The Relationship Between Irrational Beliefs and Marital Satisfaction

The Relationship between Irrational Beliefs and
Marital Satisfaction
By Karen L. Nickl
A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
O f the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In Educational Psychology
Northern Arizona University
May, 2006
Approved
/ j %aaax> ^ j i m
Ramona N. Mellott, PhD ., Chair
William E. Martin, Jr. Ed.D
. Moan, Ed.D
j
Frances J. Ridm6r,
O-C- (
Bob Tures, Ed.D
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3228561
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3228561
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Abstract
The Relationship between Irrational Beliefs and Marital Satisfaction
Karen L. Nickl
The purpose of this study was three fold: 1) Determine the reliability and factor
validity of two instruments designed to assess irrational relationship beliefs, The
Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI) and the Relationship Belief Scale (RBS). 2) Further
delineate the relationship between irrational relationship beliefs and marital satisfaction.
3) Investigate possible demographic factors that predict endorsing irrational relationship
beliefs.
The 297 non-clinical, married participants, from the Salt Lake City, Utah area
completed the RBI and RBS plus the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Principle
Component Analysis was used to test the five factor structure of both instruments. An
exploratory factor analysis was also performed on the RBS. While the RBS was more
predictive o f Marital Satisfaction than the RBI, loadings achieved indicate variability in
the factor structure o f both instruments. The RBI subscales Disagreement is Destructive
and Mindreading is Expected combined to form a new component. The RBS subscales
all evidenced variability when 15 test items failed to load significantly on the target
subscales.
Both the RBI and RBS were found to predict endorsement of irrational
relationship beliefs for this sample.
A series o f stepwise multiple regression analysis were performed on the subscales
of the RBI and RBS plus the demographic factors of gender, age, years married, times
married, education, household income, position in family life cycle and parent’s divorce.
The shared variance in the significant models was minimal and findings from the
multiple regression analysis should be generalized to other populations with caution.
Demographic factors were not found to predict endorsement of irrational relationship
beliefs.
The sample proved to be a highly homogenous group, and was characterized as
religious, committed to marriage, well educated, upper middle class, and mature. The
majority (74%) of respondents identified themselves as members of The Church of Jesus
Christ o f Latter Day Saints (LDS). Although subscale and overall test score means
indicated no statistical differences between these participants and other samples, the
relevance and application of this study may be limited.
Acknowledgments
This project has exposed all my weaknesses so I heartily thank the members of
my committee for their efforts on my behalf and their contribution to this work. To
Dr. Ramona N. Mellott, I am fortunate to have been your student. I appreciate your
qualities o f wisdom, restraint, and resourcefulness. The example you provide me in both
personal and professional arenas is inspiring. Your guidance in the development and
execution of this project has been critical to its completion. Dr. William E. Martin, you
have taught with clarity and expertise. Your knowledge of statistics and research design
has been invaluable to me as I lean towards practitioner and away from scientist.
Dr. Eugene R. Moan, I recognize in you a shared interest in spirituality and healthy
families. Thank you for assigning the paper that first sparked my interest in this subject
matter. Dr. Frances J. Riemer, you have been an effective teacher and have brought a
fresh perspective to this work. I appreciate your willingness to invest in my
development. Dr. Bob Tures, you lead me with your optimism, expertise, and creative
deployment of our craft. I thank you all.
I would also like to thank my family. To my parents Richard and Jeanne, thank
you for sacrifices you made for my education and your example in the continuing pursuit
of knowledge. To my brothers and sister Doug, Brad, Richard, Steven and Barbara your
love, encouragement, and faith have been sustaining.
Thanks to my husband Mario for the investments you continue to make in my
growth and our marriage. For my children Tyler, Gina, Reagan, and Lauren, you simply
delight me.
Table o f Contents
Abstract.....................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................4
Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................5
List of Tables............................................................................................................................ 9
List of Figures......................................................................................................................... 10
C hapter 1.................................................................................................................................11
Introduction..............................................................................................................................12
Predicting Marital Satisfaction.................................................................................. 12
Background and Contextual Factors............................................................. 12
The Couple’s Interaction Process................................................................. 13
Individual Traits and Behavior..................................................................... 13
Theoretical Orientation............................................................................................... 13
Instruments that Measure Irrational Beliefs............................................................. 14
Statement of the Problem...........................................................................................15
Purpose of the Study................................................................................................... 15
Significance of this Study.........................................................................................15
Research Questions................................................................................................... 17
Research Question One................................................................................ 17
Research Question Two............................................................................... 17
Research Question Three............................................................................. 17
Research Question Four...............................................................................18
Research Question Five............................................................................... 18
Research Question Six................................................................................. 18
Research Question Seven (a) and (b).........................................................19
Variables and Definitions of Terms....................................................................... 20
Marriage....................................................................................................... 20
Irrational Relationship Beliefs................................................................... 20
Marital Satisfaction..................................................................................... 21
Gender.......................................................................................................... 21
Education Level.......................................................................................... 21
Household Income...................................................................................... 21
Years Married..............................................................................................22
Position in Family Life Cycle.................................................................... 22
Parents’ Divorce.......................................................................................... 23
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................23
Delimitations...............................................................................................23
Limitations..................................................................................................23
Summary..................................................................................................................23
C hapter II ........................................................................................................................... 25
Review of the Literature.....................................................................................................25
Theoretical Orientation.......................................................................................... 25
Irrational Thoughts and Mental Health.................................................... 25
Irrational Beliefs in the Context of Intimate Relationships................... 25
What Make a Belief “Irrational”? ............................................................25
Types of Irrational Beliefs and Unrealistic Expectations.......................27
The Relationship between Irrational Beliefs and Marital Satisfaction.............. 30
People Who Endorse Irrational Beliefs................................................................. 33
Gender......................................................................................................... 33
Age.............................................................................................................. 34
Education.....................................................................................................35
Position in Family Life Cycle.................................................................... 35
Household Income...................................................................................... 36
Years Married............................................................................................. 36
Times Married............................................................................................ 37
Parents’ Divorce......................................................................................... 37
Religion....................................................................................................... 37
Measuring Irrational Relationship Beliefs............................................................37
The Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI)................................................. 39
The Relationship Belief Scale (RBS)....................................................... 40
Summary o f Chapter Two...................................................................................... 40
C hapter I I I .......................................................................................................................... 42
Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 42
Research Design....................................................................................................... 42
Target Population and Accessible Population....................................................... 42
Selecting the Sample.................................................................................................43
Description o f the Sample........................................................................................ 45
Sample Source.............................................................................................. 45
Age and Gender............................................................................................ 45
Education....................................................................................................... 43
Position in Family Life Cycle...................................................................... 46
Household Income........................................................................................ 47
Years Married................................................................................................47
Times Married.............................................................................................. 47
Parents’ Divorce.......................................................................................... 47
Religion......................................................................................................... 47
Instrumentation.........................................................................................................47
Demographic Item Questionnaire (DIQ)................................................... 48
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)................................................................48
Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI)..........................................................50
Relationship Belief Scale (RBS)................................................................53
Statistical Procedures...............................................................................................53
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question One........................53
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Two...................... 54
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Three.................... 54
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Four.......................55
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Five.......................55
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Six.........................56
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Seven.................... 56
Summary o f Chapter Three........................................................................................ 57
C hapter I V ............................................................................................................................. 58
Results......................................................................................................................................58
Data Screening Procedures........................................................................................ 58
Data Entry...................................................................................................... 58
Missing Data..................................................................................................58
Univariate Underlying Assumptions........................................................... 60
Multivariate Outliers.....................................................................................62
Summary o f Data Screening.....................................................................................63
Restatement of the Problem...................................................................................... 63
Analysis of the Statistical Results............................................................................ 64
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question One...........................64
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Two..........................65
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Three........................81
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Four......................... 93
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Five..........................98
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Six (a).....................100
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Six (b).....................102
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Seven (a)................ 104
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Seven (b)................105
Summary of Results..................................................................................................107
Results of Research Question One.............................................................. 107
Results of Research Question Two.............................................................108
Results o f Research Question Three...........................................................108
Results o f Research Question Four............................................................. 108
Results of Research Question Five............................................................. 109
Results o f Research Question Six (a)..........................................................109
Results o f Research Question Six (b).........................................................110
Results of Research Question Seven (a).................................................... 110
Results o f Research Question Seven (b).................................................... I l l
C hapter V ............................................................................................................................ 112

Discussion...............................................................................................................................112
Introduction................................................................................................................112
Population and Sample.............................................................................................113
Research Question One.............................................................................................115
Research Question Two............................................................................................116
Research Question Three..........................................................................................119
Research Question Four............................................................................................121
Research Question Five............................................................................................122
Research Question Six..............................................................................................123
Research Question Seven (a)................................................................................... 124
Research Question Seven (b)................................................................................... 125
Strengths.................................................................................................................... 125
Demographic Factors................................................................................... 126
Large Sample Size....................................................................................... 126
Limitations.................................................................................................................126
Assumptions of Normality..........................................................................126
The Unique and Highly Homogenous Sample.......................................... 127
The LDS Population.................................................................................... 128
Non-Random Sample.................................................................................. 128
Possible Influence of Treatment................................................................ 128
Implications for Practice...........................................................................................129
Clinical Use of the RBI and RBS............................................................... 129
Irrational Relationship Beliefs and Marital Satisfaction.......................... 129
Demographic Factors.................................................................................. 129
Specific Value for Therapists serving LDS Couples................................129
Implications for Further Research..........................................................................130
Summary o f Chapter Five........................................................................................131
R eferences............................................................................................................................ 133
Appendix A NAU Letter from Institutional Review Board........................................... 141
Appendix B Letter of Informed Consent.........................................................................143
Appendix C Letter from The Institute of Marriage and Family Counseling.............. 145
Expressing support and permission to poll lecture audiences.
Appendix D Email Letter from Norman Epstein, Ph.D............................................... 147

Granting permission to use the Relationship Belief Inventory
Appendix E Email Letter from Bryce F. Sullivan Ph.D.............................................. 149

Granting permission to use the Relationship Belief Scale
Appendix F Demographic Information Questionnaire (DIQ)....................................151
List of Tables
Table 1 Participant Source Breakdown by Gender...................................................46
Table 2 RBI Mean, Standard Deviation and Pearson r with RBS Total.................. 66
Table 3 RBS Mean, Standard Deviation and Pearson r with RBI Total.................. 68
Table 4 Comparison o fM and SD o f RBI, RBS, and DAS Scores.............................70
Table 5 Correlation Matrix o f the Subscale and Total Scores o f the....................... 71

RBI and RBS
Table 6 RBI Principle Component Analyses - Pattern Matrix................................. 76
Table 7 Principle Component Analysis, Loadings o f RBI Subscale Items...............79
Table 8 Results o f the RBS Principle Component Analysis - Pattern M atrix 86
Table 9 Results o f the RBS Factor Analysis - Pattern Matrix.................................. 90
T able 10 RBS Loadings from Sullivan’s Study, Factor Analysis and.........................94

Principle Component Analysis.
Table 11 Correlation Matrix fo r RBI Subscales and DAS Total Score...................... 97
Table 12 Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis fo r .............................. 98

RBI subscales and Dyadic Adjustment
Table 13 Pearson r Correlation Matrix fo r RBS Subscales........................................ 99

and DAS Total Score
Table 14 Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis,................................. 101

RBS subscales and Dyadic Adjustment.
Table 15 Demographic Factors and Pearson r Correlations................................... 102

fo r RBI and RBS Total Score
Table 16 Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis.................................. 103

RBI Subscales, Demographic Factors and Dyadic Adjustment
Table 17 Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis................................. 106

RBS Subscales, Demographic Factors and Dyadic Adjustment
List of Figures
Figure One - Scree Plot fo r Principle Component Analysis o f RBI.............................. 75
Figure Two - Scree Plot o f Principle Component Analysis o f RBS.............................. 84
Figure Three - Scree Plot fo r Exploratory Factor Analysis o f RBS.............................. 89
10
CHAPTER I
Introduction
The marriage relationship is one of the most fundamental of all human
relationships. It is the primary means of establishing familial connection and is the best
means of rearing children (Stahmann & Hiebert, 1987). In 2004, 2,211,000 couples
married (Department of Health and Human Services, 2005). It is predicted that 43% of
these marriages will break up within 15 years (National Center of Health Statistics,
2005). Tremendous emotional and monetary expense is attached to these statistics. On
the Social Readjustment Scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967) divorce and marital separation
rank second and third, respectively, of the most stressful of all life events. Marital
distress has been linked with decreased work productivity (Forthofer, Markman, Cox,
Stanley & Kessler, 1996) and increased mental and physical problems (Coie et al., 1993).
Children whose parents divorce are seriously affected too. These children are
more likely to drop out of school, become pregnant in their teens, abuse drugs, and break
the law. In addition, they have more trouble getting along with their parents and seek
more psychological services (Harvey & Fine, 2004). Like their parents, they suffer from
increased mental and physical problems (Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1993).
O f the marriages that remain intact, many of them are unhappy and characterized
by high levels o f negative interaction (Weiss & Heyman, 1990) or abuse (Vivian &
O’Leary, 1990). Unhappy marriages have been linked to mental health risks.
Specifically, marital distress is linked to higher occurrences o f depression in adults and to
conduct disorders for children who live in these families (Coie et al., 1991). Therefore
there is great interest in predicting the quality of marriages.
11
Predicting Marital Satisfaction
Historically, researchers and marriage therapists have looked at factors that
predict marriage success and those that predict divorce (Cate & Loyd, 1992; Gottman,
1994; Larson & Holman, 1994; Lewis & Spanier, 1979; Wambolt & Reiss, 1989). These
factors fall into the following three categories.
Background and Contextual Factors
There are many factors about one’s background that may predict marital
satisfaction. For instance, a person is more likely to be happily married if their parents
did not divorce (McLanahan & Bumpass, 1988). There are other sociocultural factors
that predict marital satisfaction. Getting married when you are still a teenager is highly
predictive o f poor marital quality (Booth & Edwards, 1985; Martin & Bumpass, 1989).
Other socioeconomic factors like income and level of education at marriage have been
found to join together to predict marital stability (Kurdek, 1991, 1993; Martin &
Bumpass, 1989). Men, who attended college prior to marriage and never experienced
unemployment, tend to stay in their marriages longer than men who did not (Bahr &
Galligan, 1984). Having the support and influence of friends who approve of your choice
to marry also can predict satisfaction (Kurdek, 1991).
The Couple’s Interaction Process
This prediction category includes such factors as homogamy, interpersonal
similarity, and interactional history. Homogamy refers to the theory that marriage
satisfaction tends to occur in marriages where the spouses have similar cultural, religious,
education, intellectual and socio-economic backgrounds (Burr, 1973). Interpersonal
similarity is also predictive o f marital success. People who share core values, beliefs, and
12
attitudes tend to have more marital quality and more stability (Fowers & Olsen, 1986;
Kurdek, 1993).
Interactional history and process includes factors such a length of courtship,
cohabitation, premarital pregnancy, and communication styles. Longer courtships tend to
predict more satisfaction partly because major differences can be ferreted out and leave
fewer surprises for the marriage (Kurdek, 1991, 1993). Living together before marriage
is linked to poor marital satisfaction (Janus & Janus, 1993; Stanley & Markman, 1997).
Premarital pregnancy is highly predictive of poor marital satisfaction because of the
added stress it puts on the relationship (Manning, 1993). Other studies have concentrated
on a couple’s communication skills. Those couples with more skills tend to have better
marital satisfaction (Gottman, 1994, Wamboldt & Reiss 1989).
Individual Traits and Behavior
There are several intrapersonal characteristics that are highly predictive of poor
marital quality. Poor mental health (Beach & O ’Leary, 1993), impulsivity (Kelly &
Conley, 1987), and poor self-concept (Lewis & Spanier, 1979) are all highly predictive of
poor marital quality. The final factor and focus of this study, is that of dysfunctional or
irrational beliefs about marriage and the impact these beliefs have on marriage
satisfaction. (Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Larson, 1992;
Kurdek, 1993; Schwebel & Sullivan, 1996).
Theoretical Orientation
Cognitive behavioral psychology arose from the observation that people can have
faulty, erroneous, or irrational beliefs and that these beliefs can negatively affect the way
in which people function (Beck & Emery, 1985; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979;
13
Ellis, 1994; Meichenbaum, 1977). Specifically, in the context of marriage, there are
irrational beliefs about intimate relationships that contribute to disappointment and
distress in marriages and may cause people to interact in non-productive ways (Baucom
& Epstein, 1990; Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Eidelson, 1981, Larson 1992;
Schwebel & Fine, 1994; Schwebel & Sullivan, 1996). Chapter Two contains a detailed
explanation o f irrational relationship beliefs. The term “irrational belief’ will be further
defined and several irrational relationship beliefs will be identified.
Instruments that Measure Irrational Beliefs
The topic of irrational relationship beliefs has generated much interest especially
among scientists and practitioners that follow a cognitive behavioral therapeutic approach
(Baucom et al., 1989; Doherty, 1997; Eidelson & Epstein 1982; Schwebel & Fine, 1994;
Sullivan, 1997). In turn, this interest generated the need to accurately assess these beliefs
and the development of instruments to do so.
The first instrument designed to assess irrational thoughts was the Irrational
Beliefs Test (IBT, Jones, 1968). It was designed in accordance with Albert Ellis’ work
and the irrational beliefs he noticed in his clients. It was general in nature and not
specific to marriage or relationships.
The Relationship Belief Inventory was the first instrument created specifically to
assess those irrational beliefs that exist within committed intimate relationships (Eidelson
& Epstein, 1982). According to the test authors, the original development study found it
to have good psychometric properties. It has been researched, written about, and used as
an assessment instrument in many studies that have investigated relationship beliefs.
Although the RBI is the most commonly used test used to assess marital beliefs, some
14
authors have cast doubt upon the internal consistency and divergent validity of this
measure (Emmelkamp et al., 1987; James et al, 2002; Sullivan, 1997).
For his doctoral dissertation, Sullivan (1997) designed a new instrument that
measures irrational relationship beliefs—the Relationship Belief Scale (RBS). Initial
study results show the RBS to have good psychometric properties and much potential for
use in research. However, this new instrument has not been used in any published study.
Further investigation is needed regarding the internal consistency and scale validity of the
RBS.
Statement o f the Problem
Millions of couples divorce every year. Most divorces are characterized by
disappointment and marital distress, some of which is due to unrealistic or irrational
expectations of the marriage relationship. Some of this distress may be minimized by
normalizing the conflict in marriage and helping clients to adopt more realistic or rational
expectations regarding this intimate human relationship.
Some studies have looked at dispelling irrational beliefs as an intervention for
premarital counseling (Doherty 1997; Holman, Larson, & Harmer, 1994; Larson, 1992;
Larson & Holman, 1994). Still others have used the assessment o f irrational beliefs as a
prediction tool for marital distress and divorce (Crohan, 1992; Kurdek, 1993; Markman
& Hahlweg, 1993). However, very little research exists regarding irrational beliefs in
intact marriages. This study investigated irrational beliefs in the context o f non-clinical
married people.
Furthermore, this study sought to determine significant demographic features of
married individuals that endorse irrational beliefs. Previous studies have been
15
inconclusive regarding the demographic factors that predict endorsing irrational
relationship beliefs.
Clinicians have traditionally used the Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI,
Eidelson & Epstein, 1982) to assess irrational relationship thoughts. Recently, a new
instrument has become available —The Relationship Belief Scale (RBS, Sullivan, 1997).
Both instruments need further study to determine the psychometric strengths of each.
The problems addressed in this study are threefold, (a) A new instrument that
assesses irrational beliefs requires further investigation and comparison to the currently
existing instrument, (b) The relationship between irrational relationship beliefs and
marital satisfaction needs to be determined, (c) Little is known concerning the
demographic make up of people who endorse irrational relationship beliefs.
Purpose o f this Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the psychometric indices of a new
instrument designed to measure irrational beliefs, and to compare this to an existing
instrument. Furthermore, this study seeks to establish the connection between irrational
relationship beliefs and marital satisfaction with a new sample. Also, the relationship
between the demographic factors of age, gender, years married, times married, household
income, education, religion, position in the family life cycle and parent’s divorce will be
investigated to determine their relationship with endorsing irrational relationship beliefs.
Significance o f this Study
This study explored the validity and reliability of an existing instrument, the RBI,
that measures irrational relationship beliefs and a new instrument, the RBS. This study
provided insight into the people who endorse irrational relationship beliefs and certain
16
demographic factors were examined for their connection to these people. It builds on
previous research that has indicated that irrational beliefs predict poor marital adjustment.
Information from this study may be used to guide future research of irrational
relationship beliefs. Psychologists, counselors and educators may use the results to help
design interventions that increase marital satisfaction and decrease the rate of divorce.
Research Questions
Research Question One
What will be the relationships comparing the scales of the RBI and the RBS?
Null hypothesis. There will be no significant relationships comparing the RBI and
RBS scales.
Alternative hypothesis. There will be moderate and significant relationships
comparing the RBI and the RBS scales.
Research Question Two
What will be the factor structure and internal consistency o f the Relationship
Belief Inventory?
Null Hypothesis. There will not be a five factor structure that emerges from the
factor analysis performed on the Relationship Belief Inventory.
Alternative hypothesis. There will a five factor structure that emerges from the
factor analysis performed on the Relationship Belief Inventory.
Research Question Three
What will be the factor structure and internal consistency o f the Relationship
Belief Scale?
Null hypothesis. There will not be a five factor structure that emerges from the
17
factor analysis performed on the Relationship Belief Scale.
Alternative hypothesis. There will a five factor structure that emerges from the
factor analysis performed on the Relationship Belief Scale.
Research Question Four
To what extent do irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the Relationship
Belief Inventory, predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale?
Null hypothesis. Irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the RBI, will not
predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
Alternative hypothesis. Irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the RBI,
will predict marriage satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
Research Question Five
To what extent do irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the Relationship
Belief Scale, predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale?
Null hypothesis. Irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the RBS, will not
predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
Alternative hypothesis. Irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the RBS,
will predict marriage satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
Research Question Six
To what extent do the demographic variables of gender, age, education level,
years married, times married, household income, religion, position in family life cycle,
and parent’s divorce predict endorsement of irrational beliefs, as measured by the total
scores of a) the Relationship Belief Inventory and b) the Relationship Belief Scale?
18
Null hypothesis. The demographic variables of gender, age, education level,
years married, times married, household income, religion, position in the family life
cycle, and parent’s divorce will not predict endorsement of irrational relationship beliefs,
as measured by the total scores of the a) Relationship Belief Inventory and b) the
Relationship Belief Scale.
Alternative hypothesis. The demographic variables of gender, age, years married,
times married, education level, household income, religion, position in the family life
cycle, and parent’s divorce will predict endorsement of irrational relationship beliefs, as
measured by the total scores of a) the Relationship Belief Inventory and b) the
Relationship Belief Scale.
Research Question Seven (a) and (b)
Which combinations o f demographic factors and irrational beliefs, as measured
by a) the Relationship Belief Inventory and b) the Relationship Belief Scale are
predictive of marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale?
Null hypothesis. There are no combinations of demographic factors and
irrational beliefs, as measured by the subscales on the Relationship Belief Inventory and
the Relationship Belief Scale that predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale.
Alternative hypothesis. There are combinations of demographic factors and
irrational beliefs, as measured by the subscales on the Relationship Belief Inventory and
the Relationship Belief Scale, that predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale.
Variables and Definitions o f Terms
The following terms are used in the study and are defined as follows.
Marriage
For the purposes of this study, marriage is defined as a legal union between a man
and a woman. It does not include same-sex unions, unmarried, or cohabitating couples.
Irrational Relationship Beliefs
Attitudes about marriage, that are not empirically proven or which are
maladaptive, are considered irrational. Specific to this study were the five irrational
belief subscale variables obtained by responses to the Relationship Belief Inventory
(Eidelson & Epstein, 1982).
Disagreement is Destructive', An attitude that contention will threaten the
relationship.
Mindreading is Expected; An attitude that good spouses know the mind of their
partners without it being communicated vocally.
Partners Cannot Change; An attitude that partners have no capacity for growth or
change.
Sexual Perfectionism; An attitude that good marriages are characterized by perfect
sexual performance.
The Sexes are Different; An attitude that ascribes a partner’s negative
characteristics to their gender.
There were another five irrational belief subscales obtained by responses to the
Relationship Belief Scale (Sullivan, 1997).
Vigilance; An attitude o f fear which requires constantly monitoring the partner’s
20
thoughts and actions to keep the partner in line.
Blame and Punishment, An attitude that partners are, or have the potential to be
bad and cause trouble in the relationship.
All or Nothing Thinking; An attitude that events can be described in black and
white terms.
Perfectionistic Expectations', An attitude that relationships and partners be perfect.
Demandfor Attention', An attitude that a partner is expected to fulfill all o f one’s
needs.
Marital Satisfaction
Individuals experience their marriage relationship as providing them with levels
of pleasure or reward. For this study, marital satisfaction was measured by the composite
score on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976).
Gender
Participants indicated their gender by checking the appropriate box of a
demographic questionnaire, male or female.
Education Level
Education level was determined by participants indicating how many years of
schooling they have attended. Four checkmark categories were provided, one each for
high school, some college, college graduate, and post graduate college.
Household Income
Household income was determined by participants indicating by checkmark an
income category that included their household income.
Years Married
A blank space was provided for the participant to write the number of years they
have been married.
Religion
Participants indicated by checking off one of several identified religious
categories, including LDS, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, No Religion and one blank for
“other” where participants wrote in their religion.
Position in Family Life Cycle
There are six developmental stages to the life of a family as identified by Carter &
McGoldrick (1989). The six stages are; (a) Beginning Family, characterized by a couple
being married but not having had their first child yet, (b) Infant Preschool Family,
characterized by a married couple whose oldest child is under 5, (c) School-age Family,
where a couple’s oldest child is under 13, (d) Adolescent Family, where the oldest child
is under 18, (e) Launching Family in which the oldest child is over 18 but under 25 and
(f) Post Parental Family wherein all the children have left home.
Participants indicated which family life cycle stage they are in by filling in a
blank with the age o f their or their spouse’s oldest child or indicating that they had no
children. An additional category was added to this study of Mature—No kids, to
differentiate these participants from young couples in the Beginning Family category
who had not yet started their families. For the purposes of this study people who
indicated that their oldest child was over 25 were considered to be in the Post Parental
Family even though they may have other children still at home.
Parents' Divorce
Participants indicated if their own parents’ marriage had ended in divorce by
answering a question and checking the appropriate box. They were also asked to write in
at what age they were when the divorce occurred.
Limitations and Delimitations
The following factors may influence the external validity (delimitations) or
internal validity (limitations) o f the study.
Delimitations
Marital status. This study considers only heterosexual couples in legal marriages.
Results of this study may not generalize to engaged couples, couples in same-sex unions,
or to heterosexual couples in cohabitating situations.
Geographic Location. Participants for this study were drawn from the greater
Salt Lake City, Utah area. In the sample, 219 participants (74%) were affiliated with the
dominant LDS religion. Those adhering to this conservative religion may have unique
attitudes regarding marriage and divorce that would prevent findings from this study to
generalize outside of Utah.
Limitations
Subject selection. Most of the people participating in this study attended psycho
educational lectures offered in the metropolitan Salt Lake City area. People attending
these lectures may not represent the population at large.
Summary
Marital distress and the effects of divorce are a significant societal problem. This
chapter introduced the general topic of predicting marital distress. The discussion then
23
narrowed to one of many factors that has been shown to predict marital distress—that of
endorsing irrational relationship beliefs. A theoretical orientation was provided for the
topic of irrational relationship beliefs.
There was also a discussion of the two significant instruments used to measure
irrational relationship beliefs. The purpose and significance of the study was stated and
the research questions were identified. All o f the variables in the study were defined and
the limitations and delimitations were discussed.
24
CHAPTER II
Review of the Literature
The following section will present the underlying themes of this study—irrational
relationship beliefs and marital satisfaction. Seminal theoretical pieces will be presented,
as well as study results from the literature. Rationale for inclusion in the study will be
presented for each o f the nine demographic factors; gender, age, education, years
married, times married, family life cycle position, household income, religion and
parent’s divorce. Finally, the development, and psychometric strengths of each of the
research instruments will be addressed.
Theoretical Orientation
Irrational Thoughts and Mental Health
Albert Ellis (1994) was the first to identify thoughts as “irrational”. As a
psychoanalytic therapist he noticed that his clients held irrational or maladaptive beliefs
regarding how life ought to be. His clients were unhappy and anxious because their
experiences didn’t align with these irrational beliefs. Ellis identified eleven irrational
beliefs that were common to his clients. In therapy, he helped his clients see the
irrational nature of their thoughts and to substitute a rational alternative in its place. He
found that when his clients changed to the rational belief, they experienced a decrease in
anxiety and other negative symptoms.
Beck (Beck & Emery, 1985; Beck, Rush, Shaw & Emery, 1979) also made a
connection with his depressed clients and their illogical thoughts. He discovered that his
clients’ schema was a product o f early learning and that stressful life events brought
about dependency upon the illogical schemata. This led his clients to jump to irrational
25
conclusions and to make faulty choices based on the illogical beliefs.
Meichenbaum (1977), another cognitive behavioral scientist, developed Self
Instructional Training. This form of therapy taught clients about the power of their
cognitions. It helped them to identify metacognitive patterns and to recognize the part
they played in their problems. Once identified, the client was taught to replace the
problematic thoughts and patterns with new ones and behaviors that were more health
promoting.
Irrational Beliefs in the Context o f Intimate Relationships
Authors and clinicians began applying cognitive behavioral therapy to the context
of relationships (Ellis & Harper, 1961). Albert Ellis said, “Disturbed marital and family
relationships stem not so much from what happens among family members as from the
perceptions that these members have and the views they take of these happenings.”
What Makes a Belief ‘‘Irrational”?
Cognitions regarding marriage and relationships vary regarding their
appropriateness, validity, and reasonableness (Baucom et al., 1989). Irrationality refers
to thoughts that prevent people from accomplishing their basic human goals and are
inconsistent with empirical reality (Dryden & Digiuseppe, 1990). For instance, many
people believe in the notion of a soulmate (Larson, 1992). This cognition maintains that
for every person there is one other person best suited to provide their maximum joy,
happiness, and fulfillment. There is little empirical evidence to suggest that soulmates
exist. Therefore, belief in a soulmate is irrational (Larson, 1992).
In contrast, rationality is defined as that which helps people to achieve their goals
(Kurdek, 1993). Rational thought is logical and is consistent with empirical evidence.
26
With regard to the theory of a soulmate it is rational to believe that there are many people
with whom you might develop an intimate and rewarding relationship (Larson, 1992).
Another term that is often used to describe these cognitions in literature is
dysfunctional beliefs. “Dysfunctional beliefs...can be regarded as relatively enduring
predispositions that bias a person toward filtering, processing, and appraising marital
events in a dysfunctional manner” (Kurdek, 1993 p.238).
Some authors refer to these cognitions as unrealistic beliefs (Larson, 1992).
Authors Frank and Frank (1990) have made the differentiation between high but realistic
expectations and high but unrealistic expectations. An example o f a high expectation
would be —wanting your spouse to anticipate your mood from your non-verbal behavior.
After many years o f interacting, discourse and sufficient motivation, your spouse may
achieve this skill. This is a high, but realistic expectation. To expect this within months
o f the marriage date is a high and unrealistic expectation that may lead to disappointment.
Types o f Irrational Beliefs and Unrealistic Expectations
A recent survey (Schwebel, 1992) asked 100 young adults what it would take for
them to stay in a one year old marriage. The results were characterized by extremely high
expectations of marriage. On a scale that ranged from 0 (lowest) and 100 (highest) the
responses had the following means: “ amount of joy and laughter 81.7; decision-making
skills as a couple, 85.7; conflict resolution skills as a couple 86.0; communication quality,
86.5; level o f physical intimacy, 88.4; level o f psychological intimacy, 83.9; and level of
love, 90.2.” The author concluded that students with unrealistic, high expectations would
meet marriage with disappointment and distress (Schwebel, 1992). Similar results from
another study (Kudek, 1991), suggest that the level o f expectation in marriage is directly
27
proportional to the level o f disappointment.
In the development o f the Relationship Belief Inventory, Eidelson and Epstein
(1982) polled 20 marriage therapists to identify beliefs about intimate relationships that
seemed to cause the most difficulty for their clients. This generated 128 items that
appeared to fall into 5 categories or themes. 1) Disagreement is Destructive; An attitude
that keeps couples from discussing their differences and learning problem solving
strategies. 2) Mindreading is Expected; A belief that keeps couples from using dialogue
as a means of communication and prevents them from improving their skills in this area.
3) Partners cannot change; An attitude that encourages people to leave relationships
prematurely or to not engage in behavior that might resolve conflicts. 4) Sexual
Perfectionism; A belief characterized by a preoccupation with performance during sex. 5)
The Sexes are Different; Despite the popularity o f this belief, adhering to it perpetrates
the notion that men are from Mars and women are from Venus (Grey, 1992). It prevents
people from seeing the unique qualities of their partner and making changes that enhance
marital satisfaction.
By searching the existing literature, Larson (1992) identified several unrealistic
beliefs prevalent in young adults when they anticipated their future marriages. Eight of
them apply to this discussion. They are: 1) The One and Only Belief; A belief that there
is one right person for each person to marry. 2) The Perfect Partner Belief; A belief that
places unrealistic expectations on one’s partner. 3) The Perfect Self Belief; A belief that
one must be perfect to marry and engage in romantic relationships. In reality, imposed
perfection can be a roadblock to intimacy. 4) The Perfect Relationship Belief; this is the
attitude that flaws or weaknesses in the relationship are indications that the relationship
28
should be ended. It keeps individuals from working on relationships or on individual
change. 5) The Try Harder Belief; A belief opposite of the Perfect Partner Belief. It is
an attitude that one individual can build a quality marriage by themselves. Realistically,
it requires two committed and invested partners. 6) The Love is Enough Belief; A belief
that attachment, erotic interest, or infatuation is sufficient to bind a couple together. 7)
The Cohabitation Belief; A belief that requires couples to test the relationship by living
together prior to marriage. 8) The Opposites Complement Each Other Belief; A belief
that prevents people from changing behaviors. Realistically, the most satisfaction is
found in couples where great similarities exist.
When Sullivan (1997) performed a factor analysis on the 42 irrational belief items
for the Relationship Belief Scale, five dominant factors emerged. They were: 1)
Vigilance; An attitude o f constantly monitoring one’s partner’s thoughts and actions to
keep the partner in line. 2) Blame and Punishment; An attitude that partners are, or have
the potential to be bad and cause trouble in the relationship. 3) All or Nothing Thinking;
An attitude o f describing events in extreme, black and white terms. 4) Perfectionistic
Expectations; An attitude that relationships and partners should be perfect. 5) Demand
for Attention; An attitude that your partner should fulfill your needs.
Several authors have identified thoughts or attitudes about relationships that
appear to be irrational and therefore at odds with the reality o f relationships. Holding
these attitudes is not consistent with the goal of having a satisfying relationship.
Therefore the next item to examine is the link between endorsing irrational relationship
beliefs and marital satisfaction.
The Relationship between Irrational Beliefs and Marital Satisfaction
Schwebel and Sullivan (1996) state that people come to marriage with a
“marriage dream”. This is a collection of cognitions regarding a successful marriage.
Smith and Schwebel refer to this as the fam ily schema (1998). This collection of
thoughts and attitudes about marriage is socially constructed (Bandura, 1977) over the
course of one’s life and represent all of the assumptions, standards, attributions, and
expectancies that one has regarding marriage (Baucom et al. 1989). They also dictate
how couples will react to one another and to conflict and disappointment in the
relationship (Schwebel & Fine, 1994). Schwebel and Sullivan (1996) point out that all
marriages will eventually experience a loss of the marriage dream as the dream is
tempered by real life, but for couples with unrealistic or irrational cognitions, the loss
leads to higher levels o f marital distress.
Several studies have indicated a negative correlation between irrational
relationship beliefs and marital satisfaction. In a study used to established the norms and
validity o f the Relationship Belief Inventory, Eidelson and Epstein, (1982) found a
significant correlation between people’s endorsement of irrational relationship beliefs and
marital adjustment. In this study 100 couples responded to an instrument that measures
marital satisfaction and another that measures irrational belief. There was significant
negative correlation between the endorsement of irrational beliefs and their expressed
marital adjustment. Those in the sample that were taken from a clinical population were
also given another measure designed to measure one’s attitude about the outcome of
therapy. In this clinical population, those who endorsed irrational relationship beliefs
were more likely to predict a poor outcome for therapy with their spouse and expressed a
30
desire for individual therapy instead of couple’s therapy.
A study done in Holland (Emmelkamp, Krol, Sanderman & Ruphan,1987)
consisted of two samples. The first was from a random sample of Dutch couples (414
couples) and the other was from a clinical population of couples seeking marital therapy
(179 couples). All participants were given the RBI and two measures of marital
satisfaction, the Maudsley Marital Questionnaire (Aringdell, Emmelkamp, and Bast,
1983) and the Communication Questionnaire (CQ, Buunk & Nijskens, 1980). Results
indicated that irrational relationship beliefs negatively correlated to marital satisfaction
and quality o f communication.
Sullivan and Schwebel (1995) had similar results with their unmarried sample of
474 college students. Participants that endorsed irrational relationship beliefs also
experienced their current relationship to be less satisfying than those that held more
realistic beliefs.
In their study to investigate the effect that popular media had upon creating
irrational relationship beliefs, Shapiro & Kroeger (1991) had similar results. The 109
participants in this study took the RBI and the satisfaction subscale of the DAS as well as
a media questionnaire. Correlation results of this study (r =-.61 /?<001), indicated that
those people who endorsed irrational beliefs also reported less satisfaction in their current
intimate relationship.
In another study, 61 married couples took part in a study that sought to compare
irrational beliefs with marital satisfaction (Addis & Bernard, 2002). In this study 61
couples were divided into two groups based on whether or not they were involved in
marriage therapy. It was found that the irrational belief factors were a significant
31
predictor of the clinical and non-clinical sample. Specifically, the irrational beliefs of
“self-downing” and “need for comfort” showed the strongest relationship to marital
dissatisfaction.
In 1991, a study from Russia (Moller & Van Zyl, 1991) had 46 married couples
take the Relationship Belief Inventory and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. They found
correlation between extreme levels of irrational belief and unhappy adjustment in
marriage. Specifically, the subscales, Disagreement is Destructive and Sexual
Perfectionism were significantly correlated with marital adjustment, while the other
subscales were not.
A study from Turkey (Hamamci, 2005) had 190 married men and women take a
measure of marital adjustment and another test designed to measure irrational beliefs in
marriage, The Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale, developed by the study’s author.
Again, irrational beliefs were shown to be significantly negatively correlated with marital
adjustment.
Not all the research is conclusive. DeBord and Romans (1996) wanted to
determine what contribution irrational relationship beliefs made to marital adjustment and
compare that contribution to that of irrational beliefs in general. Unlike previous studies
cited, this study measured irrational relationship beliefs with an instrument designed by
the authors, called the Relationship Belief Questionnaire, (RBQ, Romans & DeBord,
1995). Results o f this study indicated that relationship-specific irrational beliefs were
significantly related to marital satisfaction but in the opposite direction than expected.
People that endorsed the irrational beliefs regarding intimate relationships were better
adjusted in their marriages. The fact that these findings are opposite to most of the
32
others, (Emmelkamp et al., 1987; Sullivan, 1997) may be attributed to the instrument
used to assess irrational relationship beliefs, the RBQ instead of the more established and
researched, RBI (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982).
People Who Endorse Irrational Beliefs
To date, there are very few published studies that have examined the demographic
factors that predispose or predict irrational relationship beliefs. Knowledge of these
factors could prove helpful in targeting, designing and implementing intervention and
relationship education. The demographic factors included in this study are presented as
well as a review from the current literature.
Gender
The connection between gender and irrational relationship beliefs appears to be
weak and the results o f several studies are mixed. Some studies have been unable to
show significant differences between the scores of men and woman (Fitzpatrick & Sollie,
1999; Hamamci, 2005; Shapiro & Kroeger, 1991; Sullivan & Schwebel, 1995).
However, one study did find that men are more likely to endorse irrational relationship
views than woman, (DeBord & Romans, 1996). Although this study used the
Relationship Belief Questionnaire to measure endorsement and not the RBI or RBS.
Another study (Sharp & Ganong, 2000) found that men’s irrational beliefs were more
resistant to change than women’s after an integrative training designed to help dispel the
beliefs.
In his dissertation, Bushman (1999) examined problem-solving techniques,
endorsement of irrational relationship beliefs, and marital satisfaction. He used the
popular RBI to measure endorsement of irrational relationship beliefs. His sample
33
consisted of 150 dating couples. There were some significant gender differences. The
men that reported poor satisfaction and destructive problem solving techniques
significantly endorsed the irrational belief subscales of Disagreement is Destructive and
People Cannot Change. Women that reported poor relationship satisfaction and
destructive problem solving techniques endorsed the irrational belief subscale of M ind
Reading is Expected.
In another study that used the RBI to measure endorsement, some slight
differences between men and woman were found (Bradbury & Fincham, 1993).
Specifically these differences were in the subscale endorsement. Men were more apt to
endorse the belief sub scale o f Sexual Perfectionism and the belief subscale The Sexes are
Different. However, this study did not detect gender differences in the RBI total score.
In another study that looked at gender and subscription to Ellis’ irrational beliefs
(Lichtenberg, 1992) it was found that women were more likely to endorse irrational
beliefs in general.
Age
O f the several studies that have looked at irrational relationship beliefs only one
o f them addressed age as a demographic factor. Shapiro and Kroeger (1991) designed a
study that examined media’s effect on endorsement of irrational relationship beliefs. Age
was found not to predict irrational relationship beliefs.
There was one other study that used age as a demographic factor but the authors
were not looking specifically at irrational relationship beliefs but irrational beliefs in
general. This study was designed to test a Slovakian version of the Irrational Beliefs
Scale (Kordacova & Kondas, 1998). In this study, respondents took a translated and
34
modified version of The Irrational Belief Test (Jones, 1968) to measure endorsement of
irrational beliefs. It was found that teenagers endorsed irrational beliefs significantly
more than adults and young adults endorsed them significantly more than older adults.
Education
Only one published study to date has investigated education level and its
relationship to irrational relationship beliefs (Hamamci, 2005). Although this study did
not use the RBI to measure the irrational beliefs, this author found that education did help
to temper the endorsing o f irrational relationship beliefs.
Shapiro and Kroeger (1991) examined the factor of occupation, which could be a
function of education. Their demographic questionnaire included a checkmark response
to either “professional” or “nonprofessional”. Results of this study found a correlation
between occupation and the RBI sub scales of Disagreement is Destructive and M ind
Reading is Expected. Participants categorized as “nonprofessional” had significantly
higher scores on these RBI subscales than their “professional” counterparts. These
results suggest that education tends to decrease the irrational belief that disagreement is
destructive and to decrease the expectation that partners be able to read each other’s
minds.
There is no published study to date that has investigated people’s position in the
family life cycle and irrational relationship beliefs. But one study that looked specifically
at parents of preschool age children found correlation between irrational parenting
beliefs, parenting stress, and marital satisfaction (McDonald, 1995). Parents who
reported high levels o f parenting stress were more apt to endorse irrational parenting
35
beliefs and also report lower levels of marital satisfaction. Consistent with previous
results, are studies that have looked at the family life cycle and marital satisfaction
(Rollins & Feldman, 1970; Spanier, Lewis, & Cole, 1975). There is significant
curvilinear U correlation indicating that the most satisfying periods of marital
relationships occur during early and late marriage, and the most dissatisfying period
during the “middle years”.
In order to establish a pattern of change in marital satisfaction, Kurdek (1999)
followed 522 couples who were married 1 year and 93 couples married 10 years.
Measurements were taken of each participant’s level of marital satisfaction over time.
Most participants reported very high levels of satisfaction in the beginning of their
marriages. But, generally, marital quality declined rapidly over the first few years,
stabilized and then fell again. Couples living with children showed the steepest rates of
decline in satisfaction.
Household Income
No published studies have examined the relationship between income and
endorsement o f irrational relationship beliefs. However, one study explored
socioeconomic levels and marital satisfaction (Aub & Linden, 1991). In their study of
180 couples they found no significant correlation between socioeconomic level and
marital satisfaction.
Years Married
There have been no published studies that investigated years married as a variable
in endorsement o f irrational relationship beliefs. It is hypothesized though, that length of
marriage would correlate positively to marital satisfaction and that people who may have
36
endorsed irrational beliefs when first married would have moderated their irrational
beliefs over time and experience.
Times Married
There have been no published studies to date that have used number of times
married as a demographic factor affecting endorsing of irrational beliefs.
Parents ’Divorce
Children whose parents divorce experience increased distress and seek more
psychological services than children in intact families (Harvey & Fine, 2004). They may
also have subtle predispositions about intimate relationships as suggested by Marquardt
(2005). Although there have been no published studies that have investigated the
relationship between divorced parents and irrational relationship beliefs, it was
hypothesized that participants whose parents’ had divorced would endorse more irrational
Religion
There have been no published studies that have used religious affiliation as a
factor in endorsing irrational relationship beliefs. Because the dominant culture in Salt
Lake City, Utah is LDS, it seems appropriate that this factor be included. It was
anticipated that the LDS culture with its emphasis on traditional families and marital
success (The Church o f Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2005) may support some of the
irrational belief scales. It was hypothesized that LDS respondents would endorse more
irrational beliefs.
Measuring Irrational Relationship Beliefs
The topic o f irrational relationship beliefs has generated interest among scientists
37
and practitioners who follow a cognitive behavioral therapeutic approach (Baucom et al.,
1989; Doherty, 1997; Eidelson & Epstein 1982; Schwebel & Fine, 1994; Sullivan, 1997).
In turn, this interest generated the need to accurately assess these beliefs and the
development of instruments to do so.
One of the most important aspects of this study is the investigation of the validity
of the instruments designed to measure irrational relationship beliefs. The validity of an
instrument is not established by one or two studies but rather by repeated studies, under
new conditions, and with different samples (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). The Standards
for Educational and Psychological Testing is a reference work that seeks to provide
guidelines for the creation and use of instruments (American Educational Research
Association, 1999). It stipulates that validity o f an instrument is determined by test
content, response processes, and the internal structure of the test. This study seeks
further evidence that the RBI and the RBS are actually measuring the endorsement of
irrational beliefs and secondly, that the instruments predict marital relationship quality.
The other important aspect of this study concerns the reliability and internal
consistency of the individual items on each instrument. Reliability refers to the integrity
o f the items in relationship to each other. Internal consistency is an element of reliability.
All items in a subscale should load similarly toward the score. In this study, the RBI and
RBS purport to measure five subscales each (Eidelson & Epstein 1982 , Sullivan, 1997).
Cronbach’s coefficient alphas were performed on all the items that contribute to a
subscale score, further establishing the reliability of the individual items. For example, if
a subject scored high on an item on the sub scale M ind Reading is Expected, they should
have scored similarly on other items that contribute to that subscale.
38
In order to further establish the internal consistency of each instrument a principle
component analysis (PCA) was performed. PCA is a statistical procedure applied to a set
of variables to determine the strength of their relationship to one another. Results of the
PCA could help determine if the items in each instrument naturally fall into distinct and
exclusive groups or components (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Although it wasn’t
originally planned, an exploratory factor analysis was also performed on the RBS to
attempt to replicate the study by Sullivan (1997).
The Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI)
Several studies have attempted to establish the reliability and validity o f the RBI
(Bradbury & Fincham, 1993; Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Emmelkamp et al., 1987; James,
Hunsley & Hemsworth, 2002; Jones & Stanton, 1988). The RBI appears to have good
test retest reliability (Emmelkamp, et al, 1987) at both the 2 week and 12 week intervals.
Split-half reliability was also established.
Some studies have pointed to weaknesses in the validity of the RBI. In a study
conducted by Emmelkamp et al. (1987) only two of the subscales were predictive of poor
marital satisfaction. Higher scores in three subscales, Mindreading is Expected, Partners
Cannot Change, and The Sexes are Different actually predicted the random sample and
not the clinical one. “Clinically distressed couples scored less irrationally than their
normal counterparts, (p 779).” Since these discrepancies exist, the discriminant validity
of the RBI is in question.
Authors James, Hunsley, and Hemsworth, (2002), performed exploratory factor
analysis and confirmatory factor analysis on the RBI and found that support for a 5 factor
structure was weak. They identified problems with the internal consistency o f the
39
sub scales The Sexes are Different and Partners Cannot Change. In their study they
proposed a six factor model and cautioned against the use of the RBI until its reliability
could be established.
The Bradbury (1993) study also found problems with the internal validity of the
RBI. Unlike the initial study (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982) and similar to the Emmelkamp
study (1987) they found that not all subscales were indicative of poor marital satisfaction.
The subscales Mindreading is Expected and Sexual Perfectionism did not correlate with
marital satisfaction. The Bradbury study suggested that only Disagreement is Destructive
and the total score be considered valid measures. The Moller & Van Zyl (1991) study
from Russia had similar results in which only two subscales of the RBI were found to
negatively correlate with marital satisfaction; Disagreement is Destructive and Sexual
Perfectionism.
These findings cast doubt upon the construct validity, and content validity of the
RBI and suggest the need for a superior instrument.
The Relationship Belief Scale (RBS)
Sullivan initially designed the RBS as a master’s thesis (1994). At the time it was
a thirty-two-item test designed to assess irrational relationship beliefs. Later in his
dissertation (1997) it was expanded to include ten more items to be a forty-two item
questionnaire. The RBS was designed to address the weaknesses inherent in the RBI and
to provide an alternative instrument. Rather than fitting several items around five distinct
themes or subscales, Sullivan’s items were unrelated items selected from the literature.
His subscale titles were derived after performing exploratory factor analysis on the items
and selecting titles that fit the emerging factors.
40
One of the weaknesses of Sullivan’s research is the relatively small sample of
married participants. The initial master’s study (1994) included 474 unmarried college
student participants. The dissertation study (1997) included 856 unmarried college
students and a community sample of only 100 married people.
Sullivan’s instrument is very promising because his subscales were developed by
factor analysis in contrast to the intuitive method used for the RBI (Eidelson & Epstein,
1982). However, this relatively new instrument has been used in only two studies and the
normative sample of 100 married people is relatively low.
Chapter Two Summary
A theoretical orientation was provided showing that irrational thought patterns are
often the source of depression and frustration in life and that endorsing irrational
relationship beliefs can be a source of discord for many married people. The term
“irrational relationship belief’ was defined and several irrational beliefs were identified
from the literature. Studies that have examined the relationship between irrational beliefs
and marital satisfaction were also cited. It was identified that very little is known about
the demographic qualities o f people who endorse these irrational beliefs. Rationale was
provided for each demographic factor in this study.
There was also a discussion regarding the RBI and RBS, two of the instruments
used in this study and some of the controversy over the strengths and weaknesses of each
was presented.
CHAPTER III
Methodology
Research Design
This study employs four different statistics characteristic of correlational research
design; Pearson product moment bivariate correlation, stepwise multiple regression,
principal components analysis, and exploratory factor analysis. Correlational designs are
“used to make predictions and to study relationships between variables” (Gall, Borg &
Gall, 1996, p. 409). In this study, participants were asked to respond to demographic
questions, items concerning their attitudes regarding marriage relationships and their
satisfaction in their marriage. Each participant responded at only one point in time and
there was no manipulation o f variables or treatment.
The advantage to using a correlational design is that it allows researchers to look
at many variables within one study. It also lends itself to looking at pairs or
combinations o f multiple variables (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996). There is a caution inherent
in correlational design regarding correlation and causation. Finding significant
correlation or predictive validity amongst variables is not conclusive evidence that one
has caused the other. Correlational design is best for establishing strength and direction
of the relationship (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996).
Target Population and Accessible Population
The target population considered for this study was adults in legal marriages. The
accessible population was adults assembled in audiences to hear an instructional speaker.
The Institute of Marriage and Family Counseling, in Ogden, Utah provides speakers to
church, community, and businesses as a way to promote their counseling services. These
42
audiences were informed o f the opportunity to participate in the study. Interested
audience members took a response packet, completed it at home and returned it
anonymously to the researcher. Responses were culled from these audiences over the
course of a year until the 307 respondents were acquired.
A convenient sample o f people known personally to the researcher was also
included in the study. These respondents also mailed their completed packets to the
researcher anonymously. See Table 1 for a breakdown on sample sources and the
number of respondents from each one.
Selecting the Sample
It was originally hoped that audience members would complete their surveys prior
to the speech or presentation they were attending. However, time constraints of the
sponsoring organizations made this unrealistic so the data was collected using the
following method. The investigator informed the audience that they had an opportunity to
participate in a scientific study regarding attitudes about marriage. Audiences were told
that participants needed to be married and not have sought marital therapy in the last 12
months. This was done to help insure that the sample would represent a non-clinical
population. Interested parties were instructed to take a response packet at the end of the
lecture. Respondents took their surveys home and returned them to the investigator
anonymously via mail.
Each packet contained an informed consent sheet attached outside of the
envelope that explained the purpose of the study, length of time anticipated to complete
the forms and the risks and benefits of participating. The benefits included feeling good
that one has done a part to further science. The other benefit was the entertainment value
43
created by the questions themselves.
Inside the envelope was a ten item Demographic Questionnaire, followed by the
32 item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) that measured adjustment to their own
marriage. The following two instruments, the RBI (40 items) and RBS (42 items) were
presented next, counterbalanced to offset instrument order effects. The RBI and RBS are
similar in nature and presentation. It was anticipated that test-takers may become fatigued
or disinterested after answering several items. If one of the tests was always second in
presentation, results of that test may not be valid. By deliberately ordering half of the
sets to have the RBI first, and the other half to have the RBS, first, the fatigue factor was
spread equally over the two instruments.
When respondents completed their packets they mailed them to the researcher.
None of the recipients received a reward or recompense for their participation. The
Catholic school that participated did receive a donation in lieu of their participation but
the money was paid to the administration and not to individual people. All envelopes
were coded discreetly so that when they were returned the investigator knew from which
audience they came. Five hundred envelopes were prepared and disseminated until the
307 responses were received. This represents a 61% rate of return and indicates that
some people intended to participate, took a packet but did not complete the
questionnaires or return them.
There were many married couples that responded to the study but their responses
were not paired, identified or linked in any way with their spouse’s. All participants,
except those known to the researcher, were gathered from audiences assembled to hear a
public speaker. These events were held in the greater metropolitan area of Salt Lake City,
44
Utah. This includes Provo, Utah as the further southerly limit and Ogden, Utah as the
furthest northern limit.
Description o f the Sample
Sample Source
The participants were drawn from 12 different sources. Table 1 presents the
sources and the number of respondents from each. Seven of the twelve sources were
from audiences at lectures sponsored by the LDS church. Two of the sources were
private family reunions, where most of the respondents were LDS. One source comprised
people affiliated with a private Catholic school while another was from a personnel
training course for the State of Utah. The remaining source was a convenient sample of
the investigator’s acquaintances, and co-workers.
Age and Gender
A total o f 307 married people participated in the study. After deleting some cases
with missing information (described in Chapter Four, in data screening procedures) the
remaining number o f participants was 297. There were 114 men and 183 women, 38%
and 62% respectively of the sample. Female participants ranged in age from 21 to 79 with
a mean age of 40.64, while males ranged in age from 23 to 81 with a mean age of 42.77.
Education
There were only 2 respondents who indicated that they had not completed high
school. Another 19 had just high school, while 97 others had completed some college.
Those without a college degree represented 40% of all those polled. For the 179
respondents with college degrees, 44% of the total, 47 of them had obtained postgraduate
degrees.
45
Table 1
Participant Source Breakdown by Gender
Source No. Sample Source male female Total %
1 Convenient Sample 33 39 72 24.2
2 LDS lecture 22 28 50 16.8
J Family Group 3 4 7 2.4
4 LDS lecture 0 2 2 .7
5 LDS lecture 5 11 16 5.4
7 LDS lecture 0 0 0 0
8 State of Utah 15 1 16 5.4
9 Family Group 12 16 28 9.4
11 Catholic School 11 55 66 22.2
12 LDS lecture 'y

6 9 3.0
13 LDS lecture 10 10 20 6.7
Total 114 183 297 100.0
In order to determine the position in the family life cycle, each respondent
identified the age of their oldest living child or the oldest living child of their spouse.
Twenty-three respondents (8%) were identified as Beginning Family. Forty-four people
(15%) were categorized in the Infant Preschool Family. Eighty-four people (28%) were
in the School Age category. Thirty-one people (10%) were identified in the Adolescent
46
family while another 37 people (13%) were considered to be in the Launching stage.
Seventy-three (25%) individuals fell into the category of Post Parental Family. Only 5
people (2%) identified as being in the category of Mature - No kids.
Household Income
The sample was predominantly upper middle class and only 7 participants
indicated household earnings under $24,000 annually. Almost half (49%) of those
participating reported household earnings over $75,000 per year. Two people failed to
indicate their household income.
Years Married
The number of years married ranged from 1 year to 56 years married.
Times Married
A total o f 262 people (88%) indicated that they were in their first marriage.
Another 30 people (10%) had been married once before. Five participants (2%) indicated
that they had been married 3 or more times.
Parents ’ Divorce
Only 56 (19%) participants indicated that their parents had divorced.
Religion
O f all the respondents, 219 (74%) were identified as LDS, 54 respondents (18%)
reported being Catholic, 9 (3%) responded Protestant, 7 (2%) indicated “No Religion”,
and 8 people (3%) reported a religion other than the options offered in the survey.
Instrumentation
Three different instruments were used to assess variables in this study as well as a
demographic questionnaire.
47
Demographic Item Questionnaire (DIQ)
As described in Chapter II, there were nine demographic factors assessed by this
study; age, gender, education level, household income, years married, religion, position
in family life cycle, number of times married, and parent’s divorce (See the DIQ in
Appendix F). Two of the items on the DIQ were used as screening devices. The
question “Are you currently married?” helped control that only married people entered
the sample. The question “Have you sought professional counseling services for marital
distress in the last 12 months?” helped determine that the study represented a non-clinical
population.
The DIQ contained 4 sentences of short instructions and 10 items. Three of the
items, concerning age, number of years married, and age of oldest child, were “fill in the
blank”. The other seven items were arranged either as “yes/no” or in a multiple choice
fashion, both requiring the respondent to circle the correct option. This DIQ required
approximately one or two minutes to complete.
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) has been widely used since 1976 to
assess the quality of marriages. This test was developed from a large pool of items that
had appeared in other instruments. Many items were eliminated on the basis of
redundancy and lack o f clarity. A factor analysis was performed on the remaining 40
items. These 40 items were administered to a married sample, and a divorced sample.
Eight items were removed because of low factor loadings. The thirty-two remaining
items measure four subscale constructs; Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic
Cohesion, and Affectional Expression.
48
Reliability and Validity.
A panel o f three judges established content validity for each item. Criterion
validity was determined by comparing the group responses on each item. On each item,
the divorced group significantly differed from the married group. Construct validity was
proven by comparing the results of the DAS with another widely used instrument that
measures dyadic adjustment-the Locke Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (Locke &
Wallace, 1959). The correlation between these measures was .86 for the married group
and .88 for the divorced group. Both of them significant at p = .001. The factor analysis
was a further indicator of construct validity. Results showed four distinct factors, three of
which had been hypothesized prior to the study, to be components of marital adjustment.
Reliability for the DAS was determined by performing Cronbach’s Coefficient
alpha’s on each subscale. The alpha level for each subscale is as follows: Dyadic
Consensus, .90; Dyadic Satisfaction, .94; Dyadic Cohesion, .86; and Affectional
Expression .73. The total scale reliability is .96. The alpha levels achieved with this
sample were similar. For the scales listed above the range was .86, .83, .77, and .70 with
an overall alpha on the DAS total score of .91. These alpha levels indicate that the DAS
is a reliable instrument to measure Dyadic Adjustment. The DAS has test-retest reliability
coefficient o f .96 at eleven weeks. Convergent validity studies have shown individuals
with low DAS scores have an increased probability of domestic violence, greater
depression, more family dysfunction and poor communication. Convergent validity
studies have shown high correlation between the DAS and other measures o f marital
satisfaction like the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (Locke & Wallace, 1959).
49
Many other studies have arrived at similar measures of validity and reliability on
the DAS on a variety of samples (Antill & Cotton, 1982; Filsinger & Wilson, 1983;
Johnson & Greenberg, 1985; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986; Sullivan, 1997).
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale is a well-researched tool effectively used to quickly
assess the marital satisfaction of people in any committed relationship. For instance, one
o f the items asks “Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together?” There is
a 5 point likert gradient between options “all of them” and “none of them” in which the
test-taker circles the one most closely matching their relationship. This instrument can be
completed in about 5 minutes. For purposes of this study, only a total score, indicative of
global satisfaction was used.
Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI)
The Relationship Belief Inventory (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982) was designed to
assess beliefs about intimate relationships that contribute to relationship distress. Test
authors contacted twenty-three marriage counselors and asked them to identify beliefs
about marriage that they thought caused their clients marital difficulty. The original pool
of 128 items were divided into 5 preconceived categories and administered to a sample of
47 clinical couples. From these findings the list was reduced to 60 items.
A second sample o f 100 couples took the instrument containing the 60 items.
Based upon statistical results 18 items were removed and 8 items were left for each of the
subscales represented. The finished RBI consists of 40 items. Answers to items are
indicated on a 6 point likert type scale. Results of the test are expressed as an overall
score and scores on each of the five sub scales; Disagreement is Destructive, Mindreading
is Expected, Partners Cannot Change, Sexual Perfectionism, and The Sexes are Different.
It can be completed in about 10 minutes.
To determine internal consistency, test authors performed Cronbach alpha
coefficients on the eight items comprising each subscale. The alpha values for
Disagreement is Destructive, Mindreading is Expected, Partners Cannot Change, Sexual
Perfectionism, and The Sexes are Different were .81, .75, .76, .72, and .72, respectively.
Results from this sample indicate a degree of internal consistency but not as high as the
normative sample. The overall coefficient alpha was .85 and alpha levels for individual
subscales as listed above were .82, .74, .63, .74, and .67. Note that Partners Cannot
Change, and The Sexes are Different fall below the usual standard of .7 for determining
internal consistency.
Convergent validity was determined by comparing the RBI results with the
Irrational Beliefs Test (Jones, 1968), an instrument based upon Albert Ellis’ eleven
irrational thoughts (1994). All subscales, except The Sexes are Different were
significantly positively correlated with the Irrational Beliefs Test. Based upon the order
of subscales above, the corresponding r were .31, .21, .14, .28 and .11 (n = 200; p< .05
for the first four scales). The test authors note that convergent validity was challenging
because there were no other instruments that specifically dealt with irrational attitudes
regarding intimate relationships (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982).
To determine construct validity, sample results of the Relationship Belief
Inventory were compared with two other measures. The first was The Therapy Goals and
Expectations Questionnaire, developed by the same authors (Epstein & Eidelson, 1981).
It is a measure o f relationship stress and anticipated success in therapy. The second
51
instalment was the Locke Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (MAS; Locke & Wallace,
1959) which assesses marital adjustment. For both the clinical sample and the non
clinical sample, significant scores on the Relationship Belief Inventory were significantly
negatively correlated with the Marital Adjustment Scale; meaning that people who
endorsed irrational relationship beliefs tended to have lower levels o f marital adjustment.
The Pearson r correlations between these two were -.57, -.24, -.38, -.18, -.25 for
Disagreement is Destructive, M ind Reading is Expected, Partners cannot Change, Sexual
Perfectionism, and The Sexes are Different, respectively (p .05).
The Pearson r correlation coefficients of the RBI and the Therapy Goals and
Expectations questionnaire were Disagreement is Destructive (-.45), Mindreading is
Expected (-38), Partners Cannot Change (-.60) and Sexual Perfectionism (-.27). All five
scales were found to be significantly negatively correlated with likelihood of treatment
success. These first three subscales were negatively correlated with desire to maintain
the relationship, and interest in conjoint therapy with the spouse. The subscale The Sexes
are Different was unrelated to any o f the measures of the Therapy Goals and
Expectations Questionnaire. Based upon these significant negative correlations the
authors determined that irrational beliefs appeared to be part of a maladaptive mind set
regarding relationships.
Despite the confidence of test authors, more recent research has suggested some
weaknesses in the RBI (Bradbury & Fincham, 1993; Emmelkamp et al., 1987; James et
al., 2002; Jones & Stanton, 1988; Sullivan, 1997;). These weaknesses were discussed in
Chapter Two.
The Relationship Belief Scale (BBS)
The Relationship Belief Scale was developed by Sullivan (1997) as a dissertation.
It was created as an alternative instrument to the Relationship Belief Inventory. This 42
item test measures the strength of attitude on five factors; Vigilance, Blame and
Punishment, All or Nothing Thinking, Perfectionistic Expectations, and Demandfor
Attention and produces subscale scores on these factors plus an overall score. It can be
completed in about 10 minutes.
The RBS was normed on 856 single college students in romantic relationships and
an additional 50 married couples recruited from the community. Unlike the RBI, the
RBS was created by performing exploratory factor analysis upon the original set of items
and then describing the emerging factors. Confirmatory factor analysis was also
performed in a follow up study which supported the five factor structure.
Test-retest reliability at four weeks was .85. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the
overall score for the college sample was .91 while the community sample was .85.
Results achieved in this study were an overall alpha of .92 and subscales as follows;
Vigilance .77, Blame and Punishment .82, A ll or Nothing Thinking .64, Perfectionistic
Expectations .77, and Demandfor Attention .77. The RBS has not been used in any other
published study to date.
Statistical Procedures
Testing the Null Hypothesis fo r Research Question One
There will be no significant relationships comparing the RBI and RBS. To
determine the relationships between these two instruments, Pearson product moment
bivariate correlations were produced. This statistic is employed when both variables
53
under consideration are expressed in continuous scores (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). For
this research question a correlation matrix was generated that computed Pearson product
moment coefficients for a total of twelve variables (the five subscales from the RBI, the
five subscales from the RBS and the global scores from both), and compares them with
one another. The alpha level of .01 was used in this study to designate significance of the
correlation coefficients.
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Two
There will not be a five factor structure that emerges from the factor analysis
performed on the Relationship Belief Inventory. A principle component analysis (PC A)
was computed on the 40 items that comprise the Relationship Belief Inventory. Principle
component analysis is a statistical procedure that is applied to a set o f variables to
determine which variables in the set, form subsets that are relatively independent of one
another. “The goal of PC A is to extract maximum variance from a data set with a few
orthogonal components (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).” In order to perform PCA, sample
size should be sufficiently large enough so that correlations can be reliably estimated.
Comrey and Lee (1992) suggest 300 cases or more are necessary and this study intended
to comply. However, missing data necessitated deleting ten cases. So the number of
respondents went from 307 to 297. This is practically close to the required 300. The data
also generally met the assumptions of normality, and linearity (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1996) although a discussion in Chapter 5 looks at these assumptions. Results of the PCA
were compared to the test authors’ (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982) findings, to determine if
the five factors emerged as postulated with this sample.
Testing the Null Hypothesisfo r Research Question Three
54
performed on the Relationship Belief Scale. Another principle component analysis
(PCA) was computed on the 42 items that comprise the Relationship Belief Scale. It was
compared to the five factors identified by Sullivan (1997). It was also decided to try and
replicate the study performed by Sullivan so an exploratory factor analysis was also
completed on the items comprising the RBS.
Testing the Null Hypothesis fo r Research Question Four
Irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the RBI, will not predict marital
satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Bivariate correlation
coefficients were generated among the scale scores of the Relationship Belief Inventory
and the global score of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. A stepwise multiple regression
analysis was conducted using the scale scores as predictor variables and the global score
of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, as the criterion measure.
In stepwise regression the “linear equation starts out empty and IV’s are added
one at a time if they meet statistical criteria, but they may also be deleted at any step
where they no longer contribute significantly to regression (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001).”
It is considered the best way to determine a prediction equation. It is used to determine
which subset o f IV’s makes the best prediction to a criterion variable. In this study, the
five subscales were added or deleted from the equation to determine the best set of
variables that predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the global score on the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale.
Testing the Null Hypothesis fo r Research Question Five
Irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the RBS will not predict marital
55
satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Bivariate correlation
coefficients were generated among the scale scores of the Relationship Belief Scale and
the global score of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Another stepwise multiple regression
analysis was conducted using the scale scores of the RBS as predictor variables and the
global score of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, as the criterion measure.
Testing the Null Hypothesis fo r Research Question Six
The demographic variables o f gender, age, education level, years married, times
married, household income, position in fam ily life cycle, and parent's divorce, will not
predict endorsement o f irrational beliefs, as measured by the total scores o f a) the
Relationship Belief Inventory and b) the Relationship Belief Scale. A stepwise multiple
regression analysis was performed using the predictor variables of the demographic
factors listed above, and irrational relationship beliefs as the criterion variables Two
separate analysis’ were conducted; one using the composite score of the RBI as the
criterion variable and another using the composite score of the RBS.
Testing the Null Hypothesis fo r Research Question Seven
There are no combinations o f demographic factors and irrational beliefs, as
measured by a) the Relationship Belief Inventory and b) the Relationship Belief Scale,
that predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. A
stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed using both the subscales of the RBI
and the demographic variables as predictor variables and marital satisfaction, as
measured by the global score on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, as the criterion variable.
Another stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed using the subscales of the
RBS and the demographic variables as the predictor variables.
56
Summary o f Chapter Three
In chapter three, correlational research design was described. Its strengths and
weaknesses were explained. The target population and accessible population were
discussed. The methods employed to select the sample were outlined and the
demographic characteristics o f the sample were presented. Methods of data collection
were described. Each o f the instruments was described and reliability and validity
research were offered for each. The statistics employed for testing the null hypothesis of
each research question was outlined.
57
CHAPTER IV
Results
The statistical results of the study will be presented in this chapter. The
procedures o f data screening will be described. The research problems will be restated
followed by a review o f the research questions with their respective null hypothesis.
Analysis of the statistical results will be explained. The chapter will conclude with a
summary o f the analyses.
Data Screening Procedures
Data Entry
Data from the surveys were entered into SPSS version 11.5, on a personal
computer. The principle investigator and a trained assistant entered all the data. The data
were gathered over the course of a year and entered as protocols were received. Once all
the data was entered, all protocols were systematically checked for data entry accuracy.
The primary researcher and a trained assistant worked in tandem with one person reading
the paper and pencil responses while the other visually checked the scores that had been
entered into the computer program. Thirty-four small data entry errors were noted and
corrected. Twenty-three of the errors were found in the initial 25 protocols. It is
assumed that data entry accuracy increased as experience and proficiency increased.
Missing Data
All variables were screened for missing data. It was noted that ten respondents
(3 .2%) had thoroughly completed the survey questions except they omitted the last page
o f the RBI. It is impossible to know why this occurred. The RBI and RBS are similarly
formatted. In half o f the printed surveys the RBI came first and in the other half the RBS
58
came first. All o f the respondents that omitted the last page of the RBI had surveys in
which the RBI was first. The RBI contains 40 items. Items 30 to 40, eleven items in all,
are found on this last page. Since the missing responses represented 27.5% of all
possible points on any one individual’s RBI responses, it was determined that these cases
be deleted. Therefore, cases 12, 19, 27, 45, 75, 85, 176, 223, 231, and 237 were deleted,
leaving 297 participants in the study.
On fifteen of the RBI protocols, it was discovered that 18 responses were missing
from 12 different questions. The original protocols were examined to check for errors.
The RBI protocol was visually scrutinized to see if there was a pattern to those omitted.
None was found. The total number of responses possible from the 297 respondents was
11,880. The 18 missing points represented <1% of the total data. Tabachnick and Fidell
(2 0 0 1 ) suggest that one way of handling missing data is to replace the missing points
with the mean of the item and this method was employed. Missing data was replaced by
the sample mean o f the respective item. A total of 18 items were replaced by the sample
mean on the RBI protocols.
Fourteen of the RBS protocols, had 14 data points missing from 14 different
items. Again, after double checking for data entry errors and scrutiny o f which items
were omitted, there did not appear to be a pattern. These 14 represented <1% of the total
responses possible with this sample so it was decided to replace the missing points with
the sample mean o f each item. A total o f 14 data points were replaced using this method.
On the demographic variables, two participants failed to indicate income. For two
cases, 21 and 238 the missing data was left as is and these cases were left out of portions
of the study that used demographic information as variables.
59
Univariate Underlying Assumptions
Responses to the RBI and RBS, the global score of the DAS and the demographic
data were examined for outliers, normality, and homogeneity of variance in order to
determine if these assumptions had been met.
Univariate outliers were identified by obtaining z scores for each case, item by
item. Scores that exceeded z = +-3 .29 were considered outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). For the RBI, 9 items contained 31 cases that were identified as outliers. The
original protocols were searched for data entry accuracy, and to identify response
patterns. Cases that contained response outliers fell into two distinct patterns.
The first pattern of outliers was people who indicated that they were unhappy in
their marriages and also endorsed high levels o f irrational beliefs. This study sample
represented a non-clinical population. For the most part, most marriages were not in
distress and most people reported relatively high levels of marital satisfaction. People
who indicated that they had attended counseling in the last 12 months, for marital
distress, were excluded from the study. People who reported unhappiness in their
marriages were few. So, some of the outliers were created by extreme endorsement of
irrational beliefs. RBI responses fall on a six point scale, 0, 1,2, 3, 4, and 5. The extreme
responses are Strongly Disagree or Strongly Agree. Participants who reported unhappy
marriages and also endorsed extreme levels of irrational beliefs were considered to be
part of the population that this study was drawn from so the cases that fell into this
pattern were left in the study.
The second obvious response pattern, were people who, although they indicated
they were happily married, had strongly endorsed an item that measured irrational belief.
60
Careful study was made o f how participants responded to other similar items. For
example, if a participant indicated they were happily married but also responded
“Strongly Agree” to an item contributing to the Sexual Perfectionism subscale, other
items that also contribute to that subscale were inspected. If the responses were
consistent with one another or within one response score it was considered a valid
opinion expressed by a participant that represented the target population of the study.
Cases with outliers that followed these two conditions were left in the study as is.
Three cases containing outliers were identified as problematic. Case 83 appeared
to be a strong response on a question that was worded with a double negative. It was
assumed that the respondent got confused since the response did not match their
responses on similar items. Two other cases, 17 and 123 had responses that were
inconsistent with their other responses and no other explanation could be made for the
extreme score. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) recommend a conservative way to
eliminate outliers is to substitute the offending score with the item mean. All three cases
were retained by using this method.
The same procedure for identifying outliers was done for the RBS. Eighty-six
outliers spread over 23 different items were identified. Again, the original responses
were looked at to determine why they were outliers. The same two patterns were
obvious. Participants were either unhappy in their marriages and also endorsing extreme
levels o f irrational belief on the RBS or second, happily married people who had an
extreme endorsement o f an irrational belief and consistently indicated so. All 86 outliers
were deemed representative of the target population so all were retained.
To insure normality of the sample, graphs, skewness values, kurtosis values, the
61
Shapiro Wilks test of significance, and Normal QQ plots were examined. On the RBS 23
test items had responses in which the skewness and kurtosis z-scores exceeded +- 3.29.
On the RBI, 10 test items contained responses that fell outside of the z +- 3.29. All were
created from the outliers that had previously been examined. All cases were deemed part
o f the population intended to study so all cases were left in the study. Since the RBI, the
RBS, and the DAS are standardized, published tests, deleting test items was not an
option. Chapter five contains a discussion regarding the assumptions of normality of the
sample and the implications in this study.
Multivariate Outliers
Mahalnobis Distance with p< .001 was computed on all items of the RBI, and
RBS, demographic variables, and the DAS total score. No multivariate outliers were
detected on the RBI or RBS but several were found in the demographic variables. Upon
further investigation, it was discovered that the variables Number of Times Married, and
Religion contained multivariate outliers. People who endorsed that they had been
married three or more times were outliers. People who endorsed that they belonged to
No Religion or Other Religion were outliers. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) suggest one
way to deal with multivariate outliers is to collapse category cells. It was decided that the
variable Number o f Times married would collapse from 3 to 2 categories - Once, and
Two or more. This created a dichotomous variable and also eliminated the multivariate
outliers. Since the Religion scale was not a continuous scale and would not be suitable as
a variable for some o f the statistics which were planned for the study, the Religion
variable would collapse from 6 categories to 3 - LDS, Catholic, and Other. After these
categories were collapsed there were no multivariate outliers.
62
Summary o f Data Screening
All original paper and pencil protocols were double checked against the data
entered to assure accuracy. On the RBI ten cases with eleven missing responses (110
responses total) were deleted from the study. Other points of missing data were
conservatively replaced with the sample item mean. Univariate outliers were identified
and examined. Three cases were deemed problematic on three respective items and the
offending responses were substituted by the item mean. All cases were scrutinized for
skewness, kurtosis, and homogeneity o f variance at the univariate and multivariate levels.
Mahalnobis distances were computed to identify multivariate outliers. The demographic
categories of religion and number of times married contained multivariate outliers so
these variable categories were collapsed which solved the problem.
Restatement o f the Problem
The research problem in this study is three-fold. First, two tests, designed to
measure irrational beliefs in romantic relationships, have been developed—the
Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI, Epstein & Eidelson, 1982) and the Relationship
Belief Scale (RBS, Sullivan, 1997). While the RBI has been used in many studies since
1982, the RBS author Sullivan claims that the new test has stronger psychometric
properties and is a better predictor o f marital adjustment (Sullivan, 1997). This study
seeks to investigate evidence of validity and reliability for these two tests.
Second, the relationship between irrational relationship beliefs as measured by the
RBI and RBS and marital satisfaction will be explored. Third, this study seeks to know if
the demographic factors of age, gender, household income, education, religion, number
of years married, number of times married, position in the family life cycle or parental
divorce, predict irrational beliefs.
Analysis o f the Statistical Results
Testing the Null Hypothesis fo r Research Question One
There will be no significant relationships comparing the RBI and RBS.
Descriptive statistics for these two tests are outlined in Tables 2 and 3. The correlation of
each item to the overall total score is also indicated. Table 4 compares the means and
standard deviations achieved on the RBI, RBS, and DAS from this sample, to those from
other samples.
In order to determine relationships between these two measures, bivariate
correlations were created between the subscale scores, and total scores of both the RBI
and RBS (See Table 5). Significance was determined at thep < .01 level, two-tailed.
The RBI total score and the RBS total score (r = .6 6 ) were significantly correlated.
The subscales o f each test were scrutinized for the strength of their correlation to
the opposing test. All five subscales of the RBI were found to be significantly correlated
with the RBS total score: Disagreement is Destructive (r = .6 8 ), Mindreading is
Expected (r = .44), Partners Cannot Change (r = .41), Sexual Perfectionism (r = .31) and
The Sexes are Different (r = .30).
All the subscales o f the RBS were significantly correlated with the RBI Total
Score: Vigilance (r = .46), Blame and Punishment (r = .51), All or Nothing Thinking (r =
.52), Perfectionistic Expectations (r = .62) and Demandfor Attention (r = .53). In fact,
RBS scale Perfectionistic Expectations was more significantly correlated with the RBI
total score than two of the RBI sub scales, The Sexes are Different (r = .61) and Partners
64
Cannot Change (r = .59). The stronger correlations were found in the RBS sub scales
relationship to the RBI total score than the other way around. This suggests that the RBI
is measuring constructs not measured by the RBS. For instance RBI subscales Sexual
Perfectionism and The Sexes are Different have lower levels of correlation with the RBS
total score and lower levels o f correlation with almost every other subscale including
ones also from the RBI. The RBS does not assess beliefs about gender or sexuality.
With only one exception, each RBI subscale significantly correlated with each
RBS subscale. Only the RBI subscale The Sexes are Different did not significantly
correlate with the RBS subscale Demandfor Attention at the .01 level, two-tailed. The
most highly correlated subscales between the two measures were Disagreement is
Destructive (RBI) With Perfectionistic Expectations (RBS) (r = .6 8 ). The RBI and RBS
are significantly related to one another and appear to be measuring similar constructs.
Testing the Nidi Hypothesis fo r Research Question Two
performed on the Relationship Belief Inventory. Cronbach coefficient alphas were
produced for the RBI subscales and results were Disagreement is Destructive(.Sl),
Minding Reading is Expected (.74), Partners Cannot Change (.63), Sexual Perfectionism
(.74), and The Sexes are Different (.67).
A principle component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was computed on
the 40 items that comprise the RBI. Varimax was chosen in order to maximize the
variance, thereby increasing the high loadings and decreasing the low loadings
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). The analysis was forced to 5 factors. Prior to
Table 2
RBI Mean, Standard Deviation and Pearson r with RBI Total (n = 297)
Item M SD r / RBI Total

RBI 1 .69 .89 .54
RBI 2 1.29 1.09 .29
RBI 3 1 .1 2 1.03 .45
RBI 4 1.82 1.38 .41
RBI 5 3.46 1.56 .15
RBI 6 1 .2 1 1.03 .45
RBI 7 1.18 1 .2 0 .33
RBI 8 1.65 1.32 .35
RBI 9 1.48 1.23 .38
RBI 10 2.06 1.35 .42
RBI 11 1.57 1.16 .52
RBI 12 1.78 1 .2 0 .54
RBI 13 .65 .69 .27
RBI 14 2.08 1.29 .1 2
RBI 15 1.91 1.27 .41
RBI 16 2.03 1 .1 2 .35
RBI 17 2.80 1.17 .2 0
RBI 18 1.61 1 .1 0 .34
RBI 19 1.62 1.31 .43
RBI 20 2.59 1.49 .19
Table 2 continued
RBI 21 1.79 1.15 .54
RBI 22 1.94 1.16 .41
RBI 23 2.09 1.19 .36
RBI 24 2.05 1.29 .33
RBI 25 2.41 1.27 .25
RBI 26 1.87 1.19 .48
RBI 27 1.27 1.02 .45
RBI 28 .91 .90 .24
RBI 29 1.36 1.06 .44
RBI 30 2.92 1.32 .36
RBI 31 1.15 1.06 .51
RBI 32 1.29 1.15 .36
RBI 33 .65 .74 .13
RBI 34 1.24 1.08 .51
RBI 35 1.33 1.15 .45
RBI 36 1.37 1.29 .53
RBI 37 1.11 .96 .57
RBI 38 1.47 1.15 .29
RBI 39 1.72 1.32 .46
RBI 40 1.75 1.38 .49
Table 3
RBS Mean, Standard Deviation and Pearson r with RBS Total (n = 297)
Item M SD r / RBS Total

RBS1 1.95 1.35 .42
RBS2 1.31 1.34 .45
RBS3 2.26 1.34 .46
RBS4 .79 1.13 .45
RBS5 .45 .82 .33
RBS6 1 .8 8 1 .2 2 .37
RBS7 1.23 1.35 .64
RBS 8 .78 1.04 .45
RBS9 .14 .6 8 .17
RBS10 1.14 1 .1 2 .56
RBS11 1.91 1.36 .49
RBS12 1 .6 8 1.40 .60
RBS13 .71 .99 .6 6
RBS14 .6 8 .8 6 .48
RBS15 1.23 1.15 .65
RBS16 1.76 1.42 .42
RBS17 1.59 1.36 .55
RBS18 .26 .74 .31
RBS19 .89 1.14 .26
RBS20 1.51 1.23 .24
Table 3 continued
RBS21 1.14 1.16 .54
RBS22 1.32 1.56 .28
RBS23 .2 2 .55 .30
RBS24 1.56 1.42 .60
RBS25 .65 .79 .38
RBS26 .38 .75 .42
RBS27 .97 1.09 .56
RBS28 .41 .6 8 .36
RBS29 .79 1 .0 0 .6 6
RBS30 1.54 1.28 .54
RBS31 1 .1 2 1.19 .67
RBS32 1.44 1.46 .52
RBS33 .19 .63 .24
RBS34 1 .8 8 1.57 .56
RBS35 .93 1.05 .58
RBS36 .91 1.13 .64
RBS37 .95 1 .1 1 .36
RBS38 1.05 1 .1 2 .52
RBS39 1.04 1 .0 2 .52
RBS40 .80 1 .0 1 .64
RBS41 .99 1 .0 0 .46
RBS42 .73 .93 .65
Table 4
Comparison o f M a n d SD o f RBI, RBS, and DAS Scores with Previous Samples
Epstein & Eidelson

1982
Scale M SD M SD
RBI
Disagreement Is Destructive 11.7 6 .0 10.7 4.7
Mindreading Is Expected 1 2 .6 5.3 14.4 4.8
Partners Cannot Change 1 0 .1 4.4 1 0 .1 4.6
Sexual Perfectionism 13.4 5.9 16.6 5.5
The Sexes are Different 18.4 5.9 12.7 6 .0 0
RBI Total Score 66.5 18.0 64.6 -
Sullivan’s 1997
RBS
Satisfied Married
Vigilance 1 0 .2 6.7 1 1 .0 7.2
Blame & Punishment 9.4 6.5 1 2 .2 5.9
All or Nothing Thinking 5.4 4.1 5.5 4.2
Perfectionistic Expectations 9.5 5.9 13.5 7.8
Demand for Attention 10.7 5.6 13.2 5.1
RBS Total Score 45.3 22.9 55.5 2 1 .2
Spanier Study
1976
Dyadic Adjustment Scale 115.4 13.6 114.8 17.8
Total Score
Table 5
Correlation Matrix o f the Subscale and Total Scores o f the RBI and RBS
RBI RBI RBI RBI RBI RBI

D M C S MF Total
4 4 ** 28** 3 4 ** sK*
RBI D 1 .26**
RBI M 1
38** 2 i** 16** .66**
RBI C 1
1 y** 2 3 ** 5 9 **
RBI S 1
2 5 ** 64**
RBI MF 1 61**
RBI Total 1
RBS V
RBS B
RBS A
RBS P
RBS D
RBS Total
Note. RBI D = Disagreement is Destructive, RBI M = Mindreading is Expected, RBI C = Partners Cannot
Change, RBI S = Sexual Perfectionism, RBI MF = The Sexes are Different, RBS V = Vigilance, RBS B =
Blame and Punishment, RBS A = All or Nothing Thinking, RBS P = Perfectionistic Expectations, RBS D =
Demand for Attention.
* p , .05. ** p , .01
Table 5 continued
RBS RBS RBS RBS RBS RBI

V B A P D Total
RBI D 4 7 ** .46** .6 8 ** .53** .6 8 **
.54**
RBI M .31** .2 2 ** ^^ ^ % 38** .54** 4 4 **
RBI C o i ^% .36** 42** .28** 2 2 ** 41**
RBI S . 1 2 ** .2 2 ** .26** .37** .29** .31**
RBI MF 2 3 ** .31** ^j ^^ .28** .1 2 * 30**
RBI Total 4 5 ** .51** .52** .62** .53** .6 6 **
RBS V 1
71** .55** .54** .35** .82**
RBS B 1 .52** .6 6 ** 3 7 ** .85**
i{s
RBS A 1 .50** .43**
RBS P 1 .59** g4**
RBS D 1 .6 8 **
RBS Total 1
Note. RBI D = Disagreement is Destructive, RBI M = Mindreading is Expected, RBI C = Partners Cannot
Change, RBI S = Sexual Perfectionism, RBI MF = The Sexes are Different, RBS V = Vigilance, RBS B =
Blame and Punishment, RBS A = All or Nothing Thinking, RBS P = Perfectionistic Expectations, RBS D =
Demand for Attention.
* p, .05. ** p , .01
interpreting the analysis Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) recommend 4 tests to determine if
there is merit in analyzing the factor analysis. They are; significant bivariate correlations,
Bartlett’s Test o f Sphericity, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling and
inspection o f the communalities.
72
The scree test plot was also examined. The scree test is a graph produced by
placing the factors along one axis and the eigenvalues, or measure of variance, placed
along the other (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Each factor is represented along with its
eigenvalue in descending order. This results in a visual representation of the significant
contribution that each factor makes to the variance. This graph was visually scrutinized
for support of the factor structure.
A correlation matrix was produced and examined to determine if there was a
pattern of bivariate correlations. In this case, several paired items with an r over .30 were
identified. The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericitiy is a sensitive test of the hypothesis that
correlations in a matrix are zero. In this study, the approximate chi-square = 3683.74,
d f = 780, sig = .000. This is considered high and therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected, indicating that the principle component analysis can be interpreted. One caution
with the Bartlett’s test is that with a high n the test tends to show significance even if
correlations are low (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Therefore, another test of factorability
was desired.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling (KMO) is a test used to determine
the viability of the factor analysis. In this case the KMO was .793. According to Kaiser
(1974) this is considered good and falls at a high level in the “Middling” category and
provides further encouragement to interpret the PCA.
The communalities produced were inspected to see how well individual items
relate to the total correlation. The communalities were inspected for results that exceed
.20. In this case 39 o f the 40 extraction communalities exceed the cutoff and provide
further confidence in interpreting the PCA.
73
The resulting initial eigenvalues were inspected to determine variance. The first
five factors have an initial eigenvalue of 6.7, 2.8, 2.5, 2.2, and 1.8 respectively. These
five factors account for 40.80% of the total variance indicating that the results are not
orthogonal. The scree plot in Figure 1 does not provide strong support for the five factor
structure.
Table 6 displays the results of the PCA performed on responses to the RBI. This
table shows the five components and the item loadings. Each item was viewed to
determine which component it loaded most significantly towards. Then the items were
ranked in order o f the strength of the loading. In this instance, the components that were
extracted do not correspond directly to the target RBI subscales.
Component one most closely corresponds to Disagreement is Destructive and
accounts for 16.95% of the variance in the responses. This is by far the most significant
component. On the RBI, items 1,6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, and 36 comprise the subscale
Disagreement is Destructive. In Table 6 , under component one, all of these intended
items loaded significantly toward the target component. However, items 2, 7, 12, 22, 27,
and 37 also loaded toward component one. On the RBI protocol, these items are
designed to assess the subscale Mindreading is Expected. In this PCA, component one
does not differentiate between these two constructs. Instead these items tend to load
towards a new component. Upon inspection of all these items from the two subscales, the
common theme appears to be related to that of inadequate communication.
Component 2 contributed 7.06% to the variance of the scores. It most closely
aligns with RBI subscale Sexual Perfectionism. Six of the eight intended items loaded
most significantly to this target component. Item 9, “If I’m not in the mood for sex when
74
my partner is, I don’t get upset about it.” and item 14, “A good sexual partner can get
himself/herself aroused for sex whenever necessary” did not load most significantly
toward the intended component.
Figure 1
Scree Plotfo r Principal Component Analysis o f RBI
Scree Plot
8
CD 2
CO
>
c=
CD
CD
i II 0
4 ----------- 1 -------------■------------■----------- ■ ------------1 ------------1 ------------ ■----------- ■----------- ■ ------------ ■ -----------■ ----------- 1 --------'" i 1" ’ ■ 11 1 " ■ —■ ■— ■
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Component Number
Table 6
RBI Principle Component Analysis - Pattern Matrix (n = 297)
Compl Comp 2 Comp3 Comp 4 Comp 5 Com m unalities
RBI 21(D) .697 .555
RBI 12 (M) .692 .503
RBI 6 (D) .644 .432
RBI 37 (M) .608 .509
RBI 31(D) .604 .459
RBI 26(D ) .595 .416
RBI 11(D) .576 .413
RBI 22 (M) .565 .452
RBI 1(D) .561 .392
RBI 16(D) .542 .345
RBI 27 (M) .491 .457
RBI 36(D) .486 .421
RBI 7 (M) .417 .508
RBI 2 (M) .415 .246
RBI 29 (S) .700 .567
RBI 39 (S) .6 8 6 .526
RBI 34 (S) .680 .533
RBI 24 (S) .665 .459
RBI 4 (S) .664 .464
RBI 19 (S) .581 .394
Table 6 continued
-> Com m unalities
1 2 4 5
RBI 40 (MF) .636 .525
RBI 30 (MF) .601 .449
RBI 35 (MF) .559 .470
RBI 15 (MF) .556 .413
RBI 5 (MF) .501 .412
RBI 25 (MF) .476 .273
RBI 20 (MF) .458 .480
RBI 10 (MF) .445 .308
RBI 13 (P) .664 .455
RBI 28 (P) .662 .479
RBI 33 (P) .622 .415
RBI 18 (P) .429 .327
RBI 38 (P) .376 .240
RBI 3 (P) .375 .291
RBI 8 (P) .301 .327
RBI 9 (S) .289 .394
RBI 17 (M) .698 .508
RBI 32 (M) .562 .444
RBI 14 (S) .421 .240
RBI 23 (P) .307 .196
Note: (D) = Disagreement is Destructive, (M) = Mindreading is Expected, (S) = Sexual
Perfectionism, (MF) = The Sexes are Different, (P) = Partners Cannot Change.
Component 3 contributed 6.47% of the variance and matches exactly with RBI
subscale The Sexes are Different. All 8 of the original items loaded most significantly on
this component.
Component 4 accounts for 5.69% of the variance and aligns with RBI subscale
Partners Cannot Change. Seven o f the eight items proposed to be in this component
loaded most significantly toward it. Item 23 “A partner who hurts you badly once
probably will hurt you again” did not load most significantly to the intended component.
Component 5 contributes 4.61% of the total variance and is comprised of the leftover
items from the subscale Mindreadmg is Expected and item 14 and 23.
Table 7 displays the RBI subscales along with the items that comprise that
subscale from the actual test. The column “PC A Loading” reflects the rotated factor
loadings. To determine significant loadings Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) suggest that a
cut off o f .45 is “modest”. Results for this sample show that only 26 of the 40 items
(65%) loaded significantly toward the factor postulated by the RBI authors, Eidelson &
Epstein (1982). When the cut off was lowered to .30 to be consistent with other analysis
in this study, seven additional items, making 33 total (83%) loaded significantly toward
the factors proposed by the original test. Seven items indicated by an asterisk did not
load significantly toward the target subscale at the .30 level or greater and 3 items loaded
significantly on more than one component.
In summary, a five factor structure was produced for the RBI from this sample,
however, the overall explained variance of the five factors was only 40.80% and seven items
did not load on expected factors even at the lenient cutoff of .30. All eight items from the
subscalq Disagreement is Destructive plus six from the subscale Mindreading is
78
Table 7
Principle Component Analysis, Loadings o f RBI Subscale Items
RBI Subscale RBI PCA

Item Loading
Disagreement is 1 .561
Destructive 6 .644
11 .576
16 .542
21 .697
26 .595
31 .604
Mind Reading is 2
*
Expected 7 *
12
*
17 .698
22 .347
27 .425
32 .562
37 *
Partners Cannot 3 .375
Change 8 .301
13 .664
18 .429
Table 7 continued
23 *
28 .662
33 .622
38 .376
Sexual Perfectionism 4 .664
9 *
14 *
19 .581
24 .665
29 .700
34 .680
39 .6 8 6
The Sexes are Different 5 .501
10 .445
15 .556
20 .458
25 .476
30 .601
35 .559
40 .636
* This item did not significantly load on this factor.
Expected formed a new component that contributed most to the variance. Items from
these two subscales reflect an attitude that mind reading is preferred because actual
communication runs the risk o f disagreement, which can be destructive. Two subscales
Sexual Perfectionism and Partners Cannot Change remained predominantly intact. The
subscale The Sexes are Different was completely intact with all eight items hitting the
target component. These results represent weak support for the five factor structure
proposed by test authors Epstein and Eidelson (1982) and suggest that there is
considerable variability in the subscales Disagreement is Destructive and Mindreading is
Expected.
Testing the Nidi Hypothesis fo r Research Question Three
performed on the Relationship Belief Scale. Cronbach coefficients were produced on the
subscales o f the RBS and the resulting alphas were Vigilance (.77), Blame and
Punishment (.82), A ll or Nothing Thinking (.64), Perfectionistic Expectations (.77) and
Demandfor Attention (.77). Alpha levels for all subscales except All or Nothing
Thinking indicate good internal consistency of the items contributing to each subscale.
The original proposal for this study, called for a Principal Component Analysis to be
performed in order to confirm Sullivan’s postulate that the RBS had a five factor
structure. After attaining the results of the PCA, it was decided to also replicate the
original exploratory factor analysis performed by Sullivan in 1997 in order to see if a
better factor model could be made. The results of both the PCA and the exploratory
factor analysis are presented.
The principle component analysis of the RBS.
A principle component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was computed on
the 42 items that comprise the Relationship Belief Scale. It was forced to 5 factors.
Once again the four methods to determine factorability o f R were assessed. The
correlation matrix produced contained some sizeable correlations. Several items with an
r over .30 were noted.
The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericitiy was evaluated. The approximate chi-square =
4631.50, d f = 861, sig = .000 is considered high and therefore the null hypothesis was
rejected, encouraging the interpretation of the analysis. In this study the Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin Measure o f Sampling (KMO) was .894. According to Kaiser (1974) this is
considered high and falls in the “Meritorious” category and further supports
interpretation o f the PCA.
The communalities were inspected for results that exceed .20. All but one of the
42 items exceeded this cutoff providing further confidence in interpreting the PCA. The
scree plot was visually inspected (See figure 2) but support was weak for 5 factors.
five factors have an initial eigenvalue of 10.5, 2.6, 2.3, 1.6, and 1.5. These five factors
account for 44.72% of the total variance. Results of the principle component analysis can
be seen in Table 8 . To create this table each of the item loadings was inspected to
determine which o f the components it loaded most significantly toward. These were then
rank ordered from largest to smallest.
In order to determine significant loadings a cut-off of >.30 was chosen.
Tabachnik and Fidell (2001) consider .32 to be the minimum cutoff loading for
82
determining significance. However, the .30 was chosen in order to provide continuity
across the three studies that used factor analysis or principle component analysis.
Sullivan (1997) used .30 in his study and so that is the cutoff selected. Twenty-seven of
the 42 items (approximately 64%) of the RBS loaded significantly toward the original
factors when the .30 was used.
Observe that fifteen items loaded most significantly to component one. This
component accounted for 25.05 % of the variance and is the strongest component.
However, it is a mix o f items from four of the subscales. Five of the items 7, 12, 21, 31,
36 were from subscale Blame and Punishment. Four items 13, 27, 32, and 42, were from
subscale Vigilance. Another 4 items, 10, 24, 29, and 34 were from subscale
Perfectionistic Expectations. Two items from All or Nothing Thinking were also part of
this component. A common theme for all of these could not be identified when all o f the
items were inspected individually.
Component 2 most closely resembles Demandfor Attention and accounted for
6.27% o f the variance. All seven of the intended items loaded most significantly to this
component. Items 15 and 35 from the Perfectionistic Expectations subscale, combined
with all seven Demandfor Attention items to create this component.
Component 3 closely matches the subscale Vigilance since five of the original
items hit the target component. It accounts for 5.581% of the variance. But even though
five of the original Vigilance items are there, another five items are missing. The RBS
Figure 2
Scree Plot o f Principal Component Analysis o f RBS
S cree Plot
12
10
0) EL
3
(0 2
>
c
<D
05
Lj j 0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40
C om ponent Number
subscale Vigilance is comprised of ten items. Items 9, 19, and 41 from the A ll or Nothing
subscale combined to form this component.
Component 4 contained six items and accounted for 4.00% of the variance. It was
comprised of 4 items from All or Nothing Thinking, one item from Blame and
Punishment and another item from Vigilance.
Component 5 contained four items from the subscale All or Nothing Thinking plus
an additional two from Blame and Punishment and another two from Perfectionistic
Expectations. It represented 3.80% of the variance.
Magnitude o f variance explained by the factors was also different from
Sullivan’s results. In his study Factor One, Vigilance was the one that explained the most
variance. In this study, the factor resembling Vigilance was the 3rd strongest factor, while
the new component created from 15 items from 4 different subscales emerged to be the
strongest component or one which explained the most variance.
For this sample, only 27 of the 42 original RBS items loaded toward the factors
postulated by Sullivan (1997). Also, 16 items loaded significantly towards two or more
components. The strongest component, representing 25.25% of the variance was
comprised o f a mix o f 15 items from four subscales. After inspecting the 15 items a
common theme could not be derived. These results do not support the five factor
structure as proposed by Sullivan but rather suggest considerable variability in the factor
structure.
85
Table 8
Results o f the RBS Principle Component Analysis - Pattern Matrix (n = 297)
Compl Comp2 Comp3 Comp4 Contp 5 Com m unalities
RBS 31(B) .804 .682
RBS 12(B) .672 .537
RBS 21(B) .635 .439
RBS 32 (V) .631 .466
RBS 38(A) .628 .428
RBS 29 (P) .616 .639
RBS 13 (V) .601 .664
RBS 7(B) .582 .6 8 8
RBS 36(B) .548 .522
RBS 42 (V) .513 .544
RBS 27 (V) .482 .425
RBS 24 (P) .476 .476
RBS 10 (P) .462 .448
RBS 34 (P) .453 .467
RBS 4(A ) .315 .232
RBS 16(D) .721 .534
RBS 1(D) .703 .511
RBS 6 (D) .617 .484
RBS 11(D) .601 .440
RBS 15 (P) .547 .614
Table 8 continued
RBS 39(D) .547 .614
RBS 30(D) .529 .413
RBS 35 (P) .450 .425
RBS 25 (D) .361 .374
RBS 37 (V) .534 .318
RBS 8 (V) .531 .438
RBS 40 (V) .523 .529
RBS 18 (V) .401 .387
RBS 3 (V) .392 .279
RBS 9(A) .353 .145
RBS 19(A) .351 .260
RBS 41(A) .348 .310
RBS 23(A) .750 .582
RBS 33 (A) .6 6 6 .487
RBS 28 (A) .606 .437
RBS 26(B) .515 .430
RBS 14(A) .413 .340
RBS 22 (V) .319 .277
RBS 17(B) .544 .546
RBS 5 (P) .498 .379
RBS 2(B ) .492 .394
RBS 20 (P) .444 .332
87
The exploratory factor analysis o f the RBS.
Sullivan (1997) performed a series of exploratory factor analysis in the course of
designing and refining the RBS. The principle axis promax solution fit Sullivan’s data
best (Sullivan, 1997) so a principle axis promax (k=3) with oblique rotation was used to
create the factor analysis in order to attempt a close replication of Sullivan’s study.
The four tests o f factorability were performed in order to determine the
factorability o f the analysis. The correlation matrix produced was visually examined to
identify some sizeable correlations.
The Bartlett’s Test o f Sphericity produced an approximate chi-square = 4631.50,
d f = 861, sig = .000. This is considered high, therefore the null hypothesis was rejected
and the factor analysis could be interpreted.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling (KMO) was .89, in the
“Meritorious” category (Kaiser, 1974) and provided evidence of the factorability of the R
matrix. The communalities were inspected for results that exceed .20. In this case all but
5 of the 42 extraction communalities exceed the cutoff and provide further rationale for
interpreting the results.
The scree test provided weak support for the 5 factor structure (see Figure 3). It
appeared that 3 factors were strong and an argument could be made for 6 factors.
five factors have an initial eigenvalue of 10.5, 2.6, 2.3, 1.6, and 1.5 respectively. These
five factors account for only 37.62% of the total variance. This is not high and suggests
that the first 5 factors do not explain the majority of the variance in the responses. The
cutoff point for item loadings in the Sullivan study were items greater than .30 for the
88
Figure 3
Scree Plot fo r Exploratory Factor Analysis o f RBS
S cree Plot
12
10
<D
_g>
(0 2
>
c
<D
05
lu o
7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40
Factor Number
principle factor and items greater than .20 for secondary factors. Tabachnik and Fidell
(2001) identify this as poor but the goal was to come as close to the Sullivan study as
possible so the more lenient criteria was preserved.
Table 9 shows the results of the Factor Analysis. Each of the RBS items is shown
with the factor that it loaded most significantly toward, even if that loading was not
significant. In order to produce this table, each item was studied to determine the factor
that it loaded most significantly towards. The items were rank ordered from largest to
89
Table 9
Results o f the RBS Factor Analysis -- Pattern Matrix ( n =- 297)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Communalities
RBS 31 (B) .874 .675
RBS 29 (P) .631 .608
RBS 21 (B) .626 .376
RBS 32 (V) .612 .390
RBS 12 (B) .607 .485
RBS 38 (A) .602 .353
RBS 15 (P) .496 .578
RBS 24 (P) .421 .432
RBS 10 (P) .413 .393
RBS 36 (B) .403 .483
RBS 27 (V) .385 .376
RBS 4(A ) .248 .194
RBS 16 (D) .705 .460
RBS 1(D) .655 .424
RBS 6 (D) .628 .376
RBS 11 (D) .526 .372
RBS 39 (D) .511 .404
RBS 30 (D) .465 .359
RBS 35 (P) .378 .386
RBS 25 (D) .299 .268
Table 9 continued
RBS 13 (V) .541 .659
RBS 40 (V) .489 .500
RBS 8 (V) .451 .354
RBS 42 (V) .440 .513
RBS 37 (V) .414 .2 1 2
RBS 3 (V) .314 .226
RBS 41 (A) .261 .252
RBS 19 (A) .233 .117
RBS 9(A ) .207 .058
RBS 23 (A) .675 .481
RBS 33 (A) .589 .368
RBS 28 (A) .475 .311
RBS 26 (B) .417 .330
RBS 18 (V) .322 .280
RBS 14 (A) .321 .293
RBS 22 (V) .241 .179
RBS 17(B) .499 .280
RBS 7(B) .463 .689
RBS 2(B) .396 .295
RBS 5 (P) .395 .239
RBS 20 (P) .329 .160
RBS 34 (P) .324 .410
smallest within each factor. The results of the loadings were not orthogonal and eight
items loaded significantly on more than one factor. But, for the purposes of this study the
item was identified with the factor to which it had the greatest loading.
Twelve items combined to form factor one. Items 12, 21, 31, and 36 were from
Blame and Punishment, items 10, 15, 24, and 29 from Perfectionistic Expectations, two
items, 27 and 32 from Vigilance, and another two, 38 and 4 from All or Nothing
Thinking. By looking at the individual items a theme or category is not readily apparent.
However, this is the strongest factor, explaining 23.72% of the variance.
For factor two, Demandfor Attention, six of the seven original items loaded most
significantly on the target factor, plus item 35 from Perfectionistic Expectations. But,
item 25, “After my partner doesn’t call me once when promised, I just know we are going
to have communication problems” did not significantly load on this factor. The
eigenvalue of .299 falls below the lenient cutoff of .30 but this was the factor to which
item 25 had the largest loading. Despite the fact that all Demandfor Attention items hit
the target factor, this factor only explained 4.88% of total variance.
Factor three most closely resembles the subscale of Vigilance and accounted for
4.12% o f the variance. Six o f the original ten items from the Vigilance scale loaded most
significantly to this factor. An additional three items, 9, 19, and 41 from the subscale All
or Nothing Thinking combined to form this factor.
Factor four was comprised o f 4 more items from All or Nothing Thinking, 2 items
from Vigilance, and 1 item from Blame and Punishment. It contributed 2.60% to the
variance. This factor cannot be called All or Nothing Thinking since 5 of the 9 factors
92
that make up that subscale loaded most significantly to other factors. The fifth factor was
equally split with 3 items from Blame and Punishment and another 3 from Perfectionistic
Expectations. It accounted for only 2.29% of the variance.
The results of the factors identified in the factor analysis account for only 37.62%
o f variance in the sample. While the five factors identified have some loose similarities
to the factors postulated by Sullivan (1997) a five factor structure did not emerge.
In order to see the results of the RBS factor analysis and PCA and to compare
them with Sullivan’s results refer to Table 10. On this table, Sullivan’s original factors
are shown along with the items that comprise that scale on the actual test. The loading
achieved in Sullivan’s study is shown next to the loadings derived in this study on both
the factor analysis and the PCA. Items that did not significantly load at the .30 level are
indicated by an asterisk. There were 16 items, of 42 that did not significantly load toward
the factors that Sullivan found. Another 7 items loaded significantly toward two or more
factors. It is important to note on Table 10 that with only a few exceptions, Sullivan
achieved higher loadings than either of the two analyses performed in this study. In his
exploratory factor analysis, Sullivan’s loadings are larger for 34 items. Compared to the
PCA, his loadings are more significant for 32 of the items. The factor analysis done to
replicate Sullivan’s was the weakest of the matches. Both the factor analysis and the
PCA failed to support the five factor model postulated by Sullivan. Possible reasons for
these differences will be explained in Chapter Five.
Testing the Null Hypothesisfo r Research Question Four
Irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the Relationship Belief Inventory
(RBI), will not predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
93
Table 10
RBS Loadings from Sullivan's Study, Factor Analysis and Principle Component Analysis
RBS Factor RBS Item Sullivan’s FA PCA
->
Vigilance .406 .314 .392
8 .6 6 6 .451 .531
13 .617 .541 .525
18 .531 .301 .401
22 .483 * *
27 .430 * *
32 .382 * *
37 .494 .414 .534
40 .467 .489 .523
42 .503 .440 .482
Blame & Punishment 2 .527 .396 .492
7 .667 .463 .474
12 .538 * *
17 .641 .499 .544
21 .559 * *
26 .559 * .322
31 .453 * *
36 .278 * *
All or Nothing Thinking 4 .338 * *
9 .560 * *
14 .578 .321 .413
Table 10 continued
19 .496 * *
23 .648 .675 .750
28 .601 .475 .606
33 .528 .589 .6 6 6
38 .356 * *
41 .465 * *
Perfectionistic Expectations 5 .530 * *
10 .546 .413 .462
15 .542 .496 .518
20 .360 * *
24 .574 .421 .476
29 .542 .631 .616
34 .542 .315 .453
35 .395 * *
Demand for Attention 1 .328 .655 .703
6 .591 .628 .617
11 .395 .526 .601
16 .464 .705 .721
25 .397 * .361
30 .544 .465 .529
39 .343 .511 .544
* This item did not significantly load on this factor at the .30 level
Bivariate correlation coefficients were generated among the scale scores of the RBI and
the global score o f the DAS. A stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted
using the scale scores as predictor variables and the global score of the DAS, as the
criterion measure. An alpha level o f .05 was used to determine significance.
Inspections o f the bivariate correlations (See Table 11) reveal that 4 of the 5 subscales
significantly negatively correlate with the DAS total score at the .05 level.
Disagreement is Destructive (r = -.368), Partners Cannot Change (r = -.338),
Mindreading is Expected (r = -. 139), and Sexes are Different (r -. 136) were all
significant predictors of the DAS total score. The RBI subscale score of Sexual
Perfectionism did not significantly predict the DAS total score. This indicates that people,
who believe disagreement is destructive, believe their partners cannot change for the
better, or expect their partner to read their mind without communicating, tend to have less
happy marriages. Expecting perfect sex was not a predictor of marital adjustment.
Overall, the RBI Total Score (r = -.302) significantly correlated with the DAS at
the .01 level indicating that the RBI is significantly negatively correlated with marital
satisfaction. This means that higher levels of irrational beliefs, as measured by the RBI,
predicted poor marital adjustment.
A best fitting model was selected from the stepwise multiple regression analysis,
in which R = .458, F (3,293) = 25.943, p = .000 (See Table 12). Significant RBI scales
that predicted the DAS total were Disagreement is Destructive, I - -5.918, p = .000,
Partners Cannot Change, t =-4.82, p = .0 0 0 , and Sexual Perfectionism, t = 2.374,/? =
.018.
Table 11
Correlation Matrix fo r RBI Subscales and DAS Total Score
DAS Total RBI D RBI M RBI C RBI S RBI MF RBI Total
_ 3 0 2 **
O
CO
DAS Total 1 -.368** -.139** -.338** -.136*
r
RBI D 1 .441** .288** .344** .262** .735**
RBIM 1 .385** .218** .166** .664**
RBI C 1 .176** .237** .591**
RBI S 1 .258** .640**
RBI MF 1 .611**
RBI Total 1
Note. RBI D = Disagreement is Destructive, RBI M = Mindreading is Expected,

RBI C = Partners Cannot Change, RBI S = Sexual Perfectionism, and RBI MF = The
Sexes are Different.
* p , .05. **p, .01.
Disagreement is Destructive, (R2 = 1 3 6 ) accounted for approximately 13% of the total
variance in the DAS score with Partners Cannot Change (R2 = .059) and Sexual
Perfectionism (R2 = .015) adding approximately 6 % and 2% respectively, of the total
variance. This suggests that respondents, who are afraid of disagreement, believe their
partners cannot change for the better, and have high expectations regarding sexual
performance tend to report less marital satisfaction than other respondents. These results
should be considered exploratory since approximately 21% of the variance in the DAS
was explained by this model and these three predictors.
97
Table 12
Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis fo r RBI subscales and Dyadic

Adjustment
Model 3
Variable B SEB P R2 t sig

Change
W
uo
Disagreement -.768 .130 .136 -5.918
00
1
.0 0 0
is
Destructive
Partners
Cannot -.822 .169 -.265 .059 -4.862 .0 0 0
Change
Sexual
Perfectionism .301 0.127 .132 .015 2.374 .018
Testing the Null Hypothesisfo r Research Question Five
Irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by the Relationship Belief Scale
(RBS) will not predict marital satisfaction, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(DAS). Bivariate correlation coefficients were generated between the scale scores of the
RBS and the global score o f the DAS (See Table 13). An alpha level o f .05 determined
significance.
At the bivariate level, the RBS Total Score (r = -.573) significantly correlated
with DAS total scores. In fact, RBS subscales, Vigilance (r = -.645), Blame and
Punishment (r = -.650), All or Nothing Thinking (r = -.332) and Perfectionistic
98
Table 13
Pearson r Correlation Matrix for RBS Subscales and DAS Total Score
DAS RBS (V) RBS (B) RBS (A) RBS (P) RBS (D) RBS Total
DAS 1 -.645** -.650** _ 3 3 2 ** -.406** -.140* -.573**
RBS (V) 1 .710** .554** .549** .357** .823**
RBS (B) 1 .520** .669** .372** .850**
RBS (A) 1 .508** .438** .728**
RBS (P) 1 .596** .846**
RBS (D) 1 .687**
RBS Total 1
Note. RBS (V) = Vigilance, RBS (B) = Blame and Punishment, RBS (A) = All or Nothing Thinking, RBS
(P) = Perfectionistic Expectations, RBS (D) = Demand for Attention.
* p , .05. * * p . .01
99
Expectations (r = -.406) were all significantly negatively correlated with the DAS Total
Score at the .01 level. Demandfor Attention (r = -.140) was significantly correlated
with the DAS total score at the .05 level.
Results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis produced a model, in which
R = .715, F (3,293) = 102.441,/? = .000 (See Table 14). Three subscales, Blame and
Punishment, t = - 7.220, p = .000, Vigilance, t = -6.839, p = .000, and Demand fo r
Attention, t = -3.629 , p - .000, combined to be significantly predict the DAS Total
Score. Scores on the subscale Blame and Punishment (R2 = .422) accounted for 42% of
the variance in the DAS score. Vigilance (R2 = .068) added 7% of the variance. Demand
fo r Attention (R2= .022) accounted for another 2%. Fifty-one per cent of the variance in
the DAS total score could be accounted for by sample responses on these three subscales.
This indicates that people who blame and punish their partners, and are vigilant in
tracking their partner’s actions, and also have a high demand for attention, tend to report
lower levels of marital satisfaction.
Testing the Null Hypothesis fo r Research Question 6(a)
The demographic variables o f gender, age, education level, years married, times
married, household income, parental divorce and position in fam ily life cycle, will not
predict endorsement o f irrational beliefs, as measured by the total scores o f the
Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI). Bivariate correlations were produced between the
demographic factors and the total score of the RBI. The .05 level was used to determine
significance. There were no demographic factors that significantly correlated with the
RBI total score (See Table 15). A stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed
using the predictor variables o f gender, age, education level, years married, times
100
Table 14
Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis fo r RBS subscales and Dyadic

Adjustment
Model 3

Change
Blame & -.887 .123 -.425 .422 -7.220 .0 0 0
Punishment
Vigilance
-.817 .1 2 0 -.400 .068 -6.839 .0 0 0
Demand for
Attention .393 .108 .161 .0 2 2 3.629 .0 0 0
married, household income, parental divorce and position in family life cycle and the RBI
total score as the criterion variable. The stepwise multiple regression analysis failed to
provide a significant model. This indicates that with this sample, no demographic factors
or combination o f factors predicted endorsement of irrational beliefs about relationships
as measured by the RBI.
The demographic factor of religion was omitted from this test because the 3
categories o f LDS, Catholic, and Other did not comprise a continuous scale. In order to
test if religion was a factor the sample means were compared for religion from the three
religious categories, LDS, Catholic, and Other. There were no significant differences in
the mean scores.
101
Table 15
Demographic Factors and Pearson r Correlations fo r RBI and RBS Total Score
RBI Total RBS Total
Age -.003 -.076
Gender -.019 -.020
Education -.087 .013
Household Income -.114 -.038
Times Married .025 .014
Years Married .013 -.079
Family Life Stage .025 -.021
Parental Divorce -.090 -.067
Note: No significance.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Testing the Null Hypothesis fo r Research Question 6(b)
The demographic variables o f gender, age, education level, years married,
household income, parental divorce and position in fam ily life cycle, will not predict
endorsement o f irrational beliefs, as measured by the total scores o f the Relationship
Belief Scale (RBS). There were no significant correlations at the bivariate level (See
Table 15).
102
Table 16
Summary>o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
RBI Subscales, Demographic Factors and Dyadic Adjustment
Model 4

Change
Disagreement -.752 .129 -.333 .141 -5.845 .000

Is Destructive
Partners -.843 .168 -.273 .059 -5.022 .000

Cannot Change
Sexual .275 .125 .122 .014 2.201 .029

Perfectionism
Education -1.673 .840 -.104 .011 -1.992 .047
A stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed using the predictor
variables o f gender, age, education level, household income, years married, times
married, parental divorce and position in family life cycle and the RBS total score as the
criterion variable. The stepwise multiple regression analysis did not reveal a significant
model. Similar to question 6a, no demographic factors or combinations o f factors were
found to predict irrational beliefs as measured by the RBS. The .05 level, two-tailed was
used to determine significance.
103
Testing the Null Hypothesis for Research Question Seven (a)
measured by the Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI) that predict marital satisfaction, as
measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). A stepwise multiple regression
analysis was performed using the subscales of the RBI and the demographic variables as
predictor variables and marital satisfaction, as measured by the global score on the DAS,
as the criterion variable. Significance was determined using the .05 level, two-tailed.
The stepwise multiple regression analysis produced model 4 where R = .475, F
(4,290) = 21.078,/? = .000 (See Table 16). The factors which combined were
Disagreement is Destructive, t = -5.845, p = .000, Partners Cannot Change, 1 = -5.022, p
= .000, Sexual Perfectionism, t = 2.201, p = .029, and Education, t = -1.992,p = .047.
Since the intent of this research question was to discover if demographic factors combine
with the irrational beliefs to significantly predict marital satisfaction, Model 4 was chosen
because it was the only combination that revealed a demographic factor having any
significant predicting quality. When the RBI subscale scores Disagreement is
Destructive (R2 = .141), Partners Cannot Change (R2 = .059), and Sexual Perfectionism
(R2 = .014) were combined with Education level (R2 =.011), these factors accounted for
22% of the total variance in the DAS score.
All 4 o f the significant subscales, Disagreement is Destructive, Partners Cannot
change and Sexual Perfectionism were negatively correlated meaning that endorsing
these subscales tends to predict lower levels of marital satisfaction.
It is interesting to note the demographic factor Education is negatively correlated
with Dyadic Adjustment. Meaning, higher levels of education actually predicted lower
104
levels of reported marital satisfaction. Individuals, who believe disagreement is
destructive, and that their partners cannot change for the better, have high expectations
for sexual performance, and are more educated, tend to be less happily adjusted in their
marriages. Given the overall R2 these results are minimal, and one should be cautious in
making interpretations.
Testing the Null Hypothesis fo r Research Question Seven (b)
measured by the Relationship Belief Scale (RBS) that predict marital satisfaction, as
measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). A stepwise multiple regression
analysis was performed using both the subscales of the RBS and the demographic
variables as predictor variables and marital satisfaction, as measured by the global score
on the DAS, as the criterion variable.
The stepwise multiple regression analysis produced a significant model in which
R = .731, F (5,289) = 66.484, p = .000 (See Table 17). In this model Vigilance,
t = -6.810, p = .000, Blame and Punishment, t - -7.224. p = .000, Demandfor Attention,
t —3.827, p = .000, Education, t = -2.710,p = .007 and Gender t = -2.043,p = .042 all
contributed to predicting the DAS total score.
The five factors, Vigilance (R2 = .425), Blame and Punishment (R2 = .072),
Demand fo r Attention (R2 = .021), Education (R2= .010), and Gender (R2 = .007), account
for approximately 52% of the total variance on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Vigilance,
Blame and Punishment and Demandfor Attention were all negatively correlated
indicating that high levels o f endorsement of these beliefs predict lower levels of marital
satisfaction. Education is negatively correlated indicating that those people with higher
105
levels o f education tended to report lower levels of marital satisfaction. Gender is also
negatively correlated. Since women were coded as “ 1” and men as “2”, this indicates
that men reported less marital satisfaction than women. Again, the factor of gender
makes only modest contributions to the variance in this model. These results should be
considered exploratory.
Table 17
Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis RBS Subscales, Demographic
Factors and Dyadic Adjustment
Model 5

Change
Vigilance -.812 .119 -.401 .425 -6.810 .000
Blame &
Punishment -.892 .124 -.432 .072 -7.224 .000
Demand for
Attention .407 .106 .168 .021 3.827 .000
Education -1.775 .655 -.110 .010 -2.710 .007
Gender -2.374 1.162 -.085 .007 -2.043 .042
Summary of Results
Results o f Research Question One
These two instruments, the RBI and RBS are significantly correlated. The total
scores of each were significantly correlated with each other. All the subscales of the RBI
were significantly correlated with the RBS total score. All the subscales of the RBS were
significantly correlated with the RBI total score. Furthermore, all of the subscales of the
RBS significantly correlated with all of the RBI subscales, with only one exception. The
RBI sub scale The Sexes are Different was not significantly correlated with the RBS
subscale Demand fo r Attention at the .01 level but was significant at the .05 level. Two
RBI subscales, The Sexes are Different and Sexual Perfectionism had lower levels of
correlation with many o f the subscale scores on both tests.
The RBI and RBS are related to one another. The RBI and RBS are significantly
correlated and appear to be measuring similar constructs. This strengthens and validates
the construct validity of both tests.
Results o f Research Question Two
This question sought to determine if a five factor structure would emerge from the
RBI from this sample. A Principle Component Analysis (PC A) was performed. Results
from the PCA provided weak support for the five factor model proposed by Epstein and
Eidelson (1982). While thirty-three of 40 items (83%) loaded significantly on the test
factors as designed, the subscales Disagreement is Destructive and Mindreading is
Expected evidenced substantial variability.
Results o f Research Question Three
This question sought to determine if a five factor structure would emerge from the
RBS scores from this sample. A principle component analysis was performed forcing the
data into five factors. Some items were consistently loading on factors similar to the
results obtained by Sullivan but there was enough discrepancy to warrant a second
statistic, an Exploratory Factor Analysis. The intent was to replicate the final study done
by Sullivan in his exploratory study. Again, the results pointed to variability in the
subscales.
Sixteen items did not significantly load toward the factors identified by Sullivan.
Only two subscales Demandfor Attention and Vigilance were recognizable as the target
factors from the RBS. Items from the other three RBS factors were spread throughout the
remaining factors achieved by the exploratory factor analysis. The factors themselves did
not emerge in the same order as they had in the exploratory factor analysis performed by
Sullivan. Results o f the factor analysis and PCA do not support the five factor structure
of the RBS.
Results o f Research Question Four
This question sought to determine if irrational relationship beliefs, as measured by
the Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI), would predict marital satisfaction, as measured
by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). At the bivariate level four of the subscales.
Disagreement is Destructive, Partners Cannot Change, Mindreading is Expected, and
Sexes are Different were all significant predictors of scores on the DAS. People who
strongly endorsed these beliefs tended to be less happy in their marriages.
The RBI total score was also significantly correlated with the DAS, indicating
that people who consistently endorsed high levels of irrational beliefs on the RBI tended
to report less happy marriages.
Results of the multivariate regression analysis also confirmed these results. When
combined, the responses on the sub scales of Disagreement is Destructive, Partners
Cannot Change and Sexual Perfectionism modestly predicted less happy marriages.
Results o f Research Question Five
The purpose o f this question was to determine if irrational beliefs, as measured by
the Relationship Belief Scale (RBS) would correlate with marital adjustment, as
measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). At the bivariate level, 4 of the 5
subscales, Vigilance, Blame and Punishment, All or Nothing Thinking, and Perfectionistic
Expectations were all significantly negatively correlated with the results of the DAS.
This means that people who responded with high levels of agreement to these irrational
beliefs tended to report lower levels of marital happiness. The RBS total score was also
negatively correlated with the DAS score.
At the multivariate level Blame and Punishment, Vigilance, and Demand fo r
Attention accounted for a significant portion of the variance. People who endorsed high
levels o f these 3 sub scales, tended to report low levels o f marital satisfaction.
Results o f Research Question Six (a)
Question 6(a) sought to determine if any o f the demographic factors were
significant predictors o f irrational beliefs, as measured by the RBI. At the bivariate level,
there were no demographic factors that significantly correlated with the RBI Total Score.
A stepwise multiple regression analysis was attempted using all o f the demographic
109
factors except Religion. The regression failed to produce a significant model. This
indicates that in this study, the demographic factors of age, gender, household income,
education, years married, position in family life cycle, number of times married, and
parental divorce, did not predict a participant’s level of irrational beliefs, as measured by
the Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI)
Results o f Research Question Six (b)
This question was similar to the above except the Relationship Belief Scale (RBS)
was used to measure the level o f irrational belief. Once again, there was no significant
correlation between the demographic factors and the RBS total score. Another stepwise
multiple regression analysis was performed, however it did not produce a significant
model. For this sample, although there was variance in the levels of irrational beliefs
participants held, the demographic factors did not correlate with or predict those scores.
Results o f Research Question Seven (a)
This question sought to determine if the demographic factors would combine with
any irrational beliefs to predict marital quality. Irrational beliefs were measured by the
subscale scores on the RBI, i.e. Disagreement is Destructive, Mindreading is Expected,
Partners Cannot Change, Sexual Perfectionism, and The Sexes are Different. Marital
quality was measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). In this study, the subscale
scores on Disagreement is Destructive, Partners Cannot Change, and Sexual
Perfectionism, combined with the demographic factor of Education to significantly
predict marital satisfaction as measured by the DAS. This suggests that highly educated
people who believe that disagreement is destructive to marriage, that partners are not
capable o f change, and who expect perfection in sexual intimacy tend to be less happy in
110
their marriages. The significance of these results is minimal and caution should be used
before generalizing these results to another population.
Results o f Research Question Seven (b)
This question is similar to 7(a) but the irrational beliefs were measured by the
subscale scores on the RBS, i.e., Vigilance, Blame and Punishment, All or Nothing
Thinking, Perfectionistic Expectations, and Demandfor Attention. Results indicate that
the combination o f Education, Gender, Vigilance, Blame and Punishment, and Demand
fo r Attention combined to significantly predict poor marital satisfaction. This means that
highly educated males, who are vigilant in watching their partners, demand a lot of
attention, attribute blame and punishment to their spouses, tended to report lower levels
of marital satisfaction. The relationship was small and so these results should be used
and interpreted cautiously.
Ill
CHAPTER V
Discussion
Introduction
Cognitive behavioral psychology focuses on changing the faulty, erroneous or
irrational beliefs that people hold. When irrational thoughts are replaced with rational
ones the resulting behavior tends to be more health promoting (Beck & Emery, 1985;
Ellis, 1994; Meichenbaum, 1977). Researchers have drawn upon cognitive behavioral
models of psychology in an effort to improve the quality of marriage and to predict
unhappy marriages.
Numerous authors have looked at the impact of irrational beliefs on marriage
(Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Ellis & Harper, 1961; Larson, 1992; Meichenbaum, 1977;
Schwebel & Sullivan, 1996) and note that individuals who endorse irrational beliefs
about their relationships, often experience difficulty adjusting to marriage. These
individuals also tend to report less marital satisfaction than people who endorse more
rational beliefs (Baucom et al, 1989; Schwebel & Sullivan, 1996).
Two instruments designed to assess these irrational beliefs are the Relationship
Belief Inventory (RBI, Eidelson & Epstein, 1982) and the Relationship Belief Scale
(RBS, Sullivan, 1997). The RBI has been widely used to assess irrational relationship
beliefs but the psychometric strengths and reliability of this test have been questioned
(Bradbury & Fincham, 1993; Emmelkamp et al., 1987; James et al., 2002; Sullivan
1997). As a result, Sullivan (1997) designed the RBS to serve as an alternative
instrument to the RBI. Sullivan’s initial studies provide evidence that the RBS may be
the preferred instrument for assessing irrational relationship beliefs.
112
The purpose of this study was to help further define the relationship between
irrational relationship beliefs and marital adjustment. Furthermore, it sought to explore
the strength of the two instruments designed to measure irrational relationship beliefs.
Specifically, it focused on the robustness of the factor structure of each test with the
sample used in this study and helps determine which of these instruments is more suited
for future research. Additionally, this study assesses the relationship between irrational
relationship beliefs and the following demographic factors; age, gender, years married,
times married, household income, education, position in the family life cycle, and
parent’s divorce.
Population and Sample
There were several factors that combined to create a highly homogenous sample.
Overall, the participants could be characterized as religious, committed to marriage,
satisfied with their marriage, well educated, upper middle class, and mature. Although
subscale and overall test score means indicated no statistical differences between these
participants and other samples, the relevance and application of this study may be
limited.
Much of the research on irrational relationship beliefs has used unmarried people
in dating or co-habitating relationships (James, 2002; Larson, 1992; Sullivan 1997). The
target population for this study was non-clinical, married people. Participants in this
sample indicated that they had not sought marriage therapy in the last twelve months and
most of the participants reported high levels of marital satisfaction as measured by the
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS).
For reasons o f convenience and interest, the sample was drawn from the greater
113
Salt Lake City, Utah area and represents the population of the state. Utah was first
populated by Mormon pioneers in 1847. The name “Mormon” is a nickname for
members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, respectfully referred to as
LDS. Currently, the LDS population represents 75% of the total Utah population (The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2005). Since a resounding number of people
in Utah are LDS it was expected that LDS people would be a large part of the sample.
Despite the LDS conservative emphasis on stable marriages and families (The Church of
Jesus Christ o f Latter Day Saints, 2005), the LDS respondent’s scores on the RBI, RBS
and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS, the measure of marital adjustment) were similar
to non LDS participants in this sample. LDS people in this sample did not endorse
significantly more or less irrational beliefs nor did they report being more or less happily
married than non-LDS participants. Despite the lack of difference in mean scores on the
measures used in this study, it is possible that the homogenous sample may have
impacted the results of the study.
The sample was drawn from two general sources. The first source was made up
of 225 (76%) individuals attending psycho educational lectures, who were presented with
this research study and who indicated a willingness to participate in the study. These
people were given a questionnaire packet, which they completed at home, and mailed
back to the researcher anonymously, within 2 weeks. The second source was a
convenient sample o f 72 individuals known to the researcher. These individuals were
also given a questionnaire packet to complete at home and mail back to the researcher
anonymously.
Research Question One
The RBI and RBS purport to measure the construct of irrational relationship
beliefs. Question one sought to determine if the RBI and RBS measure similar constructs
and the extent of the correlation that exists between the subscales of each test and the
total scores on the RBI and RBS.
Results o f the Pearson r indicate a significant degree of correlation between the
RBI and RBS total scores. With only one exception, every subscale of the RBI was
significantly correlated with every subscale on the RBS ip <01). The exception was the
RBI subscale The Sexes are Different which correlated significantly with the RBS
subscale Demandfor Attention but at a more lenient level of significance ip < .05). These
results indicate that these two tests are related and appear to be measuring a similar
construct of irrational or unrealistic relationship beliefs.
While almost all the subscales were related to one another, the RBS subscales
had a stronger correlation to the RBI total score than the other way around. This suggests
that the RBI may be measuring constructs not measured by the RBS. The RBS does not
assess gender attitudes or sexual expectations represented by the scales The Sexes are
Different and Sexual Perfectionism (Sullivan, 1997).
One RBI scale that appears to have a weaker relationship as compared to the other
subscales was The Sexes are Different. This subscale was originally thought to measure
the degree to which someone believed that men and women have different ways of
interacting and different needs within intimate relationships (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982).
According to the RBI authors, endorsing this irrational belief keeps couples polarized
over their differences, and distracts them from making changes that could increase their
115
adjustment. The sample mean achieved in this study was significantly higher (1 standard
deviation) on RBI scale The Sexes are Different than the original normative sample (See
Table 4). Participants in this study endorsed statements such as “Men and women
probably will never understand the opposite sex very well” and “Men and women will
always be mysteries to each other”. One possible explanation for this finding could be
that the majority o f participants were LDS, and more likely to hold traditional attitudes
regarding the roles of men and women (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
1995). According to test designers (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982) this scale, The Sexes are
Different, is anticipated to be negatively correlated with marital adjustment, meaning the
more you endorse the belief that men and women are different the less happily married
you should be. Question 4 provides further discussion related to this scale’s ability to
predict marital satisfaction.
The weakness found in this scale was consistent with the Emmelkamp study
(1987) where high endorsement of the scale The Sexes are Different actually predicted
the random sample o f non-clinical participants over the clinical one. This finding is in
direct contrast to what test authors Eidelson and Epstein (1982) found in their study. This
phenomenon might be better explained by the attitudes reflected in the popular self-help
Mars vs. Venus literature (Cowlishaw, 2001; Grey, 1992). It is possible that endorsing
the belief that The Sexes are Different helps to lower expectations people have of one
another. If differences are attributed to gender it may prevent blaming and possibly
normalize conflict thereby increasing positive adjustment.
Research Question Two
The RBI was created in 1982 by Eidelson and Epstein and has been used in
116
numerous studies to assess irrational beliefs in romantic relationships. However, the RBI
was created using a rational approach without the benefit of factor analysis (Eidelson &
Epstein, 1982). Although the RBI has been shown to be related to marital satisfaction, the
actual validity o f the scales and items contributing to them are in question. Are the total
scale items and subscales valid and reliable? This is one of the most significant questions
proposed by this study. Only one published study has examined the reliability o f the RBI
using factor analysis (James et al, 2002). Results of the James study indicate serious
weakness in two of the subscales, The Sexes are Different and Partners Cannot Change.
This study sought to determine the reliability of the RBI subscales by using
principle component analysis (PCA) to determine if the items would emerge in five
distinct components as proposed by test authors and account for a significant portion of
the variance in scores.
There were two methods used to examine the results from the PCA. The first
method determined if each test item loaded significantly on its target subscale. Thirty -
three of 40 items (83%) loaded significantly toward the factor proposed by the RBI
authors. The seven items that failed to load were 2, 7, 12, and 37 from subscale
Mindreading is Expected, item 23 from Partners Cannot Change and items 9 and 14
from the Sexual Perfectionism subscale.
In this study the cutoff point used for significant item loadings for the PCA and
factor analysis was >.30. Tabachnik and Fidell (2001) suggest that .32 be used as the
minimum cut off for factor loadings. This lower .30 was chosen because Sullivan (1997)
had used this cutoff in designing the RBS and it made comparisons easier and consistent
across the board.
117
A second method used to examine results of the PCA was to determine if items
loaded most significantly on its target subscale. On the RBI, three items 3, 22, and 27
loaded significantly on 2 or more subscales. Item 9 did not load on any scale. When the
items were grouped with the factors to which they had the highest loading (see Table 6),
five factors emerged, but they were not the same five factors that made up the RBI.
All 8 items from scale Disagreement is Destructive and six items from
Mindreading is Expected formed a new component in the PCA. This new component
consisted o f 14 items, and was the largest contributing component for the RBI and
explained the most variance (16.95%). The theme of these items was related to poor
communication skills. For instance, RBI item 21 from Disagreement is Destructive states
“I get very upset when my partner and I cannot see things the same way” and RBI item
12 from Mindreading is Expected says “I get very upset if my partner does not recognize
how I am feeling and I have to tell him/her”.
The strength of the sub scale Disagreement is Destructive found in this study is
similar to the results of the exploratory factor analysis performed by the James (2002)
study, in that it emerged as the strongest factor accounting for the most variance.
Although it must be noted that in the James study, the items from the Mindreading is
Expected subscale did not combine with the Disagreement is Destructive subscale.
The subscale The Sexes are Different was the only subscale to remain intact with
all items loading significantly, and primarily towards the target subscale. This finding
contrasts with the results from the James (2002) study in which The Sexes are Different
split into two different factors; one that was described as Sexes are Different in Needs and
another labeled Difficulty in Understanding the Opposite Sex. As discussed earlier
118
participants in this sample scored significantly higher on The Sexes are Different than the
normative sample. This is possibly due to sampling reasons.
RBI subscales Sexual Perfectionism, and Partners Cannot Change had almost all
their items load most significantly on the target component. However, the contribution to
the variance was minimal (7.06% and 5.69%, respectively) for these two scales. This
finding differs from the James study results in which several items from scale Partners
Cannot Change failed to load significantly on the target subscale.
To summarize, in this study, the items from two subscales Disagreement is
Destructive and Mindreading is Expected combined to form a new factor. The items that
loaded on the remaining three scales were similar to the factors reported by Eidelson and
Epstein (1982). However, the total variance explained by these loadings on the three
factors was modest and results of the PCA provide weak support for the five factor
structure proposed by Eidelson and Epstein (1982) for the RBI.
Research Question Three
For his dissertation, Sullivan (1997) created the Relationship Belief Scale using
exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. His study results indicated
that the RBS was a superior instrument to the RBI. Question three was designed to
determine if a similar five factor structure would emerge for the RBS in a different
sample group.
Initially, a Principle Component Analysis (PCA) was performed on the RBS and
results indicated poor support for the five factors found by Sullivan (1997). Specifically,
15 of the 42 items (36%) failed to load significantly towards the target subscale. The
only subscale to remain relatively intact was Demandfor Attention. The seven items that
119
comprise this subscale loaded most significantly to form the second strongest component.
This is in contrast to Sullivan’s study in which Demandfor Attention was found to be the
weakest o f his five factors. The strongest component to emerge and the one that
accounted for the most variance (25.05%) was one comprised of fifteen various items
from four of the subscales. There was no common theme that described these items.
Since the results for the PCA were inconclusive, a decision was made to use
exploratory factor analysis to further investigate the factor structure for the RBS. The
factor analysis produced results similar to those achieved by the PCA. Seventeen of the
42 items (40%) did not load significantly towards the expected subscale. Once again, the
subscale Demand for Attention was the most consistent with the original subscale. Items
from subscales Vigilance, All or Nothing Thinking, Blame and Punishment and
Perfectionistic Expectations showed substantial variability and failed to load consistently
with the original factors. A new factor comprised of twelve items from four of the
various RBS subscales emerged as the strongest factor. Upon scrutiny o f these items, a
common theme could not be determined.
Neither the factor analysis nor the principle component analysis supported a five
factor structure as proposed by Sullivan. Table 10 compares the loadings derived from
the Sullivan study to the loadings achieved in this study. The loadings in the Sullivan
study are all greater except for the subscale Demandfor Attention in which this sample
achieved higher loadings. The most obvious explanation for the differences in these
results can be found in the demographic make up of the samples. Sullivan’s sample
consisted of 856 single dating people drawn from a university population plus 100
married people from the community, in contrast to this study which was made up of 297
120
married people, primarily from an LDS background. One possible explanation for this
finding could be assumed from Schwebel’s (1992) work which postulates that unmarried
individuals often have unrealistic and high expectations of marriage. Additionally,
Sullivan (1997) found that the mean scores on the RBS subscales were greater for his
unmarried participants than for the married individuals, indicating that unmarried people
endorsed more irrational beliefs.
Research Question Four
Question four aimed at assessing if irrational relationship beliefs, measured by the
RBI would predict marital satisfaction for this sample. Previous research has indicated
that people who endorse irrational beliefs tend to report less marital satisfaction (Baucom
et al., 1989; Eidelson & Epstein, 1982). Scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale Total
(DAS) were used to assess a participant’s level o f marital adjustment. Results from this
sample, using the Pearson r indicate that the RBI total score was significantly negatively
related to marital satisfaction. As such, individuals who were more likely to endorse a
greater number o f irrational beliefs were also more likely to report lower levels of marital
satisfaction. The significant negative correlation between irrational relationship beliefs
and marital adjustment found in this study is consistent with results from other studies
(Baucom et al., 1989; Bradbury & Fincham 1990; Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Sullivan
1997).
Individual subscale scores were also examined to determine their relationship to
marital adjustment. Disagreement is Destructive, Partners Cannot Change, Mindreading
is Expected, and The Sexes are Different were all significantly negatively correlated with
marital adjustment. This finding suggests that people who anticipate disagreement to be
121
harmful, believe that partners never change, expect their partners to read their minds, or
believe that men and women have different needs in relationships tend to also report
lower levels of marital satisfaction. The subscale Sexual Perfectionism did not
significantly predict marital quality. This weakness found in the Sexual Perfectionism
scale is similar to the findings in the Bradbury and Fincham (1993) study but dissimilar
to the Moller and Van Zyl (1991) study done in Russia.
Results of the multiple regression analysis found that the only significant
combination o f RBI subscales in predicting marital adjustment was Disagreement is
Destructive, Partners Cannot Change, and Sexual Perfectionism. This indicates that
people, who believe that disagreement is harmful, think their partners can’t change, and
expect perfect sexual performance tend to report less happy marriages. The shared
variance of these three variables is only 21%, so caution should be used in the application
of these findings to other populations.
Also the Pearson r co-efficients for the RBI predicting the DAS were significant,
but not high. The range o f co-efficients/or Disagreement is Destructive, Mindreading is
Expected, Partners Cannot Change, Sexual Perfectionism, and The Sexes are Different
for predicting marital adjustment as measured by the DAS are -.368, -.139, -.338, -.031,
-. 136, respectively. The RBI Total score Pearson r was -.302 (see Table 11). Similar
results for the RBS are identified in the next section.
Research Question Five
Question five sought further evidence to support the relationship between
irrational relationship beliefs as measured by the RBS and marital satisfaction. The
resulting Pearson r indicated that the RBS total score significantly predicts marital
122
quality, meaning that people who endorsed the irrational beliefs on the RBS tended to
report lower levels o f marital adjustment. All five of the RBS subscales, were
significantly negatively correlated with the DAS total score. This finding suggests that
individuals who are vigilantly watching their partners, blaming and punishing their
partners, look at problems in their relationship in “all or nothing” terms, expect perfection
from their spouse and demand attention from them, tend to report less happy marriages.
At the multivariate level of analysis, the stepwise multiple regression analysis
revealed one combination o f subscales that appeared to predict unhappy marriages.
Blame and Punishment, Vigilance, and Demand fo r Attention combined to significantly
predict poor marital adjustment. Results of the multivariate predictions indicate that
these three variables account for 51% of the variance in the DAS scores. But, 42% of
this comes from subscale Blame and Punishment while the other two variables make
minimal contributions. Caution should be used in generalizing these findings outside of
married, religious populations.
It appears that the RBI and RBS were shown to be significantly related to marital
satisfaction. However, the correlations were larger for the RBS than for the RBI. The
Pearson r coefficients for Vigilance, Blame & Punishment, All or Nothing Thinking,
Perfectionistic Expectations and Demandfor Attention were -.645, -.650, -.332, -.406, -
. 140, respectively. The RBS Total score Pearson r coefficient was -.573 (see Table 11).
These findings suggest that the RBS has a stronger relationship to marital satisfaction
than the RBI.
Research Question Six
Considering the impact that irrational beliefs have on marital satisfaction it is
123
important to identify characteristics of people who endorse these beliefs. To date,
previous research has been inconclusive regarding demographic features and their
relationship to endorsing irrational relationship beliefs. In this study the demographic
factors of gender, age, education level, years married, times married, household income,
parent’s divorce and position in family life cycle, were used along with the scores on the
RBI and RBS to determine which demographics correlate with endorsing irrational
beliefs. The Pearson r and the stepwise regression analysis performed on this sample
indicate that none of these demographic factors are significant predictors of irrational
relationship beliefs as measured by either the RBI or RBS.
This finding is consistent with the research to date. In retrospect, this sample
could have included a non married contingent to determine if the demographic factor of
being unmarried is a better predictor of irrational relationship beliefs.
The demographic factor of religion was not included in the multivariate
regression analysis because religion was not expressed as a continuous variable.
Research Question Seven (a)
In question seven (a) the demographic factors of gender, age, education,
household income, years married, times married, position in family life cycle and
parent’s divorce were combined with the scale scores of the RBI to determine if
combinations o f factors and irrational beliefs predict marital satisfaction. For instance,
would recently married people, who endorse beliefs represented by the scale
Mindreading is Expected report less marital satisfaction? The stepwise multiple
regression analysis produced one significant model. The significant factors were
Disagreement is Destructive, Partners Cannot Change, Sexual Perfectionism, and the
124
demographic factor of Education which were all negatively correlated with marital
satisfaction. This finding suggests that well educated individuals who believe
disagreement is destructive, that their partners can’t change, and have high expectations
for sexual performance report being less happy in their marriages. However, the shared
variance of these four variables is only 22%. Therefore, caution should be used before
generalizing to other populations because the strength of the relationship was fairly small.
Research Question Seven (b)
This question combined the subscale scores of the RBS with all the demographic
factors to see if there was a combination that predicted poor marital adjustment. From the
stepwise multiple regression analysis, one significant model emerged containing five
factors: Vigilance, Blame and Punishment, Demandfor Attention, and demographic
factors o f Education, and Gender. All o f these factors were negatively correlated with
marital satisfaction. These results suggest that highly educated men, who are vigilantly
watching their partner, ascribing blame and punishment, and have a high demand for
attention are inclined to report less happy marriages. The variables in this model account
for 53% of the shared variance. However, scale Vigilance contributes 42% of this alone.
The contribution of the other three variables is relatively small. Although these results
show statistical significance, it is small, and caution should be used when generalizing
these results to other populations.
Strengths
Demographic Factors
This study is the first to examine specifically the demographic features of
religion, household income, years married, times married, position in the family life
125
cycle, and parent’s divorce with irrational relationship beliefs. Some studies have
included gender (Bradbury & Fincham, 1993; Bushman, 1999; DeBord & Romans, 1996;
Shapiro & Kroeger, 1991; Sullivan & Schwebel, 1996) but previous results have been
inconclusive.
Large sample size
The 297 participants represent the largest number of married individuals to take
both the RBI and RBS, in a published study to date. Sullivan’s study (1997) used a large
sample of unmarried college students plus a community sample of 100 married people.
The James study (2002) had 205 participants who were married or cohabitating, but these
individuals only completed the RBI.
The sample size was sufficiently large enough to perform the exploratory factor
analysis and principle component analysis as recommended by Comrey and Lee (1992)
who suggests the minimum number of cases for this type of analysis should be 300. This
study started with 307 cases but due to missing information, 10 cases were deleted from
the study. This brought the total number to 297, just 3 short of the recommendation by
Comrey and Lee. Bryant (Grimm & Yarnold, 2000) states that factor analysis could be
performed with as few as 100 observations and still be valid.
Limitations
Assumptions o f Normality
The assumption o f univariate, bivariate and multivariate normal distribution of the
sample is in question. On the RBI, 9 items contained 31 cases in which outliers were
identified. Ten items had skewness and kurtosis z scores that exceeded the customary
+- 3.29. After scrutiny of the original paper and pencil protocols only 3 of these were
126
altered with the sample mean of that item. The rest were all deemed representative of the
population intended by the study.
For the RBS, 86 response outliers were identified from 23 different items and
these all had skewness or kurtosis z scores that exceeded the standard. Again, all 86 were
viewed as part o f the population of the study and left as is. These outliers were created
by a response pattern intrinsic to the likert scale. For instance, one o f the RBS items
states T m so considerate to my partner, that even if I have a one-night stand it is okay.”
This item had a strong polarized response pattern. O f all participants, 273 marked
“strongly disagree”, 19 marked “disagree” and 5 people indicated “strongly agree”.
These responses are not normally distributed but dichotomous. All of the items
containing outliers were created by response patterns similar to this.
The data could not be manipulated and items could not be dropped from the
instruments because the RBI and RBS are standardized, published tests. Also results
were to be compared to other studies in which the RBI and RBS had been used in
entirety. Nevertheless, the fact that response pattern to many items did not meet the
assumptions necessary for the statistics employed puts the results in question.
The Unique and Highly Homogenous Population
Overall, the participants in this study could be described as religious, committed
to marriage, well educated, upper middle class, and mature. Although subscale and
overall test score means indicated no statistical differences between these participants and
other samples, the unique qualities o f this sample most likely are reflected in the results
of the study and therefore limit generalizability to other populations.
The LDS Population
The majority o f participants (74%) were LDS which is representative of the State
of Utah (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2005). However it does not
represent the overall population of the United States. LDS people are reported to hold
distinct cultural attitudes regarding marriage and the importance of the family (The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1995). Therefore, caution must be used
when considering the results from this study as it may not generalize to the population at
large.
Non-Random Sample
This was not a random sample. All of the participants selected themselves for
participation. Taking a packet, filling it out in privacy, and mailing it back, with no
recompense, represents a high degree of self-motivation. Motivated responders may have
opinions that are different than the general population.
Possible Influence o f Treatment
Most of the respondents in this study received a psycho educational lecture
sometime prior to responding to the measures. These lectures focused on issues of
parenting skills, communication in the family, time management, and methods to manage
depression. It is possible that information in the lectures attuned the participant to a
response bias and represents a treatment that was not addressed or equally applied across
the board.
Like all participants, the ones from the convenient sample completed their
measures in privacy and returned them anonymously. But, they were personally known
to the researcher and may have answered in a manner to please or withhold opinions to
128
protect their privacy. These participants may have felt an obligation to the researcher and
this too may have colored their responses.
Implicationsfo r Practice
Clinical Use o f the RBI and RBS
This study represents a critical addition to the study o f irrational relationship
beliefs among individuals who report being in a marital relationship. It provides
additional evidence regarding the validity of the RBI and RBS instruments. Clinicians
who frequently use these instruments to assess irrational beliefs should use caution until
the reliability o f both can be further established.
The Link between Irrational Relationship Beliefs and Marital Satisfaction
Results of this study indicate that endorsing irrational relationship beliefs is
predictive of unhappy marriages. These results are consistent with previous studies.
Clients who endorse irrational relationship beliefs should be challenged and educated in
order to decrease their high and unrealistic expectations.
Demographic Factors
The results of this study suggest that the demographic factors of age, gender,
years married, times married, religion, household income, education, position in the
family life cycle and parent’s divorce, do not predict irrational relationship beliefs. These
results are consistent with other studies performed previously. Clinicians are therefore
cautioned to assess all clients for irrational or unrealistic relationship beliefs.
Specific Value fo r Therapists serving LDS Couples
The LDS participants did not score significantly higher on the RBI, RBS, or DAS
129
than the rest of the participants of this study. Therapists working with LDS couples can
assess and intervene regarding irrational relationship beliefs as they would with other
populations.
Implications fo r Further Research
1. Both the RBI and RBS demonstrated serious problems with internal consistency and
factor variability. More studies employing exploratory factor analysis and
confirmatory factor analysis should be performed with different samples to further
delineate the reliability of each.
2. When results o f this study are compared to unmarried samples, it appears that marital
status may be a demographic feature that predicts endorsing irrational relationship
beliefs. A comparison study that focuses primarily on irrational relationship beliefs
of married and unmarried participants would help clarify this relationship.
3. Portions of this study could be replicated with non-religious populations Although
significant differences were not found between the LDS participants in the sample
and other non-LDS participants, most sample respondents identified themselves with
a religion. It is possible that results from this study generalize to religious
populations and not necessarily LDS ones.
4. Portions of this study could be replicated with clinical participants. Most of the
respondents in this sample reported being relatively happily married. It is possible
that a clinical population would provide more variance in response and a normally
distributed sample.
5. Future research could examine the effect of psycho educational intervention on
changing irrational beliefs. A psycho educational treatment could be applied to
130
participants who highly endorse irrational relationship beliefs to determine if the
beliefs are enduring.
Summary
In order to help couples increase their marital satisfaction, researchers and
practitioners have drawn upon cognitive behavioral models of psychology (Baucom, et
al., 1989; Doherty, 1997; Ellis, 1961; Epstein & Eidelson, 1981; Larson, 1992; Schwebel
& Fine, 1994). Specifically, they have investigated the link between endorsing irrational
relationship beliefs and marital satisfaction. Previous studies have found significant
negative correlation between marital satisfaction and endorsing irrational relationship
beliefs (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Debord & Romans, 1996; Moller & Van Zyl; 1991;
Sullivan 1997).
The purpose of this study was threefold. 1) Two instruments have been designed
to assess the level o f endorsement of some of these beliefs; The Relationship Belief
Inventory (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982) and the Relationship Belief Scale (Sullivan, 1997).
This study sought to explore the validity and reliability o f these two instruments. 2) The
relationship between irrational relationship beliefs and marital satisfaction was to be
determined for this sample. 3) The demographic features of age, gender, years married,
times married, household income, education, religion, position in the family life cycle
and parent’s divorce were considered to determine their relationship with irrational
In summation, results from this sample indicate serious weaknesses in the factor
structure of both the RBI and RBS. These results suggest that the reliability of both
instruments is in question until further studies can establish their reliability. The RBI and
131
RBS appear to be related measures and are most likely measuring similar constructs.
Irrational relationship beliefs as measured by the RBI and RBS are significantly
negatively correlated to marital adjustment.
Regarding combinations of irrational beliefs that predict marital adjustment,
results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis produced some significant models
where irrational beliefs measured by the RBS and RBI combined to be significant
predictors of marital adjustment. However, results of the combinations were minimal and
caution should guide the application to other populations. There was no relationship
found between the demographic factors in this study and irrational relationship beliefs for
this sample.
The relationship between irrational relationship beliefs and marital satisfaction
has been shown in this study and repeatedly in other research. This study illustrates the
need for valid and reliable instruments to measure endorsement of irrational relationship
beliefs.
132
References
Addis, J. (2002). Marital Adjustment and irrational beliefs. Journal o f Rational-Emotive

& Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 20, 1, 3-13.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &

National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards fo r
educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Antill, J. K. & Cotton, S. (1982). Spanier’s Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Some

confirmatory analyses. Australian Psychologist, 17, 181-189.
Arrindell, W. A., Emmelkamp, P.M.G. & Bast, S. (1983). The Maudsley Marital
Questionnaire (M.M.Q.): A further step toward is validation. Personal and
Individual Differences, 4, 457-464.
Aub, N. & Linden, W. (1991). Marital disturbance, quality of communication and

socioeconomic status. Canadian Journal o f Behavioural Science, 23 (2), 125-
132.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bahr, S. J., & Galligan, R. J. (1984). Teenage marriage and marital stability. Youth and
Society, 15, 387-400.
Baucom, D. H., (1986). Attributions in distressed relations: How can we explain them?
In S. Duck and D. Perlman (Eds.?, Heterosexual relations, marriage, and divorce.
London: Sage Publications.
Baucom, D. H. & Epstein, N. (1990). Cognitive-behavioral marital therapy.

Philadelphia, PA. Brunner/Mazel.
Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Sayers, S., & Goldman-Sher, T. (1989). The role of
cognitions in marital relationships: Definitional, methodological, and conceptual
issues. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 57, 31-38.
Beach, S. R. & O’Leary, K. D. (1993). Marital discord and dysphoria: For whom does
the marital relationship predict depressive symptomatology? Journal o f Social
and Personal Relationships, 10, 3, 405-420.
Beck, A. T., & Emery, G. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive
perspective. New York: Basic.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B.F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy o f
depression. New York: Guilford.
133
Booth, A., & Edwards, J. (1985). Age at marriage and marital instability. Journal o f
Marriage and the Family, 47, 67-75.
Booth, A., Johnson D. & Edwards J. N., (1983). Measuring marital instability. Journal
o f Marriage and the Family, 44, 387-393.
Bradbury, T. N. & Fincham F. D. (1992). Attributions and Behavior in Marital

Interaction. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 613-628.
Bradbury, T. N. & Fincham F.D. (1993). Assessing dysfunctional cognition in marriage:

A reconsideration of the relationship belief inventory. Psychological Assessment,
5, 92-101.
Bryant, F. B. (2000). Assessing the Validity in Measurement, In Grim, L.G. & Yarnold,
P R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics. Washington, DC.
American Psychological Association.
Bunk, B. & Nijskens, J. (1980). Communication and satisfaction in intimate

relationships. Gedrag, 4, 240-460.
Burr, W. R. (1973). Theory construction and the sociology o f the family. New York:
Wiley.
Bushman, W. J. (1999). The relationship between conflict, love, and satisfaction and
relationship beliefs, problem-solving techniques and negotiating strategies in
romantic relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International'. Section B: The
Sciences & Engineering 59 (8-B) Feb 1999, 4534.
Carter, E. & McGoldrick, M. (Eds.). (1989). The family life cycle: A framework fo r
fam ily therapy. (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cate, R. M., & Lloyd S. A. (1992) Courtship, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
The Church o f Jesus Christ o f Latter Day Saints (1995). The Family: A proclamation to
the world. Salt Lake City, UT. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
The Church o f Jesus Christ o f Latter Day Saints (2005). Church practices influence Utah
health and demographics statistics. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from
http:www.lds.org/newsroom/show package/0,15367,3899-1 .html
The Church o f Jesus Christ o f Latter Day Saints (2005). Why church families stay
together. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from
http://www.lds.Org/newsroom/showpackage/0,15367,3899-1 --44-2-166,00. html
Coie, J., Watt, N., Hawkins, S., Ramey, S., Markman, H. J., Long, B., & West S. (1991,
134
June). Prevention Research: Conceptual model o f strategies and procedures.
Paper presented at the National Prevention Conference, Washington, D.C.
Coie, J., Watt, N., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R. Markman, H. J., Ramey,
S. L., Shure, M. B., & Long, B. (1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual
framework and some directions for a national research program. American
Psychologist, 48, 1013-1022.
Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. (2nd Ed.) Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cowlishaw, B.R. (2001). Subjects are from Mars, objects are from Venus: construction
of the self in self-help. Journal o f Popular Culture, 35, 16, p i 69 (16)
Crohan, S. E. (1992). Marital happiness and spousal consensus on beliefs about marital
conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal o f Social and Personal
Relationships, 9, 89-102.
DeBord, J. & Romans, J. S. C. (1996). Predicting dyadic adjustment from general and
relationship specific beliefs. Journal o f Psychology Interdisciplinary & Applied,
130, (3) 263.
Department of Health and Human Services, (2005) National Centerfo r Health Statistics;
Retrived November 10, 2005 from http:www.cdc.gov/nchs/data
Doherty, P. (1997). Assessment of irrational marital beliefs and conflict resolution styles
among premarital couples. Dissertation Absfracts International. 58-03B.
Doherty, W. J. (1983). Impact of divorce on locus of control orientation in adult women:

A longitudinal study. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 834-
840.
Dryden, W. & DiGiuseppe, R. (1990). A primer on rational-emotive therapy.

Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Eidelson, R. J. & Epstein, N. (1982) Cognition and relationship maladjustment:

Development o f a measure of dysfunctional relationship beliefs. Journal o f
Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715-720.
Ellis, A. (1994) Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York, New York: Carol
Publishing
Ellis, A. & Harper, R.A. (1961). A guide to a successful marriage. North Hollywood,
CA; Wilhire Books.
Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Krol, B., & Sanderman, R. (1987). The assessment of
135
relationship beliefs in a marital context. Personality & Individual Differences,
8, 775-780.
Epstein, N., & Eidelson, R. J. (1981). Unrealistic beliefs of clinical couples: Their
relationship to expectations, goals and satisfaction. American Journal o f Family
Therapy., 9 (4), 13-22.
Filsinger, E. E., & Wilson, M. R. (1983). Social anxiety and marital adjustment. Family
Relations Journal o f Applied Family and Child Studies, 32, 513-519.
Fincham, F., Grych. J., & Osborne, L. (1993, March). Inteiparental conflict and child
adjustment: A longitudinal analysis. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
Fincham, F.D. (1985). Attributions in close relationships. In J. H. Elarvey and G.Weary

(Eds.) Contemporary attribution theory and research. New York: Academic
Press.
Fitzpatrick, J. & Sollie, D. L. (1999). Unrealistic gendered and relationship-specific

beliefs: Contributions to investments and commitment in dating relationships.
Journal o f Social & Personal Relationships, 16, 6, 852.
Forthofer, M. S., Markman, H. J., Cox, M. Stanley, S., & Kessler, R. C. (1996)
Associations between marital distress and work loss in a national sample. Journal
o f Marriage and Family, 58, 597-605.
Fowers B. J. & Olsen D. H. (1986). Predicting marital success with PREPARE: A

predictive validity study. Journal o f Marital and Family Therapy, 12, 403-413.
Frank, J. D. & Frank J. B. (1990). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study o f

psychotherapy (3rd ed.) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R. & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: an introduction.

White Plains, N Y : Longman Publishers.
Gottman, J. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Grey, J. (1992) Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins.
Hamamci, Z. (2005). Dysfunctional relationship beliefs in marital satisfaction and

adjustment. Social Behavior and Personality, 33,4, 313-328.
Harvey, J. H. & Fine, M. A. (2004). Children o f Divorce: Stories o f loss and growth.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holman, T.B., Larson, J. H. & Harmer, S. L. (1994). The development and predictive
136
validity of a new premarital assessment instrument. The preparation for marriage
questionnaire. Family Relations, 43, 46-52.
Holmes T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment scale. Journal o f
Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
James, S., Hunsley, J., & Hemsworth, D. (2002). Factor Structure of the Relationship
Belief Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 6, 729-744.
Janus S. S. & Janus, C. C. (1993). The Janus report on human sexuality. New York:
Wiley.
Johnson, S. M. & Greenberg, L. S. (1985). Differential effects of experiential and

problem-solving intervention in resolving marital conflict. Journal o f Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 53 (2), 175-184.
Jones, M.E. & Stanton, A.L. (1988). Dysfunctional beliefs, belief similarity, and marital
distress: A comparison of models. Journal o f Social and Clinical Psychology, 7
(1), 1-14.
Jones, R. G. (1968). A factored measure o f E llis’irrational belief system with personality

and maladjustment correlates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas
Technological College. Microform iv. 921.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrica, 39, 31-36.
Kelly, E. L. & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective

analysis o f marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal o f Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 1, 27-40.
Kordacova, J. & Kondas, O. (1998). Irrationality in the youth— structural differences in

irrational beliefs in relation to age. Studia Psychologica, 40, 282-286.
Kurdek, L. A. (1991a). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in cohabitating gay and

lesbian couples: A prospective longitudinal test of the contextual, investment, and
problem-solving models. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 910-
922.
Kurdek, L. A. (1991b) Marital stability and changes in marital quality in newlywed

couples: A test of the contextual model. Journal o f Social and Personal
Relationships, 8, 27-18.
Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Predicting Marital dissolution: A 5-Year prospective longitudinal

study of newlywed couples. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
221-242.
137
Kurdek, L. A. (1999). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change in marital
quality for husbands and wives over the first 10 years of marriage.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 5, 1283-1296.
Kurdek, L. A & Schmitt, J.P. (1986). Early development of relationship quality in

heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay, and lesbian couples.
Developmental Psychology, 22, 305-309.
Larson, J. H. (1992). “You’re my one and only": Premarital counseling for unrealistic
beliefs about mate selection. The American Journal o f Family Therapy, 20, 242-
253.
Larson, J. H. & Holman, T. B. (1994), Premarital predictors of marital quality and

stability. Family Relations, 43, 228-237.
Lewis. R. A., & Spanier, E. B. (1979). Therorizing about the quality and stability of
marriage. In W. R. Burr. R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I.L. Reiss (Eds). Contemporary
theories about the family. (Vol 1), 268-294. New York: Free Press.
Lichtenberg, James W. (1992) Physical illness and subscription to Ellis’s Irrational

Beliefs. Journal o f Counseling and Development, 71, 2, 157-163.
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959) Short marital adjustment and prediction tests;
Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255.
Manning, W. D. (1993). Marriage and cohabitation following premarital conception.

Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 55, 4, 839-850.
Markman, H. J. & Hahlweg, K. (1993). The prediction and prevention of marital

distress: An international perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 1,29-
43.
Martin, T. C., & Bumpass, L. (1989). Recent trends in marital disruption. Demography,
26, 37-51.
Marquardt, E. (2005). Between two worlds. New York, NY. Crown Publishing Group.
McDonald, C.E. (1995). Parenting irrational beliefs and marital adjustment as correlates
o f parenting stress in young families. (Doctoral Dissertation: University of
Alberta, Canada, (1995). UMI 55 (7-A) 1879
McLanahan, S., & Bumpass, L. (1988) Intergenerational consequences of family

disruption. American Journal o f Sociology, 94, 130-152.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach.

New York: Plenum.
138
Moller, A. & Van Zyl, P.D. (1991) Relationship beliefs, interpersonal perception, and
marital adjustment. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 47, 1, 28-33.
Rollins, B.C., & Feldman, H. (1970). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle.
Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 32, 20-28.
Romans, J. S. C. & DeBord, J. (1995). Development of the Relationship Beliefs

Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 76 (3) p. 1248.
Rusbult, C. E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-

loyalty-neglect model. In D. Perelman & S. Duck (Eds ), Intimate relationship:
Development, dynamics and deterioration (p 209-237) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Schwebel, A. I. & Fine, M. A. (1992). Cognitive-behavioral family therapy. Journal o f

Family Psychotherapy, 3, 1, 73-91.
Schwebel, A. I. & Fine, M. A. (1994). Understanding and’Helpmg the family: A

cognitive-behavioral model. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwebel, A. I. & Sullivan, B. F. (1996). Coping with the loss of the marriage dream: A
cognitive-behavioral perspective. Journal o f Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 1,
57-69.
Sharp, E. A & Ganong, L. H. (2000). Raising awareness about marital expectations: Are
unrealistic beliefs changed by integrative teaching? Family Relations, 49, 1, 71-
76
Shapiro, J. & Kroeger, L. (1991). Is life just a romantic novel? The relationship between
attitudes about intimate relationships and the popular media. The American
Journal o f Family Therapy, 19 (3), 226-236.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the
quality o f marriage and similar dyads. Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 38,
13-28.
Spanier, G. B., Lewis, R.A., & Cole, C.L. (1975). Marital adjustment over the family life
cycle: The issue of curvilinearity. Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 37, 263-
275.
Stahman, R. F., & Hiebert, W. J. (1987). Premarital Counseling: The professional’s

handbook (2nd ed). Lexington MA: Lexington Books.
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1997). Marriage in the 90's: A Nationwide Random
Phone Survey. Denver, CO: PREP, Inc.
139
Stuart, R. B., (1995) In The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, The I I th Mental
Measurement Yearbook, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NB. 297
Sullivan, B. F., (1994). Irrational, maladaptive, and illogical relationship beliefs: A scale
development study. Unpublished master’s thesis. The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
Sullivan, B. F., (1995). Relationship beliefs and expectations of satisfaction in marital

relationships: Implication for family practitioners. Family Journal: Counseling
and Therapy fo r Couples and Families, 3 (4), 298-305.
Sullivan, B. F., (1997). The development, validation, and psychometric properties of the
relationship belief scale. (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1997).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 58-05B, 2755.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd Eds). New
York, NY: Harper Collins
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th Eds.)
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Vivian D. & O’Leary, K. D. (1990). Physical aggression in marriage. In P.D. Fincham &
T.N. Bradbury (Eds.) The psychology o f marriage: Basic issues and applications.
(p 323-348). New York: Guilford Press.
Wallerstein, J. S., Lewis, J. M. & Blakeslee, S. (2000). The unexpected legacy o f

divorce. New York, NY: Hyperion.
Wambolt, F. S., & Reis, D. (1989). Defining a family heritage and a new relationship:
Two central themes in the making of a marriage. Family Process, 28, 317-335.
Weiss, R. L., & Heyman, R.E. (1990). Observation of marital interaction. In

F.D.Fincham & T. N. Bradbury (Eds), The psychology o f marriage: Basic
issues and applications. 87-117. New York:Guilford Press.
Appendix A
Letter from Institutional Review Board
N o r t h e r n A r iz o n a U n iv e r s it y
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FOR THE
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS IN RESEARCH
TO: Karen L. Nickl
FROM: Melanie Birck, IRB Administrator
DATE: April 28, 2003
SUBJECT: Expedited Review of the Use of Humans in Research
Your research project, Case Number 03.0384 entitled, “The relationship between irrational
beliefs and marital satisfaction” has been approved through an expedited review procedure
conducted by the Human Subjects Committee. An expedited procedure is used when the study
appears to use research procedures, which are of minimal risk to the human subjects involved.
Research designs which assure protection from psychological, sociological, and physical damage
(and meet other civil rights conditions), are normally approved through the expedited review
procedure. Some important factors which assure protection of human subjects in research are:
1. Subjects are volunteers (or are a part of an officially approved or ongoing educational
program: and they may withdraw from the research at any time.)
2. Subjects are informed of the research through a verbal or oral explanation or

clarification and sign a consent form (for minors, a parent or guardian signs the consent
form and in medically related cases, a physician must sign for consent).
3. There are assurances that subjects cannot be identified (directly or indirectly) through
responses, and in presentation of data, which may provide a link placing them in a
position of risk of criminal or civil liability; or provide a link exposing sensitive aspects of
the subject's behavior, e.g., use of drugs, alcohol, sexual behavior or illegal conduct.
4. The research study follows procedures of confidentiality and anonymity.
5. Research involving minimal stress, non-invasive techniques, moderate exercise of

healthy volunteers and routine collection of samples of blood, saliva and similar
specimens may be considered of minimal risk.
6. Other relative modifications or comments:
To assure anonymity and research protection, consent forms and research data must be
appropriately filed and protected by the researcher and the department.
If there are any irregularities resulting from the research program, please report them to the
Institutional Review Board.
cc: Ramona Mellott, Faculty Sponsor

Department Chair
File
PO Box 4130, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-4130 (928) 523-4880 fax (928) 523-1075
Appendix B
Letter of Informed Consent
N o r t h e r n A r iz o n a U n iv e r s it y
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Dear Participant,
You are being asked to participate in a study sponsored by Northern Arizona University. Read these
instructions and discuss questions you have with the investigator. Please keep this form for future
reference.
1. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to look at attitudes people have about marriage and
to examine the merits o f tests that measure attitudes about marriage.
2. Procedure: After agreeing to participate, you will be given an envelope containing the test materials.
The first is a sheet on which you will respond to questions about yourself and family. Next, you will
complete the Dyadic Adjustment Scale which measures adjustment in your marriage. Next, are two
questionnaires, The Relationship Belief Index and The Relationship Belief Scale, both o f which measure
your attitudes regarding marriage. Filling out these forms takes between 20 and 30 minutes.
3. Confidentiality: Do NOT put your name on the materials or envelope. Your answers will never be
associated with you or your name. Your responses will be kept in the strictest confidentiality in
accordance with professional ethics. At the end o f two years, all research materials will be destroyed.
4. Benefits: The outcome of this study will help researchers, therapists and educators to design and
implement marriage therapy and education. The benefits to you might be the good feelings you get when
you further a good cause. The materials are intriguing and may provide some entertainment.
5. Risks: Participation in this study poses no physical harm to you. However, you may experience some
fluctuation in mood as you think about your marriage and marriage in general. If you do experience
distress please alert the investigator who will help you or refer you to services. Please be advised that it is
not possible to identify all potential risks in a scientific study like this.
6. Refusal/Withdrawal: You are under NO obligation to participate. You may withdraw at anytime.
There is a dated approval stamp on the bottom o f this form The stamp indicates that this project has been reviewed and
approved by the Northern Arizona University Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human Participants.
Contact the Human Research Protections Administrator at 928-523-4889 or 928-523-4340 if you have questions about: 1) the
conduct o f the project, 2) your rights as a research participant, or 3) a research-related injury. Any other questions about this
study should be addressed to the primary investigator, Karen Nickl, 801-296-6606 or Dr. Ramona Mellott, 928-523-6534.
WI N Sml l i U? ; M0 : ,Z!. 0RF'/jFiW

N A U N IVBOARD
E R S IT Y ’
C O N S E N T J T : ■;
VALID U r : T I L
. .p r e p a r in g e d u c a tio n p r o fe s s io n a ls to c r e a te th e sc h o o ls o f t o m o r r o w
PO Box 5774, Flagstaff, A Z 8601 1-5774 (928) 523-7103
Appendix C
Letter of Support and Permission
The Institute o f Marriage and Family Counseling
The Institute of Marriage and Family Counseling
3670 Quincy Avenue, Suite 104
Ogden, UT 84403
(801) 621-5666
Leon H. Blake, Ph.D.
April 24, 2003
Ramona N. Mellott Ph.D.

Chair & Associate Professor
Educational Psychology
Box 5774,
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
Dear Dr. Mellott,
It is my pleasure to provide this letter o f permission for Karen Nickl. Karen is a

Professional Counseling Intern with us. She has explained to me the nature o f her
research for her dissertation study. She intends to poll audience members who are
attending workshops, seminars, and lectures that we occasionally provide to the public.
Specifically, Karen will have access to any group that she is addressing but may also
survey groups that myself or others address, with the speaker’s agreement.
I hope this provides you with what you require. Please contact me if I can be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
Leon H. Blake, Ph.D.

Director
Appendix D
Email Letter from Norman Epstein, Ph.D.
Granting permission to use the Relationship Belief Inventory
From: ne4 <Norman_B_EPSTEIN@umail.umd.edu>
To: Nickl <woodennickl@safeaccess.com>
Date: Saturday, April 15, 2000 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: RBI - use in Dissertation
Karen,
I'm sorry for the delay in responding to you. I have been very busy. I'll
send you a copy of the RBI early this conning week.
Norman Epstein
>This is a multi-part m essage in MIME format.

>
>-----=_NextPart_000_0004_01 BFA079.184AB760
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Dr. Epstein
>
>l am a doctoral student at Northern Arizona University pursuing a degree =
>in Counseling Psychology. I am interested in using the Relationship =
>Belief Inventory in a study for my dissertation. Please advise me on =
>how to obtain this instrument, and cost. I would especially appreciate =
>a sample protocol to share with my committee.
>
>l thank you for your attention to this request.
>
>Karen L. Nickl
>P.O. Box 50531
>Parks, AZ 86018
>
>520-635-4334
>
>woodennickl@safeaccess.corn
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BFA079.184AB760
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
x iD G C T Y P E HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
><HTML>
4/16/00
Appendix E
Email Letter from Bryce F. Sullivan Ph.D.
Granting permission to use the Relationship Belief Scale
From: Bryce F. Sullivan <bsulliv@siue.edu>
To: Nickl <woodennickl@safeaccess.com>
Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Relationship Belief Research Interest
Karen,
You are free to use it in your research. I don't have a test publisher
handling it, so you can format it with a six-point scale as I have on my
web site. I haven't published an article on the RBS, but I have a great
deal of data supporting it's validity and reliability. Much of the
research is included in my dissertation.
I can send you scoring directions if you'd like. I'd like to hear how
things turn out if you choose to use it in your dissertation.
> Nickl wrote:

>
> Dear Dr. Sullivan
>
> I am a doctoral student at Northern Arizona University. I am completing my Ed.D in
Counseling Psychology. I have a strong research interest in cognitive behavioral
interventions in marital counseling. While searching the literature, I came across your
dissertation abstract and was excited to se e a new instrument to measure dysfunctional
relationship beliefs. I was even more surprised to find it on your web site!
>
> I am interested in using your instrument in my dissertation. Please provide me with
information on how to obtain it for this purpose and the cost involved. I would also like to
know of any other recent, large sample studies that have correlated the RBS to marital
distress/dissatisfaction.
>
> I thank you for your time and attention to my request.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Karen L. Nickl
> PO Box 50531
> Parks, AZ 86018
>
> 520-635-4334
Bryce F. Sullivan, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Edwardsville, IL 62026-1121
2/ 11/00
Appendix F
Demographic Information Questionnaire
Demographic Questionnaire
Do NOT p u t your n a m e on this form. P le a se an sw e r carefully a n d truthfully. Your an sw e rs

will b e h e ld in a confidential m a n n e r a n d u s e d only for scientific purposes.
1. W hat is your a g e ? y e a rs old
2. W hat is your g en d e r? (circle one) M ale F em ale
3. W hat level of form al ed u c atio n h a v e you attain ed ? (Circle one)
S om e H igh S chool O r GED H igh School G ra d S o m e C ollege C o lleg e D e g ree
Post G ra d u a te D e g re e
4. Indicate the ra n g e of your a n n u a l h o u sehold incom e. (Circle one)
$8,000 - $24,000 $25,000 - $49,000 $50,000 - $74,000 $75,000 o r m ore
5. A re you currently m arried ? (circle one) Y es No
6. How m an y tim es h av e you b e e n m arried ? O n c e Twice T hree o r m ore
7. How m an y y e a rs h av e you b e e n m a rrie d to your sp o u se? ________ y ea rs

(Round u p to n e a re st year)
8. Do you or your sp o u se h av e children? (Circle one) Y es No
9. W hat is th e a g e of your o r your sp o u se s oldest living child? y e a rs old
10. H ave you sought p rofessional co u n selin g services for

m arital d istre ss in th e last 12 m onths? Y es No
(Do not include p rem arital counseling.)
11. To w hich of th e following religions a r e you m ost significantly affiliated? (Circle one)
LDS C atholic P ro testan t Jewish No Religion

O ther_________________
12. Did your p a re n ts divorce? (Circle one) Y es No
13. If so, how old w e re you w hen their separation/divorce o c c u rre d ? y e a rs old

The Relationship Between Irrational Beliefs and Marital Satisfaction

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Relationship Between Irrational Beliefs and Marital Satisfaction

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Relationship between Irrational Beliefs and

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

O f the Requirements for the Degree of

Northern Arizona University

William E. Martin, Jr. Ed.D

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

The Relationship between Irrational Beliefs and Marital Satisfaction

validity of two instruments designed to assess irrational relationship beliefs, The

3) Investigate possible demographic factors that predict endorsing irrational relationship

relationship beliefs for this sample.

A series o f stepwise multiple regression analysis were performed on the subscales

multiple regression analysis should be generalized to other populations with caution.

Demographic factors were not found to predict endorsement of irrational relationship

The sample proved to be a highly homogenous group, and was characterized as

majority (74%) of respondents identified themselves as members of The Church of Jesus

relevance and application of this study may be limited.

fresh perspective to this work. I appreciate your willingness to invest in my

deployment of our craft. I thank you all.

love, encouragement, and faith have been sustaining.

Thanks to my husband Mario for the investments you continue to make in my

C hapter V ............................................................................................................................ 112

Appendix A NAU Letter from Institutional Review Board........................................... 141

Appendix B Letter of Informed Consent.........................................................................143

Appendix D Email Letter from Norman Epstein, Ph.D............................................... 147

Appendix E Email Letter from Bryce F. Sullivan Ph.D.............................................. 149

Appendix F Demographic Information Questionnaire (DIQ)....................................151

Table 1 Participant Source Breakdown by Gender...................................................46

Table 4 Comparison o fM and SD o f RBI, RBS, and DAS Scores.............................70

Table 5 Correlation Matrix o f the Subscale and Total Scores o f the....................... 71

Table 6 RBI Principle Component Analyses - Pattern Matrix................................. 76

Table 7 Principle Component Analysis, Loadings o f RBI Subscale Items...............79

Table 8 Results o f the RBS Principle Component Analysis - Pattern M atrix 86

Table 9 Results o f the RBS Factor Analysis - Pattern Matrix.................................. 90

T able 10 RBS Loadings from Sullivan’s Study, Factor Analysis and.........................94

Table 11 Correlation Matrix fo r RBI Subscales and DAS Total Score...................... 97

Table 12 Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis fo r .............................. 98

Table 13 Pearson r Correlation Matrix fo r RBS Subscales........................................ 99

Table 14 Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis,................................. 101

Table 15 Demographic Factors and Pearson r Correlations................................... 102

Table 16 Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis.................................. 103

Table 17 Summary o f Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis................................. 106

Figure One - Scree Plot fo r Principle Component Analysis o f RBI.............................. 75

Figure Two - Scree Plot o f Principle Component Analysis o f RBS.............................. 84

Figure Three - Scree Plot fo r Exploratory Factor Analysis o f RBS.............................. 89

The marriage relationship is one of the most fundamental of all human

2005). Tremendous emotional and monetary expense is attached to these statistics. On

Specifically, marital distress is linked to higher occurrences o f depression in adults and to

there is great interest in predicting the quality of marriages.

Historically, researchers and marriage therapists have looked at factors that

factors fall into the following three categories.

Background and Contextual Factors

to marry also can predict satisfaction (Kurdek, 1991).

The Couple’s Interaction Process

This prediction category includes such factors as homogamy, interpersonal

education, intellectual and socio-economic backgrounds (Burr, 1973). Interpersonal

Interactional history and process includes factors such a length of courtship,

cohabitation, premarital pregnancy, and communication styles. Longer courtships tend to

Premarital pregnancy is highly predictive of poor marital satisfaction because of the

marital satisfaction (Gottman, 1994, Wamboldt & Reiss 1989).

Individual Traits and Behavior

Kurdek, 1993; Schwebel & Sullivan, 1996).

irrational beliefs about intimate relationships that contribute to disappointment and

defined and several irrational relationship beliefs will be identified.

Instruments that Measure Irrational Beliefs