A study of intimacy in first married and remarried couples
by Scot Merlin Allgood
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a degree of Master of Science in Home
Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by Scot Merlin Allgood (1985)
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to compare marital intimacy in first married and remarried couples.
Remarriages were characterized as having so many special challenges and problems that intimacy was
hypothesized as being lower in a remarriage compared to a first marriage. Data gathered from 67 first
married and 67 remarried individuals in Gallatin County, Montana revealed no significant differences
between first marrieds and remarrieds in total intimacy scores. Only conflict resolution was
significantly greater among the first marrieds. Further analysis revealed no significant change in
intimacy over time for remarried persons. A STUDY OF INTIMACY IN FI RST MARRIED
AND REMARRIED COUPLES
by
SCOT MERLIN ALLGOOD
A th e sis subm itted in p a r tia l f u lf illm e n t
of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a d eg ree
of
Master
of
Science
i n
Home E c o n o m i c s
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
July
1985
ii
APPROVAL
of
a thesis
S c o t M.
submitted
by
Allgood
This
t h e s i s h a s b e e n r e a d by e a c h member
of
the
thesis
c o m m i t t e e a n d h a s b e e n f o u n d t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y
regarding co n ten t,
English usage,
format,
citations,
bibliographic style,
and c o n s i s t e n c y , and i s r e a d y f o r
s u b m i s s i o n to th e C o l l e g e of G r a d u a t e S t u d i e s .
Approved f o r
Date
Major D epartm ent
dpi ^
M 2^aJ jzQ
H e ai r\d , ' M
o r»r HD oe npaanrft mmoer n t
7 /J // *r
Date /
Approved f o r
the
the
College
of G rad u ate
Graduate
Dean
Studies
7
iii
■ STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In
of
the
State.
it
presenting
this
requirem ents
for
U niversity,
available
to
B rief quotations
special
professor,
L ibraries
use
of
copying
thesis
financial
this
in
when,
use
gain
permission.
of
shall
of
extensive
by
that
the
of e i t h e r ,
scholarly
the m a te r ia l
not
make
Library^
allow able w ithout
accurate
quotation
absence,
for
shall
the
t h e s i s may be g r a n t e d
is
Mo n t a n a
ma d e .
the o p i n i o n
the m a te ria l
are
. provided
his
in
at
the L ib rary
from
this
fulfillm ent
degree
under r u le s
for
or
or
that
of s o u r c e i s
of
partial
borrowers
Permission
reproduction
in
a m aster's
I agree
permission,
acknowledgement
thesis
in
from
by my m a j o r
D irector
the
be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t
thesis
my
of
proposed
purposes.
this
or
Any
for
w ritten
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
would
like
to express
my
appreciation
to
the
following
people
for
t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e and
support
for
which
I am v e r y g r a t e f u l :
Dr .
Jeff
Larson,
committee
chairman,
for
his
expert
knowledge
and
encouragement
throughout th is stu d y ;
Dr . Ramona M a r o t z - B a d e n, c o m m i t t e e
member,
f o r h e r h e l p i n i m p r o v i n g my w r i t i n g s t y l e ;
Dr.
Ly n n B r y a n ,
c o m m i t t e e member, f o r h e r e n c o u r a g e m e n t ;
Dr.
Margaret B riggs,
d e p a r t m e n t h e a d (Home E c o n o m i c s ) f o r h e r
e n c o u r a g e m e n t and r e m i n d e r s of im m inent d e a d l i n e s ; and t h e
G a l l a t i n C o u n t y c o u p l e s w h o s e c o o p e r a t i o n made t h i s
study
possible.
A s p e c i a l t h a n k s g o e s t o my w i f e ,
Julie,
who
s e r v e d a s t y p i s t , c r i t i c , and s u p p o r t e r and whose l o v e and
p a t i e n c e s u s t a i n e d me t h r o u g h o u t t h i s s t u d y .
Thanks a l s o
g o e s t o o u r p a r e n t s a n d b r o t h e r s a n d s i s t e r s who s u p p o r t e d
us i n t h i s e n d e a v o r.
vi
table of contents
L I S T OF TABLES
.....................................
PAGE
vii
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................v i i i
INTRODUCTION .
.
.
I
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................... . . . . . .
I n t i m a c y ...............................................
R e m a r r i a g e ....................................................................
D e m o g r a p n i c V a r i a b l e s a n d R e m a r r i a g e ................................
M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n i n R e m a r r i a g e .....................................
M a r i t a l A d j u s t m e n t i n R e m a r r i a g e ..........................
Summary a n d H y p o t h e s e s .....................................................................
5
5
12
13
14
16
19
METHOD....................................................
P r o c e d u r e ...............................................................
' S a m p l e ....................................
I n s t r u m e n t ...............................................................
22
22
24
26
R E S U L T S ....................................................................
29
P r e l i m i n a r y A n a l y s i s ...............................................................
29
Mai n A n a l y s e s ................................................................................................ 29
D I S C U S S I O N ................................................................................................................ 35
I m p l i c a t i o n s .......................................................................................... .....
38
C o n c l u s i o n ............................................................................ ....................... 3 8
LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................41
APPENDICES .......................................... . . . . .
................................
Demograpnic q u e s t i o n n a i r e
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Waring I n tim a c y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
..................................... . .
49
50
52
vii
LI ST OF TABLES
Pa g e
1.
2.
Mean S c o r e s o n t h e W a r i n g I n t i m a c y
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (WIQ) by M a r i t a l T y p e s
a n d G e n d e r a n d Two-way A n a l y s i s o f
Variance R e su lts
.....................................................................
33
R e m a r r i e d s 1 Mean S c o r e s o n t h e W a r i n g
I n t i m a c y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (WIQ) by Number
o f Y e a r s M a r r i e d a n d G e n d e r a n d Two-way
A n a ly sis of V ariance R e s u l t s
................................
34
.
v iii
ABSTRACT
The
p u r p o s e of t h i s s t u d y was t o compare
m arital
intim acy
in
first
married
and
rem arried
couples.
Rem arriages
were
characterized
as
having
so
many
special
challenges
and
problems
that
intim acy
was
h y p o t h e s i z e d as b e in g lo w e r i n a r e m a r r i a g e compared to
a f i r s t m arriage.
D a t a g a t h e r e d f r o m 67 f i r s t m a r r i e d
and
67
rem arried
individuals
in
G allatin
County,
Montana
revealed
no s i g n i f i c a n t
differences
between
f i r s t m a r r i e d s and r e m a r r i e d s i n t o t a l i n t i m a c y s c o r e s .
Only
conflict
resolution
was
significantly
greater
among t h e f i r s t m a r r i e d s .
F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d no
s i g n i f i c a n t change i n i n tim a c y over time f o r
rem arried
persons.
I
INTRODUCTION
As
the
years,
divorce ra te
researchers
and
has
continued
clinicians
rem arriage.
However,
there
research
on
rem arriage.
designed
specifically
is
to
have
still
climb
begun
a lack
M arital
of
therapy
for rem arriage
in recent
to
study
t h e o r y and
techniques
are r e la tiv e ly
new
and u n t e s t e d .
Research
on
rem arriage
■)
relationship
research
has
in
relationship
survive.
The
emotional
time
subject
seven
that,
the
the
have
stepchild.
husband
is
if
that
the
and
wife
the husband-wife
s t e p f amily
research
is
often
studied m arital
purpose
Less
The o n l y m a j o r a g r e e m e n t
the
rem arriage
on
is
to
m arital
contradictory.
satisfaction
in
been done y e t on i n t i m a c y
in
of
the p re se n t
study
is
to
intimacy in rem arriage.
is
a feeling
and p h y s i c a l
expectation
(Schaefer
of
stable
no r e s e a r c h h a s
Intimacy
over
be
in
examine m a r i t a l
the
on
and c l i n i c i a n s
researchers
rem arriage.
with
done
and
stepfam ily.
Beyond
rem arriage,
of
the
must
satisfaction
stepparent
been
researchers
Although
with
■
between
relationship
among
has d e a l t la r g e l y
■
c l o s e n e s s and t h e
sharing
e x p e rie n c e s with an o th er
that
the r e l a t i o n s h i p
& Olson,
an i n c r e a s i n g
of
1981).
number of
years as family re s e a rc h e rs
person
w ill
persist
Intimacy has
been the
studies
have
in
come t o
the
past
recognize
2
its
key i m p o r t a n c e
L 1A b a t e ,
research
in
1979;
to r e l a t i o n s h i p
W aring,
topic,
the
researching
the
satisfaction
to
rem arried
results.
satisfaction".
differences
relationships.
rem arriage
Ne ed f o r
Until
reported
July
1967
only
issue
Bo nh am
Balswick
and
inconclusive
1980
and
& Weaver,
intim acy
to
Family
in
is
mo r e
explaining
and
remarried
examine in tim a c y
to rem arried
in
couples.
review
of
found
rem arriage
1979;
1977;
have attem ped
in f i r s t
to
m arriage
research
affects
devoted
and
1984;
Renne,
in
are
and r e m a r r i a g e .
and
rem arriage.
in
first
conflicting
Duberman,
197 1 ) .
d e sc rib e , quantify
to
Price-
results
satisfaction
resulted
19 8 0 ;
by
the in d iv id u a l
marriage
Demaris,
Morgan,
wa s
been
the e n t i r e
the l i t e r a t u r e
that
have
had
comparison,
R elations
compare m a r i t a l
(A lbrecht,
no s t u d i e s
construct
on r e m a r r i a g e
In
between f i r s t
The few a t t e m p t s
Glenn
w ill
the
intimacy
variable
married
on how r e m a r r i a g e
differences
results
study
contradictory
of
married
1970).
of
A
marriage
contrast,
19 s t u d i e s
(Schlesinger,
1984
nad
couples
Study
rem arriage.
the
breadth
. first
new
M arital
married
to the
by c o m p a r i n g f i r s t
the
first
have
The p r e s e n t
relatively
o p e n s up new v i s t a s
often
In
&
( L 1A b a t e
relationship.
a n d may be a k e y
between
a
intim acy
comparing
couples
defined,
of
As
rem arriage
T h i s may be d u e
"m arital
narrowly
1981).
topic
studies
satisfaction
or
1975;
To d a t e
compare
3
Intimacy
for
several
intimacy
a person to
m arriage
m arriages.
is
claims
result
com patibility
of
Leffel
&
Reinart,
in rem arriage
spouses
1978).
such as age,
Other f a c t o r s
tendency
among
solving
strategy,
relationship
(Cherlin,
issues,
1981;
e.g.
difficulties
because
which
of
the
in
healthy
is
rem arriage
involves
from
intimacy
first
than
in
first
a rem arriage
and
Others
greater
argue
that
in rem arriag e . ( B roderick,
1979;
to
emotional
that
intim acy
use
inhibit
ties
between
include
as
to
1979),
boundaries
in
problem
previous
difficult
complex l e g a l
(C herlin,
cohesion
the
a greater
a
a
solving
& V isher,
intimacy
(Dean & Gurak,
divorce
problem
support,
permeable
a
illness.
individuality
inhibiting
achieving
is
essential
e d u c a t i o n and r e l i g i o n
ma k e s
for
of
intimacy
demographic d i f f e r e n c e s
Visher
child
intim acy
different
V ariables
rem arrieds
kinds
McElrath,
the sp o u se s.
1981).
include
that
that
by W a r i n g ,
that
more
intim acy
found
all
t h a t more i n t i m a c y
between
t h e r e may. be l e s s
of
or. e m o t i o n a l
that is
mature
rem arriage
the fam ily
that
theorizes
involves
He
the
found
process
and
in
of
(1975)
goals
study
psychosis
(1981)
study
postulates
A recent
(1981)
the
and Lehf
be d e v e l o p e d
avoid
developmental
in
the major
( 1 96 3)
t h a t must
Akatugawa
a
of
and D e r r y
issue
Kantor
development.
M itchell
for
one
Erikson
issue
adult
a key
reasons.
is
fam ilies.
key
is
1978j,
the
(Morgan,
and
remarriage
1980).
4
Not
only
rem arriage,
techniques
satisfaction
including
and r e l i a b l e
for
fam ily
the
have u t i l i t i z e d
use
1984)
of
the
present
educators
therapists
and
educators
qualitative
and
quantitative
between r e m a r r ie d s
and f i r s t
t o make a p p r o p r i a t e
are
and
w ill
biased,
(Esses
utilize
in
have
better
&
a valid
rem arriage.
im plications
therapists.
understand
d ifferen ces . in
marrieds
on
th e Waring In tim a c y
family
w ill
often
questions
intimacy
study
studies
in
poor measurement
study w ill
to measure
life
able
that
vague
The p r e s e n t
on i n t i m a c y
previous
s e l f - r e p o r t measurement,
(Waring,
results
of
research
instrum ents
and
1984).
The
a la c k of
many
reliability
Campbell,
Scale
there
but
relationship
lack
is
The
the
intimacy
a n d h e n c e , be b e t t e r
interventions.
5
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A
literature
topics:
intimacy
stepfam ily,
This
r e v i e w wa s
theory
and
and
m arital
literature
wa s
couples
satisfaction
to
between
in
tne
following
measurement, re m a rria g e ,
reviewed
significantdifferences
rem arried
c o n d u c t e d on
subject
and
adjustm ent.
locate
reports
first
areas
of
m arried
that
the
affect
and
m arital
intim acy.
Intimacy
Intimacy
is
fam ily
theory
one
the
of
of
a term
and c l i n i c a l
first
intim acy,
of
E r i k s o n 1s
work
was
joins
him self/herself
a
sense
Erikson
defined
concrete
affiliations
interpersonal
of
Erikson
the
to gain
of i d e n t i t y ,
intim acy
as the
and e t h i c a l
plays
a
relationships
the in d iv id u a l
in
strength
central
and t h e
the fam ily.
is
that
the
of
the
states
not
"capacity
even under s i g n i f i c a n t
the
validates
He f u r t h e r
intim acy
to
reflection
reflection
identity.
concept
functioning.
premise
a
both
( 1 9 6 3 ) wa s
lim ited
than fam ily
on
and from t h a t
a
Intimacy
rather
groups
w ithout
used in
to o p e r a tio n a liz e the
built
separate
relationship,
practice.
theorists
individual
adolescent
as
been w idely
b u t h i s w o r k wa s g e n e r a l l y
description
self
th a t has
that,
possible.
to
commit
to
to m aintain
the
sacrifice"
role
in
emotional
Horowitz
(p.266).
healthy
development
(1979)
found
6
that
intim acy
the
biggest
problems
single
psychotherapist.
correlated
Waring,
with
Corvi n e l l i ,
C linebell
L *A b a t e
Chalmers,
believe
spouse
good
who s e r v e s
stage.
relationship
as a
buffer
The
of
confidant
mo r e
against
drastic
persons,
Haven,
the
that
is
There
range
social
several
Rubin
highly
spouses.
presence
strongly
of
related
and s a t i s f a c t i o n
effects
of
a lifetim e
t h a t might
an
frequently
a
to
with
intim ate
in
that
may s e r v e
"the
as
a
otherw ise r e s u lt
or i n t e r a c t i o n ,
dyadic
definitions
definitions
(1983)
commonalities
stress.
is
and
or
suffered
from
by
the
older
( Lowenthal
&
p. 2 6 ) .
are
daily
losses
the
widowhood and r e t i r e m e n t "
from s i m p l e
models.
role
Reddbn,
between
relationship
depression
social
namely
1968,
positive
an i n t i m a t e
from d e c r e m e n t s i n
of
found
1978;
C linebell
of in t i m a c y
need s a t i s f a c t i o n
with a spouse l a s t
maintenance
of
depth
is
( Hames &
Waring,
1983).
a
relations
Va i l l a n t ,
1981;
are
from
illness
19 8 4 ;
mental h e a l t h , ^ high morale,
life
for
emotional
& Derry,
Haven ( 1968)
help,
poor i n t i m a t e
and
that
and p h y s i c a l )
seek
& VanderLaan,
c o r r e l a t e d w ith mutual
and
or
& Sloan,
M itchell,
(1970)
Lowenthal
people
A lack of,
McElrath,
emotional
reason
psychiatric
1980 ;
Waring,
(both
defined
to
Stapleton
Bright
expectation
the
stability
(1976)
These
m ultifaceted
as th e
including
m aintaining
and
intim acy.
complex,
intim acy
interaction
and
of
use
sharing
in
times
Rubin's
7
definition
and
essential
components.
relationships
lovers,
are
friends
intim ate
a nd
defines
three
three
physical
levels
with
are
prerequisites
model,
list
(b)
and
and e m o t i o n a l ,
can n o t
models
must
th e most
intim ate
that
siblings,
Dahms
intellectual,
relations
(1974)
physical,
containing
model
for
are
the
(I)
the
and
nonverbal
clarifies
and
defines
feelings,
of
us"
a relationship
( 1979)>
the
in
for
be s e p a r a t e
( p . 17 8 ) .
and H a t f i e l d
use
of
to
in
their
order
greatest
their
behaviors,
in
relationship
in
model
presented
in
(literal
the
in
by
The two
couple
terms
and s e n s a t i o n s ; and
change
solving ru le s
( 1980).
which
to
p o we r t o .
The s e c o n d
of in tim a c y
be
intimacy
met a - m e s s a g e s
cues)
second o rd e r
problem
include
s e e k c o m f o r t a n d be c o m f b r t e d
development
messages
development
to
t h e o n e s we l o v e h a v e
we m u s t
that
prerequisites
one need s
a n d who h u r t
prerequisites
intimacy
bfe m e t f o r
a d v a n c e d by P e r l m u t t e r
changing
siblings,
for
duplicate.
of
paradoxical
"(a)
(c)
t h o s e we h u r t
thoughts,
potential
as
intim ate
(1973):
L* A b a t e a n d L 1A b a t e
three
include:
be c l o s e ;
this
of
The s p o u s e g r o u p i s
th e most i n t i m a t e
that
"intim ate".
wa s
affection
types
by D a v i s
of i n t i m a c y :
two
labeled
h u rt us;
and
aspects.
There
which
Four
the in c re a s e d
friends
and e m o t i o n a l ,
disclosure
identified
of
both
lovers,
self
and s p o u s e s .
because
behaviors,
all
add
(2)
of
the
p r o c e s s e s which in v o lv e
the fam ily
which r e s u l t
8
in
structural
who
needs
presents
changes in
opportunity
solving
adolescent
rules
in family
using
assumption
relationship
costs
for
each
spouse
relate
own
to
more
explain
exchange
g r ow o n l y
identity
change
its
from
the
input
thdt
intim acy
as
a
w ill
in
a
the
proceed with
outcome
couple,
of
maj o r
The
the rew ards outnumber
a profitable
people
development
theory.
is
if
the
The r e l a t i o n s h i p
realizing
other
allow
theory
each person.
to
his/her
the fam ily
(1979)
this
w ill
the adolescent
decisions.)
social
of
(e.g.
build
for
to
H u s t o n and B u r g e s s
intim acy
family
g r e a te r freedoms to
an
problem
the
until
rather
both
than
as
individuals.
From
his
theorized
that
relationships
sequence. ,
each
clinical
observations,
people
during
who
a lifetim e
He d e s c r i b e s
three
suceeding r e la tio n s h ip
p re v io u s one.
The f i r s t
which
lasts
ten
divorce.
The
second
kind
partners
feelings
six
are in te n s e ly
or
The
more
last
follow
a
intim ate
t y p e s , of r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h
of r e l a t i o n s h i p
or more
years
and m u t u a l l y
of
usually
ends
in
love
wherein
the
passionate
form
the
a
of r e l a t i o n s h i p
the
is
is
This r e l a t i o n s h i p
and can t a k e
than
and
of r e l a t i o n s h i p
kind
(1981)
developmental
cohabitation)
toward each o th e r.
months.
months
(sometimes
several
b e i n g more i n t i m a t e
type
marriage
relationship
form
Akatagawa
in
lasts
lasts
their
about
six
remarriage,
9
cohabitation,
involving
even
relationship.
to
an a f f a i r
more
or
a lengthy
intense
To d a t e
intim acy
no e m p i r i c a l
I
and
Olson
(1981)
in
found
that
an i n t i m a t e
relationship
these
components:
(d)
(sim ilar
intellectual
(shared
The
scale
developed
by
Waring
dimension
in
his
as
describes
the q u a l i t y
"a m u l t i f a c e t e d
time"
of
the fo llo w in g
(a)
(b )
(p.34).
conflict
present
study
was
a
time
intim acy.
He
describes
d im e n s io n which
relationship at
intimacy
a point
consists
components:
differences
of o p i n i o n
are r e s o lv e d ;
affection -
the degree
to which f e e l i n g s
closeness
a feeling
I
-
social
events).
the ease w ith
sexuality
by
recreation
-
cohesion -
and
intim acy;
(e)
interpersonal
resolution
m arriage;
(d)
of
of a m a r i t a l
eight
(b)
Waring i n c l u d e s
A ccording t o Waring,
emotional
(c )
(1981).
the
scale
sexual
and
sports
used i n
definition
intimacy,
in
or
( P AI R )
Personal
characterized
(c)
of i d e a s ;
in hobbies
intimacy
is
the
intim acy;
n e t w o r k s );
sharing
interests
R elationships
emotional
social
second
h a v e b e en done
developed
of In tim a c y
intim acy
the
'
Assessment
(a)
relationship
than
studies
s u p p o r t A k a t u g w a 1s f o r m u l a t i o n s .
Schaefer
platonic
are
of
the degree
expressed
commitment
which
by t h e
to
to which s e x u a l
communicated and f u l f i l l e d
of
couple;
the
needs
by t h e m a r r i a g e ;
are
10
(e)
identity
-
confidence
(f)
able
couple's
and s e l f
com patibility
is
(g)
the
-
degree
to work and p l a y
beliefs,
the
attitudes
the m a rria g e ,
of
self
esteem ;
the
expressiveness -
level
to which
together
degree
as
couple
com fortably;
t o which
and f e e l i n g s
as w ell
the
are
thoughts,
shared w ithin
the m a rita l
self
disclosure;
( h)
autonomy -
the
s u c c e s s w ith which
i n d e p e n d e n c e from their* f a m i l i e s
their
Ea c h
of
levels
of
Tillman;
(1979)
resolution
for
found
R ussell
of
spouses.
Sim ilar
emotional
and C l i n e b e l l
spouses
need
a
intim acy
is
develop.
intim acy
Taschman
have
& Frey,
has
(1975)
firm
sense
skills
1 979» W a r i n g ,
19 8 0 ) .
are
been
19 8 1 ;
Frey e t
intim acy
shared
reported
al.
as
between
by
other
R u b i n , 19 83 ) •
( 1970)
of
are
f a m i l i e s w ith high
facilitates
closeness
results
(.L1A b a t e
Clinebell
and
& W eisz,
that affection
feelings
to
functioning
on
1984).
solving
( F r e y , H o l l e y , & L 1A b a t e ,
Frelick,
subscale
(WIQ). ( W a r i n g ,
and p r o b l e m
optim ally
intimacy
researchers
o r i g i n and
components form a s e p a r a t e
the Waring In tim a c y Q u e s t i o n a i r e
prerequisites
of
couple gains
offspring.
the above
C onflict
the
theorized
individual
that
both
identity
if
The r e l a t i o n s h i p , b e t w e e n i d e n t i t y
been noted
by
who p r o p o s e d t h a t
Satir,
Stachowiak
a couple
needs
to
and
be
close
enough
spouse
to communicate,
overpowers
identity
and
Tillman,
the
intim acy
Frelick,
but
other.
not
so c l o s e
This r e l a t i o n s h i p
was e m p i r i c a l l y
R ussell,
that
verified
and Weisz
( 19 80 )
one
between
by W a r i n g ,
a n d L 1A b a t e
"(1983).
Most o f
intim acy
the re s e a rc h
has
expressiveness
that
,self
been
done
disclosure
Lewis,
in
and i n t i m a c y .
( Bal swi ck & P e e k ,
19 8 3 ;
I
on W a r i n g ' s e i g h t
is
1974;
1978;
females
self-disclose
(Davidson
in
m artial
intimacy
1977;
levels
Waring,
expressiveness
satisfaction
also
(G ilbert,
conflict resolution
Two
as
studies
an
1976;
mo r e o f t e n
the
the
to
that
males
female
disclosure
increase
I 97 6 ; L 1A b a t e ,
.1983) .
correlated
Levinger
&
increases
self
& Harrison,
positively
1976;
to
s h o wn
Waring & C helune,
G itter
than
male
Facilitating
been
Mo s t
have found
comparable
Weir,
Emotional
with m arita l
& Senn,
19 6 7 )
and
1977).
construct
im portant
(Waring,
1968)
unless
also
( L' A b a te ,
W a r i n g ' s autonomy
validated
Chelune,
, 1983) .
1981 ;
is
1977»
to a l e v e l
(Burke,
found
intimacy
. 19 68).
& B reglio,
has
to
B regli'o,
intim acy
therapy
have
&
significantly
& Balswick,
studies
Balswick & H alverson,
1976;
seI f - d i d 0sure
emotional
Davidson,
Black,
lowers m a rita l
of
related
(Balswick & A v erett,
his
Several
Pederson
Pederson
area
of
positively
studies
which
the
dimensions
has a lso
component
M cElrath,
Lefcoe
been e m p iric a lly of
&
intim acy.
W eisz,
1981;
12
Waring,
found
on
Tillman,
that
the
Frelick,
development
relinquishing
-----e s p e c i a l l y
usually
developes
autonomy
outside
relationship,
he/she
(V aillant,
of
through
the fam ily.
is
later
and
intim acy.
appear
to
(Waring,
be
have
dependent
early
childhood
to a t t a i n
of
these
intim acy
in
1977).
religion)
On l y
is
As a r e s u l t
able
Most d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s
m arried,
1980)
ties
with
significant
■ ■- ;
:Viof o r i g i n .
A person
o n e !,s f a m i l y
relationships
& W eisz,
of d y a d ic i n tim a c y
s t r o n g em-otional
other s
adulthood
R ussell
low
do
(e.g.
not
age,
s ee m t o ,
i n c o m e and, l o w
negatively
M cElrath, M itchell
related
number of y e a r s
be
related
educational
to
m arital
to
level
intimacy
& D e r r y , 1981).
Rem arriage
Like
intim acy,
the fam ily
published
1970*3,
research
before
1967
(Wald,
stepfam ily
samples,
open- ended
lack
of
Price
the
use
s te p fam ilies.
and
-
fairly
with only
( Schle sin g e r,
1981).
Research
has been l i m i t e d
questionnaires,
1984).
literature
i s a
most r e s e a c h f o c u s e d on the
relationship
the
rem arriage
interview s,
researcher
defined
19 a r t i c l e s
1970).
Until
stepchild
-
by o n l y
using
inadequate
bias
(Esses
( 1980)
c o n c e p t s wh e n
in
being
t h e mid
stepparent
on t h e m a r i t a l
Bonham a n d B a l s w i c k
of well
new t o p i c
or
&
also
dyad i n
clinical
invalid
Campbell,
note
the
researching
13
DemograpiaiG V a r i a b l e s
The
relationship
rem arriage
years.
a
an d R e m a r r i a g e
has
been examined i n
The r e s u l t s
few
( P r i c e - B o n h am
s t u d i e s have found
the , spouses
than
for
De a n
&
married
Gurak,
Schlesinger
females
tend
couples
1978;
(1970)
between
be s i g n i f i c a n t l y
greater
(Aguirre
rem arrieds
ch o o se widows o r w i d o w e r s .
Tne
education
dissim ilar
Economic
white
which
higher
m arital
level
than
factors
a role
they had i n
( 1982)
satisfaction
m arriage
&
Gurak,
income
that
be
mo r e
1978).
as
most
over
that
by m a r r y i n g men o f
&
frequently
Pope,
in
1978).
correlation
of
older
following.
to
their
(Dean & G u r a k ,
and t h e l e n g t h
the
tend
(M ueller
found l e s s
and
s ome r e m a r r i a g e s
marriage
status
found a p o s i t i v e
and r e m a r r i a g e .
include
and
middle-age
relationships
(Dean
increase
their f ir s t
socioeconomic
than in f i r s t
in
1984).
males
whereas
rem arrieds
marrieds
women who r e m a r r y
R e l i g i o u s homogamy i s
Parr
of
first
play
intim acy
1982;
T rost,
divorcees,
dem ographic and s t e p f a m i l y
to e f f e c t
Parr,
divorced
people,
other
&
1975;
tend
appear
marry
are in c o n c lu s iv e with
differential
divorcees
Other
to
recent
1980).
younger
single
in
and
Balswick,
Duberman,
found
to marry
to
studies
&
th e age
in a rem arriage
first
several
of t h i s r e s e a r c h
exceptions
Several
between demographic v a r i a b l e s
rem arriage
A g u i r r e and
between
time between
1980).
the
m arital
divorce
Remarried
child
from
number
a
previous marriage
m arriage
1980) .
(Furstenburg
However,
couple
may
process
be
as i t
1 9Y 3) •
the
significant
gives
of
satisfaction
M arital
(Aguirre
Satisfaction
De a n
and
in
(1978)
f r o m m i s t a k e s ma d e i n
w ill
remarry
of
and
m istake
in
only
26%
same
thing.
to have
of
in rem arriage
of
studies,
rem arriage
spouses
first
fall
are
m arriage
that
. bonding
(Duberman,
between
and
m arital
people
marriage
in her
Peters
they
do
and
them selves
marriage
sample
not
hence,
in
an
( 1 976)
had
found
made
partners,
th a t r emarrieds
a
whereas
reported
the
a r e more l i k e l y
relationships.
of o t h e r
into
studies
three
there is
to learn
(A lbrecht,
on m a r i t a l
categories.
more m a r i t a l
compared to f i r s t
able
propose
However,
of
concluded
results
rem arried
bond
stepfam iiy
find
the r em arrieds
She
the
correlation
spouses f e l t
choice
satisfactory
The
group
again
married
their
Mo r g a n ,
stepfam iiy
a first
relationship.
first
to
a
in Rem arriage.
learn
56%
1984;
a common
the
same
& P a r r , 19 82) .
Gurak
unsatisfactory
the
s h o wn a n e g a t i v e
children
the
no c h i l d r e n f r o m
a child
in
spouse has a
have
Spanier,
of
the fam ily
One s t u d y h a s
number
&
birth
one
seem t o
of problems as re m a r r ie d s w ith
prior
the
c o u p l e s i n which a t l e a s t
marriage
from
1979;
their
satisfaction
According
t o one
satisfaction
because
rem arried
m istakes
M essinger,
in
in
the
1984).
In
15
another
that
group of
rem arried
their
first
In
a
spouses
in
third
m arital
years
group of
all
note
1984;
first
Duberman,
are
of
(1982)
White
and
among r e m a r r i e d s
no
& Spanier,
1984;
(1979)
& Nichols,
1980)
m arrieds.
Furstenburg
difference
between
couples in
of
the
"honeymoon"
the f i r s t
two
and R e i n a r t
and c o n s e n s u s on
is
as
life
the
needed
the
before
satisfaction
studies
Spanier
1981;
on t h i s
on
of r e m a r r ie d s
and
Spanier
their findings
th a t rem arried
m arital
Furstenburg
life
satisfaction
However,
subject
1977;
compared
(1984)
and t h e s e
the
(Furstenburg
difference
people w ill
in
and
Glenn & Weaver,
show no s i g n i f i c a n t
satisfaction
proposing
the
Leffel
found g r e a t e r
studies
life
1971).
significant
compared t o , f i r s t m a r r i e d s .
Glenn,
the f i r s t
t wo y e a r s
during
mo r e
Renne,
and r e m a r r i e d
1975).
s t u d i e s on
rem arriage.
the o th e r
no
in
and r e m a r r i e d s .
not as v a rie d
in
is
19 8 0 ;
satisfaction
marrieds
satisfaction
by
the m ista k es
t h e r e were
relationships
m arital
results
of
Morgan,
married
opposite;
t h e r e wa s i n
t h a t more c l a r i f i c a t i o n
comparing
m ajority
than
the
there
during the f i r s t
m arital
of
rem arriage
from
T h i s f i n d i n g may be d u e t o
construct
the
studies
between f i r s t
(Demaris ,
The
suggests
hence
T9 81;
satisfaction
of
(1981)
and
the rem arriage
relationship.
status
data
do n o t l e a r n
( Climgempeel,
differences
the
m arriage,
satisfaction
m arriage
studies
Yoder
between
to
first
explain
other
not
the
studies
endure
>
an
16
■unhappy
once.
second
marriage
They a r e m o r e
unsatisfying
then,
likely
regard
rem arriage,
t o be h a p p y
to measuring
Messinger
relationship.
obtained
M arital
before
Adjustment
The
Sexual
m arriages
two
m arital
t i m e may n o t
solidarity
adjustment
is
m arriages.
the r e l a t i o n s h i p
and
because
of
pattern
each
relationship.
of
(Nelson
Visher
problems
the
m arrieds.
that i t
in
t a k e s t wo
stabilize
satisfaction
scores
Cherlin
resolving
early
problems
in
build
the h is to ry
1982) .
m agnified
structure
found
in
and t h e
before
lacking
the
in
that
rem arriage
found t h a t m u tu a lly
are
mo r e
problems
these
however,
developed
in
The m e r g i n g
experiences
very
(1979)
problems
have
1968).
if
be
than
poses s p e c ia l
& Nelson,
(1981)
to
m arriages.
spouses
these
complex f a m i l y
spouse
first
However,
are
appears
may be s m o o t h e r
(Schlesinger,
the r e la tio n s h ip
incom patibility
an
rem arried,
begin to
in
rem arried
effectively,
Visher
end
satisfaction
process
than i t
because
first
into
to
be r e l i a b l e .
households in rem arriage
solved
ways
believes
couples to
Hence,
expectations
not found in
of
m arital
(1984)
in rem arriages
realistic
are
than f i r s t
adjustm ents in rem arriage
first
divorce
divorced
in Remarriage.
m arital
different
of
that
having
T h o s e who r e m a i n
co f i v e y e a r s f o r r e m a r r i e d
their
already
to use
relationship.
a r e more l i k e l y
With
after
m arital
present
accepted
rem arried
17
relationships
regulations
the
their
(e.g.
spouse
rem arried
and b e c a u s e
in
" Wh a t a r e
regards
couples
own t h a n
The
do f i r s t
& M essinger,
(im plicit
1979).
interact
who
enters
and
psychologically
and
rituals)
of
the
when t h e y
consists
society,
1975).
(due to
These
(Morgan,
1980).
the
of d e f i n i n g
are
added
by
is
permeable
transitions
related
to
the
in
process
family
to
the
1979).
one
or
boundary
both
in
in
the
add more s t r e s s
lower
are
(1979)
to
m arital
worked-out
found
the rem arried
of
and
a hinderance
the r o le s
W a l k e r and M e s s i n g e r
new r o l e s
symbols,
u n til shared
experienced
until
and
The c o m p a r a t i v e l y
r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h may f u r t h e r
and i n t i m a c y
decide
ma k e s s t a b i l i t y
b e c o me s t e p p a r e n t s
fam ily.
of r u l e s
including
new r o l e s ,
family
andr i t u a l s
less
(Walker
both p h y s i c a l l y
1980; Walker & M e s s i n g e r ,
firm er,
satisfaction
directly
& Lehr,
transitions
on
further
th e faihily makes to
family
boundary
symbols
role
m arital
ease
which
the re m a rrie d
(Morgan,
a
more
boundary
boundary
more d i f f i c u l t t o a c h i e v e
experiences,
rem arried
family
w i t h members o f
(Kantor
permeable fam ily
rem arriage
issues
couples.
the
le a v e s the
mo r e
building
m arried
Thei f a m i l y
it w ill
spouses
difficult
of
spouse?"),
problems of a d ju s tm e n t i n re m a rria g e
how
The
solve
or . c u l t u r a l
obligations
th e irprevious
of
and e x p l i c i t )
cohesion
of s o c i a l
the f i n a n c i a l
to
must
perm eability
compounds th e
of a la c k
that
family i s
relinquishing
or
18
redefining
roles
and b o u n d a r i e s i n
family.
Broderick
w ill
be
an im p r o v e m e n t o v e r
both
spouses
marriage
the
t h a t a second
the f i r s t
and
are
able
to f i t
into
m arriage
marriage
in
nuclear
only
the
if
first
a comfortable ro le
in
new m a r r i a g e .
the
(1979)
also
suggests
p r i o r m a r r i a g e which r e v e a l
t h e new s p o u s e w i t h
barrier
and
to intim acy
other
m arriage
1984).
often
suffers
define
o v e r from
e f f e c t on m a r i t a l
Other
factors
rem arriage
include
for
at
rem arriage
(Larson,
a
,1952;
roles.
the m arriage
1966;
ceremony,
a
fam ily
often
trying
(Cherlin,
to
1981;
1979)«
effect
intim acy
shorter
to
through.
T h i s may h a v e
& V isher,
compared
of
relationships
p ro c e s s , of
significantly
in
feelings
are worked
intim acy
Visher
Hunt,
th a t intim acy
the
t h a t may n e g a t i v e l y
rem arrieds
( Hollingshead,
guests
1969;
previous
trust
the
major
comparisons
the rem arried
and s t e p c h i l d
1966 ; S t e i n z o r ,
period
to
a
o v e r from a
wh e n
in
comparisons
constitute
note
the form er m arriage
stepparent
negative
Hunt,
only
stress
“g h o s t s " from
These
in
(1981)
reluctance
from i n c r e a s e d
the
spouse
intimacy
ch ild ren are involved,
the
themselves in
garbage" l e f t
possible
and
that
a rem arriage.
and R e i n a r t
is
vulnerability
If
in
inhibit
Leffel
carried
a former
“e m o t i o n a l
rem arriage
a
notes
former
l e a r n e d , from t h e i r m i s t a k e s
Broderick
of
(1979)
the
in
courtship
first
marrieds
Leslie,.
1967),
fewer
civil
rather
than
r e l i g i o u s wedding
1967),
no h o n e y m o o n o r
1952),
and s e p a r a t e
A
final
rem arriage
that
( H o l l i n g s h e a d , I 9b2;
their
had
been
U ntil
self
self
Becker,
Landes
first
m arriages
marriage.
disparities
and r a c e
in
is
age,
of
et
rem arrieds
community
previous
divorce.
are r e b u ilt,
intim acy
(1977)
the f i r s t
to h ig h e r
education,
found
a l , 1975).
Michael
at least
due
(1970)
in
the
the
in
report
r e m a r r i a g e s a r e more
for
This
status
status
(S atir
and
men a n d women,
intimacy
b o t h m a l e and f e m a l e
e ste e m and s o c i a l
attainable
1976).
Schlesinger
este e m and s o c i a l
Leslie,
( H ollingshead,
against
esteem.
50% o f
19b6;
(M essinger,
working
lowered as a r e s u l t
may be l e s s
both
bank a c c o u n t s
low s e l f
approximately
felt
a s h o r t honeymoon,
factor
is
Hunt,
unstable
five
relationship
social
that
years
costs
backgound,
for
than
of
when
religion
occur.
Summar y a n d H y p o t h e s e s
Intimacy
as
a necessary
especially
are
has
both
and d e s i r e d
in m arriage.
conflict
sexuality,
theoretical
goal
The k e y
of
and e m p i r i c a l
human
components
support
relationships,
of
intimacy
resolution
ability,
affection,
cohesion,
'
'
' '
"V- ;
' .
identity,
c o m p a t i b i l i t y , e x p r e s s i v e n e s s , and
autonomy.
Intimacy
comparing
in rem arriage
first
m arriage
has not
and
been s t u d i e d .
rem arriage
on
Studies
m arital
20
satisfaction
and m a r i t a l
may
be g r e a t e r
been
found to
terms of
from
adjustment
in f i r s t
be l e s s
spouses'
m arriages.
may
ages,
intimacy
in
associated
also
relationship,
short
cause
leftover
courtships
accounts,
suggests
achieve in
a rem arriage
achievement
comparable
probably
of
to
takes
a
1.
as
on
"ghosts"
emotional
such
from
the
problems,
honeymoons
Children
an
and
of
stressors
previous
stepchildren,
separate
compared t o a f i r s t
level
the le v e l
of
of
intim acy
intim acy
t wo t o f i v e y e a r s
bank
of
m arriage.
in
the l i t e r a t u r e ,
The
rem arriage
in a f i r s t
(M essinger,
to
marriage
1984).
the follo w in g
derived:
First
married
m arital
2.
in
t h a t i n t i m a c y may be m o r e d i f f i c u l t
B ased on t h e r e v i e w
h y p o t h e s i s were
m arriages
the development
Research
and
have
emotional attach m en t to
problems in
rem arriage
intimacy
Remarriages
e d u c a t i o n and r e l i g i o n .
rem arriage.
with
that
h o mo g a mo u s t h a n f i r s t
a p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e and
ex-spouse
suggest
individuals w ill
intim acy
than rem arried
F ir s t married in d iv id u a ls w ill
conflict resolution
intim acy
report greater
individuals.
report
greater
than re m a rrie d
individuals.
3.
F ir s t married in d iv id u a ls w ill
cohesion
4.
than re m a rrie d
than f i r s t
greater
individuals.
Remarried i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l
intim acy
report
report greater
married in d iv id u a ls .
sexual
21
5.
Among r e m a r r i e d
individuals,
married fiv e years w ill
intim acy
t h o s e who h a v e b e e n
report
greater m arital
t h a n t h o s e m a r r i e d one y e a r .
22
METHOD
T his
sectio n
co llectio n
w ill
procedure,
d escrib e
th4
sam ple,
and t h e s t a t i s t i c a l
the
data
an alyses.
Procedure
The
G allatin
n a me s
County,
s e c u r e d from
Couples
in
p e o p l e who h a d
randomly
to
see i f
County m a r r i a g e
selected
from
m arriage)
both
s p o u s e s m a r r i e d one
Half
(N=20)
first
in
of
the
couples
records.
records
in
the
(both
time
the f i r s t
previously)
m a r r i e d and
m a r r i e d and r e m a r r i e d
the
was
study
(one
or
obtained.
rem arried
other h a lf
couple
and
spouses
a n d 40 r e m a r r i e d c o u p l e s
g r o u p s had b e en m a r r i e d one y e a r ;
the
married
license
t h e y would p a r t i c i p a t e
o f 40 f i r s t m a r r i e d
first
been
Montana f o r one y e a r and f i v e y e a r s , w e r e
a sample
their
all
the G a l l a t i n
were
telephoned
until
of
couple
( N=20)
groups
of
had
been
respondents
were
married fiv e years.
As
an
incentive
offered
a s umma r y o f
in
a spouse
which
once were
Of
8.7
declined
to
couples
had
personal
reasons
participate,
the r e s u l t s
of
the
had been p r e v i o u s l y
elim inated
the
to
from
couples
participate
recently
for
in
the
married
Couples
more
than
sample.
contacted,
the
study..
only
study.
divorced
Four
and t h e
not w anting to
seven
of
other
couples
the
three
participate.
seven
had
Local
23
telephone
c ompany o f f i c i a l s
figures,
the
but
general
people
stated
population in
a telephone
numbers.
not able
to
give
exact
s a m p l e a r e a wa s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
United S ta te s
w ithout
telephone
the
were
and o f
These
the
people
figures
percentage
with
we he
of
of
unlisted
not / available
however.
After
was
the i n i t i a l
mailed, a q u e s t i o n n a i r e
letter
to
describe
demographic
questionnaire
gender,
the
number o f
length
religious
preference,
time
more
to
hundred
a n 84$
rem arrieds
a t home,
between d iv o rc e
level,
Follow-up
being re tu rn e d .
to
t h e 35
rate.
demographic
length
and
age,
of
( N=67) a n d 50$ f i r s t
time
rem arriage,
income,
etc.
telephone
(104
calls
of
t wo
i n , 21
A second m a ilin g of
non-responding
being
individuals
returned.
f o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e tu r n e d
Of t h e s e
a
Intimacy
r e t u r n r a t e w a s 65$
9 more q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
and t h i r t y
return
detail,
Waring
The
cover
t h o s e who h a d n o t r e s p o n d e d r e s u l t e d
questionnaires
in
the
a
i n f o r m a t i o n on r e s p o n d e n t ' s
questionnaire
questionnaires
resulted
of
more
1984).
educational
160 p a c k e t s m a i l e d ) .
weeks l a t e r
the
of
in
and
children liv in g
married,
The i n i t i a l
consisting
research
( Waring,
requested
c o n t a c t , each p a r t i c i p a n t
packet
questionnaire,
Q uestionnaire
the
telephone
1 34 i n d i v i d u a l s ,
marrieds
( N= 6 7 ) •
One
for
50$ 1 w e r e
24
Sa mp l e
The s a m p l e
consisted
o f 67 f i r s t
m arried
individuals
( 3 3 m a l e s a n d 34 f e m a l e s ) a n d 67 r e m a r r i e d
individuals
males
all
a n d 37 f e m a l e s ) .
was 29.31
years
The' me a n a g e o f
( S . D. = 6 . 4 5 ) .
m a r r i e d m a l e s wa s 2 7 . 4 8
for f i r s t
age f o r
The
m arried
(S.D.
=
32.44
years
the rem arried
7.28).
The
= 3.7).
years
(S.D.
differential
=
(2.39
is
( 1978) w h ic h
wa s s i g n i f i c a n t l y
all
marrieds
= 6.25
= 6.28) .
31.24
years
rem arrieds
p
which
<
wa s
.01).
contrary
26.33
The
significantly
to the f in d i n g s
showed t h a t
greater
the
in rem arriages
age
was
older
age
higher
y e a r s ) than fo r f i r s t m arrieds
This f in d i n g
Gurak
(t
(S.D.
significantly
b e t w e e n s p o u s e s wa s n o t
rem arrieds
years).
4.08)
The me a n a g e
f e m a l e s was
me a n a g e f o r
the f i r s t
the f i r s t
( S . D. = 4 . 4 6 ) . The me an
1
(S.D. ■ = 6 . 7 8 ) which i s
t h a n t h e me a n a g e o f
and
( S . D.
f e m a l e s was 2 5 . 1 8
age f o r
respondents
The me a n a g e f o r
t h e r e m a r r i e d m a l e s wa s 3 3 - 6 3 y e a r s
me a n
for
years
(30
(2.3
o f Dean
differential
compared t o f i r s t
m arriages.
For
the f i r s t
married
individuals
y e a r s m a r r i e d wa s 3 . 2 5 y e a r s
the re m a rrie d
years
for
(S.D.
the
couples
recruited
individuals
m arried
as
part
wa s 3 . 5 0
i n number of y e a r s m a r r i e d s i n c e
the
For
Sampling p ro c e d u res account
or r e m a r r ie d f o r
of
= 27.46 m o n th s ).
t h e mean y e a r s m a r r i e d
= 28.04 m onths).
sim ilarity
(S.D.
t h e mean number of
sample.
one o r f i v e
years
only
were
25
The
The
number
first
couple.
child
of
children varied
m arried
c o u p le s had an av erag e
Remarried
from
second
their
The
couples
first
marriage
for
a total
t wo c h i l d r e n
the
dropouts
23. 1%
of
the
sample;
43. 3%
of
the
sam ple and c o l l e g e
of
The r e m a i n d e r
high
school
( 12. 756) •
The
different
than
of
( 1. 558)
the
some
couple.
advanced
group
first
was
married
high
comprised
college
graduates
comprised
accounted
for
dropped-out
graduate
not
one
their
from
sample had e i t h e r
o r had
rem arried
the
per
High s c h o o l g r a d u a t e s
people with
per
of
from
sample ranged
school
19»4%.
m arriage.
of T child
and one c h i l d
of
of
Ph.D 's.
of
(N=26) h a d a n a v e r a g e
m arriage,
education lev el
to
by t y p e
degrees
significantly
group
in
terms
of
education.
The
ranging
with
income
from below
income
sample;
levels
comprised
$5,000
of l e s s
individuals
25. 4%
incomes
over
sample.
The
income l e v e l s
of
in
the
to
with
the
comprised
sample;
and
than
the
group had
first
was
and
age
is
usually
to
(t
with
the
higher
= 17.14,
the re m a rrie d
associated
with
39.6% of
group
the
$30,000
significantly
married
because
of
individuals
$ 3 0 , 0 0 0 made u p t h e r e m a i n i n g
rem arried
widely,
35%
incom es of $15,000
T h i s wa s e x p e c t e d
income.
varied
over $40,000.I n d i v i d u a l s
than $15,000
p < .01).
older
sample
group
higher
26
C atholics
sam ple
not
in
are
rep resen ted
P r o t e s t a n t and 2 4 .3 $
have a r e l i g i o u s
a v ariety
The
of
a
from
18.8%
of
came
from
a nd 2 0 , 0 0 0 .
the
or
classified
of
S tates
only
two
races
98.5$
the
is
p opulation
at
all
in
of
o th er
the
may
sam ple
in
the
the
sam p le and
1.5$
came
of
for
present
the
study.
Am erican
sam ple.
of
the
the
The
U nited
exam ple,
B lacks
com prise
1981).
B lacks
are
(S ow ell,
the
the
betw een
account
not re p re se n ta tiv e
for
of
of o ver 2 0 ,0 0 0 .
area
p o p u la tio n in w hich,
rep resen ted
18,1 %
and
of
d istrib u tio n
the
com m unities
The r e m a i n i n g 6 3 . 1 $
accounted fo r
of
from
M ontana.
p o p u latio n
C aucasians accounted f o r
In d ian s
County,
came
t h a n 5 ,000
sam pling
did
them selves
com m unities w ith a
lim ited
in clu sio n
racial
sam ple e i t h e r
the
sects.
com m unities w ith a p o p u la tio n
The
11$
the
sam ple
of l e s s
67*7% o f
sam ple,
of
sm aller r e lig io u s
po p u latio n
sample
5,000
preference
the
s a m p l e w as d r a w n f r o m G a l l a t i n
A ccordingly,
w ith
15% o f
present
not
study.
In stru m en ts
A
ten -item
dem ographic
determ ine
of
d ata
q u e s t i o n n a i r e was c o n s t r u c t e d
(A ppendix
each i n d i v i d u a l 's
tim e m a r r i e d , e d u c a t i o n ,
and t h e
number of
A).
This
was
age,
relig io n ,
race,
po p u latio n
c h ild re n in
th e fam ily.
to
done
gender,
gather
to
length
o f home t o w n ,
27
M arital
intim acy
Q u estio n aire
report
(WIQ)
of i t s
high
= .89 f o r m a l e s ;
item
w ith
the
£ = .86 f o r
intim acy
su b scales
of
co n flict
to tal,
th ere
are
m arital
w hile
the
m easure
to tal
so cial
90
te st
of
The s c o r e s
of
the
on e a c h o f
intim acy
rem arriag es.
and
to tal
on i n t i m a c y
in tim acy
so cial
b etter.
betw een
m easure
sex u ality ,
In
item s.
for
kinds
a
m easurem ent
of
intim acy),
serv es as a
q u an titativ e
(W aring,
first
1984).
com parisons
m a r r i a g e s 1 and
scores for
allow a com parison
betw een
first
the
m arrieds
two
groups
q u an tity .
Once a t o t a l
d esirab ility
(i.e .
intim acy
or
ex p ressiveness;
t h e WIQ s u b s c a l e s a l l o w
The t o t a l
co rrelates
d esirab ility .
amount o f i n t i m a c y
q u ality
rem arried s
In
su b scales
s u b s c a ie s allow
score
v alid ity .
item s
and
item s m easure
in tim acy
(r
cohesion,
autonom y,
intim acy q u a lity
chosen
re lia b ility
.40 l e v e l
th ese
tru e/false
self-
s c o r e and c o n t a i n s e i g h t
affectio n ,
The e i g h t i n t i m a c y
of
intim acy
co m p atib ility ,
ad d itio n al
and
t h e 80 i n t i m a c y
the
a
The WIQ was
fem ales)
item s each:
reso lu tio n ,
id en tity ,
Ten
10
WIQ i s
consistency
score a t
The WIQ p r o v i d e s a t o t a l
The
intim acy.
in tern al
a n a ly s is each of
to tal
by t h e W a r i n g I n t i m a c y
( A p p e n d i x B) .
m easure of m a r i t a l
because
an
was m e a s u r e d
intim acy
score is
score.
d esirab ility
score is
su b tracted
Each o f
ob tain ed ,
to
the
so cial
give a r e v is e d
the in tim a c y
to ta l
s u b s c a l e s and
su b sc a l'e have a s c o r i n g ra n g e
of 0
the
to
28
10.
The
(only
WIQ
one
calcu latin g
the
test
qu estio n s
for
to tal
h alf
the
item s
in
of
to tal
are
each of
sta tistic a l
in tim acy
the
s c o r e r a n g e s from 0
test
intim acy
item s
score).
included
to
make
the s u b s c a le s l a r g e
an aly sis
(W aring,
1934).
are
to
40
u tilized
The o t h e r h a l f
the
number
enough to
in
of
of
allow
29
RESULTS
Prelim inary A nalysis
In
the
review
of
v ariab les
were
found
m arriag e:
age,
incom e,
It
was o r i g n a l l y
effect
of
th ese
the l i t e r a t u r e
th at
ed u catio n ,
planned to
procedure
and number of
in itia l
procedure
statistically
covariance
education
ch ild ren
exam ination
of
w as n o t f o u n d t o
v a r i a b l e s were found to
w ith
the
th ese
first
to tal
intim acy
v ariab les
m arrieds
and
number o f
.05,
and
age,
an aly sis
of
gender)
an aly sis
ch ild ren ,
£
=
covariance
of
the
by U s i n g
an
as
d ata,
how ever,
as none
be s i g n i f i c a n t l y
intim acy
£ = .0 4 ,
of
two-way
were used
th is
these
co rrelated
score
education
Instead
procedure,
variance
of
The c o r r e l a t i o n s
to ta l
.10.
in co m e,
co v ariates.
and r e m a r r i e d s w ere a s f o l l o w s :
.00,
for
age,
serving
tne
score.
the
w ith
in
children.
co n tro l
intim acy
be n e c e s s a r y
four
in tim acy
and number o f
on m a r i t a l
of
in tim a c y , four
effect
v ariab les
an aly sis
Upon
may
on
betw een
for
both
incom e,
lev el,
£ =
£
u tiliz in g
(m arital
to
an
type
test
=
by
each
hypo th esis.
Mai n A n a l y s e s
Each o f
an aly sis
sectio n
the
h y p o th e s is w ere
of v a ria n c e .
tested
The f i n d i n g s
u tilizin g
are re p o rte d
a two-way
in
th is
30
The
first
in d iv id u als
rem arried
w ill
the
to tal
rem arried
v arian ce
two
report
in d iv id u als. .
com paring
and
h y p o th esis
g reater
This
in d iv id u als.
Table
first
m arital
m arried
intim acy
w as
The
I).
two-way
by
m arried
analy ses
of
betw een
the
d ifferen ce
The
th an
tested
scores fo r f i r s t
no s i g n i f i c a n t
(see
th at
h y p o th esis
WIQ i n t i m a c y
rev ealed
groups
stated
h y p o th esis
w as
not
supported.
The
scores
s e c o n d h y p o t h e s i s was t h a t
w ould
reso lu tio n
th eir
be
higher fo r
means c o u p le s a r e
problem s.
first
co n flict
reso lu tio n
m arrieds.
C onflict
e ffectiv ely
C o n flict re s o lu tio n
able
in tim acy
m a r r i e d and r e m a r r i e d
i n d i v i d u a l s was a s s e s s e d
co n flict
subscale.
reso lu tio n
m arried in d iv id u a ls re p o rte d
r e s o lu tio n intim acy
Table
th ird
varian ce
betw een
sig n ifican tly
than re m a rrie d
the
I).
by t h e WIQ
h igher
first
co n flict
in d iv id u als
in d iv id u als.
m arrieds
(see
than re m a rrie d s .
to rev eal
a
would
The a n a l y s i s
sig n ifican t
d ifferen ce
two g r o u p s o n t h e WIQ c o h e s i o n s u b s c a l e
Hence,
g reater
cohesion
failed
The f o u r t h
be
first
hypothesized,
h y p o t h e s i s w as t h a t f i r s t
r e p o r t more m a r i t a l
T able
for
I ).
The
of
scores
As
to ' re so lv e
t h e h y p o t h e s i s was n o t
supported.
h y p o t h e s i s was tha,t s e x u a l i n t i m a c y
among r e m a r r i e d
However,
an
in d iv id u als
an aly sis
(see
than f i r s t
of v a ria n ce
w ould
m arried
failed
to
31
reveal
a sig n ifican t
d ifferen ce
and th e
h y p o t h e s i s was n o t
supported.
The
d ifferen ces
in
the
scores for
first
r e m a r r i e d s o n t h e o t h e r HIQ s u b s c a l e s w e r e
analy ses
found
of
(see
variance.
T able
I).
No s i g n i f i c a n t
T here was one
in in tim acy
When
rep o rted
sig n ifican tly
resu lt
a
of
also
d ifferen ces
in
betw een g e n d er
m arital
or
on
t h e HIQ s u b s c a l e
as
a
m arriage.
T h e r e w e r e no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s
statu s
were
Fem ales
of in tim acy
self-d isclo su re
by
d ifferen ce
fem ales.
h ig h er le v e l
and
tested
sig n ifican t
c o m p a rin g m a l e s and
ex p re ssiv e n ess or
m arrieds
and
to tal
intim acy
w ith
rem arried
scores.
The l a s t
hyp o th esis
in d iv id u als.
scores
for
d e a lt exclu siv ely
I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d
w o u l d be h i g h e r
fiv e years
among t h o s e
compared t o
for
on e y e a r .
H owever,
no
sig n ifican t
d ifferen ce
intim acy
A gain,
score
fem ales
ex p ressiv e
or
in teractio n s
stated
hypotheses
m arrieds
and
W hereas
in
the r e m a rrie d
intim acy
rem arried
rem arried
of v a ria n c e
revealed
betw een the g ro u p s on th e t o t a l
scores
a sig n ific a n tly
of
(see
in
2).
of
T h e r e w e r e no s i g n i f i c a n t
of
th is
tim e m a r r i e d .
study,
intim acy
sam ple
Table
h ig h er le v el
concerns a d iffe re n c e
r em arrieds
to tal
in d iv id u als
an a n a l y s i s
than m ales.
fin d in g
the
in d iv id u als
of g e n d e r and l e n g t h
A sig n ific a n t
the
those
any s u b s c a l e
reported
intim acy
th at
not re la te d
betw een
lev els
t h e r e w a s no
over
to
first
tim e.
sig n ific a n t
32
d ifference
first
th at
in in tim acy
m arried s.
among
m arried
one
in tim acy
scores
intim acy
subscale
who
been
Four
of
year
th an
t h i s was n o t
persons,
had
those
people m arried
subscale
who
sig n ifican tly
m a rrie d one y e a r
fiv e
th o s e m a r r ie d one y e a r .
were
for
revealed
had
higher
years.
first
compared t o
scores
tru e
of v arian ce
s c o r e s w ere h i g h e r , f o r
the in tim a c y
h ig h er fo r
tim e,
A two-way a n a l y s i s
f i r s t m arried
for
had
over
fiv e
been
to tal
A ll
m arrieds
years.
sig n ifican tly
T
A
B
L
EI
Mean 1 S co res on t h e Waring In ti m ac y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (WIQ), by M a r i t a l Types and Gender and
Two-way A n a ly si s o f Variance R e s u l t s
E f f e c t s of
Type of
Marriage I n t e r a c t i o n
F
P
F
P
.75
.08
Co
(WIQ) Scores
F i r s t Marrieds
Male
Female
(N=34) (N=33)
E f f e c t s of
Remarrieds
Gender
Male Female
P
(N=37) (N=30) - F
4.24
.04«
.55
.46
.51
1.05
.31
.63
.43
.37
.55
.03
.11
.74
5.81
.65
.42
.03
.8 6
.16
.69
7.27
7.08
2.41
.12
.14
.71
1.10
.30
. 7 >00
7.13
6.68
.34
.56
.09
.76
,44
.51
7.85
7.7-7
7.20
7-54
.61
.44
3.32
.07
.14
-Tl
6.55
8.03
6.73
7.73
18.69
.04
.85
.72
.40
24.63
24.76
24.20
24.73
.21
.65
.11
Conflict Resolution
7.09
7 .0 8
6.56
5.97
.56
.46
Affection
7.57
7.94
8.03
8.00
.43
Cohesion
7.57
7.32
: 7.53
7.46
Sex.
6. 1 8
6.03
6.27
Identity
7-52
6.56
Compatibility
7. 0 2
Autonomy
E x p r e s s iv e n e s s
T o t a l Intim acy Score
S u b s c al e s
1
2
s
.00«
S co res have been rounded t o th e n e a r e s t hundredth.
d f sex = I , m a r i t a l type = I , i n t e r a c t i o n = I , e r r o r = 130
S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e .05 l e v e l o r l e s s .
v
T
A
B
L
E2
R em arrieds'
Mean 1 S co res on th e Waring In ti m a c y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (WIQ) by Number of Years
Married and Gender and Two-way A n a ly si s o f Variance R e s u l t s 2
(WIQ) Scores
One Year
Male
Female
(N =13)
(N=IT)
Five Years
Male Female
(N=IT) ( N=20)
E f f e c t s of
E f f e c t s of Length of
Gender
Marriage I n t e r a c t i o n
F
P
F
P
F
P
.62 _
.13
.72
.16
.69
1.29
•30
.65
.42
.26
.81
8.00
.01
.90
.01
.90
.01
• 90
7 .2 4
7.35
.07
.79
1.33
.25
.31
.58
6.06
6.65
5.60
.49
.49
.15
.70
1.53
.22
7.07
7.12
7.41
7.05
.09
•76
.07
.80
.15
.70
Compatibility
7.69
7.00
6.71
6.40
.82
.37
2.07
.16
.12
•73
Autonomy
7.00
7 .2 9
7.35
7.7 5
.63
.43
.86
.36
.01
.91
E x p r e s s iv e n e s s
7.1 5
7.76
6.41
7.70
4.97
.03*
.90
.35
.63
.43
24.62
24.71
23.88
24.75
.25
Conflict Resolution
6.38
5.65
6.71
6.25
Affection
8 . OT
8.00
8.00
Cohesion
7.92
7.59
Sex
5.T7
Identity
T o t al Inti macy Score
S ub sc ale s
I
2
e
S co res have been rounded t o the n e a r e s t hundre dth .
d f sex = I , m a r i t a l type = I j i n t e r a c t i o n = I , e r r o r = 63
S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t th e .05 l e v e l or l e s s .
u>
-p>
35
DISCUSSION
T his
the
sectio n w ill
study
a sum ma ry o f
provide
and p o s s i b l e
in terp retatio n s
for
the
There
is
also
study
and
recom m endations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .
The f i r s t
w ill
have
the
hypothesis,
more
in d iv id u als
to
a d iscu ssio n of
the r e s u l t s
in tim ate
was n o t
resu lts
rep o rted
(1975)
who f o u n d no s i g n i f i c a n t
m arried
and r e m a r r i e d
satisfactio n .
and the
The
s t u d i e s on m a r i t a l
p o sitiv e
relatio n sh ip
m arital
satisfactio n
of
present
the
th at
the
m arital
rem arried
(D em aris,
1984;
(n
are
not
Duberman,
en ter
e x p e c t a t i o n s may a i d
they
must
first
stu d ies
.first
m arriage
note
w ith
m arrieds.
d e a lin g w ith
the
a nd
w hich s u g g e s t
m arried
F ursten b erg
(1984)
study
The r e s u l t s
sig n ifican tly
th e m s i g n i f i c a n t l y
ma ke i n c l u d i n g
m arital
in tim acy
1981).
of
1975;
people
than
of
first
present
betw een
oth er
F u r s t e n b u r g and S p a n i e r
ex p ectatio n s
Duberman
betw een
betw een th e
= .40)
support
second
sim ilar
s a t i s f a c t i o n may be d u e t o
1984).
a
are
and
d ifferen ce
relatio n sh ip
couples
rem arried
(1984)
(W aring e t a l . ,
study
than
i n d i v i d u a l s on a m e a s u re
sim ilarity
the
in d iv id u als
These r e s u l t s
by D e m a r i s
of
m arried
m arriag es
supported.
resu lts.
the im p lic a tio n s
th at f i r s t
of
and
d ifferen t
& S p an ier,
th a t rem arried
more
re a listic
These
realistic
in
an
the ad ju stm en ts
ex-spouse
and
36
ad ju stin g
to
the f a c t o r s
As
step ch ild ren .
th a t aid rem arried s
hypothesized,
sig n ifican tly
rem arried
higher
more c h a l l e n g e s
or
p rio r m arriage,
and
first
in d iv id u a ls rep o rted
intim acy
solve
(e.g .
and
ro le
clin ical
in co m p atib ility
in a lre a d y
makes
so lv in g
w ith
from
a
tran sitio n s)
s u p p o rts V isher
o b serv atio n s
estab lish ed
m o re
than
faced
"ghosts"
This f i n d i n g
( 1979)
problem
adjustm ents.
couples are
changes,
couples.
s h o u l d f o c u s on
reso lu tio n
R em arried
boundary
V i s h e r 1s
th ese
m arried
problem s to
m arried
in
co n flict
in d iv id u als.
than f i r s t
F uture re se a rc h
m arital
th at
p attern s,
d ifficu lt
for
rem arried
first
married
couples.
It
was
hypothesized
that
couples
compared t o
remarried
c o u p le s would r e p o r t
cohesion.
However,
there
between
the
two g r o u p s o n t h e
cohesion
subscale.
Reduced
a mo u n t
of
contact
with
ex-spouse
may
in
development
of
new c o u p l e
and
boundary
cohesion.
More
relationship
community
and
the
and c o h e s i o n
A nother f a c t o r
is
the
is
warranted
presence
in
significant
of
to
thereby
sam ples.
in a rem arriage
rem arried
fam ily
build
determine
the e x - s p o u s e
the
in
the
the
rem arriage.
ch ild ren in
stresso rs
difference
help
t h a t may h a v e i n f l u e n c e d
t h e low number o f
rem arried
the
research
between
w a s no
greater marital
boundary
both
the
S tep ch ild ren
(C h erlin ,
to
th is
fin d in g
first
m arried
are
1 981)
sig n ifican t
and c au se
b e m o re p e r m e a b l e
as
the
they
37
come a n d go i n
step ch ild ren
in
have m inim al
The
w ould
the v i s i t a t i o n
fourth
persons.
rem arried
n egative
report
L andis
the
process.
fam ilies
in flu en ce
h y p o th esis
g reater
suggest
takes
sam ple
r e m a r r i e d s and f i r s t
m a r r i e d much l o n g e r
research
could
m arriage
in
sexually
among r e m a r r i e d
rem arried
th an
h y p o th esis
develop
T his
people
m arital
may be p a r t i a l l y
th a t rem arried
changes
ju st
than
adjustm ent
easier
of
M e s s i n g e r 1s (1 9 8 4 )
in
q u ite
first
one
in
b elief
year.
intim acy
The
rem arried
do
over
S c h l e s i n g e r ' s (1968)
a n d may a l s o
th at i t
makes
to
resu lts
takes
not
tim e.
finding
e x p e c ta tio n s of
co n trib u te
These
people
intim acy
q u i c k l y 1 and
m a r r i e d s w hich
intim acy.
intim acy
th at
I t appears th a t
in crease
due t o
couples
to tal
s p o u s e s h ave more r e a l i s t i c
m arriage
developm ent
rem arried
of
m arried s.
rem arried
a sig n ifican t
F uture
m onths
I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d
intim acy
been
one y e a r ) .
if
The
all
w eeks and
d e a lt w ith
supported.
m arriage
weeks.
had
y e a r s w ould h av e h i g h e r
w as n o t
experience
early
than f i r s t
persons.
fiv e
m arrieds
determ ine
hypothesis
m arried
L a n d is and
several
(at least
on th e
to
ad ju st fa s te r
The f i n a l
scores
than th a t
order
persons
than f i r s t
supported.
a fe w d a y s t o
focus
s a m p l e may
sexual adjustm ent in
gen erally
of
only
th at
th is
th a t rem arried
intim acy
T h i s h y p o t h e s i s w as n o t
(1968)
in
on c o h e s i o n .
stated
sexual
The l o w n u m b e r o r
m arital
the
rap id
co n trad ict
two t o f i v e
years
38
for
remarrieds
to
Longitudinal
research
satisfaction,
like
the
s ame
level
stabilize
is
needed to
intimacy
from
■t h e i r
in
determine
remarriage
the f i r s t
relationship.
year
to
if
m arital
remains a t
the f i f t h
about
year
of
rem arriage.
Im P l i c a t i o n s
The
study
and
apply
marriage
appear
with
to
major
to
the
only
resolve
need
to
difference
the
First
in
being
in
be aware
such
& V isber,
that
couples
resolution
results
the f i e l d s
terms
the
present
and
that
remarrieds
they
remarrieds
than
Marriage
first
may' e s p e c ia l ly
than f i r s t
first
therapists
married
need
appear
experience
conflict
1979).
intimacy
marrieds
A lternatively,
of
therapy
of m a rita l
first
a way
compared t o
sk ills
of
of marriage
marrieds
that
than r e m a r r i e d s .
I
have
mo r e
sources
( Visher
remarried
conflict
to
enrichment.
conflicts
simply
marrieds
prim arily
of
be v e r y much a l i k e
mo r e i n t i m a c y
may
im plications
to
couples,
learn
mo r e
marrieds.
Conclusion
When
married
comparing th e m a r i t a l
and
differences
resolution.
does not
year
of
remarried
were
Among
appear
to
marriage
found
intimacy
individuals,
except
remarried
in
no
the area
couples,
significantly
phange
and
year
the f i f t h
scores
of
of
first
significant
of
conflict
m arital
intimacy
between
the
marriage!
first
T n i 1S
39
fin d in g
is
c o n s is te n t w ith
satisfactio n
F u rsten b erg
study
first
in
& S p an ier,
suggest
m arried
A
rem arriage
couples
of
would
over
the
the f i r s t
be m ore a p p r o p r i a t e
Duberman;
of
the
1975;
present
th o u g h t.
process
study
of
to
,
of
acquiring
the
changes in
from t h e
year.
design.
to
m arital
early
weeks
The p r e s e n t
study
A lo n g itu d in al
design
determ ine
changes
in intim acy
tim e.
understand
areas
th at
intim acy
need t o
paym ents,
rem arriage
q u ality
w ith
if
is
be i n v e s t i g a t e d
in rem arriage
h a v in g a honeymoon,
alim ony
and
previously
sexual, in tim a c y )
through
of
c o u p l e s a r e more s i m i l a r
from f u r t h e r
a cro ss-sectio n al
O ther
not
1984;
The r e s u l t s
understan d in g of
(esp ecially
rem arriag e
u tilized
1984).
t h a n was
i n t i m a c y w ould r e s u l t
stu d ies
(D em aris,
th a t rem arried
b etter
intim acy
several
the
effect
the le n g th
a facto r,
the e x -s p o u s e
in clu d e
of
and
of
the
ch ild
time
if
to
fu lly
effects
support
betw een
the
of
a nd
divorce
relatio n sh ip
a ffe c ts m arital
intim acy
in
rem arriag e.
F in ally ,
th erap ists
the
it
and m a r r ia g e
dynam ics
m arried s.
flu ctu ates
m arriage
w ould
of
be
b en eficial
to
enrichm ent le a d e rs
intim acy
changes over
to
tim e
m arriage
u n derstand
for
first
A
b e tte r , u n derstanding
of
why
intim acy
over
t i m e may be a n o t h e r
step
in
im proving
enrichm ent
p ro g ram s and m a r i t a l
th erap y .
j
40
LITERATURE CITED
41
Aguirre,
B.
E. & P a r r , W. C. ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
Husband's marriage
o r d e r and t h e s t a b i l i t y o f f i r s t and s e c o n d m a r r i a g e
of
white
and
black
women.
Journal
o f M a r r i a g e and t h e
Fam ily. 4 4 . 605-620. .
A katagw a,
D. ( 1 9 8 1 ) .
D evelopm ental f e a t u r e s in
relatio n sh ip s.
J o u r n a l o f D i v o r c e . H, 6 3 - 7 0 .
in tim ate
A lbrecht,
S.
L. (1979).
C o r r e l a t e s of m a r i t a l h a p p in e s s
among t h e r e m a r r i e d . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y .
A l , 8 5 7 -8 6 7 .
B alsw ick,
J.
& A v erett,
C.
P.
(1977).
D ifferen ces in
ex p ressiv en ess:
gender,
i n t e r p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n , and
p erceived
p aren tal
ex p ressiv en ess
as
co n trib u tin g
facto rs.
J o u r n a l o f M arria g e and th e F am ily .
32.,
121127.
Balswick,
J.
0.
&
Peek,
C.
W.
(1974).
The
i n e x p r e s s i v e n e s s m a l e : a t r a g e d y o f American s o c i e t y . In
E. A. P o w e r s & M. L e e s ( E d s . ) ,
Process in r e la t io n s h ip
(pp.2 7-34).
New Y o r k : We s t P u b l i s h i n g Co.
B ecker,
G.
econom ic
P o litical
S . ; L a n d e s , E. M. & M i c h a e l , R. T.
an aly sis
of
m arital in s ta b ility .
E c o n o m y . 85 r 1 1 4 1 - 1 1 8 7 .
Broderick,
Schuster.
C.
(1979).
Couples.
B urke,
R. J . ; W e i r , T. & H a r r i s o n , D.
of p ro b le m s and t e n s i o n s e x p e r i e n c e d
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 3 8 . 53 1 - 5 4 2 .
C h e l u n e , G. J . ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
ta rg e t d iff e r e n c e s in
32., 2 5 9 - 2 6 3 .
( 1977).
An
J o u r n a l of
New Yo r k :
S i m o n and
( 1976).
D isclosure
by m a r i t a l p a r t n e r s .
A m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l l o o k a t s e x and
d is c lo s u re . P v sch o lo g ical R ep o rts,
C herlin ,
A. ^ ( 1 9 7 8 ) .
R em arriage
as
an
incom plete
i n s t i t u t i o n . A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , 84 ? 6 3 4 - 6 5 0 .
C berlin,
A.
C am bridge,
C lin eb ell,
m arriag e.
J.
(1981).
M arriage, d iv o rc e , re m a rria g e .
M assachusetts:
H arvard U n iv e rs ity P ress.
H.
J . & C l i n e b e l l , C. H. ( 1 9 7 0 ) .
New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row.
The i n t i m a t e
42
C lingem peel,
W.
G.
(1981).
Q u a s i - k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s and
m arital
q u ality
in
step fath er
fam ilies.
J o u rn a l of
P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o lo g y , 4 1 , 8 9 0 -9 0 1 .
Dahms,
A. M. ( 1 9 7 4 ) .
I n t i m a c y h e i r a r c b y . I n E. A. P o w e r s
& M.
Lees ( E d s . ) ,
P rocess in r e l a t i o n s h i p ( p p .7 3 -9 2 ).
New Y o r k :
W es t P u b l i s h i n g C om pa ny .
D avidson,
B. ; B a l s w i c k ,
J . & H a l v e r s o n , C. ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
relatio n
betw een s p o u s a l a f f e c t i v e s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e
m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t . Home E c o n o m i c s R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l .
381-391 .
D avis,
M. D.
Press.
( 1973).
In tim ate
relatio n s.
New Y o r k :
The
and
II r
Free
Dean,
G.
& Gurak,
D. I . ( 1 9 7 8 ) .
M arital
homogamy t h e
second tim e a ro u n d .
J o u r n a l o f M arriag e and th e F a m ily .
M , 559-569.
D e m a r i s , A. ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
A com parison of re m a ria g e s w ith f i r s t
m arriages
on
satisfactio n
in
m arriage
and
it's
r e la tio n s h ip to p rio r c o h a b itio n .
Fam ily R e l a t i o n s . 3 3 ,
443-449.
Duberman,
L.
(1973).
Step-kin r e la tio n s h ip .
M a r r ia g e and th e F a m ily . 3 5 . 2 8 3 -2 9 2 .
Duberman,
C hicago,
L.
1 11.:
E rikson,
E. H.
W. W. N o r t o n .
Esses,
L.
M.
research in g
424.
(1975).
N elson-H all
(1963).
&
the
Journal
The
reco n stitu ted
P u b lish ers.
C hildhood
and s o c i e t y .
of
fam ily .
New Y o r k :
C am pbell,
R.
(1984).
C hallenges
in
rem arried .
F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s . . 33., 4 1 5 -
Frey,
J.;
H olley,
J . & L 1 A b a t e , L. ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
Intim acy is
sharin g
hurt
f e e l i n g s : a com parison of th r e e
co n flict
reso lu tio n
m odels.
Journal
of
M arital
and
Fam ily
T h e r a p y , 5., 3 5 - 4 1 .
F u rstenburg,
F. F . & S p a n i e r , G. B. ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
The r i s k
of
d is s o lu tio n in rem arriag es:
an e x a m in a tio n of C h e r l i n 's
hyp o th esis
of
incom plete i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .
Fa m il y :
R e l a t i o n s . 3 3 . 433-441.
G ilb ert,
S.
J.
( 1976).
S elf d isc lo su re ,
i n t i m a c y a nd
com m unication i n f a m i l i e s .
Fam ily C o o r d in a to r , 25, 221231.
43
G i t t e r , G. A.
revealing?
3 27-332.
G lenn,
after
N.
& B l a c k , H. ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
Is self-d isclo su re
Journal
of
C ounseling
P sychology.
self
23.
D. ( 1 9 8 1 ) .
The w e l l - b e i n g o f p e r s o n s r e m a r r i e d
divorce.
J o u r n a l o f Fam ily I s s u e s , 2 , 61-75.
G lenn,
N.
D.
& W eaver,
happiness
of
rem arried
M a rria g e and th e F a m ily ,
Ha mes ,
J.
& W aring.
E.
n o n -p s y c h o tic em otional
13-19.
H ollingshead,
behavior.
C.
N.
(1977).
The m a r i t a l
divorced
persons.
J o u rn a l of
3 9 , 331-337•
M. ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
illn ess.
M a r i t a l i n t i m a c y and
P s y c h i a t r i c F o r u m . S.,
A.
B.
(1952).
M a r i t a l s t a t u s and w edding
M a r r i a g e a n d F a m i l y L i v i n g . 14 , 3 0 8 - 3 1 1 •
H orow itz,
L.
M.
(1979).
On t h e c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e o f
i n t e r p e r s o n a l problem s t r e a t e d in p s y c h o th e ra p y . J o u rn a l
o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o lo g y . A l , 5 -1 5 .
H unt,
M.
M.
( 19 6 6 ) .
The w o r l d o f t h e f o r m e r l _ y _ m a r r i e d .
New Y o r k : M c g r a w - H i l l Bo ok C ompa ny.
H u s t o n , T. L. & B u r g e s s , R.
d eveloping r e l a t i o n s h i p .
K a n t o r , D.
& Lehr,
W.
Y ork:
H a r p e r a n d Row,
L. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . S o c i a l e x c h a n g e i n
New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s .
(1975).
In sid e
P u b lish ers.
the
fam ily .
New
K l e m e r , R. , H.
& S m i t h , R. M. ( 1 9 7 5 ) .
K le m e r's m arriag e
and fa m ily r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row.
L 1A b a t e ,
L. ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
Intim acy i s s h a rin g h u r t f e e l i n g s : a
rep ly
to
D avid
Mac e.
J o u r n a l o f M a r ria g e and Fam ily
C o u n s e l i n g . 3., 1 3 - 1 6 .
L 1 A b a t e , L. ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
t h e A-R-C m o d e l .
277-283.
S ty les in in te rp e rs o n a l r e la tio n s h ip s :
The P e r s o n e l a n d G u i d a n c e J o u r n a l . iL3_,
L 1 A b a t e , L. & F r e y , J . ( 1 9 8 1 ) .
The E- R-A m o d e l : 1 t h e , r o l e
of f e e l i n g in fam ily th erap y re c o n s id e r e d :
im p licatio n s
for a
classificatio n
of t h e o r i e s
of
fam ily
therapy.
J o u r n a l o f M a r i t a l a n d F a m i l y Therapy.. Z t 143-1 50.
L' A b a t e ,
L.
intim acy.
& L 1A b a t e ,
B.
L. ( 1979).
F a m i l y T h e r a p y . 3., 1 7 5 - 1 8 4 .
The p a r a d o x e s
of
L 1A b a t e ,
L.
& Sloan,
S.
( 1984).
A w orkshop fo rm a t
to
fa c ilita te
in tim acy
in
m arried
couples.
, Fam ily
R e l a t i o n s . 33., 2 4 5 - 2 5 0 .
L andis,
J.
T.
&
Landis,'
M.
s u c c e s s fu l m arriage
(5 th e d .) .
Jersey:
P r e n ti ce-H al I .
G.
( 1968).
B u ilding a
Englewood C l i f f s ,
New
Larson,
J . j A n d e r s o n , J . & M o r g a n , A. ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
step p aren tin g .
New Y o r k :
Fam ily S e r v ic e
of A m erican.
E ffectiv e
A sso ciatio n
L ef.fel,
C.
& R e i n e r t , M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) .
C omments o n A l b r e c h t ' s
"co rrelates
o f m a r i t a l h a p p i n e s s among t h e
re m a rrie d ."
J o u r n a l of M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y . 4 1 . 2 4 1 - 2 4 3 .
L eslie,
G. R. ( 1 9 6 7 ) .
The f a m i l y
Y ork: O xford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
in
so cial
co n tex t.
New
L e v i n g e r , G. & S e n n , D. J . ( 1 9 6 7 ) .
D is c lo s u r e of f e e l i n g s
in m arriage.
M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y . I I . 237-249•
Lew is,
R.
A.
( 1978).
Em otional
intim acy
J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l I s s u e s , 1 4 . 108-121 .
among
men.
L ow enthal,
M.
F.
& Haven,
C.
( 1968).
I n t e r a c t i o n and
ad ap tio n :
intim acy
as
a c r itic a l v ariab le.
A m erican
S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 1 1 . 20^30.
M e s s i n g e r , L.
(1976).
R em arriage betw een d iv o r c e p eo p le
w ith
c h i l d r e n from p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e s : a
proposal fo r
p rep aratio n
for
rem arriag e.
J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e a nd
Fam ily C o u n se lin g , 2 , I 93-200.
M essinger,
Press.
L.
(1984).
R em arriage.
New Y o r k :
Plenum
Morgan,
A.
(1980).
The d e v e l o p m e n t o f s t e p f a m i l i e s : a n
exam ination
of
change
w ith
the
first
two
years.
U npublished
doctoral
d issertatio n ,
Texas
Tech
U n i v e r s i t y , Lubbock, Texas.
M ueller,
C.
W.
& Pope,
H.
(19.80).
d i v o r c e and f e m a le
d i v o r c e m o b i l i t y : d a ta on m a r r ia g e m atch es a f t e r d iv o r c e
f o r w h i t e women.
S o cial F o rce s; 5 8 . 726-738.
N elson,
M. & N e l s o n , G. K. ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
Problem s of e q u ity in
the
re c o n stitu te d fam ily :
a s o c ia l exchange
analy ses.
Fam ily R e l a t i o n s . 1 1 , 223-23 I •
45
Pederson,
D.
M.
& B reg lio ,
V.
J. (1968).
P erso n ality
co rrelates
of
actu al
self-d isclo su re.
P sychological
R e p o r ts T 2 2 ? 495-501 .
P erlm ut t e r ,
M.
S.
& H atfield ,
E.
( 1980).
Intim acy,
in ten tio n al
m e ta c o m m u n ic a tio n and second o r d e r
change.
A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f F a m i l y T h e r a p y . 8 . 17 - 2 3 .
P e te rs , J . F. (1976).
A c o m p a r i s i o n o f m ate s e l e c t i o n and
m a r r i a g e i n th e f i r s t and s e c o n d m a r r i a g e s i n a s e l e c t e d
sam ple of th e r e m a r r i e d d iv o r c e d . J o u rn a l of C om parative
F a m i l y S t u d i e s . %, 4 8 3 - 4 9 1 .
P r i c e - B o n h am,
S.
& B alsw ick,
J.
0.
( 19 8 0 ).
The
n o n in stitu tio n s:
d iv o rc e , d esertio n ,
and
rem arriag e.
J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e a nd t h e F a m i l y . 4 2 1 9 5 9 - 9 7 2 .
Renne,
K.
(1971).
urban
p o p u latio n .
13., 3 3 8 - 3 5 0 .
H ealth
and m a r i t a l e x p e r i e n c e i n an
J o u r n a l o f M arria g e and th e F a m ily f
R o l l i n s , B. C. & F e l d m a n , H. ( 1 9 7 0 ) .
M arital s a t i s f a c t i o n
o v er th e l i f e c y c l e . J o u r n a l b f M a rria g e and th e F am ily.
12, 20-28.
R ubin,
L.
a n d Row.
( 1983) .
Intim ate
stran g ers.
New York,:
S atir,
V. 5 S t a c h o w i a k ,
J.
& Taschman,
H.
H e l p i n g f a m i l i e s t o c h a n g e . New Y o r k : J a s o n
S chaefer,
M.
T.
& O lson,
D.
in tim acy :
the
p a ir inventory.
F a m i l y T h e r a p y . JL, 4 7 = 6 0 .
S chle s in g e r ,
fin d in g s.
H arper
A.
( 1975).
A ro n so n ,In c.
H.
(1981).
A ssessing
J o u r n a l o f M a r i t a l and
B.
(1968).
R e m a r r i a g e - an
in ventory
F a m i l y C o o r d i n a t o r . 17 1 2 4 8 - 2 6 0 .
of
S ch elesin g er,
B.
(1970).
R em arriage
as
fam ily
re o rg a n iz a tio n fo r divorced p erso n s - a
C anadian stu d y .
J o u r n a l o f C om parative Fam ily S t u d i e s , I f 101-118.
S ow ell,
Books,
T.
(19 8 1 ) .
E thnic
Inc. P u b lish e rs .
A m erica.
New Y o r k :
B asic
S p a i n e r , G. & F u r s t e n b u r g , F . F. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . ' R e m a r r i a g e a f t e r
d iv o rce:
a lo n g itu d in a l a n a y s is of w ell being.
Journal
o f M a r r ia g e and t h e F a m ily . 4 4 . 7 0 9 -7 2 0 .
S tap leto n ,
N ash v ille,
J.
& B rig h t,
R.
Tenn. :
A bington.
(1976).
Equal m a rria g e .
46
S te in z or,
B.
( 19 6 9 ).
P a n th e o n Books.
T rost,
J.
E.
( 1984).
R e l a t i o n s . 1 3 , 475-481.
When p a r e n t s
R em arriage
V aillan t,
G. E. ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
A daption
L i t t l e , B ro w n a n d C ompa ny.
d iv o rce.
in
New Y o r k :
Sweden.
to l i f e . B oston,
Fam ily
M ass.:
Va i l l a n t ,
G.
E.
( 1978).
N atural
h isto ry
of
m ale
p sychological h ealth s
c o r r e l a t e s of s u c c e s s f u l m a rria g e
and
fath erh o o d .
A m erican J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y . 13 5 .
653-659.
V i s h e r , E. V.
& V i s h e r , J . S.
( 1979) .
S tepfam ilidss
a
g u id e t o w o rk in g w i t h s t e p p a r e n t s and s t e p c h i l d r e n .
New
Y ork: B runner/M azel P u b li s h e r s .
W a l d , E. ( 1 9 8 1 ) .
The r e m a r r i e d f a m i l y .
S e r v i c e A s s o c i a t i o n of A m erica.
W alker,
K.
& M essihger,
L.
d iv o rce:
d isso lu tio n
and
boundaries.
Fam ily P r o c e s s .
New Y o r k :
Fam ily
( 1979).
R em arriage a f t e r
reco n stru ctio n
of
fam ily
I 8 ? I 85-192 .
W aring,
E.
M.
(1981).
F acilitatin g
m arital
intim acy
through
self-d isclo su re.
A m erican J o u r n a l o f
Fam ily
T h e r a p y . Jl, 3 3 - 4 2 .
W aring,
E.
intim acy.
I 85-1 92.
M.
(1984).
Journal of
The
m easurem ent
of
m arital
M a r i t a l and F am ily T h erap y .
10 r
W a r i n g , E.
M. & C h e l u n e , G. J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
M a rita l intim acy
and s e l f
d isclo su re.
J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P sychology.
19., I 8 3 - 1 9 0.
W aring,
E.
M. j
M c E l r a t h , D. |
Lefcoe,
D.
& W e i s z ,. G.
(1981).
D im ensions of in tim a c y i n m a r r i a g e . P s y c h i a t r y .
1 1 , 169-175.
W aring,
E.
M .; M c E l r a t h , D. j M i t c h e l l , P. & D e r r y , M. E.
(1981).
I n ti m a c y and e m o tio n a l i l l n e s s i n
the g e n e r a l
p o p u latio n .
C anadian J o u rn a l of P s y c h i a t r y .
26.
167172.
W a r i n g , E. M .;
Reddon, J. R .;
C o r v i n e l l i , M. j
C halm ers,
W. S. & V a n d e r L a a n , R.
(1983).
M a r i t a l in tim a c y and
mood
states
in
a
n o n c l i n i c a l sam ple.
The J o u r n a l o f
P s y c h o lo g y . 1 1 5 . 263-273•
47
W aring,
E. M.; T i l l m a n , M. P . ; F r e l i c k , L , ; R u s s e l l , L. &
W e i s z , G. ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
C oncepts
of intim acy in th e g e n e ra l
p o p u latio n .
The J o u r n a l o f N e r v o u s a n d M e n t a l D i s e a s e .
IM L , 4 7 1 - 4 7 4 .
W hite,
L.
K. ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
Sex d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n t h e e f f e c t o f
r e m a r r i a g e on g l o b a l h a p p i n e s s .
J o u r n a l o f M a r r ia g e and
th e F a m ily , 4 1 f 869- 8 7 6 .
Y oder,
J . D. & N i c h o l s , R. C. ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
A life
com parison
o f m a r r i e d and d i v o r c e d p e r s o n s .
M a r r ia g e and F a m ily . 4 2 , 4 1 3 -4 1 9 .
persp ectiv e
J o u r n a l of
48
APPENDICES
49
APPENDIX A
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
50
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
Couple
I.
Your age ( w r i t e i n ) _______________
2.
Your sex ( c i r c l e o n e ) :
3•
Length of time m a r r i e d ( i n Months o r y e a r s ) ( w r i t e i n ) : _________
4.
9 .
Highe st grade completed ( c i r c l e o n e ) :
1- 8th grade
2- some High School
I . male
3 - High School g r a d u a t e
4- Some Col le ge
5.
Your r a c e ( c i r c l e o n e ) :
6.
Your r e l i g i o n ( c i r c l e o n e ):
I- Catholic
3- Mormon
2 . . female
5 - College g r a d u a te
6 - College g ra d u a te
p l u s g r a d u a t e school
I - C a u c a s ia n /w h it e
2- American I n d i a n
3 - Other ( s p e c i f y ) ______________________
2- P r o t e s t a n t ( e . g . B a p t i s t , L u t h e r a n , M e t h o d i s t , e t c . )
4- Other ( s p e c i f y ) _______________________ _____________
7. Your f a m i l y ' s t o t a l g r o s s income l a s t y e a r (1984) ( c i r c l e o n e ) :
1)
2)
3)
$0 - $4,999
$5,000-49,999
$10,000-414,999
7) $30,000-434,999
8) $35,000-435,999
9) $40,000 or more
4) $15,000-$ 19,999
5) $20, 0 00-$ 24,999
6) $25,000-429,999
8. Approximate p o p u l a t i o n o f your community ( c i r c l e o n e ) :
I) 0 - 499
2) 500 - 999.
3) 1,000 - 4,999
9.
4) 5,000 - • 9,999
5) 10,000 - 14,999
6) 15,000 - 19,999
7) 20,000 - 24,999
8) 25,000 - 29,999
9) 30,000 o r more
Number of c h i l d r e n from f i r s t m a r r ia g e l i v i n g w it h you ( w r i t e i n ) :
10. Number of c h i l d r e n from second m a rr ia ge l i v i n g w i t h you ( w r i t e i n ) :
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!
APPENDIX B
WARING INTIMACY QUESTIONNAIRE
52
WARING INTIMACY QUESTIONNAIRE
FORM 90
Edward M. Waring, M.D.
Co pyright U.S. 1979
INSTRUCTIONS
There a r e 90 s t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s b o o k l e t .
They a r e s t a t e m e n t s about
marriages.
You a r e t o d e ci de which o f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s a r e t r u e of
yo ur m a rr ia ge and which a r e f a l s e .
Make a l l yo ur marks
on the
s e p a r a t e answer s h e e t .
I f you t h i n k t h e s t a t e m e n t i s TRUE or mostly
TRUE o f y o u r m a r r ia g e , make an X i n the box l a b e l e d T( t r u e ) . I f you
t h i n k t h e s t a t e m e n t i s FALSE or mos tly FALSE of your m a r r ia g e , make
and X i n the box l a b e l e d F ( f a l s e ) .
Remember, we would l i k e t o know what your m a rr ia ge seems l i k e t o YOU.
So DO NOT t r y t o f i g u r e o u t how your sp ouse w i l l see y o u r m a rr ia ge ,
but DO gi ye us your g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n o f your m a rr ia ge f o r each
s ta t e m e n t.
1.
D iffe r e n c e s o f
r e l a t io n s h ip .
o p in io n
never
le a d
to
v erb a l
abuse
2.
I am a t my b e s t when we a r e to g e th e r .
3.
W ithout my m arriage yy l i f e would la c k meaning..
4.
I ask my spouse f o r th i n g s t h a t r e a l l y t u r n me on.
5.
I often fe e l insecure in social s itu a tio n s .
6.
I w ish my spouse en jo y ed more th e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t I en jo y .
7.
I en jo y sp en d in g tim e w ith my in - la w s .
8.
I f th e r e i s one th in g t h a t my spouse and I a re
ta lk in g about our f e e l i n g s t o each o th e r .
9.
I d o n ' t th in k any co u p le l i v e to g e th e r w ith g r e a t e r harmony than
my mate and I .
good
in
at,
our
it's
10.
Our d if f e r e n c e s o f o p in io n le a d t o sh o u tin g m atches.
11.
I alw ays k i s s ny sp ou se good -b ye.
12.
Our m a r ita l s a t i s f a c t i o n i s more im p o rta n t than c a r e e r d e c is io n s .
5
3
13.
Sometimes sex seems mere l i k e work than play t o me.
14.
Compared t o o t h e r p e opl e t h a t I know I l a c k s e l f - e s t e e m .
15.
We seem t o work o u t how t o s har e the ch ore s a t ou r house.
16.
Whenever we v i s i t my s p o u s e ' s p a r e n t s ,
have n o t h i n g t o t a l k ab out.
17.
Often I only p r e t e n d t o l i s t e n when my spouse t a l k s .
18.
I have some needs t h a t a r e no t bei ng met by ny m a rr ia g e .
19.
D i s c u s s i n g problems w it h my spouse seldom l e a d s t o arguments.
20.
I f e e l t h a t t h e r e i s a d i s t a n c e between ny spo use and I .
21.
I va lu e our m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p above a l l e l s e .
22.
I think th a t
m a rr ia g e .
23.
I have a s t r o n g sens e of who I am.
24.
% sp ouse and I s h ar e the same philo so phy o f l i f e .
25.
My i n - l a w ' s a d v ic e i s o f t e n a p p r e c ia te d and welcom e.
26.
I p r e f e r t o keep my p e rs o n a l t h o u g h ts t o myself.
27.
My mate has a l l of t h e q u a l i t i e s I have always wanted i n a mate.
28.
Old wounds
op in io n .
29.
D e s p ite b ein g m arried I o f t e n f e e l lo n e ly .
30.
Even i n m a rr ia g e everyone ha s t o l o o k o u t f o r then s e l v e s .
31.
Sex w ith my spouse has n ev er been a s e x c i t i n g a s i n my f a n t a s i e s .
32.
I r e a l l y d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t I am ve ry good a t most t h i n g s .
33.
My spouse f r e q u e n t l y h e l p s when I am doing an u n p l e a s a n t chore.
34.
When a l l the
un co mf orta ble .
35.
I enjoy s h a r i n g my f e e l i n g s w it h my spo use .
36.
My m a rr ia g e i s n o t a p e r f e c t s u c c e s s .
are
the
I f e e l awkward because
importance of sex i s
always reopened when
we
highly
have
over-rated
get
together,
I
in
differences
•
relatives
I
feel
of
,
awkward
and
54
37•
Y e l l i n g and screaming
our c o n f l i c t s .
play no p a r t i n our a t t e m p t s t o
38.
I o f t e n t e l l my spouse I l o v e him /h e r.
39«
When one g e t s m a rr ie d , i t ' s f o r e v e r .
40.
Our p e r s o n a l c l o s e n e s s
i s t h e major
s a t i s f a c t o r y our sex ua l r e l a t i o n s h i p i s .
41.
I f e e l t h a t I am th e p e r s o n I would l i k e t o be.
42.
% spo use and I s h ar e the same g o a l s i n . l i f e .
43.
We a r e luc ky t o have t h e r e l a t i v e s t o whom we can go f o r h e lp .
44.
I always t r y t o
t a l k i n g t o me.
45.
% m a rr ia ge could be h a p p i e r th a n i t i s .
46.
When t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e of
r e s o l u t i o n r a t h e r th a n f i g h t .
47.
We always do something s p e c i a l . o n our a n n i v e r s a r y .
48.
I n our m a rr ia g e
one f o r a l l "
49*
Our s ex u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p d e c r e a s e s my f r u s t r a t i o n s .
50.
I am embarrassed when I am the c e n t e r of a t t e n t i o n .
51.
My spouse and I l i k e t o do t h i n g s f o r s el f -i m pro ve m e nt t o g e t h e r .
52.
I t is a real
parents.
53.
I often
re a d t h e newspaper or watch T. V.
t r y i n g t o t a l k t o me.
54.
I have never r e g r e t t e d my ma rri a ge n o t even f o r a moment.
55.
I ne ver h i t below the b e l t when we argue .
56.
I w i l l never use my lo ve f o r my spouse as a way t o h u r t him /he r.
57.
I am n o t p re pa re d t o p u t up w i t h my s p o u s e ' s annoying h a b i t s .
58.
% ma rriage could
sex ua l l i f e .
determinant
resolve
of
how
g i v e my sp ou se my f u l l a t t e n t i o n when h e / s h e i s
opinion,
we te n d t o n e g o t i a t e
a
we t r y to l i v e by th e p r i n c i p l e " a l l f o r one and
e f f o r t f o r me t o t r y and g e t along w i t h my s p o u s e ' s
when
n o t p o s s i b l y be happy w ith ou t a
my
spouse
is
satisfactory
55
59.
When I can pa re myself t o most o t h e r people, I l i k e n y s e l f . ,
60.
My s p o u s e .and I have worked out t h e male -fe mal e household
t o both our s a t i s f a c t i o n .
61.
I f e e l t h a t my p a r e n t s i n t e r f e r e i n our r e l a t i o n s h i p .
62.
I would l i e t o my spouse i f I thoug ht i t would keep the peace.
63.
I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t anyone could p o s s i b l y be h a p p i e r tha n my mate
and I when we a r e w ith one a n o t h e r .
64.
When we have d i f f e n c e s o f op in io n ,
the house.
65.
I am o f t e n u n f r i e n d l y towards my spouse.
66.
I d o n ' t r e a l l y c a r e whe the r ny spouse s u p p o r t s me or n o t , j u s t as
long a s h e / s h e l e t s me l e a d my own l i f e .
67.
I always seen t o be i n the mood f o r sex when my s p o u s e i s .
68.
I am sometimes a f r a i d t h a t p e op le w i l l see a p a r t of me t h a t
am n o t aware of.
69.
My spouse d i d n o t t r y t o make me change a f t e r we g o t m a rr ie d .
70.
Family r e u n i o n s a r e one h i g h l i g h t o f our s o c i a l l i f e .
71.
My p e r s o n a l s e c r e t s would h u r t my spouse.
72.
There a r e times when I do n o t f e e l a g r e a t de a l
a f f e c t i o n f o r my mate.
73*
During our arguments
p o i n t o f view.
74.
Love i s b e in g a b l e t o say y o u ' r e s o r r y .
75.
I would be w i l l i n g t o
better.
76.
My spouse r a r e l y t u r n s away from my sexu al advances.
77.
There a r e many a s p e c t s of ny p e r s o n a l i t y t h a t I do n o t l i k e .
78.
I found i t d i f f i c u l t
were m a rr ie d .
79.
Our c h i l d r e n i n t e r f e r e with t h e time we have t o g e t h e r .
80.
I can say a n y t h i n g I want t o ny sp ou se .
I
roles
my spouse nev er walks ou t of
nev er t r y t o
depreciate
of
my
love
.I
and
spouse's
compromise ny b e l i e f s t o make o u r . m a r r i a g e
t o make changes i n my l i f e s t y l e a f t e r
we
56
81.
There a r e some t h i n g s a bout ny mate t h a t I do n o t l i k e .
82.
Sometimes I t h i n k a l l we e v e r do i s argue.
83.
Buying g i f t s shows my a f f e c t i o n f o r my sp ouse.
84.
Most of t h e time a t home I f e e l l i k e I am j u s t k i l l i n g time,.
85.
Our s ex u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i n f l u e n c e s our l e v e l of c l o s e n e s s .
86.
Other
do.
87.
Ny
s p o u se ’ s
relationship.
88.
Our m a rr ia g e would be b e t t e r
problems.
89*
I always ta k e time t o l i s t e n t o my spouse.
90.
Every new t h i n g I have l e a r n e d a bout my mate ha s p l e a s e d me.
peop le u s u a l l y have more t o o f f e r i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a n I
sociability
adds
a
positive
aspect
to
our
i f our p a r e n t s d i d n ’ t meddle i n our
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
3 1762 10027 57 3
M ain
N378
A15U65
c .2