Selected Literature Supplementing Psychology 409b Lecture
Notes for G21, Fall 2004
Dr. Leon James, Instructor
Back to the Lecture Notes: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/409b-g21-lecture-notes.htm
Fouled Out: How Gender Stereotypes Affect Women in Sports A Bibliography
Plan Lori Ann Saeki 2003
www2.hawaii.edu/~nahl/students/601-bib-Saeki.htm
Social Indicators of Marital Health & Wellbeing
marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU.htm
Americans haven’t given up on marriage as a cherished ideal. Indeed, most Americans continue to prize and value marriage as an important life goal, and the vast majority of us will marry at least once in a lifetime. By the mid-thirties, a majority of Americans have married at least once.
Most couples enter marriage with a strong desire and determination for a lifelong, loving partnership. Moreover, this desire may be increasing among the young. Since the 1980s, the percentage of young Americans who say that having a good marriage is extremely important to them as a life goal has increased slightly.
But when men and women marry today, they are entering a union that looks very different from the one that their parents or grandparents entered.
(...)
One reason Americans prize marriage so highly is that it is the source of deeply desired benefits such as sexual faithfulness, emotional support, mutual trust and lasting commitment. These benefits cannot be found in the marketplace, the workplace or on the Internet.
Most people aspire to a happy and long-lasting marriage. And they will enter marriage with the strong desire and determination for a lifelong and loving partnership. While they are married, most couples will also be sexually faithful to each other as long as the marriage lasts. According to the most comprehensive study of American sexual behavior, married people are nearly all alike in their sexual behavior: "once married, the vast majority have no other sexual partner; their past is essentially erased." [2]
However, although Americans haven’t stopped seeking or valuing happy and long-lasting marriage as an important life goal, they are increasingly likely to find that this goal eludes them. Americans may marry but they have a hard time achieving successful marriages. One measure of success is the intactness of the marriage. Although the divorce rate has leveled off, it remains at historically high levels. Roughly half of all marriages are likely to end in divorce or permanent separation, according to projections based on current divorce rates. Another measure of success is reported happiness in marriage. Over the past two decades, the percentage of people who say they are in "very happy" first marriages has declined substantially and continuously. Still another measure of success is social confidence in the likelihood of marital success. Young people, and especially young women, are growing more pessimistic about their chances for a happy and long-lasting marriage.
The popular culture strongly reinforces this sense of pessimism, even doom, about the chances for marital success. Divorce is an ever-present theme in the books, music and movies of the youth culture. And real life experience is hardly reassuring; today’s young adults have grown up in the midst of the divorce revolution, and they’ve witnessed marital failure and breakdown first-hand in their own families and in the families of friends, relatives, and neighbors. For children whose parents divorced, the risk of divorce is two to three times greater than it is for children from married parent families. But the pervasive generational experience of divorce has made almost all young adults more cautious and even wary of marriage. The percent of young people who say they agree or mostly agree with the statement "one sees so few good marriages that one questions it as a way of life" increased between 1976 and 1992, while the percent of those who say it is very likely they will stay married to the same person for life decreased over the same time period for both males and females. [3]
(...)
When we look at the state of marriage today, it is useful to consider the behavior and attitudes of young women. Historically, women are the normsetters in courtship and marital relationships as well as the bearers of the cultural traditions of marriage. (To test this proposition, simply compare the amount of space devoted to marriage in women’s magazines to that in men’s magazines.) So women’s attitudes and expectations for marriage are an important measure of overall social confidence in the institution and a weathervane of which way the marital winds are blowing.
What do we know about the mating and marrying behavior of young women today? For one thing, women are older when they marry. The median age of first marriage for a woman is now 25, compared to 20 in 1960. For another, women who marry today are much less likely to be virgins than women in past decades. For yet another, most young women enter marriage after having lived with a partner, though not always their marriage partner. Finally, a significant percentage of young women have children outside of marriage. Women who become single mothers are less likely to ever marry.
Compared to men, young women are more disenchanted with marriage. This growing pessimism is particularly pronounced among teenage girls. For high school girls who expect to marry (or who are already married), the belief that their marriage will last a lifetime has declined over the past two decades while high school boys have become slightly more optimistic. Teenage girls are increasingly tolerant of unwed childbearing. Indeed, they outpace teenage boys in their acceptance of unwed childbearing today, a notable reversal from earlier decades when teenage girls were less tolerant of nonmarital births than teenage boys.
Women’s disenchantment should not be taken as a lack of interest in having husbands. But their growing pessimism may reflect two convergent realities. One is women’s higher expectations for emotional intimacy in marriage and more exacting standards for a husband’s participation in childrearing and the overall work of the household. These expectations may not be shared or met by husbands, and thus the mismatch may lead to deep disappointment and dissatisfaction. The other is women’s growing economic independence. Because women are better educated and more likely to be employed outside of the home today than in the past, they are not as dependent on marriage as an economic partnership. Consequently, they are less likely to "put up" with a bad marriage out of sheer economic necessity and more likely to leave when they experience unhappiness in their marriages. Moreover, because wives are breadwinners, they expect a more equitable division of household work – not always a fifty-fifty split but fairness in the sharing of the work of the home. Thus, the experience of working outside the home contributes simultaneously to greater economic independence and less tolerance for husbands who exempt themselves from involvement with children and the household. "I don’t need a grown-up baby to take care of," is a complaint often voiced by working married mothers.
(...)
Figure 2. Percentage of All Persons Age 15 and Older Who Were Married, by Sex and Race, 1960-1998, United States
Year Males Females
Total Blacks Whites Total Blacks Whites
1960 69.3 60.9 70.2 65.9 59.8 66.6
1970 66.7 56.9 68.0 61.9 54.1 62.8
1980 63.2 48.8 65.0 58.9 44.6 60.7
1990 60.7 45.1 62.8 56.9 40.2 59.1
1998 58.0 41.4 60.2 54.8 36.3 57.5
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P20-514; Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1998 (Update) and earlier reports.
(...)
The belief that living together before marriage is a useful way "to find out whether you really get along," and thus a way to avoid a bad marriage and an eventual divorce, is now widespread among young people. But the available data on the effects of cohabitation contradict this belief. There is no evidence that those who decide to cohabit before marriage will have a stronger marriage than those who don’t live together, and some evidence to suggest that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage. [2]
(...)
Key Finding: Surveys of teen attitudes over the past few decades point up a growing disparity. The desire of teenagers for a long-term marriage is greater than ever, but girls have become more pessimistic about ever being able to have such a marriage and both boys and girls have become much more accepting of the alternatives to marriage.
To find out what the future may hold for marriage and family life it is important to determine what our nation’s youth are saying and thinking, and how their views have changed over time. Are these products of the divorce revolution going to continue the family ways of their parents? Or might there be a cultural counterrevolution among the young that could lead to a reversal of current family trends? Fortunately, since 1976 a nationally representative survey of high school seniors aptly titled Monitoring the Future, conducted annually by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, has asked numerous questions about family-related topics. [1]
Based on this survey, the percentage of both boys and girls who said that having a good marriage and family life was "extremely important" to them has increased over the decades by a modest but statistically significant amount (Figure 13). Eighty-three percent of girls stated this belief in 1995, with boys lagging behind at 73 percent. Other data from the Monitoring the Future survey show a moderate increase in the proportion of teenage respondents who said that they will most likely choose to get married in the long run, now about 80 percent. Only four percent say that they probably will not get married, with the remainder either already married or having "no idea." [2]
At the same time, answers to other questions by these teenagers indicate a growing pessimism among girls about the chances of actually fulfilling their desires and preferences, and a growing acceptance by both sexes of lifestyles that are alternatives to marriage. For girls who expect to marry (or who are already married), the belief that their marriage will last a lifetime has declined over the decades (Figure 14). So has agreement with the assumption "that most people will have fuller and happier lives if they choose legal marriage rather than staying single or just living with someone" (Figure 15). Less than a third of the girls and only slightly more than a third of the boys seem to believe, based on their answer to this question, that marriage is more beneficial to individuals than alternative lifestyles. Yet this belief is contrary to the available empirical evidence, which consistently indicates the substantial personal as well as social benefits of being married compared to staying single or just living with someone. [3]
The acceptance of non-marital lifestyles by young people has increased enormously over the decades. Witness the remarkable increase, especially among girls, in the acceptance of out-of-wedlock childbearing (Figure 16). And note that whereas in the 1970s girls tended to be more traditional than boys on this issue, today the tables have turned. With more than 50 percent of teenagers now accepting out-of-wedlock childbearing as a "worthwhile lifestyle," at least for others, they do not yet seem to grasp the enormous economic, social and personal costs of single parenthood.
Another remarkable increase is in the acceptance of living together before marriage, now by well over half of all teenagers (Figure 17). In this case girls remain more traditional than boys, but the gap is narrowing. Some of the growing acceptance is undoubtedly related to the belief that premarital cohabitation will actually strengthen marriage. Obviously they do not yet know that there is no evidence to support this belief, and some evidence suggesting that cohabitation is detrimental to later marriage.
In summary, most teenagers still seem to prefer a rather traditional family life for themselves, and the importance they place on a good marriage has actually increased slightly in recent years. But girls are becoming more pessimistic about their marital futures and both boys and girls, in ever-growing numbers, do not seem to care if others choose less traditional lifestyles.
marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU.htm
The Top Ten Myths of Divorce : Discussion of the most common misinformation about divorce
David Popenoe
1 Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages.
Although many people who divorce have successful subsequent marriages, the divorce rate of remarriages is in fact higher than that of first marriages.1 [Sources]
2 Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the chances of eventually divorcing.
Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have a considerably higher chance of eventually divorcing. The reasons for this are not well understood. In part, the type of people who are willing to cohabit may also be those who are more willing to divorce. There is some evidence that the act of cohabitation itself generates attitudes in people that are more conducive to divorce, for example the attitude that relationships are temporary and easily can be ended.2 [Sources]
3 Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly.
Divorce increases the risk of interpersonal problems in children. There is evidence, both from small qualitative studies and from large-scale, long-term empirical studies, that many of these problems are long lasting. In fact, they may even become worse in adulthood.3 [Sources]
4 Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce.
Many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together “for the sake of the children.”4[Sources]
5 Following divorce, the woman’s standard of living plummets by seventy three percent while that of the man’s improves by forty two percent.
This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman’s loss was twenty seven percent while the man’s gain was ten percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades.5 [Sources]
6 When parents don’t get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together.
A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents’ marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children’s well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce—and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type—the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce.6 [Sources]
7 Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and also have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have as much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes.
Marriages of the children of divorce actually have a much higher rate of divorce than the marriages of children from intact families. A major reason for this, according to a recent study, is that children learn about marital commitment or permanence by observing their parents. In the children of divorce, the sense of commitment to a lifelong marriage has been undermined.7 [Sources]
8 Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families.
The evidence suggests that stepfamilies are no improvement over single-parent families, even though typically income levels are higher and there is a father figure in the home. Stepfamilies tend to have their own set of problems, including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures and a very high risk of family breakup.8 [Sources]
9 Being very unhappy at certain points in a marriage is a good sign that the marriage will eventually end in divorce.
All marriages have their ups and downs. Recent research using a large national sample found that eighty six percent of people who were unhappily married in the late 1980s, and stayed with the marriage, indicated when interviewed five years later that they were happier. Indeed, three fifths of the formerly unhappily married couples rated their marriages as either “very happy” or “quite happy.”9 [Sources]
10 It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings
Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower.10 [Sources] Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be "badly behaved." Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and
marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubtoptenmyths.htm
Happy if you get as much as you put into the relationship?
On one hand, many of us would say that the benefits of marriage should be equally divided between two equal partners. On the other hand, another viewpoint (called equity theory) is that a married person will be happy if his/her benefits-to-inputs ratio is about the same as his/her partner's. Inputs and benefits include such things as physical attractiveness of one's partner; love, devotion, and sex from the partner; help with housework, child care, and decision-making; friendship, social life, and intellectual exchange; financial help; understanding and appreciation; and so on. Thus, you may put less into your marriage than your partner and get less than he or she out of it...and both of you might still be happy, you've gotten what you've earned. You may feel dissatisfied, however, if you put in less than your partner and get as much ("overbenefited") or certainly if you put in as much and get far less in return ("underbenefited"). The idea is to keep the relationship proportional:
Your benefits = Your partner's benefits There are two cautions: (1) if actual changes can not be
negotiated to make the relationship proportional or fair, some insecure people
use psychological distortion in order to justify (to themselves) the inequity.
Examples: a person may convince him/herself that the partner deserves a better
deal because he/she is "special." Another person may say, "Oh, sure my husband
gets a better deal than I do, but I'm as well off as most other women." If you
have had to work very hard to make a relationship work, there is a tendency
(because of cognitive dissonance) to believe that your partner is a real gem
and the relationship is essential. Don't deceive yourself. (2) Research also
suggests that men and women have different notions about fairness. Example:
women are more likely to spread the available rewards around equally,
regardless of who performed better, while men tend to give greater rewards to
the persons who perform better. Every married couple must periodically
reconsider the inputs made by each, the benefits available, and the needs of
each, and then decide "what is fair" for each person. If you do more for a
relationship, perhaps you should get more rewards. Don't cheat yourself. (From
mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap10/chap10h.htm
) A major line of research into the relationships between relational
comparisons and feelings about close relationships has been developed from the
principles of equity theory (Adams, 1965; Hatfield, Utne, & Traupmann, 1979;
Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). This approach has become particularly
important with the growing recognition of the equality of men and women and the
need for changes in attitudes toward the roles of men and women in private
relationships as well as in the public sphere. Equity theory is derived from a
principle of distributive justice that states that satisfaction with a
relationship will be greatest when the benefit that each person receives from
the relationship is in proportion to the amount contributed by him or her.
Inequity is perceived when people believe that they are getting more from the
relationship than they are putting into it (overbenefiting inequity) or when
they believe that they are contributing more than they are receiving (underbenefiting
inequity). That is, people are assumed to make judgments about the fairness of
their relationships by comparing their input to outcome ratio with that of their
partners. Equity theory also states that the perception of one's relationship as
inequitable will produce distress and motivate efforts to restore equity. Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, and Hay (1985) have argued that people
are aware of equity issues within their close relationships and that these
perceptions predict satisfaction with the relationships. Specifically, they
argued that people who believe their relationships are equitable will have the
highest level of satisfaction, followed by those who believe that they are
overbenefited in comparison with their partners. The lowest levels of
satisfaction are expected among people who believe they are underbenefited in
comparison with their partners. However, there is some controversy as to whether equity theory is an
appropriate model for predicting satisfaction in close relationships (see
Hatfield et al., 1979; Sprecher, 1986). There are two major arguments against
its application. The first argument is based on the complex nature of close
relationships, which makes precise assessment of the various contributions to
and benefits from relationships extremely difficult. Some researchers have
extended this argument and proposed that concern with fairness is inappropriate
in the context of loving relationships where much of the input is emotional and
thus essentially unquantifiable (Mills & Clark, 1982). Although this argument
undoubtedly has merit, particularly if assessments of equity are intended to be
precise, there are clearly both costs and benefits associated with close
relationships, and to argue that the distribution of these costs and benefits
between partners is not related to satisfaction with the relationship is to
dismiss a potentially importa nt aspect of the dynamics of close relationships.
The second argument that equity theory cannot be applied validly to close
relationships concerns the basic assumptions of the theory. The motivation
behind striving for equity, according equity theory (Walster et al., 1978), is
to maximize one's own outcomes in the long term. That is, in a situation or
relationship in which individuals are interdependent and their outcomes linked,
establishing equity as the model for interaction is the method by which
individuals are most likely to benefit in the long term (Tajfel, 1984). Thus,
equity theory was developed primarily as a model of distributive justice to be
applied within social groups. A number of studies have shown that equity is not
a strong predictor of satisfaction within close heterosexual relationships (Boldero,
1989; Gate, Lloyd, & Long, 1988). These findings may be interpreted as evidence
against equity theory per se or its application in a context where emotional
issues may be more important than justice issues. Alternatively, these findings
may indic ate that men and women do not see themselves as members of the same
social group. That is to say, their outcomes may not be linked in the way that
is required for equity theory to be an appropriate model. People may compare
their input/outcome ratio not with their partners but with their beliefs about
the ratio they could expect to experience in another relationship (Rusbult,
Martz, & Agnew, 1998; Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). Thus, it may be that people tend
to base their judgments about what they deserve from their relationships on
their identification as a member of a particular sex rather than on their
membership in a particular couple. Examination of this issue was the major goal
of this study. The most basic assumption underlying the application of equity theory to
close relationships is that the partners see each other as relevant for
comparison. If this is not the case, then other sources of social comparison may
provide the bulk of the information used by people to evaluate their
relationships. Buunk and Van Yperen (1991; see also Van Yperen and Buunk, 1991)
found that people's assessments of their own relationships in comparison with
those of other people they know of the same sex is a strong predictor of
satisfaction with the relationships. In this type of social comparison, where
the outcomes of individuals are not linked, people are expected to be most
satisfied when they feel advantaged by the comparison (Festinger, 1954). Buunk
and Van Yperen (1991) found that the more advantaged people consider themselves
to be in comparison to same-sex others, the more satisfaction they report with
their relationships. These findings suggest that men and women tend to evaluate the fairness of
exchanges within their close relationships by comparing their situations to
those of other people of the same sex rather than by comparison with their
partners. This finding is important given evidence that suggests that the roles
of men and women in relationships are not congruent, and that, in general, women
do significantly more of the work in their relationships than men do (Hoschchild
& Machung, 1989). If evaluations of relationships are made primarily on the
basis of within-sex comparisons, these roles are unlikely to be challenged and,
while this remains the case, institutionalised injustices may continue to occur.
(From
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2003_March/ai_100630994/pg_1 ) Title: AN ARRANGEMENT OF MARRIAGES , Psychology Today, 00333107, Jan/Feb93,
Vol. 26, Issue 1 Database: MasterFILE Premier Section: FAMILY; News & Trends Relationship Types AN ARRANGEMENT OF MARRIAGES TOLSTOY WASN'T EVEN half right. Happy couples are not all alike. Nor is every
unhappy family unhappy in its own way. If David H. Olson, Ph.D., is correct, there are seven basic types of
marriage. In three of them, where happiness abounds, couples held together by
the smooth working of most or all factors intrinsic to relationships -
personality compatibility, communication, conflict resolution, and sexuality. In
the other four, the marriage hinges more on external elements, leisure
activities, religious attitudes, financial management, children, family and
friends, and distress predominates. Unfortunately, Olson finds, most people today live in distressed marriages.
But his studies of over 15,000 couples point the way to happier futures for
many. Head of family social science at the University of Minnesota, Olson evaluated
marital partners - both as individuals and the consensus between them - along
the nine dimensions that previous studies had shown to be areas of trouble and
conflict. He also looked at their global assessment of satisfaction, and their
cohesion and adaptability. When he compiled all the data, families naturally
clustered into seven distinct profiles. Type 1 - Devitalized marriage: 40 percent of couples. There is pervasive
unhappiness with all relationship dimensions and considerable instability. Both
partners have considered divorce. They are critical of each other's personality.
Their marriage is strictly utilitarian. They tend to be younger, married a
shorter time, and have a lower income than other couples. Many are minorities.
More of them come from divorced homes, and more of them were previously divorced
themselves. They stay together for lack of alternatives. Type 2 - Financially focused: 11 percent of couples. These couples have
conflict and are unhappy in their communication and the way conflicts are
resolved. They are dissatisfied with the personal characteristics of their
partner, and there may be bitter personal attacks. Their careers come before the
relationship, and money or financial rewards hold them together. Their single
relationship strength is financial management. A high number of husbands and
wives in such utilitarian relationships have considered divorce. Type 3 - Conflicted: 14 percent. They are dissatisfied in many facets of the
relationship - personality issues, communication, conflict resolution, and
sexuality - and they may avoid or fail to settle issues between them. Instead,
they focus on and gain satisfaction from outside experiences such as leisure,
the children, religious life. But a high percentage of both partners have
considered divorce. Type 4 Traditional: 10 percent. They are moderately satisfied with many
relationship elements, while their sexual relationship and the way they
communicate are sources of distress. They are not as critical of each other's
personality as Types 1, 2 and 3. Their strength lies in a satisfying religious
life and good interaction with extended family and friends. The marriages are
relatively stable. These couples tend to be older, married longer, white, and
Protestant. Type 5 - Balanced: 8 percent. They are moderately satisfied with most
relationship areas, with real strengths in communication and problem-solving.
The biggest problem is financial management. They have higher than average
agreement on leisure, child-rearing, and sexuality. They place a high value on
the nuclear family. Still, over a quarter have considered divorce. Type 6 - Harmonious: 8 percent. They are highly satisfied with each other,
the expression of affection, and their sexual life. But they are self-centered,
viewing children as a burden and parenting as a source of distress. It may be
that, when a problem develops in this family, it shows up in the child. Type 7 - Vitalized: 9 percent. They are highly satisfied with almost every
dimension of their relationship and get along well. They are personally
integrated, have strong internal resources, and agree in most external areas.
They develop difficulties but resolve them well. They are economically better
off than most others, and tend to be older, married longer, white, Protestant.
They tend to be in their first marriage and come from intact families. There were a few surprises in the study. Even the best-adjusted couples are
not immune to marital shakiness; nearly one in four wives in Type 7 marriages
had at some point considered divorce. In fact, wives were generally less
satisfied than husbands in all seven marriage types. While recognizing the complexity of marriage relationships, the typology
points to the specific strengths families can build upon in times of crisis. And
it indicates weaknesses that need to be addressed if and when couples seek
therapy. ILLUSTRATIONS (3): (TRACY WALKER)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright of Psychology Today is the property of Sussex Publishers Inc. and
its content may not be copied or e-mailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder`s express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use. Source: Psychology Today, Jan/Feb93, Vol. 26 Issue 1, p22, 1p Item: 9301060686 From:
http://micro189.lib3.hawaii.edu:2101/citation.asp?tb=1&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_ug=sid+5EC9E986%2DCCEA%2D4D Here is an interesting article on how men and women express dominance with
each other:
Your inputs Your partner's inputs
03%2D8B0E%2D91A26868EE2F%40sessionmgr2+dbs+f5h+DFA4&_us=hd+False+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+
sm+ES+sl+%2D1+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00187288+2A05&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+f5hjnh+bt+TD+
+%22MRR%22+1314&_uso=st%5B2+%2D+st%5B1+%2D+st%5B0+%2Dtypes++of++marriage+tg%5B2+%2D
+tg%5B1+%2D+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Df5h+op%5B2+%2DAnd+op%5B1+%2DAnd+op%5B0+%2D+hd+
False+FB2E&cf=1&fn=11&rn=13
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/communication/brandon.htm
Back to 409b G21 Lecture Notes:
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/409b-g21-lecture-notes.htm