HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OP SEXUAL

PERMISSIVENESS, RELATIONSHIP QUALITY, AND DYADIC COMMITMENT

IN DATING, MARRIAGE AND UNMARRIED COHABITATION

Thomas J. Ward

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

June 1977

¡proved by Doctoral Committee il

ABSTRACT

We live in a time when premarital sexual permissiveness and alterna­ tives to traditional heterosexual relationships are widely accepted and legitimated, especially among persons of college-age. This dissertation examined (1) the changes in and correlates of premarital sexual permissiveness; (2) the interpersonal qualities of serious dating, cohabiting, and married relationships; and (3) the determinates of dyadic commitment. In two samples of college students, present permissiveness in premarital sexual standards and behavior was found to be largely a function of past experience in heterosexual relationships, participation in permissive peer groups, and isolation from persons and institutions supporting traditional and non-permissive sex norms. Seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students were compared on several indicators of relationship quality using the "open marriage" paradigm. Few significant differences between relationship types were found. Cohabiting students, however, appeared to have had greater involvement in extra-dyadic sexual activity and cohabiting males scored less favorably on indicators of open companionship and relationship privacy. Married males appeared to be more jealous than other males. Students in all three types of relationships scored favorably on measures of dyadic commitment, although those married and cohabiting scored slightly higher than did those who were seriously dating. Dyadic commitment was found to be largely a consequence of a strong affectional bond between partners, a favorable balance of relationship rewards over relationship tensions, perceptions that parents and friends approved of and supported the continued existence of the relationship, and a low level of attraction to alternative partners and life-styles. This dissertation concluded that one of the more fundamental changes in sexual permissiveness in recent years has been the increasing legitimation of sexual choice. It was suggested that future studies of sexual permissiveness take this into consideration. It was also suggested that the dynamics of sexual involvement and adjustment can be best understood if the sexual relationship is considered as a part of the totality of the interpersonal relationship. Ill

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my committee, especially

Dr. Joseph Kivlin, for their support and patience in the writing of this dissertation.

For her aid in editing and typing the manuscript, Tizby Hunt Ward deserves special mention and thanks. IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

CHAPTER ONE: HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES...... 1

Sexual expression and social control...... 1

Sexual standards...... 3

Changing patterns of sexual permissiveness: the two sexual revolutions...... 4

The first sexual revolution:1 915-1920...... 4

The second sexual revolution: the late 1960's and early 1970's...... 7

Emerging sexual life-styles: unmarried heterosexual cohabitation...... 11

General determinates of permissiveness in sexual standards and behavior...... 15

Statement of hypotheses...... 16

Summary...... 23

CHAPTER TWO: SAMPLES AND METHODS...... 25

Bowling Green State University, 1974...... 25

Baker University, 1975...... 28

Data analysis...... 30

CHAPTER THREE: PREMARITAL SEXUAL STANDARDS AND BEHAVIOR...... 33

Indicators of premarital sexual permissiveness...... 33

Hypothesis one...... 34

Hypothesis two...... •...... 43

Hypothesis three...... 49 V

Page

Hypothesis four...... 63

Summary...... 72

CHAPTER FOUR: THE QUALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP...... 76

The quality of a relationship...... 77

Statement of hypotheses ...... 80

Hypothesis one...... 82

Hypothesis two...... 85

Hypothesis three...... 87

Hypothesis four...... 89

Hypothesis five...... 95

Hypothesis six...... 98

Summary...... 104

CHAPTER FIVE: DYADIC COMMITMENT...... 106

Dyadic commitment: a comparison of dating, cohabiting, and married students...... 110

Dyadic commitment: a path model...... 121

Summary...... 130

CHAPTER SIX; SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION...... 131

Discussion...... 134

REFERENCES...... 139

APPENDIX A: ITEMS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED AT BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1974...... 149

APPENDIX B: ITEMS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED AT BAKER UNIVERSITY, 1975...... -158 vi

LIST OF TABLES Table Page

I- 1 Rates of cohabitation at selected universities...... ,13

II- l Summary of selected sample characteristics...... 32

III- 1 Permissiveness in sexual standards by involvement in heterosexual dating...... 36

III-2 Premarital coital experience by involve­ ment in heterosexual dating...... 37

III-3 Recent premarital coital experience by involvement in heterosexual dating...... 39

III-4 The level of affection for the partner at which premarital coitus first becomes accept­ able among unmarried students who would accept premarital coitus under some conditions...... 40

III-5 Incidence of premarital coitus with the current partner by degree of emotional involvement in the relationship, B.G.S.U...... 42

III-6 Current permissiveness in sexual standards by previous premarital coital experience...... 44

III-7 Incidence of premarital coitus with current partner by premarital coital experience with previous partners, B.G.S.U...... 45

III-8 Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards and behavior by the number of times the individual has been in love, Baker University...... 47

III-9 Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards and behavior by experience with "going steady" relationships, Baker University...... 48

III-10 Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by religiosity...... 51

III-ll Premarital coital experience by religiosity...... 52

III-12 Recent premarital coital experience by religiosity...... 53 vii

Table Page

III-13 Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by degree of isolation from parents, B. G. S. U ...... 55

III-14 Premarital coital experience by degree of isolation from parents, B.G.S.U...... 57

III-15 Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by feelings of closeness to parents, Baker University...... 58

III-16 Premarital coital experience by feelings of closeness to parents, Baker University...... 59

111-17 Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by feelings of the degree to which parents would disapprove of premarital coitus, Baker University...... 61

III-18 Premarital coital experience by feelings of the degree to which parents would disapprove of premarital coitus, Baker University...... 62

III-19 Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by the perception of premarital coital experience among close friends, Baker University...... 64

I11-20 Premarital coital experience by the perception of premarital coital experience among close friends, Baker University...... 65

II1-21 Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by feelings of the way close friends would react to premarital coitus, Baker University...... 67

III-22 Premarital coital experience by feelings of the way close friends would react to premarital coitus, Baker University...... 68

III-23 Standards concerning unmarried heterosexual cohabitation by the perception of generalized community acceptance of unmarried heterosexual cohabitation, B.G.S.U...... 70 viii

Table Page

III-24 Standards concerning unmarried hetero­ sexual cohabitation by the perception of the extent of unmarried cohabitation on campus, B. G. S. U.,...,...... 71

III- 25 Standards concerning unmarried hetero­ sexual cohabitation by the perception of the extent of unmarried cohabitation experience among close friends, B. G. S .U...... ,73

IV- 1 Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction among seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students...... 83

IV-2 Incidence of coitus with primary partner and contraceptive use among seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students...... 86

1V-3 Extra-dyadic coitus and feelings of jealousy among seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students...... 88

IV-4 "Open relationship" indicators of relationship quality among seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students...... 90

IV-5 The reciprocity of feelings of trust, respect, and equality between partners in seriously dating, cohabiting, and married relationships...... 96

IV-6 Sex-role flexibility in household labor and decision making among married students...... 99

IV-7 Sex-role flexibility in household labor and decision making among cohabiting students...... 101

IV- 8 A comparison of married and cohabiting students on sex-role flexibility in household labor and decision making...... 103

V- l Dyadic commitment in dating, cohabitation, and marriage...... 111

V-2 Shared friendships and interaction with friends among dating, cohabiting, and married students...... 116 ix

Table Page

V-3 Perceptions of parental and peer support for relationships among dating, cohabiting and married students...... 117

V-4 Feelings of regret over losses experienced upon entering the current relationship among dating, cohabiting, and married students...... 120

V-5 Zero-order product moment correlations, dyadic commitment and related variables...... 126

V-6 Direct and indirect effects of variables - in the model of dyadic commitment...... 127 X

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page

V-a A path model of forces contributing to dyadic commitment...... 123 1

CHAPTER ONE: HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES

This dissertation reports a study of heterosexual relationships1

among college students at two universities in 1974 and 1975. Discussion and analysis is in three parts. Chapter Three deals with the general determinates of premarital sexual permissiveness. Chapter Four examines and compares interpersonal qualities of dating, cohabiting, and marital relationships. Chapter Five is concerned with the nature and correlates of dyadic commitment.

Sexual Expression and Social Control

Social control of the biological sex drive is all too important to be left to the devices of chance or individual capriciousness. All societies have taken at least minimal steps to regulate the sexual expressions of their constituent members although the extent to which this control has been formally operative and the types of activity subject to control have varied widely (Murdock, 1949:260-261).

Social control of sexual expression involves both external and internal constraints on behavior. External constraints include mechanisms of formal regulation such as the law and the legal system, and informal mechanisms incorporating various combinations of ridicule,

1. For general purposes, a heterosexual relationship is defined as a primary dyadic relationship involving persons of opposite sex. As with other primary relationships, interaction between partners is personal, intimate, frequent, and direct; role enactments are informal and diffuse; and the individuals' orientation towards both the relationship and the partner is expressive rather than instrumental. 2

gossip, shunning, joking, and segregation of the sexes (Ehrman,

1967:861). Internal social control, operative when the individual is removed from the direct supervision of concerned others, depends

largely on the success of the socialization process to instill in the individual a sense of appropriateness, conscience, or moral judgement.

Neither external nor internal control, however, is always effective in eliminating sexual misconduct, particularly in larger complex societies characterized by a wide range of individual and subcultural variation in values, beliefs, practices and socialization experiences.

"Even threats of disgrace and death have not always been effective in preventing young people from engaging in premarital coitus"

(Ehrman, 1967:861).

In the United States, codes of sexual conduct have generally been restrictive (Murdock, 1949; Ford and Beach, 1951; and Christensen and

Gregg, ,1970).. This has been largely a result of the strong moral influence of anti-hedonistic Christian ethics and Protestant

"purification" (Bell, 1966). Even today, many prohibitions against non-marital sexual activity characterize our legal codes. In 1973, for example, fornication was illegal in 31 states, and during 1972 more than 2200 people were prosecuted for fornication in juris­ dictions where penalties ranged from fines of $20 to $2,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years (Playboy, May, 1974:60-61).

The legislation of morality is largely reflective of the values and beliefs of middle-class interest groups. Such morality discourages -3

sexual activity outside of marriage and helps to insure that coitus is

linked to attendant responsibilities of child-bearing and child-rearing

(Cuber and Harroff, 1968). In fact, Reiss feels that restrictions placed on the free and unrestricted expression of the sex drive are necessary to promote the stability of the familial institution:

...the more likely a sexual relationship is viewed as promoting or stabilizing marriage, the more likely that sexual relationship will be socially permitted; the more likely a relationship is viewed as disturbing to marriage, the more likely it will be prohibited. (Reiss, 1973:2)

Sexual Standards

Sexual standards are the individual's internalization of the society's conduct rules regarding acceptable sexual activity. They are a complex of attitudes, values, and beliefs defining certain types of behavior as right, moral, or acceptable and other types as wrong, immoral, or unacceptable for either the individual or others. No single standard is shared in common by all members of a social group and, likewise, few individuals are so absolute in their standards that they would apply the identical standard to all persons or all situations

(Reiss, 1960:81-82).

In a major study of premarital permissiveness, Reiss (1967:19) defined four premarital standards currently held in the United States:

1. Abstinence - premarital intercourse is considered wrong for both sexes.

2. Double standard - males are considered to have greater rights to premarital intercourse than are females. 4

3. Permissiveness with affection - premarital intercourse is acceptable for both males and females if part of a stable and affectionate relationship.

4. Permissiveness without affection - premarital intercourse is right for both sexes regardless of the amount of affection present. (This standard usually implies mutual honesty and consent, i.e., premarital coitus is acceptable for both males and females as long as it does not involve deceit, force, or coercion.)

Changing Patterns of Sexual Permissiveness: The Two Sexual Revolutions

Considerable change has taken place in patterns of sexual permissive­

ness in the United States since the early years of the twentieth

century. Compared to their parents and grandparents, young people

today both tolerate and practice greater sexual freedom outside of

marriage, especially in relationships prior to marriage (Reiss, 1960,

1967 and 1973; and Cuber, 1971). This change has not been gradual but

is largely the result of two periods of dramatic increases in sexual permissiveness.

The First Sexual Revolution: 1915-1920.

The first period of major change of sexual relationships in the twentieth century occurred in the years 1915-1920. During this time...the proportion of females entering marriage non­ virginal ly doubled from 25 to 50 per cent and then remained constant. The nonvirginal rate for males increased slightly. It was in this period that America was entering into the modem industrial stage of human society. It is also im­ portant to point out that the rapidity of social change was accelerated by a major world war. (Reiss, 1973:7)

Because little or no systematic data were collected on patterns of

American sexual behavior prior to the late 1920's, the retrospective analysis of data collected during the 1930's and 1940's must be relied on for an understanding of sexual behavior in the first quarter 5

of the century (for instance, Terman, 1938; and Kinsey, et al., 1948

and 1953). These data reveal a "sexual revolution" occurring among

unmarried females following World War One--a significant increase in

rates of permarital coitus.

Terman (1938) collected data from 800 married couples, including

information on premarital sexual behavior. Significant differences

were found between those born before 1890 (who would have courted and

married prior to and during the First World War) and those born after

1900 (who were courting and marrying during the 1920's and early 1930's).

While 49 per cent of the males and 14 per cent of the females bom

prior to 1890 had histories of premarital coitus, among persons born

in later generations premarital coitus was much more common. Of those

born between 1900 and 1909, 67 per cent of the men and 49 per cent of

the women had had premarital sexual relations. And of those bom

after 1910 (a small sub-sample), 86 per cent of the males and 68 per

cent of the females had had coitus prior to marrying. Extending this

trend into the future, Terman (1938:323) remarked:

If the drop should continue at the average rate shown for those born since 1890 virginity at marriage will come close to the vanishing point for males born after 1930 and for females born after 1940....It will be of no small interest to see how long the cultural ideal of virgin marriage will survive as a moral code after its observance has passed into history.

In the 1930's and 1940's, Kinsey and his associates collected sexual histories from more than 12,000 persons. While their data tended to validate the changes in female sexual permissiveness that

Terman observed in the post-war era, they failed to support Terman's speculation that virginity at marriage was on its way to becoming an 6

historical curiosity.

In data from the Kinsey reports supplied to Ira Reiss (1960:230-233),

it was reported that only 27 per cent of the ever married females born

before 1900 had had premarital coitus. However, premarital coital

activity characterized 51 per cent of the ever married females born

between 1900 and 1909, 56 per cent of those bom from 1910 to 1919,

and 51 per cent of those born in 1920-1929.

Kinsey's (1948) study of male sexuality revealed that changes in

male sexual permissiveness were far less revolutionary than were

changes in female permissiveness during the same period (Kinsey, et al.,

1948:556). Although data were reported by educational attainment

(Reiss, 1960:233), there were only slight differences between males in

older and younger generations. Sixty-two per cent of the college

educated males born prior to 1900 had had premarital coital relations,

compared to 66 per cent of the college educated males bom in the period 1920-1929. For those with an elementary education, the corre­

sponding percentages were 90 and 89. Males with a high school education fell between these two groups, also showing only a slight increase in rates of premarital coitus from older to younger generations.

Other studies of sexual permissiveness in the late 1920's and 1930's

(Hamilton, 1929, and Bromely and Britten, 1938, for example) report rates of premarital coitus similar to those reported by Kinsey (1948 and

1953) and Terman (1938). Such studies support Reiss' contention that sexual permissiveness reached a "new plateau" during the "Roaring

Twenties" that was "to last for almost half a century" (Reiss, 1973:7). 7

As Robert Bell wrote in 1966:

On the basis of available evidence, it appears that the greatest changes in premarital coitus for the American female occurred in the period around World War I and during the 1920's. There is no evidence that the rates since that time have undergone any significant change. (Bell, 1966a:57)

The Second Sexual Revolution: The Late 1960's and Early 1970's.

Reviewing a large number of investigations completed during the

years 1915 to 1965, Kaats and Davis (1970) and Leslie (1970) are led

to conclude that a major period of sexual change characterized the

decade immediately following the First World War but that no signif­

icant increase in premarital permissiveness took place again until the

late 1960's. For unmarried college students, rates of premarital

coitus stabilized in the neighborhood of approximately 25 per cent for

females and 60-65 per cent for males.

During the late 1960's and early 1970's, investigators using

college student samples began to report premarital coitus among

females at rates nearly double those of earlier years (Packard, 1968;

Christensen and Gregg, 1970; Kaats and Davis, 1970; and Hunt, 1974;

among others), although there appeared to be little change in the rates of premarital coitus among college males.

In marked contrast to pre-1962 data on sexual behavior of college women was our finding in the spring of 1967 at the University of Colorado of a reported premarital coital rate of 41 per cent--a figure about twice as high as that which has been traditionally reported at other universities.... Conversely, the figure for males, 60 per cent, was nearly identical with that which has been reported since the turn of the century. (Kaats and Davis, 1970:390) 8

Social changes associated with the second sexual revolution appear

similar to those associated with the first. (See Kinsey, et al.,

1953:295-300 and Reiss, 1966: Chapter 10.) Included among the social

sources of the second sexual revolution were "access to contraception;

ways to combat venereal infection; and...an intellectualized philosophy

about the desirability of sex accompanying affection"^ (Reiss, 1971:76),

as well as increasing equality for women, a movement towards a more

secular society, a more extended period of adolescence, and increasing

age at marriage (Bell, 1971:169-174).

Many empirical studies have appeared during the past five years to

document the second sexual revolution, especially as it is represented

by increases in the premarital permissiveness of college students.

Several of these studies are discussed briefly in the paragraphs below.

Bell and Chaskes (1970) compared a sample of college coeds in 1968

with a similar sample studied in 1958. Not only had rates of premarital

coitus increased during this ten year period, but coeds in 1968 were

having intercourse at lower levels of affection and commitment. In

1958, 10 per cent of the coeds who were dating, 15 per cent of those

going steady, and 31 per cent of those engaged reported premarital

coital experience. In 1968, however, the percentages increased to

include 23 per cent of those dating, 28 per cent of those going steady,

and 39 per cent of those engaged.

2. During the first sexual revolution, the intellectualization of a liberal philosophy of sex was best represented by the writings of Russell (1929) in his book Marriage and Morals. 9

Christensen and Gregg (1970) also compared the premarital permissive­

ness of college students in 1958 with that of students in 1968. In

their two American college samples, the willingness to accept coitus

before marriage increased for both males and females, but the actual

rates of premarital coitus increased only among women. In 1958, 23 per

cent of the males and three per cent of the females at a Utah university

expressed approval of premarital coitus. In 1968, 38 per cent of

males and 24 per cent of females at the same Utah university expressed

approval. At a university in Indiana, 47 per cent of the males and

17 per cent of the females expressed approval in 1958 compared to 55

per cent of the males and 38 per cent of the females at the same

university in 1968. Actual (reported) rates of premarital coitus

decreased slightly for males in both samples from 1958 to 1968 (in

Utah from 39 per cent to 37 per cent; in Indiana from 51 per cent to

50 per cent). Among females, however, reported premarital coitus was more common in 1968 than in 1958 in both samples (in Utah, rates

increased from 10 per cent to 32 per cent; in Indiana, rates increased

from 21 per cent to 34 per cent).

Kaats and Davis (1970) report the same general pattern of change in premarital permissiveness--an increase in female participation in pre­ marital coitus; little or no change among males. While approximately

60 per cent of the males in 1968 and 1970 samples reported premarital coitus (the rate traditionally reported since the early 1900's), female rates of premarital coitus were in the range of 40 per cent, nearly double the percentage reported in earlier studies. 10

Premarital coital activity appears to have increased in frequency

among younger females also. A major study of unmarried females aged

15 to 19 (Zelnick and Kanter, 1972) found 14 per cent reporting coital

experience by age 15, 21 per cent by age 16, 27 per cent by age 17, and

37 per cent by age 19. Premarital coitus was more common among blacks than whites. However, in both groups coitus was likely to have been

confined to one partner and to be had only on an infrequent basis.

Finally, Hunt (1974) found that the majority of both males and females in a national sample would accept premarital coitus if there was a strong emotional attachment between partners. Hunt also reported that the majority of both sexes had actually had some premarital coital experience. Both acceptance of premarital coitus and actual experience was more characteristic of younger than older respondents and more characteristic of males than of females. Only 13 per cent of the single males aged 18-34 and 23 per cent of the single females in the same age group had not had premarital coitus.

In summarizing this second period of change in American sexuality it appears that the recent sexual revolution has much in common with the first. Changes that took place were primarily changes in female permissiveness. The social sources of these changes were largely changes in the equality of the sexes, improvements in contraception and its availability, weakening of traditional social controls such as religion, and an intellectualization of a new and permissive sexual philosophy. 11

These changes appear to have led to what Reiss (1973:10) refers to as an

"increased legitimation of choice:"

...the feeling arose that one's sexual choices were as much a person's right as one's religious or political choices.... This is a very significant change because it meant, at least in the eyes of many young people, that intercourse before marriage was not deviant behavior.

In fact, it is this "legitimation of choice" that Cuber (1971:84-85)

feels is the "revolutionary" aspect of contemporary sexuality:

The last generation--a sizeable minority of it--broke the rules of sexual morality and in particular the rule of premarital chastity, but clandestinely and with great guilt. The members of this generation--a good many of them--simply do not accept the rules any longer.... they challenge the validity of the law--and that is revolution.

Emerging Sexual Life-Styles: Unmarried Heterosexual Cohabitation.

...the most evident change in the past decade is the vastly growing number of college students who accept the moral and practical propriety of a variety of sexual life-styles. They assert the moral right--indeed, the moral obligation--of each person to work out his own code, or lack of one, and they grant him the right to live by it as long as there is no harm to other people. (Cuber, 1971:85)

One life-style associated with the sexual revolution of the 1970's

is unmarried heterosexual cohabitation: a relationship wherein two

persons of opposite sex, unrelated by kinship or marriage, consistently

share a common residence and identify themselves as a couple maintain­

ing a more or less permanent social, sexual, affectionate and economic

relationship. While such relationships have not been unknown either historically or cross-culturally (Berger, 1971; Trost, 1972 and 1974), widespread cohabitation among American college students is a relatively

recent phenomenon. 12

Public attention was first directed towards unmarried cohabitation

by the popular press in the late 1960's (Time, 1968; Glamour, 1969;

New York Times Magazine, 1969; and Redbook, 1969). By the early 1970's

professional interest in this phenomenon matured. Studies of unmarried

cohabitation and discussions of the implications of this life-style for

the future of marriage began to appear in the more scholarly publica­

tions (Berger, 1971; Wells and Christie, 1971; Macklin, 1972; Arafat

and Yorburg, 1973; and Thorman, 1973).

Workshops on unmarried cohabitation were held during the meetings of

the Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family in 1972 and 1973. And,

in September of 1972, the first issue of the Cohabitation Research

Newsletter (the CRN) was distributed under the editorship of Dr. Eleanor

Macklin of Cornell University. This soon became a popular medium for

the exchange of ideas and data among those investigating unmarried

cohabitation.

Rates of unmarried cohabitation vary from university to university.

It appears most common, however, at larger universities with liberal

student subcultures and non-restrictive housing policies (Macklin, 1974).

However, even on campuses where few students cohabit there appears to be considerable support for this type of relationship (Macklin, 1972

and 1974, Edwards, 1972). For a brief summary of rates of cohabitation

at several universities, see Table 1-1. 13

TABLE 1-1

Rates of cohabitation at selected universities

University Sample Per cent Housing size cohabiting policies

Arizona State 350 23% Majority of students live off campus. Vis­ itation in dorms allow­ ed.

California State 557 25% Majority of students (Northridge) live off campus. Coed dorms on campus.

City College, CUNY 900 20%*1 All live off campus.

Cornell University 400 31% Off campus option. Twenty-four hour visitation in dorms.

Small liberal arts^ college in midwest 200 17% Ninety per cent live on campus. Twenty- four hour visitation in dorms.

Small liberal arts^ college in midwest 175 9% All live on campus. Overnight visitation limited to one senior dorm.

Penn State University 2500 33% Off campus option. Twenty-four hour visitation in dorms.

University of Texas 431 36% Off campus option. (Austin) Twenty-four hour visitation in dorms.

From: Macklin (1974:58) 1. Per cent of students currently cohabiting; all others for those who have ever cohabited. 2. Universities wished to remain anonymous. 14

Several sets of variables seen as predictive of entrance into cohabitation were discussed during the second Groves Conference work­ shop. Among these variables were: (a) a low perception of social disapproval; (b) a high availability of opportunity; and (c) a low degree of internalized guilt. Participants in the workshop also agreed that there was no single pattern of unmarried cohabitation but that these relationships fell along a continuum ranging from friendship through casual dating, steady dating, quasi-engagement, formal engage­ ment and substitute marriage. Most cohabitors, however, appeared involved in relationships characterized by serious affection between partners and no outside dating--a living out of a "going-steady" relationship (Macklin, 1974).

Couples living together unmarried generally entered into their relationships without conscious deliberation or serious plans for future marriage. Many did not see the need (or feel the desire) to have their relationships formally or legally recognized. In this sense they were not practicing marriage, nor were they involved in

"trial" or "companionate" marriages such as those conceptualized by

Lindsey (1929), Russell (1929) or Mead (1966).

3. This paragraph is based on personal notes taken during this work­ shop. More information can be found in the first three issues of the CRN (Cohabitation Research Newsletter). 15

Trial marriage, for instance, tends to imply a level of commitment usually associated with the engagement portion of the courtship continuum which, is not characteristic of the campus relationships studied. These students do not in general see themselves as consciously testing or eyen contemplating a potential marriage, at least not initially. Instead, in most cases, living together seems to be a natural component of a strong, affectionate "dating" relationship--which may grow in time to be something more, but which in the meantime is to be enjoyed and experienced because it is pleasurable in and of itself. (Macklin, 1972:470)

Some data regarding unmarried cohabitation were collected from

students at Bowling Green State University in 1974 as part of this

dissertation. The number of cohabitants (10 males and 10 females), however, was too few to warrant extensive discussion, although in

Chapters Four and Five, these students are compared in a limited way

to those who were dating or married.

General Determinates of Permissiveness in Sexual Standards and Behavior

The norms of adult institutions--such as the family and the church-- are integrated with the need for stability in marriage and family life and consequently are restrictive regarding non-marital sexuality. On the other hand, the norms of the autonomous courtship group (a participant-run system) tend to be more permissive (Reiss, 1973:24).

Additionally, it is apparent that among high school and college aged youth, permissiveness increases with increased age, i.e., changes in sex standards occur and these changes involve the acceptance of more permissive standards (Reiss, 1967:106-111). Progressive dissociation from adult-directed institutions and correspondingly greater association 16

with peer-run courtship institutions appears to he an important factor in explaining changes towards greater sexual permissiveness.

The courtship and family institutions are the two key, direct determinates of the norms regarding premarital sexual per­ missiveness ... .when participant -run, the courtship institution tends to normatively differentiate from the family institution and to react more to the permissive pressures of the courtship role and therefore to have relatively high permissive premarital norms. The biological sex drive pressures the individual toward more permissiveness when outside controls are weak, ...Societal forces affect individual permissiveness in a group, both through pressures from other courtship and family groups with different permissive norms and through pressures of other institutions, tending to encourage or discourage the autonomy of the participant-run courtship system and the independence of thought of the young people themselves. In addition, the basic norms of these other institutions help define the range of acceptable sexuality and thereby help shape the ways in which sexual permissiveness will express itself...(Reiss, 1967:166-167)

In general, the degree of acceptable sexual permissiveness varies directly with the degree of participation in autonomous and permissive courtship groups but is also affected by the general permissiveness of the social and cultural setting outside of the courtship group

(Reiss, 1967:167).

In accord with this general theoretical orientation, the four hypotheses presented and discussed below were developed. These hypotheses are evaluated in Chapter Three of this dissertation.

Statement of Hypotheses

Hypothesis One: The greater the involvement in the courtship process, the greater the permissiveness in sexual standards and behavior,

(a) The more advanced the courtship stage, the greater the per­ missiveness. (b) The greater the affection or emotional attachment 17

to the partner, the greater the permissiveness.

There is an extensive body of literature that supports the

hypothesis that as individuals advance along the courtship continuum

from casual dating to serious dating to tentative and formal engagement

their sexual permissiveness increases. Terman (1938) found that the

majority of those bom after 1890, both males and females, had pre­

marital coital relations only with the person they later married and

that much of this coital activity was confined to a brief period

immediately before marriage. Terman (1938) also reported that permissiveness varied directly with the length of the engagement.

Similar findings are reported by Burgess and Wallin (1953) and

Ehrman (1959).

Bell and Blumberg (1960) found that there was little relationship between courtship stage and intimacy levels among males but there was a positive relationship among females (10 per cent of those dating compared to 31 per cent of those engaged reported premarital coitus).

Christensen and Carpenter (1962) found approval of premarital coitus to be positively related to courtship stage among both sexes. And,

Reiss (1967) reported that approval of premarital coitus was higher among those who were regularly and seriously dating than among those who were dating casually or infrequently. Finally, Bell and Chaskes

(1970) found that in both 1958 and 1968 the incidence of premarital coitus was higher among coeds who were seriously dating than among those who were casually dating, and higher still among coeds who were engaged. 18

In addition to being related to the advanced stages of the court­

ship continuum, permissiveness also appears related to the degree of

affection or emotional attachment that the individual has for his or

her partner. Burgess and Wallin (1953) and Ehrman (1959) both report

a positive relationship between being in love and having premarital

coitus, particularly among females. Freedman (1965) found that coeds were most likely to have premarital coitus in relationships characterized by serious emotional attachment to their partner, while Christensen

and Carpenter (1962) and Christensen and Gregg (1970) both reported more permissive attitudes towards premarital coitus when the referent partner was a loved-one.

Reiss (1967) reported a positive relationship between romantic

love and permissiveness in traditionally less permissive groups such as white females and high church attenders, but little or no relation­ ship in traditionally more permissive groups such as males, blacks, and infrequent church-goers. Similar findings characterized the relationship between permissiveness and the number of times an individual had been in love.

Additionally, Macklin (1972), Lautenschlager (1972) and Peterman,

Ridley and Anderson (1974) all reported significant relationships between affection for partner and a willingness to cohabit unmarried.

In Macklin's (1972) sample, more than 60 per cent indicated that cohabitation would be personally acceptable in a relationship of love or strong affection but not acceptable at a lower level of affection. 19

Hypothesis Two: The greater the experience in heterosexual

relationships, the greater the permissiveness,

As individuals become more experienced in heterosexual relationships,

they tend to develop competence in interacting with those of the

opposite sex, and this results in changes in their self-concept, i.e.,

they lose much of the "shyness" associated with early attempts at

dating and courtship. This hypothesis predicts that individuals with

more extensive histories of dating and coitus will be more permissive

in current standards and behavior.

Burgess and Wallin (1953) found men with prior coital experience more likely to be having coitus with their current fiancee than were men who had no prior coital experience (56 per cent of those with prior

experience compared to only 35 per cent with no prior experience).

The same relationship was even stronger among females. Eighty-six per cent of the females who had had premarital coitus with a previous partner were also having coitus with their fiance while only 40 per cent of those with no prior experience were doing so.

Kinsey and his associates (1953:314) suggested that:

Whether a female decides to begin premarital coitus, or to continue it after she has once had it, must depend on a multi­ plicity of physical, situational, social and other factors... Interestingly enough, the most significant correlation seems to have been the presence or absence of experience.... experience dispels many of the fears that gather about the unknown, especially when it is an unknown type of sexual activity.

More extensive dating histories have been related to increased permissiveness by Reiss (1967:86). The number of "steadies" that a white female ever had was positively related to permissiveness in her 20

standards. (The relationship was negligible for males and black females, however.) The number of times a white female had ever been in love was

also related positively to permissiveness in sexual standards, It is

"by repeated activity, by exposure, and opportunity, that people become more sexually permissive" (Reiss, 1973:19).

More recently, Bell and Chaskes (1970) reported that age at first date, the number of different boys dated, and the number of times that a girl had gone steady were all positively related to premarital coital permissiveness.

Hypothesis Three ; The greater the isolation from those individuals and institutions supporting non-permissive sexual norms, the greater the permissiveness in sexual standards and behavior.

Adult determined institutions such as the family and the church tend to hold and uphold traditional norms and values of sexual conservatism

(Cuber and Harroff, 1968; Cuber, 1971; and Reiss, 1967 and 1973).

The greater the individual's social, physical and psychological distance from these individuals and institutions, the greater his or her sexual permissiveness.

Investigators of sexual behavior have reported consistent negative relationships between religiosity and sexual permissiveness (Burgess and Wallin, 1953; Kinsey, et al., 1953; Ehrman, 1959; Reiss, 1967;

Zelnick and Kanter, 1972; and Hunt, 1974, among others). Cannon and

Long (1971), in their review of the sexual research of the 1960's, indicated the regularity with which this relationship has recently been reported but suggested that the influence of religion was less marked among males and blacks than among females and whites. 21

The relationship between isolation from parents and significant kin

and premarital sexual permissiveness has not been systematically-

investigated, per se. Lewis (1973), however, reported a negative

relationship between permissiveness and closeness to parents among

females and the opposite relationship among males.

Research on unmarried cohabitation also suggests that isolation

from parents may be an important factor in determining the more

permissive forms of sexual behavior (such as unmarried heterosexual

cohabitation and/or coitus with several different partners on an

emotionally indiscriminate basis). Geographic, social and psychological

isolation from parents and others upholding restrictive sexual norms

enhances the ability of the individual to control the types and amounts

of potentially discrediting information available to these others

concerning personal sexual conduct and relationships. Isolation also

limits the impact of negative sanctions by limiting the degree to which

these can be quickly, consistently and effectively employed.

In recent investigations, for example, many were found to have made

serious attempts to keep the nature of their relationships hidden from

their parents (Macklin, 1972; Arafat and Yorburg, 1973; Danziger and

Greenwald, 1973; and Peterman, Ridley and Anderson, 1974), In many

cases they were successful and were able to live together without their parents’ knowing. A common tactic of information control involved

deliberate deception. In order to disguise the true nature of their relationships, cohabitors often lived together but at the same time maintained separate "official" residences where they received mail, phone calls, and visits from parents and relatives. Macklin (1974) 22

reported that more than 75 per cent of the cohabitors in her sample

were involved in this type of deception.

Hypothesis Four: The greater the perception of social support for

a given type of sexual behavior and the greater the interaction with

individuals and groups supporting that behavior, the greater the

permissiveness with regard to that behavior.

Numerous sources of social support are available to aid individuals

in justifying or normalizing their behavior. Support may come from

the larger community of socio-cultural environment--the campus

community and student subcultures for those at college. Or, it may be

a product of more intense, primary-group, affiliations.

Evidence was previously presented to suggest that the individual

is likely to find viable support for such behaviors as premarital

coitus and unmarried cohabitation on the college campus. The majority

of males and a significant minority of females have had the first

type of experience, and experience with unmarried cohabitation appears

to be increasing in popularity.

In addition to support from generalized reference groups, in­

dividuals are influenced by the attitudes and behaviors of more

intimate reference groups such as close friendship circles. Strong positive relationships have been reported between self-permissiveness

and participation in permissive peer-groups (Mirande, 1968; Teevan, 1972;

Zelnick and Kanter, 1972; and Lewis, 1973). Mirande (1968:573), for

instance, concluded that: 23

Respondents who have not engaged in coitus are far more likely to have reference groups which disapprove of inter­ course with anyone. The reference groups of those who have experienced coitus, on the other hand, generally provide limited or unlimited approval of premarital intercourse,

And, Teevan (1972) found that among 1117 college students, those

who saw their friends as sexually permissive were much more likely to

have coitus than were those who felt their friends to be sexually

conservative.

Summary

The social control of the biological sex drive has been a major

concern of all known human societies. Western cultures, with a heritage of ascetic Christianity, have generally been more restrictive than others in regulating sexual conduct. However, even in the most restrictive societies, individuals regularly break the rules concerning non-marital sexuality.

The United States has had two sexual revolutions--periods during which there was rapid change in sexual standards and behavior. The first revolution involved the generation reaching maturity during and just after the First World War. The second occurred among young adults and college students of the Viet Nam and Post-Viet Nam era.

During both periods of transition, changes in female permissiveness were more marked. As a consequence, men and women are more similar in their sexual standards and behavior today than they were in the past. 24

Four hypotheses concerning premarital sexual permissiveness were stated and discussed. These were:

1. The greater the involvement in the courtship process, the greater the permissiveness in sexual standards and behavior,

2. The greater the experience in heterosexual relationships, the greater the permissiveness in sexual standards and behavior.

3. The greater the isolation from those individuals and institutions supporting non-permissive sexual norms, the greater the permissive­ ness in sexual standards and behavior.

4. The greater the perception of social support for a given type of sexual behavior and the greater the interaction with individuals and groups supporting that behavior, the greater the permissiveness with regard to that behavior. 25

CHAPTER TWO: SAMPLES AND METHODS

Data were collected from two samples of college students: (1) those

involved in serious heterosexual relationships at Bowling Green State

University in 1974; and (2) students at Baker University in 1975, Each

of these samples is discussed in more detail below,

Bowling Green State University, 1974

Bowling Green State University is a moderately large (17,000

students) state-supported institution in northwestern Ohio offering

undergraduate and graduate education in a variety of liberal arts,

scientific and professional fields.

In the spring of 1974, a random sample of 426 names was system­

atically selected from the student directory. Students no longer in

attendance and those enrolled at a branch campus were eliminated from the sample. After this "weeding-out," 348 students remained in the sample.

Because of the direction this inquiry was originally designed to take, data were collected only from individuals who were involved in serious, on-going heterosexual relationships and the same types of information were collected from both partners in each couple. A serious heterosexual relationship was operationally defined as one which met at least one of these criteria: (a) the couple was married;

(b) the couple was living together unmarried; (c) the couple was formally or tentatively engaged; or (d) the respondent whose name was randomly selected described the relationship as "serious" and 26

indicated his or her partner would do likewise,

Actual data collection involved the aid of students who were

enrolled in a family sociology class and who volunteered to act as

assistants. After a short training session, these assistants examined

the list of potential respondents and selected four or five names of

persons they were acquainted with. Upon contacting a potential

respondent, the assistant inquired about the person's current involve­

ment in serious heterosexual relationships, if any. All but 11

students responded to this screening question.

If the respondent was involved in a serious, on-going relationship, he or she was given a packet containing two identical questionnaires with self-addressed return envelopes. One questionnaire was to be

completed by the respondent, the other by his or her partner. If the respondent was not currently involved in a serious heterosexual relationship, he or she was thanked for his or her cooperation, a note was made of the fact, and the respondent was excluded from further participation. Respondents who were qualified to participate were assured of anonymity and cautioned to complete and return their questionnaires independently of their partners.

Two hundred-thirteen (63 per cent) of the 337 students who responded to the initial involvement question were not seriously involved in a relationship. Eighty-six (26 per cent) were seriously dating or engaged, 15 (5 per cent) were cohabiting unmarried, and

23 (7 per cent) were married. 27

Complete data sets were returned by 66 dating couples, 19 married

couples, and 10 cohabiting couples. Incomplete data sets were received

from five dating females whose partners declined to participate. The

95 complete data sets (the couple data) are used in the analysis

presented in Chapter Four (the interpersonal dynamics of heterosexual

relationships) and Chapter Five (the nature and correlates of dyadic

commitment), The data from all unmarried students (excluding one

dating male who failed to answer several critical questions) are

discussed in Chapter Three (concerning premarital sexual permissive­

ness) . In all, 156 single students provided the data from the Bowling

Green sample used in the analysis of premarital permissiveness.

Approximately 14 per cent of the seriously involved students were

freshmen, 17 per cent were sophomores, 15 per cent were juniors, 27 per cent were seniors and 14 per cent were graduate students. Through­ out the university, approximately 30 per cent of all students are freshmen, 21 per cent sophomores, 21 per cent juniors, 16 per cent seniors, 10 per cent graduate students, and three per cent are un­ classified. The initial random sample of students closely approximated the class distribution of the total university, but after eliminating those not seriously involved, the remainder overrepresented the more advanced classes (as could be expected given the progressive nature of courtship involvements). The final sample, therefore, is not representative of the entire university student population but likely is representative of the population of seriously involved students.

The final sample should be considered a purposive sub-sample of an 28

initial random sample characterized by a high response rate (97 per cent

of those in the sample were located and answered the initial involve­ ment question).

Ninety per cent of the final sample of seriously involved students were white. Eighty-two per cent were from homes not broken by death,

divorce or separation. The median occupational score for fathers was

76,1 on the United States Census Socioeconomic Status Scores Index

(corresponding to white collar or semi-professional occupations).

The median age for males was 21.3 years and for females, 20.6 years.

Approximately 28 per cent of all respondents were from rural areas or small towns in rural areas. Fifty-four per cent were from small cities or the suburbs of larger cities. The remainder (18 per cent) were from medium to large sized cities.

One-half of the respondents were affiliated with one of the

Protestant denominations, at least nominally, Thirty per cent were

Catholics, three per cent were Jewish, and 12 per cent either claimed no affiliation or identified themselves as agnostic or atheist.

Baker University, 1975

Baker University is a small (approximately 675 students in 1975), private, liberal arts college affiliated with the Methodist church.

It is located in northeastern Kansas and draws its students largely from rural areas in Kansas and the metropolitan areas of Topeka and

Kansas City. 29

From the total student population, a sample of 169 unmarried students

was selected using a systematic random sample of the student directory.

Questionnaires were distributed by members of a social research class as

part of a class research project. Completed questionnaires were

returned anonymously through the campus mail by 153 students (a 91 per

cent response rate), Seventy-four of the returned questionnaires were

from males (48 per cent) and 79 were from females (52 per cent).

Thirty-four per cent of those participating were freshmen, 20 per cent were sophomores, 22 per cent were juniors, and 24 per cent were seniors.

Both the sex and class distribution approximate that of the entire

college population,

The median age of males was 19.4 years; the median age of females was 19.2. More than half came from a large city or the suburb of such a city. Slightly more than 90 per cent were white and more than

80 per cent came from middle and upper income homes ($20,000 a year or more),

The majority of students (76 per cent) were affiliated with one of the Protestant churches (many were Methodist). There were 17 Catholics

(11 per cent), two Jews (1 per cent), and 18 students (12 per cent) who claimed either no affiliation or were agnostic or atheist.

The data provided by these unmarried students are used in Chapter

Three. 30

Data Analysis

Chapter Three, the chapter dealing with premarital sexual per­ missiveness, utilizes information provided by unmarried students in

the Bowling Green University sample and the Baker University sample.

Chapter Four (relationship qualities) and Chapter Five (dyadic commit­ ment) use data provided by dating, cohabiting, and married couples who appeared in the 1974 Bowling Green sample only.

Due to differences in sampling technique and slight differences in research instruments, the two samples are not directly comparable.

(The Bowling Green sample contains only seriously involved students; the Baker sample is a sample of all students, seriously involved or not.) This discrepancy should be kept in mind when considering the findings reported in the following chapter.

There is, however, a definite advantage in using different samples and methods to test a single set of hypotheses. To the extent that similar results are obtained, confidence in the external validity of the results (the "generalizability") is enhanced. This is, in essence, the "method of triangulation" suggested by Webb, et al. (1973:3 and

174).

Throughout the analysis extensive use is made of cross-tabulations and the "elaboration paradigm" (Kendall and Lazersfeld, 1950; Glock,

1967; Rosenberg, 1968; and Davis, 1971). Several measures of association--particularly Yule's Q--are used to indicate the magnitude and direction of elaborated relationships. Inferential statistics, such as Chi-square, tests for differences in proportions, and "t-tests" 31

for correlated and uncorrelated samples, provide a guide to the statistical significance of relationships.

For convenience, a summary of selected characteristics of both samples is provided in Table II-l. 32

TABLE II-l Summary of selected sample characteristics 1 2

Bowling Green Baker State University University

Size of University 17,000 675

Location of university Northwest Ohio Northeast Kansas

Type of university Public, state Private, Methodist

Date of survey Spring, 1974 Spring, 1975 2 Sample size 1951 153z Males 95 (49%) 74 (48%) Females 100 (51%) 79 (52%)

Median age 20.9 19.3 Males 21.3 19.4 Females 20.6 19.2

Race White 90% 91% Black 9% 7% Other 1% 2%

Type of community lived in during high school years Urban/suburban 72% 57% Rural/farm 28% 43%

Social class of origin Median occupational Eighty per cent status score of father came from homes was 76.1 (white collar with total annual or semi-professional) incomes of $20,000 or more

1. Bowling Green State University sample includes 19 married couples, 66 dating couples, 10 cohabiting couples, and 5 dating females whose male partners did not participate. 2. All students were unmarried at the time of the survey. 33

CHAPTER THREE: PREMARITAL SEXUAL STANDARDS AND BEHAVIOR

...the most fertile search for validity comes from a com­ bined set of different measures, each with its idiosyncractic weaknesses, each pointed to a single hypothesis. When a hypothesis can survive the confrontation of a series of com­ plementary methods of testing, it contains a degree of validity unattainable by one tested within the more con­ stricted framework of a single method. (Webb, et al., 1966:174)

This strategy of "triangulation" is used in the following pages to evaluate the four hypotheses presented at the end of Chapter One.

Indicators of Premarital Sexual Permissiveness

Premarital sexual permissiveness was high among students in both samples--higher even than levels reported in studies conducted during the early 1970's (see Kaats and Davis, 1971, for example). Two- thirds of the males and approximately one-half of the females in the

Bowling Green sample held standards high in permissiveness. So did

76 per cent of the males and 46 per cent of the females at Baker.

Students were considered to be high in permissiveness if their standards allowed coitus if they were not married and had no serious marriage plans. Students considered low in permissiveness were those holding standards restricting coitus to marital relationships or to relationships involving serious marriage plans.

High permissiveness characterized sexual behavior as well as sexual standards. Seventy-nine per cent of the males and 65 per cent of the females at Bowling Green had some premarital coital experience, as did

59 per cent of the males and 48 per cent of the females at Baker. ■34

Differences in coital permissiveness between the two samples are largely

attributed to differences in target populations. The Bowling Green

sample was selected in such a way that only students involved in serious

heterosexual relationships were included. The Baker sample was a

random sample of all students.

Hypothesis One: The greater the involvement in the courtship process, the greater the permissiveness in sexual standards and behavior.

The samples were divided into two categories on the basis of participation in serious and exclusive heterosexual dating. In both

samples, the high involvement group included students who were (1)

dating one person seriously and exclusively, (2) tentatively engaged

to be married, or (3) formally engaged to be married. In the Bowling

Green sample, the low involvement group consisted of students who were dating seriously but not exclusively. In the Bdker sample, the low involvement category included all students who were (1) not dating,

(2) dating infrequently, or (3) dating seriously but not exclusively.

High involvement groups at Bowling Green and at Baker are, therefore, similar in composition while the low involvement category at Baker includes a number of not dating/infrequently dating students who did not appear in the Bowling Green sample.

In general, the data reported in Tables III-l to III-5 do not appear to support the first hypothesis. Except for differences in the permissiveness of males and females, few patterns are obvious and there are as many findings inconsistent with the hypothesis as there are ones consistent with it. 35

Data collected at Bowling Green regarding permissiveness in sexual

standards (Table III-l) appeared to support hypothesis one, while that

obtained from students at Baker did not. Both males and females at

Bowling Green tended to become more permissive as they became more

involved in the advanced stages of courtship (Q = .316 for males and

.582 for females). However, at Baker University the relationship

between courtship involvement and permissiveness in sexual standards

was negative among males (Q = -.200) and low among females (Q = .245).

Similar inconsistencies can be found when relating courtship

involvement to the incidence of premarital coitus (Table III-2) and

the incidence of recent premarital coitus (Table III-3).

Among Bowling Green students, there was a low positive relation­

ship between dating involvement and premarital coitus for males (.220) but a negative relationship between the two for females (-.122). See

Table III-2. The permissiveness of males at Baker also appeared more influenced by courtship involvement (Q = .302) than did the permissiveness of females (Q = -.052).

Concerning recent coital experience (Table III-3), data from

Bowling Green suggested that the hypothesis be rejected while data from Baker provided weak support. At Bowling Green, "recent coitus" was operationalized as currently having coitus with the primary dating partner. At Baker, it referred to having premarital coital experience during the month prior to data collection.

Independently of involvement in exclusive dating relationships, males at Bowling Green reported high involvement in recent coitus 36

TABLE III-l

Permissiveness in sexual standards by involvement in heterosexual dating

Involvement in heterosexual dating low high

B.G.S.U. Males (n = 75) low permissiveness 13 (42%) 12 (27%) high permissiveness 18 (58%) 32 (73%)

Q = .316, X2 = 1.16, df = 1, P It .30

Females (n =.81) low permissiveness 22 (69%) 18 (37%) high permissiveness 10 (31%) 31 (63%)

Q = .582, X2 = 6.71, df = 1, P It .01

Total (n = 156) low permissiveness 35 (56%) 30 (32%) high permissiveness 28 (44%) 63 (68%)

Q = .448, X2 = 7.46, df = 1, P It .01

Baker Males (n = 74) low permissiveness 12 (22%) 6 (30%) high permissiveness 42 (78%) 14 (70%)

Q = -.200, X2 = .70, df = 1, p It .50

Females (n = 79) low permissiveness 30 (59%) 13 (46%) high permissiveness 21 (41%) 15 (54%) Q = .245, X2 = .68, df = 1, p It .50

Total (n = 153) low permissiveness 42 (40%) 19 (40%) high permissiveness 63 (60%) 29 (60%)

Q = .009, X2 = .02, df = 1, p It .90

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 37

TABLE III-2

Premarital coital experience by involvement in heterosexual dating

Involvement in heterosexual dating low high

B.G.S.U. Males (n = 75) no coital experience 8 (26%) 8 (18%) coital experience 23 (74%) 36 (82%) Q = .220, X2 = .26, df = 1, p It .70

Females (n = 81) no coital experience 10 (31%) 18 (37%) coital experience 22 (69%) 31 (63%) Q = -.122, X2 = .07, df = 1, p 1 .80

Total (n = 156) no coital experience 18 (29%) 26 (28%) coital experience 45 (71%) 67 (72%) Q = .015, X2 = .01, df = 1, p It .95

Baker Males (n = 74) no coital experience 24 (44%) 6 (30%) coital experience 30 (56%) 14 (70%) Q = .302, X2 = .74, df = 1, p It .50

Females (n = 79) no coital experience 26 (51%) 15 (54%) coital experience 25 (49%) 13 (46%) Q = -.052, X2 = .00, df = 1, p 1 .98

Total (n =153) no coital experience 50 (48%) 21 (44%) coital experience 55 (52%) 27 (56%) Q = .078, X2 = .07, df = 1, p It .80

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 38

(64 per cent of the non-exclusive dating males and 68 per cent of the exclusive daters were having coitus with their primary partner).

Among females at this university, those in serious but not exclusive dating relationships were slightly more likely to be having coitus with their current partner (62 per cent) than were those in serious and exclusive relationships (57 per cent). See Table III-3.

However, at Baker University greater involvement in serious dating was positively related to recent coital experience for both males

(.296) and females (.268), although coefficients of association are low.

Two additional tests of hypothesis one are summarized in Tables

III-4 and III-5. Both indicate some support for this hypothesis.

While not directly measuring involvement in the courtship process, data in Table III-4 do indicate that acceptance of premarital coitus increases with the level of affection that one holds for his or her sex partner. Of those students who would accept premarital coitus under some condition, 78 per cent of the males and 83 per cent of the females at Bowling Green would only accept premarital coitus if they felt at least love or strong affection for their partner. The same was true of 46 per cent of the men and 91 per cent of the women at Baker

University. (In this sample differences between males and females were significant.)

Students involved in serious relationships (Bowling Green) were asked to indicate their degree of emotional involvement in their relationships on a seven-point self-rated scale. Those with scores of six or seven were classified as having "high" involvement. Cross­ tabulations of emotional involvement and premarital coitus with the 39

TABLE III-3

Recent premarital coital experience by involvement in heterosexual dating

Involvement in heterosexual dating low high

B.G.S.U. Males (n = 75) no recent coitus 11 (36%) 14 (32%) recent coitus 20 (64%) 30 (68%) Q = .082, X2 = .01, df = 1, p It .95

Females (n = 81) no recent coitus 12 (38%) 21 (43%) recent coitus 20 (62%) 28 (57%) Q = -.111, X2 = .06, df = 1, p It .90

Total (n = 156) no recent coitus 23 (36%) 35 (38%) recent coitus 40 (64%) 58 (62%) Q = -.024, X2 = .00, df = 1, p It .95

Baker Males (n = 74) no recent coitus 35 (65%) 10 (50%) recent coitus 19 (35%) 10 (50%) Q = .296, X2 = .79, df = 1, p It .50

Females (n = 79) no recent coitus 34 (67%) 15 (54%) recent coitus 17 (33%) 13 (46%) Q = .268, X2 = .82, df = 1, p It .50

Total (n = 153) no recent coitus 69 (66%) 25 (52%) recent coitus 36 (34%) 23 (48%) Q = .276, X2 = 2.04, df = 1, p It .20

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 40

TABLE III-4

The level of affection for the partner at which premarital coitus first becomes acceptable among unmarried students wljto would accept premarital coitus under some conditions

Level of affection necessary before having coitus no particular moderate strong affection affection affection

Number and per cent who would accept premarital coitus

B.G.S.U.

Males (n = 73) 5 (7%) 11 (15%) 57 (78%) Females (n = 72) 2 (3%) 10 (14%) 60 (83%) Total (n = 145) 7 (5%) 21 (14%) 117 (81%)

Baker

Males (n = 69) 9 (12%) 26 (35%)a 34 (46%)b Females (n = 70) 1 (1%) 5 (7%)a 64 (91%)b Total (n = 139) 10 (7%) 31 (22%) 98 (71%)

Per cents may not add to 100 due to rounding errors.

Matching superscripts indicate a significant difference in proportions between males and females with a probability of less than .05.

1. Two males and nine females in the Bowling Green sample indicated they would not accept premarital coitus regardless of their feelings of affec­ tion for their partner. The same was true of five males and nine females in the Baker sample. 41

primary partner are reported for Bowling Green students in Table III-5.

Students, particularly females, with higher self-ratings of

emotional involvement were slightly more likely than those with lower

self-ratings to be having coitus with their partners, The value of

Q measuring the strength of the relationship between emotional

involvement and coitus with partner was ,159 for males and ,577 for

females.

In summarizing data pertinent to hypothesis one, the findings are

inconclusive. Involvement in serious courtship was positively related

to permissiveness in sexual standards in one sample (Bowling Green) but not the other (Baker). It also appeared more important in

determining permissiveness in standards among females than among males. Courtship involvement was positively related to the incidence of premarital coitus among males in both samples (a low to moderate association) but not among females. Courtship involvement had a low positive relationship with recent coital activity among Baker students but little relationship to recent coitus among students at Bowling

Green. Acceptance of premarital coitus was found to increase as affection for partner increased in both samples, and students at

Bowling Green were slightly more likely to be having coitus with their partner if they had high emotional involvement in the relationship.

Overall, available data cannot be clearly interpreted as support for hypothesis one. 42

TABLE III-5

Incidence of premarital coitus with the current partner by degree of emotional involvement in the relationship, B.G.S.U.

Degree of emotional involvement low high

Males (n = 75) not currently having coitus 13 (37%) 12 (30%) currently having coitus 22 (63%) 28 (70%)

Q = .159, X2 = .17, df = 1, p :It .70

Females (n = 81) not currently having coitus 14 (54%) 19 (35%) currently having coitus 12 (46%) 36 (65%)

Q = .377, X2 = 2.02, df = 1, p It .20

Total (n = 156) not currently having coitus 27 (44%) 31 (33%) currently having coitus 34 (56%) 64 (67%)

Q = .242, X2 = 1.65, df = 1, p It .20

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 43

Hypothesis Two: The greater the experience in heterosexual relation­

ships, the greater the permissiveness in sexual standards and behavior.

The first hypothesis examined the relationship between current

involvement in heterosexual dating and premarital permissiveness. The

findings were inconclusive and the hypothesis could not be accepted.

This hypothesis relates past experience in heterosexual relationships

to current standards and behavior. Three major indicators of hetero­ sexual "experience" are used: (1) previous premarital coital experience; (2) involvement in "love" relationships; and (3) involve­ ment in "going steady" relationships. All three indicators were positively related to premarital permissiveness as the second hypothesis predicted.

Past experience with premarital coitus was strongly related to current premarital standards for all groups (Table III-6). The association between premarital coital experience and permissiveness in sexual standards was .828 for males at Bowling Green and .713 for males at Baker. For females at Bowling Green, the value of Q was

.946 and at Baker it was .976. This strongly supports hypothesis two.

Likewise, students who had premarital coitus with a previous partner were more likely than those who had not to be having coitus with their current partner (Table III-7). Among males at Bowling

Green, 84 per cent of those who had previous coital experience were having coitus with their current partner compared to only 53 per cent of those with no prior coital experience. Among females, the respective proportions were 78 per cent and 52 per cent. This finding also supports hypothesis two. 44

TABLE III-6

Current permissiveness in sexual standards by previous premarital coital experience

no previous previous coitus coitus

B.G.S.U. Males (n = 75) low permissiveness 12 (75%) 13 (22%) high permissiveness 4 (25%) 46 (78%) Q = .828, X2 = 13.60, df = 1, p It .001

Females (n = 81) low permissiveness 26 (93%) 14 (26%) high permissiveness 2 (7%) 39 (47%) Q = .946, X2 = 29.75, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 156) low permissiveness 38 (86%) 27 (24%) high permissiveness 6 (14%) 39 (76%) Q = .904, X2 = 47.85, df = 1, p It .001

Baker Males (n = 74) low permissiveness 13 (43%) 5 (1U) high permissiveness 17 (57%) 39 (89%) Q = .713, X2 = 8.24, df = 1, p It .01

Females (n = 79) low permissiveness 38 (93%) 5 (13%) high permissiveness 3 (7%) 33 (87%) Q = .976, X2 = 47.13, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153) low permissiveness 51 (72%) 10 (12%) high permissiveness 20 (28%) 72 (88%) Q = .897, X2 = 54.00, df = 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 45

TABLE III-7

Incidence of premarital coitus with current partner by premarital coital experience with previous partners, B.G.S.U.

no previous previous coitus coitus

Males (n = 75) no coitus with current partner 20 (47%) 5 (16%)

coitus with current partner 23 (53%) 27 (84%) Q = .649, X2 = 6.55, df = 1, p It .01

Females (n = 81) no coitus with current partner ' 28 (48%) 5 (22%)

coitus with current partner 30 (52%) 18 (78%) Q = .541, X2 = 3.77, df = 1, p It .10

Total (n = 156) no coitus with current partner 48 (48%) 10 (18%)

coitus with current partner 53 (52%) 45 (82%)

Q = .606, X2 = 11.90, df = 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 46

There was a positive relationship between the number of times an

individual had been in love and his or her premarital coital experience

(Table III-8). Eighty-one per cent of the males at Bowling Green who

had been in love two or more times had had premarital coitus. The

same was true of 51 per cent of the Bowling Green females, 71 per cent

of the Baker males, and 62 per cent of the Baker females. Because of

the limited number of cases, it was necessary to combine into a single

category those who had never been in love and those who had been in

love only once. This had the effect of moderately attenuating the

relationship between experience in love relationships and premarital

coitus. For instance, there were 27 males in the Baker sample who

had never been in love. Of these, 22 (81 per cent) had never experienced

premarital coitus. But of the 26 who had been in love one time, only

two (8 per cent) had no premarital coital experience. Data in Table III-8

are interpreted as support for the second hypothesis.

In Table III-9, experience in "going steady" is cross-tabulated with permissiveness in standards and behavior for students at Baker

University. Relationships were all in the expected positive direction,

although stronger for females than for males, and stronger when the

dependent variable was premarital coital experience than when it was premarital sexual standards.

Among males who had gone steady at least once, 82 per cent held permissive premarital standards. This compared to only 67 per cent of the males who had never gone steady. For females, respective per­

centages were 53 and 32 per cent (Table III-9). M

TABLE III-8

Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards and behavior by the number of times the individual has been in love, Baker University

number of times in love never or once twice or more

Sexual standards Males (n = 74) low permissiveness 14 (26%) 4 (19%) high permissiveness 39 (74%) 17 (81%) Q = .208, X2 = .13, df = 1, P It .80

Females (n = 79) low permissiveness 24 (60%) 19 (49%) high permissiveness 16 (40%) 20 (51%) Q = .224, X2 = .61, df = 1, P It .50

Total (n = 153) low permissiveness 38 (41%) 23 (38%) high permissiveness 55 (59%) 37 (62%) Q = .053, X2 = .02, df = 1, P It .90

Sexual behavior Males (n = 74) no premarital coitus 24 (45%) 6 (29%) premarital coitus 29 (55%) 15 (71%) Q = .348, X2 = 1.12, df = 1, P It .30

Females (n = 79) no premarital coitus 26 (65%) 15 (38%) premarital coitus 14 (35%) 24 (62%) Q = .496, X2 = 4.56, df = 1, P It .05

Total (n = 153) no premarital coitus 50 (54%) 21 (35%) premarital coitus 43 (46%) 39 (65%) Q = .367, X2 = 4.44, df = 1, P It .05

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 48

TABLE III-9

Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards and behavior by experience with "going steady" relationships, Baker University

has never has "gone steady" "gone steady"

Sexual standards Males (n = 74) low permissiveness 10 (33%) 8 (18%) high permissiveness 20 (67%) 36 (82%) Q =,,.385, X2 = 1.48, df = 1, P It .30

Females (n = 79) low permissiveness 19 (68%) 24 (47%) high permissiveness 9 (32%) 27 (53%) Q = .407, X2 = 2.37, df = 1» P It .20

Total (n = 153) low permissiveness 29 (50%) 32 (34%) high permissiveness 29 (50%) 63 (66%) Q = .326, X2 = 3.35, df = 1, P It .10

Sexual behavior Males (n = 74) no premarital coitus 17 (57%) 13 (30%) premarital coitus 13 (43%) 31 (70%) Q = .514, X2 = 4.38, df = 1, P It .05

Females (n = 79) no premarital coitus 20 (71%) 21 (41%) premarital coitus 8 (29%) 30 (59%) Q = .562, X2 = 5.47, df = 1, P It .02

Total (n = 153) no premarital coitus 37 (64%) 34 (36%) premarital coitus 21 (36%) 61 (64%) Q = .519, X2 = 10.26, df =: 1» P It .01

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity 49

Premarital coitus was characteristic of 70 per cent of the males who had gone steady but only 43 per cent of those who had not gone steady

(Q = .514). And, while 59 per cent of the females who had gone steady had had premarital coitus, less than 30 per cent of those who had not gone steady were experienced (Q = .562). All relationships reported in

Table III-9 indicated hypothesis two should be accepted.

Overall, there was strong support for hypothesis two. Premarital coitus was strongly and positively related to current sexual standards; previous coital experience was strongly and positively related to coitus with the current dating partner; and being experienced in love and "steady" relationships were positively related to permissiveness in premarital sexual standards and behavior.

Hypothesis Three: The greater the isolation from individuals and institutions supporting non-permissive sexual norms, the greater the permissiveness in sexual standards and behavior.

Two primary sources of support for non-permissive sex norms are religious institutions and parents (Reiss, 1967). This hypothesis suggests that the greater the physical, social and psychological distance between the individual and institutions and persons supporting non-permissive sex norms, the greater the permissiveness.

Religiosity (an indicator of social and psychological distance from the religious institution) was measured by a three-item cumulative scale. Items on this scale included: (1) nominal affiliation;

(2) church attendance; and (3) a self-rating of religiosity. Individuals were considered to be high in religiosity if they met two or more of 50

the following criteria: (1) they identified themselves as a member of

some church or denomination; (2) they attended church services at least

once a month; or (3) they rated themselves at or above the midpoint on

a seven-point self-rating of religiosity. Students who passed none or one of the three scale items were classified as low in religiosity.

(Those with a scale score of one were very likely to claim a nominal affiliation but not attend church or consider themselves to be very religious.)

Tables III-10, III-ll, and III-12 report the relationship between religiosity and premarital permissiveness. In these three tables, data support the hypothesis. In Table III-10, religiosity was negatively related to standards permissiveness for all groups and the coefficients of association were moderate to strong. At Bowling Green, Q was -.740 for males and -.816 for females. At Baker, corresponding Q values were

-.622 and -.540. Students with lower religiosity scores were more likely to hold permissive sexual standards than were those with higher religiosity scores.

Students in all groups were also less likely to have had premarital coitus if they had high religiosity scores (Table III-ll) and less likely to have had coitus recently (Table III-12). Ninety-four per cent of the males and 90 per cent of the females at Bowling Green with low religiosity had some premarital coitus. The same was true of 67 per cent of the males and 75 per cent of the females at Baker (Table III-ll)

Additionally, while 82 per cent of the students low in religiosity at

Bowling Green were having coitus with their current partner, only 50 per cent of those high in religiosity were doing so. At Baker, 52 per 51

TABLE III-10

Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by religiosity

low high religiosity religiosity

B.G.S.U. Males (n = 75) low permissiveness 4 (12%) 21 (49%) high permissiveness 28 (88%) 22 (51%) Q = -.740, X2 = 9.33, df = 1, p It .01

Females (n = 81) low permissiveness 5 (17%) 35 (67%) high permissiveness 24 (83%) 17 (33%) Q = -.816, X2 = 16.72, df = 1, p It .001 .

Total (n = 156) low permissiveness 9 (15%) 56 (59%) high permissiveness 52 (85%) 39 (41%) Q = -.785, X2 = 28.06, df 1, p It .001

Baker Males (n = 74) low permissiveness 7 (15%) 11 (42%) high permissiveness 41 (85%) 15 (58%) Q = -.622, X2 = 5.62, df 1, p It .02

Females (n = 79) low permissiveness 5 (31%) 38 (60%) high permissiveness 11 (69%) 25 (40%) Q = -.540, X2 = 3.25, df 1, p It .10

Total (n = 153) low permissiveness 12 (19%) 49 (55%) high permissiveness 52 (81%) 40 (45%) Q = -.683, X2 = 18.98, df 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity 52

TABLE III-ll

Premarital coital experience by religiosity

low high religiosity religiosity

B.G.S.U. Males (n = 75) no premarital coitus 2 (6%) 14 (33%) premarital coitus 30 (94%) 29 (67%) Q = -.757, X2 = 6.08, df = 1, p It .02

Females (n = 79) no premarital coitus 3 (10%) 25 (48%) premarital coitus 26 (90%) 27 (52%) Q = -.778, X2 = 10.11, df = 1 , p It .01

Total (n = 156) no premarital coitus 5 (8%) 39 (41%) premarital coitus 56 (92%) 56 (59%) Q = -.773, X2 = 18.21, df = 1 , p It .001

Baker Males (n = 74) no premarital coitus 16 (33%) 14 (54%) premarital coitus 32 (67%) 12 (46%) Q = -.400, X2 = 2.15, df = 1, p It .20

Females (n = 79) no premarital coitus 4 (25%) 37 (59%) premarital coitus 12 (75%) 26 (41%) Q = -.620, X2 = 4.54, df = 1, p It .05

Total (n = 153) no premarital coitus 20 (31%) 51 (57%) premarital coitus 44 (69%) 38 (43%) Q = -.494, X2 = 9.14, df = 1, p It .01

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity 53

TABLE III-12

Recent premarital coital experience by religiosity

low high religiosity religiosity

B.G.S.U. Males (n = 75) no recent coitus 6 (19%) 19 (44%) recent coitus 26 (81%) 24 (56%) Q = -.549, X2 = 4.26, df = 1, p It .05

Females (n = 81) no recent coitus 5 (17%) 28 (54%) recent coitus 24 (83%) 24 (46%) Q = -.697, X2 = 8.87, df = 1, p It .01

Total (n = 156) no recent coitus 11 (18%) 47 (50%) recent coitus 50 (82%) 48 (50%) Q = -.633, X2 = 14.40, df = 1, p It .001

Baker Males (n = 74) no recent coitus 25 (52%) 20 (77%) recent coitus 23 (48%) 6 (23%) Q = -.508, X2 = 3.39, df = 1, P It .05

Females (n = 79) no recent coitus 6 (38%) 43 (68%) recent coitus 10 (62%) 20 (32%) Q = -.564, X2 = 3.90, df = 1, P It .05

Total (n = 153) no recent coitus 31 (48%) 63 (71%) recent coitus 33 (52%) 26 (29%) Q = -.441, X2 = 3.47, df = 1, P It .10

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 54

cent of those low in religiosity had had .premarital coitus during the

month prior to data collection, but only 29 per cent of those high in

religiosity had done so. Data in these tables strongly support

hypothesis three.

In the questionnaire distributed to the sample at Bowling Green, a

five-item summated scale was used to measure isolation from parents.

Included as scale items were questions measuring: (1) geographical

distance between the parent's home and the student's campus residence;

(2) whether or not the student lived with parents during the summer

and other school vacations; (3) the frequency of student's visits home;

(4) the frequency of visits from parents while at school; and (5) the

frequency with which the student and parents exchanged letters and

phone calls.

Students were considered "high" in isolation from parents if they

met at least three of the following criteria: (1) they lived more than

250 miles from their parents; (2) they did not reside with parents

during times school was not in session; (3) they visited home less than

once every two or three months; (4) their parents visited them at

school less than once every two or three months; or (5) they and their parents exchanged letters and/or phone calls less than once a month.

Most students classified in the high isolation category satisfied all five criteria.

Isolation from parents was strongly and positively related to permissiveness in sexual standards for females (Q = .636) and moderately related to permissiveness for males (Q = .338). See Table III-13. 55

TABLE III-13

Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by degree of isolation from parents, B.G.S.U.

low high isolation isolation

Males (n = 75) low permissiveness 18 (39%) 7 (24%) high permissiveness 28 (61%) 22 (76%)

Q = .338, X2 = 1.19, df = 1, p It .30

Females (n = 81) low permissiveness 26 (68%) 14 (33%) high permissiveness 12 (32%) 29 (67%) 2 Q = .636, X = 8.99, df = 1, p It .01

Total (n = 156) low permissiveness 44 (52%) 21 (29%) high permissiveness 40 (48%) 51 (71%)

Q = .455, X2 = 7.67, df = 1, p It .01

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 56

There were also low positive associations between isolation from parents and premarital coitus, either ever (.203) or with the current partner

(.212) for males in this sample, and moderately strong positive relation­ ships (.496 and .349) among females (Table III-14). These results support the third hypothesis.

At Baker University, students were asked to indicate the degree to which they felt they were close to their parents. (See Tables III-15 and III-16.) Those who responded "very close" or "moderately close" were combined into one group, as were those who responded "not very close," "not close" or "uncertain." For females, there were strong negative relationships between "closeness to parents" and permissiveness in sexual standards (-.795), incidence of premarital coitus at some time (-.620), and incidence of premarital coitus during the past month

(-.872). For males, the same relationships were either low and negative or non-existent (-.181 for sexual standards; .067 for any premarital coitus; and -.236 for recent premarital coitus). It is felt, however, that the data do support the third hypothesis, particularly in light of the significant negative correlations in the female sub-sample.

Students at Baker were asked to imagine how their parents would react if they found out their son or daughter had had premarital coitus.

Only one student, a male, felt his parents would "strongly approve."

The large majority of students, particularly females, felt their parents would "strongly disapprove" of the behavior. Classifying students into two categories placed all those who expected "strong 57

TABLE III-14

Premarital coital experience by degree of isolation from parents, B.G.S.U.

low high isolation isolation

Any past premarital coitus Males (n = 75) no premarital coitus 11 (24%) 5 (17%) premarital coitus 35 (76%) 24 (83%) Q = .203, X2 = .16, df = 1, p It .90

Females (n = 81) no premarital coitus 18 (47%) 10 (23%) premarital coitus 20 (53%) 33 (77%) Q = .496, X2 = 4.17, df =1, p It .05

Total (n = 156) no premarital coitus 29 (34%) 15 (21%) premarital coitus 55 (66%) 57 (79%) Q = .334, X2 = 2.94, df = 1, p It .10

Recent premarital coitus Males (n = 75) no recent coitus 17 (37%) 8 (28%) recent coitus 29 (63%) 21 (72%) Q = .212, X2 = .34, df = 1, p It .70

Females (n = 81) no recent coitus 19 (50%) 14 (33%) recent coitus 19 (50%) 29 (67%) Q = .349, X2 = 1.87, df = 1, p It .20

Total (n = 156) no recent coitus 36 (43%) 22 (31%) recent coitus 48 (57%) 50 (69%) Q = .261, X2 = 2.01, df = 1, p It .20

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 58

TABLE III-15

Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by feelings of closeness to parents, Baker University

not close close to to parents parents

Males (n = 74) low permissiveness 8 (21%) 10 (28%) high permissiveness 30 (79%) 26 (72%)

Q = -.181, X2 = .16, df = 1, p It .70

Females (n = 79) low permissiveness 8 (25%) 35 (74%) high permissiveness 24 (75%) 12 (26%) Q = -.795, X2 = 16.84, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153) low permissiveness 16 (23%) 45 (54%) high permissiveness 54 (77%) 38 (46%)

Q = -.600, X2 = 14.30, df = 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 59

TABLE III-16

Premarital coital experience by feelings of closeness to parents, Baker University

not close close to to parents parents

Any past premarital coitus Males (n = 74) no premarital coitus 16 (42%) 14 (39%) premarital coitus 22 (58%) 22 (61%) = .067, X2 = .00, df = 1, p Q It . 99

Females (n = 79) no premarital coitus 10 (31%) 31 (66%) premarital coitus 22 (69%) 16 (34%) = -.620, X2 = 7.85, df = 1, Q p It .01

Total (n =153) no premarital coitus 26 (37%) 45 (54%) premarital coitus 44 (63%) 38 (46%) Q = -.334, X2 = 3.79, df = 1, p It .10

Recent premarital coitus < Males (n = 74) no recent coitus 21 (55%) 24 (67%) recent coitus 17 (45%) 12 (33%) Q = -.236, X2 = .59, df = 1, p It .50

Females (n = 79) no recent coitus 9 (28%) 40 (85%) recent coitus 23 (72%) 7 (15%) Q = -.872, X2 = 23.88, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153) no recent coitus 30 (43%) 64 (78%) recent coitus 40 (57%) 19 (22%) Q = -.542, X2 = 7.70, df = 1, p It .01

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity 60

disapproval" in one group and the remaining students in the other.

Tables III-17 and III-18 report this portion of the analysis. In

general, the less the expected parental disapproval the higher the

permissiveness. This was more characteristic of females than of males.

Of those students expecting their parents to strongly disapprove,

67 per cent of the males and 31 per cent of the females held permissive

sexual standards. Among those expecting less disapproval, 82 per cent

of the males and 76 per cent of the females held permissive standards.

(Q was .385 for males and .747 for females.)

Expectations of parental disapproval were not related to the

overall coital experience of males (Q = -.019) but were strongly

related to that of females (Q = .778). There was a moderate relation­

ship between expected parents' reaction and recent coital experience

for males (Q = .430) and a very strong relationship for females

(Q = .846). These findings generally support the third hypothesis.

Overall, evidence supporting hypothesis three is fairly strong.

Religiosity was negatively related to permissiveness in premarital standards and behavior. Students, particularly females, who were

"isolated" from their parents were more permissive than those who were not, and students who felt "close" to their parents were less per­ missive than were those who were not "close." Expectations of parental disapproval of premarital coitus were negatively related to per­ missiveness in standards and behavior, but more strongly for females than for males. 61

TABLE III-17

Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by feelings of the degree to which parents would disapprove of premarital coitus, Baker University

strong parental mild parental disapproval disapproval

Males (n = 74)

low permissiveness 10 (33%) 8 (18%) high permissiveness 20 (67%) 36 (82%)

Q = .385, X2 = 1.48, df = 1, p It .30

Females (n = 79)

low permissiveness 37 (69%) 6 (24%) high permissiveness 17 (31%) 19 (76%)

Q = .747, X2 = 11.92, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153)

low permissiveness 47 (56%) 14 (20%) high permissiveness 37 (44%) 55 (80%) Q = .455, X2 = 7.70, df = 1, p It .01

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 62

TABLE III-18

Premarital coital experience by feelings of the degree to which parents would disapprove of premarital coitus, Baker University

strong parental mild parental disapproval disapproval

Any past premarital coitus Males (n = 74) no premarital coitus 12 (40%) 18 (30%) premarital coitus 18 (60%) 26 (59%) Q = -.019, X2 = .03, df = 1, p It 90

Females (n = 79) no premarital coitus 36 (67%) 5 (20%) premarital coitus 18 (33%) 20 (80%) Q = .778, X2 = 13.10, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153) no premarital coitus 48 (57%) 23 (33%) premarital coitus 36 (43%) 46 (67%) Q = .455, X2 = 7.70, df = 1, p It 01

Recent premarital coitus Males (n = 74) no recent coitus 22 (73%) 23 (52%) recent coitus 8 (27%) 21 (48%) Q = .430, X2 = 2.50, df = 1, p It 20

Females (n = 79) no recent coitus 48 (89%) 10 (40%) recent coitus 6 (11%) 15 (60%) Q = .846, X2 = 18.45, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153) no recent coitus 70 (83%) 33 (48%) recent coitus 14 (17%) 36 (52%) Q = .690, X2 = 20.13, df = 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 63

Hypothesis Four: The greater the perception of social support for a

given type of sexual behavior and the greater the interaction with

individuals and groups supporting that behavior, the greater the per­ missiveness with regard to that behavior.

A number of studies have reported strong and consistent relation­ ships between premarital coitus and participation in permissive peer groups (see Mirande, 1968, for instance). The data discussed here are no exception to that general finding.

In Table III-19, the proportion of friends believed to be pre- maritally experienced is cross-tabulated with standards regarding premarital coitus. Among males, the relationship between the two was positive and moderately high (Q = .409) and for females stronger yet

(Q = .936). While males believing that few or no close friends had premarital coitus were as likely to hold permissive standards as not to hold them, among those males who felt most or all friends were pre- maritally experienced, 85 per cent held permissive standards while only

15 per cent held non-permissive standards.

Among females who perceived little or no premarital coitus among their close friends, only 22 per cent held permissive standards. However,

89 per cent of those who felt most or all of their friends were experienced held highly permissive standards. Findings reported in

Table III-19 strongly support hypothesis four.

The incidence of premarital coitus (either in the past or recently) was very strongly related to the perception of experience among close friends for both males and females. See Table HI-20. While less 64

TABLE III-19

Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by the perception of premarital coital experience among close friends, Baker University

few or no close most or all close friends have friends have had coitus had coitus

Males (n = 74)

low permissiveness 10 (50%) 8 (15%) high permissiveness 10 (50%) 46 (85%)

Q = .409, X2 = 7.05, df = 1, p It .01

Females (n = 79)

low permissiveness 40 (78%) 3 (11%) high permissiveness 11 (22%) 28 (89%) Q = .936, X2 = 30.74, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153)

low permissiveness 50 (70%) 11 (13%) high permissiveness 21 (30%) 71 (87%) Q = .883, X2 = 49.48, df = 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity 65

TABLE III-20

Premarital coital experience by the perception of premarital coital experience among close friends, Baker University

few or no close most or all close friends have friends have had coitus had coitus

Any past premarital coitus Males (n = 74) no premarital coitus 16 (80%) 14 (26%) premarital coitus 4 (20%) 40 (74%) Q = .839, X2 = 15.53, df = 1, p It .001

Females (n = 79) no premarital coitus 38 (75%) 3 (11%) premarital coitus 13 (25%) 25 (89%) Q = .921, X2 = 26.97, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153) no premarital coitus 54 (76%) 17 (21%) premarital coitus H7 (24%) 65 (79%) Q = .848, X2 = 44.63, df = 1, p It .001

Recent premarital coitus Males (n = 74) no recent coitus 18 (90%) 27 (50%) recent coitus 2 (10%) 27 (50%) Q = .800, X2 = 8.19, df = 1, p It .01

Females (n = 79) no recent coitus 46 (90%) 3 (11%) recent coitus 5 (10%) 25 (89%) Q = .974, X2 = 45.17, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153) no recent coitus 64 (90%) 30 (37%) recent coitus 7 (10%) 52 (63%) Q = .881, X2 = 43.83, df = 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 66

than 25 per cent of those students who felt few or no close friends

had premarital coitus, had coitus themselves, nearly 80 per cent of

those with more permissive friends were coitally experienced. The

relationship was slightly stronger for females (.921) than for males

(.859), particularly when the dependent variable was the incidence of premarital coitus during the past month (Q = .800 for males and .974 for females).

Baker students were asked to imagine how their friends would react to the knowledge that they had premarital coitus. Those who expected to receive strong disapproval or disapproval were less likely to be permissive than were other students. This relationship is reported in

Table III-21. For both males and females, the coefficients of associa­ tion were strong and in the expected positive direction (.733 for males and .692 for females). Among those who felt that their close friends would approve of their premarital coitus, 81 per cent of the males and 76 per cent of the females held highly permissive standards.

Among those who expected their close friends to disapprove, only 40 per cent of the males and 37 per cent of the females held permissive premarital standards.

The incidence of premarital coitus ever, and the incidence of recent coital activity, were strongly and positively associated with expecta­ tions of approval coming from close friends (Table III-22). Of those expecting their close friends to disapprove of coitus, only two of ten males (20 per cent) and 23 of 62 females (37 per cent) had had pre­ marital intercourse. However, among those who anticipated approval,

66 per cent of the males and 88 per cent of the females were coitally 67

TABLE III-21

Permissiveness in premarital sexual standards by feelings of the way close friends would react to premarital coitus, Baker University

close friends close friends would disapprove would approve

Males (n = 74)

low permissiveness 6 (60%) 12 (19%) high permissiveness 4 (40%) 52 (81%)

Q = .733, X2 = 5.91, df = 1, p It .02

Females (n = 79)

low permissiveness 39 (63%) 4 (24%) high permissiveness 23 (37%) 13 (76%)

Q = .692, X2 = 6.83, df = 1, p It .01

Total (n = 153)

low permissiveness 45 (62%) 16 (20%) high permissiveness 27 (38%) 65 (80%)

Q = .743, X2 = 27.30, df = 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 68

TABLE III-22

Premarital coital experience by feelings of the way close friends would react to premarital coitus, Baker University

close friends close friends would disapprove would approve .

Any past premarital coitus Males (n = 74) no premarital coitus 8 (80%) 22 (34%) premarital coitus 2 (20%) 42 (66%) Q = .768, X2 = 5.70, df = 1, p It .02

Females (n = 79) no premarital coitus 39 (63%) 2 (12%) premarital coitus 23 (37%) 15 (88%) Q = .854, X2 = 12.00, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 153) no premarital coitus 47 (65%) 24 (30%) premarital coitus 25 (35%) 57 (70%) Q = .634, X2 = 18.07, df = 1, p It .001

Recent premarital coitus Males (n = 74) no recent coitus 8 (80%) 37 (58%) recent coitus 2 (20%) 27 (42%) Q = .490, X2 = .98, df = 1, p It .50

Females (n = 79) no reeenticoitusi 46 (74%) 3 (18%) recent coitus 16 (26%) 14 (82%) Q = .648, X2 = 6.09, df = 1, ;p It .02

Total (n = 153) no recent coitus 54 (75%) 40 (49%) recent coitus 18 (25%) 41 (51%) Q = .536, X2 = 10.29, df = 1, p It .01

A11 values of Chi-square corrected for continuity 69

experienced (Table III-22). Forty-two per cent of the males and 82 per

cent of the females who expected a favorable reaction from their close friends also had had coitus recently (Table HI-22). These findings support hypothesis four.

At Bowling Green, part of the questionnaire concerned standards regarding unmarried heterosexual cohabitation ("living together" outside of marriage). Such relationships were not personally acceptable to

38 males (51 per cent) or 55 females (68 per cent). The remaining students (37 males and 26 females) would accept cohabitation without marriage.

Approximately half of those in the Bowling Green sample felt that the local community was generally tolerant of couples who were living together unmarried. Those who believed this were more likely to hold permissive cohabitation standards than those believing the community to be less tolerant (Q = .417 for males and .669 for females). See

Table HI-23.

Sixty-one per cent of this sample also felt that cohabitation was fairly common at Bowling Green. Those who knew "quite a few" students who had cohabited were more likely to hold permissive cohabitation standards than were those who knew "several," "a few" or "no" cohabitors. This was more characteristic of females (Q = .580) than of males (Q = .304). See Table HI-24.

Finally, students who said that most or all of their close friends had cohabited were much more likely to accept unmarried cohabitation than were those who had fewer friends with cohabitation experience. 70

TABLE III-23

Standards concerning unmarried heterosexual cohabitation (UMC) by the perception of generalized community acceptance of unmarried heterosexual cohabitation, B.G.S.U.

community community intolerant tolerant

Males (n = 75)

UMC not personally acceptable 18 (64%) 20 (43%) UMC personally acceptable 10 (36%) 27 (57%) Q = .417, X2 = 2.50, df = 1, p It .20

Females (n = 81)

UMC not personally acceptable 40 (82%) 15 (47%) UMC personally acceptable 9 (18%) 17 (53%) Q = .669, X2 = 9.19, df = 1, p It .01

Total (n = 156)

UMC not personally acceptable 58 (75%) 35 (44%) UMC personally acceptable 19 (25%) 44 (56%) Q = .587, X2 = 14.32, df = 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 71

TABLE III-24

Standards concerning unmarried heterosexual cohabitation (UMC) by the perception of the extent of unmarried cohabitation on campus, B.G.S.U.

few or very few quite a few students are students are cohabiting cohabiting

Males (n = 75)

UMC not personally acceptable 18 (60%) 20 (44%) UMC personally acceptable 12 (40%) 25 (56%) Q = .304, X2 = 1.18, df = 1, p It .30

Females (n = 81)

UMC not personally acceptable 26 (84%) 29 (58%) UMC personally acceptable 5 (16%) 21 (42%)

Q = .580, X2 = 4.75, df = 1, p It .05

Total (n = 156)

UMC not personally acceptable 44 (72%) 49 (52%) UMC personally acceptable 17 (28%) 46 (48%) Q = .410, X2 = 5.58, df = 1, p It .02

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity. 72

Of the 31 males reporting cohabitation experience among most or all of

their close friends, 23 (74 per cent) would personally accept cohabita­

tion outside of marriage (Q = .721). And, of the 35 females with a

high proportion of experienced friends, 69 per cent held permissive

standards regarding cohabitation (Q = .956). See Table III-25.

Overall, hypothesis four received strong support from these data.

Premarital coital standards, the incidence of premarital coitus at some

time in the past, and the incidence of recent premarital coitus were

all strongly and positively related to the perception of coital experience

among close friends and the expectation of approval for coitus among

these same friends. Standards concerning cohabitation outside of

marriage were positively related to perceptions that the local community

was generally tolerant of such arrangements, positively related to the

perceived popularity of cohabitation on campus, and positively related

to the proportion of close friends who had cohabitation experience.1

Summary

With the exception of hypothesis one predicting greater permissive­

ness among those involved in more serious courtship stages, the data

presented in this chapter confirm the hypotheses presented in Chapter

One.

1. Although the number of students who were actually cohabiting at the time of the survey was too small for a detailed analysis (n = 20), all believed the community was tolerant of cohabitation, all felt it was common on campus, and all believed that most or all of their close friends had some cohabitation experience. 73

TABLE III-25

Standards concerning unmarried heterosexual cohabitation (UMC) by the perception of the extent of unmarried cohabitation among close friends, B.G.S.U.

few or very few most or all close friends close friends have cohabited have cohabited

Males (n = 75)

UMC not personally acceptable 30 (68%) 8 (26%) UMC personally acceptable 14 (32%) 23 (74%)

Q = .721, X2 = 11.41, df = 1, p It .001

Females (n = 81)

UMC not personally acceptable 44 (96%) 11 (31%) UMC personally acceptable 2 (4%) 24 (69%)

Q = .956, X2 = 34.73, df = 1, p It .001

Total (n = 156)

UMC not personally acceptable 74 (82%) 19 (29%) UMC personally acceptable 16 (18%) 47 (71%) Q = .839, X2 = 42.97, df = 1, p It .001

All values of Chi-square corrected for continuity 74

Past heterosexual experience (past coitus, being in love, and going steady) was positively related to permissiveness in standards and behavior in the present time (hypothesis two). Isolation from parents and religiosity were strongly and positively related to permissiveness

(hypothesis three) and so was participation in and expected support from permissive peer groups (hypothesis four).

In this and other studies (see Chapter One) there appear strong indications that premarital sexual experience has become commonplace among persons of college age. To borrow a phrase from the homosexual community, premarital sex has "come out of the closet." Although students still make attempts to keep their sexual experiences concealed from parents, among their peers, and especially close peers, informa­ tion about sexual experiences is shared more freely. Among students interviewed for this and subsequent investigations, there appeared to be little guilt or regret associated with sexual experiences. Sex was typically considered to be a natural and important part of an intense interpersonal relationship. For many students, coitus was a

"confirming experience" used to communicate to the partner (and the self) the importance of the feelings and interpersonal attractions associated with the relationship.

It must be noted that while these data indicate a movement towards increasing permissiveness in premarital relationships, permissiveness should not be equated with promiscuous, casual, or unrestrained sexual activity. Guided by an emerging norm relating sexual permissiveness to emotional involvement, sex in most relationships is best characterized 75

as an expressive and communicative interaction directed at expanding and deepening the dyadic bond between partners. 76

CHAPTER FOUR: THE QUALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP

Shelly and Richard had lived together unmarried for two years, ever

since they first met in the spring of their sophomore year. Both were

satisfied with the way their relationship had progressed, and they saw

little need for change, especially if change meant formalizing their

cohabitation by marrying. As Shelly explained in an interview:

I don't think I know any couple who has been married for awhile and is still really happy. Everything seems great until they take that final step, but then something happens. They change.

It's all in the way we're taught to think. Marriage isn't supposed to be something exciting. It's called "settling down." It means that if I want to do something and you don't--we don't.

Things don't go that way when you're not married. In our relationship we share...but we're always still ourselves. You know you're an individual.

You work at loving and you stay together because you love. Living together means that you have the freedom to do what you want and this includes the freedom to work at your relationship.

Shelly was willing to discuss her relationship because it was

important to her. She wanted it to be successful and she tried hard

to make it so. This was one part of the responsibility she felt

towards her partner, Richard.

Cohabiting students interviewed at Bowling Green were generally

outspoken in their critique of conventional dating and marriage

relationships. Dating, many felt, was both an outdated practice and a

game whose rules demanded artificial presentations bf self in the promotion of shallow relationships. Marriage was generally viewed as restricting personal freedom and development and eventually leading to

conformity to conventional sex-roles, apathy, and interpersonal

stagnation.

Almost universally, cohabiting couples believed that their relation­

ships were different and somehow free of the "faults" they associated with dating and marriage. They tended to believe that they enjoyed more personal freedom and that their feelings for one another were more honest and sincere. But is this so?

This chapter examines and compares some characteristics of dating,

cohabiting and married relationships, using data collected from 66 dating couples (132 individuals), 10 cohabiting couples (20 individuals), and 19 married couples (38 individuals) at Bowling Green State

University in 1974.

The Quality of a. Relationship

Cuber and Harroff (1968) felt that a relationship might appear intact on the surface and even continue to exist for many years, but they understood that longevity was not always a good indicator of relationship quality. "Devitalized" relationships--hollow emotional shells--could survive for long periods of time without ever becoming what they could. For those involved in such relationships, staying together was often easier than divorce or separation.

In the early 1970's, Nena and George O'Neill (1972) elaborated on this theme and popularized their guidelines for "open marriage"--a type of relationship similar to the "total" relationship described by 78

Cuber and Harroff (1968) . Like the popular psychology of best selling

non-fiction, the O'Neills (1972:71) summarized the differences between

traditional (old contract) and open relationships as sets of differing

demands:

The Old Contract Demands The Open Contract Offers

Ownership of mate Undependent living Denial of self Personal growth Playing the couples game Individual freedom Rigid role behavior Flexible roles Absolute fidelity Mutual trust Total exclusivity Expansion through openness

The "open relationship" appears to be the goal of many students,

particularly those who cohabit unmarried. As Macklin (1972:466) reported:

When students are asked to hypothesize why cohabitation has become more common and more open, they mention youth's search for more meaningful relations with others and the consequent rejection of the superficial "dating game;" the loneliness of a large university and the emotional satisfaction that comes from having someone to sleep with who cares about you; the widespread questionning of the institution of marriage and the desire to try out a relationship before there is any, if ever, consideration of permanency; the desire on the part of many to postpone commitment until there is some certainty that individual growth will be compatible with growth of the relationship...

In 1972, Lyness, Lipetz and Davis undertook a study of dating and

cohabiting students that examined the quality of their relationships

using the open marriage paradigm. In several subsequent investigations

of cohabitation, Lyness (1973 and 1974) further refined and operational­

ized parts of this model and developed measures of commitment to marriage, partner need, partner trust, respect for partner, sexual

satisfaction, open communication, and open companionship. 79

In a comparison of dating and cohabiting students (1973), Lyness

found only a few significant differences in her indicators of relation­

ship quality. Dating males were found to have stronger feelings of need

and respect for their partners than were cohabiting males. And, dating

males reported greater feelings of sexual satisfaction than did those

men who were living with their partner.

In a second investigation (Lyness, 1974), cohabiting males were

found to have a greater degree of commitment to future marriage than

dating males. However, Lyness also discovered that male and female

cohabiting partners often disagreed on the extent of this commitment.

Lyness (1974:3) believed that disagreements of this type were part of

a larger pattern:

...failure to agree on the part of living together couples was not confined to commitment, but formed a pattern of failure to reciprocate important feelings. Only on trust were living together couples reciprocating their partner's feelings to an extent that was greater than going-together couples.

To the extent that Lyness' conclusions can be generalized to other populations, there is an indication that unmarried cohabitation may not be the panacea for marital ills that many students, such as Shelly and

Richard, actively seek.

Although students who have cohabited unmarried tend to evaluate their experiences as successful, feel that it has fostered "personal growth and maturity," and think of their relationships as not only different but preferable to ones more traditional (Macklin, 1972 and

1974), there are serious discussions of cohabitation that reflect the 80

opinion that cohabiting and married relationships actually differ very

little from each other. For example, Whitehurst (1974:2-3) has

commented:

...it is a bit more difficult to practice quasi-androgynous sex-role orientation than it is to philosophize about it be­ fore people decide to live together. Repeatedly, people see themselves slipping into stereotyped sex-roles in running households and getting chores done and in countless other ways that connote cultural sameness rather than sex-role differentiation with respect to conventionals. Power, decision making, and household division of labor seem to be the most obvious places where conventional roles seem to appear, almost without people being aware of their presence. The most probable cause of this regression-to- the-norm is seen in the ease with which people adapt to 'normal' rather than consciously altered sex-roles. The many years of subtle socialization into standard sex-roles is not belied by a declaration of intent to change. Rather, conscious effort is required, especially on the part of men who are not well prepared for sharing inside the home.

Many cohabiting college students, Whitehurst (1974:4) believes, fail to escape the tradition-bound habits associated with other courtship-marriage relationships. Many "seem to act out the same neurotic patterns in cohabitation as they do in marriage" (Whitehurst,

1974:4).

Statement of Hypotheses

Dating, cohabiting, and married students were compared on a number of different dimensions of relationship quality following the guide­ lines proposed in the O'Neill's open marriage model (and subsequently operationalized by Lyness, 1973 and 1974). Among the "qualities" of relationships investigated were: 81

1. Relationship satisfaction--measured by a seven-point self-rating and a modification of the Marriage Adjustment Balance Scale (Orden and Bradbum, 1968).

2. Sexual satisfaction and involvement in extra-dyadic sexual relations.

3. Shared activities, feelings, and friendships.

4. Feelings of trust.

5. Openness of communication and willingness to discuss important problems and emotions.

6. Feelings of privacy or loss of privacy.

7. Open companionship--a willingness to allow the partner freedom in outside activities and relationships and the perception that this freedom is reciprocated.

8. A belief that the partner is a person of equal worth, intellect, and ability.

9. Feelings of loss of self-identity.

10. Jealousy.

11. Respect.

12. The reciprocity of feelings of trust, respect and equality between partners.

13. Role-flexibility in decision making and the division of household labor (among married and cohabiting couples only).

A review of available literature and preliminary interviews with cohabiting students suggested the following set of hypotheses. In most respects, dating, cohabiting, and married students were expected to differ little from each other.

1. Although tests of statistical significance have been used in making comparisons, the reader is cautioned about generalizing from these data. Samples of cohabiting students (n = 20) and married students (n = 38) are small. 82

Hypothesis One: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not differ with regard to relationship satisfaction.

Hypothesis Two: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not differ with regard to sexual satisfaction.

Hypothesis Three: Cohabiting students are more involved in "extra-dyadic" sexual relationships than are either dating or married students.

Hypothesis Four: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not differ with regard to "open relationship" indicators of relation­ ship quality--trust, open communication, privacy, open companion­ ship, equality, loss of self-identity, jealousy and respect.

Hypothesis Five: Dating, cohabiting and married students do not differ in the reciprocity of feelings of trust, respect, and equal­ ity with their partners.

Hypothesis Six: Cohabiting and married students do not differ with regard to role-flexibility in decision making and the division of household labor.

Hypothesis One : Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not

differ with regard to relationship satisfaction.

Under the first hypothesis, no difference in relationship satisfaction

scores are expected between students involved in dating, cohabiting, or marital relationships. Two measures of relationship satisfaction were

employed. The first was a self-rating of relationship satisfaction on a

seven-point scale. The second was a modification of the Marital

Adjustment Balance Scale (MABS)--a composite measure of the balance between the rewards and the tensions experienced in a relationship

(Orden and Bradbum, 1968). MABS scores are reported in both composite form and as separate scores on the dimensions of rewards and tensions.

Self-ratings of relationship satisfaction were high for all relationship types (Table IV-1). There were no significant differences,

although students who were cohabiting had slightly higher mean scores 83

TABLE IV-1

Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction among seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students (mean scores)

dating cohabiting married students students . , students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Relationship satisfaction (minimum =1, maximum = 7) Males 6.1 5.8 6.0 Females 6.0 6.2 6.2 Total 6.0 6.1 6.1

MABS (minimum = 0, maximum =21) Males 13.0 14. la 12.4a Females 13.1 13.7 12.8 Total 13.0 13.9a 12.6a

Reward s (minimum =0, maximum = 12) Males 7.1 7.6 7.0 Females 7.1 7.5 7.2 Total 7.1 7.6 7.1

Tensions (minimum = 0, maximum = 9) Males 3.1 2.5 3.6 Females 3.0 2.8 3.4 Total 3.1 2.6 3.5

Sexual satisfaction (minimum =1, maximum = 7) Males 5.8 6.3 6.2 Females 5.8 6.2 6.0 Total 5.8 6.3 6.1

Within rows, matching superscripts indicate a significant difference in means, T-test, p It .10. 84

(6.1) than did dating or married students (both with a mean of 6.0).

While dating and married males tended to score slightly higher (6.1 and

6.0) than cohabiting males (5.8), cohabiting and married females had higher mean scores (both had a mean of 6.2) than did dating females (6.0).

On the MABS significant differences were found between scores of

cohabiting and married students. Cohabitors had a score of 13.9 out of a maximum possible score of 21. Married students had a lower mean

MABS score of 12.6. Dating students fell between these two extremes

(13.0) but closer to married than cohabiting students.

Differences between cohabiting and married students were largely a consequence of differences in the satisfaction scores of males.

Cohabiting males had a mean MABS score of 14.1 while married males had a mean of 12.4. With this exception (higher mean scores among cohabit­ ing men), hypothesis one is supported.

It appeared as if the higher MABS mean scores of cohabiting males were a function of both a greater perception of relationship rewards and a lower perception of relationship tensions, although differences on the individual sub-scales were not statistically significant. Of the three relationship types, cohabiting males reported the greatest feelings of reward (7.6 out of a maximum score of 12.0) and the lowest feelings of tension (2.5 out of a maximum of 9.0). Married males, on the other hand, reported the lowest rewards (7.0) and the greatest tensions (3.6). Relationship tension scores, it is noted, are low for 85

all groups, including married males.

Hypothesis Two: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not

differ with regard to sexual satisfaction.

According to hypothesis two, no differences in sexual satisfaction

ratings were expected between dating, cohabiting, and married students.

Sexual satisfaction was self-rated on a seven-point scale (low to high).

Scores on this scale are reported in Table IV-1. There were no

significant differences between different types of relationships or between sexes. All groups were near the high end of the scale (5.8 for

dating students, 6.1 for married students, and 6.3 for cohabiting students). Cohabiting and married males had slightly higher levels of sexual satisfaction (6.3 and 6.2) than did cohabiting and married females (6.2 and 6.0) while dating males and females reported identical means (5.8).

Not all students were having coitus with their partners at the time of the survey (Table IV-2). One married couple reported they had not had coitus for more than a year. One cohabiting female and four dating females reported they were not currently having coitus with'their partner, although their male partners reported they were. This dis­ crepancy was not resolved.

2. Of those things which caused "tensions” in relationships, the most frequently reported problems were: one partner being too tired to do something the other wanted (53 per cent of all students); an irritating personal habit (48 per cent); job or school work (33 per cent); one partner not showing enough love or affection (29 per cent); and one partner spending too much time away from the other (29 per cent). Cohabiting students most frequently complained of an irritating personal habit (60 per cent); dating and married students complained of one partner being too tired to do something the other wanted (48 per cent of those dating and 74 per cent of those married). 86

TABLE IV-2

Incidence of coitus with primary partner and contraceptive use among seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students

dating cohabiting married students students students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Students reporting they are currently having coitus with their primary partner

Males 41 (62%) 10 (100%) 18 (95%) Females 37 (56%) 9 (90%) 18 (95%) Total 78 (59%) 19 (95%) 36 (95%)

Students reporting that they (or their partner) are employing some form of contraception

Males 28 (68%) 8 (80%) 11 (61%) Females 33 (89%) 9 (90%) 13 (72%) Total 61 (78%) 17 (85%) 24 (67%)

Note: The majority of students reporting contraceptive use identified the "pill** as the primary means of contraception they used. The remainder, in order of popularity, reported using condoms, the I.U.D., contraceptive foam, the diaphragm, or combinations of these. 87

Combining male and female reports, 59 per cent of the dating students,

95 per cent of the cohabiting students, and 95 per cent of the married

students were having intercourse with their partners. (Data concerning

contraceptive use are also reported in Table IV-2. Cohabiting couples

were the most regular users, followed by dating and married students.)

In summary, feelings of sexual satisfaction were fairly high for all

groups and no significant differences existed between groups. Hypothesis two was supported.

Hypothesis Three: Cohabiting students are more involved in "extra- dyadic" sexual relationships than are either dating or married students.

From a review of the literature and a series of interviews with cohabiting students at Bowling Green State University, it was apparent that these students had more extensive histories of premarital coitus and held more permissive sexual standards than did other students. It was hypothesized, therefore, that cohabitors would be more likely to have had extra-dyadic coitus--that is, coitus with someone other than the primary partner. Table IV-3 indicates that this hypothesis is supported.

While only 13 per cent of the dating students (13 males and four females) and 16 per cent of the married students (three males and three females) had had intercourse with someone other than their primary partner since the time their relationship had reached its current level of involvement (i.e., serious dating or marriage), 45 per cent of the cohabitors (five males and four females) had had coitus with someone other than the person they were living with at the time. However, 88

TABLE IV-3

Extra-dyadic coitus and feelings of jealousy among seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students

dating cohabiting married students students students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Students with extra-dyadic coital experience Males 13 (20%)a 5 (50%)a,b 3 (16%)b Females 4 (6%)a 4 (40%)a,b 3 (16%)b Total 17 (13%)a 9 (45%)a,b 6 (16%)b

Students who would feel "very upset" about coitus with some- one prior to current relation- ship Males 13 (20%) 2 (20%) 3 (16%) Females 17 (26%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) Total 30 (23%) 2 (10%) 4 (11%)

Students who would feel "very upset" about coitus with some- one else at present time Males 57 (86%) 8 (80%) 16 (84%) Females 59 (89%) 10 (100%) 17 (89%) Total 116 (88%) 18 (90%) 33 (87%)

Students who would feel "very upset" if their partner was sin love with someone else Males 52 (79%) 5 (50%) 12 (63%) Females 53 (80%) 7 (70%) 12 (63%) Total 105 (80%) 12 (60%) 24 (63%)

Matching superscripts within rows indicate a significant difference in proportions, p It .05. 89

because of the small numbers of married and unmarried cohabitors, these

percentage comparisons can be considered suggestive only.

Extra-dyadic involvements appear to be a potential source of conflict

in relationships. While few students would be "very upset" if their

partner had had intercourse with someone else prior to the beginning of

their relationship, most would be "very upset" if they found out their

partner was having extra-dyadic coitus at the present time. See Table IV-3.

These students would also be jealous if their partner was in love

with someone else at the present time, even if their partner still

loved them. In response to this question, 80 per cent of the dating

respondents (52 males and 53 females), 60 per cent of the cohabitors

(five males and seven females), and 63 per cent of the marrieds (12 males and 12 females) said they would be "very upset" if they found out

their partner was also in love with someone else.

Hypothesis Four: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not differ with regard to "open relationship" indicators of relationship quality-trust, open communication, privacy, open companionship, equality, loss of self-identity, jealousy, and respect.

Each of these "quality" dimensions was measured on a summated scale similar to ones used by Lyness (1973 and 1974) in her studies of cohabitation. (These and other scales are reproduced in Appendix A.)

Table IV-4 summarizes the mean scores on each of the eight scales.

No significant differences were found between dating, cohabiting, and married students on the dimension of partner trust. Mean scores were all within two points of the maximum possible score of 15. Among 90

TABLE IV-4

"Open relationship" indicators of relationship quality among seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students (mean scores)

dating cohabiting married students students students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Trust (minimum = 3, maximum = 15) Males 13.7 13.4 13.3 Females 13.4 13.8 13.3 Total 13.6 13.6 13.3

Open communication (minimum = 4, maximum = 20) Males 17.6 17.2 16.5 Females 16.8 17.5 16.4 Total 17.2 17.4 16.5

Privacy (minimum = 3, maximum = 15) Males 11.4a 10.2a,b 11.8b Females 12.3 11.4 12.1 Total 11.9a 10.8a 12.0

Open companionship (minimum =5, maximum = 25) Males 19.5a 17.6a 19.6 Females 19.9 19.7 19.9 Total 19.7 18.7 19.8

Equality (minimum = 3, maximum = 15) Males 13.1 13.0 12.7 Females 13.1 13.5 12.9 Total 13.1 13.3 12.8 91

TABLE IV-4 (continued)

’’Open relationship" indicators of relationship quality among seriously dating, cohabiting, and married students (mean scores)

dating cohabiting married students . students . students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Loss of self-identity (minimum = 3, maximum = 15) Males 4.6 5.5 4.5 Females 4.2 3.1 4.0 Total 4.4 4.3 4.2

Jealousy (minimum = 2, maximum = 10) Males 7.6 6.4a 8.6a Females 7.8 7.4 7.3 Total 7.7 6.9 8.0

Respect (minimum = 3, maximum = 15) Males 11.8 12.1 11.7 Females 12.3 12.9 12.2 Total 12.1 12.5 12.0

Within rows, matching superscripts indicate a significant difference in means, T-test, p It .05. 92

males, those dating had the highest mean (13.7), followed in turn by those cohabiting (13.4) and those married (13.3). Among females, cohabitors trusted their partners the most (13.8); married females, the least (13.3). Dating females were close to those married (13.4).

The distribution of mean scores on the open communication dimension

(a willingness to talk over problems and other concerns with the partner) revealed a similar pattern. All means were within four points of the maximum score of 20. Among males, the rank-order of means was 17.6 for those dating, 17.2 for those cohabiting, and 16.5 for those married.

Among females, the order of means was 17.5 for those cohabiting, 16.8 for those dating, and 16.4 for those married. Although differences were not significant, it appeared as if married students were less likely than others to discuss with their partners things which they felt could have important consequences for their relationships. It was found, however, that differences between scores of males and females were greater for dating students than for those married or cohabiting, although no male-female differences were statistically significant.

Cohabiting males reported the lowest scores on the privacy dimension indicating a sense of loss of privacy in their relationships. These males had a mean of 10.2 out of a possible maximum mean of 15.0. They were significantly lower on this scale than dating males (11.4) and married males (11.8). Cohabiting men also had significantly lower mean privacy scores than did cohabiting women (11.4). While this difference was not expected, it might be explained by a feeling among cohabiting men that their freedom in extra-dyadic relationships was 93

restricted by their living with their partner. Cohabiting men had more permissive premarital coital histories than other men (nine out of the ten had had coitus with five or more different partners) and were also more likely to have had extra-dyadic intercourse (see Table IV-2). This interpretation is supported by the lower mean score of cohabiting men on the open companionship scale.

Open companionship was a composite scale measuring the degree to which the individual allowed his or her partner freedom in extra- dyadic relationships and activities and the extent to which the respond­ ent felt this freedom was reciprocated. Out of a maximum possible score of 25.0, cohabiting males had a mean of 17.6. This was significantly lower than the mean of dating males (19.5) and lower than the mean of married males (19.6). Cohabiting females, with a mean score of 19.7, differed little from dating (19.9) or married (19.8) females. In all types of relationships, females were slightly more likely than males to characterize their relationships as "open companion­ ships ."

No significant differences between relationship types or sexes appeared on the equality scale (feelings that the partner was a person of equal worth and abilities). All scores were near the maximum score of 15.0. For males, those dating had the highest mean (13.1), followed by those cohabiting (13.0) and those married (12.7). Among females, cohabitors had the highest mean (13.5) and married females, the lowest (12.9). Dating females were in between (13.1). 94

Cohabiting males were most likely to report they felt they had lost

some of their personal identity since they entered their relationship,

although their mean score (5.5) was well below the maximum of 15.0.

Dating males had a mean (4.6) very close to married males (4.5). Among females, those who were cohabiting had the least sense of having lost self-identity (3.1). Dating and married females had respective mean scores of 4.2 and 4.0. Overall, males were slightly more likely to experience a loss of self-identity than were females.

Jealousy concerning the partner's extra-dyadic sexual relations was discussed briefly under hypothesis three. It was also measured by two items included with other measures of relationship quality. The maximum possible jealousy score was 10.0 and all groups reported moderately high feelings of jealousy. Among males, those married were the most likely to feel jealous (8.6) and those cohabiting were the least likely (6.4). Differences between these two groups of males were statistically significant. Dating males fell between males cohabiting and married, reporting a mean score of 7.6. No significant differences were found between females in different types of relationships.

Mean scores ranged from 7.8 among dating females to 7.4 among cohabiting females and 7.3 among married females.

Finally, all students appeared to hold their partners in high respect. On this indicator, mean scores were 11.7 for married males,

11.8 for dating males, and 12.1 for cohabiting males. Females reported slightly higher feelings of respect for their partners in all relation­ ship types (married = 12.2, dating = 12.3, cohabiting = 12.9), but 95

male-female differences were not significant. The maximum possible

score on this scale was 15.

Hypothesis four--no difference on "open relationship" indicators of

relationship quality--was generally supported by the data presented.

There were, however, certain exceptions. Cohabiting males experienced

a greater sense of loss of privacy than did other males. They also

differed significantly from cohabiting females in this respect. Co­ habiting men also reported lower scores on the dimension of open-

companionship than did other males. Married males were most likely to

report feelings of jealousy and they differed significantly from

cohabiting males who reported the lowest jealousy levels.

Hypothesis Five: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not differ in the reciprocity of feelings of trust, respect, or equality with their partners.

All groups tended to score favorably on indicators of relationship quality (see above). In most cases, differences between groups were slight. This hypothesis examines differences between partners in each couple on three important dimensions of relationship quality: trust, respect and equality (Table IV-5). As expected, partners in each couple were reciprocating these feelings at a high level and differences between relationship types were small and non-significant.

The absolute value of the differences between individual scale- item scores of the male and female partners in each couple were com­ puted and summed for the five items on each of the three scales: trust, respect and equality. The average difference score for each 96

TABLE IV-5

The reciprocity of feelings of trust, respect, and equality between partners in seriously dating, cohabiting, and married relationships (mean difference scores, minimum difference = 0, maximum difference = 12)

dating cohabiting married students students students

N 132 20 38

Trust 1.3 1.2 1.2

Respect 1.6 1.9 1.8

Equality 1.5 1.5 1.3

A mean difference score of zero would indicate that within each couple, male and female partners had identical scores on each scale-item. 97

relationship type was computed by summing the total difference scores for

each couple in a particular relationship type and dividing by the number

of couples in that type of relationship (66 dating couples, 10 co­

habiting couples, and 19 married couples). Due to the small number of

cohabiting and married couples, caution is recommended in interpreting

these data. On each dimension-trust, respect and equality—the

maximum possible difference score was 12.0 and the minimum possible

difference score was zero.

Difference scores for each relationship type were low. No mean

difference score exceeded 16 per cent of the maximum possible difference

of 12.0.

On the trust dimension, mean difference scores were 1.3 for dating

couples and 1.2 for both cohabiting and married couples, indicating

that the latter two groups were reciprocating feelings of trust to

a slightly greater extent than were dating couples.

However, on the respect dimension dating couples appeared to be

reciprocating feelings to a greater degree than either cohabiting or

married couples. The mean reciprocity score for those dating was 1.6,

compared to a mean score of 1.8 for married couples and 1.9 for

cohabiting couples. Differences were not statistically significant.

Married students reported the greatest reciprocity of feelings of

equality (mean difference score of 1.3). They were followed closely, however, by dating and cohabiting couples who both reported a mean

difference score of 1.5. 98

In summary, hypothesis five is supported by these data. There were

no significant differences in the reciprocity of feelings of trust,

respect, or equality between dating, cohabiting, or married couples. In

general, partners in all types of relationships were reciprocating

these important feelings to a high degree.

Hypothesis Six: Cohabiting and married students do not differ with regard to role-flexibility in decision making and the division of household labor.

The 38 married and 20 cohabiting students were asked to respond to a set of items concerning the performance of regular household tasks and decision making. Dating students were excluded because they were not maintaining a common household. Data relevant to this hypothesis are presented in Tables IV-6, IV-7, and IV-8. Because of small samples, responses of males and females are not reported separately. There were, however, few disagreements between male and female partners over who performed a particular task or made a certain type of decision.

Among married students (Table IV-6), women were more likely than men to perform those household tasks, like cooking and cleaning, that have traditionally fallen to members of their sex. Men were more likely to perform those duties that usually have been considered part of the male role, things like emptying the trash, making repairs, and caring for the family car.

The majority of married students reported that the wife was most often the one who did the laundry (79 per cent), made the beds (68 per cent), cleaned the floors (66 per cent), washed the dishes (63 per cent), planned the meals (63 per cent), cooked the meals (63 per cent), 99

TABLE IV-6

Sex-role flexibility in household labor and decision making among married students (n = 38)

number and per cent who said task or decision was usually the responsibility of: male both equally female

washing dishes 2 (5%) 12 (32%) 24 (63%) making beds 3 (8%) 9 (24%) 26 (68%) doing laundry 3 (8%) 5 (13%) 30 (79%) cleaning floors 3 (8%) 10 (26%) 25 ( 66%) picking-up around house 1 (3%) 15 (39%) 22 (58%) planning meals 4 (11%) 7 (18%) 24 (63%) grocery shopping 3 (8%) 20 (53%) 15 (40%) cooking meals 5 (13%) 7 (18%) 24 (63%) emptying trash 24 (63%) 7 (18%) 7 (18%) making minor home repairs 30 (79%) 8 (21%) 0 (0%) caring for car 34 (89%) 3 (8%) 1 (3%) inviting friends over 6 (16%) 23 (61%) 9 (24%) deciding when to go out 2 (5%) 33 (87%) 3 (8%) initiating sex play 13 (34%) 20 (53%) 5 (13%) planning trips or vacations 3 (8%) 35 (92%) 0 (0%) deciding where to live 4 (11%) 33 (87%) 1 (3%) handling finances 16 (42%) 13 (34%) 9 (23%) earning money 9 (24%) 22 (58%) 7 (18%) deciding how to spend money 9 (14%) 29 (76%) 0 (0%)

Rows may not total to 100 per cent due to rounding errors. 100

and picked up around the house (58 per cent).

Husbands were most frequently reported to be the ones who emptied

the trash (63 per cent), made, home repairs (79 per cent), cared for the

car (89 per cent), and handled the family finances (42 per cent).

Husbands and wives were more likely to share in decision making and planning activities than in the division of household labor. The only household task that appeared to be shared more or less equally was

grocery shopping (53 per cent of the couples reported sharing this responsibility). Married couples were likely, however, to share in inviting friends over (61 per cent), deciding when to go out for the evening (87 per cent), initiating sex play (53 per cent), planning trips and vacations (92 per cent), deciding where to live (87 per cent), earning money (58 per cent), and deciding how money should be spent

(76 per cent).

Overall, there appeared to be a rather traditional sex-role division of labor among married couples. Sharing appeared more common in decision making and activities than in performing household tasks where the responsibility for tasks fell primarily to the female.

Role-flexibility was more common among cohabiting than married couples (see Table IV-7). This may reflect a true difference in sex-role flexibility or it may be a consequence of the fact that cohabitors, on the average, had not lived together as long as had married couples and had not yet slipped into traditional sex-roles. The average length of time cohabitors had lived together was 3.2 months. The average duration of marriage at the time data were collected was 14.7 months. 101

TABLE IV-7

Sex-role flexibility in household labor and decision making among cohabiting students (n = 20)

number and per cent who said task or decision was usually the responsibility of ; male both equally female washing dishes 3 (15%) 8 (40%) 9 (45%) making beds 2 (10%) 8 (40%) 10 (50%) doing laundry 4 (20%) 10 (50%) 6 (30%) cleaning floors 4 (20%) 10 (50%) 6 (30%) picking-up around house 1 (5%) 12 (60%) 7 (35%) planning meals 1 (5%) 14 (70%) 5 (25%) grocery shopping 3 (15%) 13 (65%) 3 (15%) cooking meals 4 (20%) 13 (65%) 3 (15%) emptying trash 15 (75%) 3 (15%) 2 (10%) making minor home repairs 15 (75%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%) caring for car 17 (85%) 3 (15%) 0 (0%) inviting friends over 7 (35%) 12 (60%) 1 (5%) deciding when to go out 1 (5%) 19 (95%) 0 (0%) initiating sex play 3 (15%) 15 (75%) 2 (10%) planning trips or vacations 4 (20%) 16 (80%) 0 (0%) deciding where to live 8 (40%) 12 (60%) 0 (0%) handling finances 6 (30%) 13 (65%) 1 (5%) earning money 9 (45%) 11 (55%) 0 (0%) deciding how to spend money 2 (10%) 18 (90%) 0 (0%) 102

(Although the sample is quite small, those who had been married less than

six months were quite similar to cohabiting students in their sex-role

flexibility.)

Among cohabitors, there was only one task, making beds, that as many

as one-half of the respondents indicated was usually performed by the

female partner. In three cases, the majority of cohabitors reported a

task was usually performed by the male partner: caring for the car

(85 per cent), making home repairs (75 per cent), and taking out the

trash (75 per cent).

Fourteen task or decision areas were assigned by one-half or more

of the cohabitors to the male and female partner equally. These

included deciding when to go out (95 per cent), deciding how to spend money (90 per cent), planning trips or vacations (80 per cent),

initiating sex play (75 per cent), planning meals (70 per cent), handling daily finances (65 per cent), grocery shopping (65 per cent),

cooking meals (65 per cent), inviting friends over to visit (60 per cent), deciding where to live (60 per cent), picking up around the house (60 per cent), earning money (55 per cent), doing laundry (50 per cent), and cleaning the floors (50 per cent).

Overall, cohabiting couples exhibited a higher level of sex-role flexibility than did married couples. Table IV-8 summarizes these data in more concise form indicating the partner who usually performed the task or made the decision and the per cent of each group contributing to that modal response.

In all, evidence would suggest little support for hypothesis six.

Rather than no difference between married and cohabiting couples in 103

TABLE IV-8

A comparison of married and cohabiting students on sex-role flexibility- in household labor and decision making (modal response category and per cent of students in each relationship type contributing to modal response)

married cohabiting students students (n = 38) (n = 20) washing dishes female (63%) . female (45%) making beds • female (68%) female (50%) doing laundry female (79%) both (50%) cleaning floors female (66%) both (50%) picking-up around house female (58%) both (60%) planning meals female (66%) both (70%) grocery shopping both (53%) both (65%) cooking meals female (63%) both (65%) emptying trash male (63%) male (75%) making minor home repairs male (79%) male (75%) caring for car male (89%) male (85%) inviting friends over both (61%) both (60%) deciding when to go out both (87%) both (95%) initiating sex play both (53%) both (75%) planning trips or vacations both (92%) both (80%) deciding where to live both (87%) both (60%) handling finances male (42%) both (65%) earning money both (58%) both (55%) deciding how to spend money both (76%) both (90%) 104

role flexibility, cohabiting couples appeared more flexible in the division of household labor. This difference, however, may result from

the fact that cohabiting couples had lived together for shorter periods of time than had married couples. It is possible that after cohabiting couples have lived together longer, their sex-role flexibility will diminish and they will revert to more traditional sex-roles in the division of household labor (see Whitehurst, 1974).

Summary

Six hypotheses were presented at the beginning of this chapter.

The weight of available evidence suggests that the following ones should be accepted, with the reservations noted.

Hypothesis One: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not differ with regard to relationship satisfaction. (Married males had lower MABS scores than did cohabiting men.)

Hypothesis Two: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not differ with regard to sexual satisfaction.

Hypothesis Three: Cohabiting students are more involved in "extra-dyadic" sexual relationships than are either dating or married students.

Hypothesis Four: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not differ with regard to "open relationship" indicators of relation­ ship quality. (Cohabiting males had significantly lower scores than married or dating males on the measures of privacy and open companionship. Married males had significantly higher scores than cohabiting males on the jealousy dimension.)

Hypothesis Five: Dating, cohabiting, and married students do not differ in the reciprocity of feelings of trust, respect, and equality with their partners. 105

The available data indicated that the sixth hypothesis should not be accepted because of differences in the sex-role flexibility of married and cohabiting students.

Hypothesis Six: Cohabiting and married students do not differ with regard to role-flexibility in decision making and the division of household labor. (Both types of couples tended to share in decision making processes but cohabitors were more flexible in their division of household labor.) 106

CHAPTER FIVE: DYADIC COMMITMENT

To be committed to a line of action is to be bound to that line and its continuation. Being so bound involves an interplay of forces, some attracting the individual to the action, others constraining its termination. Dyadic commitment is defined as the intention of an individual to continue an existing relationship for an extended period of time in the future. It is what Ira Reiss (1972:1) called "a determination to stay together."

On an individual psychological level, dyadic commitment involves a personal dedication or intention to continue a relationship. This is similar to personal commitment conceptualized by Johnson (1973:395) as "a strong personal dedication to carry out a line of action."

However, strong personal intentions are only one source of commitment.

And, except for the rare individual, they are likely to be qualified by existential considerations as Hillsdale (1962) discovered when interviewing couples waiting in line for marriage licenses. Hillsdale found that ideal commitment to a lifetime partnership--"until death do us part"--was often qualified by the existential realization that future conditions are always partly unpredictable. "The essential point," said Hillsdale (1962:139), "is that no one can be said to commit himself to something that he does not somehow foresee."

In addition to personal commitment, there are social forces which act upon the individual to enforce the continuation of a relationship.

Independent of self-volition, these often stand external to the individual and may act to prevent him or her from terminating a 107

relationship, even one that lacks personal commitment to continue.

External forces are best conceptualized as sets of sanctions

associated with remaining in or terminating a committed line of action.

"Committed lines are sequences of actions with penalties and costs

so arranged as to guarantee their selection." (Abramson, et al.,

1958:16). Becker (1960:35) regarded these costs and penalties as a

consequence of the individual having placed "side-bets" while engaged

in the committed line:

...commitment has been achieved by making a "side bet." The committed person has acted in such a way as to involve other interests of his, originally extraneous to the action he is engaged in, directly in that action. By his own actions prior to the final bargaining session he has staked something of value to him, something originally unrelated to his present line of action, on being consistent with his present behavior. The consequences of inconsistency will be so expensive that inconsistency in his bargaining stance is no longer a feasible alternative.

For example, an individual may find that becoming involved in a

serious relationship means that he or she becomes involved in

relational networks previously unanticipated, and that the propriety

of many pre-existing relationships must be reconsidered. To the

extent that new ties become binding--that is, they are valued by the

individual who fears their loss if the relationship terminates--the

individual becomes committed to continue that relationship.

Other side bets have a more material nature. Such side bets are placed when one becomes partner to a joint apartment lease, depends upon his or her partner to contribute towards the cost of rent, or to share in the expense of mortgages, car payments, food, utilities, or educational costs. Common property laws, as well as the structure 108

of many credit and loan agreements, may serve, for married couples in

particular, as side bets whose fate is ultimately linked to continuation

of the committed relationship. The same may be said of other

institutional restrictions and obligations--inheritance, alimony,

child support, income taxes, and the like--which are consequent to

the legal recognition of a marriage.

External commitments can also take the form of claims to social

identity. A social identity--one offered to and accepted as legitimate

by significant others--involves a statement that one is a certain

type of social actor (for example, "a good husband") and possesses a

set of related qualities and attributes ("who loves his wife and

children" and is a "good provider"). Translated into role-expectations,

social identities may constrain or force the individual to continue a

committed line, especially when others, having accepted the proffered

identity, translate these claims about self-identity into righteous

demands for behavioral compliance. Goffman (1961:88-89) referred to

this type of commitment when he wrote:

An individual becomes committed to something because of the fixed and interdependent character of many institutional arrangements his doing or being something irrevocably conditions him to take courses of action, causing others to build up their activity on the basis of his continuing in his current under­ takings and rendering him vulnerable to unanticipated con­ sequences of these undertakings.

As many married and engaged couples have discovered, the dyadic bond often receives strong support from close kin and friends who can exert considerable pressure on the couple to keep their relationship intact. 109

In a treatment of factors related to marital cohesiveness,

Levinger (1965) suggested that the strength of the marital bond was a function of attractions and barriers associated with both the primary- dyad and other, alternative relationships or life-styles. Attractions to a relationship include affectional rewards, esteem from spouse, sexual rewards, companionship, and socio-economic rewards. Barriers to dissolution surrounding a relationship are largely feelings of obligation towards the relationship and the partner; the presence of dependent children; moral, legal and religious proscriptions against desertion, separation, or divorce; external pressure from kin and other primary affiliates; and perceptions of community stigma.

Sources of alternative attraction, inversely related to marital cohesiveness, might be attractions to other sex partners; participation in social relationships disjunctive to the marital bond; or the ability of either spouse or self to be socially or economically independent of the other. To the extent that sources of attraction to the primary dyad are strong and barriers to dissolution high the individual is likely to continue the relationship, especially if attractions to alternatives are few and barriers to participation in these are not readily or easily surmountable.

The work of Johnson (1973), Reiss (1973) and Levinger (1965) was particularly useful in arriving at an operationalization of dyadic commitment and related variables and in developing the path model of dyadic commitment discussed later in this chapter. 110

Dyadic Commitment: A Comparison of Dating, Cohabiting, and Married Students

Dyadic commitment was measured by a five item summated scale.

Individual item scores were dichotomized; total scale scores ranged from zero (low) to five (high). This scale is reproduced in Appendix

A.

No significant differences on this measure of dyadic commitment were found between dating, cohabiting and married students. All scores were clustered in the upper half of the scale with married students having the highest mean commitment score (4.3) and dating students the lowest (3.6). Cohabiting students had a mean dyadic commitment score of 4.2, quite close to that of married students.

See Table V-l.

In all relationship types, females reported greater commitment to their relationship than did males. This was especially true of dating and cohabiting students; among married students the male-female difference was small. Cohabiting females had the highest dyadic commitment scores of all females (4.5); dating females the lowest

(3.8). Among males, those married reported the greatest commitment

(4.2) and those dating (3.3) the lowest. No significant differences were found but readers are cautioned in generalizing from these data as samples of cohabiting (n = 20) and married students (n = 38) are small.

Individual items appearing on the dyadic commitment scale are also found in Table V-l. Reported are the per cent of students in each type of relationship considered to have "passed" the particular item. Ill

TABLE V-l

Dyadic commitment in dating, cohabitation, and marriage

dating cohabiting married students students students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Mean commitment score (minimum = 0, maximum = 5) Males 3.3 3.9 4.2 Females 3.8 4.5 4.3 Total 3.6 4.2 4.3

Number and per cent with very high determination to continue their relation­ ship in the future Males 46 (70%) 6 (60%) 13 (68%) Females 46 (70%) 8 (80%) 13 (68%) Total 92 (70%) 14 (70%) 26 (68%)

Number and per cent who seriously believe they will remain with their partner for the rest of their lives Males 40 (61%)a 6 (60%) 16 (84%)a Females 40 (61%) 8 (80%) 14 (74%) Total 80 (61%)a 14 (70%) 30 (79%)a

Number and per cent who feel their relationship is the most important aspect of their lives Males 26 (39%)a 5 (50%) 14 (74%)a Females 29 (44%)a 6 (60%) 13 (68%)a Total 55 (42%)a 11 (55%)° 27 (72%)a,° 112

TABLE V-l (continued)

Dyadic commitment in dating, cohabitation, and marriage

dating cohabiting married students students students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Number and per cent who have never thought serious­ ly about ending their rela­ tionship Males 30 (46%)a^ 7 (70%)a 14 (74%) Females 26 (39%)a7 8 (80%)a 14 (74%) Total 56 (42%)a,b 15 (75%)a 28 (74%)

Number and per cent who would not end their rela­ tionship, even if they could do so with no com­ plications for themselves or their partners Males 40 (61%) 6 (60%) 16 (84%) Females 44 (67%) 5 (50%) 16 (84%) Total 84 (64%)a 11 (55%)° 32 (84%)

Within rows, matching superscripts indicate a significant difference in proportions, p It .05. 113

A self-rating of "determination to continue the relationship in the

future" was obtained using a 10 point scale. Students reporting a

score of "9" or "10" were considered to have "passed" the item and to have "very high" determination to continue. Nearly the same proportion

of students in each type of relationship (70 per cent) reported a

"very high" degree of determination to continue their relationships in the future. The only difference between sexes was found among cohabiting students where 80 per cent of the females (eight) compared to 60 per cent of the males (six) selected a response of "9" or "10."

The majority of students in each relationship type said they seriously believed that they would remain with their current partners for the rest of their lives (61 per cent of the dating students,

70 per cent of the cohabitors, and 79 per cent of those married).

Differences between married students and dating students were significant.

Not only were married men the most likely to feel that they would remain with their current partner for the rest of their lives, but they were also the most likely to feel that their relationship was the "most important aspect" of their lives. Seventy-four per cent of the married males, but only 50 per cent of the cohabiting males and

39 per cent of the dating males, believed this. Differences were statistically significant.

Differences between married females (68 per cent) and dating females (44 per cent) were also significant, while cohabiting females

(60 per cent) were nearly as likely to consider their relationship 114

the most important aspect of their lives as were married females.

Three quarters of those who were cohabiting or married had never

thought seriously about ending their relationship with their partner,

but among dating students only 42 per cent had never thought seriously

about breaking-up. Both dating males and females were more likely

to have seriously considered terminating their relationships than were males and females in cohabiting or marital relationships.

Cohabiting students were the most likely to say they would end

their relationship if they could do so with no complications. But

overall, 55 per cent of those living together, 64 per cent of those dating, and 84 per cent of those married would not end their relation­ ship even if they could do so at little or no cost to themselves or their partners. Differences between males and females in each relationship type were small.

In general, it appeared that married students were slightly more committed to their relationships than cohabiting students. Dating students, as might be expected, were the least committed of the three types. It is interesting to note that married men appear to have more of an "idealistic" commitment to their marriages than do their wives who appear more existentially committed. Married men were more likely than married women to feel their relationship was the "most important aspect" of their lives, and to seriously believe that they would remain with their partner forever.

The slightly higher dyadic commitment scores of married partners might be explained by the data presented in Tables V-2 and V-3. 115

Married partners appear more likely to share friends in common (Table V-2)

and more likely to feel that their parents strongly approved of their

relationship and would be very displeased if they were to terminate it

(Table V-3).

Forty-five per cent of the married students, 15 per cent of the

cohabiting students and 14 per cent of the dating students believed

that most or all of their close friends had become close friends of

their partner also. And, 39 per cent of those married but only 10 per cent (two) of those cohabiting and 15 per cent of those dating felt that most or all of their partner's friends had become close friends of theirs.

Although data are insufficient to draw a firm conclusion, it also appears that friends whom a couple share in common are likely to have been close friends of the male partner who later became close friends of the female partner. This is most evident among married couples.

Fifty-three per cent of the married males compared to 37 per cent of the married females felt that their close friends had become their partner's friends. And, while 53 per cent of the married women felt that most or all of their partner's close friends had later become close friends of theirs, this was true of only 26 per cent of the married men. See Table V-2.

Married and dating students were significantly more likely than cohabiting students to feel that their parents supported their relationships (Table V-3). Ninety-two per cent of those who were married and 73 per cent of those who were dating believed that their 116

TABLE V-2

Shared friendships and interaction with friends among dating, cohabiting, and married couples

dating cohabiting married students students - students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Number and per cent who believe that most or all of their friends have be­ come friends of their part­ ner also Males 11 (17%)a 2 (20%)b 10 (53%)a,b Females 8 (12%) 1 (10%) 7 (37%) b Total 19 (14%)a 3 (15%)° 17 (45%)a,°

Number and per cent who believe that most or all of their partner’s friends have become their friends also Males 12 (18%) 1 (10%). 5 (26%) Females 8 (12%)a 1 (l0%)b 10 (53%)a’° Total 20 (15%) 2 (10%) 15 (39%)

Number and per cent who have visited with friends as a couple during the past few weeks Males 47 (71%) 7 (70%) 15 (79%) Females 47 (71%) 6 (60%) 12 (63%) Total 94 (71%) 13 (65%) 27 (71%)

Number and per cent who have entertained friends as a couple during the past few weeks Males 27 (41%) 5 (50%) 10 (53%) Females 29 (44%) 6 (60%) 10 (53%) Total 56 (42%) 11 (55%) 20 (53%)

Within rows, matching superscripts indicate a significant difference in proportions, p It .05. 117

TABLE V-3

Perceptions of parental and peer support for relationships among dating cohabiting, and married students

dating cohabiting married students students students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Number and per cent who believe parents strongly approve of their relation­ ship^ Males 50 (76%)a 5 (50%)a,b 18 (95%) Females 47 (71%)a 2 (20%)a,b 17 (89%) Total 97 (73%)a 7 (35%)a’b 35 (92%)

Number and per cent who believe their parents would be disappointed if their relationship were to end Males 43 (65%)a’b 3 (30%)a,C 16 (84%)b’b Females 38 (58%)a7 2 (20%)a,C 17 (89%)°’b Total 81 (61%)a,b 5 (25%)a’C 33 (87%)D,C

Number and per cent who believe close friends strongly approve of their relationship Males 55 (83%) 8 (80%) 16 (84%) Females 58 (88%) 7 (70%) 18 (95%) Total 113 (86%) 15 (75%) 34 (89%)

Number and per cent who believe their close friends would be disappointed if their relationship were to end Males 36 (55%) 6 (60%) 10 (53%) Females 48 (73%)a 5 (50%)a 12 (63%) Total 84 (64%) 11 (55%) 22 (58%)

Within rows, matching superscripts indicate a significant difference in proportions, p It .05. 118

parents strongly approved of their relationship, and 87 per cent of

those married and 61 per cent of those dating believed that their

parents would be displeased or disappointed if their relationship were

to break-up. However, only 35 per cent of the cohabiting students felt

that their parents approved of their relationships and just 25 per

cent felt that if their relationship were to end their parents would

be disappointed.

Considering friends as a source of social support for relation­

ships, there were no substantial differences between relationship

types. Most students felt that their close friends strongly approved

of their relationships and more than half felt that their friends

would be displeased or disappointed if they and their partner would

break-up.

Eighty-nine per cent of the married students, 86 per cent of

those dating, and 75 per cent of those living together unmarried felt

that close friends strongly approved of their relationship. Sixty-

four per cent of those dating, 58 per cent of those married, and 55 per

cent of those cohabiting felt that friends would be disappointed if

their relationship were to terminate.

Overall, it appeared that married and dating students could rely on support from both parents and friends while cohabiting students felt approval and support coming only from their peers. . (Data from another part of the questionnaire indicated that cohabiting students felt more isolated from parents than other students and they were more likely than others to feel that parents and relatives were a 119

source of tension or problems in their relationships.)

When people become involved in serious relationships, they often

have to make changes in activities and life-styles. If such changes

involve giving up things valued, they may be accompanied by feelings

of loss or regret--feelings which might later surface to cause problems

between partners. Consequently, students were asked if they had

experienced feelings of loss or regret concerning a number of changes

they might have made when they became seriously involved with their partner. These feelings of loss are reported in Table V-4.

As might be expected, dating students reported less feelings of

loss or regret over changes made than did cohabiting or married

students, perhaps because dating students had actually made fewer major changes in their lives. Except, however, for a greater feeling of loss of economic freedom among cohabiting and married students

(particularly among females), differences between relationship types were not large enough to be significant.

Among those who were dating, males were most likely to experience feelings of regret over having lost some personal freedom (41 per cent) and sexual freedom (26 per cent). Dating females were most likely to feel regret over having lost some personal freedom (30 per cent) and having lost a close or old friend (23 per cent).

Among those who were living together unmarried, males most often reported feelings of regret over having lost personal freedom (60 per cent) and having lost economic freedom (40 per cent). Cohabiting females were most likely to experience a loss of economic freedom

(40 per cent). 120

TABLE V-4

Feelings of regret over losses experienced upon entering the current relationship among dating, cohabiting, and married students

dating cohabiting married students students - students

N 132 20 38 Males 66 10 19 Females 66 10 19

Regrets loss of close ties to family and relatives Males 7 (11%) 3 (30%) 1 (5%) Females 5 (8%) 3 (30%) 5 (26%) Total 12 (9%) 6 (30%) 6 (16%)

Regrets loss of personal freedom Males 27 (41%) 6 (60%) 9 (47%) Females 20 (30%) 3 (30%) 3 (16%) Total 47 (36%) 9 (46%) 12 (32%)

Regrets loss of economic freedom Males 9 (14%)a 4 (40%)a 4 (21%) Females 4 (40%)a 6 (32%), 3 (5%)a b Total 12 (9%)a’° 8 (40%)a 10 (26%?

Regrets loss of sexual freedom Males 17 (26%) 2 (20%) 5 (26%) Females 7 (11%) 3 (30%) 1 (5%) Total 24 (17%) 5 (25%) 6 (16%)

Regrets loss of close or old friend Males 10 (15%) 3 (30%) 0 (0%) Females 15 (23%) 2 (20%) 5 (26%) Totales 25 (19%) 5 (25%) 5 (13%)

Within rows, matching superscripts indicate a significant difference in proportions, p It .05. 121

Married men were most concerned about the loss of personal freedom

(47 per cent), while married women ¡were likely to report a sense of

loss concerning economic freedom (32 per cent), close ties to family

and relatives (26 per cent), and old or close friendships (26 per

cent).

In summarizing this section, married and cohabiting students had

higher dyadic commitment scores than dating students, although

differences were not statistically significant. Married students were

also the most likely to be involved in mutual friendship circles

with their partners. While students in all types of relationships

felt that friends supported their relationship, cohabiting students were significantly less likely than married or dating students to

feel that their parents supported the continuation of their relation­

ships. Dating students were likely to regret losing some of their personal freedom. Cohabiting and married students most often regreted the loss of both personal and economic freedom.

' Dyadic Commitment: A Path Model

Figure V-a is a path model summarizing the interplay of forces contributing to dyadic commitment. This model is based on data collected from dating, cohabiting, and married students at Bowling

Green State University in 1974 (n = 190). Because these students were all involved in serious heterosexual relationships, dyadic commitment scores (the dependent variable) were uniformly high (see the comparison of dating, cohabiting, and married students in the 122

previous section). Homogeneity in a sample has the effect of

attenuating the magnitude of correlations because it limits the

possible range of variation in independent and dependent variables.

Given a more heterogeneous sample (greater variation in scores),

correlation and path coefficients would perhaps have been larger.

This should be kept in mind when considering the data presented.

In this model of dyadic commitment (Figure V-a) there are four

exogeneous variables (i.e., variables not determined by others in

the system). Each of these is defined briefly below. Individual scales can be found in Appendix A.

1. Affectional involvement. This is defined as the degree of love or affection that the respondent feels towards his or her partner. It was measured by a two item composite index which included a self-rating of emotional involvement in the relationship and an item measuring "feelings towards the partner" (strong love, love, strong affection, etc.).

2. Social supports. This refers to the degree of support for the relationship the respondent perceives comes from parents and close friends. It is a composite measure combining the degree of parents' approval for the relationship, parents' reaction to the termination of the relationship, friends' approval for the relationship, and friends' reaction to its termination.

3. Feelings of loss. This is a measure of the degree to which the individual feels loss or regrets having made changes in his or her activities and life-style upon entering the current relationship. It includes the five items reported in the previous section.

4. Reward-tension balance. This is the modification of the Marriage Adjustment Balance Scale (MABS) discussed in Chapter Four. It is a composite index of the balance between relationship rewards and relationship tensions.

There is a single, intermediate level, endogenous variable--alternative attractions. This is a composite measure of attractions to other 123

FIGURE V-a

A path model of forces contributing to dyadic commitment 124

partners and life-styles. It contains four items (found in Appendix A).

The primary dependent variable is dyadic commitment. This variable was discussed in the previous section of this chapter.

In a non-recursive system, such as the model developed here, variables are considered to act simultaneously and to produce both direct and indirect changes in other variables. The direct effect, represented by the path coefficient (a standardized partial regression coefficient), is an indication of the strength of the independent operation of one variable on another, all other variables held

"constant." The path coefficient indicates the standard variation in the isolated dependent variable given a standardized unit change in the independent variable. For example (see Figure V-a), a unit change in the standardized variable "affectional involvement" produces a direct change of .413 in standardized dyadic commitment scores, all other variables held "constant."

Variables in the model also have indirect effects--i.e., they are intercorrelated with other variables and operate through these to produce variation in the dependent variable. The indirect effect of a variable is estimated by the difference between the zero-order correlation coefficient and the path coefficient. A summary of zero-order correlations is found in Table V-5. Direct and indirect effects of variables are presented in Table V-6.

The model of dyadic commitment presented in Figure V-a accounts for approximately 52 per cent of the variation in dyadic commitment scores. The multiple correlation coefficient between the four 125

variables, (1) affectional level, (2) social supports, (3) feelings of

loss, and (4) alternative attractions, and the dependent variable,

dyadic commitment, was .723.

The greatest source of direct variation in dyadic commitment came

from the variable "affectional involvement." The path coefficient

between affectional involvement and dyadic commitment was .413. The

indirect effect of this variable on dyadic commitment was .182 and

resulted largely from the negative effect affectional involvement had

on the appeal of alternative attractions (-.341) and the consequent

negative effect of alternative attractions on dyadic commitment (-.280).

In other words, dyadic commitment appeared to vary directly with the

degree of affection that the individual had for his or her partner,

and this degree of affection also limited the appeal of alternative

relationships and life-styles which, in turn, were negatively related

to dyadic commitment.

Social supports did not appear to directly affect the appeal of

alternative attractions but did work directly to reinforce dyadic

commitment. The direct effect of social supports on dyadic commitment was .207. Its indirect effect was .173. Since the indirect effect was nearly as large as the direct effect of this variable, the zero-

order correlation between social supports and dyadic commitment (.380)

appears to be partly spurious.

Feelings of regret over losses or changes made upon entering the relationship did not directly affect dyadic commitment scores but did operate directly on the strength of alternative attractions (.237). 126

TABLE V-5

Zero-order product moment correlations, dyadic commitment and related variables (n = 190)

AFECT SUPORT LOSS BAL ALTRAC . COMIT

affectional involvement (AFECT) 1.000 .226a -.225a .122 -.423a .595a

social supports (SUPORT) 1.000 -.186a .008 -.282a .380a feelings of loss (LOSS) 1.000 -.153a .350a -.330a reward-tension balance (BAL) 1.000 -.315a .273a alternative attractions (ALTRAC) 1.000 -.555a

a. Correlation coefficient significantly different from zero, p It .05. 127

TABLE V-6

Direct and indirect effects of variables in the model of dyadic commitment (n = 190)

independent dependent direct indirect variable variable. . effect effect.

affectional alternative -.341 -.082 involvement attractions

feelings alternative .237 .113 of loss attractions

reward-tension alternative -.237 -.078 balance attractions

affectional dyadic .413 .182 involvement commitment

social dyadic 707 .173 supports commitment

reward-tension dyadic .133 .140 balance commitment

alternative dyadic -.280 -.275 attractions commitment 128

The greater the feelings of loss or regret, the more likely the

individual was to see other relationships, partners, or life-styles

as attractive alternatives to the current, primary relationship. The

original zero-order correlation between feelings of loss and dyadic

commitment (-.330) was largely spurious; the direct path between

feelings of loss and dyadic commitment was nearly non-existent (-.013) and was eliminated from the model.3

Reward-tension balance (the modified MABS) had a negative effect

on the appeal of alternative attractions (-.237), i.e., the more

favorable the balance of relationship rewards over relationship

tensions, the less the attraction to alternative relationships or

life-styles. Reward-tension balance directly, and positively, influenced dyadic commitment (.133), although the original zero-order

correlation between the two (.273) was found to be partly spurious.

The indirect effect of reward-tension balance on dyadic commitment

(.140) was slightly larger than the direct effect (.133). The indirect effect appears largely a result of the negative effect of reward- tension balance on alternative attractions and the negative effect of alternative attractions on dyadic commitment.

Alternative attractions--the appeal of alternative relationships, partners and life-styles--were negatively correlated with dyadic commitment (r = -.555), but as seen in Table V-6, this zero-order correlation was partly spurious. The direct effect of alternative

1. This direct path (feelings of loss to dyadic commitment) and a direct path between social supports and alternative attractions were originally hypothesized. After the model was first empirically evaluated, these two paths were dropped and the remaining path co­ efficients were reconçuted. 129

attractions on dyadic commitment was -.280. The indirect effect was nearly the same, -.275.

In terms of this model, dyadic commitment increased as the affectional or emotional bond between partners became stronger. It also increased when the individual perceived that family and friends supported the relationship, that is, when the individual felt that these others approved of the relationship and would express disappoint­ ment or displeasure if it were to terminate. Dyadic commitment was additionally a direct function of the balance of rewards over tensions.

The more favorable this balance, the greater was the dyadic commitment and the less was the appeal of alternative attractions.

Alternative attractions were negatively related to the strength of dyadic commitment. But alternative attractions were themselves largely a function of other variables: affectional involvement, feelings of loss or regret, and reward-tension balance. The greater the affectional involvement of the individual in the primary relation­ ship, the less was the appeal of alternative relationships. The same was true of reward-tension balance. The more favorable this balance, the lower was the attraction to alternatives. Feelings of loss or regret over changes made upon entering the primary relation­ ship were positively related to the appeal of alternatives.

Individuals who felt they had lost things of value when they became seriously involved with their current partner might have believed that these losses could be recovered in other relationships or in other life-styles. Feelings of loss were largely feelings of loss of personal, economic and sexual freedom. 130

Summary

Dyadic commitment was defined as the intention to continue an existing relationship for an extended period of time in the future. All individuals tended to score high on the scale measuring the strength of dyadic commitment, as could be expected given the nature of the sample

(students involved in serious heterosexual relationships). Married and cohabiting students tended to have higher levels of commitment than did dating students, but differences were not large enough to be statistically significant. Dyadic commitment appeared to be a direct and positive function of affectional involvement, the strength of social supports for the relationship, and a favorable reward-tension balance. It was a direct but negative function of the strength of the appeal of alternative relationships and life-styles (alternative attractions). 131

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Every known society has taken steps to inhibit the free sexual

expression of its members. Social control of the biological sex drive

appears functional for the preservation of marriage and family

institutions (Reiss, 1973). Both external and internal controls are

necessary to accomplish this task. External controls may be formalized

in legal, political, or religious enactments, or they may be informally

operationalized in such mechanisms as ridicule, gossip, shunning,

joking, chaparonage, and sexual segregation. Internal controls depend

largely on the success of the socialization process to instill a sense

of conscience or moral appropriateness in the individual. But,

neither external nor internal controls are completely effective;

consequently, sex-rules are frequently broken.

Compared to many other societies, sexual norms in the United

States have been particularly restrictive (Murdock, 1949). However,

especially in recent years, behavioral sex norms have been at variance with cultural ideals. Today, the popularity of the traditional

"double" and "abstinence" standards appears to be waning; "person-

centered sex" is replacing "body-centered sex" as a cultural value; and the "permissiveness with affection" standard is gaining wider acceptance, particularly among young women (Reiss, 1967 and 1973).

Contemporary sexual standards and behavioral norms were shaped largely during two periods of sexual revolution in America. The first occurred during and immediately following World War One. The second began in the middle of the 1960's and has continued into the 132

present decade. While the proportion of premaritally experienced

college-aged men remained fairly constant during these periods (about

60 per cent having had premarital intercourse), the proportion of

premaritally experienced females rose significantly. It has been

common since the late 1960's for researchers to report between 40

and 50 per cent of the females in their samples to have had premarital

intercourse and the more recent data indicate that females may soon

approximate the higher levels of permissiveness traditionally

associated only with males.3

A number of social forces affect the level of sexual permissive­

ness found in a population. These frequently have greater influence

on the behavior of more conservative groups such as females, and

lesser influence on traditionally more liberal groups such as males

(see Reiss, 1967). In Chapter Three of this dissertation, several

of these forces were examined.

Premarital sexual permissiveness was found to be positively

related to past heterosexual experiences as indicated by findings that

the incidence of coitus with a current premarital partner was strongly

related to coital experience with a previous partner; that premarital permissiveness was positively related to the number of times a person had been in love; and that premarital permissiveness was positively related to the number of times a respondent had gone steady.

1. Data collected from a non-probability sample of students, largely freshmen and sophomores, at Baker University in the fall of 1976 found 73 per cent of the males and 68 per cent of the females reporting premarital coitus (n = 182). 133

As hypothesized, isolation from persons and institutions traditionally

supporting non-permissive sex norms was positively associated with pre­

marital sexual permissiveness. Respondents who were low in religiosity,

and those who were isolated from their parents (either physically,

socially, or psychologically) were the most likely to hold permissive

sexual standards and to have had premarital coitus.

Finally, premarital sexual permissiveness was positively related to participation in permissive peer groups. Those students most likely to hold permissive sexual standards and to have had premarital coitus were

ones who believed that most or all of their close friends were sexually permissive.

In Chapter Four, the "qualities" of heterosexual relationships were examined using the "open marriage" paradigm (the O'Neills, 1972).

As hypothesized, dating, cohabiting, and married students differed

little on the eight dimensions of relationship quality that were considered. In general, students in all types of relationships appeared satisfied with both the general and sexual aspects of their relationships. Cohabiting students were found, however, to have been more involved in extra-dyadic sexual relations than were either dating or married students. This appears to be a carry-over of their more permissive behavior prior to having entered the current relationship.

A comparison of cohabiting and married students on a set of indicators of sex-role flexibility indicated that cohabiting students were more likely to share in the performance of household tasks than were married students, but this may be a consequence of the fact that 134

most cohabitors had only recently started living together as a couple.

In Chapter Five, dating, cohabiting, and married students were

compared on several indicators of dyadic commitment. Dyadic commitment

was defined as an intention to continue an existing relationship for an

extended period of time in the future. While married and cohabiting

students were found to have slightly higher dyadic commitment scores

than dating students, commitment in all groups was fairly high and

differences between groups were not significant.

Also in Chapter Five, a model of dyadic commitment was presented

and discussed. Dyadic commitment appeared largely a function of the

attraction of the affectional bond between partners, supports for the

relationship coming from parents and friends, a positive balance of

relationship rewards over relationship tensions, and a low level of

attraction to alternative partners, relationships and life-styles.

Discussion

In the past decade we have witnessed many changes in patterns of

American sexuality. Some of these, like increasing rates of premarital

coitus and unmarried heterosexual cohabitation, were discussed in

earlier chapters. Others, such as the increasing rates of illegitimacy,

divorce, and extra-marital coitus; the "gay" activist and feminist movements; "swinging" and the "singles" life-style have been popularized

in the mass media. While all of these are indicators of significant

sexual change, they are only surface manifestations of more profound

and fundamental changes in sexual values, attitudes and orientations. 135

What appears to have been the most important change has been the increasing acceptance and legitimation of sexual choice (for additional comments see Cuber, 1971 and Reiss, 1973).

On the college campus, the acceptance and legitimation of sexual choice found fertile ground for growth in the late 1960's and early

1970's. A belief in such choice was compatible with other dominant campus values: those stressing the importance of independence and individuality; of taking responsibility for one's own actions; of being open and honest in dealings with others; and of avoiding critical judgement of alternative life-styles by accepting the doctrines of cultural pluralism and cultural relativity.

For the majority of students today, sexual beliefs are considered as much a matter of personal choice as religious or political beliefs, and the criteria for evaluating the morality of behavior have shifted from an overwhelming emphasis on the nature of the act to a more subjective appreciation of the dynamics of the interpersonal relation­ ship. This is illustrated by paraphrasing the question of one cohabiting student who asked, "How can anyone consider a relationship to be wrong or immoral if it is built upon mutual love, trust, and respect and is a relationship into which both partners have entered and remain willingly?"

Increasingly today, support for the legitimation of sexual choice is heard outside of the campus community. As Kirkendall and Libby

(1966:45) believe: 136

Many influential people are moving away from the view that sexual morality is defined by abstinence from nonmarital intercourse toward one in which morality is expressed through responsible behavior and a sincere regard for others. While these people do not advocate nonmarital sexual relations, this possibility is clearly seen as more acceptable if entered in a responsible manner, and contained within a relationship characterized by integrity and mutual concern.

As freedom of sexual choice becomes generally accepted and legitimated

in all sectors of our society, we might well see the final demise of the traditional "abstinence" and "double" standards. We might also witness a concommitant reduction of the guilt feelings which are often a consequence of secretly breaking or evading sex-rules, no matter how dated or restrictive they may be.

However, accepting the legitimation of sexual choice requires that care be taken to avoid equating sexual freedom with a normative demand to be sexually experienced. It is important that our conception of sexual legitimation retain the possibility of free choice, including the freedom to avoid sexual relationships altogether.

If the reader of this dissertation received the impression that a heterosexual relationship is one which is primarily sexual, the author apologizes. This was not the impression that he intended to convey.

Extensive discussions and interviews with students over the past five years left the author with the belief that while sex may be an important dimension of college relationships, it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition upon which relationships stand or fall.

Rather than being a single-minded goal of heterosexual interaction, sex is viewed as one of several means to expand or deepen a relation­ ship between partners already committed to each other in other ways. 137

As Kirkendall and Libby have stressed, the interpersonal relationship is the "crux" of the sexual renaissance and this reflects a movement

"away from emphasis upon an act to emphasis upon the quality of interpersonal relationships" (Kirkendall and Libby, 1966:45).

As the data presented in Chapters Four and Five suggest, many students appear sensitive to the emotional, intellectual, and social needs of both their partners and themselves. Partners tend to view each other as total personalities; they see each other as individuals who fill many needs in addition to those which are purely sexual.

It was common during interviews for students to differentiate between sexually oriented relationships and those in which other qualities of interaction were emphasized as well. Although most students did not reject the legitimacy of casual sexual encounters

(especially when called upon to judge the behavior of others), it was clear that sex was more acceptable if it was part of an emotionally affectionate and stable relationship. Perhaps the best characteriza­ tion of contemporary student values would be that sexual relations occurring as part of intense affectionate relationships are viewed as more rewarding than those promising only physical satisfaction, but that the latter are also acceptable if they are entered into willingly and honestly.

In order to understand the nature of contemporary sexuality, future research should focus on the sexual relationship as part of the totality of the interpersonal relationship, considering not only the nature of the sex act but also the dynamics of interpersonal interaction. 138

Interpersonal relationship qualities such as feelings of mutual trust, respect, and honesty; the openness of communication between partners; and the sharing of feelings and experiences must be considered as important areas for study before we can hope to understand the dynamics of development and adjustment that lead persons to seek out, enter into, and become committed to intense interpersonal relationships. 139

REFERENCES

Abramson, E., H.H. Cutler, and R.W. Kantz. 1958 "Social power and commitment." American Sociological Review (February):15-22.

Arafat, I., and B. Yorburg. 1973 "On living together without marriage." Journal of Sex Research (May):97-106.

Becker, H. 1960 "Notes on the concept of commitment." American Sociological Review (July):32-40.

Bell, R. 1966 Premarital Sex in a Changing Society. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

1971 Marriage and Family Interaction. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey.

Bell, R., and L. Blumberg. 1960 "Courtship stages and intimacy attitudes." Family Life Coordinator (March):60-63.

Bell, R., and J. Buerkle. 1961 "Mother and daughter attitudes to premarital sexual behavior." Marriage and Family Living (November):390-92.

Bell, R., and J. Chaskes. 1970 "Premarital sexual experiences among coeds, 1958 and 1968." Journal of Marriage and the Family (February):81-84.

Berger, M. 1971 "Trial Marriage: harnessing the trend constructively." The Family Coordinator (January):38-43.

Blalock, H. 1964 Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

1972 Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill

Boudon, R. 1965 "A method of linear causal analysis: dependence analysis." American Sociological Review (June):365-74

Bromley, D., and F. Britten. 1938 Youth and Sex. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Burgess, E., and P. Wallin. 1953 Engagement and Marriage. Philadelphia: Lippincott. l4o

Cannon, K. , and. R. Long. 1971 "Premarital sexual behavior in the sixties." Journal of Marriage and. the Family (February): 36-49.

Christensen, H. , and. G. Carpenter 1962 "Timing patterns in the development of sexual intimacy: an attitud- inal report on three modern western societies." Marriage and Family Living (February): 30-35-

Christensen, H., and C. Gregg. 1970 "Changing sex norms in America and Scandinavia." Journal of Marriage and the Family (November): 6l6-27-

Coffin, P. 1971 "Young unmarrieds: Thresa Pommett and Charles Walsh, college grads living together." Look (26 January): 634+.

Croake, J., and B. James. 1973 "A four year comparison of premarital sexual standards." Journal of Sex Research (May): 91-96.

Cuber, J. 1971 "How new ideas about sex are changing our lives." Redbook (March): 46+.

Cuber, J., and P. Harroff. 1968 Sex and the Significant Americans. New York: Penguin Books.

Davis, J. 1971 Elementary Survey Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Davis, K. 1929 Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-two Hundred Women. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Edwards, M. 1972 College Students! Perceptions of Experimental Life Styles. Un­ published Master's thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.

Ehrman, W. 1959 Premarital Dating Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

1967 . "Premarital Dating Behavior" in Ellis and Abarbanel (eds) Pp: 680-699

Ellis, A., and A. Abarbanel (eds.) 1967 Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior. New York: Hamilton Books.

Ford, C., and F. Beach. 1951 Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper and Row.

Freedman, M. 1965 "The sexual behavior of American college women: an empirical study and an historical survey." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (January):36+. 141

Glock, C. (ed.) 1967 Survey Research in the Social Sciences. New York: Russell Sage.

Goffman, E. 1961 Encounters. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Gordon, M. 1972 The Nuclear Family in Crisis. New York: Harper and Row.

Grant, A. 1968 "No rings attached: a look at premarital marriage on campus." Mademoiselle (April):208+.

Greene, G. 1964 Sex and the College Girl. New York: Dell.

Hamilton, G. 1929 A Research in Marriage. New York: Albert and Charles Boni.

Harrop, A., and R. Freeman. 1966 "Senior college women: their sexual standards and activity." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors (Spring):136-43.

Henze, L., and J. Hudson. 1974 "Personal and family characteristics of cohabiting and noncohabiting students." Journal of Marriage and the Family (November):722-26.

Hillsdale, P. 1962 "Marriage as a personal existential commitment." Journal of Marriage and the Family (May):137-143.

Hobart, C. 1963 "Commitment, value conflict, and the future of the American family." Journal of Marriage and the Family (November):405-412.

Hudson, J., and L. Henze. 1973 "A note on cohabitation." The Family Coordinator (October):495.

Hunt, M. 1974 Sexual Behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press.

Johnson, M. 1973a "Some issues in the area of courtship and cohabitation." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Grove’s Conference on Marriage and Family. Myrtle Beach, S.C.

1973b "Commitment: a conceptual approach and empirical evaluation." Sociological Quarterly (Summer):395-406.

Kaats, G., and K. Davis. 1970 "The dynamics of sexual behavior of college students." Journal of Marriage and the Family (August):390-99. 142

Kanin, E., and D. Howard. 1958 "Postmarital consequences of premarital sex adjustments." American Sociological Review (October):556-62.

Kanter, R. 1970 "Commitment and social organization." American Sociological Review (August):499-516.

Karlen, A. 1968 "The unmarried marrieds on campus." New York Times Magazine (26 January):29+.

Kieffer, C. 1972 Consensual Cohabitation: A Descriptive Study of the Relationships and Sociocultural Characteristics of Eighty Couples in Settings of Two Florida Universities. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Kiesler, C., and L. Corbin. 1965 "Commitment, attraction and conformity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (December):890-94.

Kinsey, A., et al. 1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: Saunders.

1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Kirkendall, L. 1961 Premarital Intercourse and Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Julian Press.

Kirkendall, L., and R. Libby. 1966 "Interpersonal relationships—crux of the sexual renaissance." Journal of Social Issues (April):45-59.

Kopecky, G. 1972 "Unmarried but living together." Ladies Home Journal (July):66+.

Lautenschlager, S. 1972 A Descriptive Study of Consensual Union Among College Students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, California State University, Northridge.

Lazersfeld, P., and M. Rosenberg. 1955 The Language of Social Research. New York; Free Press.

LeShan, E. 1971 Mates and Roommates; New Styles in Young Marriage. Public Affairs Pamphlets, number 468. 143

Leslie, G. 1973 The Family in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Levinger, G. 1965 "Marital cohesiveness and dis-solution: an integrated review." Journal of Marriage and the Family (February):19-28.

Lewis, R. 1973 "Parents and peers: socialization agents in the coital behavior of young adults." Journal of Sex Research (May):19-28.

Lif e. 1970 "Coed dorms: an intimate college revolution." (20 November):32+.

Lindsey, B. 1926 "The companionate marriage." Redbook (October):61+.

Lobsenz, N. 1974 "Living together: a new fashioned tango or an old-fashioned waltz?" Redbook (June):86+.

Luckey, E., and G. Nass. 1969 "A comparison of sexual attitudes and behavior in an international sample." Journal of Marriage and the Family (May):364-79.

Lyness, J. 1973 "Living together: relationship qualities and prospects." Paper presnted at the annual meetings of the Southwestern Psychological Association, New Orleans.

1974 "Aspects of long-term effects of non-marital cohabitation." Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Purdue University, Fort Wayne.

Lyness, J., M. Lipetz, and K. Davis. 1972 "Living together: an’alternative to marriage." Journal of Marriage and the Family (May):305-311.

Macklin, E. 1972 "Heterosexual cohabitation among unmarried college students." The Family Coordinator (October):463-72.

1973 "Report from workshop on non-marital cohabitation." Mimeographed paper, Groves Conference on Marriage and Family, Myrtle Beach, S.C.

1974 "Going very steady; cohabitation in college." Psychology Today (November):53-5 9. 144

Macklin, E. (ed.) 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976 Cohabitation Research Newsletter. Issue number 1 (September, 1972), issue number 2 (April, 1973), issue number 3 (June, 1974), issue number 5 (April, 1976). Department of Home Economics, Cornell University.

Macklin, E., W. Jennis, and D. Meyer. 1972 "A preliminary summary of study on heterosexual cohabitation among unmarried college students." Unpublished manuscript, Department of Home Economics, Cornell University.

Maranell, G., R. Dodden, and D. Mitchell. 1970 "Social class and premarital sexual permissiveness: a subsequent test." Journal of Marriage and the Family (February):85-88.

McWhirter, W. 1968 "The arrangement at college." Life (31 May):56+.

Mead, M. 1966 "Marriage in two steps." Redbook (July):48+.

1968 "A continuing dialogue on marriage: why living together won’t work." Redbook (April):44+.

Middendorp, C., W. Brinkman, and W. Koomen. 1970 "Determinates of premarital sexual permissiveness: a secondary analysis." Journal of Marriage and the Family (August):369-78.

Mirande, A. 1968 "Reference group theory and adolescent sexual behavior." Journal of Marriage and the Family (November):572-77.

Montgomery, J. 1973 "Commitment and cohabitation cohesion." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the National Council of Family Relations, Toronto, Canada.

Murdock, G. 1949 Social Structure. New York: MacMillan.

Newsweek. 1964 "The morals revolution on the U.S. campus." (6 April):52-59.

1966 "Unstructured relationships: students living together." (4 July):78.

O’Neill, N., and G. O'Neill. 1972 Open Marriage. New York: Avon Books. H+5

Orden, S., and N. Bradburn. 1968 "Dimensions of marriage happiness." American Journal of Sociology (May): 715-31.

1969 "Working wives and marriage happiness." American Journal of Sociology (January): 392-1+07.

Otto, H. 1970 The Family in Search of a Future. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Packard, V. 1968 The Sexual Wilderness. New York: David McKay.

Parsons, T. 1968 "On the concept, of value-commitments." Sociological Inquiry (Spring): 135-59-

Peterman, D., C. Ridley, and S. Anderson. 1971+ "A comparison of cohabiting and non-cohabiting college students." Journal of Marriage and the Family (May): 3I+I+—5^+-

Playboy. 1971+ "Sex and the Law" (May): 60-6l

Reiss, I. 1960 Premarital Sexual Standards in America. New York: Free Press.

1961 "Standards of sexual behavior" in Ellis and Abarbanel (eds.) Pp. 996-1004.

1967 The social Context of Premarital Sexual Permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

1968 "How and why America's sex standards are changing." Trans-action (March): 66+.

1971 The Family System in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

1972 "Dyadic commitment in early marriage." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.

1973 Heterosexual Relationships Inside and Outside of Marriage. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.

Reuben, D. 1972 "Alternatives to marriage." McCall's (February):38+.

Ritzer, G., and H. Trice. 1969 "An empirical study of Howard Becker's side-bet theory." Social Forces (June): 530-33- 146

Robinson, I., K. King, and J. Balswick. 1972 "The premarital sexual revolution among college females." The Family Coordinator (April):189-94.

Robinson, I., K. King, C. Dudley, and F. Clune. 1968 "Changes in sexual behavior and attitudes of college students." The Family Coordinator (April):119-123.

Rogers, C. 1972 Becoming Partners: Marriage and Its Alternatives. New York; Delacourt Press.

Rollin, B. 1969 "New hang-up for parents: coed living." Look (23 September):22+.

Rosenberg, M. 1968 The Logic of Survey Analysis. New York: Basic Books.

Russell, B. 1929 Marriage and Morals. New York: Liveright.

Rubin, Z. 1973 Liking and Loving. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Safire, W. 1973 "On cohabitation." New York Times (24 September): 31M.

Schofield, M. 1965 The Sexual Behavior of Young People. Boston: Little, Brown.

Sheehy, G. 1969 "Living together: the stories of four young couples who risk the strains of non-marriage and why." Glamour (February):136+.

Shuttlesworth, G., and G. Thorman. 1973 "Living together unmarried relationships." Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, University of Texas, Austin.

Silverman, I. 1973 "Student cohabitation: a progress report." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Grove’s Conference on Marriage and the Family, Myrtle Beach, S.C.

1974 "Unmarried students who lived together: a comparison of two campuses.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Skolnick, A., and J. Skolnick. 1971 The Family in Transition. Boston; Little, Brown. 147

Smith, P., and K. Kimmel. 1970 "Student-parent reactions to off-campus cohabitation." Journal of College Student Personnel (May):188-93.

Stebbins, R. 1970 "On misunderstanding the concept of commitment: a theoretical contribution." Social Forces (June):526-29.

Storm, V. 1973 "Cohabitants; where do they fit on the dating-marriage continuum?" Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Home Economics Association, Atlantic City, N.J.

Terman, L. 1938 Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thorman, G. 1973 "Cohabitation: a report on the married-unmarried life-Style. The Futurist (December):250-54.

Time. 1968 "Linda, the light housekeeper." (26 April):51.

1969 "Changing morality: the two Americas." (6 June):26-27.

Trost, J. 1972 "Various forms of cohabitation and their relation to physical and social criteria of adaptation." Paper presented at the Third International Stress Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden.

1974 "Married and unmarried cohabitation: the case of Sweden with some comparisons." Paper presented at the Eigth World Congress of Sociology, Toronto, Canada.

Udry, J. 1974 The Social Context of Marriage. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Webb, E., D. Campbell, R. Schwartz, and L. Sechrest. 1966 Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Wells, T., and L. Christie. 1970 "Living together: an alternative to marriage." The Futurist (April):50-51.

Whitehurst, R. 1969 "The double standard and male dominance in non-marital living arrangements." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Orthopsychiatric Association, New York. 148

1973 "Living together unmarried: some trends and speculations." Unpublished manuscript. Department of Sociology, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada.

1974 "Sex-role equality and changing meanings in cohabitation." Unpublished manuscript. Department of Sociology, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada.

Yorburg, B. 1973 The Changing Family. New York: Columbia University Press.

Zelnick, M., and J. Kanter. 1972 "Sexuality, contraception and pregnancy among young unwed females in the United States." in Demographic and Social Aspects of Popu­ lation Growth, volume I, Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 149

APPENDIX A: ITEMS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED AT BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1974

Religiosity. A three item cumulative scale. Possible scores ranged from zero (low) to three (high).

1. What is your religious affiliation? ______.

2. During the average month, how often do you attend church?

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4+)

3. On the following scale, indicate how "religious" you consider yourself to be?

1______2 3______4______5 6______7 not at all moderately very religious religious religious

Isolation from parents. A five item cumulative scale. Possible scores ranged from zero (low) to five (high).

1. Approximately how far from your present residence do your parents 1 live? ______mi.

2. Do you live with your parents/guardians during any part of the year? No. __ Yes, only during school year. __ Yes, only during summer and vacations __Yes, during entire year __ Other? ______•

3. On the average, how often do you go home to visit your parents? once a week or more once every two or three months twice a month __ two or three times a year once a month __ once a year, less, or never

4. On the average, how often do your parents come to visit you? once a week or more once every two or three months twice a month __ two or three times a year once a month __ once a year, less, or never

5. On the average, how often do you and your parents exchange letters or phone calls? once a week or more once every two or three months twice a month two or three times a year once a month once a year, less, or never 150

Premarital sexual standards. This item was dichotomized into low (1-2) and high (3-8) permissiveness categories.

1. What type of relationship needs to prevail between you and your part­ ner before you can feel comfortable having intercourse (that is, ex­ perience no guilt or regret over your behavior)? (check one) 1 must be married. 2 must be formally or officially engaged. 3 must be tentatively engaged (contemplating marriage). 4 must have strong affectionate relationship; not dating others. 5 must have strong affectionate relationship; open to other dating. 6 must be good friends or have an affectionate relationship; need not be a strongly affectionate relationship. 7 __ could be a one-night relationship--need only be mutual attraction and honesty. 8 __ could have intercourse with anyone under any circumstances. 9 __ other? ______

Unmarried cohabitation standards. This item was dichotomized into low (1) and high (2-8) categories.

1. What type of relationship needs to prevail between you and your part­ ner before you could feel comfortable living with someone and having intercourse? (check one) 1 __must be married. 2 must be formally or officially engaged. 3 must be tentatively engaged (contemplating marriage) 4 must have strong affectionate relationship; not dating others. 5 must have strong affectionate relationship; open to other dating. 6 must be good friends or have an affectionate relationship; need not be a strongly affectionate relationship. 7 __need only be mutual attraction and honesty; no particular affection. 8 __ could live with anyone under any circumstances. 9 other? ______.

Coitus with partner and others.

1. Have you ever had intercourse with someone to whom you were not married? ___ No. ___ Yes, number of different partners? (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5+)

2. Are you now having intercourse with your partner? (no) (yes)

3. Since your relationship has reached its current level of involvement (going together, living together, married) have: (a) you ever had intercourse with someone else? (yes) (no) (b) has your partner? (not sure) (yes) (no) 151

Jealousy Oyer partner’s,coitus with others.

1. How upset would you be if you found out that your partner had had intercourse with another person before you met him/her?

12 3 4 5 6 7 not at all moderately very upset upset upset

2. How upset would you be if you found out that your partner was having intercourse with someone other than yourself at this time?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all moderately very upset upset upset

Affectional involvement. A two item cumulative scale scored zero (low) to two (high).

1. What is your degree of emotional involvement in this relationship?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 none moderate strong

2. I would say my feelings for my partner are best described as: 1 __ strong love 5 close friendship or "liking" 2 __ love, but not strong 6 __no particular affection 3 __ strong affection 7 dislike or hostility 4 __ affection, but not strong 8 __ other?......

General community tolerance of unmarried cohabitation. Two item summated scale.

1. People in this community would react harshly if they found out two people were living together unmarried. (SA) (A) (U) (D) (SD)

2. Today, people who live together un­ married are as well accepted as those who are married and living together. (SA) (A) (U) (D) (SD) 152

Awareness of unmarried cohabitation.

1. Do you know of any couples who are living together unmarried?

(yes, quite a few) (yes, several) (yes, a few) (no, none)

2. Are any of your close friends living together Unmarried?

(yes, most) (yes, quite a few) (yes, several) (yes, a few) (no, none)

Relationship and sexual satisfaction.

1. In general, how satisfied are you with the way your relationship is going?

1______2______3______4______5______6______7 not at all moderately very satisfied satisfied satisfied

2. In general, how satisfied are you with the sexual aspects of your relationship?

1______2______3______4______5______6______7 not at all moderately very satisfied satisfied satisfied

Revised Marital Adjustment Balance Scale (MABS). Two part index of relationship rewards and relationship tensions. Scored by subtracting the number of tension items checked from the number of reward items checked and adding nine to that total. Possible scores could range from zero (low) to 21 (high).

1. Below is a list of things that couples sometimes do together. Please check all those which you and your partner did together as a couple during the past few weeks.

__had a good laugh or shared a joke together shared feelings about job or school work been affectionate towards each other __ spent an evening alone just chatting with each other __ shared a personal experience with each other __ did something the other particularly appreciated __visited friends together __ entertained friends together had a "romantic" dinner at home alone __went for a walk or drive just for pleasure went out together--to a movie, sporting event, play, etc. ate out in a restaurant together 153

2. Below is a list of things about which couples sometimes agree or disagree. Please check all those things which caused differences of opinion or problems in your relationship during the past few weeks.

you or your partner being too tired to do something the other wished to do an irritating personal habit of yours or your partner how to spend leisure time you or your partner spending too much time away from the other your or your partner's job or school work your or your partner's family or relatives your or your partner's jealousy of the other unsatisfactory sexual relations you or your partner not showing enough love or affection

Feelings of loss or regret.

1. When people enter a serious relationship with another person, they sometimes have to give up things (or change things) that they previously enjoyed. This may lead to a sense of loss or regret. Have you ever experienced such a feeling with regard to any of the following? (check all that apply)

loss of a close or old friend __ loss of personal freedom __ loss of close ties to family or relatives loss of the freedom to spend your money anyway you wished loss of previous sexual freedom or the freedom to date others __ othe r ? ......

Relationship qualities. A set of eight summated scales. These were presented in random order on the questionnaire. The respondent was asked to fill in the blank with one of the responses: SA,A,U,D,SD.

(Trust: minimum = 3; maximum = 15)

_ __I feel I can trust my partner completely. I feel my partner can be depended upon when I need help. My partner can be counted upon to keep promises made to me.

(Respect: minimum— 3; maximum = 15)

I consider my partner to be my best friend. I look up to my partner. I have a great deal of respect for my partner. 154

(Equality; minimum = .3; maxiipuni = 15)

(.... I find that I don't think highly of my partner's thoughts or ideas. While my partner is a different person than myself, I $eel that he/she is an equal. ____I am usually willing to compromise when we disagree about things.

(Open companionship: minimum = 4; maximum = 20)

I do not insist that my partner give up friends I don't like. My partner doesn't like me to go out alone or with friends unless he/she can come along. I consider my partner's friends to be my friends also. ___ I feel uncomfortable when my partner goes out alone or with friends and I can't go along.

(Open communication': minimum = 4; maximum = 20)

___ I am not able to communicate with my partner about my personal feelings. _ I always tell my partner the complete truth about things which are im­ portant to our relationship. ___ I probably share more of my close feelings with my friends than with my partner. Whenever we have problems we talk things out openly and honestly.

(Privacy: minimum = 3; maximum = 15)

___ I feel that my partner doesn't give me all the privacy that I need. My partner doesn't like me to go out alone or with friends unless he/she can come along. Our relationship allows me all the privacy I need or want.

(Loss of self identity: minimum = 2; maximum = 10)

I feel that I have lost some of my individual identity since I became involved in this relationship. I have less a feeling of "self" now than when this relationship began.

(Jealousy: minimum = 2; maximum = 10)

___ I can't help being jealous when I think my partner is attracted to someone else.

I would be very upset if my partner loved someone else even if he/she still loved me. 155

Social supports. A four item summated scale. Items were dichotomized. Possible scores ranged from zero Clow) to four (high).

1. Think of the following persons and the way they interact with you. Using the scales provided please indicate; (2) whether or not they know of your relationship; (2) whether or not they approve (or would if they knew); and (3) how you think they would react if you were to break this relationship today.

Your parents. Do they know? (yes) (no) (not sure)

(a) Do they approve (or would they if they knew)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disapprove approve

(b) How would they feel if you broke off this relationship today?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very neither very pleased pleased/displeased displeased

Your best or closest friends. Do most know? (yes) (no) (not sure)

(a) Do they approve (or would they if they knew)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disapprove approve

(b) How would they feel if you broke off this relationship today?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very neither very pleased pleased/displeased displeased

Alternative attractions. A four item summated scale. Possible scores ranged from zero (low) to four (high).

1. At this time, is there any other particular person besides your partner with whom you wish you could have a relationship? (yes) (no)

2. Do you wish that you could give up your present way of life and practice another life-style? (yes) (no) 156

3. Is there any other person? other than your partner, to whom you find yourself strongly- attracted at this time? (yes) (no)

4. Is there any particular person, other than your partner, who you see as an available and preferable sex partner? (yes) (no)

Dyadic commitment. A five item summated scale. The items were dichotomized, Possible scores ranged from zero (low) to five (high).

1. Below is a line representing the degree to which you are determined to continue your relationship with your partner. Circle the number on this line which best represents your degree of determination to remain with your partner in the future.

7 0 3 23456789 10 none moderate high

2. Do you value this relationship as the most important aspect of your life? ___ Yes. ___ It is not the most important but it is as important as any other. ___ It is important, but others are more important. ___ It is moderate in importance. ___ It is rather low in importance.

3. Do you ever think seriously about ending this relationship?

(never) (seldom) (occasionally) (frequently) (very frequently)

4. If you could end this relationship today with no complications, would you?

(definitely yes) (yes) (possibly) (no) (definitely no)

5. Which of the below most realistically describes your expectations concerning the future of your relationship with your partner?

_We will probably remain together the rest of our lives. _We will probably remain togther for many years; total commitment is impossible. _We will probably break up within the next five years. _We will probably break up within the next two years. _We will probably break up within the next year, _We will probably break up within the next few months. We will probably break up within the next few weeks, other? 157

Sex-role flexibility.

Below is a list of activities and household tasks. Please indicate how you and your partner handle the division of labor -related to each of these. Use the following codes and place the correct number in the blank before the item.

Mark If 0 neither you nor your partner do this 1 you always or almost always do this 2 you usually do this, or do it more often than your partner 3 if both of you do this more or less equally 4 your partner usually does this or does it more often than you 5 your partner always or almost always does this

washes the dishes makes the bed _does the laundry ___ handles the finances ___ shops for food _cleans the floors plans the meals cooks the meals picks up around the home empties the trash makes minor repairs around the house ___ takes care of the car plans trips or vacations ___ decides how money is to be spent ___ decides where to live invites friends oyer to the house ___ decides when to go out ___ initiates sex play ___ brings in money/eams the money 158

APPENDIX B: ITEMS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED AT BAKER UNIVERSITY, 1975

Religiosity. The same three item scale iised at Bowling Green State University (see Appendix A) .

Premarital sexual Standards. The same item used at Bowling Green State University (see Appendix A).

Premarital coitus.

1. Have you ever had full sexual relations (intercourse) with someone to whom you were not married?

___ No. Please skip to the next section. ___ Yes. Please answer the following questions.

(a) How old were you the first time you had intercourse? ' ’ ' '

(b) How many different partners have you had intercourse with? _____

(c) Have you had intercourse with someone to whom you were not married during the:

...past year? (no) (yes, occasionally) (yes, frequently)

.. .past month? (no) (yes, occasionally) (yes, frequently)

. . .past week? (no) (yes, occasionally) (yes, frequently)

Past heterosexual experience.

1. Have you ever "gone steady" (dated one person seriously and exclusively for an extended period of time)?

___ No. ___ Yes, how many times? ______,

2. Have you ever been in love?

___ No. ___ Yes, how many times? ...... 159

Closeness to parents.

1. How close to your parents do you feel yourself to be?

(very close) (moderately close) (uncertain) (not very close) (not close)

Present dating experiences.

1. Would you say that most of your current dating activities were restricted to: (check one)

"playing the field" dating several individuals fairly regularly dating several individuals occasionally dating one person seriously and exclusively not dating or dating very infrequently ___ other ? ...... ,

Peer supports for permissiveness.

1. How many of the other students at this school do you think have had premarital sexual relations (full sexual relations before marriage)?

(most or all) (quite a few) (several) (very few) (none)

2. How many of your best friends have had premarital sexual intercourse?

(most or all) (quite a few) (several) (very few) (none)

3. If your friends were to find out that you had sexual intercourse with someone, how would they react?

(strongly approve) (approve) (neutral) (disapprove) (strongly disapprove)

Parehtal supports for permissiveness.

1. If your parents were to find out that you had had sexual intercourse with someone, how would they react?

(strongly approve) (approve) (neutral) (disapprove) (strongly disapprove)