I. Brief Highlights of the Psychodynamic Models

  A. Basic Assumptions

•  All behavior is determined
•  Role of unconscious motivations
•  Dynamic theories are genetic (historical) stage theories
•  Developmental stages and "fixations" ("onion" model)
•  Select partners according to one’s lowest level of psychosocial developmental immaturity
•  Pessimistic about change

    B.  Behavior is determined

       Behaviors do not occur at random
         Psychic determinism
         Slips of the tongue, dreams, and mate section, all determined

   C. The role of unconscious motivation

The forces that drive behavior are not in awareness
Important feeling experiences are laid down before we have language to describe
these events
Infants can experience "good" and "bad" feelings, or states of feeling "secure" or
"anxiousness" (=pervasive sense of dread or unease)
Adult behavior is often symbolic of inner conflicts that –
a. where never made conscious or
b. were conscious at one time and are now repressed (outside of awareness)

   D.  Historical or Stage Theories

Theories that focus on developmental stages
In psychodynamic theory, stages are all important
Stages are represented as the layers of an onion; to understand the present one
must understand the past stages (or layers) of development
Stages are important because they are like trail-markers: someone as been there
and left their individual markings
Two aspects of fixations (being arrested) at a developmental stage:
Over-gratification and conflict
Getting too much indulgence (e.g., oral over-gratification)
Conflict (oral feeding difficulties)
Dynamic theory emphasizes that one learns coping defenses at the various stages
Once there are fixated stage markers, a person can regress to an earlier stage and use earlier defenses (e.g., oral aggressiveness)
Note: Regression is most likely in the face of conflict! Some major stress will
activate unconscious conflicts


E. Importance for marriage
 

Marriage can represent high conflict (intimacy rekindles nurturing wounds)
Person acts according to the fixated stage
May project expectancies onto partner

II:  Do Personality Variables Predict Marital Outcome?

    A. Review of Longitudinal Personality Trait Studies

1. Neuroticism "...primarily physiological over reactivity to stressful
    environmental stimuli" (Eysenck, 1967)

2. Results of early longitudinal studies of marital compatibility
      a. Pre-marital "emotional instability and irritability" predict marital
         adjustment scores 2 to 3 years post test

     b. Self-reported emotional stability (gifted sample at ages 7-14 yrs)
        predicted marital happiness 18 years later: biserial r = .25.

     c. Burgess and Wallin (1953); Pre-marital "neuroticism" predicted marital
        adjustment 3 to 5 yrs later.
            H: r = .25    W: r = .18

     d. Kelly 1957 longitudinal study: same finding for 18 yrs after marriage;

    e. Vaillant (1976): psychopathology and poor social adjustment related to
        low levels of marital adjustment

    f.    Bentler and Newcomb (1978)
          77 newly-weds over 4 yrs:

        "... emotional stability and objectivity of women & the
        deliberateness  and introversion of men were predictive
        of a composite marital-adjustment score..." p.28.

    g. Markman: unrewarding premarital communication patterns
        predicted low levels of marital satisfaction. (see Talk Table Study)

3. Cross-sectional studies find low impulse control in husbands to be a
    predictor of low satisfaction; neuroticism for both however.

4. Critique of criteria of marital compatibility
    a. Marital Stability -- by itself not a clear measure
    b. Marital satisfaction -- usually only applied to still married
   c. Post period too short in reported longitudinal studies

    B. Kelly and Conley Study:

300 couples over 45 yrs
(note: birth cohort = born around 1910!)
          5 sets of predictor variables:
             Personality traits -- neuroticism, social extraversion,
                impulse control, and agreeableness
              Early social environment
              Attitudes concerning marriage
              Sexual history
              Stressful life events between 1935-1954
                (like Holmes and Rahe)

Personality traits were obtained through acquaintance ratings

Early social environment -- self-reports of family socio-emotional stability
emotional closeness, nonconformity, religious practices of family
Attitudes -- traditional vs. egalitarian
Sex history --obtained during 1954-55
                     hodgepodge of frequency, pre-marital extent, etc.

                                                Results

1. Overall r between predictors and various criterion measures
(e.g., marital compatibility) r = .49

2. Very similar to other earlier studies

3. H's impulsiveness and both partner's neuroticism predict
    negative marital outcome.

4. The 3 personality variables accounted for 15% of the variance;

The attitudinal, early-environment, and sexual history variables,
    together, accounted for an additional 9% of the variance,

         Ex. 15% + 9% = 24% of the variance
 

  C. Personality Variables: Masculinity-Femininity

         Link to a page showing cross-sectional data using M and F (M-F)

---


Bradbury, Campbell, & Fincham (1995). Longitudinal and Behavioral
Analysis of Masculinity and Femininity in Marriage. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 328-341

This is a summary of a study on masculinity/femininity traits
and marital satisfaction (MS).
Addresses the question of just how MSC and FEM explain
satisfaction variance. Issue:
      cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of MS produce
      different effects of these person variables on MS.


Measures of Msc and Fem:
    Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI)
       Adjectives scaled for Men and Women in USA

  Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire (EPAQ)
      40 Bi-polar Adjectives

   Msc. Positive: e.g., not competitive vs. very competitive
   Msc. Negative: e.g., arrogant: Not vs. Very
   Fem. Positive: e.g., very rough vs. very gentle
   Fem. Negative: e.g., very survile vs. not at all survile
   Factor Analysis: Produced 2 factors called --
     Interpersonal Potency (IP) (Msc)
     Interpersonal Sensitivity (IS) (Fem)

                                            Results

   1. Sex role variables change in MS
     Wives' satisfaction declined --
         if they endorsed more desirable MSC traits
         if their husbands endorsed fewer desirable MSC traits
             AND endorsed fewer desirable FEM traits;

   2. Wives' satisfaction declined --
         if H's endorsed more undesirable MSC traits and
           fewer desirable MSC traits

       Therefore-- MSC does figure in satisfaction in longitudinal designs;
       Fem figures in cross-sectional

---

 

Return to Main