Marital adjustment in Relation to ‘Similarity’ and ‘Dissimilarity’ of Spouses on Perceived Parental Rearing Styles Rashmi Rani Department of psychology

Marital adjustment in Relation to ‘Similarity’ and ‘Dissimilarity’ of Spouses on Perceived Parental Rearing Styles
Rashmi Rani
Department of psychology,
Mahatama Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith,
Varanasi-221002
Well-adjusted children were associated with a consistent, firm, warm and supportive parenting styles (Baumrind, 1968, &1991). Meesters, Muris, and Esselink (1995) described that rejection was the strongest predictor of hostility. Studies have shown that male offenders perceived their fathers as being more rejecting than non-offenders (Palmer & Hollin, 1999). A number of studies revealed that adult children’s marital quality may be shaped both by early family experiences and parent-child relationships and by existing intergenerational relationships.
The link between parent-child relationships in childhood and intimate relationships in adulthood has been the focus of a number of theoretical frameworks, including psychoanalytic theory (Freud, 1949), life-span developmental approach (Baltes ; Reese, 1984); attribution theory (Kelly, 1972); attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969); and Bowen’s (1978) intergenerational theory. Studies showed a significant relation between marital functioning and quality of parent child relationships and parenting stress (Cox, Owen, Lewis, & Henderson, 1989; Floyd, Gilliom, & Costigan, 1998; Merrifield & Gamble, 2013; Sturge-Apple, Davies, & Cummings, 2006). Marital conflict was found to be associated with parents’ withdrawal from a parenting role and their engagement in dysfunctional interactions denoted by permissiveness, hostility, and tension (Almeida, Wethington, ; Chandler, 1999; Fauchier ; Margolin, 2004; Kerig, Cowan, ; Cowan, 1993; Krishnakumar ; Buehler, 2000).
Marital adjustment has long been a popular topic in studies of the family, probably because the concept is believed to be closely related to the stability of marriage (Broman, 2005). Well-adjusted marriages are expected to last for a long time, while poorly adjusted ones end in divorce. Studies are indicative that marital satisfaction is strongly related to rejection (negatively) and emotional warmth (positively). Emotional stability most related to rearing styles, especially rejection, emotional warmth, and control attempts (Arrindell et al., 1999). A number of studies (Fisiloglu ; Demir, 2000; Gentili, Contreras, Cassaniti, D’ Arista, 2002; Rossier, Rigozzi, Charvoz, & Bodenmann, 2006; Vandeleur, Fenton, & Ferrero, 2003) provide theoretical and empirical foundations in these perspectives.
Rani, et al., (2016) revealed the role of perceived parental rearing styles in the marital adjustment of couples. One step ahead the present study try to find the answer of the question that “similar and dissimilar perceived parenting style of married couple may play or not play role in marital adjustment in Indian married couples”. So the study aimed to elucidate the marital adjustment (marital consensus, marital cohesion, marital satisfaction and affectional expression) exclusively in relation to ‘similarity’ and ‘dissimilarity’ on rejection and warmth factors of perceived parental rearing styles.

METHODS AND PROCEDURE
Sample
Three hundred couples (300 husbands and 300 wives) with at least Graduation qualification were sampled by snowball sampling procedure. This was aimed in view of the theoretical foundations that by – mid-life – which, for most couples, occurs 10–20 years into marriage – life tasks change considerably. Number of extraneous variables like age of both the spouses, length of marriage, educational qualification, job status (employed / unemployed), family structure (nuclear / joint), ecological background (rural / urban) and socio – economic status were recorded with the objective to equate / match the samples in order to find representative samples for the conduct of the study. The average length of marriage was observed to be 228 + 6.57 months (almost 19 to 20 years).

The distinction of spouses with regards to ‘similarity’ and ‘dissimilarity’ of spouses on ‘rejection’ (low and high scorers) and ’emotional warmth’ (low and high scorers) factors of perceived parental rearing styles (from median cut points) were aimed for studies on facets of marital adjustment. The ‘rejection’ (low and high scorers) and ’emotional warmth’ (low and high scorers) factors of perceived parental rearing styles were selectively aimed in view of the fact that these scales are significantly negatively correlated, and that these two scales are significantly positively correlated (Arriendell et al., 1986 a & b; Perris et al., 1980; Singh & Fente, 1998).
Behavioural Measures
720090024003000
Marital adjustment Scale (MAS; Singh & Rani, 2010)
The MAS is Hindi version of Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier & Filsinger, 1983) designed to measure marital adjustment consists of 32 – items which yields scores on four subscales; (i) marital consensus (MC; the degree to which the couple agree on matters of importance to relationship), (ii) marital cohesion (MCH; the degree to which the couple engages in activities together), (iii) marital satisfaction (MS; the degree to which the couple is satisfied with the present state of relationship and is committed to its continuance); and (iv) affectional expression (AE; the degree to which the couple is satisfied with the expression of affection and sex in the relationship).
Perceived Parental Rearing Style Questionnaire (PPRSQ; Singh, et al., 2013)
The PPRSQ is Hindi adaptation of EMBU (Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran – my memories of upbringing) developed by Perris et al. (1980). It is a psychometrically sound self – report measure to assess adults’ recollections of their parents’ child rearing behaviour in four primary factors, referred to as Perceived Parental Rearing Style (PPRSQ): (i) Rejection (R) – 25 items, (ii) Emotional Warmth (EW) – 18 items, (iii) Overprotection (OP) – 16 items; and (iv) Favouring Subject (FS) – 5 items. The 64 – items are to be rated on 4 -point Likert – type scales by the subjects for each parent (father and mother) separately. The theoretical range of scores for Rejection (R), Emotional Warmth (EW), are 25 – 100, 18 – 72, 16 – 64, and 5 – 20 respectively.
Procedure
First of all, good rapport was established with the subjects, kept relaxed and pleasant in order to elicit the most frank or candid answers possible, advised not to dwell for any length of time on any given item, to give his overall reaction, were informed that there is no right or wrong answer to any item, and encouraged to respond rapidly and the way they really feel. The two behavioural measures, MAS and PPRSQ, were filled in by the respondents in a random manner to find anonymous response of the respondents.

Result and Discussion
The analysis of marital adjustment of spouses in relation to rejection and warmth factors of perceived parental rearing styles on the various facets of marital life were selectively attempted. For this purpose, four groups of spouses: both the spouses (husband and wife) scoring low (Group – 1), husband scoring low and wife scoring high (Group – 2), husband scoring high and wife scoring low (Group – 3), and both the (husband and wife) scoring high (Group – 4) on rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style (from median cut point) were screened out and their corresponding total sum of scores (the sum of husband and wife scores on each measure of the dependent variable as a unit) was aimed for analysis. In a similar manner, four groups of spouses based on emotional warmth (from median cut point) factor of perceived parental rearing style were screened out and their total sum of scores (the sum of husband and wife scores on the each measure of the dependent variable as a unit) was aimed for analysis.

Mean and SD values for four groups as distinguished on the basis of perceived parental rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style on the facets of marital adjustment (the composite scores of husband and wife as a unit on each facets of marital adjustment) are shown in Table – 1. One way ANOVA revealed significant effects on marital consensus (F(3/284)=7.072, p>0.01), affectional expression, (F(3/284)=17.466, p>0.01), marital cohesion(F(3/284)= 18.520, p>0.01), overall marital adjustment (F(3/284)=9.830, p>0.01), and non-significant effect of marital satisfaction (F(3/284)=1.814, p>0.01).
Table – 1: Mean and SD values for the four – groups on ‘rejection’ factor of perceived parental rearing styles on marital adjustment
Dependent variables HL /WL HL /WH HH/WL HH / WH
Low (N) =122 High (N) = 24 Low (N) = 26 High (N) = 116
Marital consensus 128.172 + 19.661 127.71 + 17.778 109.35 + 21.32 120.66 + 22.479
Affectional expression 33.533 + 5.581 32.625 + 7.441 27.962 + 6.135 28.31 + 6.197
Marital satisfaction 52.59 + 12.665 52.542 + 15.915 47.654 + 15.602 49.638 + 11.09
Marital cohesion 35.18 + 7.284 34.333 + 10.789 31.731 + 9.841 27.328 + 8.452
Overall marital adjustment 249.475 + 39.232 247.21 + 44.74 216.69 + 50.796 225.94 + 36.116
HL / WL = Low scoring husband / low scoring wife, HL / WH = Low scoring husband / high scoring wife,
HH / WL = high scoring husband / low scoring wife, HH / WH = high scoring husband / high scoring wife
The patterns of mean differences were highlighted by applying Tukey test. Analysis of ‘between groups’ effect on (i) marital consensus revealed that both the spouses (husband and wife) scoring low (M = 128.172) and husband scoring low and wife scoring high (M = 127.708) exhibited significantly more marital consensus as compared to spouses scoring high (M = 120.664), and husband scoring high and wife scoring low (M = 109.346) on rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style. Additionally, the spouses (husband and wife) scoring low (M = 128.172) revealed significantly more marital consensus as compared to the spouses scoring high on rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style (vide Table – 2 a), (ii) affectional expression measure revealed significantly more affectional expression in spouses scoring low (M = 33.533), and husband scoring low and wife scoring high (M = 32.625) as compared to the spouses scoring high (M = 28.310), and husband scoring high and wife scoring low (M = 27.962) on rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style(vide Table – 2 b), (iii) marital cohesion measure revealed significantly more marital cohesion in spouses scoring low (M = 35.180), and the group wherein husband scoring low and wife scoring high (M = 34.333) as compared to the spouses scoring high (M = 27.328) on rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style (vide Table – 2 c), (iv) on overall marital adjustment revealed significantly more overall marital adjustment in spouses scoring low (M = 249.475), husband scoring low and wife scoring high (M = 247.208) as compared to the spouses scoring high (M = 225.940), and husband scoring high and wife scoring low (M = 216.692) on rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style (vide Table – 2 d). In essence, over all analysis of results provided empirical bases sufficient enough to conclude significantly more indices in the group of spouses scoring low than in high scorer spouses on rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style on marital consensus, affectional expression, marital cohesion, overall marital adjustment.

Table – 2: Tukey Test showing the patterns of mean differences in significant ‘between groups’ effects on measures of the dependent variables
Dependent variables Groups
Means HH / WL HH / WH HL / WH HL / WL
109.346 120.664 127.708 128.172
Marital consensus 109.346 x 11.318 18.362* 18.826**
(Table – 2a) 120.664 x 7.044 7.508*
127.708 x .464
Means HH / WL HH / WH HL / WH HL / WL
Affectional expression 27.962 28.310 32.625 33.533
(Table – 2b) 27.962 x .348 4.663* 5.571**
28.310 x 4.315** 5.223**
32.625 X .908
Means HH / WH HH / WL HL / WH HL / WL
Marital cohesion 27.328 31.731 34.333 35.180
(Table – 2c) 27.328 x 4.403 7.005** 7.852**
31.731 x 2.602 3.449
34.333 x .847
Means HH / WL HH / WH HL / WH HL / WL
Overall marital adjustment 216.692 225.940 247.208 249.275
(Table – 2d) 216.692 x 9.248 30.516* 32.783**
225.940 x 21.268 23.535**
247.208 x 2.267
** Significant at .01 level* Significant at .05 level
HL / WL = Husband scoring low / Wife scoring low, HL / WH = Husband scoring low / Wife scoring high
HH / WL = Husband scoring high / Wife scoring low, HH / WH = Husband scoring high / Wife scoring high
Mean and SD values for four groups as distinguished on the basis of perceived emotional warmth factor of perceived parental rearing style on marital adjustment (the composite scores of husband and wife as a unit on facets of marital adjustment) are shown in Table – 4.
Table – 3: Mean and SD values for the four – groups on ‘warmth’ factor of perceived parental rearing styles on measures of the dependent variables
Dependent variables HL /WL HL /WH HH/WL HH / WH
Low (N) =105 High (N) = 41 Low (N) = 43 High (N) = 101
Marital consensus 115.981 + 26.961 115.22 + 17.693 123.67 + 17.28 133.35 + 15.774
Affectional expression 29.276 + 7.387 28.341 + 5.503 31.047 + 6.862 33.743 + 5.027
Marital satisfaction 46.876 + 16.072 47.854 + 10.758 52.674 + 9.164 55.129 + 10.042
Marital cohesion 29.467 + 9.738 32.317 + 8.057 31.163 + 9.255 33.99 + 8.089
Overall marital adjustment 221.6 + 52.706 223.73 + 36.246 238.56 + 31.766 256.21 + 28.388
HL / WL = Husband scoring low / Wife scoring low HL / WH = Husband scoring low / Wife scoring high
HH / WL = Husband scoring high / Wife scoring low HH / WH = Husband scoring high / Wife scoring high
One way ANOVA revealed significant effects on marital consensus (F(3/286)=14.038, p>0.01), affectional expression (F(3/286)=11.391, p>0.01), marital satisfaction (F(3/286)=8.487, p>0.01), marital cohesion (F(3/286)=4.562, p>0.01), overall marital adjustment (F(3/286)=14.247, p>0.01). The patterns of mean differences in the ‘between groups’ effects were highlighted by applying Tukey test. Analysis of significant ‘between groups’ effect on (i) marital consensus revealed significantly more marital consensus in spouses (husband and wife) scoring high (M = 133.347) as compared to husband scoring high and wife scoring low (M = 123.674), spouses (husband and wife) scoring low (M = 115.981) and husband scoring low and wife scoring high (M = 115.220) on emotional warmth factor of perceived parental rearing style (vide Table 4 a), (ii) affectional expression measure revealed significantly more affectional expression in spouses (husband and wife) scoring high (M = 33.743) as compared to husband scoring high and wife scoring low (M = 31.047), spouses (husband and wife) scoring low (M = 29.276), and husband scoring low and wife scoring high (M = 28.342) on emotional warmth factor of perceived parental rearing style (vide Table – 4 b), (iii) marital satisfaction revealed significantly more marital satisfaction in spouses (husband and wife) scoring high (M = 55.129) as compared to husband scoring high and wife scoring low (M = 52.647), husband scoring low and wife scoring high (M = 47.854) and spouses (husband and wife) scoring low (M = 46.876) on emotional warmth factor of perceived parental rearing style (vide Table – 4 c), (iv) marital cohesion revealed significantly more marital cohesion in spouses (husband and wife) scoring high (M = 33.990) as compared to husband scoring low and wife scoring high (M = 32.317), husband scoring high and wife scoring low (M = 31.163) and spouses (husband and wife) scoring low (M = 29.467) on emotional warmth factor of perceived parental rearing style (vide Table – 4 d), (v) overall marital adjustment revealed significantly more overall marital adjustment in spouses (husband and wife) scoring high (M = 256.208) as compared to husband scoring high and wife scoring low (M = 238.558), husband scoring low and wife scoring high (M = 223.732) and spouses (husband and wife) scoring low (M = 221.600) on emotional warmth factor of perceived parental rearing style (vide Table – 4 e),
Table – 4: Tukey Test showing the patterns of the mean differences in significant ‘between groups’ effects on measures of the dependent variables
Dependent variables Groups
Means HL / WH HL / WL HH / WL HH / WH
115.220 115.981 123.674 133.347
Marital consensus 115.220 x .761 8.454 18.127**
(Table – 4a) 115.981 x 7.693 17.366**
123.674 x 9.673
Means HL / WH HL / WL HH / WL HH / WH e
Affectional 28.342 29.276 31.047 33.743
expression 28.342 x .934 2.705 5.401**
(Table – 4b) 29.276 x 1.771 4.467**
31.047 x 2.696
Means HL / WL HL / WH HH / WL HH / WH
Marital satisfaction 46.876 47.854 52.674 55.129
(Table – 4c) 46.876 x .978 5.798 8.253**
47.854 x 4.82 7.275**
52.674 x 2.455
Means HL / WL HH / WL HL / WH HH / WH
Marital cohesion 29.467 31.163 32.317 33.990
adjustment 29.467 x 1.696 2.850 4.523**
(Table – 4d) 31.163 x 1.154 2.827
32.317 X 1.673
Means HL / WL HL / WH HH / WL HH / WH
Overall marital 221.600 223.732 238.558 256.208
adjustment 221.600 x 2.132 16.958 34.608**
(Table – 4e) 223.732 x 14.826 32.476**
238.558 x 17.65
** Significant at .01 level * Significant at .05 level
HL / WL = Husband scoring low / Wife scoring low HL / WH = Husband scoring low / Wife scoring high
HH / WL = Husband scoring high / Wife scoring low HH / WH = Husband scoring high / Wife scoring high

A comparative evaluation of the ‘between groups’ effects with regards to the analysis of the effects of ‘similarity’ and ‘dissimilarity’ of spouses on ‘perceived parental rejection’ and ‘perceived parental warmth’ factors of perceived parental rearing styles on facets of marital adjustment provided complementary observations, that is, both the spouses (husband and wife) scoring low as compared to those scoring high on rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style uniformly emerged to exhibit higher indices on marital consensus, affectional expression, marital cohesion, overall marital adjustment; correspondingly, high as compared to the low scorer spouses on emotional warmth factor revealed higher indices on marital consensus, affectional expression, marital satisfaction, marital cohesion, overall marital adjustment measures. These observations emerged in consonance with the theoretical expectations. These observations derive explanatory bases from literature (Arrindell et al., 1986a and 1986b; Perris et al., 1980; Steinberg et al., 1991).
Another salient feature of the study revealed that husband scoring low and wife scoring high on rejection factor of perceived parental rearing style as compared to their counter group, that is, husband scoring high and wife scoring low exhibited significantly more indices on almost all the measures of marital adjustment (marital consensus, marital cohesion, marital communication, marital adjustment and negative affect). On the contrary, husband scoring high and wife scoring low on warmth factor of perceived parental rearing style as compared to their counter group, that is, husband scoring low and wife scoring high exhibited almost more scores on marital adjustment. Here again, these observations indirectly emerged to be complementary.
In behavioral terms, low rejection in husband and high rejection in wife, and on the contrary, high warmth in husband and low warmth in wife almost occupied the second position in reference to the quality of marital life (in terms of mean indices). Direct comparisons are not possible because of paucity of research on consequences of similar and dissimilar parenting style on quality of marital life. However, Kazarian, et al., (2010) found significant correlations between maternal and paternal warmth and rejection and subjective happiness. Parental acceptance and rejection as perceived have consistent effects on the psychological adaptation of children and teenagers (Rohner, 1991). The Perception of parental rejection especially tend to be accompanied by a puny psychological adaptation like anger, hostility, aggression, negative self-esteem, negative self-adequacy, emotional instability, emotional unresponsiveness ,dependence or defensive independence depending on the form, frequency, timing and intensity of perceived rejection (Rohner et. al.,2005). Marital life positively correlated with Subjective wellbeing, happiness and inversely related with emotional instability, anger, hostility, aggression and emotional unresponsiveness. It may be expected that parental rejection and emotional warmth may respectively determine quality of marital life in married couples.
References
Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Chandler, A. L. (1999). Daily transmission of tensions between marital dyads and parent-child dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 49-61.

Arrindell, W.A., Parris, C., Eisemann, M., Perris, H., Vander Ende, J., Ross, M., Benjaminsen, S., Gaszner, P., & Del Vecchio, M. (1986b): Cross national generalizability of patterns of parental rearing behavior: Invariance of EMBU dimensional representations of healthy subjects from Australia, Denmark, Hungary, Italy and the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 103 – 112.
Arrindell, W.A., Parris, C., Perris, H., Eisemann, M., Vander, Ende, J., & Von Knorring, L. (1986a): Cross national invariance of dimensions of parental rearing behavior: Comparison of psychometric data of Swedish depressives and healthy subjects with Dutch target ratings on the EMBU. British Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 305 – 309.

Arrindell, W.A., Sanavio, E., Aguillar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M., Gaszner, P., Peter, M., Battagliese, G., Kállai, J., & van der Ende, J. (1999): The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 613 – 628.

Baltes, P.B., & Reese, H.W. (1984): The life-span perspective in developmental psychology. In M. Borenstein & M. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (pp. 499 – 532). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baumrind, D. (1968): Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3, 255-272.

Baumrind, D. (1991): The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

Bowen, M. (1978): Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.

Broman, C. L. (2005). Marital Quality in Black and White Marriages. Journal of Family Issues, 26(4), 441-443.

Cox, M. J., Owen, M. T., Lewis, J. M., & Henderson, V. K. (1989). Marriage, adult adjustment, and early parenting. Child Development, 60, 1015-1024.
Fauchier, A., & Margolin, G. (2004). Affection and conflict in marital and parent-child relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 197-211.

Fisiloglu, H., & Demir, A. (2000): Applicability of the dyadic adjustment scale for measurement of marital quality with Turkish couples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 214 – 218.

Floyd, F. J., Gilliom, L. A., & Costigan, C. L. (1998). Marriage and the parenting alliance: Longitudinal prediction of change in parenting perceptions and behaviors. Child Development, 69, 1461-1479.

Freud, S. (1949): An outline of psychoanalysis. New York: Norton.

Gentili, P., Contreras, L., Cassaniti, M., & D’Arista, F. (2002): A measurement of dyadic adjustment: The Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Minerva Psychiatric, 43, 107 – 116.

Kazarian, S.S., Moghnie, L., ; Martin, R.A. (2010). Perceived Parental Warmth and Rejection in Childhood as Predictors of Humor Styles and Subjective Happiness. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 3, 71-93.

Kelley, H.H. (1972): Causal schemata and the attribution process. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151-174).

Kerig, P. K., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1993). Marital quality and gender differences in parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 931-939.

Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations,49, 25-44.

Meesters, C., Muris, P., Esselink, T. (1995). Hostility and perceived parental rearing behavior. Pers Divid Differ 18, 567–570.

Palmer, E.J., & Hollin, C.R.(1999). An Evaluation of the Shortened EMBU Scale in Young Offenders and Non-Offenders in England. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 171-179.

Perris, C.L., Jacobson, H., Lindstrom, L., Von Knorring; & Perris, H. (1980): Development of a new Inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behavior. Acta Psychiatrica, Scandinavica, 61, 265 – 274.

Rani, R., Singh, L.N., and Jaiswal, A.K. (2016): Role of perceived parental rejection and emotional warmth in marital adjustment. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 7(8), 855-858. ISSN- 2229-5356, SR. No-2715, Jr.No.-42787.

Rohner, R.P, Khaleque, A. & Cournoyer, D.E. (2005): Parental acceptance- rejection : Theory, Methods, cross cultural evidence and implications. Ethos, 33,299-334
Rohner, R.P.(1991): Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection, storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

Rossier, J., Rigozzi, C., Charvoz, L., & Bodenmann, G. (2006): Marital satisfaction: Psychometric properties of the PFB and comparison with the DAS. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 55 – 63.

Singh, L.N., Srivastav, V., & Vaidya, A. K. (2010): Psychometric Adequacy of Marital Adjustment Scale. Indo – Indian Journal of Social Science Researches, 5, 1– 5
Singh, L.N., Vaidya, A.K., and Rani, R. (2013): Psychometric evaluation of the memories of parental rearing behaviour among Hindu. Gyandayini Samaj Vigyan Shodh Patrika,2(3), 21 – 25.
Spanier, G. B. (1976): Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage & Family, 38, 1, 15 – 28.

Spanier, G. B., & Filsinger, E. E. (1983): Clinical use of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), A sourcebook of marriage and family assessment (pp.156 – 168). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Spanier, G. B., and Cole, C.L. (1976): Toward classification and investigation f marital adjustment. International Journal of Sociology of Family, 6, 121 – 146.

Spanier, G. B., and Thomson, L.A. (1982): A confirmatory analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44, 731 – 738.

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S., & Dornbusch, S. (1991): Authoritarian parenting and adolescent adjustment across various ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19 – 35.
Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (2006). Hostility and withdrawal in marital conflict: Effects on parental emotional unavailability and inconsistent discipline. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 227-238.

Vandeleur, C.L., Fentom, B.T., & Ferrero, F.M. (2003): Construct validity of the French version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62, 161 – 175.

**********