Nekeia Wilson disseration

Institute for Clinical Social Work

Generation X: Sustaining Black Marriages

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Institute for Clinical Social Work in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By Nekeia M. Wilson

Chicago, Illinois March 10, 2019

Copyright @ 2019 by Nekeia M. Wilson All rights reserved

2

Abstract

Ten same-race African American Generation X couples provide an underrepresented perspective on marriage and longevity beyond 10 years of marriage.

This qualitative grounded theory study aimed to provide an explanation about what factors aid in sustaining marriage despite the statistics of high divorce and single-parent households in the Black community. The subjective meaning of the participants’ experiences in marriage were revealed through intensive interviewing with the couples together and separately. Factors of sustainability and common themes such as “Marriage is Work� surfaced during the interview process. Love, morals/values, and partnership emerged as key factors of sustainability in marriage. The results are explored and understood from within the historical, social, and cultural contexts from which the participants were born, raised, and live. The couples in this study use supports and apply strategies to maintain their marriages which could lower the divorce rate, thus improving marriage and family outcomes for the African American Generation X population.

3

For my mother, father, family, and friends; and for the African American married couples making it work.

4

Like most complicated things where it's easy to get derailed, their marriage was successful because they mastered the basics. From that mastery they could weather anything. ~ Fawn Weaver

5

Acknowledgments It is with sincere and deep gratitude that I express my appreciation to the 10 couples known in this study as Misters and Misses McCabe, Waller, Henry, Washington, Knight, Myles, King, Steele, Garrett, and Stewart. The commitment of time and invitation into their lives and homes was a generous act of benevolence. The genuineness, candor, wisdom, and spirit of each couple allowed for a rich interviewing experience that left a lasting impression upon me that is beyond measure.

I want to thank my dissertation committee Mead Goedert, James Lampe, Ida Roldan, and Boris Thomas for their instruction, counsel, and support of my study since its inception. Your collective expertise, wisdom, and professionalism guided me throughout different stages of this process. I especially want to recognize Boris Thomas as influential in my decision to attend ICSW. A warm and special thanks to my phenomenal dissertation chair Jacquelyn Vincson. It is in part due to my experience of her first as a professor that I developed an affinity for research unlike before. Her mentorship and guidance encouraged me every step of the way. The unwavering commitment and countless hours she dedicated to the successful completion of this project are indescribable. I learned so much from my chair and could not imagine going on this journey without her.

NMW

6

Table of Contents Pa Abstract.....................................................................................................iii Acknowledgments.....................................................................................vi Table of Contents.....................................................................................vii List of Tables.............................................................................................xi List of Figures..........................................................................................xii List of Definitions...................................................................................xiii Chapter I. Introduction............................................................................................1 Purpose of Study Problem Statement Background of Topic Rationale for Study Clinical Significance Summary of Literature Research Question Major Concepts Research Approach Statement of Assumptions Epistemological Foundation Foregrounding 7

Table of Contents - Continued

II. Literature Review...............................................................................14 Generation X Marital Trends in the United States Divorce in the United States Conceptual Frameworks Theoretical Framework Benefits of Marriage Factors Contributing to Sustainability Conclusion III. Methodology......................................................................................47 Qualitative Rationale Research Sample Information Requested Research Process Data Collection Data Analysis Ethical Considerations Issues of Trustworthiness

8

Table of Contents - Continued

IV. Demographics and Results...............................................................67 Description of the Sample Demographics of the Sample Results of the Interview Process Results of Data Summary of Results V. Discussion, Findings, and Implications..........................................117 Overview of Findings: FOS and Common Themes Theoretical Discussion of Findings Implications of the Study Conclusion

9

Table of Contents - Continued

AppendicesY A. Public Notice of Study.......................................................................155 B. Screening Interview Script...............................................................157 C. Screening Interview Questions........................................................159 D. Couple Interview Script....................................................................161 E. Couple Interview Guide....................................................................163 F. Revised Couple Interview Guide......................................................165 G. Individual Spouse Interview Script.................................................168 H. Individual Spouse Interview Guide.................................................170 I. Revised Spouse Interview Guide.......................................................172 J. Sample Informed Consent.................................................................174 K. Sample Follow-up Email..................................................................178 References...............................................................................................180

10

List of Tables

Table

Page 1. Demographics of Sample Couples………………………………………...….74 2. Demographics of Sample Participants.…………………………………..…...78 3. Factors of Sustainability (FOS)….….………………………………….…..…86 4. Predictors of Marriage…………………………………….…………………..88 5. Personality Traits Self-reported by Wives & Husbands.……...………………91 6. Personality Traits Reported about Spouses……................................................92 7. Benefits of Marriage……………………………………...……...……………97 8. Drawbacks of Marriage………………………………….....…….…………...98 9. Disagreements……..………………………………………………………......99 10. Obstacles………..……………………………………………………...…...100 11. Coping Strategies………………………..…………………..……….……..101 12. Individual Coping Strategies..………………..…………………………..…102 13. Marital Supports……….………………………………..…………….....….110

11

List of Figures

Figure

Page 1. Factors of Sustainability..……………………………………………..……126 2. Grounded Theory……………….…………………………………………..132 3. Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks..…………………………….……133

12

List of Definitions

FOS

Factors of Sustainability

GenX/GenXers

Generation X Cohort

Couples interviews

Meeting with the wife and husband together

Wives Interviews

Individual meeting with the wife only

Husbands Interviews Individual meeting with the husband only Mates

Data collected from 20 participants during the couple, wives, and husbands’ interviews – total 10 Mates and 30 interviews

Husbands

Data collected from 10 male participants during the husbands’ interviews – total 10 Husbands

Wives

Data collected from 10 female participants during the wives’ interviews – total 10 Wives

13

1

Chapter I

Introduction Purpose of Study The purpose of this grounded theory study was to explore factors that sustain marriage among Generation (Gen) X African American couples. This study established a theory about what sustains GenX Black marriages over time. It provides an underrepresented perspective on Black marriages. Factors of sustainability, benefits, drawbacks, and supports unique to this group are identified. The central concept of this study is sustainable marriage. A sustainable marriage is defined as one that lasts for a minimum of 10 years. GenX married couples are those individuals born from 1965 to 1980. Participants had to identify their race of origin as Black, Black American, or African American. Throughout this study, African American and Black are used interchangeably as identifiers when referring to race and culture. These identifiers ensure accuracy in reporting findings from existing literature on this topic.

Problem Statement In 2009 the Institute for American Values (IAV) and the National Center on African American Marriages and Parenting (NCAAMP) summarized America’s leading marriage indicators. It explained the important connection between adults and children

2

and the bedrock of marriage as a “social institution that, when it’s working, meets social needs and…creates a context in which children can flourish” (NCAAMP, 2009, p. 11). It can be assumed that the ability to sustain a marriage over time greatly benefits the children. Nonetheless, it cannot be assumed that all marriages provide a stable, secure, loving, and nurturing environment for all children. However, children from married households have on average performed better with respect to childhood outcomes than children raised in other family structures (NCAAMP, 2009).

Previous research points out that 55% of Black children live in a single-parent household (Rowe, 2007). It also shows that children raised in single-parent households are more likely to have problems in school, as well as other social and emotional problems (Bjorklund, Ginther & Sundstrom, 2007). It is important to know more about what keeps Black marriages together given the rising number of Black children raised in single-parent households and its long-term impact.

Background of Topic Researchers Lamidi, Brown, and Manning (2015) found that “spousal homogamy” is common in the United States (US) and consists of couples that marry within similar demographics such as race/ethnicity, age, and education. Between 1964 and 2014, spousal racial homogamy or “intraracial coupling” was the most common marriage pattern in the US as many Black and White Americans (95%) married within their racial groups (Lamidi et al., 2015). However, little is known about the sustainability factors related to African American marriages in the US.

3

Kennedy and Ruggles (2014) evaluated the availability of data on divorce trends in the US and revealed many shortcomings in the data from the vital statistics system, the Current Population Survey (CPS), the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), and the American Community Survey (ACS). The shortcomings are a result of under-reporting and over-reporting; deteriorating data collection; time-period gaps (1970, 1980, 1990, and 2008-2010); composition of data collection (based on age, first marriage, ever-married factors); budgetary constraints; and the evolving delegation of responsibility to collect and maintain divorce data (Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014). The ACS is noted as the most credible source for vital statistics on divorce. Recent ACS data indicate that there is an increase in divorce for those aged 35 and older. The most recent data revealed that by 2010, “almost one-half of ever-married persons had been divorced or separated by the time they reached their 50s� (Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014).

Research has shown that Black Americans are least likely to get married and when they do marry, they are least likely to stay married as compared to White Americans (Dixon, 2009). Approximately two-thirds of Black marriages are likely to end in divorce in comparison to close to one-half for White Americans (Dixon, 2009).

Marriage is declining for all Americans, not just Black Americans. The divorce rate in the US is close to 50% and 67% for African Americans (Dixon, 2009). Marital trends in the US have changed within the past 25 years according to the National Center for Family and Marriage Research (Lamidi, 2015). There has been a decline in marriage and an increase in divorce across racial groups. A population survey that profiled women (age 18 to 49 in 1989 and 2014) revealed that Blacks had the largest decline (29%)

4

among those who had never married. Whites (16%) and Hispanics (18%) had similar declines in marriage. These changes in marital trends were attributed to the declining marriage rate; age at the time of marriage (29.2 among men, 27.5 among women); and an increase in cohabitation (Lamidi, 2015).

The US Census Bureau reported marital status across racial groups in 2004. The data revealed that 10.7% of Whites were divorced in comparison to 11.7% of Blacks (US Census Bureau, 2007). Ajayi, Beach, and Fincham (2011) noted that the divorce rate for African Americans (47%) within the first 10 years of marriage exceeds that of Whites (32%). Comparably, Spangler and Payne (2012) addressed the myth of the “seven-year itch” with data revealing that 31% of women divorced between 10-19 years of marriage while 23% divorced between 5 and 9 years. These data suggest that divorce is more likely to occur within 10-12 years of marriage (Spangler & Payne, 2012). Given the impact of divorce on children and families, it is important to learn about the factors that contribute to sustaining Black marriages. It is especially important in this study to examine GenX couples who have been married for 10 years or more.

Rationale for Study The statistics on Black Americans’ decline in marriage, rates of divorce, and increase in single-parent households and its long-term impact on children are especially noteworthy. It raises an important question: How do Black marriages survive despite the alarming statistics? Many studies about African American marriages have used a “deficit perspective” to identify the problems and pathology among this group (Marks, Hopkins,

5

Chaney, Monroe, Nesteruk & Sasser, 2008). In this study, a strengths-based perspective was used as a lens for capturing the perspectives of African American couples and what has sustained their marriages over time.

This study focused on factors of sustainability, benefits, drawbacks, and supports unique to GenX Black married couples. It identified the heterosexual benefits of marriage from the perspective of the participants. Existing literature reveals that there are benefits to heterosexual marriage regardless of race. The heterosexual benefits of marriage include better physical and mental health, increased life expectancy (lower mortality and morbidity rates), social support, and financial stability (Ali & Ajilore, 2011; Dixon, 2009). Traditionally, marriage establishes and maintains family, creates and sustains the ties of kinship, and is the basis of community (Rowe, 2007). Historically, Black marriage was a collective obligation and a requirement for society that was essential for community (Rowe, 2007). Blacks endured slavery and discrimination for many decades. The constant struggle against these undermining influences left Black marriages fragile and extremely vulnerable (Pinderhughes, 2002). Essentially, marriage was the primary way in which Blacks overcame poverty and achieved middle-class status (Dixon, 2009). It is important to gain the perspective of GenX couples on marital longevity.

Clinical Significance It is important to know more about African American marriages that survive despite the alarming statistics on divorce within this population. Studies about GenX

6

Black marriages are limited and do not examine factors that contribute to sustainability.

Thus, little is known about what keeps these marriages together. This study adds to the literature on African American marriage. Furthermore, it is a resource for healthy marriage initiatives, policies, and programs that aim to increase/sustain marriage in the Black community. This study increases awareness among this population as they work to strengthen and maintain their marriages. Likewise, it guides professionals in social work practice and related fields to use a strengths-based approach when assessing the needs of this population or when providing direct service to African American couples and families. Lastly, developing a better understanding of what sustains marriage among Black GenX couples is informative and fills a gap in the research on this topic.

Summary of Literature Analysis of GenX Black marriages is limited in general and few studies examine marriages that survive despite the alarming statistics. A recent study on this topic focused primarily on the “baby boomer� generation of those born from 1946 through 1964 (Carlson, 2009). To add to the scope of research, this study focuses specifically on participants considered to be GenX. There are various titles and definitions for this population – Generation X, GenX, GenXers, Post-Boomers, and Baby Busters (Carlson, 2009; Wiedmer, 2015). The birth dates range from 1961 to 1982 (Carlson, 2009; Wiedmer, 2015). As previously noted, for the purposes of this study GenX married couples are those individuals born from 1965 to 1980. According to Carlson (2009), GenX individuals delayed marriage and parenthood

7

more than any other generation before them. Furthermore, this generation has the highest level of education (bachelor’s degree or higher) in the US (Wiedmer, 2015). We need to know more about the impact of age on marital stability for Black couples. Focusing on this generation provides a social context for understanding the sustainability factors unique to marriage among this group. The goal of this study is to establish a theory about what sustains marriage among GenX Black married couples. Examining factors that keep these couples together is a relevant topic of study since so many Black marriages end in divorce which negatively impacts the children involved.

Research Question This qualitative study aims to answer the question: What factors contribute to the sustainable marriages of Generation X African American couples? By using a grounded theory approach, a theory was established about what keeps GenX Black marriages intact over time.

Major Concepts The central concept in this study is sustainable marriage. As previously defined, a sustainable marriage is one that lasts for a minimum of 10 years since research shows that divorce is likely to occur between 10 and 12 years of marriage (Spangler & Payne, 2012).

GenX are those individuals born from 1965 to 1980. The criteria for participation in this study were specific. Study participants were limited to heterosexual couples aged 37 to 52 who had been legally married for 10 years or more to spouses of the same racial

8

background (e.g., Black, African American). A heterosexual couple consists of two people of the opposite sex. Couples who obtained marriage certificates were considered legally married. The participants had to identify their races of origin as Black, Black American, or African American. As a reminder for the reader, the terms Black and African American are used interchangeably throughout this report.

Additional areas explored in this study included the heterosexual benefits of marriage, drawbacks of marriage, marital strengths, gender roles, and marital supports.

Benefits of marriage are positive outcomes resulting from the heterosexual marital relationship. The drawbacks of marriage consist of any obstacle or negative effects resulting from the marriage. Gender roles are defined as spoken or unspoken expectations of wives or husbands and their responsibilities within their marriages and homes. Marital strengths consist of characteristics that a couple collectively possesses that contributes positively to their marriage. Finally, marital supports include any person, being, place, or thing (e.g., spirituality, counseling, extended family, and literature) that serves as a resource that promotes the individual and/or marriage.

Research Approach A grounded theory approach was used for this qualitative study to establish a theory that explains what sustains GenX Black marriages over time. Specifically, a constructivist grounded theory approach was applied, because it allows the investigator to focus on the theory that develops; learn about the experiences in the participants’ marriages; and reveal the factors unique to the population being studied (Creswell, 2014).

9

Using a grounded theory approach led to the identification of common themes about what sustains Black marriages over time. Grounded theory was also implemented as a method for analyzing data collected from interviews. This study aimed to answer the question: What factors contribute to the sustainable marriages of Generation X African American couples?

Social exchange theory was applied as a model for understanding what sustains marriage. It states that “individuals in social interaction attempt to maximize rewards and minimize costs to obtain the most profitable outcomes” (McDonald, 1981, p. 825). This approach was used to examine the attitudes and behaviors linked to commitment and decision-making when weighing the benefits and drawbacks of marriage. According to DeVault and Strong (1995), when marriages are in distress, couples are more likely to do a “cost-benefit” analysis. One can assume that the decision to remain married indicates that the heterosexual benefits of marriage are greater if a couple can endure over time.

Social exchange theory as a frame of reference will be presented in Chapter II.

Statement of Assumptions There were two general assumptions made in this study. It was assumed that the unique characteristics of GenXers and the social/cultural context of their lived experience influences the marital outcomes for this population. For example, GenXers grew up as “latchkey” kids who were products of divorce and family separations (Wiedmer, 2015).

As a result, this generational cohort is “engaging in financial planning, avoiding broken homes, and ensuring that children grow up with a parent available” (Wiedmer, 2015).

10

GenXers obtained higher levels of education, and they delayed marriage and parenthood more than other generations before them (Carlson, 2009; Wiedmer, 2015). This group was exposed to significant events in history. For example, this group witnessed and/or experienced gas shortages; the global energy crisis; technology and personal computers; human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS); and the emergence of music videos (Wiedmer, 2015). This list is not all-inclusive, but it highlights a range of historical and social events that may influence how this cohort sees the world. Additionally, it may influence their morals, values, and views on marriage.

Presumably, this study assists with qualifying the benefits of marriage based on the racial, economic, cultural, and the social contexts of GenXers. Several heterosexual benefits of marriage have been noted throughout the literature (Ali & Ajilore, 2011; Dixon, 2009; Flanders, 1996; Rowe, 2007; Zinn, 2004). However, the use of a comprehensive contextual approach to examining the heterosexual benefits of marriage has been limited (Zinn, 2004). Some contextual issues have been addressed. For example, research has shown that a lack of education and employment opportunities for African Americans creates a barrier to forming enduring marriages (Marks et al., 2008).

African American GenXers have had more educational and economic opportunities that precede generations of Black Americans. It is assumed that educational and economic barriers to forming stable marriages are reduced for Black GenXers, thus placing them at an advantage for maintaining stability in marriage.

Epistemological Foundation

11

A social constructivist worldview is used as a theoretical framework for research on this topic. The social and cultural context in which GenX Black married couples live and work influences their views on what it takes to sustain marriage over time. A social constructivist worldview is used as a guide when applying the model of social exchange theory to this study. It is also helpful to understanding Byrd’s (2009) concept of the social construction of marital commitment. She analyzed commitment based on the theoretical influences of life course perspectives, exchange models, and identity theories (Byrd, 2009, p. 320). Life course perspectives consider individual context, life events, and interactions with others as factors that influence marital commitment, unlike exchange models that look at attraction, alternatives, and barriers to marital dissolution in relation to commitment. From the perspective of identity theories, commitment is determined by the meaningfulness of a relationship “in relation to other roles or identities” (Byrd, 2009, p. 320). Thus, marital commitment as a social construction aligns with the constructivist worldview.

According to Creswell (2014), a social constructivist worldview considers the way individuals make meaning out of their own subjective experiences. Therefore, I can examine the complexity of one’s view as opposed to limiting the individual to a few categories. Furthermore, participants’ subjective meanings are typically formed through historical and cultural norms as well as interactions with others (Creswell, 2014). This study examined the marriages of GenX couples who were born during the same era and experienced approximately the same social and historical events. This is an understudied

12

group, and little is known about what factors contribute to the longevity of their marriages. A social constructivist approach guides the qualitative research design.

The research design consists of a grounded theory approach using an intensive interview methodology. A theory developed using interviews that allowed me to explore factors that sustain marriage from the view of the informants. Using interviews provided the best research method for this study because it gave me an opportunity to formulate interview questions that answered the central research question: What factors contribute to the sustainable marriages of Generation X African American couples? This approach is the best method for identifying related themes or categories from the view of the participants as well as collecting data until there is saturation of those themes.

Foregrounding Professionally, I have always worked with children, adolescents, and families.

The trend of single-parent households and its impact on the children is evident in my professional work. Family separations seem to be a relevant factor that contributes to emotional distress among the various populations of individuals and families I have worked with in the school, agency, and private practice settings.

Personally, the institution of marriage is one that I highly value. I am a member of the GenX cohort. My own experience of family separations and observations of dissolved marriages influenced my interest in this topic. My biological parents never married. The primary image of marriage that I had growing up was that of my mother and step-father. They are still married today. Other examples of marriage included my

13

friends’ parents and couples from my childhood church. As an adult, I have the examples of married friends and colleagues. As a single woman, I’ve heard from married people that marriage is hard work and I have questioned what that “work” consisted of. I even question why some couples are more “successful” in marriage. Likewise, I wonder why one spouse is willing to do the work and the other is not. I desired marriage growing up, and I ultimately desire to have an enduring marriage of my own in the future.

I also value the institution of marriage as a Christian and have always assumed that it was better to be married than single. Furthermore, I assumed that there were some fundamental approaches to marriage that increased the likelihood that a marriage would not end in divorce. These assumptions and my value system shape my understanding of what sustains marriage. Additionally, it influences the strengths-based approach used for this study and the analysis of data.

14

Chapter II

Literature Review The bodies of literature most relevant to this study are those on psychodynamic theories as well as African American marital strengths, resources, and supports.

Additionally, articles about the heterosexual benefits of marriage for all couples (regardless of race) are included as bodies of literature relevant to this topic. The existing literature pertaining to African American marriages identifies specific factors that contribute to marital longevity (Heaton, 2002; Marks et al., 2008; Phillips et al., 2012; Robinson & Blanton, 1993). A significant portion of the research on this topic tends to compare the marital longevity of African American and White couples. Furthermore, much of the research on enduring African American marriages focuses on the unique strengths and supports that make a positive contribution to these marriages.

This literature review is organized by some of the concepts and definitions previously mentioned. The key concepts in this study are sustainable marriage and GenX. A sustainable marriage is a legal union between two individuals in a heterosexual relationship that lasts for 10 years or more. GenX are those individuals born between 1965 and 1980. The benefits and challenges of marriage are defined as positive outcomes and negative effects or obstacles resulting from a marital relationship. Marital strengths

15

are the couple’s collective characteristics and positive contributions to the relationship.

Gender roles are those spoken or unspoken expectations of roles and responsibilities within a marriage.

Lastly, marital supports are defined as any person, place, or thing that serves the function of promoting and uplifting a couple’s marriage. This review of literature includes qualitative and quantitative studies as well as a meta-analysis of existing data and research on this topic. The following sections are organized by major concepts and a summary of relevant findings precedes the detailed review of literature, thus providing a roadmap for the reader to grasp key aspects.

The review of literature is comprised of empirical studies published between 1976 and 2016 with a specific focus on African American marriages and couples. Studies that address the broad subject of divorce and marital satisfaction for all married individuals and couples (not just African Americans) are included. The studies consisting of a metaanalysis are also included because they analyzed previous research findings and literature on this topic. Additional articles included are those that examined marital stability using social exchange theory as a frame of reference for understanding what sustains marriage over time. Social exchange theory as a frame of reference will be addressed later in this chapter.

Generation X The literature specific to GenX Black marriages is limited. A few relevant articles from scholars in various fields of study were used to identify characteristics of GenX as a

16

cohort. There are various titles and definitions for this population: Generation X, Gen X, Gen Xers, Post-Boomers, and Baby Busters (Carlson, 2009; Wiedmer, 2015). The birth dates for this group also vary among scholars and range from 1961 to 1982 (Carlson, 2009; Wiedmer, 2015). Attempts by scholars, researchers, and demographers to reach consensus on the birth date ranges for GenX has been unsuccessful. Thus, the years (beginning or ending) of a generational cohort is not exact. Nevertheless, this study used the definition of GenX as those individuals born between 1965 and 1980.

According to Carlson (2009), GenX individuals delayed marriage and parenthood more than any other generation before them. They were the first generation of “latchkey kids� who were often products of daycare rather than parental home care and whose parents often divorced (Wiedmer, 2015). Wiedmer described GenX as obtaining the highest level of education (bachelor’s degree or higher) in the US. Additionally, Wiedmer described GenXers as active, balanced, happy, and family-oriented individuals.

Marital Trends in the United States The marital trends in the US have changed significantly over the years. The U.S. Census Bureau (2010) reported marital trends and racial differences from 1890-2010.

From the years 2000 to 2010, age at first marriage for men and women increased slightly (Lee & Payne, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau 2010). By 2010, the age of men at their first marriage was 29 and 27 for women, which is 2 years more than it was in the year 2000 (Lee & Payne, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau 2010). In the year 2010, the median age at first

17

marriage by race was 30.7 years for Black men, 30 years for Black women, 27.8 years for White men, and 26.4 years for White women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

In the year 2008, the percentage of the population of “ever-married” individuals based on age and sex was 78.6% of males and 85.2% of females age 35-44; and 88.6% of males and 91.2% of females age 45-64 (Lee & Payne, 2010). The percentage of “nevermarried” women age 35 and over was 25% for Black women and 8% for White women.

The percentage of “never married” men age 45 and over was 20% for Black men and 9% for White men. The percentage of “never married” by race and age 45 and over is 20% Black women and 7% White women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Based on the data, slightly more women (regardless of race) than men were married. When race was factored in, a significantly higher percentage of Black women age 35 and over were never-married as compared to White women. Likewise, a significantly higher percentage of Black men age 45 and over were never-married in comparison to White men.

The data suggest that, in general, men and women (regardless of race) delayed marriage until their late 20’s. When comparing men and women based on race, Black men and Black women were more likely to marry a little later than their White counterparts. Based on the data, it seems relevant to consider age at the time of marriage and its impact on longevity for GenX Black couples. The data also indicates that not only are Black men and women marrying later in life, but many never marry in comparison to White men and women. Overall, the significant differences in marital trends suggest that the factors contributing to marital longevity for African American couples may be different from those of White Americans.

18

A meta-analysis of data taken from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) was conducted by Heaton (2002) to explain changes in marital stability over the past few decades. The sample included 10,847 women between the ages of 14 and 45, and the analysis was limited to first marriages. Heaton found that individual experiences in one’s family of origin influenced a person’s decisions and attitudes about marriage.

This raises concerns about the intergenerational transmission of divorce.

Divorce in the United States Divorce rates in the US have risen significantly over the past 150 years (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007). By reviewing data on marriage and divorce trends among generational cohorts, Stevenson and Wolfers defined the divorce rate as the number of new divorces each year on a per capita basis (p. 28). The U.S. divorce rate doubled between the 1960s and 1970s, with 48% of marriages dissolving within 25 years during the 1970s (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007, p. 30). These findings support Wiedmer’s (2015) claim that GenXers were the product of high divorce rates. This study also highlights the declining rate of marriage in the US, an increase in cohabitation preceding marriage, and factors impacting family formation in this country (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007). It was noted that couples “stay married when the gains from marriage exceed the gains from being single” (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007, p. 40). This claim is supported by social exchange theory which will be explained later in the conceptual framework section of this chapter.

19

Other studies examined the marital trends and divorce in the US. Clarkwest (2006) conducted a study that analyzed data from two waves (1987-1988 and 1992-1994) of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH). The study aimed to identify racial differences in premarital characteristics and attitudes, including its relation to marital disruption. Clarkwest (2006) found that attitudes about the value of marriage revealed little racial difference between African American and non-African American individuals. These findings do not explain the increase in marital disruption among African Americans. In fact, socioeconomic status and family formation were found throughout the literature to be factors that contribute the most to marital disruption among African Americans (Clarkwest, 2006; Dixon, 2009, Pinderhughes, 2002; Orbuch et al., 2013).

Research by Brown, Orbuch, and Bauermeister (2008) sought to identify predictors of divorce within the first 7 years of marriage. This study also examined the influence of subjective and organizational religious participation on marital stability among Black and White American couples. The sample included 373 (199 Black and 174 White) same-race couples in their first marriage and age 25-37. Brown et al. conducted face-to-face individual interviews and collected data at years 1, 3, and 7.

Education and race were found to be significant predictors of divorce over time, which is consistent with other studies (Brown et al., 2008; Clarkwest, 2006). The results suggest that Blacks and Whites with higher education are least likely to divorce. Interestingly, Brown et al. found that the odds of divorce decrease for Black husbands as their income increases but for White husbands an increase in income increases their odds for divorce.

20

These findings support previous studies proposing that education and socioeconomic status are predictors of divorce (Clarkwest, 2006; Dixon, 2009; Orbuch et al., 2013; Pinderhughes, 2002). Brown et al. also noted that within the Black community, divorce is tolerated and accepted more than it is in the White community. This may be in part due to the assertion made by other studies that extended family ties and support within African American families makes marital disruption more manageable (LaTaillade, 2006; Orbuch et al., 2013).

Amato (2010) also conducted research on divorce trends and pointed out the unfortunate reality that several states do not submit vital statistics on divorce to the federal government on a regular basis. This results in an incomplete count of how many divorces occur in the US each year (Amato, 2010, p. 650). Despite this, Amato used data from the U.S. Census Bureau, NSFG, and other data sources to capture the divorce trends. Amato’s analysis of the data revealed that 55% of African Americans divorced within the first 15 years of marriage as compared to 42% of non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics (p. 651). This is attributed to the complex historical, economic, structural, and cultural factors impacting African Americans (Amato, 2010, p. 651; Pinderhughes, 2002).

Amato (2010) highlighted the predictors of divorce as noted in longitudinal studies. “Domestic violence, frequent conflict, infidelity, the number of perceived relationship problems, a weak commitment to marriage, and low levels of love and trust between spouses were identified as predictors of marital disruption” (p. 652). Additional studies addressing the impact of divorce on children were also included. Children of divorced parents on average “score lower on a variety of emotional, behavioral, social,

21

health, and academic outcomes” when compared to children with “continuously married parents” (Amato, 2010, p. 653). Likewise, adults from divorced families were more likely to have less education, lower levels of psychological well-being, more marital problems, lack a feeling of closeness to their parents, and were at greater risk of divorce themselves (p. 653).

Conceptual Frameworks The social and cultural context in which GenX Black married couples live tend to influence their views on what it takes to sustain marriage over time. A social constructivist worldview is used as a lens to apply social exchange theory as a frame of reference. Social exchange theory is not a “theory” per se, but more of a model with “psychological underpinnings” developed by sociologists and social psychologists George Homans, Peter Blau, John Thibaut, and Harold Kelley (Emerson, 1976, pp. 335338). It is an approach that originated from social science theories such as exchange theory; and it is widely used within various fields of study such as economics, anthropology, sociology, and social psychology (Jefferies, 2002; Shornack, 1986; Sprecher, 1998, p. 32).

The basic concepts of social exchange theory are rewards and costs (Emerson, 1976; Jefferies, 2002; McDonald, 1981; Rank & LeCroy, 1983; Shornack, 1986; Sprecher, 1998). Rewards are generally defined as an exchange of things, resources, or activities that a person deems to be “pleasurable and gratifying” or of some value to them; and costs are defined as an exchange of resources that “result in a loss or

22

punishment” (Sprecher, 1998, p. 32). Sprecher (1998) also pointed out that cost may include missed opportunities such as the pursuit of a career due to being in a relationship.

Relationship outcomes may be positive or negative when factoring in the costs versus rewards. It has been argued that individuals determine the standard of the relationship outcomes and what they deserve. If the outcome falls below one’s standard the individual might seek alternatives outside the relationship that appear to be better.

However, if the outcomes fall above the individual’s standard he or she is likely to be satisfied in the relationship and not seek alternatives (Rank & LeCroy, 1983, p. 442).

Social exchange theory historically has been used to explain the process of mateselection and relationship formation but not used to study stability in marital relationships (McDonald, 1981, p. 826). There are a few articles that use social exchange theory as a framework for understanding marital stability (Emerson, 1976; Jefferies, 2002; McDonald, 1981; Rank & LeCroy, 1983; Shornack, 1986; Sprecher, 1998). McDonald explored social exchange theory as it relates to stable marital interaction patterns.

According to McDonald (1981), this theory is based on the idea that “individuals in social interaction attempt to maximize rewards and minimize costs to obtain the most profitable outcomes” (p. 825). An example of this is the traditional idea of a wife postponing her education/career to be a stay-at-home mom while her husband supports the family financially. In this example, the husband depends on the skills of the wife to raise their children and take care of the home while he works to provide for the family.

The wife depends on the husband’s financial resources, education, and other contributions. Both spouses consider and depend on the resources of the other. They

23

both factor in the resources they individually bring into the marriage as well as the costs (e.g., the wife’s education/career). McDonald described this as “the general patterning of social transactions involving the availability and/or exchange of valued resources between spouses, and the rewards and costs associated with such transactions and transaction expectations which culminate in dyadic or individual outcomes of profit or loss” (p. 829). Thus, social exchange theory aims to describe social behavior and the processes of interaction in a dyadic relationship (p. 825).

Previti and Amato (2003) conducted a study using national and longitudinal data from a 17-year study of marital instability over the life course. Previti and Amato analyzed participant responses to the question: “What are the most important factors keeping your marriage together?” Their study examined the responses to determine the odds of divorce in subsequent years. In this study, Levinger’s (1965) exchange theory was used as a lens for understanding what motivates people to stay married. According to Levinger’s theory (1965), people stay married when relationship rewards are higher, and the costs are lower. The study was conducted in 1980 and the sample consisted of 2,034 married individuals ages 55 or younger. Telephone interviews were conducted using random digit-dialing. Data collected were coded into three categories: rewards, barriers, and alternatives. Previti and Amato examined factors that held marriages together based on the personal accounts of the individuals.

The findings revealed that rewards such as love, respect, friendship, and communication provided cohesion in marriage (Previti & Amato, 2003, p. 570). Barriers such as children were noted as factors that kept marriages together. Likewise, barriers

24

such as “lack of financial resources, religious beliefs, commitment to the norm of lifelong marriage, and the maintenance of traditional breadwinner-homemaker roles” were also factors related to staying married (Previti & Amato, 2003, p. 570). The absence of good alternatives was noted as the reason for staying married for only a few (2%) participants (Previti & Amato, 2003, p. 570). The findings in this study revealed that people who identified rewards as reasons for staying together were happy in their marriage and least likely to end up divorced. Those who identified barriers or the absence of alternatives, were unhappy in their marriages and likely thinking or acting in ways that might lead to divorce (Previti & Amato, 2003, p. 570).

Jefferies (2002) conducted an analysis of empirical research to consider a theory of marital quality and stability. In this study, marital dissolution was defined as “a process in which divorce becomes increasingly likely as attitudes are followed by overt behavior” (pp. 47-48). Jefferies used exchange theory as one frame of reference for examining marital relationships. Exchange theory “emphasizes the idea that attitudes motivated by the desire to maximize rewards and minimize costs are of major importance in a considerable amount, if not most human behavior” (p. 49). In this study, Jefferies suggested that symbolic interactionist theory could also be used as a framework for understanding marital relationships. This theory focuses on the relationship between the husband and wife; and the underlying meaning and values in how they interact (p. 48).

Jefferies used both theories to analyze various concepts of love based on attraction, virtue, attitudes, and behaviors that impact one’s “construction of reality and process of interaction in marriage” (pp. 65-66).

25

A literature review was conducted by Bryant et al. (2010) and used to develop a conceptual framework that organizes existing research on the topic of African American marital quality and stability. Bryant et al. emphasized that marriage is embedded in one’s culture and, therefore, their experiences are interpreted in the context of their worlds, family, economic status, and with the backdrop of institutionalized racism (p. 158). The argument is made that many studies about African American marriage only compare those couples to their White counterparts and do not examine them within the context of their worlds (p. 158).

The conceptual framework for analyzing African American marital outcomes provided by Bryant et al. (2010) is organized by individual characteristics and psychosocial resources, stress and well-being, and couple interactions. Individual characteristics and psychosocial resources include racial identity, religiosity, social networks, problem solving, mastery and control, and emotional distress (Bryant et al., 2010). Marital stress and well-being include financial strain and employment status, work and occupational status, duties and obligations to extended family, presence of children, and racial discrimination and minority stress or status (Bryant et al., 2010).

Couple interactions include the role of egalitarianism in African American marriages (Bryant et al., 2010). This conceptual framework is relevant to the research on this topic and like other models of marriage mentioned in the literature (Chaney, 2010; Dixon, 2009; Marks et al., 2008; Pinderhughes, 2002).

Robinson and Blanton (1993) conducted a phenomenological study with 15 “welleducated� couples married at least 30 years. The study aimed to capture their perceptions

26

of qualities that sustained the relationship over time. The mean for years married was 40.4 years and the average age range for men and women was 55-70 years. The study was conducted using unstructured interviews with each spouse separately. The interviews were coded, and the data organized using a computer program. Analysis of the data suggested that intimacy (emotional, physical, and spiritual closeness); commitment (mutual consensus to sustain marriage); communication (sharing thoughts, feelings, problem-solving, and listening); congruence (shared perceptions of marital strengths); and religious faith (church involvement as well as social, emotional, and spiritual support) were key factors related to enduring marriages (pp. 40-44). Based on the findings, communication, congruence, commitment, and religious orientation were directly linked to intimacy which was the central factor related to enduring marriages (pp.

42-44).

Theoretical Framework Research using psychodynamic theories as a framework for conceptualizing marital stability is limited. Joan Berzoff (2012) stated that‌ Psychodynamic theories hold that we are all governed by unconscious forces in our minds, whose content is often shaped by our early experiences, much of which is not known to us. These theories are developmental and hold that our earliest experiences with others tend to shape us and our patterns of relating in unconscious ways. Psychodynamic theories maintain that we will inevitably (p. 5).

experience others in the present as like those we have known in the past‌

27

Heinz Kohut is an influential psychoanalyst that contributed to the field of psychodynamic theories. Kohut’s psychodynamic theory of self-psychology is used in this study as a framework to conceptualize marital relationships and thus sustainability.

The basic concepts of Kohut’s self-psychology (1971, 1977, 1984) are the development of a cohesive self through caregiver responsiveness to selfobject needs of mirroring, idealization, and twinship. A review of literature on these basic concepts will follow.

It is first important to note that Kohut’s theory of self-psychology overlaps with John Bowlby’s (1988) attachment theory. Many scholars (Fosshage, 1995; Ornstein, 1991; Marmarosh & Mann, 2014) have provided an overview of Kohut’s self-psychology and its contributions to the field. Therefore, I will provide a brief overview of literature to distinguish the basic concepts of self-psychology from attachment theory.

Additionally, studies that used other psychodynamic theories to conceptualize marriage are included in this review of existing literature.

According to Kohut (1984), the development of one’s sense of self is significantly impacted by early experiences of the caregiver’s ability to meet the needs of the child.

Kohut described those needs as selfobject needs. Ornstein (1991) presents definitions of specific self-psychological concepts as taken from Kohut’s writings. Selfobjects are defined as objects “which are either used in the service of the self…or which are themselves experienced as part of the self” (Kohut, 1971, p. xiv). Kohut (1984) further described selfobjects “as that dimension of our experience of another person that relates this person’s function in shoring up our self” (Fosshage, 1995, p. 243; Kohut, 1984, p.

49).

28

Kohut (1971, 1977, 1984) identified three types of selfobject needs which are simply described as follows: mirroring as the need for acknowledgment, affirmation, and affective attunement; idealization as the need for protection, security, safety, and to admire the parent; twinship as the need for an experience of “essential likeness,” to be alike or share similarities with another (Fosshage, 1995, p. 238). Adequate caregiver responsiveness to these three selfobject needs contribute to the development of a positive cohesive sense of self. However, any deficits in these needs create a variety of pathological problems in the areas of interpersonal relationships, emotional regulation, and narcissism (Fosshage, 1995; Kohut, 1984). The need for selfobject functions ties into individual motivations and subsequently behavior or actions.

Kohut advised therapists to use an empathic mode of observation or “vicarious introspection” as it relates to psychotherapy treatment (Kohut, 1959, 1982). This mode uses a “listening stance” that allows the therapist to obtain data by listening and understanding from within the vantage point of the patient (Fosshage, 1995, pp. 239-242; Kohut, 1959; Kohut, 1982). Kohut (1959) noted that… our psychological understanding is most easily achieved when we observe people of our own cultural background. Their movements, verbal behavior, desires, and sensitivities are similar to our own and we are enabled to empathize with them on the basis of clues that may seem insignificant to people from a different background. Yet even when we observe people from a different culture whose experience is unlike our own, we usually trust that we will be able to understand

29

them psychologically through the discovery of some common experiences with which we can empathize” (p. 463).

Marmarosh and Mann (2014) conducted a study aimed at understanding how selfobject needs and attachment styles relate to one another in treatment (p.301). In their review of literature, it was pointed out that “only two empirical papers have been published that highlight the relationship and overlap between Kohut’s (1984) selfobject needs and Bowlby’s (1988) attachment dimensions” (pp. 297-298).

Marmarosh and Mann (2014) also noted that there are similarities and differences between the concepts of selfobject needs and attachment styles. It was noted that both theories maintain the idea that “the responsiveness of the caregiver will influence how the child develops into an adult and how the adult will respond in intimate relationships” (p.

299). However, the difference between the two conceptualizations is that Bowlby focused on a sense of safety and security provided by the caregiver which allowed the child to explore the environment. In contrast, Kohut focused on “how the attunement of the caregiver and optimal frustrations fostered the development of a cohesive self that was able to move from primitive selfobject needs to more mature selfobject needs” (p.

300). Both developmental theories are compatible with social exchange theory in that for all three theories, the overall satisfaction of having one’s needs met in the relationship influences stability.

The study conducted by Marmarosh and Mann (2014) consisted of 83 patients participating in psychodynamic psychotherapy for a range of disorders by therapists that were second or third-year doctoral students in weekly supervision with psychoanalytic

30

clinicians. Participants completed the Selfobject Needs Inventory (SONI) which assessed their selfobject needs as described by Kohut – mirroring, idealizing, twinship. In summary, the study “revealed that there were significant relationships between selfobject needs and measures of narcissism, well-being, and personality functioning” (p. 299).

A study by Karakurt (2012) aimed to identify individual characteristics associated with relationship stability. This study included 162 heterosexual college students of whom 117 were female and in dating relationships that ranged from a month to 8 years.

The participants were between the ages of 18 and 26 years. They completed questionnaires that measured relationship satisfaction, closeness, commitment, communication, conflict resolution, social support network, attachment patterns, and personality trait measures (Karakurt, 2012). Overall, individual personality characteristics and social context were found to have a positive impact on relationship stability.

Although participants in the Karakurt (2012) study were not married, it was included because of its use of the psychodynamic theory of attachment as a lens for understanding the various factors that impact relationship stability. It was noted that “attachment theory asserts that relationship stability and satisfaction are largely based on satisfaction of attachment needs for comfort, care, and sexual gratification” (p. 136).

Karakurt’s results suggest that attachment theory may provide one explanation for relationship stability. Karakurt also cited interdependence theory, which is commonly used to explain relationship stability. Interdependence theory asserts that “individuals maintain their relationship due to the benefits of their interaction” (p. 136).

31

A review of literature revealed studies (Hollist & Miller, 2005; Karakurt, 2012) that also looked at marital relationships through the psychoanalytic lens of attachment theory. Other articles reviewed existing literature on attachment theory (Blakely & Dziadosz, 2015; Mikulincer et al., 2002). Attachment styles and internal working models are the main concepts in attachment theory. Attachment styles consist of secure, insecure anxious-ambivalent, and disorganized (Blakely & Dziadosz, 2015). In short, secure attachment is provided by a caregiver who actively cares for the individual. Insecure anxious-ambivalent attachment is provided by an inconsistent caregiver resulting in a negative view of self and a positive view of others. Disorganized attachment presents a fear of the caregiver that results in a negative view of oneself and others (Blakely & Dziadosz, 2015, p. 285).

Hollist and Miller (2005) examined attachment styles and marital quality using questionnaires to assess marital satisfaction and personal characteristics of 429 married individuals age 40 to 50. The mean age was 24.9 years at the time of marriage and the average individual had been married an average of 18 years (Hollist & Miller, 2005, p.

50). The sample was 57% male and 43% female with 90% of the sample being Caucasian. The Measure of Attachment Qualities (MAQ) is an instrument used in the study to measure attachment. Additionally, the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale was used to measure marital quality (p. 50). The findings revealed that by 10 years of marriage most individuals established a pattern of relating to their spouse; became parents; and demonstrated ways of being in their marriages that overall reduced the

32

likelihood of divorce. It was also noted that secure attachment had less influence on relationship quality for individuals married 10 years or more versus younger couples.

Mukulincer et al. (2002) reviewed existing studies that examined attachment styles as it relates to the stability of dating and marital relationships, as well as relationship quality and formation. A review of empirical findings revealed that individuals with a secure attachment style are more likely to attain marriage and least likely to divorce (p. 410). Other researchers also pointed out that there is a low divorce rate and higher marital satisfaction in securely attached couples (Hollist & Miller, 2005, p. 48; Mukulincer et al., 2002). A study reviewed by Hollist & Miller (2005) revealed that securely attached couples are more likely to be successful in the areas of “conflict resolution, relationship independence, commitment, trust, and positive emotions in marriage” (p. 48).

Few studies conceptualize marriage from the perspective of self-psychology and the basic concept of selfobject needs. Leone (2008) used the psychodynamic theory of self-psychology along with intersubjective theory to conceptualize couple relationships from a psychoanalytic perspective. She posited that the concept of selfobject needs reveal that individuals in couple relationships are looking for “experiences that help them consolidate and maintain a positive, cohesive sense of self” (p. 81). Overall, it is not uncommon to use more than one theory as a reference for understanding human behavior and psychological motivations.

Other bodies of work by various psychoanalysts were reviewed by Markovic (2000) to conceptualize marriage and marital relationships from a psychoanalytic

33

perspective. Markovic concluded that one’s relationship with a marital partner is directly linked to parental relationships, past relationships, and other important childhood relationships (p. 388). Markovic also pointed out that one’s unconscious motivations and needs define the dynamics of a marital relationship. Finally, it was concluded that “marital relationships are repetitions of early relationship patterns” (p. 388).

Benefits of Marriage Not only do couples benefit from marriage but their children do as well. A report by the Institute for American Values National Marriage Project (2011) formulated 30 conclusions from the Social Sciences about “Why Marriage Matters.” Of those, many included the heterosexual benefits of marriage for the children involved. The benefits include, but are not limited to, family stability, good parent-child relationships, better physical health, decreased rates of psychological distress and mental illness, and a decrease risk of becoming an unwed parent or divorced.

There are several studies that highlight the heterosexual benefits of marriage for the mates. Dixon (2009) reviewed several empirical studies suggesting that, regardless of race, there are generally numerous benefits to marriage. These benefits include being emotionally and physically healthier, happier, less stressed, and living longer than unmarried individuals (p. 30). Many of the studies reviewed revealed that “unmarried individuals have consistently more alcoholism and drinking problems; higher rates of mental hospital admissions; more health problems; higher death and suicide rates; and make less use of health care” (p. 30).

34

A similar study was conducted by Ali and Ajilore (2011) using data from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health that followed African American individuals from adolescence through adulthood. The data were collected from students in 132 U.S. schools nationwide in Grades 7 to 12. A total of 2,581 participants were interviewed in all three waves (1994, 1996, and 2002) using home surveys. The third wave included respondents that made the transition to adulthood and were at a “marriageable age” (Ali & Ajilore, 2011). Ali and Ajilore found that marriage leads to the reduction in risky health behaviors such as drinking and substance use. These studies suggest that the heterosexual benefits of marriage may be a factor influencing longevity.

A comprehensive literature review about the consequences of marriage for African Americans was conducted by Blackman, Clayton, Glenn, Malone-Colon, and Roberts (2005). They used scholarly articles, reports, books, and survey data collected by the American General Surveys. Blackman et al. (2005) defined intact families as married/unmarried with two biological parents and married two-parent step/foster families. The report aimed to answer four major questions: “What are the economic, psychosocial, and health-related consequences of marriage for African American men, women, and children? Do the consequences of marriage differ for Blacks and Whites? If racial differences exist, what explains the differences? What are the policy implications for these findings?” (p. 4).

Blackman et al. (2005) found that Black men benefit more from marriage than Black women who tend to benefit significantly less than do White women. Differences in marital quality was noted as the reason Blacks typically benefit less from marriage

35

overall than do Whites. Blackman et al. found that married Blacks benefit more economically than their White counterparts. This research also noted parental marriage as critical and beneficial to African American children, specifically young males (p. 6).

Even though there are general benefits of marriage for heterosexual couples and their children, this analysis of data suggests that those benefits may vary greatly for Black couples and children.

Chaney (2010) conducted a qualitative analysis of data collected from 31 African Americans between the age of 26 and 54 who were married a minimum of 3 years. This study aimed to determine the subjective meaning of being in a marital relationship through the narratives of the mates. The mean age of women was 35.71 and men 37.32 while the mean length of marriage was 9.98 years (p. 59). The mates were interviewed together in their homes and compensated with $25 for participating in the study. The interview data were analyzed using grounded theory and open-coding (p. 521). Four major themes: mutual dependence (support from spouse); companionship (friendship with spouse); commitment (determination to stay together); and work (time required to strengthen marriage) emerged from the couple narratives (p. 522). The findings of this study revealed that for African Americans, the meaning of the marital relationship was based on mutual dependence. This mutual dependence involves feeling confident that one’s spouse will support them over time (p. 528).

The institution of marriage and its benefits have been debated among various scholars. Some argue that local, state, and/or the federal governments benefit more from marriages than do the mates or American society (Flanders, 1996). Thus, marriage can

36

bring unanticipated financial consequences such as higher taxes and social security benefits (Barry, 2015; Flanders, 1996). This may be in part due to the tax and government laws as well as penalties for married individuals (Barry, 2015). However, some marriages may be at an economic advantage because of taxation and government benefits (Barry, 2015). Marriage has been identified by scholars as having a positive impact on the family, economy, physical health and longevity, mental health and emotional well-being, and crime and domestic violence (Ali & Ajilore, 2011; Dixon, 2009; Wilcox et al., 2011). Additionally, “economic resources due to shared income, pensions, social security benefits, financial assets…” are included as marital benefits (Wilcox et al., 2011; Zinn, 2004).

Factors Contributing to Sustainability Many studies focus on what is lacking in African American marriages but there are some studies that highlight enduring marriages. Thirty African American couples were recruited by civic or church leaders to be interviewed by researchers in a qualitative study exploring the question of how some African Americans could build strong, happy, enduring marriages (Marks et al., 2008). Most participants were from inner-city neighborhoods and their education levels ranged from GED certification to graduate degrees. The participants’ age ranged from 42 to 75 years with the average woman’s age being 53 and the average man’s age being 55. For this sample, the average length of marriage for the mates was about 26 years and they had an average of slightly fewer than three children (Marks et al., 2008).

37

A meta-analysis of data collected from the Family and Community Health Study was completed by Cutrona, Russell, Wesner, Burzette, and Bryant (2011). This study examined predictors of relationship stability over 5 years among cohabiting and married African American couples. The married participants consisted of 207 couples who had at least one elementary school-aged child. The study revealed that higher levels of education associated with higher income and less financial stress influenced marital longevity. Like previous studies, religiosity was noted as a resource that positively influenced the marriage. The data were collected over 5 years in three waves. Cutrona et al. found that 75% of the mates remained intact over the course of the study.

Like other studies, an ecological model of marriage was used that identified three levels of resources: individual, interpersonal, and social and economic (Bryant et al., 2010; Chaney, 2010; Dixon, 2009; Marks et al., 2008). The findings revealed positive individual factors such as education level and strong physical, mental, and emotional health as contributors to marital stability. This is consistent with other studies (Cutrona et al., 2011). Marks et al.’s (2008) study also revealed that these couples had high levels of trust and that relying on each other was a significant interpersonal resource contributing to their longevity. Additionally, the social and economic resources that contributed positively to the marriage were like those identified in other studies as they included influences from the family of origin, neighborhood, community, employment, and religion (Bryant et al., 2010; Chaney, 2010; Dixon, 2009; Marks et al., 2008). Marks et al. found that of the 30 couples who participated in the study, 27 of them identified as being religious. Religiosity as a resource or support is a common theme repeated

38

throughout the literature and seems to be a major factor contributing to stability within African American marriages (Brown et al., 2008; Clarkwest, 2006; Cutrona et al., 2011; Marks et al., 2008; Marks et al., 2012; Phillips et al., 2012).

Throughout the literature, other factors have been noted related to marital stability and predictors of marital disruption. In Heaton’s (2002) study, the initiation of sexual experiences before marriage was found to negatively influence marital stability. Like other studies, educational attainment was positively linked to marital stability (Clarkwest, 2006; Cutrona et al., 2011; Marks et al., 2008). According to Heaton, education as well as cohabitation were debatable factors linked to marital stability. Several of the studies mentioned in Heaton’s meta-analysis argued that educational attainment alone could not account for increased marital stability.

Studies on the increase of cohabitation suggested that cohabiting couples have characteristics that lead to less stable marriages (Heaton, 2002). Likewise, this suggestion is debatable as there is no direct connection between relationship stability and cohabitation (Heaton, 2002). Heaton pointed out that people who marry later in life are more mature, take more time during mate selection, and are more equipped to establish and maintain enduring marriages. However, in this study there was no significant relation between marital dissolution and age at the time of marriage for couples who married later in life. Luscombe (2010) analyzed survey data collected from the PEW Research Center and found that successful marriages are linked to age at the time of marriage and to higher education. This is a notable discrepancy. If age at the time of

39

marriage was a contributing factor, then presumably there should have been more enduring marriages over the past few decades (Heaton, 2002).

An analysis of existing literature conducted by Pinderhughes (2002) identified contextual factors such as slavery, unequal sex ratios, socioeconomic conditions, gender dynamics, and culture/society as having a significant impact on marital stability for African Americans. Similar contextual factors are noted throughout the literature (Dixon, 2009; LaTaillade, 2006). Pinderhughes (2002) sought to explain the male-female dynamic among African American couples and noted that a collaborative style and partnership among African American wives and husbands was critical to their survival.

Similarly, this style has been referenced in other studies and considered to be egalitarian (Beckett & Smith, 1981; Dixon 2009; Pinderhughes, 2002). Pinderhughes further explained how African American men placed significant value on a woman’s independence and strength. Additionally, these men preferred an equal partner rather than a submissive and cooperative one. Furthermore, collaboration rather than cooperation in decision making, and “friendship� as well as partnership were identified as characteristics of African American stable marriages and satisfied spouses (Pinderhughes, 2002).

Much of the literature in this review was conducted within the last 10 years.

However, an older and yet valuable study by Beckett and Smith (1981) is also included.

It provides a substantial meta-analysis of data consisting of 1605 families of which 551 were Black. It focused on understanding how tasks and responsibilities within families of working wives are organized and if there are any racial differences. The findings from

40

this study suggested that Black families are more egalitarian than White families. This means that all roles and responsibilities within the family are likely to be shared (Beckett & Smith, 1981). The results were also consistent with the trend of more women – Black and White – working outside the home. However, Black wives were more likely to be working full-time than White wives (Beckett & Smith, 1981). In general, working wives spend less time providing childcare and performing household duties because the roles are shared between spouses.

LaTaillade (2006) also reviewed current research on this topic. LaTaillade highlighted “culture-specific protective factors” such as family, kin, community, social support, spirituality and religiosity, and ethnic identity as the reasons many couples survive and thrive in the face of adversity. LaTaillade pointed out that African Americans have several strengths unique to their culture which serve as valuable resources to reducing conflict, preventing distress, and promoting positive treatment outcomes.

LaTaillade concluded from previous research findings that the “external environment can have a positive effect on couple relationships through potentially providing emotional and instrumental support to the couple, promoting positive exchanges between partners, and increasing partners’ satisfaction with the relationship” (p. 345).

One of a few studies that examined stability in the context of race and gender was conducted by Orbuch et al. (2013). It explored the effects of family ties on marital stability longitudinally. The sample included 373 (199 Black and 174 White) same-race couples in their first marriage. The couples participated in face-to-face individual interviews and telephone interviews. They were followed, and data were collected at

41

years 1, 3, 7, 14, and 16. This study examined the impact of emotional closeness to family of origin and in-laws on marital stability. It also examined the effects of family ties, emotional closeness, and conflict on marital stability by race and gender.

The findings suggested that Black American husbands experience significantly less closeness to in-laws and less family conflict than White American husbands (Orbuch et al., 2013). Likewise, Black American wives experience significantly less closeness and less conflict with in-laws than do White American wives; and there was no significant racial difference for husbands or wives in closeness to their own families of origin (Orbuch et al., 2013).

With respect to longevity, findings support the idea that early family ties are detrimental to marital stability only among White wives who have close emotional ties to their in-laws (Orbuch et al., 2013). However, close emotional ties with in-laws as reported by White and Black husbands as well as Black wives tend to increase marital stability (Orbuch et al., 2013). In Black marriages, the closeness of the family ties came along with more conflict and stress. This placed strain on the couples’ marriages, because they were often providing economic resources and psychological support to family members and in-laws without reciprocity (Orbuch et al., 2013).

Regarding spirituality and religiosity, it was revealed that religion plays a central role for African American married couples as they are more likely to regularly seek spiritual support in comparison to their unmarried counterparts (LaTaillade, 2006). The theme of religiosity/spirituality is consistently presented throughout the literature as a factor that contributes to stability in Black marriages (Brown et al., 2008; Clarkwest,

42

2006; Cutrona et al., 2011; Marks et al., 2008; Phillips et al., 2012). Lastly, the relation between ethnic identity and relationship stability was examined in this study. The findings revealed that positive feelings toward one’s ethnic group and heritage were associated with supportiveness in African American relationships (LaTaillade, 2006).

The study by Brown et al. (2008) also addressed religiosity and revealed that Blacks attended religious services more than Whites. Brown et al. found religiosity to be a predictor of marital stability over time as reported by Black and White wives and based on their church service attendance. The more wives attended religious services, the least likely the couple would divorce over time. According to Brown et al., even though Black wives were found to attend religious services more than Whites wives, they did not have greater marital stability like their White counterparts. The findings of this study raise additional questions about the impact of religiosity or spirituality on an individual’s motivation to sustain marriage. It also raises the question about whether incorporating such religious or spiritual practices in one’s marriage will help to sustain it over time. A few studies aimed to address the role of religiosity and spirituality in marriage and many authors have considered it to be a positive factor contributing to longevity in Black marriages (Brown et al., 2008; Clarkwest, 2006; Cutrona et al., 2011; LaTaillade, 2006; Marks et al., 2008; Phillips et al., 2012).

A qualitative study conducted by Marks, Tanner, Nesteruk, Chaney, and Baumgartner (2012) further explored the importance of religiosity or faith in African American marriages. In this study, 60 African American married couples with children were recruited by civic or church leaders to be interviewed by the researchers. Many of

43

the participants were from inner-city neighborhoods and all were of low to middle class socioeconomic status. The median age of the men was 55 and the women were 53 years old on average. Marks et al. found that the participants were highly religious and spent nearly 9 hours a week in faith-related activities such as prayer, scripture study, church attendance, and involvement. This study aimed to answer the question of how and why religion is relevant and important to these couples. Marks et al.’s study revealed common themes related to spiritual beliefs such as “Faith gets you through the rough times [in marriage]” and “God ordained marriage and family.” Like the previous study from Marks et al. (2008), this study includes the participants’ narratives and provides insight into how they experience religion and spirituality as marital support.

Another qualitative study conducted by Phillips, Wilmoth, and Marks (2012), focused specifically on the challenges and supports related to African American marriages. Phillips et al.’s sample included 71 couples who were married 15 to 60 years with the mean of 32 years married. The mean age of the husbands was 56.37 and the wives 56.45. The mean number of children per couple was 3.17. All participants reported religious affiliation and involvement. Phillip et al.’s study aimed to answer three questions: What is the main reason the marriage lasted so long? What is the biggest challenge to overcome in the marriage? What is the one thing the couples disagreed about the most over the years?

Fifty-one percent of the couples in the Phillip et al. (2012) study believed that “God/Jesus” was the reason their marriage lasted so long; 25% reported that issues with trust and infidelity were the biggest challenge; and 24% felt that money was the one thing

44

they disagreed about the most. These authors also noted Gottman’s six leading causes of marital conflict as work stress, in-laws, money, sex, house, and children (Gottman & Silver, 1999); and compared them to the participants’ responses. Work stress was the only cause that was not reflected in the participants’ responses, possibly due to the participants being older and in or near retirement.

Religiosity and spirituality are not the only supports mentioned in the literature.

Taylor, Brown, Chatters, and Lincoln (2012) conducted a mixed methods study in which they collected data from the National Survey of American Life and conducted 6082 faceto-face interviews with participants age 18 or older. The sample included African Americans, non-Hispanic Whites, and Blacks of Caribbean descent. It also included three subgroups of married, cohabiting, and romantically involved participants. This study explored relationship satisfaction and its relation to extended family support. For African Americans, emotional support from extended family was a positive factor that contributed to relationship satisfaction (Taylor et al., 2012). Supportive family relations are also noted in other studies as being beneficial to longevity in a marriage while also being a source of stress (Heaton, 2002; LaTaillade 2008; Marks et al., 2008).

In a similar study examining the connection between spirituality and marital satisfaction, Fincham, Ajayi, and Beach (2011) recruited 487 African American couples (430 married and 57 engaged) to participate in in-home interviews and obtained data from a study conducted by The Program for Strong African American Marriages (ProSAAM). The general finding was that African American couples were found to have lower marital satisfaction than White couples.

45

Fincham et al. (2011) noted that conceptualizing spirituality and religiosity is a challenge because they can serve independent functions, and both overlap. Fincham et al.’s results suggest that religion is positively associated with marital quality, because it provides social support of norms and values of marriage as well as relationship behaviors such as forgiveness. Religion also promotes psychological well-being, temperance, and sexual fidelity per Fincham et al. It is important to note that the findings suggest that spirituality was not necessarily shared between spouses, but religiosity was shared between them. Furthermore, the wives’ marital satisfaction was linked to the husbands’ religiosity. The influence of religiosity/spirituality as well as education, income, resources, extended family, and other factors appear to contribute to marital stability.

Conclusion A review of the literature indicated that individual, interpersonal, social, and economic factors such as age at the time of marriage, extended family support, higher levels of education, and less financial stress are predictors for marital longevity. The literature suggests that religiosity and spirituality play a role in sustaining marriage among Black Americans. It also suggests that there are many heterosexual benefits of marriage regardless of race. However, research consistently reveals alarming statistics related to African American marriages ending in divorce.

Many of the studies in this literature review included perspectives of African American couples from the generation of baby boomers. There remains a gap in the literature that examines marital stability among African Americans from the GenX

46

cohort. Likewise, the research is limited on what sustains marriage from the perspective of Black American couples - until now. This qualitative study uses a grounded theory approach to formulate a theory about what keeps these couples together. Many studies examine existing data on this topic, but few include a sample of Black couples as participants thus leaving a gap in the literature. This study provides a strengths-based approach and underrepresented perspective on African American marriages and the factors that influence their sustainability over time.

47

Chapter III

Methodology Grounded theory methodology was used in this qualitative study with a focus on social constructivism as the epistemological framework. A grounded theory approach allows for exploration of meanings the participants assign to their life experiences.

Moreover, a social constructivist view provides a guide for understanding these complex meanings and experiences within specific contexts. This methodological approach allows me to examine meanings beyond general categories. Additionally, I engaged with the participants during the interview process to formulate an understanding of how meaning is constructed from life experiences within the participants’ historical, social, and cultural context. Intensive interviewing provided the best research method for this study as it identified themes from the view of the participants. Furthermore, it aimed to answer the research question: What factors contribute to the sustainable marriages of Generation X African American couples? The research design is thoroughly outlined in this chapter and includes the implementation, data collection, and analysis processes.

48

Qualitative Rationale The qualitative research design for this study consists of a grounded theory approach. A grounded theory study does more than describe an experience. It generates a theory that explains a process, an action, or an interaction shaped by the view of many participants (Creswell, 2013, p. 83). I used this approach because I wanted to establish a theory that would explain the factors that influenced longevity in the marriages of GenX Black couples. I explain these factors from the perspectives of the participants. I used Charmaz’s (2014) constructivist and interpretive perspective to grounded theory to achieve this goal. This perspective “places priority on the studied phenomenon and sees both data and analysis as created from shared experiences and relationships with participants and other sources of data” (p. 239).

A social constructivist worldview is used as a theoretical framework for studying this topic. The social/cultural context in which GenX Black married couples live influences their views on what it takes to sustain marriage over time. This study takes an epistemological stance of social constructivism which maintains that knowledge and meaning are made or constructed by individuals to make sense out of their experiences.

These constructions are interpreted by me within an historical, social, and cultural context and against the shared “understandings, practices, language” within one’s world (Schwandt, 2000, p. 197). Using the worldview of social constructivism allowed me to rely on the participants’ experience and views about longevity in marriage. Furthermore,

49

a constructivist grounded theory approach provided the flexibility to continuously collect and interpret data that build on the participants’ perspective.

The grounded theory approach allows researchers to focus on theories that develop, learn about the experiences of the participants, and reveal the factors unique to the population being studied (Creswell, 2014, pp. 83-84). Using a grounded theory approach assisted in establishing common categories about what sustains Black marriages over time. Grounded theory was used as a method for analyzing data collected from couple and individual spouse interviews.

A theory was established using intensive interviewing, which allowed me to explore factors that sustain marriage from the view of the subjects. Intensive interviewing complements the grounded theory research design because it is open-ended and focuses on understanding the participants’ perspective, meanings, and experiences (Charmaz, 2014, p. 56). Using interviews was the best research method for this study because it gave me an opportunity to formulate open-ended interview questions to answer the central research question. Additionally, it offered the flexibility to change the interviewing approach as the data emerged and the study developed (Charmaz, 2014, p.

57). This approach created space for ideas to emerge, identified related themes or categories, and allowed me to collect data until there was saturation of those categories.

In the literature on Black marriages, methodological approaches vary and include a meta-analysis of data, quantitative studies (e.g. surveys), and qualitative studies (e.g. interviews). Many of the current studies on Black marriages do not examine factors that contribute to sustainability. Therefore, little is known about the factors that influence

50

longevity in Black marriages. In general, analysis of GenX Black marriages is limited.

Few studies examine marriages that survive despite the alarming statistics that Blacks are at a higher risk of divorce than Whites (Dixon, 2009). Recent studies focused primarily on the “baby boomer” generation of those born from 1946 through 1964 (Carlson, 2009).

To add to the scope of research on this topic, this study focused specifically on participants considered to be GenX. Focusing on this generation provided a social context for understanding the sustainability factors unique to marriage within this group.

Previous qualitative studies on this topic included sample sizes of 60 total participants, thus 30 couples (Marks et al., 2008; Marks et al., 2012). Couple interviews generating triangulated data points (e.g. wife report, husband report, interviewer observations) are the primary method for collecting data on this topic (Marks et al., 2008; Marks et al., 2012). Scholars believe that individual interviews promote “more candid, accurate, and honest responses” while the couple interview “ignores or minimizes issues of gender and power” (Marks et al., 2008).

Charmaz recommended 20 to 30 individual participants in a grounded theory study to better establish a “well-saturated theory” (Creswell, 2014, p. 157). This study included 20 participants (10 couples) and thus a total of 30 interviews that were conducted. In this study, I adequately addressed concerns noted by scholars by conducting both couple and individual interviews (e.g., wife and husband reports).

Research Sample

51

The sample criteria for participation in this study were specific. Heterosexual and same-sex GenX married couples from diverse ethnic backgrounds were available, but participants in the study were limited to heterosexual couples age 37 to 52 who had been legally married for 10 years or more to a spouse of the same racial background (e.g., Black or African American). A heterosexual couple is made up of two people of the opposite sex. Couples who had obtained a marriage certificate were considered legally married. The participants had to be born between 1965 and 1980 and identify their race of origin as Black, Black American, or African American. Couples were excluded from this study if they were actively participating in individual or couples’ therapy. There was a preference for couples in their first marriage, but I accepted subjects if one/both spouses had been previously married no more than once. This selective approach to the criteria for participation aimed to achieve a homogenous sample. This approach did not take away from the topic of study as the focus is on identifying factors of sustainability.

The planned sample size for this study included 10 couples (20 participants). A sample size of 30 total participants is noted by Creswell (2014) for many grounded theory studies. This study included a total of 30 interviews and, therefore, three interviews per couple (e.g., husband report, wife report, and couple report). The argument can be made that multiple interviews with fewer participants is sufficient for establishing a theory.

Although the plan was to interview 10 couples, I assessed the need to interview additional couples in consultation with my dissertation research chairperson. Ultimately, we determined that saturation was accomplished with 10 couples. I took into consideration the specific criteria for participation and the time commitment required to

52

conduct three interviews per couple. I remained open to interviewing married couples from my personal or professional networks as the goal of 10 couples had proven to be an enormous challenge given the specific criteria for participants. This option was thoughtfully discussed with my research chairperson to ensure that it would be carefully considered only as a last resort. In consultation with my chair, I ultimately decided to interview three couples from my personal and professional networks.

Unsuccessful attempts were made to obtain permission to post a public notice (e.g., a flyer) about this study in medical buildings, universities, and on the “Black and Married with Kids� website. Permission was granted by some local businesses and community agencies within my community. Colleagues in the field of social work, psychology, education were asked to share the flyers with others. Additionally, I asked family, friends, and acquaintances (personal and professional) to share the flyer about this study with married and unmarried individuals in their professional and personal networks. Facebook, email, and text messaging were used as popular tools to disseminate information about the study to a broader audience. Participants in the study were asked to share the flyer and/or to refer other couples. The latter two recruitment approaches resulted in snowball sampling and were most effective in recruitment. Refer to Appendix A for the public notice/flyer.

Information Requested Demographic information was collected during the initial screening interview to ensure that the informants in this study met the criteria for participation. Approximately

53

10 demographic questions were asked during the initial screening interview. The informant was asked about the following: marital status, length of marriage, year of birth, current age, age at the time of marriage, gender and sexual preference, number of children with and without spouse, and ethnicity. Refer to Appendix B and C for the screening interview script and questions.

Research Process Intensive interviewing was used to answer the research question: What factors contribute to the sustainable marriages of Generation X African American couples? The timeframe for conducting these interviews occurred over the course of 4 months October, November, and December 2017 and January 2018. The procedures and implementation process included the following steps: 1. A public notice/flyer about this study and the request for married GenX (age 3752) heterosexual couples was posted online (e.g., Facebook) and in local Chicago business and community agencies. The notice was shared via email and text with my professional and personal contacts. The flyer included general information about the study and sample criteria. It also noted my contact information and a request to share the flyer with others. I attempted to obtain permission to advertise the study on the “Black and Married with Kids� website and within other businesses such as a medical office, university, and private practice offices. These attempts were not as successful during the recruitment process as online postings, emails, and text messages were.

Refer to Appendix A for a sample advertisement.

54

2. Potential GenX subjects who expressed interest in participating in the study (via phone, text, or email) received a response from me using the same mode of communication initiated by the potential subject(s). The potential subject(s) received a response from me within 24 hours or immediately upon receipt of notification of interest.

3. My initial response to interested subjects included notification that the subjects’ inquiry was received and a request to schedule a brief phone call to either explain the study further or to conduct the initial screening interview (preferably with the couple or with either the husband or wife). If only one spouse was available for the screening interview, I requested proof and/or confirmed that verbal informed consent from the unavailable spouse was previously obtained, thus, allowing one spouse to participate in the screening interview on behalf of a husband or wife. Proof of the unavailable spouse’s consent was accepted verbally or via email or text correspondence. Informed consent from both the husband and wife was documented on the initial screening interview form.

4. Upon consent, the screening interview was conducted within 5 to 10 minutes. The initial interview questions were designed to screen for any limitations, restrictions, or health conditions that might impede the interview process. It also screened for any accommodations that needed to be made to ensure that the subjects would be comfortable for the duration of the interview process. The goal was to assess if the subjects were stable and suitable for participation in the study. Refer to Appendix B and C for the screening interview script and questions.

5. At the conclusion of the screening interview, I determined if the potential couple met the criteria for this study. If so, the invitation to participate in the study was

55

extended upon the conclusion of the screening interview and/or via email. If not, the interested subjects were informed that they did not qualify to participate, and I thanked them for their time and interest in the study. Subjects who verbally accepted the invitation to participate in the study were asked to proceed with scheduling the couple interview.

6. Subjects who received an email message following the screening interview were either informed in an invitation letter or a thank you letter if they met the criteria for the study. The thank you email informed the subjects that they were not well suited for the study and simply thanked them for their interest and time. The invitation email included a request to confirm acceptance of the invitation to participate in the study; and a scheduling request with the subjects’ availability and preferred location for the couple interview.

7. The couple interview was scheduled either at the end of the screening or via email/text correspondence. Subsequently, the individual interviews were scheduled at the end of the couple interview or via email/text correspondence. I first inquired about the subjects’ availability and identified any scheduling conflicts. The subjects were informed that interviews would be conducted in their preferred settings for maximum convenience and comfortability. The options included, but were not limited to, the subjects’ homes, video-calling, and my office.

8. Depending on the mode of communication (i.e., email, phone, or text) used to schedule the couple and individual interviews, the subjects received a formal/informal confirmation from me indicating the agreed-upon date and time for the interviews.

9. Prior to and/or on the scheduled day of the couple and individual interviews, I contacted the subjects to confirm the location and time. No more than three attempts

56

were made to reach the subjects on the confirmed day and time. If the attempts were unsuccessful, no further attempts were made as it was assumed that the subjects were no longer interested in participating in the study.

10. For the couple and individual interviews, I waited no longer than 15 min on the confirmed date and time or at the preferred location (including by phone). If the subjects were not present or on time, I made one attempt to reach the subjects by telephone. If the attempt was unsuccessful, I made no further attempts as I assumed that the subjects were late or no longer interested in participating in the study. It is important to note that attempts to reach confirmed participants were successful.

Refer to Appendices D, E, and F for the couple interview script and interview guides.

Refer to Appendices G, H, and I for the individual interview script and interview guides. It should be noted that I made changes to the couple interview guide when the initial analysis of the data warranted a revision.

11. Upon meeting the subjects in person or via phone on the confirmed dates and times for the individual and couple interviews, I provided my background information (e.g., name, professional title, and school of study), an explanation of the study (e.g., purpose and criteria for participation), and an opportunity to ask questions about the study and my professional experience. I answered any questions before explaining the interview process, participant rights, and informed consent. Refer to Appendix J for the informed consent form.

12. The couple and individual interviews were conducted on separate days. Each couple was asked to complete the couple interview first before proceeding with the individual interviews. However, it should be noted that the order of the interviews (e.g., couple first) was subject to change at my discretion. Thus, only one husband

57

completed the individual interview before the couple interview. The individual spouse (husband or wife) interviews could be conducted on the same day at separate times and/or locations. Individual interviews were not allowed to be conducted on the same day as the couple interview.

13. During the in-person couple interviews, I answered any additional questions the subjects had about the study, obtained signed consent and verbal consent to audio record, provided the subjects with a “thank you� gift of $25 in the form of a Visa gift card, and proceeded with the interview questions. For the couple interviews conducted by phone, I obtained signed informed consent via email and provided the gift card via mail.

14. I conducted all the interviews. Participants were given the option to provide a pseudonym to be used in the study, but they did not take advantage of the opportunity.

I also informed the participants that a pseudonym or code would be provided to protect confidentiality.

15. The couple interviews were conducted first if one or both spouses decide to drop out of the study before their individual interviews. However, all couples participated in all requested interviews.

16. I waited a minimum of a week to conduct the individual spouse interviews after the first couple interview had been conducted. This allowed me to begin informal coding and analysis of interview data right away to identify emerging ideas, themes, or categories. I began an informal analysis while simultaneously collecting data during the couple and individual interviews. Informal coding and analysis of data were ongoing during the interview process. I maintained flexibility when scheduling

58

the time between couple and individual interviews. Therefore, I gave priority to the participants and interviewed them when they were available.

17. Throughout the interview process of each couple and individual spouse interview, I used a notebook for extensive memo-writing about each interview and observations of subjects. After each interview, I submitted the audio recording to the transcription service. The transcription service typically provided a quick turnaround within 24-48 hours. Upon receipt of the transcripts, I reviewed the interviews for accuracy.

18. Between interviews, I continued to use extensive memo-writing as a tool to record any reflections about the study. Additionally, I noted any new questions, themes, or categories that arose.

Data Collection A grounded theory approach to data collection was used to identify categories and the relation between categories that emerged from intensive interviewing of participants.

Intensive interviewing was used to study specific topics about which the research participants had substantial experience (Charmaz, 2014, p. 57). Therefore, this approach drew on the participants’ interpretation of their experience in marriage over time. This moved the study forward and ensured that rich data was gathered to answer the research question: What factors contribute to the sustainable marriages of Generation X Black couples?

An intensive interviewing method of data collection relies on open-ended questions, attempts to obtain detailed responses, focuses on understanding the perspectives of the informants, and allows for follow up when unexpected areas of

59

inquiry emerge (Charmaz 2014, p. 56). Overall, intensive interviewing offered flexibility and it fit with a grounded theory approach to analysis.

The following instruments/tools were used throughout the data collection process: cell phone, audio recorder, timer, computer, printer, flash/backup drives, memo notebook, and video-calling via Facetime. The documents for this study consisted of the public notice/flyer advertising the study, the informed consent form, and interview guides.

Data were collected from married couples that best met the criteria for this study.

A total of three interviews per couple (i.e., wife report, husband report, and couple report) were conducted. Therefore, this study included data collected from a total of 20 participants consisting of 30 total interviews. New information did not emerge, so I did not extend the number of participants or the number of interviews per couple. However, new themes emerged that warranted minor revisions to the interview questions.

The process of data collection included three stages and consisted of semistructured, audiotaped, and transcribed interviews. Responses to interview questions were audio recorded, typed as a PDF document, saved as a file, and encrypted for added security. The first stage included the initial screening in which the couple or at least one spouse was available for a phone interview screening which typically lasted 5 to 15 min.

The main purpose of the initial screening interview was to ensure that informants met the criteria for participation and to obtain demographic information. Additionally, the initial interview provided an opportunity for me to establish rapport with the participant(s), explain the study, and obtain verbal consent. The second stage of data collection consisted of either a face-to-face or phone interview with the couple together for

60

approximately an hour. The third stage of data collection consisted of separate face-toface or phone interviews with each spouse which lasted for approximately 45 min to an hour. The fourth and final stage included a follow-up email message to the participants which consisted of a summary of their interviews after the data was analyzed. The follow-up email message allowed me to confirm that the data accurately captured and summarized the participants’ interviews. This form of member-checking adds to the trustworthiness of the data and it validates the research.

Participants typically preferred to use the email account of one spouse. I offered to email each spouse separately the summary of their own individual interview to protect confidentiality. However, most of the participants preferred full transparency with their spouses and instructed me to send all interview summaries (i.e., couple report, wife report, and husband report) to one email account which was typically the wife’s account.

Data Analysis Charmaz’s (2014) approach to data analysis was used in this study because it is an open-ended process for examining the categories that emerge from grounded theory coding. According to Charmaz (2014), coding is a way to make sense of the data. It is the “link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data” (p. 113). Using Charmaz’s approach to data analysis allowed me to focus on interpretation and understanding as opposed to explanation as the theory developed.

Furthermore, using an interpretive approach to theory allowed me to consider the participants’ subjectivity and multiple realities (Charmaz, 2014, p. 231).

61

Analysis of the data collected from interviews began with the use of a transcription service (i.e., Transcription Puppy) to transcribe each audio recording to text.

Written field notes were recorded in a memo notebook and used as a tool for documenting observations and reflections. Each transcript was reviewed for accuracy.

All field notes and transcripts were reviewed a minimum of three times for accuracy.

Field notes and transcripts were reviewed to identify common terms used by participants and common themes that emerged in response to the interview questions. Common themes that emerged from the interview data were categorized accordingly. A coding software program (i.e., Atlas.ti) was used to identify common themes associated with the major concepts in this study.

Initial coding of the common themes and categories began in the early stages of the research. Coding began with the couple interviews during the second stage of data collection. This was also the beginning of the data analysis which occurred simultaneously while continuing to collect data from couple interviews. Line-by-line coding was used because it allowed me to name each line of data to be examined for analysis. Line-by-line coding is a “heuristic device� that engages every part of the data so that the meanings and actions within are clearly defined, compared, and linked between data processes for follow up (Charmaz, 2014, p. 121). This method provided an opportunity to identify words that speak to a theme. In-vivo codes were also used to identify specific language or terms the participants used. The purpose of using in-vivo codes is to keep the participants’ meanings of their experiences within the coding itself

62

(Charmaz, 2014, p. 134). Each interview (i.e., couple, wife, and husband) was fully transcribed and coded.

The data was analyzed to determine similarities and differences between couples, common themes, and categories that emerged. I created a visual chart to reflect the demographic information of the participants. All visual charts consisted of labels, letters, numbers, and/or color coding to ensure confidentiality. Furthermore, the use of these visual charts provided a way to easily organize and interpret the data. I continuously consulted with my research chairperson as a second set of eyes. This helped to improve validity and accuracy. Additionally, consultation reduced my bias during the coding and data analysis process. Upon completion of the data analysis, the results were discussed with my research chairperson and the findings were concluded. I conceptualized the findings from the psychoanalytic perspective of self-psychology with a focus on selfobject needs. The basic concepts of self-psychology were previously presented in Chapter II. As a reminder for the reader, the basic concepts of self-psychology and the development of a cohesive sense of self are linked to selfobject needs for mirroring, idealizing, and twinship. These concepts will be explored further in Chapter V as the Theoretical Discussion of Findings will address the influence of these concepts on the sustainability.

Ethical Considerations There was no benefit to the subjects for participating in this study. However, the primary benefit of this study is its contribution to furthering the knowledge in the field of

63

social work practice. There may be a secondary benefit to the subjects who participated in the study or to the specific population being studied. This study may have allowed the participants to reflect on their marriage in a way they had not ever done or had not done in a long time. Additionally, it may be informative for this population of African American couples and those who are considering marriage or even contemplating divorce. Couples may find that this study celebrates their longevity and yet validates their concerns. They may also feel encouraged to use supports and resources to sustain their marriage.

Professionals in various fields may use the findings from this study as guidance for the development of programs with initiatives to support enduring African American marriages. A potential implication of this study is that it is likely to further knowledge in the field of social work practice with couples. The findings may add to the strengthsbased perspective on this topic as opposed to the volume of literature that approaches the topic from a deficit perspective. As the principal investigator, it is my hope that this study positively influences the views about marriage among African Americans and creates a positive image of marriage within the Black community.

When obtaining informed consent from the participants, consent forms were simplified and jargon-free for easy comprehension and understanding. Participants were asked to state their highest level of education. Additionally, they were asked to confirm that they understood the purpose of the study, risks, and benefits of participating in the study. Lastly, participants were asked if they had any known limitations to their

64

participation in this study. These questions assisted in determining that each informant had the capacity to fully participate in the interview process.

The consent forms were briefly reviewed with the participants and I answered questions about the process when asked. I also informed the subjects of their right to revoke consent and discontinue participation in the study at any time. Refer to Appendix J for the informed consent form. Scripts were used as a guide for each interview to maintain some level of consistency in the interview approach with each couple and individual. Refer to Appendices B, D, and G for the screening, couple, and individual interview scripts.

Emotional distress and marital conflict were a potential risk for each participant because it was unknown whether the interview questions would be a trigger for either spouse. To minimize this risk, participants had the option to discontinue the interview if one or both individuals displayed signs of conflict and/or emotional distress. It should be noted that none of the interviews had to be discontinued at any time. To date, none of the participants have required emotional support because of participation in this study.

Additional risk to participants in this study included the invasion of privacy, collection of personal information, and the potential for access to identifying information.

To reduce this risk and maintain the confidentiality of each informant, I used private locations for telephone and face-to-face interviews. Additionally, I replaced all identifying information with research pseudonyms, labels, and/or codes. Confidential information was stored and locked for security. Computer files and electronic documents were encrypted. During and upon completion of this study, all identifying and

65

confidential information was destroyed (i.e., shredded) and files deleted. To further minimize risk to participants in this study, I participated in periodic consultations meetings with my dissertation chairperson.

Issues of Trustworthiness To ensure the validity of the study, multiple strategies were used to enhance the accuracy of the findings. I used peer debriefing with my dissertation chairperson to assist with interpreting the findings of this study. This chairperson is an experienced researcher in the field of social work. Furthermore, I provide a narrative of self-reflection to reveal any biases that were present throughout the research process. Full transparency helps the reader understand how interpretation of the data is influenced by my background as well as personal and professional experiences. Lastly, I used member-checking by reviewing the common themes that emerged from the participants’ responses after the interviews and in the final stage of data collection to ensure accuracy. To ensure reliability of the strategies listed above, I reviewed transcripts and cross-checked the coding a minimum of three times to identify errors. Refer to the research design section in this chapter for a detailed explanation of the procedures and implementation steps for this study.

66

67

Chapter IV

Demographics and Results Given the extensive amount of data collected in this study, this chapter is organized to provide the reader with the most relevant results. Presenting only the results in this chapter equips the reader with foundational knowledge prior to entering a discussion about the findings in Chapter V. First, a brief description of each couple is presented, followed by demographic information about this GenX sample. To protect confidentiality, each couple is referred to by an anonymous last name that I selected.

Likewise, each of the 20 participants are referred to as Mr. or Mrs. followed by the chosen last name (e.g., Mr. Doe). The last names assigned to the 10 couples who participated in this study are: McCabe, Waller, Henry, Washington, Knight, Myles, King, Steele, Garrett, and Stewart.

Secondly, the results from the interview process are provided to give the reader insight about each phase of data collection. Finally, the results are organized into Factors of Sustainability (FOS) and common themes that emerged. The themes are presented as

68

follows: Predictors of Marriage, Personality Traits, Childhood Experiences, Benefits of Marriage, Drawbacks of Marriage, Disagreements, Obstacles, Coping Strategies, Marriage is Work, Marital Supports, Social Factors, and Additional Topics. Summaries of the results provide the reader with a context for understanding the findings discussed later in Chapter V. The reader should note the following frequently used terms to explain the results: (a) Mates, (b) Wives, (c) Husbands, (d) Couples interviews, (e) Wives interviews, (f) Husbands interviews. The Mates are representative of each of the 10 dyads (husband and wife) that participated in this study. It consists of an amalgamation of data derived from each dyad’s combined couple, wife, and husband interviews, thus a total of 10 Mates.

The Couples category is derived from data collected from the Wives and Husbands together during the Couples interviews only and thus a total of 10 Couples interviews.

The Wives group is derived from data collected from each of the 10 women during the individual interview only, thus a total of 10 Wives interviews. Finally, the Husbands category is derived from data collected from each of the 10 men during the individual interview only, thus a total of 10 Husbands interviews.

The reader will notice the terms participants and sample are used interchangeably when referring to the entire group of 20 individuals that were included in this study.

Also, the results are presented as “out of 10,� which refers to the number of participants out of either 10 Mates, 10 Wives, and/or 10 Husbands. As previously mentioned, a couple interview and individual spouse interviews were conducted with each of the 10

69

couples. It is important to distinguish the terms as the results from the Couples interviews for example, is different from the results reported about the Mates.

This study did not aim to compare the consistencies, similarities, and/or differences in participants’ responses during each interview. The goal was to use three data points from the Couples interviews, Wives interviews, and Husbands interviews to learn about each marriage and what sustains it. The three data points only account for what was reported at the time of each interview and not what was reported during any subsequent or preceding interviews. The results are considered relevant or significant if reported by five or more of the Mates, Wives, and/or Husbands. Within these three data points (Mates, Wives, and Husbands), results extrapolated from the Couples interviews, Wives interviews, and Husbands interviews may also be presented as relevant information. This supports the grounded theory research design which allows flexibility to the interview approach as the data emerges to provide an understanding of the participants’ perspective and the meanings of their experiences (Charmaz, 2014, p. 5657). This approach helped to reveal emergent or prominent themes across all three interviews. It is also important to note that the interview data specifically from the Couples interviews does not distinguish between which spouse said what. For example, if the husband (and not the wife) stated a FOS, then it was reported as data from the Couples interviews versus data from the husband only. It should also be noted that data from the Couples interviews may be impacted by either spouse being more or less outspoken during the Couples interviews.

70

Description of the Sample McCabe couple. Mr. and Mrs. McCabe have been married for 12 years and met while volunteering. They remained celibate during their courtship. Mr. McCabe (age 49) is Christian and Mrs. McCabe’s (age 42) religious affiliation is non-denominational. Mr. McCabe is an ordained minister. This is Mrs. McCabe’s first marriage and Mr. McCabe’s second marriage. They have one daughter together and Mr. McCabe has three nonbiological children that he inherited from his first marriage. Mr. McCabe has a Master of Divinity degree and Mrs. McCabe has a JD degree. They described themselves as being different with one being an introvert and one being an extrovert; yet they consider themselves to be friends. Mr. McCabe is more social and active while Mrs. McCabe enjoys the comforts of home and quality time with their daughter. Overall, the McCabe’s share a mutual sense of feeling as if they were “made for each other.”

Waller couple.

Mr. and Mrs. Waller have been married for 25 years and met in college. They have four sons together, and Mr. Waller has one son from a previous relationship. Mr. and Mrs. Waller are of West Indian heritage. Mr. Waller (age 53) has a bachelor’s degree and Mrs. Waller (age 53) has a master’s degree. They described themselves as being open-minded and brutally honest with each other. Although Mr. and Mrs. Waller have different styles, they feel that they complement each other. Overall, the Wallers value family and respect for people.

71

Henry couple.

Mr. and Mrs. Henry have been married for 12 years and they met in college. This is their first marriage and they have three children (one son and two daughters) together.

Mr. Henry (age 38) and Mrs. Henry (age 40) both have a JD degree and their religious affiliation is Christian. Mr. Henry is an ordained minister. They described themselves as reserved and conservative. Mr. and Mrs. Henry noted that they balance each other although they are very different. Overall, family is important, and they value raising children in a two-parent household.

Washington couple.

Mr. and Mrs. Washington have been married for 24 years and they met in college.

This is their first marriage and they have two children (a son and a daughter) together.

Mr. Washington (age 49) has a master’s degree and Mrs. Washington (age 48) has a bachelor’s degree and their religious affiliation is Catholic. The Washington’s are family oriented and like to have fun. They share a mutual sense of being “made for each other.”

They value service to others and involvement in the church. Overall, they value their faith and it is important in their lives.

Knight couple.

Mr. and Mrs. Knight have been married for 14 years and they met through a family member. This is their second marriage and they have one child (a daughter) together. Mr. Knight (age 44) has one son from his first marriage, and Mrs. Knight (age

72

39) has two sons from her first marriage. They both obtained some college education and Mr. Knight is an ordained minister. Their religious affiliation is Christian (Pentecostal).

The Knights have a good sense of humor and described themselves as “laid back.”

Overall, they value their friendship which was established first in the relationship.

Myles couple.

Mr. and Mrs. Myles have been married for 13 years and they met through a family member. This is their first marriage and they have one daughter together. Mr. Myles (age 47) has a bachelor’s degree and Mrs. Myles (age 46) has a master’s degree. They described themselves as being “balanced.” Mr. Myles is private and reserved and Mrs. Myles is more outgoing. They consider themselves to be friends. Overall, they value respect and communication as well as each other’s individual needs.

King couple.

Mr. and Mrs. King have been married for 10 years and they met in a professional setting. This is their first marriage and they have two sons together. Mr. King (age 37) has a doctoral degree and Mrs. King (age 40) has two master’s degrees. Their religious affiliation is Christian. Mr. and Mrs. King described themselves as charitable and goodwilled as they have a mutual appreciation and desire to help others. Overall, the Kings value their individual and collective faith.

Steele couple.

73

Mr. and Mrs. Steele have been married for 18 years and they met through a mutual friend. This is their first marriage and they have two daughters together. Mr. Steele is an ordained minister and has obtained some college education. Mrs. Steele has a master’s degree. Their religious affiliation is Baptist. The Steele’s described themselves as “Yin and Yang” as they complement and balance each other in addition to working well together as a team. Overall, Mr. and Mrs. Steele mutually desire to be married and raise their girls.

Garrett couple.

Mr. and Mrs. Garrett have been married for 15 years and they met at a party on the dance floor. This is their first marriage and they have one daughter together. Both Mr. and Mrs. Garrett have bachelor’s degrees and their religious affiliation is Baptist.

They described themselves as adventurous and fun. Neither one of them had plans to get married but share a mutual sense that “it had to be.” Overall, the Garrett’s are family oriented and value the role of religion as a foundation or moral compass.

Stewart couple.

Mr. and Mrs. Stewart have been married for 25 years and they met in college through a mutual friend. This is their first marriage and they have two children (a son and daughter) together who were raised Catholic. Mr. Stewart (age 51) has a bachelor’s degree and his religious affiliation is Catholic. Mrs. Stewart (age 52) has a master’s degree and her religious affiliation is Baptist. They described themselves as kinetic and

74

partners. Mr. Stewart was described as more romantic while Mrs. Stewart was described as task oriented. Overall, the Stewart’s value love and respect.

The following Table 1 provides demographics of the sample couples. It includes the total years that the couple had been married at the time of the interviews. Table 1 also includes the estimated annual income combined (wife and husband) and the number of children the couple has together. All couples in this study identified as African American.

It should be noted that the asterisk indicates the couple identified not only as African American but also of West Indian heritage.

Table 1 Demographics of Sample Couples Couples N=10

Years Married

Combined Income

Children Together

McCabe

12

$100-200k

1

Waller*

25

$100-200k

4

Henry

12

$200-300k

3

Washington

24

$50-100k

3

Knight

14

$50-100k

1

Myles

13

$50-100k

1

King

10

$100-200k

2

Steele

18

$100-200k

2

Garrett

15

$200-300k

1

Stewart

25

$100-200k

2

75 *Denotes African American/West Indian Heritage

76

Demographics of the Sample The participants in this study are in the GenX cohort based on the year in which they were born. They fit many of the characteristics of GenXers such as higher education, delaying marriage and parenthood, and family-oriented values.

Year born.

Except for one participant (Mr. Waller), all others met the criteria for this study and were born between the years 1965 and 1980. This exception was allowed because the husband was born in 1964 – one year outside the age criterion – which still falls within the overall range for GenXers as identified by scholars from various fields.

Age. The median age at the time of marriage for the Husbands was 28.3 and the Wives 26.7. The Husbands’ current ages at the time of the interviews ranged between 37 and 53 while the Wives’ ages ranged between 39 and 52. The median age at the time of marriage for the participants in this study is comparable to that of White couples as studies reveal that, in general, Americans tend to marry later.

Years married.

Participants in this study were required to be married for 10 years or more. Six out of 10 had been married 10-15 years; 1 out of 10 were married 16-20 years; and 3 out of 10 were married 21-25 years.

77

Race.

The study aimed to include only African Americans, which the entire sample consisted of. This meant that each of the 20 participants had to identify their race as African American, Black, or Black American. All participants in this sample met the criteria. However, one out of 10 couples noted that they were of West Indian heritage from Jamaica and St. Vincent.

Education.

Of the Husbands, 1 out of 10 had a law degree, 1 out of 10 had a doctoral degree, 2 out of 10 had master’s degrees, 4 out of 10 had bachelor’s degrees, and 2 out of 10 had some college education. Of the Wives, 2 out of 10 had law degrees, 5 out of 10 had master’s degrees, 2 out of 10 had bachelor’s degrees, and 1 out of 10 had some college education. The participants in this study have various careers. For example, some are lawyers, social workers, ministers, deejays, and educators. Others work “blue collar” jobs or they are self-employed, unemployed, or retired.

Socioeconomic status.

The commonly used terms upper, middle, and lower class are used to explain the socioeconomic status of the participants. Since class income varies by state, the median family income for Illinois was used as a guide for determining the class status of each couple. Illinois was chosen because 8 out of 10 couples in the sample live in Illinois while 2 out of 10 live in one of the 50 United States. In this sample, 8 out of 10 couples

78

identified their combined income as over $100k and, therefore, are within the upper middle class. Two out of 10 couples identified their income as under $100k and, therefore, are of middle-class status.

Married with children.

All couples in this study are married with children. Four out of 10 couples have one child together, four out of 10 have two children together, and two out of 10 have three or more children together. Eight out of 10 of the couples have one or more daughters together and five out of 10 have one or more sons together. One of the wives and three of the husbands have one or more children from previous relationships/marriages. Of the three husbands, one of them inherited non-biological children from his first marriage. Of the husbands, two out of 10 are in their second marriages and eight out of 10 married for the first time. Of the wives, nine out of 10 are in their first marriages and one out of the 10 is in her second marriage.

The following Table 2 provides the current age of each of the 20 participants (wives and husbands) at the time of the interviews and the participants ages when they got married. The asterisk denotes participates in their second marriage and the plus indicates those with children from a previous relationship or marriage.

79

Table 2 Demographics of Sample Participants Participants N=20

Current Age

Wife McCabe

42

Husband McCabe*+ Wife Waller

50

Husband Waller+ Wife Henry

40

Husband Henry Wife Washington

48

Husband Washington Wife Knight*+

39

Husband Knight*+ Wife Myles

46

Husband Myles Wife King

40

Husband King Wife Steele

41

Husband Steele Wife Garrett

39

Husband Garrett Wife Stewart

52

Husband Stewart *Denotes second marriage

Age at time of Marriage 30

49

37 25

53

28 27

38

25 24

49

25 25

44

29 33

47

34 30

37

27 22

42

24 24

42

27 28

51

27

+Denotes children from previous relationship

Results of the Interview Process Interviews.

Six out of 10 couples received the information (i.e., flyer) about the study from either a neighbor, colleague, friend, or acquaintance. One out of 10 couples was referred by another couple who participated in the study. Three out of 10 couples received notice

80

about the study directly from me during the initial round of email messages and Facebook postings to all my contacts requesting that the flyer be shared with others. It should be noted that of these three couples, a relationship was previously established primarily with the Wives as former colleagues, friends, and/or classmates. Additionally, after consultation with my dissertation chairperson these couples were included in the study only after obtaining seven couples that were unfamiliar to me. The impact of this decision will be addressed later as part of the discussion in Chapter V. The couples in this study knew very little about my personal thoughts and feelings related to marriage as I was intentional about not sharing. I share similar demographics with the sample as a GenXer and rapport was easily established. In general, there was an ease and comfortability in how I related to the participants in this study. Twenty subjects participated in this study by completing one couple interview and one individual interview. Therefore, data were collected from 10 couples totaling 30 interviews. The participants were given the option to complete their interviews at times and places (e.g., in person, phone, or video conference) that were most comfortable and convenient for them.

Phase 1 screening interview.

Nine out of 10 screening interviews were conducted by phone and one couple received the screening questions via email per their request. Eight out of 10 wives completed the screening interview on behalf of their husbands. As requested, eight out of 10 husbands provided verbal/written/signed consent for their wives to complete the

81

screening interviews on their behalf. Two out of 10 screening interviews was conducted by phone but with the husbands present. Following the screening interview and acceptance of the invitation to participate in this study, nine out of 10 consent forms were returned with signatures from the husbands and wives. The one outlier provided verbal consent but never returned the signed document. However, the husband and wife stated that they read the consent form and gave verbal informed permission at the start of each recording of the interviews.

Phase 2 couples interviews.

Five out of 10 couples completed the couple interview in person and in the privacy of their homes. One of those five completed the interview via video conference (i.e., Facetime) but also in the privacy of their homes. Five out of 10 couples completed the couple interview by phone.

Phase 3 individual spouse interviews.

One out of 10 Husbands and one out of 10 Wives completed their individual interviews in person and in the privacy of their homes. Nine out of 10 Husbands and eight out of 10 Wives completed their individual interviews by phone. For one couple out of 10, the Wife completed her individual interview in person and the husband completed his individual interview by phone.

Phase 4 follow-up email.

82

As a form of member checking, a summary of the couple interview and individual interviews were provided to the participants to ensure accuracy of the data collected. Six out of 10 couples chose to have summaries of all three interview summaries sent to one email address. Four out of 10 couples requested that the individual summaries be sent to separate emails. Four participants confirmed receipt and/ or accuracy of the interview summaries.

Results of Data Factors of sustainability (FOS).

This study sought to answer the research question: What factors contribute to the sustainable marriages of Generation X African American couples? Factors of sustainability (FOS) in marriage is the focus of this study. The FOS results are based on the interview question, “What has kept you together/married all these years?� The top three FOS identified by the Mates are love, morals/values, and partnership. The two most relevant FOS identified in the Couples interviews are morals/values and compatibility.

Love was revealed as the main FOS in the Husbands interviews. Love and partnership were identified in the Wives interviews as FOS. It should be noted that love as an FOS was identified in all three interviews.

FOS #1 love.

It is important to note that 10 out of 10 of the Mates described love as the most significant factor. Love, and specifically love for spouse, was defined by the Mates as a

83

deep affection and connection to one’s spouse as well as a sense of being “made for each other.” The following are a few statements made by the Mates: I just feel like I was assigned to him. …That’s going to keep me married, 100%...somebody who is available to be loved and that I can love them.

I’m telling her all the time that nobody else does it to me but you…I’m still in love with you.

During the individual interviews, seven out of 10 of the Wives and Husbands identified love as the most significant FOS. The Husbands made the following comments during their individual interviews: Mr. Washington: She’s an amazing person to be with. I like going to bed with her, I like waking up with her, I like coming home to her, and she’s been my rock.

Mr. Knight: …what kept me married is what keeps a lot of older people married…it’s in me to be loyal to one person, to love that one person and not to look the other way; I love [Mrs. Knight], and I know [Mrs. Knight] loves me.

Mr. Steele: I'm a simple man…Love. Feeling love…Just wanting to be here.

Mr. Stewart: We have our ups and downs and despite that we still love each other.

FOS #2 morals/values.

The results indicated that six out of 10 of the Mates named morals/values as an important factor of sustainability. Morals/values are defined by the Mates as what they value and believe to be of importance and a guide for behavior (e.g., fulfilling commitment and work on the relationship). For example, the Mates value mutual honesty, trust, respect, and communication, God/faith, and family. Morals/values are also linked to self-described personality traits, which the Mates defined as positive/desirable

84

characteristics in their mates. The Mates made these statements about their spouses’ positive personality traits: [She/he] wants to be married. …even if I wasn’t married to her, I would want to keep her in my life because… she’s just a decent person…

It’s because of who he is, at his heart of hearts…he’s a nice man.

During the Couples interviews, 10 out of 10 couples reported that morals/values are the most significant FOS and seven out of 10 noted that compatibility is a relevant factor. Specifically, there was a strong relationship with one’s belief system as it is related to God/faith and family. Compatibility was defined as being well matched or suited for each other. It also meant having similar morals/values and a shared vision/goal for the future. The following statements were made during the Couple Interview: We have the same values…family and respect for people. We have open conversations about things and our views…we complement each other…family is very important to me and to us…that's what solidified our years together, to keep it going because we value family.

Faith is very important for us…if we did not have that, there is absolutely no way that we are where we are right now as a couple and a family…we have had that very central for us…it has helped us to grow as a couple and it has helped us to stay grounded as parents.

We're just made for each other…we complement each other well...I really and truly believe that we are just meant to be together…we are so compatible for each other.

I think our views are similar in terms of raising a child.

85

You can do two years with anybody, especially, if the sex is good…you are going to have a great time for two years, but to go through what we've gone through as long as we've been together, that takes someone who is made for you...

FOS #3 partnership.

The data revealed that six out of 10 of the Mates recognized partnership as a FOS. Partnership was defined as friendship or relationship bond with one’s spouse. It is the way the couple works together, coexists, engages, and/or interacts with each other, which creates a dynamic in the marriage that is unique to each couple. The Mates had this to say about their partnerships: We communicate about any and everything…and go out of the way to ensure everyone is happy…I think we continue to take care of each other, respect each other, celebrate each other…I’m trying my best to continue to uphold everything that I promised…we look for ways to compromise…we’re not selfish…

It’s important to be friends… …when you have somebody to go through that [challenge] with…it doesn’t make it easier -- it just makes it a little bit more powerful…

During the individual interviews, seven out of 10 of the Wives also identified partnership as the most significant FOS. Below are comments made by the Wives during their individual interviews.

Mrs. Waller: I do love [Mr. Waller] …I love him because I love him as a person. I think he’s such a decent person.

Mrs. Knight: He [Mr. Knight] is not a difficult person so he’s easy to get along with. If you love the person, sometimes you might not like them every day…

86

Because you care for the person, it might have you look over situations and try to work things out. Every day is not easy but when you have a partner that’s willing to work with you, it makes things better…it's important to be friends with that person.

Mrs. Myles: …number one…the camaraderie.

Mrs. King: I have a partner who shares any concern I have, is a big encourager, cheerleader in my corner, probably tells me what I need to know about certain things I wanted to do…it's just a partnership.

The FOS are listed below in Table 3. As a reminder, Mates is derived from data collected from 10 couples during three interviews (Couples interviews, Wives interviews, Husbands interviews), thus data from a total of 30 interviews. The results are out of 10 possible and the hyphen represents the absence of data.

Table 3 Factors of Sustainability (FOS)

FOS

Mates N=10

Couples interviews N=10

Wives Interviews N=10

Husbands Interviews N=10

Love Morals/Values Partnership

10 10 6

— 10 —

7 — 7

7 — —

Note: Results out of 10 possible

87

Common themes. The results of data are presented as themes: Predictors of Marriage, Personality Traits, Childhood Experiences, Benefits of Marriage, Drawbacks of Marriage, Disagreements, Obstacles, Coping Strategies, Marriage is Work, Marital Supports, Social Factors, and Additional Topics

.

Predictors of marriage.

Across all three interviews, 10 out of 10 of the Mates reported predictors of marriage as well as obstacles that were overcome during the courtship. It was noted by eight out of 10 of the Mates that the indicators were present earlier in the courtship versus later. The Mates defined predictors as signs that suggested that their partners were potential candidates for marriage. These signs were revealed by a person (e.g., spouse or family member) or being (e.g., God/faith) during the Mates courtship. Good conversation, a sense of being right for each other, desirable/positive characteristics revealed during quality time together, answered prayers about the relationship, and sacrifices made for the relationship were indicators that there was a potential for marriage. The predictors of marriage during the early stages of courtship are listed below in Table 4. The Mates also experienced challenges during their courtships such as college transitions consisting of long-distance, pursuit of individual goals, and breakups. Family approval, previous relationships and/or children, and financial stability were also challenges the Mates faced during their courtships.

88

Table 4 Predictors of Marriage Predictors of Marriage during Early Stages of Courtship Good conversation A sense of being right for each other Desirable/positive characteristics revealed during quality time together Answered prayers about the relationship Sacrifices made for the relationship Personality traits self-reported by the wives and husbands.

The Mates revealed that self-described personality traits are linked to morals/values and thus one’s belief system (e.g., God/faith or family). The participants were asked in the individual interviews: “What strengths do you bring to your marriage?”

The Husbands described their strengths as follows: open-minded, creative, spontaneous, light-hearted, secure/confident, positive, adventurous, organized, good money management skills, consistent, committed, fun, provider, protector, sense of humor, disciplined, responsible, stable, entrepreneur, communication, and decisive.

The Wives described their strengths as follows: discerning, smart, resilient, effective communicator, strong, independent, earnest, loving, planner, willing to compromise, honest, calm temperament, firm integrity, balanced, insightful, critical thinker, supportive/cheerleader, ambitious, organized, task manager, caring, concerned, and initiation of new experiences. Below are a few comments self-reported about personality traits.

Mrs. Waller: If I say I’m going to do something, I’m going to do it and if I screw up, I own it.

Mrs. Garrett: …the biggest strength I have is resilience…I can bounce back from nearly anything…

Mrs. Stewart: …life is full of moments and I try to capitalize on those moments and seize those moments…

Mr. Waller: I’m willing to hear other people’s views.

89

Mr. King: I like cracking jokes. I like laughing. I like being able to laugh. I like making [Mrs. King] or anybody else laugh…

Mr. Steele: …drive, determination…I have a very good work ethic…

Personality Traits Reported about the Wives and Husbands. The Husbands and Wives described their spouse’s observed personality traits during the individual interviews. The Wives described desirable traits such as the Husbands being “good” men/fathers, responsible, and respectful. Undesirable traits about the Husbands were minimal but noted by the Wives as lack of planning and forethought about consequences.

Overall, the Wives revealed that the way in which they think about things is the most significant gender difference.

The Husbands described desirable traits such as the Wives being “great” women/mothers, supportive, and caring/loving. According to the Husbands, spending habits were the only undesirable trait mentioned about the Wives. Similarly, the Husbands revealed that they did not care or think as much about the same things that were of concern to the Wives.

The following are comments made during the individual interviews about desirable/undesirable personality traits and gender differences: Mrs. Henry: I'm always thinking, connecting, and processing. I just don't think he does that; it's very simple. It's like, okay, his favorite answer is yes, his favorite word is yes, my favorite word is probably no, because I'm thinking of the consequences and always thinking ahead.

Mr. Knight: …we were in two different galaxies. Now we’re in the same building, in the same library, on the same shelf, yet we're still not in the same book…

90

Mr. Washington: I like a woman that has some level of independence and all those qualities were just important to me, and [Mrs. Washington], really embodies a lot of that‌she has been an amazing mother to our children and she's been a supportive partner.

Mrs. Myles: [Mr. Myles] is my best friend. He is cool and‌not only is he a gentleman, but he's a good provider, and excellent father.

The following Table 5 summarizes how the Wives and Husbands described their own personality during the individual interviews.

Table 5 Personality Traits Self-Reported by Wives and Husbands

Wives Interviews

Husbands Interviews

91

Discerning, insightful

Open-minded, positive

Smart, critical thinker

Creative, fun

Resilient, strong

Spontaneous, adventurous

Effective communicator

Light-hearted, sense of humor

Independent, ambitious

Secure, confident

Earnest, honest, integrity

Committed, disciplined

Organized, planner

Consistent, stable

Task manager

Organized, responsible

Loving, caring, concerned

Money management skills

Willing to compromise

Provider, protector

Calm temperament, balanced

Entrepreneur, decisive

Supportive/cheerleader,

Effective communicator

Leader to new experiences

The following Table 6 summarizes how the Wives and Husbands described their spouses desirable and undesirable personality traits during the individual Wives and Husbands interviews.

Table 6 Personality Traits Reported about Spouses Wives Interviews

Husbands Interviews

92

“Good” men/fathers

“Great” women/mothers

Responsible

Supportive

Respectful

Caring/loving

Lack of planning

Spending habits

Lack of forethought about consequences

Childhood experiences.

Childhood experiences were defined by the Mates as observations of couples, mostly their own parents, as well as obstacles/challenges that occurred during childhood that had an impact on their attitude and behavior. Of the sample, 19 out of 20 participants’ parents were married and six out of 20 participants’ married parents later divorced/separated. Of the Husbands, nine out of 10 had married parents during childhood while 10 out of 10 wives had married parents. Of the wives, four out of 10 had parents who separated and/or divorced during childhood/young adulthood in comparison to two out of 9 husbands’ married parents who separated/divorced. Two out of 10 husbands experienced the death of both parents which occurred during childhood or young adulthood, but none of the Wives experienced the death of both parents. However, two out of 10 of the Wives’ fathers are currently deceased and the deaths occurred during young adulthood and adulthood. Of the Husbands, only one out of 10 experienced the death of a father during infancy.

It was noted by 10 out of 10 of the Mates that childhood experiences (whether desirable or undesirable) influenced their attitude about gender roles/household functions, marriage, and parenting as well as their expectations of marriage and of their spouses. It was also noted by 10 out of 10 of the Mates that traditional views about marriage

93

stemmed from childhood observations of the husband’s role as provider and protector; and the wife’s roles as caretaker of the children and homemaker. However, views on household functions (e.g., chores, maintenance/repairs, finances, and childcare) evolved over time from traditional to nontraditional and fluctuated based on the circumstances or needs of the nuclear family, for example, earlier in marriage (before children) versus later in the marriage (after children).

The Husbands tended to take on more nontraditional tasks such as childcare and cleaning. Additionally, they are actively involved in the lives of their children and parenting. Despite the traditional views, the households functioned as more egalitarian or nontraditional. This is primarily based on changes in employment status, the addition of children, health, and other factors. This will be discussed later in Chapter V. Here’s what The Mates had to say about their childhood experiences: I didn't realize at that time was my mother and father had separated because they never said it. I was 12 when it happened…My mother was, and had to be, a staunch disciplinarian, so I felt like that's how it had to be. I hadn't seen any successful marriages in my family setting.

I appreciate my mom…I can't believe she was that strong...she made it clear what she expected of men. I always saw guy...growing up...They were expected to provide for their family, to provide the security. If anything goes wrong, they’ve got to take care of all that kind of stuff. I knew that my role would be as a provider…to make sure everyone is secure.

I always had chores...I could do almost anything for myself; based on my mother and father's marriage...my father didn't cook or clean anything…. But my mom...she taught me to clean. It's weird because I enjoyed it. I enjoyed cooking and I enjoyed cleaning and most children wouldn't say they enjoy cleaning…

94

My dad was really dedicated to my mom and our family.

My parents were very old school...I just didn't have a lot of freedoms and liberties that other young guys that I was growing up with had; my dad worked a lot, he depended on my mom a lot for things in the house…for a long time my dad was the sole breadwinner in the house; and so my mom was home a lot and he was gone a lot…My mother was a good nurturer, my father was a good provider.

I was just brought up, to provide for your family…being a provider, being a helpmate. I come from a two-parent household…Working all the time, two or three jobs to take care of the household. My father would do it and my mom cooked. I saw the traditional family dynamic and that's something that I wanted.

I didn’t come from a two-parent household. It’s really being intimidated because you don’t have an example. You don’t know how this is supposed to go. What are you supposed to do?

My thought behind not wanting to be married was based on watching my mom and my parents…they weren't together. And watching that interaction and then not having seen any marriage that worked in my immediate family. No one was really married besides my grandparents.

My mom wasn't that traditional…A lot of intimacy, I did not see in my parent's marriage…looking at my parent's relationship and expectations, I thought that’s something that you did. That was a goal [marriage] that you strive for…having a two-parent household…So that’s something that I wanted.

I was always around that situation where the guy should walk on the outside, the guy should open the door...all the marriages around me, my grandparents…my grandmothers were always the girl…even though my parents are divorced…my mother was always the girl [in the relationship].

My parents, they’ve been together for 53 years…they don’t believe in divorce.

95

My mom was good. We would always talk about things and have a forum on how things were going...I try to model that with my parenting. Just because you are a child doesn't mean that you shouldn't be heard.

I came from a very close-knit family. And there were families that had two-parent homes and there were some who had single-parent homes. I was not jaded when it came to the ideal of marriage. I am not jaded at all.

I did come from a single-parent home. Even though my father lived in the same community as we did… he wasn't physically in the home. I was always taught that you want to make sure that you can paved your own way, that you can take care of yourself.

I grew up in a house where you wake up on Saturday morning and of course everybody cleans.

I didn't want to be with anyone who had kids, based on my experience with my parents.

I grew up in a family where you just don't talk about finances; I was one of the few people that had parents who were still married.

My mother was a good nurturer, my father was a good provider, so that’s what I picked up from both. …I find myself mirroring a lot of things that I saw them [parents] say or do to each other, good and bad… …I was raised mostly in a single-parent home. I watched my mother be the dad and the father…working multiple jobs.

Benefits of marriage.

Benefits were defined by the Mates as the positive outcomes of being married.

Partnership was identified by the Mates as a benefit of marriage and it is a FOS as previously mentioned. Partnership was also identified as a benefit in the Couple and Wives interviews. Examples of partnership included sharing household and childcare responsibilities as well as the sense of companionship and having someone to talk to or do things with. Personal growth was identified as a benefit in the Husbands interviews.

96

Examples of personal growth consisted of increased maturity and ambition as well as attaining higher education and successful careers. Table 7 highlights the benefits of marriage indicated in three separate interviews. It reveals partnership as a benefit for all during the Couples interviews. However, the Wives and Husbands differed in their views about the benefits of marriage during their individual interviews. The majority of the Wives remain consistent with partnership as a benefit as stated in the Couples interviews unlike the Husbands, who acknowledged how they’ve benefited personally from marriage. Other benefits such as safety, stability, security, and children were not listed in the table because they were not indicated by five or more and thus not considered a theme. The results are out of 10 possible.

Table 7 Benefits of Marriage Benefits of Marriage

Couples interviews

Wives Interviews

Husbands Interviews

Partnership

10

7

4

Personal Growth

2

4

5

Note: Results out of 10 possible

Drawbacks of marriage.

Sacrifice was the main drawback identified by the Mates. The Mates also revealed more about drawbacks such as disagreements, obstacles, and stressors as well as conflict

97

resolution strategies across all three interviews (Couple, Wives, and Husbands).

Examples of sacrifice included the loss of individuality/identity and personal time to pursue interests, hobbies, education, and goals. Sacrifice also consisted of financial limitations given the increase of expenses. Sacrifice was identified as the main drawback of marriage by the Wives and Husbands. Table 8 highlights the drawback of marriage indicated in three separate interviews. The results are out of 10 possible.

Table 8 Drawbacks of Marriage Drawback of Marriage

Couples interviews

Wives Interviews

Husbands Interviews

Sacrifice

9

6

8

Note: Results out of 10 possible

Disagreements.

The Mates disagreed most on finances followed by disagreements about parenting and household functions comparably. During the individual interviews, the Husbands and Wives agreed that they disagree the most about finances. However, during the Couple interviews, household functions were noted as the thing they disagreed about more. Communication, allowing “time to heal,” and “picking battles” wisely were conflict resolution strategies the Mates found most effective. Table 9 below list the main topics of disagreement as indicated during the three separate interviews. Interestingly,

98

the topic of finances came up more during the individual Wives and Husbands interviews.

It was not indicated during the Couples interviews as household functions and parenting were at the top of the list for things the couples disagreed upon. In Table 9 the hyphen represents the absence of data and the results are out of 10 possible.

Table 9 Disagreements Disagreements

Couples Interviews

Wives Interviews

Husbands Interviews

Finances

—

5

5

Household Functions

8

2

—

Parenting

6

3

1

Note: Results out of 10 possible

Obstacles.

Children created the biggest obstacle earlier in the marriages. Grief/loss (e.g., family) presented as the greatest obstacle that the Mates experienced later in marriage.

At the time of this study, family and finances were obstacles the Mates were facing.

Interestingly, obstacles related to family (nuclear and extended) were consistent over the course of the marriage and caused the most stress for the Mates. Children and spouses were noted as causing the same degree of stress. Table 10 below reflects obstacles as identified by the Mates at different stages in the marriage. As a reminder, the Mates data

99

is derived from the Couples interviews, Wives interviews, and Husbands interviews.

Therefore, the sum of 30 interviews of data presented in aggregate to represent the 10 Mates.

Table 10 Obstacles

Obstacles

Mates N=10

Early Marriage

Children

Later Marriage

Grief/loss

Current Marriage

Family& Finances

Coping strategies.

The Mates identified strategies they used to cope with life obstacles and the “work” of marriage that they noted as challenging at times. The Wives mentioned the following coping strategies: separating from extended family issues; God/faith (e.g., prayer and spirituality); communicating more and expressing feelings; counseling; having a positive attitude; committing to “For Better or Worse;” choosing to see the good in their spouses; “rolling with it…one day at a time;” finding balance as a mom and wife; using supports for childcare; and temporary separation from spouse.

The Husbands had similar strategies and noted the following: independently working through the obstacles on their own, faith in God, learning how to handle things better over time, moving on from the obstacles, counseling, support from others if

100

needed, allowing “time to heal all wounds,” and communicating to and seeking support from their spouses. Table 11 below list the strategies used by the Wives and the Husbands. It also lists the 10 Mates data in aggregate from the Couples interviews, Wives interviews, and Husbands interviews. The plus (+) indicates strategies used and the hyphen (-) indicates the absence of data regarding the use of the coping strategy.

Table 11 Coping Strategies Coping Strategies

Mates N=10

Wives Interviews N=10

Husbands Interviews N=10

God/faith (e.g., prayer and spirituality)

—

+

+

Allow time to heal

+

+

+

Pick battles wisely

+

+

+

Counseling (e.g. individual/couple)

—

+

+

Note: Hyphen (-) indicates no data and (+) indicates use of the strategy.

Note: Counseling refers to formal assistance/guidance for personal problems provided by a trained professional or clergy.

The following Table 12 includes additional coping strategies revealed during the individual Wives and Husbands interviews.

Table 12 Individual Coping Strategies

101 Wives Interviews

Husbands Interviews

Separating from extended family issues

Independently working through obstacles

Communicating/expressing feelings more

Learn how to handle situations better

Having a positive attitude

Move on and let go

Committing to “For Better or Worse”

Use support from others if needed

Choosing to see the good in spouse

Communicate to and seek support from spouse

Finding balance as a mom/wife Use supports for childcare Brief/temporary separation from spouse

Marriage is work.

Overall, the Mates concluded that marriage is work given the drawbacks and despite the benefits. It was noted by 10 out of 10 of the Mates that marriage is work.

Mrs. Garrett: …marriage - it is work. I feel like it's work, and two people must be engaged.

Mrs. King: …marriage is work because you can't just show up when you want to.

Mr. Washington: The institution of marriage is not really valued…there is less of a willingness to really be patient and work through difficulties that happen in a marriage. Marriage is a beautiful thing. It's great to be in love. It’s a lot of beauty to it. But there is work. Marriage is work and you must be able to commit to putting in work. It's work that is worthwhile because you have deep feelings and deep commitment to the person that you are with, but you must also go in knowing that you must put in work.

Mrs. Stewart: For me, I think the work is the willingness to stay together no matter what…in any relationship over time, there's lots of different feelings and emotions that come up…it's love, hate, revenge, lust…A lot of it is the willingness to kind of run the gamut…over this 25, 30 years that [we] have been

102

together and I'm like, “I hate you…” the work is understanding that you can feel that way. But the work is being willing to stay, no matter what. You can have a gamut of emotions, but the work is the willingness to stay despite all of that. To still care enough, love enough, and respect enough - that you want to stay despite everything…And you know anything that comes your way as a couple, family, and as a person - that you're committed to being there. To me that's the work.

Mrs. Steele: Sacrifice. Trying to keep somebody else‘s feelings and perspective in the forefront…

Mr. Steele: …being intentional about exposing yourself to marriage seminars, retreats, working at being able to continue to love your mate through the ups and downs. Because your mate is unique, there is not another person like that. You must get some tools and resources to help you identify some areas that you can love her, she can love you. Work is intentionally exposing yourself to resources because nobody ever trains us.

Mr. Waller: For me, it's hard work. Everything that's work is going to require work…as individuals we're raised to the moment where we could be on our own to do the things we want to do. And when you form this partnership, you have to give that up. For me, that's where the work part comes in. I have to always remember that it's not just about me. It's a unit now. We have a common goal we're working towards. I mean, everything good is work.

Mrs. Washington: The work comes in where you must be aware of what is best for you as a couple. There are times when people say, "Oh, marriage is a 50-50 thing." I don't believe it's a 50-50 thing. Sometimes, it's 70-30, sometimes it's 6040, sometimes it may be 90-10 but one person should not always bend. If one

103

person is always bending, then that person is not being honored and being respected...there is a balance of knowing that when you are the one compromising or doing something different that there will be other times that person will compromise for you or do what needs to be done…and there entails the so-called work. Just knowing that all you go through is for the betterment of your relationship…

Marital supports.

Marital supports reported by the mates.

Supports are defined by The Mates as any person, being, place, or thing having a positive impact on an individual and/or marriage. The following are supports that were mentioned by the Mates: Church community; family/in-laws such as parents, siblings, relatives; friends (including those from professional/social networks); God/faith (including spirituality and practices such as meditation, prayer, and Bible study); multimedia resources such as reading books and articles related to self-improvement and/or marriage; marriage/couples retreats and workshops; counseling (including premarital and individual counseling); acts of self-preservation to maintain individuality such as time alone to fulfill one’s personal needs and/or pursue interests; and one’s spouse was also mentioned as a support.

Marital supports described during the couples interviews.

During the Couple Interview, the participants were asked, “Do you feel like you have support as a married couple?” Ten out of 10 couples indicated that they felt

104

supported as couples. It was noted that supports fluctuated over the course of their marriages given changes in church membership and the addition of children. For example, family and friends inquired more about the well-being of the children more than that of the couples. It was also noted that seeking and using supports is an intentional effort given one’s own knowledge about the resources available to him or her.

Additionally, eight out of 10 couples identified family as supportive and six out of 10 identified their church communities as support.

We have a good faith community and our church has been very supportive‌I think our families are very supportive.

A lot of it is what happens at our church, we're surrounded by younger couples even before we were married and even now after. It's more of a village per se of people who whether single, married, etcetera, we all support each other because we work in our [Church] Ministry.

I think one of the benefits to us being involved in the church is that there are marriage ministries that we participated in at every church that we were a part of.

It opened our eyes to things outside of the church, family life, and some other things.

I think we have the support of our family, both sides of our family, but we could have more‌we have support in terms of help with the children. I wouldn't say help with the marriage. I don't know that there's anybody on either side of the family that we really talked to if we have issues in the marriage itself - the emotional support. I think you must be mindful about talking to your families about marital issues because you don't want to say things that would leave a bad taste in their mouth with respect to your spouse. Whatever that challenge is, you

105

get past it…you need everybody else to get past it too. You can tell some things but you can't tell too much, because the family members may be turned off from your spouse moving forward and you're together 10 or 20 years…the other type of support used before is from the church. Throughout the marriage, we've always investigated being a part of marriage ministries or going to marriage seminars that different churches host. If we felt that we've needed counseling, we reached out to different pastors and counselors to walk us through the situation.

Marital supports reported in husbands interviews.

During the individual interview, the Husbands were asked to tell me about any resources or supports that were helpful to them as husbands/fathers. The Husbands were least likely to seek or rarely used supports outside of the marriage. During the Husbands interviews, six out of 10 identified family as the primary source of support.

Mr. Waller: …our parents and my sisters have been the biggest support that we’ve needed, and we haven’t really needed much.

Mr. Washington: …Seeing the example of my parents long-term committed relationship…they have been models and support…they set a standard for us that we want to eventually try to reach or maintain.

Mr. Garrett: …the only person I probably could say anything to and that I would listen to when it comes to marriage is my father. I don’t know if I would listen to anybody else.

Marital supports expressed during the wives interviews.

Likewise, the Wives were asked the same question about supports that help them as wives/mothers. The Wives were more likely to seek and use a variety of supports.

106

During the Wives interviews, nine out of 10 identified friends as supportive; six out of 10 identified God/faith as a source of support; and six out of 10 identified acts of selfpreservation as supportive factors.

Mrs. McCabe: …having friends like that [married], it helps to be reminded that the thing I’m complaining about another wife would kill for…

Mrs. Henry: My friends are a huge resource…Sometimes they’ll give advice, sometimes they won’t, but they hear me, they listen, we can laugh, and I can get it all out, and they still love me enough to support the marriage and support me.

Mrs. Knight: I pray a lot.

Mrs. Washington: Spending time with your girlfriends. That's important because that reinforces your individuality, who you are. You don't want to give up your individuality, because if you're not happy with yourself, then how can you be happy as a couple? So that helps. Also, just taking some time for yourself, just to relax for yourself. I enjoy reading, that's very relaxing. Just making sure you have some me-time with girlfriends. Church is a good support. Family is a good support but still maintaining a sense of who you are.

Mrs. Garrett: I think interacting with other friends who are married. Listening and not necessarily telling them everything that's going on with me personally but interacting and hearing if they choose to share. Not everybody chooses to share everything or every bit of their marriage. When you hear certain things that people are going through it puts whatever you're going through into perspective…

I'm a firm believer in taking care of me first. I cannot be a good mom, and I cannot be a good wife if I don't take care of me physically - working out or going to the gym. I feel like it is helpful when I'm under a lot of stress. Taking mental breaks and trying to tune things out. I have seen so many people that do not take

107

care of the mental side. I know I can always go to church and I have support systems there. I feel like you must take care equally the spiritual, mental, and physical.

Mrs. Stewart: ‌being my own self-advocate and knowing myself‌ communicating to him when I need the downtime, and saying no when I need to say no. The other part is friends and family‌finding those people that you can process with, like "Am I crazy?"

Table 13 listed below highlights marital supports identified in aggregate by the Mates data and in three separate interviews (Couples interviews, Wives interviews, Husbands interviews). The hyphen (-) indicates the absence of data and the asterisk (*) indicates supports used as a prerequisite to get married at a church. The results are out of a possible 10.

108

Table 13 Marital Supports Supports

Mates

Couples interviews

Wives Interviews

Husbands Interviews

Family Friends

— —

8 —

— 9

—

God/faith

—

—

6

—

Church Community

—

6

—

—

Premarital Counseling*

6

—

—

—

Acts of Self-preservation

—

—

6

—

6

*Denotes counseling provided in a church setting as a prerequisite to marry Note: Results out of 10 possible

Marital wisdom to the mates.

Marital wisdom in the form of support is defined as tips and advice received or given based on one’s knowledge about and/or experience in marriage as well as expressions or frequently used clichés. Likewise, the Mates shared wisdom from their experiences in marriage. Over the course of all three interviews, seven out of 10 of the Mates reported receiving advice from others, family, and friends.

To Mr. McCabe: …the woman that is your wife and the woman that is your type are not always necessarily the same…your type will get you in bed and that's real exciting but what makes that person exciting is that they are not reliable…they're like candy, they're sometimes food…they are not nutritious for the long term at all. If that's what you eat all the time, you will die.

To Mr. Washington: …my primary responsibility is my family, my wife, my children, they’re first.

To Mr. Knight: …never sleep with anybody that you wouldn't want to marry.

109

To Mrs. McCabe: …Never trust a man who doesn't own a watch or a belt, because he has nowhere to go or obviously anywhere to be.

To Mrs. Henry: …You better take care of yourself, because at the end of the day, if anything happens to you, he cannot take care of those children by himself.

Everybody is depending on you, so you better get it together.

To Mrs. Washington: I asked her a question, "How do you know when you find the right one?" and she said, "You'll know." She said, "Trust me, you'll know. It'll feel right." And my mother was 100% right.

To Mrs. Myles: …You must write everything down in life that you really want.

Pray on that …go out of town …or associate with friends.

To Mrs. Stewart: Have a partner in life, have a partner in your relationship because if you don't it's going to wear you out because you get tired of being the one that does it at all…

Throughout the interview process the following old adages and clichés were noted: “You really don’t know your spouse until you have children with them;” “Children change everything;” “[In marriage] You become one;” “Be equally yoked;” and “A two-stranded cord is better than one.”

Marital wisdom from the mates.

During all three interviews, the Mates shared the wisdom and advice they had for other couples.

From Mr. McCabe: …you as a married person are different than you as a single person. The only thing that prepares you for marriage is being married. That's when you really find out what it is. You understand that marriage is not an endless date. Marriage is not an end point…it's a starting point.

From Mr. Washington: I feel like black men need to really be there for their families. And we need to, as much as possible, set examples for our young people

110

about the importance of relationships and how to work with relationships when they're great and how to work with relationships when you must struggle and when there are difficulties.

From Mr. Knight: …shut everybody out… If you're having a problem, don't talk to your girlfriend, don't talk to your mother, don't talk to your father, talk to each other - the person you're having the problem with…You're going to repeat what you saw growing up, so you must make that change. Make that decision on your own. What didn't I like growing up? I believe couples should really take and learn before you get into the physical aspects of a relationship. You should learn who the other person is.

From Mrs. McCabe: I think having those kinds of conversations: How do you see our family growing? If ever, how do we handle future problems? Male-female friends - what are your rules on it?…you should talk about the boundaries, with access and things like that…I highly encourage married couples to pray together…I always tell people now, get a house account where you’ll pay all your household bills and then have your account and his account where everyone can see it...people change over time and who you are changes over time…are you willing to move with the change that your partner goes through?...there are going to be those ups and those downs.

From Mrs. Knight: I think people need to understand that marriage is not for everyone. It shouldn't be taken lightly...it's important to be friends with that person...make sure that your marriage just isn't a marriage of convenience. It can be of convenience and comfortability but don't let it just be that.

111

Social factors.

Social factors are ever-changing and can have an impact on a person’s life in various ways. These factors tend to influence perceptions, norms for behavior, and expectations of self and others. Race as a social factor accounts for the historical context and influence on a group - African Americans in this case. Multimedia as a social factor may include, but is not limited to, the influences from television, movies, music, and marketing that convey messages and images that impact perception. Race and multimedia sources were revealed as relevant social factors in this study.

Data from all three interviews revealed that 10 out of 10 of the Mates recognized race as a factor influencing marriage and family outcomes for African Americans and the Black community. Additionally, six out of 10 of the Mates pointed out the influences of multimedia sources such as television and social media on marriage and family values as well as cultural norms in American society. Regarding race and parenting, five out of 10 of the Mates identified race as a social factor taken into consideration when raising African American children. Moreover, of the five couples who have sons, three of the Mates expressed concerns specifically about raising African American boys.

Additional topics.

Other topics that emerged in this study can be linked to the results reported above.

Although there is some connection, the additional topics were not considered to be common themes in this study because they were mentioned by fewer than five of the Mates. For example, the implications of historical practices from the eras of slavery and Jim Crow were briefly mentioned by two of the Mates and linked to the findings on social factors. The Mates suggested that there are historical factors that have a long-term

112

impact on outcomes for African American marriages and families. For example, transgenerational trauma, family separation, broken family structures, and the devaluation of marriage in the Black community were mentioned as long-term effects of slavery and discrimination.

Another topic mentioned by four of the Mates in this study related to being married with children and married without children. The Mates noted that being married without children was less stressful and there were fewer challenges. In general, the Mates suggested that “children change everything.�

Summary of Results The results from this study consisted of the most significant and relevant data collected from a sample of 20 participants and thus 10 couples. The results have been outlined as Factors of Sustainability (FOS) and 11 common themes: Predictors of Marriage, Personality Traits, Childhood Experiences, Benefits of Marriage, Drawbacks of Marriage, Disagreements, Obstacles, Coping Strategies, Marriage is Work, Marital Supports, and Social Factors. The central concept of sustainability in marriage provides a context for understanding the above themes that emerged from the results which will be discussed at length in Chapter V: Findings, Discussion, and Implications.

A total of 30 interviews provided a wealth of information about what has kept the couples in this study together. An overview of the results is listed below as a quick reference for the reader in preparation for the discussion in the next chapter. 

Love is a FOS according to 10 out of 10 Mates.

113



Morals/Values is a FOS as reported by 6 out of 10 Mates.



Partnership is a FOS identified by 6 out of 10 Mates.



Couples interviews revealed morals/values as a FOS for 10 out of 10 couples.



Couples interviews revealed compatibility as a FOS for 7 out of 10 couples.



Husbands interviews captured love as a FOS for 7 out of 10 Husbands.



Wives interviews captured love and partnership as a FOS for 7 out of 10 Wives.



10 out of 10 Mates reported predictors of marriage during early courtship.



10 out of 10 Mates recognized childhood experiences as influential on views, attitudes, and behavior.



Partnership is a benefit of marriage and sacrifice is a drawback of marriage.



6 out of 10 Husbands identified family as the primary source of support.



Supports for Wives consisted of friends, God/faith, and acts of self-preservation.



10 out of 10 Mates agreed that marriage is work.

114

Chapter V

Findings, Discussion, and Implications This chapter provides the reader with an interpretation of the findings based on the results from Chapter IV. The findings emerged from the results and address the research question: What factors contribute to the sustainable marriages of Generation X African American couples? This study aimed to conceptualize sustainable marriage through the lens of self-psychology. The goal of this qualitative study was to focus on the theory that develops and to learn about what keeps these marriages together using a constructivist worldview.

The GenX participants in this study provided a narrative that revealed their own subjective life experiences from childhood to adulthood and within a social and cultural context that shaped their sense of self in the world and in relation to others. Participants emphasized the importance of early caregiver relationships in the development of the self and the influences on belief systems, attitudes, behavior, and overall responsiveness in intimate relationships.

115

The chapter is organized with an overview of findings followed by a discussion of the findings in relation to the common themes and the basic theoretical concepts of selfpsychology. Finally, the implications of these findings on clinical social work practice are identified and the conclusions from this study are summarized.

Overview of findings: FOS. 1. Love as a FOS is subjective, holds multiple meanings to individuals, and yet the language is universal. The participants described love as a connection and deep affection for their spouse that may not necessarily reflect the overall quality of the marriage or level of marital satisfaction.

2. Morals/values as a FOS is displayed through individual self-described personality traits and characteristics that yield a sense of confidence in spousal compatibility which is linked to longevity.

3. Partnership is a FOS and the greatest benefit of marriage. It is described as a bond, friendship, or companionship that is combined with a sense of compatibility. It is created from the responsiveness to individual, spousal, and dyadic needs for love and maintenance of foundational ideals in the marriage thus contributing to sustainability in the intimate marital relationship.

Overview of findings: Common themes.

1. Participants demonstrated the capacity to be reflective about ways of knowing, assigning meaning, and constructing a worldview from their own subjective experience.

To be reflective is a great strength of this cohort and may be indicative of selfobject needs (mirroring, idealization, twinship) having been met.

2. Childhood experiences and observations of primary caregivers, grandparents, extended family members, and other couples influenced the participants views, attitudes, and behavior about gender roles, household functions, marital expectations, parenting, and relationship dynamics.

3. There is a link between childhood experiences and self-described personality traits which develop over the lifespan and is unique to everyone. Participants in this study revealed gender differences and yet shared similarities as a cohort.

116

4. Predictors of marriage such as a mutual sense of feeling right for each other, desirable partner characteristics, and the ability to overcome obstacles were revealed during the early stages of courtship.

5. The participants hold traditional views about gender roles such as the husband being a provider and the wife as caretaker of the children and home. However, those views did not necessarily dictate the functions of the household and daily responsibilities.

Traditional views were maintained while gender roles became more nontraditional based on the needs of the nuclear family over time.

6. Participants survived challenges and obstacles early and later in marriage that secured the partnership, fostered a sense of intimacy and connection, and provided a repertoire of coping strategies from which to build a long-lasting relationship.

7. There is a “learning curve” in marriage that establishes a way of relating to one another. It is described as a stage or process of developing a deeper knowledge and understanding of oneself as a wife/mother or husband/father, as well as a greater understanding of one’s spouse in addition to the needs of the spouse.

8. Marriage is work, yet worth it, because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

9. Marriage requires support from family, friends, God/faith, and the use of positive coping strategies. There are gender differences in the use and type of supports accessed by the Wives versus Husbands.

10. Self-preservation is an important supportive factor and helps to maintain a healthy sense of self in the marital dyad.

11. Race is a social factor that influences many aspects of an individual’s life. It is linked to important outcomes such as socioeconomic status, educational attainment, employment, health, household composition, and overall life experiences. Participants in this study shared common concerns about the state of marriage and family in the Black community, the lack of positive multimedia messages about/for African Americans, as well as fears and worry for their children given race relations in the US. Theoretical Discussion of Findings The basic concepts of self-psychology were outlined in Chapter II: Literature Review. Kohut’s self-psychology provides an explanation for what contributes to the participants’ ability to sustain the marital relationship over time. Kohut (1971, 1977,

117

1984) theorized that the development of a cohesive self is established because of the selfobject function of the caregiver in response to the child’s mirroring, idealization, and twinship selfobject needs. Selfobject needs arise from within the child as a yearning for a response/provision from the caregiver. Thus, the caregiver supplies the selfobject function that promotes development of the child’s self. Healthy selfobject function likely yields a healthy sense of self and vice versa. The need for selfobject function is continuous throughout the lifespan and yet provided differently as one ages. The individual need for selfobject function is constant over the course of development as one seeks responsiveness to their needs. Galatzer-Levy and Cohler (1990) summarized selfobject functions as “psychological representations of others that are experienced as part of the self and that function, in a variety of ways, to support a person’s sense of a liveliness and cohesiveness…that promote development by holding the person through the periods of instability and change that are necessary for psychological development.” (p.94).

In the case of marital dyads, there is a longing to receive healthy responses to or a healthy supply of selfobject needs. It is unknown whether the needs exist from met or unmet stages in development. However, it can be assumed that selfobject needs evolve over time in a relatively healthy and mature individual. Furthermore, there is a need for selfobjects across the lifespan (Galatzer-Levy & Cohler, 1990).

Kohut (1984) posits that selfobject function in response to the child’s mirroring needs tend to promote the development of the self, confidence, and the motivation to succeed. He also asserts that healthy idealization needs likely establish an internal sense

118

of strength, security, morality, and self-management of one’s thoughts, emotions, and behavior. Kohut presumed that twinship needs foster a feeling of connectedness to others; a sense of belonging; and at times met the mirroring needs that may not have been totally responded to by the caregiver which present as residue from childhood. The provision of selfobject function in response to the selfobject needs of the child enable development of individual motivations and subsequently influence behavior in relation to others. The experience of caregivers/significant others who provide a self-sustaining function; and who by their mere presence, activities, and/or responses promote the development of the child (Bacal, 1994); and who equip the child to maintain selfcohesion as they get older is paramount to establishing a foundation for all relationships and thus marriage.

Mirroring, idealization, and twinship needs can be expressed in many ways within the marital dyad. The response to these needs may be conveyed through verbal/nonverbal communication that transpires from emotional states or needs brought into the marital relationship. Thus, the spouse’s ability to provide selfobject function in a response to their husband/wife that is affirming, supportive, and encouraging ultimately acknowledges the value or significance of the spouse. For example, it may consist of supporting and encouraging one’s spouse to pursue education and employment goals as well as other hobbies/interests. Idealization may present as a high regard, approval, or respect for one’s spouse and their standards, ambitions, or goals. The desire to maintain a two-parent household is an example of shared beliefs about children and family that align and help to maintain internal morals/values. Twinship may be expressed as acceptance

119

and understanding of one’s spouse, which fosters a sense of belonging and protection which forms an intimate bond in the marital relationship. It may include working together through life obstacles and marital stress.

Leone (2008) asserts that in couple relationships an individual may look for… experiences that help them consolidate and maintain a positive, cohesive sense of self. More simply, people want a partner who makes them feel better, not worse.

This generally means someone understanding, positive, and affirming; someone they can look up to, admire, and lean on in times of stress, who helps with the experience, modulation and integration of affect; and someone with whom they feel a sense of essential likeness and belonging – in other words, someone who functions as a reliable source of selfobject experience” (p. 81).

Factors of sustainability (FOS).

Love.

Love as the main FOS reflects the selfobject need for mirroring and partnership.

It is described by the participants as a strong sense of intimacy, connection, regard, or adoration for one’s spouse. The Mates identified love as the most significant factor but not the only factor contributing to the longevity of their marriages. The concept of love is subjective. Yet the language is universal and can hold multiple definitions and meanings for individuals. It cannot be assumed that love automatically yields romance, a healthy relationship dynamic, or a high degree of marital satisfaction. I would argue that love may still exist in the absence of these things. Love as a FOS may reflect the Mates

120

affection for their spouses and thus the loyalty and desire to stay married. Future studies may examine further the concept of love as described by the individuals, selfobject needs in the marital dyad, and overall marital satisfaction in relation to sustainability.

Morals/values.

Morals/values as a FOS reflects the selfobject need for idealization and is described as a sense of knowing what is right/wrong and what one identifies to be of great importance or significance. One’s morals/values speak to their individual beliefs, characteristics, and self-described personality traits. It can be assumed that a partner is a good match if they share similar morals/values. Moreover, having shared morals/values fosters a sense of connectedness and emotional stability that can be helpful to couples when problem-solving issues and resolving conflicts effectively.

Future studies may also further examine each individual participant using personality assessments to determine if there are commonalities in personality types and thus specific types that benefit relationship stability. A closer look at interpersonal relationship patterns, personality characteristics, and relationship satisfaction may explain further how these factors impact sustainability.

Partnership.

Partnership as a FOS reflects the selfobject function for twinship. It is described as a feeling of a selfobject relationship that is stronger than friendship or companionship and yet like the caregiver relationship from early development. It is established through

121

the reciprocity of supplying selfobject function to each other, spending a significant amount of time together, supporting each other, and working together as a team toward a common goal. Partnership was also identified by the Mates as the main benefit of being married. During the Wives interviews, not only did seven out of 10 Wives indicate that love was the most significant factor but seven out of 10 also identified partnership as the most significant FOS. It is not surprising that partnership is considered FOS because the mere fact that one desires to be married suggests that one does not want to be alone or that there is a desire to share life with another. This, too, relates to the fulfillment of one’s selfobject needs by joining or being in partnership with another. It is the need for attunement, admiration, and sameness that makes the partnership a benefit of marriage.

Mrs. McCabe, Mr. Steele, and Mrs. Knight stated that “we’re friends” when describing their partnership or marital relationship. The Mates mentioned that they were “partners” and described the benefit of having a partner in life to divide responsibilities, share new experiences, and provide support. Mrs. Henry stated, “I think the huge advantage is partnership. You always have a partner. You always have a partner to bounce ideas off, even though you want to be right and you want things to be your way all the time, you have somebody who can temper you when necessary. You always have a sounding board, you always have somebody to go the distance with you, you always have a built-in support system…” Mr. Washington stated, “…the important thing is being with somebody who is not only my friend and my lover but also my partner, and that has been something that has been really important to me. The idea of marriage for me was really

122

predicated on being able to be with somebody who I can be a partner with. We could grow together. We could build something together‌�

In this study, within the feeling of love is a shared experience between the couple of feeling valued and cared for as the needs of mirroring, idealization, and twinship are met. According to Berzhoff (2012), We need others for specific functions so that we can feel cohesive and whole. We need others to accurately mirror who we are, so that we can see ourselves reflected as valuable and worthwhile and have our ambitions supported. We need to feel that there are others into whom we can merge so that we feel safe and stable. We need others whom we can idealize so that we can feel part of something larger than ourselves and hold a coherent worldview, grounded in an ethical stance. We need to find others who are like us, so that we feel connected to the human race (Kohut, 1977, 1996). When people are not mirrored, do not have access to others for idealization, or feel too alien and alone, a lack of selfcohesion can ensure. Without what we call mirroring, idealizing, and twinship experiences, healthy self-esteem, goals, and ambitions can be undermined.

Racism, classism, sexism, homophobia may lead to assaults on the self, but not always.

123

The following Figure 1 depicts FOS as love, morals/values, and partnership. It represents the connection between the FOS and the basic concepts of mirroring, idealization, and twinship in self-psychology.

Figure 1.

Factors of Sustainability

Love (Mirroring)

Morals/Values (Idealization)

Factors of Sustainability

Partnership (Twinship)

Impact of Childhood Experiences.

The influence of childhood experiences emerged as a common theme in this study. Desirable and undesirable childhood experiences such as married, separated, and/or divorced parents, parent-child relationships, sibling bonds, and familial support were noted as having an impact on the participants. Both desirable and undesirable childhood experiences can equally be assumed to have an impact on child outcomes and therefore caregivers have a primary role in the development of a child. Primary

124

caregivers provide their children with a guide for what is considered right and wrong as well as what is valued or important. For example, the expectation to pursue higher education or to marry may be established during a child’s early formative years.

Likewise, belief in a higher power, religious affiliation, religious doctrine, religious practices, and/or spirituality is often predetermined for a child until they reach the age of consent. The selfobject need for mirroring promotes the development of the self, just as idealization establishes a moral compass and belief system. Therefore, it is important to consider an individual’s early relationships, upbringing, and childhood experiences. It allows us to better understand how childhood experiences influence morals/values; views about gender roles and parenting; and expectations of marriage/spouse.

Personality traits.

Childhood experiences influence the development of the self and thus one’s character/personality. The selfobject need for mirroring also contributes to one’s selfconfidence and motivation to succeed in every aspect of life but especially in intimate relationships. When mirroring needs are met within the selfobject relationship, the individual can develop a healthy structure within the self which promotes a feeling of confidence and accomplishment. It also establishes a foundation for how one can anticipate or receive selfobject function in a relationship. I invited the participants to describe their own personalities and those of their partner rather than formally assess and analyze each participant’s personality into specific categories. The participants in this study identified their individual strengths as well as desirable/undesirable qualities they

125

observed in their spouses. Self-described personality traits, and how those traits actually play out in the context of marriage would be an area for further exploration. It may provide valuable insights into sustainability. However, this study did not set out to evaluate personality using a formal assessment tool. I can only speculate that certain personality traits would tend to better support sustainability in marriage. The Mates mentioned effective communication and commitment as personality traits worth further investigation.

Role models.

The number of participants with married parents during childhood may have predisposed them to marry, sustain their marriages, and commit to this study. The selfobject function of mirroring and idealization fosters a sense of admiration and high regard for primary caregivers and role models. Observations and responsiveness of parents, grandparents, extended family members, and other couples seemed to influence views, attitudes, and behavior in premarital relationships and thus marriage. For instance, Mr. Knight is from a two-parent household and recalled that his father was not verbally expressive. Rather than saying, “I love you,� his father’s love was experienced through the efforts made to be a good provider for the family. Mr. Knight takes pride in providing for his family and previously viewed it as most important. However, he now would like to work on verbally expressing love to his wife and children beyond just being a provider.

This would be a different form of expression from that of the experience of his father during childhood. In contrast, Mrs. King witnessed affection daily in a two-parent

126

household. Her parents prayed with them and the Kings do the same with their own children. In this study, many of the participants described childhood experiences of being loved and cared for by primary caregivers. Nevertheless, there were also participants who described childhood experiences with caregivers (e.g. mothers or fathers) related to periods of separation and/or divorce that resulted in more criticism of their parental role models.

Gender roles.

The Mates’ traditional views were likely established during childhood. The selfobject functions of idealization and twinship provided the foundation for mutual respect and acceptance in relation to another. For many, traditional views consisted of the man’s role as provider and protector and the wife’s role as homemaker and primary caregiver for the children. Furthermore, the Mates had single/married role models who fulfilled specific gender roles. Parents/caregivers were likely observed as being the ideal models or imperfect examples of how to be or not to be. In this study, the foundation of traditional gender roles did not necessarily dictate the daily functions of the household.

The responsibility of household chores, home maintenance/repairs, household finances, and daily childcare were initially fulfilled based on traditional gender roles and occurred regardless of prior discussion and consensus. The fulfillment of the household responsibilities later fell into nontraditional gender roles given life circumstances.

The Mates had traditional views, but household responsibilities fluctuated based on early versus later years of marriage. It also fluctuated based on the needs of the family

127

given changes in employment status, health, and the addition of children. Typically, couples fulfilled core traditional roles. However, the teamwork approach was common among the Mates. For example, Mr. McCabe was the primary caregiver for his daughter for the first few years after birth when his wife returned to work. Additionally, many of the Husbands were actively involved in parenting, childcare, and daily schedules/routines for their children. The traditional female role of caregiver and homemaker did not necessarily change for the Wives but some of the responsibilities were shared with the Husbands. For example, Mrs. Henry fulfilled traditional roles earlier in marriage such as cooking and cleaning. However, later in marriage she did not cook much and focused on maintaining a clean home which Mr. Henry preferred and worked best for them. In this study, only one wife did not work full-time and outside the home due to health-related issues. All other wives work full-time.

Parenting.

The Mates childhood experiences also influenced how they parent their own children. The selfobject functions of mirroring and idealization establishes a basis for responding to emotional needs and upholding standards in the parent-child relationship dynamic. In self-psychology, the focus is on who the parent/caregiver is that influences who the infant will become as a wife/husband and as a parent. Mrs. Washington stated that her mother would “always talk about things and have a forum on how things were going.” Mrs. Washington also stated that “I learned a lot of what not to do by example, by watching what my mom did and how she did things with my sisters. I try to model that with my parenting…” Disagreements about parenting occurred when there was a

128

difference in parenting styles that also stemmed from childhood experiences. Again, couples may differ in expectations of their spouses as parents based on what they experienced growing up. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Henry have different parenting styles. Mrs. Henry stated that “…my mom was very strict, so I tend to be very strict and by the book…I think that in everything there is a lesson.” On the other hand, Mr. Henry stated that “…it won't bother me if we don't play a game as a family…and everybody's off watching a TV show because that's how it was in my house.”

The Stewart’s disagreed about assigning household chores to their children. Mr. Stewart was raised doing chores inside and outside the home and is of the mindset that he paid his dues during childhood. However, Mrs. Stewart was raised in a home where everyone in the family cleaned on the weekend. She stated that assigning/completing household chores “depends on time and availability and freedom” of each member in the family unit.

This study used a grounded theory approach to establish a theory about what sustains GenX African American marriages over time. Figure 2 below depicts the grounded theory that emerged from this study and Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual and theoretical frameworks. The following figures represent the impact of childhood experiences on belief system and views about marriage as it relates to self-psychological functions. The figure reminds us that the foundation for intimate relationships is establish from early caregiver responsiveness. Additionally, the cost-benefit analysis is displayed as participants in this study determined that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks thus contributing to sustainability.

129

Figure 2.

Grounded Theory

Childhood Experiences (+/-)

Belief System (Morals/Values)

Marital Views (Traditional/Nontraditional Roles)

Figure 3.

Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks

Social Constructivist Worldview

130

Sustainable Marriage

Grounded Theory

Soc ial

Benefits of Marriage FOS: Love, Morals/Values, Partnership

Exc han ge Drawbacks of Marriage The Sacrifice (e.g. Children) ory

Family/Financial Stressors

Kohut’s Self-psychological Functions: Mirroring, Idealization, Twinship Childhood Experiences

Courtship predictors of marriage.

The duration of each courtship varied among the Mates. However, most foresaw the potential for marriage during the earlier stages of courtship. The predictors of

131

marriage were a result of obstacles overcome by the couple and/or positive experiences shared with each other. The Mates reported having a sense that their partners were right for them earlier in the courtship.

The Mates noted that quality time and “good conversation” revealed positive and desirable characteristics in their partners. Characteristics such as being honest, independent, ambitious, educated, and goal-oriented were evident during the courtships.

The Mates also described experiencing feelings of acceptance, appreciation, comfortability, and overall effortlessness as the relationships developed. Some couples prayed individually/collectively about their relationships and sought confirmation from God. Others made sacrifices during their courtships such as relocating or postponing personal goals.

These findings highlight the importance of the courtship process for the participants in this study. The selfobject functions of mirroring, idealization, and twinship influences one’s behavior and motivation in relationships with others and thus during courtship. There is no definitive timeframe for developing a romantic relationship that leads to marriage. However, the courtship process revealed overall the participants’ personalities, belief systems, strengths, growth areas, and differences. The positive experiences as well as the obstacles overcome during courtship established a foundation from which these couples were able to build trust, honesty, intimacy, and ultimately a future together. The Mates persevered, and survived challenges such as breaks ups and children from previous relationships while dating each other. Courtship is an essential process for identifying partner qualities, establishing a romantic relationship, and

132

identifying candidates for marriage. Ultimately, it is the foundation from which a connection is built and the desire to marry is established.

Benefits of marriage.

Partnership is noted as the main benefit of marriage. It is also indicated as a FOS and serves the selfobject functions of mirroring and twinship. Motivation to sustain marriage is supported by the benefits of partnership which fosters a sense of belonging and forms intimate bonds. This suggests that the idea of joining with another through marriage is based on the desire for partnership and companionship and thus seen as the greatest benefit. Partnership is the greatest benefit, but the Mates also noted other marital benefits such as being out of the “dating game,� safety and security, stability and consistency, overall well-being and feeling cared for, and happiness. Research shows there are benefits to heterosexual marriage for all regardless of race. However, these are the benefits identified by this African American GenX cohort. Future studies may consider benefits to heterosexual and homosexual marriages or benefits based on marital ethnic groups.

Interestingly, the Wives and Husbands identified different benefits to marriage in their individual interviews. This may be in part because they had an opportunity to think more about how they personally have benefited from marriage versus the collective benefit of marriage. While the Wives maintained partnership as the main benefit, the Husbands experienced the benefit of more personal growth because of marriage. The Husbands described this growth as impacting their sense of self as well as their

133

professional networks and careers. For example, Mr. Washington stated that “I feel like marriage has made me a better man and is continuing to make me a good man…I’ve grown professionally and engaged in experiences and struggles that I probably would not have had the opportunity of participating in had I not been married.” Similarly, Mr. Myles stated “…[marriage] it's definitely enhanced my overall being. My business has grown. I'm probably healthier…[marriage] it's definitely made me a better person.”

Overall, one of the greatest benefits of marriage is having a partner whom one loves and who is willing to make sacrifices to work with and support a spouse through the obstacles of marriage/life. The benefit of this partnership as well as the sacrifices out of love are linked to sustainability in marriage.

Drawbacks of marriage.

The Mates in this study agreed that, despite the benefits there are also drawbacks to being married. The biggest drawback revealed in this study was sacrifice.

Additionally, marital stressors and challenges were identified by the participants.

Sacrifice. The Mates described sacrifice as giving up something of value to them for something more important to the marriage and/or family. Sacrifice was not always viewed by the participants as negative but more of a responsibility. For example, Mr. Waller stated that “…the stuff that we've sacrificed in our relationship is tolerable.” Mrs. Washington stated that “there are times when you have to think about your children before you think about yourself. You make sacrifices for your children. It really doesn't always seem like a sacrifice, because the love that you have for a child…” Likewise, Mr.

134

Steele stated that “…you have to really learn to eat that word [sacrifice] being married because you can’t do it the way you used to by yourself. A lot of times you’re on a back burner, a lot of times you’re cooking and feeding and you’re tending to somebody else’s need before you tend to yours…It is easy to lose yourself.”

It is important to note that in the individual interviews sacrifice was noted by the Wives and Husbands as the main drawback. It cannot be assumed that the Wives and Husbands sacrifice equally or in the same way. Likewise, it cannot be assumed that the identified benefits of marriage outweigh the sacrifices although some couples stated that “there are more pros than cons.” There is a connection between sacrifice as a drawback and love as a FOS. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Mates sacrificed because of love for their spouse as well as their love for the children. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the increase in responsibility impacted the amount to which either spouse sacrificed. Sacrifice appeared to be an expectation for oneself and/or of one’s spouse. It was often discussed that the sacrifices were made to benefit the nuclear family unit.

Stressors and challenges.

The Mates identified their parents, relatives, and in-laws as causing the most stress, respectively. Stress from children and their spouses were noted as bearing the same weight of stress on the marriage. Given the various ways in which the Wives and Husbands sacrificed, their levels of stress may have differed and varied, resulting in similarities and differences in their coping strategies.

135

Obstacles are common in marriage just as they are in life for all. The Mates made a distinction between obstacles that occurred earlier in marriage and those that occurred later or were on-going. Children created the biggest obstacle earlier in marriage as the Mates aimed to maintain their marriages while adjusting to new roles as wives/husbands with household responsibilities and their roles as parents. It may be that the Mates had to establish who they were as a couple/parents seemingly in comparison to their own parents or caregivers.

Later in marriage, the Mates experienced family illness and grief/loss of parents or family members combined with an increase in stress given the added responsibility of being supportive to family members. During the study, the Mates’ primary sources of stress were family and finances with finances being the most common cause of disagreement between the Mates. They also had disagreements about parenting and household functions. These obstacles continued to be a work in progress. The work of marriage not only included the challenges and life obstacles experienced in the Mates’ nuclear family unit but also the additional weight of extended family matters to some degree. Overcoming challenges together in marriage and sharing the emotional experience serves the selfobject function of twinship. It also establishes a pattern of relating to each other that sustains the Mates to do the “work” of marriage.

Marriage is work.

136

This work was defined by the Mates as a mutual effort to coexist and address challenges together. It can be assumed that despite the idea that “marriage is work,” there is a commitment to do the work and a greater reward. The following participants commented on the work: Mrs. McCabe: …we kind of make it work.

Mr. Washington: …it's worth putting in the sweat equity to make it work.

Mrs. King …we must make it work… it's a blessing to know that we have been able to reciprocate what we give out.

Mr. Garrett: …I understand what you have to give up. You have to give up part of who you are to make it work.

In general, the Mates noted that marriage is “…a career…work…challenging…two people coming together…peace of mind…about sacrifice and compromise. They also commented that marriage is not “…a perpetual/endless date…an end-point…for everyone…valued…perfect.” Given the challenging times and the work of marriage, the benefits and drawbacks of marriage may be revisited thus prompting the use coping strategies and marital supports to sustain the marriage.

Coping strategies.

Managing life obstacles and maintaining the work of marriage require the use of coping strategies and supports. These strategies and supports vary across individuals but there were some similarities and differences among the Wives and Husbands. The Mates

137

identified communication, allowing “time to heal,” and “picking battles” wisely as conflict resolution strategies.

Marital supports.

Supports such as family, friends, and God/faith contribute to the selfobject need for mirroring, idealization, and twinship. They serve the function of shoring up one’s confidence and motivation needed to sustain the marital relationship over time. These supports also aid the couples in managing emotions and behavior while maintaining internal morals/values. Additionally, the sense of connectedness to such supports fosters a sense of belonging and protection when working through marital challenges.

Family/friends.

Across the three different interviews, eight out of 10 couples during the Couple Interview and six out of 10 husbands during the Husbands interviews identified family as the primary source of support while nine out of 10 Wives during the Wives interviews identified friends as supportive. The Mates identified their parents, siblings, in-laws, relatives, and friends as being supportive by helping with the children (e.g., childcare and transportation); offering marital advice; providing emotional support through life obstacles; and creating a safe space for venting frustrations.

Despite the support, family was the main source of stress for the Mates. This may be due in part to inevitable events such as deaths of parents, family members, or close relatives. Additionally, aging parents and family members with health-related issues tend

138

to require the Mates’ support or involvement. Furthermore, family members sought financial support, stable housing, and childcare which also added to their stress. It is not clear if the family support received by the Mates was an additional benefit to marriage or if it was enough compensation for the support they gave and the added stress they took on.

God/faith.

Although there is a link between God/faith and church community, it should not be assumed that the Mates attended religious services regularly or at all; nor that they were actively involved in faith communities. However, many of the Mates currently/previously attended religious services or were actively involved in their church communities. Despite the common belief in God/faith, few of the Mates accessed other supports and resources such as retreats, workshops, or couple/individual counseling through the church for the benefit of their marriages. However, many of them (six out of 10) received premarital counseling through churches as a prerequisite to marrying.

The Mates’ belief systems (God/faith, morals/values) as a form of support were identified during the Couple and Wives Interviews. It is important to note that the participants’ belief systems and the incorporation of God/faith in their lives stemmed from childhood experiences and God/faith alone was not a FOS. However, individual and collective morals/values is a FOS developed from one’s belief system.

139

Marital wisdom.

Most of the Mates recalled advice they received from family and friends that resonated with them during periods of dating, courtship, and marriage. Likewise, it was not uncommon for the Mates to share the wisdom they gained over their years of marriage. The sharing of “old adages,� advice, and wisdom speaks to the ways in which individuals internalize messages they receive from caregivers, idealized others, society, and within cultures. These messages likely aided in the development of their belief systems or challenged them in other ways.

While some couples noted the importance of being mindful of what was shared with others outside the marriage, it seems that talking about one’s experience in marriage and/or parenthood provided a space for validation, encouragement, normalization, and ultimately a shared experience with other married individuals.

Self-preservation.

Self-preservation is a common theme in this study as seven out of 10 of the Mates and six out of 10 Wives identified acts of self-preservation as supportive factors.

Satisfying individual needs appeared to be just as important to the Mates as fulfilling the needs of their spouse. Self-preservation as described by the Mates included pursuing interests/goals, maintaining physical appearance, socializing with others, nurturing the spiritual self, and time alone to do whatever one chose. It could be something as simple as a few minutes of quiet time, reading a book, watching television, or getting a massage.

A common theme among the Mates is a sense of losing oneself in the marriage therefore, self-preservation was an important supportive factor. For example, Mrs. King often joked with Mr. King by asking, "What did we do with all the time we had before

140

marriage?" Mrs. King went on to say that “I know what I would've done…Marriage and parenthood are joint or collaborative conversations, or separate. If it was just marriage, I would still do 90% of what I probably did prior to marriage…” Another example of the way in which the Mates value self-preservation is in Mr. Steele’s statement that “It is easy to lose yourself but…I think we’ve been good because we still learn how to be individuals, but together at the same time.”

During the individual interviews, self-preservation or maintaining a sense of self appeared to be more important to the Wives because of what Mrs. Waller described as trying to do it all. She stated that “it’s the super woman syndrome…You know the home maker…excellent cook and keeping up with my appearance and having to maintain my self-image and then being educated and the jobs…in management, leading, being responsible for staff…high standards for my kids. I wanted them to academically perform and do well…coming home, get involved, help them with homework and they play sports. Still being able to be beautiful for my husband and still please him in the bedroom…and then maintaining a sense of self…” Self-preservation or maintaining individuality is a supportive factor that also remains a challenge to overcome in marriage.

Maintaining individuality in marriage was mentioned by the Mates as a drawback because it is difficult to balance given the needs of the spouse/marriage and family. Mrs. Waller stated that “the drawback is maintaining your individuality and still being cohesive for a common goal.” Mr. Washington commented that “…if you’re not feeling good as an individual then there’s no way that you can be able to fully give to the marriage.” Mrs. Garrett received advice from her grandmother about the importance of

141

self-preservation and she shared some of the conversations they had. Mrs. Garret stated that “I shared a lot about what I thought and what I was going through. And she [grandmother] was very encouraging. Telling me to keep at it and definitely telling me to go out of town or take a trip or associate with my friends…when I had the opportunity to go somewhere or leave and taking that opportunity…my grandmother, my family, was supportive, my mom…I never had to worry about if I had to leave my child at home.”

Social factor of race.

Race as a social construct cannot be excluded from the conversation about outcomes for African Americans given the historical events of slavery, discrimination, and mass incarceration. Trauma from such events significantly impacted the structure of the Black family and community. In this study, there was a common theme of concern, fear, and worry for the Black boys being raised today with police brutality and shootings as well as gun violence in the Black community and beyond. Race, in general, was a common theme in this study, especially given its focus on African American couples.

There is a sense that African Americans have survived many challenges and yet have many struggles before them given the changing times in society. Additional research may include a historical analysis of the impact social factors such as race have on African American marriage and family outcomes.

The projection of race through television, advertisements, and social media was a topic of discussion in this study. Some couples recalled childhood memories of positive images of the Black family such as The Cosby Show and The Jeffersons on television.

142

However, there was a general sense that positive images of African American couples and Black families were limited then and now given present-day multimedia sources. The above television families were held in high regard by some of the Mates in the study.

These television families provided a positive example of the Black family and how to be a husband/wife and parent. Importance was placed on the need for positive images not only for the children but also for the Mates to have a sense of community for married couples. Some Mates expressed the need for more positive images promoting marriage and its benefits. Overall, the Mates reported receiving more negative images or the absence of African Americans in various multimedia sources. There was also a feeling of concern about the generational cohorts who follow GenXers and a significant decline in outcomes for African Americans in the future.

Implications of the Study Limitations.

The limitations in this study are specific to the demographics of the sample and my familiarity with some participants. The demographics of this sample are specific to African Americans of the GenX cohort who have been married for 10 years or more. The specific requirement of same-race couples is limited to socially constructed categories of race such as African American, Black, and/or Black American. It does not account for biracial participants or mixed-race couples.

Therefore, this study represents the perspective of a small group of GenX African American couples. It did not account for the entire Africa diaspora apart from one couple in this study of West Indian heritage. Additionally, the Mates in this study were of middle

143

to upper middle-class status and educated. This was not intentional, and it is the result of snowball sampling. Some participants in this study referred other couples they knew.

The recruitment of participants in this study resulted in similar profiles of individuals despite efforts to recruit a diverse sample. In addition to demographics, the sample size of 10 couples is a limitation in this study as the theory that emerged may not generalize to couples who are impoverished or have less education.

In the spirit of transparency and full disclosure, the reader should be aware that my demographics are like that of the homogeneous sample. Additionally, I am familiar with three out of 10 couples who participated in this study. However, it should be noted that I did not initially pursue them, as the three wives initially expressed interest in participating in the study upon receipt of my request to share the public notice of the study. I am more familiar with these wives, as acquaintance was made with one in 1990, another in 2004, and the other in 2014.

Careful consideration was given to including these three couples in the sample and consultation was ongoing with my dissertation chairperson. The three couples with whom I am more familiar were included in the sample only after recruitment efforts had been exhausted and seven couples were already obtained. This decision aligned with Charmaz’s flexible approach to reaching saturation, but it is also a limitation to this study as the inclusion of these participants may raise concerns. The concerns carefully considered were related to whether the Mates volunteered to participate in the study and felt comfortable being interviewed by me. Questions may be raised as to whether the participants were able to respond to interview questions openly and honestly or if they

144

had concerns about self-disclosure given my relationship history with the three wives and familiarity with their husbands. Given consultation with my dissertation chairperson, I acknowledged this as a potential limitation.

The above limitations may lead to further research on this topic. Suggestions for future research on this topic include a comparative analysis between the three points of data – Couples interviews, Wives interviews, and Husbands interviews. This study did not seek to analyze the consistencies or inconsistencies between responses during the three interviews. However, future studies may take a closer look at the findings and conduct a comparative analysis of the data to enhance validity and accuracy. Additional studies on this topic may distinguish between couples married with children and without children. The FOS, benefits and drawbacks, and supports may vary for those married for 10 years or more with children versus those without children.

This study did not include a historical summary or analysis of slavery and discrimination. Future researchers may examine the impact of this historical context on marriage outcomes for African Americans. This may help to understand the changes in relationship dynamics between Black men and women as well as the shift in the structure of the Black family. Another limitation in this study is the absence of psychosocial and developmental history of the participants. Future studies may include surveys, assessments, additional interviews to determine selfobject needs, personal characteristics, and relationship satisfaction. The additional data would help identify relational patterns and personality types that are characteristic to sustainability in marriage. Moreover, the additional data may help determine level of marital satisfaction in marriages that remain

145

stable. Future studies may be able to answer the question of whether sustainability equals overall marital satisfaction. Furthermore, longitudinal studies may capture longevity beyond 10 years of marriage.

Policy.

The implications of this study on policies, marriage initiatives, and programs are varied. Given the FOS – love, morals/values, and partnership – a strengths-based perspective can impact policies by shifting the focus and conversation to and about African American families. In lieu of focusing on the shortcomings, take a closer look at the resilience, fortitude, and spirit of African American couples and children. The reflective capacity, work ethic, and values of this group is a relative strength that should not be diminished or overlooked. This study promotes a strengths-based approach to developing policies that will advance the efforts targeting this population.

Policies that aim to address the needs of children and the rise in single-parent households may re-evaluate the services and supports available to address early childhood needs, particularly of underserved populations. I would argue that caregivers are better able to provide stable and nurturing environments for children when basic needs such as healthcare, food, clothing, and shelter are adequately met. The absence of these basic needs will likely cause caregivers financial stress which threatens their sense of security and stability, ultimately limiting the caregiver’s availability for bonding and emotional capacity to meet the child’s selfobject needs for mirroring, idealization, and twinship.

146

The social construction of race and its reflection through multimedia sources impact the perceptions and assumptions about this group. The findings in this study reveal the need for a well-balanced depiction of African American couples, marriage, and families. This would not only benefit the Black community, but it would also foster a healthy sense of self for children as they develop into adults. It would also dispel the myths about low expectations and the lack of values in the Black community. It would promote the strengths of this population versus highlighting only the alarming statistics.

Marriage has been viewed as one way to address poverty in the US. However, as one participant stated, “Marriage is not for everyone.� This study may have implications on policies that target poverty by promoting marriage in the Black community.

Narrowing the focus to marriage as a solution to poverty may contribute to the rise in divorce and/or the decline in marriage among this generational cohort. Marriage trends have changed as many couples are cohabitating and raising children together.

Policies and programs that focus on providing caregivers (married or cohabitating) with various resources are more likely to see an improvement in child outcomes for African Americans. Resources may include, but are not limited to, financial assistance, education, childcare assistance, parenting classes, employment assistance, and counseling. The lack of resources will likely create undue stress on the caregivers, thus minimizing their responsiveness to the development of their child’s sense of self, thus impacting who they become as adults.

Policies and programs that target healthy marriage initiatives might shift their focus to promoting positive images through multimedia sources and within the Black

147

community. Advertising, marketing, and promotional events for couples may cultivate an image that marriage can be attractive and fun, thus making it more appealing. Research shows that there are benefits to marriage for all, but those benefits tend to be more in the form of individual, interpersonal, or social resources. However, policies or programs that include an economic resource may be an added benefit of marriage. Free to low-cost premarital counseling, couples counseling, workshops/classes, and marriage conferences or retreats as well as tax benefits are a few examples of financial incentives to being married and/or staying married.

Lastly, this study may have implications for the way in which diversity and sensitivity trainings address this topic. This study provides an underrepresented perspective and raises awareness about the impact of slavery, discrimination, and mass incarceration on the family structure. It highlights concerns about raising African American children today and the challenges facing the Black community. The participants in this study gave their perspective on the alarming statistics and outcomes for African Americans. Overall, the implications in this study may have an impact on religious and educational institutions as well as professional and agency settings.

Clinical.

According to Berzhoff (2012),

148

With every client with who we work psychodynamically, we want to listen for the early environment and how it may have facilitated or thwarted a sense of trust.

We need to listen for how our clients have coped in the past and how they cope now. We need to try to understand our clients’ strengths. We need to listen for how relationships with others and a client’s interaction within social structures have come to settle inside the self. We need to understand whether the client we sit with has felt loved, recognized, and valued by her family, community, and society and what mediating factors (resilience, relationships, resources in the community) account for the client’s strengths. We need to know the client’s capacity for self-love and for loving others…We need to listen for the kind and quality of attachments. Or, conversely, we need to assess the social and systemic intrusions on the individual and family that have impinged on the client’s sense of well-being. With every client, then, we are listening to the sediments of history.

These are psychological, social, and biological.

This study revealed the FOS as love, morals/values, and partnership. Selfpsychology provides a way of thinking about the significance of these factors in relation to the selfobject needs for mirroring, idealization, and twinship. Whether working with couples, individuals, or families, a self-psychological clinical orientation provides a foundation for understanding relationship patterns and mental representations of the self.

It focuses on the importance of early caregiver bonds and reminds us to consider early relationship patterns when fostering the therapeutic relationship and establishing the therapeutic frame. The participants in this study revisited early caregiver relationships,

149

romantic relationships, and interpersonal relationships with family, friends, and social networks. The relationships throughout childhood and adulthood provided selfobject experiences of love, morality, self-regulation of emotions, and togetherness. Similarly, the same needs for love, morals/values, and partnership are contributing factors to sustaining marriage over time.

The clinical implications of this study on social work practice is the increased awareness of the long-term impact of early caregiver relationships on the development of the self and thus one’s ability to sustain healthy intimate relationships. Psychodynamic clinicians must understand the importance of the therapeutic relationship and the social/cultural context of the adults, children, couples, and families they service. As clinicians, we have our own biases and prejudices and must make great effort to confront them when working with people from various backgrounds and life experiences.

Awareness of early caregiver experiences will give the clinician insight into a patient’s selfobject needs, transference, and countertransference experiences during the treatment process. Absence of this awareness will make it difficult to establish a therapeutic relationship which is critical to the treatment of the client’s symptoms. There may also be a tendency for same-race clinicians to make assumptions about shared experiences and similarities with their same-race clients. However, it is important that the clinician not lose sight of the meaning clients make out of their own experiences as clinicians’ own subjective experiences can have similar or different meanings.

This study focused on the strengths of this population which can be used as a guide for establishing a healthy therapeutic alliance and for obtaining resources. Clinical

150

social workers are advocates for change on micro and macro levels. Therefore, we must consider societal and cultural factors impacting clients personally and in the environments in which they live, work, and/or receive education

Conclusion A group of 10 African American GenX couples participated in this qualitative grounded theory study. The study aimed to establish a theory about what keeps these couples together despite the alarming statistics and outcomes for African American couples, children, and families. Each couple shared their unique experiences in marriage and beyond as well as the meaning of those experiences from their perspectives. Given the historical context of slavery and discrimination, this generational cohort of married couples survived its impact and they are changing the trajectory of the statistics on African American marriage and divorce rates in the US. Through perseverance, each couple overcame obstacles during courtship and marriage that strengthened their resilience. Love, morals/values, and partnership are the factors contributing to the longevity of these marriages.

The data in this study revealed that these couples experience each other as selfobjects and provide a complementary response that supplies continuous selfobject function to the needs and motivations of their spouse. Partnership and twinship is often brought to light in this study given the reciprocity and working together in the relationship. As the spouses engage, they provide selfobject function similarly to that which feels like continuous development of the self. The husbands and wives are being

151

used in the service of their spouse’s self. Partnership is the primary benefit of marriage identified by the participants in this study. Sacrifice is the main drawback to being married but it was done for the betterment of the nuclear family unit. It seems that having a partner to experience life with is the greatest benefit of being married. Not only did these participants feel connected to their spouses; they also felt supported by their families, friends, and faith. Marriage IS work but these couples showed that they were up for the challenge.

152

Appendix A Public Notice

153

154

Appendix B Screening Interview Script

155

Screening Interview Script Hello, this is Nekeia Wilson following up with you regarding your interest in my study about married couples. Thank you for expressing interest in my study. Is now a good time for you and your spouse to take about 15 minutes to answer a few screening questions so that I can confirm that you both qualify to participate in the study?

If no: Is there a better time/day to call you back? If spouse unavailable: I can proceed without your spouse present if you would like to answer the screening questions on their behalf. It would only require that you get their verbal permission to do so. Your spouse can send an email or text to me confirming that they gave you verbal permission to proceed without them. If yes: I will ask about 10 short questions related to demographic information such as current age. These questions will be followed by 6 additional information questions. The goal of this screening interview is to ensure that you meet the criteria and that there are no limitations to you participating in the study. If you are found eligible for the study, we will proceed with scheduling a convenient time for you to participate in the first interview as a couple. Do you have any questions before I proceed? If there are no further questions, may I proceed with the screening interview questions? If potential participants are not eligible: This concludes the screening interview. Unfortunately, you do not meet the criteria for this study. I appreciate you taking the time to answer the screening questions. Again, thank you for your interest in my study. Have nice day! If potential participants are eligible: This concludes the screening interview. Based on the information you provided, you meet the criteria for participation in my study. I would like to officially invite you to participate in my study: Generation X: Sustaining Black Marriages. If you accept this invitation, I can answer any questions you have, and we can schedule a time for your couple interview. Do you accept this invitation? If potential participants declined invitation: Again, I appreciate you expressing interest in my study and for taking the time to answer the screening questions. Please feel free to pass my information along to anyone you know that might be interested in participating in my study. Thank you and have a nice day. If potential participants accept invitation: Thank you for accepting the invitation to participant in my study. I will give you a brief explanation about the study and give you an opportunity to ask any questions. The study will require your participation in a couple interview and an individual interview. Each couple will receive a $25 thank you gift card for participating.

Do you have any questions? May we proceed with scheduling a time that is convenient for you? If yes: Is there a time of day/day of the week that works best for you? Where would you prefer to meet for the couple interview? May I have an email address to send you a confirmation of our appointment? May I also have your cell phone number and permission to call/text you? If no: Would you like to call me back, email or text me your availability?

156

Appendix C Screening Interview Questions

157

Screening Interview Questions Husband verbal/email consent: Yes/No Date: Start time: End time:

Wife verbal/email consent: Yes/No Couple Code:

May I please have your first name?

What is your current age?

Were you born between the years 1965 and 1980?

Do you identify your race as Black, Black American, or African American?

What is your highest level of education?

Will you please provide your estimated annual income?

Do you and your spouse identify as a heterosexual couple?

Are you legally married? How long?

What was your age at the time of marriage?

Is this your first marriage?

Do you have any children with your spouse? If so, how many?

Do you have any children from a previous relationship? If so, how many?

Do you have any physical limitations that might impact participation in this study?

Do you have any health conditions that might impact participation in this study?

Do you have any limitations that might impact your comprehension of interview questions?

Are you currently participating in individual, couple, or family therapy? If so, how long?

158

Appendix D Couple Interview Script

159

Couple Interview Script Hello, I’m Nekeia Wilson. It’s nice to meet you both. Before we begin, I would like to tell you a little about myself. I am a doctoral candidate at the Institute for Clinical Social Work in Chicago and a licensed clinical social worker. I have over 15 years of experience working with children, adolescents, families, couples, and individuals with disabilities. This study is the final step to the completion of my degree. By participating in this study, you are helping me get a PhD. Thank you both for being interested in my study. Do you have any questions about me before we proceed? If no, proceed with script. If there are no further questions, I will proceed. Before we begin the interview, I will read the consent aloud, give a brief explanation of the study, and allow you time to carefully read the consent form. After reading the consent form, I will answer any questions you may have. Your signature will be required if you agree to participate in this study. By signing the form, you are confirming that you read and understand the purpose, procedures, and duration of the study. My signature is also required to certify that an explanation of the study was provided to you. Verbal permission to audio record your interview will be required at the start of each interview. The interview will take no more than 60-90 minutes. Both of you will receive an email summary of your couple interview. You will be asked to confirm that it accurately reflects your interview and to notify me if you have questions or concerns. Before I explain a little more about the study, do you have any questions at this point? If there are no further questions, I will give you a brief explanation about the study and read the consent aloud. The study will include African American couples ages 37-52 that have been married for 10 years or more. By interviewing several couples, I hope to answer the question: What keeps these marriages together? In other words, what factors influence stability and longevity in marriage for this group of married couples? Each couple will receive a one-time $25 gift card at the couple interview as a “thank you” for participating for the duration of the study. Please take a few minutes to read the informed consent carefully. I will ask you to explain briefly the purpose of the study, risks, and benefits to participating before you provide a signature. I will also answer any additional questions you have before signing the consent form. If there are no further questions, please provide a signature and we will begin with the interview. To ensure accuracy of data collected from this interview, do you give permission for this interview to be audio recorded?

160

Appendix E Couple Interview Guide

161

Couple Interview Guide Husband signed consent: Yes/No Date: Start time:

Wife signed consent: Yes/No End time: Couple Code:

Courtship Tell me about how you met.

What was it about your spouse that made you want to marry her/him?

How would you describe yourself as a couple?

Marital Strengths, Resources, and Supports What has kept you together all these years?

Do you feel like you have support as a married couple?

Benefits of Marriage Are there pros or advantages of being married?

Marital Challenges Are there any cons or disadvantages to being married?

Children Tell me about your children, if applicable.

What are your views on parenting?

Marital Longevity Tell me about how are the roles/responsibilities are defined in your relationship?

What are your views on: Marriage?

Family?

Faith?

Closing Is there anything else that we have not talked about that you feel contributes to longevity in your marriage?

162

Appendix F Revised Couple Interview Guide

163

Revised Couple Interview Guide Husband signed consent: Yes/No Date:

Start time:

Wife signed consent: Yes/No End time:

Couple Code:

Courtship Tell me about how you met.

What was the timeframe between your first meeting, engagement, and wedding?

What was it about your spouse that made you want to marry her/him?

When you made the decision to marry, what was the response from people within your family, community, workplace, social networks?

Do people/have people respected your marriage/decision to marry?

Marital Longevity You’ve been together a long time…how would you describe yourself as a couple?

Tell me about how are the roles/responsibilities are defined in your relationship?

Cliché “Marriage is work” is a common statement made by married individuals. When you think about or hear the statement…what comes to mind for you? What is the “work” from your perspective?

Benefits of Marriage Are there pros or advantages to being married?

Marital Challenges Are there any cons or disadvantages to being married?

Attitudes/Beliefs Is there something about being a GenXer that influenced your views on marriage?

What are your views on: Marriage in the Black community; Family; and Faith?

Children Tell me about your children, if applicable.

164

Children What are your views on parenting?

Marital Strengths, Resources, and Supports Overall, do you feel like you have support as a married couple?

What has kept you together all these years?

Closing Is there anything else that we have not talked about that you feel contributes to longevity in your marriage?

165

Appendix G Individual Spouse Interview Script

166

Individual Spouse Interview Script Hello, thank you for being here. This is your final interview with me. Before we begin, I will provide a brief explanation about the process. Do you have any questions before I proceed? If there are no further questions, I will proceed. The individual interview will take no more than 45-60 minutes. It gives you an opportunity to provide your own perspective on this topic and to share any thoughts from the couple interview. You will be asked to give verbal permission for the interview to be audio recorded. This interview is confidential and will not be shared with your spouse. Unlike the couple interview, only you will receive an email summary of your individual interview. You will be asked to confirm that it accurately reflects your interview and to notify me if you have questions or concerns. Do you have any questions? If there are no further questions, we can begin now. To ensure accuracy of data collected from this interview, do you give permission for this interview to be audio recorded?

167

Appendix H Individual Spouse Interview Guide

168

Individual Spouse Interview Guide Signed consent: Yes/No Date: Start time:

End time:

W/H Code:

Marriage How did you meet? (Year and circumstances) What was the timeframe between your first meeting and your marriage?

Tell me about what factors led you to consider your spouse for marriage?

Tell me what is it like being married to your spouse?

Describe your role/responsibilities as a husband/wife.

Tell me about more about your responsibilities in the home.

Prior to marriage, what were you views on and expectations of marriage?

Children What was your relationship like with your parents?

What was your response when you found out you were going to have children?

Tell me about your relationship with your children, if applicable.

Marital Strengths, Resources, and Supports What strengths do you bring to your marriage?

Tell me about any resources or supports that help you as a husband/wife?

What are some of the stressors or challenges to being married?

Tell me about the most challenging time during your marriage and how you got through it.

Benefits of Marriage Tell me about how has your life has changed since getting married?

What are the benefits of marriage?

Are there any disadvantages to being married?

Marital Stability What has kept you married all these years?

Tell me about how you have adjusted to disappointments in your marriage?

Follow-up from couple interview Did you have any thoughts from the couple interview that you would like to share?

Is there anything more I should know about your marriage and its longevity?

169

Appendix I Revised Individual Spouse Interview

170

Revised Individual Spouse Interview Signed consent: Yes /No Date: Start time:

End time:

W/H Couple Code:

Marriage What were the circumstances in your life at the time you met your spouse? Were you dating or had any previous relationships.

Given the timeframe between your first meeting/courtship, engagement, and wedding, did you feel comfortable with the pace of your relationship?

Tell me about what factors led you to consider your spouse for marriage?

Tell me what is it like being married to your spouse?

From your perspective, tell me more about your role/responsibilities as a husband/wife and within the home. What expectations you have set for yourself?

Prior to marriage, what were you views on and expectations of marriage?

Children What was your relationship like with your parents?

What was your response when you found out you were going to have children.

Briefly tell me about your relationship with your children.

Marital Strengths, Resources, and Supports What strengths do you bring to your marriage?

Tell me about any resources or supports that help to sustain you as a husband/wife?

From your perspective, what are some of the stressors or challenges to being married as the wife/husband?

Tell me about the most challenging time in your marriage and how you got through it.

Tell me about how you have adjusted to disappointments in your marriage?

Benefits of Marriage Tell me about how has your life has changed since getting married?

What are the benefits of marriage and how have you benefited from being married to your spouse?

Are there any disadvantages to being married and if so, what have you had to sacrificed, lose, and/or compromise on because of being married?

Marital Stability What has kept you married all these years?

Follow-up from couple interview Did you have any thoughts from the couple interview that you would like to share?

Is there anything more I should know about your marriage and its longevity?

171

Appendix J Sample Informed Consent

172

Sample Informed Consent Institute for Clinical Social Work Research Information and Consent for Participation in Social Behavioral Research an Exploration of Openness in Psychoanalytic Supervision Generation X: Sustaining Black Marriages I, ____________________, acting for myself, agree to take part in the research entitled: Generation X: Sustaining Black Marriages. This work will be carried out by Nekeia M. Wilson under the supervision of Dr. Jacquelyn Vincson, Dissertation Chair. This work is being conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Clinical Social Work; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; (312) 935-4232.

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to explore factors that sustain the marriages of Generation X Black American couples beyond the first ten years of marriage. For this study, a strengths-based perspective will be used as a lens for capturing how these marriages endure over time. This study will identify the factors that positively influence marital stability and promote longevity. This study will provide an underrepresented perspective on the benefits of marriage, marital stressors and challenges, gender role identification, and marital supports. To focus on the conditions that exist among this group, the study will be limited to Black, Black American, or African American samerace heterosexual couples, ages 37 to 52, who have been legally married a minimum of 10 years.

Procedures Used in the Study and the Duration. Data will be collected from an initial 15 to 30-minute telephone screening, a 60 to 90-minute couple interview, and a 45 to 60minute individual spouse interview. The telephone screening will be conducted to confirm that participants meet the criteria, explain the research study, and to establish rapport with the participants. The couple and individual interviews will be conducted to obtain consent, inquire about family marital history, and to obtain responses to interview questions. The interview responses will be tape recorded, transcribed, and coded. To ensure trustworthiness and authenticity, the participants’ responses will be clarified to ensure accuracy at the end of each interview. The telephone screening will identify any limitations, restrictions, or health conditions that might impede the interview process. It will also screen for any accommodations that need to be made to ensure that the participants are comfortable for the duration of the interview process.

Benefits. There is no benefit to the subjects for participating in this study. However, the primary benefit of this study is its contribution to furthering the knowledge in the field of

173

social work practice. There may be a secondary benefit to the subjects participating in the study or to the specific population being studied.

Costs. The only cost to the participants will consist of travel costs required to participate in interviews. Travel cost may include fees for public transportation; the cost of gas for a personal automobile; tollway fees; parking, etc. Travel cost will not be covered by the researcher.

Possible Risks and/or Side Effects. The potential risk to subjects participating in this study could be emotional distress and marital conflict among the Mates. It is unknown whether the interview questions could trigger an emotional response from the participants. To minimize this risk, the interview with the subject(s) will be discontinued immediately if one or both individuals display signs of conflict and/or emotional distress during the interview process.

Privacy and Confidentiality. The interviews will be conducted in a mutually agreed upon location that may include, but is not limited to, private offices or rooms; the participant’s place of employment or residence; or any other private location that the participants prefer. A sound machine will be used to ensure privacy and confidentiality.

Participants will also have the option to be interviewed via the use of technology such as video conferencing (e.g. Skype, Facetime, Cisco, Blue Jeans). Participants’ privacy and the confidentiality of the data will be protected in a locked file cabinet accessible only by the primary investigator. Identifiable data will be kept separate from the rest of the research data and destroyed (e.g. shredding) upon completion of the study.

Subject Assurances. By signing this consent form, I agree to take part in this study. I have not given up any of my rights or released this institution from responsibility for carelessness. I may cancel my consent and refuse to continue in this study at any time during the interview process without penalty or loss of the $25 gift card. My relationship with the staff from The Institute for Clinical Social Work will not be affected in any way, now or in the future, if I refuse to take part, or if I begin the study and then withdraw.

Subject Assurances. If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Nekeia Wilson at (312) 925-0090 or Dr. Jacquelyn Vincson at (708) 351-3142. If I have any questions about my rights as a research subject, I may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of Institutional Review Board; Institute for Clinical Social Work; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; (312) 935-4232.

174

Signatures I have read this consent form and I agree to take part in this study as it is explained in this consent form.

Signature of Participant ______________________________ Date _________________ Signature of Participant ______________________________ Date _________________ I certify that I have explained the research to (Name of subject) and believe that they understand and that they have agreed to participate freely. I agree to answer any additional questions when they arise during the research or afterward.

Signature of Researcher ______________________________ Date__________________

175

Appendix K Sample Follow-up Email

176

Sample Follow-up Email Dear Participants, I've attached an encrypted document that includes a short summary of highlights from your couple interview. The summary of your individual interviews will be sent to your separate emails. Please review the summaries for overall accuracy and reply to this email confirming that you have done so. You will notice that your names are not used in this document to protect confidentiality. The password to access the attached document is six characters. Please feel free to contact me if you have trouble retrieving the document or if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review the interview summaries.

Sincerely, Nekeia Wilson

177

References Ali, M. M., & Ajilore, O. (2011). Can marriage reduce risky health behavior for African-Americans? Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32(2), 191-203.

Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments.

National Council on Family Relations, 72(3), 650-666.

Bacal, H. A. (1994). The Selfobject Relationship in Psychoanalytic Treatment. Progress in Self Psychology, 10, 21-30.

Barry, V. (2015). Parsing marriage penalties: The irrationality of tax and government benefit marriage penalty jurisprudence. University of Pennsylvania School of Law. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=jcl Beckett, J. O., & Smith, A. D. (1981). Work and family roles: Egalitarian marriage in black and white families. Social Service Review, 55(2), 314-326.

Berzoff, J. (Ed.). (2012). Falling through the cracks: Psychodynamic practice with vulnerable and oppressed populations. New York, NY, US: Columbia University Press.

Bjorklund, A., Ginther, D. K., & Sundstrom, M. (2007). Family structure and child outcomes in the USA and Sweden. Journal of Population Economics, 20(1), 183201. doi: 10.1007/s00148-006-0094-7

178

Blackman, L., Clayton, O., Glenn, N., Malone-Colon, L., & Roberts, A. (2005). The consequences of marriage for African Americans: A comprehensive literature review. Institute for American Values, 1-71.

Blakely, T. J., & Dziadosz, G. M. (2015). Application of attachment theory in clinical social work. National Association of Social Workers, 40(4)283-289. doi:10.1093/hsw/hlv059 Brown, E., Orbuch, T. L., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2008). Religiosity and marital stability among Black American and White American couples. Family Relations, 57, 186197.

Bryant, C. M., Wickrama, K. A. S., Bolland, J., Bryant, B. M., Cutrona, C. E., & Stanik, C. E. (2010). Race matters, even in marriage: Identifying factors linked to marital outcomes for African Americans. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 157174. doi:10.111/j.1756-2589.2010.00051.x Byrd, S. E. (2009). The social construction of marital commitment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 318-336.

Campbell, K., & Wright, D. W. (2010). Marriage today: Exploring the incongruence between American’s beliefs and practices. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41(3), 329-345.

Carlson, E. (2009). 20th-century U.S. generations. Population Bulletin, 64(1), 1-71.

Chaney, C. (2010). Like Siamese twins: Relationship meaning among married AfricanAmerican couples. Marriage and Family Review, 46, 510-537.

179

doi: 10.1080/01494929.2010.543037 Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Clarkwest, A. (2006). Premarital characteristics, selection into marriage, and African American marital disruption. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37(3), 361380.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., Burzette, R. G., Wesner, K. A., & Bryant, C. M. (2011).

Predicting relationship stability among midlife African American couples.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(6), 814-825.

DeVault, C., & Strong, B. (1995). The marriage and family experience. Minneapolis, MN: West Publications.

Dixon, P. (2009). Marriage among African Americans: What does the research reveal?

Journal of African American Studies, 13(1), 29-46. doi:10.1007/s12111-0089062-5 Elliott, D. B., Krivickas, K. Brault, M. W., & Kreider, R. M. (2012). Historical marriage trends from 1890-2010: A focus on race differences. U.S. Census Bureau.

Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/workingpapers/2012/demo/SEHSD-WP2012-12.html

180

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362.

Erez, B., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2005). Selfobject needs in Kohut’s selfpsychology: Links with attachment, self-cohesion, affect regulation, and adjustment. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22(2), 224-260. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.22.2.224 Fincham, F. D., Ajayi, C., & Beach, S. R. (2011). Spirituality and marital satisfaction in African American couples. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3(4), 259-268. doi:10.1037/a0023909 Flanders, S. (1996). The benefits of marriage. Public Interest, 124, 80-86.

Fosshage, J. L. (1995). Self-psychology and its contributions to psychoanalysis.

Scandinavian University Press, 4, 238-246. doi:10.1080/08037069508409554 Galatzer-Levy, R. M., & Cohler, B. J. (1990). The Selfobjects of the Second Half of Life: An Introduction. Progress in Self Psychology, 6, 93-109. doi:10.4324/9780203778555 Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work.

New York: Three Rivers Press.

Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 23(3), 392-409. doi:10.1177/0192513x02023003004 Hollist, C. S., & Miller, R. B. (2005). Perceptions of attachment style and marital quality in midlife marriage. Family Relations, 54(1), 46-57.

181

Jefferies, V. (2002). The structure and dynamics of love: Towards a theory of marital quality and stability. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 27(1), 42-72.

Karakurt, G. (2012). Relationship stability through lenses of complexity. American Journal of Family Therapy, 40(2), 126-140. doi:10.1080/01926187.2011.586619 Kennedy, S., & Ruggles, S. (2014). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce in the United States, 1980-2010. Demography, 51, 587-598.

Kohut, H. (1959). Introspection, empathy, and psychoanalysis: An examination of the relationship between mode of observation and theory. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 7, 459-483.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press.

Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.

Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226006147.001.0001 Lamidi, E., Brown, S. L., & Manning, W. D. (2015). Assortative mating: Racial homogamy in U.S. marriages, 1964-2014. National Center for Family & Marriage Research. Retrieved from http://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/familyprofiles/lamid-brown-manning-assortative-mating-racial-homogamy-fp-15-16 Lamidi, E. (2015). Marriage in the U.S.: Twenty-five years of change, 1989-2014.

National Center for Family & Marriage Research. Retrieved from http://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/lamidi-marriage-25yrs-change-fp-15-17

182

LaTaillade, J. J. (2006). Considerations for treatment of African American couple relationships. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20(4), 341-358.

Lee, G. R., & Payne, K. K. (2010). Changing marriage patterns since 1970: What’s going on, and why? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41(4), 537-555.

Leone, C. (2008). Couple therapy from the perspective of self-psychology and intersubjectivity theory. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 25(1), 79-98.

Luscombe, B. (2010). Marriage: What’s it good for? Time, 176(22), 48-56.

Markovic, Z. (2000). Psychoanalytic conceptions of marriage and marital relationships.

Philosophy and Sociology, 2(7), 379-389.

Marks, L. D., Hopkins, K., Chaney, C., Monroe, P. A., Nesteruk, O., & Sasser, D. D. (2008). Together we are strong: A qualitative study of happy, enduring African American marriages. Family Relations, 57(2), 172-185. doi:10.1111/j.17413729.2008.00492.x Marks, L., Tanner, K., Nesteruk, O., Chaney, C., & Baumgartner, J. (2012). A qualitative exploration of why faith matters in African American marriages and families.

Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43(5), 695-714.

Marmarosh, C. L., & Mann, S. (2014). Patients’ selfobject needs in psychodynamic psychotherapy: How they relate to client attachment, symptoms, and the therapy alliance. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 31(3), 297-313.

McDonald, G. W. (1981). Structural exchange and marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43(4), 825-839.

183

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment security in couple relationships: A systemic model and its implications for family dynamics.

Family Process, 41(3), 405-434.

Orbuch, T. L., Bauermeister, J. A., Brown, E., & McKinley, B. D. (2013). Early family ties and marital stability over 16 years: The context of race and gender. Family Relations, 62, 255-268. doi: 10.1111/fare.12005 Ornstein, P.H. (Ed). (1991). The search for the self: Selected writings of Heinz Kohut: 1978-1981, Vol. 4. Madison, CT, US: International Universities Press, Inc. Phillips, T. M., Wilmoth, J. D., & Marks, L. D. (2012). Challenges and conflicts, strengths and supports: A study of enduring African American marriages. Journal of Black Studies, 43(8), 936-952. doi:10.1177/0021934712463237 Pinderhughes, E. B. (2002). African American marriage in the 20th century. Family Process, 41(2), 269-282. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41206.x Previti, D., & Amato, P. R. (2003). Why stay married? Rewards, barriers, and marital stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(3), 561-573.

Rank, M. R., & LeCroy, C. W. (1983). Toward a multiple perspective in family theory and practice: The case of social exchange theory, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory. Family Relations, 32(3), 441-448.

Robinson, L. C., & Blanton, P. W. (1993). Marital strengths in enduring marriages.

Family Relations, 42(1), 38-45.

184

Rowe, D. M. (2007). Marriage and fathering: Raising our children within the context of family and community. The Black Scholar, 37(2), 18-22. doi: 0.1080/00064246.2007.11413392 Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretive, hermeneutics, social constructionism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~addesa01/documents/Schwandt.pdf Shornack, L. L. (1986). Exchange theory and the family. International Social Science Review, 61(2), 51-60.

Spangler, A., & Payne, K. K. (2012). Marital duration at divorce. National Center for Marriage and Family Research. Retrieved from https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-andsciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-14-11-marital-duration-2012.pdf Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 32-43.

Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27-52.

Taylor, R. J., Brown, E., Chatters, L. M., & Lincoln, K. D. (2012). Extended family support and relationship satisfaction among married, cohabiting, and romantically involved African Americans and Black Caribbeans. Journal of African American Studies, 16(3), 373-389.

185

The National Center on African American Marriages and Parenting. (2009). The marriage index: A proposal to establish leading marriage indicators. Retrieved from http://www.americanvalues.org/search/item.php?id=44 U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). The American community – Blacks: 2004. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-04.pdf Wiedmer, T. (2015). Generations do differ: Best practices in leading Traditionalists, Boomers, and Generations X, Y, and Z. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 82(1), 51-58.

Wilcox, W. B., Anderson, J. R., Doherty, W., Eggebeen, D., Ellison, C. G., Galston, W., et al. (2011). Why marriage matters (3rd ed.): Thirty conclusions from the social sciences. Institute for American Values National Marriage Project, 1-47.

Zinn, M. B. (2004). The benefits of marriage reconsidered. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 31(4), 59-80.