611 70 17MB
English Pages 386
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