Brigham Young University Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive

Theses and Dissertations

1966

Three Aspects of Postdivorce Social Adjustment in Mormon Utah Three Aspects of Postdivorce Social Adjustment in Mormon Utah

and Protestant Nevada and Protestant Nevada

Sonia Lillard Richardson Brigham Young University - Provo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, and the Mormon Studies Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Richardson, Sonia Lillard, "Three Aspects of Postdivorce Social Adjustment in Mormon Utah and Protestant Nevada" (1966). Theses and Dissertations. 5073. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5073

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.

THREE ASPECTS OF postdivorcePOST SOCIALDIVORCE adjustmentIN MORMON UTAH AND protestant NEVADA

A thesis

presented to the

department of familypamily life education

brigham young university

provo utah

in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

master of science

by

sonia lillard richardson

may 1966

3004 i

familylife

acknowledgements

can gratitude be properly expressed to a man with infinite

patience who has always found time to listen to help to encourage and

to support such a man is dr boyd rolllnscolllns chairman of my committee

also appreciated is the help and encouragement of dr reed bradford

committee member and dr duane laws department chairman

thanks are also extended to mary and jim avance dale white

and my mother faith robinson for providing housing access to tele-

phones access to automobiles babysitting and referrals during the lasvegas trips and to my uncle roland wiley for providing the classified

ads in the las vegas newspaper

thanks are given to curly aylward harriet beal sharel hayes

rick mawson and friends fellow students and faculty members who

helped in the search for potential subjects

thanks to robert bair who spent many hours checking my mathe-

matics and gail and david schrader who checked the tabulated material

thanks to the many protestant ministers who took time to listen

and try to help and to the divorcees who cooperated cheerfully

thanks to my father richard lillard who gave helpful comments

and suggestions on the manuscript

N

roll ins

I11

II11I1 REVIEWI1 OF literature AND derivation OF PROBLEM

adfasi

staata

TABLE OF CONTENTS

chapter page

I1 introduction5

review of literature 5

divorce in the two cultures 9

problem 12hypotheses 14

111IIIlii METHODS AND procedures 15atf1a1 SA

subject qualifications i 15locating subjects 19description of subjects 20instruments for data collection 23administering the ouestionnairequestionnaire 28

jta A

IV FINDINGS AND discussion 34

testing of the hypotheses 34discussion of variables 35

V SUMMARY AND conclusions 56

purpose 56methods and procedures 56findings and conclusions 57suggestions for future research 58

bibliography 60

appendices 63

A questionnaire 64B selectedseledted information from the 1960 census 70C method of obtaining las vegasvega s subjects 75D mean range standard deviation and correlation

coefficients for general variables 85explanation of terms 86

E selected detailed data from REA investoryinvestorsInvest resultsory 89F data from different scoring procedures for

interpersonal check list 93

1.1

LIST OF TABLES

table page

1 marital status of women by county & state 10

2 characteristics of the samples 21

3 occupations of subjects 22

4 loadings of REA items on primary factor 27

5 comparison of means for SE REA and SA 34

6 correlation of SE REA and SA scores by group 35

7 correlation of SE with other variables 36

8 correlation of REA with other variables 40

9 correlation of SA with other variables 44

10 correlation of item 3 home pictures X with otherREA items 47

11 mean scores standard deviations and correlationswith other variables for the variable education 49

12 mean scores standard deviations and correlationswith other variables for the variable dating frequency 51

13 mean scores standard deviations and correlationswith other variables for the variable attitude toward X 52

14 mean scores standard deviations and correlationswith other variables for the variable attitudetoward love 53

is15 mean scores standard deviations and correlationswith other variables for the variable attitudetoward marriage 55

cescpsges qprch

duqdvq fceae4 theorilytheothothethoo volumeknownonlyrilyodly volume known to this writer which j s

CHAPTER I1

introduction

although divorce is a phenomenon attracting more and more

interest investigation of the postdivorcepost situationdivorce is limited the liter-

ature is primarily concerned with the causes of divorce statistics

describing the incidence of divorce and the possible consequences for

society jacobson 1959 presents a thorough statistical coverage of

marriage and divorce in the united states books on marriage and the

family often contain chapters on divorce and bereavement and may touch

on individual adjustment some examples are waller and hill 1951

magoun 1956 fromme 1959 and burgess and locke 1963 some

authors such as despert 1962 and jones 1963 have concerned them-

selves with the problems of rearing children alone special problems of

remarriage are discussed by bernard 1956 the consequencasquencsguenquencS

iw n- r ma wf i vv A tm m M i j MW wwfinwwiiluwwsiwaw

1965 has produced ed

to the postdivorceppstdivorcepostpose situatiojisitudivorce

although

atiqnatiqi

a divorce sets both a man and a woman free to find

their way in the world alonealouaion the female divorcee faces different and per-

haps more difficult problems than does the male divorcee she lives in af azat Ws f c amvwaM WVW w1twms tort n AH f 1 wv w njnj

society where it is appropriate for an older man to marry a younger womanfxfkwklitnuhl alwiflwi trinrtiqlrfaiattlwttifflnr wr u wr w us i ft uple

and where eligible women already outnumber eligible men she has

changed her name a fact more or less apparent so it may be difficult to

consequengge forcheforjhelqe1te

individuals involved in divorce are all but neglected by research goode

w e is devoted

Q

it1qapppqprjate

adm

amow

vagvogmog rawpawbaw

kamgam

begdeg

acilck

cafbar

scacesjace d withtwowith deajstwo held bymormon

ttyati

quiltandquilland failureillilicli shelurejure may be a bitter woman and she is likely ayiyc

sexuasegua I1

conceal her divorced status if she so desires since he probablprobablyprobab hasjiasdias

one qrmqrejldren a man interested in her may havashavjs to ajscejrtja

package deal also the children tend to tie her down so that shet fv AWW vvg ri

T r wrvwwi wmwwwip fci 3 5aw naw foiwfwiw

cannot circulate socially as freely as she might wish wherever shewwvrhhuw mp VHW i oiltaloil talhpe it it sv1v WI IS

goes she faces to one degreedearee pror another the external problems of social

stigma and uncertainty about her role in society and the internal problems

of guiltquilquli andy fw fvsss bl B B H 1 AR fr 4il t iafi

lonelyaf

woman she may not have revived theaheabe s iventatupportapport Qgiven to thosewhothose

armareamm

who

ereavjed attention she gets from menme may be from jiosejwho

consider her fair game for sexual exploitation

women in special subculturessub maycultures experience these problems

to a greater or jesser degree for example in the utah mormon culture

the divorcee hasjaken part injjreakang up the unitjhefamily jand ashejshe i men the desire

to marry a woman without sexual experience andadd thothe desiregatre for the wedding

ceremony sanctioned by their church participation in this religious

ceremony called temple marriage may be difficult or impojssibleimpopsibleimpossible for

the mormon divorcee in contrast the protestant divorcee in las vegasjsb swwvfvsvw mhsf wi a urtwtw

mv virwkiivirwkeiKiigei tti a iwffn wifflerwifflwr s ir befibwfi iw A fmebiii twatstomrifc nw

the mormon divorcee she may find comfort in numbers tolerance of theww B t

1 f viswws af t twbtivisstw8sf sattauft

actions are divorce cases not many las vegas landlords could afford to

refuse to rent to divorcees as did a provo utah landlady this past

summer who refused to rent an apartment to a friend of the writer when

she discovered that the friend was divorced

lthe1theitheirhealthe terms mormon and LDS or latterdaylatter saintday refer tothe church of jesus christ of latterdaylatter saintsday

2

S ng ay1y

n aman inhermzly I114v Q ZW

mi ht

1 qrtgh eae0

5hemayj se

dinnyptrqy those whoarejjereaviad nha get s

lesser mormoni

has takendakenjaken darpar JD bapbgp primaryjejigioustprqqjayjigious unit the

desireand she gp Q dpy

without ex eftnce andthedd iwedd ng

ceremcarem ry

faced

V

L D S

a ww ww

divorcee is necessarnecessary in las vegas where the majority of civil courtw tt i wsfwwmskmv MWM t

tand

awl eal

nhe

lili vmmatsvv

nevada is probably not faced with the strong church sanctions faced by

awl

yiyi ail

deais

asb

apy

meefemotlpnaltoxpqpmqtiona spiritual and social problems

toot many to be ignorediq whatnored is known about their problems what

fP esI1 e

mormon640ol6400464001 s

communities may have a social organization called the sociablesSocia

for

bles

single LDS people over 25 who are members of the church in good

standing

hajaej

luaiwa

waw9 qp strugglingqtrujliAs a resultresuit of the high incidencedaf divorce in the united states

today there are jnajiy young women to support themselves to

rear children alone and to

help is available for them statistics show that children of divorce are

more likely to fail in their own marriages landis 1961 how can the

lives of the mothers be reconstructreconstructed so that their problems will not be

passed on from generation to generation the mormon church has no

programprograprogre into wmqhlj h e divorcee widow or spinster fits the larger

utah county utah has a sociablesSocia organizationbles but has no

other organizationsorcranizatioriskr known to the author into which the divorcee fitsiwthere are no parents without partners or divorcees anonymous no pro-

grams or group therapy set up for divorcees in spite of a substantialtbflwyt n TW

number of psychologists marriage counselors and psychiatric social

workers in las vega s e iuaonsiua ons nptuch beerbetter among 3 3

protestant ministers interviewed there many admitted that they lose

divorcees from their congregations the women comecomo back to bobe remar-

ried in las vegas the recent dttompt to 9anizeorganiseorganismorg aanizeanise parents without

kartpart ners failed divorcees anonymous exists as a social clia which

sponsors a class in getting along with others taught by a psychiatric

chiropractor there is however a group of pioneering protestant minis-

ters who are trying among other things to provide premaritalpre counselingmarital

to be required for outofstateout couplesof whostate wish to be married by protestant

ministers and a program of postdlvorcepostdivorcepost rehabilitationdivorce

3

app esulaesult of

1

m i 0 Wnt hashhjsh1 1 7

koyvato

not much

raceqceqt a t tcm p t to or

hfailfallfaliad9d asa soclalc

i w

T W

edso

nuo s9

ap

4

since this writer has been confused by what seems to her to be

radically different attitudes toward marriage and divorce in her own home

town las vegas nevada and in utah communities where she has been

residing for the past five years the social adjustment of female divorceesM r M W fp gawTOI ll wmhw

inahinjhese two location wastucastu11

died the urpsejwas to begin tojbuildtoj

knowledge

build

about ppstdivorceprtqivorce adjustment and it is hoped that future

students of the family will be inspired to further investigate postdivorcepost

problems

divorce

gp1- 1 1 T

kn thesetwo locatiopplocati wasodsopp stadstqdked tb ikc9kc jpqgintodihe gln

lufiff T 1

drangindringin age education race

and religion and also by affect for ex usbandhusbandausbandM

attitudes toward love and

future marriagamarriage recentness of period of grea test lonesuneloneunelonion senneeUne

als4ls qqw57sejri0t1dp

orjjorj

CHAPTER II11

REVIEW OF literatureAND derivation OF THE PROBLEM

review of literature

the most comprehensive discussion of the facts surrounding

divorce and its after effects is that of W J goode in women in divorce

formerly titled afterjaftercafter ivorcgivordivorce hiscg chapters on the institutionalization

of postdivorcepost adjustmentdivorce social adjustment and dating activities are

most pertinent to the present study he suggests that the status of the

divorcee in the united state is ambiguous and relatively noninstitutionj

iv trixarfi

alizedaliped social adjustment takes place as the individual goes through

the phases of once more finding her own identity as a person and being

accepted as a person who is eligible to be a spouse she learns to live

by the daily and future demands of her new social position rather than by

constant reference to the ties defined by the previous marriage p 241

he dicu ssegjriendj3apjand

s and divqjrce

trauma indexboex workingn with batiatkhetheworkiborki lastg jourfour variables he found jy lat greater

frequency of dating was related positively to friendlyfriend feelingslyt toward ex1

i n us I1 waw3 wwtwvcivl wssiw MB

husband ratherjhan feelingsfeeling of lpvehatevelateve orhate iqdiffere nce positive

feelings towardlovetoward aaridildfutureildloveiove future marriage greater time lapssincelaps periodpsince lodiod

5

theurjtqd

and dating in terms of

m lagmag Qq cenuip ap div7

re g d loe

foi

ngs

rather thanbhanjhan ild Q

g p K ti

dringinh

gt

wasiw

aqtq divorce and

says that somejeqple tend to think that divorced people are inferior in

terms

of greatesuoni3unessthe time at which reality of the divorce is assumed1 w B

llwin remarriage jessiejesslete bernards 195619sie alsoaiso5 notes6 thealsais problemsonateonqte

faced

s

bybv the divorcee because off moninstitutiqthe 14gionnoninsiituuqnaliza tion of divorce

p 32 she discusses thejstigmajhat may be

of character that the divorced are bad people p 106 she

points out that the divorcee is an extra and a danger to the wives of

bored husbands p 128 her selfesteemself suffersesteem some women are not

in a position to meet the demands of competition for men the more active

dynamic woman has advantages over the more withdrawn passive and

less emotional woman p 76

marjorieMarj ilgenfritzorleorie 1961 scribesdescribes group therapy involving twelve

widowed and divorced mothers who are found to have two distinct kinds

of problems 1 the practical problems of everyday living and 2

countless problems of guilt fear frustration and loneliness ever

present and always threatening three of the problems of the second

group seem to merit special concern 1 fear of aloneness the women

dreaded going places alone or having to return home alone and they

disliked being dragged along by friends especially as the extra woman

2 concern for the loss of selfesteemself asesteem women they hated starting

all over again as a lone female who has to be attractive to men 3

hostility toward men they complained that they were treated as fair

game because of the lack of socially approved sources of sexual gratifi-

cation

in a masters thesis for brigham young university E L hagerty

1961 explores the divorce process among a group of twelve mormon

6

q5rhe 4

the sciamastiama that attaad1qsome pqqple

l1

characterthat

de

M waw1 ta ylwmrwwtvolmbtteabm

to have been accepted and low divorcetraumadivorce indextrauma pp 255268255 268tr

uwi

attache

apelw

I1

malemaie pr female that is wethink of institutions as madmade of interlockinginter6kln systems of roleobligations and rights but just what the divorcee ought to door may demand in the familial area of action is not specifiedwe noted also the importanceportanqip of these institutional gaps for

riarha

ilgipg

antqntejecteejecta y

students he discusses the lack of institutionalization of divorce in the

mormon church in his opinion the stigma felt by mormon divorcees mayi

be more than that felt by goodes 425 detroit women

goode 1965 bernard 1956 and 1961 hagerty 1961 sussman

1963 and waller & hill 1951 all point out that the divorcee faces

unsurenesssurenessunpurenessun of role and that there is a certain stigma attached to her status

while shame and guilt feelings of inadequacy and failure may be the

divorcees contribution to her plight societys contribution may be stigma

and role uncertainty goode 1965 says

it is a statement generally made and easilyaccepted thathat the divorcee is rejected by society it ispossible that muck 0 the refection i s on a relatively abstractand ideal level that is to say society disapproves of divorceand even of the divorcee in general but does not object greatlyin a concrete situation to the presence of the divorcee or tosocial interaction with him or her p 16

we analyzed in some detail the proposition thatntemporarcpntemporarycontemporary amerlcannfeinship

erinsututtonstail

etja3gflae

fiathe

viorproper mbefiaviororpropprod fhe16 ivorseeivore geesee m e or fe aleaie

t wa nyan m cwiiwiilenwe i V rthe behavioral ard ejaqjuqnresppseo fjnew situationsituatipn lacking such prescriptions many participantsin marital dissolutionssolutions could be expected to undergo consider-able personal disorganization since the divorced motherappears to face more problems of this type she mightexhibit an even greater amount of personal disorganizationthan would other divorcees p 204

bernard in discussing the divorcees anomalous position says

in a large urban community in the 1940s it wasfound that seventy per cent of a sample of divorced mothersreported no social scriminationdiscrimination because of their dvorcedjlvorcedevorcebut there still remains a cultural lacuna in that there are fewclearly defined institutional guides to postdivorcepost behaviordivorceAs contrasted with bereavement for example divorcedi stillvorcemorceresults in a sociauy ambiguous s tatus divorced personsasanjsan be treated neitherneitpeltngit ahg pngp ieng agrnor asjqaairjedcm andmude thed exactrole patterns for the divorced status have not yet been fullyinstitutionalized 1961 p 340

7

inthe

a statet

1 0n re I1 afively

thepresence

somedetailmerican sh pc

hl k f e gn 0t

th9jme divorcee in theq pa Q PPUQS 0

qewituationmaiiiyifis

t e shelnighfyp

thanwould

dl

qq14uy4mbig 9rQe14q divor dpersorisSated

dvorce

fee

pantic pants

dively

aalgalgai

ilollo

atiatl religiousxeligious groupsin bereavement catharsis is secured through participation inreligious ceremonies the divorced may experience an increasein emotional disturbance through the necessity of resorting tolegal advice and court procedures

thus-s the divorce situation is qneane ibe

cricrl thailthaklwith negativeneaative eva AK 4

so long as the public attitude toward divorcevaries from community to community the status of thedivorced as contrasted with that of the widowed will beequivocal it is often difficult for divorced persons toknow how they will be judged especially after remarriagewhat their precise status is in the community whether theydo or do not have community support whether they mustprepare to fight a hostile world or can rely on a sympatheticone it is said that negroes in moving from one communityto another suffer almost as much from not knowing exactlywhat their status will be as from actual discrimination itselfthe position of divorced persons may be analogous discrim-ination against divorced people is no longer so institution-alized as it once was but neither is any other policytoward them 1956 ppap 787

contrasting

8

the situation of the divorcee with that of the widow

burgess and locke 1963 say

in our society divorced persons are presented withno socially sanctioned means of adjustment such as thoseavailable to the bereaved in bereavement there is a tendencyto concentrate on the best traits of the departed and to giveassistance to the survivors in divorce there is a tendencyto condemn the defects of one or both spouses and possiblyostracize those involved in bereavement the individualsecures comfort and group support by the rallying aroundof his friends and relatives the divorced may be confrontedwith gossip unfriendliness and the taking of sides byrelatives in bereavement it is expected that the normal

w irwwtv rim yyaiwiaktrt Wperson 110will1divorced

howhoxperson wmwgns of eiaohaldj

is given little fact he maynwmax beq thought1hpluhtcej7gdji fi i wmmwrpnm haw 1 W

of as emotionally unbalanced inbereinbergIn avementavermentbere the personmayjeceiye consjtation jromjiis religion thejdivprced maybe confronted wijhjegativelu

indiyidyal has

8

p tionaldional ae m 0 p q&aaworce person yiaoyvao ns rbanceroance9fgilonal distyawqw

consideration inQ ment

may receivreceive c so atlon from his the divorfedmaycedmay

A individual tomore

handlehandieor le ss on his own cut off from emotional attachments

and interdependent activities with his spouse and possiblyhis children the divorced person is inclined to feel frustratedalone and forsaken prior habits have not prepared him forthis new situation p 468

gn9jblessonhi s ow

10

lessonhi

dim

hsu

theiesso

lejed

divorce in the two cultures

although census data do not tell us all that we would like to

know about the incidence of divorce in clarkdarkmark county nevada and utah

county utah the marital status at the time of the census for all white

women over 14 in the two counties and for all women regardless of race

ages 20 through 34 for the two states can be compared table 1 shows

that when the two counties are compared a larger percentage of the

clarkdarkmark county women are married and of the unmarried women twice the

percentage have been married half of these formerly married women in

clarkdarkmark county are divorced while only one fifth in utah county are

divorced of all the unmarried women in clarkdarkmark county one fourth are

divorced while in utah county only one twentieth are divorced

with statewide statistics it is possible to look at selected ages

teenagers and women above 34 above the age limit for this study and

more likely to be widowed can be excluded table I11 also shows the

marital status of women 20 through 34 for the two states it can be seen

that the percentage of unmarried women who have been married is less

statewide selected ages than in the counties all ages however for

formerly married women who are divorced the percentage decreases

drastically from the county to the state figure and the difference between

the two states is insignificant compared to the difference between the two

counties in utah a littielittle less than one fifth of the unmarrje d women aneare

divorced giddan neyadaoyer one theedthted are djjprcedhisjneans thaunnevada the manmad who wishes to date wjjnen injhej20 age range will expect

to find 39percent of them divorced whilejjutah he will expect jo ijjid

the percentage of nonwhitenon divorceeswhite is about the same on thestate and county level

9

for

2

littleless led menanewomendremendrewo

rceace jg qveraver tliraairdivorced this means thaihaalvdiv0

r tp 34lyqme n in the 2 0

39 percent oltheriidivox 4 while in utah ecttojjpp

2theathe

little

44. qpdjdngy4 lidlin

aaealoaio

btheathe

angqng

10

OJLLP abataeatsealgeal outem4lyprcgd see appendix B for more complete

information from the 1960 united states census reportsBe

TABLEtadleTABtad

ports

I11LE

MARITAL STATUS OF WOMEN BY COUNTY & STATE

population characteristic area

white fema ie s over 14 clarkdarkmark county utah countycount

of total married 74 64of unmarried a8 formerly marriemarried 53 27of formerly married divorced 47 20of unmarried divorced 25 5

females 203420 nevada34

of unmarried a3 formerly married13married 4113

of formerly married divorced 92of unmarried divorced 39

utah

218618

he number of unmarried women is total women minus marriedwomen or single women plus widows plus divorcees

the number of formerly married women is widows plus divorcees

another difference in the populations of the areas that may affect

thejsocial adjustment of divorcees is the abundance 0f eligible merimenmerl

among white men and women over 14 there is slightly more than one

maniorwomanjormanjorwo every mann utashutajh cpujty among all unmarried men aged 20-

39 and all unmarried women aged 153415 in34 nevada there is slightly morew w t t P MH v c amniaamniw v wwwfrsfmfofiw M

than one woman jonJOLfon eyrybyry man and ininutahutah shereacethereacethere quethanmuethanare more thanjwothan

women

twojwo

for everveveryevera man see appendix B table 4

there aje probably several reasons why there are many more

divorcees in markdarkclark county thanen utah county there is a large mormon

influence in utah county and while the exact rate has not been recently

qzjy

females

marriedb

formerlymarriedb

athe

the socialadjv gibletmpnt qjqii

woman f r eve r am ledunrqqrr

9

womanjoraygy mn

thereareprqjebiy severalreasons

than in

qxactrate beenteqentiy

db

cwiasigli

I1 I1

njnnLne

aftamt c rifinarifinf IMWA

agalegal

davdtvqrqq in a matter

11

disclosed it is probably safe to say that the divorce rate among marriages

performed in mormon temples is lower than among marriages not performedTM tii 1 fw a iiuwiw i

j w j ws iabnasiaB vawvwwnas fc jiihjc iov kitiukitiuk jifeiatf

in mormon temples kunz1964 also laws and customs differ in ehejwo

areas in nevada it takes six weeks to get the final decree for an unconanconv

tested divorce loca lpeopleLp caneople obtain a djjceinamatter of days

depending upon how fast they can get their namenan sep placed alQQ the lgalipgvwi w f wisywti vt untuch midfidrid W w

calendar an uncontested divorce is a relatively simple matter howrom twin e

ever if statistics were available this writer is confident that it would

be found that nevada divorcees remarry much sooner than utah divorcees

indeed las vegas lawyers interviewed by the investigator agreed that it

is often the case that in las vegas one does not bother to get a divorce

until a new marriage is planned it is not uncommon for a las vegas

divorcee to remarry on the same day that she has become divorced

in utah the may take months or moremqremare

one must be a legal resident three months prior to filing then he must

usually wait for three months until the case is heard A waiver may be

granted if the parties have been jivingliving separately forjsome time jeddth e jdyorce is granted an interlocutory decree is issued the divorce

being final three months afterjms granted the financial cost for the

divorce is about the same in both areas however in case of hardship

it is possible to obtain a divorce in utah without paying the lawyer or

the court fees this fact suggests a sense of social welfare in utah in

contrast to the commercialism in nevada where it is evidently impossible

to obtain a divorce without expending several hundred dollars

d

ip fqrmcd

kunz 1964

gajqget

divorce processdrocess ma nlnmonths

for e ti

oiggtanted

m9atp4et it is

dj vorce

in11le two

nab

nan

wffluflap

ateaxe

resiresldual

emotional attachineni my life is oriented around the present and future

and increased social activity I1 have acceptedacceptedmyacceptedly my new freedom andtoinTO in

decaddecidedjo limitdimit

the

edmoadjo

avnirvnir w r

boinlulb

afqf secialspcial adjustment of divorcees in1xiaxi two pyiturm010inveshinves tigationgatlon

12

problem

originally it was planned to interview utah mormon divorcees

in depth and to let them talk freely about their problems in social adjust-

ment an attempt would be made to pinpoint stigma felt by the divorcee

and uncertainty of social role however both concepts proved to be too

elusive to operationalize and pilot interviews failed to suggest dominant

trends in the adjustment of the subjects ij was then

study atojto specific aspects of social adjustment andjouseand tobouseJouseuse goodes

dqjlritiondj3fimtkn of social adjustjnen taacataaja goode thinks of social

adjustment as taking place as the individual goes through the phases

of once more finding her own identity as a person and being accepted as

a person who is eligible to be a spouse 1965 p 241 adjustment lrilii

this sense is a matter of reorientation or role redefinition phraezhreethrae

aspects maqtykereqfocial adjustradjustmeadjusteradjustment were chosen for study 1 selfseif esteem

zresidual emo fifinaifinaldinal attach medt alid 3.3 soc al it was

believed that adequate adjustment or reorientation would lead to increasedit M ff t T v 1

WR tawtww wgf roiy

selfesteemself I1esteem accept myself in my new situation less

kwhiisim

desire to make new friends and put myself in a position to meet eligiblen v A M f f a rf s waw ft w jtruw ww iwkreun&3uk

men assuming that there is a cultural difference between the two

groups in both the stigma felt by the divorcees and the uncertainty of

their social roles the problem in this investigation was to compare

three aspects qlsqcial

in utah county provo and neighboring communities utah and clarkdarkmark

county jlasjega s neyaday&da 3

subjects were interviewed in seven utah county communitiesin markdarkclark county all subject resided in las vegas where appropriate theterms clarkdarkmark county and las vegas will be used interchangeably

tolqquqd

stud msteepe 13 ocial

L keskakeskq emaliempli qnalaquala ttaqbiaqpt n 0 1

keqrientaqpyquld

attach

a freedqmand

tocompare

div cpp9 twor qjqpjjtae zxqman

las veqqp npyada

3subjects

isnn

stuqylqpqaaap ctsof

accept edmy

activity

gaw wukaumau w ft salmsaam

residual

adius ajguideAjguide

doiy

cosof

apyepyegy

lamilagi

selfseif mage residual

emotional attachment REA is defined as emotional involvement left over

from the prevlousjnamae the tendency to banghang on

eiaselas

toothetojthe past

aitrouraro

rawsriws i mtkw snyfrymry ummwrt t wwwwwwhiiifftttd

based on the investigators impressions while living in the two

areas chosen for study thejfollqwing assumptions wereweremaderemadewe made

1 the status of the divorcee is generally accepted in the lasvegas protestant

attacnedattached to herhe statustatusstamu her sellesteemseilsell

piaaja

abcatc

ance&nce dikggplqg ralrai yrpts1qqqpted i

attacaltac e aufguf

pbastppast

13

selfesteemself SEesteem is defined aaa& the minlmjjm dsjcr erancganc between

an individuals idealselfideal imagelinageself and perceived selfmage

which

inhibits the acceptance of the new social self does the woman think ofm w

herself as an independent being with a new social status and a future to

look forward to or is her life structured around patterns set by her former

marriage Is she emotionally tied to the past to break past ties the

divorced woman must form new relationships and in order to do this she

must have the opportunity to meet and get acquainted with people espe-

cially men social activity SA is defined as any activity wherejhe

subject has the opportunity to make new male acquaintancesI1

B WV

divorce generally not accepted in thejorjnonculture the mormonmormoni divorcee living in utah tenets to berejected she faces more stigma and role uncertaintyuncertajnt thanihanher las vegas counterpart

3 when a divorcee is unsure of her spcialclai positionposiposl andion feelsa stigma suffers

4 the las vegas protestant divorcee tends to hayejnore sqcialsocialactivity than the utah mormon divorcee because she is partof a large society of divorcees who go places and do thingsat the same time she is breaking her past emotional ties

5 the utah mormon divorcee tends to have fewer new expertejicesahanhlas testantvegas diprotestantenc divorcees becausethanththan shee this unsure of her role andarid feels rejected by her group sher iry vrf ihi I1h a 1 tihiirif wwmi i pja lemyfini sritrtaw risan

tends to hang on to the past

agthpmjn parripsrri qpy

previous marriage tend ya bpjigqenc the

futureto

wh ere the

the following

pro te stabttant I1 cultureculcui

2

tureturp

inceutahaqndag

he aces

social1 fi d 64 s se esteem puf fers

tohkqm cialclaiprig 9qt e B 11p

arge letyleay 0 and

ve vorceeforceereiecte Y

tfflul bfciij intw1 nrf witro ft

attacned

futureto

1111.1jrf1 11

protestantdivorcee

iru

thecu ure

11 lon

arf

aq

ap

arf

anyYNYnegativelyneqativelv correlated with residual emotional attachment

ahiehi

selfseif esteem is posirosirosl pqgjsjj activity

pratprptptantdj tc ila

14

hypotheses

from the assumptions the following hypotheses wereri W

W 1 galogulo AA

developed

1 selfesteemself isesteem higher for the las vegavegas sprcestaatjdiyorceeqjqthan

C

for5ilcjjjt uvorcee

th the utah mormbh9rvorcee

2 the lasla vegass prestantprqstant diojcejis jnoe soclaacuyijythandhe utah mormon divor ee

3 the las vegas protestant divorcee has less residual emofwaji r t ft X uwwwl r mwtiwrfl WMWV

andU mslialMShewtlialbeal wji8bblite9tayl71 w

f f trf

t H r

klv

4r

fo I1 lowin9jiypoth e s e s

an for the Utaii M 0rm0n

the mqjrm

nthan I1 v rJQ

selfesteem

t fcisia

a-i v0fcee

yo ep more social activity

fW ajiQ ktenttenthntaa

4 if selm kak0 16 gqljmedjulu sqcisucialcjtiity

das

seim

anoe

iwaji

ar

0.0

CHAPTER III111ill

METHODS AND procedures

subject gualificationsqualificatiqnsqualifications

in this study the variables are characteristics of the subjects

themselves in order to make comparisons among the women meaningful

it was necessary to have the women as much alike as possible eight

variables form the minimum qualifications for subject eligibility and are

considered to be controlled variables some uncontrolled variables

or differences among the women other than those used as a basis forV

selctionselectionselc thattion are likely to influence their responses will also be dis-

cussed

i

controlled variables

1 sex all subjects were women most of the authors reviewed

pointed out that the adjustment process for men is quite different from

that for women

2 age all subjects were under 35 years of age the purpose

was to limit the possible years of marriage and number of children and

to select women likely to want to remarry the age range of the actual

subjects will be discussed under the heading descriptiondescriptipn of subjects

3 race all subjects were caucasian and probably all american

born

4 religion all subjects were affiliated with their respective

religions the momon women were all baptized as children and raised

is15

men

foryearsforbears

16

in the church the prostestantPros womentestant considered themselves to be

christian but not mormon or catholic activity in or attendance at

church was not a criterion

5 residence all subjects had resided in their respective

counties for at least one year

6 marital status all subjects were divorced and as yet

unmarried

7 number of times married all subjects were adjusting to

the termination of their first marriage

8 time since crisis all subjects were in their second or

third year since final separation the point at which one or both partners

moved out of their common residence and separate residences were

established it was necessary to choose a common point from which the

oneyearone minimumyear and the threeyearthree maximumyear could be established

As discussed earlier the legal divorce process is quite different in the

two states whereas the final decree in a utah court more likely

represents a separation of aixsixoix to nine months the nevada decree may

represent a decision to separate made the week before or climax an

emotional divorce or period of separate residence existing for years

goode 1965 considers that the divorcee accepts the reality of

the divorce at the time of her greatest loneliness this is often some

time before the actual divorce bernard 1961 also points out the anti-

climactic quality of divorce the partners and their friends may have

accepted the new status long before the divorce in this study the

primary concern is with emotional divorce therefore an objective criter-

ion had to be selected as a starting point in order to try to place all the

subjects at about the same point in time the minimum of one year since

kim

17

final separation was selected in order to give the subjects a chance to

recover from the initial shock and in order to allow time for cultural

expectations to show their effects the upper limit of three years since

final separation was chosen in order to exclude women who were more

likely not to remarry according to jacobson 1959 half the women of

this age range are married within the first two years following their

divorce two thirds of them within five years pp 697069

uncontrolled

70

variablevariables

in a discussion of variables it should be pointed out that al-

though the subjects in this study are divorcees no claim is made that

their responses are a direct result of the divorce experience or of their

divorced status for example it cannot be said that a divorcee has a

low SE score because she is divorced no comparison has been made

here with scores of single or married women or widows also it is

entirely possible that the same woman would have had a low score at

the time of or before her marriage or even that the low selfesteemself wasesteem

in part responsible for the divorce

some variables are known butba their effect unknown and they

have not been held constant examples are the number of years the

marriage lasted educational level and present educational activity

number of children and type of marriage ceremony temple non temple

or the mormon sample

1 years married the woman married ten years may have an

adjustment period different from that of the woman married for two or

three months other factors about the marriage may also influence social

adjustment such as how much in love or independent or happy or

how satisfied with the marriage the woman was

s

ap

18

2 education educational level has undoubtedly affected

responses on the questionnaire as well as adjustment to marriage and

divorce those subjects attending college at the time of the study have

many opportunities for social activity and making new friends utah

county contains a large university which mormons are strongly encour-

aged to attend the presence of the university probably affects the

entire community and all the utah subjects whether they attend or not

3 number of children the authors reviewed stress the point

that divorcees who have children at home face many problems in adjust-

ment that those without children do not have

4 temple marriage the breaking of a temple marriage by

divorce can mean that the parties did not take mormon doctrine very

seriously or it can mean that the marriage is worse and the partners

more desperate than necessary for divorce in the las vegas protestant

culture or in nontemplenon mormontemple marriages the stigma and role uncer

taintydainty may be different members of the mormon church lay and eccles-

iastical do not agree as to whether or not a member who was married

in the temple and obtained only a civil divorce is living in adultery if

he marries again because he cannot marry her in the temple a mormon

bachelor thinks twice before becoming involved with a woman previously

married in the temple but divorced according to civil law only

likewise there may be significance when a mormon girl

does not get married in the temple it is possible that she takes the

marriage vows less seriously than her friends who marry in the temple

so that the failure of the marriage is not such a shock or it is possible

that one partner is not worthy to go to the temple so that the seeds of

conflict are already sown the possibilities are many and the decision

varivarl bj

19

of a mormon girl to marry outside the temple probably has some relation-

ship to her postdivorcepost adjustmentdivorce

in any study uncontrolledvariablesuncontrolled arevariables likely to be unrecog-

nized examples of variables which have probably influenced responses

in this study are differences in personality and situational factors such

as love involvement or engagement if it was known that a prospective

subject had set up housekeeping with another man or that she had sexual

contact with her former husband she was excluded because it was felt

that in the former case the relationship took on the characteristics of a

second marriage and in the latter case the intimate relationship with

the former husband would undoubtedly affect selfesteemself andesteem residual

emotional attachment

locating subjecsubjectssubjacfrom the 1960 census of the united states it can be estimated

that white female devorceesdivorceesdevor agecees 14 through 34 number about 287 in utah

county and about 715 in clarkdark county see appendix B table 5 divor-

cees in utah county are predominantly mormon and in clark county

divorcees are predominantly protestant so disqualification from the

number of potential subjects because of religion is probably small

however length of time since divorce and number of divorces eliminates

many in utah county many women were contacted who had been

divorced 4 to 9 years and a few who could not meet the 1year1 require-

ment

year

only three women were contacted who had been divorced more

than once in las vegas there were many women who had been separated

less than one year or who had been divorced more than once or both

also although since 1960 the general population has increased somewhat

in utah county and greatly in clark county the fact that the US

prob bly

lied

hylIII111bylsubjectssectsall the subjects were caucasian divorced women married only

once and now single residents of their respective areas for at least a

year and affiliated with their respective religions limitations were

set on age and time since final separation in order to further understand

the characteristicscharacterischaracters of the subjects questions were asked concerning

educational level length of marriage number of children church attend-

ance and type of wedding ceremony mormon group table 2 shows the

jacobson 1959 estimates that census records fallfailfali to reportsomewhere from 20 to 50 per cent of existing divorced people because ofthe reluctance on the part of those interviewed to admit to divorced status

20

cenus catches six weekersreekerswe inekers las vegas makes an unknown number of

women ineligible there because of the residence requirement therefore

the number of women eligible for this study is possibly somewhat fewer

than 287 in utah county and probably much fewer than 715 in clarkdarkmark

county

it was planned to select randomly 25 subjects in each area who

had resided in that county for at least a year and who met the minimum

qualifications it was planned to work in las vegas through lawyers and

in utah through mormon church records because of the unwillingness

or inability of the nevada lawyers and mormon bishops to cooperate

the nevada problems are discussed in detail in appendix C the samples

wee acidentaccidental and only 20 subjects were interviewed in each areaWC iaisfktrvfw vf wlwwtw 1w tlnabkw vinilwtcttet iwtnjl

the names were received primarily through referral and the investigator

was forced to interview every woman who fitted the minimum requirements

it was impossible to match the women on education number of children

and length of marriage as was planned because there simply was no

choice

description of

4

ld

4jacobson

KWHH atrtw

charac teris tics

aw

66gg

21

characteristics of each sample las vegas protestant divorcee and utah

mormon divorcee are abbreviated LVPD and UMD the church attendance

score represents the frequency of attendance during the past year with a

maximum of 52 once a week or more one subject from the mormon

sample had a temple marriage

TABLE 2

characteristics OF THE SAMPLES

LVPD figures shown first UMD second

variable

age

education

years married

number of children

years divorced

church attendance

mean

254025.4023.452345

12.401240123012.30

5.405403.80380

1.051051.90190igo1.781781.80180

3.5535534.553455

range

183318183418

33

8178

34

815817

0160

15

012016

030

12

0503

131

5

131

3

0300

3

052030

standard

52

deviation

4.084084.15415

2.102101.49149

3.973973.22322

.83831.29129

.7373

.6666

6.8468421.602160

it can be seen that with the exception of church attendance

the means for the two groups are fairlywellfairly matchematchedwell there is more

variance and difference in variance between the groups than is desirable

however

it is unfortunate that there is no way of discovering how repre-

sentative the samples are according to occupation seven LVPDs listed

d

sentative

178180

83

73

22

themselves as being secretaries while only three of the UMIsUMDs and no

LVPDs were full- or parttimepart studentstime five of the LVPDs maintained jobs

associated with the entertainment industry while five of the UMIsUMDs were

engaged in labor as nurses aids their training was sponsored by the

welfare department or did sewing for the barbizonbarbazonBar ofbizon utah six UMIsUMDs

were fulltimefull homemakerstime while only one LVPD stayed at home full time

table 3 shows the occupation of all subjects by category of job

TABLE 3

occupations OF SUBJECTS

job category

secretarysecretary and studentfulltimefull studenttimereceptioniststenographerreceptioniststore

stenographerclerk

IBM key punch operator

nurses aidseamstress

casino cashiercasino KENO runnercasino cocktail waitressshowgirl

fulltimefull homemakertime

total

LVPD

700331

0

0

1

1

1

2

1

20

UMD

1

2

41

1

0

2

3

0000

6

20

all of the fulltimefull homemakerstime were being supported by welfare

funds the ratio of one LVPD to six UMIsUMDs living on welfare may not

represent the populations however even for the specific subjects here

one wonders why there is a difference there are probably more jobs

available in las vegas Is it possible that the LVPD has more pride

the UMD less ambition the quest for education found in the utah

aorlsorial ac

mawmua

lisalisj

23

group makes this seem unlikely perhaps the mormon mother feels a

greater need to stay home with the children

instruments for data collection

the questionnaire used in this study hasjourcllpqlphas rantspartsrannsjour seet i i flmw wianrw ft we vwrwf ww tflfltwwhft A SMWW

appendix A the firzjpafirajlprttjqkqqptt2rsasks questions of a general nature in ordermww n i f fbrtliri mum ijftflw

to insure eligibility of the subject pinpoint exact age and time since

divorce and determine other variables such as education length of

marriage and number of children the second part containcontains s the inter

personal check list developed by leary l956a the third and fourth

parts were developed by the investigator and consist of 25 multiple

choice questions concerning the divorcees emotional involvement with

the past REA inventoryInvent andoryorv a4 check list of social jaqtiyjity SA check

list

selfesteemself SEesteem

the interpersonal check list ICL was included for the purpose

of attempting to measure the selfesteemself ofesteem the subjects used here

selfesteemself refersesteem to the congruence of images of perceived self and

ideal self the smaller the discrepancy between the two the higher

the selfesteemself isesteem considered to be the subjects were asked to fill

in the circles of column I11 in front of the items that they felt to be

generally descriptive of themselves then they were asked to go through

the entire list again indicating by filling in the circles of column 2 the

items that described them as they would like to be there was much

confusion in the minds of some subjects as to how it was possible to

check both columns if they both apply they wanted to check one column

or the other three of the questionnaires had to be thrown out for this

aq ee

Laarqar 1 9 5 6 a

hddto

flaw

learyleark

24

reason and it is unknown how many of the responses by other subjects

were affected by this confusion it is suggested that for future use

especially if only two columns are used that investigators print

CHECK BOTH COLUMNS IF THEY BOTH APPLY in bold type above each

of the four groups of items

the ICL was originally chosen not only because it is designed

to measure congruence of images but also because the scoring takes

into consideration the interrelationshipationshiprelationship of the items chosen this can

be done several ways and the original plan for this study was to arrive

at a dimensionaltwodimensionaltwo score for each subject dimensions which L eary

calls dom dominance and lov love it was planned either to transform

the dom and lov raw scores into standard scores and subtract the per-

ceived from the ideal to arrive at two discrepancy scores two SE scores

for each subject or to combine the dom and lov scores and to deter-

mine an interlevelinter discrepancylevel score by comparing the combined scores

for the perceived and idealselfideal imagesselfserfseif of each subject the issue was

further complicated by the fact that there is a separate table of standard

scores that can be used for the idealselfideal imageself which spreads the

scores to provide a more realistic distribution thus there were four

possible ways to determine SE scores domlovdom orlov interlevelinter discrep-

ancy

level

scores using the same tblelbleelblet of standard scores for both the

perceived and ideal images and domlovdom orlov interlevelinter discrepancylevel

scores using one table of standard scores for the perceivedselfperceived imagesself

and the other for the idealselfideal imagesself 5 in personal correspondence

explanations5explanations and instructions for computing the above men-tioned scores are found on the following pages in leary 19564 generaltheory 161 perceived6 and ideal images 11 computation of dom andlov 15 explanation of standard scores 90 explanation of interlevelinterdiscrepancy

level282928 instruction29 for plotting interlevelinter discrepancylevel 24

tables of standard scores for perceived and ideal self images 919291table

92of interlevelinter discrepancylevel scores 969796 97

inter re I1

lear

25

mr leary suggested that the investigator try it each way this was

done and the results are found in appendix F however the correla-

tions between the various ICL scores and other variables were so

different that the investigator was unable to understand the meaning of

the results of the different scoring procedures therefore it was decided

simply to determine a total item by item discrepancy the SE score wasfwvhif

derived by going through the entire ICL item by item and adding one

point tochetojhetqjha1qtqlqqrqjptkotaltotalkotai cscore for each item which was checkedcheclieeciled in one columnolumn

and not ininthethe other1 aMf wi ueiitsnsitiyii tewtawten

unfortunately it did not occur to the investigator beforehand

to construct several questions or even one to correlate with the SE

score or scores items such as do you feel you are ready to try

again if the opportunity arises or how do you feel about yourself

wewell pleased satisfied not quite satisfied very displeased would

have been extremely helpful in choosing which ICL score sto use for

SE and for use as evidence of the validity of the chosen score since

social stigma was believed to be a contributor to low self esteem a

question or two regarding stigma felt by the divorcee would also have

been helpful

residual emotional attachment REA

part 111IIIlillii of the questionnaire containscontains25 25 multiplechoicemultiple ques-

tions

choice

designed to try to determine how far the divorcee has progressed

in her reorientation to the present and future rather than the past the

ideas for the items came from informal discussions with divorcees and

widows in both clark county and utah county fifteen divorcees filled

out questionnaires which were not used in the main study because the

women did not qualify for one reason or another or because the ICL was

notinthe

score6ito

MAJ

26

completed incorrectly howeverHow theeverl factor analysis performed on the

24 REA items0 utilized the data from all 55 questionnaires in scoring

the individual items when there were 6 possible choices the responses

were graded I11 through 6 scoring the first item 6 and the last item I11

where there were 4 choices the extremes were scored I11 and 6 the

middle items 3 and 4 where there were only 2 choices the first was

scored 5 and the second 2

the factor analysis produced 9 factors with an eigen value

of 1 or more each the first factor accounting for 63 per cent of the

variance table 4 shows how each item related to the primary factor

the term X is defined in the questionnaire and used in tables here to

mean ex husband

the seven items with the lowest factor loadings were eliminated

from the final REA scoring the four items with the highest factor

loadings were weighted 1 12 the thirteen remaining items were given

their original weight and a final REA score was obtained for each

subject As a matter of course a rotated factor matrix was also pro-

duced appendix E table 1 contains further information about the

results of this procedure

social activity SA

part IV of the questionnaire includes a check list of social

activity and four multiplechoicemultiple questionschoice the items in the check

list were largely taken from brown 1963 who defends her choices as

being activities where single women are most likely to meet men of

the multiplechoicemultiple questionschoice fhi is an attempt to measure not only the

6ltem61temiltem 11 was eliminated before scoring

items6

1

600goo

loaioa

27

amount of contact the divorcee has with eligible men but also her

awareness of the eligible men around her eligible was defined for

the subjects as unmarried and of a reasonable age though not neces-

sarily desirable A question concerning the number of eligible and

desirable men known might have been more meaningful question 2

simply measures dating frequency questions 3 and 4 attempt to

discover the subjects attitudes toward love and future marriage goode

1965 found that higher dating frequency was related to more favorable

attitudes toward love and marriage p 266

TABLE 4

LOADINGS OF REA ITEMS ON PRIMARY FACTOR

loading

.774774

.740740

.720720

.716716

.633633

.600600

.545545

.524524

.511511

.485485

.483483

.465465

.453453

.434434

.423423

.394394

.391391

.332332

.329329

.199199

.150150

.137137

.108108

.076076

item

68

1620

1975

24142512

318

24

171

2315

9

13222110

item

daydream XXs giftsstartle responsedate wish with X

date compare XX s waynight dream X

mannerisms remindhis vs mineattitude toward Xspecial dayshome pictures X

date Xs namesignaturewallet picture Xpeople in publicwedding ring

children remindXs belongingsXs love lettersmiss vs mrsdivorce decreewedding certificatesame house

contributionto REA score

weighted 1 12it

11

ii

weighted 1 12ii

i

ii

11

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

eliminated11

ii

ii

ii

ii

though

X s

Xs

774740720716

633

545524511485483465453434423394391

332329199150

137

076

I11

for the item concerning church attendance a maximum of 4 was

given since it was assumed that one who attends church regularly would

be seeing the same people each time and brown felt that church is not a

good place to meet men the last item other was not utilized except in

the case of two las vegas subjects who had played pool it was the

investigators opinion that this would be an activity at which one might

meet men

administeringadministerincr the questionnaireouestionnaire

in order for completed questionnaires to be meaningful the

respondent must be as truthful and accurate as he can there is special

concern for the reliability and validity of the responses in this study

because of a lack of data concerning the instruments themselves the

accidental nature of the sample and the factf thatactict some people consider

the topic of divorce to be so sensitive that divorcees may either be

unaware of their true feelings or reluctant to express them the instru-

ments have been discussed in the previous section the choice of

subjects the rapport between subject and investigator and other situa-

tional factors which might have affected responses will be discussed

here

28

no attempt was made to include the information obtained from

the four questions in the SA score the SA score is simply the total of

the scores of the individual items checked bases on the following code

A once a week or more 52B two or three times a month 30C once a month 12D once every two to four months 4E twice during the year 2

F once during the year

ilexflex

29

contacting potential subjects

although names of potential subjects were received from other

contacts the investigator at no time consciously chose to exclude an

eligible divorcee nor did she apparently behave in such a way in uncon-

scious rejection of the divorcee to discourage an otherwise potential

subject from participating since only one eligible divorcee refused to

cooperate however in this study the contact of the divorcee was the

first and probably most crucial step in the establishment of rapport with

the subject the approach which soon became stabilized with modif-

ications for the individual groups was about as follows

mrs black or ava if appropriate im sonia richardsonim a graduate student at BYU or a university student workingon my masters degree in family life education im alfnostalthost finishedbut I1 have to get my thesis done instead of picking somethingsimple and getting it over with I1 chose a subject that I1 am interestedin and im sure doing it the hard way since I1 am divorced I1 choseto study the social adjustment of divorcees but now I1 cant findenough women and im in trouble in order to make my study asmeaningful as possible the women must be as much alike as possibleso I1 have a list of qualifications may I1 please ask you somequestions to see if you do fit my sample

of all the women contacted none refused to answer the questions

concerning eligibility after eligibility was established or if an ineli-

gible divorcee wanted to hear more about the study the investigator

explained that she had a questionnaire that took about half an hour to

fill out questions concerned making a choice of words which would

describe her and how she would like to be and questions concerning her

life now such as does she wear her wedding ring carry pictures of her

ex in her walletwalint and how often does she go swimming or dancing no

questions would delve into past situations like whose fault the divorce

was and no questions would concern such personal matters as her present

sexual activity she was assured that the questionnaire would in no way

be identified the one eligible divorcee that refused to participate

did so after looking at the questionnaire and her objection was to the

inuncon

aftereligibility

achoice

30

interpersonal check list however since the ICL is the most time

consuming part of the questionnaire and the woman had an unexpected

ear infection and was late getting home from the doctor and pressed for

time it is possible that she just did not want to be bothered

administering the questionnaire

the investigators previous experience in interviewing was

limited her policy was primarily to play by ear if possible she got

right down to the business of the completing of the questionnaire by the

subject but if she sensed that the subject felt hesitant or defensive in

any way she took all the time necessary to discuss anything the divorcee

desired except topics which she believed would affect responses on the

questionnaire until she thought she could proceed smoothly to the

questionnaire she tried to communicate the idea that little interest has

been shown in the divorcees plight and that she is a student searching

for meaning in a practically unexplored area so although this was an

assignment for the completion of which she must rely on the cooperation

of other divorcees the information which they were to give might well

lead to future research and interest that would someday provide under-

standing of divorcees problems and help for them the subject was

reassured of her anonymity if she asked and it was sometimes explained

that the responses would be coded and punched into cards so that although

her responses were important the data would be grouped and completely

disassociated from her it was explained that the subject would fill out

the questionnaire herself the investigator would have to glanceglande overbventhethe

questionnaire in order to make sure that it waswashwasy complete and directionsdirection

werewe followedre but she would not read for content and would not be associ-

ating particularpdrticular responses with the subject she explained that she had

andw6uld adsobi

s

6

toctoxemainremaintoxemain impersonal in the sense ofi

not becoming emotionally involved in the problems expressed by the

respondent but she did try to be a good listener

31

to do this that regrettably some precious questionnaires had to be

thrown out because directions had not been followed

the directions were explained on each part if necessary and all

questions were answered except direct attempts to get the investigator

to answer the items on the questionnaire before terminating the interview

the investigator glanced over the questionnaire to make sure it was com-

plete and the directions were followed she checked for inconsistencies

improbabilitiesprobabilitiesim and impossibilities if the problem was one that she

could correct she did so later if she needed clarification from thei

subject she asked for it before leaving she was in every case satisfied

that the subject seemed conscientious in her responses not making a joke

of it hurrying and putting anything down discussing responses with

others etc

the investigator was concerned with more than just the comple

tion of the questionnaire she would need to find meaning in the results

of the data depending upon time she often talked for an hour or more

she generally followed the lead of the subject in the choice of topics

following are some general practices followed by the investigator items

I11 through 8 are probably consistent with good interviewing practices

items 9 through 12 could be considered objectionable but are included

because they did take place

1 the investigator believesbelbei thatteves she was genuinely friendly

she enjoyed meeting the women and was enthusiastic about the completion

of another questionnaire

2 the investigator tried to

32

3 the investigator refrained from verbalizing moral judgments

she tried never to show surprise or disapproval or to venture opinions

concerning the divorcees personal life

4 the investigator tried to be aware of her own prejudices in

order to keep the interview as objective as possible and avoid behavior

that might influence the subjects responses

5 since she did not trust her ability to be selective the

investigator carefully followed an absolute rule to never mention other

subjects by name or identify them in any way she occasionally repeated

humorous comments from unidentified subjects such as one respondents

reaction to the first REA item wedding ring I1 threw em in the toilet

but was cautious about doing even this

6 the investigator avoided naming the instruments or telling

anything about the hypotheses especially things like the relationship

that goode found between attitudes toward marriage and ex husband

and dating habits on the REA inventory and SA check list she did not

hesitate to explain what she meant by the question on the ICL she

hesitated to interpret the items and did so only when there was a clear-

cut lack of understanding about the meaning of a word

7 although it would often have been convenient to do otherwise

the investigator was always present during the entire completion of the

questionnaire

8 the investigator tried to behave in such a way as to commun-

icate to the subject that the study was a serious matter and she expected

the subject to be honest

9 the investigator was interested in making new friends she

felt free to discuss unrelated matters such as the subjects interior

I1 I1

33

decorating a book they had both read or local social activities favors

were exchanged such as the setting up of a blind date or the placing of

notices on a bulletin board

10 the investigator helped with the housework or tended the

children while the subject filled out the questionnaire

11 the investigator guarded against upsetting the subject by

allowing the conversation to dwell on past hurts ononeanone occasion things

got out of hand and the investigator remained until the subject felt better

and the conversation took a lighter turn

12 the investigator felt free totd share her experiences usually

after completion of the questionnaire but sometimes before if she felt it

would contribute to rapport

the investigator is satisfied that the feeling between her and

each subject was satisfactory and that the subjects in general seemed

genuinely interested in the study and the questionnaire she believes

that the subjects were conscientious in their attempt to be truthful one

factor has been neglected however that of the physical setting ideally

each interview would have been held in privacy without distraction

unfortunately there were neighbors telephones pets and children

belonging to the subject neighbors and the investigator only twice

was there complete uninterrupted privacy to what extent these distrac-

tions affected responses is unknown

on one

01oi

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND discussion

testing of the hypotheses

it was hypothesized that when the two groups were compared

the las vegas protestant divorcees LVPD would have higher selfesteemself

SE

esteem

lower residual emotional attachment REA and higher social

activity SA than the utah mormon divorcees UMD the statistical

mean for each variable was computed for each group and the t test

was performed to test for significant difference between the means inwr

this study t p 05.05

s qtmedwa

pt

SEa

11til

ahigher

05

582

pa

18001.800ibao

higher mean SE score indicates lower self esteem

although the means for all three variables differed in the dir-

ection hypothesized the only statistically significant difference between

the two groups was for REA

it was also hypothesized that there would be a positive correla-

tion between SE and SA and negative correlations between REA and SE

34

20912.091 and t pap& .0101 2.8552855 the results are

shown in table 5

TABLE 5

comparison OF MEANS FOR SE REA AND SA

group sea REA SA

LVPD 28.202820 41.354135 91.309130UMD 30.853085 52.355235 64.356435

J 582.582 2.4092409

ilii

liii

06og

06og

35

and between REA and SA the three variables were correlated separately

for each group and the results are shown in table 6 although all but one

of the correlations REASAREA forSA LVPD are in the direction hypothesized

none of the correlations are statistically significant

TABLE 6

correlation OF SE REA AND SA SCORES BY GROUP

LVPD figures shown first UMD second

SE

SE 1001.00loo1.00100

REA

selfesteem

the primary objective of this study was to explore the area of

social adjustment of divorcees instruments were chosen to measure

certain aspects of social adjustment and the instruments were adminis-

tered to divorcees in two distinct groups unfortunately the samples

were not random but even if they were and one could feel reasonably

confident that they were representative of the populations the question

ssamplesamplesampies

discussion of variables

self esteem

loo

38

4926

384926

1001.00loo1.00100loo

.0606 1001.00loo1.00100loo

the statistical data must be viewed with caution since the

samples are small and by no means random theoretically statistical

operations could not be performed for such

.1111.3838

SA .4949.2626

REA

.1111

.3838

.1717

SA

.4949

.2626

.0606.1717

I1

theicltheirl

36

remains what do the results mean the ambiguity of the ICL scores

has already been mentioned the choice of the itembyitemitem discrepancyby

for

item

the SE score may not have been the best since it is the one method

of scoring obvious to the subject however the distribution of scores

more closely represents a normal distribution than does the distribution

of either of the interlevelInter discrepancylevel scores see appendix F tables 2

and 3 the fact that the SE scores do not highly correlate with the REA

and SA scores as hypothesized does not necessarily disprove the hypo-

thesis that particular score may not represent selfesteemself oresteem anything

close to it the other scores may not represent what they were intended

to represent it could be that selfesteemself isesteem not clearly related to emo-

tional involvement with the past or to certain types of social activity

or one may wonder just what the SE score represents in the search for

the meaning of the SE score it is helpful to look at the items with which

the SE score is correlated table 7 shows the variables with which the

SE score correlated 30 or more

TABLE 7

correlation OF SE WITH OTHER VARIABLES

LVPD UMD

general variables

.4949 SA48 number eligible men45 attitude toward marriage37 education

1a

anumbers

49 413838

40 4539 4432 44

3833

ia

.4141 dating frequency

.3838 number eligible men

.3838 REA

REA items

.4040 wedding ring i3 .4545 special days 12

.3939 home pictures X 3 .4444 night dream X 5

.3232 wallet picture X 4 .4444 startle response 16.3838 people in public 17.3333 date compare X 19

11

numbers in parenthesis correspond to REA item number on questionnaire

37

that SE would be positively correlated with SA .4949 LV and

negatively correlated with REA

or perhaps a love involvement which

keeps two people together doing things which the subject did not consider

to be dating the negative correlation of SE with dating frequency

could also help to explain the lack of correlation of SE with SA for the

utah subjects

an even more perplexing problem is the negative correlation

49

38

45

37

48 38

.3838 U is consistent with the basic

hypotheses it also seems reasonable that an individual with high self

esteem would have a favorable attitude toward marriage .4545 LV edu-

cation seems to have a different meaning for the two groups but in lasvegas where it is not so readily available as it is in utah county edu-

cation could reasonably correlate with high selfesteemself .3737esteem LV on

the other hand the negative correlation of SE with dating frequency

.4141 U might seem to be a contradiction however it is the authors

opinion that the mormon woman who is so orientated to the value of home

and family might well feel best about herself when these goals are in

sight or she may feel guilty if frequent dating takes her away from the

home much of the time especially if she gone all day while at work

the negative correlation of SE with dating frequency could reflect a self

respect that comes from staying home with the children at night the

absence of a need to run around

.4848 LV for the las vegas group and the positive correlation .3838 U

for the utah group of selfesteemself withesteem the number of eligible men known

As was pointed out there are more eligible men in las vegas see appendix

B and since the LVPD has more social activity she is likely to meet

more men it is possible in las vegas but not in utah county to

advertise for men in the newspaper A friend of the investigator goes to

seacordsescord atodctod

7theathe mayhavemanhave

38

las vegas for romance and has all she can handle this keeps her

content while she lives in utah until she decides she needs to go to lasvegas again it seems then that while eligible men at least for older

women are rare in utah they are in excess in las vegas how could the

number of eligible men known have an opposite relationship with SE in the

two groups based on her impressions from the interviews the investi-

gator feels that the utah subjects may have tended to think of eligible

men as desirable men 7 and that the las vegas subjects considered

as eligible all those men whom they would just as soon not have known

probably anyone in las vegas can meet many eligible men it may be

that prestige or perhaps a feeling of being wanted comes with knowing a

few desirable ones although this explanation may be quite inadequate

it is the investigators opinion that the conflict is not evidence that the

validity of the SE score is in question

the correlations of the SE score with selected REA items shows

that with one exception all the correlations are in the expected direction

negative one can only speculate as to why there is a positive correlation

of SE with the pictures of the exhusbandex displayedhusband in the home .3939 LV

it could be like the reformed alcoholic who keeps a fifth in the refrigerator

to remind himself how strong he is again however the evidence seems

to indicate that the SE score does at least to some degree measure self

esteem

the difference between the SE mean scores for the two groups

is small but in the direction hypothesized the correlations of SE with

REA and SA are small but in the directions hypothesized A greater amount

7 the utah subjects may have included religiousrelirellreil andgibusfor example an active latter

day saint may consider any gentile to be as ineligible as a married man

sele

person-ality factors in the definition of eligible

39

39

of higher correlations for SE with other variables as well as REA and SA

would have contributed to understanding the meaning of the SE score

the two sample groups differ widely with respect to the variables with

which the SE score correlates .3030 or above the evidence is inconclusive

but it is the investigators opinion that it tends to support the basic

hypotheses that it gives further evidence of the differences between the

groups and that it tends to indicate that the SE score may in reality

represent a feeling of self esteem

residual emotional attachment

the REA inventory was with one exception made up entirely of

the investigators own ideas the item taken from the literature concerned

attitude toward ex husband goode 1965 found that a more favorable

less emotionally involved attitude toward exhusbandex washusband positively

related to greater dating frequency p 265

table 8 shows those variables with which the REA score corre-

lated .3030 or above with two exceptions the figures are negative it

seems reasonable that emotional involvement with the past would have

a negative relationship with more favorable attitude toward exhusbandex

and

husband

marriage since the period of time since divorce was so restricted

131 years3 the negative correlation of REA with time since divorce

38uis especially significant and it seems reasonable that emotional

involvement with the past would decrease with time the negative

correlation of REA with SE

38 U is

30

30

38

37

.3838 U is consistent with the basic hypotheses

the positive relationship of REA with marriage or individual counseling

.3737 U could reflect the attitude of the mormon church toward making

marriage work rather than escaping by divorce since much if not most

of the counseling of the mormon subjects was probably done by mormon

40

bishops or other church authorities the puzzling figure is that of the

correlation of REA with education .4141 LV forthelasvegas group educa-

tion meansmoans something different to the LVPD than it does to the UMD

what this correlation means is unknown although the investigator does

not believe that it detracts from the validity of the REA inventory

TABLE 8

correlation OF REA WITH OTHER VARIABLES

LVPD UMD

52 attitude toward marriage44 attitude toward xa41 education

54 attitude toward xa.3838 years since divorce38 attitude toward marriage38 SE37 counseling

attitude toward X as an REA item contributed to the REA scorethe sign has been changed to make the meaning parallel to that ofattitudes toward love and marriage high score indicating more favorableattitude

the factor analysis of the REA items has already been discussed

the fact that 63 per cent of the variance is accounted for in one factor

seems to be good evidence of internal consistency in the investigators

opinion there is a satisfactory degree of face validity in the 17 items

selected for computation of the REA score table 4 shows the relation-

ship of all 24 items to the primary factor but for the purpose of the

present discussion the eliminated items will be reviewed here

.332332 children remind 23

.329329 Xs belongings 15

.199199 Xs love letters 9

150.1501150.1150 miss vs mrs 13137.137 divorce decree 22.108108 wedding certificate 21.076076 same house 10

for the las vegas

137divorce

41

38

332329

150

108076

41

even before examining the results of the factor analysis the in-

vestigator decided to eliminate all of the above items because responses

would she believed be too greatly influenced by circumstances whe-

ther children remind a divorcee of her exhusbandex wouldhusband depend upon the

presence of children although the presence of the husbandsexhusbandsex belong-

ings could be significant if the subject could not bear to get rid of them

the former husband may not have left any personal belongings with her

or they may have been lost disposed of by others or been otherwise

removed several subjects stated that they had never received love

letters from their husband why the selection of miss or mrs would

be largely affected by circumstance may not be so obvious however

many respondents complained that they had never had to make the choice

others said that their choice depended upon who wanted to know the

use of mrs is proper for a mother and this was the basis for that choice

in some cases other respondents stated that although the use of mrs

would be proper they did not want people to think they were married

this item probably caused more discussion between interviewer and

respondent than did any other single item responses loto10 the item could

indicate emotional involvement with the present rather than with the past

having the divorce decree or wedding certificate in ones pos-

session is also probably more related to variables other than emotional

involvement legal documents are obtained and kept for legal purposes

and it is not likely that an individual would destroy a document in an

emotional rage or obtain a document divorce decree because he is ready

to accept reality

the item concerning the divorce decree was originally scored

in reverse with the idea that obtaining a divorce decree since it is not

vestigator

42

furnished but must be ordered and paid for would contribute to acceptance

of the present reality the item concerning the wedding certificate was

originally included with the idea that losing or getting rid of the certificate

would be like losing or getting rid of other souvenirs of the past however

these items and the item concerning the choice of miss or mrs accounted

for most of the negative correlations of REA items with themselves another

reason for eliminating all three as contributors to the REA score

it was originally thought that living in the same house in which

the divorcee lived when she was married would contribute to REA since

there would be many things around to remind her of the past however

here again much would depend upon circumstances the same house

item was negatively correlated

the differences between the two groups for the REA mean scores

was significant at better than the .0505 level of confidence the correla-

tions of REA with SE and SA were with one exception in the directions

hypothesized although small the REA inventory seems to have internal

consistency and face validity the directions of the correlations of the

REA score with other variables generally are consistent with the idea

that emotional involvement with the past interferes with favorable attitudes

toward love and future marriage accepting oneself as eligible to be a

spouse the evidence seems to indicate that the basic hypotheses

are supported and that the REA inventory as a measure of emotional

54 39

33 43

05

.5454 LV .3939 U with dating frequency

and positively related .3333 LV .4343 U to the item concerning the divorcees

wish that a date were her ex husband

for further exploration 5 REA items that were highly correlated

with REA items and other variables are presented with their correlations

in appendix E table 3

activactieitiesaties

43

involvement with the former husband and marriage was a success and

has potential for future use

social activity

the SA score is probably the least accurate of the three major

variables the respondents were in the most part guessing about their

activities and there may have been as many over estimates as under

estimates the respondentstherespondents also had to evaluate whether this activity

was carried on in a public place where they were likely to meet men

undoubtedly there is a fairly consistent tendency for individuals in pub-

lic either to be friendly and get acquainted or to go about the activity

wearing the blinders of a horse and never forming new relationships in

choosing an instrument what was really wanted was one that would meas-

ure the formation of new relationships however the author was unable

to find such an instrument and felt inadequate to the task of developing

her own

goode 1965 found that attendance at movies was positively

related to the divorcees acceptance of her new status even if she went

alone and she probably formed no new relationships p 261 inclu-

sion of other items even if scored independently or in different ways

might have contributed considerably to this dimension of the study

table 9 shows that the SA score was correlated at 30 or above

with about as many variables as were the other two major variables

the positive correlation with SE .4949 LV is consistent with the basic

hypothesis the lackack of such a correlation with the utah group leads

the investigator to question the meaning of this kind of activity for the

UMD rather than to question the validity of the SA score the positive

1

49

44

correlation .3939 LV of SA with education for thelas vegas group is con-

sistent with the difference in meaning of education for the two groups

most of the utah subjects who had college education were presently at-

tending college yet education for the las vegas group was positively

correlated with social activity evidently the mormonstudentmotherstudent

does

mother

not have time or take time for social activity

TABLE 9

correlation OF SA WITH OTHER VARIABLES

LVPD UMD

G ene ra 1 varjablesbies

49 SE39 education.3838 counseling33 dating frequency

mormon s tude nt

general variables

a4

2

onquestionronquestionrquestionsnaire

the positive correlation of SA with counseling .3838 LV could

indicate that counseling leads to emotional health which in turn leads to

social activity it could also indicate that social activity leads to

emotional conflict and upset which in turn leads to the necessity to seek

counseling or that the person who is likely to go out and meet people is

39

38

40

584441363533323230

38

40.40 age

REA items

36 wedding ring l5la15

35 people in public 17.5858 home pictures X 3

.4444 children remind 23

.4141 people in public 17.3636 wedding certificate 21

.3535 his vs mine 14

.3333 Xs love letters 9

.3232 night dream X 5

.3232 Xs way 730.30 startle response 16

lumbers in parenthesis indicate REA item number

45

also likely to talk over his problems with a counselor or that emotional

upset and confusion lead both to running around for escape and seeking

help for comfort this correlation like all other correlations in the

study is merely suggestive

the relationship of SA with dating frequency .3333 LV is reason-

able and logical such a correlation is notably absent from the utah

group it seems that SA and dating frequency both have a different

meaning for the UMD notably absent from the las vegas group is a

negative correlation of SA with age such as is found for the utah group

it seems safe to say that age has a different meaning abrfbr the

two groups age was negatively correlated with number of eligible men

known

30 or above

between SA and eight REA items it seems logical that a divorcee partic-

ipating in an activity where she might meet men would prefer not to wear

her wedding ring

starting at the sound of his name

and being reminded of him by the children can be considered to be

3 3

3 6

33

40

44 46

36

.4040 U after partially completing the interviewing of subjects from

both areas the investigator felt as though she would like to raise the

age limitation for the las vegas subjects and lower it for the utah

subjects in las vegas women in their forties and beyond were engaging

in the kind of activities measured in the SA check list and dating once

a week or more of course many had been divorced two or more times

in contrast many utah women in their thirties didnt go anywhere

anymore

.4444 U and dating frequency .4646 U for the utah group but

insignificantly correlated with either variable for the las vegas group

even though there was an insignificant correlation between SA

and REA for both groups there were negative correlations of

.3636 LV five items which correlated with SA for the

utah group items concerningdreamingconcerftingdreaffingconcerning aboutdreaming the ex husband doing things

his way referring to objects as his

46

indicative of emotional involvement and thus their negative correlations

with SA are consistent with the basic hypotheses

there were two positive correlations of SA with REA items for

the utah group items concerning pictures of the exhusbandex displayedhusband

in the home and the possession of his love letters it was the former

item that was positively correlated with SE for the las vegas group see

table 7 again one wonders what it means to have pictures of ex

husband displayed at home it cannot be dismissed as an accident

since the correlation of SA with that item is higher than that for any

other variable .5858 U the analogy of the alcholiccholicalcoholical might apply here

perhaps the woman who displays the pictures is more likely to have

children the correlation for number of children and home pictures X

was insignificant but the fact of having or not having children was

unfortunately not recorded as a variable and consequently be aware

that she must go out to find a father for her children maybe the

woman with children is not only likely to display pictures of their

father but also likely to need to get out of the house possibly the

woman who really loved her husband or thought that for the most part

she was happy with him or happy being married is not only the woman

who would display pictures but also the woman who would want another

man and another marriage however correlations of home pictures X

with attitude toward ex husband attitude toward love and attitude

toward marriage were insignificlcantinsignificicant table 10 shows some of the

correlations of home pictures X with other REA items the evidence

seems to indicate that the presence of pictures of the exhusbandex

displayed

husband

in the home does mean that the respondent has the former

husband on her mind although this may represent fantasy of a past

relationship for lack of a present one instead of emotional involvement

58

gggs

47

with the past the question of why home pictures X is positively

correlated with SA remains unanswered

TABLE 10

correlation OF ITEM 3 HOME PICTURES X WITH OTHER REA ITEMS

LVPD UMD

.6969 date Xs name 18355 Xs way 7

40 his vs mine 14

.4343 date wish with X 20

.4040 wallet pictures X 4

the correlation of SA with the item concerning the possession

of love letters may be an accident since many subjects stated that they

never had had any love letters from their husbands A possible inter-

pretation might be that a woman who keeps old love letters may be one

who idealizes romance and therefore goes looking for more the one

item from table 9 that remains undiscussed concerns seeing strangers

who remind the divorcee of her ex husband the correlations for this

item with SA are in opposite directions .3636 LV

A

3 6

the las

pre tation

434037373130

36 41

.3737 people in public 17

.3737 Xs gifts 8

.3131 date compare X 19

.3030 special days 12

lumbers in parenthesis indicate REA item number on question-naire

.4141 U for the two

groups thelas vegas figure suggests the logic that one who spends

more time in public will be more likely to see people who remind her of

her former husband if she is still emotionally involved with him it

could be that the UMD tends not to go out if she is more emotionally

involved although the correlation between SA and REA is insignificant

the SA check list is a measure of behavior which requires the

respondent not only to estimate the frequency of certain behaviors but

48

also to make judgments about the conditions under which the behaviors

took place even if one could be certain that the SA score represents

reality the meaning of SA as a concept is vague the evidence points

to a difference between the two sample groups and tends to support the

basic hypotheses with the inclusion of other items the SA check listmight have potential for future use

other variables

five other variables have been chosen for further discussion

1 education 2 dating frequency 3 attitude toward X 4 attitude

toward love and 5 attitude toward marriage the tables for each

variable show mean scores standard deviation and correlations of .3030

or above with other variables including REA items no attempt is made

to account for every detail the purpose here is only to examine the

variable explore possible differences between the sample groups and

perhaps gain insight about postdivorcepost adjustmentdivorce in general

education fiorfjorforpiorpor the las vegasveaasveals group education not only corre-

lated positively with se37 LV and SA .3939 LV but also with REAA A J al i WWWI wl wwrww1 at wwvwic V wi

.4141 LV the positive relationship of education with REA might in part

account for the negative relationship with attitude toward marriage

forfurther

th ut Wjtp4positjxpiy wi AF

30

39zuni

41

31 43

30 58

.3131 LV and attitude toward love .4343 LV but the reason for the

relationship of all three with education remains a mystery that the

amount of education might vary inversely .3030 LV .5858 U with the

number of children seems reasonable since a woman often discontinues

her education to get married and subsequently has children and a

divorcee who has to support and take care of children may not be in a

position to return to school the only other general variable that is

av1v with edu-

cation forshe las vegas group supports the idea that the

49

present for both groups Is attitude toward love

3 7 SE 34 attitude toward love

i

lumbers in parenthesis indicate REA item number on question-naire

the number of REA items which correlate positivelyppsitivelypgitive with

lypD wjlul a

higher locationeducationocation were more emotionally involved with their qrmer

husbands perhaps this is an accidentanaccident or perhaps REA and education

are both related to some other variable some personality characteristic

or characteristics that lead to or resultresuit from the striving for education

in a location where it is not readily available

thevariable

days12apeopleinpublfd17

for the sirpa s Wfqpwjtlahigh former

43 34

43 5841 5839 45

3130

57 3653 3143 30363130

37

wirra

armer

.4343 LV .3434 U which

is iscorrelatedcorrelated with education in opposite directions for the two groups

correlations for education with other variables are shown in table 11

TABLE 11

MEAN SCORES STANDARD deviations AND correlationsWITH OTHER VARIABLES FOR THE VARIABLE EDUCATION

LVPD UMD

mean 12.401240sd 2.01201

mean 12.301230sd 1.49149

correlations with general variables

.4343 attitude toward love .5858 church

.4141 REA .5858 number of children

.3939 SA .4545 years married

.3131 attitude toward marriage

.3030 number of children

correlations with REA items

.5757 special days 123 .3636 miss vs mrs 13

.5353 children remind 23 .3131 people in public 17

.4343 date wish with X 20 .3030 wedding ring 1 1

.3636 wallet picture X 4

.3131 daydream X 6

.3030 night dream X 5

f

.3737

manaftermanaster

50

the evidence indicates that education does indeed have a

different meaning for members of the two groups there is no clearcutclear

relationship

cut

with postdivorcepost adjustmentdivorce as defined in this study

dating frequency dating frequency was positively related to

years married .4242 LV for the las vegas group previous discussion

showed that while age seems to matter greatly in utah it is not so

important in las vegas age correlated negatively

ep uegqy

withgoodes cons picuously

3 0

42

46

39

37

30

54 39

.4646 U with dating

frequency for the utah group only perhaps the LVPD who has been

married longer although she is older enjoys relationships with men or

perhaps misses male companionship even more the relationships of

dating frequency with attitude toward love .3939 LV and attitude toward

marriage .3737 U are consistent with goodes findings but conspicuously

absent is the relationship of dating frequency with attitude toward ex

husband see goode 1965 ppap 265266265 it266 is curious also to notice

that for the LVPD the number of children is positively related to dating

frequency .3030 LV for both groups it seems that the divorcee living in

the same house in which she lived while married is less likely to date

.5454 LV .3939 U table 12 gives statistical information for dating

frequency

when the two sample groups are compared dating frequency

is related to quite different variables it would seem that dating

frequency ought to be a good indication of postdivorcepost adjustmentdivorce but

this is evidently not so A divorcee who dates frequently might be

running from her problems by dating one man after another or steadily

dating a man ineligible to become her spouse it seems that dating

behavior must be further qualified before it can be meaningfully related

to postdivorcepost socialdivorce adjustment

51

TABLE 12

MEAN SCORES STANDARD deviations AND correlationsWITH OTHER VARIABLES FOR THE VARIABLE DATING FREQUENCY

LVPD UMD

mean 5355.35 mean 5.25525sd

5 3 5

s d 1 18

4 6

ir

e8

535 525118

42 4639 4133 3730

65 3954 363130

30

45

30

30

ea

1.18118 sd 1.37137

correlations with general variablesvariable.4242 years married .4646 age.3939 attitude toward love .4141 SE.3333 SA .3737 attitude toward marriage30.30 number of children

correlations with REA items

.6565 signature 28 .3939 same house 10

.5454 same house 10 .3636 Xs way 7

.3131 miss vs mrs 13

.3030 special days 12

nairelumbers in parenthesis indicate REA item number on questionr

attitude toward exhusbandex althoughhusband the mean score for

attitude toward exhusbandex ishusband higher for the las vegas group than for

the utah group between the groups there is probably more similarity of

items correlating .3030 or above than for any other single variable with

the possible exception of the negative correlation with number of men

known in the utah group .4545 U the correlations seem reasonable and

logical attitude toward X correlated at .3030 or above with as many or

more items than any other variable excluding the REA items included in

appendix E and although it was not found to be related to dating

8attitudesattitudeSAtti towardtude exhusbandex andhusband attitude toward marriage bothcorrelate with 22 REA items at .3030 or above

52

frequency as in the goode study it is probably an important variable

with significant potential for future study table 13 gives statistical

information for attitude toward ex husband

TABLE 13

MEAN SCORES STANDARD deviations AND correlationsWITH OTHER VARIABLES FOR THE VARIABLE ATTITUDE TOWARD X

LVPD UMD

mean 3.40340s d 1391.39

mean 3.05305s d

attitude toward love although this variable has entered into

several previous discussions a few additional comments can be made

the tendency in the utah group is toward a slightly more favorable attitude

toward love than in the las vegas group however quite different items

are correlated for the individual groups within the las vegas group one

can feel comfortable with the fact that attitude toward love is positively

1 39

3 7

934

bnumbers

340139

305

44 54

31 4537

47 5447424140343430

reaarea9freaa reaarea3freaa.3131 attitude toward love

2.09209

correlations with general variables

.4444 .5454.4545 number eligible men

30 church attendance .3737 counseling

correlations with REA items

.4747 wallet picture X 413 .5454 his vs mine 1446 people in public 17 .4747 startle response 1644 daydream X 6 .4242 daydream X 641 mannerisms remind 24 .4141 date wish with X 2037 startle response 16 .4040 miss vs mrs 1334 miss vs mrs 13 .3434 wedding ring 1 1

34 date wish with X 20 .3434 night dream X 532 night dream X 5 .3030 wallet picture X 4

aattitudeattitude toward X is an REA item 25 and contributed to the REAscore

numbers in parenthesis indicate REA item number on question-naire

53

correlated with attitude toward marriage .5555 LV attitude toward ex

husband .3131 LV and dating frequency .3939 LV similar correlations are

absent from the utah group the positive relationship in the las vegas

group of attitude toward love with length of marriage .4848 LVIV may help to

explain the positive relationship in that group between attitude toward love

and dating frequency table 14 gives the statistical information for

attitude toward love

TABLE 14

MEAN SCORES STANDARD deviations AND correlationsWITH OTHER VARIABLES FOR THE VARIABLE ATTITUDE TOWARD LOVE

LVPD UMD

mean 4704.70s d

ytvastsf

lumbers in parenthesis indicate realterrealtem number on questionnairequestion

the

naird

data for attitude toward love are ambiguous since the

definition of postdivorcepost socialdivorce adjustment includes thinking of oneself

as being eligible to be a spouse perhaps attitude toward marriage might

be a more meaningful variable for future study

4 701 35

REA item

55

31 39

48

470138

485

403634

474638

1.38138mean 4.85485s d 1.35135

correlations with general variables

55 attitude toward marriage 40.40 church attendance48 years married .3636 counseling43 education .3434 education39 dating frequency31 attitude toward X

correlations with REA items

46 wedding ring la13 .4747 his vs mine 1446 children remind 23 .4646 night dream X 5

39 signature 2 .3838 divorce decree 2239 people in public 1730 wallet picture X 430 same house 10

54

attitude toward marriage one wonders why attitude toward

marriage is positively correlated with attitude toward love .5555 LV for

the las vegas group and not for the utah group again there seems to

be a real difference between the groups the only general variable

appearingapp forearingeaTing both groups being REA

55

52 38

40

36

72

.5252 LV .3838 U it is consistent

with the basic hypotheses that a decrease in emotional involvement with

the past marriage would correlate with a more favorable attitude toward

future marriage the negative correlation of attitude toward marriage

with number of men known .4040 LV may reflect new love involvement

and imminent marriage for the LVPD who either cuts down on the number

of male relationships or does not notice the eligible men around her

this difference would not show up in utah where there are not so many

eligible men anyway the positive relationship of attitude toward

marriage with years divorced .3636 U for the utah group may only reflect

the phenomenon discussed earlier that the LVPD remarries sooner her

change in attitude if it was going to take place may have taken place

much sooner andind the UMD needs more time to develop favorable attitudes

toward the future table 15 shows the statistical information for attitude

toward marriagemarnimarri

all

arge

the REA items are negatively related to attitude toward

marriage as would be expected the presence or absence of a wallet

picture of the former husband for the LVPD seems indeed to be a signifi-

cant variable .7272 LV although only three REA items appear on both

lists with one exception children reminding divorcee of the former

husband all the items contributed to the final scoring of the REA

the fact that attitude toward love was not significantly corre-

lated with attitude toward marriage suggests that at least for subjects

like the UMD the two variables should be separated instead of being

sisl

55

combined in one question as goode did attitude toward exhusbandex

and

husband

attitude toward marriage seem to be key variables and it might be

worthwhile to study their relationship with each other

TABLE 15

MEAN SCORES STANDARD deviations AND correlations WITH

OTHER VARIABLES FOR THE VARIABLE ATTITUDE TOWARD MARRIAGE

LVPD UMD

mean 4654.65sd

4 6 5 5 2 5465 525133

55 3852 3745 3640

72 41

4048 3637 35

3534

aa

1.73173mean 5255.25sd 1.33133

correlations with general variables

.5555 attitude toward love .3838 REA

.5252 REA .3737 dating frequency

.4545 SE .3636 years divorced40.40 number of men known.3131 education

correlations with REA items

.7272 wallet picture X 484a .4141 date Xs name 18

.5151 wedding ring 1 .4141 date wish with X 2051 special days 12 .4040 Xs way 7.4848 people in public 17 .3636 children remind 23.3737 Xs gifts 8 .3535 Xs gifts 8

32 date wish with X 20 .3535 date compare X 1930 daydream X 6 .3434 people in public 17

lumbers in parenthesis indicate REA item number on question-naire

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND conclusions

purpose

since little is known about postdivorcepost adjustmentdivorce this study

was concerned with three aspects of the social adjustment of female

divorcees living in two distinct areas clarkdarkmark county las vegas nevada

and utah county provo and surrounding towns utah the three aspects

of social adjustment were 1 selfesteemself SEesteem or the minimum discrepancy

between the perceived and idealselfidealadeal imagesselfseif as measured by the inter-

personal check list ICL 2 residual emotional attachment REA or the

tendency to retain emotional involvements from the past marriage as

measured by the REA inventory developed by the investigator and 3 social

activity SA or the participation in activities where one is likely to meet

eligible men as measured by the SA check list developed by the investi-

gator

it was hypothesized that there would be greater self esteem less

residual emotional attachment and more social activity in the clarkdarkmark county

group than in the utah county group and that SE and SA scores would be

positively correlated with each other while REA scores would be correlated

negatively with both SE and SA

methods and procedures

A questionnaire containing the three primary instruments ICL REA

inventory and SA check list questions about eligibility and other

56

andjaiawereqpdj&we in the directions

sooneljremarriessopneyjerarries sooner knows more eligible men has more social

activity the utahiltjilij mormon divorcee has more children and is more likely

to attend church regularly to have some type of individual or marriage

counseling and to stay at home more of the time she knows fewer

eligible men and dates less frequently educationducationcatlon seems to have different

meanings for the two groups generally it can be said that emotional

correlcorrei pubgtwatiatl

thionetjione

of the correlation coefficients were large enough to be statistically signifi-

cant since thethqsarlisamplesampie sizejsize was small and the samples accidental subjects

were not randomly selected and since the validity of the instruments is

questionable any conclusions are merely suggestive some tendencies

eemseem evidentp the las vegas protestant divorcee lets goqo of

toattendcoattend

57

background information and items concerning dating frequency number of

eligible men known and attitudes toward love and marriage was individu-

ally administered to 20 female divorcees who met the minimum qualifications

in each county for the statistical operations the two groups were handled

separately variables considered were l11 quantifiable items of background

information 2 all possible ICIid scores 3 each of the 24 REA items 4

responses to thetho 4 behavior and attitude questions and 5 the SE REA

and SA scores mean scores and standard deviations were determined for

each variable and every variable was correlated with every other variable

the t test was performed to check for statistical significance in the

difference between the means for SE REA and SA

findings and conclusions

the differences between the means for the two groups for SE REAatiiiitdtrm KWHIH w t kimi w twftw wb 3&ifcw vf ghi

cant at the Jevelosjevel.0505OS oflevellevei confidence the correlatjonilhetween

these three scores were generally in the direction hypothesizedpothesized

the past

re zed

een

h pothe sized butbu none

pf

jq4able

4

9quqsailing

E

hw is emig rwawi

direseionstions hypothebypqkqqihypothec sized but only the difference for REA

waswa sjgnifsignificant 05

ao

rablerabie atlvqjyxelatedto self7psteemselfseif socialesteem activity and

npleaple

58

involvement with the past marriage and former husband tends to be nega-

tively related to favorable attitude bowardtowardto

future jnarriage

suggestions for future research

1 the ICL has potential for use by students of marriage and the

family since it can be used to determine congruence of images between

people congruence of self and ideal images and congruence of images

over time for the same person it can also be analyzed in order to study

individual personalities unfortunately the several ways of scoring the

instrument complicate the problem of interpreting the results it would

be useful to compile known results of studies using the instrument util-

izing the information included in appendix F in order to determine what

the different types of scores indicate eleanore luckey and roiferolfe la forge

have both used the ICL in research

2 in order to isolate problems postdivorceofjaostdivorce adjustment the

divorcee should be comparedjwith the widow spinster and married woman

the ICL and SA check list can be used with all categories and REA inven-

tory with slight modifications can be used with widows

3 an interesting study might compare postdivorcepost adjustmentdivorce

with adjustment after the termination of engagement or adjustment to other

types of family crisis

4 details of interest that appeared after the statistical calcu-

lations might be investigated to determine whether they were accidental

or whether they represent reality and if so what they mean for exafnple

what does it mean that for the las vegas group the amount of education was

negatively correlated

of postdivorce aj4j 4ptm n

compared with i 0

exar

43.4343 with attitude toward love variables such as

attitude toward former husband and attitude toward future marriage could

be studied in detail in their own right

rafwai

59

5 to get a more accurate picture of the relatiqrgwppfrelauonjgjaipof placeplage of

residence to postdivorcepost adjustmentdivorce this study could be expandexpanded to

include mormons in las vegasvegplvegal and protestants in utahwwuton hyve fi boftofehyeky t nwrtf f rtf W

re idenceidenies

1WW Uton nk trfuwiftinahaqhadp

bibliography

61

bibliography

bernard jessie divorce in A ellis ed encyclopedia of sexuualbehavior new york hawthorne books 1961 ppap 338345338

bernard

345

jessie remarriage new york dryden press 1956

brown helen G sex and the single girl new york cardinal 1963

burgess E W locke H J & thomas mary M the family newyork american book co 1963

despertDe Jspertspett louise children of divorce garden city N Y dolphinbooks 1962

fromme A sex and marriage new york barnes & noble 1959

goode W J women in divorce new york free press 1965

hagerty E L an exploratory study of the effects of the divorce processand postdivorcepost readjustmentdivorce on the LDS person unpublishedmasters thesis brigham young university 1961

ingelfritzIng marjorieelfritz P mothers on their own widows and divorceesmarriage fam liv 1961 23 384138

jacobson

41

P H american marriage and divorce new york rinehart1959

tonesjones eve raising your child in a fatherless home new york rinehart1959

kunz P R mormon and nonmormonnon divorcemormon patterns JT marriage fam1964 26 211213211

landis

213

J T the pattern of divorce in three generations soc forces1956 34 213216213

leary

216

T A manual for the use of the interpersonal system of personalitygersonaberkeley

litycalif psychological consultation service 1956a

leary T multilevel measurement of interpersonal behavior berkeleycalif psychological consultation service 1956b

luckey eleanore B perceptual congruence of self and family conceptsas related to marital interaction sociqmetrysocipmetrysociometry 1961 24 235250235 250

JT

62

magoun F A love and marriagmarriagemarriaga new york harper 1956

sussman M B ed sourcebookSource inbogk marriage and the family bostonhoughton mifflin 1963

waller W & hill R the family new york holt rinehart & winston1951

appendices

APPENDIX A

questionnaire

PART I1 background information

1

2

3

date

age

sex M F

4 race caucbauc other

9 in what county do you live

10 how long have you lived there

11 how many times have you been married

12 when were you last married

5 religion protestant catholic

jewish mormon other

13 how long did your marriage last

14 how many children do you have

6 marital status

divorced

married

widowed

17 education highest grade

completed

8 occupation

15 how many of your children live with you

16 have you at any time sought marriage or

individual counseling yes no

17 has your former husband remarried yes no

information regarding last divorce use month and year

1 when was the decision made to get the divorce

2 when was the divorce filed

3 when was the divorce granted

4 when was the divorce final

5 when did you and your husband stop sharing the same home and set up separate residences

PART II11

directions the following page contains a list of descriptive words and phrases which you will use indescribing yourself as you think you are and as you would like to be the first column is for yourself as youare and the second as you would like to be

read the items quickly and fill in the firsfcirclefirstocircle in front of each item you consider to be generally descriptiveof yourself at the present time leave the answer space blank when the item does not describe you

after you have gone through the list marking those items which apply to you as you are consider how youwould like to be marking the second column of answer spaces for every item you consider to be descriptiveof the person you would like to be

your first impression is generally the best so work quickly and dont be concerned about duplicationscontradictions or being exact if you feel much doubt whether an item applies leave it blank be sure tocomplete the description of yourself as you think you are before describing yourself as you would like to be

stopsharing

selfelf confidence0 easily led0 modest0 often helped by others0 very respectful to authority0 accepts advice readily0 trusting and eager to please0 always pleasant and agreeable 89

0 wants everyone to like him0 sociable and neighborly

0 warm

0 kind and reassuring0 tender and softheartedsoft

0hearted

enjoys taking care of others0 gives freely of self

1 2

65

66676869

70

71

72

737475

76777879

808182838485

868788

as0s

1 2 1 2

1

column 1 yourself as you think you are I1 am a person who is

column 2 yourself as you would like to be- i would like to be a person who is

0 0 well thought of 33 00 0 makes a good impression 34 00 0 able to give orders 35 00 0 forceful 36 00 0 selfrespectingself 37respecting 00 0 independent 38 00 0 able to take care of self 39 00 0 can be indifferent to others 40 00 0 can be strict if necessary 41 00 0 firm but just 42 00 0 can be frank and honest 43 00 0 critical of others 44 00 0 can complain if necessary 45 00 0 aften gloomy 46 00 0 able to doubt others 47 00 0 frequently disappointed 48 00 0 able to criticize self 49 00 0 apologetic 50 00 0 can be obedient 51 00 0 usually gives in 52 00 0 grateful 53 00 0 admires and imitates others 54 00 0 appreciative 55 00 0 very anxious to be approved of 56 00 0 cooperative 57 00 0 eager to get along with others 58 00 0 friendly 59 00 0 affectionate and understanding 60 00 0 considerate 61 00 0 encourages others 62 CT

0 0 helpful 63 00 0 bigheartedbig andhearted unselfish 64 0

0 often admired0 respected by others

0 good leader0 likes responsibility0 selfconfidentself0

confidentselfreliantself andreliant assertive

0 businesslike

0 likes to compete with others

0 hardboiledhard whenboiled necessary

0 stern but fair0 irritable0 straightforward and direct0 resents being bossed0 skeptical0 hard to impress

0 touchy and easily hurt

0 easily embarrassed

0 lacks

1

90

91

92

939495

96

0000000000000000e0000000P00000000

00000000000000000000000000000000

always giving adviceacts importantbossydominatingboastfulproud and selfsatisfiedselfthinks

satisfiedonly of himself

shrewd and calculatingimpatient with others mistakes 105

selfseekingselfoutspoken

seeking

often unfriendlybittercomplainingjealousslow to forgive a wrongselfpunishingselfshy

punishing

passive and unaggressivemeekdependentwants to be ledlets others make decisionseasily fooledtoo easily influenced by friends 121will confide in anyonefond of everyonelikes everybodyforgives anythingoversympatheticsympatheticovergenerous to a faultoverprotective of others

9798

99100101102

103104

106107108109110111112ilg113114115

116117118119120

122123124125126127128

00000000000000000000000000-000000

00000000000000000000000000000000

tries to be too successfulexpects everyone to admire himmanages othersdictatorialsomewhat snobbishegotistical and conceitedselfishcold and unfeelingsarcasticcruel and unkindfrequently angryhardheartedhardresentful

hearted

rebels against everythingstubborndistrusts everybodytimidalways ashamed of selfobeys too willinglyspinelesshardly ever talks backclinging vinelikes to be taken care ofwill believe anyonewants everyones loveagrees with everyonefriendly all the timeloves everyonetoo lenient with otherstries to comfort everyonetoo willing to give to othersspoils people with kindness

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

131415

161718

192021222324252627282930 031

32

e

1 2

12

seif

I1 yes

I1ialways1alwaysalways use mrs

usually2usually2 use mrs

usually3usually3 use miss

always4always4 use miss

14 do you feferrefertefer to items that once belonged to X

that are now yours as his or mine suchas car fishing pole tools

1alwaysialwaysalwaysI1 his

usually2usually2 his

usuallyminealways4always4 mine

15 are any of Xs personal belongs toothbrushrazor prescribed medicine etc in your home

imost1mostI1 ormost all of his personal things2many2 personalmany things

3a3 fewA personal things4none4 ofnone his personal things

16 do you start when you hear Xs name or onesimilar to it

1often1

sometimes2sometimes2

often

rarely3rarely3

4never4

usually1usually1

never

or always wear it on left hand

2usuallyusually or always wear it on right hand3wear3 itwear sometimes either hand

4kept4 itkept but never wear it5had5 stoneshad reset6got6 ridgot of it

2 how do you sign your name suppose your maidenname was mary jane doe you married david brown

I1 mrs david brown2 marymiry doeDo eBrownbrown3 mary jane brown

4mary4 janemary doe

3 do you have pictures of xidisplayeii in your home

imany1manyI1several2several2

many

3few3

4none4few

4

none

do you carry a picture of X in your wallet

iyes1yeslyesI12no2

yes

5

no

do you dream of X at night

1oftenioftenloftenI1sometimes2sometimes2

often

rarely3rarelynever4never4

6 do you find yourself daydreaming about X

1oftenioftenloftenI1sometimes2sometimes2

often

rarely3rarely3

never4never4

7 do you still do things the way X liked them donesuch as cooking or styling your hair even though

you really prefer to do it another way

ioften1oftenloftenI1sometimes2sometimes2

ortenoften

rarely3rarely3

never4never4

8 if you still have gifts hatthat camecdme from X do you

think of him when you look at or use them

often1oftenioftenloftenI1sometimes2sometimes2

3rarely3

never4never4rarely

67

PART III111illliilil

directions circle the number in front of the response that describes your life situation best your

former husband will be referred to as X

1 what did you do with your wedding ring 9 have you kept the best of Xs love letters

1yeslyes2no2

10

no

do you live in the same house in which you

lived while married

iyes1yeslyesI12no2

yes

11

no

if you have children do any of them resembletheir father more than you

iyes1yeslyesI12no2

yes

12

no

do you send gifts or cards or think ofxofa expeciallyex0epiallyespeciallyat christmas on valentines day on his birthdayor on other special days

ion1onlonI1 allon occasions

2on many

3on3 aon few

4never4

13

never

when making an application or filling out a

form where marital status has no bearing doyou put miss or mrs

2

X fligplayeitinyour

3

youfind

IL

2 on

3 usually mine

youstill frdmx

I1 yes

I1

68

17 do you see people in public that look like X

1oftenioftenloftenI1sometimes2sometimes2

often

rarely3rarely3

never4never4

18 do you ever call a date or other man by Xs name

1often1

sometimes2sometimes2

often

rarely3rarely3

4never4

19

never

do you find yourself comparing a date or other man

with X

ioften1oftenloftenI1sometimes2sometimes2

often

rarely3rarely4never4

20

never

when on a date do you wish you were with X

1oftenoftenloften2sometimessometimes2

rarely3rarely3

4 never

21 do you have the wedding certificate

1yeslyes2no2

22

no

do you have a copy of the divorce decree

iyes1yeslyesI12no2

yes

23

no

if you have children do they remind you oftheir father in appearance or behavior

1oftenioftenoftenloftenI12 sometimesrarely3rarely4never4

24

never

do other people have distinctive mannerismsthat remind you of X

1oftenioftenloftenI1sometimes2sometimes2

often

rarely3rarely3

never4never4

25 how do you feel towards X

1still1 till lovestill him

2feel2 hostilefeel towards him bitter3feel3 indifferentfeel4feel4 friendlyfeel

feel free to make any comments below concerning the effect your past marriage has had on your life and

the influence that your former husband has had on your life

3

3

yentnentjooktook

69

PART IV

directions we are interested in your activities away from home public here means simplya place where you are likely to meet people for example dont check played pinpongpingpongpin ifpong you did itwith your oldest child in your own basement if you played at the local USO or at a friends home during a

party check it

the list below contains a number of activities first go through the list and check each item whichrepresents an experience you have had in the past year then for each item checked indicate the numberof times you had this experience by circling the appropriate letter use the following code

D once every two to four monthsE twice during the yearF once during the year

A once a week or moreB two or three times a monthC once a month

attended public danceattended church worship serviceparticipated in little theatre or

amateur drama groupparticipated in archerywent bowlingattended a night clubattended a church or schoolorschool danceattended alcholicsalcoholicsAlc anonymousholicsattended dinner partyplayed golfwent ice skatingplayed tennis in public courtwent sailingtook a trip alonetook a new job

A B C D E F 16 attended divorcees anonymousA BCDEFABCDEF 1

ABC DEF 2

A B C D E F 3

A B C D E F 4 1

A BCD EF 5

A BC DEF 6

A BCDEF 7

A BCDEF 8

A BCDEF 9

A BCDEF 10 1

A BC D ef11 1

A B C D E F 12 1

A BCDEF 13A B C D E F 14

A BC DEP 15

A B C D E F 17 played pingpong in public placeA B C D E F 18 went roller skatingA B C D E F 19 attended private partyA B C D E F 20 attended office or organizational

partyA B C D E F 21 went on blind dateA B C D E F 22 attended a political clubA B C D E F 23 participated in program of get

acquainted clubA B C D E F 24 registered for part or fulltimefull

schooltime

A B C D E F 25 swam in public poolA B C D E F 26 went skiingA B C D E F 27 did voluntary work at hospital

for benefit drive etcA B C D E F 28 played badminton in publicA B C D E F 29 other explain

directions circle the number in front of the response that describes your life situation best

1

2

in her daily life the single woman probably knows 3

many eligible men including the man next doorwork associates your dentist or other professionalpeople as well as your dates how many do you

know

1overlover 50

225502

310253

25

under4under4

10

50

10

25

adateabate isii defined as any prearranged activity pro-posed by the man it may be a formal activity orjust a walk around the block or a milk shake howoften do you date

ionce1oncelonceI1 aonce week or more

222 or2 3 times month3once3 aonce month4once4 everyonce 2 or 3 months5about5 twiceabout a year6oncegonce a year or less

how you do feel about love

ibrings1bringsbringsI1 greatest joy to life2can be worthwhile and good

doubt3doubt3 it will ever be meaningful in my life4no4 suchno thing as real lasting love

how do you feel about future marriage

1lookilookI1 forwardlook to it2hope2 tohope have the chancedoubt3doubt3 that I1 will ever want to try4its4 notits for me

ABCDEFABCDEF

ABCDEFB C D E F

B C D E F

B C D E F

B C D E FB C D E F

B C E F 11

B C D E F

B C D E F

attended

ABCDEF

ABCDEF

ABCDEF

ABCDEFABCDEF

1 over

6 once

2 can

4

APPENDIX B

SELECTED information FROM THE 1960 CENSUS

table page

blb1B l1 female populations of nevada & utah by marital status 71

b2B female2 populations of clarkdarkmark & utah counties by marital status 72

b3B populations3 of nevada & utah by family 72

b4B estimate4 of divorced white females in clark & utah counties 73

b5B ratio5 of unmarried men and women in clarkdarkmark & utah counties 74

oho016oso

60go

aq2q 097

TABLE blb1B l1 FEMALE populations OF NEVADA & UTAH BY

from table 105 ppap 3013830 9138 and 4616894616846 united1689 statesMARITAL STATUScensuscens reportreportsas 1960

nevada utah

total females

single

married

widowed

divorced

unmarried single widowed divorced

formerly married widowed divorced

of unmarried divorced

of unmarried jo widowed and divorced

of formerly married divorced

ever married

married spouse present

married once

married more than once

other

married once

married more than once

married once now married

married more than once widowed or divorcedordivorced

of ever married 026016afo still married once

of ever married ofo016 married more than oncewidowed or divorced

total96980

13226

69883

8198

5673

27097

13871

20.942094

511951.19

40.904090

83754

45336

20400

11519

6499

45.33645336

38418

54.135413

45.8745874589

141914

1130419

9165

2088

4

47

9216

51

.5151

55.55

92.169216

2.1392139

167898

347

16

1678

461

784578.45

21.552155

203420

298982939834

2482

25122

142

1652

4276

1794

386338.63

419641.96

920892.08

26916

18386

5252

2314

964

18.38618386

8530

68.316831

316931.69

35

56278

1579

42 673

8052

3974

13605

12026

29.212921

883988.39

33.053305

54699

25272

15050

8858

5519

25272

29427

462046.20

538053.80

total290046

56282

199249

2666126.661

7854

90797

34515

8.6586538.013801

22.762276

233764

167692

25740

32085

8247

167692

66072

717471.74717400217700217740

282628.262896

85081685.081616

141914

8510185.1011

4628819

643164.31

3972589725

282601628.26016

6297

149214.92

28

238

39991

266

.6060

.6767

894789.47

6563

5584

84

867

28

5584

979

850885.08

14 92

203420

8806334

11100

74052

412

2499

14011

2911

178417.84

207820.78

8588585

76963

5

65496

6404

4164

899

65496

11467

851085.10

14 90

35

155695

5457

118900

26221

5 117

36795

31338

139113.91

851785.17

163316.33

150238

96612

19252

27054

7320

9661296.61296312

53.62653626

64 31

35.703570

1

29 898398

42673

51 lwoiwoiho 41 9 galogaio

78 45 683101668.31016 46200146.2001

86

168 9

51

55 67

167 692

90020

5100.5100 38 gwo

920801692.08016

215501621.55016 31695631.6956 5 3 80

38010138.0101

60016.60016

89471689.4716

207801620.78016

139101613.91016

851701685.17016

163301616.33016

tsellrylryn

oso016

209gog 373qaq2 496

TABLE b2B FEMALE2 populations OPOF CLARK & UTAH COUNTIES BY MARITAL STATUS

from table 28 ppap 304030 and40 465446 united54 states census reports 1960

total white females 14 years and oldersinglemarried

separatedwidoweddivorcedunmarriedUm singlenarried widowed divorcedformerly married widowed divorced

of total la marriedof formerly married divorcedof unmarried formerly marriedof unmarried jo divorced

markdarkclark co

389654835

28786565

28452499

101795344

738873.88467646.764696525052.50245524.55

utah co

34 989

920522366

135

2749669

12 623

3418639263.9219.57195727.0827085.30530

TABLE b3B populations3 OF NEVADA & UTAH BY FAMILY

from table 108 ppap 3014630 and146 4617746 united177 states census reports 1960

all familieswife married spouse presentwife married spouse absent

separatedother

widowsdivorceessingle women

nevada utah

no of own children no of own childrenfamilies under 18 families under 18

72496 95117 209373 37192665063 87034 192230 352152

661 1178 894 2095667 1249 1054 2316

1681 1057 6933 50212114 3112 3903 7519

300 109 879 172

34989

6392010

46 76uo 195701619.57016

24550h

4

2 051 249

525001652.50016

TABLE b4B ESTIMATE4 OF DIVORCED WHITE FEMALES 143414 IN34 CLARK & UTAH COUNTIES

from table 105 ppap 3013830 9138 and 4616946 9169 and table 28 ppap 304030 and40 465446 united54 states census reports 1960

total females over 14

divorced females 1434145414

of

5434

total ofo016oso divorced

total white females over 14

1.75175 clark 94 utah of above

nevada

96.98096980

1.6991699

1751.75

clarkcounty

38965

682

utah

290046

2737.9494

utahcounty

34989

329

total divorced females over 14

divorced females 143414

of

34

divorced aio016afo 143414

total

34

divorced white females over 14

299529.95 clark 348534.85 utah of above

nevada

5673

1699

29.952995

clarkcounty

2499

748

utah

7854

2737

8485348534.85

utahcounty

699

244

estimate total women 143414 and34 di ed

estimate total divorced women 143414

final

34

estimate mean figure

clarkcounty

682

748

715

utahcounty

329

244

287257

34 989

1 75 9406 2 9 95 34 85

divorced

941750161.75016 348501634.85016

totaltoraltorai unmarried

unmarried men per 100

remarriedrmarriedrsarriedlr women

nevada

men 203920

41351

39

10585

25.592559

92

women 153415

38673

34

11482

296929.692960

utah

men 203920

111821

39

22516

20.132013

48

women 153415

126968

34

46677

36.763676

TABLE b5B RATIO5 OF UNMARRIED MEN AND WOMEN IN CLARK & UTAH COUNTIES

from table 105 ppap 3013830 9138 and 46168946 and1689 table 28 ppap 304030 and40 465446 united54 states census reports 1960

clark county utah county

white men over 14 white women over 14 white men over 14 white women over 14

total

unmarried

total unmarried

42396

12891

304030.403340

38965

10179

261226.122812

33849

11723

34630346334.633453

34989

36

12623

ao0o00360836.083508

unmarried men per 100

unmarried women 127 93

total

unmarried

06 30 40

U nm arriedaeried

a

tortal

APPENDIX C

METHOD OF OBTAINING LAS VEGAS SUBJECTS

this section is a descriptive account of the investigators efforts

to locate subjects in las vegas it is presented not only to show the

difficulty under which she labored accounting for her failure to obtain a

larger sample but also as an aid to future investigators who might need

ideas for means of reaching people who fit a narrow description

the original plan was for the investigator to spend two weeks in

las vegas interviewing 25 subjects there it was assumed that there would

be many women who would fit the description and with the aid of lawyers

no problems in finding their names were anticipated however the inves-

tigator spent three weeks in june and four weeks in august and september

and was only able to locate 20 subjects after the requirements had been

broadened the problems were not due to reluctance on the part of the

divorcees contacted personally to participate of all the potential subjects

at least 100 with whom the investigator talked only one turned her down

the problems were due in part to the reluctance of las vegas women to

answer the newspaper advertisements at divorcees anonymous this was

discussed openly and the consensus was that the women suspected that

the ad was a gimmick the work of a crackpot a man with motives other

than searchresearch or a female wishing to meet females the reluctance of

acquaintances of divorcees to provide their names and perhaps a real

scarcity of women who fit the qualifications

75

re

76

As stated previously it was originally planned to work through

lawyers in order to locate las vegas subjects six lawyers were chosen

and the investigator and her committee chairman each wrote letters which

were mailed together asking the lawyers to cooperate when she arrived

in las vegas however the investigator found all six lawyers unwilling

to cooperate she was unprepared for this situation and for the rest of

the june trip she under the pressure of time acted upon ideas as they

occurred to her the work did not proceed in an organized manner

the investigator went first to the court records and copied down

the names of nearly 200 women who could probably qualify within the time

period however the clerk who was helping her estimated that 90 per cent

of the people listed would not be local the chances of locating any of the

rest were meager and it was not probable that any of those who could be

located would fit the samplesamplsampiesampi requirementse this means of obtaining names

was given up next she typed 60 copies of the requirements along with an

explanation asking for volunteers the message read

31 may 1965

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME to locate subjects for my thesis studyI1 came to las vegas for two weeks to interview ladies but just findingthose who qualify has turned out to be a much larger problem than I1 antici-pated it is a carefully designed study the subjects will fill out ananonymous questionnaire which takes from one half to one hour to completeand should not be in any way embarrassing all subjects must be

1 divorced women under thirty years of age2 married only once now single3 caucasian4 protestant5 resident of clarkdarkmark county for at least a year6 separated from one to two years since she and her

husband began living in separate residences

if you know anyone who fits this description or anyone whomight be able to help me locate subjects please call

sonia richardson6427307642 thank7307 you

S sonia richardson

77

this notice was distributed to friends and people who were in a position

to know women who might fit the sample the plan to post the notice on

bulletin boards in grocery stores laundramatslaundromatslaund andramats other public places

did not prove practical since public bulletin boards are disappearing in

las vegasovegasvegass the employers contacted who were supported by the federal

government stated that it was hotnot lawful to post personal notices the

only notice posted was displayed in the office of the clarkdarkmark county school

district

the investigator also placed three classified advertisements in

the larger las vegas newspaper the advertisements ran consecutively

each for one week

advertisements in the las vegaslegas review journal during june 1965

university student working on thesis wishes to interview divorcees under30 confidential ph 6427307642

FEMALE

7307

student wishes to interview lady divorcees for university researchconfidential ph 6427307642

LOCAL

7307

divorcees under 30 1I need your help on my thesis sonia lillardLVHS 56 ph 6427307642

the

7307

advertisements were answered primarily by men and some

curious people of both sexes three women were interviewed but not one

of them really fitted the original requirements

social organizations primarily divorcees anonymous and single

adult club were visited where it was felt that potential candidates might

be the women attending these organizations were primarily over 34 the

age limit was extended and many had been divorced more than once

the investigator tried to contact every caucasian protestant

minister in las vegas who has a reasonably large congregation during

the june trip she met each one personally during the august trip she had

transportation limitations however she had previously mailed a letter

laslegas

ofanafan

78

to all those she still wished to contact news of her project had reached

many ministers by word of mouth and one very kind minister took it upon

himself to call other ministers that he thought might be in a position to

help explaining the project and preparing the way for the investigators

call therefore during the august trip some ministers were contacted by

phone and some were contacted in person of the thirtythreethirty ministersthree

contacted all were friendly and took time to listen only one said that

he did not want to help the ministers proved to be the best source of

names

another possible source was the large employers here as with

other sources however the only employer willing to help was a personal

friend it was extremely helpful to know someone in the right place fl

the investigator walked into the reception area of X co one of the largest

employers in the area she explained to a blonde receptionist just what

she was doing and was referred to a lady in public relations no one

could help the next week she received a call from a woman she did not

know the woman introduced herself as the wife of a brother of an old

friend and an employee of X company she said that she knew of two

subjects willing to help the investigator returned to X company during

a lunch hour to interview both subjects at the same time and one turned

out to be the same blond receptionist she had met the week before but who

had been unwilling to cooperate with a stranger by the end of the august

trip the friend at X co had supplied five perfectly qualified subjects

the friend who was an employer had his personnel clerk go through their

records A lawyer friend went through his files the difference in attitude

is probably due in part to the willingness to take time to help a friend and

in part to willingness to cooperate with someone whose personal integrity

has been previously established

79

everywhere she went the investigator talked with people if she

ate in a restaurant she talked with the waitress if she bought groceries

she would talk to the clerk she talked with beautyparlorbeauty operatorsparlor

insurance men neighbors newspaper people lawyers doctors dentists

teachers and other strangers one source that might have been fruitful

was not tried it was suggested that she play bingo sit in bars casinos

etc where people talk it might be that the divorcees that she would

have met would have been of the sixweeksix typeweek because residents would

be more likely to have to be earning a living however the source was

not explored simply because of the investigators lack of courage

prior to the august trip the investigator wrote a form letter which

she mailed to approximately 60 people before leaving for las vegas so

that when she contacted them they would be prepared for her primarily

recipients were ministers sorority and womens club presidentspreside lawyersnw

and her former highschoolhigh teachersschool

the august trip was much like the june trip many hours being

spent talking to people who know people the avenue for which the investi-

gator had great hopes was the articles in the paper about her study only

one subject was obtained in this way however

form letter mailed prior to august trip

60 copies

tripmany

I1 ask questionsabout such things as whetherthewhether the subject has pictures of the exhusbandexdisplayed

husbandwhether she dreams about him what she did with her rings

how she signs her name on the last part I1 simply ask her about the kindof social activities in which she has participated during the past yearsuch as swimming parties etc I1 will be glad to show you a copy of thequestionnaire and discuss it with you it is anonymous and the identityof the subjects will be protected

80

576 east 400 southprovoprove utah 846011 august 1965

dear

As you may know during june of this year I1 spent three weeks inlas vegas trying in every conceivable way to locate enough subjects for mythesis study I1 was unsuccessful to complete the study in an acceptablemanner I1 should have twenty more subjects I1 am returning to las vegasabout 20 august with renewed courage and determination I1 will have amonth there until I1 have to return to school for fall semester I1 either haveto complete the sample during this period or admit failure and delay gradu-ation because I1 am this time aware of the problems I1 have to face I1 ampreparing in advance

I1 am writing to you either because I1 met you in june and youexpressed a willingness to help or because I1 was not able to contact youthen but feel that you might be able to help if I1 have talked with you I1just want you to know when I1 will be in town and remind you of the difficultqualifications for the very special women my subjects

if I1 have not met and talked with you I1 shall call you as soon aspossible after arriving in las vegas this way you will be prepared for meand I1 will not need to take up much of your time if you feel that you cannotbe of help

I1 am a graduate student at brigham young university I1 am workingon my masters degree in family life education instead of choosing asimple thesis project and completing it in a short time I1 wanted to dosomething in which I1 was really interested consequently I1 am doing thingsthe hard way I1 grew up in las vegas as a protestant and have since becomea mormon living in utah I1 have found it difficult to cope with the differ-ences in attitudes toward marriage and divorce in the two cultures in away I1 guess I1 am trying to organize my thinking on issues personallyconfusing to me I1 chose to compare las vegas protestant divorcees andutah mormon divorcees on three aspects of postdivorcepost socialdivorce adjustmentbecause professional writing on this subject is practically nonexistentnonI1

existentfeel that even though my study is narrow I1 have a contribution to make

I1 have developed a questionnaire that takes about half an hour tocomplete no one has yet felt that it was in any way embarrassing forthe first part I1 use learys interpersonal check list and ask the subjectsto describe themselves as they think they are and as they wouldwoufdwound like to bethe second part I1 call residual emotional attachment

whetherthe

tolas

esperieexperie nce

81

to identify myself I1 have a letter of introduction from blaine Rporter past president of the national council on family relations whountil recently was the chairman of the department of family life educationat brigham young perhaps you may want to write to the university for varlvarification of the authenticity of my study feel free to do so

my probexhprobjieih at this point is simplyiimply that I1 cannot locate women whofit the sample I1 have tried going through court records I1 had an adver-tisement in the paper for the three weeks that I1 was in las vegas I1 visiteddivorcees anonymous single peoples club even alcoholics anonymousI1 talked with lawyers doctors teachers insurance men beautyparlorbeautyoperators

parlorand employers I1 visited every protestant minister listed in the

phone book if I1 could find him at his office I1 talked with all my friendsI1 talked with people everywhere I1 went dancing buying groceries eatingout I1 did everything I1 could think of at the time now I1 turn to you ifyou know anyone who fits the sample would you please make a mentalnote I1 do not ask that you give me names if you do not feel comfortablein doing this after you have talked with me and assured yourself that thisis a legitimate cause perhaps you will then be willing to ask potentialsubjects if they will cooperate thereby giving them a chance to declinewithout revealing their identity to me I1 have found that after potential i

subjects have talked with me on the phone and they know what I1 am tryingto do they dont turn me down they are glad to help when they know thatI1 having trouble and they are reassured by the fact that 1I too am divorced

here are the qualifications

I11 divorced women under thirty2 married only once now single3 residents of clark county for at least a year4 separated from husband for at least a year not over

three5 protestant christian but not catholic or mormon6 caucasian

experience has shown me that even though people cannot think ofany potential subjects from obvious acquaintance groups sucheuch as clientsor fellow club members they often discover upon reflection that a nextdoor neightborneight orbrbor even a cousin fits the sample perfectly I1 hope that youwill find in your heart to give this problem some thought

sincerely

sonia L richardson

ti

I1 september

82

article in the las aggasveqasyggas sun J seitsejtfejtember 1965

evidently men are more willing than women to discuss their pastsaccording to las vegan sonia richardson A graduate student at brighamyoung university sonia is having her problems

in town for three weeks to gather material for a thesis she placedan ad in the las vegas SUN asking divorced women to volunteer to beinterviewed sonias phone has rung incessantly ever since but nearlyall the calls have been from men

so if youre a female and would like to help sonia earn herdegree call her at 6427307642 it7307 only takes half an hour to fill out herquestionnaire all info provided will be kept confidential and no nameswill be used volunteers must be divorced protestant caucasian womenunder 30 years of age married only once and now single divorced atleast a year but not over three and clarkdarkmark county residents for at least ayear

article in the north las veaasvpaasveals vallevvallpvvaclev times 2 september 1965

A temporary north las vegan sonia L richardson is using herspare time here for an interesting experiment sonia is a student at brighamyoung university in provo utah and is working on her masters in sciencewhile here she is gathering resource material for her thesis titled Astudy of social adjustment divorcees of two cultures

sonia a young divorcee when faced with the problems emotionaland otherwise that confront young women when they become single afterhaving been married decided to find out how these problems affect otheryoung women with a comparison to be made between the mormon divorceesat the university and the protestant divorcees in the las vegas area

she found that not a great deal has been written about postdivorce adjustment so she has had to gather most of her material first-hand and mostly through personal interviews with young women in similarsituations

ii

her study is most interesting and will no doubt provide a realcontribution to the field of social adjustment for divorcees since so littlehas been done so far and the indicenceindigenceindi ofcence divorce seems to be increasing

additional information distrlbutedjduring august trip

CAN YOU HELP ME I1 am so close to finishing school but I1 haveto write a thesis in order to do this I1 have to interview 25 divorcees whofit a certain description as closely as possible I1 have spent a great dealof time trying to locate these special women and am having a lot of troubleI1 have a questionnaire which is not inanyin wayany embarrassing and takes abouthalf an hour toio fill out it is anonymous and your identity will beprotected if you fit the description or know anyone who does please callme at your earliest convenience since I1 must soon return to school

provide

distributed during

6ndtakes

83

1 divorced women under thirty2 married only once now single3 residents of clark county for at least a year4 separated from husband for at least a year not over three5 protestant christian but not catholic or mormon6 caucasian

thank you

S sonia richardson

list of contacts

in order to help future students who might wish to locate certain

types of people in las vegas or any other city a complete list of resources

tapped in this study follows

advertiseitentadvertlsejiaent agencies contacted

personal classified ads culllnarycullinaryCullculi workersinary unionclark county relief

las vegas review journal nevada state welfare deptnorth las vegas valley times nevada manpower divisionnellis AFB century nevada dept employment security

newspaper articles or items professional people contacted

las vegas sullsuitsuilsuli 33 ministersnorth las vegas valley times jewish rabbi

strip chaplainsocial organizations visited chiropractor

school principaldivorcees anonymous 6 highschoolhigh teachersschool formersingle adult social club teachers of the investigatorparents without partners 10 other highschoolhigh teachersschoollas vegas social club school secretaryalcoholics anonymous 10 lawyers

3 dentistsorganizational presidents contactedcontact

clinics contacted15 sorority chapterslegal secretaries dieter psychiatric clinicmedical assistants united fund marriage counselingnational secretaries association american institute of marriageamerican association of university and family relations

women cheathamlongcheatham psychiatriclong clinicuniversity womens clubsoroptimist clubjr mesquite club

84

employers contacted

las vegas review journallas vegas sunvegas village shopping centersedgerton germeshausen agreer increynolds electrical corporationclarkdarkmark county school districtuniversity of nevadabonanza airlinesunited airlinesbonanza club

friendsneighborsinsurance menbeauty parlor operatorswaitresseshostesses and cashiersstrangers in clubs at dances

in grocery stores restaurantsetc

APPENDIX D

MEAN RANGE STANDARD DEVIATION AND correlationcoefficients FOR GENERAL VARIABLES

table page

dld1D l1 mean range & standard deviation for 15 variableiclvariablejiclscores & rea1realreab i 87

d2D correlation2 matrix of 15 selected variables 88

REA 1

avidavldatheseathele

btheathe

explanation OF TERMS INCLUDED IN appendices JD E at&t&

locationF

onquestionnaire

partipartl

M

part IV

part III111

part IV

part II1111

partselfseif

IIIni111illliiesteem

part IVpart 11II

n

u

n

i

part IIIni111ililii

top

bottomtoptop

bottom

top

itemnumber

2

7

1314

5

162

25

I112

3

4

label

ageeducationyears marriednumber of childrenyears since divorcecounselingchurch attendance

attitude toward X

number eligible mendating frequencyattitude toward loveattitude toward marriageselfesteemresidual emotional attachmentsocial activitydom perceivedaPercedomideal

ivedaI11

domDIIdi1dilDI I1

ideal di2DI2

DDIdd1DD I12

domdd2DD

discrepancy

LP

2I11

LIIli1lilLI I1

dom

li2u2LIU

discrepancy

ld12

2

ld2LD

lov

id1ID2

preceivedPrece

id2ID1

lovived

rea1reab2

ideal

additional

I1

explanation

lov

highest

ideal

full

2

year

lov

completed

discrepancy

all

I11

children

lovLD- I

were

discrepancy

living

2

with

interlevelInter

mother

discrepancylevel

years

1

since

interlevelInter

final

discrepancylevel

separation

2

separate

REA

residence

factor

I11

1

abbreviation

ageedyrs mdchilyrs divcounchur

attxattamen

amtami dateatt loveatt mgSE

REA

SA

DP

no 2 yesindicates frequency of attendance during past year maximum being 52once a week or more

range 1 to 6 high score indicating more favorable attituderange I11 to 6 high score indicating more eligible men knownrange I11 to 6 high score indicating greater dating frequencyrange I11 to 6 high score indicating more favorable attituderange ito 6 high score indicating more favorable attitudehigher score indicates greater selfesteemselfhigher

esteemscore indicates greater emotional involvement with the past

score indicates participation in social activity in past yeartable 31 a

table 31

table 32

tables 313131

tables31

313231

table32

31

table 31

table 32

tables 313131

tables31

313231

tables32732

313131

tables31

313231

total32

of items which loaded 50 or more with the first factor after rotation

hese terms are found in leary 1956a19564956 the scores are calculated according to instructions p 15 and changed to standard scores according totable 31 p 91 or table 32 p 92 as indicated abovethe interlevelinter discrepancylevel score combines lov and dom perceived and ideal according to instructions in leary 1956a p 24 utilizing table35 ppap 969796 97

D

part I1

att X

33adom ideal

ib

REA fta-rida

tables31

8388

66gg

go90

TABLE dld1D l1 MEAN RANGE & STANDARD DEVIATION FOR 15 VARIABLES ICL SCORES & REA 1

LVPD figures shown first UMD second

age

education

years married

number of children

years divorced

counseling

church attendance

attitude toward X

number eligible men

dating frequency

attitude toward love

attitude toward marriage

selfesteemself aesteem

residual emotional attachment

social activity

mean254025.409540234523.4512.4012401230128012.8012.305405.403.803801.051051.90190igo1781181.181.781801.801301.301.401401.551553653553.553.65

3465345534.5534.653.403403.053053.353353.203205355.355.255254704.704854.854654.655.25525

28.20282030.85308541.35413552.35523591.30913064.356435

range 1

183318

183418

33

818178 1734

8158

1

0160

15

0120

16

0- 80- 3

12

0- 5

1- 3

1- 81- 31- 2

1- 2

0300

0520

30

1- 6

52

1- 6

1- 61- 61- 6

1- 61- 6

1- 6

1- 6

1- 6

105210

058052

27722758

29822972

191961982

1315813196

standard

158

deviation4.084084.154152.012011.491493973.978973.22322

.83831.29129

.7373.6666.5050.5151

6.8468421.6021601.391392.092091351.351.91191igi1.181181.371371.381381.351351731131.131.731531.33133

111111.11illiiiii167816.7816281140-169446.73467347.9647964996

dom perceived

domideal 1

dom ideal 2

dom discrepancy 1

dom discrepancy 2

lov perceived

lovideal 1

lov ideal 2

lov discrepancy 1

lov discrepancy 2

interlevelInter discrepancylevel 1

interlevelInter discrepancelevel 2

REA factor 1

mean55.005500526552.655965660566.05geog6520503s48.15481511.00110013.7513759.35935

1380188018.8051.35513552.05520554.65546555.00550048.90489049.3549357207.204754.758.458457807.80

44.35443546.45464550.15501562.90629013.251325176517.65

range

466646317031

66

58725870

567256

72

306530

72

24662465

0250

66

0410

25

1181

41

0380

18

36703638

39673970

38643867

44674464

19661967

29722966

1191

72

017019

0280

17

0160

28

091016

01140

91

0910

114

231142391

6286

114

6326

28

standard

32

deviation6746.74

11.8211824.194193.93393398

104710.47100310.03

6.6466411.9611965.98598

10.8510859.999998.098095975.976.89689

10.85108512625985.984514.516.926924.89489

29.03290341.62416226.30263024.5224525855.858.19819

igh mean SE indicates high discrepancy or low self esteem

dom ideal

50 31a 10 47

13 80

12

lov ideal

A 35

11 11

003

118 73

50

51

113

agh

656.5grer .2020

07oq92gg

5759

oiol

07ot06og

oi01gg96

lgig01oi

loio

07og

10ioiolo

07ot

06og

loio

06og

06og

7494

loioiiiliiilgigl

lgig

01oiiglg02og

lo10

02og

02og

09og

loioiolo

oloi

oiol

loio

01oi

iglg

iolo

iglg09og

06og

io10

iglg

00oo

06og

0705

loioliii

io10

oloi

lgig

ilii

06og

iiil

lgig

oiol

loio

07ot

gg96

00oo

09og

loio

oloi

go90

ii11

09og

02og

90go

06og

2328

3080

loio

gg99

19lg09og

lg19

iglg

oloi

lgig

01oi

ii1139sg

26gg

lgiggg92

loiooloi

01oi02og

06og

ig19

iglgoloi3732

06og

iglg

09og

loioglgi

ii11

00oo

iiil

1318

lgig3787

09og

19lg

loio

iili

06og

loio

0803

iolo

00oo

09og

02og

oi01

06og

8494

419019 6202

loo100

TABLE D 2 correlation MATRIX OF 15 SELECTED VARIABLES

LVPD figures shown first UMD secondse

age

corid

education

ag e1

r

i 00

7

co00

70

07

33

08

04

22

18

4415

4603

04

04

40

22

04

45

30

58

04

12

58

03

20

433431

23

37

18

39

02

7084

04

45

30

20

29

03

08

314223

48

04

0422

07

26

07

57

30

58

30

74

02

4108

23

26

12

18

22

27

30

24

14

08

13

21

0322

14

33

20

29

02

41

03

34

21

0803

0329

04

3602

08

02

39

12

08

04

18

03

08

03

04

52

21

37

04

18

3605

21

37

38

07

58

23

26

34

21

04

52

30

08

24

4004

14

25

04

22

18

08

21

3730

25

45

0831

23

18

0744

54

07

18

4403

08

22

27

03

14

04

08

25

45

4017

48

38

03

26

15

46

42

03

1824

07

08

0220

39

02

3717

4125

3329

03

43

34

48

24

14

14

17

18

36

40

31

23

14

02

55

15

26

043123

04

08

04

36

05

04

26

4017

37

55

26

4503

5238

13

02

02

02

08

12

074838

41

22

4503

38

4926

04

4118

0422

13

21

02

39

13

17

44

5403

25

21

52

38

38

17

4039

02

07

26

22

38

21

25

07

26

3329

1514

13

49

26

17

.848494.94

.080803.03

.0262.6202.2020

.060606

1.00106100.4545

1.00100loo1.00100loo

.2222

70.70

1.00100loo1.00100

1.00100loo1.00100loo

30.30

74.74

1.00100loo1.00100loo

1.00100loo1.00100loo

1.00100loo1.00100loo

1.00100loo1.00100loo

.3030 1001.00loo1.00100loo

1.00100loo1.00100loo

1.00100loo1001.00loo

.3939.0202.191937.37

.1717

1.00100loo1.00100

.5555.2626

1.00100loo

1.00100loo1.00100loo

1.00100loo1.00100loo

.0606 1.00100loo1.00100loo

07.07

years married

number of children

years since divorce

counseling

church attendance

attitude toward X

number eligible men

dating frequency

attitude toward love

attitude toward marriage

selfesteemself

residual

esteem

emotional attachment

social activity

aaeage

07.07

.5757

.1414

.3333

.0101.0808.0707.0606.0404.2222.1818.4444.1515.4646.0303.0101.2626.0404.1616.0101.0404.1313.1010.4040

ed.222207.07

.0404.4545.3030.5858.1010.1010.0404.1212.0707.5858.1414

.0303

.1010.2020.0606.4343.3434.3131.232337.37

.0606

.4141

.1818.3939.0202

yrs md70.70

.8484.0404.4545

.2020

.2929.1818.0303.1010.1111.1111.2121.0808.3131.4242.2323.4848.1616.0404.0101.1616.0202.0404.222207.07

.2626

chil07.07

57.57

.3030

.5858.3030.7474

.0202

.4141

.0808

.1717.2323.2626.1212.1818.222227.27

.3030

.1010

.2424.1414.0202.0808.0202.0909.1313.2121.0303.2222

yrs div.1414.3333.1010.1010.2020.292902.02

.4141

17.17

.0303.3434.2121.0101.0808

.0303.0101.0303.2929.1414.1717.0404.3636.0202.0808.0202.3939.1010.1212

coun.0101.0808.0404.1212.1818.0303.0808

17.17

17.17

.0303

.0404.5252.212137.37

.1414

.0404

.1919.0909.1818.3636.0505.0606.1010.2121.161637.37

.3838

.0000

chur07.07

.0606

07.07

58.58

.1010

.1111.2323.2626.3434.2121.0404.5252

.1010

.1818

.0808.1818.2424.0101.4040.0404.1414.1212.1111.1313.1717.2121.2525

attalt X

.0404.2222.1414.0606.1111.2121.1212.1818.0101.0808.2121.3737.3030.1010

25.25

.4545

07.07

.0808.3131.2323.2626.1818.000007.07

.4444

.5454

.0707

.0909

men.1818.4444.0303.1010.0808.3131.222227.27

.0303

.0101

.1414

.0404

.1818

.0808.2525.4545

.1414

.1111

.4040

.1717

.4848

.3838.0303.0909.0202

.2626

amtdate

.1515

.4646.2020.0606.4242.2323.3030.1010.0303.2929.1919.0909.1818

.242407.07

.0808.0202.2020

.4141

.2525.1919.3333.2929

attlove

03.03

.010143.43

.3434

.4848

.1616

.2424.1414.1414.1717.1818.3636.0101.4040.3131.2323.1414.1111.3939.0202

.1212.2222.2121.1010.0101.1515

attmg

.2626.0404.3131

.2323.0404.0101.0202

08.08

.0404

.3636

.0505

.0606

.0404.1414.2626.1818.4040.1717.191937.37

.5555.2626

.0303.5252.3838.1414.1313

SE

.1616

.010137.37

.0606.1616.0202.0202

.0909.0202

08.08

.1010.2121.1212.1111.0000.0707.4848.3838.1717.4141.1212.2222.4545.0303

.1111

.3838

.4949

.2626

REA

.0404

.1313

.4141

.1818.0404.2222.1313.2121.0202.3939.1616.3737.1313

17.17

.4444

.5454

.0303

.0909.2525.1919.2121.1010.5252.3838.1111.3838

.1717

SA.1010.4040.3939.0202.070726.26

.2222.1010.1212.3838.0000.2121.2525.0707.0909.0202.2626.3333.2929.0101.1515.1414.1313.4949.2626.0606.1717

go90

e2E mean2 scores standard deviations & correlation coefficientsfor 5 REA items go90

e3E correlations3 of 5 variables with REA items

APPENDIX E

SELECTED DETAILED DATA FROM REA INVENTORY RESULTS

table page

ele1E l1 first factor of REA rotated factor matrix

92

532582

3484

3888

8683

uau6

90

TABLE ele1E l1

FIRST FACTOR OF REA ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX

only items with factor leadings of 50 or above shown

factorloading

.860860.693693

.655655

.622622.604604532.532

itemnumber

16

206

5

2526

19

item

startle response

date wish with X

daydream X

night dream X

attitude toward X

date compare X

TABLE e2E

MEAN

2

SCORES STANDARD deviations & correlations FOR 5 REA ITEMS

REA item LVPD UMD

daydream X 6

mean180lv275u

s d 1151.15 LV

186u

Xs gifts 8

mean 2.85285 LV

350u

s d 1421.42 LV

176u

73 REA 1

.3131 education

87 night dream X 53.5151 people inin public 17

.4747 startle response 16

44 attitude toward X 25

.4141 date compare X 19

.3636 wallet picture X 4

36 mannerismsManne remindrims 24.3232 Xs way 7

.3131 his vs mine 14

38 REA 1

.3737 attitude toward marriage31 age64 Xs love letters 9

55.55 date wish with X 2054.54 date compare X 19

48 special days 12

.4040 wallet picture X 4

.3131 night dream X 5

85 REA 1

81 startle response 16

64 date wish with X 20

50 night dream X 5

.4949 Xs gifts 8

.4646 Xs way 7

45.45 his vs mine 1445.45 Xs belongings 15.4242 date compare X 19

42 attitude toward X 25

33 mannerisms remind 24

53.53 REA 1

61 divorce decree 22

.5757 wallet picture X 454 startle response 16

50 date wish with X 20.4949 daydream X 6

.4949 Xs way 7

.4848 his vs mine 14

.4343 date compare X 19

.4141 date Xs name 18

41 mannerisms remind 2437 home pictures X 3

mean 1 80 LV

1 15

1 42 Pate1 76 U

860

693

655

622

604

285

142

3130

51

47

4136

32

37

55

54

40

49

46

45

45

42

38

53

35

32

57

49

49

4843

37

.3030 attitude toward marriage.3434 years divorced

.3838 miss vs mrs 13

.3535 attitude toward marriage

.3232 years divorced

.3838 miss vs mrs 13

37.37 children remind 23

36.36 wedding certificate 21

lumbers in parenthesis indicate REA item number on questionnaire

2752.75 U

1861.86 U

3503.50 U

3282

4348

4348

4348

65gg

69gg

kigcig

79og

91

TABLE e2E cont2

REA item LVPD UMD

startle response 16

mean

79lv193u

Xs way 7

meanmean3meana 1301.30 LV

180u

s d

65 date compare X 19

60 night dream X 5

53 date wish with X 20

47 daydream X 6

.4040 wallet pictures X 439 signature 2

37 attitude toward X 25

32 wedding certificate 21

.3232 date Xs name 18

30 special days 12

.6262 rea1reab

.4343 age

.4343 education

53startle response 16

48.48 date compare X 1945 special days 12

44miss vs mrs 13

40 night dream X 5

34attitude toward X 252633.33 same house 10

55 home pictures X 3

33 wallet picture X 4

33date Xs name 18

32 daydream X 6

30 people in public 17

.8989 rea1reab.4444 SE

.3030 SA

81 daydream X 6

.6969 night dream X 56

66 his vs mine 14

63 date wish with X 20

55.55 wallet picture X 4

54 Xs gifts 8

37 miss vs mrs 13

.3131 special days 12

.3131 wedding certificate 21

.8282 real.4747 years divorced41 attitude toward marriage64 daydream X 6

63 startle response 16

.5555 date compare X 19

50.50 Xs gifts 8

43 home pictures X 3

.4343 same house 10

42 night dream X 5

41 attitude toward X 25.3535 Xs way 7

.4747 real.4040 attitude toward marriage39 years divorced.3636 dating frequency32.32 SA

.4949 Xs gifts 8

48.48 date compare X 19

47.47 Xs belongings 15

.4646 daydream X 6

.4444 startle response 16

42 signature 2

.4242 special days 12

.4141 date Xs name 18

.4040 mannerisms remind 2439 wedding ring 1

35 date wish with X 20

REA 1

s d 1 67 LV

1 93 U

REA 1

1 25

1 93 U.5454 wallet

1

44 miss

1 30

REA 1

REA 1

X is

REA 1

73

85

40

62

32

48

45

33

49

40

89

44

30

55

44

42

41

82

47

55

60

43

35

47

40

36

32

49

48

47

46

44

42

41

40

54

53

34

33

417

55.5565.65 Xs gifts 8

54wallet picture X 4

47417.417 attitude toward X 25.4444 Xs way 7

.4242 Xs belongings 15

.4141 date compare X 19

2552.55 LV

340u

sd 167lv193u

date wish with X 20

mean 1251.25 LV

240us d

73.73 LV

1.28128 U

85.85 real

.4343 number children32.32 attitude toward marriage

45.45 children remind 23

.4949 wedding certificate 21

.4040 his vs mine 14

3403.40 U

2402.40 U

.7979 LV

.5353 startlestartie response16

.3434 attitude

1801.80 U

.3333 date

3989

3686

3181

66gg

3686

69gg

3787

glgi

3989

3282

5363

sarnsain house 10 i

withxwitha

TABLE e3E

correlations

3

OF 5 VARIABLES WITH REA ITEMS

variable LVPD UMD

age

education

years married

number of children

years divorced

39 same house 10

34miss vs msmifamfs 13.3131 xsgifts8

57.57 special days 12

.535363.63 children remind 23

43date wish with X 20

36wallet picture X 4.3131 daydream X 6

30 night dream X 5

.3636 wedding ring 1

39miss vs mrs 13

71 children remind 23

43same house 10

45 divorce decree 22

39people in public 17

36.36 mannerisms remind 2431.31 miss vs mrs 13

44 same house 1043 divorce decree 22

39 mannerisms remind 2438 children remind 23

31 people in public 17

30 wedding ring 1

.6969 signature 2

65 wedding ring 1

47 mannerisms remind 24.4343 sameSarh

37 same house 1033.33 childrenCh remindildrenlidren 2330 divorce decree 2230 home pictures X 3

47.47 date wish with X 2044 signature 2

.4444 date compare X 19

.4141 miss vs mrs 13

39.39 Xs way 7

34 daydream X 6

.3232 Xs gifts 8

lumbers in parenthesis indicate REA item number on questionnaire

92

50weddingring

Xs gifts 8

sarhhouse k d

2

b39

s23

43

57

36

43

50

4040

33

30

43

46

4646

42

33

47

4441

54

34

4336

39

43

39

jio

aa

43.43 date wish with X 20

.4343 date wish with X 20.3939 his vs mine 14

.6666 signature 2

.5050 wedding ring 1

.4040 Xs love letters 9

.4040 wedding certificate 21

33.33 date Xs name 18

.3030 night dream X 5

.3636 miss vs mrs 13

37.37 Xs love letters 9

.6161 wedding ring 1

.4646 signature faf2

.4646 Xs love letters 9

.4646 mannerisms remind 24.4242 miss vs mrs 13

.545454signaturesignature 2a

.3434 miss

.4343 date.3636 wallet

.3939 miss

.4343 same

.3939 people

APPENDIX F

DATA FROM DIFFERENT SCORING procedures

FOR interpersonal CHECK LIST

table page

flF l1 ICL raw scores for all subjects 94

f2 ICL scores for LVPD including rank order discrepancy scores 95

F 3 ICL scores for UMD including rank order discrepancy scores 96

F 4 correlation matrix of ICL scores 97

F 5 correlation of 14 variables with ICL scores & REA 1 98

fa

TABLE flFIF Il ICL RAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

17

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Pps10psbasb

7

iscis0csc

4

8

9

5

5

8

10

8

4

7

4

8

8

5

3

8

8

7

8

7

4

12

4

6

9

6

2

9

4

6

5

7

5

7

5

8

3

8

6

B

PS

7

7

11

6

10

4

3

10

4

5

7

3

2

9

5

8

6

3

5

2

IS

8

6

7

5

8

7

5

7

6

5

10

6

10

9

7

9

6

6

9

6

D

PS

6

8

9

3

8

10

1

7

8

6

9

7

3

7

7

4

6

4

5

8

E

IS

6

5

8

6

8

7

6

4

6

6

10

5

7

6

5

4

4

5

7

4

FC-

PS

3

9

7

3

11

2

6

4

7

7

8

1

5

6

8

5

5

7

8

2

IS

1

2

4

0

3

1

2

0

0

1

5

2

3

2

4

2

1

2

2

0

HI

PS

4

4

2

4

5

5

5

3

7

4

8

9

9

7

4

0

5

10

8

6

IS

3

1

3

0

4

2

3

3

5

2

6

3

3

6

4

1

5

4

2

2

JK

PS

7

2

5

4

8

5

9

5

5

1

8

10

10

12

7

2

7

5

8

7

IS

3

3

5

2

7

4

6

3

7

4

8

8

7

11

10

1

8

4

4

5

ltPS

7

4

5

4

8

10

8

2

5

6

12

9

12

13

9

7

7

10

9

8

IS

9

5

8

4

10

10

11

7

12

8

13

8

9

13

12

7

7

8

9

7

N

PS

9

4

5

6

6

5

11

3

7

11

13

12

12

13

7

1

4

7

8

7

0 PPPA

IS PS

8

6

10

6

7

10

8

6

9

7

14

9

7

10

9

2

9

8

9

8

8

9

6

2

3

6

0

1

4

2

3

4

5

5

6

3

12

6

8

9

1

IS

8

6

7

8

7

8

6

6

8

8

6

4

7

10

7

6

8

6

9

6

BC

PS

8

4

5

3

2

9

4

5

5

4

5

6

6

8

7

4

7

6

7

8

IS T

8

5

7

7

8

8

6

3

9

5

4

8

6

9

8

6

6

6

7

7

DE

PS

7

7

4

5

7

7

4

4

3

5

5

8

8

6

4

6

6

3

9

9

IS

7

4

5

7

6

7

4

1

5

3

3

3

3

5

6

2

3

1

8

9

FG

PS

2

5

2

10

6

8

4

0

2

10

6

13

4

3

4

8

1

3

5

6

IS

2

0

2

0

1

2

0

0

2

1

0

0

1

2

4

0

1

0

4

3

HI

PS

3

3

5

11

9

13

5

4

7

11

3

11

3

4

4

10

6

2

3

6

IS

3

5

5

1

3

5

1

1

4

2

0

3

3

3

3

4

4

2

3

6

JK

PS

3

7

8

10

7

12

11

3

5

15

7

6

2

5

6

11

6

5

4

5

IS

3

7

10

2

5

11

4

3

5

5

0

6

5

5

8

4

5

6

3

4

LI

PS

5

13

10

8

8

11

12

4

5

7

4

6

5

9

8

14

5

4

4

5

1

IS

5

11

13

6

12

13

10

3

7

6

2

6

7

9

10

9

6

4

5

5

N

PS

8

5

10

4

7

9

9

4

5

11

3

5

1

3

12

8

9

6

6

8

0IS

8

9

12

6

7

11

8

4

8

8

2

5

6

6

12

8

7

8

7

7

A through NO represent basic dimensions of interpersonal behavior leary 1956abpshpsbs refers to perceived self or ICL columncolum 1

cisGIS refers to ideal self or ICL column 2

paa BC DE

LVPD

LM NO

UMD

LM NO

apa QD

columnnI

I1

185195

TABLE F 2 ICL SCORES FOR LVPD INCLUDING RANK ORDER discrepancy SCORES

dom & lov scores discrepancy scores rank order discrepancy scores

S DP di1DI di2DI1 LP2 li1LI li2LI1

1

2

63 71 62 54 53 46

2 54 65 48 36 49 38

3 66 67 53 37 51 43

4 59 72 65 50 48 37

5 57 62 40 43 53 45

6 54 72 65 51 56 52

7 51 61 37 65 59 57

8 64 69 58 38 53 46

9 48 63 44 46 63 64

10 66 66 51 48 54 48

11 5751 71 63 56 57 53

12 51 62 42 65 59 56

13 46 64 45 70 51 42

14 60 63 42 63 64 66

15 48 58 30 51 62 63

16 61 68 56 37 38 19

17 52 62 39 49 59 57

18 46 66 50 57 55 49

19 47 72 65 55 52 44

20 50 67 52 56 57 53

dd1DD dd2DD1 ld1LD2 ld2LD1 id1ID2 id2ID1 SE2

08 01 01 08 000 004 13

11 06 13 02 081 000 21

01 13 14 06 044 041 28

13 06 02 13 023 041 28

05 17 10 02 041 084 32

18 11 05 01 023 023 25

10 14 06 08 044 044 30

04 06 15 08 044 023 29

15 04 17 18 091 084 52

00 15 06 00 000 066 40

14 06 01 03 041 041 23

11 09 06 09 044 041 22

18 01 19 28 081 091 47

03 18 01 03 000 044 12

10 18 11 12 066 023 26

07 05 01 18 000 044 10

10 13 10 08 066 091 26

20 04 02 08 066 068 22

25 18 03 11 066 084 35

17 02 01 03 066 026 43

dd1DD dd2DD1 ld1LD2 ld2LD1 id1idiidlIDD2 id2ID1 SE2

7 1.515 3 11 2.525 11.5115 3

11.5115 8.585 16 3.535 18.5185 1 4

2 13.5135 17 8 10.5105 7.575 11.5115

13 858.5 6.565 17 555.5 757.5 11.5115

5 17 13.5135 3.535 757.5 17 15

17517.5 12 9 2 555.5 3 8

9 15 11 11 10.5105

cn

25 115

85 35 185

135 105 75

85 65 55 75 115

135 35 75

175 55

105 115

85 log

45

25

85 75 75

115 105 75 55

15 195

25 115

95

185 25 ils135 135 195 95

45 65 55

18518.519519.5 19.5195 19

3 19 3 6 252.5 11.5115 2

9 19 15 16 15 a& 9.5956 6 3 18518&18.5 2.525 11.5115 1

9 13.5135 13513.5 11 15 19.5195 9.59519 454.5 6.565 11 15 15 5.55520 19 8 15 15 17 16

16 3 3 6 15 5 18

11.5115 14

4 8.585 18 11 10.5105 3 13

15 454.5 19 18.5185 20 17 20

1 16 11 1 252.5 14 17

14 8.585 3 6 7.575 757.5 7

11.5115 11 11 14 10.5105 757.5 555.5

17.5175 1.515 20 20

3585

155156

TABLE FSF S3 ICL SCORES FOR UMD INCLUDING RANK ORDER discrepancy SCORES

dom & lov scores discrepancy scores rank order discrepancy scores

S DP di1DI di2DI1 LP2 li1LI li2LI1

1

2

70 70 60 47 47 34

2 59 61rollanol 38 57 65 67

3 59 62 41 64 67 72

4 31 72 66 52 48 36

5 42 67 52 54 57 54

6 43 63 42 56 64 66

7 46 69 58 67 60 58

8 55 64 44 50 54 47

9 53 68 54 53 52 44

10 33 67 54 60 57 53

11 49 67 52 46 45 32

12 38 61 38 40 54 47

13 57 64 45 39 56 51

14 58 70 60 47 53 45

15 64 66 50 58 59 57

16 39 65 48 63 61 60

17 69 65 48 53 55 50

18 62 56 24 51 58 55

19 64 67 54 41 44 29

20 62 60 35 43 44 30

DDLdd1DD 1 dd2DDL ld1LD2 ld2LD1 id1ID2 id2ID1 SE2

00 10 00 is13 000 081 00

02 21 08 10 000 081 46

03 18 03 08 000 044 16

41 35 04 16 114 105 58

25 10 03 00 084094 048 32

20 01 08 10 066 041 50

23 12 07 09 081 044 34

09 11 04 03 023 068 36

15 01 01 09 041 048 24

34 21 03 07 105 066 52

18 03 01 14 066 041 39

23 00 14 07 105 044 56

07 12 17 12 081 084 30

12 02 06 02 041 023 25

02 14 01 01 000 066 15

26 09 02 03 081 044 45

04 21 02 03 000 091 22

06 38 07 04 041 114 10

03 10 03 12 000 044 16

02 27 01 is13 000 081 11

dd1DD dd2DD1 ld1LD2 ld2LD1 id1ID2 id2ID1 SE2

1 8 1 17517.5 4 15 1

3 16 17.5175 13.5135 4 15 16

5.555 14 9.595 10 4 6 555.5

20 19 12.5125 20 20 19 20

17 8 9.595 1 17 9.595 11

14 2.525 17.5175 13.5135 12512.5 252.5 17

15515.515615.6 11.5115 15515.5 11.5115 15 6 12

10 10 12.5125 5 8 13 13

12 2.525 3.535 11.5115 10 9.595 8

19 16 9.595 8.585 18.5185 11.5115 18

13 5 353.5 19 12.5125 2.525 14

15.5155 1 19 8.585 18.5185 6 19

9 11.5115 20 15.5155 15 17 10

11 4 14 3 10 1 9

3 13 3.535 2 4 11511.5 4

18 6 6.565 5 13 6 15

7 16 6.565 5 4 18 7

8 20 15.5155 7 10 20 2

555.5 8 9.595 15.5155 4 6 555.5

3 18 353.5 17.5175 4 15 3

L121 r

5

175

175

55 95 55

95 95

25 25

155

25 95

95 85

35 125 25

85

155

35 115

65

65

55 95 155 55

35 175

96gg

loio

3585

1719

lgig

oi01

gi91

lg19

loio

ilii

llli

iili

96gg

gg96

02og

91gi

gg99

lo10

02og

388809og

liiilgig

10io

lgig10lo20go

iili

4749

06og

06og

26gg

iolo

09og

07ot09og

ilii

26gg

09og

iili

lgig

09og

09og

lill

01oi

iili

09og

ll11

01oi

gg99

gigl

glgiioloilii06og

06og

oiol

iglg

1719

iglg

09og

iiil

ilii

iglg

iiil

loio

1318

29gg

5556

TABLE F 4 correlation MATRIX OF ICL SCORES

LVPD figures shown first UMD second

dom perceived1.00100loo

domideal I11

domideal 2

dom discrepancy 1

dom discrepancy 2

lov perceived

lov ideal 1

lov ideal 2

lov discrepancy 1

lov discrepancy 2

interlevelInter discrepancylevel 1

interlevelInter discrepancylevel 2

selfesteemself

DP

esteem

1.00100

.3535

04.3232

1

dom ideal

dom ideal41

1 OG

013

35

23

35

24

08

51

26

34

14

39

75

2923

38

86

35

22

27

413529

493448

35

4334

12

14

34

24

17

28

14

35

24

26

36

27

20

5033

4934

41

34

15

3424

17

28

13

13

81

27

41

29

03

4126

05

05

04

05

14

32

55

20

78

3529

36

27

29

03

02

32

340203

17

83

14

51

26

26

02

71

467224

3322

36

14

13

17

35

49

345033

05053202

4771

2824

4725

23

3417

483549

3404

05

3402

4672

26

24

4724

07

08

22

25

14

43344134

14

04

03

24

33

28

26

38

59

3718

0453

34

39

14

32

02

38

22

36

24

4724

4738

32

4118

03

75

3424

3424

25

0724

07

59

3732

20

58

75

29

23

17

28

28

20

15

83

26

08

18

04

4118

20

4417

3886

14

13

13

29

78

14

23

26

22

25

5334

03

58

75

44

08

.0101ovioaioal

.555556.56

.9191

1.00100loo1.00100loo1.00100loo1.00100

27.27

.4141

1.00100loo1.00100loo1.00100loo1.00100loo

.2626.4141

1.00100loo1.00100loo

1.00100loo1.00100loo

1.00100loo1.00100loo

47.47

71.71

.464672.72

1.00100loo1.00100loo1.00100loo1.00100loo

.0909.2828

1.00100loo1.001001.00100loo1.00100loo

.0909.2626 1.00100loo

.383811.11

.595937.37

.1818.0404.5353.3434

ld2LD 2

1.00100loo1.00100loo

.3232.0101.4141.1818

.2929.0303

id1ID 1

1.00100loo1.00100loo

.2020 1.00100loo1.00100loo

.4444 1.00100loo1.00100loo

.2323.3535.2424.8181.9696.0808.1010.5151.2626.353517.17

.3434

.1717.1414.1616.3939

75.75

.9191

.2929

.2323.3838.8686

di1DI.3535

1

.2222

.3535.2929.1919.1010.4949.3434.4848.3535.4343.3434.1212

.1414

.3434.242417.17

.2828.1414.1111

di2DI

.3535

2

.2424

.3636

27.27

.2020.1111.5050.3333.4949.3434.4141.3434.1111.1515.3434.2424.1717.2828.1313.1313

dd1DD 1

.8181.9696

27.27

.4141.2626.4141

.2929.0303.4141.2626.0505.0505.0404.0505.1414

.0202.5555.9191

.2020.1515.292978.78

dd2DDrobros

2

.1010

.3535.2929.3636

27.27

.292903.03

.0202

.1414.3232.0202.3434.0202.0303.1313.3838.0909.1717.1111.1212.8383.1010.1414

LP51.51

.2626.1919.1010.2020.1111.4141.2626.0202.1414

.2424.3333.2222.3636.0606.0606.2626.1414.1313.1717

li1LI 1.353517.17

.4949.343450.50

.3333

.0505

.0505.3232.0202

47.47

.7171

.242447.47

.252507.07

.0909

.1111.2323.2626

li2LI 2

34.34

.1717

.4848.3535.4949.3434.0404.0505.343402.02

.464672.72

.2424

.4747

.242407.07

.0808.1111.2222.2525

ld1LD 1

.1414.1616.4343.3434.4141.3434.1414.0404.0303.1313.242433.33

.0909.2828.0909.2626

loo10&

.3939

.0101

.1212

.1414

.1111

.1515

.3232.0202.3838.0909.2222.3636.242447.47

.2424.4747.3838.1111

75.75

.9191

.3434

.242434.34

.2424

17.17

.1111.0606.0606.252507.07

.242407.07

.595937.37

.3232

.0101

.121258.58

75.75

id2ID 2.2929.2323.1717.2828.1717.2828.2020.1515.1212.8383.2626.1414.0909.1111.0808.1111.1818.0404.4141.1818.2020.1212

.1717

SE.3838.8686.1414.1111.1313.1313.292978.78

.1010

.1414

.1313

.1717

.2323

.2626

.2222

.2525.5353.3434.2929.0303.5858

75.75

.4444

.1717

.0808

2.2

ogi661061

lgig19ig

06og

lg19

lg19

loio

4749

00oo

06og

iili

oiol

00oo

03os

li11go90

oi01

oloi

loio

09og

09og

19lg

iglg

lgig

50ao

ilii

01oi

0709

og09

iili

lgig

20go

og09

iglg

09og

loio

lo10

60go

lgig

glgi

01oi

0709

oioliolo

09og

01oi

00oo

iili

loioiglg00oo

glgi

og09

loio09og

07ot

iiil

lgig

2328

66gg

3787

iglg

lgigoloi06og

06og

19lg06og

ig19

iillilii

06og

00oo

iglg

06og

09og

oiol

oloi

06og

loio01oi

loio

lgigoloi

06og

iglg

09og

iolo

liii00oo

0709

lgig

llli

gg96

lgig

lg19

06og

lgig

19ig

66gg

iiil

gigl09og

liilil

qaq0cac0

TABLE Pr 5 correlation OF 14 VARIABLES WITH ICL SCORES & REA 1

LVPD figures shown first UMD second

age

15

3

REA 1

m

1

m

05

08

07

08

13

20

0405

32

4808

22

053607

22

07

21

48

53

22

30

4002

38

23

21

29

23

05

4604

23

03

39

59

18

29

03

25

03

21

4641

3920

20

23

29

03

2305

4705

26

12

37

59

29

18

26

28

08

22

21

33

14

24

29

3502

3518

33

02

08

04

20

44

47

3726

3523

07

20

3503

3608

07

03

14

20

39

33

0427

03

5004

27

4356

22

02

08

24

64

51

30

08

48

4826

21

24

6526

05

03

49

58

07

07

4232

3604

54

56

25

26

02

08

05

50

37

15

42

03

49

58

07

59

08

41

323504

5415

56

25

26

03

08

0422

50

39

07

43

29

30

26

34

02

55

07

12

26

21

27

25

4031

64

15

12

14

04

02

05

4512

35

0812

4042

02

20

04

05

08

02

31

15

02

22

26

3404

25

080821

35

43

32

38

46

14

3412

37

3622

02

3908

08

4805

12

203323

324508

37

02

02

02

08

21

12

48

3817

22

4503

38

49

07

28

08

02

14

22

37

38

12

55

04

08

21

283228

89

28

.0505g5ga

.3636

.282&28

.1616education

years married

number of children

years since divorce

counseling

church attendance

attitude toward X

number eligible men

dating frequency

attitude toward love

attitude toward marriage

residual emotional attachment

social activity

DP

.0505

.1919

.080807.07

.1515

.0808

.1313.2020.0404.0505.3232.4848.0808.0606.2222

.0707

.1919.2222.1919.0707.1010.2121.484861.5353

di1DI.22221

.303047.47

.4040

.0202

.3838

.2323.1717.2121.0000.2929.0606.2323.0505.4646.0404.2323.0303.1313.3939.5959.1111.1818.2929.0303.181825.25

.0303

di2DI.21212

.3131

.4646

.4141

.0101.3939.2020.2020.2323.0000.2929.0303.2323.050547.47

.0505.262603.03

.1212

.3737.5959.1111.2020.2929.0101.1818.2626.0101

dd1DD.1010

1

.2828.0909.0909.0808.2222.2121.1515.3333.1414.2424.2929.3535.0202.3535.1818.1919.3333.0202.0808.1414.1313.0404.1414.2020.444447.47

.5151

dd2DD 2.3131

37.37

.262635.35

.2323.191907.07

.1616.202050.50

.1111.3535.0303.3636.0808.0101

07.07

.0707.0303.1414.2020.3939.090933.33

.040427.27

.1111

.0303

LP

.5050

.040427.27

.4343.5656.2222.0202.1212.0808.2424.1616.6464.2020.5151.0909.3030.1616.0808.0909.1010.4848.4848.2626.2121.2424.6565.2626.0505

LIIli1LI I1.0303.4949.1010.585807.07

.6060

.0707

.4242

.3232

.3636

.0404

.5454

.1616.5656.2525.2626.0202.0808.0505.2121.5050.3737.0101.1515.0707.4242.0101.1010

li2LI.03032

.4949

.0909.5858

07.07

.5959

.0808

.4141

.3232

.3535

.0404.5454.1515.5656.2525.2626.0303.0808.0404.2222.5050.3939.0101.151507.07

.4343.0000.1111

ld1LD 1

.1212

.292910.10

.1616

.0000

.3030

26.26

.3434

.0202.2121.5555.0909.1010

.0909

.0707

.1212

.2626

.2121.1313.2727.0707.2525.4040.3131.1818.1818.1414.1111

ld2LD.12122

.6464.232315.15

.1212

.6666

.141437.37

.1919

.0404

.0202

.16160.101.0606.050545.45

.1212.3535.0606.1919.0606.2121.0808.1212.1919.4040.4242.0202

id1ID 1

.2020.1111.1111.0404.0606.0505.0808.0000.1616.0202.3131.1515

.0202.0606.2222.2626.3434.0404.0909.1414.2525.0808.0808.2121.3535.4141.4343

id2ID.0101

2

.3232.3838.4646.0101.1414.3434.121237.37

.3636

.2222.0202.0606.3939.0808.0808.4848.0505.1010.0101.1212.1010.202033.33

.2323.3232.4545.0808

SE

.161601.01

37.37

.0606

.1616

.0202

.0202

.0909

.0202

.0808.1010.2121.1212.1111.0000.0707.4848.3838.1717.4141.1212.2222.4545.0303.1111.3838.4949.2626

rea1reab07.07

.1616.282808.08

.0202.1919.1414.2222.0606

37.37

.1616

.3838

.1919

.1212.5555.6666.0404.0808.2121.1313.1111.2828.3232.2828.8989.9191.0909

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

because of limited information in the area of postdlvorcepostdivorcepost adjust-

ment

divorce

three aspects of postdlvorcepostdivorcepost socialdivorce adjustment were chosen for

study 1 selfesteemself SEesteem or the minimum discrepancy between the

perceivedandperceive idealselfidealdand imagesself as measured by the interpersonal check

list developed byleary 2 residual emotional attachment REA or the

tendency to retain emotional involvements from the past marriage as

measured by the REA inventory developed by the investigator and 3

social activity SA or the participation in activities where one is likely

to meet eligible men as measured by the SA check list developed by the

investigator the subjects were female divorcees who met certain quali-

fications 20 protestants residing in clark county las vegas nevada

and 20 mormons residing in utah county provo and neighboring towns

utah

it was hypothesized that there would be greater SE less REA and

more SA in the clark county group than in the utah county group and that

SE and SA scores would be positively correlated with each other while REA

scores would correlate negatively with both SE and SA

means were determined for each variable and every variable was

correlated with every other variable mean differences were in the

directions hypothesized but only the difference between means for the

REA scores was significant at the 05.05 level of confidence as determined

by the t test with one exception correlations were in the directions

hypothesized but none were statistically significant discussion

perceived and

by leary

ficat ions

05

I1

included the validity of the instruments and meaning of the scores obtained

comparison of the two areas according to population and behavioral

tendencies and the relationships of certain secondary variables because

of the size and accidental nature of the samples and the questionable

validity of the instruments conclusions were at best suggestive