Communicatioli.,Commitment, Int.imacy,and DyadicPerception inLastingNarriages: Impl i cat i ons for Social
WorkAssessment:and Couplei'herapy
Prepare dBy: Bert.:T.Be nnett , B.S.W.
Date: May 1992
AThesisSubmitted in Partial Fulfllment ofthe Requirementsfor theDegree
ofMastersofSocial Work
Sch oolof Social Work MemorialUniversityof Newfoun dl and
St . John 's Newfoundland
1+1
Nationall.ibr ar/olC3nada Acquisilions and BibliographcservicesBranch 39S~SIreeI
oa_.Clritaroo
IUA (:NoI
BibiiolheQuenalionalc dvCanaoo DirectiondesaCQlMsitions el dessevceebibliographiQUCS
""~-
~~)
The author has granted an Irrevoca ble non-e xclus ivelicence allowing theNatio nalLibraryof Can ada to reproduce, loan , distribute or sell copies of his/herthes is byany meansand Inany formor format,making thi sthesis availabletoIntereste d persons.
Theauthorretainsownership of the copyrig htin his/herthesis.
Neitherthe thesisnorsubsta ntial ext ractsfromitmaybeprintedor otherwise reproduced without his/herpermissio n.
L'auteur aaecctde une licence irrevocable et non exclusive permettant
a
la Bibl iolh equ e nation ale du Canada de reprodu ire,preter,distribu er ou vendredes copies desathese de quelqu e mentere et sous quelqu e for me que ce sol t pour mettr edesexemplairesdecette thesea
1a disp osition des perso nnes intinessees.L'auteur conservelaprop rletedu droit d'auteur qui protege sa these. Nllatheseni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doiven t eire lrnprlrnes ou autremenl reproduits sans son autoris ation.
ISBN 0·315·78088- D
Canada
ABSTRACT
The main directionofmuch researchon the clinical and theoretical applications ofmarital and family counsell ingfocuses onpa t h ol ogy. The position of this inquiry isthat cliniciansneed more knowledgeregarding positive models of family and marital functioning as guidelines for assisting families and couples experiencing problems. Thisinquiry focuses on family strengthsandmarital satisfactionin lastingmarriages.
Data from 67 couples, who have been married for 15ye ar s or more, is analyzed todescribe those cha racteristics associated wi t h family strengths and 1astin<Jmarriages . Parti cu lar reference is made to those characteristics which exist in strong families/lasti ng marriages - communication, cOJlIllIitment, intimacy, and dyadic perceptions. Th e conceptswere operat ionalizedusingthe Mari t al Satisfaction In ve n t or y (MSI) (Snyder,1981) and thi rty- one item questionnai re devised by the re s e arch er. Incl uded in th i s study was the Family Strengt hs Scale (Ol son , 1985), wh i ch was used to operationa lizefamilyst rengths . The questionnaireswere hand deliveredormai l e dtore s p ondent s whovolun teered
11
toparticipate in the study. Some of the data obtained supports a U-Shaped cur vi line ar trend in marital sa t isfac ti on throughout the l i fe cycle. The data also supports the premise that the longer the lasting marriage , the stronger the family strength s and the high er the le vel of marital satisfaction. Thisst udy offerssome Bu q y est i o n s for more expansiveresearch which ex p l or e s the characteristics of str ong families and lasting mtAcr ia ges.
iii
AClCNOJlLBDGJfEN'1'S
To mywife, Shawnie, forher encouragement and love. Tomyfamily for giving me the strengthand support to make everything possible. To my supervisor, M.Dennis Kimberley, Ph. D., who provided me with the necessary direction and who never gave up on me. To the lasting marriedco up l e s whoassistedme with this study.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE INTRODUCTION••••• •• • ••• •• ••••••• •••••• ••••••• ••• ••
ARBVIEfi OF THE LITERA TURE ••••• •• •• •••• • •••••••••• Fami ly Strengths /FamilyWell-Being.•••• ••• •• Fami l y LifeCy cle - Mar i ta l Satis fac t i on ••••••
Last ingMarriag e s /Mar italStren gths . .. ...... 10 MaritalStreng th s.. ...... ... ....... .... . .. .. 17 Communic a tionandPerc eption.. ... ... ..... . 18
Commitment .. .. .... ... .. ... ... ... . ... .. ... 25 Intimacy ... ... ... ... .. 27
A COGNITIVE - INTERACTIONAL THEORY BASE ••••• •••••• 31
EXPLORATORY/DESCRIPTIVE STUDy . . . ...... . ... . . .. . 39
OPI.'RATIONALISATIONOF CONCEPTS •••••••••• ••••• •• ••• 41 TheMaritalSatis fac t i on Inventory(MSZ) Communi cation ,pe r c epti on&Commitment. .. . . .. 41 validityand Reliability .. .......... .... . ... 49
PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUBSUONS••••• ••• •••• •••••••• 50
Que stionI 51
QuestionI I 52
Ques tionII I ..• . .. .. .• ...••• •• •• •• •••.. .•. . . 53 QuestionIV ••••• ••• • • ••• • •• • ••• •••• •••••• '" 53 QuestionV ••••••••• • •• •••••••• • •••••• •••• ••• 53
PAGE
IIB'l'HODOLOGY•• • ••••• •• •• ••• ••••••• • •••• ••• •• •• • ••• • 54 Samp l e andSampli n gProcedures••• • ••••.••• •• • 54 Exploratory-DescriptiveSurveyProcedure s.... 57
DATA ANALYSIS•••• • • ••• • •••••••••••• •••••• •••••• • •• 59
RESULTS ... ...
63Couples Demogr aphi cCharac t eri sti c s .......... 63 Empl oymen tand Income••••• • •••• • • •••••• •••• •• 67
Study Quest ion U Marit al Satisfaction and Family St reng t hs in LastingandVeryLongLas t i n g
Marr i ag es •••• •• •••••••• •••• • • • •••••• •• •••••••• • ••• 69 Global Fami lyStren gths ••••• • •••••••• •••••••• 69 Fami l y Stren g th sSc ale•••• ••••••• ••• •••• 69 ValidityChe c k.. . .•• •..• ••.• • •.•. .••.••••.••. 71 Conve ntionalizationScal e(CNV).•••• • •.. 71 Overall Sati sfaction ....... ............. ... .. 73 Glob alDi stre s sScal e (GDS ) .• ••••••••• •• 73 Affec:ti veRelations. .... ... ...... .. ... ....... 7S Affecti veCommunicationscefe(AFe ) •.••• 7S ProblemSolvingComrnunic:ati on ••••.•••••.••••• 77 Pro b l emSolvingCommunica tion .sceIe(PSC). 77 Quality and Quanti ty ofTim eTog ether •••••• •• 79
TimeTogetherScal e ('I'TO) 79
Agre ementAbout Financ:es••.• .•.•.•••••.••••.• 81 Disagr e emen t About Fi nancesScale(FI N).. 81
vI PAGE Sexual Satisfaction.•• • •• • • •• • •• • • • •• •• • •• ••• 83
Sexual DJ.ssatisfac:tionScale (SEX) •••• •• 83 Maritaland ParentalRoles. . .. . . . ... .... . .. 85 Role Orientation Scale (HOR) •••••• • ••••• 85 Famil yHistory of Distress ... .... ... . ... . .... . 87 Family Historj'ofDistress Scale (FAN) •• 87 SatisfactionWith Children.. .... .... .... . .... 90 Dissatisfaction,,'ithCh ild r e n Scale (OSC). 90 Conflict Over Child Rearing....... . ..... .. ... 92 Conflict Over Child Rearing Scale (eCR).. 92
CurvilinearTrend in Marital Satisfaction.. . ..... . 94
Study Question'2 Maleand Female Differences Sex Differences, Perceptions&Expectations ofMarriage•• ••• ••• • •••••••••••••• ••••••••• ••••••• 95
perceptionsand Expectations ••• • •• ••••. •••.•• 95
StudyQuestion t3 Male andFemale Differences in Problem Solving.... ....... . ..... ..... .... . ... 99
Problem Solving Communication.. . . ... . .. ... .. 99
StudyOuestion,4 Male and Female Differences in Relationship Commitment..... .................... 103
RelationshipCommitment and GlobalSatisfactionl03
Study Question'5 Male and Female Differences in Affective Communication •.••• ••••• •• ••••• ••••••••l07
MaritalCommunication l07
.11
p"""
Religion ••• ••••••••••••• •• •••• •• •• •• ••••• • • ••• ••• I I I Pregnant Before Harriage and ChildrenBelore Harr iage•••• ••••••••• •••••• •••••• •• •• •••••••••••• 113
Per c ep t ions ofMar ital Sati s fa c t ion •••.• •. .•.• • •• 115
Sat i sfacti onwi th Pre s en tMar r i ageand Sat i sfac t i onwithPr e sentRel ations hi p .•.••• 115 Sati s f acti onwithInc r ea s ingYe arsHarried .. 116
Ye arsofReport HighestMari t a lSatisfacti on. 118 Power and Con f l I c t . . .... . .... . ..... .............. 118
FrequencyDlsiJgreementsSettled••••• •••••• •• 118 Timeto SettleDi s a g r ee men ts . ... . .. ... 120
Frequen tly Av o i d Disagreements...... . . .... .. 121
Accommod"elonofDisagreements..... . . .... . . . . 122
Decls1on5 Shared...... . ... .... ... ... ... . . . 124
WhoHak e s~cisions•••••••• •• • ••••••• ••• • ••• 125 Dominant Pe r s on (Decisions) ••••• •• ••• ••• •••• 12 5 DominantPerson(Percep tions) •••••• ••••••• • • 127 Infid,d ityand Impac t of Infidelity . ..... . . . 128
Phy s i c a l
Abuse ... ... .... ... ... ...
131SolvingPro blemsinTheirF~mll1e s••• • • • ••. • 132 Past ProblemImpac t •.••• •••• ••.• •••••• •..• •• 133
vi ii PAGE comp arison withthe Charac te ri s t icsof Last i ng Har riages Identifiedin the Research•••••••.•• •• • 134
DISCUSSION. . ........ ..... .... ....... .... ... ...... 13 8 Fami l ySt r e ng t hsand Marit al Satisfact ion . ....••• 138 Harital Sat is fact ionIn v ento ry (MSI)Compar i s on •• 141 Cur v iline ar U-Sha p edTre ndin Mar ital Sati sfaction 148 Rolo Or ient ati on (Mal e andFemaleDi ffer ence s) ••• 149 Pr obl em solvingCommun i ca tion (Male and Female Differen c es ) ..•••.••••• .••••••.••• •• ••••••••••••• 152 Mari talCommi t ment andGene ra l Marital
Sat isfaction(Mal~andFemaleDifference s) •• • •••• 153 Affec tive Communica ti on (Mal e and Female
Di f feren ces) .•.•••• •. • •..•• •••. • ••• •••••••• •••••• 155 Rol e Per ceptionsandCommunicat ion .••• •• • •.• ••••• 15 6 Power andCon flict ... ............. .. .. . ......... . 159 Rel igion andLasti ng Mar r iage s....... ...... ...... 163 Pr egn antBefor eMarriage ......... .. ....... ... .... 163 PresentMarital Sat isfa c t ion andYears of
ReportedHighestMarit al Sati sfac tion ..... .. .. .. . 16 4
CONCLUSION• • • • ••• ••• . ••••• ••• ••••.•• .•• • •••• ••••. 167
REFERENCES•••.••• .•. .•• •••••• • ••••• •••• •••••• • ••• 170 LIST OFTABLES •••• ••• • •• ••••••••••••••••••••••••• ix LISTOFAPPENDI CES••••••• ••••••• • • •••• • •••••• •••• xi i
Table 5
LISf OF TABLES
PAGl<
Table 1 Number of YearsMarried .. ••••.••.•. .••• 65 Table 2 Vari able24: Occup a t i on ••••• • •• ••••• •• 68 Table 3 Variable 20J: Family strength sfor
Long Lastingand Very Long Lasting Marriages •••..•••••. .•••• . .• .••• • •••.•. 70 Table 4 Variable 202: Conventionalizationin Long
Lasting Marriages and Very Long Lasting Marriages••.•• • • • ••••••• •• ••• • ••••• • •• • 72 Variable 203: Distress in Long Lasting Marriages and Very Long LastingMarriages 75 Table6 Variable 204: Affectivecommunication in
Long Lasting Marriages and very Long Lasting Marriages•• • • ••.••••• ••.•.••. .. 76 Table 7 Variable205: Problem Solving Communication
in Long Lasting Marriagesand Very Long Lasting Marriages..••. .•••••••• • ••• ••• • 78 Table 8 Variable 206: Quality and Quantityai'
Time Together.:in Long Lasting Marriages and Very LongLastingMarriages •••• •••• 80 fable 9 variable 207: Disagreement About Finances
in Long LastingMarriages and Very Long Las t i v g Marriages •••• • • ••••• ••• ••• • • ••• 82 Table10 Variable208: Sexual Satisfactionin
Long LastingMarriagefil Bnd Very Long LastingMBrr~':"Jes.•• •••.• • • •.• ••.•••. . • 84 Table11 Variable 209: S.lKRoleAttitudesin
Long LastingMarriages ar.d Very Long LastingMarriBg~,s••••••• •.•• •••• • • ••• • 86 Table12 Variable 210: p'amlly Historyof Distress
in Long Lasting Marriagesand Very Long Lasting Marriages •• .• •. •••..•.••.•. ••• 88
PAGE
Table 13 Variable 211: Dissatisfaction With Children in Long Lasting Marriages and VeryLongLastin~1Marriages.. .. ... 91 Table 14 Variable 212: Conflict Over Child
Rearingin Long Lasting Marriages and Very Long LastingMarriages•.• ••. . 92 Table 15 MS1 T-Scores: Long Lasting and Very Long Lastingmarriages..... . . .... .. . .... 94 Table 16 Variable 90 and variable 209:
Role Orientation Male and Female Differences in Long Last Lng Marriages and Very Long Lasting Marriages..... 97 Table17 Variable86and Variable 205:
Problem Solving Male and Female Differences in Long Lasting Mar riages and VeryLon gLas t in g Marriages •••• ••• 101 Table18 Variable84 and Variable 203:
Male and Female Differences Rela tionshipCommitment and Global SatisfactionLong Lasting Marriages and Very Long Lasting Marriages•••••.• 10 4 Table19 Variable85 and variable204:
Maleand Female Differences Mari talCommunicationLong Lasting Marriages and VeryLon g Lasting
Marriages •.• . .•• • .••• ••• ••• •.••••••••. 108 Table20 Variable 19 : Bre akdown of Religion .. . 112 Table21 Variable 20 andVar i ab l e 21:
Change ReligionatMarriageby
Levelof Religiousness •••••. . ••• .••• . . 113 Table 22 Variable26: PregnantBefore Marriage 114 Table 23 Varia bl e 29: Satisfaction With Present
Rela t i ons h i p .... ... . .. . ..... . . .... . . .. 116
xi
PAGE Table24 Variable 31: Satisfaction with
Increasing Years Married. •• •••• •• ••• ••. 117 Table 25 Variable 33: FrequencyDisagreements
Settled •••••• ••••• • •• • • ••••••••••••• ••• 119 Table 26 Variable 34: Time to Settle
Disagreements. •••• •• •• • ••• ••• •• • •• ••••• 120 Table 27 Variable 35: Frequency Disagreements
Avoided •••••••••••••• ••• ••••••••• ••• • •• 121 Table 28 Variable 36: Accommodationof
Disagreements..•• •• • •.•.•• •.•. .• •.. • •.• 123 Table 29 Variable 37: Important Decisions Shared 124 Table 30 Variable 39: Dominant Person (Decisions) 126 Table 31 Variable 40: Dominant Person
(Perceptions) •••••••••• •• •• • •••• ••••••• 127 Table 32 Variable 66: ImpactofInfidelity..... 129 Table 33 Marital Satisfaction (Variable 29)
and Relationship Satisfaction
(Variable 30) Where Infidelity Occurred 130 Table 34 Variable 81: Solved Problems.. ... . 132 Table 35 Variable82: Past Problem Impact •.••.• 134 Table 36 Characteristics of Lasting Marriages:
Variable 41to Variable 63••••••• •••••• 135
LIST OF APPENDICES
PAGB
(A) In f o rma t i on for MediaAdvertisement,Doctor' s LeafletandChurchBulletins ... . . ... .... .. . 178 (B) Letter to Physicians and Clergy.... ... . ... .... 179 (e) Information for Potential participants Who
Inquire About the Study.... ...•.. . 181 (D) Short LetterofAppeal
.... ... ... ... ...
183 (B) Covering Letter.. ... .... .... .. ... ... . ... 18' (F) Consent to Participatein a study of theCharacteristics of Lasting Marriages.. . .... . .. 18.
(G) Letter of Introduction School of Social Work.. 189 (H) Que s t i onnai r e LastingMarriages.... ... .. 190 (I) Western Psychological Service Administration
Booklet and Answer Sheet ...................... 198 (J) Final Instructions... .. ... . . ........... . ... ... 199 (K) List of V4ri4bles In Res94rcher's
Questionnaire.. ..... ... . ... .... . ... . . . .•... ...200 (L) Marital Satisfaction Inventory (NSI)
Guide to the WPS Report .... .•.. . .•.... ... .. . .. 205 (1'1)WesternPaychological Service Permission .. ... 206 (N) Permissiontouse Family Strengths Scale...... 207 (0) Letter of Approval From the Sub-colWllittee of
the SenateResearchCOlWllittee .....•. . . .... 208
Lasting HarriagetJ
INTRODUCTION
This 3tudy investigates conufll.lnication, perception, c!lnurritment and intimacy in lasting marriages. In addressing lasting marriages, thisstudy meets aneed for empirical research. The findings provIde knowledge for social work assessment, counselling and therapy in intervention with couples. The findings also provide some direction for prevention of marital dissolution with eXisting marriages and second marriages.
This inquiry begins by examining some of the literature and researchon family and marital strengths.
A theoretical position is taken that defines marital relationships and satisfaction in terms of a cognltive- interactional theory base.
In contrast tomore traditional studies offamily dysfunction and marital dissolution, this study focuses onthe question, "What are the charaateristics oE lasting marriages? "
Lasting Marriages 2 ARBVIEff OF THE LITERATURE
Family StrengthslFlUJIily Well-Being
The concepts of family and couple cannot be dissociated in addressing lasting marriages. It will be established that many characteristicsoffamily strengths and marital strengths are overlapping. In approaching the concept of family1 a forthcoming section of this inquiry will describe marital satisfaction as it is experienced throughout the family life cycle. The primary focus of this inquiry is on lasting marriages;
however, it isfirst necessarytoexplorethe concept of family functioning and how it relates to family strengths/familywell-being.
Stinnett (1981)states:
The dream of facilitating strong families which produce emotionally and socially healthy individuals can be realized. This is a vitally important dream andsh o ul d be a top priority in our nation, because strong families are the roots of ourwell-being as individuals and as a society (Stlnnettl 19811 p. 3).
LastingHarriages 3 Wari ng(198 3) summar izesthat, "f amil y therapis ts haveconsistent ly fou ndtha t chi.l dren with probl ems come
from homes where the re are dist ur bed husband - wi f e re l ationsh i p s " (p. 43).
Throug hout the hi s t or y of social work pract ice , an effor t isoft en made toide n t i fyandde vel op strengt hsin familiesand couples toimpr ove the overall quali ty at tlJeir lives. Mary Richmond (19 1 7) sta tes, "Whatever ecce n t rici ties afamily maydev e l op, thetrai t offamil y solidarity, ofhangin gtogetherthroughthi ck andthin, is anas s e tforthe socialwor ker, and one that he sho ul d use to the uttermost" (p. 13 9) . If theobjectiveis to faci lit ate strong famlli Qs , it is first ne ce s sary to iden ti fy the charac t er i sti c s that ex ist in st ron g and effecti ve families.
A revi ew of the literat ure indi ca t es that there is rel a t ively li ttl e re se arch on the clini c al study of coup les or familie s who ar e hea lthy or func t i on we ll (Beave r s, 198 5; Gan tman , 1980; St innett, 1985 ; &
Schlesin ger, 19 84). Tr ad i ti onally, cli n icians ha ve viewed families in terms ofpat holo gy and with little foc us on healt hy family func t i oning (Wal sh, 19 89 ) .
"Normal' family funct i oning is of tenbase don the
Lasting Marriages 4 ther ap i s t's subj ective perception of normal family functioning . Kazak et a1. (1989) explains that the therapist'sconceptofnormal families may be different from the cl i en t's, The researchers explain that per ce p t i on s may vary between ther api sts of di ffer e n t or i gi n s . Therapist ' ssUbjective perceptions of normality may be in f l ue nce d by their re gul ar involvement with distressedfamili es. Also,processesin the therapist's own family of ori gin may similarly influence their perceptionsofnonnality (Kazaketal., 19 8 9 ).
ot the literature that is available , much is assoc i a ted with the theoretic al persp e ctiveofsystems theory (Barnhill,1979;Beavers,1985;IiGantman, 19 80 ). In Bar nh ill ' s (1979) review of the lit eratur e , he identities ei gh t polar dimension s of healthy family functioning and pathology: individuality enmeshment,mutualityversusisolation, st ab i l i t yver sus disorganization, clear versus unclear or distor ted perception , clear
communication , flexibility
unclear distorted rigidity, rol e re c i p r oc i t y vers us unclear roles or role conflict, and cl e ar diffused or breached generational bound ar i es. From asy s t em' S theor ype r s pe ct ive,
Barnhill (1979) believes that these dimensions interrelated and can interact with one another in causing familyproblems.
Gantman (1980) asserts that becauseofthe differing concepts of normality, the definition of a "normal family" is quite complex. She explainsthat in many instances, the definitions are limited in that they only account for individual functioning as opposed to the total family system. For this reason, she proposes a systems approach in describing the characteristics of well-functioning families. In comparison to disturbed families she identifies research findings which establish that well-functioning families are more effective in decision making; family members are more supportive of each other; they are expressive and conununicate in noisy, discontinuous speech patterns; they have a well defined power structure;they have clear generational boundaries;
family members showrespect for each other'suniqueness,"
they have adaptive mechanismsto copewith dis- equilibrium,an atmosphere of autonomy with a warm and flexible family structure;and healthy families perceive reality accurately and accept change and loss (Gantman, 1980) •
Lasti ng Marria gesPage 6
Gantman's (1980) sy stems perspective on family function i ng is alsorefl e c t ed inth e work ofearlier systems-oriented theo rists such as Virginia Satir . In Banmen's (1986) analysis ol Satir's model of family therapy he identi fies the following attri butes which existin func t i onal fami l i es:
(1) Fami lymembersexperiencecaring,warmt h, and tenderness. (2) Membe r s areempathic, trusting, andopen. (3) Members tolerate indi v i d ua li t yand shoW'respect lo rthe view of
others. (4) Membersshare power,do th ings togethe r ,andsupporteachother. (5) Member s share it sonse ofhumour and fun. (6) There is an honesty in agreemen t and disagreement situations.
(7) Memberscommunicatedirectly. (8) Members have andsha re solf-wo rt h(Banmen, 19 86, p.481 ) .
In re s p ons e to it national lorum to exami ne the strengt hsofAmer i canfami l i e s,Tanner - Nelsonand Banon is (1981) report on the efforts tak e n by the state of Delaware toidenti fy family strengths . In one of many ef f or t s, inf ormal di s c us s ions wore held with25 families thr ou gh out the state. They were asked the
Lasting Marrillges Page 7
question, "what does a strong family need?" (Tanne r Nelson & Banonis, 1981, p. 5). The most frequent response tothe questionincluded: lov e and concern, knowing you can talk about problems, commitment, sacrifice,doing things together, and understandingand resp ec t for children.
Stinnett (1985)believes that thest r eng ths and value placed on the family are factors whi ch determine the strength of a nation. Through his research(Oklahoma study) Stinnett (l98S) and associates identified six qualities in strong families: (I) appreciation, (2) spendingalot of timetogether, (3)good cOJ1l/Ilun ication (p ut t i n g conflict in the open and discussingit ) , (4) a hi gh degree of commitment,(5)ahighdegree of religious orientation, and (6)the abilitytodeal with stressin apos i t i ve mannerand see some positiveeleme nts.
FamilyLite Cycle- Mar ital Satisfaction
Mar ital satisfaction thro ughoutthe life cycle does not necessarilyfollowapath ofli near decline. There is evidence tosupport the belief that growthCBnexist at the la t e rst ages of the life cycle. Erikson, Erik son and Kivnick (1986) st ate ; "Th e life cycle,
LastingMar r iag es Page 8
however, does more than extend itself into the next generation. It curves back on the li f e of the individual, allowing as we have indicated, a re- experiencing of earlierstages in a newform"(page327). That is, these and other interpretations suggest that maritalsat isfactionchanges throughout the life -cyclein acurvilinearU-shapedcurve.
Based on Erikson, Erikson and Kivnick's (1986 ) analysis of marital sat is f ac tion it would appear that satisfaction is based an the individual ' s sUbjective evaluationofhow they perceiveth e i r situation. It is not the experiences per se but th e percep tions and meaningderived from the situation and themeanings it has at the present time. In Erikson, Erikson and Kivnick's (1986) study of the latersta gesin thelife cyc lethey describe thatthrough thei r observa tionsmany of theeldersweresatisfied withth e i r lifechoicesand the people they married; even though individuals experiencedprofo und"unhappi ness"and"re s tle s sne s s" in earlier periods oftheir lives. It appears tha t elde r l y people experience satis fac tioninthe lat er stagesofthe lif e cyclerega rdlessofear lierexperiences. These observati ons are congruen t wit h the more general
Lastin gMarriag e sPage9
cogni tive - humanis t i cposi t ion in social work (Gold stein, 1984), tha t sat is f ac t i onis de t ermi ne d by themeaning derived from the coupl e ' s or individual' 8 percepti on, inte r pret a tionand understandi ng of thei r sit uati on and marria ge.
Gil f or d and Bengtson (19 79) reviewe d stud ies that showa lineardec l i ne in mari t a l satis faction throughou t the stage s ofthelife cycle with the lowestlevel of satisfac t ion being at theemp t y nest or the retiremen t stage. Th e st Udy (Gilford& Bengt s on , 1979) , didno t support earlier re search. They report on findingsfrom a random samp l e of 1,056 married members of three- gener at iona l fami l i e s , whowereused tode vel op atwo- dime ns iona l measure ofmari t a l sat is f ac tion: 'positive interact i on and neg ati ve sentimen t '. These res ul t s supp or t a curvilineartrendin terms of the pat t ern of pos itivein t erac tion,andalineardeclinewith regar dto progressi onof negative sen ti ment. The conc l usion isthat theseresult sdonot support a lineardecl in e inmari t al sat is f ac t ion in the laterstage of the life cycle.
Other ev i denc e sugge sts that couple s who percei ve theirmarriageassat is f y i ng in lateryearshaveusually beensat i s f i ed from thebeginning ; and likewis e , those
Lasting Marriages Page10 who perceive their marriage as unsa t is fy i n g were unsatisfiedfromth e beginning(Frie d ' Stern, 1972). Hith respecttoparticularcouples, thismay not always be the situati on. However,opp os i ng eviden c e suggest s that earlier experience s while they may have some influen cein de t e rmi ni n g satisfaction in later years, the s dex per i ence s donot ens ur ethat theperception of marital satisfaction in later yearswillnot be somewhat indep e nden tof (orincongruentwith )earlierexperiences (Erikson,Erikson&Kivnick, 1986).
Stinnett,Ca rter,and Montgomery(1972) offer further evidence to suggest that marital disenchan tmentoverthe life cyclemay in fact be amyth. In their study,they foundthat ol der couples perceivedtheir marriages as favourableandincreasingin later years. Most elderly respondents reported the present to be the happiest periodofboth marriage andof lifein general (Stinnett, Carter, s Montgomery, 19 72 ).
Lasting ltarri ageslllarJ t al Strengths
Sah} "singer and Tenhouse-Glblon (1984) promote a positive perspectiveonmarriagein the 80's. They believethatst ay i n g marriedis enjoying are newal in th e
Lasting Marriages Page 11
1980's; ~nowthat we have entered the 80's, and the 'flower children' are gro....n up, it appears that thereis a new focus in North American family life - on functioning families and lasting marriage" (S chl e s i nge r s Tenhouse-Giblon, 1984,p ,2).
Contrary to popular opinion there is evidence to suggest that long marriages are not unusual (Mudd &
Taubio, 1982; Schlesinger & Tenhouse-Giblon 1984).
Schlesinger and Tenhouse-Giblon, (1984)refertoNewsweek (1984), which points out that in the United States, fifty -eightpercent (58%) of all first marriages last
than fifteen years, fifty-two percent (52\) than twenty years, and forty-seven per cen t (4 7\ ) more than twenty-five years. Al s o , in the year 1976, two- thirds (64.2%) of Canada's adult population ages fifteen yearsandolder were married. In 1980, 191,069 marriages took place, which was an increase from 187,811,in 1979 (Schlesinger& Tenhouse-Giblon, 1984). Based on the above, marital life in North America, includingCanada would appear to support some lasting relationships . A focus on lastingmarriagesandpermane nce,as opposed to marital dissolution, provides a rich ground for systematic inquiry .
Lasting Marriages Page 12
Gutknecht and West (1985) support thepr emi s e that lastingmarriages~;;ever ypr eva l en t inour societ y.
They explain that the tact that there is a small percentage of couples who marry three ormor e times adds toa distorted picture ofthe existence of divorce. They state, "••.44%of divorcedindividualswho remarrywill divorce again, which pushes up the to t al percent ot marriages that will end in divorce in the long term"
(Gutknecht&West, 1985, p.181). Theyalso explain th at ,
"two of every threefi r s t marriages last ali fetime and about three-fourths of all who divorce remarz y "
(Gutknecht&We s t ,1985 , p.181). Theseinterpreta t ions alsosupporta research focus onlasting mar riagesand marital strengths.
Professor Ben Schl esinger and students at the Uni ver s i t yofToronto,Schoolof SocialWork, defineda lasting marriageaslastingfi f t e en years orlonger and havingat leas t onechil d (Schl e sin ger &Tenhouse - Giblon, 1984). The study involved 129 couples who vol untoered through an advertisement in a Tor on t o newspaper. Sixty - twocouples wereinterviewedand sixty- seven coupleswere mailed que stionnai r e s. The coup les identifiea the following as contributing toa lasting
LastingMar riage s Page 13
marriage: the qualityof themarriage (respect, lov e , loyalty, honesty,etc.), couple interaction(comfortable with each other), friendship intimacy and fidelity, emotional aspects (consideration, dependabi lity, emotional support,sharing sadness andjoys), honesty in cO/lUllunication, views (commitment to the marriage), individual identity, and problem solving (ability to solve problems , confront and work out problems).
In atwe nt y-y e a r on goi n g study ofsucce ssful family functioning,Mudd and Tabin (1982) report findingsthat are fundamentalto enduringfamily life. The study began with 100 families in 1957-1960 and a follow-up questionnaire wascomp l e t e d by 59 familie s in 1978-1979.
The findings suggest that within well-function ing familiesfamily dyn"mics,areegal i t arian and democratic, there are often fr eq uent re l ati ons or ongoingcontact with adult chi l dren , important sources ofst r e ngt h are through close friendships and active community involvement, few troubling situations are defined as problemsandperceived problemsare often resolvedwithin the family,thecouples expressedcontinuingsatisfaction wi t h marriage and fami ly, and couples are optimistic about the future and anticipate positives in later
Lasting Marr:iages Page14
development. The concl usionreached wasthat planning, altruism, affection,democracy and economic opportu nity are important to enduring family li f e .
Klagsburn(1985)operationalizedthe lasting marriage as fifteen years or more. The reason is that the majority of marital separationstakeplaceearlier and because this population was sUbjectedtothe sweepingand vulnerablechanges of the 1960'sand the19 70 ' s . In her research, she identifieseight categoriesthatare often foundinstrong marriages, which includesthose with; (1) an ability tochange and toleratechange;(2)an ability to live witb the unchangeable; (3) an assumption of permanence; (4) trust; (5) a balance of power; (6) enjoyment of each othe r; (7) a sharedhistory that is che rished ;and (B) luck in choosing apar t ner who hasth e capacity to change,tr us t and lov e.
Sporakowski and Hugh s t on (1979) approachedlasting mar r iageby assessing marita.l satisfactionandmarital perception over the lifecycle. In their study , the y askedcouples (married50ormore years) what the y believed to be the most important fac t ors in ahappy marriage. The following responses were rec ei ved:
importance of religion; love; give and take - tal ki ng
Lasti ng Mar r i age s Page 15 things through ;home, fami l y andchildren; it takestwo to make a marriage work ; marriage is for li fe ,' unde r s t an di ng and patience; and hones t y and tr us t. significant finding was that the couples reported the aging years as most satisfyingas it meant mor e time togethe r , traveland activities which they did nothave time for inprevious year s .
Beavers(1985) suggeststhat he althy couplesoperate onwhat he interprets as "a syst emspoint of view" (p . 72). Within the systems theo retical perspeotive, he defines healthy couples as: (1) placing meaning to enterpriseand supporting each other's needs, (2)having a modest overtpower difference, (3)having the cap acity for clear boundaries, (4) operating mainly in the present as opposed to al lowing past pr ob lems and influencesby th ei r families of origin toimpact their present situation, (5) having respect for individual choi c e andautonomy, (6 )havingskillsin negotiati ng, and (7)sharing positive feelin gs.
The concept of power, aswit hother aspects of family dynamics, canbe deno te d in terms of the individual'sor family ' s perceptionsanddefinitionsofthemeaningthat it hasfor them. Lath am(1986)maintains that the issue
Lasting Marriages Page 16
ofpower balance,H • • •depends not only on the views of the members as to what ought to be the balance but on their perception of what actually is the position"
(p.12S). Inotherwords, in contrast to the therapist's perceptions, the couple may view their relationship as existing with little or no power differential with respect to their positions in the relationship. This interpretation is consistent with the cognitive- humanistic theoretical perspective.
In a study of the vital marriage,Ammons and Stinnett (1980) attempted to identify those personality characteristics that enable couples to develop and maintain a vital relationship. They found the following characteristics to be important; sex, reciprocity, determination, commitment and ego strengths. The findings suggested that sexwasan important componentof the couple'sinterpersonal relationship as a means of sustaining intimacy. Reciprocity was important in terms ofthe couple's expression of understanding and support in the relationship. Expression of needs reinforce positive self concept (Ammons&Stinnett, 1980). They al s o point out that the couples were committed to the relationship and determined to see it through. They were
Lasting Marriages Page 17
capable of doing so because they have, .. . .. a clear visionof what theywant and express personalityneeds which enable themtorealize their aspirations'"(Ammons
&Stinnett , 1980, p.40J. Ego st ren gt h swas interpreted
as beingimp or t ant in terms of the couples ability to function autonomously and to be sep ar at e from their spouse. The paradoxseems tobethat individualization andthe developmentof autonomymay be encouragedby a satisfying and support ive couple bond. A sense of individualityass i s t s withthedevelopmentof apositive selfconcept and the personalcontentmentnecessaryfor emotional bonding (Cowan& Kinder, 19BB).
Hari t al Strengths
Cen t r al themesthr ough out the researchpresentedthus far, are the importance ofcommuni cation , perception, commitment andint im acyin optimal family functioningand instro n g , lastingmarriages. The purpose of this study is to des cribe the char ac t er i s t i cs of satisfying and lastingmarriages andre l a tedfamily well-being,in terms ofconununi ca t i on , pl!lrception,
commitment and intimacy. In thi s section, a reviewof theresearchthat will enable the achievement of clarity
Last ing Mar ri ages Page 18
and operationalizationofthese dimensionsas variable sets, is analyz-ed .
COIIIIlIunica t ionandPercep tion
Satir (1972 ) states , "Z see communicationas ahuge umbr el l a thatcoversandaffects allthat goes onbetween human beings" (p . 30 ) and ".••communication is the largest single factor determi ning what kinds of relations hipshe makes with others and whathappens to him in thewor l d about him" t»-30). Accor di n g to Banmen (1986), Batir focuseson actions, re acti on s , and interactions,and denotescommunica tionas a " ••• means bywhichpeople measure each other's feel i ng of self- wor th." (Banmen, 1986, p , 483). In other words, communication patterns are perceived in terms of emotional expression , " •• • and the meaning of the feelings individua ls have as a reaction to the communication" (Banmen, 1986, p.481). This is consistent withth e inte ractiona l persp e c t i v ewhi ch maintai nsthat meaning der i ved in interaction variesfr omind i vidual to individual and from si tu ation tosituation
(Burr , at al., 19 79 ).
Al ex and er (197 3 )distinguishes betwe en supporti veand
defensive communication.
Lasting MarriagesPage 19
He denotes defensive communication (Gibb, 1973) as verbal and nonverbal behavioursthatare eit herthreateningorpunishing and which re ci proc al l y invite and produce defensive behaviours. Supportive communication is genuine, information-seekingandgiving, on a level of empathic understanding and equality (Gibb, 1973). Supportive communication elicits productive interactions, lowe r e d anxiety and clearer communications.
Other research indicates that perception and communi c a t i on are important determinants to the quality ofthe marriage (Zakerin, 1983;Strucker, 1971;Allen&
Thompson, 1984). Strucker (1971) explainsthat i f role concepts are similar (i.e. common expectations and perceptions of responsibilities) communications effective and the relationship existing between the mar riagepartnersis moresatisfactorytoboth.
Differences in perceptions may cause disagreements, misundersta nding and problems within the marital relationship(Allen&Thompson, 198 4 ) . There is empirical supportfor the hyp ot h e s i s that, "more direct agreementbetween partners will le ad to more satisfying communicationfor both partne rs"(Allen&Thompson, 1984 ,
LastingMar ri ages Page20
p. 917). Direct agreeme n t was conceptualized in te.rms of their di rectperceptionson var iousaspectsoris s ues in their relationship suchas religiousbelief, household tasks, and finances. Themeasuring instrument thatwas used was a que sti onnaire designedin conjunct ion with Laing et al.'s (1 966) Int erp ers onal perception Hodel . Perceptionalso ap pears import ant inth e laterstages of marriage. In Sporak ows k i and Hughs t on's (1978) st udyof older couplesthey foundthat congruenceofperception of spouses continued to be of major significancein relation tomarital satisfaction .
Consistentwith role theory, Biddle (198';)maintains that human behaviour is both predictable and different depending on respective social identities and the situationthat existsin a social interaction. Recent development inrol e research proposes thatperceptions in mar r iage are importa nt tomarital satisfaction (Bahr , Chappel l &Lei gh , 1983; Strucker,1971; Bochner, Krueger
&Chmielewski , 1982). For example , ina stUdy of 12 6 couples (BOchner, Krueger & Chmielewski , 1982 ) the results showed II substantial association be tw een perceivedrol e discrepancyand marital adjustment. That is , it was determinedthatit was notth e accuracy per se
Lasting Marri ages Page 21
but the perception of what one spouse 'believed' the other perceivedthat 'd e f i ned 'congr uenc e ofper c ep t i ons for thecouple. In other words, .. 'whathe thinks she thinks' and 'what she thinks he thinks' about each other's performance ofins t r umen t al and companionship roles is more important to marital satisfaction than wh et her the husband'sandwi f e' sperceptionsareinfac t accurate" (Bochner,Krueger&Chmielewski,1982, p. 135'.
Bahr, Chappell and Leigh (19 83' studied the relationship betwe en age at marriage, role enactment, role consensus andmarital satisfaction. They denoted the quality of role enactment as Hthe perceived competencewith which roletafiks are performed" (Bahr, Chappell & Leigh, 19 83, p. 797). Self role enactment re f e r s tothe individual'sperception of how well he or she willenactarole. Spouserol e enac tmentrefers to how well the individua l perceives their spouse as enacting II role (Bahr, Chappell, &Leigh,1983) . Role consensusrefersto ....•theperceived amountof agreement between hus band and wife re gar di n g expectations and values inspecific roles" (Bahr ,Chappel l &Lei gh , 19 83, p, 797). The findingssuggestthat age at marriagehad aweak associationwith self roleenactment,spouse rol e
LastingMarriagesPage 22
enactment, and role consensus; the qualityofsel f role enactment had a small relationsh ip with marital satisfaction:and the qual i ty ofspous erole enactment and role cons ensus had a pos i t i ve ass ociation with mar ital sa t is fa ction. The se findings aler t the practitioner to the importanc e of perception and consensusof perception in maritalrelationships, asa cons i derat ion separate from the con gr ue nce of ac tions with defini tions ofreality. Forexample, "qual ity of roleenactment refers totheperceivedcompetencewith whi chrol etasksareperformed"(Bahr,Chappe l l &Le igh, 1983, p. 797 ).
Montgomery (1981) defi nes quali ty communication as
"the interpers onal , transa ctional, sy mbol ic proc es s by which mar r i age partners ach i eve and maintain understandingofeach other" (p.21 J. The importanceof communic ationin marriage1s not only relatedtoquality butalso toperc epti on of quali ty . Take, for example, those couples who argue constantly and st i l l perceive theirmarriageassatisfactory. The therapis tmay defi ne problemsin themarriage ;however,the fact remains that the coup le may no tperceivesi milar problemsas existing.
If theydotheymaynotpercei ve the problems as having
Lasting Marriages Page 23
a negative impact on howsatisfiedthey ac t ua ll y f891 with their relationship. For the clinician the issueis twofold: (1) is there joint ownership of the problem, and (2) is the problem perceived as sufficiently significant to motivate change.
The symbolic process of communication by which partners interpret messages, involves both verbal and non-verbal abstractions of reality (Montgomery, 1981). '"Le arni ng what a symbol is, 1s only one of the processes that occurin the mind;another process 1slear ni ng to make evaluate distinctionsabout symbols'" (BurretaI., 1979,p. 46). Burr et aj, (1979) maintains that i f communication is conceivedas a cognitive process, it involves a mental process which is learned from interaction with individuals. The mental process involves acquiringsymbols,which are mental abstractions such as wordsor ideas. These symbols acquire meaning through interaction withothers. The importance appears to be that meaning 1s derived not only from apparent symbols such as speech but also through non-verbal behaviour such as silence, gestures,tone of voice and so forth. Satir (1972) reviews the elements of the communicationprocess which includes, the body, values,
Lasting Marriages Page 24
expectations, sense organs, the ability to talk and the brain. The body refers to movement, form and shapo.
Values are the concepts of 'good' and 'bad ' that determines the person's way of living. His/her expectations are determinedbyexpectationsofthe moment and expectations formulated through past experiences.
The sense organs include eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and skin which enable the person to be aware of the physical and social environment around them. The ability to talk refers to the actual ability to speak (e.g. words and voice). Finally, the brainis considered the storehouse ofknowledge and experience that the person brings into the communication process. Good conununication is partially personalized to a relationship in that, ... good human relationsdependagreat dealonpeople's getting one another's meaning, whatever words they happen to use" (Satir, 1972, p. 47).
In terms of couple'scOJIlIIlunication, there is research tosuggest that there is a relationship between marital satisfaction and the accuracy of non-verbal communication (Kahn, 1970). Kahn (1970) administered the Marital Conununication Scale (MCS) and the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale to forty-twocollege couples and found
Lasting Marriages Page 25
that the dissatisfied couples were prone to mis- int erpr e t i n g each other's ncn-ve rba.l signals. The findingsindicatedthat mislI'lde rstandingofintentions that are conununicatednon- ver b ally is a major aspect of martial disharmony.
The research presented thus far has attempted to outline the importance ofcommuni cat i on (especiallythe process) and perceptions (especially sharedmeaning) as determinants of marital satisfaction. If communication is considered in terms of Satir'8model (Banmen, 1986) then therois a strong association betweencommunication and perception . Aspreviously noted, Satir denotes communication inte rms of emotion as expression,...and the meaningofthe feelingsindividualshaveas a reaction to th e cOJMIunication" (Banmen, 1986, p.481). The meaning derived from interactiolJor communicationis determined by indi vidualperceptionsand as previously not ed , ther e is a positive association betw6en similar perc ep t i ons (roleconcepts),effective communication and marital satisfaction.
Commi tw ent
Conunitmentis de f i n e d as, "t he extent towhich the
Lasting MarriagesPage 26 partners in a relationship either accept their relationship as continulngindefini telyordirecttheir behaviourto....ards ansuring itscontinuanceoroptimising its properties" (Hinde, 19 84 , p. 32). Chelune, etal.
(1984) point out that the relationship depends on the extent to which the couples believe in each other's commitment and that misunderstandingin theexpressionof commitment may stifle the growth of the intimate relationshipor initiate its decline. The cognitive- lnteractional perspective mainta ins that the couple's understanding of their relat ionship develops through interpretations and perceptions of meanings th a t are derived through th ei r interaction. (A more complete analysis of the cognitive-interactional theory is provided in the next section of th i s report). The difficultyinre s ear chi ng the concept of commitmentis the lack of quantification to make the concept more reliably observable (Hen dri ck & Hendrick, 1983). In tern s of a conceptualanalysis, Rosenblatt (1977) defines commitmentas, "an avowed or inferred intentof aper s on to maintain a relations hip"(p. 74). Ros enbl at t (1977) does not definecommitment asexisting simplybecause of marriage or because people decide to get married. He
LastingMarriages Page 27
maintains that while the problems may not increase conunitment, the staying together while feeling that one couldleaveis evidence of high cOJlIJllitment. Rosenblatt (1977) also refers to external forces which may also increase conunitment to the marriage; such as commitment tochildren and symbolic commitment through the marriage ceremony.
There is evidence to support that formal marri.age appears to imply commitment. Johnson (1983)interviewed married and cohabiting students and found thllt married studentswere more committed to and perceived more social pressure to maintain their relationship and marriage than the non-married cohabiting students.
Intimacy
If it is perceived that couples in lasting marriage are committed to the marriage, this does not necessarily imply that intimac:y exists. Chelune, Robison and Kommor (1984) states; "Unfortunately, many marriages and friendships c:an be c:onsidered'c l os e ' but not necessarily , intimate' relationships" (p. 26). According toMace (1982) intimacy implies shared privac:y, closeness and feelings of security and support. Intimacy involves a
Lasting Marriages Page 28
high degree of trust, which is built-up over time.
Through in t i macy a senseofunitydevelops;however, for growthin there l at i on s hi p to occur,parado xicallyeach personmust continue todevelop tobetheir own person (Mac e, 1982). The Eriksonian concept of intimacy imp l i e s , "•••intimacyasmutuality,orsharedfeelings, with aloved pereonof theoppo s ite sex, with whom the person is capabl e ofco- or di n ati n g thecycle s of work, recre ationand procreation " (Houle&Kiely,1984 , p.7) . Mutuality isconceivedas existingwhen the partners ar e in t e r dep en den t for the development oftheirrespective strengths. One primitive task people have to face is learning howtomaintain theirown integrityand identity whileengaging in deep intimate relationships(Hatfield, 1984). The mutual process is such that "both work, share, int eract and come to knowone another in great depth" (Chelune , et al., 1984, p. 29). It could be ar gued the n that in Bound lasting marriages abalance of shared intimacyand individual growth will be achieved.
In terms of a cognitive-interactional perspective, intimacyis de finedas "..•asubj ect i veappraisal, based upon int e r ac t i ve behaviours, that leads to cert ai n relat ionalexpectations" (Chelune, etal.,1984 ,P»13).
