Adolescent Perceptions of Conjugal Power

Adolescent Perceptions of Conjugal PowerAuthor(s): Stephen J. Bahr, Charles E. Bowerman and Viktor GecasSource: Social Forces, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Mar., 1974), pp. 357-367Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2576891 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 13:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.152 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:07:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2576891?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Adolescent Perceptions of Conjugal Power* STEPHEN J. BAHR, Brigham Young University CHARLES E. BOWERMAN, Washington State University VIKTOR GECAS, Washington State University

ABSTRACT

This study examines the accuracy of adolescent perceptions of conjugal power and the association of occupation, education, and female employment with these perceptions using data from two existing surveys. The parent with whom the adolescent identified most closely was perceived as relatively more powerful. Although perception of conjugal power varied somewhat by age and sex of adolescent, the data suggest that conjugal power may also vary by certain structural dimensions in the family, including age and sex of children. Furthermore, these age and sex differences did not affect the association of power with other variables. These findings imply that adolescent perceptions of conjugal power may have relatively high validity. Substantively, the data showed a positive association between the father's occupational prestige and his power concerning important family problems, general disagreements, and disagreements about income. Comparative father-mother education and the mother's employment status tended to have a positive association with conjugal power in all areas examined except child discipline where the two data sets were somewhat contradictory.

The antecedents and consequences of conjugal power structure have captured the attention of a number of social scientists in recent years. These studies have been handicapped by a number of conceptual and methodological problems, including perceptual bias of respondent (Ferber, 1955; Heer, 1962, 1963; Safilios- Rothschild, 1969, 1970; Turk and Bell, 1972). Observation of family interaction in artificial or natural settings is one possible solution to the problem of perceptual bias of husbands and wives, but such observations may be unrepresentative or artificial. Another possibility is to get reports of conjugal power from family members other than the husband and wife. Children, particularly adolescents, might be able to report marital power more objectively than husband or wife. Nor are they limited to a small number of unrepresentative or artificial observations, as an extra-familial observer may be. The adolescent's intimate view of his family may prove to be an acceptable supplement or

alternative to other measures of conjugal power. The purpose of this study is to examine the validity of adolescent perceptions of conjugal power. Although several studies of conjugal power have used children's perceptions, little attention has been given to the validity of these perceptions. This study also provides data on the association of adolescent perceptions of conjugal power with the father's occupational status, comparative father-mother education, and the mother's employment status.

Validity will be assessed primarily by the method usually termed construct validity. In this procedure, validity is based on empirical support for theoretical predictions, in this case predicitions about relationships between conjugal power and other variables. An examination of the convergence of results of different measures will also provide estimates of convergent validity (Campbell and Fiske, 1959).

MEASURES AND SAMPLE

Power is conceptualized as the ability of one partner to influence or change the other's behavior. Two elements, among others, seem cru- cial in the measurement of conjugal power. First, conflict appears essential in measuring power since ". . . power makes itself felt only when there is conflict" (Bannester, 1969:381).

* This article is based on data obtained from the Adolescent Study which was directed by Charles E. Bowerman, and a survey of adolescents con- ducted by Viktor Gecas. The Adolescent Study was supported by Public Health Service research grant M-2045 from the National Institute of Mental Health.

[357]



358 / SOCIAL FORCES / vol. 52, mar. 1974

Although power certainly exists in the absence of conflict, making inferences about seats of power is much more difficult if there is no con- test of wills. The second element is the degree of importance to the respondents of the questions asked. For example, how can one accurately make inferences about power when the questionnaire items are relatively unimportant for the respondents or do not represent their customary behavior?

Most existing studies have measured power using a series of questions as to which spouse makes certain familial decisions. The problem with such measurements is that conflict is ignored since no differentiation of contested and uncontested decisions is made. Power and uncontested decision-making are not necessarily related.

The data for this study come from two existing surveys of adolescents. The first set of data comes from the Bowerman Adolescent Study (Bowerman and Elder, 1964), a survey of 18,664 adolescents from unbroken homes. Al- most half the sample was obtained through public and parochial schools in central Ohio, while the remainder was obtained in public schools in central North Carolina. The sample included all adolescents in grades seven through twelve who were in school when a structured questionnaire was administered in the class- room by teachers in April and May of 1960. The following questions were selected as measures of conjugal power: (1) When important family problems come up, which parent usually has the most influence in making the decision? (2) When your parents disagree about some- thing that should be done, which one usually gets his (or her) way about it? (3) When your parents disagree with each other about what you should be allowed to do, which parent usually makes the final decision or has the greatest influence in making the decision? (4) When your parents disagree about your punishment, which parent usually makes the final decision?1

The second study was a survey by Gecas (1971) of 597 sophomores and juniors from five suburban high schools in Minneapolis. Gecas included four questions on conjugal power: (1) When your mother and father disagree about how the family income should be spent, which of your parents has the final say? (2) When your mother and father disagree over religious matters, which of your parents has the final say? (3) When your mother and father disagree about disciplining the children, which of your parents has the final say? (4) When your mother and father disagree about how the home should be furnished, which of your parents has the final say?2 Although these items have limitations, they involve the elements of conflict and importance and appear to be reasonable indicators of the concept of power in other respects.

ADOLESCENT PERCEPTIONS AS A MEASURE OF

CONJUGAL POWER

The data show that the older adolescents perceive their parents as less equalitarian than do the younger ones (see Table 1) .3 Sex is a fac- tor: females are more likely to perceive th, ir mothers as dominant, while the males are more likely to see their fathers as dominant. T his tendency to favor the same-sex parent in perceived dominance appears somewhat stronger for the older adolescents. Other investigators have documented similar age and sex differences in adolescent perceptions of conjugal power (Bowerman and Elder, 1964; Hess and Torney, 1962).

1 There were seven responses to the first question: (1) Mother, almost always, (2) Mother, much more often, (3) Mother, little more often, (4) About equal, (5) Father, little more often, (6) Father, much more often, and (7) Father, almost always. The first three were combined to form the "Mother-Dominant" category, the fourth

response was labeled "Equalitarian," and responses 5-7 were combined into the "Father-Dominant" category. There were five responses for the remain- ing three questions, the responses ranging from "Father usually" to "Mother usually." These were collapsed in a similar manner with the middle response being labeled "Equalitarian" and the two responses on each end being labeled "Father- Dominant" and "Mother-Dominant," respectively.

2 The five responses to each question from the Gecas study were similar to those used by Bower- man and were collapsed in the same manner.

3 The analysis in this section is based on the first question from the Bowerman study, "When important family problems come up, which parent usually has the most influence in making the decision?" The results from the other three questions were not reported because of space limitations and because the age and sex trends for each are very similar to those presented in Table 1.



Adolescent Perceptions / 359

Table 1. Adolescent Perceptions of Conjugal Power by Age and Sex: Bowerman (in percent)

Junior Junior Senior Senior Conjugal H igh H igh H igh H igh Power* Males Females Males Females

Father-dominant 34 27 43 33 Equalitarian 49 55 37 41 Mother-dominant 17 19 20 26

Totals 100 101 100 100 N 5,393 5,664 3,755 3,852

* Based on the question, "When important family problems come up, which parent usually has the most influence in making the decision?"

Two questions seem important in assessing the effect of these age and sex differences on the validity of adolescent perceptions of power: Why do these differences occur, and what are the consequences of such differences?

There are several logical reasons why such age and sex differences may occur. Since one tends to identify with the same-sex parent, he may view that parent as more powerful. There is also the possibility that in all-boy families the father tends to be dominant, while in all- girl families the mother is more likely to be dominant. Furthermore, effects of identification with the same-sex parent could be expected to increase with age of subject. Older adolescents might also be more astute observers and more sensitive to subtle power plays between their parents.

As the adolescent gets older, there may be more situations and behaviors about which decisions must be made and consequently a larger basis for differences of opinion, conflict, and exercise of potential power. If the father is also more likely to view the later years of adoles- cence as important, there may be a factual basis for older adolescents perceiving conjugal power as less equalitarian than the younger adolescents.4 This process implies that an actual change in conjugal power structure might occur as the adolescent gets older (rather than indi- cating a stable conjugal power structure and unreliable adolescent perceptions owing to age variation).

A couple of these ideas about age and sex differences in adolescent perceptions can be tested with the present data. If identification is related to perceptions of conjugal power, then adolescents who identify strongly with their fathers should grant him more power than adolescents who do not identify strongly with their fathers. Those identifying strongly with their mothers also probably grant her more power. However, identification with the mother is probably not strongly associated with mother- dominance because of normative proscriptions against mother-dominant families. Thus, as identification with mother increases we expect dominance of the father to decrease, but do not necessarily expect dominance of the mother to increase.

Identification includes the concept of "role model" and ". . . may mean trying to be the kind of person we conceive someone else to be or striving toward some abstract characteristic he embodies" (Adams, 1971:141). The following question was chosen as an indicator of parental identification: Would you like to be the kind of person your father (mother) is?

Of those adolescents who want to be like their fathers 84 percent feel that he has more or equal influence, while the comparable percentage for those who do not want to be like their father is 69 percent. Thus, adolescents not wanting to resemble their fathers are more likely to perceive their mothers as dominant. Furthermore, 50 percent of those who want to be like their fathers see the conjugal power structure as equalitarian compared with 37 percent among those who do not want to be like their father.

The data for the question "Would you like to be the kind of person your mother is?" also tend to support our expectations. A smaller percentage of those who identify with their mother (32 percent) than those who do not (38 percent) perceive the power structure as father-dominant; and adolescents who identify with their mother are more likely than those who do not to see the conjugal power structure as equalitarian and less likely to perceive it as mother-dominant.

One possible test of the notion that the conjugal power structure actually does change and become less equalitarian as the adolescent grows older is to compare responses of oldest and

4The idea that parental conflict over child discipline increases with age was documented by Blood and Wolfe (1960:247-248). They found that husband-wife conflict concerning child discipline was greatest during the adolescent stage of the life cycle.




youngest children in the family. As oldest children get older there ought to be an increase in perceived conflict between mother and father over child discipline. For youngest children such a change should not occur, or at least should be less pronounced, for the change will already have taken place while they were younger because of their older sibling(s). Thus, in our present study youngest children's perceptions of the amount of conflict between parents should differ less from junior high to senior high than it does for oldest children. The results are in the expected direction but the differences are small. The difference between perceptions of parental conflict over child discipline is about 2 percent smaller for youngest than for oldest children.

The evidence from these data suggests not that adolescent perceptions are a poor indicator of conjugal power, but that an actual change in the conjugal power structure might occur as adolescents grow older. However, this is not to suggest that age and sex do not affect one's

perceptions of conjugal power. In actuality both processes probably occur simultaneously -the actual power structure changes according to the sex and age of the children in the family, and the perception an adolescent has of the power structure is affected by his own age and sex, irrespective of changes in the actual power structure.

The consequences of these age and sex differences are perhaps even more important than the reasons why they occur. For example, do age and sex bias one's perceptions so that the empirical results obtained from junior high males are different from those obtained from senior high females? To examine this question we have cross-tabulated conjugal power as perceived by each of the four adolescent groups (junior high males, junior high females, senior high males, senior high females), with father's occupational status, comparative father-mother education, and mother's employment status. In Table 2 we find that percentage of father-dominant families increases and the percentage of

Table 2. Conjugal Power by Father's Occupation by Age and Sex of Adolescent: Bowerman (in percent)

Father's Occupationt

Blue Collar White Collar

Age-Sex Group Conjugal Power* Low High Low High

Junior high Father-dominant 31 32 35 39 Males Equalitarian 49 50 50 47

Mother-dominant 21 18 16 14

Tota Is 101 100 101 100 N 1,593 895 580 1,558

Junior high Father-dominant 23 25 30 31 Females Equalitarian 54 55 53 55


Tota Is 99 100 100 100 N 1,883 901 581 1,592

Senior high Father-dominant 35 40 43 52 Males Equalitarian 40 38 36 32


Totals 100 99 99 100 N 1,020 690 361 1,134

Senior high Father-dominant 28 29 37 39 Females Equalitarian 42 41 39 39


Tota Is 100 100 100 100 N 1,100 661 350 1,169


t The occupational categories were established as follows: Low-blue-collar = semiskilled, unskilled, service; High-blue-collar = skilled workers and foremen; Low-white-collar sales and clerical; High-white-collar = business and professional. Farmers were omitted.




Table 3. Conjugal Power by Comparative Father-Mother Education by Age and Sex of Adolescent: Bowerman (in percent)

Comparative Father-Mother Educationt

Father Both Mother Age-Sex Group Conjugal Power* More Equal More Totals



Totals 100 100 100 100 N 840 2,339 1,142 4,321



Tota Is 100 100 100 100 N 926 2,290 1,114 4,330



Totals 100 100 100 100 N 679 1,583 1,113 3,375



Totals 100 100 100 100 N 719 1,676 1,024 3,419


t In establishing comparative husband-wife education five levels were used: (1) grade school or less, (2) some high school, (3) high school graduate, (4) some college, (5) college graduate.Thus, the "Father More" group includes those families in which the father is at least one level above the mother, the "Both Equal" group includes those in which the father and mother are in the same level, and in the "Mother More" group the mother is at least one educational level above the father.

mother-dominant families decreases as the father's occupational prestige increases. Table 3 shows that as the ratio of father-to-mother education increases the percentage of father- dominance increases and percentage of mother- dominance decreases. Finally, Table 4 reveals a positive association between mother's employment and her perceived power. In each table the results are very similar for each age-sex group. Thus, despite age and sex differences in adolescent perceptions of conjugal power, age and sex do not appear to affect the results when power is cross-tabulated with these three variables.

This analysis suggests, therefore, that perceptions of conjugal power differing by age and sex may nonetheless be valid. If power is conceptualized as a multidimensional characteristic, then husband and wife may have different power relationships under different conditions. Certain of these conditions will vary by age and sex of their children. And since the chil-

dren will be affected by the exercise of power, they should often be aware of the processes by which decisions are made. On the other hand, to the extent that power is considered as a general- ized variable, it would be evidenced in a large number of decisions. Hence, observation of a sample of processes should enable long-time, intimate observers to infer the locus of power in the family, perhaps even more accurately than those involved in the power process, who may be less objective in evaluating their own behavior.

OCCUPATION AND EDUCATION

The effects of variables such as occupation and education on conjugal power have been examined in a number of studies. The overall trend of existing data shows a positive association between conjugal power and occupation, education, and the wife's employment status, particularly in industrialized countries. Studies by Blood (1967), Blood and Wolfe (1960),




Table 4. Conjugal Power by Employment Status of Mother by Age and Sex of Adolescent: Bowerman (in percent)

Employment Status of Mother

Employed Employed Not Age-Sex Group Conjugal Power* Fulltime Parttime Employed Totals



Tota Is 100 100 100 100 N 1,495 677 3,074 5,246



Tota Is 100 100 100 100 N 1,538 579 3,403 5,520



Tota I s 100 100 100 100 N 1,024 437 2,220 3,681



Totals 100 100 100 100 N 1,150 355 2,271 3,776

* Based on the question, "When important family problems come up, which parent has the most influence in making the decision?"

Bronfenbrenner (1961), Lupri (1969), and Michel (1967) show a positive relationship between power and the above three variables. Bowerman and Elder (1964), Heer (1958), Hoffman (1960) and Strodtbeck (1958) have found social class to be associated with conjugal power. Studies by Gleuck and Gleuck (1957:345), Heer (1958), and Weller (1968) report that employed wives have greater dominance than nonemployed wives. Nevertheless, data from several studies appear inconsistent with this general trend. Centers et al. (1971) found that occupation and education but not the wife's employment status have a positive association with conjugal power. Komarovsky (1962) gives evidence that education is a power resource, but that occupation is not. Buric and Zecevic (1967) present data showing that education and wife's employment status but not occupation have a positive correlation with power. Safilios-Rothschild's (1967; 1969) data seem particularly contradictory in that they show no association, or a negative one, between conjugal power and these three variables.

In evaluating this literature there appears to

be a lack of fit between the concept of power and its indicators. With few exceptions, a series of questions on decision-making are used without any assessment of conflict. Among the studies just cited, only Bowerman and Elder (1964),5 Heer (1958; 1962), Komarovsky (1962), and Strodtbeck (1958) used conflict in measuring power. Furthermore, few studies have considered the relative importance of the decisions examined. One final limitation is that many researchers have studied power only as a global phenomenon, neglecting to examine power within specific family roles. The present study avoids these shortcomings by using measures of power based on the notions of conflict and importance, and by examining power as it is expressed within several specific familial roles.

Occupational Status

In the Bowerman data, as the father's occupational prestige increases, the proportion of

5 The data from the Bowerman and Elder study are the same data used in the present analysis.




father-dominant families increases and the proportion of mother-dominant families decreases (see Table 5). This trend is evident in all four areas in which conjugal power data were obtained and is strongest for important family problems.

The Gecas data show a positive association between father's occupational prestige and his power in determining how family income should be spent. Fifty-six percent of the low- blue-collar fathers are perceived as dominant on income decisions while this percentage increases to 64 percent for high-white-collar fathers; low-blue-collar mothers are dominant in 25 percent of the cases and this percentage decreases to 10 percent for mothers in the high- white-collar group. No such association between power and occupation exists in matters of religion, child discipline, and home furnishings.

The Bowerman data show that employed mothers have more power than nonemployed mothers. Whether we are talking about important family problems, general disagreements, or disagreements about child behavior and punishment, a significantly greater percentage

of employed than nonemployed mothers are perceived as dominant. (Table 4 shows the results of important family problems. The data for other domains are similar but are omitted owing to space limitations.) The Gecas study did not include a question on the employment status of the mother.

Comparative Father-Mother Education

The Bowerman data show a positive association between comparative educational achievement and influence in important family problems (see Table 6). On matters of general disagree- ment, when the father has the higher education he dominates in 23 percent of the families. The figure is 20 percent when comparative education is equal, and 19 percent when the educational level of the mother is the greater. When parents disagree over what the child is allowed to do or over his punishment, the percentage of father-dominance is slightly higher if the father has the greater education.

The Gecas data show that for spending money and religious matters the percentage of father-dominant families is greater when the father's education exceeds the mother's and

Table 5. Conjugal Power by Occupation of Father by Decision Area: Bowerman (in percent)

Occupation of Father*

Blue Collar White Collar Type of Power

Decision Area Structure Low High Low High

1. Influence in making important decisions Father-dominant 28 31 35 39 Equalitarian 47 47 46 45 Mother-dominant 25 22 19 16

Tota I s 100 100 100 100

2. General disagreements Father-dominant 17 19 19 21 Equalitarian 61 60 62 61 Mother-dominant 22 21 19 18

Totals 100 100 100 100

3. Disagreements about what child is allowed to do Father-dominant 24 28 28 30 Equalitarian 46 43 43 45 Mother-dominant 29 29 29 25

Totals 99 100 100 100

4. Disagreements about child's punishment Father-dominant 25 27 29 29 Equalita rian 57 55 54 56 Mother-dominant 18 18 17 15

Totals 100 100 100 100 Nt 5,675 3,147 1,872 5,453

* Low-blue-collar = semiskilled, unskilled, service; High-blue-collar = skilled workers and foremen; Low-white collar = sales and clerical; High-white-collar = business and professional. Farmers were omitted.

t Because of nonresponses the N for each decision area varied slightly. For each decision area the N is at least as large as the N reported.




Table 6. Conjugal Power by Comparative Father-Mother Education by Decision Area: Bowerman (in percent)

Comparative Education

Type of Father Both Mother Decision Area Power Structure More Equal More Totals

1. Influence in making important decisions Father-dominant 41 35 31 35 Equalitarian 42 47 46 45 Mother-dominant 17 19 23 20

Tota I s 100 101 100 100

2. General disagreements Father-dominant 23 20 19 20 Equalitarian 58 61 59 60 Mother-dominant 19 19 21 20

Totals 100 100 99 100

3. Disagreements about what child is allowed to do Father-dominant 32 28 27 29 Equalitarian 41 45 44 44 Mother-dominant 27 26 29 27

Tota Is 100 99 100 100

4. Disagreements about child's punishment Father-dominant 30 27 26 28 Equalitarian 52 56 55 55 Mother-dominant 18 17 18 17

Tota Is 100 100 99 100 N* 3,029 7,618 4,234 14,881

* Because of nonresponses the N for each decision area varied slightly. For each decision area the N is at least as large as the N reported.

the percentage of mother-dominant families is greater when the mother's education exceeds the father's (see Table 7). The Gecas data on child discipline show that the parent with the least education is most likely to win disagreements, a finding just the opposite of that from Bower- man's data. On matters of home furnishings, the Gecas data show percentage of mother- dominant families increasing slightly (56 percent to 61 percent) as comparative father- mother education shifts in the mother's favor. The proportion of families that are equalitarian in home-furnishing decisions is greater when the father's education exceeds the mother's, but proportion of father-dominance appears unaf- fected. Thus, the husband's superior education tends to increase the probability of equal influence in home-furnishing decisions, rather than the wife dominating this traditionally female role.

The Bowerman data have been divided into three groups according to the highest level of education achieved by either parent. In the low-education group neither the father nor mother has completed high school. In the medium-education group at least one parent has earned a high school diploma. The high-

education category includes those families in which at least one parent has graduated from college. The relationship of comparative education to each of the four measures of conjugal power has been examined at the three educational levels. Generally, at each educational level the data show a small but positive association between conjugal power in each area and comparative father-mother education. But there is an exception: the association between power in child discipline and comparative education disappears for the low-education subjects. In addition, influence in important family problems shows a modest (rather than small) association with comparative education for the more highly educated subjects.

Because of the sample size, the Gecas data were divided into only two educational levels. The higher level includes all families in which at least one parent has completed college while in the low-education group neither parent has completed college. For disagreements about money, religion, and home furnishings, there is a small positive relationship between power and education at both educational levels (data not shown). For child discipline there is no association for those in the higher educational level,




Table 7. Conjugal Power by Comparative Father-Mother Education by Decision Area: Gecas (in percent)

Comparative Education

Type of Father Both Mother Decision area Power Structure More Equal More Totals

1. Spending of income Father-dominant 61 60 53 59 Equalitarian 24 25 22 24 Mother-dominant 15 15 25 18

Tota I s 100 100 100 101

2. Religious matters Father-dominant 22 20 17 20 Equalitarian 55 50 44 50 Mother-dominant 23 30 39 30

Totals 100 100 100 100

3. Child discipline Father-dominant 40 47 48 45 Equalitarian 29 31 28 30 Mother-dominant 30 22 23 25

Totals 99 100 99 100

4. Furnishing of home Father-dominant 9 13 11 11 Equalitarian 36 29 28 31 Mother-dominant 56 58 61 58

Totals 101 100 100 100 N * 165 220 137 522

* Because of nonresponses the N for each decision area varies slightly. For each decision area the N is at least as large as the N reported here.

but a modest negative relationship exists for subjects at the lower level: the percentage of father dominance is 38 percent when the father's education exceeds the mother's, 46 percent when parental education is equal, and 50 percent when the mother's education exceeds the father's.

Thus, for the low-education group the Gecas data show a negative association between comparative education and power in child discipline while no such association exists in the Bower- man data. At the upper-educational level Bow- erman's data show a small positive association between comparative education and power in child discipline while this association does not appear in the Gecas data. There appears to be no obvious explanation for this result. Measure- ment error, as well as sampling error, regional differences, and historical changes (since the Gecas data were collected about ten years after the Bowerman data) could have affected the results.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, relationships between power and identification, occupation, and education were generally consistent with predictions. This is

interpreted as evidence of construct validity. The similarity of results among the four adolescent age-sex groups may be considered evidence for convergent validity, i.e., each age- sex group is considered a separate measure and they converge in their responses. The similiarity of these findings and those of several other studies might also be interpreted as evidence for a type of convergent validity.

This study has tackled both methodological and substantive issues. Methodologically, a few critical issues emerge that bear on studies of conjugal power. First, we have given some attention to the source of the report about comparative power. Any reports of a complicated relationship are vulnerable to definitional and perceptual bias. Reports of wives, often used in such research, are based on direct involvement. But for a number of reasons they may suffer from lack of objectivity. Adolescent children may not be as directly involved. But over a long period of time they have been observers of many of the indicators of power and may be at least as objective in their evaluation of influence as either of the participants. Our findings that adolescents perceived as relatively more powerful that parent with whom they most




closely identified, and that power attribution differed somewhat by age and sex of the reporting adolescent, could be viewed as differential error in perception. On the other hand, we are suggesting that conjugal power relationships actually do differ according to certain structural dimensions in the family, including age and sex of the children. And identification may be a consequence of power differentials rather than (or in addition to) a basis for perceptual error. (See Bandura and Walters, 1963, for support of this position). These observations, along with the finding that age and sex differences in adolescent reporting of conjugal power did not affect the association between power and the other variables examined, strongly suggest that such data collected from adolescents may in- deed be valid.

A second point grows out of some of the differing findings of the Bowerman and Gecas data, and may apply to differences in findings of other studies. A conceptual distinction should be made between power and division of labor. For example, more apparent power by the wife about religious matters or home furnishings may result from an allocation of decision-making by a husband who does not wish to be involved with such matters. Furthermore, he may set boundaries or agree on boundaries within which the other may act and make decisions without discussion or dissent. We em- phasized earlier that assessment of contested decisions is essential since power is most visible in conflict. But these findings indicate that measurement of power must go beyond this, since power exists in the absence of conflict. Therefore, future studies of conjugal power need to take into account such things as the division of responsibilities, the range and sali- ency of independent decisions that can be made, and the consequences of disagreements or disapprovals. In addition, the family roles within which power is exercised need to be more fully specified and examined.

Substantively, the data showed a tendency for father dominance to increase with occupational prestige in decisions on important family problems, the spending of income, and general disagreements (although this association was considerably weaker for the third area); the two data sets were contradictory on the matter of child discipline although temporal changes

are a possible explanation for this contradic- tion. As to religious and home-furnishing disagreements, the lower-occupational levels had a greater proportion of father-dominance than the more prestigious occupations. Mother-dominance tended to be correlated with her outside employment. Comparative father-mother education had a positive association with conjugal power in all decision realms except child discipline, where the Bowerman and Gecas data were contradictory. These data provide some insight into specific roles in which power may be affected by occupation and education. A need for future research is to extend this type of analysis to include all major familial roles, and to examine historical changes and regional differences.

A final word concerns the implications of these substantive findings for Blood and Wolfe's (1960) resource theory of. family power. We question the common use of correlations between power and occupation and education as tests of the resource theory. In such tests it is implicitly assumed that (1) occupation and education provide one with resources relevant to his spouse's needs, and that (2) these resources are at least somewhat scarce. In some cases it may be unrealistic to make these assumptions. Thus, correlations of power with occupation and education appear insufficient for making inferences about the resource theory. A more adequate test of the theory would require more direct measures of the resources one has and the extent to which these resources are relevant to the needs of the spouse. We hope that tests of this type will be forthcoming.

REFERENCES

Adams, Bert N. 1971. The American Family. Chicago: Markham.

Bandura, Albert, and Richard H. Walters. 1963. Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bannester, E. M. 1969. "Sociodynamics: An In- tegrative Theorem of Power, Authority, Inter- fluence and Love." American Sociological Re- view 34(June) :374-93.

Blood, Robert O., Jr. 1967. Love Match and Arranged Marriage. New York: Free Press.

Blood, Robert O., Jr., and Donald M. Wolfe. 1960. Husbands and Wives. New York: Free Press.

Bowerman, C. E. and G. H. Elder, Jr. 1964.




"Variations in Adolescent Perception of Family Power Structure." A merican Sociological Re- view 29(August) :551-67.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1961. "Some Familial Ante- cedents of Responsibility and Leadership in Adolescents." In Luigi Petrullo and Bernard Bass (eds.), Leadershiip and Interpersonal Be- havior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Buric, O., and A. Zecevic. 1967. "Family Author- ity, Marital Satisfaction, and the Social Network in Yugoslavia." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29(May)325-39.

Campbell, D. J., and D. W. Fiske. 1959. "Cover- gent and Discriminant Validation by the Multi- trait-Multimethod Matrix." Psychlological Bul- letin 56(March) :81-105.

Centers, R., B. H. Raven, and A. Rodrigues. 1971. "Conjugal Power Structure: A Re-examination." American Sociological Review 36(April):264- 78.

Ferber, R. 1955. "On the Reliability of Purchase Influence Decisions." Journal of Marketing 19 (January):225-32.

Gecas, V. 1971. "Parental Behavior and Dimen- sions of Adolescent Self-Evaluation" Sociometry 34(December) :466-82.

Glueck, S., and E. Glueck. 1957. "Working Mothers and Delinquency." Mental Hygiene 41 (July) :327-52.

Heer, D. M. 1958. "Dominance and the Working Wife." Social Forces 36(May) 341-7.

. 1962. "Husband and Wife Perceptions of Family Power Structure." Marriage and Family Living 24(February) :65-7.

* 1963. "The Measurement and Bases of Family Power: An Overview." Marriage and Family Living 25(May):133-9.

Hess, R. D., and J. V. Torney, 1962. "Religion,

Age, and Sex in Children's Perceptions of Fam- ily Authority." Child Development 33 (Decem- ber) :781-9.

Hoffman, L. W. 1960. "Effects of the Employment of Mothers on Parental Power Relations and the Division of Household Tasks." Marriage and Family Living 22(February):27-35.

Komarovsky, Mirra. 1962. Blue-Collar Marriage. New York: Random House.

Lupri, E. 1969. "Contemporary Authority Patterns in the West German Family: A Study in Cross- National Validation." Journal of Marriage and the Family 31(February):134-44.

Michel. A. 1967. "Comparative Data Concerning the Interaction in French and American Fam- ilies." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (May) :337-44.

Safilios-Rothschild, C. 1967. "A Comparison of Power Structure and Marital Satisfaction in Urban Greek and French Families." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29(May):345-52.

. 1969. "Family Sociology or Wives' Family Sociology: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Decision-Making." Journal of Marriage and the Fanmily 31(May):290-301.

. 1970. "The Study of Family Power Struc- ture: A Review 1960-1969." Journal of Mar- riage and the Family 32(November):539-52.

Strodtbeck, F. L. 1958. "Family Interaction, Values, and Achievement." In David C. McClelland et al. (eds.), Talent and Society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.

Turk, J. L., and N. W. Bell. 1972. "Measuring Power in Families." Journal of Marriage and the Family 34(May) :215-22.

Weller, R. H. 1968. "The Employment of Wives, Dominance, and Fertility." Journal of Marriage and the Family 30(August):437-42.



Documents

Adolescent Perceptions of Conjugal Power