Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669 DOI 10.1007/s11199-008-9454-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Gender Role Ideology as a Moderator of the Relationship between Social Power Tactics and Marital Satisfaction Joseph Schwarzwald & Meni Koslowsky & Efrat Ben Izhak-Nir

Published online: 20 September 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract The study examined whether the Power Interaction Model is applicable for explaining the choice of power tactics in conflict situations among Israeli married couples. In addition, gender role ideology was tested as a moderator of the relationship between power usage and marital satisfaction. Seventy-eight couples reported on self usage and spouse’s usage of power tactic behaviors during conflicts and completed questionnaires assessing marital satisfaction, gender role ideology (traditional, liberal) and demographics. Findings indicated greater agreement within couples for harsh rather than for soft tactic preference. As expected, preference for harsh tactics was associated with lower marital satisfaction yet gender role ideology moderated this association. The role of conflict and power usage in traditional and liberal families was addressed. Keywords Social power . Gender role ideology . Marital satisfaction

Introduction Conflicts are an unavoidable part of human interactions than their liberal counterparts occurring at both the inter-personal and inter-group levels. When they occur, each side attempts to advance its own interests, sometimes, at the expense of the other person or group. Social power refers to the specific tactics that are available to an influencing agent for changing the attitudes or behaviors of a target in a conflict situation. Raven (1992) introduced the Interpersonal Power J. Schwarzwald (*) : M. Koslowsky : E. B. Izhak-Nir Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel e-mail: [email protected]

Interaction Model (IPIM) to describe personal, situational, and cultural factors that affect the choice of power tactics. In the model, the influencing agent can be superior (manager), equal (spouse), or subordinate (worker) to the target. The investigation of this process is important as the choice of tactics for gaining compliance may determine the quality of the relationship between the parties involved. When appropriate, it can promote the goals of the parties and when inappropriate, it can hinder goal attainment and negatively affect the relationship. Investigations of the IPIM have been conducted within various settings across countries including technology students in India (Ansari et al. 1989), employees of public and private organizations in Italy (Pierro et al. 2004; Pierro and Raven 2006), workers in Spain (Piero and Melia 2003), teachers in the United states (Erchul and Raven 1997), and employees at Israeli hospitals, schools, and in the police department (Koslowsky et al. 2001; Schwarzwald et al. 2006; Schwarzwald et al. 2001, respectively). These studies focused on power tactics preferences in hierarchical relationships such as supervisor-subordinate and teacherstudent. The present study is a new application of the IPIM using equal dyads to examine the relationship between power usage and marital satisfaction in a sample of heterogeneous Israeli couples. Gender was included as an antecedent and gender role ideology as a moderator as they have already been shown to be relevant in helping to explain the association between power and satisfaction among American couples (e.g., Aida and Falbo 1991; Bentley et al. 2007; Dunbar 2004) and Mexican American couples (Beckman et al. 1999). As such, the purpose of the study is twofold: (a) to test whether the IPIM is applicable for more or less equal dyads such as married couples and (b) to examine whether individual difference variables found to be significant for American couples, where much

658

of the research has been conducted, also play a role in the Israeli culture. Interpersonal Power Interaction model The IPIM is the product of a long developmental process whose origins can be traced to the work of French and Raven (1959). These authors proposed one of the earliest and most sophisticated taxonomies of social power. It was applied in a series of studies including familial relations (McDonald 1979, 1980; Raven et al. 1975; Rollins and Thomas 1975), education (Erchul and Raven 1997; Jamieson and Thomas 1974), marketing and consumer psychology (Gaski 1986; Mackenzie and Zaichkowsky 1980), health and medicine (Raven 1988; Rodin and Janis 1982). The French and Raven taxonomy first included five distinct categories: Coercion (threat of punishment); Reward (promise of compensation); Legitimacy (drawing on one’s right to influence); Expertise (relying on one’s superior knowledge); and Reference (enhancing target’s identification with influencing agent). A sixth category, Information (presentation of convincing and logical material) was added by Raven in 1965. Approximately 25 years after its original formulation, Raven (1992, 1993, 2001) expanded this taxonomy and proposed a power interaction model with 11 power tactics involved in the process of social power choice. Now, coercion and reward were each separated into impersonal and personal forms: impersonal coercion—threat of punishment, personal coercion—threat of disapproval or dislike, impersonal reward—promise of monetary or nonmonetary compensation, and personal reward—promise to like or approve. Legitimate power was separated into four distinct categories: Legitimate reciprocity—the request is based on the agent having done something positive for the target. Legitimate equity—the request is based on compensating for either (a) hard work or sufferance by the agent or (b) harm inflicted by the target. Legitimate dependence—the request is based on social responsibility to assist another who is in need. Legitimate position—the request is attributed to one’s status or position. Whether in the earlier or later definition, each of the power tactics were viewed as belonging to one of two underlying dimensions or categories of “harsh” and “soft” strategies (e.g., Koslowsky and Schwarzwald 2001). The former includes personal and impersonal forms of reward and coercion, and legitimacy of position, equity, and reciprocity, and the latter includes expertise, reference, information, and legitimacy of dependence. Harsh tactics often rely on social or organizational resources and emphasize the influencing agent’s advantage or superiority over the target. In other situations, where a hierarchical

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669

relationship is less formalized or irrelevant such as among friends or romantic couples, the use of a harsh strategy may still create an advantage for the influencing agent as she/he can reward, punish or demand compliance by using authority. Indeed, in two recent studies where the relationship between the influencing agent and the target were experimentally manipulated, harsh tactics were preferred by high status members compared to their low status counterparts. The findings showed that harsh tactics were employed as a means for gaining advantage over the other party (Koslowsky et al. in press; Schwarzwald et al. 2005). In contrast, soft tactics emanate from personal resources and reflect a more egalitarian approach towards the target such that even if a hierarchical relationship exists it is less prominent. Perhaps, because of its greater social acceptability, one of the most consistent finding in power studies is the preference of soft tactics over harsh ones for gaining compliance across a wide spectrum of relationships (see review Schwarzwald and Koslowsky 2006). The applicability of individual tactics is situationally contingent; not all tactics are equally appropriate and/or available in all settings. For example, threat or coercion is not readily available for a worker trying to gain compliance from a supervisor. Similarly, a doctor cannot use legitimacy of equity in dealing with patients. Yet, the distinction between soft and harsh as overall strategies are relevant across many interpersonal or inter-group situations (Schwarzwald and Koslowsky 2006). This distinction allows for comparing findings across studies in different settings and was adapted here both in formulating the study’s theoretical expectations and as the measure of power usage. It is interesting to note that other investigators have also alluded to the same or similar categorization of social power. Terms such as “position” (from our perspective, harsh) and “personal” (soft) power bases (e.g., Yukl and Falbe 1991), “hard”, “soft” and “rational” power bases (Kipnis and Schmidt 1985) have been used by others. Of special relevance to our study on power and marital relations is the “masculine or male” and “feminine or female” power strategy dichotomy (Gruber and White 1986; Frieze and McHugh 1992). This distinction will be elaborated on below. Raven’s IPIM is more than just an expansion of the original power tactic taxonomy. It delineates factors associated with the process of power choice by identifying relevant antecedents, moderators, and mediators that affect power tactic preference in conflict situations. The model identifies socio-cultural, situational, and personal dimensions that serve as antecedents of social power preference. However, the operationalization of these dimensions into specific variables depends on the issues to be investigated and the relevance of the variables in that setting (for a

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669

review of some of the considerations in defining a study’s operational constructs, see Koslowsky and Schwarzwald in press). A more detailed example showing how the model has been tested would be instructive here. In one study conducted in Israel, we examined power choice by teachers in conflicts with pupils (Schwarzwald et al. 2006). Our first variable, educational philosophy was included as a situational variable. One would expect harsh power tactics to be more prevalent in institutions where traditional, rather than liberal, philosophy predominates. Raven (1999) argued that strict religious observance frequently leads to the use of harsh power tactics for gaining compliance or obedience. The rationale stems from the notion that among traditional people there is less tolerance for deviance and individuality whereas among progressives such expression is encouraged. A second situational factor, grade level, was operationalized as representing the change in number and severity of conflicts occurring from pre-adolescence to early adolescence. Finally, pupil gender was examined as a socio-cultural variable. It was included because in several countries including the United States, despite the progress in gender equality, girls are still encouraged during socialization, to behave in a more obedient, conforming and passive manner (Diekman and Eagly 2000; Eagly 1987). In contrast, boys are expected to act more independently and competitively. Similar socialization differences by gender have been reported in other Western countries (e.g., Matud et al. 2003). Given this type of gender socialization, one would expect girls to be less involved in conflicts and manifest greater compliance than boys. In the aforementioned Israeli study (Schwarzwald et al. 2006), we found that teachers, across grade level, employed harsh tactics more frequently in conflicts with boys as compared to girls. Application of the Model to Marital Relationships As with other interpersonal interactions, marital relationships in Israel, similar to what has been reported in the United States, are not immune to conflicts and disagreements (e.g., Baum 2006; Cinamon et al. 2007). These Israeli researchers identify different areas of conflict content including children’s needs, distribution of house chores, and work-related issues. How do husbands and wives relate to these conflicts? In their cross-cultural study, Wagner et al. (1990) found that coping and resolving marital conflicts reflected, to a large extent, social and cultural variables, especially the degree of spouses’ interdependence. They inferred from their data that in Western countries (including the United States), where an egalitarian relationship was likely to exist, couples depended on each other for making personal decisions. In more traditional, non-Western

659

countries, husbands were likely to make the family decisions. Similarly, in her study of marital relationships in Israel, Kulik (2001) found that retired as well as nonretired Israeli couples, were overall egalitarian in their decision making. She also observed that just as has been reported in United States both societies encourage dual earner families and view job opportunities and professional activities for women in a positive light. Most recently, Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2007) in studying various types of conflict situations among Israeli couples, found as couples display a more liberal gender role ideology, the more egalitarian they are in areas such as household chores and the wife’s working outside the home. A legitimate research question, therefore, with theoretical and practical implications would be whether the power interaction model provides a framework for understanding the relationship between power usage in conflict situations and marital satisfaction in an Israeli context. A basic question concerning IPIM as regards marital relationships is to determine whether power tactic preference here is similar to findings that have been reported in other settings. One measure of the model’s applicability and generalizability would be to test whether the oft repeated finding of a harsh-soft distinction and prevalence of their usage would also be observed in a study of Israeli married couples. It appears that conflicts by themselves do not, necessarily, hurt the marital relationship rather the way a couple deals with these conflicts often do (Gottman and Krokoff 1989). Data from US samples (e.g., Smith et al. 1990) and Israeli ones (Desivilya and Gal 1996) have indicated that the way conflicts are dealt with is a more important determinant than the content of the conflict itself. It seems that couples refraining from confronting conflicts do not learn necessary skills and, often, lack confidence in their ability to find a solution to their disagreements (Notarius and Vanzetti 1983). As such, our study examines whether the use of IPIM defined power tactics (soft versus harsh) by couples in conflict situations is related to marital satisfaction. As the IPIM assumes that social/cultural variables often affect power choice and its outcomes, two such relevant variables, gender and gender role ideology, were also examined. The latter of these refers to a traditional or liberal perspective of the husband and wife’s role in marriage. In our analysis, the individual and combined effects of these variables will serve in a prediction model of marital satisfaction. In general, the use of power tactics has been found to be related to lower marital satisfaction, with harsh tactics leading to particularly negative effects (Aida and Falbo 1991; Zvonkovic et al. 1994). This stems from the nature of harsh tactics which are depicted as heavy handed, nonsocial, and emphasize the influencing agent’s advantage over the target (Bruins 1999). In the present study, we

660

expected a negative correlation between harsh power usage and marital satisfaction. The relationship between gender and power usage was also examined. Ample research has already shown that traits associated with men focus on the individual whereas women’s traits are more communal (Eagly and Steffen 1984). Cejka and Eagly (1999) contend that these perceptions reflect a set of roles and behaviors that are gender appropriate. Moreover, the aforementioned “male” versus “female” power taxonomy is consistent with pervasive gender stereotypes as reported in the United States (Frieze and McHugh 1992; Gruber and White 1986). The emergence of these stereotypes has been attributed, at least partially, to occupational or status differences between the genders (Conway et al. 1996; Geis et al. 1984; Eagly and Steffen 1984). Similar overall patterns have been found in Israel, too. For example, taking their cue from research by Gilligan and Wiggins (1988) that girls and boys experience different socialization formulations, Karniol et al. (1998) showed that empathy among Israeli adolescents was unrelated to grade or to masculinity but was associated with gender and femininity. In general, findings were consistent with Gilligan and Wiggins’ theorizing that girls’ socialization is oriented towards an ethic of caring rather than justice. In a cross-cultural study on managerial attitudes and behaviors associated with gender socialization, the pattern of response differences between men and women in five countries, including the United States and Israel, was quite similar (Konrad et al. 2001). Finally, in a study of Israeli adolescents in conflict situations, Shwarzwald and Koslowsky (1999) reported that power usage was indeed associated with gender such that males are expected to prefer harsh tactics and females, soft ones. The authors explained their findings in terms of gender stereotype differences. From another perspective, these differences may not depict how men and women actually are but how men and women ought to be (e.g., Heilman 2001; Rudman and Glick 2001). Indeed, gendered expectations may underlie the differences found in the use of power strategies. Coincident with this conjecture, Keshet et al. (2006) in a study of social power in Israel, argued that a stereotypical view of gender may invoke expectations of differential power usage by men and women. Their findings supported these expectations and are consistent with the literature indicating that men are perceived as employing tactics such as reward, coercion, and legitimacy and women as preferring reference, helplessness, and indirect information (Gruber and White 1986; Johnson 1976, 1978). Although studies done in various settings have indicated a gender distinction in power usage (Bui et al. 1994; Gruber and White 1986; DuBrin 1991; Eagly and Johnson 1990; Falbo and Peplau 1980; Schwarzwald and Koslowsky 1999), the present

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669

study is the first one to investigate this relationship by applying the IPIM to the case of Israeli married couples. In organizations, for example, women were found to use soft power tactics, such as personal and negotiation strategies, altruism and rationality while men tended to use hard power tactics such as coercion, reward and punishment (Offerman and Kearney 1988; Offerman and Schrier 1985, Harper and Hirokawa 1988.) In a similar vein and consistent with gender role stereotypes, studies reporting gender distinctions also interpret harsh tactics as more legitimate for men than women, (Eagly 1983, 1987, 1995; Eagly and Johnson 1990; Gruber and White 1986). Finally, it should be noted that while most of the research has demonstrated gender differences in power strategies, some researchers (e.g. Aguinis and Adams 1998; Cowan et al. 1984) have found that gender alone has little if any relationship with power strategies. Yet, overall, the literature supports our contention of differential power usage within married couples and this was tested in the present study. Gender Role Ideology Gender role ideology was also included as a potential moderator of the relationship between power usage and marital satisfaction. This attitudinal construct reflects the division of roles between men and women at home and at work (Swim et al. 1995). Such attitudes are learned from experience (Somech and Drach-Zahavy 2007) and describe opinions and beliefs concerning family and work roles as they relate to perceived gender differences (Harris and Firestone 1998). Applying a bi-polar continuum ranging from traditional to liberal, the construct has been useful in distinguishing between attitudes within and between couples. Thus, in contrast to a traditional coupe which reinforces or adheres to expected differences in roles for men and women, a liberal couple emphasizes equality in home activities and in work roles. Although married couples in the same cohort would have been expected to experience a comparable gender role socialization process as they were exposed to similar life interactions, Kulik (2002) found that Israeli women are more liberal than their husbands. Furthermore, studies have also shown that gender role ideology serves as a moderator between various antecedents and work–family conflicts. Kluwer, Heesink and Van De Vliert (1997) reported that that in their study of Dutch couples, traditional couples were more inclined to avoid conflict than their traditional counterparts. The authors argue that the lack of conflict does not necessarily mean satisfaction with the relationship, and, indeed, often the opposite was true. In their analysis, the authors reported that for liberal families the division of household chores was paramount and needed to be worked out equitably and

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669

for traditional couples this issue was much less salient. This same pattern has also been demonstrated in US couples as well (Blaisure and Allen 1995). Again, Israel appears to follow the Western pattern. In a study conducted recently in Israel (Somech and Drach-Zahavy 2007), the authors reported that gender role ideology moderated the relationship between families’ coping strategies and work family conflict. When conflicts do arise and power tactics are employed to gain compliance, we contend that it is likely to be moderated by gender role ideology such that greater dissatisfaction would be observed for traditional, rather than liberal, couples. Moreover, it appears that among families with more liberal attitudes, women attempt to accept a more equal view of each party’s needs and attempt to divide household chores in a fair way (Baxter 1992; Deutsch et al. 1993; Kluwer et al. 1997; Starrels 1994). These findings are consistent with Kulik’s (1999) inferences from her study with Israeli couples. In families with a traditional role ideology, wives are expected to accept a husband’s decision whereas among couples with a relatively liberal gender role ideology, there is a freer exchange of and tolerance for different opinions and viewpoints. In summary, the following hypotheses were tested. 1. In conflict situations, husbands and wives exercise soft tactics more frequently than harsh tactics. 2. Compared to women, men resort more frequently to harsh tactics and less frequently to soft ones. 3. Greater usage of harsh tactics, as compared to soft ones, is associated with greater marital dissatisfaction. 4. Gender role ideology moderates the relationship between power and marital satisfaction such that greater power usage is more negatively associated with marital satisfaction among traditional couples rather than liberal ones.

Method Participants Participants included 78 pairs of married, heterosexual couples recruited from the central region of Israel using snowball sampling. The sample was restricted to couples that were married for, at least, one year; although our analysis showed that participating couples here had been married, at least, three years. Among the demographic indicators gathered were the following: mean years married, 9.94 (SD=4.33), average age, 34.72 (SD=4.99), average number of children, 2.50 (SD =1.05), mean years of education, 15.0 (SD=2.45). For these couples, 56% were of Western origin, 28% from the Middle East, and for 12%

661

were ethnically mixed; also, 49% classified themselves as religious. Although this was not designed as a random sample, it is interesting to note that our sample approximates the population demographics in Israel that consists of 37% of Western origin, 27% of Middle Easterners, and the rest born in the country (Ynet 2007, http://www. ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3131,00.html). Instruments Power Tactics Scale A modified version of the Bui et al. (1994) scale describing power tactic behaviors was used here. The scale is particularly appropriate for our study as it uses Raven’s (1992, 1993) social power framework for understanding power choice in romantic relationships. It begins with an introduction where respondents are asked to think about conflicts in their marital relationship and then indicate with what frequency each tactic was employed so as to get compliance. The scale was designed so that each participant completed the questionnaire twice, once for himself/ herself (referred to as self-usage) and a second time for his/ her spouse (referred to as spouse’s usage). In other words, two formats were used: (a) self-report and (b) report on spouse’s usage. For each perspective, the participant was presented with 14 statements describing different influencing tactics such as “I am willing to offer to do something pleasant for you, if you would comply” and “I believe that doing it my way would really be in your best interests”. Participants indicated how often they/their spouse employed the specific tactic (scale ranging from 1 “never” to 7 “very often”). The literature indicates that power tactics are not entirely independent but rather can be subsumed under two or three factors (Bui et al. 1994; Kipnis and Schmidt 1985). Furthermore, Koslowsky and Schwarzwald (2001) argue that there is a methodological advantage in using factor scores rather than individual tactics as they provide more reliable measures and permit comparisons among studies where different tactics were used or when certain tactics were not available. Although in the power literature, a dichotomy is more commonly observed, the original Bui et al. (1994) questionnaire, which was adapted here, yielded a three factor solution: harsh, soft, and rational (see Table 1). To determine which model best fits our data, we performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). As the measurement part of structural equation models, CFA determines whether the number of factors and the loadings of measured (indicator) variables on these factors are consistent with theoretical expectations. It should be noted that this analysis was done across individual participants, not as couples, yielding a sample size of 156. Four alternative models were

662

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669

Table 1 Taxonomy of social power bases according to Bui et al. (1994). Soft

Harsh

Rational

Expresses appreciation for compliance. Emphasizes his/her dependence.

Threatens to do something unpleasant. Will become angry.

Provides good or logical reasons for complying. Explains the benefits of compliance.

Alters facts.

Emphasizes the obligation to comply. Recalls something nice done previously to the spouse. Recalls something unpleasant done previously by spouse. Willing to do something in exchange for complianceb.

mean scores were calculated, one for harsh and another one for soft tactics (including the two items). Marital Satisfaction Scale

Uses a third party to obtain compliancea. Emphasizes that they have much in commonb. Expresses disappointment for non-compliance. a

This item was not included in our questionnaire since it is not a part of Raven’s model. b These items were actually undefined in Bui’s model and were included here following the Power Interaction Model definitions

compared: (a) basic independent model, (b) one-factor model which assumes that one underlying factor accounts for all tactics, (c) two-factor model consisting of harsh and soft tactics (including rational ones), and a (d) three-factor model distinguishing among harsh, soft, and rational tactics. Goodness of fit values are presented in Table 2. When comparing the two- with the one-factor model, a significant decrease in chi-square was observed, Δχ2 (1)= 91.25, p<.001. Similarly, the reduction in the chi-square value from the two- to the three-factor model was also significant, Δχ2 (2)=6.43, p<.05. Yet, the fact that chisquare values are often inflated (Maruyama 1998), the low reliability of the two items in the third factor (alpha=.54), as well as the negligible changes in the two fit values (GFI and AGFI) argues for keeping the more parsimonious twofactor model. Furthermore, an examination of the internal consistency measures for harsh tactics (α=.76) and soft tactics, without the two items from the third factor, (α=.70) as well as with these items included (.75), supported our argument that a two-factor solution is preferable. Thus, two

The short version (Kurdek 1992) of the Spanier (1976) scale was applied here. Using the accepted procedure for scales written in a foreign language, we translated the original from English to Hebrew and then back again to English (The Hebrew version of the scale is available on request from the senior author). The scale consists of 10 items; for eight of them, respondents are provided with descriptions of incidents (e.g., “you or your spouse leave the house after a spat”). Participants indicate how often this occurred on a scale ranging from 1 “never” to 7 “very often”. In the last two questions, respondents are asked to rank their present level of happiness and their attitude about the future success of their marriage. Mean scores on the scale ranged from “low marital satisfaction” (1) to “high marital satisfaction” (7). Coefficient alphas were calculated for overall, husband, and wife separately and found to be satisfactory (.79, .83, and .75, respectively). Gender Role Ideology The questionnaire is a translation of the modern sexism scale of Swim et al. (1995) which gauges gender role attitudes. Here too, a translation/back translation procedure was used (The Hebrew version of the scale is available on request from the senior author). It contains eight items such as “discrimination against women is no longer a problem in Israel” and “it is rare to see sexism on TV.” Subjects indicated agreement with item content on a scale ranging from 1 “strongly agree” (traditional) to 5 “strongly disagree (liberal)”. Coefficient alphas were .79 across all respondents, .71 for husbands, and .83 for wives. Median split was used to dichotomize between liberal and traditional groups. As the median value differed by gender, separate calculations were performed for husbands (median=3.43) and wives (median=3.88). Demographic Items Questions relating to participant’s age, education, ethnic origin, number of children, and years married were included in the questionnaire.

Table 2 Goodness of fit values for four alternative models. Model

x2

Df

GFI

AGFI

Procedure

Independent 1-Factor 2-Factor 3-Factor

1,133.36 356.92 265.67 252.81

78 65 64 62

.49 .83 .88 .89

.41 .76 .83 .83

After expressing agreement to partake in the study, scales were administered by the investigator’s graduate student at the couple’s home. They were told that the study examines how couples cope with conflict situations and, for gauging

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669

663

this information, were asked to fill out the questionnaire. Each spouse completed independently a booklet containing an introductory letter about the study and the promise of anonymity and confidentiality. The arrangement of the questionnaires was consistent and appeared in the following order: power tactics, marital satisfaction, gender role ideology, and demographic items. Analysis Main (power usage, gender) and moderating (gender role ideology) effects on marital satisfaction were examined from four viewpoints: self-report and spouses’ report separately for husband and wife. The analysis of the various viewpoints allows for testing whether satisfaction differs by perspective. Although gender role ideology is itself normally distributed, in our sample it violated rules of multivariate normality as its relationship with marital satisfaction showed non-linear trends and yielded non-significant correlations (for a discussion of some of these issues, see Tabachnick and Fidell 1989, p. 70–71). This is what necessitated its use as a dichotomous variable in the paper.

Results

to spouse; the latter reflects more liberal attitudes of wives compared to husbands. To test hypothesis 1, that soft tactics are preferred over harsh ones, within couple analyses were performed. The means used in these comparisons appear in Table 3. Similar to the findings reported in previous studies, our data with couples also supported this hypothesis. All comparisons of soft with harsh were significant: husband self-report, t(77)= 9.34, p<.01; husband report on spouse, t (77)=4.69, p<.01; wife self-report, t(77)=6.35, p<.01; wife report on spouse, t (77)=6.85, p<.01. We also examined the correlation between self-report of power usage with spouses’ report about respondent’s usage. For both harsh and soft tactics, the correlations were positive, which indicated convergence between self- and spouse’s- scores. However, the correlations were higher for harsh tactics (.47, p<.01, for wife-self, husband-spouse and.40, p<.01, for husband-self and wife-spouse scores) than for soft ones (.32, p<.05, and.15, ns, respectively). The implications of the difference in the magnitude of the correlations will be elaborated on in the “Discussion”. In hypothesis 2, we expected men, as compared to women, to resort more frequently to harsh tactics and less frequently to soft. The means presented in Table 3 did not support this hypothesis. Interestingly and unexpectedly, husbands reported greater usage of harsh tactics by their spouse than the wives reported about their spouses.

Descriptive Data Power Usage and Marital Satisfaction Table 3 provides the means and standard deviations of the study measures. A MANOVA by gender conducted on these measures yielded significant results, Wilks’ Lambda= .99, F=(6, 148)=4.83, p<.001, η2 =.16. Follow-up univariate ANOVAS (Table 3) were significant for harsh tactics attributed to spouse and gender role ideology. The former resulted from husbands’ greater ascription of harsh tactics to spouse as compared to wives’ ascription of harsh tactics Table 3 Means and (SDs) of the study measures by gender (N=78 husbands and 78 wives). Measures

Husbands

Wives

F(1, 153)

Soft—Self Soft—Spouse Harsh—Self Harsh—Spouse Marital satisfaction Gender role ideology

3.38 3.54 2.45 2.93 5.54 3.43

3.51 3.37 2.62 2.45 5.61 3.77

Ns Ns Ns 5.60* Ns 9.69**

(1.09) (1.21) (1.00) (1.25) (.82) (.66)

(1.12) (1.24) (1.13) (1.26) (.75) (.72)

Values for power tactics (soft, harsh) ranged from “never” (1) to “very often” (7); values for marital satisfaction ranged from “low” (1) to “high” (7); and values for gender role ideology ranged from “traditional” (1) to “liberal” (5). *p<.05 **, p<.01

In hypothesis 3, we expected that greater usage of harsh tactics, rather than soft ones, is associated with lower marital satisfaction. The correlations between power usage and marital satisfaction in Table 4 supported this hypothesis. One can readily see that regardless of perspective (self or spouse), the magnitude of the association was higher for harsh rather than soft tactics with the overall mean correlation for the latter (−.42) differing significantly (p< .01) from the former (−.18). As it is possible that participants engaged in more conflict are more likely to use tactics, and to remember Table 4 Correlations between marital satisfaction and power usage frequencies from self and spouse perspectives (N=78 husbands and 78 wives). Respondent

Husbands Wives

Self

Spouse

Soft

Harsh

Soft

Harsh

−.27* −.02

−.47** −.33**

−.20 −.24*

−.52** −.41**

*p <.05, ** p<.01 Note: Higher negative correlations represent greater dissatisfaction.

664

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669

Table 5 Correlation between power usage and marital satisfaction analyzed by gender and gender role ideology (N=78 husbands and 78 wives). Respondent gender Husbands Wives

Power factor Harsh Soft Harsh Soft

Traditional

Liberal

Self

Spouse

Self

Spouse

−.60** −.35* −.51** .02

−.61** −.13 −.60** −.42*

−.23 −.09 −.11 .03

−.36* −.31 −.19 .09

We also examined the moderator hypothesis by using ANOVA’s on the satisfaction scores (see Table 6). Respondent gender (husband/wife), gender role ideology (traditional/ liberal), and power usage (low/moderate/high) were all considered as between-subjects variables. Analyses were conducted separately for harsh and soft tactics, as reported for self and spouse. Harsh Tactics

Higher negative correlations represent greater dissatisfaction. *p<.05 **p<.01

them, the power tactics scale may well be a proxy measure for amount of conflict. We, therefore, reanalyzed our data adjusting for overall power score (harsh + soft) and used a relative frequency measure in calculating correlations. Although absolute values differed, the pattern was quite similar to the findings reported above with the overall mean correlation between marital satisfaction and harsh tactics (−.28) differing significantly (p<.01) from the correlation with soft tactics (.28). Interestingly, the difference in correlations here was even higher than before, yet, the ipsative nature of the data argues for using the unadjusted scores in reporting our findings. Gender Role Ideology The test of hypothesis 4 concerning gender role ideology as a moderator yielded findings supporting our contention that among traditional respondents, as compared to liberals, there is a higher negative correlation between power usage and marital satisfaction (see Table 5). Overall, this pattern was similar for self and spouse’s perspectives. Of the eight correlations relating to traditional respondents, six were significant. In contrast, among liberal respondents, only one correlation was significant. Comparing these two proportions yielded a significant difference (z=3.29, p<.01).

Self-perspective data yielded significant results for power usage, F(2, 142)=17.67, p<.001, η2 =.20 and for the interaction of gender role ideology by power usage, F(2, 142)=4.90, p<.01, η2 =.07. Perusal of the means indicate that satisfaction values decrease with an increase in power usage. The interaction stemmed from the significantly greater satisfaction difference, t(47)=2.93, p<.01, between high and low power usage among traditional, as compared to liberal, respondents (6.01 minus 4.69 versus 5.86 minus 5.39, respectively). A similar pattern was obtained for the ANOVA on spouse’s perspective, which yielded significant results for power usage, F(2, 142)=18.74, p<.001, η2 =.21 and the interaction of gender role ideology by power usage, F(2, 142)=5.23, p<.01, η2 =.07. As can be seen in Table 6, the difference in satisfaction between high and low power usage was significantly greater, t(47)=2.93, p<.01, for traditional than for liberal respondents (6.08 minus 4.75 versus 5.74 minus 5.35, respectively). Soft Tactics The ANOVA on self-perspective data did not yield any significant results. The parallel analysis for spouse’s perspective yielded significant results only for power usage, F(2, 142)=5.42, p<.005, η2 =.07. These findings partially supported our contention that satisfaction decreases with greater power usage, even for soft tactics; however, the expected moderating effect of gender role ideology was not confirmed.

Table 6 Means (SDs) satisfaction score according to gender role ideology and self-power usage. Perspective/ideology

Self Traditional Liberal Spouse Traditional Liberal

Soft

Harsh

Low (n=54)

Moderate (n=49)

High (n=53)

Low (n=51)

Moderate (n=54)

High (n=51)

5.74 (.71) 5.85 (.60)

5.51 (.97) 5.37 (.80)

5.40 (1.10) 5.66 (.44)

6.01 (.66) 5.86 (.71)

5.72 (.78) 5.61 (.63)

4.69 (.94) 5.39 (.60)

5.98 (.52) 5.69 (.75)

5.31 (1.00) 5.65 (.57)

5.19 (1.03) 5.48 (.66)

6.08 (.39) 5.74 (.68)

5.54 (.84) 5.76 (.57)

4.75 (.99) 5.35 (.65)

Mean scores on the scale ranged from low marital satisfaction (1) to high marital satisfaction (7).

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669

Demographics Finally, we examined, separately, for husband and wife, the association between marital satisfaction and each of the following demographics: education, number of children, age, and years of marriage. No significant or meaningful correlation was observed indicating that they do not affect our analysis or inferences from the data.

Discussion The main study purposes were, in general, supported. Firstly, data showed that the IPIM, which till now has been mainly investigated in hierarchical relationships, is also applicable to more or less equal dyads such as married couples. Secondly, individual difference variables such as gender and gender role ideology found to be significant for American couples also played a role in the Israeli culture. Before elaborating on the main results, it is necessary to address the appropriateness of the instrument used in the investigation. We adapted the scale developed by Bui et al. (1994), which uses Raven’s (1992, 1993) social power framework for understanding power choice in heterosexual romantic relationships. It is interesting to note that our scale here yielded three types of corroborating evidence for its robustness. First, the scale structure was consistent with the oft reported distinction between harsh and soft power tactics. Second, similar to other findings (for a review, see Koslowsky and Schwarzwald 2001), reported usage of soft tactics was more prevalent than harsh ones. Finally, the harsh tactics were more informative as they produced significant relationships that are not as readily detectable with soft tactics. Marital Satisfaction and Power A central finding from our analysis showed that lower marital satisfaction was related to greater usage of power tactics, in general, and, even more so for harsh tactics. This pattern was observed from both viewpoints: self-usage and reported spouse’s usage. As such, the data concurs with other works that power usage affects the quality of the relationship within romantically involved couples (Falbo and Peplau 1980; Aida and Falbo 1991; Bui et al. 1994). Marital dissatisfaction is a likely outcome of harsh tactics usage as they reflect a more deliberate and insensitive approach towards the spouse. They emphasize the superiority of the influencing agent who has the prerogative to punish, reward, or demand compliance from his/her partner, leaving little freedom of choice to the target (Roach 1994; Bruins 1999). In contrast, soft power tactics arouse less marital dissatisfaction. They are more thoughtful, caring,

665

less directive, allowing for greater contribution and participation on the part of the target by displaying an appreciation for his/her discretion. Interestingly, the correlation between participant selfreport and spouse’s report of his/her power usage was higher for harsh than for soft tactics. This finding is consistent with the notion that the application of harsh tactics by either side is more “informative” as it is less anticipated in a marital partnership, and, therefore, more likely to be noted and remembered. Studies in other settings have repeatedly found that various organizational and personal factors are associated more with harsh, rather than, soft tactics (see, Koslowsky and Schwarzwald in press). Gender role ideology was found to be a significant moderator as traditional couples, compared to liberal ones, expressed more dissatisfaction when behaviors differed from accepted social norms. Specifically, although dissatisfaction was positively correlated with harsh power tactics usage, the tendency was more pronounced among traditional participants. In contrast, for liberal participants, frequency of usage has relatively little impact on satisfaction. How can one understand this greater sensitivity on the part of traditional participants as compared to liberal ones? We contend that married couples interpret conflicts in terms of their gender role ideology consistent with a basic assumption in the Power Interaction Model that social power is influenced by social/cultural and situational factors (Etzioni 1975; Koslowsky and Schwarzwald 2001). For instance, social norms, i.e., the rules for how people are expected to act in a given social context, are believed to regulate the division of household chores and responsibilities within the family. Traditional couples are more rigid and derive many of their attitudes from sources outside the family. As such, they perceive conflicts to be indicative of a disturbance in the relationship with probable ramifications for marital satisfaction. Liberal couples, in contrast, are characterized by more flexible social norms, often determined through negotiation within the family structure. Therefore, among the latter couples, conflicts and power usage are perceived as less threatening to the relationship and likely to have less impact on marital satisfaction. Depending on whether the perceived source of social norms is without or within the family, coping style can be expected to differ. Traditional couples tend to rebuff conflicts or avoid direct confrontation whereas liberal ones tend to confront conflicts head on. Research has indicated that those who confront conflicts may show immediate dissatisfaction but in the long run are more satisfied than those who have avoided the confrontation (Gottman and Krokoff 1989; Noller and White 1990; Smith et al. 1990). Our expectation for differential usage of power tactics by gender which was based on the literature of gender

666

stereotypes (e.g., Cejka and Eagly 1999; Instone et al. 1983) as well as on social power findings (e.g., Eagly and Johnson 1990; Falbo and Peplau 1980; Schwarzwald and Koslowsky 1999) was not supported. One possible explanation for this outcome is that gender stereotyped differences are changing, especially with the mass entry of women into the labor force over the last 50 years. In examining the impact of this change in the labor market, Diekman and Eagly (2000) asked subjects to attribute personal and cognitive traits to typical males and females, in the past, present and future. Findings revealed that gender differences are diminishing over time such that women profiles are shifting and becoming more similar to those of men. People perceived women in the present to be more masculine than they were in the past and to become more masculine in the future. This trend was most noticeable for personality characteristics. Though not tested yet, it is likely that this convergence also occurred for power tactic preferences. Cultural Context In considering the inferences from our findings, one cannot ignore the fact that the study was conducted on married couples within the Israeli culture. We recognize the fact that culture may well play a role not only between societies but also within each one. In a recent study of Israeli teachers, Cohen (2006) found that ethnic and sub-cultural differences are related to behavior, yet attitudes still explain outcome variance beyond culture. What can be said about Israeli society as compared to other Western countries on measures relevant to our investigation? On several indicators, findings have supported the notion that Israel can be considered as a Western culture. Yodanis (2005, p. 652), in a multicultural comparison study, found Israel to be quite similar to the United States and other European countries on marital related attitudes and marital (in)equality. Interestingly, the study also showed that Israeli culture differs from its Western counterparts. In particular, the divorce rate is less than one-half that of the United States. Another related indicator that can shed some light on the generalizability of our findings is the place of the Israeli woman in the labor market. Families with a working mother are assumed to be more egalitarian (Yodanis 2005) and thus particularly sensitive to communication patterns and influence tactics used by the partner. Indeed, an examination of labor market trends over the past few decades indicate that Israeli women are entering the work force at the same pace as women in other Western countries (Kiehl and White 2003; Nadiv 2002). Overall, it appears that egalitarian marital relations in all these countries are on the rise. This concurs with our findings that men, as compared to women, do not resort to harsh tactics more

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669

frequently and to soft ones less frequently, a trend opposite to our original expectation. Limitations and Further Research The aforementioned lack of gender significance can also be a function of a limitation inherent in our study methodology which consisted of a self-report design. Carli (1999) contends that self-report measures often produce mixed results and may be less sensitive to gender effects than other techniques such as direct observation. Moreover, Crampton and Wagner (1994) argued that relationships among self-report scales are often prone to biases such as social desirability or percept-percept effect, and, therefore, likely to mask true relationships. On the other hand, data gathered with interview or observational techniques are not necessarily immune to distortion. Couples when asked to discuss specific issues may be less prone to impression management but such methodology may still be biased as it suffers from the artificial atmosphere created in the lab. It is recommended that before generalizing about the relationships between social power usage and marital satisfaction, the potential effect of gender needs to be tested using other techniques and situations. Moreover, the present study did not permit an analysis of conflict content as the participants were not provided with any specific issue or situation. Future investigators may want to examine whether conflict type moderates the relationship between power usage and satisfaction. For example, couples may argue about personal issues such as moving to a new location or how/where to spend their leisure time. In traditional families, the husband’s role as breadwinner is more clearly defined by social norms and in order to convince one’s spouse to move for his needs, it may be more acceptable for him to resort to harsh tactics for maintaining this value. In contrast, in a more liberal home, where the role of breadwinner is less clearly defined and, more likely to be negotiable, both sides can be expected to resort to similar tactics.

References Aguinis, H., & Adams, S. K. R. (1998). Social-role versus structural models of gender and influence use in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 23, 414–446. Aida, Y., & Falbo, T. (1991). Relationships between marital satisfaction, resources, and power strategies. Sex Roles, 24, 43– 56. Ansari, M. G., Tandon, K., & Lakhtakia, U. (1989). Organizational context and leader’s use of influence strategies. Psychological Studies, 34, 29–38. Baum, N. (2006). Postdivorce paternal disengagement: Failed mourning and role diffusion. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 245–254.

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669 Baxter, J. (1992). Power, attitudes and time: The domestic division of labour. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 23, 165–182. Beckman, L., Harvey, M. S., Satre, S. J., & Walker, M. A. (1999). Cultural beliefs about social influence strategies of Mexican immigrant women and their heterosexual partners. Sex Roles, 40, 871–892. Bentley, C. G., Galliher, R. V., & Ferguson, T. R. (2007). Associations among aspects of interpersonal power and relationship functioning in adolescent romantic couples. Sex Roles, 57, 483–495. Blaisure, K. R., & Allen, K. R. (1995). Feminists and the ideology and practice of marital equality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 5–19. Bruins, J. (1999). Social power and influence tactics: A theoretical introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 7–14. Bui, K. V. T., Raven, B. H., & Schwarzwald, J. (1994). Influence strategies in dating relationship: the effects of relationship satisfaction, gender, and perspective. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 429–442. Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 81–99. Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423. Cinamon, R. G., Weisel, A., & Tzuk, K. (2007). Work—family conflict within the family. Journal of Career Development, 34, 79–100. Cohen, A. (2006). The relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior in Arab and Jewish culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 105–118. Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, M. T., & Mount, L. (1996). Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 25–38. Cowan, G., Drinkard, J., & MacGavin, L. (1984). The effects of target, age, and gender on use of power strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1391–1398. Crampton, S., & Wagner, J. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro organizational research: an investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76. Desivilya, H. S., & Gal, R. (1996). Coping with stress in families of servicemen. Searching for “Win–Win” solutions to a conflict between the family and the military organization. Family Processes, 35, 211–225. Deutsch, F. M., Lussier, J. B., & Servis, L. J. (1993). Husbands at home: Predictors of parental participation in child care and housework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1154–1166. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188. DuBrin, A. J. (1991). Sex and gender differences in tactics of influence. Psychological Reports, 68, 635–646. Dunbar, N. (2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communications, 4, 235–248. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971–981. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754.

667 Erchul, E. P., & Raven, B. H. (1997). Social power in school consultation: A contemporary view of French and Raven’s bases of power model. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 437–471. Etzioni, A. (1975). Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe. Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618–628. French Jr., J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Frieze, I. H., & McHugh, M. C. (1992). Power and influence strategies in violent and nonviolent marriages. Psychology of Women Quarterly Special Issue: Women and Power, 16, 449–465. Gaski, J. F. (1986). Interrelations among channel entity’s power sources: impact of the exercise of the reward and coercion on expert, referent, and legitimate power sources. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 62–77. Geis, F. L., Brown, V., Jennings, J., & Corrado-Taylor, D. (1984). Sex vs. status in sex-associated stereotypes. Sex Roles, 11, 771–785. Gilligan, C., & Wiggins, G. (1988). The origins of morality in early childhood relationships. In C. Gilligan, J. V. Ward, & J. M. Taylor (Eds.), Mapping the moral domain (pp. 111–138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and marital satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47–52. Gruber, K. J., & White, J. W. (1986). Gender differences in the perceptions of self’s and other’s use of power strategies. Sex Roles, 15, 109–118. Harper, N. L., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). A comparison of persuasive strategies used by female and male managers: An examination of downward influence. Communication Quarterly, 36, 157–168. Harris, R. J., & Firestone, J. M. (1998). Changes in predictors of gender role ideologies among women: A multivariate analysis. Sex Roles, 38, 239–252. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674. Instone, D., Major, B., & Bunker, B. B. (1983). Gender, self confidence, and social influence strategies: An organizational simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 322–333. Jamieson, D. W., & Thomas, K. W. (1974). Power and conflict in the student–teacher relationship. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 10, 321–336. Johnson, P. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 99–110. Johnson, P. (1978). Women and interpersonal power. In I. H. Frieze, J. E. Parsons, P. B. Johnson, D. N. Ruble, & G. L. Zellman (Eds.), Women and sex roles: A social psychological perspectives. New York: Norton. Karniol, R., Gabay, R., Ochion, Y., & Harari, Y. (1998). Is gender or gender-role orientation a better predictor of empathy in adolescence. Sex Roles, 39, 45–59. Keshet, S., Kark, R., Pomerantz-Zorin, L., Koslowsky, M., & Schwarzwald, J. (2006). Gender, status, and the use of power strategies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 105–117. Kiehl, E. M., & White, M. A. (2003). Maternal adaptation during childbearing in Norway, Sweden and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 17, 96–103. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. (1985). The language of persuasion. Psychology Today, 19, 40–46. Kluwer, E. S., Heesink, J. A. M., & Van De Vliert, E. (1997). The marital dynamics of conflict over the division of labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 635–653.

668 Konrad, A. M., Kashlak, R., Yoshioka, I., Waryszak, R., & Toren, N. (2001). What do managers like to do? A five-country study. Group & Organization Management, 26, 401–433. Koslowsky, M., & Schwarzwald, J. (2001). The power interaction model: theory, methodology and empirical application. In A. Y. Lee-Chai, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power. (pp. 195–214). PA: Psychology Press. Koslowsky, M., & Schwarzwald (in press). Power tactics preference in organizations: Individual and situational factors. In D. Tjosvold & B. von Kipppenberg (Eds.), Power and independence in organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in press. Koslowsky, M., Schwarzwald, J., & Ashuri, S. (2001). On the Relationship between Subordinates’ compliance to Power Sources and Organizational Attitudes. Applied Psychology, 50, 455–476. Koslowsky, M., Schwarzwald, J., & Keshet, S. (in press). Moderators of social power usage for in-group/out-group targets: An experimental paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, in press. Kulik, L. (1999). Marital power relations, resources and gender role ideology: A multivariate model for assessing effect. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30, 189–206. Kulik, L. (2001). Marital relationships in late adulthood: Synchronous versus asynchronous couples. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 52, 323–339. Kulik, L. (2002). The impact of social background on gender-role ideology: Parents’ versus children’s attitudes. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 53–73. Kurdek, L. A. (1992). Dimensionality of the dyadic adjustment scale; evidence from heterosexual and homosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 22–35. Mackenzie, S. B., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1980). An analysis of alcohol advertising using French and Raven’s theory of social influence. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Psychology vol. XIII (pp. 708–712). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. CA: Sage. Matud, M. P., Ibáñez, I., Bethencourt, J. M., Marrero, R., & Carballeira, M. (2003). Structural gender differences in perceived social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1919–1929. McDonald, G. W. (1979). Determinants of maternal and paternal power in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 775–790. McDonald, G. W. (1980). Family power: The assessment of a decade of theory and research, 1970–1979. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 539–52. Nadiv, R. (2002). Part time work?. Jerusalem: Government of the State of Israel, Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. Noller, P., & White, A. (1990). The validity of the communication patterns questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 2, 478–482. Notarius, C. I., & Vanzetti, N. A. (1983). Marital agendas protocol. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment. (pp. 209– 227). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Offerman, L. R., & Kearney, C. T. (1988). Supervisor sex and subordinate influence strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 286–300. Offerman, L. R., & Schrier, P. E. (1985). Social influence strategies: The impact of sex, role, and attitudes toward power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 286–300. Peiró, J. M., & Meliá, J. L. (2003). Formal and informal interpersonal power in organisations: testing a bifactorial model of power in role-sets. Applied Psychology, 52, 14–35. Pierro, A., De Grada, E., Raven, B. H., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). Fonti, antecedenti e conseguenti del potere in contesti organizzativi: l’Interpersonal Power/Interaction Model [Causes, antecedents, and consequences of power in organizational settings: The Interpersonal Power/Interaction Model]. In A. Pierro (Ed.),

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669 Potere e Leadership. Teorie, metodi e applicazioni [Power and leadership: Theory, methods, and applications] (pp. 33–58). Roma: Carocci Editore. Pierro, A., & Raven, B. H. (2006). Basi del potere sociale: l’Interpersonal Power/Interaction Model. [Bases of social power: The Interpersonal Power/Interaction Model]. In A. Pierro (Ed.), Prospettive psicologiche sociali sul potere [Psychological perspectives of social power] (pp. 141–162). Milano: Franco Angeli. Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In D. Steiner, & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Raven, B. H. (1988). Power and compliance in health care. In S. Maes, C. C. Spielberger, P. B. Defares, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Topics in health psychology (pp. 119–244). London/New York: Wiley. Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217–244. Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 227–251. Raven, B. H. (1999). Kurt Lewin address: Influence, power, religion, and the mechanisms of social control. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 161–186. Raven, B. H. (2001). Power/interaction and interpersonal influence: Experimental investigations and case studies. In A. Lee-Chai, & J. Bargh (Eds.), Use and abuse of power (pp. 217–240). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Raven, B. H., Centers, R., & Rodrigues, A. (1975). The bases of conjugal power. In R. E. Cromwell, & D. H. Olson (Eds.), Power in Families. NY: Wiley. Raven, B. H., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Conflict and power. In P. G. Swingle (Ed.), The structure of conflict (pp. 69–109). NY: Academic Press. Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 307–332. Roach, K. D. (1994). Temporal patterns and effects of perceived instructor compliance–gaining use. Communication Education, 43, 236–254. Rodin, J., & Janis, I. L. (1982). The social influence of physicians and other health care practitioners as agents of change. In H. S. Friedman, & R. M. DiMatteo (Eds.), Interpersonal Issues in Health Care (pp. 33–50). New York: Academic. Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. W. (1975). A theory of parental power and compliance. In R. E. Cronwell, & D. H. Olson (Eds.), Power in families (pp. 38–60). New York: Sage. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. In L. L. Carli & A. H.Eagly (Eds.), Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762. Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1999). Gender, self-esteem and focus of interest in the use of power strategies by adolescents in conflict situations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 15–32. Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (2006). The interpersonal power interaction model: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological reflections. In D. Chadee, & J. Young (Eds.), Current Themes in Social Psychology (pp. 123–145). St. Augustine, Trinidad: SOCS, The University of the West Indies. Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Agassi, V. (2001). Captain’s leadership type and police officers’ compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 273–290. Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Allouf, M. (2005). Group membership, status, and social power preference. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 644–665. Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Brody-Shamir, S. (2006). Factors Related to Perceived Power Usage in Schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 445–462.

Sex Roles (2008) 59:657–669 Smith, D. A., Vivian, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (1990). Longitudinal prediction of marital discord from premarital expressions of affect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 790–797. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2007). Strategies for coping with work-family conflict: The distinctive relationships of gender role ideology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 1–19. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–25. Starrels, M. E. (1994). Husbands’ involvement in female gender-typed household chores. Sex Roles, 31, 473–491. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Wayne, S. H., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.

669 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row. Wagner, W., Kirchler, E., Clack, F., & Tekarslan, E. (1990). Male dominance, role segregation, and spouses’ interdependence in conflict. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 48–70. Yodanis, C. (2005). Divorce culture and marital gender equality: A cross-national study. Gender and Society, 19, 644–659. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416–423. Zvonkovic, A. M., Schmiege, C. J., & Hall, L. D. (1994). Influence strategies used when couples make work-family decisions and their importance for marital satisfaction. Family Relations, 43, 182–188.