Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A process comparison of peak and poor sessions in emotionally focused marital therapy Sherriff Alden, Louise 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8 A42.pdf [ 4.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054173.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054173-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054173-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054173-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054173-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054173-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054173-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054173-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054173.ris

Full Text

PROCESS COMPARISON  OF PEAK AND POOR SESSIONS  EMOTIONALLY FOCUSED MARITAL THERAPY ,  by  Louise S h e r r i f f A.B.  cum l a u d e ,  Alden  S m i t h C o l l e g e , 1954  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS in THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  Department o f C o u n s e l l i n g We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s to  THE  Psychology conforming  the required standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH  COLUMBIA  September 1989  ©.  Louise S h e r r i f f  Alden,  1989  In  presenting  degree freely  this  thesis  at the University  in  partial  fulfilment  of British  Columbia,  available for reference  copying  of this  department publication  or  thesis by  of this  and study.  for scholarly  his thesis  or  her  purposes  representatives.  for financial gain  of  Counselling Psychology  The University of British C o l u m b i a Vancouver, Canada  D  a  t  e  DE-6 (2/88)  DrtnhPr 10, 1QRQ  the requirements  I agree  I further  permission.  Department  of  agree  that that  the Library  is  advanced  shall make it  permission for  may be granted It  for an  by the head  understood  shall not be allowed  that without  extensive of my  copying  or  my written  ii  ABSTRACT P s y c h o t h e r a p y r e s e a r c h has f o c u s e d on outcome, t h a t been  successful  recently which  i t has  i s whether  a particular  t h e r a p y has More  sought t o e x p l i c a t e the p r o c e s s e s through T h i s s t u d y examines  f o r 16 c o u p l e s who  received  E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Couples Therapy Johnson,  primarily  i n p r o m o t i n g change i n t h e c l i e n t .  change happens.  therapy  i n t h e p a s t been  1 9 8 6 ) . Two  8-10 (EFT)  s e s s i o n s were c h o s e n  the process of sessions  of  (Greenberg & f o r each couple, a  p e a k and p o o r s e s s i o n a s a s s e s s e d by t h e c o u p l e on p o s t sessional the  questionnaires.  depth of t h e i r  Scale,  Klein,  interactions Benjamin,  The  c o u p l e s were r a t e d b o t h  in-session experience  Mathieu, Gendlin & K i e s l e r ,  (Experiencing 1969)  and  their  (Structural Analysis of S o c i a l Behavior,  1974).  Peak and p o o r s e s s i o n s were  R e s u l t s showed t h a t d e p t h o f e x p e r i e n c e was i n t e r a c t i o n was  more a f f i l i a t i v e  s e s s i o n s than i n poor. research are  on  discussed.  Clinical  compared. g r e a t e r and  and autonomous i n p e a k implications  of  this  that  iii  Table  of Contents ii  Abstract Table  iii  o f Contents  v  Appendices List  vi  of Tables  vii  Acknowledgement CHAPTER I : I n t r o d u c t i o n  1  Background  3  o f t h e Problem  Purpose o f t h e Study  6  The  8  Problem  CHAPTER I I : L i t e r a t u r e Review  11  Affect  12  Marital  i n M a r i t a l Therapy Conflict  Emotionally  29  Resolution  Focused  34  Therapy  CHAPTER I I I : M e t h o d o l o g y  43  Description  of the Population  44  Description  o f t h e Sample  45  Process  46  Measures  Experiencing  Structural Analysis of Social Outcome  Sessional  Behavior  47 49  Measures  Post  46  Scale  Questionnaire  49  iv Selection Episode Coding  o f an E v e n t  51  Definition  54  Procedures  Training  50  of Raters  54  S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s of S o c i a l Behavior  56  Experiencing  58  Scale  Hypothesis I  59  Hypothesis l a  59  Hypothesis l b  59  Hypothesis I I  59  CHAPTER I V : R e s u l t s  60  Hypothesis  61  I  Hypothesis l a  64  Hypothesis l b  66  Hypothesis I I  68  Conclusion  70  CHAPTER V: D i s c u s s i o n  72  Hypothesis  72  I , l a , and l b  Hypothesis I I  81  Conclusion  88  Clinical  89  Significance  Limitations Future  o f t h e Study  Research  References  91 92 94  V  Appendices  A p p e n d i x A:  Structural Analysis of Social Other Focus  Behavior:  101  A p p e n d i x B: S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s o f S o c i a l S e l f Focus  Behavior:  102  A p p e n d i x C: E x p e r i e n c i n g A p p e n d i x D:  Post  Scale  Sessional Questionnaire  103 104  vi  List  of Tables  Table  Page  la  Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f S t a t e m e n t s i n Q u a d r a n t s I , I I , I I I , & I V i n Peak and P o o r S e s s i o n s , S e l f - a n d O t h e r - F o c u s  62  lb  C h i - s q u a r e A n a l y s i s w i t h M u l t i p l e Comparisons, SASB Q u a d r a n t s I , I I , I I I , IV, S e l f - a n d Other-Focus  62  2a  Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f S t a t e m e n t s i n Q u a d r a n t s I , I I , I I I , & IV, O t h e r - F o c u s  64  2b  C h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s w i t h M u l t i p l e Comparisons, SASB Q u a d r a n t s I , I I , I I I , & IV, O t h e r - F o c u s  65  3a  Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f S t a t e m e n t s i n Q u a d r a n t s I , I I , I I I , & IV, S e l f - F o c u s  66  3b  C h i - s q u a r e A n a l y s i s w i t h M u l t i p l e Comparisons, SASB Q u a d r a n t s I , I I , I I I , & IV, S e l f - F o c u s  67  4a  16 x 2 C o n t i n g e n c y T a b l e o f E x p e r i e n c i n g by C o u p l e s i n Peak a n d P o o r S e s s i o n s  69  4b  Chi-square Analysis of the Experiencing Scale Ratings  69  vii  Acknowledgements  I would l i k e has  t o t h a n k 1)  s u p p o r t e d me  Walter Boldt, assistance  who  has  from the  especially, until  i n the  Dr.  my  chairman,  final  stages of  generously given h i s time  inception  of t h i s p r o j e c t ,  p a t i e n t l y from like  S u z a n n e Dadson and  the  computer  He  to give  sincere Dr.  Dr.  and and  3)  most closely  continued  family  t h a n k s t o my  Geoffrey Carr,  Michele Plysuik.  ever-supportive  Overall,  and  d a u g h t e r , L a u r a A n d e r s o n , who age.  has  who  to  afar.  Donna B a r r e c a , J a n e Conway, and  t h a n k s t o my  2)  L e s l i e G r e e n b e r g , w i t h whom I w o r k e d  I would a l s o  i n d e b t t o my  R i c h a r d Young,  this thesis,  h i s departure t o York U n i v e r s i t y .  e n c o u r a g e me  as  Dr.  as  I am  friends. has  raters, well greatly  Special  e a s e d me  into  1  CHAPTER I  Introduction  M a r r i a g e . . . w i l l n e v e r be g i v e n new l i f e e x c e p t by t h a t o u t o f which t r u e marriage always a r i s e s , t h e r e v e a l i n g by two p e o p l e o f t h e Thou t o one another. Martin  B u b e r , p . 45, I and  1958 Thou  To embark s e r i o u s l y on h e a l i n g t h r o u g h m e e t i n g i s t o l e a v e t h e s a f e s h o r e s o f t h e i n t r a p s y c h i c as t h e t o u c h s t o n e o f r e a l i t y and t o v e n t u r e o n t o t h e h i g h s e a s i n w h i c h h e a l i n g i s no l o n g e r s e e n a s s o m e t h i n g t a k i n g place i n the p a t i e n t . A l t h o u g h one h o p e s t h a t t h e c l i e n t becomes w h o l e r i n t h e p r o c e s s , and a l t h o u g h t h e t h e r a p i s t h a s a s p e c i a l r o l e as i n i t i a t o r , f a c i l i t a t o r , c o n f i d a n t b i g b r o t h e r and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e d i a l o g i c a l demand o f t h e w o r l d , t h e h e a l i n g i t s e l f t a k e s p l a c e i n t h e sphere which Buber c a l l s "the between. 11  M a u r i c e F r i e d m a n , p . 221, Studies is  directly  h a v e shown t h a t e f f e c t i v e  connected with  Markman & N o t a r i u s , one  marriage  "conflict  mutual a t t a c k , while  1977;  marital satisfaction Koren, C a r l t o n  may  resolution (Gottman,  & Shaw, 1 9 8 0 ) .  touch o f f anger, l e a d i n g  i n turn aggravating  i n a n o t h e r " i t may  conflict  the  initial  1958  In  to  difficulty"  e n c o u r a g e open d i s c u s s i o n ,  attempts  2 a t mutual understanding  and t h u s  increased intimacy"  & Furnham, 1983, p . 4 9 2 ) . C l e a r l y , between t h e s e  something i s d i f f e r e n t  two k i n d s o f c o u p l e s .  Absence o f c o n f l i c t  d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be t h e s o l u t i o n a s h a p p y o f t e n have a f a i r l y Furnham,  high  level  of conflict  differences distressed  (Argyle &  r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n done t o o b s e r v e t h e  i n conflict  r e s o l u t i o n behaviour  and n o n - d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s 1977;  Schindler  & B r e n g e l m a n n , 1984; S u l l a w a y  1983).  between  (Gottman, Markman &  Notarius,  Gottman, 1979; Hahlweg,  Revenstorf, & Christensen,  T h e s e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s , done i n many  ways i n many l a b o r a t o r i e s , concerning  have o b t a i n e d  couples.  and e s c a l a t i n g n e g a t i v e  hostile negative  1986). S a t i s f i e d  statements  level  interaction  couples  a n d were l e s s  of negative (Gottman &  made f e w e r n e g a t i v e o r  likely  t o engage i n a  escalatory cycle.  Whereas t h e s e conflict  consistent results  The i n t e r a c t i o n s o f d i s s a t i s f i e d  were c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a h i g h  Levenson,  different  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between s a t i s f i e d a n d  dissatisfied  affect  relationships  1983).  Considerable  couples  (Argyle  s t u d i e s observed  the differences i n  r e s o l u t i o n p a t t e r n s o f t h e two c l a s s e s o f c o u p l e s ,  t h e y made no a t t e m p t t o e x p l i c a t e t h e p r o c e s s , which enabled  a distressed  couple  o r processes,  t o adopt t h e c o n f l i c t  s t y l e s o f the non-distressed couple.  A s Knudson, Sommers  and  offers  Golding  (1980) o b s e r v e d ,  conflict  couples the  opportunity,  not  o n l y t o r e a c h agreement, b u t  more u n d e r s t a n d i n g this may  i s the case, w e l l be  of the  o f t h e way  of the  i n the  possible, and  and  than  even i f such  t h a t one  1961,  marriage, connection  p.  82).  a relationship in intensity  connection.  affect other  Johnson  turned  by  punishment physically  loose i n society  a l l members t h e r e o f "  i t i s not  surprising  o f e m o t i o n and  that  the  longevity,  individual's  (1986) saw  has  sense of  marriage  i s u s u a l l y p e r c e i v e d as t h e p r i m a r y c o n t a c t and  affection  i n f o r m a t i o n a s t o t h e v a l u e and  as  self  "more o f  and  source  as a p r i m a r y  nature  of the  source  self"  meets t h e p a r t n e r s t w i n n e e d s f o r  and  satisfaction  (Swensen, 1973)  and  contact or o f f e r s quality  1  and  a n x i e t y and  of the p a r t n e r s  1  thus  an  the  of basic  Whether m a r r i a g e  the  the  (Swensen,  l a d e n a t t a c h m e n t o r bond b e t w e e n p a r t n e r s where  security,  on  of  second o n l y t o the p a r e n t - c h i l d  t r e m e n d o u s power t o a f f e c t and  a t h i n g were  s h o u l d be  Thus,  self  more f i e n d i s h  remain a b s o l u t e l y unnoticed  (Laing,  interactions  foundation  a sense of the  L a i n g s t a t e s t h a t , "no devised,  therapy  Problem  development of i d e n t i t y  c o u l d be  If  spouses.  Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are the  1973) .  gain  reality.  of successful m a r i t a l  an a l t e r a t i o n  i n - s e s s i o n behaviour  Background o f the  each construes  the process  i n d i c a t e d by  also to  promotes  (p.  for 11).  security intimacy  d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n depends  interaction  and  4 communication. that  I t i s to the d e t a i l s  of these  interactions  r e s e a r c h e r s need t o l o o k i n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d  how  partners are currently  e x p e r i e n c i n g each o t h e r . I t i s here,  i n these  interactions,  t h a t change w i l l  appear.  Increases  ness t h a t r e s u l t  i n the degree of emotional  i n new  p o s i t i v e behaviour strong of  levels  i n d i c a t i o n s o f an  o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and  inner perceptual s h i f t  more be  on t h e p a r t  each.  positive, (1982).  couples  of the  One  and  dissatisfied  interspersed their  o r he  has  sort  been found  by  c o u p l e s was  understandable  Gottman  found  that  that the other  o r he  w i t h the o t h e r ' s p o i n t of view. s e q u e n c e " and  of  saw  be-  satisfied  interchanges with b r i e f  d i d , e v e n t h o u g h she  "validation  of t h i s  o f t h e o u t s t a n d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s he  c a t i o n s t h a t i t was she  importance  v a l i d a t i n g behaviour  tween s a t i s f i e d  of  to  expressive-  on t h e p a r t o f t h e p a r t n e r s c o u l d  Some e v i d e n c e  a  be most l i k e l y  indifelt  as  continued to disagree  Gottman  (1982) t e r m e d  i t as promoting  the  this  exchange  feelings. In her t a s k a n a l y s i s of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t  Plysiuk  (1983) c o r r o b e r a t e d t h i s v i e w .  s u b s e q u e n t t o one  the other t o respond from  1983,  p.  found  positively  t h a t i t was  necessary  i n o r d e r t h a t t h e r e be  problem e s c a l a t i o n t o problem s o l v i n g "  50).  Her  that  p a r t n e r ' s e x p r e s s i o n o f p r e v i o u s l y un-  acknowledged u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g ,  shift  She  resolution,  for "a  (Plysiuk,  work i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s p o s i t i v e  vali-  5 dation  s e q u e n c e was  toward mutual  crucial  as a "fundamental  Perlman  o r s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e has been  aspect of intimacy  i n marriage"  definitions  (Waring,  of intimacy vary,  & F e h r , 1987;  1984,  p.  186).  (Frey, H o l l e y  i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s and t h a t  o c c u r between  1980;  1979;  Tolstedt  intimacy i s  i t depends t o a i t i s important  self-disclosure  can  spouses.  A p o s s i b l e approach t o the study of p s y c h o t h e r a p y p r o c e s s has been Greenberg  Although 1  Therefore,  t o understand the c o n d i t i o n s under which  rela-  & L Abate,  Perlmutter & Hatfield,  g r e a t d e g r e e on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e .  identified  i n interpersonal  & S t o k e s , 1983), most r e s e a r c h e r s a g r e e t h a t desirable  t o move  openness.  Mutual openness  tionships  to the couple's a b i l i t y  (1974,  1984)  in-session  s u g g e s t e d by R i c e  and G r e e n b e r g  (1986).  and  They  pro-  pose t h e c h o i c e o f change e v e n t s as i m p o r t a n t t h e r a p e u t i c segments i n which  a couple (or i n d i v i d u a l )  with s i g n i f i c a n t  t h e r a p e u t i c problems.  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  f o u r components,  marker,  the t h e r a p i s t  immediate is  operation,  i n s e s s i o n outcome"  t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e marker,  opportunity exists  engaged  These  "events" are  "the p a t i e n t the c l i e n t  problem  performance,  ( G r e e n b e r g , 1986, in this  i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e spouses, t h a t partners are a c t i v e l y  i s grappling  It  case a negative indicates that  i n t h e i r problem  for therapeutic  p. 3 ) .  and  the  and t h a t  intervention.  the  6 Selected events between spouses  consisting  f o l l o w e d by  of a negative  interaction  a therapeutic intervention  t h e c o u p l e ' s subsequent  interaction,  m i n u t e segment, w i l l  examined. These s e l e c t e d  likely ting  to highlight  t o one  hostility  In in  both  i n the degree  the l e v e l s  Purpose of the  of  i t i s important  t h e p r o c e s s by w h i c h t h i s k n o w l e d g e o f how  works.  The  A l l approaches marital  what p r e v e n t s t h i s  understanding  Without  conflicts How  that  shift  thrust  to marital  interaction  and shift  t h e change p r o c e s s e s a r e t h a t produce  The  understand  to  core of science i s to  w i n - l o s e s i t u a t i o n t o one  t h e y do n o t a g r e e .  understood.  to  of  phenomena o c c u r , n o t o n l y t o e v a l u a t e  have t h e g o a l o f changing  resolve their  to  over the course  change t a k e s p l a c e .  psychotherapy  whether they o c c u r r e d .  if  rela-  engage  and  change o c c u r s , i t i s not p o s s i b l e  a b l e t o e x p l a i n how  ners can  to  efficacy  However, i t i s e v e n more i m p o r t a n t  adversarial,  seem  Study  e s t a b l i s h whether c o u p l e s have improved  be  events  self-disclosure.  studying couples therapy  e x p l a i n how  15-20  of a f f i l i a t i o n or  outcome r e s e a r c h t o a s s e s s t r e a t m e n t  therapy.  a  c h a n g e s i n t h e c o u p l e ' s manner o f  another  and  be  in total,  and  study  from  an  i n which the  support each  part-  o t h e r even  c a n h a p p e n and  what  i t or, conversely,  from happening, of t h i s  therapy  i s much l e s s  well  i s to increase  o f t h e p r o c e s s e s o f change i n m a r i t a l  therapy  7 as w e l l  as t h e f a c t o r s  Of p a r t i c u l a r  that  interest  inhibit  change.  i s t h e p r o c e s s o f change as i t  o c c u r s i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy 1986),  t h e treatment used  research.  (Greenberg & Johnson,  i n t h e t h e r a p i e s examined  E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy  c o u p l e s t h e r a p y which combines w i t h an emphasis  experiential  aspects of systemic therapy  on t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a c k n o w l e d g i n g a n d  e x p r e s s i n g disowned  feelings  Johnson  (1986) s u g g e s t t h a t  viously  disowned  there w i l l  i s an  i n this  feelings  and needs.  Greenberg and  through the expression of pre-  and t h e i r accompanying  be a c h a n g e i n b o t h t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l  each person's experience o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p .  needs, c y c l e and  They s e e  E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy as p r o d u c i n g change i n a t l e a s t five  dimensions.  First,  aspect of the s e l f ,  t h r o u g h t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f a new  an i n d i v i d u a l  herself  differently.  aspect,  s h e o r he i s e n a b l e d t o c h a n g e h i s o r h e r p e r c e p -  tion  o f t h e spouse.  Second,  comes t o v i e w h i m o r  Third,  when t h e p a r t n e r s e e s t h i s  the individual's  new s e l f  new  view  o p e n s up new p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n h i s o r h e r b e h a v i o u r i n t h e relationship. and,  fifth,  F o u r t h , t h e s p o u s e c a n r e s p o n d i n new ways  t h e p a r t n e r s a r e a b l e t o s e e t h e m s e l v e s i n new  ways i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p 261).  (Greenberg & Johnson,  I n o t h e r words, t h e s p o u s e s ' d e f i n i t i o n s o f them-  s e l v e s and o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p strual.  1986, p .  i s open t o a new c o n -  The p u r p o s e o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n  i s to highlight  8 and  a n a l y z e t h e change p r o c e s s e s  c o u p l e s who  The  that actually  underwent E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  occurred i n  Therapy.  Problem S e l f - r e p o r t measures such  q u e s t i o n n a i r e used  in this  t h e r a p e u t i c change  (Orlinsky  as t h e s e s s i o n a l  study  a r e one  way  of  outcome measuring  & Howard, 1 9 6 7 ) . O r l i n s k y and  Howard  (1967) i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e p o s t - s e s s i o n a l q u e s t i o n -  naires  a r e a good measure o f " g l o b a l  s a t i s f a c t i o n with the experienced 621).  Although  picture of  such  satisfaction  therapy  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s do  or  encounter"  not p r o v i d e a  critical  (1967) s u g g e s t  judgment"  that the  (p. 6 2 1 ) .  foundations  "those  patterns of interactions,  feeling  and  sought  of the couples  i n therapy  i s through  sessions.  direct  observational  system such  offers  observa-  indepen-  in-session process.  as t h i s  the  This r e q u i r e s the  o f a c o d i n g s y s t e m w h i c h i s a d m i n i s t e r e d by outside r a t e r s to assess  in  (p.621).  a l t e r n a t i v e o r a d d i t i o n a l method o f m e a s u r i n g  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of m a r i t a l therapy  im-  perception  which c h a r a c t e r i z e p r o d u c t i v e t h e r a p e u t i c exchange"  dent,  Howard  f o r t h e judgments  i n t h e p o s t - s e s s i o n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c a n be  use  full  O r l i n s k y and  plicit  tion  (p.  o f t h e r a p e u t i c c h a n g e , t h e y do p r o v i d e a " g r e a t d e a l  informed  An  dis-  A  an o b j e c t i v e  direct  9 perspective  on  experiential report  the  can  perspective gained  compliment  theoretical  i n d i c a t e t h e use deepen the  through p o s t - s e s s i o n a l  effectivenss  tenets  of Emotionally  Focused  individuals'  experience  t h e r a p e u t i c outcome. A l t h o u g h  of Emotionally  Focused T h e r a p y has  1985;  process  improvement h a p p e n s h a s  by w h i c h t h i s  investigated. following;  The  are  Goldman,  problem addressed  s u c c e s s f u l therapy  associated with  hypothesized  t h a t s e s s i o n s v i e w e d by  unproductive  will one will  be  more a f f i l i a t i v e  o f c h a n g e and  be  in this  and  yet  study  is  the  been the  interactions? the  It is  couples the  from s e s s i o n s  of  as  pro-  sessional "peak"  seen  as  l a c k i n g i n problem r e s o l u t i o n , h e r e a f t e r i n two  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  or both partners  ways.  a higher  than w i l l  First,  level  poor.  statements than w i l l  poor.  focus  sessions  Second, peak or  by  sessions  affiliative  These r e s u l t s would  Focused Therapy's t h e o r e t i c a l emotional  peak  of experiencing  have a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f f r i e n d l y  intrapsychic  not  hereafter designated  differentiated  "poor" s e s s i o n s ,  Emotionally  b e e n shown  James, 1 9 8 9 ) ,  p r o b l e m r e s o l u t i o n on  questionnaires,  will  the  s e s s i o n s w h i c h c o n t a i n deep l e v e l s  and  sessions,  1988;  and  s e s s i o n a l outcomes  experiencing  self-report  designed  of t h e i r problems  (Johnson & Greenberg,  termed  self-  Therapy  of c e r t a i n interventions that are  lead to productive  ductive  the  questionnaires.  The  to  s e s s i o n and  support  contention  i n m a r i t a l therapy  that  i s one  way  an  10 t o promote  increased  p o s i t i v e e x c h a n g e s and u l t i m a t e l y  a  more s a t i s f y i n g , i n t i m a t e  relationship.  expression of deeply  experience which i s responded t o  positively  felt  b y t h e p a r t n e r may  in ameliorating  the marital  well  The s e q u e n c e o f t h e  be an i m p o r t a n t  relationship.  process  11  CHAPTER I I  Literature  The  literature  in several  standing  of m a r i t a l  t h e r a p y and  be  discussed.  ficant  foci,  personal. its  the  This  first  It differs  e m p h a s i s on  of the  the  chapter w i l l  relationship will  research present  areas relevant  F o c u s e d T h e r a p y has  i n t r a p s y c h i c and  the  importance of the  the and  research  marital  studies  seeking to i n marital  conflict  done on  assess i t s effectiveness change i n t h i s  couples two  emotional  the  therapy.  and  the  signi-  in  experience relationship.  field's  increasing marital  illuminate this. i n t e r a c t i o n as  resolution.  Emotionally  will  therapies  r o l e of emotion or a f f e c t i n the  examine c o n f l i c t on  discussing  under-  second i n t e r -  f r o m most o t h e r m a r i t a l  b e g i n by  to the  i n t e r a c t i o n of  i n d i v i d u a l s to t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the  e m p h a s i s on  it  Emotionally  Review  Finally,  Focused Therapy  Next  well  as  i t will to  processes associated  with  12  Affect  i n M a r i t a l Therapy  During  the past  50  y e a r s most m a r r i a g e s i n t h i s  h a v e b e e n b a s e d on  strong  woman.  fact  Given  this  and  O'Leary  (1982) s e e  Fincham marriage"  (p. 1 ) .  "affect In the  (1983) v i e w a f f e c t i v e "essential  productive patterns"  i n the process  are  as t h e  (p. 1 ) .  "remaining (cognition-  Bradbury  and  expression  of  Weinstein as  underlying  disrupting repetitive, From t h e i r  the  and  component  same v e i n M a r g o l i n and  now  integrated into  as a c r i t i c a l  (p. 334) .  to  Behaviourists  to behavioral m a r i t a l therapy's and  until  or attempted  division  y e t t o be  experience  increasing intimacy  couples  affect  marital literature"  (1986) s e e  a  situations.  tri-partite  b e h a v i o u r - a f f e c t ) which has behavioural  ignored  importance of emotion.  member o f p s y c h o l o g y ' s  of  either  approaches t o m a r i t a l therapy  r e c o g n i z i n g the Finchan  has  emotion i n t h e r a p e u t i c  Diverse  and  i t seems r e m a r k a b l e t h a t  r e c e n t l y m a r i t a l therapy suppress  f e e l i n g s b e t w e e n a man  culture  aims  non-  observations  of r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t  Gottman  of  and  Levenson  (1986) h a v e shown t h a t m a r i t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  is  strongly  associated with high  as  well  as  Johnson  negative  reciprocity.  of negative Finally,  (1986) s t a t e what p e r h a p s s h o u l d  self-evident, therapy  affect  levels  problems not  Greenberg  have l o n g  t h a t i s , t h a t most o f t e n c o u p l e s  f o r emotional  affect  instrumental  been  come f o r issues.  and  13 What, t h e n , a r e c u r r e n t v i e w s m a r r i a g e and  i t s importance  Current views  u n d e r l y i n g assumption all  physiological  ations.  i n therapy?  on e m o t i o n  somewhat c o n f u s i n g s c e n e .  on t h e n a t u r e o f e m o t i o n i n  in marital  therapy present a  Some r e s e a r c h e r s o p e r a t e f r o m  t h a t emotion  i s a word w h i c h  includes  a r o u s a l and e m o t i o n a l l y e x p r e s s i v e s i t u -  Instruments developed t o assess the presence of  emotional material interpersonal  from t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e p r i m a r i l y  emotions  originating  psychic experience. i s not  i n one  and O ' L e a r y ' s  systems  a logical  i n the l i t e r a t u r e  One  r e p o r t measure,  conclusion on m a r i t a l  satisfaction.  Test  s u c h i n s t r u m e n t i s an o u t s i d e r a t i n g  observational & Levenson,  (1986).  specific  1985,  p.  affect 153  as  from t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d  a s t a n d a r d measure o f m a r i t a l  Levenson  "Positive  f e e l i n g s are seen  Feelings Questionnaire correlates  Gottman and  experi-  such i n s t r u m e n t i s Fincham  Here p o s i t i v e  Locke Wallace M a r i t a l Adjustment 1959),  intrapsychic  have been d e v e l o p e d t o measure  (1982) 2 0 - i t e m s e l f  Feelings Questionnaire."  Positive  intra-  mentionned.  i n m a r i t a l therapy.  crucial,  from  or the other spouses's  F o r t h e most p a r t  Several rating emotion  tap the  d i m e n s i o n o f e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s between  the spouses but are unable t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e these  ence  an  This  In f a c t  the  .78 w i t h t h e  (Locke & W a l l a c e , satisfaction.  Another  system developed  is a  sophisticated  c o d i n g system  for details).  by  (SPAFF,  Gottman  and  Gottman  14 Levenson  (1986) b e l i e v e t h a t e m o t i o n i n s o c i a l  can be a c c u r a t e l y d e t e c t e d by p e o p l e who h a v e b e e n s u f f i c i e n t l y T h i s c o d i n g system two  trained  i s extremely  t h e same  culture  i n t h e u s e o f SPAFF.  time-consuming,  c o d e r s , two y e a r s t o c o m p l e t e  couples used  from  interaction  requiring  the coding of t h i r t y  i n t h e Gottman a n d L e v e n s o n  (1986)  study.  T h e s e a r e b u t two e x a m p l e s o f i n s t r u m e n t s a i m e d a t d e t e c t ing the presence  o f emotion i n m a r i t a l therapy s e s s i o n s .  Theories of marital afforded O'Leary  little  space  i n t e r a c t i o n have, u n t i l  to the role of affect.  (1982) b e g a n t o a d d r e s s  and  this  they  (cognition) Moreover,  that  "did not d i r e c t l y  as i t  i n m a r i t a l therapy.  i n v e s t i g a t e d the antecedents  n e g a t i v e a c t s and found  Fincham and  the issue of affect  r e l a t e s t o c o g n i t i o n and b e h a v i o u r do  recently,  t o both  positive  "causal attributions"  affect behavioural  responses."  " t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y d i d have an e f f e c t  mediated  by t h e a f f e c t i v e  O'Leary,  1982, p . 4 ) .  To  feeling  response"  They c o n c l u d e d  that  f o r t h e r a p i s t s t o l e a r n how t o a l t e r t h e s e  (Fincham i t was  i t was &  necessary  feeling  responses. Gottman a n d L e v e n s o n evidence marital  (1986) a s s e r t t h a t  sufficient  now e x i s t s t o a l l o w t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a t h e o r y o f i n t e r a c t i o n which g i v e s c e n t r a l  r o l e o f emotion. consistently  Briefly,  marital  shown t o be c o n n e c t e d  to resolve conflicts.  importance  to the  s a t i s f a c t i o n has been with a couple's  ability  O n l y when c o u p l e s a r e a c t u a l l y i n  15 conflict pared. on  can t h e i r To  this  s t y l e s of c o n f l i c t  end  c o u p l e s and  conflict  p a t t e r n s h a v e b e e n summarized  generated  i n e a c h s p o u s e by  an e a s i l y moved d i a l her  responses  i n both  i n Chapter  statement.  conflict  i n f i v e ways.  situation  First,  d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n h i g h and Second, s a t i s f i e d  and  distinguishable.  Third,  the video viewing  Fourth,  these  observation  and  low  of the  couples  should agree  able  of  to  should  be conflict  correlation.  with external  conflict  and  the video  viewing  "The  r e p o r t of  of these t e s t s " out  in this  i n the video viewing  significance  form  most  passed  What s t a n d s  used  and  affect  a l l five  was  fifth,  show s i m i l a r a f f e c t i v e p a t t e r n s .  statistical  used  situations.  s h o u l d show s t a t i s t i c a l  self-reports  emotions generated  They  conflict.  r a t i n g s of the o r i g i n a l  ( u s i n g SPAFF) and  41).  and feelings  ingenious  conflict  should  p.  these  l a t e r when t h e  i t s h o u l d be  dissatisfied  the r a t i n g s of the o r i g i n a l  1986,  i n the  This dial  These r e s e a r c h e r s wished t o v a l i d a t e t h i s  and  Gottman  situations.  spouses i n d i v i d u a l l y watched a v i d e o t a p e  self-report  Some o f  by w h i c h a s p o u s e c o u l d r e c o r d h i s o r  to a particular  the o r i g i n a l  1.  interested  conflict  and  the observation of  resolution.  (1986) were p a r t i c u l a r l y  focused  i n both d i s t r e s s e d  have a l l o w e d  the couples' patterns of c o n f l i c t  Levenson  com-  t h e s e r e s e a r c h e r s ' s t u d i e s have  s i t u a t i o n s which generate  non-distressed  r e s o l u t i o n be  i n over  90%  controversial,  self  (Gottman & L e v e n s o n , research i s that correlated  o f t h e 500  with  comparisons  16 made, and  the  time sequence of p a r t i c u l a r e m o t i o n a l  responses also high  coincided.  A  l e v e l s of negative a f f e c t r e c i p r o c i t y  physiological  arousal,  were p r e d i c t i v e o f Further t o the  as  the  a deterioration  assessment of  Fincham  research  b e e n done on  uals,  until  in close  recently,  very  illuminate  being  paid  extensive discord  amount  by  of  emotion i n i n d i v i d b e e n done on  Levenson's  aspects of the i t s e f f e c t on  emotion  (1986)  importance  of  marital  and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .  First,  particular  s t a t e w h i c h , as  behaviour,  i t i s not  Fincham  two  research  humans, we  on  some  emotion  understand.  e a s i l y observed nor  in  may  arousal  but  u a l . As  B r a d b u r y and  i d e n t i f y as  open t o t h e Fincham  e n t i t y , and  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of (1987) s t a t e ,  does not  same  f e a r a n o t h e r may  imply c e r t a i n kinds of  a  Unlike  i s t h e r e a way  people i d e n t i f y f e e l i n g s i n the  excitement. Both s t a t e s are  (1987) h i g h l i g h t  emotion i s a convenient term t o d e s c r i b e  e x a m p l e , what one  hypothetical  had  Gottman and  marriage.  For  i s an  affect in marital  problems i n t h i s s o r t of  sure that  therapy  little  However, B r a d b u r y and serious  in marital satisfaction.  intrapsychic  e m o t i o n b e t w e e n c o u p l e s and satisfaction  o r i g i n a l study,  (1987). A l t h o u g h a l a r g e  relationships.  theory begins to  i n the  that  and  growing a t t e n t i o n  emotion i n m a r i t a l  B r a d b u r y and has  assessed  i n d i c a t i o n of the  r o l e of  c h a p t e r on  be  f o l l o w - u p s t u d y showed  to way. call  physiological each i n d i v i d -  "emotion i s a  e x i s t i n any  true  sense...  17 (and) 5).  i s inferred Thus,  emotion  f r o m v a r i o u s s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n " (p.  i t i s important  f o r r e s e a r c h e r s not t o  as a c o n s t r u c t w i t h measures which i n d i c a t e  Secondly, marital  affect  of positive  after a l l , indicates  f e e l i n g about  the  Therefore,  correlating marital  disclosure  or marital  mentioned,  i s "tantamount t o c o r r e l a t i n g  measures o f a f f e c t  s a t i s f a c t i o n and  s a t i s f a c t i o n and  i n marriage"  the purposes  understood First,  self  affect,  (Bradbury  two  as  earlier  self-report  & Fincham,  o f t h i s study, emotion  t o o p e r a t e i n a t l e a s t two  the emotions  response  that  1987,  another that second each  way  a r e the u s u a l cause  i n which emotion  may  be  between t h e p a r t n e r s .  one The  Marital  dimension  of  intrapsychic  f u e l i n g the negative In the d i s c u s s i o n  that  for  therapy i s emotional  r o u t e t o t h i s change i s t h r o u g h  accessing of underlying individual that  to  people  operates i s i n t r a p s y c h i c a l l y  i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  However, one  emotion  t h e two  f o r seeking help.  aimed a t a l t e r i n g t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l contact.  brought  in  importance.  i t i s current emotional responses  o f the spouses  be  ways i n m a r r i a g e .  are of c e n t r a l  i s these emotional responses that and  must  e x i s t between i n d i v i d u a l s  to their interactions  together,  and  relationship.  22) . For  It  emotion.  i s woven i n t o many o f t h e m e a s u r e s o f  satisfaction. Satisfaction,  some d e g r e e  p.  confuse  the  experience  interactions follows  these  18 two  a s p e c t s o f emotion,  t o be kept If  interpersonal  interventions  emotional  1974,  responses  1986, A p p e n d i c e s  permits  raters to rate  therapy  session.  hostility rated.  Rather,  ly,  i t s construction  i f one p e r s o n  it  exact nature  t o be  on t h e SASB, i t i s hostility  feelings are unclear.  o f some  Similari t is  feelings are friendly i s not e a s i l y guessed.  ones, SASB i s  study t o assess the nature o f the i n t e r a c t i o n s on t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l d i m e n s i o n ,  not t o  t h e p a r t i c u l a r emotions o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s .  i s involved with  interpersonal  Thus,  r e s p o n s i v e n e s s , whether  n e g a t i v e , p o s i t i v e , autonomous o r s u b m i s s i v e , emotional  r a t e emotion o r  i s " a f f i r m i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g "  between t h e spouses identify  i n the  allows the l e v e l of  i s experiencing  although the s p e c i f i c  i n this  which  i s " b e l i t t l i n g and  one c l u s t e r o f b e h a v i o u r s  although t h e i r  responses  i n this (Benjamin,  e x h i b i t e d by t h e s p o u s e s  probable that the underlying  used  of S o c i a l Behavior  interpersonal  or a f f i l i a t i o n  i f a person  used  A & B ) , i s an i n s t r u m e n t  probable that that person sort,  i t is  system  SASB d o e s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y  F o r example,  blaming",  i n marriage,  The o b s e r v a t i o n a l  the Structural Analysis  feelings.  a r e d e s i g n e d t o change  t h a t t h e r e e x i s t some way t o m e a s u r e f e e l i n g s a n d  changes i n f e e l i n g s . study,  need  separate.  therapeutic  essential  i n t e r p e r s o n a l and i n t r a p s y c h i c ,  not with the  experiences of the i n d i v i d u a l s i n the session.  19 It  i s one  e m o t i o n , and  t h i n g t o be  i t i s another  e m o t i o n w e l l enough t o be therapeutically.  of the  (1986), t h e  T h e r a p y , h a v e an on  emotion  1987; Safran  Fincham  of  emotion  emotion i n i n d i v i d u a l s of m a r i t a l therapy,  o r i g i n a t o r s of Emotionally  Greenberg & Safran,  that  1986;  of the  Greenberg &  Safran, 1984b;  T h e i r view of emotion i s d e r i v e d  (1979) model o f  information  processing.  mechanisms.  First,  e x p r e s s i v e m o t o r mechanisms c o n s i s t  primarily  facial  expressions  Second, t h e  response t o e a r l i e r emotional  memories.  involving three  which are  schema o f t h e  d i r e c t i n g the T h i r d , the  conceptual  s y s t e m , t h e most c o n s c i o u s  processes,  s t o r e s r u l e s a b o u t and  ience.  "Experienced  i n a t e to the  in  present  individual's c o g n i t i v e or  of the  three  evaluations of  emotion r e s u l t s  human  particular  T h i s schema o p e r a t e s  a t t e n t i o n to c e r t a i n areas.  automatic  organism's s u b j e c t i v e  s i t u a t i o n s comprises  i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g by  and  literature  1984a; G r e e n b e r g & S a f r a n ,  1982).  for  Focused  emotion as  organism.  an  Greenberg  T h i s model p r e s e n t s  of  that  has  but  of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n .  (Greenberg & Johnson,  from L e v e n t h a l ' s  nature  (1987) s p e c u l a t e  extensive understanding  & Greenberg,  measure  l i t e r a t u r e o f emotion i s necessary  serious researcher  Johnson  the  a b l e t o work w i t h  o f f researchers  understanding the  t o understand  B r a d b u r y and  t h e v o l u m e o f r e s e a r c h on frightened  a b l e t o o b s e r v e and  exper-  from a p r e a t t e n t i v e  s y n t h e s i s o f e x p r e s s i v e motor i n f o r m a t i o n ,  implicit  emotional Johnson,  schemas a n d c o n c e p t u a l c o g n i t i o n " 1986, p .  understanding Therapy.  2).  These concepts  a r e important  of the foundations of Emotionally  When, i n E m o t i o n a l l y F o c u s e d  e x p r e s s i v e motor responses  Therapy,  or emotional  the p o s s i b i l i t y  exists  these responses  a n d schema t o c h a n g e .  therapy,  (Greenberg  t o an  Focused these  schema a r e e v o k e d ,  for the perceptions arising  i s t o evoke l i v e ,  from  The f o c u s i n t h i s  u n d e r l y i n g emotion w i t h i n t h e  session.  T h i s t h e n a l l o w s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f "a new  emotional  s y n t h e s i s which t r a n s l a t e s  t e n d e n c i e s a n d new r e s p o n s e s Johnson, is  1986, p .  3).  driven,  As such,  t h e spouse"  importance.  i ti s concerned  with  intensity  earlier  of the  I t i s not that  a r e o f no  E F T t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t much o f t h e  o f t h e n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s between  from  spouses  e x p e r i e n c e s i n w h i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l was  n o t a b l e t o meet h i s o r h e r n e e d s .  When t h e u n d e r l y i n g  emotions a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s a r e evoked and expressed,  there i s a possiblity  f o r a change i n t h e  i n t e r a c t i o n s o f the couple. What i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h i s u n d e r l y i n g e m o t i o n ? Emotion i s conceived o f i n t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s , primary, secondary  &  intrapsychically  i n t e r a c t i o n s o f t h e spouses Rather,  (Greenberg  a d a p t i v e emotion o f each  n o t i n t e r p e r s o n a l l y evoked emotion.  the emotional  derives  toward  i n t o new a c t i o n  The f o c u s o f many E F T i n t e r v e n t i o n s  t h e a c c e s s i n g o f primary,  spouses.  &  and i n s t r u m e n t a l (Greenberg  & Safran,  1984b,  21 1987).  I n s t r u m e n t a l emotions a r e those emotions expressed  c o n s c i o u s l y o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y t o encourage c e r t a i n behaviours from o t h e r s . feel  sorry  F o r example,  f o r me  I might c r y so t h a t you  and h e l p me  w i t h my  problem.  emotions a r e r e a c t i v e emotions, ones t h a t to  defend.  I f y o u p u s h me,  push you back. occurring  serve  Emotional interchanges of these  i n the therapy session,  Johnson,  1986,  "one  intensely Johnson,  information"  involved  individual  to  and  'moved* by them"  i s now  Johnson  (Greenberg &  finally  but i s rather  (Greenberg &  i n which  emotional experience.  Naturally,  the  i n E m o t i o n a l l y F o c u s e d T h e r a p y must h a v e t h e  expression.  In  awareness,  s a f e enough t o e x p r e s s r a t h e r t h a n  evoke t h i s d e p t h o f e x p e r i e n c i n g and  employed  in  p. 5 ) . I t i s as though t h e o r i g i n a l s e n s o r y -  hide the r e s u l t i n g therapist  sorts,  of primary feelings,  motor-schema e x p e r i e n c e i s r e e v o k e d i n a c o n t e x t the  and  p . 5 ) . G r e e n b e r g and J o h n s o n go t o some  does not doubt t h e i r v e r a c i t y ,  1986,  way  Rather i t i s the primary  adaptive  length to describe the q u a l i t y stating  i n some  are not f r u i t f u l  emotions, which a r e u s u a l l y o u t s i d e o f immediate "convey b i o l o g i c a l l y  Secondary  I might respond w i t h anger  p r o d u c i n g t h e r a p e u t i c change.  that  would  E v o c a t i v e and/or g e s t a l t  (Perls,  Hefferline  skill  facilitate i t s  techniques are  often  & Goodman,1951).  d e s c r i b i n g E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy Greenberg (1986)  disclosure,  say t h a t  t h i s whole  and  " b e c a u s e o f t h e h i g h demand f o r process i s conducive to the  building  of  i n t i m a c y and  interpersonal  e m o t i o n a l bonds"  dimension of  the  relationship  i n t i m a c y has  b e e n s e e n as  satisfaction  (Berman & L i e f , 1975;  L Abate,  1979;  1  Tolstedt  an  (p.261). Here,  essential  seems c r u c i a l t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e encourage or ships. new  In  1983;  1979;  Waring,  interpersonal  o t h e r words, a f t e r an or h e r s e l f  f o r the  self-revealing,  more i n t i m a t e ,  L'Abate 1984)  it which  disclosed  c o u p l e t o become c l o s e r  and  a  to  more  than moving back  into  interaction?  Answers t o t h i s q u e s t i o n a r i s e interpersonal  psychology.  relationship  significant  close  are  The  relationships  relationship.  From t h e  Buber  (1957) s t a t e s ,  "In  p e r s o n s c o n f i r m one extent or  other  from the  issues  similar to  child  field  of  which appear i n  the  ones w h i c h appear i n a l l  beginning with the  perspective  human s o c i e t y ,  parent-  of philosophy,  at  M.  a l l levels,  a n o t h e r i n a p r a c t i c a l way,  i n t h e i r personal q u a l i t i t e s  to  some  and  capacities." In Mitchell  &  relation-  o t h e r , what n e e d s  rather  As  marital  factors  i n d i v i d u a l has  to the  happen i n o r d e r  marital  component o f  allow intimacy to develop i n m a r i t a l  aspect of h i s  negative  reappears.  Horowitz,  & Stokes,  the  discussing (1971) sum  disclosure  and,  T h a t an  the up  therapeutic  relationship,  q u a l i t i e s which promote  i f applied  a c c u r a t e and  another's f e e l i n g s ,  to marriage,  self-  intimacy.  s e n s i t i v e awareness aspirations,  Truax  of  values, b e l i e f s ,  and  23 and  p e r c e p t i o n s , t h a t a deep c o n c e r n  f o r the  other person's w e l f a r e , without attempts t o d o m i n a t e h i m , and t h a t a n open, non d e f e n s i v e , non  phony b e i n g  cial  (genuineness)  proves  benefi-  t o a n y human i n t e r a c t i o n h a s l o n g b e e n  r e c o g n i z e d by p h i l o s o p h e r s and n o v e l i s t s a s well  as by t h e o r e t i c i a n s  counseling, broad  i n psychotherapy and  a n d i n d e e d b y o t h e r s who s t u d y t h e  a r e a s o f human r e l a t i o n s h i p s "  Studying t h e broad  (p.313).  a r e a s o f human r e l a t i o n s h i p s h a s  l o n g been t h e t a s k o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l psychology. development o f t h e c h i l d  and s p e c i f i c a l l y  s e l f - e s t e e m have been c a r e f u l l y states that significance esteem" James  "almost  Cotton  (1983)  esteem d i s c u s s t h e  o f t h e o p i n i o n o f o t h e r s upon d e v e l o p i n g  ( p . 124) a n d t h e n c i t e s  Explicitly,  (1971) t o c o r r o b e r a t e h e r  she says t h a t growth o f h i g h  e s t e e m i n c h i l d r e n h a p p e n s when t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d , dated, and  c o n f i r m e d and a c c e p t e d by t h e i r p a r e n t s .  this  self  13 s t u d i e s b e g i n n i n g w i t h  (1890) a n d e n d i n g w i t h K o h u t  statement.  t h e growth o f  examined.  a l l theories of self  The  self vali-  Moreover,  seems s i g n i f i c a n t when we t h i n k o f t h e m a r i t a l  dyad, the s h i f t  t o a r e l i a n c e on i n t e r n a l  self  esteem r e g u l a t i o n  will  always  validation  i s never  sources f o r  complete.  depend t o v a r y i n g d e g r e e s and p r a i s e  from  One  on r e c o g n i t i o n ,  external sources.  The  24 notion the  that maturity  opinions  and  form o f s e l f describes  i n v o l v e s u t t e r independence  a t t i t u d e s of others  esteem r e g u l a t i o n .  in his writings,  beings i n continual f e l l o w men  'men  As  for their  p.  I f we  bring together  sense of  are  these various  t o view m a r r i a g e as  w i t h each other.  As  Laing  b e t w e e n two  i n which the  w i t h warmth and  t o be izes  t o one  i s met  quite  " i t is a  process  t h a t p r o c e s s has  individuals.  I f the  accept each other's  a n o t h e r and  to create  However, i f any  with r e j e c t i o n or  a different result. this  a l o s s of s e l f  l o s s t h a t produces the are  not  individuals interacting  the  power  process  is  disclosures  the  basis  kind  scorn,  of  their for  an  self  there  Coopersmith  is  likely  (1967) summar-  occurrence.  i n d i v i d u a l i s c o n t i n u a l l y guarding  against  picture  e a c h e n a b l e d t o r e v e a l more o f  S u l l i v a n ' s v i e w s on The  It is  a  f r i e n d l i n e s s i n a p o s i t i v e emotional  relationship.  revelation  their (Cotton,  strands,  (1961) s t a t e d ,  the  partners  atmosphere, t h e y are  intimate  two  p e o p l e , " and  or disconfirm  lives  from  143).  sufficient  inner  psychosocial  1  i n t e r a c t i o n b e g i n s t o emerge.  one  eloquently  self-worth "  of m a r i t a l  to confirm  pathological  Erikson  need o f r e c o g n i t i o n  1983,  g o i n g on  is a  from  esteem,  himself  for i t i s  this  f e e l i n g s of d i s t r e s s t h a t  elsewhere termed a n x i e t y .  Anxiety  i s an  inter-  25 personal  phenomenon t h a t  e x p e c t s t o be  or  o c c u r s when an i n d i v i d u a l  i s indeed r e j e c t e d or  demeaned. (p.  Leary the  (1957) i s e v e n more f o r c e f u l  power o f t h i s  abandonment. fear of  As  anxiety. the  r e j e c t i o n and  others  14-15). I s  can  social  be  of a profound  to avoid  this.  fierce? l o s s of  resolution? on  (Leary,  self-esteem  facilitate  Although studies  do  of  not,  social  the  part  1957,  p.  and  recent  of  the  fights  research  on  about  the  successful  i n general,  i s s u e , many r e f e r t o t h e  focus  importance  engendering  of  successful  negotiation.  In t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n of the distressed  and  observed that responsive  on  Each e x p e r i e n c e s  a c c e p t a n c e o r p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e s as conflict  Mankind's  resolution discovered  responses that  this  fear  i n t e r a c t i o n s of  What t h e n has  of marital c o n f l i c t  interpersonal  directly  can  i s the  extreme d e r o g a t i o n  i t then s u r p r i s i n g that the  possibility  patterns  disapproval.  lead to destruction"  couples i n c o n f l i c t  furiously  anxiety  about  b e g i n s t o d e v e l o p t h i s becomes a  i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e means t h a t crucial  i n h i s statements  "Primal  child  32)  non-distressed nondistressed  t o each other,  differences  couples,  between  K o r e n e t a l . (198 0)  c o u p l e s were more v e r b a l l y  and  least  "minimal acknowledgments  overt  a g r e e m e n t s and  that  t h e s e r e s p o n s e s were  (e.g.  acceptances"  'uh-huh') a s w e l l  ( K o r e n e t a l . 1980,  at as  p.  463).  In c o n t r a s t , the d i s t r e s s e d  verbal  responses  Similarly, distinguishing fied  t o each  (1979) s t u d y n o t e d  characteristic  the existence of a " v a l i d a t i o n  sequence the c o u p l e a f f i r m i n some way.  disagreement marriage.  that  critical  one  of s a t i s f i e d versus  the p a r t of the non-distressed couples.  ship  more  other.  Gottman's  c o u p l e s was  c o u p l e s had  each  unsatis-  sequence"  In the  o t h e r and  major  on  validation  their  relation-  I t i s a s t h o u g h t h e meta-message i s " t h i s  i s not dangerous.  I t does not t h r e a t e n  I c a n a c c e p t t h a t we  can have  our  different  opinions." This k i n d of acceptance b e t w e e n two increased  people,  levels  t h e power t o p r o m o t e  r e v e l a t i o n are p o s s i b l e .  the r o l e of a f f e c t  feelings.  that develops  "With t h e g i v i n g  and  c a n t r u s t w i t h my  receiving  feelings.'  f e e l i n g s and who  T h a t m u t u a l and  'this  of  o f s h a r i n g deep important  i s someone whom I  t r u s t s me  reciprocal  the  (1983) r e f e r t o a  as a r e s u l t  f e e l i n g s comes t h e r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t  In  i n behavioural  t h e r a p y , M a r g o l i n and W e i n s t e i n  "metaperspective"  trust  t h u s p r o v i d e an a t m o s p h e r e i n w h i c h  of s e l f  process o f examining marital  and  has  trust  with his/her tends  t o be  important  symbol o f i n t i m a c y "  p.  In comparing the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f Problem S o l v i n g  326).  Therapy  and  Greenberg  (Margolin & Weinstein,  an  E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  (1985) p r o p o s e d  Therapy,  t h a t one  Johnson  possibility  g r e a t e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  1983,  and  f o r the  Therapy  was  27 that  i t increased trust  and  responsiveness.  p o s t u l a t e s t h a t s a f e t y i s the self  d i s c l o s u r e can  question  emotional  take place.  f o r couples  as  He  Guerin  (1982)  environment  s e e s an  " I s i t s a f e t o be  i n which  underlying  vulnerable  in this  marriage"(p.18)? Hahlweg, S c h i n d l e r , R e v e n s t o r f  and  Brengelmann  a t t a c k t h e p r o b l e m o f a c c e p t a n c e more d i r e c t l y communication s k i l l by  training.  employing the  by  (1984)  employing  They s t a t e t h a t  communications s k i l l s  i t was  hoped  t h a t p a r t n e r s would a v o i d blaming, c r i t i c i z i n g , sidetracking; core  skills  attitudes, in  the  are and  the  reciprocal  self  understanding...The  d i s c l o s u r e of  and  accepting of not  speaker's  They c l e a r l y  utterances  recognize  the  point  than  as  an  Several researchers for  the  other  facilitates  that the  couple  partners  can  no  now  see  (p.  8,  italics  added).  t h a t a c c e p t a n c e by  conflict,  to  but  one  be  partner  I t i s not  rather that  the  In proposing  m a r i t a l therapy,  (1983) a s s e r t e d t h a t when a c o u p l e ' s this  shift.  each o t h e r d i f f e r e n t l y .  c o g n i t i v e component t o b e h a v i o u r a l  explored,  respon-  state.  a perceptual  l o n g e r has  see  of  importance of p o s i t i v e  existential  problem  n e c e s s a r i l y agreeing  s i v e n e s s e v e n t h o u g h t h e y v i e w i t more a s a s k i l l taught  feelings,  thoughts e i t h e r about a s p e c i f i c  r e l a t i o n s h i p o r about a g e n e r a l  discussion, to  i n c r e a s e t h e i r mutual  and  a  Jacobson  underlying beliefs  f o s t e r e d g r e a t e r empathy i n t h e p a r t n e r s .  were In  28 other  words e a c h p a r t n e r ' s  plicitly  discussed,  have e x i s t e d c o u l d lacks the  perception  so t h a t n e g a t i v e be  challenged.  behaviour that  s t a t e of the  t h a t whether o r not r e j e c t i n g was tion  Although t h i s  G l i c k and an  Gross  i n d i v i d u a l was  often a perceptual  o f what was  statement could  who  felt  be  a l s o the  et a l  o f d i s t r e s s e d m a r r i a g e s was  the  emotion followed work"  by  a new  by  a  construal  1986,  to the  other  The  p.  7)  i s the  fact  that  therapist to validate  own  hear  of require  is crucial  is  their  other.  expression  from i n d i v i d u a l t h e r a p y .  individuals.  to  in  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  emphasizes  f o r the  a  couples to  therapy strongly d i f f e r s i t sufficient  the  inability  What t h i s v i e w o f e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s o f partner  partner  in  a c c e p t a n c e " e v e n t h o u g h i t may  (Greenberg & Johnson,  allowing  support-  or r e j e c t i n g behaviour i n the  a f f i r m a t i v e responses.  or  reflec-  (1966) s t a t e d t h a t  Thus i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e r a p i s t s a s s i s t partner's  out  than a  a h i s t o r y of c r i t i c i s m  Laing  not  internal  criticism  characteristic  the  i t is  A seemingly  In  accepting  approach  (1975) p o i n t e d  relationship.  distinguish  fact,  may  Focused Therapy, i t  issue rather  i n t e r p r e t e d as  i n c o m p e t e n t o r had  ex-  a c t u a l l y accepting  actually occurring.  ive  was  acknowledges t h a t  i s important, but  couple.  other  attributions that  emotional depth of Emotionally  d o e s p r o m o t e more a c c e p t a n c e and only  of the  Couples f r e q u e n t l y  one  marital No  longer  the  come f o r t h e r a p y  i n t e r a c t i o n a l p r o c e s s i s a p r o b l e m and  because disconfirms  29 them as has  individuals.  s o l u t i o n to the  b e e n t o demand c h a n g e f r o m e a c h o t h e r .  i n t o b l a m i n g and culties,  thus  What g o e s on is  Often t h e i r  able  criticizing  each other  increasing their  positive  possibilities  the  other,  this  them  diffi-  disconfirmation.  b e t w e e n them n e e d s t o c h a n g e .  r e s p o n s e by  locks  for their  sense of  t o e x p r e s s v u l n e r a b i l i t y and  This  problem  When one  i t i s met  with  opens whole  f o r t r u s t , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and  partner a  new  intimacy  b e t w e e n them.  Marital  Conflict  Resolution  Webster's Ninth "struggle drives,  r e s u l t i n g from i n c o m p a t i b l e  wishes, or  conflict  i s an  contact,  and  the  conflict  external  the  greater for high  may  d e p e n d on  e a r l y as  observed that but  rather  the  "constructive ability  the  to  o f v i e w and  i t was  l e v e l s of c o n f l i c t .  way  on  conflict  the  negotiate  as  other's  Hertel  itself  greater often  resolution  of  r i g h t t o have a  and  issue, explore  Swain  t h a t was  developed.  characterized  a solution.  the  legitimacy.  i n which c o n f l i c t  conflict"  focus  i t s own  the  such,  Conflict  whereas t h e  Raush, B a r r y , not  needs,  interpersonal  amount o f c o n t a c t ,  accepting  1974,  as  i n t e r n a l demands." As  a right-wrong controversy,  d i f f e r e n t v i e w w h i c h has As  or  conflict  or opposing  i n e v i t a b l e component o f  possibility  implies  Dictionary defines  by  the  a  They  saw  couple's  each o t h e r ' s  In c o n t r a s t  problem,  points  "destructive  30 bringing  i n past  power t a c t i c s solution  hurts  such as  and  r e s e n t m e n t s and  threat  or coercion  (Raush, e t a l 1 9 7 4 ) .  ways o f h a n d l i n g  conflict  tended to  t o a c h i e v e some  I n o t h e r words, p a r t i c u l a r  l e d t o w a r d s a p o s i t i v e outcome  w h i l e o t h e r ways t e n d e d t o r e i n f o r c e e s c a l a t i o n and consensual  v i e w s o f Raush, e t a l inherently  neither  simply the  r e s u l t of and  Peterson  (1974).  He  constructive  (1983) c o n c u r r e d w i t h also  nor  sees c o n f l i c t  destructive.  i n c o m p a t i b l e needs.  interdependence of c l o s e  especially marital and  The  any  Several  resolution  relationship-oriented  were e x p e r i e n c e d by more i n t e n s e threatening  the  feeling,  1979).  addition,  and  l e d to the  Thus, t h e to escalate,  satisfied  discussion  l i k e l i h o o d of  on  one  use  and  t o be  the  successful  another.  or  conflicts conflicts  issue-oriented  negotiated  successfully.  c o u p l e s were more l i k e l y specific  evoked  o f more c o e r c i v e  relationship-oriented  issue,  to  thereby  resolution, while  c o u p l e s t e n d e d t o become p e r s o n a l l y t o w a r d one  conflicts  c o u p l e s as more t h r e a t e n i n g ,  c o n f l i c t s were more l i k e l y  the  conflict  behaviours than d i d issue-oriented  were more l i k e l y  their  unsuccessful  conflict  and  First,  as  relationships,  r e l a t i o n s h i p s , means t h a t  emerged.  the  It is  common themes i n s u c c e s s f u l  In  of  emotional  i t s r e s o l u t i o n have d u r a b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s .  (Peterson,  lack  resolution.  In a survey a r t i c l e  intensity  include  increasing dissatisfied  r e j e c t i n g and  N e x t , engagement o f  focus  conflict  blaming rather  31 t h a n i t s a v o i d a n c e was a s s o c i a t e d each spouse o f t h e other's Golding,  1980).  consistent  by  of cross-complaining.  conflicts  rather  Gottman  (Knudson, Sommers,  (1979) n o t e s t h a t studies  " a l l this  Peterson  i s that  (1983)  concludes  suggests that the e s c a l a t i o n o f  c a u s e d by, t h e a t t r i b u t i o n o f blame t o t h e o t h e r  t h a n t o o n e s e l f . . . and p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i p t i o n t o personal  I n a r e v i e w o f 26 s t u d i e s distressed  couples,  Schapp  even i n low c o n f l i c t  by a s h i f t  blaming"  (p. 376).  (1984) f o u n d t h a t  situations.  distressed  i n their interactions,  Also,  their  problem  s o l v i n g b e h a v i o u r was c o n s i s t e n t l y more n e g a t i v e . concluded that  d i s t r e s s e d couples" Guerin  the  "negative  affect, (p.  especially,  148).  (1982) e x a m i n e d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f d y s f u n t i o n a l  amount o f c o n t a c t  or separation  couples undergoing s t r e s s .  f o r more s u p p o r t  or object.  in  He o b s e r v e d t h a t when t h e r e l a moved c l o s e r  ( t h e p u r s u e r ) and t h e o t h e r  (the distancer)  that i s  demanded by p a r t n e r s ,  t i o n s h i p was u n d e r s t r e s s , one p a r t n e r  activity  Schapp  discriminates  by examining t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f d i s t a n c e ,  or h e r s e l f  from  comparing d i s t r e s s e d and non-  c o u p l e s were p r e d o m i n a n t l y n e g a t i v e  conflict  into  i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s accompanied by, and i s  behavioral  the  &  a  c o u p l e s i n t r e a t m e n t t e n d t o move q u i c k l y  stating that  possibly  perceptions  f i n d i n g through several  dissatisfied a pattern  Further,  w i t h more u n d e r s t a n d i n g by  distanced  a n d became i n v o l v e d  At this  asking him  i n another  s t a g e s t r e s s was s e e n a s low  and  t h e d i s t a n c e between t h e  each.  Implicit  in this  i n d i v i d u a l s was  s t a g e was  comfortable  for  a s e n s e o f f r e e movement.  E i t h e r c o u l d move c l o s e r o r b a c k away, w h e r e u p o n a  new  e q u i l i b r i u m w o u l d be  occurred,  achieved.  When marked s t r e s s  o f t e n t h e c o u p l e moved t h r o u g h  f u r t h e r s t a g e s w h i c h were  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  ever  emotional  the pursuer's  connection  and  demand f o r e m o t i o n a l a c c o m p a n i e d by  i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r  the d i s t a n c e r ' s ever i n c r e a s i n g  autonomy.  This process  escalating negative was  away r e a c t i v e l y .  A t t h i s p o i n t t h e r e was  often, of  the pursuer  was  v e r y h u r t and  p r e c i p i t a t e d the  to this  distance, a  and  the couple  was  the  possibility  t o move c l o s e r .  final  criticism,  stage,  However,  In the  a wall  This  as above a l l t h e final  stage,  in  the d i s t a n c e r continued  to  each p a r t n e r r e s i d e d behind  fixed position  later  b e g a n t o move  at the d i s t a n c e r .  d i s t a n c e r r e q u i r e d acceptance. response  a n g r y and  At a  metaphorically standing behind  hurt, hurling c r i t i c i s m s  criticism  usually  interaction.  stage the pursuer  that the d i s t a n c e r could begin  was  a wall of hurt  i n reference to the other.  At t h i s  stage  profoundly alienated.  Another aspect  of c o n f l i c t  resolution  i n v o l v e s the  p e r c e p t i o n s o f each spouse about the behaviour  of the  Kelley  interpret  (1979) r e p o r t e d t h a t p a r t n e r s t e n d e d  each o t h e r ' s behaviour properties"(p. behaviours  in  96).  " i n terms o f s t a b l e ,  to  general  other.  causal  While i n d i v i d u a l s d e s c r i b e d t h e i r  i n neutral or p o s i t i v e  terms, such  as  own  forgetful  or preoccupied,  t h e p a r t n e r o f t e n saw  n e g a t i v e terms such  as  Sommers and  (1980) a s k e d  Golding  observable behaviour interpersonal t o know how concluded  i r r e s p o n s i b l e or s e l f i s h .  was  understand  o r w h e t h e r i t was  itself.  Deutsch  escalation.  one  also  necessary  (1979) f o u n d  experienced  a somewhat d i f f e r e n t  postulated that conflict the partner's r e a l  as  important  (1969) s u g g e s t e d  a s more n e g a t i v e t h a n d i d an  Taking  was  They  that  of several processes  Gottman  t r e s s e d p a r t n e r s themselves  each  that led  that  dis-  other's  outside  coder.  perspective, Wile  (1981)  between spouses o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e  experience  o f unmet n e e d s .  He  interactional  emotional  diet"  p a t t e r n s which developed  When p a r t n e r s a v o i d e d  r e s u l t was  mutual withdrawal.  permissible,  (p. 1 0 ) .  fighting  He  identified  at a l l cost,  from  three  i n couples with  Where open d i s c o r d  unmet  the  was  t h e p a r t n e r s blamed each o t h e r i n a c c e l e r a t i n g  arguments r e s u l t i n g  i n mutual a c c u s a t i o n .  of the  first  two,  The  where one  third  pattern  was  a combination  and  t h e o t h e r withdrew, a demanding-withdrawing p a t t e r n .  All  of these patterns resulted  primary  of  described  "suffering psychological malnutrition resulting  inadequate  needs.  externally  t h a t the c o n s t r u a l of behaviour  to c o n f l i c t  an  to  in  Knudson,  each spouse c o n s t r u e d the behaviour.  p e r c e p t u a l d i s t o r t i o n was  them a s  whether  sufficient  interaction  as t h e b e h a v i o u r  behaviour  the behaviour  in alienation.  t h e r a p e u t i c a p p r o a c h was  p a r t n e r blamed  Wile's  to help individuals  to  34 identify partner  underlying was  able  a c k n o w l e d g e d by  unmet n e e d s .  He  believed  to express important the  c o n f l i c t s would  other,  f e e l i n g s and  much o f t h e  more  1)  t e n d t o become r e l a t i o n s h i p - o r i e n t e d r a t h e r  the  use  and  coercion.  Their  satisfied r a t e d by partner's  3)  in their  couples. an  4)  outside  often  distance 6)  only  5)  are  of  adult,  include  far  another than  t h e y more n e g a t i v e  on  conflict and  the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  r e l a t i o n s h i p s can  unmet n e e d s on  as  i n i t s impact  Escalating unresolved  s t r e s s on  are  their  d i f f e r i n g needs f o r c l o s e n e s s  i s e x a c e r b a t e d by  real,  and  they themselves r a t e  Continued c o n f l i c t i n m a r i t a l  result  issue-  d i s t r e s s e d couples are  e v e n more n e g a t i v e  coder.  e n g e n d e r e d by and  Not  than  conflicts  r e j e c t i o n , blame  b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d one  coder, but  b e h a v i o u r as  threats,  the  Their  tend to escalate  such as  In general,  them t h a n d o e s t h e is  conflicts  o f power t a c t i c s  more n e g a t i v e  them  superficial  studies highlight  f o l l o w i n g aspects of d i s t r e s s e d couples.  2)  had  disappear.  I n summary, t h e s e d i v e r s e  oriented.  t h a t when e a c h  the  part  of  be  the  each  spouse.  Emotionally The  Focused  majority  done i n t h e therapy. peutic  area  of  Therapy research  i n m a r i t a l t h e r a p y has  of behavioural,  (Gurman, K n i s k e r n  rather  & Pinsof,  approaches, e x e m p l i f i e d  by  than  been  non-behavioural  1986).  These  Jacobson's  (1977)  thera-  B e h a v i o r a l M a r i t a l Therapy, change t h e a c t u a l spouses.  Jacobson  for couples  i n t e r v e n e by  interchanges or behaviours (1977) d e v e l o p e d  i n problem  solving  skills  be where a c o u p l e was  d i s h e s the other agrees dinners.  skills  Wile from and  the  as d a i l y  internal  can  and  do  were n o t met  by  p. x i ) .  the spouses.  improve are  the  relationship.  i n d i v i d u a l ' s experience of being ( W i l e , 1981,  make t h r e e  i n t e r a c t i o n but  (1981) t o o k t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t d i s c o r d  isolated"  Often  o f t e n arose  "deprived,  trapped  Legitimate adult i n the i n t e r e s t  needs of  " s o l v i n g " p r o b l e m s t h e r a p i s t s w o u l d e n c o u r a g e compromise the g i v i n g The  up  o f what t h e y  difficulty  with t h i s ,  saw  as unreasonable  as W i l e  saw  e n g e n d e r e d e v e n more d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n f e e l i n g s and task p.  increased s e l f - c r i t i c i s m .  (is) to d i s c o v e r the hidden  196)  it,  was  expectations. that i t  "The  trivial  therapist's (Wile,  1981,  arguments.  S o l v i n g problems i s not Wile's g o a l , but r a t h e r t o legitimize  the problem  and  then  and  of both partners'  rationality"  i n the couple's seemingly  to  doing a l l the  experiences of  and/or t h e i r  each  i n d e c i d i n g how  t o s h o p f o r g r o c e r i e s and  n o t aimed a t a l t e r i n g t h e of themselves  which  I n r e t u r n f o r one  as w e l l  training  A s i m p l e example m i g h t  Such b e h a v i o u r a l approaches  communication  spouses  through  having d i f f i c u l t y  chores.  to  between  a systematic  spouse c o u l d d e r i v e equal b e n e f i t s .  a l l o c a t e household  attempting  "to enable partners to  36 incorporate the  their  f a n t a s i e s , a r g u m e n t s , and  r e l a t i o n s h i p " (p. Emotionally  incorporates a r i s e s as  Focused Therapy  Wile's b e l i e f  e x p e r i e n c e and  inability By  h u s b a n d who  and  has  underlying  f r o m him,  he  and  p u r s u e s him  An  When she  i n t o the  and  U s i n g many o f t h e  fashion,  underlying  aware o f h i s o r h e r  for  session,  one  As  these  spouse, the  as  reassurance. without  underlying  needs  other  t o change h i s o r h e r  other  partner's  behaviour.  perception  in a  in the  vivid  unacknowledged,  f e e l i n g s are  possibility  and  threat-  techniques developed  these previously  a  reassurance  ( P e r l s , H e f f e r l i n e , & Goodman, 1951)  feelings.  e x p r e s s e d by  their  system  Focused t h e r a p i s t seeks t o evoke  i n the  fuel  overwhelmed  seeks  more v i g o r o u s l y  being  Emotionally  each  i n turn experiences  either partner  G e s t a l t Therapy  into  f e e l s h i s autonomy b e i n g  c y c l e becomes i n c o r p o r a t e d  feelings.  the  example m i g h t be  fear of being  b a c k s away, w h i c h she  rejection This  an  needs t h a t  on  T h e s e c y c l e s , o n c e begun,  f e a r s abandonment.  closeness  e n e d and  relationship to  alternately focusing  underlying  interactional cycles.  who  of the  1986)  often  interactional patterns,  appear almost s e l f p e r p e t u a t i n g .  a wife  conflict  Focused t h e r a p i s t seeks t o b r i n g  spouse's awareness the negative  (Greenberg & Johnson,  that marital  meet l e g i t i m a t e a d u l t n e e d s .  Emotionally  into  211).  a r e s u l t of the  affective  differences  experienced  emerges f o r  of the  and  the  meaning o f  the  37 S e v e r a l s t u d i e s h a v e now of  Emotionally  Focused Therapy  Johnson & Greenberg, the process Greenberg,  of Emotionally  Focused Therapy  1988; P l y s i u k , 1983; Vaughn, interest  the task a n a l y t i c technique  couples with  who  (Greenberg,  Behaviour  Experiencing  was u n s u c c e s s f u l .  couples (SASB)  Scale  From t h e s e  (Benjamin,  research.  1984),  as blaming,  behaviours, helping.  The two  observations  1974) and t h e  used  & Kiesler,  i n the present  P l y s i u k developed resolution.  such as d i s c l o s i n g ,  trusting,  a  four  Stage I,  S t a g e I I , "deaccepting  f o l l o w e d by a two-step " t e s t i n g " had d i s c l o s e d s e n s i t i v e t h e o t h e r by r e s p o n d i n g  the  negative  I f these  responses,  then  such  affirming or  seemed t o be t e s t i n g  affiliative  of resolving  f a c i l i t a t e d by more a f f i l i a t i v e ,  w h i c h t h e p a r t n e r who  this  instruments  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h o s t i l e b e h a v i o u r s  T h i s was  other.  four  and c o n t r a s t e d  sulking, avoiding or submitting.  e s c a l a t i o n , " was  Using  Plysiuk  (ES) ( K l e i n , M a t h i e u , G e n d l i n ,  s t a g e model o f m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t " e s c a l a t i o n , " was  latter  were t h e S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s o f  1969, A p p e n d i x C ) , t h e two i n s t r u m e n t s study.  The  (1983) t o e x p l o r e t h e p r o c e s s e s  non-resolving  Social  1986).  for this  successfully resolved conflict  one c o u p l e  1989;  (Johnson &  what a c t u a l l y h a p p e n e d i n s i t u a t i o n s where  u s e d by P l y s u i k and  (Goldman, 1986; James,  1985). O t h e r s t u d i e s have i l l u m i n a t e d  studies are of p a r t i c u l a r  observed  demonstrated the e f f e c t i v e n s s  stage i n  feelings negatively to  s t a t e m e n t s were met  by  t h e i n t e r a c t i o n moved on t o t h e  38 final  s t a g e o f "mutual openness".  hostility, The  then the  interaction returned to  non-resolving couple  escalation  stage.  o f a f f i r m i n g and  I f t h e y were met  in this  For t h i s  "escalation".  study never  reached  c o u p l e t h e r e was  understanding  statements.  understanding.  m u t u a l o p e n n e s s s t a g e was  e n t i a t e d by partners. when e a c h  the l e v e l  defending r a t h e r than  o f the spouses  feels  similar  differ-  demonstrated  and  seventh  J o h n s o n and  become more p o s i t i v e t o show t h a t  would behave s i m i l a r l y  Therapy  of S o c i a l  Behavior  couple s  interaction.  and  in their  i n the second  s e s s i o n would have a l t e r e d  Analysis  undertook  He  was  had  effective  the reduction of that  the  interaction. session couples by  t h e i r behaviour  (Benjamin,  an  (1985a)  c o u p l e s and  a l s o used  of  processes  sessions of  not demonstrated  to distressed  of a n o n - d i s t r e s s e d couple.  the  Greenberg  i n goal attainment  c o m p l a i n t s , b u t t h e y had  Vaughn s o u g h t  (1986)  a s e v i d e n c e d by  t h a t E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  in helping couples  c o u p l e s had  Vaughn  i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f i c a c y  Therapy  session therapy.  s a f e enough t o e x p l o r e i s s u e s  reactivity.  which o c c u r r e d i n the second  1  quite  However, i t c o u l d be  i n w h i c h he  E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  seventh  by  P l y s i u k d e s c r i b e s mutual openness as o c c u r r i n g  a process study  target  lack  of e x p e r i e n c i n g which o c c u r r e d f o r the  a t a deep l e v e l w i t h o u t  eight  de-  D i s c l o s u r e s were  and  to the d e - e s c a l a t i o n stage.  the  a marked  f o l l o w e d by b l a m i n g The  with  the  1974)  the to  that  Structural t o observe  the  39 Vaughn found t h a t  seventh s e s s i o n s had lower  negative d i s a f f i l i a t i v e positive, He  also  levels of  b e h a v i o u r s and h i g h e r l e v e l s o f  autonomous b e h a v i o u r s t h a n d i d s e c o n d  sessions.  f o u n d t h a t t h e r e was more s u p p o r t i v e , a f f i r m i n g a n d  empathic  behaviours as w e l l  as p o s i t i v e  disclosures  i n seventh sessions than  Vaughn a l s o  investigated  sequential  a s s e r t i o n s and  i n second  sessions.  i n t e r a c t i o n and  d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more n e g a t i v e sequences  i n second  s e s s i o n s than  f i c a n t l y more p o s i t i v e second.  sequences  i n seventh and s i g n i i n seventh  s e s s i o n s than i n  In general, h i s hypothesis that the interactional  p r o c e s s o f couples i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused change from t h a t o f a d i s t r e s s e d  Therapy  would  couple i n t h e second  s e s s i o n t o one more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  o f non-distressed couples  i n t h e s e v e n t h was u p h e l d . Johnson  and Greenberg  processes with overall Focused  Therapy.  theoretical  (1988) s o u g h t  to link  in-session  t h e r a p y outcome i n E m o t i o n a l l y  Basing t h e i r  investigation  on t h e  f o u n d a t i o n s o f E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  Therapy,  they  examined b o t h t h e i n t r a p s y c h i c p r o c e s s e s and t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l dynamics a s s o c i a t e d w i t h change. chosen,  S i x c o u p l e s were  t h r e e o f whom h a d h a d t h e most c h a n g e b e t w e e n  p r e - and p o s t - D y a d i c Adjustment  Scale  (DAS) ( S p a n i e r , 1976)  s c o r e s a n d t h r e e o f whom h a d h a d t h e l e a s t t h e s e two s c o r e s .  T h e s e were t h e n t e r m e d  "unsuccessful" couples.  their  change between " s u c c e s s f u l " and  N e x t , one b e s t s e s s i o n  f o r each o f  40 t h e s i x c o u p l e s was  c h o s e n by  examining  s e s s i o n a l m e a s u r e s a n s w e r e d by b o t h a f t e r each s e s s i o n . s p o u s e s and  They found  therapists  first  In a d d i t i o n ,  identified  by  The  i n f l u e n c i n g behaviours  blamer.  last half  t r a n s c r i b e d and  coded both and  Behavior  1974).  R e s u l t s on t h e s e  listened to  couples.  instruments  c o n s i d e r e d t o be  showed a marked  On  and  and  the  best  of  than d i d unsuccessful  accepting behaviours  also achieved higher l e v e l s  than d i d  Successful  on t h e ES,  thereby  t h a t t h e s e c o u p l e s were e n g a g e d i n d e e p e r  e x p e r i e n c i n g w i t h one these couples in  difference  the i n t e r p e r s o n a l  the blamers i n the l e s s s u c c e s s f u l couples.  indicating  was  the blamers i n the s u c c e s s f u l couples  e x h i b i t e d more a f f i l i a t i v e  couples  the  Social  a higher percentage  autonomous r e s p o n s e s  In a d d i t i o n ,  the  exhibited  the S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s of  s u c c e s s f u l c o u p l e s had and  of  on t h e E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e  sessions of unsuccessful couples.  affiliative  as  "blamer" i n each  s p o u s e who  was  the  sessions  between t h e b e s t s e s s i o n s o f s u c c e s s f u l c o u p l e s  dimension,  therapist  of each of these best s e s s i o n s  ( K l e i n e t a l . 1969) (Benjamin,  the  r a t e r s who  more h o s t i l e  then  s p o u s e s and  good agreement between  t e n minutes of the s e s s i o n .  The  self-report  in evaluating specific  p r o d u c t i v e o f change. t h e c o u p l e s was  the  another.  Specifically,  e x p e r i e n c e d more d e e p l y t h a n  the unsuccessful couples.  the blamers i n  d i d the  blamers  These process process First,  studies begin t o create a p i c t u r e of the  of m a r i t a l therapy conflict  i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  Therapy.  r e s o l u t i o n moves i n a s t a g e - l i k e f a s h i o n  from mutual h o s t i l i t y  t o mutual openness.  T h i s movement  b e g i n s w i t h p a r t n e r s a t t a c k i n g e a c h o t h e r o r a t t a c k i n g and defending. ability is  A s one p a r t n e r b e g i n s  t o the other, h o s t i l e  t o e x p o s e some v u l n e r -  statements  the opportunity f o r the other,  accept the partner's experience vulnerability interaction  first,  1983).  disclosing  N e x t , Vaughn  one i n w h i c h  like  behaviours  ( S e s s i o n 2)  Specifically,  had g r e a t l y d i m i n i s h e d ,  understanding,  each  (1986) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e  q u i t e d i s t r e s s e d had s h i f t e d t o b e h a v i o u r s  non-distressed couples.  some  of emotional m a t e r i a l  i n t e r a c t i o n s o f c o u p l e s who h a d f o r m e r l y appeared  t o expose  and  When t h i s h a p p e n s , t h e  s p o u s e i s i n v o l v e d i n deep e x p e r i e n c e (Plysiuk,  t o understand  and, t h e n ,  o f h i s o r h e r own.  i s a positive,  d i m i n i s h , and t h e r e  accepting behaviours  more  hostile  and p o s i t i v e ,  more  had i n c r e a s e d .  Finally,  when c o m p a r i n g b e s t s e s s i o n s o f c o u p l e s who h a d s u c c e s s f u l t h e r a p e u t i c o u t c o m e s a s m e a s u r e d on t h e DAS w i t h o n e s who were u n s u c c e s s f u l , J o h n s o n and G r e e n b e r g clear difference successful significant accept  i n t h e i r behaviours.  couples  (1988) f o u n d  a  The s e s s i o n s o f t h e  showed them e n g a g e d i n g r a p p l i n g w i t h  emotional  experience  and a b l e t o a f f i r m and  each o t h e r i n t h a t p r o c e s s .  I t remains f o r us t o  fill  i n more d e t a i l s  change p r o c e s s e s  of this  e m e r g e n t map  i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  of  successful  marital  therapy.  43  CHAPTER I I I  M e t h o d o l o g y and  This study  contrasts process  peak w i t h p r o c e s s 16  couples.  couples asked  a s p o o r by  of  couples' the  hypothesized  made p r o g r e s s  r e s o l v e d t h e p r o b l e m was,  o c c u r r e d and,  p r o b l e m t h a t had  brought  overall,  how  they  them i n t o t h e r a p y  felt  whether about  (Appendix  scores f o r these aspects of the therapy  any  the D). session  s e l e c t i o n o f a s e s s i o n as peak o r poor.  It  t h a t a s e s s i o n r e p o r t e d by  be  p r o d u c t i v e o f c h a n g e and  progress  p r o b l e m r e s o l u t i o n w o u l d be of emotional  fewer n e g a t i v e in these  each  out a p o s t - s e s s i o n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e which  them e a c h t o i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r t h e y h a d  dictated  as  Subsequent t o each t h e r a p e u t i c s e s s i o n , the  filled  change had  levels  i n a session designated  i n a session designated  on t h e i r p r o b l e m , how  The  Procedures  and  likely,  the couple to  conducive  first,  e x p e r i e n c i n g and,  to greater  to exhibit  second,  i n v e s t i g a t e these  It will  be  the task of t h i s  hypotheses.  higher  to contain  i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a n a s e s s i o n r e p o r t e d as  areas.  was  study  to  poor  44 Description The 29  accessible population  couples  marital  of the Population  who h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d  couples  The  other  Focused Therapy  15 c o u p l e s  project  a year  Focused  Therapy.  therapy  later  (Greenberg & Johnson,  participated  i n a similar  and  1986).  research  and r e c e i v e d 10 s e s s i o n s o f E m o t i o n a l l y  men h a d a mean age o f 44.1, r a n g i n g  Women h a d a mean age o f 40.4, r a n g i n g both  (Jacobson  the effectiveness of  They had t h e f o l l o w i n g demographic The  r e c e i v e d 8-10  were p a r t o f a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i n w h i c h t h e  1979) was compared w i t h  Emotionally  consisted of  Focused M a r i t a l Therapy. Fourteen o f  effectiveness of problem-solving Margolin,  study  i n one o f two u n i v e r s i t y  r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s i n which they  sessions of Emotionally the  f o rthis  characteristics. f r o m 36 t o 61.  f r o m 29 t o 57.  men a n d women, mean e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t  For  was a  community c o l l e g e d e g r e e a n d r a n g e d f r o m G r a d e 10 o r l e s s t o a Ph.D o r e q u i v a l e n t .  The c o u p l e s  a v e r a g e o f 15.1 y e a r s ,  ranging  Of  from 1 y e a r  an  t o 32 y e a r s .  t h e women 31% a n d o f t h e men 43% h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y  married.  Thirty-one percent  some t h e r a p y and  had been m a r r i e d  before,  t h e maximum b e i n g  of the couples  had undergone  t h e minimum amount b e i n g t h r e e months.  Dyadic Adjustment Scale  (Spanier,  one s e s s i o n  A l l couples  1976).  completed a  T h e m a l e mean  s c o r e was 93.3, SD 8.8, a n d t h e f e m a l e mean s c o r e was 86.1, SD 8.25. Below 100 i s c o n s i d e r e d  indicative of marital  dissatisfaction. dissatisfied  Therefore,  group o f  T h e s e 29  couples  this  c a n be  considered a  fairly  couples. were s e l f - r e f e r r e d  i n response  to  n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e w h i c h o f f e r e d them h e l p  in resolving  marital  screened  conflict.  telephone  i n t e r v i e w and  suitability together alcohol  or drugs,  a year,  h a v e no  h a v e no  i n person  to assess  h a v e no  i n the research process,  psychiatric  i n t h e p r e v i o u s two  currently  in psychologically oriented  The  16  was  and  i n the  couples.  opportunity  selection bias.  be  the or  t h e y were  not  treatment.  s t u d y were r a n d o m l y s e l e c t e d f r o m  The  i m p o r t a n c e o f random  selection  t o i n s u r e t h a t a l l t h e r a p i s t - c o u p l e combinations  equal no  years,  or  Sample  couples  t h i s p o o l o f 29  with  including  treatment  hospitalization  of the  living  for divorce  s e x u a l d y s f u n c t i o n , and  i n d i v i d u a l s were t o h a v e h a d  Description  their  known p r o b l e m s  o f s e s s i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , none o f  t o be  in a  t o have been  immediate p l a n s  primary  to participate  videotaping  later  f o r t h e p r o j e c t . C o u p l e s had  for at least  separation, willing  A l l c o u p l e s were f i r s t  a  f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and  had  t h a t t h e r e would  an be  46  Process Experiencing The Klein,  Measures  Scale  Experiencing Scale,  Mathieu,  G e n d l i n and  (Appendix Kiesler  C)  i n 1969,  s c a l e which r a t e s the l e v e l  a t w h i c h an  c o n t a c t w i t h h i s o r h e r own  experience  be  content  At the  i s impersonal  impersonal, and  end and  the o v e r a l l  d i s t a n c e from  pivotal  lower  level  a b s t r a c t and  than  individual's vivid  the  Events  really  lost,  exploration  a problem r e l a t e d t o those I my  am  feeling,  life."  from  an  At  inner  and  I'm  level  as  life  L e v e l s 5 and  of experience  of those  the  focus  6 include  feelings.  an  events. left  me  I  j u s t d i d n ' t have a  combined w i t h t h e  7 words and  2,  important  i n , "When s h e  "I'm  g o i n g t o have t o f i n d  referent.  1 and  Level 4 i s the  become l e s s  experience  a s t h o u g h my  p u r p o s e anymore."  levels  i s beginning to achieve  themselves  L a n g u a g e becomes more a s s o c i a t i v e felt  b e e n shown t o  b e i n g t h a t o f outward  a t which the person  focus.  has  is in  language i s  immediate e x p e r i e n c e .  internal  7-level  "experiencing' i n  of the scale,  sense  is a  by  individual and  a v e r y r e l i a b l e measure o f c l i e n t ' s  therapy.  developed  further introduction aware o f how a new  a s s o c i a t i o n s flow  of lost  focus i n easily  Structural Analysis of Social The d e v e l o p m e n t  Behavior  o f t h e SASB  (SASB)  (Benjamin,  allowed researchers to analyze patterns of communication. shaped  grids,  interactions  The two  o f which  f o c u s on  diamond  interpersonal  T h i s s t u d y u s e s o n l y t h e two  and v e r t i c a l  from a f f i l i a t i o n disaffiliation  and  (See  inter-  Each i s o r g a n i z e d around  axis.  The h o r i z o n t a l  and h o s t i l i t y  on t h e l e f t .  a  a x i s moves  f r i e n d l i n e s s on t h e r i g h t  to  The v e r t i c a l  axis  " e n c o u r a g i n g o r t a k i n g autonomy" on t h e t o p t o  "submission or c o n t r o l l i n g " labelled  interpersonal  SASB model c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e  p e r s o n a l g r i d s o f t h e SASB.  moves f r o m  has  and t h e o t h e r on i n t r a p s y c h i c phenomena.  A p p e n d i c e s A & B)  horizontal  1974)  "other",  on t h e b o t t o m .  The  first  f o c u s e s on t h e b e h a v i o u r o f one  t o w a r d t h e o t h e r and t h e s e c o n d g r i d ,  labelled  grid,  person  "self",  f o c u s e s on t h e r e s p o n s e t o t h a t b e h a v i o u r . B e h a v i o u r s located  a t s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n s on e a c h g r i d  complementary  quality,  have a  a l t h o u g h t h i s does not i m p l y t h a t  b e h a v i o u r causes t h e o t h e r (Benjamin, e t a l . , example,  i f I "endorse y o u r freedom"  you a r e a b l e t o " f r e e l y grid). numbered  These  come and go"  axes d i v i d e each g r i d  1 t o 4.  Starting  (top of "other" (top of the into  i n the upper  1) E n c o u r a g e  right  grid)  "self"  4) F r i e n d l y  quadrant  and  these quadrants  F r i e n d l y Autonomy, 2) I n v o k e  Autonomy, 3) H o s t i l e Power, and  For  four quadrants,  m o v i n g c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e on t h e o t h e r g r i d , are,  1986).  one  Hostile  Influence.  48 M o v i n g i n t h e same f a s h i o n on t h e s e l f are  the  quadrants  1) E n j o y F r i e n d l y Autonomy, 2) T a k e H o s t i l e Autonomy,  H o s t i l e Comply, and easily  4)  There  comply w i t h  c a n be c o d e d  v e r s i o n which  least  The  i f I exert  to investigate  the c l u s t e r version,  et a l . ,  sections of similar  into  the  36 p a r t s t o t h e of  each  s t a t e m e n t by  1986).  The  statement  second  level  d i v i d e s the quadrants  s o r t s of behaviours, such  of into  as  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g " i n t h e o t h e r - f o c u s d i a m o n d  i t s complement,  "disclosing  s e l f - f o c u s d i a m o n d . One that the c l u s t e r s  and  expressing" i n the  disadvantage of t h i s  around  For  example, t h e c l u s t e r e n t i t l e d ,  has  clearly  and  affiliative  of that p o s i t i o n .  on e a c h diamond. H e r e ,  as h o s t i l e ,  The  behaviours  of t h i s  hostile third  i n which  autonomous, a f f i l i a t i v e ,  submissive. Since the hypotheses  forgetting"  includes both  of complexity i s a quadrant v e r s i o n  four quadrants  of coding  contradictory.  " f r e e i n g and  autonomous b e h a v i o u r b u t statements  level  t h e p o l e s o f t h e axes a l l  c o m b i n e b e h a v i o u r s t h a t a r e t o some d e g r e e  delineated  which  uses o n l y the four quadrants  complexity,  level  hostile  i n t h e SASB, r a n g i n g f r o m  (Benjamin,  with  of these  hostility.  interaction  "affirming  3)  36 p o i n t c o d i n g i s p r i m a r i l y u s e f u l when t h e  researcher i s trying  eight  e.g.  d i v i d e s each s u r f a c e  complex which  surface.  pairs,  Each  a r e t h r e e l e v e l s o f c o m p l e x i t y by  communication full  Friendly Accept.  form complimentary  power, t h e n y o u may  is  grid,  there are  are or  study are  concerned  with these dimensions, rather than with the s u b t l e t i e s o f interaction, analysis. level  t h e quadrant v e r s i o n  Further  study could  and f u l l v e r s i o n  more c l o s e l y .  This  level  seems most s u i t a b l e f o r  b e done a t b o t h t h e c l u s t e r  t o examine c o u p l e s i n t e r a c t i o n s  s t u d y , however,  "map" o f e f f e c t i v e t h e r a p y s e s s i o n s levels  of hostility,  affiliation,  investigated the overall and t h e a s s o c i a t e d  autonomy a n d s u b m i s s i o n .  Outcome M e a s u r e s Post Sessional After  Questionnaire  each t h e r a p y s e s s i o n t h e husband and w i f e  completed a p o s t - s e s s i o n d e v e l o p e d by Johnson  (1984),  aspects of the session. scales, point  questionnaire  i n which they evaluated  This  questionnaire  scale.  The two 5 - p o i n t s c a l e s e v a l u a t e d ,  dealing with t h e i r  believed of these  three  first,  t h a t t h e y were a n y c l o s e r t o a c h i e v i n g issues  from t h e O r l i n s k y  Report  s c a l e a s k e d how r e s o l v e d ,  (TSR) q u e s t i o n n a i r e . overall,  they  selling.  This  questionnaire  u s e d by Webster  from a p o s t  T h e 7-  felt in  t o t h e i s s u e s t h a t h a d b r o u g h t them i n t o was a d a p t e d  began.  a n d Howard  relation  item  they  resolution  t h a n t h e y were when t h e s e s s i o n  (1975) T h e r a p y S e s s i o n a l  how  h a d b e e n made i n t h e s e s s i o n  i s s u e s and, s e c o n d , w h e t h e r  T h e s e two i t e m s were a d a p t e d  level  contains  certain  two o f w h i c h were 5 - p o i n t L i k e r t s c a l e s a n d one a 7-  much p r o g r e s s t h e s p o u s e s f e l t in  ( A p p e n d i x D)  coun-  sessional  ( 1 9 8 1 ) . B o t h t h e O r l i n s k y and  50 Howard  (1975) s t u d y  concerned with has  individuals,  face v a l i d i t y  reliability  and t h e Webster  This  were  questionnaire  b u t has n o t undergone v a l i d i t y and  questionnaire  s e c t i o n s t h a t were u s e d this  not couples.  checks f o r use by c o u p l e s .  post-sessional  in  (1981) s t u d y  In addition, the  included three d e s c r i p t i v e  i n t h e Johnson  (1985) s t u d y ,  butnot  study.  Selection  o f an E v e n t  In order t o i l l u m i n a t e p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n process between peak and p o o r s e s s i o n s ,  i t was n e c e s s a r y  to select  a p p r o p r i a t e examples o f such s e s s i o n s f o r e x a m i n a t i o n . Because t h e f i r s t ductory  and l a s t  sessions often include  o r summarizing m a t e r i a l , they  possible choices  intro-  were d e l e t e d a s  f o r t h e peak and poor s e s s i o n s . A  simple  numerical  c a l c u l a t i o n was made on a l l t h e r e m a i n i n g  by  up t h e s c o r e s g i v e n b y t h e m a l e a n d f e m a l e on t h e  adding  "progress",  " r e s o l u t i o n " , a n d "how r e s o l v e d " s c a l e s .  male and female s c o r e d average o f only  the sessions quite s i m i l a r l y ,  As t h e an  2 p o i n t s d i f f e r e n c e on t h e s c o r i n g o f b o t h  peak and poor s e s s i o n s , t h e couple The  sessions  h i g h e s t number a c o u p l e  was h a n d l e d  could score,  as a u n i t .  an e x t r e m e l y  s e s s i o n was 34.  T h e b e s t t h a t c o u l d b e s c o r e d was 6.  mean o f t h e b e s t  s e s s i o n s was 16.3, w i t h  23,  a n d t h e mean o f t h e p o o r e s t  r a n g e o f 17-34.  poor The  a r a n g e o f 12 t o  s e s s i o n s was 25.1 w i t h  a  The l e a s t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n p e a k a n d p o o r  51 sessions at  was 4 p o i n t s . T h i s  couple scored  t h e peak  session  13 a n d t h e p o o r s e s s i o n a t 17. T h e y c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d  sessions  as q u i t e productive.  between s c o r e s  was 16, s c o r e d  The g r e a t e s t  difference  b y a c o u p l e who r a t e d t h e p o o r  s e s s i o n t h a t was c h o s e n a t 34 a n d t h e p e a k s e s s i o n a t 18. The  mean d i f f e r e n c e between p e a k a n d p o o r s e s s i o n  scoring  was 7.1, SD 3.2. This  study sought t o h i g h l i g h t process  therapy sessions versus  u n p r o d u c t i v e ones.  was i m p o r t a n t t h a t p e a k and p o o r s e s s i o n s examples o f e a r l y s t a g e s therapy. early  Thus,  be n o t s i m p l y  of therapy versus  late  stages  i f p o s s i b l e , some p e a k s e s s i o n s  should  d i d occur.  In other  cases there  f o r e i t h e r t h e peak o r poor s e s s i o n s , t h a t were s c o r e d  later  as poor.  This  Episode  Definition  underlying  sessions  i s two  i s concerned with  choices  sessions  o r unproductive.  (Rice  f o r whom a n  the processes  & Greenberg,  o f change.  process  within  1984; G r e e n b e r g ,  1 9 8 6 ) . T h u s , t h e segment o f t h e s e s s i o n t o b e s t u d i e d t o be s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g  When  s e s s i o n was p o o r .  assumption i s t h a t t h e r a p e u t i c  i s not uniform  occur  I n some  were two  r e s u l t e d i n s i x couples  s e s s i o n was p e a k a n d a l a t e r  study  late.  of  s e s s i o n was c h o s e n a s p e a k a n d  earlier  This  that  as e q u a l l y p r o d u c t i v e  t h i s happened, t h e e a r l i e r  An  Therefore, i t  i n t h e t h e r a p y a n d some p o o r s e s s i o n s  cases t h i s  the  i n productive  to certain criteria,  rather  needs than  52 randomly.  A particular  appropriate t o study. referred  following a  o f e v e n t s was  T h i s sequence  t o as "the e p i s o d e "  Greenberg, The  sequence  of events w i l l  (Rice & Greenberg,  e p i s o d e t o be  "marker" o c c u r s .  R i c e and  marker used  interactional  in this  event c l o s e l y  statements... task that  investigation f o l l o w e d by a  intervention event  1969)  criticizing  (p.  therapist  require definition.  i s a destructive  i n which  t h e o t h e r who  The  form o f  then responds  i n s u c h an  attempts  into this  t o break  f o c u s i n w a r d on t h e i r  negative  escalate,  similarly,  Little  interaction.  (an  or attack-  possibility  The  EFT  immediate  e x p e r i e n c e and  f e e l i n g s t o what i s h a p p e n i n g  feelings.  neither  nor i n s t r u m e n t a l  serve to coerce the other into  for  therapist  c y c l e by h e l p i n g t h e s p o u s e s  important that the f e e l i n g s expressed are  f e e l i n g s which  1  a c c u s i n g and  into pleading, defending or avoiding  resolution exists  therapist s  conflict,  t h e argument t e n d s t o  a t t a c k o r attack-withdraw exchange).  reactive  it"  be  i s a negative  e v e n t and  w i t h t h e p a r t n e r t r y i n g t o w i n by b l a m i n g ,  is  needs t o  i s r e a d y t o work on  Both n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l  interactional  crumples  describe  intervention designed to e l i c i t underlying  feelings.  (Deutsch,  1984;  S a p e r i a (1984)  "certain kinds of c l i e n t  w o r k e d on and t h a t t h e c l i e n t  affective  be  i n v e s t i g a t e d b e g i n s when t h e  s i g n i f y i n g t h a t t h e r e i s an a f f e c t i v e  affective  as  1986).  "marker" as  2 9 ) . The  chosen  compliance.  to It  53 R a t h e r t h e f e e l i n g s s o u g h t b y t h e EFT t h e r a p i s t primary, deeply arise  felt  and o f t e n u n a c k n o w l e d g e d  actual  of the i n d i v i d u a l .  events are c l e a r l y  sense o f i d e n t i t y The n a t u r a l or  feelings  i n response t o a s i t u a t i o n which i s p e r c e i v e d  threatening to the s u r v i v a l the  are those  g i v e up.  The a f f e c t i v e  intervention  though  the person's  o r autonomy i s e x p e r i e n c e d a s  response t o threat of t h i s kind  as  Even  not threatening,  which  challenged.  i s to fight  seeks t o e l i c i t  back the  f e e l i n g s o f t h r e a t which l i e beneath the n e g a t i v e interactional  event.  The m a r k e r was  s e l e c t e d by p r e v i e w i n g a  segment o f t h e v i d e o - t a p e d  five-minute  s e s s i o n twenty minutes from t h e  end o f t h e t a p e t o l o c a t e t h e p o s s i b l e appearance o f a marker  o f t h e above  interactional eliciting did  sequence, t h a t  is,a  negative  e v e n t f o l l o w e d by a t h e r a p i s t  underlying  feelings.  intervention  The t h e r a p i s t  intervention  n o t need t o o c c u r immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e n e g a t i v e  interaction episode.  f o r t h e segment t o q u a l i f y  as t h e marker  T h e r e c o u l d be a few comments b y c l i e n t s  t h e r a p i s t between intervention.  the escalation  s e q u e n c e and t h e  I f t h e marker d i d n o t happen  was  viewed u n t i l  was  found.  marker  the f i r s t  sequence o f r e q u i r e d  T h u s , t h e p r o c e d u r e was  i n a sequential  or therapist  i n the  f i v e - m i n u t e segment v i e w e d , t h e n t h e p r e c e d i n g  first  five  minutes  interactions  one o f s e a r c h i n g  s e t o f f i v e m i n u t e segments  t w e n t y m i n u t e s f r o m t e r m i n a t i o n and m o v i n g  of the  earlier  f o r the  starting and  54 earlier was  into the session u n t i l  identified.  episode.  i n the  15-20  at the t h e r a p i s t  minutes  formed  a s one  E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  the  the episode  s e q u e n c e o f e v e n t s was of the primary  Therapy  i s one  found.  interventions  i n which the  used  are occurring  i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  problems are o f t e n expressed negative  i n the session  This  of  therapist  t o e x p l o r e each p a r t n e r s u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s  problems t h a t  about  the  Such  i n t h e form  of  interactions.  I n summary, t h e e p i s o d e i s a 1 5 - 2 0 - m i n u t e s e l e c t e d by  locating  between t h e spouses,  20 m i n u t e s  segment  a three-talk-turn negative closely  f o l l o w e d by  i n t e r v e n t i o n designed to e l i c i t The  the  study.  not s u r p r i s i n g  seeks  intervention,  of the tape  In a l l sessions t h i s is  type  This then c o n s t i t u t e d the beginning of  Starting  following  a marker o f t h e r e q u i r e d  following this  Coding  a  interaction  therapist  underlying primary  sequence forms t h e  emotion.  episode.  Procedures  Training of Raters All  the r a t e r s  f o r b o t h t h e E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e and  S t r u c t u r a l Analysis of Social suggested  by  B e h a v i o r met  the  critera  Benjamin e t a l . (1986). These c r i t e r i a  s i m i l a r t o t h o s e s u g g e s t e d by K l e i n ,  Mathieu-Couglan  Kiesler  level  ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e y were 1) M a s t e r s  e i t h e r psychology  were and  o r above i n  o r s o c i a l work, 2) e x p e r i e n c e d i n  The  55 research, 11  3) t r a i n e d i n c l i n i c a l  interpersonally  i n t e r v i e w i n g a n d 4)  s e n s i t i v e and " c o g n i t i v e l y  complex ". 1  (Benjamin, e t a l . , p.409-410). Experiencing  S c a l e r a t e r s were t r a i n e d b y t h e a u t h o r  according t o t h e procedures (Klein,  Mathieu, Gendlin,  Experiencing training  i n the Experiencing  & Kiesler,  Scale raters received at least  of rating the material.  i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e ES c o n c e p t s . rating  1969). The t h r e e 20 h o u r s o f  a s w e l l a s two i n t e r i m s e s s i o n s w h i l e  the process  S c a l e Manual  t h e y were i n  Initially,  they  were  T h i s was f o l l o w e d b y a g r o u p  s e s s i o n i n which t h e f i r s t  of the eight  transcript  s e g m e n t s s u p p l i e d b y t h e manual was r a t e d c o o p e r a t i v e l y . After this  s e s s i o n t h e r a t e r s t o o k home s e g m e n t s , r a t e d them  individually ratings.  and then  t h e author  t o compare  T h e e i g h t h t r a n s c r i p t was u s e d a s a  check. A l l t h r e e at  met w i t h  raters rated this transcript  home. When t h e r a t i n g s were compared, t h e y  relability  rating  o f r=.89 o n t h i s t r a n s c r i p t .  compares f a v o u r a b l y w i t h presented  reliability independently, achieved This  representative r e l i a b i l i t y  transcripts  it  ratings  i n t h e Manual.  I n a d d i t i o n t h r e e p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n s were h e l d  developed  a  from c o u p l e s  f o r use with  seemed i m p o r t a n t  using the scale with avoid confusing  therapy  individual  sessions.  using  The ES was  psychotherapy s e s s i o n s , so  t o h e l p r a t e r s t o become f a m i l i a r couples.  an emotional  with  P a r t i c u l a r c a r e was n e e d e d t o s t a t e m e n t s u c h a s "You d o n ' t  h a v e a c l u e a b o u t what I'm moon" w i t h a L e v e l experience.  on had in  The q u a l i t y o f b l a m i n g  d i f f e r e n t r a t e r s were u s e d i n c o d i n g  already  received  rating material.  t r a i n i n g a n d were  One h a d r a t e d  were h e l d  i n one  raters  experienced earlier  other  i n which t h e s e r a t e r s worked i n order  a n d t o b r i n g them t o an a p p r o p r i a t e  to refresh  their  level of  reliability.  Structural Analysis  The  Both  t r a n s c r i p t s i n two  had r a t e d m a t e r i a l  with practice t r a n s c r i p t material  interrater  the material  of S o c i a l Behavior.  extensive  and t h e o t h e r  study. Four sessions  skills  i n t h e above statement  3.  the Structural Analysis  studies,  I don't ask f o r t h e  4 statement which accesses i n t e r n a l  w o u l d make i t a L e v e l Two  saying.  of S o c i a l Behavior  (SASB)  m i d d l e 10 m i n u t e s o f e a c h 20 m i n u t e segment was  c o d e d on t h e SASB.  T h e s e t e n m i n u t e s e g m e n t s were b r o k e n  down i n t o u n i t s o f s p e e c h b y t h e a u t h o r , u s u a l l y  beginning  e a c h t i m e a new p e r s o n b e g a n t o s p e a k .  However, when more  t h a n one t h o u g h t was e x p r e s s e d  "talk turns",  longer  u n i t s were f u r t h e r b r o k e n down i n t o e l e m e n t s .  u n i t i z i n g was done s o t h a t units  i n these  o f speech.  r a t e r s were a b l e  the This  t o r a t e t h e same  57 B e n j a m i n e t a l . (1986) recommend t h e u s e video) tapes analysis.  In t h i s  study the r a t e r s  f i r s t listened  then rated the u n i t s of the episode.  listened  t o the tapes a second  ently to  following prescribed procedures.  directed "self"  a t t h e p a r t n e r , an  focus.  friendly.  N e x t was from  -9  determined  and  o f autonomy was  where t h e y  in this  s t u d y was  moment c o r r e l a t i o n s was  to  Estroff  focus  t o -9.  from and  scale, The  last  itself  intersected.  T h i s g a v e a number  i n the r a t i n g  of the  r =  .73.  The  s e e n by B e n j a m i n ,  use  the a n a l y s i s of " p r o f i l e s  Foster,  than to a sequential  Roberto,  i s attending  or a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l  each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s a c t i o n d u r i n g a s e s s i o n "  transcript  of product-  (1986) a s a p p r o p r i a t e when a s t u d y  Cohen's K a p p a .  or  for very  assessed  on t h e s e l f  a  statement.  Interrater reliability  and  was  of h o s t i l i t y  t o t a k e t h e s e numbers t o t h e d i a m o n d g r i d  t o each  material  independ-  on t h e o t h e r f o c u s s c a l e  s e p a r a t e " t o "submit"  t o determine  rating  ratings.  w h e t h e r i t was  f o r v e r y h o s t i l e t o +9  Then t h e l e v e l  then  f i r s t task  the l e v e l  a g a i n a s s i g n i n g numbers r a n g i n g f r o m +9 s t e p was  their  the  "other" focus, or at the s e l f ,  " g i v e autonomy" t o " c o n t r o l " "be  The  the focus of the i n t e r a c t i o n ,  friendliness,  from  time t o check  to  They  r a t e r analysed the u n i t s of i n t e r a c t i o n  identify  (or  i n conjunction with typed t r a n s c r i p t s f o r  t a p e and  Each  of audio  summary o f  (p. 413)  a n a l y s i s which r e q u i r e s the use  rather of  58 Experiencing  s c a l e (ES)  E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e r a t e r s were p r o v i d e d w i t h a t y p e d transcript first  a n d a u d i o t a p e o f t h e 2 0 - m i n u t e segment.  read through  listening  level  R a t i n g s were a s s i g n e d b y r a t i n g  time  i t by  t h e statements  a s p o u s e s p o k e , o r when, w i t h i n a s p e e c h , t h e  changed, a r u n n i n g r a t i n g .  were u s e d  They t h e n r a t e d  t o t h e a u d i o t a p e o f t h e segment a n d r e a d i n g t h e  transcript. made e a c h  the transcript.  Raters  These r u n n i n g r a t i n g  i n the chi-square analysis presented  scores  i n Chapter  IV. One t h i r d  o f t h e p e a k and p o o r  sessional  m a t e r i a l was r a t e d b y a l l t h r e e r a t e r s . reliability that  was r =.69. A l t h o u g h  this  transcript  Interrater  figure  i s lower  o b t a i n e d o n t h e t r a i n i n g manual m a t e r i a l ,  the range  from  .65 -.91 ( K l e i n , M a t h i e r - C o u g h l a n ,  1 9 8 6 ) . When t h e r e was a d i s c r e p a n c y among  the score l e v e l remaining  i t i s within  a c h i e v e d by o t h e r s t u d i e s o f t h e r a p y w h i c h had  reliabilities Kiesler,  than  agreed  &  raters,  on b y two o f t h e r a t e r s was u s e d .  The  2/3 o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t s were d i s t r i b u t e d e q u a l l y  among a l l t h r e e  raters.  59 Hypotheses The f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d i n t h i s  study.  Hypothesis I: There w i l l affiliative  statements  other-focus) III,  self-  be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s i t i v e / (SASB Q u a d r a n t s I & IV, s e l f -  than h o s t i l e  statements  and o t h e r - f o c u s )  and  (SASB Q u a d r a n t s I I &  i n peak s e s s i o n s t h a n i n p o o r .  Hypothesis l a : There w i l l  be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n  positive/affiliative other-focus)  statements  than other-focused  Quadrants I I & I I I , other-focus)  of  other-focused  (SASB Q u a d r a n t s I & IV, hostile  statements  (SASB  i n peak s e s s i o n s t h a n i n  poor.  Hypothesis l b : There w i l l  be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n  positive/affiliative self-focus)  statements  of self-focused  (SASB Q u a d r a n t s I & IV,  than s e l f - f o c u s e d h o s t i l e  statements  Quadrants I I & I I I , s e l f - f o c u s ) i n peak s e s s i o n s  (SASB than i n  poor. Hypothesis I I There w i l l experiencing  be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f L e v e l  i n peak s e s s i o n s t h a n i n poor.  4 and above  60  CHAPTER  IV  Results  This chapter presents the r e s u l t s data  obtained  from  of the a n a l y s i s  r a t i n g s of the s e l e c t e d  transcript  m a t e r i a l by u s i n g B e n j a m i n ' s S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s o f Behavior  (1974) and  Klein,  Gendlin, Mathieu  (1969) E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e .  material  statistic  was  t o use  more t h a n  1984,  four c e l l s ,  a p o s t hoc p.  391)  was  developed for  T h i s p o s t hoc  an  table,  where t h e r e  f o r example when  formed t h e d a t a ,  creating  m u l t i p l e comparison a n a l y s i s done t o d e t e r m i n e  c e l l s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any results.  In a d d i t i o n ,  a 2 x 2 contingency  f o u r SASB q u a d r a n t s  1984,  of association,  p r o p o r t i o n s a r e unknown  p.287).  each of the  Hopkins,  Kiesler's  when d e a l i n g w i t h p r o p o r t i o n a l  i n which the expected  (Glass & Hopkins,  and  Social  This examiniation consisted of  subjecting the data to a chi-square t e s t appropriate  of  significant  which c e l l  (1978) and  a n a l y s i s of the kind of data presented  or  chi-square  m u l t i p l e comparison t e s t  by M a r a s c u i l o and McSweeney  (Glass &  was i s suitable  in this  study.  61 To u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e r e s u l t s  i t may  be h e l p f u l  i n mind t h e b e h a v i o u r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each o f t h e  t o keep eight  SASB q u a d r a n t s :  Self  focus:  Q u a d r a n t 1 = E n j o y f r i e n d l y autonomy Q u a d r a n t 2 = T a k e h o s t i l e autonomy Quadrant 3 = H o s t i l e comply Quadrant 4 = F r i e n d l y a c c e p t  Other focus:  Q u a d r a n t 1 = E n c o u r a g e f r i e n d l y autonomy Q u a d r a n t 2 = I n v o k e h o s t i l e autonomy Q u a d r a n t 3 = H o s t i l e power Quadrant 4 = F r i e n d l y i n f l u e n c e .  R e f e r t o A p p e n d i c e s A and B f o r t h e c o m p l e t e SASB m o d e l . The two h y p o t h e s e s and t h e two  sub-hypotheses of  this  s t u d y were t e s t e d  i n t h e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d manner and  will  separately.  be p r e s e n t e d  Hypothesis  I  Hypothesis I states that  i n peak  sessions there w i l l  be  a greater p r o p o r t i o n of p o s i t i v e / a f f i l i a t i v e statements (SASB Q u a d r a n t s I & IV, s e l f statements  (SASB Q u a d r a n t s I I & I I I , s e l f  T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was these t e s t s  and o t h e r f o c u s ) t h a n  tested.  are presented  and o t h e r  hostile focus).  The raw d a t a and r e s u l t s  i n T a b l e s l a and l b .  of  62 Table l a III.  & I V i n Peak a n d P o o r S e s s i o n s .  Quadrants  I  II  S e l f - and O t h e r -F o c u s  III  Total  IV  Peak S e s s i o n s n=324 p=(.70)  n=15 p=(.03)  n=61 p=(.13)  P o o r S e s s i o n s n=266 p=(.57)  n=40 p=(.09)  n=124 p=(.26)  463  n=63 p=(.14) n=39 p=(.08)  469  Table l b C h i - s q u a r e A n a l y s i s w i t h M u l t i p l e C o m p a r i s o n s . SASB Quadrants I . I I . I I I . IV. S e l f - and O t h e r - F o c u s  SASB  Quadrants  Chi-square  D.F.  Critical Value  Quadrants I, I I , I I I & IV, s e l f and o t h e r f o c u s  44.13*  Quadrants  I with I I  19.58*  1  5.99  Quadrant I w i t h I I I  29.98*  1  5.99  Quadrant I w i t h IV  1.80  1  5.99  Quadrant I I w i t h I I I  0.75  1  5.99  Quadrant IV w i t h I I  20.79*  1  5.99  Quadrant IV w i t h  23.99*  1  5.99  III  9.49  *p<.05 Table in  l a d e s i g n a t e s t h e number o f s t a t e m e n t s o c c u r r i n g  each quadrant i n t h e peak and poor s e s s i o n s .  marked d i f f e r e n c e  There i s a  i n the proportions o f statements i n the  affiliative the  and h o s t i l e  quadrants.  s t a t e m e n t s were a f f i l i a t i v e  poor  a n d 16% were h o s t i l e .  s e s s i o n s o n l y 65% o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s were  w h i l e 35% were h o s t i l e .  sults  on t h e s e d a t a a s w e l l  o f t h e p o s t hoc m u l t i p l e comparison.  In  affiliative  T a b l e l b shows t h e r e s u l t s  c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s used  of  I n p e a k s e s s i o n s 84% o f  of the  as t h e r e -  The c h i - s q u a r e  44.13, d f = 3 , s u p p o r t s H y p o t h e s i s I , p<.05. In  t h e m u l t i p l e comparison  comparison quadrants  of the a f f i l i a t i v e achieved s t a t i s t i c a l  Significant  results  analysis every  paired  quadrants with the h o s t i l e significance,  o c c u r r e d i n comparing  p<.05,  the  df=l.  positive  autonomous q u a d r a n t s w i t h t h e h o s t i l e  power o r c o m p l i a n t  quadrants,  Quadrant  c h i - s q u a r e = 29.98, d f = l .  w i t h Quadrant  I I I also achieved s t a t i s t i c a l  c h i - s q u a r e = 23.99, d f = l . autonomous a n d f r i e n d l y  T h u s , we  see t h a t  I V compared  significance, friendly  c o m p l i a n t s t a t e m e n t s were f a r more  characteristic  o f p e a k s e s s i o n s t h a n p o o r when compared w i t h  either  autonomous o r h o s t i l e  The  hostile  c o n v e r s e was a l s o t r u e .  istic  o f poor  That  compliant  i s , an i m p o r t a n t  i n Quadrant  and h o s t i l e  character-  s e s s i o n s seemed t o be t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f a  large proportion of negative or h o s t i l e ally  statements.  I I I , t h e quadrant  compliance.  statements,  of hostile  power  especitaking  64 Hypothesis l a Hypothesis be  l a s t a t e s t h a t i n peak s e s s i o n s t h e r e  a greater proportion of other-focused,  affiliative ments. in Table  statements  than  T h e raw d a t a u s e d 2a.  association  The r e s u l t s  positive/  other-focused h o s t i l e  state-  i n the chi-square analysis  comparison a n a l y s i s a r e l i s t e d  from  the multiple  i n T a b l e 2b.  T a b l e 2a Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f S t a t e m e n t s i n Q u a d r a n t s I , I I I . & IV. Other-Focus I  Peak  Sessions  n=40 p=(.39)  Poor  Sessions  n=30 p=(.19)  appears  of the chi-square test of  as w e l l as t h e r e s u l t s  Quadrant  will  II 0 0 n=3 p=(.02)  III  IV  II, Total  n=29 p=(.28)  n=34 p=(.33)  103  n=94 p=(.60)  n=29 p=(.19)  156  65 T a b l e 2b Chi-square a n a l y s i s w i t h M u l t i p l e Comparisons. Q u a d r a n t s I . I I . I I I . & IV. Other-Focus SASB Q u a d r a n t s Quad I , I I I &  Chi-square IV  8  Quadrant I w i t h I I I Quadrant I w i t h  *p<.05  III  Critical Value  29.57*  3  9.49  21.85*  1  5.99  0.12  1  5.99  16.59*  1  5.99  IV  Q u a d r a n t IV w i t h  D.F.  SASB  level  Q u a d r a n t I I h a d no s t a t e m e n t s i n any o f t h e 16 p e a k s e s s i o n s and o n l y 3 s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e 16 p o o r s e s s i o n s , s o d i d not enter i n t o the a n a l y s i s . a  Table  2a  shows an e v e n l a r g e r d i f f e r e n c e  p r o p o r t i o n s of statements hostile la.  quadrants  Q u a d r a n t s I and III.  occurring i n the a f f i l i a t i v e  i n p e a k and  I n p e a k s e s s i o n s 72%  and  poor s e s s i o n s than d i d Table  of the statements  IV w h i l e o n l y 28%  were i n  were i n Q u a d r a n t s I I  However, i n p o o r s e s s i o n s 38%  i n Q u a d r a n t s I and  i n the  of the statements  IV w i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g  and were  62%  occurring in  was  significant,  Q u a d r a n t s I I and I I I . Here, t o o , the c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c 29.57, d f = 3 . addition,  Thus, H y p o t h e s i s  l a i s also  supported.  t h e p a i r e d c o m p a r i s o n s showed b o t h  autonomous and statistically behaviours,  positive  compliant  behaviours  positive to  be  s i g n i f i c a n t when compared w i t h h o s t i l e  c h i - s q u a r e =21.84, d f = l and  In  power  c h i - s q u a r e =16.59,  df=l,  p<.05 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  autonomy  (Quadrant  statements  I, other)  (Quadrant  sessions than  Clearly,  encouraging  and f r i e n d l y  IV, o t h e r )  friendly  influencing  a r e more p r e v a l e n t i n p e a k  a r e h o s t i l e power o r i e n t e d  statements.  Hypothesis l b Hypothesis be  l b s t a t e s t h a t i n peak s e s s i o n s t h e r e  a greater proportion of self-focused,  affiliative ments.  statements  Table  than  positive/  self-focused hostile  state-  3a p r e s e n t s t h e raw d a t a on w h i c h t h e  c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s was b a s e d . results  will  Table  3b p r e s e n t s t h e  o f t h e c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s as w e l l as t h e post hoc  m u l t i p l e comparison  data.  T a b l e 3a Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f S t a t e m e n t s i n Q u a d r a n t s I . I I I . & IV. S e l f - F o c u s Quadrants  I  II  III  IV  II. Total  Peak  Sessions  n=284 P=(.79)  n=15 p=(.04)  n=32 p=(.09)  n=29 p=(.08)  360  Poor  Sessions  n=236 p=(.75)  n=37 p=(.12)  n=30 p=(.10)  n=10 p=(.03)  313  67 T a b l e 3b Chi-square A n a l y s i s w i t h M u l t i p l e Comparisons. Q u a d r a n t s I . I I . I I I . & IV. S e l f - F o c u s SASB Q u a d r a n t  Chi-square  Quadrants I, I I , I I I , & IV  D.F.  SASB  Critical Value  19.87*  3  9.49  14.09*  1  5.99  Quadrant I w i t h I I I  0.09  1  5.99  Q u a d r a n t IV w i t h  7.39  1  5.99  6.62  1  5.99  22.77*  1  5.99  5.40  1  5.99  Quadrants I with  II  I  Quadrant I I w i t h I I I Q u a d r a n t IV w i t h  II  Q u a d r a n t IV w i t h  III  *p<.05  level  Table  3a  either Tables  shows a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e l a o r 2a.  The  p r o p o r t i o n of statements  p e a k s e s s i o n s i n Q u a d r a n t s I and occurring occur  i n Q u a d r a n t s I I and  i n Q u a d r a n t s I and  than  IV  III.  IV w i t h 21%  i s 87%  with  in  13%  In poor s e s s i o n s  79%  i n Quadrants I I  and  III. Hypothesis d f = 3,  p<.05.  influencing,  l b i s supported Positive  with chi-square =  statements,  continued t o comprise  both  19.87,  autonomous  a significantly  p r o p o r t i o n o f peak s e s s i o n s t h a n d i d h o s t i l e  and greater  autonomous o r  68  h o s t i l e power o r i e n t e d s t a t e m e n t s . c o m p a r i s o n showed t h a t , a s  The  post  s i g n i f i c a n t when compared w i t h  (chi  14.09, d f =  respectively). Quadrant I I I .  1 and  Positive accepting  autonomous b e h a v i o u r .  results will  Hypothesis  chi-square  However, n e i t h e r was  f i c a n t l y more a s s o c i a t e d w i t h positive  be  discussed  to  signiwas  implications of i n Chapter  l  these  V.  II  occurs  partners.  II  compared  peak s e s s i o n s t h a t  in detail  were  = 22.77, d f =  b e h a v i o u r was  The  IV  Quadrant  significant  Hypothesis I I i s concerned with that  multiple  e x p e c t e d , Q u a d r a n t s I and  statistically square =  hoc  i n p e a k and  the  poor s e s s i o n s  level  f o r each of  I t s t a t e s t h a t peak s e s s i o n s w i l l  proportion of Level Experiencing  4 and  above e x p e r i e n c i n g  Scale than Level  This hypothesis  was  3 and  also subjected  of  below  experience the  have a on  the  experiencing.  to a chi-square  a s s o c i a t i o n t o d i s c o v e r whether t h i s  is a plausible  assertion.  results  Tables  4a  and  b show t h e  greater  test  of t h i s  of  test.  69 T a b l e 4a 16 x 2 C o n t i n g e n c y T a b l e and P o o r S e s s i o n s Couples  Peak S e s s i o n L e v e l 4+  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  Poor S e s s i o n L e v e l 4+  27 10 5 1 11 10 1 17 10 13 8 15 7 12 6 4 Total  T a b l e 4b Chi-square  Level Level  157  Scale  Ratings  D.F.  Critical Value  47.28*  15  25  level  Hypothesis  I I was s u p p o r t e d .  sessions contained  approximately  above e x p e r i e n c i n g  A s shown i n T a b l e three times  as d i d poor s e s s i o n s .  appear t o c o n t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y encing  59  Chi-square 4+ w i t h 3-  *p<.05  12 0 0 0 2 0 0 19 0 0 4 17 2 0 2 0  Analysis of the Experiencing  Levels  and  o f E x p e r i e n c i n g b y C o u p l e s i n Peak  deeper l e v e l s  4a peak  a s many L e v e l 4 Peak  sessions  of experi-  o n t h e p a r t o f e a c h p a r t n e r . The s i z e o f t h e c h i -  square s t a t i s t i c  i s such t h a t t h e r e  a p p e a r s t o be an  a s s o c i a t i o n between peak s e s s i o n s and d e e p e r l e v e l s o f experience.  However, t h e f a c t t h a t s e v e r a l c o u p l e s  h a d no  r e s p o n s e s a t L e v e l 4 a n d a b o v e i n t h e p o o r s e s s i o n s means that  several of the c e l l s  these  results.  discussed  a r e empty, somewhat  The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e  in detail  compromising  findings will  be  i n C h a p t e r V.  Conclusion In c o n c l u s i o n ,  a s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n between  s t a t e m e n t s a n d p e a k s e s s i o n s was self-focused reached  and o t h e r - f o c u s e d  statistical  greater proportion (encourage f r i e n d l y  friendly  considered  Although  affiliative  significance,  contained  (enjoy  influence)  friendly  than  autonomy  When t h e f o u r q u a d r a n t s were  s e p a r a t e l y t h e r e was a g a i n  a consistent  a s s o c i a t i o n between p o s i t i v e s t a t e m e n t s and b e s t A post  a  p o s i t i v e statements  autonomy a n d f r i e n d l y  accept).  both  statements  peak s e s s i o n s  of other-focused  s e l f - f o c u s e d p o s i t i v e statements and  found.  affiliative  sessions.  h o c m u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n a n a l y s i s showed t h a t p o s i t i v e  autonomous a s w e l l a s p o s i t i v e c o m p l i a n t accounted  f o r the s t a t i s t i c a l  statements  s i g n i f i c a n c e when s e l f -  other-focused  s t a t e m e n t s were c o m b i n e d a n d when  other-focused  s t a t e m e n t s were c o n s i d e r e d  separately.  However, when s e l f - f o c u s e d s t a t e m e n t s were separately, results will chapter.  a somewhat  Finally,  analysed  d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n emerged.  be e x a m i n e d i n more d e t a i l  and  These  i n the following  t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  71 between t h e l e v e l with above  of experiencing  i n p e a k and p o o r  peak s e s s i o n s c o n t a i n i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y experiencing.  sessions,  more L e v e l 4 and  72  CHAPTER 5  Discussion  T h i s s t u d y has  i n v e s t i g a t e d the  in-session  processes  which l e d t o s u c c e s s f u l or u n s u c c e s s f u l s e s s i o n a l a s a s s e s s e d by The  the couples  theoretical  i n post-sessional questionnaires.  t e n e t s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused  (Greenberg  & Johnson,  experience  o f a new  t o respond  t o e a c h o t h e r i n new  gate the v a l i d i t y  1986)  levels  a s s e s s e d by secondly, the  supported  The  both  I t was  of these  investithat  deeper  (Klein,  affiliative  of t h i s  e t a l , 1969)  interactions  investigation  as  and,  between  have  hypotheses.  lb  hypothesized  t h a t peak s e s s i o n s would have a  greater proportion of p o s i t i v e / a f f i l i a t i v e Q u a d r a n t s I & IV,  by  able  on t h e p a r t o f e a c h o f t h e p a r t n e r s ,  results  I , l a , and  be  hypothesized  characterized, f i r s t ,  by p r e d o m i n a t e l y  Hypothesis  i t was  the Experiencing Scale  spouses.  the  spouses w i l l  ways. I n o r d e r t o  of t h i s theory,  of experience  Therapy  s t a t e t h a t subsequent t o  aspect of the s e l f ,  g o o d s e s s i o n s w o u l d be  outcomes  self-  and  other-focus)  statements  than  hostile  (SASB  73 statements  (SASB Q u a d r a n t s I I & I I I , s e l f -  I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e were two hypothesized  greater (e.g.  separately,  proportion  and  appeasing).  of other-focused,  affirming,  understanding, hostile  belittling  b l a m i n g ) . The  s u b - h y p o t h e s e s were An  outstanding  r e l a t i o n s h i p s has negativity conflict 1984) .  statements a  statements  relying)  than  They would a l s o have a  greater  affiliative  (e.g.  statements  and  statements protecting)  (e.g.ignoring,  main h y p o t h e s i s  and  than  neglecting, both  supported. c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of couples  b e e n f o u n d t o be  i n t h e i r b e h a v i o u r s and  s i t u a t i o n s (Gottman, 1979; In c o n t r a s t ,  couples  the  in distressed  predominance  of  a t t i t u d e s , even i n Peterson,  1983;  low  Schapp,  i n more s a t i s f a c t o r y r e l a t i o n -  s h i p s were more p o s i t i v e i n t h e i r tivity  was  (e.g. w a l l i n g o f f , d i s t a n c -  nurturing  other-focused,  i t  would have  t r u s t i n g and  statements  proportion  and  First,  of self-focused, a f f i l i a t i v e  hostile  s u l k i n g and  other-focus).  other-focused  peak s e s s i o n s  d i s c l o s i n g , expressing,  self-focused, ing,  sub-hypotheses.  t h a t , when s e l f -  were c o n s i d e r e d  and  interactions.  I f nega-  i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p d i s c r i m i n a t e s between s a t i s f i e d  dissatisfied  couples,  w h i c h i t d o e s , t h e n i t makes  sense t h a t t h e r a p e u t i c  sessions  w o u l d a p p e a r more l i k e  the  t h a n would ones r a t e d as corroberate  this  view.  s e e n as  "good" by  intuitive the  i n t e r a c t i o n of s a t i s f i e d  "poor".  The  and  r e s u l t s of t h i s  couple couples study  A l t h o u g h p e a k s e s s i o n s were f o u n d t o c o n t a i n significantly focused  greater proportion of both s e l f -  p o s i t i v e statements,  consider  self-  T h e r e were two sessions.  313, 47.  p e a k s e s s i o n s had  a l l 16  poor  of the  couples  the was  a d i f f e r e n c e of  One  way  of looking at g o o d and  the  poor  sessions  a g r e a t e r number o f s e l f - f o c u s e d s t a t e -  ments i n t h e p e a k s e s s i o n s ,  and  a l l o f them were  positive,  autonomous s t a t e m e n t s . S e c o n d , t h e r e were a l m o s t t h r e e a s many Q u a d r a n t IV sessions willingly  as  ( F r i e n d l y Accept) behaviours  i n p o o r . Many o f t h e s e  accepts,  goes a l o n g w i t h  suggestions,  ideas"(Quadrant  trusting  relying  and  of  more s e l f - f o c u s e d Quad I s t a t e m e n t s i n  number o f s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e  t h a t t h e r e was  to  separately.  In poor s e s s i o n s  i n p e a k s e s s i o n s t h e r e were 360,  good s e s s i o n s t h a n i n p o o r .  is  interest  a much g r e a t e r number  Quadrant I statements.  T h e r e were 48  differing  statements  other-  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n p e a k and  number o f s t a t e m e n t s by  while  and  i t i s of p a r t i c u l a r  other-focused  striking  First,  self-focused, overall  and  a  on  were r a t e d a s other's  i n peak "self  reasonable  IV), which i m p l i e s  t h e p a r t o f one  times  considerable  spouse f o r  the  other. These r e s u l t s investigators. component  accord  well with  Guerin(1982) suggests t h a t a  i n s u c c e s s f u l therapy  to enable the  t h e work o f  spouses t o take  i s the  a self  other  critical  therapist's ability  focus.  He  states,  75 In r e a c t i o n t o emotional automatic r e f l e x that pain  pain o r upset,  there  i s an  i n a l l o f us t h a t p l a c e s t h e cause o f  o r upset  outside of self.  T h e more  intense  t h i s p r o j e c t i o n becomes t h e more i t p r o d u c e s a n experience  o f v i c t i m i z a t i o n and a h o l d i n g  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e way we f e e l Guerin  (1982) f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t  marital  conflict,  self-focus outcome"  first the  importance t o a s u c c e s s f u l  t h e spouses' a b i l i t y  t o take  t o the reduction of c o n f l i c t .  t o himself  a s e l f - f o c u s as  "The p e r s o n m a k i n g t h e  o r h e r s e l f rather than blaming t h e  for the d i f f i c u l t i e s  s t a t e m e n t s a r e compared  they  were e x p e r i e n c i n g  little  (p.  In t h i s  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e good and p o o r  i n c l u d e s statements such as " s e l f whines,  233  tries  sessions.  other's  way, b u t s e l f  i n Quadrant standards,  "self  caves i n t o other  (point,  and does  things  s u l k s a n d fumes a b o u t i t ( p o i n t , 236  3 ) " and " s e l f m i n d l e s s l y ideas  quadrant  unhappily  t o defend him o r h e r s e l f from o t h e r  i n Quadrant 3)",  there  quadrant, there i s  When t h e 36 p o i n t v e r s i o n o f SASB i s e x a m i n e d , t h i s  protests,  377).  ( H o s t i l e Comply)  i n t h e peak and poor s e s s i o n s  a somewhat s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t .  very  (1983)  c o n c i l i a t o r y move a t t r i b u t e d some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r  When s e l f - f o c u s e d , Q u a d r a n t I I I  is  " i n the treatment o f  (p. 2 2 ) . I n a s i m i l a r v e i n , Peterson  conflict  other  ( p . 22)  a s s i s t i n g t h e r e s p e c t i v e spouses t o a t t a i n  i s o f t h e utmost  identifies crucial  and a c t .  of others  a b o u t how t h i n g s  obeys o t h e r ' s  should  b e done  rules,  ( p o i n t , 238  76 in  Q u a d r a n t 3 ) " . I f t h e raw d a t a  it  becomes a p p a r e n t  who may b e t e r m e d for in  a r e e x a m i n e d more  t h a t two o f t h e s i x t e e n c o u p l e s ,  couples  " c o n t e n t i o u s c o u p l e s " , were r e s p o n s i b l e  8 1 % o f t h e Quad I I I b e h a v i o u r poor s e s s i o n s . I f these  are only  closely,  i n p e a k s e s s i o n s a n d 37%  two c o u p l e s  a r e removed,  6, s e l f - f o c u s e d Q u a d r a n t I I I s t a t e m e n t s  there  i n peak  s e s s i o n s a n d 19, s e l f - f o c u s e d Q u a d r a n t I I I s t a t e m e n t s  in  p o o r s e s s i o n s . T h e s e r e s u l t s w o u l d h a v e b e e n more c o n s i s t e n t with  other  findings i n this  study,  where h o s t i l e  statements  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p r e v a l e n t i n p o o r s e s s i o n s t h a n i n good. It  i s interesting  couples"  t o l o o k a t one o f t h e s e  i n more d e t a i l .  peak s e s s i o n , t h e w i f e ' s statements hostile. ones  F o r one o f t h e s e other-focused  couples  ( h o s t i l e comply),  statements. statements  i n the  Quadrant I I I  were q u i t e c o n t r o l l i n g b u t o n l y  Her husband's responses  "contentious  moderately  were n e a r l y a l l d e f e n s i v e  a s were many o f h e r s e l f - f o c u s e d  F o r e a c h o f them, however, t h e r e were many i n t h e "enjoy  f r i e n d l y autonomy"  (Quadrant I ) .  T h e y were e a c h e x p r e s s i n g t h e m s e l v e s i n a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d affiliative where b o t h  fashion.  Contrast t h i s with t h e i r poor s e s s i o n  h u s b a n d and w i f e were b l a m i n g  each  other  ( o t h e r - f o c u s e d , Q u a d r a n t I I I ) , a n d t h e r e were v e r y few affiliative,  autonomous e x p r e s s i o n s .  were 7 s t a t e m e n t s bitterly,  angrily,  In addition, there  b y t h e w i f e w h i c h were r a t e d detaches  "self  from o t h e r and doesn't  ask f o r  77 a n y t h i n g . S e l f weeps a l o n e a b o u t Quadrant  I I ) . This kind  attack-withdraw partner  other" (point,  of pattern  i n t e r a c t i o n which  i s quite alienated  223  in  i s characteristic can  indicate that  and d i s e n g a g e d  of one  from t h e o t h e r .  T h i s b e h a v i o u r i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t d e s c r i b e d by G u e r i n as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  o f c o u p l e s who  are s e r i o u s l y  f r o m one  a n o t h e r . T h u s , t h e p e a k s e s s i o n saw  actively  e n g a g e d i n s o r t i n g t h r o u g h an  l e s s h o s t i l e t h a n was One  the poor  t h i n g t o note here  e x p r e s s i n g toward Quadrant  obeys o t h e r ' s r u l e s ,  and was  i s that this  s t u d y has level  of h o s t i l i t y  much  can range  from  examined  o f t h e SASB,  couples are  a n o t h e r c a n become l o s t .  III, self-focus,  couple  session.  the degree  one  (1982)  alienated  the  issue,  t h e c o u p l e ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s a t t h e Quadrant so i n f o r m a t i o n about  an  For  example  "self mindlessly  s t a n d a r d s , i d e a s about  how  things  s h o u l d be done," a m a r g i n a l l y h o s t i l e p o s i t i o n t o " I n g r e a t p a i n and  rage s e l f  s t r o y i n g him couple j u s t intensity  s c r e a m s and  shouts t h a t  o r h e r " , an e x t r e m e l y h o s t i l e p o s i t i o n . d i s c u s s e d had made a s i g n i f i c a n t  of t h e i r h o s t i l e  statements  i n c r e a s e d t h e number o f Q u a d r a n t and p o o r  o t h e r i s de-  shift  and h a d  I s t a t e m e n t s . I f t h e peak  s e s s i o n s o f t h e o t h e r " c o n t e n t i o u s c o u p l e " were  results  found.  o f t h e a n a l y s i s o f o t h e r - f o c u s e d SASB  r a t i n g s o f t h e p e a k and p o o r ating.  i n the  greatly  e x a m i n e d s i m i l a r k i n d s o f d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d be The  The  H e r e t h e r e was  sessions are quite  illumin-  a g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  78 proportions  of statements i n the  affiliative  and  hostile  q u a d r a n t s when p e a k and  p o o r s e s s i o n s were compared.  peak s e s s i o n s c o n t a i n e d  72%  with  only  28%  Quadrant I I I . (There  s t a t e m e n t s i n any sessions  the  Q u a d r a n t s I and  of the  p i c t u r e was  16  were no  couples'  very  the  s t a t e m e n t s were i n Q u a d r a n t s I and  62%  i n Q u a d r a n t s I I and  accusations  the  occurrence  or blaming statements.  i n poor sessions we  the  are having  seemed t o be,  are your  These r e s u l t s d e s c r i b i n g the  are  "You  t a t e d by  "criticism,  (p. 371),  (1979) e v e n named t h i s  criticism  of the  non-distressed  The  underlying  are not  OK,  the  Shaw  couples  of  in feature  message  the  problems  literature  as b e i n g  couples. percipi-  a l l of which are behaviours.  sequence o f e v e n t s as  focus  other  K o r e n , C a r l t o n and  38%  o f put-downs,  and either  Gottman "cross-  T h i s term d e s c r i b e s w e l l the tone of The  poor  remaining  outstanding  i l l e g i t i m a t e demand, r e b u f f ,  Quadrants I I or I I I , other-focused  relationships.  the  great majority  consistent with  (1983) d e s c r i b e s c o n f l i c t  complaining".  In  There, only  i n t e r a c t i o n s of d i s s a t i s f i e d  annoyance"  II  fault."  Peterson  cumulative  Quadrant  IV w i t h  Q u a d r a n t I I I . What t h i s means i s t h a t an o f p o o r s e s s i o n s was  statements  peak s e s s i o n s . )  different.  I I I , with  IV  First,  of each of the  f o r the  spouses i s  difficulties  they  unhappy on  are  (1980) f o u n d t h a t d i s t r e s s e d c o u l d be  reliably  having. and  discriminated  by  79 "two (p.  b e h a v i o r s , r e s p o n s i v e n e s s and c r i t i c i s m ,  i n that  order"  463). The  f l a v o u r o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s can, perhaps, b e s t  c a p t u r e d by  looking at a brief portion  s e s s i o n o f one  c o u p l e . (The numbers f o l l o w i n g  a r e t h e Quadrant  numbers and t h e a c t u a l p o i n t  t o t h e s t a t e m e n t . See A p p e n d i c e s A & Poor  from a good each  and  be  poor  statement  rating  given  B.)  Session  Wife:  L i k e t h e c h a n g e s I am g o i n g t o t r y t o do a r e what I want t o do, t h e c h a n g e s I want i n m y s e l f n o t what he w a n t s n e c e s s a r i l y . (Quad 1,217) Husband: B u t , t h e c h a n g e s y o u want me t o do, I t r y t o do them f o r y o u (Quad 111,137) Wife: Y e s , and y o u ' v e done r e a l l y w e l l . (Quad I , 115) Husband: B u t t h e n y o u ' r e s a y i n g now t h a t y o u w i l l n o t do t h e t h i n g s . (Quad I I I , 137) Wife: Hmm, hmmm, I d i d , d i d n ' t I . (Quad IV, 240) Maybe, because, b e c a u s e , w e l l , what a r e t h e t h i n g s y o u want me t o change? You d o n ' t want me t o h a v e my little fits anymore. OK (Quad I I I , 236) T h e r a p i s t : W h a t ' s h a p p e n i n g t o y o u r i g h t now? T h e r e ' s something i n your v o i c e . Husband: See, t h a t ' s h e r s a r c a s m c o m i n g o u t . (Quad I I I , 137) Therapist:Is i t ? Wife: What d i d I j u s t s a y ? I d o n ' t know what I j u s t s a i d . (Quad I I , 226) Peak  Session  Wife:  Yeh, I'm n o t p r e t t y enough. I'm n o t s l i m enough, I'm n o t y o u n g enough. I'm n o t f u n enough. (Quad I , 215) T h e r a p i s t : C a n y o u h e a r how s h e i s f e e l i n g ? Husband: OK, I d o n ' t c a r e anymore i f y o u ' r e n o t s l i m enough. I d o n ' t c a r e . I l o v e y o u t h e way y o u a r e . I d o n ' t c a r e i f y o u g e t 300 p o u n d s , I c o u l d c a r e less. ( s h e l a u g h s ) I'm s e r i o u s , h o n e y , ( s h e s t a r t s t o sob) I t h i n k y o u ' r e b e a u t i f u l . (Quad I , 113) T h e r a p i s t : H e r e a l l y t o u c h e d y o u d i d n ' t he? ( t h e r e ensue s e v e r a l i n t e r c h a n g e s i n which t h e w i f e v o i c e s her discomfort over c r y i n g i n the session. The h u s b a n d  80 t r i e s t o make h e r l a u g h , h i s way o f s o o t h i n g h e r . spontaneously the wife returns t o the t h e r a p i s t ' s  Then, question.)  Wife:  I wish I d i d f e e l b e t t e r about m y s e l f , then I c o u l d a c c e p t what h e ' s t r y i n g t o t e l l me. (Quad I , 216) T h e r a p i s t : S o y o u f e e l as though y o u ' l l have t o change y o u r s e l f before you can Wife: I r e a l l y work h a r d a t t r y i n g t o i m p r o v e m y s e l f a n d i t ' s n o t a n e a s y t h i n g t o d o . Maybe I'm n o t d o i n g i t t h e r i g h t way, I j u s t t r y t o t e l l m y s e l f , " Y o u ' r e a l l r i g h t . " (Quad I , 216) Husband: Yeh, y o u ' r e a l l r i g h t . I ' l l l e t y o u t a k e me o u t f o r a b e e r on t h e way home. (Quad I , 114) (here t h e husband i s s t i l l i n t e n s i t y o f the session)  joking,  probably t o d i f f u s e the  T h e r e were a number o f c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n p e a k and  poor  sessions.  statements  Peak s e s s i o n s h a d more  than d i d poor  ments were p o s i t i v e , contrast,  poor  sessions,  autonomous  self-focused  a n d more o f t h o s e  (Quadrant  I) statements.  s e s s i o n s h a d more o t h e r - f o c u s e d  t h a n d i d peak s e s s i o n s ,  critical,  In  statements  a n d more o f t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s  h o s t i l e power, e s p e c i a l l y  state-  were  (Quadrant I I I )  statements. In  general, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f productive therapy  s e s s i o n s were s i m i l a r t o t h o s e e x h i b i t e d b y c o u p l e s who were not d i s t r e s s e d . Brengelmann therapy  Hahlweg, S c h i n d l e r ,  (1984) h a d c o n s i d e r a b l e s u c c e s s i n t h e i r  marital  i n w h i c h t h e y t a u g h t c o u p l e s how t o b e h a v e i n a more  a f f i l i a t i v e manner t o w a r d t h e s e c o u p l e s improved and  R e v e n s t o r f and  i n their  social  one a n o t h e r .  i n their  interaction.  ability  They r e p o r t e d t h a t t o s o l v e problems  "However, i t a p p e a r s  less  81 well  s u i t e d t o deal with  emotional suggest  qualities  with  Emotionally  (p. 2 1 ) .  They  "supplement a b e h a v i o r a l (p.  21).  F o c u s e d Therapy adds t h i s d i m e n s i o n t o c o u p l e s t h e emotional  i n the marital  Hypothesis  should  affecting the  emotion-enhancing procedures"  and a d d r e s s e s  partners  events  of a relationship"  that future research  treatment  therapy  internal  foundation  of the  relationship.  II  I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d  t h a t peak s e s s i o n s would have a  g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f L e v e l 4 a n d a b o v e e x p e r i e n c i n g on t h e Experiencing contained  S c a l e t h a n w o u l d p o o r s e s s i o n s . Peak  n e a r l y three times  sessions  a s many L e v e l 4 a n d a b o v e  e x p e r i e n c i n g a s d i d p o o r s e s s i o n s . The c h i - s q u a r e supported these  t h i s hypothesis.  results will Emotionally  change p a r t n e r ' s  Focused Couples Therapy i s designed experience  seeks t o r e d e f i n e t h e c o n f l i c t  foundation  are considered  primary,  biologically  The t h e o r e t i c a l f e e l i n g s as t h e  s y s t e m w h i c h , when  o f needs. These  emotions.  accessed,  "underlying  by Greenberg and S a f r a n adaptive  In  c y c l e o f the couple,  underlying  signalling  lead t o the expression  feelings"  relationship.  to  i n terms o f p r e v i o u s l y  feelings.  o f EFT v i e w s t h e s e  i n d i v i d u a l ' s primary  be  of their  interactional  unacknowledged u n d e r l y i n g  can  Some o f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f  be d i s c u s s e d .  f o c u s i n g on t h e n e g a t i v e it  analysis  They  (1984) t o  82 d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h i s t y p e o f emotion from b o t h i n s t r u m e n t a l emotions. exhibit  the l a s t  two  Couples  types o f emotions.  involved i n actively  themselves  from  other  That  attacking or  (secondary  emotional  (instrumental emotion).  responses  is facilitative  couple's negative i n t e r a c t i o n a l  i s , they  emotion)  the other  Neither of  in interrupting  cycle.  o f emotions a r e e x a c t l y t h e ones t h a t  are  defending  or reactive  or d i s p l a y i n g emotion designed t o manipulate c e r t a i n responses  and  coming f o r t h e r a p y o f t e n  frequently  each  secondary  In f a c t ,  into these  the  these  types  fuel continuing  dissension. What, t h e n , emotion"? the death  An  i s meant by t h e t e r m  example may  be h e l p f u l .  I f I am  o f someone I l o v e o r a p r o f o u n d  many e m o t i o n s .  First,  I may  t h i s h a v e t o h a p p e n t o me?" to the experience of loss. t h i n g s c a n o n l y be  feel  angry,  T h i s w o u l d be  loss,  adaptive faced with I will  blaming,  a reactive  Finally,  inward,  and  do..." These  o n e s i n w h i c h I am  trying,  I may  g i v e up my  b e g i n t o e x p e r i e n c e my  are through  my  situ-  sadness,  my  loss, In  the this  f o c u s e d p r o c e s s , I b e g i n t o "work t h r o u g h " , " l e t  o r "adapt"  states,  emotion  external focus, turn  emotions which l a y under the p r e v i o u s e x p r e s s i o n .  go"  did  e x p r e s s i o n , t o i n f l u e n c e t h e outcome o f t h e  ation.  internally  "why  have  Next, I might b a r g a i n , p l e a d , " I f  a s t h e y were, I ' l l  i n s t r u m e n t a l emotions, emotional  "primary  "The  to the r e a l i t y  o f my  e x p e r i e n c e o f something  loss.  Gendlin  emerging from  (1981) there  83 feels  like  a relief  Experiencing instrument  Scale  used  and a coming a l i v e " (Klein,  i n this  e t . a l . , 1969), t h e r a t i n g  study,  degree t o which an i n d i v i d u a l is,  engaged i n t h e p r o c e s s  emotions and needs.  ( p . 8 ) . The  was d e v e l o p e d t o a s s e s s t h e i s internally  o f accessing these  Only these  biologically  p r i m a r y e m o t i o n s a r e meant i n E m o t i o n a l l y when i t d e s c r i b e s  focused,  accessing underlying  that  underlying adaptive  Focused  emotion.  Therapy These  emotions a r e t h o u g h t t o s i g n a l needs which a r e i m p o r t a n t i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . In t h i s  study,  i f the theory  were c o r r e c t , t h e  e x p e c t a t i o n was t h a t g o o d s e s s i o n s w o u l d b e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from p o o r s e s s i o n s by t h e l e v e l s by  the partners.  possible  Deeper l e v e l s  f o r an i n d i v i d u a l  of experiencing,  of experiencing  t o access  T h i s was f o u n d t o b e t r u e .  is  going  (See Appendix C ) .  t h e t h e r a p i s t attempts t o "reach"  "what a r e y o u aware o f r i g h t  with  u n d e r what  i n t e r v e n t i o n s such as,  now? I t l o o k s  like  something i n  s a i d t o u c h e d y o u . " I n a p e a k s e s s i o n , t h e man  r e s p o n d e d t o t h e above i n t e r v e n t i o n w i t h , fearful.  emotion.  The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a L e v e l 4  on b e t w e e n t h e c o u p l e  what s h e j u s t  make i t  underlying  o r 5 r e s p o n s e a n d a L e v e l 2 o r 3 i s marked In t h i s therapy  achieved  " F o r me, i t ' s  I g e t c o n c e r n e d a b o u t g i v i n g up t h i n g s ,  that's  g i v i n g up what I b e l i e v e i n , g i v i n g up my h a p p i n e s s , up.  So i t t a k e s  looking  on many  a f t e r myself,  (pause) I'm q u i t e c a p a b l e  taking care  o f myself,  giving  of  b u t i t ' s n o t my  84 choice.  So when I g e t  frustrated,  aware t h a t i t c o u l d - I g e t Level  5 response  her,  scared,  g e t t h a t way,  I get concerned."  shows t h e h u s b a n d l o o k i n g i n w a r d ,  ing t o understand h i s w i f e . He  when we  This  struggl-  h i s f e e l i n g s a b o u t what i s h a p p e n i n g  moves c l o s e r and  h i s fear of being Contrast t h i s  I'm  c l o s e r to h i s fear of  with  losing  alone.  response  with  a s e r i e s of  from a poor s e s s i o n from the  same  couple.  T h e r a p i s t : S o , underneath y o u r anger you unnurtured. Husband: Yeh, I'm n e g l e c t e d . (There ensue f o u r n e g a t i v e h u s b a n d and w i f e . )  are  interactions  feeling  interchanges  between  T h e r a p i s t : S o y o u f e e l u n a p p r e c i a t e d f o r t h e way of i n the background. Wife: T h i s d o e s n ' t s t a n d i n my way. That's t o h a v e him o f f h i s b a c k . (Again t h e r e i s a negative  very  you're  kind  a good  way  interchange.)  T h e r a p i s t : S e e , I don't t h i n k e i t h e r o f you a r e h e a r i n g t h a t u n d e r n e a t h y o u b o t h f e e l n e g l e c t e d and u n l o v e d and u n a p p r e c i a t e d . When a n o t h e r therapist begins  negative  i n t e r a c t i o n begins,  stops t r y i n g to focus the  t o l e t go  at t h i s time of t h e i r  this  couple  reactivity  inner world,  the couple  feeling  another.  style.  s a f e enough  In s p i t e  more o f e a c h  continues t o express  of  spouse's  dissatisfaction  blame toward each o t h e r , w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y o f  s e s s i o n a t L e v e l s 2 o r 3 on  and  interactional  i s not  t o one  the t h e r a p i s t ' s attempts t o e l i c i t  and  spouses inward  to investigate t h e i r negative  Clearly,  the  the  the Experiencing Scale,  levels  85 c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  a f o c u s on e x t e r n a l e v e n t s w i t h any  e x p r e s s i o n as r e a c t i v e  emotion.  A n o t h e r example f r o m which the experience can  feeling  and  a g o o d s e s s i o n shows t h e way  expression of underlying  in  feeling  c h a n g e t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e p a r t n e r a b o u t what i s g o i n g  on. Wife:  W e l l , I t h i n k t h e r e ' s hope. I j u s t , I ' v e g o t t o b e l i e v e t h e r e ' s hope. My f a t h e r d o e s n ' t d r i n k anymore. He d i d c h a n g e h i s l i f e . He made a g r e a t transition. S o m e t h i n g c l i c k e d and I'm n o t r e a l l y s u r e what i t was. I keep t h i n k i n g t h i n k i n g something's going t o c l i c k here i n our r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t ' s g o i n g t o , maybe i t ' s me, maybe i t ' s something t h a t ' s g o i n g t o have t o c l i c k i n me. (4) T h e r a p i s t : I f I g a v e y o u a m a g i c wand r i g h t now, and y o u c o u l d c h a n g e one t h i n g a b o u t y o u r s e l f , what w o u l d you change? Wife: I t h i n k I w o u l d p r o b a b l y be a l o t more open and r e c e p t i v e t o p e o p l e , be a l o t more c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h p e o p l e , and i n i t i a t e t h i n g s more. (4) T h e r a p i s t : T h e s o r t o f t h i n g s t h a t P.'s a s k i n g f o r , y o u r e a l l y want. Wife: Yeh, t h e t h i n g s t h a t I h a v e a l w a y s f o u n d v e r y difficult. I don't f e e l c o m f o r t a b l e i n crowds. (5) T h e r a p i s t : S o when he a s k s f o r t h a t , d o e s i t k i n d o f t a p i n t o an a r e a where, i t must, where y o u f e e l n o t v e r y good? Wife: Oh y e h . I t ' s something t h a t I don't f e e l c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h , I don't suppose I've e v e r r e a l l y done w i t h a n y o n e . ( 5 ) T h e r a p i s t : Y o u seem s a d a b o u t t h a t . Wife: W e l l , y e h b e c a u s e i t ' s p r o b a b l y i t ' s one o f t h e t h i n g s about m y s e l f t h a t I would l i k e t o change. I t w o u l d c e r t a i n l y make my l i f e a l o t e a s i e r , l e s s s t r e s s f u l , i f I d i d n ' t f e e l u p t i g h t . (5) T h e r a p i s t : ( t u r n i n g t o husband) D i d y o u know t h a t what y o u ' r e a s k i n g f o r i s s o m e t h i n g t h a t she w a n t s v e r y much t o be h e r s e l f and h a s d i f f i c u l t y ? Husband: I d i d n ' t p u t t h e c o n n e c t i o n t o g e t h e r , b u t I know, I am aware t h a t s h e ' s n o t i m m e d i a t e l y open t o p e o p l e and i s n o t r e a l g o o d i n c r o w d s and i s n o t r e a l good a t i n i t i a t i n g c o n t a c t o r i s n o t r e a l good a t s t a r t i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h a n o t h e r p e r s o n and b e i n g a b l e t o g e t o v e r t h e s c a r y p a r t s  o f new c o n t a c t w i t h a n y t h i n g . But I d i d n ' t put i t t o g e t h e r simply because the i n i t i a t i o n of c o n t a c t w i t h me, I t h o u g h t maybe I'm d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h o s e o t h e r t h i n g s o u t t h e r e . I'm on t h e i n s i d e , I ' v e b e e n t h e r e f o r 15 y e a r s o r 10 y e a r s . You s h o u l d n ' t be a f r a i d o f i n i t i a t i n g c o n t a c t w i t h me, a t l e a s t n o t a f r a i d t h a t I'm g o i n g t o do a n y t h i n g b a d . F o r t h e husband, h e r e , w i f e has she  t h e same k i n d o f d i f f i c u l t y  does i n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s .  and, he  at the  same t i m e ,  won't do  longer  anything  i s he  blaming  (1979).  He  included,  found  "bad" her  specific  s e s s i o n was  this,  reassuring her  f i t s with the  he  findings  chose as  of  Kelley  problems  f a r as c o n t e n d i n g  uniformly at a high l e v e l  what seemed t o h a p p e n was  p a r t n e r then  p a r t n e r was  and  that a  o f more  import-  responded  varied  from  entire  of experiencing.  t h a t one  of experience  and  of the  spouses  t h e n moved o u t  t o what h a d  acceptance  o f t e n uncomfortable  just  t o humour  with the  by t h e t h e r a p i s t . An  i n t e r v e n t i o n when t h e p a r t n e r was  (the  intensity  example o f a  unable  of  happened.  to accept  other  o f what  j u s t happened) t o n o n - a c c e p t a n c e , w h i c h n e e d e d t o  q u i c k l y handled  No  wishes.  not t r u e , i n best s e s s i o n s , t h a t the  These responses  that  i s more o p e n w i t h him.  f o r n o t b e i n g t h e way  went a s  as  behaviours.  moved t o a d e e p l e v e l  had  i f she  t h a t the areas couples  (p. 9 8 ) . He  I t was  The  seems a b l e t o a c c e p t  a t t i t u d e t o w a r d o n e ' s p a r t n e r was  ance than  Rather,  b e i n g o p e n w i t h him  " f a i l u r e to give appreciation, understanding  affection" positive  He  to realize that his  e n c o u r a g e s h e r by  T h i s k i n d of response  it.  i t i s new  be  therapist the  87 o t h e r ' s newly d i s c l o s e d  e x p e r i e n c e might have been," T h i s i s  r e a l l y hard  f o r you  t o hear  whelming."  T h i s would b o t h acknowledge t h e d i f f i c u l t y  s p o u s e was  having with t h i s  s p o u s e who  had  What a p p e a r e d powerful  just  p r o d u c t i v e one. questionnaire, on was  "my  h e r was  over-  i n f o r m a t i o n and  that  level  of  I n one  couple's post  the wife s a i d and  the  vulnerability. had  a  a  sessional  t h a t t h e i s s u e she had  f e a r , " and  the  validate  experiencing i t s e l f  partner hearing t h i s  husband s t a t e d ,  a little  on a c o u p l e ' s v i e w o f t h e s e s s i o n a s  insecurity  "my  new  now,  r e v e a l e d a new  t o h a p p e n was  impact  right  what was  f o r the  " I h a v e an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  worked  important  first  time."  o f why  my  to The  partner  makes demands on me."  These responses  of the post s e s s i o n a l  q u e s t i o n n a i r e which r e q u i r e d w r i t t e n  responses  r a t h e r than numerical  ones.  n o t c o n s i d e r e d i n s e l e c t i n g p e a k and E m o t i o n a l l y Focused 1986)  expression of primary and  Therapy  emphasizes the importance  o c c u r r e d on a  These responses  of t h i s  study  (Greenberg  therapy  & Johnson,  of the experience  and  a d a p t i v e emotion i n o r d e r t o  perhaps  seen  in satisfied  The  of  even c r u c i a l ,  s e s s i o n s . Subsequent i n t e r a c t i o n between  p a r t n e r s became l i k e t h a t  reframe  interaction.  i n d i c a t e d t h a t deep l e v e l s  e x p e r i e n c i n g were i m p o r t a n t ,  were  poor s e s s i o n s .  change t h e meaning o f t h e c o u p l e ' s  results  section  i n good  the  couples.  88  Conclusion The marital  two m a j o r h y p o t h e s e s t h e r a p y were b o t h  o f t h i s process study o f  supported.  When b o t h  o t h e r - f o c u s e d b e h a v i o u r s were compared  i n peak and poor  s e s s i o n o n t h e SASB, a l l p r e d i c t e d c o m p a r i s o n s statistical is,  significance  s e l f - and  achieved  i n the chi-square analysis,  that  b o t h t h e autonomous a f f i l i a t i v e a n d s u b m i s s i v e  affiliative i s t i c  quadrants  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c h a r a c t e r -  o f peak s e s s i o n s t h a n poor.  When s e l f - a n d  o t h e r - f o c u s e d b e h a v i o u r s were e x a m i n e d s e p a r a t e l y , s i m i l a r findings occurred. statements  Both  Quadrants I and IV, o t h e r - f o c u s e d  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p r e v a l e n t i n p e a k  s e s s i o n s t h a n were Q u a d r a n t I I I , o t h e r - f o c u s e d In  the self-focused  statistical hostile I  comparisons  statements.  Quadrants I and IV a c h i e v e d  s i g n i f i c a n c e compared w i t h Q u a d r a n t I I ( t a k e  a u t o n o m y ) . However, t h i s was n o t t r u e when Q u a d r a n t s  a n d I V were compared w i t h Q u a d r a n t I I I ( h o s t i l e  T h i s may h a v e b e e n due t o t h e p r e s e n c e s t u d y who i n t e r a c t e d  s e l f - f o c u s e d behaviours More d e t a i l e d  i n the  peak  81% o f t h e Quadrant  i n peak s e s s i o n s .  o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e d a t a showed t h a t  s e s s i o n s h a d more s e l f - f o c u s e d more o f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s autonomy, o n e s .  o f two c o u p l e s  q u i t e n e g a t i v e l y even i n t h e i r  s e s s i o n s a n d who, t o g e t h e r , c o m p r i s e d III,  comply).  statements  peak  i n g e n e r a l , and  were Q u a d r a n t I , e n j o y  friendly  P o o r s e s s i o n s h a d more o t h e r - f o c u s e d  89 statements i n general,  and  more o f t h e s e  Q u a d r n a t I I I , h o s t i l e power,  s t a t e m e n t s were  ones.  H y p o t h e s i s I I s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e w o u l d be p r o p o r t i o n o f L e v e l 4 and Experiencing  Scale  than i n poor.  above e x p e r i e n c i n g  (Klein,  In the  e t a l , 1969)  chi-square  4 and  above  other  results.  willing  kinds  The  partners  for information  information  of s h i f t s  maintained, therapy Clinical To  be  session  have t u r n e d  to their  of  emerges each inner  have been  i n f o r m a t i o n t o each other  i n a p o s i t i v e manner. b e h a v i o u r can  t h a t the  If  and  these  be  outcome o f t h e  marital  successful.  Significance p r a c t i c e as  change. T h i s  effectively  as p o s s i b l e t h e  study  has  Therapy f o r couples. couple  as  The  strong  facilitative  p r o b l e m r e s o l u t i o n and  clinician facilitate  illuminated several processes  i n d i c a t e good t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s  the  peak  own  situation,  n e e d s t o u n d e r s t a n d what t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s e s  by  data  have stopped b l a m i n g  i n a w a r e n e s s and  i t seems l i k e l y  will  sessions  greater proportion  about t h e i r  t o d i s c l o s e t h i s new  r e s p o n d t o new  the  i n peak  good m a r i t a l t h e r a p y  for their difficulties,  experiences  on  experiencing.  A p i c t u r e of the from t h e s e  greater  a n a l y s i s of the  sessions did contain a s i g n i f i c a n t l y level  a  the  i n Emotionally  which  Focussed  l i n k between s e s s i o n s  o f c h a n g e and  seen  movement t o w a r d  depth of experiencing  as  rated  on  90 the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e should encourage t h e r a p i s t s t o h e l p spouses achieve into  a f o c u s on t h e m s e l v e s a n d t o move d e e p e r  s e l f - e x p l o r a t i o n a n d e x p r e s s i o n . One q u e s t i o n  t h e r a p i s t s n e e d t o b e i n v e s t i g a t i n g a s t h e y work clients  i s , "how do t h e i n d i v i d u a l  vulnerabilities their  negative  with  s e n s i t i v i t i e s and  on t h e p a r t o f e a c h o f t h e s e p a r t n e r s interactions?"  The answers t o t h i s  seem t o emerge a s e a c h p a r t n e r a c c e s s e s  fuel  question  h i s or her inner  world. The Behavior focus  results  from t h e S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s o f S o c i a l  r a t i n g s o f t h e s e s s i o n s i n many ways c o n f i r m s t h e  i n d i c a t e d by t h e E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e r e s u l t s .  a couple action,  i n t h e t h r o e s o f an e s c a l a t i n g n e g a t i v e consisting  of the other resolution ability disclose  o f a great deal o f blaming  i s not l i k e l y  inter-  and demeaning  t o able t o negotiate  conflict  n o r t o c r e a t e an a t m o s p h e r e i n w h i c h v u l n e r -  and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e c a n o c c u r . As spouses b e g i n t o and e x p r e s s  affiliative  t h e i r thoughts  manner, t h e p o s s i b l i t y  and f e e l i n g s f o rc o n f l i c t  i n c r e a s e s . Good m a r i t a l t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s marked by an i n c r e a s e i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s and  Clearly,  a decrease  especially  needs t o encourage t h e e x p e r i e n c e underlying  resolution  a p p e a r s t o be  o f each  i n t h e number o f o t h e r d i r e c t e d  " h o s t i l e power" s t a t e m e n t s .  i n an  partner  statements,  The t h e r a p i s t ,  then,  and e x p r e s s i o n o f  f e e l i n g s on t h e p a r t o f e a c h s p o u s e a n d , a l s o ,  91 the acceptance  of these  affiliative  manner.  Limitations  of the  The  Study  sample used  a p o o l o f 29  s t u d y may  would respond marital  for this  c o u p l e s who  E m o t i o n a l l y Focused of t h i s  f e e l i n g s by t h e o t h e r p a r t n e r i n an  had  Therapy  s t u d y was  r e c e i v e d 8-10  The  offering  in return for participation clinical  in a  They d i f f e r e d m a i n l y  free  after  i s that  come f o r  in their decision  a r e some q u e s t i o n s a b o u t  participation  i n such  the e f f e c t s  of  r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s on t h e s u b j e c t s .  W e b s t e r ' s N i n t h D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s t h e Hawthorne e f f e c t "the s t i m u l a t i o n t o output o r accomplishment,  as  industrial  results  o r e d u c a t i o n a l methods s t u d y ,  t h e mere f a c t  o f b e i n g under concerned  However, t h e s e e f f e c t s  the d u r a t i o n of therapy particular within  to  therapy.  There  557).  over  the  i n t h e s e p r o j e c t s were s i m i l a r t o o n e s who  p r i v a t e therapy.  who  university  intuition,  t e n y e a r s o f work a s a m a r i t a l t h e r a p i s t ,  seek f r e e  results  be g e n e r a l i z e d t o c o m p a r a b l e c o u p l e s  t o a newspaper a d v e r t i s e m e n t  therapy  from  sessions of  i n previous studies.  r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . However, my  couples  r a n d o m l y drawn  session.  The  that  approach  s e s s i o n should minimize  specific  to  of observing  this  i n an from  o b s e r v a t i o n " (p.  s h o u l d be u n i f o r m  r a t h e r than  as  problem.  throughout any process  92 The  use  o f t h e p o s t - s e s s i o n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s as  an  outcome m e a s s u r e p o s e d t h e p r o b l e m t h a t t h e  number r a t i n g  some c o u p l e ' s  the  number  poor s e s s i o n s . In t h i s  design  rating  of other  couples  couples  The  compared t o t h e m s e l v e s , r a t h e r t h a n  strong r e s u l t s of t h i s  were s h o w i n g r e a l  unproductive  sessions  individual The  this  Scale  study  therapies.  i n these  of the  e t a l , 1969)  that achieved  newer T h e r a p i s t E x p e r i e n c i n g  Future  the  Scale  scope of t h i s  sequencing  of  l e a r n more a b o u t t h e  couples. the  somewhat  1986)  suggested  (Klein,  lower  individual  w e l l u n d e r way,  M.  Klein  that  the  Mathieu-Coughlan,  a b e t t e r s c a l e t o use  with  r e s e a r c h d i d not permit  interactions. specific  couples.  what r e s p o n s e s by  important  One  would l i k e  other's  r e v e l a t i o n of h i s or her  s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s a p p r o a c h c o u l d be  to  which  t o know  a p a r t n e r encourage or discourage  c o n t i n u a t i o n of the A  I t w o u l d be  an a n a l y s i s  patterns of i n t e r a c t i o n  i n d i c a t e good t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s .  world.  though  r a t i n g s of was  and  Research The  of  between  i n r a t i n g s of  A f t e r t h i s p r o j e c t was  m i g h t p r o v e t o be  indicate that  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s even  reliability  (Klein,  than  to  d i f f e r e n c e s between p r o d u c t i v e  ( p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , J u n e 25,  1986)  study  number a s s e s s m e n t d i f f e r e d  interrater  Experiencing in  couple's  were b e i n g  each other.  the  p e a k s e s s i o n s were l o w e r t h a n  of  the inner  useful in  this project  (Gottman,  Hahlweg, R e v e n s t o r f , A s was the Quadrant  S c h i n d l e r & Brengelmann,  mentioned level  Markman, Howard & N o t a r i u s  earlier  in this  1977;  1984).  chapter,  t h e use o f  a n a l y s i s o f t h e SASB meant t h a t a  c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f d a t a c o n c e r n i n g t h e d e g r e e o f hostility obscured. or  or a f f i l i a t i o n  and autonomy o r s u b m i s s i o n  Future research using e i t h e r the c l u s t e r  was levels  t h e number r a t i n g s o f t h e SASB c o u l d p r o v i d e more  i n f o r m a t i o n about the i n t e n s i t i e s behaviours  i n good  A major  of these kinds  of  and p o o r t h e r a p e u t i c s e s s i o n s .  step i n t h i s  kind of research i s to  i n - s e s s i o n process with therapy a l r e a d y begun w i t h t h e Johnson F u r t h e r work i n t h i s  outcome.  T h i s work h a s  & Greenberg  a r e a w o u l d be q u i t e  link  (1988)  study.  illuminating.  94 References A r g y l e , M., & Furnham, A.(1983). Sources o f s a t i s f a c t i o n and c o n f l i c t i n l o n g t e r m r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y . 4 5 ( 3 ) , 481-493. B e n j a m i n , L. S. behavior.  (1974). S t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s o f s o c i a l P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w . 8 1 ( 5 ) , 392-425.  B e n j a m i n , L. S., F o s t e r , S. W., R o b e r t o , L. G. & E s t r o f f , S. E . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . B r e a k i n g t h e f a m i l y c o d e : A n a l y s i s o f v i d e o t a p e s o f f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n s by s t r u c t u r a l analysis of s o c i a l b e h a v i o r (SASB). I n L. S. G r e e n b e r g & W. M. P i n s o f (Eds.) The p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s : A r e s e a r c h handbook, ( p p . 3 9 1 - 4 3 8 ) , New Y o r k : Guilford Press. Berman, E . M., & L i e f , H. I . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . M a r i t a l t h e r a p y f r o m a p s y c h i a t r i c p e r s p e c t i v e : An o v e r v i e w . A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y . 132, 583-592. B i l l i n g s , A. B. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . C o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n i n d i s t r e s s e d and n o n d i s t r e s s e d m a r r i e d c o u p l e s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 47. 368-376. B r a d b u r y , T., & F i n c h a m , F. D. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . A s s e s s m e n t o f a f f e c t . I n K. D. O ' L e a r y (Ed.) A s s e s s m e n t o f marital d i s c o r d . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m . B u b e r , M. ( 1 9 5 7 ) . D i s t a n c e and 97-104.  relation.  Psychiatry.  C o o p e r s m i t h , S. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . The a n t e c e d e n t s o f s e l f San F r a n c i s c o : W. H. Freeman.  20,  esteem.  C o t t o n , N. S. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The d e v e l o p m e n t o f s e l f e s t e e m and s e l f e s t e e m r e g u l a t i o n . I n J . Mack & S. L. A b l o n ( E d s . ) , The d e v e l o p m e n t and s u s t e n a n c e o f s e l f e s t e e m i n c h i l d h o o d (pp. 1 2 2 - 1 5 0 ) . New Y o r k : I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s Press. D e u t s c h , M. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . C o n f l i c t s : P r o d u c t i v e and J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l I s s u e s . 2 5 ( 1 ) , 7-41.  destructive.  D o h e r t y , W. J . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e and n e g a t i v e problem s o l v i n g i n marriage. Family R e l a t i o n s . 31(2), 201-206. F i n c h a m , F., & O ' L e a r y , T. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A f f e c t i n t h e e i g h t i e s : A new d i r e c t i o n i n b e h a v i o r a l m a r i t a l t h e r a p y ? P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t the 90th Annual Convention o f the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D.C.  95 F r e y , J . , H o l l e y , J . , & L ' A b a t e , L. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . I n t i m a c y i s s h a r i n g h u r t f e e l i n g s : A comparison of t h r e e conflict r e s o l u t i o n m o d e l s . J o u r n a l o f M a r i t a l and F a m i l y T h e r a p y . 5, 35-41. F r i e d m a n , M. ( 1 9 5 8 ) . E x i s t e n c e , a new d i m e n s i o n i n p s y c h i a t r y and p s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s . F r i e d m a n , M. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . H e a l i n g t h r o u g h m e e t i n g . I n J.H. S m i t h (Ed.) P s y c h i a t r y and t h e h u m a n i t i e s ( 1 9 1 - 2 3 3 ) , 1, New Haven: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Gendlin,  E. J .  ( 1 9 8 1 ) . F o c u s i n g . New  York:  Bantam B o o k s .  Glass,  G. V., & G l a s s , K. D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n e d u c a t i o n and p s y c h o l o g y . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  Glick,  B., & G r o s s , S. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n and marital c o n f l i c t : A c r i t i c a l evaluation of current r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g i e s . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y . 37. 505-512.  Goldman, A. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . The d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f e m o t i o n a l l y f o c u s e d m a r i t a l t h e r a p y and a s y s t e m i n t e r a c t i o n a l m a r i t a l therapy. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Gottman, J o h n ( 1 9 7 9 ) . M a r i t a l Academic P r e s s .  interaction.  New  York:  Gottman, J . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . E m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s i n m a r i t a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 32(3) . 108-120. Gottman, J . M., & L e v e n s o n , R. W. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . A v a l i d p r o c e d u r e for obtaining self-report of affect i n marital i n t e r a c t i o n . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 5 3 ( 2 ) , 151-160. Gottman, J . , & L e v e n s o n , R. W. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . A s s e s s i n g t h e r o l e o f e m o t i o n i n m a r r i a g e . B e h a v i o r a l A s s e s s m e n t . 8, 31-48. Gottman, J . , Markman, H., & N o t a r i u s , C. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . A topography of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t : A s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s o f v e r b a l and n o n v e r b a l b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y . 49, 461-477. G r e e n b e r g , L. S. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A t a s k a n a l y s i s o f i n t r a p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . I n L. R i c e & L. S. G r e e n b e r g ( E d s . ) , P a t t e r n s o f c h a n g e (pp. 6 7 - 1 2 3 ) . New York: Guilford Press.  96 G r e e n b e r g , L. S. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Change p r o c e s s r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 5 4 ( 1 ) , 4-9. G r e e n b e r g , L., & J o h n s o n , S. ( 1 9 8 6 a ) . E m o t i o n a l l y f o c u s e d c o u p l e s t h e r a p y . I n . N. J a c o b s o n , & A. Gurman ( E d s . ) , C l i n i c a l handbook o f m a r i t a l t h e r a p y (pp. 2 5 3 - 2 7 9 ) . New Y o r k : The G u i l f o r d P r e s s . G r e e n b e r g , L. S., & J o h n s o n , S. M. ( 1 9 8 6 b ) . A f f e c t i n m a r i t a l t h e r a p y . J o u r n a l o f M a r i t a l and F a m i l y T h e r a p y . 1 2 ( 1 ) , 1-10. G r e e n b e r g , L. S., & S a f r a n , J . D. ( 1 9 8 4 a ) . Hot c o g n i t i o n s : E m o t i o n c o m i n g i n f r o m t h e c o l d . C o g n i t i v e T h e r a p y and R e s e a r c h , 8, 591-598. G r e e n b e r g , L. S., & S a f r a n , J . D. ( 1 9 8 4 b ) . I n t e g r a t i n g a f f e c t and c o g n i t i o n : A p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e r a p e u t i c c h a n g e . C o g n i t i v e T h e r a p y and R e s e a r c h . 8, 559-578. G r e e n b e r g , L. S., & S a f r a n , J . D. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . E m o t i o n i n P s y c h o t h e r a p y . New Y o r k : The G u i l f o r d P r e s s . G u e r i n , P. J . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . The s t a g e s o f m a r i t a l F a m i l y . 1 0 ( 1 ) , 15-26.  conflict.  The  Gurman, A. S., K n i s k e r n , D. P., & P i n s o f , W. M. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . R e s e a r c h on t h e p r o c e s s and outcome o f m a r i t a l and f a m i l y t h e r a p y . I n S. G a r f i e l d and A. B e r g i n ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y and b e h a v i o r c h a n g e (pp. 5 6 5 - 6 2 6 ) . New Y o r k : W i l e y . Hahlweg, K., S c h i n d l e r , L., R e v e n s t o r f , D., & B r e n g e l m a n n , J . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . The M u n i c h m a r i t a l t h e r a p y s t u d y . I n K. Hahlweg, & N. S. J a c o b s o n ( E d s . ) , M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n : A n a l y s i s and m o d i f i c a t i o n (pp. 1 5 9 - 1 9 8 ) . New Y o r k : The G u i l f o r d P r e s s . H o r o w i t z , L. M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . On t h e c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems t r e a t e d i n psychotherapy. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 47., 5-15. J a c o b s o n , N. S. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . P r o b l e m s o l v i n g and c o n t i n g e n c y c o n t r a c t i n g i n the treatment of m a r i t a l d i s c o r d . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 45, 95-100. J a c o b s o n , N. S. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . C l i n i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s i n b e h a v i o r a l m a r i t a l t h e r a p y . I n K. D. C r a i g , & R. J . McMahon  97 (Eds.)/ Advances i n c l i n i c a l b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y 9 8 ) . New Y o r k : B r u n n e r / M a z e l . J a c o b s o n , N. S. & M a r g o l i n , G. York: Brunner/Mozel.  (1979). M a r i t a l  James, W. (1890, 1 9 5 0 ) . The p r i n c i p l e s York: Dover.  (pp. 74-  therapy.  of psychology.  New  New  James, P. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . A c o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s t r a i n i n g component i n an e m o t i o n a l l y f o c u s e d c o u p l e s t h e r a p y . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r , B. C. J o h n s o n , S. & G r e e n b e r g , L. S. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n r e s o l v i n g m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 5 3 ( 1 ) , 275-284. J o h n s o n , S. & G r e e n b e r g , L. S. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . R e l a t i n g P r o c e s s t o outcome i n m a r i t a l t h e r a p y . J o u r n a l o f M a r i t a l and F a m i l y T h e r a p y . 1 4 ( 2 ) , 175-183. Kahn, M. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . N o n v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . F a m i l y P r o c e s s . 9, 449-456. K e l l e y , H. H. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . P e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : s t r u c t u r e s and p r o c e s s e s . H i l l s d a l e , N J :  Their Erlbaum.  Klein,  M. H. M a t h i e u , P. L., G e n d l i n , E . T., & K i e s l e r , D. J . ( 1 9 6 9 ) . The e x p e r i e n c i n g s c a l e : A r e s e a r c h and t r a i n i n g manual ( V o l . 1 ) , M a d i s o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n E x t e n s i o n Bureau o f a u d i o v i s u a l I n s t r u c t i o n ( c o p y r i g h t 1970).  Klein,  M. H., M a t h i e u - C o u g l a n , P., & K i e s l e r , D. J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The e x p e r i e n c i n g s c a l e s . I n L. S. G r e e n b e r g & W. M. P i n s o f ( E d s . ) , The p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s : A r e s e a r c h handbook (pp. 2 1 - 7 1 ) . New Y o r k : G u i l f o r d Press.  K n u d s o n , R. M., Sommers, A. A., & G o l d i n g , S. L . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n and mode o f r e s o l u t i o n i n m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 3 8 ( 5 ) , 751-763. K o h u t , H. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . The a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e l f . International U n i v e r s i t i e s Press.  New  York:  98 Koren,  P., C a r l t o n , K., & Shaw, D. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . M a r i t a l c o n f l i c t : R e l a t i o n s among b e h a v i o r s , o u t c o m e s d i s t r e s s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 48.(4), 460-468.  L ' A b a t e , L., & L ' A b a t e , 175-184.  B.  L.  (1979). F a m i l y t h e r a p y . 6 ( 3 ) ,  Laing,  R.D. (1961). S e l f Publications.  Laing,  R., P h i l l i p s o n , H., & L e e l , A. ( 1 9 6 6 ) . p e r c e p t i o n . New Y o r k : H a r p e r and Row.  L e a r y , T. New  and  and  o t h e r s . London: T a v i s t o c k  (1957). I n t e r p e r s o n a l d i a g n o s i s o f Y o r k : The R o n a l d P r e s s .  Interpersonal personality.  L e v e n t h a l , Howard ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A p e r c e p t u a l - m o t o r p r o c e s s i n g m o d e l o f e m o t i o n . I n P. P l i n e r , K. B. B l a n k s t e i n , & I . S p i g e l (Eds.), Advances i n t h e study o f communication and a f f e c t (pp. 1-45). New Y o r k : Plenum P r e s s . Locke,  H. J . , & W a l l a c e , K. M. ( 1 9 5 9 ) . S h o r t m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t and p r e d i c t i o n t e s t s : t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . M a r r i a g e and F a m i l y L i v i n g . 21, 251-255.  M a r a s c u i l o , L. A., & McSweeney, M. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . N o n p a r a m e t r i c d i s t r i b u t i o n - f r e e methods f o r t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . M o n t e r e y , CA: B r o o k s / C o l e .  and  M a r g o l i n , G., & W e i n s t e i n , C. D. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The r o l e o f a f f e c t i n b e h a v i o r a l t h e r a p y . I n L. R. W o l b e r g & M. C. A r o n s o n ( E d s . ) , Group and f a m i l y t h e r a p y (pp. 3343 5 5 ) . New Y o r k : B r u n n e r / M a z e l . O r l i n s k y , D. E . , & Howard, K. I . ( 1 9 6 7 ) . The g o o d t h e r a p y h o u r . A r c h i v e s o f G e n e r a l P s y c h i a t r y . 16. 621-632. O r l i n s k y , D. E . & Howard, K. I . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Varieties of p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c e x p e r i e n c e . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s College Press. P e r l m a n , D a n i e l & F e h r B e v e r l y ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The d e v e l o p m e n t o f i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , f r o m D. P e r l m a n & S. Duck ( E d s . ) , I n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s (pp. 1 3 - 4 1 ) . Newbury P a r k : Sage. P e r l m u t t e r , M. S., & H a t f i e l d , E . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I n t i m a c y , i n t e n t i o n a l m e t a c o m m u n i c a t i o n and s e c o n d o r d e r c h a n g e . A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f F a m i l y T h e r a p y . 8 ( 1 ) , 17-23.  99 Perls,  F., H e f f e r l i n e , R., & Goodman, P. t h e r a p y . New Y o r k : J u l i a n P r e s s .  (1951).  Gestalt  P e t e r s o n , D. R. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . C o n f l i c t . I n H. H. K e l l e y , E . B e r s c h e i d , A. C h r i s t e n s e n , J . H. H a r v e y , T. L H u s t o n , G. L e v i n g e r , E . M c C l i n t o c k , L. A. P e p l a u , & D. R. P e t e r s o n ( E d s . ) , C l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p (pp. 3 6 0 - 3 9 6 ) . New Y o r k : W. H. Freeman. P l y s i u k , M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . A p r o c e s s s t u d y o f m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . Unpublished masters t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. R a u s h , H. L., B a r r y , W. A. H e r t e l , R. A., & S w a i n , ( 1 9 7 4 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i o n c o n f l i c t and m a r r i a g e . F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y Bass.  of  M.A. San  R e v e n s t o r f , D., Hahlweg, K., S c h i n d l e r , L., & V o g e l , B. (1984). I n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o f m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . In K. Hahlweg & J a c o b s o n ( E d s . ) , M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n (pp. 1 5 9 - 1 8 1 ) . New Y o r k : The G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Rice,  L. N., & G r e e n b e r g , L. S. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . A method f o r studying the a c t i v e ingredients i n psychotherapy: A p p l i c a t i o n t o c l i e n t - c e n t e r e d and g e s t a l t t h e r a p y . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t a meeting o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r P s y c h o t h e r a p y R e s e a r c h , D e n v e r , CO.  Rice,  L. N., & G r e e n b e r g , L. S. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . P a t t e r n s o f c h a n g e : I n t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y p r o c e s s . New York: Guilford Press.  Satir,  V. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . C o n j o i n t f a m i l y t h e r a p y . P a l o A l t o , S c i e n c e & B e h a v i o r Books.  CA:  S c h a a p , C. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f d i s t r e s s e d and n o n d i s t r e s s e d m a r r i e d c o u p l e s i n a l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a t i o n : L i t e r a t u r e survey, m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s , and an e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n K. Hahlweg & N. J a c o b s o n ( E d s . ) , M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n (pp. 1 3 3 - 1 5 8 ) . New Y o r k : G u i l f o r d P r e s s . S e g r a v e s , R. T. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . M a r i t a l t h e r a p y . New M e d i c a l Book.  York:  Plenum  S p a n i e r , G. B. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . M e a s u r i n g d y a d i c a d j u s t m e n t . J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y . 38, 15-28. S u l l a w a y , M., & C h r i s t e n s e n , A. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . A s s e s s m e n t o f dysfunctional interaction patterns i n couples. Journal o f M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y . 4 5 ( 3 ) , 653-660.  100 Swensen J r . , C. H. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . I n t r o d u c t i o n t o i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . G l e n v i e w , I L : S c o t t , F o r e s m a n & Co. T o l s t e d t , B. E . , & S t o k e s , J . P. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . R e l a t i o n o f v e r b a l , a f f e c t i v e , and p h y s i c a l i n t i m a c y t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . Journal of Counselling Psychology. 3 0 ( 4 ) , 573-580. Truax,  C. B. & M i t c h e l l , K. M. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . R e s e a r c h on c e r t a i n therapist interpersonal s k i l l s i n r e l a t i o n to process and outcome. I n A. E . B e r g i n & S. L. G a r f i e l d ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y and b e h a v i o r c h a n g e : An e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s (pp. 2 9 9 - 3 4 4 ) . New Y o r k : W i l e y .  Vaughn, P. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The i m p a c t o f e m o t i o n a l l y f o c u s e d c o u p l e s t h e r a p y on m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d m a s t e r s t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B. C. W a r i n g , E . M., & C h e l u n e , G. J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . M a r i t a l i n t i m a c y and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 3_9, 183-190. W e b s t e r . M i c h a e l C. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The r e s o l u t i o n o f d e c i s i o n a l c o n f l i c t : R e l a t i o n p r o c e s s t o outcome. An u n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, V a n c o u v e r , B. C. Wile,  D. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . C o u p l e s t h e r a p y : A n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l a p p r o a c h . New Y o r k : W i l e y & S o n s .  1  nr. t.<  O a m. l | M M i i k i n i m i a t i i 7M. • M f w kwfv awtf • *mo ««Hh «Ma or saw "mmm tMfw" to  s » mm 0,  J W . 1 WOf% 774  Of  71«  It off <Vo*» O; * • » * » ' • Ivor. OOOOVt  I * « H t t to w*m o • m • * 4 M V tn •wono*, I M M M I M  flow 1 treo)hr 4mf tmm*U » • * « • " * » O M M  Jit  I  1  7U. t  111. • •*•?•»»». OAfrr* * fo* OMyeMMQ. 8 esss^ • • t o r n «be«ft 0 .  f »  f S#rMM*v.  HI  aaMxt m>  31 J.  hM at IM»  W M M how or hargslf ffcarty t » • i » n and y f « ! . * s o » v «*rJ w r o w m  0  K M ^ u K v r**MTC IO t ratoaoa, 1** • » . M t s n . '•»*• v w n r t i ' M too** wtih 0 I x i f f N l w . e * r r * « « . roviwt. o x * i » w d t o b * «•»«* O 710 8 »ov*«»v. •«»»"»f»». *a»y * 0 P P « l ' W P « « O l <M O •»•««•»•» 241. l l W l M y . h,apaWv S t a n orovnrf and kewpe -n t o u r * wit* 0 w w w 0"» h**D cwwywn ci 347 fl ******.>w*toti*yi 712  <aa « « V o > NW. I I ' M i » •  311 fM.  (»fWMMl«l'«».l»iM<iM«wltAirOlt  ftl  11 o i w a . M > . a n . i w W M i l O  JJ7  • b « # l » , twvfwKv. » » * m i » y « f  »o I»I O i n  3>  X3  773 714  t»  t « M < protest*. M M l 10 (W'iwyf Kim o* ffcff«Pf1 t'Ofn 0 r •*•»©• rfowM* • • w o n . 1 «o*i o> * > • » • t o * * w«th Ot.-« • e ow*d O'ltfrttopi »»»•. * b m i t n > * k i « w t w t«o>  (wt*«»t i  rM to 0 -*»*t * » W th.n»» 0 » —r. but | M « l and  8 K trw*l>n« «mtr« O . 8 CO**i<arl«br* N w M I a*> O *o Ct>n*# ifwowf* w««tn not S«HitH*yv * t « * o *i, f o r t oto*** wMh 0 » i n w w m M  748  (USMWaO**!, itfOM 8 ffem O. r  7*8  8 t>vt"«a*v « c w*tv O * 0 IO M M  743  747. • c*> 748  73*  744 Mitt mm* M t d tK*Mf |M M *  m " t*mHt, I M A M , d mN . 0m f i l l .  7*0. 8 t*i 738 I m  1  wrfm M or ••W (»•»«»*•  *W«  TD  a. i—>. x 3»  I 0 ' * * k » * * , m w d j ' d * , H9tm abowt » w • »*o*>rj M c> M *Bt wo. ht*t>*i«•TV tfOM i r t M t f i O • own. mm o* * » • • * 0* *  »». • «*  Th« SASB model at Ivwls of Increasing complexity. (1) The quadrant version appears at the center ot the figure. (2) The middle section provides names for 8 subdivisions or clusters. (3) The outerringshows boxes corresponding to each of the clusters and containing specific model points from Figure 11-1. Model points In this figure present text from the INTREX questionnaires, to give coders a highly specific description of each model point in each cluster. Clusters are numbered from 1 to 8. clocKwise from 12 o'clock. Quadrant version copyright 1979 by William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation. Cluster version and questionnaire Items copyright 1982 and 1983, respectively, by INTREX Interpersonal Institute. From L. S. Ben(am)n, Principles of prediction using structural analysis of social behavior (SASB), in R. A. Zucker, J. Aronoff, & A. J. Rabin (Eds.). Personality and ttra prediction of behavior (New York: Academic Press, 1984. Reprinted by permission. M O  Appendix B  r  5 5 ?»8  103  Appendix Experiencing Stage  C Scale Treatment  Content refuse  Impersonal, detached  1  E x t e r n a l events; to participate  2  E x t e r n a l events, behavioral or i n t e l l e c t u a l s e l f description  Interested, personal self-participation  3  P e r s o n a l r e a c t i o n s t o ext e r n a l events; l i m i t e d s e l f descriptions; behavioral d e s c r i p t i o n s or f e e l i n g s  R e a c t i v e , emotiona l l y involved  4  Descriptions and p e r s o n a l  5  Problems or p r o p o s i t i o n s a b o u t f e e l i n g s and p e r s o n a l experiences  Exploratory, elaborative, hypothetical  6  Synthesis of r e a d i l y accessi b l e f e e l i n g s and experiences to resolve personally s i g n i f i c a n t issues  Feelings v i v i d l y expressed, i n t e grative, conclus i v e or a f f i r m a t i v e  7  F u l l , easy p r e s e n t a t i o n of experiencing; a l l elements c o n f i d a n t l y integrated  Expansive, i l l u m i n ating, confident, buoyant  of f e e l i n g s experiences  Self-descriptive associative  104 Appendix D Couples Post COUPLE NO. 1.  Session  Questionnaire  SESSION NO.  B r i e f l y d e s c r i b e t h e i s s u e y o u and y o u r p a r t n e r w o r k e d on i n t h e s e s s i o n today.  2.  Was t h i s t h e same o r r e l a t e d t o t h e i s s u e w h i c h y o u b r o u g h t i n t o c o u n s e l l i n g ? P l e a s e c i r c l e one o f t h e following. Very d i f f e r e n t Different Related Similar Same 1 2 3 4 5 3. How much p r o g r e s s do y o u f e e l y o u a n d y o u r p a r t n e r made i n d e a l i n g w i t h your i s s u e s i n t h e s e s s i o n you have j u s t c o m p l e t e d ? P l e a s e c i r c l e one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . A great deal of Considerable Moderate Some No progress Progress Progress 1 2 3 4 5 4. A r e y o u a n d y o u r p a r t n e r a n y c l o s e r t o r e s o l v i n g y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s u e s t h a n y o u were when y o u came t o t h e s e s s i o n today? P l e a s e c i r c l e one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . V e r y much Considerably Moderately Somewhat N o t a t a l l 1 2 3 4 5 5.  I f y o u f e e l t h a t change has o c c u r r e d i n y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p d u r i n g t h e s e s s i o n c a n you d e s c r i b e t h e change and a l s o s u g g e s t what m i g h t h a v e l e a d t o t h e c h a n g e ?  6. A p a r t f r o m t h e s e s e s s i o n s h a s a n y t h i n g h a p p e n e d d u r i n g t h e l a s t week w h i c h may h a v e c r e a t e d some c h a n g e i n y o u r relationship? If  s o , c a n y o u d e s c r i b e what h a p p e n e d ?  7. How r e s o l v e d do y o u f e e l r i g h t now i n r e g a r d t o t h e concerns you brought i n t o c o u n s e l l i n g ? Please p l a c e a t i c k i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e box. Totally  resolved  Somewhat r e s o l v e d Not a t a l l Resolved  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054173/manifest

Comment

Related Items