3?

A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES IN VALUES AND

MARITAL READINESS BETWEEN ENGAGED AND

DATING COUPLES

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

By

Cynthia Woodward Foreman, B. A.

Denton, Texas

May, 1971

Foreman, Cynthia W., A Study of the Differences in

Values and Marital Readiness Between Engaged and Dating

Couples. Master of Arts (Clinical Psychology), May, 1971,

60 pages, 5 tables, 67 bibliography titles.

The study consisted of five chapters: Introduction,

Review of the Literature, Method and Procedure, Results and

Discussion, and Summary.

Following an introduction of the problem, a comprehensive

review of the literature on the theories of complementarity,

similarity, and interpersonal attraction was made. This

review pointed out the complexities and disparities in present

research on factors in mate selection. Promising research

on value consensus, the properties of reinforcement, a formula

for interpersonal attraction, the perception of similarity and

the self-concept of the individuals involved was emphasized.

Theories encompassing both theoretical viewpoints of similarity

and complementarity were discussed with the possibility noted

that complementarity may-be just a special aspect of

similarity.

Three hypotheses were considered: Hypothesis I: engaged

couples will score significantly higher on the California

Marital Readiness Evaluation than the dating couples group;

Hypothesis II: engaged couples will score significantly higher

on the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Studyof Values than the dating

couples group; Hypothesis III: there will be a significant

difference in the scores between engaged couples and dating

couples on the six value areas of the S yof Values:

Theoretical, Aesthetic, Economic, Social, Political, and

Religious.

The subjects included two groups of couples, engaged

couples and dating couples. The engaged couples consisted

of thirty-five engaged male and female dyads who were

students either at North Texas State University, Denton,

Texas, or Austin College, Sherman, Texas. The dating couples

consisted of thirty-five male and female dyads who were stu4

dents either at North Texas State University, Denton, Texas,

or Austin College, Sherman, Texas. All subjects were volun-

teers, had never been married, divorced, or separated, and were

between the ages of seventeen and twenty-six. To alleviate

some intervening variables, the engaged couples were match-

paired with the dating couples on the basis of length of

acquaintance, age, and educational level.

The importance of-value consensus and marital readiness

was suggested in preparation for the marital dyad. The

Allport-Vernon-Lindzey, S yof Values was employed to test

for value consensus, the California Marriage Readiness

Evaluation was used to measure marital readiness.

A statistical analysis was made of the results of the

difference scores obtained from the engaged couples and the

dating couples on the two above mentioned tests. The three

hypotheses were rejected when the means of the two groups

were not significantly different. The results of this study

indicates that marital readiness and value consensus may be

as relevant to dating couples as these factors are to engaged

couples. The results also make obvious the importance of

reinforcement in the interpersonal attraction relationship as

it may be assumed that the reinforcing property is the simi-

larity the couples share in marital readiness and value

consensus.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageLIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Purpose of This StudyHypothesesDefinition of TermsChapter Bibliography

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Research in the Theory of ComplementarityResearch in the Theory of SimilarityResearch in the Theories of InterpersonalAttraction

Theories Encompassing Both the Similarityand Complementarity of Mates Theories

Chapter Bibliography

III. METHOD AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

SubjectsApparatusProcedure and DesignChapter Bibliography

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

DiscussionChapter Bibliography

V9 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . 55

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Categories and Areas of the CaliforniaMarriage Readiness Evalua~tion0.T.. . . . . . . 37

II. Summary of Analysis of Variance of MaritalReadiness Difference Scores of Engagedand Dating Couples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

III. Summary of Analysis of Variance of ValueConsensus Difference Scores of Engagedand Dating Couples . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 45

IV. Means, Standard Deviations and Results oft Tests of the Difference Scores of EngagedCouples and Dating Couples on MaritalReadiness and Value Consensus . . . . . . . . . 46

V. Mean and Standard Deviation Values for theSix Value Areas of the Study of Valuesfor Engaged and Dating S . . . . . . . . 47

iv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Presentation of the Problem

Research in the field of interpersonal relationships

is of particular importance in view of the all-encompassing

effect this research has on the society as a whole. The basic

unit of society is the family, the root or base of which is

the marital dyad. Thus, it follows that success dr failure

of the dyad has tremendous ramificatiots for the success or

failure of the society as a whole. The fact that out of

every four marriages consummated in America, one ends in divorce

is reason enough for empirical investigation into this area of

interpersonal relationships. Mate selection, it would appear,

has particular bearing on the marital success, for the manner

through which a mate is selected, the preparedness for marriage

that the couples possess, and their ability to grow and develop

together, all have a bearing on the success of the unit.

The more scientific information that men have available

in conjunction with how best to prepare themselves for mar-

riage, the more individuals can objectively prepare for this

very vital experience, and it would seem, the greater chance

they will stand for success. To have objective information

available for individuals and couples would be an ideal

1

2

preparation for such a highly emotional experience, marriage.

Society as a whole would benefit with a more well balanced and

stable citizenry.

Much research has been done in the field of mate selection,

and as a result, there are many theories regarding the whys

and wherefores of selecting one's mate. Eckland (5) divides

these theories into two main classifications: individualistic

theories~and sociocultural theories. Individualistic theories

have evolved as a result of the evolution in western societies

from kinship control over mate selection to freedom of choice

by the individual. The resulting state of freedom has brought

about a tremendously complex system. Of course, many quali-

ties, characteristics, and drives of the individual enter

into the choosing of ones partner, and these all have bearing

on the theories.

A psychoanalytic view of mate selection, the parent-

image theory, is an individualistic theory. This states that

one's ideal mate is very similar in physical appearance and

personality makeup to one's parent. In effect, a man would

be looking for a mother substitute in a wife,and vice-versa.

The unconscious archetype was one of the earliest indivi-

dualistic theories of mate selection. Promoters of this theory

believed that instinct guided a man to choose a woman. The

romantic belief that there is only one "right" partner for

each person and that one must search and find this "ideal

mate" arose from this theory. Another rendition of this

3

belief is Carl Jung's belief that falling in love is being

caught by one's "anima". Better explained, a part of every

man is his anima, which is an "archetypal form" which shows

a specific female image he carries within his genes (5).

The principle of complementarity is yet another indivi-

dualistic theory. This will be researched more thoroughly

later in this paper, but can be summarized as expecting the

personality and need pattern of each partner to complement

those of the other.

Lastly, the theory of similarity of partners or, "like

attracts like", is of particular interest to many researchers

today. This theory will be developed in the section on

Research in the Theory of Similarity.

Sociocultural theories of mate selection are varied, and

include propinquity and interaction, exchange, values and

beliefs, social stratification and class endogamy, and ethnic

solidarities (5). These are important in understanding mate

selection, for they help integrate the family and the indivi-

dual with social institutions and particulars of society. In-

deed, one can more fully understand marriage and the reasons

for the selection of the individuals in light of the society

and its effects on and connections with the marriage.

That partners are chosen from those living near, and with

whom there is frequent interaction, is authenticated in sev-

eral studies of propinquity and interaction (2, 3, 4).

14

An economic view of mate selection, the exchange theory,

involves the assets and liabilities one brings into a marriage.

Reciprocity occurs, and each partner "trades" qualities, social

standing, attractiveness, etc., for other desired benefits in

the union.

That values and beliefs affect mate selection is readily

apparent. An example is that many American men were raised

on fairy tales idolizing beautiful women with long golden

hair (Cinderella, Goldilocks, Alice in Wonderland, Rapunzel,

etc.), and this might be seen as a belief that would affect

a man's preferences and bring forth a colloquialism, "Gentlemen

Prefer Blondes" (and also affect women, "Blondes have more fun").

Social stratification and class endogamy are important

in that they may explain why similarity of values and beliefs

seems to crop up with married and engaged couples. That

individuals often marry within their class and social

stratification could explain their similarly held beliefs.

Schellenberg (8) feels that this is a main explanation for

the similarity theory.

Ethnic solidarities have been mroe strictly observed in

the past, but are still important in the understanding of

mate selection. Discrimination and prejudice have encouraged

individuals to seek marital partners within their own

ethnic group, thus affecting marital choices.

5

M&th this brief overview in mind, one can begin to

conceptualize the complexity researchers are faced with in

determining factors which enter into mate selection.

Purpose of This Study

This study was undertaken in an attempt to clear up

some of the complexity and conflicting data on interpersonal

attraction. In essence, this study attempts to examine the

relationship between value consensus and marital readiness in

the premarital period, between engaged couples and dating

couples, in view of the theories of homogamy, complementarity,

and selected theories of interpersonal attraction. Thus, the

purpose of this investigation is to determine if there are

significant differences of values and marital readiness between

engaged couples and dating couples. In exploring this area of

interpersonal relationships, it is hoped that different depths

of relationships will be discovered between the engaged couples

and the dating couples with respect to these two variables,

and consequently that these two important variables will be

delineated, at least in part, in respect to interpersonal

relationships.

It is supposed that the engaged couples will be more

similar in marital readiness and values than the dating

couples, thereby testing the theory that states that

similarity of personality is a necessary part of serious

interpersonal attraction. The first hypothesis is that the

6

degree of value consensus between the individuals comprising

the engaged couples will be significantly higher than that

between the individuals comprising the dating couples. The

second hypothesis to be tested is that engaged couples will

be more similar in marital readiness than dating couples. This

could be due to the fact that marital readiness is more

relevant. These two hypothesis are augmented by a third one

that states that there will be a significant difference in the

six value areas on the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey S yof Values

(1) between the engaged and dating couples. The three

hypotheses to be tested in this study are formally stated

below.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis I--Engaged couples will score significantly

higher on the California Marriage Readiness Evaluation

than the dating couples group.

Hy hesis II--Engaged couples will score significantly

higher on the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey S yof Values than

the dating couples group.

HypothesisIII--There will be a significant difference

in the scores between engaged couples and dating couples

on the six individual value areas of the Stud of Values:

Theoretical, Aesthetic, Economic, Social Political, and

Rkligious (1),

7

In testing for these hypotheses, this study attempts to

further determine whether individuals who are attracted to one

another and engaged in casual dating are the same individuals

who would be attracted to one another in selecting a mate.

Factors that may enter into serious interpersonal attraction

(i.e., engagement) may thus be different from casual inter-

personal attraction (dating couples). Two of these factors

could be value consensus and marital readiness; and therefore

one might expect the dating couples and engaged couples in

this study to score significantly differently on these two

variables. That value consensus is important as an under-

pinning of a serious relationship can be seen in the Kerckhoff

and Davis (6) study on "Value Consensus and Need Comple-

mentarity in Mate Selection". The two researchers found

that ". . .value consensus was related to progress toward

permanence (of the relationship) for the sample as a whole

. ." (6, p. 303). Additionally, marital preparedness of

the engaged couples would appear more relevant to the indivi-

duals who are planning a lifetime together than to those

individuals who are spending time in each other's company

more casually, with no such definite- goal in mind. One would

assume, thus, that engaged couples would value marital

preparedness and strive for such in anticipation of the

union to be.

The method and procedure of this study are outlined

in the following chapter on Method and Procedure.

8

Definition of Terms

AllportuS yof Values (ASV)--an objective forced-choice

value test which measures the relative emphasis of an

individuals values in six areas of values: Theoretical,

Economic, Aesthetic, Social, Political and Religious (1).

California Marriage Readiness Evaluation (CMRE)--

conceived by Morse P. Manson, the CMRE is a self-administered

marital readiness test with 110 objective True-False

questions and five sentence-completion items. The five

sentence completion items were not used in this study (7).

Dating couples (DC)--operationally defined as a male

and female dyad who classifY themselves as a couple, are

dating and spending time in each other's company.

Engaged couple (EC)--operationally defined as a male

and female dyad who have publicly announced their intention

to marry.

Similar marital readiness--similar scores on the

California Marriage Readiness Evaluation.

Value consensus or similar values--similar scores on

the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey S otud f Values.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Allport, Gordon W., Philip E. Vernon and GardnerLindzey, Manual: A Stud of Values, Boston, HoughtonMifflin Company, T760,

2. Bossard, James H. S., "Residential Pronpinquity as aFactor in Marriage Selection," American Journal ofSociology, XXXVIII (September, 19-32, 2182

3. Clarke, Alfred C,, "An Examination of the Operation ofResidential Pronpinquity as a Factor in Mate Selection,"American Sociological Review, 17 (February, 1952), 17-22.

4. Davie, Maurice R. and Ruby Jo Reeves, "Propinquity ofResidence Before Marriage," American Journal ofSociology, XLIV (January, 1939), 510-517.

5. Eckland, Bruce K., "Theories of Mate Selection,"Eugenics Quarterly, 15 (June, 1968), 71-84.

6. Kerckhoff, Alan C. and Keith E. Davis, "Value Consensusand Need Complementarity in Mate Selection," AmericanSociological Review, 27,,(June, 1962), 295-3037

7. Manson, Morse P., California Marriage Readiness Evalua-tion, Beverly Hills, CalifoRia, Western~Ps hoogicalServices, 1965.

8. Schellenberg, James A., "Homogamy in Personal Values andthe 'Field of Eligibles,," Social Forces, 39 (December,1960), 157-162.

9

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Further exploration in the field of mate selection is

direly needed, as inconclusive and opposed findings are the

rule rather than the exception. A review of the pertinent

research in the field of mate selection is attempted, to help

further define the problems and areas of importance in mate

selection. Specifically, a great deal of research in this

area has been done along two major points of view: comple-

mentarity and similarity. That these may be both important

in the picking of a marital partner will be developed more

completely.

The idea of being able to describe the relation between

the personalities of two interacting individuals by a single

overall characteristic has been an interesting and intriguing

one, Mate selection studies, however, have revealed incon-

sistent findings. Of vital interest today to psychologists

and laymen, this area of interpersonal attraction and

involvement is currently split into two camps. One theoretical

group contends that "birds of a feather flock together"; the

other argues that "opposites attract". Specifically in the

field of serious interpersonal attraction--marriage--do the

theories of similarity of mates versus complementarity of

10

11

mates come to a head. Though for seventy years psychologists

and sociologists have investigated this subject, there still

remains an aura of mystery around the specific interpersonal

choice of a marital partner. Empirical evidence seemingly at

odds with itself has been brought forth to give credence to

both theoretical groups.

Research in the Theory of Complementarity

Complementarity of individuals--an intriguing view--was

brought to the forefront by its publicizer--Winch--in the

1950's (55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60). This view of interpersonal

attraction is based on individuals complementing one another

along a long list of emotional needs. Ohmann (40) suggested

that we fall in love with those whom we need to complete our-

selves emotionally. This view was further expanded by

Murray (37),who theorized that complementary needs are the

determining factor in mate selection and are understood in

terms of the lovers' emotional makeup and need pattern.

Winch (55, 56, 57) later expounded on this fascinating trea-

tise of mate selection, using Murray's (37) list of needs, to

theorize that there is a bipolar dimension in connection with

each partner of the marital dyad. This dimension is composed

of receptive needs at one end and assertive traits and needs

at the other end. The theory that "opposites attract" was

defined by Winch as

12

When two persons, A and B, are interacting,we consider the result gratification of bothto be 'complementary' if one of the followingconditions is satisfied: (1) the need orneeds in A which is or are being gratified aredifferent in kind from the need or needs beinggratifid Tn Wr (2) the need or needs in Awhich are being gratified are very different

intensity z from the same needs in B, whichare also being gratified (58, p. 243).

This proposed symbiotic relationship between two members of

a dyad has, of course, been studied and analyzed by many

researchers since Winch's proposal of the complementarity

theory.

Bowerman and Day (5) used dating and engaged couples in

an attempt to expound on Winch's hypothesis. The two

researchers administered the Edwards Personal Preference

Schedule to sixty college couples, and the resulting correla-

tions between the needs of couples did not substantiate the

theory of complementarity.

In like manner, Thomas J. Banta's and Mavis Hetherington's

1963 (1) study of engaged couples and their friends explored

the place of complementarity in understanding the interpersonal

relationship. Banta's and Hetherington's findings were

significant in that they found no evidence to support comple-

mentarity among the engaged couples studied.

Lossner (35) studied homogeneity and heterogeneity of

affiliativeness, assuming that the former would be conducive

to a stable marriage and the latter would be disruptive to

marital stability. Using the complementarity/similarity

13

theory altogether, he additionally assumed that homogeneity

in dominance-submissiveness would be disruptive of the

marital stability, and heterogeneity of the same would be

conducive to marital stability. Generally, his hypotheses

were supported, thus weakening the case for the theory of

complementarity. It would appear from Lossner's results that

one could hypothesize that similarity of traits engenders

more stability in the marital dyad.

The studies of the role of complementarity have pointed

the way to the importance of research in other fields of

interpersonal attraction, in an attempt to better understand

the factors which enter into the mate selection process.

Among the widely held recommendations for the further study

of complementarity among these researchers are (a) that the

complementarity hypothesis is not relevant to marriage

research (34, 51); (b) that needs are not relevant material

for marriage research (52); (c) that a more explicit theo-

retical base for the selection of the complementary needs

should be developed (34); (d) that other methodological

considerations need to be resolved (60); and (e) that a more

integrated theory of interpersonal attraction to marriage is

needed (5, 32, 34).

Research in the Theory of Similarity

The similarity hypothesis of mate selection, or, "birds

of a feather flock together", has been a part of informal

14

observation and remark for many years by laymen and psycho-

logists alike. In fact, Francis Galton (19) seems to have

done the first work on assortative marriage. The area of

interest generated by the phenomena of assortative mating is

impressive. Post (42), a biologist, defined assortative mating

as "The tendency of marriage partners to resemble one another

as a result of preference or choice" (42, p. 41). Clearly

the similarity hypothesis is a vital part of this "tendency".

Perhaps the first complete statement of the similarity

hypothesis was published by Leon Festinger (17). In his

theory of social comparison processes, attraction is a positive

function of personality similarity.

Of course, similarity must be taken in context and must

be treated with respect to particular variables which have

bearing on the marital dyad. One can limit the field of

variables which have such bearing on similarity, thus cutting

out some of the enormous complexity associated with this

hypothesis. In addition, similarity is relevant to the two

interacting individuals only if the characteristics are per-

ceived by each to be similarly held and if the observed

characteristics are valued as important to the couple.

Throughout the past seventy years, the question of simi-

larity versus complementarity has been researched, and the mass

of evidence accumulated by sociologists and psychologists

indicates that husbands and wives do indeed resemble each

other along a wide range of variables. These results tend

15

to give support to the homogeneity hypothesis by stating that

it represents the major basis for mate selection.

Social and cu-tural characteristics of married individuals

perhaps give the greatest support for the similarity hypothesis.

Many studies have shown that persons tend to marry other persons

of similar age (6, 46), environmental proximity (4, 14),

religious affiliations (31, 53), backgrounds (25), occupa-

tional levels (33), intelligence (7, 30, 54, 46), visual

acuity (46), even height and weight (46). That these charac-

teristics may be a result of the partners "field of eligibles"

instead of interpersonal selection was explored by

Schellenberg (44).

Thus there seems to be an important unresolvedissue concerning the intepretation of homo-gamy. Does homogamy, particularly in dominantinterests and values, exert a decisive force ininterpersonal attraction towards a perspectivemate, or is it chiefly a residual effect ofbroader social categories? (44, p. 159).

Schellenberg, using the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values

and controlling for homogamy factors in social backgrounds,

found that a great deal of the homogamy characteristics can

be explained by the social and cultural forces present in the

"field of eligibles"; however he went on to state that,

The second main finding, however, points tothe considerable amount of homogamy which isleft unexplained by controlling for such back-ground characteristics. The convergency scoresof both the married and the pre-married groupsof natural couples were significantly abovethose of the artificially-matched couples (44, p. 161).

It is to this "considerable amount" of unexplained homogamy

that this study is directed, in an attempt to delineate the

importance of marital readiness and value consensus.

An interesting study (11) on the effects of physical

attractiveness, sex and attitude similarity on interpersonal

attraction found that a subject's expectations influence

attraction. Byrne, London and Reeves found that (1) inter-

personal attraction was greater toward physically-attractive

strangers, regardless of sex, and (2) both attitude

similarity-dissimilarity ( p>.001) and physical attractiveness

(p>*.05) influenced responses.

Unfortunately, similarity in personality characteristics

has not been as concretely settled as has that of social and

cultural characteristics. Much research has explored the area

ranging from values and interests to opinions and neurotic

tendencies. Some sound evidence of similarity of personality

characteristics has been presented, but these research findings

conflict directly with the theory of complementary motivation

and are thus more apt to be discredited. A review of the

studies of personality characteristics reveal that mates are

similar in neurotic tendencies (46, 50), extroversion-

introversion (45), self-sufficiency (24, 50), values (44, 46),

interest constellations, and interest maturity (50).

Research in the Theories of Interpersonal Attraction

Theories of interpersonal attraction could enhance under-

standing in the complex area of mate selection by helping to

17

determine why individuals are first attracted to each other

and second, why continued attraction takes place. In addition,

the similarity hypothesis of mate selection could be better

understood in terms of the attraction process itself.

The similarity hypothesis pervades theories of inter-

personal attraction, Interpersonal attraction itself has been

the subject of continued research, and this important facet of

mate selection will therefore be given separate focus. As one

may conclude from similar findings in studies of mate selec-

tion, interpersonal attraction has been found to depend, to

a great extent, on similarity of the individuals involved.

As stated by Leon Festinger in his theory of social

comparison processes, "A person will be less attracted to

situations where others are very divergent from him than to

situations where others are close to him for both abilities

and opinions" (17, p. 123). This hypothesized positive rel-

ationship between similarity and interpersonal attraction has

been upheld with respect to self description (22), economic

status (8), opinions (12), emotional states (62), evaluations

of the subject's performance (15), abilities (61), personality

traits (10, 29, 43), personality similarity--economic factors

and intelligence (3), attitude similarity (2, 11), physical

attractiveness (11), behavioral similarity (28), and

occupational prestige (2). By the sheer weight of evidence

in regard to similarity in interpersonal attraction one

can assume that these these two are so connected.

These studies can be understood in that

. . . the behavior of another individual ispositively reinforcing to the extent that itis similar to one's own behavior. Behavioralsimilarity to self, whether involving attitudesor values or abilities or emotional responsesor tastes or adjunctive responses or worries orneed hierarchies or whatever, provides evidencethat one is functioning in a logical and meaning-ful manner (Byrne, 1961; Cohen, Statland andWolfe, 1955), and it makes one's interpersonalenviornment more predictable and understandable(Brim and Hoff, 1957; Pervin, 1963) (10, pp. 82-83).

Several researchers, attempting to more completely

define the myriad of factors entering into the relationship

of the two reacting individuals, further developed and

expanded the similarity hypothesis of interpersonal attraction.

Some promising hypotheses have arisen out of this research,

including positive attraction which results from drive

reduction, the importance of reinforcement in continued attrac-

tion, self-concept of the individuals involved and the part

it plays in the drama of interaction, a formula for inter-

personal attraction, a stimulus-response (S-R) framework

explanation for the attraction, and the importance of aware-

ness of similarity in the interaction.

Stapert and Clore (49) explored the effect of disagree-

ment-produced arousal on attraction. Using the influence of

attitudes of bogus strangers on the subjects, they obtained

a measure of attraction. "The findings appear to indicate

that positive attraction toward another may result from his

association with drive reduction and negative attraction from

18

19

association with drive arousal" (49, p. 64). This association

interpretation states that

. . .disagreement produces a state of tensionor drive arousal, and that one source ofattraction toward another person is hisassociation with drive reduction. The primaryfinding that attraction to agreers is intensi-fied after disagreement is consistent with thishypothesized process. . .(49, p. 68).

Like assumptions have been made, in part, by Byren and Clore

(8) and Lott and Lott (36).

Reinforcement as an important factor in continuing

attraction has been explored by Lott and Lott (36). Lott

and Lott, using ninth-grade students who worked on a discrim-

ination problem, found that they performed ", . .differentially

as a function of their positive or negative attraction to the

peer whose photograph was presented contingent upon a parti-

cular response" (36, p. 136). Lott and Lott went on to state

that reinforcement appeared to be vital, for

It seems reasonable to conclude that the obtaineddata support the general proposition tested bythe experiment, that liked persons can functionas effective positive reinforcers while dislikedpersons can produce the same effects as negativereinforcers (36, p. 136).

A later study by Griffitt (23) brought in the idea that

the crucial determining factor in interpersonal attraction

could be the extent to which reciprocal awards are present

in the interpersonal interaction. Thus, "Positive attraction

responses are directed toward a person who provides any type

of interpersonal reward; whereas negative attraction responses

are engendered by a punishing individual" (23, p. 145).

20

Neal S. Smalley (47), in two studies of married couples,

tested a set of hypotheses dealing with reinforcing self

and mirror self constructs, and all were confirmed. These

results lend further support to the idea of reinforcement

as a part of continued attraction. Some theorists have

developed this concept even further, hypothesizing that liked

persons function as positive reinforcers and vice versa

(36, 21). This theory would go along well with a theory of

interpersonal attraction5 in that the stimulus-response frame-

work--derived from the Hull-Spence reinforcement -theory--

could be made to fit an elusive human quality. Lott and

Lott (36) see

A liked person (or any liked object) is concep-tualized as one who evokes implicit anticipatorygoal responses (r - sg) primarily as a resultof previous association. It follows, then, thatliked persons can be classed as secondary rein-forcement stimuli since such are said to derivetheir acquired reinforcement properties fromtheir capacity to evoke fractional goal responseswhich have been conditioned to them (36, p. 129).

The concept of self with which one enters into a

relationship has a great bearing on the success or failure

of that relationship. Wilfred A. Peterson (41) stated,

"Be gentle with yourself, learn to love yourself, to forgive

yourself, for only as we have the right attitude toward

ourselves can we have the right attitude toward others" (41,

p. 15). Similarly, Erich Fromm (18) believes that only as

we learn to love ourselves can we reach out to others and

love them. The importance of self-concept is therefore

21

self-evident. Several studies have tied self-concept and

personality features together. For example, Marvin Goodman's

hypotheses that (1) high self-accepting (SA) individuals are

attracted to persons like themselves and (2) low SA persons

are attracted to individuals unlike themselves linked self-

concept and personality features together by confirming these

hypotheses along three different needs measured by the Edwards

Personal Preference Schedule (20). William Griffitt (22)

completed an exploration into self-concept as a determinant of

interpersonal attraction and found that interpersonal attrac-

tion was a positive function of the similarity of a stranger's

self-concept to the subject's self-concept (p>.02) and a

positive function of the similarity-of a stranger's self-concept

to the subject's ideal-self concept (p>.Ol) (22).

Another variable in the interpersonal attraction theories

is an intriguing, empirically derived linear relationship which

was postulated by Byrne, Griffitt, and Stefaniak (10),

" . law of attraction: attraction toward X is a positive

linear function of the proportion of positive reinforcement

received from X: (AX = mPRx + k)" (10, p. 82). Byrne et al.

wnet on further to state the importance of reinforcement to

this law of attraction, thus including reinforcement as an

important premise for the formula,

The applicability of this formulation to person-ality similarity is theoretically contingent onthe positive or negative reinforcing propertiesof information about another individual's person-ality characteristics (10, p. 82).

22

An integral part of the "law of attraction" is the presence

of reinforcement. Thus, impetus is added to the importance

of reinforcement.

Some theoriests, in an effort to structure the complex

interaction of individuals in interpersonal attraction, have

translated the concept of interpersonal attraction into

stimulus-response (S-R) terminology. Using an S-R interpre-

tation, some recent studies have found attraction to be a

function of similarity with regards to economic status (8),

self-concept (22), and personality traits (10). Such studies

have usually proposed that similarity between persons was the

UCS, and that interpersonal attraction is thus a classically

conditioned evaluative response. A recent study by Stalling

(48) throws new light on this area by proposing--and proving--

that the UCS is in reality not similarity but evaluative mean-

ing, as similarity is merely a correlate of the latter. This

interesting "formula" for interpersonal attraction again

assumes both reinforcement and similarity as vital parts of

attraction.

The role of awareness of similarity is self-explanatory,

for only those things perceived by the individual are "real"

to him. Byrne and Griffitt (9) explored personality similar-

ity as a determinant of attraction and with respect to the

role of awareness. The two researchers-found that attraction

was influenced by similarity and that the two measures

23

of awareness of similarity were each influenced by the actual

similarity created in the enviornment. It was further shown

that awareness of stimulus conditions contributed to the

usual similarity in attraction relationship, but that aware-

ness was not a necessary component of the relationship. In

like manner, Newcomb's (39) emphasis on "perceived similarity"

is in agreement:

In short, I am attempting to defend the thesisthat interpersonal attraction always andnecessarily varies with perceived similarityregarding important and relevant objects(including the persons themselves). While Iregard similarity of attitudes as a necessaryrather than a sufficient condition, I believethat it (perceived similarity) accounts formore of the variance in interpersonal attrac*tion than does any other single variable.(39, p. 579).

The theory of perceived similarity may be & factor in

marital integration, as explored by Bernard Faber (16). He

found that marital integration varied (positively) with the

degree of identity (perceived similarity) of the husband and

wife.

Theories Encompassing Both the Similarity and

Complementarity of Mates Theories

Reviewing the research in the area of interpersonal

attraction and mate selection along the lines of results, in-

formal observation and analysis, several theorists have come

to the conclusion that the two supposedly polar views

of similarity and complementarity are not, in fact, so

24

divergent. An emerging view seems- to be that these two

theories are not necessarily antithetical (34, 60)., At-

tempting to resolve the dilemma between the two theories, a

few investigators have suggested theories which encompass

both theoretical positions.

An example of these arbitrators is Murstein (38), who,

after finding inconsistent results on tests given to marital

partners, suggested that each marital unit should be viewed

individually.

The assumption seems far more plausible,thus, that for adequate marital adjustmentsome needs require complementary componentsin the marital partner, while othersnecessitate homogamous need patterns. Aproper test of this view requires replicativestudies on individual needs, not overalltests of two theories (38, p. 196).

That the study of needs is not totally relevant to the

study of mate selection today has been stated by many research-

ers. It may appear that the desire for one "label" or charac-

teristic to view the interpersonal attraction relationship

may be folly, for other researchers in the field of mate

selection have confirmed Murstein's doubts. For example,

Bowerman and Day (5) suggest,

,further efforts in this research areawould be most effective if not started in witha theory of needs, but with a general theoryof mate selection and marital adjustment.This theory should specify the personalityvariables which are theoretically relevantto the situations being studied, not limitingthe variable to a needs formulation.(5, p. 605).

This--theory would also indicalrelationships which we would(among the variables. These r(might be complementary in somehomogamous in others, and wouldin terms of patterns of personteristics rather than single i

25

e the kinds ofexpect to findlationshipsinstances and

d probably beality charac-ariables (, p. 605).

On the other hand, Theodore M. Newcomb neatly tied a knot

between the two theories when he expressed the thoughts

that

In my own view, however, theyin opposition; indeed, I regainof complementarity as a speciesimilarity. Suppose, as Wincindicate, that an assertive pelikely to be attracted towardperson, as a marriage partner,that this would most probablyhave similar attitudes to theone of them should be asserti%receptive (39, p. 579).

are notd the thesisL case ofI's data mayrson is morea receptive

It is my guessoccur if theyeffect thate and the other

A similar analysis was made by Robert F. Holz (26). In

amassing empirical evidence to support his theory, he found that

Married couples who adhere toideology in terms of rolea-expeviewpoint characterized by a Yconception of family relationsreflct complementarity betweEThose couples who adhere to arideology--a viewpoint charactE'companionante' relationship tand wife--will reflect similartheir needs (26, p. 2618-B).

a 'traditional'ctation--aierarchicalhips--willn their needs.

'egalitarian'rized by aetween husbandity between

Holz's results did support his theory.

In a similar fashion, Marvin Goodman (20), in his

analysis of "Expressed Self-Acceptance and Interpersonal

Needs: A Basis for Mate Selection", speculated that high

self-accepting (SA) individuals were attracted to persons

like themselves (similarity), whereas low SA persons were

26

attracted to those different from themselves (complemen-

tarity). Using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule,

Goodman found that

(a) Mates in high SA couples were similar indominance (p>.05) nurturance (p>.01) andsuccorance (p>,05; (b) Mates in low SAcouples were complementary in dominance (p>.05),dominance and deference (p;.05); nurturance(p>.Ol) and nurturance and succorance (p>.01);(c) The highest degrees of relationshipbetween spouses was on nurturance and succorancefor both high and low SA couples; and (d) Thedifference in SA mean scores for persons inhigh SA couples was significant at the .0001level of confidence, whereas a comparabledifference in low SA couples was negligible(20, p. 129).

Bernard Murstein (38) attempted to answer Winch's

criticisms of the Bowerman and Day study, which would not

confirm Winch's theory of complementarity of needs in

marital partners. Selecting two groups of subjects,

newlyweds and middle-aged married couples, Murstein admin-

istered the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS),

Famous Sayin Test, and a marriage adjustment scale devised

by Wallace. His results favored a homogamous theory of need

patterns for the non-newlyweds but totally inconclusive

results for the newlyweds, in that neither the similarity or

complementarity of needs was supported.

Homans (27) put forth an interesting theory, "If the

frequency of interaction between two or more persons increases,

the degree of their liking for one another will increase" (27).

This could apply to couples with a long period of propinquity

27

(marriage). Thus, there appears to be positive reinforcement

for the idea that similarly held views would increase and the

couples would become more homogamous in needs.

Thomas Coates and Stanley Mazur (13) studied fifty male

students' close interaction and then analyzed their responses

to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and a sociometric

test. Their results produced a theory which follows along

the lines of Newcomb's proposal of complementarity operating

within and facilitating the framework of similarity.

Coates and Mazur perceived that

*. .. actual and perceived similarity operatein the relationship to establish identificationwith the other and agreement on the nature andexpression of the relationship. At the sametime the mechanism of complementary personalitycharacteristics facilitates mutual admirationand respect, mutual growth and development,and mutual gratification in the living out ofthe relationship (13, p. 8).

Alan Kerckhoff and Keith Davis (32) interpreted the

interesting results of their study of couples with the idea

that "filtering factors" operate in mate selection. Social

status variables are effective early in the relationship,

consensus on values somewhat later, and lastly, need

complementarity enters into the picture. Kerckhoff and

Davis felt that these different "stages" of the selection

process were a result of ". . .unrealistic idealization of

the loved one in the early stages of courtship" (32, p. 303).

The purpose of this study is not to validate any of

the foregoing theories, but instead, to shed some much needed

28

light on the theories of mate selection and interpersonal

attraction with regard to differing variance between dating

couples and engaged couples; or, what features in the rela-

tionship of the engaged couple are different from those in

the dating couple and are thus representative of a more serious

dyad. The significance of this knowledge to premarital couni-

selors and couples alike is readily perceivable. In addition,

some misconceptions could be cleared up regarding interper-

sonal attraction and factors which enhance a relationship and

continued serious interaction,

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Banta, Thomas J. and Mavis Hetherington "RelationshipsBetween Needs of Friends and Fiances,' Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (AprilT 3T)401-m404._

2. Bond, Michael, Donn Byrne, and Michael J. Diamond, "Effectof Occupational Prestige and Attitude Similarity onAttraction as a Function of Assumed Similarity of Atti-tude," Psychological Reports, 23 (December, 1968), 1167-1172.

3. Bonney, Merl E., "A Sociometric Study of the Relationshipof Some Factors to Mutual Friendship on the Elementary,Secondary and College Levels," Sociometry, IX (Feb-ruary, 1946), 21-47.

4. Bossard, James H. S., "Residential Pronpinquity as aFactor in Marriage Selection," American Journal ofSociology, XXXVIII (September, 1932), 219-227

5. Bowerman, Charles and Barbara R. Day, "A Test of theTheory of Complementary Needs as Applied to CouplesDuring Courtship," American Sociological Review,21 (October, 1956), 602-605.

6. Burgess, Ernest W., "Homogamy in Social Characteristics,"American Journal of Sociology, XLIX (September, 1943),109-0124.

7. Burk, B. S., "The Relative Influence of Nature andNurture Upon Mental Development," 27th Yearbook ofNational Social Studies Education, T , Part I,219-w321,

8. Byrne, Donn, G. L. Clore, Jr. and P. Worchel, "The Effectof Economic Similarity-Dissimilarity on InterpersonalAttraction," Journal of Personality and Social Po-chology, 4 (August, 199), 220-224.

9. Byrne, Donn and William Griffitt, "Similarity and Aware-ness of Similarity of Personality Characteristics asDeterminants of Attraction," Journal of ExperimentalResearch in Personality, 3 (Mar-h',967, 19-6

29

30

10. Byrne, Donn, William Griffitt, and Daniel Stefaniak,"Attraction and Similarity of Personality Character-istics," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,5 (Januapy, 19677,"72-90,

11. Byrne, Donn, Oliver London, and Keith Reeves, "TheEffects of Physical Attractiveness, Sex, and AttitudeSimilarity on Interpersonal Attraction," Journal ofPersonality, 36 (June, 1968), 259-271.

12. Byrne, Donn and D. Nelson, "Attraction as a LinearFunction of Proportion of Positive Reinforcements,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2 (July,19 65),s 877 3.

13. Coates, Thomas and Stanley Mazur, "Personality Charac-teristics and Interpersonal Attraction," Psychology,6 (February, 1969), 2-9.

14, Davie, Maurice R. and Ruby Jo Reeves, "Pronpinquity ofResidence Before Marriage," American Journal ofSociology, XLIV (January, 1939),751-517.

15. Deutsch, Morton and Leonard Solomon, "Reactions toEvaluations by Othersaas Influenced by Self-Evaluations,"Sociometry, 22 (June, 1959), 93-112.

16. Faber, Bernard, "An Index of Marital Integration,"Sociometry, 20 (June, 1957), 117-133.

17. Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes,"Human Relations, VII (1954), 117-140.

18. Fromm, Erich, The Art of Loving, New York, Harper andRow, PublisheFs7 T750

19. Galton, Francis, Hereditary Genius, London and New York,The MacMillan Company, 1969,

20. Goodman, Marvin, "Expressed Self-Acceptance and Ibter-personal Needs: A Basis for Mate Selection," Journalof Counselling Psychology, 11 (Summer, 1964), 129-135.

21. Griffitt, William B., "Attraction Toward A Stranger asa Function of Direct and Associative Reinforcement,"Psychonomic Science, 11 (June, 1968), 147-148,

22, , "Interpersonal Attraction as aFunction or~SelT-Concept and Personality Similarity-Dissimilarity," Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 4 (November,1766J, T-4.

31

23. ,_"Personality Similarity and Self-Concept as Deterinants of Interpersonal Attraction,"The Journal of Social Psychology, 78 (June, 1969),7-1460I

24. Hoffeditz? E. L., "Family Resemblances in PersonalityTraits, Journal of Social Psychology, V (Summer, 1934),214-227,

25. Hollingshead, August B., "Cultural Factors in theSelection of Marriage Mates," American SociologicalReview, 15 (October, 1950), 619-6270

26. Holz, Robert Franklin, "Similarity Versus Complementarityof Needs in Mate Selection," Dissertation Abstracts#XXIX (1969), 2618.

27. Homans, George C., The Human Group, New York, HarcourtBrace, 1950.

28. Huffman, Devereaux M., "Interpersonal Attraction as aFunction of Behavioral Similarity," DissertationAbstracts International, XXX (1969), 3372.

29. Izard, Carroll E., "Personality Similarity, PositiveAffect, and Interpersonal Attraction," Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 61 (November, r9__0),

30. Jones, H. E., "A First Study of Parent-Child Resem-blance," 27th Yearbook of National Social StudiesEducation,T978, Part I,~l-72.

31. Kennedy, Ruby, "Single or Triple Melting-Pot?, Inter-Marriage Trends in New Haven, 1970 - 1940," AmericanJournal of Sociology, XLIX (January, 1944), 331-339

32. Kerckhoff, Alan C. and Keith E. Davis, "Value Consensusand Need Complementarity in Mate Selection," AmericanSociological Review, 27 (June, 196?), 295-303.

33. Landis, Paul H. and Katherine H. Day, "Education as aFactor in Mate Selection " American SociologicalReview, 10 (August, 1945, 55d-560.

34. Levinger, George, "Note on Need Complementarity inMarriage," Psychological Bulletin, 61 (February, 1964),153-157.

35. Lossner, Walter Martin, "Complementarity, Homogeneity,Heterogeneity and Marital Stability," DissertationAbstracts, XXX (1969), 2820.

32

36. Lott, Alfred J, and Bernice E. Lott, "Liked and Dis-liked Persons as Reinforcing Stimuli," Journal ofPersonality and Social Psycho , 11 (FebruaryT969),129-137._ "

37. Murray, H. A., Explorations in Personality, New York,Oxford University Press, 19.

38. Murstein, Bernard E., "The Complementary Need Hypothesisin Newlyweds and Middle-Aged Married Couples,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (July,1961),)l174-197,

39. Newcomb, Theodore M., "The Prediction of InterpersonalAttraction," The American Psychologist, 11 (November,1950), 575-586.

40. Ohmann, 0., "The Psychology of Attraction," In H.Jordan You and Marriage, New York, Wiley, 1942.

41. Peterson, Wilfred A., The Art of Living, New York,Simon and Schuster, 71.

42. Post, R. H,., "Genetics and Demography," EugenicsQuarterly, 12 (June, 1965), 41-71.

43. Potts, Genevieve T., "Interpersonal Attraction as aFunction of Personality Similarity and SocialDesirability," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX (1969),4105-4106.

44. Schellenberg, James A., "Homogamy in Personal Valuesand the "Field of Eligibles"," Social Forces,39, (December, 1960), 157-162.

45. Schiller, Belle, "A Quantitative Analysis of MarriageSelection in A Small Group," Journal of SocialPsychology,III (January, 1932T,-297T37.

46, Schooley, Mary, "Personality Resemblances AmongMarried Couples," Journal of Social Psychology,XXXI (June, 1936), 340-347.

47. Smalley, Neal S., "Implicit Personality Theory inInterpersonal Attraction," Dissertation Abstracts,XXIX (1968), 762.

48. Stalling, Richard B., "Personality Similarity andEvaluative Meaning as Conditioners of Attraction,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(January,1970), 77-2.

33

49. Stapert, John C. and Gerald L. Clore, "Attraction andDisagreement-Produced Arousal," Journal of Person-ality a Social Psychology, 13 (Septembe7 969),0

50. Terman, Lewis M. and Paul Buttenwieser, "PersonalityFactors in Marital Compatibility," Journal of SocialPsychology, VI (May, 1935), 143-171.

51. Tharp, Roland G., "Psychological Patterns in Marriage,"Psychological Bulletin, 60 (January, 1963), 97-117.

52. Tharp, Roland G., "Reply to Levinger's Note," Psycholo&-ical Bulletin, 61 (Pebruary, 1964), 158-160.

53. Thomas, John L.,"The Factor of Religion in the Selectionof Marriage Mates," American Sociological Review, 16(August, 1951), 619-627.

54. Willoughby, R. R., "Family Similarities in Mental TestAbilities," 27th Yearbook of National SocialStudies EducatEo, 192, W75-79.

55. Winch, Robert F., The Modern Family, New York, HenryHolt and Company7T97

56. , "The Theory of Complementary Needs in~te-Selectl orn: A Test of ONe Kind of Complemen-tariness," American Sociological Review, 20 (February,1955), 52-56:

57. , "The Theory of Complementary Needs inMate-Selection: Final Results on the Test of theGeneral Hypothesis," American Sociological Review,20 (October, 1955), 552-555.

58. Winch, Robert F. and Thomas and Virginia Ktsanes, "TheTheory of Complementary Needs in Mate-Selection:An Analytic and Descriptive Study," American Sociologi-cal Review, 19 (June, 1954), 241-249.

59. Winch, Robert F. and Robert McGinnis, Selected Studiesin Marriage and the Family, New YorkHenryHolt and

Company, 1953.

60. Wright, Paul H., "Need Similarity, Need Complementarityand the Place of Personality in interpersonal Attraction,"Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 3(DecembeF7~ 196B), 128-135. w

34

61. Zander, Alvin and Arnold Havelin, "Social Comparisonand Interpersonal Attraction," Human Relations,13 (1960), 21-.32.

62, Zimbardo, Philip and Robert Formica, "Emotional Compari-son and Self-Esteem as Determinants of Affiliation,"Journal of Personality, 31 (June, 1963), 141-162.

CHAPTER III

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

This chapter consists of an explanation and discussion

of the subjects, apparatus, procedure and design of the

study.

Subjects

One hundred and forty Caucasian individuals were the

subjects of this investigation. The seventy couples were

students at North Texas State University and Austin College.

Group I consisted of thirty-five engaged couples (EC) and

Group II consisted of thirty-five dating couiples (DC),

Each couple was composed of a male and a female. The seventy

couples were contacted by the tester and volunteered to

participate in the study. All 140 individuals were between

the ages of seventeen and twenty-six' none were married,

divorced or separated at the time of testing.

In this study engagement or dating status was the

independent variable, the dependent variable being responses

made on the ASV and the CMRE. Holding the independent

variable constant, any significant difference in the dependent

variables would indicate that these differences are inherent

in the status of the couples themselves.

35

36

To alleviate some i rtervening variables, the thirty-

five EC were match-paired with the thirty-five DC on the

basis of age, educational level and length of acquaintance.

Apparatus

The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Stdof Values was chosen

as the instrument to test for similar values. That value

patterns are important in the selection of a mate has been

previously substantiated (4). In addition, this instrument

has been shown in measure a more stable aspect of personality

than most other such measures (2). The ASV was employed in

this study to measure the value consensus- of the engaged and

dating couples. Value consensus was seen as the difference

score of the couple, whether engaged or dating. A single

difference score for each couple on each test was obtained

by subtracting the two individual scores from each other

(the female score was subtracted from the male score) on the

tests. To alleviate the negative signs, and because the

difference scores were usually small, the scores were then

squared.

The ASV measures the values of an individual in six

areas: Theoretical, Economic, Aesthetic, Social, Political,

and Religious (1).

The California Marriage Readiness.Evaluation is a self-

administered four-page form composed of 110 objective

37

multiple choice questions and five projective sentences to

complete. Only the 110 objective questions were used in this

study. The CMRE was developed to be used primarily in

connection with pre-married individuals (3) and thus was

employed in this study. Eight basic areas of relevance in

marriage adjustment after marriage are covered in the CMRE.

These eight areas are grouped into three major categories (3).

A breakdown of these important categories is in Table I.

TABLE I

CATEGORIES AND AREAS OF THE CALIFORNIAMARRIAGE READINESS EVALUATION

Category Category AreaNumber Name Area Name Abbreviation

I Personality Character Structure CSI Personality Emotional Maturity EMI Personality Marriage Readiness MR

II Preparationfor Marriage Family Experiences FX

II Preparationfor Marriage Dealing with Money DM

II Preparationfor Marriage Planning Ability PA

III InterpersonalCompatibility Marriage Motivation MM

III InterpereonalCompatibility Compatibility CO

Personality, Category I

Evaluation, is composed

of the California Marriage Readiness

of ". . .personality dynamics,

38

character structure, emotional maturity and maturity in

other areas" (3). These variables contribute much toward

making a marriage effective and satisfying and are thus

important in the evaluation of marital readiness. Likewise,

Category II--Preparation for Marriage--the obtaining of vari-

ous family experiences, learning to deal with money and

developing the ability to plan ahead, is important in a

total assessment of marital readiness. Category II includes

physical, emotional, and cultural compatibilities which are

vital to the success of the marital unit.

The CMRE was utilized in this study to measure marital

readiness. The total scores obtained by the two individuals

in each of the seventy couples were subtracted from each

other to secure a single difference score on the CMRE for

each couple. The score was obtained by subtracting the female

score from the male score. This difference score was treated

as a single score on the CMRE for the couple whether engaged

or dating. To facilitate easy handling of the scores, as they

were often quite small, and to alleviate negative signs, the

scores were squared.

Procedure and Design

The data for this investigation was obtained from the

CMRE and the ASV. The data was collected within a period

of two months. It usually took from forty-five minutes to

one hour for the subjects to fill out both of the tests.

The standard testing procedure was to pass out a short intake

39

page, the ASV and the CMRE; then to read the instructions.

Pencils were available on the desks and tables.

Instructions

"Please follow the instructions printed onthe front of each copy of the Study of Valuesand the California Marriage Readiness EvalUa-tion. Notice that the Study of Values is ontop, please complete this torm first, afteryou have finished the short intake coversheet. If anything is not clear, pleaseraise your hand and I will help you. Pleasedo not talk to each other after you begin.Please complete all the items. There is notime limit, so take your time."

The short intake page consisted of personal information about

each testee, including name, address, school classification,

phone, age, sex, birthdate, date engaged (for EC), length

of acquaintance, and date of marriage (for EC). In

addition, the intake page had three multiple choice ques-

tions which inquired the birth order of the individuals,

whether they remembered their childhood as happy, and

whether their parents had a happy marriage. To facilitate

truthful and complete answering of the tests, the short

intake form stated that the results were strictly confidential.

In addition, the subjects were advised before the testing

began that their results would be available to them only

and that this information could be used for their personal

growth in needed areas.

In all instances, particularly because all subjects

were volunteers seeking information to aid them in their

40

personal growth, full cooperation was received from the

subjects.

Means, standard deviations, analysis of variance,

Fisher's t and Hotelling's T-Square were applied to the

data. All of these statistics were calculated at the

North Texas State University Computer Center. The results

of this analysis of data follow, in the next chapter.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Allport, Gordon W., Philip E. Vernon, and GardnerLindzey, Manual: A Stud of Values, Boston, HIoughtonMifflin Company, T960.

2. Kelley E. Lowell, "Consistency of the Adult Personality,"The American Psychologist, 10 (November, 1955),

3. Manson, Morse P., California Marriage ReadinessEvaluation, Beverly Hills, Calornia, WesternPsychological Services, 1965.

4. Schellenberg, James A., "Homogamy in Personal Valuesand the "Field of Eligibles"," Social Forces, 39(December, 1960), 157-162.

41

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A statistical analysis of the data obtained on the

CMRE and the ASV for engaged couples and dating couples was

made in order to test the significance of the three

hypotheses originally stated. Results of that analysis

follow.

Hypothesis I: The mean of the difference scores for

the engaged couples on the CMRE was 20.686, with a standard

deviation of 16.151. The mean of the difference scores for

the dating couples was 24.886, with a standard deviation of

16,290. The Fisher t value of 1.068 was obtained, and using

68 degrees of freedom gave no significant difference results,

therefore not confirming Hypothesis I.

Hypothesis II: The mean of the difference scores for

the engaged couples on the Sotufdo Values was 45.286, with

a standard deviation of 15.244. The mean of the difference

scores for the dating couples was 46.743, with a standard

deviation of 14.667. The Fisher t value of 0.402 with 68

degrees of freedom was not significant, not confirming

Hypothesis II.

Hypothesis III: 1. The mean for the Theoretical

Value area of the ASV for the engaged couples was 7.8000,

42

43

with a standard deviation of 6.3507; the mean for the dating

couples was 8.5714, with a standard deviation of 6.7972.

2. The mean for the Economic value area for engaged couples

was 8.6000, with a standard deviation of 5.5302; for the

dating couples the mean was 7.0571, with a standard devia-

tion of 4.4845.

3. The mean for engaged couples on the Aesthetic value

area of the oftud o Values was 9.1714, with a standard

deviation of 5.4641; the mean for the dating couples was

8.4286, with a standard deviation of 5.7086.

4. The mean on the Social value area of the Stuy of Values

was 6.1714, for engaged couples with a standard deviation of

4.8077; for the dating couples the mean was 7.8286, with a

standard deviation of 5.1073.

5. The mean on the Political value area for the engaged

couples was 6.6286, with a standard deviation of 6.0996;

for the dating couples the mean was 7.8571, with a standard

deviation of 5.4988.

6. The mean on the Religious value area of the ASV for the

engaged couples was 7.7714, with a standard deviation of

5.7920; for the dating couples the mean was 6.9143, with a

standard deviation of 5.0504.

Hotelling's T-Square value for these areas was 5.9426,

with an F value (degrees of freedom 6, 63) of 0.9176, which

is not significant, thus not confirming Hypothesis III.

4)4

Discussion

Hypothesis Iwhich stated that engaged couples and

dating couples would score significantly different on the

variable of marital readiness, was not confirmed. This

TABLE II

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MARITALREADINESS DIFFERENCE SCORES OFENGAGED AND DATING COUPLES

Source of Sums of MeanVariation Squares df Squares F P

Between Groups 308.700 1 308.700 1.140 NS

Within Groups 18417.086 68 270.840 . . .

Total 18725.786 69

result is very important for it brings into question whether

individuals engaged in serious interpersonal involvement

(engaged couples) are indeed significantly different in

marital readiness than are individuals involved in more

casual involvement (dating couples). The results of the

statistical analysis are recorded in Table II, and although

there appears to be slight difference in the two groups on

the basis of marital readiness, the difference is not

significant. Theories of interpersonal attraction could

figure in, for it would appear from this result that indivi-

duals attracted to one another are attracted to those of

45

like marital readiness. Also, an assumption may be made

that the individuals who are spending time in each other's

company may continue to do so because of the reinforcing

properties of the homogamous situation. The assumption may

also be made, therefore, that marital readiness is as

relevant to dating couples as it is to engaged couple.

In another sense, dating couples could be dating with

thoughts of marriage, and therefore be similarly attracted

to those of life marital readiness qualities. Also, the

reverse may be true in these data, for as difference scores

of the couples were employed, those individuals who have no

value for marital readiness would hence score low on the

CMRE, and could be attracted to and enjoy the company of

similarly inclined individuals.

TABLE III

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF VALUECONSENSUS DIFFERENCE SCORES OF

ENGAGED AND DATING COUPLES

Source of Sums of MeanVariation Squares df Squares F P

Between Groups 37.155 1 37.155 0.161 NS

Within Groups 15661.828 68 230.321 . . . .

Total 15698.983 69 . . . .

46

Likewise, Hypothesis II, that engaged couples would

score significantly higher than dating couples on value

consensus,was not confirmed. The results of the test of

analysis of variance are presented in Table III. The

means, standard deviations,and Fisher's t values are dis-

played in Table IV. Schellenberg (6) found in a similar

study on value consensus that pre-marital couples and

married couples did not score significantly different on

value consensus than did artificially matched couples.

TABLE IV

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND RESULTS OF t TESTS OF THEDIFFERENCE SCORES OF ENGAGED COUPLES AND 17ATING COUPLES

ON MARITAL READINESS AND VALUE CONSENSUS

StandardScale Mean Deviation t Value P

MaritalReadiness EC 20.686 16.151 1.068 NSMaritalReadiness DC 24.886 16.290 . . ...

ValueConsensus EC 45.286 15.244 0.402 NSValueConsensus DC 46.743 14.667 . . .

Thus, one can assume that value consensus is not only an

important variable to engaged couples but also to dating

couplesand that again the theory of reinforcement,which is

tied to the theory of homogamy, that like not only attracts

like but that "like reinforces like??, is supported.

Hypothesis III, that engaged and dating couples would

differ significantly on the six different value areas of

the Allport-Lindzey-Vernon Study of_ Valueswas not confirmed.

Thus, again, the assumption was put forth that individuals

who are engaged and individuals who have known each other

TABLE V

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES FOR THE SIX VALUE AREASOF THE STUDY OF VALUES FOR ENGAGED AND DATING COUPLES

Scale Couples Mean Standard Deviation

Theoretical EC 7.800 6.351Theoretical DC 8.571 6.797

Economic EC 8.600 5.530Economic DC 7.057 4,485

Aesthetic EC 9.171 5.464Aesthetic DC 8.439 5.709

Social EC 6.171 4.808Social DC 7.829 5.107

Political EC 6.629 6.100Political DC 7.857 5.1499

Religious EC 7.771 5.792Religious DC 6,914 5.050

for approximately the same length of time and are not

engaged do not differ significantly on the six areas of

values on the of Values. A breakdown of the means

48

and standard deviation scores for the engaged couples and

the dating couples is presented in Table V. Each individual

value area has been computed separately.

The theory of reinforcement present in the homogamous

situation is also indirectly confirmed. It appears it may

be that homogamy present in the dating couples, as well

as the engaged couples, is in itself a reinforcing property

and enhances continued interaction and involvement. Lott

and Lott's (3) premise that reinforcement is an important

facotr in continuing attraction and that the liked person is

associated with reward by reinforcing one's own character-

istics and beliefs is substantiated. Thus, the liked person

acts as a secondary reinforcing stimuli. A later study by

Griffitt (2) stressed that the determining factor in a rela-

tionship could be the reciprocal rewards present in the inter-

personal attraction interaction. Therefore, positive attrac-

tion results from the reinforcing properties of the reci-

procal rewards present. Likewise, Festinger's (1) theory of

social comparison processes suggested that behavioral simi-

larity to one's self is positively reinforcing.

The automorphic process described by Preckner (4) may

be in effect in the dating relationship as well as in the

engaged relationship. Specifically, this is a process by

which "We tend to attribute to objects of our choise those

characteristics which we ourselves possess and those

valuings which are a characteristic of ourselves" (4, p. 412).

49

Preckner's results further imply that in the homogamous

situation, identification and projection take place.

The process of identification is more likely to take place

when the individual possesses characteristics, values

and marital readiness, for example, which are valued

by the individual. From this point, identification,

the individual assumes further similarity to the object

and projects qualities into the situation. That the

close similarity of values and marital readiness of the

engaged and dating couples alike could be easily explained

by these principles: automorphism, projection and

identification, coupled with the process of reinforcing

properties of attraction and similarity itself, is

readily apparent.

The significance of the results of this study could

be very important to the pre-marital counselor and to those

studying the relationship between two interacting indivi-

duals. That individuals appear to date the same individuals

that they become engaged to, and supposedly later marry,

is thought-provoking, Careful choice of those individuals

the person is attracted to and dates, and analysis by him

of the individuals would greatly facilitate later adjustment

as an engaged couple or a marital dyad. In conclusion, it

appears that the inconclusive results of this study are in

actuality very far-reaching and in turn, important in

themselves. The trend that appears in the results is that

50

dating couples and engaged couples are alike in their

difference scores on value consensus and marital readiness--

two important variables in their continued growth and rele-

vance as a couple to each other.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes,"Human Relations, VII (1954), 117-140.

2. Griffitt, William B., "Personality Similarity and Self-Concept as Determinants of Interpersonal Attraction,"The Journal of Social Psychology, 78 (June, 1969),1-7m140.

3. Lott, Alfred J. and Bernice E. Lott, "Liked and DislikedPereons as Reinforcing Stimuli," Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 11 (February,71969), l2-37.

4. Preckner, Joseph A., "Similarity of Valuings as a Factorin Selection of Peers and Near-Authority Figures,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48 (June,T3,4ZTa-w414

5. Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics forthe Behavioral Sciences, NewYork ,-HoltRineha"t~andWinston, In opoa ed, 1969,

6. Schellenberg, James A., "Homogamy in Personal Valuesand the "Field of Eligibles"," Social Forces, 39(December, 1960), 157-162.

51

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

A comprehensive review of the literature on the

theories of complementarity, similarity and interpersonal

attraction was made. This review pointed out the

complexities and disparities in present research on factors

in mate selection. Promising research on value consensus,

the properties of reinforcement, a formula for interpersonal

attraction, the perception of similarity and the self-

concept of the individuals involved were emphasized.

Theories encompassing both theoretical view points of

similarity and complementarity were discussed~with the

possibility noted that complementarity may be just a special

aspect of the similarity hypothesis.

Three hypotheses were considered:

Hypothesis I: Engaged couples will score significantly

higher on the California Marriage Readiness Evaluation

than the dating couples group.

Hypothesis II: Engaged couples will score significantly

higher on the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey, t of Values

than the dating couples.

Hypothesis ITI: There will be a significant difference in

the scores between engaged couples and dating couples on the

52

53

six individual value areas of the Study of Values:

Theoretical, Aesthetic, Economic, Social, Political, and

Religious.

The engaged and dating couples were students at

North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, and Austin

College, Sherman, Texas. All subjects were volunteers, had

never been married, divorced, or separated, and were

between the ages of seventeen and twenty-six. To alleviate

some intervening variables, the engaged couples were match-

paired with the dating couples on the basis of 1ngth of

acquaintance, age, and educational level.

The importance of value consensus and marital readiness

was suggested in preparation for the marital dyad.

The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values was employed

to test for value consensus; the California Marriage Readiness

Evaluation was used to measure marital readiness.

A statistical analysis was made of the results of the

difference scores obtained from the engaged couples and the

dating couples on the two above mentioned tests. The three

hypotheses were rejected when the means of the two groups were

not significantly different.

The results of this study indicate that the factors of

marital readiness and value consensus may be as relevant to

dating couples as to engaged couples. The results alo make

obvious the importance of reinforcement in the interpersonal

attraction relationship, as it may be assumed that the

54

reinforcing property is the similarity the couple shares

in marital readiness and value consensus.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

From, Erich, The Art of Loving, New York, Harper and RowPublishers,,17M.

Galton, Francis, Hereditar Genius, London and New YorI,The MacMillan Company, 7T69.

Homans, George C., The Human , New York, HarcourtBrace, 1950.

Murray, H.A., Explorations in Personality, New York, OxfordUniversity Pess, 1938.

Peterson, Wilfred A., The Art of Living, New York, Simonand Schuster, 1967.

Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics for theBehavioral Sciences, ewYork, Holt, Rinehart andWinston, Incorporated, 1969.

Winch, Robert F., The Modern Family, New York, Henry Holtand Company, T2.

Winch, Robert F. and Robert McGinnis, Selected Studies inMarriage and the Family, New York, Henr HoltTandCompany, 19533

Articles

Banta, Thomas J. and Mavis Hetherington, "RelationshipsBetween Needs of Friends and Fiances, " Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psycholog, 66 (April, 1963)461-454.w"

Bond, Michael, Don Byrne and Michael J. Diamond, "Effect ofOccupational Prestige and Attitude Similarity on Attrac-tion as a Function of Assumed Similarity of Attitude,"Psychological Reports, 23 (December, 1968), 1167-1172.

Bonney, Merl E., "A Sociometric Study of the Relationship ofSome Factors to Mutual Friendship on the Elementary,Secondary, and College Levels," Sociometry, IX (February,1946), 21-47.

55

56

Bossard, James H. S., "Residential Pronpinquity as a Factorin Marriage Selection,"t American Journal of Sociology,XXXVIII (September, 1932)24~71"----4.

Bowerman, Charles and Barbara R. Day, "A Test of the Theoryof Complementary Needs as Applied to Couples DuringCourtship," American Soci ical Review, 21 (October,1956), 602-60 OT

Burgess, Ernest W., "Homogamy in Social CharacteristicsAmerican Journal of Sociology, XLIX (September, 1943),

Burk, B. S., "The Relative Influence of Nature and NurtureUpon Mental Development," 27th Yearbook of NationalSocial Studies Education, l 7 PartI2T7-2T

Byrne, Donn, G. L. Clore, Jr. and P. Worchel, "The Effect ofEconomic Similarity-Dissimilarity on InterpersonalAttraction," Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 4 (August, 19M7220-224.7

Byrne, Donn and William Griffitt, "Similarity and Awarenessof Similarity of Personality Characteristics asDeterminants of Attraction," Journal of ExperimentalResearch in Personality, 3 (Maf7h,~1767T,~79-lbb.

Byrne, Donn, William Griffitt and Daniel Stefaniak, "Attrac-tion and Similarity of Personality Characteristics,"Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 5 (January,1967), 870-m-90.

Byrne, Donn, Oliver London and Keith Reeves, "The Effects ofPhysical Attractiveness, Sex and Attitude Similarity onInterpersonal Attraction," Journal of Pereonality, 36(June, 1968), 259-271,.__

Byrne, Donn and D. Nelson, "Attraction as a Linear Functionof Proportion of Positive Reinforcements," Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 2 (July, 1965),659-663.

Clarke, Alfred C., "An Examination of the Operation of Resi-dential Propinquity as a Factor in Mate Selection,"American Sociological Review, 17 (February, 1952),17-22.

Coates, Thomas and Stanley Mazur, "Personality Characteristicsand Interpersonal Attraction," Psychology, 6 (February,1969), 2-9.

57

Davie, Maurice R. and Ruby Jo Reeves, "Propinquity of Resi-dence Before Marriage," American Journal of Sociology,XLIV (January, 1939), 510-517.

Deutsch, Morton and Leonard Solomon, "Reactions to Evalua-tions by Others as Influenced by Self-Evaluations,"Sociometry, 22 (June, 1959), 93-112.

Eckland, Bruce K., "Theories of Mate Selection," EugenicsQuarterly, 15 (June, 1968), 71-84.

Faber, Bernard, "An Index of Marital Integration,"Sociometry, 20 (June, 1957), 117-133.

Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes,"

Human Relations, VII (1954), 117-140.

Goodman, Marvin, "Expressed Self-Acceptance and InterpersonalNeeds: A Basis for Mate Selection," Journal ofCounselling Psychology, 11 (Summer, 1964),129:T35.

Griffitt, William B., "Attraction Toward a Stranger as aFunction of Direct and Associative Reinforcement,"Psychonomic Science, 11 (June, 1968), 147-148.

"Interpersonal Attraction as a Functionooand Personality Similarity-Dissimilar-ity," Journal of Personality and Social Psycho y 4(November19667~ --5b4.

, "Personality Similarity and Self-Concept as Determinants of Interpersonal Attraction,"The Journal of Social Psychology, LXXCIII (June, 1969),

Hoffeditz, E. L., "Family Resemblances in Personality Traits,"Journal of Social Psychology, V (Summer, 1934), 214-227.

Hollingshead, August B., "Cultural Factors in the Selectionof Marriage Mates," American Sociological Review, 15(October, 1950), 619-627

Holz, Robert Franklin, "Similarity Versus Complementarity ofNeeds in Mate Selection," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX(1969), 2618.

Huffman, Devereaux M., "Interpersonal Attraction as a Functionof Behavioral Similarity," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, XXX (1969), 3372.

58

Izard, Carroll E., "Personality Similarity, Positive Affect,and Interpersonal Attraction," Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 61 (November, 1960), ;4-485.

Jones, H. E., "A First Study of Parent-Child Resemblance,"27th Yearbook of National Social Studies Education,

.,Par7r. T I-72.

Kelly, E. Lowell, "Consistency of the Adult Personality,"The American Psychologlst, 10 (November, 1955), 659-681.

Kennedy, Ruby, "Single or Triple Melting-Pot?, IntermarriageTrends in New Haven, 1970-1940," American Journal ofSoqiolo&yXLIX (January, 1944), 331-339

Kerckhoff, Alan C. and Keith E. Davis, "Value Consensus andNeed Complementarity in Mate Selection," AmericanSociological Review, 27 (June, 1962), 295-303.o

Landis, Paul H. and Katherine H. Day, "Education as a Factorin Mate Selection," American Sociological Review, 10(August, 1945), 558-560.

Levinger, George, "Note on Need Complementarity in Marriage,"Psychological Bulletin, 61 (February, 1964), 153-157.

Lossner, Walter Martin, "Complementarity, Homogeneity,Heterogeneity and Marital Stability,! DissertationAbstracts, XXX (1969), 2820.

Lott, Alfred J. and Bernice E. Lott, "Liked and Disliked Per-sons as Reinforcing Stimuli," Journal of Personalityand Social Psycholgy 11 (February, l9),129-137.

Murstein, Bernard E., "The Complementary Need Hypothesis inNewlyweds and Middle-Aged Married nouples," Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (July, 1961),T74-197.

Newcomb, Theodore M., "The Prediction of InterpersonalAttraction," The American Psychologist, 11 (November,1956), 575-586T

Ohmann, 0., "The Psychology of Attraction," In H. JordanYou and Marriage, New York, Wiley, 1942.

Post, R.H., "Genetics and Demography," Eugenics Quarterly,12 (June, 1965), 41-71.

59

Potts, Genevieve T., "Interpersonal Attraction as a Functionof Personality Similarity and Social Desirability," Dis-sertation Abstracts, XXIX (1969), 4105-4106.

Schellenberg, James A., "Homogamy in Personal Values and the"Field of Eligibles"," Social Forces, 39 (December, 1960),157-162.

Schooley, Mary, "Personality Resemblances Among MarriedCouples," Journal of Social PsycholoU, XXXI (June,1936), 67-82. o

Smalley, Neal S, "Implicit Personality Theory in InterpersonalAttraction, Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX (1968), 762.

Stalling, Richard B., "Personality Similarity and EvaluativeMeaning as Conditioners of Attraction," Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psycholog, 14 (JanuaryI970T777F82-

Stapert, John C. and Gerald L. Clore, "Attraction and Dis-agreement-Produced Arousal," Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 13 (September, 196937 -9.

Terman, Lewis M. and Paul Buttenwieser, "Personality Factorsin Marital Compatibility," Journal of Social Psjcholojy,VI (May, 1935), 143-171.

Tharp, Roland G., "Psychological Pattern in Marriage,"Psychological Bulletin, 60,(January, 1963), 97-117.

Tharp, Roland G., "Reply to Levinger's Note," PsychologicaBulletin, 61 (February, 1964), 158-160.

Thomas, John L., "The Factor of Religion in the Selection ofMarriage Mates," American Sociological Review, 16(August, 1951), 487-491.

Willoughby, R. R., "Family Similarities in Mental TestAbilities," 27th Yearbook of National Social StudiesEducation, 19 F55-59.

Winch, Robert F., The Theory of Complementary Needs in Mate-Selection: A Test of ONe Kind of Complementariness,"American Sociological Review, 20 (February, 1955), 52-56.

, "The Theory of Complementary Needs inMate-Selection: Final Results on the Test of theGeneral Hypothesis," American Sociological Review,20 (October, 1955), 552-555.

60

Winch, Robert F., Thomas Ktsanes and Virginia Ktsanes, "TheTheory of Complementary Needs in Mate-Selection: AnAnalytic And Descriptive Study " American SociologicalReview, 19 (June, 1954), 241-249.

Wright, Paul H., "Need Similarity, Need Complementarity andthe Place of Personality in Interpersonal Attraction,"Journal o Experimental Research inPersonaliy 3(December, I98),i128-135.

Zander, Alvin and Arnold Havelin, "Social Comparison andInterpersonal Attraction," Human Relations, 13(1960), 21-32.

Zimbardo, Philip and Robert Formica, "Emotional Comparisonand Self-Esteem as Determinants of Affiliation,"Journal of Personality, 31 (June, 1963), 141-162'

Manuals

Allport, Gordon W., Philip E. Vernon and Gardner Lindzey,Manual: A Stud of Values, Boston, Houghton MifflinCompany,~ lU.7

Manson, Morse P., California Marriage Readiness Evaluation,Beverly Hills-, CalTfonia, Western Psychological Services,1965.