UBC_1957_A8 P3 S4.pdf - cIRcle - University of British Columbia

SIMILAR OR RELATED PERSONALITY TRAITS AS A FACTOR IN MARITAL HAPPINESS by JOHN HENRY PICKFORD

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS, FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Philosophy and Psychology

We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the standard r e q u i r e d from candidates f o r the degree o f MASTER OF ARTS.

Members o f the Department o f Philosophy and Psychology.

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1957

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present study was

to t e s t e x p e r i -

mentally the r e l a t i o n of homogamy i n p e r s o n a l i t y to m a r i t a l adjustment.

I t was hypothesized that s i m i l a r or

r e l a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s i n husband and w i f e

are

s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to m a r i t a l happiness, and

that

d i s s i m i l a r or unrelated p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s i n husband and w i f e are s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to unhappiness. To t e s t the hypothesis, three groups designated as Happily-married, Having-trouble, and On-the-verge-ofseparation,

each containing t h i r t y f i v e married couples,

were compared i n terms of the ten p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s found i n the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. S i x of the ten p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s showed s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant correlations.

Four t r a i t s G, R, E and P were

p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h m a r i t a l happiness.

T r a i t E had

n e g a t i v e l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r both the Havingt r o u b l e , and the On-the-verge-of-separation groups; t r a i t 0 gave a n e g a t i v e l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the Havingtrouble group.

These two t r a i t s were n e g a t i v e l y

w i t h unhappiness.

correlated

C o r r e l a t i o n s f o r t r a i t s A and S approx-

imated the standard of s i g n i f i c a n c e used, and the change from the p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the Happily-married to the negative c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the two other married groups, showed a d i s t i n c t tendency to favour s i m i l a r i t y i n person-

a l i t y t r a i t s as a f a c t o r i n m a r i t a l happiness.

The trend

i n the low c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t r a i t s T and M f o r husbandwife s i m i l a r i t y r e l a t i n g t o happiness, and the trend i n the negative low c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t r a i t s R, A, S, F, T and P f o r husband-wife d i s s i m i l a r i t y r e l a t i n g t o unhappiness, are compatible w i t h the major conclusions

o f t h i s study.

The hypothesis that s i m i l a r or r e l a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to m a r i t a l happiness, and that d i s s i m i l a r or unrelated p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o m a r i t a l unhappiness, was confirmed i n t h i s study i n a number of the t e n p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s measured by the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.

In presenting

t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of

the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the

University

of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t freely

a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and

agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may

study.

I further

copying of

this

be g r a n t e d by the Head

of rny Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .

I t i s under-

stood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r financial

g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my

permission.

Department of

Philosophy and

Psychology

The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 3, Canada. Date

A p r i l 1957

written,

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The w r i t e r wishes t o express h i s sincere a p p r e c i a t i o n to Dr. E. I . S i g n o r i , supervised

who

t h i s research, and who p r o f f e r r e d

many h e l p f u l c r i t i c i s m s .

V

CONTENTS Chapter

Page ABSTRACT

iii

I

INTRODUCTION

1

II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

3

III

IV

A.

Studies i n Homo gamy

3

B.

Personality and Homogamy

h

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

8

A.

Introduction

8

B.

Selection of the C r i t e r i a

8

C.

Nature of the Sample

9

D.

Test Materials

11

E.

Gathering the Data

lh

F.

S t a t i s t i c a l Procedure

17

RESULTS

19

A.

Statement of Results

19

B.

Interpretation of Results

20

V

DISCUSSION

25

VI

CONCLUSION

29

VII

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH STUDIES

30

VIII

SUMMARY

32

REFERENCES

3^

BIBLIOGRAPHY

37

APPENDICES

HO

vi

TABLES

Table

I

Page

C o r r e l a t i o n s o f Scores on T r a i t s from Three M a r i t a l Groups on G u i l f o r d Zimmerman Temperament Survey

18

APPENDICES fAppendix I

^Page

Controlled Characteristics found Related to M a r i t a l Happiness

40

V

II

T e r r i t o r y from which the Sample was Secured

41

III

Means, Range and Standard Deviations of Control Characteristics f o r the Three M a r i t a l Groups

42

IV

Background Form

43

V

The General S a t i s f a c t i o n of S e l f and Conceptions of Mate's General S a t i s f a c t i o n

44

VI

Scores from the Happily-Married Group on Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey

VII

Scores from the Having-Trouble Group on Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey

hd

VIII

Scores from the On-the-Verge-of-Separation Group on Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey

50

Comparison of Page of Scores from Three M a r i t a l Groups of T h i r t y Five Couples on G u i l f o r d Zimmerman Survey f o r T r a i t s G, R and A.

52

Comparison of Page of Scores from Three M a r i t a l Groups of T h i r t y F i v e Couples on G u i l f o r d Zimmerman Survey f o r T r a i t s S, E and 0,

53

Comparison of Page of Scores from Three M a r i t a l Groups of T h i r t y Five Couples on G u i l f o r d Zimmerman Survey f o r T r a i t s F, P and T

5^

Comparison of Page of Scores from Three M a r i t a l Groups of T h i r t y Five Couples on G u i l f o r d Zimmerman Survey f o r T r a i t M

55

IX

X

XI

XII

SIMILAR OR RELATED PERSONALITY TRAITS AS A FACTOR IN MARITAL HAPPINESS

by

JOHN HENRY PICKFORD

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE DEPARTMENT of

PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY

1

Chapter

I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of t h i s study was t o determine the r e l a t i o n o f s i m i l a r or d i s s i m i l a r p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s i n husband and w i f e to m a r i t a l happiness.

With the f a m i l y under such s t r e s s ,

w i t h the marriage i n s t i t u t i o n cracking a t the seams, w i t h divorce s t a t i s t i c s p i l i n g up impressive and shuddering records, the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t i s d r i v e n to understand more adequately the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f m a r i t a l adjustment. Research work on m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s has accumulated an imposing c o l l e c t i o n o f data.

Focus has been turned upon the

p h y s i c a l , the s o c i a l , the c u l t u r a l and the economic aspects of marriage, and some f a i r l y w e l l defined p r i n c i p l e s o f m a r i t a l adjustment have been advanced.

However, the psy-

c h o l o g i c a l aspects o f marriage have not r e c e i v e d the a t t e n t i o n they deserve. I t can h a r d l y be questioned t h a t the p e r s o n a l equation of marriage r e l a t i o n s i s v i t a l l y important. Two p e r s o n a l i t i e s are not o n l y i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h the s o c i a l , the c u l t u r a l and the economic environments, but they are i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h each other. Adjustment i n marriage i s the product o f such personal i n t e r a c t i o n .

I t would seem e s s e n t i a l , then, to

know cthe combinations o f p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s that i n t e r a c t favourably or unfavourably i n m a r i t a l adjustment.

The

2

questions as t o what s i m i l a r or r e l a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s i n husband and w i f e contribute to m a r i t a l happiness, and what i n f l u e n c e d i s s i m i l a r i t y of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s might have upon m a r i t a l adjustment, need t o be answered.

3

Chapter I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A.

Studies i n homogamy Three main t h e o r i e s o f mating a r e advanced: homogamy,

t h a t l i k e a t t r a c t s l i k e ; heterogamy, t h a t opposites a t t r a c t each other; complementary,

t h a t each i n d i v i d u a l person seeks

the person who gives the greatest opportunity o f p r o v i d i n g him w i t h maximum need g r a t i f i c a t i o n . Research i n d i c a t e s that no one o f these t h e o r i e s f u l l y explains mate s e l e c t i o n . McKain and Anderson, (27) i n t h e i r research on a s s o c i a t i v e mating, found p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n f o r homogamy i n many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; Winch (36, 37) saw evidence that the i n d i v i d u a l person searches f o r the complement o f h i m s e l f ; Benson, (4,5) f i n d i n g l i t t l e support f o r the theory o f common i n t e r e s t s , concluded that the type o f p e r s o n a l i t y was more important than the number o f common interests.

I t i s noted, however, that a review o f the

l i t e r a t u r e o f over one hundred studies (3) on a s s o c i a t i v e mating i n d i c a t e s almost unanimity i n f i n d i n g homogamy as a f a c t o r i n mate s e l e c t i o n . Studies have shown that men and women tend t o s e l e c t t h e i r mates on the b a s i s o f general resemblance i n such t r a i t s as age, (24) p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (15) mental a b i l i t i e s , (18, 29, 31) socio-economic background, (2) r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p i n q u i t y , (1,13) and p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s

>+

(17.20,30).

Correlations of assortative mating f o r I Q

and educational

l e v e l (28,35) are f a i r l y high (.60 to .70);

correlations f o r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (10) are a l i t t l e lower (.30 to .40); correlations for personality (9) are d e f i n i t e l y low (.15 to .27).

traits

Such low c o r r e l a t -

ions f o r homogamy i n personality t r a i t s have l e d some to conclude that findings on homogamy i n personality chara c t e r i s t i c s are inconclusive, or that c u l t u r a l likeness i s more important than temperamental or personality s i m i l a r i t y i n marital s e l e c t i o n .

I t Is more l i k e l y

that

further research i s needed In t h i s f i e l d ; also more r e fined measures to t e s t personality remain to be devised. Burgess-Wallin, (8) using 1000 engaged couples as subjects, administered an abbreviated version of Thurstone Neurotic Inventory along with a form of 23 selected personality traits.

They found that on the Thurstone Neurotic

Inventory 14 items were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of a l l but one of h2 items studied was ,in the d i r e c t i o n of homogamy.

On the s e l f - r a t i n g s of 23 selected

personality t r a i t s , 9 were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the r e s t , i n a l l but two, was i n the d i r e c t i o n of homogamy,

B. Personality and homogamy Early investigators o f marital happiness viewed the problem from a medical orientation, stressing physical and sexual factors; then s o c i o l o g i s t s such as Bernard (6,7) and

the Mowrers (25*, 26)

corrected t h i s emphasis by t u r n i n g

a t t e n t i o n to broad s o c i a l f a c t o r s .

I t remained f o r Terman,,

however, to make a s t r i c t l y p s y c h o l o g i c a l approach, and t o b r i n g sharply i n t o focus, p e r s o n a l i t y as a f a c t o r i n m a r i t a l happiness. I n 193? he and h i s associates (32) compared the persona l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f 3*+!? married and 166 divorced taken from the state o f C a l i f o r n i a .

couple

He sought to determine

the r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l happiness, and the scores obtained on 12 p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and 7 types o f I n t e r e s t constellations.

He used as a measure o f m a r i t a l happiness,

questions l a r g e l y adapted from a previous study by Burgess and C o t t r e l l (11).

The Bernreuter P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory

and Strong V o c a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t Blank were administered t o the subjects, and the r e s u l t s showed low or n e g l i g i b l e corr e l a t i o n s w i t h m a r i t a l happiness.

I t was observed, however,

that the s t a t i s t i c a l treatment o f r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that more than a quarter o f the items, when taken s i n g l y , appeared t o have appreciable

v a l i d i t y as i n d i c a t o r s o f m a r i t a l

happiness. Following up t h i s study, Terman (33) i n 1938 i n v e s t i g a t ed 792 couples taken from the middle and upper middle c l a s s of the s t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a .

He tested them on a wide

v a r i e t y o f f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g 233 p e r s o n a l i t y items.

He

found that iko items o f h i s p e r s o n a l i t y l i s t showed an appreciable

degree o f c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the happiness score.

6

He computed a personality index score of the

subject's

temperamental d i s p o s i t i o n to determine happiness i n marital relationship.

This correlated with the marital score

.46.

Terman's work seemed to i n i t i a t e a number of studies i n the r e l a t i o n of personality to marital happiness. 1937,

In

C l i f f o r d Kirkpatrick, (21,22) seeking to determine

factors i n m a r i t a l adjustment, found personality a icant v a r i a b l e .

signif-

Robert F. Winch (36,37) studied the re-

lationship between neurotic tendency and adjustment i n engagement, and found c e r t a i n combinations favourable, others unfavourable to marital happiness.

and

In h i s research

work of seeking to determine the cause of the high

divorce

rate i n the United States, Norman E. Himes, (16) concluded that personality i s the chief determiner of successful and happy marriage. E. Lowell Kelly, (19) studied m a r i t a l compatibility as related to personality t r a i t s of husbands and wives. Seventy-six couples (married from 1 to k$ years) were used as subjects.

Husband and wife f i l l e d out independently a

graphic personality rating scales covering 36 personality traits.

The

subject was

marriage partner.

required to rate himself and h i s

The r e s u l t s showed that i n both husband

and wife, the partner rated himself lower than h i s partner rated

him. Such major studies i n m a r i t a l adjustment as Ernest

Burgess and Paul Wallin, (8) seeking to predict marital

W.

7

happiness from adjustment i n engagement, and Harvey J . Locke, (23)

p r e d i c t i n g adjustment i n marriage from a comparison o f

a divorced and happily married group, have f a i r l y w e l l d e f i n ed the p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that make f o r m a r i t a l happiness. I n the comparison o f a divorced and a h a p p i l y married group, Locke showed a degree o f agreement between husband and wife on such p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s as readiness t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a b i l i t y t o make decisions r e a d i l y , adapta b i l i t y , etc.

This confirmed the f i n d i n g s o f Terman and

Burgess-Wallin that there i s an a s s o c i a t i o n o f general pers o n a l i t y t r a i t s t o m a r i t a l adjustment.

As Raymond B. C a t t e l l

(2) has concluded: research has given us "an e x c e l l e n t c o l l e c t i o n o f data and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n about the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of marriage partners i n r e l a t i o n t o m a r i t a l success." Since homogamy i n p e r s o n a l i t y i n m a r i t a l s e l e c t i o n has been f a i r l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d , and p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been found d e f i n i t e l y r e l a t e d t o m a r i t a l happiness, i t i s s u r p r i s i n g that l i t t l e has been done t o explore d i r e c t l y the p o s s i b i l i t y that s i m i l a r o r r e l a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ate s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o m a r i t a l happiness.

This study

i s designed t o t e s t such an hypothesis: that s i m i l a r o r r e l a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s as measured by the G u i l f o r d Zimmerman Temperamental Survey are s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o m a r i t a l happiness, and that d i s s i m i l a r o r unrelated persona l i t y t r a i t s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o m a r i t a l ness.

unhapfl*

Chapter I I I EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

A. I n t r o d u c t i o n In t h i s study a comparison i s made o f three groups, each c o n t a i n i n g 35 married couples t o whom i s administered the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperamental Survey: Group A, the Happily-married group; Group H, the Having-trouble group; Group C, the On-the-verge-of-separation

group.

An attempt i s made t o c o n t r o l such f a c t o r s i n homogamy that have been shown t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o m a r i t a l adjustment.

These f a c t o r s were age, c h i l d r e n i n f a m i l y ,

education, r e l i g i o n , church attendance, status and c u l t u r a l background.

socio-economic

By c o n t r o l l i n g these

f a c t o r s , what d i f f e r e n c e s showed up i n the t e s t s may be attributed to personality t r a i t s .

(See Appendix I f o r

summary o f some o f the research f i n d i n g s on these f a c t o r s ) .

B. S e l e c t i o n o f the c r i t e r i a I t i s assumed that m a r i t a l happiness v a r i e s along a continuum w i t h happiness a t one extreme, and separation o r divorce a t the other.

However, due t o the d i f f i c u l t y o f

o b t a i n i n g a divorced sample, i t was necessary t o regard those s e r i o u s l y contemplating separation as t h i s other extreme.

I t was a l s o assumed t h a t those Having-trouble, but

9

who were determined t o work out an adjustment, would f a l l i n between the two extremes, tending toward the On-theverge-of-separation group. Happiness was measured by the s u b j e c t i v e judgment o f c l o s e r e l a t i v e s or f r i e n d s i n agreement w i t h the s e l f - r a t ings o f the married couples on the Burgess-Wallin General C l a s s i f i c a t i o n M a r i t a l Happiness Schedule.

This procedure

of combining the two u s u a l c r i t e r i a o f measuring m a r i t a l happiness i s a d i s t i n c t f e a t u r e o f t h i s present study, and thus may be regarded as a reasonable c r i t e r i o n of m a r i t a l adjustment. The Having-trouble group was defined by the couple having sought the a i d o f a marriage c o u n s e l l o r , m i n i s t e r , lawyer or s o c i a l worker to r e s o l v e t h e i r m a r i t a l problems. The couples i n t h i s group expressed no i n t e n t i o n t o separate. They seemed determined t o f i n d some s a t i s f a c t o r y adjustment. The On-the-verge-of-separation group was defined by the couple having approached a marriage c o u n s e l l o r , m i n i s t e r , lawyer, o r s o c i a l worker, and voiced t h e i r i n t e n t i o n to separate, and were taking steps a c c o r d i n g l y .

G. Nature o f the sample Many i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on human behaviour are made on U n i v e r s i t y or College students who volunteer as subjects f o r the experiment.

I t i s o f t e n assumed such i n f o r m a t i o n i s

a p p l i c a b l e t o the general p o p u l a t i o n . However, some s t u d i e s

(1^>3^) p o i n t to a p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e between v o l u n t e e r s and non-volunteers o f a q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e nature. Any such p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e i n the sample would be damaging to research on p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s r e l a t i n g t o m a r i t a l adjustment.

To avoid any s e l e c t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y

t r a i t s as. w e l l as to hold constant c e r t a i n f a c t o r s b e l i e v e d s i g n i f i c a n t i n m a r i t a l happiness, c e r t a i n c o n t r o l s governed the s e l e c t i o n o f the sample. The sample c o n s i s t e d o f the f i r s t a v a i l a b l e 105 married couples from the Lower Mainland o f the Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia, who met the e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the study.

The t e r r i t o r y from which the sample was secured

i s shown i n Appendix I I .

The sample was accumulated

over

the p e r i o d o f s i x t e e n months, November 1955 t o March 1957, and was d i v i d e d i n t o three groups, v i z . , 35 Happily-married; 35 Having-trouble; 35 On-the-verge-of-separation. The couples were between the ages o f 23 and 30 years; married from 3 t o 7 years; having a t l e a s t one c h i l d i n the f a m i l y ; and coming from the same e d u c a t i o n a l , c u l t u r a l and socio-economic groups.

They were Canadian born, of B r i t i s h

parentage, P r o t e s t a n t i n f a i t h , and they attended church a t l e a s t once a month. The sample was taken from three economic l e v e l s ; 9 i n each

group earning over $4,500; 18 i n each group earning

between $2,500 and $4,500; 8 i n each group earning $2,500

or under.

The sampling sources d i d not permit extending

the range of the socio-economic groups beyond t h a t described. No information was secured about f a m i l y background or the m a r i t a l happiness of parents, due to the d i f f i c u l t y o f obtaining such information on a l l cases, and o f e s t a b l i s h ing i t s v a l i d i t y whenever i t were a v a i l a b l e . I t w i l l be seen from Appendix I I I that the means and the standard d e v i a t i o n s o f age, l e n g t h o f marriage, years of schooling, and number o f c h i l d r e n i n the f a m i l y are reasonably uniform f o r each group.

The d e v i a t i o n s are so

narrow that each group can be regarded as s i m i l a r i n these characteristics.

D. Test M a t e r i a l s Three t e s t s were administered t o the Happily-married group: the Background Form, the Burgess-Wallin G n e r a l e

S a t i s f a c t i o n s Schedule, and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.

Only two t e s t s were given t o t h e Having-

trouble and the On-the-verge-of-separation groups: the Background Form and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.

The Burgess-Wallin was given to the Happily- mar-

r i e d group i n order to help s e l e c t and confirm the happiness l e v e l of t h i s group.

I t was not considered e s s e n t i a l

t o administer the Schedule to the other groups since the other c r i t e r i a a c t u a l l y used on these groups, assume great-

12

er s i g n i f i c a n c e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the f a c t of unhappiness. The Background Form contains 12 questions d e a l i n g w i t h age, place of b i r t h , l e n g t h o f marriage, number of c h i l d r e n , and e d u c a t i o n a l , r e l i g i o u s , r a c i a l and socio-economic s t a t u s . (See Appendix I V ) . The General S a t i s f a c t i o n of S e l f and Conception of Mate's General S a t i s f a c t i o n i s Schedule 3 of Burgess-Wallin M u l t i p l e C r i t e r i a of M a r i t a l Success.

I t i s but a s e l f -

r a t i n g of the marriage; i t seeks to get a t an o v e r - a l l f e e l ing of contentment w i t h the marriage and w i t h one's mate. A scoring key f o r the Schedule i s provided by BurgessW a l l i n w i t h the highest p o s s i b l e score of hh*

Anyone s c o r -

ing l e s s than 36 on the General S a t i s f a c t i o n Form was carded as a subject f o r the Happily-married group.

dis-

A score

of 36 on t h i s form i s considered h i g h according to the standards of happiness set by Burgess-Wallin. An agreement, between s e l f - r a t i n g and o u t s i d e - r a t i n g was necessary, then> before the subjects were accepted as Happily-married, as expressed by f r i e n d s or close r e l a t i v e s .

(See Appendix

¥

f o r General S a t i s f a c t i o n Schedule)• The Guilford-Zimmerman

Temperament Survey was used as

a measurement of p e r s o n a l i t y .

I t was chosen i n t h a t i t was

designed to measure t r a i t s of normal p e r s o n a l i t y r a t h e r than maladjustment, and i t s t r a i t s were i d e n t i f i e d by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s procedures, thus a f f o r d i n g a c l e a r e r d e f i n i t i o n of what i s being measured.

Instead of p u t t i n g

the items i n question form, they occur i n the form of a statement, expressed a f f i r m a t i v e l y i n the second person. This feature seems to add to i t s o b j e c t i v i t y .

The

reliabil-

i t i e s of the Guilford-Zimmerman Test range from .75 on odd-even and f i r s t - h a l f and second-half.

.87

to

Kuder-Richard-

son formulas were used, and a l l such i n d i c e s of r e l i a b i l i t y are considered

under-estimates.

The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey contains 300 items; 30 under each of 10 t r a i t s .

These t r a i t s are

given l e t t e r symbols: G, R, A, S, E, 0, F, T, P and M, are described herewith. G —

General A c t i v i t y :

Indicative of drive,

energy and a c t i v i t y as against slowness, i n e f f i c i e n c y and f a t i g u a b i l i t y . R —

Restraint:

i n d i c a t i v e of s e r i o u s -

mindedness, s e l f - c o n t r o l and deliberateness as a g a i n s t impulsiveness, carefreeness

and

excitement-loving. A —

Ascendance:

i n d i c a t i v e of l e a d e r s h i p

h a b i t s , self-defence and outspokenness as against f o l l o w i n g , submissiveness

and

h e s i t a t i o n t o speak. S —

Sociability:

i n d i c a t i v e of having many

f r i e n d s , l i k i n g and seeking s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s as a g a i n s t shyness and avoiding s o c i a l contacts.

and

E —

Emotional S t a b i l i t y :

i n d i c a t i v e of evenness

of moods, composure and optimism as a g a i n s t f l u c t u a t i o n of moods and depressive tendencies. 0 —

Objectivity:

i n d i c a t i v e o f "thickskinnedness"

as against egoism and h y p e r s e n s i t i v e n e s s . F —

Friendliness:

indicative of t o l e r a t i o n of

h o s t i l e a c t i o n , acceptance o f domination and respect f o r others as against b e l l i g e r e n c e , h o s t i l i t y , r e s i s t a n c e t o domination and contempt f o r others. T —

Thoughtfulness:

indicative of r e f l e c t i v e -

ness, p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n c l i n a t i o n s and mental poise as against o v e r - a c t i v i t y and mental disconcertedness. P —

Personal Relations:

indicative of

t o l e r a t i o n o f others and f a i t h i n s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s as against h y p e r c r i t i c a l n e s s and s u s p i c i o n s . M — Masculinity: indicative of interest i n masculine a c t i v i t i e s and i n h i b i t i o n s o f emotional f e e l i n g s as against i n t e r e s t i n feminine a c t i v i t i e s and emotional expressions.

E. Gathering the data Because volunteers were not being used as subjects, i t was necessary t o develop techniques t o gain t h e

confidence

and co-operation o f the s u b j e c t s . To secure the Happily-married group, church-going young married couples who l i v e d i n the Lower Mainland o f B r i t i s h Columbia were asked to give the names and addresses o f the most h a p p i l y married couples t h a t they knew between the ages o f 2 3 and 3 0 , who met the d e s i r e d controls.

They were assured t h a t the couples would not know

who supplied t h e i r names and addresses. V i s i t s were made to these homes t o secure t h e i r cooperation i n t h i s research p r o j e c t .

The prospects were

approached as f o l l o w s : I am from the U n i v e r s i t y . I should l i k e to get your co-operation i n a research p r o j e c t on m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s which may prove h e l p f u l t o young people i n the s e l e c t i n g of a l i f e - p a r t n e r . I should l i k e both husband and w i f e to f i l l i n a Survey which w i l l take about an hour of your time. I w i l l come a t a time most convenient to you. I assure you t h a t your answers to the Survey w i l l not be divulged to anyone. Appointments were made, and a t the stated hour, three forms were given to the couple to be completed without any c o l l u s i o n between husband and w i f e .

Steps were taken t o

assure honest and accurate answers;

the forms and answers-

sheets were unsigned, and the subjects were given assurance t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n would be kept anonymous.

A

l e t t e r and number i n d i c a t i n g group and subject were a l ready on the forms.

The Background Form was f i l l e d i n

f i r s t , then Burgess-Wallin General S a t i s f a c t i o n o f S e l f and

Conception of Mate's S a t i s f a c t i o n Schedule, and, f i n a l l y , the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey was administered according to standard i n s t r u c t i o n s . For subjects i n both the Having-trouble and Qn-theverge-of-separation groups, marriage c o u n s e l l o r s , m i n i s t e r s , lawyers and : s o c i a l workers were canvassed f o r names and addresses o f a v a i l a b l e subjects t h a t f i t t e d the categories and the c o n t r o l s .

The nature and purpose o f the experiment

were explained to them, and assurance was given not to v i o l a t e t h e i r confidences by t e l l i n g anyone t h a t the c o u n s e l l o r s had s u p p l i e d t h e i r names and addresses. The same approach was made to these prospects as i n the cases o f the Happily-married group.

When t e s t e d , sub-

j e c t s i n these two groups were administered only the Background Form, and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. I n some i n s t a n c e s , the c o u n s e l l o r s p r e f e r r e d to contact the subjects themselves, and secure t h e i r co-operation i n taking the Survey.

The necessary forms w i t h stamped addres-

sed envelopes t o the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia were given t o the Counsellors along w i t h e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n s concerning the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the t e s t s . One hundred and f i f t y - t h r e e forms were used. subjects i n the Having-trouble and

Some

On-the-verge-of-separa^?

t i o n groups f a i l e d t o m a i l back t h e i r Survey Booklet and Answer Sheet;

some i n the Happily-married group had t o be

discarded f o r l a c k o f agreement between the s u b j e c t i v e

judgment o f f r i e n d s and t h e i r own r a t i n g ; others i n each group were set aside f o r d i s p a r i t y i n age, c u l t u r a l o r educational f a c t o r s .

Some made appointments t o have the

Survey administered, and then the prospective subjects changed t h e i r minds.

On the other hand, many have xrequest-

ed the r e s u l t s o f the t e s t s , and d e s i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n and help.

A t no time were any o f the subjects informed about

the r e a l nature o f the research, o r o f the categories i n t o which the subjects were c l a s s i f i e d ,

F. S t a t i s t i c a l

procedure

The answer sheets o f the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey were a l l scored, using the hand scoring key. Scores were obtained on a l l the p e r s o n a l i t y

t r a i t factors

f o r the husbands and wives i n each o f the three groups. (See Appendices VI, V I I and V I I I ) . Product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed f o r husbandw i f e on each o f the ten t r a i t s f o r the Happily-married, Having-trouble, and On-the-verge-of-separation

groups.

The obtained c o r r e l a t i o n s were examined f o r s i g n i f i cance a t the . 0 5 " l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .

A t a b u l a r represent-

a t i o n o f the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s i s given i n Table I . The range o f scores f o r husband and w i f e i n each category on a l l ten t r a i t s was obtained.

Since these r e s u l t s

are not v i t a l to the main hypothesis, they have been placed i n Appendices IX, X, X I and X I I .

TABLE I CORRELATIONS OF SCORES ON TRAITS FROM THREE MARITAL GROUPS ON GUILFORD ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY

TRAITS

GROUP G

R

A

S

.35*

.19

.28

0

F

.24

.07

.4li

T

P

M

GROUP A Happily-Married

,45«

.18

.50


3«

Anderson, C.A. Our present knowledge of assortative mating. Rural S o c i o l . 1938, 3, 251-79.

4.

Benson, P.

The common i n t e r e s t myth i n marriage. Soc. P r o b l. 1938, 3, 266-308.

5.

Benson, P.

The i n t e r e s t of happily married couples. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g . 1952, l 4 , 276-80.

6.

Bernard, J .

The d i s t r i b u t i o n of success i n marriage. Amer. J . S o c i o l . 1933, 39, 78-83.

7.

Bernard, J .

Factors i n d i s t r i b u t i o n of success i n marriage. Amer. J . S o c i o l . 1934, 40, 665-74.

8.

Burgess, E.W. and Wallin, P. Engagement and Marriage. Chicago, Lippincott, 1953.

9.

Burgess, E.W. and Wallin, P. Homogamy i n personality characteristics. J . Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1944, 39, 475-81.

10.

Burgess, E.W. and Wallin, P. Homogamy i n s o c i a l chara c t e r i s t i c s . Amer. J . S o c i o l . 1943, 49, 109-24.

11.

Burgess, E.W. and C o t t r e l l , L.S. Predicting Success and F a i l u r e i n Marriage. New York, Prentice-Hall, 1939.

12.

C a t t e l l , R.B. Personality.

13.

Clark, C.C.

New York,

McGraw-Hill, 1950.

An examination of the operation of r e s i d e n t i a l propinquity as a factor i n mate s e l e c t i o n . Amer. Sociol.Rev. 1952, 17, 17-21.

35

14-.

Edgerton, H.A., B r i t t , S.H. and Norman, R.D. Objective differences among various types o f r e spondents. Amer. S o c i o l . Rev. 194-7, 4-35-H-4-.

15.

Harris, J.H.

Assortative mating. Popular Science Monthly. 1912, 80, 4-76-92.

16.

Himes, N.E.

Personality as a factor i n divorce. Int. J . Sexol. 194-9, 2, 217-28.

17.

Hoffeditz, E.L. Personality resemblance among married couples. J . Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 193^, 5, 214--27.

18.

Jones, H.E.

Homogamy i n i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s . Amer. J . S o c i o l . 1929, 35, 369-82.

19.

K e l l y , E.L.

M a r i t a l compatibility as r e l a t e d to personality t r a i t s . J . Soc. Psychol. 19hl, 13, 193-98.

20.

Kelly, E.L.

Psychological factors i n assortative mating. Psychol. B u l l . 1940, 37, 4-73-76.

21.

Kirkpatrick, C. Community of i n t e r e s t and the measurement of m a r i t a l adjustment. The Family. June, 1937, 18, 133-37.

22.

Kirkpatrick, C. Factors i n marital adjustment. Amer. J . S o c i o l . September. 1937, 4-3, 270-83.

23.

Locke, H.J. . .

Predicting Adjustment i n Marriage. New York, H. Holt, JS^T.

24-.

Lutz, F.E.

Assortative mating i n man. 1905, 22, 24-9-50.

25.

Mowrer, H.R.

Personality Adjustments and Domestic Discords. New York, American Book Comp. 1935.

26.

Mowrer, R.E.

Family Disorganization. .Chicago, University Press, 1939.

27.

McKain, W.C. J r . and Anderson, C.A. Assortative mating. S o c i a l Soc. Research. 1937, 21(5), 4-11-4-18.

28.

Popenoe, P.

Science.

Mate s e l e c t i o n . Amer. S o c i o l . Rev. 1937, 2, 735-4-3.

36

29.

Richardson, H.M. Studies i n mental resemblances between husbands and wives and between friends. Psychol. B u l l . 1939, 36, 104-20.

30.

Schooley, M.

Personality resemblance among married couples. J . Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1936,

31,

346-47.

31.

Smith, M.

32.

Terman, L.M. and Butterweiser, P. Personality factors i n marital incompatibility. J . Soc. Psychol. 1935, 6, 143-171.

33.

Terman, L.M.

34.

Wallin, P.

S i m i l a r i t i e s of marriage partners i n i n t e l l i g e n c e . Amer. S o c i o l . Rev. 1941, 6, 699-715.

et a l . Psychological Factors i n M a r i t a l Happiness. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1938. Volunteer subjects as a source of sampling b i a s . Amer. J . S o c i o l .

54,

539-5H4.

1949,

35.

Willoughby, R.R, Family s i m i l a r i t i e s i n mental tests a b i l i t i e s . Genetic Psych. Mon. 1927, 4, 239-277.

36.

Winch, R.F.

37.

Winch, R.F. and McGinnes, R. Marriage and the Family. New York, Henry Holt Comp., 1953.

Personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of engaged couples. Amer. J . S o c i o l . 194l, 46, 686-697.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barron, M.L.

People who Intermarry, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1946.

Becker, H, and H i l l , R, Boston, Bowman, H.A.

Family/Marriage and Parenthood. D. Heath, 194-8.

Marriage f o r Moderns. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1943.

Christensen, H.T. Marriage Analysis. New York, Ronald Press, 1950. Goode, W.J.

Economic factors and m a r i t a l s t a b i l i t y . Amer. S o c i o l . Rev. 1951, 16, 802-11.

Groves, E.R.

Marriage. New York,

Hart, H.

Henry Holt, 1933.

Happiness i n r e l a t i o n to age a t marriage. J . of soc. Hyg. 1926, 12, 403-7.

Hart, H. and Hart, E.B. Personality and the Family. Boston, McHeath Comp., 194-1. ' Healy, E.F.

Marriage Guidance. Chicago, Loyola University Press, 194$.

H i l l , R.

Families under Stress. New York, Harper Bros.

Himes, N.E.

194-9.

Your Marriage: A Guide to Happiness. New York, (Rev.Ed.), Rinehart, 1940.

Hollingshead, A.B. C u l t u r a l factors i n selection of mates. Amer. S o c i o l . Rev., 1950, 15, 619-27. Kirkpatridc, C.

The Family - As a Process and I n s t i t u t i o n . New York, Ronald Press, 1955. :

Koos, E.L. Koos, E.L.

Marriage. New York,

Henry Holt,

1953.

Families i n Trouble. New York, Columbia University Press, 1946.

Landis, 2.T.

Length of time to achieve adjustment i n marriage. Amer. S o c i o l . Rev. 1946, 11, 666-77.

Landis, J . T . and Landis, M.G. Readings i n Marriage and the Family. New York, Prentice H a l l , 1952. Macfarlane, J.W. Interpersonal relationships within the family. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g . 194l, 3, 30-2. Macrory, B.E. and McGormick, T . C . , Group values i n mate selection i n a sample of college g i r l s . Soc. Forces. 1944, 22, 315-21. Mowrer, E.R.

Disorganization: Personal and S o c i a l . Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1942. Nimkoff, M. and Wood, L. Courtship and personality. Amer. J . S o c i o l . 1948, 53, 263-69. Schnepp, G.S. and Johnson, M.M. Do r e l i g i o u s background factors have predictive value? Marriage Fam. L i v i n g . 1 9 5 2 , 14, 301-304. Skidmore, R.A. and McPhee, W.M. The comparative use of the C a l i f o r n i a test of personality, and the Burgess-Mallin Schedule i n p r e d i c t ing marital adjustment. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g . 1951, 13, 121-124^ Strauss, A.

Personality needs and marital choice. Soc. Forces. 1947, 25, 332-35.

Strauss, A.

The i d e a l and the chosen mate. Amer. J . S o c i o l . 1946, 52, 204-208. Predicting marital f a i l u r e from test scores. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g . 1950, 12, 52-54.

Terman, L.M. Turner, F . B .

Common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Marriage Fam. Living. 1954, 16, 143-14¥: Wieman, R.W. The Family Lives i t s R e l i g i o n . New York, Harper Bros. 1941. Williamson, R.C. Economic factors i n marital adjustment. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g . 1952, 14, 298-301.

Willoughby, R. Winch, R.F. Winch, H.E. Winch, R.F. Zimmerman, C.C.

Neuroticism i n marriage. J . S o c i o l . Psychol. 1936, 7, 19-4-8. The study of personality i n the family setting. Soc. Forces. March, 1950, 28, 310-316. The Modern Family. New York, H. Holt, 1952. Personality and marital adjustment. Amer. J . S o c i o l . 194-1, 4-1, 686-693. Family and C i v i l i z a t i o n . New York, Harper Bros. 194-7.

APPENDIX

I

CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS FOUND RELATED TO MARITAL HAPPINESS

Item

Studies

AGE

Burgess-Cottrell 526 Individuals

CHILDREN IN FAMILY

Burgess-Cottrell 526 Individuals

RELIGION

Locke 929 Individuals

CHURCH ATTENDANCE

Burgess-Cottrell 526 Individuals

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

Burgess-Cottrell 526 Individuals Locke 929 Individuals

CULTURAL

Burg e s s-Wall&ii 1000 Engaged couples

EDUCATION

Kirkpatrick Terman Burgess-Cottrell

APPENDIX I I I MEANS, RANGE AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE THREE MARITAL GROUPS AGE

GROUP

Husbands

Wives

YEARS OF SCHOOLING 1 NO. OF YRS NUMBER MARRIED OF Husbands Wives CHILDREN

GROUP A HappilyMarried n=35

Means Range S.D.

25.8 23 to 29 2.01

26.3 23 to 29 1.86

12.4 16 t o 9 1.84

11.7 16 t o 8 1.7H-

^.3 3 to 7 1.40

1.7 1 to 3

Means Range S.D.

26 23 to 29 1.99

25.1 23 to 29 1.71

11.8 16 to 8 1.92

11.1 14 to 8 I.83

4.2 3 to 7 1.47

1 to 4

Means Range S.D.

26 23 to 29 2.13

25.8 23 to 29 1.65

12.1 17 to 9 2.15

11.9 16 to 9 1.43

^.7 3 to 7 1.18

1.8 1 to 3

GROUP B HavingTxouble n 35 =

GROUP G On-theVerge-of Separation n 35 =

APPENDIX IV BACKGROUND CATEGORY 1 22123 124125 |26 127 [28 129 1301

1.

AGE

2.

NUMBER OF YEARS MARRIED

3.

WHERE BORN?

4.

WHERE WERE YOUR PARENTS BORN:

5.

YEARS OF SCHOOLING:

| 2 13 1415 16771

Canada Great B r i t a i n Elsewhere Canada Great B r i t a i n , Elsewhere

GRADE HIGH SCHOOL UNIVERSITY .POST GRADUATE I 9 T l O | l l T l 2 f l ^ l 1 I 21 M M I 1 I 2 I 3 1 M l 6.

SALARY:

7.

DID HUSBAND OR WIFE LIVE IN SAME

$4,500 or above

$2,500 to $4,500 Up to $2,500

COMMUNITY OR CITY BEFORE MARRIAGE: 8.

NUMBER OF CHILDREN

9.

DO YOU ATTEND CHURCH: Regularly: (at l e a s t 3 times a month) F a i r l y Regularly: (over once a month) Infrequently: Not at a l l : . RELIGION: Protestant Catholic

10. 11.

12 . :

I

Yes No

1 01II213141

Check what you believe to have been the economic status of your parents during adolescence: (a) w e l l to do (b) wealthy (c) comfortable (d) meagre (d) poor

m

Cheek what you believe to be the s o c i a l status of your parents i n t h e i r community: (a) One of the leading families (b) Upper class (c) Upper middle class (d) Middle class (e) Lower Middle class ( f ) Lower class

APPENDIX ¥ THE GENERAL SATISFACTION OF SELF AND CONCEPTIONS OF MATE'S GENERAL SATISFACTION SCHEDULE 3 Place a check before any of the following statements which represent your feelings about your marriage or your mate. Check as many or as few as describe your feelings. My marriage i s successful but not extraordinarily so My mate and I are well mated. I f i t weren't f o r fear of hurting my mate, I would leave him (her) Frankly, our marriage has not been successful. My marriage has given me a new enthusiasm f o r l i f e . Although my marriage has i t s good points, they are outweighed by i t s bad ones. My marriage could be worse and i t could be better.. On the basis of my marriage at l e a s t , I think a person i s a f o o l to marry My marriage i s l e s s successful than the average.... My marriage i s perhaps a l i t t l e l e s s successful than most marriages I wouldn't c a l l my marriage a perfect success, but I'm pretty w e l l content with i t . . . . . I - f e e l that as time goes on my marriage w i l l mean less and less to me. Although my marriage has been only moderately succ e s s f u l , i t s good elements more than compensate f o r the bad My marriage i s not a great success but i t could be much worse.. My marriage could not be more successful. My marriage has been a great disappointment to me.. I've gotten more out of marriage than I expected... My friends mean more to me than my mate. Marrying my mate was the biggest mistake I ever made My marriage i s as successful as any I know

21)

I f you had your l i f e to l i v e over, do you think you would (check): marry the same person (a) c e r t a i n l y ; (b) probably ; (c) possibly Cd) marry a d i f f e r e n t person 5.'(e) not marry at a l l

22)

I f your mate had l i f e to l i v e over, do you think mate wouj-d (check): marry you (a) c e r t a i n l y ; (b) probably (c) possibly (d) marry a d i f f e r e n t perl

23)

How s a t i s f i e d , on the whole, are you with your marriage?(check): (1) e n t i r e l y s a t i s f i e d ; (n) very much s a t i s fled (o) s a t i s f i e d (p) somewhat d i s satisfied ^ (s) d i s s a t i s f i e d ; ( t ) very much dissatisfied (u) e n t i r e l y d i s s a t i s f i e d .

24)

How s a t i s f i e d , on the whole, i s your mate with your marriage? (check): (1) e n t i r e l y s a t i s f i e d ; (n) very much s a t i s fied __; (o) s a t i s f i e d ; (p) somewhat d i s satisfied ; (s) d i s s a t i s f i e d ; ( t ) very much dissatisfied (u) e n t i r e l y d i s s a t i s f i e d _.

2?)

Do you ever regret your marriage? check: (u) frequently ; (v) occasionally (x) r a r e l y : (z) never

26)

Do you think your mate ever regrets having married you? (check): (u) frequently (v) occasionally ; (z) never (x) r a r e l y ;

APPENDIX VI SCORES FROM THE HAPPILY-MARRIED GROUP ON GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY HUSBANDS

WIVES FACTORS

CASE No.

G

R

A

S

E

0

Al

11

19

12

11

26

26

A2

23

18

13

23

17

19

A3

9

21

14

20

2H- 2h

A4

12

19

9

18

19

A5

11

17

26

13

A6

19

25

15

A7

12

20

AS

13

A9

T

P

M

G

24

22

24

19

17

6

15

15

20

16

14

lh

12

17

24

14

14

24

17

19

14

15

12

17

23

16

17

18

15

15

14

20

8

11

14

14

10

16

17

AlO

21

22

20

All

16

19

A12

12

A13

R

S

E

0

F

T

P

7

20

11

14

23

19

20

7

20

Zk

25

9

22

20

22

24

10

13

25

16

21

19

21

23

19

18

15

15

17

19

3

10

23

17

19

15

18

14

21

16

20

11

20

21

27

24

27

9

23

16

22

21

19

22

19

9

21

25

22

28

10

25

5

9

12

11

16

7

24

5

20

24

17

15

11

20

6

Ih

19

18

21

17

17

26

5

15

14

20

25

20

27

8

20

22

19

16

20

18

15

11

8

20

27

24

18

17

19

14

22

18

20

24

17

23

22

24

18

13

13

12

19

25

27

24

10

9

19

28

23

16

22

21

23

18

17

14

23

21

18

17

23

19

7

16

15

23

23

21

24

12

24. 17

14

15

10

21

16

19

20

22

9

6

16

28

13

23

16

26

29

22

27

20

12

22

7

22

24

15

24

12

22

11

AIM-

16

18

24

19

21

17

20

14

21

18

10

14

14

13

12

14

26

21

17

7

A15

13

8

8

14

lh

18

17

14

22

21

11

14

12

15

19

11

20

19

28

14

A

M

A16

24

12

19

24

23

23

18

18

20

24

18

20

22

26

12

15

19

15

i4

9

Al?

20

19

16

19

20

21

13

15

23

19

18

20

14

17

23

21

14

14

20

15

A18

24

17

10

19

16

16

14

13

23

21

24

20

21

24

28

19

12

22

17

12

A19

19

26

11

12

11

18

19

24

19

24

23

19

11

18

10

12

21

19

18

15

A20

13

10

23

24

26

23

20

20

25

21

9

7

13

23

22

19

25

20

22

9

A21 ; 19

20

14

23

18

*5

16

11

19

19

17

16

8

22

11

14

20

16

12

5

A22

11

19

26

20

17

18

23

12

14

16

16

14

16

24

23

18

22

19

20

13

A23

18

20

11

12

14

10

13

18

13

11

14

14

13

23

12

22

19

12

16

9

A24

8

21

13

21

25

24

15

20

25

20

11

7

5

13

22

20

17

9

27

20

A25

25

15

20

18

19

13

20

19

18

15

22

11

17

22

19

19

20

17

21

13

A26

22

12

19

19

22

20

18

15

16

17

19

15

6

18

14

22

8

17

9

A2?

10

12

23

21

13

19

24

21

25

16

14

13

9

14

17

26

27

16

23

8

A28

17

19

11

18

20

21

18

16

24

25

15

21

14

9

25

24

19

19

25

15

A29

23

8

17

25

12

20

22

19

23

23

17

13

11

19

20

17

23

16

17

8

A30

15

15

21

18

23

27

17

21

19

18

9

13

5

17

21

12

24

21

16

6

A31

22

19

22

26

8

23

11

15

19

15

19

20

16

25

23

19

13

20

23

10

A32

18

15

25

14

13

14

14

11

21

20

23

15

9

14

17

9

20

22

18

19

A33

20

14

19

15

18

11

19

15

19

11

20

16

20

23

23

15

16

11

12

A34

8

18

18

21

11

23

17

19

24

20

15

9

10

20

24

17

19

14

27

15

A35

13

7

16

13

13

13

15

14

19

15

22

15

20

24

7

14

16

9

18

9

APPENDIX V I I SCORES FROM THE HAVING-TROUBLE GROUP ON GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY HUSBANDS CASE No.

G

Bl

26

B2

P

9

12

11

23

19

15

7

17

5

12

24

15 23

23

12

10

18

20

27

1

3

18

12

19

8

19

13

23

23

7

14

12

19

21

15

25 22 12

22

11

12

18

26

23

10

15

24

25

21

11

7

9 23

3

14

9 10

A

S

8

19

24

14

18

9

18

9

13

20

14

B3

15

21

9 20 22 11 18 21 23

B4

21

12

26

12

11

9

15

19

B5*

18

15

21

20

20

19

20

B6

23

8 20

11

13

11

B7

27

10

16

8 25

B8

E

F

FACTORS G M

T

R

0

WIVES R

A . S

E

0

M

F

T

P

8

15

18

19

9

10

12

11

13

19

15

23

17

26

14

13

12

20

14

19

14

18

12

20

19

15

26

9

17

12

15

8

12

14

18

24

20

12

24

28

26

13

22

17

12

17

10

19

18

7

20

18

19

9

27

5

19

18

21

11

23 26

19

10

24

20

15

13

16

12

23

22

28

13

15 19

18

27

24

10

23

15 25

15

10

8 19 21 15

17

11

23

19

B9

14

BIO

28

Bll

17

15

14

21

10

19

13

17

24 20

22

3

14

19

15 11

15

10

17

12

B12

11

22

10

11

21

18

11

21

9 23

19

19

14

18

10

15

14

12

25

14

B13

26

12

21

12

9

15

7

24

9 15

7

14

7

23

21

17

20

19

21

8

B14

24

17

23

20

15

17

7

13

15 23

10

19

5

10

21

11

5

25

13

15

Bl5

19

21

11

13

11

18

13

22

19

9 18 18 25

17

8

18

21

23 11

12

24

18

B16

29

17

27

8

13

8

15

25

9

17

17

7

20

17

19

20

15

14

20

14

B17

12

25

14

24

18

15

12

11

23

14

25

15

17

15

11

9

7

19

10

17

B18

11

16

19

12

14

5

18

20

11

20

20

14

5

21

23

18

19

21

26

10

B19

25

26

20

8

25

11

9

18

11

19

17

10

21

25

15

17

19

2h

17

19

B20

17

19

13

7

24

20

19

20

14

14

18

7

20

22

18

11

9

23

5

16

B21

21

11

24

20

7

17

5

10

11

21

8

10

11

18

20

3

16

23

21

9

B22

17

7

12

14

19

21

8

8

20

24

25

13

19

28

9

17

11

19

8

7

B23

25

17

22

19

25

19

13

19

17

13

11

25

6

20

5

7

15

12

24

12

B24

20

5

19

21

8

14

11

9

17

19

18

12

3

13

15

27

18

17

21

11

B25

23

14

28

25

13

10

14

13

23

12

21

9

17

6

7

14

25

11

8

B26

9

23

11

15

20

25

12

14

20

23

7

20

19

9

14

15

9

20

15

B27

14

23

12

12

19

17 11 21 17

19

16

15

11

14

15

9

15

6

13

B28

21

12

24

17

9

26

10

20

17

21

23

7

10

25

14

12

18

27

22

12

B29

25

20

13

7

24

20

19

25

18

14

17

21

20

22

7

8

13

27

20

16

B30

20

19

21

14

7

5

8

19

17

26

7

25

8

19

22

17

15

16

5

14

B31

10

8

23

24

18

13

16

9

9

20

18

19

12

10

9 23

17

13

23

11

B32

25

24

21

9

11

23

4

19

11

19

20

11

19

23

7

11

5

15

9

12

B33

20

10

27

17

19

15

17

15

19

19

9

14

10

9

15

12

12

19

15

8

B34

17

19

19

8

9

14

9

12

21

23

6

17

13

24

24

19

13

17

8

14

B35

25

26

13

7

24

8

11

17

18

14

10

19

3

7

10

18

17

19

21

5

9

APPENDIX ¥111 SCORES FROM THE ON-THE-VERGE-OF-SEPARATION GROUP ON GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY " CASE No.

G

ei

29

C2

HUSBANDS

[

;

WIVES

A

S

E

0

. F

T

P

FACTORS G R M

A

6

26

27

22

20

22

19

18

25

25

15

15

20

25

23

19

23

21

22

18

20

25

26

19

24

17

G3

19

18

23

11

25

18

8

25

11

19

24-

8

C4

28

11

21

8

7

11

18

11

13

23

17

05

17

17

22

24

11

!9

12

8

8

27

C6

16

20

9

28

15

26

17

24

15

C7

27

14

23

17

9

8

0

25

C8

24

12

25

19

21

1^

16

C9

26

16

14

23

26

24

CIO

28

8

18

16

29

Gil

12

10

20

28

C12

14

10

12

C13

19

ah

27

015

16

;

;

0

F

T

P

15

16

12

15

25

9

12

12

12

7

22

Ih

7

8

12

12

17

16

18

20

9

8

17

25

21

18

17

25

6

16

7

24

5

14

23

21

20

21

17

8

20

23

6

20

22

6

18

17

17

9

14

3

23

16

6

18

23

21

19

22

15

19

11

26

12

20

27

20

10

14

14

18

21

18

20

10

12

11

11

16

18

13

4

12

9

19

24

25

22

8

28

15

13

21

24

21

16

7

18

12

10

17

18

12

11

21

15

16

22

14

22

10

17

9

20

8

14

21

9

20

12

25

17

25

22

26

20

21

24

26

22

12

25

11

17

8

11

5

23

8

12

13

20

9

12

25

23

19

19

25

24

21

12

21

18

14

8

10

13

8

8

10

24

19

15

12

21

16

20

19

24

12

9

10

15

12

24

12

20

22

17

19

14

22

20

16

22

8

11

12

8

17

9

21

R.

S

M

19 13

15 12 10 19

C16

15

G17

14 19 12 10 23 17 26 20 24 24

C18

2k

C19

4

C20

26

25

C21

15

8

G22

27

G23

18

28

15

14 17

9

24

19

28

11

17

25

9

16

19

13 17

9

15

15

11

11

12

14

14

7

18

9

25

16

19 18

6

3

8

26

9

10

24

18

25

6

19

8

8

17 19 18 26 17 21 24

9

24

9

12

3

13

11

17

20

21

15

13

25

21

23

19

22

13

19 12 24 21

13 21 19 19 17

19 23

27

18

9

17

8

17

5

7

15

12

6

12

12

13 19 12

16

27

25

24

22

7

10

5

23

19

5

18

19

7

19

21

15

23

7

14

19 28 14

6

11

15

24

20

9

15

17

8

23

9

19

024

13

28

14

12

24

9

14 25 20 14

17

16

19

23

19

15

12

G25

20

23

18

17

9

25

15

15

20

21

16

8

5

C26

24

17

24

21

17

14

21

23

7

23

21

25

14

17

12

11

11

17 19

22

C27

28

3

12

17 18 17 10 12 22 26

20

18

10

20

25

20

16

21

9

11

C28

19

23

19 14 26 10 11 15 12 19

15

11

12

24

16

9

22

23

23

5

C29

9

9

24

19 14 21 15

8

8

18

19 12

9

20

21

16

16

19

17

9

C30

26

16

23

13

11

15

10

19

21

20

12

20

11

21

17 14 16 21

12

10

G31

29

15

10

24

24

19

19

21

20

23

21

10

14

13 16 17 24 16

14

16

G32

21

17

25

15

10

14

8

27

11

25

25

9

11

20

24

20

14

G33

25

11

10

14

19

21

24

12

12

20

14 21 17 19 12 16 21 20 25

11

C3h

7

14

19

12

25

20

!9

15

15

24

22

15

13

23

17

18

22

9

20

17

C35

28

7

23

8

13

22

11

20

26

19

15

19

9

15

15

13

19

15

18

8

17

9

13 9 12 14 23

14 18 18 19 12 14 16

21

19

20

APPENDIX

IX

COMPARISON OF RANGE OF SCORES FOR THREE MARITAL GROUPS OF THIRTY-FIVE COUPLES ON GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY FOR TRAITS G, R, and A GROUPS

SCORES 1 2 3 it 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25* 26 2 7 28 2 9 3 0

TRAIT' G HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation

; — — —

•

• •

,•- • •

•

HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation TRAIT A HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation Husbands 'Wives

! ->•— 1

:

TRAIT R

—

1

APPENDIX

X

COMPARISON OF RANGE OF SCORES FOR THREE MARITAL GROUPS OF THIRTY-FIVE COUPLES ON GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY FOR TRAITS S, E and 0 GROUPS

SCORES

1 2 3 *+ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24- 25 26 27 28 29 30 TRAIT S HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation

• ;

: —.

• _—.

' .

TRAIT E HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation

=

•

.

TRAIT 0 HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation

.

.

.

•

_

:

.

! ______________ OJ

APPENDIX XI COMPARISON OF RANGE OF SCORES FOR THREE MARITAL GROUPS OF THIRTY-FIVE COUPLES ON GUILFOPJJ-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY FOR TRAITS F, T and P GROUP

SCORES 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 lh 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28 29 30

TRAIT F HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation

(

.

'

•

•

TRAIT T HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation

•——

i

-

=

,

—

TRAIT P HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation

—

.

——

u -F

APPENDIX XII COMPARISON OF RANGE OF SCORES FOR THREE MARITAL GROUPS OF THIRTY-FIVE COUPLES ON GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY FOR TRAIT M GROUP TRAIT M HappilyMarried HavingTrouble Verge-ofSeparation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 l ? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 2 5 26 27 28 2 9 3 0