This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 05 November 2014, At: 07:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication ReportsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrs20

Married women's namechoices and sense of selfLaura Stafford a & Susan L. Kline ba Associate Professor in the Department ofCommunication , Ohio State University ,Columbus, Ohio, 43210b Assistant Professor in the Department ofCommunication , Ohio State University ,Columbus, Ohio, 43210Published online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Laura Stafford & Susan L. Kline (1996) Married women'sname choices and sense of self, Communication Reports, 9:1, 85-92, DOI:10.1080/08934219609367638

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934219609367638

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

51 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

COMMUNICATION REPORTS, Volume 9, No. 1, Winter 1996

Married Women's Name Choices andSense of Self

LAURA STAFFORD and SUSAN L. KLINE

It has been argued that women who forgo their birth names upon marriage will suffer a loss ofpersonal sense of self. However, there is no study that assesses this proposal. The purpose of thisstudy was to examine differences in feelings about self among women who adopted theirhusband's surnames, kept their birth names, or hyphenated their surnames or used their birthnames as their middle name. Self-esteem, relationship dependency, autonomy, and controlmutuality were examined. The results show no differences among the three groups. The authorsadvocate caution in making claims that women's married name choices are associated with aperceived loss of personal identity.

• A long-standing theme in feministwritings is that the loss of a woman's birth name at marriage profoundlyaffects her identity. As early as 1848, Elizabeth Cady Stanton professed that "awoman's dignity is . . . involved in a life-long name, to mark her individuality.We can not overestimate the demoralizing effect on woman herself, to saynothing of society at large, for her to merge her existence so wholly in that ofanother" (Stanton, Anthony, & Gage, 1969, p. 80). A few years later LucyStone, arguing that changing her surname was a loss of individuality, becamethe first American woman who kept her own name in both private and publiclife (for a history of the name change issue in America, see Stannard, 1977).

Contemporary feminists have continued to argue for the right of womento use their birth names after marriage (see Schroeder, 1986). Feministessays, fiction and poetry have discussed how traditional naming practicesdenigrate women and reproduce a patriarchal culture (Piercy, 1973; Sontag,1985; Stapleton & Bright, 1976). Gloria Steinem (1992) has described a directlink between language and women's self-esteem. Ms magazine has publishedthe essays and letters of readers describing their "agony" about whichsurname to use (Desy, 1983; O'Reilly, 1973; Thorn, 1987, pp. 32-33). Thepopular press has discussed issues like the naming of children and bureau-cratic problems (Cherlin, 1978; Chua-Eoan, 1989; Ferraro, 1993; Lobsenz,1986; Loschiavo, 1980; Mickelsen, 1988).

Numerous hypotheses about the association between one's name andone's identity have been offered. Freud (1913) and other psychologists notedthat all people viewed names as an integral part of personality (Sherif &Cantril, 1947). In a review of the link between identity and name changes,

Laura Stafford (Ph.D., University of Texas, 1985) is an Associate Professor and Susan L. Kline(Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1985) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communica-tion, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

51 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

86 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

Falk (1975-1976) concluded that name changes reflect "strong affectivevalue" and may reflect "identity struggles" (p. 655). Feminists argue thatwomen define themselves in relation to their names, so women who changetheir names will suffer a loss, socially and personally. For instance, Arliss(1991) writes that women who adopt their husbands' names "have taken thecoward's way" and in doing so "lose more than a little of themselves in theprocess" (p. 35). In a rare study on surnames in communication, Foss andEdson (1989) examined married women's accounts of their name choices.They found that women who adopted their husband's names definedthemselves through their attachments to others, thus lending credence to theidea that adopting one's husband's surname maybe related to identity issues.

Given these arguments, it is surprising that no study has directlyexamined whether married women's name choices are associated with howwomen feel about themselves. While there has been a long-standingassumption that one's sense of self is shaped, in part, by communication,researchers have not examined whether women's conventional linguisticpractices are systematically related to women's sense of self. Hence thepurpose of this study was to examine whether or not there are differences infeelings about self among three groups of women: those who adopt theirhusband's surnames (called here, name-changers); those who keep theirbirth names (called here, name-keepers); or those who hyphenate theirsurnames, or use their birth names as their middle name (called here,name-combiners). Self-esteem, relationship dependency, autonomy, andcontrol mutuality were examined.

Kanowitz (1969) argued that "the loss of a woman's surname representsthe destruction of an important part of her personality" (p. 41). Similarly,Steinem (1992) proposed that "esteeming a true self is circumvented whenwomen define their identities in relation to their husbands. Hence, it appearsthat changing one's name could have an impact on self-esteem (p. 44). Thisleads to our first research question:

RQl: Do women who adopt their husbands' surnames, retain their birth names, or combinesurnames differ in their level of self-esteem?

Given the proposal that women who change their names will definethemselves in relation to their husband's name at an expense to self, oursecond research question asked whether these groups of women differed inlevel of relational dependency. As conceptualized by Sprecher (1986),relational dependency is comprised of two types of dependency. The firstpart, structural dependency, is "the degree that an individual is locked into oris dependent upon the relationship" (Sprecher, 1986, p. 313). The secondaspect is personal dependency. This is the extent to which one defines"oneself in terms of the relationship with the partner" (p. 313). Definition ofself in terms of the relationship is based upon the degree to which one'sself-concept is defined by the relationship and to which one's self-esteem isdependent upon the partner. Someone who is high in personal dependencyputs much reliance upon their partner for their own definition of self-concept

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

51 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Winter 1996 87

and feelings of self-worth (Sprecher, 1986, also see White, 1981). Thus oursecond research question is:

RQ2: Do women who adopt their husbands' surnames, retain their birth names, or combinesurnames differ in their level of relationship dependency?

That the adoption of the husband's name marks the complete absorptionof a woman's identity into a man's, is a long standing assumption (Stanton etal., 1969). Doyle and Paludi (1995) propose that most married women"become subsumed under their husbands, and the name change signifies asmuch" (p. 187). Given this often claimed absorption of the wife's self, it is ofinterest to explore differences among the women in their feelings ofautonomy within the marital context.

RQ3: Do women who adopt their husbands' surnames, retain their birth names, or combinesurnames differ in their level of autonomy?

Our final research question asked whether these women differ in theirsatisfaction of their power status in the relationship. Control mutualityrepresents the degree to which partners cooperatively agree on the powerdistribution, that is, in the way relational decisions are made (Canary et al.,1991; Canary & Stafford, 1992). The idea that naming practices reflect apatriarchal society in which women are considered to be property islong-lived and highly prevalent (Doyle & Paludi, 1995; Gilman, 1904, 1911,1919, 1979; Matossiah, 1987). If, indeed, adopting one's husband's name isrelated to status as property, these women could feel dissatisfied with thepower distribution within their marital relationship.

RQ4: Do women who adopt their husbands' surnames, retain their birth names, or combinesurnames differ in their level of control mutuality?

METHOD

Participants

The sample consisted of 110 married women who were recruited using anetwork sampling procedure employed in several relational studies (e.g.,Dindia & Baxter, 1987; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Students enrolled incommunication courses were asked to recruit one woman who had adoptedher husband's surname upon marriage and one woman who had retained hermaiden name in some form upon marriage.

The participants included 42 women who adopted their husbands'surnames upon marriage, 23 who kept their birth name, and 45 who kepttheir birth name as a middle name, or hyphenated with their husband'ssurname. The average age of the sample was 30.8 years (range = 19 to 56,SD - 8.21). The average length of marriage was 3.04 years (range = 1 monthto 28 years, SD = 4.06 years). Overall, the sample was well-educated.Participants were asked to indicate the highest education level completed.Less than 1% reported some high school, 7% were high school graduates,23% reported some college, 35% had college degrees, 12% had somegraduate school, and 23% had graduate degrees. The individual income of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

51 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

88 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

women averaged in the $20,000 to $30,000 range (range = under $20,000 toover $100,000). The average number of children per participant was 1(range = 0 to 8, M = .84, SD = 1.24).

Instrumentation

The survey consisted of three sections. One section of the questionnairerequested demographic information and requested they indicate whetherthey adopted their husband's surname upon marriage, kept their birth name,hyphenated their name, kept their birth surname as a middle name, oradopted some other name choice. Another section of the questionnaire wascomprised of a series of open-ended questions, which are not the focus here.The third section of the questionnaire included a variety of relational qualityand self-identity measures. Those relevant to the present study included:self-esteem, relationship dependency (consisting of two measures: structuraldependency and personal dependency), autonomy, and control mutuality.

Self-esteem was assessed using Rosenberg's (1965) 10-item measure witha 1 to 7 Likert format. Two sample items from his measure are "I wish I couldhave more respect for myself," and "I feel I do not have much to be proudof." Based upon the work of Johnson (1982), Sprecher (1986) developedmeasures for the two aspects of relational dependency mentioned earlier:structural dependency and relational dependency. Her two measures wereused here. Structural dependency was assessed with her three-item measure.Participants were asked, for example, if they ended this relationship theextent to which (on a 1 to 9 scale) "they would have attractive alternatives"and "would lose important investments." The second aspect of relationaldependency, personal dependency, is conceptualized by Sprecher (1986) ascomprised by two components: self-concept dependency and self-esteemdependency. Hence, following Sprecher's conceptualization and procedure,personal dependency was computed by adding the score (on a scale of 1 to 9)of her one item measure of self-concept dependency asking if the relation-ship ended "to what extent would you have to redefine your self-concept orwho you who" and the mean of 10 items rated on a 1 to 9 scale of self-esteemdependency. An example item is "It would be difficult for me to like myself if Ididn't have my partner's respect and love." Fitzpatrick's (1988) six-itemautonomy subscale from the Relationship Dimensions Inventory was em-ployed. Participants were asked questions such as "I think it is important forpeople to have some private space that is all his/her own and separate fromone's mate," and "We can go for long periods of time without spending muchtime together as a couple." Canary et al.'s (1991) measure of controlmutuality includes six items such as "I think that we are both satisfied withthe way we handle decisions" and "I think we both have an equal 'say'." Eachof these measures employed a 1 to 7 Likert format. The measures weredetermined to be reliable (using alpha coefficients): self-esteem (.85); bothcomponents of relationship dependency, structural dependency (.72) andpersonal dependency (.61); autonomy (.80); and control mutuality (.91).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

51 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Winter 1996 89

RESULTS

The research questions concerned potential difference between thegroups of women in their perceptions of themselves. However, it was firstnecessary to determine if the samples were similar in their demographiccharacteristics. Hence, one-way ANOVAs were computed on all of thedemographic variables. Significant differences were found among the groupson three variables: age (F = 4.55, df = 2,107,p < .05), education level (F =5-69, df = 2,108,/? < .01), and individual income (F = 5.82, df= 2,107, p <01). Follow-up analysis with Student Newman Keuls revealed the namechangers to be significantly older than the other two groups, Ms for keepers,changers, and combiners = 35.0, 28.8 and 30.1, respectively). For the othertwo variables, Student Newman Keuls follow-up tests revealed that namechangers had lower individual incomes and lower education levels than theother two groups. Most name keepers and combiners had finished college,whereas most name changers had attended some college, but had notfinished their degrees. The women who adopted their husbands' surnamesgenerally earned under $20,000, whereas the individual income of women inthe other two groups was above $30,000.

Thus age, education, and individual income served as covariates in theanalysis of the self definition variables. The MANCOVA did not reveal asignificant multivariate effect for the three groups [F (10,107) = A4,p >.05],therefore univariate effects were not examined. The answer to all fourresearch questions is that no differences were found among the groups. Thatis, in comparison with women who adopted their husbands' names, womenwho retained their birth names or combined surnames did not differ in theirlevels of self-esteem, relationship dependency (structural or personal), infeelings of autonomy, or control mutuality. The means are reported inTable 1.

DISCUSSION

This study investigated whether women who changed their surnames,kept their surnames, or combined their surnames upon marriage differ in

TABLE 1Means of Dependent Variables by Surname Group

Variable

Self-esteemStructural dependencyPersonal dependencyAutonomyControl Mutuality

Changers

6.057.67

10.113.826.08

Surname Groups

Keepers

6.207.758.894.166.08

Combiners

6.067.369.323.995.86

Note: No differences are significant at the p < .05 level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

51 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

90 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

level of self-esteem, relationship dependency, autonomy, or control mutual-ity. No differences were found among these groups of women in theirreported levels on any of these measures. The argument that women whoadopt their husband's surnames upon marriage are personally affected by thename choice appears not to be the case.

The role of language in playing a part in the conveyance of socialdefinitions of reality in general and identity in particular is pervasive withinthe feminist literature. Many feminists have argued that through theacquisition of language women come to "know who they are" (Kaplan, 1990).Spender (1985) has argued that man-made language constructs a sexistuniverse which silences and devalues women. Spender (1985) argues "[w]ecannot trust to luck that women will be able to formulate positive definitionsof themselves (an objective in the women's movement) while they areconfined to the present semantic sources" (p. 31). One semantic practicethat supposedly devalues women is the adoption of her husband's surnameupon marriage. For example, Maggio (1988) writes that the obligation of awoman to "label" herself in terms of her relationship to a man is "one of themost sexist maneuvers in the language" (p. 171).

Language and social definitions and identity are undoubtedly interrelated.Yet these findings display the need to carefully document claims about theeffects of language on women's experiences. It maybe the case that marriedname choices reinforce traditional social roles, and role status, and yet, thesechoices do not appear to be directly or strongly associated with women'spersonal sense of self-esteem or with a dependence upon the relationship orrelational partner for self-definition or feelings of self-worth.

Although Foss and Edson (1989) found that women who adopted theirhusbands' names emphasize their relationships and define themselves interms of their relational attachments more than women who retain their birthnames, the inference cannot be drawn that such definitions inherentlyencompass a lack of self-worth, a devaluing of self, or a relative dearth ofautonomy. Moreover, given the women's overall satisfaction with thedistribution of power within the relationship and the lack of difference inautonomy, we can not infer that certain groups of women lose their identityand others do not on the basis of their surname choice.

Of course, it may be the case that women who adopt their husbands'surname may simply not be aware of the patriarchal stance they assume bychanging their name, and if they understood, they would become dissatisfiedwith themselves. Indeed, Kline, Stafford, and Miklofovic (in press) found thatmany women who adopt their husband's names do not reflect upon themeaning of their choice, but rather view the adoption of the husband's nameas a "non-decision." Future research should disentangle the possiblerelationship between awareness or reflectivity about name choice and senseof self.

Unless this is clearly established, however, scholars must be careful to givevoice to women who make various married name choices. Women may differ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

51 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Winter 1996 91

in what social identities they want to create with various name choices, giventheir life desires and priorities. For instance, Scanzoni and Scanzoni (1988)speculated that some women see adopting their husbands' names as aprivilege. Perhaps, as Ivy and Backlund (1994) proposed, the adoption of thename change is not necessarily devaluing or sexist, but the "expectation thata woman is supposed to or has to take a man's last name" is (p. 88).

The findings here suggest that scholars who study women's experiencesneed to be careful not to assume that women's married name choices areassociated with perceptions of loss of personal self. Differences in sense ofpersonal self were not found among the three groups of women in terms ofself-esteem, a conception of self or self worth dependent upon the marriageor the spouse, or a subordinate sense of self as indicated by the self-reports offeelings of autonomy and control mutuality.

The surname decision reflects a conception of tradition, marriage, family,and identity. Legal and social policies about women's surnames varyconsiderably throughout the world. Thus, we believe that it would be valuableto expand this research across nations and cultures. Such work wouldprovide valuable information about the beliefs that women have about theirnames and themselves, as well as their opinions about the legal and socialpolicies that may constrain their preferences.

REFERENCES

Arliss, L. P. (1991). Gender communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage.

Communication Monographs, 59, 243-267.Canary, D. J., Weger, J., H., & Stafford, L. (1991). Couples' argument sequences and their

associations with relational characteristics. Western Journal of Speech Communication,55, 159-179.

Cherlin, A. (1978, December). Hereditary hyphens? Psychology Today, p. 150.Chua-Eoan, H. G. (1989, April 17). It hyphened one night. Time, p. 78.Desy, J. (1983, December). When your name is his, and you're not. Ms., pp. 96-98.Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-158.Doyle, J.A., & Paludi, M.A. (1995). Sex and gender: The human experience, (3rd edn). Madison,

WI: Brown & Benchmark.Falk, A. (1975-76). Identity and name changes. Psychoanalytic Review, 62, 647-57.Ferraro, S. (1993, May 2). Name dropper. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 18-20.Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.Foss, K. A., & Edson, B. A. (1989). What's in a name?: Accounts of married women's name

choices. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 356-373.Freud, S. (1913-1914/1955). Totem and taboo and other works. The Hogarth Press and the

Institute for Psychoanalysis: London.Gilman, C. P. (1904, April 4). Women's names. Woman's Journal, 114.Gilman, C. P. (1911). Names—especially women's. The Forerunner, 10, 261-263.Gilman, C. P. (1919, December 4). Do women need names? Baltimore Sun, p. 4.Gilman, C. P. (1979). Herland. New York: Pantheon.Ivy, D. K., & Backlund, P. (1994). Exploring genderspeak. New York: McGraw Hill.Johnson, M. P. (1982). Social and cognitive features of dissolution of commitment to relation-

ships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships, (pp.51-73). London: Academic Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

51 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

92 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

Kanowitz, L. (1969). Women and the law: The unfinished revolution. Buffalo Law Review.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Kline, S.L., Stafford, L. & Miklofovic , J. C. (In press). Women's surnmanes: Decisions, interpreta-tions, and associations with relational qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships.

Lobsenz, N. (1986, December 7). Should a wife keep her name? Parade, p. 8.Loschiavo, L. (1980, March). Your maiden name: Love it or leave it? Modern Bride, pp. 28, 38.Maggio, R. (1988). The nonsexist word finder: A dictionary of gender-free usage. Boston:

Beacon Press.Matossiah, LA. (1987). A women-made language: Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Herland, Women

and Language 10, 16-20.Mickelsen, L. (1988, May). Our marriage was equal in name and spirit until we had our baby.

Glamour, p. 34.O'Reilly, J. (1973, December). Give yourself your name for Christmas. Ms., p. 97.Piercy, M. (1973). Small changes. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Rosenberg. M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.Scanzoni, L. D., & Scanzoni, J. (1988). Men, women, and change. New York: McGraw-Hill.Sherif, M. & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements. New York: Wiley.Schroeder, L. O. (1986). A rose by any other name: Post-marital right to use maiden name:

1934-1982. Sociology and Social Research, 70, 290-293.Sontag, S. (1985, July 6). The snags in keeping a surname. New York Times, p. 44.Sprecher, S. (1986). The relation between inequity and emotions in close relationships. Social

Psychology Quaterly, 49, 309-321.Spender, D. (1985). Man-made language (2nd ed). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,

gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,217-242.

Stannard, U. (1977). Mrs. man. San Francisco: Germainbooks.Stanton, E. C, Anthony, S. B., & Gage, M. J. (1969; 1881 reprint). History of woman suffrage, I.

New York: Arno & the New York Times.Stapleton, J., & Bright, R. (1976). Equal marriage. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.Steinem, G. (1992). Revolution from within. Boston: Little, Brown, & Company.Thom, M. (Ed.), (1987). Letters to Ms.: 1972-1987. New York: Henry Holt.White, G. (1981). Some correlates of romantic jealousy. Journal of Personality, 49, 129-145.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

51 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014