clarifying and measuring the concept of traditional vs. egalitarian roles in marriages

Sex Roles, Vol. 20, Nos. 11/12, 1989

Clarifying and Measuring the Concept of Traditional vs. Egalitarian Roles in Marriages 1

John Altrocchi and Ross D. Crosby University of Nevada School of Medicine and University of Nevada-- Reno

To clarify and develop a measure o f the concept o f traditional vs. egafitari- an marriages, a 13-item scale was developed and administered to two traditional groups (N = 35) and three egalitarian groups (N = 51), and then to four cross-validation groups (N = 52). Two distinct factors or dimensions were identified. In both analyses the traditional and egalitarian groups were significantly different on the first factor, designated "the leader, " and not on the second, socioemotional factor. Reliability and initial validity o f the scale m measuring leadership m the marital dyad are thus demonstrated. However, the concept o f traditional vs. egalitarian marriages either needs to be narrowed to refer to leadership only or there needs to be empirical demonstration that other dimensions can be fruitfully included.

Several hund red years ago in Wes te rn E u r o p e a n cul ture mar r i age was seen p r imar i l y as a rel igious and societal ins t i tu t ion to which ind iv idua ls became c o m m i t t e d in late adolescence or very ear ly a d u l t h o o d th rough a c o m b i n a - t ion o f sociore l ig ious forces and ind iv idua l choice (Bernard , 1972; Burgess, Locke , & Thomes , 1971; Mace , 1982; Shor ter , 1975; Strauss , 1974). The key social purposes o f this ins t i tu t ion evident ly were to keep sex under con t ro l , to p rov ide consis tency in child rear ing, and to assure c o m m u n i t y s tabi l i ty . The industr ial revolut ion and the cultural and social changes that were d rama- t ized by the F rench and A m e r i c a n revolu t ions decreased r igid c o m m i t m e n t s to the ins t i tu t iona l aspects o f mar r i age and increased a t t en t ion to needs o f

tWe are especially grateful to several friends, colleagues, and relatives who were instrumental in our obtaining subjects from different specific groups: Lloyd Borstlemann of Durham, North Carolina; Sarah Catron of Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Lyn Crosby of St. Paul, Min- nesota; Mary Harrington of Tahoe City, California; Debbie and Mike Jones of Chesapeake, Virginia; Jack Semmens of Tahoe City, California; and Cliff Stratton of Reno, Nevada.

639

0360-0025/fl9/0600-(3639506.00/0 © 1989 Plenum Publishing Corporation

640 Altrocchi and Crosby

individuals, thus opening the way for individual affection and romance to develop further in courtship and marriage (Bernard, 1972; Schlesinger, 1973). American democratic ideals further emphasized "inalienable" individual rights and more freedom from the roles of family, church, or commuLaity in spon- soring marriages (Bernard, 1972; Schlesinger, 1973). Economic growth, change from manufacturing to service industries, and economic need due to inflation have led more women to work, which has been accompanied by less restrictive attitudes toward women's roles (Ross, Mirowsky, & Huber, 1983). By 1980 in the United States, the Census Bureau no longer automati- cally denominated the male as head of the household (Bernard, 1981). Fi- nally, the "sexual revolution" that started a quarter of a century ago added increased expectations of sexual excitement and sexual satisfaction in marriages (Shorter, 1975), and the "women's rights" evolution added increased expectations of gender equality in rights and decision making in marriage (Scanzoni, 1982).

These historical trends have resulted in expectations of less traditional- ism and more egalitarianism in marriage for men and especially for women (McBroom, 1987; Weeks & Gage, 1984), and an increase in the kinds and magnitude of expectations of what one can expect from marriage, such as happiness, personal fulfillment, companionship, intimacy, sexual excitement, and sexual satisfaction. But increased expectations with very little increased training for marriage in our society has resulted in increased frequency of divorce. Nevertheless, marriage is still very popular and most divorced individuals remarry: With increased longevity, Americans are spending more years in marriage than ever before (Scanzoni, 1982). Finally, conceptions and expectations of marriage are still changing, and as is usual in times of cultural change, a variety of conceptions and expectations of marriage are apparent in our society today.

One prominent conception of marriage reflects the historical change away from the institutional/traditional marriage and toward more equality between husbands and wives (Pratt, 1972). There are some very traditional marriages in the United States and Canada today where the partners say that authority of church, God, and/or husband are paramount, and where obe- dience and submission are highly valued, and even some where elements of a community or family role in arranging marriages are still visible. In very egalitarian marriages the partners say that authority of church, God, and husband are not paramount, gender roles are flexible and negotiable, and individual needs overwhelmingly determine marital choice. The other theo- retical ext reme--a hierarchical marriage with the wife at the top of the hierarchy--is evidently not conceptualized by researchers or perceived by subjects (see the results section below) even though there may occasionally be such marriages.

Traditional vs. Egalitarian Roles in Marriages 641

In a more average range of such a conception, today we can easily see marriages, happy and successful (Altrocchi, 1988) or not, differing on what has been called a t radi t ional-companionship dimension (e.g., Burgess et al., 1971; Mace, 1982; Pratt , 1972). "Traditional" marriages tend to emphasize authority of God and/or husband and relatively fixed gender roles; "companionship" marriages tend to emphasize equality in partnership, openness in communication, more flexible gender roles, and a conception that marriages, to be successful, need to be worked on (Altrocchi, 1988; Mace, 1982). However, the terms traditional and companionship have some drawbacks: Each term has positive value connotations to some people and negative connotations to others, and the term companionship is not entirely accurate because close companionship is evidently a key factor in successful marriages today, of whatever kind (Altrocchi, 1988; Hine, 1980, 1985; Klagsbrun, 1985; Mace, 1982; Moschetta & Moschetta, 1984). Frequently today the terms traditional and egalitarian are used, a custom that we will follow.

In the long history (approximately half a century) of the use of a traditional-egalitarian classification of marriages (reviewed by Burgess et al., 1971, and Pratt , 1972), investigators have usually tended to rate couples, or had couples rate themselves, on brief rating scales or simple questions, none of which have been used often enough to become consensual or have been validated extensively. This paper presents a scale of perceived traditional vs. egalitarian roles in marriages, and attempts to demonstrate its reliability and initial validity. We also necessarily address the question of whether the tradi- t ional-egalitarian distinction can be usefully seen as a single dimension or whether it is composed of more than one independent dimension. Thus we also examine the useful meaning of the traditional -egalitarian conception itself.

M E T H O D

In the 13-item questionnaire, which resulted f rom a series of revisions of a earlier questionnaire (Altrocchi, 1988), each item is unidimensional and is used to describe the marriage as it is now (see Table I). I tem order has been randomized. Consistent with a long research tradition (e.g., Pratt, 1972), the questions were deliberately designed to accommodate all response alter- natives (wife... both equally.., husband) in a bidirectional fashion. In point of fact, the original conception of the tradit ional-egali tarian dimension is clearly related to that range of the response format f rom both equally to husband on many of the items, and to that range of both equally to wife on other items. Our expectations were that responses to many items would most typically fall in the upper or lower half of the continuum, with per-

642 AIIrocchi and Crosby

Table 1. Mar i t a l Ques t ionna i re

Please rate the fol lowing items according to the way your marriage functions now, not the way you would hke it to funct ion or th ink it should function_ There are no r ight or wrong answers ; we are s imply interested in an accurate descr ip t ion of these aspects of your marr iage .

Direc t ions : Circle the response that best describes your mar r i age now.

1 The person who is more adap t ab l e in our mar r i age is Wife Both equal ly H u s b a n d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2, The person who provides the emot iona l suppor t in our mar r iage is

Wife Both equal ly H u s b a n d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 The person who has the ma jo r responsib i l i ty for earning money in our marriage is


4. The person who is looked to for leadership in t imes of crisis in our marr iage is Wife Both equal ly H u s b a n d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5_ Feelings and emot ions in our mar i t a l in terac t ions are usual ly expressed by


6_ The person who makes the m a j o r decis ions in our mar r i age is Wife Both equal ly Husband

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 The person who takes the imt ia t ive in resolving confl icts in our mar r i age is


8 W a r m t h in our mar r iage is p rovided by Wife Both equal ly H u s b a n d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. The person whose career is more impor t an t in our marr iage is

Wife Both equal ly Husband I 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. The person who de termines the course of m a j o r events in our mar r iage is Wife Both equal ly H u s b a n d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. The "head of the family" in our mar r iage is


12. The person who p romotes coopera t ion m our mar r i age is Wife Both equal ly H u s b a n d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13_ The person who ini t ia tes c o m m u n i c a t i o n most of ten in our mar r i age is



ceived female domination in task leadership items being quite atypical and contrary to cultural norms. Although this pattern may occur in individual cases, and therefore its possibility must be taken into account in the questionnaire, it was not expected to occur often.

It must be emphasized that this is a scale by which people describe their perception of their respective roles in the couple relationship and not a scale that necessarily measures their actual behavior.

The questionnaire was first administered to five groups of married couples selected to emphasize probable differences on the traditional-egalitarian distinction. The two groups in which a traditional conception of marriages was anticipated were as follows:

1. Independent distributors from several Western states in an interna- tional corporation in which seminars, rallies, and training tapes repeat- edly present a general philosophy of life, business, and marriage that emphasizes distinct gender roles in which the husband initiates contacts and expands the business, and the wife maintain the business by means of sales and record keeping. The husband is taught to be assertive, the wife is explicitly taught to be submissive, and a conservative Protes- tant ethic is emphasized (8½ couples, N = 17.) 2. Members of a conservative Christian church that teaches husbands to go out in the world and achieve, and teaches wives to stay home and raise large families, and in which nearly all church leaders are men. (9 couples, N = 18.)

The three groups in which more egalitarian marriage were anticipated were as follows:

3. Graduate students or faculty members in clinical or social psychology in a prominent private university. These are fields in which the great majority of people emphasize liberal political views and espouse civil, personal, and individual rights and equality in marriage. (2 couples, N = 4.) 4. Couples from a major city in which at least one spouse is a member of the National Organization for Women (NOW), an organization at the forefront of the movement for women's equality of rights. (3 ½ couples, N = 7.) 5. Twenty couples (N = 40) from around the United States who are leader couples in the Association for Couples in Marital Enrichment (ACME) -- couples who lead marital enrichment retreats and other similar events. These couples tend to be in the generation whose children are now grown, so they tend to be stable and, in some ways, conservative, but the founders of ACME (cf. Mace, 1982) and the organization teach equality rather than hierarchy in marriage. Thus, this group provides a relevant, although stringent, test of the validity of the scale.


R E S U L T S

Principal Components Factor Analysis

Responses to the 86 ques t ionnai res were subject to pr incipal components fac tor analysis and were then ro ta t ed to a two- fac to r so lu t ion using Va r imax ro ta t ion . This p rocedure resulted in two factors account ing for 49.807o o f the variance (29.6 and 20.3070, respectively). The results are presented in Tab le II .

The i tems load ing on the first fac tor focus on the perceived " leader" o f the f a m i l y - - t h e head o f the fami ly , the decis ion maker , the person who de te rmines the m a j o r course o f events, and the "b readwinner . " High scores on this fac tor indicate tha t the husband is perceived as occupying this role, while low scores indicate that the wife is perceived as filling this leadership role. Scores in the mid range indicate t h a t this role is perceived to be shared equal ly by husband and wife.

I tems loading on the second factor focus on soc ioemot ional tasks within the mar r iage : p rov id ing warmth and suppor t , expressing feelings, p romo t - ing coopera t ion , and taking initiative in resolving conflicts. Again, high scores on this fac tor indicate that the husband is perceived as occupying this role, while low scores indicate tha t the wife is perceived as fill ing this soc ioemo- t iona l role. Scores in the midrange indicate tha t this role is perceived to be shared equal ly by husband and wife.

Fac to r 1 is most clearly re la ted to the theore t ica l d is t inct ion between t radi t ional and egali tar ian marriages. Clearly, high scores on this factor would be consistent with the concept ion of t rad i t ional marriages - the role of leadership and f inancia l suppor t are considered p r imar i ly the responsibi l i ty o f the

Table 11. Individual Item Loadings: Original Sample

Factor 1 Factor 2 Qll Head of family _8508 -.i151 Q4 Leadership in times of crisis _7706 .I437 Q6 Major decisions 7575 .0141 QI0 Determines course of major

events .7454 .1832 Q9 Career more important .6887 _0146 Q3 Responsibility for earning money .6673 .1268

Q8 Warmth .0995 .6936 Q7 Initiative in resolving conflicts .2604 .6824 Q13 Initiates communication _1457 .6780 Q5 Feelings and emotions expressed _1569 .6533 Q2 Emotional support 1093 _6322 Q12 Promotes cooperation .0111 5729 QI More adaptable -.1541 .5563


husband. Midrange scores on this factor , indicat ing that these roles are shared equa l ly within the mar r i age , would be assoc ia ted with the concep t ion o f an ega l i t a r ian mar r iage . Low scores, t h rough unexpec ted , would indicate tha t the l eadersh ip role is perce ived to be occupied by the wife.

Analysis of Factor Scores

Factor scores were computed for each respondent by summing responses to each o f the i tems associated with a given fac tor and dividing by the number o f valid responses on that factor . This p rocedure not only provides a me thod for hand l ing missing d a t a (e.g. , unanswered quest ions) but also p roduces fac tor scores tha t are based on the metr ic o f ind iv idua l responses (i .e. , 1-7). The cor re la t ion be tween fac tor scores was not s ignif icant (r = .165, ns).

A one-way mul t iva r i a te analysis o f va r iance was c o m p u t e d c o m p a r i n g fac tor scores be tween t r ad i t iona l and ega l i t a r ian groups . A conservat ive test o f d i f ferences was p e r f o r m e d by using the degrees o f f r eedom based on the number o f couples ra ther than individuals . Mul t iva r i a te tests o f d i f ference revealed a s ignif icant d i f ference be tween groups (Pil lais t race = .4228; ap- p r o x i m a t e F = 29.30; df = 2,41; p < .01). Un iva r i a t e F tests revealed a s ignif icant d i f ference be tween groups on F a c t o r 1 ( F = 53.35; df = 1,42; p < .01; t r ad i t iona l = 5.87, ega l i t a r ian = 4.74) but not on F a c t o r 2.

The ind iv idua l g roup means on F a c t o r 1 were consis tent with expecta- t ions. Mean scores for t r ad i t i ona l g roups were independen t d i s t r ibu to r s = 6.14 and church g roup = 5.58; means for ega l i ta r ian groups were: university g roup = 4.38, N O W group = 4.14, and A C M E group = 4.89.

Cross Validation

In o rder to cross va l ida te the f indings, the ques t ionna i re was ad- min is te red to three o ther g roups , aga in selected on the basis o f an t i c ipa ted d i f ferences on the theore t ica l d imens ion o f interest .

1. Member s o f a f u n d a m e n t a l Bapt i s t church in the South . Scores were expected to be s t rongly in the t r ad i t i ona l d i rec t ion . ( N = 16.) 2. Member s o f The A m e r i c a n Assoc i a t i on o f Univers i ty W o m e n ( A A U W ) and their husbands . This g roup is act ively seeking to a m e n d its bylaws so as to admi t men. Scores were expected to be in the egali tarian d i rec t ion . ( N = 11.) 3. Subjects f rom the or ig inal s tudy (Al t rocchi , 1988) who had been in- terviewed extensively in 1980 and 1984, and had been divided into t radi- t iona l and c o m p a n i o n s h i p (egal i ta r ian) groups on the basis o f Mace ' s

646 Aitrocchi and Crosby

Table ii!. Indxvidual Item Loadings: Cross-Validation Sample

Factor 1 Factor 2

Q6 Major decisions .8391 .0503 Q4 Leadership in times of crisis .7793 .1128 Qll Head of the family _7576 .0120 Q9 Career more important .7226 -.2910 Q3 Responsibility for earning money .6693 -_2339 Q10 Determines course of major events .5946 -.0220 Q12 Promotes cooperation .0903 .7724 QI3 Initiates communication -.0083 _7206 Q7 Initiate in resolving conflicts -.0456 _6599 Q1 More adaptable -.1354 .6441 Q2 Emotional support .5388 _6015 Q5 Feelings and emotions expressed -.2396 .5299 Q4 Warmth - .0153 .5253

(1982) concept ion o f the dimension. Their scores were expected to be

congruent with their previous classification. (N's: t radi t ional = 16,

egal i tar ian = 9.)

Responses were again subjected to a principal components factor

analysis and ro ta ted to a two- fac to r solut ion using a Var imax procedure.

The results, presented in Table III, conf i rm the original factor scoring. The

two factors accounted for 27.7 and 23.3°7o of the variance, for a combined

total o f 51.0°70.

The similari ty between the principal componen t s analyses o f the origi-

nal and cross val idat ion samples is remarkable , with the same variables load-

ing on the same factors. Only the order in which the variables loaded is di f ferent .

Again , factor scores were computed for each respondent in the cross-

va l ida t ion sample and a mul t ivar ia te one-way analysis of var iance was per-

fo rmed compar ing t radi t ional and egali tar ian groups. Mul t ivar ia te tests o f

d i f fe rence with degrees o f f r eedom based on the number o f couples again

revealed a s ignif icant di f ference between groups (Pillais trace :- . 1523; ap-

prox. F = 4.40; d f = 2,26; p < .05). Univar ia te F tests again revealed a s ignif icant d i f ference between groups on Fac tor 1 (F = 5.17; d f = 1,27;

p < .05; t radi t ional = 5.22, egali tar ian = 4.60) but not on Fac tor 2.

The individual group means on Fac tor 1 were modera te ly but not to-

tally consistent with expectat ions. The means scores for t radi t ional groups on Factor 1 were church group = 5.75 and original tradit ional group = 4.68;

means for egalitarian groups were A A U W group = 4.86, and original egalira- t ian group = 4.28.

Tradilional vs. Egalitarian Roles in Marriages

D I S C U S S I O N

647

Our findings generally support the usefulness of the long-standing traditional-egalitarian classification of perceptions of marriages and generally support viewing the classification as a dimension. We have developed a simple 13-i tem scale that reliably assesses two factors: leadership and socioemotional support. Scores on the leadership factor relate in predictable ways in criterion groups, and this factor, and the items that measure it, can be seen as reliable and valid measures. Our findings, however, do not support the propo- sition that marriages described as traditional vs. egalitarian, and differing on leadership, differ in any parallel fashion regarding who provides socioeco- nomical support, even though the other 7 items of our questionnaire pro- vide a reliable estimate of perception of who provides that socioemotional support. This implies that the traditional-egaliratian distinction needs to be drawn narrowly to refer to leadership in task roles until or unless someone can offer empirical demonstration that other dimensions can fruitfully be included in the traditional-egalitarian conception of marriages.

The 6-item traditional-egalitarian leadership scale provided by our first factor needs to be cross validated. Items that comprised the second, or socioemotional factor, were originally included because it was suspected by observers like Mace 0982) that the more traditional a marriage was, the more likely it would be that the wife carried out the traditional female roles of communicating, dealing with feelings, supporting, cooperating, acquiescing, and adapting. This did not turn out to be the case at all. In both studies the criterion groups did not differ significantly on this stable, reliable group of items. It should be noted that Krausz (1988) also found that socioemotional tasks are performed equally by husband and wife. We need to know what this stable group of items does relate to in marriages. It evidently does not relate to the distinction between traditional and egalitarian marriages, assuming that our criterion groups do differ on such a dimension.

The traditional-egalitarian leadership scale developed here may have some powerful applications because perceived "traditionality," described very similarly to the description in this paper, has been shown to relate to such variables as worse health and health behavior among both husbands and wives (Pratt, 1972), and rating rape as less unjustifiable (Muehlenhard, 1988).

\

Some other next research steps besides further cross validation would be to assess the interaction between the role-specific pattern of leadership studied here and situational variables; to compare husbands' with wives' view of the same phenomenon (the pair's relationship); to compare each of their views with what they would ideally like their relationship (or an ideal relationship) to be in respect to leadership; and to relate this leadership scale


to other scales that seems to tap into similar or related dimensions, such as belief in innate sex role (Mirowsky & Ross, 1987), the Attitudes Toward Wom- en Scale, which has been related to a number of rape-related beliefs and attitudes (Muehlenhard, 1988), and Bem's Sex Role Inventory (Bern, 1977), which evidently assesses a disposition or personality characteristic of individuals more than marital division of labor. Furthermore, a presumption that the long-term egalitarian trend in marriages in our society (cf. Mirowsky & Ross, 1977, for instance) might be paralleled in other societies that are at other stages in the same kind of historical development, leads to the possible usefulness of comparing different societies on a traditionality or hierarchy of leadership d imens ion-e .g . , India (Shukla, 1987) and Sweden.

REFERENCES

Altrocchi, J_ Happy traditional and companionship marriages. Social Casework, 1988, 69, 434-442.

Bern, S. L. On the utility of alternative procedures of assessing psychological androgyny_ Jour- nal o f Consulting and Climcal Psychology, 1977, 43, 196-205_

Bernard, J. The future of marriage. New York: World Publishing Co_, 1972 Bernard, J_ The good-provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 1-i2. Burgess, E_ W., Locke, H. J., & Thames , M. M. The family: From traditional to companion-

ship, 4th ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 197I. Hine, J. R. What comes after you say, "I love you"? Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books, i980. Hine, J. R. How to have a long, happy, healthy marriage. Danville, 1L: The Interstate Printers

and Publishers, 1985. Klagsbrun, F_ Married people: Staying together in the age of divorce. New York: Bantam Books,

1985_ Krausz, S. L. Sex roles within marriage_ Social Work, 1988, 31, 457-464. Mace, D. Close companions: The marriage enrichment handbook. New York: The Cont inuum

Publishing Co., 1982. McBroom, W. H. Longitudinal changes in sex role orientations: Differences between men and

women. Sex Roles, 1987, 16, 439-451 Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. Belief in innate sex roles: Sex stratification versus interpersonal

influence in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1987, 49, 527-540. Moschetta, P. V., & Moschetta, E. F. Caring couples: Inside the vital-total relationship. Faming-

dale, NY: Coleman Publishing, 1984. Muehlenhard, C L. Misinterpreted dating behaviors and the risk of date rape. Journal of Sa-

cral and Chmcal Psychology, 1988, 6, 20-37. Pratt, L. Conjugal organization and health_ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1972, 34, 85-95. Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Huber, J. Dividing work, sharing work, and in-between: Marri-

age patterns and depression. Amerrcan Sociological Review, 1983, 48, 809-823. Scanzoni, J. Sexual bargaining: Power politics in the American marriage, 2nd ed Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1982. Schlesinger, A. , Jr An informal history of love, U.S.A. In M_ C. Lasswell, & T. E. Lasswell

(Eds.), Love, marriage, and family: A developmental approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1973_

Shorter, E The making of the modern faintly. New York: Basic Books, 1975. Shukla, A_ Decision making in single- and dual-career famihes in India. Journal o f Marriage

and the Family, 1987, 89, 621-629. Strauss, E. S. Couples in love. Ph.D_ dissertation, University of Massachusetts, I974. Weeks, M. O. N., & Gage, B. A. A comparison of the marriage-role expectations of college

women enrolled in a functional marriage course in 1961, 1972, and 1978_ Sex Roles, 1984, 11, 377-388.

clarifying and measuring the concept of traditional vs. egalitarian roles in marriages

Documents