Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A

    Uploaded by

    Alex de Lis
    6 views18 pages

    Original Title

    a

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views18 pages

    A

    Uploaded by

    Alex de Lis

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 18
    Predicting Dyadic Adjustment From General and Relations hip-Specific Beliefs JEFFREY DeBORD Veteran's Administration Medical Danville, Minois JOHN S. C. ROMANS Department of Applied Behavioral Studies Oklahoma State University THOMAS KRIESHOK Department of Counseling Psychology The University of Kansas er ABSTRACT. The Ognitive mediation model of human psychological functioning has received increasing attention by researchers studying the role of cognitive variables in relationship distress. This study is an examination of the role of general ireational beliets, as measured by the Irrational Belicts Test (IBT; Jones, 1968), and relationship-spectfig ational beliefs, as measured by the Relationship Belief Questionnaire (RBQ; Rormans & DeBord, 1994), in predicting the perceived quality of relationships by married or cohaby ing couples. Results indicated that respondents who reported higher levels of relations ship-specifie irrational betiets also reported highee levels of dyadie adjustment: but con. \rary to expectation, higher levels of general irrational beliefs correlated with lower levels of dyadic adjustment. Implications of these findings are discussed in relation to the lepressive realism hypothesis, WHEREAS THE COGNITIVE MEDIATION MODEL gained the attention of individual therapists duting the last 40 years, several marital and family thers Pists have also begun applying cognitive therapeutic principles in their work (Epstcin, 1985). Until recently however, most practitioners of marital and fam 'y therapy were unfamitiar with cognitive therapeutic techniques, because thels primary usage has generally been in the individual treatment of various psycho Toical disturbances such as depression and anxiety (Epstein, Schlesinger, & Address correspondence to John S. C. Romans, Department of Applied Behavioral Stud fesin Education, 317 N, Murray Hall, Oklahoma State University, Sitwaten OK t20%% 263 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. The Journal of Psvchotogs Dryden, 1988). However, research has indicated an association between certain cognitive variables and marital distress (Baucom, 1987; Thompson & Snyder, 1986). As a result, there has been an increase in literature an the role of cogat tive components in relationship distress (Berley & Jacobson, 1984: Bidelson & Epstein, 1982; Ellis & Harper, 1975: Epstein, 1982; Hurvitz, 1970: Jacobson & Margolin, 1979: O'Leary & Turkewitz, 1978: Stuart, 1980), "As applied to dyadic relationships, the cognitive mediation model posits that the emotional and behavioral reactions that each member of a family or marital R the nature and meanings of the interactions between them. The next logical step in this model is concluding that marital and family problems result not so much from what happens among the members as from their idiosyncratic perceptions of those happenings (DiGiuseppe & Zee, 1986: Ellis, 1978; Epstein, 1982); these perceptions then operate on the various unrealistic beliets and standards that prembers hold about their family and marital interactions (Epstein, Pretzer. & Fleming, 1987). To date, the majority of research on cognitive variables in marital interaction has focused on attributional processes (Bauucom, 1987). Yet, according to Epstein (1986), the most pervasive and most enduring cognitive variables implicated in marital distress are extreme beliefs about one’s self, one’s partner, and the nature ‘of marital interactions. Others have also indicated that adherence to unrealistic standards or beliefs by one of both spouses will likely lead to marital distress and dissatisfaction (Ellis & Harper, 1975; Epstein & Eidelson, 1981). Ellis and Grieger (1977) also argue that marital dysfunction and disappointment occurs when spouses hold unrealistic expectations about their relationship and then evaluate each other's behaviors against extreme standards Empirical validation for these theoretical positions has been documented Epstein and Bidelson (1981) examined the differential correlations of three ind vidually oriented beliefs and three retationship-specific beliefs with marital sa- stionship experiences are in part determined by each member's pereeptions of iefaetion in a sample of couples involved in marital therapy. Their findings indi- ated that all three individually oriented dysfunctional beliefs fell short of statistical significance in predicting marital adjostment scores, whereas all three beliefs about relationships were negatively and significantly correlated with mar- ital eaxisfaction. Epstein and Eidelson also submitted their variables to a multiple regression analysis in which the individually oriented beliefs were entered ist When the relationship beliefs were subsequently entered, the explained variance in the marital adjustment score was significantly increased. Unreatistie beliofs ely correlated with the subjects’ about relationships were shown (0 be ne; sctt-estimated chance for improvement in therapy. desire 10 improve rather than terminate the relationship, preference for marital rather than individually orient ed treatment, and overall marital satisfaction. Results of several other studies have also shown that relationship-spocitic cognitions consistently aceount for more variance in marital acjustment than do Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. DeBord, Romans, & Kriestok 265, general, individually oriented cognitions (Bidelson & Epstein, 1982; Epstein, 1982; Epstein et al., 1987; Jones & Stanton, 1988). Although most of these stud ies have failed to take into account the similarity of beliefs between partners, Jones and Stanton did make an attempt to examine the relationship between dys. functional relationship beliefs, belief similarity, and marital distress. They found that dysfunctional relationship beliefs and the perceived similarity of these beliefs were both correlated with marital distress, but the actual similarity of such beliefs was not. In this study, our primary goals were to examine (a) the relative contribution of general irrational belief’ and of relationship-specific beliefs to overall marital adjustment; (b) the contribution of belief similarity to level of marital adjust- ment; (c) the contribution of a couple's mean level of adherence to dysfunction- al beliefs to marital adjustment; and (d) the contributions of a composite belief index, comprising belief similarity and the degree 10 which beliefs are held, to marital adjustment. We hypothesized that (a) relationship-specific beliefs would account for more variance in dyadic adjustment than would general irrational beliefs: (b) belief similarity of spouses would account for more variance in dyadic adjust- ‘ment than either spouse's individual beliefs considered separately; (c) a couple's ‘mean level of adherence to dysfunctional beliefs would account for more vari- ance in dyadic adjustment than either spouse's individual beliefs considered sep- arately; and (d) a couple's composite index of beliefs would account for more variance in dyadic adjustment than either spouse's individual beliefs considered Separately, their belief similarity, or their mean level of adherence to dystine: tional beliefs Method Participants We distributed 567 questionnaire packets (a demographic sheet and a ques- Hlonnaire for each member of a marital dyad) to a variety of community, educa tional, and work sites in the midwestern and southwestern United States; 101 usable questionnaire packets were returned, including 30 from couples with at least one member involved in some type of outpatient counseling or psychother- apy. The participants inthis clinical subset were obtained from a vatiety of sites, including outpatients at two Veteran's Administration medical centers, Catholic social service organizations, a marital and family therapy clinic, and other private and community mental health clinics. The remaining 71 couples were recruited from various churches and places of employment. ‘The mean age of the participants was 42 years, and the mean length of mat ‘age was 17 years. All of the 101 men in the study were Caucasian, as were 99 of the 101 women: the other two women were Hispanic and Native American Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. 26 __ The Sowrnal of Pyycholagy _ Z Instruments The Dyadic Adjustment Seale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) is a 32-item, self administered questionnaire designed to assess the quality of the relationship as perceived by married or cohabiting couples. The seale can be used as an overall measure of satisfaction in a relationship by summing the item responses. Total scores on the DAS 114.8. Higher scores indicate a more satisfactory relationship, Fredman and Sherman (1987) reported that the total scale alpha for the DAS is .96 and that the DAS correlates with the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (MAS: Locke & Wallace, 1959) at .86 for married couples. In addition to the total score obtained on the DAS, a composite index of dyadic adjustment was used, which incorporates each partner's total raw score and the differences between them. The formula for this composite dyadic adjust ment index (CDAS) is range from 0 to 151, with a mean for married couples of cpas = 1X, +X)/ 21d a where [(X, + X,)/2] is the mean of the raw scores of eae member of the dyad and d is a difference index developed by Cronbach and Gleser (1953). This index is the square root of the sum of the squared differences between corresponding items on each partner's self-ratings. Thus, the CDAS takes into account each parner’s separate raw dyadic adjustment score, as well as a measure of the dit ferences between the partners. The Irrational Beliefs Test (IBT: Jones, 1968) is a 100-item self-report inventory to which individuals respond on a S-point Likert-type scale, The 187 is designed to assess the extent {0 which one holds fo 10 unrealistic, irational. oF dysfunctional beliefs about oneself and one’s world. Total IBT scores can range from 100 to 500 for each individual, with higher scores indicative of greater adherence to dysfunctional beliefs. This total IBT score has been shown to have test-retest reliability of .92 (Hord & Kirk, 1986) and has demonstrated conver- went validity by correlating highly with measures of depression (Nelson, 1977) and dysfunctional attitudes about marriage (Bidetson & Epstein, 1982) Tn addition to the total score of each partner. a composite score for cach pa was derived in the same manner as that used for the DAS. with the exception that v7 was added to the mean rather than subtracted, because higher IBT seores ind cate a greater degree of irrationality. Similarity of couples’ IBT scores (IBTSim) represents the absolute value of the couples” scores. Conples’ mean IBT scores are represented by IB'TX. The Relationship Beliefs Questionnaire (RBQ: Romans & DeBord, 1994) consists of 71 items to which individuals respond on a 6-point Likert-type scale Total scores on the RBQ can range from 71 to 426, with higher scores indicating sreater adherence to dysfunctional beliefs. The RBQ items are contained in the Appendix, Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. __DeBond, Romans. & kries Originally, 142 items were developed for the RBQ. This 142-item version ‘was administered to 370 individuals recruited from employment and community settings in the Midwest and the Southwest. Following item analysis, we us Principal axis factoring with varimax rotation for the analytic procedure. Origi- nally, 29 factors were extracted with eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater. Closer inspec tion revealed 9 factors that made conceptual sense and at least 5 items with vari able loadings of at least .35. Items that failed to load on one of these 9 factors andfor bad factor loadings of less than .35 were subsequently eliminated. We used these 9 factors to develop 9 dimensions. These dimensions, the umber of items on each, and the Cronbach alpha measure of internal consisten- Cy obtained from the current study are as follows: (1) We should be completely open and honest with each other at all times (14 items, alpha = .91); (2) We should be able to read each other's minds (7 items, alpha = .83); (3) We should do everything together (8 items, alpha = .85): (4) We should be able to meet all of each other's needs (9 items, alpha = .88); (5) We should be willing and able to change for each other (9 items, alpha = .77); (6) Things should always be perfect between us (7 items, alpha =.75); (7) Good relationships should be easy to main- {ain (6 items, alpha = 68); (8) One can never be complete without being involved in a romantic relationship (5 items, alpha = .61); (9) Romantic idealism (6 items, alpha = .76) . The total 71-item RBQ scale has an alpha level of .95. As for the other two measures used in this study, we computed a composite of relationship-specifie beliefs (CRBQ) between spouses. Similaity of couples? RBQ scores (RBQSim) represents the absolute value of the couples’ RBQ score Uifferences. The couples’ mean RBQ score was represented as RBQX, Procedure Couples who agreed to participate in this study were given a questionnaire Packet containing a consent form, demographic shect, the DAS, IBT, and RBQ for each person, The couples were asked to take the packets home to complete, but were discouraged from discussing their answers with each other. They were asked to return completed questionnaire packets in return envelopes provided by the experimenters. Results Means and standard deviations for the assessment instruments and derived Scores show that the mean DAS score for the sample was 110.29 (Table 1). This score is somewhat below the score of 114.8 that Spanier (1976) found to be the ‘mean for married couples. No significant gender differences were found on the IBT or DAS, However, men were found to score significantly higher on the RBQ than women, (200) = 2.60, p <.01 The correlation matrix for each of the obtained scores (by gender) and the Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. 2O8_The Jeuruat of TABLE I Means and Standard Deviations for the Irrational Beliefs Test (IB), the Relationship Belief Questionnaire (RBQ), and Dyadic Adjustment Seale (DAS) by Gender, and for Couples Derived Scores _Women = 101) M ‘SD IBT, RBQ, und DAS IBT 294.36 30.43 292.90 30.70 RBQ 20131 46.29 183.73 19.6 DAS. 109.39 13.93 may, 14.25 Couples derived scores 7 tol) M SD IRTSim 3078 2798 IBTx 29363 2054 ciBT 308.25, 80 RBQSim 4389 3565 RBOX 192.8? 39.69 cREQ 206.66 4039 CAS 105.46 1390 sessment instruments are contained in Table 2, We exam- atest for derived scores on thi ined various elements of this matrix for each of the hypotheses. usin the significance of the difference between dependent rs (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) Hypothesis 1- Relationship-specitic irrational beliefs account for more vari ance in dyadic adjustment than do general irrational beliefs Both belief measures (IBT & RBQ) correlated significantly (p < 01) with dyadic adjustment, However, despite the fact that the IB and RBQ were signi icantly and positively correlated with each other. they correlated in opposite directions with dyadic adjustment. In other words, as the level of adherence t© genta irrational beliefs increased, the level of dyadic adjustment dressed Put x the level of adherence to telationship-specific irrational beliefs increased, so ddd dyadic adjustment, We applied Cohen and Cohen's (1983) test of the signi ‘cance between dependent 75 to examine whether retationship-specific beliefs ‘ictually accounted for more variance in dyadic adjustment than did general ire tional beliefs Use of this test formula indicated that the RBQ was significantly more highly correlated with the DAS than was the IBT, 1199) = 2.04, p< 05. ‘This finding supports the first hypothesis that relationship-specific irrational Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. weld zo- = pg w- a elt to" 61 owt 6 10 #87 60) wT Lat 0 ODT w66Z e667 a ae 97 wets OTE nd OO! e627 066" seSE aL ST 1 ss78" wall 01 soft U- waz6 welf) eefl’ axe well 60 rl seth 904469" oor 0c" gr Cad OL wale 9071 ‘SLal XO@U XLai O8YD SVD LAID Isla svaa Oa. iain SvaW (Oa SHSUINAASUT JUoUSsassy UO sAI0DH Pas}I9C] PUN POUTEIGO 40} LANEY WoHE|aLI0- TaTAVL Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. 210,_The Jounal of Psycholen beliefs account for more variance in dyadic adjustment than do general irrational beliefs. Hapothesis 2: Belief similarity of spouses aecounts for more variance in dyadic adjustment than will either spouse's individual beliefs considered sepa rately For Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, the correlations of both belief measures were analyzed separately for male, female. and) composite measures of dyaalic adjust- ment, Thus, statements regarding whether these hypotheses are supported are based on an integration of three different perspectives. ‘The data suggest that for the relationship among IBT similarity (BTSim). male DAS score (MDAS), and composite DAS score (CDAS). the la of variance in dyadic adjusunent was accounted for by belief similarity (IBY Sim), However, IBTSim was not more highly correlated with dyadic adjustment dividual IBY score. Thus, support for this hypothesis fest portion than was either spouse's regarding the IBT is rather weak, Relationship-specific belief similacity (RBQSim) had a consistently lower correlation with dyadic adjustment than either spouse's individusil RBQ score did. ‘Thus. regarding RBQSim. Hypothesis 7 received no support whatsoever, Overall, the data suggest that the hypothesis that belief similarity accounts for more variance in dyadic adjustment than does cither spouse's individual belief scores is not supported Hypothesis 3: A couple's mean level of adherence t0 dysfunctional beliefs accounts for more variance in dyadic adjustment than either spouse's individual beliefs considered separately IBTX accounted for more variance in dyadic adjustment for both male (MDAS) and composite (CDAS) levels of marital adjustment than did either spouse's individual IBT score, However, IBTX was aot more highly correlated with dyadic adjustment than both spouse's individual scores, hus, as with the IBT in Hypothesis 2. the data provide only limited support for Hypothesis 3 4 couple's mean level of adherence to relationship-specific beliels (RBQX) accounted for more variance in CDAS than did either spouse's individual RBQ

    You might also like