Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive
All Theses and Dissertations

2008-11-20

Sacrifice in Marriage: Motives, Behaviors, and

Outcomes
Kevin Shitamoto Figuerres
Brigham Young University - Provo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation

Figuerres, Kevin Shitamoto, "Sacrifice in Marriage: Motives, Behaviors, and Outcomes" (2008). All Theses and Dissertations. 1598.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/1598

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.
SACRIFICE IN MARRIAGE: MOTIVES, BEHAVIORS,

AND OUTCOMES

by

Kevin Shitamoto Figuerres

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

Brigham Young University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Marriage and Family Therapy

School of Family Life

Brigham Young University

November 2008

i
 GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL

of a thesis submitted by

Kevin Shitamoto Figuerres

This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority

vote has been found to be satisfactory.

______________________________ __________________________________________
Date James M. Harper, Chair

______________________________ __________________________________________
Date Jeffry H. Larson

______________________________ __________________________________________
Date Jason S. Carroll

ii
 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

As chair of the candidate’s graduate committee, I have read the thesis of Kevin Shitamoto
Figuerres in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical style
are consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and department style requirements; (2) its
illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; and (3) the final
manuscript is satisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready for submission to the university
library.

________________________ ________________________________________
Date James M. Harper
Chair, Graduate Committee

Accepted for the School

________________________ ________________________________________
Date Richard B. Miller
Director, School of Family Life

Accepted for the College

________________________ ________________________________________
Date Susan Rugh
Associate Dean, College of Family Home and
Social Sciences

iii
 ABSTRACT

SACRIFICE IN MARRIAGE: MOTIVES, BEHAVIORS,

AND OUTCOMES

Kevin Shitamoto Figuerres

Marriage and Family Therapy Program

School of Family Life

Master of Science

Today’s society appears to have become focused on the individual and his/her exclusive

needs in relationships. Self-sacrifice has seemingly become a forgotten value and behavior. The

motives for sacrificing for another can widely vary for each individual. This study examined the

effects of couples’ sacrificing behaviors and the motives for sacrificing on the couples’ marital

quality. In this research, a random sample of 138 couples from Oakland, CA; Phoenix, AZ;

Ogden, UT; and Atlanta, GA were assessed on these variables using the Self Perception of

Sacrifice, Partner Perception of Sacrifice, Motives for Sacrifice, Revised Dyadic Adjustment

Scale, and Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships measures.

Analyzing the data with structural equation modeling showed that approach and

avoidance motives for sacrifice were related to the individual’s marital quality. The approach

motives were also related to the individual’s actual frequency of sacrificing, but only wives’

avoidance motives were a predictor of her frequency in sacrificing. Husband’s sacrificing

frequency was a strong predictor of his own marital quality and also his wife’s. The wife’s

frequency of sacrificing was also connected with her and his marital quality, but was not as

iv
strong of a predictor as his frequency of sacrificing. In examining the partner effects, only wives’

approach and avoidance motives had an effect upon their husband’s marital quality. Husband’s

approach and avoidance motives were not related to his wife’s marital quality; rather, the

husband’s actual frequency of sacrifice and the wife’s perception of his sacrificing influenced

her marital quality. Husbands’ and wives’ approach motives were associated with their partner’s

frequency of sacrifice, but their avoidance motives were not significant predictors of their

partner’s frequency of sacrifice. Clinical implications and directions for future research are

discussed.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express appreciation to my classmates for generously sharing their great

insights, talents, and support over the past two years. I feel blessed to have shared in these rich

learning experiences both in and out of the classroom. There were many times throughout the

program when I leaned on all of you for support. I will eternally be grateful for the relationships

that I have had with all of you here.

I wish to acknowledge my chair, Dr. James Harper, for his supportive care, guidance, and

example. It was under your care that I began to learn how to become a professional, therapist,

and scholar. I hope to achieve the excellence you have achieved as a superb therapist and

scholar. I thank you for the opportunity, freedom, and guidance you gave me to explore the topic

of sacrifice in marriage. I appreciate your mentoring throughout the entire program. It helped me

immensely. I would also like to thank Dr. Jason Carroll for the conceptual strengths and

additional support that you brought to this thesis. I marvel at your ability to envision the broad

picture that others often don’t. In addition, I offer my appreciation to Dr. Jeffry Larson for your

thorough revisions of my thesis. I admire your work ethic. I know of no one else at the clinic

who shows your degree of consistency by coming in day and night. I believe it reveals an inner

strength of focus, discipline, and persistence.

I express gratitude to those who have in any way assisted me in completing this research

project. I also acknowledge the many couples who participated in the study by sharing their

personal experiences in their marriage and without whom this project would not have been

possible.

vi
 I have to acknowledge the support of my family in my life’s journey and in my graduate

school experience. I have personally been blessed to come from rich heritage. It was under my

altruistic and loving family that I learned the importance of sacrificing for others. I express my

gratitude to my predecessors some who are living and some who are now long gone that

established a legacy of love through sacrifice for their family. I am grateful to my parents for

helping me pursue this dream of mine. Much of the heart, strength, determination, and vision that

I have stems in a large part from your examples and teachings. I thank my sister Dawn (and her

husband Roger), my brother Derek (and his wife Nancy), and their children’s support throughout

this program. It meant a lot to me to have the support of my family behind me. I would like to

make particular mention of my father’s support. Thank you for sharing your reservoir of research

creativity, experience, and wisdom. You have been like the unidentified fourth member of the

committee. I strive to become the scholar and disciple that you are.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 5

Review of Literature ................................................................................................................... 5

Sacrifice .................................................................................................................................. 5

Motives in Sacrificing ............................................................................................................. 8

Sacrifice, Relationship Functioning, and Marital Quality .................................................... 10

Key Concepts and Operational Definitions .............................................................................. 12

Research Question .................................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 13

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 13

Sample................................................................................................................................... 13

Procedures ............................................................................................................................. 14

Measures ................................................................................................................................... 15

Sacrifice Measure.................................................................................................................. 15

Motivations for Sacrifice ...................................................................................................... 16

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) ......................................................................... 18

Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR) .................................................. 18

Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................................... 19

Data Analysis Design ................................................................................................................ 20

viii
CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 22

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 28

Discussion and Limitations ....................................................................................................... 28

Clinical Implications ............................................................................................................. 34

Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 35

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 36

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 37

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 44

Appendix A: Consent Form ...................................................................................................... 44

Appendix B: Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................................ 46

Appendix C: Perception of Sacrifice ........................................................................................ 47

Appendix D: Motives for Sacrifice ........................................................................................... 50

Appendix E: Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale ...................................................................... 51

Appendix F: Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships ............................................. 52

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Actor Partner Effects Conceptual Model (Figure 1) ............................................................. 21

2. Results for Actor Effects (Figure 2a) .................................................................................... 25

3. Results for Partner Effects (Figure 2b) ................................................................................. 27

LIST OF TABLES

1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample (Table 1) ............................................................... 14

2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Range of All Measured Indicators (Table 2) .................. 23

3. Correlations for All Measured Variables (Table 3) .............................................................. 24

x
 CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

In today’s competitive, individual-focused society, self-sacrifice in marital relationships

is often viewed as outdated. A firm focus on what one wants and needs in life seems to take a

much higher priority over sacrificing for another. Many authors believe that individualism is at

the foundations of marital confusion and problems today (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler,

Tipton, 1985; Fowers, 2000; Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991; Popenoe & Whitehead, 2001;

Richardson, Fowers, & Guignon, 1999; Whitehead, 1997). Hawkins, Fowers, Carroll, and Yang

(2007) hypothesize that social scientists have largely been guilty in seeing marriage through the

lens of individualism. The authors state that individualism may define marriage as a choice

founded on present satisfaction and anticipated future gratification and rewards in the

relationship. This viewpoint focuses on benefits individuals receive and the rewards that

individuals obtain from their partner’s investments for the relationship that in return produce

satisfaction, intimacy, support, and rewards. Fowers, Bucker, Calbeck, and Harrigan (2003)

analyzed 10 years of marital research looking at 2,200 quantitative studies and found that the

most measured constructs was satisfaction. Commitment came in ninth place. Content analysis

found that relationship satisfaction was mentioned and measured between 12 and 26 times more

than relationship commitment. Bahr and Bahr (2001) state that, “Self-sacrifice is under a cloud

these days. There is not much place for it in an era dominated by rational choice theory, market

models of human relationships, and ‘having it all’ individualism” (pg. 1231).

Recent empirical literature suggests the fact that sacrifice increases marital success

(Stanley, Whitton, Sadberry, Clements, & Markman, 2006). Noller (1996) discovered that

people’s conception of “love” was connected with sacrifice as well as caring, trust, respect, and

1
loyalty. Fincham, Stanley, and Beach (2007) believe that much of marital research has focused

on the study of conflict, but research needs to move into the study of transformative processes.

Transformative processes look beyond the deficits and conflict in marriages, but focus on the

broader picture by including strengths, methods of coping, and deeper systems of meaning to

more clearly see the full picture of a marriage. Some scholars suggest that conflict may not be so

capable at predicting outcomes that our theories, research, and interventions suggest (Bradbury,

Rogge, & Lawrence, 2001; Fincham, 2003). Stanley (2007) asserts that marital research is

moving in a new stage where the research will explore larger meanings and deeper motivations

about relationships with a focus on more positive constructs. Fincham et. al (2007) makes the

point that researchers should observe fully what they measure, not just a singular focus on part of

what they measure. They suggest that the limiting knowledge that we have has been largely a

part of these conceptual limitations.

What is sacrifice and how is it expressed? Van Lange, Rusbult, Drigotas, Arriaga,

Witcher, and Cox (1997) say that, “Sacrifice may entail the forfeiting of behaviors that might

otherwise be desirable (i.e., passive sacrifice), enacting of behaviors that might otherwise be

undesirable (i.e. active sacrifice), or both” (pg. 1374). For some it may mean giving up further

education to follow the career path or dream of their spouse, working multiple jobs to support an

afflicted spouse, or forsaking a long-held habit in order to please one’s partner. Or it could be as

easy as doing a simple favor for the other. Impett, Gable, and Peplau (2005) found in their study

on a sample of 45 male and 77 female dating undergraduates from the University of California

whose ages ranged from 18 to 37 years (4% African American, 39% Asian or Pacific Islander,

10% Hispanic, 34% White, and 13% multiethnic or “other”) that these subjects sacrificed the

most for their partner in friends by sacrificing time with personal friends or spending time with

2
significant other’s friends (mentioned by 87% of participants); recreation (86%); errands, chores,

and favors (65%); school and work (59%); family (56%); communication and interaction (49%);

gifts and money (33%); and other-sex interactions such as talking to others of the opposite sex or

dating other people (25%).

Feminist authors have proposed that sacrifice creates codependency, relationship

dissatisfaction, and depression (Jack, 1991; Jordan, 1991; Lerner, 1988). There seems to be a

contradiction between conceptualizations and empirical findings about sacrifice in marriage.

Some research points out the fact that increased psychological distress and decreased relationship

satisfaction is a result of forgoing one’s wishes and desires for another’s (Cramer, 2002; Fritz &

Helgeson, 1998; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Other studies found that sacrifice increases

satisfaction and the likelihood of the relationship enduring over time (Van Lange, Agnew,

Harinck, & Steemers, 1997; Van Lange et al., 1997; Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew,

1999). Part of the discrepancy in the findings may be due to the lack of research on the context,

dimensions, and other variables that are related to sacrifice. Little is known as to what constitutes

healthy sacrificing or different patterns of sacrificing.

Clearly, some degree of sacrifice occurs and is necessary in any marital relationship.

However, it appears important to know the motivation for sacrificing in the marital relationship.

Kelley (1979) notes that when a sacrifice is made by one’s partner, his or her partner may be

motivated to find the reason behind it. There can be a wide array of motives for sacrificing for

one’s partner. Gable and Reis (2001) postulated that in close relationships there are approach

motives and avoidance motives. Approach motivations are about obtaining positive outcomes,

including the other’s happiness or a greater intimacy. Avoidance motives are about seeking to

3
evade negative outcomes including conflict, disapproval, or the other’s loss of interest in the

relationship.

While relatively little is known about the association of motives and self-sacrifice in

relationships, it is important to assess their relationship with relationship outcomes. If healthy

motives and self-sacrifice increase marital satisfaction, it is important to understand how this

process happens. The purpose of this study is to examine how self-sacrifice motives and

behavior are related to marital quality. This study will examine the husband’s frequency of self-

sacrifice and his motives for sacrificing and the wife’s frequency of self-sacrifice and her

motives for sacrificing and how they are related to both the husband and wife’s marital quality.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

Review of Literature

Sacrifice

The interdependence theoretical framework (Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978;

Kelley, Holmes, Kerr, Reis, Rusbult, & Van Lange, 2003) has been the major guiding force in

much of the research that has been done on sacrifice in relationships. This theory states that the

very structure of relationships sometimes requires individuals to forgo their immediate

preferences for the sake of the relationship. If the couple’s interests are the same, the outcomes

correspond. In such a case, sacrifice is unnecessary. On the other hand, when the husband’s and

wife’s interests are not aligning or do not correspond, individuals are compelled to choose

between their own self-interest or to sacrifice for their partner. In cases when individuals

sacrifice their own preferences, their self-interests are replaced by a deeper concern for their

partner or the relationship. However, an individual’s self-interests can also be replaced by a fear

of reprisal. This phenomenon is referred to as a transformation of motivation.

Anderson and Sabatelli (2007) believe that in close personal relationships a high degree

of interdependence is needed. In these relationships, the goal is to obtain and maintain a high

level of intimacy; therefore, it is critically important that individuals not act out of self-interest

alone. This type of self-interested behavior deters from a deep level of intimacy. Feelings of

resentment, mistrust, and complaints about the lack of reciprocity and fairness in the

relationships accompany such selfish behavior. On the other hand, an interdependent relationship

in which both partners see that acting in the best interests of one’s partner becomes a way of

attaining benefits for oneself. In this type of relationship, trust and commitment that is

5
continually sustained and developed has the capacity to lead to the belief that the relationship is

one of special and unique qualities that define a lifetime relationship.

How often are sacrifices made in intimate relationships? In the Impett et al. (2005) study,

one hundred sixty three (69 men and 84 women) undergraduates of the University of California

ranging in age from 18 to 34 years, completed a study of the sacrifices made for their dating

partners. The sample was 4% African American, 40% Asian or Pacific Islander, 13% Hispanic,

35% White, and 8% self-identified as multiethnic or “other.” It was found that couples made

sacrifices on 48% of the days. On average, there were 8.7 sacrifices made over the course of the

2-week study as reported by the participants.

Sacrifice has often been associated with relationship commitment. As couples increase

their commitment to one another, they seem to develop a couple identity which centers on the

couple unit and less on the focus to maximize their own needs. Furthermore, when couples have

commitment, they forsake their immediate self-interests, and act in the interest of the couple’s

relationship; they find their relationships fulfilling and satisfying (Stanley & Markman, 1992). In

addition, higher levels of commitment were correlated with perceiving sacrificing behaviors as

less difficult. This was found to be the case particularly with men (Stanley et al., 2006).

Commitment is connected with the quality of relationships over time in men. Husband’s

commitment led to healthy relationship behaviors that maintained and improved the relationship

quality over time (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002; Johnson & Rusbult, 1989;

Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; Van Lange et al., 1997). Whitton, Stanley,

and Markman (2002) suggests that the gender discrepancy may lie in the fact that women are

more socialized to sacrifice, no matter the level of commitment.

6
 Sacrifice seems to carry a cost with it. Sacrificing can have later psychological costs in

feelings of resentment, guilt, dependence, or other psychological costs (Rusbult & Van Lange,

1996). Sacrificing by avoiding conflict in the form of keeping one’s “true” feelings bottled up

was related with decreased relationship satisfaction (Canary & Cupach, 1988; Cramer, 2002;

Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Heavey, Layne, & Christensen, 1993; Noller, Feeney, Bonnell, &

Callan, 1994).

Van Lange et al. (1997) rejects this notion of sacrifice as a cost in the relationship

because in exchange theory cost would be an exchange that one saw as a net personal loss. For

those individuals that want to sacrifice for their partner, the sacrifice could be seen as a cost that

is reappraised to an emphasis on the couple’s future and therefore a source of satisfaction rather

than a cost.

Sacrifice has many associated benefits. Impett et al. (2005) reports that individuals who

typically sacrificed their own needs in conflicts out of a genuine concern for their partner’s

welfare found personal and interpersonal benefits such as personal fulfillment and a strengthened

relationship. Stanley, Markman, and Whitton (2002) hypothesized that a greater willingness to

sacrifice facilitates the growth of relationships and the reinforcement of a sense of security and

safety which is fundamental to marital success.

The perception of one’s partner as making a sacrifice on the partner’s behalf increased

trust in that partner which thereby increased the commitment to the relationship. They also come

to develop a trust in their partner as a caring and responsive person (Wieselquist et al., 1999).

Whitton et al. (2002) add that an individual’s commitment is likely to be connected with a

greater willingness to sacrifice, greater satisfaction in making sacrifices, and the perception that

the sacrifices made are not harmful to one’s self.

7
Motives in Sacrificing

According to the helping-orientation model developed by Ribal (1963), individuals can

typically have two motives in interpersonal behavior. The first is the desire to help others in need

which is called nurturance. The second is the desire to have others help oneself when they are in

need of succorance. Romer, Gruder, and Lizzadro (1986) builds upon this model and says that

there are “altruists” who are nurturant, but not succorant. They help others but do not give help

to receive help from others. “Receptive givers” are those who are nurturant and succorant in that

they are motivated to help others, but they become more likely to help if that help is contingent

on receiving help back. The “selfish” are those who are succorant but not nurturant. Their

motives are to receive help but not give it. “Inner-sustaining individuals” are not nurturant or

succorant and have no motive to help others or receive help from others. Altruists and receptive

givers seem to be more empathic than the latter two. When compensation was not available to all

parties, altruists were the most likely to help. However, when compensation was available,

receptive givers were the most likely to help. Altruists were also high on social responsibility in

comparison to the other groups.

Mehrabian (1976) studies closely parallel the findings found in the previously mentioned

studies. There appear to be two social motives in interactions: the need for affiliation and the fear

of rejection. Those people who have a greater fear of rejection in relationships generally expect

to receive punishment in their relationships. However, those with a greater need for affiliation

usually expect to be positively reinforced in their interpersonal relationships (Mehrabian &

Ksionzky, 1974). The higher in need for affiliation the more likely the partner was to sacrifice

for approach motives, while the higher in fear of rejection the more likely to sacrifice for

avoidance motives. The outcomes of both social motives are polarized. Those high in the need

8
for affiliation self-report that they feel self-confident and show more positive affect, while those

who are high in fear of rejection feel low in self-confidence and perceive themselves being

judged negatively by others (Mehrabian, 1976; Russell & Mehrabian, 1978). In addition Impett

et al. (2005) mentions that those that sacrifice for avoidance motives experienced more negative

emotions, lower satisfaction with life, less positive relationship well-being, and more relationship

conflict. As would be expected, those that sacrificed for approach motives experienced more

positive emotions, greater satisfaction with life, more positive relationship quality, and less

relationship conflict. In the Impett et al. (2005) study, dating couples who sacrificed for approach

motives were more likely to remain together, while those couples who sacrificed for avoidance

motives were particularly detrimental to the relationship. The more the couples sacrificed for

avoidance motives, the more they were found to be less satisfied and more likely they were to

have broken up a month later, no matter their initial relationship satisfaction and commitment.

Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio, & Piliavin (1995) examined motivations in caregiving for

one’s partner. In the learning approach, individuals are motivated to help the other because of

past reinforcement when helping them. However, some may be motivated to not aid another

because of negative reinforcement when such aid was offered.

Caregiving motives are also found in emotions and arousal. Emotions such as feelings of

sympathy, guilt, and sadness may increase the desire and motive to help another. Conversely,

feelings of anger may decrease the motivation to care for another (Schroeder et al., 1995). The

acts of service that are motivated by desires to meet another’s need in itself will typically bring

about feelings of happiness and satisfaction in the giver (Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Neuringer-

Benefiel, 1986). Other emotional experiences are dependent on the motive with the sacrifice. An

approach motive of satisfying a spouse’s wishes to make him or her happy can lead to a higher

9
level of pleasure and positive emotions through the process of empathic identification (Blau,

1964; Lerner, Miller, & Holmes, 1976). On the other hand, an avoidance motive of sacrificing to

avoid conflict may result in relief but may also bring about anxiety and tension around the very

conflict that was sought to be avoided (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998).

Sacrifice, Relationship Functioning, and Marital Quality

Research shows that there is a connection with sacrifice and good relationship

functioning (Stanley & Markman, 1992). Van Lange et al. (1997) discovered that “willingness to

sacrifice partially mediated the relationship between commitment levels and overall relationship

adjustment.” Whitton, Stanley, and Markman (2007) found that when perceptions of sacrifice

were less harmful to the self, this partially mediated the relationship between commitment levels

and relationship quality. Higher satisfaction with sacrifice in the early marriage was correlated

with the couple being nondistressed over time and individuals maintaining marital adjustment 1

and 2 years down the line (Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Markman, 2006). Anderson and Sabatelli

(2007) note that in couple’s close personal relationships an individual’s satisfactions tend to

generally depend upon the extent to which one’s own partner is satisfied. Therefore, it is in each

partner’s best interest to obtain benefits for oneself.

Relationship quality is in fact positively related to positive attitudes on sacrifice (Stanley

& Markman, 1992; Van Lange et al., 1997). The perception that sacrifices were harmful to the

self was associated negatively with relationship satisfaction and positively with depressive

symptomatology (Whitton et al., 2002).

Lin and Huddleston-Casas (2005) surveyed a sample of 333 participants (41% were male

and 59% were female) to examine agape (altruistic) love in couples’ relationships. The sample

was composed of mainly Caucasian (94%), ages between 19 and 91 years of age, 84% married,

10
10% never married, and 6% were either divorced, separated, or widowed. Thirty-five percent of

the participants had full or partial high school education, 33% some college, and another 32%

achieved a Bachelor’s degree or higher. The religious denomination of the sample was 64%

Protestant, 25% Catholic, and 11% were non-Christian, agnostic or of some other religion.

Sixteen percent had an annual income of less than $25,000, 36% had $25,000-$49,999, 34% had

$50,000-$100,000, 8% had $100,000 or more, and 6% reported that they did not know or did not

answer. Participants were given the Love Attitudes Scale which assess the individual’s report of

his/her love style from the six love styles. A Relationship Assessment Scale was also

administered which tested whether their needs and expectations were being met. This study

found a high correlation between relationship satisfaction and Agape or selfless, altruistic love.

The higher the individual’s relationship satisfaction, the higher the reported scores of Agape

were.

The current investigation seeks to build upon the previous research that has touched upon

both dating and married couples’ sacrifice in their relationships by investigating in depth at the

approach and avoidance motives and sacrificial behavior in marriages. The Impett et al. (2005)

findings in social motives and Kelley’s (1979) interdependence theory will provide the

theoretical framework for this study. Impett’s study has taken a college dating sample and

measured their motives for sacrifice, sacrifice, partner’s well-being, and relationship satisfaction.

Specifically, this study will examine in more detail how married couples’ motives in sacrificing

for their partner directly and indirectly affects actual sacrifices that appear to lead to marital

quality.

11
 Key Concepts and Operational Definitions

The operational definitions of concepts were as follows:

1. Motives for sacrifice are the causes that move an individual to sacrifice for his or her

partner. We treated motives for sacrifice as the self-reported 8 approach and 7 avoidance

motives identified in the Motives for Sacrifice Measure by Impett et.al (2005).

2. Frequency of sacrifice is to surrender or give something for the sake of the other partner

as measured by sacrifice frequency in the Sacrifice Measure by Impett et.al (2005).

3. Marital quality is the degree to which an individual self-reports his/her consensus,

satisfaction, cohesion, and intimacy in the marital relationship. Marital quality was the

overall score of the individual on the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Busby,

Christensen, Crane, & Larson, 1995) which measures consensus, satisfaction, and

cohesion. The current perception of the relationship of the Personal Assessment of

Intimacy in Relationships instrument (Schaefer and Olson, 1981) measures several

dimensions of intimacy. It examines the emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, and

recreational intimacy. The combination of the RDAS and PAIR measure gives a fuller

perspective and better measure of marital quality.

Research Question

How are motives for sacrificing and frequency of self-sacrificing behaviors related to a

couple’s marital quality as a function of self and partner perceptions?

12
 CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

Sample

The sample for this study consisted of couples where both the husband and wife were

older than 18 years old. The participating couples were randomly selected from four metropolis

areas in the United States (Oakland, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Ogden, UT; and Atlanta, GA) using Polk

City Directories. These four metropolitan areas were chosen because of their possibility of

producing racial diversity.

A total of 138 couples participated in this study. The sample was comprised of 32 couples

from Oakland, CA; 43 couples from Phoenix, AZ; 19 couples from Ogden, UT; and 44 couples

from Atlanta, GA. As shown in Table 1, the average husbands’ age was 48.82 years ranging

from 23 to 86 years with a standard deviation of 14.87. The average wives’ age was 47.02 years

ranging from 23 to 82 years with a standard deviation of 14. There were a total of 85 Caucasian

(61.6%), 28 African American (20.3%), 8 Hispanic (5.8%), 4 Asian (2.9%), and 1 Multiracial

(0.7%) husbands. In addition, the sample consisted of 83 Caucasian (60.1%), 24 African

American (17.4%), 9 Hispanic (6.5%), 4 Asian (2.9%), 2 Multiracial (1.4%), and 2 Other (1.4%)

wives. The average years in marriage for husbands was 18.64 years ranging from 1 to 56 years

with a standard deviation of 15.07 years. For the wives, the average years in marriage was 17.95

years ranging from 1 to 52 years with a standard deviation of 14.33 years. Husbands reported

their average annual household income as 87,767 dollars with a range from 0 to 250,000 dollars

and a standard deviation of 46,213 dollars. Wives reported an average annual household income

of 83,255 dollars with a range from 0 to 250,000 dollars and a standard deviation of 46,896

dollars.

13
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample (N=138)
Variable Husbands Wives
Mean (S.D.) Range Mean (S.D.) Range
Age 48.82 (14.87) 23-86 47.02 (14.00) 23-82
Years Married 18.64 (15.07) 1-56 17.95 (14.33) 1-52
Annual Income $87,767 ($46,213) $0-250,000 $83,255 ($46,896) $0-250,000
Percentages
Ethnicity
Caucasian 61.6% 60.1%
African American 20.3% 17.4%
Hispanic 5.8% 6.5%
Asian 2.9% 2.9%
Multi-racial 0.7% 1.4%
Other 0.0% 1.4%
Missing 8.7% 10.3%
Geographical Area
Atlanta, GA 31.8% 31.8%
Oakland, CA 23.2% 23.2%
Ogden, UT 13.8% 13.8%
Phoenix, AZ 31.2% 31.2%

Procedures

The addresses of 1050 couples were purchased from infoUSA, a sales and marketing

agency. The addresses were guaranteed to be randomly selected from four metropolitan areas

(Oakland, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Ogden, UT; and Atlanta, GA) and were guaranteed to be married

couples over the age of 18. The manner in which surveys were mailed out followed the Total

Design Method (TDM) procedures as outlined by Dillman (2000). Selected couples were mailed

packets that include two envelopes, one for the wife and one for the husband, which included

surveys, an instruction form, one consent form, and a two dollar bill place in the envelope.

Couples who completed their surveys were informed in the instruction form that they would be

rewarded with a $40.00 visa card in appreciation for their time and participation.

The measures included in the packet were the Self Perception of Sacrifice, Partner

Perception of Sacrifice, Motives for Sacrifice, Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and Personal

Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships measures. The instructions asked that each of the

14
partners complete their surveys independently. Upon completion of the surveys, the instructions

informed the couple to enclose their consent and survey forms in a pre-addressed and pre-paid

envelope to be sent back. The couples received separate envelopes that they put their survey

forms in and then enclosed in the pre-paid envelope. Couples that had not completed their

surveys in a two week period were sent postcards periodically as a token of appreciation for their

consideration in their participation with the study and as a reminder to complete and return their

surveys. After a four week period following the sending out of the packets, the couples or

spouses who had not filled out their responses were frequently called by a team of research

assistants. Of the 1050 couples that were sent surveys, a total of 138 couples responded

producing a 13% response rate. While it is uncertain as to the cause of the low response rate, it is

suspected that it may be due to the questionnaires being barely glanced over and treated as junk

mail, using a marketing company was a poor source for finding willing research participants,

and/or some couples being deterred in their experience of discomfort in assessing their marriage.

Little is known about what is considered an adequate response rate when both partners are

required to return questionnaires.

Measures

Sacrifice Measure

The Perception of Sacrifice Measure (Harper and Figuerres, 2008) is comprised of both

the perception of one’s and one’s partner’s sacrificing behaviors. The Self-Perception of

Sacrifice portion measures the individual’s perception of both the frequency of a given sacrifice

and the degree of sacrifice for each sacrifice item in the past 6 months. The questionnaire was

created using some of Impett, et al.’s (2005) results from an open ended questionnaire asking

what dating couples actually sacrificed. The categorical results of sacrificing behavior were

15
made into questions that assessed the frequency of that particular sacrifice. Other additional

sacrificing categories that were more common to marital couples were added as well.

Participants are first asked to identify how often they perform a particular sacrifice such as

sacrificing “occupational/house work to be with your partner,” “spending time with your

partner’s family when he/she wants you to,” or “show affection to your partner to please

him/her.” The participant rates the frequency of the sacrifice using a 5-point Likert scale (1 =

Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, 5 = Always). A follow-up question asks

about the perceived degree of sacrifice using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = No Sacrifice, 2 = Slight

Sacrifice, 3 = Medium Sacrifice, 4 = High Sacrifice, and 5 = Extremely High Sacrifice). Total

possible scores range from 25-125 for the frequency and level of sacrifice scales. Higher scores

indicate an individual’s perception of their higher frequencies of sacrifice. The Chronbach’s

alphas in this study were .84 for husbands and .81 for wives.

The Partner Perception of Sacrifice portion examines the perception of an individual on

how frequently their partner sacrificed in the past 6 months. Possible scores range from 25-125.

Higher scores indicate an individual’s perception of their partner’s higher frequencies of

sacrifice. The Chronbach’s alphas for this study were .86 for husband’s perception of wife’s

sacrifice and .87 for wive’s perception of husband’s sacrifice. (See Appendix C for a copy of this

measure).

Motivations for Sacrifice

This measure was adopted from by Impett, Gable, and Peplau (2005) from Feeney and

Collins’ Motivations for Caregiving (2003) measure. The instrument is designed to determine the

individual’s motives in sacrificing for their partner in the past 6 months. Eight items address

using approach motives while seven items address motives of avoiding negative outcomes. The

16
stem for an item reads, “On occasions when I sacrifice for my current partner, I generally do so

because…” followed by the associated 15 approach and avoidance motives items. The

participant then rates each motive on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time).

The eight approach questions were, “I love my partner and am concerned about his or her well-

being,” “I want my partner to be happy,” “I get a great deal of pleasure out of making my partner

happy,” “Just knowing that I have done a nice thing for my partner makes me feel good,” “I want

to develop a closer relationship with my partner,” “I want my partner to appreciate me,” “I feel

good about myself when I sacrifice for my partner,” and “I truly enjoy sacrificing for my

partner.” The avoidance questions were, “I do not want my partner to think negatively about

me,” “I want to avoid negative consequences from my partner,” “I feel guilty if I do not

sacrifice,” “I feel less anxious when I sacrifice for my partner,” “I feel obligated to sacrifice for

my partner,” “I sometimes feel that I do not desire my partner, so I sacrifice to make up for it,”

and “I have to sacrifice or my partner will not love me.” The approach and avoidance variables

had high internal reliability (α = .72 and .68, respectively).

To test validity, Impett et al. (2005) had approach and avoidance motives regressed

simultaneously with relationship satisfaction. Approach motives were positively associated with

satisfaction (β = .40, p < .001) and avoidance motives were negatively associated with

satisfaction (β = -.20, p < .05). Higher scores on the approach items will suggest higher levels of

approach motives for sacrificing and higher avoidance scores will suggest higher avoidance

motives for sacrificing. The Cronbach Alphas for this study were .78 and .79 for wive’s approach

and avoidance motives respectively and .86 and .79 for husband’s approach and avoidance

motives. (See Appendix D for a copy of the measure).

17
Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS)

The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Busby et. al, 1995) was one of the measures used

to indicate marital quality. It has three subscales: the Dyadic Consensus Subscale (α = .81), the

Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale (α = .85), and the Dyadic Cohesion Subscale (α = .80). The

consensus subscale is composed of questions 1-6 which looks at decision making, values, and

affection. The satisfaction subscale covers stability and conflict items on questions 7-10. Finally,

the cohesion subscale touches upon the activities and discussion in the relationship in questions

11-14. Examples of the items that participants rate in the RDAS are: “Religious matters,”

“Demonstration of affection,” “How often do you and your partner quarrel,” and “Work together

on a project.” Using a 6 point Likert scale, the measure has 14 items which assesses marital

satisfaction and adjustment. Possible scores range of 0-69 and total score of 69 (α = .90). Only

the total scale was used in this study. The Cronbach’s alphas for this study were .86 for husbands

and .88 for wives. (See Appendix E for a copy of the measure).

Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR)

The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (Schaefer and Olson, 1981) was

the other indicator of marital quality in this study. While the RDAS measures the couples’

consensus, satisfaction, and cohesion, the PAIR assesses the intimacy levels of the couple. It is

composed of thirty six items divided into six questions under six subscales: the Emotional

Intimacy subscale (α = .75), Social Intimacy subscale (α = .71), Sexual Intimacy (α = .77)

subscale, Intellectual Intimacy subscale (α = .70), Recreational Intimacy subscale (α = .70), and

Conventionality subscale. A total score is calculated by adding all the scales except the

conventionality subscale. This total score was used in this study.

18
 Schaefer and Olson report all six scales have coefficients of at least .70. PAIR looks at

the degree to which each partner perceives to feel intimate in the above mentioned areas of

relations (six subscales) and the degree to which each partner would expect to be intimate. Each

partner responds to each of the thirty six questions rating their level of agreement or

disagreement (on a 5-point Likert Scale) to the intimacy in the relationship on two items: “as it is

now” (perceived) and “how he/she would like it to be” (expected). For the purposes of this study

the “as it is now” (perceived) scores were only used and the research participants can receive

possible scores ranging from 0 to 480. Higher scores are indicative of satisfaction while lower

scores suggest a lack of fulfillment. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for this sample

were .84 for husbands and .86 for wives. (See Appendix F for a copy of the measure).

Conceptual Model

Figure 1 illustrates the variables and pathways that were analyzed in this research.

Approach and avoidance motives stand alone as independent, observed variables for husband

and wives. The latent variable of both husbands’ and wives’ frequency of sacrifice is comprised

of both their own individual perception of sacrifice frequency and perception of their partner’s

sacrifice frequency. Finally, the latent variable of both husbands’ and wives’ marital quality are

products of their own RDAS and PAIR scores.

The model proposes both direct and indirect associations between latent variables. It was

proposed that husband’s and wife’s approach motives would have a direct, positive relationship

with both their own individual and partner’s frequency of sacrifice and marital quality. There

was assumed to be a positive relationship between both husband’s and wife’s frequency of

sacrifice and their individual and partner’s marital quality. We proposed there would be an

indirect positive association of both husband’s and wife’s approach motives to the

19
individual’s/partner’s frequency of sacrifice also positively relating to the individual’s/partner’s

marital quality. Avoidance motives of husbands and wives were proposed to have a direct,

negative relationship with their own individual and partner’s frequency of sacrifice and marital

quality. Both husband’s and wife’s avoidance motives were also expected to have a negative,

indirect relationship with both their own/partner’s frequency of sacrifice which thereby would

have a negative association with marital quality.

Data Analysis Design

As shown in Figure 1, Structural Equation Modeling (Kline, 2005) was used to analyze

the data. The data analysis model was a recursive full latent variable model (Byrne, 2001). First,

the full latent variable model uses the measurement model which uses factor analysis to

determine the strength of the loadings of each measure on their respective latent variable. Four

latent variables were created: husband frequency of sacrifice, wife frequency of sacrifice,

husband marital quality, and wife marital quality. Both husband and wife frequency of sacrifice

had two indicators, self report and partner report. The factor loadings on the latent variable,

husband frequency of sacrifice were .84 for self report and .89 for wife’s report and on wife

frequency of sacrifice were .81 for self report and .89 for wife’s report and on wife frequency of

sacrifice were .81 for self report and .86 for husband’s report about his wife. Both the latent

variables, husband marital quality and wife marital quality had the respective spouse’s report on

the RDAS and the PAIR. Factor loadings on the husband marital quality were .84 for PAIR and

.86 for the RDAS. Factor loadings on the wife marital quality were .86 for the PAIR and .88 for

the RDAS.

Structural equation modeling next estimates the strengths of both the direct and indirect

paths among variables in the model and determines goodness of fit indexes that indicate how

20
well the hypothesized model fits the data. Following Kenny, Kashy, and Cook’s (2006)

suggestions, both actor (paths from husband’s to husband’s variables and paths from wife’s to

wife’s variables) and partner effects (paths from husband’s to wife’s variables and vice versa)

were examined in the same analysis.

Figure 1. Actor Partner Effects Conceptual Model with husband’s approach motives, avoidance motives,
wife’s approach motives, avoidance motives, husband’s frequency of sacrifice, and wife’s frequency of
sacrifice predicting husband and wife marital quality

21
 CHAPTER FOUR

Results

The means, standard deviations, and ranges for all measure variables are shown in Table

2. The mean RDAS score for husbands was 50.60 with a standard deviation of 8.14 (range 23-

68), and the mean RDAS score for wives was 49.43 with a standard deviation of 8.99 (range 17-

66) indicating that wives scored slightly lower on average than husbands and had slightly greater

variability in scores. The cutoff score for the RDAS is 48. The average PAIR score of 320.76

(S.D. = 73.31) for husbands was very similar to the mean score of 321.44 (S.D. = 80.75) for

wives. Both of the PAIR scores were in the moderate range, and the range of scores on both the

RDAS and the PAIR scores were in the moderate range, and the range of scores on both the

RDAS and the PAIR for both husbands and wives indicate that some couples in the sample were

severely distressed. Both husbands and wives reported a medium level of frequency of sacrifice

with the mean scores of 84.52 and 84.31 respectively. The mean scores for husband’s view of

wife’s sacrifice and vice versa were both lower than self reports for frequency of sacrifice. The

mean scores for both husbands’ and wives’ approach motives (mean = 34.16, SD = 4.98; mean =

33.69, SD = 4.67) were significantly higher than both husbands and wives avoidance motives

(mean = 19.33, SD = 5.41; mean = 17.99, SD = 5.68). These scores seem to represent a sample

with moderate levels of marital quality, moderate levels of sacrifice from both husbands and

wives, and motives leaning toward pleasing partners rather than avoiding some negative

consequence.

22
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Range for All Measured Indicators
Mean SD Range
RDAS (Husband) 50.60 8.14 23-68
RDAS (Wife) 49.43 8.99 17-66
PAIR (Husband) 320.76 73.31 152-452
PAIR (Wife) 321.44 80.75 92-456
Motives for Sacrifice - Approach (Husband) 34.16 4.98 18-40
Motives for Sacrifice - Avoid (Husband) 19.33 5.41 7-35
Motives for Sacrifice - Approach (Wife) 33.69 4.67 17-40
Motives for Sacrifice - Avoid (Wife) 17.99 5.68 7-33
Self Perception Sacrifice (Husband) 84.52 11.83 39-109
Self Perception Sacrifice (Wife) 84.31 11.61 57-125
Husband’s Perception of Wife’s Sacrifice 55.33 16.39 25-102
Wife’s Perception of Husband’s Sacrifice 53.05 15.4 25-104

Table 3 contains the correlations for all measured independent and dependent variables in

the study. As can be seen in the table, there are high correlations between measures that would

load on the same latent variable, but there were no correlating relationships among independent

variables that would foreshadow problems with multicollinearity. The high correlations between

husband and wife RDAS and PAIR scores suggest a high degree of similarity in the perception

of their relationship quality. Husbands and wives’ scores on approach motives were also highly

correlated. There were also significant positive correlations for both the husbands’ and wives’

sacrifice frequency and the perception of the sacrifice frequency by their partner. In other words,

it seems as though these couples see pretty similarly the frequency with which they each

sacrifice for their marriage.

23
Table 3. Correlations for all Measured Variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. RDAS (Husband) 1 .82*** .73*** .71*** .35*** -.21** .33*** -.31*** .26** .24** .34*** .43***
2. RDAS (Wife) 1 .68*** .84*** .32*** -0.06 .37*** -.29*** .20* .22** .29*** .45***
3. PAIR (Husband) 1 .70*** .38*** -.29*** .30*** -.30*** .20* .23** .32*** .39***
4. PAIR (Wife) 1 .30*** -0.06 .29*** -.36*** .25** .19* .30*** .44***
5. Motives for Sacrifice - Approach 1 .36*** .45*** -0.06 .27** .26** .40*** .24**
(Husband)
6. Motives for Sacrifice - Avoid (Husband) 1 0.12 .24** .25** 0.08 0.11 0.06
7. Motives for Sacrifice - Approach (Wife) 1 .34*** 0.14 .39*** .19* .39***
8. Motives for Sacrifice - Avoidance(Wife) 1 0.01 .26** .18* -0.04
9. Self Perception Sacrifice (Husband) 1 .32*** .53*** .43***
10. Self Perception Sacrifice (Wife) 1 .48*** .54***
11. Husband’s Perception of Wife’s Sacrifice 1 .37***
12. Wife’s Perception of Husband’s Sacrifice 1

* = significant at p < .05 level

** = significant at p < .01 level
*** = significant at p < .001 level

24
 The standardized betas for each of the actor effects in the structural equation model are

shown in Figure 2a, and the standardized betas for each of the partner effects are shown in Figure

2b. While both actor and partner effect paths were included in one analysis, the actor and partner

effects are reported separately so that the reader can clearly see the various paths and their

respective betas. Reporting them together involves too many paths and betas making it difficult

to see all the relationships. The Goodness of Fit statistics are reported with each figure, but they

are the same because only one analysis was performed.

Figure 2a. Results for Actor Effects (Analysis was done with both actor and partner effects combined into one
model (Figure 1), but the results are split out for clarity and ease of reading)

H Frequency
.21* of Sacrifice
H Approach .34***
Motives
.29***

.03 ns
Husband Marital
H Avoidance -.27** Quality
Motives

.31***
W Approach
Motives .27**
Wife Marital
-.46*** Quality
W Avoidance
Motives .22*
.20*
W Frequency
of Sacrifice

Results for Actor Effects

* p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, ns=not significant Chi Square=32.62, df=24, P=.112

CFI=.989, RMSEA=.049

As shown in Figure 2a, all but one of the pathways was statistically significant. The

goodness of fit statistics (chi square = 32.62, df = 24, p = .112, comparative fit index = .989, and

the root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA = .049) all indicated that the model was a

good fit with the actual data. The R² value for wives’ marital quality was .57 and husbands’

marital quality was .72.

25
 There were statistically significant relationships between both husband and wife approach

and avoidance motives and their respective reports of marital quality. The betas of .29 (p < .001)

for the path from husband approach motives to husband marital quality and .32 (p < .001) for the

path from wife approach motives to wife marital quality indicate a positive relationship, meaning

as approach motives increase so does their respective marital quality increase. The paths from

both husband and wife frequency of sacrifice to their respective reports of marital quality were

statistically significant (β = .34, p < .001 and β = .20, p < .05) and positive related meaning that

increases in frequency of sacrifice are positively related to self perceptions of marital quality.

Both husband and wife paths from approach motives were significantly related to frequency of

sacrifice for both (β = .21, p < .05 and β = .27, p < .01) indicating that higher approach motives

are related to higher frequency of sacrifice for both husbands and wives. It appears from the

model that approach motives not only affect marital quality directly but indirectly as well

through frequency of sacrifice, and this is true for both husband and wives. The results also

showed that avoidance motives for both husbands and wives are statistically, negatively related

to marital quality for both (β = -.27, p < .01 and β = -.46, p < .001), but only wife avoidance

motives were significantly related to her frequency of sacrifice. While it appears that her

avoidance motives may be related to higher frequency of sacrifice which in turn is related to

marital quality, the fact that a strong negative direct relationship exists between her avoidance

motives and her marital quality seems to indicate that avoidance motives are harmful to marital

quality for both wives and husbands.

The results for partner effects are reported in Figure 2b.

26
Figure 2b. Results for Partner Effects (Analysis was done with both actor and partner effects combined into
one model (Figure 1), but the results are split out for clarity and ease of reading)

H Frequency
H Approach of Sacrifice
Motives
.34***

.20*
H Avoidance
.08 ns
Motives Husband Marital
.07 ns Quality
-.09 ns
.44***
W Approach .19*
Motives
Wife Marital
-.10 ns -.32*** Quality

W Avoidance
Motives
.21* Chi Square=32.62, df=24, p=.112
W Frequency
of Sacrifice CFI=.989, RMSEA=.049

Results for Partner Effects

* p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, ns=not significant

Figure 2b shows the standardized betas for partner effects in the model. The fact that

these partner effects exist even when controlling for all actor effects is interesting. Husband

approach motives were positively related to wife frequency of sacrifice (β = .20, p < .05) which

in turn was positively related to husband’s marital quality (β = .21, p < .05). Likewise, wife

approach motives were positively related to husband frequency of sacrifice (β = .44, p < .001)

which in turn was positively related to wife marital quality (β = .34, p < .001). Neither the

husband approach or avoidance motives were related to wife marital quality. However, both wife

approach motives (β = .19, p < .05) and avoidance motives (β = -.32, p < .001) were significantly

related to husband marital quality. As her avoidance motives rise, his marital quality goes down,

but as her approach motives increase, his marital quality goes up

27
 CHAPTER FIVE

Discussion and Limitations

The purpose of this research study was to understand the effects of motives for sacrificing

and self-sacrificing behaviors in connection to a couple’s marital quality. Analyzing the data

with structural equation modeling showed that approach and avoidance motives for sacrifice did

in fact affect the individual’s marital quality. The approach motives were also related to

husbands’ and wives’ actual frequency of sacrificing, but only wives’ avoidance motives were an

indicator of her frequency in sacrificing. Husband’s sacrificing frequency was a strong predictor

of his own marital quality and also his wife’s. The wife’s frequency of sacrifice was also related

to her and his marital quality, but was not as strong of a predictor as his sacrificing frequency.

In examining the partner effects, only wives’ motives had an effect upon their partner’s

marital quality. Husband’s motives were found to be a non-factor in a wife’s marital quality;

rather, the husband’s actual frequency of sacrifice and the wife’s perception of his sacrificing

influenced her marital quality. Husband and wives’ approach motives were related to their

partner’s frequency of sacrifice, but their avoidance motives appeared to be a non-factor in

affecting their partner’s frequency of sacrifice.

The findings of this research support the idea that sacrifice frequency does enhance both

the individual’s and partner’s perception of marital quality. Some previous research has shown

that sacrifice is related to decreased relationship satisfaction (Cramer, 2002; Fritz & Helgeson,

1998; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989) while other researchers have shown that sacrifice can be

viewed as relationship commitment and is related to increased marital quality (Stanley &

Markman, 1992).

28
 Past research (Finkel et al., 2002; Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; Rusbult et al., 1991; Van

Lange et al., 1997) highlighted the fact that husband’s commitment (or sacrifice) led to healthy

relationship behaviors that maintained and improved relationship quality over time. The results

from our research support the notion that sacrificing frequency of husbands is a strong predictor

for a perception of good marital quality for both him and her (in the past 6 months). It is

reasonable to speculate that his continued sacrifice would maintain and improve relationship

quality over time. Whitton et al. (2002) believed that women were more socialized to sacrifice.

Our findings show that both husband and wives reported about an equal amount of perceived

personal sacrifice (84.52 and 84.31 by husbands and wives respectively) and partner’s sacrifice

(55.33 and 53.05 by husbands and wives respectively).

Impett, et al. (2005) concluded that dating individuals who sacrifice for approach motives

experienced more positive relationship quality and less relationship conflict. Other researchers

(Stanley & Markman, 1992; Van Lange et al., 1997) reinforce these findings reporting that

positive attitudes on sacrifice are positively related to relationship quality. Results from the

research conducted confirms the finding that individually speaking husband and wives approach

motives do enhance their perception of marital quality while their avoidance motives decrease

their perception of marital quality. Impett et al. (2005) reports that individuals who sacrifice for

avoidance motives experienced less positive relationship well-being and more relationship

conflict. Whitton et al. (2002) shares similar findings in that perceptions that sacrifices are

harmful to self were negatively related to relationship satisfaction.

The Perception of Sacrifice measure (Harper and Figuerres, 2008) with self and partner

report was created specifically for this study. Previous research has not always used good

measures of sacrifice. The differences in finding may be related to measurement differences. It is

29
also possible that the relationship between frequency of sacrifice and marital quality is

curvilinear. In other words, as frequency of sacrifice increases to a point, it is good for marriage,

but as it gets too high, it leads to lower marital quality. The analysis in the current study did not

look at this possibility, but future research should take into account that this relationship may be

curvilinear.

The findings related to partner effects showed that husbands’ approach and avoidance

motives were not significant predictors of their wives’ marital quality. On the other hand, wives’

approach and avoidance motives affected their husbands’ marital quality even when controlling

for her own actor effects. In particular, her avoidance motives were a very significant predictor

of his reported marital quality. This is a surprising finding in light of the common notion that

women are more concerned with the motives behind actions while men are not as concerned.

This raises questions as to why the actor effects are strong predictors of their own

individual perception of marital quality, but the partner effects are only significant in wife’s

motives relation to husband’s marital quality. Perhaps, there may be a certain individual self-

prophesying effect in that partners who are genuinely concerned about their partners and

sacrifice altruistically create a lens of perception or reality that they possess a good marriage.

Individuals who feel obligated and guilty may in turn create a lens of perception or reality that

they possess a poor marriage. It may be speculated that husbands and wives may have more of a

major role in their actual perception of the marriage than their partners have the role of affecting.

Another possibility may be that there are certain motives that the individual already brings to the

relationship.

In regards to the partner effects, the data shows that wives’ marital quality is in relation

to her husband’s frequency of sacrifice and is not in relation to his motives for sacrificing. The

30
strong predictor is the husband’s frequency of sacrifice. This gives the impression that for wives

it is his actions that speak louder than his words or thoughts in his motivations. It can also be

speculated that given the average years in marriage in the sample is about 18 years, perhaps at

this stage in the marriage the practical actions mean much more in enhancing the marriage for

her than his motives. The data shows that it is only his approach motives that have a significant

relationship with her frequency of sacrificing. A possible interpretation of this data may be that

husbands with approach motives influence their wives to sacrifice more and possibly perceive

that he is sacrificing more, while his avoidance motives would decrease her sacrificing frequency

and possibly influence her to believe that he is sacrificing less.

For husbands the data suggests that his wife’s avoidance motives have a strong influence

on his perception of marital quality. It is interesting to note that it is the negative motives of his

wife and not his wife’s approach motives or frequency of sacrifice (although significant) that is

the stronger predictor of his perception of marital quality. Husbands may have a strong

perception that their marriage is poor when their wives out of fear or compulsion sacrifice for

them. It is probable that such motivations instill distance, fear, anger, resentment, and hostility

which husbands see as indicative of a poorer marriage. It appears as though the wife’s approach

motives and frequency of sacrifice have a positive relationship with his marital quality

perception, however, not as strong of a predictor. These data findings may propose that while her

approach motives and frequency of sacrifice tend to influence him to perceive his marital quality

in a good light, her avoidance motives will have a significant devastating impact in influencing

his perception of the marriage quality as poor.

One of the more interesting findings from this research is the concept that approach and

avoidance motives can mutually exist in an individual and couple. Initially it was assumed that

31
both motives are present on opposite sides of the spectrum, but the findings showed that they are

not strongly negatively correlated. It may be that there are particular contexts or situations in the

marriage where an individual is prone to sacrifice for their partner for separate motives. Even in

the same context, an individual may have both an approach and avoidance motive in sacrificing.

For example, an individual may sacrifice for the motivation that they want their partner to be

happy knowing that the sacrifice will make them happy, but at the same time knowing that if

he/she does not do the particular sacrifice the partner will be angry with them.

Even though changes were made in this study to variables, measures, and different

analysis models, the findings of this study are similar to Impett et al.’s (2005) study of dating

couples. For example, Impett’s (2005) study found that approach and avoidance motives were

significant predictors of dating couple’s relationship quality. In addition, they also found that on

days when participants reported increases in approach, they also reported higher positive

relationship quality. On days when participants reported increases in avoidance, they also

reported lower positive relationship quality. The finding in the study reported here were similar

results in that married couples approach and avoidance motives were significant predictors of

marital quality in the actor effects as approach motives raised marital quality scores and

avoidance motives lowered marital quality scores. However, wives’ motives were the only

significant predictors of marital quality in the partner effects as approach motives raised marital

quality scores and avoidance motives lowered marital quality scores for husbands. Husbands’

motives showed no significance in relation to wives’ marital quality. It is unclear as to why male

dating partners would influence female dating partners’ relationship quality, but husbands would

not influence wives’ relationship quality. Perhaps as before mentioned wives are more concerned

32
with the actual practical sacrificing than the motives behind them, while female dating partners

are equally concerned about the motives for sacrificing.

Interdependence theory (Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Kelley et al., 2003) helps

explain the findings. The data would appear to support the fact that the very structure of

relationships sometimes requires a sacrifice of needs and wants for the sake of the relationship. It

indeed looks as if relationship functioning is dependent upon a dynamic process of individuals

giving and taking. While the research did not assess the degree of similarity or difference in

interests, generally speaking the data did show that the marital quality and processes (overall

intimacy, cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction) were positively related to sacrificing. This

research did not look specifically at the transformative processes over time, but it is highly

probable that approach motives for sacrificing would increase sacrificing behavior which

reinforces their approach motives to sacrifice over time. It may be assumed that through

continual repetition of these processes, it would become a habit for the partners. The finding

from this research suggest that there may be a more strong effect on individual transformation

rather than partner transformation through sacrificing and the motives associated with them.

This study’s findings bring about a multitude of research questions that may be asked.

While this research examined the frequency of sacrificing behaviors, future research would do

well to look at the duration, meaningfulness of, and expectations for sacrificing. Qualitative

research could further clarify questions such as “how do couples experience sacrificing motives

and behaviors?” or “how do husbands experience sacrificing motives and behaviors in

comparison to their wives?” Are there generational differences in sacrificing motives and

behaviors? Other questions might be, “what are the antecedents that lead to motives for sacrifice

and sacrifice behaviors?” or “what are the consequences that result from them?” It may be of

33
interest to researchers to explore the different husband-wife dyads and their differing marital

quality. For example, how do high sacrificing husbands or wives compare with low sacrificing

husbands or wives? Are there generalizations in differing levels of sacrificing dyads? Are there

particular patterns and paths that would be similar and/or different to the findings of this study

that are found in differing lengths of marriage, ethnic groups, level of husband-wife similarity, or

clinical/non-clinical populations?

Clinical Implications

Marriage and family therapists can make application of these findings with their couple

cases. Fowers (2000) suggested that marriage and family therapists might more thoroughly

investigate values of generosity, sacrifice, and fairness in working with distressed couples as

opposed to teaching problem solving and communication skills. The findings in this study

support such a principle based approach in that partners’ intent or motives and sacrificial

behavior seems to be a strong predictor of both husband and wife marital quality. A clinical

intervention of exploring ways husbands and wives might sacrifice for each other and an

examination and possible change of their motives may be fruitful. Interventions aimed at

changing a wife’s motives from avoidance to more approach motives may also increase marital

quality.

The Perception of Sacrifice (Harper & Figuerres, 2008) instrument may also prove to be

a valuable instrument to use in both the assessment and self-exploration dimensions of therapy.

Couples may find it helpful to both find out both their own and partner’s reported frequency and

level of sacrificing. A clinician may guide a discussion about their findings and use interventions

to develop approach motives and sacrificing behavior to enhance the marital quality and process.

34
 A possible application of the clinical application of the findings in the current research

might be in connection with a behavioral intervention. The research has found that for both

husbands and wives, the increased sacrificing frequency has a positive relationship with an

individual’s and partner’s perception of marital quality. Perhaps, an intervention like that of

Gottman’s (1999) “love gifts” would prove helpful for couples in developing behavioral

sacrificing interactions that would enhance the marriage. A cognitive intervention reinforcing

approach motives may also enforce positive marital quality outcomes. Individual actor effects in

this research showed that both husband and wives have greater individual sacrifice frequencies

and higher individual marital quality scores. Indirectly, approach motives of individuals

increases their partner’s sacrificing frequency which comes back and increases the individual’s

marital quality. Other psychoeducational approaches such as the instilling of virtues (Fowers,

2000) would likely be beneficial in developing and deepening approach motive sacrifice virtues.

Limitations

One of the major limitations in this study was the low response rate for the sample. The

138 couples represented a response rate of 13%. This makes it difficult to generalize because

how these 138 couples differ from the thousands who didn’t respond is not known. It may be that

the length and time required to complete the questionnaire favored a more literate and educated

population. Less literate populations may have not completed the questionnaire due to the

perception of completing a lengthy questionnaire being outweighed by their literacy and time

limitations.

Another limitation of the study is that the sampling strategy did not produce as much

racial diversity as the researchers hoped. Consequently, the lack of ethnic diversity may not

35
generate reliable generalizations across ethnic cultures. The language barrier may have had some

part in the low participation rates as all of the questionnaires were in English.

The research did not control for the couple’s similarity or differences in interests.

Couples who are more similar in nature and interests may not require as much sacrificing in

frequency or level. On the other side, couples who differ more in this area may need to sacrifice

much more for one another for the sake of the relationship. Therefore, it is difficult to measure

and compare the sacrifice for varying couples of differing levels of similarities. It may be helpful

to add another instrument to examine the different types of couples sacrificing.

Finally, the complex and difficult nature of reporting on the sacrificing behaviors and

motivations behind them in their relationships may have not clearly and effectively been

explored in enough detail. It may be that a qualitative study would further clarify the nature of

these sacrificing behaviors and motivations.

Conclusion

The findings in this study provide new insights into the effects of marital sacrifice and

motives for sacrificing in relation to marital quality. Types of motives and frequency of sacrifice

are not oft studied variables in marital quality research. The results shed some light on the

importance and the nature of sacrificing and the motives behind them in relation to marital

quality. Sacrificing may be a fundamental process in marriage that is not as negatively valenced

as some theorists have tried to portray.

36
 REFERENCES

Anderson, S. A., & Sabatelli, R. M. (2007). Family interaction: A multigenerational

developmental perspective (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bahr, H. M., & Bahr, K. S. (2001). Families and self-sacrifice: Alternative models and meanings

for family theory. Social Forces, 79 (4), 1231-1258.

Batson, D., Bolen, M. H., Cross, J. A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, H. E. (1986). Where is the

altruism in the altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,

212-220.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. N. (1985). Habits of the heart:

Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bradbury, T. N., Rogge, R., & Lawrence, E. (2001). Reconsidering the role of conflict in

marriage. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & M. Clements (Eds.), Couples in conflict (pp. 59 –

81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bryne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A revision of the

Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct

hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 289-

308.

Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1988). Relational and episodic characteristics associated with

conflict tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 305-325.

37
Cramer, D. (2002). Satisfaction with romantic relationships and a four-component model of

conflict resolution. In S. P. Shohov (Ed.), Advances in psychological research (Vol. 16,

pp. 129-137). Hauppauge, NY: NOVA Science Publishers.

Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in

close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545-560.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2003). Motivations for caregiving in adult intimate

relationships: Influences on caregiving behavior and relationship functioning. Society for

Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (8), 950-968.

Fincham, F. D. (2003). Marital conflict: Correlates, structure and context. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 12, 23-27.

Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Transformative processes in marriage:

An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 275-292.

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in

close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 82, 956-974.

Fowers, B. J. (2000) Beyond the myth of marital happiness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Fowers, B. J., Bucker, J., Calbeck, K. B., & Harrigan, P. (2003). How do social scientists define

a good marriage? Unpublished manuscript.

38
Fritz, H. L., & Helgeson, V. S. (1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from

communion: Self-neglect and overinvolvement with others. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 82, 956-974.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Cherlin, A. J. (1991). Divided families: What happens to children when

parents part. Cambridge, MA: University of Harvard Press.

Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2001). Appetitive and aversive social interaction. In J. Harvey & A.

Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 169-

194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York,

NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal

review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47-52.

Harper, J. M., & Figuerres, K. S. (2008). Perception of sacrifice scale. Unpublished measure.

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Hawkins, A. J., Fowers, B. J., Carroll, J. S., Yang, C. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring

marital virtues. In S. L. Hofferth & L. M. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of measurement

issues in family research (pp. 67-83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.

Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital

interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

61, 16-27.

39
Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and

benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 89 (3), 327-344.

Jack, D. C. (1991). Silencing the self: Women and depression. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners

as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 57, 967-980.

Jordan, J. V. (1991). The relational self: A new perspective for understanding women’s

development. In J. Strauss & G. Goethals (Eds.) The self: Interdisciplinary approaches

(pp. 136-149). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M.

(2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. New York: Camridge University Press.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence.

New York: Wiley.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: The

Guilford Press.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New

York: The Guilford Press.

Lerner, H. G. (1988). Women in therapy. New York: Perennial Library.

40
Lerner, M. J., Miller, D. T., & Holmes, J. G. (1976). Deserving vs. justice: A contemporary

dilemma. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 169 – 193). New York: Academic Press.

Lin, L., & Huddleston-Casas, C. A. (2005). Agape love in couple relationships. Marriage &

Family Review, 37 (4), 29-48.

Mehrabian, A. (1976). Questionnaire measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection.

Psychological Reports, 38, 199-209.

Mehrabian, A., & Ksionzky, S. (1974). A theory of affiliation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Noller, P. N., Feeney, J. A., Bonnell, D., & Callan, V. J. (1994). A longitudinal study of conflict

in early marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 233-252.

Noller, P. (1996). What is this thing called love? Defining the love that supports marriage and

family. Personal Relationships, 3, 97-115.

Poponoe, D., & Whitehead, B. D. (2001). Who wants to marry a soul mate? Piscata way, NJ:

National Marriage Project.

Ribal, J. E. (1963). Character and meanings of selfishness and altruism. Sociology and Social

Research, 47, 311-321.

Richardson, F. C., Fowers, B. J., & Guignon, C. (1999). Re-envisioning psychology: Moral

dimensions of theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Romer, D., Gruder, C. L., & Lizzadro, T. (1986). A person-situation approach to altruistic

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (5), 1001-1012.

Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1978). Approach-avoidance and affiliation as functions of

emotion-eliciting quality of an environment. Environment and Behavior, 10, 355-387.

41
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G., Slovik, L., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation

processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78.

Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E. T. Higgins & A.

W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564-596).

New York: Guilford Press.

Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The pair inventory. Journal of

Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 47-60.

Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of

helping and altruism. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stanley, S. M. (2007). Assessing couple and marital relationships: Beyond form and toward a

deeper knowledge of function. In S. Hofferth & L. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of

measurement issues in family research (pp. 85 – 99). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595-608.

Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. (2002). Communication, conflict, and

commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey.

Family Process, 41, 659-675.

Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Premarital education,

marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey.

Journal of Family Psychology, 20 (1), 117-126.

Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., Sadberry, S. L., Clements, M. L., & Markman, H. W. (2006).

Sacrifice as a predictor of marital outcomes. Family Process, 45 (3), 289-303.

42
Van Lange, P. A. M., Agnew, C. R., Harinck, R., & Steemers, G. E. (1997). From game theory

to real life: How social value orientation affects willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1330-1344.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S.M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L.

(1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 72 (6), 1373-1395.

Whitehead, B. D. (1997). The divorce culture. New York: Knopf.

Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. H. , & Markman, H. J. (2002). Sacrifice in romantic relationships: An

exploration of relevant research and theory. In A. Vangelisti & H. Reis (Eds.), Stability

and change in relationships: Advances in personal relationships (pp. 156-181). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. H., & Markman, H. J. (2007). If I help my partner, will it hurt me?

Perceptions of sacrifice in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 26, 64-92.

Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-

relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 77, 942-966.

43
 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Consent Form

Informed Consent to Participate as a Research Subject

Introduction
Kevin Figuerres, a graduate student and Professor James Harper of Brigham Young University’s
School of Family Life are conducting research focused on understanding the role of motives and
sacrifice in marital satisfaction.

You have been invited as a couple who may be willing to participate in this research. Your
participation is completely voluntary and you may discontinue in your participation at any time.
If you decide not to participate in the research, please accept the 2 dollars enclosed in the packet
as a token of appreciation for your time and consideration.

Procedures
Participation involves completing the questionnaires independent of your spouse. Questions will
include details about your perception of your/your partner’s sacrificing in your relationship,
motives for sacrifice, and thoughts on the intimacy and relationship satisfaction and stability of
your relationship. The combined measures will have a total of 115 questions which is estimated
to take about 15-25 minutes. Upon completion, please put each of your completed forms back in
separate pre-paid envelopes to be mailed.

Risks
There are minimal risks for participation in this study. There is the potential for discomfort
associated with providing information about your experiences in marriage. Participant’s risks can
be mitigated by the participant’s option to discontinue their participation with the study by not
filling out the questionnaires or by referring to the AAMFT website (www.aamft.org) to locate a
couple therapist in your respective areas.

Benefits
The academic field of Marriage and Family Therapy will be largely benefit from your
participation in this study as we are able to increase our knowledge and understanding on these
marital issues that are being researched. In addition, the data that is collected and analyzed could
potentially guide and strengthen marital therapy in the future. The results of this research may
specifically help other couples who come to therapy with motive and sacrifice related issues. As
this study is completed, the conclusions and benefits will be released to the public in hopes of
educating the general population and providing assistance for all therapists who work with
couples.

Confidentiality
Although the surveys used will become the property of Brigham Young University’s School of
Family Life, reasonable and appropriate actions will be taken to keep your information
confidential. Confidentiality will be maintained as the participants’ questionnaires will be given
an identification number which will be used in the data entry in place of the participants’ names.

44
Participants will write in an address on the back of the questionnaires to which they would like
their visa card to be mailed to. The questionnaires will be stored in a secure, locked file cabinet
in room 273 in the Comprehensive Clinic at Brigham Young University. Only a data entry team
will be allowed access to these questionnaires. Upon completion of the data entry, the
questionnaires with the written address will be destroyed. The electronic data form with no
identifying information will be kept for 3 years and then destroyed.

Compensation
Upon our receiving of both partners forms, we will send you a 30 dollar visa card for your
participation in our study. It is important to our study that both partners return questionnaires.
We will send your gift card to the address that you write on the back of your questionnaires. If
after 6 weeks, we have only received one partner’s form, we will send a 15 dollar Visa card to
the participating partner.

Participation
Participation in this research study is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at anytime or
refuse to participate entirely.

Questions about the Research

For questions about this research study, please contact Dr. James Harper or Kevin Figuerres.

James Harper, Ph.D Kevin Figuerres

Professor, School of Family Life Graduate Student, School of Family Life
Marriage and Family Therapy Graduate Programs Marriage and Family Therapy Program
Brigham Young University Brigham Young University
273 TLRB, P.O. Box 28601 273 TLRB, P.O. Box 28601
Provo, UT 84602-8601 Provo, UT 84602-8601
(801) 422-6509 (801) 422-6509

Questions about your Rights as Research Participants

If you have questions regarding your rights as a participant in a research project, you may
contact IRB Chair, Christopher Dromey, (801) 422-6461, dromey@byu.edu, 133 TLRB, Provo,
UT 84602.

By signing this form, you acknowledge that your participation in this research study is voluntary.

I have read, understood, and received a copy of the above consent, and desire of my own free
will and volition to participate in this study.

________________________________________________________________________
Research Participant Date

________________________________________________________________________
Research Participant Date

45
 Appendix B: Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic Questionnaire

ID# _____
Age: ____
Number of Years in Current Marriage: ______
Ethnicity (check one):  Caucasian  African-American  Hispanic  Asian  Pacific
Islander  Multiracial  Other: Specify __________________
Annual Household Income: ____________

46
 Appendix C: Perception of Sacrifice

Perception of Sacrifice

J. M. Harper and K. S. Figuerres

Instructions: Circle two responses for each item. First, indicate how often you did the action (in the past 6
months) the item describes, and second, indicate how much of a sacrifice this was for you.
Circle how often you do this in Indicate the level of sacrifice this
your relationship is for you

Slight Sacrifice

High Sacrifice

High Sacrifice
No Sacrifice
Frequently
Sometimes

Extremely
Sacrifice
Medium
Always
Rarely
Never

1. 1. I go along when my partner wants me 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

to go to a social event or family gathering.
2. I cancel or change my plans to be with 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
my partner.
3. I attend events that my partner is 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
interested in – even if I am not personally
interested in going.
4. I pass up personally enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
activities to be with my partner
5. I do favors for my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

6. I run errands/perform chores to help 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

my partner.
7. I sacrifice occupational/house work to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
be with my partner
8. I help my partner with his/her 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
occupational/house work
9. I give up time to care for my partner 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
when he/she is sick or disabled.
10. I sacrifice to maintain/improve my 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
partner’s health
11. I spend time with my partner’s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
extended family when he/she wants me to.
12. I limit time with my extended family 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
to be with my partner.
13. I listen and pay attention to my partner 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
even when he/she is talking about
something that I am not interested in.
14. I do things my partner’s way rather 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

47
 than my own way to please him/her.
15. I buy gifts for my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

16. I change my spending/earning habits 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

to benefit my partner.
17. I change how I interact with someone 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
of the opposite sex to please my partner.
18. I change my appearance to satisfy my 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
partner.
19. I have sex to please my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

20. I am willing not to push for sex when 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

my partner does not want to have sex.
21. I show affection to my partner to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
please him/her.
22. I meet my partner’s requests even 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
when it is difficult for me.
23. I do something for others (children, 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
extended family, neighbors, etc.) because
my partner wants me to.
24. When making decisions, I give in to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
what my partner wants.
25. I give up control and let my partner be 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
in charge.
Instructions: Circle two responses for each item. First, indicate how often you perceive your partner did the
action (in the past 6 months) the item describes, and second, indicate how much of a sacrifice this was for
him/her in your perception.
Circle how often you do Indicate the level of sacrifice
this in your relationship this is for you
Slight Sacrifice

High Sacrifice

High Sacrifice
No Sacrifice
Frequently
Sometimes

Extremely
Sacrifice
Medium
Always
Rarely
Never

2. 26. My partner goes along to a social 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

event or family gathering when I want
him/her to go.
27. My partner cancels plans to be with 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
me.
28. My partner attends an event I am 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
interested in – even if she/he is not
interested in going.
29. My partner passes up personally 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
enjoyable activities to be with me.

48
30. My partner does favors for me. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

31. My partner runs errands/performs 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

chores to help me.
32. My partner sacrifices 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
occupational/house work to be with me.
33. My partner helps me with my 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
occupational/house work
34. My partner gives up time to care for 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
me when I am sick or disabled.
35. My partner sacrifices to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
maintain/improve my health
36. My partner spends time with my 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
family when I want her/him to.
37. My partner limits time with her/his 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
extended family to be with me.
38. My partner listens and pays attention 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
when I talk about something that she/he is
not interested in.
39. My partner does things my way rather 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
than her/his own way to please me.
40. My partner buys gifts for me. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

41. My partner changes her/his 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

spending/earning habits to benefit me.
42. My partner changes how she/he 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
interacts with someone of the opposite sex
to please me.
43. My partner changes her/his 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
appearance to satisfy me.
44. My partner has sex to please me. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

45. My partner is willing not to push for 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

sex when I don’t want to have sex.
46. My partner shows affection to me to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
please me.
47. My partner meets my request even 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
when it is difficult for her/him.
48. My partner does something for others 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
(children, extended family, neighbors,
etc.) because I want her/him to.
49. When making decisions, my partner 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
gives in to what I want.
50. My partner gives up control and let me 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
be in charge.

49
 Appendix D: Motives for Sacrifice

Motives for Sacrifice

B.C. Feeney and N.L. Collins adapted by E.A. Impett, S.L. Gable, and L.A. Peplau

(Below are fifteen statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1 -5 scale below,
indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding
that item. Please be open and honest in your responding. The 5-point scale is as follows: )
1 = never
2 = rarely
3 = sometimes
4 = frequently
5 = all the time

On occasions when I sacrifice for my current partner, I generally do so because:

1. I love my partner and am concerned about his or her well-being __

2. I want my partner to be happy __
3. I get a great deal of pleasure out of making my partner happy __
4. Just knowing that I have done a nice thing for my partner makes me feel good __
5. I want to develop a closer relationship with my partner __
6. I want my partner to appreciate me __
7. I feel good about myself when I sacrifice for my partner __
8. I truly enjoy sacrificing for my partner __
9. I do not want my partner to think negatively about me __
10. I want to avoid negative consequences from my partner (e.g. anger) __
11. I feel guilty if I do not sacrifice __
12. I feel less anxious when I sacrifice for my partner __
13. I feel obligated to sacrifice for my partner __
14. I sometimes feel that I do not deserve my partner, so I sacrifice to make up for it __
15. I have to sacrifice or my partner will not love me __

50
 Appendix E: Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale

D.M. Busby, C. Christensen, D.R. Crane, and J.H. Larson

Most person have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate
extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the
following list.
Always Almost Occasiona Frequently Almost Always
Agree Always lly Agree Disagree Always Disagree
Agree Disagree
1. Religious matters 5 4 3 2 1 0
2. Demonstration of affection 5 4 3 2 1 0
3. Making major decisions 5 4 3 2 1 0
4. Sex relations 5 4 3 2 1 0
5. Conventionality (correct or 5 4 3 2 1 0
proper behavior)
6. Career decisions 5 4 3 2 1 0
All the Most of More Occasiona Rarely Never
time the time often than lly
not
7. How often do you discuss or 0 1 2 3 4 5
have you considered divorce,
separation, or terminating of
your relationship?
8. How often do you and your 0 1 2 3 4 5
partner quarrel?
9. Do you ever regret that you 0 1 2 3 4 5
married (or lived together)?
10. How often do you and your 0 1 2 3 4 5
mate “get on each other’s
nerves”?
Every Day Almost Occasiona Rarely Never
Every Day lly
11. Do you and your mate 4 3 2 1 0
engage in outside interests
together?
Never Less than Once or Once or Once a More
once a twice a twice a day often
month month week
12. Have a stimulating exchange 0 1 2 3 4 5
of ideas
13. Work together on a project 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. Calmly discuss something 0 1 2 3 4 5

51
 Appendix F: Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships

Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships

M. T. Schaefer and D. H. Olson

INSTRUCTIONS: This inventory is used to measure different kinds of intimacy in your

relationship. You should indicate your response to each statement by using the following five
point scale.

0 1 2 3 4
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

There are two steps in answering each item. In the "How it is NOW" column, you should
respond in the way you feel about the item in the present. In the "How I would LIKE IT TO BE"
column, if you could have your relationship to be any way you might want it to be, you would
answer accordingly in that column. So you should have a number written in both columns for
every item.
LIKE IT
is NOW
How it

TO BE
How I
would

1.____ 1.____ 1. My partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to.

2.____ 2.____ 2. We enjoy spending time with other couples.
3.____ 3.____ 3. I am satisfied with our sex life.
4.____ 4.____ 4. My partner helps me clarify my thoughts.
5.____ 5.____ 5. We enjoy the same recreational activities.
6.____ 6.____ 6. My partner has all of the qualities I've always wanted in a mate.
7.____ 7.____ 7. I can state my feelings without him/her getting defensive.
8.____ 8.____ 8. We usually "keep to ourselves".
9.____ 9.____ 9. I feel our sexual activity is just routine.
10.___ 10.___ 10. When it comes to having a serious discussion, it seems we have little in
11.___ 11.___ common.
12.___ 12.___ 11. I share in few of my partner's interests.
13.___ 13.___ 12. There are times when I do not feel a great deal of love and affection for my
14.___ 14.___ partner.
15.___ 15.___ 13. I often feel distant from my partner.
16.___ 16.___ 14. We have few friends in common.
17.___ 17.___ 15. I am able to tell my partner when I want sexual intercourse.
18.___ 18.___ 16. I feel "put-down" in a serious conversation with my partner.
19.___ 19.___ 17. We like playing together.
20.___ 20.___ 18. Every new thing I have learned about my partner has pleased me.
21.___ 21.___ 19. My partner can really understand my hurts and joys.
22.___ 22.___ 20. Having time together with friends is an important part of our shared activities.
23.___ 23.___ 21. I "hold back" my sexual interest because my partner makes me feel
24.___ 24.___ uncomfortable.

52
25.___ 25.___ 22. I feel it is useless to discuss some things with my partner.
26.___ 26.___ 23. We enjoy the out-of-doors together.
27.___ 27.___ 24. My partner and I understand each other completely.
28.___ 28.___ 25. I feel neglected at times by my partner.
29.___ 29.___ 26. Many of my partner's closest friends are also my closest friends.
30.___ 30.___ 27. Sexual expression is an essential part of our relationship.
31.___ 31.___ 28. My partner frequently tries to change my ideas.
32.___ 32.___ 29. We seldom find time to do fun things together.
33.___ 33.___ 30. I don't think anyone could possibly be happier than my partner and I when we
34.___ 34.___ are with one another.
35.___ 35.___ 31. I sometimes feel lonely when we're together.
36.___ 36.___ 32. My partner disapproves of some of my friends.
33. My partner seems disinterested in sex.
34. We have an endless number of things to talk about.
35. I feel we share some of the same interests.
36. I have some needs that are not being met by my relationship.

53