husband and wife roles

8/3/2019 Husband and Wife Roles

1/8

The Differentiation of Husband and Wife Roles

Author(s): Ernest R. MowrerReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Aug., 1969), pp. 534-540Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/349777 .

Accessed: 17/12/2011 10:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/349777?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/349777?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr


2/8

The Differentiation of Husband and Wife Roles*ERNEST R. MOWRER**

Role differentiation and identification in the marriage relationship may be analyzed in terms offour dimensions:power, instrumentalism,xpressiveness,nd companionship.t is hypothesizedthat there has been: (1) and (2) a diminution n the traditionalpowerand instrumental olesof the husband,(3) increasedsharingof the traditionalexpressiverole of the wife, (4) in-creased companionship,and (5) greater role differentiationthe higher the social status.Analysisof approximately ,200 interviews made in 1961 with suburbanwives supportseachof these hypotheseso varyingdegrees.The analysis s limited to interviews n predominantlymiddle-class ommunitieswhichprobably esults n the truncation f the differentiationradient.

THE integrationand differentiationof rolesof husband and wife with reference to eachotherandto theirchildrenare basic to the orga-nizationof the family.Among the earlywritersto use the conceptof role with reference o thefamily relationship s Lumpkinwho differenti-ates the husband, wife, and parental roles.1Kirkpatrickalso uses the role concept withreference o the wife, but not the husband,pre-sentingan analysisof the wife-mother, he com-panion, and the partnerroles.2Somewhat aterParsonsand Bales proposeda differentiation ffamily roles basedupon a two-dimensionalpar-adigmin which one axis is representedby supe-rior and inferiorpower, and the other in termsof instrumental ndexpressivepriority.Accord-ing to this pattern,the husband'srole is supe-rior in power and has instrumentalpriority,whereasthe wife's role is also in the superiorpowercell butcarries xpressivepriority.3Blood and Wolfe provide a basis for theanalysisof role differentiationn terms of thepower dimensionand division of labor in hus-band-wiferelations.4Winch, in his analysisofcomplementarity,uggests a considerablerangeof dimensions (12 needs and three generaltraits) which could serveas a basis for the dif-ferentiation of role patterns, and analyzes insome detail four complementaryrole pairs:

* This is a revision of a paper read at the Annual Meet-ings of the American Sociological Association in San Fran-cisco, August 28-31, 1967. The writer wishes to express hisappreciationto the Graduate Committeeon Researchof North-western University for its continued support of the researchproject from which this paper has been developed.** Ernest R. Mowrer, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus ofSociology, Northwestern University.1 Katherine D. Lumpkin, The Family: A Study of MemberRoles, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1933.2 Clifford Kirkpatrick, "Techniques of Marital Adjust-ment," Annals of the American Academy of Political andSocial Sciences, 160, p. 179.3 Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family Socializationand Interaction Process, Glencoe, Free Press, 1955, p. 46.4 Robert 0. Blood and Donald M. Wolfe, Husbands andWives, Glencoe: Free Press, 1960, pp. 16-70.

Ibsenian,Master-ServantGirl, Thurberian,andMother-Son, based upon two dimensions,dominant-submissive, nd nurturant-receptive.5Wolfe proposesa classification f marital rolesbasedupon a single dimension,authority,usinga testing technique by which the patterns ofwife dominance,husbanddominance,syncratic,and autonomicpatternscan be differentiated.6Herbst suggests four patterns of task perfor-mance differentiatedn terms of the dimensionsof activityand decisionthus producing he con-figurationsof autonomy,husband dominance,wife dominance,andsyncraticity.7Role differentiation and identification aretwo ends of a continuum: he maritalbehaviorsof husband and wife are either different oralike. That is, in the terminologyof Parsons,maritalroles are eitherparticularistic r univer-salistic. Role differentiationmay, in turn, taketwo forms: reciprocalor antipathetical.That is,the differentiation f roles of husbandand wifemay be complementaryor they may clash, re-sulting on the one hand in accordand, on theother, in discord. Likewise, role identificationmay be either conjuctive or disjunctive. That is,bothspousesmaytakethe same role at the sametime or at differenttimes, dependingupon thecharacterof role-taking. When husband andwife share in an activity,such as playing golftogether,thereis role identificationand the pat-tern is conjunctive.On the otherhand, if bothdisciplinetheir children,there is also role iden-tification, but it is likely to be disjunctive inthat,if bothattemptdisciplineat the sametime,complications relikely to arise which would beabsent f theychose different imesfor theirdis-ciplinaryactions.

5Robert F. Winch, Mate-Selection, New York: Harper,1958, pp. 135-220.6 Donald M. Wolfe, "Power and Authority in the Fam-ily," in Studies in Social Power, ed. by Dorwin Cartwright,Ann Arbor: The Institute for Social Research, University ofMichigan, 1959, pp. 99-117.T . G. Herbst, "The Measurement of Family Relation-ships," Human Relations, 5 (1962), pp. 3-35.

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY34 August 1969


3/8

Role differentiationmay take place with re-spectto a wide rangeof dimensions, he varietyof which is suggestedbythe 12 needs andthreegeneral traits postulated by Winch.8 For ourpurposes,however, we shall content ourselveswith four dimensions:power, instrumentalism,expressiveness, nd companionship.Differentia-tion in the power dimensionis a matter of su-per-subordination,and traditionally providedthe primarybasis for division of labor and thedevelopment of complementarityof maritalroles. Differentiation in the instrumentalandexpressivedimensions s the productof equali-tarianismwhich grantsone spousepriority,butnot monopoly,with respectto certain role per-formances,generallyalong the lines definedbythe sex role. Thus the husband'sclaimto prior-ity in determining the hour of breakfast interms of his job requirements oes not give himsuperiority,nor does the wife's primary espon-sibilityfor feeding the babymake for her supe-riority;neverthelesseach presents ts priorityofclaim for the respective pouses.Finally,differ-entiation in the companionshipdimension islargely a matterof culturaldifferentialswhichfunctionin the developmentof personalityandrepresentsautonomy n behavior n areaswheresharing s the culturalnorm.It is the hypothesisof this research hat thecontemporaryAmericanfamily is characterizedby (1) a diminution in the husband'spowerrole, through either sharing or transfer to hiswife, (2) appreciableoss upon the partof thehusband of the instrumental role, resultingfrom sharingwith or abandonment o his wife,(3) a substantial degree of sharing of theexpressiverole byhusbandandwife, (4) a con-siderabledegreeof companionship, nd (5) in-creasingrole differentiation he higher the so-cial status. Since the data to be analyzed arelimited to a single time period, the first fourhypothesescannot be definitivelytested. Whatwe shall do, therefore, s to measure he degreeof differentiationagainsta hypotheticalpatternsuggested by the literature on the traditionalAmerican family, there being no comparabledata availablefor comparison.As for the fifthhypothesis, his can be testedwithin the contextof the researchindings.Eleven hundredand eightywives were inter-viewed in 17 north-northwestChicagosuburbschosen for their representativenessn terms ofsocial status among 26 suburbs previouslystudied.9Questionsasked n the interviewswere

8 Winch, op. cit., p. 90.9 See Ernest R. Mowrer, "Sequential and Class Variablesof the Family in the Suburban Area," Social Forces, 40(1962-1963), pp. 107-112.

TABLE 1. TESTS OF THE POWERROLEPervcet ProbabilityRole Indicator* evi Error offrom Error OccurrencetEquality**

Most importantfamilymember 36.0 1.5 .001Final word in makingdecisions 24.8 1.4 .001Moreimportantspouse 12.0 1.5 .001Decidesplaceof residence 6.7 1.0 .001Moreresponsibleor familybudgeting - 6.3 1.4 .001More often disciplineschildren -13.0 1.2 .001Moreoften adviseschildren -23.0 1.5 .001*Answersare either husbandor wife.**Percent deviance is expressed n hypothesizeddirectionfromequality (the observeddeviance is twice this amount). Thus if 80percentof wivesregard heirhusbandsas more mportant hanthem-selvescompared o eight percentwhoregard hemselvesas more m-portant than their husbands, equality is achieved at 44 percent.Significance s determinedby using a one-sided test of probability.Obviously the proportionsof wives answering"equaldominance"are ignored n determining tatistical significance.t P values equalingor exceeding 001 are recordedas .001.

not intended to produce objective accounts ofthe behavior of husbands and wives with refer-ence to each other, to their children, to theirfriends and acquaintances, nor to society in gen-eral. Instead the questions were designed toelicit the wife's conception of her role and thatof her husband. The significance of her replies,therefore, lies in what is revealed regarding herconception of her own and her husband's be-havior and not their performances as might bedescribed by an objective bystander. It is herimage of herself as differentiated or identifiedwith her image of her husband with which thisanalysis is concerned-her role conceptionrather than her role performance.Traditionally, the assumption of superordina-tion upon the part of the husband was well rec-ognized and respected. He was by conventionthe arbitrary decision-maker and director offamily policy. The superordinate status of thehusband is reflected in his wife's answers tothree questions: "Which of you is the moredominant person?" "Who is the more impor-tant person in the family?" "Who makes deci-sions in matters of mutual concern?" Aboutthree-fourths of the wives credit their husbandswith superiority in this area. But when it comesto who budgets the family expenditures, decidesupon a place in which to live, disciplines thechildren, and advises the children, from three-fourths to three-fifths credit themselves as equalor superior in these aspects of the power role(see Table 1). Since the first three questionssuggest evaluation of worth rather than perfor-mance of tasks, this suggests that the husband'ssuperiority is primarily a matter of lip service tothe traditional pattern of husband dominanceand that, when it comes to task performances

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILYAugust 1969 535


4/8

TABLE 2. TESTS OF THEINSTRUMENTALROLERole Indicator* Deviance S.E. P.

Has moremechanicalability 32 3 1.5 .001Morecompetence n politicalchoices 26.5 1.4 .001Unqualifiedapprovalof husband'shomework rom office** 25.0 1.4 .001Moreaggressive 16.1 1.5 .001Greaterreadingof newspapers 11.8 1.3 .001Greaterparticipation n recreationalorganizations 2.8 1.3 .001Primaryresponsibility or children'seducation -3.5 1.0 .001Greaterparticipation n civicorganizations -6.0 1.3 .001More often helpschildrenwithhomework -8.0 1.2 .001

* Same as in Table 1, except for question ** where answers are"yes" or "no,"as explained n footnote to Table 4.

representedn the secondgroup of questions, tis the wife who takes the superiorrole. Thusthere is the inevitableconclusionthat the basisof real power in the family relationshiphaspassedfrom the husband o the wife in the con-temporary rbanizedmiddle-classamily.The instrumental role of the husband isbasedupon the expectations hat he will be pri-marilyresponsible or the supportof the fan-ily, and along with this go prerogativesasso-ciatedwith the world of work. His life adjust-ment is one of emphasis upon means ratherthan ends; of work as his primaryconcern inwhich he functions in a world separated romhis home and to which he owes primaryalle-giance.The instrumental ole of the husband sthat of the technicalexpert, the primarystatusbearer,the manipulatoro'f the environment nterms of future consumptionwhich he shareswithhis family.Indicativeof the husband's nstrumental oleare his readingof the daily news by which hekeeps en rapport with the world of work: theapprovalof his wife of his bringingworkhomefrom the office (thus sanctioning he intrusionof the workplaceinto the home); taking pri-mary responsibilityfor the education of hischildren;helping his childrenwith their home-work (his work responsibilities mply superiorknowledge); competence in political choice;participationn civic organizations;membershipin recreational rganizations;possessionof me-chanicalability;and being moreaggressive hanhis wife. In newspaper reading, winning ap-provalfor bringingwork home from the office,political competence, mechanical ability, andaggressiveness,a majorityof the wives credittheir husbands with either equal or greaterpriorityrangingfrom three-fifths o five-sixths.But one-half or more challengetheirhusband'sprioritywith respect o planningfor the educa-

tion of their children,helping the childrenwiththeir homework,and participationn both civicand recreationalorganizations.(See Table 2.)Thus while the instrumentalrole still remainsmore the prerogativeof the husbandthan thewife, the husband'spriorityis far from beingconclusive.The expressive role of the wife is one inwhich she is the "cultural"expert, the humanrelations virtuoso skilled in the mediation ofconflictswithin the family and providingdirec-tion to its members in activities which areimmediately atisfying n a consummaryashion.Even her activitiesoutsidethe home tend to betaken as "representative" f the family. Thusher role is organizedalong personal and emo-tional lines, whereas the instrumentalrole ofher husband is organizedin terms of rationaland impersonalconsiderations.10 ests of theexpressive role tend to fall into two groupsfrom the standpointof priority.Generally,thewife's greaterclaimto priorityconcernsher re-lationship to the neighborhood and her chil-dren. With respect o the largercommunity, heshares her role to a somewhatgreater degreewith her husband.Thus she equals or exceedsher husbandfrom five-sixths o almostcompletesupremacy; n neighborhoodcontacts;in timespentwith her children;as the agent of sympa-thy and understanding o her children; in su-pervisingher children's social contacts;and inshopping for the family. Only in her perfor-manceas the sourceof affection or her childrendoes she drop as low as three-fourths.Test ofher role in the community-representedby re-sponsibilityfor inviting relatives to her home,inviting friends to her home, participation nreligious organizations,and membership n so-cial organizations-show three-fourthsof thewives equaling or exceeding their husbands(see Table 3). This suggests that the modernwife has given up relativelylittle of her priorclaim to the expressiverole. This conclusion sfurther supportedby the fact that, except forthree-fourthsof the wives sharingequallywiththeir husbands as the source of affection fortheir children,the proportionof equal sharingnever reaches one-half and is more often one-third, even dropping to one-twentiethas theprimarysource of sympathyand understandingto her children.Nevertheless, he sharingof role-taking,gen-erally stronger with respect to the expressivethan the power and instrumental oles, is not to

tO See Parsons and Bales, oP. cit., p. 46; Bernard Farber,"Types of Family Organization," in Human Behavior -andSocial Processes, ed. by Arnold M. Rose, Boston, Massachu-setts: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962, pp. 290-293.

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY36 August 1969


5/8

be overlooked.Eventhoughone spousemayex-ceed the otherin a particular ole, this does notimply a complete absence of role-takinguponthe part of the other. Evidence points to theoverall conclusion, therefore, that there is nolonger, if there ever has been, any sharp divi-sion of functions within the modern family.Since this is the situation,one would expect tofind a considerabledegree of sharing betweenhusbandand wife in the form of companion-ship.Partof the patternof companionshipn mar-riagerelationsmaybe symbolized n the sharingof friendships. The husband and wife whoknow each other's friends are mutual partici-pantsin these friendships,eachsharingto somedegreein contactswith the friends of the other.Nine-tenthsof both husbandsand wives knowall or manyof the other'ssame-sex riends.Theproportion who know the spouses of thesesame-sexfriends is somewhat smaller at three-fourths.Thus husbandsand wives shareappre-ciablyin knowing each other'sfriends and alsothe spousesof these friends.When it comes to sharing n commonactivi-ties as a form of companionship,he degreeofcommonparticipation s somewhat less. Aboutfive-fourthsof husbandsand wives always orusuallyattend musical eventstogether,the mostfrequently haredactivity.Attendanceat moviesand viewing television together drop to three-fourths; participation n sports and attendingchurch together are lower at one-half (seeTable 4). Thus the degree of companionshipwould seem to be appreciable nd yet allow fora considerable egreeof individuality.The fifth hypothesis s concernedwith differ-entials in role-takingby social statusmeasuredin termsof occupationalclass and verticalmo-bility. Classificationof husbands follows theUnited States Census: professionals(includingTABLE 3. TESTS OF THE EXPRESSIVEROLE

Role Indicator* Deviance S.E. P.Primaryresponsibility or familyshopping 41.3 1.5 .001Spendsmore time with children 36.2 1.5 .001Closercontactswith neighbors 31.2 1.4 .001More often children'ssourceofsympathy 31.0 1.5 .001Primaryresponsibility or supervis-ing children'scontacts 30.4 1.3 .001Primaryresponsibility or invitingrelatives 29.4 1.4 .001Primaryresponsibility or invitingfriends 22.1 1.3 .001Participatesmore in socialorganiza-tions 15.9 1.2 .001Participatesmore n religiousorganizations 14.6 1.3 .001More affectionate oward children 10.1 1.3 .001* Sameprocedureas for Tables 1 and 2.

TABLE 4. TESTS OF COMPANIONSHIPRole Indicator* Deviance S.E. P.

Husbandknows all or many ofwife's women friends 27.4 1.3 .001Wife knowsall or many ofhusband'smenfriends 25.3 1.3 .001Husbandknowsall or many hus-bandsof wife's womenfriends 22,9 1.3 .001Wife knows all or many wivy:s fhusband'smenfriends 21.3 1.2 .001Alwaysor usually share musicalevents 24.1 1.3 .001Regularlyattend churchtogether 20.0 1.3 .001Alwaysor usually share movies 18.6 1.2 .001Alwaysor usually view television 12.6 1.0 .001Alwaysor usually share n sports .8 1.0 .400

* Devianceis the differencebetweentheproportionof wives whoseanswersare "yes" compared o those who reply "no." A two-sidedtest of probability s used to measuresignificance.

semiprofessionals),managerials includingpro-prietors), salesmen (including clerks), andcraftsmen.Verticalmobilityis divided into up-ward,stationary, nddownward, n termsof thedifferences in the occupational categories ofhusbandscompared o their fathers.Only thosetests which show a higher proportionof onespouseassuminga particular ole in the hypoth-esized direction are used. Thus, to illustrate,sincethe wife exceedsthe husband n disciplin-ing the children,this test is droppedfrom thoseused to measurethe power role. Comparisonsbetweencategoriesof occupationsand of verti-cal mobilityaremadein termsof the meansofpercentagesby which one spouse exceeds theotherfor the appropriateestsof each role.The degree to which husbands exceed theirwives in taking the power role differs for occu-pational groups in the following descendingorder; salesmen,managerials,professionals,andcraftsmen. Salesmenare significantlyhigher inassumingthe power role compared o the otherthree occupationalgroups which do not differamong themselvesby any appreciableamounts.Thus the significantbreak is between salesmenand non-salesmen see Table 5).The rankorder of claimto the instrumentalrole is: professionals, managerials, salesmen,and craftsmen.Professionals,however, are notsignificantly separated from managerials,normanagerials rom salesmen,although the sepa-rationbetweenprofessionalsand salesmen,andbetween salesmenand craftsmen is significant.But since professionals are significantlysepa-rated from salesmen,who in turn differsignif-icantly from craftsmen,as do managerials, herankorderwould seem reliablyestablishedeventhough less clearly defined than that betweenthe white- and blue-collaroccupations.For the expressiverole, the descendingrankorder is: professionals,salesmen, managerials,and craftsmen. Again as in the case of the

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILYAugust 1969 537


6/8

TABLE 5. ROLE DIFFERENTIATIONBY OCCUPATIONSRole Differentiation Devi- SE. P.ance*

Power RoleProfessionals-Managerials -. 5 1.5 .750Professionals-Salesmen -5.2 1.8 .003Professionals-Craftsmen 1.4 1.9 .440Managerials-Salesmen -4.7 1.7 .005Managerials-Craftsmen 1.9 1.8 .280Salesmen-Craftsmen 6.6 2.1 .002Instrumental RoleProfessionals-Managerials 1.9 1.1 .086Professionals-Salesmen 3.6 1.4 .009Professionals-Craftsmen 12.6 1.4 .001Managerials-Salesmen 1.7 1.3 .190Managerials-Craftsmen 10.7 1.3 .001Salesmen-Craftsmen 9.0 1.5 .001ExpressiveRoleProfessionals-Managerials .6 .7 .350Professionals-Salesmen .3 .9 .750Professionals-Craftsmen 2.3 .9 .010Managerials-Salesmen -. 3 .8 .670Managerials-Craftsmen 1.7 .8 .360Salesmen-Craftsmen 2.0 .9 .028CompanionshipProfessionals-Managerials .8 1.1 .460Professionals-Salesmen 3.6 1.5 .017Professionals-Craftsmen 6.8 1.6 .001Managerials-Salesmen 2.8 1.4 .046Managerials-Craftsmen 6.0 1.4 .001Salesmen-Craftsmen 3.2 1.7 .060

* Means of deviance for the tests of roles as definedin Tables 1-4, using only those indicators which sustainthe hypotheses. Probability of differences betweenmean proportions determined by two-sided test. Thus ifthe mean deviance for all of the positive power-roleindicators for professionals is 50 percent, and 40 percentfor managerials, the deviance is ten percent.

power role,the white-collaroccupationsaresig-nificantlyseparatedfrom the craftsmen,whiledifferingamong each other to a negligible de-gree. This suggests that the wife assumestheexpressiverole in comparisono her husband oa greaterdegree in white-collar han blue-collarfamilies, while variations among white-collaroccupationss of no importance.When one considers he tests for companion-ship, the rank order is professionals,manage-rials, salesmen,and craftsmen.The separationbetweenprofessionalsand managerials,and be-tween salesmenand craftsmenare not signifi-cant, whereas that between managerials andsalesmen meets the test of reliability. Sinceprofessionals are also significantly separatedfrom both salesmen and craftsmen,and man-agerialsfrom craftsmen,this suggests that thebasic differencelies between the professionals

and managerials,on the one hand, and thesalesmenandcraftsmen n the other.Thus the overall patternseems to be one inwhichthe white-collaroccupations reseparatedsignificantly from the blue-collar occupationsexcept with respectto the power role in whichsalesmenexceed all of the others,variationsbe-tween these latter groups being unreliable.However, as has alreadybeen pointed out, thepositivetests of the power role have to do withthe ascriptionof male superiority.It is signifi-cant that salesmen,whose occupational uccessdependsso greatlyupon aggressivesuperiority,are the group which exceedsin the power role.Furthermore, t is paradoxical hat the white-collar group which exceeds in the differentia-tion of the instrumental and expressive rolesalso exceeds in companionship,which is at theother end of the differentiation-integrationon-tinuum.In view of the fact that the craftsmenaretheleast mobile of the occupationalgroups"1andalso show less tendencytoward differentiationof spousalroles, a moresignificant ndex of so-cial statusmay be verticalmobilityrather thanoccupationaldentification.The criterionof ver-ticalmobilityutilizedis the familiar ntergener-ational comparison between the occupationalclasses of father and son. The assumedprestigeorder is professionals, managerials,salesmen,and craftsmen.Husbandswhose fathersare of alower occupational lass than their sons are re-gardedas upwardlymobile,of the sameoccupa-tional class as stationary,and of a higher occu-pationas downwardlymobile.With respectto the po-werrole, the mobil-ity rank order is downward,upward, and sta-tionary (see Table 6). Only the separationbe-tween the downwardandthe stationarys statis-tically significant, uggesting hat in view of thetrend toward equalitarianism n family rela-tions, it is that group of husbandswho are lesssuccessful in the competitive struggle, thedownwardlymobile, who are the guardiansofthe traditionalorder in which husbandsweresuperior.The rank order for the instrumentalrole is upward,stationary, nd downward.Sepa-rationbetweenthe upwardand both the station-aryand downward s statistically ignificant,butnot that betweenthe stationaryand downward.For the expressiverole the rank order is down-ward, stationary,and upward. Separationbe-

1 The proportion of craftsmen who have craftsmen fathersis 82 percent compared to 25 percent of salesmen with sales-men fathers, 43 percent of managerials with managerial fa-thers, and 30 percent of professionals with professional fa-thers.

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY August 196938


7/8

tween the downward and both the stationaryand upward s significant,but not betweenthestationaryand upward.Here, as in the case ofthe power role, the downwardconformsmostclosely to the traditionalpatternin comparisonto the stationary nd the upward.Tests of com-panionshipshow a rank order of upward,sta-tionary,and downward,with significantsepara-tion in each instance.Since a high degree ofcompanionshipmaybe interpretedas indicativeof equalitarianism,his suggests that the gra-dient of equalitarianismparallels the gradientof verticalmobility.In general,higheroccupational tatus s iden-tified with greaterdifferentiation f the instru-mental and expressiveroles and to a lesser de-gree, of the power role. Paradoxically,he pat-tern of companionships one in which consen-sus is greaterwith higher occupationalstatus.Statusmeasuredin terms of vertical mobility,however,presentsa mixed pattern n which theupwardlymobile show higher instrumental oledifferentiation and higher companionship,whereas the downwardly mobile exceed inpower and expressive role differentiation huspreservingto a greater degree the traditionalpatternof spousalroles.It would seem fair to conclude from thisanalysis, herefore, hatthe contemporary mer-ican family is characterized y a fluidityof roledifferentiationdetermined o an appreciablede-gree by the exigencies of the moment. Familyintegration would seem, accordingly,more a

TABLE 6. ROLE DIFFERENTIATIONBY VERTICAL MOBILITY

Role Differentiation Devi S.E. P.ancePower RoleUpward-Stationary .4 1.4 .750Upward Downward -3.3 1.8 .070Stationary-Downward -3.7 1.8 .040Instrumental RoleUpward-Stationary 3.4 1.0 .001Upward-Downward 4.3 1.4 .002Stationary-Downward .4 1.4 .750ExpressiveRoleUpward-Stationary -1.6 .6 .070Upward-Downward -7.0 .8 .001Stationary-Downward -5.4 .8 .001CompanionshipUpward-Stationary 2.6 1.1 .017Upward-Downward 6.6 1.6 .001Stationary-Downward 5.0 1.6 .001

* The measure of deviance is the same as in Table 5.

complementarity f timing ratherthan of dif-ferential roles in that a considerabledegree ofparallelrole-takingwould inevitably ead to in-creasedconflictexcept as each spouse does nottakethe sameroleatthe sametime.Furthermore,this patternof fluidity is most pronouncedinthosegroupswhose life conditionsare most re-moved from the past, viz., those of higherstatus.A numberof questionsmay be raised aboutthe methodologyof this study, only a few ofwhich can be given considerationhere. First,there is the use of the hypotheticaldefinitionofthe traditionalrole patternfrom which to mea-surecontemporary eviations.Sincetherearenodatafrom an earliertime period which utilizedthe selected tests of role differentiationandcompanionship, here would seem to be no al-ternative o the procedure ollowed, recognizingthat the resultsaresuggestiverather han defin-itive.Secondly,the analysisby social status is lim-ited by the fact that the data are from middle-class communitieswhere even the craftsmengroup is more middle-class n orientationthanlower-class-otherwise they would not havemoved to a middle-classcommunity.Likewise,the higheroccupational ategorieshave in themonly a minorityof upper-classrepresentatives.Thus the class spectrumis considerably run-cated at both ends. One may argue, of course,that this leads to the conclusionthat there aregreaterdifferencesalong the lines indicatedbe-tweenstatusgroupsthanthisanalysis eveals.Thirdly,thereis the questionaboutthe selec-tion of questionsas tests of the four areas ofrole differentiation.No systematic procedurewas followed except to choose questionswhichthe writer considered ogicallyrelated o eachofthe four roles. Should some procedurehavebeen devised to make the selectionin termsofgoodnessof fit, andif so bywhatprocedureFinally, there is the problemof complemen-tarity.It is generallyassumedby studentsof thefamilythatthe acceptance f differentiated olesby husbandand wife makes for accord.Whatthen, happens when the degree of differentia-tion declines or disappears?Does this lead togreater conflict? Or is there a tendency forformsof complementarityo be developed,suchas we have suggested n terms of timing? Othertests or techniqueswill need to be devised toanswerthis question.It may be significant hatthosegroupswho show the greater nstrumentalandexpressivedifferentiation lso arehighest incompanionship.Does this mean that greatercompanionshipcompensatesfor lesser instru-

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 539August 1969


8/8

mentalandexpressive dentificationThese and manymore questionswould seemto warrantcareful considerationas preliminaryto futureresearchn this area.It is hoped that,in spite of whatever deficienciesmay be inher-ent in this analysis, t will assist in furnishinga

moresoundfoundationupon whichto build fu-ture research nto the differentiation f spousalroles than has been previously available, andcontribute o the developmentof a clearerun-derstandingof the character f the family rela-tionship.

JOURNAL of MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY40 August 1969

husband and wife roles

Documents