid than the original. Sample questions include: 1)1 don't find it hard to talk to strangers and 2) It takes me time to overcome my shyness in new situations. Based on the research conducted by Lewis and Spanier (1979), physical health has been found to be associated with high marital quality. For the purposes o f this study, physical health was measured to test the proposition, "the greater the physical health of the marital partners, the greater the marital quality." O n a scale from 1 to 10, respondents were asked to respond to the following question "In the past few months, how healthy have you felt physically?" Happiness was also measured on a scale from 1 26 to 10 in which respondents answered the following question "On a scale from 1 to 10 how happy would you say you are with your life?" Lewis and Spanier (1979) also identified happiness and good emotional health as being associated with higher marital satisfaction. The next proposition is "the greater the amount of neurotic behavior, the lower the marital quality." In order to assess the above statement, the N E O Five Factor Inventory was used (Costa & McCrea , 1992). Only the questions related to emotional stability were used and the questions regarding extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness w i l l be omitted. Interpersonal characteristics of the couple was the next broad category examined. Firstly, positive regard was assessed in the following way: On a scale from 1 to 10 (with 10 being the highest degree and 1 being not at all) please indicate to what degree you feel you: a) perceive your partner as sexually attractive (Kirkpatrick & Cotton, 1951) b) have positive evaluations o f your partner (Tharp, 1963) c) agree with your partners values (Schellenberg, 1960) f) receive validation from your partner (Lewis, 1973). Please refer to the attached survey for a complete list of each item. Similarly, emotional gratification was assessed using a 10 point scale (with 10 being the highest degree and 1 being not at all). Sample items to the question include: indicate the extent to which you a) express affection to your partner (Levinger, 1965) and, b) develop an identity as a couple (Lewis, 1972). Please refer to the attached survey for a complete list of each item. 27 In addition, questions assessed the interaction patterns among couples. In order to assess common interaction patterns in marriage, Christensen's (1993) Demand/Withdraw Interaction Scale was used. Essentially, marital participants rate the extent to which demand and withdraw behaviors occur on a 9-point likelihood scale, ranging from none to a lot. Examples include; 1) Tries to discuss the problem 2) Blames, accuses, or criticizes partner 3) Requests, demands, nags, or otherwise pressures for changes in partner 4) Avoids discussing the problem 5) Withdraws, becomes silent, or refuses to discuss a particular topic. It must be noted that Christensen (1987) has consistently found a significant negative relationship between self-reported measures of demand/withdrew interaction and self-reported marital satisfaction. In a study of a diverse sample of 142 couples Christensen (1987) found a Pearson correlation of -.55 between the C P Q measure o f demand/withdraw interaction and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale ( D A S ; Spanier, 1976), a standard measure of marital satisfaction. In addition, three scales were used to assess marital satisfaction. Firstly, a subscale of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale was used to measure how the responding partner perceives the level of agreement in his or her relationship. The scale consisted of 15 items, scored on a 5 point scale with response categories ranging from always agree to always disagree. Sample questions involved agreeing about issues such as; family finances, the division of household tasks and dealing with in-laws. Secondly, Norton's Quality Marriage Index (QMI) was used to assess marital satisfaction. The scale consisted of 5 items, scored on a 7 point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Sample questions included; 1) M y relationship is stable, 2) M y relationship 28 makes me happy. Finally, a subscale of the marital instability index consisting of 5 items was used to measure satisfaction in marriage. Response categories ranged from 'very often' to 'never' in response to questions such as the following; 'Have you or your husband/wife ever seriously suggested the idea of divorce within the last three years?' Lastly, Fincham and Linfield's (1997) 2-dimensional construct comprising positive and negative evaluations was used to assess marital quality. See attached questionnaire for a complete listing of all survey items. 29 CHAPTER 4 R E S U L T S Sample Demographics The sample consisted of 101 participants, including 68 wives and 33 husbands. O f the sample, 63% of the participants identified themselves as belonging to the Canadian cultural group. The average age of first marriage was 26.12 for sample participants. The average number of children l iving in the same household as their parents was 1.88 per family. Study participants were wel l educated, with 15% holding at least a Bachelor's degree and 26% holding a Master's degree. In addition, this was an affluent sample, in which 80% reported their total personal income to be greater than $30 000 in the past 12 months. O f the sample, 40% did not identify with any religious affiliation. Most participants identified with belonging to the Roman Catholic (27%) and Protestant (24%) groups. Findings A s indicated in the introductory section, key variables have been outlined from previous literature identifying classic predictors o f marital quality. These variables were applied to Fincham and Linfield's (1997) two-dimensional model in order to further advance research in the area o f marital satisfaction. As proposed by Fincham and Linfield (1997), marital quality may be studied in terms o f separate positive and negative dimensions. The purpose o f this study was to determine i f there was a correlation 30 between these two dimensions and each of the variables presented in the introductory section. This was achieved by completing the following: 1) Determining the correlation between P M Q and N M Q scores. 2) Determining the correlation between classic predictors of marital satisfaction and each of the marital satisfaction measures (Norton's Marital Quality Measure, the P M Q and N M Q ) . 3) Determining i f the magnitudes o f correlations between the classical predictors o f marital satisfaction and each of the three measures of marital satisfaction in this study are different. 4) Separate regression equations w i l l be obtained to determine what sets o f variables predict Norton's marital satisfaction inventory, P M Q scores and N M Q scores. 5) Analysis o f variance w i l l be conducted to determine what sets o f variables predict Norton's marital satisfaction inventory, P M Q scores and N M Q scores. 6) Correlations wi l l be calculated to determine how well each of the marital satisfaction measures predicts marital instability. Tests w i l l be performed to determine i f the measures differ in their association with marital instability. A s stated previously, the hypotheses were outlined in the introductory section. The results of each specific hypothesis w i l l be outlined in the following section. 1) The first objective was that of determining the correlation between positive marital quality scores and negative marital quality scores. Results indicated that the correlation between positive marital quality scores and negative marital quality scores was -.521. 31 The correlation was found to be significant at the 0.01 level. Overall, high positivity was found to be associated with lower levels o f marital dissatisfaction. 2) The second objective was that of determining the correlation between classic predictors of marital satisfaction and each of the marital satisfaction measures. The correlation between traditional predictors o f marital satisfaction and each of the marital satisfaction measures were determined using a simple linear model. The pattern of results was the same for all three outcome measures. Significant predictor variables for each of the three measures, which were found to be associated with higher levels o f marital satisfaction included longer courtship duration, less social anxiety, greater happiness, high self esteem, good physical health, positive interaction patterns, low marital instability, high agreement, positive regard for one's partner and high levels o f emotional gratification. Those variables which were not found to be significant included homogeneity in income, education and relationship duration. In addition, age at first marriage and neuroticism were not significantly correlated with the measures o f marital quality (Table 1). 32 Table 1 Summary of Correlations for Variables Predicting Positive & Negative Dimensions O f Marriage and Marital Stability flSf= 1011 Variable Finch Pos Finch Neg Norton Income .003 -.035 -.036 Education -.068 -.072 .074 Religion .025 -.049 -.069 Age 1st marriage .071 -.147 -.167 Courtship -.186 .240* .199* Social anxiety -.058 .228* .166 Happiness .638*** -.437** -.581** Self-esteem -.160 .262** .161 Physical health .221* -.195 -.212* Neuroticism -.109 .195 .110 Positive regard .456** -.509** -.682** Emotional regard .492** -.475** -.641** Interaction patterns -.213 .397 .424** Marital instability .534** -.584** -.764** Agreement -.258** .424** .549** *p<.05 **rj<.01 ***2<.001 3) In order to determine the magnitude of correlations between the classic predictors of marital satisfaction and each of the three measures of marital quality, calculations for testing the differences in correlations were obtained. The simple results without a correction for Type 1 errors indicated that three variables were significant at the .05 level. It must be remembered however that the sample size consisted of 101 individuals and that chance alone accounts for some of the significant findings. If a Bonferroni correction were applied to take into account that 10 tests were performed, none of the tests would be found to be significant at an alpha-adjusted level. Therefore, although results indicated that three variables were significant at the .05 level, it must be remembered that chance alone accounts for some of the significant findings due to the significant number of tests performed (Table 2). 34 Table 2 Testing the Differences in Correlations ( N = 1011 Variable Finch Pos Finch Neg diff dom t Happiness .638 .437 .201 .842 2.67* Income .003 .035 .032 1.45 .324 Religion .025 .049 .024 1.45 .243 Education .068 .072 .004 1.45 .041 Age 1st .071 .147 .076 1.43 .777 Courtship .186 .24 .054 1.37 .564 Social anxiety .058 .228 .17 1.37 1.77* Self-esteem .16 .262 .102 1.35 1.06 Physical health. 221 .195 .026 1.37 .271 Neuroticism .109 .195 .086 1.40 .887 Positive Reg .456 .509 .053 1.01 .645 Emotional Reg.492 .475 .017 1.01 .206 Interaction .213 .397 .184 1.23 2.03 Instability .534 .584 .05 .855 .660 Agreement .258 .424 .166 1.19 1.86* Note: In all cases the numerator = 149.058 and the correlation for Fincham + and - was = .521 *p_<.05 Formulas for testing differences in correlation: E , D i f f = (B2-C2) F, Num = 98*(l*D2) G , Denom = 2* (1-(B2*B2)-(C2-C2)-(D2-D2)+(2*B2*C2*D2)) H , t=E2*(SQRT (F2/G2) 35 4) Next, three separate regression equations were obtained, each with a different outcome variable, to determine the sets of variables which predicted (a) Norton's marital satisfaction inventory, (b) P M Q scores and (c) N M Q scores. Only those variables which were found to be significantly correlated with any one of the outcome variables were used in the analysis as the independent variables. The type of regression obtained was a simultaneous solution in which al l o f the independent variables were entered in the equation concurrently. The overall multiple R square was found to be high in each of the three marital quality analyses. A n R square value of .532 was evident for Fincham and Linfield's (1997) P M Q score and an R square value of .365 was found for the N M Q score. Norton's measure of marital satisfaction, the Quality in Marriage Index (QMI), resulted in an R square value of .641. The variables which were found to best predict Fincham and Linfield's (1997) positive dimension of marriage were high degrees of overall happiness, low levels of social anxiety and receiving emotional gratification from one's partner. Fincham and Linfield's (1997) negative dimension of marriage was best predicted by the following variables: low levels of overall happiness and high levels of social anxiety. The variables which best predicted Norton's Quality in Marriage Index included; high levels of general happiness, receiving positive regard from one's partner, having high self-esteem and having low levels of social anxiety. Overall, having a happy life was the variable to statistically best predict both positive and negative dimensions in marriage and was the statistically best predictor for Norton's Quality in Marriage Index. A l l variables were found to predict marital satisfaction to a greater degree than marital 36 dissatisfaction. Finally, the variables which predicted positive dimensions were the same variables which predicted negative dimensions o f marriage (Table 3). 37 Table 3 Summary o f Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Positive & Negative Dimensions of Marital Quality and Marital Stability fN = 101) Variable Finch Positive Finch Negative Norton Beta Beta Beta R .729 .604 .801 R Square .532 .365 .641 Courtship -.060 .132 .054 Happiness .572* -.210* -.379* Social anxiety .202* .054 -.154* Physical health .001 -.022 -.010 Positive regard .226 -.220 -.393* Emotional regard .243* -.104 -.161 Interaction patterns -.046 .178 .115 Self-esteem .108 .016 -.163* Agreement .186 .031 .074 *p<.05 38 5) Next, analysis of variance was conducted to determine established correlates of marital satisfaction that were associated with Fincham and Linfield's (1997) four typologies of marriages. To classify participants into four marital groups, median values were obtained for the satisfaction and dissatisfaction scales. Fincham and Linfield's (1997) four typologies of marriages were created and denoted as groups 1, 2, 3 and 4. Group 1 was comprised of those individuals whose marriage was characterized as being highly satisfied. Those subjects with a score greater than 28 on Fincham and Linfield's (1997) marital satisfaction dimension and less than 7 on the marital dissatisfaction dimension, were deemed satisfied. The numbers to select the criteria were drawn from the satisfaction and dissatisfaction scales. Group 2 included individuals who had a marriage characterized as indifferent. These subjects had scores less than 27 and less than 7 on from the satisfaction and dissatisfaction scales respectively. Group 3 was characterized by those individuals who felt ambivalent about their marriage. These subjects had high satisfaction scores (over 28) and high dissatisfaction scores (greater than 8). Finally, group 4 was comprised of individuals who were categorized as having a dissatisfied marriage. These subjects had scores less than 27 and higher than 8 in order to fit the criteria of this specific group. In conducting an analysis of variance for marital satisfaction typologies, the following variables were found to be significant: courtship, happiness, neuroticism, interaction patterns, marital instability, agreement, positive regard and emotional gratification (Table 4a). ( 39 Table 4a Analysis of Variance for Marital Satisfaction Typologies ( N = 101) Variable F Significance Courtship 2.927 .038* Happiness 10.846 .000** Neuroticism 3.126 .029* Positive regard 7.099 .000** Emotional regard 8.025 .000** Interaction patterns 6.868 .000** Marital instability 11.172 .000** Agreement 3.492 .019* Age 1st .862 .463 Physical health .917 .436 Neuroticism 3.12 .029** Social anxiety .994 .399 Self-esteem 2.11 .104 Note- E i all cases, the degrees of freedom between groups and within groups were 3 and 97 respectively. *E<.05 **p<.01 40 Finally, by using Tukey's honestly significant difference test (HSD) test, the differences among the means for each of the variables was calculated to determine i f the difference between any two means were significantly different. Results indicated that the dissatisfied group had a longer courtship duration than the satisfied group. The satisfied group, followed by the ambivalent group was found to have higher levels of overall happiness than the dissatisfied group. Higher levels of neuroticism were found among the ambivalent group than the satisfied group. The satisfied group had more positive regard for their partners, better interaction patterns and greater levels of agreement than the dissatisfied couples. The satisfied group received the most emotional gratification from their partner followed by the indifferent group and lastly by the dissatisfied group. L o w levels of marital instability were experienced by the satisfied group, followed by the indifferent group and next by the dissatisfied group (See Table 4b). 41 Table 4b Analysis of Variance for Marital Satisfaction Typologies - The Difference of Means ( N = 101) Variable Satisfied Indifferent Ambivalent Dissatisfied Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 n = 39 n = 1 2 n = 1 5 n = 35 Courtship 4 .03 a 4.17 4.60 4.83 a Happiness 8.82 a 7.83 8.27 b 7.14 a ' b Neuroticism 27.26 a 29.42 30 .87 a 29.49 Positive regard 22.05 a 20.08 20.07 19.29 a Emotional gratif. 43.87 a ' b 39 92 b 41.00 39 .00 a Interaction patterns 6.54 a 7.92 8.27 8.77 a Marital instability 19.59 a 19.58 b 18.33 17.46 a-Agreement 25.69 a 26.58 28.67 31.20 a Any two means with the same superscript are significantly different than the other at the *P < .05 level as determined by Tukey's H S D test. 42 6) The next task was that of calculating correlations to determine how well each o f the marital satisfaction measures would predict marital instability. Finally, it would be determined i f the measures differed in their association with marital instability. Results indicated that marital instability was found to be significantly correlated with each of the three marital satisfaction measures. The correlation between marital instability and Fincham and Linfield's (1997) positive and negative dimensions of marriage were .534 and -.584 respectively. The correlation between marital instability and Norton's measure of marital quality was -.764. Therefore, Norton's measure was found to be a better predictor of instability than both the positive and negative dimensions identified by Fincham and Linfield (1997). Please refer to Table 2 at the end o f the document. 7) Next, confirmatory factor analysis using A M O S 3.61 was conducted to examine whether the P M Q and N M Q items reflected one, two or three underlying dimensions. When al l six items were used as indicators of a single latent construct, a poor fit was found between the model and the obtained data, chi-square (9, n = 101) =336.55, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .55. A two-factor model in which positive and negative items were hypothesized to load on separate factors was examined next. The two-factor model provided a much better fit for the data, chi-square (8, n = 101) = 14.20, GFI = .96. Finally, it could be argued that the positive and negative items having the same referent (e.g., feeling good vs feeling bad) might give rise to separate dimensions, and hence a three-factor model was also examined. Each factor in this model was defined by a pair of corresponding items, one positive and one negative. This model did not fit the data, chi-square (6, n = 101) = 235.95, GFI = .62. Thus, it appears that the data obtained for marital quality items are best accounted for by a two-dimensional model defined, respectively, by the positive and negative items. These findings are consistent with those obtained by Fincham and Linfield (1997). 8) Finally, principal components analysis without rotation and with rotation were conducted. In the principal components analysis without rotation, two factors emerged. The Eigen value for factor 1 was found to be 4.19, accounting for 70% of the variance. Factor 2 had an Eigen value of 1.34, and accounted for 22% of the variance. Therefore, factor 1 was found to be a very strong factor and the second factor which emerged, accounted for a much smaller portion of the variance. In the principal components analysis with rotation, negative dimensions of marriage were found to load heavily on the first factor. Positive dimension of marital quality were found to load heavily on the second factor (Table 5). 44 Table 5 Principal Components Analysis - Rotated Factor Matr ix for Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage ( N = 101) Scale items Factor 1 Factor 2 Bad feelings .928 -.261 Good feelings -.325 .899 Negative feelings .935 -.293 Negative qualities .920 -.214 Positive feelings -.269 .928 Positive qualities -.182 .932 For a complete list o f the Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage Scale items please refer to the attached questionnaire survey. 45 CHAPTER 5 D I S C U S S I O N , L I M I T A T I O N S A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S In most existing measures of marital quality, there has been an assumption that negative and positive elements are opposite poles of a single dimension. Although a bipolar hypothesis is intuitively appealing, recently researchers have challenged this position. In particular Fincham and Linfield (1997) have suggested that marital quality is not bipolar in which satisfaction and dissatisfaction represent opposite ends of a single dimension. Rather positive and negative aspects of marriage are viewed as largely independent and can be experienced simultaneously. Building on Fincham and Linfield's (1997) research, the present study offers another attempt at examining whether marital quality is best conceptualized as a two-dimensional construct comprising correlated positive and negative evaluative judgments. Overall findings provided mixed results concerning separate positive and negative dimensions in marital quality. Factor analysis supported Fincham and Linfield (1997), yet correlational analysis showed each factor was predicted by a more or less similar set of correlates. Therefore, factor analysis indicated that two separate dimensions can in fact be identified, however, they are strongly correlated with one another. In light o f the overlap, it is difficult to find differential correlates of the two. That the predictors o f satisfaction and dissatisfaction were more or less similar can possibly be explained by three primary reasons. Firstly, results o f the present study indicated a high correlation between the two dimensions, higher than in Fincham and 46 Linfield's (1997) study (r=.52 vs r=.37 and .39 for males and females, respectively). Secondly, the small sample size ( N = 101) may have reduced the likelihood of finding differential predictors of positive and negative satisfaction. Finally, predictor variables were not selected on the grounds that they would differentially predict positive and negative dimensions of marital satisfaction. Rather, the classic, strongest predictors o f marital satisfaction were selected. In comparing the overall pattern of results in this study versus Fincham and Linfield's (1997) study, the findings of the present study differ somewhat from those of Fincham and Linfield's (1997) findings. One plausible explanation may due to the different objectives of each study. That is to say, Fincham and Linfield (1997) were not interested in focusing on the predictor variables of satisfied marriages, as was the case in the present study. Instead, Fincham and Linfield (1997) studied the assessments of marital quality, behavior, attributions, and general affect. Fincham and Linfield's (1997) primary focus was that of explaining unique variance in reported behavior and attributions beyond that explained by a conventional marital quality measure. The present study did replicate Fincham and Linfield's (1997) two-factor psychometric solution for the positive and negative marital items. Beyond that, the present study focused on predictor variables. Fincham and Linfield (1997) did have some predictors of marital satisfaction (e.g., attributions, Spouse Adjective Checklist) that they related to positive and negative marital satisfaction. However, they did not focus on how these variables correlated differentially with his two measures. It does not appear from Fincham and Linfield's (1997) results that significantly different patterns of correlation 47 were obtained. Therefore, the results of the two studies are actually fairly similar, although in reaching an overall conclusion about marital satisfaction and dissatisfaction, the differential correlation evidence has weighted more heavily in my study than in Fincham and Linfield's (1997). In terms of the factor analysis, in which two factors emerged, consideration must be given to the possibility that one factor may have been representative of a methods factor. It must be noted that al l o f the items in Fincham and Linfield's (1997) scale are geographically close together. Having the positive and negative dimension questions so close together, may have resulted in higher correlations between the items. In terms of finding differential correlates of marital satisfaction and dissatisfaction, the present study built upon several aspects of Fincham and Linfield's (1997) procedures and measures. Firstly, the same outcome measure was used in both studies in order to assess the positive and negative dimensions of marital quality. Next, it must be noted that the instruments used to measure the predictor variables were generally highly reliable and valid measures (e.g. Rosenburg's Self-Esteem Scale, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Norton's Marital Stability Scale etc.). Thus, the failure to find differential correlates of positive and negative marital satisfaction does not seem to be due to either deficiencies in the outcome scales or the predictor measures. The sample sizes in each of the studies were similar. The present study, however, had a slightly smaller sample size ( N = 101) than Fincham and Linfield's (1997) study ( N = 123), which may have accounted for some of the difference in significance. On behalf of Fincham and Linfield's (1997) position, the smaller sample size may have reduced the 48 likelihood of finding differential predictors of positive and negative satisfaction. However, it must be noted that Fincham and Linfield's (1997) sample size consisted of only 22 more subjects than the current study. In terms of the sample used in the current study, three key issues need to be highlighted. Firstly, the sample reflected a highly educated group of individuals. As a result, participants may have been more intellectually consistant in responding to questions regarding both positive and negative dimensions of marital quality. This may account for the high correlation observed between positive and negative dimensions. However, at the same time, the opposite may in fact be more accurate. That is to say, it has been suggested that individuals with higher levels o f education may have a greater capacity to conceptualize ideas along a continuum rather than dichotemize items into two categories (Loevinger, 1970). I f the latter is true, greater variability in both positive and negative dimensions should be reflected in a highly educated sample. Finally, the sample consisted of young individuals, in which the mean age at first marriage was 26 years old. Although the beginning of marriage is often viewed as the honeymoon period in which partners are very happy, the most common time for divorce is within the first half dozen years after marriage. Therefore, a young sample may be reflective of an age in which variabililty in marital satisfaction is high. A s previously stated, Fincham and Linfield (1997) are among the first to suggest the concept of independent dimensions in the field of marital quality. Some researchers argue that traditional demonstrations of the separateness of positive and negative affect are flawed. For example, Russell and Carroll (1998) examined the question "Is positive 49 affect (PA) the bipolar opposite of, or is it independent of, negative affect (NA)?" These researchers found that the actual prediction varied with time frame, response format, and the items selected to define P A and N A (Russell & Carroll , 1998). Finally, Russell and Carroll (1998) suggest that when measurement error which tends to reduce correlations and the actual predictions of a bipolar model are considered, there is little evidence for independence of what were traditionally thought opposites, and bipolarity provides a parsimonious fit to existing data. Despite the controversy surrounding this issue, the notion that positive and negative affect are bipolar opposites must be subjected to careful and continuing empirical scrutiny. Our aim in conducting the research is similar to the nature of al l scientific pursuits, that our conclusions w i l l not be final but part of a dialectic. After al l , in science, all assumptions must be subjected to empirical scrutiny. Limitations The limitations of the present study suggest the need for caution in interpreting the findings. One clear limitation concerns the sample, which did not reflect the diversity in race, ethnicity, and type of relationship (e.g., cohabitation) representative of intimate relationships in society as a whole. Generalizing the findings to the population as a whole awaits replication with a more diverse sample. Using predominantly Caucasian and middle-class samples has been a recurring limitation in the marriage literature (Glenn, 1990). Among the current study's limitations was its homgeneous sample. Study participants identified themselves as belonging primarily to the Canadian cultural group (63.4%). Therefore, an analysis by cultural group can not be made. In addition, most participants were affluent (80% reported their personal income to be over $30 000 in the 50 past year). Finally, all participants were well educated, with 26% holding a Master's degree. Therefore, any generalizations from the current study should be made with caution. Another limitation is the fact that an analysis in terms of age and length of current marriage can not be inferred. This makes for a more difficult interpretation of findings i f those couples in earlier stages of marriage differ in significant ways than couples in latter stages of marriage. In addition, the degree of congruency between partners responses can not be interpreted. Findings reflect subjective perceptions of the individual. Some might criticize the present study for a lack of power. Non-significant trends for some variables to correlate more (or less) strongly with positive than negative marital satisfaction were found. Perhaps with enough participants, these trends would have reached statistical significance. Even i f they did, however, they would be modest and presumably of little practical value. Some might criticize the present approach for failing to select variables on the grounds that they would differentially predict positive and negative marital satisfaction. Perhaps specifically selected variables would have shown sharper contrasts. Yet, the classic, strongest predictors o f satisfaction were selected. In the absence of a clear model of what should be uniquely associated with satisfaction or dissatisfaction, this is a reasonable starting point. Finally, a new measure of marital quality was used in the current study. Although the two-item global marital quality scale demonstrated strong inter-item reliability, critics might claim a longer, more reliable instrument would be preferable. Therefore, the findings of these may be limited in generalizability. 51 Implications The implications of the present study's findings suggest that future studies o f marital satisfaction should include Fincham and Linfield's (1997) measure of marital quality ( P A N Q I M S ) , presented in the present study, to further assess its use and strength. In addition, researchers should give consideration to other means of data collection as well , including open-ended interviewing to best assess the influence o f marital satisfaction predictors on overall evaluations of marital quality. Furthermore, there remains a strong need for longitudinal research on marriage, however, there is a greater need for longitudinal theory to guide this research. Researchers should continue to consider which variables best differentially predict positive and negative dimensions o f marriage. In absence of a clear model of what should be uniquely associated with satisfaction and dissatisfaction, it was a reasonable starting point to select the classic predictors o f marital satisfaction in this study. However, continued empirical explorations of these variables are essential to understanding the influence of predictors on overall evaluations of marital satisfaction. In addition, researchers should continue to examine overall happiness as it relates to marital satisfaction. Results of the study indicated that general happiness was found to be the best predictor of marital satisfaction. Therefore, practitioners should recognize a potential need to focus on general happiness in all sectors of life (e.g. work, home, leisure) in order to enhance marital quality. If one accepts the position that positive and negative satisfaction overlap substantially in marriage, a focus on positive and negative aspects of marital evaluation 52 still may be profitable. Perhaps we have some way of combining across episodes and properties o f a relationship. Yet most of us know what bugs and what pleases us in a relationship. Future researchers might want to investigate those elements more extensively and how each side weights in the overall summary judgment partners make. 53 REFERENCES Burgess, E . W . & Wall in , P. (1953). Engagement and marriage. Chicago: J.B. Lippincott. Burgess, E . W. & Cattrell, L .S . (1939). Predicting success or failure in marriage. N e w York: 1. Burr, R. (1973). Theory construction and the sociology of the family. N e w York: Wiley. Cate, R. & Lloyd, S. (1988). The importance of courtship. In Cate and Lloyd (Eds.), Courtship (pp. 1-11). London: Sage. Christensen, A . & Heavey, C. (1993). Gender differences in marital conflict: The demand/withdraw interaction pattern. In Oskamo & Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 113-141). Newbury Park, C A : Sage. Constantinople, A . (1973). Masculinity-Femininity: A n exception to a famous dictum? • Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407. Davis, K . (1929). Factors in the sex life of2200 women. N e w York: Harper & R o w Diener, E . & Emmons, R. (1985). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,1105-1117. Fincham, F. & Linfield, K . (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 489-501. Fincham, F. & Bradbury, T. (1993). Marital satisfaction, depression, and attributions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 64, 442-452. Fincham, F. & Bradbury, T. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,457-468. Fincham, F. & Bradbury, T. (1990). Psychology and the study of marriage. In Fincham & Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage: Basic issues and_ applications (pp. 1-12). N e w York: Guilford Press. Fincham, F. & Bradbury, T. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 797-809. 54 Gilford, R. & Bengtson, V . (1979). Measuring marital satisfaction in three generations: Positive and negative dimensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 387-396. Glenn, N . (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 1980s: A critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818-831. Green, D. , Goldman, S., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1029-1041. Herzberg, F. , Mausner, B . , Peterson, R. & Capwell, D . (1957). Job attitudes. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh. Holstein, C. M . , Goldstein, J. & B e m , D . (1971). The importance o f expressive behaviors, sex, and need-approval in inducing liking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 534-544. Karney, B . & Bradbury, T. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34. Kirkpatrick, C. & Cotton, J. (1951). Physical attractiveness, age and marital adjustment. American Sociological Review, 76,81-86. Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: A n integrative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27, 19-28. Lewis, R. A . & Spanier, G. B . (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In W. Burr, R. H i l l , F.I. Nye and I. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family. N e w York: A Divis ion of M a c M i l l i a n Publishing Co. . Lewis, R. A . (1973). A longitudinal test of a developmental framework for premarital dyadic formation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35, 16-25. Lewis, R. A . (1972). A developmental framework for the analysis of premarital dyadic formation. Family Process, 11, 17-48. Locke, H . J. (1951). Predicting adjustment in marriage: A comparison of a divorced and happily married group. N e w York: Holt. Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development (Vol . 1-2). San Francisco". Jossey-Bass Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141-151. 55 Nye, F. (1988). Fifty years of family research, 1937-1987. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 305-316. Pineo, P. C. (1961). Disenchantment in the later years o f marriage. Marriage and Family Living, 23, 3-11. Reiss, I. L . (1960). Toward a society of the heterosexual love relationship. Marriage and Family Living, 22, 139-145. Renne, K . S. (1970). Correlates of dissatisfaction in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 54-66. Robinson, J. , Shaver, P., & Wrightsman, L . (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. New York: Academic Press. Schellenberg, J. A . (1960). Homogamy in personal values and the field of eligibles. Social Forces, 39,157-162. Sternberg, R. & Hojjat, M . (1997). Satisfaction in close relationships. N e w York: Guilford Press. Stryker, S. (1964). The interactional and situational approaches. In H.T. Christensen (ed.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Chicago: Rand McNal ly . Terman, L . M . , & Wall in , P. (1949). The validity of marriage prediction and marital adjustment tests. American Sociological Review, 74,497-504. Tharp, R. G . (1963). Psychological patterning in marriage. Psychological Bulletin, 60, 97-117. Watson, D . , Clark, L . , & Tellegen, A . (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The P A N A S scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. A P P E N D I X A M A R I T A L Q U A L I T Y S U R V E Y 57 S E C T I O N A - Y o u r Background We would like to ask you some questions about your background and household. Please respond to all questions according to your current relationship. I. Are you: (check one) n % female 68 67 male 33 33 2. What was your age at first marriage? Age: 3. What was the length of courtship you had with your partner prior marriage? n % more than 10 years 1 1 6 to 9 years 10 10 5 to 8 years 8 8 3 to 4 years 31 31 1 to 2 years 32 32 6 months to 11 months 17 17 less than 6 months 2 2 4. What is your birth date? _ _ _ year month day 5. What is your partner's birth date? year month day 6. How many children do you have living with you? n % 0 45 45 I 28 28 2 23 23 3+ 5 5 7. How old are your children? Ages: 58 8. Please indicate your cultural/ethnic background (some examples of cultural groups are: Scottish, Native Indian, Canadian, German, Japanese, Japanese-Canadian, etc.) I belong to the cultural group. 9. What religious affiliation do you and your partner belong to? (check one) Yourself Frequency Percent Partner Frequency Percent Roman Catholic Jewish Moslem Protestant Hindu Other None 28 3 2 24 1 4 28 3 2 24 1 4 29 29 2 2 40 40 2 24 0 5 39 2 24 0 5 39 10. What is your best estimate of your and your partner's total personal income before taxes and deductions of all sources (e.g. wages, salaries, interest and all other incomes) in the past 12months? (check one) Yourself Partner Frequency Percent Frequency Percent less than $10 000 3 3 8 8 $10 000 to $ 14 999 4 4 2 2 $15 000 to $ 19 999 4 4 5 5 $20 000 to $ 29 000 11 11 5 5 $30 000 to $ 39 000 27 27 21 21 $40 000 to $ 49 000 17 17 19 19 $50 000 to $ 74 999 24 24 28 28 $75 000 and over 10 10 12 12 11. What is the highest level of education that you and your partner have completed? (check one) Yourself Frequency Percent Partner Frequency Percent a. Less than a high school diploma 2 2 3 3 b. Secondary school diploma 4 4 3 3 c. Apprenticeship, vocational, or trade school 4 4 8 8 d. Some community college diploma/certificate 15 15 10 10 e. Some university, no degree 8 8 7 7 f. Completed Bachelors Degree 16 16 20 20 g- Completed Professional Degree (medicine, law) 10 10 16 16 h. Completed Masters Degree 27 27 20 20 i . Completed Doctoral Degree 15 15 14 14 59 S E C T I O N B - Inrrapersonal Factors We would like to ask you some questions about yourself and your personality. 12. Please indicate the extent to which you feel the following: Extent of Agreement: Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly agree disagree n % n % n% n % a. I feel that I am a person of worth 73 72 28 28 0 0 0 0 b. I feel that I have a number of good qualities 73 72 28 28 0 0 0 0 c. A l l in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure 0 0 0 0 30 30 71 70 d. I am able to do things as well as other people 44 44 55 55 1 1 1 1 e. I feel I do not have much to be proud of 2 2 4 4 31 31 63 63 f. I take a positive attitude toward myself 43 43 55 55 2 2 1 1 g. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself 36 36 59 58 6 6 0 0 h. I wish I could have more respect for myself 3 3 19 19 35 35 44 44 I. I certainly feel useless at times 4 4 24 24 31 31 42 42 j . At times I think I am no good at all 1 1 4 4 32 32 64 63 13. Please rate the degree to which each statement is true of you: Extent of Truth: False More In More True false be- true than tween than true false n % n % n % n % n % a. I need time to overcome my shyness 27 27 27 27 26 26 15 15 6 6 b. I have trouble working whe one is watching me 31 31 30 30 20 20 18 18 2 2 c. I get embarrassed very easily 36 36 28 28 21 21 13 13 3 3 d. I don't find it hard to talk to strangers 9 9 16 16 17 17 26 26 33 33 e. I feel anxious when I speak in front of a group 25 25 22 22 17 17 19 19 18 18 f. Large groups make me nervous 29 29 24 24 25 25 13 13 9 9 60 14. On a scale of 1 to 10, in general how happy would you say you are with your life? (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 unhappy very happy 15. In the past few months, how healthy have you felt physically? (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 very bad very good 16. Please indicate the frequency with which the following occures in your life: Extent of Frequency: Never Seldom Some- Often Always times a. I am not a worrier b. I often feel inferior to others c. When I'm under a great deal of stress, I feel like I'm going to pieces d. I rarely feel alone or blue e. I often feel tense and jittery g. I rarely feel feaful or anxious h. I get angry at the way people treat me n % 7 7 13 13 17 17 13 13 17 17 f. Sometimes I feel completely worthless 62 62 12 12 I. When things go wrong, I get discouraged & feel like giving up 2121 j . I am seldom sad or depressed 9 9 k. I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems 48 48 1. I've been ashamed I just wanted to hide 61 60 n % 22 22 58 58 52 52 40 40 48 48 31 31 30 30 58 57 54 54 42 42 41 41 33 33 n % 46 46 28 28 23 23 29 29 29 29 6 6 40 40 29 29 24 24 29 29 10 10 6 6 n % 23 23 2 2 8 8 8 8 5 5 0 0 15 15 6 6 2 2 15 15 2 2 0 0 n % 3 3 0 0 1 1 10 10 1 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 1 1 61 SECTION C - Interaction Patterns We would like to ask you some questions about your relationship with your partner. 17. Please indicate the amount with which you feel you: Extent of Frequency: Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always n % n % n % n % n % a. communicate well with your partner 0 0 4 4 17 17 56 55 24 24 b. see your partner as sexually attractive 1 1 3 3 9 9 51 51 37 37 c. have positive evaluations of him/her 0 0 1 1 7 7 52 52 41 41 d. agree with his/her values 0 0 0 0 15 15 59 58 27 27 e. receive validation from him/her 0 0 10 10 15 15 46 46 30 30 18. Please indicate the extent to which you: Extent of Frequency: Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always n % n % n % n % n % a. express affection to your partner 0 0 4 4 13 13 58 58 26 26 b. show respect for your partner 0 0 1 1 8 8 56 55 36 36 c. have emotional support for your partner 0 0 I 1 6 6 52 52 42 42 d. encourage personal growth 0 0 1 1 13 13 40 40 47 47 e. share tasks equally with him/her 0 0 5 5 • 22 22 46 46 28 28 f. know his/her limits 0 0 0 0 13 13 65 65 23 23 g. feel independent from him/her 1 1 1 1 19 19 53 53 27 27 h. express love to your partner 0 0 4 4 18 18 49 49 30 30 I. experience sexual satisfaction 0 0 5 5 21 21 46 46 29 29 j . have an identity as a couple 0 0 3 3 8 8 49 49 40 40 19. Please indicate the extent to which you: Extent of Frequency: Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always n % n % n % n % n % a. try to discuss problems 0 0 2 2 10 10 56 55 33 33 b. blame, accuse or criticize your partner 4 4 43 43 44 44 9 9 0 0 c. pressure partner to change 20 20 39 39 36 36 5 5 0 0 d. avoid discussing problems with partner 34 34 40 40 22 22 5 5 0 0 e. refuse to talk about a particular topic 47 47 39 39 13 13 2 2 0 0 62 21. Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the following list. Always agree Almost always agree Extent of Agreement: Occa-sionally disagree Fre-quently disagree Always disagree n % n % n % n % n % a. family finances 10 10 50 50 35 35 6 6 0 0 b. recreation matters 25 25 54 54 19 19 3 3 0 0 c. religious matters 42 42 33 33 23 23 3 3 0 0 d. demonstrate affection 26 26 54 54 16 16 4 4 1 1 e. friends 29 29 47 47 22 22 3 3 0 0 f. sex relations 21 21 52 52 20 20 8 8 0 0 g. proper behaviors 28 28 43 43 26 26 4 4 0 0 h. philosophy of life 36 36 40 40 19 19 6 6 0 0 I. dealing with in-laws 26 26 42 42 24 24 7 7 1 1 j . aims & goals 36 36 47 47 15 15 3 3 0 0 k. time spent together 27 27 55 55 17 17 1 1 1 1 1. making decisions 25 25 55 55 20 20 1 1 0 0 m. household tasks 13 13 41 41' 40 40 6 6 1 1 n. leisure time activities 27 27 48 48 22 22 4 4 0 0 o. career decisions 39 39 48 48 12 12 2 2 0 0 63 22. On the scale below, indicate the point with which you agree with the following statements. Extent of Agreement: Strongly Agree Tend No Tend Disa- Str ongly agree to opi- to gree disagree agree nion disagree n ' % n % n % n % n% n% n% a. we have a good relationship 62 61 20 20 13 13 1 1 2 2 11 2 2 b. my relationship is stable 68 67 22 22 7 7 1 1 1 1 11 11 c. our relationship is strong 66 65 19 19 7 7 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 d. my relationship makes me happy 60 59 22 22 11 11 2 2 3 3 0 0 3 3 e. I'm part of a team with my partner 64 63 23 23 7 7 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 23. Have you or your husband/wife ever seriously suggested the idea of divorce within the last three years? very often often occasionally never 0 0 0 0 18 18 83 82 24. Have you discussed divorce or separation with a close friend? very often often occasionally never 0 0 2 2 18 18 80 80 25. Even people who get along quite well with their spouse sometimes wonder whether their marriage is working out. Have you thought of your marriage to be in trouble in the last three years? very often often occasionally 0 0 8 8 34 34 26. Did you talk about consulting an attorney? very often often occasionally 0 0 1 1 2 2 never 59 59 never 98 98 27. Has the thought of getting a divorce or separation crossed your mind in the past three years? very often often occasionally never 0 0 5 5 27 27 69 68 64 28. For each of items below, indicate your level of agrement with each statement. a. Considering only the positive qualities of your partner, and ignoring the negative ones, evaluate how positive these qualities are. Not at all Extremely 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 b. Considering only positive feelings you have toward your partner, and ignoring the negative ones, evaluate how positive these feelings are. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 c. Considering only good feelings you have about your relationship, and ignoring the bad ones, evaluate how good these feelings are. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 d. Considering only the negative qualities of your partner, and ignoring the positive ones, evaluate how negative these qualities are. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 e. Considering only negative feelings you have towards your partner, and ignoring the positive ones, evaluate how negative these feelings are. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 f. Considering only bad feelings you have about your relationship, and ignoring the good ones, evaluate how bad these feelings are. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 29. Do you have any final comments or thoughts regarding marital satisfaction that you want to share with us? T H A N K Y O U V E R Y M U C H FOR Y O U R PARTICIPATION A l l responses will be kept confidential. Identification codes are used only for statistical purposes. Please use the postage-paid return envelope provided. A P P E N D I X B D E S C R I P T I V E STATISTICS Table A (Qu #2) - Age at First Marriage Frequency Percent >20 6 6.0 20-25 44 43.6 26-30 28 27.7 31-35 20 19.9 <35 3 3.0 Table B (Qu #8) - Cultural Background Frequency Percent None 1 1.0 Scottish 7 6.9 Canadian 64 63.4 Japanese 1 1.0 Janpanese-Canadian 1 1.0 East Indian 0 0.0 Irish 4 4.0 English 6 5.9 British 7 6.9 French-Canadian 3 3.0 Chinease 6 5.9 Arab 1 1.0 Total 101 100.0 Table C (Qu #14) - Overall Happiness with Life (rated on scale from 1 to 10) Frequencies Percent 1(unhappy) 0 0.0 2 1 1.0 3 1 1.0 4 1 1.0 5 2 2.0 6 6 5.9 7 14 13.9 8 39 38.6 9 23 22.8 10 (very happy) 14 13.9 Total 101 100.0 Table D (Qu #15) - Physical Health (rated on a scale from 1 to 10) Frequency Percent 1 (very bad) 1 1.0 2 1 1.0 3 2 2.0 4 7 6.9 5 8 7.9 6 12 11.9 7 26 25.5 8 16 15.8 9 16 15.8 10 (very good) 12 11.9 Total 101 100.0 Table E (Qu # 28a) - Fincham & Linfield's (1997) 2-dimensional Model of Marital Quality Positive Qualities of your Partner Frequency Percent 0 (not positive) 0 0.0 1 0 0.0 2 0 0.0 3 1 1.0 4 0 0.0 5 2 2.0 6 1 1.0 7 4 4.0 8 19 18.8 9 29 28.7 10 (very positive) 45 44.6 Total 101 100.0 Table F (Qu # 28b) - Positive Feelings Toward Your Partner Frequency Percent 0 0 0.0 1 0 0.0 2 0 0.0 3 1 1.0 4 0 0.0 5 2 2.0 6 1 1.0 7 10 9.9 8 14 13.9 9 31 30.7 10 41 40.6 Total 101 100.0 Table G (Qu # 28c) - Good Feelings About Your Relationship Frequency Percent 0 (not positive) 1 1.0 1 0 0.0 2 0 0.0 3 1 1.0 4 0 0.0 5 2 2.0 6 1 1.0 7 10 9.9 8 14 13.9 9 31 30.7 10 (very positive) 41 40.6 Total 101 100.0 Table H (Qu # 28d) - Negative Qualities About Your Partner Frequency Percent 0 (not negative) 2 2.0 1 22 21.8 2 21 20.8 3 16 15.8 4 7 6.9 5 10 9.9 6 8 7.9 7 6 5.9 8 6 5.9 9 2 2.0 10 (very negative) 1 1.0 Total 101 100.0 Table I (Qu # 28e) - Negative Feelings Toward Your Partner Frequency Percent 0 (not negative) 12 11.9 1 24 23.8 2 15 14.9 3 11 10.9 4 6 5.9 5 13 12.9 6 8 7.9 7 5 5.0 8 3 3.0 9 3 3.0 10 (very negative) 1 1.0 Total 101 100.0 Table J (Qu # 28f) - Bad Feelings You Have About Your Relationship Frequency Percent 0 (not negative) 25 24.8 1 20 19.8 2 11 10.9 3 11 10.9 4 6 5.9 5 8 7.9 6 7 6.9 7 7 6.9 8 2 2.0 9 3 3.0 10 (very negative) 1 1.0 Total 101 100 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0089061/manifest

Comment

Related Items