The Differentiation of Husband and Wife Roles Author(s): Ernest R.

Mowrer Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Aug., 1969), pp. 534-540 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/349777 . Accessed: 17/12/2011 10:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

The Differentiation of Husband and Wife Roles*

ERNEST R. MOWRER**
It and expressiveness, companionship. is hypothesized four dimensions:power, instrumentalism, roles that there has been: (1) and (2) a diminutionin the traditionalpower and instrumental of the husband, (3) increasedsharing of the traditionalexpressiverole of the wife, (4) increased companionship,and (5) greater role differentiationthe higher the social status. 1,200 interviews made in 1961 with suburbanwives supportseach Analysis of approximately to of these hypotheses varyingdegrees. The analysisis limited to interviewsin predominantly which probablyresultsin the truncation the differentiation gradient. middle-class communities of
Role differentiation and identification in the marriage relationship may be analyzed in terms of

THE integration and differentiationof roles of husband and wife with reference to each other and to their childrenare basicto the organization of the family. Among the earlywriters to use the conceptof role with referenceto the family relationshipis Lumpkinwho differentiates the husband, wife, and parental roles.1 Kirkpatrick also uses the role concept with referenceto the wife, but not the husband,presenting an analysisof the wife-mother,the companion, and the partnerroles.2 Somewhatlater of Parsonsand Bales proposeda differentiation family roles based upon a two-dimensional parby adigm in which one axis is represented superior and inferior power, and the other in terms of instrumental and expressivepriority.According to this pattern, the husband'srole is superior in power and has instrumental priority, whereas the wife's role is also in the superior powercell but carriesexpressivepriority.3 Blood and Wolfe provide a basis for the analysisof role differentiationin terms of the power dimension and division of labor in husband-wife relations.4Winch, in his analysisof suggests a considerablerange complementarity, of dimensions (12 needs and three general traits) which could serve as a basis for the differentiation of role patterns, and analyzes in some detail four complementaryrole pairs:
* This is a revision of a paper read at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association in San Francisco, August 28-31, 1967. The writer wishes to express his appreciation to the Graduate Committee on Research of Northwestern University for its continued support of the research project from which this paper has been developed. ** Ernest R. Mowrer, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Northwestern University. 1 Katherine D. Lumpkin, The Family: A Study of Member Roles, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1933. 2 Clifford Kirkpatrick, "Techniques of Marital Adjustment," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 160, p. 179. 3 Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family Socialization and Interaction Process, Glencoe, Free Press, 1955, p. 46. 4 Robert 0. Blood and Donald M. Wolfe, Husbands and Wives, Glencoe: Free Press, 1960, pp. 16-70.

Girl, Thurberian,and Ibsenian, Master-Servant Mother-Son, based upon two dimensions, and nurturant-receptive.5 dominant-submissive, Wolfe proposes a classificationof marital roles based upon a single dimension, authority, using a testing technique by which the patterns of wife dominance,husband dominance,syncratic, and autonomic patterns can be differentiated.6 Herbst suggests four patterns of task perforin mance differentiated terms of the dimensions of activityand decision thus producingthe configurations of autonomy, husband dominance, wife dominance,and syncraticity.7 Role differentiation and identification are two ends of a continuum:the maritalbehaviors of husband and wife are either different or alike. That is, in the terminology of Parsons, or maritalroles are either particularistic universalistic. Role differentiationmay, in turn, take That is, two forms: reciprocalor antipathetical. of the differentiation roles of husbandand wife may be complementaryor they may clash, resulting on the one hand in accord and, on the other, in discord. Likewise, role identification
may be either conjuctive or disjunctive. That is,

both spousesmay take the same role at the same time or at differenttimes, depending upon the characterof role-taking. When husband and wife share in an activity, such as playing golf together,there is role identificationand the pattern is conjunctive.On the other hand, if both discipline their children,there is also role identification, but it is likely to be disjunctive in

that, if both attemptdisciplineat the same time, are complications likely to arisewhich would be absentif they chose differenttimes for their disciplinaryactions.
5 Robert F. Winch, Mate-Selection, New York: Harper,
1958, pp. 135-220. 6 Donald M. Wolfe,

"Power and Authority in the Family," in Studies in Social Power, ed. by Dorwin Cartwright, Ann Arbor: The Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959, pp. 99-117. T . G. Herbst, "The Measurement of Family Relationships," Human Relations, 5 (1962), pp. 3-35.

534

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

August 1969

TABLE 1. TESTS OF THE POWER ROLE Role differentiationmay take place with reto a wide range of dimensions,the variety spect nt of which is suggestedby the 12 needs and three Probability Pervce of Role Indicator* Error Occurrencet evi from general traits postulated by Winch.8 For our Equality** purposes, however, we shall content ourselves Most importantfamily with four dimensions: power, instrumentalism, member .001 36.0 1.5 Final word in making and companionship.Differentia- decisions expressiveness, 1.4 .001 24.8 1.5 12.0 .001 tion in the power dimension is a matter of su- More importantspouse 1.0 .001 6.7 Decides place of residence per-subordination,and traditionally provided More responsiblefor family - 6.3 1.4 .001 budgeting the primarybasis for division of labor and the More often disciplines 1.2 .001 development of complementarity of marital children advises children -13.0 1.5 .001 -23.0 roles. Differentiation in the instrumentaland More often *Answers are either husbandor wife. expressivedimensionsis the product of equali** Percent in hypothesized direction tarianismwhich grants one spouse priority,but equality (the deviance is expressedtwice this amount). Thus from if 80 observed deviance is than themnot monopoly, with respect to certainrole per- percentof wives regardtheirhusbandsas moreimportantas moreimselves comparedto eight percent who regardthemselves formances,generally along the lines defined by portant than their husbands, equality is achieved at 44 percent. one-sided test of probability. Significanceis the sex role. Thus the husband'sclaim to prior- Obviously the determinedby using aanswering "equal dominance" proportionsof wives in determining the hour of breakfast in are ignoredin determiningstatistical significance. as .001. ity t P values equalingor exceeding .001 are recorded does not give him termsof his job requirements nor does the wife's primaryresponsuperiority, sibility for feeding the babymake for her supe- not intended to produce objective accounts of riority;neverthelesseach presentsits priorityof the behavior of husbands and wives with referclaim for the respectivespouses. Finally, differ- ence to each other, to their children, to their entiation in the companionship dimension is friends and acquaintances, nor to society in genlargely a matter of cultural differentialswhich eral. Instead the questions were designed to function in the developmentof personalityand elicit the wife's conception of her role and that representsautonomyin behaviorin areaswhere of her husband. The significance of her replies, therefore, lies in what is revealed regarding her sharingis the culturalnorm. It is the hypothesis of this researchthat the conception of her own and her husband's beAmerican family is characterized havior and not their performances as might be contemporary by (1) a diminution in the husband's power described by an objective bystander. It is her role, through either sharing or transfer to his image of herself as differentiated or identified loss upon the part of the with her image of her husband with which this wife, (2) appreciable role conception husband of the instrumental role, resulting analysis is concerned-her from sharingwith or abandonment his wife, rather than her role performance. to Traditionally, the assumption of superordina(3) a substantial degree of sharing of the role by husbandand wife, (4) a con- tion upon the part of the husband was well recexpressive siderabledegree of companionship, and (5) in- ognized and respected. He was by convention role differentiationthe higher the so- the arbitrary decision-maker and director of creasing cial status. Since the data to be analyzed are family policy. The superordinate status of the limited to a single time period, the first four husband is reflected in his wife's answers to hypothesescannot be definitivelytested. What three questions: "Which of you is the more we shall do, therefore,is to measurethe degree dominant person?" "Who is the more imporof differentiationagainst a hypotheticalpattern tant person in the family?" "Who makes decisuggested by the literature on the traditional sions in matters of mutual concern?" About American family, there being no comparable three-fourths of the wives credit their husbands data available for comparison.As for the fifth with superiority in this area. But when it comes hypothesis,this can be tested within the context to who budgets the family expenditures, decides upon a place in which to live, disciplines the of the research findings. Eleven hundred and eighty wives were inter- children, and advises the children, from threeviewed in 17 north-northwest Chicago suburbs fourths to three-fifths credit themselves as equal in chosen for their representativeness terms of or superior in these aspects of the power role social status among 26 suburbs previously (see Table 1). Since the first three questions studied.9Questionsaskedin the interviewswere suggest evaluation of worth rather than perfor8 Winch, op. cit., p. 90. 9 See Ernest R. Mowrer, "Sequential and Class Variables of the Family in the Suburban Area," Social Forces, 40 (1962-1963), pp. 107-112.

mance of tasks, this suggests that the husband's superiority is primarily a matter of lip service to the traditional pattern of husband dominance and that, when it comes to task performances 535

August 1969

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

TABLE 2. TESTS OF THE INSTRUMENTAL ROLE

Role Indicator* Deviance S.E. 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.2 P. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 Has more mechanicalability 32 3 More competencein political choices 26.5 Unqualifiedapprovalof husband's homeworkfrom office** 25.0 More aggressive 16.1 Greaterreadingof newspapers 11.8 Greaterparticipationin recreational 2.8 organizations Primaryresponsibilityfor children's education -3.5 Greaterparticipationin civic -6.0 organizations More often helps childrenwith homework -8.0

* Same as in Table 1, except for question ** where answers are "yes" or "no," as explainedin footnote to Table 4.

in represented the second group of questions,it is the wife who takes the superior role. Thus there is the inevitable conclusionthat the basis of real power in the family relationship has passedfrom the husbandto the wife in the conurbanized middle-classfamily. temporary The instrumental role of the husband is based upon the expectationsthat he will be primarily responsiblefor the support of the fanily, and along with this go prerogativesassociated with the world of work. His life adjustment is one of emphasis upon means rather than ends; of work as his primaryconcern in which he functions in a world separatedfrom his home and to which he owes primaryallerole of the husbandis giance. The instrumental that of the technical expert, the primarystatus bearer,the manipulatoro'f the environmentin terms of future consumptionwhich he shares with his family. Indicativeof the husband'sinstrumentalrole are his reading of the daily news by which he keeps en rapport with the world of work: the approvalof his wife of his bringingwork home from the office (thus sanctioningthe intrusion of the workplace into the home); taking primary responsibility for the education of his children;helping his childrenwith their homework (his work responsibilitiesimply superior knowledge); competence in political choice; in participation civic organizations; membership in recreational organizations;possessionof mechanicalability;and being more aggressivethan his wife. In newspaper reading, winning approval for bringing work home from the office, political competence, mechanical ability, and aggressiveness,a majority of the wives credit their husbands with either equal or greater priorityranging from three-fifthsto five-sixths. But one-half or more challenge their husband's prioritywith respectto planning for the educa536

tion of their children,helping the childrenwith their homework,and participation both civic in and recreationalorganizations.(See Table 2.) Thus while the instrumentalrole still remains more the prerogativeof the husband than the wife, the husband'spriority is far from being conclusive. The expressive role of the wife is one in which she is the "cultural"expert, the human relations virtuoso skilled in the mediation of conflictswithin the family and providing direction to its members in activities which are fashion. immediately satisfyingin a consummary Even her activitiesoutside the home tend to be taken as "representative" the family. Thus of her role is organized along personal and emotional lines, whereas the instrumentalrole of her husband is organized in terms of rational and impersonal considerations.10 Tests of the expressive role tend to fall into two groups from the standpointof priority. Generally,the wife's greaterclaim to priorityconcernsher relationship to the neighborhood and her children. With respectto the largercommunity,she shares her role to a somewhat greater degree with her husband. Thus she equals or exceeds her husbandfrom five-sixthsto almost complete supremacy;in neighborhood contacts; in time spent with her children;as the agent of sympathy and understandingto her children; in supervising her children's social contacts;and in shopping for the family. Only in her performanceas the sourceof affectionfor her children does she drop as low as three-fourths.Test of her role in the community-represented by responsibility for inviting relatives to her home, inviting friends to her home, participationin religious organizations,and membershipin social organizations-show three-fourths of the wives equaling or exceeding their husbands (see Table 3). This suggests that the modern wife has given up relatively little of her prior claim to the expressive role. This conclusionis further supported by the fact that, except for three-fourthsof the wives sharing equally with their husbands as the source of affection for their children, the proportionof equal sharing never reaches one-half and is more often onethird, even dropping to one-twentieth as the primarysource of sympathyand understanding to her children. Nevertheless,the sharingof role-taking,generally stronger with respect to the expressive than the power and instrumental roles, is not to
tO See Parsons and Bales, oP. cit., p. 46; Bernard Farber, "Types of Family Organization," in Human Behavior -and Social Processes, ed. by Arnold M. Rose, Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962, pp. 290-293.

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

August 1969

be overlooked.Even though one spouse may exceed the other in a particular role, this does not imply a complete absence of role-takingupon the part of the other. Evidence points to the overall conclusion, therefore, that there is no longer, if there ever has been, any sharp division of functions within the modern family. Since this is the situation,one would expect to find a considerabledegree of sharing between husband and wife in the form of companionship. Part of the patternof companionship marin riage relationsmay be symbolizedin the sharing of friendships. The husband and wife who know each other's friends are mutual participants in these friendships,each sharingto some degree in contactswith the friends of the other. Nine-tenths of both husbandsand wives know all or many of the other'ssame-sexfriends. The proportion who know the spouses of these same-sex friends is somewhat smaller at threefourths. Thus husbandsand wives share appreciably in knowing each other's friends and also the spousesof these friends. When it comes to sharingin common activities as a form of companionship, degree of the common participationis somewhat less. About five-fourthsof husbands and wives always or usuallyattendmusical events together, the most frequentlysharedactivity.Attendanceat movies and viewing television together drop to threefourths; participationin sports and attending church together are lower at one-half (see Table 4). Thus the degree of companionship would seem to be appreciable and yet allow for a considerable degreeof individuality. The fifth hypothesisis concernedwith differentials in role-takingby social status measured in terms of occupationalclass and vertical mobility. Classificationof husbands follows the United States Census: professionals (including

TABLE 4. TESTS OF COMPANIONSHIP

Role Indicator* Husband knows all or many of wife's women friends Wife knows all or many of husband'smen friends Husbandknows all or many husbands of wife's women friends Wife knows all or many wivy:s of husband'smen friends Always or usually share musical events Regularly attend church together Always or usually share movies Always or usually view television Always or usually share in sports Deviance 27.4 25.3 22,9 21.3 24.1 20.0 18.6 12.6 .8 S.E. 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 P. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .400

* Deviance is the differencebetween the proportionof wives whose answers are "yes" comparedto those who reply "no." A two-sided test of probabilityis used to measuresignificance.

semiprofessionals),managerials(including proprietors), salesmen (including clerks), and craftsmen.Vertical mobility is divided into upand ward, stationary, downward,in termsof the differences in the occupational categories of husbandscomparedto their fathers. Only those tests which show a higher proportion of one role in the hypothspouse assuminga particular esized direction are used. Thus, to illustrate, since the wife exceeds the husbandin disciplining the children,this test is droppedfrom those used to measure the power role. Comparisons between categoriesof occupationsand of vertical mobility are made in terms of the means of percentagesby which one spouse exceeds the other for the appropriate tests of each role. The degree to which husbands exceed their wives in taking the power role differs for occupational groups in the following descending order;salesmen,managerials,professionals,and craftsmen.Salesmen are significantlyhigher in assumingthe power role comparedto the other three occupationalgroups which do not differ among themselvesby any appreciableamounts. Thus the significantbreak is between salesmen and non-salesmen(see Table 5). The rank order of claim to the instrumental role is: professionals, managerials, salesmen, TABLE 3. TESTS OF THE EXPRESSIVE ROLE and craftsmen.Professionals,however, are not Role Indicator* S.E. Deviance P. significantly separated from managerials, nor Primaryresponsibilityfor family managerialsfrom salesmen, although the sepa41.3 1.5 .001 shopping ration between professionalsand salesmen, and 36.2 1.5 .001 Spends more time with children Closercontacts with neighbors 31.2 .001 1.4 between salesmen and craftsmen is significant. More often children'ssourceof But since professionals are significantly sepa31.0 1.5 .001 sympathy Primaryresponsibilityfor supervisrated from salesmen,who in turn differ signif30.4 1.3 .001 ing children'scontacts Primaryresponsibilityfor inviting icantly from craftsmen,as do managerials,the relatives 1.4 29.4 .001 rankorderwould seem reliablyestablishedeven Primaryresponsibilityfor inviting friends 1.3 .001 22.1 though less clearly defined than that between Participatesmore in social organizations 1.2 .001 15.9 the white- and blue-collaroccupations. Participatesmore in religious For the expressive role, the descending rank 14.6 1.3 .001 organizations More affectionatetoward children 1.3 .001 10.1 order is: professionals, salesmen, managerials, * Same procedureas for Tables 1 and 2. and craftsmen. Again as in the case of the
August 1969 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 537

TABLE 5. ROLE DIFFERENTIATION BY OCCUPATIONS Role Differentiation Power Role Professionals-Managerials Professionals-Salesmen Professionals-Craftsmen Managerials-Salesmen Managerials-Craftsmen Salesmen-Craftsmen Instrumental Role Professionals-Managerials Professionals-Salesmen Professionals-Craftsmen Managerials-Salesmen Managerials-Craftsmen Salesmen-Craftsmen Expressive Role Professionals-Managerials Professionals-Salesmen Professionals-Craftsmen Managerials-Salesmen Managerials-Craftsmen Salesmen-Craftsmen Companionship Professionals-Managerials Professionals-Salesmen Professionals-Craftsmen Managerials-Salesmen Managerials-Craftsmen Salesmen-Craftsmen Deviance* -. 5 -5.2 1.4 -4.7 1.9 6.6 1.9 3.6 12.6 1.7 10.7 9.0 .6 .3 2.3 -. 3 1.7 2.0 .8 3.6 6.8 2.8 6.0 3.2 SE. P.

1.5 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 .7 .9 .9 .8 .8 .9 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.7

.750 .003 .440 .005 .280 .002 .086 .009 .001 .190 .001 .001 .350 .750 .010 .670 .360 .028 .460 .017 .001 .046 .001 .060

* Means of deviance for the tests of roles as defined in Tables 1-4, using only those indicators which sustain the hypotheses. Probability of differences between mean proportions determined by two-sided test. Thus if the mean deviance for all of the positive power-role indicators for professionals is 50 percent, and 40 percent for managerials, the deviance is ten percent.

power role, the white-collaroccupationsare significantly separatedfrom the craftsmen, while differing among each other to a negligible degree. This suggests that the wife assumes the to expressiverole in comparison her husbandto a greaterdegree in white-collarthan blue-collar families, while variations among white-collar is occupations of no importance. When one considersthe tests for companionship, the rank order is professionals,managerials, salesmen, and craftsmen.The separation between professionalsand managerials,and between salesmen and craftsmenare not significant, whereas that between managerials and salesmen meets the test of reliability. Since professionals are also significantly separated from both salesmen and craftsmen, and managerials from craftsmen,this suggests that the basic difference lies between the professionals
538

and managerials, on the one hand, and the on salesmenand craftsmen the other. Thus the overall pattern seems to be one in are which the white-collaroccupations separated significantly from the blue-collar occupations except with respectto the power role in which salesmenexceed all of the others, variationsbetween these latter groups being unreliable. However, as has alreadybeen pointed out, the positive tests of the power role have to do with the ascriptionof male superiority.It is significant that salesmen, whose occupationalsuccess depends so greatly upon aggressivesuperiority, are the group which exceeds in the power role. Furthermore,it is paradoxicalthat the whitecollar group which exceeds in the differentiation of the instrumentaland expressive roles also exceeds in companionship,which is at the conother end of the differentiation-integration tinuum. In view of the fact that the craftsmenare the least mobile of the occupationalgroups"1and also show less tendency toward differentiation of spousal roles, a more significantindex of social status may be vertical mobility ratherthan The criterionof veridentification. occupational tical mobility utilized is the familiarintergenerational comparison between the occupational classes of father and son. The assumedprestige order is professionals, managerials, salesmen, and craftsmen.Husbandswhose fathersare of a lower occupationalclass than their sons are regarded as upwardlymobile, of the same occupational class as stationary,and of a higher occupation as downwardlymobile. With respect to the po-werrole, the mobility rank order is downward,upward, and stationary (see Table 6). Only the separationbeis tween the downwardand the stationary statistically significant,suggestingthat in view of the trend toward equalitarianismin family relations, it is that group of husbandswho are less successful in the competitive struggle, the downwardlymobile, who are the guardiansof the traditional order in which husbands were superior. The rank order for the instrumental role is upward,stationary, and downward.Separationbetweenthe upwardand both the stationsignificant,but ary and downwardis statistically not that between the stationaryand downward. For the expressiverole the rank order is downward, stationary, and upward. Separation be1 The proportion of craftsmen who have craftsmen fathers is 82 percent compared to 25 percent of salesmen with salesmen fathers, 43 percent of managerials with managerial fathers, and 30 percent of professionals with professional fathers.

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

August 1969

tween the downward and both the stationary and upwardis significant,but not between the stationaryand upward. Here, as in the case of the power role, the downward conforms most closely to the traditionalpattern in comparison and the upward.Tests of comto the stationary panionship show a rank order of upward, stationary,and downward,with significantseparation in each instance. Since a high degree of may be interpretedas indicative companionship of equalitarianism, this suggests that the gradient of equalitarianism parallels the gradient of verticalmobility. statusis idenIn general,higher occupational of tified with greater differentiation the instrumental and expressiveroles and to a lesser dethe gree, of the power role. Paradoxically, pattern of companionshipis one in which consensus is greater with higher occupationalstatus. Status measured in terms of vertical mobility, however,presentsa mixed patternin which the upwardlymobile show higher instrumentalrole differentiation and higher companionship, whereas the downwardly mobile exceed in power and expressive role differentiationthus preserving to a greater degree the traditional patternof spousalroles. It would seem fair to conclude from this Ameranalysis,therefore,that the contemporary ican family is characterized a fluidityof role by dedeterminedto an appreciable differentiation gree by the exigencies of the moment. Family integration would seem, accordingly, more a
TABLE 6. ROLE DIFFERENTIATION BY VERTICAL MOBILITY Role Differentiation Devi

ance

S.E.

P.

Power Role .4 Upward-Stationary -3.3 Upward Downward Stationary-Downward -3.7 Instrumental Role Upward-Stationary Upward-Downward Stationary-Downward 3.4 4.3 .4

1.4 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 .6 .8 .8 1.1 1.6 1.6

.750 .070 .040 .001 .002 .750 .070 .001 .001 .017 .001 .001

Expressive Role -1.6 Upward-Stationary -7.0 Upward-Downward Stationary-Downward -5.4 Companionship Upward-Stationary Upward-Downward Stationary-Downward 2.6 6.6 5.0

* The measure of deviance is the same as in Table 5.

of complementarity timing ratherthan of differential roles in that a considerabledegree of parallel role-takingwould inevitablylead to increasedconflict except as each spouse does not takethe samerole at the sametime. Furthermore, this pattern of fluidity is most pronounced in those groups whose life conditionsare most removed from the past, viz., those of higher status. A number of questions may be raised about the methodology of this study, only a few of which can be given considerationhere. First, there is the use of the hypotheticaldefinitionof the traditionalrole patternfrom which to measurecontemporary deviations.Since there are no data from an earliertime period which utilized the selected tests of role differentiation and companionship,there would seem to be no alternativeto the procedurefollowed, recognizing that the results are suggestiveratherthan definitive. Secondly,the analysisby social status is limited by the fact that the data are from middleclass communities where even the craftsmen group is more middle-classin orientationthan lower-class-otherwise they would not have moved to a middle-classcommunity.Likewise, the higher occupationalcategorieshave in them only a minority of upper-classrepresentatives. Thus the class spectrum is considerablytruncated at both ends. One may argue, of course, that this leads to the conclusion that there are greater differencesalong the lines indicatedbetween statusgroupsthan this analysisreveals. Thirdly, there is the questionaboutthe selection of questions as tests of the four areas of role differentiation. No systematic procedure was followed except to choose questionswhich the writerconsideredlogically relatedto each of the four roles. Should some procedure have been devised to make the selection in terms of ? goodnessof fit, and if so by what procedure Finally, there is the problem of complementarity.It is generallyassumedby studentsof the roles of family that the acceptance differentiated by husband and wife makes for accord. What then, happens when the degree of differentiation declines or disappears?Does this lead to greater conflict? Or is there a tendency for to forms of complementarity be developed,such as we have suggestedin terms of timing? Other tests or techniques will need to be devised to answer this question. It may be significantthat those groups who show the greaterinstrumental also are highest in and expressivedifferentiation companionship. Does this mean that greater companionship compensates for lesser instru539

August 1969

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

? mentaland expressiveidentification These and many more questionswould seem to warrantcareful considerationas preliminary to future researchin this area. It is hoped that, in spite of whatever deficienciesmay be inherent in this analysis,it will assist in furnishing a

more sound foundationupon which to build fuof ture researchinto the differentiation spousal roles than has been previously available, and contributeto the development of a clearerunof derstandingof the character the family relationship.

540

JOURNAL of MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

August 1969