marital satisfaction and marital stability

Marital Satisfaction and Marital Stability* Gerard Lenthall**

This exploration of the relationship between marital satisfaction and marital stability utilizes the social-psychological schema of Thibaut and Kelley (1959). Marital satisfaction is viewed as a function of the comparison between one’s marital expectations and one’s marital outcome. Marital stability is viewed as a function of the comparison between one’s best available marital alternative and one’s marital outcome. Hence, marital satisfaction and marital stability can differ. Implications of this view for both researcher and clinician are discussed.

Marriages thought to be “happy” often end in divorce. Conversely, “unhappy” marriages often endure. “The factors which make a marriage brittle or durable are infinitely more complicated than just ‘being happy’ ” (Hicks and Platt, 1970, p. 569). The relationship between marital satisfaction and marital stability is said to be complex and amorphous. In examining this relationship I focus first on marital satisfaction, then on marital stability, and finally on the two in combination.

Marital Satisfaction

Using an exchange model of economic man, Thibaut and Kelley (1959) explain social interaction and outcomes in terms of rewards and costs. They suggest that a person determines the value of a given outcome by comparison with two subjective standards, the comparison level (CL) and the comparison level for alternatives (CLalt). The individual’s CL is his or her personal standard of acceptable marital outcomes, however conceptualized or measured. Carson (1969) points out that the height of a person’s comparison level in relation to his current outcome (0) determines his satisfaction with a given relationship. Thus, an 0 that exceeds a CL implies marital satisfaction.

This formulation posits a comparison of an observable marital outcome (0) with each partner’s internal standard in order to determine marital satisfaction. The structure and level of this internal standard of marital expectations probably stems from a variety of sources, such as childhood experiences and the prevailing subcultural norms and zeitgeist.

In general, models predicting or postdicting a marital outcome have utilized an implicit 0-CL structure.’ Early marital selection and outcome studies largely posited that similarity of background (homogamy) represented agreement on marital values and expectations and that an absence of individual pathology suggested the ability to actualize those values. More recently, Scanzioni (1966), studying marital outcomes for non-middle-class pairings, assigned central roles in his model to (1) the mates’ agreeing

*I want to thank Jane Pfouts and Marjorie W e l l for a judicious mix of criticism and encouragement; William J. Eichman for his continuing valuable suggestions and Pat Sanford for her editorial teachings. Also, I acknowledge the assistance of my creative daemon.

**Gerard Lenthall is a clinical psychologist formerly at Alamance Mental Health Center, Burlington, North Carolina, and currently relocating in the New England area.

October 1977 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING 25

on husband’s expected economic achievement, and (2) the husband‘s actually meeting those expected goals (actual 0). Only if partners failed on these two counts did he turn to more directly psychological variables in ascertaining the marital outcome.

Other researchers, such as Winch et al. (1954), who assigned a central role to interpersonal and companionship aspects of marriage, began by considering features of psychological complementarity (the heterogamy assumption) within a field of eligibles (homogamy). Kotlar (1965) also used an implicit Outcome-CL comparison in examining how actual interpersonal stances for satisfied and dissatisfied middle-class husbands and wives met their ideal stances for husbands and wives. A somewhat different view of complementarity, based on the fit between mates’ childhood sibling configurations, appears in the work of Toman (1969). His thesis is that the closer a marital match meets the mates’ familiar childhood sibling configurations (CL), the more positive the marital outcome.

Evaluation of Marital Expectations Most outcome prediction studies can be viewed as drawing on some aspect of

marital expectations and then fixing a CL numerical value that separates satisfactory from unsatisfactory marriages (or intact from broken ones). Then, actual satisfaction is usually measured by some attitudinal test. However, even more important than the determination of appropriate levels of CL for outcome prediction is the choice of an appropriate CL to be investigated. The CL standard itself, that is, marital expectations, may differ by populations. For example, when studying two groups differing in educational level, it was found that a cognitive style role differentiation criterion, with its associated emphasis on non-extrinsic values, applied only to an educational elite (Lenthall, 1975). In fact, the concept of instrumental and companion marriages serves to distinguish between marriages in which the expectational emphasis is on extrinsic values and those that, taking extrinsic achievement for granted, stress non-extrinsic values. Since the criteria for marital satisfaction may differ among populations, researchers using the same CL criterion but studying different populations, may reach different conclusions. Moreover, a researcher who is predicting a couple’s marital satisfaction may err through applying the wrong criterion.

Clinical Implications That marital satisfaction is a function of the comparison between Outcome and CL

implies that to increase satisfaction requires either raising Outcome or decreasing CL. If mates are fortunate, in the normal course of marriage, they will outgrow any unrealistic marital expectations on their own.2 However, should they seek professional help, in order to raise the marital outcome (01, a therapist might teach partners interpersonal “skills” they failed to learn in early life. He/she can work to improve marital communication and help the couple renegotiate their quid pro quo patterns. When trying to wean partners from dysfunctional familial or cultural expectations, the therapist can use a cotherapist to model different-more realistic or more t o l e r a n t expectations as well as new communication skills. He/she can also reframe an unsatisfactory outcome or conflicting marital expectations in a variety of ways: telling the couple they would never have stayed together if they did not really love one another, or pointing out that it was to be expected that a wife who was an only child might want to be alone more than her husband who came from a large family. Such reframings often enable mates to see their partner’s motivation in a more sympathetic light.

Marital Stability

Thibaut and Kelley (1959) define the individual’s comparison level for alternatives

26 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING October 1977

(CLalt) as the lowest outcome level that the individual will accept given the outcomes available in alternative relationships, whether with another partner, living alone, or in some other arrangement. Carson (1969) states that one’s comparison level for alternatives in relation to one’s current outcome (0) determines one’s dependence upon the relationship, that is, its stability. Thus 0 exceeding CLalt implies marital stability.

Conceptually, then, satisfaction and stability are measured differently, and marital dissatisfaction can differ from instability that leads to separation and divorce. Here stability means primarily that the couple stays together, a datum which is both concrete and observable. However, in fact, stability involves a continuum. Many couples live a stormy existence with frequent fights, separations, and subsequent reconciliations-relationships that one might characterize as unstable but which, nevertheless, endure. Homeostatically, these marriages o h n remain “stable” for years.

The Thibaut and Kelley formulation posits a comparison of an observable marital outcome with partner’s current internal standard of the minimum acceptable outcome. In this respect it goes farther than the work of Levinger (1965). Levinger organized his material according to three headings: the attractiveness of the current marital relationship, the attractiveness of existing alternatives, and the barriers to marital dissolution. Here, the conceptual difference is that Thibaut and Kelley would represent marital stability as a function of the comparison between the current marital outcome and the lowest outcome acceptable which, in turn, is based on the highest alternative available. On the other hand, Levinger’s emphasis on the barriers to marital dissolution has merit. In fact, because mates need available alternatives, broadly defined, in order to surmount the barriers to dissolving an existing marriage, it is helpful to conceptualize CLalt as equalling Oa minus BD, where Oa is the highest alternative outcome available and BD represents the barriers to marital dissolution.

These barriers, which vary over time and social context, may take many forms. Levinger (1965) lists an imposing catalogue: external social pressures, avoidance of painful internal feelings arising from loss, guilt or loneliness, expected financial loss and the possible insecurity of no longer being supported by one’s mate and, finally, inertia, since getting out of a relationship involves considerable dislocation and logistic difficulties. In short, while the field of marriage affords great ease of entry, any subsequent exit generally involves not only a considerable financial burden but also some psychological costs that may turn out to be surprisingly high (Lederer and Jackson, 1968).

Evaluation of Marital Stability Clearly, it is important to distinguish among (1) “normal” marital satisfaction

with its inevitable peaks and valleys, (2) enduring marital dissatisfaction, and (3) that combination of marital dissatisfaction and instability that leads to separation and divorce. Yet even so careful a researcher as Toman (1969) appears at times not to distinguish among marital dissatisfaction, marital instability, and that presumed negative marital condition indicated by the presence of an identified patient (usually a child) in the family. Undoubtedly, such failure is due in part to the lack of instruments for testing marital instability. Currently, instruments exist for testing marital dissatisfaction (Locke-Wallace, 1959; Spanier, 1976) but not marital instability. The fact that instability and dissatisfaction frequently converge over time makes it harder to realize that an instrument measuring satisfaction need not be measuring stability.

Such an instrument would focus on CLalt (available alternatives and barriers to divorce) rather than on an Outcome-CL comparison. It would highlight three of the major areas that cause couples to remain together in spite of obvious marital dissatisfaction: (1) the existence of children, (2) fear of aloneness (or lack of a


replacement candidate) and (3) financial limitations. The external social barriers to divorce that have dropped so sharply in recent years have exposed more clearly both internal psychological barriers and legal ones.

This approach suggests that marital stability frequently coexists with marital dissatisfaction because of an inability to separate. By this view, instability requires prior dissatisfaction, so that satisfaction is needed as an intervening variable for the prediction of marital instability. Such a marital stability measure will complement a marital attitude (dissatisfaction) measure.

Clinical Implications To increase marital stability, a therapist may again increase the marital outcome

(0). He/she might also foster recognition of the realistic barriers to divorce, thus lowering CLalt. For instance, if one or both partners are seriously considering separation or divorce, exploration of the three areas noted above will prove salutory. Frequently, the sole aim of a “trial separation” is to force such an exploration for those who are reluctant to do so. The result may be either a greater commitment to marriage with all its difficulties or a separation with its different set of problems.

On the other hand, if the relationship is clearly untenable and undesirable, the clinician attempts to raise CLalt: He/she may strengthen one or both partners’ ability to live alone, thus increasing Oa, and/or may provide an alternative support system, thus lowering BD. Mates often require an actual alternative before being able to leave an existing undesirable marriage, lest they have to face the oft-painful state of living alone as well as having to face the numerous other difficulties often attendant upon separation and divorce. Incidentally, by providing a support system as well as by encouraging women to change their marital expectations, the Woman’s Liberation Movement simultaneously can raise both CL and CLalt. Thus, both satisfaction with the marriage and the barriers to divorce drop simultaneously, a coincidence which is frequently difficult to achieve.

Divergence of Satisfaction and Stability

If marital satisfaction depends upon meeting marital expectations, while marital stability depends upon a lack of preferable alternatives and upon difficulty of exit from the marriage, then marital satisfaction and marital stability can diverge. The two rules for the existence of marital satisfaction and stability (namely, 0 > CL and 0 > CLalt= Oa - BD) lead to a t least four different possibilities, which are summarized in Table 1.

Outcome can exceed or fall below both CL and CLalt, leading in either case to a convergence of satisfaction and stability, whether at a high or low level. In either case, there should be a match between a couple’s attitudes and actions. However, when Outcome exceeds either CL or CLalt but not both, then satisfaction and stability diverge-actions and attitudes may then also diverge.

It is the sometimes puzzling divergent cases within this four-fold typology that command special interest. Lederer and Jackson (1968) emphasized the prevalence of the satisfied but unstable group. They note that a widespread romantic belief in the existence of a Utopian marital alternative renders even a satisfactory marriage somewhat unstable. In addition, they may have succumbed to the common tendency to confuse marital satisfaction either with the attraction that often leads to marriage or with the mates’ inability to survive alone outside of a marriage. However, by themselves, neither of these qualities makes for long-term compatibility.

The other divergent case involves what Carson (1969) calls “a non-voluntary relationship.” For, if a partner’s Outcome exceeds CLalt but falls below CL, that


Table 1

The Convergence and Divergence of Marital Satisfaction and Stability for Four Relationships among Outcome (01, Comparison Level (CL),

and Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt)

SATISFACTION STABILITY (Marital 0 and CL) (Marital 0 and CLalt)

(0 CLalt) (0 CLalt) Better Alternatives Available Better Alternatives Unavailable

Satisfactory Divergence: Convergence:

Low stability High stability (0 CL) High satisfaction- High satisfaction-

Unsatisfactory Convergence: Divergence: (0 CL) Low satisfaction- Low satisfaction-

Low stability High stability

partner feels dissatisfied but has nowhere else to turn. Hence, the possibility that there are stable but unsatisfactory marriages follows a priori from the application of the Thibaut and Kelley model; e.g., CL 0 > CLalt. Note that although complementarity of interpersonal stance as defined by Carson (1969) involves a difference on a status dimension (dominance-submission) and agreement on an affective dimension, still this affective agreement can occur either on the love (marital satisfaction) or on the hate (dissatisfaction) portion of that affective dimension. Much to the frequent distress of outsiders trying to “help,” hostile-complementary marriages can endure for years.

Both divergent cases may involve partners with low self-esteem. Mates remaining in an enduring but dissatisfying marriage because of low self-esteem may believe that no marital alternatives could ever be available (Satir, 1964). On the other hand, mates involved in a more satisfying but unstable relationship because of their low self-esteem may believe that their partner is bound to leave them. Anticipating eventual rejection, they continually search out potential replacements, and incidentally are easy prey to jealousy (Sullivan, 1956).

While marital satisfaction and stability need not coincide, neither need they be totally independent. Levels of CL and CLalt may vary together. For instance, when a woman who is a wife and mother enters graduate school, she may experience simultaneously a shift of marital values (raised CL or even a new CL) and greater marital options in her new environment (raised CLalt). For a given level of marital outcome, such shifts can transform a hitherto stable marriage into an unstable one. Another more commonly cited example of a wife’s raising her CLalt occurs when she takes a job, thus acquiring a greater degree of financial independence.

Evaluation of Marital rrOutcomes’’ The distinction between CL and CLalt leads to the possible divergence of

satisfaction and stability. The consequent need to distinguish between satisfaction and stability in marital research is obviated when the criterion of choice of couples involves a comparison of high satisfaction-high stability couples with ones low in both of these


respects. However, the existence of high satisfaction-high stability couples points to the fact that there may be different kinds of negative marital “outcomes” and even some possible overlap among them. With multiple criteria possible for negative “outcomes,” such as low stability, low satisfaction, or low in both, the question arises of how to measure a negative outcome. The existence of a child as an identified patient, low scores on a marital adjustment test, a couple’s presence in marital counseling, or the fact of divorce are sometimes used interchangeably as indicating a (similar) negative marital outcome.

Clinical Implications It is the dissatisfied but stable group that is especially influenced by the afore-

mentioned barriers to divorce that frequently lead marital partners to feel that they must remain in an unsatisfactory or %on-voluntary” relationship. Even an unsatisfactory marriage can provide emotional security. A hostile-complementary relationship can provide freedom from anxiety. Battered wives, though unhappy and complaining, often are unable to break free of such unsatisfactory but enduring relationships without prior outside support (usually emotional but often also financial). A related example is that of a depressed wife who is wed to a managerial-type husband and who enters individual therapy. Frequently this situation also suggests a CLalt < 0 < CL, while her husband’s Outcome exceeds both CL and CLalt. However, as the wife’s CLalt rises during the course of individual therapy, increased pressure on the marriage results. She is demanding a new marriage contract; he insists on retaining the old one that was so satisfactory for him. With such conflicting objectives, either partner may easily become sufficiently frustrated to leave the other.3

These differences in partners’ experiences are reminders that in any marriage there are two pairs of 0-CL and 0-CLalt evaluations taking place simultaneously and that partners’ respective marital evaluations may differ.4 One frequent effect of any successful individual psychotherapy is to raise one’s CLalt, which will increase marital instability unless the mate can also respond so as to raise one’s marital Outcome. Since that response is unlikely unless the mate is also changing, this model incorporates the observation, frequently noted by marital therapists, that individual therapy o h n leads to marital dissolution.

Instability can also result from the impact of external events on the current marital situation. An obvious case in point is downward mobility. Less obviously, upward mobility can also prove disruptive to a previous marital equilibrium, whether resulting from the success of a male overachiever or, more obviously, from a female’s attaining a higher status than that of her mate. A common example, albeit for a specialized population, may occur when a mate attends graduate school. Elsewhere (Lenthall, 1975) I have used educational level as the basis for selecting between the two parts of a dual CL standard for judging marital outcomes. A graduate-school couple who meet the CL criterion for the lower educational level but not for the upper level have a tacit choice: Either the student member of the couple drops out of school, allowing the couple to revert to the previously met CL standard of the lower educational group, or the marriage is likely to dissolve as the student becomes a member of the elitist group.

In general, a marital therapist should help mates to make realistic choices, ones to which they can commit themselves. The couple should be prepared to accept the positive and negative features either of remaining married or of separating. Thus, the clinician may foster recognition of unrealistic marital expectations and of existing barriers to divorce. In the example given above, the therapist may help to clarify the effects for the graduate school couple of their upward mobility and so help them to explore their options.


Conclusion

The present model points to the broad disequilibrating processes now occurring in the institution of marriage. Since World War 11, external barriers to marital dissolution have been dropping sharply; at the same time, demands on the marital relationship, as represented by a rising CL, have been outrunning gains in preparation for intimate living. The net result has been to increase divorce. With separation and divorce more frequent, many former mates have been dismayed to find their ability to survive outside marriage is at best little better than it was within marriage. Earlier, when divorce was rarer, it was easier to avoid such self-knowledge. Moreover, although a given alternative to an existing marriage may appear preferable, on closer examination i t frequently is a repeat of the first marriage, suggesting that even the “on the job training” approach that characterizes much of our learning about marriage is a failure. Improving this situation requires an altogether different conception of marriage and its meaning. Such a different, second-order change calls for a different cultural fabric. If life is a great teacher, then marriage is one of life’s major arenas for learning.

REFERENCES

Carson, R. C. Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Hicks, M. W., & Platt, M. Marital happiness and stability: A review of the research in the sixties.

Kotlar, S. L. Middle-class marital role perceptions and marital adjustment. Sociology and Social

Lederer, W. J., & Jackson, D. 0. The mirages of marriage. New York: Norton, 1968. Lenthall, G. The Couple’s Marital Pyramid An investigation of the marital dyad involving sibling

configuration fit and cognitive style role differentiation for two different educational levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duke University, 1975.

Levinger, G. Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1965,27,19-28.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Liuing, 1959,21, 251-256.

Satir, V. Conjoint family thempy. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, 1964. Scanzioni, J. Family organization and the probability of disorganization. Journal of Marriage and

Spanier, G. Measuring dyadic adjustment New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and

Sullivan, H. S. Clinical studies in psychiatry. New York Norton, 1956. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. The social psychology of groups. New York Wiley, 1969. Toman, W. Family constellation. New York: Springer, 1969. (1st ed., 1961) Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., 8z Fisch, R. Change: Principles of problem formation and problem

Winch, R., Ktsanes, T., & Ktsanes, V. The theory of complementary needs in mate-selection: An

J o u m l of Marriage and Family Living, 1960,4,299311.

Research, 1965,49,283-293.

the Family, 1966,28,407-411.

similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1976,38,15-28.

resolution. New York: Norton, 1974.

analytic and descriptive study. American Sociological Review, 1954, 19, 241-249.

FOOTNOTES

‘“Marital outcome” is used to refer to either marital satisfaction-dissatisfaction or stability (intactness-divorce) or both. Such multiple usage can lead to confusion. In addition, in this paper comparison of an outcome measure (0) with marital expectations (CL) leads to marital attitude (satisfaction or dissatisfaction). To minimize confusion, the latter type of outcome will be capitalized when ambiguity exists.

2For a discussion of the negative effects of Utopian marital expectations, see Watzlawick et al. (1975).


3Marital satisfaction requires that a couple meet a complex of personal needs for sex, intimacy, and security. The behavioral rules the couple develop to meet such needs are called a marital contract or quid pro quo pattern. Such a contract prescribes acceptable and proscribes unacceptable partnership behaviors. When one finds the costs of giving up “unacceptable” behaviors too great, that mate may disrupt the existing marital equilibrium by seeking a new master marital contract. Unfortunately, the nature of such tacit behavioral contracts renders renegotiation of the terms quite difficult.

4Because of differences in upbringing and roles, one’s marital expectations, experiences, and evaluations may differ broadly along sex lines. In part, that is consistent with the rise of the Woman’s Liberation Movement.


marital satisfaction and marital stability

Documents