THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS IN A SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY

Citation preview

THE UNIVERSITY" OP CHICAGO

THE CHARACTERISTICS OP PARTICIPANTS IN A SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE F A CULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES IN C ANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF D O C T O R OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

BY PAUL WALLIN

CHICAGO,

ILLINOIS

SEPTEMBER,

1942

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

TABLE

OF

CO NTENTS

Page iv

LIST OF TABLES LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS

xxv 1 i

Chapter I.

INTRODUCTION

1

The Problem How the Data Were Collected How the Data Were Treated II.

THE CF R A O T E R I S T I C «3 OF PARTICIPANTS AND NONPARTICIPANTS IN TF17 STUDY OF ENOA.OED COUPLES

24

Items Showing Differences between Partici­ pants an^ Non-Participants When Participants Are Treated As a Single Croup Items Shewing Differences between Non-Par­ ticipants and Types of Participants Significance of Findings on Participants and Non-Participants When Participants Are Treated as a Single Croup Significance of Findings on Comparisons b e ­ tween Non-Participants and Various Types of Parti cipsnts III.

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENCES IN TYPE OF PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY OF ENGACED C O U P L E S ......................................... Non-adjustment Factors Cultural background Emancipation from primary controls Experience with marriage and the family Conception of marriage and the family Romantic or realistic conception of marriage Patriarchal or equalitarian conception of marriage Domestic or non-domestic conception of msrriage Personality Neurotic Inventory Individual personality items Adjustment Factors Security in engagement Criticalness of self, fiance(e) and enga~ement relationship The response component of the engagement relationship i -

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

62

C h a p te r

Page

Summary Findings on the eight factors Number of differences between the three t7gpes of participants Frankness as possible explanation of differences found between types of participants IV.

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES BET1VEEN PARTICIPANTS •'•NF NON-P APTICIPANTS AND BETWEEN TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS ...............

161

Further Analysis of the Differences be­ tween Participants and Non-Participants Measuring the total difference between participants and non-participants Correction of the bias in the P group and a test of the influence of the bias Further Analysis of the Differences be­ tween Types of Participants Measuring the association between char­ acteristics of subjects and type of participation Correction of the bias in the I group and a test of the influence of the bias The intercorrelations of the'factors Testing the reliability of the findings on a second sample V.

CONCLUSIONS ...................................

190

Conclusions on Methodological Problem Conclusions on Substantive Problem APPENDIXES ............................................

206

B I B L I O G R A P H Y .................

3P5

. . . .

-iii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

LIST O r TABLES Text Table

Page

1.

Howr Well Schedule Distributors Knew Participant (P) and Non-participant (NP) Men and W o m e n .......... 29

2.

Relationship of Schedule Distributor to Parti­ cipant (P) and Non-participant (NP) Men and Women.

. 29

3.

Amount of Persuasion Used by Schedule Distribu­ tors Before Schedules Were Accepted by Partici­ pant (P) and Non-participant (NP) C o u p l e s .........

4.

Schedule Distributors 1 Reports of Reasons for Ac­ ceptance of Schedules by Participant (P) and Non­ participant (NP) C o u p l e s ............................ . 3 2

5.

Number of Years of Schooling Completed by Par­ ticipant (P) and Non-participant (NP) Men and W o m e n ..................................

33

.

Religious Affiliation of Participant (F) and Nonparticipant (NP) Men and W o m e n ....................... 34

7.

Age of Participant (P) and Non-Participant (NP) Men and W o m e n ...................................... . 3 5

6

8

. Ratings by Schedule Distributors of the Political and Social Ideas of Participant (P) and Non-parti­ cipant (NP) Men and W o m e n ..37

9.

Ratings by Schedule Distributors of How Well Poised Are Participant (P) and Non-participant (NP) Men and W o m e n ........................................... . 3 9

10.

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to Whether Couples Will Break up before Marriage, Classified by Whether Couples Were Participants (P) or Nonparticipants ( N P ) ................................ . . 4 0

11.

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to How Happy the Marriage Will be, Classified by Whether Couples Were Participants (P) or Non-Participants ( N P ) ....................................................41

12.

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to How Well Couples Will Adjust, Classified by Whether Couples W Were Participants (P) or Non-participants (NP) . . . 42 -iv-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

T a b le

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Page

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to Whether Marriage Will End in Separation or Divorce, Classified by Whether Couples Were Participants (P) or Non-participants (NP) . . . .

43

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to Whether Couples Will Break up before Marriage, Classified by M a n ’s Engagement Adjustment Score, for A.11 Couples and for Couples Known Well or Very Well to the Distributors . . . . . . . . . .

45

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to Whether Couples Will Break up before Marriage, Classified by W oman’s Engagement Ad jus tment Score, for all Couples and for Couples Known Well or Very Well to the D i s t r i b u t o r s ..........

46

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to How Happy the Marriage Will Be, Classified by Man's Engagement Adjustment Score, for All Couples and for Couples Known Well or Very 'Well to the Dis­ tributors ..................................

46

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to How Harpy the Marriage Will Be, Classified by Woman's Engagement Adjustment Score, for All Couples and for Couples Known Well or Very Well to the Dis­ tributors ..........

47

13.

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to How Well Couples Will Adjust, Classified by M a n ’s Engagement Adjustment Score, for All Couples and for Couples Known Well or Very Well to the Distributors . , . .48

19.

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to How Well Couples Will Adjust, Classified by W o m a n ’s Engagement Adjustment Score, for All Couples and for Couples Known Well or Very Well to the Dis­ tributors . . . . . . . . . ......... • • • • • • • 4 8

20

.

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to Whether Marriage W'ill End in Separation or Di­ vorce, Classified by M a n ’s Engagement Adjust­ ment Score, for All Couples and for Couples Known Well or Very Well to the Distributors . . . .49

21

.

Predictions by Schedule Distributors As to Whether Marriage Will End. in Separation or Di ­ vorce, Classified by W o m a n ’s Engagement Adjust­ ment Score, for All Couples and for Couples Known Well or Very Well to the Distributors • . . .49

22

.

Predictions Toy Schedule Distributors As to ’.Whether Couples Would Break up before Marriage, Classified by Whether or Not the Engagements Were Actually Broken . . . . . . .............

.51

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

T a b le

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

Page

Amount of Persuasion Used by Schedule Distributors before Schedules Were Accepted, Classified by Whether Subjects Interviewed (I), Signed (S) or Did. Hot Sign Schedules (NS) , or Did Hot Partici­ pate (NP) ...........................................

52

Schedule Distributors’ Reports of Reasons for Ac­ ceptance of Schedules, Classified by Whether Sub­ jects Interviewed (I), Signed (S) or Did Not Sign Schedules (NS), or Did Not Participate (NP) . . . .

54

Number of Years of Schooling Completed by Sub­ jects Who Interviewed (I), Signed (S) or Did Not Sign Schedules (NS), or Who Did Not Participate ( N P ) ................................................

55

Religious Affiliation of Subjects Who Interviewed (I), Signed (S) or Did Not Sign Schedules (NS), or Who Did NotParticipate (NP)

55

Age of Subjects Who Interviewed (I), Signed (S) or Did Not Sign Schedules (NS), or Who Did Not Participate (NP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

Nativity of Parents, Classified by Whether Sub­ jects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS)

69

Number of Years of Schooling Completed by Mother, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for In­ terview (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ...........................................

70

Size of City Where Subjects Lived in Childhood, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S) , or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . ................................

71

Approximate Present Annual Income of Parents, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . ................................

72

Number of Years of Schooling Completed by Sub­ jects, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .......................................

74

Present Residence of Subjects, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered forInterviev/s (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . .

75

Religious A.ffiliation or Church Preference of Subjects, Classified by Whether Subjects Volun­ teered for Interview-s (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ..............................

77

-vi-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

T a b le

35.

Page

Frequency of Church Attendance of Subjects, Clas­ sified by Whether They Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . .

78

36.

Age At Which Subjects Stopped Attending Sunday School, Classified by Whether They Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) .............................. 7 9

37.

Subjects’ Reports of Attitude to Father in Child­ hood, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . .............................. 81

58.

Subjects’ Reports of Present Attitude to Father, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .............................................. 82

39.

Subjects’ Reports of Attitude to Mother in Child­ hood, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S) or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .................................... .

83

40.

Subjects’ Reports of Present Attitude to Mother, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .............................................. 83

41.

Subjects’ Ratings of the Marital Happiness of Their Parents, Classified b?;- Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ............................84

42.

Number of Separations Relatives, Classified teered for Interviews or Did Not Sign ( N S

43.

Subjects’ Reports As to Nature of First Sex In­ formation, Classified by Whether Subjects Volun­ teered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) .......................

or Divorces Among Subjects’ by Whether Subjects Volun­ (I), Signed Schedules (S), ) ................................ 85

86

44.

Subjects’ Reports As to Whether They Consider Their Present Knowledge of Sex Adequate for Marriage, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for In­ terviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . ..................................... 87

45.

Subjects’ Opinion on Whether Persons Should Ever Marry When Not In Love, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . . .

-vii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

90

Table 46.

Page

Subjects' Opinions on Whether Marriages of Roman­ tic Love Are More Successful than Others, Classi­ fied by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Inter­ views (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . ............... .....................

SI

47.

Subjects’ Opinions on 'Whether Husband Should Be Head of the Family, Classified by 'Whether Sub­ jects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Sipped Sched­ ules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) 93

48.

Subjects' Opinions on Whether It Is A H Right for 'Wife to Keep Own Name after Marriage, Classified by 'Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . 94

49.

Subjects’ Attitudes to 'Wife Working, Classified by 'Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS)

50.

51.

58.

53.

.

95

Subjects' Attitude to Fiance(e) C-oing out with. Friends of Opposite Sex after Marriage, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I) Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . .

96

Subjects’ Opinions on Whether Divorce Is Ever Justifiable, Classified by Whether Subjects Vol­ unteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . . . . ...........

98

Subjects' Opinions on Whether Divorce is Ever Justifiable for Reasons Other than Unfaithfulness, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (3), or Did Not Sign (NS) .........................................

99

Subjects’ Opinions on Whether People Should Di­ vorce, Separate, or Continue Living Together When Thev Cease to Ee in Love, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), S i g n e d Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . * . . . •

99

54.

Will Subjects Object to Fiance(e) Drinking: and Drink if Piance(e) Objects, Classified by 'Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interview's (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . ......... 101

55.

Do Subjects Smoke and Will They Smoke If Fiance(e) Objects, Classified by Whether Subjects Volun­ teered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), 102 or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .......................... ..

56.

Subjects* Responses on Whether They Will Object If Fiance(e) Wants to Smoke, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . . viii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

104

Table

Page

57.

Subjects’ Attitudes to Having Children, Classi­ fied by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or ^id Not Sign (NS) . . . 105

58.

Subjects’ Reports of Attitude of Fiance(e) to Hav­ ing Children, Classified by Whether Subjects Vol­ unteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ........ ".......................

105

59.

Number- of Children Subjects Would Like, Classi­ fied by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Inter­ views (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) 106

60.

Percentage of Total Neurotic and Non-neurotic Re ­ sponse to Questions Comprising Public Flatform Factor (’p ’), Given by Subjects Who Volunteered for Interviews (I), Those Who Signed Schedules (S), and Those Who Did Not Sign (NS)

111

Percentage of Total Neurotic and Non-Neurotic Responses to Questions Comprising Self-conscious­ ness (’S') Factor, Given by Subjects Who Volun­ teered for Interviews (I), Those Who Signed Sched­ ules (S), and Those Who Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . .

111

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

6 6

Percentage of Total Neurotic and Non-neurotic Respouse to Questions Comprising Cognitive ( ’Co') Factor, Given by Subjects Who Volunteered for In­ terviews (I), Those Who Signed Schedules (S), and Those Who Did Not Sign ( N S ) ............. ..

112

Subjects' Reports As to Whether They Usually Try to Avoid Arguments, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), 113 or Did Not Sign (NS) ............... .. Subjects' Reports As to Whether They Are Quick in Giving Help in an Occident, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . . . .

114

Number of Subjects' Friends of Opposite Sex before Going Steadily with Fiance(e), Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), S igned Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS)

115

. Subjects’ Reports As to Whether They Are Usually Considered. Indifferent to Opposite Sex, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . 115

67.

Number of Organizations Subjects Attend Regularly, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . ...................................

-ix-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

116

T a b le

63.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

Page

Number of Organizations in Held Off'ice, Classified by Volunteered for Interviews ules (S), or Did Mot Sign

Which Subjects Have Whether Subjects (I), Signed Sched­ (MS). . . . . . . . . .

Do Subjects Prefer a Play to a Dance, Classi­ fied by Whether The 7f Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S),or Did Mot Sign (MS). Subjects’ Preference for Leisure-Time Activity, Classified by Whether They Volunteered for In­ terviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), o~ Did Mot Sign ( M S ) .............................. ...

117

. 117

118

Age of Subjects, Classified by Whether They Volun­ teered for Interviews (I), ^ipned Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Parents’ Approval or Disapproval of Marriage of Subjects, classified by Whether Subjects Vol­ unteered for Interviews (I), S i g n e d Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (MS)

124

Attitude of Subjects Toward Future Fstber-inLaw, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125

AttitiJ.de of Subjects Toward Future Mother-inLaw, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did ...................... 125 Not Sign (MS) Length ce (e), teered or Did

of Time Subjects Hsve Known Their Fian­ Classified bv Whether Subjects Volun­ for Interviews (I), Sipned Schedules (S), Not Sign (NS) . . . . ' ...................... 127

76.

Length of Time Subjects Have Been Keeping Company, Classified by Whether Subjects Vol­ unteered. for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Mot Sign (MS) . . .................... 123

77.

Length of Time Subjects Have been Engaged, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I)> Signed. Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . .. ................................ 128

78.

Subjects’ Reports of Number of Interests and Ac­ tivities Engaged in Together with Fiance(e), Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (ITS)............................................ 129

-x-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

T a b le

Pape

79.

Number of Men (Women) Other than Fiance(e) -Sub­ jects Nave Gone with Steadily, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . ■• 130

80.

Number of Times Subjects Have Been Previoiasly Engaged, Classified by Whether Subjects Volun­ teered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ................................. 131

81.

Subjects' Reports on How Confident They Are that Their Marriage Will Be Happy, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . 132

32.

How Often Subjects Have Wished They Had Not Become Engaged, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ...........................133

83.

H oy/ Often Subjects Contemplated Breaking Engage­ ment, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS)..............................

133

84.

Subjects' Reports of H o y - Often Their Stead?/ Rela­ tionship Has Been Broken, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (i), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) ..............134

85.

Number jects, teered or Did

8 6

. Number of Changes in Self Desired by Subjects, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviev/s (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ........................................138

87.

8 8

of Changes in Fi.ance(e) Desired by Sub­ Classified by Whether Subjects Volun­ for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Not Sign ( N S ) ................................. 137

Number of Things Fiance(e) Does Which Subjects Dislike, Classified by Whether Subjects Volun­ teered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ................................. 139

. Number of Annoying ■tispects of Engagement Re­ ported by Subjects, Classified by Whether Sub­ jects Volunteered for Interview's (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ................ 140

89.

Subjects’ Ratings of Their Physical Appearance, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviev/s (I), sirned Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . ................................... 141

-xi-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

T a b le

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

Page

Subjects 1 Ratings of Physical Appearance of Fiance(e), Classifier) by Whether Subjects Volun­ teered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS

142

Subjects’ Reports of Extent of Agreement with Each Other on Money. Matters, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . .

145

Subjects’ Reports of Extent of Agreement with Each Other on Religious Matters, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . .

144

Subjects' Reports of Extent of Agreement with Each Other on Friends, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS).......... . . .

144

Subjects Reports of Extent of Each Other on Table Manners, Whether Subjects Volunteered Signed Schedules (8 ), or Did

145

Agreement with Classified by for Interviews (I), Not Sign (NS) . . . .

Subjects’ Reports of Frequency of Demonstra­ tion of Affection, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), o r Did Not Sign (NS) . ...........................

145

Subjects' Reports on Their Satisfaction with Amount of Demonstration of Affection, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) .

148

Subjects' Reports on Satisfaction of Fiance(e) with Amount of Demonstration of Affection, Clas­ sified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Inter­ views (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) .........................................

148

Subjects' Reports of Extent of Agreement with Their Fiance(e) on Demonstration of Affection, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) .........................................

149

Subjects' Reports on Who Generally Takes the Ini­ tiative in Demonstration of Affection, Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS)

150

Subjects I Reports of Extent to Which They Confide in Fiance(e), Classified by Whether Subjects Volunteered for Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . ...............

151

-xii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

T a b le

Page

101.

Subjects* Reports Confides in Tbem, jects Volunteered Schedules (S), or

102.

Similarity of Percentage Patterns on 74 Items for Three Groups of Participant Subjects, Those Who Volunteered for Interviews (I), Those Who Signed Schedules (S), and Those Who Did Not Sign (NS) ....................................... 155

TO?,

Participation Scores of Participant (P) and Non-participant Ken and Women Subjects on 9 Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

164

Participation Scores of Participant (P) and Non-participant (NP) Men and Women Subjects on 12 Items . . . . . . . . . .

165

Participation Scores of Uncorrected and Cor­ rected P Groups and of P andNP Groups Combined •

163

104.

105.

of Extent to Which Fiance(e) Classified by Whether Sub­ for Interviews (I), Signed. Did Not Sign ( N S ) ..............152

106.

Means end Standard Deviations of Adjustment Scores of Sub-categories of Selected Items in Uncorrected and Corrected Samples of Men ....................171 and Women Participants

107.

Interview Scores on All Items Combined for Subjects Who Volunteered for Interviews (I), Si; ned Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign (NS) ...

175

Coefficients of Association between Interview Scores and Type of Participation for Eight Factors and for All Items ............. ..

175

108.

109. 110.

111.

112.

113.

Interview Scores of Uncorrected and Corrected I Groups and ofI, S, and NS Groups Combined

. .

179

Means and Standard Deviations of Adjustment Scores of Sub-categories of Selected Items in Uncorrected and Corrected Samples of Men and Women Interview Subjects ....................

181

Intercorrelations of Interview Scores on Eight Factors for Men Subjects Who Volunteered, for Interviews .................

135

Intercorrelations of Interview Scores on Sight Factors for Women Subjects Who Volunteered for I n t e r v i e w s .......................................

136

Interview Scores on A.ll Items Combined for Sub­ jects in New Sample Who Volunteered for Inter­ views (I), Signed Schedules (S), or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .......................................

183

-xiii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Appendix T a b le

la.

2a.

3a.

3b.

4a.

5a.

5b.

6

6

a.

b.

7a.

7b.

8

a.

Page

How Well Schedule Distributors Knew Members of Couples, Classified by Whether Couples Were Participants (P) or Non-participants (NP) .

223

Relationship of Schedule Distributors to Members of Couples, Classified by Whether Couples Were Participants (P) or Non-Parti­ cipants ( N P ) ................................ . .

229

Amount of Persuasion Used by Schedule Dis­ tributors With Participant (P) and Non-Parti­ cipant (NP) Couples, Omitting Couples Who Re­ fused Outright to Accept Schedules ......... .

229

Amount of Persuasion Used by Schedule Distri­ butors With Participant (F) and Non-Participant (NP) Couples, By How Well Schedule Distributors Knew Couples . . . . . . . . . . ........... .

230

Reasons for Acceptance of Schedules Imputed By Schedule Distributors to Participant (P) and Non-participant (NP) Couples, By How Well Dis­ tributors Knew Couples . . . . . . . . . . . .

231

Number of Years of Schooling Completed Ey Mem­ bers of Couples, Classified By Whether Couples Were Participants (P) Or Non-participants (NP).

232

Number of Years of Schooling Completed Ey Par­ ticipants (P) and Non-participant (NP) Men and ’Women, Classified By How Well Known They Were To Schedule Distributors . ...................

232

Religious Affiliation of Members of Couples, Classified By Whether Couples Were Partici­ pants (P) Or Non-participants (NP) . . . . . .

233

Religious Affiliation of And Non-participant (NP) sified By How Well Known ule Distributors . . . .

234

Participant (P) Men and Women, Clas­ They Were To Sched­ . . . . . .

Age of Members of Couples, Classified By Whether Couples Were Participants (P) Or Non-Participants (NP) . . . . . . . . . . . .

235

Age of Participant (P) And Non-Participant (NP) Men and Women, Classified By How Well Known They Were To Schedule Distributors . . .

236

Distributors’ Ratings of Members of Couples on Their Political •‘hid Social Ideas, Classi­ fied By Whether Couples Were Participants (F) or Non-participants (NP) ............... ..

237

-xiv-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

T a b le 8 b.

8

c.

Page

Distributors’ Ratings of participant (NP) Ivlen and And Social Ideas, Ey How The Distributors . . . .

Participant (P) And Non­ Women On Their Political Well They Were Known To . . . . . . . ......... . . 237

Ratings By Schedule Distributors of The Folitical And Social Ideas of Participant (P) And Non-par­ ticipant (NP) Men and Women Subjects, Classified By Religious Affiliation Of Subjects . .............

238

3d.

Ratings By Schedule Distributors Of The Political And Social Needs Of Participant (P) And Non-partici­ pant (NP) Men and Women Subjects, Classified By Distributors’ Reports Of Economic Status Of Subjects’ .......................... 239 Families

9a.

Ratings By Schedule Distributors Of How Well Poised Are Members of Participant (P) And Non-participant C o u p l e s .................................................240

9b.

Ratings By Schedule Distributors Of How Well Poised Are Participant (P) and Non-participant (NP) Men And Women Subjects, Classified By How Well Known Subjects Were To Distributors

9c.

10a.

Ratings E y Schedule Are Participant (P) And. Women Subjects, Schooling Completed

841

Distributors Of H o t /' Well Poised and Non-participant (NP) Men Classified By Number Of Years By Subjects ................. • • 242

Schedule Distributors’ Predictions As To Whether Participants (P) And Non-participant Couples (NP) Would Ereak Up Before Marriage, Classified By How Well Known Coup3.es Were To Distributors . . . . . . .

243

11a.

Schedule Distributors Predictions As To The Marital Happiness of Participant (P) And Non-Participant (NP) Couples, Classified By How ’Well Known Couples Were To Distributors 244

12a.

Schedule Distributors' Predictions As To How Well Participant (P) And Non-participant (NP) Couples Would Adjust In Marriage, Classified By How Well Known Couples Were to D i s t r i b u t o r s .............

245

Schedule Distributors' Predictions -^s To Whether The Marriage of Participant (P) and Non-participant (NP) Couples Would End In Separation Or Divorce, Classified By How Wel3. Known Couples Were To D i s ­ tributors . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

246

Amount of Persuasion Used By Schedtile Distributors Before Schedules Were Accepted, Classified By Whether Couples Volunteered For Interviews (I), Filled Out Schedules But Did Not Volunteer (NI), Or Were Non-participants (NP)

247

13a.

23a.

-xv-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Tab le 24a.

25a.

26a.

Page Schedule Distributors' Reports of Reasons For Acceptance of Schedules, Classified By Whether Couples Volunteered for Interviews (I), Filled Out Schedules But Did Not Volunteer (NI), Or Were Non-participants ( N P ) ............... ..

247

Number Of Years Of Schooling Completed By Members of Couples, Classified By Whether Couples Volun­ teered for Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Or 'Were Non-participants ( N P ) ...................

248

Religious Affiliation of Members of Couples, Classified By Whether Couples Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Or Were Non-participants (NP) . ........... . . . . . . .

249

27a.

Age of Members of Couples, Classified By Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volun teer (NI), Or Were Non-participants (NP) . . . . . 250

28a.

Nativity of Parents Classified By ’Whether Sub­ jects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . 251

29 a.

Number of Years of Schooling Completed By Mother, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . .

252

Number of Years Schooling Completed By Mothers Of Men Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), Classified By Schooling of Subjects . . . . . . .

253

29b.

29c.

Number Of Men Signed sified

29a.

Number of Years Schooling Completed By Mothers of Men Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), Clas­ sified By Nativity of Parents . . . . . . . . . . 255

30a.

Size of City Where Subjects Lived, in Childhood Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interview (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) ............. 256

3

la.

31b.

of Years of Schooling Completed By Mothers Subjects Who Volunteered for Interviews (I) Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), Clas­ By Present Annual Income of Parents . . . . 2 5 4

Approximate Present Annual Income Of Parents Classified By 'Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .......... Present Annual Income of Parents of Men Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Sched­ ules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), Classified By Education of Subjects ............... . . . . . . -xvi-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

. 257

258

T a b le

31c.

32a.

33a.

33b.

Page

Present Annual Income of Parents of Men Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), Classified By Nativity of Parents . . . ......... . . . . . .

259

Number of Years of Schooling Completed By Sub­ jects, Classified By Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . .

260

Present Residence of Subjects, Classified By 'Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

261

Present Residence Of Men Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), Classified By Education Of Sub­ jects ............................ ..

262

34a.

Religious Affiliation Or Church Preference Of Subjects, Classified By Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . • . • 263

35a.

Frequency of Church Attendance Of Subjects, Classified By Whether They Volunteered For In­ terviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . .

36a.

Age At Which Subjects Stopped Attending Sunday School, Classified By Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) ..

264

. . 265

36b.

A.ge At Which Men and Women Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), Stopped Attending Sunday School, Classified By Their Religious Affiliation . . . . 266

37a.

Subjects' Reports Of A.ttitudes To Father In Childhood, Classified By Whether Subjects Volun­ teered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . • 267

33a.

Subjects' Reports of Present Attitude to Father, Classified By 'Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . .

268

39a.

Subjects' Reports Of Attitude To Mother In Childhood, Classified By Whether Subjects Volun­ teered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . • . . 269

40a.

Subjects’ Reports Of Present Attitude To Mother, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did. Not Sign ( N S ) ............. -xvii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

270

Table 41a.

42a.

42b.

43a.

44a.

Subjects' Ratings of the Marital Happiness Of Their Parents Classified By Whether Sub­ jects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) ............................

271

Number of Separations Or Divorces Among Subjects' Relatives, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedule? (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . ..........................

272

Number of Separations Or Divorces Among Rel­ atives Of Subjects Who Volunteered For Inter­ views (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), Classified By Subjects' Religious Affiliation ............. .............. ..

273

Subjects’ Reports As To Nature Of First Sex Information, Classified By Whether They Vol­ unteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volun­ teer (NT), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) .............................. . . .

274

Subjects' Reports As to Whether They Consider Their Present Knowledge of Sex Adequate For Marriage, Classified By Whether Subjects Vol­ unteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volun­ teer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) .......................................

27 5

45a.

Subjects* Opinions On Whether Persons Should Ever ’Tarry When Not In Love, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S ) 276 O1" Did Not Sign ( N S ) ...........

45a.

Subjects' Opinions On "'hdt;er Marriages Of Romantic Love Are More Successful Than Others Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . .

277

Subjects' Opinion On Whether Husband Should Be Head Of The Family, Classified 3y Whether Subject Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS)

278

Subjects' Opinions On Whether It Is All Right For Wife To Feep Own Name After Marriage, Class! fied By Whether Subjects Volunteered F^r Inter­ views (I), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Sched­ ules (S), Or- Did Not Sign ( N S ) .................

279

47a.

48a.

-xviii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

49a.

50a.

51a.

Subjects * Responses On Attitude 'To Wife Working, Classified By ’’/nether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Did Not Sign (NS) .................

230

Subjects* Attitudes To Fiance(e) Doing Out With Friends Of Opposite Sex After Marriage, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . .................

281

Subjects’ Opinions On Whether Divorce Is Ever Justifiable, Classified By Whether Subjects Volun­ teered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) • . . .

C Q O

51b.

Opinions Of Men Subjects Who Volunteered For In­ terviews (I) Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), As to Whether Divorce Is Ever Justifi­ able, Classified By Their Religious Affi3.iatl.on. . 283

52a.

Subjects' Opinions On Whether Divorce Is Ever Justifiable For Reasons Other Than Unfaithful­ ness, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed ............. 284 Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS)

52b.

Opinions of Men Subjects Who Volunteered For In­ terviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), As To Whether Divorce Is Ever Justi­ fiable For Reasons Other Than Unfaithfulness, Classified By Their Religious Affiliation . . . . 285

53s.

Subjects’ Opinions On Whether People Should D i ­ vorce, Separate, Or Continue Living Together When They Cease To Be In Love, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) ............................

286

Opinions Of Men Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed. Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), As To ’Whether Couples Should Di­ vorce, Separate Or Continue Living Together When They Cease To 3e In Love, Classified By Subjects’ Religious Affiliations . . . . . . . .

2 87

Will Subjects Object To Fiance(e) Drinking And Drink If Fiancee objects, Classified. By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Sirned Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . .................................

288

Do Subjects Smoke And Will They Continue To Smoke If Fiance(e) Objects, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedules (S), Did Not Sign (NS) .................................

289

53b.

54a.

-xix-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

T a b le

56a.

57a.

Page

Subjects' Responses On 'Whether They 7/ill Object If Fiance(e) 7/ants To Smoke, Clas­ sified By Whether Subjects Volunteered. For Interviews (I), Did Wot Volunteer (NI), Sipned Schedules (S), Or Did Wot Sign (NS) . . . .

290

Subjects' Attitud-s To Raving Children, Classified B y Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Wot Sign (NS) . . . .

2d

58a.

Subjects' Reports nf Attitudes Of Fiance(e) To Having Children, Classified By 'Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules ................. 202 (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS)

59a.

Number of Children Subjects Would Like, Classified By Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . .

60a.

Percentage Of Total Neurotic And NonNeurotic Responses To questions Comprising Public Platform Factor Given By Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ..........

295

294

61a.

Percentage Of Total Neurotic And Non-neurotic Responses To Questions Comprising Self-con­ sciousness Factor Given By Subjects 7/ho Vol­ unteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .................................................. 295

62a.

Percentage of Total Neurotic And Non-neurotic Responses to Questions Comprising Cognitive Factor Given By Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ............... 296

63a.

Subjects' Reports As To Whether They Usually Try To Avoid Arguments, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (i), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) .............

64a.

297

Subjects' Reports A.s To Whether The:/- Are Quick In Giving Help In An Accident, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Sianed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) ....................293

-xj-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Page

T a b le

65a.

66a.

67a.

68a.

Number Of Subjects' Friends Of Opposite Sex Before Going Steadily With Fiance(e), Classi­ fied By Whether Subjects Volunteered For In­ terviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed. Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . .

299

Subjects' Penorts As To Whether Thev Are Usu­ ally Considered. Indifferent To Opposite Sex, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . .

600

Number Of Organizations Subjects A.ttend Regu­ larly , Classified. By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews(I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . .

301

Number Of Organizations In Which Subjects Nave Held Office, Classified By Whether Subjects Vol­ unteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS).

302

69a.

Do Subjects Prefer A Play To A Dance, Classified By Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ............................... 303

70a.

Subjects' Oreferences Classified By Whether terviews (I), Did Not Schedules (S), Or Did

71a.

72a.

For Leisure Time Activity, They Volunteered For In­ Volunteer (NI), Signed Not Sign (NS)

304

Age of Subjects, Classified By Whether They Vol­ unteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS).

305

Parents' Approval Or Disapproval Of Marriage Of Subjects, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volun­ teer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

306

73a.

Attitude Of Subjects Toward Future Father-in-law, Classified 3v Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interview/s (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), S i g n e d Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS).................307

74a.

Attitude of Subjects Toward Future Mother-in-law Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), ^id Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . .

75 a-.

308

Number Of Months Members Of Couples Have Known One Another, Classified Ey Whether Couple Volun­ teered For Interview (I), Or Did Not Volunteer (N I ) ................................................ 309

-xxi-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

T a b le

‘ 76a.

77a.

78a.,

79a.

80a.

81a.

32a.

83a.

34a.

85a.

Page

Number Of Months Couples Have Been Keeping Company, Classified By Whether Couple Volun­ teered For Interview (I), Or Did Not Volunt e e r ( N I ) ............. ....................... ..

.309

Number of Months Couple Has Been Engaged, Classified By Whether Couple Volunteered For Interview (I), Or Did Not Volunteer (NI)

310

Subjects’ Reports Of Number of Interests ^*nd Activities Engaged In Together, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not ^ipn (NS) ............. ..

311

Number Of Men (7/omen) Other Than Fiance(e) Subjects Have Gone With Steadily, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Inter­ views (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . .

.312

Number of Times Subjects Have Bean Previously Engaged, Class if led. By Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Djd Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . •

313

Subjects 1 Reports On How Confident They Are That Their Marriage Will Be Happy, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedules ............... (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . .

.314

How Often Subjects Have Wished They Had Not Become Engaged, Classified By Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Vol­ unteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS)

315

How Often Subjects Contemplated Breaking En­ gagement, Classified By Whether They Volun­ teered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ..................................... ..

316

Subjects’ Reports Of How Often Their Steady Relationship Has Bean Broken, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) .............. . . .

•317

Number Of Changes In Fiance(e) Desired By Sub­ jects, Classified By Whether Subjects Volun­ teered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ...........................................

313

-xxii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 85b.

86

a.

Page Number of Changes In Fiance(e) Desired By Men Subjects who Volunteered Nor Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S). Or Did Not Sign (NS), Classified By Education of Subjects ...............

615

Number of Changes In Self Desired By Sub­ jects, Classified By Whether They Volunteered For Interviews (I), Die Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . .

320

36b.

Number of Changes Desired In Self By Subjects Who Volunteered. For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS), Classified by Their Education ............................... 321

87a.

Number Of Things Fiance(e) Does Which Subjects Dislike, Classified By Whether Subjects Volun­ teered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (3), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ...................................................322

88a.

Number of Annoying Aspects Of Engagements Re­ ported By Subjects, Classified By Whether Sub­ jects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not s ign ( N S ) .......................................... 323

89s.

Subjects’ Ratings Of Own Physical Appearance Classified By Whether They Volunteered For In­ terviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . . . .

324

Subjects’ Ratings Of Physical. Appearance Of Fisnce(e) Classified. By Whether Subjects Volun­ teered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS)

326

90a.

91a.

9 2a.

93a.

.

Subjects’ Report Of Extent Of Agreement With Each Other On Money Matters, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .............................. .. Subjects’ Reports Of Extent Of Agreement With Each Other On Religious Matters, Classified. By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Inter­ views (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ........ .. Subjects’ Reports Of Extent of AgreementWith Each. Other On Friends, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI)_, Signed Schedules (S), Or Di" Not s ign (NS) ' ...............................

-xxiii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

.

326

327

328

T a b le

94a.

Page

Subjects’ Reports On Extent Of Agreement With Each Other On Wcble Fanners, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (T), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . ...............

599

95a . Subjects’ Reports Of Ij’re^J.ency Of Demonstration Of Affection To Fisn c e ( e ) , Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) ............. .. 330 96a.

97a.

98a.

99a.

Subjects’ Reports On Their Satisfaction With Amount of Demonstration of Affection, Classi­ fied By Whether Subjects Volunteered For In­ terviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) ...........

331

Subjects’ Reports On Satisfaction of Fiance(e) With Amount Of Demons tr-atiun Of Affection, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed. Schedules (3), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . .

5 32

Subjects’ Reports Of Extent Of Agreement 'With One Another On Demonstration Of Affection, Classified By 'Whether They Volunteered. For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . . . .

53 3

Subjects’ Reports On Who Generally 'fakes The Initiative In Demonstration Of Affection, Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered. (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed Schedules (3), Or- Did Not ^ign ( N S ) ........... ..

33 4

100a .

Subjects' Reports Of Extent To 'Which. Fisnce(e) Confides In Them, Classified By Whether Sub­ jects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NI), Signed. Schedules (S), Or Did Mot cu.gn (AS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 5

101a.

Subjects' Reports Of Extent To Which They Confide In Fiance(e), Classified By Whether Subjects Volunteered For Interviews (I), Did Not Volunteer (NT), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) . . ..........................

536

E d u c t i o n Of Subjects In participant Groups (P) When Uncorrected (U N C ) And Corrected (C) For Bias And In Participant and Non-partici­ pant Groups Combined (P And NP) . . . . . . . .

5 37

105a..

105b.

Religious .Affiliation Of Subjects In Parti­ cipant Groups (P) When Uncorrected (UNO) And Corrected (C) For Bias -hid. In Participant and Non-Participant Groups Combined (P and NP) . . -xxiv-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Tabl e

105c.

Page

Age Of Subjects In Participant Groups (P) When TTncor-rected (UNO) And Corrected (C) For Bias And In Participant And Non-participant Groups Combined (P And N P ) ...............

330

105d.

Ratings On Their Social And Political Ideas of Subjects In Participant Groups (P) When TJncorrected (UNO) And Corrected (C) For Bias And In Participant And Non-participant Groups Combined (P And NP) ............... 340

105e.

Ratings On Foise Of Subjects In Participant Groups (P) ’ When Uncorrected (UNC) .And Cor­ rected (C) For Bias And In Participant And Non-pr.rticipent Groups Combined (Pand NP) ...

340

105f.

Predictions As To Whether Engagement ’Would. Be Broken Made For Subjects In participant Groups (P) When Uncorrected (Unc.) And Corrected (C) For Bias And In Participant And Non-partici­ pant Groups Combined (P and N P ) ................... 341

105g.

Predictions Of Marital Happiness Made For Subjects In Participant Groups (F) When Uncor­ rected (UNC) and Corrected (C) For Bias And In Participant And Non-participant Groups Com­ bined (P and NP) . . . . . . . . . . ..............341

105h.

Predictions Of Adjustment In Marriage Made For Subjects In Participant Groups (P) When Uncorrected (UNC) And Corrected (C) For Bias And In Partici­ pant And Non-psrticipsnt Groups Combined (P And NP)342

105i . Predictions As To 'Whether Marriage Would End In Separation Or Divorce Made For Subjects In Participant Groups (F) When TJncorrected (UNC) .And Corrected (C) For Bias -"-nd In Participant A.nd Non-participant Groups Combined (F And NP) 107a.

.

Interview Scores On "Cultural Background** Factor For Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . . .

. 342

343

107b.

Interview Scores On "Emancipation From Primary Controls" Factor For Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .................................. 343

107c.

Interview Scores On "Experience With Marriage And The Family" Factor For Subjects Who Vol­ unteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) ...................... 344

107d.

Interview Scores On "Conception Of Marriage A.nd The Family" Factor For Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) ............................... 344 -x.xv-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table

107e.

107f.

107g.

107h.

Pa£ e

Interview Scores On "Fersonality" Factor For Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign ( N S ) .................................... ...

345

Interview Scores On "Security In Engagement” Factor For Subjects Who Volunteered For In­ terviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . . ..............................

345

I n t e r v i e w Scores On "Criticalness” Factor For Subjects Who Volunteered Fo’-’ Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) ..................................

-346

Interview Scores On "Response" Factor For Subjects Who Volunteered For Interviews (I), Signed Schedules (S), Or Did Not Sign (NS) . •

346

-/xvi-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

LIST OR ILLUSTRATIONS F ig u r e

Pape

1.

Linear Relationship Between Number of Years of Schooling and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Uncorrected and Corrected Participant Group ..................................... 3 4 3

2.

Linear Relationship Between Ratings of Happi­ ness of Parents’ Marriage and Engagement Ad­ justment Score for Men in Uncorrected and Cor­ rected Participant Group ................. . . . .

348

Linear Relationship Between Ape Stopped Attend­ ing Sunday School and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Uncorrected and Corrected Par­ ticipant G r o u p ..........

349

Linear Relationship Between Confidence In Suc­ cess of Marriage and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Uncorrected pod Corrected Par­ ticipant G r o u p ............

349

Linear Relationship Between Attitude to H a v i n g Children and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Uncorrected and Corrected Participant Group . .

350

3.

4.

5.

6

.

7*

8

.

9.

10.

11.

Linear Relationship Between A.ttitude to Father When a Child and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Unconnected and Corrected Participant Group . . . .. 350 Linear Relationship Betv/een Number of Years School­ ing and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Un­ corrected and Corrected Interview Group ...........

331

Linear Relationship Betv/een Ratings of Happiness of Parents’ Marriage and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Uncorrected and Corrected Inter­ view G r o u p ..........

351

Linear Relationship Betv/een Age Stopued Attending Sunday School and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Uncorrected and Corrected Interview Group . 352 Linear Relationship Betv/een Confidence in Success of Marriage and Engagement Adjustment Score for Ken in Uncorrected and Corrected Interview Group Linear Relationship Between Attitude to Having Children and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Uncorrected and Corrected Interview' Group ...

-xxvii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

. ’ 552

353

F ig u r e

12.

13.

Page

Linear Relationship Between Attitude to Father When a Child and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Uncorr-ected and Corrected Inter­ view Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

353

Linear Relationship Between Present Attitude to Father and Engagement Adjustment Score for Men in Uncorrected and Corrected Interview G r o u p ...............

354

-xxviii-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem The problem of this investigation was to determine (a) the characteristics of participants and non-participants in a so­ cial-psychological study,

and (b) the characteristics of persons

who participated under different conditions.

The subjects were

engaged me n and women who were asked to participate in a study the object of which was to discover the factors associated w i t h adjustment In engagement and to test the feasibility of the p r e ­ diction of marital success,^ Initially,

Participation in the study Involved 2 answering an eight-page schedule containing questions

of an autobiographical nature, stone psychoneurotic Inventory,

an abbreviated version of the Thur and items assessing the satisfac­

tion of the subjects with their engagement.

Participants were

given the option of signing the schedules or remaining anonymous but were told that a follow-up study would be greatly facilitated if they gave their names and addresses.

All participants were

asked to co-operate further b y volunteering for interviews. In addition to the schedules filled out by the subjects themselves,

their friends or acquaintances through w h o m they ob­

tained the schedules filled out short forms giving certain Infor3

mation about the subjects.

This information was also obtained

^"One Thousand Engaged Couples,” unpublished study by E.W. Burgess and Paul Wallin. 2 See Appendix A for a copy of this schedule. 3

See Appendix A for a copy of this form. _

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

regarding persons who refused outright to participate in the study or who accepted schedules but did not return them.

Comparisons

could thus be made in some manner between non-participants and all who participated in the study. The data obtained from the two sources described permitted comparisons on a large number of characteristics"^ b etween the four following groups: 1.

Those who were asked to but did not fill out schedules.

2.

Those who filled out schedules

anonymously.

3.

Those who signed schedules

facilitate follow-up

(to

three years later). 4.

Those who signed schedules and

volunteered for inter­

views. The data available on these four groups made possible an attempt to answer the question w h i c h constitutes the problem of this investigation, namely?

W h a t variations in personal at t ri­

butes are associated with participation or non-participation and with variations in type of participation in the engagement study? This question has b oth methodological and substantive significance. It will be discussed here in the context of engagement and m a r ­ riage research although the methodological and substantive problems involved undoubtedly could be raised wherever subjects are required to give detailed and intimate information about themselves and wherever these data are obtained from volunteer subjects by means of schedules or Interviews. The two p r o blems— the methodological and the substantive-do not Involve two independent lines of investigation.

The in­

vestigation Is unitary, but its results have a dual significance. ^Therewere less data for group 1, the non-participants, than for the other groups, since only the short forms filled out b y friends were available for them.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-3From tine point of view of methodology,

the determination of the

degree to w h i c h the four groups distinguished above differ from one another will constitute a contribution to the problem of sampling.

The establishment of such differences will indicate

the extent to w h i c h the selective factor introduced by the method of obtaining subjects limits the applicability of the findings of the research.

The substantive problem of the present investiga­

tion is the explanation of the behavior differences shown by the persons whose co-operation was asked.

From this standpoint the

present research is a social-psychological study of wh y the four groups behaved as they did with respect to the engagement research. The methodological and substantive problems will be discussed sep­ arately below. The Sampling Problem Most studies of marriage and many social-psychological r e ­ searches are dependent on volunteer subjects and since willingness on the part of Individuals to participate in a given study consti­ tutes a selective factor it is important that we know something of the nature of the selective factor involved.

Moreover,

since stud­

ies differ in their methods of data collection, some requiring per­ sonal interviews while others obtain the requisite information through the use of anonymous or signed schedules, we need to know whether these various conditions have a differential influence on the selection of subjects. Since the selective factor introduced by dependence on volunteer subjects is, as a rule, unknown and consequently cannot be controlled,

there is a tendency to do no more than point it out^

1

Terman, for example, notes that "Willingness to serve as subjects in the investigation was naturally a selective factor in the case of b o t h the married and divorced couples." Lewis M. T e r ­ man ejt al., Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness (New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o ., 1 G 3 S), p^ 19.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-4and express the hope that it imposes no serious limitations on the findings of the study.

The sample is usually characterized

in terms of the age, income, education, majority of the subjects,

religion, etc.,

of the

comparisons are made when feasible with

the distribution of the same characteristics in the general p opu­ lation,

and the caution expressed that findings are applicable

only to persons possessing the stated attributes.

The validity

of inference from the sample to a parent population is, however, contingent on a demonstration of the fact that dependendence on volunteer participants co-operating under particular conditions does not introduce a bias into the sample which influences the findings and consequently calls for a more precise delimitation of their applicability than that indicated through specification of the sample in terms of age,

income, etc.

Unless we can be

reasonably sure that in depending on volunteer subjects we are not obtaining a sample biased with respect to what might be called psychological attributes, or that such bias--if present--does not appreciably affect the findings, we must admit uncertainty as to the limits of applicability of our findings.

This difficulty was

recognized by Burgess and Cottrell in their study of 526 married couples and is discussed by them as follows* It has sometimes been stated that the subjects who respond to questionnaires on personal matters have certain personality characteristics that weight the results. Thus it is argued that only people with personality problems will respond to r e ­ quests that they fill out such forms. So-called normal people, it is said, ignore such requests. If this be true, there is an uncontrolled bias in this and all similar studies. Ade­ quate evidence is lacking to prove or disprove that a psycho­ logical bias is present in this study. They then proceed to show that their sample is not weighted with neurotic subjects, using total score on the Thurstone Personality ^Ernest W. Burgess and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., Predict­ ing Success or Failure In Marriage (New York: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1939), p. 28.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-5Inventory as the measure of neuroticism.1

This, however,

was not

considered an adequate test of psychological "bias in their sample and the question was left open. sition of his

Terman in discussing the compo­

sample observes that "...it probably contains a

rather large proportion of subjects interested in uplift activi­ ties or in matters of self-improvement.

This bias to the extent

that it was present doubtless contributed to the co-operativeness 2 of the subjects., If persons of the type Terman describes are more favorably disposed to participation in marriage research,

the

consequence may be the weighting of marriage studies w i t h subjects having a particular type of personality and particular social and individual attitudes.

Insofar as this could be demonstrated it

would necessitate that the findings of marriage research be qual­ ified accordingly, unless it could be shown that the bias in the selection of subjects for this research does not influence the findings. Marriage research and other social psychological studies may be biased in their sampling not merely by the fact of depen­ dence upon volunteer subjects, but beyond that by the nature of the participation required of these subjects.

Persons who might

be willing to reveal Intimate data about themselves under condi­ tions of unquestionable anonymity might refuse to participate u n ­ der any other circumstances.

Those who might have no objection

to signing their names to schedules might be very unwilling to ac­ cept a personal interview by the investigator.

Those who v o lun­

teer for interviews may be personality types quite different from those not willing to participate under this condition.

If it were

found that those who volunteer for anonymous participation are not 1 Ibid., pp. 28-29. 2

Terman,

op. cit., p. 41.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

distinctly different from non-participants,

the question of p s y ­

chological bias in schedule studies might not be so important since the investigator,

if necessary,

serve the anonymity of his subjects. of the interview situation.

can usually contrive to pre­ This is not so in the case

In studies requiring this type of

participation anonymity must be sacrificed. therefore,

It becomes important,

to determine the extent to which interview subjects

differ from others.

This question is of immediate significance

for the study of engaged couples which provided the data for the Investigation of the problem here being discussed,

since some 250

of the 1,000 couples In the research were interviewed. The sampling problems under discussion arise in fields of social-psychological research other than that of marriage. example,

For

in psychiatric studies of abnormal and normal personali­

ties w hic h depend on volunteers for the normal group, a knowledge of the selective factor is obviously of major Importance.

Are

the ”more normal" likely to volunteer as subjects or are the "less normal" attracted to such research?

Do volunteers for such re­

search have special characteristics which prompt them to partici­ pate or which at least form a necessary If not sufficient condi­ tion of participation? The questions of sampling bias which have been raised can not be answered adequately short of empirical investigation.

Lack

Ing knowledge of the factors associated with the selection of sub­ jects, research workers are unable to do more than guess whether the type of problem they are studying and the manner in w h ich they are collecting their data tend to select persons of a particular kind and thus impose limits on the applicability of their findings limits which are Insufficiently indicated by a socio-economic char acterization of the sample.

It would be reassuring to discover

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-7

that the selection of volunteer subjects is a function of some chance factor -which does not affect the conclusions but if this is not so it is well that the nature of the selective factor be brought into the focus of attention in order that it may be better controlled when the sample is being sought or so that, if n e c es­ sary,

the conclusions drawn from a biased sample can be qualified

accordingly. The general problem of sampling has long been studied by statisticians and rigorous methods for the reduction of bias in sampling have been developed.1

Investigations of sampling bias,

however, have as a rule been made with reference to the bias eman­ ating from the person selecting the sample or resxilting from the 2 sampling method employed. This Investigation is to the w r i t e r ’s knowledge the first empirical study of the problem of bias In sampling which arises from dependence on volunteer subjects.

It

compares participants and non-participants in a study of engaged couples and presents a more detailed comparison of three types of participants.

Finally,

a method Is presented for evaluating the

extent to which the bias in the participant group affects the find­ ings on factors associated w i t h adjustment In engagement.

The sane

method is used to evaluate the influence of bias In the Interview group.

The conclusions are applicable only to this particular

study of engaged couples and others comparable with it but If the operation of an uncontrolled selective factor can be demonstrated ^For a comprehensive discussion of the theory and problems of sampling see G. Udny Yule and M.G. F.endall, An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics (London; Charles Griffin and Co., 193 V ) , pp. 332-412. For a particular study of the operation of bias In sampling, see F. Yates, "Some Examples of Biased Sampling," Annals of Euge n i c s , VI (June, 1935), pp. 202-13. 2 See Clyde V. Kiser, "Pitfalls In Sampling for Population Study," Journal of the American Statistical Association, XXIX (September^ 1954"), 2(50-56. TKTs is an empirical Investigation of the effect of bias on the findings In a study of birth rates. The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

in one type of social-psychological research it should serve to emphasize the necessity of similar analyses in other studies which obtain their data from volunteer subjects co-operating under d i f ­ ferent conditions. The Substantive Problem As indicated above, deals with the question: being studied and,

investigation of the sampling problem

Do differences exist between the groups

if so, would these differences affect the con­

clusions which w o uld be obtained if a study were made of any one of the groups alone?

The answer to this question would make pos­

sible a precise delimitation of the applicability of findings for different types of samples. swer a second question:

Our data also can be examined to an­

W h y do the groups differ in their behavior

Presented w i t h an appeal to participate in a research project, why do certain persons refuse to participate,

others agree to partici­

pate anonymously or to reveal their identities,

and yet others co­

operate to the m a x i m u m by volunteering for personal interviews? Studies in marriage and other social-psychological inves­ tigations whose data include subjects* reports of their attitudes, evaluations of self and others,

and many forms of autobiographical

data have in common the requirement that subjects reveal aspects of their personal histories culturally defined as private to the individual.

The individual is free, of course,

to reveal whatever

he pleases about himself and in certain socially sanctioned r ela­ tionships most persons do so w i t h varying degrees of restraint. Self-revelation is normally the case in the friendship relation­ ship and in certain professional situations such as that of the bias was the result of failure to revisit homes originally missed when the data were being collected and. to the omission of informa­ tion regarding secondary families.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

patient vis-a-vis the psychiatrist. common firstly,

These relationships have in

the fact that the confidential nature of whatever

is told is taken for granted^- and, secondly,

that they serve some

ostensible purpose for the individual concerned.

Confidences are

revealed in the professional relationship when the individual is under the stress of some difficulty from w h i c h he is seeking r e ­ lief.

Confidences in the intimate friendship situation are re­

vealed as a mat t e r of course. the relationship: tions it offers)

They constitute the life-blood of

without them friendship (and all the satisfac­ cannot be developed nor maintained.

The research relationship of subject and investigator dif­ fers in some respects from both the friendship and professional relationships.

That the confidential treatment of what they reveal

is not taken for granted by subjects in most social-psychological research is suggested by the frequent assumption of research w o r k ­ ers that maintenance of anonymity is essential or at least d e s ir­ able for encouraging subjects to reveal the truth about themselves. Moreover,

the self-revelation of the subject in the research situ­

ation ostensibly does not have the instrumental character of the friendship and professional relationshkps since answering a sched­ ule or serving as an interviewee offers no apparent compensation. Whatever the motivation for participation in research,

it

apparently does not hold for a large proportion of the persons to w h o m appeals for co-cperation are made.

This has been frequently

demonstrated by the low percentage of returns in most studies which depended on volunteer subjects.

In the field of marriage research,

for example, we note that Davis in her study of the sex life of married and unmarried women received requests for her schedule ^"In the case of the lawyer, doctor and priest the inviolacy of such confidences is given legal protection.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-10from only about one-third of the ten thousand women to w h o m she wrote for co-operation, schedules.

and only one-third of these returned the

Returns were thus received from slightly over ten

per cent of the original population.

That the low proportion of

returns cannot be attributed solely to the character of the in­ vestigation is indicated by the returns of other less specialized studies.

Burgess and. Cottrell2 received about thirteen hundred

returns from the seven thousand schedules which they distributed, roughly about twenty per cent.

However,

since a large number of

schedules were placed in such a manner that it could not be known whether or not they reached the couples for whom they were inten­ ded, there is no way of determining how many of the schedules were effectively placed.

But even if it be assumed that as many as

fifty per cent of the schedules distributed were not effectively placed,

it can still be maintained that a considerable proportion

of those who were given the opportunity to participate in the study failed to do so.

Somewhat the same percentage of returns was r e ­

ceived in the study of engaged couples the data of which were used in the investigation being reported here.

In this study, too,

it

is impossible to determine w i t h any degree of certainty the p r o ­ portion of schedules which were effectively placed, rough estimate can be made.

although a

Schedule distributors were asked to

fill out forms giving certain data about each couple asked to par­ ticipate.

These forms were returned for three out of every four

couples who participated in the study.

In addition, 713 of these

forms were returned for couples who did not w i s h to co-cperate. Assuming the distributors' forms were returned for non-participants in the same proportion as for participants, we can estimate that "^Katherine Bement Davis, Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty two Hundred W o m e n (New York: Harper and Bros., 1029). 2

Burgess and Cottrell, op. clt.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-1 1 -

952 effectively placed sets of schedules were not returned as against

1 ,0 0 0

which were.

iar statistics could he cited for

other types of research to support the argument that in most in­ stances a large proportion of persons decline to participate. Data on the proportion of participants who volunteer for inter­ views or respond to schediiles anonymously or non-anonymously are not very numerous since most researches do not offer this choice of type of particioation.

The Burgess-Cottrell study in which

persons who filled out schedules were ashed to co-operate further by coming in for interviews or writing extended reports about their marriage obtained this type of participation from about twenty per cent of the subjects who returned schedules.

In the

engaged couples research 417 of the 1,000 men in the study vol­ unteered for interviews, 234 signed their schedules and 163 an­ swered the schedules anonymously.

Of the women, 378 volunteered

for interviews, 237 signed their schedules and 177 did. not.

1

It appears, then, that co-operation as subjects in re­ search is not obtained, from a substantial number of persons whose assistance is solicited.

The motivation for the co-operation—

in varying d e g r e e s — of those who do respond despite the sacrifices of time and privacy required is not so clear as the motivation for similar sacrifices under other circumstances.

The marked differ­

ences in behavior with respect to participation in research con­ stitute a problem which,

irrespective of its implications for

sampling, is in itself worthy of investigation.

■*"The men and women respectively do not total 1 , 0 0 0 be­ cause 186 of the former and 208 of the latter filled out an earlier form of the schedule used in the study which requested subjects to sign their names only if they were willing to be in­ terviewed. These 186 men and 208 women can therefore be classi­ fied as non-interview but cannot be treated from the standpoint of whether they chose to answer the schedules anonymously or not.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-12How the Data Were Collected Two sets of data were used in this study, one for the com­ parison of various types of participants,

the other for the com­

parison of participants and non-participants.

These two sets of

data will be discussed separately below. The Data for the Comparison of Types of Participants The data for the comparison of types of participants were obtained from the eight-page schedules filled out by the one thous­ and engaged m e n and women who constituted the subjects in the study of adjustment in engagement and marriage.

Six thousand pairs of

schedules were distributed to persons who promised to place them, and returns were received from approximately 1,200 couples.^

A

small number of the returned schedules could not be used because they were incompletely filled out and the decision was made to use only the first one thousand complete pairs returned.

A self-

addressed envelope was attached to each schedule and the subjects were instructed to mail the completed schedule to the research of­ fice thus ensuring that their answers would not be seen by the persons from w h o m they received the blanks. The large majority (probably 90 per cent or more)

of the

schedules were placed for distribution with male and female under­ graduate and graduate students in colleges and universities in Metropolitan Chicago.

Most of the students were attending classes

in sociology, psychology,

law, theology,

or medicine and through

the co-operation of the instructors the writer was given the op­ portunity to describe the research to them during the regular lec­ ture hours.

In all, seventy-five or more such classes were visited,

and a standardized appeal for co-operation was soon developed. This ^See Page 10 for a discussion of the probable number of schedules which were effectively placed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

consisted of a brief discussion of the importance of scientific research in the field of marriage,

a description of the nature and

purpose of the engaged couples study and finally an appeal for aid in obtaining subjects.

Students were asked to take schedules to

be placed w i t h whatever couples they knew who were formally or informally engaged and who were living in Metropolitan Chicago. They were asked further to place schedules only with couples one member of w h ich had been to college for at least a year.

This

condition was imposed in order to limit the heterogeneity of the sample, but as will be seen later in the description of the e d u ­ cation of the couples who were asked to participate in the study the schedule distributors did not consistently observe this r e ­ striction. A large proportion of the schedules returned were those placed by students who distributed schedules as part of a class assignment.

A number of instructors in sociology and psychology

co-operated with this research to the point of giving partial credit for term assignments to students who elected to distribute a given number of schedules.

Each pair of schedules was numbered and a

record was kept of the schedules given the various distributors. The distributors were kept informed regarding the return of sched­ ules they had distributed and they were thus in a position to bring pressure to bear on couples who had accepted schedules but ha d not filled them out and mailed them to the research office. The question most frequently asked of the investigators was whether participating couples could obtain advice or whether they would be given prediction scores w h i c h would indicate the probability of their marital success.

In answering this question

care was taken to emphasize the strict policy set up for the study of giving neither advice nor scores to participating couples In

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

order to avoid securing co-operation under false pretenses.

All

that could he said was that persons filling out schedules would find them interesting and that many couples who had been inter­ viewed had told the investigators that they had found the inter­ view both interesting and helpful.

Co-operation was asked for as

a contribution to important research and the promise of personal compensation for participants was minimized. It was made clear to distributors of schedules that coup­ les who participated in the study could remain anonymous if they so desired.

Schedule distributors were informed that couples who

filled out the schedules anonymously could be reached for the f o l ­ low-up marriage study through the persons who placed the engage­ ment schedules w i t h them, but that since it w o uld be much easier to reach the couples directly it would help considerably if they gave their names and addresses.

Assurance was given that names

would be removed from the schedules immediately upon their receipt. Persons taking schedules for distribution were also told of the necessity of obtaining a large number of subjects who would be willing to come for interviews in addition to filling out the schedules and were asked to impress this fact on persons with whom they placed schedules. Below is a copy of the form w h ich was attached to the b o t ­ tom of the last page of the schedule given each subject.

The r e ­

sponse of subjects to this form constituted the basis of their classification for purposes of the study of factors associated w i t h different types of participation in the engaged couples r e ­ search,^

NOTE:

THE FOLLOWING SECTION WILL BE REMOVED FROM SCHEDULE IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT

■*"See Page 11 for the number of men and women who signed schedules, answered them anonymously, volunteered for interviews.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-15To make this research as practically useful and as scientific as p o s s i b l e , we should like to secure your co-operation in a followup study three years from now. It would help us greatly to do this if you would print your name and address below--an address through w h i c h y o u believe you can be reached three years from now* This information will be removed from the schedule and will be used confidentially for mailing purposes only. N a m e .................................................. A d dress................................................ In addition to the answers on the schedule, it is necessary that we get more detailed information through Interviews with engaged couples. Y o u will be aiding this scientific study a great deal if y o u would allow us a personal interview. You can be assured that you will talk with a professionally competent person who is experienced in these matters and who above all will strictly pre­ serve your confidence. It might be added that many persons have found these Interviews quite helpful. If yo u are willing to grant a personal Interview write your name, your present address and telephone number In the 3 pe.ce below. ............................... ............. . Name. Address ........... ............. . Telephone (for interview appointment ............... The Data for the Comparison of Participants and Non-Participants The data used for the comparison of participants and n o n ­ participants in the engaged couples research were obtained from a form filled out by persons distributing schedules for each couple with w h o m a set of schedules was placed.^"

In the early stages of

the research this form consisted of a single page and required the person filling It out to make the following four predictions regarding each couple who accepted schedules; 1.

W i l l the couple break up before marriage?

2.

How happy will the marriage be?

3.

How well will the couple adjust to one

another In

marriage? 4.

Will the marriage end In separation or divorce?

In cases where the schedules were procured directly by engaged persons (rather than through an intermediary) they were requested to have the supplementary form filled out b y someone sufficiently acquainted w i t h them to give the required informa­ tion.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-16These predictions were secured for couples who answered the sched­ ules

and for couples who accepted schedules but failed to return

them. ’JVhen the distribution of schedules had been under way a short time the form containing the predictions was enlarged in order to obtain more data from the schedule distributors regard­ ing couples whom they asked to participate in the study.

Some

items were introduced which described the distributor's approach to the couples,

some questions sought information about the socio­

economic status of the couples and others called for ratings of the couples on selected personality traits.

An additional inno­

vation was that persons distributing schedules were instructed to fill out one of the new forms for each individual or couple who was asked to participate in the study regardless of whether schedules were accepted or not.

In this wa y data were obtained

regarding a large number of couples who did not participate as well as for those who did.

The prediction data included in both

of the forms described were obtained for 799 participating couples and for 713 who did not participate.

The expanded forms containing

data about the couples In addition to the predictions were secured for only 552 of the 799 participant couples and 423"^ of the 713 who did not participate. How the Data Were Treated The Data for the Study of Types of Participants The participants in the study of engaged couples were classified as Individuals Into three groups on the basis of whether they answered the schedules anonymously, revealed their identity ^Of these 321 were couples who accepted schedules but did not return them and 102 were couples who refused outright to a c ­ cept them.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-17by signing the schedules, for interviews.

or filled out schedules and volunteered

For convenience of discussion these groups will

be referred to respectively as the NS group (persons who did not sign their names), the S group (those who signed) and the I group (those who volunteered for interviews).

In addition to studying

the behavior of men and. women as individuals it was considered desirable to study their behavior as couples.

However, using the

same classification for the co u p l e s ’ joint behavior as was used for classifying the behavior of the individual members of the couples would have resulted in nine groupsings

(the combinations

of I, S, NS me n w i t h I, S, NS women)

in a number of which there

would have been extremely few cases.

Since for the purposes of

the engaged couples study it was particularly important to know whether differences existed between couples who volunteered for interviews and those who did not (regardless of whether or not they signed their names)

the decision was made to classify the

couples in this tv/ofold way.

For brevity of reference the couples

both members of which volunteered for interviews will be referred to as the I couples,

and couples neither member of which v o lun­

teered will be called the NI couples. The I, S, and NS groups were compared on all but a few of the items Included In the engaged couples schedule.

They were

first compared w i t h respect to their individual characteristics, I.e., the characteristics of the me n were studied in relation to whether the m e n fell in the I, S, or NS group and similarly for the women.

Since it was thought that an individual’s behavior

might be a function not of the In d i v i d u a l ’s characteristics alone but rather of the characteristics of both members of the couple,^^"Although the men and women of the couples were instructed not to confer In answering their schedules, it Is quite possible that many did discuss the quests on of whether to remain anonymous,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the I, S, and NS groups were also compared with respect to the joint characteristics of the couples.

The joint characteristics

of the couples were also studied in their relation to couple b e ­ havior,

i.e.,

or NI group.

in relation to whether the couples were in the I Tables are presented in the text showing the r e la­

tion of the individuals’ characteristics to the individuals’ schedule behavior.

Tables showing the relation of the c o u p l e s ’

joint characteristics to the individual behavior of the msn and women -and to the behavior of the couples have been placed in the appendix in order to facilitate the reading of the textual m a ter­ ial. For purposes of the sampling aspect of the problem of this study it would have been sufficient merely to state the items on which the I, S, and NS individuals and I, NI couples differed significantly.

An analysis and listing of a large number of dis­

crete items, however, would not have been very satisfactory,

for

the purpose of obtaining some understanding of the differences in motivation w h i c h might explain the differences in the behavior of the groups studied.

To satisfy this interest the individual

items were examined with a view to the possibility of their clas­ sification into a series of factors.

It proved feasible to sub­

sume the items under eight factors which are in the nature of h y ­ potheses suggested by the data and which the items made it possible to test at least tentatively.

Ideally,

of course,

it would have

been preferable to subject the items to a mathematical factor an­ alysis or some equivalent procedure.

Since the Items were not

set up with this type of treatment in mind and would not readily lend themselves to it, they were classified on an impressionistic sign their names, or volunteer for interviews. This is strongly suggested by the fact that in the case of the majority of the couples both members acted alike.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-19basis . The eight factors and the items included in them are dis­ cussed in Chapter XII.

An examination of the items in the f a c ­

tors will indicate that many of them seem rather obviously to hang together and where this is the case there can be little quarrel with the grouping of the items.

Where some items did not

seem to fall so clearly in the cluster of items under a given f ac­ tor they were nevertheless included where it was thought they most approximately belonged rather than treated, as discrete items since some argument could be made for their Inclusion.

However,

an ar­

gument admittedly could be made for the assignment of some margin­ al Items to factors other than those in which they were placed. To determine the relative effectiveness of each of the eight factors In discriminating between the I, S, NS men and w o ­ men weights were assigned the items in the factors^-and a score obtained for e ach person on each of the factors. the sum of scores obtained, on all the factors,

The total score,

indicates the dif­

ferentiating value of all the items whe n taken together.

By scor­

ing the items on a new sample of I, S, NS men and women it was possible to determine the stability of the factors In d iscrimin­ ating the three types of participants.

The item scores also made

it possible to investigate the intercorrelation of the factors. Finally,

the scores were used as a basis of correcting the bias

in the interview group,

thus permitting the comparison of findings

in the interview group w h e n unccrrected and w h e n corrected for bias. The Data for the Study of Participants and Non-Participants Participants and non-participants were compared on data ^Item sub-catefories associated with subjects being in "the interview group were scored 1; sub-categories other than these were scored 0.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-20obtained from persons who solicited their co-cperation in the study of engaged couples.

The participants are the couples who

accepted schedules and sent them in; the non-participants are the couples who either refused outright to participate in the research or who accepted schedules hut failed to turn them in.

Since the

end result of the behavior of the two latter types was the same, namely, non-participation,

they were treated as a unit.

For items such as schooling or rellgloijs affiliation which relate to the chsracteristics of the individual men and women of the couples,

comparisons were made between (1) the given

characteristics of m e n participants

and m e n non-participants,

and

(2) the given characteristics of women participants and w o m e n n o n ­ participants,

and (3) the joint characteristics of participant

and non-participant couples.

On items relating to the couples,

such as the predictions made regarding their future happiness, comparisons were made only between couples. In order to determine also w h e t h e r non-participants were more similar to some types of participants than to others,

the

non-participant men were compared w ith the participant men classi­ fied by w hether they volunteered for interviews, not sign their schedules. women.

signed or did

A similar analysis was made for the

Finally the non-participant couples were compared with

couples who volunteered for Interviews and those who did not. A number of significant differences were found between non-participants and participants w h e n the participants were treated as a single group but fewer differences were obtained on the comparisons in which the latter were classified by type of participation.

Data are presented In Chapter II only for the

items wh i c h proved to be differentiating. Since It was thought that the extent to which the dis-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-21trlbutors knew the couples about whom they reported may have in­ fluenced some of the data obtained from the distributors,

this

factor was held constant in making many of the comparisons b e ­ tween participants and non-participants.

It was possible to do

this since one of the questions asked of schedule distributors on the forms they filled out was how well they knew the couples regarding w h o m they were providing the data. After determining the extent to w h ich the individual items studied discriminated between participants and non-participants, crude weights were assigned to the significant items and a score obtained on these for participant and non-participant men and women.

These scores constitute a rough measure of the extent of

correlation between the significant items taken together and par­ ticipation in the study.

They also constitute an untested pr e­

diction system for calculating the probabilities that a man or woman possessing specified characteristics would participate In a study of engagement comparable to the one on which this Inves­ tigation is based.^

The most important use of the scores, h o w ­

ever, was that they provided a rough measure of the bias present in the participant group with respect tc all the characteristics on which data were available.

By means of the scores It then was

possible to make an approximate correction of the bias.

Having

corrected for the bias a number of the findings of the engaged couples study were tested in the corrected and uncorrected samples to determine whether there were any significant differences in 2 the findings for the two samples. It will be noted that the discussion of the collection ■^A second sample of participants and non-participants was not available for studying the stability of the prediction weights. 2

See Pages 166-72 for a detailed discussion of the method used In correcting the bias and testing Its Influence.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-22and treatment of the data did not include a description of the characteristics of the various groups dealt w i t h in this study. This departure from conventional procedure is due to the fact that the characteristics of the groups constitute the subject matter of this research.

It should be emphasized, however,

that

the conclusions of this Investigation apply only to the universe within which attempts were made to distribute the engagement study schedules.

This universe consisted predominantly of p e r ­

sons known directly or indirectly to students in the colleges and universities of Metropolitan Chicago.

This probably excluded the

large majority of young people In the lower economic classes who, It can be assumed, have relatively little contact with persons at the college level. This chapter has discussed the problem of the research here reported and its methodological and substantive significance. The collection of the data and the maimer in which they have been treated In the chapters which follow have also been described. Chapter II presents the data and findings for the study of pa r­ ticipants and non-participants in the engaged couples research. Chapter III presents the data and findings for the study of p e r ­ sons who participated In the research under different conditions. Chapter IV describes the procedure used to obtain quantitative scores to serve as a rough representation of the association b e ­ tween the items w h i c h appeared to differentiate the groups studied* In this chapter a method is also presented for correcting the bias in the participant group and a test is made of the influence of the bias upon findings In the engaged couples study.

The same

procedure Is followed in studying the bias In the interview group. Finally,

the stability of the differences found between the three

types of participants In the sample studied was tested on a sec-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

“23** end sample.

Chapter V summarizes the findings of the study and

compares them w i t h those of other research.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

C r:APTi'ifi' X X

THE CHAR 4GTERI8TI0S OF P/'HTIO IP -1TTS /-HD NON-PARTIGIP ANTS IF THE STUDY OF FUG AOED COUPLES In this chapter participants and non-participants in the stud 7 of engaged couples are compared on a number of character­ istics.

The purpose of the comparison was twofold.

Firstly it

sought to determine whether, as a consequence of being dependent on volunteer subjects, research in engagement and marriage tends to be based on a biased sampling of the population.

The extent

to which such a bias--if present--affacts the conclusions derived from the sample is investigated in Chapter IV.

The second purpose

of the comparison of participants and non-participants was to ob­ tain some understandring of differences in behavior with respect to research of this kind, namely, why do some persons participate whereas others r e ruse to do so? In addition to considering the question of differences between participants and non-participants it was thought desirable to make comparisons between non-particioants and participants with the latter classified by whether they volunteered for interviews, signed their schedules or ans—ered them anonymously. of the differential

Knowledge

characteristics of non-oerticipants and per­

sons who participate under various conditions was b e l i e v e d

to be

relevant for the problem of sampling sines it would indicate whether a given condition of participation makes for an Increase in sample bias.

If, for example,

it should be demonstrated that

the characteristics of subjects who participate anonymously tend, to differ from the characteristics of subjects who reveal their -24-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-25identity and approximate those of* non-participants,

it would fol­

low that studies which do not permit anonymous participation thereby add to the probability that their selection of subjects will be biased.

The comparison of the non-participants w i t h the

three types of participants was believed worthwhile,

too, for

what it might contribute to an understanding of the differences in behavior of the four groups of subjects. The data for the comparisons

indicated above were obtained

from forms^ one of which was filled out by schedule distributors for each couple whose co-operation in the study they solicited. In evaluating the data, participants and non-participants were regarded as differing significantly on items for which C . R ’s of 2 2.5 or over were obtained. Items were also considered signifi­ cant If the pattern of differences between participants and nonparticipants was the same for m e n and women subjects.

In addi­

tion to testing for the probability that percentage differences within items were due to chance,

coefficients of association were

calculated for all Items which appeared to be appreciably a sso­ ciated with subjects * participation in the study.

Coefficients

^A copy of this form Is given in /'■poendix A. . g The probability of obtaining a difference between two percentages having a standard error of 2.5 is approximately 1 In 80. The formula used to compute the C=R. for the difference be­ tween two percentages was; O. P -5 I

P -------

where D is the difference between the two percentages, and 15p* Is the standard error of the first percentage, and G'p2- , is the standard error of the second percentage. Calculation of the C . R . ’s was considerably facilitated by the use of tables prepared by Harold Edgerton and Donald G. Peterson. See their "Table of Stand­ ard Errors and Probable Errors of Percentages for Varying Numbers of Cases," Journal of Applied Psychology, (September, 1926), 37891.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-26of

.30

(or o v er)

only will

be reported.'"

Analysis of the characteristics of participants and nonparticipants indicates that they differ on the following items: 1.

How well known tbev rare to the oersons who asked them to particinste in the study.

2

.

Whether these persons were members of the family (or relatives), friends, or sc.qua intences.

3.

The amount of persuasion used before the schedules were accepted.

4.

Their reason for accepting the schedules.

5.

Level of education.

6

.

Religious affiliation.

7.

Age.

S.

How well poised them were rated as being by the per­ sons from whom they obtained the schedules.

9.

The r a t i n r s given them for conservatism or liberalism in their political and social ideas.

10.

The predictions made regarding the successful outcome of their engap-ernents•

When participants and non-participants v'ere compared, with the former classified by whether the?^ volunteered, for interviews, signed their schedules or answered then anonymously,

only five of

the above ten items continued to differentiate the groups.

These

1

The coefficients of association were computed by compressing the data of the larger tables into four-fold tables. The formula used was: } ad - be___ "v ” ad + bc~ where a, b, c, d represent the froqyeucies contained within t four cells. The formula for the standard error of -j is:

For a discussion of this measure of association see G. IJdny Yule and K. G. Kendall, An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-27items were i 1.

The amount of* persuasion used before the schedules were accepted.

2.

The reason for the schedules'

3.

Level of education.

4.

Religious affiliation.

5.

Age.

acceptance*

A number of items on which data were obtained failed to differentiate bet w e e n any of the groups studied.

These items

were: 1.

W h o m the schedule distributors approached in attempt­ ing to obtain subjects for the study (male member of couple,

female member or both).

2.

Present income of men and wo m e n subjects.

3.

The social status of their families.

4.

The economic status of the families.

5.

Ratings given the couple on aggressiveness.

6.

Ratings given the couple on conventionality.

7.

Ratings given the couple on reserve.

Since the data for these seven items were non-distinguishing they will not be reported and analyzed here. Consideration of the implications of the findings for the problems of this study are reserved for the final section of the chapter.

The data for the significant items will be presented

firstly on the comparisons between participants and non-partici­ pants with the former treated as a single group and secondly with, the participants classified by type of participation. of the items studied,

such as education or religion,

For some it was p o s ­

sible to examine the association between participation and the characteristics of b o t h members of couples treated jointly as well

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

29as the association between participation and the characteristics of individual subjects taken separately.

Since the findings for

the former were in the same direction as the latter they are not discussed in the text.

The data, however,

are given in the A p p e n ­

dix. Items Showing Differences Between Participants and Non-Participants W h e n Participants Are* treated as & Single feroup Three of the items discussed in the paragraphs which fol­ low are not descriptive of the subjects but are indicative rather of the conditions under which the schedule distributors approached the persons in the P and NP

2

groups.

While they do not contri­

bute to the sampling phase of the study,

these items are sugges­

tive for the aspect of the study concerned w i t h obtaining some understanding of why persons do or do not participate in this type of research. How well distributors knew subjects.--Table 1 presents the distribution of responses for the P and NP groups on the first of these three items, the schedule distributors*

reports

as to how well they knew the me n and women of the couples whom they approached.

The table indicates clearly that the proportion

of P m e n decreases and that the proportion of NP me n increases as the men are less well known to the persons who invited their participation.

3

A similar relationship Is shown for the women.

4

^The numbering of the Appendix tables containing these data corresponds to the numbering of the tables In the text which contain data for the same characteristics. 2

For convenience of discussion, men, women or couples who were participants are referred to as P men, w o men and couples. Similarly, non-participant men, women and couples are referred to as the NP men, women and couples respectively. ^In the MP group, the C.R. of .565 ("very well" and "well" combined with .479 ("slightly or not at all") Is 2.9. ^In the W P group,

the C.R. of .582 ("very well") w i t h

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

-29TABLE 1 HOW W E L L SCHEDULE DISTRIBUTORS KNEW PARTICIPANT (P) AND NON-PARTICIPANT (NP) MEN AND W O MEN Women

Men NP

%

%

56.0 57.1 50.9 47.9

Very well Well . . . . . . . . . . Moderately . . . . . • • Slightly or not at all. •

No.

44.0 42.9 49.1 52.1

416 347 324 384

P

NP

%

%

53

P

41.3 48.9 49.6 54.2

58.2 51.1 50.4 45.8

« , o

How Well Distributor Knew Subject

615 356 240 260

Relation of distributors to subjects.— A second item d e ­ scribing the relationship between the schedule distributors and the persons they approached was the question of whether they were members of the same family, relatives, friends, or acquaintances. Table 2 shows the relation of this item to the P and NP groups of men and women.

As was to be expected from the finding for the TABLE 2

RELATIONSHIP OP SCHEDULE DISTRIBUTOR TO PARTICIPANT AND NON-PARTICIPANT (NP) MEN AND WOMEN Men

Relationship of Distributor to Subject

Member of family . . • • • • Fhiend . . . . . . . . . . . Acquaintance or stranger • •

(P)

Women

P

NP

%

%

69.5 30.5 62.6 37.4 53.2 46.8 I ___

No. 59 329 278

P

NP

%

%

68.4 61.6 50.5

31.6 38.4 49.5

No. 79 401 186

previous item the proportion of P men and women is smaller and the NP proportion larger in cases where the schedule distributors were acquaintances of, or strangers to, the persons they asked to par­ ticipate in the study.^ .458 ("slightly or not at all") ^In the MP group,

is 3.4.

the C.R. of .637 ("member of family"

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Amount of persuasion used.--The final item which discrim­ inates between the P and NP groups but is not descriptive of the characteristics of the subjects,

is the amount of persuasion used

by the schedule distributors when asking persons to participate in the study.

Since information was not obtained on the amount

of persuasion used with the individual members of the couples, this item is presented onlv in its relationship to couple beha­ vior.

Examination of Table 3 reveals a negative relationship beTASLE 3 AMOUNT 0 "P PERSUASION USED BY SCHEDULE DISTRIBUTORS BEFORE SCHEDULES '"ERE ACCEPTED BY PARTICIPANT (P) AMD NON-PARTICIPANT (NP) COTTFLES I

-

i

->

'

f J -1

' &

Amounu oi rersussion P

NP a/ 35.8 44.6 66.7