| Abstract |
- The purpose of the study was to investigate the nature of marital
interaction that occurs at the point at which couples with problems
seek assistance from an agency specifically designed to deal with
marital problems. Efforts were made to learn more about the nature
of the marital relationship in general, and conditions under which
individuals who seek counseling arrive at a decision to reconcile or
not to reconcile. Specifically, the marital interaction, as measured
by an affection-companionship index (ACI), and a hostility index
(HOS), of couples who were referred for, or who voluntarily requested
the services of the Marriage Counselor's Office of the Domestic
Relations Division of The Superior Court, County of Sacramento,
was investigated. The sample consisted of 83 couples, drawn
on the basis of their willingness to cooperate.
The Marriage Questionnaire, developed by James L. Hawkins, PhD
was used to assess marital interaction, and yielded a single score
for a married couple on both affection-companionship and hostility,
as reflected in the reported overt behaviors of the couple. The study
focused on the ACI and HOS variables in relationship to the decision
of the couple concerning their immediate future marital relationship,
or their reconciliation decision. Couples were classified on the
basis of these decisions and were categorized as follows: 1) decision
to reconcile (R), 2) decision to refuse reconciliation (RR), and 3) reconciliation
decision unknown to the Marriage Counselor's Office, which
consisted of the subgroups off-calendar (OC) and petition-dismissed
(PD). The possibility that other factors relating to marital status
might be associated with reconciliation decisions of these couples
was also investigated. The specific hypotheses tested were:
1. There is no difference among the three reconciliation decision
groups, R, RR, and RU, with regard to ACI scores
or to HOS scores.
2. There is a significant negative correlation between HOS and
ACI within the entire sample and within each of the reconciliation
decision groups.
3. There is no difference in HOS scores of court-referred
couples and non-court-referred couples regardless of
reconciliation decision.
4. Among couples receiving counseling there is no difference
in the number who do reconcile and the number who do not reconcile within this particular sample.
5. Reconciliation decision is independent of: present ages of
marriage partners, duration of marriage, incidence of
children younger than ten years, incidence of separation,
and duration of separation.
Results indicated differences, significant at the five per cent
level, in both HOS and ACI between the R group and PD group, in
HOS only between the RR and PD group, and in ACI only between the
R and RR groups. No differences resulted in either ACI or HOS
between OC and PD, R and OC, and RR and OC. No significant
relationship was found between the number of couples who reconcile
and the number of couples who refuse reconciliation following counseling.
A significant negative correlation (-.575) between ACI and
HOS was found within the R group, and no relationship was found
within any one of the RR, OC, or PD groups. The reconciliation
decision of couples was found to be independent of age of the marriage
partners, the duration of marriage, the incidence of children younger
than ten years of age, or the duration of separation. However,
reconciliation decision was found to be significantly related to incidence
of separation at the .001 level of confidence.
It was concluded from the results of the study that differences
do exist in affection-companionship and hostility between certain
reconciliation decision groups, and that for reconciled couples, at
least, a significant negative relationship exists between ACI
and HOS. The affection-companionship index, as measured by the
Marriage Questionnaire, discriminates between reconciled couples
and couples who refuse to reconcile. Marital separation is associated
with the reconciliation decision of these couples. The study points
up the need for further research.
|
|---|
| Additional Information |
- description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2014-04-14T21:16:27Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
KelleyRoseleneJ1968.pdf: 976610 bytes, checksum: 06822c9211a01abf95790720bdaf52f4 (MD5)
- description.provenance : Rejected by Katy Davis(kdscannerosu@gmail.com), reason: Replace.
on 2014-04-16T17:15:13Z (GMT)
- description.provenance : Submitted by Kevin Martin (martikev@onid.orst.edu) on 2014-04-14T19:44:35Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
KelleyRoseleneJ1968.pdf: 976610 bytes, checksum: 06822c9211a01abf95790720bdaf52f4 (MD5)
- description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Katy Davis(kdscannerosu@gmail.com) on 2014-04-16T23:00:07Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
KelleyRoseleneJ1968.pdf: 949251 bytes, checksum: b08ec6dbacf6d4951839c47477b9d870 (MD5)
- description.provenance : Submitted by Kevin Martin (martikev@onid.orst.edu) on 2014-04-16T18:15:10Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
KelleyRoseleneJ1968.pdf: 949251 bytes, checksum: b08ec6dbacf6d4951839c47477b9d870 (MD5)
- description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2014-04-16T23:00:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
KelleyRoseleneJ1968.pdf: 949251 bytes, checksum: b08ec6dbacf6d4951839c47477b9d870 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 1967-09-29
- description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2014-04-16T19:28:56Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
KelleyRoseleneJ1968.pdf: 949251 bytes, checksum: b08ec6dbacf6d4951839c47477b9d870 (MD5)
|
|---|