ADV EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY,V 18
Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:
https://medipdf.com/product/adv-experimental-social-psychologyv-18/
Click Download Now
ADVANCES IN
Experimental
Social Psychology
EDITED BY
Leonard Berkowitz
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
MADISON, WISCONSIN
VOLUME 18
@ 1984
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
(Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers)
Orlando San Diego New York London
Toronto Montreal Sydney Tokyo
COPYRIGHT @ 1984, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR
TUNSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS. BLECTRONlC
OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY
MFORMATlON STOIUGB AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN WRITINO FROM THE PUBLISHER,
ACADEMIC PRESS,INC.
Orlando, Florida 82887
United Kingdom Edition publislsed by
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD.
24/28 Oval Road, London NWI 7DX
LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS CATALOOC- NUMBER: 6 4 -2 3 4 52
ISBN 0-12-015218-5
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AME-
84 85 86 87 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
Contributors ...................................................... vii
A Typological Approach to Marital Interaction:
Recent Theory and Research
Mary Anne Fitzpatrick
I. Introduction ....................................................... 2
11. A Typological Approach ............................................. 3
lll. Early Validation Studies ............................................. 12
IV. Communication in Couple Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
V. Conclusions and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Groups in Exotic Environments
Albert A. Harrison and Mary M. Connors
1. Introduction ....................................................... 50
11. Group Composition ................................................. 57
111. Social Structure .................................................... 64
IV. Group Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
V. Toward a Revitalization of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Balance Theory, the Jordan Paradigm,
and the Wiest Tetrahedron
Chester A. Insko
1. Introduction ....................................................... 89
11. The Jordan Paradigm ............................................... 90
V
vi CONTENTS
111. The Wiest Tetrahedron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
IV . The Logic and Non-Logic of Thought and Feelings ....................... 136
References ........................................................ 137
The Social Relations Model
David A . Kenny and Lawrence La Voie
1. Introduction ....................................................... 142
I1. Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
111. Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
IV . Statistical Analysis ................................................. 163
V. Design of Experiments .............................................. 167
VI. Group Effects ..................................................... 170
VII . Relation to Other Procedures ......................................... 171
VIII . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................. 173
IX. Conclusion ........................................................ 176
................................................ 178
Coalition Bargaining
S . S . Komorita
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
I1 . Classification of Coalition Situations ................................... 188
111. Coalition Formation in Simple Games .................................. 194
IV . Coalition Formation in Multivalued Games .............................. 214
V. Situational Factors in Coalition Bargaining .............................. 232
VI . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
When Belief Creates Reality
Mark Snyder
I. Introduction . . . . ......................................... 248
11. Behavioral Confirmation in Social Interaction ........................... 250
111. Behavioral Confirmation: A Theoretical Account ......................... 257
IV . A Taxonomy of “Belief Creates Reality” Processes ...................... 262
V. Disconfirmation Outcomes ........................................... 285
VI . The Nature of Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
VII . Conclusions ....................................................... 298
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Index ........................................................... 307
Contents of Other Volumes ........................................ 311
CONTRIBUTORS
Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors’ contributions begin
Mary M. Connors (49), Ames Research Center, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Moffett Field, California 94035
Mary Anne Fitzpatrick ( l ) , Department of Communication Arts, Univer-
sity of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Albert A. Harrison (49), Department of Psychology, University of Cal-
ifornia, Davis, Davis, California 95626
Chester A. Insko (89), Department of Psychology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
David A. Kenny (141), Department of Psychology, University of Con-
necticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268
S . S. Komorita (183), Department of Psychology, University of Illinois.
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Lawrence La Voie (141), Department of Psychology, University of
Miami, Coral Gables, Florida 33124
Mark Snyder (247), Department ofPsychology , University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
vii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
A TYPOLOGICAL APPROACH
TO MARITAL INTERACTION:
RECENTTHEORYANDRESEARCH
Mary Anne Fitzpatrick
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
MADISON. WISCONSIN
I . Introduction ............................................................. 2
A. Purpose ............................................................. 2
B. The Construction of an Empirical Typology................................ 2
I1 . A Typological Approach .................................................. 3
A. Critique of Previous Approaches......................................... 3
B. The Basic Dimensions ................................................. 4
C . The Relational Definitions . . . . . .................................... 7
D . The Relational Types: Comparison of Husband and Wife Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . 9
E. Sampling of Couple Types.............................................. 11
I11. Early Validation Studies ................................................... 12
A . Expressivify and Instrumentality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B. Sex Role Orientations.....................................
C . Coorientational Accuracy ............................................... 16
D. Dyadic Adjustment .................................................... 18
E. Summary ............................................................ 21
N . Communication in Couple Types............................................ 22
A. Casual Interaction between Spouses ...................................... 22
B . Conflict in Marriage ................................................... 24
C . Control in Mamage ................................................... 28
D . Summary of the Communication Behavior in Couple Types., ................. 35
V . Conclusions and Future Research ........................................... 37
A. Description ......................................... .......... 39
B . Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
c. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 41
D . Explanation .......................................................... 42
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1
ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY.VOL . 18
Copyright 6 1984 by Academic Ress Inc
All nghts of reproduction in any form rewrved .
. .
ISBN 0-I201 52 18-5
2 MARY ANNE FITZPATRICK
I. Introduction
A. PURPOSE
Marriage and divorce are pervasive aspects of life in American society.
Over 95% of the adult population is or has been married (Rawlings, 1978). Even
though some estimates suggest that 40% of all marriages end in divorce (Glick &
Norton, 1976), about 80% of those who divorce marry again (Reiss, 1972).
Understanding the forces which hold a marriage together and those which en-
courage dissolution is of great value in this time of record high marriage, di-
vorce, and remarriage rates.
Scholars in a variety of academic disciplines pursue the search for the
causes of the success or failure of marriage. Historians (Gadlin, 1977; Shorter,
1975), sociologists (Burgess, 1981; Nye, 1976), psychologists (Gottman, 1979;
Weiss, 1975), and clinicians (Jacobson & Martin, 1976; Olson, 1976) offer a
variety of explanations for marital satisfaction and marital stability. From these
different perspectives, however, emerges a surprisingly consistent viewpoint.
That is, in our culture subjectively experienced contentment in a marriage is the
primary determinant of whether a marriage will remain stable or intact (Lewis &
Spanier, 1979). Furthermore, the communication that takes place between a
husband and wife leads to this contentment or satisfaction.
The purpose of this article is not to present a comprehensive discussion of
the merits or shortcomings of the research and theory on marital interaction but to
introduce a typology of marital relationships. The typology is based on the
assumption that only by describing relationships in reference to dimensions
defined a priori as important aspects of marital life can we understand the
communication that occurs in those relationships, as well as the outcomes emerg-
ing from a couple’s communicative exchanges. This article describes the devel-
opment of an empirical typology of marital relationships. We examine the basis
for typological construction, the development of the measurement, and the early
validation work linking the types to other variables of interest. Finally, the
relationship between marital types and communication behavior is presented.
B . THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EMPIRICAL TYPOLOGY
The primary goal of a typology is to construct an orderly scheme for the
classification and description of social phenomena (Reynolds, 197 1; Zetterberg ,
1965). Although there are a variety of ways to approach typological construc-
tion, the most useful one is a polythetic method of classification (Bailey, 1975;
Fitzpatrick, 1976; Sneath & Sokal, 1973). In a polythetic approach to classifica-
MARITAL INTERACTION 3
tion, the logical model is tested by a statistical one in which types are assumed to
constitute a subpopulation with a certain probability distribution (Fleiss & Zubin,
1969; Wolfe, 1970). The polythetic model replaces the present or absent orienta-
tion of the classic, monothetic model with an ordering procedure in which the
dimensions of the typology are ordered from high to low on a continuous scale.
This procedure permits more subtle distinctions among types (Sneath & Sokal,
1973).
A polythetic classification scheme places individuals in the same type when
they possess a large number of shared characteristics. Members of a given type,
though not identical on every dimension, do share a similar pattern of charac-
teristics. A polythetic model is more parsimonious than the classical methods of
typology building because it is based on empirical data. Consequently, it does
not define empirically null types.
The empirical model of the classification of plants, animals, individuals,
societies, or cultures demands that the measures on which a typology is based be
objective, repeatable, and explicit (Sneath & Sokal, 1973). The variables which
define the dimensions of a typology must be of central theoretical importance.
The establishment of these significant dimensions can then interact with the
empirical test of them. Typal categories emerge when measurements are taken on
important dimensions which describe the phenomena of interest.
In general, the study of interpersonal relationships has suffered from a lack
of a descriptive phase in the scientific investigation of relationships (Gottman,
1979; Hinde, 1979). Theories have emerged without a well-described set of
phenomena and, as Gottman (1979, p. 292) elegantly states, “the result resem-
bles the theorizing of medieval alchemists.” It is the premise of this article that a
firm descriptive basis for the study of intimate relationships requires, however,
procedures for classifying couples, the actual assignment of couples to types, and
the validation of the types in terms of external attributes (Hempel, 1965).
Section I1 reviews some of the major typologies that have been proposed to
describe marital relationships.
11. A Typological Approach
A. CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACHES
Numerous attempts have been made to establish relationship typologies (see
Fitzpatrick, 1976, for a review). Most of these attempts have been made either
by observers working in clinical settings (e.g., Lederer & Jackson, 1968;
Shostrom & Kavanaugh, I97 l), by investigators reflecting on interaction data
collected for other purposes (e.g., Goodrich, 1968; Olson, 1981; Ryder, 1970),
4 MARY ANNE FITZPATRICK
or by theoreticians working with the benefit of little or no empirical support
(e.g., Adams, 1971; Bernard, 1972; Burgess & Wallin, 1953; Cuber & Harroff,
1965).
There are four problems with the existing systems. First, most of the ty-
pologies lack comprehensiveness because they focus on one or two dimensions
as ways to categorize couples (e.g., Burgess & Wallin, 1953; Farber, 1962).
Second, the schemata developed through post hoc data examination or specula-
tion by the researcher have limited utility because they offer other researchers no
reliable way to categorize couples (e.g., Goodrich, 1968; Ryder, 1970). Third,
typologies generated from interaction data categorize relationships on small sam-
ples of behavior collected in laboratory situations (e.g., Olson, 1981; Schaap,
1982). Fourth, for the typologies that are empirically based, little is known about
relationship types other than the means of classification (e.g., Ravich & Wyden,
1974).
For the theorist attempting to develop a typology of relationships, the first
task is to develop a series of measures that can tap significant dimensions of
relationships. Having developed these measures, the researcher must detect in
some empirical manner the existence of subgroups on the relational dimensions.
In detecting these subgroups, no assumptions should initially be made concern-
ing their nature, number, size, or discriminating aspects. All of these should
emerge from an examination of the data. The goal is to develop types of couples
who cluster, simultaneously, at distinct points on many conceptually important
dimensions.
B . THE BASIC DIMENSIONS
The first step in the development of this empirical typology of relationships
was the delineation of an important set of dimensions of relational life. Numer-
ous theorists maintain that couples evolve particular patterns of interaction with
one another through the various ways that they use the physical aspects of their
life together to achieve specific goals. Through the organization of the com-
monplaces of space, time, and energy, couples and families gain access to a
degree of affect, a level of power, and a sense of meaning in their lives. The
major dimensions in relational life are space, time, energy, affect, power, and
meaning (Haley, 1963; Henry, 1965; Hess & Handel, 1959; Kantor & Lehr,
1975; Rapoport & Rapoport, 1971).
To measure these dimensions, we developed a preliminary questionnaire
with an initial pool of more than 200 items (Fitzpatrick, 1976). Each item
corresponded either to an access (energy, space, time) or a target (affect, power,
meaning) dimension (Kantor & Lehr, 1975). Additionally, 25 of the initial items
MARITAL INTERACTION 5
were specifically designed to assess a person’s stand on the importance of auton-
omy and interdependence in a relationship (Bochner, 1976).
The initial set of items was examined for clarity and consistency by a small
set of couples as well as by several expert judges familiar with the work of
Kantor and Lehr (1975). When the redundant and unclear items were eliminated,
184 remained. The final questionnaire consisted of approximately 25 items asso-
ciated with each of the six dimensions. The remaining items tapped the autono-
my/interdependence issue. The large number of items included in the initial
questionnaire offered some assurance that the relational dimensions would be
adequately sampled. This was particularly important in the initial work.
The resulting scale, named the Relational Dimensions Instrument (RDI),
was pilot tested on more than loo0 married individuals. Through factor and item
analyses of these responses, the original scale was reduced to a reliable @-item,
eight-factor instrument (Fitzpatrick, 1976). The factor structure was subse-
quently revalidated on another random sample of 448 married individuals. The
factors that emerged from these analyses were the Ideology of Traditionalism,
the Ideology of Uncertainty and Change, Sharing, Autonomy, Undifferentiated
Space, Temporal Regularity, Conflict Avoidance, and Assertiveness. Table 1
lists some representative items from each dimension of the RDI. The entire scale,
including factor loadings and reliabilities, is reported in full in Fitzpatrick and
Indvik ( 1982).
The factor and item analyses of the RDI indicated that the six original
dimensions of energy, space, time, affect, power, and meaning are highly corre-
lated dimensions of family relations. Sharing, for example, although primarily
an affect dimension, includes some items that tap the organization of the house-
hold (space) and the scheduling of daily activities (time) to promote compan-
ionship between spouses. In addition to the mixing of access and target dimen-
sions across the subscales of the RDI, it is interesting to note that none of the
energy items emerged on the final version of the scale. It may be that the concept
of energy in relationships is too abstract to be assessed through the self-reports of
individuals.
A second-order factor analysis of the RDI indicated that these eight factors
represent three major conceptual dimensions of relational life. The first is auron-
omylinterdependence. Although close relationships are said to be marked by a
growing sense of interdependence (Levinger, 1977), the problem of how to
achieve a satisfying degree of connectedness (Bochner, 1976; Hess & Handel,
1959) is generally acknowledged as a basic problem in all human relationships.
Each spouse tries to cast the relationship in a form that satisfies the ways in
which he or she wants to be together yet needs to be apart. Relational connected-
ness is examined by the amount of sharing and companionship in the mamage as
well as by a couple’s organization of time and space. The more interdependent
the couple, the higher the level of companionship, the more time they spend
6 MARY ANNE FITZPATRICK
TABLE I
FROM THE RELATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVESTATEMENTS INSTRUMENT
DIMENSIONS
Ideology of Traditionalism
A woman should take her husband’s last name when she marries
Our wedding ceremony was (will be) very important to us
Our society as we see it needs to regain faith in the law and in our institution
ldeology of Uncertainty and Change
In marriagelclose relationships there should be no constraints or restrictions o n individual
freedom
The ideal relationship is one marked by novelty, humor, and spontaneity
In a relationship, each individual should be permitted to establish the daily rhythm and time
schedule that suits him/her best
Sharing
We tell each other how much we love or care about each other
My spouse/mate reassures and comforts me when 1 am feeling low
I think that we joke around and have mote fun than most couples
Autonomy
I have my own private workspace (study, workshop, utility mom, etc)
My spouse has his/her own private workspace (workshop, utility, etc)
I think it is important for one to have some private space which is all hidher own and separate
from one’s mate
Undifferentiated Space
I feel free to interrupt my spouselmate when he/she is concentrating on something if he/she is
in my presence
1 open my spouselmate’s personal mail without asking permission
I feel free to invite guests home without informing my spouselmate
Temporal Regularity
We eat our meals (i.e., the ones at home) at the same time every day
In our house, we keep a fairly regular daily time schedule
We serve the main meal at the same time every day
Conflict Avoidance
If I can avoid arguing about some problems, they will disappear
In our relationship, we feel that it is better to engage in conflicts than to avoid them
It is better to hide one’s true feelings in order to avoid hurting your spouse/mate
Assertiveness
My spouse/mateforces me to do things that I do not want to do
We are likely to argue in front of friends or in public places
My spouselmate tries to persuade me to do something that I do not want to do
MARITAL INTERACTION 7
together, and the more they organize their space to promote togetherness and
interaction.
The second dimension is conventionallnonconventional ideology. The be-
liefs, standards, and values that individuals hold concerning their relationship
and family are a major factor guiding not only the interactions with the spouse
but also the judgments individuals make about these interactions and their out-
comes. Values concerning relationships can range from those stressing the im-
portance of stability and predictability to those emphasizing the importance of
change and uncertainty. Individuals and couples vary in their beliefs on such
ideological matters.
The third dimension is conflictengagemenrlconflict avoidance. It is inevita-
ble that individuals in ongoing relationships experience conflict. The ways to
approach the resolution of differences, however, range from total conflict avoid-
ance to active engagement in conflict interactions (Raush, Barry, Hertel, &
Swain, 1974). Individuals and couples differ as to the degree that they perceive
such openness to conflict as an important characteristic of marital communica-
tion. Couples vary as to their willingness to engage in conflict and their degree of
assertiveness with one another.
C. THE RELATIONAL DEFINITIONS
The second step in the development of this empirical typology of rela-
tionships was the clustering of individuals according to their responses to the
RDI (Bailey, 1975; Blashfield, 1976). An individual’s eight scores on the sub-
scales of the Relational Dimensions Instrument were submitted to a linear typal
analysis (Overall & Klett, 1972) followed by a discriminant analysis. Such a
procedure allows a researcher to find and name the patterns used by individuals
to describe the relationships.
In the initial phase of the research, the number of unique relational defini-
tions was an empirical unknown. The number and characteristics of relational
definitions thus emerged from an empirical examination of the responses that
individuals assigned to these dimensions. Data from over 1000 married indi-
viduals were input into the typal analysis in order to uncover the basic defini-
tions. The definitions emerged from a specific empirical clustering of cases on
the eight reliably measured factors.
A variety of different solutions for the number of definitions that would
provide the best fit for these data were examined. Of those that were attempted,
the linear typal analysis suggested that the three-cluster solution provided the
clearest explanation of the data. The three-cluster solution yielded the most
unambiguous assignment of subjects to clusters. Each subject was assigned a
8 MARY ANNE FITZPATRICK
weighted loading based on the degree to which his or her profile corresponded to
each of the three pure relational definitions.
For each sample drawn throughout this program of research, the rectangular
matrix of typal loadings was examined to assess the goodness of fit of the three-
cluster solution and to assign subjects to a definition. Not only must each group
be relatively homogeneous with respect to the eight factors, but also each indi-
vidual should clearly resemble one, and only one, cluster. The criteria used to
assign the subjects to clusters were a primary loading above .30 and a secondary
loading at least .10 smaller than the primary loading. Across the various sam-
ples, only 8% failed to meet these criteria. In cases of these complex loadings,
individuals were assigned to the cluster with the highest loading.
To verify the classification of individuals to clusters, discriminant analysis
was also used to assign individuals to clusters. This independent classification
was compared to that produced by the linear typal analysis. An examination of
the results of these analyses across samples indicated that never less than 94%,
and usually up to 97%, of the cases were assigned to the identical group by both
procedures. These discriminant analyses also suggest that the three-cluster soh-
tion is appropriate (Cattell, Coulter, & Tsujioka, 1966).
According to their scores on the RDI, three discrete relational definitions, or
ways to describe the marital relationship, were identified. These definitions are
traditional, independent, and separate. Table I1 summarizes the responses to the
RDI of five different samples totaling 1672 individuals.
Traditionals hold conventional ideological values about relationships. These
conventional values place more emphasis on stability in a relationship than on
spontaneity. A conventional orientation stresses traditional societal customs, for
example, a woman should take her husband’s last name when she marries, and
infidelity is always inexcusable. A traditional exhibits interdependence in hidher
marriage. The interdependence of a traditional is marked by a high degree of
sharing and companionship in the marriage. This companionship is strongly
reinforced by the traditional’s use of time and space. A regular daily time
schedule and the low level of support for autonomous physical space in the home
facilitates companionship. Traditionals also report that although they are not
assertive, they tend not to avoid conflict with their spouses.
Independents hold fairly nonconventional values about relational and family
life. At the opposite end of an ideological continuum from a traditional orienta-
tion, an independent believes that relationships should not constrain an indi-
vidual’s freedom in any way. The independent maintains a high level of compan-
ionship and sharing in hidher mamage but it is of a qualitatively different kind
than that of a traditional. Although he/she tries to stay psychologically close to
hidher spouse, an independent maintains separate physical spaces to control
accessibility. In addition, an independent has a difficult time maintaining a
MARITAL INTERACTION 9
TABLE 11
MEANS ON THE RELATIONALDIMENSIONS
INSTRUMENT ACROSS FIVESAMPLES".*
~
Relational definition
Relational definition Traditional Independent Separate
Ideological Views
Ideology of Traditionalism 4.97, 4.88,
Ideology of Uncertainty 3.52, 4.19b
Autonomy/Interdependence
Sharing 5.01, 4.07,
Autonomy 3.24 4.40,
Undifferentiated Space 4.44, 3.88b
Temporal Regularity 4.71, 4.41,
Conflict
Conflict Avoidance 3.94b 4.54,
Assertiveness 2.80b 3.27,
"Means with different subscripts across relational definitions differ from each other
at the .I0level by the Scheffk procedure. Relational Dimensions Instrument ratings are on
a 7-point scale.
bN = 1672.
regular daily time schedule. Independents report some assertiveness in their
relationship with their spouses and tend not to avoid conflicts.
A separate seems to hold two opposing ideological views on relationships at
the same time. While a separate is as conventional in reference to marital and
family issues as a traditional, he/she simultaneously supports the values upheld
by independents and stresses individual freedom over relationship maintenance.
Supporting two opposing sets of values suggests that the separates are ambivalent
about their relational values. They may espouse one set publicly while believing
another privately. The separates have significantly less companionship and shar-
ing in their marriage. They attempt to keep a psychological distance in their
relationship to the spouse and they try to maintain some autonomy through their
use of space. The major way that a separate indicates interdependence in the
marriage is by keeping a regular daily schedule. Separates, although they report
some attempts at persuasion and assertiveness toward the spouse, indicate that
they avoid open marital conflicts.
D. THE RELATIONAL TYPES: COMPARISON OF HUSBAND
AND WIFE PERSPECTIVES
The third step in the development of this empirical typology of relationships
was to compare the individual definitions of the husbands and wives. Great care
10 MARY ANNE FITZPATRICK
was taken when the scales were administered to ensure no collaboration between
husbands and wives on their answers. Consequently, when spouses are placed in
different clusters, it means that they disagree on important dimensions of the
marriage.
By comparing the husband and wife’s perspectives on their marriage, cou-
ple types are identified. From these three individually based relational defini-
tions, nine relational types can be logically constructed. The first three types are
the Pure types in which the husband and wife independently agree on a definition
of their relationship. Husbands and wives who share the same ideological views
of relationships, who experience the same level of autonomy and interdepen-
dence in their marriage, and share the same level of conflict expression, end up
in the same cluster. These couples are categorized in one of the three Pure types.
These types are Traditional, Independent, and Separate.
Spouses who disagree on major aspects of these basic dimensions end up in
different clusters. These couples are categorized in one of the six Mixed types in
which the husband and wife describe their relationship differently. The major
Mixed type uncovered in the early research is the SeparatelTraditdonal in which
the husband defines the marriage as separate while his wife defines the same
relationship as traditional.
Of the 700 couples who completed the Relational Dimensions Instrument in
the early phases of the research, 60% were unambiguously classified into one of
the three Pure types. In other words, 60% of the husbands and wives agree on the
basic definitions of their marriage while 40% of these couples define their rela-
tionship differently. Parallel to this finding is that of Bernard (1972) who sug-
gests that often the husband’s description of a marriage is significantly different
from that of his wife. “His” marriage is significantly different from “her”
marriage in 40% of the couples who have completed the RDI.The distribution of
the couple types across five samples appears in Table 111.
Of the 700 couples represented in Table 111, 20% are Traditionals, 22% are
Independents, and 17% are Separates. Approximately 30% of the remaining
Mixed marriages involve a separate partner or one who is emotionally divorced
from the marriage. Contrary to the assumption that it is more likely for the
husband to be estranged in a marriage and unable to communicate with his
spouse (Balswick & Peek, 1971; Slater, 1970), there are as many wives as
husbands categorized as separates.
Although it appeared in the early stages of the research that Separate/
Traditional couples were the most frequently occurring Mixed type, this finding
‘Byconvention, relational definitions are not capitalized although couple type designations are.
In addition, in discussing Mixed couples, the definition of the husband precedes that of the wife. A
Separatehdependent couple consequently is one in which the husband defines the relationship as
separate while his wife sees the relationship as independent.
