A COMPARISON OF MARITAL COHESIVENESS AMONG
FARM AND NONFARM MARRIAGES
by
ELIZABETH ANNE FRIEMEL, B.S. in H.E., M.S. in H.E,
A DISSERTATION
IN
HOME ECONOMICS
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Accepted
Dean ^f the Graduate School
August, 1985
AO,
Si
A/^TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
iv
LIST OF TABLES
vi
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
Theoretical Perspective
Review of Literature
Attraction Variables
Barrier Variables
Alternative Attraction
Variables
II.
METHODOLOGY
12
12
19
22
30
Sample
30
Questionnaire
30
Operational Definitions
31
Attraction Variables
Barrier Variables
Alternative Attraction
Variables
III.
6
RESULTS
33
37
39
41
Preliminary Analysis
41
Descriptive Statistics
42
Main Analysis
45
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 5
Gender Differences
Summary
50
54
55
57
60
62
67
11
IV.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
69
Attraction Variables
70
Barrier Variables
72
Alternative Attractions
73
L i m i t a t i o n s of the S t u d y
74
Implications
for F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h
. .
75
REFERENCES
78
APPENDIX
86
111
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this
differences
nonfarm
in
study was to examine
dissolution
respondents.
A
potential
conceptual
among
model
possible
farm
of
and
marital
cohesiveness and dissolution which categorizes variables
into
attractions, barriers, and
alternative
attractions
was tested.
The findings of the study were based upon subjects
who were visiting
Texas.
the 1984 Tri-State Fair
in Amarillo,
The sample consisted of 612 respondents, with 172
farm respondents
and
440 nonfarm
respondents.
Subjects
completed a questionnaire which included demographic data,
background information, and attitude questions as well as
the Marital Status Inventory, which measured dissolution
potential.
Stepwise multiple regression was implemented to test
the
six
inverse
hypotheses.
relationship
The
hypothesis
between
that
attraction
proposed
variables
an
and
dissolution potential was partially supported, as was the
hypothesis which suggested an inverse relationship between
barrier
variables
and
level
of
dissolution.
Barrier
variables were found to explain a greater proportion of
variance
while
in dissolution potential
attraction
variables
were
for farm respondents,
more
predictive
dissolution potential for nonfarm respondents.
IV
of
The variables which indicated
ships to dissolution potential
significant relation-
for the
farm group were
disjunctive kin affiliations
and religiosity
while
religion,
affection.
Catholic
of couple,
disjunctive
affiliations, home ownership, and respondent's
were
significantly
nonfarm
related
respondents.
kin
education
to dissolution potential
Suggestions
are
made
for
for
further
research using the model with the added attraction variables
self-esteem
and
coping
better
explain
marital
with
stress
cohesiveness
potential for farm respondents.
V
and
so
it
might
dissolution
LIST OF TABLES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Factors Differentiating High and Low Cohesive
Marriages: Adapted from Levinger's
(1979) Model
10
Results of the Factor Analysis of
Income Variables
34
Descriptive Statistics for All Variables
in the Model
43
Summary of Descriptive Statistics
for Total Sample
44
5.
Zero-Order Correlations for the Total Sample
6.
Zero-Order Correlations for the Farm Sample . . .
48
7.
Zero-Order Correlations for the
Nonfarm Sample
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for the Total Sample
49
51
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for the Farm Group
52
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for the Nonfarm Group
52
Betas for the Hierarchical Regression on
Barrier Variables for Farm Respondents
58
Betas for the Hierarchical Regression on
Barrier Variables for Nonfarm Respondents . . . .
59
Summary Table of Increase in R^ for
Attraction and Barrier Variables for
Farm and Nonfarm Respondents
60
Betas for the Hierarchical Regression on
Attraction Variables for Farm Respondents . . . .
61
Betas for the Hierarchical Regression on
Attraction Variables for Nonfarm Respondents
62
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Standardized and Unstandardized
Regression Coefficients for
Farm Group—Males Only
VI
. .
. .
47
64
17.
18.
19.
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for Farm Group—Females Only . . . .
65
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for Nonfarm Group—Males Only . . . .
65
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for Nonfarm Group—Females Only . . .
66
Vll
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
There is currently a wide range of statistics on the
divorce rate in the United States, each calculated in a
different
manner
(Crosby,
1981;
White
&
Mika,
1983).
Census Bureau data indicate that as a group, farmers and
their spouses in the United States maintain a low rate of
separation and divorce.
The United States Bureau of the
Census
(1981) published
a report comparing
status
of
percent
of
farm
to nonfarm women which
farm women, as opposed
nonfarm women, were divorced.
to
the marital
stated
that
one
seven percent
of
The 1982 update of the same
bulletin (United States Census Bureau, 1982) reported that
the one percent rate for farm women remained
while
the
percentage
for
nonfarm
women
the same,
rose
to
eight
percent.
This phenomenon suggests the usefulness of examining
dissolution
potential
of
farm
respondents
to
further
understand why some marriages remain intact while others
dissolve.
Levinger's
(1965, 1979)
conceptual
model
of
marital cohesiveness and dissolution makes it possible to
investigate
intact
the
dissolution
marriages.
To date,
potential
of
there have been
1
persons
no
from
studies
2
which have specifically examined dissolution potential of
farm versus nonfarm
respondents using Levinger's
(1965,
1979) model as an explanatory scheme.
The empirical and theoretical literature has included
a plethora of variables considered indicative of marital
quality,
satisfaction,
Levinger
quality
adjustment,
or
dissolution.
(1965, 1979) reviewed the literature on marital
and marital
outcome
and
then categorized
these
variables which have been used to test theories of marital
quality
and
dissolution
into
cohesiveness and dissolution.
his
model
of
marital
The present study examined
the applicability of Levinger's
(1965, 1979) model to a
subculture that has historically maintained a low divorce
rate.
If the model does indeed explain why some marriages
remain intact while others dissolve, the farm group should
appear different from the nonfarm group in the proportion
of
variance
in
dissolution
potential
explained
by
the
attraction, barrier, and alternative attraction variables
in the model.
This
rural
model
versus
dissolution
recognizes
urban
the
residence
potential.
intervening
as
Although
variable
of
an
effect
on
(1956)
and
having
Goode
Copp
(1964) stated that rural-urban differences were diminishing, more recent researchers have asserted that diversity
and
differentiation
urban
people
among
in American
rural
society
people
remain
as
compared
to
(Bealer, 1981;
3
Willits, Bealer, & Crider, 1973).
Coward and Smith (1981)
described the rural family environment as being "sufficiently
different"
physical
and
from
the
urban
environment
social-psychological
terms.
in
They
both
linked
differences in educational levels, income levels, the lack
of opportunity for employment of rural women, the distance
from
urban
centers,
and
the
lack
of
availability
of
colleges, instructors, and library facilities to differences in rural and urban families.
Brown
(1981)
described
demographic
between rural and urban residents.
differences
He found that rural
residents marry earlier, have more children and live in
larger households.
Rural residents also have lower labor
force participation among women and a lower divorce rate.
Family stability, or marital cohesiveness, is greater
in
rural
areas, as
evidenced
(Schumm & Bollman, 1981) .
by
a
lower
divorce
rate
Rural families are also more
likely to be headed by a married couple than are urban
families
(Schumm
& Bollman, 1981).
Recent Census
data
trends confirm that a smaller percentage of rural individuals are divorced than urban individuals (United States
Bureau
of
the Census,
(1972)
found
1981, 1982).
that divorce was not related
rural residence during childhood.
investigated
Bumpass
the
relationship
and
Sweet
to urban or
Mueller and Pope (1977)
between
the
rural-urban
socialization of offspring from divorced and nondivorced
4
parents
and
found
transmission
of
no
effect
parental
on
the
marital
spring's marital instability.
intergenerational
instability
to
off-
These results suggest that
the lower rates of divorce in rural areas may be a result
of current rural social norms as they influence adults,
rather than norms internalized by the individual during
childhood
(Schumm & Bollman, 1981).
Schumm
and Bollman
(1981) hypothesized that the divorce rate in rural areas
is lower due to residents' hesitancy to violate the rural
community's
married
norms,
for the
religion
such
as
expecting
sake of the children
prohibits
divorce
due
to
the
couples
to
or because
stay
their
"sacredness"
of
marriage.
Coward
and Smith
(1981) suggested
that
rural-urban
differences render generalizations from urban and suburban
research highly tenuous for people in sparsely populated
areas.
that
Their research further supported the proposition
residence
operates
as an
intervening
variable, or
mediating influence, on marital stability (p. 2 ) .
Although
recent investigations
indicate
rural-urban
differences remain, past research in the area of marital
quality and stability has either failed to differentiate
rural and urban marriages or neglected to examine rural
couples at all
(Fenelson, 1971; Rosenblatt, Nevaldine, &
Titus, 1978).
The purpose of the present study was to
examine
possible
differences
in
dissolution
potential
5
among farm and nonfarm respondents.
Utilizing Levinger's
(1965, 1979) model of cohesiveness and dissolution, the
investigation
examined
the
percentage
of
variance
in
dissolution potential accounted for by each of the categories of variables in the model.
This
degree
study
dissolution
the
relationship to be progressing toward separation.
This is
of
marital
Levinger (1965, 1979).
the Marital
perceived
as
marital
inverse
a respondent
potential
his/her
the
to which
defined
cohesiveness,
as
defined
by
Weiss and Cerreto (1980) developed
Status Inventory to measure the dissolution
potential of a respondent by an accumulated total of the
actual steps already taken toward that end.
Subjects in the sample were assessed on each of the
three
categories
Levinger's
of
(1965,
1979)
marital dissolution.
and
alternative
answer
questions
variables
which
model
as
These are:
attractions.
regarding
are
delineated
in
being
predictive
of
attractions, barriers,
Subjects
both
their
were
asked
attitude
to
toward
divorce and actual behavioral steps taken toward dissolution
of
their marriage.
dissolution
potential,
Inventory.
was
and
The
the
was
Behavior
dependent
measured
attraction,
in
the
variable,
by
the
barrier,
direction
dissolution
Marital
and
of
Status
alternative
attraction variables were measured, and demographic
and
6
background
information were obtained.
Also, attitudinal
questions were asked.
Studies
of
dissolution
potential
are
warranted
in
order to help answer the question of why some marriages
remain intact while others, perhaps with the same level of
quality, are not durable.
It is logical to compare the
level of dissolution potential in a subculture which has
historically maintained a low divorce rate (farm) to that
of urban (nonfarm) marriages, which are reported to have a
higher rate of instability.
for
the
present
study
of
it
Thus, to establish a basis
farm-nonfarm
dissolution
potential,
is
necessary
integrative
review of the existing
differences
in
to
an
conduct
empirical
concerning marital quality and stability.
literature
An examination
of the connection between studies of dissolution potential
and marital cohesiveness is also necessary, in order to
better understand what variables differentiate
farm and
nonfarm respondents' marriages.
Theoretical Perspective
Levinger's (1965, 1979) model of marital cohesiveness
and dissolution
integrates the social exchange
ideas of
Thibaut and Kelley (1959), Homans (1961), and Blau (1964).
The model explains marital cohesiveness and stability in
terms of an equation linking attractions, barriers, and
alternate attractions.
Cohesiveness, or strength of the
marital
is
relationship,
a
direct
function
of
the
7
attractions within and barriers around the marriage, and
an inverse function of such attractions and barriers from
other
relationships
(Levinger,
1965, p. 19).
Levinger
(1965) drew the term cohesiveness from a physical analogy
of the bond between two nuclei in a molecule.
This bond
may be indicated by the amount of energy required to break
it.
As dissolution
energy
necessary
potential
to break
up
increases, the
amount
the marriage, or
of
marital
cohesiveness, decreases.
The attractions
(1965)
are
and barriers described
synonymous
with
the
concepts of costs and rewards.
social
by
Levinger
exchange
theory
The most general proposi-
tion of social exchange theory is that:
. . . Humans avoid costly behavior and seek
rewarding statuses, relationships, interaction,
and feeling states to the end that their profits
are maximized. Of course, in seeking rewards,
they voluntarily accept some costs; likewise, in
avoiding costs, some rewards are foregone, but
the person, group, or organization will choose
the best outcome available based on his/her/its
perception of rewards and costs (Nye, 1979,
p. 2) .
The literature suggests that as individuals increase their
resources through education, employment, and reduction in
family
size, an increase in alternative attractions may
occur.
Social
exchange
theorists
view
all marital
inter-
action as a bargaining process (Scanzoni & Scanzoni, 1981;
Seward,
1970) .
Spouses
bring
to
the
marriage
their
expectations and must "strike a bargain" or a balance in
8
which they are giving more in one area and getting more in
other areas.
Nye
(1979) stated this balance in the form
of an assumption that "those who receive less feel anger,
and those who receive more (than they deserve) experience
guilt"
(p. 7 ) .
alternatives
If
a
outside
spouse
the
perceives
present
more
rewarding
relationship,
he/she
moves toward leaving the current relationship and seeking
greater
profit
elsewhere.
However,
if
getting
out of the present marriage
are
the
costs
of
too high, the
person is likely to stay, but the satisfaction level will
diminish.
Levinger expanded the stability-instability status of
marriage issue, and the concept of Comparison Levels of
Thibaut
and
Kelley
(1959).
His
model
of
cohesiveness
casts these general exchange concepts into more specific
attraction, barrier, and alternative attraction variables,
as explained earlier.
This model is useful for investi-
gating the present research question concerning farm and
nonfarm differences in dissolution potential.
Marriage was conceptualized by Levinger
special case of all two-person relationships.
(1965) as a
He further
proposed that marital cohesiveness becomes a special case
of group
cohesiveness
(1965, p. 19).
He
explained
the
marital adjustment and divorce literature with his model
of marital cohesiveness, in which he theorized about the
durability of marriages.
He defined cohesiveness by using
9
Festinger's
(1957)
definition
of
group
cohesiveness:
" . . . the total field of forces which act on members to
remain
in the group"
(p. 164) .
Levinger
further
added
that inducements to stay in any group include the attractiveness of the group itself
tiveness
of
alternative
(attractions), the attracrelationships
(alternative
attractions), and the strengths of the restraints against
leaving the group (barriers).
This model may be useful in
understanding
couples
marriages
whether
for
farm
different
reasons
remain
than
in
their
their
nonfarm
counterparts.
Levinger
of
variables
greater
(1965, 1979) began with Goode's (1965) list
which
proneness
were
found
to divorce.
to
be
associated
These variables
with
included
urban background, early marriage, short courtship, short
or
no engagement, marital
unhappiness
of parents, non-
attendance at church, mixed religious faith, disapproval
by
kin
and
friends
of
the
marriage,
background, and different definitions
dissimilarity
of
of marital roles.
He categorized the variables into attractions, which help
to cement a marriage; barriers, or feelings of obligation
to others; and alternative attractions, which derive from
competing
sources
of need
satisfaction.
Table
Levinger's (1979) classification of variables.
1 shows
10
TABLE 1
Factors Differentiating High and Low Cohesive Marriages:
Adapted from Levinger's (1979) Model
Attractions
Barriers
Alternative
Attractions
Material Rewards
income adequacy
home ownership
Material Costs
cost of divorce
Symbolic Rewards
educational homogamy
occupational status
social similarity
age homogamy
Symbol ic Costs
Symbolic Rewards
divorce conservatism
independence and selfreligiosity of couple
actualization
Catholic religion
pressures from primary groups
pressure from the community
Affectional Rewards
companionship and esteem
sexual partner
(affection scale)
Affectional Costs
feelings toward dependent
children (number and
presence of children;
ideal number of children)
Note:
Material Rewards
wife's independent social
and economic status
(measured by community
embeddedness)
Affectional Rewards
preferred alternate sex
partner (contact with
opposite sex)
disjunctive kin
affi1iations
The terms in parentheses specify the variables as they were operationalized when the
operationalization differed from the terms used in the model.
Attraction variables were described
the
needs
for
physical
subsistence
by Levinger
and
safety,
as
for
psychological security, love, and respect, and for selfactualization
1954) .
or
Barriers
fulfillment
include
(Levinger,
feelings
1979;
of obligation
Maslow,
to the
spouse, to children, and to other members of the couple's
social
network, or to abstract moral proscriptions
normative pressures from external sources.
and
11
Levinger
marriage
(1965, 1979)
as
being
viewed
based
on
the
two
durability
traits:
of
a
attraction-
repulsion toward the relationship and barriers against the
dissolution of the relationship.
He further stated that
the strength of the marriage is a product of its attractions and barriers.
Marital attractions are divided into three hypothetical sources:
material rewards, such as income and owner-
ship; symbolic rewards, from family status and background
homogamy; and affectional rewards, v/hich Levinger
(1979)
associated with companionship and sexual enjoyment.
Barriers
groups:
to
divorce
material
terminating
the
costs,
are
also
including
relationship;
divided
into
financial
symbolic
three
costs
costs,
of
including
obligations to the marital bond itself and to children,
moral
proscriptions
tions
which
attendance;
against
strongly
and,
divorce, religious
oppose
external
divorce,
pressures
and
to
affilia-
joint
remain
church
married,
from both primary group affiliations and community norms
about
divorce.
Community
norms
for
rural
and
urban
residents are expected to be different.
Alternative attractions included in the present study
are wife's independent social and economic status (whether
or not she was gainfully employed and degree of community
embeddedness).
A
wife
who
is
economically
independent
12
will be less hesitant to dissolve her marriage because of
financial reasons.
Levinger
may
be
(1965, p. 23) pointed
linked
to
differences
out that
in
occupation
susceptibility
to
alternative attractions.
Members of certain occupations,
such
as
average
physicians
and
masseurs, have
probability
for
extended
contacts.
explore
Therefore,
alternative
they
have
greater
intimate
greater
attractions
compete with their marital
a
which
than
heterosexual
opportunity
might
relationships.
tend
to
to
In contrast,
full-time farmers may have less exposure to alternative
heterosexual relationships because of the nature of their
work,
which
is
basically
done
alone,
with
one
hired
person, or with family members.
Review of Literature
The following section will be a review of the literature as it applies to each of the attraction, barrier, and
alternative
model
of
attraction
marital
variables
cohesiveness
in
and
Levinger's
(1979)
dissolution.
The
existing marriage and family literature as it applies to
farm or rural families will also be presented in relation
to each of the variables.
Attraction Variables
Income
adequacy.
Early
research
supported
the
proposition that the higher the family income, the higher
13
the
marital
1971;
quality
Frazier,
(1965)
(Burgess
& Locke,
1953; Cutright,
1960; Goode, 1962; Locke, 1951).
described
income
as
a
subjective
Goode
category
of
influence, asserting that the perceived adequacy of family
income has a greater impact on marital adjustment than the
actual amount of income.
Consistent with this subjective
view of income, Dizard
(1968) found that large drops in
income were
with
associated
greater
reports of marital
satisfaction, provided the husband involved himself more
with
family
repeatedly
activities.
indicated
Studies
significant
during
positive
the
1960s
relationships
between marital satisfaction and demographic characteristics such as income.
As methodology has become more rigorous, studies have
failed
to
support
earlier
findings
(Albrecht,
Brinkerhoff & White, 1978; Jorgensen, 1979).
studies,
which
have
used
multivariate
replicated Glenn and Weaver's
economic
factors minimally
Jorgensen
earlier
(1979)
reports
also
These recent
analyses,
have
(1978) finding that socio-
affect marital
reported
that higher
1979;
a
lack
levels
of
satisfaction.
support
of education
for
affect
marital satisfaction.
Levinger
literature
(1979)
concerning
noted
a
whether
lack
a
of
clarity
couple's
high
in
the
income
functioned as an attraction to the marriage or whether it
served
as
a barrier
against
divorce
by making
spouses
14
reluctant
to
break
up
their
joint
financial
assets.
Cutright (1971) explained that stability among high income
couples
could
greater
assets
fragment
those
result
and
from
their
investments
assets
and
ability
and
their
to
their
earning
accumulate
reluctance
power
to
through
marital disruption.
However, income was considered as an
attraction
present
anticipated
for
the
study,
because
that a large proportion
of
the
it
was
not
respondents
would fall into a high income bracket.
Many marriages may be held together by the economic
dependence of the wife on the husband, and this dependency
tends to be even greater when the couple has a child or
children under eighteen years of age (Cherlin, 1977; Glenn
& McLanahan, 1982; Hannan, Tioma, & Groenveld, 1978; Ross &
Sawhill, 1975).
of
income
the
Levinger
wife
(1979) reported that the amount
earns
is
positively
correlated
to
divorce, while husband income has an inverse correlation.
Other researchers have found that the larger the ratio of
the wife's income to that of her husband, the greater the
likelihood
of instability
Spitze & Waite, 1981).
(Becker, 1973; Cherlin, 1977;
Rosenblatt et al. (1978) observed
that one of the major differences between farm and nonfarm
families
in the United
States relates to income.
stated:
Income is variable, unpredictable, and strongly
influenced by factors outside the control of the
family members. Farm families, far more than
families whose income is derived from a salary.
They
15
must struggle with income and expenses.
They
are . . . at the mercy of external factors such
as the weather, the markets for their goods, the
cost of supplies, insect pests, plant diseases,
and
variations
in
the
cost
of
credit.
(Rosenblatt et al., 1978, pp. 91-92).
Rosenblatt
Keller
and
Anderson
(1981)
and
(1983) reiterated the economic
Rosenblatt
and
stress which farm
families experience:
Contemporary farm families are under enormous
economic pressure from high interest rates, low
prices for products, high expenses for equipment
and supplies, rapidly escalating land costs,
land scarcity and the threats to agricultural
productivity from weather, insects, and diseases
of animals and plants. Economic stress and the
threat of economic disaster are present in the
lives of most farm couples in a way that most
salaried people rarely experience.
(Rosenblatt
& Keller, 1983, p. 567)
These uncontrollable factors would seem to underscore the
importance of family economy among farm families.
Working
together at an economic enterprise is liable to produce
closeness that binds people
(Hagood, 1949; Rosenblatt et
al., 1978; Sorokin & Zimmerman, 1929).
economic
The binding from
necessities may make for more stable relation-
ships, with marriages less likely to end in divorce.
This
argument has been cited by some researchers as a possible
explanation for the comparatively low divorce rates among
farm couples (Kohl, 1976; Rosenblatt et al., 1978; Sorokin
& Zimmerman, 1929).
Home
ownership.
Levinger
(1965)
classified
home
and/or property ownership as an attraction to staying in
the marriage.
He asserted that home ownership acts as a
16
stablizing factor in the marriage.
finding, Levinger
proportionately
(1979) reported
Based on his earlier
that home
owners
had
fewer divorces than couples who did not
own their homes.
Home
and/or
property
ownership
could
also be con-
sidered a barrier to dissolving the marriage, particularly
in community property states.
For farmers, a divorce in a
community property state could result in the division of
all property,
including
major assets.
This division of property could mean the
end of farming.
barrier
rather
a home, any
farm
land
and
all
Thus, home/property ownership may be a
than
an
attraction
in
the
marriage,
especially for farm couples in community property states.
However, for the purposes of this study, home ownership
was considered as an attraction, in line with Levinger's
(1965, 1979) model.
Respondents'
indicated
marital
education.
Early
empirical
evidence
that there is an inverse relationship
instability
and
education
of
spouses
between
(Blood
&
Wolfe, 1960; Bumpass & Sweet, 1972; Carter & Click, 1976;
Cutright,
exceeded
husband's
1971; Udry,
divorced
1966).
marriages
education"
"Durable
in
(Levinger,
their
marriages
mean
1979, p. 47).
level
have
of
Levinger
went on to propose that, although high income alone may
not account for greater durability in a marriage, it may
contribute commensurately through increased earning power
17
resulting from increased education and related changes in
values.
Bumpass and Sweet
(1972) stated that education
shapes one's attitude and values toward marriage.
education may
also bring a person greater
Greater
status, more
lucrative employment, and greater opportunity for professional employment.
Coombs and Zumeta
(1970) studied a group of Detroit
women and found that almost half of the respondents from
dissolved marriages had not finished high school.
Only
two percent of the college graduates in the study reported
unstable marriages.
Thornton (1978) used National Fertility Study data to
investigate the influence of wife's education on marital
stability.
He found that the inverse relationship between
education and divorce remained, while controlling for age
at marriage, religion, and race.
employed
multivariate
several
socioeconomic
analysis
to
variables
Mott and Moore
study
on
(1979)
the effects
marital
of
stability.
They found that as the wife's education increased, marital
instability decreased and that this relationship held when
income was controlled.
tions
based
Specifically,
on
the
This finding contradicts predic-
social
recent
exchange
theory
literature
(Nye,
suggested
1979).
that
as
level of education goes up, whether for husband or wife,
risk
of
divorce
is
reduced.
Thus,
education
will
be
18
viewed as an attraction variable, rather than a resource
which may lead to increased alternative attractions.
Social
similarity.
Kerckhoff
(1974)
reported
that
people marry homogamously not only because they encounter
a
larger number of
also
because
similar
they
prefer
socially similar to them.
studies
which
than dissimilar
have
to
be
with
others, but
others
who
are
This may explain the results of
indicated
a
positive
relationship
between the similarity of a couple's race, age, education,
socioeconomic
background
and
religion,
and
marital
stability.
Burr
(1973)
concluded
that
homogamy
of
social
characteristics is positively related to marital quality.
The effects of homogamy on other structural, functional,
and
interactional variables
are
less clear
stability
quality,
in the marital
(Lewis & Spanier, 1979) .
relationship
Using marital
as a dependent variable, rather
researchers
religious preferences
have
concentrated
on
than
marital
homogamy
of
(Christensen & Barber, 1967) , race
(Heer, 1974) , age and education
(Bvimpass & Sweet, 1972) ,
and social class (Scanzoni, 1968).
While no research had
examined the effect of homogamy on marital quality specifically. Burr (1973) stated, " . . . equal status seems to
be
associated
with
the
highest
probability
of
marital
adjustment, the husband having slightly higher status is
19
next, and
the husband having
less status
is associated
with the least adequate adjustment" (p. Ill).
Glenn
and
Weaver
(1978)
employed
multivariate
analyses and found no significant effects of socioeconomic
factors, including family income, occupational prestige,
educational attainment level, and wife working, on marital
quality
level.
Jorgensen
and
Klein
(1979)
tested
hypotheses relating differences in background homogamy to
marital disagreement and found an overall lack of support
for
heterogamy
theory.
Their
findings
suggested
that
homogamy may be less of an issue today than in years past.
Couples may recognize some of their differences prior to
the marriage and compensate for those differences in other
areas of the relationship, reducing disagreement potential .
Barrier Variables
Religious
Religious
durability
Landis,
homogamy
homogamy
has
and
often
religiosity
been
linked
of
to
couple.
marital
(Bumpass & Sweet, 1972; Coombs & Zumeta, 1970;
1963; Levinger, 1965, 1979).
Bumpass and Sweet
(1972) reported that the lowest divorce rate by religion
is
among
intrafaith
Jewish
marriages,
followed
by
Catholics and then Protestants.
More
Fertility
recently,
Study
relationship
data
between
Thornton
from
1970
religious
(1978)
and
used
found
homogamy
National
a
moderate
and
marital
20
stability when controlling for education, race, and age of
marriage.
among
He found that the highest divorce rate occurred
Fundamentalist/Baptists,
Catholics.
The
divorce
followed
rate
for
by
both
Others
and
Other
and
the
Catholic groups was similar.
To
summarize
the
effects
of
religion
on
marital
dissolution, religious homogamy is a modest predictor of
marital
stability.
Couples of the same religious back-
ground appear to have the most stable marriages, followed
by
interfaith
marriages
and
those
having
no
religious
preference.
Presence and number of children.
Farber and Blackman
(1956) and Christensen (1968) reported that the degree to
which
a
couple
can
control
quality and stability.
fertility
affects
marital
Blood and Wolfe (1960) found that
so long as the number of children did not exceed three,
marital satisfaction was actually enhanced by the presence
of children.
than
three
Hurley
and
They
found that in marriages having more
children,
Polonen
satisfaction
(1967)
found
declined
that
as
rapidly.
the
ratio
of
children per year of marriage increased, marital satisfaction
short
decreased.
spacing
children
in
instability
Bealer
Other
between
a marriage
(Coombs
&
studies have
children
are
and
believed
Zumeta,
1970;
also
high
to
found
that
density
of
contribute
to
Rainwater,
1966).
(1970) conducted rural-urban fertility studies and
21
found that rural birth rates have historically
exceeded
urban birth rates, and rural births have always contributed proportionately more than their share to national
population growth.
Thornton
number
of
(1977)
children
marital stability.
tested
present
a model
which
and marital
related
the
satisfaction
to
The study found a curvilinear rela-
tionship between family size and stability.
It described
childless couples and those with large families as being
the least stable.
Another study by Cherlin (1977) found that preschool
children
act to cement marriages together
total number of children is unimportant.
the young
and that the
The presence of
children along with the economic burden they
create serves as a barrier to dissolving the marriage.
It appears that farm families still choose to have
larger than average families, yet they maintain a lower
than
average
couples.
dissolution
rate when
compared
to nonfarm
Thus, control of fertility and age of children,
rather than number of children, are expected to contribute
to the explanation of marital stability, particularly for
farm couples.
Divorce
conservatism.
As
a
result
of
the
high
divorce rate during the 1970s, Click (1975) and Cox (1978)
suggested that a liberalized attitude toward divorce as a
means of coping with an unsatisfying marriage
could
be
22
contributing to the divorce rate.
Jorgensen and Johnson
(1980) used part of a divorce questionnaire developed by
Hardy
(1957) to develop a measure of divorce liberality,
or attitude toward divorce, in order to identify significant
correlates
number
of
of
divorce
children
were
liberality.
the
strongest
Presence
and
predictors
of
divorce liberality for wives, while less so for husbands.
Childless
spouses were
found to be more
liberal
toward
divorce than were respondents with children, with childless wives being the most liberal of all.
Lowe and Peek
(1974) found that rural-urban differ-
ences exist in attitudes toward divorce.
Using national
survey data, they controlled for age, income, race, sex,
region of the country, education, religion, occupation,
and
union
difference
sample
membership
in
rural
favored
and
and
more
still
urban
lenient
found
a
significant
respondents.
divorce
laws
The
than
urban
persons
living in rural areas.
Alternative Attraction
Variables
Wife
employment.
Whether
the
wife
is
gainfully
employed is not only an economic factor, but also becomes
a
source
of
alternative
attractions.
In recent years,
large numbers of rural women have been joining the labor
force outside the bounds of the family farm, paralleling
the nonfarm trend.
As these farm wives take on nonfarm
23
employment, they are faced with the same dilemmas which
affect all gainfully employed women in the United States.
Rural women, however, do not fare well at work.
"Rural
women find themselves in the lowest levels of the work
force due to so many limitations coupled with traditional
sex role orientations" (Dunne, 1980, p. 3) .
The effects of wives working on marital satisfaction
appear to be determined by the degree of choice the wife
has
in entering
Lewis
&
the labor
Spanier,
force
1980; Orden
(Hoffman
& Nye, 19 74;
& Bradburn,
1969).
The
wife's perception of marital quality is influenced by her
freedom of choice about working.
satisfaction
indicates
a
Assuming that higher job
higher
degree
of
freedom
to
choose whether or not to enter the work force, job satisfaction should also be positively associated with marital
quality
(Orden
&
Bradburn,
1968;
Safilios-Rothschild,
1970).
Holman (1981) proposed that the relationship between
wife employment and marital quality may be curvilinear,
with
marriages
reporting
nonworking
quality.
the
and
in
which
highest
the
degree
full-time
wife
of
working
worked
marital
wives
part
time
quality,
reporting
and
less
He based his proposition on earlier findings by
Nye and Hoffman (1963) and Orden and Bradburn (1969), that
marriages
with
part-time
wife
employment
exhibited
a
24
greater degree of satisfaction than marriages in which the
wives worked full time or not at all.
Other research suggests that the husband's perceived
attitude
toward
his
wife's
employment
is
the
best
predictor of whether or not she will work (Spitze & Waite,
1981).
Enhancement of marital quality due to wife's job
satisfaction might be increased if her husband approves of
her employment
(Axelson, 1963; Goode, 1964; Nye, 1961).
These findings were in agreement with Lewis and Spanier's
(1979) proposition that the higher the spouse's satisfaction with the wife working, the higher the overall marital
satisfaction for the couple.
The effect of a wife's employment is closely related
to the sex role attitudes of the significant males in her
life.
The essence of masculinity
centers
around
successful
in our culture
competition
in
the
still
economy,
while
femininity
is centered on performance of domestic
tasks
(Heckman et al., 1977; Holstrom, 1973; Scanzoni &
Scanzoni,
1981).
attitudes
about sex roles may be less accepting of his
wife's
employment
received
Bharadwaj.
support
Thus,
a
outside
as
early
male
the
as
who
home.
holds
This
1968, by
traditional
hypothesis
Wilkening
and
They hypothesized that farm people hold a very
traditional conception of the woman's role and reported
that 75 percent of the farm people in their study agreed
that women should never put a career above the chance of
25
getting married and having a family.
Eighty percent of
their respondents reported overall satisfaction with their
marriage, their mutual understanding, love, affection, and
companionship.
Community
embeddedness.
The
marital
satisfaction
literature pertaining to community embeddedness is based
on the social exchange notion that as long as the involvement is not perceived as interfering with the balance of
costs
and
enhance
Church
rewards
marital
by
either
quality
attendance
spouse,
(Levinger,
involvement
1976;
Nye,
may
1979) .
and membership in volunteer organiza-
tions have been associated with higher marital satisfaction
(Burgess
Locke,
& Wallin,
1951).
Holman
1953; Lewis
(1981)
found
& Spanier,
the
1979;
relationship
between community embeddedness and marital satisfaction to
be curvilinear, with the highest marital satisfaction at
an intermediate level of embeddedness and lower quality at
the extremes of the curve.
For farm families, involvement in church and civic cr
community
stability.
affairs
Farm
should
people
positively
maintain
a
influence
marital
traditional
value
system which includes a strong sense of pride and loyalty
to the community.
farm
The greater community visibility of a
couple due to the rural
locale, coupled
v.-ith the
greater degree of religiosity that is prevalent in rural
areas, would serve to lessen a couple's potential toward
divorce.
Also,
participation
in co-~i:nitv
affairs
ani
groups would enable the otbervise isc'iated farr res^^c^ncent
to
have
a
more
sa-isfving
sc-ciai
Ccntacr w:L-n cpncs^re sex.
life,
*hicn
Le":inc-~r il9~9}
shciuid
incimf-sd:
cf the region which vas sa:npied, it vas cecided tc asi
a.
d e s c r i b e e hv l e w i s anf S z a n i e r
ty
Lcci'ie
_-e.E£
|1?5.!: ^ ,
cc-nfiict
TiJhat c o u p l e s
vciulic
have
v^th
vho^ r e c c r ' t e d
rheir
whc ncv-ai
less
witSi r e l a ' t i v e s -
|L5"^5* -
narita.^
that
parenits
awsv
*h£]ppj"' cO'^ii-pies
rhan
trci;: £it,?;~r
c :.£ rice t i o n
cie
CZJ^^&S
S£t
cinie i c
(tr
hasf
vh;:;
gar-anirs
rei^a-ianshtcs
27
In summary, the existing literature indicates various
differences between
farm families and nonfarm
families,
which led Coward and Smith (1981) to propose that research
needs
to
be
conducted
differences.
differences
Blood
and
living
and Wolfe
to
(1960)
account
found
for
the
rural-urban
Brown
(1981) found that farm
families
in larger households, having more children,
obtaining
parts.
order
in their decision making behavior and power
structure study.
were
in
Coward
fewer divorces
and
Smith
than their
(1983)
urban
reported
counter-
that
rural
families are worse off financially than urban families,
have
fewer years of formal education, and are
from
opportunities
Smith
to change
(1983) further
their
status.
isolated
Coward
and
stated that rural people are more
likely to be family-oriented, more likely to marry, and
less likely to divorce.
V7oodrow, Hastings, and Tu (1978,
p. 70) proposed that farm areas can still be characterized
as possessing a life style that is heavily dependent upon
the family and the social identity of adults is largely
defined in terms of being "married."
Based
on the review of the
literature, Levinger's
model seems to identify the major variables involved in
marital cohesiveness and dissolution.
that
need
(1979)
to be
model
are
answered
whether
in order
or
not
The two questions
to
these
test
Levinger's
variables
fit
together in such a way as to explain marital cohesiveness.
28
as Levinger predicted, and whether or not these variables
operate differently
shown
less
for a group which has
dissolution.
These
traditionally
questions
lead
to
the
following hypotheses, which will be tested by the present
study:
1.
level
of
Attraction
variables
dissolution
will
potential
vary
among
inversely
farm
and
with
nonfarm
respondents when all other variables are controlled.
2.
Barrier variables will vary inversely with level
of dissolution potential among farm and nonfarm respondents when all other variables are controlled.
3.
Alternative
directly with
and
nonfarm
attraction
variables
will
vary
level of dissolution potential among
respondents
when
all
other
variables
farm
are
controlled.
4.
plained
The total variance in dissolution potential exby
barrier
variables
will be greater
for
farm
respondents than for nonfarm respondents.
5.
The
total
variance
in
dissolution
potential
explained by attraction and alternative attraction variables will be greater
for nonfarm respondents
than for
farm respondents.
Based on past research, which suggests that males and
females
perceive
marriage
in
different
ways,
gender
differences were expected to occur in the present study
(Lewis & Spanier, 1980).
Bernard (1972) referred to these
29
gender differences as the "his and her" marriages that
exist in every dyad.
reported
Additionally, Booth and White (1980)
that females consider divorce an option more
often than do males in their study on "thinking about
divorce."
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Sample
Data
Amarillo,
were
collected
Texas,
questionnaires
during
September
were
printed
the
1-8,
Tri-State
1984.
and
Fair
One
in
thousand
administered
from
the
Texas A&M Extension Service display entitled
"What Keeps
Families
of
Together?"
An
availability
sample
married
persons who were visiting the fair were asked to sit at
the provided tables and complete the questionnaire.
Each
person was given a brief verbal description of the study
and
was
verbally
assured
remain totally anonymous.
that
his/her
responses
would
The average time for completion
of the questionnaire was expected to be approximately 20
minutes.
The
length
of time
required
to complete
questionnaire ranged from 11 minutes to 40 minutes.
the
Each
person was asked to place the completed instrument in a
ballot-type box, which further ensured anonymity.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of three sections.
sections
included:
measuring
marital
demographic
cohesiveness
questions,
level,
measuring the remaining variables other
30
and
than
These
questions
questions
demographic
31
variables.
both
The demographic questions obtained data about
spouses'
ownership,
compared
education,
perceived
to
other
length
of
adequacy
and
Americans
in
marriage (s),
level
of
general,
children, occupation, and age of respondent
home
income
as
number
of
and spouse.
The wording of the majority of these demographic questions
was identical to those in the National Opinion Research
Center
(N.O.R.C.)
Codebook
(1982).
(See Davis
et al.
the Marital
Status
1978, for details.)
The questionnaire
Inventory
Scale
(Weiss & Cerreto, 1980) , the Dyadic Adjustment
(Spanier,
Liberality
Levinger's
priate
also included
1976)
Scale.
and
Hardy's
Finally,
(1979) model
were
several
(1957)
variables
operationalized
one-, two-, or three-item
Divorce
questions.
by
in
appro-
These
are
described in the operational definition of each respective
variable.
Operational Definitions
The respondents in the study were grouped as farm and
nonfarm in order to compare group effects separately.
In
order to be defined as a farm respondent, a person must
have reported over $1,000 from the sale of agricultural
products
have
reported
their primary occupation as being a farmer or
farmer's
wife.
in
the
preceding
year
and must
A nonfarm respondent was defined as any person in
the sample who reported an occupation other than full- or
32
part-time
question
farming
and who did not answer
about the receipt of $1,000
agricultural products.
were as follows:
The
measure
from
the
sale of
The codes for the farm variable
farm = 2; nonfarm = 1.
Marital
the
"yes" to the
Status
dependent
Inventory
variable,
(MSI)
was
dissolution
used
potential.
The MSI measures dissolution potential in marriages.
fourteen
thoughts
true-false
items
elicit
a
report
to
of
The
prior
and actions regarding divorce, such as whether
the respondent has contacted an attorney for advice about
obtaining a divorce.
The score on the MSI lends itself to
the establishment of a 14-point continuum on which to plot
a
person's
level
of
dissolution
potential.
The
MSI
consists of questions 74 through 87 of the questionnaire.
The MSI was reported to be a reliable predictor of
dissolution potential (Crane & Mead, 1980).
split-half reliabilities were .86 and .87.
The reported
The instrument
was also reported as having discriminant validity in that
it successfully
distinguished
couples in family
therapy
from those in marital counseling (Weiss & Cerreto, 1980),
as
well
as
both
of
the
above
groups
from
couples
in
enrichment programs (Crane et al., 1983).
For the present
study, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was
.56 on the MSI.
Because the MSI is a Guttman-like scale, one would not
anticipate a high alpha.
33
The MSI is scored by a keyed response, since some of
the
items
are
possibility
written
of
a
in
the
response
negative
set.
For
to
lessen
example,
the
if
the
respondent answered true to the item about whether he/she
has thought about divorce, the item is keyed as a True =
1.
Some of the items are written in reverse and must be
keyed as the opposite, such as the following:
discussed
the
spouse."
six
issue
seriously
or
at
The keyed response is False.
items
that
not . . .") .
are
written
in
the
"I have not
length
with
my
The MSI contains
negative
("I
have
A person who has answered a total of 8 or
more items as being true after the items are receded is
considered to have a high potential for divorce.
A
mean
MSI
score
for
reported for comparison.
group was 1.67.
each
of
the
two
groups
is
The mean MSI score for the farm
The mean MSI score for the nonfarm group
was 2.59.
Attraction Variables
Income
taxable
1983.
adequacy.
(adjusted
gross)
This
variable
was
income, from all
defined
as
sources, for
It was operationalized by a three-part question,
including the respondent's total taxable (adjusted gross)
income,
which
income was
$5,000
asked
to
used
entered
over
modified
categories.
as one of 9 categories, from
$50,000.
in relation
N.O.R.C.
The
second
question
to income is relative
family
The
under
that
was
income,
34
which used the N.O.R.C. question about how the respondent
feels that his/her family income compares to that of other
American families in general (1 = far below average up to
5 = far above average) .
A third question that was asked
about family income is the respondent's perceived adequacy
of
his/her
family
income
(Which
overall financial situation now?
best
describes
your
1 = not at all well off
to 5 = very well off) .
By
combining
these
three
measures
of
income
via
principal component factor loadings, a standardized factor
score was constructed.
This factor score retained comjnon
factor variance shared by all three variables (see Armor &
Couch, 1972, pp. 86-90 for details).
results
of
the
factor
analysis.
Table 2 provides the
The
factor which
was
extracted and found to be a satisfactory measure of income
for use in the regression analyses was income adequacy.
TABLE 2
Results of the Factor Analysis of Income Variables
Principal Components Factor Loadings
Variable
Satisfaction with
Financial Situation
Taxable Income
Income Adequacy
Latent Roots
% Total Variance
Income Dissatisfaction
Adequacy
With Income
Communality
0.752
0.821
0.846
1.956
65.2
-0.652
0.387
0.204
0.617
20.6
0.991
0.824
0.758
2.572
35
the
Home ownership.
This variable was operationalized by
question
is
"What
your
housing
situation
now?"
Response choices included "own home," "currently purchasing home," "live in home owned by other family members,"
and
"rent
home
or
apartment/condominium/townhouse."
Responses were coded by creating a dummy variable which
made home ownership or purchasing home = 1, and all other
responses = 0.
Educational homogamy.
following index:
This variable was coded by the
if the husband and wife had equal levels
of education, the respondent was assigned a 0.
If the
husband had more education than the wife, the index was a
+ 1, and if the wife had more education than her husband,
the index was a +2.
This coding was based on Levinger's
(1965) proposal that when a wife has more education than
her husband, heterogamy has a more detrimental effect on
marital
cohesiveness
than when
the husband's
education
exceeds the wife's.
Social
similarity.
was defined by Levinger
characteristics
including
The
social similarity
variable
(1979) as homogamy of background
race, religion, SES, and age.
Race was coded by White = 1 and all others = 0, although
there were several categories of answers on the questionnaire.
Religion was coded with a 0 for spouses who report
the same religious background, and a 1 was assigned to a
respondent who reported a religious background which was
36
different
than his/her spouse.
For example, a Catholic
and a Baptist were considered as being different, just as
a Methodist and a no religious preference were considered
different.
Homogamy of age was coded by 0 if the couple
had an age difference of five years (arbitrarily assigned)
or less with the husband being older.
A +1 was assigned
if the wife was older than the husband, or if the husband
was more than five years older than the wife.
reported
homogamous
farm background
Couples who
or urban
(nonfarm)
background were coded by creating a dummy variable, with
same background = 0 and different backgrounds = 1.
Affection
scale.
Companionship, esteem
enjoyment were combined into one variable.
and
sexual
This variable
was operationalized by the affectional expression subscale
of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
contains four subscales:
faction,
dyadic
Validity
and
The DAS
dyadic consensus, dyadic satis-
cohesion,
reliability
(Spanier, 1976).
and
affectional
expression.
have been established
for
the
overall scale as well as for each of the subscales individually.
The reliability coefficient for the affection
scale was .73 (Spanier, 1976).
The DAS subscale for affectional expression consists
of
four
responses
items,
are
including
a
two
Likert-type
for
scale
which
of
the
possible
agreement
which
ranges from 5 possible pointF for "always agree" to 0 for
"always disagree."
The other two items can be answered
37
"yes" and "no" and both stem from the statement:
There
are some things about which couples sometimes agree and
sometimes disagree.
Indicate if either item below caused
differences or were problems in your relationship during
the past few weeks (check yes or no for each) :
being too
tired for sex, and not showing love (the yes answers are
to be scored 0 and the no answers will be scored 1) .
affectional
subscale
The
consists of questions 91, 93, 115,
and 116 of the questionnaire.
Barrier Variables
Cost of divorce.
The cost of divorce variable as a
barrier to dissolution was operationalized by the following
I
question:
were
to
"Financially,
divorce"
I would be better
(strongly
disagree = 1 to
off
if
strongly
agree = 4) .
Divorce
costs
conservatism.
variables
and
Levinger's
affectional
costs
(1979)
symbolic
variable
were
operationalized by Hardy's (1957) Divorce Liberality Scale
and by entering the number of children and index for the
presence of ideal number of children in the family.
The four items in the Divorce Liberality Scale were
drawn
from
(1957).
scale
divorce
questionnaire
developed
by
Hardy
The items were to be answered on a Likert-type
ranging
agree = 4 .
and
a
from
strongly
disagree = 1
to
strongly
The overall score was then computed by adding
averaging
scores on the items for each respondent.
38
Agreement on items
1 and 3 indicate a liberal attitude
toward divorce, and a conservative attitude is indicated
by
agreement
on
items
2 and
4.
A mean
score
of
1.0
indicates a conservative attitude toward divorce, while a
mean
score of
toward
4.0
divorce.
represents the most liberal
The
divorce
liberality
attitude
items
are
as
follows:
1.
I feel that divorce is a sensible solution to
many unhappy marriages.
2.
Marriage
is a sacred covenant which should be
broken only under the most drastic circumstances.
3.
If a married couple finds getting along with each
other a real struggle, then they should not feel obligated
to remain married.
4.
Children need a home with both a father and a
mother even though the parents are not especially suited
to one another.
Reliability for the Divorce Liberality Scale
(1957)
was assessed by using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, which
was
.74
(Jorgensen
& Johnson, 1980, p. 621).
For
the
purpose of this study, to facilitate ease in coding and to
achieve consistency in coding, the divorce liberality was
reverse-coded
and
called
results and discussion.
divorce
conservatism
in
the
Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for
the Divorce Liberality Scale (called divorce conservatism
for this study) was .65.
39
Children.
absolute
The number of children was entered as the
number
of
children
reported
household at the time of the study.
to
be
in
the
The ideal number of
children index was created by assigning a 0 to respondents
who reported that they have what they considered to be the
ideal number of children or less, and a 1 if they reported
having more than the number of children they considered to
be ideal.
Religiosity.
the analysis.
Two religion variables were added
to
A religiosity of couple index was created,
with respondents perceiving his/her spouse as having the
same degree of religiosity being coded with a zero, and
respondents
reporting
a different degree of religiosity
from that of the spouse receiving a +1.
Catholic religion
was also added to the analysis.
Alternative Attraction
Variables
Disjunctive
kin
affiliations.
This
operationalized by a two-item question.
feelings toward
questions
to
1 = strongly
be
variable
was
The respondent's
in-laws was assessed by two Likert-type
answered
by
level
of
agreement
agree to 4 = strongly disagree.
The
with
items
are as follows:
1.
My
inlaws
are warm, wonderful people who
supportive of my marriage.
are
40
2.
I feel that it would be worth a divorce to not
have to deal with my spouse's relatives anymore.
A total score for both items was computed.
A lower
score indicated a lack of disjunctive kin affiliations as
defined by Levinger (1979).
To assess the reliability of
the variable, a Cronbach's Alpha was computed.
The Alpha
coefficient was .42.
Community
embeddedness.
The community
embeddedness
variable was defined for the purpose of this study as the
number of clubs and organizations to which the respondent
reported belonging.
provided
in
the
A list of organizations and clubs was
questionnaire,
and
the
respondent
was
asked to check each one in which he/she was a member.
The
total number of organizations checked was summed.
Contact with opposite sex.
This variable was defined
as the number of opposite-sex people that the respondent
came in direct contact with in an average week.
Catego-
ries were given and the respondent was asked to choose one
answer.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The following three sections describe the results of
this
study:
(a) preliminary
statistics,
analysis
and
(c) main
includes
assumptions
statistics
the
analysis,
analysis.
testing
and
The
preliminary
examination
of
multiple
regression.
are
reported
for
the
(b) descriptive
The
total
respondents, and nonfarm respondents.
of
the
descriptive
sample,
farm
The main analysis
tests the six research hypotheses as they are stated in
Chapter I.
Preliminary Analysis
Multiple
regression
is
based
upon
several
basic
statistical assumptions which must be satisfied in order
to
validly
(Tabachnick
addressed
assess
&
the
Fidell,
data
collected
1983).
The
for
first
this
assumption
the number of cases used in the sample.
recommended
study
The
number of cases advocated by Tabachnick and
Fidell (1983) is 20 times the number of independent variables.
study
Therefore, the recommended
was
variables.
320,
given
that
Six hundred and
there
forty
41
sample size for this
were
16
respondents
independent
completed
42
the
questionnaire,
thereby
satisfying
the
criterion
of
recommended number of cases.
Absence of multicollinearity is a second assumption
in multiple regression analysis.
Multicollinearity is a
perfect or nearly perfect correlation between two independent variables (Pedhazer, 1983).
Multicollinearity can be
detected by high zero-order correlation coefficients.
Descriptive Statistics
The mean, standard deviation, and the range of scores
for each of the variables in the model appear in Table 3.
Descriptive statistics for the total sample can be found
in Table
4.
The total sample consisted of 336
females and 276 (44.8%) males.
(55.2%)
The farm sample was made
up of 93 (54.1%) females and 79 (45.9%) males, while the
nonfarm
sample
(44.5%) males.
years.
included
244
(55.5%)
females
and
196
The mean age of the total sample was 40.5
The mean age of the farm sample was 43.2 years,
while the mean age of the nonfarm sample was 39.2 years.
The mean level of education was 4.3
for
the
nonfarm
the
farm, sample,
sample.
total
homes.
compared
sample
and
4.3
348
college)
Four hundred ninety-three
reported
owning
One hundred forty-five
to
(some
(some college)
or
for
the
(83.7%) from
purchasing
their
(86.3%) of the farm group
(82.7%) of the nonfarm
owning or purchasing their homes.
group
reported
43
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics for All Variables in the Model
Variable
Mean
SD
Income Adequacy
0.000
Own Home
Respondent's Education
N
Range
1.000
612
0-1
1.837
.369
612
1-2
4.273
1.352
611
1-8
Educational Homogamy
.407
.492
612
0-2
Age Homogamy
.809
.394
612
0-1
Affection Scale
12.793
2.485
537
0-16
Cost of Divorce
3.560
.866
598
1-4
Divorce Conservatism
2.814
.693
610
1-10
Religiosity of Couple
3.370
.892
605
1-4
Catholic Religion
1.101
.301
596
1-2
Child at Home
1.684
.465
595
0-14
Satisfaction with Children
4.526
.803
559
1-5
.155
.362
612
0-1
Contact Opposite Sex
3.076
1.175
602
1-4
Disjunctive Kin Affiliations
1.424
.636
598
1-4
Community Embeddedness
3.319
2.561
612
0-6
Dissolution Potential
2.391
2.777
612
0-13
Ideal Number of Children
44
TABLE 4
Siumnary of D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s
Variable
n = 612*
for Total
Frequency
1. Gender
males
female
Sample
Mean
SD
276 (44.8%)
336 (55.2%)
2. Age (years)
40.5
11.8
3. Spouse's Age (years)
40.7
11.7
4. Age Married Current Spouse (years)
23.5
6.8
2.3
1.6
5. Number Children
6. Respondent's Religion
Catholic
Protestant
Other
No Preference
57
475
39
41
(10.3%)
(74.5%)
( 7.4%)
( 7.8%)
The average age at marriage for the total sample was
23.5 years.
The farm group's average age at marriage was
23.2 years, while the nonfarm group's mean age at marriage
was 23.6 years.
The mean number of children for the total sample was
2.3, while the farm group reported having an average of
2.7 children and the nonfarm group had an average of 2.2
children.
The modal religion reported by the total sample was
Baptist (n = 232, 40.1%).
reported
being
Catholic,
Fifty-seven (10.3%) respondents
while
41
(7.8%)
respondents
45
reported
no religious
preference.
The
farm group con-
sisted of 67 (40.4%) Baptists, 19 (11.5%) Catholics, and 2
(1.2%) respondents who reported no religious preference.
The nonfarm sample consisted of 165 (39.9%) Baptists, 43
(10.4%) Catholic, and 13 (3.2%) no religious preference.
Nine subjects were eliminated from the study because
they responded that they earned less than $1,000 from the
sale of agricultural products in the preceding year, yet
resided on a farm.
Determining whether these respondents
were bankrupt farmers or merely renting or purchasing a
home on a farm while being gainfully employed elsewhere
was impossible.
Main Analysis
Stepwise regression was used to test Hypotheses 1-3
due
to
its
variables
ability
that
to develop a subset of
is
useful
in
predicting
independent
dissolution
potential for the farm and the nonfarm groups.
regression
independent
prediction
Stepwise
also has the capability of eliminating those
variables
given
that
a basic
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983).
do
set
not
of
provide
independent
additional
variables
At each step of the stepwise
regression analysis, the variable that added most to the
prediction equation was entered.
This process continued
until no more useful information could be added from the
remaining variables.
The statistical criterion that was
46
arbitrarily
set for entry and deletion of variables was
£ = .250.
The
zero-order
independent
correlation
variables
and
coefficients
the
among
dependent
the
variable,
dissolution potential, are reported in Tables 5, 6, and 7.
None of the zero-order correlation coefficients for the
total
sample, farm sample, and nonfarm sample exceeded
.49,
indicating
that
the matrices were
free of multi-
collinearity (Kerlinger & Pedhazer, 1973).
correlations
strongest
for
the
for
the
total
indicated
that
the
correlations were among the barrier variables
total
sample.
sample, there were more
tions
sample
The zero-order
among
the
Additionally,
for
the
nonfarm
significant zero-order correla-
attraction
and
alternative
attraction
variables than among the barrier variables.
Two
wife's
variables
from
independent
Levinger's
economic
status, were omitted
(1965, 1979) model,
status
and
occupational
from these analyses.
The variable
"v.'ife's independent economic status" was operationalized
by whether or not the wife was gainfully employed.
these
data
were
obtained
question
of whether
gainfully
employed
for
female
While
respondents,
the
the spouse of male respondents was
was
inadvertently
omitted
from
the
questionnaire.
The second omitted variable, occupational status, was
deleted from the analysis.
Almost one-third of the sample
47
n n
(ISH)
I t I t
o
in
M
u>
M
1
en
tn
o
o
o
m
oo
o
1
o
o
tn
o
1
till
usjpimo
jsqoinn
(Bspi
e
UQjpiino
M^l"
t t I
uonoPJSHfS
I
to
o
CU
I II
O
oidnoo JO <5i50|6|i3a
CQ
tn
C
o
lUSHeSJ8AU03
9DJ0/\K]
aoJOAjo
JO i S 0 3
-rH
fO
rH
>-l
O
u
31B0S UO^OSJJV
r-
QJ
Tj
S-l
GJ
CO
^
XuieGouJOH oBy
U
O
I
o
O
<uis6oiiJoH
uoneonp3
iPuonf3"P3
s.^uspuodssa
diMSJSUMO
»""H
XDPnbapv suioo"!
o j o j a]
48
« I
(ISW)
ssoupsppsqui^ <5|uni«i]03
I II
u o n ^ l l U J V "IX aAnounfsia
xag o^isoddo 3055003
usjpilMO JaquioN l^'PI
r^
«
r-
usjpijqo mjM uonoPjSHeg
g
en
B
ouioH t)5 P1IM3
fi
u o | 6 n 3 s D| 104453
u
r»(^
r.
rin
. - 0 0
QJ
j j
o
w
CQ
aidno3 Jo < 5 | s o ) 6 ( l 3 a
r-
ujsnPSJaAU03 aoJOAiQ
r-
-*
c
o
•rH
sojoAio JO JS03
r-J,
Q)
VJ
S-l
aicog u o n o a j j v
vo
a>
»-
C
u
^UIPBOUIOH B B V
T;
s-l
o
I
o
s-l
c
XiueBouioH (PuopBonpa
uopponpa ^.^uapuodsaa
diqsJaUMO ' " " H
/(opnbapv auraou)
0 0 0
.5
C
I
•5 i
V v' V
o4 oJ oi
M
49
(ISH)
ia|quaqO(J uo|r)oioss!(]
5saupappaquJ3 X:}iunuui03
o
r^ m
I I I
* I
II
" o i i s i l i j j v uiM aAnounfsia
xag a^isoddo ^095003
uajpiiMa JaquinN [sapi
a.
E
ni
I t
uajpim3 m|M uonocjsnps
{/i
B
u
n
c
o
euioH 45 PI 143
u o | 6 n a a 01104553
2
o
r,
jj
w
CQ
5-1
O
u-i
I II
aidno3 jo <!i|soi6(iaa
uJsp5sjaAU03 aojOAig
C
O
•H
4J
rd
rH
(U
aojOAiQ JO 5S03
31609 UOnOOJJy
>H
O
u
Xtu56ouiOH 35y
s-l
0)
^13
'H
O
I
o
s-l
G)
XIUBBOUIOH
l5Uon5onp3
u o n ^ o n p j 5,3U3puods3a
dtqsjauMo aiuoH
Xosnbapy 3U)ODU|
T. I-
^
>. •»-
V V V
oj OJ oJ
_
.,-
10
50
failed to report a job title that could be coded according
to the Prestige
Scores
(Davis, 1978).
Also, since the
differences being tested related to farm-nonfarm differences, the differential status of the nonfarm occupations
was considered unimportant.
Zero-order correlations between independent variables
and dissolution potential emerged, for the most part, in
the direction
expected.
Catholic religion was found to
have an effect opposite that hypothesized in the nonfarm
group.
Since Catholic religion was included as a reli-
gious constraint (barrier) in the analyses, the effect on
dissolution potential was predicted to be inverse.
How-
ever, the result for the nonfarm group was £(425) = .153,
£ < .01.
The
results
of
the
stepwise
appear in Tables 8, 9, and 10.
analyses used
regression
analyses
Results of the regression
to test the hypotheses revealed
a fairly
clear distinction between farm and nonfarm respondents.
Hypothesis 1
The
first
hypothesis
stated
that
the
attraction
variables would vary inversely with the level of dissolution potential
dents.
among both the farm and nonfarm respon-
The attraction variables in this study were income
adequacy, home ownership, respondent's education, educational homogamy, age homogamy, and the affection scale of
the Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
51
TABLE 8
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for the Total Sample
Variable
Affection Scale
Disjunctive Kin Affiliation
b
Beta
S.E.
Beta
;t-Test
-.3927
-.351**
,042
-9.32
.6416
.147**
.169
3.79
Religiosity of Couple
-.2698
-.087*
.127
-2.13
Respondent's Education
-.1469
-.072
.078
-1.88
Cost of Divorce
-.2206
-.069
.123
-1.80
.087
2.07
Contact Opposite Sex
.1804
.076*
Own Home
-.4686
-.063
.266
-1.76
Divorce Conservatism
-.2666
-.066
.160
-1.66
.5817
,063
.330
1.76
Educational Homogamy
-.2849
-.050
.203
-1.41
Community Embeddedness
-.0548
-.051
.041
-1.33
.3595
.047
.278
1.29
-.1169
-.020
,216
Catholic Religion
Ideal Number of Children
Children at Home
R2
F
*
**
= .251
= 15.40 with
£ < .05
£ <.001
13,598 df.
£<.001
-
.54
52
TABLE 9
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for the Farm Group
Variable
b
Disjunctive Kin Affiliation
Religiosity of Couple
Cost of Divorce
Affection Scale
Catholic Religion
Divorce Conservatism
Respondent's Education
R2 = . 2 5 6
F = 8.06 with
7,164
df,
.8388
-.4753
-.3238
-.1329
-.7475
-.3673
-.1127
Beta
.231**
-.159*
-.123
-.139
-.122
-.109
-.079
S.E.
Beta
t-Test
.290
'226
.196
.070
.437
!260
,105
2 89
-2*11
-l.*65
-1.90
-1.71
-l.*41
-l!o7
£<.001
* £ <.05
** £ <.01
TABLE 10
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for the Nonfarm Group
Variable
Affection Scale
Disjunctive Kin Affiliation
Catholic Religion
Religiosity of Couple
Own Home
Respondent's Education
Cost of Divorce
Contact Opposite Sex/wk.
Controlled Fertility
Divorce Conservation
b
Beta
S.E.
Beta
jt-Test
-.4627
-.5202
1,3831
-.1947
-.7297
-.2180
-.1975
.1587
.3828
-.1423
-.403***
.115*
.131**
-.062
-.C96*
-.096*
-.059
.061
.047
-.03 4
.050
.202
.441
.148
.320
.097
.147
.112
.342
.194
-9.24
2.58
3.14
-1.32
-2.28
-2.25
-1.35
1.42
1.12
- .73
R2 = .269
F = 15.40 with 13,598 df. £ <.001
* £ <.05
** £ <.01
*** £ <.001
53
Three of the attraction variables were significantly
related
These
to dissolution
were:
scale.
income
Through
potential
adequacy,
the
for the total sample.
own
controlling
home, and
of
affection
variables
in
the
regression analysis, however, only the affection scale of
the Dyadic Adjustment Scale continued to have a significant
relationship
with
the
dependent
variable.
Beta
(1/552) = -.351, £ < . 0 0 1 , when the remaining independent
variables were held constant (see Table 8) .
Examination
cients
for
the
of
the
zero-order
correlation
coeffi-
farm group indicated that the affection
scale was the only attraction variable that was significantly related to dissolution potential, r(149) = -.251,
£<.01.
With
regression,
all
none
other
of
the
variables
entered
into
attraction
variables
the
reached
significance for the farm group (Table 9 ) .
For
related
the
to
dissolution
zero-order
£ <.001,
nonfarm
group,
the
affection
scale
was
both
the
potential, considering
correlation
and
the
coefficient
regression
£(386) =
coefficient
Beta
-.440,
(1/439) =
.403, £ < . 0 0 1
(Table 10).
ownership
respondent's education were each signifi-
cantly
and
related
The attraction variables home
to dissolution
variables were controlled, beta
for each variable.
potential when all other
(1/439) = --096, £ < . 0 5 ,
54
The results of the regressions for both the farm and
nonfarm groups
indicated no significant results for the
following attraction variables:
income adequacy, educa-
tional homogamy, and age homogamy.
Therefore, Hypothesis
1 was partially supported.
Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis stated that the barrier variables
would
of
dissolution
potential among farm and nonfarm respondents.
The barrier
variables
divorce,
vary
in
inversely
this
divorce
study
with
level
included
conservatism,
financial
religiosity
of
cost
of
couple.
Catholic religion, presence of children in the home, and
attainment of the ideal number of children.
For the total sample, zero-order correlations indicated
that
divorce
faction
four
barrier
variables—cost
of
divorce,
conservatism, religiosity of couple, and satiswith
children--showed
a
significant
relationship to dissolution potential.
inverse
However, when the
variables were entered into the regression equation, only
religiosity
of couple retained its significance to dis-
solution potential. Beta (1/611) = -.087, £ < . 0 5 .
The zero-order correlations suggested that for farm
respondents, four of the seven barrier variables (cost of
divorce, divorce conservatism, religiosity of couple, and
Catholic religion) each were inversely and significantly
related
to
dissolution
potential.
However,
when
the
effects
of
the
other
variables were
controlled
by
the
stepwise entry, only one barrier variable, religiosity of
couple,
remained
significantly
related
to
dissolution
potential, Beta (1/171) = -.159. £ < . 0 5 .
A
different
picture
was
drawn
coefficients for the nonfarm group.
by
the
regression
The barrier variable?
cost of divorce, divorce conservatism, and religiosity of
couple were significantly related to dissolution potential
when
no variables
religion
also
were
showed
controlled
a
(Table 6) .
significant
Catholic
correlation
with
dissolution potential, although in a positive, instead of
the expected
inverse, direction, r(425) =
.153, £ < . G 1 .
When the variables were entered into the stepwise regression equation, only Catholic religion remained positively
and significantly related to dissolution potential. Beta
(1/439) = .131, £ < . 0 1
tionships
appeared
(Table 10).
for
the
No significant rela-
barrier
variables
incon.e
adequacy, age homogamy, children in the home, and ideal
number of children in the total, farm, and nonfarm groups.
The second hypothesis was thereby partially supported.
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis
3
stated
that
alternative
attraction
variables would vary directly with level of dissolution
potential
for farm and nonfarm respondents.
The alter-
native attractions included in the study were contact with
56
opposite sex, disjunctive kin affiliations, and community
embeddedness.
The relationship between disjunctive kin affiliations
and dissolution potential was significant and positive for
the total sample, r(611) = .280, £ < ,001, Beta
,147,
£<,001;
for
the
farm
sample,
(1/611) =
r(171) =
,384,
£ < , 0 0 1 , Beta (1/171) = ,231, £ < . 0 1 ; and for the nonfarm
sample,
r(439) =
,246,
£<.001,
Beta
(1/439) =
,115,
£ <.05) .
Contact with the opposite sex each week was positively
associated
sample.
sample
Beta
was
with
dissolution potential
(1/611) =
analyzed
.076, £ < . 0 5 .
for the total
When
by group, however, the
the
total
significant
relationship disappeared, thus suggesting the possibility
that
the
significance
for the total sample was perhaps
more a result of the large sample size, raising questions
about
the
meaningfulness
of
that
relationship.
The
relationship dropped below significance for both the farm
and
the
nonfarm
groups. Beta
(1/171) =
.052
and
Beta
(439) = -.024, respectively.
Community embeddedness was not significantly related
to dissolution potential for the total sample, the farm
group, or
the nonfarm
partially supported.
group.
Hypothesis 3 was thereby
57
Hypothesis 4
The fourth hypothesis stated that the total variance
in dissolution potential explained by the barrier variables would be greater for the farm respondents than for
the
nonfarm
respondents.
To
test
this
hypothesis,
a
hierarchical regression was conducted for each subsample,
forcing
in
the
significant
attractions
and
alternative
attractions and then entering all the barrier variables.
This procedure resulted in the minimum amount of variance
that barriers accounted for among each group.
regression
was
conducted
for each group with
A separate
only
the
barrier variables entered to find out the maximum variance
explained by barriers.
The R^ change is reported in Table
11 for the farm group and Table 12 for the nonfarm group.
For the farm group, the three barrier variables that
contributed m>ost to the R^ change were cost of divorce,
religiosity
of
couple,
and
Catholic
religion.
These
accounted for over half of the R^ change.
As can be seen in Table 13, both estimations of the
amount
greater
of
variance
explained
by barrier
for farmers than nonfarmers.
variables
are
In fact, the more
liberal estimation for nonfarmers is smaller than the more
conservative estimate of the amount of variance explained
by barrier variables among farmers.
was supported.
Thus, hypothesis 4
58
TABLE 11
Betas for the Hierarchical Regression on Barrier
Variables for Farm Respondents
Variables
Beta
Attractions
Only
.28
Disjunctive Kin
Affiliations
Affection Scale
-.13
Cost of Divorce
Religiosity of
Couple
Catholic Religion
Divorce Conservatism
Child at Home
Ideal Number of
Children
Satisfaction with
Children
R2
.17
Beta
Attraction
Variables With
Barrier
Variables
Unique
Variance
.25
.05
-.14
-.13
-.17
.02
.01
.02
-.10
-,09
-,08
.04
.01
.01
.01
.00
.02
. 00
.26
R2 c h a n g e for b a r r i e r v a r i a b l e s = .09
M i n i m u m v a r i a n c e (with attractions forced) =
.26-.17 =
.09
59
TABLE 12
Betas for the Hierarchical Regression on Barrier
Variables for Nonfarm Respondents
Variables
Beta
Attractions
Only
Disjunctive Kin
Affiliations
Affection Scale
Contact Opposite Sex
Catholic Religion
Religiosity of
Couple
Ideal Number of
Children
Cost of Divorce
Satisfaction with
Children
Divorce Conservatism
Child at Home
R2
Beta
Attraction
Variables With
Barrier
Variables
Unique
Variance
.16
12
01
.40
.05
38
04
,13
,08
13
00
02
,01
,05
,00
.05
.04
,00
.00
.03
.01
,00
,00
22
25
R2 change for barrier variables = .04
Minimum variance (with attraction forced) = .25-.22 = ,03
60
TABLE 13
Siommary Table of Increase in R^ for Attraction
and Barrier Variables for Farm and
Nonfarm Respondents
Maximum Attractions
Minimum Attractions
Maximum Barriers
Minimum Barriers
Farm
Nonfarm
.18
.08
.24
.19
18
09
.08
.04
Note: The maximum attraction was obtained by regressing
only the attraction variables on the MSI for the farm and
nonfarm groups. The maximum for barriers was obtained by
regressing only the barrier variables on the MSI for the
farm and nonfarm groups.
Hypothesis 5
The final hypothesis stated that the total variance
in dissolution potential which is explained by attraction
and alternative attraction variables would be greater for
nonfarm
respondents
hierarchical
nonfarm
than
regression
groups,
for
was
forcing
farm
computed
in
the
respondents.
The
for the
and
farm
significant
barrier
variables from each group and then entering the attraction
and
alternative
attraction
variables, to find out the
minimum variance that attraction and alternative attraction variables accounted
for in each group.
regression
for
was
computed
each
group
with
A separate
only
the
attraction and alternative attraction variables entered to
find out the maximum variance that could be accounted for
61
by attractions and alternative attractions.
The R2 change
from the step in which only the significant barriers were
entered for each group to the step in which all attraction
and
alternative
attraction
variables
were
entered
is
reported in Table 14 for the farm group and Table 15 for
the nonfarm group.
As seen in Table 13, both
estimations
TABLE 14
Betas for the Hierarchical Regression on A t t r a c t i o n
Variables for Farm Respondents
Variables
Beta
Attractions
Only
Beta
Attraction
Variables W i t h
Barrier
Variables
Unique
Variance
Cost of Divorce
-.25
Divorce Conservation -.14
-.20
Religiosity of
Couple
Disjunctive Kin
Affiliations
Affection Scale
Educational Homogamy
Respondent's
Education
Community
Embeddedness
Income Adequacy
Age Homogamy
Own Home
Contact Opposite Sex
-.14
-.10
-.19
.02
.01
.03
.24
.04
-.13
-.04
-.06
.01
.00
.00
.04
.00
.04
.03
. 00
. 00
.00
, 00
.16
.25
"• ^
R2
•"
-.02
.01
_
R2 change for a t t r a c t i o n variables = ,08^
Minimum variance (with b a r r i e r s forced) - .25-,16 - .uy
62
TABLE 15
Betas for the Hierarchical Regression on Attraction
Variables for Nonfarm Respondents
Beta
Attractions
Only
Variables
Beta
Attraction
Variables With
Barrier
Variables
Cost of Divorce
-.15
Catholic Religior1
.16
Religiosity of
-.15
Couple
Affection Scale
Disjunctive Kin
Affiliations
Respondent's
Education
Own Home
Contact Opposite Sex
Educational Homogamy
Community
Embeddedness
Income Adequacy
Age Homogamy
.08
.27
—
R2
'
^
•
—
Unique
Variance
-.06
,13
-,08
.00
.07
.01
-,40
.12
.14
.01
-.10
.01
-.09
.07
-.03
-.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
-.01
.00
.00
.00
R2 change for attraction variables = .19
Minimum variance (with barriers forced) = ,27-,08 = .19
of
the
amount
alternative
of
variance
attraction
explained
variables
farmers than for farmers.
are
by attraction
greater
for
and
non-
This hypothesis was supported.
Gender Differences
Regressions were computed on the total sample, the
farm and the nonfarm groups, by gender.
Among males, four
63
variables
were
found
to
dissolution potential.
be
significantly
related
to
The attraction variable affection
indicated a strong negative relationship with dissolution
potential.
Beta
(1/274) = -.331, £<,001.
The
barrier
variable divorce conservatism and the attraction variable
respondent's
dissolution
Beta
education
were
potential. Beta
also negatively
related
to
(1/274) = -.186, £ < .01 and
(1/274) = -.162, £ < . 0 1 ,
respectively.
The alter-
native attraction variable contact with the opposite sex
was
positively
related
to
dissolution
potential.
Beta
(1/274) = .140, £ <.05.
For
females,
indicated
the
attraction
variable
a strong negative relationship to dissolution
potential. Beta (1/334) = -.358, £<.001.
attraction
positive
disjunctive
relationship
(1/334) =
affection
The alternative
kin affiliations showed a strong
to
.195, £ < . 0 0 1 .
dissolution
potential.
Beta
The
variables
reli-
barrier
giosity of couple. Beta (1/334) = -.138, £ < , 0 5 , and cost
of divorce. Beta
(1/334) = -.103, £ < . 0 5 , showed signifi-
cant, though weak, relationships to dissolution potential.
When
the males were divided
into farm and nonfarm
groups, the attraction variable respondent's education and
the barrier variable divorce conservatism remained significant,
though
weak,
for
farm
males
alternative attraction disjunctive
kin
(Table
16).
The
affiliations
and
64
TABLE 16
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for Farm Group—Males Only
Variables
3ta
Disjunctive Kin Affections
Divorce Conservatism
Ideal Number of Children
Respondent's Education
Age Homogamy
Child at Home
Own Home
1.14
-.75
-1.50
-.30
1.14
.83
,67
.35**
.24*
.26*
.24*
.20
.20
.12
S.E.
Beta
t_-Test
.35
.33
.62
.14
.59
.44
.60
3,23
-2,25
-2.43
-2,17
1,93
1.88
1,12
R2 = ,32
F = 4,75 with 7, 71 d^. £<,001
* £ <,05
** £ <.01
the barrier variable ideal num.ber of children were also
significantly
related
to dissolution potential
for farm
males.
Nonfarm males had the same significant variables as
did
the
total
male
sample, with
the
addition
of
the
attraction variable home ownership, Beta (1/274) = -.174,
£ <.01
(Table 17).
When the females were divided into farm and nonfarm
groups, the attraction variable affection and the alternative
attraction
disjunctive
significant for each group.
strong
relationship
kin
affiliations
were
The nonfarm group indicated a
between
the
attraction
variable
affection and dissolution potential, while the relationship was somewhat weaker for the farm group (Tables ]8 and
65
TABLE 17
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for Farm Group—Females Only
Variables
Beta
Religiosity of Couple
-1 ,07
Disjunctive Kin Affiliations
.89
- .22
Affection Scale
Child at Home
-1 ,01
Catholic Religion
-1 .09
Community Embeddedness
.08
- .23
Cost of Divorce
S.E.
Beta
33**
23*
22*
,21*
,17
,11
,07
t-Test
29
36
09
43
59
06
29
R2 = . 38
F == 7. 55 wi th 7, 85 df_. £ <.001
*
£ < .05
**
£ < .01
TABLE 18
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression Coefficients
for Nonfarm Group—Males Only
b
Variables
Affection Scale
Divorce Conservatism
Own Home
Respondent's Education
Contact Opposite Sex
Cost of Divorce
Catholic Religion
Community Embeddedness
Income Adequacy
-.42
-.56
-1.11
-.2836
.3371
-.2479
,9402
-.0817
2100
R2 = .289
F = 8.40 with 9,186 df. £ < .001
* £ <.05
** £ <.01
Beta
-.41***
-.15*
-.17**
-.142*
.137*
-.092
.096
-.078
-.071
S.E.
Beta
.07
.24
.42
.139
,157
.175
.621
.071
,194
t-Test
-6.31
-2. 39
-2.67
-2.04
2.15
-1.42
1.51
-1.15
-1.08
66
19).
The barrier variable Catholic religion was signifi-
cantly
related
to dissolution potential for the nonfarm
female group, while the barrier variable religiosity of
couple was strongly significant for the farm group.
Two
other variables were found to be significantly related to
dissolution potential for the farm and the nonfarm groups.
For the farm female group, the barrier variable of having
a child
at home was significant, though weak.
For the
nonfarm female group, the barrier variable cost of divorce
resulted in a significant, though weak, relationship.
TABLE 19
Standardized and Unstandardized Regression Coefficients
for Nonfarm Group—Females Only
Variables
Affection Scale
Disjunctive Kin
Affiliations
Catholic Religion
Cost of Divorce
Religiosity of Couple
Ideal Number of Child ren
Educational Homogamy
b
Beta
S.E.
Beta
t.-Test
-.4853
-.398***
.070
-6.93
.7067
1.6538
-.4572
-.3101
.6897
-.2769
.148*
.149**
-.115*
-,090
.076
-.042
.281
.611
.228
.194
.492
.360
2.52
2.71
-2.01
-1.60
1.40
-0.77
R2 = .307
F = 14.88 with 7,235 df £ < ,001
* £ <.05
** £ <.01
*** £ <.001
67
Summary
For the total sample, variables significantly contributing
to
the
explanation
of
variance
potential were affection scale
of couple
the
(attraction), religiosity
overall
regression
(alternative attractions).
for
disjunctive family relationships
and
dissolution
(barrier), disjunctive family relationships and
contact with the opposite sex
In
in
religiosity
of
couple
the
farm
group,
(alternative attraction)
(barrier) were
related to dissolution potential.
significantly
Five of the independent
variables were significant for the nonfarm group.
were:
affection,
education
home
only
ownership,
and
These
respondent's
(attractions); Catholic religion (barrier); and
disjunctive kin affiliations (alternative attraction).
The
hierarchical
alone
and
cated
farm-nonfarm
regressions
attraction/alternative
differences.
computed
attractions
on
barriers
each
indi-
Barrier variables
were
found to be more predictive of dissolution potential for
the
farm
group,
alternative
hypothesized.
attraction
proportion
expected.
as
of
variance
variables
for
the
The
attraction
explained
nonfarm
a
group,
and
greater
as
was
Results of the regression analyses used to test
hypotheses revealed a significant difference between farm
and nonfarm respondents.
The regression analyses by gender differed from the
results
of
the
total
sample.
For
males,
divorce
68
conservatism and contact with the opposite sex showed a
significant relationship to dissolution potential.
The
results for females were similar to those of the total
sample.
CHAPTER IV
SUMI4ARY AND CONCLUSIONS
in
this
dissolution
whether
study,
and
Levinger's
cohesiveness
(1965,
was
1979)
tested
to
attraction, barrier, and alternative
model
of
ascertain
attraction
variables hold predictive power for dissolution potential
among farm respondents as compared to nonfarm respondents.
The Marital Status Inventory
used
to
measure
the
(Weiss & Cerreto, 1981) was
dependent
variable:
dissolution
potential.
The mean levels of dissolution potential for the farm
group and the nonfarm group were 1.67 and 2.59, respectively,
A jt-test for significance between the mean scores
for the farm and the nonfarm group indicated significant
differences t(610) = 3.82, £<.001.
tion
for
the
farm
group was
The standard devia-
2.07, while
deviation for the nonfarm group was 2.83.
cant
difference
supported
remain
on
MSI
scores
between
the
standard
This signifithe
two
groups
earlier findings that farm-nonfarm differences
(Bealer,
1981; Coward
&
Smith,
1981; Willits,
Bealer, & Crider, 1973).
This study projected that the barrier variables would
explain a greater amount of the
69
variance
in
dissolution
70
potential for the farm group as compared to the nonfarm
group.
For
attraction
nonfarm
and
respondents, it was
alternative
attraction
expected
variables
that
would
explain more of the variance in dissolution potential as
compared
to the farm group.
Both of these expectations
were supported.
Attraction Variables
The
first
attraction
potential
variables
for
supported.
that
hypothesis,
farmi
varied
and
Affection
appeared
to
be
which
inversely
nonfarm
was
tested
to
the
dissolution
attraction
related
potential for the nonfarm group.
with
groups, was
the only
strongly
whether
partially
variable
dissolution
However, affection was
not significantly related to dissolution potential among
the farm group.
this
There are two possible explanations for
difference.
First,
it
is
possible
that
nonfarm
respondents spend less time with their spouses because of
job schedules and civic affairs.
find
When it is difficult to
time for the couple to spend with each other, the
issues of affection and sex could become more pronounced.
Second,
it
is
possible
that
nonfarm
respondents
have
higher levels of consciousness and greater opportunity for
liberalizing
their attitudes about matters of affection
and sexual enjoyment, thus making the issues of affection
and
sexual
couples.
enjoyment
a
higher
priority
for
nonfarm
71
The weak inverse relationship between the attraction
variable home ownership and dissolution potential for the
nonfarm sample could be a result of the way our society
measures
a
person's
material holdings.
ship
could
well
success
by
the
size
of
his/her
For a nonfarm respondent, home ownerbe
the
most
costly
investment
he/she
makes.
Thus, home ownership may become an attraction to
remain
in
the
marriage
for
nonfarm
respondents.
Many
couples today are dependent on two salaries if they choose
to purchase their own home because of high closing costs,
high interest rates, and high monthly payments.
Dissolu-
tion of the marriage might lead to loss of home ownership
for many nonfarm respondents.
For farm respondents, housing is viewed as a necessary expense.
However, the home is one of the snialler
costs of the farming operation.
For example, a tractor
and
an
plow
would
cost
more
than
bedroom house on today's market.
average-sized
three
Also, if a farm respon-
dent owns land, it is likely that his/her home is £ part
of that property, or has been passed down with the land by
previous generations.
Home ownership is, thus, a given
for many farm people.
The
third
attraction
variable
that
was
inversely
related to dissolution potential for nonfarm respondents
was
respondent's
education.
The higher the
educational
level of the nonfarm respondent, the lower the dissolution
72
potential.
This variable was not significantly related to
dissolution potential for the farm group.
This difference
between farm and nonfarm respondents becomes more interesting
when
considering
the
levels for each group.
similarity
in mean
education
Farm respondents had an average
level of "some college," as did the nonfarm respondents.
For
nonfarm
respondents, the weak
relationship
between
education level and dissolution potential reaffirmed the
existing
considered
literature.
The
to have emerged
relationship
could
also
be
for the nonfarm but not the
farm group due to the difference in sample size for each
group.
Barrier Variables
The
relationship
between
Catholic
religion
and
dissolution potential for nonfarm respondents was significant, though weak.
For nonfarm respondents, the barrier
variable Catholic religion had a positive relationship to
dissolution potential.
In other words, nonfarm Catholic
respondents were more likely to be thinking about divorce
than
nonfarm
non-Catholic
respondents.
For
the
farm
group, an inverse relationship between the barrier variable
religiosity
of
appeared as predicted.
couple
and
dissolution
potential
For a religion variable to be of
more consequence for farm than nonfarm respondents was not
surprising, since farm people have been reported to hold
more traditional, conservative attitudes and values than
73
do nonfarm
people
(Lowe & Peek, 1974).
results
for
the barrier variable
reflect
previously
established
Therefore, the
religiosity
differences
of couple
between
farm
and nonfarm people.
Alternative Attractions
The alternative attraction disjunctive kin affiliations emerged
dissolution
as having the strongest relationship with
potential
for
the
farm
group.
Considering
that most farming operations are done by family members
from at least two generations, farm respondents would have
greater potential
counterparts.
to
have
for conflict than would their nonfarm
First, the farm respondents are more likely
interference
proximity.
Second,
from
in
in-lav/s
those
farm
because
families
of
close
where
the
farming is shared or overseen by older generations, there
would
be
interference
decisions, particularly
the
exclusion
of
and
conflict
about
major
money
if the decisions were made with
a spouse's
input.
Third, among
farm
respondents, although the farm spouses are more likely to
spend more time with each other during various times of
the year due to the seasonal nature of the work, there are
long,
stressful
harvest)
during
periods
which
of
time
members
dictate how time will be spent.
necessitate
long
days which
(i.e,,
outside
planting
the
dyad
or
could
These periods of time
result
in fatigue, leaving
little time or energy for the marriage itself.
Alongside
74
the time element of the busy seasons on the farm, in-laws
could
influence values and decisions about how children
are to be reared.
Older generations could have differing
opinions about how the younger families should spend their
leisure time and how m.uch children should be involved in
the work on the farm, thus increasing the potential for
disjunctive kin affiliations.
All in all, farm respondents would appear to be more
prone
toward
would
nonfarm
weakly
having
disjunctive
respondents,
significant
for
kin
affiliations, than
although
the
the
nonfarm
variable
group.
was
Further
research V70uld be indicated to judge how meaningful the
nonfarm relationship is.
Limitations of the Study
There were four sources of possible bias arising from
data
collection
Tri-State
Fair
at
the
fair.
First,
the
use
for data collection prevented
of
the
drawing a
random sample, since only people visiting the fair participated in the study.
Second, respondents participated on
a
However,
volunteer
influenced
by
basis.
this
bias,
mail
surveys
rendering
these methodologies comparable.
the
are
often
results
of
Third, both husbands and
wives filled out the questionnaires simultaneously in some
cases, which may have created some suppression of truth.
This bias was somewhat controlled by providing more than
one
table
at which
to
fill
out
the questionnaire
and
75
instructions to spouses to sit at different tables while
answering the questions and to not discuss answers until
both
have
boxes.
placed
their
questionnaires
in
the
provided
Finally, the overall festive mood that surrounds
fair week may have created
answers to the questions.
administered
less than critically
honest
If the questionnaire had been
in a more natural setting, this source of
potential bias might have been avoided.
The possible limitations of the study should be at
least partially overcome by the large sample size.
The
sample size allowed for a distribution of respondents with
regard
to
economic
age,
number
level,
and
of
years
occupation.
married,
The
education,
sample
size
was
facilitated by collecting data at the fair.
Implications for Further Research
As was
dents'
hypothesized, variance
level
accounted
nonfarm
for
of dissolution
more
by
respondents.
in the
farm respon-
potential was
barriers
than was
Similarly,
found
the
attraction
to be
case
and
for
alter-
native attraction variables were found to account for more
variance
farm
in dissolution
respondents.
The
potential
results
for nonfarm
of
the
than for
present
study
suggest that there exist rural-urban differences in what
holds
marriages
together.
The
predictor
variables
as
identified by past research behave distinctively for each
group.
More
than
25 percent of the total variance
in
76
dissolution
potential
was
explained
using
Levinger's
(1965, 1979) model of dissolution and cohesiveness for the
farm
group
as
nonfarm group.
compared
to
26.9% of
the
same
for
the
The conclusion that might be drawn from
these small differences in proportion of explained variance
for the two groups is that Levinger's model holds
explanatory power for both the farm and nonfarm groups.
The total explained variance for each group also suggests
that there are variables for both farm and nonfarm groups
that explain cohesiveness and dissolution other than those
which were tested from the model.
The different variables
which were found to be significantly related to dissolution
potential
for
the
farm
and
nonfarm
respondents,
suggest that rural issues and differences must be given
increased visibility.
more
Also, there is a need to foster a
accurate perception of farm life in America
service
providers, scholars, and
policymakers
as
among
these
farm families experience severe and critical problems in
economic,
lives.
be
interpersonal,
familial
areas
of
their
The popular romantic images of farm families must
reshaped
1985.
and
The
to
reflect more
strengths
of the
accurately
farm
the
family,
reality
of
indicated
by
their level of cohesiveness, need to be capitalized upon
in
order
to better
help
these
families
problems and changes that are occurring.
adjust
to
the
77
These
indicated.
findings
suggest
that
further
research
is
It would be important to re-analyze the strong
relationship between affection and dissolution potential
using a more comprehensive measure of affection, since the
DAS affection scale consists of only four items.
It would appear to be necessary to add the attraction
variables self esteem and coping with stress in order to
account
stress
for
the
seasonal nature of farm work
periods.
These
variables
might
and high
increase
the
explanatory value of the model among farm respondents.
The need for a more extensive study of the effects of
disjunctive
present
kin
affiliations
findings
especially
is also
for
farm
indicated
by
couples.
the
Social
service workers and policy makers perhaps need to shift
their
focus
to
include multigenerational
family
inter-
action patterns and coping strategies in order to better
serve the needs of families involved in agriculture.
The
present focus appears to be primarily on economic issues,
which may be only a symptom of such underlying problems as
poor
communication
parents.
skills among
farm spouses and
their
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S. (1979). Correlates of marital happiness
among the remarried. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 4J., 857-867,
'
^
Armor, D. J,, & Couch, A. S, (1972), Datatext primer; An
introduction to computerized social data analysis. New
York: Free P r e s s . ~ ~
Axelson, I, J. (1963). The marital adjustment and marital
role definitions of husbands of working and non-working
wives. Journal of Marriage and Family Living, 25(2),
189-196,
—
Bealer, R. C, (1981). On policy matters and rural-urban
differences. The Rural Sociologist, 1^, 19-25.
Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I.
Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813-847.
Bernard, J. (1972) . The future of marriage.
World.
Blau, P, M. (1964).
New York: Wiley.
New York:
Exchange and power in social life.
Blood, 0. R. , & Wolfe, M. D. (1960).
New York: The Free Press.
Husbands and wives.
Booth, A., & White, L. (1980). Thinking about divorce.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, £2(3), 605-616.
Bowman, H., & Spanier, G. B. (1978).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Modern marriage.
Brinkerhoff, D. B., & White, L. K. (1978). Marital
satisfaction in an economically marginal population.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, £0(2), 259-267.
Brown, D. (1981). Farm families and family farming.
R. Coward & W. Smith (Eds,), The family in rural
society, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
78
In
Bumpass, L. L,, & Sweet, J. A . (1972). Differe^t-Sai^ U,
marital instability:
1970. American
j^r^^^A^^
^tl^Z.^^J::^^^
ity: 1970.
Socio3oq-i ^-^^ l ^'''
Review, 37.
Burchinal, L. G. & Chancellor, L. E. (1963, fey), $^i^i
status religious affiliation, and ages at ^r.^rria^e.
Journal of Marriage and Family Living. 219-220^
Burgess, E. W., & Locke, H. J. (1953). The family f--)m
institute to companionship. Kew York: Aivierica^i Book
Co.
Burgess, E. W, , & Wallin, P. (1953). Engagement e^^
marriage. Philadelphia: Lipincott.
Burr, W. R. (1973) . Theory construction sad the soc-Qloovcf the family. New York: Wiley.
——=- -Carter, B., & Click, P. (1976). Marrisf^ ^gig civoro^:: A
social and economic study. CambriS/g®^ Ufe§,-£: Harvard
University Press.
Cherlin, A. (1977). The effect of children on marital
dissolution. Demography, 14, 265-272..
Coombs, L. , & Zumeta, Z. (1970). Correlates o:f marital
dissolution in a prospective fertility study.-: A
research note. Social Problems, 19, 92-lt)2'.
Christensen, E. T. (1968). Children in the f
Relationship of number and spacing to 'marit^;! ^poc-e&s..
Purdue: Institute for the Study of Social C""
Institute Reprint Service No. 9, pp^ 2€3-2«:9,
Christensen, H. T. , & Barber, K. (1967)),. Interfaith
versus interfaith niarriage in Indiana.. Jour-nal -of
Marriage and the Family, 22(2) , 461-469..
Copp, J- H. (Ed.). (1964). Our changing rurol society.
Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
Coward, R. , & Smith, W.. (Eds.).. (1981). -Thte .f.ami,ly j-n
rural society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Coward, R., & Smith, W. (.Eds.j.. 11983.).. F.amily seryic-es.
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Cox, F. (1978).
its meaning.
Human intimacy: .Marriage, the family, and
St. Paul: West.
80
Crane, D., & Mead,
inventory: Some
measure marital
Family Therapy,
E. (1980). The marital status
preliminary data on an instrument to
dissolution. The American Journal of
8^, 31-39.
~
Crane, D., Newfield, N., & Armstrong, D. (1983).
Predicting divorce at marital therapy intake: Wive's
distress and the marital status inventory. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Crosby, J. F. (1980). A critique of divorce statistics
and their interpretation. Family Relations, 29, 51-58.
Cutright, P. (1971). Income and family events: Marital
stability- Journal of Marriage and the Family, 3_3 (2) ,
291-306.
Davis, J. A. (1978, July). General social surveys,
1972-1978. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
Dizard, J. (1968). Social change in the family.
Community and Family Study Center.
Chicago:
Dunne, F. (1980). Occupational sex-stereotyping among
rural young women and men. Rural Sociology, 45,
396-415.
Farber, B., & Blackman, L. (1956).
and nvimber and sex of children.
Review.. 21.
Marital role tension
American Sociological
Fenelson, B. (1971) . State variations in United States
divorce rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
22(2), 321.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Evanston: Row, Peterson, and Co.
Frazier E F. (1960). The impact of urban civilization
upon Negro family life. In N. W. Bell & E. F. Vogel
(Eds.), Modern introduction to the family. New York:
Free Press.
Glenn, N, & Weaver, C. (1978). Marital happiness.
Journal of Marriage and the Family.. £0(2), 242-247.
Click, P. C. (1975). A demographer look at Ain^fi^^!}
families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 12,
15-28.
Goode, W. J. (1956).
Press.
After divorce.
New York: The Free
81
Goode, W J. (1962), Marital satisfaction and instability: A cross-cultural class and analysis of divorce
^^5^?- International Social Science Journal. 14,
Goode, W. J, (1964).
Prentice-Hall,
The family.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Goode, W. J. (1965),
Press.
Women in divorce.
"•
•
New York: Free
Hagood, M. J. (1949), The farm home and family. In C C
Taylor et al. (Eds.), Rural life in the United States
(pp, 39-45) , New York: Knopf.
~
Hardy, K. R. (1957). Determinants of conformity and
attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 54, 289-294,
Heckman, N. A,, Bryson, B. , & Bryson, J. B. (1977).
Problems of professional couples. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 21(2), 323-330.
Heer, D. M. (1974) . Prevalence of black-white marriage in
the U.S.: 1960-1970. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 2^(2), 246.
Hoffman, L,, & Nye, F, (Eds,). (1974). Working mothers:
An evaluative review of the consequences for wife,
husband, and child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Holman, T. (1981). The influence of community involvement
on marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, £2(1), 143-149.
Holstrom, L. L, (1973). The two-career family.
Cambridge, Mass: Schenkman.
Homans, G. C, (1961), Social behavior: Its elementary
forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Hurley, J. R. , & Palonen, D. P. (1967). Marital satisfaction and child density among student parents. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 2i' 483-484.
Jorgensen, S., & Klein, D, (1979), Sociocultural
heterogamy, dissensus, and conflict in marriage.
Pacific Sociological Review, 22(1)' 51-79.
Jorgensen, S. R. (1979). Socioeconomic rewards and
perceived marital quality: A reexamination. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 41, 825-835.
82
Jorgensen, S
l ^ ^ : ' A
R. , & Johnson, A. (1980).
Tl'-ll:
Correlates of
^^H£nal.^Lilarriage and the
Kohl, S. (1976). Working together: Women and family in
southwestern Saskatchewan. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
'
Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. (1973). Multiple
regression m behavioral research. New York: Holt
Rinehart, & Winston.
'
Landis, J. T. (1963). Social correlates of divorce or
nondivorce among the unhappily married. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 25.(2), 178-180.
Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and
dissolution: An integrative review. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 22(1) , 19-28"!
Levinger, G. (1976) . Social psychological perspectives on
marital dissolution. Journal of Social Issues, 32,
21-47.
~~
—
Levinger, G. (1979) . A social psychological perspective
on marital dissolution. In G. Levinger & H. Moles
(Eds,), Divorce and separation. New York: Basic Books.
Lewis, R. , & Spanier, G. (1979). Theorizing about the
quality and stability of marriage. In Burr et al.
(Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol.
I) . New York: The Free Press.
Lewis, R. , & Spanier, G. (1980), Marital quality: A
review of the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 42, 825-839.
Locke, H. (1951) . Predicting adjustment in marriage: A
comparison of a divorced and a happily married group.
New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Lowe, G, D., & Peek, C. W. (1974). Location and
lifestyle: Comparative exploratory ability of urbanism
and rurality. Rural sociology, 2i(3)' 392-420.
Maslow, A. H. (1954).
York: Harper.
Motivation and personality.
New
Mott, F. L., & Moore, S. F. (1979). The causes of marital
disruption among young American women: An interdisciplinary perspective. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, £]., 335-365.
83
Mueller, C W. , & Pope, H. (1977). Marital instabilitvstudy of Its transmission between generations. Journal
of Marriage and the Family. 2i(l), 83-92.
Nye, F. I. (1961). Maternal employment and marital
interaction: Some contingent conditions. Social
Forces, 40, 113.
Nye, F. I. (1979). Choice, exchange, and the family. In
W. Burr, R, Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.),
Contemporary theories about the family (Vol, II). New
York: Free Press.
Nye, F. I., & Hoffman, L. (1963). The employed mother in
America. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Orden, R. , & Bradburn, N. M. (1968). Dimensions of
marriage happiness. American Journal of Sociology, 73.
Orden, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1969). Working wives and
marriage happiness. American Journal of Sociology, 74,
392-407.
Pedhazur, E. (1982) . Multiple regression in behavioral
research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Rainwater, L. (1966). Marital stability and patterns of
status variables. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
22, 442-445.
Renne, K. (1970) . Correlates of dissatisfaction in
marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32,
54-67.
Rollins, E., & Feldman, H. (1970). Marital satisfaction
over the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 32, 20-27.
Rosenblatt, P., & Anderson, R. M. (1981), Interaction in
farm families: Tension and stress. In R. Coward & W.
Smith (Eds.), The family rural society (pp. 130-152).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rosenblatt, P., & Keller, L. 0, (1983), Economic
vulnerability and economic stress in farm couples.
Family Relations, 22('*) ' 567-573.
Rosenblatt, P., Nevaldine, A., & Titus, S. (1978). Farm
families: Relation of significant attributes of farming
to family interaction. International Journal of
Sociology and the Family, S_, 89-99.
84
Roth, J., & Peck, R, F. (1951), Social class mobility and
factors related to marital adjustment. American ^
Sociological Review. ]_6, 465-472.
Safilios-Rothchild, C. (1970). Study of family powerstructure: Review 1960-1969. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 32, 439-461,
~
^
Scanzoni, J, (1968). A social system analysis of
dissolved and existing marriages. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 30, 452-461.
~
Scanzoni, J., & Scanzoni, L. D, (1981),
change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Men, women, and
~
Schumm, W. R. , & Bollman, S. R. (1981). Interpersonal
processes in rural families. In R. Coward, & Wm. Smith
(Eds,), The family rural society. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press,
Seward, C, (1970), Sex roles in changing society. In G.
Seward & R. C. Williamson (Eds.), Changing society.
New York: Random House.
Sorokin, P., & Zimmerman, C. (1929). Principles of
rural-urban sociology. New York: Holt.
Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New
scales for assessing the quality of marriage and
similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38,
15-28.
Spitze, G. D., & Waite, L. J. (1981). Wives employment:
The role of husbands perceived attitudes. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 43, 117-124.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1983). Using multivariate
statistics. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelly, H. H. (1959). The social
psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Thornton, A. (1977). Children and marital stability.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 531-540.
Thornton, A. (1978) . Marital instability differentials
and interactions: Insights from multivariate
contingency table analysis. Sociology and Social
Research, 62, 572-595.
85
Udey, J. R. (1966), Marital instability by race, sex,
education, and occupation using 1960 census data,
American Journal of Sociology, 72, 203.
United States Bureau of the Census, (1981). Current
population reports: Farm population (Series P-27,
No. 55, p. 3 ) .
United States Bureau of the Census. (1982). Current
population reports; Farm population (Series P-27, No.
56, p. 3 ) .
Weiss, R., & Cerreto, M. C. (1980). The marital status
inventory: Development of a measure of dissolution
potential. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 8,
80-85,
White, W. W., & Mika, K. (1983). Family divorce and
separation: Theory and research. In H. McCubbin, M.
Sussman, & J. Patterson (Eds.), Social stress and the
family: Advances and developments in family stress
theory and research (pp. 175-193). New York: Haworth
Press.
Wilkening, E. A., & Bharadwaj, L. (1968). Aspirations and
task involvement as related to decision-making among
farm husbands and wives. Rural Sociology, 33, 30-45.
Willits, F., Bealer, R. C , & Crider, D. (1973). Leveling
of attitudes in mass society: Rurality and traditional
morality in America. Rural Sociology, 38, 36-45.
Woodrow, K., Hastings, D. W., & Tu, E. J. (1981). Ruralurban patterns of marriage, divorce, and mortality:
Tennessee, 1970. Rural Sociology, 43, 70-86.
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
The Marital Status Inventory consists of questions 74
through 87.
The
affectional
expression
subscale
consists
of
questions 91, 93, 115, and 116.
The Divorce Liberality Scale consists of questions 44
through 47.
86
87
FiiqaL-URBmj (JUESTIO'INOIPE
the nyt'^r that best answers the question in the blank to the
l°ft
of the question. Please fill out the questionnaire independently
or ycur rpc'-:-e and do rit discuss or coirpare ansucrs until after you
have Dlaccd the questionnaire in the provided box. The questionnaire
will remain cof^pletely anonymous. There is no way to trace your
questionnaire to ycur nai-e, and no atte^.pt will tre ma-J? to do so.
Thank ycu for participating in the study.
F1.T:°
1.
vc'jr sex
1. Male
2.
Fe'^ale
2.
w r i t e in y o u r age in y e a r s .
3.
W r i t e in y c u r s p o u s e ' s age in y e a r s .
!i.
vcur r a c e / e t h n i c baci-ground
1. '.-.•hite
'
^.
2. C'-'iccro
5.
Oriental
Dlack/r.'egro
3.
Other
^~erican Indian
6.
l-.''i3t is ycur r^rital st.itus rcs?
!. '-'arrieiJ
^- Divorced
2. '.•.'Ldc.-..'.-.ic:.-.er
5. Di'«crced and re-^rried
6. Cther (specify)
c. :3r3ted
<.
l-.h-st is vTur hc'jsi^Q situation rr.-;?
1.
2.
C .'-n ho'T'e
C u r r e n t l y buying h c ^ e
3.
Li'.e in hc.-'e c.-.ned by other f::'-ily (.'ei-^ber
(e>a-ole: parents, uncle, etc. c.-.n h.^n? on f--r,ily la-d)
Rent hof^e or apartment/cond:-'T'iniu'-/tc.-.nhoj3e
h.
7.
'.-.'hich of the follc'.-.ing best describes ycur parent's present
rarital status?
.
1. My natural/adoptive parents live together f, are n a m e d now.
2." r.-" or both deceased/neither re^^arried
3. One or both deceased/other parent rerarried
it. Separated
?. Divorced/neither remarried
C. Divorced/renarriage by one or both
= . write in the nurrber of children you have.
9.
writs in the nurber of children you want to have in the future.
IP.
write in how eld you were when you married your current spouse.
'll.
write in how old your spouse as when you carried (current marriage)
88
use the following list of religions to answer the following four
qjsstions.
1.
2.
3.
U.
5.
6.
7.
Catholic
Baptist
Methodist
Presbyterian
Episcopal
Lutheran
Church of Christ
8.
9.
10.
11.
Unitarian
First Christian
Assembly of Cod
Other (specify)
12.
No r e l i g i o u s preference
12.
R e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n with which you grew up.
13.
R e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n with which your spouse grew up.
Your present r e l i g i o u s
affiliation.
15
Your spouse's present r e l i g i o u s
16
To
1.
2.
3.
h.
5.
17.
affiliation.
^.hat extent do yoJ consider yourself religious?
Not at all
Little
Mil:^ly
f-'coerately
Strongly
To v.^.at e x t e n t do you consider your spouse t o t e
religiojs?
1. r:-t at ail
2. Little
3. r.ildJy
le.
19.
20.
h.
Mroerately
5.
Strongly
Ho.-; often do you attend church?
1 . 3 times a week
2. 1-2 times a week
3, Once a month
h. About tk-.ice a year
5. Never
HO/; Often does your spouse attend church with you?
1. Always
2. Almost always
3. Frequently
ix. Seldom/Occasionally
5. Never
Which best describes your p a r e n t ' s f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s when you
were groi^.ing up?
1.
Not at a l l w e l l o f f
2.
Less than w e l l o f f
3.
Comfortable
^. Moderately well off
5. Very well off
89
21.
Which best describes your financial situation now?
1. Not at all well off
2. Less than well off
3. Comfortable
i. Moderately well off
5. Very well off
22.
When you were growing up, were you primarily a resid-^nt
of
1. outside city limits on a farm
2. inside city limits of small town (under 2500 population)
3. suburb of large city (like suburb of Dallas or Houston)
^. large city (over 2500 population)
5. rural-outside city limits but NOT on a farr/ranch
23.
Where do you live NOW?
1. outside city limits on a farm
2. inside city limits of small town (under 2500 population)
3. suburb of large city
ii. large city (over 2500 population)
5. rural-outside city limits but NOT on a farm/ranch
Use tfie following list of categories to tell the educational le^el for
each : you; your spouse
1.
2.
3.
k.
5.
6.
7.
Under 8th grade
So"ie high school
Hign school diploma or equivalent
Some college
College degree
Graduate work
Graduate decree
6.
Special t r a i n i n g other than college ( t e c h s c h o o l , e t c . )
7h.
Your e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l
25.
Your spouse's educational l e v e l
26.
What i s your present PRIMARY occupation?
1 . Farmer or farmer's w i f e
name of youi
2.
Housewife
3. G a i n f u l l y employed o f f - f a r m
job
h.
27.
Part-time farmer, part-time employed off-farm
{% of time
) {% of time_
)
5. Part-time housewife, part-time employed off-farm
{% of time
_ ) (* of time
)
6. Part-time employed off-farm, part-time farm work,
part-time housewife
what is your second occupation?
1. Not applicable - no second job
2. Name of job
•
—
90
1.
} oLi
ves
yes
no
29.
Taking all things into consideration, how would you describe
your marriage?
^ uescrioe
1. very happy
u Not too happy
2. Pretty happy
5. very unhappy
3. Happy
^^'
30. If you could push a button that would wipe out your entire
marriage, would you push that button?
^
^
1. yes
2. no
3.
not sure
Please write the dates for each of the follc.-.ing:
^1-
f-'3nth and year of first marriage
32.
3:^.
Month and year of divorce (if not applicable, v.rite r.'one)
f'onth and year of other marriaceCs) (if not applicable
.Mite None)
'•)
_3i.
'/3nth and year first child was born
35.
Month and year last child i-.as born
;<
Year you/spouse entered the profession of farr-'ing
(if not applicable, write N.A.)
37.
Year you/spouse went to work off-farm as a second job
to farming (if not applicable, write N.A.)
_33.
Ho.v many children do you have living at home NOW?
_39.
what do you think is the IDEAL number of children for a family
to ha^e?
_^0.
So
CO
1.
2.
3.
^.
^1.
far as you and your family are concerned, how much satisfaction
you get from your overall financial situation?
f.'o satisfaction
A little satisfaction
Average satisfaction
A great deal of satisfaction
In which of these groups did your family's total TAXABLE
(adjusted gross) income, from all sources, fall last year?
1. under $5000.00
6. $25,000 to $29,999
2. $5,000 to $10,000.
7. $30,000 to $39,999
3. $10,001 to $1^,999
8. $^0,000 to $^9,999
ii. $15,000 to $19,999
9. Over $50,000
5. !20,000 to $2U,999
91
J2.
HOW do you feel that your overall family income compares
to other American families in general?
1. Far below average
2. Below average
3. Average
^. Above average
5. Far above average
.^3.
All in all, how many people of the opposite sex do you
have direct contact with in an average week?
1.
2.
3.
4.
3 or
4 to
7 to
Over
fewer
6
10
10
For the following questions, indicate whether you agree or disagree
with the statement using the following answer key:
1.
2.
3.
^.
Strongly agree
Agree some/.hat
Disagree screwhat
Strongly disagree
^^.
I feel that divorce is a sensible solution to many unhappy
rarriages.
^5.
Marriage is a sacred covenant which should be broken only
under tne most drastic circu~stances.
^6.
If a married couple finds getting along with each other a
real struggle, then they should not feel obligated to
remain married.
hi.
Children need a home with both a father and a mother even
though the parents are not especially suited to one another.
UQ. My in-l3.vs are warm, wonderful people who are supportive of
my marriage.
k9.
I feel that it would be worth a divorce to not have to be
associated with my spouse's relatives anymore.
50.
I would be better off financially if I divorced.
51.
On the whole, problems with inlaws have caused my spouse and I
to become closer together.
52.
A divorce would have a great deal of effect on my present
financial status.
53.
The high cost of divorce keeps many people in bad marriages.
1.
2.
3.
h.
5.
no satisfaction
a little satisfaction
not applicable
average satisfaction
a great deal of satisfaction
5^.
The place in t.hich you. live.
55.
Your occupation (other than farming).
56.
Farm life.
_57.
Your income level.
The following is a list of groups and oroanizations to which
people belong, if you are a member of each type, circle "Y^S'
If you are not a member, circle "NO".
YES
r,'3 58. Service groups
YES
rJD 59. Service groups
(If yes, check those which apply to you)
_Volunteer fire department
_Red Cross
_Civil Air Patrol
_Civil Defense
_Other (specify)
YES
NO
60. Veteran's groups
YES
rJO 61. Political clubs
YES
NO
62. Farm organizations
(If yes, check those which apply to you)
Co-op
_National Farm Organization
_Farm Bureau
_American Ag Movement
_Texas Cattle Raisers
_Wheat Producers Association
women in Farm Economics
"other (specify)
YES
NO
63. Labor Union
YES
NO
6h.
YES
UO 65. School service groups
YES
rJO 66.
Sports groups
Sororities or fraternities
93
YES
NO
67.
Hobby or garden clubs
YES
NO
68.
Literary, art, or discussion groups
YES
NO
69.
Study groups
academic
religious
other (specify)
YES
NO
70.
Professional organizations (otiier than farm)
YES
NO
71.
^Church-affiliated groups
YES
NO
72.
Family groups
h-H
_Extension Homemaker Club
_Bicycle club
_Young Homemakers
Young Farmers
"other (Specify)
YES
NO
73.
Other groups not included above (specify)
As with all the questions you've answered so far, think about
'. cjr current marriage to answer the following Questions. Place
a T in the blank at the left if the statement is mostly true for
>oj. Place an F in the blank if tne statement is mostly false for you,
Ik.
I have occasionally thought of divorce or wished that we
were separated, usually after an argument or other incident.
75.
I have considered divorce or separation a few tim.es other
than during or shortly after a fight, although only in
vague terms.
76.
I have thought specifically about separation or divorce.
I have considered who would get the kids, how things
would be divided, pros and cons of such actions, etc.
.
77.
I have discussed the question of my divorce or separation
with someone other than my spouse. (Trusted friend, psychologist, minister, etc.)
78.
I have not suggested to my spouse that I wished to be
divorced, separated, or rid of him/her.
79.
I have not made any specific plans to discuss separation
or divorce with my spouse. 1 have not considered what I
would say, etc.
80.
I have not discussed the issue seriously or at length with
my spouse.
CI
M, spoure end ] have separated.
(This i c e ( J ) t r i n l
^^
s e p a r a t i o n o i ( 2 ) perrr.anent s e p a r e t i o n ) CIRCLE OWE IF TRUE.
e:.
Thoughts o f s c p s i a t i o n cr d i v o r c e cccui t o me very
as o f t e n e i o^ce a week or more.
fxequentlv
'ieque.ijy,
53.
1 have rr,aor no i n a u i r i e s f r o - . nonprofessio'-aJs a- t o how
Jonp n takes t o get a d i v o r c e , orounds f o r divo-ce
c o s t s i n . ' o j v c d i n such a c t i o n , e t c .
'
Bh.
IhB.e
^'-
J ^^'•'^ ^ e ' up 21 independent bank a r c o j - i t i n rr.y na-:- as a
measure o f p r c t e c t i r g m^- owi i n t e r e s t s .
bC.
I ha.'6 n o t conLected a l5..yEr t o rake p r e l i m i n a r y p l a n ^
n o t co-,sulted e lawyer cr other l e g a l aioe about t h e
for a civorce.
f^-
I '•'S'E filed for a divorce E'd we ere d:\c:ccd.
r- c , , , , T ' - r m
b t i . f rr. .\' . i i r \ r . r p.rin.-r fri c i : h iirr.. o- Ir.c I n l . - . i n ^ hti
Aliiu'ii
A',
ji
A f r,
c:
.
t»- - : - \ ' r _ 11.1: i o' .' t i r, 11 r .•
,~ . .
h r ffr r'.i
.
}> 1 t i l . I|.Mil
' .
' - .
tr'-.rr'ir. j!-\(crrtfcir;
i
4
1
4
CJ .
r r .!:>v,.-^v f ' l i l t
?o .
^ - J ' ^ f^f (Jfilir.f >• ilK p j ' r n i i
r- II. U« J
<.
'
''•
prt hcf.•>!.•.•)
A'"-;
f
j'i
in,-' thip.fs
\
\
)
4
4
«,
.«,
f
•r
4
4
.•<
4
0
0
-•
.1
?
1
?
J
1
1
1
1
4
J
4
}
Sr.
M i V I'.f rr.iic : d. ."uioru
5
5
4
\
4
i
»-|i> irif J
<i
4
}
2
C 3Tcr dfriiir-nj
%
4
i
:
•'--•
r
1
1
^
<>
1 C.IJ .
C
?
S
Ijiki
f
1
rf
A " riur.i pf iimr spr r. I l . ' f ' i K ' t
..KKCI-
1
1
1
K irr >f<? ir-.pi.inf '^t
H
0
(I
?"
^ r .
I C r .
1
11
1
1
\
Al.j..
S t >.
?
__
4
4
AlVn:
IJI.LI-Il,
4
(
> ' -'r I . . . ' rrc K - i U".
. •
K;. ( ' 1.1 r-. J' I f r J
- ^.
Al..
Af.
t
> i . r - ! ' i - ( t j i i . l . f i n . r .-f V
t " .
c •
- ^ .
I
;
:
--
c
.
0
0
{•
c
L r i i ' . r r l i r r i n i f t r v H ir.d
—
1
1
0
0
94
Mm,
1 03 .
H o * o f l c n d o >(iu d i v i u n or h i > r
jnu f o n u J f rra di>otrr. i c p i t j h o n
or I c r m i n i l i n j j o u r i c l n i n n i h i p ?
lU^.
H o . o l i r n d(i you Ol <i>ut n t i c
All
McHi of
oilrn
llic l i m r
Ihr iJiTu
Ihinncil
tumilli
k»irl»
Nr»tr
0
1
:
3
4
s
0
1
J
3
4
5
( r i i r Ihc hnu^c * l i c i t I'l^lii*
105.
Injriirril
Ot^t
K i « o d c n do viiu think
I h i i ihin^-i b c i . f f n t o i . and j o u r
106.
107.
p i r i n c i i i c ^•iiiif " t i l '
S
4
}
2
1
0
| > o y o u t n n r i f i r 111 »iiur i D » i t 7
."«
4
\
1
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
J
0
1
?
3
4
s
U
1
7
.^
4
s
D c >ou H f I r i j T T l i h » l Ji'u
r r j m r d " ' d . ' Iff"
2Q,5.
iLitrihtrt
H P » o h t r di> vou t i i d your
pjnnfr
10^.
quifrtl'
H ( i « i i l i r r ill 1..L. i i r d ii'vM n i j l r
' | t i on t i c h ii;r..r > r r o t i " ' "
{ «ci)
IIU.
AlriLnl
t » c r i [)<)
CKca
llonlli)
K»ltl;
3
2
1
(
Vri.
Ir.
c: I h t n
Ncr c r l
;m
1
r1
4
LX').io ku> )Oui n u l l ?
i l l
DJ)
AlioF
ll.tm
M c n l ol
Ihtni
4
1
l > - ' j ' l i J » n 3 j o u r r i » u r n ( j ; r in
i>wii'Jt i n u i o U ll j f il.f I '
Hu-
o l i r n - o u l d )Oii W ) Ihc | . . : i , i - . r g r ^ t r u w c u r b t i - r x n J L U . n d j o . T
Lfulhin
11J
i i n i t iif
Ihim
. H.if
I 4ii~.jnhrj
] ". 3 _ U . i . f •"
JJ-.
Nr>f r
rn.-i i
ri.ril.
C'
I
N r «cr
m.ir^
O n . T or
|...-t »
rr r n 1 h
On.-r or
h. UT u
i.rr»
M
d
C)i ; t «
d*.
ficf.in^r
luflll't'
( i i n . l j d i . c n i-i" r i l . i ' . ^
\ 1 t .
V\iuli..jiihtion»r'(.jrtl
.i..rai.lK-rnrr>c(c,';.i^nvPr
^ fi
hu
u
I
1 .,
d.M.i
.tfi
, r e : i t r n j ir. ) . - j r rv IJI.
L.r-fr.c,,
Alinic
v s . .
c, . f
s
—"
v^^-.'yv:
L,
H ...p,
Vr,,
W -
tiirrn.c )
„,^,_ ^
Ki
rttcl
LJiiii'iTJ
,ono.ir., . . . . f r . f n . . ^ .
- c . n U .
. 0 . yc. r«. . . o . . .
« . - . ^r y o .
.Uuor^.p|
' ^ ^ , * " ' ' ' " "^
, " „ , „ , , „
0.,n,-n^
df.pfr.,fii.
,......n.Mr -'^••"^"-••^•'''t;-'"':::;
c„ ..o....... 01.........nr
"- -; •;•;:::,::;: dd . i.
: r - | . . n , , f r ,
— 1 -
rrljnomhip.
2
I
1 1 9.
p».
B. in^ IfV' iircd (or i n
..I h . ^ r . n f ^ ^ . ,11 0,11 x w . . r . . . d u e l . C I . . . L -
L^iiiipp)
."i...p d - T g
m u c h . . . . ni, rcl.i.nn.hip
.. . . . „ , d l.f nice .1 n i , r e l . l i o n . h . p . u f c ^ c d . b u . / r . n , ^,. « w A m..n
I _
h . . . u l d I., nice ll II . u . .Cf d . d
0
' • • T »•
^
, . „ . „, „ „ „
M , n l » i i o i i j h i p ( i i . P f i t i lucrn-O. i n o " " "
I.u. I '• " " • " • « " "
' '*•"'
Io hc,( i,
,/.-«
' ' " "
<*«.. / . . . do U. k f f P 1 ^ ' r t l . . . o n , h i r
r.r.,