260

Alternative Family Forms:Preferences of Nonparticipants

This study explored the preferences for different types of family forms of people who were notpracticing alternative life styles. A Q sort of 10 family forms was given to 128 subjects. Eachsubject ranked in order the 10 family forms according to which family form he believed wouldafford him the maximum personal growth as an individual striving to live up to his full humanpotential. Then each subject ranked in order the 10 family forms according to which family form hebelieved he could most feasibly adopt in his present social context and with his present relationships.Subjects differed according to sex, marital status, university affiliation, and geographical region.Results indicated that the most important variable was university affiliation. Female, married, andnonuniversity subjects chose more traditional family forms, while male, single, and university-affiliated subjects chose more extreme family forms. The subjects’ feasibility rankings of the 10

alternative family forms were more traditional than were their maximum growth rankings.(Home Economics Research Journal, June 1975, Vol. 3, No. 4)

Anthony P. Jurich and Julie A. Jurich

Recent books and articles (Otto, 1970; De-lora and Delora, 1972) have explored alterna-tive forms to the traditional nuclear family. TheFamily Coordinator (Sussman, 1972) devoted anentire issue to the study of alternative familyforms and the people who practice them. Fewresearchers, however, have sought the opin-ions of those who are not personally involvedin these different life styles, although this lattergroup comprises the majority of people in theAmerican culture. The present study exploredthe preferences for different types of alterna-tive family forms of those individuals who havechosen a traditional life style (participating inor planning for a monogamous marriage).

Method

SubjectsThe 128 subjects were selected from the

populations of two towns, each of which con-tained a large state university. One town waslocated in Pennsylvania and the other in Kan-sas. The subjects were selected at random fromboth university and local telephone directories.An initial telephone contact was made in whichone of the experimenters introduced himselfand the study, gathered basic demographicinformation (i.e., marital status, education, and

job), and set up an interview time with thesubject. The subjects differed according to

four variables: (1) sex, (2) marital status (mar-ried or single), (3) university affiliation (that is,affiliated or unaffiliated), and (4) geographicallocation (Pennsylvania or Kansas). For each

Authors’ addresses: Anthony P. Jurich, Department ofFamily and Child Development, Kansas State University,Manhattan 66506; Julie A. Jurich, Mental HygieneClinic, Fort Riley, Kan. 66442.

261

variable, 64 of the 128 subjects were in eachcategory. The basic demographic data

gathered in the telephone contact enabled theexperimenter to identify to which categoriesthe subject belonged and, if a category wasfilled, to thank the telephone contact, explainthat an interview would not be needed, andeliminate the contact from the sample. Di-vorced or widowed people were not included inthe sample. A subject was considered to be uni-versity affiliated if he was either a student or amember of the faculty or staff. A specific effortwas made to assure that the university and non-university subjects were matched on socioeco-nomic status. This was accomplished by usingHollingshead’s Two Factor Index of Social Position(1957), based on the data (obtained during thetelephone contact) on occupational role andamount of formal schooling of the head of thehousehold. Occupations of the nonuniversitysubjects were varied; among those who partici-pated in the research were bank officers, cityofficials, physicians, business managers, localbusinessmen, sales clerks, district school ad-

ministrators, and wives whose husbands were

similarly employed.

ProcedureThe subjects were contacted and interviewed

at their residences. To insure uniformity, allsubjects-both in Pennsylvania and Kansas-were interviewed by the same interviewer. Thesubjects were then given a Q sort task on 10alternative family forms. A Q sort task is a

comparative rating method (Nunnally, 1967,pp. 544-557) in which the subject is asked tomanipulate physically a set of stimuli in orderto rank them along a given dimension. Thetask forces the subject to devote complete at-tention to his sorting and makes it difficult forhim to respond in a quick or spurious manner.Statistically, the Q sort method forces all sub-jects to have the same mean rating. This ena-

bles the researcher to generate relatively pre-cise comparative responses among the subjects.The present study used a set of 10 3- by 5-inchindex cards as stimuli. Each of the cards con-tained the name and definition of one familyform. The specific cards were:

l. Monogamy-an intimate relationship con-sisting of two persons. There is only one mateat a time. The relationship is considered a legalcontract under law.

2. Non-legal Monogamy-an intimate rela-

tionship consisting of two persons. There is

only one mate at a time. There is no legalsanction or restriction on this relationship.

3. The Affair-a situation where one or bothspouses in a monogamous marriage engages inan intimate relationship with another partywithout the consent and/or knowledge of his/her spouse.

4. Open-ended Marriage-a situation whereone or both spouses in a monogamous mar-

riage engages in an intimate relationship withanother party with full knowledge and consentof his/her spouse.

5. Serial Monogamy-&dquo;a succession of

monogamous relationships of varying durationterminated by mutual agreement and/or di-vorce.&dquo;

6. Mate-swapping-a situation where bothspouses in a monogamous marriage engage inswapping &dquo;sexual partners with another couplewith whom they are not acquainted and/or goto a swinging party at which both partners havesexual intercourse with strangers.&dquo; Long-termintimate nonspouse relationships are consid-ered taboo.

7. Communal Marriage-a situation in whichthere is a group of people sharing the sameliving quarters and &dquo;there is theoretical sexualaccess by all members ... but not necessarilyincluding a specific commitment or bond in allcases.

&dquo;

262

8. Group Marriage-a group of three ormore persons in which &dquo;all participants aremarried to at least two other participants;usually all are married to all others.&dquo;’

9. Polyandry-a group of three persons inwhich there is one woman and two men. Bothmen have a marital relationship with thewoman but not necessarily with each other.

10. Polygyny-a group of three persons inwhich there is one man and two women. Bothwomen have a marital relationship with theman but not necessarily with each other.

The subject was first asked to place the cardsin rank order according to which family formwould allow him the maximum growth. Thiswas defined for the subject as the opportunityfor him to achieve the full human potentialwhich he could envision for himself. These

rankings were recorded by the interviewer.The cards were then reshuffled and the subjectwas asked to rank the cards in order accordingto the family forms he felt were most person-ally feasible. In explaining &dquo;personally feasi-

ble,&dquo; the interviewer asked the subject to con-sider his own needs, desires, and personallimitations. The subject was also asked to rec-ognize the needs and limitations of his family,friends, and social contacts. The feasibilityranking then asked the subject to rank thefamily forms according to their workabilityboth for himself and for those who comprisedhis primary relationships. &dquo;Which family formscould they adapt to most easily?&dquo; After each Qsort task the subject was asked to explain hisreasons for his selections.

Results and Discussion

The mean ranking score for each cate-gory of each variable was calculated and t testswere performed to test the effects of eachvariable on each family form. The use of t teststo test for significant relationships was justifiedin the comparison of the means of a sample ofthis size. The Central Limit theorem wouldindicate that the distribution of the meanswould tend to assume a normal distribution inthe present case, thus avoiding problems re-sulting from contamination by the use of ordi-nal data (Blalock, 1960, pp. 135-138).Table 1 shows the means of the category

groups of each variable on each family formwhen the subjects performed the Q sort formaximum growth. Table 1 also indicates whichvariables had significant effects upon the meanrank of each family form, as indicated by the ttests.

The female subjects ranked monogamy, theaffair, and serial monogamy significantlyhigher than the males did. The males rankedcommunal marriage and polygyny higher thanthe females. In justification of their rankings,the men in the sample believed that the tradi-tional alternatives were less conducive tomaximum growth than did the women. Thewomen often stressed the aspects of securityafforded by the more traditional family forms.

Married subjects ranked monogamy and theaffair higher than single subjects did. The

single subjects favored non-legal monogamy,group marriage, and communal marriagesignificantly more than their married counter-parts. Many married subjects cited their ownhappy marriages as a basis for their highrankings of monogamy. Other married sub-jects explained their rankings as a justificationof their present and past relationships. Severalfound the more extreme marital forms, such as

group marriage, too threatening to their own

1 The definitions of Serial Monogamy, Mate-swapping,Communal Marriage, and Group Marriage are from "Groupsand Multilateral Marriage: Definitional Notes, Glossary,and Annotated Bibliography" © by L.L. Constantine andJ.M. Constantine, Family Process, 1971, 10, 164-166. Re-printed by permission.

263

way of life. The single subjects stressed thefreedom to explore their own potential withoutrestrictions in choosing such alternatives as

communal or group marriage. Nevertheless,although they ranked non-legal monogamy astheir favored choice, the single subjects stillranked monogamy second, well above all otherfamily forms.The most frequently significant factor affect-

ing the Q sort ranking was whether the subjectheld an affiliation with the university. The onlyfamily form that was not significantly affectedby this factor was serial monogamy. Theuniversity-affiliated subjects ranked non-legalmonogamy, open marriage, communal mar-riage, group marriage, polyandry, and

polygyny significantly higher than theirnonuniversity counterparts. The nonuniversity

group gave higher rankings to monogamy, theaffair, and mate-swapping than did any othergroup in the study. The university andnonuniversity subjects, although residing inthe same communities, seemed to come fromdifferent worlds. The nonuniversity group wasmuch more conscious of not violating societalstandards. Many nonuniversity subjects re-jected the more extreme family forms as being&dquo;illegal,&dquo; &dquo;immoral,&dquo; &dquo;against the church,&dquo; or&dquo;not natural.&dquo; The university-affiliated subjectsconsidered other factors such as amount of

privacy, management of jealousy, and budget-ing of time. The university-affiliated placedmore weight on the personal factors and lesson societal norms.There was little difference between the two

geographical locations. A weak but significant

264

difference was found concerning communalliving. The Pennsylania subjects seemed to

prefer the communal family more than did theKansas subjects. Since this was the only sig-nificant effect, the results could have beencaused by sampling error. Essentially, the twogeographical samples appeared to be the samein their responses.Table 2 shows the group means for the

feasibility Q sort and the t test results to indi-cate significant variable effects.The males found communes to be more

feasible than did females and the female sub-

jects found affairs to be more feasible than themen did. The women often pointed to the lackof privacy as a major drawback to a communalfamily. Few men felt that the lack of privacyaffected the feasibility of a commune. Many ofthe women also stated that a good marriagecould survive an occasional affair, usually bythe husband, while the males considered an

affair to be much more detrimental to thecontinuance of the marriage. Both sexes, butparticularly the men, thought that althoughseveral family forms would be conducive to

growth, these forms would not be feasible intoday’s world. This was most notably true forcommunal and group marriages.

In addition, subjects of differing maritalstatus thought differently about the feasibilityof some of the family forms. Married subjectsthought monogamy and affairs were morefeasible and communes and group marriagesless feasible than did single subjects. However,the general trend was to rank communes andgroup marriages, the more extreme familyforms, lower on feasibility than on maximumgrowth. Both married and single subjects ratedthe affair as much more feasible than condu-cive to maximum growth.

Although the same general trends were ob-served when the sample was divided along

265

lines of university affiliation, university affilia-tion still produced strong effects upon the

subjects’ ranking of feasibility. There was nosignificant difference for either open marriageor serial monogamy. However, the nonuniver-

sity subjects still believed that the traditional

family forms were significantly more feasiblethan did the university-affiliated subjects.Whether speaking about maximum growth orfeasibility, the university subjects’ rankingsseemed to originate from a very different

perspective from those of their nonuniversitycounterparts.The ranking of feasibility, except for one

family form, was also not significantly affectedby geographical area. The subjects fromPennsylvania considered group marriages tobe significantly more feasible than subjectsfrom Kansas assessed them to be.

Conclusions

These data give insight into the family formpreferences of the individual who is not di-

rectly involved in alternative family forms andsuggest factors in the formation of his at-

titudes. There was little difference due to

geographical location. The samples in two col-lege towns showed more similarities than dif-ferences which could be attributed to geo-graphical region.Female subjects more often favored a tradi-

tional setting and less extreme family formsthan did the male subjects. The heavy em-phasis on socialization of women towards tradi-tional marriage in the American culture mayaccount for this phenomenon. The female’schoice of possible family forms is, in a sense,limited and directed by intense training in onetype of family-monogamy.

Married subjects rated the more traditionalfamily forms as more feasible and more con-ducive to maximum personal growth than thesingle subjects did. This difference could beattributable to two factors. The married subjectwas presently participating in a traditional fam-ily form, whereas the single subject was not

limited by his life situation. On the other hand,the single subject lacked the benefit of currentpractical experience in a family relationshipthat the married subjects had. Lacking this

personal experience, therefore, the single par-ticipant may have been unable to assess therelative value of traditional versus extreme

family forms. Perhaps the single subject basedhis choice on stereotypes, which may be biasedtoward the more sensational family forms.The most frequently significant factor was

whether the subject was affiliated with the

university. Although both groups of individu-als were members of the same geographiccommunities, their value systems appeared todiffer. The nonuniversity subjects based theirchoices of family life style on the rules of

society’s institutions. The more nontraditionala family form was, the lower the nonuniversitysubjects rated it. The university-affiliated sub-jects appeared to base their choices upon theirindividual needs and abilities. Society’s rules,although taken into account, were secondary.Therefore, they were more free to advocateextreme family life styles, such as communesand group marriages. There proved to bemore differences within a community thanbetween communities.

References

Blalock, H.M. Social Statistics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Constantine, L.L., and Constantine, J.M. Groupsand multilateral marriage: Definitional notes,glossary, and annotated bibliography. Family Pro-cess, 1971, 10, 157-176.

Delora, J.S., and Delora, J.R. Intimate Life Styles.Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear, 1972.

Hollingshead, A.B. Two Factor Index of Social Position.New Haven, Conn.: Author, 1957.

Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Otto, H. The Family in Search of a Future. New York:Meredith, 1970.

Sussman, M.B. (Ed). Variant marriage styles andfamily forms. The Family Coordinator, 1972, 21,375-516.

Received July 18, 1973; accepted January 24, 1975.