I. Brief
Highlights of the Psychodynamic Models
A. Basic Assumptions
A. Review of Longitudinal Personality Trait Studies
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
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
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.
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 |