Personal, Social Support, and Marital Variables Related to Marital Coping Behaviors

全文

(1)lJ.:rr.iE:laf:l** r ¥t1fJH.'~if~ J ' 391-424. ~IJ 83,17 M. OOA ' iirl:ejtf~ , ~~.JftOO~~ 1ti~~Hi~j.z'~II1~~. *-. ~ 1ff. ( iJ iL an;*-. *. I~ ~. ti *UffJE~wtOOA. R-.. &Ij ~.ft. ). ~. ' Ufrxt~ , ~ijMtSl~~~~ijMtSlfti~!!I~:(T~i'f;]~m{*. 0. 197 fjz:B~ij. ~.~~~g~~i'f;]~~~~,~~~i'f;]~.~~~Dj~.oUffJE~ffl~~tti'f;] M~~~~.wtmMtSlfti~!!I~fi~~~i'f;]~~m~oUffJE~*~~m~fti~!!I~fi ~W~~OOi'f;]~~~~~!!I~fi~®~m~~om~~~i'f;].~~~~~M~'~. .'~~W~~ •• !!I~fim~B~~~.i'f;]~~o~.~ti~~~.w~*xm !!I.fim~-~~.i'f;]~.!!I.oAM%.~-.ft~i'f;]!!I~fim~~.i'f;]~~o. •• ®~,m~fti~i'f;]~~~~~UfrxM~~=!!I.~~~~~~.MtSl.~~~ AM%.i'f;]~~®~mMtSlfti~!!I~fim~oo.i'f;]~~o. **~. ••. ~~~M±~~Z$ffi~3o.

(2) Coping behaviors are an important aspect of the stress process.. Coping with. stressful life events usually has been viewed as a complex set of processes that may moderate the influences of stressful events on individ uals' physical, social, and emotional functioning (Billings &. Moos, 1981; Bowman, 1990; Folkman &. Lazarus, 1980; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, Delongis, & Gruen, 1986; Ilfeld, 1980; Menaghan, 1982; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978).. Because the presence of cop. ing behaviors has been linked to general well-being, such behaviors offer a poten. Factors in greater ro dIe-aged. l. frequently adulthood and marri. Beca. tial point for therapeutic intervention.. Teaching effective coping skills through in. terventions might have potential benefits for the individual.. To teach or modify. an individual's propensity to use effective coping behaviors, a fuller understanding of the factors that relate to effective coping behaviors is needed.. coping behaviors on psychological and physical well-being and on the development Fewer studies have investigated factors that. may affect the use of different coping behaviors.. behaviors. ies have c. Studies of cop. ing behaviors in response to stress have centered on examining of the impact of. of a typology of coping behaviors.. to deal wj. The purpose of the present s. 1989; Feif Neale,. 19~. relatively searchers, instead on. tudy is to examine the possibly process-oriented determinants of marital coping behaviors.. situations, sent study. Coping behaviors are considered to be the specific responses given by an in d ivid ual to deal with a particular stressful encounter, rather than a persistent and cross-situationally unchangeable style.. Folkman and Lazarus (1980), McCrae (1982),. and Patterson, Smith, Grant, Lopton, Josepho, and Yager (1990) argued that cop ing styles seem more likely to be problem-specific than problem-invariant; thus, generalized coping styles may not fully capture the varying strategies people em ploy in dealing with specific problems.. Consequently, recent researchers have re. quested subjects to describe their responses to a specific stressful event or circum. marital co These mal blame, sel Wit styles over. suggestiOn! stated that tified, it i:. stance. ersonal an The present study, therefore, focused on specific coping behaviors in marital conflict situations.. This choice of conflict situations has several advantages.. First,. marriage is a central and important life style, with repeatedly demanding coping efforts.. Second, Pearlin and Schooler (1978) found that coping responses directed. at solving problems were more effective in the relief of marital and parenting s trains than they were in relieving problems in occupational and economic strains.. Interpersol adaptive,. j. strategies. Menaghan by resigna. mitigates I.

(3) {II!lA '. *±itsti~ '~Wii~JJU!i~~Wiiftj~[t;I~f'JmZ:f§~mlifn'E. 393. Coping with 'rocesses that rsical, social, Folkman & 1986; Ilfeld,. !nce of cop 'fer a poten through in. h or modify. Ilderstanding. iies of cop. e impact of. levelopment factors 'that present s. 'ital coping. Factors including personality characteristics and social support resources played a greater role in marital and parenting strains. Third, unlike the younger and mid dle-aged adults who more frequently face work stress or older adults who more freq uently face health stress, marital conflict is a common stressful event across adulthood (Feifel & Strack, 1989).. However, to date studies of coping behaviors. and marriage have received little attention in the literature. Because coping is defined as cognitive and behavioral responses that attempt to deal with the stressors (Lazarus, 1980), coping responses are seen as conscious behaviors that can be studied directly through self-reports.. Several empirical stud. ies have developed different cross-situational taxonomies of coping (Carver et al., 1989; Feifel & Strack, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; McCrae, 1982; Stone & Neale, 1984).. Such coping typologies, by definition, assume some cross-situational,. relatively stable coping tendencies in individuals.. However, some coping re. searchers, such as Folkman and Lazarus, questioned those assumptions and focused instead on specific coping efforts---behavioral or cognitive actions taken in specific situations, that are aimed at reducing a particular problem or strain.. by an in. I. sistent and. rae (1982), that cop. iant; thus,. eople em have re-. IT. circum. In the pre. sent study, marital coping behaviors will be defined as specific actions taken in marital conflict situations that are intended to reduce a marital problem or strain. These marital coping efforts include positive approach, conflict, introspective self blame, self-interest, avoidance (Bowman, 1990), and seeking social support. With regard to coping effectiveness, theoretical preferences for some coping styles over others were often recommended in the coping literature; however, those suggestions demand further empirical evidence of effectiveness.. Folkman (1991). stated that regardless of the different taxonomies of coping behavior that are iden tified, it is clear that coping is a complex process that includes a variety of intrap. n marital. :s.. First,. ersonal and interpersonal strategies for managing problems and regulating emotions. Interpersonal and problem-focused coping strategies are believed to be more active, adaptive, or effective for well-being than intrapersonal and emotion-focused coping. 19 coping. directed. enting s strains.. strategies.. On the basis of analysis of marital problems and. coping efforts,. Menaghan (1982) concluded that attempting to manage unpleasant marital feelings by resignation and withdrawal actually increases marital distress, while negotiation mitigates later marital problems.. This result is consistent with Folkman's specula.

(4) It. tion. Resignation and withdrawal reflect the intrapersonal emotion-focused coping. distress.. style which has negative impact on individual well-being, whereas negotiation re. behaviors ar. flects the interpersonal problem-focused coping style which has positive impact on. likely to. individual well-being.. ineffective. In the present study, marital coping behaviors of positive. approach and seeking social support, which reflect interpersonal problem-focused coping styles, are viewed as active, adaptive, or effective marital coping behavior,. CO). marriage.. 1. coping beha1 It is e. and coping behaviors involving conflict, introspective self-blame, self-interest, and avoidance, which reflect intrapersonal or emotion-focused coping styles, are viewed. influenced.. as negative, maladaptive, or ineffective marital coping behavior.. appraisal of. A review of the literature on adult general coping styles and specific marital. Doherty, 198. coping reports indicates that many factors may play important roles in contributing. 'Leary, 1983. to an individual's coping behaviors.. These factors include age period (Folkman,. (Folkman &. Lazarus, Pimley, & Novacek, 1987), type of stressful events (e.g., loss, threat, or. azarus & Fo. challenge). derstanding. (Lazarus & Launier, 1978; McCrae, 1982), cognitive appraisal of stress. ful events (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Tho its, 1991), personality traits (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Cooper & Baglioni, 1988), and social support (Fon. i. cognitive apI Several emp cognitive api. dacaro & Moos, 1987; Holahan & Moos, 1987). Studies of the relationship between marital strain and coping behaviors have. 1984; Folkma. centered on examining the impact of coping behaviors on marital quality or mari. Patterson et. tal distress (Bowman, 1990; Ilfeld, 1980; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; Vega, Kolody,. Thoits, 1991). & Valle, 1988; Whiffen & Gotlib, 1989).. likely to be. Overall, these studies showed that mari Coping. the other ha. behaviors involving conflict, avoidance, selective ignoring, emotional discharge, in. they tend to. trospective self-blame, and self-interest were positively correlated with marital dis. have examinl. tal coping behaviors are associated with marital strain or marital distress.. tress, but coping behaviors involving positive approach, positive comparison, negoti ation, and advice seeking were negatively correlated with marital distress. Only a few studies have attempted to investigate the impact of marital strain on marital coping behaviors.. relates to co. present stud) flict and mar Interest. Menaghan (1982) examined the predictors of marital. suggestin~. coping efforts and found that level of current marital distress was the strongest. ies. predictor. Married people with relatively few problems were more likely to deal. stress and re. with their marital distress optimistically, more apt to negotiate marital problems,. (Dunkel-Sche. less prone to selectively ignore marital distress, and less likely to avoid marital. has been on.

(5) 111,/\ '. n-focused coping negotiation re. distress.. U~3tfij: '~9IN~JJ!W~9INiti~[Z;]~lT~Z.f§~mlifU~. 395. It is also clear from these studies that marital strain and marital coping. behaviors are mutually influenced.. Persons with more marital distress are more. sitive impact on. likely to cope with difficulties by using strategies that are identified as relatively. 'iors of positive. ineffective in reducing distress and unlikely to be associated with a satisfactory. )foblem-focused. marriage.. :>ping behavior,. coping behaviors and likely to lessen their marital problems.. If-interest, and es, are viewed. Persons with less marital strain are more apt to use effective marital. It is evident that marital quality and marital coping behaviors are mutually. influenced.. In addition, marital functioning is found to be related to cognitive. appraisal of events (Camper, Jacobson, Holtzworth-Munroe, & Schmaling, 1988; pecific marital. Doherty, 1982; Fincham, 1985; Fincham, Beach, & Baucom, 1987; Fincham & O. n contributing. 'Leary, 1983; Madden & Janoff-Bulman, 1981).. od (Folkman,. (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Folkman, Lazarus, & Dunkel-Schetter et al., 1986; L. ss, threat, or. azarus & Folkman, 1984) emphasized the importance of cognitive appraisal in un. isal of stress. derstanding stress and coping processes.. aits (Carver,. cognitive appraisal of marital events might be related to marital coping behaviors.. Ipport (Fon. Several empirical studies showed that coping behaviors were strongly related to. In fact, Folkman and colleagues. Thus, it seems plausible to expect that. cognitive appraisal (Carver et al., 1989; Collins, Baum, & Singer, 1983; Folkman,. laviors have. 1984; Folkman & Lazarus, 1'985; Folkman, Lazarus, & Dunkel-Schetter et al., 1986;. ity or mari. Patterson et al., 1990; Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986; Stone & Neale, 1984;. ga, Kolody,. Thoits, 1991). Coping behaviors that are viewed as active and adaptive are more. that mari. is.. Coping. ~harge,. in. larital dis-. Ill,. negoti. likely to be used when people appraise the stressful situations as controllable.. On. the other hand, when people appraise the stressful situations are uncontrollable, they tend to use negative and maladaptive coping behaviors.. However, no studies. have examined how cognitive appraisal of personal control over marital conflicts relates to coping behaviors in the marital domain.. Accordingly, one goal of the. present study is to examine relations between cognitive appraisal of marital con. ital strain. flict and marital coping behaviors for the first time.. -f marital. Interest in social support and the coping processes has been sparked by stud. strongest. ies suggesting that social resources and coping efforts may buffer individuals from. to deal. stress and reduce their subsequent risk for psychological and physical disorders. roblems, marital. (Dunkel-Schetter, 1984; Hirsch, 1979; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978).. The major focus. has been on demonstrating the links between adaptation and varied modes of so.

(6) How. such as es(. ever, more work is needed to clarify the mechanisms by which social support influ. some other. ences the coping process.. more by Y(J. cial support and coping (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).. Likewise, information is needed about the ways in w. hich coping behaviors can change social support.. Fondacaro and Moos (1987). Younger pe. pointed out the plausibility of either social support as a determinant of coping or. behaviors.. coping as a determinant of social support.. reported in. Individuals who have close, intimate. relationships are at reduced risk for various psychological and physical disorders. One mechanism by which social support may promote adaptation is through its impact on coping processes.. On the other hand, the use of coping skills can help. Crae, 1982; Genel. iors in a p. Thus, individuals who rely on less effec. mastery, hiJ. tive coping responses may find it harder to develop and maintain supportive social. styles (Can. ties.. & Moos, 1. establish supportive social relationships.. Some studies have focused on clarifying the multidimensional nature of so. 1984; Schei. cial support and coping constructs in the examination of their interrelationships. er et al. (J. (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Moos & Billings, 1982).. Thoits (1986) suggested that. to correlate. both quantity and quality of social support influence adaptation by facilitating the. al studies 1. use of more active coping strategies.. Recent evidence is consistent with this view:. ing behavi(J. Better quality of social relationships and greater amounts of social support from. Thus,. family and friends were associated with more reliance on approach and less re. ing behavi(J. liance on avoidance coping (Billings & Moos, 1982; Cronkite & Moos, 1984; Fon. ine relatior. dacaro & Moos, 1987; Holahan & Moos, 1987; Moos & Moos, 1984).. other relev. Previous. studies have not been designed to examine the relationship between social support. coping,. and marital coping behaviors.. Responding. Thus, one goal of the present study is to investi. COl. and a com]. gate how social support influences marital coping behaviors. There are few studies designed to examine how age and personality traits. nomenon.. Evidence for. flict apprai. the relationships between age period, personality traits and coping behaviors or. hrough a sc. specific marital coping behaviors shows mixed findings of age period on marital. ented natUl. coping behaviors and a weaker relationship between personality traits and coping. conducted. behaviors.. behaviors;. impact marital coping behaviors (Bowman, 1990; Vega et aI., 1988).. Some findings indicate that late adulthood is characterized by adaptive. coping strategies (Irion & Blanchard-Fields, 1987; Labouvie-Vief, Hakin-Larson, & Hobart, 1987).. Older people were found to use less maladaptive coping behaviors,. techniques..

(7) OOA ' 1984).. I,. How. *ifl~M' '9I!lI~Hl!lJi~9I~OO~IZl~f'Jli£zf§~mliff~. such as escape-avoidance, distancing, hostile reaction, and self-blame.. 397. However,. l Support influ. some other findings support the notion that effective coping behaviors are used. the ways in w. more by younger people (Folkman et aI., 1987; Quayhagen & Quayhagen, 1982).. I Moos (1987). Younger people were found to use more problem-solving and help-seeking coping. It of coping or. behaviors.. close, intimate. reported in other studiess (Billings & Moos, 1981; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Mc. cal disorders.. Crae, 1982; McCrae, 1989).. is through its. However, little or no age differences in coping behaviors have been. General personality traits may influence the choice of specific coping behav. ,kills can help. iors in a particular situation.. on less effec. mastery, high self-esteem, and optimism relates to more active and adaptive coping. 'portive social. styles (Carver et aI., 1989; Elliott, Troef, & Stein, 1986; Fleishman, 1984; Holahan. Some evidence suggests that an orientation toward. & Moos, 1985; Holahan & Moos, 1987; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982; Parkes,. nature of so. 1984; Scheier et al., 1986; Vega et al., 1988; Wells-Parker, 1982).. rrelationships. er et al. (1989) and Fleishman (1984) argued that these personality variables tend. llggested that. to correlate with coping behaviors, the correlations were not strong.. cilitating the. al studies have shown that personality traits were not significant predictors of cop. th this view:. ing behaviors (Cohen & Lazarus, 1973; Lazarus, Averill,. upport from. lnd less re 1984; FonPrevious. f£. Although Carv. In fact, sever. Opton, 1974).. Thus, few studies have examined the factors that may affect the use of cop ing behaviors, especially in marital conflict situations.. These studies usually exam. ine relations between two variables in isolation witJlOut considering the effects of other relevant variables.. Based on Lazarus and Folkman's approach to stress and. ;ial support. coping, coping styles are considered in the context of the changing environment.. to investi. Responding to or coping with marital conflict situations may be a complex process and a complex process-oriented approach will be necessary to investigate this phe. ality traits. nomenon.. 'idence for. flict appraisal, and marital strain to marital coping behaviors were analyzed t. haviors or. hrough a series of exploratory path analyses conducted to examine the process-ori. III. marital. The relationships of age, personality traits, social support, marital con. ented nature of marital coping behaviors.. A confirmatory path analysis was not. ad coping. conducted because of the preliminary nature of the mechanisms of marital coping. adaptive. behaviors; instead a post hoc path model was developed using multiple regression. •arson, &. 'ehaviors,. techniques ..

(8) Method. item Rosel jects indic:. Subj~cts. for each il. Subjects were recruited from the Morgantown and Fairmont areas, West Vir. items, whi. ginia, through visits to Senior Centers and local churches, an informational letter,. cates a gn. home visits and personal contacts.. Married persons of either gender ranging in. age from 25 to 80 years old were asked to participate.. Optil. While efforts were made. Life Orien. to preclude subjects' spouses from participating in the present study, it is not. point Like. completely clear whether spouses were in fact excluded due to the recruitment of. item state I. large samples in churches.. The analyzed sample included 197 adults: 76 young. Mar. adults, ages 23 to 40 years (M = 32.26, SD = 4.96); 71 middle-aged adults, ages. sured witl:. 41 to 60 years (M = 46.54, SD = 5.27); and 50 old adults, ages 61 to 82 years. addition. (M = 68.90, SD = 6.37). Overall, subjects in the present study were predominant. Inventory. ly middle class, as revealed by their income, occupation, and education, and were. cipal-facto. in their first marriage, in good physical health, and Protestant.. In addition, old. the marita. subjects in the present study were of lower social class than either the young or. flict, crit i(. middle-aged sUbjects.. 15 items 4 health.. 0. T. cal affecti Background measures.. Several background variables were obtained.. Demo. interest s(. graphic information included subject's sex, age, occupation, religion, educational. marriage.. years, current marriage years, number of children in current marriage, self-report. suppressio. health status, family's annual income, marital status, and experience of marital. Seek. therapy as well as spouse's age, educational years, occupation, and marital status. Mastery characteristic measure.. ignored ir. Mastery was measured with a scale devel. cial SUPP(. oped by Pearlin and Schooler (1978) for use with a community-residing adult sam. dded to t. ple.. The 7-item scale assesses the extent to which one regards one's life chances. items wer. as be ing under one's control in contrast to be ing fatalistically determined. SUbjects. jects resp4. responded to each item on a 4-point Likert scale with items coded so that a high. the extent. er score represents a greater sense of mastery.. conflict si. Items were averaged to create a. total mastery score for each subject. Self-esteem characteristic measure.. spondent , Self-esteem was measured with the 10. Whc.

(9) @lA '. U~stt~ '~~~Jj~~ftj~rzglf!f'J1.$Zf§~~Wf~. item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a scale developed by Rosenberg (1965).. 399. Sub. jects indicated their extent of agreement or disagreement on a 4-point Likert scale for each item statement. reas, West Vir. 'mational letter,. Ider ranging in. )rts were made udy, it is not recruitment of. items, which were averaged to obtain a self-esteem score.. il to 82 years. predominant. ion, and were addition, old the young or. A higher score indi. cates a greater self-esteem.. Optimism characteristic measure.. Optimism was measured with the 8-item. Life Orientation Test (LOT) (Scheier & Carver, 1985). Subjects responded on a 4 point Likert scale about the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item statement.. ults: 76 young d adults, ages. The scale contains both positively and negatively worded. A higher average score indicates greater optimism.. Marital coping behavior measures.. Marital coping behaviors were mea. sured with the Marital Coping Inventory developed by Bowman (1990) and the addition of some selected seeking social support items.. Bowman's Marital Coping. Inventory measures meaningful patterns of marital coping behaviors.. Through prin. cipal-factor analysis and item analysis, he found that a five-factor solution best fit the marital coping construct.. The Conflict scale includes 15 items reflecting con. flict, criticism, sarcasm, and revenge.. The Introspective Self-blame scale includes. 15 items of troubled feelings, self-blame, worry and health.. di~turbances. of sleeping and. The Positive Approach scale includes 14 items reflecting gestures of physi. cal affection, fun, and initiating shared activities and good memories.. lied.. Demo. ed ucational. , self-report. of marital Ital status. cale devel adult sam fe chances i. Subjects at a highI. create a. The Self. interest scale consists of 9 items reflecting deliberate, increased activity outside marriage.. The Avoidance scale has 11 items including denial, repression, and. suppression of feelings. Seeking social support was found to be an important factor of marital coping ignored in Bowman's Marital Coping Inventory. Therefore, 5 items of seeking so cial support ( Ilfeld, 1980; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; Menaghan, 1982) were a dded to the Marital Coping Inventory.. To avoid response set, the same subscale. items were distributed across the Inventory rather than listed successively.. Sub. jects responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never through 5 = usually) about the extent to which they used each of item statements when they faced the marital conflict situations.. A higher average score in each subscale indicates that corre. spondent coping behavior is used more frequently. h the 10. When a person is asked about how he/she usually copes, the response also.

(10) might reflect personality disposition.. Generally, there is a poor relationship be. tween what people say they usually do and what they actually do in specific in stances (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980).. The best way to learn about the demands of. situations and how people cope with them is to describe how people actually cope in specific stressful encounters, rather than providing a generalized, hypothetical situation for people to respond to (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980).. In the present s. tudy, the instruction included in the Marital Coping Inventory asked subjects to indicate how they actually coped with the marital conflict situations.. The instruc. tion was, "To answer these items, first, you have to recall the most serious recur ring marital conflict you have experienced, then, please decide to what extent you used the items in responding to that stressful event.". Appraised stressfulness and controllability measures.. liable and tively ass( (Gottman, strain. The. subscales ' aggression, with disag validity of on a freql. In the present study,. primary appraisal of a stressful event was referred to as the extent to which sub jects regarded the conflict situations as stressful, and secondary appraisal of a stressful event was referrea to as the extent to which subjects regarded the conflict situations as controllable.. and their never") to ming the of verbal. Soci. The appraised stressfulness and controllability of the most serious recurring marital conflict was assessed with two questions which concomitantly follow the end of the Marital Coping Inventory.. The severity of the marital conflict situa. tions was assessed by a single question: "In this question, please circle the level of stress you recall that you felt during your most serious recurring marital conflict situation." Perceived control over marital conflict situations was assessed by a sin gle question: "In this question, please circle the extent to which you felt that you could change or control the situation to be less stressful during your most serious recurring marital conflict situation." point rating scale (0. Conflict T:. Subjects responded to both questions on a 9. = are not stressful or very uncontrollable through 8 = very. stressful or very controllable) that assessed the extent to which they regarded the marital conflict situations as being stressful and controllable.. Higher ratings of. stressful ness or controllability indicates that subjects thought the marital conflict. Social SUI. The brie1 naire (SSe both SSQ relationshi best be us Subj items and. d issatisfie( score was 6 items ar 6 items. support.. event was more stressful or controllable, respectively.. Marital strain measures.. Marital functioning was assessed with the Locke. Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959) and the Straus. Reliabilil.

(11) @IA ' U*:xM'. '~~~JJ!J!~~ftj~~lJ!ff~Zf§iijJlitf~ 401. Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979).. The MAT has been shown to be a re. r relationship be. :10 in specific in. t the demands of pIe actually cope. ~ed, hypothetical. n the present s. ,ked subjects to. s.. The instruc. t serious recur. ¥hat extent you. liable and valid assessment of marital adjustment.. In addition, MAT scores posi. tively associated with positive marital interactions coded by objective observers (Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977).. A lower score indicates greater marital. strain. The CTS, a 19-item scale that assesses interspouse hostility, consists of three subscales which tap Reasoning Conflict Tactics, Verbal Conflict Tactics or verbal aggression, and Physical Conflict Tactics or physical violence as means of dealing with disagreements.. There is substantial evidence for the concurrent and construct. validity of the CTS (see Straus, 1979, for a summary). present study, to which sub ppraisal of a. :d the conflict. Subjects are asked to rate. on a frequency scale how often each behavior had been performed by themselves and their spouse during the past year. never") to 6 ("more than 20 times").. The frequency scale ranged from zero (". Straus's regular scoring system involves sum. ming the frequency ratings over the corresponding items.. Higher average scores. of verbal conflict and physical conflict indicate greater marital strain.. OUs recurring y follow the. onflict situa the level of. rital conflict d by a sin ~1t that you. lost serious. ns on a 9 8. =:. ~arded. very the. ratings of. 11 conflict. Social support measures.. Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ6) (Sarason, Sarason, Shearin, & Pierce, 1987). The brief SSQ6 was derived from the twenty-seven- item Social Support Question naire (SSQ) (Sarason, Levine, Basham, & Sarason, 1983).. Most of the items in. both SSQ and SSQ6 deal with emotional support or reflect the affective aspects of relationships (Sarason et al., 1987; Tardy, 1985).. Thus both SSQ and SSQ6 might. best be used only to assess emotional support. Subjects supplied the names or initials of available supporters on each of 6 items and then indicated how satisfied they were on a 6-point scale (1 dissatisfied through 6. =. very satisfied) with each item statement.. =. very. The availability. score was calculated by dividing the total number of people providing support by 6 items and the satisfaction score was calculated by dividing the summed score by 6 items.. Higher average availability and satisfaction scores reflect greater social. support.. Results. e Locke. Ie Straus. Social support was assessed with a 6-item brief. R~liability. []f. th~ P~rs[]nality. and Marital G[]ping Subscah~s.

(12) To confirm the internal consistencies of the scales, item analyses were con ducted on subscales of the Self-Awareness Inventory and subscales of the Marital Coping Inventory with the total sample.. Table 1 Zero- Order Corrl Traits. Marital. In addition, internal consistency estimates. for the same subscales were also calculated separately for each age group to con firm their reliability homogeneity across age groups. Internal consistency for each subscale was relatively high, ranging from .67 to .91 for the total sample.. As compared to the internal consistencies from the other. studies indicated, Alpha coefficients of marital coping measures (.75-.91) were m ore reliable than Alpha coefficients of personality measures (.67-.82).. However,. the evidence for high internal consistency of the subscales demonstrated that mea sures of personality traits including mastery (alpha = .67), esteem (alpha = .82), and optimism (alpha = .74) and marital coping measures including avoidance (al pha. .75), conflict (alpha. (alpha. =. =. .91), positive approach (alpha. .89), self-interest (alpha. were adequately reliable.. =. =. .85), self-blame. :81), and seeking social support (alpha. =. .77). Internal consistency comparisons between of this study. and original studies consistently confirm the internal reliability of each subscale. Internal consistency of mastery, esteem, conflict, positive approach, self-blame, self-interest, and seeking social support subscales did not differ reliably for the three age groups, but the optimism subscale (alpha = .60) and the avoidance sub scale (alpha. =. .57) showed relatively low consistency for the old sample.. Age PERSONAL! TV TRA Mastery Esteem Optimism MARITAL CONFL!C APPRAISALS Appraised stressfulnes Appra i sed controllabil MAR ITAL STRA INS Marital relationship Verba 1 confl Physical con SOCIAL SUPPORTS Social suppo availabil ity Social suppo satisfaction. Note. N ~ 189. < .01. ***. **p. Conflict. Overall,. positive appre. the results also moderately confirm the homogeneity of the internal reliability of. proach coping. each subscale across age groups.. ance, conflict, personality trl. Relationships of Marital Goping Behaviors with ftge, Personality Traits, Marital Gonflict ftppraisals, Marital Strains, and Social Supports Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between marital coping. appraised stT( ed to apprais ed to apprais forts were. De. behaviors scores and age, personality traits, marital conflict appraisals, marital s. coping efforts. trains, and social supports.. ed and positi. The results are presented in Table 1.. addition, mal relate to avo proach copin.

(13) @A ' :es were conf the Marital ncy estimates :roup to con. : from .67 to >m the other. (1) were m-. However,. d that mea pha = .82),. )jdance (alself-blame. Ipha = .77). , this study. :ubscale.. self-blame,. ,ly for the. :lance subOverall,. iabiIity of. U~;tt~ '1l~!l!!il~rJ[W~!l!!ilfti~IiJ~1'TmZ:f§~mliff~. 403. Table 1 Zero-Order Correlations between Marital Coping Behaviors and Age. Personality Traits. Marital Conflict Appraisals. Marital Strains. and Social Supports -----------------------------------------------SelfSeeking Avoidance Conflict Positive Selfsocial support blame interest approach ----------------------------------------------------------------------.. 20** .07 -.26*** .18** - .06 .21** Age PERSONALITY TRAITS .. 35*** - .42*** - .01 - .02 Mastery -.25*** .21** - .61*** .07 -.06 -.28*** -.37*** .25*** Esteem .. 01 - .43*** - .47*** .01 Optimism -.33*** .34*** MARITAL CONFLICT APPRAISALS Appraised .12 .33*** -.25*** .39*** .04 .16 stressfulness - .22*** - .32*** -.08 Appraised .41*** -.38*** .14 controllability MARITAL STRAINS - .14 Marital -.44*** -.57*** .52*** -.47*** -.12 relationship Verbal confl ict .20** .59*** -.41*** .35*** .04 .09 Physical conflict .35*** - .06 .21** .10 .09 .09 SOCIAL SUPPORTS .. 19** - .08 Social support - .04 .14 .14 .05 availability -.07 Social support - .32*** -.34*** .42*** -.32*** .14 satisfaction Note. N ~ 189. **p < .01. ***p. < .001.. Conflict and seeking social support coping efforts decreased with age, while positive approach and self-interest coping efforts increased with age.. Positive ap. proach coping effort was positively related to three personality traits, while avoid ance, conflict, and self-blame coping efforts were negatively related to these three personality traits.. Conflict and self-blame coping efforts were positively related to. appraised stressfulness, while positive approach coping effort was negatively relat ed to appraised stressfulness.. Positive approach coping effort was positively relat. ed to appraised controllability, while avoidance, conflict, and self-blame coping ef. 1 coping. forts were negatively related to appraised controllability. Conflict and self-blame. larital s. coping efforts were negatively related to the quality of marital relationship report ed and positively related to the verbal conflict and physical conflict reported. In add ition, marital relationship and verbal conflict were also found to significantly relate to avoidance and positive approach marital coping behaviors.. Positive ap. proach coping effort was positively related to the quality of marital relationship.

(14) reported and negatively related to the verbal conflict reported. Positive approach. pIe regressio. coping effort was positively correlated with social support satisfaction, while avoid. the remainin. ance, conflict, and self-blame coping efforts were negatively correlated with social. were used to. support satisfaction.. a criterion " procedure w. Building Mlldeis for the Marital Gllping Behavillrs. the analyses.. To explore the possible process-oriented nature of selected quantitative vari. 1 to Figure. I. Each n. ables on marital coping behaviors, exploratory path models were developed using An av. chain of reg]. erage personality standardized score based on the simple sum of the standardized. ized regressi. score of mastery, esteem, and optimism, an average marital conflict appraisal stan. least squares. dardized score based on the summation of standardized score of appraised control. successive pI. lability and reverse standardized score of appraised stressfulness, an average mari. abIes.. tal strain standardized score based on the summation of the standardized score of. hen & Cohe. verbal conflict, physical conflict and reverse standardized score of marital relation. or indirect. ship, and an average social support standardized score based on the simple sum. fects on eacl. of the standardized score of social support availability and social support satisfac. Figure 1. stepwise multiple regression techniques (Madden & J anoff-Bulman, 1981).. tion, were created to gain parsimony in model building analyses.. Empirical justifi. Dire '. c. Path Model of. cation for the composites of variables derived from the high intercorrelations a mong or between the corresponding conceptually identical variables. correlation coefficient among mastery, optimism, and optimism was .61.. The average The corre. lation coefficient between appraised controllability and appraised stressfulness was .45.. The average correlation coefficient among marital relationship, verbal conflict,. Note. Values inc 1ude. and physical conflict was .40. The correlation coefficient between social support **p. availability and social support satisfaction was .33.. < .01.. '. All these correlation coeffi. cients reached the p < .001 statistical level of significant. ed that age and marriage years were highly correlated (r. Al "), it should be not. =. Path Model 01. .81, P < .001).. A stepwise multiple regression was first conducted, using individual marital coping behavior as the criterion measure and entering age, personality, marital conflict appraisal, marital strain, and social support as possible predictors.. The. predictors of individual marital cuping behavior were identified as the factors w hose individual contribution was significant at .01 level or less.. Figure 2. A stepwise multi.

(15) OOA ' t±1f::tt~ '~~llH'Jj~!iUI\;t~1ti~~tf.fT~Z;f§~~liff~. 405. ive approach. pIe regression was then conducted for each of the significant predictors, entering. while avoid. the remaining nonsignificant variables into the analyses.. with social. j. were used to identify the best predictors.. Again the same criteria. Each significant predictor, then, became. a criterion variable to be predicted by the remaining nonsignificant factors.. The. procedure was continued until significant predictors were no longer produced by the analyses. itative vari. 1 to Figure 6.. :loped using 1).. An av. The path models estimated by these regressions are shown in Figure. Each marital coping behavior was explained in a path model described by a chain of regressions.. In conventional path analysis, direct effects are the standard. :tandardized. ized regression coefficients (standardized path coefficients) obtained from ordinary. lraisal stan. least squares regression; indirect effects are obtained by a summing of multiplying. :ed control. successive path coefficients when two variables are separated by intervening vari. :rage mari. ables.. :d Score of. hen & Cohen, 1983).. 11 relation. or indirect effects.. imple sum. fects on each marital coping behavior are presented in Table 2.. rt satisfac. Figure 1. cal justifi. Path Model of Avoidance Marital Coping Behavior .28*** .28*** ~I Marit~l conflictL ~lpersonalitY appralsal. lations a-. Direct and indirect effects are added together to obtain total effects (Co In exploratory path analysis, predictors show either direct. The results of each predictor's direct, indirect, and total ef. -.31***. Avoidance rna rita 1 coping behavior. e average. :"he corre. less was Social support. conflict, support. n coeffi be not-. marital marital. s.. I. -.22***. ~. Note. Values shown are standardized path coefficients with significant predictors included in the regressions. **p < .01. ***p < .001.. Figure 2 Path Model of Conflict Marital Coping Behavior. .28*** - .45***. I Marital conflict ~. appraisal. '" . 56***. Conflict rna rita 1 coping behavior. The. ;tors wmulti-. r-,- - - - - ,. Soci a 1 support I". ~ . -.22***.

(16) Table 2. Figure 3 Path Model of Positive Approach Marital Coping Behavior .26*** ,..--_ _ _ _ _----,. Decompositi Behaviors. ~~------.I. , .45***. '.43***. 11-----_ I Marital strain I. .33*** '.2. *. Pos iti ve approach marital coping behavior. Social support. Figure 4 Path Model of Self'Blame Marital Coping Behavior. Self' blame marital coping behavior • Marital conflict appraisal. Figure 5 Path Model of Self'Interest Marital Coping Behavior Marital conflict. .34*** appraisal. I. , .45*** Self' ,..--_ _ _ _ _,-;.25*** .20** interest I Marital stra'in~~ marital ~L-_ _ _ _ _~ coping. support ~. , .22*** . behavior. Figure 6 Path Model of Seeking Social Support Marital Coping Behavior Marital conflict .34*** appraisal. Seeking social ,--_ _ _ _ _ ' .25*** '.22*** support IMarital s t r a i n ! - - 8 - marital coping L -_ _ _ _~. .36*** . Social support. '.22***. behavior. Variables. Avoidance Age Personali Marital s Marital c appraisa Social su Conflict Age Personali Marital s Marital c appraisa Social su Positive ap Age Personali Marital s Ma rita 1 c appraisa Social SL Self'blame Age Persona 1 i Marital ~ Marital ( appraise Social Sl Self'interl Age Personal Marital Marital apprais, Social s Seeking so Age Personal Marital Marital apprais So cia 1 s. I. Note. Dir coe mul coe **p. <. .01..

(17) @lA ' UtJ-:Jtt-i3=. '~~~JJU!i~~~fti~~~1T~Zf§~mliff~ 407. Table 2 Decomposition of Significant Predictors of Marital Coping Behaviors Pos it i ve approach -+-1 ma rita 1 COping t.?eha v i or. Self blame marita 1 COping behavior. If terest 'ita 1 ling aVior. ing II lrt. Variables. Direct effect. I nd i rect effect. Total. effect. ----------------------------------------------------------------. Avoidance Age .07 -.38*** Personality Marital strain .30*** -.20** Marital conflict appraisal Social support -.31*** Conflict -.28*** Age Personal ity -.41*** .63*** Marital strain -.38*** Marital conflict appraisal -.23*** Social support Positive approach -.20** Age Personality .31*** - .43*** Marital strain .39*** Marital confl ict appraisal Social support .34*** Se If-bl ame - .12 Age Personal ity -.58*** .42*** Marital strain Marital conflict -.45*** appraisal -.24*** Social support Self-interest Age .20** Personality .03 Marital strain .10 Marital conflict .06 appraisal Social support .12 Seeking social support -.22*** Age - .03 Personality Marital strain .14 - . 14 Marital conflict appraisal Social support .04 Note.. a1. g ior. r. **p. <. - .05 - .18. - .05 - .31 .20 -.18. - .13. - .13. - .09 - .31. - .09 - .22 .56 - .31. - .18. - .18. .05 .10 .19. .05 .10 - .43 .19. .09. .09. - .12. - .12 - .48 .18 - .28. - .32. -.32. .01 - .05 .02. .20 .01 - .05 .02. .01. .01. - .01 .06 - .03. - .22 - .01 .06 - .03. - .01. - .01. -.31*** .20**. -.22*** .56***. -.43***. -.48*** .18** -.28***. .20**. -.22***. Direct effect values indicate standardized regression coefficients. Indirect effect values represent summing of multiplying successive standardized regression coefficients. .01. ***p < .001..

(18) Avoidance marital coping behavior.. Avoidance marital coping behavior was. best predicted by personality and marital strain. Two paths emerged from each of these two variables.. Marital conflict appraisal and social support significantly. predicted personality.. Marital strain also was significantly predicted by marital. conflict appraisal and social support. in turn predicted by age.. In addition, marital conflict appraisal was. The results indicated that personality and marital strain. had direct effects on avoidance marital coping behavior.. Marital conflict ap. praisal and social support had strong indirect effects, affecting avoidance marital coping behavior through personality and marital strain.. Age had weak indirect ef. fects, affecting avoidance marital coping behavior through marital conflict ap praisal, personality, and marital strain.. Conflict marital coping behavior.. The built model of conflict marital cop. marital cop marital stra. Self was best pI Social supp flict apprai: appraisal. flict apprai support hac hrough per: indirect eff and marital. Self-i. ing behavior was identical to the built model of avoidance marital coping behavior. Conflict marital coping behavior was best predicted by marital strain and person ality. The following paths were the same as the paths of avoidance marital coping behavior model.. The results showed that marital strain and personality had direct. effects on conflict marital coping behavior.. As in the avoidance marital coping. behavior model, marital conflict appraisal and social support affected conflict mari tal coping behavior through personality and marital strain.. Age affected conflict. marital coping behavior through marital conflict appraisal, personality, and marital strain.. marital stn support. support. marital. 1 COl. ing behavi. on self-inte. Seek marital co. Positive approach marital coping behavior.. Positive approach marital cop. ing behavior was best predicted only by marital strain. marital strain.. was best J:. Two paths emerged from. Marital conflict appraisal significantly predicted marital strain, and. marital conflict appraisal was in turn predicted by age and personality.. Social. support also significantly predicted marital strain, and social support was in turn predicted by personality. The results showed that marital strain had direct effects. coping bel ed by age tal coping seeking so. seeking sc also had,. on positive approach marital coping behavior. Marital conflict appraisal and social support had strong indirect effects, affecting positive approach marital coping be havior through marital strain.. Age and personality had relatively weak indirect. effects: Age affected positive approach marital coping behavior through marital conflict appraisal and marital strain, and personality affected positive approach. A pl traits and.

(19) 1~A. ' Ui}"5[fif. ,~!I[t;I~~~UIi~~!I[t;I1ti~[2S]~1'Jff.ibZ:f§~mliffj"G. 409. Ig behavior was. marital coping behavior through social support, marital conflict appraisal, and. d from each of. marital strain.. lrt significantly ted by marital. Self-blame marital coping behavior.. Self-blame marital coping behavior. was best predicted by personality, marital strain, and marital conflict appraisal.. appraisal was. Social support significantly predicted personality, marital strain, and marital con. marital strain. flict appraisal.. Age also significantly predicted marital strain and marital conflict. 1 conflict ap. appraisal.. idance marital. flict appraisal had direct effects on self-blame marital coping behavior.. Ik indirect ef. support had strong indirect effects, affecting self-blame marital coping behavior t. conflict ap. The results indicated that personality, marital strain, and marital con. hrough personality, marital strain, and marital conflict appraisal.. Social. Age had weak. indirect effects, affecting self-blame marital coping behavior through marital strain marital cop. dng behavior. and person. and marital conflict appraisal.. Self-interest marital coping behavior. was best predicted by age.. Self-interest marital coping behavior. Marital strain significantly predicted age, in turn,. larital coping. marital strain was significantly predicted by marital conflict appraisal and social. ty had direct. support.. Personality significantly predicted marital conflict appraisal and social. arital coping. support.. The results indicated that age was the only direct effect on self-interest. onflict mari. cted conflict and marital. marital coping behavior: Old people tended to use more self-interest marital cop ing behavior than young people.. Other variables had very weak indirect effects. on self-interest marital coping behavior.. Seeking social support behavior.. narital cop. lerged from strain, and ty.. Social. ,as in turn. rect effects and social. ;oping be. The built model of seeking social support. marital coping behavior was identical to the built model of self-interest marital coping behavior. ed by age.. Seeking social support marital coping behavior was best predict. The following paths were the same as the paths of self-interest mari. tal coping behavior model.. The results indicated that age had direct effects on. seeking social support marital coping behavior.. Young people tended to use more. seeking social support marital coping behavior than old people.. Other variables. also had weaker indirect effects on seeking social support marital coping behavior.. Discussion. k indirect. :h marital approach. A planned confirmatory examination of the internal consistency of personality traits and marital coping measures preceded the investigation of specific hypothe.

(20) ses.. The evidence of high internal consistency of measures confirmed reports of. preoccupat. previous studies (Bowman, 1990; Folkman et aI., 1986; Rosenberg, 1979; Scheier &. decreased. Carver, 1985) and indicated that the measures were adequately reliable.. With the. bin (1968). exception of the relatively low consistency. in two subscales (optimism and avoid. age. Howe. ance) for the old sample, internal consistency of each measure did not show reli. selection t. able differences across the three age groups.. The results supported the homogene. In the present study, univariate and multivariate analyses were employed si. multaneously to analyze obtained data; however, important and valid results should First of all, it is worth noting that two. styles of marital coping behavior (self-interest and seeking social support) were specifically different from the other four styles of marital coping behavior.. For. these two styles of marital coping behavior, age appears to play the only and im portant contributing role; other variables do not show a significant association with these two styles of marital coping behavior. Young people tended to use more ac tive or effective marital coping behavior (seeking social support) and less negative or ineffective marital coping behavior (self-interest) than old people.. That is,. when old people encounter marital conflict situations, they are more likely to en gage in solitary activities outside the marriage and less likely to seek help from social resources than young people.. Young people are' more likely to use active. or interactive social support seeking marital coping behavior and less likely to use negative or intrapersonal self-interest marital coping effort. tent with Folkman's conclusion.. This finding is consis. However, it must be recalled that the present s. tudy is cross-sectional, and it is plausible to argue that these differences represent generational differences. Recent cohorts have grown up in a context that encour ages their use of interactive rather than intrapersonal coping styles when they deal with problems.. Conversely, old people are more likely to engage in solitary activi. ties and less likely to seek help from social relationships than young people.. This. finding supports the disengagement theory (Cumming & Henry, 1961) which pro poses that old persons gradually withdraw from the outer world.. ~. sufficient. ity of the internal reliability of each measure across the three age groups.. be drawn from the multivariate analyses.. centers.. This is a mutual. activity in which the individual disengages from society and society from individual. Along with the withdrawal and decreased social interaction, there is an increased. riage than Over nificantly marital co more mast lationship approach) conflict, a marital re. Pen marital co more pess tive maril. possible ( raits (e.g ambivaler coping be 1990).. A. ty traits efficacy (Bandura some pre ing that possible influence:.

(21) {IMA '. Utr:~t~ ,&fj~~~W~~HIN1iJ~~~1jffi&Z:f§~mli1f~. 411. irmed reports of. preoccupation with the self, a lessening of emotional involvement with others, and. 1979; Scheier &. decreased investment in the affairs of the world.. iable.. With the. bin (1968) found that both social and psychological disengagement increase with. Iism and avoid-. age. However, these results in the present study may have occurred from sample. not show reli. selection bias since a higher proportion of old subjects were recruited from senior. the homogene. centers.. Havighurst, Neugarten and To. Married old persons who visit senior centers are more likely to have less. ~roups.. sufficient social networks and engage in more solitary activities outside the mar. e employed si. riage than the general old population.. I results should. Overall, marital strain and personality trait were found to be directly or sig. Ioting that two. nificantly associated with avoidance, conflict, positive approach, and self-blame. support) were. marital coping behaviors. Persons with more optimistic personality traits (such as. For. more mastery, higher self-esteem, and more optimism) or a satisfactory marital re. only and im. lationship tended to use more active or effective marital coping behavior (positive. .sociation with. approach) and less negative or ineffective marital coping behaviors (avoidance,. use more ac. conflict, and self-blame) than persons with negative personality traits or a stressful. less negative. marital relationship.. )ehavior.. Ie.. Personality traits were significantly and directly associated with maladaptive. That is,. likely to en. marital coping behaviors but not adaptive marital coping behaviors.. :k help from. more pessimistic personality traits can be confidently expected to use more nega. :0 use active. tive marital coping behaviors such as avoidance, conflict, and self-blame.. likely to use. possible explanation for these results is that persons with negative personality t. ng is consis. raits (e.g., less mastery, less optimism, lower self-esteem) are more likely to be. e present s. ambivalent about expressing emotion and less likely to engage in self-disclosure. es represent. coping behaviors that are likely to elicit beneficial n.:ciprocation (King & Emmons,. hat encour. 1990).. n they deal. ty traits are more likely to have inadequate commitments, beliefs, or sense of self. itary activi. efficacy that leads them to engage in the use of maladaptive coping strategies. ople.. (Bandura, 1982; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).. This. Persons with. Another plausible explanation may be that persons with negative. The. personali~. These results seem to contradict. which pro. some previous findings (Cohen & Lazarus, 1973; Lazarus et aI., 1974) demonstrat. • a mutual. ing that personality traits are not significant predictors of coping behaviors.. individual.. possible explanation for this discrepancy is that personality traits may exert their. increased. influences on coping with close interpersonal strains (e.g., marital strains, parental. One.

(22) strains) more than on coping with impersonal strains (e.g., economic strains, occu. associated ,. pational strains).. contentions. This issue needs to be examined further.. Persons with satisfactory marital relations used more positive approach mari. were not co. tal coping behavior and less avoidance, conflict, and self-blame marital coping be. that cogniti'. haviors.. on certain. The possible explanation for these results may be that satisfactory mari. tal relations, by reducing feelings of threat and discouragement, dampening impuls. ready menti. es toward termination, and generating positive expectations, tend to function as. conflict app. self-efficacy and in turn lead persons to use effective coping strategies rather than. praisal item. ineffective coping styles (Menaghan, 1982).. Another explanation for why unsatis. However, a. factory marital relations are positively related to maladaptive marital coping styles. tal conflict. might be that distressed couples are more likely to exchange negative behaviors. behaviors, 1. (Hahlweg, Revenstorf, & Schindler, 1984) or have unrealistic assumptions and inac. personality. curate expectancies about intimate relationships (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982) and. ing behaviOl. distorted attributions of partner's behaviors (Fincham et aI., 1987; Fincham & O'Leary, 1983) that escalate negative interactions.. In general, these results are. Social ciations witl. consistent with previous findings (Bowman, 1990; Menaghan, 1982; White, 1983).. Fondacaro. However, it should be noted that the present correlation/ regression study cannot. serve to en. show the direction of effects.. satisfaction,. That is, the links between these four marital coping. ~. behaviors and marital strain may reflect that avoidance, conflict, self-blame, and. strategies. 1. less positive approach marital coping styles lead to increased marital strain or, al. an importall. ternatively, marital strain prompts these four marital coping behaviors. The signifi. available fTi. cant patterns of relations found between marital coping efforts and marital quality. of emotiona. may involve causal relations of significance, as marital coping or marital interac. Based. tion /communication has been found to exert directional effects on later marital. marital qua. satisfaction in longitudinal studies (Markman, 1979).. marital. COUI. Furthermore, overall, marital conflict appraisal and social support tended to. with distresl. play an indirect role on these four marital coping behaviors through their associa. should be d. tions with personality and marital strain.. That is, persons with optimistic marital. lish intimate. conflict appraisal and more satisfactory social support tended to have less marital. proach), anc. strain and positive personality traits; and these latter characteristics, in turn, may. self-blame).. determine the choice of marital coping behaviors. Cognitive appraisal of marital conflict situations was expected to be directly. Limitation:.

(23) OOA. ic strains, occu. '*Ht;a~ '~~~JJtW~~ftj~~~fi~ZfEl~~liffj"G 413. associated with marital coping behaviors based on Folkman and Lazarus' (1985) contentions about the role of cognitive appraisal in coping.. approach mari. ·ital coping be. tisfactory mari. Ipening impuls to function as. ies rather than r why unsatis. 1 coping styles live behaviors. ions and inac. in, 1982) and ; Fincham &. ;e results are. {hite, 1983). study cannot. Ilarital coping. !f-blame, and. strain or, alThe signifi arital quality :ital interac later marital. were not corroborated.. These expectations. A plausible interpretation of these disappointing results is. that cognitive appraisal is mediated by other variables that play a foremost role on certain marital coping behaviors. ready mentioned.. The mediated interpretation has been al. Another possible interpretation is that the measures of marital. conflict appraisal in the present study were less adequate because a single ap praisal item did not entirely reflect the complex nature of cognitive appraisal. However, a major finding of the present study is that cognitive appraisals of mari tal conflict situations do not play a direct role in contributing to marital coping behaviors, but rather, their effects operate indirectly through marital quality or personality trait or are moderated by one's level of social support on marital cop ing behaviors. Social support indirectly related to marital coping behaviors through its asso ciations with marital strain and personality trait.. These results are consistent with. Fondacaro and Moos' (1987) speCUlation that the provision of social support may serve to enhance an individual's self-esteem, sense of self-efficacy, and general satisfaction, which, in turn, may facilitate one's ability to access and enact coping strategies. These results also suggest a possibility that the quality of marriage is an important source of emotional support.. In a distressed marriage, the support. available from the spouse is diminished and will lead to a less satisfactory level of emotional support. Based on the possible nature of reciprocal influences of marital coping and marital quality, these results have noteworthy implications for marital therapy or marital counseling and may provide useful directions for therapeutic interventions. t tended to. with distressed couples.. For improving or ameliorating marital happiness, efforts. leir associa. should be directed toward training the target person to think optimistically, estab. istic marital. lish intimate relations with others, adopt active coping styles (e.g., positive ap. less marital. proach), and avoid the use of negative coping styles (e.g., avoidance, conflict, and. I turn, may. be directly. self-blame ).. Limitati[)ns and. futur~ r~s~arch.

(24) First, it is worth noting that limitations in the generalizability of this study may have resulted from sample selection.. In the present study, subjects voluntari. present stu. earlier in 1 marit~. ly participated in this research project; hence, they may be representative of a. cant. subpopulation that has certain unique traits such as greater life satisfaction or a. responses 1. greater willingness to help others than the general population.. A higher propor. argued tha. tion (43%) of subjects were recruited from churches; hence the results are not. to the indi. necessarily generalizable to the general population.. markedly f. In. addition, a higher propor. tion (64%) of old subjects came from senior centers; therefore, they may not be. behaviors. proportionally representative of the old population.. Further, research participants. across the. in the present study were predominantly middle class, in their first marriage, in. ful events. good physical health, and Protestant; hence they may not be broadly representa. Launier,. tive of the general population.. product of. A brief evaluation of the limitations of the measures used in the present s tudy should be included.. 1~. to discuss.. For the assessment of marital coping behaviors, research. researchers. participants were asked to recall the most serious recurring marital conflict they. same situal. have experienced, then, decide to what extent they used the items listed in re. ences from. sponding to that stressful event.. iors for acl. Readers may wonder whether participants would. follow the instructions for responding.. If participants did not follow the instruc. tal coping. tions or could not recall a significant recurring marital conflict, responses to items. ated by re:. would reflect a generalized marital interaction style rather than a specific coping. conflicts wi. response to marital conflict.. In a similar vein, appraised stressfulness and ap. ized scenal. praised controllability of marital conflict situation may reflect one's general evalua. results froll. tion of marriage and general locus of control.. In addition, as mentioned above,. generated 1. both appraised controllability and appraised stressfulness were assessed with a sin. Futur. gle item; as a result, the validity of these two measures are questionable.. To. marital COl. remedy the dubious psychometrics of cognitive appraisal measures, efforts need to. can corrob. be made to design a larger scale with multiple items.. search will. A primary focus in the present study involved the assessment of marital cop ing behaviors.. Therefore, how to precisely assess marital coping behaviors is an. important issue for future research.. a more COll Future res. In conducting research on coping with marital. of cognitive. conflict, one choice is to ask respondents to generate conflict from their own mar. social supp. riage experiences and respond to the extent they deal with this conflict as the. tures of the.

(25) OOA '. *i~3i:t~ ,~t@~~~~t@fIj?fg~~fTf.£Zf§~JHiff~. 415. of this study. present study conducted. This strategy has methodological limitations as discussed. ects voluntari. earlier in that respondents may not follow the instructions or can not recall signifi. ientative of a. cant marital conflict events.. isfaction or a. responses to questions about conflicts generated by respondents, it can readily be. igher propor. argued that the respondent's responses are idiosyncratic, reflecting their reactions. suIts are not. to the individual conflicts they choose to discuss. Since the conflicts would differ. igher propor. markedly from one another, it would be premature to conclude that marital coping. may not be. behaviors reflect general tendencies which might be related to other variables. participants. across the respondents.. I. marriage, in. I. representa. Another problem is that if a study is based solely on. Coping behaviors may be a function of the type of stress. ful events (e.g., loss, threat, or challenge) which people encountered (Lazarus & Launier, 1978; McCrae, 1982).. Differences in marital coping behaviors could be a. product of the different types of marital conflict situations that respondents chose e present s. leS,. research. ~onflict. they. to discuss.. To control for systematic differences in the types of conflict situations,. researchers can provide standard scenarios so that respondents all react to the same situations.. Using this technique, researchers are able to draw valid infer. isted in re. ences from their data, but they are not informed about respondents' coping behav. pants would. iors for actual problems. Therefore, future research on this issue can obtain mari. the instruc. tal coping data by using both standard marital conflicts and marital conflicts gener. ,es to items. ated by respondents from their own experiences. Information about actual marital. eific coping. conflicts within marriage can be solicited, and information obtained from standard. ss and ap. ized scenarios used to ensure that valid inferences are drawn.. :ral evalua. results from the standard scenarios can be used as a check on the marital conflicts. ned above,. generated by the respondents.. with a sin. lable.. To. ts need to. In particular, the. Future studies can benefit from the use of other kinds of measures to assess marital coping behaviors besides self-report. Observational research, for example, can corroborate the information obtained from self-report measures.. Future re. search will also do well to obtain data from significant others or spouses to obtain. Hital cop. a more complete picture of the influences of variables on marital coping behaviors.. iors is an. Future research in this area should focus on the possible multidimensional nature. th marital. of cognitive appraisal and social support.. own mar. social support can be characterized in terms of types, amounts, sources, and struc. ct as the. tures of the support networks; as Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggested, the indi. For example, as Thoits (1982) showed,.

(26) vidual's appraisal of the personal significance of stressful situations can be charac terized in terms of threats to self-esteem, financial security, the well-being of an other, one's own physical well-being, and the extent to which the situations are. coping; Camper, P.. controllable. An important theoretical constraint relates to the present study as well.. As. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) indicated, the stress-coping process is "transactional" in nature.. Bowman, M.. That is, the occurrence of stress (e.g., marital strain) is variable, and. coping responses (e.g., marital coping) will also change as the meaning of the s tress or other variables varies.. The present study was designed to investigate a. recursive relationship with static cross-sectional data, leaving open the possibility that several presumed predictive factors may follow rather than precede marital coping behaviors.. For example, a tendency toward avoidance marital coping be. havior might escalate marital strain, reduce self-confidence and impede the development of supportive social relations.. self~esteem,. and. Thus, regression/ correla. tion analyses reveal relationships among variables but do not imply that the rela tionships are causal or unidirectional. Therefore, it remains for future research to examine more explicitly the causal nature of the relations between marital coping and other variables.. Naturalistic methods of marital coping measurement and lon. gitudinal investigations constitute the most promising direction for future research on this issue. However, if these two features are not accessible, on the basis of the path models that the present study have shown, possible reciprocal causal rela tions among variables could be examined further using techniques such as struc tural equation analysis with latent variables (LISREL; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1983).. ~. Carver, C. gies: A. ogy, 56, Cohen, J.,. c. for the. Cohen, F., , and rec. Cohen, S., I esis.. .f. Collins, D. Three. gy,2, Cooper, C. the de'. British. Cronkite, R factors. Cumming, ]. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psycholo. New Y Doherty, ". gist, 37, 122-147. Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981).. The role of coping responses and social. resources in attenuating the impact of stressful life events.. Journal of Behav. Family Dunkel-Sch. intervic. ioral Medicine, 4, 139-157. Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1982). clinically applicable typology.. Cogniti1. 25, 3"2. References Bandura, A. (1982).. (1988).. Family environments and adaptation: A. American Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 26-38.. Eidelson, B. Develo. Consul.

(27) @A. 'Ufr~Jif' ~~~JJ!~~~1IJ~IZSJJii.tTm;~::J§mMliJf~. 417. can be charac ll-being of an situations are. Bowman, M. L. (1990).. Coping efforts and marital s,at isfact ion: Measuring marital. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 463-474.. coping and its correlates.. Camper, P. M., Jacobson, N. S., Holtzworth-Munroe, A, & Schmaling, K. B. ( r as well.. As. "transactional". (1988).. Causal attribution for interactional behaviors in married couples.. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 195-209.. variable, and. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strate. ling of the s-. gies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol. investigate a he possibility ~cede. marital. Ll Coping be ~esteem,. and. ion/ correla. tat the rela research to. ogy, 56, 267-283. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983).. Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis. for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Edbaum. Cohen, F., & Lazarus, R. S. (1973).. Active coping processes, coping dispositions,. and recovery from surgery. Psychosomatic Medicine, 35, 375-389. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A (1985). esis.. Stress,social support, and the buffering hypoth. Ps}Chological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.. Collins, D. L., Baum, A, & Singer, J. E. (1983).. Coping with chronic stress at. lrital coping. Three Miles Island: Psychological and biochemical evidence.. mt and lon. gy, 2, 149-166.. ne research. Cooper, C. L., & Baglioni, A J. Jr. (1988).. Health Psycholo. A structural model approach toward. he basis of. the development of a theory of the link between stress and mental health.. causal rela. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 61, 87-102.. h as struc. .m, 1983).. Cronkite, R. c., & Moos, R. H.(1984) .. The role of predisposing and moderating factors in the stress-illness relationship. Jotp:nal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 3/2-393. Cumming, E., & Henry, W. (1961).. I. Ps}Cholo. New York: Basic Books. Doherty, W. (1982).. and social of Bchav. .tation: A. 10, 26-38.. Growing old: The process of disengagement.. Attribution style and negative problem solving in marriage.. Family Relatiom, 31, 3-17. Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1984).. Social support and cancer: Findings based on patient. interviews and their implications. Eidelson, R, J., & Epstein, N. (1982).. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 77-98. Cognition and relationship maladjustment:. Development of a measure of dysfunction relationship beliefs.. Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715-720.. Journal of.

(28) Elliott, D. J., Trief, P. M., & Stein, N. (1986).. Mastery, stress, and coping in. marriage among chronic pain patients. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9, 549. Fondacaro, analysis Gottman, J.. 558.. Feifel, H., & Strack, S. (1989). elderly men.. Coping with conflict situations: Middle-aged and. nalof. Psychology and Aging, 4, 26-33.. Fincham, F. D. (1985).. Attribution processes in distressed and nondistressed cou. ples: 2. Responsibility for marital problems.. marital. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,. Hahlweg, K tal the]. Consull. 94, 183-190.. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Baucom, D. H. (1987).. Attribution processes in. Havighurst,. distressed and nondistressed couples: 4. Self-partner attribution differences.. pattern. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 739-748.. Univen. Fincham, F. D., & O'Leary, K. D. (1983).. Causal inferences for spouse behavior. in maritally distressed and nond istressed couples.. Journal of Social and Clini Journal. Personality characteristics and coping patterns.. cal analysis.. Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoreti. Coping across the life-span: Theoretical issues.. Cummings, A. L. Greene, & K. H. Karraker. In E. M.. (Eds.), Life-span developmental. Psychology: Perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 3-19).. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl. Ilfeld, F. ,. ing st) Irion, J. C tive c(. baum. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). community sample.. An analysis of coping in a middle-aged. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985).. If it changes it must be a process: A study. of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination.. Journal. of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986).. Holahan, ( coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839-852.. Folkman, S. (1991).. and fa'. c,holog.. of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 229- 244. Folkman, S. (1984).. analysi: Holahan, C. cal Psychology, 1, 42-57. Fleishman, J. A. (1984).. Hirsch, B.. Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and. Joreskog, 1. tionsh tional. King, L. P logica. 58, 86. Kobasa, 5. encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.. pros pI. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., & Novacek, J. (1987). Age differences in. Labouvie-'. stress and coping processes.. Psychology and Aging, 2, 171-184.. and t:.