DOI: 10.15139/s3/opq7ub
title: CMU Marriage Study, 1997

description: Participants: The sample includes 108 couple (216 individuals) who were initially enrolled 3-4 weeks prior to their marriage and were followed thereafter. All participants had to be under 35 and this had to be their first marriage. 1 male did not follow protocol and was 38 at the time of the first wave of data collection. All couples are heterosexual. The average age for men at the start was 27.2; for women it was 26.0. 92% were Caucasian. 80% had finished college. The data set was originally drawn from Pittsburgh, PA and the surrounding area. The sample was recruited at bridal fairs and by advertisements posted on bulletin board, flyers handed out in shops, electronic bulletin boards and from department stores when they filled out bridal registries for gifts (the store handed out invitations to be in our study). Procedure Overview: This is a longitudinal data set with data from both partners collected at 7 points in time: 1) a first wave of questionnaire data was collected 3-4 weeks prior to marriage, then, after marriage 2) a daily diary of benefits given and received 3) a laboratory session 4) a second panel of questionnaire data, 5) a second daily diary of benefits given and received), 6) a third panel of questionnaire data, and 7) a final panel of questionnaire data. Methods: Initial Panel of Data: This was collected 3-4 weeks prior to marriage. Each couple member independently filled out the following measures: l. Ratings of prototypes of norms for giving/receiving benefits in marriage in terms of how ideal they were for marriage, the extent to which the participant has been following them in the last 2 months with their fiancé and the extent to which the participant perceives the fiancé to have been doing so, the extent of success in the relationship of doing so. (The norms were equality, need based, letting each individual seeking the highest benefits possible for him or herself, equity, tit for tat). 2. Attachment styles 3. Distress and depression 4. Stress 5. Stressful Life Events 6. Trust in partner 7. Communal Orientation Scale 8. Exchange Orientation Scale 9. Communal Strength Scale 10. A measure of specific "communal" and "exchange" behaviors developed just for this study (unpublished) 11. A measure of global equity (Walster) 12. A behavioral checklist of 148 recently performed behaviors in the marriage (which include sharing activities, self-disclosure, providing and receiving support) 13. Relationship satisfaction. Second, Third and Fourth Panels of Questionnaire Data: The initial enrollment of participants occurred across about two years. Subsequent questionnaires were spread over the following seven years. Those questionnaires repeated most of the original questions with measures of the following being added to later questionnaires: 1. Reports of experiencing fear, happiness, sadness, anger, guilt, and fear (to the spouse, to family members and to acquaintances and to strangers) 2. Things people collected and especially important possessions 3. Self-reports of physical health. The two daily diary studies: These were collected on paper from both members of each couple. One occurred after the initial panel of questionnaire responses. A second occurred after the second panel of questionnaire responses. Participants reported (in free responses) every benefit they had intentionally given to their partner each day and every benefit they perceived that their partner had given to them (again in free responses.) It was not always easy to tell if what was said to have been given by one person in a free response matched what the partner reported receiving. For instance, one person might say he gave his partner reassurance and the partner might have reported receiving a hug. Every response was rated in terms of whether it had been voluntarily given (on a 7 point scale) and participants indicated why each was given (or why it was perceived to have been given) by filling out a checklist (e.g. to meet needs, as a repayment for a benefit given, to show care, to get the partner to give a benefit back, to keep the benefits given and received equal/even, to avoid a negative reaction, to please the other, to feel needed or useful, because our needs were equal and it's my turn to give the benefit, out of duty/responsibility). Every response was also rated in terms of how it made the person giving the benefit (or receiving it) feel by circling all emotions felt from a list (happy, sad, fearful, surprised, angry, resentful, needed, relieved, content, caring, trusted, owed a repayment, secure, loved, indebted, guilty, competent, incompetent, cared-for, uneasy, worried, anxious, grateful, proud, responsible, loving, nothing, other. The in lab puzzle session: This was largely conducted to examine whether couples kept track of individual inputs into joint tasks for which there would be a joint reward. Yet couples seemed to interpret it as a game and rather than seeing it as a joint task to which each was contributing they interpreted it as a competitive game and, thus, results were impossible to interpret. IRB Protocol Number: Carnegie Mellon University #HS00-046